Datasets:

orionweller

/

according-to-data

like 0

[ { "answer": "The final scene involves future contracts. This simply means entering into a contract to buy something (oil, wheat, even frozen concentrated orange juice(FCOJ)) at a specified time for the current price. The person selling the future does not have to own the FCOJ at the time of sale he simply has to provide them at the agreed upon date. Futures help companies mitigate risk against the unpredictable price of FCOJ. If the price of FCOJ goes up the buyer wins the seller loses and visa versa. This price is often affected by fresh oranges. If there is a good harvest FCOJ price goes down and so on. The Dukes believed there was going to be a bad harvest. Their plan was to buy as much FCOJ as they could and basically corner the market then sell it at a much higher price due to a lack of oranges. So here is what happened. At first Winthrop and Valentine begin selling futures contracts at inflated prices caused by the Dukes (on the info from the fake report of a bad orange harvest) at approximately $1.45 per unit. When the report comes out that the orange harvest is expected to be good caused a massive selloff and the futures price plummeted to about $.22 cents. This is when Winthrop and Valentine begin buying futures instead of selling. So now they can fill the futures orders of $1.45 with oranges costing $.22 earning something like a 545% profit.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "They had an episode of Marketplace that addressed this a few weeks ago: URL_0 ", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "NPR actually did a interview explaining everything pretty well. URL_0 ", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "If I remember correctly, they knew that the price of orange juice was going to fall. Normally this wouldn't matter, because you are supposed to buy and hold stocks, but they were buying what's called 'futures'. In a nutshell, they were buying contracts that afford them the legal right to purchase units of OJ at a specific price. Since they knew the price of OJ would fall (remember the dude with the locked briefcase?) they were buying option contracts to purchase OJ at a higher price. Anyone with half a brain would sell them these and of course that's what happened. For in depth knowledge, look up \"how futures trading works.\"", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "The unrealistic part of that flick is not the trading but Winthorp and Valentine being able just to waltz in to that pit and stand wherever they want. Spots in a commodity pit are protected like gang turf. They just go in and stand in the middle. Also if they deposit the cash from everyone's savings lets say 100k and the margin per contract is 5k per contract they can only buy or sell 20 contracts. I don't know what the FCOJ margins are, but if they trade more than 20 the profit goes to the exchange. At least that's how the CME rolls.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "Fun fact: In \"Coming to America\", when Akeem's character gave the money to the 2 homeless guys, it was the Duke brothers. :) URL_0 ", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "odd things I noted - 1. They didn't go in with that much cash. I understand they first sold high and then bought low. So how did they sell so much with just a small sum? They should've bought very little contracts of fcoj which would sell out in 1min with that frenzy and then the buyers would go somewhere else and price would rise even beyond $1.42 2. They all look at the clock and then 9am (I think) strikes and crop report is read. Then they all panic because they need to unload whatever they bought and finding the 2 buying they sell ASAP. Again how can these 2 buy everything with so little money? 3. Finally the closing bell strikes and trading stops. How did all this scheme happen so fast ? Doesnt trading happen 9:30am to 4pm at NYSE (why wtc was shown?) for such commodities. Did they spend that many hours there? It just seemed sudden and abrupt the time flow.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "it was the margin call for the duke brothers. as i'm sure others explained, the dukes shorted the market based on info from the phony crop report. so when the price shot up, a margin call was due, even after the price settled a bit after billy and louie sold their holdings for huge gains. when the market closed with the price still up, the movie shows the guy affiliated with the exchange saying \"Margin call.\". In reality I think it would've been the firm that they trade through and that provided them the loan in the first place. (margin call means pay back the loaned amount) edit: maybe I had it backwards and the dukes were going to go long on OJ futures, but it's the same principle. margin call did them in after the market worked against them based on their false knowledge.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "I feel so old. People have been askinbg what happened at the end of this movie for what must be the last 15 years of my life. It never stops. Every year/month/fortnight, I see someone asking what happened, and someone explaining. Andf it will keep on happening, until I am 90yrs old, in a home, with nothing but the Internet and my bladder to keep me going. And there it will be: \"what happens at the end of Trading Places?\"", "provenance": null }, { "answer": null, "provenance": [ { "wikipedia_id": "242855", "title": "Futures contract", "section": "Section::::Abstract.", "start_paragraph_id": 1, "end_paragraph_id": 1, "meta": null, "start_character": 14, "end_character": 612, "bleu_score": 0.9232808519770748 } ] } ]

{ "partial_evidence": [ { "wikipedia_id": "520990", "title": "Trading Places", "section": "Section::::Plot.\n", "start_paragraph_id": 7, "end_paragraph_id": 7, "meta": { "evidence_span": [ "On television, they learn that Clarence Beeks is transporting a secret USDA report on orange crop forecasts.", "On television, they learn that Clarence Beeks is transporting a secret USDA report on orange crop forecasts. Winthorpe and Valentine recall large payments made to Beeks by the Dukes and realize that the Dukes plan to obtain the report to corner the market on frozen orange juice.", "Winthorpe and Valentine recall large payments made to Beeks by the Dukes and realize that the Dukes plan to obtain the report to corner the market on frozen orange juice." ] } } ] }

[ { "answer": "It is water vapor and ice. They are produced from the hot engine exhaust in the cold atmosphere. Water vapor from the engine exhaust mixed with unburnt particulate in the jet fuel gives the surrounding moist air something to latch onto and ice crystals form. Depending on the hight of the aircraft, they can last seconds to hours. If you have seen a running car on a brisk morning, that is a similar effect. The car is too close to the relatively warmer ground that trails do not last for more than a second.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "awwww man, I'm disappointed. I came to this thread looking to read [and laugh at] some tinfoil hat chemtrail craziness. I cant believe I'm going to say this, but: Reddit you are far too reasonable", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "You are both right. In moist air the compression and expansion of air around the wings can form a temporary cloud [like this]( URL_0 ). However, what you see that lasts in the sky as a contrail is water vapor byproducts of the fuel combustion.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "Jets passing over typically are flying at altitudes where temperatures are fairly low - -40C. At this temperature, in clear air, there isn't a lot of water vapor (humidity) in the air. A jet engine takes this air in and uses it to burn fuel, which it pushes out of its exhaust. The fuel burns to mostly carbon dioxide and water. The air exiting the engine now has considerable water vapor in it. The exiting air mixes with the surrounding air, dropping its temperature rapidly. When hot, this air could hold a lot of water vapor. After cooling, it can't. The water vapor, which is clear, has to go somewhere, and where it goes is into ice or water droplets. These are no longer invisible, but reflect light, and appear white. There's a little more than that, in that the jet engine doesn't really burn the fuel perfectly, so some stuff is left over other than carbon dioxide and water - partly burned fuel. This makes particles that are needed to start the water vapor on its way to becoming liquid water or ice. These particles are called seeds.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "Jets leave white trails, or contrails, in their wakes for the same reason you can sometimes see your breath. The hot, humid exhaust from jet engines mixes with the atmosphere, which at high altitude is of much lower vapor pressure and temperature than the exhaust gas.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "Your teacher's explanation can also be right (in addition to exhaust-based explanations given already). As I'm sure you learned in class, pressure and temperature are related. Wings work because they create a low pressure area on top and a high pressure area on bottom -- the wing is essentially sucked upwards. Since the air pressure around the wing is changing so drastically (and complicated things happen to the air after the wing has traveled through it) you can have a reasonably large change in temperature of the air that is at low pressure. If the temperature of air changes, it also changes the amount of water vapor that can possibly be mixed in the air -- so if the temperature drops enough, some of the water vapor can condense out into either liquid water droplets or ice crystals.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "Fuel and Oxygen mix and burn in the engines and produce water and carbon dioxide. The water condenses and forms the trail.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": null, "provenance": [ { "wikipedia_id": "47525", "title": "Contrail", "section": "Section::::Abstract.", "start_paragraph_id": 1, "end_paragraph_id": 1, "meta": null, "start_character": 0, "end_character": 211, "bleu_score": 0.6031227121338508 } ] }, { "answer": null, "provenance": [ { "wikipedia_id": "525519", "title": "Chemtrail conspiracy theory", "section": "Section::::Contrails.\n", "start_paragraph_id": 30, "end_paragraph_id": 30, "meta": null, "start_character": 0, "end_character": 522, "bleu_score": 0.9697770291819574 } ] }, { "answer": null, "provenance": [ { "wikipedia_id": "47525", "title": "Contrail", "section": "Section::::Abstract.", "start_paragraph_id": 1, "end_paragraph_id": 1, "meta": null, "start_character": 213, "end_character": 732, "bleu_score": 1 } ] } ]

[ { "answer": "Hardly. First, remember that babies were not left unattended. Our early ancestors (much like some hunter gatherer tribes still do to this day) carries their babies around constantly. Babies that are worn cry much less because pretty much their every need (food and comfort) are very close by. Additionally, we are a species that lives in groups. A group of humans is going to be loud in any situation, and the occasional baby cry is not going to add much to that. Living in a group was our protection already, not stealth.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "Human infants were rarely without shelter, even during the hunter-gatherer nomadic phase humans lived in camps and caves. Infants were also never left alone. There were always adults around to attend to their needs and protect them from predators. This is one of the reasons that humans live in groups.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "Predators don't want to tangle with a bunch of hunter-gatherers, whether or not they are in a shelter. Humans are scary, and predators in general tend to go for isolated young or old individuals. Also, in mobile societies the babies spend a whole lot of time on their mothers, either in arms or wrapped on. They tend to cry a lot less when being held.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "There are no predators in nature that will attack a group of humans (except maybe when completely desparate). Heck, there are very few that will even attack a single adult human. The few predators that are actually bigger and stronger than humans also understand the concept of strength in numbers.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": null, "provenance": [ { "wikipedia_id": "1402262", "title": "Baby colic", "section": "Section::::Treatment.\n", "start_paragraph_id": 36, "end_paragraph_id": 36, "meta": null, "start_character": 87, "end_character": 223, "bleu_score": 1 } ] } ]

[ { "answer": "Animals, at least higher functioning mammals, have some sort of concept of death, though I don't know how much it differs from what you or I understand death to be. Elderly pack animals (wolves, for example) will voluntarily leave the pack, stop eating, and find a quiet place to die, for example. Elephants that come across the bones of another elephant will stop and \"feel\" skulls with their trunks and even cover remains with brush.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "I think they do because about 2 years ago, my dog suddenly just jumped out of my bed and went over to the living room. After some struggling, he died. I think he knew he was going and he didn't want to die where me and him went to sleep. Gosh, I miss him.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "Well, considering that human beings are animals, and we understand what death is, I think it would be safe to assume that sufficiently intelligent animals understand what death is. It is easy to imagine that dolphins, monkeys, apes, and other intelligent animals understand that death means the end of an individual's existence.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": null, "provenance": [ { "wikipedia_id": "7116046", "title": "Animal rights", "section": "Section::::Abstract.", "start_paragraph_id": 1, "end_paragraph_id": 1, "meta": { "evidence_span": [ "Animal rights is the idea in which some, or all, non-human animals are entitled to the possession of their own existence and that their most basic interestssuch as the need to avoid sufferingshould be afforded the same consideration as similar interests of human beings.", "Animal rights is the idea in which some, or all, non-human animals are entitled to the possession of their own existence and that their most basic interestssuch as the need to avoid sufferingshould be afforded the same consideration as similar interests of human beings" ] }, "start_character": null, "end_character": null, "bleu_score": null } ] } ]

[ { "answer": "Cannabis is a depressant drug, which means it slows down messages travelling between your brain and body. When large doses of cannabis are taken, it may also produce hallucinogenic effects. Cannabis can cause: reduced coordination, slower reaction times, slower information processing, confusion, changes in vision, hearing, and time and space perception. A person who has been using cannabis may think that they will be able to drive safely. However, the cannabis may have affected their view and experience of reality, and their judgement. Their actions and responses may be quite different to what is actually needed, but they may not be aware of how much their driving skills have been affected. Even after a small amount of cannabis you should not drive for at least 5 hours. (From: URL_0 )", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "Your are going to get answers that are anecdotal and won't really give you a definite answer as to whether it does impair driving ability or not due to a number of factors such as tolerance, personal bias, etc. At the end of the day, you just have to realize that marijuana or any psychoactive drug will have an affect on your brain chemistry and it will change the way you react to things, whether it be an hyperactive response or a depressed one. Neither is better in comparison to you driving in a normal psychological state.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "Yes. It's really dumb to drive while high. I find that the next day, I drive less aggressively because I'm mellowed out and I don't think there is any impairment at that point. Maybe people don't care about risking their own lives, but the comments here about \"getting used to it\" may end up killing someone else. You are controlling 2 tons of metal. Kids run where they shouldn't. People run red lights. Sometimes people brake hard for animals and such. You have to be alert. Being stoned is not alert.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "*Car & Driver* magazine wondered if it did.... 36 years ago. They performed a scientific study (using their own staff who volunteered - yay!) and compared driving performance while sober and while stoned. Their results put quantifiable measurement to the impairment. URL_0 ", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "Tried it, didn't like it. I'll give an example of thinking you're fine... Having lunch with friends at KFC, everything is awesome, need a drink... what what... where's my drink... friend points out its to me the left of my hand on the table... Some people are more than fine, just like you have \"functional drunks\", you can have \"functional pothds\"... the question is, what are the reactions like if something goes wrong...", "provenance": null }, { "answer": null, "provenance": [ { "wikipedia_id": "56967280", "title": "Cannabis and impaired driving", "section": "Section::::Legal standards.:Americas.:United States.:State.:Georgia.\n", "start_paragraph_id": 49, "end_paragraph_id": 49, "meta": { "evidence_span": [ ") prevent a driver from being prosecuted under § 4177(a)(2). Georgia Statute § 40-6-391 makes it to drive while there is \"\"any amount\" of marijuana . . . present in the person's blood or urine, or both, \"including the metabolites and derivatives of each or both\" . . . .\" Subsection (b) of the statute provides that being legally entitled to use a drug is not a defense to the statute if the person is still \"rendered incapable of driving safely as a result\" of using that drug.", ") prevent a driver from being prosecuted under § 4177(a)(2). Georgia Statute § 40-6-391 makes it to drive while there is \"\"any amount\" of marijuana . . . present in the person's blood or urine, or both, \"including the metabolites and derivatives of each or both\" . . . .\" Subsection (b) of the statute provides that being legally entitled to use a drug is not a defense to the statute if the person is still \"rendered incapable of driving safely as a result\" of using that drug." ] }, "start_character": null, "end_character": null, "bleu_score": null } ] } ]

[ { "answer": "According to the excellent \"We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will be Killed Along with Our Families,\" a book on the genocide, there had long been a divide in Rwanda between more agrarian and more trade oriented groups, which was loosely correlated to Hutu and Tutsi lineage. Colonizing forces sharpened and deepened this divide as a way to ease their control over the society, making it more explicitly ethnic. By the time colonization ended, the group identities had solidified as a basis for the political and social order. The divide continued to be used in politics and ultimately spiraled into the genocide.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "This is what I know of the topic from my time in Rwanda: Initially Hutu and Tutsi had recognizable differences (mainly the shape of their noses) and just focused on different things. With the arrival of the Belgians and their interests in controlling the people, they introduced a national ID paper where it would also state whether someone was a Hutu, a Tutsi or else (there were/are other tribes as well). Afterwards it was also possible to acquire the status of Tutsi depending on your wealth (how many cows you owned). Then Tutsi started being given more and more positions of power, which then became some sort of requirement. This led to a growing distance between the two groups causing the rapture we know about. Basically tagging people and discriminating some (the majority) led to the genocide, especially because of the non-intervention of outsiders.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "So before the Europeans arrived Rwandan and Burundian society had a hierarchy with Tutsis at the top and Hutus and the twa at the bottom there was no clear racial distinction because most Rwandans have the same features and the system was primarily economic with the those who were rich considered Tutsis and those without considered Hutus. Then the Belgians came and colonized the region and they saw the hierarchical system as a way to effectively control the people. In doing so they added a racial dynamic in which those with lighter skin,narrow noses and tall height were considered Tutsi while those who had more negroid features were considered Hutu or twa. The Tutsis who ran Rwanda weren't very nice to the Hutus and this sowed the hatred and resentment for the Tutsis amongst Hutus. This changed with the wave of African independence movements which made the Tutsis demand independence(because being upper class they were more educated and were more exposed to pan Africanist ideas spreading at the time).This resulted in Belgium switching its support to the Hutus because with Tutsi leaders pushing for independence there was a fear that Rwanda would become communist and Hutus were seen as easier to control. Eventually the Hutus would overthrow the Tutsi monarchy in Rwanda which was then followed by a purge of Tutsi leading many into exile and installing a hardline regime that ruled until it was overthrown in 1994, by The Rwandan patriotic front led by Tutsi exiles based and supported by Uganda.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "Not an expert, but my understanding is that the colonial powers installed the Tutsis in a position of power. I've heard arguments that Hutu and Tutsi are constructed identities that didn't exist in a meaningful sense before colonialism. Try /r/AskHistorians, they're pretty good about this sort of thing.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": null, "provenance": [ { "wikipedia_id": "23909654", "title": "Ethnic groups in Rwanda", "section": "Section::::Post-colonial framework.:Racialization of Hutu and Tutsi identities Under Kayibanda.\n", "start_paragraph_id": 46, "end_paragraph_id": 46, "meta": { "evidence_span": [ "In 1957, these Hutu nationalist elites made their political debut when a UN mission to the region was greeted with two declarations of independence by the Rwandan people. The first, a proclamation by the Mwamis (kings) high council proposed a rapid transfer of power from the Belgians to the Tutsi royal leadership. Called Mise au Point, the document emphasized the importance of ending racial tensions between white colonizers and black colonials. One month later, the Hutu political elites responded with their own declaration, the Bahutu Manifesto. This document called for a double liberation of the Hutu people, first from the race of white colonials, and second from the race of Hamitic oppressors, the Tutsi. The document in many ways established the future tone of the Hutu nationalist movement by identifying the indigenous racial problem of Rwanda as the social, political, and economic monopoly which is held by one race, the Tutsi.", "In 1957, these Hutu nationalist elites made their political debut when a UN mission to the region was greeted with two declarations of independence by the Rwandan people. The first, a proclamation by the Mwamis (kings) high council proposed a rapid transfer of power from the Belgians to the Tutsi royal leadership. Called Mise au Point, the document emphasized the impo", "In 1957, these Hutu nationalist elites made their political debut when a UN mission to the region was greeted with two declarations of independence by the Rwandan people. The first, a proclamation by the Mwamis (kings) high council proposed a rapid transfer of power from the Belgians to the Tutsi royal leadership. Called Mise au Point, the document emphasized the importance of ending racial tensions between white colonizers and black colonials. One month later, the Hutu political elites responded with their own declaration, the Bahutu Manifesto. This document called for a double liberation of t" ] }, "start_character": null, "end_character": null, "bleu_score": null } ] }, { "answer": null, "provenance": [ { "wikipedia_id": "12748135", "title": "Hutu Power", "section": "Section::::Abstract.", "start_paragraph_id": 1, "end_paragraph_id": 1, "meta": { "evidence_span": [ "Hutu Power is a racist and ethnic supremacist ideology propounded by Hutu extremists in Rwanda. It led to the 1994 Rwandan genocide against the Tutsi. Hutu Power political parties and movements included the \"Akazu\", the Coalition for the Defence of the Republic and its \"Impuzamugambi\" paramilitary militia, and the governing National Republican Movement for Democracy and Development and its \"Interahamwe\" paramilitary militia.", "Hutu Power is a racist and ethnic supremacist ideology propounded by Hutu extremists in Rwanda. It led to the 1994 Rwandan genocide against the Tutsi. Hutu Power political parties and movements included the \"Akazu\", the Coalition for the Defence of the Republic and its \"Impuzamugambi\" paramilitary militia, and the governing National Republican Moveme" ] }, "start_character": null, "end_character": null, "bleu_score": null } ] }, { "answer": null, "provenance": [ { "wikipedia_id": "67050", "title": "Tutsi", "section": "Section::::Abstract.", "start_paragraph_id": 1, "end_paragraph_id": 1, "meta": { "evidence_span": [ "The Tutsi (; ), or Abatutsi, are a social class or ethnic group of the African Great Lakes region. Historically, they were often referred to as the Watutsi, Watusi, Wahuma, Wahima or the Wahinda. The Tutsi form a subgroup of the Banyarwanda and the Barundi people, who reside primarily in Rwanda and Burundi, but with significant populations also found in Uganda and Tanzania. Tutsis are the second largest population division among the three largest groups in Rwanda and Burundi; the other two being the Hutu (largest)\rhighlight sentence(s) containing evidence, not only the answer", "he Tutsi (; ), or Abatutsi, are a social class or ethnic group of the African Great Lakes region. Historically, they were often referred to as the Watutsi, Watusi, Wahuma, Wahima or the Wahinda. The Tutsi form a subgroup of the Banyarwanda and the Barundi people, who reside primarily in Rwanda and Burundi, but with significant populations also found in Uganda and Tanzania" ] }, "start_character": null, "end_character": null, "bleu_score": null } ] } ]

[ { "answer": "It's way easier for the average person to do the math if the tax rates are stepwise rather than continuous. The average person isn't very comfortable with formulas, but can deal with subtraction and multiplication.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "I have a feeling that using a formula to calculate income tax is more complicated and harder to understand amongst the un-educated, which make up a significant portion of a country's population. I know a couple of relatives who cannot grasp the concept of \"x-squared\" but have no problem with the current tax code. Hell, there are even people who don't understand the brackets system and think that accepting a raise will make you poorer. Another main reason is that it is hard to find a polynomial curve that fits into what the government wants. Try plotting US's tax system with a parabola, I'm sure you'll end up with very strange coefficients.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "H & R Block, Intuit (who owns TurboTax), etc. actively lobby (i.e. bribe) lawmakers to keep the tax code as confusing as possible because their industry depends on individuals not being able to prepare or file taxes on their own. Imagine if we had a flat tax that was simple and automatic, and based on the income statements that the government already has access to. Why would anyone pay to have their taxes done? The system isn't broken, it works exactly as designed. It was just designed to serve them, not us. That's not the sole reason, but it's certainly a contributor.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "A very common misconception is that your tax burden immediately jumps up to a higher percentage if your income (AGI) crests into a higher bracket. What actually (currently) happens is that your first $x of income is taxed at the first bracket's percentage, the next $y of income at the next percentage, and so on. For example, if the next bracket is 20% at $86,000 and your AGI was $86,091, only $91 would be taxed at 20%, and the remaining $86,000 is separated into lower rates (e.g. 10% of your first $30,000, plus 15% of $56,000). If you were to graph taxes paid against AGI, it would have a slight curve. Against gross income, there would be a \"landing area\" corresponding to the standard exemption. Graphing percentage paid as tax against income might actually look somewhat like a parabola, depending on the number of brackets and the rates in between. [add] [Actual tax brackets for 2016]( URL_0 )", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "That would be more complicated. And whether or not it would be theoretically more efficient, that can end up being less efficient in practice due to the complexity of implementing it. If every single additional dollar you make changes the tax rate you pay, the accounting calculations become a bit more complicated than if you can simply apply a single arithmetic calculation for everything you make under a threshold you may be nowhere near. A business can handle that, but just some random person might find it frustrating, easy to screw up, and untrustworthy if they don't understand how a number is arrived at.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "I think we need new formulas that consider GDP, Cornflation, Home Inflation, Cost of Living and adjust for each region. After all, Fort Wayne Indiana and San Fransisco have different costs of living. That said, rich people should pay more. Period. Paying more doesn't stop them from earning it right back and it also doesn't take away their billionaire and millionaire status.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": null, "provenance": [ { "wikipedia_id": "2470262", "title": "Proportional tax", "section": "Section::::Abstract.", "start_paragraph_id": 1, "end_paragraph_id": 1, "meta": { "evidence_span": [ "A proportional tax is a tax imposed so that the tax rate is fixed, with no change as the taxable base amount increases or decreases. The amount of the tax is in proportion to the amount subject to taxation. \"Proportional\" describes a distribution effect on income or expenditure, referring to the way the rate remains consistent (does not progress from \"low to high\" or \"high to low\" as income or consumption changes), where the marginal tax rate is equal to the average tax rate.\rhighlight sentence(s) containing evidence, not only the answer", "A proportional tax is a tax imposed so that the tax rate is fixed, with no change as the taxable base amount increases or decreases. The amount of the tax is in proportion to the amount subject to taxation. \"", "A proportional tax is a tax imposed so that the tax rate is fixed, with no change as the taxable base amount increases or decreases. The amount of the tax is in proportion to the amount subject to taxation" ] }, "start_character": null, "end_character": null, "bleu_score": null } ] } ]

[ { "answer": "If you're not paying for it, YOU are the item being sold. They probably sell your data to 3rd party advertisers.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "Snapchat makes a lot of ad revenue through advertising. They have deals with the NFL and stuff like that to have snapchat stories posted to everyone.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "They're worth a lot of money because of the amount of users and the frequency that the app is used. For example (I'm just making up numbers here to get the point across). Instagram might have 1,000,000 users. Half the users look at the app at least 1 time every day and 1 quarter of the users make use of the app more than 5 times every day. So, an advertiser can pay Instagram for access to those users. Maybe they only pay for female users in France that use the app at least twice a day, or maybe they only pay for Male users in Australia that follow certain types of accounts (surf companies for example). This gives the company value because their user base is easily accessible by advertising companies. The data that we generate (views, likes, personal data like age, gender etc..) also provides value. In this example Instagram can show what different groups of people are into and what sort of trends are happening. At the moment I don't think Tinder has any paid content. Snapchat has the discover page, but we don't pay to access that. For companies like this, every single user is worth money to them and other companies are willing to pay to have data on what we do.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "Don't know about these two, but in college (BBA Marketing), we learned a lot about data mining. Two notable companies: OKCupid and Angry Birds are actually data mining (marketing research) firms, and when you agree to their terms of service, you're unknowingly granting them access to any and all information on your device, and giving them the right to sell said collected information for a profit to a third party. Learning about Angry Birds was totally out of left field, but OKCupid made a good bit of sense. If you or anyone reading this is unfamiliar with it, OKCupid is an online dating site/app that's less casual/hook up oriented than tinder, but more low maintenance and less serious than URL_0 . Algorithms \"predict compatibility\" based on your answers to questions, combined with which answer(s) you want a SO to choose. There's thousands of different questions, and it gives unprecedented access to the personal details of people's lives you wouldn't be able to find out on a site that wasn't meant for dating. It's some pretty creepy stuff. I'm sure tinder and snapchat do similar things to an extent, but probably not identical to OKC or Angry Birds.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "One possibility is that they have the *potential* to make money in the future. Say you're a big investing company with many billions of dollars. If you're pretty sure you could make $2B by adding ads to Snapchat, and you can buy it for only $1B, then why wouldn't you do that?", "provenance": null }, { "answer": null, "provenance": [ { "wikipedia_id": "32312050", "title": "It's Worth What?", "section": "Section::::Gameplay.\n", "start_paragraph_id": 5, "end_paragraph_id": 5, "meta": { "evidence_span": [ "t was announced that \"It's Worth What?\" would not be renewed for a second season. Two contestants work together as a team to \"discern\" the prices of antique items, either appraised value or sale price at auction. Eight Rounds were originally played; however, seven rounds were played in later taped episodes. Winning each round added a specified dollar value into the teams bank. However, the game continues", "it was announced that \"It's Worth What?\" would not be renewed for a second season. Two contestants work together as a team to \"discern\" the prices of antique items, either appraised value or sale price at auction. Eight Rounds were originally played; however, seven rounds were played in later taped episodes. Winning each round added a specified dollar value into the teams bank. However, the game continues regardless of winning or losing each round. The team can earn up to 1 million for a perfectly played game.", "it was announced that \"It's Worth What?\" would not be renewed for a second season. Two contestants work together as a team to \"discern\" the prices of antique items, either appraised value or sale price at auction. Eight Rounds were originally played; however, seven rounds were played in later taped episodes. Winning each round added a specified dollar value into the teams bank. However, the game continues regardless of winning or losing each round. The team can earn up to 1 million for a perfectly played game." ] }, "start_character": null, "end_character": null, "bleu_score": null } ] } ]

[ { "answer": "Physically speaking, being a naturally good singer means you were born with a good \"instrument\". Your vocal cords would be more elastic and flexible, and this would make your voice able to produce more overtones, or the right mix of overtones which sound pleasant. Overtones are basically sound waves on top of sound waves which have wavelengths that overlap on the original wave, e.g. half the wavelength, one third the wavelength, and we can tell the difference between a trumpet and a piano or a sweet and a shrill voice largely by picking up on the differences between the mixtures of overtones. Besides that, being naturally coordinated would help controlling the muscles which keep a steady pitch or vibrato or volume, being naturally gifted in pitch and tone differentiation would be important(good ear, perfect pitch), and because IMO natural abilities get a little too much credit with the general public, a natural patience, memory, intelligence, passion and persistence would all be very important when it comes to learning and practicing. Because no one comes out of the womb singing.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "Having a good *ear* is more relevant to developing a good voice than any vocal talent. That being said, the best indicator is how hard you are willing to work at it. Singing well - in tune, on rhythm, intentional intonation, good projection, without damaging your voice - is very hard, and takes discipline, practice, and determination. You also have to maintain it, because your voice changes as you age, and you need to be on top of the transitions. Puberty is the most dramatic example, but it's only one of many. tl;dr: A decent ear and a strong desire to work hard and intelligently.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "I'm not a singer so I can't comment specifically on that. But when someone says a person is \"naturally\" good at something it means that they naturally do something with good form or with proper technique from the start. They don't have to unlearn bad habits which gives them a leg up from the start. It still requires practice to excel at something.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "My personal theory is that naturally good singers hear their voice at the same pitch other people hear it. When you sing or speak, you hear your voice through the air (like everyone else hears you) but mostly through the bones and tissue in your neck and head. If this tissue and bone distorts the pitch of the sound, when you hear yourself singing in tune everyone else will hear you singing out of tune. Naturally bad singers can figure out how to only listen to their voice through the air or to figure out what pitch they need to hear themselves sing to produce the correct pitch for everyone else.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "I have a piggy back question. What effect do you think getting a nose job would have on someone's singing voice? I have a prominent \"Roman\" nose with a big bump on the bridge and I've always wanted a nose job, but I'm a singer and my mom told me it would mess up my voice. I've heard that Barbara Streisand wanted one too but didn't do it because she was worried about her voice. But I feel like a lot of singers have plastic surgery or naturally small noses. So how would shaving down cartilage on top of my nose impact my sinuses and vocal tone?", "provenance": null }, { "answer": null, "provenance": [ { "wikipedia_id": "11713533", "title": "Vocal pedagogy", "section": "Section::::Abstract.", "start_paragraph_id": 1, "end_paragraph_id": 1, "meta": { "evidence_span": [ "Vocal pedagogy is the study of the art and science of voice instruction. It is used in the teaching of singing and assists in defining what singing is, how singing works, and how proper singing technique is accomplished.", "Vocal pedagogy is the study of the art and science of voice instruction. It is used in the teaching of singing and assists in defining what singing is, how singing works, and how proper singing technique is accomplished.", "Vocal pedagogy is the study of the art and science of voice instruction. It is used in the teaching of singing and assists in defining what singing is, how singing works, and how proper singing technique is accomplished." ] }, "start_character": null, "end_character": null, "bleu_score": null } ] } ]

[ { "answer": "There probably would be similarities. Things that were swimmers would probably be sleek, for instance, due to natural selection. It's just that there would have been an entirely different evolutionary history and so different things may/would have been tried that didn't get a chance on our world.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "There are many ways that human race could have turned out - the problems we needed to evolve for would, most of the time, have more than one solution. That means chances are that life on a similar planet to ours would have solved the problems in a different way - Maybe giving us more blubber and less hair to combat cold; more opposable thumbs; more eyes, etc etc. Also, if other things on the world are a little different it could cause an evolutionary butterfly effect, making them much different to us. Another factor would be if there was an unlucky disaster that wiped out all of the species similar to ours maybe their version of the Neanderthal lived on and became the dominant species. So many variables = a species with some similarities to us but probably much different", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "Life evolves through random mutations. This image demonstrates how you could take one of two paths, and keep doing this over and over until your destination is incredibly distant. URL_0 Life doesn't have to live in the same way we do. There are the radioactive fungi recently discovered for example. We just live by one set of rules and there's no reason why we couldn't have lived by another.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "I guess the first question is, what do you mean by habitable? Same atmosphere? Same atmosphere earth started with, or same atmosphere earth has now? Let's do a thought experiment. We'll take a bunch of different planets that started out identical to earth, but \"split off\" at different points. So, that would be like saying \"what if I hadn't gotten on the train last tuesday\". Your life might be different, you might have lost your job, or found your wife, but humanity would not cease to exist (nor would you not be born). You get the idea. First stop, a planet that only branched 5 million years ago. If you visited this planet, you will still recognize many animals, or at least animal types. Humanity may or may not have ever evolved (at least to the point you see them now) but other than that, the earth would look quite similar. Next we'll branch at 200 million years ago. Maybe now the planet you're coming to (in the present) still has dinosaurs, maybe mammals never took hold. No matter how evolution continued in this world, you may recognize very few TYPES of animals, but you'll still recongize them AS animals. Insects will be relatively recognizable, plants will as well. Next we'll branch at 550 MYA. At this point, it becomes more of a crapshoot. Depending on the circumstances, land plants might not have evolved. Sure, something would fill that niche, but that something might look entirely foreign to you. We're also missing vertebrates (all higher animals). Again, something would probably evolve to fill that niche, but that something would likely not have the body plan that's so familiar to us. The world would look increasingly alien. Of course, again, we could still recognize what lived there as life, and there would still be animals, and fungus, and all sorts of things we could at least SOMEWHAT relate to. Now for the gist of your question, what if the planets branched before life even evolved? That's where we really don't know, but we can speculate. The biggest question is, is the basic structure of our DNA a chemical necessity (as in, there is no other way to have a self-replicating molecule to build higher life on), or was it a fluke? Are there a variety of different molecules that could form, and could self replicate in the way DNA/RNA did, and the only reason why we have DNA is because once SOMETHING like that forms, it will immediately become the ONLY thing, and change the environment in such a way to prevent any other \"things\" from ever forming? If that's the case, a planet that started out like earth could very well end up with \"life\" that is so alien we might not even recognize it AS life.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "it would be less of a question of *are they simalir* and more of a question *how far along in the natural history are we on that planet, and how are specific traits exhibited, and are there any traits that we have never seen before?* you will have sleek swimmers, maybe they have fins. maybe they have jet propulsion, maybe they just float there. the major fluid present is a factor here. you will have flyers. how many wings, or do they use buoyancy? air pressure becomes a factor here, as well as gravity, and atmospheric components. they will have *mouths* or some way to eat/gain nutrition. but how, would they have a standard digestive system? maybe more of a venom based system is selected for, leading to a whole planet looking like Australia. would the plants ue sunlight, or be more like the fungi from earths early history? perhaps hey get selected more towards carnivorous plants, and you have things like giant Venus flytraps, or pitcher plants more common then here on earth. maybe they use a different system entirely, and it might be totally possible for a plant and animal symbioid to appear *think bulbasaur* youll have things with legs, youll have prehensile limbs, youll have horns or a means of self defense. there will be a anolog for all of these things, its just how they are expressed that will be diffrent. and weather or not life on that planet has been around long enough for its life to get a chance to express analogs to our life. animals will have some sort of camoflauge, we dont know what kind exactly, but we can guess it probably would depend on the local environment and selective pressure. but it will be there in SOME form. and if the planet has had life long enough MAYBE it might have a intelligent species. now...would that be a hive mind caste system like ants? like us? are they aquatic like dolphins or octopi? do they communicate with voice? or by pheromones? maybe they comunicate by flashes of light? eyes will evolve unless its a very dark world. but where would they be? what would they look like? maybe compound style eyes are preferred. maybe the use their whole body to see. another thing to consider, if you had visited earth a very long time ago, you wouldn't see much of anything that looks like today animals. giant bugs existed cause oxygen was so plentiful in the atmosphere. hell, go deep enough into the sea and you can find fish that can stretch their bellies like 5 times their size. and ones that entrance their prey with light. we have electric eels. ELECTRIC. FUCKING. EELS. if you have never heard of them, they delver a sizable shock of around 600 fucking volts. idr what amperage its at. but, hell i didn't think that was possible till i heard of it. and that's on EARTH. point is, we wont know till we look. we can be sure the same niches will exist, its just how the alien life solves it would be the question.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": null, "provenance": [ { "wikipedia_id": "5161347", "title": "Ethics of terraforming", "section": "Section::::Criticism.\n", "start_paragraph_id": 14, "end_paragraph_id": 14, "meta": { "evidence_span": [ "ethical issues associated with spreading Earth-based wild-animal life by terraforming. In particular, they claim it may be ethically objectionable to bring into existence large numbers of animals that suffer greatly during their often-short lives in the wild. There are also concerns that even with full terraformation, distinct differences between Earth and Mars, such as gravity, lengths of the day and night cycles, and differi", "Though some species may survive, and others possibly could be adapted through genetic modification, if the introduced species were isolated on Mars and not frequently interbred with Earth counterparts, the species would eventually evolve through many generations in order to better suit their new environment, possibly leading to different evolutionary lines.", "Some advocates of animal welfare have pointed out the ethical issues associated with spreading Earth-based wild-animal life by terraforming. In particular, they claim it may be ethically objectionable to bring into existence large numbers of animals that suffer greatly during their often-short lives in the wild. There are also concerns that even with full terraformation, distinct differences between Earth and Mars, such as gravity, leng" ] }, "start_character": null, "end_character": null, "bleu_score": null } ] } ]

[ { "answer": "One does not simply lay down a large fiber network. First, you have to have the money. That's not really an issue for Google. Then, you have to convince municipal governments to let you build a network, and you have to get past the incumbent ISP, who wants to keep their monopoly intact. You have to find enough subscribers, you have to find people to build the network, you have to do customer service and installation, and you have to not be hated by the public. Throwing money at those problems is ineffective.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "I'm in Georgia so hopefully I'll see fiber within my lifetime. Considering that we've paid for fiber to the home twice over. Please see the $300 billion broadband scandal. The fiber is actually the cheap part.. the labor is probably the most expensive part to it. The slowest part is all the paper work and fighting the counties and att and the cable providers. I was alSo told that getting across a railroad takes 5 months of paperwork and $40k Basically because the local monopolies have so much money, they pay people on the board to vote against public interest. So they tie Google up in legal paperwork and local monopolies get it blocked. I really wish Google would've hired me for the Atlanta fiber team. I would've been keeping everyone updated to what's taking so long. I'm pretty sure I could beast through all this political garbage. The fastest way through red tape is to steamroll through it. :)", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "One of two possibilities, firstly Google doesn't really want to be an ISP but wants to coax other ISP's into rolling out substantial faster internet services. Secondly Google can't roll out fiber everywhere it wants by throwing money at it. Who gets Google fiber and when might not be in Googles control.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "Putting stuff in the ground takes time. On top of that there's a lot of paperwork, city regulations and so on. That's part of the reason why Google Fibre isn't going to be everywhere, Google are only picking cities which are \"easy\" for it to roll out in.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "Bureaucracy, Politics, and money are the reason. Google has the money, but most local governments have some sort of contracts with 1 or more ISPs that essentially grant them a monopoly(or a near monopoly) over certain areas. This is the reason why a lot of ISPs have failed and companies like Comcast refuse to increase bandwidth because they know they have a monopoly and they have enough money to get the local city officials on their side and shut down competitors.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "There are a few factors: * Installing the fibre is expensive, so google will only roll it out where there is enough market to support it (or where there will be enough market during the lifetime). Add to this that as soon as Google moves to put in fibre, the existing providers all drop their prices and try to lock in customers contractually to prevent google from succeeding. * Planning can be hard to get. Some local governments already granted monopolies to other providers, others don't want the hassle, still others are getting kickbacks from existing suppliers to \"stand on the hose\". * The idea for google is not to actually roll out it's fibre nationwide. That's not the business they want to be in. The idea is to force existing providers to up their game and do their actual jobs nationwide. It's sort of like how google are not in the bus business and don't want to be. But they run their own buses because otherwise there is no way for the workers to get to work on time. Google does not want to be your ISP or an infrastructure company. But since your ISP and Infra companies are so bad, it's having to do their job for them just to get their product to you.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": null, "provenance": [ { "wikipedia_id": "52770475", "title": "Ed Parsons", "section": "Section::::Career.\n", "start_paragraph_id": 10, "end_paragraph_id": 10, "meta": { "evidence_span": [ "with Netherlands on Google Maps. Parsons left Ordnance Survey in December 2006 and he was offered a job by Google. Parsons began working at the London office of Google. He also set up his own company Open Goematics, a strategic consultancy firm focused on the geospatial technology tracking and Neogeography. In 2010, Parsons received an honorary PhD in Science from the Kingston University in recognition of his contributions to the field of GIS and to the university. Parsons oversaw the coordination of Google Maps and Historypin in 2012 in an initiative to recover\rhighlight sentence(s) containing evidence, not only the answer\r \rSelect the Evidence Span in the Passage Above\r  \rPassage 2\rWikipedia article: Google Wifi - Section::::Intro.\rGoogle Wifi is a mesh-capable wireless router developed by Google. It was announced on October 4, 2016, and released in the United States on December 5, 2016. Further international rollout followed with", "arsons left Ordnance Survey in December 2006 and he was offered a job by Google. Parsons began working at the London office of Google. He also set up his own company Open Goematics, a strategic consultancy firm focused on the geospatial technology tracking and Neogeography" ] }, "start_character": null, "end_character": null, "bleu_score": null } ] } ]

[ { "answer": "Obamacare mandates that you buy healthcare insurance, or apply for free coverage from the government if you're poor enough or old enough to qualify. It gives subsidies based on income. Long story short, there are a lot of Americans who think that the free market is the best solution to all problems - healthcare included. They view Obamacare as evil for two reasons: 1) it forces you to purchase something against your will, and 2) it runs contrary to free market principles. Many (most?) of these people also tend believe that healthcare in the US is significantly superior to that which exists in the UK/Canada/Switzerland/etc.. Thus, any move toward a European model is viewed as a degradation of current services.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "If you understand what \"obamacare\" is, you might understand the opposition. It's NOT government medical service (like NHS). It's NOT government medical insurance (like Canada). It's NOT free market medicine. IT IS mandatory purchase of private insurance (racket). In essence it's the worst of all worlds. Not to mention, it was imposed upon the US in abnormal circumstances, without actual debate or public scrutiny. It mandates millions of new customers to wealthy medical insurance companies, and results in significantly higher premiums. It does not address the rising prices of medical services, it makes it the law you must pay for them, and if you don't you must pay more tax. (though currently the law does not include prison for failure to pay those new taxes, you can bet in short order that it will include \"criminal\" sentences in the near future.) So, it boils down to this, people who like \"Obamacare\" don't know what it actually is (or they might be evil). People who oppose it, can do math.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "In general people don't like it for several reasons: 1. Congress passed the law and President Obama signed it without allowing the public to read the law. This isn't necessarily unprecedented but it riles folks up anyway. 2. Congress passed the law using the reconciliation process. Normally an important bill needs at least 60 votes in the senate to pass, but the senate used a special process to pass the bill with 51 votes instead. It was a very shady, underhanded way to get the law passed. (This is very ELI5 - there's a lot more to it) 3. Many Americans are inherently distrustful of government, especially the federal government. It's something that's ingrained in our culture. Many of us don't even trust the government to handle basic government services due to personal experiences, so trusting them with anything to do with something so intimate (healthcare) is not easy for Americans. 4. For many people, especially small business owners who make a decent income, their existing plans were cancelled due to the new regulations, and the new healthcare plans that match the new regulations are often more costly. I'm at work and out of time for the moment, but there are so many more reasons. It's not 100% bad, but it's not the right solution.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "Its really really expensive. I don't qualify for any tax credits and for my family of four it's two fucking thousand dollars a month. TWO FUCKING THOUSAND DOLLARS!", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "I'm from New Zealand, so I'm just looking at it as an outside observer, but I can completely understand why the idea of a universal healthcare system mightn't be incredibly attractive to an American. You're from the UK, right; how would you feel if the NHS was abolished, and suddenly your healthcare was the responsibility of the European Commission? I'm not saying a publicly-funded healthcare system isn't a good idea. I actually think quite the opposite. But I don't see what's stopping individual states from implementing their own system that best suits their own set of circumstances. I also think it would be a lot easier to sell that solution, specifically tailored to the people of one state, instead to trying to satisfy the whole country with a one-size-fits-all progamme. Would an American be able to explain why none of the states have done this? (I understand Massachusetts had some kind of reform, but it was more along the lines of 'mandated healthcare insurance', à la Obamacare.)", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "As someone who opposes Obamacare (but doesn't hate it, just dislikes it very strongly) I'll try explaining. Insurance is all about spreading risk. Some people will end up getting more money than the insurance costs, and some people will pay in more money than they get out. This is how it works for all insurance. Healthcare insurance is difficult to do because of this. Generally speaking, young people will pay in more money than they get out, and old people less, simply from the fact that old people get sicker than young people. All insurance plans account for this fact, which is why large age diverse groups generally have lower costs (and why large employers can often provide healthcare where small ones can't - obviously not true in all cases). In a market where people are forced to buy in, what you get is essentially a tax on young people. Since they are not getting as much out of their insurance as they put in, they'd be better of not having it and saving the money instead, or doing what they please with it. This is why Obama has been so focused on signing up young people - because, for lack of a better phrase, they're the ones it screws over. Now Americans are generally opposed to the government making decisions for you, regardless of whether they are beneficial for yourself or not. And now the government is forcing people to make a decision that is very clearly detrimental to themselves - simply because it is good for a government program as a whole. In essence the healthcare law falls on young people disproportionately, and for very obvious reasons - young people don't vote as often as old people do. In a country where everyone is supposed to be equal in the eyes of the law, the healthcare act is specifically attempting to force through legal means to get young people to make decisions against their interest. I hope this explains this a bit better in a clearly argued way. I know it isn't popular, but besides the crazy pundits who just rage against Obamacare, there are good arguments against it. I'm much less opposed to national insurance programs - which are funded by taxation, which falls on people much more evenly (or at least falls on those that can most afford it, rather than young people who can't). Thanks for reading", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "1) Lobbyists from the insurance industry wrote the law, and the law says that you must purchase a product from said insurance industry. Many people find this objectionable. 2) The law was passed with no bipartisan support; the Democrats said \"we win, you lose, deal with it\" to 50% of America. This is polarizing, and generally a bad way to get things done. 3) President Obama lied about it in order to pass it, then again to win a second term in office. He said he would not raise taxes on middle class families (the \"Individual Mandate\" [see point 1] was determined to be a tax by the US Surpreme Court), and he also said that if you like your insurance plan, you can keep your insurance plan (a statement that he knew was false, yet repeated several times). Add on top of all of this: the fact that the implementation of the program was extremely \"sloppy\", and that President Obama is delaying / modifying / not implementing parts of the law on a whim (seemingly for political gain), instead of going to Congress (as the Constitution requires him to do) makes many people wary of the program. **In summary, people are being forced to buy something, despite wide public opposition, and they're not only NOT receiving the service that was promised, it's being delivered in an embarassing and legally dubious way.**", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "Because it didn't improve the current situation. It made healthcare more expensive for those who have to purchase it themselves. Because they were stuck on the private industry profit-driven model, and no controls or limits were placed on prices, the insurance companies decided that since everyone _has_ to purchase from them anyhow, there's no reason to lower the price. It's a horrifyingly murdered version of the free market, where demand is locked in at 100%, so the providers are free to charge any price, and make as much profit as they want. I truly can't imagine a worse way to provide healthcare.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "Obamacare is nothing like healthcare in Europe. Obamacare is not a (Universal healthcare)[ URL_0 ] It doesn't protect people that earn less than 17k. URL_1 > 90% health insurance coverage Most of the healthcare options are terrible in obamacare. I've seen that deductibles are very high, copayments are high, and broze plans require coinsurance of 30-40% payed out of your pocket. My family got the flu, and we payed about $600 in cash for the care and medicine. I don't see the point of the insurance because we're paying about $300 per month. **TL;DR** Obamacare is like paying for a nonexistant expensive german car.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "Because Obamacare is just a massive blowjob for the insurance industry. They should something like medicare for all. Not the crap they pushed. It does nothing to bring down costs as they said it would.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "We had health insurance through work. We aren't rich, but above average income earners (so pretty solidly middle class). Our monthly rate for insurance was good and affordable, and our deductibles were reasonable. For the kid I'm about to have, we would have paid about $200 total (for hospital visit) and everything else was covered 100%. Since our plan changed Jan 1st to go along with the new obamacare plan, that $200 will now be a minimum of $2300 just for me - $300 deductible and $2000 max out of pocket for me as an individual since my services are now only covered at 80%. I'm certain I will reach this maximum amount for myself since insurance has become more \"affordable\" but they seemed to have forgotten to make the cost of healthcare affordable and just the hospital visit will run 40k or more (I've already paid out about $1000 out of pocket and I haven't even had the baby yet). If the baby needs care that's another potential $2300 and then I will hit my max cap for the year of $600 deductible for family and $4000 out of pocket for whole family before everything (should) be covered at 100%. So, from $200 to a potential of $4600 just for this one medical event. This will repeat every year depending on what medical issues we have, some years we may not pay much but it will almost certainly be a lot more than we ever had to pay before. Plus our monthly rate has increased. Now, if we had to buy on the exchange in my state? Would be absolutely unaffordable for our family without some serious lifestyle changes. We make too much to qualify for much in subsidies but not enough to actually afford it. Other states have better exchanges but ours basically has one single company that is on it (but others you can buy from individually outside the exchange). If they had actually made the cost of health services affordable it might not be so bad, and our plan is not terrible in comparison to others who now pay $500 a month and end up with 10k deductibles. Being from the UK, your healthcare isn't something you know you pay for monthly, you are used to it being part of your taxes. I know my taxes pay for roads but I don't think each month \"ok, I've paid $25 towards roads this month\". This is a big addition to monthly expenses for most people instead of an assumed expense that's already rolled in and adjusted for in lifestyle. It's a huge change and hit on many peoples income - the very people who didn't have a lot of extra income in the first place. You may be less likely to go into millions of debt for medical care but the people that happens to are a small minority compared to EVERYONE now having their monthly income reduced. Ok, not everyone, but I'd hazard a vast majority are feeling a decent to large hit because of the new plans.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "There are a litany of issues at play. In the interest of ELI5, let me try to break them down clearly: 1. Some people believe that the Affordable Care Act (so-called Obamacare) is an attempt to move us towards a socialized system. Those people often equate socialism with evil and are mad. 2. Some people believe that the USA can not afford the ACA so they are mad. 3. Some people believe the American system has played out very well and that we have the best doctors and services in the world. They view they ACA as a measure that will send good doctors packing, so they are mad. 4. Some people were happy not having health insurance and didn't want to be forced to buy it, so they are mad. 5. Some people just hate anything Obama says, ACA included, so they are mad. 6. Some people wanted to propose it first and Obama beat them to the punch. They can no longer claim this as their victory, so they are mad. Edit: Also, its important to understand the political landscape right now. Fighting between the Democrats and Republicans (the 2 major parties in our system) has become very bitter. Anything one side is for, the other side is staunchly against. This creates a situation where one party is feeding the media one opinion staunchly pro-ACA, and the other is feeding it just the opposite.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "Because it is NOT what it was pitched to be. The ACA was supposedly going to be universal, affordable healthcare - it is not. It is nothing like the NHS. You are still buying insurance at high rates from private insurance companies. You still have all the same private insurance bullsht- deductibles, copays, etc. It does very little to bring down the absolutely staggering cost of US healthcare (over 2x as high as the next highest per capita healthcare cost country, France). It may have started our as a good idea, but it was gutted by insurance companies and special interest groups (lobbyists). The plan ultimately was not written for the people- it was constructed by the private insurance companies. There is no single payer (the most critical part for affordable coverage) entity and so, it is basically shit - a way for insurance companies to get more $$ - a single payer was really the only thing that mattered, but it got removed after Kstreet got their money-grubbing paws on it.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "\"you will be able to keep your plan.....Period\" -- President Obama", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "When Obamacare was being introduced, President Obama repeatedly promised that for those who already had healthcare that worked for them, nothing would change. \"If you like your doctor/ insurance plan, you can keep it.\" But when it got rolling, that turned out to be not true at all. Suddenly their insurance plans were being cancelled and their premiums were significantly increased, while their plans were downgraded, and doctors they had been with for years were no longer available to them.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "There are two main schools of thought in economics. Capitalism and socialism. Either every man for himself, or we all pool our resources and divide them evenly. The problem is, Obamacare is **neither**. It's a product of insurance companies and their lobbies getting together and putting together legislation the *requires* everyone to *buy* health insurance. It was a very clever and well orchestrated cash grab by American insurers to sell more insurance.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "Enough about ACA, let's talk about this scam they call \"Insurance\". I would rather get some medicaid and have my taxes raised than give my money to those Insurance Cartels!!", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "It has very little to do with healthcare and is about a government power grab.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "Free healthcare does not equal universal healthcare. The biggest issue I see is that many private insurance premiums cost much, much less than Obamacare, especially for younger, healthy Americans. ANY insurane is principled upon some people paying more while others pay less. We all share a fixed premium, but some will use insurance benefits more than others. Where this screws Obamacare is that the young, healthy Americans (who offset the cost for the older, sicker ones) can typically just go buy a better plan for pennies on the dollar. That leaves the older, sicker group left with higher rates and still stuck on a basic Obama plan. Picture you're getting a group discount for buying hotels. You also get a free upgrade with the group. But then a significant chunk of your party just buys through Expedia or Priceline and gets a smoking deal. Because of your scenario, you can't buy online so you're stuck with (a) not getting the group rate and (b) not getting the upgraded room. That's the biggest flaw with Obamacare. The healthy don't want it and the sick are left with nothing but higher rates and worse care. Ask yourself this- if Obamacare was really THAT amazing, why aren't all the leaches in Washington signing up? Like it or not, America IS a free market economy. If you hate your healthcare, find a better job. Sounds harsh, but that's exactly what many of us have done. Stop being a victim and waiting for the government to bail you out. Low-cost healthcare will always exist for the handicapped or unable, but a large number of the Obamacare critics and fans are neither. Basic healthcare should be a right. But that doesn't mean I'll subject myself to basic care if I have better options elsewhere.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "I will start with my situation. My husband and I work for the same organization, our health insurance is 100% paid for by our employers, but our dependants health insurance is not. To cover our children under our job would be $300 per child. Obamacare considers them covered by our job, so we cannot get them covered by Obamacare, unitl they become independants at age 23. We have been insuring them privately at a rate of about $80 per child. This insurance has always worked well for us, even when my son broke his arm we only paid $100 out of pocket. Now our insurance has been cancelled and we are being offered new policies of $185 a month. Now for my children of 7 and 8 we are required to have insurance that covers everything anyone would ever need, such as colonscopies, mammograms and birth control. (Yes for childen). I personally would be happy with just catatrophic insurance. I can afford doctors visits, its the big things I can't afford. But that is now illegal. Now we make a good salary, there are a lot of people at my organization making closer to minimum wage, how can they afford this? For two children, that is $370 a month (or $600 if you stick with the employee plan) . It is a big convoluted system. Yes, there are many many problems with the healthcare system in this country, but I dont believe this is the fix for it.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "Also, big insurance lobbied hardcore to get it through. Their only concern is making their shareholders happy, not taking care of people. And people are losing their current insurance plans because they don't meet the new criteria, and now they have to sign up for more expensive ones. The whole thing just seems like a real shady deal. I don't know enough about it, and I don't think anyone else does either. They make these laws so complex intentionally so the average person has no clue what's going on.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "One of the other problems with this health care is that numerous people in America believe it is free. Just like how Canada and Some European countries have \"free\" health care. So many people quickly supported this health care bill and when it turned out that we all have to pay something and that those who thought they were poor enough to get it for \"free\" weren't actually poor enough. Now that even the poor have to pay, many Americans are angry about this health bill.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "I'm very late to the party, but I work in a think tank at an insurance company and this topic has been widely debated. The problem people are having is that it's not really going to act like insurance. Insurance is protection against a future loss. By having a large group pay a monthly premium you offset the cost of a few individuals having huge losses. Each monthly premium is adjusted by your individual risk towards having a loss. Under Affordable Healthcare act you're not paying money into a system to offset future risk, you're paying money so that people without insurance can get assistance. This boils down to essentially you are paying for someone elses surgery who in many cases didn't pay their fair share into insurance to begin with. Another problem for younger demographics is that for 99.99% of people under 40 you're just losing money. Many people in their 20's don't get insurance just because it's far cheaper to just pay for their minor accidents when they occur. Insurance companies know the risk of a 20 year old needing major surgery is slim, so they adjust the insurance rate as such. Under Affordable healthcare act young people are forced to not only have insurance, but to also pay higher monthly premiums than they would normally have. When you add college debt, car payments, cellphone, apartment, saving for a house and saving for retirement into the mix many young adults can't afford the extra money without vastly decreasing their comfort levels.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "In a nutshell? Right Wing nutters hate it because the is forcing people to buy health insurance (subsidized for poor people) instead of letting \"the free market\" decide that poor people should just die of preventable illness. Left wing nutters like me hate it because it is forcing everyone to pour even more money into the evil health insurance industry rather than putting them out of business by administering a taxpayer funded single payer system like every other sane country in the developed world does. And *both* sides agree that the obvious unintended consequence resulting from insurance companies now having *hostages* rather than *customers* and jacking up rates is bullshit. But I guess if the system is pissing *everyone* off it must be a pretty well balanced compromise. /s", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "Not to argue right and wrong, but America is America because it's America. It's a country where social well-being is not as valued as rolling up your sleeves and doing it yourself. It is the ultimate social darwinistic society. If you cannot afford health insurance, go make it happen. If you can't, pour hot coffee on your lap and sue someone or develop a pet rock. Things like this are only possible in the states and what drive the push back to socialized healthcare.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "Well, in my life, I am not thrilled by it for two reasons. 1) We are pretty much being forced to give our money to corporations for a service that we don't even want. 2) I am covered through my work, but Obamacare for my wife would cost a lot more money per year than what she spends going to the doctor uninsured. The whole thing just feels like \"protection money\" that you would give a mobster or something.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "Hi all, mid-late 20's american corporate worker here. Here are some real numbers: -last year, i effectively paid ~$80 a month for medical and dental coverage. Deductible was $70 (which in medicine is nothing) -this year, i effectively pay ~$95 a month for the same coverage. Deductible has gone up to $700 (which is still not bad, but a 10X difference from the year prior)", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "B/c I feel allowing the federal government to force me to buy anything in this manner is a really dangerous precedent.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "First you have to look at what it claims to do, then what problems we have, and then if what it does addresses the problems we have. *What it claims to do*: Make healthcare more accessible and more affordable. For the Accessible part, there were only about 12 million people that are \"Chronically\" uninsured in America. The total \"number of uninsured\" was inflated grossly. And the \"Affordable\" part doesn't hold muster period. There was a lot of hand-waving, saying that uninsured people were costing a ton for Emergency Rooms, and if you got them regular care it would actually be cheaper. In reality what they're really doing is trying to socialize and subsidize insurance payments. If you extend free or subsidized coverage to an extra 30 million people, it's going to cost more, period. Which isn't automatically bad. It's just they weren't honest about it. *What we had* pre-Obamacare The main (valid) complaint is that it is too expensive. And it *was* pretty expensive. The flip side of that expense is that we have very short waiting periods, and our doctor and care networks were very extensive. If my liver started blowing up, I'd get shipped over to Seattle *that night*, and get treated at University of Washington's premiere Medical facility with top doctors. I'd get as good of care as any CEO or any President. This is in contrast to the single-payer systems in Britain and formerly in Canada, where lower costs also mean less supply, so time-sensitive procedures were delayed by days, months, or even years. I say 'former' in Canada because their system was declared a human rights violation about a decade ago, the waits were so bad. So they had to allow private clinics to re-open. Which means, even in 'socialized medicine' you get two classes of treatment. Those for the poor and those for the rich. In America, the disparity of care between classes (amongst the insured) is significantly smaller. But anyway, what was the main cause of the high cost of our system? **This is an important part**. It isn't free-loading ER walk-ins that are making my hospital visits so expensive. It's the incentives of the system that make it so *nobody* has any reason to be efficient. We have a 3-party payment system. Person A pays Insurance Company B to Pay for doctor & hospital C for whatever treatments A wants to get. As an example, you go into the doctor with a broken ankle. Before this mess, the doctor would say *\"Yep, that's a sprained ankle. I'll wrap it; take some Advil as you need and stay off it for two weeks\"*. You pay him $40 for his time and you both go on your way. Now, the doctor says: *\"That's a sprained ankle. But I want to get a* [$1000] *MRI to be sure.\"* Because he doesn't want to get sued if you actually have a broken bone. This is called defensive medicine. You say: *\"How much would that cost me?\"* and he says that your insurance covers it, so you say *\"Okay!*\". A $50 visit just became a $1500 visit unnecessarily because the doctor doesn't want to get sued, and you have no reason to say no to an extra and costly test, because it doesn't affect your bottom line. The 3 party payment system insulates choices from consequence. None of us and individually incentivize to care about our health cost. Then we all complain when we all (rationally) act wasteful, because we're paying for all this extra care whether we use it or not. So the question is what does the Affordable Care Act Do? It solidifies the 3-party system. Mandating people buy insurance, and mandating a minimum amount of coverage an insurance plan covers. This includes 50-year-old bachelors paying for pregnancy and mammograms, incidentally. Next, to 'reduce' health costs on the old, they mandate that two people can't pay more than ~3x difference for the same coverage. Now a lung transplant costs the same for me as it does for an 80-year-old smoker. But he's 10x as *likely* to need it. So normally the little part of his payment that goes towards lung transplant coverage should be 10x mine. But it can only be 3x. So my costs are artificially inflated and his deflated until our prices get within those bounds. *This* is socializing medicine - when you have to pay for the average health of the group, rather than pay for the average health of a bunch of clones of you. But wait, this will make healthcare *very* expensive for healthy young kids making very little money just starting out. Especially the ones who were skipping on health insurance to start with. To cover this issue, we add in 'subsidies'. Which adds up to a lot of distorted prices, further insulation of cost, and less choice. So the reason I personally dislike it, is because it had to have this hybrid system to get passed period. And this hybrid system further institutionalizes the very problems that make out healthcare prohibitively expensive. **TL:DR** 3-party system tells everybody to be wasteful with their healthcare service, thinking they're spending other people's money even though it loops back around to them. ACA institutionalizes that, socializes costs by diverting your insurance payment from your predicted healthcare costs, and adds a ton of new subsidized healthcare users to the Federal Dole while throwing a great big bureaucracy on top of a sixth of the economy. There is no world where all of this results in a net gain for the population at large. And as millions of people are getting coverage they liked canceled, they're getting new coverage which is less good, in a smaller network, for a higher cost. And those are among the ~10 million independently insured people. When people who get insurance through their business - when those insurance plans have to comply, you'll see the same thing happen to those ~50 million plans. Tens of millions of people will suffer the same fate. Which is why our President is delaying the mandate unilaterally (without consent of congress despite no provision for such a delay) until after the 2014 election. The 2014 election will be disastrous for Democrats because every single Democrat Senator voted for it, and only democrats voted for it. They can't run away from the disaster, and their majority in the Senate is threatened, so they have to delay the disaster. This is a small taste of the practical and political complaints about the ACA. The TLDR of the TLDR is that it's too complicated, and doesn't actually solve any problems. It just makes us pay our health insurance by funneling money through the government first. 3-party free system into a 4-party coerced system. It will implode when the Business mandate is finally implemented and the majority of Americans actually finally get to experience Obamacare.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "Why I don't like it. Forced to buy, so I get it, its like $250/mo for just enough to keep from going bankrupt if i'm in an accident, not dental, no eyes, does have free preventive care. So i'm now paying $250/mo I wasn't expecting, which sucks being unemployed. Apply for gov. subsidy, they offer $4/month. Not worth the mountain of paperwork. Thanks Obama. Also, don't like that Gov can force us to buy things, don't like that when I am employed, my taxes will go to pay for subsidies I was denied.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "I have a problem with the fact that I will be forced to pay $2k this year to get \"insurance\" that doesn't kick in until I first pay another $12k in medical bills. Last year: $150 on my one check up during winter months when I had a cold This year: $2,150 on my one check up during the winter months when I get a cold If I actually have an emergency this year: $14k **before I ever get a lick of help from insurance.** I think I'll take the $95 penalty", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "My understanding is that NHS costs about as much per capita as Medicare did before the ACA. Also, constantly lying about the ACA makes it hard to know what the truth is \"You can keep your plan\".", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "Its an over-complicated system that is the only healthcare system we can put in place because everyone is opposed to moving towards a \"good\" system because \"good\" systems are \"socialist\" and \"socialist\" is a bad word.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "I'm not seeing a lot of Americans commenting on this. As an American, let me lay out my fears. First of all, I am young. I'm 20 years old and I am just starting out, and I'm in college. (At Uni, eh). For me, heathcare is hard to come by. My employer, a fast food chain, offers me a small package because they are required to, but it costs around 15% of my income and yet covers very little. (45% off emergency care, 38% off dental work, access to a Family Practitioner aka GP for 50% off. Keeping in mind, say I get a rash and I need an antibiotic, visiting my FP will take me around 2 days to get an appointment and I'll get 50% off a visit that will last an hour and yet cost me 681 dollars. < -real example from last year. So I still payed $340.50.) Now. I work in fast food because at this particular university, we are surrounded by a rural bible belt county. I say county because the county (not including the population of the uni) has a population of about 10,000. The individual towns hover around 2,000, meaning there is not a lot of businesses around here, and I say bible belt because I have to point out that almost everything around here closes at 5pm Mon-Fri, 2pm on Saturdays and almost everything is closed on Sundays. So finding a job that I can work after my morning classes end around noon ish is fast food. I struggle, and I sweat and I stress out every day for the legal minimum of $7.25 an hour. This means, if I am able to work 35 hours a week, I'll get paid 507 bucks every two weeks. Minus state/federal taxes, which works out to around 17% when added together. So of 507, Ill make 421.50. Minus the healthcare at 15%. So now I'm at $345. Working from 3pm to 11Pm daily, I have to work 5 days a week almost to make that. Under Obamacare, businesses like mine will have to pay the cost of my healthcare for me. (The 15% of my income that I pay now.) Except the business will have to pay more than I've been paying, because they are required to cover me . If I work at least 29 hours a week. I repeat IN ORDER TO BE COVERED, I HAVE TO WORK MORE THAN 29 HOURS A WEEK. If I don't work that 29 hours, my business becomes exempt from paying for my healthcare. So what do they do? They cut my hours back to less than 29 hours and I go back to where I was before, except now I can only work 28 hours a week. So now I start at 403 dollars. Minus healthcare is 345, minus regular taxes I'm now left with $275. Times 2 for the month means I make 550 a month with Obamacare. ( my health care is slightly better and cheaper, but I'm in great health so it doesnt affect me anyways.) I have pretty cheap rent- utilities plus rent itself comes out to a pretty consistent $465 a month. Now I have $85 dollars left for the month to pay my cell and my gas and my insurance and my groceries. Obviously that isn't enough. I go into debt. Before obamacare I had $690 a month minus rent/utilities and leftover was 225. I was poor as shit, but I could make it stretch into what I had to pay. This is just one example. Ask other Americans how it affects them. For me, it puts me into debt. If this gets replies/karma I will come back and give you more examples of other ways it affects me.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "There are two reasons why: (1) Some people don't want nationalized health care. The belief can stem from fear of government intrusion into their lives (anytime the governments money gets in something, you play by their rules, etc), slower service, getting denied for care, etc. Then there are the people that want free market only options. (2) But the bigger reason is the terrible implementation of it, what it doesn't do, and its increase in costs (either by premium spikes or by lower coverage than you got before. Obamacare is not free health care. You still have to pay for the insurance. You might be eligible for subsidies or you might not. Even if you are, HOLY FREAKING COW the deductibles are crazy! Common low tier plans have an average of $5000 annual deductible per person (about $12,000 for a family) before coverage even begins (at only 60% coverage). We spent over $600 million a website that is terrible and has been plagued by problems. Many people have seen their premiums spike or their deductibles increase dramatically (personally, my prices have dropped about 5% but my deductibles have increased over 60%). Worst of all, it doesn't really do much of anything to stem the costs of medical care. We don't have review boards that determine procedure costs. We still have the \"throw it at the wall and see what sticks\" system that has been shafting us. So you might have health insurance now when you didn't before, but if you were too poor to have it before and now you do have a major accident, you are still out several thousand dollars before coverage even begins. Yes, you may not be out $100k, but you still might be financially destroyed.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "Because America has a great sickness. Americans have decided that anything the government gives away will be abused to the point of bankrupting the country. They believe that although they themselves are trustworthy and have no problem taking advantage of whatever programs they can that nobody else should because they would abuse it. They believe that although the richest 35 people have more money then the poorest 35 million that its because they worked harder some how and earned it by being super smart. They believe that the poor are poor because they are stupid and refuse to work hard, and even though they themselves work hard and are underpaid that any minute they could be turned into billionaires and if they were billionaires they wouldn't want the government taxing them so they support the nontaxing of the rich. Then you have the whole \"job creators\" joke where the rich are job creators so you shouldn't mess with them when its total BS. the rich squirrel away their money demanding high interest on it, the middle/lower class spend all their money on stuff so that money goes back into the economy. so the poor and middle class are the job creators because they create demand, the rich suck out the money they spend and squirrel it away. I watched a great documentary last night about the gap between rich and poor and its amazing people don't see it. how the rich spend very little of their money while the middle/low spend all of theirs. if the rich were forced to spend all their income yearly like the other classes then the economy would be amazing.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "So, most of the responses on here are really great as far as explaining what health care is like in the US, as well as in other countries, but to actually answer OP's question. It has been getting so much hate because the opposition party has done, and will continue to do everything it can to make the Obama administration appear to be ineffective while also trying to make it appear as though the administration is over reaching it's power. The top Republican(opposition party) in the senate even stated during the presidents first term that their priority should be to make sure that Obama was a one term president. The truly interesting kicker in all of this is that in the 90's the Republicans proposed a very similar plan. Furthermore, a Republican governor signed a similar plan into law in the state of Massachusetts. That governor went on to challenge Barack Obama for the presidency in 2012 you may remember Mitt Romney. TL:DR It has much less to do with the policy itself and much more to do with the the politics of the opposing parties.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "It's a complicated issue for sure.. Bottom line? It's an attempt to have more people covered WITHOUT addressing the root cause of the issue. Healthcare in the United States is too expensive! Yes mandating coverage by the government is Un-American. It takes the choice away from the individual which is, largely, a no-go for many people. Couple that with it now being MORE expensive for middle income Americans (premiums, deductibles etc), the lies about \"keeping your doctor\", and it's effect on employment mandates for small companies or larger ones. AND!! Lest we forget... This was passed without it being completely read by those who voted for it. THIS is what bothers me the most. Legislation passed which affects everyone, yet it was voted for by people who didnt know what it is.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "American here. Personally, I don't want my taxes explicitly paying for Mary the obese lady's 5 triple bypass surgeries, Bill the 2014 cigarette smoker's emphysema drugs, or Cindy the alcoholic's follies. If everybody is under the same care, we all pool in finances to pay. How does it make sense for me, a health-conscious person, to pay in for all these people? It really doesn't and it really isn't fair! And it's true, socialized anything typically turns mediocre-- it's the only way accommodate millions of people. The one problem is one size does not fit all.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "1) the majority of lawmakers that passed it admitted to not reading it that is just ridiculous 2) It is a widely held opinion that the result will more money spent with the result of a worse overall system. 3) A typical big government MO. Offer an entitlement that is popular get votes. Use allocated money to benefit friends and special interests. Dont worry if it doesnt work or if you deliver nothing apparatly its only the thought that counts and there is no fiscal responsibility or consequences.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "Because Americans will work against themselves. We don't have a free market for healthcare in America - we pretend we do. But we really don't. Americans hate to be told they have to do anything.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "It's really just a big tax increase. Ask the Supreme Court. If it weren't a tax it would violate the commerce clause of the constitution.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "It is simply a tax on the poor to benefit large medical corporations.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "Because it's not healthcare. 20 years ago Hillary Clinton tried to push universal health care only to get bribed by the insurance lobby to shut up and go away. Now cue 20 yrs and you have hospitals, clinics and big pharma gouging people for basics. The thought was that insurance would be subsidized by the healthier to pay for the unhealthy and uninsured but because everybody has their hand in your pocket the insurance companies were becoming unprofitable... Something had to change.... Hillary get back here! America is also in deep debt so any scheme to extort money from the already underwater population looked good too. Intro Obamacare. A nefarious scheme to force America to buy insurance, and those who don't pay a tax; all done under the color of law.... Trouble by decree. It's premise was medieval. By forcing people to purchase insurance the insurance companies stand to profit in ways unheard of. For those who choose not to participate they benefit the government by being taxed. Win-Win for Uncle Sam and insurance companies. What about the people? In order to pull the wool over the American public's eyes, untruth had to prevail and prevail it did. *\"If you like your current plan/Dr you can keep it\", Barrack Obama*... **AN EPIC LIE BY AN EPIC LIAR!!!** Plans got canceled and people lost their doctors. By forcing everybody into a policy insurance, companies could triple or even quadruple the price of a premium. Or you could just sign up for Obamacare or one of your states exchange programs -that also don't work cause everybody who was contracted to set up the websites took the money and ran....to the the tune of billions of tax payer dollars. So basically we are now forced to purchase healthcare that's 3-4X what we used to pay or get taxed; AND we must also spend an absolutely unjust amount out of pocket after premiums to cover the deductible before coverage even begins... The alternative to the dupe is the tax, which is something like $600 or 1% of our income or whichever is higher- (could be wrong on this though). There's much more but already angry just typing this. I'm sure others will fill in missing details. Again this is not nor ever was about caring for the health of the people...this was about making money for insurance companies, big pharma and the U.S gob't.....be all end all! **So what is the ONLY solution???** Daniel 2:44, Matt 6:9-10.... “Amen! Come, Lord Jesus.” Revelation 22:20", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "Honestly, there are many reasons why people don't like this, so the answer would likely confuse a five year old. America has never been big on socialized things, so on its face making everybody pay in to get insurance just rubs people the wrong way. There is also a deep distrust of the federal government which can be traced to the deep mistrust of the British government all those years ago. Beyond that, there are different groups with different views. There are some who want a system like the NHS in the UK where this does not go far enough. To these people, as to others, the subsidies to corporations like insurance companies and hospitals are abhorrent. To others, this is a violation of the free market and a dramatic increase in what is already a very large government. Like I said before, people do not trust the feds, and beyond that they don't trust them to do something well. So all people can see is tax increases and inefficiency. Lastly, no one, and I mean no one likes medical insurance. It is expensive. It is capricious. It is maddening. It hides prices so no one knows how much anything costs. So how is it better to enshrine into the entitlements of the country something which people despise? Anyone who has received a denial of service from the insurance company after having seen a doctor and getting a doctor's bill for the full amount knows what I am talking about. Lastly, it is expensive. Here, traditionally, insurance is partially paid by the employer, and what people see when they see the prices on the exchanges is the non-subsidized price, which can be over double what people normally pay, so the whole concept of affordable becomes a value judgement, where sure if you don't have any income it's free, but if you are earning a low income at some point it becomes very, very expensive. So that's why people hate it.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "Obama Care does exactly zero to control costs for the average person. It offers no transparency in the prices charges nor any consistency. It imposed a law to pay or be penalized on individuals and businesses. Pretty much a huge tax increase. Hospitals and medical providers are not required to tell you what a service costs before a procedure. Let's say you have a routine colonoscopy scheduled. The prices are negotiated by third parties. The provider comes up with a ridiculous price they bill and the insurance - whether it's Medicare or Private - has already decided what their agreement to pay the facility will be. The price the provider bills has no basis in reality, it's just highly inflated so the provider can get paid all they can after the insurance has discounted it. The cash pay customer gets screwed because they don't have access to the same discounted rates - sometimes as high as 80%! Then the other problem! You go for that routine procedure. You have a set date under your insurance as a copay and everything is included. At the last minute the routine anesthesia provider is not available for a multitude of legitimate reasons. So the MD uses another provider. That one may not have the same agreement with the insurance so the insurance company says whoa, we aren't paying and you get sent the bill. In its application Obama Care - the Affordable Care Act - is only affordable to the great big conglomerates and that's why you see huge mergers in Healthcare now. The big organizations are going to win. The system won't provide any better for the vast majority of people, it will only ensure that the average working person will pay out the nose without any control of benefits. Edited some autocorrect. :)", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "Coming from an American who does not and never has supported the new healthcare laws we have a lot of reasons why we are against it. First the law was abnormally passed in the house of reps using a basically a procedural trick, without the support of a single republican, and with a majority of American against it. So as far as it being unpopular it never has been anything but. If the law was even a half decent piece of legislation it would not have already been changed 38 times, that is unprecedented. If a law is so poorly written that it has to been changed numerous times right after being passed, how bad will it be in the long term? Cost....... this is the the biggest for most people. The president and everyone involved in this has lied numerous times about how this would reduce cost for everyone. Nothing has been further from the truth. Everyones insurance premiums have gone up tremendously, and often to receive less coverage than they used to have. Note on other countries having better healthcare, the notion that Canadian or European healthcare is better is laughable. The study most people site that statistic from is flawed. It does not adjust for our violent crime rate which is much higher than Canada's and most of Europes. If you adjust for all the murders and victims would fare no better elsewhere the US is number one in healthcare. Canada does not even have the Gama Knife yet, canadians have to come here for treatment for many types of brain cancer because they would die in Canada.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "Here is why I dont like it. I I've been privately insured for my entire adult life through my employer's insurance. I work for a small company but the coverage was still very good and affordable for both myself and my employer. The insurance company that offered coverage for myself and my coworkers was forced to drop all of us on the first of this year. They could no longer offer us the same deal. A comparable plan was offered, but it cost enough to put my employer out of business in less than a year after 25 years of buisness. Since I don't make a ton of money I qualify for free insurance under the new legislation. This is something a lot of poor or unemployed Americans are happy about. Not me. All of my more established or higher earning friends and family members who don't qualify for free coverage like I do are now being forced to pay for insurance premiums that are about 4 times higher and they can't afford it. The insurance That myself and my unemployed crackhead neighbor must take for free, by law, is going to quickly knock the middle class of America down a peg. I see that as a problem.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "As said, it mandates you purchase health insurance. As already existed, if you are impoverished, you can get it from the govt. But the poverty limits are low. Many don't qualify. At $60k a year a family of 4 doesn't even come close and this is a good est. of income for most typical families. The rub is that if you don't have HI then you are fined. The fines are low now but increase every year. Keep in mind if you are fired or quit and you don't get another job you could have made to much already that year and end up with fines as well if you didn't have HI for more than 60 days. It's not socialized health care at all. The propaganda makes it seem like this is the issue. It's fines for not buying health insurance. It's mandating people by something or be fined for not doing it. And it's not something that's cheap. Private individual HI can be thousands a month. Yet another part of the propaganda. .. It's not cheap. It's a two way money grab. The are also increased costs to employers and other issues for HC providers, but that's a whole other topic.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "For people like me, who don't need/have obama care, my rates went way up to compensate for the new market competition. I'm fine with paying a little more knowing that it goes towards my nation getting more health coverage, but we're talking a HUGE difference in cost. I went from spending about $3-4k a year on my family of 3 for health care, to now the cost of almost $10k. And this is basic check ups and what not. Also, I am very lucky because my company gives us an HSA with 2k contribution and our insurance rates our based on how much we are paid (Paid less, cost less) It has caused me to go from \"My son has been really sick, let's go to the doctor\" to \"my son is really sick but we definitely cannot afford to take him to do the doctor. Should we or shouldn't we?\" and to me, that is the exact opposite reason of why Obama care was created.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "In my country I dont pay anything for hospital stays, or seeing the doctor. Instead everyone with an income pays a medical tax. I think it was 6 or 7 percent last year. As I didnt go to the hospital or saw a doctor, I payed quite a lot of money for a service I didnt use. However everyone pays so we all, in the case we need it, can go free of charge at that moment. Dental care however, is not covered. Luckily, I am covered in the neighbouring country, where 85% is payed by the government there, so best of both worlds. Still, universal healthcare is quite expensive, its just an expense disguised as a tax. But the tax is a percentage of your income so if you are poor you pay little, and if you have no income, you still have coverage. Im a danish citizen, but live in Sweden.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "I think we are all asking the wrong questions about healthcare in the US. Instead of asking why is X-system better than Y-system, why are we not asking why the cost of medical care has sky rocketed? I had a very simple medical procedure performed just this morning (small wart removed from my tougne), was in and out of the office in no more than 15 minutes. Yet the total cost was $1165! This is fucking ridiculous! No anestegiologist, just a local numbing gel, quick cut, and four taps with a cauterizing pen. Done, how the hell does that cost so much. I could have done the exact same at home with whiskey, sharp knife, a paper clip and a lighter.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "Let me tell this to you from the perspective of a striving-to-be-middle class citizen. Your girlfriend, un-married, makes crap money: she gets subsidies. She pays ten dollars a month for health care for herself and her kid (not your kid btw). You however, have a decent job. It's not formal-attire good, but it pays. You make JUST enough money to not qualify for subsidies, so apparently you pay the exact same as a millionaire. You also have 2 kids of your own (from previous wives) that you spend every dollar on them and at the end of the day... you break even. It's actually CHEAPER to take the penalty than to pay health insurance. Fucked up.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "As a college student on financial aid making less than $500 a month, I resent the ACA simply because I have to pay $80 a month with a $6000 deductible. It takes at least 5 hours to get on the phone with them, and when I do they always tell me something is wrong with my account and that I need to call back the next day. I've been struggling to finalize all of my information for almost 3 weeks now, and I wonder if it would b better to just not have any insurance and pay $300 a year.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "Basically, now you have to get insurance. If you can't afford it, you will be subsidized by those who can. If you have health insurance, chances are you will be paying more. How much more? It depends on how much you can afford. Most people are now paying a lot more money for it, many whom don't need or want it. Because you have to have it, insurance companies can basically name their price. Are you young, healthy and have a good paying job? Great, how's $400 a month sound? Hand it over or you will be fined.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "There is also opposition to requiring that certain types of coverage be provided. Currently there is a case in the U.S. Supreme Court with many companies who oppose to the requirements for contraceptives (specifically late stage/post-conception contraceptives like Plan B) as being inconsistent with the company's moral/religious alignment, essentially mandating that they provide a service they aren't comfortable with, or face financial penalties. This issue (in some ways) transcends healthcare, as it requires an examination of higher constitutional questions of the role of religion and religious freedom against what is considered essential or mandated services. URL_0 ", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "At work we all hate it, but only because the corporation we work for won't supply us with healthcare which they have to do if we get 30 hours a week. So instead all of the lower staff gets maxed out at 28 hours. Which means that we need twice as many employees to make up for the lost hours. But no one wants to work for minimum wage for 28 hours at most, everyone is getting second jobs that pay better and cutting their availability down.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "I thought I broke my hand so i went to the hospital. There wasnt really a wait, but I think this had more to do with it being a very small hospital. After I got an xray and a little splint I was relieved to find out I had just sprained it. With decent health insurance (So I thought) it still cost me about 400$ out of pocket... For an xray and splint.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "I just can't afford it. I fall into a loophole where I won't be able to afford it, therefore causing me to be fined for not having it. I did just hear that I may also fall into a loophole that prevents me from being fined. Either way, I now don't have healthcare where I did before.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "Many people have seen private healthcare cost increases. Significant at that. It provides healthcare for the poor by making healthcare less affordable for those just above the cutoffs. From personal experience, the cost of family coverage increased 500 percent. That's not a small change. There are other problems, of course, but that's been my experience.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "I'm a 23 year old male in America. Because of Obamacare my monthly health insurance bill will go from somewhere around 30$ a month to 200$. I have no reason to even need insurance... yet.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "Most Americans don't either. We all just pick a side & argue until it's time to vote for the perceived best choice given. Wash & repeat.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "my quote for healthcare with a 12,000 dollar deductible was ~400 a month. It wouldn't pay more than 12k as well so its basically... useless", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "the existing system of health care insurance was so bad that they passed a law making it a requirement.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "My premiums are going from ~$80 to $280 a month, I don't like that.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "In one statement, 'Involuntary redistribution of wealth'. The subsidies = taxes.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": null, "provenance": [ { "wikipedia_id": "24891104", "title": "Affordable Health Care for America Act", "section": "Section::::Abstract.", "start_paragraph_id": 2, "end_paragraph_id": 2, "meta": null, "start_character": 0, "end_character": 282, "bleu_score": 0.5540132256503889 } ] } ]

[ { "answer": "Ice, ice, baby. Much of the land on earth is covered by ice...snow pack, ice caps, glaciers, etc. They stay ice, and even grow, because it is cold enough they get more snow on them then they lose to melting. But if the temperature goes up just a little bit, some of them will melt faster than they grow, and start to shirk. That water eventually makes it to the ocean raising its level. Even worse, ice is *reflective*. When the energy from the sun hits dirt instead of ice, more of it is absorbed, and less is reflected. That causes the earth to heat even more. Finally, change the configuration of ice around the world can change weather patterns. It might not get a lot hotter where you are, but if prevailing winds change the rainfall you get, your farmland can turn to desert or swamp. Over time, even a small increase in temperature can make a big difference.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "It's not a 1 degree local, it's 1 degree global, meaning local temperatures could vary much more. I believe a 1 degree global change could mean the tropics being several degrees hotter than that. It would cause greater ice melting, as u/kouhoutek described in good detail. It would also cause the oceans in the tropical reason to be much hotter, and as tropical storms and hurricanes require certain temperatures, it would increase the frequency and intensity of those storms. Given how destructive those storms can be (Sandy, Katrina, ect), that could cost a lot in lives and money. Also, wildlife and where certain things can live is greatly effected. If an area relied on cold winter weather to get rid of certain bugs, but those bugs end up being able to stay longer, it could be worse for any plants those bugs eat. In turn, that could have larger consequences for the wildlife there.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "The amount of \"extra\" energy needed to raise the average temperature of the water and atmosphere by a single degree is enormous. But the bigger deal is that it's an indication of a trend vice a single event... as what we are doing has raised the temperature with these negative knock on effects... if we don't stop it's gonna get hotter with additional more extreme consequences", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "Ecosystems and climate are very complex systems and sensitive to changes. Sort of like the human body. If your body temperature rises by one degree (Celsius), you have a fever and you are ill. A three degree rise of your body temperature and you can already be in need of hospitalization. Likewise on the global climate and ecosystems, one degree change already causes issues. It's not catastrophic yet (the global temperature has already risen almost one Celsius degree), but definitely causing problems. The more big deal is the future change. For comparison, when the last ice age ended the global temperature rose about three degrees Celsius and glaciers covering much of Northern Europe and North America melted. So if from this day the global temperature rises still two degrees, it's comparable to the change when the last ice age ended. And before the ice age ended, the world [looked very different]( URL_0 ).", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "Climate is the weather average over a long time and wide area. So one degree rise will mean that the temperature rises more in some parts of the world than in others, so it will have more effect. Here is one example of the more exotic unpleasant consequences from that warming that surprised everyone: [Anthrax infected deer carcasses are thawing up, infecting people in Siberia]( URL_0 ). I think it's pretty safe to assume that more muck is going to happen that we can't yet imagine.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": null, "provenance": [ { "wikipedia_id": "164547", "title": "Sudden stratospheric warming", "section": "Section::::Abstract.", "start_paragraph_id": 1, "end_paragraph_id": 1, "meta": { "evidence_span": [ "A sudden stratospheric warming (SSW) is an event in which the stratospheric temperature rises by several tens of kelvins (up to increases of about 50 °C (about 120 °F)), over the course of a few days. The change is preceded by a situation in which the Polar jet stream of westerly winds in the winter hemisphere is dist", "A sudden stratospheric warming (SSW) is an event in which the stratospheric temperature rises by several tens of kelvins (up to increases of about 50 °C (about 120 °F)), over the course of a few days. The change is preceded by a situation in which the Polar jet stream of westerly winds in the winter hemisphere is disturbed by natural weather patterns or disturbances in the lower atmosphere. The first continued measurements of the stratosphere were taken by Richard Scherhag in 1951 using radiosondes to take reliable temperature readings" ] }, "start_character": null, "end_character": null, "bleu_score": null } ] }, { "answer": null, "provenance": [ { "wikipedia_id": "22115620", "title": "Regional effects of global warming", "section": "Section::::Abstract.", "start_paragraph_id": 1, "end_paragraph_id": 1, "meta": { "evidence_span": [ "is rising due to the greenhouse effect caused by increasing levels of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide. When the global temperature changes, the changes in climate are not expected to be uniform across the Earth. In particular, land areas change more quickly than oceans, and northern high latitudes change more quickly than the tropics, and the margins of biome regions change faster than do their cores.", "Regional effects of global warming are long-term significant changes in the expected patterns of average weather of a specific region due to global warming. The world average temperature is rising due to the greenhouse effect caused by increasing levels of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide. When the global temperature changes, the changes in climate are not expected to be uniform across the Earth. In particular, land areas change more quickly than oceans, and northern high latitudes change more quickly than the tropics, and the margins of biome regions change faster than do their cores.", "Regional effects of global warming are long-term significant changes in the expected patterns of average weather of a specific region due to global warming. The world average temperature is rising due to the greenhouse effect caused by increasing levels of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide. When the global temperature changes, the changes in climate are not expected to be uniform across the Earth. In particular, land areas change more quickly than oceans, and northern high latitudes change more quickly than the tropics, and the margins of biome regions change faster than do their cores." ] }, "start_character": null, "end_character": null, "bleu_score": null } ] } ]

[ { "answer": "Higher quality cameras, different ratios, but mainly color correcting. Color correcting adds the overall theatric and cinematic feel o a film. It's why when you see raw footage of the movie it looks like a lower quality. There is sometimes some cg overlay as well.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "It's been touched on, but not enough, but shutter speed and frame rate. Specifically, that films are almost always at 24 frames per second, and much TV (though this is changing) and home video is shot at 30 frames per second or 60i (60 half frames per second, essentially). Have you seen a movie on display at best buy that looked like a soap opera or live production? That's because they have frame interpolation on, which interpolates (fakes, basically) extra frames to smooth out the motion. This makes it look like something shot at a higher frame rate. Films also often use somewhat slower shutter speeds (the length of time the camera iris is open per frame) then videos, often 1/48th or a multiple of this, which gives a distinct look. Color correction and proper lighting also play major roles, along with focal depth (most cinema films deliberately focus on specific parts of the frame for effect - they don't have to though, watch Citizen Kane and you'll note almost everything is in focus much of the time).", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "More factors than I could ever possibly name, being a layman myself, but just for starters: better cameras, better lighting, better make-up, and definitely better post-production, by which I mean the digital treatment of the image after it's filmed. I think other factors play a psychological role as well. Even the better actors, sets, production value, etc. help transport you more into the image and allow for that feeling of richness and realness.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "The magic happens in post production. When the film is scanned and digitized and then touched up in detail. Left eye lighter than right eye, let me fix that for you. Glare on the window obscures an actor - gone. Bad white correction across takes, not a problem. Foley effects so you can get complete enjoyment of the sound of someone stepping on a tarantula. The music and the footage coordinated in editing. And, oh yeah, a script. When you watch the credits at the end of a movie check out all the specialists that touched the film. They are the difference.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "You've answered your question *in your question*. The fidelity of 35mm film usually vastly outstrips that of a video camera. 35mm film threads through the projector at ~24 frames per second and it's effective resolution is about 4K - 4096x2160, i.e. 8.8 megapixels. (Note, there exists some argument as to what the actual \"resolution\" of film is. Some people say 1 MP, some say 10 MP. But it's pretty high, and it's running through the projector pretty fast.) Sure, there are cameras that outstrip that, but not at 24 frames per second. Also, you'll see bona fide movie cameras with big-ass lenses, which allow in a great deal more light and allow much higher resolution than the relatively small lenses on a video camera or (shudder) an iPhone. But the biggest difference is the format. Film is still a peerless format when it comes to moving pictures.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": null, "provenance": [ { "wikipedia_id": "10743994", "title": "Foley (filmmaking)", "section": "Section::::Abstract.", "start_paragraph_id": 2, "end_paragraph_id": 2, "meta": { "evidence_span": [ "The props and sets of a film often do not react the same way acoustically as their real life counterparts. Foley sounds are used to enhance the auditory experience of the movie. Foley can also be used to cover up unwanted sounds captured on the set of a movie during filming, such as overflying airplanes or passing traffic. The term \"Foley\" also means a place, such as Foley-stage or Foley-studio, where the Foley process", "Foley artists recreate the realistic ambient sounds that the film portrays. The props and sets of a film often do not react the same way acoustically as their real life counterparts. Foley sounds are used to enhance the auditory experience of the movie", "uncomfortable. Foley artists recreate the realistic ambient sounds that the film portrays. The props and sets of a film often do not react the same way acoustically as their real life counterparts. Foley sounds are used to enhance the auditory experience of the movie. Foley can also be used to cover up unwanted sounds captured on the set of a movie during filming, such as overflying airplanes or passing traffic. The term \"Foley\" also means a place, such as Foley-stage or Foley-studio, where the Foley process" ] }, "start_character": null, "end_character": null, "bleu_score": null } ] }, { "answer": null, "provenance": [ { "wikipedia_id": "1553972", "title": "Video production", "section": "Section::::Abstract.", "start_paragraph_id": 1, "end_paragraph_id": 1, "meta": { "evidence_span": [ "This includes scriptwriting, scheduling, logistics, and other administrative duties. Production is the phase of video production which captures the video content (moving images / videography) and involves filming the subject(s) of the video. Post-production is the action of selectively combinin", "Video production is the process of producing video content. It is the equivalent of filmmaking, but with images recorded digitally instead of on film stock. There are three stages of video production: pre-production, production (also known as principal photography), and post-production", "Video production is the process of producing video content. It is the equivalent of filmmaking, but with images recorded digitally instead of on film stock. There are three stages of video production: pre-production, production (also known as principal photography), and post-production. Pre-production involves all of the planning aspects of the video production process before filming begins." ] }, "start_character": null, "end_character": null, "bleu_score": null } ] } ]

[ { "answer": "Much of our perception is focused on revealing differences. Thus it is not the level of the noise but the uniformity of it. Say for example you fixed tacos for dinner. You notice the yummy smell of food as its cooking, you enjoy the aroma as you take your first bit. Then after dinner you clean up, watch a tv show and relax. Before you head upstairs to go to bed you take the trash out. You notice the air smells brisk and clean. You walk back in and the smell of mexican food nearly knocks you over. You didn't notice this before you took the trash out because it became the new normal. You mind adjusted to the mexican food smell and it became the new baseline odor. Sounds even vision are the same way. Right now your brain is rendering invisible tiny blood vessels in your eye because they don't move. You mind erases them assuming you don't care about them, allowing you to focus your attention on the things that change. Think about how noise canceling head phones work. They create a wave form opposite of the wave form entering your ear and play that back to cancel out the outside sound. Essentially they are making sounds to fill in the differences of the outside sound. You still have the same sound pressure level reaching your ear, but because its constant and causes no vibration you hear nothing (or less).", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "I'm going to throw some confirmation bias into the mix here. You will never notice when a loud noise doesn't wake you up while sleeping.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "Attempt fandeath or use white noise when you sleep. Trust me your sleep will be a million times better.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "In my experience it's more than just the sudden increase in noise. I can fall asleep on a noisy underground train, but I simply cannot sleep at all whatsoever if I can hear even the faintest sound of TV somewhere far away even if it's constant and monotonous. For me I think it's psychological: if you're on the train, you accept that it's supposed to be noisy and you're okay with that. However, at home, someone watching TV might annoy you or make you angry which might prevent you from sleeping. It's not the sound itself, it's the meaning of the sound, as it may give you a sense of security or hostility.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "I just lectured on this. Yay practical knowledge. The process is called habituation, you adapt to the environment around you. A specific response is guided by environmental cues (stimulus discrimination). If there was a novel noise in the noisy environment, you might wake up to it. This is because you haven't habituated to the noise. If you wanted a practice example type thing of this. Sit in a room you're used to sitting in, then start focusing on all the little things you hear. Every room we're in is much more noisy than you would expect. If you want to learn more, look for a text on behavioral psychology, this falls in the classical conditioning domain. I'd also be happy to send you my power point on the topic from my lecture.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "So, put simply, your brain chooses to ignore certain stimuli it deems \"unimportant\". I.e. certain sounds, smells. So, when you're in a loud area the brain mainly equates the noises to white noise and allows you to disregard them. In a quiet area any sudden noise cause the brain to react as it is different for them norm and could assist in alerting you to some information you may need to know about your surroundings.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "Your ears slowly adjust to their surroundings and ambient noise, and it's the sudden change in volume that cause you wake up. Ex: I keep my car stereo at the same volume level. If I get into my car in the morning after quiet nights sleep, it can be a little overbearing and loud, however I get into my car after watching a loud movie/tv then it will seem quieter even though the volume level is the same. If you heard a much louder noise while you were asleep in a noisy environment you would wake up just the same.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "Most people have mentioned habituation, which is fair enough as it goes, but fundamentally it is harder to sleep, and especially to hit REM sleep, in an objectively louder environment. You are probably comparing apples and oranges. When you are sleep deprived during the day, your body is dying to shut down, and it will do so whenever you are in a resting position and your attention becomes unfocused. On the other hand, if you decide 11pm is bedtime, but you just spent three hours eating, drinking, watching YouTube, or running, your body is physiologically unready to sleep and even very slight irritants (a street light, a car racing down the street) make it impossible to drift off.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "For me it's the *change* in noise, not really the volume. Our hearing doesn't turn off and our brain continues to process the incoming noises as we sleep, it just filters out noises it is ok (read safe) with. Anything unexpected and different then what it is expecting and the info is sent through to a different level of processing and you may wake up. I have done shift work for 30 years, can sleep anywhere with any noise level and this is how I figure it works for me at least.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "Not all sleep is created equal. The napping you're doing in public is not the deep, restorative sleep you're trying for in bed. If you're sufficiently tired and/or bored, most people can nod off for a few minutes almost anywhere. But settling down and attaining the much deeper sleep we get at night doesn't happen there as a rule. This is why you can sleep for most of a cross-country flight and still be exhausted afterwards.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "Ha. Bring deaf is awesome. Bet you guys are all jelly.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "I haven't read all the comments here, but a large majority of them explain it as the difference in noise levels or your adaptation to the noises (how accustomed to them you are). I think it's slightly different than that, based upon my own experiences. I think that our subconscious mind hears, and is aware of, whatever noise occurs around us as we sleep, and it is our subconscious mind that 'chooses' which sounds it will allow to filter into our awareness. I'm a really heavy sleeper, REALLY heavy sleeper. I've had roommates come home from the bars with tons of people and have loud parties in my house that didn't wake me. But I had one roommate come home one night and quietly grab a quick snack from the kitchen that did wake me. The partying, regardless of the varying levels of noise entering a silent house never even stirred me, while I woke up in alarm at the gentle almost-silent opening of the kitchen cabinets. My subconscious heard the partying, but designated it as harmless, while it designated the sound of someone attempting to be quiet and sneaking around the kitchen as an intruder. I've slept through fire alarms, loud music and every alarm clock known to man, but have been woken by a cat meowing at me or a branch lightly tapping my window. I can and have slept in brightly-lit lecture halls, overcrowded subways, and pretty much any loud environment you can imagine. I never have a problem falling or staying asleep. But when something occurs that is not just out of the ordinary, but something seemingly in need of attention, regardless of how loud or quiet it is, my subconscious will wake me to attend to it.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "I always fell asleep when carpooling home from work. One day, my carpool partner had something come up, so she arranged for a friend to give me a lift back. How I fell asleep in a convertible with the top down, going 60 mph on a sunny day with my hair blowing all over, I'll never know.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "temporary threshold shift, when you are in a loud environment your ear canal gets narrower to protect your ear drum from loud noises. When you are laying in bed and it is quiet, your ear canal is completely open and thus you are way more sensitive to loud noises.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "I've always found it easier to fall asleep when I'm not supposed to fall asleep.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "I have this similar issue. I can fall asleep easily in my boyfriend's bed while he has his loud screaming music going but it's difficult for me to fall asleep in my own bed when it's quiet. Maybe his bed is comfier than mine. Maybe I just tune out his music, since I can't understand the lyrics/screaming and therefore can't sing along in my head. I can't fall asleep listening to my music, because I know the lyrics well and that keeps me awake. So maybe the quietness of my bedroom at night just creeps me out. Any ideas?", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "Because sensory adaptation, a phenomenon where your senses get used to a certain level of stimulus. If you increase the stimulus significantly, you will be able to detect it again. When you're trying to sleep at night in a quiet room, you are used to next to no auditory stimulus. A small noise will seem like a big disturbance because the difference between the initial stimulus and the noise stimulus is greater than that of the difference between the initial stimulus in the classroom and another secondary auditory stimulus on top of that.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "Isn't it because to fall asleep in a lecture, public transport or cinema you have to be ultra sleepy...like 'I can't stay awake' sleepy but when you are in bed you are more like 'hey body I have to wake up in 6 hours so going to sleep now would be nice' kind of tired. You stay asleep in noisy places because you are too tired to be woken by this kind of noise but when you are in bed you are not as sleepy and more easily awoken", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "I just want to know why loud noise *makes* me want to take a nap. I go to a loud concert, and no matter how good it is, I want to drift off and snooze. (I've actually done that in the movies, but to be fair, it was a calming movie and I was the only one there, and a bit worn out.)", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "Your brain naturally calibrates itself to its surroundings. Ever leave a concert and normal sounds seem muted? Ever hear of that room so quiet you can hear your own blood flowing? In a very noisy environment, your brain becomes so desensitized to sound that basically *nothing* seems noisy. In a very quiet environment, even a simple cough can seem very jarring.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "I never understood the concept of falling asleep in public (school lectures, public transport, cinemas, etc). I'm too paranoid people will steal my stuff, shove something up my ass, or general fuckery. I always keep a low level consciousness when napping publicly, and am always at least slightly aware of my surroundings. I just get that good old REM going.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "I wear foam ear plugs to bed. The master bedroom in my home faces the street and you'd be surprised how many car doors are slamming, engines are revving and car radios are blaring in the middle of the night. Only downside I suppose, would be if people outside were yelling ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE!!! and I didn't hear the warning. ;)", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "May I jump in and ask why (1) when I was 12 and lived over a bar I slept like a baby, (2) as an adult I prefer white noise like traffic, (3) hearing and anticipating noise from neighbors raises my heart rate ten fold, and (4) the thought of dead silence terrifies me.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "It could be that you actually know the noise is not being directed at you when in a public place but in your own house you are the only person that noise can be targetting.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "I really don't understand how someone could fall asleep during a lecture. I find it impossible to tune out words and not think about them when I'm trying to sleep.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "as someone who was in the military....you quickly learn to fall asleep anywhere at any time....", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "Run a box fan at night. No more being woken up by random noises.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": null, "provenance": [ { "wikipedia_id": "6062279", "title": "Quiet game", "section": "Section::::Abstract.", "start_paragraph_id": 1, "end_paragraph_id": 1, "meta": { "evidence_span": [ "The quiet game is a children's game where children must stay quiet. Stillness is sometimes a rule but in most cases not. The last child or team to make noise wins the game", "The quiet game is a children's game where children must stay quiet. Stillness is sometimes a rule but in most cases not. The last child or team to make noise wins the game. It is usually acceptable for players to make sounds they cannot control, such as sneezing whereas talking would cause a player to get out. The game is often played indoors, typically in classrooms. It can also be played outdoors, for instance, at summer camps. One application of the game is for parents to keep their loud children quiet for a long journey.", "The quiet game is a children's game where children must stay quiet. Stillness is sometimes a rule but in most cases not." ] }, "start_character": null, "end_character": null, "bleu_score": null } ] }, { "answer": null, "provenance": [ { "wikipedia_id": "1770944", "title": "Open secret", "section": "Section::::Abstract.", "start_paragraph_id": 1, "end_paragraph_id": 1, "meta": { "evidence_span": [ "An open secret is a concept or idea that is \"officially\" (\"de jure\") secret or restricted in knowledge, but in practice (\"de facto\") may be widely known; or it refers to something that is widely known to be true but which none of the people most intimately concerned are willing to categorically acknowledge in public", "An open secret is a concept or idea that is \"officially\" (\"de jure\") secret or restricted in knowledge, but in practice (\"de facto\") may be widely known; or it refers to something that is widely known to be true but which none of the people most intimately concerned are willing to categorically acknowledge in public.\rhighlight sentence(s) containing evidence, not only the answer" ] }, "start_character": null, "end_character": null, "bleu_score": null } ] } ]

[ { "answer": "Sure. You are going forward in the future all the time. We also know exactly what to do for you to experience a second while the whole world ages through centuries. Basically the faster you move, the slower your time goes, so at certain speeds, your second will be a year for the rest of the world. Same thing happens with gravity - the more gravity the slower times goes, so clocks on the Moon go faster than clocks on Earth. You could theoretically get an orbit around a black hole, so that your time slows down enough, that when you return you'll find yourself in a far future. Both of these things are proven experimentally and most famous example are GPS satellites which were highly inaccurate before these effects were accounted for. --- Backwards time travel works too, but only in equatioms. Theoretivally if you were going faster than light it would work. The only problem is that going at the speed of light is impossible. If you were to find a wormhole (also exist only on paper), they could transport you in time as well.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "Kind of hard to explain like you're five but I'll try: Go almost the speed of light=time travel. The laws of physics don't allow anything to travel faster or as fast as light so it slows down time for the object moving at that speed. Another way would be to orbit an extremely large object with huge gravity (Like a Black Hole) that would also cause the same effect. It is impossible to travel to the past, the laws of physics do not allow it. The only way would be to enlarge a wormhole, which is impossible. Source: [Into the Universe with Stephen Hawkin]( URL_0 )", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "Of course! We keep traveling forward all the time! It's going back that's the tricky part.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "Go forward: yes. Go back: no. Look forward: no. Look back yes.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "Let's say that a person truly figures out how to time travel. They get the science right and all that jazz. But there is still a huge problem regarding location. If a person goes back in time, theoretically they will go back to the same location at that point in the past. The earth wont be there anymore. The earth is in CONSTANT motion on its axis. It is constantly orbiting the sun, which is constantly moving about in the Milky Way galaxy, which is moving within the universe. If a person were to figure out time travel, they would also have to precisely move themselves to where the earth was or will be in the universe at that specific time, or risk popping up in the vacuum of space.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": null, "provenance": [ { "wikipedia_id": "31591", "title": "Time travel", "section": "Section::::Time travel in physics.:General relativity.:Wormholes.\n", "start_paragraph_id": 18, "end_paragraph_id": 18, "meta": { "evidence_span": [ "still being researched. Wormholes are a hypothetical warped spacetime which are permitted by the Einstein field equations of general relativity. A proposed time-travel machine using a traversable wormhole would hypothetically work in the following way: One end of the wormhole is accelerated to some significant fraction of the speed of light, perhaps with some advanced propulsion system, and then brought back to the point of origin. Alternatively, another way is to take one entrance of the wormhole and move it to within the gravitational field of an object that has higher gravity than the other entrance, and then return it to a position near the other entrance. For both of these methods, time dilation causes the end of the wormhole that has been moved to have aged less, or become \"younger\", than the stationary end as seen by an external observer; however, time connects differently \"through\" the wormhole than \"outside\" it, so that synchronized clocks at either end of the wormhole will always remain synchronized as seen by an observer passing through the wormhole, no matter how the two ends move around. This means that an observer entering the \"younger\" end would exit the \"older\" end at a time when it was the same age as the \"younger\" end, effectively going back in time as seen by an observer from the outside. One significant limitation of such a time machine is that it is only possible to go as far back in time as the initial creation of the machine; in essence, it is more of a path through time than it is a device that itself moves through time, and it would not allow the technology itself to be moved backward in time.", "One significant limitation of such a time machine is that it is only possible to go as far back in time as the initial creation of the machine;" ] }, "start_character": null, "end_character": null, "bleu_score": null } ] }, { "answer": null, "provenance": [ { "wikipedia_id": "31591", "title": "Time travel", "section": "Section::::Time travel in physics.:General relativity.\n", "start_paragraph_id": 14, "end_paragraph_id": 14, "meta": null, "start_character": 0, "end_character": 516, "bleu_score": 0.9646458712936792 } ] } ]

[ { "answer": "Heating the window is, of course, a safety feature. As for the \"warm feet\", that's just blowing it at the bottom because warm air will rise, so it makes the most sense to send it out at your feet. You might look for an aftermarket accessory called \"gloves\".", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "The main reason is it allows the car makes to keep the air conditioning ducting simple. For example, [this is the ventilation diagram for a Subaru]( URL_0 ) which shows that when the windscreen defogger option is selected, the two outer ducts at the top are actually still functioning while the top-middle ducts are off. This is because there is a mechanism behind the centre-top ducts that directs air toward the windscreen. Also, the more vents that are open at one time, the less efficient the air conditioner becomes. Think of it like blowing through a straw and then blowing through a cardboard tube.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "I have wondered this 100 times every winter since I was 16. Self driving cars, auto-park, GPS, Bluetooth, and rear view camera? Or course, this is the 21st century. Blow air on the windshield and vents at the same time? What do you think this is The Jetsons?", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "I have wondered this for my entire driving life. I live in Canada and it gets cold. I also wear insulated boots and heavy socks. I do not wear some kind of insulated boot for my hands with gloves underneath. I would love defrost and hand warmers. I would also love a defroster like the one on my back window, those lines, right by my wipers. Those defrost much faster than the air and it would make sure my wipers don't get fucked up. The. End.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "I want a blow on the windshield and blow on my hands option", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "As you move the knob which selects the different air vents / modes, there is a paddle in the heater system which moves to direct air from the car's heater fan to different tubes behind the dash. These tubes lead to their respective air vents in the car. The more air vent combinations, the more complicated this paddle system would have to be. I'd guess thats the reason. I'd be interested to know the car with the widest range of blower configurations.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "Defrost the window so you can see, warm your feet that have possibly just been trudging through snow and efficiently heat the interior of the vehicle because heat rises in one simple setting.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "my vw lets me set it in between windshield and front vents or at my feet URL_0 ", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "I drive a Mitsubishi Lancer, and the defrost option automatically turns on the upper heat fans. The feet warmer is a secondary option. I thought that was standard on cars for the longest time. There's even an in-between option that does both.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": null, "provenance": [ { "wikipedia_id": "4447894", "title": "Windshield washer fluid", "section": "Section::::Abstract.", "start_paragraph_id": 1, "end_paragraph_id": 1, "meta": { "evidence_span": [ "Windshield washer fluid (also called windshield wiper fluid, wiper fluid, screen wash (in the UK), or washer fluid) is a fluid for motor vehicles that is used in cleaning the windshield with the windshield wiper while the vehicle is being driven.\rhighlight sentence(s) containing evidence, not only the answer", "Windshield washer fluid (also called windshield wiper fluid, wiper fluid, screen wash (in the UK), or washer fluid) is a fluid for motor vehicles that is used in cleaning the windshield with the windshield wiper while the vehicle is being driven." ] }, "start_character": null, "end_character": null, "bleu_score": null } ] }, { "answer": null, "provenance": [ { "wikipedia_id": "2420747", "title": "Auto-defrost", "section": "Section::::Mechanism.\n", "start_paragraph_id": 3, "end_paragraph_id": 3, "meta": { "evidence_span": [ "Auto-defrost, automatic defrost or self-defrosting is a technique which regularly defrosts the evaporator in a refrigerator or freezer. Appliances using this technique are often called frost free, frostless, or no-frost. The defrost mechanism in a refrigerator heats the cooling element (evaporator coil) for a short period of time and melts the frost that has formed on it. The resulting water drains through a duct at the back of the unit. Defrosting is controlled by an electric or electronic timer: For every 6, 8, 10, 12 or 24 hours of compressor operation it turns on a defrost heater for 15 minutes to half an hour.", "Auto-defrost, automatic defrost or self-defrosting is a technique which regularly defrosts the evaporator in a refrigerator or freezer. Appliances using this technique are often called frost free, frostless, or no-frost. The defrost mechanism in a refrigerator heats the cooling element (evaporator coil) for a short period of time and melts the frost that has formed on it. The resulting water drains through a duct at the back of the unit. Defrosting is controlled by an electric or electronic timer: For every 6, 8, 10, 12 or 24 hours of compressor operation it turns on a defrost heater for 15 minutes to half an hour.", "The defrost mechanism in a refrigerator heats the cooling element (evaporator coil) for a short period of time and melts the frost that has formed on it." ] }, "start_character": null, "end_character": null, "bleu_score": null } ] } ]

[ { "answer": " > So why can't there be true randomness We don't know that there cannot be, and indeed certain physical phenomena that we observe appears to be truly random, at least on an extremely small scale. So the assumption is not supported by current evidence.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "In computing, random number generators are technically pseudo random number generators, denoting that they aren't truly random. Most use some seed value, commonly the number of milliseconds since January 1st, 1970, then perform a variety of bitwise mathematical operators on that number to generate streams of bits. Chunks of those bits are then taken and interpreted as a sequence of numbers. A good algorithm will be spread evenly enough that it can be used as if truly random, but if you reuse the same seed value, you can reproduce the same sequence of numbers. This is actually good for computing in that you often want to be able to recreate interesting results should the sequence expose something in your program. If you want to extend it beyond computing, the idea that there is no true randomness can be reflected in that if you knew the state of every atom in the universe in any particular moment and perfectly understood the laws of physics, you could theoretically predict everything that happens from that state.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "This is incorrect. Quantum physics makes it perfectly clear that many phenomena, such as the moment an atom decays, or the polarization of a particular photon, are indeed random.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "It's hard to know whether 'true randomness' randomness really exists. We have, perhaps, one example of values which might be truly random, which are measurements which can be taken on the quantum level. However, it is possible that these are not **actually** random, but are just impossible for us to predict, and if we knew the starting conditions and the method by which the values are changed, we might be able to guess them. Functionally, what 'random' number generators really provide is either practically *unpredictable* numbers (in the case of cryptographic RNGs) or numbers that are less unpredictable but which are suitable for, say, games, which need to make the different possible values are all likely to be hit at some point. In the case of cryptographic randomness, they use events, such as keystrokes, the current time, packets on the network card, etc, to use as inputs to the random number generator. These would be incredibly hard to reproduce or guess anywhere else, so the numbers that come out are unpredictable and thus 'random' for practical purposes. In the case of non-cryptographic RNGs, a seed number is used as the starting point. This is often saved so that debugging can happen when replaying, say, a game to find out what values are being sent out. The RNG seed number is sometimes saved in games to make sure that reloading at the same point gets similar outputs each time.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "You *can* have true randomness. Quantum mechanics are legitimately based on 100% random outcomes, albeit weighted a certain way. One way to have a truly random number would be to put a smoke detector (contains radioactive Americium) next to a geiger counter, and time the wait between clicks. Weigh the time appropriately and voila, true randomness.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "Random number generators in computers are really pseudo random number generators since they use a mathematical algorithm to generate the number. Any mathematical algorithm is deterministic and therefore not random. Whether there is anyway to create true randomness I'm not sure. I suspect some mathematicians will have a dissertation on the meaning of randomness.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": null, "provenance": [ { "wikipedia_id": "49821", "title": "Multivariate random variable", "section": "Section::::Abstract.", "start_paragraph_id": 1, "end_paragraph_id": 1, "meta": { "evidence_span": [ "In probability, and statistics, a multivariate random variable or random vector is a list of mathematical variables each of whose value is unknown, either because the value has not yet occurred or because there is imperfect knowledge of its value. The individual variables in a random vector are grouped together because they are all part of a single mathematical system often they represent different properties of an individual statistical unit.", "In probability, and statistics, a multivariate random variable or random vector is a list of mathematical variables each of whose value is unknown, either because the value has not yet occurred or because there is imperfect knowledge of its value. The individual variables in a random vector are grouped together because they are all part of a single mathematical system often they represent different properties of an individual statistical unit." ] }, "start_character": null, "end_character": null, "bleu_score": null } ] } ]

{ "partial_evidence": [ { "wikipedia_id": "22961", "title": "Event (probability theory)", "section": "Section::::Abstract.", "start_paragraph_id": 1, "end_paragraph_id": 1, "meta": { "evidence_span": [ "In probability theory, an event is a set of outcomes of an experiment (a subset of the sample space) to which a probability is assigned. A single outcome may be an element of many different events, and different events in an experiment are usually not equally likely, since they may include very different groups of outcomes. An event defines a complementary event, namely the complementary set (the event \"not\" occurring), and together these define a Bernoulli trial: did the event occur or not?", "In probability theory, an event is a set of outcomes of an experiment (a subset of the sample space) to which a probability is assigned. A single outcome may be an element of many different events, and different events in an experiment are usually not equally likely, since they may include very different groups of outcomes.", "In probability theory, an event is a set of outcomes of an experiment (a subset of the sample space) to which a probability is assigned. A single outcome may be an element of many different events, and different events in an experiment are usually not equally likely, since they may include very different groups of outcomes." ] } } ] }

[ { "answer": "The smell lingers as long as you're drunk because it's not coming from residual booze in your saliva, it's the smell of your blood itself. When you imbibe an alcoholic beverage, ethanol (the active ingredient that gets you drunk), is absorbed into your bloodstream. Ethanol is a volatile chemical (it evaporates easily), so when alcoholic blood passes through your lungs, some of the ethanol evaporates into the air that you exhale. It's this process that allows a breathalyzer to measure BAC based on your exhalation.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "Alcohol is volatile and easily vaporizes into the air, allowing you to smell it. Alcohol also is carried in the blood, which easily vaporizes in the lungs, from your blood stream, allowing you to breath it out. Coke is simply digested. You would only have residual coke after taste in your mouth, and would not be exhaling it from your lungs.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "Because no one seems to know the right answer: URL_0 After an extended period drinking (exactly how long depends on a person's metabolism) alcohol is metabolised to acetone which is released through skin pores and through the lungs as you breath out. Acetone is the distinct smell that you find on drunks. A bit of trivia: diabetes sufferers are more prone to ketoacidosis than a healthy individual. edit: As u/3111111111 points out alcohol is not metabolised to acetone, it's metabolised to acetaldehyde. Over consumption inhibits the synthesis of glucose which leads to fatty acids being metabolised to acetone.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "Everyone is talking about drunks, but I can smell beer practically coming out of certain people's pores even after they've only had one. What gives?", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "Pure ethanol has almost no odor. Your body metabolizes ethanol to acetaldehyde. Volatile aldehydes are potent fragrances. When you smell \"alcohol\" on someone's breath, what you are really smelling is acetaldehyde. [edited] As a PhD in Bacteriology, I have worked with ethanol and many other chemicals for a very long time.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "You actually can smell sugar in the breath of diabetics when their blood sugar levels get all fucked up, IIRC it smells \"fruity\"", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "How would you avoid emitting this smell? Wearing long-sleeved clothing and holding your breath?", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "It also has to do with how alcohol is gotten rid of by the body. The liver stores it, then gradually releases it in the blood as it is metabolized, where it is then released into the air by the lungs. This is also how a breathalyzer estimates the amount of alcohol in your blood. The smell is actually acetone.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "Too add to this, Alcoholic ketoacidosis produces a unique smelling smell that is not quite liquor on your breath smell, but still quite noticeable and gross to those who are say, trapped in a car with you. Stay healthy folks. Don't stop eating food.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "So would a self contained sample of blood from a highly intoxicated person smell like alcohol?", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "Non-alcoholic drinks don't really have much smell because the molecules in them are not volatile. The exception is the bubbles of CO2 (which is odorless anyways). Alcohol by itself is a liquid that has significant pressure around body temperature. So if your stomach has alcohol and you burp it will come out smelling of alcohol. If you have alcohol in your blood, it will evaporate from it inside the lungs and come out as the air you breathe out.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "the alcohol is in your bloodstream and the smell is coming out via your lungs. Thats why I always laugh at people who think mints and brushing your teeth will make the alcohol smell go away... it's like \"dude, the booze isn't on your teeth\".", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "Same thing occurs with foods high in sulfur compounds, like garlic and onions. However, the sulfur compounds in these two foods tend to stick around a lot longer than ethanol.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "Alcohol in blood. In the lungs there is an exchange between the blood and air, alcohol readily evaporates. Alcohol smell permeates.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "Several things going on here: 1. mostly you're smelling metabolized alcohol being _exhaled_ as an aldehyde. 2. secondarily, you can smell ethanol, it's kinda sweet. So...if you've just drank some and there is residual, then it will smell. In order to have something smell it has to make from liquid into the air and into your nose. Ethanol does this, but coke doesn't actually do this. If you had a flat cup of coke (no fizzles popping it into the air) you'd not smell _anything_. In fact, most primarily water beverages don't much, but if you combine them with things that evaporate quickly then they do. Take - for the obvious example - mouthwash.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "One of the ways alcohol leaves your body is through your breath. You exhale it through your lungs. While a mixer like cola will leave your body when you pee. This is why you walk into a room where someone has been drinking heavily, there is a heavy alcohol scent. The drunken breath is lingering in the air.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "The natural burn off rate is .015%BAC per hour after you've stopped consuming alcoholic beverages. In case anyone was wondering", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "Is it the same way that trained dogs can smell their owner's blood sugar level?", "provenance": null }, { "answer": null, "provenance": [ { "wikipedia_id": "1014", "title": "Alcohol", "section": "Section::::Abstract.", "start_paragraph_id": 1, "end_paragraph_id": 1, "meta": { "evidence_span": [ "In chemistry, an alcohol is any organic compound in which the hydroxyl functional group (OH) is bound to a carbon. The term alcohol originally referred to the primary alcohol ethanol (ethyl alcohol), which is used as a drug and is the main alcohol present in alcoholic beverages. An important class of alcohols, of which methanol and ethanol are the simplest members, includes all compounds for which the general formula is CHOH. It is these simple monoalcohols that are the subject of this article.\rhighlight sentence(s) containing evidence, not only the answer", "In chemistry, an alcohol is any organic compound in which the hydroxyl functional group (OH) is bound to a carbon. The term alcohol originally referred to the primary alcohol ethanol (ethyl alcohol), which is used as a drug and is the main alcohol present in alcoholic beverages. An important class of alcohols, of which methanol and ethanol are the simplest members, includes all compounds for which the general formula is CHOH. It is these simple monoalcohols that are the subject of this article." ] }, "start_character": null, "end_character": null, "bleu_score": null } ] } ]

[ { "answer": "There's a show on A & E called \"Fit to Fat to Fit.\" It follows personal trainers who purposefully eat junk for 8 weeks to get fat. And then they lose the weight alongside their heaviest clients. Most episodes follow similar tropes. Typically, the trainers feel great for a week or two. The rush of processed sugars in their lean bodies and relaxation of regimens is a pretty common theme. After a while, they all become sluggish and disinterested in day to day stuff they used to love. They become flabby and all of that hits them psychologically since they pride themselves on fitness and their physique. TLDR while it might be fun for a little while to go on a binder, it would take a toll on your organs, your physique and quite possibly your mental state.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "Well, if you've been considered \"fit\" for a long time, probably not too much, image-wise. You wouldn't magically get fatter like a cartoon character, so there's that. It also depends on how fit you are. If you're training like Michael Phelps did for the olympics, you're actually **below** what he was consuming...around 12,000 calories a day during peak Olympic training! So if you're a professional athlete, eating 10,000 calories in one day will probably have a minimal affect on you. Now, as for an average, 9-to-5 office worker who's in \"good\" shape, i.e. slightly above their optimal weight/height BMI and good cardiovascular shape with low blood pressure, probably not *too* much either. Our bodies are capable of some pretty amazing things. If you ate all that food throughout the course of the day, the most might be indigestion, upset stomach, and possible vomiting due to over-eating. You'll probably feel lethargic, maybe a headache due to the rush of too much sugar, etc. Basically you'd potentially feel kinda crappy. Actual detrimental effects? Probably minimal, depending on how much sugar/salt you had and whether or not you're diabetic or prone to high blood pressure. On average, bloated and yucky feeling, but otherwise probably okay. Disclaimer: I am not a doctor nor a nutritionist. Consult a doctor or nutritionist before consuming mass large quantities of food.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "In the world of fitness, this is known as a \"cheat day.\" A lot of bodybuilders and powerlifters diet this way. Well, maybe not 10,000 calories extra... but they can eat junk food. I eat really clean throughout the week and I measure all of my portions, count every gram of protein, carbs and fat I eat. Then, on the weekends, I can have pizza, ice cream, whatever I'm craving. I don't binge or go crazy like 10,000 calories, but I can have a couple extra slices of pizza without affecting my physique or my strength. Basically, it all evens out over the course of a week assuming you don't eat 10,000 calories every two days or something crazy like that. You cannot get fat or ruin your physique/strength in just one day the same way you cannot get a six-pack and huge muscles in one single day. Your body fat and muscle mass change over the course of weeks, months, and years. So, one single cheat day is not going to make a significant impact. A 10,000 calorie cheat day is a little different, you'd gain more fat than a usual cheat day, but normal humans don't eat that way all the time. This is all assuming you are a normal, healthy individual without any medical conditions. Obviously, if you have some pre-existing condition, it may not be quite so simple for you.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "Doctor here, My suspicion is that not much would happen from a one day calorie binge. Given that we are talking about junk food, the most likely consequence is a temporary increase in weight via expansion of total body water due to the insane amounts of salt in low quality foods. I would also suspect that the subject would have some pretty serious diarrhea from the huge osmotic load that is being delivered to the small intestine.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "You would look the same, possibly a little bloated the next day due to all the excess salt. Otherwise you would: A) shit a lot more i) possibly also diarrhea B) get really thirsty, drink more water, and subsequently pee a lot C) feel sluggish af D) want to food coma and just sleep Source: ate Wendy's, cake, chocolate, and pizza all day yesterday.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "they would throw up and then prbly get the shits. If its just one day, your body is going to reject it because it is so different from your normal food intake. even if they didn't get sick, theyre still going to feel like shit for being overfull and filled with junk.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "It's still calories in vs. calories out. 10,000 is a huge amount for one day but if you eat 2,000 the other 6 days and are doing enough exercise such that your total energy use is 23,000 calories that week you're still going to lose weight.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "Only one day? You'll probably feel sick, but after you digest/vomit it all, no consequence is the likely outcome. The risk is not eating 10k calories once, but eating an extra thousand everyday", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "You can also check out the movie Super Size Me. I'm pretty sure it's still streaming on Netflix. It explains pretty much the same thing hillrat mentioned on Fit to Fat to Fit.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "One day? A huge poop the next day, maybe a little stomach pain, maybe fatigue. Maybe a few oz of body fat built up.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": null, "provenance": [ { "wikipedia_id": "258979", "title": "Malnutrition", "section": "Section::::Abstract.", "start_paragraph_id": 1, "end_paragraph_id": 1, "meta": { "evidence_span": [ "Malnutrition is a condition that results from eating a diet in which one or more nutrients are either not enough or are too much such that the diet causes health problems. It may involve calories, protein, carbohydrates, vitamins or minerals. Not enough nutrients is called undernutrition or undernourishment while too much is called overnutrition. Malnutrition is often used to specifically refer to undernutrition where an individual is not getting enough calories, protein, or m", "Malnutrition is a condition that results from eating a diet in which one or more nutrients are either not enough or are too much such that the diet causes health problems. It may involve calories, protein, carbohydrates, vitamins or minerals. Not enough nutrients is called undernutrition or undernourishment while too much is called overnutrition. Malnutrition is often used to specifically refer to undernutrition where an individual is not getting enough calories, protein, or micronutrients. If undernutrition occurs during pregnancy, or before two years of age, it may result in permanent problems with physical and mental development. Extreme undernourishment, known as starvation, may have symptoms that include: a short height, thin body, very poor energy levels, and swollen legs and abdomen. People also often get infections and are frequently cold. The symptoms of micronutrient deficiencies depend on the micronutrient that is lacking." ] }, "start_character": null, "end_character": null, "bleu_score": null } ] }, { "answer": null, "provenance": [ { "wikipedia_id": "56825", "title": "Eating disorder", "section": "Section::::Abstract.", "start_paragraph_id": 1, "end_paragraph_id": 1, "meta": { "evidence_span": [ "n eating disorder is a mental disorder defined by abnormal eating habits that negatively affect a person's physical or mental health. They include binge eating disorder, where people eat a large amount in a short period of time; anorexia nervosa, where people eat very little and thus have a low body weig", "An eating disorder is a mental disorder defined by abnormal eating habits that negatively affect a person's physical or mental health. They include binge eating disorder, where people eat a large amount in a short period of time; anorexia nervosa, where people eat very little and thus have a low body weight; bulimia nervosa, where people eat a lot and then try to rid themselves of the food; pica, where people eat non-food items; rumination disorder, where people regurgitate food; avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder, where people have a lack of interest in food; and a group of other specified feeding or eating disorders. Anxiety disorders, depression, and substance abuse are common among people with eating disorders. These disorders do not include obesity.\rhighlight sentence(s) containing evidence, not only the answer" ] }, "start_character": null, "end_character": null, "bleu_score": null } ] } ]

[ { "answer": "Imagine you buy a car. Let's say a Chevy Cruze cuz why not. Now, Chevy has all sorts of reasons to want you to only use Chevy certified mechanics and official Chevy spare parts because they can make money from that service and maintain quality control. On the other hand, you as a consumer wants to find the best deal for repairs that you can and since you own the car, should be able to do so. Chevy says that they only provide parts to their guys and if you want a repair you're just stuck with a Chevy mechanic, sucks to be you. The right to repair is basically saying that you as the consumer should have a choice in who fixes your property.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "Several States are trying to introduce a \"right to repair\" bill. Of all of these States, only one - Nebraska - has actually scheduled a hearing to discuss the possible new law. The law, if it goes through, will require manufacturers (including Apple) to provide spare parts and service manuals to third parties. Apple have said that they will send representatives to argue against this new law. They believe that members of the public and third parties are not qualified to repair Apple products, and if they attempt to do so, it could result in damage such as batteries exploding.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "Apple wants to charge for their AppleCare and make it illegal for third-party entities to sell and/or service their products. They've argued things like if a third-party replaces a broken screen they can cut their finger accidentally so only Apple should be legally allowed to replace the screens on their products. Basically, Apple is trying to make it so that they can be the only entity to service and/or repair their products to keep out competition. Thus far, they have been fairly successful at suing and shutting down their competition in this space and are continuing the fight.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "the reason this is controversial is because it essentially gives apple a complete monopoly regarding their products, which they want, but is ultimately bad for consumers. Apple has a long history of doing this monopolistic behavior. It was the same way with apple peripherals, such as i homes and such. but eventually third parties started making cheaper \"ihome\" alternatives and then the overly expensive apple products were being priced out of the market. enter the lightning cable. now all of the third party products are no longer compatible with any of your new apple products, and the only way to get products that are is to buy them from apple as they are the only ones with rights to that cable design. then with the market being non competitive you get charged $7mil for your i home and there's nothing you can do about it other than go without. you'll notice that a similar thing is happening with the new iphone's lack of headphone port. essentially having apple be the only one who is able to preform repair services on their products makes it so the market is non competitive and they can essentially charge whatever they want for the services unrestricted. cracked screen? $799. with competition such as those little kiosks in the mall however the price is competitive. if the mall kiosk guy will do it for $50 then apple can't feasibly charge much more than him or nobody will go for the service. TL;DR: apple wants a monopoly and the argument is that there should be a competitive market for apple device services", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "My girlfriend plugged an aux cord into her iPhone 6s and it short circuited. We took it to apple because the phone was bought less than a year ago and they told us it would be $300 to replace. They had never opened it to see what it was. We had bought the phone for $300.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "Basically Apple wants to make more money. If any old company is allowed to repair your iPhone then Apple will have to compete with them, they will probably have to charge less and make less money. Apple has a great idea: they can block lawmakers from allowing this, by claiming that batteries are dangerous and that they will explode on planes etc., unless only Apple is allowed to repair them. Is this true? Well, yes and no, but as long as Apple can convince lawmakers that it is true then they will make more money replacing your battery for you.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": null, "provenance": [ { "wikipedia_id": "11833883", "title": "Apple (symbolism)", "section": "Section::::Abstract.", "start_paragraph_id": 1, "end_paragraph_id": 1, "meta": { "evidence_span": [ "Apples appear in many religious traditions, often as a mystical or forbidden fruit. One of the problems identifying apples in religion, mythology and folktales is that as late as the 17th century, the word \"apple\" was used as a generic term for all (foreign) fruit other than berries, but including nuts. This term may even have extended to plant galls, as they were thought to be of plant origin (see oak apple). For instance, when tomatoes were introduced into Europe, they were called \"love apples\". In one Old English work, cucumbers are called \"eorþæppla\" (lit. \"earth-apples'), just as in French, Dutch, Hebrew, Afrikaans, Persian and Swiss German as well as several other German dialects, the words for potatoes mean \"earth-apples\". In some languages, oranges are called \"golden apples\" or \"Chinese apples\". Datura is called 'thorn-apple\".\rhighlight sentence(s) containing evidence, not only the answer", "Apples appear in many religious traditions, often as a mystical or forbidden fruit. One of the problems identifying apples in religion, mythology and folktales is that as late as the 17th century, the word \"apple\" was used as a generic term for all (foreign) fruit other than berries, but including nuts. This term may even have extended to plant galls, as they were thought to be of plant origin (see oak apple). For instance, when tom" ] }, "start_character": null, "end_character": null, "bleu_score": null } ] } ]

[ { "answer": "Remember -- free as in free speech, not free as in free beer. The mission of the FSF is to promote the expansion of practices for sharing. It is about enabling the investigation and modification of software by users, and ensuring proper attribution to the writers of software. Let's say you are using the GPL license, which is their most restrictive. You (and others) still have the right under that copyright definition to sell the software in whatever format you want for profit. You (and others) can sell services for helping with the software. You can run software as a service on top of the copyleft software. You can request donations. You can seek grants. You can sell ads on the project site. There are many ways to make money that are not just the selling of software.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "I think you're looking at it the wrong way. Think: - How do churches make money? - How do charities make money? - How do friends make money off friends? - How do homeless shelters make money? For most people that write free software, we don't really care about the money. We just think that software should be free for a good cause. Imagine if: - All encryption libraries were proprietary - All browsers were proprietary - All SSH servers and clients were proprietary - All webservers were proprietary It'd be hard to trust anyone and anything just in principle. Gross! A lot of people don't want to live like that, so we take pride in donating our time. Then, you get: - Open security that is universally debugged and trusted - Standardized practice based off effectiveness, not sales - Knowing exactly what is running on your machine by proof, not blind trust - An open invitation to be a part of a community of developers by contributing as you please Hope this helps!", "provenance": null }, { "answer": " > How do I sell this thing that can essentially be spread legally for free? Most software is not actually sold. A bank pays developers to make something that fits their business and then uses it. At no point is that software for sale. There is software in your car that is useless separate from the car. When businesses do use off the shelf software, they tend to want good support and are willing to pay for it. Furthermore, traditional consumer software is already moving away from single sales to freemium and subscription models.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "Software as a service is one way. You can roll your own server and compile it all yourself, or you can pay me to roll it out and support it for you. Mainly it is just support. If you can provide the software free, the support for the software can be an expect d revenue source.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "A lot OSS monetization goes something like this: 1. Create project 2. Companies find project useful and start using it 3. Companies need support for the project 4. Charge companies for support and maybe premium features Of course there are other ways as well but in my experience the most crucial part is support. The questions I always get asked when I try to introduce an OSS library or tool is \"Can we get support?\" and \"Won't it get abandoned?\". This is how Canonical (Ubuntu) and Redhat make money on software that anyone can get for free.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "The FSF doesn't really think the strategy of selling copies for money is the right way to sell things. Most software written is actually not sold this way. Usually software supports another product. Free software helps everyone in this case. For example, Intel invests a lot of money in developing free compilers. A good compiler means more people want their chips. Google will fund web browser and android development because they have a service that benefits from these things. A lot of tools are developed by developers for developers. They all benefit by sharing. So I produce a bug tracking tool. I share it. Other people can modify it. I end up with a better bug tracking tool. This also works with libraries. I want a library to handle computer vision. I write my own. If I share it with the community, the community will develop it, and my product will be better. Or you can sell support services. This is the business model most Linux distributors offer.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": " > [...] how do you expect to make money off of free software? * You could sell services related to your software. * Your software could be related to hardware you sell. * Your software could be related to services you provide. * You could have a strategic interest in promoting a programming language, file format, computer platform or similar. * You may have written the software primarily for your own commercial use. * Your could further your academic career or the standing of your institution. Though admittedly, the money is indirect at best in that case.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "They regard users' freedom as the most important goal by far. You're welcome to make money by selling software but they regard doing that by restricting what others can do as heinous. Exactly _how_ you make money is up to you, but they don't think you should do it by stopping others running, modifying, and sharing computer programs.", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "you want to create a voicemail transcription service you buy a library for $500 that converts MP3 to txt you build a product using this library and charge 1¢ per voicemail one day you notice a bad bug in the libraey \"free\" software would let you have the source to inspect and possibly fix the bug \"closed\" software likely will not give the source, but if it did, may have a clause that says if you modify it without permission you are liable and the creator can sue you either way you still make money", "provenance": null }, { "answer": "I have read some response here and i am still confused. So basically i can make software and sell it, but i have to give the source code for anyone, free? am i right? But another guy will take that code, modify it, then sell it at higher price... of publish it free...", "provenance": null }, { "answer": null, "provenance": [ { "wikipedia_id": "10638", "title": "Free software movement", "section": "Section::::Abstract.", "start_paragraph_id": 1, "end_paragraph_id": 1, "meta": { "evidence_span": [ "The free software movement (FSM) or free/open-source software movement (FOSSM) or free/libre open-source software movement (FLOSSM) is a social movement with the goal of obtaining and guaranteeing certain freedoms for software users, namely the freedom to run the software, to study and change the software, and to redistribute copies with or without changes. Although drawing on traditions and philosophies among members of the 1970s hacker culture and academia, Richard Stallman formally founded the movement in 1983 by launching the GNU Project. Stallman later established the Free Software Foundation in 1985 to support the movement.\rhighlight sentence(s) containing evidence, not only the answer", "The free software movement (FSM) or free/open-source software movement (FOSSM) or free/libre open-source software movement (FLOSSM) is a social movement with the goal of obtaining and guaranteeing certain freedoms for software users, namely the freedom to run the software, to study and change the software, and to redistribute copies with or without changes. Although drawing on traditions and philosophies among members of the 1970s hacker culture and academia, Richard Stallman formally founded the movement in 1983 by launching the GNU Project. Stallman later established the Free Software Foundation in 1985 to support the movement.", "The free software movement (FSM) or free/open-source software movement (FOSSM) or free/libre open-source software movement (FLOSSM) is a social movement with the goal of obtaining and guaranteeing certain freedoms for software users, namely the freedom to run the software, to study and change the software, and to redistribute copies with or without changes. Although drawing on traditions and philosophies among members of the 1970s hacker culture and academia, Richard Stallman formally founded the movement in 1983 by launching the GNU Project. Stallman later established the Free Software Foundation in 1985 to support the movement." ] }, "start_character": null, "end_character": null, "bleu_score": null } ] } ]