{"post_id":"eluost","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How does your body burn 2000 calories a day, but you have to run a mile to burn 100 extra? Basically the title. I saw this thing about how much you have to exercise to burn off certain foods and was wondering how your body burns so many calories by doing nothing.","c_root_id_A":"fdkaqgy","c_root_id_B":"fdkapat","created_at_utc_A":1578499894,"created_at_utc_B":1578499874,"score_A":19206,"score_B":5055,"human_ref_A":"You're not doing nothing. Your heart is beating, your brain is processing, your eyes and ears are collecting information, your muscle tissue is idling, awaiting command. You're maintaining a core temp of precisely 98.6F. None of this is free, you'll consume 1500-2500 calories a day simply keeping the biological lights on. We're highly efficient runners, and burn little energy to do so compared to many other animals.","human_ref_B":"Your body is never doing nothing. It takes energy to keep your metabolism going\u2014maintaining an appropriate internal temperature, digesting, breathing, circulating blood, etc. The number of calories burned by being alive varies by person.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":20.0,"score_ratio":3.7994065282} {"post_id":"eluost","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How does your body burn 2000 calories a day, but you have to run a mile to burn 100 extra? Basically the title. I saw this thing about how much you have to exercise to burn off certain foods and was wondering how your body burns so many calories by doing nothing.","c_root_id_A":"fdkaqgy","c_root_id_B":"fdkafjg","created_at_utc_A":1578499894,"created_at_utc_B":1578499704,"score_A":19206,"score_B":1114,"human_ref_A":"You're not doing nothing. Your heart is beating, your brain is processing, your eyes and ears are collecting information, your muscle tissue is idling, awaiting command. You're maintaining a core temp of precisely 98.6F. None of this is free, you'll consume 1500-2500 calories a day simply keeping the biological lights on. We're highly efficient runners, and burn little energy to do so compared to many other animals.","human_ref_B":"Because generating body heat is much more intensive than moving around. Try to warm your hands by rubbing them against each other, it\u2019s very difficult. Which is why trying to loose weight by physical exercise alone is going to be super difficult. A lot of people are asking if being in the cold can loose you weight, I don\u2019t know. It is not necessarily the case that if you\u2019re cold your body will produce significantly more heat.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":190.0,"score_ratio":17.2405745063} {"post_id":"eluost","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How does your body burn 2000 calories a day, but you have to run a mile to burn 100 extra? Basically the title. I saw this thing about how much you have to exercise to burn off certain foods and was wondering how your body burns so many calories by doing nothing.","c_root_id_A":"fdktxii","c_root_id_B":"fdkapat","created_at_utc_A":1578511086,"created_at_utc_B":1578499874,"score_A":5385,"score_B":5055,"human_ref_A":"A lot of you guys are missing the eli5. 2000 calories is your body doing all the \"keeping you alive\" and it never stops and this is over 24 hours. 100 calories is you making the body work really fast but over a short period... 10 minutes say. If you keep that effort up for 24 hours, you'd be using err... 14,000 calories or so. The difference you're missing is the time frame.","human_ref_B":"Your body is never doing nothing. It takes energy to keep your metabolism going\u2014maintaining an appropriate internal temperature, digesting, breathing, circulating blood, etc. The number of calories burned by being alive varies by person.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":11212.0,"score_ratio":1.0652818991} {"post_id":"eluost","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How does your body burn 2000 calories a day, but you have to run a mile to burn 100 extra? Basically the title. I saw this thing about how much you have to exercise to burn off certain foods and was wondering how your body burns so many calories by doing nothing.","c_root_id_A":"fdktxii","c_root_id_B":"fdkhmcz","created_at_utc_A":1578511086,"created_at_utc_B":1578504049,"score_A":5385,"score_B":3691,"human_ref_A":"A lot of you guys are missing the eli5. 2000 calories is your body doing all the \"keeping you alive\" and it never stops and this is over 24 hours. 100 calories is you making the body work really fast but over a short period... 10 minutes say. If you keep that effort up for 24 hours, you'd be using err... 14,000 calories or so. The difference you're missing is the time frame.","human_ref_B":"Rough estimate, you burn 2,400 calories per day staying alive. That is 100 calories per hour. You burn about 100 calories jogging for 10 minutes. That means jogging burns 6x as many calories as just standing still.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7037.0,"score_ratio":1.458954213} {"post_id":"eluost","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How does your body burn 2000 calories a day, but you have to run a mile to burn 100 extra? Basically the title. I saw this thing about how much you have to exercise to burn off certain foods and was wondering how your body burns so many calories by doing nothing.","c_root_id_A":"fdktxii","c_root_id_B":"fdkafjg","created_at_utc_A":1578511086,"created_at_utc_B":1578499704,"score_A":5385,"score_B":1114,"human_ref_A":"A lot of you guys are missing the eli5. 2000 calories is your body doing all the \"keeping you alive\" and it never stops and this is over 24 hours. 100 calories is you making the body work really fast but over a short period... 10 minutes say. If you keep that effort up for 24 hours, you'd be using err... 14,000 calories or so. The difference you're missing is the time frame.","human_ref_B":"Because generating body heat is much more intensive than moving around. Try to warm your hands by rubbing them against each other, it\u2019s very difficult. Which is why trying to loose weight by physical exercise alone is going to be super difficult. A lot of people are asking if being in the cold can loose you weight, I don\u2019t know. It is not necessarily the case that if you\u2019re cold your body will produce significantly more heat.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":11382.0,"score_ratio":4.8339317774} {"post_id":"eluost","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How does your body burn 2000 calories a day, but you have to run a mile to burn 100 extra? Basically the title. I saw this thing about how much you have to exercise to burn off certain foods and was wondering how your body burns so many calories by doing nothing.","c_root_id_A":"fdkla5w","c_root_id_B":"fdktxii","created_at_utc_A":1578505892,"created_at_utc_B":1578511086,"score_A":301,"score_B":5385,"human_ref_A":"Well it entirely depends on your weight and age to begin with. 2000 is just the generalized number for the entire population. A small woman might only burn 1100-1200 and a 6'8 Norwegian dude might burn 3200. Most of that is your basic metabolic processes. Maintaining a steady body temperature is huge, running your brain is huge, beating your heart, inflating your lungs, digestion, etc. And then you have all of your normal activities like walking, doing your job, etc. Running in general is kinda what we evolved to do. We're very efficient at it. That 100kcal figure is for a typical runner that is not grossly out of shape. If you are out of shape, running a mile will burn more.","human_ref_B":"A lot of you guys are missing the eli5. 2000 calories is your body doing all the \"keeping you alive\" and it never stops and this is over 24 hours. 100 calories is you making the body work really fast but over a short period... 10 minutes say. If you keep that effort up for 24 hours, you'd be using err... 14,000 calories or so. The difference you're missing is the time frame.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5194.0,"score_ratio":17.8903654485} {"post_id":"eluost","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How does your body burn 2000 calories a day, but you have to run a mile to burn 100 extra? Basically the title. I saw this thing about how much you have to exercise to burn off certain foods and was wondering how your body burns so many calories by doing nothing.","c_root_id_A":"fdkapat","c_root_id_B":"fdkafjg","created_at_utc_A":1578499874,"created_at_utc_B":1578499704,"score_A":5055,"score_B":1114,"human_ref_A":"Your body is never doing nothing. It takes energy to keep your metabolism going\u2014maintaining an appropriate internal temperature, digesting, breathing, circulating blood, etc. The number of calories burned by being alive varies by person.","human_ref_B":"Because generating body heat is much more intensive than moving around. Try to warm your hands by rubbing them against each other, it\u2019s very difficult. Which is why trying to loose weight by physical exercise alone is going to be super difficult. A lot of people are asking if being in the cold can loose you weight, I don\u2019t know. It is not necessarily the case that if you\u2019re cold your body will produce significantly more heat.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":170.0,"score_ratio":4.5377019749} {"post_id":"eluost","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How does your body burn 2000 calories a day, but you have to run a mile to burn 100 extra? Basically the title. I saw this thing about how much you have to exercise to burn off certain foods and was wondering how your body burns so many calories by doing nothing.","c_root_id_A":"fdkhmcz","c_root_id_B":"fdkafjg","created_at_utc_A":1578504049,"created_at_utc_B":1578499704,"score_A":3691,"score_B":1114,"human_ref_A":"Rough estimate, you burn 2,400 calories per day staying alive. That is 100 calories per hour. You burn about 100 calories jogging for 10 minutes. That means jogging burns 6x as many calories as just standing still.","human_ref_B":"Because generating body heat is much more intensive than moving around. Try to warm your hands by rubbing them against each other, it\u2019s very difficult. Which is why trying to loose weight by physical exercise alone is going to be super difficult. A lot of people are asking if being in the cold can loose you weight, I don\u2019t know. It is not necessarily the case that if you\u2019re cold your body will produce significantly more heat.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4345.0,"score_ratio":3.3132854578} {"post_id":"jlhlos","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old What's the difference between the shiny and dull side of aluminum foil? Besides the obvious shiny\/dull","c_root_id_A":"gap8bya","c_root_id_B":"gapj87r","created_at_utc_A":1604154564,"created_at_utc_B":1604160997,"score_A":1590,"score_B":4497,"human_ref_A":"QI, the gameshow about smart stuff, did a bit about this. Turns out the different sides are a product of the manufacturing process, and is not functional. The shininess of the foil has no relation to the amount of heat\/steam it traps.","human_ref_B":"When they're flattening the material with rollers, it eventually gets so thin that passing it through the rollers on its own would tear the material. To solve this, they pass 2 layers through the rollers at the same time. The shiny side of the foil is the side that was facing the rollers, and the dull side is the side that was facing the 2nd sheet.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6433.0,"score_ratio":2.8283018868} {"post_id":"jlhlos","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old What's the difference between the shiny and dull side of aluminum foil? Besides the obvious shiny\/dull","c_root_id_A":"gapa24v","c_root_id_B":"gapj87r","created_at_utc_A":1604155626,"created_at_utc_B":1604160997,"score_A":222,"score_B":4497,"human_ref_A":"Pretty good article here: https:\/\/culinarylore.com\/food-science:aluminum-foil-shiny-side-up-or-down\/ The tl\/dr is that yes, the shiny side does technically reflect heat, but that only affects heat from radiation. The VAST majority of heat when cooking in an oven is through convection (heat transferred through the air). The energy difference that shiny versus non shiny is so negligible that it makes no real difference.","human_ref_B":"When they're flattening the material with rollers, it eventually gets so thin that passing it through the rollers on its own would tear the material. To solve this, they pass 2 layers through the rollers at the same time. The shiny side of the foil is the side that was facing the rollers, and the dull side is the side that was facing the 2nd sheet.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5371.0,"score_ratio":20.2567567568} {"post_id":"vijj3e","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How can the US power grid struggle with ACs in the summer, but be (allegedly) capable of charging millions of EVs once we all make the switch? Currently we are told the power grid struggles to handle the power load demand during the summer due to air conditioners. Yet scientists claim this same power grid could handle an entire nation of EVs. How? What am I missing?","c_root_id_A":"idddnau","c_root_id_B":"iddi011","created_at_utc_A":1655943878,"created_at_utc_B":1655945982,"score_A":72,"score_B":18896,"human_ref_A":"EVs can be charged night time to balance the load. This reduces the need to have to use less efficient methods of channeling excess overnight electricity such as steam storage or resevoir pumping.","human_ref_B":"The YouTube channel Engineering Explained did a great in depth video on the subject. It's worth watching the full 16 minute video, but the answer is that the grid would need about 25% more capacity if every single person in the US switched to electric vehicles. And the grid operators can easily increase the capacity by 25%. The electric grid from 1960-2000 increased capacity by 4% per year, so it would only take about 7 years to fully increase the grid. As for why it can get overwhelmed by AC during heat waves, that is a business choice not a physics choice. The grid could be designed to handle any demand from all the AC. But that only happens a few days a year and not even guaranteed every year. That peak capacity is wasted most of the time. This is especially true because thst demand is only for a few hours a day even on the worst days. A peak demand like that is the hardest and most expensive way to produce electricity. EV charging is perfect for electric generation. You can charge during off peak hours, when the generators are otherwise idle (or worse, spinning down but still producing electricity). They also charge at a lower, steady rate. Edit- had a few repeat comments so want to link my replies Using EV as energy storage for the grid https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/explainlikeimfive\/comments\/vijj3e\/eli5_how_can_the_us_power_grid_struggle_with_acs\/idefhf6?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3 About using batteries as storage to supply peak power (the whole comment chain has a great discussion, I just added to it) https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/explainlikeimfive\/comments\/vijj3e\/eli5_how_can_the_us_power_grid_struggle_with_acs\/idhna8x?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2104.0,"score_ratio":262.4444444444} {"post_id":"vijj3e","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How can the US power grid struggle with ACs in the summer, but be (allegedly) capable of charging millions of EVs once we all make the switch? Currently we are told the power grid struggles to handle the power load demand during the summer due to air conditioners. Yet scientists claim this same power grid could handle an entire nation of EVs. How? What am I missing?","c_root_id_A":"iddi011","c_root_id_B":"idddazb","created_at_utc_A":1655945982,"created_at_utc_B":1655943710,"score_A":18896,"score_B":80,"human_ref_A":"The YouTube channel Engineering Explained did a great in depth video on the subject. It's worth watching the full 16 minute video, but the answer is that the grid would need about 25% more capacity if every single person in the US switched to electric vehicles. And the grid operators can easily increase the capacity by 25%. The electric grid from 1960-2000 increased capacity by 4% per year, so it would only take about 7 years to fully increase the grid. As for why it can get overwhelmed by AC during heat waves, that is a business choice not a physics choice. The grid could be designed to handle any demand from all the AC. But that only happens a few days a year and not even guaranteed every year. That peak capacity is wasted most of the time. This is especially true because thst demand is only for a few hours a day even on the worst days. A peak demand like that is the hardest and most expensive way to produce electricity. EV charging is perfect for electric generation. You can charge during off peak hours, when the generators are otherwise idle (or worse, spinning down but still producing electricity). They also charge at a lower, steady rate. Edit- had a few repeat comments so want to link my replies Using EV as energy storage for the grid https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/explainlikeimfive\/comments\/vijj3e\/eli5_how_can_the_us_power_grid_struggle_with_acs\/idefhf6?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3 About using batteries as storage to supply peak power (the whole comment chain has a great discussion, I just added to it) https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/explainlikeimfive\/comments\/vijj3e\/eli5_how_can_the_us_power_grid_struggle_with_acs\/idhna8x?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3","human_ref_B":"It would be slowly upgraded as the demand materialized. Although many providers charge higher rates during summer afternoons explicitly to discourage users from running electrical demands during that time, and provide incentives to charge EVs at night.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2272.0,"score_ratio":236.2} {"post_id":"vijj3e","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How can the US power grid struggle with ACs in the summer, but be (allegedly) capable of charging millions of EVs once we all make the switch? Currently we are told the power grid struggles to handle the power load demand during the summer due to air conditioners. Yet scientists claim this same power grid could handle an entire nation of EVs. How? What am I missing?","c_root_id_A":"iddi011","c_root_id_B":"idde7z6","created_at_utc_A":1655945982,"created_at_utc_B":1655944157,"score_A":18896,"score_B":45,"human_ref_A":"The YouTube channel Engineering Explained did a great in depth video on the subject. It's worth watching the full 16 minute video, but the answer is that the grid would need about 25% more capacity if every single person in the US switched to electric vehicles. And the grid operators can easily increase the capacity by 25%. The electric grid from 1960-2000 increased capacity by 4% per year, so it would only take about 7 years to fully increase the grid. As for why it can get overwhelmed by AC during heat waves, that is a business choice not a physics choice. The grid could be designed to handle any demand from all the AC. But that only happens a few days a year and not even guaranteed every year. That peak capacity is wasted most of the time. This is especially true because thst demand is only for a few hours a day even on the worst days. A peak demand like that is the hardest and most expensive way to produce electricity. EV charging is perfect for electric generation. You can charge during off peak hours, when the generators are otherwise idle (or worse, spinning down but still producing electricity). They also charge at a lower, steady rate. Edit- had a few repeat comments so want to link my replies Using EV as energy storage for the grid https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/explainlikeimfive\/comments\/vijj3e\/eli5_how_can_the_us_power_grid_struggle_with_acs\/idefhf6?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3 About using batteries as storage to supply peak power (the whole comment chain has a great discussion, I just added to it) https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/explainlikeimfive\/comments\/vijj3e\/eli5_how_can_the_us_power_grid_struggle_with_acs\/idhna8x?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3","human_ref_B":"EVs charge at different rates at different times. Not every single car is going to pull 12kw. My car is a edge case but I slow change at 800w all night, that's less than a microwave. Most EVs can be programmed to start charging at a specific time, likely to take advantage of tiered electricity. Considering the AVERAGE American drives something like 20 miles one way, most daily driver EVs can get away with a hour or two charging at night. Going forward with this logic I can see smart plugs or EVSEs being used by utility companies. They can turn on chargers in phases as to not overwhelm generators. I imagine this mind experiment technology can be manually bypassed, like if you absolutely need a full charge before a morning road trip.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1825.0,"score_ratio":419.9111111111} {"post_id":"vijj3e","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How can the US power grid struggle with ACs in the summer, but be (allegedly) capable of charging millions of EVs once we all make the switch? Currently we are told the power grid struggles to handle the power load demand during the summer due to air conditioners. Yet scientists claim this same power grid could handle an entire nation of EVs. How? What am I missing?","c_root_id_A":"iddn04g","c_root_id_B":"iddokq5","created_at_utc_A":1655948382,"created_at_utc_B":1655949134,"score_A":224,"score_B":981,"human_ref_A":"This is my career. I have worked for four major electric and gas utilities in the US. The answer to this question is there is not enough generation capacity at this current time. Each electric utility has a department called Resource Planning. They are responsible for what is called an \u201cIntegrated Resource Plan\u201d which is filed usually every 1-3 years with the Public Utility Commission which is the State regulatory body overseeing the utility. In this resource plan they forecast demand for electric vehicles based on the current economic conditions, federal regulations, EV sales, etc. Based on this forecast, a department called Generation Modeling plans for how much generation is needed to meet this new demand. These resources can be new power plants as well as programs called demand side management where utilities give incentives to curb usage during peak times where the system is likely to brown\/black out. These incentives can be based around rate design where the price is cheaper during off peak hours (10pm-5am). Or they can apply to large industrial customers that get a cheaper rate all the time but can have their service interrupted at times of peak demand. TLDR: electric utilities are forecasting the demand for EV vehicles and are planning for this demand by either building new power plants or designing programs to reduce demand around peak hours.","human_ref_B":"A 100% switch to electric vehicles isn't happening overnight. It will take many decades at minimum, and electrical grids will slowly adapt. Parked cars also don't need to all charge at the same time. They can do it at night when electricity usage is low, and spread out the load over 8+ hours. The same doesn't apply for air conditioning on a hot day.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":752.0,"score_ratio":4.3794642857} {"post_id":"vijj3e","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How can the US power grid struggle with ACs in the summer, but be (allegedly) capable of charging millions of EVs once we all make the switch? Currently we are told the power grid struggles to handle the power load demand during the summer due to air conditioners. Yet scientists claim this same power grid could handle an entire nation of EVs. How? What am I missing?","c_root_id_A":"iddokq5","c_root_id_B":"iddl5b1","created_at_utc_A":1655949134,"created_at_utc_B":1655947493,"score_A":981,"score_B":212,"human_ref_A":"A 100% switch to electric vehicles isn't happening overnight. It will take many decades at minimum, and electrical grids will slowly adapt. Parked cars also don't need to all charge at the same time. They can do it at night when electricity usage is low, and spread out the load over 8+ hours. The same doesn't apply for air conditioning on a hot day.","human_ref_B":"Short answer: Everyone who is in the same geographical region is going to generally get hot at the same time, but not everyone would be fast-charging their EVs at the same time. There are only so many days per year when it\u2019s hot enough for everyone to be running their ACs simultaneously, and the hottest hours of those days are going to be absolute peak usage. Many power companies often don\u2019t have the capability to meet this peak demand because it doesn\u2019t happen frequently enough for them to see it as profitable to invest in beefing up their equipment to be able to reliably supply a peak demand that only happens for a statistically small percentage of the time. Also, I imagine it\u2019s something that goes up each year, as populations and global warming both increase. Many people would be charging their EVs at night while sleeping, when it\u2019s cooler and less ACs, lights, etc are running. The charging rates can be adjusted on most vehicles, so they can use less wattage than an AC. And, possibly the biggest thing, if EVs became the norm, power companies would see more reason to invest in better, more reliable delivery. And, with people putting their money into their electric bill instead of their gas tank, they would have the money to invest in these improvements.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1641.0,"score_ratio":4.6273584906} {"post_id":"vijj3e","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How can the US power grid struggle with ACs in the summer, but be (allegedly) capable of charging millions of EVs once we all make the switch? Currently we are told the power grid struggles to handle the power load demand during the summer due to air conditioners. Yet scientists claim this same power grid could handle an entire nation of EVs. How? What am I missing?","c_root_id_A":"iddokq5","c_root_id_B":"iddmvyf","created_at_utc_A":1655949134,"created_at_utc_B":1655948324,"score_A":981,"score_B":85,"human_ref_A":"A 100% switch to electric vehicles isn't happening overnight. It will take many decades at minimum, and electrical grids will slowly adapt. Parked cars also don't need to all charge at the same time. They can do it at night when electricity usage is low, and spread out the load over 8+ hours. The same doesn't apply for air conditioning on a hot day.","human_ref_B":"Peak demand for power is late afternoon, that is when all the AC is on. EVs typically charge at night, and are incentived to do so by lower rates. Nighttime consumption by EVs is still tiny compared to afternoon consumption by ACs.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":810.0,"score_ratio":11.5411764706} {"post_id":"vijj3e","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How can the US power grid struggle with ACs in the summer, but be (allegedly) capable of charging millions of EVs once we all make the switch? Currently we are told the power grid struggles to handle the power load demand during the summer due to air conditioners. Yet scientists claim this same power grid could handle an entire nation of EVs. How? What am I missing?","c_root_id_A":"idddnau","c_root_id_B":"iddokq5","created_at_utc_A":1655943878,"created_at_utc_B":1655949134,"score_A":72,"score_B":981,"human_ref_A":"EVs can be charged night time to balance the load. This reduces the need to have to use less efficient methods of channeling excess overnight electricity such as steam storage or resevoir pumping.","human_ref_B":"A 100% switch to electric vehicles isn't happening overnight. It will take many decades at minimum, and electrical grids will slowly adapt. Parked cars also don't need to all charge at the same time. They can do it at night when electricity usage is low, and spread out the load over 8+ hours. The same doesn't apply for air conditioning on a hot day.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5256.0,"score_ratio":13.625} {"post_id":"vijj3e","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How can the US power grid struggle with ACs in the summer, but be (allegedly) capable of charging millions of EVs once we all make the switch? Currently we are told the power grid struggles to handle the power load demand during the summer due to air conditioners. Yet scientists claim this same power grid could handle an entire nation of EVs. How? What am I missing?","c_root_id_A":"idddazb","c_root_id_B":"iddokq5","created_at_utc_A":1655943710,"created_at_utc_B":1655949134,"score_A":80,"score_B":981,"human_ref_A":"It would be slowly upgraded as the demand materialized. Although many providers charge higher rates during summer afternoons explicitly to discourage users from running electrical demands during that time, and provide incentives to charge EVs at night.","human_ref_B":"A 100% switch to electric vehicles isn't happening overnight. It will take many decades at minimum, and electrical grids will slowly adapt. Parked cars also don't need to all charge at the same time. They can do it at night when electricity usage is low, and spread out the load over 8+ hours. The same doesn't apply for air conditioning on a hot day.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5424.0,"score_ratio":12.2625} {"post_id":"vijj3e","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How can the US power grid struggle with ACs in the summer, but be (allegedly) capable of charging millions of EVs once we all make the switch? Currently we are told the power grid struggles to handle the power load demand during the summer due to air conditioners. Yet scientists claim this same power grid could handle an entire nation of EVs. How? What am I missing?","c_root_id_A":"iddokq5","c_root_id_B":"idde7z6","created_at_utc_A":1655949134,"created_at_utc_B":1655944157,"score_A":981,"score_B":45,"human_ref_A":"A 100% switch to electric vehicles isn't happening overnight. It will take many decades at minimum, and electrical grids will slowly adapt. Parked cars also don't need to all charge at the same time. They can do it at night when electricity usage is low, and spread out the load over 8+ hours. The same doesn't apply for air conditioning on a hot day.","human_ref_B":"EVs charge at different rates at different times. Not every single car is going to pull 12kw. My car is a edge case but I slow change at 800w all night, that's less than a microwave. Most EVs can be programmed to start charging at a specific time, likely to take advantage of tiered electricity. Considering the AVERAGE American drives something like 20 miles one way, most daily driver EVs can get away with a hour or two charging at night. Going forward with this logic I can see smart plugs or EVSEs being used by utility companies. They can turn on chargers in phases as to not overwhelm generators. I imagine this mind experiment technology can be manually bypassed, like if you absolutely need a full charge before a morning road trip.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4977.0,"score_ratio":21.8} {"post_id":"vijj3e","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How can the US power grid struggle with ACs in the summer, but be (allegedly) capable of charging millions of EVs once we all make the switch? Currently we are told the power grid struggles to handle the power load demand during the summer due to air conditioners. Yet scientists claim this same power grid could handle an entire nation of EVs. How? What am I missing?","c_root_id_A":"iddokq5","c_root_id_B":"iddnlpd","created_at_utc_A":1655949134,"created_at_utc_B":1655948668,"score_A":981,"score_B":49,"human_ref_A":"A 100% switch to electric vehicles isn't happening overnight. It will take many decades at minimum, and electrical grids will slowly adapt. Parked cars also don't need to all charge at the same time. They can do it at night when electricity usage is low, and spread out the load over 8+ hours. The same doesn't apply for air conditioning on a hot day.","human_ref_B":"Most people charge at night, there is not a lot of demand at night usually as a lot of industry is closed, people are sleeping","labels":1,"seconds_difference":466.0,"score_ratio":20.0204081633} {"post_id":"vijj3e","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How can the US power grid struggle with ACs in the summer, but be (allegedly) capable of charging millions of EVs once we all make the switch? Currently we are told the power grid struggles to handle the power load demand during the summer due to air conditioners. Yet scientists claim this same power grid could handle an entire nation of EVs. How? What am I missing?","c_root_id_A":"iddl5b1","c_root_id_B":"iddn04g","created_at_utc_A":1655947493,"created_at_utc_B":1655948382,"score_A":212,"score_B":224,"human_ref_A":"Short answer: Everyone who is in the same geographical region is going to generally get hot at the same time, but not everyone would be fast-charging their EVs at the same time. There are only so many days per year when it\u2019s hot enough for everyone to be running their ACs simultaneously, and the hottest hours of those days are going to be absolute peak usage. Many power companies often don\u2019t have the capability to meet this peak demand because it doesn\u2019t happen frequently enough for them to see it as profitable to invest in beefing up their equipment to be able to reliably supply a peak demand that only happens for a statistically small percentage of the time. Also, I imagine it\u2019s something that goes up each year, as populations and global warming both increase. Many people would be charging their EVs at night while sleeping, when it\u2019s cooler and less ACs, lights, etc are running. The charging rates can be adjusted on most vehicles, so they can use less wattage than an AC. And, possibly the biggest thing, if EVs became the norm, power companies would see more reason to invest in better, more reliable delivery. And, with people putting their money into their electric bill instead of their gas tank, they would have the money to invest in these improvements.","human_ref_B":"This is my career. I have worked for four major electric and gas utilities in the US. The answer to this question is there is not enough generation capacity at this current time. Each electric utility has a department called Resource Planning. They are responsible for what is called an \u201cIntegrated Resource Plan\u201d which is filed usually every 1-3 years with the Public Utility Commission which is the State regulatory body overseeing the utility. In this resource plan they forecast demand for electric vehicles based on the current economic conditions, federal regulations, EV sales, etc. Based on this forecast, a department called Generation Modeling plans for how much generation is needed to meet this new demand. These resources can be new power plants as well as programs called demand side management where utilities give incentives to curb usage during peak times where the system is likely to brown\/black out. These incentives can be based around rate design where the price is cheaper during off peak hours (10pm-5am). Or they can apply to large industrial customers that get a cheaper rate all the time but can have their service interrupted at times of peak demand. TLDR: electric utilities are forecasting the demand for EV vehicles and are planning for this demand by either building new power plants or designing programs to reduce demand around peak hours.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":889.0,"score_ratio":1.0566037736} {"post_id":"vijj3e","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How can the US power grid struggle with ACs in the summer, but be (allegedly) capable of charging millions of EVs once we all make the switch? Currently we are told the power grid struggles to handle the power load demand during the summer due to air conditioners. Yet scientists claim this same power grid could handle an entire nation of EVs. How? What am I missing?","c_root_id_A":"iddn04g","c_root_id_B":"iddmvyf","created_at_utc_A":1655948382,"created_at_utc_B":1655948324,"score_A":224,"score_B":85,"human_ref_A":"This is my career. I have worked for four major electric and gas utilities in the US. The answer to this question is there is not enough generation capacity at this current time. Each electric utility has a department called Resource Planning. They are responsible for what is called an \u201cIntegrated Resource Plan\u201d which is filed usually every 1-3 years with the Public Utility Commission which is the State regulatory body overseeing the utility. In this resource plan they forecast demand for electric vehicles based on the current economic conditions, federal regulations, EV sales, etc. Based on this forecast, a department called Generation Modeling plans for how much generation is needed to meet this new demand. These resources can be new power plants as well as programs called demand side management where utilities give incentives to curb usage during peak times where the system is likely to brown\/black out. These incentives can be based around rate design where the price is cheaper during off peak hours (10pm-5am). Or they can apply to large industrial customers that get a cheaper rate all the time but can have their service interrupted at times of peak demand. TLDR: electric utilities are forecasting the demand for EV vehicles and are planning for this demand by either building new power plants or designing programs to reduce demand around peak hours.","human_ref_B":"Peak demand for power is late afternoon, that is when all the AC is on. EVs typically charge at night, and are incentived to do so by lower rates. Nighttime consumption by EVs is still tiny compared to afternoon consumption by ACs.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":58.0,"score_ratio":2.6352941176} {"post_id":"vijj3e","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How can the US power grid struggle with ACs in the summer, but be (allegedly) capable of charging millions of EVs once we all make the switch? Currently we are told the power grid struggles to handle the power load demand during the summer due to air conditioners. Yet scientists claim this same power grid could handle an entire nation of EVs. How? What am I missing?","c_root_id_A":"idddnau","c_root_id_B":"iddn04g","created_at_utc_A":1655943878,"created_at_utc_B":1655948382,"score_A":72,"score_B":224,"human_ref_A":"EVs can be charged night time to balance the load. This reduces the need to have to use less efficient methods of channeling excess overnight electricity such as steam storage or resevoir pumping.","human_ref_B":"This is my career. I have worked for four major electric and gas utilities in the US. The answer to this question is there is not enough generation capacity at this current time. Each electric utility has a department called Resource Planning. They are responsible for what is called an \u201cIntegrated Resource Plan\u201d which is filed usually every 1-3 years with the Public Utility Commission which is the State regulatory body overseeing the utility. In this resource plan they forecast demand for electric vehicles based on the current economic conditions, federal regulations, EV sales, etc. Based on this forecast, a department called Generation Modeling plans for how much generation is needed to meet this new demand. These resources can be new power plants as well as programs called demand side management where utilities give incentives to curb usage during peak times where the system is likely to brown\/black out. These incentives can be based around rate design where the price is cheaper during off peak hours (10pm-5am). Or they can apply to large industrial customers that get a cheaper rate all the time but can have their service interrupted at times of peak demand. TLDR: electric utilities are forecasting the demand for EV vehicles and are planning for this demand by either building new power plants or designing programs to reduce demand around peak hours.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4504.0,"score_ratio":3.1111111111} {"post_id":"vijj3e","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How can the US power grid struggle with ACs in the summer, but be (allegedly) capable of charging millions of EVs once we all make the switch? Currently we are told the power grid struggles to handle the power load demand during the summer due to air conditioners. Yet scientists claim this same power grid could handle an entire nation of EVs. How? What am I missing?","c_root_id_A":"iddn04g","c_root_id_B":"idddazb","created_at_utc_A":1655948382,"created_at_utc_B":1655943710,"score_A":224,"score_B":80,"human_ref_A":"This is my career. I have worked for four major electric and gas utilities in the US. The answer to this question is there is not enough generation capacity at this current time. Each electric utility has a department called Resource Planning. They are responsible for what is called an \u201cIntegrated Resource Plan\u201d which is filed usually every 1-3 years with the Public Utility Commission which is the State regulatory body overseeing the utility. In this resource plan they forecast demand for electric vehicles based on the current economic conditions, federal regulations, EV sales, etc. Based on this forecast, a department called Generation Modeling plans for how much generation is needed to meet this new demand. These resources can be new power plants as well as programs called demand side management where utilities give incentives to curb usage during peak times where the system is likely to brown\/black out. These incentives can be based around rate design where the price is cheaper during off peak hours (10pm-5am). Or they can apply to large industrial customers that get a cheaper rate all the time but can have their service interrupted at times of peak demand. TLDR: electric utilities are forecasting the demand for EV vehicles and are planning for this demand by either building new power plants or designing programs to reduce demand around peak hours.","human_ref_B":"It would be slowly upgraded as the demand materialized. Although many providers charge higher rates during summer afternoons explicitly to discourage users from running electrical demands during that time, and provide incentives to charge EVs at night.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4672.0,"score_ratio":2.8} {"post_id":"vijj3e","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How can the US power grid struggle with ACs in the summer, but be (allegedly) capable of charging millions of EVs once we all make the switch? Currently we are told the power grid struggles to handle the power load demand during the summer due to air conditioners. Yet scientists claim this same power grid could handle an entire nation of EVs. How? What am I missing?","c_root_id_A":"idde7z6","c_root_id_B":"iddn04g","created_at_utc_A":1655944157,"created_at_utc_B":1655948382,"score_A":45,"score_B":224,"human_ref_A":"EVs charge at different rates at different times. Not every single car is going to pull 12kw. My car is a edge case but I slow change at 800w all night, that's less than a microwave. Most EVs can be programmed to start charging at a specific time, likely to take advantage of tiered electricity. Considering the AVERAGE American drives something like 20 miles one way, most daily driver EVs can get away with a hour or two charging at night. Going forward with this logic I can see smart plugs or EVSEs being used by utility companies. They can turn on chargers in phases as to not overwhelm generators. I imagine this mind experiment technology can be manually bypassed, like if you absolutely need a full charge before a morning road trip.","human_ref_B":"This is my career. I have worked for four major electric and gas utilities in the US. The answer to this question is there is not enough generation capacity at this current time. Each electric utility has a department called Resource Planning. They are responsible for what is called an \u201cIntegrated Resource Plan\u201d which is filed usually every 1-3 years with the Public Utility Commission which is the State regulatory body overseeing the utility. In this resource plan they forecast demand for electric vehicles based on the current economic conditions, federal regulations, EV sales, etc. Based on this forecast, a department called Generation Modeling plans for how much generation is needed to meet this new demand. These resources can be new power plants as well as programs called demand side management where utilities give incentives to curb usage during peak times where the system is likely to brown\/black out. These incentives can be based around rate design where the price is cheaper during off peak hours (10pm-5am). Or they can apply to large industrial customers that get a cheaper rate all the time but can have their service interrupted at times of peak demand. TLDR: electric utilities are forecasting the demand for EV vehicles and are planning for this demand by either building new power plants or designing programs to reduce demand around peak hours.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4225.0,"score_ratio":4.9777777778} {"post_id":"vijj3e","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How can the US power grid struggle with ACs in the summer, but be (allegedly) capable of charging millions of EVs once we all make the switch? Currently we are told the power grid struggles to handle the power load demand during the summer due to air conditioners. Yet scientists claim this same power grid could handle an entire nation of EVs. How? What am I missing?","c_root_id_A":"idddnau","c_root_id_B":"iddl5b1","created_at_utc_A":1655943878,"created_at_utc_B":1655947493,"score_A":72,"score_B":212,"human_ref_A":"EVs can be charged night time to balance the load. This reduces the need to have to use less efficient methods of channeling excess overnight electricity such as steam storage or resevoir pumping.","human_ref_B":"Short answer: Everyone who is in the same geographical region is going to generally get hot at the same time, but not everyone would be fast-charging their EVs at the same time. There are only so many days per year when it\u2019s hot enough for everyone to be running their ACs simultaneously, and the hottest hours of those days are going to be absolute peak usage. Many power companies often don\u2019t have the capability to meet this peak demand because it doesn\u2019t happen frequently enough for them to see it as profitable to invest in beefing up their equipment to be able to reliably supply a peak demand that only happens for a statistically small percentage of the time. Also, I imagine it\u2019s something that goes up each year, as populations and global warming both increase. Many people would be charging their EVs at night while sleeping, when it\u2019s cooler and less ACs, lights, etc are running. The charging rates can be adjusted on most vehicles, so they can use less wattage than an AC. And, possibly the biggest thing, if EVs became the norm, power companies would see more reason to invest in better, more reliable delivery. And, with people putting their money into their electric bill instead of their gas tank, they would have the money to invest in these improvements.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3615.0,"score_ratio":2.9444444444} {"post_id":"vijj3e","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How can the US power grid struggle with ACs in the summer, but be (allegedly) capable of charging millions of EVs once we all make the switch? Currently we are told the power grid struggles to handle the power load demand during the summer due to air conditioners. Yet scientists claim this same power grid could handle an entire nation of EVs. How? What am I missing?","c_root_id_A":"iddl5b1","c_root_id_B":"idddazb","created_at_utc_A":1655947493,"created_at_utc_B":1655943710,"score_A":212,"score_B":80,"human_ref_A":"Short answer: Everyone who is in the same geographical region is going to generally get hot at the same time, but not everyone would be fast-charging their EVs at the same time. There are only so many days per year when it\u2019s hot enough for everyone to be running their ACs simultaneously, and the hottest hours of those days are going to be absolute peak usage. Many power companies often don\u2019t have the capability to meet this peak demand because it doesn\u2019t happen frequently enough for them to see it as profitable to invest in beefing up their equipment to be able to reliably supply a peak demand that only happens for a statistically small percentage of the time. Also, I imagine it\u2019s something that goes up each year, as populations and global warming both increase. Many people would be charging their EVs at night while sleeping, when it\u2019s cooler and less ACs, lights, etc are running. The charging rates can be adjusted on most vehicles, so they can use less wattage than an AC. And, possibly the biggest thing, if EVs became the norm, power companies would see more reason to invest in better, more reliable delivery. And, with people putting their money into their electric bill instead of their gas tank, they would have the money to invest in these improvements.","human_ref_B":"It would be slowly upgraded as the demand materialized. Although many providers charge higher rates during summer afternoons explicitly to discourage users from running electrical demands during that time, and provide incentives to charge EVs at night.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3783.0,"score_ratio":2.65} {"post_id":"vijj3e","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How can the US power grid struggle with ACs in the summer, but be (allegedly) capable of charging millions of EVs once we all make the switch? Currently we are told the power grid struggles to handle the power load demand during the summer due to air conditioners. Yet scientists claim this same power grid could handle an entire nation of EVs. How? What am I missing?","c_root_id_A":"idde7z6","c_root_id_B":"iddl5b1","created_at_utc_A":1655944157,"created_at_utc_B":1655947493,"score_A":45,"score_B":212,"human_ref_A":"EVs charge at different rates at different times. Not every single car is going to pull 12kw. My car is a edge case but I slow change at 800w all night, that's less than a microwave. Most EVs can be programmed to start charging at a specific time, likely to take advantage of tiered electricity. Considering the AVERAGE American drives something like 20 miles one way, most daily driver EVs can get away with a hour or two charging at night. Going forward with this logic I can see smart plugs or EVSEs being used by utility companies. They can turn on chargers in phases as to not overwhelm generators. I imagine this mind experiment technology can be manually bypassed, like if you absolutely need a full charge before a morning road trip.","human_ref_B":"Short answer: Everyone who is in the same geographical region is going to generally get hot at the same time, but not everyone would be fast-charging their EVs at the same time. There are only so many days per year when it\u2019s hot enough for everyone to be running their ACs simultaneously, and the hottest hours of those days are going to be absolute peak usage. Many power companies often don\u2019t have the capability to meet this peak demand because it doesn\u2019t happen frequently enough for them to see it as profitable to invest in beefing up their equipment to be able to reliably supply a peak demand that only happens for a statistically small percentage of the time. Also, I imagine it\u2019s something that goes up each year, as populations and global warming both increase. Many people would be charging their EVs at night while sleeping, when it\u2019s cooler and less ACs, lights, etc are running. The charging rates can be adjusted on most vehicles, so they can use less wattage than an AC. And, possibly the biggest thing, if EVs became the norm, power companies would see more reason to invest in better, more reliable delivery. And, with people putting their money into their electric bill instead of their gas tank, they would have the money to invest in these improvements.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3336.0,"score_ratio":4.7111111111} {"post_id":"vijj3e","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How can the US power grid struggle with ACs in the summer, but be (allegedly) capable of charging millions of EVs once we all make the switch? Currently we are told the power grid struggles to handle the power load demand during the summer due to air conditioners. Yet scientists claim this same power grid could handle an entire nation of EVs. How? What am I missing?","c_root_id_A":"ide9zgc","c_root_id_B":"iddmvyf","created_at_utc_A":1655960836,"created_at_utc_B":1655948324,"score_A":95,"score_B":85,"human_ref_A":"You can carry 20 boxes over a period of an hour, but you can't carry 20 boxes all at once. AC is blasting pretty much all at the same time whereas car charging is a bit more spread out.","human_ref_B":"Peak demand for power is late afternoon, that is when all the AC is on. EVs typically charge at night, and are incentived to do so by lower rates. Nighttime consumption by EVs is still tiny compared to afternoon consumption by ACs.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":12512.0,"score_ratio":1.1176470588} {"post_id":"vijj3e","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How can the US power grid struggle with ACs in the summer, but be (allegedly) capable of charging millions of EVs once we all make the switch? Currently we are told the power grid struggles to handle the power load demand during the summer due to air conditioners. Yet scientists claim this same power grid could handle an entire nation of EVs. How? What am I missing?","c_root_id_A":"ide9zgc","c_root_id_B":"idddnau","created_at_utc_A":1655960836,"created_at_utc_B":1655943878,"score_A":95,"score_B":72,"human_ref_A":"You can carry 20 boxes over a period of an hour, but you can't carry 20 boxes all at once. AC is blasting pretty much all at the same time whereas car charging is a bit more spread out.","human_ref_B":"EVs can be charged night time to balance the load. This reduces the need to have to use less efficient methods of channeling excess overnight electricity such as steam storage or resevoir pumping.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":16958.0,"score_ratio":1.3194444444} {"post_id":"vijj3e","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How can the US power grid struggle with ACs in the summer, but be (allegedly) capable of charging millions of EVs once we all make the switch? Currently we are told the power grid struggles to handle the power load demand during the summer due to air conditioners. Yet scientists claim this same power grid could handle an entire nation of EVs. How? What am I missing?","c_root_id_A":"idddazb","c_root_id_B":"ide9zgc","created_at_utc_A":1655943710,"created_at_utc_B":1655960836,"score_A":80,"score_B":95,"human_ref_A":"It would be slowly upgraded as the demand materialized. Although many providers charge higher rates during summer afternoons explicitly to discourage users from running electrical demands during that time, and provide incentives to charge EVs at night.","human_ref_B":"You can carry 20 boxes over a period of an hour, but you can't carry 20 boxes all at once. AC is blasting pretty much all at the same time whereas car charging is a bit more spread out.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":17126.0,"score_ratio":1.1875} {"post_id":"vijj3e","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How can the US power grid struggle with ACs in the summer, but be (allegedly) capable of charging millions of EVs once we all make the switch? Currently we are told the power grid struggles to handle the power load demand during the summer due to air conditioners. Yet scientists claim this same power grid could handle an entire nation of EVs. How? What am I missing?","c_root_id_A":"idde7z6","c_root_id_B":"ide9zgc","created_at_utc_A":1655944157,"created_at_utc_B":1655960836,"score_A":45,"score_B":95,"human_ref_A":"EVs charge at different rates at different times. Not every single car is going to pull 12kw. My car is a edge case but I slow change at 800w all night, that's less than a microwave. Most EVs can be programmed to start charging at a specific time, likely to take advantage of tiered electricity. Considering the AVERAGE American drives something like 20 miles one way, most daily driver EVs can get away with a hour or two charging at night. Going forward with this logic I can see smart plugs or EVSEs being used by utility companies. They can turn on chargers in phases as to not overwhelm generators. I imagine this mind experiment technology can be manually bypassed, like if you absolutely need a full charge before a morning road trip.","human_ref_B":"You can carry 20 boxes over a period of an hour, but you can't carry 20 boxes all at once. AC is blasting pretty much all at the same time whereas car charging is a bit more spread out.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":16679.0,"score_ratio":2.1111111111} {"post_id":"vijj3e","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How can the US power grid struggle with ACs in the summer, but be (allegedly) capable of charging millions of EVs once we all make the switch? Currently we are told the power grid struggles to handle the power load demand during the summer due to air conditioners. Yet scientists claim this same power grid could handle an entire nation of EVs. How? What am I missing?","c_root_id_A":"iddnlpd","c_root_id_B":"ide9zgc","created_at_utc_A":1655948668,"created_at_utc_B":1655960836,"score_A":49,"score_B":95,"human_ref_A":"Most people charge at night, there is not a lot of demand at night usually as a lot of industry is closed, people are sleeping","human_ref_B":"You can carry 20 boxes over a period of an hour, but you can't carry 20 boxes all at once. AC is blasting pretty much all at the same time whereas car charging is a bit more spread out.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":12168.0,"score_ratio":1.9387755102} {"post_id":"vijj3e","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How can the US power grid struggle with ACs in the summer, but be (allegedly) capable of charging millions of EVs once we all make the switch? Currently we are told the power grid struggles to handle the power load demand during the summer due to air conditioners. Yet scientists claim this same power grid could handle an entire nation of EVs. How? What am I missing?","c_root_id_A":"iddmvyf","c_root_id_B":"idddnau","created_at_utc_A":1655948324,"created_at_utc_B":1655943878,"score_A":85,"score_B":72,"human_ref_A":"Peak demand for power is late afternoon, that is when all the AC is on. EVs typically charge at night, and are incentived to do so by lower rates. Nighttime consumption by EVs is still tiny compared to afternoon consumption by ACs.","human_ref_B":"EVs can be charged night time to balance the load. This reduces the need to have to use less efficient methods of channeling excess overnight electricity such as steam storage or resevoir pumping.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4446.0,"score_ratio":1.1805555556} {"post_id":"vijj3e","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How can the US power grid struggle with ACs in the summer, but be (allegedly) capable of charging millions of EVs once we all make the switch? Currently we are told the power grid struggles to handle the power load demand during the summer due to air conditioners. Yet scientists claim this same power grid could handle an entire nation of EVs. How? What am I missing?","c_root_id_A":"iddmvyf","c_root_id_B":"idddazb","created_at_utc_A":1655948324,"created_at_utc_B":1655943710,"score_A":85,"score_B":80,"human_ref_A":"Peak demand for power is late afternoon, that is when all the AC is on. EVs typically charge at night, and are incentived to do so by lower rates. Nighttime consumption by EVs is still tiny compared to afternoon consumption by ACs.","human_ref_B":"It would be slowly upgraded as the demand materialized. Although many providers charge higher rates during summer afternoons explicitly to discourage users from running electrical demands during that time, and provide incentives to charge EVs at night.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4614.0,"score_ratio":1.0625} {"post_id":"vijj3e","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How can the US power grid struggle with ACs in the summer, but be (allegedly) capable of charging millions of EVs once we all make the switch? Currently we are told the power grid struggles to handle the power load demand during the summer due to air conditioners. Yet scientists claim this same power grid could handle an entire nation of EVs. How? What am I missing?","c_root_id_A":"iddmvyf","c_root_id_B":"idde7z6","created_at_utc_A":1655948324,"created_at_utc_B":1655944157,"score_A":85,"score_B":45,"human_ref_A":"Peak demand for power is late afternoon, that is when all the AC is on. EVs typically charge at night, and are incentived to do so by lower rates. Nighttime consumption by EVs is still tiny compared to afternoon consumption by ACs.","human_ref_B":"EVs charge at different rates at different times. Not every single car is going to pull 12kw. My car is a edge case but I slow change at 800w all night, that's less than a microwave. Most EVs can be programmed to start charging at a specific time, likely to take advantage of tiered electricity. Considering the AVERAGE American drives something like 20 miles one way, most daily driver EVs can get away with a hour or two charging at night. Going forward with this logic I can see smart plugs or EVSEs being used by utility companies. They can turn on chargers in phases as to not overwhelm generators. I imagine this mind experiment technology can be manually bypassed, like if you absolutely need a full charge before a morning road trip.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4167.0,"score_ratio":1.8888888889} {"post_id":"vijj3e","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How can the US power grid struggle with ACs in the summer, but be (allegedly) capable of charging millions of EVs once we all make the switch? Currently we are told the power grid struggles to handle the power load demand during the summer due to air conditioners. Yet scientists claim this same power grid could handle an entire nation of EVs. How? What am I missing?","c_root_id_A":"iddnlpd","c_root_id_B":"idde7z6","created_at_utc_A":1655948668,"created_at_utc_B":1655944157,"score_A":49,"score_B":45,"human_ref_A":"Most people charge at night, there is not a lot of demand at night usually as a lot of industry is closed, people are sleeping","human_ref_B":"EVs charge at different rates at different times. Not every single car is going to pull 12kw. My car is a edge case but I slow change at 800w all night, that's less than a microwave. Most EVs can be programmed to start charging at a specific time, likely to take advantage of tiered electricity. Considering the AVERAGE American drives something like 20 miles one way, most daily driver EVs can get away with a hour or two charging at night. Going forward with this logic I can see smart plugs or EVSEs being used by utility companies. They can turn on chargers in phases as to not overwhelm generators. I imagine this mind experiment technology can be manually bypassed, like if you absolutely need a full charge before a morning road trip.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4511.0,"score_ratio":1.0888888889} {"post_id":"6hzpw1","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: In the song \"Taxman\" the Beatles complain about the then 95% tax rate for top earners in the UK. Why was the tax rate so high back then, and was the rate sustainable?","c_root_id_A":"dj2iu2j","c_root_id_B":"dj2hif1","created_at_utc_A":1497802879,"created_at_utc_B":1497801051,"score_A":14486,"score_B":6976,"human_ref_A":"Why were taxes so high? World War II. All the military equipment, all the soldiers' pay, all the medical expenses, all the expenses had to be paid, somehow. That somehow was with debt. Debt that had to be paid off by the government over the next 20-30 years. So, during WWII, the British government (and ALL governments, actually), sold massive amounts of debt (war bonds) to everybody and anybody. Years later, that debt had to be paid off. With interest. To raise the amount of money needed to pay off that debt, the tax rates had to be ridiculously high, especially on high earners. Remember, England was VERY hard hit by the war. Rationing did not end until the mid 1950's. Even the US had tax rates around 90% on top earners, in order to pay off the US war debt, pay for the rebuilding of Europe, and maintain the military at war footing for the first couple decades of the Cold War. And, during that time, the US (and the UK) paid DOWN their massive deficits to more sustainable levels. So, the whole debt crisis thing we keep talking about today, we KNOW how to reduce the debt. We just don't wanna. Were taxes that high sustainable? Short term,yes. Long term, there wasn't a NEED to maintain the tax rates that high, once the hump of paying down the War Debt was gone.","human_ref_B":"Its important to note that not all the income of a top earner was taxed at 95%. Income taxes usually work by brackets. Example with made up figures: Your first $18,000 is taxed at 10%, then $18,001 to $75,000 is taxed at 15%, etc. In the U.S., the highest bracket currently is ~39% starting at ~$418k, so only income above 418k actually gets taxed at the highest rate. I assume it works\/worked like that in the U.K. too, where only income above a certain amount was taxed at 95%. I wanted to point out tax brackets because I've run into so many people who don't realize that they're a thing. As far as if it was sustainable...\u00af\\\\\\_(\u30c4)\\_\/\u00af I have a feeling political ideology will drive the answers in here because economics is hard and confusing and usually doesn't give clear cut answers. edit: fixed some typos. Rushed this answer then jumped in the shower so I didn't do any proofreading.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1828.0,"score_ratio":2.0765481651} {"post_id":"6hzpw1","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: In the song \"Taxman\" the Beatles complain about the then 95% tax rate for top earners in the UK. Why was the tax rate so high back then, and was the rate sustainable?","c_root_id_A":"dj2esy2","c_root_id_B":"dj2iu2j","created_at_utc_A":1497797206,"created_at_utc_B":1497802879,"score_A":1144,"score_B":14486,"human_ref_A":"Don't forget, a 95% taxrate is not ashigh as it sounds. I don't know the precise details of the rates that applied in the UK in the 1960s, but in general\u200b, the 95% rate would only have applied to income above a certain level. So maybe income below \u00a3500 was tax free, earnings between \u00a3500 and \u00a35000 was taxed at 20%, \u00a35000 to \u00a320000 at 40%, and only income above that at 95%. So if you earned \u00a320001, only that last \u00a31 would have been taxed at 95%, the rest at lower rates.","human_ref_B":"Why were taxes so high? World War II. All the military equipment, all the soldiers' pay, all the medical expenses, all the expenses had to be paid, somehow. That somehow was with debt. Debt that had to be paid off by the government over the next 20-30 years. So, during WWII, the British government (and ALL governments, actually), sold massive amounts of debt (war bonds) to everybody and anybody. Years later, that debt had to be paid off. With interest. To raise the amount of money needed to pay off that debt, the tax rates had to be ridiculously high, especially on high earners. Remember, England was VERY hard hit by the war. Rationing did not end until the mid 1950's. Even the US had tax rates around 90% on top earners, in order to pay off the US war debt, pay for the rebuilding of Europe, and maintain the military at war footing for the first couple decades of the Cold War. And, during that time, the US (and the UK) paid DOWN their massive deficits to more sustainable levels. So, the whole debt crisis thing we keep talking about today, we KNOW how to reduce the debt. We just don't wanna. Were taxes that high sustainable? Short term,yes. Long term, there wasn't a NEED to maintain the tax rates that high, once the hump of paying down the War Debt was gone.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5673.0,"score_ratio":12.6625874126} {"post_id":"6hzpw1","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: In the song \"Taxman\" the Beatles complain about the then 95% tax rate for top earners in the UK. Why was the tax rate so high back then, and was the rate sustainable?","c_root_id_A":"dj2esy2","c_root_id_B":"dj2hif1","created_at_utc_A":1497797206,"created_at_utc_B":1497801051,"score_A":1144,"score_B":6976,"human_ref_A":"Don't forget, a 95% taxrate is not ashigh as it sounds. I don't know the precise details of the rates that applied in the UK in the 1960s, but in general\u200b, the 95% rate would only have applied to income above a certain level. So maybe income below \u00a3500 was tax free, earnings between \u00a3500 and \u00a35000 was taxed at 20%, \u00a35000 to \u00a320000 at 40%, and only income above that at 95%. So if you earned \u00a320001, only that last \u00a31 would have been taxed at 95%, the rest at lower rates.","human_ref_B":"Its important to note that not all the income of a top earner was taxed at 95%. Income taxes usually work by brackets. Example with made up figures: Your first $18,000 is taxed at 10%, then $18,001 to $75,000 is taxed at 15%, etc. In the U.S., the highest bracket currently is ~39% starting at ~$418k, so only income above 418k actually gets taxed at the highest rate. I assume it works\/worked like that in the U.K. too, where only income above a certain amount was taxed at 95%. I wanted to point out tax brackets because I've run into so many people who don't realize that they're a thing. As far as if it was sustainable...\u00af\\\\\\_(\u30c4)\\_\/\u00af I have a feeling political ideology will drive the answers in here because economics is hard and confusing and usually doesn't give clear cut answers. edit: fixed some typos. Rushed this answer then jumped in the shower so I didn't do any proofreading.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3845.0,"score_ratio":6.0979020979} {"post_id":"6hzpw1","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: In the song \"Taxman\" the Beatles complain about the then 95% tax rate for top earners in the UK. Why was the tax rate so high back then, and was the rate sustainable?","c_root_id_A":"dj2esy2","c_root_id_B":"dj2kohe","created_at_utc_A":1497797206,"created_at_utc_B":1497805368,"score_A":1144,"score_B":2026,"human_ref_A":"Don't forget, a 95% taxrate is not ashigh as it sounds. I don't know the precise details of the rates that applied in the UK in the 1960s, but in general\u200b, the 95% rate would only have applied to income above a certain level. So maybe income below \u00a3500 was tax free, earnings between \u00a3500 and \u00a35000 was taxed at 20%, \u00a35000 to \u00a320000 at 40%, and only income above that at 95%. So if you earned \u00a320001, only that last \u00a31 would have been taxed at 95%, the rest at lower rates.","human_ref_B":"A lot of people have dealt with questions of tax brackets and flat taxes, but I'm going to turn to the second part of your question: was it sustainable? The short answer is, yes. Probably. The history of taxes (especially in the US) is a fraught one, but it really can be divided into two eras: pre-Reagan, and post-Reagan. It's not a case of Democrat or Republican, no matter who might tell you otherwise. Tax rates reached their peak under Eisenhower, and they were lower under Clinton and Obama than they were for six out of Reagan's eight years in office. Historically speaking, it's important to note that current top tax rates are **not normal**. Between the start of WWII and the Reagan Administration, the top tax bracket never dropped below 70%; since 1987, it's never risen above 40%. Why? Well, it mostly boils down to trickle-down economics -- the belief (for better or for worse) that cutting taxes on the top earners will allow them to invest their money more freely, thus providing jobs down the line. As an economic theory, it's pretty flawed, not least because it assumes that the rich *will* reinvest their money, rather than squirrelling it away, as is often the case; if you want money put back into an economic system, it works better to give it to the poor, because they pretty much *have* to spend it. (Sidenote: 'trickle-down economics' is a branding nightmare to begin with, but it was originally known as 'horse and sparrow' economics -- the theory being that, 'if you feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows'. It's got its detractors, is what I'm saying.) Recent Presidents haven't been too keen to be seen to raise the tax rates (even though a more progressive tax structure actually benefits the majority of people), because a lot of people have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the tax bracket system works. They hear that number go up, and they immediately assume they'll be worse off, when in most cases they wouldn't be. (Take Reagan's tax shift in 1988. Under Reagan's plan, someone earning the median individual income in 1988 ($25,872) would have paid about 19% in tax. Someone earning the same amount just two years earlier would have paid just 13.8% of his income in taxes. Compare that to someone earning $250,000, on the other hand: he would have paid about 27.7% in 1988, but 41.9% two years earlier. The top tax rate lowered from 50% in 1986 to 28% in 1988, but poorer people *actually paid more*.) **TL;DR**: Similar systems worked for decades. It might have needed a little tweaking, but generally yes, it would have been sustainable.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8162.0,"score_ratio":1.770979021} {"post_id":"6hzpw1","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: In the song \"Taxman\" the Beatles complain about the then 95% tax rate for top earners in the UK. Why was the tax rate so high back then, and was the rate sustainable?","c_root_id_A":"dj2kohe","c_root_id_B":"dj2kg8r","created_at_utc_A":1497805368,"created_at_utc_B":1497805061,"score_A":2026,"score_B":479,"human_ref_A":"A lot of people have dealt with questions of tax brackets and flat taxes, but I'm going to turn to the second part of your question: was it sustainable? The short answer is, yes. Probably. The history of taxes (especially in the US) is a fraught one, but it really can be divided into two eras: pre-Reagan, and post-Reagan. It's not a case of Democrat or Republican, no matter who might tell you otherwise. Tax rates reached their peak under Eisenhower, and they were lower under Clinton and Obama than they were for six out of Reagan's eight years in office. Historically speaking, it's important to note that current top tax rates are **not normal**. Between the start of WWII and the Reagan Administration, the top tax bracket never dropped below 70%; since 1987, it's never risen above 40%. Why? Well, it mostly boils down to trickle-down economics -- the belief (for better or for worse) that cutting taxes on the top earners will allow them to invest their money more freely, thus providing jobs down the line. As an economic theory, it's pretty flawed, not least because it assumes that the rich *will* reinvest their money, rather than squirrelling it away, as is often the case; if you want money put back into an economic system, it works better to give it to the poor, because they pretty much *have* to spend it. (Sidenote: 'trickle-down economics' is a branding nightmare to begin with, but it was originally known as 'horse and sparrow' economics -- the theory being that, 'if you feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows'. It's got its detractors, is what I'm saying.) Recent Presidents haven't been too keen to be seen to raise the tax rates (even though a more progressive tax structure actually benefits the majority of people), because a lot of people have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the tax bracket system works. They hear that number go up, and they immediately assume they'll be worse off, when in most cases they wouldn't be. (Take Reagan's tax shift in 1988. Under Reagan's plan, someone earning the median individual income in 1988 ($25,872) would have paid about 19% in tax. Someone earning the same amount just two years earlier would have paid just 13.8% of his income in taxes. Compare that to someone earning $250,000, on the other hand: he would have paid about 27.7% in 1988, but 41.9% two years earlier. The top tax rate lowered from 50% in 1986 to 28% in 1988, but poorer people *actually paid more*.) **TL;DR**: Similar systems worked for decades. It might have needed a little tweaking, but generally yes, it would have been sustainable.","human_ref_B":"Something I think a lot of people are missing here, at least in America, is that while yes ww2 was a cause, another big reason for high tax rates was a response to the depression. Income inequality was at record high, the working class was suffering, unemployment was at 25% and there were huge outcries for action. There was a huge movement to \"soak the rich\" by sticking it to them with high tax rates. So they made the top bracket for rich people 90%+ and used it to find new deal programs. Of course no one actually paid said rates because they implemented loopholes to allow rich people to invest in businesses and jobs. This caused businesses to expand in order to avoid being taxed. This not only created jobs, but well paying jobs that led to the the post war economic boom with the middle class being as rich as it was. I'd argue one of the reasons income inequality is rising again is because we lowered these rates. So the rich hoard the wealth to themselves, and the incomes of the bottom 80% stagnate or decline. To be fair I'm not sure the same justifications of the 95% policy apply to the uk, but that is one way of looking at it in the us. It was used as an incentive for the rich to invest their money into companies and grow the economy rather than increasing their own paychecks. No one actually paid 95% in practice.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":307.0,"score_ratio":4.2296450939} {"post_id":"6hzpw1","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: In the song \"Taxman\" the Beatles complain about the then 95% tax rate for top earners in the UK. Why was the tax rate so high back then, and was the rate sustainable?","c_root_id_A":"dj2yvjp","c_root_id_B":"dj2kg8r","created_at_utc_A":1497824601,"created_at_utc_B":1497805061,"score_A":562,"score_B":479,"human_ref_A":"Right, so as an actual British person who has studied modern British history, I can give you an actual answer that isn't from Americans talking about America and WW2. Following WW2, the two main parties, Labour and the Conservatives, agreed on major policies in a consensus known as Butskellism, named after the Conservative Rab Butler and the Labour leader Hugh Gaitskell. This consensus basically followed the economic theory of Keynesianism which is that idea that the aim of the state should be to keep unemployment as low as possible and the best way to run the economy was to borrow to invest. Part of this theory was substantial high taxes on the wealthy which also helped pay for Britain's extensive welfare state and the sluggish economic situation at the time. This consensus lasted until 1979 when Margaret Thatcher came to power and established a new consensus following monetarist policies. This is similar to \"Reaganomics\" in America. She, and Reagan, believed that individuals spent their money better than the government and so reduced taxes. She reduced the top rate of tax from around 83% to 40% in her first term and it's been like that ever since. As to your question of \"was it sustainable?\", well yes, taxation like that lasted for 30 years and probably would've gone on for longer of Thatcher's economic policies hadn't become dominant in the UK","human_ref_B":"Something I think a lot of people are missing here, at least in America, is that while yes ww2 was a cause, another big reason for high tax rates was a response to the depression. Income inequality was at record high, the working class was suffering, unemployment was at 25% and there were huge outcries for action. There was a huge movement to \"soak the rich\" by sticking it to them with high tax rates. So they made the top bracket for rich people 90%+ and used it to find new deal programs. Of course no one actually paid said rates because they implemented loopholes to allow rich people to invest in businesses and jobs. This caused businesses to expand in order to avoid being taxed. This not only created jobs, but well paying jobs that led to the the post war economic boom with the middle class being as rich as it was. I'd argue one of the reasons income inequality is rising again is because we lowered these rates. So the rich hoard the wealth to themselves, and the incomes of the bottom 80% stagnate or decline. To be fair I'm not sure the same justifications of the 95% policy apply to the uk, but that is one way of looking at it in the us. It was used as an incentive for the rich to invest their money into companies and grow the economy rather than increasing their own paychecks. No one actually paid 95% in practice.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":19540.0,"score_ratio":1.1732776618} {"post_id":"6hzpw1","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: In the song \"Taxman\" the Beatles complain about the then 95% tax rate for top earners in the UK. Why was the tax rate so high back then, and was the rate sustainable?","c_root_id_A":"dj2royd","c_root_id_B":"dj2yvjp","created_at_utc_A":1497814850,"created_at_utc_B":1497824601,"score_A":251,"score_B":562,"human_ref_A":"Not only was that rate sustainable, it made the American and British economies. Expenses are essentially a tax write-off because they wash out profit. Let's say you've got a 95% tax on profit over a million dollars. Every business will do their best to keep their profit as close to a million dollars as they can and not go over. This means they spend money to grow. They're more willing to increase salaries to attract talent because where's the money going otherwise? The government. So they build new factories, they pay the average worker better, they develop new products. Why? Because they'd rather write-off money and put it back into the business, thereby increasing their overall value without losing money to taxes. The American economy failed after Reagan because they removed these high end taxes that were forcing businesses to make long term value-increasing decisions. Now people just buy a business, sell off assets, make a boatload of short term money, get their golden parachute because now the goal is to make as much short term cash as possible. They pay people as little as possible now because they don't lose the money to taxes if they keep it. I don't care about being socialist or being capitalist, I'm a functionalist. Does it work? Yeah? That's how we should do it, so understand I'm not approaching this from any particular ideology other than the 90% tax fucking worked for our economy and for the growth of the American dream. We want shit to start working again? Implement that tax. Edit: I... uhh... thanks for the gold! Edit 2: Lots of people asserting how wrong I am. It depends how you measure the success of an economy. I suppose there are some problems with the idea too, but there's also a lot of history and modern examples showing that a super high tax rate on super high end income works pretty fucking well (again, *works* is relative to how you view\/measure success in the first place, if you masturbate to really big profit reports, you'll hate the idea, if things like wealth inequality bother you, you'll probably like it.). See: America in the 1950s, Scandinavia today with strong middle classes. I know there's a *lot* more nuance and complexity that made\/makes those economies and tax structures work\/necessary. Reddit isn't usually a great place for complexity and nuance, thus the nature of my post. I also should note I had had a few beers when I wrote it, so maybe it isn't very well described or is abrasive, and it doesn't really answer the original question that I was responding to very well. So there's that. But hey, Reddit gold.","human_ref_B":"Right, so as an actual British person who has studied modern British history, I can give you an actual answer that isn't from Americans talking about America and WW2. Following WW2, the two main parties, Labour and the Conservatives, agreed on major policies in a consensus known as Butskellism, named after the Conservative Rab Butler and the Labour leader Hugh Gaitskell. This consensus basically followed the economic theory of Keynesianism which is that idea that the aim of the state should be to keep unemployment as low as possible and the best way to run the economy was to borrow to invest. Part of this theory was substantial high taxes on the wealthy which also helped pay for Britain's extensive welfare state and the sluggish economic situation at the time. This consensus lasted until 1979 when Margaret Thatcher came to power and established a new consensus following monetarist policies. This is similar to \"Reaganomics\" in America. She, and Reagan, believed that individuals spent their money better than the government and so reduced taxes. She reduced the top rate of tax from around 83% to 40% in her first term and it's been like that ever since. As to your question of \"was it sustainable?\", well yes, taxation like that lasted for 30 years and probably would've gone on for longer of Thatcher's economic policies hadn't become dominant in the UK","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9751.0,"score_ratio":2.2390438247} {"post_id":"6hzpw1","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: In the song \"Taxman\" the Beatles complain about the then 95% tax rate for top earners in the UK. Why was the tax rate so high back then, and was the rate sustainable?","c_root_id_A":"dj2uwgr","c_root_id_B":"dj2yvjp","created_at_utc_A":1497819151,"created_at_utc_B":1497824601,"score_A":144,"score_B":562,"human_ref_A":"At 2400+ comments, I hope this has been covered but on the off-chance it hasn't\u2026 No one pays the top rate. No one ever has. The top rate in the US through the 50s was 91%. No one paid that. You get deductions and exemptions that cut it down and, oddly enough, the more you make, the more exemptions there are (because people who earn a lot often have complex financial situations). So your 95% rate (which isn't \"one for you, 19 for me,\" as George sang) would maybe end up a third of that. if the Beatles didn't have tax experts working on their behalf, I would be very surprised. George Romney, back in the days of the 71% top rate here in the US, paid something in the mid-30s, percentage wise. His son, at the 39.5% top rate, paid somewhere in the teens. So you can see how it works. You never pay the top rate on the full amount (marginal rates and brackets are a thing) and you get deductions for household size, mortgage interest, education expenses, investment losses, etc.","human_ref_B":"Right, so as an actual British person who has studied modern British history, I can give you an actual answer that isn't from Americans talking about America and WW2. Following WW2, the two main parties, Labour and the Conservatives, agreed on major policies in a consensus known as Butskellism, named after the Conservative Rab Butler and the Labour leader Hugh Gaitskell. This consensus basically followed the economic theory of Keynesianism which is that idea that the aim of the state should be to keep unemployment as low as possible and the best way to run the economy was to borrow to invest. Part of this theory was substantial high taxes on the wealthy which also helped pay for Britain's extensive welfare state and the sluggish economic situation at the time. This consensus lasted until 1979 when Margaret Thatcher came to power and established a new consensus following monetarist policies. This is similar to \"Reaganomics\" in America. She, and Reagan, believed that individuals spent their money better than the government and so reduced taxes. She reduced the top rate of tax from around 83% to 40% in her first term and it's been like that ever since. As to your question of \"was it sustainable?\", well yes, taxation like that lasted for 30 years and probably would've gone on for longer of Thatcher's economic policies hadn't become dominant in the UK","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5450.0,"score_ratio":3.9027777778} {"post_id":"av4u27","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old What keeps bed bugs in check? Why haven't they taken over the world? Do they have any natural enemies? They seem pretty unstoppable - easy breeders, can live a long time without food, can survive harsh conditions, easy hitch hikers, and they feed on an endless supply of human blood.","c_root_id_A":"ehd90d1","c_root_id_B":"ehcu2d1","created_at_utc_A":1551235066,"created_at_utc_B":1551223329,"score_A":7146,"score_B":6550,"human_ref_A":"When I lived in the ghetto I learned quickly that what ever pest your neighbors had you also had. I had ants, spiders, and mice... until I got overwhelmed by bedbugs. It got so bad that I didn\u2019t want to go to work because people would question the hives I had. So I looked up what eats bed bugs, and it was the previous pests. So I had to choose which devil I wanted. So I started to leave little droplets of syrup all over my house and the ants slowly returned neutralizing the bed bugs. EDIT: My first gold! Thank you kind stranger! This seems to be taking off so I\u2019ll give more details. The infestation I had was so immense and genuinely scared me more than anything in my life at that point. I would wake up at night with a flashlight looking after I felt them crawling on me. I\u2019m not saying ants were the only method I used to fend them off, but they definitely were the straw that broke the bedbugs back. I was broke and could not afford everything at once, so I started with the ants on week one. Week two sprayed all my fabrics with a lavender\/ peppermint oil mixture to kill the larvae and act as a repellent. The next couple of weeks I washed everything with borax and after a month of staying tidy, constant laundry, and leaving treats for my exoskeletal friends I was pretty much rid of them.","human_ref_B":"They are actually increasingly on the rise and becoming an endemic problem in many cities precisely because they\u2019re so fast to breed and hard to get rid of. There\u2019s a great post on \/r\/bedbugs (on mobile so can\u2019t link) about how we were actually almost rid of them in the 70s thanks to pesticides that in turn were also incredibly toxic to humans (edit: caveat that, as pointed out below, the toxicity was first and foremost to birds, and less critically so to humans) and thus were removed from the market, and now bed bugs are coming back with a vengeance. Overuse of only semi-effective pesticides is also causing them to build resistances through thicker shells, so one of the best treatments nowadays is heating the entire building up to over 120F and then leaving desiccants (dust that dries them out until they are nothing but little shreds) and residual pesticides to catch any that managed to dodge the heat.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":11737.0,"score_ratio":1.0909923664} {"post_id":"av4u27","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old What keeps bed bugs in check? Why haven't they taken over the world? Do they have any natural enemies? They seem pretty unstoppable - easy breeders, can live a long time without food, can survive harsh conditions, easy hitch hikers, and they feed on an endless supply of human blood.","c_root_id_A":"ehcp6cq","c_root_id_B":"ehd90d1","created_at_utc_A":1551219684,"created_at_utc_B":1551235066,"score_A":2836,"score_B":7146,"human_ref_A":"Lots of things will eat them, spiders, centipedes, and I'm sure plenty of bugs. But that's not what keeps them in check. They eat human blood, they can't really survive anywhere without humans, if they get to infestation level, humans are pretty good at killing them. We have strong insecticides, and physical barriers can be effective (like just putting your bed in dishes of water so they can't climb up the bed), wrapping the mattress in plastic, and washing all your clothes. They'll starve to death in about a year that way. Vacuums can suck them up as well. Basically, if you know there are lots of bedbugs in your home, you probably will do a pretty good job at eradicating them.","human_ref_B":"When I lived in the ghetto I learned quickly that what ever pest your neighbors had you also had. I had ants, spiders, and mice... until I got overwhelmed by bedbugs. It got so bad that I didn\u2019t want to go to work because people would question the hives I had. So I looked up what eats bed bugs, and it was the previous pests. So I had to choose which devil I wanted. So I started to leave little droplets of syrup all over my house and the ants slowly returned neutralizing the bed bugs. EDIT: My first gold! Thank you kind stranger! This seems to be taking off so I\u2019ll give more details. The infestation I had was so immense and genuinely scared me more than anything in my life at that point. I would wake up at night with a flashlight looking after I felt them crawling on me. I\u2019m not saying ants were the only method I used to fend them off, but they definitely were the straw that broke the bedbugs back. I was broke and could not afford everything at once, so I started with the ants on week one. Week two sprayed all my fabrics with a lavender\/ peppermint oil mixture to kill the larvae and act as a repellent. The next couple of weeks I washed everything with borax and after a month of staying tidy, constant laundry, and leaving treats for my exoskeletal friends I was pretty much rid of them.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":15382.0,"score_ratio":2.5197461213} {"post_id":"av4u27","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old What keeps bed bugs in check? Why haven't they taken over the world? Do they have any natural enemies? They seem pretty unstoppable - easy breeders, can live a long time without food, can survive harsh conditions, easy hitch hikers, and they feed on an endless supply of human blood.","c_root_id_A":"ehd43iw","c_root_id_B":"ehd90d1","created_at_utc_A":1551231309,"created_at_utc_B":1551235066,"score_A":567,"score_B":7146,"human_ref_A":"I used to travel a lot when I was younger and was attacked by bedbugs many times. I react very badly to the bites and it can get to me psychologically for several weeks after. One time we arrived very late at a hotel in Morocco.. I had already checked for bedbugs eg the seams of the mattress etc. I dimmed the lights and noticed one scuttling across the mattress. Within a few minutes there were lots of them. (I captured them in a glass). I investigated to see where they were hiding and to my horror they were coming through the plug sockets in the wall by the bed! Bedbugs hide In your bag\/clothes and then leave with you and multiply. Thankfully I\u2019ve never had them in my own home but I understand they can be extremely difficult to get rid of. I\u2019d love to see every one of those horrible little bastards wiped of the face of the earth. Edit: To answer your question : They haven\u2019t taken over the world because they tend to branch out via your bag. They\u2019re not social insects like ants and don\u2019t need a colony. Simply, if someone doesn\u2019t release them somewhere unintentionally they\u2019ll stay within their feeding zone.","human_ref_B":"When I lived in the ghetto I learned quickly that what ever pest your neighbors had you also had. I had ants, spiders, and mice... until I got overwhelmed by bedbugs. It got so bad that I didn\u2019t want to go to work because people would question the hives I had. So I looked up what eats bed bugs, and it was the previous pests. So I had to choose which devil I wanted. So I started to leave little droplets of syrup all over my house and the ants slowly returned neutralizing the bed bugs. EDIT: My first gold! Thank you kind stranger! This seems to be taking off so I\u2019ll give more details. The infestation I had was so immense and genuinely scared me more than anything in my life at that point. I would wake up at night with a flashlight looking after I felt them crawling on me. I\u2019m not saying ants were the only method I used to fend them off, but they definitely were the straw that broke the bedbugs back. I was broke and could not afford everything at once, so I started with the ants on week one. Week two sprayed all my fabrics with a lavender\/ peppermint oil mixture to kill the larvae and act as a repellent. The next couple of weeks I washed everything with borax and after a month of staying tidy, constant laundry, and leaving treats for my exoskeletal friends I was pretty much rid of them.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3757.0,"score_ratio":12.6031746032} {"post_id":"av4u27","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old What keeps bed bugs in check? Why haven't they taken over the world? Do they have any natural enemies? They seem pretty unstoppable - easy breeders, can live a long time without food, can survive harsh conditions, easy hitch hikers, and they feed on an endless supply of human blood.","c_root_id_A":"ehd90d1","c_root_id_B":"ehd1y9y","created_at_utc_A":1551235066,"created_at_utc_B":1551229642,"score_A":7146,"score_B":442,"human_ref_A":"When I lived in the ghetto I learned quickly that what ever pest your neighbors had you also had. I had ants, spiders, and mice... until I got overwhelmed by bedbugs. It got so bad that I didn\u2019t want to go to work because people would question the hives I had. So I looked up what eats bed bugs, and it was the previous pests. So I had to choose which devil I wanted. So I started to leave little droplets of syrup all over my house and the ants slowly returned neutralizing the bed bugs. EDIT: My first gold! Thank you kind stranger! This seems to be taking off so I\u2019ll give more details. The infestation I had was so immense and genuinely scared me more than anything in my life at that point. I would wake up at night with a flashlight looking after I felt them crawling on me. I\u2019m not saying ants were the only method I used to fend them off, but they definitely were the straw that broke the bedbugs back. I was broke and could not afford everything at once, so I started with the ants on week one. Week two sprayed all my fabrics with a lavender\/ peppermint oil mixture to kill the larvae and act as a repellent. The next couple of weeks I washed everything with borax and after a month of staying tidy, constant laundry, and leaving treats for my exoskeletal friends I was pretty much rid of them.","human_ref_B":"We have brains and can outhink bedbugs. They are vulnerable to heat. Use mattress covers and bedbug traps on bedposts and furniture posts. Steam clean everything often. Keep stuff off the ground. Sanitize clothes in a dryer with a sanitizer feature (aka really hot). Pull furniture away from walls. Use diatomaceous earth, tea tree oil, and alcohol sprays on places you think they are or are traveling from\/to. Seal up any cracks in your home including around electrical outlets. Shower often. While bedbugs are persistent, humans can be more persistent. That's really the key. Took me about 6 months of this behavior and I finally purged my house. No bites in over a year. I left the mattress covers on to prevent future infestation plus it protects the mattress from dust mites and stains. I left the bedbug traps on my furniture to prevent future infestations and they also catch spiders, rollie pollies, and other random creepy crawlys. I occasionally still steam clean because it sanitizes my furniture and keeps it clean. My hygiene in general is better from the experience so I turned the negative experience into a positive one. Also, I've never had bedbugs prior to this, was forced into a hasty move and the place I picked had them. I ended up tearing out the carpet in the one room that had carpet, that seemed to be their main infestation area which really helped. Prior to ripping the carpet I salted the earth with two bags of DE. The exterminator used the words \"overkill\" and \"mummified bedbug corpses\" to describe my assault. Be sure to use a HEPA grade respirator when dealing with DE. Use the pesticide grade DE not the food grade.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5424.0,"score_ratio":16.1674208145} {"post_id":"av4u27","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old What keeps bed bugs in check? Why haven't they taken over the world? Do they have any natural enemies? They seem pretty unstoppable - easy breeders, can live a long time without food, can survive harsh conditions, easy hitch hikers, and they feed on an endless supply of human blood.","c_root_id_A":"ehd8nxb","c_root_id_B":"ehd90d1","created_at_utc_A":1551234805,"created_at_utc_B":1551235066,"score_A":300,"score_B":7146,"human_ref_A":"I had them few years ago. I always looked for hitchhikers due to the multiple housing units I worked in, but they made it home at some point. In housing they would relocate the tenant. Then they would bleach the entire unit and caulk every last seam in the place. After that they would heat treat and\/or use the chemicals. Success rate was still not 100%. It should be noted that alot of these tenants were on types of social assistance and didnt work. Their unit may have been bug free, but when they hang out with their neighbours in the building they brought the issue right back home. As for my case, I replaced my bed and couch. I went around every crevis with a heat gun nice and slow. They made their home in the cracks of the wooden bed frame and I burned it. The couch went to the curb and I spray painted X's all over it so nobody would take it. Extensively cleaned the house until it smelled like a YMCA pool. It has been 2 years and I can say I won at this point. They cant climb slippery surfaces. This is why metal bed frames keep them off your bed. My nightstand was a white ikea type with a glossy finish and did not contain any evidence of them. Keeping your bed as an \"island\" is key as well. Loose sheets, walls, etc give them a route. Last thing to mention is it was very hard to tell anyone or have people over. They make you feel disgusting. The anxiety and paranoia mentioned are very real. You feel like the kid at school with head lice, but you cant get a special shampoo and have a year of fear that they are still there.","human_ref_B":"When I lived in the ghetto I learned quickly that what ever pest your neighbors had you also had. I had ants, spiders, and mice... until I got overwhelmed by bedbugs. It got so bad that I didn\u2019t want to go to work because people would question the hives I had. So I looked up what eats bed bugs, and it was the previous pests. So I had to choose which devil I wanted. So I started to leave little droplets of syrup all over my house and the ants slowly returned neutralizing the bed bugs. EDIT: My first gold! Thank you kind stranger! This seems to be taking off so I\u2019ll give more details. The infestation I had was so immense and genuinely scared me more than anything in my life at that point. I would wake up at night with a flashlight looking after I felt them crawling on me. I\u2019m not saying ants were the only method I used to fend them off, but they definitely were the straw that broke the bedbugs back. I was broke and could not afford everything at once, so I started with the ants on week one. Week two sprayed all my fabrics with a lavender\/ peppermint oil mixture to kill the larvae and act as a repellent. The next couple of weeks I washed everything with borax and after a month of staying tidy, constant laundry, and leaving treats for my exoskeletal friends I was pretty much rid of them.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":261.0,"score_ratio":23.82} {"post_id":"av4u27","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old What keeps bed bugs in check? Why haven't they taken over the world? Do they have any natural enemies? They seem pretty unstoppable - easy breeders, can live a long time without food, can survive harsh conditions, easy hitch hikers, and they feed on an endless supply of human blood.","c_root_id_A":"ehczb3r","c_root_id_B":"ehd90d1","created_at_utc_A":1551227505,"created_at_utc_B":1551235066,"score_A":164,"score_B":7146,"human_ref_A":"Worked at an agency where our clientele had bed bugs. Spraying rubbing alcohol on the actual bug kills them too. Ps the eggs can get in the grooves on the bottom of your shoes too. Oh! And whenever I go to hotels, I don\u2019t open my luggage and leave it on the dresser. I take off all bedding and check the mattress for little old trails of blood. That\u2019s usually a sign that there are bed bugs.","human_ref_B":"When I lived in the ghetto I learned quickly that what ever pest your neighbors had you also had. I had ants, spiders, and mice... until I got overwhelmed by bedbugs. It got so bad that I didn\u2019t want to go to work because people would question the hives I had. So I looked up what eats bed bugs, and it was the previous pests. So I had to choose which devil I wanted. So I started to leave little droplets of syrup all over my house and the ants slowly returned neutralizing the bed bugs. EDIT: My first gold! Thank you kind stranger! This seems to be taking off so I\u2019ll give more details. The infestation I had was so immense and genuinely scared me more than anything in my life at that point. I would wake up at night with a flashlight looking after I felt them crawling on me. I\u2019m not saying ants were the only method I used to fend them off, but they definitely were the straw that broke the bedbugs back. I was broke and could not afford everything at once, so I started with the ants on week one. Week two sprayed all my fabrics with a lavender\/ peppermint oil mixture to kill the larvae and act as a repellent. The next couple of weeks I washed everything with borax and after a month of staying tidy, constant laundry, and leaving treats for my exoskeletal friends I was pretty much rid of them.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7561.0,"score_ratio":43.5731707317} {"post_id":"av4u27","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old What keeps bed bugs in check? Why haven't they taken over the world? Do they have any natural enemies? They seem pretty unstoppable - easy breeders, can live a long time without food, can survive harsh conditions, easy hitch hikers, and they feed on an endless supply of human blood.","c_root_id_A":"ehcu2d1","c_root_id_B":"ehcp6cq","created_at_utc_A":1551223329,"created_at_utc_B":1551219684,"score_A":6550,"score_B":2836,"human_ref_A":"They are actually increasingly on the rise and becoming an endemic problem in many cities precisely because they\u2019re so fast to breed and hard to get rid of. There\u2019s a great post on \/r\/bedbugs (on mobile so can\u2019t link) about how we were actually almost rid of them in the 70s thanks to pesticides that in turn were also incredibly toxic to humans (edit: caveat that, as pointed out below, the toxicity was first and foremost to birds, and less critically so to humans) and thus were removed from the market, and now bed bugs are coming back with a vengeance. Overuse of only semi-effective pesticides is also causing them to build resistances through thicker shells, so one of the best treatments nowadays is heating the entire building up to over 120F and then leaving desiccants (dust that dries them out until they are nothing but little shreds) and residual pesticides to catch any that managed to dodge the heat.","human_ref_B":"Lots of things will eat them, spiders, centipedes, and I'm sure plenty of bugs. But that's not what keeps them in check. They eat human blood, they can't really survive anywhere without humans, if they get to infestation level, humans are pretty good at killing them. We have strong insecticides, and physical barriers can be effective (like just putting your bed in dishes of water so they can't climb up the bed), wrapping the mattress in plastic, and washing all your clothes. They'll starve to death in about a year that way. Vacuums can suck them up as well. Basically, if you know there are lots of bedbugs in your home, you probably will do a pretty good job at eradicating them.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3645.0,"score_ratio":2.3095909732} {"post_id":"av4u27","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old What keeps bed bugs in check? Why haven't they taken over the world? Do they have any natural enemies? They seem pretty unstoppable - easy breeders, can live a long time without food, can survive harsh conditions, easy hitch hikers, and they feed on an endless supply of human blood.","c_root_id_A":"ehd1y9y","c_root_id_B":"ehd43iw","created_at_utc_A":1551229642,"created_at_utc_B":1551231309,"score_A":442,"score_B":567,"human_ref_A":"We have brains and can outhink bedbugs. They are vulnerable to heat. Use mattress covers and bedbug traps on bedposts and furniture posts. Steam clean everything often. Keep stuff off the ground. Sanitize clothes in a dryer with a sanitizer feature (aka really hot). Pull furniture away from walls. Use diatomaceous earth, tea tree oil, and alcohol sprays on places you think they are or are traveling from\/to. Seal up any cracks in your home including around electrical outlets. Shower often. While bedbugs are persistent, humans can be more persistent. That's really the key. Took me about 6 months of this behavior and I finally purged my house. No bites in over a year. I left the mattress covers on to prevent future infestation plus it protects the mattress from dust mites and stains. I left the bedbug traps on my furniture to prevent future infestations and they also catch spiders, rollie pollies, and other random creepy crawlys. I occasionally still steam clean because it sanitizes my furniture and keeps it clean. My hygiene in general is better from the experience so I turned the negative experience into a positive one. Also, I've never had bedbugs prior to this, was forced into a hasty move and the place I picked had them. I ended up tearing out the carpet in the one room that had carpet, that seemed to be their main infestation area which really helped. Prior to ripping the carpet I salted the earth with two bags of DE. The exterminator used the words \"overkill\" and \"mummified bedbug corpses\" to describe my assault. Be sure to use a HEPA grade respirator when dealing with DE. Use the pesticide grade DE not the food grade.","human_ref_B":"I used to travel a lot when I was younger and was attacked by bedbugs many times. I react very badly to the bites and it can get to me psychologically for several weeks after. One time we arrived very late at a hotel in Morocco.. I had already checked for bedbugs eg the seams of the mattress etc. I dimmed the lights and noticed one scuttling across the mattress. Within a few minutes there were lots of them. (I captured them in a glass). I investigated to see where they were hiding and to my horror they were coming through the plug sockets in the wall by the bed! Bedbugs hide In your bag\/clothes and then leave with you and multiply. Thankfully I\u2019ve never had them in my own home but I understand they can be extremely difficult to get rid of. I\u2019d love to see every one of those horrible little bastards wiped of the face of the earth. Edit: To answer your question : They haven\u2019t taken over the world because they tend to branch out via your bag. They\u2019re not social insects like ants and don\u2019t need a colony. Simply, if someone doesn\u2019t release them somewhere unintentionally they\u2019ll stay within their feeding zone.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1667.0,"score_ratio":1.2828054299} {"post_id":"av4u27","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old What keeps bed bugs in check? Why haven't they taken over the world? Do they have any natural enemies? They seem pretty unstoppable - easy breeders, can live a long time without food, can survive harsh conditions, easy hitch hikers, and they feed on an endless supply of human blood.","c_root_id_A":"ehczb3r","c_root_id_B":"ehd43iw","created_at_utc_A":1551227505,"created_at_utc_B":1551231309,"score_A":164,"score_B":567,"human_ref_A":"Worked at an agency where our clientele had bed bugs. Spraying rubbing alcohol on the actual bug kills them too. Ps the eggs can get in the grooves on the bottom of your shoes too. Oh! And whenever I go to hotels, I don\u2019t open my luggage and leave it on the dresser. I take off all bedding and check the mattress for little old trails of blood. That\u2019s usually a sign that there are bed bugs.","human_ref_B":"I used to travel a lot when I was younger and was attacked by bedbugs many times. I react very badly to the bites and it can get to me psychologically for several weeks after. One time we arrived very late at a hotel in Morocco.. I had already checked for bedbugs eg the seams of the mattress etc. I dimmed the lights and noticed one scuttling across the mattress. Within a few minutes there were lots of them. (I captured them in a glass). I investigated to see where they were hiding and to my horror they were coming through the plug sockets in the wall by the bed! Bedbugs hide In your bag\/clothes and then leave with you and multiply. Thankfully I\u2019ve never had them in my own home but I understand they can be extremely difficult to get rid of. I\u2019d love to see every one of those horrible little bastards wiped of the face of the earth. Edit: To answer your question : They haven\u2019t taken over the world because they tend to branch out via your bag. They\u2019re not social insects like ants and don\u2019t need a colony. Simply, if someone doesn\u2019t release them somewhere unintentionally they\u2019ll stay within their feeding zone.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3804.0,"score_ratio":3.4573170732} {"post_id":"av4u27","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old What keeps bed bugs in check? Why haven't they taken over the world? Do they have any natural enemies? They seem pretty unstoppable - easy breeders, can live a long time without food, can survive harsh conditions, easy hitch hikers, and they feed on an endless supply of human blood.","c_root_id_A":"ehd1y9y","c_root_id_B":"ehczb3r","created_at_utc_A":1551229642,"created_at_utc_B":1551227505,"score_A":442,"score_B":164,"human_ref_A":"We have brains and can outhink bedbugs. They are vulnerable to heat. Use mattress covers and bedbug traps on bedposts and furniture posts. Steam clean everything often. Keep stuff off the ground. Sanitize clothes in a dryer with a sanitizer feature (aka really hot). Pull furniture away from walls. Use diatomaceous earth, tea tree oil, and alcohol sprays on places you think they are or are traveling from\/to. Seal up any cracks in your home including around electrical outlets. Shower often. While bedbugs are persistent, humans can be more persistent. That's really the key. Took me about 6 months of this behavior and I finally purged my house. No bites in over a year. I left the mattress covers on to prevent future infestation plus it protects the mattress from dust mites and stains. I left the bedbug traps on my furniture to prevent future infestations and they also catch spiders, rollie pollies, and other random creepy crawlys. I occasionally still steam clean because it sanitizes my furniture and keeps it clean. My hygiene in general is better from the experience so I turned the negative experience into a positive one. Also, I've never had bedbugs prior to this, was forced into a hasty move and the place I picked had them. I ended up tearing out the carpet in the one room that had carpet, that seemed to be their main infestation area which really helped. Prior to ripping the carpet I salted the earth with two bags of DE. The exterminator used the words \"overkill\" and \"mummified bedbug corpses\" to describe my assault. Be sure to use a HEPA grade respirator when dealing with DE. Use the pesticide grade DE not the food grade.","human_ref_B":"Worked at an agency where our clientele had bed bugs. Spraying rubbing alcohol on the actual bug kills them too. Ps the eggs can get in the grooves on the bottom of your shoes too. Oh! And whenever I go to hotels, I don\u2019t open my luggage and leave it on the dresser. I take off all bedding and check the mattress for little old trails of blood. That\u2019s usually a sign that there are bed bugs.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2137.0,"score_ratio":2.6951219512} {"post_id":"av4u27","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old What keeps bed bugs in check? Why haven't they taken over the world? Do they have any natural enemies? They seem pretty unstoppable - easy breeders, can live a long time without food, can survive harsh conditions, easy hitch hikers, and they feed on an endless supply of human blood.","c_root_id_A":"ehdag30","c_root_id_B":"ehd8nxb","created_at_utc_A":1551236162,"created_at_utc_B":1551234805,"score_A":356,"score_B":300,"human_ref_A":"Hi Everyone, This post is becoming popular, which is wonderful. To those who are new to Explain like I'm five years old (and those who aren't), I'd like ask you to take a look at our rules before commenting. We are a fairly strict sub, in particular please see Rule 3: all top level comments must be written explanations. That means all jokes, personal stories, or even very valid and useful advice are not allowed as top level comments unless you also actually explain the request concept directly. Enjoy","human_ref_B":"I had them few years ago. I always looked for hitchhikers due to the multiple housing units I worked in, but they made it home at some point. In housing they would relocate the tenant. Then they would bleach the entire unit and caulk every last seam in the place. After that they would heat treat and\/or use the chemicals. Success rate was still not 100%. It should be noted that alot of these tenants were on types of social assistance and didnt work. Their unit may have been bug free, but when they hang out with their neighbours in the building they brought the issue right back home. As for my case, I replaced my bed and couch. I went around every crevis with a heat gun nice and slow. They made their home in the cracks of the wooden bed frame and I burned it. The couch went to the curb and I spray painted X's all over it so nobody would take it. Extensively cleaned the house until it smelled like a YMCA pool. It has been 2 years and I can say I won at this point. They cant climb slippery surfaces. This is why metal bed frames keep them off your bed. My nightstand was a white ikea type with a glossy finish and did not contain any evidence of them. Keeping your bed as an \"island\" is key as well. Loose sheets, walls, etc give them a route. Last thing to mention is it was very hard to tell anyone or have people over. They make you feel disgusting. The anxiety and paranoia mentioned are very real. You feel like the kid at school with head lice, but you cant get a special shampoo and have a year of fear that they are still there.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1357.0,"score_ratio":1.1866666667} {"post_id":"av4u27","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old What keeps bed bugs in check? Why haven't they taken over the world? Do they have any natural enemies? They seem pretty unstoppable - easy breeders, can live a long time without food, can survive harsh conditions, easy hitch hikers, and they feed on an endless supply of human blood.","c_root_id_A":"ehczb3r","c_root_id_B":"ehdag30","created_at_utc_A":1551227505,"created_at_utc_B":1551236162,"score_A":164,"score_B":356,"human_ref_A":"Worked at an agency where our clientele had bed bugs. Spraying rubbing alcohol on the actual bug kills them too. Ps the eggs can get in the grooves on the bottom of your shoes too. Oh! And whenever I go to hotels, I don\u2019t open my luggage and leave it on the dresser. I take off all bedding and check the mattress for little old trails of blood. That\u2019s usually a sign that there are bed bugs.","human_ref_B":"Hi Everyone, This post is becoming popular, which is wonderful. To those who are new to Explain like I'm five years old (and those who aren't), I'd like ask you to take a look at our rules before commenting. We are a fairly strict sub, in particular please see Rule 3: all top level comments must be written explanations. That means all jokes, personal stories, or even very valid and useful advice are not allowed as top level comments unless you also actually explain the request concept directly. Enjoy","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8657.0,"score_ratio":2.1707317073} {"post_id":"av4u27","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old What keeps bed bugs in check? Why haven't they taken over the world? Do they have any natural enemies? They seem pretty unstoppable - easy breeders, can live a long time without food, can survive harsh conditions, easy hitch hikers, and they feed on an endless supply of human blood.","c_root_id_A":"ehdag30","c_root_id_B":"ehdaat0","created_at_utc_A":1551236162,"created_at_utc_B":1551236051,"score_A":356,"score_B":159,"human_ref_A":"Hi Everyone, This post is becoming popular, which is wonderful. To those who are new to Explain like I'm five years old (and those who aren't), I'd like ask you to take a look at our rules before commenting. We are a fairly strict sub, in particular please see Rule 3: all top level comments must be written explanations. That means all jokes, personal stories, or even very valid and useful advice are not allowed as top level comments unless you also actually explain the request concept directly. Enjoy","human_ref_B":"Better yet, why doesn't Bill Gates also fund a research that makes bed bugs sterile like hes doing with the sterile mosquito research?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":111.0,"score_ratio":2.2389937107} {"post_id":"av4u27","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old What keeps bed bugs in check? Why haven't they taken over the world? Do they have any natural enemies? They seem pretty unstoppable - easy breeders, can live a long time without food, can survive harsh conditions, easy hitch hikers, and they feed on an endless supply of human blood.","c_root_id_A":"ehd8nxb","c_root_id_B":"ehczb3r","created_at_utc_A":1551234805,"created_at_utc_B":1551227505,"score_A":300,"score_B":164,"human_ref_A":"I had them few years ago. I always looked for hitchhikers due to the multiple housing units I worked in, but they made it home at some point. In housing they would relocate the tenant. Then they would bleach the entire unit and caulk every last seam in the place. After that they would heat treat and\/or use the chemicals. Success rate was still not 100%. It should be noted that alot of these tenants were on types of social assistance and didnt work. Their unit may have been bug free, but when they hang out with their neighbours in the building they brought the issue right back home. As for my case, I replaced my bed and couch. I went around every crevis with a heat gun nice and slow. They made their home in the cracks of the wooden bed frame and I burned it. The couch went to the curb and I spray painted X's all over it so nobody would take it. Extensively cleaned the house until it smelled like a YMCA pool. It has been 2 years and I can say I won at this point. They cant climb slippery surfaces. This is why metal bed frames keep them off your bed. My nightstand was a white ikea type with a glossy finish and did not contain any evidence of them. Keeping your bed as an \"island\" is key as well. Loose sheets, walls, etc give them a route. Last thing to mention is it was very hard to tell anyone or have people over. They make you feel disgusting. The anxiety and paranoia mentioned are very real. You feel like the kid at school with head lice, but you cant get a special shampoo and have a year of fear that they are still there.","human_ref_B":"Worked at an agency where our clientele had bed bugs. Spraying rubbing alcohol on the actual bug kills them too. Ps the eggs can get in the grooves on the bottom of your shoes too. Oh! And whenever I go to hotels, I don\u2019t open my luggage and leave it on the dresser. I take off all bedding and check the mattress for little old trails of blood. That\u2019s usually a sign that there are bed bugs.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7300.0,"score_ratio":1.8292682927} {"post_id":"lucq3s","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: why do the fastest bicycles have really thin tyres but the fastest cars have very wide tyres","c_root_id_A":"gp5pgti","c_root_id_B":"gp5qje4","created_at_utc_A":1614508391,"created_at_utc_B":1614508900,"score_A":3109,"score_B":14225,"human_ref_A":"Fast cars need a lot of traction, which means they need a lot of surface area on their tires. Otherwise, they spin out really easily thanks to the high speeds and power. Bicycles don't really have that problem because you aren't going fast enough for it to matter. Thinner tires weigh less and weight is a big selling point for bicycles.","human_ref_B":"Bicycles are power and endurance limited by the cyclist so minimizing friction and drag are paramount. Racing cars on a track with curves is typically grip limited (ie tires lose grip before engine max power). So wider tires that improve grip reduce the time it takes to go around the track.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":509.0,"score_ratio":4.5754261821} {"post_id":"jmayjr","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why do we tend to listen to a new song that we like over and over again and then we can\u2019t stand hearing it anymore?","c_root_id_A":"gauqo0x","c_root_id_B":"gaut4ci","created_at_utc_A":1604280774,"created_at_utc_B":1604282141,"score_A":39,"score_B":10581,"human_ref_A":"I'd attest it to a small internal self control issue. Most people don't make a habit of denying themselves something that they think is good, and they don't give thought to the possibility of consuming that thing until it isn't good anymore. Makes me think of a child who will eat an entire jar of cookies until they get sick. It usually is a very long time before they will want a cookie again.","human_ref_B":"Music taps heavily into the pattern recognition centers of the brain. Basically our brain loves trying to predict the next note, next verse, when the chorus will hit, etc. and the brain releases endorphins (feel good signals) every time it either guesses a new pattern correctly or is pleasantly surprised by a brand new sound. The more we listen to a song, especially on repeat, the less surprises the song will hold and easier the patterns are to predict or remember. Fun fact: this is also why if you get a song stuck in your head listening to the entire song 2-3 times in a row will usually get it out of your head.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1367.0,"score_ratio":271.3076923077} {"post_id":"jmayjr","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why do we tend to listen to a new song that we like over and over again and then we can\u2019t stand hearing it anymore?","c_root_id_A":"gauqo0x","c_root_id_B":"gauumcv","created_at_utc_A":1604280774,"created_at_utc_B":1604282997,"score_A":39,"score_B":678,"human_ref_A":"I'd attest it to a small internal self control issue. Most people don't make a habit of denying themselves something that they think is good, and they don't give thought to the possibility of consuming that thing until it isn't good anymore. Makes me think of a child who will eat an entire jar of cookies until they get sick. It usually is a very long time before they will want a cookie again.","human_ref_B":"Music perception is a huge field that includes physics, math and psychology \/ biologists amongst others. One explained it to me like this (Im sure this is a simplification): Music has a tension between repetition and dissonance. Repetition makes the music accessible, catchy and fun. Dissonance makes it thoughtful, interesting and deep. Some music tilts strongly in one direction: repetitive dance music, others in a different direction: like experimental jazz. As you get more and more familiar with a genre, some of the repetition and patterns \u201cunlock\u201d for you and become accessible in a way that they may not be to a novice. If you COMPLETELY process the information it will likely bore you. However if you dont \u201cGet IT\u201d youll likely dismiss the song as inaccessible and offputting. This tension explains both why albums and songs get better with age and why some dont. It also explains in part why some complex music (jazz and classical or even metal and hiphop) have die hard fans while others seem to hate it or just not get it. It turns out some of musical appreciation is actually tied to exposure. The best songs \u201cgrow\u201d with you, looping in to patterns you can already access and then \u201cunlocking\u201d different more involved ones as you go. If you add a layer of emotional tie during that process (ahem - first kiss, birth of a child, loss of a loved one) this adds another layer that may or may not actually interact with all of the above. Perception is awesome!","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2223.0,"score_ratio":17.3846153846} {"post_id":"n3vy6t","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why is the loudest sound ever reported is considered to be the Krakatoa volcanic eruption, at 180 dB and could be directly heard 5,000km away but rocket launches regularly hits 200+ dB but are only heard within the vicinity of the ignition?","c_root_id_A":"gws4o17","c_root_id_B":"gws46vo","created_at_utc_A":1620048857,"created_at_utc_B":1620048630,"score_A":23210,"score_B":911,"human_ref_A":"200+ db doesn't really exist. At 194 db, the sound is so loud that it's creating vacuums between the sound waves. Any louder, and it isn't really a sound wave anymore, just a shock wave. Rocket launches can reach 165 db, but that's still fifteen decibels lower than Krakatoa. As to why Krakatoa was heard so far away, volcanoes are geological activity: the earth itself was producing the sound and helping it travel. Think of it like a phone on vibrate. If it vibrates in your hand, you can only hear it a few feet away. However, if you place the same phone on a table, you can clearly hear it from across the room. In the same way, a rocket engine suspended above the ground will not be heard from as far away as a volcano erupting within the earth. Edit: Better explanation","human_ref_B":"Where did you get the 200dB? Google says they are 150dB when you're near. (And 200dB 100,000 times louder than 150dB)","labels":1,"seconds_difference":227.0,"score_ratio":25.4774972558} {"post_id":"7w59fs","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why are we told to breathe in through our nose and out of our mouth while doing sports, meditation etc?","c_root_id_A":"dtxoacr","c_root_id_B":"dtxogsp","created_at_utc_A":1518105773,"created_at_utc_B":1518105938,"score_A":59,"score_B":10122,"human_ref_A":"It's one of those generally accepted conventions that doesn't really have any significance. In fact, a lot runners breath through their mouth because you can use your diaphragm to fill your lung capacity much faster. In general, you want to breath in rhythm with your step. Don't take my word for it, you should try it!","human_ref_B":"The nose is actually a pretty awesome organ that helps make sure that the air you breathe is prepared as good as possible for your lungs. That includes amongst other things filtering particles out of the air (This pesky nose-hair is actually good for things!), making sure the air gets warmed up when it is cold and moisturizing the air if it is dry. Clean, moist and warm air is making sure that it's easy on the lungs and your breathing is efficient. Additionally breathing through your nose makes sure your air intake is regulated and you aren't prone to hyperventilating. So that explains why breathing in through your nose while doing sports, meditation and... basically in every situation is the best way to breathe in, but why is breathing out through your mouth then advised in sports? It's mostly about the speed of your oxygen intake. Or, to be more precise, about increasing the breathing frequency. As I just wrote the flow through your nose is rather limited. That works in both directions, if you breathe in as hard as you can and breathe out as hard as you can first through your nose then through your mouth you will see that you can breathe a lot faster through your mouth. So if you breathe out of your mouth you will save a little time which means that your intake frequency of oxygen will, overall, be higher. TL:DR: Breathing in through your nose is easier on your lungs and more efficient, breathing out through your mouth has little drawbacks and is faster. Together it's the most efficient you can breathe if you need higher levels of oxygen.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":165.0,"score_ratio":171.5593220339} {"post_id":"crm6ev","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How do they manage to constantly provide hot water to all the rooms in big buildings like hotels?","c_root_id_A":"ex74tfi","c_root_id_B":"ex6y4po","created_at_utc_A":1566055974,"created_at_utc_B":1566053277,"score_A":13278,"score_B":715,"human_ref_A":"Finally a question I can answer! Engineer here. Basically, most hotels use industrial size water heaters, at least one large storage tank, and a return pipe. So you have 3 domestic water pipes instead of 2. Cold, hot, and hot return. Pumps constantly circulate the hot water, it is either going to get used, or go back to the tank. The tank is then sized for peak water flow, which would be early morning showers when the hotel is fully booked. So you can have a few hundred gallons of instant hot water available, then during non peak times, the water in the tank is heated. The same types of systems are also used in office buildings, albeit a much smaller scale. A mid or even a high rise office building rarely has showers, and usually only have one or 2 sets of restrooms per floor. Sinks in public bathrooms usually don\u2019t use a lot of hot water. Edit: thanks for the silver! Edit 2: thanks for the gold! Edit 3: a lot of people have been asking if the hot water return is recycled water that has gone down the drain. No, it isn\u2019t, that would be nasty. Return water simply means water that has not been used. If the water does not get used by a faucet, it gets returned to the tank. Once it comes out of a faucet, it\u2019s not going back in.","human_ref_B":"They use recirculating hot water. You can even get this in your house, for the cost of a special pump. The hot water pipes form a loop, and the pump slowly circulates the water through the loop. This means the water gets hot almost instantly, which saves water. A boiler adds heat at the rate that cold water flows into the system, sometimes with a separate water heater stage.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2697.0,"score_ratio":18.5706293706} {"post_id":"p2z2mc","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: The maximum limits to human lifespan appears to be around 120 years old. Why does the limit to human life expectancy seem to hit a ceiling at this particular point?","c_root_id_A":"h8o6djc","c_root_id_B":"h8o65xx","created_at_utc_A":1628785472,"created_at_utc_B":1628785388,"score_A":14563,"score_B":1794,"human_ref_A":"Imagine making a copy of a document with a scanner. Every time you scan a scanned document to make a copy it gets degraded. That's what's happening in your cells, a scanned copy of a scanned copy of a scanned copy. Now your body is doing that every few days or weeks depending on they type of cell. After 100+ years, it just gets degraded to the point where your organs start to fail. That's also how we get cancer, if you get a smudge on one of the photocopies and can't read it anymore, then keep photocopying it.","human_ref_B":"Unfortunately I don't think the \"cap\" itself can really truly be Explain like I'm five years old'd in a super simple way. Researchers are still investigating the underlying mechanisms of aging and it's a multi-factorial problem including the telomeres mentioned in another comment. But here's my non-Explain like I'm five years old understanding of some of it, as a biology undergrad who has been considering getting into research on this! (EDIT TO CLARIFY: The following on telomeres is just a part of the aging picture. There are a multitude of factors which I'm not really qualified to try to Explain like I'm five years old, but basically when you're young the body is more resilient to problems so that you can have a baby, and then it doesn't maintain those processes as well later on in time. These factors are the Hallmarks of Aging: https:\/\/en.m.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Hallmarks_of_aging) For the telomeres, they're basically \"extra DNA\" tacked onto the end of each DNA strand since every time DNA is copied, it can't copy a little part of the end (due to some underlying molecular biology stuff). There's a thing called \"telomerase\" which could tack on more of this \"extra DNA\" to lengthen the telomere occasionally. But, even if we kept the telomeres by using telomerase, we still ultimately suffer from cancer since that DNA we've been maintaining using the telomerase still eventually gets damaged somewhere in the _middle_ either by radiation or some other causes. The longer we live, the more DNA damage we can accumulate like this, and the more cancerous potential we have. In general, the human body's immune system and other things that keep it going are not sufficiently maintained the older we become, for reasons I'm not familiar enough to describe myself. This leaves us continually more susceptible to heart disease, cancer, and general pathology until we succumb to one of these ailments. Sorry I don't have a good full answer, but hope this helps elaborate on some other responses! If you're interested in the maximum age and longevity, there's a subreddit which often has research posted for this field: \/r\/Longevity","labels":1,"seconds_difference":84.0,"score_ratio":8.1176142698} {"post_id":"p2z2mc","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: The maximum limits to human lifespan appears to be around 120 years old. Why does the limit to human life expectancy seem to hit a ceiling at this particular point?","c_root_id_A":"h8o6djc","c_root_id_B":"h8nd2ib","created_at_utc_A":1628785472,"created_at_utc_B":1628772573,"score_A":14563,"score_B":528,"human_ref_A":"Imagine making a copy of a document with a scanner. Every time you scan a scanned document to make a copy it gets degraded. That's what's happening in your cells, a scanned copy of a scanned copy of a scanned copy. Now your body is doing that every few days or weeks depending on they type of cell. After 100+ years, it just gets degraded to the point where your organs start to fail. That's also how we get cancer, if you get a smudge on one of the photocopies and can't read it anymore, then keep photocopying it.","human_ref_B":"OK, this is based on my high-school knowledge so you know... pinch of salt. As you know our cells divide in order to keep us alive and in good condition. The ting is, cells have a sort of timer called telomere. What this nifty little thing does is essentially a countdown, with each copy of a cell the telomere gets shorter (AFAIR it actually looses some form of membrane\/insulation but that's above my pay grade), when there's not enough of if cells start dividing wonky and so we start slowly decaying with age. As to why it happens.... \ud83e\udd37\u200d\u2642\ufe0f","labels":1,"seconds_difference":12899.0,"score_ratio":27.5814393939} {"post_id":"p2z2mc","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: The maximum limits to human lifespan appears to be around 120 years old. Why does the limit to human life expectancy seem to hit a ceiling at this particular point?","c_root_id_A":"h8o6djc","c_root_id_B":"h8ne47b","created_at_utc_A":1628785472,"created_at_utc_B":1628773123,"score_A":14563,"score_B":132,"human_ref_A":"Imagine making a copy of a document with a scanner. Every time you scan a scanned document to make a copy it gets degraded. That's what's happening in your cells, a scanned copy of a scanned copy of a scanned copy. Now your body is doing that every few days or weeks depending on they type of cell. After 100+ years, it just gets degraded to the point where your organs start to fail. That's also how we get cancer, if you get a smudge on one of the photocopies and can't read it anymore, then keep photocopying it.","human_ref_B":"This is a very active area of research and we are not quite sure about all the mechanisms involved. However it looks as if there is a built inn self destruct in our body. Our DNA have what is known as telomeres at the end of them. These are repeating structures which marks the end of the DNA and caps it off. These are also very important to allow the enzymes to copy the DNA when needed. It is not possible to copy from the very begining so they need some sort of dead space where the copying can start from. But this means that every time the DNA is copied these telomeres get a bit shorter. So there is a limited number of times the DNA can be copied and the cells divide. There is some mechanisms for making more telomeres. However this is not being done throughout the body. What we suspect is that people who have the ability to regenerate the telomeres might be more at risk for cancer. In general cancer is when the cells start dividing uncontrollably and the limit to the amount of times the cell can divide may be limiting the cancers ability to spread. So extinding the telomeres using some kind of drug might shorten our lifespan due to cancer. The area of active research is if we can somehow controll this process in some way so that we can only extend the telomeres when needed and keep them short to protect against cancer.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":12349.0,"score_ratio":110.3257575758} {"post_id":"p2z2mc","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: The maximum limits to human lifespan appears to be around 120 years old. Why does the limit to human life expectancy seem to hit a ceiling at this particular point?","c_root_id_A":"h8nd2ib","c_root_id_B":"h8o65xx","created_at_utc_A":1628772573,"created_at_utc_B":1628785388,"score_A":528,"score_B":1794,"human_ref_A":"OK, this is based on my high-school knowledge so you know... pinch of salt. As you know our cells divide in order to keep us alive and in good condition. The ting is, cells have a sort of timer called telomere. What this nifty little thing does is essentially a countdown, with each copy of a cell the telomere gets shorter (AFAIR it actually looses some form of membrane\/insulation but that's above my pay grade), when there's not enough of if cells start dividing wonky and so we start slowly decaying with age. As to why it happens.... \ud83e\udd37\u200d\u2642\ufe0f","human_ref_B":"Unfortunately I don't think the \"cap\" itself can really truly be Explain like I'm five years old'd in a super simple way. Researchers are still investigating the underlying mechanisms of aging and it's a multi-factorial problem including the telomeres mentioned in another comment. But here's my non-Explain like I'm five years old understanding of some of it, as a biology undergrad who has been considering getting into research on this! (EDIT TO CLARIFY: The following on telomeres is just a part of the aging picture. There are a multitude of factors which I'm not really qualified to try to Explain like I'm five years old, but basically when you're young the body is more resilient to problems so that you can have a baby, and then it doesn't maintain those processes as well later on in time. These factors are the Hallmarks of Aging: https:\/\/en.m.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Hallmarks_of_aging) For the telomeres, they're basically \"extra DNA\" tacked onto the end of each DNA strand since every time DNA is copied, it can't copy a little part of the end (due to some underlying molecular biology stuff). There's a thing called \"telomerase\" which could tack on more of this \"extra DNA\" to lengthen the telomere occasionally. But, even if we kept the telomeres by using telomerase, we still ultimately suffer from cancer since that DNA we've been maintaining using the telomerase still eventually gets damaged somewhere in the _middle_ either by radiation or some other causes. The longer we live, the more DNA damage we can accumulate like this, and the more cancerous potential we have. In general, the human body's immune system and other things that keep it going are not sufficiently maintained the older we become, for reasons I'm not familiar enough to describe myself. This leaves us continually more susceptible to heart disease, cancer, and general pathology until we succumb to one of these ailments. Sorry I don't have a good full answer, but hope this helps elaborate on some other responses! If you're interested in the maximum age and longevity, there's a subreddit which often has research posted for this field: \/r\/Longevity","labels":0,"seconds_difference":12815.0,"score_ratio":3.3977272727} {"post_id":"p2z2mc","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: The maximum limits to human lifespan appears to be around 120 years old. Why does the limit to human life expectancy seem to hit a ceiling at this particular point?","c_root_id_A":"h8ne47b","c_root_id_B":"h8o65xx","created_at_utc_A":1628773123,"created_at_utc_B":1628785388,"score_A":132,"score_B":1794,"human_ref_A":"This is a very active area of research and we are not quite sure about all the mechanisms involved. However it looks as if there is a built inn self destruct in our body. Our DNA have what is known as telomeres at the end of them. These are repeating structures which marks the end of the DNA and caps it off. These are also very important to allow the enzymes to copy the DNA when needed. It is not possible to copy from the very begining so they need some sort of dead space where the copying can start from. But this means that every time the DNA is copied these telomeres get a bit shorter. So there is a limited number of times the DNA can be copied and the cells divide. There is some mechanisms for making more telomeres. However this is not being done throughout the body. What we suspect is that people who have the ability to regenerate the telomeres might be more at risk for cancer. In general cancer is when the cells start dividing uncontrollably and the limit to the amount of times the cell can divide may be limiting the cancers ability to spread. So extinding the telomeres using some kind of drug might shorten our lifespan due to cancer. The area of active research is if we can somehow controll this process in some way so that we can only extend the telomeres when needed and keep them short to protect against cancer.","human_ref_B":"Unfortunately I don't think the \"cap\" itself can really truly be Explain like I'm five years old'd in a super simple way. Researchers are still investigating the underlying mechanisms of aging and it's a multi-factorial problem including the telomeres mentioned in another comment. But here's my non-Explain like I'm five years old understanding of some of it, as a biology undergrad who has been considering getting into research on this! (EDIT TO CLARIFY: The following on telomeres is just a part of the aging picture. There are a multitude of factors which I'm not really qualified to try to Explain like I'm five years old, but basically when you're young the body is more resilient to problems so that you can have a baby, and then it doesn't maintain those processes as well later on in time. These factors are the Hallmarks of Aging: https:\/\/en.m.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Hallmarks_of_aging) For the telomeres, they're basically \"extra DNA\" tacked onto the end of each DNA strand since every time DNA is copied, it can't copy a little part of the end (due to some underlying molecular biology stuff). There's a thing called \"telomerase\" which could tack on more of this \"extra DNA\" to lengthen the telomere occasionally. But, even if we kept the telomeres by using telomerase, we still ultimately suffer from cancer since that DNA we've been maintaining using the telomerase still eventually gets damaged somewhere in the _middle_ either by radiation or some other causes. The longer we live, the more DNA damage we can accumulate like this, and the more cancerous potential we have. In general, the human body's immune system and other things that keep it going are not sufficiently maintained the older we become, for reasons I'm not familiar enough to describe myself. This leaves us continually more susceptible to heart disease, cancer, and general pathology until we succumb to one of these ailments. Sorry I don't have a good full answer, but hope this helps elaborate on some other responses! If you're interested in the maximum age and longevity, there's a subreddit which often has research posted for this field: \/r\/Longevity","labels":0,"seconds_difference":12265.0,"score_ratio":13.5909090909} {"post_id":"p2z2mc","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: The maximum limits to human lifespan appears to be around 120 years old. Why does the limit to human life expectancy seem to hit a ceiling at this particular point?","c_root_id_A":"h8ocq40","c_root_id_B":"h8ne47b","created_at_utc_A":1628788008,"created_at_utc_B":1628773123,"score_A":145,"score_B":132,"human_ref_A":"The telomeres is one. The other one is that DNA (the genetic code that makes up our cells and what we are as an organism) replication is not error free. Imagine us making mistakes no matter how careful we are, this is what is happening to pretty much any living organism during DNA replication. RNA based replication (e. g. viruses) are even more error riddled. In short, it's the natural outcome of living in an imperfect world where every process has error rates. When your cells multiply enough, so will those \"errors\".","human_ref_B":"This is a very active area of research and we are not quite sure about all the mechanisms involved. However it looks as if there is a built inn self destruct in our body. Our DNA have what is known as telomeres at the end of them. These are repeating structures which marks the end of the DNA and caps it off. These are also very important to allow the enzymes to copy the DNA when needed. It is not possible to copy from the very begining so they need some sort of dead space where the copying can start from. But this means that every time the DNA is copied these telomeres get a bit shorter. So there is a limited number of times the DNA can be copied and the cells divide. There is some mechanisms for making more telomeres. However this is not being done throughout the body. What we suspect is that people who have the ability to regenerate the telomeres might be more at risk for cancer. In general cancer is when the cells start dividing uncontrollably and the limit to the amount of times the cell can divide may be limiting the cancers ability to spread. So extinding the telomeres using some kind of drug might shorten our lifespan due to cancer. The area of active research is if we can somehow controll this process in some way so that we can only extend the telomeres when needed and keep them short to protect against cancer.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":14885.0,"score_ratio":1.0984848485} {"post_id":"tvtg76","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"ElI5 How can restaurants leave ketchup and mustard out all day but the bottles you buy in the store say to refrigerate after opening?","c_root_id_A":"i3bfnjn","c_root_id_B":"i3be9eu","created_at_utc_A":1649049174,"created_at_utc_B":1649048278,"score_A":14320,"score_B":880,"human_ref_A":"Ketchup and mustard left at room temp will last for weeks before there is any spoilage. Restaurants can go through a bottle of it a day. There is very little risk of it spoiling.","human_ref_B":"In a restaurant those little bottles on the table may just get used up within a day. If you have a big bottle at home and you don't go through it very fast, it might go off when kept at room temperature (I've known it to go a bit fermenty).","labels":1,"seconds_difference":896.0,"score_ratio":16.2727272727} {"post_id":"tvtg76","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"ElI5 How can restaurants leave ketchup and mustard out all day but the bottles you buy in the store say to refrigerate after opening?","c_root_id_A":"i3be9eu","c_root_id_B":"i3bo1du","created_at_utc_A":1649048278,"created_at_utc_B":1649055260,"score_A":880,"score_B":1367,"human_ref_A":"In a restaurant those little bottles on the table may just get used up within a day. If you have a big bottle at home and you don't go through it very fast, it might go off when kept at room temperature (I've known it to go a bit fermenty).","human_ref_B":"Former food safety inspector here. With food, spoilage is a matter of pH , Temperature, and Moisture Content. Highly acidic foods don't make a good environment for germs to live, and hence spoil slower. The same goes with high sugar content. Honey is almost immortal. I worked with cookies, and the key to keeping them shelf stable was moisture content. Keep that low enough, and those puppies are good for a long time.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6982.0,"score_ratio":1.5534090909} {"post_id":"tvtg76","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"ElI5 How can restaurants leave ketchup and mustard out all day but the bottles you buy in the store say to refrigerate after opening?","c_root_id_A":"i3bgxf8","c_root_id_B":"i3bo1du","created_at_utc_A":1649050011,"created_at_utc_B":1649055260,"score_A":216,"score_B":1367,"human_ref_A":"It gets used and replenished often enough to where it doesn't go bad. Also ketchup and mustard both contain vinegar which discourages bacterial growth.","human_ref_B":"Former food safety inspector here. With food, spoilage is a matter of pH , Temperature, and Moisture Content. Highly acidic foods don't make a good environment for germs to live, and hence spoil slower. The same goes with high sugar content. Honey is almost immortal. I worked with cookies, and the key to keeping them shelf stable was moisture content. Keep that low enough, and those puppies are good for a long time.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5249.0,"score_ratio":6.3287037037} {"post_id":"tvtg76","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"ElI5 How can restaurants leave ketchup and mustard out all day but the bottles you buy in the store say to refrigerate after opening?","c_root_id_A":"i3bo1du","c_root_id_B":"i3bfov0","created_at_utc_A":1649055260,"created_at_utc_B":1649049197,"score_A":1367,"score_B":112,"human_ref_A":"Former food safety inspector here. With food, spoilage is a matter of pH , Temperature, and Moisture Content. Highly acidic foods don't make a good environment for germs to live, and hence spoil slower. The same goes with high sugar content. Honey is almost immortal. I worked with cookies, and the key to keeping them shelf stable was moisture content. Keep that low enough, and those puppies are good for a long time.","human_ref_B":"Ask a British person if they refrigerate their ketchup. Funny stand up about it (at about 2:30) https:\/\/m.youtube.com\/watch?v=BEVSvIlXHJM E: added a time marker","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6063.0,"score_ratio":12.2053571429} {"post_id":"tvtg76","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"ElI5 How can restaurants leave ketchup and mustard out all day but the bottles you buy in the store say to refrigerate after opening?","c_root_id_A":"i3bfov0","c_root_id_B":"i3bgxf8","created_at_utc_A":1649049197,"created_at_utc_B":1649050011,"score_A":112,"score_B":216,"human_ref_A":"Ask a British person if they refrigerate their ketchup. Funny stand up about it (at about 2:30) https:\/\/m.youtube.com\/watch?v=BEVSvIlXHJM E: added a time marker","human_ref_B":"It gets used and replenished often enough to where it doesn't go bad. Also ketchup and mustard both contain vinegar which discourages bacterial growth.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":814.0,"score_ratio":1.9285714286} {"post_id":"tvtg76","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"ElI5 How can restaurants leave ketchup and mustard out all day but the bottles you buy in the store say to refrigerate after opening?","c_root_id_A":"i3bv6v9","c_root_id_B":"i3bfov0","created_at_utc_A":1649061280,"created_at_utc_B":1649049197,"score_A":135,"score_B":112,"human_ref_A":"The same way your Himalayan rock salt that formed millions of years ago has a \"best by\" date.","human_ref_B":"Ask a British person if they refrigerate their ketchup. Funny stand up about it (at about 2:30) https:\/\/m.youtube.com\/watch?v=BEVSvIlXHJM E: added a time marker","labels":1,"seconds_difference":12083.0,"score_ratio":1.2053571429} {"post_id":"4y9gz3","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why is Blackjack the only mathematically beatable game in casino?","c_root_id_A":"d6m5opa","c_root_id_B":"d6m2232","created_at_utc_A":1471491296,"created_at_utc_B":1471485630,"score_A":3819,"score_B":801,"human_ref_A":"Explain like I'm five years old version. Blackjack has a memory unlike other games. Big cards good, small cards bad. 5 year-olds shouldn't gamble anyways. Source: former casino employee and card counter. I'll start with some terms here: House edge: expressed in a percentage. The money the house expect to win on each bet. Basic stragety: a tested theorem that that dictates a players move in a given blackjack hand. Please Google basic strategy, there's a neat color coded chart you can look at. Units: the number of increments of the minimum bet that the table maximum will allow. For example, if you are on a $5 minimum BJ table with a limit of $250 that only allows you to play one hand you can bet 50 units. House edge is a representation of the mathematical advantage that the house has built in its rules.. Here are some examples. Roulette: straight up bet pays 35 to 1. I'd you win you get 35 plus your bet. There is 1 way to win, and on a double 0 wheel, 37 ways to lose. If you cover every number (stupid) you lose 38 and win 36. So your return is 36\/38. That's 94.7% return giving the house an edge of 5.3% Craps: betting on a hop (one roll bet) pays to 30 for 1, 30 to 1, 15 for 1, or 15 to 1. Deference here is academic in this case, most casinos only for one, but to one is better. The 30s are for pairs (hard ways). Let's say you think 11 will come next roll. There are 2 ways to roll 11, 6-5, and 5-6, if you have problems seeing this, pretend the dice are different colors. 2 dice x 6 sides = 36 combos. You have 2 ways to win out of 36. Or, 1 in 18. This bet at best pays 15 to 1. So win 16, lose 18. That's an 88.8% return giving the house an edge of 11.2%. SERIOUSLY, I KNOW HOP BETS SUCK. THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF HOUSE EDGE. Bet the pass line with 10x odds. Happy? The edge represents the difference between the true odds vs payable odds. With me so far? Here's where things change. In all other games of \"chance\", these odds never change. Two dice always roll 11 with the same 2\/36 chance, number 21 comes up approximately 1 out of 38 times in roulette. This is inescapable. Short term variance is expected and even necessary, no one would play a game where they always lost. But blackjack and it's variants (of the non continuous shuffle variety) are different fundamentally, they have memory. There a finite number of cards in that games universe if you will. In a 6 deck shoe (suits don't matter in BJ) there are 312 cards. 24 of each A-9, and 96 10 value cards (10, J, Q, K no difference between these functionally) Basic strategy is a statistical model that, based on the rules of the casino at which you are playing, help you make the least bad decision. I say least bad, because it is accurate. There are no good decisions in blackjack because statistically it is still a negative expectation game. Meaning, over a large sampling, with perfect basic strategy, you will still lose. Now, this is for everyone in the back, STATISTICAL OUTCOMES HAVE NOTING TO FUCKING DO WITH SHORT TERM SUCCESS OR FAILURE!!!!!! So, a recap here. Most games suck because the odds are bad and built in. You can chose less bad bets, but all bets are bad, get it? But wait, you said Black Jack is different! It is. As I said, basic strategy lets you make the least bad decisions. Some situations actually have a positive expected outcome, like doubling down when you have 11 vs a dealers up card of 6. Keep in mind though, that the aggregate of all those situations still places you in the territory of negative expectation. Card counting: there are plenty of tutorials online to teach this, but as a very simple rule of thumb, because of the rules of hitting and staying that casinos follow for their dealers, big cards favor the player, while little cards favor the dealer. I'm not going to get into the math here, it's rather lengthy, but suffice to say that knowing the ratio of big cards to little cards remaining in the deck can offer an advantage to the player. So, why does the dealer have the advantage on black jack? It's not their hit\/stand rules. Those only exist because if they were any more lenient to the dealer no one would play. THE ONLY ADVANTAGE THE HOUSE HAS IN BJ IS THE DOUBLE BUST LOSS. Scenario 1. Player has 20, dealer busts. Player wins Scenario 2. Player has 20, dealer has 20. Player pushes (ties) nobody loses\/wins Scenario 3. Player busts his hand, dealer has 20. Dealer wins. These all seem fair so far. Here's the one that earns all the house it's money. Scenario 4. Player busts his hand. Dealer busts his hand. Player still loses. That's it. They only advantage. So, try not to take hits that can bust you unless you statistically need to. Let's now regroup. 1. You know that busting loses your money, though paradoxically, standing when you should hit, while reducing your bust %, actually lowers your statical overall win % more. 2. You know that because 10s are good for you and little cards are bad, if you can keep track of the ratio of that and are in the right situation, you can have an advantage over the house. The average difference in expressed advantage generally is only 2%. Let's say the house has a 51-49 advantage over you, sometimes you can make that 51-49 in your favor with counting. How do you take advantage of this? Unit betting. Let's take a $5 dollar table. It has 7 spots. You are the only player. It's max is$ 500. This casino let's you play all 7 spots if the table is empty. Therefore, the unit spread is as follows 500\/5 = 100 units per spot *7 spots = 700 unit spread. (This is an example only, doing this will get you labeled as a counter on the spot and backed off immediately) As you know the deck (shoe) favors the dealer most of the time it makes sense to expose the least amount of your money to that negative expectation. When the 10 ratio changes in your favor, you can now expose 700 times that bet to a positive outcome. So while you're only going to have a %2 advantage, you're now betting 3500 with a better than even chance of winning. (YES I KNOW THINGS GET STREAKY SOMETIMES. SHUT UP, THESE ARE BASICS. GO FIND SOME COUNTING SUB REDDIT) So, get it? Expose less of you money when you're at a disadvantage and more when it's in your favor. Counting is the exact reverse of the casino model. You're eking out wins on a small marking, but unlike the casini, you can alter your betting and actions with this knowledge TL;DR. yes, blackjack is the a beatable game, but only if you're a card counter. P.s. baccarat. Yes, it is a coin flip. And yes, I've heard of a way to count it. Here the only situation I know of where it can be counted. At the beginning of the shoe, the dealer reveals the first card and burns that many cards. If you can keep track of the 10s in the shoe, and this count of remaining 10 in the deck is equal to burn cards plus the remaining cards in the deck after the cut card is pulled out, theoretically you could guarantee a tie bet, but I'd be willing that this is sore rare in practice, you're better off just studying something useful and getting a career change or a promotion. Sorry about the spelling, this is a long comment for a phone and my dog has been licking my face Edits: edited for grammar and spelling, as well as an expanded craps section because some random craps player thinks he knows what's going on and was confused. As always first reddit gold, thanks so much. Also, for people saying poker, pai-gow, video poker, craps! I try not to talk about thing I don't know much about, but here: 1. Poker is beatable if you're good.or with weak players. 2. No commission pai-gow that let's you bank every other hand is probably close to 50-50. Don't know for sure, check the math. 3. Apparently you can count baccarat, just got a link to look at. 4. Yes, some video poker offers an advantage. Google it 5. Yes, crops has some good bets. Pass with 10x odds is like .43% house edge or something stupid small. Still not 0 6. Advantage play tons of advanced techniques like shuffle tracking, hole tracking, taking advantage of weak delaers, sure that may make a game beatable. YMMV","human_ref_B":"Blackjack is the only game who's outcome is dependent upon past actions. Like, once an ace is played and discarded players know that ace is gone and won't be seen again. Keeping track of what cards have been played can give a player good prediction of what will come up. Knowing that they can adjust their bets so they win big when odds are good and loose little when odds are bad. Casinos fight against this by using multiple decks of cards, re-shuffling at random times, and good old intimidation. \"Card counting\" (the simple process of keeping track of what's been played and understanding current odds) mathematically gives a player a 0.5% advantage over the house. Some say it's as high as 1%, some say 0.1%. But, no matter what, it won't make you rich over night. To see a 0.5% advantage pay off you'll have to play a lot and over a significant amount of time. Those who did get rich with card counting did it with a team. And, don't forget, casinos can ask anyone to leave for no reason at all. If you're statistically winning more than you should, you may get a tap on your shoulder. So, mathematically, yes, you'll have an advantage in blackjack because it is a continuing, past dependent, outcome. But, in real life, you simply won't be allowed to sit at a table and take the Casino's money.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5666.0,"score_ratio":4.7677902622} {"post_id":"4y9gz3","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why is Blackjack the only mathematically beatable game in casino?","c_root_id_A":"d6m1p3r","c_root_id_B":"d6m5opa","created_at_utc_A":1471485089,"created_at_utc_B":1471491296,"score_A":535,"score_B":3819,"human_ref_A":"Blackjack is the only game where the odds change. You start with a known amount of, and type of cards. As you work through the deck, if you can keep track of which cards go through, you can estimate the odds of the coming cards. Other casino games start fresh every time.","human_ref_B":"Explain like I'm five years old version. Blackjack has a memory unlike other games. Big cards good, small cards bad. 5 year-olds shouldn't gamble anyways. Source: former casino employee and card counter. I'll start with some terms here: House edge: expressed in a percentage. The money the house expect to win on each bet. Basic stragety: a tested theorem that that dictates a players move in a given blackjack hand. Please Google basic strategy, there's a neat color coded chart you can look at. Units: the number of increments of the minimum bet that the table maximum will allow. For example, if you are on a $5 minimum BJ table with a limit of $250 that only allows you to play one hand you can bet 50 units. House edge is a representation of the mathematical advantage that the house has built in its rules.. Here are some examples. Roulette: straight up bet pays 35 to 1. I'd you win you get 35 plus your bet. There is 1 way to win, and on a double 0 wheel, 37 ways to lose. If you cover every number (stupid) you lose 38 and win 36. So your return is 36\/38. That's 94.7% return giving the house an edge of 5.3% Craps: betting on a hop (one roll bet) pays to 30 for 1, 30 to 1, 15 for 1, or 15 to 1. Deference here is academic in this case, most casinos only for one, but to one is better. The 30s are for pairs (hard ways). Let's say you think 11 will come next roll. There are 2 ways to roll 11, 6-5, and 5-6, if you have problems seeing this, pretend the dice are different colors. 2 dice x 6 sides = 36 combos. You have 2 ways to win out of 36. Or, 1 in 18. This bet at best pays 15 to 1. So win 16, lose 18. That's an 88.8% return giving the house an edge of 11.2%. SERIOUSLY, I KNOW HOP BETS SUCK. THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF HOUSE EDGE. Bet the pass line with 10x odds. Happy? The edge represents the difference between the true odds vs payable odds. With me so far? Here's where things change. In all other games of \"chance\", these odds never change. Two dice always roll 11 with the same 2\/36 chance, number 21 comes up approximately 1 out of 38 times in roulette. This is inescapable. Short term variance is expected and even necessary, no one would play a game where they always lost. But blackjack and it's variants (of the non continuous shuffle variety) are different fundamentally, they have memory. There a finite number of cards in that games universe if you will. In a 6 deck shoe (suits don't matter in BJ) there are 312 cards. 24 of each A-9, and 96 10 value cards (10, J, Q, K no difference between these functionally) Basic strategy is a statistical model that, based on the rules of the casino at which you are playing, help you make the least bad decision. I say least bad, because it is accurate. There are no good decisions in blackjack because statistically it is still a negative expectation game. Meaning, over a large sampling, with perfect basic strategy, you will still lose. Now, this is for everyone in the back, STATISTICAL OUTCOMES HAVE NOTING TO FUCKING DO WITH SHORT TERM SUCCESS OR FAILURE!!!!!! So, a recap here. Most games suck because the odds are bad and built in. You can chose less bad bets, but all bets are bad, get it? But wait, you said Black Jack is different! It is. As I said, basic strategy lets you make the least bad decisions. Some situations actually have a positive expected outcome, like doubling down when you have 11 vs a dealers up card of 6. Keep in mind though, that the aggregate of all those situations still places you in the territory of negative expectation. Card counting: there are plenty of tutorials online to teach this, but as a very simple rule of thumb, because of the rules of hitting and staying that casinos follow for their dealers, big cards favor the player, while little cards favor the dealer. I'm not going to get into the math here, it's rather lengthy, but suffice to say that knowing the ratio of big cards to little cards remaining in the deck can offer an advantage to the player. So, why does the dealer have the advantage on black jack? It's not their hit\/stand rules. Those only exist because if they were any more lenient to the dealer no one would play. THE ONLY ADVANTAGE THE HOUSE HAS IN BJ IS THE DOUBLE BUST LOSS. Scenario 1. Player has 20, dealer busts. Player wins Scenario 2. Player has 20, dealer has 20. Player pushes (ties) nobody loses\/wins Scenario 3. Player busts his hand, dealer has 20. Dealer wins. These all seem fair so far. Here's the one that earns all the house it's money. Scenario 4. Player busts his hand. Dealer busts his hand. Player still loses. That's it. They only advantage. So, try not to take hits that can bust you unless you statistically need to. Let's now regroup. 1. You know that busting loses your money, though paradoxically, standing when you should hit, while reducing your bust %, actually lowers your statical overall win % more. 2. You know that because 10s are good for you and little cards are bad, if you can keep track of the ratio of that and are in the right situation, you can have an advantage over the house. The average difference in expressed advantage generally is only 2%. Let's say the house has a 51-49 advantage over you, sometimes you can make that 51-49 in your favor with counting. How do you take advantage of this? Unit betting. Let's take a $5 dollar table. It has 7 spots. You are the only player. It's max is$ 500. This casino let's you play all 7 spots if the table is empty. Therefore, the unit spread is as follows 500\/5 = 100 units per spot *7 spots = 700 unit spread. (This is an example only, doing this will get you labeled as a counter on the spot and backed off immediately) As you know the deck (shoe) favors the dealer most of the time it makes sense to expose the least amount of your money to that negative expectation. When the 10 ratio changes in your favor, you can now expose 700 times that bet to a positive outcome. So while you're only going to have a %2 advantage, you're now betting 3500 with a better than even chance of winning. (YES I KNOW THINGS GET STREAKY SOMETIMES. SHUT UP, THESE ARE BASICS. GO FIND SOME COUNTING SUB REDDIT) So, get it? Expose less of you money when you're at a disadvantage and more when it's in your favor. Counting is the exact reverse of the casino model. You're eking out wins on a small marking, but unlike the casini, you can alter your betting and actions with this knowledge TL;DR. yes, blackjack is the a beatable game, but only if you're a card counter. P.s. baccarat. Yes, it is a coin flip. And yes, I've heard of a way to count it. Here the only situation I know of where it can be counted. At the beginning of the shoe, the dealer reveals the first card and burns that many cards. If you can keep track of the 10s in the shoe, and this count of remaining 10 in the deck is equal to burn cards plus the remaining cards in the deck after the cut card is pulled out, theoretically you could guarantee a tie bet, but I'd be willing that this is sore rare in practice, you're better off just studying something useful and getting a career change or a promotion. Sorry about the spelling, this is a long comment for a phone and my dog has been licking my face Edits: edited for grammar and spelling, as well as an expanded craps section because some random craps player thinks he knows what's going on and was confused. As always first reddit gold, thanks so much. Also, for people saying poker, pai-gow, video poker, craps! I try not to talk about thing I don't know much about, but here: 1. Poker is beatable if you're good.or with weak players. 2. No commission pai-gow that let's you bank every other hand is probably close to 50-50. Don't know for sure, check the math. 3. Apparently you can count baccarat, just got a link to look at. 4. Yes, some video poker offers an advantage. Google it 5. Yes, crops has some good bets. Pass with 10x odds is like .43% house edge or something stupid small. Still not 0 6. Advantage play tons of advanced techniques like shuffle tracking, hole tracking, taking advantage of weak delaers, sure that may make a game beatable. YMMV","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6207.0,"score_ratio":7.138317757} {"post_id":"4y9gz3","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why is Blackjack the only mathematically beatable game in casino?","c_root_id_A":"d6m5opa","c_root_id_B":"d6m5jg3","created_at_utc_A":1471491296,"created_at_utc_B":1471491045,"score_A":3819,"score_B":135,"human_ref_A":"Explain like I'm five years old version. Blackjack has a memory unlike other games. Big cards good, small cards bad. 5 year-olds shouldn't gamble anyways. Source: former casino employee and card counter. I'll start with some terms here: House edge: expressed in a percentage. The money the house expect to win on each bet. Basic stragety: a tested theorem that that dictates a players move in a given blackjack hand. Please Google basic strategy, there's a neat color coded chart you can look at. Units: the number of increments of the minimum bet that the table maximum will allow. For example, if you are on a $5 minimum BJ table with a limit of $250 that only allows you to play one hand you can bet 50 units. House edge is a representation of the mathematical advantage that the house has built in its rules.. Here are some examples. Roulette: straight up bet pays 35 to 1. I'd you win you get 35 plus your bet. There is 1 way to win, and on a double 0 wheel, 37 ways to lose. If you cover every number (stupid) you lose 38 and win 36. So your return is 36\/38. That's 94.7% return giving the house an edge of 5.3% Craps: betting on a hop (one roll bet) pays to 30 for 1, 30 to 1, 15 for 1, or 15 to 1. Deference here is academic in this case, most casinos only for one, but to one is better. The 30s are for pairs (hard ways). Let's say you think 11 will come next roll. There are 2 ways to roll 11, 6-5, and 5-6, if you have problems seeing this, pretend the dice are different colors. 2 dice x 6 sides = 36 combos. You have 2 ways to win out of 36. Or, 1 in 18. This bet at best pays 15 to 1. So win 16, lose 18. That's an 88.8% return giving the house an edge of 11.2%. SERIOUSLY, I KNOW HOP BETS SUCK. THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF HOUSE EDGE. Bet the pass line with 10x odds. Happy? The edge represents the difference between the true odds vs payable odds. With me so far? Here's where things change. In all other games of \"chance\", these odds never change. Two dice always roll 11 with the same 2\/36 chance, number 21 comes up approximately 1 out of 38 times in roulette. This is inescapable. Short term variance is expected and even necessary, no one would play a game where they always lost. But blackjack and it's variants (of the non continuous shuffle variety) are different fundamentally, they have memory. There a finite number of cards in that games universe if you will. In a 6 deck shoe (suits don't matter in BJ) there are 312 cards. 24 of each A-9, and 96 10 value cards (10, J, Q, K no difference between these functionally) Basic strategy is a statistical model that, based on the rules of the casino at which you are playing, help you make the least bad decision. I say least bad, because it is accurate. There are no good decisions in blackjack because statistically it is still a negative expectation game. Meaning, over a large sampling, with perfect basic strategy, you will still lose. Now, this is for everyone in the back, STATISTICAL OUTCOMES HAVE NOTING TO FUCKING DO WITH SHORT TERM SUCCESS OR FAILURE!!!!!! So, a recap here. Most games suck because the odds are bad and built in. You can chose less bad bets, but all bets are bad, get it? But wait, you said Black Jack is different! It is. As I said, basic strategy lets you make the least bad decisions. Some situations actually have a positive expected outcome, like doubling down when you have 11 vs a dealers up card of 6. Keep in mind though, that the aggregate of all those situations still places you in the territory of negative expectation. Card counting: there are plenty of tutorials online to teach this, but as a very simple rule of thumb, because of the rules of hitting and staying that casinos follow for their dealers, big cards favor the player, while little cards favor the dealer. I'm not going to get into the math here, it's rather lengthy, but suffice to say that knowing the ratio of big cards to little cards remaining in the deck can offer an advantage to the player. So, why does the dealer have the advantage on black jack? It's not their hit\/stand rules. Those only exist because if they were any more lenient to the dealer no one would play. THE ONLY ADVANTAGE THE HOUSE HAS IN BJ IS THE DOUBLE BUST LOSS. Scenario 1. Player has 20, dealer busts. Player wins Scenario 2. Player has 20, dealer has 20. Player pushes (ties) nobody loses\/wins Scenario 3. Player busts his hand, dealer has 20. Dealer wins. These all seem fair so far. Here's the one that earns all the house it's money. Scenario 4. Player busts his hand. Dealer busts his hand. Player still loses. That's it. They only advantage. So, try not to take hits that can bust you unless you statistically need to. Let's now regroup. 1. You know that busting loses your money, though paradoxically, standing when you should hit, while reducing your bust %, actually lowers your statical overall win % more. 2. You know that because 10s are good for you and little cards are bad, if you can keep track of the ratio of that and are in the right situation, you can have an advantage over the house. The average difference in expressed advantage generally is only 2%. Let's say the house has a 51-49 advantage over you, sometimes you can make that 51-49 in your favor with counting. How do you take advantage of this? Unit betting. Let's take a $5 dollar table. It has 7 spots. You are the only player. It's max is$ 500. This casino let's you play all 7 spots if the table is empty. Therefore, the unit spread is as follows 500\/5 = 100 units per spot *7 spots = 700 unit spread. (This is an example only, doing this will get you labeled as a counter on the spot and backed off immediately) As you know the deck (shoe) favors the dealer most of the time it makes sense to expose the least amount of your money to that negative expectation. When the 10 ratio changes in your favor, you can now expose 700 times that bet to a positive outcome. So while you're only going to have a %2 advantage, you're now betting 3500 with a better than even chance of winning. (YES I KNOW THINGS GET STREAKY SOMETIMES. SHUT UP, THESE ARE BASICS. GO FIND SOME COUNTING SUB REDDIT) So, get it? Expose less of you money when you're at a disadvantage and more when it's in your favor. Counting is the exact reverse of the casino model. You're eking out wins on a small marking, but unlike the casini, you can alter your betting and actions with this knowledge TL;DR. yes, blackjack is the a beatable game, but only if you're a card counter. P.s. baccarat. Yes, it is a coin flip. And yes, I've heard of a way to count it. Here the only situation I know of where it can be counted. At the beginning of the shoe, the dealer reveals the first card and burns that many cards. If you can keep track of the 10s in the shoe, and this count of remaining 10 in the deck is equal to burn cards plus the remaining cards in the deck after the cut card is pulled out, theoretically you could guarantee a tie bet, but I'd be willing that this is sore rare in practice, you're better off just studying something useful and getting a career change or a promotion. Sorry about the spelling, this is a long comment for a phone and my dog has been licking my face Edits: edited for grammar and spelling, as well as an expanded craps section because some random craps player thinks he knows what's going on and was confused. As always first reddit gold, thanks so much. Also, for people saying poker, pai-gow, video poker, craps! I try not to talk about thing I don't know much about, but here: 1. Poker is beatable if you're good.or with weak players. 2. No commission pai-gow that let's you bank every other hand is probably close to 50-50. Don't know for sure, check the math. 3. Apparently you can count baccarat, just got a link to look at. 4. Yes, some video poker offers an advantage. Google it 5. Yes, crops has some good bets. Pass with 10x odds is like .43% house edge or something stupid small. Still not 0 6. Advantage play tons of advanced techniques like shuffle tracking, hole tracking, taking advantage of weak delaers, sure that may make a game beatable. YMMV","human_ref_B":"Let me clear up some misconceptions in this thread. Credentials: Professional poker player in Las Vegas for 9 years. Not a card counter but know plenty who do (or did). 1) Perfect basic strategy without counting + good house rules gets you very close to 50% equity. It's over 49%. This is reduced significantly by bad house rules (ie pay 6:5 on blackjack). You cannot get over 50% without counting and properly adjusting your bets based on the odds for that hand. 2) Part of why you can beat blackjack is the \"history\" as has been mentioned. The other part is the ability to bet SIGNIFICANTLY more when you have an edge vs when you don't. Betting $10 many times as 49.8% dog, and then $50 or $100 a few times as a 54% favorite, will yield positive equity and thus profit in the long run. 3) Blackjack is still very beatable, but casinos have gotten much smarter over the years. The rules are generally worse and favor the house more than in years past. They're better at spotting counters and teams. I know a number of people who have made significant money (well into 6 figures) by counting, and have subsequently been banned or flat bet. It's a good way to make short-term money if you know what you're doing, but you need a significant bankroll as the swings can be enormous. 4) Assuming you're not counting, then other players playing correctly or incorrectly will NOT affect your equity. Someone hitting when they should stay is just as likely to help you as hurt you, so leave them alone and let them do as they please. Anyone saying otherwise does not understand statistics. EDIT TO ADD 5) Some comments have mentioned poker, sports betting, horse racing, and certain video poker \/ slots as other profitable opportunities if you know what you're doing. Poker is obviously true, as many people make their living playing poker. The key difference is that you play against other players and simply pay the casino a flat rate, so they don't care if you win. Literally thousands and probably tens of thousands of people around the world make their living playing poker, both in casinos and online. Sports betting is true, although it takes a lot of work and very good computer models to beat it. Also never, ever, ever pay for a tout service to give you picks. 100% of them are scams. Horse racing I'm honestly not sure about, as I know next to nothing about it. But I've been in Vegas a long time and have never met someone who is a professional horse bettor. Anecdotally, everyone in that section of the sports book looks like a degenerate (or someone just having fun on vacation). But maybe? If anyone knows more I'd like to hear. Video poker \/ slots is also true under certain circumstances. Some of the progressive jackpot slots can actually be pretty lucrative when the jackpot gets big enough, but it's an enormous time sink and requires an enormous bankroll. I know people that have tried to take advantage, and they give up after not too long. The edge on profitable video poker machines is small and you're not going to make any significant money grinding those. Minimum wage maybe. People who are VERY good at heads up limit holdem can beat the poker machines (NOT video poker, but actual poker played against an AI). The AI is awfully good though, and will absolutely obliterate a random tourist. They put these things outside of poker rooms and they must absolutely print money on them to an absurd degree.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":251.0,"score_ratio":28.2888888889} {"post_id":"4y9gz3","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why is Blackjack the only mathematically beatable game in casino?","c_root_id_A":"d6m1vmn","c_root_id_B":"d6m5opa","created_at_utc_A":1471485360,"created_at_utc_B":1471491296,"score_A":128,"score_B":3819,"human_ref_A":"I believe it's not mathematically beatable anymore in the vast majority of places. If you're referring to the days of \"Bringing Down the House\", i.e. the MIT students who beat blackjack, I do think that was a time when most major casinos didn't use several shoes and constantly shuffle the way they do now. To put it most simply, at the time, you could track cards and gain an edge after a certain number of cards were dealt. Frequently what would be done is to work in teams, have one player make small bets for a while and track the cards that came out during the time. Depending on if many face cards were or weren't dealt for a period, the big bettor could come in and start playing with a significant edge. And you'd have to be very discreet, because you could easily get kicked out if you were suspected of doing this. edit: It's come to my attention that it probably still IS mathematically beatable for a small edge in most places. Don't play online BJ though. That shit's the devil. Carry on.","human_ref_B":"Explain like I'm five years old version. Blackjack has a memory unlike other games. Big cards good, small cards bad. 5 year-olds shouldn't gamble anyways. Source: former casino employee and card counter. I'll start with some terms here: House edge: expressed in a percentage. The money the house expect to win on each bet. Basic stragety: a tested theorem that that dictates a players move in a given blackjack hand. Please Google basic strategy, there's a neat color coded chart you can look at. Units: the number of increments of the minimum bet that the table maximum will allow. For example, if you are on a $5 minimum BJ table with a limit of $250 that only allows you to play one hand you can bet 50 units. House edge is a representation of the mathematical advantage that the house has built in its rules.. Here are some examples. Roulette: straight up bet pays 35 to 1. I'd you win you get 35 plus your bet. There is 1 way to win, and on a double 0 wheel, 37 ways to lose. If you cover every number (stupid) you lose 38 and win 36. So your return is 36\/38. That's 94.7% return giving the house an edge of 5.3% Craps: betting on a hop (one roll bet) pays to 30 for 1, 30 to 1, 15 for 1, or 15 to 1. Deference here is academic in this case, most casinos only for one, but to one is better. The 30s are for pairs (hard ways). Let's say you think 11 will come next roll. There are 2 ways to roll 11, 6-5, and 5-6, if you have problems seeing this, pretend the dice are different colors. 2 dice x 6 sides = 36 combos. You have 2 ways to win out of 36. Or, 1 in 18. This bet at best pays 15 to 1. So win 16, lose 18. That's an 88.8% return giving the house an edge of 11.2%. SERIOUSLY, I KNOW HOP BETS SUCK. THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF HOUSE EDGE. Bet the pass line with 10x odds. Happy? The edge represents the difference between the true odds vs payable odds. With me so far? Here's where things change. In all other games of \"chance\", these odds never change. Two dice always roll 11 with the same 2\/36 chance, number 21 comes up approximately 1 out of 38 times in roulette. This is inescapable. Short term variance is expected and even necessary, no one would play a game where they always lost. But blackjack and it's variants (of the non continuous shuffle variety) are different fundamentally, they have memory. There a finite number of cards in that games universe if you will. In a 6 deck shoe (suits don't matter in BJ) there are 312 cards. 24 of each A-9, and 96 10 value cards (10, J, Q, K no difference between these functionally) Basic strategy is a statistical model that, based on the rules of the casino at which you are playing, help you make the least bad decision. I say least bad, because it is accurate. There are no good decisions in blackjack because statistically it is still a negative expectation game. Meaning, over a large sampling, with perfect basic strategy, you will still lose. Now, this is for everyone in the back, STATISTICAL OUTCOMES HAVE NOTING TO FUCKING DO WITH SHORT TERM SUCCESS OR FAILURE!!!!!! So, a recap here. Most games suck because the odds are bad and built in. You can chose less bad bets, but all bets are bad, get it? But wait, you said Black Jack is different! It is. As I said, basic strategy lets you make the least bad decisions. Some situations actually have a positive expected outcome, like doubling down when you have 11 vs a dealers up card of 6. Keep in mind though, that the aggregate of all those situations still places you in the territory of negative expectation. Card counting: there are plenty of tutorials online to teach this, but as a very simple rule of thumb, because of the rules of hitting and staying that casinos follow for their dealers, big cards favor the player, while little cards favor the dealer. I'm not going to get into the math here, it's rather lengthy, but suffice to say that knowing the ratio of big cards to little cards remaining in the deck can offer an advantage to the player. So, why does the dealer have the advantage on black jack? It's not their hit\/stand rules. Those only exist because if they were any more lenient to the dealer no one would play. THE ONLY ADVANTAGE THE HOUSE HAS IN BJ IS THE DOUBLE BUST LOSS. Scenario 1. Player has 20, dealer busts. Player wins Scenario 2. Player has 20, dealer has 20. Player pushes (ties) nobody loses\/wins Scenario 3. Player busts his hand, dealer has 20. Dealer wins. These all seem fair so far. Here's the one that earns all the house it's money. Scenario 4. Player busts his hand. Dealer busts his hand. Player still loses. That's it. They only advantage. So, try not to take hits that can bust you unless you statistically need to. Let's now regroup. 1. You know that busting loses your money, though paradoxically, standing when you should hit, while reducing your bust %, actually lowers your statical overall win % more. 2. You know that because 10s are good for you and little cards are bad, if you can keep track of the ratio of that and are in the right situation, you can have an advantage over the house. The average difference in expressed advantage generally is only 2%. Let's say the house has a 51-49 advantage over you, sometimes you can make that 51-49 in your favor with counting. How do you take advantage of this? Unit betting. Let's take a $5 dollar table. It has 7 spots. You are the only player. It's max is$ 500. This casino let's you play all 7 spots if the table is empty. Therefore, the unit spread is as follows 500\/5 = 100 units per spot *7 spots = 700 unit spread. (This is an example only, doing this will get you labeled as a counter on the spot and backed off immediately) As you know the deck (shoe) favors the dealer most of the time it makes sense to expose the least amount of your money to that negative expectation. When the 10 ratio changes in your favor, you can now expose 700 times that bet to a positive outcome. So while you're only going to have a %2 advantage, you're now betting 3500 with a better than even chance of winning. (YES I KNOW THINGS GET STREAKY SOMETIMES. SHUT UP, THESE ARE BASICS. GO FIND SOME COUNTING SUB REDDIT) So, get it? Expose less of you money when you're at a disadvantage and more when it's in your favor. Counting is the exact reverse of the casino model. You're eking out wins on a small marking, but unlike the casini, you can alter your betting and actions with this knowledge TL;DR. yes, blackjack is the a beatable game, but only if you're a card counter. P.s. baccarat. Yes, it is a coin flip. And yes, I've heard of a way to count it. Here the only situation I know of where it can be counted. At the beginning of the shoe, the dealer reveals the first card and burns that many cards. If you can keep track of the 10s in the shoe, and this count of remaining 10 in the deck is equal to burn cards plus the remaining cards in the deck after the cut card is pulled out, theoretically you could guarantee a tie bet, but I'd be willing that this is sore rare in practice, you're better off just studying something useful and getting a career change or a promotion. Sorry about the spelling, this is a long comment for a phone and my dog has been licking my face Edits: edited for grammar and spelling, as well as an expanded craps section because some random craps player thinks he knows what's going on and was confused. As always first reddit gold, thanks so much. Also, for people saying poker, pai-gow, video poker, craps! I try not to talk about thing I don't know much about, but here: 1. Poker is beatable if you're good.or with weak players. 2. No commission pai-gow that let's you bank every other hand is probably close to 50-50. Don't know for sure, check the math. 3. Apparently you can count baccarat, just got a link to look at. 4. Yes, some video poker offers an advantage. Google it 5. Yes, crops has some good bets. Pass with 10x odds is like .43% house edge or something stupid small. Still not 0 6. Advantage play tons of advanced techniques like shuffle tracking, hole tracking, taking advantage of weak delaers, sure that may make a game beatable. YMMV","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5936.0,"score_ratio":29.8359375} {"post_id":"4y9gz3","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why is Blackjack the only mathematically beatable game in casino?","c_root_id_A":"d6m2232","c_root_id_B":"d6m1p3r","created_at_utc_A":1471485630,"created_at_utc_B":1471485089,"score_A":801,"score_B":535,"human_ref_A":"Blackjack is the only game who's outcome is dependent upon past actions. Like, once an ace is played and discarded players know that ace is gone and won't be seen again. Keeping track of what cards have been played can give a player good prediction of what will come up. Knowing that they can adjust their bets so they win big when odds are good and loose little when odds are bad. Casinos fight against this by using multiple decks of cards, re-shuffling at random times, and good old intimidation. \"Card counting\" (the simple process of keeping track of what's been played and understanding current odds) mathematically gives a player a 0.5% advantage over the house. Some say it's as high as 1%, some say 0.1%. But, no matter what, it won't make you rich over night. To see a 0.5% advantage pay off you'll have to play a lot and over a significant amount of time. Those who did get rich with card counting did it with a team. And, don't forget, casinos can ask anyone to leave for no reason at all. If you're statistically winning more than you should, you may get a tap on your shoulder. So, mathematically, yes, you'll have an advantage in blackjack because it is a continuing, past dependent, outcome. But, in real life, you simply won't be allowed to sit at a table and take the Casino's money.","human_ref_B":"Blackjack is the only game where the odds change. You start with a known amount of, and type of cards. As you work through the deck, if you can keep track of which cards go through, you can estimate the odds of the coming cards. Other casino games start fresh every time.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":541.0,"score_ratio":1.4971962617} {"post_id":"4y9gz3","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why is Blackjack the only mathematically beatable game in casino?","c_root_id_A":"d6m1vmn","c_root_id_B":"d6m2232","created_at_utc_A":1471485360,"created_at_utc_B":1471485630,"score_A":128,"score_B":801,"human_ref_A":"I believe it's not mathematically beatable anymore in the vast majority of places. If you're referring to the days of \"Bringing Down the House\", i.e. the MIT students who beat blackjack, I do think that was a time when most major casinos didn't use several shoes and constantly shuffle the way they do now. To put it most simply, at the time, you could track cards and gain an edge after a certain number of cards were dealt. Frequently what would be done is to work in teams, have one player make small bets for a while and track the cards that came out during the time. Depending on if many face cards were or weren't dealt for a period, the big bettor could come in and start playing with a significant edge. And you'd have to be very discreet, because you could easily get kicked out if you were suspected of doing this. edit: It's come to my attention that it probably still IS mathematically beatable for a small edge in most places. Don't play online BJ though. That shit's the devil. Carry on.","human_ref_B":"Blackjack is the only game who's outcome is dependent upon past actions. Like, once an ace is played and discarded players know that ace is gone and won't be seen again. Keeping track of what cards have been played can give a player good prediction of what will come up. Knowing that they can adjust their bets so they win big when odds are good and loose little when odds are bad. Casinos fight against this by using multiple decks of cards, re-shuffling at random times, and good old intimidation. \"Card counting\" (the simple process of keeping track of what's been played and understanding current odds) mathematically gives a player a 0.5% advantage over the house. Some say it's as high as 1%, some say 0.1%. But, no matter what, it won't make you rich over night. To see a 0.5% advantage pay off you'll have to play a lot and over a significant amount of time. Those who did get rich with card counting did it with a team. And, don't forget, casinos can ask anyone to leave for no reason at all. If you're statistically winning more than you should, you may get a tap on your shoulder. So, mathematically, yes, you'll have an advantage in blackjack because it is a continuing, past dependent, outcome. But, in real life, you simply won't be allowed to sit at a table and take the Casino's money.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":270.0,"score_ratio":6.2578125} {"post_id":"4y9gz3","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why is Blackjack the only mathematically beatable game in casino?","c_root_id_A":"d6m1vmn","c_root_id_B":"d6m5jg3","created_at_utc_A":1471485360,"created_at_utc_B":1471491045,"score_A":128,"score_B":135,"human_ref_A":"I believe it's not mathematically beatable anymore in the vast majority of places. If you're referring to the days of \"Bringing Down the House\", i.e. the MIT students who beat blackjack, I do think that was a time when most major casinos didn't use several shoes and constantly shuffle the way they do now. To put it most simply, at the time, you could track cards and gain an edge after a certain number of cards were dealt. Frequently what would be done is to work in teams, have one player make small bets for a while and track the cards that came out during the time. Depending on if many face cards were or weren't dealt for a period, the big bettor could come in and start playing with a significant edge. And you'd have to be very discreet, because you could easily get kicked out if you were suspected of doing this. edit: It's come to my attention that it probably still IS mathematically beatable for a small edge in most places. Don't play online BJ though. That shit's the devil. Carry on.","human_ref_B":"Let me clear up some misconceptions in this thread. Credentials: Professional poker player in Las Vegas for 9 years. Not a card counter but know plenty who do (or did). 1) Perfect basic strategy without counting + good house rules gets you very close to 50% equity. It's over 49%. This is reduced significantly by bad house rules (ie pay 6:5 on blackjack). You cannot get over 50% without counting and properly adjusting your bets based on the odds for that hand. 2) Part of why you can beat blackjack is the \"history\" as has been mentioned. The other part is the ability to bet SIGNIFICANTLY more when you have an edge vs when you don't. Betting $10 many times as 49.8% dog, and then $50 or $100 a few times as a 54% favorite, will yield positive equity and thus profit in the long run. 3) Blackjack is still very beatable, but casinos have gotten much smarter over the years. The rules are generally worse and favor the house more than in years past. They're better at spotting counters and teams. I know a number of people who have made significant money (well into 6 figures) by counting, and have subsequently been banned or flat bet. It's a good way to make short-term money if you know what you're doing, but you need a significant bankroll as the swings can be enormous. 4) Assuming you're not counting, then other players playing correctly or incorrectly will NOT affect your equity. Someone hitting when they should stay is just as likely to help you as hurt you, so leave them alone and let them do as they please. Anyone saying otherwise does not understand statistics. EDIT TO ADD 5) Some comments have mentioned poker, sports betting, horse racing, and certain video poker \/ slots as other profitable opportunities if you know what you're doing. Poker is obviously true, as many people make their living playing poker. The key difference is that you play against other players and simply pay the casino a flat rate, so they don't care if you win. Literally thousands and probably tens of thousands of people around the world make their living playing poker, both in casinos and online. Sports betting is true, although it takes a lot of work and very good computer models to beat it. Also never, ever, ever pay for a tout service to give you picks. 100% of them are scams. Horse racing I'm honestly not sure about, as I know next to nothing about it. But I've been in Vegas a long time and have never met someone who is a professional horse bettor. Anecdotally, everyone in that section of the sports book looks like a degenerate (or someone just having fun on vacation). But maybe? If anyone knows more I'd like to hear. Video poker \/ slots is also true under certain circumstances. Some of the progressive jackpot slots can actually be pretty lucrative when the jackpot gets big enough, but it's an enormous time sink and requires an enormous bankroll. I know people that have tried to take advantage, and they give up after not too long. The edge on profitable video poker machines is small and you're not going to make any significant money grinding those. Minimum wage maybe. People who are VERY good at heads up limit holdem can beat the poker machines (NOT video poker, but actual poker played against an AI). The AI is awfully good though, and will absolutely obliterate a random tourist. They put these things outside of poker rooms and they must absolutely print money on them to an absurd degree.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5685.0,"score_ratio":1.0546875} {"post_id":"bkau81","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How do series like Planet Earth capture footage of things like the inside of ant hills, or sharks feeding off of a dead whale? Partially I\u2019m wondering the physical aspect of how they fit in these places or get close enough to dangerous situations to film them; and partially I\u2019m wondering how they seem to be in the right place at the right time to catch things like a dead whale sinking down into the ocean? What are the odds they\u2019d be there to capture that and how much time do they spend waiting for these types of things?","c_root_id_A":"emfbd9q","c_root_id_B":"emfj5lf","created_at_utc_A":1556904606,"created_at_utc_B":1556909831,"score_A":69,"score_B":1396,"human_ref_A":"The odds of finding something interesting to film are good if you're filming with multiple crews over span of years. And as with any film, the sequence the audience sees the scenes are not necessarily the sequence that the actors (animals) actually performed. Since people are bad at distinguishing animals traits, the actors themselves don't even have to be the same from scene to scene.","human_ref_B":"Videos like these they compiled from thousands of hour of footage over a long time. Planet Earth took 5 years to make. A camera person could be set up in a location recording several days worth of footage of nothing but trees before finally getting the 10 second clip of a moose walking by. Then they'll typically follow the animal several days. Theres not much of a difference in skill\/dedication between a scout sniper and a wildlife photographer, other than one shoots with a gun the other shoots with a camera.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5225.0,"score_ratio":20.231884058} {"post_id":"bkau81","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How do series like Planet Earth capture footage of things like the inside of ant hills, or sharks feeding off of a dead whale? Partially I\u2019m wondering the physical aspect of how they fit in these places or get close enough to dangerous situations to film them; and partially I\u2019m wondering how they seem to be in the right place at the right time to catch things like a dead whale sinking down into the ocean? What are the odds they\u2019d be there to capture that and how much time do they spend waiting for these types of things?","c_root_id_A":"emfj5lf","c_root_id_B":"emff53k","created_at_utc_A":1556909831,"created_at_utc_B":1556907153,"score_A":1396,"score_B":63,"human_ref_A":"Videos like these they compiled from thousands of hour of footage over a long time. Planet Earth took 5 years to make. A camera person could be set up in a location recording several days worth of footage of nothing but trees before finally getting the 10 second clip of a moose walking by. Then they'll typically follow the animal several days. Theres not much of a difference in skill\/dedication between a scout sniper and a wildlife photographer, other than one shoots with a gun the other shoots with a camera.","human_ref_B":"Some of the dead whale scenes they were able to capture because they followed a whale that beached itself, died, and was dragged to open water so it didn't rot on the beach.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2678.0,"score_ratio":22.1587301587} {"post_id":"bkau81","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How do series like Planet Earth capture footage of things like the inside of ant hills, or sharks feeding off of a dead whale? Partially I\u2019m wondering the physical aspect of how they fit in these places or get close enough to dangerous situations to film them; and partially I\u2019m wondering how they seem to be in the right place at the right time to catch things like a dead whale sinking down into the ocean? What are the odds they\u2019d be there to capture that and how much time do they spend waiting for these types of things?","c_root_id_A":"emfjgwf","c_root_id_B":"emfbd9q","created_at_utc_A":1556910035,"created_at_utc_B":1556904606,"score_A":1314,"score_B":69,"human_ref_A":"The snow leopard scene in Planet Earth was THREE years of trying to film it. After only getting about an hours worth of filming the animal asleep, and just as they decided to give up, they captured the hunt scene that made in the show.","human_ref_B":"The odds of finding something interesting to film are good if you're filming with multiple crews over span of years. And as with any film, the sequence the audience sees the scenes are not necessarily the sequence that the actors (animals) actually performed. Since people are bad at distinguishing animals traits, the actors themselves don't even have to be the same from scene to scene.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5429.0,"score_ratio":19.0434782609} {"post_id":"bkau81","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How do series like Planet Earth capture footage of things like the inside of ant hills, or sharks feeding off of a dead whale? Partially I\u2019m wondering the physical aspect of how they fit in these places or get close enough to dangerous situations to film them; and partially I\u2019m wondering how they seem to be in the right place at the right time to catch things like a dead whale sinking down into the ocean? What are the odds they\u2019d be there to capture that and how much time do they spend waiting for these types of things?","c_root_id_A":"emfjgwf","c_root_id_B":"emff53k","created_at_utc_A":1556910035,"created_at_utc_B":1556907153,"score_A":1314,"score_B":63,"human_ref_A":"The snow leopard scene in Planet Earth was THREE years of trying to film it. After only getting about an hours worth of filming the animal asleep, and just as they decided to give up, they captured the hunt scene that made in the show.","human_ref_B":"Some of the dead whale scenes they were able to capture because they followed a whale that beached itself, died, and was dragged to open water so it didn't rot on the beach.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2882.0,"score_ratio":20.8571428571} {"post_id":"bkau81","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How do series like Planet Earth capture footage of things like the inside of ant hills, or sharks feeding off of a dead whale? Partially I\u2019m wondering the physical aspect of how they fit in these places or get close enough to dangerous situations to film them; and partially I\u2019m wondering how they seem to be in the right place at the right time to catch things like a dead whale sinking down into the ocean? What are the odds they\u2019d be there to capture that and how much time do they spend waiting for these types of things?","c_root_id_A":"emfbd9q","c_root_id_B":"emflrwx","created_at_utc_A":1556904606,"created_at_utc_B":1556911512,"score_A":69,"score_B":358,"human_ref_A":"The odds of finding something interesting to film are good if you're filming with multiple crews over span of years. And as with any film, the sequence the audience sees the scenes are not necessarily the sequence that the actors (animals) actually performed. Since people are bad at distinguishing animals traits, the actors themselves don't even have to be the same from scene to scene.","human_ref_B":"Can someone answer OPs question about they film inside ant hills?? Thats question ive wondered forever just never asked","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6906.0,"score_ratio":5.1884057971} {"post_id":"bkau81","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How do series like Planet Earth capture footage of things like the inside of ant hills, or sharks feeding off of a dead whale? Partially I\u2019m wondering the physical aspect of how they fit in these places or get close enough to dangerous situations to film them; and partially I\u2019m wondering how they seem to be in the right place at the right time to catch things like a dead whale sinking down into the ocean? What are the odds they\u2019d be there to capture that and how much time do they spend waiting for these types of things?","c_root_id_A":"emflrwx","c_root_id_B":"emff53k","created_at_utc_A":1556911512,"created_at_utc_B":1556907153,"score_A":358,"score_B":63,"human_ref_A":"Can someone answer OPs question about they film inside ant hills?? Thats question ive wondered forever just never asked","human_ref_B":"Some of the dead whale scenes they were able to capture because they followed a whale that beached itself, died, and was dragged to open water so it didn't rot on the beach.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4359.0,"score_ratio":5.6825396825} {"post_id":"bkau81","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How do series like Planet Earth capture footage of things like the inside of ant hills, or sharks feeding off of a dead whale? Partially I\u2019m wondering the physical aspect of how they fit in these places or get close enough to dangerous situations to film them; and partially I\u2019m wondering how they seem to be in the right place at the right time to catch things like a dead whale sinking down into the ocean? What are the odds they\u2019d be there to capture that and how much time do they spend waiting for these types of things?","c_root_id_A":"emflrwx","c_root_id_B":"emfke49","created_at_utc_A":1556911512,"created_at_utc_B":1556910634,"score_A":358,"score_B":53,"human_ref_A":"Can someone answer OPs question about they film inside ant hills?? Thats question ive wondered forever just never asked","human_ref_B":"A lot of the shots are also shot with specific lenses on extremely expensive cameras, they might be 500 feet away from something and just zoom in to make it seem like it's right in front of them, they even attach them to drones to get the magic shots","labels":1,"seconds_difference":878.0,"score_ratio":6.7547169811} {"post_id":"bkau81","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How do series like Planet Earth capture footage of things like the inside of ant hills, or sharks feeding off of a dead whale? Partially I\u2019m wondering the physical aspect of how they fit in these places or get close enough to dangerous situations to film them; and partially I\u2019m wondering how they seem to be in the right place at the right time to catch things like a dead whale sinking down into the ocean? What are the odds they\u2019d be there to capture that and how much time do they spend waiting for these types of things?","c_root_id_A":"emforsl","c_root_id_B":"emfbd9q","created_at_utc_A":1556913446,"created_at_utc_B":1556904606,"score_A":309,"score_B":69,"human_ref_A":"I always think of this video. In regards to the part of your question about how they film the sharks eating the whale carcass; they drug the carcass out to sea after it washed up on a beach and a photographer actually climbed on top of it and filmed while the sharks feasted on it.","human_ref_B":"The odds of finding something interesting to film are good if you're filming with multiple crews over span of years. And as with any film, the sequence the audience sees the scenes are not necessarily the sequence that the actors (animals) actually performed. Since people are bad at distinguishing animals traits, the actors themselves don't even have to be the same from scene to scene.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8840.0,"score_ratio":4.4782608696} {"post_id":"bkau81","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How do series like Planet Earth capture footage of things like the inside of ant hills, or sharks feeding off of a dead whale? Partially I\u2019m wondering the physical aspect of how they fit in these places or get close enough to dangerous situations to film them; and partially I\u2019m wondering how they seem to be in the right place at the right time to catch things like a dead whale sinking down into the ocean? What are the odds they\u2019d be there to capture that and how much time do they spend waiting for these types of things?","c_root_id_A":"emforsl","c_root_id_B":"emff53k","created_at_utc_A":1556913446,"created_at_utc_B":1556907153,"score_A":309,"score_B":63,"human_ref_A":"I always think of this video. In regards to the part of your question about how they film the sharks eating the whale carcass; they drug the carcass out to sea after it washed up on a beach and a photographer actually climbed on top of it and filmed while the sharks feasted on it.","human_ref_B":"Some of the dead whale scenes they were able to capture because they followed a whale that beached itself, died, and was dragged to open water so it didn't rot on the beach.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6293.0,"score_ratio":4.9047619048} {"post_id":"bkau81","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How do series like Planet Earth capture footage of things like the inside of ant hills, or sharks feeding off of a dead whale? Partially I\u2019m wondering the physical aspect of how they fit in these places or get close enough to dangerous situations to film them; and partially I\u2019m wondering how they seem to be in the right place at the right time to catch things like a dead whale sinking down into the ocean? What are the odds they\u2019d be there to capture that and how much time do they spend waiting for these types of things?","c_root_id_A":"emforsl","c_root_id_B":"emfke49","created_at_utc_A":1556913446,"created_at_utc_B":1556910634,"score_A":309,"score_B":53,"human_ref_A":"I always think of this video. In regards to the part of your question about how they film the sharks eating the whale carcass; they drug the carcass out to sea after it washed up on a beach and a photographer actually climbed on top of it and filmed while the sharks feasted on it.","human_ref_B":"A lot of the shots are also shot with specific lenses on extremely expensive cameras, they might be 500 feet away from something and just zoom in to make it seem like it's right in front of them, they even attach them to drones to get the magic shots","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2812.0,"score_ratio":5.8301886792} {"post_id":"bkau81","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How do series like Planet Earth capture footage of things like the inside of ant hills, or sharks feeding off of a dead whale? Partially I\u2019m wondering the physical aspect of how they fit in these places or get close enough to dangerous situations to film them; and partially I\u2019m wondering how they seem to be in the right place at the right time to catch things like a dead whale sinking down into the ocean? What are the odds they\u2019d be there to capture that and how much time do they spend waiting for these types of things?","c_root_id_A":"emfta35","c_root_id_B":"emfbd9q","created_at_utc_A":1556916468,"created_at_utc_B":1556904606,"score_A":96,"score_B":69,"human_ref_A":"The recent Attenborough series has a bonus episode where they take you behind the scenes of some of the shots. I believe it was called \"our planet\". It may help answer some of your questions, for example it took 2 people living in a shed for the winter 3 years to capture just 25 secs of footage of this super rare tiger.","human_ref_B":"The odds of finding something interesting to film are good if you're filming with multiple crews over span of years. And as with any film, the sequence the audience sees the scenes are not necessarily the sequence that the actors (animals) actually performed. Since people are bad at distinguishing animals traits, the actors themselves don't even have to be the same from scene to scene.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":11862.0,"score_ratio":1.3913043478} {"post_id":"bkau81","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How do series like Planet Earth capture footage of things like the inside of ant hills, or sharks feeding off of a dead whale? Partially I\u2019m wondering the physical aspect of how they fit in these places or get close enough to dangerous situations to film them; and partially I\u2019m wondering how they seem to be in the right place at the right time to catch things like a dead whale sinking down into the ocean? What are the odds they\u2019d be there to capture that and how much time do they spend waiting for these types of things?","c_root_id_A":"emfta35","c_root_id_B":"emff53k","created_at_utc_A":1556916468,"created_at_utc_B":1556907153,"score_A":96,"score_B":63,"human_ref_A":"The recent Attenborough series has a bonus episode where they take you behind the scenes of some of the shots. I believe it was called \"our planet\". It may help answer some of your questions, for example it took 2 people living in a shed for the winter 3 years to capture just 25 secs of footage of this super rare tiger.","human_ref_B":"Some of the dead whale scenes they were able to capture because they followed a whale that beached itself, died, and was dragged to open water so it didn't rot on the beach.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9315.0,"score_ratio":1.5238095238} {"post_id":"bkau81","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How do series like Planet Earth capture footage of things like the inside of ant hills, or sharks feeding off of a dead whale? Partially I\u2019m wondering the physical aspect of how they fit in these places or get close enough to dangerous situations to film them; and partially I\u2019m wondering how they seem to be in the right place at the right time to catch things like a dead whale sinking down into the ocean? What are the odds they\u2019d be there to capture that and how much time do they spend waiting for these types of things?","c_root_id_A":"emfta35","c_root_id_B":"emfke49","created_at_utc_A":1556916468,"created_at_utc_B":1556910634,"score_A":96,"score_B":53,"human_ref_A":"The recent Attenborough series has a bonus episode where they take you behind the scenes of some of the shots. I believe it was called \"our planet\". It may help answer some of your questions, for example it took 2 people living in a shed for the winter 3 years to capture just 25 secs of footage of this super rare tiger.","human_ref_B":"A lot of the shots are also shot with specific lenses on extremely expensive cameras, they might be 500 feet away from something and just zoom in to make it seem like it's right in front of them, they even attach them to drones to get the magic shots","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5834.0,"score_ratio":1.8113207547} {"post_id":"bbn0rw","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why is honey dangerous to toddlers and infants?","c_root_id_A":"ekkof2z","c_root_id_B":"ekkjksw","created_at_utc_A":1554926889,"created_at_utc_B":1554924013,"score_A":283,"score_B":274,"human_ref_A":"...I've never even heard of this (not giving honey to toddlers). ...and I might have a child within the next few years. SMH. ​ Anyone know some other info i might need to know like this?","human_ref_B":"Just to note - it\u2019s an issue for babies up to the age of 1, so not really a problem for toddlers in general (although some babies may be toddling at 12 months). Once they are over 12 months it is considered safe. In babies under 1, the worry is the possible presence of botulinum toxin, which can cause paralysis. In older children and adults this can be defeated by the bodies natural defences so it becomes much less dangerous at that point. In adults the same toxin is used in cosmetics (Botox).","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2876.0,"score_ratio":1.0328467153} {"post_id":"76buzj","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why is tupperware wet coming out of the dishwasher, when plates and glasses are all dry?","c_root_id_A":"docui0w","c_root_id_B":"doddrwt","created_at_utc_A":1507989772,"created_at_utc_B":1508014934,"score_A":93,"score_B":180,"human_ref_A":"Aside from the thermodynamic properties of Tupperware vs ceramic (i.e. heat capacity), the molecules that make up Tupperware are probably more polar than those of ceramic (they\u2019re \u201cstickier\u201d and are better able to hold a similarly polar molecule like water).","human_ref_B":"I know others are talking about heat capacity and stuff, but in my dishwasher everything that's flat gets dry; everything that's curved somehow does not. For example, I put my ceramic coffee mugs into the rack upside down, and the bottoms, which are slightly concave, are still wet when I pull them out. My ceramic plates I put it on edge and are dry. My tubberware, like my coffee mugs, aren't edge down, and the water catches in the nooks and crannies in the same way. The shape of an edge-down dish or flat surface allows the water to spread out, which gives it more surface area to evaporate or plain drip off. When there's a curve to catch water, like the lip under a tubberware edge, the water can \"pile up\" on top of itself, so it takes many times longer to evaporate. At least in my dishwasher, those are the areas where water accumulates for me, regardless of the dish's material. Edit: If we're going to talk heat capacities, water has the highest heat capacity of any of these materials by a considerable margin, so merely the surface-to-surface contact of water with a dish, whether plastic or glass or ceramic, isn't going to mean as much if the water is stacked up in a groove insulating itself. The surface area:volume should be the greatest factor, imo. The small difference in time the water's contact layer is exposed to a glass's higher temperature before plastic reaches about the same temperature will play a minimal role in comparison. But that's just my speculation. It'd be interesting to put a plastic plate into a dishwasher, with the same shape as a ceramic\/glass plate, and see. My speculation is all 3 would be dry.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":25162.0,"score_ratio":1.935483871} {"post_id":"76buzj","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why is tupperware wet coming out of the dishwasher, when plates and glasses are all dry?","c_root_id_A":"dod0lza","c_root_id_B":"doddrwt","created_at_utc_A":1507998322,"created_at_utc_B":1508014934,"score_A":54,"score_B":180,"human_ref_A":"Tupperware\u2019s shape has a lot of ridges and \u2018pockets\u2019 around the containers lip that collect puddles of water. (when the Tupperware is upside down) That combined with its low specific heat cause it to still be wet when the dry cycle is complete.","human_ref_B":"I know others are talking about heat capacity and stuff, but in my dishwasher everything that's flat gets dry; everything that's curved somehow does not. For example, I put my ceramic coffee mugs into the rack upside down, and the bottoms, which are slightly concave, are still wet when I pull them out. My ceramic plates I put it on edge and are dry. My tubberware, like my coffee mugs, aren't edge down, and the water catches in the nooks and crannies in the same way. The shape of an edge-down dish or flat surface allows the water to spread out, which gives it more surface area to evaporate or plain drip off. When there's a curve to catch water, like the lip under a tubberware edge, the water can \"pile up\" on top of itself, so it takes many times longer to evaporate. At least in my dishwasher, those are the areas where water accumulates for me, regardless of the dish's material. Edit: If we're going to talk heat capacities, water has the highest heat capacity of any of these materials by a considerable margin, so merely the surface-to-surface contact of water with a dish, whether plastic or glass or ceramic, isn't going to mean as much if the water is stacked up in a groove insulating itself. The surface area:volume should be the greatest factor, imo. The small difference in time the water's contact layer is exposed to a glass's higher temperature before plastic reaches about the same temperature will play a minimal role in comparison. But that's just my speculation. It'd be interesting to put a plastic plate into a dishwasher, with the same shape as a ceramic\/glass plate, and see. My speculation is all 3 would be dry.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":16612.0,"score_ratio":3.3333333333} {"post_id":"76buzj","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why is tupperware wet coming out of the dishwasher, when plates and glasses are all dry?","c_root_id_A":"doddrwt","c_root_id_B":"dod18ts","created_at_utc_A":1508014934,"created_at_utc_B":1507999134,"score_A":180,"score_B":37,"human_ref_A":"I know others are talking about heat capacity and stuff, but in my dishwasher everything that's flat gets dry; everything that's curved somehow does not. For example, I put my ceramic coffee mugs into the rack upside down, and the bottoms, which are slightly concave, are still wet when I pull them out. My ceramic plates I put it on edge and are dry. My tubberware, like my coffee mugs, aren't edge down, and the water catches in the nooks and crannies in the same way. The shape of an edge-down dish or flat surface allows the water to spread out, which gives it more surface area to evaporate or plain drip off. When there's a curve to catch water, like the lip under a tubberware edge, the water can \"pile up\" on top of itself, so it takes many times longer to evaporate. At least in my dishwasher, those are the areas where water accumulates for me, regardless of the dish's material. Edit: If we're going to talk heat capacities, water has the highest heat capacity of any of these materials by a considerable margin, so merely the surface-to-surface contact of water with a dish, whether plastic or glass or ceramic, isn't going to mean as much if the water is stacked up in a groove insulating itself. The surface area:volume should be the greatest factor, imo. The small difference in time the water's contact layer is exposed to a glass's higher temperature before plastic reaches about the same temperature will play a minimal role in comparison. But that's just my speculation. It'd be interesting to put a plastic plate into a dishwasher, with the same shape as a ceramic\/glass plate, and see. My speculation is all 3 would be dry.","human_ref_B":"Likely there is also an issue with surface tension and wetting of the material. Ceramic and glass have similar wetting (i.e. the contacting angle is small) so they will tend to 1) have more surface area expose per unit mass so evaporate better, and 2) be more likely to bead and slip off the material due to less frictional area for the same unit mass. Plastics have a larger wetting angle which means less surface area is exposed for evaporation and water will be less mobile on the surface.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":15800.0,"score_ratio":4.8648648649} {"post_id":"76buzj","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why is tupperware wet coming out of the dishwasher, when plates and glasses are all dry?","c_root_id_A":"doddrwt","c_root_id_B":"doda1ab","created_at_utc_A":1508014934,"created_at_utc_B":1508010252,"score_A":180,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"I know others are talking about heat capacity and stuff, but in my dishwasher everything that's flat gets dry; everything that's curved somehow does not. For example, I put my ceramic coffee mugs into the rack upside down, and the bottoms, which are slightly concave, are still wet when I pull them out. My ceramic plates I put it on edge and are dry. My tubberware, like my coffee mugs, aren't edge down, and the water catches in the nooks and crannies in the same way. The shape of an edge-down dish or flat surface allows the water to spread out, which gives it more surface area to evaporate or plain drip off. When there's a curve to catch water, like the lip under a tubberware edge, the water can \"pile up\" on top of itself, so it takes many times longer to evaporate. At least in my dishwasher, those are the areas where water accumulates for me, regardless of the dish's material. Edit: If we're going to talk heat capacities, water has the highest heat capacity of any of these materials by a considerable margin, so merely the surface-to-surface contact of water with a dish, whether plastic or glass or ceramic, isn't going to mean as much if the water is stacked up in a groove insulating itself. The surface area:volume should be the greatest factor, imo. The small difference in time the water's contact layer is exposed to a glass's higher temperature before plastic reaches about the same temperature will play a minimal role in comparison. But that's just my speculation. It'd be interesting to put a plastic plate into a dishwasher, with the same shape as a ceramic\/glass plate, and see. My speculation is all 3 would be dry.","human_ref_B":"For water to evaporate it needs to get really hot, during the drying cycle the dishwasher makes the air inside of it hot to make the water on the dishes evaporate. During washing plates and glasses get really hot because they heat up easily from the hot water, tupperware doesn't heat up easily so it doesn't get as hot. The hotter the dishes are during the drying cycle the hotter the water on the surface of the dish, the more easily the water can evaporate with hot air inside the dishwasher.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4682.0,"score_ratio":12.8571428571} {"post_id":"76buzj","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why is tupperware wet coming out of the dishwasher, when plates and glasses are all dry?","c_root_id_A":"dod2c1r","c_root_id_B":"doddrwt","created_at_utc_A":1508000512,"created_at_utc_B":1508014934,"score_A":10,"score_B":180,"human_ref_A":"It has to do with thermal mass. The glass and ceramic have the ability to hold onto, and release, heat slowly. Once hot, they release heat over time. This aids in the ability for them to help evaporate water in the dishwasher during the dry cycle. Plastic, on the other hand, is a poor heat conductor beacuse of its low thermal mass. Once heated by the air in the dishwasher, the plastic is fine. Once the air starts to cool, the plastic easily gives up it's stored heat. Since the plastic doesn't retain heat, any water on the surface tends to stay there because it doesn't evaporate.","human_ref_B":"I know others are talking about heat capacity and stuff, but in my dishwasher everything that's flat gets dry; everything that's curved somehow does not. For example, I put my ceramic coffee mugs into the rack upside down, and the bottoms, which are slightly concave, are still wet when I pull them out. My ceramic plates I put it on edge and are dry. My tubberware, like my coffee mugs, aren't edge down, and the water catches in the nooks and crannies in the same way. The shape of an edge-down dish or flat surface allows the water to spread out, which gives it more surface area to evaporate or plain drip off. When there's a curve to catch water, like the lip under a tubberware edge, the water can \"pile up\" on top of itself, so it takes many times longer to evaporate. At least in my dishwasher, those are the areas where water accumulates for me, regardless of the dish's material. Edit: If we're going to talk heat capacities, water has the highest heat capacity of any of these materials by a considerable margin, so merely the surface-to-surface contact of water with a dish, whether plastic or glass or ceramic, isn't going to mean as much if the water is stacked up in a groove insulating itself. The surface area:volume should be the greatest factor, imo. The small difference in time the water's contact layer is exposed to a glass's higher temperature before plastic reaches about the same temperature will play a minimal role in comparison. But that's just my speculation. It'd be interesting to put a plastic plate into a dishwasher, with the same shape as a ceramic\/glass plate, and see. My speculation is all 3 would be dry.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":14422.0,"score_ratio":18.0} {"post_id":"76buzj","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why is tupperware wet coming out of the dishwasher, when plates and glasses are all dry?","c_root_id_A":"doddrwt","c_root_id_B":"docz5eh","created_at_utc_A":1508014934,"created_at_utc_B":1507996443,"score_A":180,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"I know others are talking about heat capacity and stuff, but in my dishwasher everything that's flat gets dry; everything that's curved somehow does not. For example, I put my ceramic coffee mugs into the rack upside down, and the bottoms, which are slightly concave, are still wet when I pull them out. My ceramic plates I put it on edge and are dry. My tubberware, like my coffee mugs, aren't edge down, and the water catches in the nooks and crannies in the same way. The shape of an edge-down dish or flat surface allows the water to spread out, which gives it more surface area to evaporate or plain drip off. When there's a curve to catch water, like the lip under a tubberware edge, the water can \"pile up\" on top of itself, so it takes many times longer to evaporate. At least in my dishwasher, those are the areas where water accumulates for me, regardless of the dish's material. Edit: If we're going to talk heat capacities, water has the highest heat capacity of any of these materials by a considerable margin, so merely the surface-to-surface contact of water with a dish, whether plastic or glass or ceramic, isn't going to mean as much if the water is stacked up in a groove insulating itself. The surface area:volume should be the greatest factor, imo. The small difference in time the water's contact layer is exposed to a glass's higher temperature before plastic reaches about the same temperature will play a minimal role in comparison. But that's just my speculation. It'd be interesting to put a plastic plate into a dishwasher, with the same shape as a ceramic\/glass plate, and see. My speculation is all 3 would be dry.","human_ref_B":"Quite simple when you think about one thing - mass. Plates and glasses have more mass, so retain heat for longer, meaning the surface water has a better chance of evaporating. Tupperware, on the other hand, has less mass so doesn't retain heat as well, so ends up cooling down before the water evaporates.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":18491.0,"score_ratio":25.7142857143} {"post_id":"76buzj","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why is tupperware wet coming out of the dishwasher, when plates and glasses are all dry?","c_root_id_A":"dod0lza","c_root_id_B":"dodeg27","created_at_utc_A":1507998322,"created_at_utc_B":1508015796,"score_A":54,"score_B":76,"human_ref_A":"Tupperware\u2019s shape has a lot of ridges and \u2018pockets\u2019 around the containers lip that collect puddles of water. (when the Tupperware is upside down) That combined with its low specific heat cause it to still be wet when the dry cycle is complete.","human_ref_B":"Lots of good answers already. Stainless steel tub dishwashers don't generally use a heating element to dry. The steel walls cool faster than ceramics, pots and glass and the water is naturally condensed on the walls and drained. Because it has a lower heat conductivity the plastic loses heat faster than the walls of the tub and doesn't allow for the convection drying to happen. Also don't buy a dishwasher that pops it's own door open when finished unless it's installed directly under stone. It will ruin your cabinets. Source: I sell this shit everyday","labels":0,"seconds_difference":17474.0,"score_ratio":1.4074074074} {"post_id":"76buzj","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why is tupperware wet coming out of the dishwasher, when plates and glasses are all dry?","c_root_id_A":"dodeg27","c_root_id_B":"dod18ts","created_at_utc_A":1508015796,"created_at_utc_B":1507999134,"score_A":76,"score_B":37,"human_ref_A":"Lots of good answers already. Stainless steel tub dishwashers don't generally use a heating element to dry. The steel walls cool faster than ceramics, pots and glass and the water is naturally condensed on the walls and drained. Because it has a lower heat conductivity the plastic loses heat faster than the walls of the tub and doesn't allow for the convection drying to happen. Also don't buy a dishwasher that pops it's own door open when finished unless it's installed directly under stone. It will ruin your cabinets. Source: I sell this shit everyday","human_ref_B":"Likely there is also an issue with surface tension and wetting of the material. Ceramic and glass have similar wetting (i.e. the contacting angle is small) so they will tend to 1) have more surface area expose per unit mass so evaporate better, and 2) be more likely to bead and slip off the material due to less frictional area for the same unit mass. Plastics have a larger wetting angle which means less surface area is exposed for evaporation and water will be less mobile on the surface.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":16662.0,"score_ratio":2.0540540541} {"post_id":"76buzj","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why is tupperware wet coming out of the dishwasher, when plates and glasses are all dry?","c_root_id_A":"doda1ab","c_root_id_B":"dodeg27","created_at_utc_A":1508010252,"created_at_utc_B":1508015796,"score_A":14,"score_B":76,"human_ref_A":"For water to evaporate it needs to get really hot, during the drying cycle the dishwasher makes the air inside of it hot to make the water on the dishes evaporate. During washing plates and glasses get really hot because they heat up easily from the hot water, tupperware doesn't heat up easily so it doesn't get as hot. The hotter the dishes are during the drying cycle the hotter the water on the surface of the dish, the more easily the water can evaporate with hot air inside the dishwasher.","human_ref_B":"Lots of good answers already. Stainless steel tub dishwashers don't generally use a heating element to dry. The steel walls cool faster than ceramics, pots and glass and the water is naturally condensed on the walls and drained. Because it has a lower heat conductivity the plastic loses heat faster than the walls of the tub and doesn't allow for the convection drying to happen. Also don't buy a dishwasher that pops it's own door open when finished unless it's installed directly under stone. It will ruin your cabinets. Source: I sell this shit everyday","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5544.0,"score_ratio":5.4285714286} {"post_id":"76buzj","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why is tupperware wet coming out of the dishwasher, when plates and glasses are all dry?","c_root_id_A":"dodeg27","c_root_id_B":"dod2c1r","created_at_utc_A":1508015796,"created_at_utc_B":1508000512,"score_A":76,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"Lots of good answers already. Stainless steel tub dishwashers don't generally use a heating element to dry. The steel walls cool faster than ceramics, pots and glass and the water is naturally condensed on the walls and drained. Because it has a lower heat conductivity the plastic loses heat faster than the walls of the tub and doesn't allow for the convection drying to happen. Also don't buy a dishwasher that pops it's own door open when finished unless it's installed directly under stone. It will ruin your cabinets. Source: I sell this shit everyday","human_ref_B":"It has to do with thermal mass. The glass and ceramic have the ability to hold onto, and release, heat slowly. Once hot, they release heat over time. This aids in the ability for them to help evaporate water in the dishwasher during the dry cycle. Plastic, on the other hand, is a poor heat conductor beacuse of its low thermal mass. Once heated by the air in the dishwasher, the plastic is fine. Once the air starts to cool, the plastic easily gives up it's stored heat. Since the plastic doesn't retain heat, any water on the surface tends to stay there because it doesn't evaporate.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":15284.0,"score_ratio":7.6} {"post_id":"76buzj","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why is tupperware wet coming out of the dishwasher, when plates and glasses are all dry?","c_root_id_A":"dodeg27","c_root_id_B":"docz5eh","created_at_utc_A":1508015796,"created_at_utc_B":1507996443,"score_A":76,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Lots of good answers already. Stainless steel tub dishwashers don't generally use a heating element to dry. The steel walls cool faster than ceramics, pots and glass and the water is naturally condensed on the walls and drained. Because it has a lower heat conductivity the plastic loses heat faster than the walls of the tub and doesn't allow for the convection drying to happen. Also don't buy a dishwasher that pops it's own door open when finished unless it's installed directly under stone. It will ruin your cabinets. Source: I sell this shit everyday","human_ref_B":"Quite simple when you think about one thing - mass. Plates and glasses have more mass, so retain heat for longer, meaning the surface water has a better chance of evaporating. Tupperware, on the other hand, has less mass so doesn't retain heat as well, so ends up cooling down before the water evaporates.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":19353.0,"score_ratio":10.8571428571} {"post_id":"76buzj","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why is tupperware wet coming out of the dishwasher, when plates and glasses are all dry?","c_root_id_A":"dod0lza","c_root_id_B":"docz5eh","created_at_utc_A":1507998322,"created_at_utc_B":1507996443,"score_A":54,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Tupperware\u2019s shape has a lot of ridges and \u2018pockets\u2019 around the containers lip that collect puddles of water. (when the Tupperware is upside down) That combined with its low specific heat cause it to still be wet when the dry cycle is complete.","human_ref_B":"Quite simple when you think about one thing - mass. Plates and glasses have more mass, so retain heat for longer, meaning the surface water has a better chance of evaporating. Tupperware, on the other hand, has less mass so doesn't retain heat as well, so ends up cooling down before the water evaporates.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1879.0,"score_ratio":7.7142857143} {"post_id":"76buzj","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why is tupperware wet coming out of the dishwasher, when plates and glasses are all dry?","c_root_id_A":"docz5eh","c_root_id_B":"dod18ts","created_at_utc_A":1507996443,"created_at_utc_B":1507999134,"score_A":7,"score_B":37,"human_ref_A":"Quite simple when you think about one thing - mass. Plates and glasses have more mass, so retain heat for longer, meaning the surface water has a better chance of evaporating. Tupperware, on the other hand, has less mass so doesn't retain heat as well, so ends up cooling down before the water evaporates.","human_ref_B":"Likely there is also an issue with surface tension and wetting of the material. Ceramic and glass have similar wetting (i.e. the contacting angle is small) so they will tend to 1) have more surface area expose per unit mass so evaporate better, and 2) be more likely to bead and slip off the material due to less frictional area for the same unit mass. Plastics have a larger wetting angle which means less surface area is exposed for evaporation and water will be less mobile on the surface.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2691.0,"score_ratio":5.2857142857} {"post_id":"76buzj","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why is tupperware wet coming out of the dishwasher, when plates and glasses are all dry?","c_root_id_A":"dodgtjh","c_root_id_B":"dod2c1r","created_at_utc_A":1508018866,"created_at_utc_B":1508000512,"score_A":14,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"Specific heat isn't going to do anything noticeable about evaporating water out of the dishwasher like most people are commenting. Everything gets to be the same temp so specific heat and heat capacity won't really matter. Plastic is hydrophobic so water beads on the surface, while glass and ceramics are hydrophilic so water beads much smaller. Water evaporates faster when in smaller beads because it has more surface area. Next time you do dishes don't have the dry cycle on and look at the dishes right away. The plates and glasses are covered in a thin sheet of water while plastics are covered in large beads.","human_ref_B":"It has to do with thermal mass. The glass and ceramic have the ability to hold onto, and release, heat slowly. Once hot, they release heat over time. This aids in the ability for them to help evaporate water in the dishwasher during the dry cycle. Plastic, on the other hand, is a poor heat conductor beacuse of its low thermal mass. Once heated by the air in the dishwasher, the plastic is fine. Once the air starts to cool, the plastic easily gives up it's stored heat. Since the plastic doesn't retain heat, any water on the surface tends to stay there because it doesn't evaporate.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":18354.0,"score_ratio":1.4} {"post_id":"76buzj","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why is tupperware wet coming out of the dishwasher, when plates and glasses are all dry?","c_root_id_A":"dodgtjh","c_root_id_B":"docz5eh","created_at_utc_A":1508018866,"created_at_utc_B":1507996443,"score_A":14,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Specific heat isn't going to do anything noticeable about evaporating water out of the dishwasher like most people are commenting. Everything gets to be the same temp so specific heat and heat capacity won't really matter. Plastic is hydrophobic so water beads on the surface, while glass and ceramics are hydrophilic so water beads much smaller. Water evaporates faster when in smaller beads because it has more surface area. Next time you do dishes don't have the dry cycle on and look at the dishes right away. The plates and glasses are covered in a thin sheet of water while plastics are covered in large beads.","human_ref_B":"Quite simple when you think about one thing - mass. Plates and glasses have more mass, so retain heat for longer, meaning the surface water has a better chance of evaporating. Tupperware, on the other hand, has less mass so doesn't retain heat as well, so ends up cooling down before the water evaporates.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":22423.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"76buzj","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why is tupperware wet coming out of the dishwasher, when plates and glasses are all dry?","c_root_id_A":"dod2c1r","c_root_id_B":"doda1ab","created_at_utc_A":1508000512,"created_at_utc_B":1508010252,"score_A":10,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"It has to do with thermal mass. The glass and ceramic have the ability to hold onto, and release, heat slowly. Once hot, they release heat over time. This aids in the ability for them to help evaporate water in the dishwasher during the dry cycle. Plastic, on the other hand, is a poor heat conductor beacuse of its low thermal mass. Once heated by the air in the dishwasher, the plastic is fine. Once the air starts to cool, the plastic easily gives up it's stored heat. Since the plastic doesn't retain heat, any water on the surface tends to stay there because it doesn't evaporate.","human_ref_B":"For water to evaporate it needs to get really hot, during the drying cycle the dishwasher makes the air inside of it hot to make the water on the dishes evaporate. During washing plates and glasses get really hot because they heat up easily from the hot water, tupperware doesn't heat up easily so it doesn't get as hot. The hotter the dishes are during the drying cycle the hotter the water on the surface of the dish, the more easily the water can evaporate with hot air inside the dishwasher.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9740.0,"score_ratio":1.4} {"post_id":"76buzj","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why is tupperware wet coming out of the dishwasher, when plates and glasses are all dry?","c_root_id_A":"doda1ab","c_root_id_B":"docz5eh","created_at_utc_A":1508010252,"created_at_utc_B":1507996443,"score_A":14,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"For water to evaporate it needs to get really hot, during the drying cycle the dishwasher makes the air inside of it hot to make the water on the dishes evaporate. During washing plates and glasses get really hot because they heat up easily from the hot water, tupperware doesn't heat up easily so it doesn't get as hot. The hotter the dishes are during the drying cycle the hotter the water on the surface of the dish, the more easily the water can evaporate with hot air inside the dishwasher.","human_ref_B":"Quite simple when you think about one thing - mass. Plates and glasses have more mass, so retain heat for longer, meaning the surface water has a better chance of evaporating. Tupperware, on the other hand, has less mass so doesn't retain heat as well, so ends up cooling down before the water evaporates.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":13809.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"76buzj","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why is tupperware wet coming out of the dishwasher, when plates and glasses are all dry?","c_root_id_A":"dod2c1r","c_root_id_B":"docz5eh","created_at_utc_A":1508000512,"created_at_utc_B":1507996443,"score_A":10,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"It has to do with thermal mass. The glass and ceramic have the ability to hold onto, and release, heat slowly. Once hot, they release heat over time. This aids in the ability for them to help evaporate water in the dishwasher during the dry cycle. Plastic, on the other hand, is a poor heat conductor beacuse of its low thermal mass. Once heated by the air in the dishwasher, the plastic is fine. Once the air starts to cool, the plastic easily gives up it's stored heat. Since the plastic doesn't retain heat, any water on the surface tends to stay there because it doesn't evaporate.","human_ref_B":"Quite simple when you think about one thing - mass. Plates and glasses have more mass, so retain heat for longer, meaning the surface water has a better chance of evaporating. Tupperware, on the other hand, has less mass so doesn't retain heat as well, so ends up cooling down before the water evaporates.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4069.0,"score_ratio":1.4285714286} {"post_id":"cjcpfi","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why is it advised to NOT give water to someone that's bleeding due to an accident?","c_root_id_A":"evd0p4f","c_root_id_B":"evcgl3t","created_at_utc_A":1564427515,"created_at_utc_B":1564414742,"score_A":16390,"score_B":242,"human_ref_A":"It is in anticipation of potential surgery. Anything recently added to the stomach can come up during intubation and go into the lungs. This can cause anything from pneumonia to acute respiratory distress syndrome. As a surgeon once told me, \u201cnobody dies from missing a meal or a drink. People do die from aspirating.\u201d All the other answers about cooling the core, messing with blood pressure, and diluting the blood sound good, but have absolutely nothing to do with restricting a patient\u2019s intake. Nothing they consume will have an appreciable effect on a really sick person. We give IV fluids in hypotensive trauma patients while waiting for blood and we can warm\/cool patients more effectively with other methods than drinking water. Source: I\u2019m an emergency doc","human_ref_B":"There seems to be two major explanations for this. The big one is it's a choking hazard. People who are severely injured tend to vomit or could have trouble swallowing. So there's a chance this could end up in the lungs and now you have more problems to deal with. ~~A minor explanation is that when suffering trauma, shock is a big concern. Shock can cause your body temperature to drop. So giving water could sap heat from the casualty.~~ this appears to be bullshit. If you are with an injured person and they request water it is advised to moisten their lips. Less than a mouthful of water. Just enough to wet their mouth and make them comfortable again.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":12773.0,"score_ratio":67.7272727273} {"post_id":"cjcpfi","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why is it advised to NOT give water to someone that's bleeding due to an accident?","c_root_id_A":"evcgmnu","c_root_id_B":"evd0p4f","created_at_utc_A":1564414770,"created_at_utc_B":1564427515,"score_A":23,"score_B":16390,"human_ref_A":"So you know how people get surgeries right? They give them medicine to sleep. Unfortunately, this medicine can make you a little queasy. This can make you throw up. This throw up can block your Airway, and make it hard to breathe, or possibly even kill you. The person in your scenario I assume needs major surgery. They will need that medicine so their belly needs to be empty. Now given the same scenario before the doctors get involved bleeding a lot can also make you queasy and thursty. You could imagine how much more complicated the problem becomes when you're once only bleeding patient is now choking on his own vomit cause you just HAD to give them water.","human_ref_B":"It is in anticipation of potential surgery. Anything recently added to the stomach can come up during intubation and go into the lungs. This can cause anything from pneumonia to acute respiratory distress syndrome. As a surgeon once told me, \u201cnobody dies from missing a meal or a drink. People do die from aspirating.\u201d All the other answers about cooling the core, messing with blood pressure, and diluting the blood sound good, but have absolutely nothing to do with restricting a patient\u2019s intake. Nothing they consume will have an appreciable effect on a really sick person. We give IV fluids in hypotensive trauma patients while waiting for blood and we can warm\/cool patients more effectively with other methods than drinking water. Source: I\u2019m an emergency doc","labels":0,"seconds_difference":12745.0,"score_ratio":712.6086956522} {"post_id":"cjcpfi","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why is it advised to NOT give water to someone that's bleeding due to an accident?","c_root_id_A":"evcgmnu","c_root_id_B":"evd0t1m","created_at_utc_A":1564414770,"created_at_utc_B":1564427585,"score_A":23,"score_B":190,"human_ref_A":"So you know how people get surgeries right? They give them medicine to sleep. Unfortunately, this medicine can make you a little queasy. This can make you throw up. This throw up can block your Airway, and make it hard to breathe, or possibly even kill you. The person in your scenario I assume needs major surgery. They will need that medicine so their belly needs to be empty. Now given the same scenario before the doctors get involved bleeding a lot can also make you queasy and thursty. You could imagine how much more complicated the problem becomes when you're once only bleeding patient is now choking on his own vomit cause you just HAD to give them water.","human_ref_B":"It\u2019s assumed that anyone involved in an emergency\/trauma coming in for surgery has a \u201cfull stomach\u201d. There are different drugs utilized as a result in order to secure an airway or get that person ready to undergo surgery with general anesthesia. Every drug has a different risk\/benefit ratio depending on the patients specific health issues and circumstances. If the surgery can wait, we will wait bc it\u2019s just not worth the risk of aspirating whatever is sitting in the stomach. If it is truly an emergency then we take the risk bc the patient would die anyways. Long story short, don\u2019t give anyone food or water in a trauma situation bc it will increase any risk of aspirating those contents into the lungs resulting possible death later.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":12815.0,"score_ratio":8.2608695652} {"post_id":"m4udqm","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How come bees don't sting bee farmers? I have seen videos of bee farmers just scooping up bees with their bare hands.","c_root_id_A":"gqw937i","c_root_id_B":"gqw76lg","created_at_utc_A":1615726844,"created_at_utc_B":1615725308,"score_A":12110,"score_B":3166,"human_ref_A":"Bees do sting us, all the time. I get stung through my suit, visor and jeans a lot. When you see people scooping up bees or wearing clumps of bees on their face etc this is because the are handling the bees when they are swarming. When bees are swarming they are less aggressive due to the fact they have no hive or honey to defend.","human_ref_B":"They do sting the keeper, occasionally. In general, the keeper knows how to handle them, how to not trigger their defenses. For instance, they can use smoke to calm them down. The smoke doesn\u00b4t anaesthesize the bees, it makes them instinctively fill their bellies with food because they associate smoke with wildfires, which means hard times and chances of starvation. They become full and dull. The smoke also masks smells, or pheromones they normally use to navigate the environment. When inhibited, they go passive.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1536.0,"score_ratio":3.8250157928} {"post_id":"m4udqm","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How come bees don't sting bee farmers? I have seen videos of bee farmers just scooping up bees with their bare hands.","c_root_id_A":"gqw7ubp","c_root_id_B":"gqw937i","created_at_utc_A":1615725857,"created_at_utc_B":1615726844,"score_A":572,"score_B":12110,"human_ref_A":"Both commentors are absolutely right. I'd just like to add my two cents as someone with two colonies. As a bee keeper you know when the bees are going to be angry or not. If the weather is somewhat cold and damp (shouldn't be entering the hive) if you're in the hive for an emergency they're going to be pissed off. Similarly if it's extremely hot or windy. Bees gst wound up just like human do even with smoke. Also, I wear my suit every time and I've still been stung through it. Just comes with the territory. It's kind of a right if passage.","human_ref_B":"Bees do sting us, all the time. I get stung through my suit, visor and jeans a lot. When you see people scooping up bees or wearing clumps of bees on their face etc this is because the are handling the bees when they are swarming. When bees are swarming they are less aggressive due to the fact they have no hive or honey to defend.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":987.0,"score_ratio":21.1713286713} {"post_id":"m4udqm","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How come bees don't sting bee farmers? I have seen videos of bee farmers just scooping up bees with their bare hands.","c_root_id_A":"gqw7ubp","c_root_id_B":"gqwot7z","created_at_utc_A":1615725857,"created_at_utc_B":1615738144,"score_A":572,"score_B":1133,"human_ref_A":"Both commentors are absolutely right. I'd just like to add my two cents as someone with two colonies. As a bee keeper you know when the bees are going to be angry or not. If the weather is somewhat cold and damp (shouldn't be entering the hive) if you're in the hive for an emergency they're going to be pissed off. Similarly if it's extremely hot or windy. Bees gst wound up just like human do even with smoke. Also, I wear my suit every time and I've still been stung through it. Just comes with the territory. It's kind of a right if passage.","human_ref_B":"I know the video you saw. At the beginning she was using a smoker. That tells the bees there is fire. In a fire emergency bees swallow as much honey as they can carry for the escape which has the same effect as you post-big-stuffed-dinner. That said, I guarantee she got stung during that whole process. Bee keepers are just so used to it they don't jerk, jostle or anything. For them it's as everyday as bumping your elbow on a table. Think Steve Irwin whenever he got bit or stung. He kept a smile and a happy tone of voice that never faltered as he continued narrating. Also it was for a commercial\/promo video, so they cut to clips where she is smiling and had perfect hair and makeup instead of showing the whole process.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":12287.0,"score_ratio":1.9807692308} {"post_id":"m4udqm","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How come bees don't sting bee farmers? I have seen videos of bee farmers just scooping up bees with their bare hands.","c_root_id_A":"gqwot7z","c_root_id_B":"gqwlyzv","created_at_utc_A":1615738144,"created_at_utc_B":1615736629,"score_A":1133,"score_B":241,"human_ref_A":"I know the video you saw. At the beginning she was using a smoker. That tells the bees there is fire. In a fire emergency bees swallow as much honey as they can carry for the escape which has the same effect as you post-big-stuffed-dinner. That said, I guarantee she got stung during that whole process. Bee keepers are just so used to it they don't jerk, jostle or anything. For them it's as everyday as bumping your elbow on a table. Think Steve Irwin whenever he got bit or stung. He kept a smile and a happy tone of voice that never faltered as he continued narrating. Also it was for a commercial\/promo video, so they cut to clips where she is smiling and had perfect hair and makeup instead of showing the whole process.","human_ref_B":"I know this is a bit of a segue from the original question, but I think it\u2019s relevant enough to make the mention here... (This is especially important to know if you happen to be allergic to bee venom. Like I am.) When a honeybee stings you it leaves a small and still-pulsating venom sac that is attached to the back (non-pointy) end of the stinger.\u00a0 That sac is still mostly full, initially, and will continue to deliver venom into you through the stinger unless & until both can be removed. Without knowing any better, most of us would simply pull out the stinger & sac between our thumb & index finger. This is NOT a good approach\u00a0 because by doing so you are literally injecting the rest of the sac\u2019s venom into yourself. A much better way to remove a stinger from the skin is to scrape it upward from the side, as opposed to grabbing it from the top.\u00a0 Using a knife blade (or even a fingernail if you have one that is long enough) catch the stinger from BENEATH the sac and lift it all upward. This way you won\u2019t receive nearly as much of the sac\u2019s still available venom.\u00a0 Hope this is helpful. Apologies for the segue.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1515.0,"score_ratio":4.7012448133} {"post_id":"m4udqm","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How come bees don't sting bee farmers? I have seen videos of bee farmers just scooping up bees with their bare hands.","c_root_id_A":"gqwot7z","c_root_id_B":"gqwoe97","created_at_utc_A":1615738144,"created_at_utc_B":1615737926,"score_A":1133,"score_B":79,"human_ref_A":"I know the video you saw. At the beginning she was using a smoker. That tells the bees there is fire. In a fire emergency bees swallow as much honey as they can carry for the escape which has the same effect as you post-big-stuffed-dinner. That said, I guarantee she got stung during that whole process. Bee keepers are just so used to it they don't jerk, jostle or anything. For them it's as everyday as bumping your elbow on a table. Think Steve Irwin whenever he got bit or stung. He kept a smile and a happy tone of voice that never faltered as he continued narrating. Also it was for a commercial\/promo video, so they cut to clips where she is smiling and had perfect hair and makeup instead of showing the whole process.","human_ref_B":"For reference I had 2 hives for 3 years before local bears decided I wasnt allowed to anymore. One of them was a swarm i collected an hour away and drove home with in my back seat. We get stung but also know how to handle it. If you dont freak out the the hive generally wont get collectively aggressive. Its an exercise in zen mindset. Sometimes they get caught in hair or pressure is put on them so the reflexively sting without telling the hive there is a threat. I have also had bees crawl up my pant leg, dropped trow, and shook them out without getting stung. If you keep your cool and know their habbits you can find great success There is also a proper way to deal with a sting. After you are stung, the poison sack is stick stuck to the sticker in your skin. If you try to tweeze it out with your fingers, you are basically pushing the plunger on a venom needle. I used my knife or beekeepers tool to scrape the sticker from my skin without injecting more venoms. If anyone is interested there is a great reference book. The abc and xyz of bee culture. Its on its 30 some odd edition and was always considered my bee bible.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":218.0,"score_ratio":14.3417721519} {"post_id":"vn08ao","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why do we refer to ourselves as \u201cin the car\u201d and not \u201con the car\u201d like we are when \u201con a bus\u201d? When we message people we always say \u201con the bus\u201d or \u201con the train\u201d but never \u201cin the car\u201d, \u201cin the bus\u201d or \u201cin the train\u201d. Why is this?","c_root_id_A":"ie4p14u","c_root_id_B":"ie4gf7b","created_at_utc_A":1656465274,"created_at_utc_B":1656461119,"score_A":296,"score_B":136,"human_ref_A":"Buses, boats, airliners, and space flight vehicles all follow traditional conventions of being \"vessels\". Captains, boarding, embarking, etc. They all share these terms. Likely due to their size and carrying capacity?","human_ref_B":"I\u2019ve always gone with you\u2019re on public transport (bus, train, plane) and in private transport (taxi, car) because the public transport will continue on its route without you, you join the vehicle on its route.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4155.0,"score_ratio":2.1764705882} {"post_id":"vn08ao","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why do we refer to ourselves as \u201cin the car\u201d and not \u201con the car\u201d like we are when \u201con a bus\u201d? When we message people we always say \u201con the bus\u201d or \u201con the train\u201d but never \u201cin the car\u201d, \u201cin the bus\u201d or \u201cin the train\u201d. Why is this?","c_root_id_A":"ie4p14u","c_root_id_B":"ie4m98x","created_at_utc_A":1656465274,"created_at_utc_B":1656463906,"score_A":296,"score_B":122,"human_ref_A":"Buses, boats, airliners, and space flight vehicles all follow traditional conventions of being \"vessels\". Captains, boarding, embarking, etc. They all share these terms. Likely due to their size and carrying capacity?","human_ref_B":"If you can easily stand you are on it. If you are not at all enclosed you are on it. If standing is difficult and you are somewhat enclosed you are in it.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1368.0,"score_ratio":2.4262295082} {"post_id":"f9v5xd","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: if the colon has no pain receptors, why does trapped gas hurt so much? I've had a colonoscopy (without pain relief) where they took biopsies. The doctors said the biopsies wouldn't hurt because the colon couldn't feel pain, and they were indeed painless. The amount of air they pumped in was horrifically painful however. Trapped gas sounds trivial, but can also be extremely painful. Ulcerative colitis also hurts. So does diarrhoea. So how do these pain mechanisms work? What causes the pain, if the interior of the colon is unfeeling?","c_root_id_A":"fiu1kda","c_root_id_B":"fiukdly","created_at_utc_A":1582733576,"created_at_utc_B":1582743060,"score_A":155,"score_B":748,"human_ref_A":"Nocioceptors are the sensory neurons that we call pain receptors. There are several different types. Not all types of receptors are present in all places of the body. The ones in the colon can sense mechanical stress (i.e., distention from gas), inflammation, and ischemia (tissue death). Gas can cause pain because it's physically putting pressure on your colon, and inflammatory bowel diseases like Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis cause inflammation, which will also trigger those nerves.","human_ref_B":"A simple way to think of the colon and pain is to relate it to the skin. Lots of different things can cause different types of pain in the skin. There's pressure, heat, cold, cuts and probably a few more. There is a specific type of nerve ending to sense each type of pain. The colon (the entire intestine, in fact) has only two types of pain receptors - ones that sense stretching, and ones that sense lack of oxygen (which happens when the colon is starved of blood). Trapped gas will make the colon wider, which sets off the stretching pain receptors. Biopsies don't hurt because the colon lacks the nerve endings to sense cuts and bruises.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9484.0,"score_ratio":4.8258064516} {"post_id":"f9v5xd","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: if the colon has no pain receptors, why does trapped gas hurt so much? I've had a colonoscopy (without pain relief) where they took biopsies. The doctors said the biopsies wouldn't hurt because the colon couldn't feel pain, and they were indeed painless. The amount of air they pumped in was horrifically painful however. Trapped gas sounds trivial, but can also be extremely painful. Ulcerative colitis also hurts. So does diarrhoea. So how do these pain mechanisms work? What causes the pain, if the interior of the colon is unfeeling?","c_root_id_A":"fiujdjq","c_root_id_B":"fiukdly","created_at_utc_A":1582742515,"created_at_utc_B":1582743060,"score_A":34,"score_B":748,"human_ref_A":"We just talked about this in class yesterday!! So you dont have pain receptors in your gut but you do have a lot of baroreceptors or pressure receptors to tell you when the pressure gets too high and response of high pressure from these is essentially translated as pain","human_ref_B":"A simple way to think of the colon and pain is to relate it to the skin. Lots of different things can cause different types of pain in the skin. There's pressure, heat, cold, cuts and probably a few more. There is a specific type of nerve ending to sense each type of pain. The colon (the entire intestine, in fact) has only two types of pain receptors - ones that sense stretching, and ones that sense lack of oxygen (which happens when the colon is starved of blood). Trapped gas will make the colon wider, which sets off the stretching pain receptors. Biopsies don't hurt because the colon lacks the nerve endings to sense cuts and bruises.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":545.0,"score_ratio":22.0} {"post_id":"f9v5xd","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: if the colon has no pain receptors, why does trapped gas hurt so much? I've had a colonoscopy (without pain relief) where they took biopsies. The doctors said the biopsies wouldn't hurt because the colon couldn't feel pain, and they were indeed painless. The amount of air they pumped in was horrifically painful however. Trapped gas sounds trivial, but can also be extremely painful. Ulcerative colitis also hurts. So does diarrhoea. So how do these pain mechanisms work? What causes the pain, if the interior of the colon is unfeeling?","c_root_id_A":"fiukdly","c_root_id_B":"fiujvb1","created_at_utc_A":1582743060,"created_at_utc_B":1582742785,"score_A":748,"score_B":18,"human_ref_A":"A simple way to think of the colon and pain is to relate it to the skin. Lots of different things can cause different types of pain in the skin. There's pressure, heat, cold, cuts and probably a few more. There is a specific type of nerve ending to sense each type of pain. The colon (the entire intestine, in fact) has only two types of pain receptors - ones that sense stretching, and ones that sense lack of oxygen (which happens when the colon is starved of blood). Trapped gas will make the colon wider, which sets off the stretching pain receptors. Biopsies don't hurt because the colon lacks the nerve endings to sense cuts and bruises.","human_ref_B":"As it swells it starts pushing on other muscles, organs, and lining that does have nerves. It\u2019s like a person who is too big for an airplane seat who is pushing into the other person. The big person is mostly fine but the other person now is uncomfortable and tells the stewards what\u2019s wrong","labels":1,"seconds_difference":275.0,"score_ratio":41.5555555556} {"post_id":"f9v5xd","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: if the colon has no pain receptors, why does trapped gas hurt so much? I've had a colonoscopy (without pain relief) where they took biopsies. The doctors said the biopsies wouldn't hurt because the colon couldn't feel pain, and they were indeed painless. The amount of air they pumped in was horrifically painful however. Trapped gas sounds trivial, but can also be extremely painful. Ulcerative colitis also hurts. So does diarrhoea. So how do these pain mechanisms work? What causes the pain, if the interior of the colon is unfeeling?","c_root_id_A":"fiu1kda","c_root_id_B":"fivdgu8","created_at_utc_A":1582733576,"created_at_utc_B":1582758375,"score_A":155,"score_B":229,"human_ref_A":"Nocioceptors are the sensory neurons that we call pain receptors. There are several different types. Not all types of receptors are present in all places of the body. The ones in the colon can sense mechanical stress (i.e., distention from gas), inflammation, and ischemia (tissue death). Gas can cause pain because it's physically putting pressure on your colon, and inflammatory bowel diseases like Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis cause inflammation, which will also trigger those nerves.","human_ref_B":"Doctor here, please let me know if I haven't explained well enough: Pain in organs (visceral pain) is very different to the pain you're used to experiencing in your skin\/muscle (musculoskeletal pain). We have very sensitive pain receptors which localize all sorts of pain in the skin\/muscles (including touch (pressure, cutting)\/temperature\/inflammation) - we have evolved this because it is very important we know quickly and accurately if there's a problem in our musculoskeletal system. Internal organs have pain receptors, but not for touch - someone could be cutting your internal organs and you wouldn't feel it. They do have pain receptors for stretch (e.g. Bad gas), inflammation (e.g. Appendicitis) and when they're oxygen starved (e.g. Heart attack). These pain receptors are poorly mapped by the brain, which is why heart attack pain can be felt as jaw or arm pain, and pain in the liver can be felt as shoulder pain.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":24799.0,"score_ratio":1.4774193548} {"post_id":"f9v5xd","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: if the colon has no pain receptors, why does trapped gas hurt so much? I've had a colonoscopy (without pain relief) where they took biopsies. The doctors said the biopsies wouldn't hurt because the colon couldn't feel pain, and they were indeed painless. The amount of air they pumped in was horrifically painful however. Trapped gas sounds trivial, but can also be extremely painful. Ulcerative colitis also hurts. So does diarrhoea. So how do these pain mechanisms work? What causes the pain, if the interior of the colon is unfeeling?","c_root_id_A":"fivdgu8","c_root_id_B":"fiujdjq","created_at_utc_A":1582758375,"created_at_utc_B":1582742515,"score_A":229,"score_B":34,"human_ref_A":"Doctor here, please let me know if I haven't explained well enough: Pain in organs (visceral pain) is very different to the pain you're used to experiencing in your skin\/muscle (musculoskeletal pain). We have very sensitive pain receptors which localize all sorts of pain in the skin\/muscles (including touch (pressure, cutting)\/temperature\/inflammation) - we have evolved this because it is very important we know quickly and accurately if there's a problem in our musculoskeletal system. Internal organs have pain receptors, but not for touch - someone could be cutting your internal organs and you wouldn't feel it. They do have pain receptors for stretch (e.g. Bad gas), inflammation (e.g. Appendicitis) and when they're oxygen starved (e.g. Heart attack). These pain receptors are poorly mapped by the brain, which is why heart attack pain can be felt as jaw or arm pain, and pain in the liver can be felt as shoulder pain.","human_ref_B":"We just talked about this in class yesterday!! So you dont have pain receptors in your gut but you do have a lot of baroreceptors or pressure receptors to tell you when the pressure gets too high and response of high pressure from these is essentially translated as pain","labels":1,"seconds_difference":15860.0,"score_ratio":6.7352941176} {"post_id":"f9v5xd","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: if the colon has no pain receptors, why does trapped gas hurt so much? I've had a colonoscopy (without pain relief) where they took biopsies. The doctors said the biopsies wouldn't hurt because the colon couldn't feel pain, and they were indeed painless. The amount of air they pumped in was horrifically painful however. Trapped gas sounds trivial, but can also be extremely painful. Ulcerative colitis also hurts. So does diarrhoea. So how do these pain mechanisms work? What causes the pain, if the interior of the colon is unfeeling?","c_root_id_A":"fiuqv7q","c_root_id_B":"fivdgu8","created_at_utc_A":1582746567,"created_at_utc_B":1582758375,"score_A":21,"score_B":229,"human_ref_A":"You ever stub your toe really hard and have the thought, \u201ccrap, this is really gonna hurt.\u201d The reason you \u201cknow\u201d you stubbed your toe before you feel any pain is because the nerves that carry the sensory information that tells you where your foot is in space, what your foot is touching and that you just bumped it are different nerves than the nerves that tell your brain that there is pain. The first type send a signal much much faster than the pain type (the Explain like I'm five years old for nerve conduction speed is a completely different conversation but also fascinating). In short, different nerves send different signals and the nerves that send the signal for \u201cpain\u201d in the traditional sense (eg, cutting your finger) simply aren\u2019t present in the bowel. For more info, you can explore topics like: somatic vs. autonomic nerves, autonomic nervous system, enteric nervous system, referred pain, proprioception. I also recommend writing by Oliver Sacks and VS ramachandran if this type of stuff is interesting to you. Enjoy!!","human_ref_B":"Doctor here, please let me know if I haven't explained well enough: Pain in organs (visceral pain) is very different to the pain you're used to experiencing in your skin\/muscle (musculoskeletal pain). We have very sensitive pain receptors which localize all sorts of pain in the skin\/muscles (including touch (pressure, cutting)\/temperature\/inflammation) - we have evolved this because it is very important we know quickly and accurately if there's a problem in our musculoskeletal system. Internal organs have pain receptors, but not for touch - someone could be cutting your internal organs and you wouldn't feel it. They do have pain receptors for stretch (e.g. Bad gas), inflammation (e.g. Appendicitis) and when they're oxygen starved (e.g. Heart attack). These pain receptors are poorly mapped by the brain, which is why heart attack pain can be felt as jaw or arm pain, and pain in the liver can be felt as shoulder pain.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":11808.0,"score_ratio":10.9047619048} {"post_id":"f9v5xd","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: if the colon has no pain receptors, why does trapped gas hurt so much? I've had a colonoscopy (without pain relief) where they took biopsies. The doctors said the biopsies wouldn't hurt because the colon couldn't feel pain, and they were indeed painless. The amount of air they pumped in was horrifically painful however. Trapped gas sounds trivial, but can also be extremely painful. Ulcerative colitis also hurts. So does diarrhoea. So how do these pain mechanisms work? What causes the pain, if the interior of the colon is unfeeling?","c_root_id_A":"fivdgu8","c_root_id_B":"fiujvb1","created_at_utc_A":1582758375,"created_at_utc_B":1582742785,"score_A":229,"score_B":18,"human_ref_A":"Doctor here, please let me know if I haven't explained well enough: Pain in organs (visceral pain) is very different to the pain you're used to experiencing in your skin\/muscle (musculoskeletal pain). We have very sensitive pain receptors which localize all sorts of pain in the skin\/muscles (including touch (pressure, cutting)\/temperature\/inflammation) - we have evolved this because it is very important we know quickly and accurately if there's a problem in our musculoskeletal system. Internal organs have pain receptors, but not for touch - someone could be cutting your internal organs and you wouldn't feel it. They do have pain receptors for stretch (e.g. Bad gas), inflammation (e.g. Appendicitis) and when they're oxygen starved (e.g. Heart attack). These pain receptors are poorly mapped by the brain, which is why heart attack pain can be felt as jaw or arm pain, and pain in the liver can be felt as shoulder pain.","human_ref_B":"As it swells it starts pushing on other muscles, organs, and lining that does have nerves. It\u2019s like a person who is too big for an airplane seat who is pushing into the other person. The big person is mostly fine but the other person now is uncomfortable and tells the stewards what\u2019s wrong","labels":1,"seconds_difference":15590.0,"score_ratio":12.7222222222} {"post_id":"f9v5xd","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: if the colon has no pain receptors, why does trapped gas hurt so much? I've had a colonoscopy (without pain relief) where they took biopsies. The doctors said the biopsies wouldn't hurt because the colon couldn't feel pain, and they were indeed painless. The amount of air they pumped in was horrifically painful however. Trapped gas sounds trivial, but can also be extremely painful. Ulcerative colitis also hurts. So does diarrhoea. So how do these pain mechanisms work? What causes the pain, if the interior of the colon is unfeeling?","c_root_id_A":"fiuqv7q","c_root_id_B":"fiujvb1","created_at_utc_A":1582746567,"created_at_utc_B":1582742785,"score_A":21,"score_B":18,"human_ref_A":"You ever stub your toe really hard and have the thought, \u201ccrap, this is really gonna hurt.\u201d The reason you \u201cknow\u201d you stubbed your toe before you feel any pain is because the nerves that carry the sensory information that tells you where your foot is in space, what your foot is touching and that you just bumped it are different nerves than the nerves that tell your brain that there is pain. The first type send a signal much much faster than the pain type (the Explain like I'm five years old for nerve conduction speed is a completely different conversation but also fascinating). In short, different nerves send different signals and the nerves that send the signal for \u201cpain\u201d in the traditional sense (eg, cutting your finger) simply aren\u2019t present in the bowel. For more info, you can explore topics like: somatic vs. autonomic nerves, autonomic nervous system, enteric nervous system, referred pain, proprioception. I also recommend writing by Oliver Sacks and VS ramachandran if this type of stuff is interesting to you. Enjoy!!","human_ref_B":"As it swells it starts pushing on other muscles, organs, and lining that does have nerves. It\u2019s like a person who is too big for an airplane seat who is pushing into the other person. The big person is mostly fine but the other person now is uncomfortable and tells the stewards what\u2019s wrong","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3782.0,"score_ratio":1.1666666667} {"post_id":"nisqut","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: When searching for life on other planets, why do we look for oxygen when the species there could have a completely different structure where they don't need oxygen at all?","c_root_id_A":"gz3j3ws","c_root_id_B":"gz3jfrv","created_at_utc_A":1621719639,"created_at_utc_B":1621719810,"score_A":1076,"score_B":9657,"human_ref_A":"Because there's no other leads. We don't know if they don't need oxygen\/water, we don't know if they do. All we know is that *we* need it, and so we know that there are ways to create life that do need water.","human_ref_B":"First, oxygen is highly reactive, and a dead world would have long since had its oxygen taken up into metal oxides, burned into carbon dioxide, etc. A world with significant amounts of free oxygen has *something* producing it- either life, or an interesting chemical thing that on its own would be worth figuring out. Second, it's easier to look for what we *know* is used for life rather than speculate a ton of alternate biologies, look for their own volatile gasses, and just *hope* it indicates life.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":171.0,"score_ratio":8.9749070632} {"post_id":"nisqut","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: When searching for life on other planets, why do we look for oxygen when the species there could have a completely different structure where they don't need oxygen at all?","c_root_id_A":"gz3xjat","c_root_id_B":"gz44cwu","created_at_utc_A":1621727300,"created_at_utc_B":1621731223,"score_A":302,"score_B":330,"human_ref_A":"This is a bit of a misconception, but it's easy to see where it comes from given how people talk about exoplanets. So first, we can't quite look for oxygen yet in exoplanets. The technology isn't there yet but hopefully will be soon. But aside from that, there's a general disconnect between how scientists actually do research looking for \"earthlike planets\" and how it gets described. So you always hear \"we found this earthlike planet\" which could be the right size or have liquid water or whatever. And naturally people think scientists are just out looking for those planets specifically. But in general they are just finding thousands of planets with a huge range of traits and simply highlighting in the news \"oh, and this one had a trait that was earthlike\". When we can get amospheric spectra, you can bet something similar will happen. They will find a bunch of planets with no air and planets with thick venuslike air and planets with hydrogen rich atmospheres...and occasionally one with oxygen will pop up in the news and get a bunch of press because it could be earthlike! And people will think scientists are only looking for those planets, but really they are looking at all the planets and those are just the ones that get in the news. Also you can bet that if scientists find a weird atmosphere (say, flourine rich) that looks different from all the other atmospheres, people will speculate it has life in it.","human_ref_B":"Short answer: we **don\u2019t** look for oxygen. As u\/atomfullerene mentions, we don\u2019t have the ability to do that yet, and it\u2019s a common misconception that oxygen is what we\u2019re looking for.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3923.0,"score_ratio":1.0927152318} {"post_id":"nisqut","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: When searching for life on other planets, why do we look for oxygen when the species there could have a completely different structure where they don't need oxygen at all?","c_root_id_A":"gz44cwu","c_root_id_B":"gz3lz76","created_at_utc_A":1621731223,"created_at_utc_B":1621721144,"score_A":330,"score_B":196,"human_ref_A":"Short answer: we **don\u2019t** look for oxygen. As u\/atomfullerene mentions, we don\u2019t have the ability to do that yet, and it\u2019s a common misconception that oxygen is what we\u2019re looking for.","human_ref_B":"In order to use energy you have to take it from somewhere and put it somewhere else. In the case of chemical energy, you have to break weak, unstable bonds and form strong, more stable bonds. Since all chemistry boils down to how atoms are sharing their electrons, the most energy you can get is going to come from an atom grabbing onto an electron really hard to form that strong, stable bond. Few elements will grab electrons harder than oxygen. That's what oxygen is doing in our bodies: it's the end of a long chain of passing an energized electron between different molecules, incrementally taking some of the energy out of it until the oxygen takes it. It's like pouring water through a generator. You can either start with water really high up, or drop it really far down. Oxygen is *almost* the most \"down\" the electron can get. Almost, because fluorine would be lower, but fluorine is more dangerous and harder to get. It's dangerous because it can grab electrons from other molecules that aren't supposed to be giving them up, ruining that molecule and damaging the cell. In fact, oxygen does this, too, and your body has a lot of mechanisms to control it as much as possible and repair the inevitable damage. Fluorine grabs electrons *so* hard that it's virtually impossible for your cells to control it. Fluorine also holds onto the electrons it's already grabbed super hard. Fluorine forms *very* stable bonds, which means it's not usually free to form new ones. If you're pouring water through a generator and the hole it ends up in is already full, the water can't flow through the generator. To empty the hole, you have to add energy back in - by definition, more than you get back out. Bonds with oxygen are also very strong, but they're *just* weak enough that clever bacteria evolved a way to use sunlight to break those bonds and form free oxygen. The energy is free, provided by the Sun, and very plentiful. But sunlight isn't powerful enough to break fluorine bonds, so there's no fluorine available to use to take electrons in your cells. All of this makes oxygen the ideal source of energy for all living things. The physics that make that true on Earth are true everywhere else. It's absolutely possible for life to use something else - life on Earth did so for millions of years before cyanobacteria evolved photosynthesis and aerobic respiration, and still thrives in oxygen- poor places on Earth. However, life without oxygen doesn't have nearly as much energy to work with. Complex, multicellular life is *possible* without oxygen on Earth, but it's very very rare. With a few exceptions anaerobic life is limited to single cells like bacteria and archea, and slime molds. Also, because oxygen is so reactive it doesn't tend to stick around long as O2 before bonding to something else, like carbon to make CO2. If O2 molecules are abundant in an atmosphere, something has to be constantly making it, probably by ripping it off other molecules. That takes adding energy in. There are chemical processes that do that without life, but it *could* be an early, obvious sign that's worth looking into. Of course, there could be another way for complex life to form. There *is* at least one example of an anaerobic vertebrate species of fish here on Earth. But our life is all we have to base our assumptions off of so it's a good place to start.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10079.0,"score_ratio":1.6836734694} {"post_id":"nisqut","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: When searching for life on other planets, why do we look for oxygen when the species there could have a completely different structure where they don't need oxygen at all?","c_root_id_A":"gz3lz76","c_root_id_B":"gz3xjat","created_at_utc_A":1621721144,"created_at_utc_B":1621727300,"score_A":196,"score_B":302,"human_ref_A":"In order to use energy you have to take it from somewhere and put it somewhere else. In the case of chemical energy, you have to break weak, unstable bonds and form strong, more stable bonds. Since all chemistry boils down to how atoms are sharing their electrons, the most energy you can get is going to come from an atom grabbing onto an electron really hard to form that strong, stable bond. Few elements will grab electrons harder than oxygen. That's what oxygen is doing in our bodies: it's the end of a long chain of passing an energized electron between different molecules, incrementally taking some of the energy out of it until the oxygen takes it. It's like pouring water through a generator. You can either start with water really high up, or drop it really far down. Oxygen is *almost* the most \"down\" the electron can get. Almost, because fluorine would be lower, but fluorine is more dangerous and harder to get. It's dangerous because it can grab electrons from other molecules that aren't supposed to be giving them up, ruining that molecule and damaging the cell. In fact, oxygen does this, too, and your body has a lot of mechanisms to control it as much as possible and repair the inevitable damage. Fluorine grabs electrons *so* hard that it's virtually impossible for your cells to control it. Fluorine also holds onto the electrons it's already grabbed super hard. Fluorine forms *very* stable bonds, which means it's not usually free to form new ones. If you're pouring water through a generator and the hole it ends up in is already full, the water can't flow through the generator. To empty the hole, you have to add energy back in - by definition, more than you get back out. Bonds with oxygen are also very strong, but they're *just* weak enough that clever bacteria evolved a way to use sunlight to break those bonds and form free oxygen. The energy is free, provided by the Sun, and very plentiful. But sunlight isn't powerful enough to break fluorine bonds, so there's no fluorine available to use to take electrons in your cells. All of this makes oxygen the ideal source of energy for all living things. The physics that make that true on Earth are true everywhere else. It's absolutely possible for life to use something else - life on Earth did so for millions of years before cyanobacteria evolved photosynthesis and aerobic respiration, and still thrives in oxygen- poor places on Earth. However, life without oxygen doesn't have nearly as much energy to work with. Complex, multicellular life is *possible* without oxygen on Earth, but it's very very rare. With a few exceptions anaerobic life is limited to single cells like bacteria and archea, and slime molds. Also, because oxygen is so reactive it doesn't tend to stick around long as O2 before bonding to something else, like carbon to make CO2. If O2 molecules are abundant in an atmosphere, something has to be constantly making it, probably by ripping it off other molecules. That takes adding energy in. There are chemical processes that do that without life, but it *could* be an early, obvious sign that's worth looking into. Of course, there could be another way for complex life to form. There *is* at least one example of an anaerobic vertebrate species of fish here on Earth. But our life is all we have to base our assumptions off of so it's a good place to start.","human_ref_B":"This is a bit of a misconception, but it's easy to see where it comes from given how people talk about exoplanets. So first, we can't quite look for oxygen yet in exoplanets. The technology isn't there yet but hopefully will be soon. But aside from that, there's a general disconnect between how scientists actually do research looking for \"earthlike planets\" and how it gets described. So you always hear \"we found this earthlike planet\" which could be the right size or have liquid water or whatever. And naturally people think scientists are just out looking for those planets specifically. But in general they are just finding thousands of planets with a huge range of traits and simply highlighting in the news \"oh, and this one had a trait that was earthlike\". When we can get amospheric spectra, you can bet something similar will happen. They will find a bunch of planets with no air and planets with thick venuslike air and planets with hydrogen rich atmospheres...and occasionally one with oxygen will pop up in the news and get a bunch of press because it could be earthlike! And people will think scientists are only looking for those planets, but really they are looking at all the planets and those are just the ones that get in the news. Also you can bet that if scientists find a weird atmosphere (say, flourine rich) that looks different from all the other atmospheres, people will speculate it has life in it.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6156.0,"score_ratio":1.5408163265} {"post_id":"kbkbsl","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Eli5: Why do we need to sleep so much, what happens in the body when asleep that cannot happen while normal resting or relaxing? Or is it just for the brain?","c_root_id_A":"gfinm1s","c_root_id_B":"gfibqmi","created_at_utc_A":1607776824,"created_at_utc_B":1607769726,"score_A":1204,"score_B":425,"human_ref_A":"Quite new data shows that there are small drainages or \"sewer system\" in brain that activates when you sleep. It get's rid of bad metabolites and proteins from neurons that accumulate to brain during their activity, for example tau-proteins that are believed to be the cause of Alzheimers disease. But that is most probably just part of the answer. I myself took part to that study to find that out, two MRI:s and simultanious EEG, one after staying awake for 24h and sleeping in the MRI tube and other after normal work day. I myself am clinical neurophysiologist and work with EEG:s and brain activity during sleep every day. Fascinating stuff and a lot to be discovered.","human_ref_B":"I can't believe no one is talking about the recent fly study findings. Basically, fruit flies are a surprisingly good model for human sleep considering they aren't even mammals. https:\/\/pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/18591491\/ So, a study was done on them to find a way to keep them alive without sleep, as similarly to humans and many other animals, severe sleep deprivation leads inevitably to death. They found that just before dying, there was a large build up in toxic compounds in their gut. More interestingly, they found by neutralising these toxins in the gut, the flies would live normal lifespans without sleep, implying that the cause of death was actually these compounds. Obviously sleep is still baffling, but I think this is a very interesting step in the direction of figuring out what is going on. https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2020\/06\/study-reveals-guts-role-in-causing-death-by-sleep-deprivation\/","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7098.0,"score_ratio":2.8329411765} {"post_id":"kbkbsl","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Eli5: Why do we need to sleep so much, what happens in the body when asleep that cannot happen while normal resting or relaxing? Or is it just for the brain?","c_root_id_A":"gfi69b4","c_root_id_B":"gfinm1s","created_at_utc_A":1607764531,"created_at_utc_B":1607776824,"score_A":252,"score_B":1204,"human_ref_A":"Like a lot of others mentioned, while you sleep your body goes into recovery mode. Specifically, a lot of toxins that are created as a byproduct during the day are removed. However, it's more than just that. Sleep is also heavily involved in memory consolidation. During sleep, your brain decides which memories to store for the long term and filters out \"useless memories.\" Additionally, a lot of different hormones are released while you are sleeping which for some reason the body doesn't release while awake. I think there's a growth factor hormone or something but I don't remember the details. There are a lot of different functions that occur while you sleep and we are just figuring them out. But I would say the main functions are clearing waste and consolidating memories.","human_ref_B":"Quite new data shows that there are small drainages or \"sewer system\" in brain that activates when you sleep. It get's rid of bad metabolites and proteins from neurons that accumulate to brain during their activity, for example tau-proteins that are believed to be the cause of Alzheimers disease. But that is most probably just part of the answer. I myself took part to that study to find that out, two MRI:s and simultanious EEG, one after staying awake for 24h and sleeping in the MRI tube and other after normal work day. I myself am clinical neurophysiologist and work with EEG:s and brain activity during sleep every day. Fascinating stuff and a lot to be discovered.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":12293.0,"score_ratio":4.7777777778} {"post_id":"kbkbsl","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Eli5: Why do we need to sleep so much, what happens in the body when asleep that cannot happen while normal resting or relaxing? Or is it just for the brain?","c_root_id_A":"gfiixsm","c_root_id_B":"gfinm1s","created_at_utc_A":1607774817,"created_at_utc_B":1607776824,"score_A":107,"score_B":1204,"human_ref_A":"So. Much. Stuff. So much. Here's a quick overview. Simplified, you sleep in a couple different phases: REM (Rapid Eye Movement, the dreaming phase), and NREM, often split into NREM 1 and 2\/ NREM 3 and 4 (slow wave, \"deep\" sleep). Each of these types of sleep has a different job. During REM sleep, all the stuff you experienced and learned during the day gets replayed over and over, along with other old memories that your brain tries to mash together, making new connections and strengthening memories. A lot of inspiration comes from dreaming, because you just can't try out as many combinations of thoughts and ideas when you are awake. It's extremely important for memory and brain development, like another person said. Dreaming is also very important for getting over traumatic events, as dreams will make you relive them, but a very important stress hormone in your brain is turned off, so you can process the grief and other feelings without the trauma. PTSD, by the way, is what happens when this system fails. In NREM 1 and 2, one of the cool things that happens is that \"muscle memory\" is developed. Ever practiced something, got frustrated and stopped, and after sleeping on it, suddenly been able to do it? Your brain practices in your sleep. If you're trying to learn a new skill, make sure to get enough sleep. Deep NREM is the part where your brain reorganizes everything. Useless memories out, important memories saved and put into long-term storage. This part is extremely important for reducing anxiety and stress, as well as memory. Not only does this help you remember the things you learned from that day, it also clears up your short-term memory storage (basically like RAM) so you can start again in the morning. Don't underestimate the difference this makes. You can't put memories into long-term storage while awake, and you are losing them constantly as new ones replace them. Your blood pressure also goes way down, your heart gets some TLC, your whole body gets restored. Like another user said, toxins are flushed out. One important \"toxin\" is so-called amyloid plaque, a mess of proteins that you produce, and that get caught in your brain, every second you are awake. These destroy your brain and memory if allowed to keep growing unchecked. The *only* way to get rid of them is to get enough high-quality sleep, every night. These proteins are the reason older people get diseases like Alzheimer's: older people are often not able to sleep for as long as younger people. That is why it is so important to protect yourself from amyloid plaque by always getting 8 hours of sleep. I will stop now, but there is so much more happening during sleep, and so many studies proving it. Please ask if there is anything else you want to know! **TL;DR:** Body and brain are restored, memories processed, consolidated, and sent to long-term memory, stress, anxiety, and trauma reduced, blood pressure reduced, muscle memory developed, brain growth\/new ideas. Yes, 7-8 hours of sleep are necessary, even for the people who feel okay after less.","human_ref_B":"Quite new data shows that there are small drainages or \"sewer system\" in brain that activates when you sleep. It get's rid of bad metabolites and proteins from neurons that accumulate to brain during their activity, for example tau-proteins that are believed to be the cause of Alzheimers disease. But that is most probably just part of the answer. I myself took part to that study to find that out, two MRI:s and simultanious EEG, one after staying awake for 24h and sleeping in the MRI tube and other after normal work day. I myself am clinical neurophysiologist and work with EEG:s and brain activity during sleep every day. Fascinating stuff and a lot to be discovered.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2007.0,"score_ratio":11.2523364486} {"post_id":"kbkbsl","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Eli5: Why do we need to sleep so much, what happens in the body when asleep that cannot happen while normal resting or relaxing? Or is it just for the brain?","c_root_id_A":"gfinm1s","c_root_id_B":"gfibkvd","created_at_utc_A":1607776824,"created_at_utc_B":1607769616,"score_A":1204,"score_B":50,"human_ref_A":"Quite new data shows that there are small drainages or \"sewer system\" in brain that activates when you sleep. It get's rid of bad metabolites and proteins from neurons that accumulate to brain during their activity, for example tau-proteins that are believed to be the cause of Alzheimers disease. But that is most probably just part of the answer. I myself took part to that study to find that out, two MRI:s and simultanious EEG, one after staying awake for 24h and sleeping in the MRI tube and other after normal work day. I myself am clinical neurophysiologist and work with EEG:s and brain activity during sleep every day. Fascinating stuff and a lot to be discovered.","human_ref_B":"The best answer I\u2019ve seen is your body actually doesn\u2019t do much different while you sleep but does a lot of things faster such as cell growth. It has to do with how humans use energy - most creatures create energy as it\u2019s needed, for the tasks needed at any given time. More complex systems have more energy demand, but have the benefit of adaptability - a simple creature that only eats algae will only have organs needed to intake and convert algae to energy, and likely will convert it as it\u2019s needed, but will as a result have limited energy for things such as moving quickly away from predators. There does seem to be a link to energy demand and sleep - creatures that perform high intensity activities during their time awake tend to sleep more while slow moving creatures tend to sleep rarely and some never sleep. The reason we do things such as close our eyes and relax is it allows the body to mostly guarantee that energy that COULD be spent on running, analyzing the environment, so on that COULD be needed immediately won\u2019t happen, so it can safely move energy to body systems for maintenance. Think about a time you had a bad injury - even if it was just a really bad hit to the shin, you are going to feel less energetic. You usually won\u2019t fall asleep though - the body can repair itself while you\u2019re awake but it does it slower. This is also what is happening when fighters get knocked out - they are more or less going to sleep as the body recognizes the energy demand to repair damage and prevent fatal injury exceeds the availability. So in short, nothing particularly unique happens while you\u2019re asleep, it\u2019s more like a spaceship rerouting power to systems as they are needed - and by having a period where your body can guarantee with almost certainty you won\u2019t need your full vision, sense of smell, hearing, or muscles, it can slow those systems down and focus on healing. This is also why you may notice if you get a cut in the morning, by night it might look roughly the same, but when you then go to sleep and wake it will appear notably smaller.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7208.0,"score_ratio":24.08} {"post_id":"kbkbsl","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Eli5: Why do we need to sleep so much, what happens in the body when asleep that cannot happen while normal resting or relaxing? Or is it just for the brain?","c_root_id_A":"gfi69b4","c_root_id_B":"gfibqmi","created_at_utc_A":1607764531,"created_at_utc_B":1607769726,"score_A":252,"score_B":425,"human_ref_A":"Like a lot of others mentioned, while you sleep your body goes into recovery mode. Specifically, a lot of toxins that are created as a byproduct during the day are removed. However, it's more than just that. Sleep is also heavily involved in memory consolidation. During sleep, your brain decides which memories to store for the long term and filters out \"useless memories.\" Additionally, a lot of different hormones are released while you are sleeping which for some reason the body doesn't release while awake. I think there's a growth factor hormone or something but I don't remember the details. There are a lot of different functions that occur while you sleep and we are just figuring them out. But I would say the main functions are clearing waste and consolidating memories.","human_ref_B":"I can't believe no one is talking about the recent fly study findings. Basically, fruit flies are a surprisingly good model for human sleep considering they aren't even mammals. https:\/\/pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/18591491\/ So, a study was done on them to find a way to keep them alive without sleep, as similarly to humans and many other animals, severe sleep deprivation leads inevitably to death. They found that just before dying, there was a large build up in toxic compounds in their gut. More interestingly, they found by neutralising these toxins in the gut, the flies would live normal lifespans without sleep, implying that the cause of death was actually these compounds. Obviously sleep is still baffling, but I think this is a very interesting step in the direction of figuring out what is going on. https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2020\/06\/study-reveals-guts-role-in-causing-death-by-sleep-deprivation\/","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5195.0,"score_ratio":1.6865079365} {"post_id":"kbkbsl","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Eli5: Why do we need to sleep so much, what happens in the body when asleep that cannot happen while normal resting or relaxing? Or is it just for the brain?","c_root_id_A":"gfibqmi","c_root_id_B":"gfibkvd","created_at_utc_A":1607769726,"created_at_utc_B":1607769616,"score_A":425,"score_B":50,"human_ref_A":"I can't believe no one is talking about the recent fly study findings. Basically, fruit flies are a surprisingly good model for human sleep considering they aren't even mammals. https:\/\/pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/18591491\/ So, a study was done on them to find a way to keep them alive without sleep, as similarly to humans and many other animals, severe sleep deprivation leads inevitably to death. They found that just before dying, there was a large build up in toxic compounds in their gut. More interestingly, they found by neutralising these toxins in the gut, the flies would live normal lifespans without sleep, implying that the cause of death was actually these compounds. Obviously sleep is still baffling, but I think this is a very interesting step in the direction of figuring out what is going on. https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2020\/06\/study-reveals-guts-role-in-causing-death-by-sleep-deprivation\/","human_ref_B":"The best answer I\u2019ve seen is your body actually doesn\u2019t do much different while you sleep but does a lot of things faster such as cell growth. It has to do with how humans use energy - most creatures create energy as it\u2019s needed, for the tasks needed at any given time. More complex systems have more energy demand, but have the benefit of adaptability - a simple creature that only eats algae will only have organs needed to intake and convert algae to energy, and likely will convert it as it\u2019s needed, but will as a result have limited energy for things such as moving quickly away from predators. There does seem to be a link to energy demand and sleep - creatures that perform high intensity activities during their time awake tend to sleep more while slow moving creatures tend to sleep rarely and some never sleep. The reason we do things such as close our eyes and relax is it allows the body to mostly guarantee that energy that COULD be spent on running, analyzing the environment, so on that COULD be needed immediately won\u2019t happen, so it can safely move energy to body systems for maintenance. Think about a time you had a bad injury - even if it was just a really bad hit to the shin, you are going to feel less energetic. You usually won\u2019t fall asleep though - the body can repair itself while you\u2019re awake but it does it slower. This is also what is happening when fighters get knocked out - they are more or less going to sleep as the body recognizes the energy demand to repair damage and prevent fatal injury exceeds the availability. So in short, nothing particularly unique happens while you\u2019re asleep, it\u2019s more like a spaceship rerouting power to systems as they are needed - and by having a period where your body can guarantee with almost certainty you won\u2019t need your full vision, sense of smell, hearing, or muscles, it can slow those systems down and focus on healing. This is also why you may notice if you get a cut in the morning, by night it might look roughly the same, but when you then go to sleep and wake it will appear notably smaller.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":110.0,"score_ratio":8.5} {"post_id":"kbkbsl","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Eli5: Why do we need to sleep so much, what happens in the body when asleep that cannot happen while normal resting or relaxing? Or is it just for the brain?","c_root_id_A":"gfiixsm","c_root_id_B":"gfibkvd","created_at_utc_A":1607774817,"created_at_utc_B":1607769616,"score_A":107,"score_B":50,"human_ref_A":"So. Much. Stuff. So much. Here's a quick overview. Simplified, you sleep in a couple different phases: REM (Rapid Eye Movement, the dreaming phase), and NREM, often split into NREM 1 and 2\/ NREM 3 and 4 (slow wave, \"deep\" sleep). Each of these types of sleep has a different job. During REM sleep, all the stuff you experienced and learned during the day gets replayed over and over, along with other old memories that your brain tries to mash together, making new connections and strengthening memories. A lot of inspiration comes from dreaming, because you just can't try out as many combinations of thoughts and ideas when you are awake. It's extremely important for memory and brain development, like another person said. Dreaming is also very important for getting over traumatic events, as dreams will make you relive them, but a very important stress hormone in your brain is turned off, so you can process the grief and other feelings without the trauma. PTSD, by the way, is what happens when this system fails. In NREM 1 and 2, one of the cool things that happens is that \"muscle memory\" is developed. Ever practiced something, got frustrated and stopped, and after sleeping on it, suddenly been able to do it? Your brain practices in your sleep. If you're trying to learn a new skill, make sure to get enough sleep. Deep NREM is the part where your brain reorganizes everything. Useless memories out, important memories saved and put into long-term storage. This part is extremely important for reducing anxiety and stress, as well as memory. Not only does this help you remember the things you learned from that day, it also clears up your short-term memory storage (basically like RAM) so you can start again in the morning. Don't underestimate the difference this makes. You can't put memories into long-term storage while awake, and you are losing them constantly as new ones replace them. Your blood pressure also goes way down, your heart gets some TLC, your whole body gets restored. Like another user said, toxins are flushed out. One important \"toxin\" is so-called amyloid plaque, a mess of proteins that you produce, and that get caught in your brain, every second you are awake. These destroy your brain and memory if allowed to keep growing unchecked. The *only* way to get rid of them is to get enough high-quality sleep, every night. These proteins are the reason older people get diseases like Alzheimer's: older people are often not able to sleep for as long as younger people. That is why it is so important to protect yourself from amyloid plaque by always getting 8 hours of sleep. I will stop now, but there is so much more happening during sleep, and so many studies proving it. Please ask if there is anything else you want to know! **TL;DR:** Body and brain are restored, memories processed, consolidated, and sent to long-term memory, stress, anxiety, and trauma reduced, blood pressure reduced, muscle memory developed, brain growth\/new ideas. Yes, 7-8 hours of sleep are necessary, even for the people who feel okay after less.","human_ref_B":"The best answer I\u2019ve seen is your body actually doesn\u2019t do much different while you sleep but does a lot of things faster such as cell growth. It has to do with how humans use energy - most creatures create energy as it\u2019s needed, for the tasks needed at any given time. More complex systems have more energy demand, but have the benefit of adaptability - a simple creature that only eats algae will only have organs needed to intake and convert algae to energy, and likely will convert it as it\u2019s needed, but will as a result have limited energy for things such as moving quickly away from predators. There does seem to be a link to energy demand and sleep - creatures that perform high intensity activities during their time awake tend to sleep more while slow moving creatures tend to sleep rarely and some never sleep. The reason we do things such as close our eyes and relax is it allows the body to mostly guarantee that energy that COULD be spent on running, analyzing the environment, so on that COULD be needed immediately won\u2019t happen, so it can safely move energy to body systems for maintenance. Think about a time you had a bad injury - even if it was just a really bad hit to the shin, you are going to feel less energetic. You usually won\u2019t fall asleep though - the body can repair itself while you\u2019re awake but it does it slower. This is also what is happening when fighters get knocked out - they are more or less going to sleep as the body recognizes the energy demand to repair damage and prevent fatal injury exceeds the availability. So in short, nothing particularly unique happens while you\u2019re asleep, it\u2019s more like a spaceship rerouting power to systems as they are needed - and by having a period where your body can guarantee with almost certainty you won\u2019t need your full vision, sense of smell, hearing, or muscles, it can slow those systems down and focus on healing. This is also why you may notice if you get a cut in the morning, by night it might look roughly the same, but when you then go to sleep and wake it will appear notably smaller.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5201.0,"score_ratio":2.14} {"post_id":"acybw2","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why do musical semitones mess around with a confusing sharps \/ flats system instead of going A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L ?","c_root_id_A":"edc0v4t","c_root_id_B":"edcba4m","created_at_utc_A":1546727350,"created_at_utc_B":1546734103,"score_A":40,"score_B":81,"human_ref_A":"Way back in the day, some people decided that some intervals sounded good together and others did not. They gave letter names to the ones that sounded good together in the key of C. The ones that sounded weird didn't get letters.","human_ref_B":"Because music was originally tonal, and based on scales. If you had a piece in C major, the notes you would use for your melody were C, D, E, F, G, A, B. Later, some monks decided to harmonize in 5ths (C to G is the interval of the 5th). But, if you're singing a B, then a 5th above is F#, not F. To sing F was to sing a different, dissonant interval that was not favored. Thus, the sharps and flats were there as exceptions. No one at that point was thinking about 12 equally important tones. In fact, if you follow the harmonic series, the notes DON'T split into 12 equal intervals. The 12 equal intervals are a compromise so that every scale, or key, sounds as good as the others. If you had a piano tuned to true C major, playing in D major would sound messed up (Actually, because our ears are so used to equal temperament, the true harmonic notes now sound odd to us. An example).","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6753.0,"score_ratio":2.025} {"post_id":"damdqg","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"[Explain like I'm five years old] Why have some languages like Spanish kept the pronunciation of the written language so that it can still be read phonetically, while spoken English deviated so much from the original spelling?","c_root_id_A":"f1r93nb","c_root_id_B":"f1qxf1b","created_at_utc_A":1569712695,"created_at_utc_B":1569708061,"score_A":6306,"score_B":300,"human_ref_A":"English did not originally have fixed spelling. People would spell words however they thought it sounded. This means that spelling varied from person to person and region to region. Also, due to being made of bits of several languages all smushed together often retaining parts of the original language's rules, there's no consistency as to how words are pronounced or where you even get the spelling from. A man named Samuel Johnson eventually wrote a dictionary in which he spelled the words however he wanted to and because of how popular it became, that became the fixed spelling. Johson liked stuffy fancy spellings rather than simple phonetic ones and he set the idea of telling people the \"correct\" way to write instead of telling them how words were normally used. Webster eventually did something similar for American English, although he preferred simplified spellings, hence some of the differences between American and British spelling.","human_ref_B":"Spanish has an academy whose mission is to standardize and grow the Spanish language, so that helps Spanish to keep its strict pronunciation. English is, and has always been, a total shitshow, linguistically speaking. https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Association\\_of\\_Academies\\_of\\_the\\_Spanish\\_Language","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4634.0,"score_ratio":21.02} {"post_id":"a47t0v","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why do humans move while listening to music (headbobs, dancing and foot tapping)?","c_root_id_A":"ebceb9m","c_root_id_B":"ebcci9a","created_at_utc_A":1544255680,"created_at_utc_B":1544252984,"score_A":585,"score_B":280,"human_ref_A":"It may be a by-product of the mimicry systems humans needed to evolve language. There's a study by Irene Pepperberg that suggests many other vocal mimicking species (parrots, elephants, dolphins (yes, elephants and dolphins are vocal mimics)) instinctually entrain to (mentally match, essentially) strong rhythms, while no non-mimicking species do. There's also evidence to suggest that while most species can entrain to vocalizations of their own species, few can entrain to vocalizations of other species, and even fewer can entrain to artificial sounds. All of those that can are vocal mimics. In other words, the ability to mimic sounds (a prerequisite for language) may involve or result in animals instinctually trying to understand\/match\/figure out how to imitate the sound. You can see how this would translate to music fairly easily.","human_ref_B":"From an evolutionary point of view, we still don't really know why human being like music. And yet virtually every civilization on this planet, likes some kind of music. Some call it an \"auditory cheesecake\": something that doesn't have much benefits to our body, that we gorge ourselves on nonetheless. Some speculate that the rhythm of the beat mimics the one of our heart\/steps, etc. But how could you be sure? Still, it doesn't explain why we all like it, something that everybody shares, and yet not vital. Maybe it's been useful for bounding, then it would make sense that you communicate it externally with your body in some way.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2696.0,"score_ratio":2.0892857143} {"post_id":"jlyeg1","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old:Why do people get tired\/fatigued more easily as they age?","c_root_id_A":"gas9vbw","c_root_id_B":"gas6k9f","created_at_utc_A":1604231481,"created_at_utc_B":1604228724,"score_A":8638,"score_B":1051,"human_ref_A":"Take a piece of paper, draw something, and photocopy it. Photocopy the photocopy, and keep using the result as your original. Use the world's best photocopier. Now do that for 100 years. Look at the result. Your body is the world's best photocopier. By the time you are 18-24 years old, the body is done developing. It is (partially) the mystery of life that our children (our reproductive cells) are not impacted by this degradation. We're just now starting to figure that bit out, and yes, we might be able to use that knowledge to extend life greatly. And in case you haven't drawn the conclusion yet, the better you maintain the photocopier, the better it will work at making copies. *Makin' copies!*","human_ref_B":"Muscle health and in general deterioration of body systems. You can definitely work to minimize the deterioration but it is inevitable that you will get weaker as a whole with age. Cell metabolism, nerves, cilia and hair cells, a bunch of things just get worse with age","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2757.0,"score_ratio":8.2188392008} {"post_id":"jlyeg1","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old:Why do people get tired\/fatigued more easily as they age?","c_root_id_A":"garx7di","c_root_id_B":"gas9vbw","created_at_utc_A":1604220522,"created_at_utc_B":1604231481,"score_A":503,"score_B":8638,"human_ref_A":"Lack of regular exercise and dehydration. Athletes know how much hydration affects performance, most other people don\u2019t. In people over 50 chronic dehydration causes more and more health problems, including muscle weakness, lack of energy and cholesterol build up. As time goes on that long term dehydration causes more and more problems. In \u2018care of the elderly\u2019 wards in hospitals, where I\u2019ve worked, up to 90% of the patients are there with symptoms caused directly or indirectly by long term dehydration, including urinary tract infections, muscle weakness and dizziness leading to a fall, and vascular dementia, caused by blood vessels being clogged with cholesterol, which the body produces to stop the blood vessels collapsing when you\u2019re chronically dehydrated.","human_ref_B":"Take a piece of paper, draw something, and photocopy it. Photocopy the photocopy, and keep using the result as your original. Use the world's best photocopier. Now do that for 100 years. Look at the result. Your body is the world's best photocopier. By the time you are 18-24 years old, the body is done developing. It is (partially) the mystery of life that our children (our reproductive cells) are not impacted by this degradation. We're just now starting to figure that bit out, and yes, we might be able to use that knowledge to extend life greatly. And in case you haven't drawn the conclusion yet, the better you maintain the photocopier, the better it will work at making copies. *Makin' copies!*","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10959.0,"score_ratio":17.1729622266} {"post_id":"jlyeg1","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old:Why do people get tired\/fatigued more easily as they age?","c_root_id_A":"gas9vbw","c_root_id_B":"gas8zu0","created_at_utc_A":1604231481,"created_at_utc_B":1604230773,"score_A":8638,"score_B":162,"human_ref_A":"Take a piece of paper, draw something, and photocopy it. Photocopy the photocopy, and keep using the result as your original. Use the world's best photocopier. Now do that for 100 years. Look at the result. Your body is the world's best photocopier. By the time you are 18-24 years old, the body is done developing. It is (partially) the mystery of life that our children (our reproductive cells) are not impacted by this degradation. We're just now starting to figure that bit out, and yes, we might be able to use that knowledge to extend life greatly. And in case you haven't drawn the conclusion yet, the better you maintain the photocopier, the better it will work at making copies. *Makin' copies!*","human_ref_B":"There could many, many, many reasons why fatigue sets in the more people age. They do overlap making it a question that can be unique to each individual. Lifestyle- As we age life becomes more demanding and stressful. We get jobs, go to school, start families and form more complex social lives and adopting energy consuming roles in society. On average, children and teenagers have a lot less to worry about in terms of stress than someone who has the above mentioned established. That's why it is important to rest when stressed and get sleep in. Yes, diet, exercise and hydration influence fatigue, lol. Biology- Genes can be triggered or damaged over a person's lifetime to affect so many aspects of their functioning. Things like hormones and genetic diseases can affect a person's fatigue as they grow older. Some hormones that influence sleep actually decrease as we age. This explains why sleep is vital for development and why the elderly tend to be more restless. Mental\/Psychological- Depression, stress, trauma boredom, and other forms of psychological states can affect a person's energy levels. Depression can not only leave a person with crushing fatigue but it may also reduce the quality of sleep. There are so many things influencing our energy levels that it is always important to check in with professionals depending on your needs.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":708.0,"score_ratio":53.3209876543} {"post_id":"jlyeg1","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old:Why do people get tired\/fatigued more easily as they age?","c_root_id_A":"gas710i","c_root_id_B":"gas9vbw","created_at_utc_A":1604229191,"created_at_utc_B":1604231481,"score_A":98,"score_B":8638,"human_ref_A":"people lose mucle mass from 40 on at a higher rate. less muscle to do work more strain to the remaining muscle doing said work","human_ref_B":"Take a piece of paper, draw something, and photocopy it. Photocopy the photocopy, and keep using the result as your original. Use the world's best photocopier. Now do that for 100 years. Look at the result. Your body is the world's best photocopier. By the time you are 18-24 years old, the body is done developing. It is (partially) the mystery of life that our children (our reproductive cells) are not impacted by this degradation. We're just now starting to figure that bit out, and yes, we might be able to use that knowledge to extend life greatly. And in case you haven't drawn the conclusion yet, the better you maintain the photocopier, the better it will work at making copies. *Makin' copies!*","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2290.0,"score_ratio":88.1428571429} {"post_id":"jlyeg1","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old:Why do people get tired\/fatigued more easily as they age?","c_root_id_A":"gas6k9f","c_root_id_B":"garx7di","created_at_utc_A":1604228724,"created_at_utc_B":1604220522,"score_A":1051,"score_B":503,"human_ref_A":"Muscle health and in general deterioration of body systems. You can definitely work to minimize the deterioration but it is inevitable that you will get weaker as a whole with age. Cell metabolism, nerves, cilia and hair cells, a bunch of things just get worse with age","human_ref_B":"Lack of regular exercise and dehydration. Athletes know how much hydration affects performance, most other people don\u2019t. In people over 50 chronic dehydration causes more and more health problems, including muscle weakness, lack of energy and cholesterol build up. As time goes on that long term dehydration causes more and more problems. In \u2018care of the elderly\u2019 wards in hospitals, where I\u2019ve worked, up to 90% of the patients are there with symptoms caused directly or indirectly by long term dehydration, including urinary tract infections, muscle weakness and dizziness leading to a fall, and vascular dementia, caused by blood vessels being clogged with cholesterol, which the body produces to stop the blood vessels collapsing when you\u2019re chronically dehydrated.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8202.0,"score_ratio":2.0894632207} {"post_id":"jlyeg1","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old:Why do people get tired\/fatigued more easily as they age?","c_root_id_A":"garx7di","c_root_id_B":"gasz6ii","created_at_utc_A":1604220522,"created_at_utc_B":1604248305,"score_A":503,"score_B":698,"human_ref_A":"Lack of regular exercise and dehydration. Athletes know how much hydration affects performance, most other people don\u2019t. In people over 50 chronic dehydration causes more and more health problems, including muscle weakness, lack of energy and cholesterol build up. As time goes on that long term dehydration causes more and more problems. In \u2018care of the elderly\u2019 wards in hospitals, where I\u2019ve worked, up to 90% of the patients are there with symptoms caused directly or indirectly by long term dehydration, including urinary tract infections, muscle weakness and dizziness leading to a fall, and vascular dementia, caused by blood vessels being clogged with cholesterol, which the body produces to stop the blood vessels collapsing when you\u2019re chronically dehydrated.","human_ref_B":"I am 71, and I have walked all my life. I now also work out with weights, age-appropriate weights, but I do. I can see that I\u2019m pretty wrinkly looking, but I am well within BMI for my height and generally speaking have a fair amount of energy. I try and eat sensibly, which is not to say I don\u2019t occasionally eat not sensibly but mostly. But after all that, I do not have the energy levels I had when I was younger even though I\u2019m reasonably proud of the energy levels I do have. I think you have to keep trying but be realistic and not beat yourself up because ageing is a real process.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":27783.0,"score_ratio":1.3876739563} {"post_id":"jlyeg1","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old:Why do people get tired\/fatigued more easily as they age?","c_root_id_A":"gasz6ii","c_root_id_B":"gas8zu0","created_at_utc_A":1604248305,"created_at_utc_B":1604230773,"score_A":698,"score_B":162,"human_ref_A":"I am 71, and I have walked all my life. I now also work out with weights, age-appropriate weights, but I do. I can see that I\u2019m pretty wrinkly looking, but I am well within BMI for my height and generally speaking have a fair amount of energy. I try and eat sensibly, which is not to say I don\u2019t occasionally eat not sensibly but mostly. But after all that, I do not have the energy levels I had when I was younger even though I\u2019m reasonably proud of the energy levels I do have. I think you have to keep trying but be realistic and not beat yourself up because ageing is a real process.","human_ref_B":"There could many, many, many reasons why fatigue sets in the more people age. They do overlap making it a question that can be unique to each individual. Lifestyle- As we age life becomes more demanding and stressful. We get jobs, go to school, start families and form more complex social lives and adopting energy consuming roles in society. On average, children and teenagers have a lot less to worry about in terms of stress than someone who has the above mentioned established. That's why it is important to rest when stressed and get sleep in. Yes, diet, exercise and hydration influence fatigue, lol. Biology- Genes can be triggered or damaged over a person's lifetime to affect so many aspects of their functioning. Things like hormones and genetic diseases can affect a person's fatigue as they grow older. Some hormones that influence sleep actually decrease as we age. This explains why sleep is vital for development and why the elderly tend to be more restless. Mental\/Psychological- Depression, stress, trauma boredom, and other forms of psychological states can affect a person's energy levels. Depression can not only leave a person with crushing fatigue but it may also reduce the quality of sleep. There are so many things influencing our energy levels that it is always important to check in with professionals depending on your needs.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":17532.0,"score_ratio":4.3086419753} {"post_id":"jlyeg1","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old:Why do people get tired\/fatigued more easily as they age?","c_root_id_A":"gasz6ii","c_root_id_B":"gas710i","created_at_utc_A":1604248305,"created_at_utc_B":1604229191,"score_A":698,"score_B":98,"human_ref_A":"I am 71, and I have walked all my life. I now also work out with weights, age-appropriate weights, but I do. I can see that I\u2019m pretty wrinkly looking, but I am well within BMI for my height and generally speaking have a fair amount of energy. I try and eat sensibly, which is not to say I don\u2019t occasionally eat not sensibly but mostly. But after all that, I do not have the energy levels I had when I was younger even though I\u2019m reasonably proud of the energy levels I do have. I think you have to keep trying but be realistic and not beat yourself up because ageing is a real process.","human_ref_B":"people lose mucle mass from 40 on at a higher rate. less muscle to do work more strain to the remaining muscle doing said work","labels":1,"seconds_difference":19114.0,"score_ratio":7.1224489796} {"post_id":"jlyeg1","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old:Why do people get tired\/fatigued more easily as they age?","c_root_id_A":"gas8zu0","c_root_id_B":"gas710i","created_at_utc_A":1604230773,"created_at_utc_B":1604229191,"score_A":162,"score_B":98,"human_ref_A":"There could many, many, many reasons why fatigue sets in the more people age. They do overlap making it a question that can be unique to each individual. Lifestyle- As we age life becomes more demanding and stressful. We get jobs, go to school, start families and form more complex social lives and adopting energy consuming roles in society. On average, children and teenagers have a lot less to worry about in terms of stress than someone who has the above mentioned established. That's why it is important to rest when stressed and get sleep in. Yes, diet, exercise and hydration influence fatigue, lol. Biology- Genes can be triggered or damaged over a person's lifetime to affect so many aspects of their functioning. Things like hormones and genetic diseases can affect a person's fatigue as they grow older. Some hormones that influence sleep actually decrease as we age. This explains why sleep is vital for development and why the elderly tend to be more restless. Mental\/Psychological- Depression, stress, trauma boredom, and other forms of psychological states can affect a person's energy levels. Depression can not only leave a person with crushing fatigue but it may also reduce the quality of sleep. There are so many things influencing our energy levels that it is always important to check in with professionals depending on your needs.","human_ref_B":"people lose mucle mass from 40 on at a higher rate. less muscle to do work more strain to the remaining muscle doing said work","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1582.0,"score_ratio":1.6530612245} {"post_id":"at0yjd","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How can phones have 8gb ram in such a small formfactor and pc needs these huge 4gb ram stick?","c_root_id_A":"egxzcvo","c_root_id_B":"egy9j3f","created_at_utc_A":1550741214,"created_at_utc_B":1550755590,"score_A":62,"score_B":146,"human_ref_A":"For mobile phones, they use very lower powered memory chips, running at a lower clock speed, lower voltage and often lower bus width as well, that is how much data can be transmitted at the same time. This allows them to put the chips into smaller packages without risk of overheating, possibly even stack multiple chips on top of each other into a single package like they do with memory cards. But the 4 GB modules aren't anywhere near their maximum capacity. You can buy 16, 32, 64 and in the near future even 128 GB modules, which all fit into the same form factor.","human_ref_B":"In addition to what others have said about existing standards: * The RAM stick standard size is based off RAM sticks from well over a decade ago. Desktop RAM sticks have larger contacts than laptop RAM for more stable contacts (see ref pic halfway down on this StackOverflow article). Part of the reason is the NUMBER of contacts. The DDR4 standard, for example, defines a certain number of pins, the data path 'width' per cycle. Fewer pin contacts would require a different standard but ALSO be much harder to reach the same speeds with. * There is the SO-DIMM standard. However, it's not MUCH smaller (about half the length) and requires far more compact traces, which are more failure-prone. It's used heavily in laptops with upgradable RAM, but even this is too big for a lot of devices. In laptops, that stick is laying down - which takes a LOT of valuable motherboard space - while also still adding a good .5\" thickness. Apple is a good example of this - their laptops haven't had upgradable RAM in years, and part of the reason is that they try to minimize thickness (to an unhealthy degree). * We don't use SO-DIMM in desktops because the motherboard space isn't as much of a premium, and because we tend to want to maximize speed instead. RAM can have a number of different compromises, but it can't be fast, cheap AND space efficient. Pick 2. :) * Many laptops (and even some Small-Form Factor desktops) often have RAM chips directly soldiered-on the motherboard to deal with this very issue. However, this has substantial downsides - more custom engineering, higher manufacturing cost, higher repair\/replacement costs. * Many phones use higher density modules (RAM chips) to help save space, and package-on-package is being used to save even more. For example, the Samsung Galaxy S9+ has 6GB, and in this teardown on iFixit, it's embedded on the CPU in a second layer. This makes sense - the CPU and GPU are in the single SOC, and they are really the only things that need direct RAM access, so all of those connections skip the 'motherboard' entirely and are just in the SOC package. Meanwhile, if you look at the part number for that RAM chip on Samsung's site, it's listed as 48Gb (RAM chips, unlike sticks, are listed in Gigabits, not Gigabytes). That's VERY high density. That high density is also VERY expensive. Compare that with this cheap stick of 4GB DDR4 desktop RAM; it's not worried about space savings (in fact, only half of one side of the PCB is used!), and is instead using 4x 8Gb chips to reach 4GB. Those low density chips are much less expensive, and PCB traces map them to the full DDR4 standard (with the help of a very tiny chip in the middle of the PCB). ​ So TL;DR: The industry never came up with a smaller RAM board standard than DIMM\/SO-DIMM because you need a large number of contacts for RAM to be fast. Very high density RAM is MUCH more expensive, and since space is not at a premium and there is the option to put it directly on the motherboard or in a package-on-package solution, there isn't enough demand to justify the work on one. Update: Added SO-DIMM to the explanation.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":14376.0,"score_ratio":2.3548387097} {"post_id":"gc0ph7","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why is raw egg white okay to drink in fancy cocktails but considered dangerous when eating raw cookie dough? People always freak out about eating raw cookie dough for fear of salmonella due to the raw eggs. Yet raw egg whites have been a common ingredient in fancy cocktails for ages and its never been questioned or regarded as dangerous. What gives?","c_root_id_A":"fp9506o","c_root_id_B":"fp8qwah","created_at_utc_A":1588414577,"created_at_utc_B":1588400057,"score_A":4306,"score_B":143,"human_ref_A":"Hello! I\u2019m a food scientist, and to address your concern about the cookie dough specifically, cookie dough is labeled with warnings not necessarily because of the eggs (although there will always be concerns with raw poultry products and salmonella), but because of the flour. Think of it this way. Flour is a processed grain that is essentially taken from the field and ground into flour by mechanical means. While there are other steps sometimes involved (whole wheat flour vs. regular flour, cake flour vs. regular flour all involve different processing steps), the flour is not taken through enough steps during processing that can guarantee pathogens of concern are killed. So, bacteria like salmonella, E. coli, etc. can be introduced in the field or during processing, meaning it can end up ground right in the final flour. However, this does not mean you should be scared of flour now. Flour is not a product typically eaten raw (ie. You don\u2019t eat flour with a spoon), and almost everything you make with it will go through a significant heat kill step (baking, cooking, etc.), AKA you are getting rid of the bacteria. This leads to why manufacturers put the warning on cookie dough. People enjoy raw cookie dough, so they are at risk of eating raw flour. Yes, salmonella may exist in the cookie dough. Will it hurt you? No, not likely unless you are a person with a weakened immune system susceptible to foodborne illness (meaning it essentially takes less bacteria to make you sick because your body is not as well equipped to protect itself), or the cookie dough was temperature abused (meaning the cookie dough was not properly refrigerated, leading the cookie dough reaching an internal temperature that allows the bacteria to multiply more quickly, and more bacteria=more of a chance at getting sick). EDIT: Here\u2019s a succinct source from the FDA for those interested in this cookie dough info: FDA Cookie Dough Guidance","human_ref_B":"I heard that sign is not about raw eggs but about raw flour that might contain ecoli. The salmonella isnt actually in the eggs but rather on the shell.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":14520.0,"score_ratio":30.1118881119} {"post_id":"gc0ph7","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why is raw egg white okay to drink in fancy cocktails but considered dangerous when eating raw cookie dough? People always freak out about eating raw cookie dough for fear of salmonella due to the raw eggs. Yet raw egg whites have been a common ingredient in fancy cocktails for ages and its never been questioned or regarded as dangerous. What gives?","c_root_id_A":"fp8lww3","c_root_id_B":"fp9506o","created_at_utc_A":1588395836,"created_at_utc_B":1588414577,"score_A":98,"score_B":4306,"human_ref_A":"The realistic is that eating raw eggs is actually quite safe. There's an extremely small chance the egg could have some issue (generally salmonella), but its incredibly small as there is tons of processes in place from the farm all the way until it arrives in your fridge at home designed to keep eggs safe to eat, even raw. The prohibition and fear of raw eggs is an insane, and almost completely unfounded overreaction.","human_ref_B":"Hello! I\u2019m a food scientist, and to address your concern about the cookie dough specifically, cookie dough is labeled with warnings not necessarily because of the eggs (although there will always be concerns with raw poultry products and salmonella), but because of the flour. Think of it this way. Flour is a processed grain that is essentially taken from the field and ground into flour by mechanical means. While there are other steps sometimes involved (whole wheat flour vs. regular flour, cake flour vs. regular flour all involve different processing steps), the flour is not taken through enough steps during processing that can guarantee pathogens of concern are killed. So, bacteria like salmonella, E. coli, etc. can be introduced in the field or during processing, meaning it can end up ground right in the final flour. However, this does not mean you should be scared of flour now. Flour is not a product typically eaten raw (ie. You don\u2019t eat flour with a spoon), and almost everything you make with it will go through a significant heat kill step (baking, cooking, etc.), AKA you are getting rid of the bacteria. This leads to why manufacturers put the warning on cookie dough. People enjoy raw cookie dough, so they are at risk of eating raw flour. Yes, salmonella may exist in the cookie dough. Will it hurt you? No, not likely unless you are a person with a weakened immune system susceptible to foodborne illness (meaning it essentially takes less bacteria to make you sick because your body is not as well equipped to protect itself), or the cookie dough was temperature abused (meaning the cookie dough was not properly refrigerated, leading the cookie dough reaching an internal temperature that allows the bacteria to multiply more quickly, and more bacteria=more of a chance at getting sick). EDIT: Here\u2019s a succinct source from the FDA for those interested in this cookie dough info: FDA Cookie Dough Guidance","labels":0,"seconds_difference":18741.0,"score_ratio":43.9387755102} {"post_id":"gc0ph7","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why is raw egg white okay to drink in fancy cocktails but considered dangerous when eating raw cookie dough? People always freak out about eating raw cookie dough for fear of salmonella due to the raw eggs. Yet raw egg whites have been a common ingredient in fancy cocktails for ages and its never been questioned or regarded as dangerous. What gives?","c_root_id_A":"fp9506o","c_root_id_B":"fp8m94g","created_at_utc_A":1588414577,"created_at_utc_B":1588396113,"score_A":4306,"score_B":39,"human_ref_A":"Hello! I\u2019m a food scientist, and to address your concern about the cookie dough specifically, cookie dough is labeled with warnings not necessarily because of the eggs (although there will always be concerns with raw poultry products and salmonella), but because of the flour. Think of it this way. Flour is a processed grain that is essentially taken from the field and ground into flour by mechanical means. While there are other steps sometimes involved (whole wheat flour vs. regular flour, cake flour vs. regular flour all involve different processing steps), the flour is not taken through enough steps during processing that can guarantee pathogens of concern are killed. So, bacteria like salmonella, E. coli, etc. can be introduced in the field or during processing, meaning it can end up ground right in the final flour. However, this does not mean you should be scared of flour now. Flour is not a product typically eaten raw (ie. You don\u2019t eat flour with a spoon), and almost everything you make with it will go through a significant heat kill step (baking, cooking, etc.), AKA you are getting rid of the bacteria. This leads to why manufacturers put the warning on cookie dough. People enjoy raw cookie dough, so they are at risk of eating raw flour. Yes, salmonella may exist in the cookie dough. Will it hurt you? No, not likely unless you are a person with a weakened immune system susceptible to foodborne illness (meaning it essentially takes less bacteria to make you sick because your body is not as well equipped to protect itself), or the cookie dough was temperature abused (meaning the cookie dough was not properly refrigerated, leading the cookie dough reaching an internal temperature that allows the bacteria to multiply more quickly, and more bacteria=more of a chance at getting sick). EDIT: Here\u2019s a succinct source from the FDA for those interested in this cookie dough info: FDA Cookie Dough Guidance","human_ref_B":"Generally speaking, the egg whites are mixed with liquor, some type of citrus(usually lemon or lime juice), and sugar. All three of these ingredients have the potential to kill bacteria. So emulsifying these ingredients in a cocktail shaker will kill the potential salmonella that could kill you. Similarly, citric acid is used for dishes like ceviche, where raw seafood like shrimp is brined in lemon or lime juice. Also, the risk for a healthy adult getting salmonella from raw egg is pretty low. IMO there is more risk in the garnish tray than anything else behind the bar.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":18464.0,"score_ratio":110.4102564103} {"post_id":"gc0ph7","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why is raw egg white okay to drink in fancy cocktails but considered dangerous when eating raw cookie dough? People always freak out about eating raw cookie dough for fear of salmonella due to the raw eggs. Yet raw egg whites have been a common ingredient in fancy cocktails for ages and its never been questioned or regarded as dangerous. What gives?","c_root_id_A":"fp8lww3","c_root_id_B":"fp8qwah","created_at_utc_A":1588395836,"created_at_utc_B":1588400057,"score_A":98,"score_B":143,"human_ref_A":"The realistic is that eating raw eggs is actually quite safe. There's an extremely small chance the egg could have some issue (generally salmonella), but its incredibly small as there is tons of processes in place from the farm all the way until it arrives in your fridge at home designed to keep eggs safe to eat, even raw. The prohibition and fear of raw eggs is an insane, and almost completely unfounded overreaction.","human_ref_B":"I heard that sign is not about raw eggs but about raw flour that might contain ecoli. The salmonella isnt actually in the eggs but rather on the shell.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4221.0,"score_ratio":1.4591836735} {"post_id":"gc0ph7","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why is raw egg white okay to drink in fancy cocktails but considered dangerous when eating raw cookie dough? People always freak out about eating raw cookie dough for fear of salmonella due to the raw eggs. Yet raw egg whites have been a common ingredient in fancy cocktails for ages and its never been questioned or regarded as dangerous. What gives?","c_root_id_A":"fp8qwah","c_root_id_B":"fp8m94g","created_at_utc_A":1588400057,"created_at_utc_B":1588396113,"score_A":143,"score_B":39,"human_ref_A":"I heard that sign is not about raw eggs but about raw flour that might contain ecoli. The salmonella isnt actually in the eggs but rather on the shell.","human_ref_B":"Generally speaking, the egg whites are mixed with liquor, some type of citrus(usually lemon or lime juice), and sugar. All three of these ingredients have the potential to kill bacteria. So emulsifying these ingredients in a cocktail shaker will kill the potential salmonella that could kill you. Similarly, citric acid is used for dishes like ceviche, where raw seafood like shrimp is brined in lemon or lime juice. Also, the risk for a healthy adult getting salmonella from raw egg is pretty low. IMO there is more risk in the garnish tray than anything else behind the bar.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3944.0,"score_ratio":3.6666666667} {"post_id":"gc0ph7","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why is raw egg white okay to drink in fancy cocktails but considered dangerous when eating raw cookie dough? People always freak out about eating raw cookie dough for fear of salmonella due to the raw eggs. Yet raw egg whites have been a common ingredient in fancy cocktails for ages and its never been questioned or regarded as dangerous. What gives?","c_root_id_A":"fp9k48w","c_root_id_B":"fp9kknd","created_at_utc_A":1588428215,"created_at_utc_B":1588428533,"score_A":45,"score_B":72,"human_ref_A":"Because people make a big deal out of raw eggs for almost no reason. 1 in 20k eggs will have salmonella, about. ​ How many eggs have you eaten in your life?","human_ref_B":"Bartender here. TL;DR Eggs for cocktails are prepared(tested) It's not like there is no problem with using egg white (or even yolk) in cocktail. All depends what are the sanitary laws in your country. In Poland you need a certificate that the eggs were UV exposed. You can take this when buying eggs (for restaurant, bars etc) or doing it by yourself. If you run some club and you don't offer food, you aren't allowed to make egg based cocktails, because you need permission for selling food. If you do sell food you need to take a lot of certificates from your sellers.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":318.0,"score_ratio":1.6} {"post_id":"gc0ph7","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why is raw egg white okay to drink in fancy cocktails but considered dangerous when eating raw cookie dough? People always freak out about eating raw cookie dough for fear of salmonella due to the raw eggs. Yet raw egg whites have been a common ingredient in fancy cocktails for ages and its never been questioned or regarded as dangerous. What gives?","c_root_id_A":"fp8m94g","c_root_id_B":"fp9kknd","created_at_utc_A":1588396113,"created_at_utc_B":1588428533,"score_A":39,"score_B":72,"human_ref_A":"Generally speaking, the egg whites are mixed with liquor, some type of citrus(usually lemon or lime juice), and sugar. All three of these ingredients have the potential to kill bacteria. So emulsifying these ingredients in a cocktail shaker will kill the potential salmonella that could kill you. Similarly, citric acid is used for dishes like ceviche, where raw seafood like shrimp is brined in lemon or lime juice. Also, the risk for a healthy adult getting salmonella from raw egg is pretty low. IMO there is more risk in the garnish tray than anything else behind the bar.","human_ref_B":"Bartender here. TL;DR Eggs for cocktails are prepared(tested) It's not like there is no problem with using egg white (or even yolk) in cocktail. All depends what are the sanitary laws in your country. In Poland you need a certificate that the eggs were UV exposed. You can take this when buying eggs (for restaurant, bars etc) or doing it by yourself. If you run some club and you don't offer food, you aren't allowed to make egg based cocktails, because you need permission for selling food. If you do sell food you need to take a lot of certificates from your sellers.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":32420.0,"score_ratio":1.8461538462} {"post_id":"gc0ph7","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why is raw egg white okay to drink in fancy cocktails but considered dangerous when eating raw cookie dough? People always freak out about eating raw cookie dough for fear of salmonella due to the raw eggs. Yet raw egg whites have been a common ingredient in fancy cocktails for ages and its never been questioned or regarded as dangerous. What gives?","c_root_id_A":"fp9k48w","c_root_id_B":"fp8m94g","created_at_utc_A":1588428215,"created_at_utc_B":1588396113,"score_A":45,"score_B":39,"human_ref_A":"Because people make a big deal out of raw eggs for almost no reason. 1 in 20k eggs will have salmonella, about. ​ How many eggs have you eaten in your life?","human_ref_B":"Generally speaking, the egg whites are mixed with liquor, some type of citrus(usually lemon or lime juice), and sugar. All three of these ingredients have the potential to kill bacteria. So emulsifying these ingredients in a cocktail shaker will kill the potential salmonella that could kill you. Similarly, citric acid is used for dishes like ceviche, where raw seafood like shrimp is brined in lemon or lime juice. Also, the risk for a healthy adult getting salmonella from raw egg is pretty low. IMO there is more risk in the garnish tray than anything else behind the bar.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":32102.0,"score_ratio":1.1538461538} {"post_id":"mfdt31","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How do farmers control whether a chicken lays an eating egg or a reproductive egg and how can they tell which kind is laid?","c_root_id_A":"gsmxttd","c_root_id_B":"gsmxp7m","created_at_utc_A":1616978174,"created_at_utc_B":1616978100,"score_A":10782,"score_B":2448,"human_ref_A":"Chickens lay eggs whether they are fertilized or not, so the easiest way to make commercial eggs is to not allow the males to mix with the females. But if you need to check an egg you just hold it up to a bright light. You can see enough through the shell to tell if a chick is in there. Commercial operations do this with automated machinery.","human_ref_B":"Chickens will lay eggs no matter what. It\u2019s basically a daily chicken period. Only if they are fertilized by a rooster beforehand will they form baby chicks. If you keep chickens away from roosters, all eggs will be eating eggs. Edit: I know both fertilized and unfertilized eggs can be eaten. OP said eating eggs and reproductive eggs so I stuck with the same terminology assuming they meant how do farmers know what eggs are able to become chicks and which ones won\u2019t.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":74.0,"score_ratio":4.4044117647} {"post_id":"mfdt31","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How do farmers control whether a chicken lays an eating egg or a reproductive egg and how can they tell which kind is laid?","c_root_id_A":"gsmxttd","c_root_id_B":"gsmxqwr","created_at_utc_A":1616978174,"created_at_utc_B":1616978127,"score_A":10782,"score_B":57,"human_ref_A":"Chickens lay eggs whether they are fertilized or not, so the easiest way to make commercial eggs is to not allow the males to mix with the females. But if you need to check an egg you just hold it up to a bright light. You can see enough through the shell to tell if a chick is in there. Commercial operations do this with automated machinery.","human_ref_B":"> How do farmers control whether a chicken lays an eating egg or a reproductive egg You remove any roosters from your farm > how can they tell which kind is laid? They're the same thing. If you get a fertilized egg soon enough (eggs are usually collected in the morning or at night every day) then a chick won't grow and you can eat it like it was never fertilized at all","labels":1,"seconds_difference":47.0,"score_ratio":189.1578947368} {"post_id":"mfdt31","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How do farmers control whether a chicken lays an eating egg or a reproductive egg and how can they tell which kind is laid?","c_root_id_A":"gsmy8kw","c_root_id_B":"gsnorz7","created_at_utc_A":1616978409,"created_at_utc_B":1616995275,"score_A":266,"score_B":328,"human_ref_A":"All eggs are eating eggs unless you want to hatch more chickens. Hatching eggs require fertilization from a rooster. On commercial farms, hens that lay eating eggs rarely, if ever, are given any 'private time' with a rooster. They may bring in a rooster to give them motivation but not allow fertilization. My family raised chickens when I was a kid and we had a rooster. There is a visible difference when you crack open a fertilized eggs because the yolk and the egg white are joined together by threads or tubules. I don't recall the eggs tasting any different (Summertime eggs were definitely better because the chickens were eating a lot of bugs. The yolk is a deeper yellow.)","human_ref_B":"Hens lay fertile eggs within about 3 weeks of being 'visited' by a rooster. She then doles out the semen one egg at a time as she lays a clutch. After laying as many as she wants to incubate, she sits on them, keeping them uniformly ~99\u00b0 F for 21 days. Fertile eggs are indiscernible from infertile eggs and can only be proven one way or the other by incubating or cracking them open. Only a trained eye can tell the difference, even by cracking and examining. Noticeable development is only present after 5-7 days at incubation temperatures. Eggs are generally collected within a few hours of being laid, so there's normally no danger of finding any development, as they aren't incubated. TL;DR:\u00a0 Farmers collect eggs regardless of whether they are fertile or not. Fertilization is absolutely irrelevant, as a normal person couldn't possibly discern whether the uncracked egg was fertile until day 8 or so of intentional incubation. They look and taste the same either way. *Somehow deleted part of my response while trying to fix a typo, sorry!","labels":0,"seconds_difference":16866.0,"score_ratio":1.2330827068} {"post_id":"mfdt31","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How do farmers control whether a chicken lays an eating egg or a reproductive egg and how can they tell which kind is laid?","c_root_id_A":"gsnorz7","c_root_id_B":"gsn1g1k","created_at_utc_A":1616995275,"created_at_utc_B":1616980252,"score_A":328,"score_B":237,"human_ref_A":"Hens lay fertile eggs within about 3 weeks of being 'visited' by a rooster. She then doles out the semen one egg at a time as she lays a clutch. After laying as many as she wants to incubate, she sits on them, keeping them uniformly ~99\u00b0 F for 21 days. Fertile eggs are indiscernible from infertile eggs and can only be proven one way or the other by incubating or cracking them open. Only a trained eye can tell the difference, even by cracking and examining. Noticeable development is only present after 5-7 days at incubation temperatures. Eggs are generally collected within a few hours of being laid, so there's normally no danger of finding any development, as they aren't incubated. TL;DR:\u00a0 Farmers collect eggs regardless of whether they are fertile or not. Fertilization is absolutely irrelevant, as a normal person couldn't possibly discern whether the uncracked egg was fertile until day 8 or so of intentional incubation. They look and taste the same either way. *Somehow deleted part of my response while trying to fix a typo, sorry!","human_ref_B":"The eggs will only be fertilized if a rooster has done his job. You can eat eggs whether they\u2019re fertilized or not. The embryo doesn\u2019t develop unless the egg is incubated either by a hen or a machine. Eggs can be \u201ccandled\u201d to see an embryo.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":15023.0,"score_ratio":1.3839662447} {"post_id":"mfdt31","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How do farmers control whether a chicken lays an eating egg or a reproductive egg and how can they tell which kind is laid?","c_root_id_A":"gsmxqwr","c_root_id_B":"gsnorz7","created_at_utc_A":1616978127,"created_at_utc_B":1616995275,"score_A":57,"score_B":328,"human_ref_A":"> How do farmers control whether a chicken lays an eating egg or a reproductive egg You remove any roosters from your farm > how can they tell which kind is laid? They're the same thing. If you get a fertilized egg soon enough (eggs are usually collected in the morning or at night every day) then a chick won't grow and you can eat it like it was never fertilized at all","human_ref_B":"Hens lay fertile eggs within about 3 weeks of being 'visited' by a rooster. She then doles out the semen one egg at a time as she lays a clutch. After laying as many as she wants to incubate, she sits on them, keeping them uniformly ~99\u00b0 F for 21 days. Fertile eggs are indiscernible from infertile eggs and can only be proven one way or the other by incubating or cracking them open. Only a trained eye can tell the difference, even by cracking and examining. Noticeable development is only present after 5-7 days at incubation temperatures. Eggs are generally collected within a few hours of being laid, so there's normally no danger of finding any development, as they aren't incubated. TL;DR:\u00a0 Farmers collect eggs regardless of whether they are fertile or not. Fertilization is absolutely irrelevant, as a normal person couldn't possibly discern whether the uncracked egg was fertile until day 8 or so of intentional incubation. They look and taste the same either way. *Somehow deleted part of my response while trying to fix a typo, sorry!","labels":0,"seconds_difference":17148.0,"score_ratio":5.7543859649} {"post_id":"mfdt31","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How do farmers control whether a chicken lays an eating egg or a reproductive egg and how can they tell which kind is laid?","c_root_id_A":"gsmy8kw","c_root_id_B":"gsmxqwr","created_at_utc_A":1616978409,"created_at_utc_B":1616978127,"score_A":266,"score_B":57,"human_ref_A":"All eggs are eating eggs unless you want to hatch more chickens. Hatching eggs require fertilization from a rooster. On commercial farms, hens that lay eating eggs rarely, if ever, are given any 'private time' with a rooster. They may bring in a rooster to give them motivation but not allow fertilization. My family raised chickens when I was a kid and we had a rooster. There is a visible difference when you crack open a fertilized eggs because the yolk and the egg white are joined together by threads or tubules. I don't recall the eggs tasting any different (Summertime eggs were definitely better because the chickens were eating a lot of bugs. The yolk is a deeper yellow.)","human_ref_B":"> How do farmers control whether a chicken lays an eating egg or a reproductive egg You remove any roosters from your farm > how can they tell which kind is laid? They're the same thing. If you get a fertilized egg soon enough (eggs are usually collected in the morning or at night every day) then a chick won't grow and you can eat it like it was never fertilized at all","labels":1,"seconds_difference":282.0,"score_ratio":4.6666666667} {"post_id":"mfdt31","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How do farmers control whether a chicken lays an eating egg or a reproductive egg and how can they tell which kind is laid?","c_root_id_A":"gsn1g1k","c_root_id_B":"gsmxqwr","created_at_utc_A":1616980252,"created_at_utc_B":1616978127,"score_A":237,"score_B":57,"human_ref_A":"The eggs will only be fertilized if a rooster has done his job. You can eat eggs whether they\u2019re fertilized or not. The embryo doesn\u2019t develop unless the egg is incubated either by a hen or a machine. Eggs can be \u201ccandled\u201d to see an embryo.","human_ref_B":"> How do farmers control whether a chicken lays an eating egg or a reproductive egg You remove any roosters from your farm > how can they tell which kind is laid? They're the same thing. If you get a fertilized egg soon enough (eggs are usually collected in the morning or at night every day) then a chick won't grow and you can eat it like it was never fertilized at all","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2125.0,"score_ratio":4.1578947368} {"post_id":"kdktb5","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why do small open wounds and burns get itchy while healing?","c_root_id_A":"gfxhu41","c_root_id_B":"gfx9ii2","created_at_utc_A":1608047197,"created_at_utc_B":1608042772,"score_A":299,"score_B":276,"human_ref_A":"Mainly histamine release (the same reaction that goes haywire and causes hives during an allergic reaction). The main purpose is to increase blood supply to the area, which is important for healing. Itching is a side effect.","human_ref_B":"There is also a slight inflammatory reaction from the white blood cells that are hanging out in the area to make sure you don\u2019t get an infection, and the inflammation can cause itching.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4425.0,"score_ratio":1.0833333333} {"post_id":"61f3hs","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: I heard that recycling plants use magnets to sort aluminium from the rest of the rubbish. How, when aluminium isn't magnetic, does this work?","c_root_id_A":"dfe2lab","c_root_id_B":"dfe2xpw","created_at_utc_A":1490448056,"created_at_utc_B":1490448788,"score_A":19,"score_B":306,"human_ref_A":"Everything is magnetic in a strong enough field. Even this frog","human_ref_B":"In a word, electromagnetism. You're probably familiar with electromagnetism, it's creating a magnetic field by running current (in other words, moving electric charge) through a conductor. You can make a simple electromagnet at home to show that this works. The opposite also happens, when you move a magnetic field across a conductor it will induce current. This is how we generate most electricity: steam from burning coal, water from a dam, or wind is used to rotate magnets past coiled wires. So, now, what happens when you try and move a magnet across a piece of aluminum, which is conductive. As the magnet \u2013 and its magnetic field \u2013\u00a0move, it creates electricity (specifically called eddy currents) inside the aluminum. These currents, in turn, create a magnetic field, and this magnetic field opposes the motion of the magnet. This can be used then, to separate metal from non-metals. By rapidly moving magnets (or using a quickly changing electromagnet), conductive materials are induced to move, and a setup is made where metal objects will be thrown forward, and non-metals fall from gravity. This, then, is the eddy current separator.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":732.0,"score_ratio":16.1052631579} {"post_id":"61f3hs","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: I heard that recycling plants use magnets to sort aluminium from the rest of the rubbish. How, when aluminium isn't magnetic, does this work?","c_root_id_A":"dfe2lab","c_root_id_B":"dfe526h","created_at_utc_A":1490448056,"created_at_utc_B":1490452835,"score_A":19,"score_B":78,"human_ref_A":"Everything is magnetic in a strong enough field. Even this frog","human_ref_B":"Im on mobile so sorry for the formatting. I'm an Engineer working in the scrap industry. My job is to design facilities that shred metal and sort\/recover different material types. We use a machine called an eddy current separator to recover a \"Zorba\" package. Zorba is just a fancy name for mostly aluminum. The eddy current separator is a conveyor belt with a permanent magnet at the head. The magnet is arranged with alternating poles and it spins very fast. This creates and \"eddy current\" which will make non ferrous materials like aluminum sort of jump when they travel over the magnet. We use a splitter plate to separate the material jumps from the material that doesn't. Take a look at this video https:\/\/youtu.be\/Oy18FVXb_7Q It's a bit dated, but this is one of our non ferrous recovery plants. The eddy current separator is shown working at about 1 minute.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4779.0,"score_ratio":4.1052631579} {"post_id":"8c4bny","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How do nurses, drug users, etc inject a drug directly into a vein? How do they know the needle tip hasn't gone through the vein or even missed it completely? I'd imagine most veins are less than 5mm in diameter, that's a pretty small target to land the tip of the needle in. How do they do it?","c_root_id_A":"dxbzt0y","c_root_id_B":"dxbzn8p","created_at_utc_A":1523669627,"created_at_utc_B":1523669453,"score_A":6210,"score_B":84,"human_ref_A":"The \"flash\". Before pushing in, you draw back on the plunger. If the needle or catheter is in a vein, blood will easily be drawn back into the tubing or syringe and then you can push the medication or fluid in once you see that. If you're not in a vein, you won't easily pull blood out when drawing back.","human_ref_B":"im pretty sure they pull back on the plunger when they think they are in a vein. if blood comes through, that means they are in a vein.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":174.0,"score_ratio":73.9285714286} {"post_id":"8c4bny","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How do nurses, drug users, etc inject a drug directly into a vein? How do they know the needle tip hasn't gone through the vein or even missed it completely? I'd imagine most veins are less than 5mm in diameter, that's a pretty small target to land the tip of the needle in. How do they do it?","c_root_id_A":"dxc7ldf","c_root_id_B":"dxbzw4b","created_at_utc_A":1523678959,"created_at_utc_B":1523669723,"score_A":994,"score_B":848,"human_ref_A":"Nurse here. The needle on an IV is covered with a plastic catheter. The needle slightly hangs out to pierce the skin. When I puncture the skin and hit the vein, you can see blood come up through the catheter and a small amount of blood will come into the part that we hold. That\u2019s the flash. I insert IVs on babies and once this happens the IV is in the vein. the flash will happen and then I can advance the catheter fully in the vein and remove the needle and hook up the tubing. I was told in nursing school when you are in it will glide in smooth like butter. And this true. If it\u2019s not in the vein, you won\u2019t see the flash and it will be hard when trying to push the catheter. Also we check placement by flushing a saline flush through the IV. If it\u2019s in, you can push saline through it with no problems. If it\u2019s not in the vein, it will not push through. If you went through the vein and punctured it, when you flush it, you will see the skin bubble up. We call this an infiltration and the vein is no good.","human_ref_B":"When you pull the plunger back, it wont fill with anything and essentially snap back into place. So you pull back the plunger slightly while simultaneously pulling the needle out a little until you see the mushroom cloud of blood rush into the syringe.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9236.0,"score_ratio":1.1721698113} {"post_id":"8c4bny","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How do nurses, drug users, etc inject a drug directly into a vein? How do they know the needle tip hasn't gone through the vein or even missed it completely? I'd imagine most veins are less than 5mm in diameter, that's a pretty small target to land the tip of the needle in. How do they do it?","c_root_id_A":"dxc7ldf","c_root_id_B":"dxc01u3","created_at_utc_A":1523678959,"created_at_utc_B":1523669898,"score_A":994,"score_B":683,"human_ref_A":"Nurse here. The needle on an IV is covered with a plastic catheter. The needle slightly hangs out to pierce the skin. When I puncture the skin and hit the vein, you can see blood come up through the catheter and a small amount of blood will come into the part that we hold. That\u2019s the flash. I insert IVs on babies and once this happens the IV is in the vein. the flash will happen and then I can advance the catheter fully in the vein and remove the needle and hook up the tubing. I was told in nursing school when you are in it will glide in smooth like butter. And this true. If it\u2019s not in the vein, you won\u2019t see the flash and it will be hard when trying to push the catheter. Also we check placement by flushing a saline flush through the IV. If it\u2019s in, you can push saline through it with no problems. If it\u2019s not in the vein, it will not push through. If you went through the vein and punctured it, when you flush it, you will see the skin bubble up. We call this an infiltration and the vein is no good.","human_ref_B":"The \u201cflash\u201d but mainly just practice, practice. I\u2019ve done a lot of sticking and it just becomes easy after a while Sticking IV\u2019s in my fellow soldiers. IV\u2019s and needles to draw blood form!","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9061.0,"score_ratio":1.4553440703} {"post_id":"8c4bny","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How do nurses, drug users, etc inject a drug directly into a vein? How do they know the needle tip hasn't gone through the vein or even missed it completely? I'd imagine most veins are less than 5mm in diameter, that's a pretty small target to land the tip of the needle in. How do they do it?","c_root_id_A":"dxc6196","c_root_id_B":"dxc7ldf","created_at_utc_A":1523676901,"created_at_utc_B":1523678959,"score_A":91,"score_B":994,"human_ref_A":"Nurses, or anyone really, don't inject medication directly into a vein. They inject medication or fluid into a catheter which is inside the vein. May seem like I am being nit picky here, but we use catheters for this very reason. You'll see vets inject stuff right in veins but it's not a common practice in medicine for humans. There are lots of ways to determine that you are in the vein. You first get a 'flash' which means that blood has entered the needle. You then advance a plastic tube, which is the catheter, inside the vein. Once you are in the vein you pull blood back into the syringe which confirms that you are not in dead space or tissue. You then 'flush' the catheter with normal saline. Sometimes the vein can blow and you will see pooling of saline or blood. You know you are not in. A fun side note: when you give medicines in the muscle you should pull back on the plunger expecting no blood to make sure that you aren't in an artery or vein for the exact opposite reason . When delivering medication you can sometimes have a vein blow or the catheter dislodge. Some medication can sting big time and some don't really have many signs or symptoms other than the pooling of blood.","human_ref_B":"Nurse here. The needle on an IV is covered with a plastic catheter. The needle slightly hangs out to pierce the skin. When I puncture the skin and hit the vein, you can see blood come up through the catheter and a small amount of blood will come into the part that we hold. That\u2019s the flash. I insert IVs on babies and once this happens the IV is in the vein. the flash will happen and then I can advance the catheter fully in the vein and remove the needle and hook up the tubing. I was told in nursing school when you are in it will glide in smooth like butter. And this true. If it\u2019s not in the vein, you won\u2019t see the flash and it will be hard when trying to push the catheter. Also we check placement by flushing a saline flush through the IV. If it\u2019s in, you can push saline through it with no problems. If it\u2019s not in the vein, it will not push through. If you went through the vein and punctured it, when you flush it, you will see the skin bubble up. We call this an infiltration and the vein is no good.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2058.0,"score_ratio":10.9230769231} {"post_id":"8c4bny","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How do nurses, drug users, etc inject a drug directly into a vein? How do they know the needle tip hasn't gone through the vein or even missed it completely? I'd imagine most veins are less than 5mm in diameter, that's a pretty small target to land the tip of the needle in. How do they do it?","c_root_id_A":"dxc7ldf","c_root_id_B":"dxbzn8p","created_at_utc_A":1523678959,"created_at_utc_B":1523669453,"score_A":994,"score_B":84,"human_ref_A":"Nurse here. The needle on an IV is covered with a plastic catheter. The needle slightly hangs out to pierce the skin. When I puncture the skin and hit the vein, you can see blood come up through the catheter and a small amount of blood will come into the part that we hold. That\u2019s the flash. I insert IVs on babies and once this happens the IV is in the vein. the flash will happen and then I can advance the catheter fully in the vein and remove the needle and hook up the tubing. I was told in nursing school when you are in it will glide in smooth like butter. And this true. If it\u2019s not in the vein, you won\u2019t see the flash and it will be hard when trying to push the catheter. Also we check placement by flushing a saline flush through the IV. If it\u2019s in, you can push saline through it with no problems. If it\u2019s not in the vein, it will not push through. If you went through the vein and punctured it, when you flush it, you will see the skin bubble up. We call this an infiltration and the vein is no good.","human_ref_B":"im pretty sure they pull back on the plunger when they think they are in a vein. if blood comes through, that means they are in a vein.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9506.0,"score_ratio":11.8333333333} {"post_id":"8c4bny","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How do nurses, drug users, etc inject a drug directly into a vein? How do they know the needle tip hasn't gone through the vein or even missed it completely? I'd imagine most veins are less than 5mm in diameter, that's a pretty small target to land the tip of the needle in. How do they do it?","c_root_id_A":"dxc7ldf","c_root_id_B":"dxc769f","created_at_utc_A":1523678959,"created_at_utc_B":1523678382,"score_A":994,"score_B":73,"human_ref_A":"Nurse here. The needle on an IV is covered with a plastic catheter. The needle slightly hangs out to pierce the skin. When I puncture the skin and hit the vein, you can see blood come up through the catheter and a small amount of blood will come into the part that we hold. That\u2019s the flash. I insert IVs on babies and once this happens the IV is in the vein. the flash will happen and then I can advance the catheter fully in the vein and remove the needle and hook up the tubing. I was told in nursing school when you are in it will glide in smooth like butter. And this true. If it\u2019s not in the vein, you won\u2019t see the flash and it will be hard when trying to push the catheter. Also we check placement by flushing a saline flush through the IV. If it\u2019s in, you can push saline through it with no problems. If it\u2019s not in the vein, it will not push through. If you went through the vein and punctured it, when you flush it, you will see the skin bubble up. We call this an infiltration and the vein is no good.","human_ref_B":"We actually insert a plastic catheter into the vein. When we start an IV the needle extends a wee bit farther than the straw like catheter. Then the catheter slides into the vein and the needle is retracted. The catheter sits in the vein. Choosing the right vein is key. It needs to be straight. You start enough IVs, you get good at the process. I will say this, don\u2019t EVER tell a nurse **WHERE** to start them simple out of your own preference. Every nurse has their sweet spots where they\u2019re good at getting, and don\u2019t go around setting them and you up for failure. Also depending on the exam, IV sites are specifically chosen. **DO** tell us if you medically need the IV in a certain spot due to dialysis or breast cancer. Or if you have some scar tissue. Source: ER nurse who\u2019s pretty good at IVs.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":577.0,"score_ratio":13.6164383562} {"post_id":"8c4bny","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How do nurses, drug users, etc inject a drug directly into a vein? How do they know the needle tip hasn't gone through the vein or even missed it completely? I'd imagine most veins are less than 5mm in diameter, that's a pretty small target to land the tip of the needle in. How do they do it?","c_root_id_A":"dxbzn8p","c_root_id_B":"dxbzw4b","created_at_utc_A":1523669453,"created_at_utc_B":1523669723,"score_A":84,"score_B":848,"human_ref_A":"im pretty sure they pull back on the plunger when they think they are in a vein. if blood comes through, that means they are in a vein.","human_ref_B":"When you pull the plunger back, it wont fill with anything and essentially snap back into place. So you pull back the plunger slightly while simultaneously pulling the needle out a little until you see the mushroom cloud of blood rush into the syringe.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":270.0,"score_ratio":10.0952380952} {"post_id":"8c4bny","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How do nurses, drug users, etc inject a drug directly into a vein? How do they know the needle tip hasn't gone through the vein or even missed it completely? I'd imagine most veins are less than 5mm in diameter, that's a pretty small target to land the tip of the needle in. How do they do it?","c_root_id_A":"dxbzn8p","c_root_id_B":"dxc01u3","created_at_utc_A":1523669453,"created_at_utc_B":1523669898,"score_A":84,"score_B":683,"human_ref_A":"im pretty sure they pull back on the plunger when they think they are in a vein. if blood comes through, that means they are in a vein.","human_ref_B":"The \u201cflash\u201d but mainly just practice, practice. I\u2019ve done a lot of sticking and it just becomes easy after a while Sticking IV\u2019s in my fellow soldiers. IV\u2019s and needles to draw blood form!","labels":0,"seconds_difference":445.0,"score_ratio":8.130952381} {"post_id":"8c4bny","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How do nurses, drug users, etc inject a drug directly into a vein? How do they know the needle tip hasn't gone through the vein or even missed it completely? I'd imagine most veins are less than 5mm in diameter, that's a pretty small target to land the tip of the needle in. How do they do it?","c_root_id_A":"dxc6196","c_root_id_B":"dxc8zlw","created_at_utc_A":1523676901,"created_at_utc_B":1523680949,"score_A":91,"score_B":325,"human_ref_A":"Nurses, or anyone really, don't inject medication directly into a vein. They inject medication or fluid into a catheter which is inside the vein. May seem like I am being nit picky here, but we use catheters for this very reason. You'll see vets inject stuff right in veins but it's not a common practice in medicine for humans. There are lots of ways to determine that you are in the vein. You first get a 'flash' which means that blood has entered the needle. You then advance a plastic tube, which is the catheter, inside the vein. Once you are in the vein you pull blood back into the syringe which confirms that you are not in dead space or tissue. You then 'flush' the catheter with normal saline. Sometimes the vein can blow and you will see pooling of saline or blood. You know you are not in. A fun side note: when you give medicines in the muscle you should pull back on the plunger expecting no blood to make sure that you aren't in an artery or vein for the exact opposite reason . When delivering medication you can sometimes have a vein blow or the catheter dislodge. Some medication can sting big time and some don't really have many signs or symptoms other than the pooling of blood.","human_ref_B":"I've only ever put IVs in premature babies and newborns. If a neonate is small enough with low enough blood pressure you get no flashback but you'll know by feel just tapping the end of the plunger... a successful flush has little resistance. The smallest baby i cannulated was 275 grams.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4048.0,"score_ratio":3.5714285714} {"post_id":"8c4bny","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How do nurses, drug users, etc inject a drug directly into a vein? How do they know the needle tip hasn't gone through the vein or even missed it completely? I'd imagine most veins are less than 5mm in diameter, that's a pretty small target to land the tip of the needle in. How do they do it?","c_root_id_A":"dxbzn8p","c_root_id_B":"dxc8zlw","created_at_utc_A":1523669453,"created_at_utc_B":1523680949,"score_A":84,"score_B":325,"human_ref_A":"im pretty sure they pull back on the plunger when they think they are in a vein. if blood comes through, that means they are in a vein.","human_ref_B":"I've only ever put IVs in premature babies and newborns. If a neonate is small enough with low enough blood pressure you get no flashback but you'll know by feel just tapping the end of the plunger... a successful flush has little resistance. The smallest baby i cannulated was 275 grams.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":11496.0,"score_ratio":3.869047619} {"post_id":"8c4bny","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How do nurses, drug users, etc inject a drug directly into a vein? How do they know the needle tip hasn't gone through the vein or even missed it completely? I'd imagine most veins are less than 5mm in diameter, that's a pretty small target to land the tip of the needle in. How do they do it?","c_root_id_A":"dxc8zlw","c_root_id_B":"dxc769f","created_at_utc_A":1523680949,"created_at_utc_B":1523678382,"score_A":325,"score_B":73,"human_ref_A":"I've only ever put IVs in premature babies and newborns. If a neonate is small enough with low enough blood pressure you get no flashback but you'll know by feel just tapping the end of the plunger... a successful flush has little resistance. The smallest baby i cannulated was 275 grams.","human_ref_B":"We actually insert a plastic catheter into the vein. When we start an IV the needle extends a wee bit farther than the straw like catheter. Then the catheter slides into the vein and the needle is retracted. The catheter sits in the vein. Choosing the right vein is key. It needs to be straight. You start enough IVs, you get good at the process. I will say this, don\u2019t EVER tell a nurse **WHERE** to start them simple out of your own preference. Every nurse has their sweet spots where they\u2019re good at getting, and don\u2019t go around setting them and you up for failure. Also depending on the exam, IV sites are specifically chosen. **DO** tell us if you medically need the IV in a certain spot due to dialysis or breast cancer. Or if you have some scar tissue. Source: ER nurse who\u2019s pretty good at IVs.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2567.0,"score_ratio":4.4520547945} {"post_id":"8c4bny","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How do nurses, drug users, etc inject a drug directly into a vein? How do they know the needle tip hasn't gone through the vein or even missed it completely? I'd imagine most veins are less than 5mm in diameter, that's a pretty small target to land the tip of the needle in. How do they do it?","c_root_id_A":"dxbzn8p","c_root_id_B":"dxc6196","created_at_utc_A":1523669453,"created_at_utc_B":1523676901,"score_A":84,"score_B":91,"human_ref_A":"im pretty sure they pull back on the plunger when they think they are in a vein. if blood comes through, that means they are in a vein.","human_ref_B":"Nurses, or anyone really, don't inject medication directly into a vein. They inject medication or fluid into a catheter which is inside the vein. May seem like I am being nit picky here, but we use catheters for this very reason. You'll see vets inject stuff right in veins but it's not a common practice in medicine for humans. There are lots of ways to determine that you are in the vein. You first get a 'flash' which means that blood has entered the needle. You then advance a plastic tube, which is the catheter, inside the vein. Once you are in the vein you pull blood back into the syringe which confirms that you are not in dead space or tissue. You then 'flush' the catheter with normal saline. Sometimes the vein can blow and you will see pooling of saline or blood. You know you are not in. A fun side note: when you give medicines in the muscle you should pull back on the plunger expecting no blood to make sure that you aren't in an artery or vein for the exact opposite reason . When delivering medication you can sometimes have a vein blow or the catheter dislodge. Some medication can sting big time and some don't really have many signs or symptoms other than the pooling of blood.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7448.0,"score_ratio":1.0833333333} {"post_id":"ybk2zc","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old - If gunpowder accelerated bullets can barely travel a few feet underwater and aren\u2019t even really lethal, how the hell does a spear accelerated by goddamn plastic bands kill fish from quite a distance?","c_root_id_A":"itgs4nk","c_root_id_B":"itgtzkt","created_at_utc_A":1666538287,"created_at_utc_B":1666539093,"score_A":34,"score_B":772,"human_ref_A":"A bullet gets a huge impulse and accelerates nearly instantly to very high speed. In water, that speed means it encounters incredible resistance, but there\u2019s no more forward push, so it slows down. The spear is traveling a lot slower, and accelerates over a longer time. So it encounters less resistance from the water. But why can it kill a fish? If you throw a bullet at someone it doesn\u2019t do anything. It requires high velocity. Now throw a spear at someone, and even at a slow speed, it\u2019ll pierce their skin & do a lot of damage. So water resistance limits them to slow speed. At slow speed spears are effective and bullets aren\u2019t.","human_ref_B":"The faster something moves through water, the harder water pushes back. Try moving your hand slowly through water and quickly through water. Bullets are small, so they have to go really fast to hurt things. Spears are really big, so they don't have to go as fast. The water doesn't push back as hard, so they can travel further through the water and still hit hard enough to kill the fish. Now let's discuss why a 5 year old is using such foul language..","labels":0,"seconds_difference":806.0,"score_ratio":22.7058823529} {"post_id":"ybk2zc","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old - If gunpowder accelerated bullets can barely travel a few feet underwater and aren\u2019t even really lethal, how the hell does a spear accelerated by goddamn plastic bands kill fish from quite a distance?","c_root_id_A":"ith6001","c_root_id_B":"ith1es7","created_at_utc_A":1666544037,"created_at_utc_B":1666542170,"score_A":533,"score_B":468,"human_ref_A":"Most spearguns do not operate at \"quite a distance\". You have to be pretty close before you pull the trigger. The spears slow down relatively quickly underwater and you can't rely on being able to be accurate at a distance. The spear is usually attached to a line with a reel so you can pull the fish back to you if need be after it gets hit and tries to swim off.","human_ref_B":"One thing not mentioned by other commenters. The spear has a long pole behind it pushing it forward. Only the tip of the spear is being slowed down by the water, but the kinetic energy of the entire spear is pushing it forward. If the bullet had a similar very long shape it would also not nearly be slowed down as much.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1867.0,"score_ratio":1.1388888889} {"post_id":"ybk2zc","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old - If gunpowder accelerated bullets can barely travel a few feet underwater and aren\u2019t even really lethal, how the hell does a spear accelerated by goddamn plastic bands kill fish from quite a distance?","c_root_id_A":"ith6001","c_root_id_B":"itgs4nk","created_at_utc_A":1666544037,"created_at_utc_B":1666538287,"score_A":533,"score_B":34,"human_ref_A":"Most spearguns do not operate at \"quite a distance\". You have to be pretty close before you pull the trigger. The spears slow down relatively quickly underwater and you can't rely on being able to be accurate at a distance. The spear is usually attached to a line with a reel so you can pull the fish back to you if need be after it gets hit and tries to swim off.","human_ref_B":"A bullet gets a huge impulse and accelerates nearly instantly to very high speed. In water, that speed means it encounters incredible resistance, but there\u2019s no more forward push, so it slows down. The spear is traveling a lot slower, and accelerates over a longer time. So it encounters less resistance from the water. But why can it kill a fish? If you throw a bullet at someone it doesn\u2019t do anything. It requires high velocity. Now throw a spear at someone, and even at a slow speed, it\u2019ll pierce their skin & do a lot of damage. So water resistance limits them to slow speed. At slow speed spears are effective and bullets aren\u2019t.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5750.0,"score_ratio":15.6764705882} {"post_id":"ybk2zc","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old - If gunpowder accelerated bullets can barely travel a few feet underwater and aren\u2019t even really lethal, how the hell does a spear accelerated by goddamn plastic bands kill fish from quite a distance?","c_root_id_A":"ith6001","c_root_id_B":"itgupdi","created_at_utc_A":1666544037,"created_at_utc_B":1666539392,"score_A":533,"score_B":34,"human_ref_A":"Most spearguns do not operate at \"quite a distance\". You have to be pretty close before you pull the trigger. The spears slow down relatively quickly underwater and you can't rely on being able to be accurate at a distance. The spear is usually attached to a line with a reel so you can pull the fish back to you if need be after it gets hit and tries to swim off.","human_ref_B":"Mass. A bullet's weight is measured in grains (1\/7000th of a pound) and even though it's moving at 900-1500ft\/s it's still a chunk of metal that weighs almost nothing. For context, most AR15 bullets (.223 caliber) weigh around 67-85 grains or, 0.153+ pounds. Any drag on it is going to cause it to lose energy very quickly and water is uniquely efficient in providing drag. Harpoons weigh orders of magnitude more than a bullet (any bullet, any harpoon) and so maintain more energy through resistance. Of course, even that is pretty dismal. Most spearguns, using 40-60\" shafts are only good for killing FISH under 25 feet. Fish ... not people. Fish aren't really tough to kill.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4645.0,"score_ratio":15.6764705882} {"post_id":"ybk2zc","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old - If gunpowder accelerated bullets can barely travel a few feet underwater and aren\u2019t even really lethal, how the hell does a spear accelerated by goddamn plastic bands kill fish from quite a distance?","c_root_id_A":"ith1es7","c_root_id_B":"itgs4nk","created_at_utc_A":1666542170,"created_at_utc_B":1666538287,"score_A":468,"score_B":34,"human_ref_A":"One thing not mentioned by other commenters. The spear has a long pole behind it pushing it forward. Only the tip of the spear is being slowed down by the water, but the kinetic energy of the entire spear is pushing it forward. If the bullet had a similar very long shape it would also not nearly be slowed down as much.","human_ref_B":"A bullet gets a huge impulse and accelerates nearly instantly to very high speed. In water, that speed means it encounters incredible resistance, but there\u2019s no more forward push, so it slows down. The spear is traveling a lot slower, and accelerates over a longer time. So it encounters less resistance from the water. But why can it kill a fish? If you throw a bullet at someone it doesn\u2019t do anything. It requires high velocity. Now throw a spear at someone, and even at a slow speed, it\u2019ll pierce their skin & do a lot of damage. So water resistance limits them to slow speed. At slow speed spears are effective and bullets aren\u2019t.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3883.0,"score_ratio":13.7647058824} {"post_id":"ybk2zc","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old - If gunpowder accelerated bullets can barely travel a few feet underwater and aren\u2019t even really lethal, how the hell does a spear accelerated by goddamn plastic bands kill fish from quite a distance?","c_root_id_A":"itgupdi","c_root_id_B":"ith1es7","created_at_utc_A":1666539392,"created_at_utc_B":1666542170,"score_A":34,"score_B":468,"human_ref_A":"Mass. A bullet's weight is measured in grains (1\/7000th of a pound) and even though it's moving at 900-1500ft\/s it's still a chunk of metal that weighs almost nothing. For context, most AR15 bullets (.223 caliber) weigh around 67-85 grains or, 0.153+ pounds. Any drag on it is going to cause it to lose energy very quickly and water is uniquely efficient in providing drag. Harpoons weigh orders of magnitude more than a bullet (any bullet, any harpoon) and so maintain more energy through resistance. Of course, even that is pretty dismal. Most spearguns, using 40-60\" shafts are only good for killing FISH under 25 feet. Fish ... not people. Fish aren't really tough to kill.","human_ref_B":"One thing not mentioned by other commenters. The spear has a long pole behind it pushing it forward. Only the tip of the spear is being slowed down by the water, but the kinetic energy of the entire spear is pushing it forward. If the bullet had a similar very long shape it would also not nearly be slowed down as much.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2778.0,"score_ratio":13.7647058824} {"post_id":"3nl4sz","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: The Trans-Pacific Partnership deal Please post all your questions and explanations in this thread. Thanks!","c_root_id_A":"cvp5gid","c_root_id_B":"cvp05hu","created_at_utc_A":1444068679,"created_at_utc_B":1444060480,"score_A":5644,"score_B":404,"human_ref_A":"Alright, let's kick this one off. The Trans-Pacific Partnership is a multi-layered deal whose particulars have just been agreed upon by the twelve participating countries. Its stated purpose is to reduce **tariffs** - taxes on bringing your goods into a country or sending them out - and therefore encourage industry by making it cheaper for importers and exporters to conduct business between these countries. Its other stated goal is to create a set of easy **rules** that businesses can live by when dealing between these countries. The TPP is far more complex than that, however. Its subtextual function is to serve as a foundation from which to spread that set of easy rules to other Asian nations, with an eye to preventing China from setting standards among these countries first. The Obama administration is concerned that it's either \"us or them\" and that a Chinese-led trade agreement would set rules that American businesses would find problematic. So what does it mean for you? Let's assume you are a citizen of one of the participating nations. \u2022 A deal like the TPP involves identifying which tariffs affect **market access** and **competition** by creating a market that favors some producers over others instead of letting price, quality and consumer preference decide. For instance, it is very expensive to bring milk in to Canada, so even if you could sell your milk at a lower price, you will have to account for the cost of the tariffs, which will make your milk uncompetitive on the Canadian market. New Zealand and the US both want to see Canadian dairy tariffs lowered so that their milk producers can sell on the Canadian market more easily. \u2022 When the market can decide and the barriers are down, we expect to see **open markets** offering **more products\/services** than could previously have been made available. Prices should go down for certain products due to increased competition. \u2022 A deal with as many players as the TPP rarely functions on one-to-one trades; instead, each party has a list of things that they want and needs to go shopping around to find ways to get their positions filled - a chain of deals wherein, for instance, Japan pressures Canada on the milk issue so that they can in turn see motion on their own priority, such as car parts. This is why the negotiations have taken so long. \u2022 The TPP wants to **standardize** rules for trade among its participants, which cover a lot more than just tariffs and quotas. Other issues that have to be considered and negotiated include intellectual property rights and protections; rules regarding patents; environmental and labor regulations. In short, it tries to set standards on **how business is conducted**, both internationally and at home. It does this because uneven practices can result in uncompetitive market access. \u2022 This standardization is hoped to **improve labor and environmental laws** across the board, as the need to conform forces countries that have been lagging behind in their standards to catch up with the rest of the group. By setting rules that apply equally to the US as to Malaysia, it is hoped that **people will be better off** and enjoy more protections in their working environment. \u2022 To that end, the TPP will also have a process in place for what happens when someone breaks the rules - a **tribunal** which will decide based on terms laid out by the TPP instead of following the laws of any one government. This helps ensure that foreign companies are treated fairly and can conduct business under the same standards and with the same opportunities. **Tl;dr the TPP is out to make business between these 12 countries more fair, predictable and even. It should provide more choice in goods and services and more bang for your buck, while making labor standards improve for people outside of North America who may be operating under less protections than a Canadian or American enjoys.** --- What are some concerns? --- \u2022 The TPP has been negotiated in **heavy secrecy**. While it's easy to see why keeping such a huge deal secret from the public is problematic, it is also reasonable for governments to work on negotiations and come to terms before letting elected officials decide if the end result is in the public interest. It lets others at the bargaining table know that what is said there won't be changed by a public opinion poll two days later, and it has been argued that such secrecy is therefore necessary to make these meetings work at all. \u2022 The TPP has a **scope** that concerns many parties as it addresses trade and industry regulations on a 21st century scope - everything from upcoming cancer drugs to internet regulations to, yes, a cup of milk in Canada is all being covered by the same negotiation. It is a reasonable concern to say that the number of issues being covered in the same deal will make it hard for the public to reasonably read, understand and decide on. \u2022 The removal of tariffs provides new foreign opportunities for business, but it also means that industries which rely on a **protected domestic market** will become exposed. It is not unreasonable to suggest that any given country is trading away the success of industry A for success in industry B, which, if all things are equal, should come down to a zero-sum game. Economics does not, of course, work like that, but it's still a fair question to examine. \u2022 While supporters of the TPP say that it will encourage countries to improve their standards and reform, those elements are at their strongest during the negotiation - and the heat on issues such as human trafficking and human rights abuses have been sidelined as pressure to secure a deal of any kind has mounted on major nations facing upcoming elections. What should have been an opportunity to engage and demand reform as a condition of involvement in such a major global trade deal has been left by the wayside, a casualty of ambition. --- What are the serious issues? --- \u2022 While the TPP has been kept secret from the public, **large corporate interests** have had a seat at the table throughout the process. These businesses have an **obligation** to make as much money as possible for their shareholders. This means that a great many of the deals that form the basis of the TPP have been negotiated with an eye to advantaging those businesses, potentially at the expense of the average citizen. \u2022 \"Free trade\" as the TPP proposes is **nothing new** - globalization has already happened, and we are all the beneficiaries. What this deal will offer is not for the average citizen, who might see a few price differences on common products - it is for the large corporate interests who will have more freedom to **move jobs** and production to areas where it is cheaper to conduct business. \u2022 There should be no such areas within the TPP zone, but part of the negotiation involves **exceptions** in place specifically to help these companies. The consistent standards that the TPP desires to set? Corporations would like to see those **standards lowered** - it is in their best interest to have access to a labor, property and capital market where they pay the least amount of money to conduct their business. \u2022 Tariffs exist in part to protect domestic industry - **jobs** - from the vagaries of a global market. If cheaper US milk is sold in Canada, Canadian milk producers will have to choose whether to sell their own products more cheaply or else close down and go out of business. If it is not possible for these farmers to sell at a lower price and still remain profitable, then that choice is not a choice at all. \u2022 The TPP's intellectual property provisions, which have been the subject of several leaks, are **harsher than existing law**, a product (again) of corporate involvement in the deal. They aim to crack down on several ways people use intellectual property, fairly and otherwise, and their scope means there is significant possibility for abuse and harrassment. \u2022 More damagingly, the TPP **applies those laws to drugs** with an eye to preventing cheaper medicine from being available on the market - products that by rights **should** be subject to competition as their prices are heavily inflated beyond the cost of production. \u2022 The TPP will offer a method by which companies can **attack laws that affect them**, suing governments through a tribunal for such offenses as trying to protect youth from cigarette marketing images, trying to protect the environment from dangerous industrial contaminants, or even refusing to pass laws removing or suppressing regulations where beneficial to corporate activity. These are all issues that already happen under various trade deals. \u2022 We, the public, and our elected representatives will not have a great deal of time or means to push back against this trade deal if we dislike it. The text will only be released when absolutely necessary (a period of 60 days in the US) and steps have already been taken to ensure that elected officials cannot muck about with the deal. While this is logical (it would not be fair to negotiate terms and then change them back at home without discussing it), it does mean that instead of being able to debate and dissect we're committed to an **all-or-nothing deal**. **Tl;dr the TPP puts local industries at risk, threatens jobs, attacks your privacy, and you may be looking at paying more for important medications (either directly or through your government). It's being sold as lower prices and better standards across the board, but lower prices are meaningless by themselves - purchasing power is what you really want - and there is no guarantee that standards need to be raised instead of lowered.** Anyone with questions, comments, concerns, let me know here or via PM and I'll be happy to help.","human_ref_B":"Can someone please just eli5? I don't understand any of this. What does this mean for me? A citizen of the United states.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8199.0,"score_ratio":13.9702970297} {"post_id":"tarbx6","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why are Arabic numerals so much simpler in construction than Arabic letters?","c_root_id_A":"i02t2d2","c_root_id_B":"i03c3g5","created_at_utc_A":1646894016,"created_at_utc_B":1646909202,"score_A":281,"score_B":764,"human_ref_A":"The English or European numerals as 1234567890 are the Arabic numbers. While the Arabic numerals as \u0661\u0662\u0663\u0664\u0665\u0666\u0667\u0668\u0669\u0660 are the Indian numbers. The original European numerals are the Roman as I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X The reason why the Indian numerals are used in Arabic is the writing direction as you can use the Indian numerals from right to left which makes sense for a language written from right to left. The reason Europeans used the original Arabic numerals I guess simply because they are way simpler than the Roman ones and are technically written from left to right like all European language.","human_ref_B":"Don't know if it's a thing in English, but in my language we call them Indian-Arabic numerals, which covers the idea that they were developed by the Indian and got to Europe through the Arabs","labels":0,"seconds_difference":15186.0,"score_ratio":2.71886121} {"post_id":"tarbx6","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why are Arabic numerals so much simpler in construction than Arabic letters?","c_root_id_A":"i038mcq","c_root_id_B":"i03c3g5","created_at_utc_A":1646906336,"created_at_utc_B":1646909202,"score_A":158,"score_B":764,"human_ref_A":"Because it's Hindu-Arabic number systems.The\u00a0Hindu\u2013Arabic numeral system\u00a0was invented between the first and fourth centuries AD by Indian mathematicians. It was adopted by Persians and passed further west and into Europe by the Arabs.","human_ref_B":"Don't know if it's a thing in English, but in my language we call them Indian-Arabic numerals, which covers the idea that they were developed by the Indian and got to Europe through the Arabs","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2866.0,"score_ratio":4.835443038} {"post_id":"tarbx6","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why are Arabic numerals so much simpler in construction than Arabic letters?","c_root_id_A":"i02xemh","c_root_id_B":"i03c3g5","created_at_utc_A":1646897157,"created_at_utc_B":1646909202,"score_A":46,"score_B":764,"human_ref_A":"I mean, in part it's just because you are more familier with the numbers then the letters. They seem simplier because you already understand them.","human_ref_B":"Don't know if it's a thing in English, but in my language we call them Indian-Arabic numerals, which covers the idea that they were developed by the Indian and got to Europe through the Arabs","labels":0,"seconds_difference":12045.0,"score_ratio":16.6086956522} {"post_id":"tarbx6","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why are Arabic numerals so much simpler in construction than Arabic letters?","c_root_id_A":"i02xemh","c_root_id_B":"i038mcq","created_at_utc_A":1646897157,"created_at_utc_B":1646906336,"score_A":46,"score_B":158,"human_ref_A":"I mean, in part it's just because you are more familier with the numbers then the letters. They seem simplier because you already understand them.","human_ref_B":"Because it's Hindu-Arabic number systems.The\u00a0Hindu\u2013Arabic numeral system\u00a0was invented between the first and fourth centuries AD by Indian mathematicians. It was adopted by Persians and passed further west and into Europe by the Arabs.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9179.0,"score_ratio":3.4347826087} {"post_id":"tarbx6","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why are Arabic numerals so much simpler in construction than Arabic letters?","c_root_id_A":"i02xemh","c_root_id_B":"i04i9xv","created_at_utc_A":1646897157,"created_at_utc_B":1646930576,"score_A":46,"score_B":68,"human_ref_A":"I mean, in part it's just because you are more familier with the numbers then the letters. They seem simplier because you already understand them.","human_ref_B":"My opinion: \"Hindu-Arabic\" numerals are as simple as actual Arabic numerals, which are as simple as Arabic letters which are as simple as Latin letters. Arabic letters are just unfamiliar. What also might make a difference: The Latin alphabet was often chisled into stone, whereas the arabic letters are more curvy and suitable for handwriting. Modern \"western\" numerals might also be simpler because they were used earlier than actual arabic numerals for *printing*.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":33419.0,"score_ratio":1.4782608696} {"post_id":"y7qjfs","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old how do our bodies naturally prevent us from falling off skinnier sleeping surfaces when we\u2019re used to more space (like taking a nap on a sofa)?","c_root_id_A":"iswf5yo","c_root_id_B":"iswbm4o","created_at_utc_A":1666155010,"created_at_utc_B":1666152865,"score_A":597,"score_B":196,"human_ref_A":"This may not perfectly relate to sleeping on thinner things like couches but, We've all fallen asleep before. Most, if not all, have experienced myoclonus, a sudden jerk of the body, and we suddenly wake. There's no real proof of the exact reasons this phenomenon happens but there's theories. One such theory explains the source liked this. \"Well, hypnic (short for hypnogogic, a type of myoclonus) jerks have been explained as an ancient reflex to the relaxation of muscles during the onset of sleep for tree dwelling primates \u2013 the brain essentially misinterprets the sudden relaxation as a sign that the sleeping primate is falling out of a tree and so causes the muscles to quickly react and to awaken. The hypnic jerk reflex is likely to have had selective value by having the sleeper readjust their sleeping position in a nest or on a branch, in order to assure that a fall did not occur.\" -https:\/\/www.awatrees.com\/2014\/05\/18\/asleep-with-our-arboreal-ancestors\/#:~:text=Well%2C%20hypnic%20jerks%20have%20been,quickly%20react%20and%20to%20awaken. So, that's something...","human_ref_B":"You have nerves in your body that are responsible for propioception, or your body\u2019s \u201cplace in the world\u201d. These nerves are constantly sensing. Please correct me if I\u2019m wrong. It\u2019s been a while since I\u2019ve taken anatomy and physiology","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2145.0,"score_ratio":3.0459183673} {"post_id":"xh91fo","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How did Duck Hunt for the NES know where you were pointing the gun?","c_root_id_A":"iowu2ya","c_root_id_B":"iox1kba","created_at_utc_A":1663499024,"created_at_utc_B":1663503310,"score_A":66,"score_B":139,"human_ref_A":"Watch this explanation by The 8-Bit Guy. It helped explain it to my monkey brain with good visual examples. https:\/\/youtu.be\/Nu-Hoj4EIjU","human_ref_B":"Very focused light sensor that could only see a small portion of the screen. Pull the trigger and the screen is momentarily replaced with all black and a white box where the duck is. If sensor sees light, you hit the duck.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4286.0,"score_ratio":2.1060606061} {"post_id":"xh91fo","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How did Duck Hunt for the NES know where you were pointing the gun?","c_root_id_A":"iox1kba","c_root_id_B":"iowozjz","created_at_utc_A":1663503310,"created_at_utc_B":1663495667,"score_A":139,"score_B":36,"human_ref_A":"Very focused light sensor that could only see a small portion of the screen. Pull the trigger and the screen is momentarily replaced with all black and a white box where the duck is. If sensor sees light, you hit the duck.","human_ref_B":"The gun in the NES used by duck hunt was a civilian\/consumer implementation of the revolutionary innovation known as a \u201clight pen\u201d which was initially developed by IBM for the SAGE air defense system in the late 1950s, allowing radar operators to point to a spot on the screen and identify a specific radar target (SAGE only lasted a few years before NORAD went into service, but its a fascinating internet rabbit hole to go down if you\u2019re interested in tech, as a number of innovations eventually made their way into consumer hands decades later - a single one of the 30 blockhouses was equivalent in performance to an 80286 computer, which was *insane* in 1958) Because the computer is generating the image, it knows where in the scan process the electron beam in the display is at any given moment, the gun\/pen is focused on a small area of the screen, pulling the trigger switch tells the computer exactly what part of the screen it\u2019s aimed at, because the spot the beam is at is significantly brighter, relying on the phosphor to keep the image visible until the next pass of the beam, 1\/29.97th of a second later. If the requisite pulses are all lined up with the software\/ROM logic, that then correlates to an object (such as a duck, or an incoming Soviet aircraft) additional processing is then triggered. Otherwise it registers as a miss. Because modern LCD displays don\u2019t use a scanning electron beam to make the image, this approach no longer works, which is why you can\u2019t play Duck Hunt on a modern TV\/display.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7643.0,"score_ratio":3.8611111111} {"post_id":"xh91fo","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How did Duck Hunt for the NES know where you were pointing the gun?","c_root_id_A":"iowu2ya","c_root_id_B":"iowozjz","created_at_utc_A":1663499024,"created_at_utc_B":1663495667,"score_A":66,"score_B":36,"human_ref_A":"Watch this explanation by The 8-Bit Guy. It helped explain it to my monkey brain with good visual examples. https:\/\/youtu.be\/Nu-Hoj4EIjU","human_ref_B":"The gun in the NES used by duck hunt was a civilian\/consumer implementation of the revolutionary innovation known as a \u201clight pen\u201d which was initially developed by IBM for the SAGE air defense system in the late 1950s, allowing radar operators to point to a spot on the screen and identify a specific radar target (SAGE only lasted a few years before NORAD went into service, but its a fascinating internet rabbit hole to go down if you\u2019re interested in tech, as a number of innovations eventually made their way into consumer hands decades later - a single one of the 30 blockhouses was equivalent in performance to an 80286 computer, which was *insane* in 1958) Because the computer is generating the image, it knows where in the scan process the electron beam in the display is at any given moment, the gun\/pen is focused on a small area of the screen, pulling the trigger switch tells the computer exactly what part of the screen it\u2019s aimed at, because the spot the beam is at is significantly brighter, relying on the phosphor to keep the image visible until the next pass of the beam, 1\/29.97th of a second later. If the requisite pulses are all lined up with the software\/ROM logic, that then correlates to an object (such as a duck, or an incoming Soviet aircraft) additional processing is then triggered. Otherwise it registers as a miss. Because modern LCD displays don\u2019t use a scanning electron beam to make the image, this approach no longer works, which is why you can\u2019t play Duck Hunt on a modern TV\/display.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3357.0,"score_ratio":1.8333333333} {"post_id":"vdq0f7","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: When a stock price goes down, is it that many people have sold and now have that value in cash OR is it that the market just decides the stock price is now worth less collectively?","c_root_id_A":"icln6s4","c_root_id_B":"iclpdxb","created_at_utc_A":1655398045,"created_at_utc_B":1655398944,"score_A":18,"score_B":132,"human_ref_A":"Both. Stock prices are reports on the most recent sale of actual shares, so at least two somebodies have decided that the lower price is where they are willing to buy and sell the stock. But that new valuation also affects all the shares that are held but haven't been traded, as unrealized loses.","human_ref_B":"It's closer to the latter of the two, but it's both. The key thing to understand is that when you see a stock quote or stock price, that is *the price at which shares changed hands most recently.* In other words, a few seconds ago someone sold a few shares to someone else at that price. Importantly, a stock quote is *not an offer to buy or sell at that price.* So if you see a stock quote and you go sell your shares at \"market price\", you will get slightly higher or lower than the quote based on various factors. (The \"bid\" and \"ask\" prices in the quote are the current offers to buy and sell, respectively.) A stock going down means that there are more sellers than buyers, \"the market\" is collectively pessimistic about the stock's value, and so the sellers are dropping their \"ask\" prices to get the few buyers to bite. Each successive trade is for a slightly lower price than the one before. This continues until the price hits a level where potential buyers start getting more excited and jumping in.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":899.0,"score_ratio":7.3333333333} {"post_id":"vdq0f7","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: When a stock price goes down, is it that many people have sold and now have that value in cash OR is it that the market just decides the stock price is now worth less collectively?","c_root_id_A":"icln8j6","c_root_id_B":"iclpdxb","created_at_utc_A":1655398066,"created_at_utc_B":1655398944,"score_A":2,"score_B":132,"human_ref_A":"Both. When you say \"the market just decides\", \"the market\" is \"many people\" and \"just deciding\" is based on what they are selling\/buying for.","human_ref_B":"It's closer to the latter of the two, but it's both. The key thing to understand is that when you see a stock quote or stock price, that is *the price at which shares changed hands most recently.* In other words, a few seconds ago someone sold a few shares to someone else at that price. Importantly, a stock quote is *not an offer to buy or sell at that price.* So if you see a stock quote and you go sell your shares at \"market price\", you will get slightly higher or lower than the quote based on various factors. (The \"bid\" and \"ask\" prices in the quote are the current offers to buy and sell, respectively.) A stock going down means that there are more sellers than buyers, \"the market\" is collectively pessimistic about the stock's value, and so the sellers are dropping their \"ask\" prices to get the few buyers to bite. Each successive trade is for a slightly lower price than the one before. This continues until the price hits a level where potential buyers start getting more excited and jumping in.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":878.0,"score_ratio":66.0} {"post_id":"vdq0f7","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: When a stock price goes down, is it that many people have sold and now have that value in cash OR is it that the market just decides the stock price is now worth less collectively?","c_root_id_A":"icln8j6","c_root_id_B":"iclsu4t","created_at_utc_A":1655398066,"created_at_utc_B":1655400352,"score_A":2,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"Both. When you say \"the market just decides\", \"the market\" is \"many people\" and \"just deciding\" is based on what they are selling\/buying for.","human_ref_B":"\"The market\" is the result of peoples' decisions. It does not exist as an independent entity. So: \"many people selling\" and \"the market decides the stock is worth less\" are just two different ways to say the same thing.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2286.0,"score_ratio":4.0} {"post_id":"x9ar6b","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Death of Queen Elizabeth II Megathread Elizabeth II, queen of England, died today. We expect many people will have questions about this subject. Please direct all of those questions here: other threads will be deleted. Please remember to **be respectful**. Rule 1 does not just apply to redditors, it applies to everyone. Regardless of anyone's personal feelings about her or the royal family, there are human beings grieving the loss of a loved one. Please remember to **be objective**. Explain like I'm five years old is not the appropriate forum to discuss your personal feelings about the royal family, any individual members of the royal family, etc. Questions and comments should be about objective topics. Opinionated discussion can be healthy, but it belongs in subreddits like \/r\/changemyview, not Explain like I'm five years old.","c_root_id_A":"inmwzul","c_root_id_B":"inp116k","created_at_utc_A":1662668915,"created_at_utc_B":1662704397,"score_A":43,"score_B":82,"human_ref_A":"I really just want to know if this event will have any actual repercussions on her \"subjects\". Will things change for people at all?","human_ref_B":"Just a point of correction - despite the opening sentence of this post, she was NOT the Queen of England. That title was abolished in 1707 (along with the title of King\/Queen of Scotland) when the Kingdom of Great Britain was formed. The title of the British monarch changed again in 1801 to the King\/Queen of Great Britain and Ireland, and once more in 1921 to King\/Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which is the title that Elizabeth II had when she died. Those last couple of changes were more simply following political realities, but the main point is that in 1707 the Kingdom of England ceased to exist, and so did its monarchy. I'm happy to Explain like I'm five years old further if anyone has questions about this specific point.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":35482.0,"score_ratio":1.9069767442} {"post_id":"x9ar6b","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Death of Queen Elizabeth II Megathread Elizabeth II, queen of England, died today. We expect many people will have questions about this subject. Please direct all of those questions here: other threads will be deleted. Please remember to **be respectful**. Rule 1 does not just apply to redditors, it applies to everyone. Regardless of anyone's personal feelings about her or the royal family, there are human beings grieving the loss of a loved one. Please remember to **be objective**. Explain like I'm five years old is not the appropriate forum to discuss your personal feelings about the royal family, any individual members of the royal family, etc. Questions and comments should be about objective topics. Opinionated discussion can be healthy, but it belongs in subreddits like \/r\/changemyview, not Explain like I'm five years old.","c_root_id_A":"inp116k","c_root_id_B":"inmzf5l","created_at_utc_A":1662704397,"created_at_utc_B":1662669837,"score_A":82,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"Just a point of correction - despite the opening sentence of this post, she was NOT the Queen of England. That title was abolished in 1707 (along with the title of King\/Queen of Scotland) when the Kingdom of Great Britain was formed. The title of the British monarch changed again in 1801 to the King\/Queen of Great Britain and Ireland, and once more in 1921 to King\/Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which is the title that Elizabeth II had when she died. Those last couple of changes were more simply following political realities, but the main point is that in 1707 the Kingdom of England ceased to exist, and so did its monarchy. I'm happy to Explain like I'm five years old further if anyone has questions about this specific point.","human_ref_B":"Does this make Camilla queen then? Would she take power if Charles passes first? Are her kids eligible for the crown at some point now or does it follow with the kids he had with princess Di?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":34560.0,"score_ratio":8.2} {"post_id":"x9ar6b","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Death of Queen Elizabeth II Megathread Elizabeth II, queen of England, died today. We expect many people will have questions about this subject. Please direct all of those questions here: other threads will be deleted. Please remember to **be respectful**. Rule 1 does not just apply to redditors, it applies to everyone. Regardless of anyone's personal feelings about her or the royal family, there are human beings grieving the loss of a loved one. Please remember to **be objective**. Explain like I'm five years old is not the appropriate forum to discuss your personal feelings about the royal family, any individual members of the royal family, etc. Questions and comments should be about objective topics. Opinionated discussion can be healthy, but it belongs in subreddits like \/r\/changemyview, not Explain like I'm five years old.","c_root_id_A":"inp116k","c_root_id_B":"inn524d","created_at_utc_A":1662704397,"created_at_utc_B":1662672001,"score_A":82,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"Just a point of correction - despite the opening sentence of this post, she was NOT the Queen of England. That title was abolished in 1707 (along with the title of King\/Queen of Scotland) when the Kingdom of Great Britain was formed. The title of the British monarch changed again in 1801 to the King\/Queen of Great Britain and Ireland, and once more in 1921 to King\/Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which is the title that Elizabeth II had when she died. Those last couple of changes were more simply following political realities, but the main point is that in 1707 the Kingdom of England ceased to exist, and so did its monarchy. I'm happy to Explain like I'm five years old further if anyone has questions about this specific point.","human_ref_B":"How does this affect the commonwealth countries? I heard that Australia might remove itself from the commonwealth now, but I don\u2019t understand why it really matters if whoever sits on the thrown is a figurehead and those countries are basically independent anyway.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":32396.0,"score_ratio":7.4545454545} {"post_id":"x9ar6b","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Death of Queen Elizabeth II Megathread Elizabeth II, queen of England, died today. We expect many people will have questions about this subject. Please direct all of those questions here: other threads will be deleted. Please remember to **be respectful**. Rule 1 does not just apply to redditors, it applies to everyone. Regardless of anyone's personal feelings about her or the royal family, there are human beings grieving the loss of a loved one. Please remember to **be objective**. Explain like I'm five years old is not the appropriate forum to discuss your personal feelings about the royal family, any individual members of the royal family, etc. Questions and comments should be about objective topics. Opinionated discussion can be healthy, but it belongs in subreddits like \/r\/changemyview, not Explain like I'm five years old.","c_root_id_A":"inp116k","c_root_id_B":"innsyul","created_at_utc_A":1662704397,"created_at_utc_B":1662682119,"score_A":82,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Just a point of correction - despite the opening sentence of this post, she was NOT the Queen of England. That title was abolished in 1707 (along with the title of King\/Queen of Scotland) when the Kingdom of Great Britain was formed. The title of the British monarch changed again in 1801 to the King\/Queen of Great Britain and Ireland, and once more in 1921 to King\/Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which is the title that Elizabeth II had when she died. Those last couple of changes were more simply following political realities, but the main point is that in 1707 the Kingdom of England ceased to exist, and so did its monarchy. I'm happy to Explain like I'm five years old further if anyone has questions about this specific point.","human_ref_B":"Why do some people dislike the Queen? I\u2019ve seen a lot of hateful comments and some even saying they feel \u201cgiddy\u201d that she passed. Did I miss something?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":22278.0,"score_ratio":13.6666666667} {"post_id":"x9ar6b","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Death of Queen Elizabeth II Megathread Elizabeth II, queen of England, died today. We expect many people will have questions about this subject. Please direct all of those questions here: other threads will be deleted. Please remember to **be respectful**. Rule 1 does not just apply to redditors, it applies to everyone. Regardless of anyone's personal feelings about her or the royal family, there are human beings grieving the loss of a loved one. Please remember to **be objective**. Explain like I'm five years old is not the appropriate forum to discuss your personal feelings about the royal family, any individual members of the royal family, etc. Questions and comments should be about objective topics. Opinionated discussion can be healthy, but it belongs in subreddits like \/r\/changemyview, not Explain like I'm five years old.","c_root_id_A":"inn524d","c_root_id_B":"inmzf5l","created_at_utc_A":1662672001,"created_at_utc_B":1662669837,"score_A":11,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"How does this affect the commonwealth countries? I heard that Australia might remove itself from the commonwealth now, but I don\u2019t understand why it really matters if whoever sits on the thrown is a figurehead and those countries are basically independent anyway.","human_ref_B":"Does this make Camilla queen then? Would she take power if Charles passes first? Are her kids eligible for the crown at some point now or does it follow with the kids he had with princess Di?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2164.0,"score_ratio":1.1} {"post_id":"x9ar6b","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Death of Queen Elizabeth II Megathread Elizabeth II, queen of England, died today. We expect many people will have questions about this subject. Please direct all of those questions here: other threads will be deleted. Please remember to **be respectful**. Rule 1 does not just apply to redditors, it applies to everyone. Regardless of anyone's personal feelings about her or the royal family, there are human beings grieving the loss of a loved one. Please remember to **be objective**. Explain like I'm five years old is not the appropriate forum to discuss your personal feelings about the royal family, any individual members of the royal family, etc. Questions and comments should be about objective topics. Opinionated discussion can be healthy, but it belongs in subreddits like \/r\/changemyview, not Explain like I'm five years old.","c_root_id_A":"inq0td3","c_root_id_B":"innsyul","created_at_utc_A":1662729061,"created_at_utc_B":1662682119,"score_A":7,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Explain like I'm five years old the rationale behind the line of succession: why does it follow the eldest child and then go to that eldest child\u2019s children, and so on? Why not go through the whole sibling set first? As it stands now, it\u2019s Charles, William, George and then will go to George\u2019s firstborn when he has a child, bumping his siblings further down the line of succession. My western mind thinks it would make more sense to go through the siblings, then the next generation beginning with eldest sibling\u2019s children, etc. What am I missing?","human_ref_B":"Why do some people dislike the Queen? I\u2019ve seen a lot of hateful comments and some even saying they feel \u201cgiddy\u201d that she passed. Did I miss something?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":46942.0,"score_ratio":1.1666666667} {"post_id":"x9ar6b","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Death of Queen Elizabeth II Megathread Elizabeth II, queen of England, died today. We expect many people will have questions about this subject. Please direct all of those questions here: other threads will be deleted. Please remember to **be respectful**. Rule 1 does not just apply to redditors, it applies to everyone. Regardless of anyone's personal feelings about her or the royal family, there are human beings grieving the loss of a loved one. Please remember to **be objective**. Explain like I'm five years old is not the appropriate forum to discuss your personal feelings about the royal family, any individual members of the royal family, etc. Questions and comments should be about objective topics. Opinionated discussion can be healthy, but it belongs in subreddits like \/r\/changemyview, not Explain like I'm five years old.","c_root_id_A":"innsyul","c_root_id_B":"inq98ee","created_at_utc_A":1662682119,"created_at_utc_B":1662732834,"score_A":6,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Why do some people dislike the Queen? I\u2019ve seen a lot of hateful comments and some even saying they feel \u201cgiddy\u201d that she passed. Did I miss something?","human_ref_B":"Why does Ireland hate the queen?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":50715.0,"score_ratio":1.1666666667} {"post_id":"x9ar6b","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Death of Queen Elizabeth II Megathread Elizabeth II, queen of England, died today. We expect many people will have questions about this subject. Please direct all of those questions here: other threads will be deleted. Please remember to **be respectful**. Rule 1 does not just apply to redditors, it applies to everyone. Regardless of anyone's personal feelings about her or the royal family, there are human beings grieving the loss of a loved one. Please remember to **be objective**. Explain like I'm five years old is not the appropriate forum to discuss your personal feelings about the royal family, any individual members of the royal family, etc. Questions and comments should be about objective topics. Opinionated discussion can be healthy, but it belongs in subreddits like \/r\/changemyview, not Explain like I'm five years old.","c_root_id_A":"inuav26","c_root_id_B":"innsyul","created_at_utc_A":1662807284,"created_at_utc_B":1662682119,"score_A":7,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"How far removed do you have to be in line of succession before you become a normal person? When do they stop receiving money from the government. I googled and Prince Edward is the youngest and 13th in line. the odds of him ever taking the throne... Are his children considered royalty or will they have to get normal jobs? What about his grandchildren? At what point in the lineage will the descendants be forced to find a job as, I don't know, an engineer at British Petroleum and nobody cares that their great grandmother was the queen, or flipping burgers at McDonald's?","human_ref_B":"Why do some people dislike the Queen? I\u2019ve seen a lot of hateful comments and some even saying they feel \u201cgiddy\u201d that she passed. Did I miss something?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":125165.0,"score_ratio":1.1666666667} {"post_id":"x9ar6b","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Death of Queen Elizabeth II Megathread Elizabeth II, queen of England, died today. We expect many people will have questions about this subject. Please direct all of those questions here: other threads will be deleted. Please remember to **be respectful**. Rule 1 does not just apply to redditors, it applies to everyone. Regardless of anyone's personal feelings about her or the royal family, there are human beings grieving the loss of a loved one. Please remember to **be objective**. Explain like I'm five years old is not the appropriate forum to discuss your personal feelings about the royal family, any individual members of the royal family, etc. Questions and comments should be about objective topics. Opinionated discussion can be healthy, but it belongs in subreddits like \/r\/changemyview, not Explain like I'm five years old.","c_root_id_A":"inqdyx0","c_root_id_B":"inuav26","created_at_utc_A":1662734804,"created_at_utc_B":1662807284,"score_A":6,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"My question is what actual power do the royals have in this day and age? Wasn\u2019t a woman just sworn in as the prime minister? Are they more like celebrities at this point?","human_ref_B":"How far removed do you have to be in line of succession before you become a normal person? When do they stop receiving money from the government. I googled and Prince Edward is the youngest and 13th in line. the odds of him ever taking the throne... Are his children considered royalty or will they have to get normal jobs? What about his grandchildren? At what point in the lineage will the descendants be forced to find a job as, I don't know, an engineer at British Petroleum and nobody cares that their great grandmother was the queen, or flipping burgers at McDonald's?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":72480.0,"score_ratio":1.1666666667} {"post_id":"x9ar6b","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Death of Queen Elizabeth II Megathread Elizabeth II, queen of England, died today. We expect many people will have questions about this subject. Please direct all of those questions here: other threads will be deleted. Please remember to **be respectful**. Rule 1 does not just apply to redditors, it applies to everyone. Regardless of anyone's personal feelings about her or the royal family, there are human beings grieving the loss of a loved one. Please remember to **be objective**. Explain like I'm five years old is not the appropriate forum to discuss your personal feelings about the royal family, any individual members of the royal family, etc. Questions and comments should be about objective topics. Opinionated discussion can be healthy, but it belongs in subreddits like \/r\/changemyview, not Explain like I'm five years old.","c_root_id_A":"inr9kak","c_root_id_B":"inuav26","created_at_utc_A":1662747360,"created_at_utc_B":1662807284,"score_A":6,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Why did the bank of england have to say the paper currency with the queen on them (all banknotes printed since the 1970s have her depiction) are still legal tender? https:\/\/www.reuters.com\/world\/uk\/bank-england-says-banknotes-featuring-queens-image-remain-legal-tender-2022-09-08\/","human_ref_B":"How far removed do you have to be in line of succession before you become a normal person? When do they stop receiving money from the government. I googled and Prince Edward is the youngest and 13th in line. the odds of him ever taking the throne... Are his children considered royalty or will they have to get normal jobs? What about his grandchildren? At what point in the lineage will the descendants be forced to find a job as, I don't know, an engineer at British Petroleum and nobody cares that their great grandmother was the queen, or flipping burgers at McDonald's?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":59924.0,"score_ratio":1.1666666667} {"post_id":"3chhg1","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.7,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why do the vast majority of good police officers and other form of L.E. protect the \"bad apples\" and not outcast\/ help remove them? I believe (or maybe want to believe?) that the majority of L.E. are well meaning and have good intentions. With all the negative events of L.E. in the past that has hit the public light of day, I wonder why doesn't the majority of those well meaning L.E. people pressure to get rid of the ones that bring them and their profession down?","c_root_id_A":"csvl1qj","c_root_id_B":"csvpsub","created_at_utc_A":1436311722,"created_at_utc_B":1436320180,"score_A":8,"score_B":24,"human_ref_A":"I'm quite interested in seeing what people will answer. I've been asking essentially the same question for year, and never have gotten a reasonable answer. If the bad cops are just a small percentage, 'a few rotten apples', then why don't good cops (who must therefore make up the vast majority of the police) not do something about them?? Non-answers include: -they are afraid of not having backup if they report bad cops. Of course, if bad cops are such a small number that really shouldn't matter. -what can they do? Report suspicious behaviour by fellow cops. Arrest fellow cops who break the law. Testify against them. Etc.","human_ref_B":"Cop here. Truly \"bad\" cops don't want to get caught. If they're doing something shady, they're probably hiding it. A couple other factors: Police departments operate independently from one another. I have nothing to do with the department in the next town over, let alone across County or state lines. Even within the same department, you'll have your own beat. You'll go most of the day without interacting with your fellow officers. I work in a department with over 1700 sworn officers. I see about 10 of them a day, and only 2 or 3 of them will I actuality go on calls with in my response area.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8458.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"yvx48k","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Can a person feel pain or other sensations in a transplanted organ? And if so, how do the severed nerves connect to the rest of the body?","c_root_id_A":"iwgnss6","c_root_id_B":"iwgl94s","created_at_utc_A":1668523093,"created_at_utc_B":1668521930,"score_A":355,"score_B":49,"human_ref_A":"With a heart transplant the new heart is said to be de-nerved. It has no nerve connection so it does not respond to your body the same way your native heart would. However another user said that this means your heart rate won't change based on actively which is not true. Your heart rate does change, just with a significant delay because it is controlled through hormones rather than your nervous system. It is true that because your heart had no nerve connection you won't feel a heart attack is the same way.","human_ref_B":"The severed nerves aren't reconnected. For most organs, this isn't that much of a problem, as they don't need much control or give feedback. For heart transplants, the control of heart rate is lost. Heart rate won't go up with exertion and won't go down with rest, but will tend to stay at a medium rate. It also means that if someone has a heart attack in a transplanted heart, they won't feel the chest pain symptoms, which can make it difficult to recognise.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1163.0,"score_ratio":7.2448979592} {"post_id":"yvx48k","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Can a person feel pain or other sensations in a transplanted organ? And if so, how do the severed nerves connect to the rest of the body?","c_root_id_A":"iwgl94s","c_root_id_B":"iwhbjmt","created_at_utc_A":1668521930,"created_at_utc_B":1668532763,"score_A":49,"score_B":53,"human_ref_A":"The severed nerves aren't reconnected. For most organs, this isn't that much of a problem, as they don't need much control or give feedback. For heart transplants, the control of heart rate is lost. Heart rate won't go up with exertion and won't go down with rest, but will tend to stay at a medium rate. It also means that if someone has a heart attack in a transplanted heart, they won't feel the chest pain symptoms, which can make it difficult to recognise.","human_ref_B":"I have several scalp transplants (Uugh Cancer). One of the bigger ones used a flap from my thigh (muscle, arteries and skin) and was transplanted to my scalp to repair the hole left by wide excision. At first the transplant is called completely numb, It takes about 6 months to slowly start feeling pressure. After a year or so feelings of hot and cold start appearing as the nerves slowly regrow from the surrounding tissue. Here\u2019s more interesting info: https:\/\/www.thenakedscientists.com\/articles\/questions\/can-nerves-regenerate > In the central nervous system (the brain and spinal cord), if you injure that - as far as we know - it's permanent. The nerve cells may die; or they may not die but they certainly don't reconnect with where they should connect. That stops signals getting through which is why you get problems of paralysis or loss of sensation, depending on where the damage is. That's why a stroke is so disabling. > In the skin the nerve cells there seem to be able to survive injury. They also seem to be able to re-grow to their targets so they go back to where they connected to in the first place. So if it was a muscle they were supposed to be supplying, they'll reconnect with the muscle. If it was a patch of skin they can branch out and re-supply the skin so you do get sensation back.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10833.0,"score_ratio":1.0816326531} {"post_id":"yvx48k","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Can a person feel pain or other sensations in a transplanted organ? And if so, how do the severed nerves connect to the rest of the body?","c_root_id_A":"iwhlqen","c_root_id_B":"iwhcho5","created_at_utc_A":1668536689,"created_at_utc_B":1668533133,"score_A":27,"score_B":24,"human_ref_A":"Lung transplant recipient here! I had my transplant just over 3 years ago, for the first 6-8 months I had no sensation from about my shoulders to my waist, including skin level, not just the organs. Around 1-1.5 years I regained most of the feeling to my muscles and skin but still have some areas that are numb. It was explained to me as my new lungs will never have feeling in them as my old lungs did. Unlike when a regular persons lungs can feel phlegm or the need to cough, I will no longer feel that, as the \u201cblanket\u201d of nerves that line the back of the lungs is not able to be re-connected, only the larger sized nerves can \u201creconnect\u201d in a sort of way. I am able to feel sharp pains and can tell when something is wrong, but cannot feel anything else. I have frequent scans, procedures and checkups to ensure my lungs are not blocking up and I do not have an infection growing :)","human_ref_B":"So most organs don't have sensory nerves in the way we think of like our skin does. Usually when we feel pain like a stomach ache, or chest pain, or appendicitis, the pain we are feeling is localized inflammation affecting the surrounding tissue that does have sensory nerves. Now of note, is that nerves can actually heal. They may not heal completely or correctly, but they can heal. Nerves can regrow at a rate of up to 1 inch per month. These are peripheral nerves that exist outside our brain and spine. Central nerves can also regrow, but often times the injury that caused them to be severed releases a hormone that prevents regrowth from happening. This is why central nerve conditions are often permanent. Medicine is working on ways to prevent the release of that hormone, but so far the trouble we are running into is time. The process starts quick, and most patients with traumatic injuries don't make it in time to have a chance at preventing it. As for your question about transplanted organs specifically, of the organs that we know we can transplant, most are able to receive nerve growth and and even restore sensory development. Retinal transplants can restore sight. Gastric organs like the intestines and stomach that require autonomic muscle contractions to push food stuff through can restore that function. The process is pretty simple. Just like any other tissue, the nerves respond to hormones and signals and grow till those hormones and signals are copacetic and achieving the function they think they need to. (that's the key part, the nerves are not guaranteed to regrow or reattach correctly and this can cause issue but often we can treat those issues and its far better than dealing with a failed organ.)","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3556.0,"score_ratio":1.125} {"post_id":"ycmk8m","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old why boiled egg shells can sometimes be easy to peel and other times stick and take chunks of egg with them","c_root_id_A":"itn37ii","c_root_id_B":"itn9ine","created_at_utc_A":1666646308,"created_at_utc_B":1666648907,"score_A":27,"score_B":96,"human_ref_A":"The shell of a fresh egg is full, but the shell is porous, so as it ages some liquid evaporates through the shell. Having extra space within the shell makes the cooked egg easier to peel. So a fresh egg will be hard to peel cleanly, while an older egg will be easier to peel.","human_ref_B":"Last time this question came up, a bunch of opinions were offered. A lot of people claim the bit about new eggs vs store bought eggs is a myth. Mostly it has to do with how they are cooked. All these \"test kitchen\" videos say the thing to do is get salted water boiling vigorously, and gently lower in room-temperature eggs. Don't over-cook them, cool them in cold water or ice water water you remove them from the boil. https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=DgBSvpKSSYM https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=4A8Cudduu0g https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=AFFDXJ2DR9w https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=RV9nz1qlY64","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2599.0,"score_ratio":3.5555555556} {"post_id":"ycmk8m","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old why boiled egg shells can sometimes be easy to peel and other times stick and take chunks of egg with them","c_root_id_A":"itn9ine","c_root_id_B":"itn8xex","created_at_utc_A":1666648907,"created_at_utc_B":1666648654,"score_A":96,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Last time this question came up, a bunch of opinions were offered. A lot of people claim the bit about new eggs vs store bought eggs is a myth. Mostly it has to do with how they are cooked. All these \"test kitchen\" videos say the thing to do is get salted water boiling vigorously, and gently lower in room-temperature eggs. Don't over-cook them, cool them in cold water or ice water water you remove them from the boil. https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=DgBSvpKSSYM https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=4A8Cudduu0g https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=AFFDXJ2DR9w https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=RV9nz1qlY64","human_ref_B":"If you want to make your hard-boiled eggs easier to peel, remove the pan from the heat when the timer rings. Put the pan into a sink and immediately run ice cold water into it. The eggs will cool more quickly and make them easier to peel.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":253.0,"score_ratio":24.0} {"post_id":"ycmk8m","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old why boiled egg shells can sometimes be easy to peel and other times stick and take chunks of egg with them","c_root_id_A":"itndzor","c_root_id_B":"itn37ii","created_at_utc_A":1666650879,"created_at_utc_B":1666646308,"score_A":31,"score_B":27,"human_ref_A":"If you have an instant pot, use that. That's the best way to consistently get easy to peel eggs. The pressure separates the shell from the egg and they usually come off in two halves when you break them.","human_ref_B":"The shell of a fresh egg is full, but the shell is porous, so as it ages some liquid evaporates through the shell. Having extra space within the shell makes the cooked egg easier to peel. So a fresh egg will be hard to peel cleanly, while an older egg will be easier to peel.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4571.0,"score_ratio":1.1481481481} {"post_id":"ycmk8m","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old why boiled egg shells can sometimes be easy to peel and other times stick and take chunks of egg with them","c_root_id_A":"itndzor","c_root_id_B":"itn8xex","created_at_utc_A":1666650879,"created_at_utc_B":1666648654,"score_A":31,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"If you have an instant pot, use that. That's the best way to consistently get easy to peel eggs. The pressure separates the shell from the egg and they usually come off in two halves when you break them.","human_ref_B":"If you want to make your hard-boiled eggs easier to peel, remove the pan from the heat when the timer rings. Put the pan into a sink and immediately run ice cold water into it. The eggs will cool more quickly and make them easier to peel.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2225.0,"score_ratio":7.75} {"post_id":"ycmk8m","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old why boiled egg shells can sometimes be easy to peel and other times stick and take chunks of egg with them","c_root_id_A":"itnqba4","c_root_id_B":"itn8xex","created_at_utc_A":1666656512,"created_at_utc_B":1666648654,"score_A":5,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"My method that works for me: Place eggs in a pot, cover with water. Lid on pot and bring to a rolling boil. Turn off heat and set timer for 14 minutes. When done, dump hot water. Cover in lots of ice water and forget about them. I have battled eggs that don\u2019t peel as well and this is what I found works best.","human_ref_B":"If you want to make your hard-boiled eggs easier to peel, remove the pan from the heat when the timer rings. Put the pan into a sink and immediately run ice cold water into it. The eggs will cool more quickly and make them easier to peel.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7858.0,"score_ratio":1.25} {"post_id":"zy0sc8","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.66,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: I just watched Coffeezilla about the Logan Zoo-Crypto-Scam. Can somebody explain me, how something can be worth millions of dollars, when no one is trading it? The whole stealth launch I don\u00b4t understand. Where does the value come from?","c_root_id_A":"j23bn9f","c_root_id_B":"j23cwde","created_at_utc_A":1672308124,"created_at_utc_B":1672309175,"score_A":14,"score_B":27,"human_ref_A":"The value comes from the hope that someone with more money and less brains\/luck will buy them off of you for more than you paid for them. That's how speculative bubbles work.","human_ref_B":"Of course, there is no value. The scam works something like this: You create, say 1001 crypto coins or tokens. Then you sell 1 for $10, maybe to a friend or a sockpuppet. Now your coin is trading at $10. So you say that your 1000 remaining coins are worth 1000 times $10 because that's what you would supposedly get on \"the market\". The real question is why anyone falls for that. The answer is that it makes sense for stocks and some other things. Here's how it makes sense: When you take out a loan, you get a sum of money and pay it back in smaller sums in the future. The money you get is the present-day value of those future payments you make. Stocks work on the same principle. You give money to a company which uses your money to build factories and stuff. Later, you get a share of the profits. The value of the stock, should be the present-day value of those future profits. So the value of all stock combined, should be the value of all the future profits. With crypto, that calculation makes absolutely no sense. There is just nothing behind it. But people who don't realize that may be fooled because they know it from other investments.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1051.0,"score_ratio":1.9285714286} {"post_id":"sqjh5j","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: After world war 1 Germany was dirt poor but how did they manage to get such huge army and inflict huge damage in world war 2 ?","c_root_id_A":"hwm70rd","c_root_id_B":"hwm2m8t","created_at_utc_A":1644649621,"created_at_utc_B":1644646821,"score_A":174,"score_B":27,"human_ref_A":"Massive deficit spending and outright not even paying for anything. The German economy under Hitler was a house of cards. It's not the economic miracle people pretend it was. Hitler cooked the books. Borrowing money was hidden. Deferred payments were written to German industry which were then deferred over and over and over and over again. The 1938 and 1939 invasions of Czechoslovakia and the 1939 invasion of Poland were timed for when the German economy was about to collapse under the weight of how much it owed. Germany launched invasions to plunder everything they could get their hands on to keep the German economy going for just a little bit longer. However, they never had a chance of winning because they always needed more enemies to plunder to keep the economy going and that was unsustainable.","human_ref_B":"The German Army wasn't actually all that effective - the WW1 era German Army was in a far more favorable position vs. its enemies than the WW2 era German Army was. However, there were two major differences. The first is that Germany's opponents were even less well-prepared for war than Germany was. The British and the French were both very much opposed to war given the mass casualties of the First World War. The Soviets were preparing for war, but were invaded before they managed to restructure their military. The second is that Germany fought on long after it made any rational sense to do so. After the failure of Case Blue, the Battle of the Atlantic and the U.S. entrance into the war, there was no longer any hope for Germany victory. If Germany had been run by the same sort of people who had run the country in World War 1, they would have figured out some way to pursue a negotiated peace at this point - long before most of the destruction in World War II occurred.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2800.0,"score_ratio":6.4444444444} {"post_id":"zyl9ww","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Where did the ongoing \u2018do a good deed and the mayor of the town congratulates you with the key to the city\u2019 in movies & shows come from? Was that ever a real thing? I\u2019m watching family guy & Peter found a missing kid and as a reward the mayor gave him the key to the city (or town hall?). I\u2019ve also seen this happen in a few other movies. Was this ever a real thing? Is this an inside joke I\u2019m not aware of?","c_root_id_A":"j27eelf","c_root_id_B":"j2833zk","created_at_utc_A":1672374482,"created_at_utc_B":1672390714,"score_A":99,"score_B":194,"human_ref_A":"Weird coincidence, I did some 3am wikipedia surfing hours ago and stumbled on Mac Miller's wikipedia page which says that he was given a \"key to the city\" by the mayor of Pittsburgh, his hometown. So yes its a real thing, but I think it is less about just doing a good deed and more about who the state deems an honorable person who came from there, and Mac Miller (rest in peace) being a famous musician was awarded such an honor. Think of it like the UK knighting a British celebrity on a much smaller and less grandiose scale.","human_ref_B":"City councilmember here. We have dozens of ceremonial keys. Before the pandemic, we gave them to a middle schooler who would write a winning essay and then come to read it from the Mayor\u2019s seat on the dais.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":16232.0,"score_ratio":1.9595959596} {"post_id":"zyl9ww","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Where did the ongoing \u2018do a good deed and the mayor of the town congratulates you with the key to the city\u2019 in movies & shows come from? Was that ever a real thing? I\u2019m watching family guy & Peter found a missing kid and as a reward the mayor gave him the key to the city (or town hall?). I\u2019ve also seen this happen in a few other movies. Was this ever a real thing? Is this an inside joke I\u2019m not aware of?","c_root_id_A":"j2833zk","c_root_id_B":"j27v1ss","created_at_utc_A":1672390714,"created_at_utc_B":1672384518,"score_A":194,"score_B":64,"human_ref_A":"City councilmember here. We have dozens of ceremonial keys. Before the pandemic, we gave them to a middle schooler who would write a winning essay and then come to read it from the Mayor\u2019s seat on the dais.","human_ref_B":"I actually know someone who was awarded a key to the city of Paris France. I can\u2019t remember what he did but I\u2019ve seen the actual key and proclamation.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6196.0,"score_ratio":3.03125} {"post_id":"zyl9ww","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Where did the ongoing \u2018do a good deed and the mayor of the town congratulates you with the key to the city\u2019 in movies & shows come from? Was that ever a real thing? I\u2019m watching family guy & Peter found a missing kid and as a reward the mayor gave him the key to the city (or town hall?). I\u2019ve also seen this happen in a few other movies. Was this ever a real thing? Is this an inside joke I\u2019m not aware of?","c_root_id_A":"j2833zk","c_root_id_B":"j27hpwu","created_at_utc_A":1672390714,"created_at_utc_B":1672376190,"score_A":194,"score_B":49,"human_ref_A":"City councilmember here. We have dozens of ceremonial keys. Before the pandemic, we gave them to a middle schooler who would write a winning essay and then come to read it from the Mayor\u2019s seat on the dais.","human_ref_B":"I live in Chicagoland. Years ago when my twins were little, we took them to Lincoln Park zoo. On the way in, we got stopped by the local ABC news crew as they were asking people random questions about the news we watched. They asked if we\u2019d be ok with being in camera to answer the questions and at the end they had us say the name of our town. I did and thought nothing of it until about 6 months later they started to air 30 second commercials with all the people they stopped through Chicago that summer. I got included in the commercial and I found it on YouTube and emailed it to my towns Mayor asking for an honorary key to the city. He politely declined my request. Can\u2019t say I blame him.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":14524.0,"score_ratio":3.9591836735} {"post_id":"zyl9ww","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Where did the ongoing \u2018do a good deed and the mayor of the town congratulates you with the key to the city\u2019 in movies & shows come from? Was that ever a real thing? I\u2019m watching family guy & Peter found a missing kid and as a reward the mayor gave him the key to the city (or town hall?). I\u2019ve also seen this happen in a few other movies. Was this ever a real thing? Is this an inside joke I\u2019m not aware of?","c_root_id_A":"j2833zk","c_root_id_B":"j27f79o","created_at_utc_A":1672390714,"created_at_utc_B":1672374882,"score_A":194,"score_B":27,"human_ref_A":"City councilmember here. We have dozens of ceremonial keys. Before the pandemic, we gave them to a middle schooler who would write a winning essay and then come to read it from the Mayor\u2019s seat on the dais.","human_ref_B":"I\u2019ve been to a couple of events where the mayor of my hometown gave out keys to the city to the guest of honor and each time he would always joke \u201cThere\u2019s nothing in the vault!\u201d","labels":1,"seconds_difference":15832.0,"score_ratio":7.1851851852} {"post_id":"zyl9ww","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Where did the ongoing \u2018do a good deed and the mayor of the town congratulates you with the key to the city\u2019 in movies & shows come from? Was that ever a real thing? I\u2019m watching family guy & Peter found a missing kid and as a reward the mayor gave him the key to the city (or town hall?). I\u2019ve also seen this happen in a few other movies. Was this ever a real thing? Is this an inside joke I\u2019m not aware of?","c_root_id_A":"j2757u8","c_root_id_B":"j2833zk","created_at_utc_A":1672370154,"created_at_utc_B":1672390714,"score_A":21,"score_B":194,"human_ref_A":"Yes, it was real, here's KISS receiving the keys to the city in Sault Ste Marie for some bizarre reason \ud83d\ude06 https:\/\/blabbermouth.net\/news\/kiss-receives-city-key-to-sault-ste-marie-video-available","human_ref_B":"City councilmember here. We have dozens of ceremonial keys. Before the pandemic, we gave them to a middle schooler who would write a winning essay and then come to read it from the Mayor\u2019s seat on the dais.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":20560.0,"score_ratio":9.2380952381} {"post_id":"zyl9ww","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Where did the ongoing \u2018do a good deed and the mayor of the town congratulates you with the key to the city\u2019 in movies & shows come from? Was that ever a real thing? I\u2019m watching family guy & Peter found a missing kid and as a reward the mayor gave him the key to the city (or town hall?). I\u2019ve also seen this happen in a few other movies. Was this ever a real thing? Is this an inside joke I\u2019m not aware of?","c_root_id_A":"j27xxgx","c_root_id_B":"j2833zk","created_at_utc_A":1672386662,"created_at_utc_B":1672390714,"score_A":16,"score_B":194,"human_ref_A":"My grandpa was a judge and got a key to the city, which we found when he died. I don't remember now exactly which city it was, but I believe he mostly lived in Riverside, CA, so maybe there","human_ref_B":"City councilmember here. We have dozens of ceremonial keys. Before the pandemic, we gave them to a middle schooler who would write a winning essay and then come to read it from the Mayor\u2019s seat on the dais.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4052.0,"score_ratio":12.125} {"post_id":"zyl9ww","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Where did the ongoing \u2018do a good deed and the mayor of the town congratulates you with the key to the city\u2019 in movies & shows come from? Was that ever a real thing? I\u2019m watching family guy & Peter found a missing kid and as a reward the mayor gave him the key to the city (or town hall?). I\u2019ve also seen this happen in a few other movies. Was this ever a real thing? Is this an inside joke I\u2019m not aware of?","c_root_id_A":"j27eelf","c_root_id_B":"j2757u8","created_at_utc_A":1672374482,"created_at_utc_B":1672370154,"score_A":99,"score_B":21,"human_ref_A":"Weird coincidence, I did some 3am wikipedia surfing hours ago and stumbled on Mac Miller's wikipedia page which says that he was given a \"key to the city\" by the mayor of Pittsburgh, his hometown. So yes its a real thing, but I think it is less about just doing a good deed and more about who the state deems an honorable person who came from there, and Mac Miller (rest in peace) being a famous musician was awarded such an honor. Think of it like the UK knighting a British celebrity on a much smaller and less grandiose scale.","human_ref_B":"Yes, it was real, here's KISS receiving the keys to the city in Sault Ste Marie for some bizarre reason \ud83d\ude06 https:\/\/blabbermouth.net\/news\/kiss-receives-city-key-to-sault-ste-marie-video-available","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4328.0,"score_ratio":4.7142857143} {"post_id":"zyl9ww","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Where did the ongoing \u2018do a good deed and the mayor of the town congratulates you with the key to the city\u2019 in movies & shows come from? Was that ever a real thing? I\u2019m watching family guy & Peter found a missing kid and as a reward the mayor gave him the key to the city (or town hall?). I\u2019ve also seen this happen in a few other movies. Was this ever a real thing? Is this an inside joke I\u2019m not aware of?","c_root_id_A":"j27hpwu","c_root_id_B":"j27v1ss","created_at_utc_A":1672376190,"created_at_utc_B":1672384518,"score_A":49,"score_B":64,"human_ref_A":"I live in Chicagoland. Years ago when my twins were little, we took them to Lincoln Park zoo. On the way in, we got stopped by the local ABC news crew as they were asking people random questions about the news we watched. They asked if we\u2019d be ok with being in camera to answer the questions and at the end they had us say the name of our town. I did and thought nothing of it until about 6 months later they started to air 30 second commercials with all the people they stopped through Chicago that summer. I got included in the commercial and I found it on YouTube and emailed it to my towns Mayor asking for an honorary key to the city. He politely declined my request. Can\u2019t say I blame him.","human_ref_B":"I actually know someone who was awarded a key to the city of Paris France. I can\u2019t remember what he did but I\u2019ve seen the actual key and proclamation.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8328.0,"score_ratio":1.306122449} {"post_id":"zyl9ww","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Where did the ongoing \u2018do a good deed and the mayor of the town congratulates you with the key to the city\u2019 in movies & shows come from? Was that ever a real thing? I\u2019m watching family guy & Peter found a missing kid and as a reward the mayor gave him the key to the city (or town hall?). I\u2019ve also seen this happen in a few other movies. Was this ever a real thing? Is this an inside joke I\u2019m not aware of?","c_root_id_A":"j27f79o","c_root_id_B":"j27v1ss","created_at_utc_A":1672374882,"created_at_utc_B":1672384518,"score_A":27,"score_B":64,"human_ref_A":"I\u2019ve been to a couple of events where the mayor of my hometown gave out keys to the city to the guest of honor and each time he would always joke \u201cThere\u2019s nothing in the vault!\u201d","human_ref_B":"I actually know someone who was awarded a key to the city of Paris France. I can\u2019t remember what he did but I\u2019ve seen the actual key and proclamation.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9636.0,"score_ratio":2.3703703704} {"post_id":"zyl9ww","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Where did the ongoing \u2018do a good deed and the mayor of the town congratulates you with the key to the city\u2019 in movies & shows come from? Was that ever a real thing? I\u2019m watching family guy & Peter found a missing kid and as a reward the mayor gave him the key to the city (or town hall?). I\u2019ve also seen this happen in a few other movies. Was this ever a real thing? Is this an inside joke I\u2019m not aware of?","c_root_id_A":"j27v1ss","c_root_id_B":"j2757u8","created_at_utc_A":1672384518,"created_at_utc_B":1672370154,"score_A":64,"score_B":21,"human_ref_A":"I actually know someone who was awarded a key to the city of Paris France. I can\u2019t remember what he did but I\u2019ve seen the actual key and proclamation.","human_ref_B":"Yes, it was real, here's KISS receiving the keys to the city in Sault Ste Marie for some bizarre reason \ud83d\ude06 https:\/\/blabbermouth.net\/news\/kiss-receives-city-key-to-sault-ste-marie-video-available","labels":1,"seconds_difference":14364.0,"score_ratio":3.0476190476} {"post_id":"zyl9ww","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Where did the ongoing \u2018do a good deed and the mayor of the town congratulates you with the key to the city\u2019 in movies & shows come from? Was that ever a real thing? I\u2019m watching family guy & Peter found a missing kid and as a reward the mayor gave him the key to the city (or town hall?). I\u2019ve also seen this happen in a few other movies. Was this ever a real thing? Is this an inside joke I\u2019m not aware of?","c_root_id_A":"j27f79o","c_root_id_B":"j27hpwu","created_at_utc_A":1672374882,"created_at_utc_B":1672376190,"score_A":27,"score_B":49,"human_ref_A":"I\u2019ve been to a couple of events where the mayor of my hometown gave out keys to the city to the guest of honor and each time he would always joke \u201cThere\u2019s nothing in the vault!\u201d","human_ref_B":"I live in Chicagoland. Years ago when my twins were little, we took them to Lincoln Park zoo. On the way in, we got stopped by the local ABC news crew as they were asking people random questions about the news we watched. They asked if we\u2019d be ok with being in camera to answer the questions and at the end they had us say the name of our town. I did and thought nothing of it until about 6 months later they started to air 30 second commercials with all the people they stopped through Chicago that summer. I got included in the commercial and I found it on YouTube and emailed it to my towns Mayor asking for an honorary key to the city. He politely declined my request. Can\u2019t say I blame him.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1308.0,"score_ratio":1.8148148148} {"post_id":"zyl9ww","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Where did the ongoing \u2018do a good deed and the mayor of the town congratulates you with the key to the city\u2019 in movies & shows come from? Was that ever a real thing? I\u2019m watching family guy & Peter found a missing kid and as a reward the mayor gave him the key to the city (or town hall?). I\u2019ve also seen this happen in a few other movies. Was this ever a real thing? Is this an inside joke I\u2019m not aware of?","c_root_id_A":"j2757u8","c_root_id_B":"j27hpwu","created_at_utc_A":1672370154,"created_at_utc_B":1672376190,"score_A":21,"score_B":49,"human_ref_A":"Yes, it was real, here's KISS receiving the keys to the city in Sault Ste Marie for some bizarre reason \ud83d\ude06 https:\/\/blabbermouth.net\/news\/kiss-receives-city-key-to-sault-ste-marie-video-available","human_ref_B":"I live in Chicagoland. Years ago when my twins were little, we took them to Lincoln Park zoo. On the way in, we got stopped by the local ABC news crew as they were asking people random questions about the news we watched. They asked if we\u2019d be ok with being in camera to answer the questions and at the end they had us say the name of our town. I did and thought nothing of it until about 6 months later they started to air 30 second commercials with all the people they stopped through Chicago that summer. I got included in the commercial and I found it on YouTube and emailed it to my towns Mayor asking for an honorary key to the city. He politely declined my request. Can\u2019t say I blame him.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6036.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333} {"post_id":"zyl9ww","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Where did the ongoing \u2018do a good deed and the mayor of the town congratulates you with the key to the city\u2019 in movies & shows come from? Was that ever a real thing? I\u2019m watching family guy & Peter found a missing kid and as a reward the mayor gave him the key to the city (or town hall?). I\u2019ve also seen this happen in a few other movies. Was this ever a real thing? Is this an inside joke I\u2019m not aware of?","c_root_id_A":"j27f79o","c_root_id_B":"j2757u8","created_at_utc_A":1672374882,"created_at_utc_B":1672370154,"score_A":27,"score_B":21,"human_ref_A":"I\u2019ve been to a couple of events where the mayor of my hometown gave out keys to the city to the guest of honor and each time he would always joke \u201cThere\u2019s nothing in the vault!\u201d","human_ref_B":"Yes, it was real, here's KISS receiving the keys to the city in Sault Ste Marie for some bizarre reason \ud83d\ude06 https:\/\/blabbermouth.net\/news\/kiss-receives-city-key-to-sault-ste-marie-video-available","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4728.0,"score_ratio":1.2857142857} {"post_id":"259hp7","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.71,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How were atomic bomb testings filmed? I know this may be a somewhat obscure question, but when Little Boy was dropped on Hiroshima, the surface temperature of the epicenter reached upwards of 6,000 Celsius. When dealing with such extreme temperatures, how were atomic bomb testings recorded, as seen in this video. (The Upshot-Knothole Grable test) How was it possible to provide the close up shots that begin at the 1:00 mark of the above video? Wouldn't the camera melt\/be absolutely destroyed in the blast?","c_root_id_A":"chf6mj1","c_root_id_B":"chf0772","created_at_utc_A":1399820131,"created_at_utc_B":1399787659,"score_A":6,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I present to you Berlyn Brixner, head photographer for the Trinity Test. \"Brixner was positioned 10,000 yards (9,100 m) away from the explosion and had 50 cameras of varying speeds running from different locations to capture the shot in full motion.....Brixner was assigned to shoot movies in 16-millimeter black-and-white film, from every angle and distance and at every available speed, of an unknown event beginning with the brightest flash ever produced on Earth. \"The theoretical people had calculated a some 10-sun brightness. So that was easy,\" said Brixner. \"All I had to do was go out and point my camera at the sun and take some pictures. Ten times that was easy to calculate.\"[5] At ignition, Brixner remembers \"The whole filter seemed to light up as bright as the sun. I was temporarily blinded. I looked to the side. The Oscura mountains were as bright as day. I saw this tremendous ball of fire, and it was rising. I was just spellbound! I followed it as it rose. Then it dawned on me. I'm the photographer! I've gotta get that ball of fire.\" He jogged the camera up. He said: \"There was no sound! It all took place in absolute silence.\" \" http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Berlyn_Brixner","human_ref_B":"The camera is far away but it's zoomed in. You can tell because there's no shake whatsoever when the blast hits, and the shockwave would certainly cause shaking even if you somehow shielded the camera from heat and radiation (which you couldn't).","labels":1,"seconds_difference":32472.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"259hp7","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.71,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How were atomic bomb testings filmed? I know this may be a somewhat obscure question, but when Little Boy was dropped on Hiroshima, the surface temperature of the epicenter reached upwards of 6,000 Celsius. When dealing with such extreme temperatures, how were atomic bomb testings recorded, as seen in this video. (The Upshot-Knothole Grable test) How was it possible to provide the close up shots that begin at the 1:00 mark of the above video? Wouldn't the camera melt\/be absolutely destroyed in the blast?","c_root_id_A":"chf6mj1","c_root_id_B":"chf1r7y","created_at_utc_A":1399820131,"created_at_utc_B":1399794837,"score_A":6,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I present to you Berlyn Brixner, head photographer for the Trinity Test. \"Brixner was positioned 10,000 yards (9,100 m) away from the explosion and had 50 cameras of varying speeds running from different locations to capture the shot in full motion.....Brixner was assigned to shoot movies in 16-millimeter black-and-white film, from every angle and distance and at every available speed, of an unknown event beginning with the brightest flash ever produced on Earth. \"The theoretical people had calculated a some 10-sun brightness. So that was easy,\" said Brixner. \"All I had to do was go out and point my camera at the sun and take some pictures. Ten times that was easy to calculate.\"[5] At ignition, Brixner remembers \"The whole filter seemed to light up as bright as the sun. I was temporarily blinded. I looked to the side. The Oscura mountains were as bright as day. I saw this tremendous ball of fire, and it was rising. I was just spellbound! I followed it as it rose. Then it dawned on me. I'm the photographer! I've gotta get that ball of fire.\" He jogged the camera up. He said: \"There was no sound! It all took place in absolute silence.\" \" http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Berlyn_Brixner","human_ref_B":"You can bury the camera and have it film through a periscope. A zoom lens to cover twenty feet or so is hardly trouble.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":25294.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"259hp7","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.71,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How were atomic bomb testings filmed? I know this may be a somewhat obscure question, but when Little Boy was dropped on Hiroshima, the surface temperature of the epicenter reached upwards of 6,000 Celsius. When dealing with such extreme temperatures, how were atomic bomb testings recorded, as seen in this video. (The Upshot-Knothole Grable test) How was it possible to provide the close up shots that begin at the 1:00 mark of the above video? Wouldn't the camera melt\/be absolutely destroyed in the blast?","c_root_id_A":"chf6mj1","c_root_id_B":"chf08zm","created_at_utc_A":1399820131,"created_at_utc_B":1399787853,"score_A":6,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I present to you Berlyn Brixner, head photographer for the Trinity Test. \"Brixner was positioned 10,000 yards (9,100 m) away from the explosion and had 50 cameras of varying speeds running from different locations to capture the shot in full motion.....Brixner was assigned to shoot movies in 16-millimeter black-and-white film, from every angle and distance and at every available speed, of an unknown event beginning with the brightest flash ever produced on Earth. \"The theoretical people had calculated a some 10-sun brightness. So that was easy,\" said Brixner. \"All I had to do was go out and point my camera at the sun and take some pictures. Ten times that was easy to calculate.\"[5] At ignition, Brixner remembers \"The whole filter seemed to light up as bright as the sun. I was temporarily blinded. I looked to the side. The Oscura mountains were as bright as day. I saw this tremendous ball of fire, and it was rising. I was just spellbound! I followed it as it rose. Then it dawned on me. I'm the photographer! I've gotta get that ball of fire.\" He jogged the camera up. He said: \"There was no sound! It all took place in absolute silence.\" \" http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Berlyn_Brixner","human_ref_B":"I read somewhere that the cameras were facing away from the blasts, pointing at a mirror... I'll have to try to find where I saw that when I get home.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":32278.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"259hp7","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.71,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How were atomic bomb testings filmed? I know this may be a somewhat obscure question, but when Little Boy was dropped on Hiroshima, the surface temperature of the epicenter reached upwards of 6,000 Celsius. When dealing with such extreme temperatures, how were atomic bomb testings recorded, as seen in this video. (The Upshot-Knothole Grable test) How was it possible to provide the close up shots that begin at the 1:00 mark of the above video? Wouldn't the camera melt\/be absolutely destroyed in the blast?","c_root_id_A":"chf6mj1","c_root_id_B":"chf24wr","created_at_utc_A":1399820131,"created_at_utc_B":1399797110,"score_A":6,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I present to you Berlyn Brixner, head photographer for the Trinity Test. \"Brixner was positioned 10,000 yards (9,100 m) away from the explosion and had 50 cameras of varying speeds running from different locations to capture the shot in full motion.....Brixner was assigned to shoot movies in 16-millimeter black-and-white film, from every angle and distance and at every available speed, of an unknown event beginning with the brightest flash ever produced on Earth. \"The theoretical people had calculated a some 10-sun brightness. So that was easy,\" said Brixner. \"All I had to do was go out and point my camera at the sun and take some pictures. Ten times that was easy to calculate.\"[5] At ignition, Brixner remembers \"The whole filter seemed to light up as bright as the sun. I was temporarily blinded. I looked to the side. The Oscura mountains were as bright as day. I saw this tremendous ball of fire, and it was rising. I was just spellbound! I followed it as it rose. Then it dawned on me. I'm the photographer! I've gotta get that ball of fire.\" He jogged the camera up. He said: \"There was no sound! It all took place in absolute silence.\" \" http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Berlyn_Brixner","human_ref_B":"Related: can anyone explain what the vertical, almost straight up from the ground, smoke trails are? If there were no mushroom cloud in the photo or video I would suspect they were trails from an aerial firework. I've seen them on many nuclear bomb test videos and never got an explanation.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":23021.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"259hp7","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.71,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How were atomic bomb testings filmed? I know this may be a somewhat obscure question, but when Little Boy was dropped on Hiroshima, the surface temperature of the epicenter reached upwards of 6,000 Celsius. When dealing with such extreme temperatures, how were atomic bomb testings recorded, as seen in this video. (The Upshot-Knothole Grable test) How was it possible to provide the close up shots that begin at the 1:00 mark of the above video? Wouldn't the camera melt\/be absolutely destroyed in the blast?","c_root_id_A":"chf0772","c_root_id_B":"chf1r7y","created_at_utc_A":1399787659,"created_at_utc_B":1399794837,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"The camera is far away but it's zoomed in. You can tell because there's no shake whatsoever when the blast hits, and the shockwave would certainly cause shaking even if you somehow shielded the camera from heat and radiation (which you couldn't).","human_ref_B":"You can bury the camera and have it film through a periscope. A zoom lens to cover twenty feet or so is hardly trouble.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7178.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"259hp7","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.71,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How were atomic bomb testings filmed? I know this may be a somewhat obscure question, but when Little Boy was dropped on Hiroshima, the surface temperature of the epicenter reached upwards of 6,000 Celsius. When dealing with such extreme temperatures, how were atomic bomb testings recorded, as seen in this video. (The Upshot-Knothole Grable test) How was it possible to provide the close up shots that begin at the 1:00 mark of the above video? Wouldn't the camera melt\/be absolutely destroyed in the blast?","c_root_id_A":"chf08zm","c_root_id_B":"chf1r7y","created_at_utc_A":1399787853,"created_at_utc_B":1399794837,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I read somewhere that the cameras were facing away from the blasts, pointing at a mirror... I'll have to try to find where I saw that when I get home.","human_ref_B":"You can bury the camera and have it film through a periscope. A zoom lens to cover twenty feet or so is hardly trouble.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6984.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"zgcbmd","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"eli5 When countries swap prisoners how are they sure the other country will actually do it?","c_root_id_A":"izgpdum","c_root_id_B":"izg8ebp","created_at_utc_A":1670543307,"created_at_utc_B":1670536133,"score_A":3663,"score_B":2944,"human_ref_A":"There are all kinds of situations like this, in diplomacy and in other professions, where it'd technically be easy to renege on your word. Prosecutors making deals, retailers promising rebates, sellers on eBay, consumers taking out credit or loans, etc, etc. In every example, the reason you stick to your word is that your reputation is vital. Reneging even once could forever ruin it. After that, you'll never again be able to get a loan, or make a good bargain with a defendent, or sell on eBay, or whatever it is you lied about. For a nation, losing all diplomatic credibility erases your most important tool of statecraft. Relevent update, as of this morning: Putin says more prisoner swaps possible.","human_ref_B":"It mostly boils down to the fact that you can only play tricks with that once. You can't put human beings into escrow after all. You have to trust each other. If you can't trust the other party and they can't trust you then no future exchanges are going to be made. You get things like the infamous \"bridge of spies\" where both walked across at the same time, to keep everyone honest, the truth is that in the vast majority of cases, it is in everyone's best interest to keep these deals to ensure that future deals are possible. It only really becomes an issue when you deal with fanatics or idiots. This happens occasionally, but usually that is also where it ends.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7174.0,"score_ratio":1.2442255435} {"post_id":"zgcbmd","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"eli5 When countries swap prisoners how are they sure the other country will actually do it?","c_root_id_A":"izg9v9s","c_root_id_B":"izgpdum","created_at_utc_A":1670536725,"created_at_utc_B":1670543307,"score_A":724,"score_B":3663,"human_ref_A":"It's short term vs long term gain. Let's say I've got a bunch of apples, and you've got a bunch of bananas. I don't want to eat *only* bananas, and you don't want to eat *only* apples. That's boring. So we make an agreement. I'll give you a banana, and you give me an apple. We both get something we want. Ah, but you've got a sneaky plan. You accept my banana, but refuse to give me an apple. Now you've still got all the apples, and you got a banana for free! So smart. So you eat your banana, feeling proud. But now it's back to apples. Again and again. Eventually, you get bored of apples. But I'm not trading with you again after what happened last time. So you ask the guy who owns all the oranges if they want to trade. But they heard about what happened and aren't interested. Why would they volunteer to be taken advantage of? Pineapple guy, same thing. Nobody is willing to trade with you anymore. The rest of us, meanwhile, are happily trading. We all enjoy a diet with a ton of variety and you're stuck outside with a bunch of apples, all because you got greedy and chose short term happiness over long term. Basically, there's a popular idea amongst charlatans and morons that deals are supposed to be something that you \"win\"; you deceive or coerce the other side into taking something of lesser value while giving you something amazing. But if that's how you operate, you'll generally find pretty quickly that the only people that will be willing to continue doing deals with you are other charlatans and morons. A proper deal is something where both sides win and come out better than they were before. And if you're coming out better than you were before, why would you want to break that deal?","human_ref_B":"There are all kinds of situations like this, in diplomacy and in other professions, where it'd technically be easy to renege on your word. Prosecutors making deals, retailers promising rebates, sellers on eBay, consumers taking out credit or loans, etc, etc. In every example, the reason you stick to your word is that your reputation is vital. Reneging even once could forever ruin it. After that, you'll never again be able to get a loan, or make a good bargain with a defendent, or sell on eBay, or whatever it is you lied about. For a nation, losing all diplomatic credibility erases your most important tool of statecraft. Relevent update, as of this morning: Putin says more prisoner swaps possible.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6582.0,"score_ratio":5.0593922652} {"post_id":"zgcbmd","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"eli5 When countries swap prisoners how are they sure the other country will actually do it?","c_root_id_A":"izg790q","c_root_id_B":"izgpdum","created_at_utc_A":1670535655,"created_at_utc_B":1670543307,"score_A":490,"score_B":3663,"human_ref_A":"You mean and let the prisoners go when you can see yours. If you look at the cold war spies were exchanged in the border in Berlin. You can see a similar exchange of POW along the Russian Ukrainian border today. The Brittney Griner Viktor Bout exchange was done on the tarmac at Abu Dhabi airport where a US and Russian airplane met. It is a very bad idea to not fulfill your part of the deal. You might get away with it once but then no one else will trust you and you can't do that again.","human_ref_B":"There are all kinds of situations like this, in diplomacy and in other professions, where it'd technically be easy to renege on your word. Prosecutors making deals, retailers promising rebates, sellers on eBay, consumers taking out credit or loans, etc, etc. In every example, the reason you stick to your word is that your reputation is vital. Reneging even once could forever ruin it. After that, you'll never again be able to get a loan, or make a good bargain with a defendent, or sell on eBay, or whatever it is you lied about. For a nation, losing all diplomatic credibility erases your most important tool of statecraft. Relevent update, as of this morning: Putin says more prisoner swaps possible.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7652.0,"score_ratio":7.4755102041} {"post_id":"zgcbmd","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"eli5 When countries swap prisoners how are they sure the other country will actually do it?","c_root_id_A":"izgpdum","c_root_id_B":"izgga5s","created_at_utc_A":1670543307,"created_at_utc_B":1670539385,"score_A":3663,"score_B":48,"human_ref_A":"There are all kinds of situations like this, in diplomacy and in other professions, where it'd technically be easy to renege on your word. Prosecutors making deals, retailers promising rebates, sellers on eBay, consumers taking out credit or loans, etc, etc. In every example, the reason you stick to your word is that your reputation is vital. Reneging even once could forever ruin it. After that, you'll never again be able to get a loan, or make a good bargain with a defendent, or sell on eBay, or whatever it is you lied about. For a nation, losing all diplomatic credibility erases your most important tool of statecraft. Relevent update, as of this morning: Putin says more prisoner swaps possible.","human_ref_B":"As several posters have noted, you can only defraud the other party once. If you do, then you will have a poor reputation, and nobody will engage with you in such a deal ever again. The formal game theory behind this has been explored by Robert Axelrod, and is described in detail in his book 'The Evolution of Cooperation'. https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/The\\_Evolution\\_of\\_Cooperation A deeper, but less direct discussion of cooperation is seen in Fukuyama's book 'Trust'. https:\/\/www.amazon.com\/Trust-Social-Virtues-Creation-Prosperity\/dp\/0029109760 I recommend both books, and have no financial interest in the sale of either.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3922.0,"score_ratio":76.3125} {"post_id":"zgcbmd","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"eli5 When countries swap prisoners how are they sure the other country will actually do it?","c_root_id_A":"izgc70w","c_root_id_B":"izgpdum","created_at_utc_A":1670537680,"created_at_utc_B":1670543307,"score_A":25,"score_B":3663,"human_ref_A":"The movie Bridge of Spies shows how it works, or at least did during the Cold War. You have the prisoners cross a distance where both sides can see both prisoners and they cross at the same time. Both sides are heavily armed. If someone tries to kill the released prisoner after they get their own guy, retribution would be quick and brutal.","human_ref_B":"There are all kinds of situations like this, in diplomacy and in other professions, where it'd technically be easy to renege on your word. Prosecutors making deals, retailers promising rebates, sellers on eBay, consumers taking out credit or loans, etc, etc. In every example, the reason you stick to your word is that your reputation is vital. Reneging even once could forever ruin it. After that, you'll never again be able to get a loan, or make a good bargain with a defendent, or sell on eBay, or whatever it is you lied about. For a nation, losing all diplomatic credibility erases your most important tool of statecraft. Relevent update, as of this morning: Putin says more prisoner swaps possible.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5627.0,"score_ratio":146.52} {"post_id":"zgcbmd","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"eli5 When countries swap prisoners how are they sure the other country will actually do it?","c_root_id_A":"izgc7iv","c_root_id_B":"izgpdum","created_at_utc_A":1670537686,"created_at_utc_B":1670543307,"score_A":24,"score_B":3663,"human_ref_A":"Well, is it really worth it for you to play that trick? You do that once, and you just started a war over 2 prisoners. War is expensive. You lose so much, and gain so little. And if the person you're trying to get is important enough to warrant that, at least *try* to avoid causing more trouble than you have to. Send in some spec ops to get him or something; least then there's a chance you don't need to start WWIII Not to mention, even if you do pull that trick, AND the other country doesn't wanna go to war... Well now nobody trusts you, and you're never gonna be able to trade for prisoners with anyone again. 0\/10, not worth it","human_ref_B":"There are all kinds of situations like this, in diplomacy and in other professions, where it'd technically be easy to renege on your word. Prosecutors making deals, retailers promising rebates, sellers on eBay, consumers taking out credit or loans, etc, etc. In every example, the reason you stick to your word is that your reputation is vital. Reneging even once could forever ruin it. After that, you'll never again be able to get a loan, or make a good bargain with a defendent, or sell on eBay, or whatever it is you lied about. For a nation, losing all diplomatic credibility erases your most important tool of statecraft. Relevent update, as of this morning: Putin says more prisoner swaps possible.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5621.0,"score_ratio":152.625} {"post_id":"zgcbmd","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"eli5 When countries swap prisoners how are they sure the other country will actually do it?","c_root_id_A":"izg92bg","c_root_id_B":"izgpdum","created_at_utc_A":1670536404,"created_at_utc_B":1670543307,"score_A":20,"score_B":3663,"human_ref_A":"You announce the swap and make sure it's carried by news reports. Once the info is public, no country would ever be humiliated by announcing they're going to make a trade, and then backing out once they've got the other guy.","human_ref_B":"There are all kinds of situations like this, in diplomacy and in other professions, where it'd technically be easy to renege on your word. Prosecutors making deals, retailers promising rebates, sellers on eBay, consumers taking out credit or loans, etc, etc. In every example, the reason you stick to your word is that your reputation is vital. Reneging even once could forever ruin it. After that, you'll never again be able to get a loan, or make a good bargain with a defendent, or sell on eBay, or whatever it is you lied about. For a nation, losing all diplomatic credibility erases your most important tool of statecraft. Relevent update, as of this morning: Putin says more prisoner swaps possible.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6903.0,"score_ratio":183.15} {"post_id":"zgcbmd","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"eli5 When countries swap prisoners how are they sure the other country will actually do it?","c_root_id_A":"izg790q","c_root_id_B":"izg8ebp","created_at_utc_A":1670535655,"created_at_utc_B":1670536133,"score_A":490,"score_B":2944,"human_ref_A":"You mean and let the prisoners go when you can see yours. If you look at the cold war spies were exchanged in the border in Berlin. You can see a similar exchange of POW along the Russian Ukrainian border today. The Brittney Griner Viktor Bout exchange was done on the tarmac at Abu Dhabi airport where a US and Russian airplane met. It is a very bad idea to not fulfill your part of the deal. You might get away with it once but then no one else will trust you and you can't do that again.","human_ref_B":"It mostly boils down to the fact that you can only play tricks with that once. You can't put human beings into escrow after all. You have to trust each other. If you can't trust the other party and they can't trust you then no future exchanges are going to be made. You get things like the infamous \"bridge of spies\" where both walked across at the same time, to keep everyone honest, the truth is that in the vast majority of cases, it is in everyone's best interest to keep these deals to ensure that future deals are possible. It only really becomes an issue when you deal with fanatics or idiots. This happens occasionally, but usually that is also where it ends.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":478.0,"score_ratio":6.0081632653} {"post_id":"zgcbmd","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"eli5 When countries swap prisoners how are they sure the other country will actually do it?","c_root_id_A":"izg9v9s","c_root_id_B":"izg790q","created_at_utc_A":1670536725,"created_at_utc_B":1670535655,"score_A":724,"score_B":490,"human_ref_A":"It's short term vs long term gain. Let's say I've got a bunch of apples, and you've got a bunch of bananas. I don't want to eat *only* bananas, and you don't want to eat *only* apples. That's boring. So we make an agreement. I'll give you a banana, and you give me an apple. We both get something we want. Ah, but you've got a sneaky plan. You accept my banana, but refuse to give me an apple. Now you've still got all the apples, and you got a banana for free! So smart. So you eat your banana, feeling proud. But now it's back to apples. Again and again. Eventually, you get bored of apples. But I'm not trading with you again after what happened last time. So you ask the guy who owns all the oranges if they want to trade. But they heard about what happened and aren't interested. Why would they volunteer to be taken advantage of? Pineapple guy, same thing. Nobody is willing to trade with you anymore. The rest of us, meanwhile, are happily trading. We all enjoy a diet with a ton of variety and you're stuck outside with a bunch of apples, all because you got greedy and chose short term happiness over long term. Basically, there's a popular idea amongst charlatans and morons that deals are supposed to be something that you \"win\"; you deceive or coerce the other side into taking something of lesser value while giving you something amazing. But if that's how you operate, you'll generally find pretty quickly that the only people that will be willing to continue doing deals with you are other charlatans and morons. A proper deal is something where both sides win and come out better than they were before. And if you're coming out better than you were before, why would you want to break that deal?","human_ref_B":"You mean and let the prisoners go when you can see yours. If you look at the cold war spies were exchanged in the border in Berlin. You can see a similar exchange of POW along the Russian Ukrainian border today. The Brittney Griner Viktor Bout exchange was done on the tarmac at Abu Dhabi airport where a US and Russian airplane met. It is a very bad idea to not fulfill your part of the deal. You might get away with it once but then no one else will trust you and you can't do that again.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1070.0,"score_ratio":1.4775510204} {"post_id":"zgcbmd","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"eli5 When countries swap prisoners how are they sure the other country will actually do it?","c_root_id_A":"izg92bg","c_root_id_B":"izg9v9s","created_at_utc_A":1670536404,"created_at_utc_B":1670536725,"score_A":20,"score_B":724,"human_ref_A":"You announce the swap and make sure it's carried by news reports. Once the info is public, no country would ever be humiliated by announcing they're going to make a trade, and then backing out once they've got the other guy.","human_ref_B":"It's short term vs long term gain. Let's say I've got a bunch of apples, and you've got a bunch of bananas. I don't want to eat *only* bananas, and you don't want to eat *only* apples. That's boring. So we make an agreement. I'll give you a banana, and you give me an apple. We both get something we want. Ah, but you've got a sneaky plan. You accept my banana, but refuse to give me an apple. Now you've still got all the apples, and you got a banana for free! So smart. So you eat your banana, feeling proud. But now it's back to apples. Again and again. Eventually, you get bored of apples. But I'm not trading with you again after what happened last time. So you ask the guy who owns all the oranges if they want to trade. But they heard about what happened and aren't interested. Why would they volunteer to be taken advantage of? Pineapple guy, same thing. Nobody is willing to trade with you anymore. The rest of us, meanwhile, are happily trading. We all enjoy a diet with a ton of variety and you're stuck outside with a bunch of apples, all because you got greedy and chose short term happiness over long term. Basically, there's a popular idea amongst charlatans and morons that deals are supposed to be something that you \"win\"; you deceive or coerce the other side into taking something of lesser value while giving you something amazing. But if that's how you operate, you'll generally find pretty quickly that the only people that will be willing to continue doing deals with you are other charlatans and morons. A proper deal is something where both sides win and come out better than they were before. And if you're coming out better than you were before, why would you want to break that deal?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":321.0,"score_ratio":36.2} {"post_id":"zgcbmd","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"eli5 When countries swap prisoners how are they sure the other country will actually do it?","c_root_id_A":"izgga5s","c_root_id_B":"izgu7xs","created_at_utc_A":1670539385,"created_at_utc_B":1670545506,"score_A":48,"score_B":58,"human_ref_A":"As several posters have noted, you can only defraud the other party once. If you do, then you will have a poor reputation, and nobody will engage with you in such a deal ever again. The formal game theory behind this has been explored by Robert Axelrod, and is described in detail in his book 'The Evolution of Cooperation'. https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/The\\_Evolution\\_of\\_Cooperation A deeper, but less direct discussion of cooperation is seen in Fukuyama's book 'Trust'. https:\/\/www.amazon.com\/Trust-Social-Virtues-Creation-Prosperity\/dp\/0029109760 I recommend both books, and have no financial interest in the sale of either.","human_ref_B":"To add on with everything. Prisoners are something very valuable to the side they came from but barely have any value to the side holding them. Like, what can you do with prisoners? You have to feed them to keep them alive, else they die and become useless. They clearly don\u2019t want to work with you. If they do they aren\u2019t prisoners anymore, but are defectors. The only thing you can really do with prisoners is trade them back to the original country for some goodies. For the origin country, those man are valuable. Just think about the cost of growing a man from a fetus to 18, then you need extra training to make them a useful soldier \/ spy. Prisoner exchange means you can get it back. And maybe they actually event got some secret from the enemy, who knows. Other than that, prisoner exchange also boosts moral of your own man. Since they know you still value them and want them back.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6121.0,"score_ratio":1.2083333333} {"post_id":"zgcbmd","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"eli5 When countries swap prisoners how are they sure the other country will actually do it?","c_root_id_A":"izgu7xs","c_root_id_B":"izgc70w","created_at_utc_A":1670545506,"created_at_utc_B":1670537680,"score_A":58,"score_B":25,"human_ref_A":"To add on with everything. Prisoners are something very valuable to the side they came from but barely have any value to the side holding them. Like, what can you do with prisoners? You have to feed them to keep them alive, else they die and become useless. They clearly don\u2019t want to work with you. If they do they aren\u2019t prisoners anymore, but are defectors. The only thing you can really do with prisoners is trade them back to the original country for some goodies. For the origin country, those man are valuable. Just think about the cost of growing a man from a fetus to 18, then you need extra training to make them a useful soldier \/ spy. Prisoner exchange means you can get it back. And maybe they actually event got some secret from the enemy, who knows. Other than that, prisoner exchange also boosts moral of your own man. Since they know you still value them and want them back.","human_ref_B":"The movie Bridge of Spies shows how it works, or at least did during the Cold War. You have the prisoners cross a distance where both sides can see both prisoners and they cross at the same time. Both sides are heavily armed. If someone tries to kill the released prisoner after they get their own guy, retribution would be quick and brutal.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7826.0,"score_ratio":2.32} {"post_id":"zgcbmd","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"eli5 When countries swap prisoners how are they sure the other country will actually do it?","c_root_id_A":"izgc7iv","c_root_id_B":"izgu7xs","created_at_utc_A":1670537686,"created_at_utc_B":1670545506,"score_A":24,"score_B":58,"human_ref_A":"Well, is it really worth it for you to play that trick? You do that once, and you just started a war over 2 prisoners. War is expensive. You lose so much, and gain so little. And if the person you're trying to get is important enough to warrant that, at least *try* to avoid causing more trouble than you have to. Send in some spec ops to get him or something; least then there's a chance you don't need to start WWIII Not to mention, even if you do pull that trick, AND the other country doesn't wanna go to war... Well now nobody trusts you, and you're never gonna be able to trade for prisoners with anyone again. 0\/10, not worth it","human_ref_B":"To add on with everything. Prisoners are something very valuable to the side they came from but barely have any value to the side holding them. Like, what can you do with prisoners? You have to feed them to keep them alive, else they die and become useless. They clearly don\u2019t want to work with you. If they do they aren\u2019t prisoners anymore, but are defectors. The only thing you can really do with prisoners is trade them back to the original country for some goodies. For the origin country, those man are valuable. Just think about the cost of growing a man from a fetus to 18, then you need extra training to make them a useful soldier \/ spy. Prisoner exchange means you can get it back. And maybe they actually event got some secret from the enemy, who knows. Other than that, prisoner exchange also boosts moral of your own man. Since they know you still value them and want them back.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7820.0,"score_ratio":2.4166666667} {"post_id":"zgcbmd","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"eli5 When countries swap prisoners how are they sure the other country will actually do it?","c_root_id_A":"izgu7xs","c_root_id_B":"izg92bg","created_at_utc_A":1670545506,"created_at_utc_B":1670536404,"score_A":58,"score_B":20,"human_ref_A":"To add on with everything. Prisoners are something very valuable to the side they came from but barely have any value to the side holding them. Like, what can you do with prisoners? You have to feed them to keep them alive, else they die and become useless. They clearly don\u2019t want to work with you. If they do they aren\u2019t prisoners anymore, but are defectors. The only thing you can really do with prisoners is trade them back to the original country for some goodies. For the origin country, those man are valuable. Just think about the cost of growing a man from a fetus to 18, then you need extra training to make them a useful soldier \/ spy. Prisoner exchange means you can get it back. And maybe they actually event got some secret from the enemy, who knows. Other than that, prisoner exchange also boosts moral of your own man. Since they know you still value them and want them back.","human_ref_B":"You announce the swap and make sure it's carried by news reports. Once the info is public, no country would ever be humiliated by announcing they're going to make a trade, and then backing out once they've got the other guy.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9102.0,"score_ratio":2.9} {"post_id":"zgcbmd","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"eli5 When countries swap prisoners how are they sure the other country will actually do it?","c_root_id_A":"izgc70w","c_root_id_B":"izgga5s","created_at_utc_A":1670537680,"created_at_utc_B":1670539385,"score_A":25,"score_B":48,"human_ref_A":"The movie Bridge of Spies shows how it works, or at least did during the Cold War. You have the prisoners cross a distance where both sides can see both prisoners and they cross at the same time. Both sides are heavily armed. If someone tries to kill the released prisoner after they get their own guy, retribution would be quick and brutal.","human_ref_B":"As several posters have noted, you can only defraud the other party once. If you do, then you will have a poor reputation, and nobody will engage with you in such a deal ever again. The formal game theory behind this has been explored by Robert Axelrod, and is described in detail in his book 'The Evolution of Cooperation'. https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/The\\_Evolution\\_of\\_Cooperation A deeper, but less direct discussion of cooperation is seen in Fukuyama's book 'Trust'. https:\/\/www.amazon.com\/Trust-Social-Virtues-Creation-Prosperity\/dp\/0029109760 I recommend both books, and have no financial interest in the sale of either.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1705.0,"score_ratio":1.92} {"post_id":"zgcbmd","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"eli5 When countries swap prisoners how are they sure the other country will actually do it?","c_root_id_A":"izgga5s","c_root_id_B":"izgc7iv","created_at_utc_A":1670539385,"created_at_utc_B":1670537686,"score_A":48,"score_B":24,"human_ref_A":"As several posters have noted, you can only defraud the other party once. If you do, then you will have a poor reputation, and nobody will engage with you in such a deal ever again. The formal game theory behind this has been explored by Robert Axelrod, and is described in detail in his book 'The Evolution of Cooperation'. https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/The\\_Evolution\\_of\\_Cooperation A deeper, but less direct discussion of cooperation is seen in Fukuyama's book 'Trust'. https:\/\/www.amazon.com\/Trust-Social-Virtues-Creation-Prosperity\/dp\/0029109760 I recommend both books, and have no financial interest in the sale of either.","human_ref_B":"Well, is it really worth it for you to play that trick? You do that once, and you just started a war over 2 prisoners. War is expensive. You lose so much, and gain so little. And if the person you're trying to get is important enough to warrant that, at least *try* to avoid causing more trouble than you have to. Send in some spec ops to get him or something; least then there's a chance you don't need to start WWIII Not to mention, even if you do pull that trick, AND the other country doesn't wanna go to war... Well now nobody trusts you, and you're never gonna be able to trade for prisoners with anyone again. 0\/10, not worth it","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1699.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"zgcbmd","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"eli5 When countries swap prisoners how are they sure the other country will actually do it?","c_root_id_A":"izgga5s","c_root_id_B":"izg92bg","created_at_utc_A":1670539385,"created_at_utc_B":1670536404,"score_A":48,"score_B":20,"human_ref_A":"As several posters have noted, you can only defraud the other party once. If you do, then you will have a poor reputation, and nobody will engage with you in such a deal ever again. The formal game theory behind this has been explored by Robert Axelrod, and is described in detail in his book 'The Evolution of Cooperation'. https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/The\\_Evolution\\_of\\_Cooperation A deeper, but less direct discussion of cooperation is seen in Fukuyama's book 'Trust'. https:\/\/www.amazon.com\/Trust-Social-Virtues-Creation-Prosperity\/dp\/0029109760 I recommend both books, and have no financial interest in the sale of either.","human_ref_B":"You announce the swap and make sure it's carried by news reports. Once the info is public, no country would ever be humiliated by announcing they're going to make a trade, and then backing out once they've got the other guy.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2981.0,"score_ratio":2.4} {"post_id":"zgcbmd","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"eli5 When countries swap prisoners how are they sure the other country will actually do it?","c_root_id_A":"izgc70w","c_root_id_B":"izg92bg","created_at_utc_A":1670537680,"created_at_utc_B":1670536404,"score_A":25,"score_B":20,"human_ref_A":"The movie Bridge of Spies shows how it works, or at least did during the Cold War. You have the prisoners cross a distance where both sides can see both prisoners and they cross at the same time. Both sides are heavily armed. If someone tries to kill the released prisoner after they get their own guy, retribution would be quick and brutal.","human_ref_B":"You announce the swap and make sure it's carried by news reports. Once the info is public, no country would ever be humiliated by announcing they're going to make a trade, and then backing out once they've got the other guy.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1276.0,"score_ratio":1.25} {"post_id":"zgcbmd","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"eli5 When countries swap prisoners how are they sure the other country will actually do it?","c_root_id_A":"izg92bg","c_root_id_B":"izgc7iv","created_at_utc_A":1670536404,"created_at_utc_B":1670537686,"score_A":20,"score_B":24,"human_ref_A":"You announce the swap and make sure it's carried by news reports. Once the info is public, no country would ever be humiliated by announcing they're going to make a trade, and then backing out once they've got the other guy.","human_ref_B":"Well, is it really worth it for you to play that trick? You do that once, and you just started a war over 2 prisoners. War is expensive. You lose so much, and gain so little. And if the person you're trying to get is important enough to warrant that, at least *try* to avoid causing more trouble than you have to. Send in some spec ops to get him or something; least then there's a chance you don't need to start WWIII Not to mention, even if you do pull that trick, AND the other country doesn't wanna go to war... Well now nobody trusts you, and you're never gonna be able to trade for prisoners with anyone again. 0\/10, not worth it","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1282.0,"score_ratio":1.2} {"post_id":"yptyvd","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why do some animals, like sea turtles and salmon, lay eggs away from their natural habitat? This might be a strange question, but why do sea turtles lay eggs on land and not for example dig up holes inside the ocean? They live their whole lives in the ocean, so why do they lay eggs on land? Why travel so far just to lay eggs? Same goes for some salmon, why do they leave the oceans and lakes, and go upstream on rivers and not lay their eggs where they live? It is probably something to do with protecting their offspring, but it seems to me that they still have predators that hunt their offspring fairly easily where they hatch\/lay their eggs, so maybe there is another reason as well?","c_root_id_A":"ivkwimk","c_root_id_B":"ivlhcty","created_at_utc_A":1667933005,"created_at_utc_B":1667940916,"score_A":7,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"I don't know about fish, but turtles lay their eggs in sand so the embryos can breath. Sea turtles have to come up for air every so often.","human_ref_B":"For salmon, the rivers that they spawn in have fewer predators and more cover than the ocean, which allows the young salmon to mature some more safely. When they get to a larger size, the ocean has more food than the rivers.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7911.0,"score_ratio":1.2857142857} {"post_id":"yptyvd","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why do some animals, like sea turtles and salmon, lay eggs away from their natural habitat? This might be a strange question, but why do sea turtles lay eggs on land and not for example dig up holes inside the ocean? They live their whole lives in the ocean, so why do they lay eggs on land? Why travel so far just to lay eggs? Same goes for some salmon, why do they leave the oceans and lakes, and go upstream on rivers and not lay their eggs where they live? It is probably something to do with protecting their offspring, but it seems to me that they still have predators that hunt their offspring fairly easily where they hatch\/lay their eggs, so maybe there is another reason as well?","c_root_id_A":"ivlhcty","c_root_id_B":"ivkwmbe","created_at_utc_A":1667940916,"created_at_utc_B":1667933043,"score_A":9,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"For salmon, the rivers that they spawn in have fewer predators and more cover than the ocean, which allows the young salmon to mature some more safely. When they get to a larger size, the ocean has more food than the rivers.","human_ref_B":"Baby turtles would drown if they were born in the ocean. I don't think anything more really needs to be said about that one.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7873.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"yptyvd","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why do some animals, like sea turtles and salmon, lay eggs away from their natural habitat? This might be a strange question, but why do sea turtles lay eggs on land and not for example dig up holes inside the ocean? They live their whole lives in the ocean, so why do they lay eggs on land? Why travel so far just to lay eggs? Same goes for some salmon, why do they leave the oceans and lakes, and go upstream on rivers and not lay their eggs where they live? It is probably something to do with protecting their offspring, but it seems to me that they still have predators that hunt their offspring fairly easily where they hatch\/lay their eggs, so maybe there is another reason as well?","c_root_id_A":"ivmb0wu","c_root_id_B":"ivn71by","created_at_utc_A":1667953082,"created_at_utc_B":1667968110,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Salmon are anadromous fish, they live in the sea and migrate into fresh water to spawn; Catadromous fish like Seabass or Eels do the opposite - as adult fish they live in fresh water and migrate into salt water to spawn. Now you know.","human_ref_B":"Turtles are within the order or reptiles. Reptiles eggs cannot be turned as the umbilical can be detached from the yolk and the embryo will die. Thus the eggs need to be layer in a stable surface in an environment with stable warm temperatures.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":15028.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"yptyvd","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why do some animals, like sea turtles and salmon, lay eggs away from their natural habitat? This might be a strange question, but why do sea turtles lay eggs on land and not for example dig up holes inside the ocean? They live their whole lives in the ocean, so why do they lay eggs on land? Why travel so far just to lay eggs? Same goes for some salmon, why do they leave the oceans and lakes, and go upstream on rivers and not lay their eggs where they live? It is probably something to do with protecting their offspring, but it seems to me that they still have predators that hunt their offspring fairly easily where they hatch\/lay their eggs, so maybe there is another reason as well?","c_root_id_A":"ivn71by","c_root_id_B":"ivn5sla","created_at_utc_A":1667968110,"created_at_utc_B":1667967442,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Turtles are within the order or reptiles. Reptiles eggs cannot be turned as the umbilical can be detached from the yolk and the embryo will die. Thus the eggs need to be layer in a stable surface in an environment with stable warm temperatures.","human_ref_B":"Good answers, but there is even more cool reasons in regards to eel migration. Eels are an old species that originated around where Indonesia is today. Because of continental drift waterways were opened westward. Some eels moved to live there (in future Europe and America) and continued to travel to \"Indonesia\" for spawning, but even more drift closed the gap towards the Pacific and the Atlantic eel branch was established (some in N America and some in Europe). Initially both groups had similar distance to their new spawning ground - the Sargasso sea, but as continental drift continued westward, the American eel can chill, while the European eels today have to travel 5000-6000 km to their spawning grounds. Also this separation resulted in the speciation of two distinct species. Easily digestible source","labels":1,"seconds_difference":668.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"yhy92d","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.69,"history":"ELi5: Why specifically is it oxygen that is required for life? Why does life require oxygen and not some other gas like nitrogen for example. Is there something specific in oxygen that life needs to survive?","c_root_id_A":"iugc3pp","c_root_id_B":"iugfy13","created_at_utc_A":1667183941,"created_at_utc_B":1667185851,"score_A":5,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"I'll try my best to make this as straightforward as possible. In each cell in your body, Oxygen comes in in the form of 2 oxygen's doubly bonded, the 2 oxygen atoms are split apart, and combined with a carbon atom bonded to hydrogens. This results in a free hydrogen, which is pushed through some protein machinery to force a phosphate group onto adinosine diphosphate, creating adisonine triphosphate, otherwise known at ATP. ATP is the source of energy in the body, used for everything from moving your muscles to digesting food. The resulting CO2 molecule is expelled through your lungs. This is why we breathe in oxygen, eat carbon based foods, and breathe out CO2. It's all about creating ATP, which is the source of energy for all biological processes. Edit: other organisms make ATP differently, using light or non-carbon based processes. This is just what humans and other animals do. Source: Took organic chemistry and biochemistry in college and I at least remember this intersting chemical process.","human_ref_B":"A better way to phrase it *might* be...why oxygen instead of Sulfur or Selenium? Because those are both in the same column on the Periodic Table, they have the same number of valence electrons and therefore can form double-bonds easily. However, the obvious answer comes to mind at the same time: they're both solid at room temperature. So...maybe...in a higher temperature environment, it *might* be possible for life to selectively choose gaseous Sulfur over Oxygen. But that's not how things work on Earth (most of the time)","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1910.0,"score_ratio":2.4} {"post_id":"yhy92d","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.69,"history":"ELi5: Why specifically is it oxygen that is required for life? Why does life require oxygen and not some other gas like nitrogen for example. Is there something specific in oxygen that life needs to survive?","c_root_id_A":"iugg885","c_root_id_B":"iugkcbh","created_at_utc_A":1667186003,"created_at_utc_B":1667188288,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Aerobic respiration releases about 10x more energy than anaerobic respiration from the same energy sources. Oxygen is one of the best oxidizers that is commonly available which is why it's able to do that. There are much stronger oxidizers known to chemistry which could release even more energy. However if you get much stronger than oxygen they start reacting so easily with other things, those chemicals would destroy all the other molecules that make up an organism.","human_ref_B":"Life existed before Oxygen was abundant, so no. About 2.4 billion years ago, some bacteria figured out how to photosynthesise to get energy from sunlight. Photosynthesis produces Oxygen gas, which they didn't need, so they burped it out. Over hundreds of millions of years, the oxygen built up. Oxygen is quite toxic to life forms not used to it, so that led a mass extinction. More info: https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Great\\_Oxidation\\_Event","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2285.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"yhy92d","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.69,"history":"ELi5: Why specifically is it oxygen that is required for life? Why does life require oxygen and not some other gas like nitrogen for example. Is there something specific in oxygen that life needs to survive?","c_root_id_A":"iuigw8f","c_root_id_B":"iugg885","created_at_utc_A":1667232448,"created_at_utc_B":1667186003,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"not all life requires oxygen, for some organisms it is toxic. oxygen is an extremely corrosive chemical that gives off energy (exothermic) when you combine it with just about anything. it is very abundant on earth and in the universe, but not always in a form that can be easily accessed. interestingly, the first organisms on earth used sulphur, which is directly below oxygen on the periodic table, so a lot of similarities.","human_ref_B":"Aerobic respiration releases about 10x more energy than anaerobic respiration from the same energy sources. Oxygen is one of the best oxidizers that is commonly available which is why it's able to do that. There are much stronger oxidizers known to chemistry which could release even more energy. However if you get much stronger than oxygen they start reacting so easily with other things, those chemicals would destroy all the other molecules that make up an organism.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":46445.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"xwau2c","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.69,"history":"eli5: Why were laugh tracks so widely used on sitcoms in the past? Did people not know when they were supposed to laugh? I\u2019m rewatching some older sitcoms and the laugh track is so odd to me. I remember thinking nothing of it growing up, but now that I\u2019ve been watching sitcoms without it, it feels completely pointless. Who thought it was a good idea and why?","c_root_id_A":"ir5dr1h","c_root_id_B":"ir5djw0","created_at_utc_A":1664977501,"created_at_utc_B":1664977412,"score_A":82,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"Originally sitcoms were filmed with an audience, and you would hear their reactions. In the 60s, TV networks tried inserting laughter into sitcoms, and discovered that focus group audiences found the shows much funnier than with only \"natural\" laughter. So yeah, it does work. Laughter is contagious. Humans are weird.","human_ref_B":"Sometimes the audience reaction isn't loud or sustained enough to be worth using in a broadcast. A quick guffaw or chortle can be more of an disruption of a scene than a laugh that goes on for a few seconds. And sometimes a joke just doesn't land, but they need to fill in the pause that was supposed to be there for the audience reaction. Hence using a laugh track to \"sweeten\" the reaction. Something that doesn't get talked about too often is that there's also the reverse, where audience laughter gets toned down (desweetened) if it's too loud or goes on too long.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":89.0,"score_ratio":5.8571428571} {"post_id":"xwau2c","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.69,"history":"eli5: Why were laugh tracks so widely used on sitcoms in the past? Did people not know when they were supposed to laugh? I\u2019m rewatching some older sitcoms and the laugh track is so odd to me. I remember thinking nothing of it growing up, but now that I\u2019ve been watching sitcoms without it, it feels completely pointless. Who thought it was a good idea and why?","c_root_id_A":"ir5dkpa","c_root_id_B":"ir5dr1h","created_at_utc_A":1664977422,"created_at_utc_B":1664977501,"score_A":8,"score_B":82,"human_ref_A":"I seen a video once where a sitcom writer explained but I cant remember all the details, He said that when studios showed new sitcoms to groups they performed better when a laugh track was added something about it inducing a positive response from audiences. He also said there is evidence that shows with laugh tracs have higher ratings. After all laughter is contagious","human_ref_B":"Originally sitcoms were filmed with an audience, and you would hear their reactions. In the 60s, TV networks tried inserting laughter into sitcoms, and discovered that focus group audiences found the shows much funnier than with only \"natural\" laughter. So yeah, it does work. Laughter is contagious. Humans are weird.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":79.0,"score_ratio":10.25} {"post_id":"xwau2c","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.69,"history":"eli5: Why were laugh tracks so widely used on sitcoms in the past? Did people not know when they were supposed to laugh? I\u2019m rewatching some older sitcoms and the laugh track is so odd to me. I remember thinking nothing of it growing up, but now that I\u2019ve been watching sitcoms without it, it feels completely pointless. Who thought it was a good idea and why?","c_root_id_A":"ir5kvit","c_root_id_B":"ir5djw0","created_at_utc_A":1664980577,"created_at_utc_B":1664977412,"score_A":15,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"Even weirder is watching a cartoon with laugh tracks. Scooby Doo and the Flinstones both had them","human_ref_B":"Sometimes the audience reaction isn't loud or sustained enough to be worth using in a broadcast. A quick guffaw or chortle can be more of an disruption of a scene than a laugh that goes on for a few seconds. And sometimes a joke just doesn't land, but they need to fill in the pause that was supposed to be there for the audience reaction. Hence using a laugh track to \"sweeten\" the reaction. Something that doesn't get talked about too often is that there's also the reverse, where audience laughter gets toned down (desweetened) if it's too loud or goes on too long.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3165.0,"score_ratio":1.0714285714} {"post_id":"xwau2c","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.69,"history":"eli5: Why were laugh tracks so widely used on sitcoms in the past? Did people not know when they were supposed to laugh? I\u2019m rewatching some older sitcoms and the laugh track is so odd to me. I remember thinking nothing of it growing up, but now that I\u2019ve been watching sitcoms without it, it feels completely pointless. Who thought it was a good idea and why?","c_root_id_A":"ir5e9cl","c_root_id_B":"ir5kvit","created_at_utc_A":1664977730,"created_at_utc_B":1664980577,"score_A":10,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"The podcast Stuff You Should Know did a good show on the history of laughtracks. A big part of it is consistency (versus live studio audiences). It also allows more freedom with shooting scenes since you can spread out location and shooting times.","human_ref_B":"Even weirder is watching a cartoon with laugh tracks. Scooby Doo and the Flinstones both had them","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2847.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"xwau2c","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.69,"history":"eli5: Why were laugh tracks so widely used on sitcoms in the past? Did people not know when they were supposed to laugh? I\u2019m rewatching some older sitcoms and the laugh track is so odd to me. I remember thinking nothing of it growing up, but now that I\u2019ve been watching sitcoms without it, it feels completely pointless. Who thought it was a good idea and why?","c_root_id_A":"ir5dkpa","c_root_id_B":"ir5kvit","created_at_utc_A":1664977422,"created_at_utc_B":1664980577,"score_A":8,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"I seen a video once where a sitcom writer explained but I cant remember all the details, He said that when studios showed new sitcoms to groups they performed better when a laugh track was added something about it inducing a positive response from audiences. He also said there is evidence that shows with laugh tracs have higher ratings. After all laughter is contagious","human_ref_B":"Even weirder is watching a cartoon with laugh tracks. Scooby Doo and the Flinstones both had them","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3155.0,"score_ratio":1.875} {"post_id":"xwau2c","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.69,"history":"eli5: Why were laugh tracks so widely used on sitcoms in the past? Did people not know when they were supposed to laugh? I\u2019m rewatching some older sitcoms and the laugh track is so odd to me. I remember thinking nothing of it growing up, but now that I\u2019ve been watching sitcoms without it, it feels completely pointless. Who thought it was a good idea and why?","c_root_id_A":"ir5e9cl","c_root_id_B":"ir5dkpa","created_at_utc_A":1664977730,"created_at_utc_B":1664977422,"score_A":10,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"The podcast Stuff You Should Know did a good show on the history of laughtracks. A big part of it is consistency (versus live studio audiences). It also allows more freedom with shooting scenes since you can spread out location and shooting times.","human_ref_B":"I seen a video once where a sitcom writer explained but I cant remember all the details, He said that when studios showed new sitcoms to groups they performed better when a laugh track was added something about it inducing a positive response from audiences. He also said there is evidence that shows with laugh tracs have higher ratings. After all laughter is contagious","labels":1,"seconds_difference":308.0,"score_ratio":1.25} {"post_id":"qqd7kr","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"[eli5] Why do you have to clean ships underbelly from barnacles?","c_root_id_A":"hjzg3gz","c_root_id_B":"hjzh126","created_at_utc_A":1636492018,"created_at_utc_B":1636492389,"score_A":339,"score_B":5944,"human_ref_A":"To reduce friction. The barnacles cause more drag on the ship, slowing it down. I know this is one of the reasons, unsure if there is more. Correct me if I'm wrong, or forgetting something.","human_ref_B":"In ships the build up of barnacles is a type of fouling Fouling is anything that builds up on the underside of the ship and gets rid of the streamlined hull. The barnacles make the ship a lot rougher so the water doesn't flow as smoothly and skin drag is increased, the increase in drag means an increase in required power and fuel consumption to maintain the same speed. They'll also grow quite a lot so you can end up with *a lot* of barnacles on the underside of a ship Modern cargo ships live and die by their efficiency. A build up of barnacles means significantly more fuel burned on a journey across the pacific ocean so big ships generally have anti-fouling coatings on the bottom that can keep barnacles from taking hold or multiplying","labels":0,"seconds_difference":371.0,"score_ratio":17.5339233038} {"post_id":"qqd7kr","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"[eli5] Why do you have to clean ships underbelly from barnacles?","c_root_id_A":"hjzkcx4","c_root_id_B":"hjzg3gz","created_at_utc_A":1636493719,"created_at_utc_B":1636492018,"score_A":860,"score_B":339,"human_ref_A":"To add to previous comments, some countries require hulls be cleaned of such fouling before clearing customs (I'm aware of New Zealand, but I'm sure there are others). It's as much of an ecological problem as an efficiency problem.","human_ref_B":"To reduce friction. The barnacles cause more drag on the ship, slowing it down. I know this is one of the reasons, unsure if there is more. Correct me if I'm wrong, or forgetting something.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1701.0,"score_ratio":2.5368731563} {"post_id":"qqd7kr","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"[eli5] Why do you have to clean ships underbelly from barnacles?","c_root_id_A":"hjzi38t","c_root_id_B":"hjzkcx4","created_at_utc_A":1636492816,"created_at_utc_B":1636493719,"score_A":52,"score_B":860,"human_ref_A":"It all comes down to money. The biggest cost of shipping cargo is the fuel you burn to get it there. The bottom of a ship is smooth and designed to minimize resistance with the water, which reduces how much fuel is burned. When barnacles take hold, the surface becomes very rough, the resistance in water increases, and more fuel is burned. At some point, the barnacles get so bad that it's cheaper to pay someone to scrape them off than it is to pay for more fuel.","human_ref_B":"To add to previous comments, some countries require hulls be cleaned of such fouling before clearing customs (I'm aware of New Zealand, but I'm sure there are others). It's as much of an ecological problem as an efficiency problem.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":903.0,"score_ratio":16.5384615385} {"post_id":"qqd7kr","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"[eli5] Why do you have to clean ships underbelly from barnacles?","c_root_id_A":"hjzraw8","c_root_id_B":"hjzi38t","created_at_utc_A":1636496543,"created_at_utc_B":1636492816,"score_A":204,"score_B":52,"human_ref_A":"Drag your hand across your phone's screen after you've cleaned it really well. Pretty easy? Drag your hand across a piece of sandpaper. More effort needed? Both look like they're flat, but one takes way more work.","human_ref_B":"It all comes down to money. The biggest cost of shipping cargo is the fuel you burn to get it there. The bottom of a ship is smooth and designed to minimize resistance with the water, which reduces how much fuel is burned. When barnacles take hold, the surface becomes very rough, the resistance in water increases, and more fuel is burned. At some point, the barnacles get so bad that it's cheaper to pay someone to scrape them off than it is to pay for more fuel.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3727.0,"score_ratio":3.9230769231} {"post_id":"qqd7kr","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"[eli5] Why do you have to clean ships underbelly from barnacles?","c_root_id_A":"hjzraw8","c_root_id_B":"hjzot2x","created_at_utc_A":1636496543,"created_at_utc_B":1636495513,"score_A":204,"score_B":28,"human_ref_A":"Drag your hand across your phone's screen after you've cleaned it really well. Pretty easy? Drag your hand across a piece of sandpaper. More effort needed? Both look like they're flat, but one takes way more work.","human_ref_B":"In addition to fouling increasing drag which also increased fuel usage, large ships are required to go through a full inspection every 5 years. To properly inspect the hull it needs to be clean. Also Ultrasonic Thickness gauging is done to determine how thick the steel is. Steel hulls in saltwater degrade over time, even when coated. Thousands of points on a ship's hull are measured with an ultrasonic thickness gauge to make sure it hasn't corroded beyond it's safe limits and to get accurate measurements the hull needs to be cleaned.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1030.0,"score_ratio":7.2857142857} {"post_id":"ww8rhq","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old - If they could manufacture rain in Dubai last year for a heatwave, (link below,) why can't they do the same thing for the massive wild fires, droughts, & heat waves that we are seeing all over the world? Yes they actually manufactured rain in dubai. So if this capability exists -Why can't they do this to help the current droughts (like in France, for example?) More obviously, why can't they do this for wildfires? Is it financial? Is it a technological limitation or something? And if it is a technological limitation for whatever reason (atmospheric conditions, etc,) why aren't they working on this technology more? What are the limitations that are preventing methods (like what was done in Dubai,) from being implemented in other areas? idk i feel like this could save lives. Not to mention ameliorate some of the economic\/environmental impact of these kinds of events (edited to add \"environmental.\"","c_root_id_A":"ilk1h4o","c_root_id_B":"ilklzpa","created_at_utc_A":1661317108,"created_at_utc_B":1661332745,"score_A":5,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"https:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/2009\/09\/05\/seeding-clouds-for-hydropower\/ This was the 5g conspiracy before any g","human_ref_B":"There is little actual evidence this works. This is a good showcase of what is wrong with it - they advertise the missions flown and claim that rains followed the cloud seeding but with no evidence to link the two. It does rain in the UAE. The prevailing winds push weather from the Indian Ocean onto shore occasionally causing very heavy rainfall. Back in the 90's 00's studies were done which were unable to show any real improvement","labels":0,"seconds_difference":15637.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"wvt5z0","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"eli5: Why do people tend to get increasingly set in their ways as they age? Is this hardwired in our biology or can you combat intellectual calcification?","c_root_id_A":"ilis1x9","c_root_id_B":"iljwqqf","created_at_utc_A":1661295729,"created_at_utc_B":1661314286,"score_A":5,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"As responsibilities pile up it really helps to have a routine\/system, winging it gets too complicated and stressful and tiring, especially as your body gets older and more tired. This isn\u2019t a bad thing, and it\u2019s part of maturing, you know what works and you know yourself and your strengths and limits more and more. But if you don\u2019t keep a balance and challenge yourself and mix it up it can calcify into a comfortable lazy bubble, same people and content over and over, the outside world and new things become sources of anxiety. No different than bad physical mechanics, if you don\u2019t challenge your body it\u2019ll just get more and more ingrained. Having children can help if they\u2019re around when you\u2019re older to keep you in the mix, but if you let grandpa do his own thing for months at a time you might lose him to certain unnamed self-reinforcing outrage machine news channels etc.","human_ref_B":"Here's my pet theory: In the same way that evolution \"wants\" children to learn languages easily, it also \"wants\" children to learn new beliefs easily. In a sense, a built-in instinct to be extremely gullible is an evolutionary advantage for a child. Being gullible means you learn faster because you don't try to filter any of what you're being taught through skeptical analysis. But it comes with the downside that you learn *everything* you're being told, both true and false. How big a downside that is varies depending on the ratio of true information to false information that you are being taught. For a naive child who knows very little about the world, being taught by the child's parents and grandparents, there's so much new good knowledge to soak in that it's worth it to speed the process up even if that means it comes with the occasional bad knowledge. The kid is drinking from a firehose of information and has to take in as much as possible as fast as possible. But as the kid grows up and becomes an adult, a distrust of new information grows. This is because as they catch up to the knowledge of the tribal elders and become just as schooled as everyone else, the ratio of good new information to bad new information changes. Now if the information is truly new, and *especially* if it requires having to un-learn previous information because the new information contradicts the old, the probability that this is because the new information is wrong is much higher than it was when you were a child. Now the same gullibility that served you well as a child is a detriment as an adult. So it's not surprising that adults are more \"set in their ways\". It's how our instincts have taught us to be. Because it was actually a good idea once upon a time. But in modern times, the rate of new information being learned each decade is much higher than it was for our ancestors. When technology and society moved slowly, information you learned as a child was still good information 50 years later. With the rate of change these days this is less true than it once was. But instincts drilled into our DNA don't change as fast as our society does. We may work in office buildings typing onto computers, but our brains are still optimized for the life of a hunter-gatherer wandering the grasslands. Finding the right point between the disadvantage of gullibility (believing everything new) and the disadvantage of rigidity (believing nothing new), is a delicate balance. You can apply the open-minded but still skeptical reasoning of empirical analysis, but this is actually NOT something we're as good at as we like to think we are. It takes *work* to suppress your instincts and think in that \"scientific\" sort of way instead.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":18557.0,"score_ratio":1.4} {"post_id":"ogfrbp","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How did Queen Victoria manage to get her descendents onto the throne of so many European Monarchies? Always wondered how early 20th century Europe managed to get to a point where most of the monarchs were descended from Queen Victoria I","c_root_id_A":"h4iseiw","c_root_id_B":"h4ipnmx","created_at_utc_A":1625780488,"created_at_utc_B":1625779191,"score_A":20,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"There's an appropriate joke: \"My Daughter wanted me to treat her like a princess so I married her off to a complete stranger twice her age to strengthen my political ties with Poland\" There's no stronger bond than family. Monarchs for ages have had arranged marriages for their children so that they can create political alliances. When the Duke next door happens to also be your Son in Law it's a lot more likely you'll be able to count on him for support. Queen Victoria had 9 children (not unusual for the time) and arranged for them to be married into the royal families of Europe in order to create such alliances. This wasn't unique to her, medieval monarchs had been doing that sort of thing since antiquity. Queen Victoria's case wasn't unique but it was unusual because of just how many powerful royal families in Europe she was able to marry her kids into. The British Empire was at its height at the time and other royal families were keen to make alliances with Britain. This kind of backfired though, WW1 in a sense was the war of the cousins. The monarchs of the most powerful nations at the time Czar Nicholas II, Kaiser Wilhelm, and King George V were all cousins. In fact if you look at their pictures side by side there is a remarkable similarity in appearance between them. The problem became that Nicholas and Wilhelm in particular were incompetent rulers and functionally ended the monarchies in their nations when they were deposed. The great irony of Queen Victoria is that she tried to unite Europe under single family but actually ended up ending the monarchy across Europe within a single generation due to the incompetence of her own Grandchildren. Within a decade the turmoil caused by the war would see those same nations end up under the Communists and Nazi's.","human_ref_B":"Victoria and Albert had 9 children. Their oldest son, prince Edward, became King after Victoria died. The other children married into other European royal families, because royal families tended to inter-marry at that point in time. The only one of their 9 children not to have any children of their own was Princess Louise. The other 8 children all had plenty of children of their own, so Victoria and Albert had 42 grandchildren. Sprinkled about through the royal families of Europe.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1297.0,"score_ratio":2.8571428571} {"post_id":"4oii21","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why are some electrical plugs shaped so that you can't plug anything in next to them? My lamp's plug is rather bulbous, and basically I can't plug anything next to it - there's not enough room to put even my slimmest iPhone charger into the adjacent outlet slot. Why?","c_root_id_A":"d4cz8cf","c_root_id_B":"d4cvy0g","created_at_utc_A":1466169798,"created_at_utc_B":1466162687,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"BTW, the solution to this problem is a product like this. Allows you to plug in 5 items, no matter how big the transformer is, to a single outlet. Or even something as simple as a set of 1 foot long extension cords","human_ref_B":"I'm guessing you're not in the UK, where sockets are spaced so that this doesn't happen, or at least, they should be. Some multi-way adaptors are tight, but generally because of the design it works fine.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7111.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"4oii21","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why are some electrical plugs shaped so that you can't plug anything in next to them? My lamp's plug is rather bulbous, and basically I can't plug anything next to it - there's not enough room to put even my slimmest iPhone charger into the adjacent outlet slot. Why?","c_root_id_A":"d4cz8cf","c_root_id_B":"d4cvqq2","created_at_utc_A":1466169798,"created_at_utc_B":1466162128,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"BTW, the solution to this problem is a product like this. Allows you to plug in 5 items, no matter how big the transformer is, to a single outlet. Or even something as simple as a set of 1 foot long extension cords","human_ref_B":"I too find it a problem when you can't use additional plugs next to one that is of an awkward shape. It's the overall design of the plug that is causing the issue, usually due to there being an internal transformer, electronics, or the type of connector \/ cable that is fitted to \"the plug\". Some of the newer mobile phone and tablet plugs have a built in battery charger \/ mains transformer, and these can be quite bulky - causing the same problem. One solution has to be to increase the number of sockets in the room area where you need to plug things in, say changing a single gang socket to a double or triple one!","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7670.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"4oii21","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why are some electrical plugs shaped so that you can't plug anything in next to them? My lamp's plug is rather bulbous, and basically I can't plug anything next to it - there's not enough room to put even my slimmest iPhone charger into the adjacent outlet slot. Why?","c_root_id_A":"d4cwbdo","c_root_id_B":"d4cz8cf","created_at_utc_A":1466163688,"created_at_utc_B":1466169798,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"As mikestorm wrote, \"There's no universal standard for... a plug\". The problem here is the plugs on your lamps. There are specialty stores\/vendors that can replace your lamp cords-plugs. Or DIY; replacement plugs and cords are readily available at your home improvement store.","human_ref_B":"BTW, the solution to this problem is a product like this. Allows you to plug in 5 items, no matter how big the transformer is, to a single outlet. Or even something as simple as a set of 1 foot long extension cords","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6110.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"76i19b","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: If electricity speed is about 300,000 km\/s, why does ping of internet depend so much on the distance?","c_root_id_A":"doe8ddd","c_root_id_B":"doe5rsp","created_at_utc_A":1508069312,"created_at_utc_B":1508061738,"score_A":1830,"score_B":76,"human_ref_A":"Imagine that all cars, freight ships, trucks, and airplanes would move at light speed. Now think about how long it would take to send a package around the world. Of course it would be faster now, but it wouldn't come close to the speed of light. _Moving the package_ would take almost no time, but the package would still spend a significant amount of time being inspected, loaded, unloaded, etc... This is essentially how the internet works, too. Many of the same words are used here as well: traffic, package, destination, route, ... The information _moves_ at light speed, but spends a lot of time being _routed_ or even queued. Just like you don't have a dedicated road to every person on earth, data packages have to manoeuvre through a network of shared connections. Imagine you're a router in such a network and you receive a package labeled with the destination \"216.58.207.78\" and you're connected to five other routers. You're gonna have think about where to send this for a bit unless you would want to send it to all of your router friends, which would make the internet wildly inefficient. On top of that, as several people already pointed out: When looking at the scale of the earth the speed of light suddenly becomes significant. Going from Los Angeles to Berlin at light speed will take 31ms. Go back and forth (that's what a ping does) and you're at 62ms. That's already enough to ruin most online games. The overhead from routing roughly doubles the travel time, so in practice you would be working with a ping of around 124ms, which will make the game feel like you're wearing oven mitts. EDIT: As \/u\/HakushiBestShaman pointed out, the information doesn't actually travel through the cabel at light speed, but quite a bit slower at around two-thirds light speed. Taking that into account it seems that the overhead from routing is quite low for long distances along _common_ routes, e.g. US<->EU.","human_ref_B":"The latency comes more from the various bits of hardware the signal has to pass through, than from the wires. Even so, if you're going halfway around the world at the speed of light without detours, that's 20,000 km \/ 300,000 km\/s = 66 ms (edit: in each direction, so the ping time would be +133 just from distance) which is already a pretty respectable ping time.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7574.0,"score_ratio":24.0789473684} {"post_id":"76i19b","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: If electricity speed is about 300,000 km\/s, why does ping of internet depend so much on the distance?","c_root_id_A":"doe8ddd","c_root_id_B":"doe5vdn","created_at_utc_A":1508069312,"created_at_utc_B":1508062027,"score_A":1830,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"Imagine that all cars, freight ships, trucks, and airplanes would move at light speed. Now think about how long it would take to send a package around the world. Of course it would be faster now, but it wouldn't come close to the speed of light. _Moving the package_ would take almost no time, but the package would still spend a significant amount of time being inspected, loaded, unloaded, etc... This is essentially how the internet works, too. Many of the same words are used here as well: traffic, package, destination, route, ... The information _moves_ at light speed, but spends a lot of time being _routed_ or even queued. Just like you don't have a dedicated road to every person on earth, data packages have to manoeuvre through a network of shared connections. Imagine you're a router in such a network and you receive a package labeled with the destination \"216.58.207.78\" and you're connected to five other routers. You're gonna have think about where to send this for a bit unless you would want to send it to all of your router friends, which would make the internet wildly inefficient. On top of that, as several people already pointed out: When looking at the scale of the earth the speed of light suddenly becomes significant. Going from Los Angeles to Berlin at light speed will take 31ms. Go back and forth (that's what a ping does) and you're at 62ms. That's already enough to ruin most online games. The overhead from routing roughly doubles the travel time, so in practice you would be working with a ping of around 124ms, which will make the game feel like you're wearing oven mitts. EDIT: As \/u\/HakushiBestShaman pointed out, the information doesn't actually travel through the cabel at light speed, but quite a bit slower at around two-thirds light speed. Taking that into account it seems that the overhead from routing is quite low for long distances along _common_ routes, e.g. US<->EU.","human_ref_B":"Ping is just no a single light that is bounced back. It's certain types of packets that are processed and forwarded by routers. There are no single long cables between all the computers, but many central hubs where a huge portion of the traffic travels. For example there are only couple of connections across the atlantic. Every time a packet is received at the router, it is in a queue and eventually processed. This adds up with long distances.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7285.0,"score_ratio":228.75} {"post_id":"76i19b","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: If electricity speed is about 300,000 km\/s, why does ping of internet depend so much on the distance?","c_root_id_A":"doe6bf6","c_root_id_B":"doe8ddd","created_at_utc_A":1508063387,"created_at_utc_B":1508069312,"score_A":9,"score_B":1830,"human_ref_A":"Lets think about what you said. You say that electricity travels at 300,000 km\/s and you seem to be suggesting that if that's so fast it shouldn't effect internet speeds. Internet speeds (ping) are measured in milliseconds (ms), so sending a data packet 300,000km would be 1000ms and 300km would be 1ms, which is pretty quick.","human_ref_B":"Imagine that all cars, freight ships, trucks, and airplanes would move at light speed. Now think about how long it would take to send a package around the world. Of course it would be faster now, but it wouldn't come close to the speed of light. _Moving the package_ would take almost no time, but the package would still spend a significant amount of time being inspected, loaded, unloaded, etc... This is essentially how the internet works, too. Many of the same words are used here as well: traffic, package, destination, route, ... The information _moves_ at light speed, but spends a lot of time being _routed_ or even queued. Just like you don't have a dedicated road to every person on earth, data packages have to manoeuvre through a network of shared connections. Imagine you're a router in such a network and you receive a package labeled with the destination \"216.58.207.78\" and you're connected to five other routers. You're gonna have think about where to send this for a bit unless you would want to send it to all of your router friends, which would make the internet wildly inefficient. On top of that, as several people already pointed out: When looking at the scale of the earth the speed of light suddenly becomes significant. Going from Los Angeles to Berlin at light speed will take 31ms. Go back and forth (that's what a ping does) and you're at 62ms. That's already enough to ruin most online games. The overhead from routing roughly doubles the travel time, so in practice you would be working with a ping of around 124ms, which will make the game feel like you're wearing oven mitts. EDIT: As \/u\/HakushiBestShaman pointed out, the information doesn't actually travel through the cabel at light speed, but quite a bit slower at around two-thirds light speed. Taking that into account it seems that the overhead from routing is quite low for long distances along _common_ routes, e.g. US<->EU.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5925.0,"score_ratio":203.3333333333} {"post_id":"76i19b","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: If electricity speed is about 300,000 km\/s, why does ping of internet depend so much on the distance?","c_root_id_A":"doeajnv","c_root_id_B":"doe5rsp","created_at_utc_A":1508073993,"created_at_utc_B":1508061738,"score_A":164,"score_B":76,"human_ref_A":"It's also noteworthy that the speed of light isn't the same in every material. Optical fibers lower the speed by a decent percentage (~30%), and many common copper data cables (cat 5\/6) can be even worse. See https:\/\/en.m.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Velocity_factor Interestingly, optical fibers _wouldn't work_ if the speed of light in them wasn't significantly lower than the speed of light in air\/vacuum.","human_ref_B":"The latency comes more from the various bits of hardware the signal has to pass through, than from the wires. Even so, if you're going halfway around the world at the speed of light without detours, that's 20,000 km \/ 300,000 km\/s = 66 ms (edit: in each direction, so the ping time would be +133 just from distance) which is already a pretty respectable ping time.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":12255.0,"score_ratio":2.1578947368} {"post_id":"76i19b","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: If electricity speed is about 300,000 km\/s, why does ping of internet depend so much on the distance?","c_root_id_A":"doe5vdn","c_root_id_B":"doeajnv","created_at_utc_A":1508062027,"created_at_utc_B":1508073993,"score_A":8,"score_B":164,"human_ref_A":"Ping is just no a single light that is bounced back. It's certain types of packets that are processed and forwarded by routers. There are no single long cables between all the computers, but many central hubs where a huge portion of the traffic travels. For example there are only couple of connections across the atlantic. Every time a packet is received at the router, it is in a queue and eventually processed. This adds up with long distances.","human_ref_B":"It's also noteworthy that the speed of light isn't the same in every material. Optical fibers lower the speed by a decent percentage (~30%), and many common copper data cables (cat 5\/6) can be even worse. See https:\/\/en.m.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Velocity_factor Interestingly, optical fibers _wouldn't work_ if the speed of light in them wasn't significantly lower than the speed of light in air\/vacuum.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":11966.0,"score_ratio":20.5} {"post_id":"76i19b","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: If electricity speed is about 300,000 km\/s, why does ping of internet depend so much on the distance?","c_root_id_A":"doeajnv","c_root_id_B":"doe6bf6","created_at_utc_A":1508073993,"created_at_utc_B":1508063387,"score_A":164,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"It's also noteworthy that the speed of light isn't the same in every material. Optical fibers lower the speed by a decent percentage (~30%), and many common copper data cables (cat 5\/6) can be even worse. See https:\/\/en.m.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Velocity_factor Interestingly, optical fibers _wouldn't work_ if the speed of light in them wasn't significantly lower than the speed of light in air\/vacuum.","human_ref_B":"Lets think about what you said. You say that electricity travels at 300,000 km\/s and you seem to be suggesting that if that's so fast it shouldn't effect internet speeds. Internet speeds (ping) are measured in milliseconds (ms), so sending a data packet 300,000km would be 1000ms and 300km would be 1ms, which is pretty quick.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10606.0,"score_ratio":18.2222222222} {"post_id":"76i19b","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: If electricity speed is about 300,000 km\/s, why does ping of internet depend so much on the distance?","c_root_id_A":"doen5nt","c_root_id_B":"doe5vdn","created_at_utc_A":1508090689,"created_at_utc_B":1508062027,"score_A":21,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"For the same reason it takes only 4-5 hours to fly from Los Angeles to Chicago, but you can sit there waiting for a connecting flight in Denver for 4 more hours if there's no directs available.","human_ref_B":"Ping is just no a single light that is bounced back. It's certain types of packets that are processed and forwarded by routers. There are no single long cables between all the computers, but many central hubs where a huge portion of the traffic travels. For example there are only couple of connections across the atlantic. Every time a packet is received at the router, it is in a queue and eventually processed. This adds up with long distances.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":28662.0,"score_ratio":2.625} {"post_id":"76i19b","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: If electricity speed is about 300,000 km\/s, why does ping of internet depend so much on the distance?","c_root_id_A":"doe6bf6","c_root_id_B":"doen5nt","created_at_utc_A":1508063387,"created_at_utc_B":1508090689,"score_A":9,"score_B":21,"human_ref_A":"Lets think about what you said. You say that electricity travels at 300,000 km\/s and you seem to be suggesting that if that's so fast it shouldn't effect internet speeds. Internet speeds (ping) are measured in milliseconds (ms), so sending a data packet 300,000km would be 1000ms and 300km would be 1ms, which is pretty quick.","human_ref_B":"For the same reason it takes only 4-5 hours to fly from Los Angeles to Chicago, but you can sit there waiting for a connecting flight in Denver for 4 more hours if there's no directs available.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":27302.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333} {"post_id":"76i19b","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: If electricity speed is about 300,000 km\/s, why does ping of internet depend so much on the distance?","c_root_id_A":"doe5vdn","c_root_id_B":"doe6bf6","created_at_utc_A":1508062027,"created_at_utc_B":1508063387,"score_A":8,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"Ping is just no a single light that is bounced back. It's certain types of packets that are processed and forwarded by routers. There are no single long cables between all the computers, but many central hubs where a huge portion of the traffic travels. For example there are only couple of connections across the atlantic. Every time a packet is received at the router, it is in a queue and eventually processed. This adds up with long distances.","human_ref_B":"Lets think about what you said. You say that electricity travels at 300,000 km\/s and you seem to be suggesting that if that's so fast it shouldn't effect internet speeds. Internet speeds (ping) are measured in milliseconds (ms), so sending a data packet 300,000km would be 1000ms and 300km would be 1ms, which is pretty quick.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1360.0,"score_ratio":1.125} {"post_id":"4uo9sq","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old:The difference between Sharp Cheddar and Mild Cheddar","c_root_id_A":"d5rehsb","c_root_id_B":"d5rctx2","created_at_utc_A":1469538346,"created_at_utc_B":1469535063,"score_A":1270,"score_B":33,"human_ref_A":"As cheese ages, enzymes and bacteria break down the protein and fat, creating a \"shorter\" texture (i.e. more brittle\/crumbly) and the smaller molecules have stronger flavors than when they are intact. Sharp cheddar costs more because it has to be aged longer so you can't make money off of it for a longer period of time and it also costs money to warehouse it. Also it needs to be of a good enough quality to be ageable; cheese graders pull sample plugs at around a week after it is made and taste it to detect certain good and bad flavors that they think will allow it to be aged and not develop bitter, acidic or off flavors, otherwise it has to get used as a mild cheese. For aged cheese, they will continue to pull samples and taste it to see how the flavor is developing and determine how long to continue to age it. Source: I'm a cheese scientist","human_ref_B":"It's usually down to the ageing, sharp or \"mature\" cheeses are aged for longer before selling. They cost more because of this time and also because they lose water as they age, meaning that you get less cheese from the same amount of milk.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3283.0,"score_ratio":38.4848484848} {"post_id":"4uo9sq","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old:The difference between Sharp Cheddar and Mild Cheddar","c_root_id_A":"d5rkf8s","c_root_id_B":"d5rms3y","created_at_utc_A":1469546845,"created_at_utc_B":1469549831,"score_A":12,"score_B":19,"human_ref_A":"Pungency, moisture levels, texture. Sharp has a flavor that is, well, sharper. It tends to be drier and crumblier and doesn't melt as well. Sometimes sharp cheddars will have a salty coating. LPT: For the ultimate grilled cheese sandwich, try using some extra sharp cheddar and a softer cheese like brie and shred them finely, in a food processor if you have one, and add a little bit of dry white wine to the mixture. The sharp cheese gives flavor, the soft cheese improves meltiness, and the wine adds flavor as well as the moisture missing from the sharp cheese. Saw this recipe on Cook's Country and have been a believer ever since.","human_ref_B":"Surprised not to see this here. Sharp cheddar can be eaten if you're lactose intolerant, as the aging process removes the originally present lactose. Good Swiss is the same way.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2986.0,"score_ratio":1.5833333333} {"post_id":"sw8qvd","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why does travelling, even when it is essentially sitting still, tire you more than sitting still in a stationary place?","c_root_id_A":"hxklkss","c_root_id_B":"hxkjjze","created_at_utc_A":1645274994,"created_at_utc_B":1645273654,"score_A":1655,"score_B":227,"human_ref_A":"When sitting stationary your body exerts effort just to keep you upright in your seat. When sitting while traveling, your body exerts effort to counter every motion of the vehicle you happen to be in. Vehicle slows down, your core muscles react to keep you pressed back into your seat, and you don\u2019t recognize this as anything more than still sitting down. Same for every turn, your core reacts to counter the centripetal motion to one side or the other. So sitting while traveling gives you an unconscious core workout that you never recognize.","human_ref_B":"There's something called \"decision fatigue\" where every decision you have to make takes a bit of energy, regardless of how important the decision is, and as those little decisions build up, you get exhausted quickly. In the context of travel, these decisions manifest as \"do I take this exit? No. Next one\" \"Where is Gate 6? Here\" \"Where's the Uber? In this area\" and so on and so on, until you've made so many little uses of brain power that you're exhausted.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1340.0,"score_ratio":7.2907488987} {"post_id":"sw8qvd","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why does travelling, even when it is essentially sitting still, tire you more than sitting still in a stationary place?","c_root_id_A":"hxkjjze","c_root_id_B":"hxlc34v","created_at_utc_A":1645273654,"created_at_utc_B":1645287942,"score_A":227,"score_B":839,"human_ref_A":"There's something called \"decision fatigue\" where every decision you have to make takes a bit of energy, regardless of how important the decision is, and as those little decisions build up, you get exhausted quickly. In the context of travel, these decisions manifest as \"do I take this exit? No. Next one\" \"Where is Gate 6? Here\" \"Where's the Uber? In this area\" and so on and so on, until you've made so many little uses of brain power that you're exhausted.","human_ref_B":"Your brain flies on autopilot a lot of the time in familiar settings, doing familiar things. When traveling, there is a lot of unfamiliar situations, places, etc. your brain has to process \u2014 where do I go, what do I do with my bag, where\u2019s the bathroom, where can I eat, who will I be sitting with, did I forget anything, will we be delayed, why did the plane jostle like that, etc. There is also a lot of activity, walking through the stations or airports, lugging heavy bags, that is straining and tiring.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":14288.0,"score_ratio":3.6960352423} {"post_id":"yzlsoj","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why do datacenters continuously use more water instead of recycling the same water in a closed loop system?","c_root_id_A":"ix2e6u1","c_root_id_B":"ix0oyj6","created_at_utc_A":1668921904,"created_at_utc_B":1668891694,"score_A":109,"score_B":77,"human_ref_A":"AH! a question in an area of my expertise. There are at least three variants of water-consuming datacenter cooling. 1. The datacenter captures the hot air coming out of servers. Radiators with cool water circulating through them are used to cool this hot air. The water is heated while the air is cooled. That water is then pumped outside and poured over big fiber boards while a fan blows outside air past them. This evaporates some of the water, and the remainder is cooled by the evaporation. The remaining cooled water is pumped back inside the datacenter and the process repeats. 2. The datacenter uses industrial air conditioning units called CRACs, which have radiators outside the datacenter. The air conditioner compresses a gas, heating it up, and then pumps it through the radiator while a fan blows outside air across the radiators. Once the compressed gas is cooled, it is brought back into the datacenter and allowed to expand, which makes it cold. Air inside the datacenter is blown over a different radiator filled with this cold gas, cooling the datacenter air. On very hot days, the CRAC sprays the outside radiators with water, which evaporates on the radiator and cools it more than the air alone would. 3. The datacenter brings in outside air directly to keep the inside air cool. On hot days, the datacenter's systems will spray a mist of water into the air on its way in. That mist evaporates quickly and cools the outside air further before it reaches the datacenter floor.","human_ref_B":"Evaporative cooling is the most cost-efficient way to cool a facility. It takes a lot of energy for water to go from (hot) liquid to gas, which means that a small amount of water being evaporated gets you a lot of cooling capacity. However, the reverse is also true; when water goes from gas to liquid, it dumps that heat into everything around it. So if you're using evaporative cooling, then you necessarily have to eject the gaseous water as well, otherwise you're just cycling the heat from one part of the facility to another. But since you're ejecting water from the system, you need to bring in more water to replace it. Hence, you're a net \"consumer\" of water, as that water can't be used anymore. The alternative is to use a nearby river or waterway as a heat sink. You bring cool water in from the river, run it through the cooling system to bring it from cool to warm or hot, and then dump that water back into the river, further downstream. Again, you're \"consuming\" water, except now you're also heating up the local waterway, which could have unforeseen consequences on the local wildlife.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":30210.0,"score_ratio":1.4155844156} {"post_id":"yzlsoj","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why do datacenters continuously use more water instead of recycling the same water in a closed loop system?","c_root_id_A":"ix2e6u1","c_root_id_B":"ix11jjw","created_at_utc_A":1668921904,"created_at_utc_B":1668897312,"score_A":109,"score_B":22,"human_ref_A":"AH! a question in an area of my expertise. There are at least three variants of water-consuming datacenter cooling. 1. The datacenter captures the hot air coming out of servers. Radiators with cool water circulating through them are used to cool this hot air. The water is heated while the air is cooled. That water is then pumped outside and poured over big fiber boards while a fan blows outside air past them. This evaporates some of the water, and the remainder is cooled by the evaporation. The remaining cooled water is pumped back inside the datacenter and the process repeats. 2. The datacenter uses industrial air conditioning units called CRACs, which have radiators outside the datacenter. The air conditioner compresses a gas, heating it up, and then pumps it through the radiator while a fan blows outside air across the radiators. Once the compressed gas is cooled, it is brought back into the datacenter and allowed to expand, which makes it cold. Air inside the datacenter is blown over a different radiator filled with this cold gas, cooling the datacenter air. On very hot days, the CRAC sprays the outside radiators with water, which evaporates on the radiator and cools it more than the air alone would. 3. The datacenter brings in outside air directly to keep the inside air cool. On hot days, the datacenter's systems will spray a mist of water into the air on its way in. That mist evaporates quickly and cools the outside air further before it reaches the datacenter floor.","human_ref_B":"I know of a building in NYC that used the water from the data center (lots of mainframes) to heat the offices in the building next door. Mostly a closed system as I understand it. In the winter it was great for them. In the summertime they tried some scheme to use the hot water to generate supplimental electricity for the AC systems. Didn't work out. By 2012 the whole building has been renovated and no longer has that model. The datacenter were moved out of the area post 9\/11.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":24592.0,"score_ratio":4.9545454545} {"post_id":"yzlsoj","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why do datacenters continuously use more water instead of recycling the same water in a closed loop system?","c_root_id_A":"ix2e6u1","c_root_id_B":"ix1l32h","created_at_utc_A":1668921904,"created_at_utc_B":1668906542,"score_A":109,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"AH! a question in an area of my expertise. There are at least three variants of water-consuming datacenter cooling. 1. The datacenter captures the hot air coming out of servers. Radiators with cool water circulating through them are used to cool this hot air. The water is heated while the air is cooled. That water is then pumped outside and poured over big fiber boards while a fan blows outside air past them. This evaporates some of the water, and the remainder is cooled by the evaporation. The remaining cooled water is pumped back inside the datacenter and the process repeats. 2. The datacenter uses industrial air conditioning units called CRACs, which have radiators outside the datacenter. The air conditioner compresses a gas, heating it up, and then pumps it through the radiator while a fan blows outside air across the radiators. Once the compressed gas is cooled, it is brought back into the datacenter and allowed to expand, which makes it cold. Air inside the datacenter is blown over a different radiator filled with this cold gas, cooling the datacenter air. On very hot days, the CRAC sprays the outside radiators with water, which evaporates on the radiator and cools it more than the air alone would. 3. The datacenter brings in outside air directly to keep the inside air cool. On hot days, the datacenter's systems will spray a mist of water into the air on its way in. That mist evaporates quickly and cools the outside air further before it reaches the datacenter floor.","human_ref_B":"I don't know of a data center that uses open loop cooling (dumping heated water). What I do know of is evap cooling. In this case, you have a closed loop, with radiators outside. Those radiators operate passively (well, with fans) for most of the time. You can spray water on the radiators, and the evaporating water will help cool down the loop. (In these systems there are still usually chillers, to bring the water down to the correct temperature, but letting radiators do most of the work ahead of time is more energy efficient) What I could see working, though I don't know of any facilities that do this, is having river water or ocean water pumped over those radiators. Similar to nuclear plants. In this case the liquid doing the cooling is still in a closed loop, but is using another body of water to bring it's temperature down. Depending on the location, chillers may not be needed either.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":15362.0,"score_ratio":18.1666666667} {"post_id":"yzlsoj","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why do datacenters continuously use more water instead of recycling the same water in a closed loop system?","c_root_id_A":"ix1ffxs","c_root_id_B":"ix2e6u1","created_at_utc_A":1668903814,"created_at_utc_B":1668921904,"score_A":4,"score_B":109,"human_ref_A":"They're not *using up* the water. They're using it to cool their machines, and returning it to the environment slightly warmer than it was before. Here's an example of a relatively modern datacenter cooling setup \u2014 not the newest (it's from ~10 years ago), but one that uses seawater, which is somewhat unusual. https:\/\/www.datacenterdynamics.com\/en\/news\/googles-finland-data-center-pioneers-new-seawater-cooling\/ Google's Finland datacenter takes in cold seawater and uses it to cool the fresh water that's then used to cool the computers. They then mix the slightly-warmed seawater with other cold seawater before returning it to the ocean.","human_ref_B":"AH! a question in an area of my expertise. There are at least three variants of water-consuming datacenter cooling. 1. The datacenter captures the hot air coming out of servers. Radiators with cool water circulating through them are used to cool this hot air. The water is heated while the air is cooled. That water is then pumped outside and poured over big fiber boards while a fan blows outside air past them. This evaporates some of the water, and the remainder is cooled by the evaporation. The remaining cooled water is pumped back inside the datacenter and the process repeats. 2. The datacenter uses industrial air conditioning units called CRACs, which have radiators outside the datacenter. The air conditioner compresses a gas, heating it up, and then pumps it through the radiator while a fan blows outside air across the radiators. Once the compressed gas is cooled, it is brought back into the datacenter and allowed to expand, which makes it cold. Air inside the datacenter is blown over a different radiator filled with this cold gas, cooling the datacenter air. On very hot days, the CRAC sprays the outside radiators with water, which evaporates on the radiator and cools it more than the air alone would. 3. The datacenter brings in outside air directly to keep the inside air cool. On hot days, the datacenter's systems will spray a mist of water into the air on its way in. That mist evaporates quickly and cools the outside air further before it reaches the datacenter floor.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":18090.0,"score_ratio":27.25} {"post_id":"yzlsoj","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why do datacenters continuously use more water instead of recycling the same water in a closed loop system?","c_root_id_A":"ix0pg35","c_root_id_B":"ix2e6u1","created_at_utc_A":1668891903,"created_at_utc_B":1668921904,"score_A":2,"score_B":109,"human_ref_A":"Depending on system, either evaporation is occurring- or the transfer of heat processes are causing minerals and particulates in water to eventually build up to the point where it will damage or corrode equipment. In either case, that build up must be discharged and treated. New water brought in. Repeat","human_ref_B":"AH! a question in an area of my expertise. There are at least three variants of water-consuming datacenter cooling. 1. The datacenter captures the hot air coming out of servers. Radiators with cool water circulating through them are used to cool this hot air. The water is heated while the air is cooled. That water is then pumped outside and poured over big fiber boards while a fan blows outside air past them. This evaporates some of the water, and the remainder is cooled by the evaporation. The remaining cooled water is pumped back inside the datacenter and the process repeats. 2. The datacenter uses industrial air conditioning units called CRACs, which have radiators outside the datacenter. The air conditioner compresses a gas, heating it up, and then pumps it through the radiator while a fan blows outside air across the radiators. Once the compressed gas is cooled, it is brought back into the datacenter and allowed to expand, which makes it cold. Air inside the datacenter is blown over a different radiator filled with this cold gas, cooling the datacenter air. On very hot days, the CRAC sprays the outside radiators with water, which evaporates on the radiator and cools it more than the air alone would. 3. The datacenter brings in outside air directly to keep the inside air cool. On hot days, the datacenter's systems will spray a mist of water into the air on its way in. That mist evaporates quickly and cools the outside air further before it reaches the datacenter floor.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":30001.0,"score_ratio":54.5} {"post_id":"yzlsoj","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why do datacenters continuously use more water instead of recycling the same water in a closed loop system?","c_root_id_A":"ix0pg35","c_root_id_B":"ix11jjw","created_at_utc_A":1668891903,"created_at_utc_B":1668897312,"score_A":2,"score_B":22,"human_ref_A":"Depending on system, either evaporation is occurring- or the transfer of heat processes are causing minerals and particulates in water to eventually build up to the point where it will damage or corrode equipment. In either case, that build up must be discharged and treated. New water brought in. Repeat","human_ref_B":"I know of a building in NYC that used the water from the data center (lots of mainframes) to heat the offices in the building next door. Mostly a closed system as I understand it. In the winter it was great for them. In the summertime they tried some scheme to use the hot water to generate supplimental electricity for the AC systems. Didn't work out. By 2012 the whole building has been renovated and no longer has that model. The datacenter were moved out of the area post 9\/11.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5409.0,"score_ratio":11.0} {"post_id":"yzlsoj","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why do datacenters continuously use more water instead of recycling the same water in a closed loop system?","c_root_id_A":"ix1ffxs","c_root_id_B":"ix1l32h","created_at_utc_A":1668903814,"created_at_utc_B":1668906542,"score_A":4,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"They're not *using up* the water. They're using it to cool their machines, and returning it to the environment slightly warmer than it was before. Here's an example of a relatively modern datacenter cooling setup \u2014 not the newest (it's from ~10 years ago), but one that uses seawater, which is somewhat unusual. https:\/\/www.datacenterdynamics.com\/en\/news\/googles-finland-data-center-pioneers-new-seawater-cooling\/ Google's Finland datacenter takes in cold seawater and uses it to cool the fresh water that's then used to cool the computers. They then mix the slightly-warmed seawater with other cold seawater before returning it to the ocean.","human_ref_B":"I don't know of a data center that uses open loop cooling (dumping heated water). What I do know of is evap cooling. In this case, you have a closed loop, with radiators outside. Those radiators operate passively (well, with fans) for most of the time. You can spray water on the radiators, and the evaporating water will help cool down the loop. (In these systems there are still usually chillers, to bring the water down to the correct temperature, but letting radiators do most of the work ahead of time is more energy efficient) What I could see working, though I don't know of any facilities that do this, is having river water or ocean water pumped over those radiators. Similar to nuclear plants. In this case the liquid doing the cooling is still in a closed loop, but is using another body of water to bring it's temperature down. Depending on the location, chillers may not be needed either.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2728.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"yzlsoj","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why do datacenters continuously use more water instead of recycling the same water in a closed loop system?","c_root_id_A":"ix1l32h","c_root_id_B":"ix0pg35","created_at_utc_A":1668906542,"created_at_utc_B":1668891903,"score_A":6,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I don't know of a data center that uses open loop cooling (dumping heated water). What I do know of is evap cooling. In this case, you have a closed loop, with radiators outside. Those radiators operate passively (well, with fans) for most of the time. You can spray water on the radiators, and the evaporating water will help cool down the loop. (In these systems there are still usually chillers, to bring the water down to the correct temperature, but letting radiators do most of the work ahead of time is more energy efficient) What I could see working, though I don't know of any facilities that do this, is having river water or ocean water pumped over those radiators. Similar to nuclear plants. In this case the liquid doing the cooling is still in a closed loop, but is using another body of water to bring it's temperature down. Depending on the location, chillers may not be needed either.","human_ref_B":"Depending on system, either evaporation is occurring- or the transfer of heat processes are causing minerals and particulates in water to eventually build up to the point where it will damage or corrode equipment. In either case, that build up must be discharged and treated. New water brought in. Repeat","labels":1,"seconds_difference":14639.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"yzlsoj","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why do datacenters continuously use more water instead of recycling the same water in a closed loop system?","c_root_id_A":"ix1ffxs","c_root_id_B":"ix0pg35","created_at_utc_A":1668903814,"created_at_utc_B":1668891903,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"They're not *using up* the water. They're using it to cool their machines, and returning it to the environment slightly warmer than it was before. Here's an example of a relatively modern datacenter cooling setup \u2014 not the newest (it's from ~10 years ago), but one that uses seawater, which is somewhat unusual. https:\/\/www.datacenterdynamics.com\/en\/news\/googles-finland-data-center-pioneers-new-seawater-cooling\/ Google's Finland datacenter takes in cold seawater and uses it to cool the fresh water that's then used to cool the computers. They then mix the slightly-warmed seawater with other cold seawater before returning it to the ocean.","human_ref_B":"Depending on system, either evaporation is occurring- or the transfer of heat processes are causing minerals and particulates in water to eventually build up to the point where it will damage or corrode equipment. In either case, that build up must be discharged and treated. New water brought in. Repeat","labels":1,"seconds_difference":11911.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"uglv1b","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"ELi5: how can a single fertlized egg\/cell produce a full body with so many different cell types? are we talking about extracting a compressed file or making factories which has different products to produce?","c_root_id_A":"i70czq7","c_root_id_B":"i70ct6n","created_at_utc_A":1651485173,"created_at_utc_B":1651485014,"score_A":6,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Your DNA has the instructions for every cell type stored on it. Depending on what cell type is needed your body uses certain parts of it. Your DNA is compressed in a literal sense, not in a computer file sense. It's basicly rolled up in it's base form. The cells can unroll specific parts of it to read certain data. Genes can also be turned on or off by placing certain markers on it. This way what information is read is regulated by your body and it can produce all these cells.","human_ref_B":"Tl;dr it's a bit of both. Or you can watch this It's a bit of both. Almost all your cell contains all the data needed to make a perfect biological clone of you, if the cloning machine was perfect. The same happens with the egg. It has all the data in it, now it needs to build it. So, taking all the nutrition from the mother, it starts building. The cells divide and take on different roles. There are roles like becoming organs, or signaling other groups of cells on what to do and what not to do. So some become factories which will make products like blood and stuff, others will become the organs themselves.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":159.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"uglv1b","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"ELi5: how can a single fertlized egg\/cell produce a full body with so many different cell types? are we talking about extracting a compressed file or making factories which has different products to produce?","c_root_id_A":"i71js6l","c_root_id_B":"i70ct6n","created_at_utc_A":1651507816,"created_at_utc_B":1651485014,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"The mechanism you're looking for is transcription factors. Depending on what signals a cell receives from outside, it may transcribe a protein that binds to different sections of DNA, either enhancing or inhibiting transcription of that piece of DNA. This is an area of research that will probably take decades to fully unravel. We don't know how many kinds of tissue there are in your body. Thousands? Every one of them has gone through multiple rounds of differentiation. (Except egg cells; obviously they don't differentiate.) My favorite example is FOXP2, a gene that's found in many species, but the human version is unique. We've known for a long time that FOXP2 has something to do with our ability to make language, but it wasn't until fairly recently that we knew how. I was about to write a bunch of stuff about the history of what we've learned about this transcription factor, but the Wikipedia article says it all better than I ever could. This is a *very* deep wiki-hole, so if you're susceptible to those, be careful. :-) Happy learning!","human_ref_B":"Tl;dr it's a bit of both. Or you can watch this It's a bit of both. Almost all your cell contains all the data needed to make a perfect biological clone of you, if the cloning machine was perfect. The same happens with the egg. It has all the data in it, now it needs to build it. So, taking all the nutrition from the mother, it starts building. The cells divide and take on different roles. There are roles like becoming organs, or signaling other groups of cells on what to do and what not to do. So some become factories which will make products like blood and stuff, others will become the organs themselves.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":22802.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"uglv1b","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"ELi5: how can a single fertlized egg\/cell produce a full body with so many different cell types? are we talking about extracting a compressed file or making factories which has different products to produce?","c_root_id_A":"i71js6l","c_root_id_B":"i70ip4w","created_at_utc_A":1651507816,"created_at_utc_B":1651489636,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"The mechanism you're looking for is transcription factors. Depending on what signals a cell receives from outside, it may transcribe a protein that binds to different sections of DNA, either enhancing or inhibiting transcription of that piece of DNA. This is an area of research that will probably take decades to fully unravel. We don't know how many kinds of tissue there are in your body. Thousands? Every one of them has gone through multiple rounds of differentiation. (Except egg cells; obviously they don't differentiate.) My favorite example is FOXP2, a gene that's found in many species, but the human version is unique. We've known for a long time that FOXP2 has something to do with our ability to make language, but it wasn't until fairly recently that we knew how. I was about to write a bunch of stuff about the history of what we've learned about this transcription factor, but the Wikipedia article says it all better than I ever could. This is a *very* deep wiki-hole, so if you're susceptible to those, be careful. :-) Happy learning!","human_ref_B":"Factory works surprisingly well as an analogy. Think of your DNA as the blueprint for your entire body. The fertilized embryo is essentially a command centre that tells the factory how to expand. We want to build a human that does human things, so walking, breathing, thinking, and for that we need legs, lungs and brains. So the command centre \"expands\" (duplicates) and gives a copy of the blueprint to the duplicate and tells it 'go and build a leg' or brain etc. Essentially it is told to only work on a specific section of the blueprint. The rest is crossed out and none of its concern. The command centre working on the leg eventually splits into command centres working on the veins, the muscles, the skin, etc, much like how in a building multiple different companies will install water and electricity, and the entire building itself of course. Nevertheless, all of this starts with one command centre and relies on this one blueprint: Your DNA The command centres are your so-called stem cells. Now, I should note that this seems to imply that there is one queen stem cell from which you grew, a central command centre, but this is not the case. Instead of giving out tasks which slowly grow independently, the first phases of your life you are just a clump of stem cells that can be anything.each of those then proceeds to become the sections of your body and lose their versatility, but no original stem cell can be pointed out.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":18180.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"xtofw1","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why do smaller aircraft tend to have their engines on their fuselage while larger ones tend to have them on their wings?","c_root_id_A":"iqqv0x0","c_root_id_B":"iqqwa8s","created_at_utc_A":1664716470,"created_at_utc_B":1664717111,"score_A":6,"score_B":141,"human_ref_A":"Ground clearance. Larger landing gear weighs more. Small planes can't carry as much weight without massive losses to fuel efficiency and range. So they have smaller, size appropriate landing gear. This puts them too low to the ground for under wing engine placement.","human_ref_B":"Smaller aircraft often only need one engine and you want that engine in the center of your aircraft. Larger aircraft will often need two engines or more and so you can't put two engine in the center, that's just too big and wouldn't leave you enough place for the pilot. Usually in that case, they will put those engine either under the wing or behind the aircraft on both side (called Aft mounted- engine). Each solution have their pros and cons, but usually winged-mounted are preferred because the engine are close to the center of mass of the aircraft and they are easier to access for maintenance. One of the disadvantage is that you are limited in the size of your engine by the clearance under the wing.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":641.0,"score_ratio":23.5} {"post_id":"xtofw1","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why do smaller aircraft tend to have their engines on their fuselage while larger ones tend to have them on their wings?","c_root_id_A":"iqqzhp9","c_root_id_B":"iqqv0x0","created_at_utc_A":1664718620,"created_at_utc_B":1664716470,"score_A":15,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Really just depends on the aircraft and what the engineers intended it\u2019s use to be. There are many smaller aircraft with engines mounted on the wings. And there are also many larger aircraft with a single engine mounted on the fuselage. To answer your question. Wether it\u2019s mounted on the fuselage or the wings, its just because that\u2019s just the most logical place to put the engine(s) for that aircrafts intended use in terms of aerodynamics, weight distribution, power, aircraft design, etc\u2026","human_ref_B":"Ground clearance. Larger landing gear weighs more. Small planes can't carry as much weight without massive losses to fuel efficiency and range. So they have smaller, size appropriate landing gear. This puts them too low to the ground for under wing engine placement.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2150.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"y610e5","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.74,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old- Do muscles grow and physically appear during a workout or do the effects take place in the time afterwards? I\u2019ve wondered this for so long but don\u2019t know how to articulate it well and also feel like it\u2019s potentially a very dumb question but thought this would be a good place to ask it. Essentially- while I\u2019m working out, are the muscles building themselves during that time or is it a situation where you\u2019d be able to see the effects afterwards like in the coming days? I hope that makes sense.","c_root_id_A":"isnyf7u","c_root_id_B":"isn1u18","created_at_utc_A":1666008875,"created_at_utc_B":1665983393,"score_A":9,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"You're actually gaining a pound or so of muscle mass every day, unfortunately you're losing about the same amount as well. So on a typical day you get +100 muscle, and also -100 muscle, meaning you're +- 0. Diet and exercise can change these values, so by regularly exercising you might get +103 and -100 every day, meaning you gain +3. This is a slow process, you do get +3 every day, but it might take a total of 200 before there's a visible difference. The more muscle mass you have, the more you'll also lose, so after a while, while still exercising regularly you'll reach a point where you get +103 and -103 every day, and you'll have to make your workout harder somehow in order to grow further. My numbers are of course completely made up, but the point is that it's a constant tug of war, 24\/7.","human_ref_B":"Exercise is, in a nutshell, the process of literally tearing yourself down to rebuild yourself back up. As you work out, your muscles are being destroyed. That\u2019s how it\u2019s supposed to work though. They\u2019re built this way so your body can replace the broken weaker, smaller fibres in your muscles with better, stronger, and thicker fibres. Due to the injury you\u2019re sustaining + the actual activity you\u2019re doing which requires more oxygen = more blood in muscles to feed the activity. More blood swells the muscles hence the \u201cpump\u201d you get during the routine. Afterwards your muscles will be sore because they are now effectively an internal wound of sorts. Again, designed for this. They then begin rebuilding within an hour or so of stopping your session at the gym or whatever. Just as any wound would. The human body is an amazing system of countless smaller systems acting in sync to effectively create one combined unit. Hope this helps.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":25482.0,"score_ratio":1.125} {"post_id":"y610e5","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.74,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old- Do muscles grow and physically appear during a workout or do the effects take place in the time afterwards? I\u2019ve wondered this for so long but don\u2019t know how to articulate it well and also feel like it\u2019s potentially a very dumb question but thought this would be a good place to ask it. Essentially- while I\u2019m working out, are the muscles building themselves during that time or is it a situation where you\u2019d be able to see the effects afterwards like in the coming days? I hope that makes sense.","c_root_id_A":"ismzi5k","c_root_id_B":"isnyf7u","created_at_utc_A":1665981854,"created_at_utc_B":1666008875,"score_A":2,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"The body is constantly growing\/replacing itself. When you work out it increases this growth, and for some time after. During your workout it won't have any significant impact. Any growth during the exercise is probably just due to swelling or increased bloodflow.","human_ref_B":"You're actually gaining a pound or so of muscle mass every day, unfortunately you're losing about the same amount as well. So on a typical day you get +100 muscle, and also -100 muscle, meaning you're +- 0. Diet and exercise can change these values, so by regularly exercising you might get +103 and -100 every day, meaning you gain +3. This is a slow process, you do get +3 every day, but it might take a total of 200 before there's a visible difference. The more muscle mass you have, the more you'll also lose, so after a while, while still exercising regularly you'll reach a point where you get +103 and -103 every day, and you'll have to make your workout harder somehow in order to grow further. My numbers are of course completely made up, but the point is that it's a constant tug of war, 24\/7.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":27021.0,"score_ratio":4.5} {"post_id":"y610e5","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.74,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old- Do muscles grow and physically appear during a workout or do the effects take place in the time afterwards? I\u2019ve wondered this for so long but don\u2019t know how to articulate it well and also feel like it\u2019s potentially a very dumb question but thought this would be a good place to ask it. Essentially- while I\u2019m working out, are the muscles building themselves during that time or is it a situation where you\u2019d be able to see the effects afterwards like in the coming days? I hope that makes sense.","c_root_id_A":"ismzi5k","c_root_id_B":"isn1u18","created_at_utc_A":1665981854,"created_at_utc_B":1665983393,"score_A":2,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"The body is constantly growing\/replacing itself. When you work out it increases this growth, and for some time after. During your workout it won't have any significant impact. Any growth during the exercise is probably just due to swelling or increased bloodflow.","human_ref_B":"Exercise is, in a nutshell, the process of literally tearing yourself down to rebuild yourself back up. As you work out, your muscles are being destroyed. That\u2019s how it\u2019s supposed to work though. They\u2019re built this way so your body can replace the broken weaker, smaller fibres in your muscles with better, stronger, and thicker fibres. Due to the injury you\u2019re sustaining + the actual activity you\u2019re doing which requires more oxygen = more blood in muscles to feed the activity. More blood swells the muscles hence the \u201cpump\u201d you get during the routine. Afterwards your muscles will be sore because they are now effectively an internal wound of sorts. Again, designed for this. They then begin rebuilding within an hour or so of stopping your session at the gym or whatever. Just as any wound would. The human body is an amazing system of countless smaller systems acting in sync to effectively create one combined unit. Hope this helps.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1539.0,"score_ratio":4.0} {"post_id":"qwqdp1","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How do power grids actually work? I get the idea that power is generated by large power plants that send through various transformers until it gets to my house. What I don\u2019t understand is how the power grid knows electricity is being used. When my solar panels send electricity back to the grid, where does it go? Do the power plants constantly adjust production based on momentary demand or is there a such thing as power storage for the grid?","c_root_id_A":"hl4iqqf","c_root_id_B":"hl4hdks","created_at_utc_A":1637246674,"created_at_utc_B":1637246073,"score_A":11,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"A power grid is often referred to as an \"infinite bus.\" You have numerous generation sources and numerous loads using the energy. The contribution of any particular generator has little effect on the grid as a whole. However, the grid cannot store energy. (There are large-scale battery storage projects coming on line, but those still function as either a generation source or as a load when the batteries are charging.) The total amount of energy input to the grid must equal the energy being used. Therefore, you have several classes of generation, including base load (usually big coal or nuclear plants), load followers (large or small plants that are ramped up or down to match the demand), and peakers (usually smaller stations that can be put on line in a hurry to match peak demand.) Hydropower is especially useful in maintaining balance as it can be ramped up and down dramatically in a short time. A system must have enough \"spinning reserve\" to match any short-term spikes in load. If the demand exceeds generation and no more generation can be ramped up or brought on line, the frequency on the grid is affected and the system can become unstable in some situations. Worst-case scenario is generation starts tripping off-line and parts of the grid become \"islanded.\" Sections can be shed off to preserve the health of the grid as a whole. Most modern grids have a balancing authority, such as an Independent System Operator (ISO), which procures and schedules generation during the day in anticipation of the estimated load during different times of day.","human_ref_B":"The system is designed so power flows to where it\u2019s needed automatically, without computer or human intervention. When an ordinary home flips on a light, extra current flows, which increases the \u201cdrag\u201d on all the generators on the network at once. The generators will all gradually slow down over time \u2014 just a tiny bit\u2014 until a human or computer at the power plant notices and adds fuel or opens a water valve to bring the generators back up to speed. In the standard power grid, there is no storage except on the kinetic energy of the spinning turbines. The system is self-balancing on timescales of seconds, and power plants regulate their output to match demand over minutes to days. Of course there are exceptions these days. When your solar panel pumps power onto the grid, it speeds up all those generators, so their owners have to burn less fuel to keep them running. Your power doesn\u2019t have a particular destination: it feeds the whole grid at once, just like the big generators do. But even today, all the Tesla Powerwalls in the country don\u2019t amount to a significant amount of battery storage. Some people have expressed concern that if we replace too many spinning turbines with solar panels, the grid will have less \u201cinertia\u201d and be less stable and harder to manage. But batteries can help with that problem.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":601.0,"score_ratio":1.1} {"post_id":"qwqdp1","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How do power grids actually work? I get the idea that power is generated by large power plants that send through various transformers until it gets to my house. What I don\u2019t understand is how the power grid knows electricity is being used. When my solar panels send electricity back to the grid, where does it go? Do the power plants constantly adjust production based on momentary demand or is there a such thing as power storage for the grid?","c_root_id_A":"hl4iqqf","c_root_id_B":"hl4hhx3","created_at_utc_A":1637246674,"created_at_utc_B":1637246127,"score_A":11,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"A power grid is often referred to as an \"infinite bus.\" You have numerous generation sources and numerous loads using the energy. The contribution of any particular generator has little effect on the grid as a whole. However, the grid cannot store energy. (There are large-scale battery storage projects coming on line, but those still function as either a generation source or as a load when the batteries are charging.) The total amount of energy input to the grid must equal the energy being used. Therefore, you have several classes of generation, including base load (usually big coal or nuclear plants), load followers (large or small plants that are ramped up or down to match the demand), and peakers (usually smaller stations that can be put on line in a hurry to match peak demand.) Hydropower is especially useful in maintaining balance as it can be ramped up and down dramatically in a short time. A system must have enough \"spinning reserve\" to match any short-term spikes in load. If the demand exceeds generation and no more generation can be ramped up or brought on line, the frequency on the grid is affected and the system can become unstable in some situations. Worst-case scenario is generation starts tripping off-line and parts of the grid become \"islanded.\" Sections can be shed off to preserve the health of the grid as a whole. Most modern grids have a balancing authority, such as an Independent System Operator (ISO), which procures and schedules generation during the day in anticipation of the estimated load during different times of day.","human_ref_B":"There are measurement devices on the grid. Primarily, the grid is supposed to run off a fixed frequency (50Hz or 60Hz depending on country). At the grid level, an over consumption of power will naturally cause the frequency to drop and an over supply will cause the frequency to increase. The power generators and grid companies monitor this to adjust demand to supply. As of today, there isn't many good ways to store a great deal of excess power generated. There are pumped hydro plants (fairly rare) and some areas are deploying battery storage (even rarer, very expensive) These have very limited capacity (probably just a few hours of demand at best). In general the utilities have to adjust supply to demand based on monitoring the system. There is a very huge and complex system that operates in unusual circumstances - such as an unexpected decrease in supply (a major generator goes down). Each grid usually have some peaking plants - usually gas fired power plants that can be turned on and off fairly quickly in response to demand. Grids can (usually) borrow power from each other for relatively minor problems over short periods and in major incidents, grid operators will organize rolling blackouts or brownouts to reduce demand.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":547.0,"score_ratio":5.5} {"post_id":"q9jxf9","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.67,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why exactly are back pains so common as people age? Why is it such a common thing, what exactly causes it? (What can a human do to ensure the least chances they get it later in their life?)","c_root_id_A":"hgx1nwu","c_root_id_B":"hgwiks3","created_at_utc_A":1634425628,"created_at_utc_B":1634417009,"score_A":15,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"I had multiple back spasms in my lower back aged 24 as a result of a bulged disc, painful as fuck rendering me paralysed for up to 30mins each time. Imagine a leg muscle cramp, but at the base of your spine whilst supporting all the weight of your upper body at the same time. I'm 6ft2 and a pretty big guy, they recommended physio to strengthen my core but I found that boring. Instead, I began swimming from which I got to lose weight, exercise with minimal impact on my body, stretch my body (back stroke works wonders for stretching out your spine), build core strength (butterfly, front crawl and breaststroke all require your core to be engaged whilst staying horizontal in the pool). Since swimming 3 years ago: I barely get any back pain, and certainly no spasms for the past 3 years, it's become like therapy for me in that it relieves any work stress, it's a work out (away from pollution, noise, people, cars, traffic, technology) and it tires me out so I sleep incredibly well and best of all, I never have any sore muscles to the point it affects any day to day activities. Just to be on the safe side, I get a monthly deep tissue massage to keep my neck muscles\/shoulder muscles and legs loose (can tighten from swimming). I feel like a new born baby 90% of the time even though my job requires me to sit around 6 hours a day at the desk.","human_ref_B":"Basically time and pressure, ie age and gravity..As you age, your discs start to degenerate and shrink causing the vertebrae to become closer together, which is one reason why some people \"shrink\" in height as they age..everyone's discs degenerate at a different rate and severity.. Nerve roots pass between open spaces on each side of the vertebrae and those open spaces can become smaller in size and compress the nerves due to the disc space becoming shorter..In turn, causing pain or other symptoms depending at which disc level degeneration is occurring.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8619.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"q9jxf9","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.67,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why exactly are back pains so common as people age? Why is it such a common thing, what exactly causes it? (What can a human do to ensure the least chances they get it later in their life?)","c_root_id_A":"hgwjbxp","c_root_id_B":"hgx1nwu","created_at_utc_A":1634417333,"created_at_utc_B":1634425628,"score_A":2,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"The spine is SUPER complicated.... there's a whole lot going on in there, and every little vertebrae has at least a few little pads made of cartilage that help everything move smoothly... like tires or brakes on a car, these cushions wear down over time and can make the spine move in weird ways that will cause bones to pinch and rubs against nerves.... that hurts pretty bad when that happens. Stretching, good posture, and proper diet are all good ways to take care of your spine (and your body in general) If you already have back pain, then there are some super smart doctors that have invented ways to rebuild parts of your spine... often by fusing two or vertebrae together so they don't move weird anymore...","human_ref_B":"I had multiple back spasms in my lower back aged 24 as a result of a bulged disc, painful as fuck rendering me paralysed for up to 30mins each time. Imagine a leg muscle cramp, but at the base of your spine whilst supporting all the weight of your upper body at the same time. I'm 6ft2 and a pretty big guy, they recommended physio to strengthen my core but I found that boring. Instead, I began swimming from which I got to lose weight, exercise with minimal impact on my body, stretch my body (back stroke works wonders for stretching out your spine), build core strength (butterfly, front crawl and breaststroke all require your core to be engaged whilst staying horizontal in the pool). Since swimming 3 years ago: I barely get any back pain, and certainly no spasms for the past 3 years, it's become like therapy for me in that it relieves any work stress, it's a work out (away from pollution, noise, people, cars, traffic, technology) and it tires me out so I sleep incredibly well and best of all, I never have any sore muscles to the point it affects any day to day activities. Just to be on the safe side, I get a monthly deep tissue massage to keep my neck muscles\/shoulder muscles and legs loose (can tighten from swimming). I feel like a new born baby 90% of the time even though my job requires me to sit around 6 hours a day at the desk.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8295.0,"score_ratio":7.5} {"post_id":"xhp8mm","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why are ingrown toenails so common but not ingrown fingernails?","c_root_id_A":"ioysmw9","c_root_id_B":"ioyxds5","created_at_utc_A":1663528996,"created_at_utc_B":1663530708,"score_A":7,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"Shoes, mostly. Also, toenails are harder to cut properly, and because they grow more slowly than fingernails you don't notice a problem.","human_ref_B":"Shoes. We don\u2019t bind our fingers. Shoes squeeze our toes together and the nails can dig into the skin. Shoes also put pressure on the matrix and cause nails to grow with a stronger curvature. Also probably because we are standing on our feet which puts tremendous pressure on these tissues and may squeeze the lateral nail folds into the nail. photo of shoes","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1712.0,"score_ratio":1.4285714286} {"post_id":"u7qpsa","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: What does it mean for a bomber plane to be nuclear weapons capable? Is dropping nukes that different from dropping conventional bombs?","c_root_id_A":"i5gk969","c_root_id_B":"i5gei8i","created_at_utc_A":1650446147,"created_at_utc_B":1650441140,"score_A":4147,"score_B":766,"human_ref_A":"Nuclear capable aircraft are designed, equipped, and certified to deliver nuclear weapons. Physically, they have additional equipment to safeguard the weapons. For US aircraft, the system is called AMAC, which interfaces with PAL: * **AMAC (Aircraft Monitoring and Control)**: the system that performs \"inflight monitoring and control of nuclear weapons, such as nuclear weapons safing, arming, enabling, disabling, and fuzing functions.\" * **PAL** **(Permissive Action Link)**: the system that enforces the correct \"launch codes\" input to arm or launch the weapon For example the F-35 is design certified for nuclear weapons, but if a particular F-35 doesn't have AMAC installed then it cannot actually carry them.","human_ref_B":"physically, kinda. Bombs are not 'standard', in that any bomb can fit into any mount point. Many will fit into most, but each needs their own specific mount point, and hookup (for sensors if guided, weight-appropriate release etc) so an aircraft needs an appropriate mount. Politically, VERY MUCH SO. Nuclear weapons are very strictly regulated, in their use. they need specific authorization codes, they need multi-person release authorization. So most of the time, the thing that makes them 'nuclear weapon capable', is the authentication gear to meet the multiple codes needed to release it, and to enable the weapon by turning off the failsafes.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5007.0,"score_ratio":5.4138381201} {"post_id":"u7qpsa","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: What does it mean for a bomber plane to be nuclear weapons capable? Is dropping nukes that different from dropping conventional bombs?","c_root_id_A":"i5gjt4b","c_root_id_B":"i5gk969","created_at_utc_A":1650445761,"created_at_utc_B":1650446147,"score_A":182,"score_B":4147,"human_ref_A":"To be \u201cnuclear capable\u201d an aircraft has to have a specific arming system installed that the operators can control in flight. It\u2019s typically just an extra switch in the cockpit. Plus a whole bunch of other bits elsewhere that deactivate the nuclear failsafes. Mostly electronic.","human_ref_B":"Nuclear capable aircraft are designed, equipped, and certified to deliver nuclear weapons. Physically, they have additional equipment to safeguard the weapons. For US aircraft, the system is called AMAC, which interfaces with PAL: * **AMAC (Aircraft Monitoring and Control)**: the system that performs \"inflight monitoring and control of nuclear weapons, such as nuclear weapons safing, arming, enabling, disabling, and fuzing functions.\" * **PAL** **(Permissive Action Link)**: the system that enforces the correct \"launch codes\" input to arm or launch the weapon For example the F-35 is design certified for nuclear weapons, but if a particular F-35 doesn't have AMAC installed then it cannot actually carry them.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":386.0,"score_ratio":22.7857142857} {"post_id":"u7qpsa","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: What does it mean for a bomber plane to be nuclear weapons capable? Is dropping nukes that different from dropping conventional bombs?","c_root_id_A":"i5ggi2l","c_root_id_B":"i5gk969","created_at_utc_A":1650442878,"created_at_utc_B":1650446147,"score_A":28,"score_B":4147,"human_ref_A":"We have had air crashes with nuclear bombs and they didn't go off because they are not armed in till just before release. If you could do it on pylons under wings and belly would you even want to and risk a accidentally release.","human_ref_B":"Nuclear capable aircraft are designed, equipped, and certified to deliver nuclear weapons. Physically, they have additional equipment to safeguard the weapons. For US aircraft, the system is called AMAC, which interfaces with PAL: * **AMAC (Aircraft Monitoring and Control)**: the system that performs \"inflight monitoring and control of nuclear weapons, such as nuclear weapons safing, arming, enabling, disabling, and fuzing functions.\" * **PAL** **(Permissive Action Link)**: the system that enforces the correct \"launch codes\" input to arm or launch the weapon For example the F-35 is design certified for nuclear weapons, but if a particular F-35 doesn't have AMAC installed then it cannot actually carry them.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3269.0,"score_ratio":148.1071428571} {"post_id":"u7qpsa","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: What does it mean for a bomber plane to be nuclear weapons capable? Is dropping nukes that different from dropping conventional bombs?","c_root_id_A":"i5gjt4b","c_root_id_B":"i5ggi2l","created_at_utc_A":1650445761,"created_at_utc_B":1650442878,"score_A":182,"score_B":28,"human_ref_A":"To be \u201cnuclear capable\u201d an aircraft has to have a specific arming system installed that the operators can control in flight. It\u2019s typically just an extra switch in the cockpit. Plus a whole bunch of other bits elsewhere that deactivate the nuclear failsafes. Mostly electronic.","human_ref_B":"We have had air crashes with nuclear bombs and they didn't go off because they are not armed in till just before release. If you could do it on pylons under wings and belly would you even want to and risk a accidentally release.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2883.0,"score_ratio":6.5} {"post_id":"u7qpsa","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: What does it mean for a bomber plane to be nuclear weapons capable? Is dropping nukes that different from dropping conventional bombs?","c_root_id_A":"i5h085x","c_root_id_B":"i5gytd4","created_at_utc_A":1650457235,"created_at_utc_B":1650456472,"score_A":128,"score_B":54,"human_ref_A":"I worked as a munitions loader on USAF fighters and bombers, and was responsible for converting the B1B, from a nuclear capable aircraft to a non nuclear aircraft (I did all the conversion work). In short, the only real difference is in the programming of certain computers and in some cases, hardware (such as wiring....it isnt replaced or removed, but cut\/disconnected).","human_ref_B":"Adding to the technical Problems mentioned in the other comments, a Nuke is a bit stronger than other Bombs. So, to survive the following Explosion, Pilots devised the Idiot\u00b4s Loop. Or they had to use large Parachutes.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":763.0,"score_ratio":2.3703703704} {"post_id":"u7qpsa","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: What does it mean for a bomber plane to be nuclear weapons capable? Is dropping nukes that different from dropping conventional bombs?","c_root_id_A":"i5h085x","c_root_id_B":"i5ggi2l","created_at_utc_A":1650457235,"created_at_utc_B":1650442878,"score_A":128,"score_B":28,"human_ref_A":"I worked as a munitions loader on USAF fighters and bombers, and was responsible for converting the B1B, from a nuclear capable aircraft to a non nuclear aircraft (I did all the conversion work). In short, the only real difference is in the programming of certain computers and in some cases, hardware (such as wiring....it isnt replaced or removed, but cut\/disconnected).","human_ref_B":"We have had air crashes with nuclear bombs and they didn't go off because they are not armed in till just before release. If you could do it on pylons under wings and belly would you even want to and risk a accidentally release.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":14357.0,"score_ratio":4.5714285714} {"post_id":"u7qpsa","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: What does it mean for a bomber plane to be nuclear weapons capable? Is dropping nukes that different from dropping conventional bombs?","c_root_id_A":"i5ggi2l","c_root_id_B":"i5gytd4","created_at_utc_A":1650442878,"created_at_utc_B":1650456472,"score_A":28,"score_B":54,"human_ref_A":"We have had air crashes with nuclear bombs and they didn't go off because they are not armed in till just before release. If you could do it on pylons under wings and belly would you even want to and risk a accidentally release.","human_ref_B":"Adding to the technical Problems mentioned in the other comments, a Nuke is a bit stronger than other Bombs. So, to survive the following Explosion, Pilots devised the Idiot\u00b4s Loop. Or they had to use large Parachutes.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":13594.0,"score_ratio":1.9285714286} {"post_id":"zewqp9","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why do we (Anglophones) use the native language name for some countries (Costa Rica, not Rich Coast), but not for others (Germany, not Deutschland)?","c_root_id_A":"iz8wb5u","c_root_id_B":"iz8y12s","created_at_utc_A":1670406163,"created_at_utc_B":1670407731,"score_A":73,"score_B":5097,"human_ref_A":"Someone can correct me if I'm wrong about this, but I believe the reason is the following: For older, (mostly) European\/Asian countries, we had no international standards bodies and so would come up with names that were useful to us for labeling other nations. Colonialism was probably also a factor here. For newer nations we had a lot more standardization and better communication, so we just used the name we knew they called themselves.","human_ref_B":"The name a foriegn language has for another country or region is called an exonym (outside name.) Language is always evolving and sometimes the exonym evolves with the language or is borrowed from another language. English speakers call Deutschland \"Germany\" because the region near modern day Deutschland was called \"Germania\" in Latin, which means \"where the Germani live.\" And Germani basically means \"neighbor\" in Latin. Roughly similar lineage of people stayed living there and the Latin name wasn't forced to change, so the Latin name stuck in English (and Italian). However, not all Latin influenced languages used the same name. The French call Deutschland \"Allemagne\" from the name Alemmani which were a group of tribes in the area. Then, you have exonyms that a country or people wants to change. For example, modern Iran used to be called \"Persia\" in English from Greek Pers\u00eds from Old Persian name for Cyrus the Great's people. Officially the name was changed to Iran by request of one of Iran's old leaders. Iran is roughly a changed spelling of the old Iranian word \u0113r\u0101n which describes a people who lived in the area. However, during WW2, the Allies changed the name on maps back to Persia to avoid confusing it with Iraq, then it changed back to Iran, then some Iranians wanted to bring back the name Persia to connect Iran back to the old glory of the \"Persian Empire\" (and distance from the current Iranian government). Now the name Iran and Persia are both acceptable. So, for political and historic reasons, the exonym for Iran changed multiple times, often because people wanted actively to change the name for various reasons. So... Exonyms are complex. They are often transmitted across languages and history and thus morph with time like all language. But country names are also political so sometimes exonyms are officially changed by governments or people. Istanbul was Constantinople Now it's Istanbul, not Constantinople Been a long time gone, Constantinople Now it's Turkish delight on a moonlit night. Even old New York was once New Amsterdam. Why they changed it I can't say, I guess people just liked it better that way!","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1568.0,"score_ratio":69.8219178082} {"post_id":"zewqp9","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why do we (Anglophones) use the native language name for some countries (Costa Rica, not Rich Coast), but not for others (Germany, not Deutschland)?","c_root_id_A":"iz9bgec","c_root_id_B":"iz91ywi","created_at_utc_A":1670417820,"created_at_utc_B":1670411194,"score_A":239,"score_B":94,"human_ref_A":"I wondered the same thing, but about Taco Bell sauce packets. Why is one \u201cSalsa Verde\u201d and right next to it is \u201cFire Sauce?\u201d","human_ref_B":"The difference is mostly from when the English speakers first encountered a place, and the name comes from what it was being called at the time, So many European Countries there are still names from a very long time ago, Germany is one of the primary origin places of the English language and its people, so our name for it is basically ancient (predates modern languages). But Costa Rica was a Spanish Colony when the English first discovered, and that was some time in the last 500 years, And English hasn't changed that much since then (ignoring the vowel shift :P ) So we still have the Spanish colonists word for the place.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6626.0,"score_ratio":2.5425531915} {"post_id":"zewqp9","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why do we (Anglophones) use the native language name for some countries (Costa Rica, not Rich Coast), but not for others (Germany, not Deutschland)?","c_root_id_A":"iz9bgec","c_root_id_B":"iz8wb5u","created_at_utc_A":1670417820,"created_at_utc_B":1670406163,"score_A":239,"score_B":73,"human_ref_A":"I wondered the same thing, but about Taco Bell sauce packets. Why is one \u201cSalsa Verde\u201d and right next to it is \u201cFire Sauce?\u201d","human_ref_B":"Someone can correct me if I'm wrong about this, but I believe the reason is the following: For older, (mostly) European\/Asian countries, we had no international standards bodies and so would come up with names that were useful to us for labeling other nations. Colonialism was probably also a factor here. For newer nations we had a lot more standardization and better communication, so we just used the name we knew they called themselves.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":11657.0,"score_ratio":3.2739726027} {"post_id":"zewqp9","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why do we (Anglophones) use the native language name for some countries (Costa Rica, not Rich Coast), but not for others (Germany, not Deutschland)?","c_root_id_A":"iz91ywi","c_root_id_B":"iz8wb5u","created_at_utc_A":1670411194,"created_at_utc_B":1670406163,"score_A":94,"score_B":73,"human_ref_A":"The difference is mostly from when the English speakers first encountered a place, and the name comes from what it was being called at the time, So many European Countries there are still names from a very long time ago, Germany is one of the primary origin places of the English language and its people, so our name for it is basically ancient (predates modern languages). But Costa Rica was a Spanish Colony when the English first discovered, and that was some time in the last 500 years, And English hasn't changed that much since then (ignoring the vowel shift :P ) So we still have the Spanish colonists word for the place.","human_ref_B":"Someone can correct me if I'm wrong about this, but I believe the reason is the following: For older, (mostly) European\/Asian countries, we had no international standards bodies and so would come up with names that were useful to us for labeling other nations. Colonialism was probably also a factor here. For newer nations we had a lot more standardization and better communication, so we just used the name we knew they called themselves.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5031.0,"score_ratio":1.2876712329} {"post_id":"zewqp9","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why do we (Anglophones) use the native language name for some countries (Costa Rica, not Rich Coast), but not for others (Germany, not Deutschland)?","c_root_id_A":"iz9pbc2","c_root_id_B":"iz8wb5u","created_at_utc_A":1670424618,"created_at_utc_B":1670406163,"score_A":83,"score_B":73,"human_ref_A":"It's not only English doing it. If you check how European countries call each other you would find a lot of even more interesting things. Examples from my own language - Polish - is Niemcy for Germany and W\u0142ochy for Italy. We also call Hungary W\u0119gry - with both names somehow different from Magyarorszag as they call themselves. Stores behind each of those are interesting and often different, but tend to boil down to \"people of X called people from Y name Z, as they have always done it because of some historic reason, and noone cared to change it\". Then there are modern days name changes, where diplomats or tourism notices that name is problematic and starts a campaign. This recently happened in few countries, like Republic of Cabo Verde. The poor guys were called Cape Verde (Verde is green in Portuguese), which ended up being translated to specific languages, for example Wyspy Zielonego Przyl\u0105dka in Polish. Which as you can imagine may be problematic, give that it's only one of hundreds of translations from around the world. Solution worked, and they are now Cabo Verde for everyone. The other funny one is Eswatini, which used to have a name very similar to the one of small European alpine country starting with S. Until their diplomacy said enough after one too many awkward situations.","human_ref_B":"Someone can correct me if I'm wrong about this, but I believe the reason is the following: For older, (mostly) European\/Asian countries, we had no international standards bodies and so would come up with names that were useful to us for labeling other nations. Colonialism was probably also a factor here. For newer nations we had a lot more standardization and better communication, so we just used the name we knew they called themselves.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":18455.0,"score_ratio":1.1369863014} {"post_id":"zewqp9","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why do we (Anglophones) use the native language name for some countries (Costa Rica, not Rich Coast), but not for others (Germany, not Deutschland)?","c_root_id_A":"iz9pbc2","c_root_id_B":"iz9f2jr","created_at_utc_A":1670424618,"created_at_utc_B":1670419803,"score_A":83,"score_B":28,"human_ref_A":"It's not only English doing it. If you check how European countries call each other you would find a lot of even more interesting things. Examples from my own language - Polish - is Niemcy for Germany and W\u0142ochy for Italy. We also call Hungary W\u0119gry - with both names somehow different from Magyarorszag as they call themselves. Stores behind each of those are interesting and often different, but tend to boil down to \"people of X called people from Y name Z, as they have always done it because of some historic reason, and noone cared to change it\". Then there are modern days name changes, where diplomats or tourism notices that name is problematic and starts a campaign. This recently happened in few countries, like Republic of Cabo Verde. The poor guys were called Cape Verde (Verde is green in Portuguese), which ended up being translated to specific languages, for example Wyspy Zielonego Przyl\u0105dka in Polish. Which as you can imagine may be problematic, give that it's only one of hundreds of translations from around the world. Solution worked, and they are now Cabo Verde for everyone. The other funny one is Eswatini, which used to have a name very similar to the one of small European alpine country starting with S. Until their diplomacy said enough after one too many awkward situations.","human_ref_B":"Sometimes we use both languages in English. For instance if an English-speaking person is talking about Italian football, they'd talk about a game between Napoli and Roma, for instance, never between Naples and Rome. And while we use the English word when describing the Spanish city of Sevilla, we use Spanish when speaking about the football team. And then there's the weird case of FC Bayern M\u00fcnchen, which is often referred to in English as Bayern Munich. Bayern is just the German word for Bavaria, so logically we should either use the German term, or translate both words and say Bavaria Munich.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4815.0,"score_ratio":2.9642857143} {"post_id":"zewqp9","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why do we (Anglophones) use the native language name for some countries (Costa Rica, not Rich Coast), but not for others (Germany, not Deutschland)?","c_root_id_A":"izauwpn","c_root_id_B":"iza9w5l","created_at_utc_A":1670441235,"created_at_utc_B":1670433027,"score_A":51,"score_B":45,"human_ref_A":"The Navajo people were given their name by Spanish traders who associated them with the knifes, or naja\/navaja in Spanish, that they carried. Thus the name Navajo. The \u2018Navajo\u2019 people call themselves Din\u00e9","human_ref_B":"Sidenote: Many of the Native American tribe names the Europeans recorded translate to \"them\", \"the enemy\", \"other people\" and the like because when the Europeans asked \"Who are those people?\" those were the answers.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8208.0,"score_ratio":1.1333333333} {"post_id":"zewqp9","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why do we (Anglophones) use the native language name for some countries (Costa Rica, not Rich Coast), but not for others (Germany, not Deutschland)?","c_root_id_A":"izauwpn","c_root_id_B":"iz9f2jr","created_at_utc_A":1670441235,"created_at_utc_B":1670419803,"score_A":51,"score_B":28,"human_ref_A":"The Navajo people were given their name by Spanish traders who associated them with the knifes, or naja\/navaja in Spanish, that they carried. Thus the name Navajo. The \u2018Navajo\u2019 people call themselves Din\u00e9","human_ref_B":"Sometimes we use both languages in English. For instance if an English-speaking person is talking about Italian football, they'd talk about a game between Napoli and Roma, for instance, never between Naples and Rome. And while we use the English word when describing the Spanish city of Sevilla, we use Spanish when speaking about the football team. And then there's the weird case of FC Bayern M\u00fcnchen, which is often referred to in English as Bayern Munich. Bayern is just the German word for Bavaria, so logically we should either use the German term, or translate both words and say Bavaria Munich.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":21432.0,"score_ratio":1.8214285714} {"post_id":"zewqp9","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why do we (Anglophones) use the native language name for some countries (Costa Rica, not Rich Coast), but not for others (Germany, not Deutschland)?","c_root_id_A":"iz9f2jr","c_root_id_B":"iza9w5l","created_at_utc_A":1670419803,"created_at_utc_B":1670433027,"score_A":28,"score_B":45,"human_ref_A":"Sometimes we use both languages in English. For instance if an English-speaking person is talking about Italian football, they'd talk about a game between Napoli and Roma, for instance, never between Naples and Rome. And while we use the English word when describing the Spanish city of Sevilla, we use Spanish when speaking about the football team. And then there's the weird case of FC Bayern M\u00fcnchen, which is often referred to in English as Bayern Munich. Bayern is just the German word for Bavaria, so logically we should either use the German term, or translate both words and say Bavaria Munich.","human_ref_B":"Sidenote: Many of the Native American tribe names the Europeans recorded translate to \"them\", \"the enemy\", \"other people\" and the like because when the Europeans asked \"Who are those people?\" those were the answers.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":13224.0,"score_ratio":1.6071428571} {"post_id":"njw2ft","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old Saw a video of a squirrel getting rescued via CPR and it made me wonder... If CPR on humans has a specific \"cadence\" to it that is said to be best, would CPR be more efficient on an animal if the cadence was much faster (to match their normally quicker heartrate)? Thanks!","c_root_id_A":"gzaai41","c_root_id_B":"gzb5m0h","created_at_utc_A":1621872261,"created_at_utc_B":1621885640,"score_A":3,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Correct me if I'm wrong, but chest compressions are intended to mimic a heart beat while the heart itself has stopped. So yeah, performing chest compressions too slowly would be ineffective.","human_ref_B":"Yes. The cadence is quicker not just in small animals but also in infant humans, also the depth of compression is shallower and breaths are short and sharp. Just little puffs from your cheeks. #CPRSavesLives","labels":0,"seconds_difference":13379.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"wzy7jf","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why do we need to send a test rocket to the moon when we've already been there? I see all the excitement over the Artemis launch, but I'm not understanding why a test rocket is needed before sending humans to the moon when we've already done this decades ago? Why can't we go straight to sending humans back up there?","c_root_id_A":"im4zk47","c_root_id_B":"im4zys5","created_at_utc_A":1661700763,"created_at_utc_B":1661700932,"score_A":1367,"score_B":2035,"human_ref_A":"Sending a test rocket to the moon isn't to test the moon. We already know a bunch about the moon. Instead the test of sending the rocket to the moon is to test *the Artemis rocket*. The Artemis rocket hasn't been to the moon and it might have problems along the way. If that happens it is best if astronauts aren't aboard who will die in a horrible and very public way.","human_ref_B":"This particular design of rocket\u2014the \"Space Launch System\"\u2014has never flown before. First flights of rockets are typically the riskiest, because ground-level testing can never perfectly replicate the actual conditions of launch and spaceflight. If there is a fatal flaw anywhere in the system, you want to find out *before* you seal a bunch of live humans into the vehicle atop hundreds of tons of flammable propellants and send them into the vacuum of space for over a week.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":169.0,"score_ratio":1.4886613021} {"post_id":"wzy7jf","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why do we need to send a test rocket to the moon when we've already been there? I see all the excitement over the Artemis launch, but I'm not understanding why a test rocket is needed before sending humans to the moon when we've already done this decades ago? Why can't we go straight to sending humans back up there?","c_root_id_A":"im4zys5","c_root_id_B":"im4zgio","created_at_utc_A":1661700932,"created_at_utc_B":1661700721,"score_A":2035,"score_B":25,"human_ref_A":"This particular design of rocket\u2014the \"Space Launch System\"\u2014has never flown before. First flights of rockets are typically the riskiest, because ground-level testing can never perfectly replicate the actual conditions of launch and spaceflight. If there is a fatal flaw anywhere in the system, you want to find out *before* you seal a bunch of live humans into the vehicle atop hundreds of tons of flammable propellants and send them into the vacuum of space for over a week.","human_ref_B":"because we're not using the same tech, this is a new rocket, new crew module, all new shit, and while there may be a heritage of technology from saturn to SLS we still need to test and confirm everything about the rocket and the modules and mission parameters and stuff works. if we stick humans in there and launch it and something goes wrong said humans are probably dead and that puts a damper on your big space mission, not to mention your budget","labels":1,"seconds_difference":211.0,"score_ratio":81.4} {"post_id":"wzy7jf","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why do we need to send a test rocket to the moon when we've already been there? I see all the excitement over the Artemis launch, but I'm not understanding why a test rocket is needed before sending humans to the moon when we've already done this decades ago? Why can't we go straight to sending humans back up there?","c_root_id_A":"im4zgio","c_root_id_B":"im4zk47","created_at_utc_A":1661700721,"created_at_utc_B":1661700763,"score_A":25,"score_B":1367,"human_ref_A":"because we're not using the same tech, this is a new rocket, new crew module, all new shit, and while there may be a heritage of technology from saturn to SLS we still need to test and confirm everything about the rocket and the modules and mission parameters and stuff works. if we stick humans in there and launch it and something goes wrong said humans are probably dead and that puts a damper on your big space mission, not to mention your budget","human_ref_B":"Sending a test rocket to the moon isn't to test the moon. We already know a bunch about the moon. Instead the test of sending the rocket to the moon is to test *the Artemis rocket*. The Artemis rocket hasn't been to the moon and it might have problems along the way. If that happens it is best if astronauts aren't aboard who will die in a horrible and very public way.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":42.0,"score_ratio":54.68} {"post_id":"wzy7jf","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why do we need to send a test rocket to the moon when we've already been there? I see all the excitement over the Artemis launch, but I'm not understanding why a test rocket is needed before sending humans to the moon when we've already done this decades ago? Why can't we go straight to sending humans back up there?","c_root_id_A":"im5062p","c_root_id_B":"im4zgio","created_at_utc_A":1661701016,"created_at_utc_B":1661700721,"score_A":238,"score_B":25,"human_ref_A":"Because we haven't gone to the moon using *this* rocket or *this* capsule or using any of our current technology, so we want to make sure it all works the way it's supposed to before we send people on it. The mission isn't to test the moon, it's to test the rocket. We know how to go to the moon, we just want to make sure our new rocket design works the way we want it to. Think about it like this: When people buy new cars, they usually test drive the model they want before they buy it to make sure they like it and it performs the way they expect it to. Sure, they've bought and driven *a* car before, but not *this specific* car. My old Toyota isn't really that similar to this new Nissan, and I want to make sure this new Nissan does what I want it to do.","human_ref_B":"because we're not using the same tech, this is a new rocket, new crew module, all new shit, and while there may be a heritage of technology from saturn to SLS we still need to test and confirm everything about the rocket and the modules and mission parameters and stuff works. if we stick humans in there and launch it and something goes wrong said humans are probably dead and that puts a damper on your big space mission, not to mention your budget","labels":1,"seconds_difference":295.0,"score_ratio":9.52} {"post_id":"wzy7jf","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why do we need to send a test rocket to the moon when we've already been there? I see all the excitement over the Artemis launch, but I'm not understanding why a test rocket is needed before sending humans to the moon when we've already done this decades ago? Why can't we go straight to sending humans back up there?","c_root_id_A":"im50cg6","c_root_id_B":"im4zgio","created_at_utc_A":1661701089,"created_at_utc_B":1661700721,"score_A":41,"score_B":25,"human_ref_A":"Because we aren't testing the Moon. We are testing the rocket. Space is an inhospitable environment. You can't get out and walk home if something goes wrong. So we test first.","human_ref_B":"because we're not using the same tech, this is a new rocket, new crew module, all new shit, and while there may be a heritage of technology from saturn to SLS we still need to test and confirm everything about the rocket and the modules and mission parameters and stuff works. if we stick humans in there and launch it and something goes wrong said humans are probably dead and that puts a damper on your big space mission, not to mention your budget","labels":1,"seconds_difference":368.0,"score_ratio":1.64} {"post_id":"wzy7jf","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why do we need to send a test rocket to the moon when we've already been there? I see all the excitement over the Artemis launch, but I'm not understanding why a test rocket is needed before sending humans to the moon when we've already done this decades ago? Why can't we go straight to sending humans back up there?","c_root_id_A":"im5fcgz","c_root_id_B":"im57dy6","created_at_utc_A":1661707142,"created_at_utc_B":1661703960,"score_A":18,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"Lots of folks kind of being obnoxious to OP IMO. I won't answer why we built a new rocket. Why not use the old one? These things require massive industries and logistics to make. We stopped building those rockets a long time ago and so the industrial assembly line necessary doesn't really exist. What does exist are mechanisms to build more modern tech. So let's build a modern rocket that is safer, more capable, more efficient, hopefully cheaper. Got to test the new rocket though. These things are not mass produced so everything needs to be treated a potential failure especially since lives, and American space dominance is on the line.","human_ref_B":"We have absolutely lost the expertise used to build rockets that go to the moon, as opposed to the understanding used to know that they *could* be built. We need to get all of that back - and honestly it can only be gained with experience. Every single person who worked on Saturn V is dead or retired. And it would absolutely be foolish to trust lives to the expertise of their replacements without first checking it out with a drone.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3182.0,"score_ratio":1.2} {"post_id":"wzy7jf","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why do we need to send a test rocket to the moon when we've already been there? I see all the excitement over the Artemis launch, but I'm not understanding why a test rocket is needed before sending humans to the moon when we've already done this decades ago? Why can't we go straight to sending humans back up there?","c_root_id_A":"im57e42","c_root_id_B":"im5fcgz","created_at_utc_A":1661703962,"created_at_utc_B":1661707142,"score_A":13,"score_B":18,"human_ref_A":"Think about it like this: Why test a new kind of car if you can see how fast it crashes and burns with people in it?","human_ref_B":"Lots of folks kind of being obnoxious to OP IMO. I won't answer why we built a new rocket. Why not use the old one? These things require massive industries and logistics to make. We stopped building those rockets a long time ago and so the industrial assembly line necessary doesn't really exist. What does exist are mechanisms to build more modern tech. So let's build a modern rocket that is safer, more capable, more efficient, hopefully cheaper. Got to test the new rocket though. These things are not mass produced so everything needs to be treated a potential failure especially since lives, and American space dominance is on the line.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3180.0,"score_ratio":1.3846153846} {"post_id":"zpso6w","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: What about GPU Architecture makes them superior for training neural networks over CPUs? In ML\/AI, GPUs are used to train neural networks of various sizes. They are vastly superior to training on CPUs. Why is this?","c_root_id_A":"j0umq8z","c_root_id_B":"j0uuya2","created_at_utc_A":1671463789,"created_at_utc_B":1671467202,"score_A":476,"score_B":530,"human_ref_A":"To give a more high level response: CPUs are designed to be pretty good at anything, since they have to be able to run any sort of program that a user might want. They\u2019re flexible, at the cost of not being super optimized for any one particular task. GPUs are designed to be *very* good at a few specific things, mainly the kind of math used to render graphics. They can be very optimized because they only have to do certain tasks. The downside is, they\u2019re not as good at other things. The kind of math used to render graphics happens to also be the kind of math used in neural networks (mainly linear algebra, which involves processing lots of numbers at once in parallel). As a matter of fact, companies like Google have now designed even more optimized hardware specifically for neural networks, including Google\u2019s TPUs (tensor processing units; tensors are math objects used in neural nets). Like GPUs, they trade flexibility for being really really good at one thing.","human_ref_B":"Imagine you have 1 million math assignments to do, they are very simple assignments, but there are a lot that need to be done, they are not dependent on each other so they can be done on any order. You have two options, distribute them to 10 thousand people to do it in parallel or give them to 10 math experts. The experts are very fast, but hey, there are only 10 of them, the 10 thousand are more suitable for the task because they have the \"brute force\" for this. GPUs have thousands of cores, CPUs have tens.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3413.0,"score_ratio":1.1134453782} {"post_id":"zpso6w","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: What about GPU Architecture makes them superior for training neural networks over CPUs? In ML\/AI, GPUs are used to train neural networks of various sizes. They are vastly superior to training on CPUs. Why is this?","c_root_id_A":"j0uuya2","c_root_id_B":"j0ueeua","created_at_utc_A":1671467202,"created_at_utc_B":1671460080,"score_A":530,"score_B":55,"human_ref_A":"Imagine you have 1 million math assignments to do, they are very simple assignments, but there are a lot that need to be done, they are not dependent on each other so they can be done on any order. You have two options, distribute them to 10 thousand people to do it in parallel or give them to 10 math experts. The experts are very fast, but hey, there are only 10 of them, the 10 thousand are more suitable for the task because they have the \"brute force\" for this. GPUs have thousands of cores, CPUs have tens.","human_ref_B":"Each CPU core tends to have 1 floating point unit, maybe a very small number of arithmetic units, etc. While each CPU core has many operating modes, lots of features, the amount of calculation it can do is more limited as a result. A lot of the CPU's actual circuitry is dedicated to things other than actual computation, like instruction processing and event ordering. A GPU's equivalent of a CPU core has dozens, maybe hundreds, of floating point units available to it. Basically a single instruction can order all floating point units it controls to simultaneously perform the operation `x += y` or such. However each such core is more limited, and anything that can't make good use of that bulk of FPUs will seriously hurt performance. Furthermore it has generally fewer features available. GPUs tend to do best when the job involves more calculation and less decision making along the process.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7122.0,"score_ratio":9.6363636364} {"post_id":"zpso6w","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: What about GPU Architecture makes them superior for training neural networks over CPUs? In ML\/AI, GPUs are used to train neural networks of various sizes. They are vastly superior to training on CPUs. Why is this?","c_root_id_A":"j0uuya2","c_root_id_B":"j0udk6p","created_at_utc_A":1671467202,"created_at_utc_B":1671459678,"score_A":530,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"Imagine you have 1 million math assignments to do, they are very simple assignments, but there are a lot that need to be done, they are not dependent on each other so they can be done on any order. You have two options, distribute them to 10 thousand people to do it in parallel or give them to 10 math experts. The experts are very fast, but hey, there are only 10 of them, the 10 thousand are more suitable for the task because they have the \"brute force\" for this. GPUs have thousands of cores, CPUs have tens.","human_ref_B":"GPUs are optimized for tasks where you need to perform the same operation on thousands of objects at the same time because they usually do very similar calculations for every pixel of the screen. Neural network training gives you more or less this: you need to recalculate parameters for each neuron with mostly the same formula. CPUs only have a few cores so they would have to recalculate these neurons one by one instead of hundreds at a time, greatly reducing the speed.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7524.0,"score_ratio":35.3333333333} {"post_id":"zpso6w","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: What about GPU Architecture makes them superior for training neural networks over CPUs? In ML\/AI, GPUs are used to train neural networks of various sizes. They are vastly superior to training on CPUs. Why is this?","c_root_id_A":"j0ufye6","c_root_id_B":"j0uuya2","created_at_utc_A":1671460801,"created_at_utc_B":1671467202,"score_A":6,"score_B":530,"human_ref_A":"CPUs work on small chunk of data at a time. Many of its instructions rely on the previous one. You can't solve D=C*3 until you've previously solved C=B\/A GPUs work on wide Arrays of data at the same time because that's what graphics operations are. Here's a texture, here's a lighting map, smush them together and draw. If you have a set of inputs A and weights B that you need to combine together to get output array C then a CPU has to do A[0]+B[0]=C[0] then A[1]+B[1]=C[1] and slowly increment its way through the array with lots of small memory calls A GPU will take all of A, all of B, split them to how ever many processing nodes are required and solve for all of C in a single instruction step. It'll take it a bit longer than the CPU can solve A[0]+B[0] but if the array is large then you come out ahead Since neural networks get better the bigger you make them they end up benefiting from a GPU which can process thousands of weights and values at the same time. For a small neural network a big CPU may be faster because it can process each individual step faster but GPUs win out as soon as you start wanting to do hundreds or thousands of similar equations at the same time","human_ref_B":"Imagine you have 1 million math assignments to do, they are very simple assignments, but there are a lot that need to be done, they are not dependent on each other so they can be done on any order. You have two options, distribute them to 10 thousand people to do it in parallel or give them to 10 math experts. The experts are very fast, but hey, there are only 10 of them, the 10 thousand are more suitable for the task because they have the \"brute force\" for this. GPUs have thousands of cores, CPUs have tens.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6401.0,"score_ratio":88.3333333333} {"post_id":"zpso6w","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: What about GPU Architecture makes them superior for training neural networks over CPUs? In ML\/AI, GPUs are used to train neural networks of various sizes. They are vastly superior to training on CPUs. Why is this?","c_root_id_A":"j0us9gj","c_root_id_B":"j0uuya2","created_at_utc_A":1671466101,"created_at_utc_B":1671467202,"score_A":5,"score_B":530,"human_ref_A":"GPUs have thousands or even 10s of thousands of cores, vs a CPU with single digit or maybe 10s of cores. GPU cores can only do maths (vs CPU cores that need to handle all kinds of logic), but the difficult part of AI training is loads and loads of maths so a GPU handles that much faster.","human_ref_B":"Imagine you have 1 million math assignments to do, they are very simple assignments, but there are a lot that need to be done, they are not dependent on each other so they can be done on any order. You have two options, distribute them to 10 thousand people to do it in parallel or give them to 10 math experts. The experts are very fast, but hey, there are only 10 of them, the 10 thousand are more suitable for the task because they have the \"brute force\" for this. GPUs have thousands of cores, CPUs have tens.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1101.0,"score_ratio":106.0} {"post_id":"zpso6w","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: What about GPU Architecture makes them superior for training neural networks over CPUs? In ML\/AI, GPUs are used to train neural networks of various sizes. They are vastly superior to training on CPUs. Why is this?","c_root_id_A":"j0uuya2","c_root_id_B":"j0uer1i","created_at_utc_A":1671467202,"created_at_utc_B":1671460240,"score_A":530,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Imagine you have 1 million math assignments to do, they are very simple assignments, but there are a lot that need to be done, they are not dependent on each other so they can be done on any order. You have two options, distribute them to 10 thousand people to do it in parallel or give them to 10 math experts. The experts are very fast, but hey, there are only 10 of them, the 10 thousand are more suitable for the task because they have the \"brute force\" for this. GPUs have thousands of cores, CPUs have tens.","human_ref_B":"TLDR; A CPU can perform many different tasks but a GPU can perform one task very, very efficiently and that task is computation. Your CPU is designed to run different kind of tasks. It is general-purpose and flexible: you can play games, listen to music, watch a movie, access websites, all at once. But because of that, it is not the most efficient in doing any of those things. OTOH GPUs are designed for computational efficiency. (That's it.) And neural networks are made of repetitve calculations: multiply two numbers and then add another number. You do this for every neuron in the network, for thousands of cycles. For repetitive calculations such as these, GPUs can perform them in parallel on a scale vastly larger than a CPU.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6962.0,"score_ratio":132.5} {"post_id":"zpso6w","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: What about GPU Architecture makes them superior for training neural networks over CPUs? In ML\/AI, GPUs are used to train neural networks of various sizes. They are vastly superior to training on CPUs. Why is this?","c_root_id_A":"j0unny0","c_root_id_B":"j0uuya2","created_at_utc_A":1671464191,"created_at_utc_B":1671467202,"score_A":2,"score_B":530,"human_ref_A":"One key aspect of GPU architecture that makes them suitable for training neural networks is the presence of many small, efficient processing units, known as \"cores,\" which can work in parallel to perform the numerous calculations required by machine learning algorithms. This parallel processing capability allows GPUs to perform computations much faster than CPUs, which are designed to handle a single task at a time.\r \r In addition to their parallel processing capabilities, GPUs also have fast memory access and high memory bandwidth, which allows them to efficiently load and process large amounts of data. This is important for machine learning applications, which often require large amounts of data to be processed in order to train and evaluate models.","human_ref_B":"Imagine you have 1 million math assignments to do, they are very simple assignments, but there are a lot that need to be done, they are not dependent on each other so they can be done on any order. You have two options, distribute them to 10 thousand people to do it in parallel or give them to 10 math experts. The experts are very fast, but hey, there are only 10 of them, the 10 thousand are more suitable for the task because they have the \"brute force\" for this. GPUs have thousands of cores, CPUs have tens.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3011.0,"score_ratio":265.0} {"post_id":"zpso6w","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: What about GPU Architecture makes them superior for training neural networks over CPUs? In ML\/AI, GPUs are used to train neural networks of various sizes. They are vastly superior to training on CPUs. Why is this?","c_root_id_A":"j0uuya2","c_root_id_B":"j0utji5","created_at_utc_A":1671467202,"created_at_utc_B":1671466631,"score_A":530,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Imagine you have 1 million math assignments to do, they are very simple assignments, but there are a lot that need to be done, they are not dependent on each other so they can be done on any order. You have two options, distribute them to 10 thousand people to do it in parallel or give them to 10 math experts. The experts are very fast, but hey, there are only 10 of them, the 10 thousand are more suitable for the task because they have the \"brute force\" for this. GPUs have thousands of cores, CPUs have tens.","human_ref_B":"GPUs are very good at doing the same thing over and over again on a huge pile of data. Each pixel in an image (and there may be millions) will have an equation relating it to a texture and then a series of vector or matrix calculations to give a final pixel colour. The same equation is used for every pixel in an object, its just that each pixel has slightly different data (different coordinate). CPUs are very good at switching from one task to another and hopping about doing different things one after another. Training neural networks is all about doing the same calculation over and over on a ton of data In particular it's mainly matrix operations (or tensor operations, but these can be broken down into matrix operations) which is exactly what GPUs are good at.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":571.0,"score_ratio":265.0} {"post_id":"zpso6w","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: What about GPU Architecture makes them superior for training neural networks over CPUs? In ML\/AI, GPUs are used to train neural networks of various sizes. They are vastly superior to training on CPUs. Why is this?","c_root_id_A":"j0umq8z","c_root_id_B":"j0ueeua","created_at_utc_A":1671463789,"created_at_utc_B":1671460080,"score_A":476,"score_B":55,"human_ref_A":"To give a more high level response: CPUs are designed to be pretty good at anything, since they have to be able to run any sort of program that a user might want. They\u2019re flexible, at the cost of not being super optimized for any one particular task. GPUs are designed to be *very* good at a few specific things, mainly the kind of math used to render graphics. They can be very optimized because they only have to do certain tasks. The downside is, they\u2019re not as good at other things. The kind of math used to render graphics happens to also be the kind of math used in neural networks (mainly linear algebra, which involves processing lots of numbers at once in parallel). As a matter of fact, companies like Google have now designed even more optimized hardware specifically for neural networks, including Google\u2019s TPUs (tensor processing units; tensors are math objects used in neural nets). Like GPUs, they trade flexibility for being really really good at one thing.","human_ref_B":"Each CPU core tends to have 1 floating point unit, maybe a very small number of arithmetic units, etc. While each CPU core has many operating modes, lots of features, the amount of calculation it can do is more limited as a result. A lot of the CPU's actual circuitry is dedicated to things other than actual computation, like instruction processing and event ordering. A GPU's equivalent of a CPU core has dozens, maybe hundreds, of floating point units available to it. Basically a single instruction can order all floating point units it controls to simultaneously perform the operation `x += y` or such. However each such core is more limited, and anything that can't make good use of that bulk of FPUs will seriously hurt performance. Furthermore it has generally fewer features available. GPUs tend to do best when the job involves more calculation and less decision making along the process.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3709.0,"score_ratio":8.6545454545} {"post_id":"zpso6w","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: What about GPU Architecture makes them superior for training neural networks over CPUs? In ML\/AI, GPUs are used to train neural networks of various sizes. They are vastly superior to training on CPUs. Why is this?","c_root_id_A":"j0umq8z","c_root_id_B":"j0udk6p","created_at_utc_A":1671463789,"created_at_utc_B":1671459678,"score_A":476,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"To give a more high level response: CPUs are designed to be pretty good at anything, since they have to be able to run any sort of program that a user might want. They\u2019re flexible, at the cost of not being super optimized for any one particular task. GPUs are designed to be *very* good at a few specific things, mainly the kind of math used to render graphics. They can be very optimized because they only have to do certain tasks. The downside is, they\u2019re not as good at other things. The kind of math used to render graphics happens to also be the kind of math used in neural networks (mainly linear algebra, which involves processing lots of numbers at once in parallel). As a matter of fact, companies like Google have now designed even more optimized hardware specifically for neural networks, including Google\u2019s TPUs (tensor processing units; tensors are math objects used in neural nets). Like GPUs, they trade flexibility for being really really good at one thing.","human_ref_B":"GPUs are optimized for tasks where you need to perform the same operation on thousands of objects at the same time because they usually do very similar calculations for every pixel of the screen. Neural network training gives you more or less this: you need to recalculate parameters for each neuron with mostly the same formula. CPUs only have a few cores so they would have to recalculate these neurons one by one instead of hundreds at a time, greatly reducing the speed.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4111.0,"score_ratio":31.7333333333} {"post_id":"zpso6w","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: What about GPU Architecture makes them superior for training neural networks over CPUs? In ML\/AI, GPUs are used to train neural networks of various sizes. They are vastly superior to training on CPUs. Why is this?","c_root_id_A":"j0umq8z","c_root_id_B":"j0ufye6","created_at_utc_A":1671463789,"created_at_utc_B":1671460801,"score_A":476,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"To give a more high level response: CPUs are designed to be pretty good at anything, since they have to be able to run any sort of program that a user might want. They\u2019re flexible, at the cost of not being super optimized for any one particular task. GPUs are designed to be *very* good at a few specific things, mainly the kind of math used to render graphics. They can be very optimized because they only have to do certain tasks. The downside is, they\u2019re not as good at other things. The kind of math used to render graphics happens to also be the kind of math used in neural networks (mainly linear algebra, which involves processing lots of numbers at once in parallel). As a matter of fact, companies like Google have now designed even more optimized hardware specifically for neural networks, including Google\u2019s TPUs (tensor processing units; tensors are math objects used in neural nets). Like GPUs, they trade flexibility for being really really good at one thing.","human_ref_B":"CPUs work on small chunk of data at a time. Many of its instructions rely on the previous one. You can't solve D=C*3 until you've previously solved C=B\/A GPUs work on wide Arrays of data at the same time because that's what graphics operations are. Here's a texture, here's a lighting map, smush them together and draw. If you have a set of inputs A and weights B that you need to combine together to get output array C then a CPU has to do A[0]+B[0]=C[0] then A[1]+B[1]=C[1] and slowly increment its way through the array with lots of small memory calls A GPU will take all of A, all of B, split them to how ever many processing nodes are required and solve for all of C in a single instruction step. It'll take it a bit longer than the CPU can solve A[0]+B[0] but if the array is large then you come out ahead Since neural networks get better the bigger you make them they end up benefiting from a GPU which can process thousands of weights and values at the same time. For a small neural network a big CPU may be faster because it can process each individual step faster but GPUs win out as soon as you start wanting to do hundreds or thousands of similar equations at the same time","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2988.0,"score_ratio":79.3333333333} {"post_id":"zpso6w","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: What about GPU Architecture makes them superior for training neural networks over CPUs? In ML\/AI, GPUs are used to train neural networks of various sizes. They are vastly superior to training on CPUs. Why is this?","c_root_id_A":"j0umq8z","c_root_id_B":"j0uer1i","created_at_utc_A":1671463789,"created_at_utc_B":1671460240,"score_A":476,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"To give a more high level response: CPUs are designed to be pretty good at anything, since they have to be able to run any sort of program that a user might want. They\u2019re flexible, at the cost of not being super optimized for any one particular task. GPUs are designed to be *very* good at a few specific things, mainly the kind of math used to render graphics. They can be very optimized because they only have to do certain tasks. The downside is, they\u2019re not as good at other things. The kind of math used to render graphics happens to also be the kind of math used in neural networks (mainly linear algebra, which involves processing lots of numbers at once in parallel). As a matter of fact, companies like Google have now designed even more optimized hardware specifically for neural networks, including Google\u2019s TPUs (tensor processing units; tensors are math objects used in neural nets). Like GPUs, they trade flexibility for being really really good at one thing.","human_ref_B":"TLDR; A CPU can perform many different tasks but a GPU can perform one task very, very efficiently and that task is computation. Your CPU is designed to run different kind of tasks. It is general-purpose and flexible: you can play games, listen to music, watch a movie, access websites, all at once. But because of that, it is not the most efficient in doing any of those things. OTOH GPUs are designed for computational efficiency. (That's it.) And neural networks are made of repetitve calculations: multiply two numbers and then add another number. You do this for every neuron in the network, for thousands of cycles. For repetitive calculations such as these, GPUs can perform them in parallel on a scale vastly larger than a CPU.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3549.0,"score_ratio":119.0} {"post_id":"zpso6w","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: What about GPU Architecture makes them superior for training neural networks over CPUs? In ML\/AI, GPUs are used to train neural networks of various sizes. They are vastly superior to training on CPUs. Why is this?","c_root_id_A":"j0ueeua","c_root_id_B":"j0udk6p","created_at_utc_A":1671460080,"created_at_utc_B":1671459678,"score_A":55,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"Each CPU core tends to have 1 floating point unit, maybe a very small number of arithmetic units, etc. While each CPU core has many operating modes, lots of features, the amount of calculation it can do is more limited as a result. A lot of the CPU's actual circuitry is dedicated to things other than actual computation, like instruction processing and event ordering. A GPU's equivalent of a CPU core has dozens, maybe hundreds, of floating point units available to it. Basically a single instruction can order all floating point units it controls to simultaneously perform the operation `x += y` or such. However each such core is more limited, and anything that can't make good use of that bulk of FPUs will seriously hurt performance. Furthermore it has generally fewer features available. GPUs tend to do best when the job involves more calculation and less decision making along the process.","human_ref_B":"GPUs are optimized for tasks where you need to perform the same operation on thousands of objects at the same time because they usually do very similar calculations for every pixel of the screen. Neural network training gives you more or less this: you need to recalculate parameters for each neuron with mostly the same formula. CPUs only have a few cores so they would have to recalculate these neurons one by one instead of hundreds at a time, greatly reducing the speed.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":402.0,"score_ratio":3.6666666667} {"post_id":"zpso6w","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: What about GPU Architecture makes them superior for training neural networks over CPUs? In ML\/AI, GPUs are used to train neural networks of various sizes. They are vastly superior to training on CPUs. Why is this?","c_root_id_A":"j0uer1i","c_root_id_B":"j0ufye6","created_at_utc_A":1671460240,"created_at_utc_B":1671460801,"score_A":4,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"TLDR; A CPU can perform many different tasks but a GPU can perform one task very, very efficiently and that task is computation. Your CPU is designed to run different kind of tasks. It is general-purpose and flexible: you can play games, listen to music, watch a movie, access websites, all at once. But because of that, it is not the most efficient in doing any of those things. OTOH GPUs are designed for computational efficiency. (That's it.) And neural networks are made of repetitve calculations: multiply two numbers and then add another number. You do this for every neuron in the network, for thousands of cycles. For repetitive calculations such as these, GPUs can perform them in parallel on a scale vastly larger than a CPU.","human_ref_B":"CPUs work on small chunk of data at a time. Many of its instructions rely on the previous one. You can't solve D=C*3 until you've previously solved C=B\/A GPUs work on wide Arrays of data at the same time because that's what graphics operations are. Here's a texture, here's a lighting map, smush them together and draw. If you have a set of inputs A and weights B that you need to combine together to get output array C then a CPU has to do A[0]+B[0]=C[0] then A[1]+B[1]=C[1] and slowly increment its way through the array with lots of small memory calls A GPU will take all of A, all of B, split them to how ever many processing nodes are required and solve for all of C in a single instruction step. It'll take it a bit longer than the CPU can solve A[0]+B[0] but if the array is large then you come out ahead Since neural networks get better the bigger you make them they end up benefiting from a GPU which can process thousands of weights and values at the same time. For a small neural network a big CPU may be faster because it can process each individual step faster but GPUs win out as soon as you start wanting to do hundreds or thousands of similar equations at the same time","labels":0,"seconds_difference":561.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"zpso6w","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: What about GPU Architecture makes them superior for training neural networks over CPUs? In ML\/AI, GPUs are used to train neural networks of various sizes. They are vastly superior to training on CPUs. Why is this?","c_root_id_A":"j0us9gj","c_root_id_B":"j0uer1i","created_at_utc_A":1671466101,"created_at_utc_B":1671460240,"score_A":5,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"GPUs have thousands or even 10s of thousands of cores, vs a CPU with single digit or maybe 10s of cores. GPU cores can only do maths (vs CPU cores that need to handle all kinds of logic), but the difficult part of AI training is loads and loads of maths so a GPU handles that much faster.","human_ref_B":"TLDR; A CPU can perform many different tasks but a GPU can perform one task very, very efficiently and that task is computation. Your CPU is designed to run different kind of tasks. It is general-purpose and flexible: you can play games, listen to music, watch a movie, access websites, all at once. But because of that, it is not the most efficient in doing any of those things. OTOH GPUs are designed for computational efficiency. (That's it.) And neural networks are made of repetitve calculations: multiply two numbers and then add another number. You do this for every neuron in the network, for thousands of cycles. For repetitive calculations such as these, GPUs can perform them in parallel on a scale vastly larger than a CPU.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5861.0,"score_ratio":1.25} {"post_id":"zpso6w","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: What about GPU Architecture makes them superior for training neural networks over CPUs? In ML\/AI, GPUs are used to train neural networks of various sizes. They are vastly superior to training on CPUs. Why is this?","c_root_id_A":"j0unny0","c_root_id_B":"j0us9gj","created_at_utc_A":1671464191,"created_at_utc_B":1671466101,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"One key aspect of GPU architecture that makes them suitable for training neural networks is the presence of many small, efficient processing units, known as \"cores,\" which can work in parallel to perform the numerous calculations required by machine learning algorithms. This parallel processing capability allows GPUs to perform computations much faster than CPUs, which are designed to handle a single task at a time.\r \r In addition to their parallel processing capabilities, GPUs also have fast memory access and high memory bandwidth, which allows them to efficiently load and process large amounts of data. This is important for machine learning applications, which often require large amounts of data to be processed in order to train and evaluate models.","human_ref_B":"GPUs have thousands or even 10s of thousands of cores, vs a CPU with single digit or maybe 10s of cores. GPU cores can only do maths (vs CPU cores that need to handle all kinds of logic), but the difficult part of AI training is loads and loads of maths so a GPU handles that much faster.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1910.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"zpso6w","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: What about GPU Architecture makes them superior for training neural networks over CPUs? In ML\/AI, GPUs are used to train neural networks of various sizes. They are vastly superior to training on CPUs. Why is this?","c_root_id_A":"j0vf1pe","c_root_id_B":"j0unny0","created_at_utc_A":1671475080,"created_at_utc_B":1671464191,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"They're super fast at matrix multiplication. That's where you multiply an entire table of numbers with another table. This is because modern GPUs are designed apply special effects, called *pixel shaders*, to entire images in a single pass. Effectively it can multiply a whole picture with another whole picture (and pixels with surrounding pixels) to produce a whole new picture, all at once. It used to be that the pixel shaders were pre-programmed, baked into the hardware, to apply common effects like light bloom, deferred lighting or depth of field blur. But then they started having *programmable* pixel shaders, meaning developers could go in and write their own algorithms for their own special effects. It's when AI researchers got a hand of these newfangled programmable GPUs that they realized what they could do with'em. Instead of just multiplying images to special effect layers, they multiply images with other images using their own formulas. For example, they'll take thousands of pictures of bikes, then use the matrix multiplication power of GPUs to combine them into a \"map\" of what bikes should look like. Modern GPUs aren't limited to multiplying only 2D images in two dimensions; rather, they can multiply 3D \"clouds\" and beyond.","human_ref_B":"One key aspect of GPU architecture that makes them suitable for training neural networks is the presence of many small, efficient processing units, known as \"cores,\" which can work in parallel to perform the numerous calculations required by machine learning algorithms. This parallel processing capability allows GPUs to perform computations much faster than CPUs, which are designed to handle a single task at a time.\r \r In addition to their parallel processing capabilities, GPUs also have fast memory access and high memory bandwidth, which allows them to efficiently load and process large amounts of data. This is important for machine learning applications, which often require large amounts of data to be processed in order to train and evaluate models.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10889.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"zpso6w","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: What about GPU Architecture makes them superior for training neural networks over CPUs? In ML\/AI, GPUs are used to train neural networks of various sizes. They are vastly superior to training on CPUs. Why is this?","c_root_id_A":"j0utji5","c_root_id_B":"j0vf1pe","created_at_utc_A":1671466631,"created_at_utc_B":1671475080,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"GPUs are very good at doing the same thing over and over again on a huge pile of data. Each pixel in an image (and there may be millions) will have an equation relating it to a texture and then a series of vector or matrix calculations to give a final pixel colour. The same equation is used for every pixel in an object, its just that each pixel has slightly different data (different coordinate). CPUs are very good at switching from one task to another and hopping about doing different things one after another. Training neural networks is all about doing the same calculation over and over on a ton of data In particular it's mainly matrix operations (or tensor operations, but these can be broken down into matrix operations) which is exactly what GPUs are good at.","human_ref_B":"They're super fast at matrix multiplication. That's where you multiply an entire table of numbers with another table. This is because modern GPUs are designed apply special effects, called *pixel shaders*, to entire images in a single pass. Effectively it can multiply a whole picture with another whole picture (and pixels with surrounding pixels) to produce a whole new picture, all at once. It used to be that the pixel shaders were pre-programmed, baked into the hardware, to apply common effects like light bloom, deferred lighting or depth of field blur. But then they started having *programmable* pixel shaders, meaning developers could go in and write their own algorithms for their own special effects. It's when AI researchers got a hand of these newfangled programmable GPUs that they realized what they could do with'em. Instead of just multiplying images to special effect layers, they multiply images with other images using their own formulas. For example, they'll take thousands of pictures of bikes, then use the matrix multiplication power of GPUs to combine them into a \"map\" of what bikes should look like. Modern GPUs aren't limited to multiplying only 2D images in two dimensions; rather, they can multiply 3D \"clouds\" and beyond.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8449.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"we5vd7","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old : Why do they say the area around the sun is hotter than the surface itself, it doesn't make any sense. How can the empty space around the sun be millions of degrees hot and the surface only thousands ? it doesn't make any sense.","c_root_id_A":"iimeygz","c_root_id_B":"iimd771","created_at_utc_A":1659432376,"created_at_utc_B":1659430924,"score_A":158,"score_B":139,"human_ref_A":"The simple answer to your question is that we just don't know. This has been a conundrum in solar physics for several decades at this point and although we have made some way forward to resolving it, we simply do not have enough evidence to support the current hypotheses. You are correct that it doesn't make any sense because at face value, this breaks the second law of thermodynamics. The current hypotheses basically revolve around some method of transporting heat from the suns interior through something akin to a soundwave but we have struggled to identify waves propagating through the corona. The competing hypothesis involves some weird interactions with magnetic fields breaking and reconnecting. This process generates electrical currents and waves supplying heat to the corona. This is how solar flares form (we think) and it's thought that there are lots and lots of tiny solar flares occurring at all times which can provide heat to the corona.","human_ref_B":"Why do they \"say\" it's hotter than the surface? Because all measurements of temperature show that it is far hotter than the 'surface' layer. This is a piece of data, and evidence that stands on it's own. It needs no explanation to be true. It doesn't need to 'make sense' for it is a measured, observable fact. ​ That phrasing aside, you have identified a currently unsettled question in Astronomy. We don't really know, exactly, why it's hotter. It isn't empty, it's full of hydrogen and helium zipping around at high speeds. That's why it has a temperature. But it doesn't fit the simple model of things get cooler as you get further from the heat source (the core fusion). That's how the rest of the sun seems to work, so it is a very big puzzle. But the sparse plasma of the corona behaves a bit differently than the rest of the sun. Magnetic fields are more free to move through it for example, compared to the dense solar 'surface'. So waves in the magnetic field is one model they're working with. Another is interactions with solar flares, or even 'nano-flares' that serve as a way to introduce heat into the corona and crank the temperature up. ​ That said, the total energy in the hot corona is still far far lower than the energy in the surface of the sun, so we're still obeying conservation laws.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1452.0,"score_ratio":1.1366906475} {"post_id":"we5vd7","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old : Why do they say the area around the sun is hotter than the surface itself, it doesn't make any sense. How can the empty space around the sun be millions of degrees hot and the surface only thousands ? it doesn't make any sense.","c_root_id_A":"iimeygz","c_root_id_B":"iimc3o7","created_at_utc_A":1659432376,"created_at_utc_B":1659430017,"score_A":158,"score_B":19,"human_ref_A":"The simple answer to your question is that we just don't know. This has been a conundrum in solar physics for several decades at this point and although we have made some way forward to resolving it, we simply do not have enough evidence to support the current hypotheses. You are correct that it doesn't make any sense because at face value, this breaks the second law of thermodynamics. The current hypotheses basically revolve around some method of transporting heat from the suns interior through something akin to a soundwave but we have struggled to identify waves propagating through the corona. The competing hypothesis involves some weird interactions with magnetic fields breaking and reconnecting. This process generates electrical currents and waves supplying heat to the corona. This is how solar flares form (we think) and it's thought that there are lots and lots of tiny solar flares occurring at all times which can provide heat to the corona.","human_ref_B":"\u00baC has the molecules move at an avarage speed of 475m\/s, that's pretty fast, increase the avarage speed and you get a hotter gas. if put your hand in that cloud of gas and your hand is colder than it, the molecules will bump ino the molecules that make up your arm transferring energy which will in term make your molecules average speed higher making it hotter, now solid's molecules aren't free to fly around, you could say that they vibrate in place but the principle is the same. At very low gas densities near vacuum the molecules are free to fly round at very very high speeds very rarely bumping into each other If you were to measure their average speed you will find it's very high, so you say \"this gas is several thousands of degrees hot\" but if you were to put your hand in it altho the collisions in your arm would transfer a lot of energy to heat up your arm, there is way to few collisions to actually heat up your arm before you radiate all that heat away and end up freezing. soo yes the sun's corona is technically extremely hot because the average speed of the gas molecules is extremely high but it's so low density that it can't actually heat anything up because objects would radiate heat away more quickly than they would gain it.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2359.0,"score_ratio":8.3157894737} {"post_id":"we5vd7","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old : Why do they say the area around the sun is hotter than the surface itself, it doesn't make any sense. How can the empty space around the sun be millions of degrees hot and the surface only thousands ? it doesn't make any sense.","c_root_id_A":"iimbkqw","c_root_id_B":"iimeygz","created_at_utc_A":1659429583,"created_at_utc_B":1659432376,"score_A":6,"score_B":158,"human_ref_A":"The simple answer is we don't know, this is something that has plagued scientists for nearly a hundred years. Why is an are a few thousand kilometers above the surface of the sun hotter then the surface or even the core itself? So, what can it be, to simplify, it can be one out of three reasons. 1. Heat has been stored there over a long period of time. 2. Heat is generated there. 3. Both 1. and 2. are true. For 1. to be true, there must be some form of 'atmosphere' that keeps the heat in, maybe it's just that most of the heat energy is stored there, since vacuum is terrible at transmitting energy, however it's been hard to prove 100%, since it For 2. to be true, it would be magnetic waves either colliding or just something akin to friction, and unlike earth with it's north and south pole, the suns magnetic field are pretty gnarly. 3. Is probably more likely to be somewhat true, since both of these theoretically could produce the heat. I remember the parker solar probe being launched in 2018, who has a goal to find evidence to answer this question. So look forward to it for answers.","human_ref_B":"The simple answer to your question is that we just don't know. This has been a conundrum in solar physics for several decades at this point and although we have made some way forward to resolving it, we simply do not have enough evidence to support the current hypotheses. You are correct that it doesn't make any sense because at face value, this breaks the second law of thermodynamics. The current hypotheses basically revolve around some method of transporting heat from the suns interior through something akin to a soundwave but we have struggled to identify waves propagating through the corona. The competing hypothesis involves some weird interactions with magnetic fields breaking and reconnecting. This process generates electrical currents and waves supplying heat to the corona. This is how solar flares form (we think) and it's thought that there are lots and lots of tiny solar flares occurring at all times which can provide heat to the corona.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2793.0,"score_ratio":26.3333333333} {"post_id":"we5vd7","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old : Why do they say the area around the sun is hotter than the surface itself, it doesn't make any sense. How can the empty space around the sun be millions of degrees hot and the surface only thousands ? it doesn't make any sense.","c_root_id_A":"iim9p3d","c_root_id_B":"iimeygz","created_at_utc_A":1659428022,"created_at_utc_B":1659432376,"score_A":4,"score_B":158,"human_ref_A":"The empty space around the Sun isn\u2019t completely empty, it has some particles in it, which happen to be extremely hot. However, since there are so few of them, they don\u2019t effectively transfer temperature to anything. The same happens on Earth - exosphere, starting at an altitude of about 500 km, is extremely hot, at several thousand degrees.","human_ref_B":"The simple answer to your question is that we just don't know. This has been a conundrum in solar physics for several decades at this point and although we have made some way forward to resolving it, we simply do not have enough evidence to support the current hypotheses. You are correct that it doesn't make any sense because at face value, this breaks the second law of thermodynamics. The current hypotheses basically revolve around some method of transporting heat from the suns interior through something akin to a soundwave but we have struggled to identify waves propagating through the corona. The competing hypothesis involves some weird interactions with magnetic fields breaking and reconnecting. This process generates electrical currents and waves supplying heat to the corona. This is how solar flares form (we think) and it's thought that there are lots and lots of tiny solar flares occurring at all times which can provide heat to the corona.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4354.0,"score_ratio":39.5} {"post_id":"we5vd7","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old : Why do they say the area around the sun is hotter than the surface itself, it doesn't make any sense. How can the empty space around the sun be millions of degrees hot and the surface only thousands ? it doesn't make any sense.","c_root_id_A":"iimd47r","c_root_id_B":"iimeygz","created_at_utc_A":1659430855,"created_at_utc_B":1659432376,"score_A":4,"score_B":158,"human_ref_A":"If you put something small in the microwave it heats up faster than something big. If it is really small it gets really hot. The few molecules around the sun get super hot because there is nothing else to get hot. Less stuff to share all the heat.","human_ref_B":"The simple answer to your question is that we just don't know. This has been a conundrum in solar physics for several decades at this point and although we have made some way forward to resolving it, we simply do not have enough evidence to support the current hypotheses. You are correct that it doesn't make any sense because at face value, this breaks the second law of thermodynamics. The current hypotheses basically revolve around some method of transporting heat from the suns interior through something akin to a soundwave but we have struggled to identify waves propagating through the corona. The competing hypothesis involves some weird interactions with magnetic fields breaking and reconnecting. This process generates electrical currents and waves supplying heat to the corona. This is how solar flares form (we think) and it's thought that there are lots and lots of tiny solar flares occurring at all times which can provide heat to the corona.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1521.0,"score_ratio":39.5} {"post_id":"we5vd7","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old : Why do they say the area around the sun is hotter than the surface itself, it doesn't make any sense. How can the empty space around the sun be millions of degrees hot and the surface only thousands ? it doesn't make any sense.","c_root_id_A":"iimc3o7","c_root_id_B":"iimd771","created_at_utc_A":1659430017,"created_at_utc_B":1659430924,"score_A":19,"score_B":139,"human_ref_A":"\u00baC has the molecules move at an avarage speed of 475m\/s, that's pretty fast, increase the avarage speed and you get a hotter gas. if put your hand in that cloud of gas and your hand is colder than it, the molecules will bump ino the molecules that make up your arm transferring energy which will in term make your molecules average speed higher making it hotter, now solid's molecules aren't free to fly around, you could say that they vibrate in place but the principle is the same. At very low gas densities near vacuum the molecules are free to fly round at very very high speeds very rarely bumping into each other If you were to measure their average speed you will find it's very high, so you say \"this gas is several thousands of degrees hot\" but if you were to put your hand in it altho the collisions in your arm would transfer a lot of energy to heat up your arm, there is way to few collisions to actually heat up your arm before you radiate all that heat away and end up freezing. soo yes the sun's corona is technically extremely hot because the average speed of the gas molecules is extremely high but it's so low density that it can't actually heat anything up because objects would radiate heat away more quickly than they would gain it.","human_ref_B":"Why do they \"say\" it's hotter than the surface? Because all measurements of temperature show that it is far hotter than the 'surface' layer. This is a piece of data, and evidence that stands on it's own. It needs no explanation to be true. It doesn't need to 'make sense' for it is a measured, observable fact. ​ That phrasing aside, you have identified a currently unsettled question in Astronomy. We don't really know, exactly, why it's hotter. It isn't empty, it's full of hydrogen and helium zipping around at high speeds. That's why it has a temperature. But it doesn't fit the simple model of things get cooler as you get further from the heat source (the core fusion). That's how the rest of the sun seems to work, so it is a very big puzzle. But the sparse plasma of the corona behaves a bit differently than the rest of the sun. Magnetic fields are more free to move through it for example, compared to the dense solar 'surface'. So waves in the magnetic field is one model they're working with. Another is interactions with solar flares, or even 'nano-flares' that serve as a way to introduce heat into the corona and crank the temperature up. ​ That said, the total energy in the hot corona is still far far lower than the energy in the surface of the sun, so we're still obeying conservation laws.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":907.0,"score_ratio":7.3157894737} {"post_id":"we5vd7","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old : Why do they say the area around the sun is hotter than the surface itself, it doesn't make any sense. How can the empty space around the sun be millions of degrees hot and the surface only thousands ? it doesn't make any sense.","c_root_id_A":"iimbkqw","c_root_id_B":"iimd771","created_at_utc_A":1659429583,"created_at_utc_B":1659430924,"score_A":6,"score_B":139,"human_ref_A":"The simple answer is we don't know, this is something that has plagued scientists for nearly a hundred years. Why is an are a few thousand kilometers above the surface of the sun hotter then the surface or even the core itself? So, what can it be, to simplify, it can be one out of three reasons. 1. Heat has been stored there over a long period of time. 2. Heat is generated there. 3. Both 1. and 2. are true. For 1. to be true, there must be some form of 'atmosphere' that keeps the heat in, maybe it's just that most of the heat energy is stored there, since vacuum is terrible at transmitting energy, however it's been hard to prove 100%, since it For 2. to be true, it would be magnetic waves either colliding or just something akin to friction, and unlike earth with it's north and south pole, the suns magnetic field are pretty gnarly. 3. Is probably more likely to be somewhat true, since both of these theoretically could produce the heat. I remember the parker solar probe being launched in 2018, who has a goal to find evidence to answer this question. So look forward to it for answers.","human_ref_B":"Why do they \"say\" it's hotter than the surface? Because all measurements of temperature show that it is far hotter than the 'surface' layer. This is a piece of data, and evidence that stands on it's own. It needs no explanation to be true. It doesn't need to 'make sense' for it is a measured, observable fact. ​ That phrasing aside, you have identified a currently unsettled question in Astronomy. We don't really know, exactly, why it's hotter. It isn't empty, it's full of hydrogen and helium zipping around at high speeds. That's why it has a temperature. But it doesn't fit the simple model of things get cooler as you get further from the heat source (the core fusion). That's how the rest of the sun seems to work, so it is a very big puzzle. But the sparse plasma of the corona behaves a bit differently than the rest of the sun. Magnetic fields are more free to move through it for example, compared to the dense solar 'surface'. So waves in the magnetic field is one model they're working with. Another is interactions with solar flares, or even 'nano-flares' that serve as a way to introduce heat into the corona and crank the temperature up. ​ That said, the total energy in the hot corona is still far far lower than the energy in the surface of the sun, so we're still obeying conservation laws.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1341.0,"score_ratio":23.1666666667} {"post_id":"we5vd7","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old : Why do they say the area around the sun is hotter than the surface itself, it doesn't make any sense. How can the empty space around the sun be millions of degrees hot and the surface only thousands ? it doesn't make any sense.","c_root_id_A":"iim9p3d","c_root_id_B":"iimd771","created_at_utc_A":1659428022,"created_at_utc_B":1659430924,"score_A":4,"score_B":139,"human_ref_A":"The empty space around the Sun isn\u2019t completely empty, it has some particles in it, which happen to be extremely hot. However, since there are so few of them, they don\u2019t effectively transfer temperature to anything. The same happens on Earth - exosphere, starting at an altitude of about 500 km, is extremely hot, at several thousand degrees.","human_ref_B":"Why do they \"say\" it's hotter than the surface? Because all measurements of temperature show that it is far hotter than the 'surface' layer. This is a piece of data, and evidence that stands on it's own. It needs no explanation to be true. It doesn't need to 'make sense' for it is a measured, observable fact. ​ That phrasing aside, you have identified a currently unsettled question in Astronomy. We don't really know, exactly, why it's hotter. It isn't empty, it's full of hydrogen and helium zipping around at high speeds. That's why it has a temperature. But it doesn't fit the simple model of things get cooler as you get further from the heat source (the core fusion). That's how the rest of the sun seems to work, so it is a very big puzzle. But the sparse plasma of the corona behaves a bit differently than the rest of the sun. Magnetic fields are more free to move through it for example, compared to the dense solar 'surface'. So waves in the magnetic field is one model they're working with. Another is interactions with solar flares, or even 'nano-flares' that serve as a way to introduce heat into the corona and crank the temperature up. ​ That said, the total energy in the hot corona is still far far lower than the energy in the surface of the sun, so we're still obeying conservation laws.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2902.0,"score_ratio":34.75} {"post_id":"we5vd7","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old : Why do they say the area around the sun is hotter than the surface itself, it doesn't make any sense. How can the empty space around the sun be millions of degrees hot and the surface only thousands ? it doesn't make any sense.","c_root_id_A":"iimd771","c_root_id_B":"iimd47r","created_at_utc_A":1659430924,"created_at_utc_B":1659430855,"score_A":139,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Why do they \"say\" it's hotter than the surface? Because all measurements of temperature show that it is far hotter than the 'surface' layer. This is a piece of data, and evidence that stands on it's own. It needs no explanation to be true. It doesn't need to 'make sense' for it is a measured, observable fact. ​ That phrasing aside, you have identified a currently unsettled question in Astronomy. We don't really know, exactly, why it's hotter. It isn't empty, it's full of hydrogen and helium zipping around at high speeds. That's why it has a temperature. But it doesn't fit the simple model of things get cooler as you get further from the heat source (the core fusion). That's how the rest of the sun seems to work, so it is a very big puzzle. But the sparse plasma of the corona behaves a bit differently than the rest of the sun. Magnetic fields are more free to move through it for example, compared to the dense solar 'surface'. So waves in the magnetic field is one model they're working with. Another is interactions with solar flares, or even 'nano-flares' that serve as a way to introduce heat into the corona and crank the temperature up. ​ That said, the total energy in the hot corona is still far far lower than the energy in the surface of the sun, so we're still obeying conservation laws.","human_ref_B":"If you put something small in the microwave it heats up faster than something big. If it is really small it gets really hot. The few molecules around the sun get super hot because there is nothing else to get hot. Less stuff to share all the heat.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":69.0,"score_ratio":34.75} {"post_id":"we5vd7","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old : Why do they say the area around the sun is hotter than the surface itself, it doesn't make any sense. How can the empty space around the sun be millions of degrees hot and the surface only thousands ? it doesn't make any sense.","c_root_id_A":"iimbkqw","c_root_id_B":"iimc3o7","created_at_utc_A":1659429583,"created_at_utc_B":1659430017,"score_A":6,"score_B":19,"human_ref_A":"The simple answer is we don't know, this is something that has plagued scientists for nearly a hundred years. Why is an are a few thousand kilometers above the surface of the sun hotter then the surface or even the core itself? So, what can it be, to simplify, it can be one out of three reasons. 1. Heat has been stored there over a long period of time. 2. Heat is generated there. 3. Both 1. and 2. are true. For 1. to be true, there must be some form of 'atmosphere' that keeps the heat in, maybe it's just that most of the heat energy is stored there, since vacuum is terrible at transmitting energy, however it's been hard to prove 100%, since it For 2. to be true, it would be magnetic waves either colliding or just something akin to friction, and unlike earth with it's north and south pole, the suns magnetic field are pretty gnarly. 3. Is probably more likely to be somewhat true, since both of these theoretically could produce the heat. I remember the parker solar probe being launched in 2018, who has a goal to find evidence to answer this question. So look forward to it for answers.","human_ref_B":"\u00baC has the molecules move at an avarage speed of 475m\/s, that's pretty fast, increase the avarage speed and you get a hotter gas. if put your hand in that cloud of gas and your hand is colder than it, the molecules will bump ino the molecules that make up your arm transferring energy which will in term make your molecules average speed higher making it hotter, now solid's molecules aren't free to fly around, you could say that they vibrate in place but the principle is the same. At very low gas densities near vacuum the molecules are free to fly round at very very high speeds very rarely bumping into each other If you were to measure their average speed you will find it's very high, so you say \"this gas is several thousands of degrees hot\" but if you were to put your hand in it altho the collisions in your arm would transfer a lot of energy to heat up your arm, there is way to few collisions to actually heat up your arm before you radiate all that heat away and end up freezing. soo yes the sun's corona is technically extremely hot because the average speed of the gas molecules is extremely high but it's so low density that it can't actually heat anything up because objects would radiate heat away more quickly than they would gain it.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":434.0,"score_ratio":3.1666666667} {"post_id":"we5vd7","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old : Why do they say the area around the sun is hotter than the surface itself, it doesn't make any sense. How can the empty space around the sun be millions of degrees hot and the surface only thousands ? it doesn't make any sense.","c_root_id_A":"iimc3o7","c_root_id_B":"iim9p3d","created_at_utc_A":1659430017,"created_at_utc_B":1659428022,"score_A":19,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"\u00baC has the molecules move at an avarage speed of 475m\/s, that's pretty fast, increase the avarage speed and you get a hotter gas. if put your hand in that cloud of gas and your hand is colder than it, the molecules will bump ino the molecules that make up your arm transferring energy which will in term make your molecules average speed higher making it hotter, now solid's molecules aren't free to fly around, you could say that they vibrate in place but the principle is the same. At very low gas densities near vacuum the molecules are free to fly round at very very high speeds very rarely bumping into each other If you were to measure their average speed you will find it's very high, so you say \"this gas is several thousands of degrees hot\" but if you were to put your hand in it altho the collisions in your arm would transfer a lot of energy to heat up your arm, there is way to few collisions to actually heat up your arm before you radiate all that heat away and end up freezing. soo yes the sun's corona is technically extremely hot because the average speed of the gas molecules is extremely high but it's so low density that it can't actually heat anything up because objects would radiate heat away more quickly than they would gain it.","human_ref_B":"The empty space around the Sun isn\u2019t completely empty, it has some particles in it, which happen to be extremely hot. However, since there are so few of them, they don\u2019t effectively transfer temperature to anything. The same happens on Earth - exosphere, starting at an altitude of about 500 km, is extremely hot, at several thousand degrees.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1995.0,"score_ratio":4.75} {"post_id":"we5vd7","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old : Why do they say the area around the sun is hotter than the surface itself, it doesn't make any sense. How can the empty space around the sun be millions of degrees hot and the surface only thousands ? it doesn't make any sense.","c_root_id_A":"iimbkqw","c_root_id_B":"iintjsi","created_at_utc_A":1659429583,"created_at_utc_B":1659457639,"score_A":6,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"The simple answer is we don't know, this is something that has plagued scientists for nearly a hundred years. Why is an are a few thousand kilometers above the surface of the sun hotter then the surface or even the core itself? So, what can it be, to simplify, it can be one out of three reasons. 1. Heat has been stored there over a long period of time. 2. Heat is generated there. 3. Both 1. and 2. are true. For 1. to be true, there must be some form of 'atmosphere' that keeps the heat in, maybe it's just that most of the heat energy is stored there, since vacuum is terrible at transmitting energy, however it's been hard to prove 100%, since it For 2. to be true, it would be magnetic waves either colliding or just something akin to friction, and unlike earth with it's north and south pole, the suns magnetic field are pretty gnarly. 3. Is probably more likely to be somewhat true, since both of these theoretically could produce the heat. I remember the parker solar probe being launched in 2018, who has a goal to find evidence to answer this question. So look forward to it for answers.","human_ref_B":"(For what it's worth, I wrote a Ph.D. dissertation on this topic.) TL;DR: The most likely explanation is that the energy in the very strong magnetic field in the corona is being transformed into heat. In plasmas like the solar corona, you can think of the magnetic fields (and the ionized gas, or plasma, attached to the fields) as being like elastic bands. Convection beneath the surface of the sun causes twisting of the magnetic field lines, building up stored energy. Eventually, in some regions of the corona, very large electrical currents are able to flow, leading to a rapid dissipation of the magnetic energy and a relaxation of the tension in the magnetic fields. This energy goes into heating the particles, leading to the hot corona. The corona is very tenuous, so it doesn't take a lot of heat to make the temperature much hotter than the underlying chromosphere and photosphere. The specifics of how, why, and where the current flows are still not fully understood and this has motivated several recent space missions. Also, the process by which magnetic energy rapidly transforms into heat (the process of \"fast reconnection\") is an area of active and ongoing research.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":28056.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"we5vd7","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old : Why do they say the area around the sun is hotter than the surface itself, it doesn't make any sense. How can the empty space around the sun be millions of degrees hot and the surface only thousands ? it doesn't make any sense.","c_root_id_A":"iimm9fj","c_root_id_B":"iintjsi","created_at_utc_A":1659438034,"created_at_utc_B":1659457639,"score_A":8,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"I don't know, but it makes sense. My body temp is 98.6, but according to my wife, when in bed at night, the area directly adjacent to my skin is 40000\u2070","human_ref_B":"(For what it's worth, I wrote a Ph.D. dissertation on this topic.) TL;DR: The most likely explanation is that the energy in the very strong magnetic field in the corona is being transformed into heat. In plasmas like the solar corona, you can think of the magnetic fields (and the ionized gas, or plasma, attached to the fields) as being like elastic bands. Convection beneath the surface of the sun causes twisting of the magnetic field lines, building up stored energy. Eventually, in some regions of the corona, very large electrical currents are able to flow, leading to a rapid dissipation of the magnetic energy and a relaxation of the tension in the magnetic fields. This energy goes into heating the particles, leading to the hot corona. The corona is very tenuous, so it doesn't take a lot of heat to make the temperature much hotter than the underlying chromosphere and photosphere. The specifics of how, why, and where the current flows are still not fully understood and this has motivated several recent space missions. Also, the process by which magnetic energy rapidly transforms into heat (the process of \"fast reconnection\") is an area of active and ongoing research.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":19605.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"we5vd7","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old : Why do they say the area around the sun is hotter than the surface itself, it doesn't make any sense. How can the empty space around the sun be millions of degrees hot and the surface only thousands ? it doesn't make any sense.","c_root_id_A":"iimkei5","c_root_id_B":"iintjsi","created_at_utc_A":1659436704,"created_at_utc_B":1659457639,"score_A":6,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"There is strong evidence that the corona is really hot due to Alfv\u00e9n waves. Alfv\u00e9n waves is where magnetic waves are generated deeper into the sun and then transfer their energy into the corona (the gasses above the suns surface). Lots of energy from deeper into the sun gets dumped into comparitively few particles in the corona means that each individual particle will get a lot of energy. 20 years ago this was only theoretical, but since 2009 several probes (like SOHO, Parker probe and the Wind probe) have detected evidence that supports the Alfv\u00e9n wave theory. Note though that the corona being millions of degrees hot vs the surface of the sun being just a few thousand degrees hot is kind of like a 100 C sauna (feels hot, but you can sit in there for a while) vs 60 C water which will give you burns within 3 seconds.","human_ref_B":"(For what it's worth, I wrote a Ph.D. dissertation on this topic.) TL;DR: The most likely explanation is that the energy in the very strong magnetic field in the corona is being transformed into heat. In plasmas like the solar corona, you can think of the magnetic fields (and the ionized gas, or plasma, attached to the fields) as being like elastic bands. Convection beneath the surface of the sun causes twisting of the magnetic field lines, building up stored energy. Eventually, in some regions of the corona, very large electrical currents are able to flow, leading to a rapid dissipation of the magnetic energy and a relaxation of the tension in the magnetic fields. This energy goes into heating the particles, leading to the hot corona. The corona is very tenuous, so it doesn't take a lot of heat to make the temperature much hotter than the underlying chromosphere and photosphere. The specifics of how, why, and where the current flows are still not fully understood and this has motivated several recent space missions. Also, the process by which magnetic energy rapidly transforms into heat (the process of \"fast reconnection\") is an area of active and ongoing research.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":20935.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"we5vd7","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old : Why do they say the area around the sun is hotter than the surface itself, it doesn't make any sense. How can the empty space around the sun be millions of degrees hot and the surface only thousands ? it doesn't make any sense.","c_root_id_A":"iim9p3d","c_root_id_B":"iintjsi","created_at_utc_A":1659428022,"created_at_utc_B":1659457639,"score_A":4,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"The empty space around the Sun isn\u2019t completely empty, it has some particles in it, which happen to be extremely hot. However, since there are so few of them, they don\u2019t effectively transfer temperature to anything. The same happens on Earth - exosphere, starting at an altitude of about 500 km, is extremely hot, at several thousand degrees.","human_ref_B":"(For what it's worth, I wrote a Ph.D. dissertation on this topic.) TL;DR: The most likely explanation is that the energy in the very strong magnetic field in the corona is being transformed into heat. In plasmas like the solar corona, you can think of the magnetic fields (and the ionized gas, or plasma, attached to the fields) as being like elastic bands. Convection beneath the surface of the sun causes twisting of the magnetic field lines, building up stored energy. Eventually, in some regions of the corona, very large electrical currents are able to flow, leading to a rapid dissipation of the magnetic energy and a relaxation of the tension in the magnetic fields. This energy goes into heating the particles, leading to the hot corona. The corona is very tenuous, so it doesn't take a lot of heat to make the temperature much hotter than the underlying chromosphere and photosphere. The specifics of how, why, and where the current flows are still not fully understood and this has motivated several recent space missions. Also, the process by which magnetic energy rapidly transforms into heat (the process of \"fast reconnection\") is an area of active and ongoing research.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":29617.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"we5vd7","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old : Why do they say the area around the sun is hotter than the surface itself, it doesn't make any sense. How can the empty space around the sun be millions of degrees hot and the surface only thousands ? it doesn't make any sense.","c_root_id_A":"iimd47r","c_root_id_B":"iintjsi","created_at_utc_A":1659430855,"created_at_utc_B":1659457639,"score_A":4,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"If you put something small in the microwave it heats up faster than something big. If it is really small it gets really hot. The few molecules around the sun get super hot because there is nothing else to get hot. Less stuff to share all the heat.","human_ref_B":"(For what it's worth, I wrote a Ph.D. dissertation on this topic.) TL;DR: The most likely explanation is that the energy in the very strong magnetic field in the corona is being transformed into heat. In plasmas like the solar corona, you can think of the magnetic fields (and the ionized gas, or plasma, attached to the fields) as being like elastic bands. Convection beneath the surface of the sun causes twisting of the magnetic field lines, building up stored energy. Eventually, in some regions of the corona, very large electrical currents are able to flow, leading to a rapid dissipation of the magnetic energy and a relaxation of the tension in the magnetic fields. This energy goes into heating the particles, leading to the hot corona. The corona is very tenuous, so it doesn't take a lot of heat to make the temperature much hotter than the underlying chromosphere and photosphere. The specifics of how, why, and where the current flows are still not fully understood and this has motivated several recent space missions. Also, the process by which magnetic energy rapidly transforms into heat (the process of \"fast reconnection\") is an area of active and ongoing research.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":26784.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"we5vd7","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old : Why do they say the area around the sun is hotter than the surface itself, it doesn't make any sense. How can the empty space around the sun be millions of degrees hot and the surface only thousands ? it doesn't make any sense.","c_root_id_A":"iintjsi","c_root_id_B":"iimikuc","created_at_utc_A":1659457639,"created_at_utc_B":1659435317,"score_A":12,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"(For what it's worth, I wrote a Ph.D. dissertation on this topic.) TL;DR: The most likely explanation is that the energy in the very strong magnetic field in the corona is being transformed into heat. In plasmas like the solar corona, you can think of the magnetic fields (and the ionized gas, or plasma, attached to the fields) as being like elastic bands. Convection beneath the surface of the sun causes twisting of the magnetic field lines, building up stored energy. Eventually, in some regions of the corona, very large electrical currents are able to flow, leading to a rapid dissipation of the magnetic energy and a relaxation of the tension in the magnetic fields. This energy goes into heating the particles, leading to the hot corona. The corona is very tenuous, so it doesn't take a lot of heat to make the temperature much hotter than the underlying chromosphere and photosphere. The specifics of how, why, and where the current flows are still not fully understood and this has motivated several recent space missions. Also, the process by which magnetic energy rapidly transforms into heat (the process of \"fast reconnection\") is an area of active and ongoing research.","human_ref_B":"We don't know. That's one of the things the Parker Solar Probe is investigating. I think maybe away from the sun's surface the matter can move much faster in mostly one direction. The matter on the surface is mostly being held back and circulating in a turbulent flow. There's some mechanism by which the temperature vastly increases when matter is propelled away from the sun.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":22322.0,"score_ratio":6.0} {"post_id":"we5vd7","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old : Why do they say the area around the sun is hotter than the surface itself, it doesn't make any sense. How can the empty space around the sun be millions of degrees hot and the surface only thousands ? it doesn't make any sense.","c_root_id_A":"iimbkqw","c_root_id_B":"iimm9fj","created_at_utc_A":1659429583,"created_at_utc_B":1659438034,"score_A":6,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"The simple answer is we don't know, this is something that has plagued scientists for nearly a hundred years. Why is an are a few thousand kilometers above the surface of the sun hotter then the surface or even the core itself? So, what can it be, to simplify, it can be one out of three reasons. 1. Heat has been stored there over a long period of time. 2. Heat is generated there. 3. Both 1. and 2. are true. For 1. to be true, there must be some form of 'atmosphere' that keeps the heat in, maybe it's just that most of the heat energy is stored there, since vacuum is terrible at transmitting energy, however it's been hard to prove 100%, since it For 2. to be true, it would be magnetic waves either colliding or just something akin to friction, and unlike earth with it's north and south pole, the suns magnetic field are pretty gnarly. 3. Is probably more likely to be somewhat true, since both of these theoretically could produce the heat. I remember the parker solar probe being launched in 2018, who has a goal to find evidence to answer this question. So look forward to it for answers.","human_ref_B":"I don't know, but it makes sense. My body temp is 98.6, but according to my wife, when in bed at night, the area directly adjacent to my skin is 40000\u2070","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8451.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} {"post_id":"we5vd7","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old : Why do they say the area around the sun is hotter than the surface itself, it doesn't make any sense. How can the empty space around the sun be millions of degrees hot and the surface only thousands ? it doesn't make any sense.","c_root_id_A":"iimbkqw","c_root_id_B":"iim9p3d","created_at_utc_A":1659429583,"created_at_utc_B":1659428022,"score_A":6,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"The simple answer is we don't know, this is something that has plagued scientists for nearly a hundred years. Why is an are a few thousand kilometers above the surface of the sun hotter then the surface or even the core itself? So, what can it be, to simplify, it can be one out of three reasons. 1. Heat has been stored there over a long period of time. 2. Heat is generated there. 3. Both 1. and 2. are true. For 1. to be true, there must be some form of 'atmosphere' that keeps the heat in, maybe it's just that most of the heat energy is stored there, since vacuum is terrible at transmitting energy, however it's been hard to prove 100%, since it For 2. to be true, it would be magnetic waves either colliding or just something akin to friction, and unlike earth with it's north and south pole, the suns magnetic field are pretty gnarly. 3. Is probably more likely to be somewhat true, since both of these theoretically could produce the heat. I remember the parker solar probe being launched in 2018, who has a goal to find evidence to answer this question. So look forward to it for answers.","human_ref_B":"The empty space around the Sun isn\u2019t completely empty, it has some particles in it, which happen to be extremely hot. However, since there are so few of them, they don\u2019t effectively transfer temperature to anything. The same happens on Earth - exosphere, starting at an altitude of about 500 km, is extremely hot, at several thousand degrees.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1561.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"we5vd7","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old : Why do they say the area around the sun is hotter than the surface itself, it doesn't make any sense. How can the empty space around the sun be millions of degrees hot and the surface only thousands ? it doesn't make any sense.","c_root_id_A":"iimm9fj","c_root_id_B":"iimkei5","created_at_utc_A":1659438034,"created_at_utc_B":1659436704,"score_A":8,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"I don't know, but it makes sense. My body temp is 98.6, but according to my wife, when in bed at night, the area directly adjacent to my skin is 40000\u2070","human_ref_B":"There is strong evidence that the corona is really hot due to Alfv\u00e9n waves. Alfv\u00e9n waves is where magnetic waves are generated deeper into the sun and then transfer their energy into the corona (the gasses above the suns surface). Lots of energy from deeper into the sun gets dumped into comparitively few particles in the corona means that each individual particle will get a lot of energy. 20 years ago this was only theoretical, but since 2009 several probes (like SOHO, Parker probe and the Wind probe) have detected evidence that supports the Alfv\u00e9n wave theory. Note though that the corona being millions of degrees hot vs the surface of the sun being just a few thousand degrees hot is kind of like a 100 C sauna (feels hot, but you can sit in there for a while) vs 60 C water which will give you burns within 3 seconds.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1330.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} {"post_id":"we5vd7","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old : Why do they say the area around the sun is hotter than the surface itself, it doesn't make any sense. How can the empty space around the sun be millions of degrees hot and the surface only thousands ? it doesn't make any sense.","c_root_id_A":"iim9p3d","c_root_id_B":"iimm9fj","created_at_utc_A":1659428022,"created_at_utc_B":1659438034,"score_A":4,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"The empty space around the Sun isn\u2019t completely empty, it has some particles in it, which happen to be extremely hot. However, since there are so few of them, they don\u2019t effectively transfer temperature to anything. The same happens on Earth - exosphere, starting at an altitude of about 500 km, is extremely hot, at several thousand degrees.","human_ref_B":"I don't know, but it makes sense. My body temp is 98.6, but according to my wife, when in bed at night, the area directly adjacent to my skin is 40000\u2070","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10012.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"we5vd7","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old : Why do they say the area around the sun is hotter than the surface itself, it doesn't make any sense. How can the empty space around the sun be millions of degrees hot and the surface only thousands ? it doesn't make any sense.","c_root_id_A":"iimd47r","c_root_id_B":"iimm9fj","created_at_utc_A":1659430855,"created_at_utc_B":1659438034,"score_A":4,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"If you put something small in the microwave it heats up faster than something big. If it is really small it gets really hot. The few molecules around the sun get super hot because there is nothing else to get hot. Less stuff to share all the heat.","human_ref_B":"I don't know, but it makes sense. My body temp is 98.6, but according to my wife, when in bed at night, the area directly adjacent to my skin is 40000\u2070","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7179.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"we5vd7","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old : Why do they say the area around the sun is hotter than the surface itself, it doesn't make any sense. How can the empty space around the sun be millions of degrees hot and the surface only thousands ? it doesn't make any sense.","c_root_id_A":"iimikuc","c_root_id_B":"iimm9fj","created_at_utc_A":1659435317,"created_at_utc_B":1659438034,"score_A":2,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"We don't know. That's one of the things the Parker Solar Probe is investigating. I think maybe away from the sun's surface the matter can move much faster in mostly one direction. The matter on the surface is mostly being held back and circulating in a turbulent flow. There's some mechanism by which the temperature vastly increases when matter is propelled away from the sun.","human_ref_B":"I don't know, but it makes sense. My body temp is 98.6, but according to my wife, when in bed at night, the area directly adjacent to my skin is 40000\u2070","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2717.0,"score_ratio":4.0} {"post_id":"we5vd7","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old : Why do they say the area around the sun is hotter than the surface itself, it doesn't make any sense. How can the empty space around the sun be millions of degrees hot and the surface only thousands ? it doesn't make any sense.","c_root_id_A":"iim9p3d","c_root_id_B":"iimkei5","created_at_utc_A":1659428022,"created_at_utc_B":1659436704,"score_A":4,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"The empty space around the Sun isn\u2019t completely empty, it has some particles in it, which happen to be extremely hot. However, since there are so few of them, they don\u2019t effectively transfer temperature to anything. The same happens on Earth - exosphere, starting at an altitude of about 500 km, is extremely hot, at several thousand degrees.","human_ref_B":"There is strong evidence that the corona is really hot due to Alfv\u00e9n waves. Alfv\u00e9n waves is where magnetic waves are generated deeper into the sun and then transfer their energy into the corona (the gasses above the suns surface). Lots of energy from deeper into the sun gets dumped into comparitively few particles in the corona means that each individual particle will get a lot of energy. 20 years ago this was only theoretical, but since 2009 several probes (like SOHO, Parker probe and the Wind probe) have detected evidence that supports the Alfv\u00e9n wave theory. Note though that the corona being millions of degrees hot vs the surface of the sun being just a few thousand degrees hot is kind of like a 100 C sauna (feels hot, but you can sit in there for a while) vs 60 C water which will give you burns within 3 seconds.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8682.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"we5vd7","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old : Why do they say the area around the sun is hotter than the surface itself, it doesn't make any sense. How can the empty space around the sun be millions of degrees hot and the surface only thousands ? it doesn't make any sense.","c_root_id_A":"iimd47r","c_root_id_B":"iimkei5","created_at_utc_A":1659430855,"created_at_utc_B":1659436704,"score_A":4,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"If you put something small in the microwave it heats up faster than something big. If it is really small it gets really hot. The few molecules around the sun get super hot because there is nothing else to get hot. Less stuff to share all the heat.","human_ref_B":"There is strong evidence that the corona is really hot due to Alfv\u00e9n waves. Alfv\u00e9n waves is where magnetic waves are generated deeper into the sun and then transfer their energy into the corona (the gasses above the suns surface). Lots of energy from deeper into the sun gets dumped into comparitively few particles in the corona means that each individual particle will get a lot of energy. 20 years ago this was only theoretical, but since 2009 several probes (like SOHO, Parker probe and the Wind probe) have detected evidence that supports the Alfv\u00e9n wave theory. Note though that the corona being millions of degrees hot vs the surface of the sun being just a few thousand degrees hot is kind of like a 100 C sauna (feels hot, but you can sit in there for a while) vs 60 C water which will give you burns within 3 seconds.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5849.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"we5vd7","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old : Why do they say the area around the sun is hotter than the surface itself, it doesn't make any sense. How can the empty space around the sun be millions of degrees hot and the surface only thousands ? it doesn't make any sense.","c_root_id_A":"iimkei5","c_root_id_B":"iimikuc","created_at_utc_A":1659436704,"created_at_utc_B":1659435317,"score_A":6,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"There is strong evidence that the corona is really hot due to Alfv\u00e9n waves. Alfv\u00e9n waves is where magnetic waves are generated deeper into the sun and then transfer their energy into the corona (the gasses above the suns surface). Lots of energy from deeper into the sun gets dumped into comparitively few particles in the corona means that each individual particle will get a lot of energy. 20 years ago this was only theoretical, but since 2009 several probes (like SOHO, Parker probe and the Wind probe) have detected evidence that supports the Alfv\u00e9n wave theory. Note though that the corona being millions of degrees hot vs the surface of the sun being just a few thousand degrees hot is kind of like a 100 C sauna (feels hot, but you can sit in there for a while) vs 60 C water which will give you burns within 3 seconds.","human_ref_B":"We don't know. That's one of the things the Parker Solar Probe is investigating. I think maybe away from the sun's surface the matter can move much faster in mostly one direction. The matter on the surface is mostly being held back and circulating in a turbulent flow. There's some mechanism by which the temperature vastly increases when matter is propelled away from the sun.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1387.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"qjsjir","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"Eli5: Instead of building a new base to orbit the moon and dumping the ISS in the ocean, why not move the ISS (very slowly) into the moon\u2019s orbit?","c_root_id_A":"hit8qdu","c_root_id_B":"his8g6l","created_at_utc_A":1635715528,"created_at_utc_B":1635700169,"score_A":39,"score_B":31,"human_ref_A":"In a more eli5 vein\u2026 the moon is 30 earths away from the earth. The ISS is about 250 miles from earth, and the moon is 240,000 miles from earth. The moon is about 1000 times farther away from the earth than the ISS is right now. That\u2019s a massive distance to cover.","human_ref_B":"This would require you to accelerate the ISS by 8 kilometers per second. Actually, if you did this with a very low thrust engine burning continually probably more like 10, but lets say 8 for now. What would that take? Delta v = engine exhaust velocity x ln x (mass with fuel\/mas without fuel) What exhaust velocities could we be talking about? For a chemical rocket, lets say 4,500m\/s, for an ion engine lets say 80,000. Working the equation back, a chemical rocket would need to be 5\/6ths fuel to archive that, an ion drive about 1.11 times. The tanks to contain this fuel would mass about 1\/10th the mass of the fuel. The ISS has a mass of about 420 tonnes, so to achieve this with liquid fuel would require around 4,200 tonnes of fuel in 420 tonnes of tanks, or 4,620 tonnes of additional payload to be launched into orbit. This would require more than 180 space shuttle launches, or some equivalent. Maybe 30 Saturn Vs would be more sensible? Ion drives make more sense, less than 50 tonnes of fuel and tanks. But it would take years, probably decades, to move, and you'd need one hell of a power supply for the ion drives, which would of course add mass...","labels":1,"seconds_difference":15359.0,"score_ratio":1.2580645161} {"post_id":"qjsjir","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"Eli5: Instead of building a new base to orbit the moon and dumping the ISS in the ocean, why not move the ISS (very slowly) into the moon\u2019s orbit?","c_root_id_A":"hisctgy","c_root_id_B":"hit8qdu","created_at_utc_A":1635702044,"created_at_utc_B":1635715528,"score_A":17,"score_B":39,"human_ref_A":"ISS was designed for LEO operation, and is getting pretty old. A moon station will have some very different design optimizations. Most importantly it will be much smaller, so it would take far less fuel to get there. An analogy would be moving a 25 year old 20 unit apartment building from Florida to Antarctica instead of building a new house there.","human_ref_B":"In a more eli5 vein\u2026 the moon is 30 earths away from the earth. The ISS is about 250 miles from earth, and the moon is 240,000 miles from earth. The moon is about 1000 times farther away from the earth than the ISS is right now. That\u2019s a massive distance to cover.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":13484.0,"score_ratio":2.2941176471} {"post_id":"qjsjir","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"Eli5: Instead of building a new base to orbit the moon and dumping the ISS in the ocean, why not move the ISS (very slowly) into the moon\u2019s orbit?","c_root_id_A":"his2ncl","c_root_id_B":"hit8qdu","created_at_utc_A":1635697667,"created_at_utc_B":1635715528,"score_A":11,"score_B":39,"human_ref_A":"1) The ISS is old, and wearing out quickly. 2) It was designed (sort of) for the job it's doing, and isn't at all designed for anything that we would need from a lunar orbit base 3) You can't really move something \"very slowly\" in space. The speed you need is essentially set because you are fighting against the forces of gravity. The ISS is currently hurtling \"sideways\" at about 17,000 miles per hour just to keep from crashing into the Earth. To get to the moon, the ISS would have to be accelerated a lot in order to escape Earth's orbit, and it would have to be accelerated specifically, at very particular speeds, in order to end up where we want it. To do it at a different speed would cause it to end up in a place we don't want it, either crashing back into the planet, or slipping off into space somewhere.","human_ref_B":"In a more eli5 vein\u2026 the moon is 30 earths away from the earth. The ISS is about 250 miles from earth, and the moon is 240,000 miles from earth. The moon is about 1000 times farther away from the earth than the ISS is right now. That\u2019s a massive distance to cover.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":17861.0,"score_ratio":3.5454545455} {"post_id":"qjsjir","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"Eli5: Instead of building a new base to orbit the moon and dumping the ISS in the ocean, why not move the ISS (very slowly) into the moon\u2019s orbit?","c_root_id_A":"hisd31u","c_root_id_B":"hit8qdu","created_at_utc_A":1635702156,"created_at_utc_B":1635715528,"score_A":9,"score_B":39,"human_ref_A":"Its hard to understand the scale of energy requirements for stuff in space, but its really really big The ISS comes in at around 420 tons. If you want to get it from Low Earth Orbit (where it currently is) to the Moon then you have to get it onto a Lunar Intercept trajectory, then slow it back down so it ends up in orbit around the moon. You can check the Delta-V budgets for going places in the solar system. If you can do this with high thrust engines you can save on some fuel and steal some energy from Earth so you *only* need to be able to change the speed by 4 km\/s. Unfortunately the ISS won't really tolerate more than a tiny fraction of a G sooo you have to do the low thrust calculations which put you at 8 km\/s. Okay, so how miserable would it be to provide 8 km\/s of delta V to the ISS? Grab yourself an ion thruster with a specific impulse of 5000(normal rockets are 200-400). You'll need about 75 tons of fuel to go with it which makes your ISS even bigger. Oh and the low powered Ion Engine will only have *at best* a thrust of 100 Newtons if you're lucky sooo 8km\/s of speed change on 420 tons will take almost an entire year to get into place. Try doing it with a standard rocket engine to save some time and you'll need like 4000 tons of fuel. Sooo spend tens of billions on refitting the aging ISS so it can make\/survive the transition and a year transferring it into a location to do a job its not good at, or spend tens of billions building a custom built station with everything we've learned from decades of time on the ISS with far more room, power, and amenities? It'll cost basically the same either way so do it the right way","human_ref_B":"In a more eli5 vein\u2026 the moon is 30 earths away from the earth. The ISS is about 250 miles from earth, and the moon is 240,000 miles from earth. The moon is about 1000 times farther away from the earth than the ISS is right now. That\u2019s a massive distance to cover.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":13372.0,"score_ratio":4.3333333333} {"post_id":"qjsjir","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"Eli5: Instead of building a new base to orbit the moon and dumping the ISS in the ocean, why not move the ISS (very slowly) into the moon\u2019s orbit?","c_root_id_A":"his0q4x","c_root_id_B":"hit8qdu","created_at_utc_A":1635696835,"created_at_utc_B":1635715528,"score_A":3,"score_B":39,"human_ref_A":"Everything is gravitationally connected. Space especially close to planets isn't a place that objects can move without \"cost\" in terms of energy. Although the ISS appears to be freely floating, it really isn't - the ISS is orbiting the earth in a specific energy balance. Fast or slow, the same amount of energy is needed to move from an orbit close to the earth to an orbit close to the moon. The ISS doesn't have the ability to generate the energy\/propulsion to do this as it would require new rockets and a lot of fuel. It would be far cheaper and simpler to build a new system on earth and launch it towards the moon than to repurpose the ISS.","human_ref_B":"In a more eli5 vein\u2026 the moon is 30 earths away from the earth. The ISS is about 250 miles from earth, and the moon is 240,000 miles from earth. The moon is about 1000 times farther away from the earth than the ISS is right now. That\u2019s a massive distance to cover.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":18693.0,"score_ratio":13.0} {"post_id":"qjsjir","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"Eli5: Instead of building a new base to orbit the moon and dumping the ISS in the ocean, why not move the ISS (very slowly) into the moon\u2019s orbit?","c_root_id_A":"hit8qdu","c_root_id_B":"hit20m0","created_at_utc_A":1635715528,"created_at_utc_B":1635712530,"score_A":39,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"In a more eli5 vein\u2026 the moon is 30 earths away from the earth. The ISS is about 250 miles from earth, and the moon is 240,000 miles from earth. The moon is about 1000 times farther away from the earth than the ISS is right now. That\u2019s a massive distance to cover.","human_ref_B":"Because, from what I read a couple of weeks ago, it's a clunker, basically. It's got serious structural problems. Better to start from scratch.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2998.0,"score_ratio":19.5} {"post_id":"qjsjir","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"Eli5: Instead of building a new base to orbit the moon and dumping the ISS in the ocean, why not move the ISS (very slowly) into the moon\u2019s orbit?","c_root_id_A":"his8g6l","c_root_id_B":"his2ncl","created_at_utc_A":1635700169,"created_at_utc_B":1635697667,"score_A":31,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"This would require you to accelerate the ISS by 8 kilometers per second. Actually, if you did this with a very low thrust engine burning continually probably more like 10, but lets say 8 for now. What would that take? Delta v = engine exhaust velocity x ln x (mass with fuel\/mas without fuel) What exhaust velocities could we be talking about? For a chemical rocket, lets say 4,500m\/s, for an ion engine lets say 80,000. Working the equation back, a chemical rocket would need to be 5\/6ths fuel to archive that, an ion drive about 1.11 times. The tanks to contain this fuel would mass about 1\/10th the mass of the fuel. The ISS has a mass of about 420 tonnes, so to achieve this with liquid fuel would require around 4,200 tonnes of fuel in 420 tonnes of tanks, or 4,620 tonnes of additional payload to be launched into orbit. This would require more than 180 space shuttle launches, or some equivalent. Maybe 30 Saturn Vs would be more sensible? Ion drives make more sense, less than 50 tonnes of fuel and tanks. But it would take years, probably decades, to move, and you'd need one hell of a power supply for the ion drives, which would of course add mass...","human_ref_B":"1) The ISS is old, and wearing out quickly. 2) It was designed (sort of) for the job it's doing, and isn't at all designed for anything that we would need from a lunar orbit base 3) You can't really move something \"very slowly\" in space. The speed you need is essentially set because you are fighting against the forces of gravity. The ISS is currently hurtling \"sideways\" at about 17,000 miles per hour just to keep from crashing into the Earth. To get to the moon, the ISS would have to be accelerated a lot in order to escape Earth's orbit, and it would have to be accelerated specifically, at very particular speeds, in order to end up where we want it. To do it at a different speed would cause it to end up in a place we don't want it, either crashing back into the planet, or slipping off into space somewhere.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2502.0,"score_ratio":2.8181818182} {"post_id":"qjsjir","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"Eli5: Instead of building a new base to orbit the moon and dumping the ISS in the ocean, why not move the ISS (very slowly) into the moon\u2019s orbit?","c_root_id_A":"his8g6l","c_root_id_B":"his0q4x","created_at_utc_A":1635700169,"created_at_utc_B":1635696835,"score_A":31,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"This would require you to accelerate the ISS by 8 kilometers per second. Actually, if you did this with a very low thrust engine burning continually probably more like 10, but lets say 8 for now. What would that take? Delta v = engine exhaust velocity x ln x (mass with fuel\/mas without fuel) What exhaust velocities could we be talking about? For a chemical rocket, lets say 4,500m\/s, for an ion engine lets say 80,000. Working the equation back, a chemical rocket would need to be 5\/6ths fuel to archive that, an ion drive about 1.11 times. The tanks to contain this fuel would mass about 1\/10th the mass of the fuel. The ISS has a mass of about 420 tonnes, so to achieve this with liquid fuel would require around 4,200 tonnes of fuel in 420 tonnes of tanks, or 4,620 tonnes of additional payload to be launched into orbit. This would require more than 180 space shuttle launches, or some equivalent. Maybe 30 Saturn Vs would be more sensible? Ion drives make more sense, less than 50 tonnes of fuel and tanks. But it would take years, probably decades, to move, and you'd need one hell of a power supply for the ion drives, which would of course add mass...","human_ref_B":"Everything is gravitationally connected. Space especially close to planets isn't a place that objects can move without \"cost\" in terms of energy. Although the ISS appears to be freely floating, it really isn't - the ISS is orbiting the earth in a specific energy balance. Fast or slow, the same amount of energy is needed to move from an orbit close to the earth to an orbit close to the moon. The ISS doesn't have the ability to generate the energy\/propulsion to do this as it would require new rockets and a lot of fuel. It would be far cheaper and simpler to build a new system on earth and launch it towards the moon than to repurpose the ISS.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3334.0,"score_ratio":10.3333333333} {"post_id":"qjsjir","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"Eli5: Instead of building a new base to orbit the moon and dumping the ISS in the ocean, why not move the ISS (very slowly) into the moon\u2019s orbit?","c_root_id_A":"hisctgy","c_root_id_B":"his2ncl","created_at_utc_A":1635702044,"created_at_utc_B":1635697667,"score_A":17,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"ISS was designed for LEO operation, and is getting pretty old. A moon station will have some very different design optimizations. Most importantly it will be much smaller, so it would take far less fuel to get there. An analogy would be moving a 25 year old 20 unit apartment building from Florida to Antarctica instead of building a new house there.","human_ref_B":"1) The ISS is old, and wearing out quickly. 2) It was designed (sort of) for the job it's doing, and isn't at all designed for anything that we would need from a lunar orbit base 3) You can't really move something \"very slowly\" in space. The speed you need is essentially set because you are fighting against the forces of gravity. The ISS is currently hurtling \"sideways\" at about 17,000 miles per hour just to keep from crashing into the Earth. To get to the moon, the ISS would have to be accelerated a lot in order to escape Earth's orbit, and it would have to be accelerated specifically, at very particular speeds, in order to end up where we want it. To do it at a different speed would cause it to end up in a place we don't want it, either crashing back into the planet, or slipping off into space somewhere.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4377.0,"score_ratio":1.5454545455} {"post_id":"qjsjir","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"Eli5: Instead of building a new base to orbit the moon and dumping the ISS in the ocean, why not move the ISS (very slowly) into the moon\u2019s orbit?","c_root_id_A":"his0q4x","c_root_id_B":"hisctgy","created_at_utc_A":1635696835,"created_at_utc_B":1635702044,"score_A":3,"score_B":17,"human_ref_A":"Everything is gravitationally connected. Space especially close to planets isn't a place that objects can move without \"cost\" in terms of energy. Although the ISS appears to be freely floating, it really isn't - the ISS is orbiting the earth in a specific energy balance. Fast or slow, the same amount of energy is needed to move from an orbit close to the earth to an orbit close to the moon. The ISS doesn't have the ability to generate the energy\/propulsion to do this as it would require new rockets and a lot of fuel. It would be far cheaper and simpler to build a new system on earth and launch it towards the moon than to repurpose the ISS.","human_ref_B":"ISS was designed for LEO operation, and is getting pretty old. A moon station will have some very different design optimizations. Most importantly it will be much smaller, so it would take far less fuel to get there. An analogy would be moving a 25 year old 20 unit apartment building from Florida to Antarctica instead of building a new house there.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5209.0,"score_ratio":5.6666666667} {"post_id":"qjsjir","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"Eli5: Instead of building a new base to orbit the moon and dumping the ISS in the ocean, why not move the ISS (very slowly) into the moon\u2019s orbit?","c_root_id_A":"his0q4x","c_root_id_B":"his2ncl","created_at_utc_A":1635696835,"created_at_utc_B":1635697667,"score_A":3,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"Everything is gravitationally connected. Space especially close to planets isn't a place that objects can move without \"cost\" in terms of energy. Although the ISS appears to be freely floating, it really isn't - the ISS is orbiting the earth in a specific energy balance. Fast or slow, the same amount of energy is needed to move from an orbit close to the earth to an orbit close to the moon. The ISS doesn't have the ability to generate the energy\/propulsion to do this as it would require new rockets and a lot of fuel. It would be far cheaper and simpler to build a new system on earth and launch it towards the moon than to repurpose the ISS.","human_ref_B":"1) The ISS is old, and wearing out quickly. 2) It was designed (sort of) for the job it's doing, and isn't at all designed for anything that we would need from a lunar orbit base 3) You can't really move something \"very slowly\" in space. The speed you need is essentially set because you are fighting against the forces of gravity. The ISS is currently hurtling \"sideways\" at about 17,000 miles per hour just to keep from crashing into the Earth. To get to the moon, the ISS would have to be accelerated a lot in order to escape Earth's orbit, and it would have to be accelerated specifically, at very particular speeds, in order to end up where we want it. To do it at a different speed would cause it to end up in a place we don't want it, either crashing back into the planet, or slipping off into space somewhere.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":832.0,"score_ratio":3.6666666667} {"post_id":"qjsjir","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"Eli5: Instead of building a new base to orbit the moon and dumping the ISS in the ocean, why not move the ISS (very slowly) into the moon\u2019s orbit?","c_root_id_A":"hisd31u","c_root_id_B":"his0q4x","created_at_utc_A":1635702156,"created_at_utc_B":1635696835,"score_A":9,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Its hard to understand the scale of energy requirements for stuff in space, but its really really big The ISS comes in at around 420 tons. If you want to get it from Low Earth Orbit (where it currently is) to the Moon then you have to get it onto a Lunar Intercept trajectory, then slow it back down so it ends up in orbit around the moon. You can check the Delta-V budgets for going places in the solar system. If you can do this with high thrust engines you can save on some fuel and steal some energy from Earth so you *only* need to be able to change the speed by 4 km\/s. Unfortunately the ISS won't really tolerate more than a tiny fraction of a G sooo you have to do the low thrust calculations which put you at 8 km\/s. Okay, so how miserable would it be to provide 8 km\/s of delta V to the ISS? Grab yourself an ion thruster with a specific impulse of 5000(normal rockets are 200-400). You'll need about 75 tons of fuel to go with it which makes your ISS even bigger. Oh and the low powered Ion Engine will only have *at best* a thrust of 100 Newtons if you're lucky sooo 8km\/s of speed change on 420 tons will take almost an entire year to get into place. Try doing it with a standard rocket engine to save some time and you'll need like 4000 tons of fuel. Sooo spend tens of billions on refitting the aging ISS so it can make\/survive the transition and a year transferring it into a location to do a job its not good at, or spend tens of billions building a custom built station with everything we've learned from decades of time on the ISS with far more room, power, and amenities? It'll cost basically the same either way so do it the right way","human_ref_B":"Everything is gravitationally connected. Space especially close to planets isn't a place that objects can move without \"cost\" in terms of energy. Although the ISS appears to be freely floating, it really isn't - the ISS is orbiting the earth in a specific energy balance. Fast or slow, the same amount of energy is needed to move from an orbit close to the earth to an orbit close to the moon. The ISS doesn't have the ability to generate the energy\/propulsion to do this as it would require new rockets and a lot of fuel. It would be far cheaper and simpler to build a new system on earth and launch it towards the moon than to repurpose the ISS.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5321.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"zvefrw","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Eli5 How do animals and insects get so specific with their camouflage? Like dry leaves or shapes of animals. How do they know what to mimic??","c_root_id_A":"j1or3w3","c_root_id_B":"j1osp6q","created_at_utc_A":1672027728,"created_at_utc_B":1672028660,"score_A":41,"score_B":220,"human_ref_A":"It's not a matter of \"knowing what to mimic\" it's more natural selection at work. If a butterfly is red on a green leaf it's rather easy for predators to see. Those who mutated more green had a bigger chance at survival. The same goes for shapes. A leaf shaped wing is harder to make out than wings that aren't. Why are there sharply colored butterflies then if they are easier to see for predators then? Well a potential partner has the same problems a predator has. Here it's the procreation of the species that has won in the grabs evolution.","human_ref_B":"Imagine a bush full of bugs that aren't very well camouflaged. The bugs that look the least like the leaves they are on are more noticeable and get eaten first, meaning the bugs that blend in a bit better are the ones that reproduce. Their babies vary in shape and color, some becoming slightly more like the leaves and some sightly less Again the ones that look least like the leaves hey eaten first. Repeat that millions of times and you get extremely good camouflage. And the bugs themselves never knew what to camouflage themselves as, it was the animals eating the bugs that \"told\" them how to look by not eating the best camouflaged ones.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":932.0,"score_ratio":5.3658536585} {"post_id":"zvefrw","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Eli5 How do animals and insects get so specific with their camouflage? Like dry leaves or shapes of animals. How do they know what to mimic??","c_root_id_A":"j1oqs97","c_root_id_B":"j1osp6q","created_at_utc_A":1672027543,"created_at_utc_B":1672028660,"score_A":13,"score_B":220,"human_ref_A":"They all looked different, the ones that didn\u2019t look so similar to their environment were extra good at dying, and thus extra bad at having babies that looked like them. So the more you happened to look like your environment, the more likely you were to survive long enough to have babies that looked like you. Rinse and repeat","human_ref_B":"Imagine a bush full of bugs that aren't very well camouflaged. The bugs that look the least like the leaves they are on are more noticeable and get eaten first, meaning the bugs that blend in a bit better are the ones that reproduce. Their babies vary in shape and color, some becoming slightly more like the leaves and some sightly less Again the ones that look least like the leaves hey eaten first. Repeat that millions of times and you get extremely good camouflage. And the bugs themselves never knew what to camouflage themselves as, it was the animals eating the bugs that \"told\" them how to look by not eating the best camouflaged ones.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1117.0,"score_ratio":16.9230769231} {"post_id":"zvefrw","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Eli5 How do animals and insects get so specific with their camouflage? Like dry leaves or shapes of animals. How do they know what to mimic??","c_root_id_A":"j1osp6q","c_root_id_B":"j1oqp8y","created_at_utc_A":1672028660,"created_at_utc_B":1672027495,"score_A":220,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Imagine a bush full of bugs that aren't very well camouflaged. The bugs that look the least like the leaves they are on are more noticeable and get eaten first, meaning the bugs that blend in a bit better are the ones that reproduce. Their babies vary in shape and color, some becoming slightly more like the leaves and some sightly less Again the ones that look least like the leaves hey eaten first. Repeat that millions of times and you get extremely good camouflage. And the bugs themselves never knew what to camouflage themselves as, it was the animals eating the bugs that \"told\" them how to look by not eating the best camouflaged ones.","human_ref_B":"You pick up the flashy toys the most. The more they get used the faster they break. Only the toys that are \"harder\" to see last longer. Replace toys and color with predator\/pray animals and their camo coloring. Harder to spot, don't get eaten. Live long enough to have babies. Teach them where to hide, and rinse and repeat until perfection.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1165.0,"score_ratio":31.4285714286} {"post_id":"zvefrw","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Eli5 How do animals and insects get so specific with their camouflage? Like dry leaves or shapes of animals. How do they know what to mimic??","c_root_id_A":"j1oqs97","c_root_id_B":"j1or3w3","created_at_utc_A":1672027543,"created_at_utc_B":1672027728,"score_A":13,"score_B":41,"human_ref_A":"They all looked different, the ones that didn\u2019t look so similar to their environment were extra good at dying, and thus extra bad at having babies that looked like them. So the more you happened to look like your environment, the more likely you were to survive long enough to have babies that looked like you. Rinse and repeat","human_ref_B":"It's not a matter of \"knowing what to mimic\" it's more natural selection at work. If a butterfly is red on a green leaf it's rather easy for predators to see. Those who mutated more green had a bigger chance at survival. The same goes for shapes. A leaf shaped wing is harder to make out than wings that aren't. Why are there sharply colored butterflies then if they are easier to see for predators then? Well a potential partner has the same problems a predator has. Here it's the procreation of the species that has won in the grabs evolution.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":185.0,"score_ratio":3.1538461538} {"post_id":"zvefrw","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Eli5 How do animals and insects get so specific with their camouflage? Like dry leaves or shapes of animals. How do they know what to mimic??","c_root_id_A":"j1oqp8y","c_root_id_B":"j1or3w3","created_at_utc_A":1672027495,"created_at_utc_B":1672027728,"score_A":7,"score_B":41,"human_ref_A":"You pick up the flashy toys the most. The more they get used the faster they break. Only the toys that are \"harder\" to see last longer. Replace toys and color with predator\/pray animals and their camo coloring. Harder to spot, don't get eaten. Live long enough to have babies. Teach them where to hide, and rinse and repeat until perfection.","human_ref_B":"It's not a matter of \"knowing what to mimic\" it's more natural selection at work. If a butterfly is red on a green leaf it's rather easy for predators to see. Those who mutated more green had a bigger chance at survival. The same goes for shapes. A leaf shaped wing is harder to make out than wings that aren't. Why are there sharply colored butterflies then if they are easier to see for predators then? Well a potential partner has the same problems a predator has. Here it's the procreation of the species that has won in the grabs evolution.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":233.0,"score_ratio":5.8571428571} {"post_id":"zvefrw","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Eli5 How do animals and insects get so specific with their camouflage? Like dry leaves or shapes of animals. How do they know what to mimic??","c_root_id_A":"j1oqs97","c_root_id_B":"j1oqp8y","created_at_utc_A":1672027543,"created_at_utc_B":1672027495,"score_A":13,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"They all looked different, the ones that didn\u2019t look so similar to their environment were extra good at dying, and thus extra bad at having babies that looked like them. So the more you happened to look like your environment, the more likely you were to survive long enough to have babies that looked like you. Rinse and repeat","human_ref_B":"You pick up the flashy toys the most. The more they get used the faster they break. Only the toys that are \"harder\" to see last longer. Replace toys and color with predator\/pray animals and their camo coloring. Harder to spot, don't get eaten. Live long enough to have babies. Teach them where to hide, and rinse and repeat until perfection.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":48.0,"score_ratio":1.8571428571} {"post_id":"zvefrw","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Eli5 How do animals and insects get so specific with their camouflage? Like dry leaves or shapes of animals. How do they know what to mimic??","c_root_id_A":"j1oudgr","c_root_id_B":"j1oqp8y","created_at_utc_A":1672029661,"created_at_utc_B":1672027495,"score_A":11,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Millions of years of RNG where the prize for winning was having babies who look similar to you while the losers became bird food At the same time the birds became better and better at spotting the camouflaged bugs leading to an arms race between predators and prey to see and be unseen","human_ref_B":"You pick up the flashy toys the most. The more they get used the faster they break. Only the toys that are \"harder\" to see last longer. Replace toys and color with predator\/pray animals and their camo coloring. Harder to spot, don't get eaten. Live long enough to have babies. Teach them where to hide, and rinse and repeat until perfection.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2166.0,"score_ratio":1.5714285714} {"post_id":"zvefrw","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Eli5 How do animals and insects get so specific with their camouflage? Like dry leaves or shapes of animals. How do they know what to mimic??","c_root_id_A":"j1oszky","c_root_id_B":"j1oudgr","created_at_utc_A":1672028833,"created_at_utc_B":1672029661,"score_A":5,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"They don't know what to mimic. Many generations of insects have been born, lived, and died. Many millions of generations. The ones who happen to do a better job at camouflage live longer and have more babies. They pass on the genes for their type of camo. The ones of the babies who do a better job also live longer and have more babies. Do that a few million times and you have a bug that lives among dead leaves, that looks almost exactly like a dead leaf.","human_ref_B":"Millions of years of RNG where the prize for winning was having babies who look similar to you while the losers became bird food At the same time the birds became better and better at spotting the camouflaged bugs leading to an arms race between predators and prey to see and be unseen","labels":0,"seconds_difference":828.0,"score_ratio":2.2} {"post_id":"zvefrw","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Eli5 How do animals and insects get so specific with their camouflage? Like dry leaves or shapes of animals. How do they know what to mimic??","c_root_id_A":"j1oszky","c_root_id_B":"j1ouf93","created_at_utc_A":1672028833,"created_at_utc_B":1672029691,"score_A":5,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"They don't know what to mimic. Many generations of insects have been born, lived, and died. Many millions of generations. The ones who happen to do a better job at camouflage live longer and have more babies. They pass on the genes for their type of camo. The ones of the babies who do a better job also live longer and have more babies. Do that a few million times and you have a bug that lives among dead leaves, that looks almost exactly like a dead leaf.","human_ref_B":"What about those that end up looking like predators, like the butterfly who looks like a snake? How does natural selection end up making them look like a predator? That seems so random as opposed to just blending in.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":858.0,"score_ratio":1.2} {"post_id":"zvefrw","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Eli5 How do animals and insects get so specific with their camouflage? Like dry leaves or shapes of animals. How do they know what to mimic??","c_root_id_A":"j1p9bb8","c_root_id_B":"j1pqi58","created_at_utc_A":1672040444,"created_at_utc_B":1672056029,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"It\u2019s natural selection mixed with organisms that have relatively small generations and there for more chances for mutation. Before an environment changes. This allowed them to be very specific. Evolution arises from random mutations. If the mutation happens to benefit the organism the new trait will be passed on. In the case of insects, they have many eggs and their generations go by much faster than other organisms. This gives them a much greater incidence of mutation, and that means they can respond to the environments they live in fairly fast relative to say mammals. Overtime, this can lead to extreme specialization.","human_ref_B":"Gonna have to Stretch this answer out because the SUB wont allow it when it is as short as it should be. By dying If your Camouflage sucks. The better it is, the more likely they live on to reproduce. Which means that over thousands or millions of years, the Well camouflaged ones will outnumber the other so far that it will be the norm. And that it will still become better and better.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":15585.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"zvefrw","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Eli5 How do animals and insects get so specific with their camouflage? Like dry leaves or shapes of animals. How do they know what to mimic??","c_root_id_A":"j1r2cj4","c_root_id_B":"j1p9bb8","created_at_utc_A":1672080680,"created_at_utc_B":1672040444,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"It is evolutionary, those with the best camouflage are the least likely to be eaten and thus the most likely to breed as others have said. I just want to add another thing to that: The smaller the creature, the shorter its lifespan and the faster it must breed as a result. Which means that the smaller the creature the faster evolution can change it. Most insects mature within the year and some reproduce several times a year (or within weeks) which makes it easier for them to find niche roles in a given environment. This is also why single-cell organisms tend to have hyper-specific environments they evolve for despite them reproducing asexually.","human_ref_B":"It\u2019s natural selection mixed with organisms that have relatively small generations and there for more chances for mutation. Before an environment changes. This allowed them to be very specific. Evolution arises from random mutations. If the mutation happens to benefit the organism the new trait will be passed on. In the case of insects, they have many eggs and their generations go by much faster than other organisms. This gives them a much greater incidence of mutation, and that means they can respond to the environments they live in fairly fast relative to say mammals. Overtime, this can lead to extreme specialization.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":40236.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"zvefrw","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Eli5 How do animals and insects get so specific with their camouflage? Like dry leaves or shapes of animals. How do they know what to mimic??","c_root_id_A":"j1r2cj4","c_root_id_B":"j1q7dln","created_at_utc_A":1672080680,"created_at_utc_B":1672066832,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"It is evolutionary, those with the best camouflage are the least likely to be eaten and thus the most likely to breed as others have said. I just want to add another thing to that: The smaller the creature, the shorter its lifespan and the faster it must breed as a result. Which means that the smaller the creature the faster evolution can change it. Most insects mature within the year and some reproduce several times a year (or within weeks) which makes it easier for them to find niche roles in a given environment. This is also why single-cell organisms tend to have hyper-specific environments they evolve for despite them reproducing asexually.","human_ref_B":"Accidentally and very slowly. The insects that look the most like an inedible leaf are the most likely to survive and reproduce. Simultaneously, predators with the best eyesight who are therefore able to tell the difference between an insect and a leaf are more likely to find enough food to eat, survive and reproduce. The insects must then look even more like a leaf in order to survive, and so on and so on","labels":1,"seconds_difference":13848.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"zvefrw","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Eli5 How do animals and insects get so specific with their camouflage? Like dry leaves or shapes of animals. How do they know what to mimic??","c_root_id_A":"j1q8qt6","c_root_id_B":"j1r2cj4","created_at_utc_A":1672067505,"created_at_utc_B":1672080680,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Every generation of a certain bug has a slightly different genetic makeup with some random mistakes or mutations. Sometimes the mutation makes them blend into the background better. Those more well hidden reproduce and pass on their good camouflage. Sometimes the good camo gets another mutation that\u2019s even more beneficial or makes them even harder to spot. They reproduce successfully again and pass on the genes. Times that over millions of years and then you have bugs that look like sticks and leaves and flowers.","human_ref_B":"It is evolutionary, those with the best camouflage are the least likely to be eaten and thus the most likely to breed as others have said. I just want to add another thing to that: The smaller the creature, the shorter its lifespan and the faster it must breed as a result. Which means that the smaller the creature the faster evolution can change it. Most insects mature within the year and some reproduce several times a year (or within weeks) which makes it easier for them to find niche roles in a given environment. This is also why single-cell organisms tend to have hyper-specific environments they evolve for despite them reproducing asexually.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":13175.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"zvefrw","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Eli5 How do animals and insects get so specific with their camouflage? Like dry leaves or shapes of animals. How do they know what to mimic??","c_root_id_A":"j1r2cj4","c_root_id_B":"j1qccmr","created_at_utc_A":1672080680,"created_at_utc_B":1672069252,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"It is evolutionary, those with the best camouflage are the least likely to be eaten and thus the most likely to breed as others have said. I just want to add another thing to that: The smaller the creature, the shorter its lifespan and the faster it must breed as a result. Which means that the smaller the creature the faster evolution can change it. Most insects mature within the year and some reproduce several times a year (or within weeks) which makes it easier for them to find niche roles in a given environment. This is also why single-cell organisms tend to have hyper-specific environments they evolve for despite them reproducing asexually.","human_ref_B":"They don't know, and the ones that don't do that also existed at some point, but they all got eaten. What you see is just the stuff that is currently working. And to provide info that no one asked for: evolution and natural selection work on geological time scale, and the driving force are just random mutations that naturally happen. Tiny and random changes that happen across thousands or millions of generations of living creatures, and those with a favorable change survive to make babies that carry those genetic mutations, and those babies make more babies with more mutations over thousands of years. The accumulation of these tiny generational genetic mutations eventually give rise to all the vastly different types of plants and animals you see today. And the common factor to all of these different species is that they're \"good enough\" for their environment. You see, natural selection doesn't mean nature \"picks\" the best traits and make more individuals carrying those traits, but rather the species randomly manifest a bunch of traits and nature just kills off all the ones that aren't \"good enough\". Sometimes many different traits of a same species are all good enough, so they all live on and branch out - divergent (think of the Darwin's finches), or certain traits are so good, that many different species that start manifesting that trait are all good enough and you see the opposite - a convergent (think of the species that all evolved into crabs). To come back to the question, a leaf bug doesn't just wake up and decide to look like a leaf, it's the result of a long lineage of bugs that very slowly became more leaf-like over millions of generations, starting from a bug that mutated and became some % more leaf-like than it's siblings, let's say 1%, then it survived and made 100 buglets, and 1 of those mutated again to be 2% more leaf-like than the original bug, which made it 2% more likely to survive predation, and to make more leafy bug babies. Repeat this process for not just the appearance, but the anatomy and behavior, over millions of years, and you get a leafy ass bug that looks like a leaf, behave like a leaf, all the while having no say in the matter, unaware of it's own leafiness, and if it's good enough to survive to sexual maturity, it too will make leafy bug babies with teeny tiny mutations and the cycle continues","labels":1,"seconds_difference":11428.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"zwt43d","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: how are programming languages... programmed? Basicly what the title says. I know that you can write code to let the computer know what to do when and where. but how does it know the language? where does it come from? is it a kind of a databse?","c_root_id_A":"j1wnq7a","c_root_id_B":"j1wod7d","created_at_utc_A":1672183108,"created_at_utc_B":1672183379,"score_A":16,"score_B":367,"human_ref_A":"A thing called a grammar! A Grammar, just like the one for English or any other natural language, is a set of rules that say what sort of word has to come before\/after any other word(s). When a programmer writes a program his code has to follow the rules of the grammar (not EL5 but this is called syntax checking and is done by modern developer programs, called IDEs, as the programmer writes). Once the programmer is finished his code is converted into an Abstract Syntax Tree, using the rules of the grammar.","human_ref_B":"The CPU of computers have, hard coded into then, a set of instructions that define the kinds of operations that computer can perform. For example, adding two numbers. These instructions are coded in binary. For example, the instruction to add two numbers in memory (along with an optional constant) might look like: 0010000XXXXXYYYYYZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ Where the X's represent the location to find the first number. the Y's represent the location to find the second number, the Z's represent the third constant, and the 0010000 is what tells the computer that this is an adding operation. This is not a particularly intuitive representation. So instead we might want to represent it with something more like language, like: \"ADD X Y Z\" But now we need a program that converts \"ADD X Y Z\", which we understand, into \"0010000XXXXXYYYYYZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ\", which the computer understands. So we make a program that does that, directly programming it with machine code. This is how *assemblers* came into being. This slightly-higher-level language was called Assembly and the programs that would convert assembly into machine code were assemblers. Higher level languages make the commands even more sensible and memorable, translate into multiple machine-level instructions with a single high-level command, and also optimize and streamline code. The first high level languages would have been programmed in assembly, along with the programs to convert the high level language into machine language, called *compilers.* Today, we use high level languages to make *other* high level languages.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":271.0,"score_ratio":22.9375} {"post_id":"zwt43d","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: how are programming languages... programmed? Basicly what the title says. I know that you can write code to let the computer know what to do when and where. but how does it know the language? where does it come from? is it a kind of a databse?","c_root_id_A":"j1wod7d","c_root_id_B":"j1wo6ay","created_at_utc_A":1672183379,"created_at_utc_B":1672183299,"score_A":367,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"The CPU of computers have, hard coded into then, a set of instructions that define the kinds of operations that computer can perform. For example, adding two numbers. These instructions are coded in binary. For example, the instruction to add two numbers in memory (along with an optional constant) might look like: 0010000XXXXXYYYYYZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ Where the X's represent the location to find the first number. the Y's represent the location to find the second number, the Z's represent the third constant, and the 0010000 is what tells the computer that this is an adding operation. This is not a particularly intuitive representation. So instead we might want to represent it with something more like language, like: \"ADD X Y Z\" But now we need a program that converts \"ADD X Y Z\", which we understand, into \"0010000XXXXXYYYYYZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ\", which the computer understands. So we make a program that does that, directly programming it with machine code. This is how *assemblers* came into being. This slightly-higher-level language was called Assembly and the programs that would convert assembly into machine code were assemblers. Higher level languages make the commands even more sensible and memorable, translate into multiple machine-level instructions with a single high-level command, and also optimize and streamline code. The first high level languages would have been programmed in assembly, along with the programs to convert the high level language into machine language, called *compilers.* Today, we use high level languages to make *other* high level languages.","human_ref_B":"Every computer language gets translated into the basic machine language that the CPU natively understands. You can roughly break languages into 2 categories \\* compiled languages - the language is directly compiled into native machine language before running it (this is languages like C, C++, Rust, Pascal, etc). The compilation is done by a program called a \"compiler\" that translates the programming language into machine language. \\* interpreted languages - the languages is translated into native machine language \\*while\\* the program is running, using a special program called an interpreter (this is languages like Basic, Python, Ruby, PHP, Perl) This is oversimplifying but close enough for Explain like I'm five years old","labels":1,"seconds_difference":80.0,"score_ratio":33.3636363636} {"post_id":"zwt43d","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: how are programming languages... programmed? Basicly what the title says. I know that you can write code to let the computer know what to do when and where. but how does it know the language? where does it come from? is it a kind of a databse?","c_root_id_A":"j1wnq7a","c_root_id_B":"j1xn36t","created_at_utc_A":1672183108,"created_at_utc_B":1672199315,"score_A":16,"score_B":55,"human_ref_A":"A thing called a grammar! A Grammar, just like the one for English or any other natural language, is a set of rules that say what sort of word has to come before\/after any other word(s). When a programmer writes a program his code has to follow the rules of the grammar (not EL5 but this is called syntax checking and is done by modern developer programs, called IDEs, as the programmer writes). Once the programmer is finished his code is converted into an Abstract Syntax Tree, using the rules of the grammar.","human_ref_B":"Others have already done a great job of explaining machine code, the series of ones and zeroes that computers actually operate with. Writing programs in assembly is great and all, but how do we teach a computer a new language? Well, there are a few different options actually. 1. Write a compiler. A compiler is a program which takes in a file written in some programming language and spits out a file written in a different programming language (usually machine code). C is an example of a compiled language; every program written in C is always run through a compiler first and converted to machine code before it can be run. Some benefits of this are that programs written in C are really fast, since they\u2019re actually running in the computers native language, and as a user I don\u2019t have to install any extra stuff to get it to work. The downside is, though, that different computers have different n Native languages. A Mac does not understand the same machine code that a PC does, for example, so if I want to run the same app on my PC and my Mac, I need to write two different compilers and use them to create two different versions of my app! 2. Write a virtual machine. A virtual machine is a program which simulates an entire new computer inside your computer. This may seem pointless but since this \u201cenvironment\u201d is simulated, it can be designed to have whatever properties and understand whatever kind of code we want. Java is a language which runs on a virtual machine. When you run a java program, what actually happens is it first searches your computer for a version of the java virtual machine (JVM) and runs it, and then asks the virtual machine to run the program you clicked on. The benefit of this is that as long as there exists a virtual machine for your system, you can run the same java file on any system you want, no need for specific versions for MacOS or Windows, etc. The downsides are that you can\u2019t run java files at all unless you download the virtual machine first, which is not as user friendly, and also, as you might imagine, it is quite slow to simulate an entire virtual machine inside your system. 3. Write an interpreter. An interpreter is somewhat of a compromise between the previous two options. This is a program which takes a file written in one language and interprets it into instructions that the computer can execute. Whereas a compiler merely translates the code into another file, an interpreter actually runs the code. Python is an example of an interpreted language. When you run a Python program, you actually run the interpreter instead and give it the name of your program as a parameter, and it runs your program for you. Interpreters tend to be simpler and smaller than virtual machines, which can mean the languages that use them are faster in some cases - not Python, sadly, but some languages like Lua have interpreters that are so small, they can be packaged together with your app, so that users only have to download one file. Ok, that was probably too much information already, but there\u2019s still a big question: how do we write compilers, virtual machines, and interpreters? It\u2019s like a bottomless pit of logic; how do we teach a computer to understand something that\u2019s more complicated than what it already knows? Well, to truly answer that, I\u2019d recommend taking a college course on formal language theory. For now, suffice it to say that all programming languages are equally as capable as machine code - there\u2019s no program you could write in Python, or C, or Java that you couldn\u2019t write in plain machine code, and so, in a sense, no language is any more complicated than any other language. It\u2019s just a matter of translating from one to another, and to do that there is a useful conceptual tool called a grammar. A grammar is a way of boiling down the structure of a language to a few simple rules, like: A sentence is made up of a noun phrase, a verb, another noun phrase, and then an ending punctuation. A noun phrase can contain an article and a noun, a plural noun, or a proper noun. An ending punctuation can be a period, a question mark, or an exclamation mark. Using grammars, programmers can break down the huge task of interpreting a programming language into smaller tasks, and write their program in a way that it always has a sense of the possible pieces that could come next while it is reading the code.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":16207.0,"score_ratio":3.4375} {"post_id":"zwt43d","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: how are programming languages... programmed? Basicly what the title says. I know that you can write code to let the computer know what to do when and where. but how does it know the language? where does it come from? is it a kind of a databse?","c_root_id_A":"j1wp3eo","c_root_id_B":"j1xn36t","created_at_utc_A":1672183691,"created_at_utc_B":1672199315,"score_A":15,"score_B":55,"human_ref_A":"The same way we translate languages if we had an intermediary (roughly, Explain like I'm five years old after all). Imagine you have two people who want to talk. One speaks French and English, and one speaks Chinese only. There is a third person who speaks Chinese and English. So the French person talks to the translator in English (translation #1, by the original speaker in their head). Then the translator says it in Chinese (translation #2, by the intermediary). When we program, the programmer is taking their native language (in my case, English) and putting it into an intermediary language (like C++) that the translator knows. The translator in this case is a piece of software that knows both C++ and machine binary (the final language). So the first translation is done by the programmer into the intermediate language. Then the software translates it into the final (machine) language.","human_ref_B":"Others have already done a great job of explaining machine code, the series of ones and zeroes that computers actually operate with. Writing programs in assembly is great and all, but how do we teach a computer a new language? Well, there are a few different options actually. 1. Write a compiler. A compiler is a program which takes in a file written in some programming language and spits out a file written in a different programming language (usually machine code). C is an example of a compiled language; every program written in C is always run through a compiler first and converted to machine code before it can be run. Some benefits of this are that programs written in C are really fast, since they\u2019re actually running in the computers native language, and as a user I don\u2019t have to install any extra stuff to get it to work. The downside is, though, that different computers have different n Native languages. A Mac does not understand the same machine code that a PC does, for example, so if I want to run the same app on my PC and my Mac, I need to write two different compilers and use them to create two different versions of my app! 2. Write a virtual machine. A virtual machine is a program which simulates an entire new computer inside your computer. This may seem pointless but since this \u201cenvironment\u201d is simulated, it can be designed to have whatever properties and understand whatever kind of code we want. Java is a language which runs on a virtual machine. When you run a java program, what actually happens is it first searches your computer for a version of the java virtual machine (JVM) and runs it, and then asks the virtual machine to run the program you clicked on. The benefit of this is that as long as there exists a virtual machine for your system, you can run the same java file on any system you want, no need for specific versions for MacOS or Windows, etc. The downsides are that you can\u2019t run java files at all unless you download the virtual machine first, which is not as user friendly, and also, as you might imagine, it is quite slow to simulate an entire virtual machine inside your system. 3. Write an interpreter. An interpreter is somewhat of a compromise between the previous two options. This is a program which takes a file written in one language and interprets it into instructions that the computer can execute. Whereas a compiler merely translates the code into another file, an interpreter actually runs the code. Python is an example of an interpreted language. When you run a Python program, you actually run the interpreter instead and give it the name of your program as a parameter, and it runs your program for you. Interpreters tend to be simpler and smaller than virtual machines, which can mean the languages that use them are faster in some cases - not Python, sadly, but some languages like Lua have interpreters that are so small, they can be packaged together with your app, so that users only have to download one file. Ok, that was probably too much information already, but there\u2019s still a big question: how do we write compilers, virtual machines, and interpreters? It\u2019s like a bottomless pit of logic; how do we teach a computer to understand something that\u2019s more complicated than what it already knows? Well, to truly answer that, I\u2019d recommend taking a college course on formal language theory. For now, suffice it to say that all programming languages are equally as capable as machine code - there\u2019s no program you could write in Python, or C, or Java that you couldn\u2019t write in plain machine code, and so, in a sense, no language is any more complicated than any other language. It\u2019s just a matter of translating from one to another, and to do that there is a useful conceptual tool called a grammar. A grammar is a way of boiling down the structure of a language to a few simple rules, like: A sentence is made up of a noun phrase, a verb, another noun phrase, and then an ending punctuation. A noun phrase can contain an article and a noun, a plural noun, or a proper noun. An ending punctuation can be a period, a question mark, or an exclamation mark. Using grammars, programmers can break down the huge task of interpreting a programming language into smaller tasks, and write their program in a way that it always has a sense of the possible pieces that could come next while it is reading the code.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":15624.0,"score_ratio":3.6666666667} {"post_id":"zwt43d","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: how are programming languages... programmed? Basicly what the title says. I know that you can write code to let the computer know what to do when and where. but how does it know the language? where does it come from? is it a kind of a databse?","c_root_id_A":"j1wo6ay","c_root_id_B":"j1xn36t","created_at_utc_A":1672183299,"created_at_utc_B":1672199315,"score_A":11,"score_B":55,"human_ref_A":"Every computer language gets translated into the basic machine language that the CPU natively understands. You can roughly break languages into 2 categories \\* compiled languages - the language is directly compiled into native machine language before running it (this is languages like C, C++, Rust, Pascal, etc). The compilation is done by a program called a \"compiler\" that translates the programming language into machine language. \\* interpreted languages - the languages is translated into native machine language \\*while\\* the program is running, using a special program called an interpreter (this is languages like Basic, Python, Ruby, PHP, Perl) This is oversimplifying but close enough for Explain like I'm five years old","human_ref_B":"Others have already done a great job of explaining machine code, the series of ones and zeroes that computers actually operate with. Writing programs in assembly is great and all, but how do we teach a computer a new language? Well, there are a few different options actually. 1. Write a compiler. A compiler is a program which takes in a file written in some programming language and spits out a file written in a different programming language (usually machine code). C is an example of a compiled language; every program written in C is always run through a compiler first and converted to machine code before it can be run. Some benefits of this are that programs written in C are really fast, since they\u2019re actually running in the computers native language, and as a user I don\u2019t have to install any extra stuff to get it to work. The downside is, though, that different computers have different n Native languages. A Mac does not understand the same machine code that a PC does, for example, so if I want to run the same app on my PC and my Mac, I need to write two different compilers and use them to create two different versions of my app! 2. Write a virtual machine. A virtual machine is a program which simulates an entire new computer inside your computer. This may seem pointless but since this \u201cenvironment\u201d is simulated, it can be designed to have whatever properties and understand whatever kind of code we want. Java is a language which runs on a virtual machine. When you run a java program, what actually happens is it first searches your computer for a version of the java virtual machine (JVM) and runs it, and then asks the virtual machine to run the program you clicked on. The benefit of this is that as long as there exists a virtual machine for your system, you can run the same java file on any system you want, no need for specific versions for MacOS or Windows, etc. The downsides are that you can\u2019t run java files at all unless you download the virtual machine first, which is not as user friendly, and also, as you might imagine, it is quite slow to simulate an entire virtual machine inside your system. 3. Write an interpreter. An interpreter is somewhat of a compromise between the previous two options. This is a program which takes a file written in one language and interprets it into instructions that the computer can execute. Whereas a compiler merely translates the code into another file, an interpreter actually runs the code. Python is an example of an interpreted language. When you run a Python program, you actually run the interpreter instead and give it the name of your program as a parameter, and it runs your program for you. Interpreters tend to be simpler and smaller than virtual machines, which can mean the languages that use them are faster in some cases - not Python, sadly, but some languages like Lua have interpreters that are so small, they can be packaged together with your app, so that users only have to download one file. Ok, that was probably too much information already, but there\u2019s still a big question: how do we write compilers, virtual machines, and interpreters? It\u2019s like a bottomless pit of logic; how do we teach a computer to understand something that\u2019s more complicated than what it already knows? Well, to truly answer that, I\u2019d recommend taking a college course on formal language theory. For now, suffice it to say that all programming languages are equally as capable as machine code - there\u2019s no program you could write in Python, or C, or Java that you couldn\u2019t write in plain machine code, and so, in a sense, no language is any more complicated than any other language. It\u2019s just a matter of translating from one to another, and to do that there is a useful conceptual tool called a grammar. A grammar is a way of boiling down the structure of a language to a few simple rules, like: A sentence is made up of a noun phrase, a verb, another noun phrase, and then an ending punctuation. A noun phrase can contain an article and a noun, a plural noun, or a proper noun. An ending punctuation can be a period, a question mark, or an exclamation mark. Using grammars, programmers can break down the huge task of interpreting a programming language into smaller tasks, and write their program in a way that it always has a sense of the possible pieces that could come next while it is reading the code.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":16016.0,"score_ratio":5.0} {"post_id":"zwt43d","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: how are programming languages... programmed? Basicly what the title says. I know that you can write code to let the computer know what to do when and where. but how does it know the language? where does it come from? is it a kind of a databse?","c_root_id_A":"j1xn36t","c_root_id_B":"j1wpizf","created_at_utc_A":1672199315,"created_at_utc_B":1672183876,"score_A":55,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Others have already done a great job of explaining machine code, the series of ones and zeroes that computers actually operate with. Writing programs in assembly is great and all, but how do we teach a computer a new language? Well, there are a few different options actually. 1. Write a compiler. A compiler is a program which takes in a file written in some programming language and spits out a file written in a different programming language (usually machine code). C is an example of a compiled language; every program written in C is always run through a compiler first and converted to machine code before it can be run. Some benefits of this are that programs written in C are really fast, since they\u2019re actually running in the computers native language, and as a user I don\u2019t have to install any extra stuff to get it to work. The downside is, though, that different computers have different n Native languages. A Mac does not understand the same machine code that a PC does, for example, so if I want to run the same app on my PC and my Mac, I need to write two different compilers and use them to create two different versions of my app! 2. Write a virtual machine. A virtual machine is a program which simulates an entire new computer inside your computer. This may seem pointless but since this \u201cenvironment\u201d is simulated, it can be designed to have whatever properties and understand whatever kind of code we want. Java is a language which runs on a virtual machine. When you run a java program, what actually happens is it first searches your computer for a version of the java virtual machine (JVM) and runs it, and then asks the virtual machine to run the program you clicked on. The benefit of this is that as long as there exists a virtual machine for your system, you can run the same java file on any system you want, no need for specific versions for MacOS or Windows, etc. The downsides are that you can\u2019t run java files at all unless you download the virtual machine first, which is not as user friendly, and also, as you might imagine, it is quite slow to simulate an entire virtual machine inside your system. 3. Write an interpreter. An interpreter is somewhat of a compromise between the previous two options. This is a program which takes a file written in one language and interprets it into instructions that the computer can execute. Whereas a compiler merely translates the code into another file, an interpreter actually runs the code. Python is an example of an interpreted language. When you run a Python program, you actually run the interpreter instead and give it the name of your program as a parameter, and it runs your program for you. Interpreters tend to be simpler and smaller than virtual machines, which can mean the languages that use them are faster in some cases - not Python, sadly, but some languages like Lua have interpreters that are so small, they can be packaged together with your app, so that users only have to download one file. Ok, that was probably too much information already, but there\u2019s still a big question: how do we write compilers, virtual machines, and interpreters? It\u2019s like a bottomless pit of logic; how do we teach a computer to understand something that\u2019s more complicated than what it already knows? Well, to truly answer that, I\u2019d recommend taking a college course on formal language theory. For now, suffice it to say that all programming languages are equally as capable as machine code - there\u2019s no program you could write in Python, or C, or Java that you couldn\u2019t write in plain machine code, and so, in a sense, no language is any more complicated than any other language. It\u2019s just a matter of translating from one to another, and to do that there is a useful conceptual tool called a grammar. A grammar is a way of boiling down the structure of a language to a few simple rules, like: A sentence is made up of a noun phrase, a verb, another noun phrase, and then an ending punctuation. A noun phrase can contain an article and a noun, a plural noun, or a proper noun. An ending punctuation can be a period, a question mark, or an exclamation mark. Using grammars, programmers can break down the huge task of interpreting a programming language into smaller tasks, and write their program in a way that it always has a sense of the possible pieces that could come next while it is reading the code.","human_ref_B":"> but how does it know the language The CPU has a hardwired circuitry supporting a certain set of operations. These are exposed as \"instructions\" to the user, also called an instruction set. Each instruction has corresponding usage - an \"ADD\" instruction will require the user to provide a location to store the result and data to add. The \"user\" here is usually the compiler responsible for generating machine code, which is simply a list of \", , ...\" commands. All programs, no matter how complex, are broken down into these commands and sent to the cpu for execution. On windows, you can open \".exe\" files in some binary decoders to see these CPU instructions directly.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":15439.0,"score_ratio":13.75} {"post_id":"zwt43d","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: how are programming languages... programmed? Basicly what the title says. I know that you can write code to let the computer know what to do when and where. but how does it know the language? where does it come from? is it a kind of a databse?","c_root_id_A":"j1xn36t","c_root_id_B":"j1wqozh","created_at_utc_A":1672199315,"created_at_utc_B":1672184389,"score_A":55,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Others have already done a great job of explaining machine code, the series of ones and zeroes that computers actually operate with. Writing programs in assembly is great and all, but how do we teach a computer a new language? Well, there are a few different options actually. 1. Write a compiler. A compiler is a program which takes in a file written in some programming language and spits out a file written in a different programming language (usually machine code). C is an example of a compiled language; every program written in C is always run through a compiler first and converted to machine code before it can be run. Some benefits of this are that programs written in C are really fast, since they\u2019re actually running in the computers native language, and as a user I don\u2019t have to install any extra stuff to get it to work. The downside is, though, that different computers have different n Native languages. A Mac does not understand the same machine code that a PC does, for example, so if I want to run the same app on my PC and my Mac, I need to write two different compilers and use them to create two different versions of my app! 2. Write a virtual machine. A virtual machine is a program which simulates an entire new computer inside your computer. This may seem pointless but since this \u201cenvironment\u201d is simulated, it can be designed to have whatever properties and understand whatever kind of code we want. Java is a language which runs on a virtual machine. When you run a java program, what actually happens is it first searches your computer for a version of the java virtual machine (JVM) and runs it, and then asks the virtual machine to run the program you clicked on. The benefit of this is that as long as there exists a virtual machine for your system, you can run the same java file on any system you want, no need for specific versions for MacOS or Windows, etc. The downsides are that you can\u2019t run java files at all unless you download the virtual machine first, which is not as user friendly, and also, as you might imagine, it is quite slow to simulate an entire virtual machine inside your system. 3. Write an interpreter. An interpreter is somewhat of a compromise between the previous two options. This is a program which takes a file written in one language and interprets it into instructions that the computer can execute. Whereas a compiler merely translates the code into another file, an interpreter actually runs the code. Python is an example of an interpreted language. When you run a Python program, you actually run the interpreter instead and give it the name of your program as a parameter, and it runs your program for you. Interpreters tend to be simpler and smaller than virtual machines, which can mean the languages that use them are faster in some cases - not Python, sadly, but some languages like Lua have interpreters that are so small, they can be packaged together with your app, so that users only have to download one file. Ok, that was probably too much information already, but there\u2019s still a big question: how do we write compilers, virtual machines, and interpreters? It\u2019s like a bottomless pit of logic; how do we teach a computer to understand something that\u2019s more complicated than what it already knows? Well, to truly answer that, I\u2019d recommend taking a college course on formal language theory. For now, suffice it to say that all programming languages are equally as capable as machine code - there\u2019s no program you could write in Python, or C, or Java that you couldn\u2019t write in plain machine code, and so, in a sense, no language is any more complicated than any other language. It\u2019s just a matter of translating from one to another, and to do that there is a useful conceptual tool called a grammar. A grammar is a way of boiling down the structure of a language to a few simple rules, like: A sentence is made up of a noun phrase, a verb, another noun phrase, and then an ending punctuation. A noun phrase can contain an article and a noun, a plural noun, or a proper noun. An ending punctuation can be a period, a question mark, or an exclamation mark. Using grammars, programmers can break down the huge task of interpreting a programming language into smaller tasks, and write their program in a way that it always has a sense of the possible pieces that could come next while it is reading the code.","human_ref_B":"Visualize yourself moving forward at a consistent speed. When I say \u201cding\u201d you turn right; when I say \u201cdong\u201d you turn left. \u201cDing, Ding, Ding, Ding\u201d You just visualized a square. You understand the rules I created, and I gave you a program that follows those rules. The browser understands a ton of rules and instructions: CSS, Javascript, plug-ins, etc. it doesn\u2019t understand photoshop filters though. Photoshop understands its\u2019 own filters but doesn\u2019t understand CSS. You need a set of rules, an application that understands those rules and a program that follows those rules.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":14926.0,"score_ratio":18.3333333333} {"post_id":"zwt43d","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: how are programming languages... programmed? Basicly what the title says. I know that you can write code to let the computer know what to do when and where. but how does it know the language? where does it come from? is it a kind of a databse?","c_root_id_A":"j1x3ced","c_root_id_B":"j1xn36t","created_at_utc_A":1672190021,"created_at_utc_B":1672199315,"score_A":2,"score_B":55,"human_ref_A":"Computers are essentially just composed of a humongous number of switches. Each switch can be off or on (represented by 0 or 1). The combinations of 0s and 1s is what makes the computer do what it does. To control the switches, we use machine language. Machine language is a bare bones way of directly accessing each switch. It's super interesting, and super complicated, but working with processors in machine language helps you understand what goes on inside any computer\/processor. Machine language is super easy for the processor to understand, but it's harder for people to use. You might need 20, or even 100, lines in machine language to execute 1 line of python. So, we can invent programming languages that are easier for humans to use. Like python, C, etc. This applies to all programming languages, but I'll use python in my example. Python commands are essentially shortcuts to call the machine code that is needed to execute the line. So if you write a 1-line print statement in python, python translates it to execute those 20 or so lines of machine code. In the programming language or compiler, you (the programming language inventor) would associate the commands in your new language with the ones that need to be run in machine language. It's a mix between using direct shortcuts and translating between languages.","human_ref_B":"Others have already done a great job of explaining machine code, the series of ones and zeroes that computers actually operate with. Writing programs in assembly is great and all, but how do we teach a computer a new language? Well, there are a few different options actually. 1. Write a compiler. A compiler is a program which takes in a file written in some programming language and spits out a file written in a different programming language (usually machine code). C is an example of a compiled language; every program written in C is always run through a compiler first and converted to machine code before it can be run. Some benefits of this are that programs written in C are really fast, since they\u2019re actually running in the computers native language, and as a user I don\u2019t have to install any extra stuff to get it to work. The downside is, though, that different computers have different n Native languages. A Mac does not understand the same machine code that a PC does, for example, so if I want to run the same app on my PC and my Mac, I need to write two different compilers and use them to create two different versions of my app! 2. Write a virtual machine. A virtual machine is a program which simulates an entire new computer inside your computer. This may seem pointless but since this \u201cenvironment\u201d is simulated, it can be designed to have whatever properties and understand whatever kind of code we want. Java is a language which runs on a virtual machine. When you run a java program, what actually happens is it first searches your computer for a version of the java virtual machine (JVM) and runs it, and then asks the virtual machine to run the program you clicked on. The benefit of this is that as long as there exists a virtual machine for your system, you can run the same java file on any system you want, no need for specific versions for MacOS or Windows, etc. The downsides are that you can\u2019t run java files at all unless you download the virtual machine first, which is not as user friendly, and also, as you might imagine, it is quite slow to simulate an entire virtual machine inside your system. 3. Write an interpreter. An interpreter is somewhat of a compromise between the previous two options. This is a program which takes a file written in one language and interprets it into instructions that the computer can execute. Whereas a compiler merely translates the code into another file, an interpreter actually runs the code. Python is an example of an interpreted language. When you run a Python program, you actually run the interpreter instead and give it the name of your program as a parameter, and it runs your program for you. Interpreters tend to be simpler and smaller than virtual machines, which can mean the languages that use them are faster in some cases - not Python, sadly, but some languages like Lua have interpreters that are so small, they can be packaged together with your app, so that users only have to download one file. Ok, that was probably too much information already, but there\u2019s still a big question: how do we write compilers, virtual machines, and interpreters? It\u2019s like a bottomless pit of logic; how do we teach a computer to understand something that\u2019s more complicated than what it already knows? Well, to truly answer that, I\u2019d recommend taking a college course on formal language theory. For now, suffice it to say that all programming languages are equally as capable as machine code - there\u2019s no program you could write in Python, or C, or Java that you couldn\u2019t write in plain machine code, and so, in a sense, no language is any more complicated than any other language. It\u2019s just a matter of translating from one to another, and to do that there is a useful conceptual tool called a grammar. A grammar is a way of boiling down the structure of a language to a few simple rules, like: A sentence is made up of a noun phrase, a verb, another noun phrase, and then an ending punctuation. A noun phrase can contain an article and a noun, a plural noun, or a proper noun. An ending punctuation can be a period, a question mark, or an exclamation mark. Using grammars, programmers can break down the huge task of interpreting a programming language into smaller tasks, and write their program in a way that it always has a sense of the possible pieces that could come next while it is reading the code.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9294.0,"score_ratio":27.5} {"post_id":"zwt43d","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: how are programming languages... programmed? Basicly what the title says. I know that you can write code to let the computer know what to do when and where. but how does it know the language? where does it come from? is it a kind of a databse?","c_root_id_A":"j1wo6ay","c_root_id_B":"j1wp3eo","created_at_utc_A":1672183299,"created_at_utc_B":1672183691,"score_A":11,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"Every computer language gets translated into the basic machine language that the CPU natively understands. You can roughly break languages into 2 categories \\* compiled languages - the language is directly compiled into native machine language before running it (this is languages like C, C++, Rust, Pascal, etc). The compilation is done by a program called a \"compiler\" that translates the programming language into machine language. \\* interpreted languages - the languages is translated into native machine language \\*while\\* the program is running, using a special program called an interpreter (this is languages like Basic, Python, Ruby, PHP, Perl) This is oversimplifying but close enough for Explain like I'm five years old","human_ref_B":"The same way we translate languages if we had an intermediary (roughly, Explain like I'm five years old after all). Imagine you have two people who want to talk. One speaks French and English, and one speaks Chinese only. There is a third person who speaks Chinese and English. So the French person talks to the translator in English (translation #1, by the original speaker in their head). Then the translator says it in Chinese (translation #2, by the intermediary). When we program, the programmer is taking their native language (in my case, English) and putting it into an intermediary language (like C++) that the translator knows. The translator in this case is a piece of software that knows both C++ and machine binary (the final language). So the first translation is done by the programmer into the intermediate language. Then the software translates it into the final (machine) language.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":392.0,"score_ratio":1.3636363636} {"post_id":"zwt43d","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: how are programming languages... programmed? Basicly what the title says. I know that you can write code to let the computer know what to do when and where. but how does it know the language? where does it come from? is it a kind of a databse?","c_root_id_A":"j1wo6ay","c_root_id_B":"j1yfvw5","created_at_utc_A":1672183299,"created_at_utc_B":1672218403,"score_A":11,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"Every computer language gets translated into the basic machine language that the CPU natively understands. You can roughly break languages into 2 categories \\* compiled languages - the language is directly compiled into native machine language before running it (this is languages like C, C++, Rust, Pascal, etc). The compilation is done by a program called a \"compiler\" that translates the programming language into machine language. \\* interpreted languages - the languages is translated into native machine language \\*while\\* the program is running, using a special program called an interpreter (this is languages like Basic, Python, Ruby, PHP, Perl) This is oversimplifying but close enough for Explain like I'm five years old","human_ref_B":"The first programming language was assembly language. This assigned words (e.g add, jump) to the \"machine code\" - binary numbers that the CPU read. These were converted by hand. It didn't take long for someone to get the computer itself to do all the hard work so we had assemblers. But people also realised if you have a computer doing this you can translate more complex ideas to machine code so the earliest programming languages were written. The tools that turn this into machine code are called compilers. These were used to write more complex languages. So if you were able to find the source of every program ever, you'll find any programming language is written using a series of compilers and assemblers going back to some guy working out how an assembler works on paper and converting instructions by hand.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":35104.0,"score_ratio":1.1818181818} {"post_id":"zwt43d","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: how are programming languages... programmed? Basicly what the title says. I know that you can write code to let the computer know what to do when and where. but how does it know the language? where does it come from? is it a kind of a databse?","c_root_id_A":"j1wpizf","c_root_id_B":"j1yfvw5","created_at_utc_A":1672183876,"created_at_utc_B":1672218403,"score_A":4,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"> but how does it know the language The CPU has a hardwired circuitry supporting a certain set of operations. These are exposed as \"instructions\" to the user, also called an instruction set. Each instruction has corresponding usage - an \"ADD\" instruction will require the user to provide a location to store the result and data to add. The \"user\" here is usually the compiler responsible for generating machine code, which is simply a list of \", , ...\" commands. All programs, no matter how complex, are broken down into these commands and sent to the cpu for execution. On windows, you can open \".exe\" files in some binary decoders to see these CPU instructions directly.","human_ref_B":"The first programming language was assembly language. This assigned words (e.g add, jump) to the \"machine code\" - binary numbers that the CPU read. These were converted by hand. It didn't take long for someone to get the computer itself to do all the hard work so we had assemblers. But people also realised if you have a computer doing this you can translate more complex ideas to machine code so the earliest programming languages were written. The tools that turn this into machine code are called compilers. These were used to write more complex languages. So if you were able to find the source of every program ever, you'll find any programming language is written using a series of compilers and assemblers going back to some guy working out how an assembler works on paper and converting instructions by hand.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":34527.0,"score_ratio":3.25} {"post_id":"zwt43d","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: how are programming languages... programmed? Basicly what the title says. I know that you can write code to let the computer know what to do when and where. but how does it know the language? where does it come from? is it a kind of a databse?","c_root_id_A":"j1yfvw5","c_root_id_B":"j1wqozh","created_at_utc_A":1672218403,"created_at_utc_B":1672184389,"score_A":13,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"The first programming language was assembly language. This assigned words (e.g add, jump) to the \"machine code\" - binary numbers that the CPU read. These were converted by hand. It didn't take long for someone to get the computer itself to do all the hard work so we had assemblers. But people also realised if you have a computer doing this you can translate more complex ideas to machine code so the earliest programming languages were written. The tools that turn this into machine code are called compilers. These were used to write more complex languages. So if you were able to find the source of every program ever, you'll find any programming language is written using a series of compilers and assemblers going back to some guy working out how an assembler works on paper and converting instructions by hand.","human_ref_B":"Visualize yourself moving forward at a consistent speed. When I say \u201cding\u201d you turn right; when I say \u201cdong\u201d you turn left. \u201cDing, Ding, Ding, Ding\u201d You just visualized a square. You understand the rules I created, and I gave you a program that follows those rules. The browser understands a ton of rules and instructions: CSS, Javascript, plug-ins, etc. it doesn\u2019t understand photoshop filters though. Photoshop understands its\u2019 own filters but doesn\u2019t understand CSS. You need a set of rules, an application that understands those rules and a program that follows those rules.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":34014.0,"score_ratio":4.3333333333} {"post_id":"zwt43d","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: how are programming languages... programmed? Basicly what the title says. I know that you can write code to let the computer know what to do when and where. but how does it know the language? where does it come from? is it a kind of a databse?","c_root_id_A":"j1yfvw5","c_root_id_B":"j1x3ced","created_at_utc_A":1672218403,"created_at_utc_B":1672190021,"score_A":13,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"The first programming language was assembly language. This assigned words (e.g add, jump) to the \"machine code\" - binary numbers that the CPU read. These were converted by hand. It didn't take long for someone to get the computer itself to do all the hard work so we had assemblers. But people also realised if you have a computer doing this you can translate more complex ideas to machine code so the earliest programming languages were written. The tools that turn this into machine code are called compilers. These were used to write more complex languages. So if you were able to find the source of every program ever, you'll find any programming language is written using a series of compilers and assemblers going back to some guy working out how an assembler works on paper and converting instructions by hand.","human_ref_B":"Computers are essentially just composed of a humongous number of switches. Each switch can be off or on (represented by 0 or 1). The combinations of 0s and 1s is what makes the computer do what it does. To control the switches, we use machine language. Machine language is a bare bones way of directly accessing each switch. It's super interesting, and super complicated, but working with processors in machine language helps you understand what goes on inside any computer\/processor. Machine language is super easy for the processor to understand, but it's harder for people to use. You might need 20, or even 100, lines in machine language to execute 1 line of python. So, we can invent programming languages that are easier for humans to use. Like python, C, etc. This applies to all programming languages, but I'll use python in my example. Python commands are essentially shortcuts to call the machine code that is needed to execute the line. So if you write a 1-line print statement in python, python translates it to execute those 20 or so lines of machine code. In the programming language or compiler, you (the programming language inventor) would associate the commands in your new language with the ones that need to be run in machine language. It's a mix between using direct shortcuts and translating between languages.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":28382.0,"score_ratio":6.5} {"post_id":"zwt43d","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: how are programming languages... programmed? Basicly what the title says. I know that you can write code to let the computer know what to do when and where. but how does it know the language? where does it come from? is it a kind of a databse?","c_root_id_A":"j1yfvw5","c_root_id_B":"j1y6nm0","created_at_utc_A":1672218403,"created_at_utc_B":1672210956,"score_A":13,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"The first programming language was assembly language. This assigned words (e.g add, jump) to the \"machine code\" - binary numbers that the CPU read. These were converted by hand. It didn't take long for someone to get the computer itself to do all the hard work so we had assemblers. But people also realised if you have a computer doing this you can translate more complex ideas to machine code so the earliest programming languages were written. The tools that turn this into machine code are called compilers. These were used to write more complex languages. So if you were able to find the source of every program ever, you'll find any programming language is written using a series of compilers and assemblers going back to some guy working out how an assembler works on paper and converting instructions by hand.","human_ref_B":"I was happy to see this Explain like I'm five years old because I am wondering exactly the same thing. But I am dissapointed that no-one actually explained how do computer understand their Assembler language. In other words, how do the microprocessor(s) understand the letters and numbers ?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7447.0,"score_ratio":6.5} {"post_id":"qtmwpn","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How are different programming languages translated in countries that speak different spoken languages","c_root_id_A":"hkkmuns","c_root_id_B":"hkl45q7","created_at_utc_A":1636885749,"created_at_utc_B":1636897080,"score_A":5,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"It's a language, you have to learn it in order to use it there is no translating it. You can't go to Italy and use the translated version of the Italian language and expect people to understand you.","human_ref_B":"Most software is just written in English. As a programmer the most important things are consistency. Hence even though I use British English if I write some code (even just for myself) I will use variables like `color` even though I never spell colour like that elsewhere in my life. If I sometimes use `color` but other times `colour` I will end up wasting lots of my time. Another thing is that most documentation\/code for the language will use English so if I am writing say Python it will be much easier if I can read English. Most programming discussions are also in English so it is the Lingua Franca. Ultimately it is about momentum, there is nothing to prevent programming languages using non-english and some do exist but they are not widely used.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":11331.0,"score_ratio":2.2} {"post_id":"qtmwpn","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How are different programming languages translated in countries that speak different spoken languages","c_root_id_A":"hkl45q7","c_root_id_B":"hkkrfb0","created_at_utc_A":1636897080,"created_at_utc_B":1636889114,"score_A":11,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Most software is just written in English. As a programmer the most important things are consistency. Hence even though I use British English if I write some code (even just for myself) I will use variables like `color` even though I never spell colour like that elsewhere in my life. If I sometimes use `color` but other times `colour` I will end up wasting lots of my time. Another thing is that most documentation\/code for the language will use English so if I am writing say Python it will be much easier if I can read English. Most programming discussions are also in English so it is the Lingua Franca. Ultimately it is about momentum, there is nothing to prevent programming languages using non-english and some do exist but they are not widely used.","human_ref_B":"As others have said, programming languages are languages on their own. You can translate from c# to Java but there\u2019s no such thing as c# in English or c# in Portuguese. It just so happens that the entirety of the reserved keywords are in English and the names of the classes\/namespaces\/methods of the standard libraries are also in English. That being said, there are very limited educational programming languages whose keywords are in other languages. For example portugol https:\/\/pt.m.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Portugol","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7966.0,"score_ratio":5.5} {"post_id":"qtmwpn","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How are different programming languages translated in countries that speak different spoken languages","c_root_id_A":"hkl9abl","c_root_id_B":"hkkmuns","created_at_utc_A":1636899719,"created_at_utc_B":1636885749,"score_A":9,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"If you count Excel scripting\/formulas as programming: it's translated according to locale. Someone opens it on an English computer, it is SUM(), but on a Dutch machine that would be SOM(). Even the separators are localized, so multi-parameter functions can look like VERT.ZOEKEN(param1; param2) instead of VLOOKUP(param1, param2) It's extremely annoying when working in a multilingual environment.","human_ref_B":"It's a language, you have to learn it in order to use it there is no translating it. You can't go to Italy and use the translated version of the Italian language and expect people to understand you.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":13970.0,"score_ratio":1.8} {"post_id":"qtmwpn","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How are different programming languages translated in countries that speak different spoken languages","c_root_id_A":"hkkrfb0","c_root_id_B":"hkl9abl","created_at_utc_A":1636889114,"created_at_utc_B":1636899719,"score_A":2,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"As others have said, programming languages are languages on their own. You can translate from c# to Java but there\u2019s no such thing as c# in English or c# in Portuguese. It just so happens that the entirety of the reserved keywords are in English and the names of the classes\/namespaces\/methods of the standard libraries are also in English. That being said, there are very limited educational programming languages whose keywords are in other languages. For example portugol https:\/\/pt.m.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Portugol","human_ref_B":"If you count Excel scripting\/formulas as programming: it's translated according to locale. Someone opens it on an English computer, it is SUM(), but on a Dutch machine that would be SOM(). Even the separators are localized, so multi-parameter functions can look like VERT.ZOEKEN(param1; param2) instead of VLOOKUP(param1, param2) It's extremely annoying when working in a multilingual environment.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10605.0,"score_ratio":4.5} {"post_id":"qtmwpn","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How are different programming languages translated in countries that speak different spoken languages","c_root_id_A":"hkm09j2","c_root_id_B":"hkkrfb0","created_at_utc_A":1636911508,"created_at_utc_B":1636889114,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I want to give you an example https:\/\/github.com\/yoshiko2\/AV\\_Data\\_Capture go to this repository ,The author is Japanese and the code is in Python Programming Language. Here is a code snippet def moveFailedFolder(filepath): conf = config.getInstance() failed_folder = conf.failed_folder() soft_link = conf.soft_link() # \u6a21\u5f0f3\u6216\u8f6f\u8fde\u63a5\uff0c\u6539\u4e3a\u7ef4\u62a4\u4e00\u4e2a\u5931\u8d25\u5217\u8868\uff0c\u542f\u52a8\u626b\u63cf\u65f6\u52a0\u8f7d\u7528\u4e8e\u6392\u9664\u8be5\u8def\u5f84\uff0c\u4ee5\u514d\u53cd\u590d\u5904\u7406 # \u539f\u5148\u7684\u521b\u5efa\u8f6f\u8fde\u63a5\u5230\u5931\u8d25\u76ee\u5f55\uff0c\u5e76\u4e0d\u76f4\u89c2\uff0c\u4e0d\u65b9\u4fbf\u627e\u5230\u5931\u8d25\u6587\u4ef6\u4f4d\u7f6e\uff0c\u4e0d\u5982\u76f4\u63a5\u8bb0\u5f55\u8be5\u6587\u4ef6\u8def\u5f84 if conf.main_mode() == 3 or soft_link: ftxt = os.path.abspath(os.path.join(failed_folder, 'failed_list.txt')) print(\"[-]Add to Failed List file, see '%s'\" % ftxt) The author have to use Python keywords like `def ,if,print` because they are built into python (total 33 keywords in Python) and for debugging he has to know Error Messages `AttributeError,NameError,SyntaxError......` apart from these He is free to use any characters,emojis","human_ref_B":"As others have said, programming languages are languages on their own. You can translate from c# to Java but there\u2019s no such thing as c# in English or c# in Portuguese. It just so happens that the entirety of the reserved keywords are in English and the names of the classes\/namespaces\/methods of the standard libraries are also in English. That being said, there are very limited educational programming languages whose keywords are in other languages. For example portugol https:\/\/pt.m.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Portugol","labels":1,"seconds_difference":22394.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"tddsw2","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why is the seemingly more complicated part of playing the guitar done with the non-dominant hand? When a right-handed person plays guitar, they typically use their right hand to strum the strings while manipulating their left hand on the neck to adjust notes and chords (or something; I\u2019m not a musician). It seems to me the fingerings along the neck require more dexterity than the strumming and would be easier to do with the dominant hand.","c_root_id_A":"i0iyc3v","c_root_id_B":"i0jn81n","created_at_utc_A":1647199328,"created_at_utc_B":1647210062,"score_A":137,"score_B":242,"human_ref_A":"I am left handed and I play guitar right handed. Both fretting and strumming are harder than the other because it\u2019s 2 different skills. The technical playing, depending on what you\u2019re doing, can be easy to fret and strum, easy to fret and hard to strum, hard to fret and easy to strum, or both hard. I play right handed because it feels natural to fret with my left hand, but I know that it would take a ton of practice for me to be able to strum really well because my right hand is lacking. It\u2019s just a \u201cwhat feels natural\u201d kind of thing. And a money thing because normal guitars are cheaper, so lefty starting out is probably going to learn righty.","human_ref_B":"I like the guitar teacher saying (I think this is from Rory Gallagher), \"Your left hand is what you know, your right hand is who you are.\"","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10734.0,"score_ratio":1.7664233577} {"post_id":"tddsw2","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why is the seemingly more complicated part of playing the guitar done with the non-dominant hand? When a right-handed person plays guitar, they typically use their right hand to strum the strings while manipulating their left hand on the neck to adjust notes and chords (or something; I\u2019m not a musician). It seems to me the fingerings along the neck require more dexterity than the strumming and would be easier to do with the dominant hand.","c_root_id_A":"i0iyz6w","c_root_id_B":"i0jn81n","created_at_utc_A":1647199605,"created_at_utc_B":1647210062,"score_A":86,"score_B":242,"human_ref_A":"You don't have to play like that. I'm left handed, but my parents couldn't afford a guitar until one cheap enough popped up in the local pawn shop. Until then I was using a friend's when I saw them, which was right handed. I tried learning as much as I could when he was about so it became natural. I tried playing left handed and it just didn't work and continued on right handed guitars. I can't imagine playing left handed and I've now been playing for over 15 years. I feel I can do so much more on the neck with my left hand too that I don't think I'd have been able to (at least so quickly) had I chosen to pick up a lefty. That being said, I can't use a pick and I haven't put in the time to learn. It's like using a pen with your non-dominant hand, but I can do everything with just my thumb, I even learnt to adapt to do pinch harmonics.","human_ref_B":"I like the guitar teacher saying (I think this is from Rory Gallagher), \"Your left hand is what you know, your right hand is who you are.\"","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10457.0,"score_ratio":2.8139534884} {"post_id":"tddsw2","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why is the seemingly more complicated part of playing the guitar done with the non-dominant hand? When a right-handed person plays guitar, they typically use their right hand to strum the strings while manipulating their left hand on the neck to adjust notes and chords (or something; I\u2019m not a musician). It seems to me the fingerings along the neck require more dexterity than the strumming and would be easier to do with the dominant hand.","c_root_id_A":"i0jn81n","c_root_id_B":"i0iydem","created_at_utc_A":1647210062,"created_at_utc_B":1647199343,"score_A":242,"score_B":25,"human_ref_A":"I like the guitar teacher saying (I think this is from Rory Gallagher), \"Your left hand is what you know, your right hand is who you are.\"","human_ref_B":"A dominant hand is usually more dexterous, has more endurance, and is stronger than the off hand. Of the three, dexterity is the quickest to train the off hand. Because both hands need coordination and dexterity, while the strumming needs endurance and strength, the dominant hand is used for strumming and the off hand just needs to get gud.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10719.0,"score_ratio":9.68} {"post_id":"tddsw2","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why is the seemingly more complicated part of playing the guitar done with the non-dominant hand? When a right-handed person plays guitar, they typically use their right hand to strum the strings while manipulating their left hand on the neck to adjust notes and chords (or something; I\u2019m not a musician). It seems to me the fingerings along the neck require more dexterity than the strumming and would be easier to do with the dominant hand.","c_root_id_A":"i0jn81n","c_root_id_B":"i0j9gvc","created_at_utc_A":1647210062,"created_at_utc_B":1647204166,"score_A":242,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"I like the guitar teacher saying (I think this is from Rory Gallagher), \"Your left hand is what you know, your right hand is who you are.\"","human_ref_B":"Your dominant hand typically had better endurance than your none dominant hand, and you over estimate how hard fingering a chord is. Yeah, the fretboard needs you to develope some dexterity in the non-dominant hand, but it's not actually that difficult. It isn't moving as much in comparison to your picking hand, and it has the neck of the guitar to orient itself. Your picking hand has a much harder job. It needs to be strong and consistent with movement, without any reference in sight. Especially if you're finger picking, you're gonna need the endurance to keep going, and you need to keep that hand still above the strings","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5896.0,"score_ratio":24.2} {"post_id":"tddsw2","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why is the seemingly more complicated part of playing the guitar done with the non-dominant hand? When a right-handed person plays guitar, they typically use their right hand to strum the strings while manipulating their left hand on the neck to adjust notes and chords (or something; I\u2019m not a musician). It seems to me the fingerings along the neck require more dexterity than the strumming and would be easier to do with the dominant hand.","c_root_id_A":"i0iydem","c_root_id_B":"i0iyz6w","created_at_utc_A":1647199343,"created_at_utc_B":1647199605,"score_A":25,"score_B":86,"human_ref_A":"A dominant hand is usually more dexterous, has more endurance, and is stronger than the off hand. Of the three, dexterity is the quickest to train the off hand. Because both hands need coordination and dexterity, while the strumming needs endurance and strength, the dominant hand is used for strumming and the off hand just needs to get gud.","human_ref_B":"You don't have to play like that. I'm left handed, but my parents couldn't afford a guitar until one cheap enough popped up in the local pawn shop. Until then I was using a friend's when I saw them, which was right handed. I tried learning as much as I could when he was about so it became natural. I tried playing left handed and it just didn't work and continued on right handed guitars. I can't imagine playing left handed and I've now been playing for over 15 years. I feel I can do so much more on the neck with my left hand too that I don't think I'd have been able to (at least so quickly) had I chosen to pick up a lefty. That being said, I can't use a pick and I haven't put in the time to learn. It's like using a pen with your non-dominant hand, but I can do everything with just my thumb, I even learnt to adapt to do pinch harmonics.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":262.0,"score_ratio":3.44} {"post_id":"tceq9w","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: We drink water, we eat salt, why can't we drink Saltwater?","c_root_id_A":"i0cydij","c_root_id_B":"i0d37jh","created_at_utc_A":1647085773,"created_at_utc_B":1647089324,"score_A":58,"score_B":226,"human_ref_A":"The Ocean has an average of around 35 grams of Salt in every Liter of water. That's 2.4 tablespoons of salt. Try eating that much and get back.","human_ref_B":"We *can* drink saltwater, if there's the same amount of salt in it as in typical food (this is basically what isotonic drinks are). What we generally think of as \"salt water\" is *way* saltier than that. The problem with salt is that when you have two pools of water separated by a wall that water can pass through, the water will flow until there's the same ratio of water molecules to not-water molecules on each side. This is called osmosis. Our cells contain a small amount of salt. We can *eat* a small amount of salt just fine, because the water will remain balanced on each side. If we drink salt water though, the ratio of water to not-water in the gut is way lower than the ratio in the cells, so water leaves your cells to enter the gut, dehydrating you.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3551.0,"score_ratio":3.8965517241} {"post_id":"tceq9w","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: We drink water, we eat salt, why can't we drink Saltwater?","c_root_id_A":"i0d87k5","c_root_id_B":"i0cydij","created_at_utc_A":1647092405,"created_at_utc_B":1647085773,"score_A":214,"score_B":58,"human_ref_A":"You can, as long as the amount of salt in the water is similar to the amount in your food. There have been entire societies that subsisted primarily on water like this (known as brackish water). Seawater has far, far more salt than your body can effectively deal with though, which causes your kidneys to struggle and water to be drawn towards to salt, quickly leading to gastrointestinal issues and dehydration. 1 liter of seawater contains about 5-6x the amount of salt an adult should consume in one day, for reference.","human_ref_B":"The Ocean has an average of around 35 grams of Salt in every Liter of water. That's 2.4 tablespoons of salt. Try eating that much and get back.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6632.0,"score_ratio":3.6896551724} {"post_id":"tziim3","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old When you deposited money into your bank account before computers, how\/where did they record the transaction, and how did they keep current account balances for their customers? Inspired from a tending question on here. My head is hurting trying to understand how the financial world functioned before digitization.","c_root_id_A":"i3zc6qv","c_root_id_B":"i3zbgbg","created_at_utc_A":1649468631,"created_at_utc_B":1649468288,"score_A":134,"score_B":74,"human_ref_A":"Things were written down in accounting books called ledgers. It was much slower, and much harder to check for errors than it is now","human_ref_B":"They had pens, and paper. Banks where more localized then they are now. National or regional banks used services such as the telegraph to relay information between bank branches.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":343.0,"score_ratio":1.8108108108} {"post_id":"tziim3","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old When you deposited money into your bank account before computers, how\/where did they record the transaction, and how did they keep current account balances for their customers? Inspired from a tending question on here. My head is hurting trying to understand how the financial world functioned before digitization.","c_root_id_A":"i3zmqry","c_root_id_B":"i3zmu62","created_at_utc_A":1649473813,"created_at_utc_B":1649473862,"score_A":5,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"When it came to checks those took ten business days to clear. Essentially if you wrote a check you gave yourself a ten day interest free loan. Assuming of course that somebody else accepted your check. Every check that is written has to be cleared through a central processor. I forget which federal agency is in charge of this operation. Essentially if you wrote a check it went to the merchant. The merchant deposited it in there bank. The merchants bank would send the check to the Fed. The Fed would record the transaction and debit\/credit the correct accounts. Your check would be sent back to your bank and every month you get a batch of cancelled checks. Eventually when the ability to scan checks digitally became commonplace this float time was cut down to a day or two.","human_ref_B":"(See other replies for higher-level view of the system.) Just a little tidbit on details of how amounts were recorded ... back when the amounts from each item (sales slips or whatever financial items) were written by hand on official entry sheets, that were totaled, and the totals handwritten into the ledger (as in, \"today's sales from store #3\") ... For each entry sheet that had the item amounts listed down a column, with description by each number, with a total at the bottom (document attached for each item, a sales slip or whatever) ... *... Before automated calculators* (before even the old calculating machines that were loud and clunky), **bookkeepers added the columns of numbers in their heads (with pencil notations if necessary), three times.** -- **Until they got the same total three consecutive times,** they kept going. Bookkeepers who could do three matching totals in one go were of course valued. -- **Then the entry sheet & attached docs were handed over to the next bookkeeper, who did the same thing on the same sheet column of numbers,** until they got **a matching total three consecutive times. ** -- That's how they arrived at totals. And eventually balanced the books. **Bookkeepers verified each other, and getting the same total three consecutive times was the key.** If two bookkeepers were getting a different total on the same entry sheet, they had to figure out exactly where the error was and why the error was occurring. One number looked like a '4' instead of a '9', or an attached record had a blurry number, that kind of thing. They had to show the manager how the difference was resolved. Nothing went forward until multiple people in the process agreed on the correctness of each total. *... Once bookkeepers were using automated calculators aka \"adding machines\"* that printed a slip of paper with all of the entered numbers and the total, **every totaled column of numbers had to have 3 calculator slips attached, with matching totals.** That was the total to enter in the ledger. **Both before & after adding machines, it was all about correct addition and subtraction, performed by humans. And the rigorous processes that supported those correct totals.** The really old machines that were *large* and *loud* sometimes ONLY added and subtracted. No other calculation functions. It was expensive to get one that would also multiply and divide. Those were reserved for higher-order financial job functions. Below is an image of old adding machine ... even in the 1980's these were EVERYWHERE in financial offices. IMO they sounded like a helicopter taking off. Twenty of these going high-speed all at once was the sound of the workspace. https:\/\/www.bonanza.com\/listings\/Vintage-Burroughs-Adding-Machine-Calculator-J-Series-Classic-FOR-PARTS\/1084924318?goog_pla=1&gpid=294505072980&keyword=&goog_pla=1&pos=&ad_type=pla&gclid=CjwKCAjwur-SBhB6EiwA5sKtji4frPQ4GMtNsXYhnrq6Yz3BtWdhFvmNZfO0jui4oLfrdmb6_NYX7RoCQ8gQAvD_BwE Those machines were literally hammered at high speed by bookkeepers for hours almost every day. Adding machines could become persnickety as they aged. They had to have frequent maintenance and be handled considerately, or they would become slow and sticky. Every office needed a machine guru to keep the machines happy and working. Image below - The so-much upgraded adding machines that became more available during the 80's ... still hammered for hours per day and needing constant love & attention to keep functioning well. Look - multiple math functions !!! Woohoo !!! When the boss wasn't looking, you could work out your new mortgage payment on these. ;) :) https:\/\/www.shutterstock.com\/search\/adding+machine Just for fun, scroll down that url for more images of some of the earliest adding machines. Keeping in mind that a lot of people thought that humans on their own were better and faster than the first versions! :) (I agree actually!)","labels":0,"seconds_difference":49.0,"score_ratio":2.8} {"post_id":"tziim3","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old When you deposited money into your bank account before computers, how\/where did they record the transaction, and how did they keep current account balances for their customers? Inspired from a tending question on here. My head is hurting trying to understand how the financial world functioned before digitization.","c_root_id_A":"i3zx3j4","c_root_id_B":"i3zp9dc","created_at_utc_A":1649479577,"created_at_utc_B":1649475128,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Double-entry book keeping was (and still is, in a more automated fashion) the way transactions were recorded. From 1300 to probably 1970-something, they used paper ledgers: blank books with spaces for recording transactions. Penmanship mattered, and arithmetic needed to be checked and re-checked. We take for granted that a bank account is the notional place where your money lives. But the word \"account\" means \"story\". Your bank-story is the list of all the deposits and withdrawals you've made. Your \"bank account\" is a physical piece of paper (probably several) on which we can trace all your transactions, their amounts, and what other accounts were involved. You fill out a deposit slip, a form stating that you're depositing, say, $20 into account X. You hand that to the teller, along with $20. The teller verifies the $20 matches the deposit slip, and stamps the slip as verified (or just files it in the verified bin). They take the money and put it in their till, recording the receipt, and handing you a record of that receipt (likely a carbon copy of the deposit slip). Later, someone goes through the day's deposit slips and writes each down in two places: as a transfer to your account X in the \"deposits\" account, and as a transfer from \"deposits\" in your account X. All of this still basically happens with computers and ATMs. It's just faster, the arithmetic is perfect, and the penmanship also less of an issue. And the accounts are in a database somewhere, which is easy to access remotely, and easy to have backups of. The user experience has become buttons, menus and beeps rather than pens, forms, and a teller, and the information handling is automated and can be done remotely, but not much else has changed about basic savings accounts.","human_ref_B":"One aspect was that you had a bank book. This was a booklet issues by the bank that had pre-printed lines and columns that you the bank customer kept. When you deposited money in the bank the bank would update your bank book with the date, amount of money and updated bank balance and then the teller would sign it and stamp it with the banks stamp. This was your record of money deposited or withdrawn and your balance. The bank would also keep a record and if there was a dispute both sets of records would exist to determine where the error was. If you wanted your money, you had to go to your bank branch, another branch may be able to do a transaction, but it would take more time as they would have to call your original branch to get it authorised.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4449.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"tziim3","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old When you deposited money into your bank account before computers, how\/where did they record the transaction, and how did they keep current account balances for their customers? Inspired from a tending question on here. My head is hurting trying to understand how the financial world functioned before digitization.","c_root_id_A":"i3zt9du","c_root_id_B":"i3zx3j4","created_at_utc_A":1649477296,"created_at_utc_B":1649479577,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Some of us are old enough to remember. You had a paper account card. You took it to the bank. They pulled out your account records. You made the transaction and it was recorded in your records and the teller\u2019s ledger. You got a receipt. Transaction slips were mandatory. I had a passbook, but only for my savings account. Used checkbook register for all checking transactions. You could write a check to \u201ccash\u201d to withdraw money from checking.","human_ref_B":"Double-entry book keeping was (and still is, in a more automated fashion) the way transactions were recorded. From 1300 to probably 1970-something, they used paper ledgers: blank books with spaces for recording transactions. Penmanship mattered, and arithmetic needed to be checked and re-checked. We take for granted that a bank account is the notional place where your money lives. But the word \"account\" means \"story\". Your bank-story is the list of all the deposits and withdrawals you've made. Your \"bank account\" is a physical piece of paper (probably several) on which we can trace all your transactions, their amounts, and what other accounts were involved. You fill out a deposit slip, a form stating that you're depositing, say, $20 into account X. You hand that to the teller, along with $20. The teller verifies the $20 matches the deposit slip, and stamps the slip as verified (or just files it in the verified bin). They take the money and put it in their till, recording the receipt, and handing you a record of that receipt (likely a carbon copy of the deposit slip). Later, someone goes through the day's deposit slips and writes each down in two places: as a transfer to your account X in the \"deposits\" account, and as a transfer from \"deposits\" in your account X. All of this still basically happens with computers and ATMs. It's just faster, the arithmetic is perfect, and the penmanship also less of an issue. And the accounts are in a database somewhere, which is easy to access remotely, and easy to have backups of. The user experience has become buttons, menus and beeps rather than pens, forms, and a teller, and the information handling is automated and can be done remotely, but not much else has changed about basic savings accounts.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2281.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"tziim3","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old When you deposited money into your bank account before computers, how\/where did they record the transaction, and how did they keep current account balances for their customers? Inspired from a tending question on here. My head is hurting trying to understand how the financial world functioned before digitization.","c_root_id_A":"i3zx3j4","c_root_id_B":"i3ztgu9","created_at_utc_A":1649479577,"created_at_utc_B":1649477414,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Double-entry book keeping was (and still is, in a more automated fashion) the way transactions were recorded. From 1300 to probably 1970-something, they used paper ledgers: blank books with spaces for recording transactions. Penmanship mattered, and arithmetic needed to be checked and re-checked. We take for granted that a bank account is the notional place where your money lives. But the word \"account\" means \"story\". Your bank-story is the list of all the deposits and withdrawals you've made. Your \"bank account\" is a physical piece of paper (probably several) on which we can trace all your transactions, their amounts, and what other accounts were involved. You fill out a deposit slip, a form stating that you're depositing, say, $20 into account X. You hand that to the teller, along with $20. The teller verifies the $20 matches the deposit slip, and stamps the slip as verified (or just files it in the verified bin). They take the money and put it in their till, recording the receipt, and handing you a record of that receipt (likely a carbon copy of the deposit slip). Later, someone goes through the day's deposit slips and writes each down in two places: as a transfer to your account X in the \"deposits\" account, and as a transfer from \"deposits\" in your account X. All of this still basically happens with computers and ATMs. It's just faster, the arithmetic is perfect, and the penmanship also less of an issue. And the accounts are in a database somewhere, which is easy to access remotely, and easy to have backups of. The user experience has become buttons, menus and beeps rather than pens, forms, and a teller, and the information handling is automated and can be done remotely, but not much else has changed about basic savings accounts.","human_ref_B":"A main difference was that your account was actually in a fixed branch. You didn't have the possibility of going to another branch and just take money from your account (you would have to transfer it first). Once you restrict to a single branch, it is just about careful accounting the old fashioned way.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2163.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"tziim3","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old When you deposited money into your bank account before computers, how\/where did they record the transaction, and how did they keep current account balances for their customers? Inspired from a tending question on here. My head is hurting trying to understand how the financial world functioned before digitization.","c_root_id_A":"i3ztzwe","c_root_id_B":"i3zx3j4","created_at_utc_A":1649477719,"created_at_utc_B":1649479577,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"when I was a kid, banks had rows of desks on one side with dozens of women taking each check, debiting it on one ledger, crediting it on another. Then filing that check in the row of file drawers that lined the outer wall.","human_ref_B":"Double-entry book keeping was (and still is, in a more automated fashion) the way transactions were recorded. From 1300 to probably 1970-something, they used paper ledgers: blank books with spaces for recording transactions. Penmanship mattered, and arithmetic needed to be checked and re-checked. We take for granted that a bank account is the notional place where your money lives. But the word \"account\" means \"story\". Your bank-story is the list of all the deposits and withdrawals you've made. Your \"bank account\" is a physical piece of paper (probably several) on which we can trace all your transactions, their amounts, and what other accounts were involved. You fill out a deposit slip, a form stating that you're depositing, say, $20 into account X. You hand that to the teller, along with $20. The teller verifies the $20 matches the deposit slip, and stamps the slip as verified (or just files it in the verified bin). They take the money and put it in their till, recording the receipt, and handing you a record of that receipt (likely a carbon copy of the deposit slip). Later, someone goes through the day's deposit slips and writes each down in two places: as a transfer to your account X in the \"deposits\" account, and as a transfer from \"deposits\" in your account X. All of this still basically happens with computers and ATMs. It's just faster, the arithmetic is perfect, and the penmanship also less of an issue. And the accounts are in a database somewhere, which is easy to access remotely, and easy to have backups of. The user experience has become buttons, menus and beeps rather than pens, forms, and a teller, and the information handling is automated and can be done remotely, but not much else has changed about basic savings accounts.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1858.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"tziim3","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old When you deposited money into your bank account before computers, how\/where did they record the transaction, and how did they keep current account balances for their customers? Inspired from a tending question on here. My head is hurting trying to understand how the financial world functioned before digitization.","c_root_id_A":"i3zx3j4","c_root_id_B":"i3zw570","created_at_utc_A":1649479577,"created_at_utc_B":1649478981,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Double-entry book keeping was (and still is, in a more automated fashion) the way transactions were recorded. From 1300 to probably 1970-something, they used paper ledgers: blank books with spaces for recording transactions. Penmanship mattered, and arithmetic needed to be checked and re-checked. We take for granted that a bank account is the notional place where your money lives. But the word \"account\" means \"story\". Your bank-story is the list of all the deposits and withdrawals you've made. Your \"bank account\" is a physical piece of paper (probably several) on which we can trace all your transactions, their amounts, and what other accounts were involved. You fill out a deposit slip, a form stating that you're depositing, say, $20 into account X. You hand that to the teller, along with $20. The teller verifies the $20 matches the deposit slip, and stamps the slip as verified (or just files it in the verified bin). They take the money and put it in their till, recording the receipt, and handing you a record of that receipt (likely a carbon copy of the deposit slip). Later, someone goes through the day's deposit slips and writes each down in two places: as a transfer to your account X in the \"deposits\" account, and as a transfer from \"deposits\" in your account X. All of this still basically happens with computers and ATMs. It's just faster, the arithmetic is perfect, and the penmanship also less of an issue. And the accounts are in a database somewhere, which is easy to access remotely, and easy to have backups of. The user experience has become buttons, menus and beeps rather than pens, forms, and a teller, and the information handling is automated and can be done remotely, but not much else has changed about basic savings accounts.","human_ref_B":"In the past, \u201cdata storage\u201d consisted of file cabinets, file folders and ncr multipart forms. Lose the file, the data is gone (probably.) My college in 1982 had zero computers in the office. No screens, whirring hard drives, thumb drives and laser printers. None. If they needed a record, they had to find the physical file. My school had one computer that was connected to a typesetting machine. It was entirely proprietary and had only an asci text display. Everything else, library, personal, financials and records were all paper-based in 1982. Fax machines were around but not yet common outside of large business use. Also there was a system (still is) called TELETEX that was used for overseas communication. Again, text only, like a hardware twitter where each message cost $5. It was complicated.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":596.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"tziim3","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old When you deposited money into your bank account before computers, how\/where did they record the transaction, and how did they keep current account balances for their customers? Inspired from a tending question on here. My head is hurting trying to understand how the financial world functioned before digitization.","c_root_id_A":"i3zwa8i","c_root_id_B":"i3zx3j4","created_at_utc_A":1649479070,"created_at_utc_B":1649479577,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I might have been guilty of low-level check kiting to make my way through the early years.","human_ref_B":"Double-entry book keeping was (and still is, in a more automated fashion) the way transactions were recorded. From 1300 to probably 1970-something, they used paper ledgers: blank books with spaces for recording transactions. Penmanship mattered, and arithmetic needed to be checked and re-checked. We take for granted that a bank account is the notional place where your money lives. But the word \"account\" means \"story\". Your bank-story is the list of all the deposits and withdrawals you've made. Your \"bank account\" is a physical piece of paper (probably several) on which we can trace all your transactions, their amounts, and what other accounts were involved. You fill out a deposit slip, a form stating that you're depositing, say, $20 into account X. You hand that to the teller, along with $20. The teller verifies the $20 matches the deposit slip, and stamps the slip as verified (or just files it in the verified bin). They take the money and put it in their till, recording the receipt, and handing you a record of that receipt (likely a carbon copy of the deposit slip). Later, someone goes through the day's deposit slips and writes each down in two places: as a transfer to your account X in the \"deposits\" account, and as a transfer from \"deposits\" in your account X. All of this still basically happens with computers and ATMs. It's just faster, the arithmetic is perfect, and the penmanship also less of an issue. And the accounts are in a database somewhere, which is easy to access remotely, and easy to have backups of. The user experience has become buttons, menus and beeps rather than pens, forms, and a teller, and the information handling is automated and can be done remotely, but not much else has changed about basic savings accounts.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":507.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"tziim3","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old When you deposited money into your bank account before computers, how\/where did they record the transaction, and how did they keep current account balances for their customers? Inspired from a tending question on here. My head is hurting trying to understand how the financial world functioned before digitization.","c_root_id_A":"i3zp9dc","c_root_id_B":"i40937k","created_at_utc_A":1649475128,"created_at_utc_B":1649487804,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"One aspect was that you had a bank book. This was a booklet issues by the bank that had pre-printed lines and columns that you the bank customer kept. When you deposited money in the bank the bank would update your bank book with the date, amount of money and updated bank balance and then the teller would sign it and stamp it with the banks stamp. This was your record of money deposited or withdrawn and your balance. The bank would also keep a record and if there was a dispute both sets of records would exist to determine where the error was. If you wanted your money, you had to go to your bank branch, another branch may be able to do a transaction, but it would take more time as they would have to call your original branch to get it authorised.","human_ref_B":"Over thing to remember is that before digitisation the world was a lot smaller place. You couldn't just walk up to an ATM anywhere in the world and withdraw money from your account, originally you had to visit *your* bank - where they would have a ledger for your account that said 'op has X amount of money in our vault'. If you wanted to withdraw money, you would request this from the teller, who would check the ledger, and then add a new line noting 'op withdrew Y amount, their new total is Z amount'. To withdraw money elsewhere, they would have to get in touch with your specific bank and okay everything. It is also worth noting that the further you go back, the less common banking was - cash was much more prevalent and a lot of people just didn't have any need for banks when they were just dealing with day to day money - get paid in cash, spend your cash, and if you have any left over it could be hidden under the bed for a rainy day. With the advent of computerisation and the ability to more readily share data, everything got a lot, lot easier. Rather than needing access to a paper ledger it became possible to just log in to a computer system and edit a database, which could be done remotely much more easily and had allowed us to reach the point we are at now.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":12676.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"tziim3","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old When you deposited money into your bank account before computers, how\/where did they record the transaction, and how did they keep current account balances for their customers? Inspired from a tending question on here. My head is hurting trying to understand how the financial world functioned before digitization.","c_root_id_A":"i3zt9du","c_root_id_B":"i40937k","created_at_utc_A":1649477296,"created_at_utc_B":1649487804,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Some of us are old enough to remember. You had a paper account card. You took it to the bank. They pulled out your account records. You made the transaction and it was recorded in your records and the teller\u2019s ledger. You got a receipt. Transaction slips were mandatory. I had a passbook, but only for my savings account. Used checkbook register for all checking transactions. You could write a check to \u201ccash\u201d to withdraw money from checking.","human_ref_B":"Over thing to remember is that before digitisation the world was a lot smaller place. You couldn't just walk up to an ATM anywhere in the world and withdraw money from your account, originally you had to visit *your* bank - where they would have a ledger for your account that said 'op has X amount of money in our vault'. If you wanted to withdraw money, you would request this from the teller, who would check the ledger, and then add a new line noting 'op withdrew Y amount, their new total is Z amount'. To withdraw money elsewhere, they would have to get in touch with your specific bank and okay everything. It is also worth noting that the further you go back, the less common banking was - cash was much more prevalent and a lot of people just didn't have any need for banks when they were just dealing with day to day money - get paid in cash, spend your cash, and if you have any left over it could be hidden under the bed for a rainy day. With the advent of computerisation and the ability to more readily share data, everything got a lot, lot easier. Rather than needing access to a paper ledger it became possible to just log in to a computer system and edit a database, which could be done remotely much more easily and had allowed us to reach the point we are at now.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10508.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"tziim3","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old When you deposited money into your bank account before computers, how\/where did they record the transaction, and how did they keep current account balances for their customers? Inspired from a tending question on here. My head is hurting trying to understand how the financial world functioned before digitization.","c_root_id_A":"i3ztgu9","c_root_id_B":"i40937k","created_at_utc_A":1649477414,"created_at_utc_B":1649487804,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"A main difference was that your account was actually in a fixed branch. You didn't have the possibility of going to another branch and just take money from your account (you would have to transfer it first). Once you restrict to a single branch, it is just about careful accounting the old fashioned way.","human_ref_B":"Over thing to remember is that before digitisation the world was a lot smaller place. You couldn't just walk up to an ATM anywhere in the world and withdraw money from your account, originally you had to visit *your* bank - where they would have a ledger for your account that said 'op has X amount of money in our vault'. If you wanted to withdraw money, you would request this from the teller, who would check the ledger, and then add a new line noting 'op withdrew Y amount, their new total is Z amount'. To withdraw money elsewhere, they would have to get in touch with your specific bank and okay everything. It is also worth noting that the further you go back, the less common banking was - cash was much more prevalent and a lot of people just didn't have any need for banks when they were just dealing with day to day money - get paid in cash, spend your cash, and if you have any left over it could be hidden under the bed for a rainy day. With the advent of computerisation and the ability to more readily share data, everything got a lot, lot easier. Rather than needing access to a paper ledger it became possible to just log in to a computer system and edit a database, which could be done remotely much more easily and had allowed us to reach the point we are at now.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10390.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"tziim3","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old When you deposited money into your bank account before computers, how\/where did they record the transaction, and how did they keep current account balances for their customers? Inspired from a tending question on here. My head is hurting trying to understand how the financial world functioned before digitization.","c_root_id_A":"i40937k","c_root_id_B":"i3ztzwe","created_at_utc_A":1649487804,"created_at_utc_B":1649477719,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Over thing to remember is that before digitisation the world was a lot smaller place. You couldn't just walk up to an ATM anywhere in the world and withdraw money from your account, originally you had to visit *your* bank - where they would have a ledger for your account that said 'op has X amount of money in our vault'. If you wanted to withdraw money, you would request this from the teller, who would check the ledger, and then add a new line noting 'op withdrew Y amount, their new total is Z amount'. To withdraw money elsewhere, they would have to get in touch with your specific bank and okay everything. It is also worth noting that the further you go back, the less common banking was - cash was much more prevalent and a lot of people just didn't have any need for banks when they were just dealing with day to day money - get paid in cash, spend your cash, and if you have any left over it could be hidden under the bed for a rainy day. With the advent of computerisation and the ability to more readily share data, everything got a lot, lot easier. Rather than needing access to a paper ledger it became possible to just log in to a computer system and edit a database, which could be done remotely much more easily and had allowed us to reach the point we are at now.","human_ref_B":"when I was a kid, banks had rows of desks on one side with dozens of women taking each check, debiting it on one ledger, crediting it on another. Then filing that check in the row of file drawers that lined the outer wall.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10085.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"tziim3","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old When you deposited money into your bank account before computers, how\/where did they record the transaction, and how did they keep current account balances for their customers? Inspired from a tending question on here. My head is hurting trying to understand how the financial world functioned before digitization.","c_root_id_A":"i3zw570","c_root_id_B":"i40937k","created_at_utc_A":1649478981,"created_at_utc_B":1649487804,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"In the past, \u201cdata storage\u201d consisted of file cabinets, file folders and ncr multipart forms. Lose the file, the data is gone (probably.) My college in 1982 had zero computers in the office. No screens, whirring hard drives, thumb drives and laser printers. None. If they needed a record, they had to find the physical file. My school had one computer that was connected to a typesetting machine. It was entirely proprietary and had only an asci text display. Everything else, library, personal, financials and records were all paper-based in 1982. Fax machines were around but not yet common outside of large business use. Also there was a system (still is) called TELETEX that was used for overseas communication. Again, text only, like a hardware twitter where each message cost $5. It was complicated.","human_ref_B":"Over thing to remember is that before digitisation the world was a lot smaller place. You couldn't just walk up to an ATM anywhere in the world and withdraw money from your account, originally you had to visit *your* bank - where they would have a ledger for your account that said 'op has X amount of money in our vault'. If you wanted to withdraw money, you would request this from the teller, who would check the ledger, and then add a new line noting 'op withdrew Y amount, their new total is Z amount'. To withdraw money elsewhere, they would have to get in touch with your specific bank and okay everything. It is also worth noting that the further you go back, the less common banking was - cash was much more prevalent and a lot of people just didn't have any need for banks when they were just dealing with day to day money - get paid in cash, spend your cash, and if you have any left over it could be hidden under the bed for a rainy day. With the advent of computerisation and the ability to more readily share data, everything got a lot, lot easier. Rather than needing access to a paper ledger it became possible to just log in to a computer system and edit a database, which could be done remotely much more easily and had allowed us to reach the point we are at now.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8823.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"tziim3","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old When you deposited money into your bank account before computers, how\/where did they record the transaction, and how did they keep current account balances for their customers? Inspired from a tending question on here. My head is hurting trying to understand how the financial world functioned before digitization.","c_root_id_A":"i40937k","c_root_id_B":"i3zwa8i","created_at_utc_A":1649487804,"created_at_utc_B":1649479070,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Over thing to remember is that before digitisation the world was a lot smaller place. You couldn't just walk up to an ATM anywhere in the world and withdraw money from your account, originally you had to visit *your* bank - where they would have a ledger for your account that said 'op has X amount of money in our vault'. If you wanted to withdraw money, you would request this from the teller, who would check the ledger, and then add a new line noting 'op withdrew Y amount, their new total is Z amount'. To withdraw money elsewhere, they would have to get in touch with your specific bank and okay everything. It is also worth noting that the further you go back, the less common banking was - cash was much more prevalent and a lot of people just didn't have any need for banks when they were just dealing with day to day money - get paid in cash, spend your cash, and if you have any left over it could be hidden under the bed for a rainy day. With the advent of computerisation and the ability to more readily share data, everything got a lot, lot easier. Rather than needing access to a paper ledger it became possible to just log in to a computer system and edit a database, which could be done remotely much more easily and had allowed us to reach the point we are at now.","human_ref_B":"I might have been guilty of low-level check kiting to make my way through the early years.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8734.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"tziim3","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old When you deposited money into your bank account before computers, how\/where did they record the transaction, and how did they keep current account balances for their customers? Inspired from a tending question on here. My head is hurting trying to understand how the financial world functioned before digitization.","c_root_id_A":"i3zp9dc","c_root_id_B":"i40nvz7","created_at_utc_A":1649475128,"created_at_utc_B":1649499567,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"One aspect was that you had a bank book. This was a booklet issues by the bank that had pre-printed lines and columns that you the bank customer kept. When you deposited money in the bank the bank would update your bank book with the date, amount of money and updated bank balance and then the teller would sign it and stamp it with the banks stamp. This was your record of money deposited or withdrawn and your balance. The bank would also keep a record and if there was a dispute both sets of records would exist to determine where the error was. If you wanted your money, you had to go to your bank branch, another branch may be able to do a transaction, but it would take more time as they would have to call your original branch to get it authorised.","human_ref_B":"Here in Australia, up until the late 80s we had Savings Account passbooks. The customer would present the book to the teller if they were depositing or withdrawing funds and the balance would be compared to a computer terminal at the back of the branch shared by all the staff. If no funds were changing hands then the customer could simply hand the book to a customer service officer (junior to a teller) and any accrued interest was written into the book via the same process. Prior to the shared computer terminal it was all recorded in customer account ledgers as others have described.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":24439.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"tziim3","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old When you deposited money into your bank account before computers, how\/where did they record the transaction, and how did they keep current account balances for their customers? Inspired from a tending question on here. My head is hurting trying to understand how the financial world functioned before digitization.","c_root_id_A":"i3zt9du","c_root_id_B":"i40nvz7","created_at_utc_A":1649477296,"created_at_utc_B":1649499567,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Some of us are old enough to remember. You had a paper account card. You took it to the bank. They pulled out your account records. You made the transaction and it was recorded in your records and the teller\u2019s ledger. You got a receipt. Transaction slips were mandatory. I had a passbook, but only for my savings account. Used checkbook register for all checking transactions. You could write a check to \u201ccash\u201d to withdraw money from checking.","human_ref_B":"Here in Australia, up until the late 80s we had Savings Account passbooks. The customer would present the book to the teller if they were depositing or withdrawing funds and the balance would be compared to a computer terminal at the back of the branch shared by all the staff. If no funds were changing hands then the customer could simply hand the book to a customer service officer (junior to a teller) and any accrued interest was written into the book via the same process. Prior to the shared computer terminal it was all recorded in customer account ledgers as others have described.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":22271.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"tziim3","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old When you deposited money into your bank account before computers, how\/where did they record the transaction, and how did they keep current account balances for their customers? Inspired from a tending question on here. My head is hurting trying to understand how the financial world functioned before digitization.","c_root_id_A":"i3ztgu9","c_root_id_B":"i40nvz7","created_at_utc_A":1649477414,"created_at_utc_B":1649499567,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"A main difference was that your account was actually in a fixed branch. You didn't have the possibility of going to another branch and just take money from your account (you would have to transfer it first). Once you restrict to a single branch, it is just about careful accounting the old fashioned way.","human_ref_B":"Here in Australia, up until the late 80s we had Savings Account passbooks. The customer would present the book to the teller if they were depositing or withdrawing funds and the balance would be compared to a computer terminal at the back of the branch shared by all the staff. If no funds were changing hands then the customer could simply hand the book to a customer service officer (junior to a teller) and any accrued interest was written into the book via the same process. Prior to the shared computer terminal it was all recorded in customer account ledgers as others have described.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":22153.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"tziim3","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old When you deposited money into your bank account before computers, how\/where did they record the transaction, and how did they keep current account balances for their customers? Inspired from a tending question on here. My head is hurting trying to understand how the financial world functioned before digitization.","c_root_id_A":"i40nvz7","c_root_id_B":"i3ztzwe","created_at_utc_A":1649499567,"created_at_utc_B":1649477719,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Here in Australia, up until the late 80s we had Savings Account passbooks. The customer would present the book to the teller if they were depositing or withdrawing funds and the balance would be compared to a computer terminal at the back of the branch shared by all the staff. If no funds were changing hands then the customer could simply hand the book to a customer service officer (junior to a teller) and any accrued interest was written into the book via the same process. Prior to the shared computer terminal it was all recorded in customer account ledgers as others have described.","human_ref_B":"when I was a kid, banks had rows of desks on one side with dozens of women taking each check, debiting it on one ledger, crediting it on another. Then filing that check in the row of file drawers that lined the outer wall.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":21848.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"tziim3","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old When you deposited money into your bank account before computers, how\/where did they record the transaction, and how did they keep current account balances for their customers? Inspired from a tending question on here. My head is hurting trying to understand how the financial world functioned before digitization.","c_root_id_A":"i40nvz7","c_root_id_B":"i3zw570","created_at_utc_A":1649499567,"created_at_utc_B":1649478981,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Here in Australia, up until the late 80s we had Savings Account passbooks. The customer would present the book to the teller if they were depositing or withdrawing funds and the balance would be compared to a computer terminal at the back of the branch shared by all the staff. If no funds were changing hands then the customer could simply hand the book to a customer service officer (junior to a teller) and any accrued interest was written into the book via the same process. Prior to the shared computer terminal it was all recorded in customer account ledgers as others have described.","human_ref_B":"In the past, \u201cdata storage\u201d consisted of file cabinets, file folders and ncr multipart forms. Lose the file, the data is gone (probably.) My college in 1982 had zero computers in the office. No screens, whirring hard drives, thumb drives and laser printers. None. If they needed a record, they had to find the physical file. My school had one computer that was connected to a typesetting machine. It was entirely proprietary and had only an asci text display. Everything else, library, personal, financials and records were all paper-based in 1982. Fax machines were around but not yet common outside of large business use. Also there was a system (still is) called TELETEX that was used for overseas communication. Again, text only, like a hardware twitter where each message cost $5. It was complicated.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":20586.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"tziim3","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old When you deposited money into your bank account before computers, how\/where did they record the transaction, and how did they keep current account balances for their customers? Inspired from a tending question on here. My head is hurting trying to understand how the financial world functioned before digitization.","c_root_id_A":"i40nvz7","c_root_id_B":"i3zwa8i","created_at_utc_A":1649499567,"created_at_utc_B":1649479070,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Here in Australia, up until the late 80s we had Savings Account passbooks. The customer would present the book to the teller if they were depositing or withdrawing funds and the balance would be compared to a computer terminal at the back of the branch shared by all the staff. If no funds were changing hands then the customer could simply hand the book to a customer service officer (junior to a teller) and any accrued interest was written into the book via the same process. Prior to the shared computer terminal it was all recorded in customer account ledgers as others have described.","human_ref_B":"I might have been guilty of low-level check kiting to make my way through the early years.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":20497.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"tziim3","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old When you deposited money into your bank account before computers, how\/where did they record the transaction, and how did they keep current account balances for their customers? Inspired from a tending question on here. My head is hurting trying to understand how the financial world functioned before digitization.","c_root_id_A":"i3zp9dc","c_root_id_B":"i41b2g4","created_at_utc_A":1649475128,"created_at_utc_B":1649513425,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"One aspect was that you had a bank book. This was a booklet issues by the bank that had pre-printed lines and columns that you the bank customer kept. When you deposited money in the bank the bank would update your bank book with the date, amount of money and updated bank balance and then the teller would sign it and stamp it with the banks stamp. This was your record of money deposited or withdrawn and your balance. The bank would also keep a record and if there was a dispute both sets of records would exist to determine where the error was. If you wanted your money, you had to go to your bank branch, another branch may be able to do a transaction, but it would take more time as they would have to call your original branch to get it authorised.","human_ref_B":"In the early 80s I was in the Navy so stationed in a different state . I had to open a local account to \"do banking\" and it was hard even to find one that would accept my out of state driver's lic. In southern ca, there was a bank called 1st interstate whose claim to fame was they could manage accounts from several states. If I remember right, it was a big deal involving a special waiver from the feds and a computer system that could handle it.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":38297.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"tziim3","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old When you deposited money into your bank account before computers, how\/where did they record the transaction, and how did they keep current account balances for their customers? Inspired from a tending question on here. My head is hurting trying to understand how the financial world functioned before digitization.","c_root_id_A":"i3zt9du","c_root_id_B":"i41b2g4","created_at_utc_A":1649477296,"created_at_utc_B":1649513425,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Some of us are old enough to remember. You had a paper account card. You took it to the bank. They pulled out your account records. You made the transaction and it was recorded in your records and the teller\u2019s ledger. You got a receipt. Transaction slips were mandatory. I had a passbook, but only for my savings account. Used checkbook register for all checking transactions. You could write a check to \u201ccash\u201d to withdraw money from checking.","human_ref_B":"In the early 80s I was in the Navy so stationed in a different state . I had to open a local account to \"do banking\" and it was hard even to find one that would accept my out of state driver's lic. In southern ca, there was a bank called 1st interstate whose claim to fame was they could manage accounts from several states. If I remember right, it was a big deal involving a special waiver from the feds and a computer system that could handle it.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":36129.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"tziim3","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old When you deposited money into your bank account before computers, how\/where did they record the transaction, and how did they keep current account balances for their customers? Inspired from a tending question on here. My head is hurting trying to understand how the financial world functioned before digitization.","c_root_id_A":"i3ztgu9","c_root_id_B":"i41b2g4","created_at_utc_A":1649477414,"created_at_utc_B":1649513425,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"A main difference was that your account was actually in a fixed branch. You didn't have the possibility of going to another branch and just take money from your account (you would have to transfer it first). Once you restrict to a single branch, it is just about careful accounting the old fashioned way.","human_ref_B":"In the early 80s I was in the Navy so stationed in a different state . I had to open a local account to \"do banking\" and it was hard even to find one that would accept my out of state driver's lic. In southern ca, there was a bank called 1st interstate whose claim to fame was they could manage accounts from several states. If I remember right, it was a big deal involving a special waiver from the feds and a computer system that could handle it.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":36011.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"tziim3","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old When you deposited money into your bank account before computers, how\/where did they record the transaction, and how did they keep current account balances for their customers? Inspired from a tending question on here. My head is hurting trying to understand how the financial world functioned before digitization.","c_root_id_A":"i41b2g4","c_root_id_B":"i3ztzwe","created_at_utc_A":1649513425,"created_at_utc_B":1649477719,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"In the early 80s I was in the Navy so stationed in a different state . I had to open a local account to \"do banking\" and it was hard even to find one that would accept my out of state driver's lic. In southern ca, there was a bank called 1st interstate whose claim to fame was they could manage accounts from several states. If I remember right, it was a big deal involving a special waiver from the feds and a computer system that could handle it.","human_ref_B":"when I was a kid, banks had rows of desks on one side with dozens of women taking each check, debiting it on one ledger, crediting it on another. Then filing that check in the row of file drawers that lined the outer wall.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":35706.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"tziim3","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old When you deposited money into your bank account before computers, how\/where did they record the transaction, and how did they keep current account balances for their customers? Inspired from a tending question on here. My head is hurting trying to understand how the financial world functioned before digitization.","c_root_id_A":"i41b2g4","c_root_id_B":"i3zw570","created_at_utc_A":1649513425,"created_at_utc_B":1649478981,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"In the early 80s I was in the Navy so stationed in a different state . I had to open a local account to \"do banking\" and it was hard even to find one that would accept my out of state driver's lic. In southern ca, there was a bank called 1st interstate whose claim to fame was they could manage accounts from several states. If I remember right, it was a big deal involving a special waiver from the feds and a computer system that could handle it.","human_ref_B":"In the past, \u201cdata storage\u201d consisted of file cabinets, file folders and ncr multipart forms. Lose the file, the data is gone (probably.) My college in 1982 had zero computers in the office. No screens, whirring hard drives, thumb drives and laser printers. None. If they needed a record, they had to find the physical file. My school had one computer that was connected to a typesetting machine. It was entirely proprietary and had only an asci text display. Everything else, library, personal, financials and records were all paper-based in 1982. Fax machines were around but not yet common outside of large business use. Also there was a system (still is) called TELETEX that was used for overseas communication. Again, text only, like a hardware twitter where each message cost $5. It was complicated.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":34444.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"tziim3","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old When you deposited money into your bank account before computers, how\/where did they record the transaction, and how did they keep current account balances for their customers? Inspired from a tending question on here. My head is hurting trying to understand how the financial world functioned before digitization.","c_root_id_A":"i3zwa8i","c_root_id_B":"i41b2g4","created_at_utc_A":1649479070,"created_at_utc_B":1649513425,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I might have been guilty of low-level check kiting to make my way through the early years.","human_ref_B":"In the early 80s I was in the Navy so stationed in a different state . I had to open a local account to \"do banking\" and it was hard even to find one that would accept my out of state driver's lic. In southern ca, there was a bank called 1st interstate whose claim to fame was they could manage accounts from several states. If I remember right, it was a big deal involving a special waiver from the feds and a computer system that could handle it.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":34355.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"oibter","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old What exactly makes cave diving so risky, even if you have experience or are with a guide?","c_root_id_A":"h4um8fq","c_root_id_B":"h4ujb0m","created_at_utc_A":1626038973,"created_at_utc_B":1626037552,"score_A":85,"score_B":77,"human_ref_A":"It takes as long to get back out as it took to get in. So if there are any problems you are hours from surfacing instead of open water where you go directly \"up\" and that's the surface within some seconds. Deep diving is similarly dangerous as cave diving as far as \"time to surface\" goes since you can't shoot directly to the surface as that would cause nitrogen bubbles in your blood (on top of whatever emergency you already have). Deeper (as in vertical depth from sea level) caves could have this same issue requiring a few minutes hanging out at various stepped depths. THen you have to choose if your issue is more critical than having the bends which is at least terribly painful if not deadly itself.","human_ref_B":"Most people are mentioning the issues of visibility, but there's a more pressing concern; air. If you're diving in the open ocean, and you scrape a rock or something that damages your air delivery system, you just surface and you're fine. If you're diving in a cave, surrounded by solid rock, and something damages your air delivery system, you're basically dead. The main risk is that there is ***zero*** room for error.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1421.0,"score_ratio":1.1038961039} {"post_id":"oibter","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old What exactly makes cave diving so risky, even if you have experience or are with a guide?","c_root_id_A":"h4ufqzo","c_root_id_B":"h4um8fq","created_at_utc_A":1626035875,"created_at_utc_B":1626038973,"score_A":65,"score_B":85,"human_ref_A":"Easy to get turned around. Lots fine silt that will cloud the water and reduce visibility to zero.","human_ref_B":"It takes as long to get back out as it took to get in. So if there are any problems you are hours from surfacing instead of open water where you go directly \"up\" and that's the surface within some seconds. Deep diving is similarly dangerous as cave diving as far as \"time to surface\" goes since you can't shoot directly to the surface as that would cause nitrogen bubbles in your blood (on top of whatever emergency you already have). Deeper (as in vertical depth from sea level) caves could have this same issue requiring a few minutes hanging out at various stepped depths. THen you have to choose if your issue is more critical than having the bends which is at least terribly painful if not deadly itself.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3098.0,"score_ratio":1.3076923077} {"post_id":"oibter","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old What exactly makes cave diving so risky, even if you have experience or are with a guide?","c_root_id_A":"h4ulioc","c_root_id_B":"h4um8fq","created_at_utc_A":1626038610,"created_at_utc_B":1626038973,"score_A":25,"score_B":85,"human_ref_A":"Watch the movie Sanctum and it\u2019ll show\/explain all the potential dangers described in the comments","human_ref_B":"It takes as long to get back out as it took to get in. So if there are any problems you are hours from surfacing instead of open water where you go directly \"up\" and that's the surface within some seconds. Deep diving is similarly dangerous as cave diving as far as \"time to surface\" goes since you can't shoot directly to the surface as that would cause nitrogen bubbles in your blood (on top of whatever emergency you already have). Deeper (as in vertical depth from sea level) caves could have this same issue requiring a few minutes hanging out at various stepped depths. THen you have to choose if your issue is more critical than having the bends which is at least terribly painful if not deadly itself.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":363.0,"score_ratio":3.4} {"post_id":"oibter","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old What exactly makes cave diving so risky, even if you have experience or are with a guide?","c_root_id_A":"h4ufqzo","c_root_id_B":"h4ujb0m","created_at_utc_A":1626035875,"created_at_utc_B":1626037552,"score_A":65,"score_B":77,"human_ref_A":"Easy to get turned around. Lots fine silt that will cloud the water and reduce visibility to zero.","human_ref_B":"Most people are mentioning the issues of visibility, but there's a more pressing concern; air. If you're diving in the open ocean, and you scrape a rock or something that damages your air delivery system, you just surface and you're fine. If you're diving in a cave, surrounded by solid rock, and something damages your air delivery system, you're basically dead. The main risk is that there is ***zero*** room for error.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1677.0,"score_ratio":1.1846153846} {"post_id":"oibter","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old What exactly makes cave diving so risky, even if you have experience or are with a guide?","c_root_id_A":"h4uma01","c_root_id_B":"h4vd0w1","created_at_utc_A":1626038996,"created_at_utc_B":1626052131,"score_A":15,"score_B":18,"human_ref_A":"Every part of your gear is mechanical. Mechanical devices occasionally fail. Malfunctioning regulator, leaking hose or fittings. Failing to manage air in tank. Plus risks of getting lost in the network of caves. If you have an equipment malfunction during a regular dive, an emergency ascent is still an option (with its own risks) and soon you'll be on the surface. In a cave that isn't an option.","human_ref_B":"This description is the only thing you need to hear to not go cave diving. https:\/\/m.youtube.com\/watch?v=or92IMcLoIc","labels":0,"seconds_difference":13135.0,"score_ratio":1.2} {"post_id":"oibter","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old What exactly makes cave diving so risky, even if you have experience or are with a guide?","c_root_id_A":"h4ux3gg","c_root_id_B":"h4vd0w1","created_at_utc_A":1626043811,"created_at_utc_B":1626052131,"score_A":11,"score_B":18,"human_ref_A":"You\u2019re going into an enclosed space underwater. What more do you need to know?","human_ref_B":"This description is the only thing you need to hear to not go cave diving. https:\/\/m.youtube.com\/watch?v=or92IMcLoIc","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8320.0,"score_ratio":1.6363636364} {"post_id":"oibter","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old What exactly makes cave diving so risky, even if you have experience or are with a guide?","c_root_id_A":"h4vd0w1","c_root_id_B":"h4v5s4z","created_at_utc_A":1626052131,"created_at_utc_B":1626048251,"score_A":18,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"This description is the only thing you need to hear to not go cave diving. https:\/\/m.youtube.com\/watch?v=or92IMcLoIc","human_ref_B":"You can't see clearly and, well, you've managed to put yourself in a big dark hole in the ground that stinks of bat poop","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3880.0,"score_ratio":9.0} {"post_id":"oibter","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old What exactly makes cave diving so risky, even if you have experience or are with a guide?","c_root_id_A":"h4vrttw","c_root_id_B":"h4vg0ot","created_at_utc_A":1626060489,"created_at_utc_B":1626053783,"score_A":7,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Had a coworker that did this. He and his buddy went through a small hole into a large chamber, they explored for a while and when they were ready to leave they turned back the way they came from and there were five nearly identical holes. Which one had they entered through.","human_ref_B":"Read the book \"Agaisnt All Odds\" about the Thailand cave rescue of the kids soccer team. Such a good book and gives a real insight into the dangers of cave diving","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6706.0,"score_ratio":1.1666666667} {"post_id":"oibter","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old What exactly makes cave diving so risky, even if you have experience or are with a guide?","c_root_id_A":"h4vlw31","c_root_id_B":"h4vrttw","created_at_utc_A":1626056992,"created_at_utc_B":1626060489,"score_A":4,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Cave diving is a type of overhead diving environment. Typical Recreational diving relies on the diver being able, in an emergency situation, of surfacing directly\u2026. ( in an emergency, the now required safety stop for any dive can be skipped) Overhead diving of any sort would prevent this. Plus the potential loss of visibility, either because of a power failure, or suspended ultra-fine particles completely obliterating visibility. You have to know what you are doing! Professional extended diving and some recreational diving situations rely on an expensive and complicated series of decompression stops, and support people and equipment with all emergency contingencies arranged for. For each type of overhead environment, there are a special set of skills needed and specific certifications are required. Ways to kick flippers,breathing and re breathers for minimal disturbance, Ropes, cords, and techniques to be trained In\u2026navigation and really mental ability. In a cave system, it is naturally completely dark, and a long difficult way to the surface. Been awhile, but I believe that overhead environments of any sort, wrecks, caves, etc. have by far, the highest mortality risk in diving. In fact the vast majority of injuries\u2026 regular diving has quite an impressive safety record when the basic rules are followed.","human_ref_B":"Had a coworker that did this. He and his buddy went through a small hole into a large chamber, they explored for a while and when they were ready to leave they turned back the way they came from and there were five nearly identical holes. Which one had they entered through.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3497.0,"score_ratio":1.75} {"post_id":"oibter","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old What exactly makes cave diving so risky, even if you have experience or are with a guide?","c_root_id_A":"h4vrttw","c_root_id_B":"h4vkg7x","created_at_utc_A":1626060489,"created_at_utc_B":1626056209,"score_A":7,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Had a coworker that did this. He and his buddy went through a small hole into a large chamber, they explored for a while and when they were ready to leave they turned back the way they came from and there were five nearly identical holes. Which one had they entered through.","human_ref_B":"If you want a good narrative about why it\u2019s an awful idea even if you are trained and equipped you should read \u201cThe Luminous Dead\u201d by Caitlin Starling. 10 kinds of nope on both caving and cave diving.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4280.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333} {"post_id":"oibter","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old What exactly makes cave diving so risky, even if you have experience or are with a guide?","c_root_id_A":"h4v5s4z","c_root_id_B":"h4vrttw","created_at_utc_A":1626048251,"created_at_utc_B":1626060489,"score_A":2,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"You can't see clearly and, well, you've managed to put yourself in a big dark hole in the ground that stinks of bat poop","human_ref_B":"Had a coworker that did this. He and his buddy went through a small hole into a large chamber, they explored for a while and when they were ready to leave they turned back the way they came from and there were five nearly identical holes. Which one had they entered through.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":12238.0,"score_ratio":3.5} {"post_id":"oibter","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old What exactly makes cave diving so risky, even if you have experience or are with a guide?","c_root_id_A":"h4vg0ot","c_root_id_B":"h4v5s4z","created_at_utc_A":1626053783,"created_at_utc_B":1626048251,"score_A":6,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Read the book \"Agaisnt All Odds\" about the Thailand cave rescue of the kids soccer team. Such a good book and gives a real insight into the dangers of cave diving","human_ref_B":"You can't see clearly and, well, you've managed to put yourself in a big dark hole in the ground that stinks of bat poop","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5532.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"oibter","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old What exactly makes cave diving so risky, even if you have experience or are with a guide?","c_root_id_A":"h4vlw31","c_root_id_B":"h4vkg7x","created_at_utc_A":1626056992,"created_at_utc_B":1626056209,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Cave diving is a type of overhead diving environment. Typical Recreational diving relies on the diver being able, in an emergency situation, of surfacing directly\u2026. ( in an emergency, the now required safety stop for any dive can be skipped) Overhead diving of any sort would prevent this. Plus the potential loss of visibility, either because of a power failure, or suspended ultra-fine particles completely obliterating visibility. You have to know what you are doing! Professional extended diving and some recreational diving situations rely on an expensive and complicated series of decompression stops, and support people and equipment with all emergency contingencies arranged for. For each type of overhead environment, there are a special set of skills needed and specific certifications are required. Ways to kick flippers,breathing and re breathers for minimal disturbance, Ropes, cords, and techniques to be trained In\u2026navigation and really mental ability. In a cave system, it is naturally completely dark, and a long difficult way to the surface. Been awhile, but I believe that overhead environments of any sort, wrecks, caves, etc. have by far, the highest mortality risk in diving. In fact the vast majority of injuries\u2026 regular diving has quite an impressive safety record when the basic rules are followed.","human_ref_B":"If you want a good narrative about why it\u2019s an awful idea even if you are trained and equipped you should read \u201cThe Luminous Dead\u201d by Caitlin Starling. 10 kinds of nope on both caving and cave diving.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":783.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} {"post_id":"oibter","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old What exactly makes cave diving so risky, even if you have experience or are with a guide?","c_root_id_A":"h4vlw31","c_root_id_B":"h4y3mue","created_at_utc_A":1626056992,"created_at_utc_B":1626113425,"score_A":4,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Cave diving is a type of overhead diving environment. Typical Recreational diving relies on the diver being able, in an emergency situation, of surfacing directly\u2026. ( in an emergency, the now required safety stop for any dive can be skipped) Overhead diving of any sort would prevent this. Plus the potential loss of visibility, either because of a power failure, or suspended ultra-fine particles completely obliterating visibility. You have to know what you are doing! Professional extended diving and some recreational diving situations rely on an expensive and complicated series of decompression stops, and support people and equipment with all emergency contingencies arranged for. For each type of overhead environment, there are a special set of skills needed and specific certifications are required. Ways to kick flippers,breathing and re breathers for minimal disturbance, Ropes, cords, and techniques to be trained In\u2026navigation and really mental ability. In a cave system, it is naturally completely dark, and a long difficult way to the surface. Been awhile, but I believe that overhead environments of any sort, wrecks, caves, etc. have by far, the highest mortality risk in diving. In fact the vast majority of injuries\u2026 regular diving has quite an impressive safety record when the basic rules are followed.","human_ref_B":"see, when you're in the dark, you still have sense of where you are with your ears. A lifetime of experience will actually teach you to discern your voice as it bounces around a room, whether it echoes or not, how close you are to a war. If you've ever put your face an inch from a wall and spoke it does extremely different from when you're facing an open room. You're so used to this in your daily life that you don't even think about it, it's one of these minor clues that inform your knowledge of the world around you. This, combined with sight, and you've got a pretty good 3d grasp of the world around you, and that can inform how your limbs move you around. Even things like how your sleeves bend and press against your arms, or your leg hair as your legs swing forward, the folding of your socks, maybe your ponytail tugging slightly on your scalp. These things all contribute to your feel of gravity, of momentum, and you might not think about it because they aren't necessary to function, but they're data input points your brain definitely uses. imagine none of that. Now, you're completely numb to the world. No hearing, no sight, nothing. You have no sensory feedback as to where your hands are, you're flying blind only with your own body's muscles and nerves to hopefully get it right. If you aren't used to this, you can't 'feel' your way around. You might think you've got 3 feet in front of you when you've only got 6. That sharp left turn might actually be only 30 degrees. the wall is now 2 feet away from you when you swore it was right beside your hand, ready to grab. Everything lies to you and you have absolutely no way to get more information. You start to make shit up as your brain grasps for straws, so to speak, of info to cobble together whatever input it feels. Suddenly you aren't sure what way is up or down, you can't feel momentum or inertia. Your only way to know, your ears, are second-guessing themselves now because you're not getting any other input to back it up. You're wrong all the time but that's never been a problem because in case of conflicting info, you've got all these other 'failsafes' of contextual input to help you. your entire understanding of the physical world is collapsing, and you have absolutely nothing to help you regain enough of it to make informed decisions. You might start backing up not realizing you're actually going further in. And this whole time has been 30 minutes when you were sure it was only 30 seconds and you don't know that your oxygen is getting dangerously low, because you're using it up in your panic. honestly, the risk isn't even always with the cave itself. if you aren't trained to deal with all of this, you're fucked.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":56433.0,"score_ratio":1.25} {"post_id":"oibter","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old What exactly makes cave diving so risky, even if you have experience or are with a guide?","c_root_id_A":"h4v5s4z","c_root_id_B":"h4vlw31","created_at_utc_A":1626048251,"created_at_utc_B":1626056992,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"You can't see clearly and, well, you've managed to put yourself in a big dark hole in the ground that stinks of bat poop","human_ref_B":"Cave diving is a type of overhead diving environment. Typical Recreational diving relies on the diver being able, in an emergency situation, of surfacing directly\u2026. ( in an emergency, the now required safety stop for any dive can be skipped) Overhead diving of any sort would prevent this. Plus the potential loss of visibility, either because of a power failure, or suspended ultra-fine particles completely obliterating visibility. You have to know what you are doing! Professional extended diving and some recreational diving situations rely on an expensive and complicated series of decompression stops, and support people and equipment with all emergency contingencies arranged for. For each type of overhead environment, there are a special set of skills needed and specific certifications are required. Ways to kick flippers,breathing and re breathers for minimal disturbance, Ropes, cords, and techniques to be trained In\u2026navigation and really mental ability. In a cave system, it is naturally completely dark, and a long difficult way to the surface. Been awhile, but I believe that overhead environments of any sort, wrecks, caves, etc. have by far, the highest mortality risk in diving. In fact the vast majority of injuries\u2026 regular diving has quite an impressive safety record when the basic rules are followed.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8741.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"oibter","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old What exactly makes cave diving so risky, even if you have experience or are with a guide?","c_root_id_A":"h4vkg7x","c_root_id_B":"h4y3mue","created_at_utc_A":1626056209,"created_at_utc_B":1626113425,"score_A":3,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"If you want a good narrative about why it\u2019s an awful idea even if you are trained and equipped you should read \u201cThe Luminous Dead\u201d by Caitlin Starling. 10 kinds of nope on both caving and cave diving.","human_ref_B":"see, when you're in the dark, you still have sense of where you are with your ears. A lifetime of experience will actually teach you to discern your voice as it bounces around a room, whether it echoes or not, how close you are to a war. If you've ever put your face an inch from a wall and spoke it does extremely different from when you're facing an open room. You're so used to this in your daily life that you don't even think about it, it's one of these minor clues that inform your knowledge of the world around you. This, combined with sight, and you've got a pretty good 3d grasp of the world around you, and that can inform how your limbs move you around. Even things like how your sleeves bend and press against your arms, or your leg hair as your legs swing forward, the folding of your socks, maybe your ponytail tugging slightly on your scalp. These things all contribute to your feel of gravity, of momentum, and you might not think about it because they aren't necessary to function, but they're data input points your brain definitely uses. imagine none of that. Now, you're completely numb to the world. No hearing, no sight, nothing. You have no sensory feedback as to where your hands are, you're flying blind only with your own body's muscles and nerves to hopefully get it right. If you aren't used to this, you can't 'feel' your way around. You might think you've got 3 feet in front of you when you've only got 6. That sharp left turn might actually be only 30 degrees. the wall is now 2 feet away from you when you swore it was right beside your hand, ready to grab. Everything lies to you and you have absolutely no way to get more information. You start to make shit up as your brain grasps for straws, so to speak, of info to cobble together whatever input it feels. Suddenly you aren't sure what way is up or down, you can't feel momentum or inertia. Your only way to know, your ears, are second-guessing themselves now because you're not getting any other input to back it up. You're wrong all the time but that's never been a problem because in case of conflicting info, you've got all these other 'failsafes' of contextual input to help you. your entire understanding of the physical world is collapsing, and you have absolutely nothing to help you regain enough of it to make informed decisions. You might start backing up not realizing you're actually going further in. And this whole time has been 30 minutes when you were sure it was only 30 seconds and you don't know that your oxygen is getting dangerously low, because you're using it up in your panic. honestly, the risk isn't even always with the cave itself. if you aren't trained to deal with all of this, you're fucked.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":57216.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"oibter","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old What exactly makes cave diving so risky, even if you have experience or are with a guide?","c_root_id_A":"h4vkg7x","c_root_id_B":"h4ycftu","created_at_utc_A":1626056209,"created_at_utc_B":1626117513,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"If you want a good narrative about why it\u2019s an awful idea even if you are trained and equipped you should read \u201cThe Luminous Dead\u201d by Caitlin Starling. 10 kinds of nope on both caving and cave diving.","human_ref_B":"A lot of good responses here, but I think no one has yet mentioned: without good visual cues, it's easy to change your depth without you realizing it. If you sink down 40 or 50 feet, which is totally possible to do before you realize you've done it, you could very well use up most of your air since the deeper you go, the more air you use, or gotten so deep that you'll have to decompress to prevent the bends and you won't have enough air for the decompression so you'll get the bends which could kill you or damage you, or gotten deep enough that you experience nitrogen narcosis (at depth, nitrogen acts like a narcotic and you start having trouble thinking, like you're very drunk. You need all your wits about you in this emergency and you end up being unable to think straight. People with nitrogen narcosis, even very experienced divers, have been known to remove their regulator and drown due to confusion, even though they have plenty of air).","labels":0,"seconds_difference":61304.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} {"post_id":"oibter","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old What exactly makes cave diving so risky, even if you have experience or are with a guide?","c_root_id_A":"h4vkg7x","c_root_id_B":"h4v5s4z","created_at_utc_A":1626056209,"created_at_utc_B":1626048251,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"If you want a good narrative about why it\u2019s an awful idea even if you are trained and equipped you should read \u201cThe Luminous Dead\u201d by Caitlin Starling. 10 kinds of nope on both caving and cave diving.","human_ref_B":"You can't see clearly and, well, you've managed to put yourself in a big dark hole in the ground that stinks of bat poop","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7958.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"oibter","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old What exactly makes cave diving so risky, even if you have experience or are with a guide?","c_root_id_A":"h4y3mue","c_root_id_B":"h4v5s4z","created_at_utc_A":1626113425,"created_at_utc_B":1626048251,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"see, when you're in the dark, you still have sense of where you are with your ears. A lifetime of experience will actually teach you to discern your voice as it bounces around a room, whether it echoes or not, how close you are to a war. If you've ever put your face an inch from a wall and spoke it does extremely different from when you're facing an open room. You're so used to this in your daily life that you don't even think about it, it's one of these minor clues that inform your knowledge of the world around you. This, combined with sight, and you've got a pretty good 3d grasp of the world around you, and that can inform how your limbs move you around. Even things like how your sleeves bend and press against your arms, or your leg hair as your legs swing forward, the folding of your socks, maybe your ponytail tugging slightly on your scalp. These things all contribute to your feel of gravity, of momentum, and you might not think about it because they aren't necessary to function, but they're data input points your brain definitely uses. imagine none of that. Now, you're completely numb to the world. No hearing, no sight, nothing. You have no sensory feedback as to where your hands are, you're flying blind only with your own body's muscles and nerves to hopefully get it right. If you aren't used to this, you can't 'feel' your way around. You might think you've got 3 feet in front of you when you've only got 6. That sharp left turn might actually be only 30 degrees. the wall is now 2 feet away from you when you swore it was right beside your hand, ready to grab. Everything lies to you and you have absolutely no way to get more information. You start to make shit up as your brain grasps for straws, so to speak, of info to cobble together whatever input it feels. Suddenly you aren't sure what way is up or down, you can't feel momentum or inertia. Your only way to know, your ears, are second-guessing themselves now because you're not getting any other input to back it up. You're wrong all the time but that's never been a problem because in case of conflicting info, you've got all these other 'failsafes' of contextual input to help you. your entire understanding of the physical world is collapsing, and you have absolutely nothing to help you regain enough of it to make informed decisions. You might start backing up not realizing you're actually going further in. And this whole time has been 30 minutes when you were sure it was only 30 seconds and you don't know that your oxygen is getting dangerously low, because you're using it up in your panic. honestly, the risk isn't even always with the cave itself. if you aren't trained to deal with all of this, you're fucked.","human_ref_B":"You can't see clearly and, well, you've managed to put yourself in a big dark hole in the ground that stinks of bat poop","labels":1,"seconds_difference":65174.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"oibter","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old What exactly makes cave diving so risky, even if you have experience or are with a guide?","c_root_id_A":"h4w1r8o","c_root_id_B":"h4y3mue","created_at_utc_A":1626067279,"created_at_utc_B":1626113425,"score_A":3,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Confined spaces are easy to get turned around in. Undisturbed bodies of water have huge layers of silt on the bottom that get stirred up and prevent seeing ANYTHING around you. Lower threshold for claustrophobia and panic when you\u2019re suited up for diving. Combine all three and you have a recipe for disaster. People have been known to even rip off their dive masks and lose their respirator because it gets so bad, even in open water if you go too close to the bottom. It\u2019s tough to imagine unless you\u2019ve been diving, but when I was doing my open water test for scuba certification part of the testing was navigating using only our wrist compasses to find the dive instructors. We were in a shallow section of the lake, about 6-7 feet deep, but one instructor sat still in a spot while the others swam around and stirred up the bottom. They had those of us getting certified try to find him using predetermined headings from around the lake and swam around blind for probably 20 minutes. It didn\u2019t count for our certification, they just wanted us to see how easily you can get turned around and lost when you can\u2019t see at all. It\u2019s spooky.","human_ref_B":"see, when you're in the dark, you still have sense of where you are with your ears. A lifetime of experience will actually teach you to discern your voice as it bounces around a room, whether it echoes or not, how close you are to a war. If you've ever put your face an inch from a wall and spoke it does extremely different from when you're facing an open room. You're so used to this in your daily life that you don't even think about it, it's one of these minor clues that inform your knowledge of the world around you. This, combined with sight, and you've got a pretty good 3d grasp of the world around you, and that can inform how your limbs move you around. Even things like how your sleeves bend and press against your arms, or your leg hair as your legs swing forward, the folding of your socks, maybe your ponytail tugging slightly on your scalp. These things all contribute to your feel of gravity, of momentum, and you might not think about it because they aren't necessary to function, but they're data input points your brain definitely uses. imagine none of that. Now, you're completely numb to the world. No hearing, no sight, nothing. You have no sensory feedback as to where your hands are, you're flying blind only with your own body's muscles and nerves to hopefully get it right. If you aren't used to this, you can't 'feel' your way around. You might think you've got 3 feet in front of you when you've only got 6. That sharp left turn might actually be only 30 degrees. the wall is now 2 feet away from you when you swore it was right beside your hand, ready to grab. Everything lies to you and you have absolutely no way to get more information. You start to make shit up as your brain grasps for straws, so to speak, of info to cobble together whatever input it feels. Suddenly you aren't sure what way is up or down, you can't feel momentum or inertia. Your only way to know, your ears, are second-guessing themselves now because you're not getting any other input to back it up. You're wrong all the time but that's never been a problem because in case of conflicting info, you've got all these other 'failsafes' of contextual input to help you. your entire understanding of the physical world is collapsing, and you have absolutely nothing to help you regain enough of it to make informed decisions. You might start backing up not realizing you're actually going further in. And this whole time has been 30 minutes when you were sure it was only 30 seconds and you don't know that your oxygen is getting dangerously low, because you're using it up in your panic. honestly, the risk isn't even always with the cave itself. if you aren't trained to deal with all of this, you're fucked.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":46146.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"oibter","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old What exactly makes cave diving so risky, even if you have experience or are with a guide?","c_root_id_A":"h4ycftu","c_root_id_B":"h4v5s4z","created_at_utc_A":1626117513,"created_at_utc_B":1626048251,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"A lot of good responses here, but I think no one has yet mentioned: without good visual cues, it's easy to change your depth without you realizing it. If you sink down 40 or 50 feet, which is totally possible to do before you realize you've done it, you could very well use up most of your air since the deeper you go, the more air you use, or gotten so deep that you'll have to decompress to prevent the bends and you won't have enough air for the decompression so you'll get the bends which could kill you or damage you, or gotten deep enough that you experience nitrogen narcosis (at depth, nitrogen acts like a narcotic and you start having trouble thinking, like you're very drunk. You need all your wits about you in this emergency and you end up being unable to think straight. People with nitrogen narcosis, even very experienced divers, have been known to remove their regulator and drown due to confusion, even though they have plenty of air).","human_ref_B":"You can't see clearly and, well, you've managed to put yourself in a big dark hole in the ground that stinks of bat poop","labels":1,"seconds_difference":69262.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"oibter","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old What exactly makes cave diving so risky, even if you have experience or are with a guide?","c_root_id_A":"h4ycftu","c_root_id_B":"h4w1r8o","created_at_utc_A":1626117513,"created_at_utc_B":1626067279,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"A lot of good responses here, but I think no one has yet mentioned: without good visual cues, it's easy to change your depth without you realizing it. If you sink down 40 or 50 feet, which is totally possible to do before you realize you've done it, you could very well use up most of your air since the deeper you go, the more air you use, or gotten so deep that you'll have to decompress to prevent the bends and you won't have enough air for the decompression so you'll get the bends which could kill you or damage you, or gotten deep enough that you experience nitrogen narcosis (at depth, nitrogen acts like a narcotic and you start having trouble thinking, like you're very drunk. You need all your wits about you in this emergency and you end up being unable to think straight. People with nitrogen narcosis, even very experienced divers, have been known to remove their regulator and drown due to confusion, even though they have plenty of air).","human_ref_B":"Confined spaces are easy to get turned around in. Undisturbed bodies of water have huge layers of silt on the bottom that get stirred up and prevent seeing ANYTHING around you. Lower threshold for claustrophobia and panic when you\u2019re suited up for diving. Combine all three and you have a recipe for disaster. People have been known to even rip off their dive masks and lose their respirator because it gets so bad, even in open water if you go too close to the bottom. It\u2019s tough to imagine unless you\u2019ve been diving, but when I was doing my open water test for scuba certification part of the testing was navigating using only our wrist compasses to find the dive instructors. We were in a shallow section of the lake, about 6-7 feet deep, but one instructor sat still in a spot while the others swam around and stirred up the bottom. They had those of us getting certified try to find him using predetermined headings from around the lake and swam around blind for probably 20 minutes. It didn\u2019t count for our certification, they just wanted us to see how easily you can get turned around and lost when you can\u2019t see at all. It\u2019s spooky.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":50234.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} {"post_id":"oibter","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old What exactly makes cave diving so risky, even if you have experience or are with a guide?","c_root_id_A":"h4v5s4z","c_root_id_B":"h4w1r8o","created_at_utc_A":1626048251,"created_at_utc_B":1626067279,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"You can't see clearly and, well, you've managed to put yourself in a big dark hole in the ground that stinks of bat poop","human_ref_B":"Confined spaces are easy to get turned around in. Undisturbed bodies of water have huge layers of silt on the bottom that get stirred up and prevent seeing ANYTHING around you. Lower threshold for claustrophobia and panic when you\u2019re suited up for diving. Combine all three and you have a recipe for disaster. People have been known to even rip off their dive masks and lose their respirator because it gets so bad, even in open water if you go too close to the bottom. It\u2019s tough to imagine unless you\u2019ve been diving, but when I was doing my open water test for scuba certification part of the testing was navigating using only our wrist compasses to find the dive instructors. We were in a shallow section of the lake, about 6-7 feet deep, but one instructor sat still in a spot while the others swam around and stirred up the bottom. They had those of us getting certified try to find him using predetermined headings from around the lake and swam around blind for probably 20 minutes. It didn\u2019t count for our certification, they just wanted us to see how easily you can get turned around and lost when you can\u2019t see at all. It\u2019s spooky.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":19028.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"umwlf7","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old Why do birds such as parakeets\/parrots imitate things owners say and learn phrases to 'communicate'. It appears that they enjoy it and even are affectionate.","c_root_id_A":"i84ow8l","c_root_id_B":"i84te86","created_at_utc_A":1652233567,"created_at_utc_B":1652235622,"score_A":27,"score_B":101,"human_ref_A":"Bird says something mimicking a human. Human gets excited and rewards bird with positive emotion and treats. Bird learns: mimicking human = getting good things back.","human_ref_B":"They\u2019re very social and intelligent. I imagine they learn to mimic the same reason humans do, to communicate with others. Babies start out learning to talk because they repeat what people say to them. Also humans make animal noises so it\u2019s not crazy that social animals would make human noises","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2055.0,"score_ratio":3.7407407407} {"post_id":"umwlf7","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old Why do birds such as parakeets\/parrots imitate things owners say and learn phrases to 'communicate'. It appears that they enjoy it and even are affectionate.","c_root_id_A":"i86klsm","c_root_id_B":"i84ow8l","created_at_utc_A":1652275973,"created_at_utc_B":1652233567,"score_A":48,"score_B":27,"human_ref_A":"I\u2019ve owned 4 different kinds of parrots. I\u2019d have to tell you the African Grey had the strongest ability to have a conversation with real meaning not just mimicking. I would tell him go home and he\u2019d fly to his cage close his door and lock himself in. In the morning he\u2019d say \u201cgood morning! How are you? Can I come out?\u201d If we said yes he\u2019d unlock his cage and come right out. He always had a plate at the dinner table and he\u2019d fly over when we had dinner eat on his plate and then fly back to his cage. You\u2019ll truly be missed \u2764\ufe0f","human_ref_B":"Bird says something mimicking a human. Human gets excited and rewards bird with positive emotion and treats. Bird learns: mimicking human = getting good things back.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":42406.0,"score_ratio":1.7777777778} {"post_id":"umwlf7","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old Why do birds such as parakeets\/parrots imitate things owners say and learn phrases to 'communicate'. It appears that they enjoy it and even are affectionate.","c_root_id_A":"i85uqd1","c_root_id_B":"i86klsm","created_at_utc_A":1652259929,"created_at_utc_B":1652275973,"score_A":16,"score_B":48,"human_ref_A":"They're too intelligent to be a bird. They constantly need to learn things or they get bored easily. I read about a parrot where who knows basic words of things, then the owner showed him a cherry, a fruit he's never seen\/tasted before, he called it applemato. To him its a combination of apple and tomato in taste and look. So at least for this one parrot, he's not just imitating, but have the intelligence to do some manipulation with our language. In Australia, where there are wild parrots, the pet parrots that got lost goes back to teaching their wild parrots friends English words they picked up during time as a pet. So they can teach it as well!","human_ref_B":"I\u2019ve owned 4 different kinds of parrots. I\u2019d have to tell you the African Grey had the strongest ability to have a conversation with real meaning not just mimicking. I would tell him go home and he\u2019d fly to his cage close his door and lock himself in. In the morning he\u2019d say \u201cgood morning! How are you? Can I come out?\u201d If we said yes he\u2019d unlock his cage and come right out. He always had a plate at the dinner table and he\u2019d fly over when we had dinner eat on his plate and then fly back to his cage. You\u2019ll truly be missed \u2764\ufe0f","labels":0,"seconds_difference":16044.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"umwlf7","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old Why do birds such as parakeets\/parrots imitate things owners say and learn phrases to 'communicate'. It appears that they enjoy it and even are affectionate.","c_root_id_A":"i85z9nx","c_root_id_B":"i86klsm","created_at_utc_A":1652263787,"created_at_utc_B":1652275973,"score_A":2,"score_B":48,"human_ref_A":"i imagine they learn that it's fun for them, when the environment reacts in a certain way to something they can do.","human_ref_B":"I\u2019ve owned 4 different kinds of parrots. I\u2019d have to tell you the African Grey had the strongest ability to have a conversation with real meaning not just mimicking. I would tell him go home and he\u2019d fly to his cage close his door and lock himself in. In the morning he\u2019d say \u201cgood morning! How are you? Can I come out?\u201d If we said yes he\u2019d unlock his cage and come right out. He always had a plate at the dinner table and he\u2019d fly over when we had dinner eat on his plate and then fly back to his cage. You\u2019ll truly be missed \u2764\ufe0f","labels":0,"seconds_difference":12186.0,"score_ratio":24.0} {"post_id":"xwr5pb","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Eli5: When we sleep, spinal fluid washes waste from our brain. What exactly is \"waste\" in the brain?","c_root_id_A":"ir8br72","c_root_id_B":"ir8g9rs","created_at_utc_A":1665021734,"created_at_utc_B":1665024056,"score_A":130,"score_B":260,"human_ref_A":"(Edit: Yes this is not truly a 5 year old explanation but I hope I explained it enough that a high-school student can understand) Basically some byproducts of metabolism that the brain makes throughout the day. Our nerve cells in the central nervous system use a lot of energy and have complex functions that arise from complicated metabolic processes. There are other cells in the brain called glial cells. Astrocytes are a type of glial cell that are the main supporters for nerve cells in the brain. They are very essential to proper nerve function and do a lot\/most of the daily cleaning up throughout the day but there are still \"waste\" products from metabolism that are not taken care of. Although minor compared to what astroctyes and microglia do in the brain (maybe more important than what is recognized in the literature), this nightly cerebrospinal fluid can help to clear out some of these metabolites, remove potentially toxic molecules that impair brain function, and also potentially redistribute hormone and chemical messengers in the brain. It's hard to research this though since tagging these molecules and proteins in the central nervous system for imaging is hard. But all in all, another reason why a good night's sleep is important!","human_ref_B":"Could there ever be a \"rinse cycle\" developed to help people who are struggling with this process?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2322.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"xwr5pb","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Eli5: When we sleep, spinal fluid washes waste from our brain. What exactly is \"waste\" in the brain?","c_root_id_A":"ir9mqvn","c_root_id_B":"ira8rsx","created_at_utc_A":1665054996,"created_at_utc_B":1665066214,"score_A":20,"score_B":50,"human_ref_A":"Sleep is a superpower. If I have good dreams I wake up energized. I have the best dreams on generic Wellbutrin single release (it's an antidepressant) which I only take now and then. Doc have it to me to help quit smoking. He asked me later if it worked to stop smoking and I said no, but I'm not depressed about it anymore.","human_ref_B":"Where does the waste go? To the blood and gets cleaned by the liver?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":11218.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"ybeph1","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.7,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why are YouTube videos in 480p resolution almost always larger (in file size) than those in 720p resolution? 480p use a slightly higher bitrate, but why does that make sense?","c_root_id_A":"itg0yct","c_root_id_B":"itg5jpj","created_at_utc_A":1666523943,"created_at_utc_B":1666527031,"score_A":6,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"Can you clarify your question? Are you asking why would youtube do this, or how can 480p video be larger than 720p?","human_ref_B":"are you comparing the same video? Download it at 480p then again at 720p and confirm which is larger simple videos with a lot of the same colour and less noisy content will have smaller filesize s as they compress much more","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3088.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} {"post_id":"xj8fna","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old : if you disconnect a power cable, where does the electricity that is still in the cable go?","c_root_id_A":"ip713l2","c_root_id_B":"ip7hizl","created_at_utc_A":1663682405,"created_at_utc_B":1663688947,"score_A":105,"score_B":136,"human_ref_A":"It doesn't \"go\" anywhere. It ceases to be. Electricity isn't a \"thing\" it is what we call it when electrons are moving in a particular way. When you unplug a cable, the electrons stop moving in that particular way, so there is no more electricity.","human_ref_B":"The same place that traffic flow goes on a busy road when the lights go red, basically. The road is still full of vehicles; they're just not going anywhere. Electricity is much the same.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6542.0,"score_ratio":1.2952380952} {"post_id":"xj8fna","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old : if you disconnect a power cable, where does the electricity that is still in the cable go?","c_root_id_A":"ip73pzy","c_root_id_B":"ip7hizl","created_at_utc_A":1663683511,"created_at_utc_B":1663688947,"score_A":18,"score_B":136,"human_ref_A":"there are plenty of ELI5s that discuss the basics of electrical flow and how a formed circuit is required to conduct electricity through a device, so by unplugging it you are breaking the circuit between the common and hot prongs and removing the path for electricity to flow- but I'm guessing this isn't what you are really asking... assuming you are asking about the energy that was traveling through the cable at the time it was disconnected, it pretty much stays there as static charge (capacitance) as long as nothing is draining it from the other side, with the amount of charge left based on the cable properties (thickness, conductance, etc) and the voltage that was driving the current flow. things that could drain the static charge on the other end include transformers, power regulators, or based on the way the source unit is grounded. in heavy power transmission lines, this is typically called \"residual power\" and can be very dangerous, though it has more to do with the actual capacitors involved and less-so the capacitance of the cables.","human_ref_B":"The same place that traffic flow goes on a busy road when the lights go red, basically. The road is still full of vehicles; they're just not going anywhere. Electricity is much the same.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5436.0,"score_ratio":7.5555555556} {"post_id":"xj8fna","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old : if you disconnect a power cable, where does the electricity that is still in the cable go?","c_root_id_A":"ip6v2fe","c_root_id_B":"ip7hizl","created_at_utc_A":1663679746,"created_at_utc_B":1663688947,"score_A":11,"score_B":136,"human_ref_A":"The charge or electrons move when a circuit is complete. Disconnect the cable and the electrons stay where they were. Like marbles in a tube. One pushed in and they push each other out. Like electrons. Stop putting marbles in. The marbles stay.","human_ref_B":"The same place that traffic flow goes on a busy road when the lights go red, basically. The road is still full of vehicles; they're just not going anywhere. Electricity is much the same.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9201.0,"score_ratio":12.3636363636} {"post_id":"xj8fna","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old : if you disconnect a power cable, where does the electricity that is still in the cable go?","c_root_id_A":"ip7hizl","c_root_id_B":"ip72dxn","created_at_utc_A":1663688947,"created_at_utc_B":1663682945,"score_A":136,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"The same place that traffic flow goes on a busy road when the lights go red, basically. The road is still full of vehicles; they're just not going anywhere. Electricity is much the same.","human_ref_B":"Hum. Now stop humming. The hum has not gone anywhere. It simply ceased. Energy is not a thing. It's a process.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6002.0,"score_ratio":34.0} {"post_id":"xj8fna","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old : if you disconnect a power cable, where does the electricity that is still in the cable go?","c_root_id_A":"ip7hizl","c_root_id_B":"ip72vqx","created_at_utc_A":1663688947,"created_at_utc_B":1663683155,"score_A":136,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"The same place that traffic flow goes on a busy road when the lights go red, basically. The road is still full of vehicles; they're just not going anywhere. Electricity is much the same.","human_ref_B":"Maybe this analogy may help. Think of electricity like a string running through two straws. Pulling the string back and fourth quickly is the \u201celectricity\u201d. If you cut the string in the middle (unplug the outlet), the strings stop moving.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5792.0,"score_ratio":45.3333333333} {"post_id":"xj8fna","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old : if you disconnect a power cable, where does the electricity that is still in the cable go?","c_root_id_A":"ip713l2","c_root_id_B":"ip6v2fe","created_at_utc_A":1663682405,"created_at_utc_B":1663679746,"score_A":105,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"It doesn't \"go\" anywhere. It ceases to be. Electricity isn't a \"thing\" it is what we call it when electrons are moving in a particular way. When you unplug a cable, the electrons stop moving in that particular way, so there is no more electricity.","human_ref_B":"The charge or electrons move when a circuit is complete. Disconnect the cable and the electrons stay where they were. Like marbles in a tube. One pushed in and they push each other out. Like electrons. Stop putting marbles in. The marbles stay.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2659.0,"score_ratio":9.5454545455} {"post_id":"xj8fna","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old : if you disconnect a power cable, where does the electricity that is still in the cable go?","c_root_id_A":"ip73pzy","c_root_id_B":"ip6v2fe","created_at_utc_A":1663683511,"created_at_utc_B":1663679746,"score_A":18,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"there are plenty of ELI5s that discuss the basics of electrical flow and how a formed circuit is required to conduct electricity through a device, so by unplugging it you are breaking the circuit between the common and hot prongs and removing the path for electricity to flow- but I'm guessing this isn't what you are really asking... assuming you are asking about the energy that was traveling through the cable at the time it was disconnected, it pretty much stays there as static charge (capacitance) as long as nothing is draining it from the other side, with the amount of charge left based on the cable properties (thickness, conductance, etc) and the voltage that was driving the current flow. things that could drain the static charge on the other end include transformers, power regulators, or based on the way the source unit is grounded. in heavy power transmission lines, this is typically called \"residual power\" and can be very dangerous, though it has more to do with the actual capacitors involved and less-so the capacitance of the cables.","human_ref_B":"The charge or electrons move when a circuit is complete. Disconnect the cable and the electrons stay where they were. Like marbles in a tube. One pushed in and they push each other out. Like electrons. Stop putting marbles in. The marbles stay.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3765.0,"score_ratio":1.6363636364} {"post_id":"xj8fna","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old : if you disconnect a power cable, where does the electricity that is still in the cable go?","c_root_id_A":"ip72dxn","c_root_id_B":"ip73pzy","created_at_utc_A":1663682945,"created_at_utc_B":1663683511,"score_A":4,"score_B":18,"human_ref_A":"Hum. Now stop humming. The hum has not gone anywhere. It simply ceased. Energy is not a thing. It's a process.","human_ref_B":"there are plenty of ELI5s that discuss the basics of electrical flow and how a formed circuit is required to conduct electricity through a device, so by unplugging it you are breaking the circuit between the common and hot prongs and removing the path for electricity to flow- but I'm guessing this isn't what you are really asking... assuming you are asking about the energy that was traveling through the cable at the time it was disconnected, it pretty much stays there as static charge (capacitance) as long as nothing is draining it from the other side, with the amount of charge left based on the cable properties (thickness, conductance, etc) and the voltage that was driving the current flow. things that could drain the static charge on the other end include transformers, power regulators, or based on the way the source unit is grounded. in heavy power transmission lines, this is typically called \"residual power\" and can be very dangerous, though it has more to do with the actual capacitors involved and less-so the capacitance of the cables.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":566.0,"score_ratio":4.5} {"post_id":"xj8fna","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old : if you disconnect a power cable, where does the electricity that is still in the cable go?","c_root_id_A":"ip72vqx","c_root_id_B":"ip73pzy","created_at_utc_A":1663683155,"created_at_utc_B":1663683511,"score_A":3,"score_B":18,"human_ref_A":"Maybe this analogy may help. Think of electricity like a string running through two straws. Pulling the string back and fourth quickly is the \u201celectricity\u201d. If you cut the string in the middle (unplug the outlet), the strings stop moving.","human_ref_B":"there are plenty of ELI5s that discuss the basics of electrical flow and how a formed circuit is required to conduct electricity through a device, so by unplugging it you are breaking the circuit between the common and hot prongs and removing the path for electricity to flow- but I'm guessing this isn't what you are really asking... assuming you are asking about the energy that was traveling through the cable at the time it was disconnected, it pretty much stays there as static charge (capacitance) as long as nothing is draining it from the other side, with the amount of charge left based on the cable properties (thickness, conductance, etc) and the voltage that was driving the current flow. things that could drain the static charge on the other end include transformers, power regulators, or based on the way the source unit is grounded. in heavy power transmission lines, this is typically called \"residual power\" and can be very dangerous, though it has more to do with the actual capacitors involved and less-so the capacitance of the cables.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":356.0,"score_ratio":6.0} {"post_id":"xj8fna","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old : if you disconnect a power cable, where does the electricity that is still in the cable go?","c_root_id_A":"ip7sars","c_root_id_B":"ip88aqz","created_at_utc_A":1663693010,"created_at_utc_B":1663699109,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"The grid is basically a machine that balances generation of electricity with consumption in real time. Any time a load is added or subtracted, a corresponding amount of generation must occur. There is a little wiggle room, but not much. So if a large power cable is cut, the grid either has to find an alternative destination for the supply, or it needs to cut supply by that amount. If the question is where the physical electricity in the wire goes, the best answer is that there is no electricity in the wire to go anywhere. The confusion likely comes from our shorthand thinking about electricity in that we think of it like water in a pipe. It's not really. That's a useful analogy that's not confusing for people, but it falls apart when too many questions get asked... Because it's not really the way things work. Think of a wire more like a phone line that tells a device in a circuit to consume power. So when the wire is cut, the flow of information stops rather than a bunch of electrons spill out on the ground. This is still not completely accurate. Unfortunately there's no EILI5 for how electricity actually works. Which is why people just pretend it's angry pixies in a pipe. It's close enough that the average Joe off the street can wire an outlet.","human_ref_B":"Electrons don't actually flow through the wire in the way many people here have described. Veritasium has a great video explaining how it really works https:\/\/youtu.be\/oI_X2cMHNe0 which adresses these common misconceptions. The answer to your question is nowhere. Electricity isn't inside the wire like water in a hose.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6099.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"8n1nvp","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.71,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why can you get food poisoning from cooked chicken that has been left out for 12 hours on the counter, but not from a piece of chicken that has been stuck in your teeth for 12 hours before you brush?","c_root_id_A":"dzs2xy4","c_root_id_B":"dzs26g4","created_at_utc_A":1527621041,"created_at_utc_B":1527620380,"score_A":24,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"The difference is which type of bacteria grows on the chicken. Since the chicken is cooked, any bacteria on\/in the chicken was killed, meaning that only environmental bacteria will grow on it afterwards. On the counter, bacteria from people touching the counter, dust and air, and all the other things that may be in the kitchen could make its way onto the cooked chicken. Some of this bacteria may be harmful, potentially causing food poisoning. In your mouth, there are loads of bacteria already present, all of which (assuming you\u2019re healthy) are not harmful to you. When chicken is stuck in your teeth, it\u2019s almost guaranteed that the bacteria growing on it are from your mouth and not harmful to you. Also, if a bit of bad bacteria have made it onto the chicken, it\u2019s likely that they will be out-competed by less harmful bacteria already in your mouth. TL;DR: Mouth bacteria are generally less harmful than counter bacteria.","human_ref_B":"A tiny piece of chicken stuck in your teeth for 12 hours could develop bacteria, but it would be a very tiny bit of bacteria.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":661.0,"score_ratio":6.0} {"post_id":"ylhlwn","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old how do non drug induced Visual Hallucinations work ? what happens in the brain that makes the eyes see something that isn't there?","c_root_id_A":"iuyqx23","c_root_id_B":"iuyl323","created_at_utc_A":1667521485,"created_at_utc_B":1667519020,"score_A":77,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"When I was very very ill I descended into auditory and visual hallucinations, they gradually increased in frequency and severity over weeks until they were absolutely indistinguishable from real life. The very best way I could describe how it felt would be to compare it to my mind copy and pasting visual information and the memory of different sounds (such as lines of conversation said to me by family members at earlier times and held in my head like a sound clip on a computer) it would take a snippet of my reality or memory and basically copy and paste it all over either my sense of seeing or hearing\u2026 it was almost unbelievable at the time when I finally realized it was LITERALLY all in my head","human_ref_B":"Under the effects of LSD, different parts of your brain gain access to communicate with your visual cortex, allowing your usually unconscious mental content to manifest itself in your conscious visual experience. https:\/\/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/pmc\/articles\/PMC4855588\/ \u201cImportantly, a very strong relationship was also observed between increased V1 RSFC and decreased alpha power in occipital sensors, suggesting that as well as being commonly related to visual hallucinations, these physiological effects are closely interrelated. The increase in V1 RSFC under LSD is a particularly novel and striking finding and suggests that a far greater proportion of the brain contributes to visual processing in the LSD state than under normal conditions. This expansion of V1 RSFC may explain how normally discreet psychological functions (e.g., emotion, cognition, and indeed the other primary senses) can more readily \u201ccolor\u201d visual experience in the psychedelic state.\u201d","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2465.0,"score_ratio":5.9230769231} {"post_id":"ylhlwn","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old how do non drug induced Visual Hallucinations work ? what happens in the brain that makes the eyes see something that isn't there?","c_root_id_A":"iuyl323","c_root_id_B":"iuzcaet","created_at_utc_A":1667519020,"created_at_utc_B":1667530859,"score_A":13,"score_B":21,"human_ref_A":"Under the effects of LSD, different parts of your brain gain access to communicate with your visual cortex, allowing your usually unconscious mental content to manifest itself in your conscious visual experience. https:\/\/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/pmc\/articles\/PMC4855588\/ \u201cImportantly, a very strong relationship was also observed between increased V1 RSFC and decreased alpha power in occipital sensors, suggesting that as well as being commonly related to visual hallucinations, these physiological effects are closely interrelated. The increase in V1 RSFC under LSD is a particularly novel and striking finding and suggests that a far greater proportion of the brain contributes to visual processing in the LSD state than under normal conditions. This expansion of V1 RSFC may explain how normally discreet psychological functions (e.g., emotion, cognition, and indeed the other primary senses) can more readily \u201ccolor\u201d visual experience in the psychedelic state.\u201d","human_ref_B":"Read about Pat Fletcher, a woman who, 30 years after being blinded in an industrial explosion, discovered an audio device called vOICe which enabled her to SEE WITH HER EARS!","labels":0,"seconds_difference":11839.0,"score_ratio":1.6153846154} {"post_id":"ylhlwn","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old how do non drug induced Visual Hallucinations work ? what happens in the brain that makes the eyes see something that isn't there?","c_root_id_A":"iuzcaet","c_root_id_B":"iuyzxae","created_at_utc_A":1667530859,"created_at_utc_B":1667525347,"score_A":21,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Read about Pat Fletcher, a woman who, 30 years after being blinded in an industrial explosion, discovered an audio device called vOICe which enabled her to SEE WITH HER EARS!","human_ref_B":"Our eyes filter things in a way that\u2019s useful for us to function, not necessarily a representation of what\u2019s \u201creally\u201d there. Objects could be fuzzy, or less so, or whathaveyou. You could easily have a halllucination by your eyes finding a pattern in something that is false, then the brain reinforcing that idea so you can quickly interact with it.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5512.0,"score_ratio":5.25} {"post_id":"ylhlwn","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old how do non drug induced Visual Hallucinations work ? what happens in the brain that makes the eyes see something that isn't there?","c_root_id_A":"iuzcaet","c_root_id_B":"iuzburq","created_at_utc_A":1667530859,"created_at_utc_B":1667530646,"score_A":21,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Read about Pat Fletcher, a woman who, 30 years after being blinded in an industrial explosion, discovered an audio device called vOICe which enabled her to SEE WITH HER EARS!","human_ref_B":"Oliver Sacks wrote a great book entitled *Hallucinations* which is just about this phenomenon.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":213.0,"score_ratio":5.25} {"post_id":"ylhlwn","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old how do non drug induced Visual Hallucinations work ? what happens in the brain that makes the eyes see something that isn't there?","c_root_id_A":"iuznhva","c_root_id_B":"iuyzxae","created_at_utc_A":1667537030,"created_at_utc_B":1667525347,"score_A":10,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"I see from other comments you\u2019re a social worker with some experience of therapy. My eldest daughter has constant audio visual hallucinations as a result of childhood trauma, where she sees the man responsible for that trauma and he tells her to kill herself. In all other respects, she\u2019s perfectly \u2018normal\u2019. She\u2019s currently in hospital receiving intensive help. From my own experience I\u2019ve had several over the years, audio, visual and in some cases both. Nearly always directly linked to extreme fatigue. One hallucination involved a tree in the central reservation of the motorway\u2026 I recall thinking, \u201cthat\u2019s odd\u2026 why would a tree be growing in the central reservation?\u201d\u2026 what didn\u2019t occur to me as odd however, was that the tree was keeping up with me while I was driving at 70mph. \ud83e\udd14 Another was a rowing boat in the middle of the road, which I swerved to avoid\u2026 my first thought being it must have fallen off a truck that was transporting it. The first visual one I can recall was whilst on exercise in the military. Two men to a trench, I was on watch, my oppo was asleep. When I turned around, he was sat at the opposite end of the trench, cleaning his rifle. I asked him what he was doing up as he wasn\u2019t due to take over for another hour, but he just looked at me, smiled and carried on cleaning his rifle. I walked towards him still talking to him and it was only as I reached out to touch him that he vanished\u2026 confused I went to our dug out, and sure enough, there he was, fast asleep. \ud83d\ude0f","human_ref_B":"Our eyes filter things in a way that\u2019s useful for us to function, not necessarily a representation of what\u2019s \u201creally\u201d there. Objects could be fuzzy, or less so, or whathaveyou. You could easily have a halllucination by your eyes finding a pattern in something that is false, then the brain reinforcing that idea so you can quickly interact with it.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":11683.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"ylhlwn","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old how do non drug induced Visual Hallucinations work ? what happens in the brain that makes the eyes see something that isn't there?","c_root_id_A":"iuznhva","c_root_id_B":"iuzburq","created_at_utc_A":1667537030,"created_at_utc_B":1667530646,"score_A":10,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"I see from other comments you\u2019re a social worker with some experience of therapy. My eldest daughter has constant audio visual hallucinations as a result of childhood trauma, where she sees the man responsible for that trauma and he tells her to kill herself. In all other respects, she\u2019s perfectly \u2018normal\u2019. She\u2019s currently in hospital receiving intensive help. From my own experience I\u2019ve had several over the years, audio, visual and in some cases both. Nearly always directly linked to extreme fatigue. One hallucination involved a tree in the central reservation of the motorway\u2026 I recall thinking, \u201cthat\u2019s odd\u2026 why would a tree be growing in the central reservation?\u201d\u2026 what didn\u2019t occur to me as odd however, was that the tree was keeping up with me while I was driving at 70mph. \ud83e\udd14 Another was a rowing boat in the middle of the road, which I swerved to avoid\u2026 my first thought being it must have fallen off a truck that was transporting it. The first visual one I can recall was whilst on exercise in the military. Two men to a trench, I was on watch, my oppo was asleep. When I turned around, he was sat at the opposite end of the trench, cleaning his rifle. I asked him what he was doing up as he wasn\u2019t due to take over for another hour, but he just looked at me, smiled and carried on cleaning his rifle. I walked towards him still talking to him and it was only as I reached out to touch him that he vanished\u2026 confused I went to our dug out, and sure enough, there he was, fast asleep. \ud83d\ude0f","human_ref_B":"Oliver Sacks wrote a great book entitled *Hallucinations* which is just about this phenomenon.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6384.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"ylhlwn","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old how do non drug induced Visual Hallucinations work ? what happens in the brain that makes the eyes see something that isn't there?","c_root_id_A":"iuznhva","c_root_id_B":"iuzlmwg","created_at_utc_A":1667537030,"created_at_utc_B":1667535871,"score_A":10,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I see from other comments you\u2019re a social worker with some experience of therapy. My eldest daughter has constant audio visual hallucinations as a result of childhood trauma, where she sees the man responsible for that trauma and he tells her to kill herself. In all other respects, she\u2019s perfectly \u2018normal\u2019. She\u2019s currently in hospital receiving intensive help. From my own experience I\u2019ve had several over the years, audio, visual and in some cases both. Nearly always directly linked to extreme fatigue. One hallucination involved a tree in the central reservation of the motorway\u2026 I recall thinking, \u201cthat\u2019s odd\u2026 why would a tree be growing in the central reservation?\u201d\u2026 what didn\u2019t occur to me as odd however, was that the tree was keeping up with me while I was driving at 70mph. \ud83e\udd14 Another was a rowing boat in the middle of the road, which I swerved to avoid\u2026 my first thought being it must have fallen off a truck that was transporting it. The first visual one I can recall was whilst on exercise in the military. Two men to a trench, I was on watch, my oppo was asleep. When I turned around, he was sat at the opposite end of the trench, cleaning his rifle. I asked him what he was doing up as he wasn\u2019t due to take over for another hour, but he just looked at me, smiled and carried on cleaning his rifle. I walked towards him still talking to him and it was only as I reached out to touch him that he vanished\u2026 confused I went to our dug out, and sure enough, there he was, fast asleep. \ud83d\ude0f","human_ref_B":"Energy experiences,strong vibrations,lack of oxygen and if you tried LSD or something like it mushrooms etc you can end up having flashbacks or constant vivid experiences for years if not the rest of you life after the experience. Staying awake for long periods cant also end in people seeing things that are not real. Remember its a sign of possible poisoning or illness when you have these experiences maybe an allergy or a deeper problem if it continues for longer than a few minutes it maybe worth going to a doctor.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1159.0,"score_ratio":5.0} {"post_id":"ylhlwn","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old how do non drug induced Visual Hallucinations work ? what happens in the brain that makes the eyes see something that isn't there?","c_root_id_A":"iuyzxae","c_root_id_B":"iv037qk","created_at_utc_A":1667525347,"created_at_utc_B":1667549634,"score_A":4,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Our eyes filter things in a way that\u2019s useful for us to function, not necessarily a representation of what\u2019s \u201creally\u201d there. Objects could be fuzzy, or less so, or whathaveyou. You could easily have a halllucination by your eyes finding a pattern in something that is false, then the brain reinforcing that idea so you can quickly interact with it.","human_ref_B":"You're actually always hallucinating to some extent. You have a blind spot in both of your eyes where the optic nerve attaches to the retina. Your visual cortex just fills in what it thinks should be there. Mood can also play a role in how you see things and how attractive a person or object may appear to you. Or have you been sick lately with a fever? Sometimes even that feels like being on drugs visually. Your brain is creating everything you see. Not your eyes.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":24287.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"ylhlwn","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old how do non drug induced Visual Hallucinations work ? what happens in the brain that makes the eyes see something that isn't there?","c_root_id_A":"iuzburq","c_root_id_B":"iv037qk","created_at_utc_A":1667530646,"created_at_utc_B":1667549634,"score_A":4,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Oliver Sacks wrote a great book entitled *Hallucinations* which is just about this phenomenon.","human_ref_B":"You're actually always hallucinating to some extent. You have a blind spot in both of your eyes where the optic nerve attaches to the retina. Your visual cortex just fills in what it thinks should be there. Mood can also play a role in how you see things and how attractive a person or object may appear to you. Or have you been sick lately with a fever? Sometimes even that feels like being on drugs visually. Your brain is creating everything you see. Not your eyes.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":18988.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"ylhlwn","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old how do non drug induced Visual Hallucinations work ? what happens in the brain that makes the eyes see something that isn't there?","c_root_id_A":"iv037qk","c_root_id_B":"iuzlmwg","created_at_utc_A":1667549634,"created_at_utc_B":1667535871,"score_A":6,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"You're actually always hallucinating to some extent. You have a blind spot in both of your eyes where the optic nerve attaches to the retina. Your visual cortex just fills in what it thinks should be there. Mood can also play a role in how you see things and how attractive a person or object may appear to you. Or have you been sick lately with a fever? Sometimes even that feels like being on drugs visually. Your brain is creating everything you see. Not your eyes.","human_ref_B":"Energy experiences,strong vibrations,lack of oxygen and if you tried LSD or something like it mushrooms etc you can end up having flashbacks or constant vivid experiences for years if not the rest of you life after the experience. Staying awake for long periods cant also end in people seeing things that are not real. Remember its a sign of possible poisoning or illness when you have these experiences maybe an allergy or a deeper problem if it continues for longer than a few minutes it maybe worth going to a doctor.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":13763.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"ls771r","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: What makes younger people (infants, toddlers, etc) so able to grasp the language that's spoken to them? Why is it so much harder to learn a new language or skill as an adult when you have more maturity and brain development? We've all seen younger kids being spoken to in full sentences, and they can seemingly understand things very well when they don't have a good grasp of the language themselves. How is this?","c_root_id_A":"gopfjef","c_root_id_B":"gopf5ul","created_at_utc_A":1614262174,"created_at_utc_B":1614261979,"score_A":8,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"There are two types of memory. One of these is developed through actually *doing* things (think, muscle memory - like they say, you never forget how to ride a bike. Or, painting and drawing. The more you do it, the better you become at it). This is how children predominantly learn. As we age, we start to develop that second type of memory which is based on just memorizing facts and connecting pieces of information. Great for the challenges of living in a 21st century where so many jobs require that kind of technical knowledge and experience. That's also how they tend to teach most subjects in school - you learn dates in history class, maybe some important factoids, and that's about it. Saaaame with language learning courses - they give you the grammar rules and some vocabulary and say \"OK put this into a sentence. Now repeat this phrase. Good job.\" Well, that's just not a very effective way of learning language. But because we get so used to applying that style of learning to many things, and language would *seem* to lend itself more to that style of learning because it's just symbols and sounds, older people tend to ... just apply really ineffective methods to acquiring a new language. Children are still relying on that mechanical muscle memory to process information, they're not worried so much about rules, they're more open minded. edit: Also want to point out that this isn't a hard fast rule, as there are many adults who can pick up languages with relative ease. It's just a matter of changing your mentality and approaching the language differently than how they try to teach it in school.","human_ref_B":"Specialization. Over time, as people learn things, their brain change its train of thought. Basically it mean our brain change the way it think over time. The brain usually change depending on our hobby, our interest and action we repeat often (the same way that doing basic math often allow you to make math faster). It makes things we do often faster to do. On the other hand, It also mean that our brain lose flexibility. It become specialized for certain tasks and thus has a harder time understanding things that aren't within its domain of expertise.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":195.0,"score_ratio":2.6666666667} {"post_id":"fe0nmd","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old Why do so many pieces of East Asian media include the occasional word or phrase in English? I've noticed this in anime, video games, advertisements, songs... I don't get it. If they're doing it to appeal to westerners, there's not nearly enough English, and if they're not, why bother? Is it like how Americans will sometimes throw in a Spanish phrase for emphasis (i.e. claiming a dish is \"Muy Caliente\")?","c_root_id_A":"fjl0xym","c_root_id_B":"fjl549p","created_at_utc_A":1583437792,"created_at_utc_B":1583440105,"score_A":8,"score_B":45,"human_ref_A":"Some words simply do not translate well. A great example is the word email..we use it all the time it is a very simple term. Some are borrowed because the people are more familiar with the borrowed word than the \"native\" word. France controls their language careful so they use the word \"courriel.\" Rather than email. Or that is what the government would like to have happen. Many other languages borrow words too. Resume is a borrowed word from French as our most of our English words that describe textures. https:\/\/www.google.com\/amp\/s\/www.wired.com\/2003\/07\/france-bids-adieu-to-e-mail\/amp","human_ref_B":"You hear it because your ears are sensitive to English words. But in fact all languages contain words from other languages. If you said: I picked up my kids from *kindergarten* where they had been making *origami* shapes, packed their *rucksacks* with *croissants* they hadn't eaten then dropped them off at their *karate* lessons (they are hoping to be *ninjas*!). I then had a *rendezvous* with a well-known *entrepreneur* at that *cafe* opposite the *delicatessen*. He told me his favourite music *genre* was *Ballet* and he loved *waltzes*. Then after, we went to a *karaoke* bar and ate *burgers*. That contains 6 French words, 4 German words and 4 Japanese words. Anybody from those counties would have had their ears perk up when they heard them, just as yours did when you heard the English words in East Asian.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2313.0,"score_ratio":5.625} {"post_id":"fe0nmd","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old Why do so many pieces of East Asian media include the occasional word or phrase in English? I've noticed this in anime, video games, advertisements, songs... I don't get it. If they're doing it to appeal to westerners, there's not nearly enough English, and if they're not, why bother? Is it like how Americans will sometimes throw in a Spanish phrase for emphasis (i.e. claiming a dish is \"Muy Caliente\")?","c_root_id_A":"fjl549p","c_root_id_B":"fjl28cv","created_at_utc_A":1583440105,"created_at_utc_B":1583438505,"score_A":45,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"You hear it because your ears are sensitive to English words. But in fact all languages contain words from other languages. If you said: I picked up my kids from *kindergarten* where they had been making *origami* shapes, packed their *rucksacks* with *croissants* they hadn't eaten then dropped them off at their *karate* lessons (they are hoping to be *ninjas*!). I then had a *rendezvous* with a well-known *entrepreneur* at that *cafe* opposite the *delicatessen*. He told me his favourite music *genre* was *Ballet* and he loved *waltzes*. Then after, we went to a *karaoke* bar and ate *burgers*. That contains 6 French words, 4 German words and 4 Japanese words. Anybody from those counties would have had their ears perk up when they heard them, just as yours did when you heard the English words in East Asian.","human_ref_B":"For the same reason that so much English has bits of French in it; sometimes it's just the need for a word or phrase that exists in one language but not the other, which other times it's simply tray sheek.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1600.0,"score_ratio":9.0} {"post_id":"fe0nmd","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old Why do so many pieces of East Asian media include the occasional word or phrase in English? I've noticed this in anime, video games, advertisements, songs... I don't get it. If they're doing it to appeal to westerners, there's not nearly enough English, and if they're not, why bother? Is it like how Americans will sometimes throw in a Spanish phrase for emphasis (i.e. claiming a dish is \"Muy Caliente\")?","c_root_id_A":"fjl2xn6","c_root_id_B":"fjl549p","created_at_utc_A":1583438902,"created_at_utc_B":1583440105,"score_A":6,"score_B":45,"human_ref_A":"It's nothing to do with translation, it's seen as cool to have English words in whatever product you're pushing. You see it all over in Japan with random \"Engrish\" on lots of products from clothing to bottled drinks.","human_ref_B":"You hear it because your ears are sensitive to English words. But in fact all languages contain words from other languages. If you said: I picked up my kids from *kindergarten* where they had been making *origami* shapes, packed their *rucksacks* with *croissants* they hadn't eaten then dropped them off at their *karate* lessons (they are hoping to be *ninjas*!). I then had a *rendezvous* with a well-known *entrepreneur* at that *cafe* opposite the *delicatessen*. He told me his favourite music *genre* was *Ballet* and he loved *waltzes*. Then after, we went to a *karaoke* bar and ate *burgers*. That contains 6 French words, 4 German words and 4 Japanese words. Anybody from those counties would have had their ears perk up when they heard them, just as yours did when you heard the English words in East Asian.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1203.0,"score_ratio":7.5} {"post_id":"fe0nmd","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old Why do so many pieces of East Asian media include the occasional word or phrase in English? I've noticed this in anime, video games, advertisements, songs... I don't get it. If they're doing it to appeal to westerners, there's not nearly enough English, and if they're not, why bother? Is it like how Americans will sometimes throw in a Spanish phrase for emphasis (i.e. claiming a dish is \"Muy Caliente\")?","c_root_id_A":"fjl2kni","c_root_id_B":"fjl549p","created_at_utc_A":1583438698,"created_at_utc_B":1583440105,"score_A":5,"score_B":45,"human_ref_A":"I'm guessing it has to do with a \"coolness\" factor. Kinda like how Americans were obsessed with the word \"*Ciao*\" not that long ago :)","human_ref_B":"You hear it because your ears are sensitive to English words. But in fact all languages contain words from other languages. If you said: I picked up my kids from *kindergarten* where they had been making *origami* shapes, packed their *rucksacks* with *croissants* they hadn't eaten then dropped them off at their *karate* lessons (they are hoping to be *ninjas*!). I then had a *rendezvous* with a well-known *entrepreneur* at that *cafe* opposite the *delicatessen*. He told me his favourite music *genre* was *Ballet* and he loved *waltzes*. Then after, we went to a *karaoke* bar and ate *burgers*. That contains 6 French words, 4 German words and 4 Japanese words. Anybody from those counties would have had their ears perk up when they heard them, just as yours did when you heard the English words in East Asian.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1407.0,"score_ratio":9.0} {"post_id":"fe0nmd","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old Why do so many pieces of East Asian media include the occasional word or phrase in English? I've noticed this in anime, video games, advertisements, songs... I don't get it. If they're doing it to appeal to westerners, there's not nearly enough English, and if they're not, why bother? Is it like how Americans will sometimes throw in a Spanish phrase for emphasis (i.e. claiming a dish is \"Muy Caliente\")?","c_root_id_A":"fjl28cv","c_root_id_B":"fjl2xn6","created_at_utc_A":1583438505,"created_at_utc_B":1583438902,"score_A":5,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"For the same reason that so much English has bits of French in it; sometimes it's just the need for a word or phrase that exists in one language but not the other, which other times it's simply tray sheek.","human_ref_B":"It's nothing to do with translation, it's seen as cool to have English words in whatever product you're pushing. You see it all over in Japan with random \"Engrish\" on lots of products from clothing to bottled drinks.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":397.0,"score_ratio":1.2} {"post_id":"fe0nmd","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old Why do so many pieces of East Asian media include the occasional word or phrase in English? I've noticed this in anime, video games, advertisements, songs... I don't get it. If they're doing it to appeal to westerners, there's not nearly enough English, and if they're not, why bother? Is it like how Americans will sometimes throw in a Spanish phrase for emphasis (i.e. claiming a dish is \"Muy Caliente\")?","c_root_id_A":"fjl2kni","c_root_id_B":"fjl2xn6","created_at_utc_A":1583438698,"created_at_utc_B":1583438902,"score_A":5,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"I'm guessing it has to do with a \"coolness\" factor. Kinda like how Americans were obsessed with the word \"*Ciao*\" not that long ago :)","human_ref_B":"It's nothing to do with translation, it's seen as cool to have English words in whatever product you're pushing. You see it all over in Japan with random \"Engrish\" on lots of products from clothing to bottled drinks.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":204.0,"score_ratio":1.2} {"post_id":"2pgsrp","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.67,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why are there so many Islamic extremist groups in the world even though the Qur'an explicitly promotes peace regardless of beliefs, race, or nationality? In the same breath, is the amount of Islamic extremists in the world a misconception propagated by Hollywood and the news media?","c_root_id_A":"cmwm21o","c_root_id_B":"cmwjf7t","created_at_utc_A":1418745556,"created_at_utc_B":1418739732,"score_A":7,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"The truth is that the Qur'an doesn't explicitly promote those things. It promotes them under certain circumstances. There is just as much in the Qur'an to inspire a man towards good as their is to incite him to evil, and some of it remains incredibly ambiguous. The truth is perhaps that Islam has a large following in politically unstable nations and often provides justification for acts of terrorism and barbarism.","human_ref_B":"It promotes peace for followers of Islam. That is the little detail that those who call it a religion of peace leave out.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5824.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333} {"post_id":"2pgsrp","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.67,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why are there so many Islamic extremist groups in the world even though the Qur'an explicitly promotes peace regardless of beliefs, race, or nationality? In the same breath, is the amount of Islamic extremists in the world a misconception propagated by Hollywood and the news media?","c_root_id_A":"cmwid4h","c_root_id_B":"cmwm21o","created_at_utc_A":1418736668,"created_at_utc_B":1418745556,"score_A":2,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Interpretation, and multiple revisions, of original texts. People read new meanings into stuff, and if you think my revision suits your beliefs better, my job is done, and the revision becomes The Truth","human_ref_B":"The truth is that the Qur'an doesn't explicitly promote those things. It promotes them under certain circumstances. There is just as much in the Qur'an to inspire a man towards good as their is to incite him to evil, and some of it remains incredibly ambiguous. The truth is perhaps that Islam has a large following in politically unstable nations and often provides justification for acts of terrorism and barbarism.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8888.0,"score_ratio":3.5} {"post_id":"2pgsrp","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.67,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why are there so many Islamic extremist groups in the world even though the Qur'an explicitly promotes peace regardless of beliefs, race, or nationality? In the same breath, is the amount of Islamic extremists in the world a misconception propagated by Hollywood and the news media?","c_root_id_A":"cmwjm8p","c_root_id_B":"cmwm21o","created_at_utc_A":1418740229,"created_at_utc_B":1418745556,"score_A":2,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Religion is complicated. You never only have religious texts (and Qur'an is hardly the only religious text in islam); you also have the reality of the situation, you have some time and context, you have some religious authorities. It's all part of the religion. I know I might be speaking from ignorance, but although Qur'an is still quite peaceful, I see sunna\/hadith as much worse and full of vitriol and hate. Hadith al-Bukhari, that is held by sunnites as fairly genuine recording of Muhammad's words, is really something repulsive. While for muslims, hadiths are a basis of \"sharia\", the religious laws (qur'an is not enough for that).","human_ref_B":"The truth is that the Qur'an doesn't explicitly promote those things. It promotes them under certain circumstances. There is just as much in the Qur'an to inspire a man towards good as their is to incite him to evil, and some of it remains incredibly ambiguous. The truth is perhaps that Islam has a large following in politically unstable nations and often provides justification for acts of terrorism and barbarism.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5327.0,"score_ratio":3.5} {"post_id":"2pgsrp","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.67,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why are there so many Islamic extremist groups in the world even though the Qur'an explicitly promotes peace regardless of beliefs, race, or nationality? In the same breath, is the amount of Islamic extremists in the world a misconception propagated by Hollywood and the news media?","c_root_id_A":"cmwm21o","c_root_id_B":"cmwjub0","created_at_utc_A":1418745556,"created_at_utc_B":1418740784,"score_A":7,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"The truth is that the Qur'an doesn't explicitly promote those things. It promotes them under certain circumstances. There is just as much in the Qur'an to inspire a man towards good as their is to incite him to evil, and some of it remains incredibly ambiguous. The truth is perhaps that Islam has a large following in politically unstable nations and often provides justification for acts of terrorism and barbarism.","human_ref_B":"Because they act upon the violent parts of their book. They are living by their religion correctly. So if correctly practicing Islam, by the book, leads to these types of attitudes and violence, what does that mean? It means it should be actively discouraged in all its forms, imo.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4772.0,"score_ratio":3.5} {"post_id":"2pgsrp","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.67,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why are there so many Islamic extremist groups in the world even though the Qur'an explicitly promotes peace regardless of beliefs, race, or nationality? In the same breath, is the amount of Islamic extremists in the world a misconception propagated by Hollywood and the news media?","c_root_id_A":"cmwm21o","c_root_id_B":"cmwk6fx","created_at_utc_A":1418745556,"created_at_utc_B":1418741579,"score_A":7,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"The truth is that the Qur'an doesn't explicitly promote those things. It promotes them under certain circumstances. There is just as much in the Qur'an to inspire a man towards good as their is to incite him to evil, and some of it remains incredibly ambiguous. The truth is perhaps that Islam has a large following in politically unstable nations and often provides justification for acts of terrorism and barbarism.","human_ref_B":"Also another thing to consider is the countries these groups originate from. For a lot of these places, Islam is the common factor in which people band together. In addressing the extremist side of it, well generally countries going through Crises generally end up with many opting to uptake more extreme left or right ideologies.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3977.0,"score_ratio":3.5} {"post_id":"2pgsrp","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.67,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why are there so many Islamic extremist groups in the world even though the Qur'an explicitly promotes peace regardless of beliefs, race, or nationality? In the same breath, is the amount of Islamic extremists in the world a misconception propagated by Hollywood and the news media?","c_root_id_A":"cmwl9en","c_root_id_B":"cmwm21o","created_at_utc_A":1418743972,"created_at_utc_B":1418745556,"score_A":2,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"My Political Science professor would argue that it has less to do with the actual fundamentals of Islam as it does the social, political, and economic environment in the region. Many of the young men are understandably frustrated with how things are. Combine this with an unusually high amount of powerful, charismatic extremist leaders that can put up a seemingly really good argument as to why the West and the \"westernization\" or western influence in the region is to blame. There's obviously MUCH more to it though. Edit: it's worth noting that many groups pop up and fade away. They become popular then they can't find leadership or common ground. Only a few are long lasting and relevant.","human_ref_B":"The truth is that the Qur'an doesn't explicitly promote those things. It promotes them under certain circumstances. There is just as much in the Qur'an to inspire a man towards good as their is to incite him to evil, and some of it remains incredibly ambiguous. The truth is perhaps that Islam has a large following in politically unstable nations and often provides justification for acts of terrorism and barbarism.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1584.0,"score_ratio":3.5} {"post_id":"2pgsrp","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.67,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why are there so many Islamic extremist groups in the world even though the Qur'an explicitly promotes peace regardless of beliefs, race, or nationality? In the same breath, is the amount of Islamic extremists in the world a misconception propagated by Hollywood and the news media?","c_root_id_A":"cmwid4h","c_root_id_B":"cmwjf7t","created_at_utc_A":1418736668,"created_at_utc_B":1418739732,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Interpretation, and multiple revisions, of original texts. People read new meanings into stuff, and if you think my revision suits your beliefs better, my job is done, and the revision becomes The Truth","human_ref_B":"It promotes peace for followers of Islam. That is the little detail that those who call it a religion of peace leave out.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3064.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"zgugne","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How do people who run back into a burning building to save a pet or child survive? Occasionally I see news stories like \"man runs back into burning house and rescues beloved pet\" However, I've also been told that you will most likely die in seconds if you inhale the smoke. I've read that in a fire you have to crawl to escape. I've read that you have to sprint quickly through the flames if you have a chance (the exact opposite of crawling low?).","c_root_id_A":"izine9l","c_root_id_B":"iziphvd","created_at_utc_A":1670585861,"created_at_utc_B":1670587344,"score_A":85,"score_B":414,"human_ref_A":"Most of the people who die from smoke inhalation don't die in seconds instead in seconds they do enough damage to their body to kill them later, so inhaling hot smoke can burn your lungs and make it almost impossible to breath later, keeping low will keep you out of the worst of the smoke will reduce the amount of damage, but it isn't a safe place to be.","human_ref_B":"When you run into a burning building, the heavy amount of smoke can anesthetize your throat, so you don\u2019t feel any pain and think you\u2019re fine. It\u2019s only later, when you get to a doctor or hospital, that you begin to realize the painful damage you\u2019ve done. FUN FACT: The vast majority of people in the house when a fire starts manage to escape. It\u2019s primarily the people who instinctively run in *after* the fire starts to retrieve someone or something that drive up the number of fatalities.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1483.0,"score_ratio":4.8705882353} {"post_id":"zgugne","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How do people who run back into a burning building to save a pet or child survive? Occasionally I see news stories like \"man runs back into burning house and rescues beloved pet\" However, I've also been told that you will most likely die in seconds if you inhale the smoke. I've read that in a fire you have to crawl to escape. I've read that you have to sprint quickly through the flames if you have a chance (the exact opposite of crawling low?).","c_root_id_A":"iziphvd","c_root_id_B":"izinugf","created_at_utc_A":1670587344,"created_at_utc_B":1670586192,"score_A":414,"score_B":24,"human_ref_A":"When you run into a burning building, the heavy amount of smoke can anesthetize your throat, so you don\u2019t feel any pain and think you\u2019re fine. It\u2019s only later, when you get to a doctor or hospital, that you begin to realize the painful damage you\u2019ve done. FUN FACT: The vast majority of people in the house when a fire starts manage to escape. It\u2019s primarily the people who instinctively run in *after* the fire starts to retrieve someone or something that drive up the number of fatalities.","human_ref_B":"I\u2019m not a firefighter, but\u2026 (deep inhale) (holds breath and runs into burning building) If you know exactly where you need to be, you might get in and out on one breath. Also, a burning building doesn\u2019t have to have every room filled with smoke. You might have one room fully on fire, and other rooms gradually filling up. It all depends on the situation. Also, if you hear a dog barking, it must still have some breathing room.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1152.0,"score_ratio":17.25} {"post_id":"zgugne","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How do people who run back into a burning building to save a pet or child survive? Occasionally I see news stories like \"man runs back into burning house and rescues beloved pet\" However, I've also been told that you will most likely die in seconds if you inhale the smoke. I've read that in a fire you have to crawl to escape. I've read that you have to sprint quickly through the flames if you have a chance (the exact opposite of crawling low?).","c_root_id_A":"izine9l","c_root_id_B":"izjm6zi","created_at_utc_A":1670585861,"created_at_utc_B":1670602825,"score_A":85,"score_B":172,"human_ref_A":"Most of the people who die from smoke inhalation don't die in seconds instead in seconds they do enough damage to their body to kill them later, so inhaling hot smoke can burn your lungs and make it almost impossible to breath later, keeping low will keep you out of the worst of the smoke will reduce the amount of damage, but it isn't a safe place to be.","human_ref_B":"Running into a burning building is incredibly dangerous, please don't do it without proper training and equipment. The news report on people who successfully go into a burning building to rescue children\/pets\/loved ones but they don't report on the people who don't make it back out. Having said that, just because a building is burning that doesn't mean the entire building is engulfed in flames. I was in a 5-unit apartment building that caught on fire. My unit wasn't touched by the fire, smoke, or water from the fire department. I didn't need to run back in and I wouldn't have because of the severe danger, but it turned out that I would have survived if I did. But don't do it.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":16964.0,"score_ratio":2.0235294118} {"post_id":"zgugne","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How do people who run back into a burning building to save a pet or child survive? Occasionally I see news stories like \"man runs back into burning house and rescues beloved pet\" However, I've also been told that you will most likely die in seconds if you inhale the smoke. I've read that in a fire you have to crawl to escape. I've read that you have to sprint quickly through the flames if you have a chance (the exact opposite of crawling low?).","c_root_id_A":"izjlmpl","c_root_id_B":"izjm6zi","created_at_utc_A":1670602597,"created_at_utc_B":1670602825,"score_A":47,"score_B":172,"human_ref_A":"I've done it... Twice. It happened so fast and everything was beyond any normal experience that I felt like I was not making actual decisions but running on autopilot. You can do a lot in 60 seconds, which I had in both cases, before the flames and smoke got too intense. It was more than enough time to warn neighbors and grab pets before running barefoot into the snow. The real answer to your question is that it depends on how much the fire has progressed before you take action. I had 60 seconds before the flames got to the point where they were shooting out the window. It would have been a suicide mission for sure if I had waited any longer.","human_ref_B":"Running into a burning building is incredibly dangerous, please don't do it without proper training and equipment. The news report on people who successfully go into a burning building to rescue children\/pets\/loved ones but they don't report on the people who don't make it back out. Having said that, just because a building is burning that doesn't mean the entire building is engulfed in flames. I was in a 5-unit apartment building that caught on fire. My unit wasn't touched by the fire, smoke, or water from the fire department. I didn't need to run back in and I wouldn't have because of the severe danger, but it turned out that I would have survived if I did. But don't do it.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":228.0,"score_ratio":3.6595744681} {"post_id":"zgugne","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How do people who run back into a burning building to save a pet or child survive? Occasionally I see news stories like \"man runs back into burning house and rescues beloved pet\" However, I've also been told that you will most likely die in seconds if you inhale the smoke. I've read that in a fire you have to crawl to escape. I've read that you have to sprint quickly through the flames if you have a chance (the exact opposite of crawling low?).","c_root_id_A":"izinugf","c_root_id_B":"izjm6zi","created_at_utc_A":1670586192,"created_at_utc_B":1670602825,"score_A":24,"score_B":172,"human_ref_A":"I\u2019m not a firefighter, but\u2026 (deep inhale) (holds breath and runs into burning building) If you know exactly where you need to be, you might get in and out on one breath. Also, a burning building doesn\u2019t have to have every room filled with smoke. You might have one room fully on fire, and other rooms gradually filling up. It all depends on the situation. Also, if you hear a dog barking, it must still have some breathing room.","human_ref_B":"Running into a burning building is incredibly dangerous, please don't do it without proper training and equipment. The news report on people who successfully go into a burning building to rescue children\/pets\/loved ones but they don't report on the people who don't make it back out. Having said that, just because a building is burning that doesn't mean the entire building is engulfed in flames. I was in a 5-unit apartment building that caught on fire. My unit wasn't touched by the fire, smoke, or water from the fire department. I didn't need to run back in and I wouldn't have because of the severe danger, but it turned out that I would have survived if I did. But don't do it.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":16633.0,"score_ratio":7.1666666667} {"post_id":"zgugne","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How do people who run back into a burning building to save a pet or child survive? Occasionally I see news stories like \"man runs back into burning house and rescues beloved pet\" However, I've also been told that you will most likely die in seconds if you inhale the smoke. I've read that in a fire you have to crawl to escape. I've read that you have to sprint quickly through the flames if you have a chance (the exact opposite of crawling low?).","c_root_id_A":"izjlmpl","c_root_id_B":"izinugf","created_at_utc_A":1670602597,"created_at_utc_B":1670586192,"score_A":47,"score_B":24,"human_ref_A":"I've done it... Twice. It happened so fast and everything was beyond any normal experience that I felt like I was not making actual decisions but running on autopilot. You can do a lot in 60 seconds, which I had in both cases, before the flames and smoke got too intense. It was more than enough time to warn neighbors and grab pets before running barefoot into the snow. The real answer to your question is that it depends on how much the fire has progressed before you take action. I had 60 seconds before the flames got to the point where they were shooting out the window. It would have been a suicide mission for sure if I had waited any longer.","human_ref_B":"I\u2019m not a firefighter, but\u2026 (deep inhale) (holds breath and runs into burning building) If you know exactly where you need to be, you might get in and out on one breath. Also, a burning building doesn\u2019t have to have every room filled with smoke. You might have one room fully on fire, and other rooms gradually filling up. It all depends on the situation. Also, if you hear a dog barking, it must still have some breathing room.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":16405.0,"score_ratio":1.9583333333} {"post_id":"zgugne","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How do people who run back into a burning building to save a pet or child survive? Occasionally I see news stories like \"man runs back into burning house and rescues beloved pet\" However, I've also been told that you will most likely die in seconds if you inhale the smoke. I've read that in a fire you have to crawl to escape. I've read that you have to sprint quickly through the flames if you have a chance (the exact opposite of crawling low?).","c_root_id_A":"izkhq0v","c_root_id_B":"izinugf","created_at_utc_A":1670614866,"created_at_utc_B":1670586192,"score_A":28,"score_B":24,"human_ref_A":"Sometimes they *don\u2019t* survive. A 19 year old man I knew rescued 6 neighbor kids from a house fire, but died from smoke inhalation.","human_ref_B":"I\u2019m not a firefighter, but\u2026 (deep inhale) (holds breath and runs into burning building) If you know exactly where you need to be, you might get in and out on one breath. Also, a burning building doesn\u2019t have to have every room filled with smoke. You might have one room fully on fire, and other rooms gradually filling up. It all depends on the situation. Also, if you hear a dog barking, it must still have some breathing room.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":28674.0,"score_ratio":1.1666666667} {"post_id":"zgugne","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How do people who run back into a burning building to save a pet or child survive? Occasionally I see news stories like \"man runs back into burning house and rescues beloved pet\" However, I've also been told that you will most likely die in seconds if you inhale the smoke. I've read that in a fire you have to crawl to escape. I've read that you have to sprint quickly through the flames if you have a chance (the exact opposite of crawling low?).","c_root_id_A":"izkhq0v","c_root_id_B":"izkfk21","created_at_utc_A":1670614866,"created_at_utc_B":1670614005,"score_A":28,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"Sometimes they *don\u2019t* survive. A 19 year old man I knew rescued 6 neighbor kids from a house fire, but died from smoke inhalation.","human_ref_B":"Hypothetically, if you \\_absolute\\_ had to, how can you increase the chances of your survival? Would a wet towel over your mouth and nose help?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":861.0,"score_ratio":1.8666666667} {"post_id":"zgugne","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How do people who run back into a burning building to save a pet or child survive? Occasionally I see news stories like \"man runs back into burning house and rescues beloved pet\" However, I've also been told that you will most likely die in seconds if you inhale the smoke. I've read that in a fire you have to crawl to escape. I've read that you have to sprint quickly through the flames if you have a chance (the exact opposite of crawling low?).","c_root_id_A":"izkhq0v","c_root_id_B":"izk1lak","created_at_utc_A":1670614866,"created_at_utc_B":1670608639,"score_A":28,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"Sometimes they *don\u2019t* survive. A 19 year old man I knew rescued 6 neighbor kids from a house fire, but died from smoke inhalation.","human_ref_B":"It really depends on what stage the fire is in. Most fires start with the kitchen stove, and there's (hopefully) a smoke detector in or near the kitchen. The smoke detector ideally alerts everyone in the house with plenty of time to try to put out the fire, before the fire and smoke are out of control. Running in at that point still means you might risk smoke inhalation, but most of the house is not yet touched by fire. If the fire has had enough time to spread throughout the house and fill it with smoke, or even affect the structure, running in is suicide.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6227.0,"score_ratio":3.1111111111} {"post_id":"zgugne","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How do people who run back into a burning building to save a pet or child survive? Occasionally I see news stories like \"man runs back into burning house and rescues beloved pet\" However, I've also been told that you will most likely die in seconds if you inhale the smoke. I've read that in a fire you have to crawl to escape. I've read that you have to sprint quickly through the flames if you have a chance (the exact opposite of crawling low?).","c_root_id_A":"izkhq0v","c_root_id_B":"izk1v4i","created_at_utc_A":1670614866,"created_at_utc_B":1670608736,"score_A":28,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Sometimes they *don\u2019t* survive. A 19 year old man I knew rescued 6 neighbor kids from a house fire, but died from smoke inhalation.","human_ref_B":"As a general rule, pure luck. You'll scar your throat and lungs from the smoke, experience at least significant first degree burns if you're really lucky, and irritate your eyes badly. The true danger in doing this is not nust passing out from suffocation, but from being trapped inside or crushed under debris. My dad was a fire fighter for decades and always told my brother and I to never enter a burning building. \"If you dont have equipment, you aren't equipped.\" Edit for additional safety info: do not run through a fire, that's how you die. Get as low as you can and move as quickly, but purposefully, as you can to the nearest exit. Avoid windows, any glass, or metals as they will be far hotter than you think. If necessary, use as much fabric as you can as a rudimentary oven mitt to touch such surfaces. Call out and make your presence known to others, alerting them to the fire. Depending on where you live and when the building you are in was built, it is likely that any exterior doors open outwards. This is so you can slam into them and get yourself out of the building if youbare unable to safely touch the handle. Do not take elevators as heat weakens the cables and emergency brake systems, as well as the fire alarm tripping an emergency circuit break that prevents them running, so its a waste of time. To get out, hit the emergency stop, disabling the door lock, and pry the doors open as fast as possible, then head for a fire escape or stairwell. If you have water (and time), douse your shirt and use it to cover your mouth to prevent as much smoke inhalation as possible.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6130.0,"score_ratio":4.0} {"post_id":"zgugne","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How do people who run back into a burning building to save a pet or child survive? Occasionally I see news stories like \"man runs back into burning house and rescues beloved pet\" However, I've also been told that you will most likely die in seconds if you inhale the smoke. I've read that in a fire you have to crawl to escape. I've read that you have to sprint quickly through the flames if you have a chance (the exact opposite of crawling low?).","c_root_id_A":"izk1lak","c_root_id_B":"izkfk21","created_at_utc_A":1670608639,"created_at_utc_B":1670614005,"score_A":9,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"It really depends on what stage the fire is in. Most fires start with the kitchen stove, and there's (hopefully) a smoke detector in or near the kitchen. The smoke detector ideally alerts everyone in the house with plenty of time to try to put out the fire, before the fire and smoke are out of control. Running in at that point still means you might risk smoke inhalation, but most of the house is not yet touched by fire. If the fire has had enough time to spread throughout the house and fill it with smoke, or even affect the structure, running in is suicide.","human_ref_B":"Hypothetically, if you \\_absolute\\_ had to, how can you increase the chances of your survival? Would a wet towel over your mouth and nose help?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5366.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"zgugne","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How do people who run back into a burning building to save a pet or child survive? Occasionally I see news stories like \"man runs back into burning house and rescues beloved pet\" However, I've also been told that you will most likely die in seconds if you inhale the smoke. I've read that in a fire you have to crawl to escape. I've read that you have to sprint quickly through the flames if you have a chance (the exact opposite of crawling low?).","c_root_id_A":"izkfk21","c_root_id_B":"izk1v4i","created_at_utc_A":1670614005,"created_at_utc_B":1670608736,"score_A":15,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Hypothetically, if you \\_absolute\\_ had to, how can you increase the chances of your survival? Would a wet towel over your mouth and nose help?","human_ref_B":"As a general rule, pure luck. You'll scar your throat and lungs from the smoke, experience at least significant first degree burns if you're really lucky, and irritate your eyes badly. The true danger in doing this is not nust passing out from suffocation, but from being trapped inside or crushed under debris. My dad was a fire fighter for decades and always told my brother and I to never enter a burning building. \"If you dont have equipment, you aren't equipped.\" Edit for additional safety info: do not run through a fire, that's how you die. Get as low as you can and move as quickly, but purposefully, as you can to the nearest exit. Avoid windows, any glass, or metals as they will be far hotter than you think. If necessary, use as much fabric as you can as a rudimentary oven mitt to touch such surfaces. Call out and make your presence known to others, alerting them to the fire. Depending on where you live and when the building you are in was built, it is likely that any exterior doors open outwards. This is so you can slam into them and get yourself out of the building if youbare unable to safely touch the handle. Do not take elevators as heat weakens the cables and emergency brake systems, as well as the fire alarm tripping an emergency circuit break that prevents them running, so its a waste of time. To get out, hit the emergency stop, disabling the door lock, and pry the doors open as fast as possible, then head for a fire escape or stairwell. If you have water (and time), douse your shirt and use it to cover your mouth to prevent as much smoke inhalation as possible.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5269.0,"score_ratio":2.1428571429} {"post_id":"xvhw56","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Eli5 How did travelers\/crusaders in medieval times get a clean and consistent source of water","c_root_id_A":"ir0z6rl","c_root_id_B":"ir1ur85","created_at_utc_A":1664897284,"created_at_utc_B":1664909258,"score_A":1277,"score_B":4251,"human_ref_A":"By carefully planning their movements, from one source of water to another. Destroying the water wells (e.g. by throwing rotten meat into them) was an early example of scorched-earth strategy. They often carried alcohol (beer or light wine), not to get drunk, but because it did not go bad (or at least not as fast as water) Also, people had tougher stomachs back then, and much higher rate of disease despite it.","human_ref_B":"A lot of times, they didn't get clean water and either got very sick or even died. Guillaume X of Aquitaine, Henry the Young King, Baudouin III of Jerusalem, Amaury of Jerusalem, Sibylle of Jerusalem, Louis VIII of France, Geoffrey of Briel, Louis IX of France and his son Jean Tristan, Philippe III of France, Rudolf I of Bohemia, Edward I of England, Edward the Black Prince, Michael de la Pole, and Henry V of England all died of dysentery or another stomach ailment acquired from bad food or water and the majority of them caught their ailment during war or travel.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":11974.0,"score_ratio":3.3288958496} {"post_id":"xvhw56","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Eli5 How did travelers\/crusaders in medieval times get a clean and consistent source of water","c_root_id_A":"ir13akg","c_root_id_B":"ir1ur85","created_at_utc_A":1664898857,"created_at_utc_B":1664909258,"score_A":209,"score_B":4251,"human_ref_A":"Crusaders didn't voyage all at once. Think of it more like a migration. They made stops in many ports and coastal cities to replenish. This was necessary especially for the many entourage of families, support, horses etc that traveled with. Also they traveled in waves, meaning by the time the entire army was arriving, the first wave already lived for months there, gathering information or setting up fortifications, livestock etc.","human_ref_B":"A lot of times, they didn't get clean water and either got very sick or even died. Guillaume X of Aquitaine, Henry the Young King, Baudouin III of Jerusalem, Amaury of Jerusalem, Sibylle of Jerusalem, Louis VIII of France, Geoffrey of Briel, Louis IX of France and his son Jean Tristan, Philippe III of France, Rudolf I of Bohemia, Edward I of England, Edward the Black Prince, Michael de la Pole, and Henry V of England all died of dysentery or another stomach ailment acquired from bad food or water and the majority of them caught their ailment during war or travel.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10401.0,"score_ratio":20.3397129187} {"post_id":"xvhw56","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Eli5 How did travelers\/crusaders in medieval times get a clean and consistent source of water","c_root_id_A":"ir13z22","c_root_id_B":"ir1ur85","created_at_utc_A":1664899120,"created_at_utc_B":1664909258,"score_A":185,"score_B":4251,"human_ref_A":"That is why mead\/ale were so popular I was told. The process of making it purified the water. Liquid bread I have also heard it called.","human_ref_B":"A lot of times, they didn't get clean water and either got very sick or even died. Guillaume X of Aquitaine, Henry the Young King, Baudouin III of Jerusalem, Amaury of Jerusalem, Sibylle of Jerusalem, Louis VIII of France, Geoffrey of Briel, Louis IX of France and his son Jean Tristan, Philippe III of France, Rudolf I of Bohemia, Edward I of England, Edward the Black Prince, Michael de la Pole, and Henry V of England all died of dysentery or another stomach ailment acquired from bad food or water and the majority of them caught their ailment during war or travel.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10138.0,"score_ratio":22.9783783784} {"post_id":"xvhw56","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Eli5 How did travelers\/crusaders in medieval times get a clean and consistent source of water","c_root_id_A":"ir1ur85","c_root_id_B":"ir13tah","created_at_utc_A":1664909258,"created_at_utc_B":1664899058,"score_A":4251,"score_B":55,"human_ref_A":"A lot of times, they didn't get clean water and either got very sick or even died. Guillaume X of Aquitaine, Henry the Young King, Baudouin III of Jerusalem, Amaury of Jerusalem, Sibylle of Jerusalem, Louis VIII of France, Geoffrey of Briel, Louis IX of France and his son Jean Tristan, Philippe III of France, Rudolf I of Bohemia, Edward I of England, Edward the Black Prince, Michael de la Pole, and Henry V of England all died of dysentery or another stomach ailment acquired from bad food or water and the majority of them caught their ailment during war or travel.","human_ref_B":"There were a lot fewer people in the medieval times. And a lot less problems with agricultural runoff and industrial pollution. Cities were almost exclusively near the coastline or at least along huge rivers. Even things like well water being salty is just a problem after we drained the aquifers. So most running water were potable. And in some parts of the world with low population density this is still the case. That being said there have been a shift in what is considered clean water. This again have to do with population density and globalization. An infected stream making a small village ill is not that big of a problem compared to an infected stream making a large city ill. And it is far more common now to get infected from drinking infected water and then travel far away, even to different countries and end up infecting the water supply there. So making sure the water is clean have become a much higher priority both because we can and because the consequences of not cleaning the water is so greater.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10200.0,"score_ratio":77.2909090909} {"post_id":"xvhw56","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Eli5 How did travelers\/crusaders in medieval times get a clean and consistent source of water","c_root_id_A":"ir2tdv9","c_root_id_B":"ir13akg","created_at_utc_A":1664922466,"created_at_utc_B":1664898857,"score_A":290,"score_B":209,"human_ref_A":"Short answer they didn\u2018t\u2026 that\u2018s why WW1 was the first war in human history where more soldiers died by the hand of the enemy than illnesses starvation and thirst Edit: since there is a lot of disagreement: https:\/\/en.m.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/World_War_I_casualties Here it says 7-8 million combat related deaths 2-3 million deaths by accidents and disease","human_ref_B":"Crusaders didn't voyage all at once. Think of it more like a migration. They made stops in many ports and coastal cities to replenish. This was necessary especially for the many entourage of families, support, horses etc that traveled with. Also they traveled in waves, meaning by the time the entire army was arriving, the first wave already lived for months there, gathering information or setting up fortifications, livestock etc.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":23609.0,"score_ratio":1.3875598086} {"post_id":"xvhw56","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Eli5 How did travelers\/crusaders in medieval times get a clean and consistent source of water","c_root_id_A":"ir2t7x6","c_root_id_B":"ir2tdv9","created_at_utc_A":1664922392,"created_at_utc_B":1664922466,"score_A":209,"score_B":290,"human_ref_A":"I'd like to mention that you make soup by boiling water, and soup is kind of like water but tasty. So having clean boiled soup can kind of count as clean water. They didn't understand it very well perhaps, but it's a thing.","human_ref_B":"Short answer they didn\u2018t\u2026 that\u2018s why WW1 was the first war in human history where more soldiers died by the hand of the enemy than illnesses starvation and thirst Edit: since there is a lot of disagreement: https:\/\/en.m.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/World_War_I_casualties Here it says 7-8 million combat related deaths 2-3 million deaths by accidents and disease","labels":0,"seconds_difference":74.0,"score_ratio":1.3875598086} {"post_id":"xvhw56","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Eli5 How did travelers\/crusaders in medieval times get a clean and consistent source of water","c_root_id_A":"ir13z22","c_root_id_B":"ir2tdv9","created_at_utc_A":1664899120,"created_at_utc_B":1664922466,"score_A":185,"score_B":290,"human_ref_A":"That is why mead\/ale were so popular I was told. The process of making it purified the water. Liquid bread I have also heard it called.","human_ref_B":"Short answer they didn\u2018t\u2026 that\u2018s why WW1 was the first war in human history where more soldiers died by the hand of the enemy than illnesses starvation and thirst Edit: since there is a lot of disagreement: https:\/\/en.m.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/World_War_I_casualties Here it says 7-8 million combat related deaths 2-3 million deaths by accidents and disease","labels":0,"seconds_difference":23346.0,"score_ratio":1.5675675676} {"post_id":"xvhw56","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Eli5 How did travelers\/crusaders in medieval times get a clean and consistent source of water","c_root_id_A":"ir2tdv9","c_root_id_B":"ir13tah","created_at_utc_A":1664922466,"created_at_utc_B":1664899058,"score_A":290,"score_B":55,"human_ref_A":"Short answer they didn\u2018t\u2026 that\u2018s why WW1 was the first war in human history where more soldiers died by the hand of the enemy than illnesses starvation and thirst Edit: since there is a lot of disagreement: https:\/\/en.m.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/World_War_I_casualties Here it says 7-8 million combat related deaths 2-3 million deaths by accidents and disease","human_ref_B":"There were a lot fewer people in the medieval times. And a lot less problems with agricultural runoff and industrial pollution. Cities were almost exclusively near the coastline or at least along huge rivers. Even things like well water being salty is just a problem after we drained the aquifers. So most running water were potable. And in some parts of the world with low population density this is still the case. That being said there have been a shift in what is considered clean water. This again have to do with population density and globalization. An infected stream making a small village ill is not that big of a problem compared to an infected stream making a large city ill. And it is far more common now to get infected from drinking infected water and then travel far away, even to different countries and end up infecting the water supply there. So making sure the water is clean have become a much higher priority both because we can and because the consequences of not cleaning the water is so greater.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":23408.0,"score_ratio":5.2727272727} {"post_id":"xvhw56","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Eli5 How did travelers\/crusaders in medieval times get a clean and consistent source of water","c_root_id_A":"ir2tdv9","c_root_id_B":"ir23xln","created_at_utc_A":1664922466,"created_at_utc_B":1664912643,"score_A":290,"score_B":42,"human_ref_A":"Short answer they didn\u2018t\u2026 that\u2018s why WW1 was the first war in human history where more soldiers died by the hand of the enemy than illnesses starvation and thirst Edit: since there is a lot of disagreement: https:\/\/en.m.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/World_War_I_casualties Here it says 7-8 million combat related deaths 2-3 million deaths by accidents and disease","human_ref_B":"Beer and tea!!! Most historic beers were less than 3% alcohol. So you didn't really get to drunk on it. But it was enough to keep the nasties at bay! Making beer also had the added benefit of making food more calories dense. 1 gram of carbohydrate is 3 calories, but 1 gram of alcohol is 7 calories! There are also a lot of micro nutrients created during fermentation that don't otherwise exist in a bowl of barley or oatmeal. I believe tea came about because boiled water, although safe for consumption, tastes funny, and if you added some fancy herbs to it. It tastes way better! So now you have a safe and delicious beverage that also provides a few calories and some bonus micro nutrients.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9823.0,"score_ratio":6.9047619048} {"post_id":"xvhw56","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Eli5 How did travelers\/crusaders in medieval times get a clean and consistent source of water","c_root_id_A":"ir13z22","c_root_id_B":"ir2t7x6","created_at_utc_A":1664899120,"created_at_utc_B":1664922392,"score_A":185,"score_B":209,"human_ref_A":"That is why mead\/ale were so popular I was told. The process of making it purified the water. Liquid bread I have also heard it called.","human_ref_B":"I'd like to mention that you make soup by boiling water, and soup is kind of like water but tasty. So having clean boiled soup can kind of count as clean water. They didn't understand it very well perhaps, but it's a thing.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":23272.0,"score_ratio":1.1297297297} {"post_id":"xvhw56","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Eli5 How did travelers\/crusaders in medieval times get a clean and consistent source of water","c_root_id_A":"ir2t7x6","c_root_id_B":"ir13tah","created_at_utc_A":1664922392,"created_at_utc_B":1664899058,"score_A":209,"score_B":55,"human_ref_A":"I'd like to mention that you make soup by boiling water, and soup is kind of like water but tasty. So having clean boiled soup can kind of count as clean water. They didn't understand it very well perhaps, but it's a thing.","human_ref_B":"There were a lot fewer people in the medieval times. And a lot less problems with agricultural runoff and industrial pollution. Cities were almost exclusively near the coastline or at least along huge rivers. Even things like well water being salty is just a problem after we drained the aquifers. So most running water were potable. And in some parts of the world with low population density this is still the case. That being said there have been a shift in what is considered clean water. This again have to do with population density and globalization. An infected stream making a small village ill is not that big of a problem compared to an infected stream making a large city ill. And it is far more common now to get infected from drinking infected water and then travel far away, even to different countries and end up infecting the water supply there. So making sure the water is clean have become a much higher priority both because we can and because the consequences of not cleaning the water is so greater.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":23334.0,"score_ratio":3.8} {"post_id":"xvhw56","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Eli5 How did travelers\/crusaders in medieval times get a clean and consistent source of water","c_root_id_A":"ir2t7x6","c_root_id_B":"ir23xln","created_at_utc_A":1664922392,"created_at_utc_B":1664912643,"score_A":209,"score_B":42,"human_ref_A":"I'd like to mention that you make soup by boiling water, and soup is kind of like water but tasty. So having clean boiled soup can kind of count as clean water. They didn't understand it very well perhaps, but it's a thing.","human_ref_B":"Beer and tea!!! Most historic beers were less than 3% alcohol. So you didn't really get to drunk on it. But it was enough to keep the nasties at bay! Making beer also had the added benefit of making food more calories dense. 1 gram of carbohydrate is 3 calories, but 1 gram of alcohol is 7 calories! There are also a lot of micro nutrients created during fermentation that don't otherwise exist in a bowl of barley or oatmeal. I believe tea came about because boiled water, although safe for consumption, tastes funny, and if you added some fancy herbs to it. It tastes way better! So now you have a safe and delicious beverage that also provides a few calories and some bonus micro nutrients.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9749.0,"score_ratio":4.9761904762} {"post_id":"xvhw56","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Eli5 How did travelers\/crusaders in medieval times get a clean and consistent source of water","c_root_id_A":"ir13z22","c_root_id_B":"ir13tah","created_at_utc_A":1664899120,"created_at_utc_B":1664899058,"score_A":185,"score_B":55,"human_ref_A":"That is why mead\/ale were so popular I was told. The process of making it purified the water. Liquid bread I have also heard it called.","human_ref_B":"There were a lot fewer people in the medieval times. And a lot less problems with agricultural runoff and industrial pollution. Cities were almost exclusively near the coastline or at least along huge rivers. Even things like well water being salty is just a problem after we drained the aquifers. So most running water were potable. And in some parts of the world with low population density this is still the case. That being said there have been a shift in what is considered clean water. This again have to do with population density and globalization. An infected stream making a small village ill is not that big of a problem compared to an infected stream making a large city ill. And it is far more common now to get infected from drinking infected water and then travel far away, even to different countries and end up infecting the water supply there. So making sure the water is clean have become a much higher priority both because we can and because the consequences of not cleaning the water is so greater.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":62.0,"score_ratio":3.3636363636} {"post_id":"30sopo","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: When you bash your head, elbow or other body part why does the pain seem to dull when you rub it?","c_root_id_A":"cpvkz5a","c_root_id_B":"cpvfvsy","created_at_utc_A":1427729269,"created_at_utc_B":1427718334,"score_A":200,"score_B":82,"human_ref_A":"GATE CONTROL THEORY. GATE CONTROL THEORY. I KNOW THIS ONE IT'S- oh. You guys got it...","human_ref_B":"Basically, when you get hurt signals are sent to your brain telling it you are hurt and to experience pain. . When you rub an injury, you block these signals from being sent to the brain by closing the 'gate\/circuit' at the level of the spinal cord (say you hurt your finger, then where that nerve synapses at the spinal cord) vs within the brain itself. . So your spinal cord starts filtering that pain sensation before it reaches the brain. It works by causing a regulating\/interneuron to hyperpolarizing the gate control neuron in the dorsal horn, thus preventing it from firing","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10935.0,"score_ratio":2.4390243902} {"post_id":"55ox5h","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why are we so concerned with automation and\/or robots taking our jobs when our society has already survived exponential shifts in machinery, such as the Industrial Revolution?","c_root_id_A":"d8cegsn","c_root_id_B":"d8cefk8","created_at_utc_A":1475517626,"created_at_utc_B":1475517585,"score_A":77,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"This is because the people who are losing their jobs don't see where there new job will be. This is the same concern people have always had. People will always be concerned when they don't know how they will be able to feed themselves and their families.","human_ref_B":"Because I don't give half a shit about \"society\" surviving, I care about not losing MY job. I care about not losing my livelihood. What difference does it make to anyone if society keeps on going while they end up homeless? Knowing that society will survive isn't going to put food on the table, or a roof over your head. And yes, society will survive through automation, but you know what? It'll also do perfectly fine without automation, and without people losing their jobs.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":41.0,"score_ratio":25.6666666667} {"post_id":"55ox5h","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why are we so concerned with automation and\/or robots taking our jobs when our society has already survived exponential shifts in machinery, such as the Industrial Revolution?","c_root_id_A":"d8cejro","c_root_id_B":"d8cefk8","created_at_utc_A":1475517731,"created_at_utc_B":1475517585,"score_A":33,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Because society survives, but individual people don't always. It's easy to reduce millions of lives to statistics but we're talking about real people like you or me who don't always find new jobs easily. Tens or hundreds of thousands of people who will fall into poverty, many of whom might eventually die early. Looking back 100 years from now, people will say \"oh, society survived.\" But if you're one of those people losing their job, you don't care much about society at that moment.","human_ref_B":"Because I don't give half a shit about \"society\" surviving, I care about not losing MY job. I care about not losing my livelihood. What difference does it make to anyone if society keeps on going while they end up homeless? Knowing that society will survive isn't going to put food on the table, or a roof over your head. And yes, society will survive through automation, but you know what? It'll also do perfectly fine without automation, and without people losing their jobs.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":146.0,"score_ratio":11.0} {"post_id":"55ox5h","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why are we so concerned with automation and\/or robots taking our jobs when our society has already survived exponential shifts in machinery, such as the Industrial Revolution?","c_root_id_A":"d8cefk8","c_root_id_B":"d8coubo","created_at_utc_A":1475517585,"created_at_utc_B":1475530652,"score_A":3,"score_B":23,"human_ref_A":"Because I don't give half a shit about \"society\" surviving, I care about not losing MY job. I care about not losing my livelihood. What difference does it make to anyone if society keeps on going while they end up homeless? Knowing that society will survive isn't going to put food on the table, or a roof over your head. And yes, society will survive through automation, but you know what? It'll also do perfectly fine without automation, and without people losing their jobs.","human_ref_B":"Lots of good conversation here. The three main camps are: 1. it's not really an issue: every generation has it's \"this is going to destroy the world as we know it moment\" but in the end new jobs we couldn't have imagined spring up to replace the jobs we lost. The car replaced the horse and put the buggy driver out of business, but today's mechanic leads a better life than yesterday's horse shoeing blacksmith. It is always easier to know what jobs will die than to see what jobs will be born. 2. It's no different from the past, but the past wasn't that easy. It is easy to look around and say \"the industrial revolution happened and we are fine now\" glosses over the vast majority of people's primay concern: can i provide for myself and my family. Times of major economic revolutions are full of political revolutions, starvations, concentration of benefits, worker exploitation, and displacement. Telling a truck driver that he should get over the idea of being fired in a few years because your amazon shipment is going to be cheaper doesn't really help. Just because \"society\" benefits from a change doesn't mean a person's belief that it will harm them is unfounded. 3. This time is fundamentally different. The pace of technological advancement accelerates. Mechanical advancement combined with computational advancement is currently and will continue to replace not just whole factories, but whole sectors. And it will do it using the infrastructure of today. Robotic surgery that makes a human surgeon better and more efficient is just waiting for the computer brain to take over. A car share ap that allows for part if the gig economy now no longer needs the person inside when self driving cars come about. Once you have a computer quality controllimg a human instead of a human quality controlling a computer, eventually that human becomes the hinderance. If you start wiping out whole sectors every few years, how does someone \"retrain\" for a new industry fast enough. We are simultaneousluly closing in on robotics that can mimic human motion, computers that can match and eventually surpass human accuracy and eventually creativity, and connectivity that beats human to human interaction in clarity and speed. As those technologies merge and then drop in price, you go from society having centuries to absorb change, to generations, to decades, to years, to months. It is easy to see how that is different than better looms and assembly lines. Edit: trying to fix mobile autonumbering.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":13067.0,"score_ratio":7.6666666667} {"post_id":"55ox5h","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why are we so concerned with automation and\/or robots taking our jobs when our society has already survived exponential shifts in machinery, such as the Industrial Revolution?","c_root_id_A":"d8coubo","c_root_id_B":"d8cezsh","created_at_utc_A":1475530652,"created_at_utc_B":1475518285,"score_A":23,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Lots of good conversation here. The three main camps are: 1. it's not really an issue: every generation has it's \"this is going to destroy the world as we know it moment\" but in the end new jobs we couldn't have imagined spring up to replace the jobs we lost. The car replaced the horse and put the buggy driver out of business, but today's mechanic leads a better life than yesterday's horse shoeing blacksmith. It is always easier to know what jobs will die than to see what jobs will be born. 2. It's no different from the past, but the past wasn't that easy. It is easy to look around and say \"the industrial revolution happened and we are fine now\" glosses over the vast majority of people's primay concern: can i provide for myself and my family. Times of major economic revolutions are full of political revolutions, starvations, concentration of benefits, worker exploitation, and displacement. Telling a truck driver that he should get over the idea of being fired in a few years because your amazon shipment is going to be cheaper doesn't really help. Just because \"society\" benefits from a change doesn't mean a person's belief that it will harm them is unfounded. 3. This time is fundamentally different. The pace of technological advancement accelerates. Mechanical advancement combined with computational advancement is currently and will continue to replace not just whole factories, but whole sectors. And it will do it using the infrastructure of today. Robotic surgery that makes a human surgeon better and more efficient is just waiting for the computer brain to take over. A car share ap that allows for part if the gig economy now no longer needs the person inside when self driving cars come about. Once you have a computer quality controllimg a human instead of a human quality controlling a computer, eventually that human becomes the hinderance. If you start wiping out whole sectors every few years, how does someone \"retrain\" for a new industry fast enough. We are simultaneousluly closing in on robotics that can mimic human motion, computers that can match and eventually surpass human accuracy and eventually creativity, and connectivity that beats human to human interaction in clarity and speed. As those technologies merge and then drop in price, you go from society having centuries to absorb change, to generations, to decades, to years, to months. It is easy to see how that is different than better looms and assembly lines. Edit: trying to fix mobile autonumbering.","human_ref_B":"> (S)ociety has already survived exponential shifts in machinery, such as the Industrial Revolution(.) While overall we have benefited from the Industrial Revolution, and we have, with the numbing distance of history, turned the Luddites into a joke; the issues faced by thousands during the industrial revolution were kind of horrific. Instead of skilled workers in a few industries being impacted, the modern Intelligence Revolution is more likely to replace larger segments of the workforce.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":12367.0,"score_ratio":7.6666666667} {"post_id":"55ox5h","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why are we so concerned with automation and\/or robots taking our jobs when our society has already survived exponential shifts in machinery, such as the Industrial Revolution?","c_root_id_A":"d8clhzc","c_root_id_B":"d8coubo","created_at_utc_A":1475526366,"created_at_utc_B":1475530652,"score_A":2,"score_B":23,"human_ref_A":"The coming advances in automation and machine intelligence are going to start taking away jobs that many people thought that machines could never do. We aren't talking about just manufacturing, but *thinking* jobs. It will be unprecedented in scale and scope.","human_ref_B":"Lots of good conversation here. The three main camps are: 1. it's not really an issue: every generation has it's \"this is going to destroy the world as we know it moment\" but in the end new jobs we couldn't have imagined spring up to replace the jobs we lost. The car replaced the horse and put the buggy driver out of business, but today's mechanic leads a better life than yesterday's horse shoeing blacksmith. It is always easier to know what jobs will die than to see what jobs will be born. 2. It's no different from the past, but the past wasn't that easy. It is easy to look around and say \"the industrial revolution happened and we are fine now\" glosses over the vast majority of people's primay concern: can i provide for myself and my family. Times of major economic revolutions are full of political revolutions, starvations, concentration of benefits, worker exploitation, and displacement. Telling a truck driver that he should get over the idea of being fired in a few years because your amazon shipment is going to be cheaper doesn't really help. Just because \"society\" benefits from a change doesn't mean a person's belief that it will harm them is unfounded. 3. This time is fundamentally different. The pace of technological advancement accelerates. Mechanical advancement combined with computational advancement is currently and will continue to replace not just whole factories, but whole sectors. And it will do it using the infrastructure of today. Robotic surgery that makes a human surgeon better and more efficient is just waiting for the computer brain to take over. A car share ap that allows for part if the gig economy now no longer needs the person inside when self driving cars come about. Once you have a computer quality controllimg a human instead of a human quality controlling a computer, eventually that human becomes the hinderance. If you start wiping out whole sectors every few years, how does someone \"retrain\" for a new industry fast enough. We are simultaneousluly closing in on robotics that can mimic human motion, computers that can match and eventually surpass human accuracy and eventually creativity, and connectivity that beats human to human interaction in clarity and speed. As those technologies merge and then drop in price, you go from society having centuries to absorb change, to generations, to decades, to years, to months. It is easy to see how that is different than better looms and assembly lines. Edit: trying to fix mobile autonumbering.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4286.0,"score_ratio":11.5} {"post_id":"55ox5h","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why are we so concerned with automation and\/or robots taking our jobs when our society has already survived exponential shifts in machinery, such as the Industrial Revolution?","c_root_id_A":"d8coubo","c_root_id_B":"d8clsq6","created_at_utc_A":1475530652,"created_at_utc_B":1475526731,"score_A":23,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Lots of good conversation here. The three main camps are: 1. it's not really an issue: every generation has it's \"this is going to destroy the world as we know it moment\" but in the end new jobs we couldn't have imagined spring up to replace the jobs we lost. The car replaced the horse and put the buggy driver out of business, but today's mechanic leads a better life than yesterday's horse shoeing blacksmith. It is always easier to know what jobs will die than to see what jobs will be born. 2. It's no different from the past, but the past wasn't that easy. It is easy to look around and say \"the industrial revolution happened and we are fine now\" glosses over the vast majority of people's primay concern: can i provide for myself and my family. Times of major economic revolutions are full of political revolutions, starvations, concentration of benefits, worker exploitation, and displacement. Telling a truck driver that he should get over the idea of being fired in a few years because your amazon shipment is going to be cheaper doesn't really help. Just because \"society\" benefits from a change doesn't mean a person's belief that it will harm them is unfounded. 3. This time is fundamentally different. The pace of technological advancement accelerates. Mechanical advancement combined with computational advancement is currently and will continue to replace not just whole factories, but whole sectors. And it will do it using the infrastructure of today. Robotic surgery that makes a human surgeon better and more efficient is just waiting for the computer brain to take over. A car share ap that allows for part if the gig economy now no longer needs the person inside when self driving cars come about. Once you have a computer quality controllimg a human instead of a human quality controlling a computer, eventually that human becomes the hinderance. If you start wiping out whole sectors every few years, how does someone \"retrain\" for a new industry fast enough. We are simultaneousluly closing in on robotics that can mimic human motion, computers that can match and eventually surpass human accuracy and eventually creativity, and connectivity that beats human to human interaction in clarity and speed. As those technologies merge and then drop in price, you go from society having centuries to absorb change, to generations, to decades, to years, to months. It is easy to see how that is different than better looms and assembly lines. Edit: trying to fix mobile autonumbering.","human_ref_B":"There is a fundamental difference in mechanics and scale of modern automation. There is also the difference that the jobs displaced by past technological improvements allowed for people to take other types of jobs. This is much less the case now. Really though, the issue is *not* that automation will take our jobs. That is actually a great thing for society. It means we will all have more free time to pursue our own desires. The real issue is that our economic system is not well adapted to having a high percentage of the population unemployed. We will have to overcome the archaic ideology that every individual must labor to earn the right to live if we want to progress.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3921.0,"score_ratio":11.5} {"post_id":"55ox5h","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why are we so concerned with automation and\/or robots taking our jobs when our society has already survived exponential shifts in machinery, such as the Industrial Revolution?","c_root_id_A":"d8dcc9m","c_root_id_B":"d8cefk8","created_at_utc_A":1475575131,"created_at_utc_B":1475517585,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"This Thread is called Explain Like I'm Five, and yet people are giving such complex explanations. Well let's look at it this way: Back before the Industrial revolution, horses had a massive global population; one that rivaled the human population. But now, there are a scant few horses left in the world. Why? Because Machines took over the work that horses used to do. Its tractors instead of plows, cars instead of carriages, etc. During the last few hundred years, machines couldn't take over jobs, a worker still had to operate the machine, and the jobs that were taken over by machines were almost always very dangerous, or very physical jobs, so the guy who poured cane juice into the sugar synthesizing vat is now the guy who presses the button to activate the sugar synthesizing machine. Even in this case, there were many people that didn't want this, saying that the machine were taking over people's jobs. Now it's different. With the invention of the computer, nobody has to activate the sugar making machine, it can do that itself, so that's a job that's lost. And this process to happen with literally all jobs that aren't top level (CEO) jobs. Computers can now be accountants, managers, security staff, vendors, farmers, factory workers, drivers, etc. That's a whole lot of jobs being taken up. And thus we become the horses that I mentioned above.","human_ref_B":"Because I don't give half a shit about \"society\" surviving, I care about not losing MY job. I care about not losing my livelihood. What difference does it make to anyone if society keeps on going while they end up homeless? Knowing that society will survive isn't going to put food on the table, or a roof over your head. And yes, society will survive through automation, but you know what? It'll also do perfectly fine without automation, and without people losing their jobs.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":57546.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"55ox5h","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why are we so concerned with automation and\/or robots taking our jobs when our society has already survived exponential shifts in machinery, such as the Industrial Revolution?","c_root_id_A":"d8cyu73","c_root_id_B":"d8dcc9m","created_at_utc_A":1475545201,"created_at_utc_B":1475575131,"score_A":3,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"As I see it, there are two ways to see this question. If we take a far-reaching view, we might worry \"what if automation takes away all our jobs? What if unemployment hits 50%, or 80%?\" Then, your counter-argument *might* hold water - we just can't imagine the jobs that will exist in the future - that doesn't mean they won't exist. A counter-counter argument might ask \"what if a robot could do *anything* a person could do, only better?\" and that would lead to a long (and very useful and interesting) discussion on the nature of work and how people find meaning and purpose. Or, we can take a much shorter-term view, and look at things that are happening right now. Self-driving cars, for example, or robotic manufacturing. If you think about all the jobs that involve making stuff or moving a vehicle, you're looking at a really large percent of the workforce having their jobs eliminated by automation. What will they do? Now it's true that humanity has survived enormous technological shifts, and the nature of work and the economy was radically transformed. However, these people will be losing their jobs imminently - within 5 to 10 years. If we can't imagine what they'll do instead, there probably isn't anything available in such a short time frame. You can't ask them to just improve their skills with education - already an education is less and less likely to guarantee a job requiring that education - a big chunk of those newly unemployed factory workers and taxi drivers already have a college education. As well, an education is a really expensive thing for someone newly unemployed with a mortgage and a family to support. Many will become unemployed, and stay that way for a long long time. From the point of view of generations, perhaps humanity will adapt. That will be no consolation for those unemployed truckies. What will be done to give them a livable income, and a sense of purpose and meaning? TL;DR: you're looking too far into the future. The problems are starting to happen now.","human_ref_B":"This Thread is called Explain Like I'm Five, and yet people are giving such complex explanations. Well let's look at it this way: Back before the Industrial revolution, horses had a massive global population; one that rivaled the human population. But now, there are a scant few horses left in the world. Why? Because Machines took over the work that horses used to do. Its tractors instead of plows, cars instead of carriages, etc. During the last few hundred years, machines couldn't take over jobs, a worker still had to operate the machine, and the jobs that were taken over by machines were almost always very dangerous, or very physical jobs, so the guy who poured cane juice into the sugar synthesizing vat is now the guy who presses the button to activate the sugar synthesizing machine. Even in this case, there were many people that didn't want this, saying that the machine were taking over people's jobs. Now it's different. With the invention of the computer, nobody has to activate the sugar making machine, it can do that itself, so that's a job that's lost. And this process to happen with literally all jobs that aren't top level (CEO) jobs. Computers can now be accountants, managers, security staff, vendors, farmers, factory workers, drivers, etc. That's a whole lot of jobs being taken up. And thus we become the horses that I mentioned above.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":29930.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"55ox5h","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why are we so concerned with automation and\/or robots taking our jobs when our society has already survived exponential shifts in machinery, such as the Industrial Revolution?","c_root_id_A":"d8cezsh","c_root_id_B":"d8dcc9m","created_at_utc_A":1475518285,"created_at_utc_B":1475575131,"score_A":3,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"> (S)ociety has already survived exponential shifts in machinery, such as the Industrial Revolution(.) While overall we have benefited from the Industrial Revolution, and we have, with the numbing distance of history, turned the Luddites into a joke; the issues faced by thousands during the industrial revolution were kind of horrific. Instead of skilled workers in a few industries being impacted, the modern Intelligence Revolution is more likely to replace larger segments of the workforce.","human_ref_B":"This Thread is called Explain Like I'm Five, and yet people are giving such complex explanations. Well let's look at it this way: Back before the Industrial revolution, horses had a massive global population; one that rivaled the human population. But now, there are a scant few horses left in the world. Why? Because Machines took over the work that horses used to do. Its tractors instead of plows, cars instead of carriages, etc. During the last few hundred years, machines couldn't take over jobs, a worker still had to operate the machine, and the jobs that were taken over by machines were almost always very dangerous, or very physical jobs, so the guy who poured cane juice into the sugar synthesizing vat is now the guy who presses the button to activate the sugar synthesizing machine. Even in this case, there were many people that didn't want this, saying that the machine were taking over people's jobs. Now it's different. With the invention of the computer, nobody has to activate the sugar making machine, it can do that itself, so that's a job that's lost. And this process to happen with literally all jobs that aren't top level (CEO) jobs. Computers can now be accountants, managers, security staff, vendors, farmers, factory workers, drivers, etc. That's a whole lot of jobs being taken up. And thus we become the horses that I mentioned above.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":56846.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"55ox5h","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why are we so concerned with automation and\/or robots taking our jobs when our society has already survived exponential shifts in machinery, such as the Industrial Revolution?","c_root_id_A":"d8dcc9m","c_root_id_B":"d8clhzc","created_at_utc_A":1475575131,"created_at_utc_B":1475526366,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"This Thread is called Explain Like I'm Five, and yet people are giving such complex explanations. Well let's look at it this way: Back before the Industrial revolution, horses had a massive global population; one that rivaled the human population. But now, there are a scant few horses left in the world. Why? Because Machines took over the work that horses used to do. Its tractors instead of plows, cars instead of carriages, etc. During the last few hundred years, machines couldn't take over jobs, a worker still had to operate the machine, and the jobs that were taken over by machines were almost always very dangerous, or very physical jobs, so the guy who poured cane juice into the sugar synthesizing vat is now the guy who presses the button to activate the sugar synthesizing machine. Even in this case, there were many people that didn't want this, saying that the machine were taking over people's jobs. Now it's different. With the invention of the computer, nobody has to activate the sugar making machine, it can do that itself, so that's a job that's lost. And this process to happen with literally all jobs that aren't top level (CEO) jobs. Computers can now be accountants, managers, security staff, vendors, farmers, factory workers, drivers, etc. That's a whole lot of jobs being taken up. And thus we become the horses that I mentioned above.","human_ref_B":"The coming advances in automation and machine intelligence are going to start taking away jobs that many people thought that machines could never do. We aren't talking about just manufacturing, but *thinking* jobs. It will be unprecedented in scale and scope.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":48765.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"55ox5h","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why are we so concerned with automation and\/or robots taking our jobs when our society has already survived exponential shifts in machinery, such as the Industrial Revolution?","c_root_id_A":"d8dcc9m","c_root_id_B":"d8clsq6","created_at_utc_A":1475575131,"created_at_utc_B":1475526731,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"This Thread is called Explain Like I'm Five, and yet people are giving such complex explanations. Well let's look at it this way: Back before the Industrial revolution, horses had a massive global population; one that rivaled the human population. But now, there are a scant few horses left in the world. Why? Because Machines took over the work that horses used to do. Its tractors instead of plows, cars instead of carriages, etc. During the last few hundred years, machines couldn't take over jobs, a worker still had to operate the machine, and the jobs that were taken over by machines were almost always very dangerous, or very physical jobs, so the guy who poured cane juice into the sugar synthesizing vat is now the guy who presses the button to activate the sugar synthesizing machine. Even in this case, there were many people that didn't want this, saying that the machine were taking over people's jobs. Now it's different. With the invention of the computer, nobody has to activate the sugar making machine, it can do that itself, so that's a job that's lost. And this process to happen with literally all jobs that aren't top level (CEO) jobs. Computers can now be accountants, managers, security staff, vendors, farmers, factory workers, drivers, etc. That's a whole lot of jobs being taken up. And thus we become the horses that I mentioned above.","human_ref_B":"There is a fundamental difference in mechanics and scale of modern automation. There is also the difference that the jobs displaced by past technological improvements allowed for people to take other types of jobs. This is much less the case now. Really though, the issue is *not* that automation will take our jobs. That is actually a great thing for society. It means we will all have more free time to pursue our own desires. The real issue is that our economic system is not well adapted to having a high percentage of the population unemployed. We will have to overcome the archaic ideology that every individual must labor to earn the right to live if we want to progress.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":48400.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"55ox5h","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why are we so concerned with automation and\/or robots taking our jobs when our society has already survived exponential shifts in machinery, such as the Industrial Revolution?","c_root_id_A":"d8cq00b","c_root_id_B":"d8dcc9m","created_at_utc_A":1475532214,"created_at_utc_B":1475575131,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Pretty much anyone who worked on a farm was capable of working on a factory line. There are plenty of people who are just not capable of being rocket scientists (or whatever profession you think won't be automated), no matter how much training they get.","human_ref_B":"This Thread is called Explain Like I'm Five, and yet people are giving such complex explanations. Well let's look at it this way: Back before the Industrial revolution, horses had a massive global population; one that rivaled the human population. But now, there are a scant few horses left in the world. Why? Because Machines took over the work that horses used to do. Its tractors instead of plows, cars instead of carriages, etc. During the last few hundred years, machines couldn't take over jobs, a worker still had to operate the machine, and the jobs that were taken over by machines were almost always very dangerous, or very physical jobs, so the guy who poured cane juice into the sugar synthesizing vat is now the guy who presses the button to activate the sugar synthesizing machine. Even in this case, there were many people that didn't want this, saying that the machine were taking over people's jobs. Now it's different. With the invention of the computer, nobody has to activate the sugar making machine, it can do that itself, so that's a job that's lost. And this process to happen with literally all jobs that aren't top level (CEO) jobs. Computers can now be accountants, managers, security staff, vendors, farmers, factory workers, drivers, etc. That's a whole lot of jobs being taken up. And thus we become the horses that I mentioned above.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":42917.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"55ox5h","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why are we so concerned with automation and\/or robots taking our jobs when our society has already survived exponential shifts in machinery, such as the Industrial Revolution?","c_root_id_A":"d8d40vc","c_root_id_B":"d8dcc9m","created_at_utc_A":1475552873,"created_at_utc_B":1475575131,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"To be fair, we're also concerned about violence even though society has already survived a great deal of violence. And we're concerned about food security in many places even though society has survived food security. And so on and so forth. We tend to be concerned for what might happen to us and our loved ones even if that threat is not an issue for the society at large.","human_ref_B":"This Thread is called Explain Like I'm Five, and yet people are giving such complex explanations. Well let's look at it this way: Back before the Industrial revolution, horses had a massive global population; one that rivaled the human population. But now, there are a scant few horses left in the world. Why? Because Machines took over the work that horses used to do. Its tractors instead of plows, cars instead of carriages, etc. During the last few hundred years, machines couldn't take over jobs, a worker still had to operate the machine, and the jobs that were taken over by machines were almost always very dangerous, or very physical jobs, so the guy who poured cane juice into the sugar synthesizing vat is now the guy who presses the button to activate the sugar synthesizing machine. Even in this case, there were many people that didn't want this, saying that the machine were taking over people's jobs. Now it's different. With the invention of the computer, nobody has to activate the sugar making machine, it can do that itself, so that's a job that's lost. And this process to happen with literally all jobs that aren't top level (CEO) jobs. Computers can now be accountants, managers, security staff, vendors, farmers, factory workers, drivers, etc. That's a whole lot of jobs being taken up. And thus we become the horses that I mentioned above.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":22258.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"55ox5h","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why are we so concerned with automation and\/or robots taking our jobs when our society has already survived exponential shifts in machinery, such as the Industrial Revolution?","c_root_id_A":"d8cyu73","c_root_id_B":"d8clhzc","created_at_utc_A":1475545201,"created_at_utc_B":1475526366,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"As I see it, there are two ways to see this question. If we take a far-reaching view, we might worry \"what if automation takes away all our jobs? What if unemployment hits 50%, or 80%?\" Then, your counter-argument *might* hold water - we just can't imagine the jobs that will exist in the future - that doesn't mean they won't exist. A counter-counter argument might ask \"what if a robot could do *anything* a person could do, only better?\" and that would lead to a long (and very useful and interesting) discussion on the nature of work and how people find meaning and purpose. Or, we can take a much shorter-term view, and look at things that are happening right now. Self-driving cars, for example, or robotic manufacturing. If you think about all the jobs that involve making stuff or moving a vehicle, you're looking at a really large percent of the workforce having their jobs eliminated by automation. What will they do? Now it's true that humanity has survived enormous technological shifts, and the nature of work and the economy was radically transformed. However, these people will be losing their jobs imminently - within 5 to 10 years. If we can't imagine what they'll do instead, there probably isn't anything available in such a short time frame. You can't ask them to just improve their skills with education - already an education is less and less likely to guarantee a job requiring that education - a big chunk of those newly unemployed factory workers and taxi drivers already have a college education. As well, an education is a really expensive thing for someone newly unemployed with a mortgage and a family to support. Many will become unemployed, and stay that way for a long long time. From the point of view of generations, perhaps humanity will adapt. That will be no consolation for those unemployed truckies. What will be done to give them a livable income, and a sense of purpose and meaning? TL;DR: you're looking too far into the future. The problems are starting to happen now.","human_ref_B":"The coming advances in automation and machine intelligence are going to start taking away jobs that many people thought that machines could never do. We aren't talking about just manufacturing, but *thinking* jobs. It will be unprecedented in scale and scope.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":18835.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"55ox5h","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why are we so concerned with automation and\/or robots taking our jobs when our society has already survived exponential shifts in machinery, such as the Industrial Revolution?","c_root_id_A":"d8clsq6","c_root_id_B":"d8cyu73","created_at_utc_A":1475526731,"created_at_utc_B":1475545201,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"There is a fundamental difference in mechanics and scale of modern automation. There is also the difference that the jobs displaced by past technological improvements allowed for people to take other types of jobs. This is much less the case now. Really though, the issue is *not* that automation will take our jobs. That is actually a great thing for society. It means we will all have more free time to pursue our own desires. The real issue is that our economic system is not well adapted to having a high percentage of the population unemployed. We will have to overcome the archaic ideology that every individual must labor to earn the right to live if we want to progress.","human_ref_B":"As I see it, there are two ways to see this question. If we take a far-reaching view, we might worry \"what if automation takes away all our jobs? What if unemployment hits 50%, or 80%?\" Then, your counter-argument *might* hold water - we just can't imagine the jobs that will exist in the future - that doesn't mean they won't exist. A counter-counter argument might ask \"what if a robot could do *anything* a person could do, only better?\" and that would lead to a long (and very useful and interesting) discussion on the nature of work and how people find meaning and purpose. Or, we can take a much shorter-term view, and look at things that are happening right now. Self-driving cars, for example, or robotic manufacturing. If you think about all the jobs that involve making stuff or moving a vehicle, you're looking at a really large percent of the workforce having their jobs eliminated by automation. What will they do? Now it's true that humanity has survived enormous technological shifts, and the nature of work and the economy was radically transformed. However, these people will be losing their jobs imminently - within 5 to 10 years. If we can't imagine what they'll do instead, there probably isn't anything available in such a short time frame. You can't ask them to just improve their skills with education - already an education is less and less likely to guarantee a job requiring that education - a big chunk of those newly unemployed factory workers and taxi drivers already have a college education. As well, an education is a really expensive thing for someone newly unemployed with a mortgage and a family to support. Many will become unemployed, and stay that way for a long long time. From the point of view of generations, perhaps humanity will adapt. That will be no consolation for those unemployed truckies. What will be done to give them a livable income, and a sense of purpose and meaning? TL;DR: you're looking too far into the future. The problems are starting to happen now.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":18470.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"55ox5h","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why are we so concerned with automation and\/or robots taking our jobs when our society has already survived exponential shifts in machinery, such as the Industrial Revolution?","c_root_id_A":"d8cq00b","c_root_id_B":"d8cyu73","created_at_utc_A":1475532214,"created_at_utc_B":1475545201,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Pretty much anyone who worked on a farm was capable of working on a factory line. There are plenty of people who are just not capable of being rocket scientists (or whatever profession you think won't be automated), no matter how much training they get.","human_ref_B":"As I see it, there are two ways to see this question. If we take a far-reaching view, we might worry \"what if automation takes away all our jobs? What if unemployment hits 50%, or 80%?\" Then, your counter-argument *might* hold water - we just can't imagine the jobs that will exist in the future - that doesn't mean they won't exist. A counter-counter argument might ask \"what if a robot could do *anything* a person could do, only better?\" and that would lead to a long (and very useful and interesting) discussion on the nature of work and how people find meaning and purpose. Or, we can take a much shorter-term view, and look at things that are happening right now. Self-driving cars, for example, or robotic manufacturing. If you think about all the jobs that involve making stuff or moving a vehicle, you're looking at a really large percent of the workforce having their jobs eliminated by automation. What will they do? Now it's true that humanity has survived enormous technological shifts, and the nature of work and the economy was radically transformed. However, these people will be losing their jobs imminently - within 5 to 10 years. If we can't imagine what they'll do instead, there probably isn't anything available in such a short time frame. You can't ask them to just improve their skills with education - already an education is less and less likely to guarantee a job requiring that education - a big chunk of those newly unemployed factory workers and taxi drivers already have a college education. As well, an education is a really expensive thing for someone newly unemployed with a mortgage and a family to support. Many will become unemployed, and stay that way for a long long time. From the point of view of generations, perhaps humanity will adapt. That will be no consolation for those unemployed truckies. What will be done to give them a livable income, and a sense of purpose and meaning? TL;DR: you're looking too far into the future. The problems are starting to happen now.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":12987.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"xvsrkk","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How did ancient people know that the earth was round?","c_root_id_A":"ir2uw98","c_root_id_B":"ir2vlcc","created_at_utc_A":1664923139,"created_at_utc_B":1664923449,"score_A":3,"score_B":62,"human_ref_A":"Watch a ship sail out to sea. Once it get to the horizon, it starts to drop out of sight, until it's completely gone. The simplest explanation is that the Earth is some sort of round. Look at the shadow of the Earth on the Moon during a lunar eclipse. The Earth seems to have a circular silhouette -- every time. Again, the simplest explanation is that the Earth is close to spherical.","human_ref_B":"So it all starts with the Greeks, though there is evidence it's even further back from that. They looked up at the sky, particularly the moon, and said \"That sure looks round to me... and so does the sun, while we're at it... why WOULDN'T the Earth be?\" Along comes a smart guy we'll call Eratosthenes because, well, that was his name. He learned that at midday, during the summer solstice in Syene, a stick stuck in the ground didn't cast much of a shadow. So he asked himself \"Eratosthenes, do you think this might be the case here in Alexandria where I am?\" So he did the only sensible thing and stuck a stick in the ground at the same day and time. Lo and behold... there was a shadow. Well.. that's not supposed to happen... So let's look at that shadow... around 7 degrees or so. Interesting. The Greeks had already figured out that however far away the sun was, it was a long freaking way, and shouldn't have much effect on shadows of sticks. So if the shadow is 7 degrees, and I know how far it is from Syene to Alexandira, then I've got myself a sphere and I can work out how big it is with those numbers. That's exactly what he did, and he came up with a number that was less than 50 miles of what we now know to be the diameter of the Earth.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":310.0,"score_ratio":20.6666666667} {"post_id":"xvsrkk","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How did ancient people know that the earth was round?","c_root_id_A":"ir2ye0h","c_root_id_B":"ir2wayu","created_at_utc_A":1664924712,"created_at_utc_B":1664923770,"score_A":55,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"Maritime Navigators knew it first \/ have always known. When rigging the sails, somebody securing the top mast at one point MUST have said \"Ahoy! Enemy vessel to starboard side!\" Then that same person scrambled down the rigging only to find that the same ship was not visible from the deck. Confused, this same person must have scrambled back up the top mast, only to see the enemy vessel slowly come into view from the top to the bottom. First the top mast appears. Then the sails. Then the prow. Then finally the hull. What possible explanation could they have derived other than \"the ocean seems to run downhill. Always. In every direction. So: the earth must curve downhill. Always. In every direction.\" That's why pirate ships have the lookout stationed in the \"Crow's Nest.\" You'll see the enemy sooner from up high. The only explanation? The earth is curved.","human_ref_B":"Among the easiest ways to detect that the Earth is round is that a mountain, ship, or building will slowly disappear below the horizon as you move away or go to a lower elevation, or appear in the reverse. The only way that makes sense is if you are on a round surface. Eratosthenes (276-194 BC) realized you could measure the circumference by measuring the length of a shadow of objects of known height at noon from two points at known differing latitudes. He got a result of 252,000 stadia or about 40,000 km, which is within 2.5%.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":942.0,"score_ratio":6.875} {"post_id":"xvsrkk","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How did ancient people know that the earth was round?","c_root_id_A":"ir2ye0h","c_root_id_B":"ir2vmjk","created_at_utc_A":1664924712,"created_at_utc_B":1664923464,"score_A":55,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Maritime Navigators knew it first \/ have always known. When rigging the sails, somebody securing the top mast at one point MUST have said \"Ahoy! Enemy vessel to starboard side!\" Then that same person scrambled down the rigging only to find that the same ship was not visible from the deck. Confused, this same person must have scrambled back up the top mast, only to see the enemy vessel slowly come into view from the top to the bottom. First the top mast appears. Then the sails. Then the prow. Then finally the hull. What possible explanation could they have derived other than \"the ocean seems to run downhill. Always. In every direction. So: the earth must curve downhill. Always. In every direction.\" That's why pirate ships have the lookout stationed in the \"Crow's Nest.\" You'll see the enemy sooner from up high. The only explanation? The earth is curved.","human_ref_B":"Carl Sagan explained it best. https:\/\/youtu.be\/8hZl3arO7SY If you have nothing else to do than think about physics or how bad we were at it back then, you could reasonably conceive that we would deduce the theory. Perhaps not me, but an Einstein of the day.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1248.0,"score_ratio":9.1666666667} {"post_id":"xvsrkk","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How did ancient people know that the earth was round?","c_root_id_A":"ir2uw98","c_root_id_B":"ir2ye0h","created_at_utc_A":1664923139,"created_at_utc_B":1664924712,"score_A":3,"score_B":55,"human_ref_A":"Watch a ship sail out to sea. Once it get to the horizon, it starts to drop out of sight, until it's completely gone. The simplest explanation is that the Earth is some sort of round. Look at the shadow of the Earth on the Moon during a lunar eclipse. The Earth seems to have a circular silhouette -- every time. Again, the simplest explanation is that the Earth is close to spherical.","human_ref_B":"Maritime Navigators knew it first \/ have always known. When rigging the sails, somebody securing the top mast at one point MUST have said \"Ahoy! Enemy vessel to starboard side!\" Then that same person scrambled down the rigging only to find that the same ship was not visible from the deck. Confused, this same person must have scrambled back up the top mast, only to see the enemy vessel slowly come into view from the top to the bottom. First the top mast appears. Then the sails. Then the prow. Then finally the hull. What possible explanation could they have derived other than \"the ocean seems to run downhill. Always. In every direction. So: the earth must curve downhill. Always. In every direction.\" That's why pirate ships have the lookout stationed in the \"Crow's Nest.\" You'll see the enemy sooner from up high. The only explanation? The earth is curved.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1573.0,"score_ratio":18.3333333333} {"post_id":"xvsrkk","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How did ancient people know that the earth was round?","c_root_id_A":"ir2vmjk","c_root_id_B":"ir2wayu","created_at_utc_A":1664923464,"created_at_utc_B":1664923770,"score_A":6,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"Carl Sagan explained it best. https:\/\/youtu.be\/8hZl3arO7SY If you have nothing else to do than think about physics or how bad we were at it back then, you could reasonably conceive that we would deduce the theory. Perhaps not me, but an Einstein of the day.","human_ref_B":"Among the easiest ways to detect that the Earth is round is that a mountain, ship, or building will slowly disappear below the horizon as you move away or go to a lower elevation, or appear in the reverse. The only way that makes sense is if you are on a round surface. Eratosthenes (276-194 BC) realized you could measure the circumference by measuring the length of a shadow of objects of known height at noon from two points at known differing latitudes. He got a result of 252,000 stadia or about 40,000 km, which is within 2.5%.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":306.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} {"post_id":"xvsrkk","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How did ancient people know that the earth was round?","c_root_id_A":"ir2uw98","c_root_id_B":"ir2wayu","created_at_utc_A":1664923139,"created_at_utc_B":1664923770,"score_A":3,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"Watch a ship sail out to sea. Once it get to the horizon, it starts to drop out of sight, until it's completely gone. The simplest explanation is that the Earth is some sort of round. Look at the shadow of the Earth on the Moon during a lunar eclipse. The Earth seems to have a circular silhouette -- every time. Again, the simplest explanation is that the Earth is close to spherical.","human_ref_B":"Among the easiest ways to detect that the Earth is round is that a mountain, ship, or building will slowly disappear below the horizon as you move away or go to a lower elevation, or appear in the reverse. The only way that makes sense is if you are on a round surface. Eratosthenes (276-194 BC) realized you could measure the circumference by measuring the length of a shadow of objects of known height at noon from two points at known differing latitudes. He got a result of 252,000 stadia or about 40,000 km, which is within 2.5%.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":631.0,"score_ratio":2.6666666667} {"post_id":"xvsrkk","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How did ancient people know that the earth was round?","c_root_id_A":"ir2vmjk","c_root_id_B":"ir2uw98","created_at_utc_A":1664923464,"created_at_utc_B":1664923139,"score_A":6,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Carl Sagan explained it best. https:\/\/youtu.be\/8hZl3arO7SY If you have nothing else to do than think about physics or how bad we were at it back then, you could reasonably conceive that we would deduce the theory. Perhaps not me, but an Einstein of the day.","human_ref_B":"Watch a ship sail out to sea. Once it get to the horizon, it starts to drop out of sight, until it's completely gone. The simplest explanation is that the Earth is some sort of round. Look at the shadow of the Earth on the Moon during a lunar eclipse. The Earth seems to have a circular silhouette -- every time. Again, the simplest explanation is that the Earth is close to spherical.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":325.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"rjn6t5","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How can a micro-SD card store so much more data than another one with the exact same size? What's the physical difference? I was shopping a couple days ago looking for a replacement for my phone's 2gb micro-SD card and I noticed for the first time that there exist 64gb micro-SD cards. Same exact size, shape (of course), brand and overall look. \u00bfWhat's the physical difference?","c_root_id_A":"hp4hmk5","c_root_id_B":"hp4jqwv","created_at_utc_A":1639883004,"created_at_utc_B":1639884087,"score_A":68,"score_B":1091,"human_ref_A":"The shape is all about the interface to the gadget. This shape has to be constant to have all the contacts line up in the right place. It's got nothing to do with what's inside. Think of it like a power block. They connect to the mains with the exact same shape and the USB cable with the exact same shape. There might be a high power circuit inside or a low power one inside. There is no way to tell by looking at the outside. At some point, power components get too large to fit in the shape of a small power block. That's not the case with flash storage cells, these are microscopic, only nanometers across. Many more of them could fit inside, but they are expensive. The more complex the switching cos tto address a large array of storage, the more expensive the device, but that's all much smaller than the volume inside the SD package.","human_ref_B":"Wait \u2018till you hear about the Terabyte MicroSD Card (~1000GB) For real though, the difference is the *density* of the memory circuits. The MicroSD card shape and size is an industry standard. Their storage capacity is determined by how small the manufacturer makes the memory circuits. Old cards had low memory because it was difficult or expensive to make smaller memory circuits. Now, technology has improved and it\u2019s easier and cheaper to make smaller circuits, so we get the same size card with more data storage crammed inside.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1083.0,"score_ratio":16.0441176471} {"post_id":"rjn6t5","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How can a micro-SD card store so much more data than another one with the exact same size? What's the physical difference? I was shopping a couple days ago looking for a replacement for my phone's 2gb micro-SD card and I noticed for the first time that there exist 64gb micro-SD cards. Same exact size, shape (of course), brand and overall look. \u00bfWhat's the physical difference?","c_root_id_A":"hp4jqwv","c_root_id_B":"hp4hgx7","created_at_utc_A":1639884087,"created_at_utc_B":1639882923,"score_A":1091,"score_B":35,"human_ref_A":"Wait \u2018till you hear about the Terabyte MicroSD Card (~1000GB) For real though, the difference is the *density* of the memory circuits. The MicroSD card shape and size is an industry standard. Their storage capacity is determined by how small the manufacturer makes the memory circuits. Old cards had low memory because it was difficult or expensive to make smaller memory circuits. Now, technology has improved and it\u2019s easier and cheaper to make smaller circuits, so we get the same size card with more data storage crammed inside.","human_ref_B":"Imagine you made 1000 cookies. You could advertise how many chocolate chips are in each cookie and charge based on that. In this analogy, the cookies are the computer chips or storage devices. They make thousands of them all to the same specifications, but sometimes there\u2019s manufacturing problems (like the disbursement of the chocolate chips) and they have to test each device. After testing they may disable some parts of it and sell it off as a lower speed or lower storage capacity chip. The reason is because it\u2019s easier and more cost effective to make a bunch of the highest possible size and just sell the defective ones as lower ones. It means they have one production online with one machine set for making one specific item. It streamlined the whole process. So physically nothing is different than perhaps a disabled core or cell. On top of this, there have been leaps in how dense we can make memory so some of them use more dense memory cells that in essence are just smaller logic gates crammed into the same space. This means we can make larger capacity cards than we could 20 years ago.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1164.0,"score_ratio":31.1714285714} {"post_id":"rjn6t5","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How can a micro-SD card store so much more data than another one with the exact same size? What's the physical difference? I was shopping a couple days ago looking for a replacement for my phone's 2gb micro-SD card and I noticed for the first time that there exist 64gb micro-SD cards. Same exact size, shape (of course), brand and overall look. \u00bfWhat's the physical difference?","c_root_id_A":"hp4jqwv","c_root_id_B":"hp4hs7j","created_at_utc_A":1639884087,"created_at_utc_B":1639883082,"score_A":1091,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"Wait \u2018till you hear about the Terabyte MicroSD Card (~1000GB) For real though, the difference is the *density* of the memory circuits. The MicroSD card shape and size is an industry standard. Their storage capacity is determined by how small the manufacturer makes the memory circuits. Old cards had low memory because it was difficult or expensive to make smaller memory circuits. Now, technology has improved and it\u2019s easier and cheaper to make smaller circuits, so we get the same size card with more data storage crammed inside.","human_ref_B":"64GB? I was using ones that small around 5 years ago, the one in my phone now is 256GB, the difference is that they can now make smaller transistors and put them into a smaller space so inside a MicroSD card there's more transistors in the same space.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1005.0,"score_ratio":136.375} {"post_id":"rjn6t5","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How can a micro-SD card store so much more data than another one with the exact same size? What's the physical difference? I was shopping a couple days ago looking for a replacement for my phone's 2gb micro-SD card and I noticed for the first time that there exist 64gb micro-SD cards. Same exact size, shape (of course), brand and overall look. \u00bfWhat's the physical difference?","c_root_id_A":"hp4hmk5","c_root_id_B":"hp4hgx7","created_at_utc_A":1639883004,"created_at_utc_B":1639882923,"score_A":68,"score_B":35,"human_ref_A":"The shape is all about the interface to the gadget. This shape has to be constant to have all the contacts line up in the right place. It's got nothing to do with what's inside. Think of it like a power block. They connect to the mains with the exact same shape and the USB cable with the exact same shape. There might be a high power circuit inside or a low power one inside. There is no way to tell by looking at the outside. At some point, power components get too large to fit in the shape of a small power block. That's not the case with flash storage cells, these are microscopic, only nanometers across. Many more of them could fit inside, but they are expensive. The more complex the switching cos tto address a large array of storage, the more expensive the device, but that's all much smaller than the volume inside the SD package.","human_ref_B":"Imagine you made 1000 cookies. You could advertise how many chocolate chips are in each cookie and charge based on that. In this analogy, the cookies are the computer chips or storage devices. They make thousands of them all to the same specifications, but sometimes there\u2019s manufacturing problems (like the disbursement of the chocolate chips) and they have to test each device. After testing they may disable some parts of it and sell it off as a lower speed or lower storage capacity chip. The reason is because it\u2019s easier and more cost effective to make a bunch of the highest possible size and just sell the defective ones as lower ones. It means they have one production online with one machine set for making one specific item. It streamlined the whole process. So physically nothing is different than perhaps a disabled core or cell. On top of this, there have been leaps in how dense we can make memory so some of them use more dense memory cells that in essence are just smaller logic gates crammed into the same space. This means we can make larger capacity cards than we could 20 years ago.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":81.0,"score_ratio":1.9428571429} {"post_id":"rjn6t5","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How can a micro-SD card store so much more data than another one with the exact same size? What's the physical difference? I was shopping a couple days ago looking for a replacement for my phone's 2gb micro-SD card and I noticed for the first time that there exist 64gb micro-SD cards. Same exact size, shape (of course), brand and overall look. \u00bfWhat's the physical difference?","c_root_id_A":"hp4hgx7","c_root_id_B":"hp4jvwk","created_at_utc_A":1639882923,"created_at_utc_B":1639884157,"score_A":35,"score_B":58,"human_ref_A":"Imagine you made 1000 cookies. You could advertise how many chocolate chips are in each cookie and charge based on that. In this analogy, the cookies are the computer chips or storage devices. They make thousands of them all to the same specifications, but sometimes there\u2019s manufacturing problems (like the disbursement of the chocolate chips) and they have to test each device. After testing they may disable some parts of it and sell it off as a lower speed or lower storage capacity chip. The reason is because it\u2019s easier and more cost effective to make a bunch of the highest possible size and just sell the defective ones as lower ones. It means they have one production online with one machine set for making one specific item. It streamlined the whole process. So physically nothing is different than perhaps a disabled core or cell. On top of this, there have been leaps in how dense we can make memory so some of them use more dense memory cells that in essence are just smaller logic gates crammed into the same space. This means we can make larger capacity cards than we could 20 years ago.","human_ref_B":"The actual chip that stores the data is much smaller than the micro SD card itself. What you see is basically just the housing so it will fit in the slot no matter what storage capacity. The actual chips inside vary in size depending on capacity.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1234.0,"score_ratio":1.6571428571} {"post_id":"rjn6t5","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How can a micro-SD card store so much more data than another one with the exact same size? What's the physical difference? I was shopping a couple days ago looking for a replacement for my phone's 2gb micro-SD card and I noticed for the first time that there exist 64gb micro-SD cards. Same exact size, shape (of course), brand and overall look. \u00bfWhat's the physical difference?","c_root_id_A":"hp4jvwk","c_root_id_B":"hp4hs7j","created_at_utc_A":1639884157,"created_at_utc_B":1639883082,"score_A":58,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"The actual chip that stores the data is much smaller than the micro SD card itself. What you see is basically just the housing so it will fit in the slot no matter what storage capacity. The actual chips inside vary in size depending on capacity.","human_ref_B":"64GB? I was using ones that small around 5 years ago, the one in my phone now is 256GB, the difference is that they can now make smaller transistors and put them into a smaller space so inside a MicroSD card there's more transistors in the same space.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1075.0,"score_ratio":7.25} {"post_id":"rjn6t5","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How can a micro-SD card store so much more data than another one with the exact same size? What's the physical difference? I was shopping a couple days ago looking for a replacement for my phone's 2gb micro-SD card and I noticed for the first time that there exist 64gb micro-SD cards. Same exact size, shape (of course), brand and overall look. \u00bfWhat's the physical difference?","c_root_id_A":"hp4m8wi","c_root_id_B":"hp4hgx7","created_at_utc_A":1639885366,"created_at_utc_B":1639882923,"score_A":46,"score_B":35,"human_ref_A":"Some great answers here already, but all of them miss part of the picture. Say you sell chocolate chip cookies. You price the cookies on how many chocolate chips are in each cookie. With each cookie being the same size, so it takes 2 bites to eat. Essentially the cookie itself is the outside part of the SD, the packaging, it is the same interface to the gadget. It has the right shape, connectors, etc. They are all made to set specification, so that is why your 2 GB micro-SD looks the exact same on the outside as the 64 GB micro-SD. Now you typically say want 10 chocolate chips in each cookie, but you notice after you bake them, that some cookies have 8 or 9 chocolate chips. So you sell them as having 8 chocolate chips in them and you remove 1 chip from the cookies that have 9 chips in them. This is known as \"binning\". So SD manufacturers will try and make all their SDs as the max size they can offer, but during the manufacturing process, it isn't perfect. So some of the SDs have storage cells that don't work, so they sell those SDs at a lower price and at a lower storage size. And they might do this multiple times. Also, if a SD doesn't fit the specification of a product, like if they sell 64 GB SDs and 32 GB SDs, but this one SD comes out with 42 GB of space, they will disable the 10 GB of space and sell it as a 32 GB SD. Lastly, two years after you started selling cookies, you are informed that the company you buy your chocolate chips from, has found a way to sell smaller Chocolate Chips, while still retaining the same amount of sweet Chocolatey goodness of the original chocolate chip all at a lower price too. So you decide to use those new chips and instead of 10 chocolate chips per cookie, you make the cookies with 20 chocolate chips. This part is where over time, silicon chip manufacturers have been able to get more and more transistors on the same size chip, while at a lower cost. They do this by making the transistors smaller, hence the smaller chocolate chips. So over time, they have been able to fit larger storage into the same amount of physical space as than they could years ago.","human_ref_B":"Imagine you made 1000 cookies. You could advertise how many chocolate chips are in each cookie and charge based on that. In this analogy, the cookies are the computer chips or storage devices. They make thousands of them all to the same specifications, but sometimes there\u2019s manufacturing problems (like the disbursement of the chocolate chips) and they have to test each device. After testing they may disable some parts of it and sell it off as a lower speed or lower storage capacity chip. The reason is because it\u2019s easier and more cost effective to make a bunch of the highest possible size and just sell the defective ones as lower ones. It means they have one production online with one machine set for making one specific item. It streamlined the whole process. So physically nothing is different than perhaps a disabled core or cell. On top of this, there have been leaps in how dense we can make memory so some of them use more dense memory cells that in essence are just smaller logic gates crammed into the same space. This means we can make larger capacity cards than we could 20 years ago.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2443.0,"score_ratio":1.3142857143} {"post_id":"rjn6t5","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How can a micro-SD card store so much more data than another one with the exact same size? What's the physical difference? I was shopping a couple days ago looking for a replacement for my phone's 2gb micro-SD card and I noticed for the first time that there exist 64gb micro-SD cards. Same exact size, shape (of course), brand and overall look. \u00bfWhat's the physical difference?","c_root_id_A":"hp4hs7j","c_root_id_B":"hp4m8wi","created_at_utc_A":1639883082,"created_at_utc_B":1639885366,"score_A":8,"score_B":46,"human_ref_A":"64GB? I was using ones that small around 5 years ago, the one in my phone now is 256GB, the difference is that they can now make smaller transistors and put them into a smaller space so inside a MicroSD card there's more transistors in the same space.","human_ref_B":"Some great answers here already, but all of them miss part of the picture. Say you sell chocolate chip cookies. You price the cookies on how many chocolate chips are in each cookie. With each cookie being the same size, so it takes 2 bites to eat. Essentially the cookie itself is the outside part of the SD, the packaging, it is the same interface to the gadget. It has the right shape, connectors, etc. They are all made to set specification, so that is why your 2 GB micro-SD looks the exact same on the outside as the 64 GB micro-SD. Now you typically say want 10 chocolate chips in each cookie, but you notice after you bake them, that some cookies have 8 or 9 chocolate chips. So you sell them as having 8 chocolate chips in them and you remove 1 chip from the cookies that have 9 chips in them. This is known as \"binning\". So SD manufacturers will try and make all their SDs as the max size they can offer, but during the manufacturing process, it isn't perfect. So some of the SDs have storage cells that don't work, so they sell those SDs at a lower price and at a lower storage size. And they might do this multiple times. Also, if a SD doesn't fit the specification of a product, like if they sell 64 GB SDs and 32 GB SDs, but this one SD comes out with 42 GB of space, they will disable the 10 GB of space and sell it as a 32 GB SD. Lastly, two years after you started selling cookies, you are informed that the company you buy your chocolate chips from, has found a way to sell smaller Chocolate Chips, while still retaining the same amount of sweet Chocolatey goodness of the original chocolate chip all at a lower price too. So you decide to use those new chips and instead of 10 chocolate chips per cookie, you make the cookies with 20 chocolate chips. This part is where over time, silicon chip manufacturers have been able to get more and more transistors on the same size chip, while at a lower cost. They do this by making the transistors smaller, hence the smaller chocolate chips. So over time, they have been able to fit larger storage into the same amount of physical space as than they could years ago.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2284.0,"score_ratio":5.75} {"post_id":"rjn6t5","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How can a micro-SD card store so much more data than another one with the exact same size? What's the physical difference? I was shopping a couple days ago looking for a replacement for my phone's 2gb micro-SD card and I noticed for the first time that there exist 64gb micro-SD cards. Same exact size, shape (of course), brand and overall look. \u00bfWhat's the physical difference?","c_root_id_A":"hp4hs7j","c_root_id_B":"hp4s4sl","created_at_utc_A":1639883082,"created_at_utc_B":1639888475,"score_A":8,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"64GB? I was using ones that small around 5 years ago, the one in my phone now is 256GB, the difference is that they can now make smaller transistors and put them into a smaller space so inside a MicroSD card there's more transistors in the same space.","human_ref_B":"the first micro sd cards that held 64 GB came out in 2010. so they've existed for more than ten years","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5393.0,"score_ratio":1.25} {"post_id":"rjn6t5","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How can a micro-SD card store so much more data than another one with the exact same size? What's the physical difference? I was shopping a couple days ago looking for a replacement for my phone's 2gb micro-SD card and I noticed for the first time that there exist 64gb micro-SD cards. Same exact size, shape (of course), brand and overall look. \u00bfWhat's the physical difference?","c_root_id_A":"hp4wg4r","c_root_id_B":"hp5agic","created_at_utc_A":1639890997,"created_at_utc_B":1639900802,"score_A":3,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"They are stacking memory cells in multiple layers, same 2D space. Before it would be a 10x10 grid, now it is a 10x10x10 cube. The reality is even more crazy, the latest chips have 128 or more layers and will soon have 256 layers. They also have the ability to store more than 1 bit per cell, up to 4 bits now. https:\/\/prog.world\/how-does-1tb-fit-on-a-microsd-analysis\/","human_ref_B":"You can think of the SD card's memory like a grid (a sheet of graph paper). Each square on the graph paper holds one bit (a zero or a one). So if I want to store a lot of data, I need to have a lot of pages of graph paper, or else I need to make the squares really really small. The smaller the squares, the more expensive the printer, because the printer must be able to deposit very thin lines of ink onto the paper, which would require a very precise print head. The same goes for these SD cards. When we manufacture them, we are literally drawing an electric circuit onto a board. Part of that circuit is a grid that stores those 0's and 1's. So we need a very precise print head to draw that circuit. As the technology improved over the years, manufacturers are able to draw smaller grids in the same area. Not only are they able to draw smaller grids - they have also developed the technology to read from smaller grids. Remember that in the SD card, we are measuring whether each square has a positive or negative charge, not actually a zero or one. When we write data to the square, we are applying a positive or negative voltage to the atoms inside the square. When we read the data, we are checking whether each square has a positive or negative charge. The smaller the square, the fewer the atoms, and the lower the voltage. The lower the voltage, the more difficult it is to read.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9805.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"1nku68","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why do humans have such long lifespans compared to other animals? It seems most animals lives are measured in single digits which is kinda weird how come we can live to be 80-90 easily when most other animals die naturally a long time before that?","c_root_id_A":"ccjhogq","c_root_id_B":"ccjhtui","created_at_utc_A":1380718842,"created_at_utc_B":1380719533,"score_A":98,"score_B":1031,"human_ref_A":"Usually 'die naturally' for animals means that they can't catch their food anymore or that they get caught and become food. In addition to that there's diseases as well. Like the others have commented, we've cheated our way out of the food chain and we've got very advanced medical stuff. All that adds to our longlevity.","human_ref_B":"In nature, there's two general \"strategies\" for a species to survive. Strategy #1 is to have lots and lots and lots and lots of babies. Because the parent can't take care of so many babies, the babies are pretty much left to fend for themselves. Most of them die young, but a few survive into adulthood. This is called R-selection. Strategy #2 is to have a few babies, but to nurture and take care of them, so that they have a high probability of surviving into adulthood. This strategy, known as K-selection, is used by all large animals, including humans. The K-selected strategy works best if, once the animal reaches sexual maturity, it has a long life. That way, it can have lots of babies, even if each of one takes a long time to raise. That's why large species tend to live longer than smaller ones - because evolution selected those species for longevity. For more information: http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/R\/K_selection_theory **Ninja edit**: Yes, there are exceptions to this rule, like tortoises, which tend to exhibit both r-selected traits (lots of babies) and K-selected traits (long life).","labels":0,"seconds_difference":691.0,"score_ratio":10.5204081633} {"post_id":"1nku68","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why do humans have such long lifespans compared to other animals? It seems most animals lives are measured in single digits which is kinda weird how come we can live to be 80-90 easily when most other animals die naturally a long time before that?","c_root_id_A":"ccjhogq","c_root_id_B":"ccjinuk","created_at_utc_A":1380718842,"created_at_utc_B":1380722709,"score_A":98,"score_B":652,"human_ref_A":"Usually 'die naturally' for animals means that they can't catch their food anymore or that they get caught and become food. In addition to that there's diseases as well. Like the others have commented, we've cheated our way out of the food chain and we've got very advanced medical stuff. All that adds to our longlevity.","human_ref_B":"A lot of the other replies have been focusing on *survival,* which is our ability to stay alive. But your question is one of *longevity,* or how long we'd live in an ideal situation if left to our own devices (i.e. sanitary, free of predators, plenty of exercise, proper nutrition). So, the oldest recorded human was 122 years old at her time of death in 1997. There are animals who are known to live longer than that - a certain species of jellyfish is known not to age, and there are examples of animals which are known to be older than any human has ever been confirmed to be. It's a difficult question to answer though, why we live longer than most ~~things~~ animals. Part of the answer might be that we grow slowly - the linked article suggests that growth is not an efficient use of energy, so growing more slowly allows us to use our energy better and live longer. A loosely related theory (exposed a little in this article) posits that humans are so intelligent because we have evolved a long childhood with which to grow our large, powerful brains, which helps explain our survivability to fulfil our longevity. But the first part of my answer, relating to growth, has only been observed and checked in simple organisms (molluscs) where there is not a problem ethically with performing a controlled experiment. It's hard to design an experiment without an inherent bias (that might interfere with the results) to adequately test this in more complicated animals, without locking them up for life to control the conditions they live in, which is a pretty questionable way to do research! Edit: Highlights from the discussion, in headline form for the lazy, and to improve visibility! \/u\/WellTarnation's excellent reply mentions telomere shortening, which is something that every five year old ought to (want to) know! \/u\/Zelcron mentions the 'grandparent effect' - passing on your kids genes by helping them with the labour\/resource costs of childcare \/u\/Opheltes and \/u\/LimonesGrande discuss immortality \/u\/HeadlineNews points us to a study linking growth and short life in fish to add to the discussion A little more research later, further down the discussion](permalink) I discussed possible links between animal size, several measures of metabolism, and heartrate, with \/u\/goddammednerd. Childhood and the neural plasticity theory of development discussed [here by \/u\/ \/u\/brendanmcguigan posts a long, reasoned top-level response that deserves some attention, probably a handful of citations","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3867.0,"score_ratio":6.6530612245} {"post_id":"1nku68","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why do humans have such long lifespans compared to other animals? It seems most animals lives are measured in single digits which is kinda weird how come we can live to be 80-90 easily when most other animals die naturally a long time before that?","c_root_id_A":"ccjinuk","c_root_id_B":"ccji2d8","created_at_utc_A":1380722709,"created_at_utc_B":1380720521,"score_A":652,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"A lot of the other replies have been focusing on *survival,* which is our ability to stay alive. But your question is one of *longevity,* or how long we'd live in an ideal situation if left to our own devices (i.e. sanitary, free of predators, plenty of exercise, proper nutrition). So, the oldest recorded human was 122 years old at her time of death in 1997. There are animals who are known to live longer than that - a certain species of jellyfish is known not to age, and there are examples of animals which are known to be older than any human has ever been confirmed to be. It's a difficult question to answer though, why we live longer than most ~~things~~ animals. Part of the answer might be that we grow slowly - the linked article suggests that growth is not an efficient use of energy, so growing more slowly allows us to use our energy better and live longer. A loosely related theory (exposed a little in this article) posits that humans are so intelligent because we have evolved a long childhood with which to grow our large, powerful brains, which helps explain our survivability to fulfil our longevity. But the first part of my answer, relating to growth, has only been observed and checked in simple organisms (molluscs) where there is not a problem ethically with performing a controlled experiment. It's hard to design an experiment without an inherent bias (that might interfere with the results) to adequately test this in more complicated animals, without locking them up for life to control the conditions they live in, which is a pretty questionable way to do research! Edit: Highlights from the discussion, in headline form for the lazy, and to improve visibility! \/u\/WellTarnation's excellent reply mentions telomere shortening, which is something that every five year old ought to (want to) know! \/u\/Zelcron mentions the 'grandparent effect' - passing on your kids genes by helping them with the labour\/resource costs of childcare \/u\/Opheltes and \/u\/LimonesGrande discuss immortality \/u\/HeadlineNews points us to a study linking growth and short life in fish to add to the discussion A little more research later, further down the discussion](permalink) I discussed possible links between animal size, several measures of metabolism, and heartrate, with \/u\/goddammednerd. Childhood and the neural plasticity theory of development discussed [here by \/u\/ \/u\/brendanmcguigan posts a long, reasoned top-level response that deserves some attention, probably a handful of citations","human_ref_B":"I feel like a lot of the responses here don't answer the question. Although environmental factors play a part, they aren't the main reason. Domestic dogs, even when they have a god diet and lifestyle still die of \"natural causes\" much younger than humans, some breeds as low as 5 years old. Basically it is genetics that determine a species lifespan (once environment factors are accounted for). Humans have evolved to live longer, probably to allow us to produce more offspring and help care for family.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2188.0,"score_ratio":50.1538461538} {"post_id":"k5xjv","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old - Why do harmonies sound good to our ears? Not melodies, harmonies. Here is a good example. I'm sure some of you will launch into complex descriptions of what harmony is, but I'm curious if anyone has cracked *why* it sounds good.","c_root_id_A":"c2hrhz1","c_root_id_B":"c2hrldr","created_at_utc_A":1315279618,"created_at_utc_B":1315280382,"score_A":29,"score_B":30,"human_ref_A":"To a five year old I would kind of explain that harmonies sound good for the same reason that \"chords\" sound good. A note is like a puzzle piece and a chord is like a single completed section of a puzzle. Neither is too interesting by themselves but the way you arrange the puzzle sections is what determines wether or not your puzzle will look good. Harmonies are nothing more than chords performed by different voices. The notes compliment eachother and give the listener a stronger feel of the melody and the key the song is in.","human_ref_B":"relevant","labels":0,"seconds_difference":764.0,"score_ratio":1.0344827586} {"post_id":"k5xjv","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old - Why do harmonies sound good to our ears? Not melodies, harmonies. Here is a good example. I'm sure some of you will launch into complex descriptions of what harmony is, but I'm curious if anyone has cracked *why* it sounds good.","c_root_id_A":"c2hsgut","c_root_id_B":"c2ht2n8","created_at_utc_A":1315288309,"created_at_utc_B":1315296521,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Here's a video that explains the science of sound. Skip to 3:50 for the explanation of harmony. It's pretty 5-year-old-friendly.","human_ref_B":"Well... I have a different take on this. I can't listen to the link now because my girlfriend is asleep and I don't feel like digging out my headphones, so if this doesn't really apply, I apologize. But. Harmonies are made of melodies. A C major chord has three notes, C, E and G (which any 5-year-old who gets piano lessons, including myself at age 5, will know, so no crap about that). Each of those notes has a little bit of melody inside, and it's those little bits of melody that make the harmony sound good! For example, sing along with me: C D E F G A B... Or, in solfege: Do re mi fa sol la ti... You REALLY want to sing the C or the do, right? That's because, when all of those notes come in order, the note B REALLY wants to go up to C, to resolve. The note F, on the other hand, really wants to resolve *down* to E. So if I play an F and a B together, the F will want to resolve to E and the B will want to resolve to C. Harmony! Why does a C major chord sound good, though? Other people have already explained that -- a pitch is when air shakes at a certain speed, and for every three times G shakes, C shakes twice. So if you play the C and the G together, their shakes will line up, and the brain likes that and thinks that it's nice. That's called a fifth. C to C, do to do, is called an octave. If you put together fifths in the right way, you end up with the scale: C D E F G A B C. If you play two notes together, that's called an interval. If I play a C and a B together, that interval is almost like an octave, since B is close to the C just above it, but not quite, so it sounds really ugly. But if I play C G B, the C and G sound good together -- a fifth -- and the G and B sound good together -- a major third, which is another interval that kind of lines up -- so the chord doesn't sound ugly. It actually sounds really pretty and sad, because the mind fills in the E, making it C E G B. C E G is a major chord -- happy -- and E G B is a minor chord -- sad -- so C E G B sounds both happy and sad at the same time. On the other hand, C Eb G Bb has C Eb G -- a minor chord -- and Eb G Bb -- a major chord. Since the interval between C and Bb doesn't hurt so much, you hear it, and the Bb sounds like another note in the chord but doesn't make the major chord Eb G Bb stand out. Anyway, the real answer is that nobody knows in general why harmonies sound good, but you can probably come up with some good reasons why a *specific* harmony sounds good. My absolute favorite harmonic moment in music is in Recuerdos de Alhambra, by Francisco T\u00e1rrega -- it's a classical guitar piece (that I can't come close to being able to play yet), and it has a really simple tune with simple harmonies, in A minor. One phrase ends with a G# on an E major chord, and the very next note is a Bb in an A major chord (really an A7b9 -- A C# E G Bb). Why is that SO pretty? I think it's partly because the melody has a very relaxing shape, but mostly it's because the notes G# and Bb don't belong together. You'd expect G# and A#, or Ab and Bb, but not G# and Bb. And at the same time, the interval of A to Bb is a really painful interval that isn't made that much better by the other notes; the G# wants to resolve up to A, but the Bb REALLY wants to resolve down to A. So you're just waiting on the edge of your seat for it to finally get down to A. When you have pretty chords, what usually happens is that ALL OF THOSE NOTES WANT TO RESOLVE AT THE SAME TIME, so you get a lot of feelings at once, plus you like some of the intervals (like major seconds) and they make it even prettier. It's past 4 AM and it's past everyone's bedtime. I made no sense. Enjoy!","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8212.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"y3hfnc","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"[eli5] My friend put the car to neutral when coming to a stop light. He says it saves gas and it stops smoother. I agree on the smoother part, but does it actually save gas? He also put it to neutral when waiting for the lights to turn green for the same reason. Is it true?","c_root_id_A":"is8s52t","c_root_id_B":"is8v7ro","created_at_utc_A":1665716805,"created_at_utc_B":1665718386,"score_A":107,"score_B":453,"human_ref_A":"Putting it in neutral while braking wastes brakes if youre slowing down - leaving the car in gear will help you slow down. Neutral while waiting at the stop light just saves your left foot <3","human_ref_B":"When slowing down, if there is any difference at all, it will take slightly **more fuel** in neutral. When the transmission is in neutral the engine must keep its self turning over. This requires fuel. When slowing in gear, the car is helping to turn the engine over, thus the computer **may** decide to send less fuel to the engine. When at a stop, neutral may save a tiny bit of fuel on some automatic transmissions. When an automatic transmission is in drive (and the car is not moving), it is likely still putting a little drag on the engine. This extra drag means a little more fuel needs to be burned. When stopped with a manual transmission, there is going to be very-very little difference. Holding the clutch in (in neutral or in gear) will reduce the drag on the engine ever so slightly. But so little that the difference in fuel consumption would not be noticeable.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1581.0,"score_ratio":4.2336448598} {"post_id":"y3hfnc","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"[eli5] My friend put the car to neutral when coming to a stop light. He says it saves gas and it stops smoother. I agree on the smoother part, but does it actually save gas? He also put it to neutral when waiting for the lights to turn green for the same reason. Is it true?","c_root_id_A":"is8pvo7","c_root_id_B":"is8v7ro","created_at_utc_A":1665715715,"created_at_utc_B":1665718386,"score_A":67,"score_B":453,"human_ref_A":"Your engine has an idle speed so assuming this is an automatic transmission it will not matter if you take your foot off the gas in neutral or in drive as far as fuel economy.. Newer cars will shut the engine down when you come to a stop as long as your foot is on the brake. If your friend cannot come to a smooth stop while in gear then they need to practice driving because that is not a difficult maneuver.","human_ref_B":"When slowing down, if there is any difference at all, it will take slightly **more fuel** in neutral. When the transmission is in neutral the engine must keep its self turning over. This requires fuel. When slowing in gear, the car is helping to turn the engine over, thus the computer **may** decide to send less fuel to the engine. When at a stop, neutral may save a tiny bit of fuel on some automatic transmissions. When an automatic transmission is in drive (and the car is not moving), it is likely still putting a little drag on the engine. This extra drag means a little more fuel needs to be burned. When stopped with a manual transmission, there is going to be very-very little difference. Holding the clutch in (in neutral or in gear) will reduce the drag on the engine ever so slightly. But so little that the difference in fuel consumption would not be noticeable.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2671.0,"score_ratio":6.7611940299} {"post_id":"y3hfnc","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"[eli5] My friend put the car to neutral when coming to a stop light. He says it saves gas and it stops smoother. I agree on the smoother part, but does it actually save gas? He also put it to neutral when waiting for the lights to turn green for the same reason. Is it true?","c_root_id_A":"isadz9j","c_root_id_B":"is8s52t","created_at_utc_A":1665755263,"created_at_utc_B":1665716805,"score_A":133,"score_B":107,"human_ref_A":"Auto industry engineeer here. Put your automatic into D and leave it there. Period. Anyone who thinks that they are smarter than the many thousands of hours of engineering in modern transmission systems is delusional. But please, come to a full stop before engaging P or R. Just do it to make sure. Especially P, as that engages a hard locking pawl to prevent roll aways and YOU don't know what safeties exist in your transmission to prevent damage. You REALLY don't want to break a tran$mi$$ion.","human_ref_B":"Putting it in neutral while braking wastes brakes if youre slowing down - leaving the car in gear will help you slow down. Neutral while waiting at the stop light just saves your left foot <3","labels":1,"seconds_difference":38458.0,"score_ratio":1.2429906542} {"post_id":"y3hfnc","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"[eli5] My friend put the car to neutral when coming to a stop light. He says it saves gas and it stops smoother. I agree on the smoother part, but does it actually save gas? He also put it to neutral when waiting for the lights to turn green for the same reason. Is it true?","c_root_id_A":"is9gk8z","c_root_id_B":"isadz9j","created_at_utc_A":1665733106,"created_at_utc_B":1665755263,"score_A":109,"score_B":133,"human_ref_A":"Not very safe. Always better to be in gear in case you need to react quickly and move the vehicle.","human_ref_B":"Auto industry engineeer here. Put your automatic into D and leave it there. Period. Anyone who thinks that they are smarter than the many thousands of hours of engineering in modern transmission systems is delusional. But please, come to a full stop before engaging P or R. Just do it to make sure. Especially P, as that engages a hard locking pawl to prevent roll aways and YOU don't know what safeties exist in your transmission to prevent damage. You REALLY don't want to break a tran$mi$$ion.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":22157.0,"score_ratio":1.2201834862} {"post_id":"y3hfnc","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"[eli5] My friend put the car to neutral when coming to a stop light. He says it saves gas and it stops smoother. I agree on the smoother part, but does it actually save gas? He also put it to neutral when waiting for the lights to turn green for the same reason. Is it true?","c_root_id_A":"isadz9j","c_root_id_B":"is8w24f","created_at_utc_A":1665755263,"created_at_utc_B":1665718842,"score_A":133,"score_B":74,"human_ref_A":"Auto industry engineeer here. Put your automatic into D and leave it there. Period. Anyone who thinks that they are smarter than the many thousands of hours of engineering in modern transmission systems is delusional. But please, come to a full stop before engaging P or R. Just do it to make sure. Especially P, as that engages a hard locking pawl to prevent roll aways and YOU don't know what safeties exist in your transmission to prevent damage. You REALLY don't want to break a tran$mi$$ion.","human_ref_B":"When stopping he isn't saving fuel. He is wasting fuel and increasing wear on his brakes. By disconnecting the engine's mass from the transmission he is losing out on engine breaking. During deceleration the engine isn't using fuel to keep running, it's free-wheeling using the vehicles momentum until it gets below the idle speed, then it uses fuel to keep the engine going. By disconnecting during braking the engine has to use fuel to keep idle when it could be using momentum instead. The theory is that neutral is disconnecting mass from the engine resulting in lower consumption to maintain idle. For an automatic transmission this is true when at a stop. For a manual it wouldn't be relevant because the clutch performs the same function. Note: Check your local laws, some places have bans on using neutral in certain situations such as going down hills.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":36421.0,"score_ratio":1.7972972973} {"post_id":"y3hfnc","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"[eli5] My friend put the car to neutral when coming to a stop light. He says it saves gas and it stops smoother. I agree on the smoother part, but does it actually save gas? He also put it to neutral when waiting for the lights to turn green for the same reason. Is it true?","c_root_id_A":"isadz9j","c_root_id_B":"is8pvo7","created_at_utc_A":1665755263,"created_at_utc_B":1665715715,"score_A":133,"score_B":67,"human_ref_A":"Auto industry engineeer here. Put your automatic into D and leave it there. Period. Anyone who thinks that they are smarter than the many thousands of hours of engineering in modern transmission systems is delusional. But please, come to a full stop before engaging P or R. Just do it to make sure. Especially P, as that engages a hard locking pawl to prevent roll aways and YOU don't know what safeties exist in your transmission to prevent damage. You REALLY don't want to break a tran$mi$$ion.","human_ref_B":"Your engine has an idle speed so assuming this is an automatic transmission it will not matter if you take your foot off the gas in neutral or in drive as far as fuel economy.. Newer cars will shut the engine down when you come to a stop as long as your foot is on the brake. If your friend cannot come to a smooth stop while in gear then they need to practice driving because that is not a difficult maneuver.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":39548.0,"score_ratio":1.9850746269} {"post_id":"y3hfnc","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"[eli5] My friend put the car to neutral when coming to a stop light. He says it saves gas and it stops smoother. I agree on the smoother part, but does it actually save gas? He also put it to neutral when waiting for the lights to turn green for the same reason. Is it true?","c_root_id_A":"isadz9j","c_root_id_B":"is8xaet","created_at_utc_A":1665755263,"created_at_utc_B":1665719533,"score_A":133,"score_B":28,"human_ref_A":"Auto industry engineeer here. Put your automatic into D and leave it there. Period. Anyone who thinks that they are smarter than the many thousands of hours of engineering in modern transmission systems is delusional. But please, come to a full stop before engaging P or R. Just do it to make sure. Especially P, as that engages a hard locking pawl to prevent roll aways and YOU don't know what safeties exist in your transmission to prevent damage. You REALLY don't want to break a tran$mi$$ion.","human_ref_B":"If it's an automatic (which I assume it is because manuals would be put in neutral anyway for other reasons) then he's not saving gas and is wearing down his brakes and transmission faster than usual. The age of the car also has a bit to do with this, but it's probably not 40 years old, so I'm going to assume it's new enough to have a computer that knows when he's breaking. That means the engine isn't pumping more gas than it needs to idle and it would assist in braking by slowing down. Instead he's using only brakes. Also transmissions are complex A.F. so I can't Explain like I'm five years old the details, but they're designed to be stopped while in drive. Shifting to neutral while moving causes excess wear. I also agree on the smoother part. One of the reasons I miss driving a manual. I hate the rock-back at stops.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":35730.0,"score_ratio":4.75} {"post_id":"y3hfnc","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"[eli5] My friend put the car to neutral when coming to a stop light. He says it saves gas and it stops smoother. I agree on the smoother part, but does it actually save gas? He also put it to neutral when waiting for the lights to turn green for the same reason. Is it true?","c_root_id_A":"is8s52t","c_root_id_B":"is9gk8z","created_at_utc_A":1665716805,"created_at_utc_B":1665733106,"score_A":107,"score_B":109,"human_ref_A":"Putting it in neutral while braking wastes brakes if youre slowing down - leaving the car in gear will help you slow down. Neutral while waiting at the stop light just saves your left foot <3","human_ref_B":"Not very safe. Always better to be in gear in case you need to react quickly and move the vehicle.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":16301.0,"score_ratio":1.0186915888} {"post_id":"y3hfnc","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"[eli5] My friend put the car to neutral when coming to a stop light. He says it saves gas and it stops smoother. I agree on the smoother part, but does it actually save gas? He also put it to neutral when waiting for the lights to turn green for the same reason. Is it true?","c_root_id_A":"is8pvo7","c_root_id_B":"is8s52t","created_at_utc_A":1665715715,"created_at_utc_B":1665716805,"score_A":67,"score_B":107,"human_ref_A":"Your engine has an idle speed so assuming this is an automatic transmission it will not matter if you take your foot off the gas in neutral or in drive as far as fuel economy.. Newer cars will shut the engine down when you come to a stop as long as your foot is on the brake. If your friend cannot come to a smooth stop while in gear then they need to practice driving because that is not a difficult maneuver.","human_ref_B":"Putting it in neutral while braking wastes brakes if youre slowing down - leaving the car in gear will help you slow down. Neutral while waiting at the stop light just saves your left foot <3","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1090.0,"score_ratio":1.5970149254} {"post_id":"y3hfnc","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"[eli5] My friend put the car to neutral when coming to a stop light. He says it saves gas and it stops smoother. I agree on the smoother part, but does it actually save gas? He also put it to neutral when waiting for the lights to turn green for the same reason. Is it true?","c_root_id_A":"is9gk8z","c_root_id_B":"is8w24f","created_at_utc_A":1665733106,"created_at_utc_B":1665718842,"score_A":109,"score_B":74,"human_ref_A":"Not very safe. Always better to be in gear in case you need to react quickly and move the vehicle.","human_ref_B":"When stopping he isn't saving fuel. He is wasting fuel and increasing wear on his brakes. By disconnecting the engine's mass from the transmission he is losing out on engine breaking. During deceleration the engine isn't using fuel to keep running, it's free-wheeling using the vehicles momentum until it gets below the idle speed, then it uses fuel to keep the engine going. By disconnecting during braking the engine has to use fuel to keep idle when it could be using momentum instead. The theory is that neutral is disconnecting mass from the engine resulting in lower consumption to maintain idle. For an automatic transmission this is true when at a stop. For a manual it wouldn't be relevant because the clutch performs the same function. Note: Check your local laws, some places have bans on using neutral in certain situations such as going down hills.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":14264.0,"score_ratio":1.472972973} {"post_id":"y3hfnc","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"[eli5] My friend put the car to neutral when coming to a stop light. He says it saves gas and it stops smoother. I agree on the smoother part, but does it actually save gas? He also put it to neutral when waiting for the lights to turn green for the same reason. Is it true?","c_root_id_A":"is9gk8z","c_root_id_B":"is8pvo7","created_at_utc_A":1665733106,"created_at_utc_B":1665715715,"score_A":109,"score_B":67,"human_ref_A":"Not very safe. Always better to be in gear in case you need to react quickly and move the vehicle.","human_ref_B":"Your engine has an idle speed so assuming this is an automatic transmission it will not matter if you take your foot off the gas in neutral or in drive as far as fuel economy.. Newer cars will shut the engine down when you come to a stop as long as your foot is on the brake. If your friend cannot come to a smooth stop while in gear then they need to practice driving because that is not a difficult maneuver.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":17391.0,"score_ratio":1.6268656716} {"post_id":"y3hfnc","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"[eli5] My friend put the car to neutral when coming to a stop light. He says it saves gas and it stops smoother. I agree on the smoother part, but does it actually save gas? He also put it to neutral when waiting for the lights to turn green for the same reason. Is it true?","c_root_id_A":"is9gk8z","c_root_id_B":"is8xaet","created_at_utc_A":1665733106,"created_at_utc_B":1665719533,"score_A":109,"score_B":28,"human_ref_A":"Not very safe. Always better to be in gear in case you need to react quickly and move the vehicle.","human_ref_B":"If it's an automatic (which I assume it is because manuals would be put in neutral anyway for other reasons) then he's not saving gas and is wearing down his brakes and transmission faster than usual. The age of the car also has a bit to do with this, but it's probably not 40 years old, so I'm going to assume it's new enough to have a computer that knows when he's breaking. That means the engine isn't pumping more gas than it needs to idle and it would assist in braking by slowing down. Instead he's using only brakes. Also transmissions are complex A.F. so I can't Explain like I'm five years old the details, but they're designed to be stopped while in drive. Shifting to neutral while moving causes excess wear. I also agree on the smoother part. One of the reasons I miss driving a manual. I hate the rock-back at stops.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":13573.0,"score_ratio":3.8928571429} {"post_id":"y3hfnc","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"[eli5] My friend put the car to neutral when coming to a stop light. He says it saves gas and it stops smoother. I agree on the smoother part, but does it actually save gas? He also put it to neutral when waiting for the lights to turn green for the same reason. Is it true?","c_root_id_A":"is8pvo7","c_root_id_B":"is8w24f","created_at_utc_A":1665715715,"created_at_utc_B":1665718842,"score_A":67,"score_B":74,"human_ref_A":"Your engine has an idle speed so assuming this is an automatic transmission it will not matter if you take your foot off the gas in neutral or in drive as far as fuel economy.. Newer cars will shut the engine down when you come to a stop as long as your foot is on the brake. If your friend cannot come to a smooth stop while in gear then they need to practice driving because that is not a difficult maneuver.","human_ref_B":"When stopping he isn't saving fuel. He is wasting fuel and increasing wear on his brakes. By disconnecting the engine's mass from the transmission he is losing out on engine breaking. During deceleration the engine isn't using fuel to keep running, it's free-wheeling using the vehicles momentum until it gets below the idle speed, then it uses fuel to keep the engine going. By disconnecting during braking the engine has to use fuel to keep idle when it could be using momentum instead. The theory is that neutral is disconnecting mass from the engine resulting in lower consumption to maintain idle. For an automatic transmission this is true when at a stop. For a manual it wouldn't be relevant because the clutch performs the same function. Note: Check your local laws, some places have bans on using neutral in certain situations such as going down hills.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3127.0,"score_ratio":1.1044776119} {"post_id":"stbv0g","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: When you're at the departures\/arrival immigration counter of an airport, and you hand over your passport to the immigration official, what are they doing when they start frantically typing away at their keyboard? what takes them (sometimes) so long, and what are they looking for?","c_root_id_A":"hx2u1r3","c_root_id_B":"hx2tznd","created_at_utc_A":1644955639,"created_at_utc_B":1644955616,"score_A":643,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"Gneerally its just a check thru the DOJ system to see if you have any outstanding warrants, if your passport is in good standing, and if you have any reason why you can't enter the country. They also look at your travel history, to see if you're coming from a flagged nation like Somalia thru a 3rd country. Like you flew from a known terrorism location, to Paris, then to the US to avoid scrutiny","human_ref_B":"I e never worked at an airport, but when i worked in medical admin, every employee had like 3 VERY long passcodes to get unto the system. They could be typing in passwords.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":23.0,"score_ratio":49.4615384615} {"post_id":"stbv0g","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: When you're at the departures\/arrival immigration counter of an airport, and you hand over your passport to the immigration official, what are they doing when they start frantically typing away at their keyboard? what takes them (sometimes) so long, and what are they looking for?","c_root_id_A":"hx2w7wv","c_root_id_B":"hx3n4yq","created_at_utc_A":1644956482,"created_at_utc_B":1644966740,"score_A":36,"score_B":451,"human_ref_A":"Some airlines are using software from the 1960's, which means a lot of typing. Sometimes the scanner\/ reader isn't working and they have to type everything in. Or, they're in training or just slow.","human_ref_B":"I worked at the airport and helped passengers through arrivals immigration. As someone posted already, checking through the system to see if there are any red flags that would prevent you from entering the country such as warrants, if you have the proper visa if you are coming from a different country, over staying your visit last time you came into the country, past deportations, if you are a legal US resident, a lot things really. If you have the same name as a known criminal\/person who is not allowed into the country, the system will flag it and the officer needs to manually verify you are not that person. It happened to an elderly passenger whose name happened to be the same as a few known criminals, so the officer had to check name by name that it wasn\u2019t the elderly passenger. There was a handful of names and the officer took a lot longer because of it. If you are also traveling with babies, toddlers or young children, than can also make it longer because the officer is making sure you are not trafficking in children.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10258.0,"score_ratio":12.5277777778} {"post_id":"stbv0g","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: When you're at the departures\/arrival immigration counter of an airport, and you hand over your passport to the immigration official, what are they doing when they start frantically typing away at their keyboard? what takes them (sometimes) so long, and what are they looking for?","c_root_id_A":"hx3n4yq","c_root_id_B":"hx2tznd","created_at_utc_A":1644966740,"created_at_utc_B":1644955616,"score_A":451,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"I worked at the airport and helped passengers through arrivals immigration. As someone posted already, checking through the system to see if there are any red flags that would prevent you from entering the country such as warrants, if you have the proper visa if you are coming from a different country, over staying your visit last time you came into the country, past deportations, if you are a legal US resident, a lot things really. If you have the same name as a known criminal\/person who is not allowed into the country, the system will flag it and the officer needs to manually verify you are not that person. It happened to an elderly passenger whose name happened to be the same as a few known criminals, so the officer had to check name by name that it wasn\u2019t the elderly passenger. There was a handful of names and the officer took a lot longer because of it. If you are also traveling with babies, toddlers or young children, than can also make it longer because the officer is making sure you are not trafficking in children.","human_ref_B":"I e never worked at an airport, but when i worked in medical admin, every employee had like 3 VERY long passcodes to get unto the system. They could be typing in passwords.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":11124.0,"score_ratio":34.6923076923} {"post_id":"stbv0g","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: When you're at the departures\/arrival immigration counter of an airport, and you hand over your passport to the immigration official, what are they doing when they start frantically typing away at their keyboard? what takes them (sometimes) so long, and what are they looking for?","c_root_id_A":"hx3n4yq","c_root_id_B":"hx3j8b5","created_at_utc_A":1644966740,"created_at_utc_B":1644965150,"score_A":451,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"I worked at the airport and helped passengers through arrivals immigration. As someone posted already, checking through the system to see if there are any red flags that would prevent you from entering the country such as warrants, if you have the proper visa if you are coming from a different country, over staying your visit last time you came into the country, past deportations, if you are a legal US resident, a lot things really. If you have the same name as a known criminal\/person who is not allowed into the country, the system will flag it and the officer needs to manually verify you are not that person. It happened to an elderly passenger whose name happened to be the same as a few known criminals, so the officer had to check name by name that it wasn\u2019t the elderly passenger. There was a handful of names and the officer took a lot longer because of it. If you are also traveling with babies, toddlers or young children, than can also make it longer because the officer is making sure you are not trafficking in children.","human_ref_B":"They do the nervous test, \u00e1nd check if your stamps correspond with your flight history, \u00e1nd in I believe middle eastern: if you land in country A, and you have a stamp of country B, you can get trouble with getting in country A, and vice versa. People who have to visit on of those country\u2019s and later the other, are advised to get a second pasport which doesn\u2019t have stamp A in it when going to B and vice versa. So I\u2019ve heard! Don\u2019t remember which country\u2019s they spoke of.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1590.0,"score_ratio":34.6923076923} {"post_id":"stbv0g","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: When you're at the departures\/arrival immigration counter of an airport, and you hand over your passport to the immigration official, what are they doing when they start frantically typing away at their keyboard? what takes them (sometimes) so long, and what are they looking for?","c_root_id_A":"hx3pkd5","c_root_id_B":"hx3uly9","created_at_utc_A":1644967768,"created_at_utc_B":1644969944,"score_A":43,"score_B":58,"human_ref_A":"The lady who held me up for *an hour* explained she was making sure I was just visiting the UK and actually intended to go home. Apparently the discount flight I'd gotten (just after the Olympics in 2012) was suspicious due to my arrival time.","human_ref_B":"I'm Irish, and I have a traditional Irish first name. I also have a strong northern accent. I went to Rio de Janeiro few years ago, because why not, and while there, I bought an ungodly amount or souvenirs because I have a huge family, and most of my cousins kids had their own kids already, so I decided that I better overbuy, than forget someone and stir up some bullshit during Xmas dinner. One of the things I bought was a spent rifle shell pendant(basically, a spent shell soldered on to a bit of shiny chain), and the guy who sold it to me swore up and down that it's an ak-47 shell. One of my younger siblings plays a lot of Fortnite and such, so I figured it'd be a cool present for him. I threw this in a bag with the rest of the haul and went drinking for the duration of my stay there. All went well, and I flew off to Dublin as planned. Upon landing there, I got my bag and pretty much as soon as I did, I was approached by cops and asked to go with them. I got put in a room, and a detective came in, saying that they'd need to ask me a few questions. At this point, I was shitting myself a little, but I knew that I had nothing packed that was illegal, apart from maybe too many cigarettes, but I was only over the limit by 200,so figured that it won't be a huge deal. Turns out that it was about that fucking shell necklace, and once the detective fella saw if, he just shook his head and let me go. I asked him what was up, and he said that US airport I flew through alerted them that I may have live ammunition in my luggage.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2176.0,"score_ratio":1.3488372093} {"post_id":"stbv0g","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: When you're at the departures\/arrival immigration counter of an airport, and you hand over your passport to the immigration official, what are they doing when they start frantically typing away at their keyboard? what takes them (sometimes) so long, and what are they looking for?","c_root_id_A":"hx2w7wv","c_root_id_B":"hx3uly9","created_at_utc_A":1644956482,"created_at_utc_B":1644969944,"score_A":36,"score_B":58,"human_ref_A":"Some airlines are using software from the 1960's, which means a lot of typing. Sometimes the scanner\/ reader isn't working and they have to type everything in. Or, they're in training or just slow.","human_ref_B":"I'm Irish, and I have a traditional Irish first name. I also have a strong northern accent. I went to Rio de Janeiro few years ago, because why not, and while there, I bought an ungodly amount or souvenirs because I have a huge family, and most of my cousins kids had their own kids already, so I decided that I better overbuy, than forget someone and stir up some bullshit during Xmas dinner. One of the things I bought was a spent rifle shell pendant(basically, a spent shell soldered on to a bit of shiny chain), and the guy who sold it to me swore up and down that it's an ak-47 shell. One of my younger siblings plays a lot of Fortnite and such, so I figured it'd be a cool present for him. I threw this in a bag with the rest of the haul and went drinking for the duration of my stay there. All went well, and I flew off to Dublin as planned. Upon landing there, I got my bag and pretty much as soon as I did, I was approached by cops and asked to go with them. I got put in a room, and a detective came in, saying that they'd need to ask me a few questions. At this point, I was shitting myself a little, but I knew that I had nothing packed that was illegal, apart from maybe too many cigarettes, but I was only over the limit by 200,so figured that it won't be a huge deal. Turns out that it was about that fucking shell necklace, and once the detective fella saw if, he just shook his head and let me go. I asked him what was up, and he said that US airport I flew through alerted them that I may have live ammunition in my luggage.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":13462.0,"score_ratio":1.6111111111} {"post_id":"stbv0g","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: When you're at the departures\/arrival immigration counter of an airport, and you hand over your passport to the immigration official, what are they doing when they start frantically typing away at their keyboard? what takes them (sometimes) so long, and what are they looking for?","c_root_id_A":"hx3uly9","c_root_id_B":"hx2tznd","created_at_utc_A":1644969944,"created_at_utc_B":1644955616,"score_A":58,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"I'm Irish, and I have a traditional Irish first name. I also have a strong northern accent. I went to Rio de Janeiro few years ago, because why not, and while there, I bought an ungodly amount or souvenirs because I have a huge family, and most of my cousins kids had their own kids already, so I decided that I better overbuy, than forget someone and stir up some bullshit during Xmas dinner. One of the things I bought was a spent rifle shell pendant(basically, a spent shell soldered on to a bit of shiny chain), and the guy who sold it to me swore up and down that it's an ak-47 shell. One of my younger siblings plays a lot of Fortnite and such, so I figured it'd be a cool present for him. I threw this in a bag with the rest of the haul and went drinking for the duration of my stay there. All went well, and I flew off to Dublin as planned. Upon landing there, I got my bag and pretty much as soon as I did, I was approached by cops and asked to go with them. I got put in a room, and a detective came in, saying that they'd need to ask me a few questions. At this point, I was shitting myself a little, but I knew that I had nothing packed that was illegal, apart from maybe too many cigarettes, but I was only over the limit by 200,so figured that it won't be a huge deal. Turns out that it was about that fucking shell necklace, and once the detective fella saw if, he just shook his head and let me go. I asked him what was up, and he said that US airport I flew through alerted them that I may have live ammunition in my luggage.","human_ref_B":"I e never worked at an airport, but when i worked in medical admin, every employee had like 3 VERY long passcodes to get unto the system. They could be typing in passwords.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":14328.0,"score_ratio":4.4615384615} {"post_id":"stbv0g","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: When you're at the departures\/arrival immigration counter of an airport, and you hand over your passport to the immigration official, what are they doing when they start frantically typing away at their keyboard? what takes them (sometimes) so long, and what are they looking for?","c_root_id_A":"hx3uly9","c_root_id_B":"hx3j8b5","created_at_utc_A":1644969944,"created_at_utc_B":1644965150,"score_A":58,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"I'm Irish, and I have a traditional Irish first name. I also have a strong northern accent. I went to Rio de Janeiro few years ago, because why not, and while there, I bought an ungodly amount or souvenirs because I have a huge family, and most of my cousins kids had their own kids already, so I decided that I better overbuy, than forget someone and stir up some bullshit during Xmas dinner. One of the things I bought was a spent rifle shell pendant(basically, a spent shell soldered on to a bit of shiny chain), and the guy who sold it to me swore up and down that it's an ak-47 shell. One of my younger siblings plays a lot of Fortnite and such, so I figured it'd be a cool present for him. I threw this in a bag with the rest of the haul and went drinking for the duration of my stay there. All went well, and I flew off to Dublin as planned. Upon landing there, I got my bag and pretty much as soon as I did, I was approached by cops and asked to go with them. I got put in a room, and a detective came in, saying that they'd need to ask me a few questions. At this point, I was shitting myself a little, but I knew that I had nothing packed that was illegal, apart from maybe too many cigarettes, but I was only over the limit by 200,so figured that it won't be a huge deal. Turns out that it was about that fucking shell necklace, and once the detective fella saw if, he just shook his head and let me go. I asked him what was up, and he said that US airport I flew through alerted them that I may have live ammunition in my luggage.","human_ref_B":"They do the nervous test, \u00e1nd check if your stamps correspond with your flight history, \u00e1nd in I believe middle eastern: if you land in country A, and you have a stamp of country B, you can get trouble with getting in country A, and vice versa. People who have to visit on of those country\u2019s and later the other, are advised to get a second pasport which doesn\u2019t have stamp A in it when going to B and vice versa. So I\u2019ve heard! Don\u2019t remember which country\u2019s they spoke of.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4794.0,"score_ratio":4.4615384615} {"post_id":"stbv0g","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: When you're at the departures\/arrival immigration counter of an airport, and you hand over your passport to the immigration official, what are they doing when they start frantically typing away at their keyboard? what takes them (sometimes) so long, and what are they looking for?","c_root_id_A":"hx3pkd5","c_root_id_B":"hx2w7wv","created_at_utc_A":1644967768,"created_at_utc_B":1644956482,"score_A":43,"score_B":36,"human_ref_A":"The lady who held me up for *an hour* explained she was making sure I was just visiting the UK and actually intended to go home. Apparently the discount flight I'd gotten (just after the Olympics in 2012) was suspicious due to my arrival time.","human_ref_B":"Some airlines are using software from the 1960's, which means a lot of typing. Sometimes the scanner\/ reader isn't working and they have to type everything in. Or, they're in training or just slow.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":11286.0,"score_ratio":1.1944444444} {"post_id":"stbv0g","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: When you're at the departures\/arrival immigration counter of an airport, and you hand over your passport to the immigration official, what are they doing when they start frantically typing away at their keyboard? what takes them (sometimes) so long, and what are they looking for?","c_root_id_A":"hx2tznd","c_root_id_B":"hx3pkd5","created_at_utc_A":1644955616,"created_at_utc_B":1644967768,"score_A":13,"score_B":43,"human_ref_A":"I e never worked at an airport, but when i worked in medical admin, every employee had like 3 VERY long passcodes to get unto the system. They could be typing in passwords.","human_ref_B":"The lady who held me up for *an hour* explained she was making sure I was just visiting the UK and actually intended to go home. Apparently the discount flight I'd gotten (just after the Olympics in 2012) was suspicious due to my arrival time.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":12152.0,"score_ratio":3.3076923077} {"post_id":"stbv0g","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: When you're at the departures\/arrival immigration counter of an airport, and you hand over your passport to the immigration official, what are they doing when they start frantically typing away at their keyboard? what takes them (sometimes) so long, and what are they looking for?","c_root_id_A":"hx3pkd5","c_root_id_B":"hx3j8b5","created_at_utc_A":1644967768,"created_at_utc_B":1644965150,"score_A":43,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"The lady who held me up for *an hour* explained she was making sure I was just visiting the UK and actually intended to go home. Apparently the discount flight I'd gotten (just after the Olympics in 2012) was suspicious due to my arrival time.","human_ref_B":"They do the nervous test, \u00e1nd check if your stamps correspond with your flight history, \u00e1nd in I believe middle eastern: if you land in country A, and you have a stamp of country B, you can get trouble with getting in country A, and vice versa. People who have to visit on of those country\u2019s and later the other, are advised to get a second pasport which doesn\u2019t have stamp A in it when going to B and vice versa. So I\u2019ve heard! Don\u2019t remember which country\u2019s they spoke of.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2618.0,"score_ratio":3.3076923077} {"post_id":"stbv0g","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: When you're at the departures\/arrival immigration counter of an airport, and you hand over your passport to the immigration official, what are they doing when they start frantically typing away at their keyboard? what takes them (sometimes) so long, and what are they looking for?","c_root_id_A":"hx2w7wv","c_root_id_B":"hx2tznd","created_at_utc_A":1644956482,"created_at_utc_B":1644955616,"score_A":36,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"Some airlines are using software from the 1960's, which means a lot of typing. Sometimes the scanner\/ reader isn't working and they have to type everything in. Or, they're in training or just slow.","human_ref_B":"I e never worked at an airport, but when i worked in medical admin, every employee had like 3 VERY long passcodes to get unto the system. They could be typing in passwords.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":866.0,"score_ratio":2.7692307692} {"post_id":"uvuutm","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How did we make plastic that isn't biodegradable and is so bad for the planet, out of materials only found on Earth? I just wondered how we made these sorts of things when everything on Earth works together and naturally decomposes.","c_root_id_A":"i9oeghs","c_root_id_B":"i9nuu68","created_at_utc_A":1653310136,"created_at_utc_B":1653295369,"score_A":628,"score_B":209,"human_ref_A":"With other comments, another point I feel is worth mentioning. We are making the plastics out of oil that was underground for millions of years after not biodegrading for all of that time. Also, \"natural\" doesn't mean it's good for life on earth. There is nothing supernatural about a meteor strike tossing up enough dust to kill off the dinosaurs. When algae started to fill the planet up with oxygen which lead to \"The Great Dying\" that killed some 90+% of all life on earth it wasn't because oxygen was a material never found on earth. Something is \"bad for the planet\" when it harms systems we, humans, want to preserve. If we choked the whole planet in plastic or nuclear fallout, or cook it with Green House Gasses, the planet will be fine. Some Life will almost definitely remain. And it will start over again. But I like humans. Some of my favorite people are humans. So I would like to keep the planet habitable for us.","human_ref_B":"Things bacteria and fungi don't know how to break down happen sometimes even without our help. The Carboniferous period, when most of the world's coal formed, was the time after plants started making lignin and before decomposers learned to break it down (the lignin piled up, got buried, and eventually got compressed into coal).","labels":1,"seconds_difference":14767.0,"score_ratio":3.004784689} {"post_id":"uvuutm","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How did we make plastic that isn't biodegradable and is so bad for the planet, out of materials only found on Earth? I just wondered how we made these sorts of things when everything on Earth works together and naturally decomposes.","c_root_id_A":"i9oeghs","c_root_id_B":"i9oasyz","created_at_utc_A":1653310136,"created_at_utc_B":1653308016,"score_A":628,"score_B":110,"human_ref_A":"With other comments, another point I feel is worth mentioning. We are making the plastics out of oil that was underground for millions of years after not biodegrading for all of that time. Also, \"natural\" doesn't mean it's good for life on earth. There is nothing supernatural about a meteor strike tossing up enough dust to kill off the dinosaurs. When algae started to fill the planet up with oxygen which lead to \"The Great Dying\" that killed some 90+% of all life on earth it wasn't because oxygen was a material never found on earth. Something is \"bad for the planet\" when it harms systems we, humans, want to preserve. If we choked the whole planet in plastic or nuclear fallout, or cook it with Green House Gasses, the planet will be fine. Some Life will almost definitely remain. And it will start over again. But I like humans. Some of my favorite people are humans. So I would like to keep the planet habitable for us.","human_ref_B":"Earth itself doesn't \"decompose\", so why are we to be amazed by the fact that plastic materials are not? Initially the trees didn't decompose either. Bacteria and fungi evolved for 60 millions of years before they learned how to \"eat\" wood (lignin). More exactly between 360 MYA to 300MYA. Maybe even longer... to 200 MYA. That's why we have so much coal today.: https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Coal#Formation >One theory suggested that about 360 million years ago, some plants evolved the ability to produce lignin, a complex polymer that made their cellulose stems much harder and more woody. The ability to produce lignin led to the evolution of the first trees. But bacteria and fungi did not immediately evolve the ability to decompose lignin, so the wood did not fully decay but became buried under sediment, eventually turning into coal. About 300 million years ago, mushrooms and other fungi developed this ability, ending the main coal-formation period of earth's history. Although some authors pointed at some evidence of lignin degradation during the Carboniferous, and suggested that climatic and tectonic factors were a more plausible explanation, reconstruction of ancestral enzymes by phylogenetic analysis corrobarated a hypothesis that lignin degrading enzymes appeared in fungi approximately 200 MYa.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2120.0,"score_ratio":5.7090909091} {"post_id":"uvuutm","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How did we make plastic that isn't biodegradable and is so bad for the planet, out of materials only found on Earth? I just wondered how we made these sorts of things when everything on Earth works together and naturally decomposes.","c_root_id_A":"i9oeghs","c_root_id_B":"i9nv01q","created_at_utc_A":1653310136,"created_at_utc_B":1653295526,"score_A":628,"score_B":95,"human_ref_A":"With other comments, another point I feel is worth mentioning. We are making the plastics out of oil that was underground for millions of years after not biodegrading for all of that time. Also, \"natural\" doesn't mean it's good for life on earth. There is nothing supernatural about a meteor strike tossing up enough dust to kill off the dinosaurs. When algae started to fill the planet up with oxygen which lead to \"The Great Dying\" that killed some 90+% of all life on earth it wasn't because oxygen was a material never found on earth. Something is \"bad for the planet\" when it harms systems we, humans, want to preserve. If we choked the whole planet in plastic or nuclear fallout, or cook it with Green House Gasses, the planet will be fine. Some Life will almost definitely remain. And it will start over again. But I like humans. Some of my favorite people are humans. So I would like to keep the planet habitable for us.","human_ref_B":"> How did we make plastic that isn't biodegradable and is so bad for the planet, out of materials only found on Earth? Bit of a false premise on that. Your question has 3 pieces, and piece #1 and #3 are related, so let's break those out: > \"How did we make plastic that isn't biodegradable ... out of materials only found on Earth?\" \"Biodegradable\" means that biology breaks it down. I.E. Living things eating it and turning it into... other things. Generally, where the end result is \"dirt\". Dirt itself is quite complicated and isn't a single thing, it's many things. The amount of things that **are** biodegradeable is actually quite small. It has to be something that generally insects, fungus, or bacteria can use as food. Generally, only biological things themselves (plants and animals) are biodegradeable. A sandwich will rot. Mold will grow on and eat the bread which is made from wheat, bacteria will eat the meat and cheese which are made from animals, the vegetables which are grown from the dirt will fall apart on their own without the rest of their plant to keep them together. Insects might eat part of it, or animals. All kinds of stuff. A sandwich was from biological stuff, and it degrades from other biological stuff. ... so... how did we make something that bacteria and fungus and insects and stuff can't eat? Easy. That's most of the entire planet. Like, 99.99999% of the planet. You know how plastic is made. Out of oil. Oil is kinda biological, but nothing really eats crude oil. And, nothing yet has evolved to use plastic as an energy source (food). It's too new. So... plastic isn't made out of plants and animals (not on an human-appreciable scale), and, it's not broken down by plants and animals. But neither are rocks. Neither is a bar of iron. Neither is gold. And so on. So, you could ask the same question about an aluminum wheel as you do about plastic. Why doesn't it biodegrade? Because nothing biological eats up aluminum. So the question of how we can make it is pretty simply answered right there. Next, the middle part of your question: > and is so bad for the planet, Well, what is \"bad for the planet\"? In truth, plastic isn't bad for the planet at all. Landfills in general aren't. \"Landfills filling up!\" protests are generally about distracting from the bigger problems humans are causing on the planet. It gives people a tiny problem to feel bad about and focus on, so that they don't focus on the much worse things we need to stop doing. Landfills fill up. That's what they do. If landfills were emptying, they'd be called mines. Landfills filling up is more of an economic problem, as it's expensive and inconvenient to find new places to seal our garbage away. We used to just dump garbage into lakes and rivers because it was cheapest. Now we use landfills and it's a bit more expensive. When those landfills fill up, the next thing will be a little more expensive again. We will never run out of space, not even close, all that stuff came out of the ground originally. We dig things out of the ground in mines, and then we put things back into the ground and cover them up. No one cares that a rock takes 50,000,000 years to break down, so why do we care about a chunk of plastic or styrofoam in a landfill taking 10,000 years? What harm does it do anyone? How is it any different than a random rock, or whatever else was underneath the ground? ... Well, first, the problem with plastic isn't necessarily that it's not biodegradeable. There are things that do biodegrade that are still \"bad for the planet\", or, \"bad for the plants and animals we like on the planet\". For example, plain old sea salt is really bad for the planet if you dump lots of it in a forest. Everything will die. But salt biodegrades really easily, it's an essential nutrient. Still, if you covered the whole planet in salt, it would kill all plants and animals on the land, for thousands of years. The problem with plastic is... well... we're still figuring that out. We have mechanical problems with plastic, like when birds and animals eat it and it gets stuck in their bodies. And we have beauty problems with plastic, because it's ugly to look at pollution in a park or on a beach. But there are things that might be bad about plastic in very tiny pieces in any animal's body (they're probably not bad for plants). Our bodies weren't designed to have plastic in them, and they don't have much for processes to deal with them. That said, plastics might not do much damage, the whole reason we use them is because they don't really react with anything. ... In summary, there's nothing that says that just because we made something from chemicals in the Earth, that is has to be beneficial to life on Earth, or, that if it's not beneficial it has to biodegrade. Those are each different and unrelated things.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":14610.0,"score_ratio":6.6105263158} {"post_id":"uvuutm","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How did we make plastic that isn't biodegradable and is so bad for the planet, out of materials only found on Earth? I just wondered how we made these sorts of things when everything on Earth works together and naturally decomposes.","c_root_id_A":"i9nvdg8","c_root_id_B":"i9oeghs","created_at_utc_A":1653295869,"created_at_utc_B":1653310136,"score_A":18,"score_B":628,"human_ref_A":"To biodegrade, you need a bacteria to eat it, or am animal but that\u2019s even less likely. It\u2019s hard to eat it because you have to break the molecule to \u201cburn it\u201d in your body. Plastic is made by forcing oil based molecules to join together. Oil based molecules are already vere very long chains, and plastic is a super long chain. No living creature evolved to break such a complex food because normally food is made of short molecules. Eventually, some bacteria will try it and succeed, bacteria evolve really fast so if they are given a new food, they probably give it a try sooner or later.","human_ref_B":"With other comments, another point I feel is worth mentioning. We are making the plastics out of oil that was underground for millions of years after not biodegrading for all of that time. Also, \"natural\" doesn't mean it's good for life on earth. There is nothing supernatural about a meteor strike tossing up enough dust to kill off the dinosaurs. When algae started to fill the planet up with oxygen which lead to \"The Great Dying\" that killed some 90+% of all life on earth it wasn't because oxygen was a material never found on earth. Something is \"bad for the planet\" when it harms systems we, humans, want to preserve. If we choked the whole planet in plastic or nuclear fallout, or cook it with Green House Gasses, the planet will be fine. Some Life will almost definitely remain. And it will start over again. But I like humans. Some of my favorite people are humans. So I would like to keep the planet habitable for us.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":14267.0,"score_ratio":34.8888888889} {"post_id":"uvuutm","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How did we make plastic that isn't biodegradable and is so bad for the planet, out of materials only found on Earth? I just wondered how we made these sorts of things when everything on Earth works together and naturally decomposes.","c_root_id_A":"i9oasyz","c_root_id_B":"i9nv01q","created_at_utc_A":1653308016,"created_at_utc_B":1653295526,"score_A":110,"score_B":95,"human_ref_A":"Earth itself doesn't \"decompose\", so why are we to be amazed by the fact that plastic materials are not? Initially the trees didn't decompose either. Bacteria and fungi evolved for 60 millions of years before they learned how to \"eat\" wood (lignin). More exactly between 360 MYA to 300MYA. Maybe even longer... to 200 MYA. That's why we have so much coal today.: https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Coal#Formation >One theory suggested that about 360 million years ago, some plants evolved the ability to produce lignin, a complex polymer that made their cellulose stems much harder and more woody. The ability to produce lignin led to the evolution of the first trees. But bacteria and fungi did not immediately evolve the ability to decompose lignin, so the wood did not fully decay but became buried under sediment, eventually turning into coal. About 300 million years ago, mushrooms and other fungi developed this ability, ending the main coal-formation period of earth's history. Although some authors pointed at some evidence of lignin degradation during the Carboniferous, and suggested that climatic and tectonic factors were a more plausible explanation, reconstruction of ancestral enzymes by phylogenetic analysis corrobarated a hypothesis that lignin degrading enzymes appeared in fungi approximately 200 MYa.","human_ref_B":"> How did we make plastic that isn't biodegradable and is so bad for the planet, out of materials only found on Earth? Bit of a false premise on that. Your question has 3 pieces, and piece #1 and #3 are related, so let's break those out: > \"How did we make plastic that isn't biodegradable ... out of materials only found on Earth?\" \"Biodegradable\" means that biology breaks it down. I.E. Living things eating it and turning it into... other things. Generally, where the end result is \"dirt\". Dirt itself is quite complicated and isn't a single thing, it's many things. The amount of things that **are** biodegradeable is actually quite small. It has to be something that generally insects, fungus, or bacteria can use as food. Generally, only biological things themselves (plants and animals) are biodegradeable. A sandwich will rot. Mold will grow on and eat the bread which is made from wheat, bacteria will eat the meat and cheese which are made from animals, the vegetables which are grown from the dirt will fall apart on their own without the rest of their plant to keep them together. Insects might eat part of it, or animals. All kinds of stuff. A sandwich was from biological stuff, and it degrades from other biological stuff. ... so... how did we make something that bacteria and fungus and insects and stuff can't eat? Easy. That's most of the entire planet. Like, 99.99999% of the planet. You know how plastic is made. Out of oil. Oil is kinda biological, but nothing really eats crude oil. And, nothing yet has evolved to use plastic as an energy source (food). It's too new. So... plastic isn't made out of plants and animals (not on an human-appreciable scale), and, it's not broken down by plants and animals. But neither are rocks. Neither is a bar of iron. Neither is gold. And so on. So, you could ask the same question about an aluminum wheel as you do about plastic. Why doesn't it biodegrade? Because nothing biological eats up aluminum. So the question of how we can make it is pretty simply answered right there. Next, the middle part of your question: > and is so bad for the planet, Well, what is \"bad for the planet\"? In truth, plastic isn't bad for the planet at all. Landfills in general aren't. \"Landfills filling up!\" protests are generally about distracting from the bigger problems humans are causing on the planet. It gives people a tiny problem to feel bad about and focus on, so that they don't focus on the much worse things we need to stop doing. Landfills fill up. That's what they do. If landfills were emptying, they'd be called mines. Landfills filling up is more of an economic problem, as it's expensive and inconvenient to find new places to seal our garbage away. We used to just dump garbage into lakes and rivers because it was cheapest. Now we use landfills and it's a bit more expensive. When those landfills fill up, the next thing will be a little more expensive again. We will never run out of space, not even close, all that stuff came out of the ground originally. We dig things out of the ground in mines, and then we put things back into the ground and cover them up. No one cares that a rock takes 50,000,000 years to break down, so why do we care about a chunk of plastic or styrofoam in a landfill taking 10,000 years? What harm does it do anyone? How is it any different than a random rock, or whatever else was underneath the ground? ... Well, first, the problem with plastic isn't necessarily that it's not biodegradeable. There are things that do biodegrade that are still \"bad for the planet\", or, \"bad for the plants and animals we like on the planet\". For example, plain old sea salt is really bad for the planet if you dump lots of it in a forest. Everything will die. But salt biodegrades really easily, it's an essential nutrient. Still, if you covered the whole planet in salt, it would kill all plants and animals on the land, for thousands of years. The problem with plastic is... well... we're still figuring that out. We have mechanical problems with plastic, like when birds and animals eat it and it gets stuck in their bodies. And we have beauty problems with plastic, because it's ugly to look at pollution in a park or on a beach. But there are things that might be bad about plastic in very tiny pieces in any animal's body (they're probably not bad for plants). Our bodies weren't designed to have plastic in them, and they don't have much for processes to deal with them. That said, plastics might not do much damage, the whole reason we use them is because they don't really react with anything. ... In summary, there's nothing that says that just because we made something from chemicals in the Earth, that is has to be beneficial to life on Earth, or, that if it's not beneficial it has to biodegrade. Those are each different and unrelated things.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":12490.0,"score_ratio":1.1578947368} {"post_id":"uvuutm","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How did we make plastic that isn't biodegradable and is so bad for the planet, out of materials only found on Earth? I just wondered how we made these sorts of things when everything on Earth works together and naturally decomposes.","c_root_id_A":"i9nvdg8","c_root_id_B":"i9oasyz","created_at_utc_A":1653295869,"created_at_utc_B":1653308016,"score_A":18,"score_B":110,"human_ref_A":"To biodegrade, you need a bacteria to eat it, or am animal but that\u2019s even less likely. It\u2019s hard to eat it because you have to break the molecule to \u201cburn it\u201d in your body. Plastic is made by forcing oil based molecules to join together. Oil based molecules are already vere very long chains, and plastic is a super long chain. No living creature evolved to break such a complex food because normally food is made of short molecules. Eventually, some bacteria will try it and succeed, bacteria evolve really fast so if they are given a new food, they probably give it a try sooner or later.","human_ref_B":"Earth itself doesn't \"decompose\", so why are we to be amazed by the fact that plastic materials are not? Initially the trees didn't decompose either. Bacteria and fungi evolved for 60 millions of years before they learned how to \"eat\" wood (lignin). More exactly between 360 MYA to 300MYA. Maybe even longer... to 200 MYA. That's why we have so much coal today.: https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Coal#Formation >One theory suggested that about 360 million years ago, some plants evolved the ability to produce lignin, a complex polymer that made their cellulose stems much harder and more woody. The ability to produce lignin led to the evolution of the first trees. But bacteria and fungi did not immediately evolve the ability to decompose lignin, so the wood did not fully decay but became buried under sediment, eventually turning into coal. About 300 million years ago, mushrooms and other fungi developed this ability, ending the main coal-formation period of earth's history. Although some authors pointed at some evidence of lignin degradation during the Carboniferous, and suggested that climatic and tectonic factors were a more plausible explanation, reconstruction of ancestral enzymes by phylogenetic analysis corrobarated a hypothesis that lignin degrading enzymes appeared in fungi approximately 200 MYa.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":12147.0,"score_ratio":6.1111111111} {"post_id":"uvuutm","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How did we make plastic that isn't biodegradable and is so bad for the planet, out of materials only found on Earth? I just wondered how we made these sorts of things when everything on Earth works together and naturally decomposes.","c_root_id_A":"i9oz4r1","c_root_id_B":"i9nvdg8","created_at_utc_A":1653319857,"created_at_utc_B":1653295869,"score_A":20,"score_B":18,"human_ref_A":"During the Carboniferous Period, plants with real wood and bark first appeared. Nothing on the planet at the time could digest them (lignin and suberin) at the time, so they didn't rot. Huge amounts were buried and formed coal beds. Much of the rest burned in continent-wide wildfires. It took the appearance of fungi to change the process. So this is not the first time an indigestible organic material has showed up.","human_ref_B":"To biodegrade, you need a bacteria to eat it, or am animal but that\u2019s even less likely. It\u2019s hard to eat it because you have to break the molecule to \u201cburn it\u201d in your body. Plastic is made by forcing oil based molecules to join together. Oil based molecules are already vere very long chains, and plastic is a super long chain. No living creature evolved to break such a complex food because normally food is made of short molecules. Eventually, some bacteria will try it and succeed, bacteria evolve really fast so if they are given a new food, they probably give it a try sooner or later.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":23988.0,"score_ratio":1.1111111111} {"post_id":"zbbjnd","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.73,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How does our brain keep track of time? Last night I went to bed sorta late and forgot to set an alarm, but I remember thinking it'd be nice to wake up around nine. I woke up at EXACTLY 9 AM - literally to a minute. Could be a coincidence, except I do tend to wake up around nine on most days, with or without an alarm. Only exceptions are when I go to bed extremely late and force my body to take longer to recover, I suppose. Made me think of my late Grandma who kept telling me how she can set an alarm in her head and wake up at any time she wants. I always thought it's bullshit. I mean, if that was true, how would that even work? Time is a concept, and a relatively new one at that; IIRC we only started really counting minutes and seconds around the Industrial Revolution? Of course there's sunrises and sunsets and the whole natural circadian rhytm thing, but most people are detached from it anyway. Does our brain learn to count hours and minutes somehow because our lives revolve around that so much? Is it all just a big ol' bias of some sort?","c_root_id_A":"iyqdv6h","c_root_id_B":"iyqb5py","created_at_utc_A":1670060778,"created_at_utc_B":1670058315,"score_A":7,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Old grandfather clocks kept track of time using the constant period of oscillation of a swinging pendulum. Many biological processes also exhibit a very regular, periodic pattern. Rise and fall in the level of metabolic activities, hormones, bran waves, etc. Plus, while the clock has no way to adjust any drift caused by random chance, the brain can use external stimuli as reference markers and fine-tune its internal state accordingly. That's why people with a regular, predictable schedule (your grandma is likely one of them) generally have no trouble waking up at almost the exact same time everyday, but people who have cut off all connections with reality and go to sleep at weird ass hours have great difficulty waking up on time.","human_ref_B":"Our brains have a built-in mechanism for keeping track of time, which is called the circadian rhythm. This is a biological process that helps our bodies regulate various functions, including sleep and wakefulness, over a 24-hour period. This process is driven by the release of certain hormones, such as melatonin, in response to changes in light exposure. In addition to the circadian rhythm, our brains also have other mechanisms for keeping track of time. For example, our brains can use sensory information, such as the position of the sun in the sky or the sound of a clock ticking, to estimate the passage of time. Our brains are also able to use past experiences to predict how long certain events should take, which can help us keep track of time in the absence of external cues. It's possible that your ability to wake up at a specific time without an alarm is due to your brain's ability to keep track of time using these mechanisms. It's also possible that your brain has learned to anticipate when you usually wake up and has adjusted your sleep patterns accordingly. Overall, our ability to keep track of time is a combination of biological processes and learned behaviors, and it's an important part of how we function in the world.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2463.0,"score_ratio":1.4} {"post_id":"2h0hhd","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why does Stephen Hawking's speech generator sound so robotic, even though today's text-to-speech engines can sound almost completely human? For example, why doesn't he sound like this?","c_root_id_A":"cko7rvz","c_root_id_B":"cko85og","created_at_utc_A":1411279750,"created_at_utc_B":1411281181,"score_A":68,"score_B":82,"human_ref_A":"He's become associated with it. He first got his way back when the text-to-speech technology was shitty and sounded robotic. Now we all think it's HIS voice, and if it changed it might be awkward or distracting for some people.","human_ref_B":"We associate the voice with Stephen. It's as much his voice as any natural voice would be. To myself, and to many, many others, and likely to himself as well, a change would be most unwelcome.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1431.0,"score_ratio":1.2058823529} {"post_id":"2h0hhd","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why does Stephen Hawking's speech generator sound so robotic, even though today's text-to-speech engines can sound almost completely human? For example, why doesn't he sound like this?","c_root_id_A":"ckoeeig","c_root_id_B":"ckodjwh","created_at_utc_A":1411310040,"created_at_utc_B":1411307729,"score_A":30,"score_B":29,"human_ref_A":"Its his voice. Would you change yours?","human_ref_B":"I can contribute on a personal note to this - my grandfather is heavily disabled and has done a lot of assistance to companies who make this kind of software (e.g. Dragon). He's met Prof Hawking on multiple occasions and talked with him about it, and S.H. has confirmed the voice is almost synonymous with him, and is now part of his identity.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2311.0,"score_ratio":1.0344827586} {"post_id":"qmsts5","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why do planets like Pluto (and non-planets like the moon) have a seemingly large number of craters in them compared to Earth? Wouldn't a small planet like Pluto be missed by the vast majority of asteroids?","c_root_id_A":"hjci52h","c_root_id_B":"hjcen8f","created_at_utc_A":1636067606,"created_at_utc_B":1636066126,"score_A":10,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"The moon and Pluto do not have active tectonics that shapes the surface. It also has no atmosphere with wind and water that can erode craters. The brighter part of the lunar surface is called the highlands, the was formed 4.1-4.4 billion years ago. The darker areas, Lunar mare (mare is latin for sea) is formed for a volcanic eruption. They are younger with an avrage of 3-3-5 billion year old, the youngest are around 1.2 billion years old. There are fewer crates in the mares and it is by counting crates that ages of the youngest part are counted. So the surface of the moon has been unchanged for billion of years with the exception of impacts. Nothing will destroy them except other impaces. So we can see lots of impact on the moon because we can see all that have been formed for billions of years. Earths surface is continuously changing. The https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Chicxulub_crater that a result of the impact that is a major part of the extension of non-avian dinosaurs is practically invisible today. If was formed 66 million years ago and had a diameter of 150km. Evidence that there was a impace ther was discovered in the 1970 but only confirmed in the 1990s by looking at impact damage on rocks. If you compare to craters on the moon there are 70 larger than this. So a what would be a large crater on the moon can't be visually detected on earth after 66 million years. The youngest part of the moon surface is 18x as old and the oldest pars 63x as old. The number of impacts has decreased over time in the solar system. Something like https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Meteor_Crater that is clearly a crate is only 50 000 years old and is in a desert. If you look at Lake Bosumtwi https:\/\/goo.gl\/maps\/35Ykq11Zx1sumKeT8 you see a lake with some mountains around it. That is a 1 million years 10km diameter impact crater in an area with lots of rains and plants. If you look carefully at it is not hard to understand that is an old impact crater or a volcanic caldera, but do not look like a typical crater on the moon. https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Lake_Bosumtwi So crates remain for billions of years on the moon but disappear quickly on earth.","human_ref_B":"Aside from the lack of atmosphere, those planets lack tectonic activity. If Earth lacked a significant atmosphere and wasn\u2019t constantly submersing or otherwise deforming it\u2019s crust, it would look much the same. As for how it was hit despite being so small, Pluto has been there for a very, very long time, and no matter how small the odds it\u2019s bound to happen eventually. The solar system in its earlier years was also a much more violent and cluttered place.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1480.0,"score_ratio":3.3333333333} {"post_id":"vec11g","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: If depth perception works because the brain checks the difference in the position of the object between the two eyes and concludes how far away it is, how can we still see depth when one eye is closed?","c_root_id_A":"icpa8yf","c_root_id_B":"icpahxs","created_at_utc_A":1655469148,"created_at_utc_B":1655469287,"score_A":35,"score_B":3264,"human_ref_A":"You really can't. Your brain does its best to extrapolate what it computes as depth with one eye closed, but the brain could be easily fooled. Someone who is blind in one eye will have significant depth perception problems.","human_ref_B":"Because that isn't the only piece of information your brain uses. It basically collates a bunch of different pieces of information: 1. Your eye is always moving slightly and when your eye looks in different directions, it sees different things based upon the relative position of objects in your 3D environment. 2. Over the course of your life you have lots of experience with seeing various objects and your brain develops an expectation of their size. So something that your brain believes should be large but looks small will be interpreted as being further away, and something that your brain believes should be small but looks large will be interpreted as being closer. 3. The parallax created with two eyes can be replicated simply by moving. How things change relative to other objects as you move laterally, and how their size appears to change as you move back and forth, gives your brain information with which to construct a perception of depth.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":139.0,"score_ratio":93.2571428571} {"post_id":"vec11g","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: If depth perception works because the brain checks the difference in the position of the object between the two eyes and concludes how far away it is, how can we still see depth when one eye is closed?","c_root_id_A":"icpa8yf","c_root_id_B":"icpai2f","created_at_utc_A":1655469148,"created_at_utc_B":1655469289,"score_A":35,"score_B":250,"human_ref_A":"You really can't. Your brain does its best to extrapolate what it computes as depth with one eye closed, but the brain could be easily fooled. Someone who is blind in one eye will have significant depth perception problems.","human_ref_B":"Approximation and pattern recognition. People who have had one eye permanently damaged don't see depth any further than what the pattern recognition allows. \"Blurrier and smaller = further\", \"clearer and bigger = closer\". But more than once have I seen my friend with a damaged eye approximate a distance wrong, on something whose size he didn't know for sure.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":141.0,"score_ratio":7.1428571429} {"post_id":"vec11g","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: If depth perception works because the brain checks the difference in the position of the object between the two eyes and concludes how far away it is, how can we still see depth when one eye is closed?","c_root_id_A":"icpajhd","c_root_id_B":"icpa8yf","created_at_utc_A":1655469310,"created_at_utc_B":1655469148,"score_A":116,"score_B":35,"human_ref_A":"Your brain tries its best but you really can't. Close one eye and get someone to throw a tennis ball to you. Chances are you'll miss it even if you're normally good at catching. The reason is because you can no longer properly judge distances accurately enough to accomplish the task.","human_ref_B":"You really can't. Your brain does its best to extrapolate what it computes as depth with one eye closed, but the brain could be easily fooled. Someone who is blind in one eye will have significant depth perception problems.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":162.0,"score_ratio":3.3142857143} {"post_id":"vec11g","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: If depth perception works because the brain checks the difference in the position of the object between the two eyes and concludes how far away it is, how can we still see depth when one eye is closed?","c_root_id_A":"icpbd71","c_root_id_B":"icpa8yf","created_at_utc_A":1655469756,"created_at_utc_B":1655469148,"score_A":74,"score_B":35,"human_ref_A":"I have one good eye and one lazy bastard. Most things are fine because I know the size and can easily estimate distance that's good enough. Things like catching a fast baseball is damn near impossible though. It moves too fast for me to compensate.","human_ref_B":"You really can't. Your brain does its best to extrapolate what it computes as depth with one eye closed, but the brain could be easily fooled. Someone who is blind in one eye will have significant depth perception problems.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":608.0,"score_ratio":2.1142857143} {"post_id":"vec11g","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: If depth perception works because the brain checks the difference in the position of the object between the two eyes and concludes how far away it is, how can we still see depth when one eye is closed?","c_root_id_A":"icpazls","c_root_id_B":"icpbd71","created_at_utc_A":1655469554,"created_at_utc_B":1655469756,"score_A":22,"score_B":74,"human_ref_A":"Your brain uses whatever it's given. With two eyes it can triangulate to work out the distance of the object you're looking at. If you only have one eye, but you're moving your head, it can do something similar (half a second ago we looked at the object from *this* angle, and now we're looking at it from a slightly different angle, and we can compare the two to get a good idea of distance) If you only have one eye, and your head isn't moving, your brain can still try to guess based on other cues. Maybe you know how big the object is, and you can use that to get a good estimate of how far away it is, for example. Or it might use the way light falls on the object to provide some sort of estimate. You'll still have *some* depth perception, but it'll be less accurate.","human_ref_B":"I have one good eye and one lazy bastard. Most things are fine because I know the size and can easily estimate distance that's good enough. Things like catching a fast baseball is damn near impossible though. It moves too fast for me to compensate.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":202.0,"score_ratio":3.3636363636} {"post_id":"w0lw1q","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Eli5 Why is Roman concrete still functioning after 2000 years and American concrete is breaking en masse after 75?","c_root_id_A":"iggbb2m","c_root_id_B":"igf2wey","created_at_utc_A":1658012718,"created_at_utc_B":1657993092,"score_A":11880,"score_B":417,"human_ref_A":"There\u2019s quite a few incorrect or only partially correct answers here. There\u2019s a lot of hype about Roman concrete - the hype isn\u2019t new. Engineers have been hyping it up for the last 200 years, and that actually is the cause of many of the issues we have in concrete from the 20th century in particular. Chemically, Roman concrete is slightly different and actually not as strong as the concrete we make today. However, the reason it has lasted so long is that the romans didn\u2019t put in steel reinforcing. They tried to use bronze reinforcing, but its thermal expansion is too different to concrete and didn\u2019t work. Concrete is strong in compression but weak in tension. Steel reinforcement, on the other hand, is weak in compression but strong in tension. As a result, when we combine the two, we get a really strong composite material. As the romans couldn\u2019t do this, they built massive walls - some times 10ft thick - in order to carry a load that today we could put into a reinforced concrete member that was much, much thinner. This unreinforced concrete is called \u2018mass concrete\u2019. Mass concrete from 100 years ago, such as the Glenfinnan viaduct in Scotland, is still very much in good condition. The issue we have with the majority of concrete from the start and middle of the 20th century is that it is reinforced and engineers didn\u2019t fully understand the durability of concrete. Basically they assumed that, because Roman concrete buildings were still standing, that concrete had unlimited durability. But they didn\u2019t take into consideration the steel reinforcement and just assumed that it would be protected from rusting by the concrete encasing it. However, concrete is actually permeable - it\u2019s like a really dense sponge - and water can get into it, and take salts and CO2 (as carbonic acid) into the concrete. As a result of this, the steel inside the concrete corrodes. Corrosion is an expansive reaction, which puts tensile stress on the concrete (remember, concrete is weak in tension) which causes it to crack and \u2018spall\u2019. The more it cracks, the more water\/salt\/CO2 can get in, accelerating the corrosion of the steel. Nowadays, design codes are much stricter and you have to put enough concrete cover over the steel reinforcement to give it adequate protection for its planned lifetime. We also design our concrete mixtures to be less permeable and have requirements for this in our design codes too. As such, reinforced concrete that\u2019s been made since the 80s will typically survive much better than that which was built earlier in the 20th (and late 19th) century. TLDR: Roman concrete didn\u2019t contain steel reinforcement that corrodes. Concrete in the first half of the 20th century was very experimental and not well understood and design mistakes were made. We build better concrete now that is much stronger than Roman concrete. Edit: lots of questions about different protection of steel. We do sometimes use stainless steel, but it\u2019s very expensive to make a whole structure with it. There\u2019s also research looking at things like carbon fibre and plastic reinforcement. We do also sometimes coat bars with epoxy or zinc rich primers, but again it\u2019s added expense. Sometime we also add electrochemical cathodic protection systems (sometimes you\u2019ll see the boxes for controlling the system on the side of concrete bridges on the highway), but again it\u2019s expensive. Typically putting the steel deep enough within the concrete to make sure salts and CO2 can\u2019t get to it is the most effective way of protecting it, and making sure the concrete mix is designed to be sufficiently durable for its exposure conditions. Edit 2: the structural engineers have come out in force to complain that steel is, in fact, very strong in compression. This is absolutely true. For the sake of Explain like I'm five years old, when I say it\u2019s weak in compression, what I mean is that the very slender steel reinforcement we use will buckle relatively quickly when compressed, but can withstand a much higher load when it\u2019s applied in tension. Think of it like a piece of steel wire - if you take both end and push them together it will buckle immediately, but you\u2019ll have a very hard job to snap it when you try and pull it apart.","human_ref_B":"The concrete we make now is WAY better than roman concrete, and reinforced concrete makes it look like a joke Modern concerte road, structures and such are meant to withstand absolutely massive weight and useage, something roman concrete was never designed for. Roman concrete would break and be a piece of shit compared to how we build now, it was never meant to be used with things weighing so much or be used so intensely. A roman road or wall could withstand items at its time, it couldn't withstand big rig trucks carrying huge trailers on it. We put incredible stress on our modern concrete structures, as such, they simply need to be fixed fairly often, and its easy to fix them rather than to come up with weird alternatives. And to be clear, roman concrete is not an alternative, its not as good.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":19626.0,"score_ratio":28.4892086331} {"post_id":"w0lw1q","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Eli5 Why is Roman concrete still functioning after 2000 years and American concrete is breaking en masse after 75?","c_root_id_A":"iggbb2m","c_root_id_B":"igf3gi5","created_at_utc_A":1658012718,"created_at_utc_B":1657993326,"score_A":11880,"score_B":103,"human_ref_A":"There\u2019s quite a few incorrect or only partially correct answers here. There\u2019s a lot of hype about Roman concrete - the hype isn\u2019t new. Engineers have been hyping it up for the last 200 years, and that actually is the cause of many of the issues we have in concrete from the 20th century in particular. Chemically, Roman concrete is slightly different and actually not as strong as the concrete we make today. However, the reason it has lasted so long is that the romans didn\u2019t put in steel reinforcing. They tried to use bronze reinforcing, but its thermal expansion is too different to concrete and didn\u2019t work. Concrete is strong in compression but weak in tension. Steel reinforcement, on the other hand, is weak in compression but strong in tension. As a result, when we combine the two, we get a really strong composite material. As the romans couldn\u2019t do this, they built massive walls - some times 10ft thick - in order to carry a load that today we could put into a reinforced concrete member that was much, much thinner. This unreinforced concrete is called \u2018mass concrete\u2019. Mass concrete from 100 years ago, such as the Glenfinnan viaduct in Scotland, is still very much in good condition. The issue we have with the majority of concrete from the start and middle of the 20th century is that it is reinforced and engineers didn\u2019t fully understand the durability of concrete. Basically they assumed that, because Roman concrete buildings were still standing, that concrete had unlimited durability. But they didn\u2019t take into consideration the steel reinforcement and just assumed that it would be protected from rusting by the concrete encasing it. However, concrete is actually permeable - it\u2019s like a really dense sponge - and water can get into it, and take salts and CO2 (as carbonic acid) into the concrete. As a result of this, the steel inside the concrete corrodes. Corrosion is an expansive reaction, which puts tensile stress on the concrete (remember, concrete is weak in tension) which causes it to crack and \u2018spall\u2019. The more it cracks, the more water\/salt\/CO2 can get in, accelerating the corrosion of the steel. Nowadays, design codes are much stricter and you have to put enough concrete cover over the steel reinforcement to give it adequate protection for its planned lifetime. We also design our concrete mixtures to be less permeable and have requirements for this in our design codes too. As such, reinforced concrete that\u2019s been made since the 80s will typically survive much better than that which was built earlier in the 20th (and late 19th) century. TLDR: Roman concrete didn\u2019t contain steel reinforcement that corrodes. Concrete in the first half of the 20th century was very experimental and not well understood and design mistakes were made. We build better concrete now that is much stronger than Roman concrete. Edit: lots of questions about different protection of steel. We do sometimes use stainless steel, but it\u2019s very expensive to make a whole structure with it. There\u2019s also research looking at things like carbon fibre and plastic reinforcement. We do also sometimes coat bars with epoxy or zinc rich primers, but again it\u2019s added expense. Sometime we also add electrochemical cathodic protection systems (sometimes you\u2019ll see the boxes for controlling the system on the side of concrete bridges on the highway), but again it\u2019s expensive. Typically putting the steel deep enough within the concrete to make sure salts and CO2 can\u2019t get to it is the most effective way of protecting it, and making sure the concrete mix is designed to be sufficiently durable for its exposure conditions. Edit 2: the structural engineers have come out in force to complain that steel is, in fact, very strong in compression. This is absolutely true. For the sake of Explain like I'm five years old, when I say it\u2019s weak in compression, what I mean is that the very slender steel reinforcement we use will buckle relatively quickly when compressed, but can withstand a much higher load when it\u2019s applied in tension. Think of it like a piece of steel wire - if you take both end and push them together it will buckle immediately, but you\u2019ll have a very hard job to snap it when you try and pull it apart.","human_ref_B":"Survivorship bias: the act of thinking that something you see from the past is better than what you see currently, because what you're seeing from the past is all that survived until now. Put another way, most of Roman concrete structures *did* break over time, and you're only seeing the ones that did survive 2000 years.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":19392.0,"score_ratio":115.3398058252} {"post_id":"w0lw1q","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Eli5 Why is Roman concrete still functioning after 2000 years and American concrete is breaking en masse after 75?","c_root_id_A":"igh1nd1","c_root_id_B":"igf3gi5","created_at_utc_A":1658025982,"created_at_utc_B":1657993326,"score_A":155,"score_B":103,"human_ref_A":"One big difference is the unsupported spans we create with modern concrete would be absolutely insane to the Romans. This is a Roman concrete bridge. (In this case used as an aqueduct. The concrete is covered by brickwork.) This is a modern concrete bridge. You can really see just how much more solid Romans needed to build with their concrete. The reason we can build such slender concrete structures is we (as other posters mention) fill our concrete with steel rods that rust over time. But without those rods we'd have to build everything solid like the Romans did which would need a lot more concrete and make it impossible to build where these long spans are needed due to geography.","human_ref_B":"Survivorship bias: the act of thinking that something you see from the past is better than what you see currently, because what you're seeing from the past is all that survived until now. Put another way, most of Roman concrete structures *did* break over time, and you're only seeing the ones that did survive 2000 years.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":32656.0,"score_ratio":1.5048543689} {"post_id":"w0lw1q","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Eli5 Why is Roman concrete still functioning after 2000 years and American concrete is breaking en masse after 75?","c_root_id_A":"igh903o","c_root_id_B":"igf3gi5","created_at_utc_A":1658029982,"created_at_utc_B":1657993326,"score_A":127,"score_B":103,"human_ref_A":"It's an urban myth. Practical Engineering discussed this a bit: https:\/\/youtu.be\/qL0BB2PRY7k","human_ref_B":"Survivorship bias: the act of thinking that something you see from the past is better than what you see currently, because what you're seeing from the past is all that survived until now. Put another way, most of Roman concrete structures *did* break over time, and you're only seeing the ones that did survive 2000 years.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":36656.0,"score_ratio":1.2330097087} {"post_id":"ovk0fk","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why do we need to refrigerate something after it's opened? What happens to that thing when it is opened? As the question says, why do we need to refrigerate something after it's opened? I have a bottle of Chipotle Sauce I got from Target, and it was happily sitting in the shelves for who knows how long unrefrigerated. It says on the label to refrigerate after opening. Why? And I don't think it's because Target is air conditioned. Some bodegas in nyc for example are un air-conditioned and will sell similar stuff.","c_root_id_A":"h79rhi5","c_root_id_B":"h79s5qy","created_at_utc_A":1627785064,"created_at_utc_B":1627785441,"score_A":3,"score_B":29,"human_ref_A":"Opening the package exposes the food to oxygen, which oxidizes (degrades) the food. Most packages contain some method of preservation, such as using nitrogen to displace regular air (which contains oxygen).","human_ref_B":"Usually foods that are packaged in cans or bottles are sterilized by heating during packaging. The exceptions are things that change in high heat like milk or meat. This sterilization process gives the food long shelf life because bacteria that were in the food were cooked to death and can't eat the food or harm you. One you open it, the food is once again exposed to bacteria and mold spores from the air. They will begin to grow in the food, and refrigeration slows their growth down tremendously. Therefore manufacturers recommend refrigeration so that you can keep the food fresher for longer.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":377.0,"score_ratio":9.6666666667} {"post_id":"ovk0fk","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why do we need to refrigerate something after it's opened? What happens to that thing when it is opened? As the question says, why do we need to refrigerate something after it's opened? I have a bottle of Chipotle Sauce I got from Target, and it was happily sitting in the shelves for who knows how long unrefrigerated. It says on the label to refrigerate after opening. Why? And I don't think it's because Target is air conditioned. Some bodegas in nyc for example are un air-conditioned and will sell similar stuff.","c_root_id_A":"h79rhi5","c_root_id_B":"h79v3o8","created_at_utc_A":1627785064,"created_at_utc_B":1627787168,"score_A":3,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Opening the package exposes the food to oxygen, which oxidizes (degrades) the food. Most packages contain some method of preservation, such as using nitrogen to displace regular air (which contains oxygen).","human_ref_B":"Two things that make food go bad are oxygen and tiny little living things, we could call them germs. For a new bottle of sauce that hasn't been opened, there's usually only a tiny bit of air at the top and it's not enough oxygen to make it taste bad. The germs are usually killed by heating, or, less often, some other method, like radiation or high pressure. So a bottle is sitting there with almost no oxygen and no living germs - it can last for a long time without going bad. But as soon as you open the seal, you allow air in and air has oxygen and germs floating around, so the sauce might go bad in a few days. If you put it in the fridge, the cold makes the germs slow down a lot, so they don't eat up the sauce and they don't make new germs as fast. There's still oxygen, but if you put the cap on, that will also slow down.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2104.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333} {"post_id":"voyl2w","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How do produce stands in NYC, Montreal, and other major cities sell their items for less than most big box chains? In NYC, there are plenty of produce vendors on the street that sell aesthetic, fresh fruit for less than cost conscious mega-chains, like Wal Mart, Trader Joes, and Wegmans. The big chains have negotiating power, wholesale discounts, and economies of scale to help them profit on tiny margins. So, how is it that my small, local, fruit stand can outcompete pricewise with national chains and still stay afloat?","c_root_id_A":"ieg70yt","c_root_id_B":"iefv9w6","created_at_utc_A":1656682137,"created_at_utc_B":1656675869,"score_A":1732,"score_B":84,"human_ref_A":"The fruit stands also buy the ripest fruit, which they can get for lower prices. It tastes good, but ripe also means it's going bad in a few days. Grocery stores need a certain amount of shelf life, but a small cart can pick up a box of strawberries and sell most of it that same day. If they don't buy it it's going to spoil, so they get a good deal.","human_ref_B":"The small corner stand has significantly less overhead than any of the big stores. So while the large chains are able to negotiate and buy very well, they still need to make a minimum amount to cover their large bills, not to mention they have to account for the fact that much of their merchandise might go unsold. A small guy might only buy a few crates amd can sell it for less because he doesn't have the same overhead to cover, and if he can't sell it all he takes it home to help feed his family.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6268.0,"score_ratio":20.619047619} {"post_id":"voyl2w","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How do produce stands in NYC, Montreal, and other major cities sell their items for less than most big box chains? In NYC, there are plenty of produce vendors on the street that sell aesthetic, fresh fruit for less than cost conscious mega-chains, like Wal Mart, Trader Joes, and Wegmans. The big chains have negotiating power, wholesale discounts, and economies of scale to help them profit on tiny margins. So, how is it that my small, local, fruit stand can outcompete pricewise with national chains and still stay afloat?","c_root_id_A":"ieg0x14","c_root_id_B":"ieg70yt","created_at_utc_A":1656679104,"created_at_utc_B":1656682137,"score_A":19,"score_B":1732,"human_ref_A":"Tagging on to the other comments here: Additional overhead not found in market stands: exorbitant executive salaries, accountants, human resources, other administrative positions, building ownership and maintenance.","human_ref_B":"The fruit stands also buy the ripest fruit, which they can get for lower prices. It tastes good, but ripe also means it's going bad in a few days. Grocery stores need a certain amount of shelf life, but a small cart can pick up a box of strawberries and sell most of it that same day. If they don't buy it it's going to spoil, so they get a good deal.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3033.0,"score_ratio":91.1578947368} {"post_id":"voyl2w","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How do produce stands in NYC, Montreal, and other major cities sell their items for less than most big box chains? In NYC, there are plenty of produce vendors on the street that sell aesthetic, fresh fruit for less than cost conscious mega-chains, like Wal Mart, Trader Joes, and Wegmans. The big chains have negotiating power, wholesale discounts, and economies of scale to help them profit on tiny margins. So, how is it that my small, local, fruit stand can outcompete pricewise with national chains and still stay afloat?","c_root_id_A":"iefv9w6","c_root_id_B":"ieg8sl4","created_at_utc_A":1656675869,"created_at_utc_B":1656682947,"score_A":84,"score_B":438,"human_ref_A":"The small corner stand has significantly less overhead than any of the big stores. So while the large chains are able to negotiate and buy very well, they still need to make a minimum amount to cover their large bills, not to mention they have to account for the fact that much of their merchandise might go unsold. A small guy might only buy a few crates amd can sell it for less because he doesn't have the same overhead to cover, and if he can't sell it all he takes it home to help feed his family.","human_ref_B":"Note that not all small grocers use the same supply chains as the big box stores. Chinatown in NYC famously had a separate supply chain, farms growing produce just for them and not selling into the normal major commodities markets, etc. Here\u2019s a random article discussing it, surely there is more info on the current situation available: https:\/\/nextcity.org\/urbanist-news\/why-chinatown-is-so-delicious-and-why-it-might-not-be-so-forever","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7078.0,"score_ratio":5.2142857143} {"post_id":"voyl2w","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How do produce stands in NYC, Montreal, and other major cities sell their items for less than most big box chains? In NYC, there are plenty of produce vendors on the street that sell aesthetic, fresh fruit for less than cost conscious mega-chains, like Wal Mart, Trader Joes, and Wegmans. The big chains have negotiating power, wholesale discounts, and economies of scale to help them profit on tiny margins. So, how is it that my small, local, fruit stand can outcompete pricewise with national chains and still stay afloat?","c_root_id_A":"ieg8sl4","c_root_id_B":"ieg0x14","created_at_utc_A":1656682947,"created_at_utc_B":1656679104,"score_A":438,"score_B":19,"human_ref_A":"Note that not all small grocers use the same supply chains as the big box stores. Chinatown in NYC famously had a separate supply chain, farms growing produce just for them and not selling into the normal major commodities markets, etc. Here\u2019s a random article discussing it, surely there is more info on the current situation available: https:\/\/nextcity.org\/urbanist-news\/why-chinatown-is-so-delicious-and-why-it-might-not-be-so-forever","human_ref_B":"Tagging on to the other comments here: Additional overhead not found in market stands: exorbitant executive salaries, accountants, human resources, other administrative positions, building ownership and maintenance.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3843.0,"score_ratio":23.0526315789} {"post_id":"voyl2w","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How do produce stands in NYC, Montreal, and other major cities sell their items for less than most big box chains? In NYC, there are plenty of produce vendors on the street that sell aesthetic, fresh fruit for less than cost conscious mega-chains, like Wal Mart, Trader Joes, and Wegmans. The big chains have negotiating power, wholesale discounts, and economies of scale to help them profit on tiny margins. So, how is it that my small, local, fruit stand can outcompete pricewise with national chains and still stay afloat?","c_root_id_A":"ieh20fw","c_root_id_B":"iegs2zt","created_at_utc_A":1656695029,"created_at_utc_B":1656691021,"score_A":37,"score_B":22,"human_ref_A":"Just to add, there are different grades of produce as well. Big chains usually want what\u2019s considered a #1 grade. The small spots can usually take a lower grade like a #2, which can have lots of defects and even mold, and they can sort through and sell as is for less. A lot of times #2 is perfectly fine it just doesn\u2019t meet the standards to be called #1 due to sizing or slight discolour.","human_ref_B":"WTF is \"aesthetic\" fruit?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4008.0,"score_ratio":1.6818181818} {"post_id":"voyl2w","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How do produce stands in NYC, Montreal, and other major cities sell their items for less than most big box chains? In NYC, there are plenty of produce vendors on the street that sell aesthetic, fresh fruit for less than cost conscious mega-chains, like Wal Mart, Trader Joes, and Wegmans. The big chains have negotiating power, wholesale discounts, and economies of scale to help them profit on tiny margins. So, how is it that my small, local, fruit stand can outcompete pricewise with national chains and still stay afloat?","c_root_id_A":"ieg0x14","c_root_id_B":"ieh20fw","created_at_utc_A":1656679104,"created_at_utc_B":1656695029,"score_A":19,"score_B":37,"human_ref_A":"Tagging on to the other comments here: Additional overhead not found in market stands: exorbitant executive salaries, accountants, human resources, other administrative positions, building ownership and maintenance.","human_ref_B":"Just to add, there are different grades of produce as well. Big chains usually want what\u2019s considered a #1 grade. The small spots can usually take a lower grade like a #2, which can have lots of defects and even mold, and they can sort through and sell as is for less. A lot of times #2 is perfectly fine it just doesn\u2019t meet the standards to be called #1 due to sizing or slight discolour.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":15925.0,"score_ratio":1.9473684211} {"post_id":"voyl2w","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How do produce stands in NYC, Montreal, and other major cities sell their items for less than most big box chains? In NYC, there are plenty of produce vendors on the street that sell aesthetic, fresh fruit for less than cost conscious mega-chains, like Wal Mart, Trader Joes, and Wegmans. The big chains have negotiating power, wholesale discounts, and economies of scale to help them profit on tiny margins. So, how is it that my small, local, fruit stand can outcompete pricewise with national chains and still stay afloat?","c_root_id_A":"ieh5bzy","c_root_id_B":"iegs2zt","created_at_utc_A":1656696369,"created_at_utc_B":1656691021,"score_A":24,"score_B":22,"human_ref_A":"For Montreal, lot of them are farmers' markets. Dude picks up his parsnip, give it a wash, throw in the truck and sells it to you.","human_ref_B":"WTF is \"aesthetic\" fruit?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5348.0,"score_ratio":1.0909090909} {"post_id":"voyl2w","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How do produce stands in NYC, Montreal, and other major cities sell their items for less than most big box chains? In NYC, there are plenty of produce vendors on the street that sell aesthetic, fresh fruit for less than cost conscious mega-chains, like Wal Mart, Trader Joes, and Wegmans. The big chains have negotiating power, wholesale discounts, and economies of scale to help them profit on tiny margins. So, how is it that my small, local, fruit stand can outcompete pricewise with national chains and still stay afloat?","c_root_id_A":"ieh5bzy","c_root_id_B":"ieg0x14","created_at_utc_A":1656696369,"created_at_utc_B":1656679104,"score_A":24,"score_B":19,"human_ref_A":"For Montreal, lot of them are farmers' markets. Dude picks up his parsnip, give it a wash, throw in the truck and sells it to you.","human_ref_B":"Tagging on to the other comments here: Additional overhead not found in market stands: exorbitant executive salaries, accountants, human resources, other administrative positions, building ownership and maintenance.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":17265.0,"score_ratio":1.2631578947} {"post_id":"voyl2w","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How do produce stands in NYC, Montreal, and other major cities sell their items for less than most big box chains? In NYC, there are plenty of produce vendors on the street that sell aesthetic, fresh fruit for less than cost conscious mega-chains, like Wal Mart, Trader Joes, and Wegmans. The big chains have negotiating power, wholesale discounts, and economies of scale to help them profit on tiny margins. So, how is it that my small, local, fruit stand can outcompete pricewise with national chains and still stay afloat?","c_root_id_A":"ieg0x14","c_root_id_B":"iegs2zt","created_at_utc_A":1656679104,"created_at_utc_B":1656691021,"score_A":19,"score_B":22,"human_ref_A":"Tagging on to the other comments here: Additional overhead not found in market stands: exorbitant executive salaries, accountants, human resources, other administrative positions, building ownership and maintenance.","human_ref_B":"WTF is \"aesthetic\" fruit?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":11917.0,"score_ratio":1.1578947368} {"post_id":"w2035q","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: when we get stressed, and have adrenaline and cortisol run through our system, once we calm down where do those hormones go?","c_root_id_A":"ignh3qx","c_root_id_B":"igncq08","created_at_utc_A":1658157519,"created_at_utc_B":1658155719,"score_A":640,"score_B":60,"human_ref_A":"Systemic chemicals and hormones are mostly broken down in the liver. In addition, individual cells of many types can further process many steroid hormones - so cortisol (which is a steroid hormone = basically a fat based hormone) can be further metabolized in neurons to make a neuroactive version that does not affect gene transcription (making proteins) but membrane receptors. Particularly an inhibitory one called GABA receptors, which also helps \u201ccalm down\u201d activity. These work in manner very similar to barbiturate and benzodiazepines and are in fact currently manufactured as anti seizure meds, among other things. Adrenaline is a no steroid hormone, cant get into cells and so binds to some receptor on the outside of cells, briefly, and then unbinds and is broken down. Cortisol is more complicated - it can get into cells, it can be further processed or metabolized in cells, and these metabolites may also be active. In addition there is activation of the opposing neural system (sympathetic and parasympathetic ) which will actively antagonize the effects of the hormones - decreasing heart rate for example. So there are many homeostatic mechanisms that restore the resting functions after a stressor.","human_ref_B":"We generally have sites in the body where certain chemicals are \u2018re-absorbed\u2019 and their effects nullified. Anti-depressants and anti-anxiety medicines will block these sites and cause things like serotonin to remain in your system and build up. Your body releases compounds and removes them, and will do this at various levels constantly. Edit. Im wrong, stop upvoting lol","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1800.0,"score_ratio":10.6666666667} {"post_id":"w2035q","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: when we get stressed, and have adrenaline and cortisol run through our system, once we calm down where do those hormones go?","c_root_id_A":"igot5x4","c_root_id_B":"igp58j3","created_at_utc_A":1658176519,"created_at_utc_B":1658181337,"score_A":269,"score_B":510,"human_ref_A":">explain like I'm 5 Some of you are breaking it down more in depth than my dietician classes.","human_ref_B":"Our body have \"Hormone control police\", they destroy hormone & make them 'inactive.' These inactivated hormones are thrown out of body along with urine or feces. ... Hormone control police: Enzymes which inactives neurotransmitters \/ hormones. For eg. MAO [an enzyme] inactives Dopamine, by oxidizing the dopamine molecule. ie. make it inactive. Hence, hormones action also gets inactivated","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4818.0,"score_ratio":1.8959107807} {"post_id":"w2035q","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: when we get stressed, and have adrenaline and cortisol run through our system, once we calm down where do those hormones go?","c_root_id_A":"igp58j3","c_root_id_B":"igncq08","created_at_utc_A":1658181337,"created_at_utc_B":1658155719,"score_A":510,"score_B":60,"human_ref_A":"Our body have \"Hormone control police\", they destroy hormone & make them 'inactive.' These inactivated hormones are thrown out of body along with urine or feces. ... Hormone control police: Enzymes which inactives neurotransmitters \/ hormones. For eg. MAO [an enzyme] inactives Dopamine, by oxidizing the dopamine molecule. ie. make it inactive. Hence, hormones action also gets inactivated","human_ref_B":"We generally have sites in the body where certain chemicals are \u2018re-absorbed\u2019 and their effects nullified. Anti-depressants and anti-anxiety medicines will block these sites and cause things like serotonin to remain in your system and build up. Your body releases compounds and removes them, and will do this at various levels constantly. Edit. Im wrong, stop upvoting lol","labels":1,"seconds_difference":25618.0,"score_ratio":8.5} {"post_id":"w2035q","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: when we get stressed, and have adrenaline and cortisol run through our system, once we calm down where do those hormones go?","c_root_id_A":"igp58j3","c_root_id_B":"igojmth","created_at_utc_A":1658181337,"created_at_utc_B":1658172762,"score_A":510,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"Our body have \"Hormone control police\", they destroy hormone & make them 'inactive.' These inactivated hormones are thrown out of body along with urine or feces. ... Hormone control police: Enzymes which inactives neurotransmitters \/ hormones. For eg. MAO [an enzyme] inactives Dopamine, by oxidizing the dopamine molecule. ie. make it inactive. Hence, hormones action also gets inactivated","human_ref_B":"Cortisol is made from the building block molecule, cholesterol. As soon as it gets secreted into blood, cortisol, made in the middle layer of the adrenal gland, is already being broken back down into cholesterol by the liver. Once secretion stops (other hormones are the on and off switches, but that's another story), all remaining cortisol (and all steroid hormones) get mopped up in the liver and turned back into cholesterol. Adrenaline, made in the interior of the adrenal gland, is a molecule called a 'catecholamine'. I only mention it if you want to do more reading. After it stops getting secreted, it gets absorbed in nerve endings and broken down into its basic building blocks, by two different enzymes. So, adrenaline affects nerves and is in turn, broken down by them, to keep concentrations in a safe zone, and to limit its time of action. Beyond Explain like I'm five years old: Hormone metabolic pathways: https:\/\/www.nist.gov\/programs-projects\/steroid-hormone-pathway-mapping Catecholamine metabolic pathways: https:\/\/pharmrev.aspetjournals.org\/content\/56\/3\/331\/tab-figures-data","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8575.0,"score_ratio":42.5} {"post_id":"w2035q","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: when we get stressed, and have adrenaline and cortisol run through our system, once we calm down where do those hormones go?","c_root_id_A":"igp58j3","c_root_id_B":"ignh66g","created_at_utc_A":1658181337,"created_at_utc_B":1658157547,"score_A":510,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"Our body have \"Hormone control police\", they destroy hormone & make them 'inactive.' These inactivated hormones are thrown out of body along with urine or feces. ... Hormone control police: Enzymes which inactives neurotransmitters \/ hormones. For eg. MAO [an enzyme] inactives Dopamine, by oxidizing the dopamine molecule. ie. make it inactive. Hence, hormones action also gets inactivated","human_ref_B":"The hormones\/neurotransmitters that are released into your bloodstream have no effect on you until the part of your body they are meant to affect re-uptake the compound. This creates the neural pathway that tells the brain to react. For instance, when you have a phobic response (let\u2019s say that you saw a snake under your bed) your body would release cortisol in combination with adrenaline. The compounds would course through your blood and the re-uptake would begin to affect the necessary bodily functions ( i.e. increased heart rate, sweating, shutdown of the digestive system, tunnel vision, blood pushed from the skin and extremities to the core and to the legs. ) this attunes your body for the fight or flight response. These side effects are good if you have a real threat. Skin turns into a sort of armor, vision is concentrated on the threat and not concerned about the surroundings, large muscles have increased blood for combat or flight, etc. This is not so good if the threat is not as pertinent. Let\u2019s say you have to get up in front of the class and give a presentation. Same or similar phobic response, but not so useful. Pale sweaty skin, butterflies in the stomach, dry mouth, and crapping your pants is less than ideal in this circumstance. The hormone dump will continue as needed, until the threat is eliminated or the tank is empty. Because this is not an electrical impulse from the brain, but a hormonal response, it lingers in the system until the re-uptake is complete. It will gradually fade. As was previously mentioned anti-depressant medications are typically re-uptake inhibitors that cause the re-uptake to be delayed and for the dopamine and serotonin to linger in the system. The drugs don\u2019t create the good feelings, so to speak, they just cause them to spread out and last a bit longer. Most illegal drugs that are recreationally used cause the body to artificially dump dopamine (and serotonin in the case of X) which flood the system. The re-uptake is hitting all the nodes at once causing euphoria. Some of the nodes are damaged in the process which is why you typically get diminishing returns. Because of the flood of neurotransmitters in the system, complete re-uptake cannot be achieved and some will be flushed from the body. With continued use the tank will eventually be empty and further use of the drug will not have the desired effect. The tank will fill back up to a degree over time, but not until long after the crash.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":23790.0,"score_ratio":42.5} {"post_id":"w2035q","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: when we get stressed, and have adrenaline and cortisol run through our system, once we calm down where do those hormones go?","c_root_id_A":"igot5x4","c_root_id_B":"igncq08","created_at_utc_A":1658176519,"created_at_utc_B":1658155719,"score_A":269,"score_B":60,"human_ref_A":">explain like I'm 5 Some of you are breaking it down more in depth than my dietician classes.","human_ref_B":"We generally have sites in the body where certain chemicals are \u2018re-absorbed\u2019 and their effects nullified. Anti-depressants and anti-anxiety medicines will block these sites and cause things like serotonin to remain in your system and build up. Your body releases compounds and removes them, and will do this at various levels constantly. Edit. Im wrong, stop upvoting lol","labels":1,"seconds_difference":20800.0,"score_ratio":4.4833333333} {"post_id":"w2035q","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: when we get stressed, and have adrenaline and cortisol run through our system, once we calm down where do those hormones go?","c_root_id_A":"igot5x4","c_root_id_B":"igojmth","created_at_utc_A":1658176519,"created_at_utc_B":1658172762,"score_A":269,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":">explain like I'm 5 Some of you are breaking it down more in depth than my dietician classes.","human_ref_B":"Cortisol is made from the building block molecule, cholesterol. As soon as it gets secreted into blood, cortisol, made in the middle layer of the adrenal gland, is already being broken back down into cholesterol by the liver. Once secretion stops (other hormones are the on and off switches, but that's another story), all remaining cortisol (and all steroid hormones) get mopped up in the liver and turned back into cholesterol. Adrenaline, made in the interior of the adrenal gland, is a molecule called a 'catecholamine'. I only mention it if you want to do more reading. After it stops getting secreted, it gets absorbed in nerve endings and broken down into its basic building blocks, by two different enzymes. So, adrenaline affects nerves and is in turn, broken down by them, to keep concentrations in a safe zone, and to limit its time of action. Beyond Explain like I'm five years old: Hormone metabolic pathways: https:\/\/www.nist.gov\/programs-projects\/steroid-hormone-pathway-mapping Catecholamine metabolic pathways: https:\/\/pharmrev.aspetjournals.org\/content\/56\/3\/331\/tab-figures-data","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3757.0,"score_ratio":22.4166666667} {"post_id":"w2035q","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: when we get stressed, and have adrenaline and cortisol run through our system, once we calm down where do those hormones go?","c_root_id_A":"ignh66g","c_root_id_B":"igot5x4","created_at_utc_A":1658157547,"created_at_utc_B":1658176519,"score_A":12,"score_B":269,"human_ref_A":"The hormones\/neurotransmitters that are released into your bloodstream have no effect on you until the part of your body they are meant to affect re-uptake the compound. This creates the neural pathway that tells the brain to react. For instance, when you have a phobic response (let\u2019s say that you saw a snake under your bed) your body would release cortisol in combination with adrenaline. The compounds would course through your blood and the re-uptake would begin to affect the necessary bodily functions ( i.e. increased heart rate, sweating, shutdown of the digestive system, tunnel vision, blood pushed from the skin and extremities to the core and to the legs. ) this attunes your body for the fight or flight response. These side effects are good if you have a real threat. Skin turns into a sort of armor, vision is concentrated on the threat and not concerned about the surroundings, large muscles have increased blood for combat or flight, etc. This is not so good if the threat is not as pertinent. Let\u2019s say you have to get up in front of the class and give a presentation. Same or similar phobic response, but not so useful. Pale sweaty skin, butterflies in the stomach, dry mouth, and crapping your pants is less than ideal in this circumstance. The hormone dump will continue as needed, until the threat is eliminated or the tank is empty. Because this is not an electrical impulse from the brain, but a hormonal response, it lingers in the system until the re-uptake is complete. It will gradually fade. As was previously mentioned anti-depressant medications are typically re-uptake inhibitors that cause the re-uptake to be delayed and for the dopamine and serotonin to linger in the system. The drugs don\u2019t create the good feelings, so to speak, they just cause them to spread out and last a bit longer. Most illegal drugs that are recreationally used cause the body to artificially dump dopamine (and serotonin in the case of X) which flood the system. The re-uptake is hitting all the nodes at once causing euphoria. Some of the nodes are damaged in the process which is why you typically get diminishing returns. Because of the flood of neurotransmitters in the system, complete re-uptake cannot be achieved and some will be flushed from the body. With continued use the tank will eventually be empty and further use of the drug will not have the desired effect. The tank will fill back up to a degree over time, but not until long after the crash.","human_ref_B":">explain like I'm 5 Some of you are breaking it down more in depth than my dietician classes.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":18972.0,"score_ratio":22.4166666667} {"post_id":"sec5wb","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Eli5: How can a plants roots survive in a cup of water (root cuttings, propagation), when the same plant planted in soil can be drown if you over water it?","c_root_id_A":"huihxhh","c_root_id_B":"huikvch","created_at_utc_A":1643328599,"created_at_utc_B":1643329826,"score_A":4,"score_B":155,"human_ref_A":"Not a botanist but one problem with over watering is washing away nutrients in the soil. If the water in the reservoir has everything needed dissolved in it then it could survive.","human_ref_B":"Overwatering your plants kill them (mainly) for two reasons: lack of oxygen and\/or root rot. It's also important to mention that plants breath (absorve oxygen) through both their leaves and their roots, since they aren't very good moving the oxygen through out their bodies: they breath through \"pores\" and the oxygen only serves nearby cells. Water (usually) doesn't contain as many bacteria, fungi or small animals (nematodes) as soil does. Fungi loves moist soil, if the soil is damp it will multiply and cause root rot, killing your plant. Not only that, all those little animals and fungi also use oxygen and will compete with your plant for it. Damp soil means more animals and also less oxygen pockets. Plants breath easier in soil but in water there's not so much competition for the available oxygen, so the plant does not die, it grows more roots to take better advantage of the situation.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1227.0,"score_ratio":38.75} {"post_id":"sec5wb","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Eli5: How can a plants roots survive in a cup of water (root cuttings, propagation), when the same plant planted in soil can be drown if you over water it?","c_root_id_A":"huihxhh","c_root_id_B":"huilhar","created_at_utc_A":1643328599,"created_at_utc_B":1643330081,"score_A":4,"score_B":122,"human_ref_A":"Not a botanist but one problem with over watering is washing away nutrients in the soil. If the water in the reservoir has everything needed dissolved in it then it could survive.","human_ref_B":"waterlogged soil creates a wonderful environment for bacterial and fungal pathogens that cause root rot. Meanwhile, few bacteria or fungi can grow in pure water. The roots can be damaged either way by lack of oxygen (which can happen in both instances) but pathogen derived root rot is much less likely in pure water.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1482.0,"score_ratio":30.5} {"post_id":"sec5wb","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Eli5: How can a plants roots survive in a cup of water (root cuttings, propagation), when the same plant planted in soil can be drown if you over water it?","c_root_id_A":"huihxhh","c_root_id_B":"huio4ew","created_at_utc_A":1643328599,"created_at_utc_B":1643331180,"score_A":4,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"Not a botanist but one problem with over watering is washing away nutrients in the soil. If the water in the reservoir has everything needed dissolved in it then it could survive.","human_ref_B":"I believe it has to do with the oxygen supply to the roots, at least in part. Water propagation is a very effective method for many plant varieties. However, If you took an established plant out of its pot and stuck it in a glass of water *without cleaning off all the excess soil,* it would still die. Waterlogged, heavy soil suffocates the roots and cuts off their oxygen supply. Soil also contains lots of organisms and bacteria and stuff, both good and bad, and heavily watered soil can create the perfect conditions for the bad kind of bacterial growth. This is what causes root rot.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2581.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"wgqiwd","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Since fossil fuels like Oil and Gas come from dead plants more than they do from actual dinosaurs, why is all of the accessible oil concentrated in a few small wells, instead of spread out evenly?","c_root_id_A":"ij15w96","c_root_id_B":"ij16ipd","created_at_utc_A":1659690892,"created_at_utc_B":1659691394,"score_A":6,"score_B":22,"human_ref_A":"You have answered your own question. The wells are at places where the oil is accessible by a well. There are other locations with oil but there are mountains on top so we can\u2019t feasibly access the oil.","human_ref_B":"Oil and gas are fluids, and the rock layers that contain them are riddled with cracks and holes, like a sponge. The oil and gas flow around underground, and pool together when they reach a rock layer they can't easily flow through. Identifying where these pools are is a big deal in the petro industry.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":502.0,"score_ratio":3.6666666667} {"post_id":"we4oww","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How is there so much variation in peoples voices to the point that we don't regularly encounter strangers who sound like people we know? I can walk around all day and not encounter a voice of someone who sounds like someone else I know, yet if I was facing away from someone I knew and heard their voice, I'd likely turn around at the sound of it. There are times where I'll see faces and think they look like someone I know, but I don't think I've ever thought to myself or commented to someone that they sound like someone I know. I don't think I've ever heard someone who's voice sounds like a celebrity that I'd recognize, unless they're doing an intentional impression. Does the brain not seek out similar voices in the same way it may faces? Is the brain able to identify people that distinctly that it can remember their exact voice pattern and discern it from others?","c_root_id_A":"iio8f9f","c_root_id_B":"iimkaw7","created_at_utc_A":1659463142,"created_at_utc_B":1659436629,"score_A":5,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"I\u2019m faceblind which means I have a hard time recognizing faces; mine\u2019s mild but some folks aren\u2019t able to recognise their kids; what this means is I\u2019m often able to place people by their voices before I can match up the face.","human_ref_B":"As others say, I think the biggest factor isn't the voice itself, but the way that we speak. Speaking speak, accent, choice of words, tone of voice. Add all those together along with having to have the exact same voice, then you'd have difficulty finding 2 people who sound similar enough to confuse them.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":26513.0,"score_ratio":1.25} {"post_id":"we4oww","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How is there so much variation in peoples voices to the point that we don't regularly encounter strangers who sound like people we know? I can walk around all day and not encounter a voice of someone who sounds like someone else I know, yet if I was facing away from someone I knew and heard their voice, I'd likely turn around at the sound of it. There are times where I'll see faces and think they look like someone I know, but I don't think I've ever thought to myself or commented to someone that they sound like someone I know. I don't think I've ever heard someone who's voice sounds like a celebrity that I'd recognize, unless they're doing an intentional impression. Does the brain not seek out similar voices in the same way it may faces? Is the brain able to identify people that distinctly that it can remember their exact voice pattern and discern it from others?","c_root_id_A":"iio8f9f","c_root_id_B":"iimugy5","created_at_utc_A":1659463142,"created_at_utc_B":1659443017,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I\u2019m faceblind which means I have a hard time recognizing faces; mine\u2019s mild but some folks aren\u2019t able to recognise their kids; what this means is I\u2019m often able to place people by their voices before I can match up the face.","human_ref_B":"Just to add together what other people are already saying here, how you sound is a combination of your particular anatomy and your particular patterns of articulation. To start, your vocal folds are a bit differen than mine. Think of your vocal folds as guitar strings. Just as plucking a long, fat string creates a different sound than plucking a short, thin string (think of a thin string on the same guitar that you've maybe shortened by pressing on a fret), speaking with big fat vocal cords produces a different sound than speaking with short skinny vocal folds. This, for example, is how you change pitch. Not only your vocal folds, but the rest of your vocal tract is specific to you, so your voice resonates differently. Think of your vocal tract (pharynx, nasal cavities, cheeks, hard\/soft palate) as the body of your guitar. What happens AFTER you pluck the string? It resonates off the guitar walls, and will do so entirely differently off ukelele walls or banjo walls or whatever walls that are different shapes and sizes. Your voice does the same off your cheeks, palate, pharyngeal walls, etc. So that's a very simplified description of anatomy. But people are also cool in that we can not only pluck strings but actually CHANGE THE SHAPE OF OUR GUITAR. Meaning we can (to some extent) not only choose our pitch with our vocal folds, but we can adjust somewhat the shape of our vocal tract and articulators (as though we could change the shape of our guitar body in real time while we are producing sounds). For example, you can move your velum and push your voice to be more nasal, vibrate lower down to to have more glottal friction, move your tongue to make sounds more palatal, make certain sounds more dental or alveolar by moving the tip of your tongue. If you do this in very specific ways (changing, say, the shape of your vowels or altering the manner of articulation of certain consonants) you can even create specific patterns of phonemes that we identify with different \"accents\". But even if two of us speak with the same \"accent\" pattern, it will still resonate off your anatomy in particular and not mine, so it will sound like \"you\" speaking with that accent and not me.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":20125.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"we4oww","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How is there so much variation in peoples voices to the point that we don't regularly encounter strangers who sound like people we know? I can walk around all day and not encounter a voice of someone who sounds like someone else I know, yet if I was facing away from someone I knew and heard their voice, I'd likely turn around at the sound of it. There are times where I'll see faces and think they look like someone I know, but I don't think I've ever thought to myself or commented to someone that they sound like someone I know. I don't think I've ever heard someone who's voice sounds like a celebrity that I'd recognize, unless they're doing an intentional impression. Does the brain not seek out similar voices in the same way it may faces? Is the brain able to identify people that distinctly that it can remember their exact voice pattern and discern it from others?","c_root_id_A":"iinhpp5","c_root_id_B":"iio8f9f","created_at_utc_A":1659453234,"created_at_utc_B":1659463142,"score_A":3,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"I guy got a voice box transplant from a stranger after 20 years with no voice, yet he sounds similar to his father when he speaks. It seems much of the voice comes from the shape of your throat\/mouth\/etc. \"Heidler recovered his voice, which he says now sounds a bit like his father's voice, and 13 years later \"continues well today,\" Strome said.\" source","human_ref_B":"I\u2019m faceblind which means I have a hard time recognizing faces; mine\u2019s mild but some folks aren\u2019t able to recognise their kids; what this means is I\u2019m often able to place people by their voices before I can match up the face.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9908.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"we4oww","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How is there so much variation in peoples voices to the point that we don't regularly encounter strangers who sound like people we know? I can walk around all day and not encounter a voice of someone who sounds like someone else I know, yet if I was facing away from someone I knew and heard their voice, I'd likely turn around at the sound of it. There are times where I'll see faces and think they look like someone I know, but I don't think I've ever thought to myself or commented to someone that they sound like someone I know. I don't think I've ever heard someone who's voice sounds like a celebrity that I'd recognize, unless they're doing an intentional impression. Does the brain not seek out similar voices in the same way it may faces? Is the brain able to identify people that distinctly that it can remember their exact voice pattern and discern it from others?","c_root_id_A":"iimdabd","c_root_id_B":"iio8f9f","created_at_utc_A":1659430997,"created_at_utc_B":1659463142,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"There is a lot of variation in people's voices because people have different vocal cords. The size, tension, and thickness of a person's vocal cords can create a lot of variation in sound. Additionally, the way a person uses their voice can also create variation. For example, some people speak in a higher pitch than others, and some people have more nasally sounding voices.","human_ref_B":"I\u2019m faceblind which means I have a hard time recognizing faces; mine\u2019s mild but some folks aren\u2019t able to recognise their kids; what this means is I\u2019m often able to place people by their voices before I can match up the face.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":32145.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"we4oww","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How is there so much variation in peoples voices to the point that we don't regularly encounter strangers who sound like people we know? I can walk around all day and not encounter a voice of someone who sounds like someone else I know, yet if I was facing away from someone I knew and heard their voice, I'd likely turn around at the sound of it. There are times where I'll see faces and think they look like someone I know, but I don't think I've ever thought to myself or commented to someone that they sound like someone I know. I don't think I've ever heard someone who's voice sounds like a celebrity that I'd recognize, unless they're doing an intentional impression. Does the brain not seek out similar voices in the same way it may faces? Is the brain able to identify people that distinctly that it can remember their exact voice pattern and discern it from others?","c_root_id_A":"iimkaw7","c_root_id_B":"iimdabd","created_at_utc_A":1659436629,"created_at_utc_B":1659430997,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"As others say, I think the biggest factor isn't the voice itself, but the way that we speak. Speaking speak, accent, choice of words, tone of voice. Add all those together along with having to have the exact same voice, then you'd have difficulty finding 2 people who sound similar enough to confuse them.","human_ref_B":"There is a lot of variation in people's voices because people have different vocal cords. The size, tension, and thickness of a person's vocal cords can create a lot of variation in sound. Additionally, the way a person uses their voice can also create variation. For example, some people speak in a higher pitch than others, and some people have more nasally sounding voices.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5632.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"we4oww","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How is there so much variation in peoples voices to the point that we don't regularly encounter strangers who sound like people we know? I can walk around all day and not encounter a voice of someone who sounds like someone else I know, yet if I was facing away from someone I knew and heard their voice, I'd likely turn around at the sound of it. There are times where I'll see faces and think they look like someone I know, but I don't think I've ever thought to myself or commented to someone that they sound like someone I know. I don't think I've ever heard someone who's voice sounds like a celebrity that I'd recognize, unless they're doing an intentional impression. Does the brain not seek out similar voices in the same way it may faces? Is the brain able to identify people that distinctly that it can remember their exact voice pattern and discern it from others?","c_root_id_A":"iimugy5","c_root_id_B":"iimdabd","created_at_utc_A":1659443017,"created_at_utc_B":1659430997,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Just to add together what other people are already saying here, how you sound is a combination of your particular anatomy and your particular patterns of articulation. To start, your vocal folds are a bit differen than mine. Think of your vocal folds as guitar strings. Just as plucking a long, fat string creates a different sound than plucking a short, thin string (think of a thin string on the same guitar that you've maybe shortened by pressing on a fret), speaking with big fat vocal cords produces a different sound than speaking with short skinny vocal folds. This, for example, is how you change pitch. Not only your vocal folds, but the rest of your vocal tract is specific to you, so your voice resonates differently. Think of your vocal tract (pharynx, nasal cavities, cheeks, hard\/soft palate) as the body of your guitar. What happens AFTER you pluck the string? It resonates off the guitar walls, and will do so entirely differently off ukelele walls or banjo walls or whatever walls that are different shapes and sizes. Your voice does the same off your cheeks, palate, pharyngeal walls, etc. So that's a very simplified description of anatomy. But people are also cool in that we can not only pluck strings but actually CHANGE THE SHAPE OF OUR GUITAR. Meaning we can (to some extent) not only choose our pitch with our vocal folds, but we can adjust somewhat the shape of our vocal tract and articulators (as though we could change the shape of our guitar body in real time while we are producing sounds). For example, you can move your velum and push your voice to be more nasal, vibrate lower down to to have more glottal friction, move your tongue to make sounds more palatal, make certain sounds more dental or alveolar by moving the tip of your tongue. If you do this in very specific ways (changing, say, the shape of your vowels or altering the manner of articulation of certain consonants) you can even create specific patterns of phonemes that we identify with different \"accents\". But even if two of us speak with the same \"accent\" pattern, it will still resonate off your anatomy in particular and not mine, so it will sound like \"you\" speaking with that accent and not me.","human_ref_B":"There is a lot of variation in people's voices because people have different vocal cords. The size, tension, and thickness of a person's vocal cords can create a lot of variation in sound. Additionally, the way a person uses their voice can also create variation. For example, some people speak in a higher pitch than others, and some people have more nasally sounding voices.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":12020.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"we4oww","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How is there so much variation in peoples voices to the point that we don't regularly encounter strangers who sound like people we know? I can walk around all day and not encounter a voice of someone who sounds like someone else I know, yet if I was facing away from someone I knew and heard their voice, I'd likely turn around at the sound of it. There are times where I'll see faces and think they look like someone I know, but I don't think I've ever thought to myself or commented to someone that they sound like someone I know. I don't think I've ever heard someone who's voice sounds like a celebrity that I'd recognize, unless they're doing an intentional impression. Does the brain not seek out similar voices in the same way it may faces? Is the brain able to identify people that distinctly that it can remember their exact voice pattern and discern it from others?","c_root_id_A":"iimdabd","c_root_id_B":"iinhpp5","created_at_utc_A":1659430997,"created_at_utc_B":1659453234,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"There is a lot of variation in people's voices because people have different vocal cords. The size, tension, and thickness of a person's vocal cords can create a lot of variation in sound. Additionally, the way a person uses their voice can also create variation. For example, some people speak in a higher pitch than others, and some people have more nasally sounding voices.","human_ref_B":"I guy got a voice box transplant from a stranger after 20 years with no voice, yet he sounds similar to his father when he speaks. It seems much of the voice comes from the shape of your throat\/mouth\/etc. \"Heidler recovered his voice, which he says now sounds a bit like his father's voice, and 13 years later \"continues well today,\" Strome said.\" source","labels":0,"seconds_difference":22237.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"zei5ci","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.74,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why do they make gummy multivitamins and supplements, but no gummy medication drugs?","c_root_id_A":"iz6muuj","c_root_id_B":"iz6kcsy","created_at_utc_A":1670362035,"created_at_utc_B":1670361062,"score_A":67,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"A vitamin supplement basically just needs to get into the bloodstream as soon as possible so that it can be absorbed. A lot of medications are designed to dissolve and disperse into the body in a slow and controlled way. The form the medication takes (capsule, tablet, powder, liquid, etc.) plays a big part in how quickly it gets absorbed.","human_ref_B":"Because people would take way more medicine than they are supposed to. That's why pills usually don't taste good.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":973.0,"score_ratio":7.4444444444} {"post_id":"zei5ci","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.74,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why do they make gummy multivitamins and supplements, but no gummy medication drugs?","c_root_id_A":"iz6ln03","c_root_id_B":"iz6muuj","created_at_utc_A":1670361562,"created_at_utc_B":1670362035,"score_A":3,"score_B":67,"human_ref_A":"They actually do make them. In the USA they sell many OTC meds as gummy version. Pretty wild if you are from europe and you see something like that for the first time visiting the states. Absolutely unthinkable in germany for obvious safety reasons.","human_ref_B":"A vitamin supplement basically just needs to get into the bloodstream as soon as possible so that it can be absorbed. A lot of medications are designed to dissolve and disperse into the body in a slow and controlled way. The form the medication takes (capsule, tablet, powder, liquid, etc.) plays a big part in how quickly it gets absorbed.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":473.0,"score_ratio":22.3333333333} {"post_id":"zei5ci","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.74,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why do they make gummy multivitamins and supplements, but no gummy medication drugs?","c_root_id_A":"iz6r9mp","c_root_id_B":"iz6kcsy","created_at_utc_A":1670363779,"created_at_utc_B":1670361062,"score_A":10,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"Cynical answer: the FDA doesn't regulate vitamin supplements. They don't really have to do anything.","human_ref_B":"Because people would take way more medicine than they are supposed to. That's why pills usually don't taste good.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2717.0,"score_ratio":1.1111111111} {"post_id":"zei5ci","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.74,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why do they make gummy multivitamins and supplements, but no gummy medication drugs?","c_root_id_A":"iz6ln03","c_root_id_B":"iz6r9mp","created_at_utc_A":1670361562,"created_at_utc_B":1670363779,"score_A":3,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"They actually do make them. In the USA they sell many OTC meds as gummy version. Pretty wild if you are from europe and you see something like that for the first time visiting the states. Absolutely unthinkable in germany for obvious safety reasons.","human_ref_B":"Cynical answer: the FDA doesn't regulate vitamin supplements. They don't really have to do anything.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2217.0,"score_ratio":3.3333333333} {"post_id":"b36i8n","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.73,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old Why is it that you breathe into someone\u2019s mouth during CPR, but we exhale carbon dioxide which is something humans shouldn\u2019t inhale?","c_root_id_A":"eixis82","c_root_id_B":"eixijxk","created_at_utc_A":1553049546,"created_at_utc_B":1553049371,"score_A":25,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"First, our lungs don't absorb 100% of the oxygen in one breath; there's plenty of oxygen left in your breath when you breathe and exhale normally. So the idea was that, even though there's some CO2 from your breath, there's also quite a bit of oxygen and you're getting it into the other person's lungs. And second, as of a few years ago, the recommended CPR technique is to skip the mouth-to-mouth and just do chest compressions. The ribs kinda get some air into the lungs by themselves, and it's actually more important to get whatever amount of blood to the brain you can (by compressing the chest).","human_ref_B":"Not all of your exhaled breath is CO2. Part of that breath contains oxygen. The person receiving CPR is getting zero new oxygen under their own power, so even the partial influx of oxygen is thought to be an improvement. Quick search suggests that exhaled breath is about 16% oxygen, compared to ~20.5% oxygen in regular air. The exhaled breath is about 4% - 5% CO2. Their blood contains several minutes of useful oxygen, so it\u2019s thought that doing chest compressions to circulate blood is probably more immediately useful, anyway, and that\u2019s a thing people are more willing to do, even without the rescue breaths.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":175.0,"score_ratio":4.1666666667} {"post_id":"b36i8n","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.73,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old Why is it that you breathe into someone\u2019s mouth during CPR, but we exhale carbon dioxide which is something humans shouldn\u2019t inhale?","c_root_id_A":"eixis82","c_root_id_B":"eixipni","created_at_utc_A":1553049546,"created_at_utc_B":1553049494,"score_A":25,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"First, our lungs don't absorb 100% of the oxygen in one breath; there's plenty of oxygen left in your breath when you breathe and exhale normally. So the idea was that, even though there's some CO2 from your breath, there's also quite a bit of oxygen and you're getting it into the other person's lungs. And second, as of a few years ago, the recommended CPR technique is to skip the mouth-to-mouth and just do chest compressions. The ribs kinda get some air into the lungs by themselves, and it's actually more important to get whatever amount of blood to the brain you can (by compressing the chest).","human_ref_B":"You do not exhale pure carbon dioxide. In fact what you exhale is not that different from regular air. If you think about it you are able to hold your breath much longer then a regular breathing interval. This is because there is still a lot of oxygen in your lungs and a lot of room for carbon dioxide when you normally exhale. So it is perfectly fine to breathe that into someone else's lungs. However most modern CPR procedures have you focus more on the chest compression and even drop the mouth to mouth attempts if you are alone. This is because the air in the lung and the air getting exchanged during normal convection and with the chest compression is usually enough to keep an unconscious person alive. The problem is to pump the blood around in the body.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":52.0,"score_ratio":8.3333333333} {"post_id":"tlo6w4","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: What does the black rectangle clipper when filming films and movies actually do? Why do they need one at all? I always wondered this","c_root_id_A":"i1vgmvt","c_root_id_B":"i1vbb3g","created_at_utc_A":1648083956,"created_at_utc_B":1648081593,"score_A":317,"score_B":205,"human_ref_A":"Let\u2019s say that you are filming with multiple cameras from multiple angles. You may have also multiple microphones. When you snap the clapboard down, all the cameras and all the microphones record a spike of noise at the same time. When you go back later to edit, you take the footage from all the cameras and all the sound from the microphones and you can line them all up on that spike. This way you can edit between cameras (showing some from camera 1, then 3, then 2 \u2026. and the sounds will still line up correctly without having to adjust very fine details manually.","human_ref_B":"It has a few. One is that it has things like the scene, scene number, take number, etc recorded on it for the editor. Another is that when it is clapped shut it makes a sound that can be used to make sure that the picture and audio are synced. It gives a very exact moment that the sound is produced.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2363.0,"score_ratio":1.5463414634} {"post_id":"tlo6w4","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: What does the black rectangle clipper when filming films and movies actually do? Why do they need one at all? I always wondered this","c_root_id_A":"i1vbg4m","c_root_id_B":"i1vgmvt","created_at_utc_A":1648081655,"created_at_utc_B":1648083956,"score_A":19,"score_B":317,"human_ref_A":"Took a film tour at Disney Hollywood Studios once. They explained that the clapper was to sync up the video and audio streams, which were recorded separately-- the camera just does the looks and they had a detached microphone for sound. It's likely this is still how its done despite that there are cameras that have built-in sound. But they would line up the \"clap\" in the audio with the moment that the bar closed on the board on camera, so it was easy to get the feeds to come together properly.","human_ref_B":"Let\u2019s say that you are filming with multiple cameras from multiple angles. You may have also multiple microphones. When you snap the clapboard down, all the cameras and all the microphones record a spike of noise at the same time. When you go back later to edit, you take the footage from all the cameras and all the sound from the microphones and you can line them all up on that spike. This way you can edit between cameras (showing some from camera 1, then 3, then 2 \u2026. and the sounds will still line up correctly without having to adjust very fine details manually.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2301.0,"score_ratio":16.6842105263} {"post_id":"tlo6w4","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: What does the black rectangle clipper when filming films and movies actually do? Why do they need one at all? I always wondered this","c_root_id_A":"i1vbuvf","c_root_id_B":"i1vgmvt","created_at_utc_A":1648081838,"created_at_utc_B":1648083956,"score_A":6,"score_B":317,"human_ref_A":"The Slate, or Clapboard, is used for the production people to keep track of each scene, and take. See this webpage\u2026. https:\/\/www.studiobinder.com\/blog\/how-to-use-a-film-slate\/","human_ref_B":"Let\u2019s say that you are filming with multiple cameras from multiple angles. You may have also multiple microphones. When you snap the clapboard down, all the cameras and all the microphones record a spike of noise at the same time. When you go back later to edit, you take the footage from all the cameras and all the sound from the microphones and you can line them all up on that spike. This way you can edit between cameras (showing some from camera 1, then 3, then 2 \u2026. and the sounds will still line up correctly without having to adjust very fine details manually.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2118.0,"score_ratio":52.8333333333} {"post_id":"tlo6w4","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: What does the black rectangle clipper when filming films and movies actually do? Why do they need one at all? I always wondered this","c_root_id_A":"i1vbg4m","c_root_id_B":"i1vl4va","created_at_utc_A":1648081655,"created_at_utc_B":1648085979,"score_A":19,"score_B":24,"human_ref_A":"Took a film tour at Disney Hollywood Studios once. They explained that the clapper was to sync up the video and audio streams, which were recorded separately-- the camera just does the looks and they had a detached microphone for sound. It's likely this is still how its done despite that there are cameras that have built-in sound. But they would line up the \"clap\" in the audio with the moment that the bar closed on the board on camera, so it was easy to get the feeds to come together properly.","human_ref_B":"High-end cameras are often *just* the cameras, which is fine because an included microphone would be bad for audio quality. You'd want to use a separate, high quality mic for good audio anyway. You may also have multiple mics. Since the camera and mics are separate, the video and audio aren't automatically synced like they are with consumer level cameras. They have to be synced manually during the edit. The sharp movement and clap makes it easier to sync.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4324.0,"score_ratio":1.2631578947} {"post_id":"tlo6w4","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: What does the black rectangle clipper when filming films and movies actually do? Why do they need one at all? I always wondered this","c_root_id_A":"i1vbuvf","c_root_id_B":"i1vl4va","created_at_utc_A":1648081838,"created_at_utc_B":1648085979,"score_A":6,"score_B":24,"human_ref_A":"The Slate, or Clapboard, is used for the production people to keep track of each scene, and take. See this webpage\u2026. https:\/\/www.studiobinder.com\/blog\/how-to-use-a-film-slate\/","human_ref_B":"High-end cameras are often *just* the cameras, which is fine because an included microphone would be bad for audio quality. You'd want to use a separate, high quality mic for good audio anyway. You may also have multiple mics. Since the camera and mics are separate, the video and audio aren't automatically synced like they are with consumer level cameras. They have to be synced manually during the edit. The sharp movement and clap makes it easier to sync.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4141.0,"score_ratio":4.0} {"post_id":"tlo6w4","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: What does the black rectangle clipper when filming films and movies actually do? Why do they need one at all? I always wondered this","c_root_id_A":"i1vlyhh","c_root_id_B":"i1vbuvf","created_at_utc_A":1648086344,"created_at_utc_B":1648081838,"score_A":17,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Even in smaller productions, it\u2019s helpful to record the take and scene. I was editing together a video recorded on my phone, and it was super annoying to figure out which one was the take where I coughed halfway through, or forgot a word\u2026 I had written down \u201c#1,#2, etc but when I uploaded and started rearranging clips it was useless. If I had used a sign within the clip to designate it as \u201cscene 1, take 1\u201d it would have been easier","human_ref_B":"The Slate, or Clapboard, is used for the production people to keep track of each scene, and take. See this webpage\u2026. https:\/\/www.studiobinder.com\/blog\/how-to-use-a-film-slate\/","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4506.0,"score_ratio":2.8333333333} {"post_id":"oyesp3","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: If Chinese Mandarin is a tonal language, then how can people understand modern Chinese songs?","c_root_id_A":"h7shvkr","c_root_id_B":"h7sgnz3","created_at_utc_A":1628161249,"created_at_utc_B":1628160351,"score_A":108,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"Context. I learned quickly when studying chinese that the best way to sound fluent was to drop the tonals and just go ham. All the instructors and exchange students were impressed how I got so good so fast. If you are with a friend, and they ask you \"how is your horse\" when talking about your family, you know in that case \"ma\" was meant to be \"mother\".","human_ref_B":"I think it just has to be inferred through context. Like a lot of stuff in Chinese actually. I'm pretty sure they also don't have any tenses either.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":898.0,"score_ratio":12.0} {"post_id":"oyesp3","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: If Chinese Mandarin is a tonal language, then how can people understand modern Chinese songs?","c_root_id_A":"h7sl1mh","c_root_id_B":"h7sgnz3","created_at_utc_A":1628163447,"created_at_utc_B":1628160351,"score_A":50,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"The important thing to understand about tonal languages is that it's not about absolute pitch but about relative pitch. Is the pitch rising, falling, staying level, going up and down, etc. So, if a singer wants to sing a syllable with falling tone, they may start off singing it slightly sharp, then (quickly) drop down to the correct note, thus indicating falling tone.","human_ref_B":"I think it just has to be inferred through context. Like a lot of stuff in Chinese actually. I'm pretty sure they also don't have any tenses either.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3096.0,"score_ratio":5.5555555556} {"post_id":"oyesp3","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: If Chinese Mandarin is a tonal language, then how can people understand modern Chinese songs?","c_root_id_A":"h7trvsi","c_root_id_B":"h7twiq9","created_at_utc_A":1628181905,"created_at_utc_B":1628183818,"score_A":3,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"I had a Chinese friend say that the shape of the music is dictated by the sentence, and then defined later. So they start with the sentence, and that gets turned into notes. Basically instead of drawing with a blank paper, a friend scribbled a few lines into it and you have to add to those lines to make something interesting. This may actually make composing easier, because you can focus on a few options instead of being overwhelmed with where to start.","human_ref_B":"Tone in Chinese languages is important for disambiguation, but not absolutely necessary. There is of course a non-tonal component to each word, and put enough of those together and you can figure out what the tones should have been. And don't forget - even in English we often rely on typed-out lyrics to understand everything in a song! Frow what I hear, though, in Cantonese often the melody is designed to work well with the tone pattern the lyrics would have when spoken. Mandarin on the other hand just ignores tone in music.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1913.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"oyesp3","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: If Chinese Mandarin is a tonal language, then how can people understand modern Chinese songs?","c_root_id_A":"h7sqj16","c_root_id_B":"h7twiq9","created_at_utc_A":1628166781,"created_at_utc_B":1628183818,"score_A":2,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Even in a song, the tones of the words remain the same most of the time. When the tones change to fit the flow of the music, there\u2019s some misunderstanding for sure, sometimes can be resolved by the context sometimes not.","human_ref_B":"Tone in Chinese languages is important for disambiguation, but not absolutely necessary. There is of course a non-tonal component to each word, and put enough of those together and you can figure out what the tones should have been. And don't forget - even in English we often rely on typed-out lyrics to understand everything in a song! Frow what I hear, though, in Cantonese often the melody is designed to work well with the tone pattern the lyrics would have when spoken. Mandarin on the other hand just ignores tone in music.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":17037.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"oyesp3","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: If Chinese Mandarin is a tonal language, then how can people understand modern Chinese songs?","c_root_id_A":"h7trvsi","c_root_id_B":"h7sqj16","created_at_utc_A":1628181905,"created_at_utc_B":1628166781,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I had a Chinese friend say that the shape of the music is dictated by the sentence, and then defined later. So they start with the sentence, and that gets turned into notes. Basically instead of drawing with a blank paper, a friend scribbled a few lines into it and you have to add to those lines to make something interesting. This may actually make composing easier, because you can focus on a few options instead of being overwhelmed with where to start.","human_ref_B":"Even in a song, the tones of the words remain the same most of the time. When the tones change to fit the flow of the music, there\u2019s some misunderstanding for sure, sometimes can be resolved by the context sometimes not.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":15124.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"sghehc","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"Eli5:What prevents our bodies to get rid of excess food\/calories that are not necessary, and instead turns it into fat?","c_root_id_A":"huwb5c5","c_root_id_B":"huwoy1u","created_at_utc_A":1643574361,"created_at_utc_B":1643579420,"score_A":4,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Evolution. At some point in our history our species had times when food was sparse. Those that could efficiently store calories as fat lived and those that couldn\u2019t, starved. It\u2019s pretty recent that many of us lived in a situation without food scarcity.","human_ref_B":"Why would our bodies waste such useful resources???","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5059.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"yghunk","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why people test cocaine on their gum line?","c_root_id_A":"iu9a8dd","c_root_id_B":"iu99gzj","created_at_utc_A":1667057958,"created_at_utc_B":1667057624,"score_A":14416,"score_B":1550,"human_ref_A":"Ok so there are actually a couple ways to test coke without test equipment. 1. Good coke will fluff up with heat. Using either a piece of tin foil and a lighter or a microwave heat an amount of coke. It will dry out and fluff up and there should be no burnt specs just fluffy powder. The burnt specs are the cut and not the coke 2. Rubbing it between your fingers. If you take a small amount and rub it between your fingers it should dissolve completely and feel a little greasy. If there are any clumps that is the the cut and not the coke. 3. Smell. This isn't always applicable but if your coke has a smell to it. It should smell like gasoline or just a little like chemicals. But the better the coke the less smell it has. This has to do with how it's made, if it was a rushed job or it had the proper amount of time to cook. You should follow the previous steps before you get to this point. The previous steps will help determine if your coke was cut with cheaper shit and if it has the essence of good coke. 4. Lastly you can rub it on your gums. If all of the previous steps check out you can rub it on your gums. It should take 3 - 5 min before your mouth will start to go numb. If your mouth goes numb to quick it could be cut with lidocaine or benzocaine. There are other ways but these are just a basic run down and what I know","human_ref_B":"Cocaine is an anesthetic and it will numb your gums. Cocaine is actually not a Schedule I controlled substance* like heroin or methamphetamine. It is a Schedule II substance which means it has acceptable medical uses, like as a dental anesthetic, though dentists normally use different anesthetics like benzocaine or lidocaine, or even procaine (novacaine) - notice how they all end in \"-caine\". *under US law EDIT: Apparently Meth is a Schedule II. My bad.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":334.0,"score_ratio":9.3006451613} {"post_id":"yghunk","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why people test cocaine on their gum line?","c_root_id_A":"iu8ms2f","c_root_id_B":"iu9a8dd","created_at_utc_A":1667046313,"created_at_utc_B":1667057958,"score_A":340,"score_B":14416,"human_ref_A":"To test to see if it numbs the gums, as cocaine should. It\u2019s not that good of a test for the user to be honest, as it could just be cut with something like lidocaine to create a similar result. But for law enforcement it at least suggests it\u2019s some sort of illegal substance. A better test for users in my experience, as they already know it\u2019s cocaine and instead want to see how pure it is, is to rub it between your fingers and see how easily it dissolves. Purer stuff should be silky smooth and disappear without you even feeling it, which is hard to replicate (but I\u2019m not exactly Pablo Escobar so it\u2019s not an exact thing)","human_ref_B":"Ok so there are actually a couple ways to test coke without test equipment. 1. Good coke will fluff up with heat. Using either a piece of tin foil and a lighter or a microwave heat an amount of coke. It will dry out and fluff up and there should be no burnt specs just fluffy powder. The burnt specs are the cut and not the coke 2. Rubbing it between your fingers. If you take a small amount and rub it between your fingers it should dissolve completely and feel a little greasy. If there are any clumps that is the the cut and not the coke. 3. Smell. This isn't always applicable but if your coke has a smell to it. It should smell like gasoline or just a little like chemicals. But the better the coke the less smell it has. This has to do with how it's made, if it was a rushed job or it had the proper amount of time to cook. You should follow the previous steps before you get to this point. The previous steps will help determine if your coke was cut with cheaper shit and if it has the essence of good coke. 4. Lastly you can rub it on your gums. If all of the previous steps check out you can rub it on your gums. It should take 3 - 5 min before your mouth will start to go numb. If your mouth goes numb to quick it could be cut with lidocaine or benzocaine. There are other ways but these are just a basic run down and what I know","labels":0,"seconds_difference":11645.0,"score_ratio":42.4} {"post_id":"yghunk","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why people test cocaine on their gum line?","c_root_id_A":"iu9a2jj","c_root_id_B":"iu9a8dd","created_at_utc_A":1667057886,"created_at_utc_B":1667057958,"score_A":84,"score_B":14416,"human_ref_A":"I had a nasty little coke habit in my 20s. I never once tested it on my gums. Once you get acquainted you can take a bump or do a line and see how good it is. I only rubbed it on my gums if it wasn't enough for a bump or line. End of a bag type thing.","human_ref_B":"Ok so there are actually a couple ways to test coke without test equipment. 1. Good coke will fluff up with heat. Using either a piece of tin foil and a lighter or a microwave heat an amount of coke. It will dry out and fluff up and there should be no burnt specs just fluffy powder. The burnt specs are the cut and not the coke 2. Rubbing it between your fingers. If you take a small amount and rub it between your fingers it should dissolve completely and feel a little greasy. If there are any clumps that is the the cut and not the coke. 3. Smell. This isn't always applicable but if your coke has a smell to it. It should smell like gasoline or just a little like chemicals. But the better the coke the less smell it has. This has to do with how it's made, if it was a rushed job or it had the proper amount of time to cook. You should follow the previous steps before you get to this point. The previous steps will help determine if your coke was cut with cheaper shit and if it has the essence of good coke. 4. Lastly you can rub it on your gums. If all of the previous steps check out you can rub it on your gums. It should take 3 - 5 min before your mouth will start to go numb. If your mouth goes numb to quick it could be cut with lidocaine or benzocaine. There are other ways but these are just a basic run down and what I know","labels":0,"seconds_difference":72.0,"score_ratio":171.619047619} {"post_id":"yghunk","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why people test cocaine on their gum line?","c_root_id_A":"iu8ms2f","c_root_id_B":"iu99gzj","created_at_utc_A":1667046313,"created_at_utc_B":1667057624,"score_A":340,"score_B":1550,"human_ref_A":"To test to see if it numbs the gums, as cocaine should. It\u2019s not that good of a test for the user to be honest, as it could just be cut with something like lidocaine to create a similar result. But for law enforcement it at least suggests it\u2019s some sort of illegal substance. A better test for users in my experience, as they already know it\u2019s cocaine and instead want to see how pure it is, is to rub it between your fingers and see how easily it dissolves. Purer stuff should be silky smooth and disappear without you even feeling it, which is hard to replicate (but I\u2019m not exactly Pablo Escobar so it\u2019s not an exact thing)","human_ref_B":"Cocaine is an anesthetic and it will numb your gums. Cocaine is actually not a Schedule I controlled substance* like heroin or methamphetamine. It is a Schedule II substance which means it has acceptable medical uses, like as a dental anesthetic, though dentists normally use different anesthetics like benzocaine or lidocaine, or even procaine (novacaine) - notice how they all end in \"-caine\". *under US law EDIT: Apparently Meth is a Schedule II. My bad.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":11311.0,"score_ratio":4.5588235294} {"post_id":"yghunk","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why people test cocaine on their gum line?","c_root_id_A":"iu8ms2f","c_root_id_B":"iu9u72p","created_at_utc_A":1667046313,"created_at_utc_B":1667066447,"score_A":340,"score_B":626,"human_ref_A":"To test to see if it numbs the gums, as cocaine should. It\u2019s not that good of a test for the user to be honest, as it could just be cut with something like lidocaine to create a similar result. But for law enforcement it at least suggests it\u2019s some sort of illegal substance. A better test for users in my experience, as they already know it\u2019s cocaine and instead want to see how pure it is, is to rub it between your fingers and see how easily it dissolves. Purer stuff should be silky smooth and disappear without you even feeling it, which is hard to replicate (but I\u2019m not exactly Pablo Escobar so it\u2019s not an exact thing)","human_ref_B":"Just a PSA for less experienced users: don\u2019t ever get coke from anyone you don\u2019t know and trust well. There\u2019s been a concerning number of cases of people dying from coke that was cut with fentanyl.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":20134.0,"score_ratio":1.8411764706} {"post_id":"yghunk","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why people test cocaine on their gum line?","c_root_id_A":"iu9u72p","c_root_id_B":"iu9ib8k","created_at_utc_A":1667066447,"created_at_utc_B":1667061437,"score_A":626,"score_B":102,"human_ref_A":"Just a PSA for less experienced users: don\u2019t ever get coke from anyone you don\u2019t know and trust well. There\u2019s been a concerning number of cases of people dying from coke that was cut with fentanyl.","human_ref_B":"It may be worth pointing out that any time you\u2019re actually introducing a drug into your body (even gums) your sampling, not testing. If it\u2019s cut with fentanyl or something you\u2019re sampling that as well.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5010.0,"score_ratio":6.137254902} {"post_id":"yghunk","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why people test cocaine on their gum line?","c_root_id_A":"iu9u72p","c_root_id_B":"iu9a2jj","created_at_utc_A":1667066447,"created_at_utc_B":1667057886,"score_A":626,"score_B":84,"human_ref_A":"Just a PSA for less experienced users: don\u2019t ever get coke from anyone you don\u2019t know and trust well. There\u2019s been a concerning number of cases of people dying from coke that was cut with fentanyl.","human_ref_B":"I had a nasty little coke habit in my 20s. I never once tested it on my gums. Once you get acquainted you can take a bump or do a line and see how good it is. I only rubbed it on my gums if it wasn't enough for a bump or line. End of a bag type thing.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8561.0,"score_ratio":7.4523809524} {"post_id":"yghunk","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why people test cocaine on their gum line?","c_root_id_A":"iu9ib8k","c_root_id_B":"iu9a2jj","created_at_utc_A":1667061437,"created_at_utc_B":1667057886,"score_A":102,"score_B":84,"human_ref_A":"It may be worth pointing out that any time you\u2019re actually introducing a drug into your body (even gums) your sampling, not testing. If it\u2019s cut with fentanyl or something you\u2019re sampling that as well.","human_ref_B":"I had a nasty little coke habit in my 20s. I never once tested it on my gums. Once you get acquainted you can take a bump or do a line and see how good it is. I only rubbed it on my gums if it wasn't enough for a bump or line. End of a bag type thing.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3551.0,"score_ratio":1.2142857143} {"post_id":"ntr5q","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why do AM and FM radio stations sound so different?","c_root_id_A":"c3bvrud","c_root_id_B":"c3bv764","created_at_utc_A":1325098238,"created_at_utc_B":1325095021,"score_A":26,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"From: http:\/\/www.pbs.org\/wgbh\/aso\/tryit\/radio\/radiorelayer.html FM radio works the same way that AM radio works. The difference is in how the carrier wave is modulated, or altered. With AM radio, the amplitude, or overall strength, of the signal is varied to incorporate the sound information. With FM, the frequency (the number of times each second that the current changes direction) of the carrier signal is varied. FM signals have a great advantage over AM signals. Both signals are susceptible to slight changes in amplitude. With an AM broadcast, these changes result in static. With an FM broadcast, slight changes in amplitude don't matter -- since the audio signal is conveyed through changes in frequency, the FM receiver can just ignore changes in amplitude. The result: no static at all. ----------------------- From: http:\/\/www.cybercollege.com\/frtv\/frtv017.htm AM also limits the loud-to-soft range of sounds that can be reproduced (called dynamic range) and the high-to-low sound frequency range (called frequency response, to be explained below).","human_ref_B":"Due to the way they are implemented, FM transmission has shorter range but has better sound and is also usually in stereo. AM has longer reach, but poorer sound quality and is nearly always in mono.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3217.0,"score_ratio":2.6} {"post_id":"ntr5q","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why do AM and FM radio stations sound so different?","c_root_id_A":"c3bv764","c_root_id_B":"c3bybxf","created_at_utc_A":1325095021,"created_at_utc_B":1325113028,"score_A":10,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"Due to the way they are implemented, FM transmission has shorter range but has better sound and is also usually in stereo. AM has longer reach, but poorer sound quality and is nearly always in mono.","human_ref_B":"Nobody has answered the actual question of *why* they sound different, so let me give it a try: **Explain like I'm five years old version:** The FCC tells AM radio stations to only transmit sounds in the lower half of the range of frequencies that people can hear. Then to make things worse, it turns out that making good AM radios that can get the whole (half) range being transmitted is way more expensive than making crappy radios that get only the bottom half of that range, so most AM radios are in effect only playing a quarter of the frequencies that are in the original music being transmitted. Good sound has frequencies up to about 20000 Hz, but the stuff coming out of your AM radio receiver only goes up to about 5000 Hz. No wonder AM sounds bad! For various technical reasons, FM radio doesn't have this problem nearly as much, so it sounds better (it can go up to about 15000 Hz.) **ELI20 version:** Modulated radio transmissions like the ones broadcasted by radio stations, have a main carrier frequency - say, 99.1MHz in the FM band, or 1550kHz in AM - that you tune your radio to in order to listen to a given station. However, the process of modulating the radio signal (i.e., embedding audio information into the carrier) puts energy at frequencies above and below the main carrier, in its so-called \"sidebands.\" The higher the audio frequency being transmitted, the wider the sidebands become. So if a radio station transmits a 1kHz audio tone on a 1000kHz carrier, the signal going out will actually have energy between 999kHz and 1001kHz (the carrier frequency, plus and minus the audio frequency.) Play a 10kHz tone, and the signal will now have energy between 990kHz and 1010kHz. Play a full-spectrum (20 - 20000 Hz) music recording from a CD and your transmission will now have energy everywhere between 980kHz and 1020kHz. The important thing to grasp here is that **the higher the audio frequency being transmitted, the wider the sidebands become.** So if two stations are transmitting at carrier frequencies that are too close, like 1000kHz and 1001kHz, their sidebands would probably overlap and interfere with each other. It would make it impossible to tune into one station without getting a little bit of leakage from their neighbor station. To resolve this issue, every station's carrier frequency would have to be far enough away from the others to allow their sidebands to coexist without overlapping. But how far? Well, for various historical, technical and regulatory reasons, a compromise has been reached in which the FCC requires AM stations to limit the highest audio frequency they broadcast to 10.2kHz (i.e., cutting out all audio content above 10.2kHz and thus reducing sound quality) therefore putting stations that serve the same geographical area at least 20.4kHz away from each other (30kHz or more, in practice.) So AM radio stations broadcast bandwidth-limited audio that's missing all of its high frequency content above 10.2kHz. But that's not the whole story: AM receivers can be made simply and relatively cheaply, but these cheap receivers have even worse frequency response than the already high-frequency-limited AM transmissions (they only go up to about 5kHz.) It turns out that making AM receivers that can reproduce the whole audio spectrum is expensive, so most AM radios on the market only output sound in the 50 - 5000 Hz range, or so. That's a long way away from the 20 - 20000 Hz range that most people can hear, so it sounds boxy and muffled and just plain bad. FM stations are also required to cut high frequency audio from their broadcasts, but only at 15kHz. And FM receivers can easily be made to handle the full audio spectrum. **This difference in frequency response or bandwidth between AM and FM is why the former sounds so much worse than the latter.**","labels":0,"seconds_difference":18007.0,"score_ratio":1.2} {"post_id":"ntr5q","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why do AM and FM radio stations sound so different?","c_root_id_A":"c3bybxf","c_root_id_B":"c3bwlh6","created_at_utc_A":1325113028,"created_at_utc_B":1325102733,"score_A":12,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Nobody has answered the actual question of *why* they sound different, so let me give it a try: **Explain like I'm five years old version:** The FCC tells AM radio stations to only transmit sounds in the lower half of the range of frequencies that people can hear. Then to make things worse, it turns out that making good AM radios that can get the whole (half) range being transmitted is way more expensive than making crappy radios that get only the bottom half of that range, so most AM radios are in effect only playing a quarter of the frequencies that are in the original music being transmitted. Good sound has frequencies up to about 20000 Hz, but the stuff coming out of your AM radio receiver only goes up to about 5000 Hz. No wonder AM sounds bad! For various technical reasons, FM radio doesn't have this problem nearly as much, so it sounds better (it can go up to about 15000 Hz.) **ELI20 version:** Modulated radio transmissions like the ones broadcasted by radio stations, have a main carrier frequency - say, 99.1MHz in the FM band, or 1550kHz in AM - that you tune your radio to in order to listen to a given station. However, the process of modulating the radio signal (i.e., embedding audio information into the carrier) puts energy at frequencies above and below the main carrier, in its so-called \"sidebands.\" The higher the audio frequency being transmitted, the wider the sidebands become. So if a radio station transmits a 1kHz audio tone on a 1000kHz carrier, the signal going out will actually have energy between 999kHz and 1001kHz (the carrier frequency, plus and minus the audio frequency.) Play a 10kHz tone, and the signal will now have energy between 990kHz and 1010kHz. Play a full-spectrum (20 - 20000 Hz) music recording from a CD and your transmission will now have energy everywhere between 980kHz and 1020kHz. The important thing to grasp here is that **the higher the audio frequency being transmitted, the wider the sidebands become.** So if two stations are transmitting at carrier frequencies that are too close, like 1000kHz and 1001kHz, their sidebands would probably overlap and interfere with each other. It would make it impossible to tune into one station without getting a little bit of leakage from their neighbor station. To resolve this issue, every station's carrier frequency would have to be far enough away from the others to allow their sidebands to coexist without overlapping. But how far? Well, for various historical, technical and regulatory reasons, a compromise has been reached in which the FCC requires AM stations to limit the highest audio frequency they broadcast to 10.2kHz (i.e., cutting out all audio content above 10.2kHz and thus reducing sound quality) therefore putting stations that serve the same geographical area at least 20.4kHz away from each other (30kHz or more, in practice.) So AM radio stations broadcast bandwidth-limited audio that's missing all of its high frequency content above 10.2kHz. But that's not the whole story: AM receivers can be made simply and relatively cheaply, but these cheap receivers have even worse frequency response than the already high-frequency-limited AM transmissions (they only go up to about 5kHz.) It turns out that making AM receivers that can reproduce the whole audio spectrum is expensive, so most AM radios on the market only output sound in the 50 - 5000 Hz range, or so. That's a long way away from the 20 - 20000 Hz range that most people can hear, so it sounds boxy and muffled and just plain bad. FM stations are also required to cut high frequency audio from their broadcasts, but only at 15kHz. And FM receivers can easily be made to handle the full audio spectrum. **This difference in frequency response or bandwidth between AM and FM is why the former sounds so much worse than the latter.**","human_ref_B":"very relevant","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10295.0,"score_ratio":2.4} {"post_id":"pbh35z","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.65,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old Why do some words that start with a vowel need the word \"an\" instead of \"a\" in front of them but no words that end in a vowel have a rule about the next word starting with a consonant?","c_root_id_A":"habvlde","c_root_id_B":"habueeq","created_at_utc_A":1629919123,"created_at_utc_B":1629918648,"score_A":79,"score_B":18,"human_ref_A":"It seems like everybody is not actually reading the question you are asking, and is just giving you a generic answer about why\/when we use \"a\" and \"and\" in English. It seems like you are asking: English avoids mashing vowel sounds together by adding \"-n\" to \"a\", but why doesn't it do something similar to other words that end in vowels? Like, the phrase \"a apple\" sounds bad so there is a rule to avoid it, but there is no rule about the phrase \"extra apple\" even though it has the same sounds in the same order. Why don't we say \"extran apple\" instead? It's probably because \"a\" is such a short word, that it gets lost when placed next to another vowel sound. But a longer word that ends with the same sound, like \"extra\" is long and distinct enough that you still clearly hear it even when placed next to another vowel sound. If you mash the words together, like \"extrapple\", you can still pick out \"extra\" and \"apple\". If you mash \"a\" and \"apple\" together, you just get \"apple\": the \"a\" gets swallowed up, so a special rule is needed to keep it distinct.","human_ref_B":"They kind of do have a rule: Blend the terminal consonant with the next vowel. Taking that little snippet I wrote there, note that when saying \"have a\" what it actually sounds like is \"hava\". In some dialects, you might also blend the \"th\" sounds of \"with the\" into a single double-long \"th\" sound, instead of stopping and creating a new one. And \"what it actually\" is really \"whati tactually\" when speaking quickly. And \"like is\" will sound like \"Likis\". This should illustrate the purpose of \"an\". To create two distinct vowel sounds next to each other, we have to stop the flow of air. This sounds pretty unnatural and it's quite hard to do between vowels, especially when talking quickly, so \"a apple\" ends up sounding childish and just plain bad. The purpose of going \"an\" is to stick in a consonant so that you can flow into the next word without stopping air flow entirely. The n is effectively stopping airflow too, but in the mouth as part of the movement of the tongue, instead of in the lungs by changing how the diaphragm moves. So, you get \"a napple\" which sounds much better than \"a apple\".","labels":1,"seconds_difference":475.0,"score_ratio":4.3888888889} {"post_id":"pbh35z","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.65,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old Why do some words that start with a vowel need the word \"an\" instead of \"a\" in front of them but no words that end in a vowel have a rule about the next word starting with a consonant?","c_root_id_A":"habosus","c_root_id_B":"habvlde","created_at_utc_A":1629916412,"created_at_utc_B":1629919123,"score_A":3,"score_B":79,"human_ref_A":"For English, the reason is because of the spoken flow of the words. Because of the positioning of the tongue, it's simply easier to transition from a vowel to consanant, versus a consanant to a consanant. If you say, \"Diary of a Mad Black Woman,\" it flows off of the tongue well. However, if your were to say, Diary of AN Mad Black Woman, you would run into a slight issue transitioning from the N in \"AN\" and the M in \"MAD.\" It reduces tongue-twister situations. With that reasoning in mind, that is why it exists as a formal rule. Some other languages have similar vowel-consanant rules as well.","human_ref_B":"It seems like everybody is not actually reading the question you are asking, and is just giving you a generic answer about why\/when we use \"a\" and \"and\" in English. It seems like you are asking: English avoids mashing vowel sounds together by adding \"-n\" to \"a\", but why doesn't it do something similar to other words that end in vowels? Like, the phrase \"a apple\" sounds bad so there is a rule to avoid it, but there is no rule about the phrase \"extra apple\" even though it has the same sounds in the same order. Why don't we say \"extran apple\" instead? It's probably because \"a\" is such a short word, that it gets lost when placed next to another vowel sound. But a longer word that ends with the same sound, like \"extra\" is long and distinct enough that you still clearly hear it even when placed next to another vowel sound. If you mash the words together, like \"extrapple\", you can still pick out \"extra\" and \"apple\". If you mash \"a\" and \"apple\" together, you just get \"apple\": the \"a\" gets swallowed up, so a special rule is needed to keep it distinct.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2711.0,"score_ratio":26.3333333333} {"post_id":"pbh35z","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.65,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old Why do some words that start with a vowel need the word \"an\" instead of \"a\" in front of them but no words that end in a vowel have a rule about the next word starting with a consonant?","c_root_id_A":"habueeq","c_root_id_B":"habosus","created_at_utc_A":1629918648,"created_at_utc_B":1629916412,"score_A":18,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"They kind of do have a rule: Blend the terminal consonant with the next vowel. Taking that little snippet I wrote there, note that when saying \"have a\" what it actually sounds like is \"hava\". In some dialects, you might also blend the \"th\" sounds of \"with the\" into a single double-long \"th\" sound, instead of stopping and creating a new one. And \"what it actually\" is really \"whati tactually\" when speaking quickly. And \"like is\" will sound like \"Likis\". This should illustrate the purpose of \"an\". To create two distinct vowel sounds next to each other, we have to stop the flow of air. This sounds pretty unnatural and it's quite hard to do between vowels, especially when talking quickly, so \"a apple\" ends up sounding childish and just plain bad. The purpose of going \"an\" is to stick in a consonant so that you can flow into the next word without stopping air flow entirely. The n is effectively stopping airflow too, but in the mouth as part of the movement of the tongue, instead of in the lungs by changing how the diaphragm moves. So, you get \"a napple\" which sounds much better than \"a apple\".","human_ref_B":"For English, the reason is because of the spoken flow of the words. Because of the positioning of the tongue, it's simply easier to transition from a vowel to consanant, versus a consanant to a consanant. If you say, \"Diary of a Mad Black Woman,\" it flows off of the tongue well. However, if your were to say, Diary of AN Mad Black Woman, you would run into a slight issue transitioning from the N in \"AN\" and the M in \"MAD.\" It reduces tongue-twister situations. With that reasoning in mind, that is why it exists as a formal rule. Some other languages have similar vowel-consanant rules as well.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2236.0,"score_ratio":6.0} {"post_id":"upmpuw","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"eli5 How exactly is the source code of an app\/software being \"locked\"? What is protecting it from being seen?","c_root_id_A":"i8louk3","c_root_id_B":"i8lo4qi","created_at_utc_A":1652551746,"created_at_utc_B":1652551424,"score_A":40,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Source code is \u201ccompiled\u201d, which turns it from a verbose human readable format to a compact machine readable format. Reverse Engineering code is taking the machine readable format and turning it back into human readable code - but it is a non trivial task from what I understand. https:\/\/en.m.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Compiler","human_ref_B":"The source code just isn't distributed to anyone who doesn't need to see it, and anyone trusted with it usually agrees not to distribute it.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":322.0,"score_ratio":20.0} {"post_id":"upmpuw","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"eli5 How exactly is the source code of an app\/software being \"locked\"? What is protecting it from being seen?","c_root_id_A":"i8lqziz","c_root_id_B":"i8lquvl","created_at_utc_A":1652552710,"created_at_utc_B":1652552652,"score_A":31,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"When you get a piece of software, you're getting a cake but no recipe. There is software where the metaphorical recipe is available for anyone who's curious, which is called \"open source\" software. Most anything you can walk into a store and buy off the shelf, though, isn't.","human_ref_B":"Source code is contrasted with compiled code. Computers don't have minds and do not \"understand\" commands or programs. They are calculating machines that perform various basic logical operations on binary values, and it is up to the programmers to use that in performing higher level logic. For example, the basic logical operations a CPU can perform are AND, OR, NOT, XOR, and NAND. These kinds of things are physically created \"gates\" within the structure of the CPU. An AND gate will take two inputs and output a signal only if both of the two inputs have a signal on them. An OR gate will provide an output signal if either or both of the inputs has a signal. A NOT gate will provide the opposite output as the input signal. XOR will provide an output signal if only one of the inputs has a signal but not if both do. Finally the NAND gate will provide an output signal if there is no input signal and if either of the two inputs has a signal, but not if both inputs have a signal. As you can see these kinds of basic functions are difficult to work with in creating a complex program without many layers of abstraction. Programmers tend to work using programming languages that summarize and convert combinations of these basic binary operations into a format more easily understood and written by a human. For a computer to do anything with this it needs to be \"compiled\", a process that takes this readable set of instructions and converts it into a form the CPU can process. The readable set of instructions is the source code while the compiled code is what is actually distributed to end users. Programs exist to try to de-compile programs but context, comments (notes to explain what is being done and why), variable names, formatting, and other things helpful for understanding what a program is doing are not available. For a program that might have 80 million lines of code, not having the source code makes figuring out how things are working behind the scenes quite difficult.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":58.0,"score_ratio":3.1} {"post_id":"upmpuw","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"eli5 How exactly is the source code of an app\/software being \"locked\"? What is protecting it from being seen?","c_root_id_A":"i8lqziz","c_root_id_B":"i8lo4qi","created_at_utc_A":1652552710,"created_at_utc_B":1652551424,"score_A":31,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"When you get a piece of software, you're getting a cake but no recipe. There is software where the metaphorical recipe is available for anyone who's curious, which is called \"open source\" software. Most anything you can walk into a store and buy off the shelf, though, isn't.","human_ref_B":"The source code just isn't distributed to anyone who doesn't need to see it, and anyone trusted with it usually agrees not to distribute it.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1286.0,"score_ratio":15.5} {"post_id":"upmpuw","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"eli5 How exactly is the source code of an app\/software being \"locked\"? What is protecting it from being seen?","c_root_id_A":"i8lo4qi","c_root_id_B":"i8lquvl","created_at_utc_A":1652551424,"created_at_utc_B":1652552652,"score_A":2,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"The source code just isn't distributed to anyone who doesn't need to see it, and anyone trusted with it usually agrees not to distribute it.","human_ref_B":"Source code is contrasted with compiled code. Computers don't have minds and do not \"understand\" commands or programs. They are calculating machines that perform various basic logical operations on binary values, and it is up to the programmers to use that in performing higher level logic. For example, the basic logical operations a CPU can perform are AND, OR, NOT, XOR, and NAND. These kinds of things are physically created \"gates\" within the structure of the CPU. An AND gate will take two inputs and output a signal only if both of the two inputs have a signal on them. An OR gate will provide an output signal if either or both of the inputs has a signal. A NOT gate will provide the opposite output as the input signal. XOR will provide an output signal if only one of the inputs has a signal but not if both do. Finally the NAND gate will provide an output signal if there is no input signal and if either of the two inputs has a signal, but not if both inputs have a signal. As you can see these kinds of basic functions are difficult to work with in creating a complex program without many layers of abstraction. Programmers tend to work using programming languages that summarize and convert combinations of these basic binary operations into a format more easily understood and written by a human. For a computer to do anything with this it needs to be \"compiled\", a process that takes this readable set of instructions and converts it into a form the CPU can process. The readable set of instructions is the source code while the compiled code is what is actually distributed to end users. Programs exist to try to de-compile programs but context, comments (notes to explain what is being done and why), variable names, formatting, and other things helpful for understanding what a program is doing are not available. For a program that might have 80 million lines of code, not having the source code makes figuring out how things are working behind the scenes quite difficult.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1228.0,"score_ratio":5.0} {"post_id":"upmpuw","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"eli5 How exactly is the source code of an app\/software being \"locked\"? What is protecting it from being seen?","c_root_id_A":"i8m6bof","c_root_id_B":"i8lo4qi","created_at_utc_A":1652559838,"created_at_utc_B":1652551424,"score_A":7,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"To answer your question, OP - nothing. It is generally possible to take an application you have on your computer and decompile it to see the source code. The big catch (that I feel like some folks in this thread have touched upon) is that modern software is EXTREMELY complex. It is built using a programming language that was built upon another language that was built upon another one...10 more levels down. As a result, in software development, an enormous amount of time and effort is spent on making code readable (by another human). There are cases where developers will even settle for what they know is slightly less effective code, because it's more readable and easier for other developers to understand. You lose all of this readability when you compile the code, because the compiler doesn't care about any of that readability. So while you can technically decompile it, the code you end up with will usually not be of much use to anyone.","human_ref_B":"The source code just isn't distributed to anyone who doesn't need to see it, and anyone trusted with it usually agrees not to distribute it.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8414.0,"score_ratio":3.5} {"post_id":"upmpuw","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"eli5 How exactly is the source code of an app\/software being \"locked\"? What is protecting it from being seen?","c_root_id_A":"i8m0e0i","c_root_id_B":"i8m6bof","created_at_utc_A":1652557093,"created_at_utc_B":1652559838,"score_A":2,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"The way it works in general is the programming source code is written in a text file with a specific extension (.py, .cpp, etc). Then a program called a compiler takes that file, translates what is written in 0s and 1s and creates a new file with a .exe extension. That is the executable file which your computer runs and which is distributed to users. So the original file with the source code is not distributed, only the executable, since this is the file which is actually the program that your computer can run. When the source code in the original file is changed, it needs to be compiled again into a .exe file and distributed again to users. That is what updates\/patches are.","human_ref_B":"To answer your question, OP - nothing. It is generally possible to take an application you have on your computer and decompile it to see the source code. The big catch (that I feel like some folks in this thread have touched upon) is that modern software is EXTREMELY complex. It is built using a programming language that was built upon another language that was built upon another one...10 more levels down. As a result, in software development, an enormous amount of time and effort is spent on making code readable (by another human). There are cases where developers will even settle for what they know is slightly less effective code, because it's more readable and easier for other developers to understand. You lose all of this readability when you compile the code, because the compiler doesn't care about any of that readability. So while you can technically decompile it, the code you end up with will usually not be of much use to anyone.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2745.0,"score_ratio":3.5} {"post_id":"upmpuw","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"eli5 How exactly is the source code of an app\/software being \"locked\"? What is protecting it from being seen?","c_root_id_A":"i8m6bof","c_root_id_B":"i8m277i","created_at_utc_A":1652559838,"created_at_utc_B":1652557945,"score_A":7,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"To answer your question, OP - nothing. It is generally possible to take an application you have on your computer and decompile it to see the source code. The big catch (that I feel like some folks in this thread have touched upon) is that modern software is EXTREMELY complex. It is built using a programming language that was built upon another language that was built upon another one...10 more levels down. As a result, in software development, an enormous amount of time and effort is spent on making code readable (by another human). There are cases where developers will even settle for what they know is slightly less effective code, because it's more readable and easier for other developers to understand. You lose all of this readability when you compile the code, because the compiler doesn't care about any of that readability. So while you can technically decompile it, the code you end up with will usually not be of much use to anyone.","human_ref_B":"The original english-like text is condensed and simplified to simple instructions a machine can read. Human language structures, which support the easy readability of the logic inside the program gets lost in this process. Therefore, the process can't be reversed losslessly and you need the original code to have the same information available as the programmer does.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1893.0,"score_ratio":3.5} {"post_id":"yht5gr","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"Eli5: Why does ceramic break tempered glass so easily.","c_root_id_A":"iufnsaz","c_root_id_B":"iufpv5m","created_at_utc_A":1667172578,"created_at_utc_B":1667173525,"score_A":4,"score_B":44,"human_ref_A":"Tempered glass is under very high internal stress from the process of cooling it rapidly. Ceramics are harder than glass so the impact of the two mostly transfers the force to the glass which causes the stress of the internal glass to exceed its ability to hold its structure. AFAIK.","human_ref_B":"Ceramic is very hard. Not in the general, colloquial sense of hard, but in the Mohs Hardness Scale. That scale measures whether or not something can scratch something else. Diamond is the hardest on this scale - not because you can't break diamond. Diamonds are pretty brittle, you can easily crack or shatter them with a hammer. But you can't *scratch* them. Tempered glass is made by putting the glass in tension. You cool the glass so that the outside shrinks, compressing the still-hot inside. When the inside then cools, the outside is frozen in place so the inside pulls tightly on it the inside contracts. The glass pulling on itself keeps the molecules from moving, and holds it all together strongly so it's very hard to break. By scratching the surface, ceramic breaks the tension, releasing *all* of it throughout the glass.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":947.0,"score_ratio":11.0} {"post_id":"yht5gr","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"Eli5: Why does ceramic break tempered glass so easily.","c_root_id_A":"iufnsaz","c_root_id_B":"iugu9wa","created_at_utc_A":1667172578,"created_at_utc_B":1667195343,"score_A":4,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"Tempered glass is under very high internal stress from the process of cooling it rapidly. Ceramics are harder than glass so the impact of the two mostly transfers the force to the glass which causes the stress of the internal glass to exceed its ability to hold its structure. AFAIK.","human_ref_B":"Tempered glass is like a rubber band stretched out tight. Ceramic is like a razor blade. Once that razor blade nicks the rubber band, it introduces a weak spot that creates a cascading failure and the entire thing tears itself apart.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":22765.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"50v968","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: why is it that land that was hit by an atomic bomb (Hiroshima\/Nagasaki) is fairly quickly re-inhabitable but sites like Chernobyl and Fukushima take decades to be radiation free?","c_root_id_A":"d778df2","c_root_id_B":"d777yu5","created_at_utc_A":1472848463,"created_at_utc_B":1472847894,"score_A":71,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"The atom bombs in Japan were airbursts - they didn't blow up on the ground. This resulted in maximizing destructive potential, but very little fallout that spread radioactivity to debris. A nuclear power plant like Chernobyl has many, many times the amount of nuclear fuel in them. Then, the plant exploded, spewing radioactive material and debris everywhere. Not only that, but the radioactive core of the plant is *still there*, buried in rubble underground.","human_ref_B":"1. Nuclear bombs have very little nuclear fuel in them. Chernobyl and Fukushima had a few tons of nuclear fuel, in contrast, Little Boy had 64 kg of uranium, and Fat Man had 6 kg of plutonium. 2. Nuclear bombs are very inefficient. The nuclear fuel itself isn't really that bad in terms of radiation, the byproducts of a nuclear fission reaction is. Nuclear reactors are much more efficient at converting the nuclear fuel into energy, therefore producing more harmful byproduct. I can't find the information on Fat Man, but of all of Little Boy's 64 kg of nuclear fuel, a little less than 1 kg actually underwent nuclear fission, therefore producing very little byproduct. 3. Big explosions, like an atomic one, scatter the radioactive material further, therefore it is less radioactive at one location. Nuclear reactor incidents on the other hand, are not big explosions.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":569.0,"score_ratio":5.0714285714} {"post_id":"5ixmmr","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why during a car crash or any accident do we get hurt more from having our muscles tense? Don't we tense up to protect ourselves?","c_root_id_A":"dbc8olc","c_root_id_B":"dbbx7po","created_at_utc_A":1482063685,"created_at_utc_B":1482033720,"score_A":89,"score_B":67,"human_ref_A":"I'm really worried about this thread. As a trauma surgeon I can tell u that the amount of energy passed to u during a high speed accident is so high it doesn't mean fuck all is you are relaxed or asleep or eating cheetos: MAYBE DURING A LOW SPEED, LOW ENERGY ACCIDENT but not in a life threatening high speed accident. A common injury in severe car accidents is pelvic fracture. You couldn't break a typical human pelvis bone with a sledge hammer. The amount of energy transmitted is astounding. No amount of relaxation will counter that .....","human_ref_B":"It has to do with flexibility and how energy is absorbed. When a flexible object absorbs energy the energy is used and dispersed in making the object move. If something solid and rigid were to absorb the same energy more of the energy is focused into the internal structure since it doesn't move as much and really rattles the composition.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":29965.0,"score_ratio":1.328358209} {"post_id":"5ixmmr","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why during a car crash or any accident do we get hurt more from having our muscles tense? Don't we tense up to protect ourselves?","c_root_id_A":"dbc8olc","c_root_id_B":"dbbzch1","created_at_utc_A":1482063685,"created_at_utc_B":1482037604,"score_A":89,"score_B":16,"human_ref_A":"I'm really worried about this thread. As a trauma surgeon I can tell u that the amount of energy passed to u during a high speed accident is so high it doesn't mean fuck all is you are relaxed or asleep or eating cheetos: MAYBE DURING A LOW SPEED, LOW ENERGY ACCIDENT but not in a life threatening high speed accident. A common injury in severe car accidents is pelvic fracture. You couldn't break a typical human pelvis bone with a sledge hammer. The amount of energy transmitted is astounding. No amount of relaxation will counter that .....","human_ref_B":"In an accident, it all comes down to absorbing the energy from the impact so that as little of it is transferred to your body in the form of a sudden, jolting stop. Your body does the same thing. When relaxed, the muscle groups absorb large amounts of the energy from the impact. If they are tensed up, they can't do that. The energy just gets transferred through them. If you want to try this yourself, stand on the bottom stair of a staircase and jump off. As you land, you should notice that your legs automatically bend slightly and you'll feel almost no impact. Now try it again with your leg muscles stiff.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":26081.0,"score_ratio":5.5625} {"post_id":"5ixmmr","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why during a car crash or any accident do we get hurt more from having our muscles tense? Don't we tense up to protect ourselves?","c_root_id_A":"dbc2elq","c_root_id_B":"dbc8olc","created_at_utc_A":1482043994,"created_at_utc_B":1482063685,"score_A":17,"score_B":89,"human_ref_A":"Our bodies responses have not evolved to match the speeds that we travel in cars. Tensing up while running and smacking into something or one saves our head....tensing up while driving even at 35KM and stopping suddenly just hurts you more","human_ref_B":"I'm really worried about this thread. As a trauma surgeon I can tell u that the amount of energy passed to u during a high speed accident is so high it doesn't mean fuck all is you are relaxed or asleep or eating cheetos: MAYBE DURING A LOW SPEED, LOW ENERGY ACCIDENT but not in a life threatening high speed accident. A common injury in severe car accidents is pelvic fracture. You couldn't break a typical human pelvis bone with a sledge hammer. The amount of energy transmitted is astounding. No amount of relaxation will counter that .....","labels":0,"seconds_difference":19691.0,"score_ratio":5.2352941176} {"post_id":"5ixmmr","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why during a car crash or any accident do we get hurt more from having our muscles tense? Don't we tense up to protect ourselves?","c_root_id_A":"dbc8olc","c_root_id_B":"dbc6x5r","created_at_utc_A":1482063685,"created_at_utc_B":1482057778,"score_A":89,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"I'm really worried about this thread. As a trauma surgeon I can tell u that the amount of energy passed to u during a high speed accident is so high it doesn't mean fuck all is you are relaxed or asleep or eating cheetos: MAYBE DURING A LOW SPEED, LOW ENERGY ACCIDENT but not in a life threatening high speed accident. A common injury in severe car accidents is pelvic fracture. You couldn't break a typical human pelvis bone with a sledge hammer. The amount of energy transmitted is astounding. No amount of relaxation will counter that .....","human_ref_B":"I imagine the \"tense up to protect and reduce damage\" reaction is an evolutionary response to evolutionary problems. Your neighbour hitting you with a rock, an animal headbutting you, a tree branch falling on you. Evolutionary, we are not trained to properly react to impact in 60+mph metal cubicles so we use the only reaction we have, which happens to be the wrong one. Edit: If your question was about the actual act rather than the question of \"why don't we do this\" then imagine a series of three metal bars, connected in a line with lockable joints. Now lock the joins so the metal bars form into a stiff shape and imagine another group of bars but with unlocked joints. If you put a lot of impact onto it, the energy has to go somewhere. The energy doesn't simply dissipate into thin air. If the impact is hard enough, it can overcome either the strength of the locks or material strength of the bars, breaking them. but if they are unlocked, the system deforms (in a way that's easy for it usually) absorbing some of the energy. The act of deforming absorbs energy. Your body, your bones and joints, are that system. When you tense up, you lock up your locks and the impact force either breaks those locks, or your bones. If you're not tense, then your body \"deforms\" (your arms bend, your legs bend, you bend your torso) and since the human body is generally *a lot* more elastic than people are comfortable thinking about, your body does a decent job of absorbing most of the energy in a relatively safe way.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5907.0,"score_ratio":6.8461538462} {"post_id":"5ixmmr","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why during a car crash or any accident do we get hurt more from having our muscles tense? Don't we tense up to protect ourselves?","c_root_id_A":"dbc2elq","c_root_id_B":"dbbzch1","created_at_utc_A":1482043994,"created_at_utc_B":1482037604,"score_A":17,"score_B":16,"human_ref_A":"Our bodies responses have not evolved to match the speeds that we travel in cars. Tensing up while running and smacking into something or one saves our head....tensing up while driving even at 35KM and stopping suddenly just hurts you more","human_ref_B":"In an accident, it all comes down to absorbing the energy from the impact so that as little of it is transferred to your body in the form of a sudden, jolting stop. Your body does the same thing. When relaxed, the muscle groups absorb large amounts of the energy from the impact. If they are tensed up, they can't do that. The energy just gets transferred through them. If you want to try this yourself, stand on the bottom stair of a staircase and jump off. As you land, you should notice that your legs automatically bend slightly and you'll feel almost no impact. Now try it again with your leg muscles stiff.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6390.0,"score_ratio":1.0625} {"post_id":"zeuglz","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"Eli5: why can\u2019t we fill deserts with human waste to make it dirt? Ok this might sound a bit silly but, if cow manure is soil, and deserts can't support much plantlife because they don't have the proper soil, wouldn't relocating all human waste to deserts make them into normal dirt that can grow stuff? I figure at least moss or mushrooms or whatever grows in that stuff would form making it better suited for life and less deserty, right?","c_root_id_A":"iz8ki4z","c_root_id_B":"iz8l8xd","created_at_utc_A":1670396058,"created_at_utc_B":1670396625,"score_A":51,"score_B":202,"human_ref_A":"Soil is one part of the problem with deserts, but water (or lack thereof) is a bigger problem. Also manure and soil are not the same thing.","human_ref_B":"Cow manure is not the same thing as soil. Soil is dirt and cow manure is feces. People spread manure ON soil because as it breaks down it releases nutrients into the soil. Deserts are made up of sand, not soil. Soil has an entire biome of bacteria, insects, and other microscopic creatures that are a part of it other than just the dirt itself. Soil also has a fairly high moisture content compared to sand. Soil also has the roots of plants to help hold it in place. Sand in a desert has no such structure of roots holding it in one place so it tends to blow around. So if you put a ton of shit in the desert, it would just be shit in the desert. It wouldn\u2019t transform into soil and would instead probably just dry out and stay there for a very long time since the micro biome that breaks down shit doesn\u2019t exist in the desert.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":567.0,"score_ratio":3.9607843137} {"post_id":"zeuglz","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"Eli5: why can\u2019t we fill deserts with human waste to make it dirt? Ok this might sound a bit silly but, if cow manure is soil, and deserts can't support much plantlife because they don't have the proper soil, wouldn't relocating all human waste to deserts make them into normal dirt that can grow stuff? I figure at least moss or mushrooms or whatever grows in that stuff would form making it better suited for life and less deserty, right?","c_root_id_A":"iz8l8xd","c_root_id_B":"iz8kkxb","created_at_utc_A":1670396625,"created_at_utc_B":1670396117,"score_A":202,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"Cow manure is not the same thing as soil. Soil is dirt and cow manure is feces. People spread manure ON soil because as it breaks down it releases nutrients into the soil. Deserts are made up of sand, not soil. Soil has an entire biome of bacteria, insects, and other microscopic creatures that are a part of it other than just the dirt itself. Soil also has a fairly high moisture content compared to sand. Soil also has the roots of plants to help hold it in place. Sand in a desert has no such structure of roots holding it in one place so it tends to blow around. So if you put a ton of shit in the desert, it would just be shit in the desert. It wouldn\u2019t transform into soil and would instead probably just dry out and stay there for a very long time since the micro biome that breaks down shit doesn\u2019t exist in the desert.","human_ref_B":"It's still gonna be dry. Adding nutrients to the soil is a very temporary solution to a much more permanent problem with the climate.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":508.0,"score_ratio":22.4444444444} {"post_id":"zeuglz","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"Eli5: why can\u2019t we fill deserts with human waste to make it dirt? Ok this might sound a bit silly but, if cow manure is soil, and deserts can't support much plantlife because they don't have the proper soil, wouldn't relocating all human waste to deserts make them into normal dirt that can grow stuff? I figure at least moss or mushrooms or whatever grows in that stuff would form making it better suited for life and less deserty, right?","c_root_id_A":"iz8n34o","c_root_id_B":"iz8ki4z","created_at_utc_A":1670398065,"created_at_utc_B":1670396058,"score_A":56,"score_B":51,"human_ref_A":"There is a broad climate effect that explains the distribution of deserts throughout the world They're generally located in bands that circle the earth that align with the jetstream and the hadley cells that circulate air arriving from the equator At these latitudes, due to global circulation patterns, there will always be very dry, stable, descending air. So it's kinda like fighting against gravity. The sand isn't what makes the desert the desert, the global circulation pattern is what determines where the desert is and where the sand is. So yes, we could put dirt where the sand is, but it's still gonna be a desert. If you look at a globe, the sonora, sahara, gobi deserts are all located in a big band, and it's because of the jetstream and whatnot. There is another desert band in the southern hemisphere, including the atacama and southern african deserts and australian deserts. Some latitudes are just naturally deserty due to global circulation patterns.","human_ref_B":"Soil is one part of the problem with deserts, but water (or lack thereof) is a bigger problem. Also manure and soil are not the same thing.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2007.0,"score_ratio":1.0980392157} {"post_id":"zeuglz","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"Eli5: why can\u2019t we fill deserts with human waste to make it dirt? Ok this might sound a bit silly but, if cow manure is soil, and deserts can't support much plantlife because they don't have the proper soil, wouldn't relocating all human waste to deserts make them into normal dirt that can grow stuff? I figure at least moss or mushrooms or whatever grows in that stuff would form making it better suited for life and less deserty, right?","c_root_id_A":"iz8kkxb","c_root_id_B":"iz8n34o","created_at_utc_A":1670396117,"created_at_utc_B":1670398065,"score_A":9,"score_B":56,"human_ref_A":"It's still gonna be dry. Adding nutrients to the soil is a very temporary solution to a much more permanent problem with the climate.","human_ref_B":"There is a broad climate effect that explains the distribution of deserts throughout the world They're generally located in bands that circle the earth that align with the jetstream and the hadley cells that circulate air arriving from the equator At these latitudes, due to global circulation patterns, there will always be very dry, stable, descending air. So it's kinda like fighting against gravity. The sand isn't what makes the desert the desert, the global circulation pattern is what determines where the desert is and where the sand is. So yes, we could put dirt where the sand is, but it's still gonna be a desert. If you look at a globe, the sonora, sahara, gobi deserts are all located in a big band, and it's because of the jetstream and whatnot. There is another desert band in the southern hemisphere, including the atacama and southern african deserts and australian deserts. Some latitudes are just naturally deserty due to global circulation patterns.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1948.0,"score_ratio":6.2222222222} {"post_id":"zeuglz","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"Eli5: why can\u2019t we fill deserts with human waste to make it dirt? Ok this might sound a bit silly but, if cow manure is soil, and deserts can't support much plantlife because they don't have the proper soil, wouldn't relocating all human waste to deserts make them into normal dirt that can grow stuff? I figure at least moss or mushrooms or whatever grows in that stuff would form making it better suited for life and less deserty, right?","c_root_id_A":"iz8n34o","c_root_id_B":"iz8lxgh","created_at_utc_A":1670398065,"created_at_utc_B":1670397140,"score_A":56,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"There is a broad climate effect that explains the distribution of deserts throughout the world They're generally located in bands that circle the earth that align with the jetstream and the hadley cells that circulate air arriving from the equator At these latitudes, due to global circulation patterns, there will always be very dry, stable, descending air. So it's kinda like fighting against gravity. The sand isn't what makes the desert the desert, the global circulation pattern is what determines where the desert is and where the sand is. So yes, we could put dirt where the sand is, but it's still gonna be a desert. If you look at a globe, the sonora, sahara, gobi deserts are all located in a big band, and it's because of the jetstream and whatnot. There is another desert band in the southern hemisphere, including the atacama and southern african deserts and australian deserts. Some latitudes are just naturally deserty due to global circulation patterns.","human_ref_B":"In order for manure to be absorbed into soil, it needs the action of all the little bugs and creatures that live in the soil. That\u2019s the mechanism by which it\u2019s absorbed and enriches the soil. The desert doesn\u2019t have that life, and what life there is is adapted to desert scarcity. I think you might be a bit confused by the double meaning of the word \u201csoil\u201d - it means earth, but it also means dirty. We talk about someone soiling themselves in the second sense, not the first sense.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":925.0,"score_ratio":14.0} {"post_id":"zeuglz","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"Eli5: why can\u2019t we fill deserts with human waste to make it dirt? Ok this might sound a bit silly but, if cow manure is soil, and deserts can't support much plantlife because they don't have the proper soil, wouldn't relocating all human waste to deserts make them into normal dirt that can grow stuff? I figure at least moss or mushrooms or whatever grows in that stuff would form making it better suited for life and less deserty, right?","c_root_id_A":"iz8t3c0","c_root_id_B":"iz8kkxb","created_at_utc_A":1670403197,"created_at_utc_B":1670396117,"score_A":10,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"In addition to all the other problems mentioned, there is also the problem of scale. Numbers for human feces seem to vary from 100 to 500 gram per person per day, I'll use 300. We collect the poop of all 1.4 billion Africans - let's ignore the logistics here. If we distribute the daily collection over one square kilometer, we get a layer 40 centimeters deep. That might be useful, but it's only a single square kilometer per day and it's not reverting a desert to farmland yet. The Sahara grows by something like 50 square kilometers per day (~250 km x 6000 km over the last 100 years). Even with the massive task of collecting all poop and shipping it to the Sahara we would hardly slow the growth of it. Doing that globally won't change the picture either.","human_ref_B":"It's still gonna be dry. Adding nutrients to the soil is a very temporary solution to a much more permanent problem with the climate.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7080.0,"score_ratio":1.1111111111} {"post_id":"zeuglz","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"Eli5: why can\u2019t we fill deserts with human waste to make it dirt? Ok this might sound a bit silly but, if cow manure is soil, and deserts can't support much plantlife because they don't have the proper soil, wouldn't relocating all human waste to deserts make them into normal dirt that can grow stuff? I figure at least moss or mushrooms or whatever grows in that stuff would form making it better suited for life and less deserty, right?","c_root_id_A":"iz8t3c0","c_root_id_B":"iz8lxgh","created_at_utc_A":1670403197,"created_at_utc_B":1670397140,"score_A":10,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"In addition to all the other problems mentioned, there is also the problem of scale. Numbers for human feces seem to vary from 100 to 500 gram per person per day, I'll use 300. We collect the poop of all 1.4 billion Africans - let's ignore the logistics here. If we distribute the daily collection over one square kilometer, we get a layer 40 centimeters deep. That might be useful, but it's only a single square kilometer per day and it's not reverting a desert to farmland yet. The Sahara grows by something like 50 square kilometers per day (~250 km x 6000 km over the last 100 years). Even with the massive task of collecting all poop and shipping it to the Sahara we would hardly slow the growth of it. Doing that globally won't change the picture either.","human_ref_B":"In order for manure to be absorbed into soil, it needs the action of all the little bugs and creatures that live in the soil. That\u2019s the mechanism by which it\u2019s absorbed and enriches the soil. The desert doesn\u2019t have that life, and what life there is is adapted to desert scarcity. I think you might be a bit confused by the double meaning of the word \u201csoil\u201d - it means earth, but it also means dirty. We talk about someone soiling themselves in the second sense, not the first sense.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6057.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"zeuglz","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"Eli5: why can\u2019t we fill deserts with human waste to make it dirt? Ok this might sound a bit silly but, if cow manure is soil, and deserts can't support much plantlife because they don't have the proper soil, wouldn't relocating all human waste to deserts make them into normal dirt that can grow stuff? I figure at least moss or mushrooms or whatever grows in that stuff would form making it better suited for life and less deserty, right?","c_root_id_A":"iz8qyw2","c_root_id_B":"iz8t3c0","created_at_utc_A":1670401320,"created_at_utc_B":1670403197,"score_A":4,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"in the medieval world and probably earlier farmers would bring their 'night soils' from the chamber pots to the fields...remember that every 7th year fallow, I'm pretty sure they were dumping that poop in piles on the unused plots (they grew in mounds then, row farming didn't start till the plow was invented.) (till cities like London grew so large nobody came to collect it, it was dumped in the streets and the town was a terrible smelly cesspool) Here in Tacoma (and many other municiple water companies) they offer the mostly dried and composted sewage called Tagro. mixed with sawdust and sand. unfortunately it still has a lingering scent. The next town over has a pelletized fertilizer that works just like the pellets from scotts for lawns etc. NOW here's a problem. we flush all kinds of things. our sewage contains drugs and their by products we pee out, motor oil and all kinds of things someone decides to pour down instead of dealing with, think about the chemicals you have under your sink. but the biggest problem is all the fire retardants and micro plastics from our clothes washing. Wisconsin dairy farmers were advised to grow hay\/alfalfa for their cows with the reclaimed sewage, now many multigeneration organic producers are losing their organic certification because the 'forever' chemicals in the processed sewage. soil maintenance is not a one time thing. when I was into gardening i read about the need to spread at least once inch of compost every year, an experiment tracked a foot of compost, in a year it was down by half, 5 years it was only an inch and in 10 there was no evidence left of the original dump.","human_ref_B":"In addition to all the other problems mentioned, there is also the problem of scale. Numbers for human feces seem to vary from 100 to 500 gram per person per day, I'll use 300. We collect the poop of all 1.4 billion Africans - let's ignore the logistics here. If we distribute the daily collection over one square kilometer, we get a layer 40 centimeters deep. That might be useful, but it's only a single square kilometer per day and it's not reverting a desert to farmland yet. The Sahara grows by something like 50 square kilometers per day (~250 km x 6000 km over the last 100 years). Even with the massive task of collecting all poop and shipping it to the Sahara we would hardly slow the growth of it. Doing that globally won't change the picture either.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1877.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"zeuglz","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"Eli5: why can\u2019t we fill deserts with human waste to make it dirt? Ok this might sound a bit silly but, if cow manure is soil, and deserts can't support much plantlife because they don't have the proper soil, wouldn't relocating all human waste to deserts make them into normal dirt that can grow stuff? I figure at least moss or mushrooms or whatever grows in that stuff would form making it better suited for life and less deserty, right?","c_root_id_A":"iz8p154","c_root_id_B":"iz8t3c0","created_at_utc_A":1670399660,"created_at_utc_B":1670403197,"score_A":2,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"As others have pointed out, soil isn\u2019t just manure, but your idea is possible. A guy named Alan Savory showed that elephants and other grazing herd animals can rehabilitate soil in desertified areas. They probably won\u2019t support lush forests, but it can definitely turn it into arid grassland. https:\/\/tsavotrust.org\/the-desertification-of-grassland-why-its-happening-how-it-can-be-solved-and-the-potential-impact-elephant-conservation\/","human_ref_B":"In addition to all the other problems mentioned, there is also the problem of scale. Numbers for human feces seem to vary from 100 to 500 gram per person per day, I'll use 300. We collect the poop of all 1.4 billion Africans - let's ignore the logistics here. If we distribute the daily collection over one square kilometer, we get a layer 40 centimeters deep. That might be useful, but it's only a single square kilometer per day and it's not reverting a desert to farmland yet. The Sahara grows by something like 50 square kilometers per day (~250 km x 6000 km over the last 100 years). Even with the massive task of collecting all poop and shipping it to the Sahara we would hardly slow the growth of it. Doing that globally won't change the picture either.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3537.0,"score_ratio":5.0} {"post_id":"zeuglz","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"Eli5: why can\u2019t we fill deserts with human waste to make it dirt? Ok this might sound a bit silly but, if cow manure is soil, and deserts can't support much plantlife because they don't have the proper soil, wouldn't relocating all human waste to deserts make them into normal dirt that can grow stuff? I figure at least moss or mushrooms or whatever grows in that stuff would form making it better suited for life and less deserty, right?","c_root_id_A":"iz8y9ia","c_root_id_B":"iz8lxgh","created_at_utc_A":1670407942,"created_at_utc_B":1670397140,"score_A":7,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"What you're suggesting could indeed be \\*part\\* of re-greening a desert. But it's about as complete a suggestion as, \"Why can't we just pour water over the desert?\" So the answer is \"because it's insufficient\". But people certainly do add biomass to deserts when they're re-greening them. There are loads of videos on youtube describing the entire process if you're interested. There are many successful attempts around the world.","human_ref_B":"In order for manure to be absorbed into soil, it needs the action of all the little bugs and creatures that live in the soil. That\u2019s the mechanism by which it\u2019s absorbed and enriches the soil. The desert doesn\u2019t have that life, and what life there is is adapted to desert scarcity. I think you might be a bit confused by the double meaning of the word \u201csoil\u201d - it means earth, but it also means dirty. We talk about someone soiling themselves in the second sense, not the first sense.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10802.0,"score_ratio":1.75} {"post_id":"zeuglz","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"Eli5: why can\u2019t we fill deserts with human waste to make it dirt? Ok this might sound a bit silly but, if cow manure is soil, and deserts can't support much plantlife because they don't have the proper soil, wouldn't relocating all human waste to deserts make them into normal dirt that can grow stuff? I figure at least moss or mushrooms or whatever grows in that stuff would form making it better suited for life and less deserty, right?","c_root_id_A":"iz8qyw2","c_root_id_B":"iz8y9ia","created_at_utc_A":1670401320,"created_at_utc_B":1670407942,"score_A":4,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"in the medieval world and probably earlier farmers would bring their 'night soils' from the chamber pots to the fields...remember that every 7th year fallow, I'm pretty sure they were dumping that poop in piles on the unused plots (they grew in mounds then, row farming didn't start till the plow was invented.) (till cities like London grew so large nobody came to collect it, it was dumped in the streets and the town was a terrible smelly cesspool) Here in Tacoma (and many other municiple water companies) they offer the mostly dried and composted sewage called Tagro. mixed with sawdust and sand. unfortunately it still has a lingering scent. The next town over has a pelletized fertilizer that works just like the pellets from scotts for lawns etc. NOW here's a problem. we flush all kinds of things. our sewage contains drugs and their by products we pee out, motor oil and all kinds of things someone decides to pour down instead of dealing with, think about the chemicals you have under your sink. but the biggest problem is all the fire retardants and micro plastics from our clothes washing. Wisconsin dairy farmers were advised to grow hay\/alfalfa for their cows with the reclaimed sewage, now many multigeneration organic producers are losing their organic certification because the 'forever' chemicals in the processed sewage. soil maintenance is not a one time thing. when I was into gardening i read about the need to spread at least once inch of compost every year, an experiment tracked a foot of compost, in a year it was down by half, 5 years it was only an inch and in 10 there was no evidence left of the original dump.","human_ref_B":"What you're suggesting could indeed be \\*part\\* of re-greening a desert. But it's about as complete a suggestion as, \"Why can't we just pour water over the desert?\" So the answer is \"because it's insufficient\". But people certainly do add biomass to deserts when they're re-greening them. There are loads of videos on youtube describing the entire process if you're interested. There are many successful attempts around the world.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6622.0,"score_ratio":1.75} {"post_id":"zeuglz","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"Eli5: why can\u2019t we fill deserts with human waste to make it dirt? Ok this might sound a bit silly but, if cow manure is soil, and deserts can't support much plantlife because they don't have the proper soil, wouldn't relocating all human waste to deserts make them into normal dirt that can grow stuff? I figure at least moss or mushrooms or whatever grows in that stuff would form making it better suited for life and less deserty, right?","c_root_id_A":"iz8y9ia","c_root_id_B":"iz8p154","created_at_utc_A":1670407942,"created_at_utc_B":1670399660,"score_A":7,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"What you're suggesting could indeed be \\*part\\* of re-greening a desert. But it's about as complete a suggestion as, \"Why can't we just pour water over the desert?\" So the answer is \"because it's insufficient\". But people certainly do add biomass to deserts when they're re-greening them. There are loads of videos on youtube describing the entire process if you're interested. There are many successful attempts around the world.","human_ref_B":"As others have pointed out, soil isn\u2019t just manure, but your idea is possible. A guy named Alan Savory showed that elephants and other grazing herd animals can rehabilitate soil in desertified areas. They probably won\u2019t support lush forests, but it can definitely turn it into arid grassland. https:\/\/tsavotrust.org\/the-desertification-of-grassland-why-its-happening-how-it-can-be-solved-and-the-potential-impact-elephant-conservation\/","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8282.0,"score_ratio":3.5} {"post_id":"zeuglz","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"Eli5: why can\u2019t we fill deserts with human waste to make it dirt? Ok this might sound a bit silly but, if cow manure is soil, and deserts can't support much plantlife because they don't have the proper soil, wouldn't relocating all human waste to deserts make them into normal dirt that can grow stuff? I figure at least moss or mushrooms or whatever grows in that stuff would form making it better suited for life and less deserty, right?","c_root_id_A":"iz8xsrw","c_root_id_B":"iz8lxgh","created_at_utc_A":1670407529,"created_at_utc_B":1670397140,"score_A":7,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Certain deserts like the Sahara also contribute to the fertilisation of rainforests like the Amazon. It\u2019s dust is carried across the globe and contains phosphorus, a key ingredient for plant growth. Phosphorus is in surprisingly short supply in the Amazon. But there's a lot of it in the Sahara \u2014 because the Sahara once had a vast lake. (I stole some of that copy from https:\/\/www.vox.com\/platform\/amp\/2015\/3\/2\/8131323\/dust-sahara-amazon-rainforest if you want more detail. Saw it on an Attenborough documentary a while back and remember thinking \u2018wtf?! The world\u2019s ecosystem is so much more complex than I will ever grasp)","human_ref_B":"In order for manure to be absorbed into soil, it needs the action of all the little bugs and creatures that live in the soil. That\u2019s the mechanism by which it\u2019s absorbed and enriches the soil. The desert doesn\u2019t have that life, and what life there is is adapted to desert scarcity. I think you might be a bit confused by the double meaning of the word \u201csoil\u201d - it means earth, but it also means dirty. We talk about someone soiling themselves in the second sense, not the first sense.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10389.0,"score_ratio":1.75} {"post_id":"zeuglz","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"Eli5: why can\u2019t we fill deserts with human waste to make it dirt? Ok this might sound a bit silly but, if cow manure is soil, and deserts can't support much plantlife because they don't have the proper soil, wouldn't relocating all human waste to deserts make them into normal dirt that can grow stuff? I figure at least moss or mushrooms or whatever grows in that stuff would form making it better suited for life and less deserty, right?","c_root_id_A":"iz8xsrw","c_root_id_B":"iz8qyw2","created_at_utc_A":1670407529,"created_at_utc_B":1670401320,"score_A":7,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Certain deserts like the Sahara also contribute to the fertilisation of rainforests like the Amazon. It\u2019s dust is carried across the globe and contains phosphorus, a key ingredient for plant growth. Phosphorus is in surprisingly short supply in the Amazon. But there's a lot of it in the Sahara \u2014 because the Sahara once had a vast lake. (I stole some of that copy from https:\/\/www.vox.com\/platform\/amp\/2015\/3\/2\/8131323\/dust-sahara-amazon-rainforest if you want more detail. Saw it on an Attenborough documentary a while back and remember thinking \u2018wtf?! The world\u2019s ecosystem is so much more complex than I will ever grasp)","human_ref_B":"in the medieval world and probably earlier farmers would bring their 'night soils' from the chamber pots to the fields...remember that every 7th year fallow, I'm pretty sure they were dumping that poop in piles on the unused plots (they grew in mounds then, row farming didn't start till the plow was invented.) (till cities like London grew so large nobody came to collect it, it was dumped in the streets and the town was a terrible smelly cesspool) Here in Tacoma (and many other municiple water companies) they offer the mostly dried and composted sewage called Tagro. mixed with sawdust and sand. unfortunately it still has a lingering scent. The next town over has a pelletized fertilizer that works just like the pellets from scotts for lawns etc. NOW here's a problem. we flush all kinds of things. our sewage contains drugs and their by products we pee out, motor oil and all kinds of things someone decides to pour down instead of dealing with, think about the chemicals you have under your sink. but the biggest problem is all the fire retardants and micro plastics from our clothes washing. Wisconsin dairy farmers were advised to grow hay\/alfalfa for their cows with the reclaimed sewage, now many multigeneration organic producers are losing their organic certification because the 'forever' chemicals in the processed sewage. soil maintenance is not a one time thing. when I was into gardening i read about the need to spread at least once inch of compost every year, an experiment tracked a foot of compost, in a year it was down by half, 5 years it was only an inch and in 10 there was no evidence left of the original dump.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6209.0,"score_ratio":1.75} {"post_id":"zeuglz","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"Eli5: why can\u2019t we fill deserts with human waste to make it dirt? Ok this might sound a bit silly but, if cow manure is soil, and deserts can't support much plantlife because they don't have the proper soil, wouldn't relocating all human waste to deserts make them into normal dirt that can grow stuff? I figure at least moss or mushrooms or whatever grows in that stuff would form making it better suited for life and less deserty, right?","c_root_id_A":"iz8xsrw","c_root_id_B":"iz8p154","created_at_utc_A":1670407529,"created_at_utc_B":1670399660,"score_A":7,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Certain deserts like the Sahara also contribute to the fertilisation of rainforests like the Amazon. It\u2019s dust is carried across the globe and contains phosphorus, a key ingredient for plant growth. Phosphorus is in surprisingly short supply in the Amazon. But there's a lot of it in the Sahara \u2014 because the Sahara once had a vast lake. (I stole some of that copy from https:\/\/www.vox.com\/platform\/amp\/2015\/3\/2\/8131323\/dust-sahara-amazon-rainforest if you want more detail. Saw it on an Attenborough documentary a while back and remember thinking \u2018wtf?! The world\u2019s ecosystem is so much more complex than I will ever grasp)","human_ref_B":"As others have pointed out, soil isn\u2019t just manure, but your idea is possible. A guy named Alan Savory showed that elephants and other grazing herd animals can rehabilitate soil in desertified areas. They probably won\u2019t support lush forests, but it can definitely turn it into arid grassland. https:\/\/tsavotrust.org\/the-desertification-of-grassland-why-its-happening-how-it-can-be-solved-and-the-potential-impact-elephant-conservation\/","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7869.0,"score_ratio":3.5} {"post_id":"zeuglz","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"Eli5: why can\u2019t we fill deserts with human waste to make it dirt? Ok this might sound a bit silly but, if cow manure is soil, and deserts can't support much plantlife because they don't have the proper soil, wouldn't relocating all human waste to deserts make them into normal dirt that can grow stuff? I figure at least moss or mushrooms or whatever grows in that stuff would form making it better suited for life and less deserty, right?","c_root_id_A":"iz8lxgh","c_root_id_B":"iza9enw","created_at_utc_A":1670397140,"created_at_utc_B":1670432839,"score_A":4,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"In order for manure to be absorbed into soil, it needs the action of all the little bugs and creatures that live in the soil. That\u2019s the mechanism by which it\u2019s absorbed and enriches the soil. The desert doesn\u2019t have that life, and what life there is is adapted to desert scarcity. I think you might be a bit confused by the double meaning of the word \u201csoil\u201d - it means earth, but it also means dirty. We talk about someone soiling themselves in the second sense, not the first sense.","human_ref_B":"So many prople think we can just change an ecosystem to something else and that will be better. This is just like draining wetlands for agriculture or resource extraction. We used to think wetlands were just wasted land, but in fact they are very important to the function of the environment. We needed those. Deserts are a type of habitat and serve an ecological function just as any other ecosystem does. They form where they need to be. Trying to cover them up or change them to something else could be disastrous.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":35699.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"zeuglz","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"Eli5: why can\u2019t we fill deserts with human waste to make it dirt? Ok this might sound a bit silly but, if cow manure is soil, and deserts can't support much plantlife because they don't have the proper soil, wouldn't relocating all human waste to deserts make them into normal dirt that can grow stuff? I figure at least moss or mushrooms or whatever grows in that stuff would form making it better suited for life and less deserty, right?","c_root_id_A":"iz8qyw2","c_root_id_B":"iza9enw","created_at_utc_A":1670401320,"created_at_utc_B":1670432839,"score_A":4,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"in the medieval world and probably earlier farmers would bring their 'night soils' from the chamber pots to the fields...remember that every 7th year fallow, I'm pretty sure they were dumping that poop in piles on the unused plots (they grew in mounds then, row farming didn't start till the plow was invented.) (till cities like London grew so large nobody came to collect it, it was dumped in the streets and the town was a terrible smelly cesspool) Here in Tacoma (and many other municiple water companies) they offer the mostly dried and composted sewage called Tagro. mixed with sawdust and sand. unfortunately it still has a lingering scent. The next town over has a pelletized fertilizer that works just like the pellets from scotts for lawns etc. NOW here's a problem. we flush all kinds of things. our sewage contains drugs and their by products we pee out, motor oil and all kinds of things someone decides to pour down instead of dealing with, think about the chemicals you have under your sink. but the biggest problem is all the fire retardants and micro plastics from our clothes washing. Wisconsin dairy farmers were advised to grow hay\/alfalfa for their cows with the reclaimed sewage, now many multigeneration organic producers are losing their organic certification because the 'forever' chemicals in the processed sewage. soil maintenance is not a one time thing. when I was into gardening i read about the need to spread at least once inch of compost every year, an experiment tracked a foot of compost, in a year it was down by half, 5 years it was only an inch and in 10 there was no evidence left of the original dump.","human_ref_B":"So many prople think we can just change an ecosystem to something else and that will be better. This is just like draining wetlands for agriculture or resource extraction. We used to think wetlands were just wasted land, but in fact they are very important to the function of the environment. We needed those. Deserts are a type of habitat and serve an ecological function just as any other ecosystem does. They form where they need to be. Trying to cover them up or change them to something else could be disastrous.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":31519.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"zeuglz","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"Eli5: why can\u2019t we fill deserts with human waste to make it dirt? Ok this might sound a bit silly but, if cow manure is soil, and deserts can't support much plantlife because they don't have the proper soil, wouldn't relocating all human waste to deserts make them into normal dirt that can grow stuff? I figure at least moss or mushrooms or whatever grows in that stuff would form making it better suited for life and less deserty, right?","c_root_id_A":"iz9g53t","c_root_id_B":"iza9enw","created_at_utc_A":1670420349,"created_at_utc_B":1670432839,"score_A":3,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Midway Island was called \"Sand Island\" before the 1900's. The Navy used it as a coaling station, and soon after as a fuel-oil station, and then several large runways for aircraft (see: battle of Midway Island, WWII). The Navy terra-formed it and IIRC, they started with Australian Ironwood trees, which survived on the shallow sandy soil, with salty water nearby under the surface. They shed their foliage which was part of developing a rudimentary soil. I don't know if the Navy brought in soil or irrigated with fresh water to jump-start it, but you could search for info on that.","human_ref_B":"So many prople think we can just change an ecosystem to something else and that will be better. This is just like draining wetlands for agriculture or resource extraction. We used to think wetlands were just wasted land, but in fact they are very important to the function of the environment. We needed those. Deserts are a type of habitat and serve an ecological function just as any other ecosystem does. They form where they need to be. Trying to cover them up or change them to something else could be disastrous.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":12490.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"zeuglz","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"Eli5: why can\u2019t we fill deserts with human waste to make it dirt? Ok this might sound a bit silly but, if cow manure is soil, and deserts can't support much plantlife because they don't have the proper soil, wouldn't relocating all human waste to deserts make them into normal dirt that can grow stuff? I figure at least moss or mushrooms or whatever grows in that stuff would form making it better suited for life and less deserty, right?","c_root_id_A":"iz9odmy","c_root_id_B":"iza9enw","created_at_utc_A":1670424208,"created_at_utc_B":1670432839,"score_A":4,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Deserts are deserts because of climate not lack of soil. Deserts create sand because of their conditions. If you dumped a bunch of soil in the desert it would need a lot of water to stay soil. Otherwise it would dry out and blow away, eventually just becoming more dust and sand. Deserts have the climate they have because of location. Most deserts are far away from bodies of water and mountains. Mountains create precipitation on their leeward side. And obviously bodies of water increase the humidity around them. It's more complicated than that but in general that's what happens. It's a fundamental lack of water cause by the geography that causes deserts. No matter how much water and soil you dumped in there it would never naturally sustain itself.","human_ref_B":"So many prople think we can just change an ecosystem to something else and that will be better. This is just like draining wetlands for agriculture or resource extraction. We used to think wetlands were just wasted land, but in fact they are very important to the function of the environment. We needed those. Deserts are a type of habitat and serve an ecological function just as any other ecosystem does. They form where they need to be. Trying to cover them up or change them to something else could be disastrous.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8631.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"zeuglz","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"Eli5: why can\u2019t we fill deserts with human waste to make it dirt? Ok this might sound a bit silly but, if cow manure is soil, and deserts can't support much plantlife because they don't have the proper soil, wouldn't relocating all human waste to deserts make them into normal dirt that can grow stuff? I figure at least moss or mushrooms or whatever grows in that stuff would form making it better suited for life and less deserty, right?","c_root_id_A":"iza9enw","c_root_id_B":"iz8p154","created_at_utc_A":1670432839,"created_at_utc_B":1670399660,"score_A":6,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"So many prople think we can just change an ecosystem to something else and that will be better. This is just like draining wetlands for agriculture or resource extraction. We used to think wetlands were just wasted land, but in fact they are very important to the function of the environment. We needed those. Deserts are a type of habitat and serve an ecological function just as any other ecosystem does. They form where they need to be. Trying to cover them up or change them to something else could be disastrous.","human_ref_B":"As others have pointed out, soil isn\u2019t just manure, but your idea is possible. A guy named Alan Savory showed that elephants and other grazing herd animals can rehabilitate soil in desertified areas. They probably won\u2019t support lush forests, but it can definitely turn it into arid grassland. https:\/\/tsavotrust.org\/the-desertification-of-grassland-why-its-happening-how-it-can-be-solved-and-the-potential-impact-elephant-conservation\/","labels":1,"seconds_difference":33179.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"zeuglz","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"Eli5: why can\u2019t we fill deserts with human waste to make it dirt? Ok this might sound a bit silly but, if cow manure is soil, and deserts can't support much plantlife because they don't have the proper soil, wouldn't relocating all human waste to deserts make them into normal dirt that can grow stuff? I figure at least moss or mushrooms or whatever grows in that stuff would form making it better suited for life and less deserty, right?","c_root_id_A":"iza21wb","c_root_id_B":"iza9enw","created_at_utc_A":1670429901,"created_at_utc_B":1670432839,"score_A":2,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"\"Waste from humans\" can absolutely help in re-greening barren places. There's limits to this - like, if a place gets no precipitation then that's a pretty hard cap on what can grow there. But sometimes some \"waste\" material (in this case, orange peels) can indeed make a big difference: https:\/\/www.princeton.edu\/news\/2017\/08\/22\/orange-new-green-how-orange-peels-revived-costa-rican-forest","human_ref_B":"So many prople think we can just change an ecosystem to something else and that will be better. This is just like draining wetlands for agriculture or resource extraction. We used to think wetlands were just wasted land, but in fact they are very important to the function of the environment. We needed those. Deserts are a type of habitat and serve an ecological function just as any other ecosystem does. They form where they need to be. Trying to cover them up or change them to something else could be disastrous.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2938.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"zeuglz","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"Eli5: why can\u2019t we fill deserts with human waste to make it dirt? Ok this might sound a bit silly but, if cow manure is soil, and deserts can't support much plantlife because they don't have the proper soil, wouldn't relocating all human waste to deserts make them into normal dirt that can grow stuff? I figure at least moss or mushrooms or whatever grows in that stuff would form making it better suited for life and less deserty, right?","c_root_id_A":"iz8p154","c_root_id_B":"iz8qyw2","created_at_utc_A":1670399660,"created_at_utc_B":1670401320,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"As others have pointed out, soil isn\u2019t just manure, but your idea is possible. A guy named Alan Savory showed that elephants and other grazing herd animals can rehabilitate soil in desertified areas. They probably won\u2019t support lush forests, but it can definitely turn it into arid grassland. https:\/\/tsavotrust.org\/the-desertification-of-grassland-why-its-happening-how-it-can-be-solved-and-the-potential-impact-elephant-conservation\/","human_ref_B":"in the medieval world and probably earlier farmers would bring their 'night soils' from the chamber pots to the fields...remember that every 7th year fallow, I'm pretty sure they were dumping that poop in piles on the unused plots (they grew in mounds then, row farming didn't start till the plow was invented.) (till cities like London grew so large nobody came to collect it, it was dumped in the streets and the town was a terrible smelly cesspool) Here in Tacoma (and many other municiple water companies) they offer the mostly dried and composted sewage called Tagro. mixed with sawdust and sand. unfortunately it still has a lingering scent. The next town over has a pelletized fertilizer that works just like the pellets from scotts for lawns etc. NOW here's a problem. we flush all kinds of things. our sewage contains drugs and their by products we pee out, motor oil and all kinds of things someone decides to pour down instead of dealing with, think about the chemicals you have under your sink. but the biggest problem is all the fire retardants and micro plastics from our clothes washing. Wisconsin dairy farmers were advised to grow hay\/alfalfa for their cows with the reclaimed sewage, now many multigeneration organic producers are losing their organic certification because the 'forever' chemicals in the processed sewage. soil maintenance is not a one time thing. when I was into gardening i read about the need to spread at least once inch of compost every year, an experiment tracked a foot of compost, in a year it was down by half, 5 years it was only an inch and in 10 there was no evidence left of the original dump.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1660.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"zeuglz","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"Eli5: why can\u2019t we fill deserts with human waste to make it dirt? Ok this might sound a bit silly but, if cow manure is soil, and deserts can't support much plantlife because they don't have the proper soil, wouldn't relocating all human waste to deserts make them into normal dirt that can grow stuff? I figure at least moss or mushrooms or whatever grows in that stuff would form making it better suited for life and less deserty, right?","c_root_id_A":"iz9odmy","c_root_id_B":"iz9g53t","created_at_utc_A":1670424208,"created_at_utc_B":1670420349,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Deserts are deserts because of climate not lack of soil. Deserts create sand because of their conditions. If you dumped a bunch of soil in the desert it would need a lot of water to stay soil. Otherwise it would dry out and blow away, eventually just becoming more dust and sand. Deserts have the climate they have because of location. Most deserts are far away from bodies of water and mountains. Mountains create precipitation on their leeward side. And obviously bodies of water increase the humidity around them. It's more complicated than that but in general that's what happens. It's a fundamental lack of water cause by the geography that causes deserts. No matter how much water and soil you dumped in there it would never naturally sustain itself.","human_ref_B":"Midway Island was called \"Sand Island\" before the 1900's. The Navy used it as a coaling station, and soon after as a fuel-oil station, and then several large runways for aircraft (see: battle of Midway Island, WWII). The Navy terra-formed it and IIRC, they started with Australian Ironwood trees, which survived on the shallow sandy soil, with salty water nearby under the surface. They shed their foliage which was part of developing a rudimentary soil. I don't know if the Navy brought in soil or irrigated with fresh water to jump-start it, but you could search for info on that.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3859.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} {"post_id":"zeuglz","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"Eli5: why can\u2019t we fill deserts with human waste to make it dirt? Ok this might sound a bit silly but, if cow manure is soil, and deserts can't support much plantlife because they don't have the proper soil, wouldn't relocating all human waste to deserts make them into normal dirt that can grow stuff? I figure at least moss or mushrooms or whatever grows in that stuff would form making it better suited for life and less deserty, right?","c_root_id_A":"iz8p154","c_root_id_B":"iz9g53t","created_at_utc_A":1670399660,"created_at_utc_B":1670420349,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"As others have pointed out, soil isn\u2019t just manure, but your idea is possible. A guy named Alan Savory showed that elephants and other grazing herd animals can rehabilitate soil in desertified areas. They probably won\u2019t support lush forests, but it can definitely turn it into arid grassland. https:\/\/tsavotrust.org\/the-desertification-of-grassland-why-its-happening-how-it-can-be-solved-and-the-potential-impact-elephant-conservation\/","human_ref_B":"Midway Island was called \"Sand Island\" before the 1900's. The Navy used it as a coaling station, and soon after as a fuel-oil station, and then several large runways for aircraft (see: battle of Midway Island, WWII). The Navy terra-formed it and IIRC, they started with Australian Ironwood trees, which survived on the shallow sandy soil, with salty water nearby under the surface. They shed their foliage which was part of developing a rudimentary soil. I don't know if the Navy brought in soil or irrigated with fresh water to jump-start it, but you could search for info on that.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":20689.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"zeuglz","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"Eli5: why can\u2019t we fill deserts with human waste to make it dirt? Ok this might sound a bit silly but, if cow manure is soil, and deserts can't support much plantlife because they don't have the proper soil, wouldn't relocating all human waste to deserts make them into normal dirt that can grow stuff? I figure at least moss or mushrooms or whatever grows in that stuff would form making it better suited for life and less deserty, right?","c_root_id_A":"iz9odmy","c_root_id_B":"iz8p154","created_at_utc_A":1670424208,"created_at_utc_B":1670399660,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Deserts are deserts because of climate not lack of soil. Deserts create sand because of their conditions. If you dumped a bunch of soil in the desert it would need a lot of water to stay soil. Otherwise it would dry out and blow away, eventually just becoming more dust and sand. Deserts have the climate they have because of location. Most deserts are far away from bodies of water and mountains. Mountains create precipitation on their leeward side. And obviously bodies of water increase the humidity around them. It's more complicated than that but in general that's what happens. It's a fundamental lack of water cause by the geography that causes deserts. No matter how much water and soil you dumped in there it would never naturally sustain itself.","human_ref_B":"As others have pointed out, soil isn\u2019t just manure, but your idea is possible. A guy named Alan Savory showed that elephants and other grazing herd animals can rehabilitate soil in desertified areas. They probably won\u2019t support lush forests, but it can definitely turn it into arid grassland. https:\/\/tsavotrust.org\/the-desertification-of-grassland-why-its-happening-how-it-can-be-solved-and-the-potential-impact-elephant-conservation\/","labels":1,"seconds_difference":24548.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"skc0nn","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: In math, what are \u201cexploding dots?\u201d I work with students and one of them is taking a course called Exploding Dots. I thought it sounded fun so I looked it up\u2014I\u2019m having trouble even understanding the concept of it, much less how it actually works.","c_root_id_A":"hvjxtoo","c_root_id_B":"hvk2gxh","created_at_utc_A":1643977947,"created_at_utc_B":1643980533,"score_A":54,"score_B":283,"human_ref_A":"It\u2019s a method of teaching\/learning basic arithmetics like addition and multiplication. It works the same way that arithmetics work, they are just a way of visualization which students supposedly may find more intuitively clear.","human_ref_B":"i got curious and looked this up. from what i understand, exploding dots is a more visual method of explaining regrouping in math. 10 dots combine and explode into 1 dot, but in the box to its left.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2586.0,"score_ratio":5.2407407407} {"post_id":"skc0nn","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: In math, what are \u201cexploding dots?\u201d I work with students and one of them is taking a course called Exploding Dots. I thought it sounded fun so I looked it up\u2014I\u2019m having trouble even understanding the concept of it, much less how it actually works.","c_root_id_A":"hvjxtoo","c_root_id_B":"hvk7xxa","created_at_utc_A":1643977947,"created_at_utc_B":1643983192,"score_A":54,"score_B":105,"human_ref_A":"It\u2019s a method of teaching\/learning basic arithmetics like addition and multiplication. It works the same way that arithmetics work, they are just a way of visualization which students supposedly may find more intuitively clear.","human_ref_B":"https:\/\/www.explodingdots.org\/ It's an interesting way to visualize the structure of numbers in various bases. It lends itself well to addition and subtraction but gets somewhat obscure when it comes to multiplication and division. It also offers some interesting insight into infinite series, polynomials, and rational bases (base 3\/2 for example)","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5245.0,"score_ratio":1.9444444444} {"post_id":"skc0nn","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: In math, what are \u201cexploding dots?\u201d I work with students and one of them is taking a course called Exploding Dots. I thought it sounded fun so I looked it up\u2014I\u2019m having trouble even understanding the concept of it, much less how it actually works.","c_root_id_A":"hvktaze","c_root_id_B":"hvl7n9p","created_at_utc_A":1643991793,"created_at_utc_B":1643997023,"score_A":12,"score_B":28,"human_ref_A":"This is the first I have heard of this, but to me it is a visual process of converting base-10 numbers to base-n systems. If you ask a person what 2 is in binary, most will look at you cross-eyed. If you teach them this exploding dots, they definitely will be able to answer and understand. Thanks for sharing!","human_ref_B":"I hadn't heard of this before and I just looked into it. It looks like a noble cause (although I dislike the name which seems to just be a byproduct of the creator's enthusiasm rather than being a meaningful name). Here's how I imagine it came about: When doing arithmetic or in general when dealing with numbers, we make students learn certain rules. There's a specific way to write numbers and then if you want to add two numbers there are specific rules to manipulate those numbers and get a new one. And similarly for subtraction, multiplication and division. Let's do addition in the purest way possible: To figure out 3+4, you just take 3 objects, then take 4 more objects, put them together and count how many objects you now have. This is the purest way and it is very good to not stray too far from it. The problem with this way is that adding 123 and 322 will take ages. The cleverer way to do it is to group it into ones, tens and hundreds and add them in these groupings. But isn't the way we are taught in school do exactly this? Yes it does, but that's what's happening behind the scenes. As a person carrying out the steps taught you're not really interacting with the numbers. You miss out on the wonderful machinery that changes the numbers. This is why I actually really like the exploding dots technique. It does the same job of grouping into ones, tens and hundreds. But it doesn't act like there's only way to write a number. **123 is 1 hundred, 2 tens and 3 ones, or just 123 ones, or 10 tens and 23 ones, or even 2 hundreds, -8 tens, and 3 ones. All of these are the same number and the basic idea behind exploding dots is to get you to embrace that**. Using this, you can do grouping and also addition in its pure form at the same time without relying on other steps. And why should one embrace that? Because it makes playing with the numbers so much easier. There's so much more you can do, like some mental tricks become visible tricks: you can add 8 by subtracting 2 and adding 10. Negative numbers are also numbers, and they visually cancel positive numbers when you use exploding dots. If you're dividing 108 by 12, you can visually see 1 hundred and 8 ones change to 10 tens and 8 ones. You can get 4 twelves from that, leaving you with 6 tens. But that is 5 tens and 10 ones, which is equal to 5 more twelves. So that's a total of 9 twelves. And this whole process used the basic idea that dividing by 12 is just the number of groups of 12 you can make. No need to do mechanical steps like a robot. (See pages 11 and 12 of https:\/\/assets.ctfassets.net\/p9j61e89vqti\/5Y3wzZAy3uy0yKc0YAK0A8\/3fe3bfcf4939f029b376e00b7e7b7fa2\/Chapter\\_5\\_EXPLODING\\_DOTS\\_201709.pdf to see how this division is visually done.)","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5230.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333} {"post_id":"skc0nn","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: In math, what are \u201cexploding dots?\u201d I work with students and one of them is taking a course called Exploding Dots. I thought it sounded fun so I looked it up\u2014I\u2019m having trouble even understanding the concept of it, much less how it actually works.","c_root_id_A":"hvktael","c_root_id_B":"hvl7n9p","created_at_utc_A":1643991786,"created_at_utc_B":1643997023,"score_A":9,"score_B":28,"human_ref_A":"As a maths teacher (primary), I've found it quite a useful intervention for explaining base 10 and how regrouping works to children who dont seem to understand manipulative like Dienes. Furthermore, been great way getting class to understand how base 3 would work for instance. Really refreshing, geeky challenge writing numbers in different bases","human_ref_B":"I hadn't heard of this before and I just looked into it. It looks like a noble cause (although I dislike the name which seems to just be a byproduct of the creator's enthusiasm rather than being a meaningful name). Here's how I imagine it came about: When doing arithmetic or in general when dealing with numbers, we make students learn certain rules. There's a specific way to write numbers and then if you want to add two numbers there are specific rules to manipulate those numbers and get a new one. And similarly for subtraction, multiplication and division. Let's do addition in the purest way possible: To figure out 3+4, you just take 3 objects, then take 4 more objects, put them together and count how many objects you now have. This is the purest way and it is very good to not stray too far from it. The problem with this way is that adding 123 and 322 will take ages. The cleverer way to do it is to group it into ones, tens and hundreds and add them in these groupings. But isn't the way we are taught in school do exactly this? Yes it does, but that's what's happening behind the scenes. As a person carrying out the steps taught you're not really interacting with the numbers. You miss out on the wonderful machinery that changes the numbers. This is why I actually really like the exploding dots technique. It does the same job of grouping into ones, tens and hundreds. But it doesn't act like there's only way to write a number. **123 is 1 hundred, 2 tens and 3 ones, or just 123 ones, or 10 tens and 23 ones, or even 2 hundreds, -8 tens, and 3 ones. All of these are the same number and the basic idea behind exploding dots is to get you to embrace that**. Using this, you can do grouping and also addition in its pure form at the same time without relying on other steps. And why should one embrace that? Because it makes playing with the numbers so much easier. There's so much more you can do, like some mental tricks become visible tricks: you can add 8 by subtracting 2 and adding 10. Negative numbers are also numbers, and they visually cancel positive numbers when you use exploding dots. If you're dividing 108 by 12, you can visually see 1 hundred and 8 ones change to 10 tens and 8 ones. You can get 4 twelves from that, leaving you with 6 tens. But that is 5 tens and 10 ones, which is equal to 5 more twelves. So that's a total of 9 twelves. And this whole process used the basic idea that dividing by 12 is just the number of groups of 12 you can make. No need to do mechanical steps like a robot. (See pages 11 and 12 of https:\/\/assets.ctfassets.net\/p9j61e89vqti\/5Y3wzZAy3uy0yKc0YAK0A8\/3fe3bfcf4939f029b376e00b7e7b7fa2\/Chapter\\_5\\_EXPLODING\\_DOTS\\_201709.pdf to see how this division is visually done.)","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5237.0,"score_ratio":3.1111111111} {"post_id":"skc0nn","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: In math, what are \u201cexploding dots?\u201d I work with students and one of them is taking a course called Exploding Dots. I thought it sounded fun so I looked it up\u2014I\u2019m having trouble even understanding the concept of it, much less how it actually works.","c_root_id_A":"hvl3ach","c_root_id_B":"hvl7n9p","created_at_utc_A":1643995437,"created_at_utc_B":1643997023,"score_A":3,"score_B":28,"human_ref_A":"Never heard of it until now, but basically I used a similar concept to introduce my daughter to binary numbers by reiterating what we do in normal decimal space and then applying the same rules to base 2...but I was lacking a good visual for that so I was a bit unsatisfied with my explanation even though she grasped the concept... Thanks for bringing this to my attention... And to anser the question, it's just a visualization of what you learned for basic arithmetic. Instead of a take over you got the exploding dot... It can help to make implicitly patterns explicit and show you what you are actually doing... The 2->1 machine is basically just binary and by getting to 10->1 machine you get normal decimal and by introducing it that way you basically showed the same patterns for all number spaces apply","human_ref_B":"I hadn't heard of this before and I just looked into it. It looks like a noble cause (although I dislike the name which seems to just be a byproduct of the creator's enthusiasm rather than being a meaningful name). Here's how I imagine it came about: When doing arithmetic or in general when dealing with numbers, we make students learn certain rules. There's a specific way to write numbers and then if you want to add two numbers there are specific rules to manipulate those numbers and get a new one. And similarly for subtraction, multiplication and division. Let's do addition in the purest way possible: To figure out 3+4, you just take 3 objects, then take 4 more objects, put them together and count how many objects you now have. This is the purest way and it is very good to not stray too far from it. The problem with this way is that adding 123 and 322 will take ages. The cleverer way to do it is to group it into ones, tens and hundreds and add them in these groupings. But isn't the way we are taught in school do exactly this? Yes it does, but that's what's happening behind the scenes. As a person carrying out the steps taught you're not really interacting with the numbers. You miss out on the wonderful machinery that changes the numbers. This is why I actually really like the exploding dots technique. It does the same job of grouping into ones, tens and hundreds. But it doesn't act like there's only way to write a number. **123 is 1 hundred, 2 tens and 3 ones, or just 123 ones, or 10 tens and 23 ones, or even 2 hundreds, -8 tens, and 3 ones. All of these are the same number and the basic idea behind exploding dots is to get you to embrace that**. Using this, you can do grouping and also addition in its pure form at the same time without relying on other steps. And why should one embrace that? Because it makes playing with the numbers so much easier. There's so much more you can do, like some mental tricks become visible tricks: you can add 8 by subtracting 2 and adding 10. Negative numbers are also numbers, and they visually cancel positive numbers when you use exploding dots. If you're dividing 108 by 12, you can visually see 1 hundred and 8 ones change to 10 tens and 8 ones. You can get 4 twelves from that, leaving you with 6 tens. But that is 5 tens and 10 ones, which is equal to 5 more twelves. So that's a total of 9 twelves. And this whole process used the basic idea that dividing by 12 is just the number of groups of 12 you can make. No need to do mechanical steps like a robot. (See pages 11 and 12 of https:\/\/assets.ctfassets.net\/p9j61e89vqti\/5Y3wzZAy3uy0yKc0YAK0A8\/3fe3bfcf4939f029b376e00b7e7b7fa2\/Chapter\\_5\\_EXPLODING\\_DOTS\\_201709.pdf to see how this division is visually done.)","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1586.0,"score_ratio":9.3333333333} {"post_id":"skc0nn","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: In math, what are \u201cexploding dots?\u201d I work with students and one of them is taking a course called Exploding Dots. I thought it sounded fun so I looked it up\u2014I\u2019m having trouble even understanding the concept of it, much less how it actually works.","c_root_id_A":"hvktaze","c_root_id_B":"hvktael","created_at_utc_A":1643991793,"created_at_utc_B":1643991786,"score_A":12,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"This is the first I have heard of this, but to me it is a visual process of converting base-10 numbers to base-n systems. If you ask a person what 2 is in binary, most will look at you cross-eyed. If you teach them this exploding dots, they definitely will be able to answer and understand. Thanks for sharing!","human_ref_B":"As a maths teacher (primary), I've found it quite a useful intervention for explaining base 10 and how regrouping works to children who dont seem to understand manipulative like Dienes. Furthermore, been great way getting class to understand how base 3 would work for instance. Really refreshing, geeky challenge writing numbers in different bases","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} {"post_id":"skc0nn","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: In math, what are \u201cexploding dots?\u201d I work with students and one of them is taking a course called Exploding Dots. I thought it sounded fun so I looked it up\u2014I\u2019m having trouble even understanding the concept of it, much less how it actually works.","c_root_id_A":"hvnu3w4","c_root_id_B":"hvl3ach","created_at_utc_A":1644036762,"created_at_utc_B":1643995437,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Okay so I\u2019m not sure if someone else has answered this yet, but I wrote my final seminar for my BS in Math on Exploding Dots, so I can explain this pretty well. Exploding Dots is a visual way to teach base systems in math. We work in a base 10 system (think place value!), but there are other base systems. Binary is base 2, time is base 60, etc. Practicing working in other bases improves number sense (which is your innate understanding of numbers and how they interact). James Tanton is an Australian Mathematician and teacher, and he created this concept. In a practical sense, it works much like an abacus or counters. You use a \u201cdot\u201d to represent the value \u201c+1.\u201d Using the dots and the 1<-10 (read \u201cten one\u201d) machine, you can visually replicate how various operations work. If you draw 2 dots and add 3 more dots, you can visually see there are 5 dots (2+3=5). If you draw 10 dots in the right-most box in the machine they \u201cexplode,\u201d and this creates a single dot in the box one to the left. This is how we visually represent 10 dots, by having every dot in the second box be equivalent to 10 dots in the first box, every dot in the third box be 100 dots, every dot in the fourth box 1000 dots, and so on. Through slightly more complicated procedures, more operations can be represented using dots and machines. Tanton took this idea and created a curriculum around it, with videos, worksheets, and an online course\/game. The theory is that if Math is taught this way when students are young, they will have a better conceptual understanding as adults. Hope this helps!","human_ref_B":"Never heard of it until now, but basically I used a similar concept to introduce my daughter to binary numbers by reiterating what we do in normal decimal space and then applying the same rules to base 2...but I was lacking a good visual for that so I was a bit unsatisfied with my explanation even though she grasped the concept... Thanks for bringing this to my attention... And to anser the question, it's just a visualization of what you learned for basic arithmetic. Instead of a take over you got the exploding dot... It can help to make implicitly patterns explicit and show you what you are actually doing... The 2->1 machine is basically just binary and by getting to 10->1 machine you get normal decimal and by introducing it that way you basically showed the same patterns for all number spaces apply","labels":1,"seconds_difference":41325.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"skc0nn","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: In math, what are \u201cexploding dots?\u201d I work with students and one of them is taking a course called Exploding Dots. I thought it sounded fun so I looked it up\u2014I\u2019m having trouble even understanding the concept of it, much less how it actually works.","c_root_id_A":"hvnu3w4","c_root_id_B":"hvlxb2k","created_at_utc_A":1644036762,"created_at_utc_B":1644006600,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Okay so I\u2019m not sure if someone else has answered this yet, but I wrote my final seminar for my BS in Math on Exploding Dots, so I can explain this pretty well. Exploding Dots is a visual way to teach base systems in math. We work in a base 10 system (think place value!), but there are other base systems. Binary is base 2, time is base 60, etc. Practicing working in other bases improves number sense (which is your innate understanding of numbers and how they interact). James Tanton is an Australian Mathematician and teacher, and he created this concept. In a practical sense, it works much like an abacus or counters. You use a \u201cdot\u201d to represent the value \u201c+1.\u201d Using the dots and the 1<-10 (read \u201cten one\u201d) machine, you can visually replicate how various operations work. If you draw 2 dots and add 3 more dots, you can visually see there are 5 dots (2+3=5). If you draw 10 dots in the right-most box in the machine they \u201cexplode,\u201d and this creates a single dot in the box one to the left. This is how we visually represent 10 dots, by having every dot in the second box be equivalent to 10 dots in the first box, every dot in the third box be 100 dots, every dot in the fourth box 1000 dots, and so on. Through slightly more complicated procedures, more operations can be represented using dots and machines. Tanton took this idea and created a curriculum around it, with videos, worksheets, and an online course\/game. The theory is that if Math is taught this way when students are young, they will have a better conceptual understanding as adults. Hope this helps!","human_ref_B":"A different way to conceptualize number bases. Think of it like \"carrying the 1\" in the old way of teaching math. Once you have more than 10 (or whatever number base you're in) in a given space, you have to add it to the next space. In an exploding dot box, say you have 14 in the box. When you move a dot to the next box, 10 dots explode from the first box, leaving 4 behind and they move up to the next base as 1 dot, essentially \"carrying the 1\".","labels":1,"seconds_difference":30162.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"1z113i","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How come eyebrow, eyelash, arm hairs, ect only grow to a certain point, but when you shave them they grow back? How does it know it's been shaved? Why don't they continuously grow like head hair?","c_root_id_A":"cfpj8cx","c_root_id_B":"cfpj9dv","created_at_utc_A":1393452749,"created_at_utc_B":1393452806,"score_A":21,"score_B":1470,"human_ref_A":"every type of hair folicle is genetically programmed to produce a certain type of hair. But hair in general has 3 stages of \"life cycle\" to keep you body supplied with the proper amount of hair only roughly 1\/3 of your folicles are active at one time. So when you shave its not necessarily the hair you shaved that is growing back, its the next group going through the growth cycle. Facial and head hair is more on the continuous growth, thus producing hair that doesnt stop at a certain length.","human_ref_B":"Hair length is dependent on how long each hair lives in a certain area. On your head hair can live for years before it dies and eventually falls out. Arm and leg hair might only last a month or so, so it stays short. tl;dr Your hair is always growing, it is how often it falls out that makes it stay short, or allows it to become long.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":57.0,"score_ratio":70.0} {"post_id":"1z113i","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How come eyebrow, eyelash, arm hairs, ect only grow to a certain point, but when you shave them they grow back? How does it know it's been shaved? Why don't they continuously grow like head hair?","c_root_id_A":"cfpnym9","c_root_id_B":"cfpjtp5","created_at_utc_A":1393462906,"created_at_utc_B":1393453916,"score_A":1282,"score_B":72,"human_ref_A":"Hair follicles go through different life stages in a cycle. For one cycle, the follicle will be growing a hair. For the next, the follicle just lets the hair already there chill out. Then the follicle will let the existing hair fall out and remain hairless for a while and repeat. How long each of those cycles lasts is controlled by a few different hormones, which is why hair density, length and color will change based on where you are in your own life as hormone levels change. Follicles in different areas of the body react differently to different levels of hormones. So hair on your arm spends very little of its life in the Grow New Hair portion of the cycle, and hair on your head is almost always in the GNH portion. TL;DR Your hair just knows to grow for a certain amount of time, then chill out for a while and fall off. It has no clue how long it or its buddies are.","human_ref_B":"The rate at which hair grows is fixed. The rate at which hair follicles die off is also fixed. Given an arbitrary amount of time, these two rates establish an equilibrium so that hair in a region always appears to be the same length. If you shave off a whole bunch of hair, now the system is knocked off its equilibrium point. The growth that appears to be faster than normal is just the same growthrate that it always has been, you just don't see the decay+ loss because you artificially clipped all that out.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8990.0,"score_ratio":17.8055555556} {"post_id":"1z113i","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How come eyebrow, eyelash, arm hairs, ect only grow to a certain point, but when you shave them they grow back? How does it know it's been shaved? Why don't they continuously grow like head hair?","c_root_id_A":"cfpnym9","c_root_id_B":"cfpj8cx","created_at_utc_A":1393462906,"created_at_utc_B":1393452749,"score_A":1282,"score_B":21,"human_ref_A":"Hair follicles go through different life stages in a cycle. For one cycle, the follicle will be growing a hair. For the next, the follicle just lets the hair already there chill out. Then the follicle will let the existing hair fall out and remain hairless for a while and repeat. How long each of those cycles lasts is controlled by a few different hormones, which is why hair density, length and color will change based on where you are in your own life as hormone levels change. Follicles in different areas of the body react differently to different levels of hormones. So hair on your arm spends very little of its life in the Grow New Hair portion of the cycle, and hair on your head is almost always in the GNH portion. TL;DR Your hair just knows to grow for a certain amount of time, then chill out for a while and fall off. It has no clue how long it or its buddies are.","human_ref_B":"every type of hair folicle is genetically programmed to produce a certain type of hair. But hair in general has 3 stages of \"life cycle\" to keep you body supplied with the proper amount of hair only roughly 1\/3 of your folicles are active at one time. So when you shave its not necessarily the hair you shaved that is growing back, its the next group going through the growth cycle. Facial and head hair is more on the continuous growth, thus producing hair that doesnt stop at a certain length.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10157.0,"score_ratio":61.0476190476} {"post_id":"1z113i","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How come eyebrow, eyelash, arm hairs, ect only grow to a certain point, but when you shave them they grow back? How does it know it's been shaved? Why don't they continuously grow like head hair?","c_root_id_A":"cfpj8cx","c_root_id_B":"cfpjtp5","created_at_utc_A":1393452749,"created_at_utc_B":1393453916,"score_A":21,"score_B":72,"human_ref_A":"every type of hair folicle is genetically programmed to produce a certain type of hair. But hair in general has 3 stages of \"life cycle\" to keep you body supplied with the proper amount of hair only roughly 1\/3 of your folicles are active at one time. So when you shave its not necessarily the hair you shaved that is growing back, its the next group going through the growth cycle. Facial and head hair is more on the continuous growth, thus producing hair that doesnt stop at a certain length.","human_ref_B":"The rate at which hair grows is fixed. The rate at which hair follicles die off is also fixed. Given an arbitrary amount of time, these two rates establish an equilibrium so that hair in a region always appears to be the same length. If you shave off a whole bunch of hair, now the system is knocked off its equilibrium point. The growth that appears to be faster than normal is just the same growthrate that it always has been, you just don't see the decay+ loss because you artificially clipped all that out.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1167.0,"score_ratio":3.4285714286} {"post_id":"vaz4h2","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"eli5: Sugars are carbs. What is different about sugar that requires it to be listed separately on a nutritionql label?","c_root_id_A":"ic5bu70","c_root_id_B":"ic5i2dv","created_at_utc_A":1655079365,"created_at_utc_B":1655082708,"score_A":32,"score_B":64,"human_ref_A":"The idea is that we need to have sugar called out specifically because its the type of carb that we most often consume too much of. The callout is for awareness, education, and tracking your intake of sugar. \"50 carbs, but 45 of them are sugar\" versus \"50 carbs, 5 of which are sugar\". Very important to be able to see the difference, hence the callout.","human_ref_B":"Not all carbs are equal. The two act very differently when consumed. There are some carbohydrates humans cannot even digest because we lack the enzymes, don't chew our cud, and lack the hind-gut fermenting microbes horses and pigs possess. https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=u0q4XMzuzV4 https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=kWWTpe86ja https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=2yg5\\_SmLCps If you eat an amount of refined sugar equal to what is in an apple, it's absorbed in the stomach in minutes, but if you eat an apple, those intra-cellular carbohydrates are still being absorbed in the distal small bowel hours later. The gut bacteria treat it differently, the liver treats it differently, the pancreas treats it differently, and on top of that, you get vitamins, other anti-oxidents, and fiber. It's true there is little practical difference between refined sugar and something like refined white flour, which is too prevalent in the Western diet, but between, say, sugar and a yam, there is a whole cascade of enzymes, hormones, and time that make a difference.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3343.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"vaz4h2","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"eli5: Sugars are carbs. What is different about sugar that requires it to be listed separately on a nutritionql label?","c_root_id_A":"ic5btlz","c_root_id_B":"ic5i2dv","created_at_utc_A":1655079356,"created_at_utc_B":1655082708,"score_A":6,"score_B":64,"human_ref_A":"i think it's more accurate to say that carbs are broken down into sugars in your stomach that your body can use for energy. foods that are high in sugar give you energy too, but the human body isn't meant to digest these processed, already broken down sugars, which is why it messes with people's insulin levels and pancreas. in other words, they list sugar separately because it's so harmful to the body","human_ref_B":"Not all carbs are equal. The two act very differently when consumed. There are some carbohydrates humans cannot even digest because we lack the enzymes, don't chew our cud, and lack the hind-gut fermenting microbes horses and pigs possess. https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=u0q4XMzuzV4 https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=kWWTpe86ja https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=2yg5\\_SmLCps If you eat an amount of refined sugar equal to what is in an apple, it's absorbed in the stomach in minutes, but if you eat an apple, those intra-cellular carbohydrates are still being absorbed in the distal small bowel hours later. The gut bacteria treat it differently, the liver treats it differently, the pancreas treats it differently, and on top of that, you get vitamins, other anti-oxidents, and fiber. It's true there is little practical difference between refined sugar and something like refined white flour, which is too prevalent in the Western diet, but between, say, sugar and a yam, there is a whole cascade of enzymes, hormones, and time that make a difference.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3352.0,"score_ratio":10.6666666667} {"post_id":"vaz4h2","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"eli5: Sugars are carbs. What is different about sugar that requires it to be listed separately on a nutritionql label?","c_root_id_A":"ic5bu70","c_root_id_B":"ic607tz","created_at_utc_A":1655079365,"created_at_utc_B":1655092874,"score_A":32,"score_B":61,"human_ref_A":"The idea is that we need to have sugar called out specifically because its the type of carb that we most often consume too much of. The callout is for awareness, education, and tracking your intake of sugar. \"50 carbs, but 45 of them are sugar\" versus \"50 carbs, 5 of which are sugar\". Very important to be able to see the difference, hence the callout.","human_ref_B":"**Explain like I'm five years old**: Carbs are a family that contains sugar but also complex carbs and fiber. Sugar content is the most important carb when making decisions about what is 'healthy' as it is linked to many diseases which is why its singled out. **More in-depth**: Carbohydrates can be broadly divided into three groups: simple carbohydrates, complex carbohydrates, and fiber. *Simple carbs* are mono- and disaccharides such as table sugar (sucrose which is glucose + fructose). These are absorbed quickly by your GI system and cause a rapid spike in your blood sugar which is accompanied by a rapid spike in your insulin levels to compensate. Regularly consuming foods high in simple carbs has been shown to lead to obesity, cardiovascular disease, and other diseases. Having sugars listed on the labels (theoretically) allows consumers to make more informed choices on what they are putting in their bodies as sugar has been shown to have these negative effects. *Complex carbs* are longer chain polysaccharides (literally many glucoses chained together) which take longer for your body to digest. This leads to a slow and steady increase in blood sugar and a slow and steady increase in insulin levels which can be well managed by your body. Foods high in complex carbs have actually been shown to be beneficial for people with type-2 diabetes (second link at the bottom). *Fiber* is an insoluble form of carbohydrates that our bodies cannot process. Since it cannot be processed, it will never be absorbed or used as energy and will pass through our GI system. But it does play an important role in your GI health as it helps keep things moving and contributes to the feeling of being full. There is a ton of misinformation about sugar including in this thread already so be vigilant about the information your read. One of my current pet peeves is defining sugars as \"natural\" or \"added\"\/\"refined\". The source of the sugar doesn't make a difference in the chemical make up of it. Glucose is glucose is glucose. Orange juice that contains 100% natural sugars doesn't make it any healthier than orange juice that contains 100% added sugars. Harvard med wrote a great article about it here: https:\/\/sitn.hms.harvard.edu\/flash\/2015\/natural-and-added-sugars-two-sides-of-the-same-coin\/ However, how the sugar is packaged is important: fruit mainly has intracellular sugar with vitamins, minerals, and fiber which limit the spike in blood sugar. Compare that to apple juice which has freely dissolved sugar (natural though!) and removed the fiber allowing for rapid absorption and spiking blood sugar. **AHA recommendations on carbs:** https:\/\/www.heart.org\/en\/healthy-living\/healthy-eating\/eat-smart\/nutrition-basics\/carbohydrates **Harvard School of Public Health article on simple vs complex carbs:** https:\/\/www.hsph.harvard.edu\/nutritionsource\/carbohydrates\/carbohydrates-and-blood-sugar\/ **STATpearls article on carbohydrates**: https:\/\/europepmc.org\/article\/NBK\/nbk459280","labels":0,"seconds_difference":13509.0,"score_ratio":1.90625} {"post_id":"vaz4h2","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"eli5: Sugars are carbs. What is different about sugar that requires it to be listed separately on a nutritionql label?","c_root_id_A":"ic607tz","c_root_id_B":"ic5jae0","created_at_utc_A":1655092874,"created_at_utc_B":1655083367,"score_A":61,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"**Explain like I'm five years old**: Carbs are a family that contains sugar but also complex carbs and fiber. Sugar content is the most important carb when making decisions about what is 'healthy' as it is linked to many diseases which is why its singled out. **More in-depth**: Carbohydrates can be broadly divided into three groups: simple carbohydrates, complex carbohydrates, and fiber. *Simple carbs* are mono- and disaccharides such as table sugar (sucrose which is glucose + fructose). These are absorbed quickly by your GI system and cause a rapid spike in your blood sugar which is accompanied by a rapid spike in your insulin levels to compensate. Regularly consuming foods high in simple carbs has been shown to lead to obesity, cardiovascular disease, and other diseases. Having sugars listed on the labels (theoretically) allows consumers to make more informed choices on what they are putting in their bodies as sugar has been shown to have these negative effects. *Complex carbs* are longer chain polysaccharides (literally many glucoses chained together) which take longer for your body to digest. This leads to a slow and steady increase in blood sugar and a slow and steady increase in insulin levels which can be well managed by your body. Foods high in complex carbs have actually been shown to be beneficial for people with type-2 diabetes (second link at the bottom). *Fiber* is an insoluble form of carbohydrates that our bodies cannot process. Since it cannot be processed, it will never be absorbed or used as energy and will pass through our GI system. But it does play an important role in your GI health as it helps keep things moving and contributes to the feeling of being full. There is a ton of misinformation about sugar including in this thread already so be vigilant about the information your read. One of my current pet peeves is defining sugars as \"natural\" or \"added\"\/\"refined\". The source of the sugar doesn't make a difference in the chemical make up of it. Glucose is glucose is glucose. Orange juice that contains 100% natural sugars doesn't make it any healthier than orange juice that contains 100% added sugars. Harvard med wrote a great article about it here: https:\/\/sitn.hms.harvard.edu\/flash\/2015\/natural-and-added-sugars-two-sides-of-the-same-coin\/ However, how the sugar is packaged is important: fruit mainly has intracellular sugar with vitamins, minerals, and fiber which limit the spike in blood sugar. Compare that to apple juice which has freely dissolved sugar (natural though!) and removed the fiber allowing for rapid absorption and spiking blood sugar. **AHA recommendations on carbs:** https:\/\/www.heart.org\/en\/healthy-living\/healthy-eating\/eat-smart\/nutrition-basics\/carbohydrates **Harvard School of Public Health article on simple vs complex carbs:** https:\/\/www.hsph.harvard.edu\/nutritionsource\/carbohydrates\/carbohydrates-and-blood-sugar\/ **STATpearls article on carbohydrates**: https:\/\/europepmc.org\/article\/NBK\/nbk459280","human_ref_B":"The most important statistic for your health about a type of carbohydrate is the Glysymic Index (GI). The GI will tell us how fast that type of carb is absorbed by the body. The faster the absorption rate the higher the spike in blood sugar. The larger the spike the more insulin is released. Insulin regulates the uptake of sugar and the higher the insulin the more sugar is converted into fat. Additionally, you can develop a resistance to insulin which is known as type 2 diabetes. On top of this high GI carbs lead to cycles of high energy followed by crashes which messes with the hormones that control hunger. Low GI carbs will contain the same number of calories as high GI carbs but they are significantly more healthy for you because they are absorbed slower and keep you \"fuller\" for longer. Sugar (glucose) is the highest GI carb there is.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9507.0,"score_ratio":8.7142857143} {"post_id":"vaz4h2","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"eli5: Sugars are carbs. What is different about sugar that requires it to be listed separately on a nutritionql label?","c_root_id_A":"ic607tz","c_root_id_B":"ic5btlz","created_at_utc_A":1655092874,"created_at_utc_B":1655079356,"score_A":61,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"**Explain like I'm five years old**: Carbs are a family that contains sugar but also complex carbs and fiber. Sugar content is the most important carb when making decisions about what is 'healthy' as it is linked to many diseases which is why its singled out. **More in-depth**: Carbohydrates can be broadly divided into three groups: simple carbohydrates, complex carbohydrates, and fiber. *Simple carbs* are mono- and disaccharides such as table sugar (sucrose which is glucose + fructose). These are absorbed quickly by your GI system and cause a rapid spike in your blood sugar which is accompanied by a rapid spike in your insulin levels to compensate. Regularly consuming foods high in simple carbs has been shown to lead to obesity, cardiovascular disease, and other diseases. Having sugars listed on the labels (theoretically) allows consumers to make more informed choices on what they are putting in their bodies as sugar has been shown to have these negative effects. *Complex carbs* are longer chain polysaccharides (literally many glucoses chained together) which take longer for your body to digest. This leads to a slow and steady increase in blood sugar and a slow and steady increase in insulin levels which can be well managed by your body. Foods high in complex carbs have actually been shown to be beneficial for people with type-2 diabetes (second link at the bottom). *Fiber* is an insoluble form of carbohydrates that our bodies cannot process. Since it cannot be processed, it will never be absorbed or used as energy and will pass through our GI system. But it does play an important role in your GI health as it helps keep things moving and contributes to the feeling of being full. There is a ton of misinformation about sugar including in this thread already so be vigilant about the information your read. One of my current pet peeves is defining sugars as \"natural\" or \"added\"\/\"refined\". The source of the sugar doesn't make a difference in the chemical make up of it. Glucose is glucose is glucose. Orange juice that contains 100% natural sugars doesn't make it any healthier than orange juice that contains 100% added sugars. Harvard med wrote a great article about it here: https:\/\/sitn.hms.harvard.edu\/flash\/2015\/natural-and-added-sugars-two-sides-of-the-same-coin\/ However, how the sugar is packaged is important: fruit mainly has intracellular sugar with vitamins, minerals, and fiber which limit the spike in blood sugar. Compare that to apple juice which has freely dissolved sugar (natural though!) and removed the fiber allowing for rapid absorption and spiking blood sugar. **AHA recommendations on carbs:** https:\/\/www.heart.org\/en\/healthy-living\/healthy-eating\/eat-smart\/nutrition-basics\/carbohydrates **Harvard School of Public Health article on simple vs complex carbs:** https:\/\/www.hsph.harvard.edu\/nutritionsource\/carbohydrates\/carbohydrates-and-blood-sugar\/ **STATpearls article on carbohydrates**: https:\/\/europepmc.org\/article\/NBK\/nbk459280","human_ref_B":"i think it's more accurate to say that carbs are broken down into sugars in your stomach that your body can use for energy. foods that are high in sugar give you energy too, but the human body isn't meant to digest these processed, already broken down sugars, which is why it messes with people's insulin levels and pancreas. in other words, they list sugar separately because it's so harmful to the body","labels":1,"seconds_difference":13518.0,"score_ratio":10.1666666667} {"post_id":"vaz4h2","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"eli5: Sugars are carbs. What is different about sugar that requires it to be listed separately on a nutritionql label?","c_root_id_A":"ic607tz","c_root_id_B":"ic5js3e","created_at_utc_A":1655092874,"created_at_utc_B":1655083634,"score_A":61,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"**Explain like I'm five years old**: Carbs are a family that contains sugar but also complex carbs and fiber. Sugar content is the most important carb when making decisions about what is 'healthy' as it is linked to many diseases which is why its singled out. **More in-depth**: Carbohydrates can be broadly divided into three groups: simple carbohydrates, complex carbohydrates, and fiber. *Simple carbs* are mono- and disaccharides such as table sugar (sucrose which is glucose + fructose). These are absorbed quickly by your GI system and cause a rapid spike in your blood sugar which is accompanied by a rapid spike in your insulin levels to compensate. Regularly consuming foods high in simple carbs has been shown to lead to obesity, cardiovascular disease, and other diseases. Having sugars listed on the labels (theoretically) allows consumers to make more informed choices on what they are putting in their bodies as sugar has been shown to have these negative effects. *Complex carbs* are longer chain polysaccharides (literally many glucoses chained together) which take longer for your body to digest. This leads to a slow and steady increase in blood sugar and a slow and steady increase in insulin levels which can be well managed by your body. Foods high in complex carbs have actually been shown to be beneficial for people with type-2 diabetes (second link at the bottom). *Fiber* is an insoluble form of carbohydrates that our bodies cannot process. Since it cannot be processed, it will never be absorbed or used as energy and will pass through our GI system. But it does play an important role in your GI health as it helps keep things moving and contributes to the feeling of being full. There is a ton of misinformation about sugar including in this thread already so be vigilant about the information your read. One of my current pet peeves is defining sugars as \"natural\" or \"added\"\/\"refined\". The source of the sugar doesn't make a difference in the chemical make up of it. Glucose is glucose is glucose. Orange juice that contains 100% natural sugars doesn't make it any healthier than orange juice that contains 100% added sugars. Harvard med wrote a great article about it here: https:\/\/sitn.hms.harvard.edu\/flash\/2015\/natural-and-added-sugars-two-sides-of-the-same-coin\/ However, how the sugar is packaged is important: fruit mainly has intracellular sugar with vitamins, minerals, and fiber which limit the spike in blood sugar. Compare that to apple juice which has freely dissolved sugar (natural though!) and removed the fiber allowing for rapid absorption and spiking blood sugar. **AHA recommendations on carbs:** https:\/\/www.heart.org\/en\/healthy-living\/healthy-eating\/eat-smart\/nutrition-basics\/carbohydrates **Harvard School of Public Health article on simple vs complex carbs:** https:\/\/www.hsph.harvard.edu\/nutritionsource\/carbohydrates\/carbohydrates-and-blood-sugar\/ **STATpearls article on carbohydrates**: https:\/\/europepmc.org\/article\/NBK\/nbk459280","human_ref_B":"I think it is also significant to add here, that fibre is a carbohydrate. Your body can't process it and it just passes right through your system so it doesn't really have an effect on your body or your blood sugar levels if you are diabetic or just trying to stick to a low carb diet.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9240.0,"score_ratio":12.2} {"post_id":"vaz4h2","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"eli5: Sugars are carbs. What is different about sugar that requires it to be listed separately on a nutritionql label?","c_root_id_A":"ic5btlz","c_root_id_B":"ic5bu70","created_at_utc_A":1655079356,"created_at_utc_B":1655079365,"score_A":6,"score_B":32,"human_ref_A":"i think it's more accurate to say that carbs are broken down into sugars in your stomach that your body can use for energy. foods that are high in sugar give you energy too, but the human body isn't meant to digest these processed, already broken down sugars, which is why it messes with people's insulin levels and pancreas. in other words, they list sugar separately because it's so harmful to the body","human_ref_B":"The idea is that we need to have sugar called out specifically because its the type of carb that we most often consume too much of. The callout is for awareness, education, and tracking your intake of sugar. \"50 carbs, but 45 of them are sugar\" versus \"50 carbs, 5 of which are sugar\". Very important to be able to see the difference, hence the callout.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9.0,"score_ratio":5.3333333333} {"post_id":"vaz4h2","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"eli5: Sugars are carbs. What is different about sugar that requires it to be listed separately on a nutritionql label?","c_root_id_A":"ic5jae0","c_root_id_B":"ic5btlz","created_at_utc_A":1655083367,"created_at_utc_B":1655079356,"score_A":7,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"The most important statistic for your health about a type of carbohydrate is the Glysymic Index (GI). The GI will tell us how fast that type of carb is absorbed by the body. The faster the absorption rate the higher the spike in blood sugar. The larger the spike the more insulin is released. Insulin regulates the uptake of sugar and the higher the insulin the more sugar is converted into fat. Additionally, you can develop a resistance to insulin which is known as type 2 diabetes. On top of this high GI carbs lead to cycles of high energy followed by crashes which messes with the hormones that control hunger. Low GI carbs will contain the same number of calories as high GI carbs but they are significantly more healthy for you because they are absorbed slower and keep you \"fuller\" for longer. Sugar (glucose) is the highest GI carb there is.","human_ref_B":"i think it's more accurate to say that carbs are broken down into sugars in your stomach that your body can use for energy. foods that are high in sugar give you energy too, but the human body isn't meant to digest these processed, already broken down sugars, which is why it messes with people's insulin levels and pancreas. in other words, they list sugar separately because it's so harmful to the body","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4011.0,"score_ratio":1.1666666667} {"post_id":"2fd7ot","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.69,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why do I get goosebumps when listening to a particular moving piece of music?","c_root_id_A":"ck84fp0","c_root_id_B":"ck85dhu","created_at_utc_A":1409762463,"created_at_utc_B":1409764303,"score_A":9,"score_B":20,"human_ref_A":"The phenomenon you're talking about is known as frisson. I'm not sure how detailed the science is on exactly *why* it happens, though (there's a decent amount of information about what sort of things tend to trigger it).","human_ref_B":"http:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/explainlikeimfive\/comments\/1uguwk\/eli5_what_is_going_on_in_my_brain_when_i_listen\/ http:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/explainlikeimfive\/comments\/1o1g7u\/eli5_why_does_moving_music_cause_goosebumps\/ http:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/explainlikeimfive\/comments\/1tr55m\/eli5_why_do_i_get_goosebumps_when_i_hear_a\/ http:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/explainlikeimfive\/comments\/18h3lh\/eli5_why_do_we_get_goosebumpsshivers_when_we\/ http:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/explainlikeimfive\/comments\/168yox\/eli5_why_do_i_get_the_chills_and_goosebumps_when\/ http:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/explainlikeimfive\/comments\/1ycaa1\/eli5_what_exactly_is_happening_in_my_brain_body\/ http:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/explainlikeimfive\/comments\/1uvmsr\/eli5_why_do_i_get_goosebumps_when_i_witness_an\/ http:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/explainlikeimfive\/comments\/2b3uw1\/eli5_why_dont_i_get_chillsgoosebumps_while\/ http:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/explainlikeimfive\/comments\/1tck6y\/eli5_why_does_listening_to_music_in_the_minor_key\/ http:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/explainlikeimfive\/comments\/2ayjmi\/eli5_why_do_i_get_goosebumps_when_i_hear_really\/ http:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/explainlikeimfive\/comments\/2evrn5\/eli5_why_do_some_people_get_goosebumps_when\/ http:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/explainlikeimfive\/comments\/klknf\/eli5_goosebumps_from_music\/ http:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/explainlikeimfive\/comments\/2a3cz3\/eli5_why_do_we_sometimes_get_goosebumps_when_we\/ http:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/explainlikeimfive\/comments\/28ndoj\/eli_what_is_that_ticklist_feeling_you_feel_at\/ http:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/explainlikeimfive\/comments\/24yqpy\/eli5_why_is_some_music_so_goodimpacting_that_it\/ http:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/explainlikeimfive\/comments\/1s6bfb\/eli5_why_do_we_get_the_chills_or_goosebumps_in\/ http:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/explainlikeimfive\/comments\/1kf4ey\/eli5_what_is_the_physiological_explanation_for\/ http:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/explainlikeimfive\/comments\/24cu48\/eli5_what_causes_goosebumps_and_hair_standing_up\/ http:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/explainlikeimfive\/comments\/1xh7or\/eli5why_do_i_get_goosebumps_when_i_hear_nails_on\/ http:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/explainlikeimfive\/comments\/uwnzs\/eli5_what_is_the_tingling_sensation_we_get\/ http:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/explainlikeimfive\/comments\/1uv25l\/eli5_why_does_music_cause_such_strong_emotions\/","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1840.0,"score_ratio":2.2222222222} {"post_id":"lgh95z","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Humans have spent countless years domesticating and selectively breeding crops in order to get the best possible produce, such as bananas and watermelons. So why is there still a giant ass pit in avocados even though basically every other crop is selectively bred for the best attributes? I just thought of this and couldn't find anything on the internet as a cause for this phenomenon.","c_root_id_A":"gmrhunk","c_root_id_B":"gms15v9","created_at_utc_A":1612917991,"created_at_utc_B":1612928165,"score_A":18,"score_B":120,"human_ref_A":"Because the #1 trait they breed for is matketability. Thats why the hass is standard in the us. Americans were willing to pay for the dark skin that hides damage during trasport and storage. Next are color, texture, and flavor. Size is one of the last. If you're interested, the California Cooperative Extension's avocado variety testing program documents from the 50s-70s are available online https:\/\/calisphere.org\/collections\/27013\/?rq=Avocado%20","human_ref_B":"One thing to note that no one has mentioned is that all commercial Hass avacados are grafts from a tree from 1926. They aren\u2019t grown from seeds, they are clones, and clones of clones, so we can\u2019t choose to plant the seeds from fruit that are smaller. (well we can, we just dont) So the answer to your question is that we haven\u2019t actually selectively bred hass avacados for the last 100 years. Another thing to note is that it can take hundreds or even thousands of years of selective breeding to make a change like that naturally. With todays tech we can make that happen in a few years probably.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10174.0,"score_ratio":6.6666666667} {"post_id":"lgh95z","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Humans have spent countless years domesticating and selectively breeding crops in order to get the best possible produce, such as bananas and watermelons. So why is there still a giant ass pit in avocados even though basically every other crop is selectively bred for the best attributes? I just thought of this and couldn't find anything on the internet as a cause for this phenomenon.","c_root_id_A":"gms15v9","c_root_id_B":"gmrfmpr","created_at_utc_A":1612928165,"created_at_utc_B":1612916833,"score_A":120,"score_B":17,"human_ref_A":"One thing to note that no one has mentioned is that all commercial Hass avacados are grafts from a tree from 1926. They aren\u2019t grown from seeds, they are clones, and clones of clones, so we can\u2019t choose to plant the seeds from fruit that are smaller. (well we can, we just dont) So the answer to your question is that we haven\u2019t actually selectively bred hass avacados for the last 100 years. Another thing to note is that it can take hundreds or even thousands of years of selective breeding to make a change like that naturally. With todays tech we can make that happen in a few years probably.","human_ref_B":"Seedless avacados are not actually uncommon but are just small and are discarded by farmers typically. Due to the long time it takes seedlings to mature its difficult to breed new cultivars and most new varieties are accidental mutations. I buy pinkerton avacados and the seed to flesh ratio is great but it goes bad quickly off the tree and is bad for mass market. Hass avacadoes are the ones most people are familiar with I think. They produce a lot of fruits with seeds of varying size (but typically at least a third of the fruit is seed)and have a decent shelf life (for an avocado) I imagine the fruit is also resistant to mutations that affect seed size due to its evolutionary niche as food for megafauna which is why the pit is so large and the fruit so calorie dense.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":11332.0,"score_ratio":7.0588235294} {"post_id":"lgh95z","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Humans have spent countless years domesticating and selectively breeding crops in order to get the best possible produce, such as bananas and watermelons. So why is there still a giant ass pit in avocados even though basically every other crop is selectively bred for the best attributes? I just thought of this and couldn't find anything on the internet as a cause for this phenomenon.","c_root_id_A":"gmrmiti","c_root_id_B":"gms15v9","created_at_utc_A":1612920434,"created_at_utc_B":1612928165,"score_A":3,"score_B":120,"human_ref_A":"There's major factors you have to consider in things like selective breeding. * What climate are these crops sustainable at. * How long ago when selective breeding was started approx * How quick you can breed said crops * What how many traits are associated with breeding Just with a couple of those points you can gather; that even if the selective breeding process started awhile ago on avocados there's minimal places you can effectively grow it. Not only that but as someone mentioned avocados take awhile to grow, and the fact that there are other traits that come along with breeding it's not simple. Also you have to remember that even if say the seed size is small that could mean a few things, smaller produce, longer time to grow, and other things you can think of as well that might be a possibility. Ideally you want the best of both worlds.","human_ref_B":"One thing to note that no one has mentioned is that all commercial Hass avacados are grafts from a tree from 1926. They aren\u2019t grown from seeds, they are clones, and clones of clones, so we can\u2019t choose to plant the seeds from fruit that are smaller. (well we can, we just dont) So the answer to your question is that we haven\u2019t actually selectively bred hass avacados for the last 100 years. Another thing to note is that it can take hundreds or even thousands of years of selective breeding to make a change like that naturally. With todays tech we can make that happen in a few years probably.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7731.0,"score_ratio":40.0} {"post_id":"lgh95z","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Humans have spent countless years domesticating and selectively breeding crops in order to get the best possible produce, such as bananas and watermelons. So why is there still a giant ass pit in avocados even though basically every other crop is selectively bred for the best attributes? I just thought of this and couldn't find anything on the internet as a cause for this phenomenon.","c_root_id_A":"gmrhunk","c_root_id_B":"gmrfmpr","created_at_utc_A":1612917991,"created_at_utc_B":1612916833,"score_A":18,"score_B":17,"human_ref_A":"Because the #1 trait they breed for is matketability. Thats why the hass is standard in the us. Americans were willing to pay for the dark skin that hides damage during trasport and storage. Next are color, texture, and flavor. Size is one of the last. If you're interested, the California Cooperative Extension's avocado variety testing program documents from the 50s-70s are available online https:\/\/calisphere.org\/collections\/27013\/?rq=Avocado%20","human_ref_B":"Seedless avacados are not actually uncommon but are just small and are discarded by farmers typically. Due to the long time it takes seedlings to mature its difficult to breed new cultivars and most new varieties are accidental mutations. I buy pinkerton avacados and the seed to flesh ratio is great but it goes bad quickly off the tree and is bad for mass market. Hass avacadoes are the ones most people are familiar with I think. They produce a lot of fruits with seeds of varying size (but typically at least a third of the fruit is seed)and have a decent shelf life (for an avocado) I imagine the fruit is also resistant to mutations that affect seed size due to its evolutionary niche as food for megafauna which is why the pit is so large and the fruit so calorie dense.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1158.0,"score_ratio":1.0588235294} {"post_id":"lgh95z","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Humans have spent countless years domesticating and selectively breeding crops in order to get the best possible produce, such as bananas and watermelons. So why is there still a giant ass pit in avocados even though basically every other crop is selectively bred for the best attributes? I just thought of this and couldn't find anything on the internet as a cause for this phenomenon.","c_root_id_A":"gmspu1y","c_root_id_B":"gmsznha","created_at_utc_A":1612945744,"created_at_utc_B":1612955345,"score_A":5,"score_B":16,"human_ref_A":"You can get seedless ones https:\/\/nypost.com\/2017\/12\/12\/taste-testing-the-crazy-new-seedless-avocado\/ Breeding for seedless things is tricky because obviously you can't breed them if they don't make seeds. Sometimes you can hybridize plants to produce infertile hybrids that don't produce seeds. This is how they make seedless watermelons. If you have a plant, like a banana, that can be grown from cuttings once you produce a seedless variety you can propagate it easily. But you can't really select for much in the way of changes, because each cutting is an identical clone. Finally, you can just prevent the flower from being fertilized, which in many plants will result in a fruit containing no seed. This is how they made those seedless avocados. It can be labor intensive to do this with every flower. The development of seedless avocados has probably been limited by a lack of suitable hybrids to breed with in order to try and make a sterile hybrid that will make a good tasting fruit which won't develop a seed or will produce only a reduced one. You can't breed for a trait you can't find in the population.","human_ref_B":"As other people have mentioned, it takes time to be able to achieve the genetic modification you're after. The history of the avocado is quite interesting and I suggest you look into it. In essence - the avocado is really old. It's from the time that the Earth was covered with megafauna and megaflora (large plants and animals). The avocado tree relies on big animals to eat it and pass on the pit away from the tree, someplace new. 13000 years ago around 60-80% of the megafauna went extinct and so did the chances of the avocado to survive. Animals don't peel and eat just the fleshy part, they eat it whole and pass only the undigested pit. Not much animals were left capable of swallowing it whole and we can thank a select few for keeping it alive, at least until humans saw the potential and started growing it themselves. It's part of mexican culture for at least 2000 years, but it didn't really come close until the 19th century where it gained popularity, and the first half or the 20th century when people started creating varieties and mass producing it. But in the mind of the avocado pit it still relies on the big animals, so it may have been 200 years for us cultivating it, but it's gonna be hard for the avocado pit to get the memo that the thing it relied on for millennia to survive is no longer needed. Here are a couple of interesting posts about the history of the avocado: why avocados should have gone extinct how avocados survived (I apologise for formatting since I'm on mobile and I hope the links work, and I apologise for any language mistakes)","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9601.0,"score_ratio":3.2} {"post_id":"lgh95z","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Humans have spent countless years domesticating and selectively breeding crops in order to get the best possible produce, such as bananas and watermelons. So why is there still a giant ass pit in avocados even though basically every other crop is selectively bred for the best attributes? I just thought of this and couldn't find anything on the internet as a cause for this phenomenon.","c_root_id_A":"gmsznha","c_root_id_B":"gmrmiti","created_at_utc_A":1612955345,"created_at_utc_B":1612920434,"score_A":16,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"As other people have mentioned, it takes time to be able to achieve the genetic modification you're after. The history of the avocado is quite interesting and I suggest you look into it. In essence - the avocado is really old. It's from the time that the Earth was covered with megafauna and megaflora (large plants and animals). The avocado tree relies on big animals to eat it and pass on the pit away from the tree, someplace new. 13000 years ago around 60-80% of the megafauna went extinct and so did the chances of the avocado to survive. Animals don't peel and eat just the fleshy part, they eat it whole and pass only the undigested pit. Not much animals were left capable of swallowing it whole and we can thank a select few for keeping it alive, at least until humans saw the potential and started growing it themselves. It's part of mexican culture for at least 2000 years, but it didn't really come close until the 19th century where it gained popularity, and the first half or the 20th century when people started creating varieties and mass producing it. But in the mind of the avocado pit it still relies on the big animals, so it may have been 200 years for us cultivating it, but it's gonna be hard for the avocado pit to get the memo that the thing it relied on for millennia to survive is no longer needed. Here are a couple of interesting posts about the history of the avocado: why avocados should have gone extinct how avocados survived (I apologise for formatting since I'm on mobile and I hope the links work, and I apologise for any language mistakes)","human_ref_B":"There's major factors you have to consider in things like selective breeding. * What climate are these crops sustainable at. * How long ago when selective breeding was started approx * How quick you can breed said crops * What how many traits are associated with breeding Just with a couple of those points you can gather; that even if the selective breeding process started awhile ago on avocados there's minimal places you can effectively grow it. Not only that but as someone mentioned avocados take awhile to grow, and the fact that there are other traits that come along with breeding it's not simple. Also you have to remember that even if say the seed size is small that could mean a few things, smaller produce, longer time to grow, and other things you can think of as well that might be a possibility. Ideally you want the best of both worlds.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":34911.0,"score_ratio":5.3333333333} {"post_id":"lgh95z","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Humans have spent countless years domesticating and selectively breeding crops in order to get the best possible produce, such as bananas and watermelons. So why is there still a giant ass pit in avocados even though basically every other crop is selectively bred for the best attributes? I just thought of this and couldn't find anything on the internet as a cause for this phenomenon.","c_root_id_A":"gmsznha","c_root_id_B":"gmspiy9","created_at_utc_A":1612955345,"created_at_utc_B":1612945460,"score_A":16,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"As other people have mentioned, it takes time to be able to achieve the genetic modification you're after. The history of the avocado is quite interesting and I suggest you look into it. In essence - the avocado is really old. It's from the time that the Earth was covered with megafauna and megaflora (large plants and animals). The avocado tree relies on big animals to eat it and pass on the pit away from the tree, someplace new. 13000 years ago around 60-80% of the megafauna went extinct and so did the chances of the avocado to survive. Animals don't peel and eat just the fleshy part, they eat it whole and pass only the undigested pit. Not much animals were left capable of swallowing it whole and we can thank a select few for keeping it alive, at least until humans saw the potential and started growing it themselves. It's part of mexican culture for at least 2000 years, but it didn't really come close until the 19th century where it gained popularity, and the first half or the 20th century when people started creating varieties and mass producing it. But in the mind of the avocado pit it still relies on the big animals, so it may have been 200 years for us cultivating it, but it's gonna be hard for the avocado pit to get the memo that the thing it relied on for millennia to survive is no longer needed. Here are a couple of interesting posts about the history of the avocado: why avocados should have gone extinct how avocados survived (I apologise for formatting since I'm on mobile and I hope the links work, and I apologise for any language mistakes)","human_ref_B":"Evolution takes time even when directed by humans selectively breeding things. If you have a plant that takes a year for each generation it is a lot faster than something that takes several years to bear fruit. To give you an idea how slow avocados are to adapting to new circumstances; the reason why there are such big seeds in avocados, is that they are optimized for passing though the digestive tract of giant animals. Avocados are the result of adaptation to giant sloths and armadillos the size small cars. You may notice if you live in the Americas that such animals are not currently present on the continent. They haven't been for many thousands of years. Those creatures became extinct shortly after humans started settling the continent in large numbers. It has been ten thousand years and avocados haven't really caught up to the fact that giant sloths are gone. The likely would have gone extinct too, if humans hadn't found them tasty and started farming them on purpose. Not a fast process.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9885.0,"score_ratio":5.3333333333} {"post_id":"lgh95z","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Humans have spent countless years domesticating and selectively breeding crops in order to get the best possible produce, such as bananas and watermelons. So why is there still a giant ass pit in avocados even though basically every other crop is selectively bred for the best attributes? I just thought of this and couldn't find anything on the internet as a cause for this phenomenon.","c_root_id_A":"gmrmiti","c_root_id_B":"gmspu1y","created_at_utc_A":1612920434,"created_at_utc_B":1612945744,"score_A":3,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"There's major factors you have to consider in things like selective breeding. * What climate are these crops sustainable at. * How long ago when selective breeding was started approx * How quick you can breed said crops * What how many traits are associated with breeding Just with a couple of those points you can gather; that even if the selective breeding process started awhile ago on avocados there's minimal places you can effectively grow it. Not only that but as someone mentioned avocados take awhile to grow, and the fact that there are other traits that come along with breeding it's not simple. Also you have to remember that even if say the seed size is small that could mean a few things, smaller produce, longer time to grow, and other things you can think of as well that might be a possibility. Ideally you want the best of both worlds.","human_ref_B":"You can get seedless ones https:\/\/nypost.com\/2017\/12\/12\/taste-testing-the-crazy-new-seedless-avocado\/ Breeding for seedless things is tricky because obviously you can't breed them if they don't make seeds. Sometimes you can hybridize plants to produce infertile hybrids that don't produce seeds. This is how they make seedless watermelons. If you have a plant, like a banana, that can be grown from cuttings once you produce a seedless variety you can propagate it easily. But you can't really select for much in the way of changes, because each cutting is an identical clone. Finally, you can just prevent the flower from being fertilized, which in many plants will result in a fruit containing no seed. This is how they made those seedless avocados. It can be labor intensive to do this with every flower. The development of seedless avocados has probably been limited by a lack of suitable hybrids to breed with in order to try and make a sterile hybrid that will make a good tasting fruit which won't develop a seed or will produce only a reduced one. You can't breed for a trait you can't find in the population.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":25310.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"lgh95z","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Humans have spent countless years domesticating and selectively breeding crops in order to get the best possible produce, such as bananas and watermelons. So why is there still a giant ass pit in avocados even though basically every other crop is selectively bred for the best attributes? I just thought of this and couldn't find anything on the internet as a cause for this phenomenon.","c_root_id_A":"gmspu1y","c_root_id_B":"gmspiy9","created_at_utc_A":1612945744,"created_at_utc_B":1612945460,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"You can get seedless ones https:\/\/nypost.com\/2017\/12\/12\/taste-testing-the-crazy-new-seedless-avocado\/ Breeding for seedless things is tricky because obviously you can't breed them if they don't make seeds. Sometimes you can hybridize plants to produce infertile hybrids that don't produce seeds. This is how they make seedless watermelons. If you have a plant, like a banana, that can be grown from cuttings once you produce a seedless variety you can propagate it easily. But you can't really select for much in the way of changes, because each cutting is an identical clone. Finally, you can just prevent the flower from being fertilized, which in many plants will result in a fruit containing no seed. This is how they made those seedless avocados. It can be labor intensive to do this with every flower. The development of seedless avocados has probably been limited by a lack of suitable hybrids to breed with in order to try and make a sterile hybrid that will make a good tasting fruit which won't develop a seed or will produce only a reduced one. You can't breed for a trait you can't find in the population.","human_ref_B":"Evolution takes time even when directed by humans selectively breeding things. If you have a plant that takes a year for each generation it is a lot faster than something that takes several years to bear fruit. To give you an idea how slow avocados are to adapting to new circumstances; the reason why there are such big seeds in avocados, is that they are optimized for passing though the digestive tract of giant animals. Avocados are the result of adaptation to giant sloths and armadillos the size small cars. You may notice if you live in the Americas that such animals are not currently present on the continent. They haven't been for many thousands of years. Those creatures became extinct shortly after humans started settling the continent in large numbers. It has been ten thousand years and avocados haven't really caught up to the fact that giant sloths are gone. The likely would have gone extinct too, if humans hadn't found them tasty and started farming them on purpose. Not a fast process.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":284.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"ym8q87","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.64,"history":"Eli5: What\u2019s the mechanism by which a multitude of voices become LOUDER and can be heard farther, than a lone voice at the same source? I live close enough to a sports stadium to occasionally hear the roar of the crowd. But that\u2019s just a bunch of individuals all yelling and making various noises. If that were single individual in the same stadium, I wouldn\u2019t be able to hear anything. Do our voices amplify each other somehow, when in a group?","c_root_id_A":"iv3r5n6","c_root_id_B":"iv3kr9v","created_at_utc_A":1667612122,"created_at_utc_B":1667608985,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"It\u2019s called constructive interference. The sound waves of each person add together and increase the volume.","human_ref_B":"Ever play the parachute game as a kid? One person shaking a parachute doesn't do very much. If you put a ball on it, it's not going to do anything too crazy. If everybody starts shaking the parachute together, you can get some huge motions. Even if everybody starts shaking it in their own way, the combined wiggles can make the ball leap off and hit the roof. Sound is like these wobbles but in the air. The stadium is like everybody shaking the parachute at the same time but in their own way. It all adds up!","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3137.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"3o13w0","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: My whole family caught the same nasty stomach bug. Some of us threw up a lot, others only pooped. What was happening in our bodies to cause the different course of actions?","c_root_id_A":"cvt4710","c_root_id_B":"cvt40y6","created_at_utc_A":1444348497,"created_at_utc_B":1444348207,"score_A":18,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"In a lot of these bugs, children tend to vomit more and adults tend to have diarrhea more, so age might have something to do with it. There are also people who vomit easily with stomach bugs, while others rarely do, so there is an individual \"strong stomach\" factor as well. Our family has both kinds of people. There are also people who have a genetic resistance to Norovirus. 23andMe used to report on this back when they were allowed to give out genetic data related to health.","human_ref_B":"this recently happened to my husband and I. the only thing I could figure is that a slight variance in the pH in our digestive tract caused the bacteria or virus to thrive at different points in our guts and to varying degrees (I profusely had The Brown Water Floweth and he barely had stomach upset). the pH changes through our digestive tract and these bugs will find the right pH and begin to replicate. I can guess that it remains relatively the same person to person but with slight variances. that's my theory, anyone who knows better correct me if I'm wrong.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":290.0,"score_ratio":4.5} {"post_id":"3o13w0","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: My whole family caught the same nasty stomach bug. Some of us threw up a lot, others only pooped. What was happening in our bodies to cause the different course of actions?","c_root_id_A":"cvt40y6","c_root_id_B":"cvt8gld","created_at_utc_A":1444348207,"created_at_utc_B":1444355583,"score_A":4,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"this recently happened to my husband and I. the only thing I could figure is that a slight variance in the pH in our digestive tract caused the bacteria or virus to thrive at different points in our guts and to varying degrees (I profusely had The Brown Water Floweth and he barely had stomach upset). the pH changes through our digestive tract and these bugs will find the right pH and begin to replicate. I can guess that it remains relatively the same person to person but with slight variances. that's my theory, anyone who knows better correct me if I'm wrong.","human_ref_B":"As well as the other answers, not every person is the same. We tend to think we are, because hey, we've all got 2 arms, eyes, a mouth, and our innards work more or less the same....but it really isn't the case. Our metabolisms, flora inside our stomach\/bowels, fitness levels, general health, and other miscellaneous individual oddities(some people are just prone to get something like, say, IBS, or not be able to tolerate spicy food or milk, or whatever.....it all can lead up to us being quite different from another given individual.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7376.0,"score_ratio":1.25} {"post_id":"ywk4b9","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.61,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old - How do we keep mass producing things like consoles without using up all of the world\u2019s resources? I think about how there\u2019s always millions of just one console out in the wild, and the current ones are always being produced; and mass production of consumer goods has been going on for years and it really makes me wonder. And its not just consoles. PCs, Phones, TV\u2019s, everything! If we keep making things using the Earth, will we eventually run out? How are we able to sustain this without completely depleting everything?","c_root_id_A":"iwk4bmp","c_root_id_B":"iwk4wuf","created_at_utc_A":1668576782,"created_at_utc_B":1668577154,"score_A":5,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"We're good for now. There are already asteroid mining operations afoot, test missions scheduled, we may even transition to asteroid mining completely before the Earth's resources of metals and the like are depleted. They were also - very recently, actually - able to produce a very rare metal only previously found in asteroids in a lab. Also let's not forget about recycling. There are ridiculous amounts of metals and other materials in landfills all over the place. It's possible in the future we might have to dip into that, which would probably be a great thing.","human_ref_B":"The earth is big. Like, *really* *really* big. Far larger than you are thinking right now, in fact.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":372.0,"score_ratio":1.8} {"post_id":"ywk4b9","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.61,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old - How do we keep mass producing things like consoles without using up all of the world\u2019s resources? I think about how there\u2019s always millions of just one console out in the wild, and the current ones are always being produced; and mass production of consumer goods has been going on for years and it really makes me wonder. And its not just consoles. PCs, Phones, TV\u2019s, everything! If we keep making things using the Earth, will we eventually run out? How are we able to sustain this without completely depleting everything?","c_root_id_A":"iwk4hes","c_root_id_B":"iwk4wuf","created_at_utc_A":1668576883,"created_at_utc_B":1668577154,"score_A":3,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"It\u2019s been calculated that all people can fit in New York City. Earth is very big. Think about the amount of resources you need for a console. What if it only required one type, metal? One worker can get enough ore for a console in a minute with modern tech, easily. About 3 billion tonnes of metal get consumed every year. One console is nothing. There\u2019s over 10 tonnes of materials consumed for every human annually.","human_ref_B":"The earth is big. Like, *really* *really* big. Far larger than you are thinking right now, in fact.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":271.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"ywk4b9","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.61,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old - How do we keep mass producing things like consoles without using up all of the world\u2019s resources? I think about how there\u2019s always millions of just one console out in the wild, and the current ones are always being produced; and mass production of consumer goods has been going on for years and it really makes me wonder. And its not just consoles. PCs, Phones, TV\u2019s, everything! If we keep making things using the Earth, will we eventually run out? How are we able to sustain this without completely depleting everything?","c_root_id_A":"iwk4hes","c_root_id_B":"iwktnwi","created_at_utc_A":1668576883,"created_at_utc_B":1668597603,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"It\u2019s been calculated that all people can fit in New York City. Earth is very big. Think about the amount of resources you need for a console. What if it only required one type, metal? One worker can get enough ore for a console in a minute with modern tech, easily. About 3 billion tonnes of metal get consumed every year. One console is nothing. There\u2019s over 10 tonnes of materials consumed for every human annually.","human_ref_B":"We will run out eventually at the rate that we're going, we just haven't had the time to do it yet. Some things like steel or silicon are made out of raw materials like silica and iron oxides that make up much of the planet, so those would take practically forever to use up. There are other things like indium though, which we haven't been using for more than a few decades but are already set to run out of by the end of the century. We probable won't ever reach that point though because as these materials become more rare, the rising cost of using them should drive companies to find alternative sources.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":20720.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} {"post_id":"ywk4b9","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.61,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old - How do we keep mass producing things like consoles without using up all of the world\u2019s resources? I think about how there\u2019s always millions of just one console out in the wild, and the current ones are always being produced; and mass production of consumer goods has been going on for years and it really makes me wonder. And its not just consoles. PCs, Phones, TV\u2019s, everything! If we keep making things using the Earth, will we eventually run out? How are we able to sustain this without completely depleting everything?","c_root_id_A":"iwk87ss","c_root_id_B":"iwktnwi","created_at_utc_A":1668579420,"created_at_utc_B":1668597603,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Consumer electronics are largely made from plastic, with some glass (literally made from sand), iron(perhaps as steel, which is just iron and carbon) , and a few microchip (also made from sand). There's a lot of these things in the world, but there are projections for when we're likely to run out of for example oil, but these projections also include using oil as fuel, which is by far what most of it is used for. We can't sustain it forever, but humanity as a whole doesn't appear to care enough about future generations to dial it back.","human_ref_B":"We will run out eventually at the rate that we're going, we just haven't had the time to do it yet. Some things like steel or silicon are made out of raw materials like silica and iron oxides that make up much of the planet, so those would take practically forever to use up. There are other things like indium though, which we haven't been using for more than a few decades but are already set to run out of by the end of the century. We probable won't ever reach that point though because as these materials become more rare, the rising cost of using them should drive companies to find alternative sources.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":18183.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} {"post_id":"ywk4b9","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.61,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old - How do we keep mass producing things like consoles without using up all of the world\u2019s resources? I think about how there\u2019s always millions of just one console out in the wild, and the current ones are always being produced; and mass production of consumer goods has been going on for years and it really makes me wonder. And its not just consoles. PCs, Phones, TV\u2019s, everything! If we keep making things using the Earth, will we eventually run out? How are we able to sustain this without completely depleting everything?","c_root_id_A":"iwksjep","c_root_id_B":"iwktnwi","created_at_utc_A":1668596722,"created_at_utc_B":1668597603,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"We are using the world's resources up. Do some research into different supply chain issues and a lot of times you'll see that we're simply running out of raw materials. Scarier than that is that we're running out of the resources necessary to sustain life. Clean water, clean air, rich topsoil. Humans be fucked","human_ref_B":"We will run out eventually at the rate that we're going, we just haven't had the time to do it yet. Some things like steel or silicon are made out of raw materials like silica and iron oxides that make up much of the planet, so those would take practically forever to use up. There are other things like indium though, which we haven't been using for more than a few decades but are already set to run out of by the end of the century. We probable won't ever reach that point though because as these materials become more rare, the rising cost of using them should drive companies to find alternative sources.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":881.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"ywk4b9","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.61,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old - How do we keep mass producing things like consoles without using up all of the world\u2019s resources? I think about how there\u2019s always millions of just one console out in the wild, and the current ones are always being produced; and mass production of consumer goods has been going on for years and it really makes me wonder. And its not just consoles. PCs, Phones, TV\u2019s, everything! If we keep making things using the Earth, will we eventually run out? How are we able to sustain this without completely depleting everything?","c_root_id_A":"iwl6l1j","c_root_id_B":"iwksjep","created_at_utc_A":1668605693,"created_at_utc_B":1668596722,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"The world has lots of resources. We **are** using up all the useful and easily accessible resources, massive amounts of energy, and making gigatons of pollution in the process. We\u2019re starting to feel the pinch from it; pay attention and you\u2019ll notice.","human_ref_B":"We are using the world's resources up. Do some research into different supply chain issues and a lot of times you'll see that we're simply running out of raw materials. Scarier than that is that we're running out of the resources necessary to sustain life. Clean water, clean air, rich topsoil. Humans be fucked","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8971.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"j77ltz","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why is it when you get a flu shot, your arm hurts? Is my arm singlehandedly arm wrestling the flu or what","c_root_id_A":"g84jgu2","c_root_id_B":"g84echy","created_at_utc_A":1602176872,"created_at_utc_B":1602174359,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"A vaccines job is to teach the immune system what to look out for and fight. It does that by showing the immune system dummy viruses to practice on. The dummy flu virus goes into you are, and your immune system fights it in your arm, which causes inflammation and some extra water in the area. This hurts much like a bruise would, where there is some extra fluid that presses on your nerves and tells them it hurts.","human_ref_B":"You body is sending his army to fight the infection and your arm turns into the battleground. Much like Verdun, the landscape may be affected for some time and can even leave a scar (not in the case of a flu shot though)","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2513.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"vxz1jd","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How do microphones work? I just do not get it.","c_root_id_A":"ifyzye9","c_root_id_B":"ifz3zsq","created_at_utc_A":1657705661,"created_at_utc_B":1657708754,"score_A":2,"score_B":18,"human_ref_A":"The simplest ones work inversely to speakers. Sound waves in the air collide with a paper cone and so cause it to vibrate. This moves a cool of wire relative to a magnet, which generates tiny electrical currents. These are amplified and measured, and voila you have a signal that you can store and play back or whatever. The trick is precisely balancing the cone, isolating it from eg ground vibrations, and getting enough sound energy into it.","human_ref_B":"There are two main types of microphone, broadly speaking: Condenser and Dynamic. In a dynamic microphone, the sound captured 'wobbles' a magnet up and down a coil. An electrical signal is created by this movement that copies the 'shape' of the sound the same way a camera captures the shape of what's in front of it. In a condenser microphone the same effect is achieved with a super thin sheet of metal placed really close to another sheet of metal. As the sound captured 'wobbles' the thin sheet of metal, it gets closer and farther from the second sheet of metal. This can be turned into an electrical signal that looks like the 'shape' of the sound.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3093.0,"score_ratio":9.0} {"post_id":"vxz1jd","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How do microphones work? I just do not get it.","c_root_id_A":"ig0abxc","c_root_id_B":"ig1b9cn","created_at_utc_A":1657728746,"created_at_utc_B":1657742995,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Microphones work like a speaker, but in reverse. With a speaker, when you send a varying current through a coil that's surrounded by a magnet, the coil will move back and forth. Attach a paper cone to the coil, and the cone will push and pull air as the coil moves. Send an audio signal through the coil which makes the coil go back and forth furiously fast, and the clobbering of air will produce sound. With a microphone, it's the outside sound that pushes and pulls on the cone (or usually a dome in the case of microphones), causing the coil to move back and forth against the magnet. That movement produces a tiny electrical current through the coil's wire, and that current gets picked up by an electrical device where the signal's either amplified to a speaker or transferred to a recording or transmission device.","human_ref_B":"First: how electricity works. (Don't worry, it'll make sense) Electricity is closely related to magnetism. If you've played with magnets, you'll know that magnets respond more to each-other than regular magnetic material. What you may not have seen is electricity being made as you pass a magnet over a wire. (The weaker the magnet, the less power is made. You can improve this using coils, but... that's bonus information). The fun part here is that it works the other way as well - you can make a magnet by sending electricity through a wire. If you had a semi-flexible material that you put a magnet on, you can start doing some... interesting things. Sound is vibration, and while magnets can't usually react to that, your flexible material can. If you mount your magnet near a wire, you could use this property to create a tiny amount of electricity as the material vibrates to the sound. Plug that wire into a system designed to read that wire's electric output, and you suddenly have a computer that can pick up on sound. Speakers use the same phenomena, but instead of having the computer read the wire's electricity levels, it puts electricity into the wire to create a magnet. This allows the computer to repel or attract the magnet on the material, actively influencing the air instead of just reacting to it.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":14249.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} {"post_id":"vxz1jd","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How do microphones work? I just do not get it.","c_root_id_A":"ig1b9cn","c_root_id_B":"ifyzye9","created_at_utc_A":1657742995,"created_at_utc_B":1657705661,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"First: how electricity works. (Don't worry, it'll make sense) Electricity is closely related to magnetism. If you've played with magnets, you'll know that magnets respond more to each-other than regular magnetic material. What you may not have seen is electricity being made as you pass a magnet over a wire. (The weaker the magnet, the less power is made. You can improve this using coils, but... that's bonus information). The fun part here is that it works the other way as well - you can make a magnet by sending electricity through a wire. If you had a semi-flexible material that you put a magnet on, you can start doing some... interesting things. Sound is vibration, and while magnets can't usually react to that, your flexible material can. If you mount your magnet near a wire, you could use this property to create a tiny amount of electricity as the material vibrates to the sound. Plug that wire into a system designed to read that wire's electric output, and you suddenly have a computer that can pick up on sound. Speakers use the same phenomena, but instead of having the computer read the wire's electricity levels, it puts electricity into the wire to create a magnet. This allows the computer to repel or attract the magnet on the material, actively influencing the air instead of just reacting to it.","human_ref_B":"The simplest ones work inversely to speakers. Sound waves in the air collide with a paper cone and so cause it to vibrate. This moves a cool of wire relative to a magnet, which generates tiny electrical currents. These are amplified and measured, and voila you have a signal that you can store and play back or whatever. The trick is precisely balancing the cone, isolating it from eg ground vibrations, and getting enough sound energy into it.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":37334.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"vxz1jd","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How do microphones work? I just do not get it.","c_root_id_A":"ifyzye9","c_root_id_B":"ig0abxc","created_at_utc_A":1657705661,"created_at_utc_B":1657728746,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"The simplest ones work inversely to speakers. Sound waves in the air collide with a paper cone and so cause it to vibrate. This moves a cool of wire relative to a magnet, which generates tiny electrical currents. These are amplified and measured, and voila you have a signal that you can store and play back or whatever. The trick is precisely balancing the cone, isolating it from eg ground vibrations, and getting enough sound energy into it.","human_ref_B":"Microphones work like a speaker, but in reverse. With a speaker, when you send a varying current through a coil that's surrounded by a magnet, the coil will move back and forth. Attach a paper cone to the coil, and the cone will push and pull air as the coil moves. Send an audio signal through the coil which makes the coil go back and forth furiously fast, and the clobbering of air will produce sound. With a microphone, it's the outside sound that pushes and pulls on the cone (or usually a dome in the case of microphones), causing the coil to move back and forth against the magnet. That movement produces a tiny electrical current through the coil's wire, and that current gets picked up by an electrical device where the signal's either amplified to a speaker or transferred to a recording or transmission device.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":23085.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"vxz1jd","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How do microphones work? I just do not get it.","c_root_id_A":"ig2a0os","c_root_id_B":"ifyzye9","created_at_utc_A":1657757452,"created_at_utc_B":1657705661,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"A thing jiggles when sound hits it. A thing turns those jiggles into electricity. A speaker does the opposite. That's the legit eli5.","human_ref_B":"The simplest ones work inversely to speakers. Sound waves in the air collide with a paper cone and so cause it to vibrate. This moves a cool of wire relative to a magnet, which generates tiny electrical currents. These are amplified and measured, and voila you have a signal that you can store and play back or whatever. The trick is precisely balancing the cone, isolating it from eg ground vibrations, and getting enough sound energy into it.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":51791.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"cm1h0o","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why is heart cancer so rare compared to other types of cancer?","c_root_id_A":"evzb4lg","c_root_id_B":"evzbayx","created_at_utc_A":1564953307,"created_at_utc_B":1564953426,"score_A":84,"score_B":8310,"human_ref_A":"cardiomyocytes aka heart cells do not reproduce at the rates of other cells. so the heart u have as a kid is the same heart you have no, less chances of DNA mistakes if it isnt replicating like other cells.","human_ref_B":"Cancer is a failure in growth regulation that results from mutations. The way tumors develop is these damaged cells divide and make daughter cells that are likewise damaged. Cells that divide a lot are more prone to cancer (like skin cells) Heart muscles don\u2019t divide much so they don\u2019t copy their dna mistakes and make damaged daughter cells.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":119.0,"score_ratio":98.9285714286} {"post_id":"cm1h0o","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why is heart cancer so rare compared to other types of cancer?","c_root_id_A":"evzk42s","c_root_id_B":"evzb4lg","created_at_utc_A":1564959675,"created_at_utc_B":1564953307,"score_A":298,"score_B":84,"human_ref_A":"Along with what everyone is saying about how heart cells divide slow, their microenvironment (stroma) is also not conducive to cancer. Brain cells also divide slow, but the supporting cells are where we see most brain cancers.","human_ref_B":"cardiomyocytes aka heart cells do not reproduce at the rates of other cells. so the heart u have as a kid is the same heart you have no, less chances of DNA mistakes if it isnt replicating like other cells.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6368.0,"score_ratio":3.5476190476} {"post_id":"cm1h0o","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why is heart cancer so rare compared to other types of cancer?","c_root_id_A":"evzrpfr","c_root_id_B":"evzb4lg","created_at_utc_A":1564965471,"created_at_utc_B":1564953307,"score_A":124,"score_B":84,"human_ref_A":"One theory that I haven't seen mentioned is that cancer cells are largely anaerobic, but heart cells don't \"want\" to function anaerobically because lactic acid in the heart is worst case scenario. Possibly this has something to do with heart cancer being so rare along with other reasons given here as responses.","human_ref_B":"cardiomyocytes aka heart cells do not reproduce at the rates of other cells. so the heart u have as a kid is the same heart you have no, less chances of DNA mistakes if it isnt replicating like other cells.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":12164.0,"score_ratio":1.4761904762} {"post_id":"cm1h0o","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why is heart cancer so rare compared to other types of cancer?","c_root_id_A":"evzrpfr","c_root_id_B":"evzra3z","created_at_utc_A":1564965471,"created_at_utc_B":1564965147,"score_A":124,"score_B":41,"human_ref_A":"One theory that I haven't seen mentioned is that cancer cells are largely anaerobic, but heart cells don't \"want\" to function anaerobically because lactic acid in the heart is worst case scenario. Possibly this has something to do with heart cancer being so rare along with other reasons given here as responses.","human_ref_B":"https:\/\/youtu.be\/-QF1rTygfzY here's a lovely video on it created by a cardiologist in a London hospital. Can highly recommend checking out his other videos too! he's my favourite educational YouTuber, he's absolutely hilarious and very informative","labels":1,"seconds_difference":324.0,"score_ratio":3.0243902439} {"post_id":"cm1h0o","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why is heart cancer so rare compared to other types of cancer?","c_root_id_A":"evzrpfr","c_root_id_B":"evzmy2w","created_at_utc_A":1564965471,"created_at_utc_B":1564961828,"score_A":124,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"One theory that I haven't seen mentioned is that cancer cells are largely anaerobic, but heart cells don't \"want\" to function anaerobically because lactic acid in the heart is worst case scenario. Possibly this has something to do with heart cancer being so rare along with other reasons given here as responses.","human_ref_B":"Heart cells don't really divide very quickly, so for a tumor to form it would either take a very long time or be formed when developing in the womb - and if it does form in the womb the baby is very unlikely to survive to term.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3643.0,"score_ratio":8.2666666667} {"post_id":"cm1h0o","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why is heart cancer so rare compared to other types of cancer?","c_root_id_A":"evzmy2w","c_root_id_B":"evzra3z","created_at_utc_A":1564961828,"created_at_utc_B":1564965147,"score_A":15,"score_B":41,"human_ref_A":"Heart cells don't really divide very quickly, so for a tumor to form it would either take a very long time or be formed when developing in the womb - and if it does form in the womb the baby is very unlikely to survive to term.","human_ref_B":"https:\/\/youtu.be\/-QF1rTygfzY here's a lovely video on it created by a cardiologist in a London hospital. Can highly recommend checking out his other videos too! he's my favourite educational YouTuber, he's absolutely hilarious and very informative","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3319.0,"score_ratio":2.7333333333} {"post_id":"cm1h0o","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why is heart cancer so rare compared to other types of cancer?","c_root_id_A":"evzmy2w","c_root_id_B":"evzyzez","created_at_utc_A":1564961828,"created_at_utc_B":1564971068,"score_A":15,"score_B":21,"human_ref_A":"Heart cells don't really divide very quickly, so for a tumor to form it would either take a very long time or be formed when developing in the womb - and if it does form in the womb the baby is very unlikely to survive to term.","human_ref_B":"As everyone said, Cancer is just uncontrolled division of cells. This happens because of some mutations\/changes in the Gene of a cell. Normally, a cell can divide only a given number of times. But cancer cells have no restrictions. They are basically immortal. That's what makes them dangerous. Now during cell cycle (or division), the following events occur: 1. G1 Phase 2. S Phase 3. G2 Phase 4. M phase Step 1-3 are just the steps in which cell just prepares everything it will need to divide. And these steps together are called Interphase. 4th step is where the cell actually divides. These events are controlled by a very complex mechanism of chemical interactions which are guided by the gene of a cell. And in the cancer cells, these mechanisms fail. Now after G1 phase, if a cell decides it doesn't want to divide into two daugter cells, it enters a stage called G0 phase. The cell exits from the cell cycle. The cell doesn't divide. Now however, if the cell is past the Sphase, there is no going back. Because in S phase duplication of Genetic material(dna) occurs. If a cell has any more dna than normal, it has to divide. There is no other way. Now that we know all this, the answer to your question is pretty simple. Heart cancer is rare because heart cells do not divide. They are in G0 phase. They are out of the cell cycle. And for cancer to occur, uncontrolled growth(division) of cells is a requirement. Neurons also don't divide and are in G0 phase. Hope this helped. Thank you","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9240.0,"score_ratio":1.4} {"post_id":"sd94jo","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.69,"history":"(Explain like I'm five years old) Why does water when put in the freezer turns to ice, but never snow, while when the weather is really cold, the rain turns to sleet sometimes, but can aslo turn to snow?","c_root_id_A":"hub5pzk","c_root_id_B":"hub5a1n","created_at_utc_A":1643213701,"created_at_utc_B":1643213538,"score_A":10,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Ice is a crystal, which means it's molecules want to all link and connect together into something like chain, but in all 3 dimensions. Since water in a cup is \"all together\" when it freezes, it'll freeze into one big crystal, like an ice cube. When water is in a cloud it's molecules can be so far apart that when they freeze they'll form a single crystal, a flake of snow. Here's the complicated bit, cold air can't hold much water. So a \"cloud\" of snow in really cold weather isn't dense to begin with, there just *isn't much water there* in the first place, and the moister that is there is really far apart. So when the crystals freeze and drop from the sky, you get snow. If the air is warmer it can hold more moisture, which means there is A more water in general and B the water is closer together. This means larger drops can form, and then freeze, into larger crystals and you get sleet, icy rain. Finally, sometimes you can get a weird process where snow or sleet can freeze, start falling, then get pushed back up into sky by wind where it gets wet with more water\/sleet which freezes, gets heavy again and falls again, then gets blown back up and process repeats and you end up getting *big* chunks of sky-ice. That's how hail forms. So in the end the difference between getting rain, sleet, snow, or hail is a complex mixture of a few variables - how much moisture you're starting with, how different layers of hot\/cold air pockets stack up and interact in the sky, and how the big\/small the water droplets are that you're starting with, and what happens to them from cloud to ground.","human_ref_B":"Ice of any sort (ice blocks, sleet, snow, etc) is basically water molecules cooling, and holding still. Because water molecules are polar (think a magnet with a north and south end), they like to bind to each other. When water molecules get cold, they act in an interesting way based off of the molecular shape, and start to form crystalline structures, and start sticking together in a fairly standard pattern (ice). In your freezer, the water is not being agitated, and these structures, or lattices, can continue to form, creating solid blocks. In the atmosphere, these molecules are constantly being moved, so only little crystals can be made (snow). If you get convection (warm air rising, cold air falling), and get water molecules to rise and fall several times through an ice-forming environment, you can potentially get larger crystals (hail, etc). You also have to remember that atmospherically, the temperature falls roughly 4 degrees F for every 1000 ft, and you generally get more convection in warmer parts of the year. Take those two facts, and that\u2019s why you get more hail in the summer, etc. In winter, there just isn\u2019t enough convection to keep water molecules in the air, and they just fall as snow","labels":1,"seconds_difference":163.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"kwu2qc","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why does light have a finite speed? What is preventing it from going faster than it does?","c_root_id_A":"gj6bw1j","c_root_id_B":"gj6dohk","created_at_utc_A":1610584422,"created_at_utc_B":1610585332,"score_A":7,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"Look at it the other way around. What\u2019s stopping light from going faster? Nothing. Without anything impeding it light is travelling as fast as is possible (for anything)","human_ref_B":"What is stopping it? Why is the speed THAT speed? Why was light picked and not something else? Well, these are philosophical questions. The answer is that they just *are*. You can ask how these things work, and what that does in physics, but \"why\" they were made that way instead of some other way is beyond anyone. As to how light speed never changes, basically spacetime will warp any way it needs to in order to keep *c* constant in a vacuum for all reference frames. You *feel* like time in consistent, and the world around you never changes, but they do. Radically, in fact. Only massless particles have speeds that never change.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":910.0,"score_ratio":1.4285714286} {"post_id":"kwu2qc","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why does light have a finite speed? What is preventing it from going faster than it does?","c_root_id_A":"gj6dohk","c_root_id_B":"gj6dm5q","created_at_utc_A":1610585332,"created_at_utc_B":1610585298,"score_A":10,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"What is stopping it? Why is the speed THAT speed? Why was light picked and not something else? Well, these are philosophical questions. The answer is that they just *are*. You can ask how these things work, and what that does in physics, but \"why\" they were made that way instead of some other way is beyond anyone. As to how light speed never changes, basically spacetime will warp any way it needs to in order to keep *c* constant in a vacuum for all reference frames. You *feel* like time in consistent, and the world around you never changes, but they do. Radically, in fact. Only massless particles have speeds that never change.","human_ref_B":"I've heard a few explanations that come down to that is just as fast as causation can happen from one point to another as each point passes the energy along. The other is that it is moving with time. As you get closer to the speed of light your connection with time changes all the way to the point that a photon in a vacuum experiences no time.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":34.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"kwu2qc","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why does light have a finite speed? What is preventing it from going faster than it does?","c_root_id_A":"gj6l1jn","c_root_id_B":"gj6bw1j","created_at_utc_A":1610589133,"created_at_utc_B":1610584422,"score_A":9,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"The speed of light isn't some speed limit imposed only on light. That speed is the fastest that any sort of causal event can happen. This includes the transmission of force, the transfer of information, everything. Light just happens to always be going at that speed. The speed of light is actually the speed of causality. If the question becomes, why is the speed of causality what it is? Well, it's not really clear. It appears to be just a fundamental property of the universe, which would make it so there is no answer to \"why\". We do know that if it were infinite, that physics would break in really disastrous ways.","human_ref_B":"Look at it the other way around. What\u2019s stopping light from going faster? Nothing. Without anything impeding it light is travelling as fast as is possible (for anything)","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4711.0,"score_ratio":1.2857142857} {"post_id":"kwu2qc","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why does light have a finite speed? What is preventing it from going faster than it does?","c_root_id_A":"gj6dm5q","c_root_id_B":"gj6l1jn","created_at_utc_A":1610585298,"created_at_utc_B":1610589133,"score_A":5,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"I've heard a few explanations that come down to that is just as fast as causation can happen from one point to another as each point passes the energy along. The other is that it is moving with time. As you get closer to the speed of light your connection with time changes all the way to the point that a photon in a vacuum experiences no time.","human_ref_B":"The speed of light isn't some speed limit imposed only on light. That speed is the fastest that any sort of causal event can happen. This includes the transmission of force, the transfer of information, everything. Light just happens to always be going at that speed. The speed of light is actually the speed of causality. If the question becomes, why is the speed of causality what it is? Well, it's not really clear. It appears to be just a fundamental property of the universe, which would make it so there is no answer to \"why\". We do know that if it were infinite, that physics would break in really disastrous ways.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3835.0,"score_ratio":1.8} {"post_id":"z56dmr","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"eli5 how can a bathroom scale determine the body fat, water content and \"dry\" bone mass just from passing some electrical current?","c_root_id_A":"ixw1tvi","c_root_id_B":"ixwlnrp","created_at_utc_A":1669495406,"created_at_utc_B":1669504374,"score_A":3,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"The number it comes up with is generally meaningless. It is an estimate based on how the electricity moves through your body. It CAN be useful information, but only in very specific circumstances. Basically, if you are on a regimented diet AND hydration program, and you measure at the same time and circumstances every day (e.g. just after waking up and going to the bathroom). It can be a useful gauge of progress. In almost any other circumstance, it's worthless.","human_ref_B":"It messures the resistance and does calculations based on programmed data set it has . Its not going to be 100% acurate but good enough for anyone that isnt doing serious science. If you are planning to lose weight you can use it to track progress. For people that say that its \"useless\" becouse they dont give accurate information have also not figured out that those automatic bloodpressure mesurements that hospitals uses are also not accurate but an estimation based on the mean arterial pressure.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8968.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"3qqn7i","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why is FM radio on only odd frequencies and only frequencies between about 90 to 110? Why can't there be a station on something like 95.4 or 56.1? Are these limitations of FM radio or are those frequencies just not allowed for public use?","c_root_id_A":"cwhhh7l","c_root_id_B":"cwhp68k","created_at_utc_A":1446145831,"created_at_utc_B":1446157233,"score_A":3,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"Those are the frequencies allocated to broadcast radio. Interestingly, 56.1 MHz is really close to broadcast TV channel 2.","human_ref_B":"While the question regarding frequency range has already been answered, the whole \"odd number\" bit must be an American thing, because I know that the local radio station in this part of the UK is even numbered, using 102.2 FM as its frequency (although it also uses 96.7 in other parts of the region). Heck, BBC Radio 2 uses 88.1-90.2 FM.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":11402.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"3qqn7i","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why is FM radio on only odd frequencies and only frequencies between about 90 to 110? Why can't there be a station on something like 95.4 or 56.1? Are these limitations of FM radio or are those frequencies just not allowed for public use?","c_root_id_A":"cwhopdr","c_root_id_B":"cwhp68k","created_at_utc_A":1446156457,"created_at_utc_B":1446157233,"score_A":2,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"FM channels are 200 kHz (0.2 MHz) wide and, thus, the centre frequencies of the channel are 200 kHz apart. The particular frequencies (odd\/even) are due to local regulation\/administration. The very high frequency (VHF) band, 30\u2013300 MHz, has useful propagation and electrical processing properties, and is used for aviation communications, TV broadcasting, marine communications, audio broadcasting, aviation radio navigation, radio astronomy, etc. The 87.5 to 108.0 MHz sub-band is largely used for radio broadcasting just because of the benefit of standardisation.","human_ref_B":"While the question regarding frequency range has already been answered, the whole \"odd number\" bit must be an American thing, because I know that the local radio station in this part of the UK is even numbered, using 102.2 FM as its frequency (although it also uses 96.7 in other parts of the region). Heck, BBC Radio 2 uses 88.1-90.2 FM.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":776.0,"score_ratio":4.5} {"post_id":"ufoox5","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How do doctors determine what stage cancer is in and how long a patient has to live?","c_root_id_A":"i6uxzco","c_root_id_B":"i6uwjwb","created_at_utc_A":1651370439,"created_at_utc_B":1651369647,"score_A":48,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"**STAGING** Cancer stages are determined by specific criteria, including the size of the primary tumor, whether or not the cancer has spread or *metastasized*, and if there is metastasis, how far the cancer has spread. These things are determined using blood tests, MRIs, biopsies, exploratory surgery, etc\u2026 Here are the stages for many of the most common cancers. Note, however, that each type of cancer is staged differently. A doctor takes the whole picture into account, so *please take these with a grain of salt.* > Stage 0 \u2014 A small tumor that has not affected any nearby tissues. Cancer at this stage can typically be fully cured by surgically removing the tumor. > Stage 1 \u2014 The cancer hasn\u2019t spread to other body parts, but nearby tissues are impacted. (For example, there might be cancerous cells in the tissue immediately surrounding the tumor or primary cancer site.) > Stage 2 \u2014 As soon as the cancer spreads to another body part, it becomes Stage 2. In this stage, the spread is still local, usually limited to the organs right next the the primary tumor. Occasionally, cancer that has spread to the lymph nodes is staged here. > Stage 3 \u2014 Like Stage 2, this is usually limited to fairly localized cancer spread. In this stage, however, the regional spread is more advanced. This stage also includes significant spread to the lymph nodes. (Lymph nodes matter because cancer cells could *potentially* travel through your lymphatic system to other body parts). > Stage 4 \u2014 Sometimes called metastatic cancer, this stage is usually reserved for advanced cancer that has traveled to distant body parts. \u2014\u2014 **LIFE EXPECTANCY** This is pretty straight forward: life expectancy is just a game of statistics. The doctor determines your type of cancer, stages it, then looks at data for other people who had the same diagnosis. They basically take the average of the lengths of time these other people lived and bam, there\u2019s the life expectancy. Sometimes it\u2019s a little more complicated than that, but the most important takeaway is that **life expectancy is *not* a prediction\u2026it\u2019s a guess.** Some people die sooner, some die shortly after, and other people outlive their life expectancy by several years. [In fact, here\u2019s an important rule of thumb to remember when you read any stats about anything: *statistics tell you nothing about the individual.*]","human_ref_B":"The stage of the cancer depends on the size of the tumors and whether or not it has spread. Stage 4 cancer means it has already spread to other organs. As for the survival rate, that's where it gets a little complicated. It's not just a percent chance of survival, but it's a percent chance of survival for X years. For example, you might have a 75% chance to survive for 5 years. This is going to be based off of data comparing other people who have had a similar cancer and their outcomes. Now what does the survival rate actually mean? Well, even when an early stage cancer is treated, there is a possibility that cancer cells were missed, or had already spread in your body. Even when treated, there is a decently high chance that the cancer was never fully defeated, and it will take a certain amount of time to grow back from individual cells into something that actually kills you. That's why an individuals cancer is never really \"cured\".","labels":1,"seconds_difference":792.0,"score_ratio":9.6} {"post_id":"xr6q04","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old Why is brass not used more if it self sanitises ? I\u2019m getting my kitchen redone & want to know why copper alloys like brass isn\u2019t used more. It seems perfect for counter space and prep areas with its self sanitation properties. Am I missing something bc I\u2019m stupid or maybe just ahead of the curb ?","c_root_id_A":"iqd1a9b","c_root_id_B":"iqd7n8p","created_at_utc_A":1664456422,"created_at_utc_B":1664459383,"score_A":40,"score_B":101,"human_ref_A":"Stainless steel is better. More durable, doesn't go making a patina ASAP, and easily sanitized. Which it doesn't matter that brass has antimicrobial properties because best practice is to clean and sanitize anyway, it's not perfect.","human_ref_B":"You have good answers already, but another factor is that brass smells funny! Some people, myself strongly included, can smell metals in very very tiny amounts, or at least the volatile compounds from skin which react with the brass. If I pull a brass door handle, my hand smells hideous. Some cutlery (EPNS for instance) makes food almost inedible.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2961.0,"score_ratio":2.525} {"post_id":"xr6q04","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old Why is brass not used more if it self sanitises ? I\u2019m getting my kitchen redone & want to know why copper alloys like brass isn\u2019t used more. It seems perfect for counter space and prep areas with its self sanitation properties. Am I missing something bc I\u2019m stupid or maybe just ahead of the curb ?","c_root_id_A":"iqd1a9b","c_root_id_B":"iqdhn4g","created_at_utc_A":1664456422,"created_at_utc_B":1664463602,"score_A":40,"score_B":82,"human_ref_A":"Stainless steel is better. More durable, doesn't go making a patina ASAP, and easily sanitized. Which it doesn't matter that brass has antimicrobial properties because best practice is to clean and sanitize anyway, it's not perfect.","human_ref_B":"One thing on one has touched on yet, any copper-based alloy will react with Aluminum when wet. What that means is that if you leave an aluminum pan on a wet copper counter (or if you, like me, left a lasagna pan in the copper sink of the house you just bought) the copper will turn that aluminum into salt water and \"eat\" it away. It's a pretty cool trick, but problematic when all of your sheet pans are aluminum.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7180.0,"score_ratio":2.05} {"post_id":"xr6q04","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old Why is brass not used more if it self sanitises ? I\u2019m getting my kitchen redone & want to know why copper alloys like brass isn\u2019t used more. It seems perfect for counter space and prep areas with its self sanitation properties. Am I missing something bc I\u2019m stupid or maybe just ahead of the curb ?","c_root_id_A":"iqd8qor","c_root_id_B":"iqdhn4g","created_at_utc_A":1664459860,"created_at_utc_B":1664463602,"score_A":32,"score_B":82,"human_ref_A":">maybe just ahead of the curb ? Probably not.","human_ref_B":"One thing on one has touched on yet, any copper-based alloy will react with Aluminum when wet. What that means is that if you leave an aluminum pan on a wet copper counter (or if you, like me, left a lasagna pan in the copper sink of the house you just bought) the copper will turn that aluminum into salt water and \"eat\" it away. It's a pretty cool trick, but problematic when all of your sheet pans are aluminum.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3742.0,"score_ratio":2.5625} {"post_id":"bh7b5h","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why does tap water in a glass sometimes create small bubbles at the inside of the glass after some time and tastes not as good anymore as it did, when it got in the glass? (and at other places tap water doesn't do that seemingly) does anyone has an explanation?","c_root_id_A":"elr9nt2","c_root_id_B":"elqivmp","created_at_utc_A":1556209776,"created_at_utc_B":1556190965,"score_A":56,"score_B":52,"human_ref_A":"Although the other answers are correct, I don't think they speak to the phenomenon you're asking about exactly. What you seem to be describing - that sometimes when you leave water sitting in a glass for a long time it forms bubbles on the inside of the glass and sometimes it doesn't - it has to do with the barometric pressure! Water has gasses like carbon dioxide and oxygen dissolved in it. When you pour water there's a certain amount in solution. When the air pressure falls those gasses come out of solution and appear as bubbles on the glass! As to the change in taste, tap water is usually chlorinated and chlorine evaporates out of water pretty quickly, so that's responsible for some of the change in taste. Also if you leave it out it tends to absorb CO2 from the air which gives it a bitter-ish taste. There's probably other chemical changes that I'm not aware of.","human_ref_B":"So when you open up your tap and water comes pouring out you can see it's a kind of frothy and foamy-looking as it pours down into the glass, there's a little aerator filter head on the top of most spouts And that also introduces more air to the water. So now we have a bunch of tiny air bubbles but you can't see them all swirling around inside the water. Overtime those air bubbles work their way out of solution And either let out of the water back into the air, or they stick to the side of the glass and form visible bubbles. After time of sitting out, the water tastes \"stale\" that just means that It tastes different than what we are accustomed to, it is not actually bad water.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":18811.0,"score_ratio":1.0769230769} {"post_id":"bh7b5h","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why does tap water in a glass sometimes create small bubbles at the inside of the glass after some time and tastes not as good anymore as it did, when it got in the glass? (and at other places tap water doesn't do that seemingly) does anyone has an explanation?","c_root_id_A":"elr9nt2","c_root_id_B":"elr3vie","created_at_utc_A":1556209776,"created_at_utc_B":1556206259,"score_A":56,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"Although the other answers are correct, I don't think they speak to the phenomenon you're asking about exactly. What you seem to be describing - that sometimes when you leave water sitting in a glass for a long time it forms bubbles on the inside of the glass and sometimes it doesn't - it has to do with the barometric pressure! Water has gasses like carbon dioxide and oxygen dissolved in it. When you pour water there's a certain amount in solution. When the air pressure falls those gasses come out of solution and appear as bubbles on the glass! As to the change in taste, tap water is usually chlorinated and chlorine evaporates out of water pretty quickly, so that's responsible for some of the change in taste. Also if you leave it out it tends to absorb CO2 from the air which gives it a bitter-ish taste. There's probably other chemical changes that I'm not aware of.","human_ref_B":"The top post has this explained pretty well, but I also know I learned a very interesting topic in a beer tasting class. If you ever get a drink at a restaurant or at home and the bubbles cling to the side, it means the glass is dirty. It most likely is just quick washed or just rinsed out.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3517.0,"score_ratio":5.6} {"post_id":"bh7b5h","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why does tap water in a glass sometimes create small bubbles at the inside of the glass after some time and tastes not as good anymore as it did, when it got in the glass? (and at other places tap water doesn't do that seemingly) does anyone has an explanation?","c_root_id_A":"elr4bki","c_root_id_B":"elr9nt2","created_at_utc_A":1556206540,"created_at_utc_B":1556209776,"score_A":5,"score_B":56,"human_ref_A":"Those tiny bubbles in your glass are a result of something called Nucleation. Nucleation is a transitional phase, to put it really simply, those little bubbles are caught on imperfections on the glass itself, and cling to them in their transitional phase as gasses are released from the liquid. As for the taste, mineral content, oxidation, and temperature can affect flavor, if the mineral content of the water is high and is vulnerable to oxidation or temperature variation, it can translate as the water tasting off.","human_ref_B":"Although the other answers are correct, I don't think they speak to the phenomenon you're asking about exactly. What you seem to be describing - that sometimes when you leave water sitting in a glass for a long time it forms bubbles on the inside of the glass and sometimes it doesn't - it has to do with the barometric pressure! Water has gasses like carbon dioxide and oxygen dissolved in it. When you pour water there's a certain amount in solution. When the air pressure falls those gasses come out of solution and appear as bubbles on the glass! As to the change in taste, tap water is usually chlorinated and chlorine evaporates out of water pretty quickly, so that's responsible for some of the change in taste. Also if you leave it out it tends to absorb CO2 from the air which gives it a bitter-ish taste. There's probably other chemical changes that I'm not aware of.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3236.0,"score_ratio":11.2} {"post_id":"bh7b5h","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why does tap water in a glass sometimes create small bubbles at the inside of the glass after some time and tastes not as good anymore as it did, when it got in the glass? (and at other places tap water doesn't do that seemingly) does anyone has an explanation?","c_root_id_A":"elrnh6c","c_root_id_B":"elr4bki","created_at_utc_A":1556218297,"created_at_utc_B":1556206540,"score_A":8,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Power Plant Water Chemist here. The source of water in the large part determines the final product of the water. Most municipal water districts are charged with making water safe to drink according to governing body regulations. Two typical types are surface water and well water. Surface water is lakes, rivers and streams. Well water is typically an underground aquifer. Surface water: the turbidity, alkalinity and metals naturally found in the source water can have significant impact on the final product. For example, the end of the Mississippi River is very turbid(dirty) and contains many naturally occurring metals including iron, lead and manganese. The water must go through a clarification process ( to remove the dirt) typically by way of an up flow clarifier and sanitation by way of chlorine, bromine, ozone or uv treatment. In some water treatment plant a the water is so contaminated with human and animal waste extra steps are taken by adding ammonia with bleach\/chlorine to make chloramine. It gets the biologicals associated with poo poo out if you will. Surface water can be a great source however. Some lakes are so clear and have a high alkalinity that add to the quality and taste. These sources typically do not need much processing such as clarification and only slight sanitation to stay within governing body standards and to ensure it gets to the tap safe to drink. Well water: this is usually the best source to gather water for human consumption. The water trickles through layers of sand and rock making its way to aquifers. Some of these sources are safe to drink with no processing, however large quantities of hardness in the form of calcium carbonate (think limestone, the white stuff that forms on the tap or basin\/tub ring) as well as magnesium based species. Some well water systems have some amount of biological activity even without the presence of oxygen and must be treated accordingly. Most cases, these anaerobic bacteria are harmless to humans. All sources of water can have some amount of entrained gasses. This can be from the source, from processing or from distribution of potable water. In some areas where building a water tower is out of the question and large high pressure distribution pumps are not economical, tanks with a cover gas may be used. This ensures the service area will have a steady pressure and will act as a surge volume during times of heavy demand. These tanks with a cover gas will absorb some amount of air and will off gas when exposed to the atmosphere. In some cases methane or natural gas can enter the water and off gas at the tap as well. This is usually caused by man-made activities. As others have said, The bubbles you see could just be due to the aerator on the faucet. The taste of the water directly after filling a glass has all these items to take into account. In some cases leaving a glass of water out will slowly become more acidic by way of absorbing carbon dioxide gas. The source of your water directly impacts the quality of your water regardless of treatment. Garbage in equals garbage out. I no longer drink surface water in South East Louisiana even if it's been through an reverse osmosis process. The Mississippi River is the nation's sewer and the more I learned about water the more I began to fear what I was consuming. Hope this helps.","human_ref_B":"Those tiny bubbles in your glass are a result of something called Nucleation. Nucleation is a transitional phase, to put it really simply, those little bubbles are caught on imperfections on the glass itself, and cling to them in their transitional phase as gasses are released from the liquid. As for the taste, mineral content, oxidation, and temperature can affect flavor, if the mineral content of the water is high and is vulnerable to oxidation or temperature variation, it can translate as the water tasting off.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":11757.0,"score_ratio":1.6} {"post_id":"o3s2i6","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: If all noise cancelling headphones do is reverse the soundwaves coming into them in order to \u2018cancel\u2019 the background noise, why can\u2019t they cancel a sine wave completely?","c_root_id_A":"h2dfc6d","c_root_id_B":"h2dnleu","created_at_utc_A":1624144500,"created_at_utc_B":1624149320,"score_A":10,"score_B":29,"human_ref_A":"Because there is always some small distance between where the outside sound is sensed by some sort of microphone and where it needs to be cancelled, ie at the entrance to your ear canal. That introduces a small time discrepancy. The effect of that varies with frequency of the sound in relation to the length if time for one cycle of the sine wave.","human_ref_B":"In addition to the great explanations already shared, when you hear a sine wave you\u2019re hearing the wave, plus all the slight echos from the environment. Your brain does a remarkable job cleaning it all up for you, while using those echoes and the folds of your ears to interpret the direction the sound might be coming from. (As an aside, consider this: with both ears you can imagine how your brain could figure out where something is on the horizontal axis, based on comparing the left and right input. But your brain is also able to guess approximately where on the vertical axis a sound is coming from. With your eyes closed, if there is a click straight ahead of you, you can tell if it\u2019s up high or down low.) So, what hits your eardrum is never a simple sine wave. The simple sine wave can be canceled but you still hear all the slight echoes.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4820.0,"score_ratio":2.9} {"post_id":"o3s2i6","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: If all noise cancelling headphones do is reverse the soundwaves coming into them in order to \u2018cancel\u2019 the background noise, why can\u2019t they cancel a sine wave completely?","c_root_id_A":"h2deuvu","c_root_id_B":"h2dnleu","created_at_utc_A":1624144221,"created_at_utc_B":1624149320,"score_A":6,"score_B":29,"human_ref_A":"Because they're using miniaturized components manufactured to a specific cost and not lab-grade equipment in a tightly controlled environment. What they can do is pretty amazing but all of the variables they cannot control makes the situation difficult. Noise bleed via physical transmission(making the headphones vibrate or noise passing through the headphones), air leaks between your ears and the headphones, physical conduction of sound (feeling the sound due to the pressure waves). They're also extremely limited in amplification and to offset a sound you have to produce the opposite off that wave in frequency(pitch) as well as amplitude(volume). If it's not the same amplitude, you'll simply get an attenuation (lower volume)","human_ref_B":"In addition to the great explanations already shared, when you hear a sine wave you\u2019re hearing the wave, plus all the slight echos from the environment. Your brain does a remarkable job cleaning it all up for you, while using those echoes and the folds of your ears to interpret the direction the sound might be coming from. (As an aside, consider this: with both ears you can imagine how your brain could figure out where something is on the horizontal axis, based on comparing the left and right input. But your brain is also able to guess approximately where on the vertical axis a sound is coming from. With your eyes closed, if there is a click straight ahead of you, you can tell if it\u2019s up high or down low.) So, what hits your eardrum is never a simple sine wave. The simple sine wave can be canceled but you still hear all the slight echoes.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5099.0,"score_ratio":4.8333333333} {"post_id":"o3s2i6","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: If all noise cancelling headphones do is reverse the soundwaves coming into them in order to \u2018cancel\u2019 the background noise, why can\u2019t they cancel a sine wave completely?","c_root_id_A":"h2deuvu","c_root_id_B":"h2dfc6d","created_at_utc_A":1624144221,"created_at_utc_B":1624144500,"score_A":6,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"Because they're using miniaturized components manufactured to a specific cost and not lab-grade equipment in a tightly controlled environment. What they can do is pretty amazing but all of the variables they cannot control makes the situation difficult. Noise bleed via physical transmission(making the headphones vibrate or noise passing through the headphones), air leaks between your ears and the headphones, physical conduction of sound (feeling the sound due to the pressure waves). They're also extremely limited in amplification and to offset a sound you have to produce the opposite off that wave in frequency(pitch) as well as amplitude(volume). If it's not the same amplitude, you'll simply get an attenuation (lower volume)","human_ref_B":"Because there is always some small distance between where the outside sound is sensed by some sort of microphone and where it needs to be cancelled, ie at the entrance to your ear canal. That introduces a small time discrepancy. The effect of that varies with frequency of the sound in relation to the length if time for one cycle of the sine wave.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":279.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"v73zlo","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old Why can't a naval ship have chains extended on sides to keep torpedos from reach it? I've always thought a navy ship could have arms extending from each side, out say 20' or so that holds some sort of draping system, like a chain or something, that extends below the bottom of the hull. Then, if a sub fired a torpedo at it, it would either explose on the chain or just get caught up in it.","c_root_id_A":"ibioexh","c_root_id_B":"ibio718","created_at_utc_A":1654627547,"created_at_utc_B":1654627452,"score_A":5309,"score_B":242,"human_ref_A":"This is indeed what they used to do. In late 19th, early 20th century warship photos you can see collapsed poles along the side of the ship, and on top is bundled netting. When deployed, it looked like this. The problem is, you can't use torpedo nets while you're underway, and typically, your ships don't get attacked by torpedos when you're in harbor - shallow enclosed waters are not fun to be a submariner in if you get discovered - you get attacked by torpedoes when you're at sea and underway. So torpedo nets were done away with largely by WWII and replaced with anti-torpedo bulges - these were a sacrificial fake outer hull, itself compartmentalized to minimize damage and water intake, that would force the torpedo to detonate outside of the main hull of the ship. We've done away with even that because torpedos now are way more effective. Instead of trying to blast a hole in the side of the ship - which because of compartmentalization and damage control can be easily mitigated and would rarely immobilize a ship - they now are designed to detonate underneath the keel or bottom spine of the ship, breaking it in two essentially, buckling the hull and making so many tears and burst seams that saving the ship is impossible. edit: keel not keep. damn autocorrect.","human_ref_B":"Its called a torpedo net and it was a thing, but only when ships are in port or otherwise not moving. You could either put a big thick net across the harbor or around a specific ship The nets provide a significant increase in drag so they're no good when underway, they'll slow a ship wayyyy down and it'll burn way more fuel attempting to drag them around and it makes the ship way more vulnerable to anything that isn't a torpedo The mobile version is a torpedo bulge which is a big blister on the side of the hull with layers of air\/water\/oil to dissipate the blast before it damages the core hull of the ship. This has a pretty minimal impact on overall speed and weight if designed in from the start, and could also be retrofitted onto existing ships","labels":1,"seconds_difference":95.0,"score_ratio":21.9380165289} {"post_id":"v73zlo","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old Why can't a naval ship have chains extended on sides to keep torpedos from reach it? I've always thought a navy ship could have arms extending from each side, out say 20' or so that holds some sort of draping system, like a chain or something, that extends below the bottom of the hull. Then, if a sub fired a torpedo at it, it would either explose on the chain or just get caught up in it.","c_root_id_A":"ibioexh","c_root_id_B":"ibinjuh","created_at_utc_A":1654627547,"created_at_utc_B":1654627176,"score_A":5309,"score_B":24,"human_ref_A":"This is indeed what they used to do. In late 19th, early 20th century warship photos you can see collapsed poles along the side of the ship, and on top is bundled netting. When deployed, it looked like this. The problem is, you can't use torpedo nets while you're underway, and typically, your ships don't get attacked by torpedos when you're in harbor - shallow enclosed waters are not fun to be a submariner in if you get discovered - you get attacked by torpedoes when you're at sea and underway. So torpedo nets were done away with largely by WWII and replaced with anti-torpedo bulges - these were a sacrificial fake outer hull, itself compartmentalized to minimize damage and water intake, that would force the torpedo to detonate outside of the main hull of the ship. We've done away with even that because torpedos now are way more effective. Instead of trying to blast a hole in the side of the ship - which because of compartmentalization and damage control can be easily mitigated and would rarely immobilize a ship - they now are designed to detonate underneath the keel or bottom spine of the ship, breaking it in two essentially, buckling the hull and making so many tears and burst seams that saving the ship is impossible. edit: keel not keep. damn autocorrect.","human_ref_B":"Because it would reduce the hydrodynamic shape of the ship, add weight, potentially destabilize the ship and a torpedo could just push past the chain?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":371.0,"score_ratio":221.2083333333} {"post_id":"v73zlo","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old Why can't a naval ship have chains extended on sides to keep torpedos from reach it? I've always thought a navy ship could have arms extending from each side, out say 20' or so that holds some sort of draping system, like a chain or something, that extends below the bottom of the hull. Then, if a sub fired a torpedo at it, it would either explose on the chain or just get caught up in it.","c_root_id_A":"ibinjuh","c_root_id_B":"ibio718","created_at_utc_A":1654627176,"created_at_utc_B":1654627452,"score_A":24,"score_B":242,"human_ref_A":"Because it would reduce the hydrodynamic shape of the ship, add weight, potentially destabilize the ship and a torpedo could just push past the chain?","human_ref_B":"Its called a torpedo net and it was a thing, but only when ships are in port or otherwise not moving. You could either put a big thick net across the harbor or around a specific ship The nets provide a significant increase in drag so they're no good when underway, they'll slow a ship wayyyy down and it'll burn way more fuel attempting to drag them around and it makes the ship way more vulnerable to anything that isn't a torpedo The mobile version is a torpedo bulge which is a big blister on the side of the hull with layers of air\/water\/oil to dissipate the blast before it damages the core hull of the ship. This has a pretty minimal impact on overall speed and weight if designed in from the start, and could also be retrofitted onto existing ships","labels":0,"seconds_difference":276.0,"score_ratio":10.0833333333} {"post_id":"v73zlo","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old Why can't a naval ship have chains extended on sides to keep torpedos from reach it? I've always thought a navy ship could have arms extending from each side, out say 20' or so that holds some sort of draping system, like a chain or something, that extends below the bottom of the hull. Then, if a sub fired a torpedo at it, it would either explose on the chain or just get caught up in it.","c_root_id_A":"ibinjuh","c_root_id_B":"ibj4ofc","created_at_utc_A":1654627176,"created_at_utc_B":1654634652,"score_A":24,"score_B":98,"human_ref_A":"Because it would reduce the hydrodynamic shape of the ship, add weight, potentially destabilize the ship and a torpedo could just push past the chain?","human_ref_B":"Modern torpedos often don't actually strike the hull of the ship. They well detonate a short distance below the hull to create a cavity\/vacuum that will break the keel of the ship. The chains or curtain, which I think is a good idea, would have to extend pretty far down and they would have to be sufficiently heavy and secure as the torpedos might not detonate on impact","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7476.0,"score_ratio":4.0833333333} {"post_id":"v73zlo","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old Why can't a naval ship have chains extended on sides to keep torpedos from reach it? I've always thought a navy ship could have arms extending from each side, out say 20' or so that holds some sort of draping system, like a chain or something, that extends below the bottom of the hull. Then, if a sub fired a torpedo at it, it would either explose on the chain or just get caught up in it.","c_root_id_A":"ibj4ofc","c_root_id_B":"ibiq4dv","created_at_utc_A":1654634652,"created_at_utc_B":1654628289,"score_A":98,"score_B":19,"human_ref_A":"Modern torpedos often don't actually strike the hull of the ship. They well detonate a short distance below the hull to create a cavity\/vacuum that will break the keel of the ship. The chains or curtain, which I think is a good idea, would have to extend pretty far down and they would have to be sufficiently heavy and secure as the torpedos might not detonate on impact","human_ref_B":"Some torpedoes like the mk 48 can travel under the ship and use the explosion and water expansion to break the keel. Causes a lot of damage that is on the bottom well below the waterline and will cause them to sink very quickly.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6363.0,"score_ratio":5.1578947368} {"post_id":"v73zlo","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old Why can't a naval ship have chains extended on sides to keep torpedos from reach it? I've always thought a navy ship could have arms extending from each side, out say 20' or so that holds some sort of draping system, like a chain or something, that extends below the bottom of the hull. Then, if a sub fired a torpedo at it, it would either explose on the chain or just get caught up in it.","c_root_id_A":"ibinjuh","c_root_id_B":"ibjvu8k","created_at_utc_A":1654627176,"created_at_utc_B":1654648155,"score_A":24,"score_B":64,"human_ref_A":"Because it would reduce the hydrodynamic shape of the ship, add weight, potentially destabilize the ship and a torpedo could just push past the chain?","human_ref_B":"These days, some warships have what's called a NIXIE system. They have like a 1000-foot cable sticking out the back of the ship when they feel like torpedos are a potential threat, and at the end of the cable is an emitter that simulates a ship's propeller noise. Basically it makes torpedos think that the ship is faaaar bigger than it is, and so the torpedo aims for the middle of the \"ship\" and just detonates hundreds of feet away from the actual ship. Not quite chains sticking out, not quite nets, and not quite poles, but it works. https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/AN\/SLQ-25\\_Nixie","labels":0,"seconds_difference":20979.0,"score_ratio":2.6666666667} {"post_id":"v73zlo","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old Why can't a naval ship have chains extended on sides to keep torpedos from reach it? I've always thought a navy ship could have arms extending from each side, out say 20' or so that holds some sort of draping system, like a chain or something, that extends below the bottom of the hull. Then, if a sub fired a torpedo at it, it would either explose on the chain or just get caught up in it.","c_root_id_A":"ibiq4dv","c_root_id_B":"ibjvu8k","created_at_utc_A":1654628289,"created_at_utc_B":1654648155,"score_A":19,"score_B":64,"human_ref_A":"Some torpedoes like the mk 48 can travel under the ship and use the explosion and water expansion to break the keel. Causes a lot of damage that is on the bottom well below the waterline and will cause them to sink very quickly.","human_ref_B":"These days, some warships have what's called a NIXIE system. They have like a 1000-foot cable sticking out the back of the ship when they feel like torpedos are a potential threat, and at the end of the cable is an emitter that simulates a ship's propeller noise. Basically it makes torpedos think that the ship is faaaar bigger than it is, and so the torpedo aims for the middle of the \"ship\" and just detonates hundreds of feet away from the actual ship. Not quite chains sticking out, not quite nets, and not quite poles, but it works. https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/AN\/SLQ-25\\_Nixie","labels":0,"seconds_difference":19866.0,"score_ratio":3.3684210526} {"post_id":"p29xkn","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.65,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why can't morbidly obese people just get hundreds of pounds of fat and skin removed surgically in a small series of procedures?","c_root_id_A":"h8imldv","c_root_id_B":"h8in3up","created_at_utc_A":1628675946,"created_at_utc_B":1628676393,"score_A":5,"score_B":77,"human_ref_A":"They can. But it\u2019s very expensive procedures. Depending on the country you live in, it may not be covered by health insurance. Most people don\u2019t have that kind of money.","human_ref_B":">Why can't morbidly obese people just get hundreds of pounds of fat and skin removed surgically in a small series of procedures? Any surgical procedure carries serious risks for the life and general health of the patient. Liposuction is even on the more dangerous spectrum and the resulting trauma for the body has serious side effects for the patient down the line. You never \"just\" receive a surgical procedure. It's **always** the very very very last resort for anything. Not to mention that obesity is a symptom, not an underlying condition. Removing body fat does not change the eating\/exercising habits or the socioeconomic circumstances of the patient and will therefore not have any health benefits.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":447.0,"score_ratio":15.4} {"post_id":"p29xkn","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.65,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why can't morbidly obese people just get hundreds of pounds of fat and skin removed surgically in a small series of procedures?","c_root_id_A":"h8imldv","c_root_id_B":"h8in4mp","created_at_utc_A":1628675946,"created_at_utc_B":1628676412,"score_A":5,"score_B":23,"human_ref_A":"They can. But it\u2019s very expensive procedures. Depending on the country you live in, it may not be covered by health insurance. Most people don\u2019t have that kind of money.","human_ref_B":"The patient would likely die because of shock if too much fat and skin were removed. The body has lots of nerves that run throughout the body. If you sever too many of them all at once, you\u2019d dis-regulate the body\u2019s ability to heal itself. Also, there are two types of fat we\u2019re talking about. Subcutaneous and visceral. You might be able to cut out a lot of the subcutaneous fat and skin, but the visceral fat that surrounds the organs are the real danger. Too much fat around the organs can cause them to work inefficiently, over or under produce hormones, restrict blood flow etc. because of how the fat grows, you can\u2019t typically cut it out without damaging the organ. Lastly, all surgeries carry the risk of death. Along with obesity come other health issues like sleep apnea and high blood pressure. When a morbidly obese person get anesthetized, there is a much greater risk that they will stop breathing or have other cardiac\/pulmonary issues.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":466.0,"score_ratio":4.6} {"post_id":"utmf3k","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How can a country afford to give billions of dollars in aid to another country if they themselves are in so much debt?","c_root_id_A":"i9aourn","c_root_id_B":"i9btzae","created_at_utc_A":1653026717,"created_at_utc_B":1653054329,"score_A":30,"score_B":63,"human_ref_A":"Don't think of aid as charity, think of it as investment. The countries that give aid are usually buying something with that money that is worth the cost: Influence, soft power, control, ... that sort of thing. They buy themselves votes in the UN for their policies, they buy favorable deals for their companies to exploit local resources, they buy those countries gratitude and vassalage. They buy them signing up to international agreements that the country wants to get passed. Often with the US a lot of it is in the form of military aid that then gets spend buying arms from US companies making it a state giveaway to the military industrial complex and incidentally making the receiver depended on the US for parts etc to keep their military going. A lot of the aid to poor countries doesn't really go to the poor people in the country, it often mostly goes into the coffers of the ruling class who don't spent it at home but in economically more developed countries. Much of it can cynically be seen as bribes. Of course domestically this gets played as charity, but it really is money well spend to benefit the people spending it.","human_ref_B":"You're question is similar to asking how a person has a mortgage for $250,000, and collects $75,000\/yr in income, how can they afford to give $250 to a charity? Does that really seem that odd? A large mortgage doesn't prevent people from donating to charity when the income is sufficient to make the mortgage payments, right? The US has a bit less than $30 trillion in debt, but like a mortgage that debt comes due over many years. Each year the figures that matter are money in and money out. The US government is expected to collect a bit more than $4 trillion this year, sending a few billion here and there is a relatively small part of $4,000 billion they took in.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":27612.0,"score_ratio":2.1} {"post_id":"utmf3k","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How can a country afford to give billions of dollars in aid to another country if they themselves are in so much debt?","c_root_id_A":"i9aqggv","c_root_id_B":"i9btzae","created_at_utc_A":1653027945,"created_at_utc_B":1653054329,"score_A":7,"score_B":63,"human_ref_A":"Did you ever hear of a country's credit rating? It's in headlines sometimes. \"Moody's downgrades Russia's credit rating to junk\" etc. The credit rating rates the ability of a country to pay back debt. A country that can pay for debt without issues, can afford more debt. Rich western countries have very good credit ratings despite their high debt.","human_ref_B":"You're question is similar to asking how a person has a mortgage for $250,000, and collects $75,000\/yr in income, how can they afford to give $250 to a charity? Does that really seem that odd? A large mortgage doesn't prevent people from donating to charity when the income is sufficient to make the mortgage payments, right? The US has a bit less than $30 trillion in debt, but like a mortgage that debt comes due over many years. Each year the figures that matter are money in and money out. The US government is expected to collect a bit more than $4 trillion this year, sending a few billion here and there is a relatively small part of $4,000 billion they took in.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":26384.0,"score_ratio":9.0} {"post_id":"utmf3k","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How can a country afford to give billions of dollars in aid to another country if they themselves are in so much debt?","c_root_id_A":"i9btzae","c_root_id_B":"i9apifv","created_at_utc_A":1653054329,"created_at_utc_B":1653027216,"score_A":63,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"You're question is similar to asking how a person has a mortgage for $250,000, and collects $75,000\/yr in income, how can they afford to give $250 to a charity? Does that really seem that odd? A large mortgage doesn't prevent people from donating to charity when the income is sufficient to make the mortgage payments, right? The US has a bit less than $30 trillion in debt, but like a mortgage that debt comes due over many years. Each year the figures that matter are money in and money out. The US government is expected to collect a bit more than $4 trillion this year, sending a few billion here and there is a relatively small part of $4,000 billion they took in.","human_ref_B":"If your question is *how* it\u2019s because it\u2019s all basically numbers on a screen an the fed just ads some zeroes to the balance. If you\u2019re asking *why* that\u2019s a very different question. The short answer is there is a bipartisan consensus on spending money on foreign military aid. There is not a bipartisan consensus on domestic spending. So there are the votes to send guns to a Ukraine, but not for social spending here in the US. Nobody asks \u201chow are you going to pay for it?\u201d when we\u2019re sending missiles abroad or increasing the defense budget. Only when we\u2019re trying to improve the material conditions of people\u2019s lives here at home.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":27113.0,"score_ratio":10.5} {"post_id":"utmf3k","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How can a country afford to give billions of dollars in aid to another country if they themselves are in so much debt?","c_root_id_A":"i9ann4l","c_root_id_B":"i9btzae","created_at_utc_A":1653025815,"created_at_utc_B":1653054329,"score_A":6,"score_B":63,"human_ref_A":"In short, money printer go brrrrrrrr.... In long, the US dollar is strong and backed by a potentially robust production economy with a massive amount of resources that could be tapped should we choose. That compels investors, including foreign governments, to lend into the economy for long term interest payments in the world reserve currency.","human_ref_B":"You're question is similar to asking how a person has a mortgage for $250,000, and collects $75,000\/yr in income, how can they afford to give $250 to a charity? Does that really seem that odd? A large mortgage doesn't prevent people from donating to charity when the income is sufficient to make the mortgage payments, right? The US has a bit less than $30 trillion in debt, but like a mortgage that debt comes due over many years. Each year the figures that matter are money in and money out. The US government is expected to collect a bit more than $4 trillion this year, sending a few billion here and there is a relatively small part of $4,000 billion they took in.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":28514.0,"score_ratio":10.5} {"post_id":"utmf3k","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How can a country afford to give billions of dollars in aid to another country if they themselves are in so much debt?","c_root_id_A":"i9btzae","c_root_id_B":"i9b6npp","created_at_utc_A":1653054329,"created_at_utc_B":1653041559,"score_A":63,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"You're question is similar to asking how a person has a mortgage for $250,000, and collects $75,000\/yr in income, how can they afford to give $250 to a charity? Does that really seem that odd? A large mortgage doesn't prevent people from donating to charity when the income is sufficient to make the mortgage payments, right? The US has a bit less than $30 trillion in debt, but like a mortgage that debt comes due over many years. Each year the figures that matter are money in and money out. The US government is expected to collect a bit more than $4 trillion this year, sending a few billion here and there is a relatively small part of $4,000 billion they took in.","human_ref_B":"The same way houseowners do it. You might owe a lot of money on your mortgage, but there are fixed terms for repaying that. The bank doesn't come knocking in the middle of the night to demand more money. As long as you can pay what's been agreed on your mortgage, you're free to do whatever you want with the rest of your money. The way a country owes money is primarily through bonds. They create a paper saying \"the holder of this paper will get X dollars per year from the state for the next Y years\". And then they sell that paper for a lot of money up front. That means they have to pay a small chunk of money every year for the next several decades, but they don't have to pay it all *now*, even if they have plenty of money here and now.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":12770.0,"score_ratio":12.6} {"post_id":"utmf3k","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How can a country afford to give billions of dollars in aid to another country if they themselves are in so much debt?","c_root_id_A":"i9b3d91","c_root_id_B":"i9btzae","created_at_utc_A":1653038946,"created_at_utc_B":1653054329,"score_A":2,"score_B":63,"human_ref_A":"This debt is just all big numbers. Billions look like a lot, but trillions are so much more, and just so much money regularly passes through the government's hands. And so they can get more debt, and can maintain all this debt, and pay it off, and still have pocket change along the way to invest in others. - - - - - - - - - - As for your one comment you made explaining your question, why they don't spend it on America's healthcare and infrastructure and such, that's pretty simple: the people in Congress who deal with the budget don't care as much about those. If you disagree, vote and put in people who do care. Organize and tell others why those people need replaced. Get voters interested in healthcare laws, and together put in people who will ignore Big Pharma and make healthcare laws that benefit the common people. Until then, the budget-makers don't care. But sending money to Ukraine looks good, sounds good, is supported by many, arguably the morally right thing to do, and it makes them personally look good when they say they're doing it. They want to get re-elected, so they care about how likely you are to vote for them. They'll follow those strongly popular opinions because they know their supporters will support them for it. And compared to the debt, it's basically pocket change, so its easy to do without a yearly commitment like healthcare that honestly isn't even necessary to focus on to keep them re-elected. Now, the President sends a budget to Congress who must approve it, but Congress can and will say no if they don't approve. The President must submit and resubmit the budget Congress wants, and if no budget can be approved on time -- whether the President makes a bad budget, or Congress demands a different budget and won't approve the President's budget -- then the government has no budget. Government workers won't get paid, some services will shut down, and people will suffer. In the end, the President and Congress must both agree on the budget, whether that means as many as 250 Congresspeople grow a conscience and decide stopping the suffering is worth approving the budget, or the President does and submits a budget they dislike that Congress approves. So those are the people you must focus on when voting if you care about healthcare: a President who cares about healthcare enough to put it in, and Congresspeople who will either demand lots of money for healthcare be included, or won't deny a budget for having lots of money for healthcare. The same goes for infrastructure, and everything else.","human_ref_B":"You're question is similar to asking how a person has a mortgage for $250,000, and collects $75,000\/yr in income, how can they afford to give $250 to a charity? Does that really seem that odd? A large mortgage doesn't prevent people from donating to charity when the income is sufficient to make the mortgage payments, right? The US has a bit less than $30 trillion in debt, but like a mortgage that debt comes due over many years. Each year the figures that matter are money in and money out. The US government is expected to collect a bit more than $4 trillion this year, sending a few billion here and there is a relatively small part of $4,000 billion they took in.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":15383.0,"score_ratio":31.5} {"post_id":"utmf3k","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How can a country afford to give billions of dollars in aid to another country if they themselves are in so much debt?","c_root_id_A":"i9b56v4","c_root_id_B":"i9btzae","created_at_utc_A":1653040337,"created_at_utc_B":1653054329,"score_A":2,"score_B":63,"human_ref_A":"To put it simply, the Government issues itself more debt and then mails the check. Who the fuck is going to tell the US Gov that it can't take out more debt?","human_ref_B":"You're question is similar to asking how a person has a mortgage for $250,000, and collects $75,000\/yr in income, how can they afford to give $250 to a charity? Does that really seem that odd? A large mortgage doesn't prevent people from donating to charity when the income is sufficient to make the mortgage payments, right? The US has a bit less than $30 trillion in debt, but like a mortgage that debt comes due over many years. Each year the figures that matter are money in and money out. The US government is expected to collect a bit more than $4 trillion this year, sending a few billion here and there is a relatively small part of $4,000 billion they took in.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":13992.0,"score_ratio":31.5} {"post_id":"utmf3k","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How can a country afford to give billions of dollars in aid to another country if they themselves are in so much debt?","c_root_id_A":"i9ann4l","c_root_id_B":"i9aourn","created_at_utc_A":1653025815,"created_at_utc_B":1653026717,"score_A":6,"score_B":30,"human_ref_A":"In short, money printer go brrrrrrrr.... In long, the US dollar is strong and backed by a potentially robust production economy with a massive amount of resources that could be tapped should we choose. That compels investors, including foreign governments, to lend into the economy for long term interest payments in the world reserve currency.","human_ref_B":"Don't think of aid as charity, think of it as investment. The countries that give aid are usually buying something with that money that is worth the cost: Influence, soft power, control, ... that sort of thing. They buy themselves votes in the UN for their policies, they buy favorable deals for their companies to exploit local resources, they buy those countries gratitude and vassalage. They buy them signing up to international agreements that the country wants to get passed. Often with the US a lot of it is in the form of military aid that then gets spend buying arms from US companies making it a state giveaway to the military industrial complex and incidentally making the receiver depended on the US for parts etc to keep their military going. A lot of the aid to poor countries doesn't really go to the poor people in the country, it often mostly goes into the coffers of the ruling class who don't spent it at home but in economically more developed countries. Much of it can cynically be seen as bribes. Of course domestically this gets played as charity, but it really is money well spend to benefit the people spending it.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":902.0,"score_ratio":5.0} {"post_id":"utmf3k","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How can a country afford to give billions of dollars in aid to another country if they themselves are in so much debt?","c_root_id_A":"i9apifv","c_root_id_B":"i9aqggv","created_at_utc_A":1653027216,"created_at_utc_B":1653027945,"score_A":6,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"If your question is *how* it\u2019s because it\u2019s all basically numbers on a screen an the fed just ads some zeroes to the balance. If you\u2019re asking *why* that\u2019s a very different question. The short answer is there is a bipartisan consensus on spending money on foreign military aid. There is not a bipartisan consensus on domestic spending. So there are the votes to send guns to a Ukraine, but not for social spending here in the US. Nobody asks \u201chow are you going to pay for it?\u201d when we\u2019re sending missiles abroad or increasing the defense budget. Only when we\u2019re trying to improve the material conditions of people\u2019s lives here at home.","human_ref_B":"Did you ever hear of a country's credit rating? It's in headlines sometimes. \"Moody's downgrades Russia's credit rating to junk\" etc. The credit rating rates the ability of a country to pay back debt. A country that can pay for debt without issues, can afford more debt. Rich western countries have very good credit ratings despite their high debt.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":729.0,"score_ratio":1.1666666667} {"post_id":"utmf3k","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How can a country afford to give billions of dollars in aid to another country if they themselves are in so much debt?","c_root_id_A":"i9ann4l","c_root_id_B":"i9aqggv","created_at_utc_A":1653025815,"created_at_utc_B":1653027945,"score_A":6,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"In short, money printer go brrrrrrrr.... In long, the US dollar is strong and backed by a potentially robust production economy with a massive amount of resources that could be tapped should we choose. That compels investors, including foreign governments, to lend into the economy for long term interest payments in the world reserve currency.","human_ref_B":"Did you ever hear of a country's credit rating? It's in headlines sometimes. \"Moody's downgrades Russia's credit rating to junk\" etc. The credit rating rates the ability of a country to pay back debt. A country that can pay for debt without issues, can afford more debt. Rich western countries have very good credit ratings despite their high debt.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2130.0,"score_ratio":1.1666666667} {"post_id":"utmf3k","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How can a country afford to give billions of dollars in aid to another country if they themselves are in so much debt?","c_root_id_A":"i9b6npp","c_root_id_B":"i9b3d91","created_at_utc_A":1653041559,"created_at_utc_B":1653038946,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"The same way houseowners do it. You might owe a lot of money on your mortgage, but there are fixed terms for repaying that. The bank doesn't come knocking in the middle of the night to demand more money. As long as you can pay what's been agreed on your mortgage, you're free to do whatever you want with the rest of your money. The way a country owes money is primarily through bonds. They create a paper saying \"the holder of this paper will get X dollars per year from the state for the next Y years\". And then they sell that paper for a lot of money up front. That means they have to pay a small chunk of money every year for the next several decades, but they don't have to pay it all *now*, even if they have plenty of money here and now.","human_ref_B":"This debt is just all big numbers. Billions look like a lot, but trillions are so much more, and just so much money regularly passes through the government's hands. And so they can get more debt, and can maintain all this debt, and pay it off, and still have pocket change along the way to invest in others. - - - - - - - - - - As for your one comment you made explaining your question, why they don't spend it on America's healthcare and infrastructure and such, that's pretty simple: the people in Congress who deal with the budget don't care as much about those. If you disagree, vote and put in people who do care. Organize and tell others why those people need replaced. Get voters interested in healthcare laws, and together put in people who will ignore Big Pharma and make healthcare laws that benefit the common people. Until then, the budget-makers don't care. But sending money to Ukraine looks good, sounds good, is supported by many, arguably the morally right thing to do, and it makes them personally look good when they say they're doing it. They want to get re-elected, so they care about how likely you are to vote for them. They'll follow those strongly popular opinions because they know their supporters will support them for it. And compared to the debt, it's basically pocket change, so its easy to do without a yearly commitment like healthcare that honestly isn't even necessary to focus on to keep them re-elected. Now, the President sends a budget to Congress who must approve it, but Congress can and will say no if they don't approve. The President must submit and resubmit the budget Congress wants, and if no budget can be approved on time -- whether the President makes a bad budget, or Congress demands a different budget and won't approve the President's budget -- then the government has no budget. Government workers won't get paid, some services will shut down, and people will suffer. In the end, the President and Congress must both agree on the budget, whether that means as many as 250 Congresspeople grow a conscience and decide stopping the suffering is worth approving the budget, or the President does and submits a budget they dislike that Congress approves. So those are the people you must focus on when voting if you care about healthcare: a President who cares about healthcare enough to put it in, and Congresspeople who will either demand lots of money for healthcare be included, or won't deny a budget for having lots of money for healthcare. The same goes for infrastructure, and everything else.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2613.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"utmf3k","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How can a country afford to give billions of dollars in aid to another country if they themselves are in so much debt?","c_root_id_A":"i9b6npp","c_root_id_B":"i9b56v4","created_at_utc_A":1653041559,"created_at_utc_B":1653040337,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"The same way houseowners do it. You might owe a lot of money on your mortgage, but there are fixed terms for repaying that. The bank doesn't come knocking in the middle of the night to demand more money. As long as you can pay what's been agreed on your mortgage, you're free to do whatever you want with the rest of your money. The way a country owes money is primarily through bonds. They create a paper saying \"the holder of this paper will get X dollars per year from the state for the next Y years\". And then they sell that paper for a lot of money up front. That means they have to pay a small chunk of money every year for the next several decades, but they don't have to pay it all *now*, even if they have plenty of money here and now.","human_ref_B":"To put it simply, the Government issues itself more debt and then mails the check. Who the fuck is going to tell the US Gov that it can't take out more debt?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1222.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"8gc6vv","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why does terrific mean good and terrible mean bad while both horrific and horrible mean bad?","c_root_id_A":"dyahg2p","c_root_id_B":"dyahea5","created_at_utc_A":1525211214,"created_at_utc_B":1525211165,"score_A":27,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"It's usually a good bet to google {the word} etymology when you're not sure why a word is what it is. A complete answer from the first result: >The meaning of terrific has actually changed over time. According to EtymOnline: >1660s, \"frightening,\" from L. terrificus \"causing terror or fear,\" from terrere \"fill with fear\" (see terrible) + root of facere \"to make\" (see factitious). Weakened sensed of \"very great, severe\" (e.g. terrific headache) appeared 1809; colloquial sense of \"excellent\" began 1888. >So terrific started out on the same lines as horrific, but then gained a positive colloquial sense in the late 1800s. The phenomenon in which a previously bad word takes on a good connotation is discussed here, in which it is called amelioration. >Amelioration (which has occurred for terrific, wicked, luxury) is a type of semantic change. While it is unclear what precisely happened to terrific, there are a few ways in which this change can occur: >Linguistic forces >Psychological forces >Sociocultural forces >Cultural\/encyclopedic forces >You can read more about it here. It has been suggested (though there is little proof) that terrific became \"good\" because of an association with the popular media via King Kong. Other than this theory, though, it is clear that terrific underwent some kind of semantic change between the late 1800s and early 1900s. In 1930 Popular Science was still using the term to mean something \"frightening\", and by the 1940s it was used mostly to mean \"good\".","human_ref_B":"Ahoy, fellow redditor. Yer not alone in askin', and kind strangers have explained: 1. Why is horrific == horrible, but terrific =\/= terrible? ^(_9 comments_) 1. Explain like I'm five years old: Why do both \"terrible\" and \"horrible\" mean something bad, but \"terrific\" and \"horrific\" have two completely different meanings? ^(_12 comments_) 1. How come the words 'terrible' and 'terrific' have exactly opposite meanings, whereas 'horrible' and 'horrific' means the same? ^(_18 comments_) 1. Explain how English words can seem to be so similar, yet be near opposites: terrible vs. terrific; victor vs. victim; awesome vs. awful etc. ^(_4 comments_)","labels":1,"seconds_difference":49.0,"score_ratio":2.25} {"post_id":"upccmv","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: If the germ theory is relatively new, how do they think fermentation was happening (like wine, ale, yogurt etc.) thousands of years ago?","c_root_id_A":"i8kqv4x","c_root_id_B":"i8k5cyv","created_at_utc_A":1652535975,"created_at_utc_B":1652521057,"score_A":50,"score_B":16,"human_ref_A":"People in the Tudor era had a vague understanding of yeast. It was the woman\u2019s job to make ale for the family, so when it came time to start a new batch, she went into the grain field and sent out a plate with water to \u201ccatch the spirits\u201d. Today, we know this as yeast. This seemingly superstitious phrase gives us the word \u201cspirits\u201d, aka alcohol.","human_ref_B":"There\u2019s the theory that someone wanted sweet water. So they put honey and water into a jar mixed it, took a few sips, closed the lid and put the stuff away for a few days \/ weeks. Then opened it again and drank from it again, unknowingly being the first person to drink alcohol. And mead at that. Then they wanted more of the stuff, so they repeated the process. And then they experimented.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":14918.0,"score_ratio":3.125} {"post_id":"upccmv","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: If the germ theory is relatively new, how do they think fermentation was happening (like wine, ale, yogurt etc.) thousands of years ago?","c_root_id_A":"i8kohcm","c_root_id_B":"i8kqv4x","created_at_utc_A":1652534714,"created_at_utc_B":1652535975,"score_A":12,"score_B":50,"human_ref_A":"It's really hard to explain history of science topics like you're five, but here's my best go. If you want some historical sources of thought on this topic, check out book IV of Aristotle's Meteorology (despite the title, the fourth book is actually not about meteorology at all). Aristotle discusses at length the way that different terrestrial bodies can change and be changed. He didn't have a theory of fermentation per se, but it and a number of other processes (digestion, cooking, smelting) are considered to be part of the same family of processes. You've got to think about things in terms of bodies with certain properties having their properties changed, not in terms of atoms. Fermentation is just another way by which people can change the properties of certain bodies. Much later, the great alchemist Paracelsus also writes about fermentation as an analogue for the elixir of life. For him, yeast and other agents of fermentation just have a special preservative property to fix things in their current state. This kind of thinking is common in alchemical and non-alchemical texts alike - all the things in nature just have special god-given properties, and it's up to the clever alchemists to find them. Paracelsus says: >\"We call this preservative an elixir, as if it were yeast, with which bread is fermented and digested by the body. Its virtue is to preserve the body in that state wherein it finds it, and in that same vigour and essence. Since this is the nature of preservatives, namely, that they defend from corruption, not in any way by purifying, but simply by preserving. The fact that they also take away diseases is due to the subtlety which they possess. So, then, they do not only preserve, but they also conserve. They have a double labour and duty, that is to say, to prevent diseases and to keep the essence itself in its proper condition\" > >\\- Paracelsus, *The Archidoxies of Theophrastus Paracelsus*, Book 8, *trans*. Waite Essentially, some stuff just has the power to act on other stuff in a way that preserves it. This isn't all that weird on an ancient or early modern worldview. Some rocks just have the power to attract iron! Some plants have the power to induce vomiting! This kind of magical essentialist thinking is a major feature of western science up into the 17th century. It may seem like a bit of a cop-out explanation to us, but it worked pretty well for them.","human_ref_B":"People in the Tudor era had a vague understanding of yeast. It was the woman\u2019s job to make ale for the family, so when it came time to start a new batch, she went into the grain field and sent out a plate with water to \u201ccatch the spirits\u201d. Today, we know this as yeast. This seemingly superstitious phrase gives us the word \u201cspirits\u201d, aka alcohol.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1261.0,"score_ratio":4.1666666667} {"post_id":"upccmv","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: If the germ theory is relatively new, how do they think fermentation was happening (like wine, ale, yogurt etc.) thousands of years ago?","c_root_id_A":"i8kqv4x","c_root_id_B":"i8kh0ni","created_at_utc_A":1652535975,"created_at_utc_B":1652530257,"score_A":50,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"People in the Tudor era had a vague understanding of yeast. It was the woman\u2019s job to make ale for the family, so when it came time to start a new batch, she went into the grain field and sent out a plate with water to \u201ccatch the spirits\u201d. Today, we know this as yeast. This seemingly superstitious phrase gives us the word \u201cspirits\u201d, aka alcohol.","human_ref_B":"Fortunately, some firsthand info exists- in particular, the Hymn to Ninkasi. It's both a hymn of praise to the Sumerian goddess of beer (also seduction, fertility, and warfare...so they had the full beer thing going on) and a bit of a recipe for how to make the stuff.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5718.0,"score_ratio":5.5555555556} {"post_id":"upccmv","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: If the germ theory is relatively new, how do they think fermentation was happening (like wine, ale, yogurt etc.) thousands of years ago?","c_root_id_A":"i8kqv4x","c_root_id_B":"i8k5vg0","created_at_utc_A":1652535975,"created_at_utc_B":1652521517,"score_A":50,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"People in the Tudor era had a vague understanding of yeast. It was the woman\u2019s job to make ale for the family, so when it came time to start a new batch, she went into the grain field and sent out a plate with water to \u201ccatch the spirits\u201d. Today, we know this as yeast. This seemingly superstitious phrase gives us the word \u201cspirits\u201d, aka alcohol.","human_ref_B":"Thanks to modern science we now have this cultural drive to try to explain in rational terms everything that we observe. You see something curious and you automatically start to think how it could have happened. You make theories, you discuss with other people, you look for more information, etc. But for a long time in history this mindset wasn't the default. There were too many unexplained events happening and too little knowledge and tools to study them. There was also no urge to do it. Instead, it was more natural to accept things as they are and not ask questions that couldn't be answered anyway. God knows best. Ancient philosophers and medieval alchemists were members of the higher layers of the society - they had time and resources to ponder those questions, but often they treated it as a hobby and were coming up with fantastic theories instead of something resembling science. Those who really tried were few and far between. So even though we know about people like Archimedes, Galen, or Avicenna, who were rigorous in their studies, their methods didn't get popular recognition. That changed only fairly recently.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":14458.0,"score_ratio":8.3333333333} {"post_id":"upccmv","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: If the germ theory is relatively new, how do they think fermentation was happening (like wine, ale, yogurt etc.) thousands of years ago?","c_root_id_A":"i8k53k3","c_root_id_B":"i8kqv4x","created_at_utc_A":1652520824,"created_at_utc_B":1652535975,"score_A":5,"score_B":50,"human_ref_A":"Yeast. It\u2019s visible and interactive and recognizably alive. One does not need to understand cellular life to observe or farm yeast.","human_ref_B":"People in the Tudor era had a vague understanding of yeast. It was the woman\u2019s job to make ale for the family, so when it came time to start a new batch, she went into the grain field and sent out a plate with water to \u201ccatch the spirits\u201d. Today, we know this as yeast. This seemingly superstitious phrase gives us the word \u201cspirits\u201d, aka alcohol.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":15151.0,"score_ratio":10.0} {"post_id":"upccmv","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: If the germ theory is relatively new, how do they think fermentation was happening (like wine, ale, yogurt etc.) thousands of years ago?","c_root_id_A":"i8kqv4x","c_root_id_B":"i8klima","created_at_utc_A":1652535975,"created_at_utc_B":1652533036,"score_A":50,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"People in the Tudor era had a vague understanding of yeast. It was the woman\u2019s job to make ale for the family, so when it came time to start a new batch, she went into the grain field and sent out a plate with water to \u201ccatch the spirits\u201d. Today, we know this as yeast. This seemingly superstitious phrase gives us the word \u201cspirits\u201d, aka alcohol.","human_ref_B":"You don't need theory for something to work. Heres how a science theory comes to existence: 1. someone see something happening, in nature or artificial. 2. they wonder how it happened. 3. they come up with a hypothesis. 4. they test it out with experiment. 5. they create a new theory once the experiment shows support.\\\\ You can leave it at step 1, step 2\\~5 is not required to replicate the product. If someone left the oats in water because of procrastination and led to spicy water. They don't need to understand the mechanics behind that to recreate the process.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2939.0,"score_ratio":10.0} {"post_id":"upccmv","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: If the germ theory is relatively new, how do they think fermentation was happening (like wine, ale, yogurt etc.) thousands of years ago?","c_root_id_A":"i8k5cyv","c_root_id_B":"i8k53k3","created_at_utc_A":1652521057,"created_at_utc_B":1652520824,"score_A":16,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"There\u2019s the theory that someone wanted sweet water. So they put honey and water into a jar mixed it, took a few sips, closed the lid and put the stuff away for a few days \/ weeks. Then opened it again and drank from it again, unknowingly being the first person to drink alcohol. And mead at that. Then they wanted more of the stuff, so they repeated the process. And then they experimented.","human_ref_B":"Yeast. It\u2019s visible and interactive and recognizably alive. One does not need to understand cellular life to observe or farm yeast.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":233.0,"score_ratio":3.2} {"post_id":"upccmv","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: If the germ theory is relatively new, how do they think fermentation was happening (like wine, ale, yogurt etc.) thousands of years ago?","c_root_id_A":"i8kohcm","c_root_id_B":"i8kh0ni","created_at_utc_A":1652534714,"created_at_utc_B":1652530257,"score_A":12,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"It's really hard to explain history of science topics like you're five, but here's my best go. If you want some historical sources of thought on this topic, check out book IV of Aristotle's Meteorology (despite the title, the fourth book is actually not about meteorology at all). Aristotle discusses at length the way that different terrestrial bodies can change and be changed. He didn't have a theory of fermentation per se, but it and a number of other processes (digestion, cooking, smelting) are considered to be part of the same family of processes. You've got to think about things in terms of bodies with certain properties having their properties changed, not in terms of atoms. Fermentation is just another way by which people can change the properties of certain bodies. Much later, the great alchemist Paracelsus also writes about fermentation as an analogue for the elixir of life. For him, yeast and other agents of fermentation just have a special preservative property to fix things in their current state. This kind of thinking is common in alchemical and non-alchemical texts alike - all the things in nature just have special god-given properties, and it's up to the clever alchemists to find them. Paracelsus says: >\"We call this preservative an elixir, as if it were yeast, with which bread is fermented and digested by the body. Its virtue is to preserve the body in that state wherein it finds it, and in that same vigour and essence. Since this is the nature of preservatives, namely, that they defend from corruption, not in any way by purifying, but simply by preserving. The fact that they also take away diseases is due to the subtlety which they possess. So, then, they do not only preserve, but they also conserve. They have a double labour and duty, that is to say, to prevent diseases and to keep the essence itself in its proper condition\" > >\\- Paracelsus, *The Archidoxies of Theophrastus Paracelsus*, Book 8, *trans*. Waite Essentially, some stuff just has the power to act on other stuff in a way that preserves it. This isn't all that weird on an ancient or early modern worldview. Some rocks just have the power to attract iron! Some plants have the power to induce vomiting! This kind of magical essentialist thinking is a major feature of western science up into the 17th century. It may seem like a bit of a cop-out explanation to us, but it worked pretty well for them.","human_ref_B":"Fortunately, some firsthand info exists- in particular, the Hymn to Ninkasi. It's both a hymn of praise to the Sumerian goddess of beer (also seduction, fertility, and warfare...so they had the full beer thing going on) and a bit of a recipe for how to make the stuff.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4457.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} {"post_id":"upccmv","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: If the germ theory is relatively new, how do they think fermentation was happening (like wine, ale, yogurt etc.) thousands of years ago?","c_root_id_A":"i8kohcm","c_root_id_B":"i8k5vg0","created_at_utc_A":1652534714,"created_at_utc_B":1652521517,"score_A":12,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"It's really hard to explain history of science topics like you're five, but here's my best go. If you want some historical sources of thought on this topic, check out book IV of Aristotle's Meteorology (despite the title, the fourth book is actually not about meteorology at all). Aristotle discusses at length the way that different terrestrial bodies can change and be changed. He didn't have a theory of fermentation per se, but it and a number of other processes (digestion, cooking, smelting) are considered to be part of the same family of processes. You've got to think about things in terms of bodies with certain properties having their properties changed, not in terms of atoms. Fermentation is just another way by which people can change the properties of certain bodies. Much later, the great alchemist Paracelsus also writes about fermentation as an analogue for the elixir of life. For him, yeast and other agents of fermentation just have a special preservative property to fix things in their current state. This kind of thinking is common in alchemical and non-alchemical texts alike - all the things in nature just have special god-given properties, and it's up to the clever alchemists to find them. Paracelsus says: >\"We call this preservative an elixir, as if it were yeast, with which bread is fermented and digested by the body. Its virtue is to preserve the body in that state wherein it finds it, and in that same vigour and essence. Since this is the nature of preservatives, namely, that they defend from corruption, not in any way by purifying, but simply by preserving. The fact that they also take away diseases is due to the subtlety which they possess. So, then, they do not only preserve, but they also conserve. They have a double labour and duty, that is to say, to prevent diseases and to keep the essence itself in its proper condition\" > >\\- Paracelsus, *The Archidoxies of Theophrastus Paracelsus*, Book 8, *trans*. Waite Essentially, some stuff just has the power to act on other stuff in a way that preserves it. This isn't all that weird on an ancient or early modern worldview. Some rocks just have the power to attract iron! Some plants have the power to induce vomiting! This kind of magical essentialist thinking is a major feature of western science up into the 17th century. It may seem like a bit of a cop-out explanation to us, but it worked pretty well for them.","human_ref_B":"Thanks to modern science we now have this cultural drive to try to explain in rational terms everything that we observe. You see something curious and you automatically start to think how it could have happened. You make theories, you discuss with other people, you look for more information, etc. But for a long time in history this mindset wasn't the default. There were too many unexplained events happening and too little knowledge and tools to study them. There was also no urge to do it. Instead, it was more natural to accept things as they are and not ask questions that couldn't be answered anyway. God knows best. Ancient philosophers and medieval alchemists were members of the higher layers of the society - they had time and resources to ponder those questions, but often they treated it as a hobby and were coming up with fantastic theories instead of something resembling science. Those who really tried were few and far between. So even though we know about people like Archimedes, Galen, or Avicenna, who were rigorous in their studies, their methods didn't get popular recognition. That changed only fairly recently.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":13197.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"upccmv","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: If the germ theory is relatively new, how do they think fermentation was happening (like wine, ale, yogurt etc.) thousands of years ago?","c_root_id_A":"i8kohcm","c_root_id_B":"i8k53k3","created_at_utc_A":1652534714,"created_at_utc_B":1652520824,"score_A":12,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"It's really hard to explain history of science topics like you're five, but here's my best go. If you want some historical sources of thought on this topic, check out book IV of Aristotle's Meteorology (despite the title, the fourth book is actually not about meteorology at all). Aristotle discusses at length the way that different terrestrial bodies can change and be changed. He didn't have a theory of fermentation per se, but it and a number of other processes (digestion, cooking, smelting) are considered to be part of the same family of processes. You've got to think about things in terms of bodies with certain properties having their properties changed, not in terms of atoms. Fermentation is just another way by which people can change the properties of certain bodies. Much later, the great alchemist Paracelsus also writes about fermentation as an analogue for the elixir of life. For him, yeast and other agents of fermentation just have a special preservative property to fix things in their current state. This kind of thinking is common in alchemical and non-alchemical texts alike - all the things in nature just have special god-given properties, and it's up to the clever alchemists to find them. Paracelsus says: >\"We call this preservative an elixir, as if it were yeast, with which bread is fermented and digested by the body. Its virtue is to preserve the body in that state wherein it finds it, and in that same vigour and essence. Since this is the nature of preservatives, namely, that they defend from corruption, not in any way by purifying, but simply by preserving. The fact that they also take away diseases is due to the subtlety which they possess. So, then, they do not only preserve, but they also conserve. They have a double labour and duty, that is to say, to prevent diseases and to keep the essence itself in its proper condition\" > >\\- Paracelsus, *The Archidoxies of Theophrastus Paracelsus*, Book 8, *trans*. Waite Essentially, some stuff just has the power to act on other stuff in a way that preserves it. This isn't all that weird on an ancient or early modern worldview. Some rocks just have the power to attract iron! Some plants have the power to induce vomiting! This kind of magical essentialist thinking is a major feature of western science up into the 17th century. It may seem like a bit of a cop-out explanation to us, but it worked pretty well for them.","human_ref_B":"Yeast. It\u2019s visible and interactive and recognizably alive. One does not need to understand cellular life to observe or farm yeast.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":13890.0,"score_ratio":2.4} {"post_id":"upccmv","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: If the germ theory is relatively new, how do they think fermentation was happening (like wine, ale, yogurt etc.) thousands of years ago?","c_root_id_A":"i8klima","c_root_id_B":"i8kohcm","created_at_utc_A":1652533036,"created_at_utc_B":1652534714,"score_A":5,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"You don't need theory for something to work. Heres how a science theory comes to existence: 1. someone see something happening, in nature or artificial. 2. they wonder how it happened. 3. they come up with a hypothesis. 4. they test it out with experiment. 5. they create a new theory once the experiment shows support.\\\\ You can leave it at step 1, step 2\\~5 is not required to replicate the product. If someone left the oats in water because of procrastination and led to spicy water. They don't need to understand the mechanics behind that to recreate the process.","human_ref_B":"It's really hard to explain history of science topics like you're five, but here's my best go. If you want some historical sources of thought on this topic, check out book IV of Aristotle's Meteorology (despite the title, the fourth book is actually not about meteorology at all). Aristotle discusses at length the way that different terrestrial bodies can change and be changed. He didn't have a theory of fermentation per se, but it and a number of other processes (digestion, cooking, smelting) are considered to be part of the same family of processes. You've got to think about things in terms of bodies with certain properties having their properties changed, not in terms of atoms. Fermentation is just another way by which people can change the properties of certain bodies. Much later, the great alchemist Paracelsus also writes about fermentation as an analogue for the elixir of life. For him, yeast and other agents of fermentation just have a special preservative property to fix things in their current state. This kind of thinking is common in alchemical and non-alchemical texts alike - all the things in nature just have special god-given properties, and it's up to the clever alchemists to find them. Paracelsus says: >\"We call this preservative an elixir, as if it were yeast, with which bread is fermented and digested by the body. Its virtue is to preserve the body in that state wherein it finds it, and in that same vigour and essence. Since this is the nature of preservatives, namely, that they defend from corruption, not in any way by purifying, but simply by preserving. The fact that they also take away diseases is due to the subtlety which they possess. So, then, they do not only preserve, but they also conserve. They have a double labour and duty, that is to say, to prevent diseases and to keep the essence itself in its proper condition\" > >\\- Paracelsus, *The Archidoxies of Theophrastus Paracelsus*, Book 8, *trans*. Waite Essentially, some stuff just has the power to act on other stuff in a way that preserves it. This isn't all that weird on an ancient or early modern worldview. Some rocks just have the power to attract iron! Some plants have the power to induce vomiting! This kind of magical essentialist thinking is a major feature of western science up into the 17th century. It may seem like a bit of a cop-out explanation to us, but it worked pretty well for them.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1678.0,"score_ratio":2.4} {"post_id":"upccmv","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: If the germ theory is relatively new, how do they think fermentation was happening (like wine, ale, yogurt etc.) thousands of years ago?","c_root_id_A":"i8k5vg0","c_root_id_B":"i8l3o85","created_at_utc_A":1652521517,"created_at_utc_B":1652542181,"score_A":6,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"Thanks to modern science we now have this cultural drive to try to explain in rational terms everything that we observe. You see something curious and you automatically start to think how it could have happened. You make theories, you discuss with other people, you look for more information, etc. But for a long time in history this mindset wasn't the default. There were too many unexplained events happening and too little knowledge and tools to study them. There was also no urge to do it. Instead, it was more natural to accept things as they are and not ask questions that couldn't be answered anyway. God knows best. Ancient philosophers and medieval alchemists were members of the higher layers of the society - they had time and resources to ponder those questions, but often they treated it as a hobby and were coming up with fantastic theories instead of something resembling science. Those who really tried were few and far between. So even though we know about people like Archimedes, Galen, or Avicenna, who were rigorous in their studies, their methods didn't get popular recognition. That changed only fairly recently.","human_ref_B":"You don\u2019t have to know how wheat grows to use flour and make bread\u2026 people follow processes that work without needing to know *how* it works at all. Look at driving a car; the average person has little idea how an engine functions, and often not even if their own car is front- or rear-wheel drive. It just magically goes when you step on that pedal thingy.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":20664.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"upccmv","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: If the germ theory is relatively new, how do they think fermentation was happening (like wine, ale, yogurt etc.) thousands of years ago?","c_root_id_A":"i8l3o85","c_root_id_B":"i8k53k3","created_at_utc_A":1652542181,"created_at_utc_B":1652520824,"score_A":9,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"You don\u2019t have to know how wheat grows to use flour and make bread\u2026 people follow processes that work without needing to know *how* it works at all. Look at driving a car; the average person has little idea how an engine functions, and often not even if their own car is front- or rear-wheel drive. It just magically goes when you step on that pedal thingy.","human_ref_B":"Yeast. It\u2019s visible and interactive and recognizably alive. One does not need to understand cellular life to observe or farm yeast.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":21357.0,"score_ratio":1.8} {"post_id":"upccmv","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: If the germ theory is relatively new, how do they think fermentation was happening (like wine, ale, yogurt etc.) thousands of years ago?","c_root_id_A":"i8klima","c_root_id_B":"i8l3o85","created_at_utc_A":1652533036,"created_at_utc_B":1652542181,"score_A":5,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"You don't need theory for something to work. Heres how a science theory comes to existence: 1. someone see something happening, in nature or artificial. 2. they wonder how it happened. 3. they come up with a hypothesis. 4. they test it out with experiment. 5. they create a new theory once the experiment shows support.\\\\ You can leave it at step 1, step 2\\~5 is not required to replicate the product. If someone left the oats in water because of procrastination and led to spicy water. They don't need to understand the mechanics behind that to recreate the process.","human_ref_B":"You don\u2019t have to know how wheat grows to use flour and make bread\u2026 people follow processes that work without needing to know *how* it works at all. Look at driving a car; the average person has little idea how an engine functions, and often not even if their own car is front- or rear-wheel drive. It just magically goes when you step on that pedal thingy.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9145.0,"score_ratio":1.8} {"post_id":"upccmv","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: If the germ theory is relatively new, how do they think fermentation was happening (like wine, ale, yogurt etc.) thousands of years ago?","c_root_id_A":"i8l1owe","c_root_id_B":"i8l3o85","created_at_utc_A":1652541264,"created_at_utc_B":1652542181,"score_A":4,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"They new about bacteria, fungus, etc. Germ theory describes why and how, not exactly what. Remember that they can see the yeast and such because of the size of colony. It happens more than once and these big collections of something are growing in it? It's obviously connected even if they don't truly have a good understanding of it.","human_ref_B":"You don\u2019t have to know how wheat grows to use flour and make bread\u2026 people follow processes that work without needing to know *how* it works at all. Look at driving a car; the average person has little idea how an engine functions, and often not even if their own car is front- or rear-wheel drive. It just magically goes when you step on that pedal thingy.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":917.0,"score_ratio":2.25} {"post_id":"upccmv","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: If the germ theory is relatively new, how do they think fermentation was happening (like wine, ale, yogurt etc.) thousands of years ago?","c_root_id_A":"i8k5vg0","c_root_id_B":"i8kh0ni","created_at_utc_A":1652521517,"created_at_utc_B":1652530257,"score_A":6,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"Thanks to modern science we now have this cultural drive to try to explain in rational terms everything that we observe. You see something curious and you automatically start to think how it could have happened. You make theories, you discuss with other people, you look for more information, etc. But for a long time in history this mindset wasn't the default. There were too many unexplained events happening and too little knowledge and tools to study them. There was also no urge to do it. Instead, it was more natural to accept things as they are and not ask questions that couldn't be answered anyway. God knows best. Ancient philosophers and medieval alchemists were members of the higher layers of the society - they had time and resources to ponder those questions, but often they treated it as a hobby and were coming up with fantastic theories instead of something resembling science. Those who really tried were few and far between. So even though we know about people like Archimedes, Galen, or Avicenna, who were rigorous in their studies, their methods didn't get popular recognition. That changed only fairly recently.","human_ref_B":"Fortunately, some firsthand info exists- in particular, the Hymn to Ninkasi. It's both a hymn of praise to the Sumerian goddess of beer (also seduction, fertility, and warfare...so they had the full beer thing going on) and a bit of a recipe for how to make the stuff.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8740.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"upccmv","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: If the germ theory is relatively new, how do they think fermentation was happening (like wine, ale, yogurt etc.) thousands of years ago?","c_root_id_A":"i8k53k3","c_root_id_B":"i8kh0ni","created_at_utc_A":1652520824,"created_at_utc_B":1652530257,"score_A":5,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"Yeast. It\u2019s visible and interactive and recognizably alive. One does not need to understand cellular life to observe or farm yeast.","human_ref_B":"Fortunately, some firsthand info exists- in particular, the Hymn to Ninkasi. It's both a hymn of praise to the Sumerian goddess of beer (also seduction, fertility, and warfare...so they had the full beer thing going on) and a bit of a recipe for how to make the stuff.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9433.0,"score_ratio":1.8} {"post_id":"upccmv","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: If the germ theory is relatively new, how do they think fermentation was happening (like wine, ale, yogurt etc.) thousands of years ago?","c_root_id_A":"i8k5vg0","c_root_id_B":"i8k53k3","created_at_utc_A":1652521517,"created_at_utc_B":1652520824,"score_A":6,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Thanks to modern science we now have this cultural drive to try to explain in rational terms everything that we observe. You see something curious and you automatically start to think how it could have happened. You make theories, you discuss with other people, you look for more information, etc. But for a long time in history this mindset wasn't the default. There were too many unexplained events happening and too little knowledge and tools to study them. There was also no urge to do it. Instead, it was more natural to accept things as they are and not ask questions that couldn't be answered anyway. God knows best. Ancient philosophers and medieval alchemists were members of the higher layers of the society - they had time and resources to ponder those questions, but often they treated it as a hobby and were coming up with fantastic theories instead of something resembling science. Those who really tried were few and far between. So even though we know about people like Archimedes, Galen, or Avicenna, who were rigorous in their studies, their methods didn't get popular recognition. That changed only fairly recently.","human_ref_B":"Yeast. It\u2019s visible and interactive and recognizably alive. One does not need to understand cellular life to observe or farm yeast.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":693.0,"score_ratio":1.2} {"post_id":"w3tkeg","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.7,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old what is the actual real-world application of prime numbers? Or is it just a math concept that\u2019s neat to see and figure out but doesn\u2019t have any actual use case? I read that they have some uses within online encryption, but to be honest I never really thought about why we learned them in school until this morning.","c_root_id_A":"igy7ks9","c_root_id_B":"igy7u8k","created_at_utc_A":1658342039,"created_at_utc_B":1658342147,"score_A":3,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"One core aspect of encryption is based on the idea that if you take a very large number (think 100 digits) it is very hard to figure out what numbers multiplied together get to that number (factoring). But it is super easy to take a bunch of numbers and multiply them to get a huge number. With prime numbers that process is unique. That is used a lot in encryption because you can share the giant number with anyone as an encryption key, but only the person that knows the original factors can prove it is the right key.","human_ref_B":"Primes factorization is a really simple way of explaining the \"one-way\" processes that underpin encryption. The property of primes you have to know is that every single number has only one so called \"prime factorization\" which just means that if you only multiply prime numbers, there is only one combination of those prime numbers that gives you your original number. Example 1: 17*47=499. The only way you can get 499 from prime numbers is by multiplying 17 and 47. Example 2: 2\\*2\\*2\\*19=152 is the only way to multiply prime numbers and get 152. Etc. You can do that for every number. The trick is that while it's \"easy\" to multiply numbers together, it's incredibly hard to reverse it. Like, try to find the prime factorization of 2455. (Actually don't try, it's not going to work, it's 5*491) You basically have to go through every prime number one by one, and multiply them to find out what it might be. So you have an operation that's easy in one direction and hard to reverse. You have, a basic encryption algorithm. There are thousands of applications of prime numbers otherwise, but this one is incredibly simple to explain despite being quite a powerful observation.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":108.0,"score_ratio":2.6666666667} {"post_id":"w3tkeg","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.7,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old what is the actual real-world application of prime numbers? Or is it just a math concept that\u2019s neat to see and figure out but doesn\u2019t have any actual use case? I read that they have some uses within online encryption, but to be honest I never really thought about why we learned them in school until this morning.","c_root_id_A":"igy7ks9","c_root_id_B":"igymlfp","created_at_utc_A":1658342039,"created_at_utc_B":1658348276,"score_A":3,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"One core aspect of encryption is based on the idea that if you take a very large number (think 100 digits) it is very hard to figure out what numbers multiplied together get to that number (factoring). But it is super easy to take a bunch of numbers and multiply them to get a huge number. With prime numbers that process is unique. That is used a lot in encryption because you can share the giant number with anyone as an encryption key, but only the person that knows the original factors can prove it is the right key.","human_ref_B":"I see people mentioning cryptography, but there is actually another use that nature came up with. Cicadas only come out every so many years (depending on which brood it is) and they do this to avoid running into each other and competing for resources. They can't just coordinate one group on one set of years, and another on another set, so they each independently came out after a prime number of years to avoid competing with each other. 5 and 7 are common numbers of years, so they only come out at the same time every 35 years. There are also some that come out every 3 years, which prevents 9 years from being a cycle, because the 9 year cicadas would always have to compete with 3 year cicadas.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6237.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"w3tkeg","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.7,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old what is the actual real-world application of prime numbers? Or is it just a math concept that\u2019s neat to see and figure out but doesn\u2019t have any actual use case? I read that they have some uses within online encryption, but to be honest I never really thought about why we learned them in school until this morning.","c_root_id_A":"igy7wvr","c_root_id_B":"igymlfp","created_at_utc_A":1658342177,"created_at_utc_B":1658348276,"score_A":3,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"most common actual use case is credit card security\/ bank account security. The reason being, that you can multiply prime numbers really fast (like any other numbers multiplied are fast on calculators\/computors) generating a security number (easily spoken). However, if you have only that security number, but want to know out of which numbers it has been muliplied, computers need a lot of time, since divisions are more complex. So it is easy if you know what the base (prime-)numbers are, but very hard if you want to find them. That makes them perfect for security. And if you take large prime numbers or more of them that can be enough to increase the calculation time it takes a computer to crack it into years.","human_ref_B":"I see people mentioning cryptography, but there is actually another use that nature came up with. Cicadas only come out every so many years (depending on which brood it is) and they do this to avoid running into each other and competing for resources. They can't just coordinate one group on one set of years, and another on another set, so they each independently came out after a prime number of years to avoid competing with each other. 5 and 7 are common numbers of years, so they only come out at the same time every 35 years. There are also some that come out every 3 years, which prevents 9 years from being a cycle, because the 9 year cicadas would always have to compete with 3 year cicadas.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6099.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"ym8yrn","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: at what point does electricity stop in water? Obviously if we put live electricity in the sea, the whole ocean wouldn\u2019t then become dangerous with it. At what point does the electricity stop? What stops it?","c_root_id_A":"iv2kekd","c_root_id_B":"iv2nl8x","created_at_utc_A":1667592862,"created_at_utc_B":1667594138,"score_A":160,"score_B":214,"human_ref_A":"Nothing stops it. Electricity wants to go back to its source. If you put a live wire in the water the electricity will flow back through the water and then the ground to the neutral point of the transformer providing the power. It won't just go out looking to electrocute people. You're only in danger if you're in the way.","human_ref_B":"Depends on how you \"put electricity\" in. When lightning hits the ocean, it can more or less flow in any direction through the water, and the power dissipates accordingly. Just think of it expanding (hemi)spherically from the point it hits: the further it gets, the larger the area it covers becomes. The larger the area gets, the smaller the current per area becomes, until it is not noticeable any more.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1276.0,"score_ratio":1.3375} {"post_id":"ym8yrn","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: at what point does electricity stop in water? Obviously if we put live electricity in the sea, the whole ocean wouldn\u2019t then become dangerous with it. At what point does the electricity stop? What stops it?","c_root_id_A":"iv3phjf","c_root_id_B":"iv3277l","created_at_utc_A":1667611289,"created_at_utc_B":1667600416,"score_A":24,"score_B":22,"human_ref_A":"I don't know the math of it, but when I was a kid we had a swimming pool. One of the lights developed a short and if you got too close you'd feel the buzzing on your skin. We used to play a game where we'd close our eyes and see who could get their face closest to it underwater. The closest any of us could get was about 6 inches, and the electricity dancing behind your eyelids looked crazy","human_ref_B":"Electricity is the overall flow of little things called electrons. Imagine them as little billiard balls that can flow through things quite well because they are really tiny. An important property of these balls however, is something called an electric charge. An electron has a negative one and a proton has a positive one. Depending on the specific case, there can be many grouped charges, like when electrons build up in lightning, or dispersed throughout like in everyday materials. It can also flow through things quite well, depending on the environment and how well they're held in place \"normally\". In the case of water, let's say it's coming from a cloud in the sky as in lightning. You can picture it as the cloud holding a bucket of electrons and suddenly pouring out once it reaches its maximum limit. These balls coming crashing down at a high speed and strike the water. At that instant, the balls crash down and possibly causing the water to evaporate, dissociate, and ionize. You can picture this as billiard balls violently crashing down into a ball pit. They will crash into things, causing all sorts of mess. After the initial strike, the balls tend to flow away from one another because like-charges repel via the \"Coloumb force\". This really just means that they don't like to be together unless there are conditions that favour it, like the ones that occur when building up in the clouds. Once they are in a relatively \"free\" environment in water, they will disperse around that area, preferring to go in directions where there are less electrons around. If the water is really shallow, this is probably just going to be the ground. If it's deeper, like the ocean, it will probably take a longer while before it reaches \"ground\", or any kind of electrical sink, which acts to \"take in\" all of the extra charge. The electrons eventually \"stop\" or at least, in a manner that we count as electricity, when they crash into something, react with something, or get absorbed into something. The electricity requires something to interact with it in order to \"stop\" or disperse effectively. It will stop acting as the \"electricity\" that we consider as a consistent current (the stream of balls falling) soon after the strike, since the balls will find themselves running away from each other very quickly, crashing into things as they go.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10873.0,"score_ratio":1.0909090909} {"post_id":"ym8yrn","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: at what point does electricity stop in water? Obviously if we put live electricity in the sea, the whole ocean wouldn\u2019t then become dangerous with it. At what point does the electricity stop? What stops it?","c_root_id_A":"iv3phjf","c_root_id_B":"iv3bg42","created_at_utc_A":1667611289,"created_at_utc_B":1667604634,"score_A":24,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I don't know the math of it, but when I was a kid we had a swimming pool. One of the lights developed a short and if you got too close you'd feel the buzzing on your skin. We used to play a game where we'd close our eyes and see who could get their face closest to it underwater. The closest any of us could get was about 6 inches, and the electricity dancing behind your eyelids looked crazy","human_ref_B":"Depends on how pure of water it is. Completely distilled water with zero minerals dissolved in it won't conduct much electricity at all","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6655.0,"score_ratio":12.0} {"post_id":"ym8yrn","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: at what point does electricity stop in water? Obviously if we put live electricity in the sea, the whole ocean wouldn\u2019t then become dangerous with it. At what point does the electricity stop? What stops it?","c_root_id_A":"iv3phjf","c_root_id_B":"iv3opfu","created_at_utc_A":1667611289,"created_at_utc_B":1667610905,"score_A":24,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I don't know the math of it, but when I was a kid we had a swimming pool. One of the lights developed a short and if you got too close you'd feel the buzzing on your skin. We used to play a game where we'd close our eyes and see who could get their face closest to it underwater. The closest any of us could get was about 6 inches, and the electricity dancing behind your eyelids looked crazy","human_ref_B":"You're kind of coming from the wrong angle. You're implying that when we put \"electricity\" into the water, it already goes somewhere, and that there is a point at which it \"stops\" going somewhere. This is kind of true, but not in the way you think. Everyone else has explained why it's not true, so I'll explain why it is true. For those who understand electric current, ignore all sign convention because it's confusing and unnecessary for the basics. To \"electrify\" a body of water, you have to either put electrons in or take electrons out on a large scale (since that's basically what electric current *is*, the movement of electrons) which will then spread out and push each other (and other electrons in the water) away from each other. With the extra \"oomph\" from the current injection (the voltage) there will be a new steady state: either the electrons will find a new place to go (for example the earth or the other terminal of the battery) or, if there is not a place for these electrons to go, then eventually they will bunch up and push back against the source of electrons that's trying to push them into the water (and a higher voltage source can push more electrons in. This is essentially a capacitor, and the key difference between a capacitor and a battery; a capacitor stores electrical energy and a battery stores chemical energy that it converts to electrical energy.) The electricity \"stops\" when the electron injection gets so far away from you that it can't have a major impact (like sunlight getting dimmer and dimmer the farther away you get in space.) Things get pretty confusing because we usually say electricity \"has\" to go back to where it came from to \"complete the circuit,\" but this isn't strictly true, and we take advantage of this all the time (it's called a \"floating ground\" or a \"floating potential\" if you're curious.) The earth is so large that we can treat it as both an infinitely large sink and source for electrons for all conventional purposes, which is why we use it as a global connection for everything (\"earth ground.\") However, if you don't provide a path for the electrons to return to the source, then you aren't replacing the electrons, and the electron source will eventully have its own force trying to pull the electrons back in, meaning it will get weaker over time as it gets harder to push the electrons out while they get pulled back in.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":384.0,"score_ratio":12.0} {"post_id":"ww9xv6","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How was the Soviet Union, despite being so poor that people were starving to death in famines, rival the US for the better part of a century?","c_root_id_A":"ilkfv5l","c_root_id_B":"ilk7se9","created_at_utc_A":1661327654,"created_at_utc_B":1661321419,"score_A":153,"score_B":42,"human_ref_A":"The Soviet Union had no famines after 1947, and they only had one that late due to the after effects of WW2. The Soviet Union was poor, but it wasn\u2019t *that poor.* There might be a long line for bread, but there would be bread, or something else. As an empire they rarely had overall shortages, but distribution was very patchy. So party officials used their travels to buy, say, goods in Vladivostok that weren\u2019t available in Moscow, and goods in Moscow you couldn\u2019t buy in Leningrad. Don\u2019t confuse them with North Korea (although even they managed somewhat alright until the USSR collapsed and their support vanished).","human_ref_B":"By the time of the Cold War there weren\u2019t famines in the Soviet Union anymore. The USSR always greatly lagged behind the U.S. in the production of consumer goods, but a large part of this way because they focused on heavy industry, which is a huge part of the reason why they were a powerful rival.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6235.0,"score_ratio":3.6428571429} {"post_id":"ww9xv6","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How was the Soviet Union, despite being so poor that people were starving to death in famines, rival the US for the better part of a century?","c_root_id_A":"ilk0pwh","c_root_id_B":"ilkfv5l","created_at_utc_A":1661316625,"created_at_utc_B":1661327654,"score_A":16,"score_B":153,"human_ref_A":"First of all, nukes and a massive military. The Soviet\/Warsaw Pact Military was every bit a rival technologically to the west, and generally superior in forces, especially in ground forces, and their nuclear forces were on par with the west in nearly every aspect. Second- A Soviet attack was expected -- not an if but a when. This meant that the West needed to be on its toes at all times. The soviets could be screwed up, poor, anything, but they had the might and ability to attack and could do so in a terrible, horrible way. To a degree, even in their poorness, it meant the military option seemed more pressing, if the soviets (eventually) realized they can't win economics, culture, or ideology, then a military victory starts to seem like one of the few, if not only, remaining option -- but we should point out, there was certainly debate on if the soviets would not win the culture or economic battle, at least for quite a while, because there was certainly a chance they could, but it didn't pan out (more on this below) -- The Soviets and communism had many proponents around the world , even in the west Internally- Talking about internal Soviet politics will get you nowhere. Life in the Soviet sphere wasn't like the west, but it was a different type of life and the life that many people there viewed as normal and the right way to live and the right ideology behind it. It also would not at all be strange for an average Soviet person, especially those not close to the west and those in more rural or less developed areas, to simply have no concept of how wildly far they were behind economically and culturally. And it was wildly far behind-- but it also wasn't the type of life that every soviet wanted to live, and even when things changed, it didn't change for better for everyone, especially at first. The Soviets made sure people didn't know and continued to push their way of life as the proper one and drastically funded projects for the government and military over civilian ones. And just to be clear, the soviet economy and govt simply worked terribly as well.","human_ref_B":"The Soviet Union had no famines after 1947, and they only had one that late due to the after effects of WW2. The Soviet Union was poor, but it wasn\u2019t *that poor.* There might be a long line for bread, but there would be bread, or something else. As an empire they rarely had overall shortages, but distribution was very patchy. So party officials used their travels to buy, say, goods in Vladivostok that weren\u2019t available in Moscow, and goods in Moscow you couldn\u2019t buy in Leningrad. Don\u2019t confuse them with North Korea (although even they managed somewhat alright until the USSR collapsed and their support vanished).","labels":0,"seconds_difference":11029.0,"score_ratio":9.5625} {"post_id":"ww9xv6","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How was the Soviet Union, despite being so poor that people were starving to death in famines, rival the US for the better part of a century?","c_root_id_A":"ilk0vkk","c_root_id_B":"ilkfv5l","created_at_utc_A":1661316725,"created_at_utc_B":1661327654,"score_A":4,"score_B":153,"human_ref_A":"I've heard the idea that they were depicted as more powerful than they actually were so that the US government could give crazy amounts of money to weapons manufacturers and other military suppliers, while those businesses gave plenty of campaign contributions to their politician buddies and created jobs in their home states. President Eisenhower called it the \"military-industrial complex.\" He warned America about it, but the American mass media helped us to ignore his words. We helped the Soviet Union along--when they had a food shortage in the '70's, we sold them a lot of grain, because we needed that bogeyman to keep the tax money flowing.","human_ref_B":"The Soviet Union had no famines after 1947, and they only had one that late due to the after effects of WW2. The Soviet Union was poor, but it wasn\u2019t *that poor.* There might be a long line for bread, but there would be bread, or something else. As an empire they rarely had overall shortages, but distribution was very patchy. So party officials used their travels to buy, say, goods in Vladivostok that weren\u2019t available in Moscow, and goods in Moscow you couldn\u2019t buy in Leningrad. Don\u2019t confuse them with North Korea (although even they managed somewhat alright until the USSR collapsed and their support vanished).","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10929.0,"score_ratio":38.25} {"post_id":"ww9xv6","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How was the Soviet Union, despite being so poor that people were starving to death in famines, rival the US for the better part of a century?","c_root_id_A":"iljzr6r","c_root_id_B":"ilkfv5l","created_at_utc_A":1661316037,"created_at_utc_B":1661327654,"score_A":2,"score_B":153,"human_ref_A":"They prioritized their military above making sure everyone was fed. I don't know the specifics, but I lived through those times and things were pretty fanatical. I guess if everyone is afraid of being vaporized they can put up with a massive famine here and there. It was terrifying here in the States too, sometimes.","human_ref_B":"The Soviet Union had no famines after 1947, and they only had one that late due to the after effects of WW2. The Soviet Union was poor, but it wasn\u2019t *that poor.* There might be a long line for bread, but there would be bread, or something else. As an empire they rarely had overall shortages, but distribution was very patchy. So party officials used their travels to buy, say, goods in Vladivostok that weren\u2019t available in Moscow, and goods in Moscow you couldn\u2019t buy in Leningrad. Don\u2019t confuse them with North Korea (although even they managed somewhat alright until the USSR collapsed and their support vanished).","labels":0,"seconds_difference":11617.0,"score_ratio":76.5} {"post_id":"ww9xv6","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How was the Soviet Union, despite being so poor that people were starving to death in famines, rival the US for the better part of a century?","c_root_id_A":"ilk1w0o","c_root_id_B":"ilkfv5l","created_at_utc_A":1661317369,"created_at_utc_B":1661327654,"score_A":2,"score_B":153,"human_ref_A":"same reason as today the entire russian military budget $20 billion 1 u.s. air craft carrier $15 billion (we have 10 air craft carriers) total number of nuclear bombs? russia: 6,000 u.s.: 3700 if they cant win with guns they could just start nuking shit.","human_ref_B":"The Soviet Union had no famines after 1947, and they only had one that late due to the after effects of WW2. The Soviet Union was poor, but it wasn\u2019t *that poor.* There might be a long line for bread, but there would be bread, or something else. As an empire they rarely had overall shortages, but distribution was very patchy. So party officials used their travels to buy, say, goods in Vladivostok that weren\u2019t available in Moscow, and goods in Moscow you couldn\u2019t buy in Leningrad. Don\u2019t confuse them with North Korea (although even they managed somewhat alright until the USSR collapsed and their support vanished).","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10285.0,"score_ratio":76.5} {"post_id":"ww9xv6","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How was the Soviet Union, despite being so poor that people were starving to death in famines, rival the US for the better part of a century?","c_root_id_A":"ilk7se9","c_root_id_B":"ilk0pwh","created_at_utc_A":1661321419,"created_at_utc_B":1661316625,"score_A":42,"score_B":16,"human_ref_A":"By the time of the Cold War there weren\u2019t famines in the Soviet Union anymore. The USSR always greatly lagged behind the U.S. in the production of consumer goods, but a large part of this way because they focused on heavy industry, which is a huge part of the reason why they were a powerful rival.","human_ref_B":"First of all, nukes and a massive military. The Soviet\/Warsaw Pact Military was every bit a rival technologically to the west, and generally superior in forces, especially in ground forces, and their nuclear forces were on par with the west in nearly every aspect. Second- A Soviet attack was expected -- not an if but a when. This meant that the West needed to be on its toes at all times. The soviets could be screwed up, poor, anything, but they had the might and ability to attack and could do so in a terrible, horrible way. To a degree, even in their poorness, it meant the military option seemed more pressing, if the soviets (eventually) realized they can't win economics, culture, or ideology, then a military victory starts to seem like one of the few, if not only, remaining option -- but we should point out, there was certainly debate on if the soviets would not win the culture or economic battle, at least for quite a while, because there was certainly a chance they could, but it didn't pan out (more on this below) -- The Soviets and communism had many proponents around the world , even in the west Internally- Talking about internal Soviet politics will get you nowhere. Life in the Soviet sphere wasn't like the west, but it was a different type of life and the life that many people there viewed as normal and the right way to live and the right ideology behind it. It also would not at all be strange for an average Soviet person, especially those not close to the west and those in more rural or less developed areas, to simply have no concept of how wildly far they were behind economically and culturally. And it was wildly far behind-- but it also wasn't the type of life that every soviet wanted to live, and even when things changed, it didn't change for better for everyone, especially at first. The Soviets made sure people didn't know and continued to push their way of life as the proper one and drastically funded projects for the government and military over civilian ones. And just to be clear, the soviet economy and govt simply worked terribly as well.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4794.0,"score_ratio":2.625} {"post_id":"ww9xv6","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How was the Soviet Union, despite being so poor that people were starving to death in famines, rival the US for the better part of a century?","c_root_id_A":"ilk0vkk","c_root_id_B":"ilk7se9","created_at_utc_A":1661316725,"created_at_utc_B":1661321419,"score_A":4,"score_B":42,"human_ref_A":"I've heard the idea that they were depicted as more powerful than they actually were so that the US government could give crazy amounts of money to weapons manufacturers and other military suppliers, while those businesses gave plenty of campaign contributions to their politician buddies and created jobs in their home states. President Eisenhower called it the \"military-industrial complex.\" He warned America about it, but the American mass media helped us to ignore his words. We helped the Soviet Union along--when they had a food shortage in the '70's, we sold them a lot of grain, because we needed that bogeyman to keep the tax money flowing.","human_ref_B":"By the time of the Cold War there weren\u2019t famines in the Soviet Union anymore. The USSR always greatly lagged behind the U.S. in the production of consumer goods, but a large part of this way because they focused on heavy industry, which is a huge part of the reason why they were a powerful rival.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4694.0,"score_ratio":10.5} {"post_id":"ww9xv6","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How was the Soviet Union, despite being so poor that people were starving to death in famines, rival the US for the better part of a century?","c_root_id_A":"ilk7se9","c_root_id_B":"iljzr6r","created_at_utc_A":1661321419,"created_at_utc_B":1661316037,"score_A":42,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"By the time of the Cold War there weren\u2019t famines in the Soviet Union anymore. The USSR always greatly lagged behind the U.S. in the production of consumer goods, but a large part of this way because they focused on heavy industry, which is a huge part of the reason why they were a powerful rival.","human_ref_B":"They prioritized their military above making sure everyone was fed. I don't know the specifics, but I lived through those times and things were pretty fanatical. I guess if everyone is afraid of being vaporized they can put up with a massive famine here and there. It was terrifying here in the States too, sometimes.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5382.0,"score_ratio":21.0} {"post_id":"ww9xv6","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How was the Soviet Union, despite being so poor that people were starving to death in famines, rival the US for the better part of a century?","c_root_id_A":"ilk7se9","c_root_id_B":"ilk1w0o","created_at_utc_A":1661321419,"created_at_utc_B":1661317369,"score_A":42,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"By the time of the Cold War there weren\u2019t famines in the Soviet Union anymore. The USSR always greatly lagged behind the U.S. in the production of consumer goods, but a large part of this way because they focused on heavy industry, which is a huge part of the reason why they were a powerful rival.","human_ref_B":"same reason as today the entire russian military budget $20 billion 1 u.s. air craft carrier $15 billion (we have 10 air craft carriers) total number of nuclear bombs? russia: 6,000 u.s.: 3700 if they cant win with guns they could just start nuking shit.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4050.0,"score_ratio":21.0} {"post_id":"ww9xv6","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How was the Soviet Union, despite being so poor that people were starving to death in famines, rival the US for the better part of a century?","c_root_id_A":"ilk0pwh","c_root_id_B":"illkaj6","created_at_utc_A":1661316625,"created_at_utc_B":1661351505,"score_A":16,"score_B":22,"human_ref_A":"First of all, nukes and a massive military. The Soviet\/Warsaw Pact Military was every bit a rival technologically to the west, and generally superior in forces, especially in ground forces, and their nuclear forces were on par with the west in nearly every aspect. Second- A Soviet attack was expected -- not an if but a when. This meant that the West needed to be on its toes at all times. The soviets could be screwed up, poor, anything, but they had the might and ability to attack and could do so in a terrible, horrible way. To a degree, even in their poorness, it meant the military option seemed more pressing, if the soviets (eventually) realized they can't win economics, culture, or ideology, then a military victory starts to seem like one of the few, if not only, remaining option -- but we should point out, there was certainly debate on if the soviets would not win the culture or economic battle, at least for quite a while, because there was certainly a chance they could, but it didn't pan out (more on this below) -- The Soviets and communism had many proponents around the world , even in the west Internally- Talking about internal Soviet politics will get you nowhere. Life in the Soviet sphere wasn't like the west, but it was a different type of life and the life that many people there viewed as normal and the right way to live and the right ideology behind it. It also would not at all be strange for an average Soviet person, especially those not close to the west and those in more rural or less developed areas, to simply have no concept of how wildly far they were behind economically and culturally. And it was wildly far behind-- but it also wasn't the type of life that every soviet wanted to live, and even when things changed, it didn't change for better for everyone, especially at first. The Soviets made sure people didn't know and continued to push their way of life as the proper one and drastically funded projects for the government and military over civilian ones. And just to be clear, the soviet economy and govt simply worked terribly as well.","human_ref_B":"In the 1970s, the average soviet had higher caloric intake than the average American. They weren't starving. But, both countries had a really good propaganda machine to convince their citizens the other team is backwards. The phenomenon your describing might be a product of this. This article may be of interest: https:\/\/nintil.com\/the-soviet-union-food\/","labels":0,"seconds_difference":34880.0,"score_ratio":1.375} {"post_id":"ww9xv6","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How was the Soviet Union, despite being so poor that people were starving to death in famines, rival the US for the better part of a century?","c_root_id_A":"illkaj6","c_root_id_B":"ill052o","created_at_utc_A":1661351505,"created_at_utc_B":1661342383,"score_A":22,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"In the 1970s, the average soviet had higher caloric intake than the average American. They weren't starving. But, both countries had a really good propaganda machine to convince their citizens the other team is backwards. The phenomenon your describing might be a product of this. This article may be of interest: https:\/\/nintil.com\/the-soviet-union-food\/","human_ref_B":"Look up trofim Lysenko, a russian \u201cscientist\u201d (barely can call him that) who single handedly influenced Russia\u2019s struggle with famine through his denial of mendelian genetics and other crazy ideas. He\u2019s considered to have killed millions and millions of people through his wacky beliefs (such as that genes do not exist and you make a plant change species to another plant that can tolerate the cold by freezing the seeds and then planting them etc). while famine has a whole host of factors, if your interested in why Russia struggled with famine while being an economic superpower than a simple answer is they put Lysenko in charge of all agricultural decisions for the country and everything was downhill from there. (His ideas also were spread to China at the time exponentially affecting the existing famine and causing so much more death) https:\/\/www.encyclopedia.com\/science\/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps\/disastrous-effects-lysenkoism-soviet-agriculture https:\/\/en.m.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Lysenkoism https:\/\/www.theatlantic.com\/science\/archive\/2017\/12\/trofim-lysenko-soviet-union-russia\/548786\/","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9122.0,"score_ratio":2.75} {"post_id":"ww9xv6","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How was the Soviet Union, despite being so poor that people were starving to death in famines, rival the US for the better part of a century?","c_root_id_A":"ilk0vkk","c_root_id_B":"illkaj6","created_at_utc_A":1661316725,"created_at_utc_B":1661351505,"score_A":4,"score_B":22,"human_ref_A":"I've heard the idea that they were depicted as more powerful than they actually were so that the US government could give crazy amounts of money to weapons manufacturers and other military suppliers, while those businesses gave plenty of campaign contributions to their politician buddies and created jobs in their home states. President Eisenhower called it the \"military-industrial complex.\" He warned America about it, but the American mass media helped us to ignore his words. We helped the Soviet Union along--when they had a food shortage in the '70's, we sold them a lot of grain, because we needed that bogeyman to keep the tax money flowing.","human_ref_B":"In the 1970s, the average soviet had higher caloric intake than the average American. They weren't starving. But, both countries had a really good propaganda machine to convince their citizens the other team is backwards. The phenomenon your describing might be a product of this. This article may be of interest: https:\/\/nintil.com\/the-soviet-union-food\/","labels":0,"seconds_difference":34780.0,"score_ratio":5.5} {"post_id":"ww9xv6","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How was the Soviet Union, despite being so poor that people were starving to death in famines, rival the US for the better part of a century?","c_root_id_A":"illkaj6","c_root_id_B":"iljzr6r","created_at_utc_A":1661351505,"created_at_utc_B":1661316037,"score_A":22,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"In the 1970s, the average soviet had higher caloric intake than the average American. They weren't starving. But, both countries had a really good propaganda machine to convince their citizens the other team is backwards. The phenomenon your describing might be a product of this. This article may be of interest: https:\/\/nintil.com\/the-soviet-union-food\/","human_ref_B":"They prioritized their military above making sure everyone was fed. I don't know the specifics, but I lived through those times and things were pretty fanatical. I guess if everyone is afraid of being vaporized they can put up with a massive famine here and there. It was terrifying here in the States too, sometimes.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":35468.0,"score_ratio":11.0} {"post_id":"ww9xv6","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How was the Soviet Union, despite being so poor that people were starving to death in famines, rival the US for the better part of a century?","c_root_id_A":"illkaj6","c_root_id_B":"ilks64s","created_at_utc_A":1661351505,"created_at_utc_B":1661337510,"score_A":22,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"In the 1970s, the average soviet had higher caloric intake than the average American. They weren't starving. But, both countries had a really good propaganda machine to convince their citizens the other team is backwards. The phenomenon your describing might be a product of this. This article may be of interest: https:\/\/nintil.com\/the-soviet-union-food\/","human_ref_B":"People starving in famines and rivaling the US actually happened in different parts of that century - approximately 1920-1940s for starving and 1950-1980s for rivaling.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":13995.0,"score_ratio":11.0} {"post_id":"ww9xv6","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How was the Soviet Union, despite being so poor that people were starving to death in famines, rival the US for the better part of a century?","c_root_id_A":"illkaj6","c_root_id_B":"illibtc","created_at_utc_A":1661351505,"created_at_utc_B":1661350715,"score_A":22,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"In the 1970s, the average soviet had higher caloric intake than the average American. They weren't starving. But, both countries had a really good propaganda machine to convince their citizens the other team is backwards. The phenomenon your describing might be a product of this. This article may be of interest: https:\/\/nintil.com\/the-soviet-union-food\/","human_ref_B":"Central planning allowed them to allocate a far greater percentage of their total economic output to matching the US military-industrial complex. At the expense of consumer goods. You didn\u2019t have famines after the war, but you did have things like way fewer cars per capita, way less radios and TVs, fewer choices of food, etc. Their downfall was caused by a confluence of factors, three of which are as follows: energy prices dropped like a rock in the 80s (their economy was heavily dependent on energy exports just like today), they got themselves mired in a decade long unsuccessful war in Afghanistan, and thirdly their attempt to transition to a \u201cmarket socialist\u201d system like China has today was botched.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":790.0,"score_ratio":11.0} {"post_id":"ww9xv6","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How was the Soviet Union, despite being so poor that people were starving to death in famines, rival the US for the better part of a century?","c_root_id_A":"illkaj6","c_root_id_B":"ilk1w0o","created_at_utc_A":1661351505,"created_at_utc_B":1661317369,"score_A":22,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"In the 1970s, the average soviet had higher caloric intake than the average American. They weren't starving. But, both countries had a really good propaganda machine to convince their citizens the other team is backwards. The phenomenon your describing might be a product of this. This article may be of interest: https:\/\/nintil.com\/the-soviet-union-food\/","human_ref_B":"same reason as today the entire russian military budget $20 billion 1 u.s. air craft carrier $15 billion (we have 10 air craft carriers) total number of nuclear bombs? russia: 6,000 u.s.: 3700 if they cant win with guns they could just start nuking shit.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":34136.0,"score_ratio":11.0} {"post_id":"ww9xv6","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How was the Soviet Union, despite being so poor that people were starving to death in famines, rival the US for the better part of a century?","c_root_id_A":"ilk0pwh","c_root_id_B":"iljzr6r","created_at_utc_A":1661316625,"created_at_utc_B":1661316037,"score_A":16,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"First of all, nukes and a massive military. The Soviet\/Warsaw Pact Military was every bit a rival technologically to the west, and generally superior in forces, especially in ground forces, and their nuclear forces were on par with the west in nearly every aspect. Second- A Soviet attack was expected -- not an if but a when. This meant that the West needed to be on its toes at all times. The soviets could be screwed up, poor, anything, but they had the might and ability to attack and could do so in a terrible, horrible way. To a degree, even in their poorness, it meant the military option seemed more pressing, if the soviets (eventually) realized they can't win economics, culture, or ideology, then a military victory starts to seem like one of the few, if not only, remaining option -- but we should point out, there was certainly debate on if the soviets would not win the culture or economic battle, at least for quite a while, because there was certainly a chance they could, but it didn't pan out (more on this below) -- The Soviets and communism had many proponents around the world , even in the west Internally- Talking about internal Soviet politics will get you nowhere. Life in the Soviet sphere wasn't like the west, but it was a different type of life and the life that many people there viewed as normal and the right way to live and the right ideology behind it. It also would not at all be strange for an average Soviet person, especially those not close to the west and those in more rural or less developed areas, to simply have no concept of how wildly far they were behind economically and culturally. And it was wildly far behind-- but it also wasn't the type of life that every soviet wanted to live, and even when things changed, it didn't change for better for everyone, especially at first. The Soviets made sure people didn't know and continued to push their way of life as the proper one and drastically funded projects for the government and military over civilian ones. And just to be clear, the soviet economy and govt simply worked terribly as well.","human_ref_B":"They prioritized their military above making sure everyone was fed. I don't know the specifics, but I lived through those times and things were pretty fanatical. I guess if everyone is afraid of being vaporized they can put up with a massive famine here and there. It was terrifying here in the States too, sometimes.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":588.0,"score_ratio":8.0} {"post_id":"ww9xv6","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How was the Soviet Union, despite being so poor that people were starving to death in famines, rival the US for the better part of a century?","c_root_id_A":"ill052o","c_root_id_B":"ilk0vkk","created_at_utc_A":1661342383,"created_at_utc_B":1661316725,"score_A":8,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Look up trofim Lysenko, a russian \u201cscientist\u201d (barely can call him that) who single handedly influenced Russia\u2019s struggle with famine through his denial of mendelian genetics and other crazy ideas. He\u2019s considered to have killed millions and millions of people through his wacky beliefs (such as that genes do not exist and you make a plant change species to another plant that can tolerate the cold by freezing the seeds and then planting them etc). while famine has a whole host of factors, if your interested in why Russia struggled with famine while being an economic superpower than a simple answer is they put Lysenko in charge of all agricultural decisions for the country and everything was downhill from there. (His ideas also were spread to China at the time exponentially affecting the existing famine and causing so much more death) https:\/\/www.encyclopedia.com\/science\/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps\/disastrous-effects-lysenkoism-soviet-agriculture https:\/\/en.m.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Lysenkoism https:\/\/www.theatlantic.com\/science\/archive\/2017\/12\/trofim-lysenko-soviet-union-russia\/548786\/","human_ref_B":"I've heard the idea that they were depicted as more powerful than they actually were so that the US government could give crazy amounts of money to weapons manufacturers and other military suppliers, while those businesses gave plenty of campaign contributions to their politician buddies and created jobs in their home states. President Eisenhower called it the \"military-industrial complex.\" He warned America about it, but the American mass media helped us to ignore his words. We helped the Soviet Union along--when they had a food shortage in the '70's, we sold them a lot of grain, because we needed that bogeyman to keep the tax money flowing.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":25658.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"ww9xv6","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How was the Soviet Union, despite being so poor that people were starving to death in famines, rival the US for the better part of a century?","c_root_id_A":"ill052o","c_root_id_B":"iljzr6r","created_at_utc_A":1661342383,"created_at_utc_B":1661316037,"score_A":8,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Look up trofim Lysenko, a russian \u201cscientist\u201d (barely can call him that) who single handedly influenced Russia\u2019s struggle with famine through his denial of mendelian genetics and other crazy ideas. He\u2019s considered to have killed millions and millions of people through his wacky beliefs (such as that genes do not exist and you make a plant change species to another plant that can tolerate the cold by freezing the seeds and then planting them etc). while famine has a whole host of factors, if your interested in why Russia struggled with famine while being an economic superpower than a simple answer is they put Lysenko in charge of all agricultural decisions for the country and everything was downhill from there. (His ideas also were spread to China at the time exponentially affecting the existing famine and causing so much more death) https:\/\/www.encyclopedia.com\/science\/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps\/disastrous-effects-lysenkoism-soviet-agriculture https:\/\/en.m.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Lysenkoism https:\/\/www.theatlantic.com\/science\/archive\/2017\/12\/trofim-lysenko-soviet-union-russia\/548786\/","human_ref_B":"They prioritized their military above making sure everyone was fed. I don't know the specifics, but I lived through those times and things were pretty fanatical. I guess if everyone is afraid of being vaporized they can put up with a massive famine here and there. It was terrifying here in the States too, sometimes.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":26346.0,"score_ratio":4.0} {"post_id":"ww9xv6","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How was the Soviet Union, despite being so poor that people were starving to death in famines, rival the US for the better part of a century?","c_root_id_A":"ilks64s","c_root_id_B":"ill052o","created_at_utc_A":1661337510,"created_at_utc_B":1661342383,"score_A":2,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"People starving in famines and rivaling the US actually happened in different parts of that century - approximately 1920-1940s for starving and 1950-1980s for rivaling.","human_ref_B":"Look up trofim Lysenko, a russian \u201cscientist\u201d (barely can call him that) who single handedly influenced Russia\u2019s struggle with famine through his denial of mendelian genetics and other crazy ideas. He\u2019s considered to have killed millions and millions of people through his wacky beliefs (such as that genes do not exist and you make a plant change species to another plant that can tolerate the cold by freezing the seeds and then planting them etc). while famine has a whole host of factors, if your interested in why Russia struggled with famine while being an economic superpower than a simple answer is they put Lysenko in charge of all agricultural decisions for the country and everything was downhill from there. (His ideas also were spread to China at the time exponentially affecting the existing famine and causing so much more death) https:\/\/www.encyclopedia.com\/science\/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps\/disastrous-effects-lysenkoism-soviet-agriculture https:\/\/en.m.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Lysenkoism https:\/\/www.theatlantic.com\/science\/archive\/2017\/12\/trofim-lysenko-soviet-union-russia\/548786\/","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4873.0,"score_ratio":4.0} {"post_id":"ww9xv6","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How was the Soviet Union, despite being so poor that people were starving to death in famines, rival the US for the better part of a century?","c_root_id_A":"ill052o","c_root_id_B":"ilk1w0o","created_at_utc_A":1661342383,"created_at_utc_B":1661317369,"score_A":8,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Look up trofim Lysenko, a russian \u201cscientist\u201d (barely can call him that) who single handedly influenced Russia\u2019s struggle with famine through his denial of mendelian genetics and other crazy ideas. He\u2019s considered to have killed millions and millions of people through his wacky beliefs (such as that genes do not exist and you make a plant change species to another plant that can tolerate the cold by freezing the seeds and then planting them etc). while famine has a whole host of factors, if your interested in why Russia struggled with famine while being an economic superpower than a simple answer is they put Lysenko in charge of all agricultural decisions for the country and everything was downhill from there. (His ideas also were spread to China at the time exponentially affecting the existing famine and causing so much more death) https:\/\/www.encyclopedia.com\/science\/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps\/disastrous-effects-lysenkoism-soviet-agriculture https:\/\/en.m.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Lysenkoism https:\/\/www.theatlantic.com\/science\/archive\/2017\/12\/trofim-lysenko-soviet-union-russia\/548786\/","human_ref_B":"same reason as today the entire russian military budget $20 billion 1 u.s. air craft carrier $15 billion (we have 10 air craft carriers) total number of nuclear bombs? russia: 6,000 u.s.: 3700 if they cant win with guns they could just start nuking shit.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":25014.0,"score_ratio":4.0} {"post_id":"ww9xv6","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How was the Soviet Union, despite being so poor that people were starving to death in famines, rival the US for the better part of a century?","c_root_id_A":"ilk0vkk","c_root_id_B":"iljzr6r","created_at_utc_A":1661316725,"created_at_utc_B":1661316037,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I've heard the idea that they were depicted as more powerful than they actually were so that the US government could give crazy amounts of money to weapons manufacturers and other military suppliers, while those businesses gave plenty of campaign contributions to their politician buddies and created jobs in their home states. President Eisenhower called it the \"military-industrial complex.\" He warned America about it, but the American mass media helped us to ignore his words. We helped the Soviet Union along--when they had a food shortage in the '70's, we sold them a lot of grain, because we needed that bogeyman to keep the tax money flowing.","human_ref_B":"They prioritized their military above making sure everyone was fed. I don't know the specifics, but I lived through those times and things were pretty fanatical. I guess if everyone is afraid of being vaporized they can put up with a massive famine here and there. It was terrifying here in the States too, sometimes.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":688.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"ww9xv6","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How was the Soviet Union, despite being so poor that people were starving to death in famines, rival the US for the better part of a century?","c_root_id_A":"illl26w","c_root_id_B":"iljzr6r","created_at_utc_A":1661351816,"created_at_utc_B":1661316037,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"People never really starved. They had very little choice in what they ate but they made due just fine for most part.","human_ref_B":"They prioritized their military above making sure everyone was fed. I don't know the specifics, but I lived through those times and things were pretty fanatical. I guess if everyone is afraid of being vaporized they can put up with a massive famine here and there. It was terrifying here in the States too, sometimes.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":35779.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"ww9xv6","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How was the Soviet Union, despite being so poor that people were starving to death in famines, rival the US for the better part of a century?","c_root_id_A":"illl26w","c_root_id_B":"ilks64s","created_at_utc_A":1661351816,"created_at_utc_B":1661337510,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"People never really starved. They had very little choice in what they ate but they made due just fine for most part.","human_ref_B":"People starving in famines and rivaling the US actually happened in different parts of that century - approximately 1920-1940s for starving and 1950-1980s for rivaling.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":14306.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"ww9xv6","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How was the Soviet Union, despite being so poor that people were starving to death in famines, rival the US for the better part of a century?","c_root_id_A":"illibtc","c_root_id_B":"illl26w","created_at_utc_A":1661350715,"created_at_utc_B":1661351816,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Central planning allowed them to allocate a far greater percentage of their total economic output to matching the US military-industrial complex. At the expense of consumer goods. You didn\u2019t have famines after the war, but you did have things like way fewer cars per capita, way less radios and TVs, fewer choices of food, etc. Their downfall was caused by a confluence of factors, three of which are as follows: energy prices dropped like a rock in the 80s (their economy was heavily dependent on energy exports just like today), they got themselves mired in a decade long unsuccessful war in Afghanistan, and thirdly their attempt to transition to a \u201cmarket socialist\u201d system like China has today was botched.","human_ref_B":"People never really starved. They had very little choice in what they ate but they made due just fine for most part.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1101.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"ww9xv6","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How was the Soviet Union, despite being so poor that people were starving to death in famines, rival the US for the better part of a century?","c_root_id_A":"ilk1w0o","c_root_id_B":"illl26w","created_at_utc_A":1661317369,"created_at_utc_B":1661351816,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"same reason as today the entire russian military budget $20 billion 1 u.s. air craft carrier $15 billion (we have 10 air craft carriers) total number of nuclear bombs? russia: 6,000 u.s.: 3700 if they cant win with guns they could just start nuking shit.","human_ref_B":"People never really starved. They had very little choice in what they ate but they made due just fine for most part.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":34447.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"ww9xv6","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How was the Soviet Union, despite being so poor that people were starving to death in famines, rival the US for the better part of a century?","c_root_id_A":"iljzr6r","c_root_id_B":"ilmr0fw","created_at_utc_A":1661316037,"created_at_utc_B":1661367795,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"They prioritized their military above making sure everyone was fed. I don't know the specifics, but I lived through those times and things were pretty fanatical. I guess if everyone is afraid of being vaporized they can put up with a massive famine here and there. It was terrifying here in the States too, sometimes.","human_ref_B":"\"Poor\" is relative. Like, it's all about valuation in terms of supply and demand. If there is limited supply of something, it increases the demand. If something has a high demand, it increases the value. However, inversely, if something has a high supply, it reduces the demand, which in turn reduces the value. A core tenant of post-Stalin USSR was to provide to everyone that which they need. So let's just take food as one example. In the USSR, there was infrastructure to provide people food at cost. People focus on the breadlines of the 80s, but the fact of the matter is, it was a priority to feed people first, and worry about productivity second. This is opposed to the US, who will stockpile food to reduce supply, so that demand increases, as does the price and value of the food. So if a country provides it's food to people at cost, it cannot profit off of food, which reduces the overall value of the food. If a country restricts its supply of food, it increases the price and value of the food, so some people start to profit immensely off of it as others starve. However, then the value of the US economy is higher, just because they are willing to restrict the supply of things that humans need to survive. Another thing Americans love to talk about is the people that starved in the USSR, completely ignoring that in the 20th century, millions of Americans starved to death as well.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":51758.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"ww9xv6","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How was the Soviet Union, despite being so poor that people were starving to death in famines, rival the US for the better part of a century?","c_root_id_A":"ilmr0fw","c_root_id_B":"ilks64s","created_at_utc_A":1661367795,"created_at_utc_B":1661337510,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"\"Poor\" is relative. Like, it's all about valuation in terms of supply and demand. If there is limited supply of something, it increases the demand. If something has a high demand, it increases the value. However, inversely, if something has a high supply, it reduces the demand, which in turn reduces the value. A core tenant of post-Stalin USSR was to provide to everyone that which they need. So let's just take food as one example. In the USSR, there was infrastructure to provide people food at cost. People focus on the breadlines of the 80s, but the fact of the matter is, it was a priority to feed people first, and worry about productivity second. This is opposed to the US, who will stockpile food to reduce supply, so that demand increases, as does the price and value of the food. So if a country provides it's food to people at cost, it cannot profit off of food, which reduces the overall value of the food. If a country restricts its supply of food, it increases the price and value of the food, so some people start to profit immensely off of it as others starve. However, then the value of the US economy is higher, just because they are willing to restrict the supply of things that humans need to survive. Another thing Americans love to talk about is the people that starved in the USSR, completely ignoring that in the 20th century, millions of Americans starved to death as well.","human_ref_B":"People starving in famines and rivaling the US actually happened in different parts of that century - approximately 1920-1940s for starving and 1950-1980s for rivaling.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":30285.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"ww9xv6","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How was the Soviet Union, despite being so poor that people were starving to death in famines, rival the US for the better part of a century?","c_root_id_A":"ilmr0fw","c_root_id_B":"illibtc","created_at_utc_A":1661367795,"created_at_utc_B":1661350715,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"\"Poor\" is relative. Like, it's all about valuation in terms of supply and demand. If there is limited supply of something, it increases the demand. If something has a high demand, it increases the value. However, inversely, if something has a high supply, it reduces the demand, which in turn reduces the value. A core tenant of post-Stalin USSR was to provide to everyone that which they need. So let's just take food as one example. In the USSR, there was infrastructure to provide people food at cost. People focus on the breadlines of the 80s, but the fact of the matter is, it was a priority to feed people first, and worry about productivity second. This is opposed to the US, who will stockpile food to reduce supply, so that demand increases, as does the price and value of the food. So if a country provides it's food to people at cost, it cannot profit off of food, which reduces the overall value of the food. If a country restricts its supply of food, it increases the price and value of the food, so some people start to profit immensely off of it as others starve. However, then the value of the US economy is higher, just because they are willing to restrict the supply of things that humans need to survive. Another thing Americans love to talk about is the people that starved in the USSR, completely ignoring that in the 20th century, millions of Americans starved to death as well.","human_ref_B":"Central planning allowed them to allocate a far greater percentage of their total economic output to matching the US military-industrial complex. At the expense of consumer goods. You didn\u2019t have famines after the war, but you did have things like way fewer cars per capita, way less radios and TVs, fewer choices of food, etc. Their downfall was caused by a confluence of factors, three of which are as follows: energy prices dropped like a rock in the 80s (their economy was heavily dependent on energy exports just like today), they got themselves mired in a decade long unsuccessful war in Afghanistan, and thirdly their attempt to transition to a \u201cmarket socialist\u201d system like China has today was botched.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":17080.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"ww9xv6","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How was the Soviet Union, despite being so poor that people were starving to death in famines, rival the US for the better part of a century?","c_root_id_A":"illny3e","c_root_id_B":"ilmr0fw","created_at_utc_A":1661352979,"created_at_utc_B":1661367795,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"China is considered a rival and the disparity is far greater between China and US compared to USSR","human_ref_B":"\"Poor\" is relative. Like, it's all about valuation in terms of supply and demand. If there is limited supply of something, it increases the demand. If something has a high demand, it increases the value. However, inversely, if something has a high supply, it reduces the demand, which in turn reduces the value. A core tenant of post-Stalin USSR was to provide to everyone that which they need. So let's just take food as one example. In the USSR, there was infrastructure to provide people food at cost. People focus on the breadlines of the 80s, but the fact of the matter is, it was a priority to feed people first, and worry about productivity second. This is opposed to the US, who will stockpile food to reduce supply, so that demand increases, as does the price and value of the food. So if a country provides it's food to people at cost, it cannot profit off of food, which reduces the overall value of the food. If a country restricts its supply of food, it increases the price and value of the food, so some people start to profit immensely off of it as others starve. However, then the value of the US economy is higher, just because they are willing to restrict the supply of things that humans need to survive. Another thing Americans love to talk about is the people that starved in the USSR, completely ignoring that in the 20th century, millions of Americans starved to death as well.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":14816.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"ww9xv6","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How was the Soviet Union, despite being so poor that people were starving to death in famines, rival the US for the better part of a century?","c_root_id_A":"ilmr0fw","c_root_id_B":"illpk6p","created_at_utc_A":1661367795,"created_at_utc_B":1661353625,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"\"Poor\" is relative. Like, it's all about valuation in terms of supply and demand. If there is limited supply of something, it increases the demand. If something has a high demand, it increases the value. However, inversely, if something has a high supply, it reduces the demand, which in turn reduces the value. A core tenant of post-Stalin USSR was to provide to everyone that which they need. So let's just take food as one example. In the USSR, there was infrastructure to provide people food at cost. People focus on the breadlines of the 80s, but the fact of the matter is, it was a priority to feed people first, and worry about productivity second. This is opposed to the US, who will stockpile food to reduce supply, so that demand increases, as does the price and value of the food. So if a country provides it's food to people at cost, it cannot profit off of food, which reduces the overall value of the food. If a country restricts its supply of food, it increases the price and value of the food, so some people start to profit immensely off of it as others starve. However, then the value of the US economy is higher, just because they are willing to restrict the supply of things that humans need to survive. Another thing Americans love to talk about is the people that starved in the USSR, completely ignoring that in the 20th century, millions of Americans starved to death as well.","human_ref_B":"The Soviet Union's command economy was pretty good for churning out simple weapons of war in massive quantities. That made them a rival to the USA up until the rise of the microprocessor in the late 1970's. The microprocessor began to shift the economies of the West from heavy industry to technology. The Communist countries couldn't keep up with the rate of innovation in the US technology sector. By the mid-1980's the Soviets saw they were in trouble, but it was too late to change.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":14170.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"ww9xv6","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How was the Soviet Union, despite being so poor that people were starving to death in famines, rival the US for the better part of a century?","c_root_id_A":"ilm3bhj","c_root_id_B":"ilmr0fw","created_at_utc_A":1661358897,"created_at_utc_B":1661367795,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"technology and weapons of war. the term superpowers was first used to describe that they had the two largest militaries remaining after world war 2. it was first used to describe military power, there was no regard for other factors like economy, agriculture, etc. they mostly only rivaled each other on military strength and technology.","human_ref_B":"\"Poor\" is relative. Like, it's all about valuation in terms of supply and demand. If there is limited supply of something, it increases the demand. If something has a high demand, it increases the value. However, inversely, if something has a high supply, it reduces the demand, which in turn reduces the value. A core tenant of post-Stalin USSR was to provide to everyone that which they need. So let's just take food as one example. In the USSR, there was infrastructure to provide people food at cost. People focus on the breadlines of the 80s, but the fact of the matter is, it was a priority to feed people first, and worry about productivity second. This is opposed to the US, who will stockpile food to reduce supply, so that demand increases, as does the price and value of the food. So if a country provides it's food to people at cost, it cannot profit off of food, which reduces the overall value of the food. If a country restricts its supply of food, it increases the price and value of the food, so some people start to profit immensely off of it as others starve. However, then the value of the US economy is higher, just because they are willing to restrict the supply of things that humans need to survive. Another thing Americans love to talk about is the people that starved in the USSR, completely ignoring that in the 20th century, millions of Americans starved to death as well.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8898.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"ww9xv6","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How was the Soviet Union, despite being so poor that people were starving to death in famines, rival the US for the better part of a century?","c_root_id_A":"ilmr0fw","c_root_id_B":"ilk1w0o","created_at_utc_A":1661367795,"created_at_utc_B":1661317369,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"\"Poor\" is relative. Like, it's all about valuation in terms of supply and demand. If there is limited supply of something, it increases the demand. If something has a high demand, it increases the value. However, inversely, if something has a high supply, it reduces the demand, which in turn reduces the value. A core tenant of post-Stalin USSR was to provide to everyone that which they need. So let's just take food as one example. In the USSR, there was infrastructure to provide people food at cost. People focus on the breadlines of the 80s, but the fact of the matter is, it was a priority to feed people first, and worry about productivity second. This is opposed to the US, who will stockpile food to reduce supply, so that demand increases, as does the price and value of the food. So if a country provides it's food to people at cost, it cannot profit off of food, which reduces the overall value of the food. If a country restricts its supply of food, it increases the price and value of the food, so some people start to profit immensely off of it as others starve. However, then the value of the US economy is higher, just because they are willing to restrict the supply of things that humans need to survive. Another thing Americans love to talk about is the people that starved in the USSR, completely ignoring that in the 20th century, millions of Americans starved to death as well.","human_ref_B":"same reason as today the entire russian military budget $20 billion 1 u.s. air craft carrier $15 billion (we have 10 air craft carriers) total number of nuclear bombs? russia: 6,000 u.s.: 3700 if they cant win with guns they could just start nuking shit.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":50426.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"x0abvj","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why do teeth consistently grow crooked, but other bones don\u2019t?","c_root_id_A":"im8wnjq","c_root_id_B":"im7469l","created_at_utc_A":1661775391,"created_at_utc_B":1661733386,"score_A":7,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"You are not supposed to eat soft and ultra processed things, but you're supposed to eat hard and abbrasive things. Hard things make you build jaw muscles, jaw muscles \"stretch\" your jaw bones so you have more space. Abbrasive things remove some tooth material so they are thinner overtime.Your teeth still get closer, but slower, and the space between them only get reduced, so they don't crook, by then you'll largely have enough space for another set of teeth, the wisdom teeth. There is also other factors like genetic selection. Smaller lower jaws can bring its lot of issues like reduced airways, so these people were more likely to die earlier (so less children) until recently. Source : my tooth doctor.","human_ref_B":"bone *do* grow in lopsided and\/or otherwise funky. it happens pretty regularly. my right leg is an inch and a half longer than my left. it was a learning curve for sure but it's just how it is. my wisdom teeth grew in *horizontal*. i had them extracted. acting like there's any rhyme or reason beside chance is just silly. we all, as humans, occasionally have pretty wild defects. some worse than others, sure. but they're fairly common. and pretty vastly 'correctable', whether surgery, therapy or necessity and adaptation. adaptation in particular is what we, as human, excel at. so it's totally inline that we have all sorts of deformities. we breed like wildfire, pretty much everyone survives for quite awhile, so the deformities barely matter. so they continue.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":42005.0,"score_ratio":1.1666666667} {"post_id":"x0abvj","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why do teeth consistently grow crooked, but other bones don\u2019t?","c_root_id_A":"im8wnjq","c_root_id_B":"im72u6v","created_at_utc_A":1661775391,"created_at_utc_B":1661732750,"score_A":7,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"You are not supposed to eat soft and ultra processed things, but you're supposed to eat hard and abbrasive things. Hard things make you build jaw muscles, jaw muscles \"stretch\" your jaw bones so you have more space. Abbrasive things remove some tooth material so they are thinner overtime.Your teeth still get closer, but slower, and the space between them only get reduced, so they don't crook, by then you'll largely have enough space for another set of teeth, the wisdom teeth. There is also other factors like genetic selection. Smaller lower jaws can bring its lot of issues like reduced airways, so these people were more likely to die earlier (so less children) until recently. Source : my tooth doctor.","human_ref_B":"First, teeth are not bones. Second, you inherit the shape of your jaw and the size and shape of you teeth from your parents. You might get a small jaw and big teeth, or big jaw and small teeth. Any mixture that isn't compatible will give you crooked teeth.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":42641.0,"score_ratio":1.75} {"post_id":"x0abvj","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why do teeth consistently grow crooked, but other bones don\u2019t?","c_root_id_A":"im7469l","c_root_id_B":"im72u6v","created_at_utc_A":1661733386,"created_at_utc_B":1661732750,"score_A":6,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"bone *do* grow in lopsided and\/or otherwise funky. it happens pretty regularly. my right leg is an inch and a half longer than my left. it was a learning curve for sure but it's just how it is. my wisdom teeth grew in *horizontal*. i had them extracted. acting like there's any rhyme or reason beside chance is just silly. we all, as humans, occasionally have pretty wild defects. some worse than others, sure. but they're fairly common. and pretty vastly 'correctable', whether surgery, therapy or necessity and adaptation. adaptation in particular is what we, as human, excel at. so it's totally inline that we have all sorts of deformities. we breed like wildfire, pretty much everyone survives for quite awhile, so the deformities barely matter. so they continue.","human_ref_B":"First, teeth are not bones. Second, you inherit the shape of your jaw and the size and shape of you teeth from your parents. You might get a small jaw and big teeth, or big jaw and small teeth. Any mixture that isn't compatible will give you crooked teeth.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":636.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"vmmcni","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How does our body know\/learn not to wet the bed when we're sleeping?","c_root_id_A":"ie1thdk","c_root_id_B":"ie1wsox","created_at_utc_A":1656421516,"created_at_utc_B":1656423145,"score_A":19,"score_B":268,"human_ref_A":"This is one thing I'm dealing with currently with two of my kids. The answer is 'we don't know, they will, or should, grow out of it'. Wetting the bed after 9 or 10 could be an indication of a disorder or disease. We don't know the mechanism that causes us to learn not to pee the bed other than potentially growth and development of the body. If we knew then there wouldn't be such a big market for large children night diapers.","human_ref_B":"As an infant our bladders just fill and release. As we grow and our bladder increases in size and the muscles controlling it get stronger we learn to control that impulse. At night, two things happen. One is we release a hormone called vasopressin that suppresses the formation of urine during sleep. Instead that liquid gets reabsorbed into the bloodstream and less goes into the bladder. And secondly as our bladder fills, it sends a signal to the brain. The brain sends a signal back to the bladder telling it to relax so it can fill with more urine. As it fills that message to the brain *should* eventually result in us waking up so we can eliminate appropriately. With kids with bed wetting issues, they often have issues with either not producing enough of the hormone, not getting that signal to wake up, or other issues.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1629.0,"score_ratio":14.1052631579} {"post_id":"pl4pxk","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why are some frogs, etc., poisonous? Unless the poison is so lethal that any predators die on contact, the frog still gets eaten. How does this help survival?","c_root_id_A":"hc7wz9h","c_root_id_B":"hc7vf8n","created_at_utc_A":1631216427,"created_at_utc_B":1631215784,"score_A":38,"score_B":32,"human_ref_A":"It\u2019s not just poison, the bright coloration, instead of camouflage, alerts predators to the poison, and predators who survive then learn that those tiny frogs with bright blue markings are not safe to eat, and so poison dart frogs go uneaten, save those unlucky martyrs of frogkind. Incidentally, poison dart frogs aren\u2019t naturally poisonous, either, they get that from the poisonous insects in their normal diet, and secrete the toxin through the skin; this is why poison dart frogs born in captivity or long kept are safe to touch, they\u2019re fed nontoxic insects. EDIT: small correction, thanks.","human_ref_B":"Evolution benefits populations\u2026 if you watch your friends eat something and die, you tend not to want to try that and stay away. This benefits your kind and the frog population.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":643.0,"score_ratio":1.1875} {"post_id":"pl4pxk","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why are some frogs, etc., poisonous? Unless the poison is so lethal that any predators die on contact, the frog still gets eaten. How does this help survival?","c_root_id_A":"hc7vwbb","c_root_id_B":"hc7wz9h","created_at_utc_A":1631215983,"created_at_utc_B":1631216427,"score_A":13,"score_B":38,"human_ref_A":"Not all predators of poisonous animals die. A sick animal will tend to remember what it got ill from and avoid that animal or it's mimics in the future","human_ref_B":"It\u2019s not just poison, the bright coloration, instead of camouflage, alerts predators to the poison, and predators who survive then learn that those tiny frogs with bright blue markings are not safe to eat, and so poison dart frogs go uneaten, save those unlucky martyrs of frogkind. Incidentally, poison dart frogs aren\u2019t naturally poisonous, either, they get that from the poisonous insects in their normal diet, and secrete the toxin through the skin; this is why poison dart frogs born in captivity or long kept are safe to touch, they\u2019re fed nontoxic insects. EDIT: small correction, thanks.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":444.0,"score_ratio":2.9230769231} {"post_id":"pl4pxk","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why are some frogs, etc., poisonous? Unless the poison is so lethal that any predators die on contact, the frog still gets eaten. How does this help survival?","c_root_id_A":"hc847ym","c_root_id_B":"hc7yyxs","created_at_utc_A":1631219360,"created_at_utc_B":1631217229,"score_A":13,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"\"Survival of the fittest\" does not operate on the level of the organism, it operates on the level of the gene. The gene that makes the frog poisonous exists in many frogs, not just this one individual frog. Some individual frogs dying, but killing birds in the process, means fewer birds to eat the other frogs and creates a selection pressure for that bird species to stop eating the frog species. The gene survives by programming some of the organisms that contain it to be good at dying.","human_ref_B":"Many poisons are alkaloids and taste bad. The predator may spit out the prey, which may live, and then remember not to eat the icky thing again.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2131.0,"score_ratio":3.25} {"post_id":"pl4pxk","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why are some frogs, etc., poisonous? Unless the poison is so lethal that any predators die on contact, the frog still gets eaten. How does this help survival?","c_root_id_A":"hc8vxql","c_root_id_B":"hc7yyxs","created_at_utc_A":1631231393,"created_at_utc_B":1631217229,"score_A":5,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"It doesn't help that individual frogs survival, no, but eventually it will create a mutual instinctual respect in the jungle that brightly coloured frogs can't be fucked with. This *should* in theory, increase the survival of the species as a whole. Apparently, the mutual fear that predators have of brightly coloured frogs has created some doppelganger species. This is absolutely fascinating, as this species thrive on the perceived threat that they might be poisonous. Genius evolution at work as they'll have way more energy left-over because they're not having to manufacture poisons. mimicking frogs","human_ref_B":"Many poisons are alkaloids and taste bad. The predator may spit out the prey, which may live, and then remember not to eat the icky thing again.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":14164.0,"score_ratio":1.25} {"post_id":"jtx9fp","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Many elements found in nature are radioactive. I understand that they are probably generally in low concentrations, but you'd think with billions of people spread out all over the world, random radiation poisoning would be much more common. Why isn't it? If elements like Uranium appear in concentrations high enough to be mined how do people near Uranium or Radium deposits not just get constantly exposed to dangerous levels of radiation? Or do they and we just attribute their illnesses\/cancers to other factors?","c_root_id_A":"gc8eq17","c_root_id_B":"gc8f7py","created_at_utc_A":1605336742,"created_at_utc_B":1605337227,"score_A":3,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"This isn't a scientific answer, but from someone that lives near some old uranium mines, it's not terribly strong radiation. I mean. . .I got a chunk on my yard even, nbd. It's like living in a giant old school fiestaware dish.","human_ref_B":"The nuclei of radioactive materials emit radiation only in the act of disintegrating, aka \"decaying.\" The more unstable a radionuclide is, the more radiation it emits; but by the flip side of the coin, the faster it decays away. Uranium is a relatively stable element that lasts for a long time and emits very little radiation. Uranium nuclei have an *extremely* low chance of decaying at any given moment compared to other radioisotopes; it takes billions of years for a sample of Uranium-238 to decay by 50%. Radium, on the other hand, takes anywhere from a few days to 1,600 years to decay by 50%. Since its nuclei are much less stable, it emits far more radiation, making it potentially dangerous. Radium also creates Radon (a radioactive gas) when it decays, which can accumulate in poorly-ventilated underground spaces and significantly increase your risk of cancer.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":485.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"1pa1rm","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: If our cells are always dying and being replaced how does a tattoo last forever? I've read that over a period of every 7 years or so that every cell in our body has been replaced by a new cell. If you're dying or painting or doing whatever to skin\/dermis cells for a tattoo, how does it remain after the old cells have died?","c_root_id_A":"cd0ad38","c_root_id_B":"cd0a582","created_at_utc_A":1382829494,"created_at_utc_B":1382828791,"score_A":57,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"The ink is injected in to the dermis layer which contains nerves, blood vessels, lymphatic and various other tissues. This layer is not only much more inner than the epiderms (outermost layer), it's also heavily inundated by immune cells ready to fight foreign infections. When the tattoo ink is injected into the dermis layer, immune cells such as macrophages will immediately want to eat up or phagocytose these droplets because they are foreign in nature. The simple way of understanding it is that these immune cells cannot eat up the ink droplets due to their size in nature and will start to aggregate around the ink droplets. The ink then becomes trapped in these aggregates of immune cells that will almost indefinitely stay in the region. These aggregates will continue to stay in the region despite cellular proliferation around them. Laser removal of tattoo works by shrinking these ink droplets to small enough sizes such that they can be phagocytosed by immune cells and excreted from the system.","human_ref_B":"To start off, tattoos do not last forever; they will fade over time. This is because tattoos are technically a form of scar tissue in the body, a mutation and reaction towards the damage caused by the original inking. Think of regular scars; you get a wound, the wound heals, eventually you have a scar, and the scar will fade over time. It won't completely disappear, because you've damaged so much of the cells that they've had to adapt and mutate, so that it remains visible. Tattoos work the same way, but with ink instead of damaged skin tissue.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":703.0,"score_ratio":4.75} {"post_id":"wurjep","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How was Thailand able to avoid colonization when every other Southeast Asian countries got colonized? Literally everyone of its neighboring countries was colonized by the West for centuries except them. How were they able to succeed in maintaining their independence when everyone around them took years of political struggle to be free?","c_root_id_A":"ilb9j00","c_root_id_B":"ilb9tdc","created_at_utc_A":1661170944,"created_at_utc_B":1661171100,"score_A":202,"score_B":962,"human_ref_A":"They played France and Britain against each other and allowed each to have some commercial interests. They did keep a large standing army and were ready to ally themselves to both, and neither UK not France were particularly motivated to wage a war there - note that Cambodia, immediately to the east (and an open plains all the way to Bangkok ) became a French protectorate by choice\/colony by administrative wrangling and not through military action, so France was pretty content to keep it that way.","human_ref_B":"I read a article about this. The King at the time played both sides. When dealing with the British he would drop hints that he was on very good terms with the French and if he was ever attacked that he could count on them for support. When dealing with the French he told them how he was on very god terms with the English and if attacked if attacked that they would come to his support. That is the short version, but basically he very shrewdly played both sides against each other.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":156.0,"score_ratio":4.7623762376} {"post_id":"wurjep","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How was Thailand able to avoid colonization when every other Southeast Asian countries got colonized? Literally everyone of its neighboring countries was colonized by the West for centuries except them. How were they able to succeed in maintaining their independence when everyone around them took years of political struggle to be free?","c_root_id_A":"ilb7fo6","c_root_id_B":"ilb9tdc","created_at_utc_A":1661169788,"created_at_utc_B":1661171100,"score_A":50,"score_B":962,"human_ref_A":"Because those surrounding colonies were controlled by Britain (e.g. Myanmar) and France (e.g. Vietnam) who were in competition with each other and desired a buffer zone between their colonies and that buffer zone was basically the valley that makes up a good portion of Thailand.","human_ref_B":"I read a article about this. The King at the time played both sides. When dealing with the British he would drop hints that he was on very good terms with the French and if he was ever attacked that he could count on them for support. When dealing with the French he told them how he was on very god terms with the English and if attacked if attacked that they would come to his support. That is the short version, but basically he very shrewdly played both sides against each other.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1312.0,"score_ratio":19.24} {"post_id":"wurjep","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How was Thailand able to avoid colonization when every other Southeast Asian countries got colonized? Literally everyone of its neighboring countries was colonized by the West for centuries except them. How were they able to succeed in maintaining their independence when everyone around them took years of political struggle to be free?","c_root_id_A":"ilb7fo6","c_root_id_B":"ilb9j00","created_at_utc_A":1661169788,"created_at_utc_B":1661170944,"score_A":50,"score_B":202,"human_ref_A":"Because those surrounding colonies were controlled by Britain (e.g. Myanmar) and France (e.g. Vietnam) who were in competition with each other and desired a buffer zone between their colonies and that buffer zone was basically the valley that makes up a good portion of Thailand.","human_ref_B":"They played France and Britain against each other and allowed each to have some commercial interests. They did keep a large standing army and were ready to ally themselves to both, and neither UK not France were particularly motivated to wage a war there - note that Cambodia, immediately to the east (and an open plains all the way to Bangkok ) became a French protectorate by choice\/colony by administrative wrangling and not through military action, so France was pretty content to keep it that way.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1156.0,"score_ratio":4.04} {"post_id":"wurjep","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How was Thailand able to avoid colonization when every other Southeast Asian countries got colonized? Literally everyone of its neighboring countries was colonized by the West for centuries except them. How were they able to succeed in maintaining their independence when everyone around them took years of political struggle to be free?","c_root_id_A":"ilb7fo6","c_root_id_B":"ilc86uo","created_at_utc_A":1661169788,"created_at_utc_B":1661185675,"score_A":50,"score_B":102,"human_ref_A":"Because those surrounding colonies were controlled by Britain (e.g. Myanmar) and France (e.g. Vietnam) who were in competition with each other and desired a buffer zone between their colonies and that buffer zone was basically the valley that makes up a good portion of Thailand.","human_ref_B":"There was really no reason to colonize Thailand. 1. Siam (Thailand's western name at the time) didn't have a lot of resources the colonizers wanted. 2. They bordered several different colonies. So anybody that took them over would now have competing countries on multiple fronts around them. 3. Leadership was very active in diplomacy. They gave up rights, resources, and land to colonizers, and also worked w\/ them a lot so they became advocates for Siam back home. Overall the reward ratio was super low for Thailand, and the colonizers could get whatever they wanted through diplomacy anyway. Eventually Thailand would have fallen but traditional colonization fell out of favor after WWII.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":15887.0,"score_ratio":2.04} {"post_id":"wurjep","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How was Thailand able to avoid colonization when every other Southeast Asian countries got colonized? Literally everyone of its neighboring countries was colonized by the West for centuries except them. How were they able to succeed in maintaining their independence when everyone around them took years of political struggle to be free?","c_root_id_A":"ilc86uo","c_root_id_B":"ilc5eih","created_at_utc_A":1661185675,"created_at_utc_B":1661184602,"score_A":102,"score_B":20,"human_ref_A":"There was really no reason to colonize Thailand. 1. Siam (Thailand's western name at the time) didn't have a lot of resources the colonizers wanted. 2. They bordered several different colonies. So anybody that took them over would now have competing countries on multiple fronts around them. 3. Leadership was very active in diplomacy. They gave up rights, resources, and land to colonizers, and also worked w\/ them a lot so they became advocates for Siam back home. Overall the reward ratio was super low for Thailand, and the colonizers could get whatever they wanted through diplomacy anyway. Eventually Thailand would have fallen but traditional colonization fell out of favor after WWII.","human_ref_B":"The secret to mass colonial conquest is political opportunism; exploiting divisions and weakness in the nations government in order to seize de facto control without ever really needing to actually literally conquer the country. Even when they fought wars the main goal was usually just siezing the capital\/government (i.e. no need to take other cities\/provinces etc). The result is that nations that managed to maintain strong and\/or unified governments tended to resist far better than otherwise. Until eventually decades later a weak gov came along. In Thailands case they just never really had a poorly situated enough government to allow ready foreign takeover as well as being well situated in a buffer position between the french and english. ​ Burma is a great case that probably shouldn't have been able to be conquered (it's jungle terrain made operating in the country near impossible in the era) but a succession crisis led to an unpopular monarch and divided government. Seeing weakness the British pounced, declaring to the people they just wanted to replace the king, while also winning over (bribing?) the prime minister into getting the army not to resist. They basically just went upriver in boats to the capital and the king surrendered to them out of hand.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1073.0,"score_ratio":5.1} {"post_id":"wurjep","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How was Thailand able to avoid colonization when every other Southeast Asian countries got colonized? Literally everyone of its neighboring countries was colonized by the West for centuries except them. How were they able to succeed in maintaining their independence when everyone around them took years of political struggle to be free?","c_root_id_A":"ilc5wtb","c_root_id_B":"ilc86uo","created_at_utc_A":1661184799,"created_at_utc_B":1661185675,"score_A":10,"score_B":102,"human_ref_A":"Who says they weren't? They ceded considerable amounts of territory, trade and legal concesssions, in a similar manner to China.","human_ref_B":"There was really no reason to colonize Thailand. 1. Siam (Thailand's western name at the time) didn't have a lot of resources the colonizers wanted. 2. They bordered several different colonies. So anybody that took them over would now have competing countries on multiple fronts around them. 3. Leadership was very active in diplomacy. They gave up rights, resources, and land to colonizers, and also worked w\/ them a lot so they became advocates for Siam back home. Overall the reward ratio was super low for Thailand, and the colonizers could get whatever they wanted through diplomacy anyway. Eventually Thailand would have fallen but traditional colonization fell out of favor after WWII.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":876.0,"score_ratio":10.2} {"post_id":"wurjep","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How was Thailand able to avoid colonization when every other Southeast Asian countries got colonized? Literally everyone of its neighboring countries was colonized by the West for centuries except them. How were they able to succeed in maintaining their independence when everyone around them took years of political struggle to be free?","c_root_id_A":"ilcsa4j","c_root_id_B":"ilb7fo6","created_at_utc_A":1661193366,"created_at_utc_B":1661169788,"score_A":65,"score_B":50,"human_ref_A":"On top of other good comments mentioning diplomacy and acting as a buffer state, Thai\/Siamese rulers smartly \u201cwesternized\u201d their rule, for example by abolishing slavery, centralizing their governance and \u201cmapping\u201d their country with clear claims as to what was considered Siam\/Thailand proper, adopting Western clothes\u2026 These snuffed out a lot of the usual justifications that existed for colonization (barbarians needing civilization, land being up for grab because of unclear sovereignty\u2026), and made it harder for imperialists to justify outright conquering. Sure, none of these was a hard stop to colonization, but they were real hindrances that combined with other factors to prevent Thailand from being fully colonized.","human_ref_B":"Because those surrounding colonies were controlled by Britain (e.g. Myanmar) and France (e.g. Vietnam) who were in competition with each other and desired a buffer zone between their colonies and that buffer zone was basically the valley that makes up a good portion of Thailand.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":23578.0,"score_ratio":1.3} {"post_id":"wurjep","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How was Thailand able to avoid colonization when every other Southeast Asian countries got colonized? Literally everyone of its neighboring countries was colonized by the West for centuries except them. How were they able to succeed in maintaining their independence when everyone around them took years of political struggle to be free?","c_root_id_A":"ilcsa4j","c_root_id_B":"ilc5eih","created_at_utc_A":1661193366,"created_at_utc_B":1661184602,"score_A":65,"score_B":20,"human_ref_A":"On top of other good comments mentioning diplomacy and acting as a buffer state, Thai\/Siamese rulers smartly \u201cwesternized\u201d their rule, for example by abolishing slavery, centralizing their governance and \u201cmapping\u201d their country with clear claims as to what was considered Siam\/Thailand proper, adopting Western clothes\u2026 These snuffed out a lot of the usual justifications that existed for colonization (barbarians needing civilization, land being up for grab because of unclear sovereignty\u2026), and made it harder for imperialists to justify outright conquering. Sure, none of these was a hard stop to colonization, but they were real hindrances that combined with other factors to prevent Thailand from being fully colonized.","human_ref_B":"The secret to mass colonial conquest is political opportunism; exploiting divisions and weakness in the nations government in order to seize de facto control without ever really needing to actually literally conquer the country. Even when they fought wars the main goal was usually just siezing the capital\/government (i.e. no need to take other cities\/provinces etc). The result is that nations that managed to maintain strong and\/or unified governments tended to resist far better than otherwise. Until eventually decades later a weak gov came along. In Thailands case they just never really had a poorly situated enough government to allow ready foreign takeover as well as being well situated in a buffer position between the french and english. ​ Burma is a great case that probably shouldn't have been able to be conquered (it's jungle terrain made operating in the country near impossible in the era) but a succession crisis led to an unpopular monarch and divided government. Seeing weakness the British pounced, declaring to the people they just wanted to replace the king, while also winning over (bribing?) the prime minister into getting the army not to resist. They basically just went upriver in boats to the capital and the king surrendered to them out of hand.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8764.0,"score_ratio":3.25} {"post_id":"wurjep","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How was Thailand able to avoid colonization when every other Southeast Asian countries got colonized? Literally everyone of its neighboring countries was colonized by the West for centuries except them. How were they able to succeed in maintaining their independence when everyone around them took years of political struggle to be free?","c_root_id_A":"ilc5wtb","c_root_id_B":"ilcsa4j","created_at_utc_A":1661184799,"created_at_utc_B":1661193366,"score_A":10,"score_B":65,"human_ref_A":"Who says they weren't? They ceded considerable amounts of territory, trade and legal concesssions, in a similar manner to China.","human_ref_B":"On top of other good comments mentioning diplomacy and acting as a buffer state, Thai\/Siamese rulers smartly \u201cwesternized\u201d their rule, for example by abolishing slavery, centralizing their governance and \u201cmapping\u201d their country with clear claims as to what was considered Siam\/Thailand proper, adopting Western clothes\u2026 These snuffed out a lot of the usual justifications that existed for colonization (barbarians needing civilization, land being up for grab because of unclear sovereignty\u2026), and made it harder for imperialists to justify outright conquering. Sure, none of these was a hard stop to colonization, but they were real hindrances that combined with other factors to prevent Thailand from being fully colonized.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8567.0,"score_ratio":6.5} {"post_id":"5w327g","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old:How was Germany able to take on the rest of the whole world, twice in 25 years, and even almost win","c_root_id_A":"de70rdv","c_root_id_B":"de6xakm","created_at_utc_A":1488020572,"created_at_utc_B":1488009155,"score_A":18,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"The two \"World Wars\" are badly named: they weren't really single conflicts that spanned the globe, but several different conflicts that happened to be connected. For example, in WW2, the war in Europe was quite different from the war in the Pacific, and Nazi Germany only supported Japan because Japan was fighting against the US. The First World War wasn't at all a case of Germany taking on the rest of the world, or even the rest of Europe. Basically, at the time, Europe had divided itself into two blocs, the idea being that if a country attacked another country, then that country's allies would retaliate -- and so, in theory, peace was assured because no country would be foolish enough to start a war. Unfortunately, political tensions were high in parts of Europe, and when a Serbian terrorist assassinated an Austrian aristocrat, this gave Austro-Hungary the excuse to issue an ultimatum to Serbia that Serbia couldn't possibly accept, and this set in motion a kind of domino effect: Austro-Hungary declared war on Serbia, so Russia mobilised its troops, so Germany mobilised *its* troops and invaded Belgium, so Britain declared war on Germany. Basically, the various European countries declared war on each other until the whole lot of them were slugging it out in the trenches. The Second World War was primarily caused by German aggression, although Germany wasn't alone: Italy, too, was on Germany's side. Hitler secured a pact with Stalin so he could concentrate on the western front. Germany had made huge advances in military technology and had been gearing up for war for a time, and also employed, very successfully, the tactic of \"blitzkrieg\": a sudden, powerful, early strike against the enemy to overwhelm them before they could properly respond. The Allies, still recovering from the First World War, had attempted to appease Hitler; when Hitler came to power, they had persuaded themselves that he was a jumped-up lunatic who was all bark and no bite, and would never be able to actually do anything. As a result, they didn't really expect a war and so hadn't prepared for it.","human_ref_B":"The economic strength of the entente and the central powers or the axis and the allies prior to the us entering each war were fairly even. Basically they weren't alone, weren't fighting anywhere close to the whole world, and, when you consider what it would have taken for them to force a favorable peace once the us entered either war, never really got all that close to winning.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":11417.0,"score_ratio":4.5} {"post_id":"5w327g","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old:How was Germany able to take on the rest of the whole world, twice in 25 years, and even almost win","c_root_id_A":"de700kb","c_root_id_B":"de70rdv","created_at_utc_A":1488017863,"created_at_utc_B":1488020572,"score_A":2,"score_B":18,"human_ref_A":"In the first world war, it was basically Germany vs France with Britain helping France. Austria sort of helped Germany while other nations sort of helped various sides. In the end though, it ran down to a stalemate between Germany and France with USA coming in at the last minute to break it. Germany surrendered then. In the second world war, Germany crushed France, Czech republic, Poland and various other European states due to their advanced tactics and mechanised assault doctrine. They lost because they invaded Russia and lost 3\/4 of their men and materiel to Russian winter and Hitler's idiotic strategies. In nether case did Germany take on \"the rest of the world\" and in neither case did the \"rest of the world\" combine to defeat Germany.","human_ref_B":"The two \"World Wars\" are badly named: they weren't really single conflicts that spanned the globe, but several different conflicts that happened to be connected. For example, in WW2, the war in Europe was quite different from the war in the Pacific, and Nazi Germany only supported Japan because Japan was fighting against the US. The First World War wasn't at all a case of Germany taking on the rest of the world, or even the rest of Europe. Basically, at the time, Europe had divided itself into two blocs, the idea being that if a country attacked another country, then that country's allies would retaliate -- and so, in theory, peace was assured because no country would be foolish enough to start a war. Unfortunately, political tensions were high in parts of Europe, and when a Serbian terrorist assassinated an Austrian aristocrat, this gave Austro-Hungary the excuse to issue an ultimatum to Serbia that Serbia couldn't possibly accept, and this set in motion a kind of domino effect: Austro-Hungary declared war on Serbia, so Russia mobilised its troops, so Germany mobilised *its* troops and invaded Belgium, so Britain declared war on Germany. Basically, the various European countries declared war on each other until the whole lot of them were slugging it out in the trenches. The Second World War was primarily caused by German aggression, although Germany wasn't alone: Italy, too, was on Germany's side. Hitler secured a pact with Stalin so he could concentrate on the western front. Germany had made huge advances in military technology and had been gearing up for war for a time, and also employed, very successfully, the tactic of \"blitzkrieg\": a sudden, powerful, early strike against the enemy to overwhelm them before they could properly respond. The Allies, still recovering from the First World War, had attempted to appease Hitler; when Hitler came to power, they had persuaded themselves that he was a jumped-up lunatic who was all bark and no bite, and would never be able to actually do anything. As a result, they didn't really expect a war and so hadn't prepared for it.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2709.0,"score_ratio":9.0} {"post_id":"5w327g","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old:How was Germany able to take on the rest of the whole world, twice in 25 years, and even almost win","c_root_id_A":"de700kb","c_root_id_B":"de7jmcf","created_at_utc_A":1488017863,"created_at_utc_B":1488053815,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"In the first world war, it was basically Germany vs France with Britain helping France. Austria sort of helped Germany while other nations sort of helped various sides. In the end though, it ran down to a stalemate between Germany and France with USA coming in at the last minute to break it. Germany surrendered then. In the second world war, Germany crushed France, Czech republic, Poland and various other European states due to their advanced tactics and mechanised assault doctrine. They lost because they invaded Russia and lost 3\/4 of their men and materiel to Russian winter and Hitler's idiotic strategies. In nether case did Germany take on \"the rest of the world\" and in neither case did the \"rest of the world\" combine to defeat Germany.","human_ref_B":"Nazi Germany did not 'almost win' by any means. They certainly occupied France, yet had no naval power compared to the Brits or plans to invade the UK or North America. The war would have dragged on a little longer without American intervention but the war would have resulted in an allied win regardless as soon as Germany turned on the USSR.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":35952.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"49n3h5","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: why aren't cars something that sell for a standard price from the manufacturer? Also, how come a sticker price for a car on a lot that's just designed to \"get people in the door\" isn't considered false\/misleading advertising? (Since the actual price usually ends up being a couple grand more)","c_root_id_A":"d0t6tjw","c_root_id_B":"d0t5qqx","created_at_utc_A":1457513966,"created_at_utc_B":1457510109,"score_A":109,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"Cars use the dealership system because car dealerships lobbied the government to make it that way. This made sense back when cars were fairly new to the mass market. Regular garages and auto shops were more capable of dealing with service needs (since they were plentiful) than the manufacturer itself (which was only concerned with cranking out more cars, not fixing existing ones). Furthermore it was actually more stable for car makers at the time. A dealer would order in bulk and those sales were guaranteed for the maker. The issue of actually selling to a consumer was no longer the auto makers problem. Since the only way for common folk to spread information back then and until recently was just word of mouth haggling was the standard and so was mark up. It was really hard to find out information. There is less need now since most manufacturers do not void warranty if service is done outside of a dealership and haggling is a pain in the ass, but the buyers have the internet at their disposal to give them the upper hand. Tesla already sells directly to the consumer. You can enter a Tesla showroom, test drive, build and price your car, place the order and some time later your Tesla shows up at your door. Some independent dealers have experimented with this model as well with good results. Since dealerships are responsible for selling they get to set the price, the difference between what they paid for the car and what you pay is profit for the dealership. As for price. Cars can be highly customized and even the cheapest car can cost a lot with every single option picked out. The reason the base price is usually much cheaper than the average build is that the most desirable features come with a huge price. I could, for example buy a Chevrolet spark for 10,000 dollars or so and pay only that. But that doesn't even get me air conditioning. To get AC I need to spend an extra 3000 on the next trim level (AC doesn't come as a standalone option). This is a common thing among automakers because AC is THAT desirable. Also those who can't or don't want to drive manual need to spend an extra 2000 on the automatic transmission. Add a few more bits and things and the final price rises. Also you need to pay a destination fee (cost to ship your car to the dealer) and by federal law this is required to be the same for all dealerships throughout the country, no matter the distance from the plant. Then if you got the AC you have a mandatory AC fee which is used to cover the costs of scrapping the AC when the car is eventually junked. After All of that you pay the standard sales tax which varies based on where you live. If you aren't paying cash you are likely going to get hit with fees for financing. It is possible though to walk into a dealership, buy the cheapest possible car at the advertised price, paying only destination and tax with cash upfront, and walkaway not \"cheated\". Maybe haggling isn't so bad after all. PS: the MSRP on a car isn't it's exact price of what the dealer pays the maker. It is the Manufacturers Suggested Retail Price, AKA what the maker recommends selling it for if the dealer wants to be competitive while still turning a profit.","human_ref_B":"Cars are highly customizable, and have so many options and different configurations that it makes more sense to have a sticker price that represents a ballpark amount for how much the car will cost, with the final price reached through customization, customer options, and haggling.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3857.0,"score_ratio":13.625} {"post_id":"49n3h5","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: why aren't cars something that sell for a standard price from the manufacturer? Also, how come a sticker price for a car on a lot that's just designed to \"get people in the door\" isn't considered false\/misleading advertising? (Since the actual price usually ends up being a couple grand more)","c_root_id_A":"d0t5qqx","c_root_id_B":"d0tj41e","created_at_utc_A":1457510109,"created_at_utc_B":1457542619,"score_A":8,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"Cars are highly customizable, and have so many options and different configurations that it makes more sense to have a sticker price that represents a ballpark amount for how much the car will cost, with the final price reached through customization, customer options, and haggling.","human_ref_B":"*Adam Ruins Everything* did a pretty good Explain like I'm five years old you might want to check out.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":32510.0,"score_ratio":1.75} {"post_id":"49n3h5","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: why aren't cars something that sell for a standard price from the manufacturer? Also, how come a sticker price for a car on a lot that's just designed to \"get people in the door\" isn't considered false\/misleading advertising? (Since the actual price usually ends up being a couple grand more)","c_root_id_A":"d0tj41e","c_root_id_B":"d0tb6i7","created_at_utc_A":1457542619,"created_at_utc_B":1457529480,"score_A":14,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"*Adam Ruins Everything* did a pretty good Explain like I'm five years old you might want to check out.","human_ref_B":"I can only speak for Ford, General Motors and FCA. I've never worked at an import dealership(US here). There are multiple prices on every car. I'm going to explain pricing only. I could get into rebates\/incentives but that's a totally different question. There is the MSRP. Manufacturer sets that price. I have no idea where their number comes from. There is invoice. Invoice is what the dealership initially pays for the vehicle. The manufacturer also has what is called Holdback. Holdback is an amount of money from a few hundred dollars to a couple thousand dollars that they will give the original invoicing dealer once the car is sold. The actual cost of the car to the dealership is invoice minus holdback. The is Employee. Employee pricing is the lowest price. The manufacturer sets that. The dealership has to give the employee that price, which is less than the dealership cost. The manufacturer refunds the dealership the difference of the dealership cost and employee cost a month or so later. There is friends\/supplier. Friends and supplier is a similar system to the Employee pricing but not as low of a price. There is dealership employee. Also similar to Employee\/Friends\/Supplier pricing. This price typically falls in between employee and friends\/supplier. So to answer your question, the manufacturer sets the public price - the MSRP. They also set the program discount prices - Employee\/Friends\/Supplier. The dealership can advertise any of the prices. Since Employee pricing is usually the least expensive and the dealership wants to sell vehicles, that will be the price they advertise, even though fewer people are able to get Employee pricing.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":13139.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333} {"post_id":"49n3h5","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: why aren't cars something that sell for a standard price from the manufacturer? Also, how come a sticker price for a car on a lot that's just designed to \"get people in the door\" isn't considered false\/misleading advertising? (Since the actual price usually ends up being a couple grand more)","c_root_id_A":"d0tj41e","c_root_id_B":"d0t95d3","created_at_utc_A":1457542619,"created_at_utc_B":1457523431,"score_A":14,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"*Adam Ruins Everything* did a pretty good Explain like I'm five years old you might want to check out.","human_ref_B":"The price advertised is often for the base model which is missing some or many creature comforts of what would be expected. Sure, the advertised price is honoured but if you want carpet over vinyl floor covering then pay more. Then you decide more airbags are safer and cruise control is nice. The salesman then points you toward a mid-spec model that has those features and a few more \u201cnice to haves\u201d. Next minute, you're signing up to a more expensive mid-spec model that is obviously better than the original base model at a premium price.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":19188.0,"score_ratio":7.0} {"post_id":"49n3h5","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: why aren't cars something that sell for a standard price from the manufacturer? Also, how come a sticker price for a car on a lot that's just designed to \"get people in the door\" isn't considered false\/misleading advertising? (Since the actual price usually ends up being a couple grand more)","c_root_id_A":"d0tb6i7","c_root_id_B":"d0tng8s","created_at_utc_A":1457529480,"created_at_utc_B":1457548445,"score_A":6,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"I can only speak for Ford, General Motors and FCA. I've never worked at an import dealership(US here). There are multiple prices on every car. I'm going to explain pricing only. I could get into rebates\/incentives but that's a totally different question. There is the MSRP. Manufacturer sets that price. I have no idea where their number comes from. There is invoice. Invoice is what the dealership initially pays for the vehicle. The manufacturer also has what is called Holdback. Holdback is an amount of money from a few hundred dollars to a couple thousand dollars that they will give the original invoicing dealer once the car is sold. The actual cost of the car to the dealership is invoice minus holdback. The is Employee. Employee pricing is the lowest price. The manufacturer sets that. The dealership has to give the employee that price, which is less than the dealership cost. The manufacturer refunds the dealership the difference of the dealership cost and employee cost a month or so later. There is friends\/supplier. Friends and supplier is a similar system to the Employee pricing but not as low of a price. There is dealership employee. Also similar to Employee\/Friends\/Supplier pricing. This price typically falls in between employee and friends\/supplier. So to answer your question, the manufacturer sets the public price - the MSRP. They also set the program discount prices - Employee\/Friends\/Supplier. The dealership can advertise any of the prices. Since Employee pricing is usually the least expensive and the dealership wants to sell vehicles, that will be the price they advertise, even though fewer people are able to get Employee pricing.","human_ref_B":"You have 3 cookies you want to sell to other kids. In your kindergarten class, there are 3 kids who wish to buy cookies: Sam, Ron, and Dave. Sam is willing to pay $1 for a cookie, Ron $2, and Dave $3. You can price the cookies at $1 and sell all 3 for a total of $3 in revenue. You can price them at $2 and sell 2 to Ron and Dave for a total of $4 of revenue. You can price them at $3 and sell 1 cookie to Dave for a total revenue of $3. Or you can try to negotiate a deal individually with each cookie consumer, so you sell 1 cookie to Sam for $1, 1 cookie to Ron for $2, and 1 cookie to $ Dave at $3 for a total revenue of $6. This is referred to as price discrimination, in this case its perfect price discrimination also referred to as first degree price discrimination. It is a strategy to maximize revenue by getting each person to pay their absolute reservation price for the good rather than selling each unit at the market equilibrium price which in my example would be $2. This is why cars typically come with like 1000 different options you can add, they want each person to pay their maximum reservation price rather than the going market price (sticker price). The difference between what a consumer is willing to pay and how much they actually pay is referred to as consumer surplus. There is an analogous concept from the sellers standpoint referred to as producer surplus which is the difference between the price they are willing to accept and how much they actually sell the product for. The goal of price discrimination is to eliminate as much consumer surplus as possible and turn it into producer surplus.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":18965.0,"score_ratio":1.1666666667} {"post_id":"49n3h5","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: why aren't cars something that sell for a standard price from the manufacturer? Also, how come a sticker price for a car on a lot that's just designed to \"get people in the door\" isn't considered false\/misleading advertising? (Since the actual price usually ends up being a couple grand more)","c_root_id_A":"d0tng8s","c_root_id_B":"d0t95d3","created_at_utc_A":1457548445,"created_at_utc_B":1457523431,"score_A":7,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"You have 3 cookies you want to sell to other kids. In your kindergarten class, there are 3 kids who wish to buy cookies: Sam, Ron, and Dave. Sam is willing to pay $1 for a cookie, Ron $2, and Dave $3. You can price the cookies at $1 and sell all 3 for a total of $3 in revenue. You can price them at $2 and sell 2 to Ron and Dave for a total of $4 of revenue. You can price them at $3 and sell 1 cookie to Dave for a total revenue of $3. Or you can try to negotiate a deal individually with each cookie consumer, so you sell 1 cookie to Sam for $1, 1 cookie to Ron for $2, and 1 cookie to $ Dave at $3 for a total revenue of $6. This is referred to as price discrimination, in this case its perfect price discrimination also referred to as first degree price discrimination. It is a strategy to maximize revenue by getting each person to pay their absolute reservation price for the good rather than selling each unit at the market equilibrium price which in my example would be $2. This is why cars typically come with like 1000 different options you can add, they want each person to pay their maximum reservation price rather than the going market price (sticker price). The difference between what a consumer is willing to pay and how much they actually pay is referred to as consumer surplus. There is an analogous concept from the sellers standpoint referred to as producer surplus which is the difference between the price they are willing to accept and how much they actually sell the product for. The goal of price discrimination is to eliminate as much consumer surplus as possible and turn it into producer surplus.","human_ref_B":"The price advertised is often for the base model which is missing some or many creature comforts of what would be expected. Sure, the advertised price is honoured but if you want carpet over vinyl floor covering then pay more. Then you decide more airbags are safer and cruise control is nice. The salesman then points you toward a mid-spec model that has those features and a few more \u201cnice to haves\u201d. Next minute, you're signing up to a more expensive mid-spec model that is obviously better than the original base model at a premium price.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":25014.0,"score_ratio":3.5} {"post_id":"49n3h5","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: why aren't cars something that sell for a standard price from the manufacturer? Also, how come a sticker price for a car on a lot that's just designed to \"get people in the door\" isn't considered false\/misleading advertising? (Since the actual price usually ends up being a couple grand more)","c_root_id_A":"d0tng8s","c_root_id_B":"d0tjkfy","created_at_utc_A":1457548445,"created_at_utc_B":1457543243,"score_A":7,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"You have 3 cookies you want to sell to other kids. In your kindergarten class, there are 3 kids who wish to buy cookies: Sam, Ron, and Dave. Sam is willing to pay $1 for a cookie, Ron $2, and Dave $3. You can price the cookies at $1 and sell all 3 for a total of $3 in revenue. You can price them at $2 and sell 2 to Ron and Dave for a total of $4 of revenue. You can price them at $3 and sell 1 cookie to Dave for a total revenue of $3. Or you can try to negotiate a deal individually with each cookie consumer, so you sell 1 cookie to Sam for $1, 1 cookie to Ron for $2, and 1 cookie to $ Dave at $3 for a total revenue of $6. This is referred to as price discrimination, in this case its perfect price discrimination also referred to as first degree price discrimination. It is a strategy to maximize revenue by getting each person to pay their absolute reservation price for the good rather than selling each unit at the market equilibrium price which in my example would be $2. This is why cars typically come with like 1000 different options you can add, they want each person to pay their maximum reservation price rather than the going market price (sticker price). The difference between what a consumer is willing to pay and how much they actually pay is referred to as consumer surplus. There is an analogous concept from the sellers standpoint referred to as producer surplus which is the difference between the price they are willing to accept and how much they actually sell the product for. The goal of price discrimination is to eliminate as much consumer surplus as possible and turn it into producer surplus.","human_ref_B":"It's a form of price discrimination. Some people have lots of money and don't care about getting the best price. They pay MSRP. Others who aren't willing to pay full price wait for incentives and sales and haggle. This process maximizes profit, because you sell to both the stingy customer and Mr. Moneybags.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5202.0,"score_ratio":3.5} {"post_id":"49n3h5","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: why aren't cars something that sell for a standard price from the manufacturer? Also, how come a sticker price for a car on a lot that's just designed to \"get people in the door\" isn't considered false\/misleading advertising? (Since the actual price usually ends up being a couple grand more)","c_root_id_A":"d0t95d3","c_root_id_B":"d0tb6i7","created_at_utc_A":1457523431,"created_at_utc_B":1457529480,"score_A":2,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"The price advertised is often for the base model which is missing some or many creature comforts of what would be expected. Sure, the advertised price is honoured but if you want carpet over vinyl floor covering then pay more. Then you decide more airbags are safer and cruise control is nice. The salesman then points you toward a mid-spec model that has those features and a few more \u201cnice to haves\u201d. Next minute, you're signing up to a more expensive mid-spec model that is obviously better than the original base model at a premium price.","human_ref_B":"I can only speak for Ford, General Motors and FCA. I've never worked at an import dealership(US here). There are multiple prices on every car. I'm going to explain pricing only. I could get into rebates\/incentives but that's a totally different question. There is the MSRP. Manufacturer sets that price. I have no idea where their number comes from. There is invoice. Invoice is what the dealership initially pays for the vehicle. The manufacturer also has what is called Holdback. Holdback is an amount of money from a few hundred dollars to a couple thousand dollars that they will give the original invoicing dealer once the car is sold. The actual cost of the car to the dealership is invoice minus holdback. The is Employee. Employee pricing is the lowest price. The manufacturer sets that. The dealership has to give the employee that price, which is less than the dealership cost. The manufacturer refunds the dealership the difference of the dealership cost and employee cost a month or so later. There is friends\/supplier. Friends and supplier is a similar system to the Employee pricing but not as low of a price. There is dealership employee. Also similar to Employee\/Friends\/Supplier pricing. This price typically falls in between employee and friends\/supplier. So to answer your question, the manufacturer sets the public price - the MSRP. They also set the program discount prices - Employee\/Friends\/Supplier. The dealership can advertise any of the prices. Since Employee pricing is usually the least expensive and the dealership wants to sell vehicles, that will be the price they advertise, even though fewer people are able to get Employee pricing.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6049.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"oz15b7","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Sometimes there are whatsapp text messages that say click on this emoji or text and your phone hangs. How do these actually work?","c_root_id_A":"h7wxe2i","c_root_id_B":"h7x7ks9","created_at_utc_A":1628239980,"created_at_utc_B":1628248436,"score_A":15,"score_B":18,"human_ref_A":"Tom Scott has an excellent 4 minute video on this. https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=jC4NNUYIIdM","human_ref_B":"Your phone, like all computers, uses a standard set of letters, numbers, and other characters called Unicode. Unicode has characters for literally anything in language. This includes special characters that have no width and show up as nothing, that determine which way text is written, such as left to right in \"most\" languages, or right to left in languages like Arabic or Hebrew. These special zero width characters can switch the text direction back and forth pretty easily when it's needed, and you usually don't encounter them unless there's text that needs to be switched. Those Whatsapp messages that cause your phone to hang are absolutely chock full of these right-to-left and left-to-right characters, usually there's a few thousand spammed in the spaces directly to the right and left of the emoji you're supposed to put your finger on. What causes your phone to hang is that putting your finger down for more than a fraction of a second selects text, and it can't quite figure out which direction the text you're selecting is supposed to be facing, or where exactly you're actually selecting, because, even though we can't see them, your phone can see hundreds and hundreds of characters telling it to change the direction of the text in the space you're putting your finger. Edit: clarification at the end","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8456.0,"score_ratio":1.2} {"post_id":"wl1cv0","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How does Google determine how busy a business is in real time? If you've ever Googled a local business, you have probably seen a graph, indicating the average traffic (Popular Times) at a specific hour, during their normal business hours. There is also a \"Live\" function, that shows how busy they are at that exact moment. How is that information updated in Google in real time? Does someone actually manually update this information regularly or is there some sort of algorithm that makes this determination?","c_root_id_A":"ijqi4nw","c_root_id_B":"ijqivsl","created_at_utc_A":1660148403,"created_at_utc_B":1660148682,"score_A":2,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"Nope, your android phone is \"phoning it in\". Part of all that boilerplate junk in the user agreement that you clicked on that noone reads is your phone is constantly sending google information like where you are, how fast you're travelling. So they know that android phones are x% of all phones. Lets say 70%. If on average there are 6 android phones are in this store, then they can extrapolate (assuming everyone has a cell phone) and say the average traffic is 10 people. Thus, if right now there are only 2 droid phones in here, there are maybe 3 total people, thus its \"not busy\". Same way how google maps redirects u around traffic - its collecting data from all the droid phones on the road and can tell when a bunch are moving a lot slower than the limit on a road.","human_ref_B":"They track concentration of devices with Google Maps installed, just like they determine traffic by tracking devices with Google Maps. So many devices with that app installed it's easy to model things like traffic and business busy-ness.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":279.0,"score_ratio":4.5} {"post_id":"wl1cv0","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How does Google determine how busy a business is in real time? If you've ever Googled a local business, you have probably seen a graph, indicating the average traffic (Popular Times) at a specific hour, during their normal business hours. There is also a \"Live\" function, that shows how busy they are at that exact moment. How is that information updated in Google in real time? Does someone actually manually update this information regularly or is there some sort of algorithm that makes this determination?","c_root_id_A":"ijqi4nw","c_root_id_B":"ijqkzmo","created_at_utc_A":1660148403,"created_at_utc_B":1660149464,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Nope, your android phone is \"phoning it in\". Part of all that boilerplate junk in the user agreement that you clicked on that noone reads is your phone is constantly sending google information like where you are, how fast you're travelling. So they know that android phones are x% of all phones. Lets say 70%. If on average there are 6 android phones are in this store, then they can extrapolate (assuming everyone has a cell phone) and say the average traffic is 10 people. Thus, if right now there are only 2 droid phones in here, there are maybe 3 total people, thus its \"not busy\". Same way how google maps redirects u around traffic - its collecting data from all the droid phones on the road and can tell when a bunch are moving a lot slower than the limit on a road.","human_ref_B":"Hehe my neighborhood street was completely red on google maps at 1am the other night, said it would take 5 minutes to get from one end to the other. I even know which house the slow driver lives at because that's where the line goes from red to blue(skips yellow completely)","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1061.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"wl1cv0","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How does Google determine how busy a business is in real time? If you've ever Googled a local business, you have probably seen a graph, indicating the average traffic (Popular Times) at a specific hour, during their normal business hours. There is also a \"Live\" function, that shows how busy they are at that exact moment. How is that information updated in Google in real time? Does someone actually manually update this information regularly or is there some sort of algorithm that makes this determination?","c_root_id_A":"ijqkzmo","c_root_id_B":"ijqiym5","created_at_utc_A":1660149464,"created_at_utc_B":1660148711,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Hehe my neighborhood street was completely red on google maps at 1am the other night, said it would take 5 minutes to get from one end to the other. I even know which house the slow driver lives at because that's where the line goes from red to blue(skips yellow completely)","human_ref_B":"This is a common feature used by Google or Waze for example that use your phone's gps to tell how much people are at one spot","labels":1,"seconds_difference":753.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"wl1cv0","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How does Google determine how busy a business is in real time? If you've ever Googled a local business, you have probably seen a graph, indicating the average traffic (Popular Times) at a specific hour, during their normal business hours. There is also a \"Live\" function, that shows how busy they are at that exact moment. How is that information updated in Google in real time? Does someone actually manually update this information regularly or is there some sort of algorithm that makes this determination?","c_root_id_A":"ijqozce","c_root_id_B":"ijqi4nw","created_at_utc_A":1660150927,"created_at_utc_B":1660148403,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"A lot of people have Android phones. The phones share their location with Google. Google\u2019s computers can count the number of Android phones at any address. If the number is high, or there\u2019s lots moving in and out, that place is busy. If there\u2019s few and nobody coming or going, it\u2019s not busy.","human_ref_B":"Nope, your android phone is \"phoning it in\". Part of all that boilerplate junk in the user agreement that you clicked on that noone reads is your phone is constantly sending google information like where you are, how fast you're travelling. So they know that android phones are x% of all phones. Lets say 70%. If on average there are 6 android phones are in this store, then they can extrapolate (assuming everyone has a cell phone) and say the average traffic is 10 people. Thus, if right now there are only 2 droid phones in here, there are maybe 3 total people, thus its \"not busy\". Same way how google maps redirects u around traffic - its collecting data from all the droid phones on the road and can tell when a bunch are moving a lot slower than the limit on a road.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2524.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"wl1cv0","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How does Google determine how busy a business is in real time? If you've ever Googled a local business, you have probably seen a graph, indicating the average traffic (Popular Times) at a specific hour, during their normal business hours. There is also a \"Live\" function, that shows how busy they are at that exact moment. How is that information updated in Google in real time? Does someone actually manually update this information regularly or is there some sort of algorithm that makes this determination?","c_root_id_A":"ijqozce","c_root_id_B":"ijqiym5","created_at_utc_A":1660150927,"created_at_utc_B":1660148711,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"A lot of people have Android phones. The phones share their location with Google. Google\u2019s computers can count the number of Android phones at any address. If the number is high, or there\u2019s lots moving in and out, that place is busy. If there\u2019s few and nobody coming or going, it\u2019s not busy.","human_ref_B":"This is a common feature used by Google or Waze for example that use your phone's gps to tell how much people are at one spot","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2216.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"2lb788","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.74,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How do companies like Walgreens make money selling gift cards for things like iTunes when the cost is the same as the value of the card? Who benefits from this and doesn't the company lose money when factoring in shipping costs?","c_root_id_A":"clt65zw","c_root_id_B":"clt4qy6","created_at_utc_A":1415146503,"created_at_utc_B":1415143637,"score_A":7,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"A lot of answers here about how companies make money from gift card sales by talking about unused\/lost cards etc. But none really answer your question. The answer is that the companies pay a fee to be on the rack near the check out stand. Each hook will cost a company a certain amount as will placement. A long time ago it used to be a big business and be quite expensive to get on the racks. Then the invention of variable card amounts came out greatly reducing the number of cards on a rack. It is now much less expensive to get into pharmacy's\/box stores\/grocers.","human_ref_B":"A $10 iTunes card is worth less than $10, so iTunes will happily pay the retailer a proportion of that $10 to cover the costs of holding a very small amount of stock. Once you've bought that card, it is money that is guaranteed to be spent at iTunes. In fact, it's money that is already spent at iTunes, just with a promise that they'll give you what they think is worth $10. A lot of gift cards won't be redeemed at all.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2866.0,"score_ratio":3.5} {"post_id":"2lb788","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.74,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How do companies like Walgreens make money selling gift cards for things like iTunes when the cost is the same as the value of the card? Who benefits from this and doesn't the company lose money when factoring in shipping costs?","c_root_id_A":"clt4qy6","c_root_id_B":"clthlw1","created_at_utc_A":1415143637,"created_at_utc_B":1415172306,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"A $10 iTunes card is worth less than $10, so iTunes will happily pay the retailer a proportion of that $10 to cover the costs of holding a very small amount of stock. Once you've bought that card, it is money that is guaranteed to be spent at iTunes. In fact, it's money that is already spent at iTunes, just with a promise that they'll give you what they think is worth $10. A lot of gift cards won't be redeemed at all.","human_ref_B":"We sell these cards in our store and we don't actually pay anything for the cards until it is sold \/ activated. Then we receive an invoice for the amount sold per day and pay about 90% of the face value. So it's an item that draws people into the store or adds another item for them to buy that isn't actually stock that we had to purchase. this is the same with sim cards and phone credit vouchers.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":28669.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"izoiyh","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"eli5: Where do queen bees come from? Does one of the current queen\u2019s eggs have a new queen in it?","c_root_id_A":"g6k40uf","c_root_id_B":"g6k42gz","created_at_utc_A":1601057684,"created_at_utc_B":1601057707,"score_A":12,"score_B":250,"human_ref_A":"Queen bees are just regular larvae but they are fed a special royal jelly that causes them to mature into queens.","human_ref_B":"Every egg can become a queen (in most bee species). When a hive needs a new queen, a larvae is selected (sometimes more than one and they'll slug it out later) and fed nothing but \"royal jelly.\" Royal jelly is made by workers (it's secreted by some gland on their heads), and while all larvae start on a diet of royal jelly, queens get nothing but that, while all other bees are fed \"bee bread\" after a few days of royal jelly (a mixture of nectar and pollen).","labels":0,"seconds_difference":23.0,"score_ratio":20.8333333333} {"post_id":"izoiyh","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"eli5: Where do queen bees come from? Does one of the current queen\u2019s eggs have a new queen in it?","c_root_id_A":"g6klfnh","c_root_id_B":"g6k40uf","created_at_utc_A":1601066879,"created_at_utc_B":1601057684,"score_A":42,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"They just pick any of the cells that has an egg in it and then proceed to feed it royal jelly instead of the food the drones and workers get. If they are re-queening the hive they will usually do this to several cells so that they have several queens growing at once. Then, the first queen to emerge goes around and kills the other potential queens to establish her as the heir to the throne. Quite interesting process actually.","human_ref_B":"Queen bees are just regular larvae but they are fed a special royal jelly that causes them to mature into queens.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9195.0,"score_ratio":3.5} {"post_id":"izoiyh","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"eli5: Where do queen bees come from? Does one of the current queen\u2019s eggs have a new queen in it?","c_root_id_A":"g6k40uf","c_root_id_B":"g6krd58","created_at_utc_A":1601057684,"created_at_utc_B":1601070227,"score_A":12,"score_B":25,"human_ref_A":"Queen bees are just regular larvae but they are fed a special royal jelly that causes them to mature into queens.","human_ref_B":"There are three kinds of bees in the hive.There is the Queen bee She is if course a female there is only one Queen in the hive her job is to lay eggs. She is the only female with developed ovaries. Queens are created by feeding the larva from a fertilized egg a diet of Royal Jelly. This will cause it's ovaries to develope. It will emerge as a fully developed queen bee. If the old queen is still healthy and virial she will leave the hive and a swarm of a significant % of the hives will leave with her to develope a new hive. The Virgin queen will depart the hive on her mating flight of which there maybe from 1 to 4 flights. If the old queen has used up all the sperm from her mating flight(s) 3 or 4 years previous she will be laying unfertilized eggs which will all be drones. The workers will raise a new quern when it hatches it will seek out the old queen (which will not swarm) . The new queen will kill the old queen. Then will proceed with her mating flight(s). Worker bees. This is the type of bee that makes up the main population. Worker bees are all females. However worker bees ovaries are not developed. They are fed a diet of Royal Jelly for the first 3 days after hatching from a fetilized egg and then the diet is switched to honey and pollen for the rest of its larval period. Drones. These are the male bees. There only purpose is to find a virgin queen to mate with They do not mate with a queen from thier own hive. Drones are incapable of stinging. They do not have a stinger. Drones do no work in the hive. They do not even have the ability to feed themselves. Drones are the result of an unfertilized egg. When the hive wants to swarm or if it needs a new queen it will feed a fertile egg a diet of Royal Jelly. Mating. Drones depart the hive daily at about noon. They just go out and fly about . When a virgin queen goes on a mating flight it also departs at about high noon. But when it does it flys away staying very close to the ground. This is to avoid mating with any drones (her brothers) from its own hive . When she has gone about a km or more from the hive she will fly up higher and higher. As she does any drone in the area will detect her smell (pheromone) and try to catch her. She will continue to fly higher and higher followed by a number of drones only the strongest will get to the queen and mate. When that occurs his genitailia will be ripped from his body with an audible pop. The queen will return to the hive while the drones gear continues to inseminate her. Workers will remove his kit and toss it away.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":12543.0,"score_ratio":2.0833333333} {"post_id":"2y1rpj","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old:Why is manual transmission preferred so much when it comes to sports cars?","c_root_id_A":"cp5f3zn","c_root_id_B":"cp5engh","created_at_utc_A":1425581999,"created_at_utc_B":1425581246,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Sports cars aren't just to get you from point A to B - they're built so that you have more fun doing it. Putting the driver more totally in control is more fun - manual sports cars are great on windy roads like Mulholland Drive near me because you can feel whether or not you're shifting correctly in order to corner safely and tightly, or to proactively downshift before hitting an upward slope.","human_ref_B":"Less weight You get to select the correct gear not the auto trans","labels":1,"seconds_difference":753.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"2y1rpj","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old:Why is manual transmission preferred so much when it comes to sports cars?","c_root_id_A":"cp5fvv7","c_root_id_B":"cp5engh","created_at_utc_A":1425583261,"created_at_utc_B":1425581246,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Engagement is the best reason these days since the paddle shifted automatics in today's super cars execute faster shifts and therefore offer a performance advantage. A great many people still like to feel as connected as possible to their vehicle. Rowing your own gears is simply more fun.","human_ref_B":"Less weight You get to select the correct gear not the auto trans","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2015.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"2y1rpj","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old:Why is manual transmission preferred so much when it comes to sports cars?","c_root_id_A":"cp5fvv7","c_root_id_B":"cp5f8lb","created_at_utc_A":1425583261,"created_at_utc_B":1425582210,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Engagement is the best reason these days since the paddle shifted automatics in today's super cars execute faster shifts and therefore offer a performance advantage. A great many people still like to feel as connected as possible to their vehicle. Rowing your own gears is simply more fun.","human_ref_B":"from a performance point of view, it's better to be able to *choose* what gear you want to be in going into and coming out of corners. An automatic will put you in 3rd gear, for example, when really what you want for maximum acceleration is 2nd. It might shift down to 2nd (or might not), but either way you've lost some speed on exit because you weren't in the right gear. from a mechanical point of view, automatic transmissions work (VERY simply...it's way more complicated than this) via fluid coupling, which takes the place of a mechanical clutch; that means that fluid is used to spin the transmission rather than a simple mechanical connection. The fluid pressure required to make that happen is a bog on the engine, and results in less power output to the rear wheels than a manual.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1051.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"l7yvro","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old : Even with a strong battery why do cars have a hard time starting in cold weather? I don't understand what is different that prevents cars from starting right up in cold weather. Fuel is present, air is there..spark plugs are ...sparking ..and as long as you have a strong battery the starter is turning the engine...why the struggle?","c_root_id_A":"gl9kjjh","c_root_id_B":"gl9jlob","created_at_utc_A":1611942979,"created_at_utc_B":1611942657,"score_A":87,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Batteries are powered by chemical reactions that make an electric current as a product. Most chemical reactions occur much slower in cold temperatures. Slower reaction = less electricity generated per second. Less electricity per second means your car can't make enough sparks to ignite the fuel in your engine, which means it can't start. If you have a strong battery, these effects are small, unless you're in like, *really, really* cold weather. **Edit:** Another user pointed out that sparkplugs don't actually carry the current to the engine to make it start. That's done by a separate motor carrying an inrush current. It's still an issue with current, just not with sparkplugs **Edit 2:** Those claiming that engines won't start at low temps because of oil being more viscous or that moving solids are packed closer together and introduce friction as a result aren't *completely* wrong, but it's not the primary reason for this occurrence. The density of a liquid or solid (such as motor oil or the metals used in your engine) does change with temperature, but the scale at which this occurs is not enough to prevent your engine from starting (at least for the majority of cars on the road). It is enough, however, to increase the amount of work required by your engine to do its job, which would increase the current needed to start your engine. You'll also have lower gas mileage when your engine is cold vs warm for the same reason.","human_ref_B":"They shouldn't have a hard time with a strong batterie. If it is older or just not fully charged for some reasons there can be problems tho, because the capacity decreases with cold temperature.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":322.0,"score_ratio":29.0} {"post_id":"l7yvro","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old : Even with a strong battery why do cars have a hard time starting in cold weather? I don't understand what is different that prevents cars from starting right up in cold weather. Fuel is present, air is there..spark plugs are ...sparking ..and as long as you have a strong battery the starter is turning the engine...why the struggle?","c_root_id_A":"gl9jlob","c_root_id_B":"gl9kyh5","created_at_utc_A":1611942657,"created_at_utc_B":1611943124,"score_A":3,"score_B":19,"human_ref_A":"They shouldn't have a hard time with a strong batterie. If it is older or just not fully charged for some reasons there can be problems tho, because the capacity decreases with cold temperature.","human_ref_B":"The oil in the engine gets thicker and harder to move when it's colder, it is harder to turn everything in the motor over to start it, so it turns slower.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":467.0,"score_ratio":6.3333333333} {"post_id":"l7yvro","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old : Even with a strong battery why do cars have a hard time starting in cold weather? I don't understand what is different that prevents cars from starting right up in cold weather. Fuel is present, air is there..spark plugs are ...sparking ..and as long as you have a strong battery the starter is turning the engine...why the struggle?","c_root_id_A":"gla7eeq","c_root_id_B":"gl9jlob","created_at_utc_A":1611951021,"created_at_utc_B":1611942657,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Lot of people are forgetting that when a reciprocating engine is cold, the tolerances between the moving parts become tighter, meaning there is more friction.","human_ref_B":"They shouldn't have a hard time with a strong batterie. If it is older or just not fully charged for some reasons there can be problems tho, because the capacity decreases with cold temperature.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8364.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"ithtq0","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.74,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why does the brain respond so much to classical music?","c_root_id_A":"g5elvll","c_root_id_B":"g5eltuv","created_at_utc_A":1600205514,"created_at_utc_B":1600205489,"score_A":14,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"Watering this down a LOT but, classical music (any music, but classical-romantic era music does this the most) engages a part of the brain involved with space and time reasoning. Music engages the brain in a way where it has many sounds that only \u201cwork\u201d if they\u2019re played at precisely the right time. It\u2019s like satisfaction-overload for the brain to recognize so many patterns in such short amounts of time. That feeling of anticipation before a musical climax is your brain anxiously awaiting what it already knows is coming, and yet it\u2019s excited anyways. Most predictable things in life are incredibly boring. Music is one of those things that is incredibly predictable, but infinitely fascinating no matter how many times we hear it.","human_ref_B":"Classical music typically has over a dozen types of instruments playing, melody, countermelody, harmony all being exchanged and presented. Often without lyrics. Because there isnt only a single item to focus on, you are forced to listen to it fully and try to extrapolate emotion, meaning, or just beauty from music. You get the same effect from types of music that don't just have a droning bass drum or repeating the same melody throughout, jazz being the best other example.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":25.0,"score_ratio":1.2727272727} {"post_id":"hngzff","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why do babies cry when they want to sleep instead of just sleeping? Saw this in a tweet and it had me wondering","c_root_id_A":"fxb76ga","c_root_id_B":"fxb741p","created_at_utc_A":1594214934,"created_at_utc_B":1594214895,"score_A":22,"score_B":19,"human_ref_A":"Babies aren\u2019t developed enough to verbally communicate what they want. It could be several things, the most likely is that they\u2019re irritable because they\u2019ve gotten off their usual sleep schedule, they\u2019re hungry or they\u2019re mad because they know Epstein didn\u2019t kill himself.","human_ref_B":"If babies are overtired, they get stressed. Their body will release cortisol and adrenaline (essentially fight or flight response). This makes it harder for them to get to sleep.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":39.0,"score_ratio":1.1578947368} {"post_id":"hngzff","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why do babies cry when they want to sleep instead of just sleeping? Saw this in a tweet and it had me wondering","c_root_id_A":"fxb9vlb","c_root_id_B":"fxbb8bc","created_at_utc_A":1594216497,"created_at_utc_B":1594217248,"score_A":4,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"I saw all the answers here and I\u2019ll explain it like you\u2019re 5: Babies, like adults, become grumpy when they\u2019re tired. Unlike adults, they don\u2019t know what is happening to them and can\u2019t communicate it, that makes it very likely they\u2019ll throw a tantrum.","human_ref_B":"Assuming there is nothing wrong (diaper clean, not hungry, no gas, etc.), babies want comfort when going to sleep and the only way to express this is crying. Their cry for \"hold me while I sleep\" is even different than \"Im hungry\" or \"something hurts.\" When they're new little bags of squishiness, this means they want someone, anyone, to hold them. I'm sure there's an evolutionary development in mammals in general for babies to seek out protection of adults in the group when they sleep (it's a very vulnerable state); but since babies can't actively seek out mommy or daddy, this means they cry until someone comes to hold them to fulfill that comfort need. As they get older, they want someone they know and trust to hold them, as strangers become less comforting and even scary. People can eventually be substituted for objects, something that to the baby is safe and comforting. This can be a blanket, a Pooh Bear, a baby doll, whatever. Reposting because rules so sorry if seeing this twice.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":751.0,"score_ratio":1.75} {"post_id":"1kq5by","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Since we're aware of the elements required to create water (H2O), are we able to do so? Are the elements scarce\/abundant? If not\/so, why don't we just create water and supply it to places in need? This might be a dumb question, but it seems so simple...which might be exactly why it isn't...","c_root_id_A":"cbrjxe3","c_root_id_B":"cbrk9rw","created_at_utc_A":1377008260,"created_at_utc_B":1377009346,"score_A":13,"score_B":60,"human_ref_A":"We don't need to make water. 70% of the Earth's surface is covered with water.","human_ref_B":"TLDR: water is more abundantly available than its components.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1086.0,"score_ratio":4.6153846154} {"post_id":"1kq5by","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Since we're aware of the elements required to create water (H2O), are we able to do so? Are the elements scarce\/abundant? If not\/so, why don't we just create water and supply it to places in need? This might be a dumb question, but it seems so simple...which might be exactly why it isn't...","c_root_id_A":"cbrk9rw","c_root_id_B":"cbrij3j","created_at_utc_A":1377009346,"created_at_utc_B":1377002913,"score_A":60,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"TLDR: water is more abundantly available than its components.","human_ref_B":"You need huge amounts of gases yielding only a little water and setting free a big amount of energy. While you can't use the water, there are successful attempts to use the energy: http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Fuel_cell The fuel cell hasn't been widely used e.g. for cars, because they haven't found an easy and yet safe way to store the hydrogen on the vehicle.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6433.0,"score_ratio":7.5} {"post_id":"1kq5by","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Since we're aware of the elements required to create water (H2O), are we able to do so? Are the elements scarce\/abundant? If not\/so, why don't we just create water and supply it to places in need? This might be a dumb question, but it seems so simple...which might be exactly why it isn't...","c_root_id_A":"cbrjsz0","c_root_id_B":"cbrk9rw","created_at_utc_A":1377007848,"created_at_utc_B":1377009346,"score_A":8,"score_B":60,"human_ref_A":"We should gather a ton of oxygen into a massive ball and throw it at the sun to make an awesome swimming pool.","human_ref_B":"TLDR: water is more abundantly available than its components.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1498.0,"score_ratio":7.5} {"post_id":"1kq5by","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Since we're aware of the elements required to create water (H2O), are we able to do so? Are the elements scarce\/abundant? If not\/so, why don't we just create water and supply it to places in need? This might be a dumb question, but it seems so simple...which might be exactly why it isn't...","c_root_id_A":"cbrjxe3","c_root_id_B":"cbrij3j","created_at_utc_A":1377008260,"created_at_utc_B":1377002913,"score_A":13,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"We don't need to make water. 70% of the Earth's surface is covered with water.","human_ref_B":"You need huge amounts of gases yielding only a little water and setting free a big amount of energy. While you can't use the water, there are successful attempts to use the energy: http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Fuel_cell The fuel cell hasn't been widely used e.g. for cars, because they haven't found an easy and yet safe way to store the hydrogen on the vehicle.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5347.0,"score_ratio":1.625} {"post_id":"1kq5by","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Since we're aware of the elements required to create water (H2O), are we able to do so? Are the elements scarce\/abundant? If not\/so, why don't we just create water and supply it to places in need? This might be a dumb question, but it seems so simple...which might be exactly why it isn't...","c_root_id_A":"cbrjxe3","c_root_id_B":"cbrjsz0","created_at_utc_A":1377008260,"created_at_utc_B":1377007848,"score_A":13,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"We don't need to make water. 70% of the Earth's surface is covered with water.","human_ref_B":"We should gather a ton of oxygen into a massive ball and throw it at the sun to make an awesome swimming pool.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":412.0,"score_ratio":1.625} {"post_id":"7jsa6r","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: how do engineers make sure wet surface (like during heavy rain) won't short circuit power transmission tower?","c_root_id_A":"dr8tpco","c_root_id_B":"dr8v33v","created_at_utc_A":1513268754,"created_at_utc_B":1513270119,"score_A":134,"score_B":417,"human_ref_A":"Isn't fresh water not really that conductive? While salt water is. EDIT wording - rain is still conductive, just less so than you might think.","human_ref_B":"If you look closely at a picture of a glass insulator like they use on the towers, you'll see that it's designed to have both a long surface area between one end and another, plus the bell shape helps ensure it's hard for rain to reach or remain on the inside surfaces. Power companies also wash the insulators as part of regular maintenance, using boom trucks that spray deionized water that's a very poor conductor. By keeping the insulators clean, when rain hits them it doesn't become a good conductor and voltage leaks are minimal.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1365.0,"score_ratio":3.1119402985} {"post_id":"7jsa6r","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: how do engineers make sure wet surface (like during heavy rain) won't short circuit power transmission tower?","c_root_id_A":"dr8z97l","c_root_id_B":"dr8tpco","created_at_utc_A":1513274168,"created_at_utc_B":1513268754,"score_A":176,"score_B":134,"human_ref_A":"Power System Engineer here: Insulators are used to keep circuits separated. Insulators are typically ceramic and are structural supports that don\u2019t conduct electricity. The insulators have groves on them so a complete coat of water cannot exist to create a circuit from phase to phase or phase to ground. Here is what an insulator looks like https:\/\/en.m.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Insulator_(electricity)#\/media\/File%3AInsulator_railways.jpg","human_ref_B":"Isn't fresh water not really that conductive? While salt water is. EDIT wording - rain is still conductive, just less so than you might think.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5414.0,"score_ratio":1.3134328358} {"post_id":"7jsa6r","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: how do engineers make sure wet surface (like during heavy rain) won't short circuit power transmission tower?","c_root_id_A":"dr8wicv","c_root_id_B":"dr8z97l","created_at_utc_A":1513271519,"created_at_utc_B":1513274168,"score_A":23,"score_B":176,"human_ref_A":"A rough rule of thumb is that air will insulate about 1000 volts per millimeter.. Or 10k volts per centimeter. That means that on the highest 330kv lines, you only need the cables to be at least 33 cm apart.. And they make sure that the earth cable (usually the single cable) is the closest cable...and that other cables are at least a meter away. Next, when the cables pass a transmission tower, the insulator that holds the cable up is at least a meter long... And there's a cable that jumps the join, so the path of least resistance is always away from the tower. Next, the single most common mode of failure for hv lines is that they oscillate when struck by strong gusts of wind.. ^1 Which is why cables in exposed areas are either bundles of cables separated by plastic spacers, or have large plastic \"football's\"on them to stop resonant vibrations. ^1 The cables on one side \"skip\" one way, and the cables on the other in the opposite direction, and in some cases get close enough to touch... So you make sure they are under enough tension they don't touch, or don't oscillate. The next most common reason for hv line failure is either joint failure.. The cables have to be joined at some point, and the joins fail because the cable is flexible. You can spot the fault with a thermal camera, and the fix is simple. (Cut, weld)... Or bird damage. Big Bird lands on cable, stretches wing, gets close enough to next cable for the voltage to jump.. And the arc runs away.","human_ref_B":"Power System Engineer here: Insulators are used to keep circuits separated. Insulators are typically ceramic and are structural supports that don\u2019t conduct electricity. The insulators have groves on them so a complete coat of water cannot exist to create a circuit from phase to phase or phase to ground. Here is what an insulator looks like https:\/\/en.m.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Insulator_(electricity)#\/media\/File%3AInsulator_railways.jpg","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2649.0,"score_ratio":7.652173913} {"post_id":"7jsa6r","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: how do engineers make sure wet surface (like during heavy rain) won't short circuit power transmission tower?","c_root_id_A":"dr8z97l","c_root_id_B":"dr8y4wy","created_at_utc_A":1513274168,"created_at_utc_B":1513273089,"score_A":176,"score_B":27,"human_ref_A":"Power System Engineer here: Insulators are used to keep circuits separated. Insulators are typically ceramic and are structural supports that don\u2019t conduct electricity. The insulators have groves on them so a complete coat of water cannot exist to create a circuit from phase to phase or phase to ground. Here is what an insulator looks like https:\/\/en.m.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Insulator_(electricity)#\/media\/File%3AInsulator_railways.jpg","human_ref_B":"Question for you guys who know electricity: There's a path my wife and I have hiked a couple times that goes under some high voltage transmission lines. Both times we went under them they were making a sound like a steak sizzling. Why is that? (The first time we heard it we were like, uh, do we really wanna walk under that?)","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1079.0,"score_ratio":6.5185185185} {"post_id":"7jsa6r","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: how do engineers make sure wet surface (like during heavy rain) won't short circuit power transmission tower?","c_root_id_A":"dr8y4wy","c_root_id_B":"dr8wicv","created_at_utc_A":1513273089,"created_at_utc_B":1513271519,"score_A":27,"score_B":23,"human_ref_A":"Question for you guys who know electricity: There's a path my wife and I have hiked a couple times that goes under some high voltage transmission lines. Both times we went under them they were making a sound like a steak sizzling. Why is that? (The first time we heard it we were like, uh, do we really wanna walk under that?)","human_ref_B":"A rough rule of thumb is that air will insulate about 1000 volts per millimeter.. Or 10k volts per centimeter. That means that on the highest 330kv lines, you only need the cables to be at least 33 cm apart.. And they make sure that the earth cable (usually the single cable) is the closest cable...and that other cables are at least a meter away. Next, when the cables pass a transmission tower, the insulator that holds the cable up is at least a meter long... And there's a cable that jumps the join, so the path of least resistance is always away from the tower. Next, the single most common mode of failure for hv lines is that they oscillate when struck by strong gusts of wind.. ^1 Which is why cables in exposed areas are either bundles of cables separated by plastic spacers, or have large plastic \"football's\"on them to stop resonant vibrations. ^1 The cables on one side \"skip\" one way, and the cables on the other in the opposite direction, and in some cases get close enough to touch... So you make sure they are under enough tension they don't touch, or don't oscillate. The next most common reason for hv line failure is either joint failure.. The cables have to be joined at some point, and the joins fail because the cable is flexible. You can spot the fault with a thermal camera, and the fix is simple. (Cut, weld)... Or bird damage. Big Bird lands on cable, stretches wing, gets close enough to next cable for the voltage to jump.. And the arc runs away.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1570.0,"score_ratio":1.1739130435} {"post_id":"yqaap4","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.71,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why are stars and planets named with weird combinations of letters and numbers? I was reading this article (https:\/\/www.vice.com\/en\/article\/z34883\/scie-discover-huge-extragalactic-structure-in-zone-of-avoidance) and it talks about how a new galaxy cluster is named \"VVVGCl-B J181435-381432\" Does naming a galaxy cluster like this really help people in this field of study know what it is they're talking about?","c_root_id_A":"ivni63n","c_root_id_B":"ivnhahl","created_at_utc_A":1667974835,"created_at_utc_B":1667974237,"score_A":82,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"There are millions of things that we see in the night sky, we can't give them all normal-sounding names, so we set a standard naming convention based on it's discovery The first set (VVVGC1-B) refers to the survey that discovered it. Here, the VVV survey, **G**eneral **C**atalog 1B was what recorded it The second part refers to it's sky location. J denotes the coordinate system (called J2000) and the numbers represent the center of the object in that coordinate system (right ascension of 18\u00b014'35\", declination -38\u00b014'32\") So, using this naming convention, we not only have a pretty much unique naming system for anything we find, but also it tells some basic information about it as well","human_ref_B":"There is such a massive amount of known and catalogued stars and planets that naming them with actual names is really kinda pointless in most cases. So they give them serial numbers, which can be looked up in a catalogue to see where it\u2019s located etc.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":598.0,"score_ratio":13.6666666667} {"post_id":"yqaap4","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.71,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why are stars and planets named with weird combinations of letters and numbers? I was reading this article (https:\/\/www.vice.com\/en\/article\/z34883\/scie-discover-huge-extragalactic-structure-in-zone-of-avoidance) and it talks about how a new galaxy cluster is named \"VVVGCl-B J181435-381432\" Does naming a galaxy cluster like this really help people in this field of study know what it is they're talking about?","c_root_id_A":"ivni63n","c_root_id_B":"ivnhaj4","created_at_utc_A":1667974835,"created_at_utc_B":1667974238,"score_A":82,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"There are millions of things that we see in the night sky, we can't give them all normal-sounding names, so we set a standard naming convention based on it's discovery The first set (VVVGC1-B) refers to the survey that discovered it. Here, the VVV survey, **G**eneral **C**atalog 1B was what recorded it The second part refers to it's sky location. J denotes the coordinate system (called J2000) and the numbers represent the center of the object in that coordinate system (right ascension of 18\u00b014'35\", declination -38\u00b014'32\") So, using this naming convention, we not only have a pretty much unique naming system for anything we find, but also it tells some basic information about it as well","human_ref_B":"There are way too many celestial bodies to give a \"normal\" name, though they can have those. It's just much easier to describe what \"part of the sky\" the body is. Those codes are more of a coordinate than a name. Different orgs will use different naming conventions. The most popular one, which is probably the one you saw, is the International Astronomical Union. It uses a combination of unique name\/code, and coordinates. > Nebulae, Galaxies, and Other Objects The designation of astronomical objects beyond the Solar System should consist of at least two parts \u2014 a leading acronym and a sequence value. > An acronym is a code specifying the catalogue or collection of sources, conforming to the following rules, among others: > It should consist of at least three characters (letters and\/or numerals, avoiding special characters). > The acronym must be unique. Acronyms should not be excessively long. > Sequence: a string of usually alpha-numerical characters that uniquely identify the source within the catalogue. Common values for the sequence are: > Running number. > Based on the coordinates of the object. Equatorial Coordinates shall always be preceded by J if they are for the standard equinox of J2000.0.\\l >","labels":1,"seconds_difference":597.0,"score_ratio":27.3333333333} {"post_id":"yqaap4","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.71,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why are stars and planets named with weird combinations of letters and numbers? I was reading this article (https:\/\/www.vice.com\/en\/article\/z34883\/scie-discover-huge-extragalactic-structure-in-zone-of-avoidance) and it talks about how a new galaxy cluster is named \"VVVGCl-B J181435-381432\" Does naming a galaxy cluster like this really help people in this field of study know what it is they're talking about?","c_root_id_A":"ivnhepd","c_root_id_B":"ivni63n","created_at_utc_A":1667974317,"created_at_utc_B":1667974835,"score_A":2,"score_B":82,"human_ref_A":"Because there is a shit ton of them. If we were to give them all a unique \u201cnormal\u201d name it would take forever and be impossible to keep track of. Instead we give them that string of numbers and letters, which corresponds to things like the area of the sky they are in, how bright they are, etc etc.","human_ref_B":"There are millions of things that we see in the night sky, we can't give them all normal-sounding names, so we set a standard naming convention based on it's discovery The first set (VVVGC1-B) refers to the survey that discovered it. Here, the VVV survey, **G**eneral **C**atalog 1B was what recorded it The second part refers to it's sky location. J denotes the coordinate system (called J2000) and the numbers represent the center of the object in that coordinate system (right ascension of 18\u00b014'35\", declination -38\u00b014'32\") So, using this naming convention, we not only have a pretty much unique naming system for anything we find, but also it tells some basic information about it as well","labels":0,"seconds_difference":518.0,"score_ratio":41.0} {"post_id":"ccfaox","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why does the planet Venus rotate in the opposite direction than most other planets in the solar system?","c_root_id_A":"etmhn5j","c_root_id_B":"etmhw0v","created_at_utc_A":1562960138,"created_at_utc_B":1562960296,"score_A":2,"score_B":18,"human_ref_A":"I read about this many years ago. I believe the answer is we just don't know. At least when I was reading about it. There are theories about the thick atmosphere, or just with where it formed and tidal forces, but as far as I remember there are only theories and no answers.","human_ref_B":"We believe it had suffered a massive impact with a Mars sized object which was so devastating, at the right angle, and with enough energy, that it reversed it's rotation. During the formation of the solar system, we were a cloud of dust and gas. Over time, gravity caused that dust to clump together. This doesn't happen in a straight line, but along a curve in space. As the cloud condensed, that curve became more apparent. Gravity tugs on all, causing everything to fall in and along the same plane. This angular momentum normalizes, and the cloud of dust flattens out to an accretion disk. It's why all the planets orbit in the same direction, too. Over enough time, Venus's orbit will halt, and slowly start rotating back in the right direction. I don't know if the sun will explode or not by then...","labels":0,"seconds_difference":158.0,"score_ratio":9.0} {"post_id":"2j2zhr","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: why can I sometimes feel my pulse really strongly in a random part of my body? For example sometimes my foot will start pulsating, or my finger, or the side of my head.","c_root_id_A":"cl843d5","c_root_id_B":"cl7y771","created_at_utc_A":1413195155,"created_at_utc_B":1413171781,"score_A":192,"score_B":34,"human_ref_A":"There are a lot of reasons for feeling your pulse or heartbeat. 1st of all you should get a basic checkup with your doctor. Many people can become more aware of their heartbeat at nighttime because it's quieter around them and they focus on it. Other causes are vast including high blood pressure, narrowing in you blood vessel from cholesterol\/inflammation build-up called carotid stenosis, anything that can cause turbulent blood flow in the blood vessel near your ear ( anemia, thyroid problems, electrolytes being abnormal, infection, dehydration). One of the most dangerous things is called a carotid dissection where the blood vessel in your neck can spontaneously tear. Also, people that have irregular heart rhythms can feel their pulse sometimes. The feet pulsations are most likely spasms and I would make sure you are not dehydrated and electrolytes are ok. Often times this can be seen in people who have poor circulation to the legs or have neuropathy which is basically unhealthy nerves ( often seen in diabetics). Feel better and get checked out! Edit: for the follow-up questions... 1) Heartbeat is sometimes used interchangeably with pulse. Your heart is basically a big muscle whose job it is to pump blood filled with nutrients to the rest of the body. Pulse is, in a simplified way, a measurement of feeling your heartbeat or heart pumping blood through your blood vessels. So when you feel your pulse in your neck that is basically a reaction to your heart pumping in a synchronized fashion. Anything that can make your heart pump more vigorously can make you perceive a stronger pulse or hear your pulse including by your ear. 2) people with the above medical issues listed may both describe either feeling a stronger pulse that they normally don't notice and\/or hearing their pulse. 3) yes, stress and anxiety can increase your heart rate and cause a person to perceive a pulse they didn't notice before or feel a stronger pulse 4) I want to let you guys know that most of the time it is nothing dangerous and usually just from a person perceiving their pulse when they are in a quiet environment and can focus more on it.","human_ref_B":"Is it a vein or could you be having a muscle spasm?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":23374.0,"score_ratio":5.6470588235} {"post_id":"2j2zhr","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: why can I sometimes feel my pulse really strongly in a random part of my body? For example sometimes my foot will start pulsating, or my finger, or the side of my head.","c_root_id_A":"cl7z3mj","c_root_id_B":"cl843d5","created_at_utc_A":1413173975,"created_at_utc_B":1413195155,"score_A":3,"score_B":192,"human_ref_A":"Could increased blood pressure do this also ?","human_ref_B":"There are a lot of reasons for feeling your pulse or heartbeat. 1st of all you should get a basic checkup with your doctor. Many people can become more aware of their heartbeat at nighttime because it's quieter around them and they focus on it. Other causes are vast including high blood pressure, narrowing in you blood vessel from cholesterol\/inflammation build-up called carotid stenosis, anything that can cause turbulent blood flow in the blood vessel near your ear ( anemia, thyroid problems, electrolytes being abnormal, infection, dehydration). One of the most dangerous things is called a carotid dissection where the blood vessel in your neck can spontaneously tear. Also, people that have irregular heart rhythms can feel their pulse sometimes. The feet pulsations are most likely spasms and I would make sure you are not dehydrated and electrolytes are ok. Often times this can be seen in people who have poor circulation to the legs or have neuropathy which is basically unhealthy nerves ( often seen in diabetics). Feel better and get checked out! Edit: for the follow-up questions... 1) Heartbeat is sometimes used interchangeably with pulse. Your heart is basically a big muscle whose job it is to pump blood filled with nutrients to the rest of the body. Pulse is, in a simplified way, a measurement of feeling your heartbeat or heart pumping blood through your blood vessels. So when you feel your pulse in your neck that is basically a reaction to your heart pumping in a synchronized fashion. Anything that can make your heart pump more vigorously can make you perceive a stronger pulse or hear your pulse including by your ear. 2) people with the above medical issues listed may both describe either feeling a stronger pulse that they normally don't notice and\/or hearing their pulse. 3) yes, stress and anxiety can increase your heart rate and cause a person to perceive a pulse they didn't notice before or feel a stronger pulse 4) I want to let you guys know that most of the time it is nothing dangerous and usually just from a person perceiving their pulse when they are in a quiet environment and can focus more on it.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":21180.0,"score_ratio":64.0} {"post_id":"2j2zhr","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: why can I sometimes feel my pulse really strongly in a random part of my body? For example sometimes my foot will start pulsating, or my finger, or the side of my head.","c_root_id_A":"cl7z3mj","c_root_id_B":"cl84ctg","created_at_utc_A":1413173975,"created_at_utc_B":1413196787,"score_A":3,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"Could increased blood pressure do this also ?","human_ref_B":"I can achieve this by focusing on an area, for example my fingers. I think the pulse is always there(obviously it has to be) but we usually aren't aware of it because it's something that's been there since day one, so the brain ignores this sensation most of the time.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":22812.0,"score_ratio":4.6666666667} {"post_id":"2j2zhr","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: why can I sometimes feel my pulse really strongly in a random part of my body? For example sometimes my foot will start pulsating, or my finger, or the side of my head.","c_root_id_A":"cl7z3mj","c_root_id_B":"cl85oqk","created_at_utc_A":1413173975,"created_at_utc_B":1413203475,"score_A":3,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Could increased blood pressure do this also ?","human_ref_B":"You have smaller arterioles all over your body. We tend to measure pulse from a few artery locations merely because they are easy to find and feel. It does not mean you cannot feel a pulse elsewhere.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":29500.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"2j2zhr","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: why can I sometimes feel my pulse really strongly in a random part of my body? For example sometimes my foot will start pulsating, or my finger, or the side of my head.","c_root_id_A":"cl86hgu","c_root_id_B":"cl7z3mj","created_at_utc_A":1413206376,"created_at_utc_B":1413173975,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"The brain typically does not register the nerve impulses unless there is a change from the norm like when you smash yo finger or freeze your hand off. Its the same sort of thing as how you dont realize your breathing until you focus on it or start choking to death.","human_ref_B":"Could increased blood pressure do this also ?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":32401.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"rcqvog","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How don't those engines with start\/stop technology (at red lights for example) wear down far quicker than traditional engines?","c_root_id_A":"hnxajaz","c_root_id_B":"hnwkf1v","created_at_utc_A":1639097073,"created_at_utc_B":1639085900,"score_A":2080,"score_B":1956,"human_ref_A":"On top of everyone else's answer, it's important to note the role that the motor oil plays in the process. Motor oil that is at operating temperature and hasn't been broken down allows the metal surfaces inside the engine to almost never touch. The wear goes into the oil and not the metal, the former being much easier to replace than the latter. When an engine is shut off, the oil is still hot (typical operating temperature is 205\u00b0F-220\u00b0F depending on the manufacturer\/design) and it's continuing to drip and cover all of the metal surfaces such as the pistons, valve springs, etc etc. Starting the engine in this state causes very, very little wear as again, it's the oil taking the wear and not the metal. Cold, winter starts are when the engine takes the most wear, when the oil is most viscous. Start\/Stop systems typically do not kick in when they detect the engine is not at operating temperature or power needs exceed a certain threshold.","human_ref_B":"What wears an ICE engine is thermal cycles, that is warming it up, cooling it down, and warming it up again. If you start an engine that is already warm, there is very little wear. The wear comes from starting a cold engine that has been sitting for a while. Take an example, have you ever pulled the starter cord on a cold weed whacker \/ weedeater, or similar small engine? When it is cold, it is relatively hard to pull that cord, and you have to yank it a bunch of times. Now, run the engine for a while and turn it off. Wait about a minute and start it again. It is way easier when the engine is warm, and you usually get it on the first pull. The reason the wear is worse on a cold engine that has been sitting for a while is that the oil and everything that lubricates the engine has cooled and settled. For that bit of time where you are starting the cold engine, you aren't getting good lubrication. That is where the engine wear occurs. It can be so bad (the bad lubrication) where the seals and gaskets haven't seen lubrication in so long they lose their pliability, then a cold start blows out the motor on the spot. The example I am thinking of is a generator that hadn't been run in a number of years that was clicked on during a power outage that promptly spewed all of its oil and what not all over the floor. Now, lets be honest, in a consumer vehicle with a liquid cooled engine, you are unlikely to get to the point where you will wear the engine so badly that you need to overhaul or rebuild. Engines that drive across the continent (truck diesels), or airplane piston engines, will see use that will require an overhaul\/rebuild. You would have to start\/stop excessively to match the kind of wear you get on a truck or airplane engine. Airplane engines because they are air cooled and the thermal cycles are rather extreme, and truck engines because they are massive and used for many times more driving miles than your typical car or SUV ICE.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":11173.0,"score_ratio":1.063394683} {"post_id":"rcqvog","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How don't those engines with start\/stop technology (at red lights for example) wear down far quicker than traditional engines?","c_root_id_A":"hnwd5w5","c_root_id_B":"hnxajaz","created_at_utc_A":1639082952,"created_at_utc_B":1639097073,"score_A":249,"score_B":2080,"human_ref_A":"They simply put in more robust starter motors so they can handle it. Once the engine is warmed up, stopping it for a minute or so then starting it back up won't damage anything.","human_ref_B":"On top of everyone else's answer, it's important to note the role that the motor oil plays in the process. Motor oil that is at operating temperature and hasn't been broken down allows the metal surfaces inside the engine to almost never touch. The wear goes into the oil and not the metal, the former being much easier to replace than the latter. When an engine is shut off, the oil is still hot (typical operating temperature is 205\u00b0F-220\u00b0F depending on the manufacturer\/design) and it's continuing to drip and cover all of the metal surfaces such as the pistons, valve springs, etc etc. Starting the engine in this state causes very, very little wear as again, it's the oil taking the wear and not the metal. Cold, winter starts are when the engine takes the most wear, when the oil is most viscous. Start\/Stop systems typically do not kick in when they detect the engine is not at operating temperature or power needs exceed a certain threshold.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":14121.0,"score_ratio":8.3534136546} {"post_id":"rcqvog","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How don't those engines with start\/stop technology (at red lights for example) wear down far quicker than traditional engines?","c_root_id_A":"hnxajaz","c_root_id_B":"hnxaibq","created_at_utc_A":1639097073,"created_at_utc_B":1639097061,"score_A":2080,"score_B":22,"human_ref_A":"On top of everyone else's answer, it's important to note the role that the motor oil plays in the process. Motor oil that is at operating temperature and hasn't been broken down allows the metal surfaces inside the engine to almost never touch. The wear goes into the oil and not the metal, the former being much easier to replace than the latter. When an engine is shut off, the oil is still hot (typical operating temperature is 205\u00b0F-220\u00b0F depending on the manufacturer\/design) and it's continuing to drip and cover all of the metal surfaces such as the pistons, valve springs, etc etc. Starting the engine in this state causes very, very little wear as again, it's the oil taking the wear and not the metal. Cold, winter starts are when the engine takes the most wear, when the oil is most viscous. Start\/Stop systems typically do not kick in when they detect the engine is not at operating temperature or power needs exceed a certain threshold.","human_ref_B":"I know people will insist there's no penalty for these stop\/start cycles, but I don't buy it. Look at GM's problems with Active Fuel Management, similar goal to save fuel where they cut the fuel on some cylinders at cruising speed, its destroyed a lot of motors despite engineers insisting they had it all figured out. I absolutely hate cars that have the start\/stop and when they make you disable it every time you start the car. I've been in situations where it almost caused an accident, like turning left and the car hesitated. Nothing like a nice car feeling like it stalls out at every light and the AC goes warm at idle.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":12.0,"score_ratio":94.5454545455} {"post_id":"rcqvog","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How don't those engines with start\/stop technology (at red lights for example) wear down far quicker than traditional engines?","c_root_id_A":"hnwd5w5","c_root_id_B":"hnwkf1v","created_at_utc_A":1639082952,"created_at_utc_B":1639085900,"score_A":249,"score_B":1956,"human_ref_A":"They simply put in more robust starter motors so they can handle it. Once the engine is warmed up, stopping it for a minute or so then starting it back up won't damage anything.","human_ref_B":"What wears an ICE engine is thermal cycles, that is warming it up, cooling it down, and warming it up again. If you start an engine that is already warm, there is very little wear. The wear comes from starting a cold engine that has been sitting for a while. Take an example, have you ever pulled the starter cord on a cold weed whacker \/ weedeater, or similar small engine? When it is cold, it is relatively hard to pull that cord, and you have to yank it a bunch of times. Now, run the engine for a while and turn it off. Wait about a minute and start it again. It is way easier when the engine is warm, and you usually get it on the first pull. The reason the wear is worse on a cold engine that has been sitting for a while is that the oil and everything that lubricates the engine has cooled and settled. For that bit of time where you are starting the cold engine, you aren't getting good lubrication. That is where the engine wear occurs. It can be so bad (the bad lubrication) where the seals and gaskets haven't seen lubrication in so long they lose their pliability, then a cold start blows out the motor on the spot. The example I am thinking of is a generator that hadn't been run in a number of years that was clicked on during a power outage that promptly spewed all of its oil and what not all over the floor. Now, lets be honest, in a consumer vehicle with a liquid cooled engine, you are unlikely to get to the point where you will wear the engine so badly that you need to overhaul or rebuild. Engines that drive across the continent (truck diesels), or airplane piston engines, will see use that will require an overhaul\/rebuild. You would have to start\/stop excessively to match the kind of wear you get on a truck or airplane engine. Airplane engines because they are air cooled and the thermal cycles are rather extreme, and truck engines because they are massive and used for many times more driving miles than your typical car or SUV ICE.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2948.0,"score_ratio":7.8554216867} {"post_id":"rzuxrc","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: In regards to the James Webb telescope(congrats, NASA!): How does the solar shield NOT act like a solar wind sail, which would cause the telescope to be steadily pushed away from us and require frequent re-alignment?","c_root_id_A":"hrxh0y1","c_root_id_B":"hrxj6ad","created_at_utc_A":1641745332,"created_at_utc_B":1641746137,"score_A":45,"score_B":113,"human_ref_A":"Very good question! JWST has an \"aft momentum flap\" which works to counter this effect. It lets it, sort of surf or sail on the pressure from the sun's radiation to steer it in the right angle. You can read more about it here: https:\/\/blogs.nasa.gov\/webb\/2021\/12\/30\/webbs-aft-momentum-flap-deployed\/","human_ref_B":"Good question. You gotta see which force is acting against that pressure. The telescope is not at the L2 exactly, but slightly \"before\" so it has the ever slightest tendency to get pulled towards the sun. This gravitational force is bigger than the solar wind pressure, so you need fuel to ever stay as close to L2 as possible, not overshot. The aft momentum flap is to counteract rotation caused by the wind pressure, and not to act against the outward force of the wind pressure: the shield is rarely perpendicular to the sun rays, which causes a rotation as the sun beam is reflected off.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":805.0,"score_ratio":2.5111111111} {"post_id":"rzuxrc","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: In regards to the James Webb telescope(congrats, NASA!): How does the solar shield NOT act like a solar wind sail, which would cause the telescope to be steadily pushed away from us and require frequent re-alignment?","c_root_id_A":"hrxj6ad","c_root_id_B":"hrxhxca","created_at_utc_A":1641746137,"created_at_utc_B":1641745662,"score_A":113,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"Good question. You gotta see which force is acting against that pressure. The telescope is not at the L2 exactly, but slightly \"before\" so it has the ever slightest tendency to get pulled towards the sun. This gravitational force is bigger than the solar wind pressure, so you need fuel to ever stay as close to L2 as possible, not overshot. The aft momentum flap is to counteract rotation caused by the wind pressure, and not to act against the outward force of the wind pressure: the shield is rarely perpendicular to the sun rays, which causes a rotation as the sun beam is reflected off.","human_ref_B":"Secondary question because I\u2019m too lazy to make a new post. How does it orbit a point in space at L2? What I\u2019m referring to is the vertical orbit it makes to keep in line of the sun around the earth while it\u2019s in its stationary orbit.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":475.0,"score_ratio":11.3} {"post_id":"rzuxrc","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: In regards to the James Webb telescope(congrats, NASA!): How does the solar shield NOT act like a solar wind sail, which would cause the telescope to be steadily pushed away from us and require frequent re-alignment?","c_root_id_A":"hrxgycr","c_root_id_B":"hrxj6ad","created_at_utc_A":1641745304,"created_at_utc_B":1641746137,"score_A":2,"score_B":113,"human_ref_A":"It does... There is an aft flap that serves to counter balance that rotation keeping the telescope oriented correctly","human_ref_B":"Good question. You gotta see which force is acting against that pressure. The telescope is not at the L2 exactly, but slightly \"before\" so it has the ever slightest tendency to get pulled towards the sun. This gravitational force is bigger than the solar wind pressure, so you need fuel to ever stay as close to L2 as possible, not overshot. The aft momentum flap is to counteract rotation caused by the wind pressure, and not to act against the outward force of the wind pressure: the shield is rarely perpendicular to the sun rays, which causes a rotation as the sun beam is reflected off.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":833.0,"score_ratio":56.5} {"post_id":"rzuxrc","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: In regards to the James Webb telescope(congrats, NASA!): How does the solar shield NOT act like a solar wind sail, which would cause the telescope to be steadily pushed away from us and require frequent re-alignment?","c_root_id_A":"hrxh0y1","c_root_id_B":"hrxgycr","created_at_utc_A":1641745332,"created_at_utc_B":1641745304,"score_A":45,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Very good question! JWST has an \"aft momentum flap\" which works to counter this effect. It lets it, sort of surf or sail on the pressure from the sun's radiation to steer it in the right angle. You can read more about it here: https:\/\/blogs.nasa.gov\/webb\/2021\/12\/30\/webbs-aft-momentum-flap-deployed\/","human_ref_B":"It does... There is an aft flap that serves to counter balance that rotation keeping the telescope oriented correctly","labels":1,"seconds_difference":28.0,"score_ratio":22.5} {"post_id":"rzuxrc","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: In regards to the James Webb telescope(congrats, NASA!): How does the solar shield NOT act like a solar wind sail, which would cause the telescope to be steadily pushed away from us and require frequent re-alignment?","c_root_id_A":"hrxhxca","c_root_id_B":"hrxgycr","created_at_utc_A":1641745662,"created_at_utc_B":1641745304,"score_A":10,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Secondary question because I\u2019m too lazy to make a new post. How does it orbit a point in space at L2? What I\u2019m referring to is the vertical orbit it makes to keep in line of the sun around the earth while it\u2019s in its stationary orbit.","human_ref_B":"It does... There is an aft flap that serves to counter balance that rotation keeping the telescope oriented correctly","labels":1,"seconds_difference":358.0,"score_ratio":5.0} {"post_id":"z5g12v","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.71,"history":"Eli5: Why do animals wag their tails when they\u2019re happy? Mostly doggos but also other animals!","c_root_id_A":"ixvz38s","c_root_id_B":"ixw60d4","created_at_utc_A":1669494258,"created_at_utc_B":1669497145,"score_A":8,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"\"Animals\" do not. Many animals \"wag\" their tails when nervous, or threatened, or scared. Or they're... marking their territory. Wolves move their tail around to express all kinds of emotions. Dogs evolved to basically express joy with their tail.","human_ref_B":"Social signalling is important for pretty much any animal! Wagging tails just developed that way for dogs for some reason. Just like smiling for humans, at some point the arbitrary action became the signal for happiness, then that got socially (and a little biologically) reinforced for thousands of years until it became a universal sign.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2887.0,"score_ratio":1.625} {"post_id":"27s1p4","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.71,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old - Why was Edward Snowden made out to be a traitor\/enemy? Didn't he do us a favor?","c_root_id_A":"ci3t2b0","c_root_id_B":"ci3tdyw","created_at_utc_A":1402403116,"created_at_utc_B":1402404290,"score_A":13,"score_B":24,"human_ref_A":"A simple way to put it is that Mr Snowden did wrong by the law, but right by the people. Depending on who you ask, some say that the law triumphs over the people **(the law is always right because it is written by the best and brightest, just shut up and obey)**, others say the people triumphs over the law **(the people decide whether a law is fair\/just or not regardless of who wrote it).**","human_ref_B":"Because he leaked 1.4-1.7 million secret documents to the world. He gave them to reporters and said \"use your own discretion\". There's no way he knew what was in all those documents. As much as people love to think all this was about freedom of information and the abstract, it has real life (deadly) implications for some people in our intelligence services, and long term military planning. Be a whistleblower all you want, by leaking a couple damning documents to reputable American media that could change the way things our done. Don't download sensitive data in the millions for everyone to see. A former KGB official stated the Russian FSB had targeted Snowden as a candidate for defection by 2007, in Geneva. Who knows if that's true, but the conventional spy game is alive and well these days - as much as we'd like to pretend the world has evolved past it.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1174.0,"score_ratio":1.8461538462} {"post_id":"27s1p4","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.71,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old - Why was Edward Snowden made out to be a traitor\/enemy? Didn't he do us a favor?","c_root_id_A":"ci3swof","c_root_id_B":"ci3tdyw","created_at_utc_A":1402402515,"created_at_utc_B":1402404290,"score_A":9,"score_B":24,"human_ref_A":"Let's say the government is Mom, and Edward Snowden is one of her children. One of her many, many children (citizens of America = children). He's a teenager, and like many teenagers, he thinks he's smart enough to know when Mom is messing up. Let's say Mom has been super irresponsible lately; basically she's being a bad mom. All of her children have left the nest, so to speak, but she's trying to keep tabs on them. In her eyes, she's doing the right thing -- as a mother she's worried about her children, and she's trying to look out for their best interests. How can Mom protect her children without knowing what to protect them from? Mom knows what scary things are out there better than her children, or so she tells herself. So since she knows better, she thinks she's justified in keeping tabs on them. Only, in this family, the way she's keeping tabs on her kids is illegal, and some of the things she's been doing with other families has been questionable. Edward, a bit of a Momma's boy and so hangs out with her a lot, sees what Mom is doing. Heck, Mom even asks Edward to do some of it for her. And Edward thinks to himself, \"Mom, this ain't right.\" But telling his mother won't solve anything. She knows what she's doing, and she knows that it's wrong. She won't stop. So Edward decides he has to tell some of the other kids what Mom's been up to. He's very concerned about how Mom keeps tabs on them because it isn't right, and if she won't tell them what she's been doing... well then, by golly, Edward will! Edward thinks they ought to know (since they're her kids too, after all), so he goes to one of the children who's a bit of a loud mouth. Let's call her Nosey Nelly. Nosey Nelly loves telling stories about her mom. Mom really hates Nosey Nelly (yes, she hates her daughter), and Edward knows that Mom won't like it when she finds out he's talking to her. When Nosey Nelly meets with her brother and learns about what Mom's been up to, it's a real barn-burner. She tells EVERYONE -- all the other children, and even the other families. She tells them all what a bad mom her mother's been. When Mom finds out, she's really unhappy. She's been trying to be a good mom, she really has been, so she's hurt that Edward has betrayed her like this. In fact, when she really thinks about it, Edward shouldn't have done it. What he's done is tell the other families exactly what she's been up to, and most of it is baaaaad stuff. The other families point at Mom now and say, \"That's a bad mother. We can't trust her anymore.\" So Mom tries to stop Edward from saying anything else. She asks him to stop playing and come inside. But Edward says no. He knows she's going to put him in timeout. Which, of course, is true, but his disobedience only makes Mom more upset with him. How *dare* he stay outside and play with the other kids. And look at that, he's even hanging out with a new family, one of Mother's enemies! Mother wonders if they've adopted him. And she wonders what else Edward will tell them, because he's got all her little secrets, and lots of them are about his new family. TL;DR -- Gov't = mom. Ed = her kid. Ed learns what his mom is up to and rats her out. Mom's pissed, even though he's right, because she doesn't like admitting she made a mistake, and she doesn't want the other families to know what she's been up to.","human_ref_B":"Because he leaked 1.4-1.7 million secret documents to the world. He gave them to reporters and said \"use your own discretion\". There's no way he knew what was in all those documents. As much as people love to think all this was about freedom of information and the abstract, it has real life (deadly) implications for some people in our intelligence services, and long term military planning. Be a whistleblower all you want, by leaking a couple damning documents to reputable American media that could change the way things our done. Don't download sensitive data in the millions for everyone to see. A former KGB official stated the Russian FSB had targeted Snowden as a candidate for defection by 2007, in Geneva. Who knows if that's true, but the conventional spy game is alive and well these days - as much as we'd like to pretend the world has evolved past it.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1775.0,"score_ratio":2.6666666667} {"post_id":"27s1p4","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.71,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old - Why was Edward Snowden made out to be a traitor\/enemy? Didn't he do us a favor?","c_root_id_A":"ci3tdyw","c_root_id_B":"ci3swf9","created_at_utc_A":1402404290,"created_at_utc_B":1402402489,"score_A":24,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Because he leaked 1.4-1.7 million secret documents to the world. He gave them to reporters and said \"use your own discretion\". There's no way he knew what was in all those documents. As much as people love to think all this was about freedom of information and the abstract, it has real life (deadly) implications for some people in our intelligence services, and long term military planning. Be a whistleblower all you want, by leaking a couple damning documents to reputable American media that could change the way things our done. Don't download sensitive data in the millions for everyone to see. A former KGB official stated the Russian FSB had targeted Snowden as a candidate for defection by 2007, in Geneva. Who knows if that's true, but the conventional spy game is alive and well these days - as much as we'd like to pretend the world has evolved past it.","human_ref_B":"This explains things pretty well","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1801.0,"score_ratio":8.0} {"post_id":"27s1p4","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.71,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old - Why was Edward Snowden made out to be a traitor\/enemy? Didn't he do us a favor?","c_root_id_A":"ci3swof","c_root_id_B":"ci3t2b0","created_at_utc_A":1402402515,"created_at_utc_B":1402403116,"score_A":9,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"Let's say the government is Mom, and Edward Snowden is one of her children. One of her many, many children (citizens of America = children). He's a teenager, and like many teenagers, he thinks he's smart enough to know when Mom is messing up. Let's say Mom has been super irresponsible lately; basically she's being a bad mom. All of her children have left the nest, so to speak, but she's trying to keep tabs on them. In her eyes, she's doing the right thing -- as a mother she's worried about her children, and she's trying to look out for their best interests. How can Mom protect her children without knowing what to protect them from? Mom knows what scary things are out there better than her children, or so she tells herself. So since she knows better, she thinks she's justified in keeping tabs on them. Only, in this family, the way she's keeping tabs on her kids is illegal, and some of the things she's been doing with other families has been questionable. Edward, a bit of a Momma's boy and so hangs out with her a lot, sees what Mom is doing. Heck, Mom even asks Edward to do some of it for her. And Edward thinks to himself, \"Mom, this ain't right.\" But telling his mother won't solve anything. She knows what she's doing, and she knows that it's wrong. She won't stop. So Edward decides he has to tell some of the other kids what Mom's been up to. He's very concerned about how Mom keeps tabs on them because it isn't right, and if she won't tell them what she's been doing... well then, by golly, Edward will! Edward thinks they ought to know (since they're her kids too, after all), so he goes to one of the children who's a bit of a loud mouth. Let's call her Nosey Nelly. Nosey Nelly loves telling stories about her mom. Mom really hates Nosey Nelly (yes, she hates her daughter), and Edward knows that Mom won't like it when she finds out he's talking to her. When Nosey Nelly meets with her brother and learns about what Mom's been up to, it's a real barn-burner. She tells EVERYONE -- all the other children, and even the other families. She tells them all what a bad mom her mother's been. When Mom finds out, she's really unhappy. She's been trying to be a good mom, she really has been, so she's hurt that Edward has betrayed her like this. In fact, when she really thinks about it, Edward shouldn't have done it. What he's done is tell the other families exactly what she's been up to, and most of it is baaaaad stuff. The other families point at Mom now and say, \"That's a bad mother. We can't trust her anymore.\" So Mom tries to stop Edward from saying anything else. She asks him to stop playing and come inside. But Edward says no. He knows she's going to put him in timeout. Which, of course, is true, but his disobedience only makes Mom more upset with him. How *dare* he stay outside and play with the other kids. And look at that, he's even hanging out with a new family, one of Mother's enemies! Mother wonders if they've adopted him. And she wonders what else Edward will tell them, because he's got all her little secrets, and lots of them are about his new family. TL;DR -- Gov't = mom. Ed = her kid. Ed learns what his mom is up to and rats her out. Mom's pissed, even though he's right, because she doesn't like admitting she made a mistake, and she doesn't want the other families to know what she's been up to.","human_ref_B":"A simple way to put it is that Mr Snowden did wrong by the law, but right by the people. Depending on who you ask, some say that the law triumphs over the people **(the law is always right because it is written by the best and brightest, just shut up and obey)**, others say the people triumphs over the law **(the people decide whether a law is fair\/just or not regardless of who wrote it).**","labels":0,"seconds_difference":601.0,"score_ratio":1.4444444444} {"post_id":"27s1p4","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.71,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old - Why was Edward Snowden made out to be a traitor\/enemy? Didn't he do us a favor?","c_root_id_A":"ci3swf9","c_root_id_B":"ci3t2b0","created_at_utc_A":1402402489,"created_at_utc_B":1402403116,"score_A":3,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"This explains things pretty well","human_ref_B":"A simple way to put it is that Mr Snowden did wrong by the law, but right by the people. Depending on who you ask, some say that the law triumphs over the people **(the law is always right because it is written by the best and brightest, just shut up and obey)**, others say the people triumphs over the law **(the people decide whether a law is fair\/just or not regardless of who wrote it).**","labels":0,"seconds_difference":627.0,"score_ratio":4.3333333333} {"post_id":"27s1p4","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.71,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old - Why was Edward Snowden made out to be a traitor\/enemy? Didn't he do us a favor?","c_root_id_A":"ci3swof","c_root_id_B":"ci3swf9","created_at_utc_A":1402402515,"created_at_utc_B":1402402489,"score_A":9,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Let's say the government is Mom, and Edward Snowden is one of her children. One of her many, many children (citizens of America = children). He's a teenager, and like many teenagers, he thinks he's smart enough to know when Mom is messing up. Let's say Mom has been super irresponsible lately; basically she's being a bad mom. All of her children have left the nest, so to speak, but she's trying to keep tabs on them. In her eyes, she's doing the right thing -- as a mother she's worried about her children, and she's trying to look out for their best interests. How can Mom protect her children without knowing what to protect them from? Mom knows what scary things are out there better than her children, or so she tells herself. So since she knows better, she thinks she's justified in keeping tabs on them. Only, in this family, the way she's keeping tabs on her kids is illegal, and some of the things she's been doing with other families has been questionable. Edward, a bit of a Momma's boy and so hangs out with her a lot, sees what Mom is doing. Heck, Mom even asks Edward to do some of it for her. And Edward thinks to himself, \"Mom, this ain't right.\" But telling his mother won't solve anything. She knows what she's doing, and she knows that it's wrong. She won't stop. So Edward decides he has to tell some of the other kids what Mom's been up to. He's very concerned about how Mom keeps tabs on them because it isn't right, and if she won't tell them what she's been doing... well then, by golly, Edward will! Edward thinks they ought to know (since they're her kids too, after all), so he goes to one of the children who's a bit of a loud mouth. Let's call her Nosey Nelly. Nosey Nelly loves telling stories about her mom. Mom really hates Nosey Nelly (yes, she hates her daughter), and Edward knows that Mom won't like it when she finds out he's talking to her. When Nosey Nelly meets with her brother and learns about what Mom's been up to, it's a real barn-burner. She tells EVERYONE -- all the other children, and even the other families. She tells them all what a bad mom her mother's been. When Mom finds out, she's really unhappy. She's been trying to be a good mom, she really has been, so she's hurt that Edward has betrayed her like this. In fact, when she really thinks about it, Edward shouldn't have done it. What he's done is tell the other families exactly what she's been up to, and most of it is baaaaad stuff. The other families point at Mom now and say, \"That's a bad mother. We can't trust her anymore.\" So Mom tries to stop Edward from saying anything else. She asks him to stop playing and come inside. But Edward says no. He knows she's going to put him in timeout. Which, of course, is true, but his disobedience only makes Mom more upset with him. How *dare* he stay outside and play with the other kids. And look at that, he's even hanging out with a new family, one of Mother's enemies! Mother wonders if they've adopted him. And she wonders what else Edward will tell them, because he's got all her little secrets, and lots of them are about his new family. TL;DR -- Gov't = mom. Ed = her kid. Ed learns what his mom is up to and rats her out. Mom's pissed, even though he's right, because she doesn't like admitting she made a mistake, and she doesn't want the other families to know what she's been up to.","human_ref_B":"This explains things pretty well","labels":1,"seconds_difference":26.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"27s1p4","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.71,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old - Why was Edward Snowden made out to be a traitor\/enemy? Didn't he do us a favor?","c_root_id_A":"ci3u501","c_root_id_B":"ci3swf9","created_at_utc_A":1402406699,"created_at_utc_B":1402402489,"score_A":8,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"For most Americans, the divide is between optimizing freedoms vs. optimizing security. Snowden is fast in the freedoms side of the fence. On the other hand, there are lots of people who never minded the TSA scanners and pat downs because they'd rather have the security. You don't know how precious either is until you lose it.","human_ref_B":"This explains things pretty well","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4210.0,"score_ratio":2.6666666667} {"post_id":"27s1p4","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.71,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old - Why was Edward Snowden made out to be a traitor\/enemy? Didn't he do us a favor?","c_root_id_A":"ci3vtt5","c_root_id_B":"ci3v8h3","created_at_utc_A":1402410984,"created_at_utc_B":1402409598,"score_A":7,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"metaphorically, even when an american stands up and tells his other country men that the government is feeding them shit, the government will convince them shit is good for them and many of them will agree.","human_ref_B":"What he did was a favor to the people of the world and of America in particular. What he did was traitorous to the government. If that juxtaposition doesn't scare the fuck out of you there is no helping this country.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1386.0,"score_ratio":1.4} {"post_id":"27s1p4","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.71,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old - Why was Edward Snowden made out to be a traitor\/enemy? Didn't he do us a favor?","c_root_id_A":"ci3vtt5","c_root_id_B":"ci3swf9","created_at_utc_A":1402410984,"created_at_utc_B":1402402489,"score_A":7,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"metaphorically, even when an american stands up and tells his other country men that the government is feeding them shit, the government will convince them shit is good for them and many of them will agree.","human_ref_B":"This explains things pretty well","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8495.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333} {"post_id":"27s1p4","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.71,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old - Why was Edward Snowden made out to be a traitor\/enemy? Didn't he do us a favor?","c_root_id_A":"ci3swf9","c_root_id_B":"ci3v8h3","created_at_utc_A":1402402489,"created_at_utc_B":1402409598,"score_A":3,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"This explains things pretty well","human_ref_B":"What he did was a favor to the people of the world and of America in particular. What he did was traitorous to the government. If that juxtaposition doesn't scare the fuck out of you there is no helping this country.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7109.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"tfjsy2","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How did the original DOOM manage to play like a 3D game despite apparently being fully 2D?","c_root_id_A":"i0wc23s","c_root_id_B":"i0w6ogr","created_at_utc_A":1647445934,"created_at_utc_B":1647443760,"score_A":70,"score_B":17,"human_ref_A":"Video: Doom engine - Limited but still 3D This video shows many of the 3D features (and limitations) that Doom had. * Doom maps can be represented in 2D. People often use that as an argument for it being 2D game. The 2D presentation is possible just because Doom can't do rooms above roooms. The map itself has height (for floor and ceiling) and these do affect gameplay in various ways. * Low ceiling can be used to prevent tall monsters from entering a room that a short monster can enter. Flying enemies can also change their z-position and fly through windows. * Player can run over gaps between plattforms. * Walls can be \"jumped\" over with help from explosions. * Doom uses simplified collision physics that ignore height. People often claim that this makes the game 2D. But notably not-hitscan projectiles can fly over enemies (they take the height into consideration when checking for collision). * You can't aim up or down, instead you hit enemies regardless of their z-position. The rendering tecnhique used in Doom is fast but looks really bad if you look up or down. The previously mentioned collision checks make it so that you don't need to look up or down to hit things. So you can think of it like a form of autoaim.","human_ref_B":"The terrain was fully 3D, and the objects (barrels, pick up, enemies) were 2D (think cardboard stand up). As you moved around, objects with a specific facing, like enemies, had several images that would be swapped out. So if you were viewing an imp from it's front, the game would use the front image sets. If you were on its side, it would use the side images.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2174.0,"score_ratio":4.1176470588} {"post_id":"tfjsy2","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How did the original DOOM manage to play like a 3D game despite apparently being fully 2D?","c_root_id_A":"i0wbb55","c_root_id_B":"i0wc23s","created_at_utc_A":1647445634,"created_at_utc_B":1647445934,"score_A":12,"score_B":70,"human_ref_A":"It was 2D, but with different elevations for any point on a map, generally described as 2.5D. But you couldn't, for example, cross a bridge and then go under it. They did a lot of \"cheating\" on that game to make it look more than it was so it could run on an old 386 without hardware acceleration. They used shading and size, and played lots of tricks with a limited color palette, to give that feel of distance, which really made it feel 3D. Carmack was a pioneering genius to make that game work on such limited hardware.","human_ref_B":"Video: Doom engine - Limited but still 3D This video shows many of the 3D features (and limitations) that Doom had. * Doom maps can be represented in 2D. People often use that as an argument for it being 2D game. The 2D presentation is possible just because Doom can't do rooms above roooms. The map itself has height (for floor and ceiling) and these do affect gameplay in various ways. * Low ceiling can be used to prevent tall monsters from entering a room that a short monster can enter. Flying enemies can also change their z-position and fly through windows. * Player can run over gaps between plattforms. * Walls can be \"jumped\" over with help from explosions. * Doom uses simplified collision physics that ignore height. People often claim that this makes the game 2D. But notably not-hitscan projectiles can fly over enemies (they take the height into consideration when checking for collision). * You can't aim up or down, instead you hit enemies regardless of their z-position. The rendering tecnhique used in Doom is fast but looks really bad if you look up or down. The previously mentioned collision checks make it so that you don't need to look up or down to hit things. So you can think of it like a form of autoaim.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":300.0,"score_ratio":5.8333333333} {"post_id":"tfjsy2","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How did the original DOOM manage to play like a 3D game despite apparently being fully 2D?","c_root_id_A":"i0wc23s","c_root_id_B":"i0w6drd","created_at_utc_A":1647445934,"created_at_utc_B":1647443637,"score_A":70,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Video: Doom engine - Limited but still 3D This video shows many of the 3D features (and limitations) that Doom had. * Doom maps can be represented in 2D. People often use that as an argument for it being 2D game. The 2D presentation is possible just because Doom can't do rooms above roooms. The map itself has height (for floor and ceiling) and these do affect gameplay in various ways. * Low ceiling can be used to prevent tall monsters from entering a room that a short monster can enter. Flying enemies can also change their z-position and fly through windows. * Player can run over gaps between plattforms. * Walls can be \"jumped\" over with help from explosions. * Doom uses simplified collision physics that ignore height. People often claim that this makes the game 2D. But notably not-hitscan projectiles can fly over enemies (they take the height into consideration when checking for collision). * You can't aim up or down, instead you hit enemies regardless of their z-position. The rendering tecnhique used in Doom is fast but looks really bad if you look up or down. The previously mentioned collision checks make it so that you don't need to look up or down to hit things. So you can think of it like a form of autoaim.","human_ref_B":"Super Mario Brothers had 2 dimensions: left\/right, and up\/down. You couldn't move in the Z plane, or forward\/backward into the screen. Doom also had two dimensions: left\/right and forward\/backward. There was no moving up and down. This tricked you into thinking you were in a 3-D world as you could move forward and backward, which was the dimension missing from most other games. But, you still only had two plane of motion","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2297.0,"score_ratio":23.3333333333} {"post_id":"tfjsy2","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How did the original DOOM manage to play like a 3D game despite apparently being fully 2D?","c_root_id_A":"i0w6drd","c_root_id_B":"i0w6ogr","created_at_utc_A":1647443637,"created_at_utc_B":1647443760,"score_A":3,"score_B":17,"human_ref_A":"Super Mario Brothers had 2 dimensions: left\/right, and up\/down. You couldn't move in the Z plane, or forward\/backward into the screen. Doom also had two dimensions: left\/right and forward\/backward. There was no moving up and down. This tricked you into thinking you were in a 3-D world as you could move forward and backward, which was the dimension missing from most other games. But, you still only had two plane of motion","human_ref_B":"The terrain was fully 3D, and the objects (barrels, pick up, enemies) were 2D (think cardboard stand up). As you moved around, objects with a specific facing, like enemies, had several images that would be swapped out. So if you were viewing an imp from it's front, the game would use the front image sets. If you were on its side, it would use the side images.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":123.0,"score_ratio":5.6666666667} {"post_id":"tfjsy2","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How did the original DOOM manage to play like a 3D game despite apparently being fully 2D?","c_root_id_A":"i0wbb55","c_root_id_B":"i0w6drd","created_at_utc_A":1647445634,"created_at_utc_B":1647443637,"score_A":12,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"It was 2D, but with different elevations for any point on a map, generally described as 2.5D. But you couldn't, for example, cross a bridge and then go under it. They did a lot of \"cheating\" on that game to make it look more than it was so it could run on an old 386 without hardware acceleration. They used shading and size, and played lots of tricks with a limited color palette, to give that feel of distance, which really made it feel 3D. Carmack was a pioneering genius to make that game work on such limited hardware.","human_ref_B":"Super Mario Brothers had 2 dimensions: left\/right, and up\/down. You couldn't move in the Z plane, or forward\/backward into the screen. Doom also had two dimensions: left\/right and forward\/backward. There was no moving up and down. This tricked you into thinking you were in a 3-D world as you could move forward and backward, which was the dimension missing from most other games. But, you still only had two plane of motion","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1997.0,"score_ratio":4.0} {"post_id":"ny4dbq","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why do you usually feel so much better after throwing up when you feel nauseous?","c_root_id_A":"h1i846l","c_root_id_B":"h1i7voy","created_at_utc_A":1623497169,"created_at_utc_B":1623496966,"score_A":65,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"Because that's the point of vomiting. To get evacuate the contents of your stomach because the body thinks it has detected something harmful in there.","human_ref_B":"You do? I feel like I've vomited, and then I\u2019ll probably vomit again multiple times because I can taste vomit. Not to mention the burning acid through my mouth and nose and throat. And then when I think I'm done there will be some piece of post nasal drip (aka vomit chunk) that dislodges itself and starts the cycle again. When I do eventually stop I feel horrible and drained, and like I've been run over by a truck. No sir I do not enjoy vomiting. 0\/10, do not recommend. But 2 days later, sure, I feel better.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":203.0,"score_ratio":5.0} {"post_id":"8mc29m","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.69,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old:Why is the ocean water so clear in places like the Caribbean but not at US beaches? I think the question speaks for itself.","c_root_id_A":"dzmg0oc","c_root_id_B":"dzmfv9v","created_at_utc_A":1527363288,"created_at_utc_B":1527363122,"score_A":31,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Tropical waters like those in the Caribbean are warm, clear, and completely devoid of nutrients. This is why life clusters around reefs, a lot of creatures eat the plankton and algae that grows on the coral, they provide food for the area The waters up north are cold, dark, dirty, and full of nutrients! The darkness is partially from dirt\/mud but a large part is all the algae, plankton, and krill. These nutrient rich waters support a wide variety of animals and many animals will go to these dark waters to feed and fatten up during the summer and then return to the warm clear waters to give birth and raise their young","human_ref_B":"More complicated than just contaminants. Taking the Pacific into account, for example, it's often a cold water\/warm water difference. Santa Cruz has pretty murky water partially because cold water carries a bigger bioload, where most water in Hawaii is pretty damn clear","labels":1,"seconds_difference":166.0,"score_ratio":6.2} {"post_id":"hhfii6","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.74,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old:. How are we able to learn behavioral traits of species never documented while alive? How are we so certain about dinosaur knowledge when it's based solely on fossils?","c_root_id_A":"fw9reh9","c_root_id_B":"fw9xgqy","created_at_utc_A":1593356654,"created_at_utc_B":1593360058,"score_A":9,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"A lot of it's just guesswork based on limited evidence. For example if we find a lot of footprints or the remains of many individuals together in the same area, we can assume that they probably lived in packs\/herds at least some of the time. Eggs and nests can allow us to know something about breeding behavior, and even evidence of healed injuries can tell us about predator\/prey interactions or fights between individuals.","human_ref_B":"That question is similar to, \"how is a forensic team investigating a crime able to know what happened if they never saw it?\" They find evidence that was left behind that they can peice together to form a complete picture of what happened. Paleontologists do the same thing but with extinct animals. They use fossile records which can't be understated in usefulness. Some fossils are actually completely preserved in such a way that you can take it apart layer by layer and \"disect\" an ancient animal. You can see the remnants of the food they ate, the size and shape of internal organs, etc etc and in doing so use logical reasoning to figure out how those adaptations would have been used. Enviormental evidence helps too. A creature that builds a whole lot of nest in the same general area is most likely to be a group\/pack\/herd animal, for example. You also have the standard rules of evolution to help give you ideas as well. An animal that sticks out like a sore thumb or has an extreme adaptation is a clue that they specialize in some skill or trait because specializations are an evolutionary risk. (You *better* excel at it if you specialize or you've got nothing to fall back on.) Now, are they wrong sometimes? Definitely. Sometimes a hypothesis can look probable until someone finds evidence that conflicts with the idea. We saw dinosaurs as more reptilian for a long time, until people started find fossils that included examples of those dinos having feathers and other features that put them more inline with modern birds. Its a game of trial and error. The more evidence you can find, the more clear the picture can become.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3404.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} {"post_id":"hhfii6","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.74,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old:. How are we able to learn behavioral traits of species never documented while alive? How are we so certain about dinosaur knowledge when it's based solely on fossils?","c_root_id_A":"fw9xgqy","c_root_id_B":"fw9rd6v","created_at_utc_A":1593360058,"created_at_utc_B":1593356633,"score_A":12,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"That question is similar to, \"how is a forensic team investigating a crime able to know what happened if they never saw it?\" They find evidence that was left behind that they can peice together to form a complete picture of what happened. Paleontologists do the same thing but with extinct animals. They use fossile records which can't be understated in usefulness. Some fossils are actually completely preserved in such a way that you can take it apart layer by layer and \"disect\" an ancient animal. You can see the remnants of the food they ate, the size and shape of internal organs, etc etc and in doing so use logical reasoning to figure out how those adaptations would have been used. Enviormental evidence helps too. A creature that builds a whole lot of nest in the same general area is most likely to be a group\/pack\/herd animal, for example. You also have the standard rules of evolution to help give you ideas as well. An animal that sticks out like a sore thumb or has an extreme adaptation is a clue that they specialize in some skill or trait because specializations are an evolutionary risk. (You *better* excel at it if you specialize or you've got nothing to fall back on.) Now, are they wrong sometimes? Definitely. Sometimes a hypothesis can look probable until someone finds evidence that conflicts with the idea. We saw dinosaurs as more reptilian for a long time, until people started find fossils that included examples of those dinos having feathers and other features that put them more inline with modern birds. Its a game of trial and error. The more evidence you can find, the more clear the picture can become.","human_ref_B":"When it comes to the behavior of dinosaurs and other long extinct creatures, they're probably basing the majority of their behaviors on their current-day evolutionary versions. I can't imagine it being super accurate because much like their physical evolution over time has changed drastically, so too would their behavioral traits have modified with the times","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3425.0,"score_ratio":6.0} {"post_id":"hhfii6","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.74,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old:. How are we able to learn behavioral traits of species never documented while alive? How are we so certain about dinosaur knowledge when it's based solely on fossils?","c_root_id_A":"fw9reh9","c_root_id_B":"fw9rd6v","created_at_utc_A":1593356654,"created_at_utc_B":1593356633,"score_A":9,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"A lot of it's just guesswork based on limited evidence. For example if we find a lot of footprints or the remains of many individuals together in the same area, we can assume that they probably lived in packs\/herds at least some of the time. Eggs and nests can allow us to know something about breeding behavior, and even evidence of healed injuries can tell us about predator\/prey interactions or fights between individuals.","human_ref_B":"When it comes to the behavior of dinosaurs and other long extinct creatures, they're probably basing the majority of their behaviors on their current-day evolutionary versions. I can't imagine it being super accurate because much like their physical evolution over time has changed drastically, so too would their behavioral traits have modified with the times","labels":1,"seconds_difference":21.0,"score_ratio":4.5} {"post_id":"hhfii6","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.74,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old:. How are we able to learn behavioral traits of species never documented while alive? How are we so certain about dinosaur knowledge when it's based solely on fossils?","c_root_id_A":"fwchs1j","c_root_id_B":"fw9rd6v","created_at_utc_A":1593415870,"created_at_utc_B":1593356633,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Here in the desert, zoo archeologist have found footprints of mammoths, with many distinctions. To the one side, many smaller mammoth tracks were found (likely females), they likely traveled together. Running perpendicular to those sets of tracks, was a single, large set of tracks, beloning likely to a solitary male. This hints that males might have traveled alone, while females traveled in herds. All this information just in the tracks they left behind! So it is not all too impossible to observe other traits of extinct animals through fossils and trace fossils.","human_ref_B":"When it comes to the behavior of dinosaurs and other long extinct creatures, they're probably basing the majority of their behaviors on their current-day evolutionary versions. I can't imagine it being super accurate because much like their physical evolution over time has changed drastically, so too would their behavioral traits have modified with the times","labels":1,"seconds_difference":59237.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"x9obut","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: If WhatsApp messages are end to end encrypted, how can WhatsApp show me the code used to encrypt those messages?","c_root_id_A":"inp5tfe","c_root_id_B":"inp909f","created_at_utc_A":1662708010,"created_at_utc_B":1662710642,"score_A":3,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"This is one of the great accomplishments of modern cryptography. The ability to show you exactly how the encryption happen. Modern encryption uses one way functions. Mathematical functions that are trivial in one direction, but we know of no way to reverse them in any kind of reasonable timeframe. Since you don't know which random numbers (generating these in an unpredictable way isn't particularly hard) we're used in any specific case(ie. for any given message), you're left with having to reverse an irreversible function to get the \"secret\"\u2248key. (Authentication then works through proving that you know that solution, by giving what are essentially \"examples\/transpositions\" without ever passing over the actual solution.)","human_ref_B":"Public keys and asymmetrical encryption to exchange a symmetrical encryption key. When I want to send you a message, my devices generates 2 encryption keys. A (private) and B (public). Messages (plaintext) encrypted with one key (ciphertext) can only be decrypted by the other key. You cannot decrypt using the same key it was encrypted with. To simplify it we will use a substitution cipher. The most basic of all ciphers\/encryption. The \u201cA\u201d key will increment each letter by +1. So D -> E, E -> F, and so on. The \u201cB\u201d key will increment by -1, so P -> O. A Key + BOOBS = CPPCT If we try to decrypt using the A Key A Key + CPPCT = DQQDU = wrong Now the B Key B Key + CPPCT = BOOBS = correct It\u2019s important here to point out that modern encryption algorithms are vastly more complex, and as of now the most complex of them have yet to be broken. The keys generated are complex enough to avoid collision, or when someone else\u2019s key pair might accurately decrypt your message. Ok, now that we have our keys, we always keep one secret and only known to us, the private key. Use encode the message we want to send using our Private key(A). Along with the encrypted ciphertext we will send our Public Key (B) in clear text. Our friend gets the encrypted message CPPCT and our B Key. They decrypt the message, B key + CPPCT = BOOBS. It makes them laugh. They want to send us back LOL. They use their B Key and at the end of the message they include their Public B key, but this time they encrypt their B key with our B Key. Since my Private Key A is the only thing in existence that can decrypt messages encrypted with my public B key, the sender knows I\u2019m the only person that can read the message they sent. I use my Private A key, decrypt their B key they sent, and use that to decrypt their message \u201cLOL\u201d. Now that we have exchanged keys, and have a secure method to exchange messages, anytime I want to send my friend a message, I encrypt it with their Public B key, which ensures only they can decrypt it with their private A key. The problem is asymmetrical encryption like this is slow. Using the secure exchange we setup we mutually agree to start using a symmetrical encryption method and generate a key to use (Key C). Symmetrical encryption uses only one key for both encryption and decryption, and is much faster than asymmetrical. Going forward we can both just use Key C to encrypt our communications. What\u2019s cool is that even if someone got an exact copy of that first message, it doesn\u2019t matter. When my friend returns the message, which includes their public key, the message is encrypted with my public key. Using my Private key is the only way to decrypt the public key they generated and sent for this session.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2632.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"vprzqw","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why does GPS work when underground and under big buildings but radio signals, Wi-Fi, and cell phone signals struggle?","c_root_id_A":"iekwmww","c_root_id_B":"iekv56m","created_at_utc_A":1656772069,"created_at_utc_B":1656771367,"score_A":7002,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"GPS doesn't. It's really flaky if you don't have a clear view of the sky. However, most GPS systems are augmented. For instance, they can use accelerometers to know the speed and direction of travel and thus extrapolate from the last GPS position. So when you're in a tunnel your GPS can't locate you, but the positioning system takes the last GPS read and adds your movement since then, plus the assumption you're still on the same road, and plots your position in the tunnel. These \"inertial\" navigation systems actually predate GPS, but they loose accuracy over time from when they were last calibrated at a fixed position. Edit: as mentioned by many, smartphones have very basic estimation this way - they can't estimate position accurately long after loosing connection. And phones also use a few other techniques to augment GPS like WiFi (there's essentially a shared list of WiFi base stations and their locations), Bluetooth and cell phone towers. Edit2: I'd like to emphasize this bit > assumption you're still on the same road, and plots your position in the tunnel. Inertial navigation, even with expensive big systems, is not very accurate. Assuming you're sticking to the road network is pretty key to making it work well (plus you can probably assume they're travelling at roughly the same speed). It often freaks out if you're in a complicated tunnel network with forks and turns offs Edit3: leaving lose as loose for all the redditors who need to point it out :)","human_ref_B":"It doesn't always. GPS runs off of a satellite system, which is also used for things like satellite TV. If you've ever used satellite TV or tried to use a vehicle's GPS in a storm (even heavy cloud cover with a lot of rain or precipitation in it), they are notorious for losing connection. Many \"GPS\" applications still store location data in phones and other devices so if they lose connection it will still show your last location. Most modern location services combine GPS, cell signal triangulation, data from Wi-Fi or other networks, as well as other devices nearby to confirm your location. Otherwise, the lower frequency signals are likely to travel further (like an x-ray going through almost everything but lead) than higher frequency ones. High frequency signals oscillate (go up & down making a full wave) much more quickly than low frequency ones, and because of that they're likeliest to be deflected by thin layers of metal or other things","labels":1,"seconds_difference":702.0,"score_ratio":466.8} {"post_id":"vprzqw","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why does GPS work when underground and under big buildings but radio signals, Wi-Fi, and cell phone signals struggle?","c_root_id_A":"iel03c9","c_root_id_B":"ieledd6","created_at_utc_A":1656773654,"created_at_utc_B":1656779962,"score_A":312,"score_B":573,"human_ref_A":"Many tunnels in California have Bluetooth beacons at regular intervals, according to Waze at least. This combined with speed information is probably giving you a good estimate of your position during the loss of GPS fix. GPS bands are L1 1575.42 MHz L2 1227.60 MHz Both of these are much higher than FM radio and struggle to penetrate far through buildings, so they are almost always blocked by concrete, brick and tinted windows.","human_ref_B":"GPS doesn't work underground. What IS working is \"Location Services\". Most devices with Location Services use GPS but also an array of different technologies to self-locate. For example, my cell phone uses any and all of the following: * Global Positioning Satellite * Wifi Location (if Wifi is turned on on a Google phone, it looks at what SSIDs it can see and their relative signal strengths and other location data and uploads to Google. Other devices can then use this same list of SSIDs to ask Google where it is and get a pretty accurate result.) * Cell Network (the phone can see multiple cell towers and their relative signal strengths and self-locate the same way as WiFi) * Accelerometer-based dead reckoning (If you know where you were and then traveled at known speeds and directions, you can work out where you are pretty accurately, though the accuracy falls off the longer the time between confirmed location)","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6308.0,"score_ratio":1.8365384615} {"post_id":"vprzqw","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why does GPS work when underground and under big buildings but radio signals, Wi-Fi, and cell phone signals struggle?","c_root_id_A":"ieledd6","c_root_id_B":"iel04bj","created_at_utc_A":1656779962,"created_at_utc_B":1656773667,"score_A":573,"score_B":202,"human_ref_A":"GPS doesn't work underground. What IS working is \"Location Services\". Most devices with Location Services use GPS but also an array of different technologies to self-locate. For example, my cell phone uses any and all of the following: * Global Positioning Satellite * Wifi Location (if Wifi is turned on on a Google phone, it looks at what SSIDs it can see and their relative signal strengths and other location data and uploads to Google. Other devices can then use this same list of SSIDs to ask Google where it is and get a pretty accurate result.) * Cell Network (the phone can see multiple cell towers and their relative signal strengths and self-locate the same way as WiFi) * Accelerometer-based dead reckoning (If you know where you were and then traveled at known speeds and directions, you can work out where you are pretty accurately, though the accuracy falls off the longer the time between confirmed location)","human_ref_B":"GPS doesn\u2019t work under ground or in large building especially well. If you are referring to your phones\u2019s location services they use a whole suite of features to provide the appearance of precisely determined location that include GPS\/cell tower identification\/Wi-Fi Mac identification from data bases such a skyhook \/and inertial navigation and even as a last ditch geo ip. All of these add up to the devices ability to locate itself fairly well, model the world and continue to update location even when one or more of them fail, and fading in or out or report spurious data.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6295.0,"score_ratio":2.8366336634} {"post_id":"vprzqw","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why does GPS work when underground and under big buildings but radio signals, Wi-Fi, and cell phone signals struggle?","c_root_id_A":"ieky5wv","c_root_id_B":"ieledd6","created_at_utc_A":1656772781,"created_at_utc_B":1656779962,"score_A":105,"score_B":573,"human_ref_A":"GPS is notorious for needing a very clear view of the sky in order to work. I don't know where you're getting the idea that it works underground.","human_ref_B":"GPS doesn't work underground. What IS working is \"Location Services\". Most devices with Location Services use GPS but also an array of different technologies to self-locate. For example, my cell phone uses any and all of the following: * Global Positioning Satellite * Wifi Location (if Wifi is turned on on a Google phone, it looks at what SSIDs it can see and their relative signal strengths and other location data and uploads to Google. Other devices can then use this same list of SSIDs to ask Google where it is and get a pretty accurate result.) * Cell Network (the phone can see multiple cell towers and their relative signal strengths and self-locate the same way as WiFi) * Accelerometer-based dead reckoning (If you know where you were and then traveled at known speeds and directions, you can work out where you are pretty accurately, though the accuracy falls off the longer the time between confirmed location)","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7181.0,"score_ratio":5.4571428571} {"post_id":"vprzqw","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why does GPS work when underground and under big buildings but radio signals, Wi-Fi, and cell phone signals struggle?","c_root_id_A":"ieledd6","c_root_id_B":"iel2lah","created_at_utc_A":1656779962,"created_at_utc_B":1656774766,"score_A":573,"score_B":30,"human_ref_A":"GPS doesn't work underground. What IS working is \"Location Services\". Most devices with Location Services use GPS but also an array of different technologies to self-locate. For example, my cell phone uses any and all of the following: * Global Positioning Satellite * Wifi Location (if Wifi is turned on on a Google phone, it looks at what SSIDs it can see and their relative signal strengths and other location data and uploads to Google. Other devices can then use this same list of SSIDs to ask Google where it is and get a pretty accurate result.) * Cell Network (the phone can see multiple cell towers and their relative signal strengths and self-locate the same way as WiFi) * Accelerometer-based dead reckoning (If you know where you were and then traveled at known speeds and directions, you can work out where you are pretty accurately, though the accuracy falls off the longer the time between confirmed location)","human_ref_B":"We use the term \"GPS\" as a shorthand for \"Location Services.\" It's actually one of several means used to determine your location. Seeing WiFi that is at a known location, cellular triangulation, etc. all augment that ability to show your location. (I don't know all the ways). In some cars, it will use the speed of the wheels and the turning of the steering wheel to improve the estimate of your location. The system can also fix up inaccuracies by assuming you are still on the freeway when you go into a tunnel.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5196.0,"score_ratio":19.1} {"post_id":"vprzqw","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why does GPS work when underground and under big buildings but radio signals, Wi-Fi, and cell phone signals struggle?","c_root_id_A":"iel90xj","c_root_id_B":"ieledd6","created_at_utc_A":1656777613,"created_at_utc_B":1656779962,"score_A":22,"score_B":573,"human_ref_A":"Tell me you haven\u2019t tried to use GPS inside a tunnel without telling me you haven\u2019t tried to use GPS inside a tunnel.","human_ref_B":"GPS doesn't work underground. What IS working is \"Location Services\". Most devices with Location Services use GPS but also an array of different technologies to self-locate. For example, my cell phone uses any and all of the following: * Global Positioning Satellite * Wifi Location (if Wifi is turned on on a Google phone, it looks at what SSIDs it can see and their relative signal strengths and other location data and uploads to Google. Other devices can then use this same list of SSIDs to ask Google where it is and get a pretty accurate result.) * Cell Network (the phone can see multiple cell towers and their relative signal strengths and self-locate the same way as WiFi) * Accelerometer-based dead reckoning (If you know where you were and then traveled at known speeds and directions, you can work out where you are pretty accurately, though the accuracy falls off the longer the time between confirmed location)","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2349.0,"score_ratio":26.0454545455} {"post_id":"vprzqw","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why does GPS work when underground and under big buildings but radio signals, Wi-Fi, and cell phone signals struggle?","c_root_id_A":"ieledd6","c_root_id_B":"iekv56m","created_at_utc_A":1656779962,"created_at_utc_B":1656771367,"score_A":573,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"GPS doesn't work underground. What IS working is \"Location Services\". Most devices with Location Services use GPS but also an array of different technologies to self-locate. For example, my cell phone uses any and all of the following: * Global Positioning Satellite * Wifi Location (if Wifi is turned on on a Google phone, it looks at what SSIDs it can see and their relative signal strengths and other location data and uploads to Google. Other devices can then use this same list of SSIDs to ask Google where it is and get a pretty accurate result.) * Cell Network (the phone can see multiple cell towers and their relative signal strengths and self-locate the same way as WiFi) * Accelerometer-based dead reckoning (If you know where you were and then traveled at known speeds and directions, you can work out where you are pretty accurately, though the accuracy falls off the longer the time between confirmed location)","human_ref_B":"It doesn't always. GPS runs off of a satellite system, which is also used for things like satellite TV. If you've ever used satellite TV or tried to use a vehicle's GPS in a storm (even heavy cloud cover with a lot of rain or precipitation in it), they are notorious for losing connection. Many \"GPS\" applications still store location data in phones and other devices so if they lose connection it will still show your last location. Most modern location services combine GPS, cell signal triangulation, data from Wi-Fi or other networks, as well as other devices nearby to confirm your location. Otherwise, the lower frequency signals are likely to travel further (like an x-ray going through almost everything but lead) than higher frequency ones. High frequency signals oscillate (go up & down making a full wave) much more quickly than low frequency ones, and because of that they're likeliest to be deflected by thin layers of metal or other things","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8595.0,"score_ratio":38.2} {"post_id":"vprzqw","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why does GPS work when underground and under big buildings but radio signals, Wi-Fi, and cell phone signals struggle?","c_root_id_A":"ieky5wv","c_root_id_B":"iel03c9","created_at_utc_A":1656772781,"created_at_utc_B":1656773654,"score_A":105,"score_B":312,"human_ref_A":"GPS is notorious for needing a very clear view of the sky in order to work. I don't know where you're getting the idea that it works underground.","human_ref_B":"Many tunnels in California have Bluetooth beacons at regular intervals, according to Waze at least. This combined with speed information is probably giving you a good estimate of your position during the loss of GPS fix. GPS bands are L1 1575.42 MHz L2 1227.60 MHz Both of these are much higher than FM radio and struggle to penetrate far through buildings, so they are almost always blocked by concrete, brick and tinted windows.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":873.0,"score_ratio":2.9714285714} {"post_id":"vprzqw","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why does GPS work when underground and under big buildings but radio signals, Wi-Fi, and cell phone signals struggle?","c_root_id_A":"iel03c9","c_root_id_B":"iekv56m","created_at_utc_A":1656773654,"created_at_utc_B":1656771367,"score_A":312,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"Many tunnels in California have Bluetooth beacons at regular intervals, according to Waze at least. This combined with speed information is probably giving you a good estimate of your position during the loss of GPS fix. GPS bands are L1 1575.42 MHz L2 1227.60 MHz Both of these are much higher than FM radio and struggle to penetrate far through buildings, so they are almost always blocked by concrete, brick and tinted windows.","human_ref_B":"It doesn't always. GPS runs off of a satellite system, which is also used for things like satellite TV. If you've ever used satellite TV or tried to use a vehicle's GPS in a storm (even heavy cloud cover with a lot of rain or precipitation in it), they are notorious for losing connection. Many \"GPS\" applications still store location data in phones and other devices so if they lose connection it will still show your last location. Most modern location services combine GPS, cell signal triangulation, data from Wi-Fi or other networks, as well as other devices nearby to confirm your location. Otherwise, the lower frequency signals are likely to travel further (like an x-ray going through almost everything but lead) than higher frequency ones. High frequency signals oscillate (go up & down making a full wave) much more quickly than low frequency ones, and because of that they're likeliest to be deflected by thin layers of metal or other things","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2287.0,"score_ratio":20.8} {"post_id":"vprzqw","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why does GPS work when underground and under big buildings but radio signals, Wi-Fi, and cell phone signals struggle?","c_root_id_A":"iel04bj","c_root_id_B":"ieky5wv","created_at_utc_A":1656773667,"created_at_utc_B":1656772781,"score_A":202,"score_B":105,"human_ref_A":"GPS doesn\u2019t work under ground or in large building especially well. If you are referring to your phones\u2019s location services they use a whole suite of features to provide the appearance of precisely determined location that include GPS\/cell tower identification\/Wi-Fi Mac identification from data bases such a skyhook \/and inertial navigation and even as a last ditch geo ip. All of these add up to the devices ability to locate itself fairly well, model the world and continue to update location even when one or more of them fail, and fading in or out or report spurious data.","human_ref_B":"GPS is notorious for needing a very clear view of the sky in order to work. I don't know where you're getting the idea that it works underground.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":886.0,"score_ratio":1.9238095238} {"post_id":"vprzqw","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why does GPS work when underground and under big buildings but radio signals, Wi-Fi, and cell phone signals struggle?","c_root_id_A":"iekv56m","c_root_id_B":"iel04bj","created_at_utc_A":1656771367,"created_at_utc_B":1656773667,"score_A":15,"score_B":202,"human_ref_A":"It doesn't always. GPS runs off of a satellite system, which is also used for things like satellite TV. If you've ever used satellite TV or tried to use a vehicle's GPS in a storm (even heavy cloud cover with a lot of rain or precipitation in it), they are notorious for losing connection. Many \"GPS\" applications still store location data in phones and other devices so if they lose connection it will still show your last location. Most modern location services combine GPS, cell signal triangulation, data from Wi-Fi or other networks, as well as other devices nearby to confirm your location. Otherwise, the lower frequency signals are likely to travel further (like an x-ray going through almost everything but lead) than higher frequency ones. High frequency signals oscillate (go up & down making a full wave) much more quickly than low frequency ones, and because of that they're likeliest to be deflected by thin layers of metal or other things","human_ref_B":"GPS doesn\u2019t work under ground or in large building especially well. If you are referring to your phones\u2019s location services they use a whole suite of features to provide the appearance of precisely determined location that include GPS\/cell tower identification\/Wi-Fi Mac identification from data bases such a skyhook \/and inertial navigation and even as a last ditch geo ip. All of these add up to the devices ability to locate itself fairly well, model the world and continue to update location even when one or more of them fail, and fading in or out or report spurious data.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2300.0,"score_ratio":13.4666666667} {"post_id":"vprzqw","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why does GPS work when underground and under big buildings but radio signals, Wi-Fi, and cell phone signals struggle?","c_root_id_A":"ieky5wv","c_root_id_B":"iekv56m","created_at_utc_A":1656772781,"created_at_utc_B":1656771367,"score_A":105,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"GPS is notorious for needing a very clear view of the sky in order to work. I don't know where you're getting the idea that it works underground.","human_ref_B":"It doesn't always. GPS runs off of a satellite system, which is also used for things like satellite TV. If you've ever used satellite TV or tried to use a vehicle's GPS in a storm (even heavy cloud cover with a lot of rain or precipitation in it), they are notorious for losing connection. Many \"GPS\" applications still store location data in phones and other devices so if they lose connection it will still show your last location. Most modern location services combine GPS, cell signal triangulation, data from Wi-Fi or other networks, as well as other devices nearby to confirm your location. Otherwise, the lower frequency signals are likely to travel further (like an x-ray going through almost everything but lead) than higher frequency ones. High frequency signals oscillate (go up & down making a full wave) much more quickly than low frequency ones, and because of that they're likeliest to be deflected by thin layers of metal or other things","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1414.0,"score_ratio":7.0} {"post_id":"vprzqw","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why does GPS work when underground and under big buildings but radio signals, Wi-Fi, and cell phone signals struggle?","c_root_id_A":"iel2lah","c_root_id_B":"ielehqo","created_at_utc_A":1656774766,"created_at_utc_B":1656780015,"score_A":30,"score_B":32,"human_ref_A":"We use the term \"GPS\" as a shorthand for \"Location Services.\" It's actually one of several means used to determine your location. Seeing WiFi that is at a known location, cellular triangulation, etc. all augment that ability to show your location. (I don't know all the ways). In some cars, it will use the speed of the wheels and the turning of the steering wheel to improve the estimate of your location. The system can also fix up inaccuracies by assuming you are still on the freeway when you go into a tunnel.","human_ref_B":"GPS does not work underground and does not work under big buildings. It even struggles between buildings.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5249.0,"score_ratio":1.0666666667} {"post_id":"vprzqw","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why does GPS work when underground and under big buildings but radio signals, Wi-Fi, and cell phone signals struggle?","c_root_id_A":"ielehqo","c_root_id_B":"iel90xj","created_at_utc_A":1656780015,"created_at_utc_B":1656777613,"score_A":32,"score_B":22,"human_ref_A":"GPS does not work underground and does not work under big buildings. It even struggles between buildings.","human_ref_B":"Tell me you haven\u2019t tried to use GPS inside a tunnel without telling me you haven\u2019t tried to use GPS inside a tunnel.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2402.0,"score_ratio":1.4545454545} {"post_id":"vprzqw","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why does GPS work when underground and under big buildings but radio signals, Wi-Fi, and cell phone signals struggle?","c_root_id_A":"iekv56m","c_root_id_B":"ielehqo","created_at_utc_A":1656771367,"created_at_utc_B":1656780015,"score_A":15,"score_B":32,"human_ref_A":"It doesn't always. GPS runs off of a satellite system, which is also used for things like satellite TV. If you've ever used satellite TV or tried to use a vehicle's GPS in a storm (even heavy cloud cover with a lot of rain or precipitation in it), they are notorious for losing connection. Many \"GPS\" applications still store location data in phones and other devices so if they lose connection it will still show your last location. Most modern location services combine GPS, cell signal triangulation, data from Wi-Fi or other networks, as well as other devices nearby to confirm your location. Otherwise, the lower frequency signals are likely to travel further (like an x-ray going through almost everything but lead) than higher frequency ones. High frequency signals oscillate (go up & down making a full wave) much more quickly than low frequency ones, and because of that they're likeliest to be deflected by thin layers of metal or other things","human_ref_B":"GPS does not work underground and does not work under big buildings. It even struggles between buildings.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8648.0,"score_ratio":2.1333333333} {"post_id":"vprzqw","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why does GPS work when underground and under big buildings but radio signals, Wi-Fi, and cell phone signals struggle?","c_root_id_A":"iekv56m","c_root_id_B":"iel2lah","created_at_utc_A":1656771367,"created_at_utc_B":1656774766,"score_A":15,"score_B":30,"human_ref_A":"It doesn't always. GPS runs off of a satellite system, which is also used for things like satellite TV. If you've ever used satellite TV or tried to use a vehicle's GPS in a storm (even heavy cloud cover with a lot of rain or precipitation in it), they are notorious for losing connection. Many \"GPS\" applications still store location data in phones and other devices so if they lose connection it will still show your last location. Most modern location services combine GPS, cell signal triangulation, data from Wi-Fi or other networks, as well as other devices nearby to confirm your location. Otherwise, the lower frequency signals are likely to travel further (like an x-ray going through almost everything but lead) than higher frequency ones. High frequency signals oscillate (go up & down making a full wave) much more quickly than low frequency ones, and because of that they're likeliest to be deflected by thin layers of metal or other things","human_ref_B":"We use the term \"GPS\" as a shorthand for \"Location Services.\" It's actually one of several means used to determine your location. Seeing WiFi that is at a known location, cellular triangulation, etc. all augment that ability to show your location. (I don't know all the ways). In some cars, it will use the speed of the wheels and the turning of the steering wheel to improve the estimate of your location. The system can also fix up inaccuracies by assuming you are still on the freeway when you go into a tunnel.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3399.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"vprzqw","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why does GPS work when underground and under big buildings but radio signals, Wi-Fi, and cell phone signals struggle?","c_root_id_A":"iel90xj","c_root_id_B":"iekv56m","created_at_utc_A":1656777613,"created_at_utc_B":1656771367,"score_A":22,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"Tell me you haven\u2019t tried to use GPS inside a tunnel without telling me you haven\u2019t tried to use GPS inside a tunnel.","human_ref_B":"It doesn't always. GPS runs off of a satellite system, which is also used for things like satellite TV. If you've ever used satellite TV or tried to use a vehicle's GPS in a storm (even heavy cloud cover with a lot of rain or precipitation in it), they are notorious for losing connection. Many \"GPS\" applications still store location data in phones and other devices so if they lose connection it will still show your last location. Most modern location services combine GPS, cell signal triangulation, data from Wi-Fi or other networks, as well as other devices nearby to confirm your location. Otherwise, the lower frequency signals are likely to travel further (like an x-ray going through almost everything but lead) than higher frequency ones. High frequency signals oscillate (go up & down making a full wave) much more quickly than low frequency ones, and because of that they're likeliest to be deflected by thin layers of metal or other things","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6246.0,"score_ratio":1.4666666667} {"post_id":"x9kgru","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How can we contain something that gets as hot as 100M Celsius? And how can we measure it? I have been reading articles describing the progress made towards fusion energy and got intrigued by how they do it. https:\/\/www.msn.com\/en-us\/money\/other\/nuclear-fusion-reactor-sustains-plasma-at-100-million-c-for-30-seconds\/ar-AA11BpC8","c_root_id_A":"inokunx","c_root_id_B":"inoldfg","created_at_utc_A":1662694492,"created_at_utc_B":1662694759,"score_A":6,"score_B":86,"human_ref_A":"The plasma created by the fusion is magneticslly charged and can be contained and routed via superconducting magnets in a device called a tokamak. That contains much of the energy. Additionally the internals are reinforced steels designed to take reduced damage from fusion heat and neutron bombardment. I do not know how long one could continuously. I think the longest contained fusion reaction was under 15 minutes so far.","human_ref_B":"It is levitated with magnets in a vacuum chamber with essentially no air and thick shielding around it with a lot of cooling loops. You can measure the temperature by the radiation it emits. Kinda like how a blue flame is hotter than an orange one.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":267.0,"score_ratio":14.3333333333} {"post_id":"x9kgru","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How can we contain something that gets as hot as 100M Celsius? And how can we measure it? I have been reading articles describing the progress made towards fusion energy and got intrigued by how they do it. https:\/\/www.msn.com\/en-us\/money\/other\/nuclear-fusion-reactor-sustains-plasma-at-100-million-c-for-30-seconds\/ar-AA11BpC8","c_root_id_A":"inqc8nc","c_root_id_B":"inpuisj","created_at_utc_A":1662734092,"created_at_utc_B":1662725973,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"It's an excellent question. Fusion plasma is basically the Universal Solvent, able to dissolve any known material due to the insane temps and pressures... and this includes its container. There's a couple strategies. The first is magnetic confinement. Basically it's held in place by a magnetic field, so the plasma never actually touches anything physical. This comes with its own set of problems. First, there's a tremendous number of neutrons that are still flying off and crashing into the walls which still degrades them. Next, shape of the magnetic field is very important. That's why some varieties are really strange looking. Finally, you need really strong magnetic fields and the way to make the strongest magnet fields is to cool down the magnetic materials to near absolutely zero. But think about that... now you have to maintain the temps and pressures of a star mear centimeters from materials at near absolutely zero. And people wonder why fusion is perpetually 20 years away. There are other strategies to contain the plasma though, that approach it in different ways. General Fusion has revived an old idea. Basically they surround a sphere with really strong pistons and all those Pistons are coordinated to slam into a liquid metal medium (I think they're using lithium) which concentrates and focuses the shockwave onto a tiny bit of material at the very center. Each time there is a pulse the material undergoes a burst of fusion. The liquid metal then absorbs the bursts of heat and can be circulated to extract the heat from the pulsing bursts of fusion. This way your container walls never go bad because you can continually flow more liquid metal in as needed. I'm sure there's other strategies, but these are the two I'm most familiar with.","human_ref_B":"Fusion will be like a jet engine. Jet engines take power from the fire and use most of it to keep the engine going. Then the left over power pushes the airplane. The fire and hot gases would melt the engine if they touched the little spinning wings inside. careful design and engine power keeps the engine from getting too hot. Fusion generators will use most of the electricity they make to keep the fusion engine safe. Strong magnets will keep the tiny little ribbon of heat in the middle of a box while other machines take the heat away to make electricity. I wonder if they might even spin like a jet engine.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8119.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"v7xoy2","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why do some ingredients of a recipe not scale proportionally when making multiples of the specified amount? Sorry for weird wording, not a native speaker. I keep hearing that for example when making twice the amount of a meal as given in the recipe, I should be careful with proportionally scaling certain ingredients like salt or similar stuff. I just don't get it, why would thats be the case?","c_root_id_A":"ibnds36","c_root_id_B":"ibn9y2o","created_at_utc_A":1654718783,"created_at_utc_B":1654717133,"score_A":18,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"I'll add that the physical dynamics of cooking\/baking\/roasting are highly dependent on total volume and surface area.","human_ref_B":"In theory, there should be no problem with doing this at all. The problem comes with the accuracy of very small measurements vs large measurements. What I mean is while there are 16 tablespoons in a cup, you'd be very hard pressed to measure out exactly a cup from exactly 16 tablespoons. With something like a 1\/4 teaspoon of salt, when you make the small batch you likely aren't using an actual full 1\/4 teaspoon. Then, when you quadruple the batch and measure a full teaspoon, it has more salt that you would have used if you had measured four 1\/4 teaspoon incrimints. Hope that makes sense!","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1650.0,"score_ratio":2.25} {"post_id":"38cho3","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: If all elements were created from Hydrogen, why isn't it possible to split a higher element to a lower one, eg. Oxygen into Carbon and Helium? Feel like this belongs on my high thoughts but I wanted a decent explanation","c_root_id_A":"crtzl21","c_root_id_B":"crtzctd","created_at_utc_A":1433325250,"created_at_utc_B":1433324165,"score_A":8,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"It is possible. It just takes a tremendous amount of energy - the same amount that was generated when carbon and helium fused into oxygen in the first place. Fusing a single atom of carbon and hydrogen into a single atom of oxygen produces 7.16 MeV of energy, which is a *lot* of energy. Breaking down a pound of oxygen this way would require the *input* of at least that much energy: it's roughly that of a small nuke even if you were running the reaction at 100% efficiency.","human_ref_B":"All matter is made of atoms. There are 92 kinds of atoms which are natural and half a dozen which are man made. Atoms are made of protons, neutrons and electrons. The number of protons an atom has determines what element it is. For example, Hydrogen is hydrogen because every one of its atoms each has a single proton. Elements can be turned into other elements but not using chemistry. Alchemists tried to turn lead to gold, but failed. This is because it takes more energy than can be gotten from chemical reactions. To truly turn one element into another, nucleur energy is required. This is a physical change, not a chemical one. Elements being created and destroyed is a very common phenomenon. The most obvious example is the sun. The sun's gravity is so enormous that at its center atoms of Hydrogen are so comprerssed that their protons combine. This destroys the Hydrogen atoms and a new atom is created, Helium. Helium is an atom which has two protons. The sun can also make even bigger atoms. Carbon has 6 protons and Iron has 26. However, Carbon and Iron are much harder to compress and it takes much more energy to create them. In fact Iron is so hard to make the sun can't make atoms any larger than Iron. Bigger atoms get made when really massive stars explode in an event known as a supernova. The star blows itself apart and this provides the energy needed to makd Iron into bigger atoms like Iodine, Lead and even Gold. All the Gold on earth was formed when a hudge star exploded many billions of years ago. The dust cloud eventually re-condenced into the earth and sun. When stars makd bigger atoms out of smaller atoms it is called nucleur fusion. There is another way to make new atoms and it happens right here on earth. Uranium has 92 protons and this makes it very unstable. Uranium atoms can fly apart into two pieces if hit by subatomic particles. This is how a nucleur generator and atomic bombs work. This kind of reaction is known as nucleur fission. Unlike nucleur fusion, the exact kind of new atoms are impossible to calculate. When big atoms split, it is like breaking a rack of pool balls. There is only probabilities that certain new atoms will form. Most of the time the two new atoms get roughly half the number of protons each, but it is not exact. These new atoms are called nucleur waste or nucleur fallout. Strontium, Iodine, Xenon and Barium are the kinds of atoms which form when Uranium splits apart. Reguarding the ore, a powerful acid known as aqua regia will dissolve the gold, platinum and palladium, leaving the Rhodium behind. The dissolved metals are then separated using other chemicals. A french chemist by the name of lavasiour demonstarted in the 16th century that in all chemical reactions nothing is ever created nor destroyed. The weight of the products always exactly equaled the weights of the reactants","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1085.0,"score_ratio":2.6666666667} {"post_id":"38cho3","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: If all elements were created from Hydrogen, why isn't it possible to split a higher element to a lower one, eg. Oxygen into Carbon and Helium? Feel like this belongs on my high thoughts but I wanted a decent explanation","c_root_id_A":"crtzl21","c_root_id_B":"crtzfvn","created_at_utc_A":1433325250,"created_at_utc_B":1433324568,"score_A":8,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"It is possible. It just takes a tremendous amount of energy - the same amount that was generated when carbon and helium fused into oxygen in the first place. Fusing a single atom of carbon and hydrogen into a single atom of oxygen produces 7.16 MeV of energy, which is a *lot* of energy. Breaking down a pound of oxygen this way would require the *input* of at least that much energy: it's roughly that of a small nuke even if you were running the reaction at 100% efficiency.","human_ref_B":"It's possible and it's called nuclear fission and actually it's what happen in nuclear power plant. But for now we can only do it with huge atoms and we don't really choose the products created so oxygen into carbon and helium is \"maybe\" possible but clearly not now.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":682.0,"score_ratio":4.0} {"post_id":"3obowz","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How can soft drinks like Coca-Cola Zero have almost 0 calories in them? Is there some other detriment to your health because of that lack of calories?","c_root_id_A":"cvvz3mi","c_root_id_B":"cvvs16p","created_at_utc_A":1444584913,"created_at_utc_B":1444570706,"score_A":1247,"score_B":269,"human_ref_A":"Coke Zero (according to wikipedia) has aspartame in it, which is an artificial sweetener. What this means is that the molecule aspartame has a 3d shape that our taste buds recognize as being sweet (similar to glucose, sucrose, fructose, other sugars, etc). However, it is not any of these sugars, and is in fact a molecule that does not occur in nature. What *that* means is our bodies do not have the proper enzymes to break it down, thus it passes through our bodies undigested. This is the same reason humans can't subsist on grass, our bodies do not have the enzymes necessary to process cellulose, which is the main sugar polymer (a string of sugars connected together) in plants. As to whether it is harmful? The lack of calories is not a problem. Other than that, nobody can know for certain, but food additives such as aspartame and sucralose are some of the most studied molecules, almost on the level of drugs. There are no immediate health problems associated with artificial sweeteners, however there are myriad studies cropping up recently proposing certain long term health effects that may be tied to sweeteners. TL;DR artificial sweeteners are fine, drink in moderation.","human_ref_B":"Artificial sweeteners like aspartame have the exact same 4 calories per gram as sugar. So how do diet sodas have zero calories? Well, aspartame is about 400X sweeter than sugar so you can use just a tiny amount to sweeten an entire can of soda. So it's not really zero calories, more like a fraction of a calorie - but when you round to the nearest whole number that can round down to zero. Are there negative health implications? There are a lot of dubious claims that diet soda is bad for your health, but they all seem to fall apart under scrutiny.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":14207.0,"score_ratio":4.6356877323} {"post_id":"3obowz","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How can soft drinks like Coca-Cola Zero have almost 0 calories in them? Is there some other detriment to your health because of that lack of calories?","c_root_id_A":"cvvqrdd","c_root_id_B":"cvvz3mi","created_at_utc_A":1444566841,"created_at_utc_B":1444584913,"score_A":40,"score_B":1247,"human_ref_A":"They just have very little in them that your body can burn for energy. Instead of using sugar or corn syrup to make it sweet they use artifical sweeteners which your body can't use for energy. There are reports of these sweeteners being bad for your health, but a lot of it isn't conclusive. In general there is nothing wrong with a 0 calorie drink. In fact that healthiest drink you can get has no calories, water. The point of drinking isn't too gain energy, it's to take in water. So just having plain water is rashly what people should drink most of the time.","human_ref_B":"Coke Zero (according to wikipedia) has aspartame in it, which is an artificial sweetener. What this means is that the molecule aspartame has a 3d shape that our taste buds recognize as being sweet (similar to glucose, sucrose, fructose, other sugars, etc). However, it is not any of these sugars, and is in fact a molecule that does not occur in nature. What *that* means is our bodies do not have the proper enzymes to break it down, thus it passes through our bodies undigested. This is the same reason humans can't subsist on grass, our bodies do not have the enzymes necessary to process cellulose, which is the main sugar polymer (a string of sugars connected together) in plants. As to whether it is harmful? The lack of calories is not a problem. Other than that, nobody can know for certain, but food additives such as aspartame and sucralose are some of the most studied molecules, almost on the level of drugs. There are no immediate health problems associated with artificial sweeteners, however there are myriad studies cropping up recently proposing certain long term health effects that may be tied to sweeteners. TL;DR artificial sweeteners are fine, drink in moderation.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":18072.0,"score_ratio":31.175} {"post_id":"3obowz","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How can soft drinks like Coca-Cola Zero have almost 0 calories in them? Is there some other detriment to your health because of that lack of calories?","c_root_id_A":"cvvz3mi","c_root_id_B":"cvvr42t","created_at_utc_A":1444584913,"created_at_utc_B":1444567943,"score_A":1247,"score_B":22,"human_ref_A":"Coke Zero (according to wikipedia) has aspartame in it, which is an artificial sweetener. What this means is that the molecule aspartame has a 3d shape that our taste buds recognize as being sweet (similar to glucose, sucrose, fructose, other sugars, etc). However, it is not any of these sugars, and is in fact a molecule that does not occur in nature. What *that* means is our bodies do not have the proper enzymes to break it down, thus it passes through our bodies undigested. This is the same reason humans can't subsist on grass, our bodies do not have the enzymes necessary to process cellulose, which is the main sugar polymer (a string of sugars connected together) in plants. As to whether it is harmful? The lack of calories is not a problem. Other than that, nobody can know for certain, but food additives such as aspartame and sucralose are some of the most studied molecules, almost on the level of drugs. There are no immediate health problems associated with artificial sweeteners, however there are myriad studies cropping up recently proposing certain long term health effects that may be tied to sweeteners. TL;DR artificial sweeteners are fine, drink in moderation.","human_ref_B":"They are thought to increase the chance of glucose intolerance by altering balance and behaviour of gut bacteria. This may lead to metabolic conditions and diabetes. See study link below for source. http:\/\/www.nature.com\/nature\/journal\/v514\/n7521\/full\/nature13793.html","labels":1,"seconds_difference":16970.0,"score_ratio":56.6818181818} {"post_id":"3obowz","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How can soft drinks like Coca-Cola Zero have almost 0 calories in them? Is there some other detriment to your health because of that lack of calories?","c_root_id_A":"cvvqrdd","c_root_id_B":"cvvs16p","created_at_utc_A":1444566841,"created_at_utc_B":1444570706,"score_A":40,"score_B":269,"human_ref_A":"They just have very little in them that your body can burn for energy. Instead of using sugar or corn syrup to make it sweet they use artifical sweeteners which your body can't use for energy. There are reports of these sweeteners being bad for your health, but a lot of it isn't conclusive. In general there is nothing wrong with a 0 calorie drink. In fact that healthiest drink you can get has no calories, water. The point of drinking isn't too gain energy, it's to take in water. So just having plain water is rashly what people should drink most of the time.","human_ref_B":"Artificial sweeteners like aspartame have the exact same 4 calories per gram as sugar. So how do diet sodas have zero calories? Well, aspartame is about 400X sweeter than sugar so you can use just a tiny amount to sweeten an entire can of soda. So it's not really zero calories, more like a fraction of a calorie - but when you round to the nearest whole number that can round down to zero. Are there negative health implications? There are a lot of dubious claims that diet soda is bad for your health, but they all seem to fall apart under scrutiny.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3865.0,"score_ratio":6.725} {"post_id":"3obowz","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How can soft drinks like Coca-Cola Zero have almost 0 calories in them? Is there some other detriment to your health because of that lack of calories?","c_root_id_A":"cvvr42t","c_root_id_B":"cvvs16p","created_at_utc_A":1444567943,"created_at_utc_B":1444570706,"score_A":22,"score_B":269,"human_ref_A":"They are thought to increase the chance of glucose intolerance by altering balance and behaviour of gut bacteria. This may lead to metabolic conditions and diabetes. See study link below for source. http:\/\/www.nature.com\/nature\/journal\/v514\/n7521\/full\/nature13793.html","human_ref_B":"Artificial sweeteners like aspartame have the exact same 4 calories per gram as sugar. So how do diet sodas have zero calories? Well, aspartame is about 400X sweeter than sugar so you can use just a tiny amount to sweeten an entire can of soda. So it's not really zero calories, more like a fraction of a calorie - but when you round to the nearest whole number that can round down to zero. Are there negative health implications? There are a lot of dubious claims that diet soda is bad for your health, but they all seem to fall apart under scrutiny.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2763.0,"score_ratio":12.2272727273} {"post_id":"3obowz","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How can soft drinks like Coca-Cola Zero have almost 0 calories in them? Is there some other detriment to your health because of that lack of calories?","c_root_id_A":"cvw4waa","c_root_id_B":"cvvqrdd","created_at_utc_A":1444593736,"created_at_utc_B":1444566841,"score_A":84,"score_B":40,"human_ref_A":"What's really interesting to me is that people *really want* there to be bad effects. As if the no-calorie sweeteners mess with their sense of fairness and justice in the universe.","human_ref_B":"They just have very little in them that your body can burn for energy. Instead of using sugar or corn syrup to make it sweet they use artifical sweeteners which your body can't use for energy. There are reports of these sweeteners being bad for your health, but a lot of it isn't conclusive. In general there is nothing wrong with a 0 calorie drink. In fact that healthiest drink you can get has no calories, water. The point of drinking isn't too gain energy, it's to take in water. So just having plain water is rashly what people should drink most of the time.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":26895.0,"score_ratio":2.1} {"post_id":"3obowz","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How can soft drinks like Coca-Cola Zero have almost 0 calories in them? Is there some other detriment to your health because of that lack of calories?","c_root_id_A":"cvw4waa","c_root_id_B":"cvvr42t","created_at_utc_A":1444593736,"created_at_utc_B":1444567943,"score_A":84,"score_B":22,"human_ref_A":"What's really interesting to me is that people *really want* there to be bad effects. As if the no-calorie sweeteners mess with their sense of fairness and justice in the universe.","human_ref_B":"They are thought to increase the chance of glucose intolerance by altering balance and behaviour of gut bacteria. This may lead to metabolic conditions and diabetes. See study link below for source. http:\/\/www.nature.com\/nature\/journal\/v514\/n7521\/full\/nature13793.html","labels":1,"seconds_difference":25793.0,"score_ratio":3.8181818182} {"post_id":"va7f2r","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old What's the point of a band in the military? What do they do for the military? Do they fight? Do they get paid? Are they outsourced musicians or are they actually part of the military? Also, why?","c_root_id_A":"ic0r7s5","c_root_id_B":"ic0ql91","created_at_utc_A":1654984851,"created_at_utc_B":1654984525,"score_A":5859,"score_B":759,"human_ref_A":"They\u2019re ceremonial now, but historically drums (and trumpets and flags and such) were how you gave orders during a battle. Edit: Wow. Did not anticipate that much attention to an offhand Explain like I'm five years old answer. Here's a link to some excellent options if you'd like to help Ukraine, be it humanitarian support or otherwise. Every bit helps: https:\/\/linktr.ee\/RazomForUkraine Edit v2.0: Shoutout to all the commenters for elaborating on my brief response. Made for some interesting reading","human_ref_B":"Yes, they are part of the military. Yes they get paid. The position is largely cerimonial nowadays but, drummers and such used to help keep cadence for large formations. (during the american revolution, etc)","labels":1,"seconds_difference":326.0,"score_ratio":7.7193675889} {"post_id":"va7f2r","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old What's the point of a band in the military? What do they do for the military? Do they fight? Do they get paid? Are they outsourced musicians or are they actually part of the military? Also, why?","c_root_id_A":"ic0sqby","c_root_id_B":"ic1cmky","created_at_utc_A":1654985636,"created_at_utc_B":1654996240,"score_A":1203,"score_B":2979,"human_ref_A":"Originally a band was a way for armies to march in even formation during battle. Music was also used to give orders over the loud cacophony of battle. Different songs signified different mass movements. As we stopped fighting in ranks the role became largely a tradition reserved for ceremonial occasions. In the US, military band members go through the same training as everyone else in their respective branch. Though often times the physical standards are relaxed and the strictness of the training personell isn't as rigid. Often times the band member will cross train on some other job. In the US Army specifically, band members actually become auxiliary MPs by policy; performing guard duties and monitoring enemy prisoners of war if deployed to a combat zone.","human_ref_B":"I was in the Army Band for 12 years, the most fun job I ever had. We have to go through basic training, and all the same qualifications that any other soldier would. Qualify on rifle once a year, common task testing, all that fun stuff. The musical missions were of many different kinds: ceremonial music for military ceremonies like graduations and change of commands; concerts for important events like the post Fourth of July; and parades and concerts in the civilian community to spread awareness and good will. A lot depended on where the band is located too. For example, I did two years in Germany where we played jazz and popular music at small town festivals almost every weekend. At a training post in the US, I did 2-4 graduation ceremonies every week. When not playing music, we were responsible for everything else that goes on in a company sized unit. Where most units have a supply sergeant and admin people, bands don\u2019t - the band members do all that as well. I\u2019ve been a supply sergeant for a band, and the unit IT specialist, and leaned all about personnel administration. When there\u2019s a war, if the band is part of a Division, the band\u2019s primary mission is division headquarters security, and POW processing. In places like Iraq and Afghanistan, we also did a lot of morale music, sending small music units out to play for soldiers in other areas.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10604.0,"score_ratio":2.4763092269} {"post_id":"va7f2r","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old What's the point of a band in the military? What do they do for the military? Do they fight? Do they get paid? Are they outsourced musicians or are they actually part of the military? Also, why?","c_root_id_A":"ic1cmky","c_root_id_B":"ic0ql91","created_at_utc_A":1654996240,"created_at_utc_B":1654984525,"score_A":2979,"score_B":759,"human_ref_A":"I was in the Army Band for 12 years, the most fun job I ever had. We have to go through basic training, and all the same qualifications that any other soldier would. Qualify on rifle once a year, common task testing, all that fun stuff. The musical missions were of many different kinds: ceremonial music for military ceremonies like graduations and change of commands; concerts for important events like the post Fourth of July; and parades and concerts in the civilian community to spread awareness and good will. A lot depended on where the band is located too. For example, I did two years in Germany where we played jazz and popular music at small town festivals almost every weekend. At a training post in the US, I did 2-4 graduation ceremonies every week. When not playing music, we were responsible for everything else that goes on in a company sized unit. Where most units have a supply sergeant and admin people, bands don\u2019t - the band members do all that as well. I\u2019ve been a supply sergeant for a band, and the unit IT specialist, and leaned all about personnel administration. When there\u2019s a war, if the band is part of a Division, the band\u2019s primary mission is division headquarters security, and POW processing. In places like Iraq and Afghanistan, we also did a lot of morale music, sending small music units out to play for soldiers in other areas.","human_ref_B":"Yes, they are part of the military. Yes they get paid. The position is largely cerimonial nowadays but, drummers and such used to help keep cadence for large formations. (during the american revolution, etc)","labels":1,"seconds_difference":11715.0,"score_ratio":3.9249011858} {"post_id":"va7f2r","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old What's the point of a band in the military? What do they do for the military? Do they fight? Do they get paid? Are they outsourced musicians or are they actually part of the military? Also, why?","c_root_id_A":"ic0royy","c_root_id_B":"ic1cmky","created_at_utc_A":1654985098,"created_at_utc_B":1654996240,"score_A":178,"score_B":2979,"human_ref_A":"They are part of the military and go through basic training like other soldiers, or at least used to be. Source: my dad played drums for the Army band. Edit for another fun fact: there are also Army artists! Or at least used to be. After my dad played in the band, he drew illustrations for Army manuals. Obviously this was way pre-digital era.","human_ref_B":"I was in the Army Band for 12 years, the most fun job I ever had. We have to go through basic training, and all the same qualifications that any other soldier would. Qualify on rifle once a year, common task testing, all that fun stuff. The musical missions were of many different kinds: ceremonial music for military ceremonies like graduations and change of commands; concerts for important events like the post Fourth of July; and parades and concerts in the civilian community to spread awareness and good will. A lot depended on where the band is located too. For example, I did two years in Germany where we played jazz and popular music at small town festivals almost every weekend. At a training post in the US, I did 2-4 graduation ceremonies every week. When not playing music, we were responsible for everything else that goes on in a company sized unit. Where most units have a supply sergeant and admin people, bands don\u2019t - the band members do all that as well. I\u2019ve been a supply sergeant for a band, and the unit IT specialist, and leaned all about personnel administration. When there\u2019s a war, if the band is part of a Division, the band\u2019s primary mission is division headquarters security, and POW processing. In places like Iraq and Afghanistan, we also did a lot of morale music, sending small music units out to play for soldiers in other areas.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":11142.0,"score_ratio":16.7359550562} {"post_id":"va7f2r","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old What's the point of a band in the military? What do they do for the military? Do they fight? Do they get paid? Are they outsourced musicians or are they actually part of the military? Also, why?","c_root_id_A":"ic0ua3l","c_root_id_B":"ic1cmky","created_at_utc_A":1654986430,"created_at_utc_B":1654996240,"score_A":136,"score_B":2979,"human_ref_A":"In warfare history, up to 80 years ago, you can\u2019t radio anything quickly and even if, your radio would be intercepted. The only way to give orders was a trumpet and drums, so was for centuries. The enemy could simply copy your trumpet and give false orders to your troops. So you bring a giant flag close to the trumpet and your soldier would obey only to orders coming from the trumpet below the big flag. Army business is mostly marching, and less than 1% fighting. So now you have big flags and drums and trumpets, someone may say: let\u2019s use them to cheer up the troops while walking thousand miles with 30-50kg backpacks. Then why not, let\u2019s use that on parades and cerimonial events. \u201cIf we show we have a great band and shiny flags, we are intrinsically showing we know how to do military stuff properly\u201d This being done for thousands of years, so it stick to the army culture. If you have to show you are good, show you can play the music better than everyone else while you march at god speed, carry a fantastic huge flag for extra points. https:\/\/youtu.be\/ZRVS4XxSn9Q","human_ref_B":"I was in the Army Band for 12 years, the most fun job I ever had. We have to go through basic training, and all the same qualifications that any other soldier would. Qualify on rifle once a year, common task testing, all that fun stuff. The musical missions were of many different kinds: ceremonial music for military ceremonies like graduations and change of commands; concerts for important events like the post Fourth of July; and parades and concerts in the civilian community to spread awareness and good will. A lot depended on where the band is located too. For example, I did two years in Germany where we played jazz and popular music at small town festivals almost every weekend. At a training post in the US, I did 2-4 graduation ceremonies every week. When not playing music, we were responsible for everything else that goes on in a company sized unit. Where most units have a supply sergeant and admin people, bands don\u2019t - the band members do all that as well. I\u2019ve been a supply sergeant for a band, and the unit IT specialist, and leaned all about personnel administration. When there\u2019s a war, if the band is part of a Division, the band\u2019s primary mission is division headquarters security, and POW processing. In places like Iraq and Afghanistan, we also did a lot of morale music, sending small music units out to play for soldiers in other areas.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9810.0,"score_ratio":21.9044117647} {"post_id":"va7f2r","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old What's the point of a band in the military? What do they do for the military? Do they fight? Do they get paid? Are they outsourced musicians or are they actually part of the military? Also, why?","c_root_id_A":"ic0zvcd","c_root_id_B":"ic1cmky","created_at_utc_A":1654989355,"created_at_utc_B":1654996240,"score_A":102,"score_B":2979,"human_ref_A":"Ok, so I have spent 13 years as an oboist in the US Army bands. In addition to ceremonies and troop entertainment that has already been mentioned, we are often used for \"soft diplomacy.\" We can go places where regular troops couldn't. My unit had played in Red Square (before I got there.) We were supposed to go to Moscow again, then Russia invaded Crimea, so we couldn't. But our replacement mission was Latvia. We were able to be a military presence to our allies near Russia, let them know the US hadn't forgotten about them, but in a way that wouldn't trigger Russia. Also background music during state dinners, recruitment, parades, \"friendship\" concerts in foreign countries, etc. The military is actually the largest employer of musicians in the US. We do go through basic training, with the exception of The Presidents Own. When deployed, often used as gate guards and the like. I have also done such fun tasks as clean a moat and sandbag a fort for a hurricane. We have to keep our physical fitness up and qualify on the rifle twice a year. Depending on the service depends on how much musician to how much soldier you are. Air Force is more musician than Airmen. Marines are mainly Marines that sometimes get to play their instruments.","human_ref_B":"I was in the Army Band for 12 years, the most fun job I ever had. We have to go through basic training, and all the same qualifications that any other soldier would. Qualify on rifle once a year, common task testing, all that fun stuff. The musical missions were of many different kinds: ceremonial music for military ceremonies like graduations and change of commands; concerts for important events like the post Fourth of July; and parades and concerts in the civilian community to spread awareness and good will. A lot depended on where the band is located too. For example, I did two years in Germany where we played jazz and popular music at small town festivals almost every weekend. At a training post in the US, I did 2-4 graduation ceremonies every week. When not playing music, we were responsible for everything else that goes on in a company sized unit. Where most units have a supply sergeant and admin people, bands don\u2019t - the band members do all that as well. I\u2019ve been a supply sergeant for a band, and the unit IT specialist, and leaned all about personnel administration. When there\u2019s a war, if the band is part of a Division, the band\u2019s primary mission is division headquarters security, and POW processing. In places like Iraq and Afghanistan, we also did a lot of morale music, sending small music units out to play for soldiers in other areas.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6885.0,"score_ratio":29.2058823529} {"post_id":"va7f2r","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old What's the point of a band in the military? What do they do for the military? Do they fight? Do they get paid? Are they outsourced musicians or are they actually part of the military? Also, why?","c_root_id_A":"ic1cmky","c_root_id_B":"ic115fk","created_at_utc_A":1654996240,"created_at_utc_B":1654990033,"score_A":2979,"score_B":70,"human_ref_A":"I was in the Army Band for 12 years, the most fun job I ever had. We have to go through basic training, and all the same qualifications that any other soldier would. Qualify on rifle once a year, common task testing, all that fun stuff. The musical missions were of many different kinds: ceremonial music for military ceremonies like graduations and change of commands; concerts for important events like the post Fourth of July; and parades and concerts in the civilian community to spread awareness and good will. A lot depended on where the band is located too. For example, I did two years in Germany where we played jazz and popular music at small town festivals almost every weekend. At a training post in the US, I did 2-4 graduation ceremonies every week. When not playing music, we were responsible for everything else that goes on in a company sized unit. Where most units have a supply sergeant and admin people, bands don\u2019t - the band members do all that as well. I\u2019ve been a supply sergeant for a band, and the unit IT specialist, and leaned all about personnel administration. When there\u2019s a war, if the band is part of a Division, the band\u2019s primary mission is division headquarters security, and POW processing. In places like Iraq and Afghanistan, we also did a lot of morale music, sending small music units out to play for soldiers in other areas.","human_ref_B":"A friend of mine is in the military band. Another enlisted once made the mistake of taunting her for being in the band and was overheard by her CO. His response went something like, \u201cDo you know the difference between you and her, Private? The difference Is both of you can do your job, but you can\u2019t do hers. But since you think you can, I\u2019ll give you both 100 push-ups and you can do hers, too.\u201d So 1) they\u2019re real soldiers, and 2) don\u2019t get caught by their CO implying they\u2019re not.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6207.0,"score_ratio":42.5571428571} {"post_id":"va7f2r","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old What's the point of a band in the military? What do they do for the military? Do they fight? Do they get paid? Are they outsourced musicians or are they actually part of the military? Also, why?","c_root_id_A":"ic0sqby","c_root_id_B":"ic0ql91","created_at_utc_A":1654985636,"created_at_utc_B":1654984525,"score_A":1203,"score_B":759,"human_ref_A":"Originally a band was a way for armies to march in even formation during battle. Music was also used to give orders over the loud cacophony of battle. Different songs signified different mass movements. As we stopped fighting in ranks the role became largely a tradition reserved for ceremonial occasions. In the US, military band members go through the same training as everyone else in their respective branch. Though often times the physical standards are relaxed and the strictness of the training personell isn't as rigid. Often times the band member will cross train on some other job. In the US Army specifically, band members actually become auxiliary MPs by policy; performing guard duties and monitoring enemy prisoners of war if deployed to a combat zone.","human_ref_B":"Yes, they are part of the military. Yes they get paid. The position is largely cerimonial nowadays but, drummers and such used to help keep cadence for large formations. (during the american revolution, etc)","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1111.0,"score_ratio":1.5849802372} {"post_id":"va7f2r","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old What's the point of a band in the military? What do they do for the military? Do they fight? Do they get paid? Are they outsourced musicians or are they actually part of the military? Also, why?","c_root_id_A":"ic0sqby","c_root_id_B":"ic0royy","created_at_utc_A":1654985636,"created_at_utc_B":1654985098,"score_A":1203,"score_B":178,"human_ref_A":"Originally a band was a way for armies to march in even formation during battle. Music was also used to give orders over the loud cacophony of battle. Different songs signified different mass movements. As we stopped fighting in ranks the role became largely a tradition reserved for ceremonial occasions. In the US, military band members go through the same training as everyone else in their respective branch. Though often times the physical standards are relaxed and the strictness of the training personell isn't as rigid. Often times the band member will cross train on some other job. In the US Army specifically, band members actually become auxiliary MPs by policy; performing guard duties and monitoring enemy prisoners of war if deployed to a combat zone.","human_ref_B":"They are part of the military and go through basic training like other soldiers, or at least used to be. Source: my dad played drums for the Army band. Edit for another fun fact: there are also Army artists! Or at least used to be. After my dad played in the band, he drew illustrations for Army manuals. Obviously this was way pre-digital era.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":538.0,"score_ratio":6.7584269663} {"post_id":"y2kszn","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: How do people not die when their heart is removed during a heart transplant? How are patients kept alive between the time the damaged heart is removed and when it is replaced with a healthier one?","c_root_id_A":"is48t3p","c_root_id_B":"is3ml6z","created_at_utc_A":1665635939,"created_at_utc_B":1665624685,"score_A":8,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"a cardiopulmonary bypass machine is used. The blood vessels out of the heart and returning to the heart are cannulated with tubes that divert blood into the CPBM where it is warmed, oxygenated and prevented from clotting before being pumped back into the patients circulation. The CPBM mimics \/replaces the function of the heart and lungs while the patient is connected to it. A Perfusionist, a medical specialty, is responsible for the operation of the machine. Including continued operation in a power failure.","human_ref_B":"the transplant procedure doesnt actually require you to remove the original heart until you can work on reconnecting the new one. in this gap you have bypass machines that emulate the functions of the heart..not enough to function properly, but enuh to ensure the patient doesnt get starved of bloodflow.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":11254.0,"score_ratio":1.1428571429} {"post_id":"pbjc2j","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why and how do banks hold so much power over companies like OnlyFans? Can OnlyFans find different ways to process payments if the banks cause them issues again?","c_root_id_A":"hac46iy","c_root_id_B":"hac623y","created_at_utc_A":1629922515,"created_at_utc_B":1629923251,"score_A":3,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"Without any access to credit\/debit card payments, OF would have a very hard time maintaining any revenue. Recurring bank transfers aren't something many users would want to set up, and there aren't many other options available","human_ref_B":"It wasn\u2019t the banks. It\u2019s payment processors (like Visa and MasterCard, even PayPal). If they refuse to work with a business, which is their right, then that company has a much more difficult time collecting the money they are due. Likewise, customers always prefer convenience, so if using a service demands making a new account for some other service just to be able to buy something from someone else\u2026 that\u2019s going to make them rethink things. In the end, it\u2019s bad for business if you cross a payment processor.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":736.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"pbjc2j","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why and how do banks hold so much power over companies like OnlyFans? Can OnlyFans find different ways to process payments if the banks cause them issues again?","c_root_id_A":"hacl3cj","c_root_id_B":"hacmcyx","created_at_utc_A":1629929483,"created_at_utc_B":1629930032,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Anyone processing payments for OF could be guilty of processing payments for illegal activities. This may include just simply sexual acts that are still banned in some places, but even worse there could be child exploitation, rape and other things on there and if it gets exposed then the payment processor(s) involved could be in deep trouble. Pornhub recently was forced to scrub all content that wasn't produced by \"verified partners\", which means most of the do-it-yourself sex workers for this exact same reason, all the CC companies refused to process payments if they didn't. If OFs doesn't completely shut down sexual content, expect them to implement a similar \"verified partner\" program in the near future.","human_ref_B":"As others have stated, it was not banks, but credit card companies. The street goes two ways: The credit card companies can choose who they want to do business with and if they choose to do business with the wrong company, they can get sued. Currently, Visa and MasterCard are named in a lawsuit against PornHub because of PornHub's actions. As long as the credit card companies can be sued for doing business with the wrong companies, they have to be allowed discretion which companies they do business with.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":549.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"7ktaio","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why is the Lion so widely used in European Heraldy even though they are mostly found in Africa? Why are Lions used so much on European Heraldry, especially British\/English ones, despite lions being primarily found in Africa?","c_root_id_A":"drh1vq2","c_root_id_B":"drgyaji","created_at_utc_A":1513695964,"created_at_utc_B":1513691274,"score_A":20,"score_B":19,"human_ref_A":"In the 900s, the Kingdom of Leon (Leon means Lion) was in the Spain\/Portugal area. I don't know how they got their lions, but Spain\/Portugal kind of kept them. In the 1100s, Richard I used them. Heraldry was kind of formalized, so later designs English and French used them in corners. Then with Great Briton, Scotland and Ireland also adopted designs containing them from England. I'd say this is why they're common: the largest countries used them, and over several rulers. That's not to say Lion-Mermaids, and Unicorns and other mythic beasts weren't commonly used. Also, many of these lions are \"leopards\", when on crests of Abbots, or bastards. In the 1500s, the Nordic Countries, Denmark first adopted the lion presumably for \"The Lion of Judea\". These usually carry weapons. This sort of broadly explains Flanders and Norway. Mostly, you see it a lot because England was very successful.","human_ref_B":"The lion was one of the most widespread mammals not too long ago. Only humans topped him expansionwise (and reduced his appearance significantly).","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4690.0,"score_ratio":1.0526315789} {"post_id":"7ktaio","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why is the Lion so widely used in European Heraldy even though they are mostly found in Africa? Why are Lions used so much on European Heraldry, especially British\/English ones, despite lions being primarily found in Africa?","c_root_id_A":"drh1vq2","c_root_id_B":"drgyvpb","created_at_utc_A":1513695964,"created_at_utc_B":1513692128,"score_A":20,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"In the 900s, the Kingdom of Leon (Leon means Lion) was in the Spain\/Portugal area. I don't know how they got their lions, but Spain\/Portugal kind of kept them. In the 1100s, Richard I used them. Heraldry was kind of formalized, so later designs English and French used them in corners. Then with Great Briton, Scotland and Ireland also adopted designs containing them from England. I'd say this is why they're common: the largest countries used them, and over several rulers. That's not to say Lion-Mermaids, and Unicorns and other mythic beasts weren't commonly used. Also, many of these lions are \"leopards\", when on crests of Abbots, or bastards. In the 1500s, the Nordic Countries, Denmark first adopted the lion presumably for \"The Lion of Judea\". These usually carry weapons. This sort of broadly explains Flanders and Norway. Mostly, you see it a lot because England was very successful.","human_ref_B":"Exotic beasts were transported to Europe from Roman times. Not just for the arena but they would have been used as status symbols in processions and special gifts for high-ranking individuals. There are records of the Tower of London having a menagerie from the time of King John in the early 1200s. Exhibits at various times include lions as a gift from the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II, also there was an elephant and a polar bear. https:\/\/www.hrp.org.uk\/tower-of-london\/history-and-stories\/the-tower-of-london-menagerie\/ Some of the lions, both as animals and in heraldry may actually have been leopards, there was often little distinction made.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3836.0,"score_ratio":2.8571428571} {"post_id":"7ktaio","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why is the Lion so widely used in European Heraldy even though they are mostly found in Africa? Why are Lions used so much on European Heraldry, especially British\/English ones, despite lions being primarily found in Africa?","c_root_id_A":"drhtscv","c_root_id_B":"drhfkj5","created_at_utc_A":1513724964,"created_at_utc_B":1513710232,"score_A":16,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"There were lions in Europe but they went extinct because they killed them all https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/History_of_lions_in_Europe","human_ref_B":"There are a number of reasons European royalty would have used Lions in their heraldry. First off, Lions are huge, powerful creatures. Having a Lion on your banner or coat of arms or armor evoked those qualities. Lions have a biblical context. Jesus Christ was called the Lion of Judah, and as many Europeans trace back to a Judeo-Christian tradition, leading an army with one or more religious symbol would have been common. Along those lines, since the King rules by \u201cdivine appointment\u201d from God and because the Lion is the King of the Beasts it would make sense to use a lion in your coat of arms.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":14732.0,"score_ratio":1.7777777778} {"post_id":"7ktaio","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why is the Lion so widely used in European Heraldy even though they are mostly found in Africa? Why are Lions used so much on European Heraldry, especially British\/English ones, despite lions being primarily found in Africa?","c_root_id_A":"drgyvpb","c_root_id_B":"drhtscv","created_at_utc_A":1513692128,"created_at_utc_B":1513724964,"score_A":7,"score_B":16,"human_ref_A":"Exotic beasts were transported to Europe from Roman times. Not just for the arena but they would have been used as status symbols in processions and special gifts for high-ranking individuals. There are records of the Tower of London having a menagerie from the time of King John in the early 1200s. Exhibits at various times include lions as a gift from the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II, also there was an elephant and a polar bear. https:\/\/www.hrp.org.uk\/tower-of-london\/history-and-stories\/the-tower-of-london-menagerie\/ Some of the lions, both as animals and in heraldry may actually have been leopards, there was often little distinction made.","human_ref_B":"There were lions in Europe but they went extinct because they killed them all https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/History_of_lions_in_Europe","labels":0,"seconds_difference":32836.0,"score_ratio":2.2857142857} {"post_id":"7ktaio","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why is the Lion so widely used in European Heraldy even though they are mostly found in Africa? Why are Lions used so much on European Heraldry, especially British\/English ones, despite lions being primarily found in Africa?","c_root_id_A":"drgyvpb","c_root_id_B":"drhfkj5","created_at_utc_A":1513692128,"created_at_utc_B":1513710232,"score_A":7,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"Exotic beasts were transported to Europe from Roman times. Not just for the arena but they would have been used as status symbols in processions and special gifts for high-ranking individuals. There are records of the Tower of London having a menagerie from the time of King John in the early 1200s. Exhibits at various times include lions as a gift from the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II, also there was an elephant and a polar bear. https:\/\/www.hrp.org.uk\/tower-of-london\/history-and-stories\/the-tower-of-london-menagerie\/ Some of the lions, both as animals and in heraldry may actually have been leopards, there was often little distinction made.","human_ref_B":"There are a number of reasons European royalty would have used Lions in their heraldry. First off, Lions are huge, powerful creatures. Having a Lion on your banner or coat of arms or armor evoked those qualities. Lions have a biblical context. Jesus Christ was called the Lion of Judah, and as many Europeans trace back to a Judeo-Christian tradition, leading an army with one or more religious symbol would have been common. Along those lines, since the King rules by \u201cdivine appointment\u201d from God and because the Lion is the King of the Beasts it would make sense to use a lion in your coat of arms.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":18104.0,"score_ratio":1.2857142857} {"post_id":"7ktaio","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why is the Lion so widely used in European Heraldy even though they are mostly found in Africa? Why are Lions used so much on European Heraldry, especially British\/English ones, despite lions being primarily found in Africa?","c_root_id_A":"drhuven","c_root_id_B":"drhu761","created_at_utc_A":1513726245,"created_at_utc_B":1513725449,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Check the Wikipedia article for \u201cEuropean Lion.\u201d Tl;dr Europe used to be full of lions, they went extinct, but not before humans had the chance to encounter them. Their presence in the European imagination survived long past their disappearance.","human_ref_B":"Not sure if it's already been said but The lions in Europe are Barbary lions native to north africa and Mediterranean Europe, these lions are almost certainly extinct. They are a separate group from African lions with mains that stretch further down the animals back and neck.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":796.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"y92a5q","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"Eli5: How do the brakes on commercial aircraft work during landing","c_root_id_A":"it343vg","c_root_id_B":"it34h5s","created_at_utc_A":1666282434,"created_at_utc_B":1666282577,"score_A":10,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"They are actually not that different from the brakes on cars. They are composed of hydraulic cylinders mounted in a caliper which presses some brake pads onto the brake disk when pressure is applied. They even have a regular anti-lock brake system. However the pads and disks are quite massive in order to handle all the heat. They also usually have water cooled brakes, basically water spray onto the brake disks to cool them down. On the other hand an airplane does not use its brakes as often as a car does and the brakes do get a lot of time to cool themselves down each time they are used. For normal landings the brakes are not used that much, most of the braking action is done with the air resistance of the airplane in full flaps and spoilers as well as the engine thrust reversers. However during emergencies the wheel brakes can get red hot and it might damage them a bit, which is better then having to scrap the airplane.","human_ref_B":"Basically just likea car's brakes. Just upscaled quite a lot. If you don't know how those brakes work, you have a disc that spinns with the wheel and when you want to stop, a pair of non rotating discs\/plates press against the spinning disc. There is also usually some kind of airbrake, which is simply a large flat surface that you hold out in the wind.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":143.0,"score_ratio":1.2} {"post_id":"22gkr6","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: What is it that makes A, E, I, O and U vowels? Curious.","c_root_id_A":"cgmld5x","c_root_id_B":"cgmlr21","created_at_utc_A":1396906227,"created_at_utc_B":1396907011,"score_A":5,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"Vowels are formed by the throat and can be spoken alone without the aid of the lips and tongue (though it helps). Consonants are formed by the breath, lips, and tongue, and cannot be spoken alone.","human_ref_B":"Vowels is every sound you can make with a fully open mouth.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":784.0,"score_ratio":1.8} {"post_id":"22gkr6","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: What is it that makes A, E, I, O and U vowels? Curious.","c_root_id_A":"cgmlbz4","c_root_id_B":"cgmlr21","created_at_utc_A":1396906156,"created_at_utc_B":1396907011,"score_A":2,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"I don't have any answers... but I'd like to expand this question. Why isn't 'w' a vowel?","human_ref_B":"Vowels is every sound you can make with a fully open mouth.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":855.0,"score_ratio":4.5} {"post_id":"22gkr6","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: What is it that makes A, E, I, O and U vowels? Curious.","c_root_id_A":"cgmlbz4","c_root_id_B":"cgmld5x","created_at_utc_A":1396906156,"created_at_utc_B":1396906227,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"I don't have any answers... but I'd like to expand this question. Why isn't 'w' a vowel?","human_ref_B":"Vowels are formed by the throat and can be spoken alone without the aid of the lips and tongue (though it helps). Consonants are formed by the breath, lips, and tongue, and cannot be spoken alone.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":71.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"22gkr6","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: What is it that makes A, E, I, O and U vowels? Curious.","c_root_id_A":"cgmn8jq","c_root_id_B":"cgmlbz4","created_at_utc_A":1396910076,"created_at_utc_B":1396906156,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"thank you for making me make all these sounds and sound retarded for 30 seconds","human_ref_B":"I don't have any answers... but I'd like to expand this question. Why isn't 'w' a vowel?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3920.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"n2cqo5","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"eli5: Why did the life expectancy for people with down syndrome increase from 25 years in 1980 to 60 years today? I read that it was largely due to the end of the inhumane practice of institutionalizing people with Down syndrome but i don\u2019t really understand what this means.","c_root_id_A":"gwim6vj","c_root_id_B":"gwikzdl","created_at_utc_A":1619851664,"created_at_utc_B":1619850611,"score_A":134,"score_B":20,"human_ref_A":"A lot of people with Down Syndrome have a number of other health problems besides the cognitive issues that people mainly notice. For example many have a heart problem, atrioventricular septal defect. If untreated or poorly treated, this can lead to a very early death. There are a number of other health problems they can have. With better health care, they will live a lot longer. They\u2019re getting better health care now than they used to. They\u2019ve stopped the institutionalizing so much and now often mainstream them as kids, which has had great results.","human_ref_B":"Back in the day, these people were thrown in institutions where the most minimal levels of care were provided. There was also a large aversion to mentally handicapped individuals and society was mainly ok with these people being swept under the rug to keep up appearances. Hence the life expectancy being so low","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1053.0,"score_ratio":6.7} {"post_id":"n2cqo5","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"eli5: Why did the life expectancy for people with down syndrome increase from 25 years in 1980 to 60 years today? I read that it was largely due to the end of the inhumane practice of institutionalizing people with Down syndrome but i don\u2019t really understand what this means.","c_root_id_A":"gwjaf00","c_root_id_B":"gwk44vj","created_at_utc_A":1619873407,"created_at_utc_B":1619887558,"score_A":8,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"The life expectancy of the patient with downs syndrome has increased because the medical system is much better at treating the immediate and chronic problems of these patients. We\u2019re simply much better at keeping them alive day by day. The issue of institutions is debatable. Without proper care, life expectancy in a poor home will be poor. In a good institution with good care will be good.","human_ref_B":"During WW2 in Germany and I believe Austria, many kids and babies who were institutionalized for disabilities were killed by being out outside without sufficient clothes so they would get pneumonia and die. Institutions tend to be mental hospitals or called insane asylums. People there get maintenance care at best.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":14151.0,"score_ratio":1.125} {"post_id":"3y854l","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old:Why does adding salt enhance the flavor of almost every food?","c_root_id_A":"cybc7yk","c_root_id_B":"cybca05","created_at_utc_A":1451086129,"created_at_utc_B":1451086262,"score_A":13,"score_B":328,"human_ref_A":"Salt is essential for humans such as you and me. Over millions of years, humans that evolved to crave small amounts of salt gave themselves their supplement without even knowing it and became fitter and more likely to reproduce and pass that gene on to their children as a result. That genetic trait eventually became so widespread that all humans now have that trait. EDIT: sorry OP. I should stop trying to Explain like I'm five years old when I'm tired and don't read the questions right","human_ref_B":"There are five taste 'groups': sweet, sour, salty, bitter and umami. Each one either suppresses the other or enhances it. Sodium in the salt, suppresses bitterness and that bitterness in turn suppresses other flavors, like sweetness and sourness. So it's kind of a two for one where you taste less bitterness and more sweetness and sourness There's a really nice chart that I saw on reddit before, I'll link it when I find it Edit: https:\/\/m.imgur.com\/gallery\/FJGiw Credit: u\/Isai76","labels":0,"seconds_difference":133.0,"score_ratio":25.2307692308} {"post_id":"3y854l","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old:Why does adding salt enhance the flavor of almost every food?","c_root_id_A":"cybi4mu","c_root_id_B":"cybc7yk","created_at_utc_A":1451100267,"created_at_utc_B":1451086129,"score_A":39,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"Alton Brown once quoted some other guy saying, \"nothing makes anything taste more like itself than salt.\" Doesn't explain anything, but I like the quote.","human_ref_B":"Salt is essential for humans such as you and me. Over millions of years, humans that evolved to crave small amounts of salt gave themselves their supplement without even knowing it and became fitter and more likely to reproduce and pass that gene on to their children as a result. That genetic trait eventually became so widespread that all humans now have that trait. EDIT: sorry OP. I should stop trying to Explain like I'm five years old when I'm tired and don't read the questions right","labels":1,"seconds_difference":14138.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"4y15fn","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why are removable batteries for electric cars not a thing? I was reading in r\/science about how 'range anxiety' is keeping people away from electric cars. (https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/science\/comments\/4xym1e\/range_anxiety_is_scaring_people_away_from\/) So I was why are removable batteries for electric cars not a thing, but no one has responded. Charging technology is getting better, but still the best we can do is wait 30 minutes at a Tesla station to get about 100 more miles. So is there a technical reason why instead of charging stations for the cars, we don't have charging stations where you drop in, quickly pull out your battery and swap it with one that is already charged? I understand that weight could be an issue, but if you divide it up into multiple batteries that weigh no more than say 20lbs each, that would be manageable and allow the average person to be able to change it out (or you could use attendants). Seems a system like this would allow you recharge as quickly as you can currently gas up.","c_root_id_A":"d6k99x1","c_root_id_B":"d6k419q","created_at_utc_A":1471382279,"created_at_utc_B":1471375653,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"As someone who has changed out batteries in Chevy Volts and Cadillac ELRs I can tell you that it is not an easy process. There are a ton of safety measures that they make us follow. We have to have special gloves to handle any of the high voltage system. We have a special table fixture that we use to lower the batteries out of the car. Once the battery is out of the car, it is still in a special sealed box that has approximately 100 bolts holding it together. Once you have the bolts out, you have access to the actual batteries. There are 4 sections to the battery that you can replace. Each section has 30ish cells in it. If you wanted to replace 1 of those sections, you have to disconnect everything and go through all the same safety procedures and checks. You can then physically replace the section. Once you have installed the new section, you hook all the connections back up and install a battery \"balancer\". It balances the charge across all the sections so they all have the exact same charge which is important due to the face that a .1v variation will set a code in the computer. After all that, you put the lid back on the special box and perform a pressure test to check for air leaks. You can then install it back into the car and hook everything back up, again following the safety procedures. All in all, it can take anywhere from 4 hours to 2 days to install a new battery depending on what exactly you find wrong and how long the \"balancer\" has to run.","human_ref_B":"Car batteries are large and heavy, so it's not as easy to swap them out. Also, since those batteries deliver *a lot* of power and get hot, most of them have an extensive cooling system. When you're removing a car's battery, you're not just disconnecting the terminals, you're also disconnecting a liquid cooling loop. It may need to be drained, dried, whatevered.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6626.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"pofw9x","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why do some plugs have obviously inefficient designs, e.g. cover multiple outlets, or only fit in the very last spot because they bend at a right angle downward?","c_root_id_A":"hcwm8c8","c_root_id_B":"hcwfm8y","created_at_utc_A":1631674944,"created_at_utc_B":1631671721,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I feel like this is directed toward in-home 120vAC wall outlets, which i feel has been adequately addressed by others. But if we're going for \"bent at a right angle downward\" plugs, might i present for your review the 3- (and 4-) prong outlets used for welding and other heavy-duty, 3-phase, high voltage (277vAC & 480vAC) outlets. These are designed with a bent segment in one of the plug tangs so as to act as a \"key\" so you don't accidentally plug it in incorrectly and blow the transformer on the equipment. 3-phase systems require a bare copper ground and 3 hot wires that are individually half of the total effective voltage, but when measured across 2 hot lines equal the total voltage. Confusing, right? Lol. That's because they are run slightly out of phase, so that alternating current (AC) can behave similarly to direct current (DC). AC has peaks and valleys and flows in both directions, but is also susceptible to demand fluctuations. DC is a constant supply, but only flows in one direction, but is unaffected by demand fluctuations. 3-phase combines both of these attributes by providing 3 individual lines of AC that are milliseconds apart (out of phase) so that each of their valleys are covered up by the peak of the next phase, essentially turning AC into a constant line of peaks with no valleys (aka: DC), but able to flow in both directions with no risk from fluctuations. Hopefully this left you with more questions than answers. Lol.","human_ref_B":"Part of it depends on the type of power the device needs. The power in your wall is alternating current (AC) but some things need direct current (DC). The latter needs something to convert the AC power to DC, which is why many power cords come with a bulky box that often covers multiple outlets.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3223.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"pofw9x","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: Why do some plugs have obviously inefficient designs, e.g. cover multiple outlets, or only fit in the very last spot because they bend at a right angle downward?","c_root_id_A":"hcxbcv3","c_root_id_B":"hcwfm8y","created_at_utc_A":1631691378,"created_at_utc_B":1631671721,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"the real answer is, \"efficient\" for you is not what was optimized for: wallwarts were optimized purely for cost: it's \"efficient\" in that way: a wall wart is extremely cheap and they're so common it made them even cheaper the fact that they're inconvenient as hell doesn't matter, it's CHEAP","human_ref_B":"Part of it depends on the type of power the device needs. The power in your wall is alternating current (AC) but some things need direct current (DC). The latter needs something to convert the AC power to DC, which is why many power cords come with a bulky box that often covers multiple outlets.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":19657.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} {"post_id":"lq80z9","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: when you die from blood loss, do you feel like you are dying from not being able to breathe? Because your lungs are breathing but you're not getting oxygen where it needs to go, would it feel something like suffocating?","c_root_id_A":"gof66q4","c_root_id_B":"gof7iqy","created_at_utc_A":1614051348,"created_at_utc_B":1614052041,"score_A":5,"score_B":258,"human_ref_A":"I presume that the sensation of breathing just arises from lungs inhaling *something*, not necessarily air. Think about it - you could breathe an odorless, toxic fume like carbon monoxide, and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Until you fall unconscious and die, that is.","human_ref_B":"800-273-8255 Just going to put this suicide prevention hotline number here juuuuuuusssstttt in case :) Probably just a curious mind wondering, but my mom brain can\u2019t help itself.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":693.0,"score_ratio":51.6} {"post_id":"lq80z9","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: when you die from blood loss, do you feel like you are dying from not being able to breathe? Because your lungs are breathing but you're not getting oxygen where it needs to go, would it feel something like suffocating?","c_root_id_A":"gof6f7z","c_root_id_B":"gof7iqy","created_at_utc_A":1614051473,"created_at_utc_B":1614052041,"score_A":4,"score_B":258,"human_ref_A":"The body feels suffocation from CO2 buildup rather than a lack of oxygen, so dying from blood loss wouldn't cause that feeling because it's not reacting to a lack of oxygen. My understanding (as not a medical professional) is blood loss is relatively painless on its own, it makes you sleepy until you just fall asleep and die (if not saved).","human_ref_B":"800-273-8255 Just going to put this suicide prevention hotline number here juuuuuuusssstttt in case :) Probably just a curious mind wondering, but my mom brain can\u2019t help itself.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":568.0,"score_ratio":64.5} {"post_id":"lq80z9","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: when you die from blood loss, do you feel like you are dying from not being able to breathe? Because your lungs are breathing but you're not getting oxygen where it needs to go, would it feel something like suffocating?","c_root_id_A":"gofesxb","c_root_id_B":"gofce5c","created_at_utc_A":1614056109,"created_at_utc_B":1614054718,"score_A":162,"score_B":45,"human_ref_A":"I nearly passed out after donating blood because I was dehydrated. My ears started to ring, my vision got blurry\/delayed\/streaky like I was drunk, my muscles got delayed and less coordinated, and my face felt hot. Sorta felt nauseous. Leaning back with a cold towel on my forehead and a big drink of water and sugar\/salt helped. It was definitely disturbing and I was glad to have nurses handy to help me get comfortable and get my blood pressure up again.","human_ref_B":"I've actually been through this, and you would be unconscious before you died. However, the period up until you pass out - though short - is utterly terrifying.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1391.0,"score_ratio":3.6} {"post_id":"lq80z9","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: when you die from blood loss, do you feel like you are dying from not being able to breathe? Because your lungs are breathing but you're not getting oxygen where it needs to go, would it feel something like suffocating?","c_root_id_A":"gofesxb","c_root_id_B":"gof66q4","created_at_utc_A":1614056109,"created_at_utc_B":1614051348,"score_A":162,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"I nearly passed out after donating blood because I was dehydrated. My ears started to ring, my vision got blurry\/delayed\/streaky like I was drunk, my muscles got delayed and less coordinated, and my face felt hot. Sorta felt nauseous. Leaning back with a cold towel on my forehead and a big drink of water and sugar\/salt helped. It was definitely disturbing and I was glad to have nurses handy to help me get comfortable and get my blood pressure up again.","human_ref_B":"I presume that the sensation of breathing just arises from lungs inhaling *something*, not necessarily air. Think about it - you could breathe an odorless, toxic fume like carbon monoxide, and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Until you fall unconscious and die, that is.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4761.0,"score_ratio":32.4} {"post_id":"lq80z9","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: when you die from blood loss, do you feel like you are dying from not being able to breathe? Because your lungs are breathing but you're not getting oxygen where it needs to go, would it feel something like suffocating?","c_root_id_A":"gofesxb","c_root_id_B":"gof6f7z","created_at_utc_A":1614056109,"created_at_utc_B":1614051473,"score_A":162,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"I nearly passed out after donating blood because I was dehydrated. My ears started to ring, my vision got blurry\/delayed\/streaky like I was drunk, my muscles got delayed and less coordinated, and my face felt hot. Sorta felt nauseous. Leaning back with a cold towel on my forehead and a big drink of water and sugar\/salt helped. It was definitely disturbing and I was glad to have nurses handy to help me get comfortable and get my blood pressure up again.","human_ref_B":"The body feels suffocation from CO2 buildup rather than a lack of oxygen, so dying from blood loss wouldn't cause that feeling because it's not reacting to a lack of oxygen. My understanding (as not a medical professional) is blood loss is relatively painless on its own, it makes you sleepy until you just fall asleep and die (if not saved).","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4636.0,"score_ratio":40.5} {"post_id":"lq80z9","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: when you die from blood loss, do you feel like you are dying from not being able to breathe? Because your lungs are breathing but you're not getting oxygen where it needs to go, would it feel something like suffocating?","c_root_id_A":"gof66q4","c_root_id_B":"gofce5c","created_at_utc_A":1614051348,"created_at_utc_B":1614054718,"score_A":5,"score_B":45,"human_ref_A":"I presume that the sensation of breathing just arises from lungs inhaling *something*, not necessarily air. Think about it - you could breathe an odorless, toxic fume like carbon monoxide, and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Until you fall unconscious and die, that is.","human_ref_B":"I've actually been through this, and you would be unconscious before you died. However, the period up until you pass out - though short - is utterly terrifying.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3370.0,"score_ratio":9.0} {"post_id":"lq80z9","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: when you die from blood loss, do you feel like you are dying from not being able to breathe? Because your lungs are breathing but you're not getting oxygen where it needs to go, would it feel something like suffocating?","c_root_id_A":"gof6f7z","c_root_id_B":"gofce5c","created_at_utc_A":1614051473,"created_at_utc_B":1614054718,"score_A":4,"score_B":45,"human_ref_A":"The body feels suffocation from CO2 buildup rather than a lack of oxygen, so dying from blood loss wouldn't cause that feeling because it's not reacting to a lack of oxygen. My understanding (as not a medical professional) is blood loss is relatively painless on its own, it makes you sleepy until you just fall asleep and die (if not saved).","human_ref_B":"I've actually been through this, and you would be unconscious before you died. However, the period up until you pass out - though short - is utterly terrifying.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3245.0,"score_ratio":11.25} {"post_id":"lq80z9","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: when you die from blood loss, do you feel like you are dying from not being able to breathe? Because your lungs are breathing but you're not getting oxygen where it needs to go, would it feel something like suffocating?","c_root_id_A":"gof66q4","c_root_id_B":"gofhv6v","created_at_utc_A":1614051348,"created_at_utc_B":1614057981,"score_A":5,"score_B":29,"human_ref_A":"I presume that the sensation of breathing just arises from lungs inhaling *something*, not necessarily air. Think about it - you could breathe an odorless, toxic fume like carbon monoxide, and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Until you fall unconscious and die, that is.","human_ref_B":"The process of exsanguination (death from loss of blood) causes the heart rate to drastically increase in order to effectively pump what blood you have all over the body and most importantly to the brain. At some point, the amount of blood making it to the brain is not enough and you pass out. During this whole process, you become cold and dizzy because not enough blood is circulating around the body. You can feel extremely heavy\/weak and, indeed, get short of breath with little feats of exertion.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6633.0,"score_ratio":5.8} {"post_id":"lq80z9","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: when you die from blood loss, do you feel like you are dying from not being able to breathe? Because your lungs are breathing but you're not getting oxygen where it needs to go, would it feel something like suffocating?","c_root_id_A":"gofhv6v","c_root_id_B":"gof6f7z","created_at_utc_A":1614057981,"created_at_utc_B":1614051473,"score_A":29,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"The process of exsanguination (death from loss of blood) causes the heart rate to drastically increase in order to effectively pump what blood you have all over the body and most importantly to the brain. At some point, the amount of blood making it to the brain is not enough and you pass out. During this whole process, you become cold and dizzy because not enough blood is circulating around the body. You can feel extremely heavy\/weak and, indeed, get short of breath with little feats of exertion.","human_ref_B":"The body feels suffocation from CO2 buildup rather than a lack of oxygen, so dying from blood loss wouldn't cause that feeling because it's not reacting to a lack of oxygen. My understanding (as not a medical professional) is blood loss is relatively painless on its own, it makes you sleepy until you just fall asleep and die (if not saved).","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6508.0,"score_ratio":7.25} {"post_id":"lq80z9","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: when you die from blood loss, do you feel like you are dying from not being able to breathe? Because your lungs are breathing but you're not getting oxygen where it needs to go, would it feel something like suffocating?","c_root_id_A":"gofhup8","c_root_id_B":"gofhv6v","created_at_utc_A":1614057973,"created_at_utc_B":1614057981,"score_A":2,"score_B":29,"human_ref_A":"Two possibilities, inability to maintain blood pressure or hypovolemic shock. It would depend on the rate of blood loss. High rate would likely lower blood pressure (think not enough water in the hose) to the point you could have an arrhythmia (heart malfunction) and brain death in 6 minutes due to no oxygen being pumped to the brain. Lower rate loss leads to Hypovolemic shock Hypo=low, volemic=volume, shock=the inability of blood to perfuse muscle. This means all those important organs (heart, liver) can't get blood which in turn can't get oxygen or expel CO2.","human_ref_B":"The process of exsanguination (death from loss of blood) causes the heart rate to drastically increase in order to effectively pump what blood you have all over the body and most importantly to the brain. At some point, the amount of blood making it to the brain is not enough and you pass out. During this whole process, you become cold and dizzy because not enough blood is circulating around the body. You can feel extremely heavy\/weak and, indeed, get short of breath with little feats of exertion.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8.0,"score_ratio":14.5} {"post_id":"uinmw4","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old Where and how does the air bag come out when the dash is one giant piece?","c_root_id_A":"i7dqp2f","c_root_id_B":"i7dqlb2","created_at_utc_A":1651720466,"created_at_utc_B":1651720415,"score_A":6,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Think of the \"tear here\" line on an Amazon package. From the outside, that material looks solid, but it is specifically designed so that the airbag can split the material when it expands.","human_ref_B":"While the dash looks solid or one piece on the outside the the underside of the dash itself is made to tear open in that particular area when the airbag deploys.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":51.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"q84l66","domain":"explainlikeimfive_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: how do farmers breed cows or cattle consistently without inbreeding? Like, wouldn't they all become biologically connected at some point?","c_root_id_A":"hgmyb8j","c_root_id_B":"hgmynno","created_at_utc_A":1634233754,"created_at_utc_B":1634233896,"score_A":4,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"My parent hired a guy to bring frozen sperm to inseminate to cows. They got to choose the bull from a catalog.","human_ref_B":"You usually buy or rent a bull form a different line. Then when your cows calf, you put a rubber band on the balls and make them steers. Steers go to market and you keep the heifers or sell them if you're at your farm's head count limit.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":142.0,"score_ratio":1.5}