Datasets:

0x70DA

/

eli5-modified

like 0

[ "Because it's difficult to understand and boring. Now how about that Trump!? It's like he's sayin' whut we all thinking!", "Americans generally dont care. Well the people who watch mainstream media dont really care, so why should they spend time reporting on it. Also, the people who run the mainstream media likely dont want to bring further attention to it.", "Because relatively few Americans were involved. \n\nThe BBC is obviously interested because their Prime Minister is involved, along with many other European politicians. But Americans have no particular reason to care about the tax dodges of David Cameron's father or some random member of the EU parliament in Brussels." ]

[ "Nice try, but that won't work. To buy up the debt, your corporation's going to need money. It doesn't have any, so it'll have to either take out a loan from a bank, or sell shares in the corporation to raise some. The bank and the investors are going to ask, \"what's your business plan to pay us back?\" When you as the CEO say you don't have one because you're planning on declaring bankruptcy and sticking them with the debt, they'll kick you out of their office.", "Short answer is it doesn't work that way. Longer answer is the issuer would have to sell you the debt which they typically won't do unless it's in collections" ]

[ "I think it's a good idea to ask /r/history :L" ]

[ "There are a number of issues that people were protesting, but overall it was to show that they feel that the current government is malicious and incompetent due to their policies, comments, and broken promises.\n\nThis is to do with things like education funding, worker's rights, public assets, social security, and the environment. \n\nIt's not like what is happening to Turkey and Venezuela, no riots or clashes, just people showing that they are frustrated and scared with what the government intends to do.", "There are a plethora of reasons that people are protesting at the moment. The current Australian government is not behaving in the interests of the Australian people. They are cutting funding to our education, scientific research, humanitarian aid, renewable energy, health, communication (NBN) and many other things. For people who care about these sorts of things, the current government is a force of destruction.", "I think some Redditors are making this seem a lot bigger then it is. Australia has two major political parties; Labor (left wing) and the Liberals* (right wing). Labor was in power for 3 terms (about 6 years) until last year when the Liberals came into power. As you might imagine a large percentage of Australian redditors are supporters of the Labor party. This combined with the fact that the current leader of Australia (the Prime Minister, Mr Abbot) has a fairly low approval rating makes some people a bit angry with the current government. There's a march organised for March which is getting a bit of attention on Reddit but ~~not a whole lot in the mainstream media~~ (actually it's getting a fair bit of attention right now).\n\nIn truth there's not a whole lot of protesting. Australians tend to organise protests on a fairly regular basis against the current government. It's a pretty common occurrence and these protests are generally peaceful.\n\nI'm happy to explain anything in more detail but as I'm a bit more right wing then some redditors my explanations are probably going to be somewhat different to the other answers.\n\n\\* Technically the Liberals are actually part of the Coalition which includes the Nationals however the Liberals are the bigger/important party." ]

[ "Most US debt is owed back to whoever owns it (mostly other parts of the US government and American citizens) on a set basis. The debt owners will be repaid according to a set schedule. There’s no super bank ready to foreclose on the US government or that controls all US debt. What this means is that the US has to set aside enough each year to pay its debt obligations for that year. This amount is less than what the US government brings in taxes each year, so the difference between the tax income and the amount used to service the debt is what pays for everything else (and there’s always borrowing more money if taxes aren’t enough).", "It’s just like how you can be in hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt (your mortgage) and still spend thousands of dollars on groceries every year.\n\nOur debt might look big, and certainly is greater than we should probably have, but it’s still only about as much money as the US makes in a single year as its GDP.", "The US government is in debt because it's borrowed money. As long as it reliably pays back this money, with interest, people will continue lending them more money.\n\nSince the government is not a person with a limited lifespan, you don't need to assume their income will cap out or that they will retire some day. As long as you assume the US economy will keep growing & tax revenues will go up, people will keep lending the US government money because it's a safe investment." ]

[ "to ensure that the bacteria are all dead. if you take antibiotics, and stop once you feel better, that doesn't ensure they are all dead. those that survive, could develop resistances to the drugs.", "As you take the first doses, it kills some of the bacteria. Those happen to be the most sensitive, the easiest to kill. Over time you slowly kill them in order of sensitivity. If you don't take the whole course, you leave the least sensitive ones alive in your body. These tough to kill ones are called antibiotic resistant. They make lots of copies of themselves, and you get sick again, but with only the antibiotic resistant strain. The antibiotic you got the last time won't work well enough to cure you this time, and it's your own fault. (*Yes, it's much more complex than this, but I'm trying to stay ELI5.)" ]

[ "Because we spent a very long time pissing about in small little family units getting eaten by wolves and fornicating like primitive pre-civilization primates do.\n\nCivilization, or something that we could reasonably call the start of it, occurred around 12,000 years ago when humans finally stopped roaming in an area of the Fertile Crescent and started building stuff. This marked the break point where humans started living in larger and larger communities in a single geographic area. Slowly that led to the development of farming as a primary means of food production and the increase in food availability allowed division of labor which fast forward 12,000 years is why we both have computers and can sit here and talk on the internet.", "The 300 thousand year old Modern Humans are genetically similar, but were still Hunter-Gatherer tribes. Generally speaking, every person was able to collect enough food for them and their offspring to survive. It was a full time job surviving, so there wasn't much extra that came out of it. \n\nAround 10,000 BC, we invented a nice thing called agriculture. By tending our own crops on our own terms, we were able to make it so a single person could produce the food requirements of many people. This is a pretty defining point, because it allowed for people to start doing other things than just surviving. Culture really starts from a little after this point.", "Large scale sedentary human civilization was not, generally, possible without the development of agricultural techniques, which themselves took a combination of complex learning and artificial selection for domesticating crops/animals. \n\nBefore this time, humans were, by and large, limited to relatively small groups where enough wild food could be gathered/hunted within walking distance to feed everyone. Too big a group, and you couldn't get enough food within the range people could travel. Additionally, you couldn't specialize. Bob couldn't be a teacher, he was busy getting food. Sally couldn't develop farming techniques, she was busy getting food. \n\nNote that agriculture is much older than your 6,000 year mark. However, human materials durable enough to survive thousands of years aren't necessarily common today, let alone in 15,000 BC, so many signs of it have been erased.", "Just because humans were human doesn't mean they had the ability to make written records, build permanent structures, or do anything which we associate with civilization. For a really long time humans were nomadic and did not cultivate crops or raise domesticated animals for food. Without that building structures or having large numbers of people staying in the same area was impractical.", "The invention of agriculture changed everything. Suddenly our species was able to gather in very large groups without running out of food, *and* people had a big incentive to invest in infrastructure (things like government, roads, water supplies, writing).", "shit snowballed after farming / domestication.\nsuddenly you hade to fight for your land, make sure your own offspring inherited it, and folks got to get fancy new desieses like small pocks and karies.", "Culture is a function of the people and their traditions but how do you pass that culture down to your descendants? You could try word of mouth, telling your children your stories, and they do the same, and your peoples history becomes a verbal one passed from person to person. But people aren't so good at passing along information without putting their own stamp on it, and we don't remember everything we are told. So over time, things get forgot and cultures disappear, only to be replaced by newer cultures. \n\nWhat changed all of that was the invention of writing and the development of a literate culture where people could learn by reading. Since words only limitation is what you write them on, it became possible to store the culture of a people for thousands of years. The other thing that changed for the development of culture is that we went from a nomadic, hunter/gatherer life style, to becoming farmers. Farms didn't move, and so people stopped moving, and static peoples developed into villages, which grew to towns and cities. It's amazing what you can do with paper, a pen, and bread. \n\nProgress is not always forward though, and sometimes humanity suffers setbacks. If you have an oral history, and disease strikes your people, killing most of them, that knowledge is lost. \n\nIf you have a written history, but war or natural disasters destroy your libraries, then that knowledge is lost.", "Usually, a species remains intellectually stagnant. Unable to communicate high-level concepts, what one individual knows usually dies with it. \n\nThen homonids started to develop language. At first it was very slow going, because you need language to teach someone else language, but once it reached a certain point, it started to snowball, and development came faster and faster. With advanced language, we were able to develop writing, which didn't just transfer knowledge to those around you, it allowed it to travel through space and time, and that's when things really took off.\n\nIt is kind of like compound interest. Putting $1 in a bank account and waiting. It could take 25 years before it gets to $2 and then so what, $2 isn't exactly rich. Even after 100 years, it is only about $20. Between 400 and 500 years you hit a million, and by 1000 you are at $7 trillion. It took a long time to get there, but once you do, things go crazy.", "The further you go back, the less stuff has survived to this day, so more evidence of civilization is destroyed by elements and being found by others who did not study it archaeologically (tomb robbers, etc.)\n\nYou also have the issue that the further you go back, less stuff that was made by humans of the time was *built* to last. Things like masonry and metallurgy only really became common about 5-8 thousand years ago, prior to that most structures were built with less permanent materials and more susceptible to erosion and destruction. For anything to survive thousands of years of war, theft, and conflict is amazing - invading nations would level everything and build their own shit.", "Complex language and writing made it possible to start from a place far further along when seeking knowledge. This made humans learn more stuff faster. Because of the stuff they learned, they lived longer, which allowed them to learn even more and write even more of it down." ]

[ "Soil is largely made of sand (or other minerals), organic matter, water, and gas. When you don't have precipitation, you lose out on organic matter and water, so you're left with minerals and rocks that form sand.", "Most of the world's deserts are actually covered in **snow or ice** (a subset of deserts called \"polar deserts\").\n\nWhen deserts form, it is because of a lack of moisture. Over time, green grass and healthy topsoil erodes, which leads to a gradual drying out. This then leads to muddiness, then dryness, then cracking, then turning to sand. Sand is really just wind-eroded soil in hot climates.", "Most deserts are not covered in sand and do have dry soil. But if your'e thinking of the specific deserts that have the vast sand dunes and nothing else, it is because the soil turned to sand. Soil is the minerals (sand, rock) and organic components (decaying matter, worms, microbes, smaller burrowing bugs, fungi, etc) that live in the upper layers, along with water and pockets of air. Take away all the water, and the living things end up dying. Then, the winds will erode the top layers and all the dead living things that have become dust blow away. And you're just left with the sand blowing about.\n\nIf you rewind the clock to before life left the oceans, there was no soil. Just mud, sand, and rock (and all the sizes of minerals between sand and rock). And ice and snow, of course. But imagine a large river, coming down the mountains and spreading to a broad alluvial plain...and not a single green thing to be seen. Just rock, gravel, and sand. That was the earth before life moved out of the seas." ]

[ "Every time I read a post starting \"what's the deal with ...\" I imagine it's by Jerry Seinfeld.", "We are a country of bigots.\n\n > Is the conflict really about being with the one you love\n\nThat's part of it. The older generation can't accept that two people of the same gender can love each other like those in a hetero relationship. They consider it a problem, and feel entitled to impose their will upon others, in an attempt to force them into convergence, or deride them. \n\n > or is it more about the legal status of same-sex marriage contracts?\n\nThat's the other part. By preventing the marriage from being recognized, these people don't get the tax and insurance benefits other couples get. This makes a second class citizen status. Heaven forbid, two men can file joint taxes and have a family healthcare plan...\n\n > Why can't a same-sex couple walk into a willing church, or other similar institution of their choosing, and simply get married?\n\nThe law.\n\nDon't get me wrong. A marrige can be recognized by any individual or institution, but it won't matter if it's not recognized by the government institutions.\n\nAlso bigots.\n\nIt's kinda dicy getting married when some random stranger decides he is justified and starts shooting up a place.\n\n > Others may not call this contract a \"marriage\", but why should the couple care?\n\nI don't think the couple really cares all that much. When non-hetero couples are allowed to marry, in whatever form the government calls it, the couples will call it marriage, and it will become common speak to call it that. The legal term will become irrelevant in society, provided all the same benefits are there.", "It's definitely largely about the legal status. The word is what it is, anyone can claim themselves married if they wish, as an affectation, but when you become legally married, you receive certain protections and rights. At current, some of these protections and rights are the sole reserve of heterosexual marriage.\n\nTo give the most widely repeated example, married couples can have rights of access in times of medical emergency. Hospitals have been known to impede access between homosexual couples at incredibly unfortunate times, right up to preventing couples being able to spend their last moments together. If the laws around this were equalised between sexualities, such situations would likely become a thing of the past.\n\nThat said, there are definitely highly vocal proponents of resolving the semantic issues as well. \"Civil partnership/union\" has been widely presented by many states and nations as an alternative to homosexual marriage, but even in cases where this term bestows the same rights as a heterosexual marriage, there is still a strong sentiment that \"civil partnerships\" create a situation of \"separate but equal\", harking back to racial civil rights issues of the past." ]

[ "Don't think of it like storing water in a bucket - water is a physical thing that has a more or less fixed size.\n\nWe aren't storing a physical thing, we're storing data. Data is abstract and in theory doesn't have any density or size in physical dimensions. Because of this data doesn't have to be stored in a fixed-sized container.\n\nIt's like writing. When I write out 'Hello, Dave' I'm not storing a physical entity on the paper, I'm storing the thought. Since it's just symbols I don't actually lose anything by writing it as this size^or^this^size\nAs long as it can be read by my reader - so in this case I can see it myself - it's the same amount of data stored in different amounts of space.\n\nHDD technology is allowing for smaller 'fonts' that can still be read by the HDD.", "HDDs use platters (disks) covered in magnetic flakes that can be flipped over and read. The limitation for density in these systems are\n\n1) How big are the platters?\n\n2) How many can you fit without making the result too fragile.\n\n3) How many flakes can you pack into a platter without compromising read and write reliability.\n\n#1 and #2 are why desktop hard drives store more than laptop, bigger drives carry more platters which are individually larger. #3 has been the driving force behind increased storage." ]

[ "Stick 'em in the sieve, rinse 'em, an you're done.", "Uhm, yeah. Just rinse them in water real quick. No need to get fancy unless you previously coated them with mercury or something.", "Just rinse the fruits little zzxzzeyz. There is no need for soap, in fact that may just give you the green apple splatter(ask your mom).", "Someone has misinformed you about food. It's okay to eat stuff without such extreme washing." ]

[ "Since stomach contents are highly acidic, vomiting can be quite harmful for the throat, mouth and teeth and salivating helps to reduce this by diluting and rinsing. Saliva is also weakly alkaline, which helps to neutralize acid.", "Your body is smart. Vomit is really acidic and can burn your esophagus. The salivation lines your esophagus and mouth to prevent burning.", "Physiologist here:\n\nVomiting is a complex physiological response that requires the coordination of the motor, sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems in order to safely clear the upper GI tract of its contents without causing injury or death to the person (which is very easily accomplished, for example, if the person happens to aspirate (breath) some of the highly acidic stomach contents). \n\nSaliva does have some capacity to buffer against large pH changes. \n The buffering capacity of saliva, however, is fairly low - especially against the relatively large volume of low pH stomach contents. \n\nSalivation prior to vomiting is a protective mechanism designed to do two things: 1) coat the surfaces of the esophagus/throat/mouth to help protect against the low pH of stomach contents; and 2) lubricate the upper GI tract to make it easier to expel stomach contents." ]

[ "They really are not. Girls tend to be socialized more so they may present the appearance of maturity more often, but they are in no way any more mature on average that boys their age are.", "It appears that girls' brains are typically going through an organizational stage at 10 to 12 that boys' brains don't typically reach until 15 to 20. [See here.](_URL_0_)", "They really aren't. They're frequently told they're better than their male counterparts in many ways because parents and teachers look at them as delicate flowers. It's an appeal to the female ego that's really quite insulting to girls. It treats them as if they are too delicate to handle the real facts. And, like everything else, if you repeat it long enough people will just take it as truth.", "Well, girls tend to hit (and thus progress through) puberty a couple years earlier than boys. But I suspect this has a lot more to do with socialization than anything.", "They just hide it better because acting out in public is seen as mature, so they copy that. Guys at that time of life do not care nearly as much." ]

[ "you quite answered by yourself:\n\nNormally we have modeled the phenomenon with the [Degree day](_URL_0_) which is somewhat the energy taken in a certain period of time.\n\nOf course the answer is much more complex of this *because* in reality there are many ways plants adopted to control the blooming, depending on where the habitat of the plant is.\n\nsecond question: yes. A frost can kill the buds and this agronomically speaking could be very dangerous.\n\na lesser known fact is that in temperate zones, plant have *usually* evolved a mechanism by which they don't bloom or sprout if they do not get [enough \"cold\"](_URL_1_). This is a defence mechanism exactly against early warm days." ]

[ "Hold up.....WHA?????? lol\n\n\nOk I know nothing of this legend BUT i do know that urine will break down into Nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium with many trace minerals. so in that respect it is actually one hell of a good fertilizer for any plant. If the salts were an issue there would be many a dead tree in dog parks....\n\nGive you an example. I have some huge rose bushes and people are always commenting on the size of the blooms and the strength of the rose smell. they always ask what I do and I say nothing special. but in reality I make sure I take at least one wizz a night in my garden lol. in this way they are getting raw pure nitrogen no different then the chemicals in miracle grow, and has the benefit of being natural which doesnt kill the soil microbes like chemical fertilizers do.\n\n\nIt's safe, it's free, and it's potential can match any commercial chemical fertilizers. (the Romans even made cleaning solutions from Urine)\n\n_URL_0_" ]

[ "Remember that the executing program is in memory, so it can delete any copy off the disk or whatever it loaded from, then reboot the system, which clears the memory.", "Sure, if the evidence it was there is all stored on the computer.", "Yes! In fact, it shouldn't be too hard. Since you know coding, I can talk a little more like 15 I guess.\n\nYou'll probably need a 1st level programming language. Basically delete everything, and then write random stuff on top a few times. Note that this only works with hard drives.\n\nThis method takes advantage of how the hard drive works, magnets! If you write over it a few times, the poles change a few times, it'd be very hard to actually find out what the bit used to be. So that's how you do it (if you really want to you can burn it.)", "Yeah. Windows XP SP1 used to do this all the time." ]

[ "Because the United States federal government is a Republic, not a Democracy. In particular, it is not a direct democracy where citizens vote on everything.", "Technically we \"did\" vote on it.\n\nWe chose to elect Obama, the 100 Senators and the 435 Members of the House. By electing them to their positions we placed vested in them the power to operate the government in our interests. At present some of our elected leaders believe that entering Syria is in the interest of the US. \n\nSo we did vote for them, that's why its important to vote and consider who you are voting for." ]

[ "The pressed disk has data on it in special places that you can't write your own data to on a writeable disk.", "A disk drive can tell the difference between a burnt disk (something you made at home) and a pressed disk (something made in the factory) because of the small differences in the disk. Because of the differences the disks have a header that tells a computer what type of disk it is so it knows how to read it correctly. \n\nBonus - So when modding modern consoles like the 360, you had to load custom firmware onto the dvd drive that told it to not freak out if it noticed the disk was a burned disk.", "The xbox and the ps3 both use headers/special disks that can be checked for authenticity. When loading a game from the disc, it checks to make sure that these sections (which cannot be burned to using commerical tools) are correct. It also checks region to make sure the disc is in the correct region (idk why they even do this anymore. Just let me play whatever the hell I want). \n\nThe gamecube was different because it used different discs (those small ass ones) and burned the data backwards I believe. The wii just burns the data backwards (spins the disc the opposite way as everything else), which means it is harder to create a replica of the disc. Also, you'd have to hack the firmware to bypass any checks/region locks still. \n\nThey all do region checks, so basically to get around the checks, you'd have to change the disc drive firmware. On the xbox360, some of them were easy because they stuck a samsung (or liteon, can't remember) in there with special firmware, and someone ended up finding the commercial driver for that disc drive and were able to put the firmware on there instead of the firmware that does auth checks. There were like 4 different drives that could have been in the xbox360, and I think only a couple of them had parallel drivers that could be put over the xbox 360. Also, they had to modify the operating system (you'd have to format your drive with a special modified xbox 360 operating system on your hard drive that would bypass checking that the firmware was a valid firmware).\n\nThe playstation 3 didn't really allow you to update the disc drive firmware I don't think until someone found a way to flash the NAND chips on some of the playstation 3s (not all of them could though). I think there was an OS hack in there as well, but I don't know much about modding the playstation 3, although I have been working on #rpcs3, so I know quite a bit about the internals, just not the operating system/hard ware exploits. \n\nThere's also some chips you can buy that you solder onto the motherboards. What these chips do is intercept these authenticity checks and then send back the correct data. Really not worth it and they're detectable (I think at the hardware level consoles can tell/do stuff to discover them) so its really a shot in the dark with those. I've never used hardware mods, but rather just software mods.", "Ok, I will explain how copy protection works on PS1 and PS2, since that's what I am well versed on, but I can't say definitively how it works on other consoles.\n\nSo to start, you have to understand that the tracks on CD/DVDs are not a perfect spiral. There is a \"wobble\", which is that the track itself moves back and forth in a sine wave perpendicular to the direction of the track. This \"wobble\" is 15 kilohertz and some change, IIRC. The tracks exist independently of the data, which is to say, when you buy a blank disc, the track, with its wobble, is already there. A Playstation game changes the wobble slightly on the lead-in (the part of the track closest to the center where that the drive uses to orient itself prior to reading any data). So when the head is orienting itself on the lead-in, it follows the wobble of the track. By measuring voltage and impedance of the motor that runs the head, the system is able to determine exactly how fast the head is moving back and forth, and determine that it is different from a normal 15khz. If the wobble is exactly correct, a analog-to-digital converter circuit then sends the okay (this depends on the region, for America the chip sends hex the representation of \"SCEA\") to the CPU and allows the game to be played.\n\nThis is why it is still impossible to play burned games on a PS1 without modifying the console in some fashion.", "Many methods of copy protection have been invented and cracked over the years. An example: PlayStation 1 (remember the black discs?) have a special CD Drive that can read data from a track on the disc that is not accessible using standard CD drives. The drive seeks to this special spot (near the center of the disc) and reads a special code from this track to verify game is legit. Hackers quickly found ways to get around this. The most prolific solution was to modify the PS1 to intercept the signal and respond with the appropriate code. This logic was built into a small integrated circuit and sold online as device allowing users to verify \"backup\" discs. If one has the 'mod chip' installed in the PS1, he/she can simply copy an original black disc using a typical CD burner then play it on the modified PS1. You know, so you didn't damage your original game disc by playing it. And stuff...", "one way is this...This is how they did it back in the diskette days but is probably still interesting/relevant.\n\nWhen you ask your operating system to make a copy of a disk, you are essentially saying \"please take data from here and put it there in whatever way you please\"\n\nWhen copying, operating systems don't generally *write to a specific track or sector* on the disk. Often the native copy command, can't for instance write to track 1, sector 1 specifically. \n\nSo when the creator makes the disk he puts a code right in that spot. If that code is not there when the software starts up (the s/w checks with a low level command, \"is there an X on track 1, sector 1) it knows it's a copy.", "also the dvd drivers usually let you know the type of disk via api calls (that come from firmware responses). The laser can detect what type of material makes up the disk)", "Read up on PS1 modchips. I'm not sure how modern systems do it." ]

[ "First, Tom and Jerry are a cat and mouse, not cat and dog (; \n\nIn the wild, dogs DO tend to chase cats. In the wild, dogs will also chase mice, rats, squirrels, rabbits, birds, raccoon and hell, anything else that runs away. They're hunters, it's what they do. \n\nNow, since most of those are *not* well-established pets (yes, including rabbits) it doesn't surprise people when dogs chase them. \n\nBut when dogs *live* with another creature - be it a cat *or* a rabbit or a bird or whatever - they can easily accept them as part of the Pack and recognise they are *not* prey. Especially if the dog was introduced to them at an early age. \n\nNote that this is not always true for every dog. Some dogs just never get along with any other animal - including other dogs." ]

[ "depends on the building I would imagine as my Fedex and UPS guys have access to the buildings also." ]

[ "A picture doesn't actually tell you that they're doing drugs - not even a video is actual proof. All they would need to do is say, \"I have an image and I was just acting. That wasn't really cocaine/meth/weed.\" If it's a white powder it could sugar, flour, or chalk dust.\n\nTweets are the same way. Just because you say you're doing something doesn't mean you ARE doing something.\n\nBasically, it'd be impossible to prove, without a doubt that they are, in fact, engaging in illegal drug use." ]

[ "Basically since the 1850s we have pushed them further and further (white encroachment) until in the 1890s when the Dawes Severalty Act was passed, the government paid them for land and separated tribes and what not.\n\nWell years pass, and they gradually get less land, and finally permanent reservations are established, but by this time; native Americans haven't kept up with modern jobs. Most are vulnerable to poverty and many don't graduate high school so drug addicted teens typically won't make it past 30, and will stay on sight becuase there is literally no where to go." ]

[ "They dont (referring to planet rotation). Venus, Uranus (and Pluto) rotate clockwise, the rest rotate counter-clockwise.\n\nWhen the solar system was first forming, it was nothing but a giant cloud of dust, and because of gravity and the Sun, it had a counter-clockwise spin to it, and as the planets began to form, they kept this rotation, which is why they all revolve around the sun in the same direction.\n\nVenus and Uranus are theorized to have clockwise rotations because they were probably impacted by large planetoids early in their development, which shifted their rotational axis, and in the case of Uranus, completely shifted the axis to horizontal." ]

[ "Look at a book from the top of the spine sometime - you will see that the paper is glued in bundles - 8 sheet/16 pages per bundle. \n\nIt is very cheap to make books with these bundles, so almost all books are printed this way. This means that the final page count needs to be a multiple of 16. \n\nSome of this can be taken up with \"other books by this author\" and other content, but sometimes, the pages are just left blank.", "Well often times you want to keep formatting consistent across the whole book/document, so you may intentionally add blank pages in certain places to accomplish this. For example, you may decide you want to start new sections or chapters on the left side of the book only. So if previous section or chapter finishes on left side page, then you may intentionally add a blank page so that the next section starts on a left side page.\n\nParticularly when it comes to legal and official documents the term \"Page Intentionally Left Blank\" will often be printed on blank pages. This is designed to prevent others from, for example, secretly inserting legal clauses or other content on those pages that were left blank in the original document. It can also be used to inform the reader that they are not missing anything (e.g. it's not a printing fault or other issue, the page is supposed to be blank).", "Most of the answers are incorrect, here's why. When printing the book, imagine you have a huge sized paper that fits 4, 8 or even 16 of the regular book-sized pages on them. Like this; \n\n_URL_0_\n\nWhat happens is that you print all of the pages, back and front, and then fold, or \"perforate\", the pages to make them into a book. What would happen if the book ended halfway through pages in the picture? Then you'd have empty pages!\n\nFor example, if a book with 318 pages of content is printed using 32-page signatures, it will require 10 signatures, 320 pages in total. At the very end of the book — that is, at the end of the last signature — there will be 2 unused (blank) pages.\n\nChapters usually start on an odd-numbered page, (1, 3, 5) and therefore, if the preceding chapter happens to have an odd number of pages, a blank page is inserted at the end.", "On military documents it is important that the reader knows that no information has been lost.", "In physical books, it is because of the way the book is printed.\n\nIn eBooks, it is for stylistic reasons.\n\nIn documents, it is generally to ensure you don't think you missed anything important.\n\nAlso, there is a conspiracy theory that its just to increase page cout :-)", "It says that so you don't think that the printer skipped a page by mistake. That used to be more common than it is today due to technology, but the practice continues.", "These answers are too long: basically for double sided printing. You don't want a chapter starting on the left page usually." ]

[ "oil on fingers and all your finger shit gets on my pretty screen and I have to wipe it off.\n\nMy pretty screen takes a lot of maintanence and careful wiping to keep it smudge free. Then you come in with your cheeto fingers and now there are orange smudges where my spreadsheet folder is. \n\nnerdhulk is angry but to beta to do anything about it, so nerdhulk complains on reddit.\n\nTL;DR people who care about their equipment notice things like smudges and oil stains on a monitor, especially if you spend all damn day looking at it. therefore, touching a computer screen that isn't yours is kind of a shit thing to do.\n\nAs far as ones that are yours, well if you want a crappy smudgy computer screen, go for it. But there is no advantage to be gained from touching the screen in order to show where to click/go. Also if you poke it too hard you might break the screen." ]

[ "* cats don't have the same sense of territory that makes dogs roam and mark\n* cats don't pose a serious danger to people, so letting them out doesn't threaten anyone\n* cats can climb, jump over, or crawl through obstacles dogs can't", "Dogs have a larger territory: If you let a dog out in the morning they easily could roam five miles away.\n\nDogs are easier for strangers to handle: Dogs have a damn near unconditional love for all humans and if somebody shows them affection they'll go home with them (even if temporarily)\n\nWe've been trained to not let our dogs out. \n\nQuick anecdote from earlier today: I'm dogsitting for a friend's dog and she's staying at my place. She slipped out of the back yard. By the time I realized (she was probably gone for an hour or so) I check the back and look down the alley. Seeing she's long gone I rush out my front door and guess who starts scratching at my gate? Dogs are generally fine to roam free but society won't let them.", "I have family in El Salvador. They live in a small town with just a couple roads leading in. My grandma there has a dog that is allowed to roam free just as cats here are. When we used to walk into town he'd accompany us from a distance, casually marking his territory on whatever caught his attention. He wasn't a danger to anybody or any other dogs and I guess he must have been smart enough to not get run over. Dogs in general just seemed really chill over there. He disappeared and we didn't always know where he was but he always turned up. Back here in the states, there are way too many roads and obstacles for a dog to live like that.", "In the early 1960's it was common to let your dogs roam around the neighborhood. Ours did. She always came home. \n\nA lot of people in rural areas still do this.\n\nMostly dogs are kept inside or in fences because in general an aggressive dog is far more dangerous and far more common than an aggressive cat; also, it's in their nature for dogs to form packs, and a *pack* of aggressive dogs is a real menace." ]

[ "HIV is a virus, AIDS is a condition. HIV the virus destroy a certain kind of immune cells that helps make antibodies, molecules that identify and tag diseases so other cells can destroy them. So when cells die you can't make antibodies. When enough of these cells die (I think it's 90%), you are said to have AIDS. TLDR; HIV is a virus, AIDS is a condition caused by it", "HIV is the virus that causes AIDS. If you have HIV in you, you're very likely to develop AIDS, but technically you're not sick until HIV develops into AIDS.\n\nA super dumbed-down analogy would be the difference between putting orange juice powder in a glass of water, and stirring it. Until you do the latter, it's not actually orange juice yet.", "HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) is, as its name suggests, a virus that compromises your immune system.\n\nAIDS (acquired immunodeficiency syndrome) is, as its name suggests, a collection of symptoms (that is, a syndrome) that results from having a compromised immune system, like if you had an advanced HIV infection." ]

[ "There is greater genetic difference between two individuals than there are between the \"races\", the concept of race is fundamentally superficial genetically speaking, in fact humans are one of the most homogeneous species known to exist\n\nFor two animals to be considered different species, they must not be able to produce successful offspring - this is clearly not the case with different races of human", "The difference between human races are like the difference between one zebras stripes and another zebras stripes.", "Much the same reason that Labrador, Pug and Irish Setter are not species. There are genetic differences between them that are in fact much smaller than you would imagine judging from their appearance. \n\nAt the end of the day they're just all dogs.", "Animals of the same species are not classified as different species unless a mistake has been made. Why would we then purposely classify the species Homo sapiens as different species?", "One of the criteria for having a separate species of the same animal is the relative 'genetic distance' between two individuals of a species. Namely, this term means how different two different members of the same species compare in the structure of both of their genes.\n\nFor example, let's have humans A and B. A is a human that lives and whose ancestors lived in Brazil, B is a human who lives and has lived in Kazakhstan. While their skin pigment, retinal pigment, and hair pigment may be different in terms of color and structure, you can find all of the data that codes for their respective traits on the same place in their genome. Thus, their genetic distance is close enough for them to be classified as the same species." ]

[ "I think your straw poll may have misled you...the artists you describe generally have their art in museums, not galleries. For example, Da Vinci...art in museums (think of the Mona Lisa in the Louvre). \n\nContemporary art can be in both galleries and museums. I believe it has to do with the intent of the art. Museums are for viewing. Art Galleries are for purchasing." ]

[ "I like this question, generally banks or lending institutions extend lines of credit, but use statistical algorithms to decide how much money to keep available, so it's possible Visa might run out of money, since this is an essentially impossible occurrence, for which they are not prepared." ]

[ "Short answer: Fashion is about making sacrifices, and its no wonder women always complain about being cold.\n\nLong answer: Its a factor of a number of things. Women shave their legs, and hair is specifically designed to keep people warm. Leggings do a number of things. first, they act as insulation, by helping to trap heat in the body. They also have their own heat capacity, so that your body isn't affected by every little draft and breeze (the energy is pulled from the leggings, which can be replenished from other parts of leggings and from your body at a slower rate). \n\nBut for all of the above, it only works to a point. Try googling techniques on improving insolation if you're curious; there's some really cool stuff out there to learn. Girls are willing to freeze their butts off to look good when its cold enough. Also, if they're inside most of the time, its not as bad. Its only a problem if they're outside for longer periods of time, and not just walking from the car to the store. It all comes down to insulation and thermal storage.", "For me it's two words: Fleece-lined. Marvelous, I tell you. Keeps you kinda toasty even if you're in the Midwest like me. Sometimes she might be wearing an extra pair.", "Leggings work well for two reasons:\n\n* The material leggings are made from is good at trapping tiny pockets of air within itself. Air is a very good insulator. \n\n* Because leggings fit right up against your skin, they keep that insulating layer of air pockets right up against you skin.", "I was always pretty sure that leggings were originally invented to go under clothes as a thermal lining. Kind of like Long Johns but for females. But I could be wrong." ]

[ "Basically you weren't looking for it before, but now that its in your subconscious, you notice and process it, giving the illusion of frequency. This is called the [Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon](_URL_0_).", "(1) you're just paying more attention to it, or \n\n(2) read The Celestine Prophecy by James Redfield- you'll be blown away.\n\nHint: it's #2." ]

[ "The active ingredient is [Allyl isothiocyanate](_URL_0_) which is mainly to deter animals - caterpillars etc. and larger animals like grazers - from eating the plant.\n\nIt harms bacteria too by damaging their cell membranes, which are the outer containers holding all the machinery inside their cells. When this membrane is damaged, they start leaking, stop working properly and die. The exact way it damages them isn't fully understood yet." ]

[ "Your belly button is where your umbilical arteries/vein connected to the placenta via the umbilical cord. After birth they shrivel up and become ligaments (fibrous tisue), the arteries becoming the [medial umbilical ligament](_URL_0_) and vein becoming the [round ligament of the liver](_URL_1_). They don't do anything post-birth.", "Like you're five? Your belly button was once used to give you food before you were born, and now it's a scar. Behind the belly button you have leftovers from the umbilical cord, which now do nothing.\n \n \nINTERESTING FACT: Behind your belly button is the leftover stuff, which has shrunk and now is basically just nerves and fibers, including the urachus. I had a urachal resection, aka had mine removed. Anyone talking about feeling it in their goodies when you poke your belly button: that is because your belly button is inadvertently attached to your bladder, and then your goodies by the urachus! I had mine removed because I would get crippling pain from it, it felt like someone was shoving a glass tube in my junk and hitting it with a hammer, going inside me and to my belly button. Your urachus is usually about the width of a coffee stirring straw (up to 1cm i think), mine was larger than a thumb in width. :D", "I'm genuinely interested in this. When I poke into my belly button, all sorts of weird sensations emanate from around the area. What is it attached to? Is it hitting my colon? If I stabbed myself with a screwdriver in my bellybutton, would I hit anything important?", "Umbilical scar. I've seen (probably on Reddit) pics of someone who pulled out their belly button... small shriveled umbilical cord that was on the INSIDE. Ew.\n\nOne of the comments said when people do this, it often causes bleeding and requires stitches (although not in the picture example). So probably don't rip it out.", "It's not attached to anything, it is just a scar. The muscles underneath are also slightly dipped.", "My wife is pregnant and her belly button has been pushed out and it just looks like a healed round scar. So I can confirm that at least it's not a hole connected to your stomach as I used to think.", "I have a deep belly button. If I poke in there hard and feel enough, my lower intestines hurt. Kinda like a low stomach ache. Then I usually have to have a poo.", "I have an fear of it 'unraveling' if someone pokes it, like the twisty bit coming out and my belly just opens like a drawstring bag. \n\nI'm like 90% sure this is irrational but can someone confirm for me?", "my belly button smells like shit... it also really hurts if you poke it and i can feel it in my balls", "Sort of relevant story: I had this weird pain around my belly button once. In the beginning it was just a little bit of pressure but it got *alot* worse over the day. It was an indescribably uncomfortable feeling, so uncomfortable that it scared me.\nAfter 6-8 hours of me complaining my mom took me to the hospital, thinking it might be a hernia or something. It wasn't and the doctors had no fucking clue what it could be so they did some tests. After all of them came back ok, the doctor sent my mom out and asked me if I was faking. I told him I wasn't, so he told me to lie down. Then, without warning, he started poking his finger into my belly button as deep as possible. It was so painful I teared up and *screamed*!\nI had never experienced this much pain in my life and he was like \"Oh.. is it really *that* painful?\" ... then he did it another 2-3 times, surprised every time at how much pain I was apparently in.\nHis conclusion was, yes it hurt but it's probably not life threatening so he sent me home. The pain went away a few hours later. \n\n**tl;dr:** Belly buttons are fucking weird.", "How did primitive man handle a new born 's belly button? Did everyone just have outies?", "My (idiot) father honestly believes that if you push hard enough on your belly button, air will seep out of your head and you will die. I see no logic at all what so ever in his thinking now, but when he told me that when I was five it scared the crap out of me.", "To remind you that you are born of another human being, with which you have an eternal connection with.", "Your belly button is where the umbilical cord was attached. It no longer serves a purpose.", "Random fact: I'm looking to get a procedure done where I will pee out of my belly button. True story. Let that ruminate awhile." ]

[ "if i understand correctly:\n\n1st degree - you plan to kill someone and you kill them (ex: you find out your wife is cheating on you, so you go the store, buy a gun, hide in the bushes somewhere and kill your wife)\n\n2nd degree - you kill someone in the \"heat of the moment\" (ex: walk in on you wife cheating, so you pull out your gun and shoot her)\n\n3rd degree - manslaughter, you meant to hurt someone but not kill them, but they die anyway (ex: you confront your wife about cheating, slap her, she falls down, hits her head and croaks)", "Imagine you are on the playground and you see Timmy, another boy you don't like.\n\nIf you have been planning to beat Timmy up and go ahead and go through with plan and beat Timmy up, that is **1st Degree Murder** (Causing the death of another willfully and with premeditation)\n\n\n\nIf your friend beats up Timmy and you help, but hadn't known you were going to get into a fight, and hadn't planned on it before, thats **2nd Degree Murder** (Causing the death of another that is not planned or premeditated in advance)\n\n\nIf you see Timmy and he has a toy you want and you try to take it from him and he fights you over it and you beat him up, that is also **2nd Degree Murder** ( Causing the death of another without planning it in advance)\n\n\n\nIf you see Timmy and he calls you a booger face and are really mad at him and kick a rock at him,that is **Voluntary Manslaughter** (any intentional killing that involved no prior intent to kill, and which was committed under such circumstances that would \"cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed.\")\n\n\n\nIf you see Timmy and you are walking by him and you trip and when falling you knock him down and he scrapes his knee, this is **Involuntary Manslaughter** (a death stemming from unintentional, but reckless or criminally negligent behavior)\n\n\n\nIf Timmy is a crossing guard at your school and you hurt him, you may be guilty of **1st Degree murder** even if you hadn't planned it out beforehand.\n\n\n\nAt some Schools you may be in trouble for **2nd degree murder** if your friend beats Timmy up, even if you hadn't known it was going to happen before.\n\n\n\nIf you are taking drugs your Mommy gave you to make you sit still in class and pay attention and you stop taking those pills without telling her, you may not be guilty of Murder, but you'll probably have to go live in the Hospital with bad people.\n\n\n_URL_0_", "First, it's important to keep in mind that there are huge variations in the definitions of murder and manslaughter from state to state. In any given state, murder and manslaughter are basically what state laws say they are.\n\nBut there are a few basic commonalities. **Murder**, in its essence, is **intentional killing**. That is, you did something with the knowledge that someone will die because of what you did. In some states, this \"intention\" includes \"extreme indifference.\" So for example, if you go on the street and start shooting willy-nilly in every direction and someone gets hit and dies, the law will usually say that you were showing such a level of indifference to human life that you may as well have intended the death that you caused.\n\nSome states split murder into first-degree and second-degree. **First-degree** usually means that you **premeditated** the murder. **Premeditation** means **intention** plus **planning**, and is a way for the law to punish \"cold-bloodedness\" more heavily. A lot of states have gotten rid of this distinction, though, because it's hard to draw the line between what is \"planned\" and what is \"unplanned.\"\n\n**Manslaughter**, for the most part, means **unintentional killing**. But this doesn't mean that anything you do that leads to someone else's death is manslaughter. Generally, the law says that you need to have been acting **recklessly** or **negligently**. Reckless means that you were aware of the risk of death, but ignored it. Negligent means that you were not necessarily aware of the risk, but should have been. If you weren't behaving recklessly or negligently, and didn't intend the death, then you are not guilty of either manslaughter or murder. This is why surgeons are ordinarily not criminally liable for the patients they kill.\n\nThere is also **voluntary manslaughter**, which, by the definitions I've set out above, should actually be considered murder. One way to think of voluntary manslaughter is that it's basically \"murder lite\" - it's murder, but the law wants to give you a break because you're less blameworthy than ordinary murderers. This \"reduction\" is generally granted when you can show that you were under \"**extreme mental disturbance**,\" which is just a fancy way to say that you were in the heat of the moment. Because we as a society feel that people who kill in a moment of passion are less responsible for their actions than people who kill while rational, we lower what would otherwise be murder to manslaughter so that we can impose lower sentences.\n\nEDIT: formatting and clarity.", "Okay, imagine you're walking along the edge of a cliff with a friend, and both of you see a $100 dollar bill on the ground at the same time.\n\nNow, imagine that someone told you yesterday that that $100 dollar bill was going to be there, and you decided last night that, as soon as your friend saw that $100 dollar bill, you were going to push him over the edge of the cliff. You were so excited about getting the money you wrote all about it in your diary. When you see the $100 dollar bill, you push your friend over the cliff, put the money in your pocket, and go home. That's **first-degree murder**.\n\nNow, imagine that neither you nor your friend knew that the money was going to be there. You see the money at the same time, and both of you jump for it and start fighting over the money. Eventually, you get so angry that you push your friend over the cliff and take the money for yourself. That's **second-degree murder**.\n\nNow, imagine you're walking about thirty feet from the edge of the cliff when you see the $100 bill. You both go after it, and start fighting over it, and you get angry and push your friend. Somehow, he stumbles, stumbles, rolls, rolls, trips, and falls over the edge of the cliff. It's still your fault because you did something stupid and dangerous, but you didn't really mean to kill him. That's **manslaughter**." ]

[ "**Socialism** \nSocialism is a big word that actually covers a VERY LARGE variety of political ideologies. Socialism can be ran by the state or anarchic, it can be national or a small community, it can be communist or have markets in it. \nThe IMPORTANT part, which frankly no \"socialist\" country has actually achieved, is that the Means of Production are owned not by any one individual, by by the communities themselves. Some forms of socialism are merely means to implement communism too, which is a very specific type of socialism. \nSo yeah, socialism is a huge over-arching term that covers a lot.\n \n \n**Democratic Socialism** \nSo one of the first fracturing points in the socialist ideologies is HOW a society is going to implement socialism. You have some camps (Leninists) who advocate violently wrenching control of the state from the capitalist overlords and using it to implement socialism, and eventually communism. \n \nIt is now that I would like to point out most socialists, and ALL communists, think this is stupid as hell. You will scarcely see any of us advocating for a recreation of the USSR.\n \nNow, Democratic Socialism is simply socialism that intends to implement itself by playing the governments rules. In the U.S.A. this would mean electing DemSoc politicians who will attempt to lay the groundwork for a socialist society. Democratic Socialism also likes to \"Band-Aid\" the current capitalist system by helping the disenfranchised and marginalized through welfare.\n \nHowever, this is still a socialism that is ran by the state, and you have whole armies of socialists who think this is absolutely silly and will just lead to more Authoritative State Socialist bullshit.\n \nAnd, for the record, \n**SOCIALISM =/= GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS** \nThat so completely misses the point that it hurts...", "A few days ago I found an interview with Prof. Wolff posted on reddit [Marxism 101: How Capitalism is Killing Itself ](_URL_1_).\n\nAn in this lecture he explains the difference very well:\n\n[Socialism for Dummies](_URL_0_)\n\nBoth videos let me understand the concept of socialism better than reading articles about it.\n\nEdit: Formatting.", "Socialism is system of government ( & economics) where certain programs and means are owned by the community.\n\nThis exists in the United States. For example, a public park. It's groundskeeping, maintenance, employees and services are all paid for by public tax dollars - for the public good - regardless of whether or not each individual in the community uses them. \n\nThe same can be said about roads, a fire department, social security, medicare, and schools. Even the military. None of these things are privately-held companies. We pay a tax because we decided it's better everyone has access to such services, rather than just those that can afford it. \n\nThere are various extremes of socialism. \nOn one end, we have Communism - in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs. The government/communities own all the companies and will ration your needs for you. A major goal is to end classism through economic equality.\n\nOn a lesser extreme, we have Social Democracies. Note: this isn't to say that Communists cannot have democracies (free elections). Social Democracies are more of a 'hybrid' system, that exist within the framework of modern capitalism. \n\nAmerican Social Democrats not only support the socialist programs we already have in place in the United States, but would prefer to *expand* community services. This generally means Universal Healthcare and Tuition-Free University. This could also mean regulating the market in such a way that narrows income gaps between CEOs and lowest-paid-employees - or making sure all citizens have internet access.\n\nEdit: There are some comments here that are *also* correct. What people frequently misunderstand is that that these concepts have *several* generally accepted definitions. And they might not always 100% agree if it regards Marxist Theory or contemporary politics. \n\nTo add, I do not advocate or condemn socialism. This is a pretty straight-forward reply - any assumption is just a projection. In truth, every system of government and economics are ripe for abuse and corruption. \n\n\"It makes no difference which one you vote for. Either way, your planet is doomed. DOOMED!\" Kang & Kodos, 2016, baby!!", "Many answers have been given already but let me add a European/historic take on the term socialist.\nIMHO and as I heard in a recent interview with a philosopher on Swiss TV the term \"socialist\" has been interpreted in a variety of ways in the past.\n\na) The first \"S\" in USSR stands for socialist while we would generally classify the USSR as communist.\n\nb) The other countries of the East Block (East Germany, Czechoslovakia, etc.) were also called socialist countries while allowing much more individual freedom and private property than the USSR.\n\nc) The \"leftist\"/working-class parties in Western Europe (Sweden, Austria, Denmark, etc.) used to be called \"socialist parties\" and during the 80's/90's changed their names to \"social-democratic\" parties. \n\nd) The leftist party in France (current president Hollande) is still called \"Socialist Party\" while not being anti-capitalist or pro socializing the Means of Production.\n\nSo you see, socialist has always meant different things in different times and places.\n\n\n\nI assume your original question refers to Bernie Sanders.\n\nHe appeared some 5 years ago on Bill Maher's show and called himself a social-democrat and frequently named the Skandinavian left parties as his political ideology. (I've been a fan of Bernie ever since.) Why Bernie now changed from social-democrat to democratic socialist, I don't know.\n\nTo clarify this again: None of the current social-democratic parties in Europe are anti-capitalist or want to take anyone's means of production and give them to the communities. They are in favor of capitalism and private ownership BUT also for high taxes on the rich and the (upper) middle class in order to \n\na) achieve redistribution of income and wealth from the top to the bottom\n\nb) pay for services provided by the government, e.g. public transport, public housing, free college, free pre-schools and kindergarten, free health care, etc. \n\n\nTo sum it up: I think Bernie does not want to fundamentally change the way American society and business function. He simply wants to make the US more European/Scandinavian by raising taxes on the well-to-do and in turn provide more public services that disproportionately benefit the poor and the lower middle class. Basically the stuff we do here in Europe.", "A traditional socialist believes the government should run businesses and directly manage the economy to to evenly distribute wealth and resources. \n\nA Democratic Socialist, more commonly referred to as a Social Democrat, believes in an underlying capitalist system, but one that is highly regulated to prevent monopolies and excessive corruption, with certain sectors related to the public good being run by the state.", "Socialism refers to an economic system where the workers control the means of production, and are compensated the FULL value of their labor. Let's use widgets as an example. Under a capitalist system, a business owner decides to build a factory that makes widgets. He hires people to work in his factory making widgets, and then pays them less than the value they produce, and he keeps the rest as profit. Conversely, under socialism, all the workers own the widget factory, and then split the revenue generated by widget sales between themselves according to how much labor each person contributed. Socialism is often thought of as a transitional stage to communism, which is where we simply produce and consume goods as we need them, and don't have money as a means of exchange.\n\nDemocratic socialism simply refers to a socialist society that has a democratic government, in contrast to ostensibly socialist societies (such as the USSR) that had a single party that wielded unchecked, total state power.", "Socialism: A system where the workers democratically own and control the means of production e.g. the factories, machines etc.\n\nDemocratic Socialism: A ideology of socialism where socialism is achieved through small reforms to capitalism until eventually socialism is achieved, best described by the Fabian society as \"For the right moment you must wait, as Fabius did most patiently, when warring against Hannibal, though many censured his delays; but when the time comes you must strike hard, as Fabius did, or your waiting will be in vain, and fruitless.\"", "Economist here. There are already some good answers here, but I thought I might add a different perspective on the issue and discuss one of the really important tradeoffs between socialism and capitalism. (It involves the relationship between competition and innovation, which is one of my research interests.)\n\nSocialism is, to one degree or another, a departure from pure capitalism, which we can define as meaning that markets are free, and commercial property is privately-owned by people acting in their own self interest. The hallmark of capitalism is competition, and the conscious reliance on competition to allocate goods and services in a (hopefully) efficient way. However, capitalism usually does not achieve perfect efficiency; it typically engenders some deadweight loss, or fails to allocate things perfectly for one reason or another. Although it is not usually described in precisely this way, socialism is aimed principally at diminishing the extent to which competition controls the allocation of goods and services (and the distribution of wealth, of course). \n\nThe direct result of socialism is either that there is no incentive to compete (this would be a strong form of socialism that abandons the market system entirely) or more commonly that the benefits of succeeding in the competitive landscape are diminished due to some kind of wealth redistribution that narrows the difference between winning and losing. \n\nThere are benefits to this, particularly when it is fine-tuned to specific markets where we can see that capitalism generates a market failure problem (e.g. health insurance). However, the downside of socialism, which almost never comes up in typical debates on the subject, is that the absence of competition diminishes the incentive to innovate or improve one's product/service (this could be something as simple as providing good customer service). For example, there is a famous example about a nail factory in Soviet Russia that was told simply that it had to make some number X of nails, and that its employees would be paid some fixed amount no matter how things turn out (note this is not at all how markets work.) So what did the nail factory do? It made really shitty, tiny nails. It had no incentive to do a better job, because it doesn't make more money when it produces better results. Similarly, it is generally accepted that Comcast is such a horrible piece of shit because it faces so little competition, which means it feels little pressure to make you happy. \n\nRecent economic research on the relationship between competition and innovation has come to a broad consensus that, in order to create the best incentives to innovate and improve, you want a healthy amount of competition, but not *too* much competition. This is the \"[inverted U hypothesis](_URL_2_).\" This has never been applied to the question of socialism vs capitalism (at least to my knowledge), but it embodies the same tradeoff between the bad aspects of competition and the good aspects of competition. It stands for the proposition that you want some rivalry, but not too much, which is a little like saying you want a \"light\" version of socialism that still relies predominantly on markets, but also spreads the wealth, so to speak. \n\nThis is how I think about the capitalism/socialism distinction, based on my experience as a micro/IO economist.", "Not a lot of ELI5 here, so here:\n\nSocialism is a huge subject and people will often immediately think of dictatorships when hearing that word.\n\nDemocratic socialism is just a part. If the USA became that, they would be doing the same as pretty much all of Europe.\n\nTo describe it separately, it is this: redistribution of wealth and power from the top, down.\n\nThis means that there will be more money to the government from taxes, and the government promises to use it for the greater good. (Universal healthcare would be an example)\n\nMany people will also argue that socialism itself is not bad, but rather how people have tried to do it. *Democratic* in democratic socialism tells you how they want to do it.\n\nThink of it like hearing about Chlorine and liquid Chlorine after WWII and that they were using it in pools and drinking water. People would freak out because they know just how bad Chlorine *gas* is.", "You would be better off asking this in /r/socialism101. \n\nIf you decide not to at least don't believe that socialism is the government owns and operates stuff. That is simply not true.", "Democratic socialism is one big tautology - there can be no socialism without democracy because socialism literally means replacing economic feudalism(aka capitalism) with economic democracy(aka worker self-management).\n\nWhat most people consider \"traditional Socialism\" was not even socialism,and no,this is not a No True Scotsman because socialism before Leninism meant worker control over the means of production. \n\nThe so-called \"traditional socialism\" was totalitarian state capitalism,because economic feudalism and the functions of the capital were not abolished. Instead of having many capitalists in competition,you had one huge capitalist - the state.\n\nA prominent anarchist,Mikhail Bakunin,even said,decades before the Russian Revolution,that if socialists attempted to use state power,nothing would change and in fact it will be even worse then capitalism. And he was right.", "I think there's really no difference between the two when it comes to their end goal. The only difference is \"democratic socialists\" still believes in the rules/law of the state while \"traditional socialists\" wants to achieve that goal through direct means like violence/uprising.\n\nWelfare, food programs, free education does not equal socialism. They are a social program that is meant to help the marginalized because the \"state\" understands that not everyone has a good standing in the community. Will \"socialist countries\" have social programs? Yes and no because it is not the end-goal of socialism. End goal of socialism is where the public/community controls the industry. So why does democratic countries have social programs? Because a democratic country is strong if everyone in that country is strong. A democratic country should be in essence, have everyone's voice in it so their needs and wants are heard and assessed by the community at large.\nCapitalism is just an unintended consequence of democracy. It should be not the end goal but because of how laws are implemented in democratic rule and because of people's drive to \"rise to the top\" capitalism is strong in democratic countries.\n\n\"Real socialism\" is a slippery slope to anything and everything. What will happen if a socialist is in power of a democratic country? Will he try to implement the end-goal of socialism? Will he punish \"top brass\" by giving their companies back to the community for them to control? Or will he make laws so nobody will be \"on top\" and everybody is in equal footing making everyone aka communism? Or maybe even make all necessary industry state-owned, giving people \"fake control\" by saying you voted for us but in reality it is for them to have all the power.\n\nSocialism might be good or might not be because there are really no \"socialist\" country in the world. All countries that they say are socialist are really totalitarian, one party rule or really just a more conservative form of democracy.", "If you're a Trump supporter or someone who thinks Olive Garden is \"fancy\", there is no difference.", "The differences between Democratic Socialism and Socialism are mostly nuances. They are essentially for the same goal, they just state their mission as being slightly more palatable for political reasons.\n\n_URL_3_\n\n > Democratic socialists do not want to create an all-powerful government bureaucracy. But we do not want big corporate bureaucracies to control our society either. Rather, we believe that social and economic decisions should be made by those whom they most affect.\n\n > Today, corporate executives who answer only to themselves and a few wealthy stockholders make basic economic decisions affecting millions of people. Resources are used to make money for capitalists rather than to meet human needs. **We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them.**\n\n > Social ownership could take many forms, such as worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and consumer representatives. Democratic socialists favor as much decentralization as possible. While the large concentrations of capital in industries such as energy and steel may necessitate some form of state ownership, many consumer-goods industries **might** be best run as cooperatives.\n\n > Democratic socialists have long rejected the belief that the whole economy should be centrally planned. While we believe that democratic planning can shape major social investments like mass transit, housing, and energy, market mechanisms are needed to determine the demand for many consumer goods.", "Socialism is an ideology. Democratic Socialist is a specific political party, which may be different in different countries.", "OP, this might get buried, but this is a loaded question. What do you think a traditional socialist is? Because Democratic Socialism can be seen as its current default. All socialists wish for the workers to control the means of production. Most people realise the only way this can happen in a liberal democracy and stay is by winning elections. You might notice the above definition pushes Sanders out of the definition. This is because he is a social democrat, he doesn't pursue communal ownership, simply he wants greater equality and higher standard of living. \n\nIf by traditional socialist you mean the USSR, then the difference is that they are 'Orthodox Communists'. They believe that the means of production can only be seized by force, and often most of the proletariat (workers) are to brainwashed (Engels describes this as a false consciousness) to realise they are getting ripped off by capitalism. The state assumes control of industry (this is the communal ownership aspect) and acts as a 'dictatorship of the proletariat' (basically they act in the interest of the workers). Eventually the state is supposed to 'wither away', as everything has been distributed according to needs. This last bit never happened.\n\nTLDR; USSR communists are revolutionary, democratic socialists implement socialism via standard government.", "The effective difference is in leadership. Traditional Socialism has had a supreme leader and evolved or devolved (depending on perspective) into extreme socialism or communism. Whereas Democratic Socialism utilizes and maintains the republic to promote and enact socialistic programs." ]

[ "They're fully grown before they start to ripen. The ripening process is caused by the plant growth regulator (like a plant hormone or plant neurotransmitter) 'ethylene', and begins to turn starch in the banana into sugar.\n\nBananas are not the only fruit to work this way (storage then ripening). It's a common survival strategy because it lets you make sure your seeds and fruit are fully mature before anything tries to eat it (as opposed to ripening while growing)." ]

[ "My understanding:\n\nFirst, in a rainstorm, lots of ants drown. Even being well prepared for an event like a flood doesn't mean everyone survives, and not every plan is executed perfectly. The best laid plans of ants and men, etc . . . \n\nSecond, different species take different approaches. Some fire ants just link legs/arms, turn into living rafts, and float to somewhere new, where they can build a new nest. Same thing with some Amazonian ants when they need to cross rivers. Some construct the opening of their nests to resist penetration by water. \n\nFrom what I've seen briefly researching, the most common strategy is just building in the right place. Ants build their nests in soil that dries quickly and water doesn't necessarily penetrate that far, so they can just go deeper and wait out the wetness. \n\nThink of this last bit like adding water to flour when you're making bread. Even if the water \"floods\" the top layer of flour, unless you mix it, the bottom layer will stay quite dry. If the ants nest extends below that wet/dry barrier, than it will stay dry. \n\nSo, to sum up, Some ants just go with the flow. Some reinforce against water, and many build in places where flooding is likely to do only manageable damage. And, when these strategies don't work, they die." ]

[ "> I don't really think it's fair to pay...\n\nSince when did your concept of fairness enter into the equation?" ]

[ "They are actually enforced more than they *ever* have been. Its just a much more complex and \"known\" situation now, that its very very uninteresting to report on for the media, so unless you're very inovolved in how this stuff works in specific industries of business, you'll probably never hear about all of the stuff going on.\n\nPretty much everyone in business, economics, and the govt agencies simply know how all of this stuff can work, and will work, and there isn't too many unknowns out there any more, which makes it so that all of these mergers and stuff, you simply don't do it unless its legitimate, because thats bad business to have stuff denied. \n\nThe US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) who is the main US agency who deals with this type of stuff, is also considered to be crazy good at their job, and the world's gold standard-- basically, they know their shit, everyone knows they know their shit, so they make things very reasonable, enforceable, and known. In other words, no one is trying to do weird stuff, because their know the FTC isn't having any of that.", "They still are Comcast was allowed to buy NBC , but had to sell the Hulu piece off. Couple years later Comcast wasn't allowed to buy Time Warner . \n\nAlso Sysco foods (distribution) was blocked from buying US foods\n\nThose two come to recent mind", "They still are. The difference is now they aren't pursued just because the government sees a company as being too big (take Berkshire Hathaway, Pepsico, etc for example) but rather they (they being the Federal Trade Commission) enforce these laws when companies are doing something *anti-competitive*. This is stuff like fixing prices or selling goods for a loss. They also enforce them when companies merge and will become dominate because of that." ]

[ "The government *does* regulate and control auto insurance.", "In Canada, vehicle registration includes the cost of mandatory minimum liability insurance. It works pretty well.\n\nWhy not in the US? Politics. In the same way that Obamacare forces us to get insurance through private, for-profit companies, the insurance lobby & the anti-government folks have enough power to prevent the government from socializing car insurance." ]

[ "Sugar-water has a higher boiling point than pure water, and the more sugar is dissolved, the higher that point is. So when you've got boiling syrup, it might be 230 or 240 degrees (F). When you pour vanilla extract onto something that hot, it's *going* to boil, since it's got an even lower boiling point than water, since it contains a lot of alcohol.", "Vanilla extract contains about 35% alcohol. As soon as it touches the screaming hot sugar, the alcohol pretty much instantly boils from liquid to gas. The sudden rush of gas moves relatively slowly through the thick sugar, causing a huge burst of bubbles as it escapes." ]

[ "nicotine is an upper similar to amphetamines that improve performance, and since tobacco is legal, a lot of people use it. dip just happens to be a more socially acceptable way of getting tobacco" ]

[ "You can think of traction control as basically ABS in reverse. When you accelerate, the car senses whether the tires are slipping on the pavement. If they are, it will automatically adjust the throttle to help them keep traction.", "Traction control is basically the opposite of the Anti-blocking system (ABS) that almost every modern car has. It prevents the wheels of losing grip on the track/road/surface by limiting the power output that goes to the wheels. The means by which this is done is via computer that monitors the rotation of the wheels. Once it detects that one of the driving wheels is spinning faster then the other(s) it immediately limits the power and torque going to this wheel. The mechanics behind the process are a bit difficult to explain as it includes clever differentials, shutting down whole cylinders in the engine, retarding the ignition spark etc etc. Check google for more info on the matter. Hope I helped." ]

[ "Things like well pumps have electric motors like fans do. They require a capacitor to get the motor going and then the normal current can sustain it. Like how you can't start in 5th gear but you can drive in fifth gear after you get going. Fans have this configuration to extend the life of the fan. They can normally start on one when they are new, but over time the lube wears down and dust gets in there and friction grows and this friction needs to be overcome to get the fan going. When it gets bad 1 won't work if you switch it directly to it. You need to start it on 3 and then it can keep going on 1. Putting 3 first allows for this to be done without most people noticing and allows the fan a longer lifespan before someone decides it's broken.", "You need to start the fan in high speed, that switch arrangement guarantees that.\n\nThe low speed setting does not provide enough energy to make the fan go from stop. It will just sit there, potentially burning out. That is, for the sort of induction motor most AC fans use." ]

[ "That's called a [concrete pump](_URL_0_). It's used when you need to inject pressurized concrete someplace rather than just pouring it. If you're filling an underground hole with concrete to be the base of a pillar, for example, then if you just pour it into the hole it might not fill every nook and cranny. Pumping it in under high pressure ensures that the whole space gets filled.", "It allows them to reach further. Say you were laying a concrete car park or plinth for a building. You could drive the delivery trucks up to the pump unit set up on existing hardstanding and then swing the delivery end around over the area to put the concrete in place. If you've already constructed the reinforcing rod network that the concrete will fill, you can't drive over it with your trucks. To do it any other way, it would have to be in small sections a truck at a time. This way you can have loads delivered in a continuous stream and all laid the same day.\n\n(edited to amplify)", "Typically they are used to get over a structure. Not sure why they are using it in this instance, maybe it is the only equipment which was available for use" ]

[ "You are just informed enough to realize you don't know things. You mistakenly believe that being less informed means you think you know less. This terms out to not be accurate. People who aren't informed about things actually tend to think they know quite a bit about something.\n\nBasically, ignorant people think they aren't ignorant, therefore when they see people talking about college education (or any real education) they don't see the value, because they don't believe they are missing anything. Since they aren't missing anything, this talk about \"experts\" is just showing off, they are angry about what they see as people just trying to look smart.", "The only anti-intellectualism I see here is from the right, so I am only addressing that. My theory is twofold:\n\n\n1.) Starting with the \"Monkey Trial\", the heavily religious in America saw a threat from academia. Of course, the Catholic and Anglican churches had done their own share of intellectual persecution far before this in Europe, but the Monkey Trials were distinctly American, and offended the Protestant majority in the states. It was also heavily publisized.\n\nSuddenly, science and scientists were seen as somehow trying to undermine faith, and from this came a suspicion of those who were educated. Also, education is not cheap, so a sort of populist envy arose, an us-vs-them mentality. \"X could afford to go to Harvard, so thus he knows nothing about the plight of \"real\", poor Americans like me and my neighbors.\"\n\nCurrent right-wing anti-intellectualism is still trying to capitalise on these feelings. Scientists are enemies of religion, rich snobs, and \"out of touch\" with \"real\" America. Hence even when science postulates something that *doesn't* go against their beliefs (say, man made climate change), they still reject it, because intellectuals are seen as evil and always having ulterior, ungodly agendas.\n\n\n2.) The more simple answer is that the more education one receives, the more likely they are to hold left wing ideologies. By opposing intellectualism, the right wing is merely opposing the left.", "Intellectuals study facts and science. Facts and science have been pretty consistently showing that, in a lot of ways, conservative policies are either shown to be ineffective in some cases or factually wrong in other cases. Conservatives see this as a coordinated attack on conservatism, especially when schools are trying to teach viewpoints (backed up by evidence and testing) to their children.\n\nIn addition, there are a lot of people on all sides that are irresponsibly using science. Statistics are used to make evidence look like it points the opposite way. Studies are quoted out of context. Experiments and surveys are designed to give certain outcomes. This leads to a lot of confusion in the average Joe. You don't know which set of \"facts\" to believe.\n\nLastly, there is a push to give equal time to opposing viewpoints, despite the fact that a vast majority of evidence and experts agree that one side is just incorrect. The evidence looks mixed to the viewer, despite 99% of scientists and experts pointing one way, with a tiny minority going the other.\n\nIn short, people are upset that intellectuals are showing their beliefs and policy decisions to be wrong (conservatives), some people are upset that people we entrust to be experts are using the information irresponsibly (bankers/businessmen/politicians), people get confused by what looks like mixed evidence, and disproportionate time is given to minor opposing skewed evidence (media abuses).\n\n**TL;DR:** The people that produce the evidence (intellectuals) are being lumped in with those who try to use it. People interpret this attempt to use information as an attack, or biased, or untrustworthy, and so nobody wins.", "Because you talk all gay and your shit's all retarded.", "It's not \"the US\" as a whole but there is a group of right-wing supporters, mostly inspired by radio talk shows like Micheal Savage and Glenn Beck, who are paranoid that the higher education system is infiltrated by \"radical leftists\" and is only interested in political indoctrination. This causes a deep mistrust of mainstream intellectualism among those people.", "We live in a country that gives us many choices. If you want a hamburger you can go to either McDonalds, Burger King or lots and lots of others. The choice is up to you, and, naturally, the people who own each of those businesses really, *really* want you to go to their place. So they'll make things like funny TV commercials that tell you the benefits of choosing *them* over the others. Sometimes they exaggerate to make their place seem more fun. This is all to get your attention. Because the more they have your attention, the more hamburgers they can sell and the more money they can make!\n\nPeople who sell hamburgers, soft drinks and toys aren't the only people trying to make money. The people who run TV stations have to make money to stay on the air. They do this by selling the time to show commercials for companies like McDonalds. The more people watch, the bigger their audience. The bigger their audience, the more money everyone makes! But how do you get people to watch your channel and not another?\n\nTV people know that audiences would rather watch *entertaining* shows because they're more fun and easier to understand. Kind of like how you prefer watching Sesame Street to reviewing your flashcards in your bedroom. Sesame Street is more fun, and you're learning *something*. Just not as much as you would if you spent time playing with your flashcards, practicing your times tables and reviewing your phonics.\n\nPeople who run TV stations want to be like Sesame Street because they know most people won't spend the time reviewing their flash cards. They want to make news fun to watch. And for adults, \"fun\" is a lot like being a kid. They want to fit in. They want to feel like they belong to something and that they aren't weird for thinking the things they do. TV people know this too. And a lot of the time, they'll change the way they present stories because they don't want to upset the people who are watching them. Some newspeople might make an argument that is only fair to one side because they know that's the part of the story their audience wants to hear.\n\nLots of times, the people who make our laws have special friendships with the people who run these TV stations. But they have weird relationships. Lots of times, these lawmakers will keep secrets to themselves unless a TV station promises to be nice to them. And these lawmakers will usually only visit with newspeople they know won't make them look silly. The best way to assure a lawmaker that you wont make them look silly is to have a good record of supporting *their* side. This way they'll feel comfortable sitting in their interview chair.\n\nLike McDonalds and TV stations, politicians understand the way to get peoples' attention. Except they don't do it by making politics fun—they do it by making politics scary. So many times, in order to make not-so-scary things scary, they'll make believe that people who do their homework are actually the ones lying. Sometimes the things they say are partly true—just true enough to make people believe them. \n\nThe cool thing about being a kid is that you have a lot of time to devote to your studies. But when you're an adult, you have a lot of things distracting you. Most working Americans are very busy—some even have two jobs. Some of them are just really lazy and don't care about what's going on in their country. And then there's other people who sort of want to know what's going on, but think reading is very, very, very boring.\n\nThese are the people that McDonalds, TV stations and politicians love.", "As a European, I find this trend in the States very worrying. When I look at people like Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, or Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly etc. I literally cannot understand *how* they even have an audience. Seriously, how does a woman like Palin get anything other than just laughed off the stage?", "LI14 (and obviously, there is some speculation here as well):\n\nIn the U.S., it looks like the root of Anti-intellectualism is the conservative idea that no one person (or small group of people like academics), no matter how smart, should be making crucial decisions for an entire population. This might come from a fear of dictators, some of whom were initially looked up to as intellectuals, but whose decisions had dire consequences in the places they governed. Think of intense anti-intellectualism as a kind of rebellion against the rule of intellectuals. Of course, lots of other factors come into play, but I think this idea is at the core of anti-intellectualism.\n\nConservative economist Thomas Sowell, In his essay \"Intellectuals and Society, Part II\":\n\n > \nIntellectuals and their followers have often been overly impressed by the fact that intellectuals tend, on average, to have more knowledge than other individuals in their society. What they have overlooked is that intellectuals have far less knowledge than the total knowledge possessed by the millions of other people whom they disdain and whose decisions they seek to override.\n > \nWe have had to learn the consequences of elite preemption the hard way — and many of us have yet to learn that lesson.", "Offspring, throughout life you will see that there are many people who are afraid of what they don't understand. When people are afraid of something they often lash out against it. You should always take the time to study and learn so you can understand what they are talking about and decide for yourself who is right and who is wrong.", "Posts like this are exactly what's wrong with this subreddit. A ridiculous, biased question that wouldn't possibly be asked by a five year old, and a bunch of circle jerking left wing responses that couldn't possibly be understood by a five year old." ]

[ "A few factors ...\n\n* New games are way more complex. This means more code, and as the number of bugs per LoC is pretty static you get more bugs.\n* Today it is pretty trivial to push patches to the users as they have fast internet.\n* Deadlines have become a bigger factor esp. when it comes to franchise titles.", "Video games are becoming bigger and better.\n\nThis means more people are working on them, more elements have to mesh together, and more code is being written.\n\nIf we assume that there are the same number of bugs per 1000 lines of code as always, then a program with 20 000 lines of code will have twice the number of bugs as a program with 10 000 lines of code.\n\nSecondly, more and more people are playing games than before, with more and more diverse hardware. This means that devs simply cannot test every single configuration of processor+GPU+RAM+Mobo that's in existence, which could lead to weird results in some cases. Also as more and more people are playing them, that means more hours of playtime which again, devs can't test for - even working full time for 6 months with a team of 100 testers, you'd still have only 104 000 hours of gametime. For a game like Call of Duty all it takes is everyone that buys it on launch day to play it for probably less than 30 minutes to hit that same amount of play time. As playtime increases, the chance to run into something the dev did not expect and account for increases as well.\n\nLastly, and this one is the weakest explanation, part of it is very likely due to the ease of patching games nowadays. Before everyone had high-speed internet, if you released a buggy game people would be out for blood because there was no way to fix it. Nowadays it's ridiculously easy to push an update through Steam, sometimes even on launch day before your customers have even noticed." ]

[ "I'm almost certain this has been answered before, but it's largely due to geography. India and China both have exceptionally fertile river valleys capable of supporting large populations with pre-industrial technology. Even before the world population started exploding during the past two centuries, they were the two largest and richest civilizations on Earth - for example, in the early days of India being a part of the British Empire, it's 'GDP' was over half the productivity of the entire British Empire (including the British Isles themselves)." ]

[ "A machine like the one that makes the spring in your example is a collection of different technologies combined into a new system (pneumatic arms, motorized discs, etc. \"Carving\" would be more along the lines of a CNC mill or lathe, a laser cutter, or water jet machine that has programmable paths." ]

[ "One big factor: advertising. Say Burger King has a deal with the owner of the video that they will run an add before it every time it is played. However advertising laws vary from country to country and are very complex. For example, my country does not allow fast food advertising aimed at children. So it's simpler for the provider just to block the video outside of their country and avoid possible legal issues.", "Your country = copyright issues\n\nMobile devices = can't advertise (?)", "Country:\nThis video contains music. The music in this video is free for non commercial use in the United States. This music however does not have the same agreement in Europe. The video is limited to the US only to abide by the music's terms of use. \n\nReplace music with images, content, language, etc.\n\nMobile:\nCould be related to advertising, but it likely is a setting that a user changed without realizing it. Also, only certain video formats work on a mobile device. This is less of an issue these days, but your phone could just not have support for the file format as YouTube hasn't converted it to mobile friendly.", "\"Not available on mobile devices\" -- If the video contains copyrighted material (eg. music), YouTube automatically makes it not available for mobile. If you go to the video's settings, there is a field that's labeled \"Syndication\" and is defaulted to \"No, this video should not be available on mobile phones and TV.\" The owner of the video can't even change this setting. It's actually controlled by the label or artist who owns the music and executed by YouTube. \n\nSource: It's happened to me." ]

[ "During Portal, the psychotic AI (GLaDOS) promises you cake after the test. However, as you go through the tests and discover the depth of corruption in the facility and GLaDOS herself, you see messages from a man named \"Rattman\". He leaves messages saying \"The cake is a lie.\" This just sort of caught on with fans of Portal. The reason it's \"a scourge\" is because it was beaten into the ground. It's much like the \"arrow in the knee\" thing from a while back. \nBy the way, I *highly* recommend playing Portal.", "The phrase is from the game series, Portal. A psychopathtic robot promises a test subject cake after she finishes all of her trials, and constantly mocks her about it." ]

[ "We come into contact with \"colors\" beyond our color receptive cones everyday. Your eyes are only able to pick up on certain wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation, this is what we see as light. If the wavelengths are shorter (like x-rays) or longer (like radio waves) then you simply won't be able to see them.", "Since we don't have those types of cones as a mantis shrimp, we don't have the higher brain functions for processing the output from such cones either. **There is no master list of colors \"out there\" that we can pick from and try what they are like.** Color happens in our brains. No brain, no color. Your question is a bit like asking what it would feel like if someone touched our tails or gills or other body parts we don't have. Or what would a child think if he could understand the things that adults understand. It's an interesting question, but there is no answer because the basic philosophical assumptions behind the question are faulty.\n\nFirst off, light is electromagnetic radiation. One way to understand it is as a bunch of photons, little particles (another is to understand them as waves). Photons come with different energy content (corresponding to different wavelengths of the waves). Each of our three types of cone cells is receptive to a certain range of energies. If a photon in the matching energy range smashes into this cone cell, then it gets absorbed and it causes chemical changes in the cell. These changes then cause further changes and eventually it turns into an electric signal that travels over long wires called nerves into the brain. The brain is like a giant switchboard of nerve cells. This input from the cone cell gets mixed and merged and compared with all sorts of other things, like your memories, your mood, your hearing, etc, and eventually it results in you moving your hands, changing your heart rate, changing your mood and apetite etc.\n\nOur color perception consists of how much the light excites each type of cone cell. In other words, we don't feel the wavelength of the light, we feel how much that wavelength excites each type of cone. It's the combination of the three cone outputs that we call color.", "As far as I know, a mantis shrimp has different receptors, but each receptor is optimized for specific band of light, where as our three cones are more generalized. \n\nFor a mantis shrimp, this advantage is the ability to see colors with reduced brain power. \n\nAs for the rest of your question, that's really calling for speculative guesses on a what-if.\n\nWhat if we could see UV light? What if we could see infrared light? etc. And that's more of a question for science fiction or r/whatif", "Light is a spectrum of different wavelengths. Think of it like sound, higher frequency sounds are higher pitch, lower frequency deeper. Human eyes and brains are evolved to process only a very tiny part of this spectrum necessary to our survival.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nAsking what light from different parts of the spectrum would look like is a bit like asking what a dog whistle sounds like to a dog.", "I'm colourblind and only have two cones and I'm missing the red one. Therefore most reds are outside my scope of vision. So if I look at a red object it looks green to me. So if you were to look at the other 13 colours then you'd see the closest approximation of what colours you can actually see (as opposed to just seeing blank)", "1) Most \"colors\" beyond our perception are not visible. The visible spectrum is only a small part of the overall electromagnetic spectrum.\n\n2) The mantis shrimp could very well have color cones interspersed throughout the range of the visible spectrum. If humans have Blue/Green/Red receptors, the mantis shrimp could have Low-UV/Violet/Blue/Blue-Yellow/Blue-Green/Green/Green-Red/Red/Low-IR/etc.\n\nHow cones work is that each cone receives a certain amount of certain wavelengths of light. The mind then translates certain combinations of cone input to yield a visual result.\n\nColorblind people only have two functional cones (or sometimes three with one just not being that active) available to interpret light, and so see on an overall-limited scale: A Red/Green colorblind person will see in scale of yellows and golds and blues but won't see purples, reds, and greens.\n\nMeanwhile, insects with UV visibility can see even at night, typically with things we see as standard or usual (certain leaves, flowers, etc) giving off...typically it's described as a glow. White flowers appear with shades of yellows and reds that they lack; yellow flowers glisten blues and whites and reds and greens; etc.\n\nAnd Infrared visibility is typically used for thermal imaging.\n\n-----\n\nThe net result is partly that humans are \"colorblind\" to mantis shrimps.\n\nThey could probably distinguish between shades of Green/Orange/Blue differing by their level of Ultraviolet that humans would register as the same single shade of brown or yellow.", "Actual colors we experience; green, red, yellow, blue ect are products of the brain. A leaf is just as green as a radiowave is red. Other creatures could be seeing the same exact frequencies as a different color than we do because literal color which we experience is a perception created in the mind.\n\nBasically to answer your question, we would see whatever color our brains would be programmed to be produced.", "I've read the comments and didn't see this answered: To continue OPs question, what if there was an object, say a car, that was a colour outside the spectrum we're able to see? Would it be as though the car was invisible and we'd run into it when trying to walk where it was located?", "We would see nothing. If you're asking about if we gained the ability to see them and what our perception and experience would be, then I don't think there's an adequate answer to that.", "Colours are wavelengths. \nYou can't see long infrared or short high uv but you can see everything in between\n\nSo they will look black." ]

[ "If a company is publicly traded, like on one of the stock exchanges, they can't control who buys stock in them. \n\nA closely held company, like a family business, generally can.\n\nIn between, there is lots of room for lawyers to argue.", "So long as the reason you are refusing service is not (thanks for catching the error) due to the person being of a protected class (gender, age, disability, ethnicity, religion* etc) every business has the right to deny service to any person or other business. \n\n* With Religion if the business is religiously based or affiliated (a church, a christian bookstore, a religious school, etc) they are allowed to require people to be a part of their religion (general religion, denomination or specific location membership) in order to be employed by them or to use their services." ]

[ "Because the DHS department is the department that funds immigration-related activities. \n\nNot too long ago, President Obama issued an executive order of moderately debatable constitutionality that would use DHS to quasi-legalize a large number of heretofore \"illegal\" immigrants, which republicans are opposed to.\n\nDepending on your political bent, Obama's action was either a totally overdue and legitimate extension of Presidential authority to fill a much needed gap and the technical legal argument is much ado about nothing, or it was an abhorrent sacrelige against the Constitution and all other things righteous and holy.\n\nCongress cannot directly stop Obama's executive order for 2 reasons: (1) Because democrats hold more than 40 seats in the seante, Republicans cannot overcome a filibuster, and (2) Because democrats hold more than 33 seats in the senate, republicans cannot overcome an inevitable Presidential veto, even if the Democrats don't filibuster.\n\nHowever, republicans' ace in the hole in all this is that they have the \"power of the purse\", meaning they decide what gets funded and what doesn't. It's in the constitution specifically; the House of Representatives must initiate all spending bills. So their denying funding to the DHS is a backdoor way to fight the executive order where Republicans have more leverage. No money for DHS = Obama can't implement his executive order allowing immigration.\n\nAlas, this means that the whole rest of the DHS and its workers are caught in the crossfire while Obama and Republicans wrangle it out.", "Let me try and explain this as someone currently working on the hill. Full disclosure: I am interning in a House Republican office (I won't say who) but I hope I can perhaps shed some light on the situation. Also, please understand that the GOP policies right now are not necessarily something I agree with here, and the views here are obviously my own/don't represent any office. \n\nBasically, the DHS is in charge of border security and enforcement for immigration laws. When the President issued the orders on immigration policy, there are only two checks that the Republicans had to oppose the order: funding power and judicial action. Whether you agree or not you agree with the Republicans is irrelevant in this case because of the political situation--the reality is that the party base of the Republican Party right now is adamantly opposed to any form of the proposed immigration policies, and the GOP officials simply are not in a position where they could come out and agree with the President on this, even if they wanted to. If a Republican president issued similar orders, I really think that democrats would be trying to block it as well right now (thank the two party system for this divisiveness). The GOP leadership in the House decided to try to defund the part of DHS that would be in charge of supporting the President's decisions in an effort to block them, and a Republican-appointed federal judge is trying to block the decision in court. \n\nOne thing important to keep in mind is that roughly 85-90% of the DHS funding is considered \"essential\", meaning that even if the DHS is \"shut down\", 85-90% of it will continue running as normal (I could be slightly off on this number, but it is VERY high). So please keep in mind that calling it a \"shutdown\" is a little hyperbolic. The House also passed a modified funding bill that is sent to the Senate, which will keep everything up and running for 3 more weeks as the debate continues. In all likelihood, the President knew this standoff would happen because the only check Congress had to oppose it would be by cutting funds to the programs, but (personally) I think the President has the upper hand because it is so easy to say that the Republicans are \"shutting down homeland security\", which carries a lot more weight and it is easy to point the finger. In addition, I would expect some immigration bills coming soon from Congress that are different than the President's vision (because he recently challenged them to \"pass a bill\") but it'll likely be a political statement that will get vetoed anyways. \n\nMy personal view: I honestly think it is wrong that our Southern border is so easy to cross, and I think it is an issue of national security that shouldn't be politicized. If it is so easy to smuggle drugs across the border, someone could conceivably smuggle something much more dangerous with the current lack of security. That said, I also think the Republicans are ridiculously naive in assuming that they can deport everyone here or that there will not be any path-to-citizenship programs in the future. Like most things in life, the end result will lie somewhere in the middle. I think the border will be secured eventually, and I think that the path-to-citizenship programs will be accepted by both parties once this happens. I think that the fundamental disagreement is the question of which should be done first and which deserves the most resources. To be honest, everything else going on right now is political theater. The President/Democratic Party's decisions are going to be labeled as \"amnesty\" and \"lawless\", while the Republicans trying to oppose this are going to be labeled as \"obstructionists\" or \"shutting down the DHS\". Try to look past the name-calling and you'll see that it's just a typical partisan standoff, with both sides deserving blame in different areas of the problem.", "The executive wanted a bill passed regarding immigration. Congress did not pass a bill that the executive wanted. The Executive said he was going to make an executive order to do what he wanted to do. One of his subordinates then gave an order that basically did what the Executive wanted without being an executive order. The legality is questionable and the precedent is less than ideal.\n\nThe Republican majority is insufficient to override Obama directly. As a result, they either need to push funding to a standstill and hope they cave first or bribe a few democrats over with support for issues they like that aren't too offensive but are large enough that they will risk going against their party for them." ]

[ "During early development, the brain is much more plastic, meaning making new connections, erasing old ones, and rearranging existing ones is much easier. Also, because babies don't have any language when they are born, it is believed it is much easier for them to identify and remember the vowel sounds used in a language. An adult can't even begin to make sense of a language they don't understand, because they can't hear the difference between the core sounds used in that language." ]

[ "We're biologically pre-disposed to be able to tell human faces apart (especially the ethnicities we grew up around). I'm not sure what studies have proved this to be the same in other animals, but they obviously can. Dogs can tell each other apart from their scent (and I imagine other species as well, given a strong scent).\n\nI believe it's because due to natural selection, those who could tell different people apart (friend or foe) would have a survival advantage, and at this point it's just so ingrained in us.", "This actually applies to humans of different race as well. For a white man, asian people will look the same - for an asian man, white people will look the same. It's called the \"cross-race effect\". You have a higher tendency to recognize people of your own race. This also applies to animals. \n\nThe cross-race effect (usually) won't take place with people/animals you know, only strangers." ]

[ "A check is an instruction by you to your bank: when the person named on the check requests it, pay them the amount indicated on the check, from the bank account of which the number is on the check.\n\nThis means that at the end of the day, it's always your bank cashing the check. But it's convenient if the person you want to pay can deposit the check at their own bank--and even better if this payment can be processed electronically. This means that the bank accepting the check needs an obvious, consistent way to identify the bank that will pay out.\n\nThe routing number is the solution. Each bank in the U.S. that participates in the Automated Clearinghouse is assigned a routing number. The bank that accepts the check can send the information to the ACH, which will identify the the bank on which the check is drawn, and ask it to make the payment. When the bank that originally accepted the check receives the payment, it's credited to the payee's account at that bank.", "The routing number on your check is one of three numbers printed on the check:\n\nRouting #:Account#:Check#\n\nThe routing number tells the receiving bank what bank to get the money from.\n\nThe account number tells them what customer to take the money from.\n\nThe check number is there to insure nothing fishy is going on with duplicated checks or whatnot.", "It is simply a unique number assigned to a bank, so that a machine can instantly sort a group of checks by what bank the accounts come from. Then the checks payable by each bank can be sent to that bank." ]

[ "People are suggesting tons of alternatives to your problem, but not actually answering the question. Here's why:\n\nYoutube has a bunch of different product and engineering teams. Some work on the mobile app, and some work on the desktop/mobile web product. YouTube, most likely, gets different usage on both of these platforms, so the amount of engineers assigned to each of these platforms (in order to make updates on each of these) vary based on said usage.\n\nAdditionally, there are also \"endless\" amounts of fixes and feature improvements YouTube can make at any given time. As a result, these bug fixes and feature improvements need to be \"prioritized\" (i.e., ordered by priority) since YouTube doesn't have \"endless\" engineers to work on them. The feature of a \"minimized\" player on the web/mobile web platform of YouTube probably hasn't been prioritized for various reasons:\n\n1) It's probably not that big of a use case, especially given all the alternatives people have mentioned in this thread\n\n2) there are other important features/bugs the team needs to work on before implementing something like this.\n\nSource: I work in tech. Hopefully that helps!", "I use the chrome extension [Seek n Play](_URL_0_), which adds this feature. I also have [AlienTube](_URL_2_), which replaces the YouTube comments with any reddit posts it finds that link to that video, and [Adblock For YouTube](_URL_1_).", "Potentially it can but the answer to your question is: 'because the developers haven't added that functionality to the website '.", "Because you can open a new tab on the browser in order to search and just keep the video playing in the original tab, unlike on mobile.", "Actually, you can. Firefox are pushing it as a new feature thats in Beta. I've had 0 problems so far.", "Am I the only one that finds this feature incredibly annoying?", "Did you actually differentiate between \"the internet\" and an \"app??", "Tag along question: why can't you adjust playback speed in the mobile app like you can on the computer version?", "\"The internet version of Youtube?\" What version are you using?", "you could open a new tab?\nor do split screen.", "Because you can just add another page to it? Idk it feels like hitting backspace to get outa a video and having that pop up might be cool but we already have a good work around without a needless popup.", "They actually tested this feature with their experimental [Cosmic Panda] (_URL_3_) layout for a short period back in 2011, it was nice. Not sure why they never implemented it permanently.", "I'm using Chrome and it's working fine for me ? _URL_4_ \n \nToo, I am really bothered that they put suggestion videos on when I pause the video so many time I have misclicked on those suggested videos when I try to resume the current one. \n \nEdit: Maybe it's [the enhancer](_URL_5_) I'm using ? So far I had for the dark theme and ads bs", "You used to be able to, actually. Youtube used to have a 'pop out' function that would do just that - pop out JUST the video in its own, resizable window so you could go and navigate around elsewhere while you watched. \n\nHonestly, I have no idea why they removed it as a feature.", "Well apparently you can. I don't know the technical stuff but with extensions you can definitely achieve a similar result.\n \nChrome - _URL_7_\n \nMozilla - _URL_6_" ]

[ "It means all in-state power plants are offline and the lines that bring power in from out of state are down aswell, they may physically be damaged or they cant handle that amount of power so they shut them off so they dont burn up", "An electrical grid relies on a balance of consumption and production of electricity. It's not like a water distribution network where you can build a big tank or lake and temporarily store water there, while waiting for consumers to need it. \n\nEvery bit of electricity withdrawn from the grid must be produced at the same time (or close enough), and every bit of electricity deposited into the grid must be used up by somebody immediately. You can store electricity in batteries, but there is no battery setup that's big and effective enough for the whole electrical grid of a state or nation.\n\nSo while South Australia largely manages its own electrical grid - they have their own power stations, their own market and pricing, local companies that own the wires, etc. - it's got a few very big-capacity connections to the Australia-wide grid. Because that grid is bigger, it's called an **upstream** grid.\n\nWhenever local consumers need more electricity than the local power stations can give them, the difference is received from the Aus-wide grid. Whenever local consumers are not consuming, the local power stations send their power to the Aus-wide grid.\n\nIn this case the statement means that there is no electricity coming into the South Australia's grid at the points where it is connected to the Aus-wide grid. Either because the connection points are broken, or because the Aus-wide doesn't have any spare electricity to give." ]

[ "You try walking around with a blindfold on and see how long it takes for you to hurt yourself. \n\nNow amplify the fear you should feel by a million because animals don't have hospitals and minor injuries can easily be fatal. Also, there are things that will eat them. There aren't things that would eat humans really.\n\nThey do it because it is much safer to stop moving when eyesight is your main sensory ability." ]

[ "The Great Depression was caused by many factors but one of the largest was a gross misuse of credit.\n\nBasically in the 1920s people began buying things on credit (I buy this cheeseburger for you today but don't pay you until next week)\n\nThis was all well and good but there where no real safety measures in place and people spent much MUCH more then they actually had.\n\nThe result was an incredibly boosted economy (known as the roaring 20s) but it just couldn't last.\n\nSo on Black Tuesday the house of cards collapsed, the Stock Market crashed spectacularly, overnight people lost millions. This caused a panic as people rushed to the bank to withdraw their cash, but since the banks use the money given to them to invest they did not have it on hand and much of it died in the stock market crash as well. The result was that the bank could not provide people with all of their money.\n\nA double whammy also occurred in the Midwest where the Dust Bowl hit, a disaster caused from overfarming and drought, the dust bowl would go on to decimate US crops and utterly destroy the lives of many farmers." ]

[ "They do superpose in the most general sense, but a radio receiver has a circuit that filters out everything but the frequency it wants.", "Like every single device on a different bandwith? That would be impossible, we don't have enough usable bandwith for that. Every type of device on a different frequency? That is already the case. _URL_0_" ]

[ "I know the question states \"short of shutting down entire city blocks\" but I think the best answer is they shut down entire city blocks.", "In addition to what a lot of people on here have already said, a lot of it is Green Sceen, they just add the backdrop in afterwards, so they can make it look like somewhere recognisable and famous without having to try and shut down a really busy area." ]

[ "Cats are made for a world that punishes unecessary use of energy. They sleep to save up energy for their hunt, usually hunting is done at night. In a domestic enviroment the cat doesnt \"need\" to hunt but its energysaving ways are hardwired.\n\n\nAll that energy needs to go somewhere and they will handle it by running around like crazy furballs on speed. In some cases it will help to play more with your cat, letting it use its huntingreserves.", "I suspect a cat just sometimes get bored, wants to get some exercise. Sometimes I have had to work double shifts or more; it goes better if I get up every couple hours and just take a walk around the office building. Probably the same for a cat. My cat Ziggy does this once or twice a day." ]

[ "It depends entirely on what you replaced it with.\n\nThere are, broadly speaking, two kinds of people in the world. There are those who say we should abolish the central bank system … and there are those who know what the central bank system is and does. There is no overlap between these two groups, so far as I've seen.\n\nA modern economy consists — in very simplified terms — of five interacting parts. They are:\n\n* The treasury\n* The central bank\n* The lending banks\n* The depositors\n* The consumers of capital\n\nNote that there's some blurriness between the fourth and fifth parts: The same individual can be both a depositor and a consumer of capital. But we're ignoring that to keep things simple.\n\nThe treasury is an institution of consensus; it exists because the people agree that it exists. The treasury has only two powers: To sell bonds, and to spend money. That's all the treasury can do.\n\nThe central bank is another institution of consensus, and it also has two powers: It can buy and sell bonds. To carry out these two powers, we give the central bank two special accounts, which we sometimes call the source account and the sink account. Credits applied to the source account never clear; debits applied to the source account always clear. That's rule one. What this means is that you can never put money *into* the source account, but you can always take money out. The source account is, in other words, an endless *source* of money, hence the nickname. Rule two is the opposite: Debits applied to the sink account never clear, but credits always do. The sink account, then, is the money *sink*, the place where money disappears.\n\nThe lending bank is a chartered business institution. It's started by a private individual using initial lending capital. It takes on deposits from the depositors, and it lends capital to the consumers of capital. The central bank acts as the lending bank's *bank.* In other words, just as a depositor wants to keep money in his lending bank and then use that account for transactions, the lending bank keeps its reserve in an account at the central bank. The central bank, then, acts as a mediator of transactions between lending banks, because all the lending banks are customers of the central bank, in a sort of hub-and-spoke arrangement. (That's why the central bank is called the *central* bank. It's the bank at the center of the hub-and-spoke arrangement of banks.)\n\nDepositors are people who put money into a lending bank. The lending bank then lends out those deposits (minus a required reserve) as capital.\n\nConsumers of capital are people who take loans out from banks. Here we're talking specifically about *secured* loans; that is, loans which are backed by a lien on some kind of real property. You know how if you take out a car loan and fail to make your payments, the bank gets your car? Same thing, except it doesn't have to be a car.\n\nSo those are the pieces. How they work is like this: The treasury issues a series of bonds, which are bought by the central bank, debiting the source account — creating money, in other words. The money goes to the treasury, which spends it, giving it to private citizens. Those private citizens go to the lending banks and deposit their money, thus becoming depositors; the lending banks then make that money available as capital. Other private citizens come to the lending banks and borrow that money, backed by some kind of assets, thus become consumers of capital. The consumers of capital then spend the money they borrowed, which means it ends up in the hands of other private citizens, who turn around and deposit it into the lending banks again.\n\nEach time a lending bank takes on a deposit and lends it out as capital, wealth is created. In general, this is a good thing, but as with anything else it can happen too slowly or it can happen too quickly. The central bank, then, *moderates* the movement of capital, by encouraging more lending when capital is moving too slowly, or discouraging lending when capital is moving too quickly. The central bank can also increase or decrease the size of the money supply directly, which controls the value of money. Remember those bonds the central bank bought from the treasury? The central bank can sell those bonds to lending banks in exchange for money which is then credited to the sink account, thus *destroying* money, making it more scarce, and consequently more valuable. The central bank can also buy bonds back from the lending banks in exchange for money, thus making money *less* scarce and less valuable.\n\nFinally, remember how we said loans made by the lending banks are backed by something? That something that backs a loan is generically called an *asset*. An asset is something that's worth money but which is not, itself, money. It can't be spent, in other words, without converting it to money. One way to convert an asset into money is to sell it, but a better way is to borrow against it. Banks manage their *liquidity* — that is, how much of their assets are spendable as money — by borrowing against their assets through the central bank. Not *from* the central bank; the actual creditor of the loan is another lending bank. But the loans are mediated *by* the central bank, because again, the central bank is *at the center* of the system. A bank that's short on liquidity right now — because a big depositor came in and asked for a withdrawal in the millions of dollars, say — can take out an overnight loan against its assets through the central bank, then repay that loan the next day from liquidity made up by new deposits. So a bank that's connected to the central bank, therefore, can never have a liquidity crisis as long as that bank is solvent. (You're solvent as long as your assets are worth more than your liabilities.)\n\nOkay, so the central bank then performs three *basic* core functions:\n\n* It controls the money supply by buying and selling bonds.\n\n* It controls the flow of capital by encouraging and discouraging lending.\n\n* It ensures liquidity by facilitating overnight loans between lending banks.\n\nSo if you want to abolish an existing central bank, you need to replace it with something that performs those functions. If you just replace it with another institution that does the same functions … well, then you haven't actually done anything, have you? You've just torn down one perfectly good barn and built an identical barn on the same spot. Wasted effort, in other words.\n\nOther than that, though, the effects of making a change to an economic system would depend entirely on what shape that change takes. You cannot simply propose abolishing a central bank, because the role the central bank plays in a modern economy is not optional. *Something* must perform that role in order for an economy to work. Whatever thing performs that role, that's your central bank, whether you call it by that name or some other. The question of whether tearing down an existing central bank and replacing it with something else that performs the same role is good or bad depends entirely on what that other thing is." ]

[ "It's purely cultural. Check out these [articles](_URL_2_) on [breakfast around the world](_URL_0_) --- people in different places eat lots of different stuff for breakfast. There are some trends --- pretty much everybody wants something easy to prepare (eggs are popular everywhere), people in cold weather places tend to eat hot, filling things (oatmeal, porridge, congee) people in hot weather places tend to eat lighter (coffee and toast, fruit, yogurt, cheese). But nothing hard and fast --- France is temperate weather wise, but people there eat very light breakfasts. \n\nCereal is so popular in the U.S. because a couple of health nut brothers (the [Kelloggs](_URL_1_)) started a fad for it in the 19th century, convincing people that it was better for you. People used to eat steak and ham and eggs for breakfast and stuff before that.", "Well, breakfast foods traditionally are things that require little to no preparation and cook very quickly. And this makes sense -- it's the first meal, so you don't have a lot of time. You can take more time to prepare lunch or dinner, so the menu can get far more varied.", "It's to do with what is inside those foods. Breakfasts are designed to energize you for the day so can contain carbohydrates and sugars like cereals do (and to 'break your fast', after your night's sleep). Other meal times are more balanced simply because as /u/Teekno states we have more time to prepare them and that's why they occur at those times of day." ]

[ "In politics, \"Lame Duck\" is used to describe to period of time between an Election and when the winners of that election assume office. A President who lost or did not campaign for a Second Term in November, for example, is called a \"Lame Duck President\" until the new President takes office in January.\n\nA Lame-Duck Congress, therefore, is Congress between when the General Election takes place (once every two years) and when the New Congress takes office (Every Two Years, every Representive and 1/3 of all Senators are up for Re-Election, so there is a \"new\" Congress every 2 years; we're on the 113th right Now).", "A lame-duck is a general term for a person that has a job, but knows that he won't have it for much longer. An example would be an incumbent politician (one that currently holds a position) that has has lost an election, but still has to serve until his time is up. Another example is a contract worker that won't have his contract renewed, but still has time on his contract. People are critical of lame-ducks because they no longer have the same motivations. No matter what they do, they will still lose their jobs. Lame-ducks tend to be lazy and don't do anything.", "Lame duck means the time between an election and when officials go into office. Those who are in office who are not elected (whether they didn't run, lost, or term limit) become \"lame ducks.\" So, for example, Obama will be a lame duck president following the next presidential election, up until he steps down for the incoming president." ]

[ "the housing market crashed happened when people agreed to adjustable rate mortgages that they couldn't afford. before these mortgages defaulted, lehman brothers (among other finance companies) bought these mortgages that were lumped in with other debt and rated higher that they actually were. standards & poor's (who does the rating) was basically bribed into doing so (by the people who were short selling the bad mortgages) and then said \"we just rate it, we don't force you to buy it\".\n\nFor more info read the book \"the big short\" by michael lewis" ]

[ "Fire is GOOD for nature for many reasons; you may have heard that coniferous trees (trees with cones) will only spread their seeds when the heat from a fire melts the resins in the cones and allows them to open up. \n\nFire is also beneficial in that, once the trees are burned, the remaining ashes contain lots of nutrients that will aid in the regrowth of the area.\n\nMountainous areas with lots of trees aren't as prone to the dust bowl effect because the dead trees still prevent the wind from blowing at gale forces. Not to mention that dead trees still have plenty of roots to hold the soil in place.", "Fire won't obliterate all life in an area. Usually it will just burn down the stuff on top and a few days later new growth will sprout up from the roots of existing plants.\n\nWhy burn? It is an easy way to clear land for farming use. Rather than spending a huge amount of time and effort hacking away at the forest you can just burn a patch and till the leftovers into the soil.", "Living things have a lot of nutrients needed to grow living things. When you burn them the nutrients dont go away they just fall to the earth in the form of ash. The ash gets mixed into the soil and boom you have very nutrient rich soil." ]

[ "The fat under your skin absorbs low frequency light. The higher frequency blue wavelengths are what you see while the lower reds are filtered out.\n\nSome people try to spread the old wives tale that blood is blue when it's in your veins, but that is not the case." ]

[ "Because your brain has your personality in it. If a bullet goes through your brain and damages it, you'll be missing a significant amount of pathways that were present before.", "The brain is a weird, complicated thing. Sometimes it's related to damage to certain parts of the brain, like in the classic case of Phineas Gage. _URL_0_\n\nOther than that there are a number of theories, but that seems to be the most consistent.", "No idea as to why but here's a little story about what happened to me: \nI was in a pretty major motorcycle accident a year ago. Had some pretty major head trauma, a few broken bones, all that jazz. \nAfter I got out of the hospital I found I had changed, a lot of my old interests didn't appeal to me anymore. I found myself bored and unhappy with a job I had previously called \"the best job I have ever had\". And my relationship with my fiancee fell apart because \"I had changed\". \nStill not sure what changed exactly, the way I describe it to my therapist is by using the \"teleported man\" dilemma. You know that idea that if we could ever teleport someone on a molecular level we would essentially be killing them and assembling an exact replica on the other side... Well that's how I felt, like a replica, I was atomically identical to my old self, but I was certainly not the same person... \nThis is all stuff I'm still figuring out, new life goals, ambitions, I kinda feel like a teenager again (I'm 27), figuring out what the fuck I want to do with my life. Its kinda exiting but also quite daunting. \nSorry for the non-relevance to your question, just wanted to share.... \nIts been a weird year... \nPS. [Here](_URL_1_) is a link to the thread I made on /r/motorcycles after my accident, you can read the story if you like and take a gander at my stupid banged-up mug.", "If I was scared by a clown when I was 5 and developed a phobia because of it then suddenly all encounter with that scary clown was erased from my consciousness and subconsciousness the phobia disappears with it. Its like a branch that sprouts leafs on a tree. If the branch is severed the leafs fall with it.", "Short answer: We are the sum of our experiences. Remove part of that experience, and you alter the personality.", "[This TED talk](_URL_2_) by VS Ramachandran explains this very well", "Because your brain is where your personality is." ]

[ "Because its too expensive.\n\nBut that didn't stop DMC from building the deLorean. Thank goodness for poor business decisions.", "Because the cost of making the entire body from stainless steel would drive the price up out of range for most people.", "Several reasons:\n\n1. Stainless steel is expensive, about 50% more per pound than mild steel, even at scrap prices. It's actually an alloy of steel and several other materials such as chromium, nickel and aluminum. \n\n2. Stainless steel is tough. Way tougher than than the milder steel used in car panels. It's much more difficult to mold, bend, cut and weld.\n\n3. You can't paint it. Stainless steel doesn't hold paint very well. If we used stainless steel for car panels there would only be one color - stainless. (Although the [DeLorean](_URL_0_) was pretty sweet)\n\n4. It's not really \"stainless.\" Although much more resistant than regular steel, stainless steel can and will rust just like the cheaper stuff, left exposed to the the sun and rain and road salt. And since you can't really paint it, there's no good way to protected it from these elements." ]

[ "The vast majority of cells in your body are bacterial cells (something like 90-99% of all cells are bacteria), so the effects of removing all bacteria would be widespread and effectively leave us unable to survive.\n\nRemoving bacteria from the gut would prevent absorption of many vital nutrients. This is actually one of the dangers of taking antibiotics too aggressively: they kill all bacteria, good and bad, and can lead to malnutrition and other complications.\n\nBacteria also utterly occupy our skin and actually out-compete many dangerous species of bacteria. Without these benign bacteria growing on your skin, you'd be more prone to infection. This is a major reason why doctors don't recommend constantly using antibacterial creams and the like.\n\n[Source](_URL_0_)" ]

[ "The translator only has to be trusted by the party that hires him. Usually Obama brings a Russian translator, and Putin brings and English translator. The translators work together and check each other to verify what the other is saying is accurate.\n\nA Presidential translator has passed the requisite security clearances and background checks to have access to the sensitive information that a President does. With those clearances and background checks comes an inherent trust and professionalism that the translator will accurately and faithfully represent what's being said.\n\nAlso, many foreign officials also speak English. I don't think Putin fluently speaks English, but many others do.", "**Relevant:** Treaty of Nerchinsk. Treaty between Russia and the Qing empire in China, signed in 1689. The Qing spoke Manchu, and the Russians Russian, and neither side trusted each other to translate correctly. They ended up having to go through Missionaries on both side- Russian diplomat to Russian/ Latin Missionary to Manchu/ Latin Missionary to Manchu (Chinese) diplomat. Ultimately, the final agreement had to be written in five languages to be signed (Manchu, Latin, Russian, Chinese, and Mongolian). Arguably one of the oldest and most complex examples of accomplishing bilateral agreements while being impeded by severe language barriers.", "I think the need for a translator greatly outweighs any security concerns." ]

[ "Low-energy radiation (visible light, radio waves) isn't dangerous because it has so little energy. Getting pelted by photons from a lamp is like having sand thrown at you, it simply cannot harm you.\n\nIf radio waves are comparable to sand then the other end of the spectrum (gamma rays, x-rays) are .50cal rounds. They impart enough energy to physically break down your cells.\n\nIf you're subjected to that kind of radiation it's strong enough to damage your DNA which can lead to mutations and cancer. Past certain point the radiation doesn't just damage the cells, it just plain kills them by breaking down the structures they are made of. Extreme exposure leads to what you see in the picture." ]

[ "You should consider posting this to some other subreddit, like r/askscience or r/askmath . \n\nReally not a topic you can ELI5." ]

[ "Let's start by defining some things. .NET is a framework. It isn't a specific language, but rather a large set of libraries that performs a bunch of useful tasks. These libraries can be used by a variety of programming languages, including C#. The reason for this is because code written in these languages is compiled into an intermediate language that is common between all of the languages, and this intermediate language is executed by the Common Language Runtime (CLR). This is similar to how Java code is compiled into bytecode that is executed by the JVM.\n\nHopefully that will help you understand the differences a bit better. The reason why you can have different versions of .NET and C# and whatnot is because they can be developed independently. Each one of the .NET languages is required to have a baseline level of support for the basic .NET framework, but can also support additional features that other .NET languages do not support. Thus, you should be able to see how they can be on different version numbers. The latest C# version is 6.0, the latest .NET version is 4.5 (I believe).\n\nIn truth, the actual version numbers aren't insanely important if you are just starting out. When you download Visual Studio, every version of .NET and every compiler for every version of C# should be downloaded. When you create a project, it should default to the latest, which is probably your best bet to use. You want Express 2013 for Windows Desktop.", "These explains the versions of C# in relation to the .NET frameworks.\n_URL_0_\n\n_URL_1_\n\nYou'll want Express for Windows Desktop. The \"Windows\" one is misleading and only for lesser \"Windows Store Apps\" ie not proper full blown programs.\n\nAlso, because there's no direct equivalent of this in Java it's worth mentioning an extension to the language called LINQ. I think you'll love it.\n\n_URL_2_\nSee how you can replace complex if statements with very small pieces of code? It's like SQL for your code.", "By installing the Express for Windows Desktop it will install the .Net framework SDK automatically. You don't need to download a separate runtime version. It will also be on the most recent version of C#. Nice feature in Visual Studio(IDE) is it tells you when an update is ready which will wrap up all the latest elements together(SDK, IDE, C#)" ]

[ "What you have described is known as \"quantitative easing\". A stimulus is when the government takes out a bunch of loans (financed by selling bonds usually) and uses that money to buy things, often paying for infrastructure improvements (fixing bridges, repaving roads etc.). You may have noticed a lot of road work on the highway recently... This is likely stimulus money at work.\n\n\n**ELI5 Part:**\nThink about it this way: What happens when you buy something from a friend? You give the friend a twenty dollar bill, and you get your item (we'll say you're buying two hotdogs, because I haven't eaten yet). Then, he/she goes out and buys two sodas from another friend, and so on and so forth. Now, imagine that instead of a twenty, you use a fifty. Now, you can buy 2.5x more stuff. To fill that want, your friend makes five hotdogs to sell to you instead of two. But, in order to make five hotdogs, he/she has to hire another person to help him/her make more hotdogs. This is a concept known as circular flow, and it is a central tenet of macroeconomics.\n\n\nIn reality, it is a bit more complicated than this (some people will save part of the $50 instead of spending it all, they will put it in a bank that will give out loans, etc.) but this is supposed to be an ELI5, after all. \n\n\nFor more on the topic take Macroeconomics 101, or watch these videos on Khanacademy: _URL_2_\n_URL_1_\n_URL_0_", "So there's this old British economist names James Maynard Keynes, who was behind what people now call \"Keynesian economics.\" Keynesian economics says that in a depression, the government needs to pump money into the country, and run at a deficit. The reason Obama approved the stimulus package this time was because it worked when we had to use it during the great depression. FDR passed the New Deal, which was a sort of stimulus package, and the influx of money into the economy helped to bring it out of depression." ]

[ "i really dont have a good enough handle to be doing this on ELI5, but here goes:\n\n1) the main issue at hand which most directly sparked the sit-in protest was Service Agreement with China that Gigatergar mentioned.\nhaving promised the public last June that it would be reviewed article by article, the KMT ruling party instead rushed the Agreement using multiple covert meeting daily, and actually WHISPERED into a body mic that the Agreement had been passed.\nthe students are mainly demanding that the Service Agreement be rejected and re-reviewed by a different committee, as well as an apology from President Ma.\n\nthe other 2 more covert issues are \n2) the fact that the Service Agreement is feared to mean the demise of small businesses in Taiwan, as well as being the beginning of the end of a autonomous Taiwan, knowing that China is doing this mainly for the purpose of one day unifying Taiwan. most Taiwanese neither believe in unification with China, nor complete Indepedence, but support keeping the Status Quo, and any move leaning towards one or the other would make them nervous.\n\nand 3) that President Ma has done a terrible job, with the economy not improving even after a similar controversial agreement with China (the ECFA) signed last year, resulting in a popularity poll in the single digits. discontent with the government is at an all-time high.\n\n\nEdit: missing a few words. Probably lots of spelling mistakes, typing from my mobile." ]

[ "Japan is a very (ethnically) homogeneous society and was essentially closed to foreigners for more than 250 years. Foreigners are not made to feel particularly welcome there. Anyone \"different\" stands out like a sore thumb.", "Let me explain by giving advice:\n\nIf you're any race other than white... Do NOT go to Japan, you will get stopped by the police *very* frequently.\n\nIf you're a white guy? Extremely easy; they don't expect you to ever adhere to their customs and you'll always be \"that foreigner\" no matter how long you stay in Japan. There's also the situation of [giajin hunters](_URL_0_).\n\nIf you're a white girl with red hair? People are going to stare at you and think that your hair is dyed. Otherwise, no problems. You'll always be \"that foreigner.\" Japanese culture has no problems with staring at people.\n\nIf you're a white girl without red hair? No problems, but dating will be slightly harder than if you're a white guy. You'll always be \"that foreigner.\"\n\nEDIT: This is exaggerated to some decree to answer the question. I left out the good bits of the Japanese people and focused on the bad because that's what the question was asking.", "Japan has a decent amount of Brazilian-Japanese working in factories in the non-major cities.\n\nMy reasoning:\n\n- Japan is an island. You can just start from one european country and get to another. You can cross the border from Mexico to USA. The closest option for Japan is Korea, but you'll need a way over the water. Korea is expensive to get to anyway unless you wanna go hero mode and try to cross from China to North Korea to South Korea to Japan.\n\n- It's tough to get a visa to work in Japan. You need a Bachelor's, and a sponsoring company. Since the Tsunami, Tokyo became even more packed with foreigners, so there's no shortage of English speakers.\n\n- Japan is expensive. You need $4,000 minimum to get started out there. It's really not cost effective at all unless you have it even worse at home, especially since you get the 2nd year tax and get double taxes from your home country and Japan. \n\n- Japan is racist and immature. Sorry, but it's true. You're either Japanese, White or really screwed. Being White isn't that great anyway aside from girls as you're always seen as being White first and a person second. You get stared at and every conversation you have is extremely predictable. Everyone there has such a closed world and their society is living in the 1800's socially.\n\n- Japan really only has one language - Japanese. It's not like a European country where everyone can speak multiple languages. An immigrant would need to know the language to compete for the good jobs, and while speaking Japanese is easy, the writing/reading is difficult and requires knowledge of over 800 kanji. While the English language is harder to speak, there's only 26 letters to learn.\n\nIn summation, people usually migrate to other countries due to being able to get to those countries and for better opportunities. Japan is surrounded by water and those opportunities don't exist in Japan and likely never will. There's really no reason someone from a 1st world country would want to try and make it in Japan unless they had family there or a big love for Japan. There's also no real way someone from a 3rd world country is going to be able to get the visa to Japan and be able to afford to get there.", "I feel like my username was built for this post, but I didn't see it until it was too late because I live in Japan. Japan has a corporate culture that is different from the rest of the world, and not very accommodating to outsiders. You could probably get a job here, and it's really not terribly difficult to get a visa here either, provided you have a college degree, are interested in becoming a student here, or just want to take an extended holiday here. Japan's immigration service is AWESOME compared to the U.S. It is feasible for an individual to fill everything out and have everything processed in a short amount of time compared to other countries in the EU, or the U.S. \n\nThere are international schools to attend, that offer really amazing packages for international students. I am from the U.S., and one university's package for their MBA program was over 50% just starting off, with no scholarships included or grants/partnerships etc. That is insanely good compared to the U.S.\n\nThe foreign population can be divided into a few different categories, SE Asians are pretty common, a lot of them work on entertainment visas under sketchy circumstances. I went to a bar for a friend's birthday with an all Filipina staff and asked them about it, and it seemed pretty shady, although I have to say that I didn't see anything other than girls serving drinks and getting up to the stage to do a dance every half hour. There are also strip clubs, and more than a few \"massage\" places that seem to be closer to the sex trade than the entertainment industry, if you draw a line between the two.\n\nThere are a ton of people that teach English here, but they can be divided into four categories: JETS come here for a year or two, sometimes they get lucky and get an awesome assignment, sometimes they get thrown into the inaka, or countryside, and have bizarre experiences. They serve as ALT's, and are basically paid to sit around in an office doing nothing/pretending to be busy, with the monotony of that being punctuated by serving as an assistant language teacher for a Japanese English teacher. There are also foreign teachers of English in the public/private/international primary and secondary school system. The third category is the Eikaiwa or language school owner/instructor. These people range from having little experience teaching and no skill, to being very competent. A LOT of people qualify to do this, though it doesn't pay much. Finally, there are University level professors/instructors tha enjoy a very high level of pay, especially compared to the U.S. ESL scene, and many months of paid vacation. The only downside is that depending on how traditional the school is, it might be a bureaucratic nightmare.\n\nGotta run, will post more later.", "Japan doesn't accept many non-ethnic Japanese immigrants. It seems to be hard for foreigners to get Japanese citizenship. Maybe they give citizenship to foreigners of Japanese descent or foreigners who marry Japanese people. But they don't give citizenship to any immigrants the way western countries do.", "Their laws make it more difficult than most other countries to become a citizen. Xenophobia is also prevalent." ]

[ "Sleep is mostly important to renew the brain neurotransmitters and do some housekeeping around the brain. When you think about it, sleep is mostly about shutting down your consciousness. We are only starting to understand what really happens in the brain during sleep.\n\nConclusion: laying in bed is rejuvenating your body without doing much for your brain.", "had insomnia for a few years. the answer is yes, it does. if you're relaxed it's good for your mind too.", "As someone with chronic back spasms. Yes it does. I often lay on my bed throughout the day without sleeping just to let my muscles rest and let my spasms subside. When your body is relaxed without stress and pains, your brain will have an easier time going to sleep as well.", "There was a [**very similar question**](_URL_0_) posed in /r/askscience awhile back that I think answers yours." ]

[ "well first you should know that its normal. Evenly spaced vertical lines are never a sign of a problem (But horizontal lines, you should see a doctor.)\n\nWhat happens is that as you get older, parts of the nail matrix (the part of your fingers that the nail grows out of) atrophy. They become weak and dont function quite as well. This results in the increasingly prominent vertical ridges.\n\nThey're very similar in this way to skin wrinkles. Just the natural result of the aging process.", "They can occur vertically (called furrows) or horizontally (called corrugations) and are extremely normal. They occur as we age and can be more pronounced depending on how thick your natural nail is. They can also be caused by trauma to the nail bed (such as jamming your finger in a door, dropping something on them, etc.) and I find that these ridges tend to be deeper. Some people will even find that their nail will continually break along the ridge regardless of how well they take care of their nails. Nail beds are a bitch - they don't forget any trauma." ]

[ "Just as a reminder, the [Serious] tag isn't required here on ELI5. All questions here are assumed serious.\n\n/uncalled for mod", "Not to be gross, but during pregnancy 2 years ago, I noticed I suddenly had a freckle on the edge of my areola that wasn't there before. After the birth of my son, I noticed it still there. After examining it, I noticed it was on the surface of my skin. I scratched for whatever reason and noticed it lifted on one edge. Needless to say curiosity took over, as well as a pair of tweezers, and I ripped it off. It hurt. Like fuck. But no bleeding. Haven't tried it since.\r\rAlso, as someone with a ton of them, it's always fun to be around someone who doesn't, and notice that you have a new one. I mentioned I had a new one on my face one day, my brother asked how I could tell. I told him because it's a lot easier to remember where you don't have them versus where you do.", "Yes. IPL (Intense Pulsed Light) is very effective at removing freckles. It usually takes 1-6 sessions. The darker the freckle and the whiter the skin, the more effective. It feels something like an elastic band snapping on your skin. The cell actually releases the melanin in it and it moves upwards towards the surface of your skin over the period of 1-2 weeks and will fall out naturally. It is drastically noticeable within 2-3 hours after a session. It's actually quite amazing. It looks like you have a light dusting of dirt on you where the melanin has been released.\n\nCosts about $500 per session if you pay full cost. But if you live in a country where groupons are available, you can usually find it for $50.", "Suncream *everyday* (rain/hail/shine), for prevention. They'll fade as you get older." ]

[ "Apps that can be run off a flash drive, or without an installation, are referred to as \"portable\". What this means is the .exe file (sometimes they might need other files in that directory, too) contain everything needed to run the program.\n\nMore complex programs have different needs and need to be installed. Some of the things that might require an installation (I'm using Windows as an example here) are because they need DLL (Dynamic Link Libraries) installed in to Windows, may need a configuration file stored somewhere accessible, may need to have things put in to the registry for configuration or file associations, etc. \n\nDLLs can be specific to the programming software that the program was written in, and may already be installed on your computer, so an installer will often check for that. They are files with some standard information in them that the executable will use to be able to run itself - because these are standard files from the programming language used to write the executable, they are stored externally to help reduce the size of the program.\n\nThere are lots of other things an installer can do. Some times these things could be skipped, which is why you will sometimes see an installer version and a portable version of the same program offered.", "Software developer here,\n\nDepending on the software, it may be complex enough to depend on *resources* external to the executable itself. How does a program find these resources? A programmer can't account for every conceivable possibility; among the oldest technique is to keep said resources in a known location relative to the executable in the file system.\n\nA less flexible way, and typically what hamstrings program's - \"mobility\"? Location awareness? There really isn't a name for this - is that there are configuration files that had \"absolute path\" information stored in it. If that resource isn't there, there is no other recourse for the program.\n\nThere are system wide resources, and these are typically things like *.dll files (in Windows) that are in a system directory. Installers may install resources here that may not exist on another's. The convenience is the program simply demands a global resource and the OS handles the details, the problem is when it's not there, as on another system.\n\nAnother common hamstring is the installation of configuration within the OS. Windows has this sort of terrible idea called the \"registry\". When a program installs, it can insert fields into this. Move the executable to another system, where those properties aren't there, and that's it.", "Most apps store data all over the place. A Steam game is going to have an install directory, a save game directory, drop dll's into a systems folder, update DirectX, and change registry settings. A flash drive is only going to handle one of these, the install directory. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, it makes it easier to do stuff like uninstall the game without losing your saves.\n\nIt also serves as a form of DRM. Game producers don't want to make it easy for games to be portable without going through them or a service like Steam." ]

[ "Only a few cars are designed to be turned into police cars. They have to have more powerful engines, brakes, electrical systems, alternators, plus they have to have adjustments you may not even think of.\n\nFor example, my Charger has a really wide center console because standard police equipment like radios are 9\" wide. And the cruise control is on the wheel instead of on the steering column, because the police model has a column mounted shifter.", "Buying a lot of the same model means you get bulk rates as well as make maintenance easier. \n\nAnd for unmarked cars they do often use different models, and sometimes have the police use their personal vehicles." ]

[ "You would feel as though you were falling. \"Zero-gravity\" actually means you are in free fall, or in a motion that imitates free fall, such as the planes that fly in steep parabolic arcs to simulate zero-g for short periods of time without having to go into orbit.\n\nImagine you jump down an elevator shaft that just goes on forever. That's what being in zero-g feels like, and that is why people often feel sick/throw up when experiencing it." ]

[ "Passing on a recessive gene means that they are both carriers, giving you the lucky 25% of cases that would have the thumb.", "They may still both carry the recessive geans. Check out this dank example: _URL_0_ In it if you have two BB genes or Bb you have brown eyes and if you have bb you have blue eyes (because B is dominant, while b is recessive).", "You have two copies of every gene: One from your mother and one from your father.\n\nSomeone who has one recessive copy and one dominant copy will exhibit the dominant trait, because it \"overrides\" the recessive copy of the gene that they have. But they're still carrying recessive copies of the gene alongside the dominant copy.\n\nIf two such people have children together, there's:\n\n* a 25% change that a child will have two dominant copies \n\n* a 25% chance that they'll have a recessive copy from the mother and a dominant copy from the father \n\n* a 25% chance that they'll have a recessive copy from the father and a dominant copy from the mother \n\n* a 25% chance that they'll have two recessive copies\n\nSo there's a 25% chance that the child of such a couple will have no dominant copy for the gene to \"override\" the recessive copy, and they will thus exhibit the recessive trait.", "Both parents express the dominant gene, but also have the recessive gene. Let's say there's one allele for eye color. B is the dominant gene for brown eyes. b is the recessive gene for blue eyes. So two brown eyed parents can have a blue eyed child only if they are heterozygous (Bb, as opposed to BB or bb). So when two Bb parents have children, you get this:\n\n\n | B | b\n:-- | :-- | :--\nB | BB | Bb\nb | Bb | bb\n\nSo the chances two heterozygous parents with brown eyes having a recessive homozygous child with blue eyes is 1/4 or 25%. \n\nSo assuming your parentage is not in question, it can be safely assumed that both of your parents are carriers (Tt) of the recessive gene (t) and passed it down to you, making you tt.", "Your parents may both have Hh Hh which displays the dominant trait but each passed down h h to you giving you hh which displays the recessive trait. That’s how recessive genes work." ]

[ "Microwaves are electromagnetic radiation with fairly large wavelength. If you take away the spinning mechanism and put in something like a block of cheese, you'll pretty reliably be able to see that the heat will most be applied in certain sections. If you measure the distance between those sections, you'll be able to tell the wavelength of the microwaves.\n\nWhat'll happen if you leave the door open? Microwaves will leak out. What does this do to you? Well it affects the water in your system which definitely can't be good for you, but it isn't a HUGE deal. It'll also really fuck with the wifi at your house so long as the microwaves are leaking out" ]

[ "There is a learned history involved. Music and language are very closely related. Think of someone expressing sorrow or sympathy in a western language. Often there is a sigh, which falls down slightly with the sound going softer. Now listen to the lachrymosa from the Requiem by Mozart and you can hear this sigh in the violins. Mozart plays with the sigh by inverting the shape etc...but that affect is present through that movement. And if you look at music that evokes sadness you will find this sigh figure. Check out Barbers adagio, it occurs over and over again. Or listen to the Bach violin sonata in G Minor, the adagio. \n\nNow for keys and their relationship to sadness. Before pianos and in the early renaissance, the modes were popular tools for composing. Today, modes that we would define as sad, were used as modes for things that were happy or calming. But as music started to have a stronger relationship with vertical function over horizontal counterpoint, you start to see the modes shift roles. It was a long evolution, and part of it is based on these emotive gestures becoming a part of the western music dialect. \n\nThe key that fit really well with that sigh figure happens to be minor. And there are a great deal more gestures. Like something joyous often has a jump up of a fourth and sixth. Take for example happy birthday or the wedding march by Wagner. Now relate that what your voice naturally does when you get excited by seeing a friend you like \"oh hey!\" Or when you win a game and get excited and yell \"hell yes!\" \n\nThis is a very brief survey answer to your question and if you like I could try and find some examples for you." ]

[ "**A 2D TRIANGLE**\n\nStart with flat 2D geometry: Put 2 points, A and B, on a piece of paper, and draw a straight line between them, and measure length of line from A to B.\n\nNext, add a 3rd point, C, anywhere on the paper, and connect that to points A and B to make a triangle. Can you make the line from A to C to B as short as the line from A to B?\n\nThe only way to do that is to put C on the line between A and B. At that point, though, it ceases to be a triangle, and is really just the line from A to B with another mark on it.\n\n**DEFINING \"GREAT CIRCLE\"**\n\nNow, let's try the same experiment on a 3D sphere. When working in 2D, we only needed 2 starting points. With 3D, we need 3 starting points.\n\nIf point A is Sydney, point B is Johannesburg (A and B could be any other two different points on the sphere, as well), and point C is the center of the sphere (Hey! C for center! That works out well!), you can imagine 1 flat surface going through each of those points, dividing the sphere into 2 parts.\n\nFurther, because this flat surface goes through the center of the sphere, you also know that the flat surface is dividing the Earth exactly in half.\n\nIn other words, if you took the sphere apart where its cut by that flat surface, the edge would not only be circular, but it would be the largest possible circle you could make with that sphere. It's the greatest possible circle size, or \"great circle\" for short.\n\nThe shortest distance between any two points on that circle, is along that great circle itself.\n\n**SHORTEST POSSIBLE DISTANCE PROOF**\n\nWant proof? OK, we're going to do that triangle experiment again, but this time on the surface of the sphere!\n\nPoints A (Sydney) and B (Johannesburg) are already on the great circle, of course, because that's how we started.\n\nChoose a point D that's on the surface of the sphere, but not on the great circle. Points A, B, and D now form a spherical triangle (a triangle on the surface of a sphere).\n\nJust like in the flat triangle version, the only way to get the line from A to D to B to be as short as the line from A to B is to move D so that it's on the line from A to B.\n\nThere's your proof that the shortest distance along the surface of a sphere between any two points on that surface is along the great circle!\n\n**BONUS TRIVIA**\n\nPlanes flying from San Francisco to Tokyo fly a great circle path, but planes flying from Tokyo to San Francisco do not. Planes flying from Tokyo to San Francisco can save fuel by taking advantage of the jet stream over the Pacific.", "On a piece of paper, the shortest distance between two points would be a straight line.\n\nOn a round-ish object, by which I mean our planet, the shortest distance between two points can't be a straight line as it would have to pass through the planet. The shortest distance, surface-wise, is what's called a 'geodesic'. Great Circle is just a common term used for it but our planet isn't a perfect sphere, it is [an oblate spheroid](_URL_0_).\n\nWhen you take this 'surface-based straight line' and put it on a flat map, it appears as a curved path.\n\nThere are other factors at play too - whether or not the route needs to take a jet stream and whether or not the aircraft needs to be near land as much as possible.", "It's almost impossible to understand without having a globe handy. So get yourself a globe and a rubberband, string, or twist-tie to wrap around the globe.\n\nTechnically, a Great Circle is the largest possible diameter circle you can get when wrapping your string around your globe. For any two points on a Great Circle, following the Great Circle route is the shortest distance between those two points.\n\nThe Equator is a Great Circle. But the other latitude circles are not. \n\nLook at Houston, Texas, USA and Kerman, Iran. Both are on the same latitude line, so you might be tempted to simply follow that line if you were traveling between those two cities. But try to hold a string down on your globe connecting those cities and you will find it is slack, and as you tighten it up it won't stay on that latitude line connecting them. It will make an arc that goes \"up\" through Canada, over Iceland, and then \"down\" through Eastern Europe. That's your Great Circle route.", "What the other people were saying is correct, but if you are like me, its easier to understand by looking at pictures rather than picturing it inside your head. I took a couple of minutes to show you [this crude pictorial representation](_URL_1_) of what they are explaining." ]

[ "I work in healthcare. The opioid crisis is this situation in America where it is seen that providers are prescribing opioids (think painkillers) much more liberally than how they should. There are several studies that show how addictive these opioids can be and that innocent people can become addicted with a simple 5-7 day dose following surgery. The problem that laypeople fail to realize is that medicine has become a patient satisfaction industry.\n\n If I feel pressured by a patient to write them opioids, I know I’m about to run into trouble. They are more likely to be dissatisfied when I refuse to give them opioids that I feel are not indicated, with the possibility of taking me to court. Now this is where the fun begins. They may win a suit against me for “not being compassionate to help them alleviate their pain while I have the power to do so”. On the flip side, if I prescribe opioids (even when I feel it is appropriate), I can be sued for them becoming addicted. Honestly there is no way to win even with perfect medical judgement.\n\nMost people aren’t doctors though and they dont think or even care how it affects us, but really the doctors need more legal protection than what we currently have. We can lose our livelihood any day despite having perfect judgement with prescriptions." ]

[ "Finger tissue swelling/shrinkage. Rings will allwsys be looser in cold conditions. Somebody else wanna take the \"it must be cold in here\" dick joke??", "Joints (especially) swell throughout the day. We'll typically move around about half a ring size on either side of average. Everything from temperature to blood pressure to exercise can cause variations in the diameter of our fingers.\n\nBefore you buy a ring, it's a good idea to get your blood pressure up a little bit by clenching/pumping your fist. This will help you find a ring that won't be too tight, but also not too loose." ]

[ "Vinyl should be the easiest to understand - the waveforms are etched directly into the vinyl.\n\nOpen up a music file in a viewer like Audacity - you see that waveform? That's what is etched into the vinyl. The needle gets moved up and down (and left-to-right as well for stereo records) and the vibrations are carried to some electronics that amplify them.\n\nIn fact, if you take a record player with no power whatsoever and spin a record, you'll be able to hear the music directly from the needle (but it'll be very very quiet).", "First off, remember that sound is vibrations in the air. The vibrations hit out ear drums, and are transmitted to the brain and interpreted. That's kind of like how a record works.\n\nThe grooves of a record contain tiny, tiny bumps. A needle, usually made of diamond, is attached to a thin, metal strip inside the record player's tone arm. As the needle travels down the grooves, it hits the bumps and it moves up and down. This causes the metal strip to vibrate. The vibrations are sent to the cartridge, which are then turned into electrical signals, then amplified, and then sent out the speaker as sound.\n\nThe needle and metal strip are like ears; they receive the vibration. The cartridge is like a simple brain; it interprets the vibrations and lets you understand them.", "In each of those circular grooves the vinyl has been cut down, like little peaks and valleys. As the stylus travels in the groove it gets pushed up and down, reading this as sound which is then turned into music by the player." ]

[ "When you hit the back of your head, you're hitting the part of your brain that perceives vision, this can temporarily disorient you and cause little \"stars\" to appear in your vision", "Light takes time to travel. The light from our sun is more than 8 minutes old when it reaches us. Other stars are REALLY far away, Light years, not light minutes. What you see when you look at stars is the light that they emitted years and years ago. So it's like looking back in time.\n\nSome of those stars aren't even there anymore. A star that is 500 light years away might have gone supernova 300 years ago, and we won't know for another 200 years.", "Here's a link to more in-depth information: [Why Do I See Stars?](_URL_1_)\n\nBasically, the \"stars\" are known as [phosphenes](_URL_0_) and are caused by pressure on the eye being translated into various patterns by your optic nerve." ]

[ "Your body thinks embarassment is a threat. It triggers adrenaline to help you fight the threat. Adrenaline dilates your blood vessels so you get more oxygen and blood to use so you can fight or run. Blood rushing to your face makes you look red." ]

[ "5 guys per team try to skate on ice and put a small cylinder (puck) into a goal of the other team only using a stick with a flat blade on the end.\n\nLines:\n- There's 2 blue lines. Each are about a 1/3 of the way from a goal. \n- There's a red line in the middle of the rink. \n- There's 2 additional red lines where each goalie is.\n\nCan't go over the blue line towards the enemy's goal without the puck going there first. If you are in that area when the puck goes in, you're offside and you have to have a faceoff (ref throws the puck down and 2 players try to get it).\n\nCan't pass the puck over a the middle red and one of the blue lines to a teammate. This is called a 2-line pass - it's not in all version of hockey.\n\nCan't shoot the puck over 2 red lines without a teammate touching it (the 2 red lines being the middle, and the opposing goalie's red line). This is called icing.\n\nHitting people is ok, but there's rules to stop players from obviously trying to hurt someone. If, however, you're not paying attention and you get your clock cleaned it can be considered a \"clean hit\" (ie. legitimate, even though you got hurt).\n\nGoalie has a semi-circle that other players aren't allowed to be in. Messing with the goalie is called interference.\n\nIf you break any rules about being mean to other players (pulling them with your stick, hitting them with your stick, fighting and so forth) then you get penalized by sitting for 2-5 minutes in a box while the rest of your team has to play without you. A team can be down up to 2 players at a time. Additional penalties just add time to the total length that people are in the penalty box for.\n\nThat should about do it for the major rules.", "There are two teams. At any point, each team has 6 players on the ice. \n\nOne player is the Goalie. He's the one that blocks the pucks from going into the net.\n\nTwo other players are the Defensemen. They give the goalie support and supply the other three players, the Fowards, the puck so they can score. \n\nThe game is very fast paced, so on ice collisions are frequent and encouraged. You can't just hit (called \"checking\") somebody who doesn't have the puck though. That is called interference and will automatically get a penalty.\n\nOffsides is probably the most confusing subject for a nonn-hockey fan to understand. Basically the puck needs to cross the blue line of the other teams zone before any player from the team that is attacking can get in the zone. Because of how fast paced the game is, this rule forces the teams to go into the zone all at the same time rather than having a few players just wait at the other end next to the goalies. Just think of the offsides rule in soccer, except instead of a player you have the blue line. \n\nAnother concept that's hard to grasp is fighting. Fights happen frequently and are an important part of the game. It's not only a great morale booster, but an expected answer to any player who is playing dirty (just think of it this way: if there is a player that is taunting you, you have every right to confront him about it). Technically, you can't instigate a fight, however if the two players agree and throw their gloves down, they are welcome to punch each other. \n\nLastly, hockey differents from other sports because of the powerplays. If a team gets a penalty, the player who committed the penalty must serve time in the penalty box. Because of this, the other team will have a man advantage because one of the players on the team their facing is sitting out of play in the box. Powerplays are a very good way to score goals.", "Here are the basic rules that tend to confuse people.\n\n**Icing:** When the puck is shot before the center line (red) to the opposite end of the ice, without any player touching the puck. Icing is subsequently called when a player from the team that did not shoot the puck touches the puck behind the net.\n\nThe purpose of this rule is to prevent teams from simply shooting the puck to the opposite end of the rink for the purposes of wasting time (maybe at the end of a game, during a penalty, or when the players on the ice are tired).\n\n[Video on Icing](_URL_0_)\n\n\n**Offsides:** When the puck crosses the defending teams blue line* after* a member of the attacking team.\n\nThe purpose of this rule is to prevent players from \"cherry picking\". Without offsides a player could wait next to the opposing teams net while waiting for a pass.\n\n[Video of offsides](_URL_2_)\n\n**Penalties:** When a player draws a penalty in hockey they are sent to the penalty box (two minutes, by yourself, you know and you feel shame, you know. And then you get free). There are several different types of penalties in hockey. Penalties are classified based on severity with more severe actions resulting in longer penalties (or getting kicked out of the game). Penalty classifications are as follows:\n\n* minor penalty: Something along the lines of tripping, or hooking. These result in 2-minute penalties (depending on severity)\n\n* major penalty: Fighting is always a major penalty, which results in 5-minute penalties\n * if two players from opposing teams draw major penalties (fighting), then \n* misconduct: a 10-minute penalty for extremely severe infractions (hitting from behind, etc.)\n* game misconduct: A player is ejected from the game.\n\n[Here is a list of penalties in hockey.](_URL_1_)", "While I don't know hockey well enough to give you a good explanation, I do know you can anger any hockey fan watching a game by saying the following words:\n\n\"Hey, what quarter are we in?\"" ]

[ "Both systems result in the deaths of millions.\n\nBy shear numbers, communist russia killed way more people than the Nazis did.\n\nPolitics is a horseshoe, as you get closer to the extreme edges, they start to look a lot like each other.", "This is pretty specific to America, as the McCarthy era systematically defamed communism and socialism to legitimise their wars in south east Asia. \n\nThis policy resulted in the brainwashing of an entire generation and still can be felt in todays america.", "So, the first thing that's important is that there haven't been any legitimately communist countries in modern history. The ultimate goal of communism is no government, money, or private ownership of \"the means of production\" (basically, farmland, industry, etc.). Everyone contributes what they can and takes what they need. \n\nThat doesn't seem especially compatible with human nature, so communist countries start out with immense governments that control what gets farmed, what gets made in factories, what factories get built, etc., (centralized economic control) and who gets what, to keep people from taking too much (rationing). The government is just supposed to be there for a little while, to get communism started, and then it will just fade away.\n\nCentralized economic control has never worked very well, so the government just keeps getting bigger and bigger, trying to make it work better.\n\nThen the people in the government, who make the rules and decide who gets what, decide that some of the rules shouldn't apply to them, and that they should get more of what they want. \n\nEventually, the government turns into a self-perpetuating ruling elite. The people in the government work to stay in power because everyone else in the country basically lives in abject poverty, and they get to have nice stuff. Over time the divide just gets bigger and bigger.\n\nSo, they started from what some people think is a noble ideal, but they ended up with a massive authoritarian government that tells absolutely everyone (except high-ranking members of the government) what to do about absolutely everything.\n\nFascists skip the noble ideal and go straight to the massive authoritarian government that tells absolutely everyone (except high-ranking members of the government) what to do about absolutely everything, basically because they think they're smarter than everyone else and everything will be better if everyone has to do what they say.\n\nEither way, you have a massive authoritarian government that tells absolutely everyone (except high-ranking members of the government) what to do about absolutely everything.\n\nSure, there are ideological differences, but in practice, everything works out pretty much the same. You have no freedom, the government tells you what to do, and if you are too vocal in criticizing the government, you are imprisoned, executed, or you just disappear.\n\nAs far as the \"isn't the ideology of naziism rooted in ethnic cleansing and the genocide of people though?\" posted by OP elsewhere in this post, sure, it is. \n\nAnd it isn't a stated part of the original ideals of communism.\n\nBut Stalin (communist) killed millions of Russian Orthodox priests, certain socioeconomic classes (\"kulaks\"), Poles, and Buddhists, just for being who they were, plus millions of political dissidents.\n\nMao Zedong (communist) killed about 45 million religious leaders, political dissidents, and wealthy peasants, just for being who they were.\n\nPol Pot (communist) killed about a quarter of the entire population of Cambodia.\n\nThe only place communist ideals work at all is in tiny farming communities, united by the strongly held ideals of the individuals that CHOOSE to participate, and that are almost completely devoid of modern technology.", "because both are extremely repugnant ideologies and both actually have similar ideologies despite being portrayed as diametrically opposed" ]

[ "They aren't. They do not have the lawful authority to break into *any* private structure, business or residential, in the absence of something called *exigent circumstances.*\n\nBasically, an exigent circumstance is any situation in which *not* acting creates an unreasonable risk of harm to something or somebody. If a policeman were walking down the street and heard cries of \"Help! Help!\" coming from within a private residence, that policeman would (probably; depends on the exact circumstances) have the lawful authority to make entry to that residence, up to and including breaking the door in. That's because under that circumstance, the policeman would reasonably suspect that somebody was *actively coming to harm* in the residence at that time, and that waiting could cause that person to come to still greater harm.\n\nBut a noise complaint does not create an exigent circumstance. If somebody calls in a noise complaint on you, the police will come to your house, knock on the door, and *ask* to be invited inside so they can check things out. They will not break your door in, because there's no reason to believe it's an exigent circumstance.\n\nHowever, there is also the matter of what's called *probable cause.* Probable cause is the legal doctrine that says sometimes peace officers — policemen, sheriffs and so on — have the lawful authority to conduct an arrest or a search right there on the spur of the moment, without getting explicit judicial approval (i.e., a warrant). If a policeman comes to your door in response to a noise complaint, looks past you into your residence and *sees people snorting white powder,* that policeman will have the lawful authority to enter your home with or without permission and determine whether that white powder is a controlled substance.\n\nSo the short answer to your question is that police cannot break into your home except under exigent circumstances, and they can't even enter your home without permission without probable cause, and a noise complaint *by itself* creates neither." ]

[ "For what it's worth, here's [the Church's official explanation](_URL_0_). Consider the source, obviously, but you sometimes see claims of one official reason or another and this is the only real official answer I suspect you'll find.", "Short answer: Joseph Smith wanted to have multiple wives and he was in the position where he had people believing that he spoke for god.", "* Polygamy started as a cover story for the founder's sexual appetite.^[1](_URL_3_)\n\n* Once Joseph Smith's secret was out of the bag, a lot of mormon men wanted a piece of the action. Smith had framed polygamy as being required to achieve the highest level of heaven.^[2](_URL_3_) A lot of mormon men wanted to maximize their chances for *pussy* both now and in the hereafter!\n\n* A lot of mormon men thought a having a variety of young women around them not only brought a great variety to their sexual relationships, but they claimed that multiple partners had quantifiable advantages over monogamy. They claimed plural marriage helped stave off temptation from the illicit and immoral outlets of prostitution and adultery. Quotes available upon request.\n\n* Because one of the stated goals was to raise up a righteous generation of mormons, birth control was *out of the question.* Also, women past menopause were summarily jettisoned and discarded.^[3](_URL_3_) The polygamist branches of mormonism continue to reward their older men with the youngest and most fertile hens.\n\n* It probably goes with out saying, but please disregard the lingering misogyny. It is simply a figment of your imagination. ;)\n\nELI5: Partriarchy wins out over matriarchy. It doesn't hurt to claim that god is on your side. ;)\n\n**edited** ELI5 is hard.", "How it was explained to me by a Mormon: Men were allowed to take additional wives to take care of them. Say Jenna is married to Jack. They have 4 kids and a farm. Jack dies. How is Jenna supposed to take care of her kids *and* the farm? It would be difficult to say the least. Now James over here is very prosperous. He has more than enough to take care of his wife and kids. James is allowed to wed Jenna, so as to take care of her and her kids. James doesn't have relations with Jenna, just takes care of her and her kids. He considers them family.", "As much fun as it is to poke fun at Mormons, polygamy is biblical. Paul does speak against in the New Testament, in reference to church leaders, but he also speaks against marriage in general.\n\nPolygamy died out because it was against Roman law, not from any spiritual epiphany." ]