Datasets:

---

seongil-dn

/

seongil-dn_mteb-eli5-with-reddit_perc

like 0

[ { "id": "corpus-0", "score": 0.7489511966705322, "text": "Keep the defense honest, get a feel for the pass rush, open up the passing game. An offense that's too one dimensional will fail. And those rushes up the middle can be busted wide open sometimes for big yardage." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-2686994", "score": 0.7111462950706482, "text": "First, if it's a score that's in *any* way questionable, there should be a two-minute time out for review. When teams are allowed to run out their field goal units and take a quick extra point, before the booth might even have a chance to see the right angle...\n\nSo let's say there was a suspicious call, but there are only 15 seconds between TD and PAT. The coach can't even throw a flag, just to ensure it gets reviewed, or they get penalized (as in Raiders/Bills earlier). \n\n[Side note: I was cheering for the Bills. But on their TD run where Jackson got flagged for throwing a challenge flag, well...on the one replay that they showed from a camera lined up along the goal line, I'm certain the ball did not cross the line in any way. It was only from one angle that showed this, and they only replayed that angle once. Are we certain the guys upstairs saw that angle in time?]\n\nSecond, I keep hearing the reason they implemented this is so coaches don't have to \"waste\" a challenge on a scoring play. Well...why even have challenges then? Are they going to challenge a possible 9-yard gain in the middle of the first quarter? Yeah there are still big receptions/turnovers that can change the course of the game. That's why they have more than one challenge, and get an extra if they get it correct. \n\nI think this is a stupid rule change and I'm certain there will be a big game this year where someone gets screwed by it. \n\nEdit: The post-Eagles-Falcon game talk about this subject basically confirmed what I thought. Plays aren't being properly reviewed.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-840292", "score": 0.7107425928115845, "text": "Just watching the highlights? \n\nI thought you weren't allowed to make a forward pass from beyond the line of scrimmage, but that's what happened. \n\nNobody else seems to have mentioned it, so I'm guessing I've misunderstood something, but would be grateful to understand it better.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-47204", "score": 0.710324227809906, "text": "Defensive players must move more (particularly the coverage team). Watch all the [defensive backs](_URL_0_), every play all of them need to flow to the ball, while the receivers who aren't running a deep route don't need to run nearly as far, offenses can strategically exploit the need for multple defensive players needing to commit to covering a single receiver running a deep route while the play (and 10 of the 11 offensive players run short routes). Additionally defenses need to react to the ball being put in play, which means they need to be ready for the ball to snap from the instant the QB gets under center til the ball is snapped (which can be 10 seconds or more), while the offense knows when the ball will be snapped.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-43733", "score": 0.7087158560752869, "text": "There would be much fewer touchdowns though. Go for the easy 3, instead of the hard 4. Teams would generally get to about the 40 yard line, and kick a **Field Goal** instead of risking interceptions, fumbles, penalties, or lost yards. 2 point conversions are often hard to get, because there is so much action is so small a space, which is why most teams choose the easy 1 point **Point After Touchdown** (PAT), because failing means zero points. So sure you might get your 4 points from the touchdown, but you might not get your 4 from the conversion. One more note, the PAT is almost always at a fixed distance, and is usually not missed. Father away filed goals are missed more frequently.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-149441", "score": 0.7086591124534607, "text": "It's a long exhausting and dangerous game. Who would want their star player to get injured in double OT of their second game of the year? Also considering how tiring football is anything past single OT would become a shitshow of exhausted players throwing themselves at eachother which would make it more likely for injuries to occur and less likely for good plays or scoring plays to happen.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-2267401", "score": 0.7086063027381897, "text": "I just dont get it. When all five players on a team decide that the game cannot be won anymore, why waste time waiting and hoping that the enemies will push?\nTheres absolutly no point in not implementing it", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-2153014", "score": 0.7078156471252441, "text": "I hate when I've called a zone play and the opposing team runs. My player ends up out of position and I'm left with my dick in my hand(metaphorically of coarse)", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-739141", "score": 0.7075762748718262, "text": "So as a pass rusher could you grab the offensive linemen’s jersey and yank him to a side and do whatever, or is that also considered defensive holding? I feel like I never see this called (if it’s a rule), but maybe it just isint normally super obvious.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-54760", "score": 0.7071850895881653, "text": "It's essentially where a team constantly pressurise the other team when they have the ball in the hope they will hurry too much and either get tackled or make a poor pass giving the ball away. You would think everyone would do this but no. Spain played a pressing game during their dominant spell. It was very effective for them because when they had the ball they were so effective at keeping it. Therefore when they lost it they could afford to press the opposition to get it back. My country (England) are useless at ball retention so we don't play pressing football because we'd be knackered very quickly. In principle we play counter attacking football which involves waiting for the other team to fuck up then attacking quickly (we're not very good at it)", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-2154748", "score": 0.7071016430854797, "text": "I was wondering if sometimes we pass the ball around our defensive third for longer than necessary just to draw the opposition out. The ball sometimes moves between the two centrebacks and a midfielder (and goalkeeper) a bit too many times even as the opposition presses on them. This might be done to draw teams out of defensive shells, I'm not exactly sure. For example, Coutinho's goal v. Tottenham at Anfield, the ball was with our defence for sometime so Spurs pushed up higher, Flanagan did the Cruyff turn and suddenly we had the ball in Spurs half against a stretched Spurs defence", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-1026902", "score": 0.706946611404419, "text": "Got this email from imleagues. No rushers? Seems kind of lame. \n \n\"Thank you for registering your 4v4 Flag Football team. The season will being on Wednesday, March 7th. Please check out your schedules and ensure your team shows up on time in the correct jersey color. Please remember NO POCKETS are allowed in your shorts. No jewelry is allowed and buzzcards are required for check in. There are 4 MAJOR Rule Changes below: the ball will now be placed on the 10 yard line to start the half as well as after any turnover on downs or score. (2) You may now go for 3 extra points from the 20 yard line (3) Defensive players cannot rush the quarterback at any time. The referee will give an audible 5-second count for hte quarterback to release the ball. If the quarterback does not release the ball in time, the whistle will be blown, and it will be a loss of down. The ball will be snapped from the previous spot. (4) Defensive players are NOT allowed to rush past the line of scrimmage until the quarterback has released the ball. \"", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-2153909", "score": 0.7068952918052673, "text": "You are so concentrated when you are playing that the time can fly by and all of the sudden you hear \"15 seconds left\" and you have to rush to not lose the game. If you get a \"1 minute left\" that would be much easier to execute a good play.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-1150361", "score": 0.7060887813568115, "text": "To actually show the highlight play and NOT the player just running back on D, inbounding the ball or the aftermath of the ACTUAL play. Come on EA", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-2153452", "score": 0.7057543396949768, "text": "Learn an offensive scheme that doesn't just rely on four verticles lmfao. In the past 4 games I have played dudes who run different variants of four verticles and then message me calling me a cheater for stopping them. I don't understand why people spend so much coins on a team to only run one play and throw it to one guy....", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-2154434", "score": 0.7053568959236145, "text": "This guy ran this play 50% of the time, and a guy always came in unblocked between my center and my guard. And when he ran Cover 2 Man QB Contain, he always had serious edge pressure, and I could barely get the ball out half the time, got sacked the other half.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-1636133", "score": 0.7048043012619019, "text": "I hear a lot about tiring defenses out, but wouldn't it tire offenses out too? I guess it affects the defense more than the offense though.\n \n \nWhat about clock management, especially towards the end of games with a small lead? Do teams like the Eagles struggle with late-game comebacks given up to other teams by not effectively burning the clock?", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-2153434", "score": 0.7046540379524231, "text": "All you have to do is cause a fumble. After it's recovered by either team, run another play and bam, challenge completed\n\nAlso RB/R1 is strip", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-2154525", "score": 0.7046508193016052, "text": "If it's used to pressure the other team and force turnovers in the fourth quarter, why not do it the entire game?", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-1213472", "score": 0.7043272256851196, "text": "I always see this when there is a lot of crowd noise. I realize what it is they are doing, but why is it not considered a false start? Also, doesn't this give the defense an advantage since they know exactly when the ball will be snapped?", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-22370", "score": 0.7038140892982483, "text": "There's no logical explanation for that call. You could argue that they were hoping to surprise NE with a pass, but that was the worst play call I can remember. There is no running back in the sport I would rather have in that situation than Marshawn Lynch.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-3", "score": 0.6734035015106201, "text": "I'm pretty confident most of it isn't going back to the people. That's how politics works." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-2066141", "score": 0.6394643187522888, "text": "Do people get money back after losing about 30% or do they still get nothing?", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-59827", "score": 0.6394391059875488, "text": "To the people, businesses, banks, funds, and nations who purchase government bonds issued by your country. In effect they are giving your country a loan with a promised rate of return over a certain number of years. They can then turn around and sell the bonds on an open market to other investors.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-29835", "score": 0.6385415196418762, "text": "It's not your money. You know banks don't give out free money as a gift, you know it's not yours, you have to give it back. You're not being held liable, in as much as no penalty is being handed out - you just have to give back what you know was never yours.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-79372", "score": 0.638512909412384, "text": "It goes to whomever the shares of the company were purchased from. Same way as when you buy a boat, the money you pay for it goes to the party from whom you're buying it.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-3747", "score": 0.6383703947067261, "text": "They basically said \"we will bail out domestic depositors, but not international investors\". Most of these international investors had already been bailed out through their own banks who expected Iceland to make good on its promises. When Iceland reneged on the deal, there was a lot of pressure on Iceland to make good on it, both in courts and through international diplomacy. It's still not fully resolved. The line that \"they bailed out the people, not the banks\" looks good on a Facebook meme. But the reality is they bailed out their own people by screwing over British and Dutch banks and investors, because Iceland's banking fund for such things was not properly capitalized.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-131744", "score": 0.6381576061248779, "text": "A state owned steel company telling a state owned bank it's not going to pay it back doesn't mean the bank isn't still out the money. If the banks basically forgave all the debt on their books, they'd be completely insolvent and collapse.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-1005875", "score": 0.6381271481513977, "text": "I suppose it coukd happen but I'm just curious as to who has all this money to just give away. How does it all work?", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-43607", "score": 0.6374267339706421, "text": "If you lose all of your money, it affects you. Maybe a few members of your family. It won't really affect the national economy. if a company like GM is about to go under, it will affect millions of people and do damage to the national economy. So, the government is doing what is best for the country.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-2325127", "score": 0.6371254920959473, "text": "Honest question.\n\nWhere is all the money? I hear nothing but bad news about financial crisis all over the world, and it seems that there is a shortage of cash - like it is some sort of natural resource.\n\nPeople haven't stopped buying stuff. They still need food, clothing, medicine, shelter. Taxes are still collected. Fines are still levied. \n\nSo where is all the money? I mean, labor has been produced to make things and wages paid to the laborers. The things are purchased by other laborers, who were paid for producing goods or services, etc. It's a closed loop, right? \n\nCan someone explain it like I'm five or something?", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-115975", "score": 0.6366977095603943, "text": "There is actually a large pool of money that comes from white-collar criminals and large organizations that is dispersed annually to nonprofit orgs that \"fight\" crime. The money goes to rape centers, counseling centers, places that do victims compensation, etc. I'm not sure of the exact size but I've been told it's about a trillion dollars. Congress dictates how much is handed out on an annual basis and it changes every year. The fund is called VOCA money and it was started by the Victims of Crime Act in 1984. Source: I used to be the Marketing and Fundraising director for an organization that received VOCA money.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-115728", "score": 0.6366739273071289, "text": "People using black markets or are trying to avoid taxes are paying in cash. This is normally kept in high value notes because it's easier to keep 10 x $100 bills than 50 x $20. The government is taking 2 of the highest value notes out of circulation. People are forced to either lose their money or bring it to banks to convert at which point they are questioned over high deposits/exchanges. This isn't just people buying a few cartons of milk it's people paying half of the payment for a house via cash to avoid the costs etc. It's a lot of money going untaxed.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-112869", "score": 0.6365930438041687, "text": "They charge interest rates of 1000s of percent. If you borrow over a few days, and repay on time, the interest will be enough to cover their costs and more. But if you *don't* repay on time, the interest builds up to thousand or tens of thousands of pounds/dollars. Then they sell this debt to debt collection agencies, who pay them a fraction of the huge amount that's now owed. And again, they've recovered their costs and more. As for the debt collection agencies, they will chase the people who now owe them massive sums, and arrange for payment to be made, bit by bit, over a longer period. Not everyone is going to be able to pay. But those that can will cover the cost of those who can't - remember the agencies paid only a fraction of the value of the debt to buy it from the loan company because of the poor chance of repayment.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-80859", "score": 0.6364458203315735, "text": "Assuming you mean in the US. So the money, after printing, will go to the Federal Reserve. Usually the money that is printed is replacing old currency that they will eventually destroy. That's how we maintain the value of the dollar. When a medium to large sized bank needs more cash, they get it from their regional F.R. location with which they have an account. That account is debited when they do this and when they have excess cash it's sent back to them which then credits their account.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-13518", "score": 0.6363407969474792, "text": "That's an insane amount, but it's also a *meaningless* amount. Calculating it makes about as much sense as dividing the total sales of Walmart by the number of Polynesian rice farmers. There is no mechanism by which we ever could or would put all the government's debt on every citizen, and we don't really want the number to be 0 on the first place. Government debt is not at *all* the same kind of thing as you taking out a loan from the bank. Because of this, it really isn't all that important that there's a lot of it.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-67389", "score": 0.6363301277160645, "text": "It's the same narrative as in the US. Powerful elites manipulated the country's laws for their own gain, causing a spectacular collapse that has hurt the working man. It doesn't change the fact that the money's got to be paid back, but it sure doesn't mean that they have to like it.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-64211", "score": 0.6361348032951355, "text": "If they were previously buying that pot from their friend Steve, then Steven would have the income and not the government. If it's legal, the government is the one making that money, not Steve. The money spent may be not have changed, but the flow of money is going to the government.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-63590", "score": 0.6360875964164734, "text": "National debt isn't like that $20 you loaned your friend Larry at the bar last week. You want that $20 back next time you see him because you just sort of gave it to him. When the US borrows money, they're getting $20 from millions of people & promising to pay them back $22 next week. Sometimes they'll need to borrow a bit more to pay everyone back but everyone knows they're getting paid back on time. As long as nobody doubts the US government's ability to make their payments, people will continue to lend them money & it's no big deal.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-146902", "score": 0.6360806226730347, "text": "The business is a front or part of it is a sham. Like the other poster said it \"washed\" dirty money -hiding it's origins. The business doesn't benefit but the criminals sure do.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-67705", "score": 0.6359990239143372, "text": "There are audit trails. Every time money is added to an account, there **must** be a corresponding removal from another account somewhere, and every step has to be recorded. If government auditors find that there was fraud committed, and money just materialized out of nowhere, someone is going to federal prison for a very long time.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-70477", "score": 0.6353501081466675, "text": "[in the case of the US...](_URL_0_) this is who we owe money to. As for the rest of the world, sorry, couldn't tell you.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-4", "score": 0.7213839888572693, "text": "Automatics weigh more, so that alone makes gas mileage worse. They are also more complicated, so that means reliability is going to be lower. It is easier to operate, which may free up your attention for focus on what is *outside* the car. Some people derive satisfaction from shifting, and flexibility in using the power curve." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-1384849", "score": 0.6850457787513733, "text": "Curious as to what different teams do for shifting, electric? Pneumatic? Manual by driver? How does it work for you?", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-1385580", "score": 0.6847555637359619, "text": "Just got my first automatic after driving manual for a decade. It feels so futuristic, luxurious and smooth, I don't have to do anything, the car does it all for me. Especially living in the city, everything is so much less of a chore.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-145436", "score": 0.684617817401886, "text": "Nothing. _URL_0_ Mythbusters busted this myth. There are systems in place which prevent the reverse gear from engaging, as they would destroy the engine/transmission; your car will simply go to neutral instead.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-2459915", "score": 0.6845254898071289, "text": "I would prefer the Mazda for its driving characteristics, but not if it would mean a significant hit in how high the mileage is for the price, or reliability.\n(just in general, I know it varies from one car to the next)\n\nAlso would certainly prefer manual, but auto is fine.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-405797", "score": 0.684421718120575, "text": "I havent gotten one yet but I was looking at getting a 6 cylinder CLK from the early 2000s. I have the unfortunate circumstance of living in Australia where a manual Mercedes is exceedingly rare. So with this in mind, what transmissions work well in this situation? Or is the Auto worth keeping?", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-159194", "score": 0.6843103766441345, "text": "There's also the matter of fuel economy. After WW2 in particular, automatics used significantly more fuel, and that was much more important in a Europe that was recovering from war. Then there was the oil crisis in the 1970s, which kept manuals from going out of fashion.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-186261", "score": 0.6842085123062134, "text": "This article explains it pretty flawlessly if you have a few minutes _URL_0_ Essentially, if you have 4,3,2, and L, then your gearbox has 6 gears to choose from (not counting reverse). L (low range) will hold the gears much lower than they would be if in D(rive), allowing the engine to provide more torque, for towing or steep hills. Selecting 4, 3, or 2 will limit the maximum gear that the gearbox will go, but other than that it will behave as it would in D.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-405598", "score": 0.6842009425163269, "text": "Greetings!\n\nNever had a Corolla before, but looking at a 2004 with 5spd manual transmission. (76k miles)\n\nWhen driving, engine hard limits at about 4k rpm in every gear I tried except of course I couldn't get it to 4k in 5th gear on these roads LOL.\n\nI see plenty of comments of other people with this problem, but no answers.\n\nIs it normal to rev-limit at 4k rpm on the manual when driving and going through the gears? It's really disconcerting when suddenly acceleration halts just before you're about to shift... It's not a soft or gradual limit, it's a hard limit.\n\nAlso the gearshift clunks audibly when you swish it left to right like to check if it's in neutral. Is that normal?\n\nThank!", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-44339", "score": 0.6842002272605896, "text": "When you choose Drive, you are telling the transmission to choose whichever gear it feels is most suitable for the driving condition at any moment. When you choose 1, you are limiting the transmission to the use of first gear only. 2 allows the use of first and second; 3 allows the use of the first three gears.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-405523", "score": 0.6839014887809753, "text": "I am about to test drive a DCT automatic in Bulgaria today. As you may have guessed I have a choice of only a couple of Velosters here right now as its a very rare breed over here. One is Canadian import in Grey with a Manual from 2013 and the other is German import in nice green with better trim level (leather heated tires, nice green trim details throughout). In terms of visuals clearly the Green one looks way sexier to me. But it has the DCT on a 2012 plate so Im a bit hesitant as I read I might be buying myself problems. Both cars are listed at pretty much the same price and have the same mileage on them and both are the base 1.6 version non-turbo. Should I avoid such an early for Hyundai DCT transmission from reliability pov and go for the less sexy grey Manual? Honestly been driving manuals for years now and never actually driven an automatic but thought the idea if the dual clutch with paddle shifters quite inticing...but certainly not if it is very likely to hit me in the pocket very soon. Any thoughts as Im probably buying one of the two in next few days? Thanks", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-129269", "score": 0.6838672757148743, "text": "Automatics tended to work better with larger engined cars and so were a bit rubbish with typical small 4 cylinder cars that were sold in Europe. If you move up into the luxury cars (Jaguars, Rolls Royce etc) where they were fitted with larger engines then an automatic was normal. Automatics have improved so they work well with smaller engines but culturally we are used to driving manual cars. Manuals are also less complicated and cheaper so are more widely bought as standard. But still in the executive and luxury market a automatic is chosen.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-2293706", "score": 0.6838540434837341, "text": "So I finally have my first stick with I've been wanting forever, and the dread of burning out the clutch doing some noob shit worries me. \n\nMost of my commute is nice and smooth, but getting back into town gets a little tricky and I'm still smoothing out my technique. \n\nAt the lights traffic can move about 4-7 mph, with uphills included. My car likes to be at about 10mph in 1st gear with the clutch fully engaged, so I tend to feather it with a little gas to keep moving forward and not rolling backwards into people. I'm just worried I might be damaging my drive train in some way. \n\nThis mostly stems from my ignorance about clutches and transmissions beyond the absolutely basic. Any help is appreciated", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-2603651", "score": 0.6835997104644775, "text": "Sorry, not a native english speaker, so I don't know if this is the correct way to say this.\n\nBut does anyone know if switching like, from gear 3 to gear 1, without releasing the clutch button at all damages the car, or not?\n\nIn FH3 I mean, but I'd have the same question for FM7.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-2293732", "score": 0.6835699081420898, "text": "First manual transmission, been driving in traffic for a week, it feels like I’m jolting into gears, especially 1-2, 2-3. I don’t know if I’m letting up on the clutch too quickly or not fast enough. Would love some friendly driver’s advice! \n\nBackground: I’m an EMT in a busy city so I’m not a total noob on the road, but I’ve certainly become humbled by this new driving experience.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-2295434", "score": 0.6832342147827148, "text": "I’m not exactly a car enthusiast, i just got my first charger and I’m absolutely loving it. But I’ve searched online and i haven’t really found a direct answer. \n\nWhat does the (+) and the (-) mean when you shift to Manual? When are the proper times to use these? \n\nI understand the car will shift to the proper gears automatically if you don’t shift to M but I heard that isn’t always the case. Just want to get to know her a bit better.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-2295628", "score": 0.6829919815063477, "text": "So i'm looking at a car with two engine options 1.2 turbo with manual 6 speed (90hp) or the same engine without a turbo with manual 5 gears (65hp). The price difference for buying is negliable but i'm wondering what has the biggest chance of going wrong in lets say 10 years and 180K km (100k miles)\n\nThe turbo is an extra thing to go wrong and puts extra strain on the engine. \n\nBut the other one having only 65hp and 5 gears means it will have to work harder with higher revs on the motorway.\n\nI am switching jobs in the near future with 2 options 1 is close by and will require only town driving, the other one is farther and will require daily motorway driving. Should i choose the engine depending on what job i get or is one just plain better than the other? \n\nI'm looking for cheapest maintenance, as in repairs. I will change the oil religiously as i like to take care off my car. \n\nYes i know 65hp is really slow, i have had a 65hp car before, don't really care because i'm a hypermiler anyway.\n\nBoth engines have a timing chain, so no belts to go wrong.\n\nThanks in advance!", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-52421", "score": 0.682949960231781, "text": "Drive 4 lets the transmission pick from whichever of 4 gear ratios in the transmission is most appropriate. A common set of gears has one to get moving, one to get up to speed, a 1:1 direct drive that will give you good performance since the engine is designed to match the final drive ratio, and an overdrive for fuel economy. Drive 3 locks out the tallest gear. Drive 2 locks out the two tallest gears. Drive 1 puts you only in low gear. These positions can help in certain driving scenarios such as hills, snow, towing, or off-roading.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-1385530", "score": 0.6828606724739075, "text": "In theory, the only difference between a manual Focus and the automatic are that the computer controls shifts in an automatic. Everyone says their manual Focus is a Godsend, while those who bought the automatic practically curse the day they were born.\n\nWhat was it that really sunk the automatics? The computer sucking at its job? The improper ground? The inherent design flaw of the DCT in a low-end car? \n\nWhat could Ford have done to either prevent this or properly remedy this situation?", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-1631597", "score": 0.6827616691589355, "text": "Hi everyone. I'm looking at a 2015 5-spd SE later today and I wanted to hear what your experiences with it are. I've heard that the automatic is a real gamble but that the manual variant of this model is a pretty rocksteady choice. Is that really the case?", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-14821", "score": 0.6827453374862671, "text": "Gears have their own losses. Adding them takes away energy from driving. Electric motors can be designed to run optimally at various speeds.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-5", "score": 0.7284151911735535, "text": "I hope this answer qualifies as technical, yet simple enough (as I very rarely post here), but the basic idea that I understand is that your muscles rip and tear on a microscopic level when you are working out, and the harder you push those muscles, the more they rip. Hence where the idea comes from that more reps and less weight equal more tone, but more weight and less reps equal more muscle growth. What happens is that following those tiny rips and tears, your muscle heals over itself and essentially stacks on top of itself, healing bigger and stronger than before. The more those muscles are used, kept active and challenged, the more they will continue to build and grow over time. Other factors go into the growth of muscle as well, such as your nutrition. Protein, fats, etc. also play a factor, as they cause your body to \"feed\" your body and muscles in different ways of varying effectiveness - but I think that's an ELI5 for another day." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-7897", "score": 0.6918660998344421, "text": "A lot of hormonal stuff happens that I don't know enough about to explain, but basically, you damage your body and your body goes \"well shit, I gotta be stronger if this is gonna keep happening.\" So then it gets stronger. Note that if you do the same exercises forever, you won't keep getting stronger, you'll just maintain that level of strength... Your body is already used to it. If you DON'T exercise, your body goes \"Oh I don't need all this muscle anymore, I can get weaker!\" And you get weaker.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-1615138", "score": 0.6911822557449341, "text": "I'm just curious as to how everyone can start working out with little to no equipment, and still get results. I have access to a gym, a TV and a bed, but I still feel like I need a bit of help from the internet.\n\nI'm looking to build muscle not to just a big back, but overall. I know I have a bad posture, and I'm looking to work on that. I have some back problems I need to work on, but I don't know how to do that with very little equipment.\n\nMy main question is: how do you build muscle in a way that works for more than just a big back?", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-118581", "score": 0.6911457180976868, "text": "Depends. If you are meaning what happens when you gain strength without gaining size it is something called neuromuscular facilitation. Essentially your brain and nerves learn how to fire the muscles more efficiently and you activate more of the muscle fibers. This accounts for the quick strength gains you see when you first start working out. As you get past the facilitation you get into actual mass gain. Then it's physics. Greater cross section of fibers equals more strength.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-1613030", "score": 0.6909221410751343, "text": "*Sorry if this question has already been answered.*\nAnyways, ever since I was young I have always been rather small and frail looking. I've never really gained any weight, even though I do eat a lot of decently balanced meals. Anyways, as a 19 year old male, I sometimes find myself lacking confidence because I don't have much muscle mass.\n\nCould you possibly offer me suggestions of ways to begin to build muscle mass? What types of foods should I eat? What kind of exercises do you feel would be most beneficial? How many reps should I be starting with? Where are some good places to work out at? Any daily routines you use? \n\nSorry for all of the questions, but if you could help me I would greatly appreciate it. \n\nThank you so much!", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-124821", "score": 0.6898208260536194, "text": "Because muscles take a lotta energy for your body to make and use, and your body doesn’t like using energy. Whenever you work out, those muscles go like “Wheh, this sure is hard, we’re kinda breaking down a little here and could use some help.” You’re body responds by saying, “Alright, you can be bigger, but only as long as you need to be. If you stop needing to be bigger, I’m gonna take back my precious energies because it might stop coming one day.” That’s why you gotta work out consistently or you lose muscle, and also why you don’t gain muscles when doing nothing! Your body likes to horde energy like a dragon hordes gold and doesn’t like to spend it unless it really needs to.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-189812", "score": 0.6897369027137756, "text": "So when your muscle is sore, that means the fibers that make it up are torn. That’s how muscles are built, you work out, tear the fibers, and they are built back bigger than before. So when you extend the muscle, you’re tearing more fibers in the muscle.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-248789", "score": 0.6885788440704346, "text": "Its all about the genes, and more specifically the control of those genes. It varies by body part exactly how this works. One particularly cool example is how each of your fingers gets differentiated. So your hand just starts as a nub during development, and it has one special node on one side. This thing starts emitting a certain protein, but as you can probably imagine, less of this protein gets to the middle of the hand than the starting side, and even less gets to the farthest side than that. The fingers know how exactly to grow depending on the concentration of this protein. So the starting side becomes the pinkie, the next highest concentration the ring finger, then the middle finger, the index, and the lowest concentration side becomes the thumb.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-7023", "score": 0.6873744130134583, "text": "Building muscles is like building a house, you need to build it out of something. By exercising you are giving your cells orders to build a building. Proteins are like the bricks for the building, the cells can just stack em together and make a building. You can turn other things into bricks, but that takes time and effort, it might be easier to just stack it in a corner or burn it right now. Those would be other sources of calories. If you're are starting out as fat, this would be like having piles of clay you stacked in a corner, send the right orders and you can turn that into muscle proteins. Eventually you'll run out of fat and need to get more stuff to turn in muscle. Thus you'll need to eat more stuff than you burn, otherwise there's nothing left over to turn into muscle.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-87969", "score": 0.6865727305412292, "text": "Because your body is designed to repair itself, and not using those repair functions causes them to break down as well. Just like someone who is kept away from all germs ends up with no immune system to speak of, someone who doesn't stress their muscles can't grow muscles properly.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-95311", "score": 0.6864994764328003, "text": "A lot of misinformation in here. Fast twitch / slow twitch has nothing to do with this these particular examples. Every muscle can be worked out and every muscle will grow if worked out more. You say those muscles stay the same despite being used a lot. Your muscles are the size they need to be for their usage. The muscles which are moving your fingers are in your forearm. If you do grip exercises they will definitely grow in size and you will get bigger forearms. (The muscles that are actually in your hand are mostly for moving your fingers laterally and are very small in size but even they can be worked out) If you use or exercise your jaw beyond normal eating then those muscles will definitely grow larger as well.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-175226", "score": 0.6863377690315247, "text": "They bind to androgen receptors, this action causes genes to be expressed. These expressed genes are proteins and other things that contribute to muscle growth.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-686195", "score": 0.6855570673942566, "text": "Muscle is built by the repeated tearing and slow healing of muscle fibers so that they come back bigger and stronger. If Wolverine's body heals near-instantaneously, that wouldn't give his muscles time to grow and re-knit, they'd just immediately heal back to the same size every time he exerts himself. So either he's just unable to gain very muscle at all (which wouldn't really fit with his strength and size as depicted in the comics unless the strength is also a mutation) or his muscles also grow exceedingly fast in proportion with his healing ability - in which case he would be built like an absolute monster and basically have an unworkable amount of muscle, given how much he fights / does other muscle-building activities. So how does this work?", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-95515", "score": 0.6855486035346985, "text": "The same way nerves cover increased surface area as we grow from babies to adults, the axons grow. The tension being pulled on the axons as they are stretched to accommodate larger areas actually promotes growth of the axons Edit: more eli5 explanation. Nerves are composed of multiple fibers called axons. An axon is basically like a usb cable communicating between the computer (neuron) and another device (communicating neuron). Neurons do not usually multiply in number after early development, however the axon coming off of the neuron has the ability to grow if stimulated to do so. When you get fatter and your skin begins to stretch this also pulls on the axons which will then be simulated to grow.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-183350", "score": 0.6852883696556091, "text": "It depends on the exercise and diet. If you are in a calorie-deficit diet, your body will begin eating fat, so any fat reserve areas will shrink as they are consumed. If you are doing high-intensity work, your muscles will grow in order to better handle the load they are put under, causing those muscles to grow. If you have a lot of belly-fat and are working out your legs a lot, your legs muscles will grow while the fat around your belly is consumed.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-1002527", "score": 0.6852063536643982, "text": "So everyone says if you are gaining strength but not mass that you need to eat more. My question is, if you start eating more right away, but you push the same weight, will your muscles still get bigger in order to catch up with your strength levels? Because in theory, your muscles could not build themselves because you did not have a caloric surplus, but they gained strength. So if you provide it a caloric surplus, but you push at the same strength, will your muscle mass catch up to what it should be?\n\nThe main reason for this question is because I can push a decent amount of weight but since I was on a cut, I did not gain much muscle mass. Now going into my first bulk, will I actually look like I can lift the weight that I actually can lift? Thanks", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-130718", "score": 0.6840232610702515, "text": "Muscles when used a lot, as when exercising, actually tear themselves apart and then rebuild, when done continually this makes them stronger, and in some cases bigger", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-158168", "score": 0.6835699677467346, "text": "You build up fat around the muscle that feeds energy into the muscle. Certain fat cells change to better release the energy. You change hormones in your body that better manage the required energy storage and release. You strengthen your joints. The muscle cells build additional mitochondria that burn that energy allowing them to do more work longer. You build up more blood vessels to transport the waste products (like lactic acid) away from your muscle. You build up the muscles in your heart to pump more blood toward the muscles and transport waste away grin then. You build up more oxygen carrying red blood cells. You build up more sliw twitch muscle fibers so each fiber does less work for a longer period.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-1612935", "score": 0.6830597519874573, "text": "I'm 14 and Iv'e been going to the gym for about 8 months now and my physique has improve, but I'm not gaining much size. Iv'e been told that the only way to do this is by lifting heavy and doing fewer reps, but I've also heard that is dangerous for my age. Any advice would be appreciated :)", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-57543", "score": 0.6828855276107788, "text": "When you use your muscles they break down in a way. This process creates a product that tends to sit around your muscles. When you stretch you move your muscles in a way that promotes the byproduct of your muscles breaking down to move away from your muscles.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-30893", "score": 0.682790219783783, "text": "That's not exactly how it works. But strength is affected by several factors; one of which is muscle mass. So a bigger muscle sill be a stronger muscle. However, you also get stronger through neurological adaptation, which basically means your nervous system learns how to utilize more muscle fibers, and exactly how to move in order to apply the most force. That dense, hard look isn't so much a result of training methods as much as body composition. When you get really lean, your muscles will look more solid, whereas if uou have more bodyfat, you'll look softer.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-6", "score": 0.7745457887649536, "text": "Yes, but the pipes going to one place could have a build up that's changing the taste or the composition of the pipes can be different, i.e. pvc pipes going to your kitchen, but copper pipes to your bathroom." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-51066", "score": 0.7356953620910645, "text": "In short, this to my knowledge is a matter of habit. It doesn't really matter either way, it's just what people do. You could argue that cold water feels more refreshing, which, cleaning teeth, is a sensation you would enjoy. There may be other factors! At least in the UK, the hot water supply is generally considered not as sanitary for \"internal\" use. I believe this is due in part to the way our older homes were constructed. For example, our family home had tanks in the loft which fed many parts of the house with water (including the boiler, if I recall, and after the boiler there is the hot water tank). All that sitting water isn't considered as clean as a cold feed straight from the water supply, which is what taps in the kitchen would have, for example. That said, the bathrooms were fed from the tanks as well so it seems a little frivolous either way.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-324826", "score": 0.7350545525550842, "text": "It's possible that the pot/kettle is imparting some taste to the water. It's also possible that the average temperature in the water is different using the two methods; when I make tea using the microwave, I find it's impossible to heat the water uniformly. Our sensitivity to flavors does change with temperature.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-323872", "score": 0.7342340350151062, "text": "Do you have city water or a well? City water can contain things like chlorine that evaporates quickly (taste change in prob less than a day) or other longer lasting chemicals that may bind with things in the air to produce \"off tastes\" and other weird things. Really clean water will still taste slightly different but it is usually other things in the water reacting and making different tastes.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-100872", "score": 0.7339507937431335, "text": "The taste of tap water is determined by your local geographical area. For example if you go to Las Vegas they have terrible tap water whereas where I live we have essentially tasteless tap water. The minerals in the rocks of the resivoir and rivers make that difference Bottled water is filtered water so it filters those minerals out. Also when you look at a bottle of filtered water and it says \"natural spring water\" that is a lie. I worked for Pepsi a few years ago and we just filtered tap water.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-122401", "score": 0.7333953380584717, "text": "In certain enviornments, particles in the air will settle on the water. People often think of water as *the* sterile fluid, but tap water in fact has many, many ingredients and foreign particles. Everything from metals eroded off the pipes to leftover chemicals from the cleaning process. Long story short, you shouldn't drink funny-tasting water.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-130812", "score": 0.7332639098167419, "text": "When it comes out of the faucet, its infused with oxygen (all the tiny bubbles you see), and over time, that oxygen escapes. The taste of \"stale\" water is just lower amounts of oxygen.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-158117", "score": 0.7327638268470764, "text": "Natural spring water, and tap water from aquifers, contain many dissolved minerals. This gives water from different regions or different springs different taste. Pure distilled water tastes weird compared to water with dissolved minerals because all the water you'eve ever drank has been mineralized to some degree.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-154252", "score": 0.7317521572113037, "text": "It doesn't (per se). Tasting actually uses more senses than just the taste buds. The smell of the room you're in, or even the psychological 'feel' of the room. The feel or texture of the vessel that you're drinking from, against your lips. The temperature of the liquid (hot coffee versus cold coffee for example). Even the sight of what you're drinking has a small effect on your enjoyment. In short, the chances are by the time you're drinking from a tap in the bathroom, you're using a different vessel than normal. You're probably not sitting comfortably, and most of all the bathroom is not considered the cleanest (or best smelling) of places, and therefore your senses are being manipulated in otherwise imperceptible ways.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-146264", "score": 0.7317042946815491, "text": "Water sitting in a bottle can leech chemicals and tastes from the bottle, depending on what type it is. Things grow in water, like bacteria. So while it's sitting there, things that make it taste funny are potentially multiplying in the water, although these things aren't generally harmful to you. Water can absorb molecules from the air around it, i.e.: things you would normally smell, and those things can change the taste of the water. Any and all of this could be true depending on the situation. I'm sure there's stuff I haven't thought of too. Take clean water and put it into a clean, sealed, bottle and it won't taste worse later on.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-50497", "score": 0.7313687801361084, "text": "Great question! I've often wondered about this too. I think some of it has to do with it being reverse osmosis water vs. spring water or naturally sourced. I also think if it's naturally sourced there might be influences from the minerals in the area. Reverse osmosis is water that I think is basically tap water \"filtered.\" Curious what others think.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-154883", "score": 0.7304953336715698, "text": "All tap water isn't \"chemically the same\". Tap water from different areas is going to have different quantities of dissolved solids and other impurities, all depending upon the source of the water and quality of purification performed.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-187577", "score": 0.7302208542823792, "text": "Does water have a unique taste to you? I mean except for the texture and temperature change I can't really \"taste\" water. It's the same taste as air in my mouth tbh.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-1254930", "score": 0.7295476198196411, "text": "Just moved here, tap water tastes completely different than what I'm used to (soft water). I also looked up the problems with radium contamination and was wondering, do people regularly use filtration systems here? Or are y'all just used to it?", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-2402047", "score": 0.7293240427970886, "text": "Wondering why my new kitchen faucet seems to put out a steady clear stream of water that splashes everywhere versus what I usually see with a white stream loaded with bubbles to soften the impact. Is this the specific faucets design? It's a GROHE if that means anything.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-76121", "score": 0.7268588542938232, "text": "Is it possible your ice maker is dirty? Theoretically the ice should just be water, and melted ice therefore just 'more water' but it's certainly possible you have contamination/filtration in one source that is absent in the other, lending tastes other than water itself.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-187942", "score": 0.7264974117279053, "text": "Well for one, hot water generally comes from hot water tanks. Try running a hot tap for a bit, filling a glass, cooling it, and comparing the taste of the formerly hot water to the taste of water that came from the cold tap. It's going to look and taste a bit funky. Why? When you put a bunch of water in a tank for a long time, gradually minerals are going to build up in the tank. Throw a bunch of water in that tank again, and it's going to have a different mineral composition than what's coming straight through the cold taps to the faucet from the municipal water supply/well/etc. Purified water? Same deal. More consistent mineral makeup. Different cities/wells have very different water quality and makeup so if you want to suggest something to someone that will consistently make good coffee, you suggest something consistent - that being, water that's had all that extra stuff removed. Is this something you NEED to do? Probably not. Does it help? Sometimes.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-2401976", "score": 0.7263928055763245, "text": "I live in an old Rotterdam house in an apartment, I know I can drink the water from the kitchen sink but is it the same for the bathroom tap? Basically I don’t want to walk downstairs hoping someone can help!", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-147337", "score": 0.7252343893051147, "text": "Some faucets have aerators in them for a better stream of water. So what you see is just the air from the faucet. Source: _URL_0_", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-142372", "score": 0.7248997092247009, "text": "Water in bottled water is flavored with minerals to give it a specific taste. Other waters lack these minerals. So when you introduce the second fill of water you taste a difference because the two waters have different flavors. These minerals added can hide other tastes in the water, for example a plastic odor that is only revealed in the non-mineral water.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-1059765", "score": 0.7248373031616211, "text": "I wanted to know if it was just me but I feel like the water tastes more chlorine-y. I used to love the water but haven't enjoyed it lately. We used to have some of the best tap water out there (supposedly)\n\nShould I get a water filter ( i don't know how much that will change the taste)?", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-7", "score": 0.8681073188781738, "text": "Two things going on here. First, heat doesn't have anything to do with sunburn, it's all about UV rays. Encountering more UV rays = more sunburn. However, dark skin absorbs more UV rays than pale skin. And in fact that's exactly why it burns less. The pigmented layer absorbs more UV in the upper layers of the skin, shading the cells underneath from UV and preventing burns (because it's the lower, reproducing cells that matter, the upper ones are disposable protection). Just like sitting outside under an opaque black umbrella would shade you more than sitting outside under a translucent white one." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-8029", "score": 0.8233614563941956, "text": "Because sunburn isn't about heat: it's about UV light causing the same kind of damage that heat does to our skin. Melanin is a protein human bodies produce that protects against UV light; and is dark in color: basically, it absorbs UV (preventing it from damaging us) and some visible light (causing the darker appearance). So while dark-skinned people heat up faster in sunlight, they ~~don't~~ **take longer to** burn because UV light ~~isn't damaging~~ **causes less damage to** their skin. edit: Corrected the last sentence based on feedback from /u/darkhorse_defender and /u/mschwartz33. Thank you for the corrections. [This website](_URL_0_) says that dark skin is roughly equivalent to SPF 13 sunscreen; meaning they can be in the sun ~13 times longer without burning.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-128740", "score": 0.8196826577186584, "text": "When a person has dark skin, the person's skin has more melanin. Melanin makes their skin more pigmented, which helps protect it from the sun's rays. Have you ever noticed how, when you go to the beach, people with lighter skin tend to burn more easily? That's because their skin is less pigmented, has less melanin, and is more vulnerable to radiation. The same goes for eye color. People with dark, brown eyes are less sensitive to light, while people with lighter colored eyes (green, blue, gray) have less melanin here and are more sensitive.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-50957", "score": 0.8152294754981995, "text": "dark colors absorb more energy (heat) from radiation (sunlight) than lighter colors.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-7055", "score": 0.8073957562446594, "text": "Technically, yes. Melanin is the pigment that gives people a darker complexion, and therefore absorbs more heat. This might seem counterintuitive, but ultimately, the heat is not the damaging factor here, UV is. Melanin helps to dissipate UV radiation, thereby helping prevent skin cancers. Its production is stimulated by the UV radiation from the sun. So yeah, if you get darker you do get hotter, but you're protected better from the more dangerous UV radiation.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-190166", "score": 0.8049391508102417, "text": "Dark colors absorb light and therefore heat with the sun while light colors reflect them and don't get as hot.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-72022", "score": 0.8046325445175171, "text": "Dark skin protects the living layers underneath from the harsh effects of strong sunlight, which can cause sunburns as well as skin cancer. Light skin lacks this protection, but admits (hopefully weaker) sunlight so the body can produce more Vitamin D which, oddly enough, uses solar power. _URL_0_", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-314844", "score": 0.7901211380958557, "text": "It's not the heat that matters, it's how much vitamin D you take in. The darker the tan, the more the UV rays are blocked. The lighter skin allows more to penetrate so is better able to take advantage of the less direct sunlight.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-314517", "score": 0.7896791100502014, "text": "I believe that dark skin is more opaque, and light skin more translucent. Thus the light absorbed by dark skin is stopped and actually absorbed by the material, where light skin allows light to pass through. Similar in effect to viewing through clear glass as opposed to welders goggles.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-192079", "score": 0.7895159125328064, "text": "The sun's Ultraviolet radiation (which we can't see) damages our skin. If you are exposed to too much of it, you get a sun burn, which is not a burn in the \"I touched something hot\" sense, but as in a radiation burn. & #x200B; Our skin will try to protect itself by creating melanin (which is dark in color). This helps absorb some of the radiation, but not all of it (people with very dark skin can still be sunburned).", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-142796", "score": 0.7882151007652283, "text": "It's not about heat. It's about ultraviolet. You need a particular amount of UV to be healthy: too much and you risk skin cancer, too little and you don't get enough Vitamin D. Darker skin blocks more of it, so high-UV areas tend to have darker skin and low-UV areas tend to lighter skin.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-103085", "score": 0.7838138341903687, "text": "Yes, that's what tanning is. It's a reaction by your body to stimulate melanin production, making your skin darker and more resistant to burning. Melanin is why people with pale skin will burn more than tan, while dark skin will burn very rarely.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-31555", "score": 0.7830665111541748, "text": "Simply put: Dark Skin protects you from UV light in areas that get direct sunlight like Africa Light Skin lets more UV light through. Human needs UV light to produce D-Vitamin so light skin is better for areas that don't get as much sunlight like Northern Europe. So your skin color is balancing between getting burnt in the sun and getting enough D-Vitamin", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-192917", "score": 0.7820562124252319, "text": "Thin skin can sunburn way faster. Because there is less area /depth to absorb the energy. Thin skin also has less hair to protect it.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-192784", "score": 0.780348002910614, "text": "It depends on the amount of melanin you have in your body. Darker skinned people tend to have more melanin and are therefore more resistant to sunburn. Usually you can determine the amount of melanin you have in your body by you skin, eye and hair colour. For example, a red headed person with blue eyes and freckles probably has very little melanin, while a person with brown eyes and an olive complexion would have more. Either way, wear suncream. The sun is dangerous regardless.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-312101", "score": 0.7759289145469666, "text": "> I thought darker materials ABSORB more light and lighter materials REFLECT more light...Why is it the reverse in skin pigmentation? It is still true that the dark pigment in skin absorbs more light. And that's the point: the melanin pigment (made by melanocyte cells) is absorbing the light energy instead of letting it pass through and be absorbed by DNA (which is present in all the skin cells); if the DNA absorbed the UV light, the energy would cause pyrimidine dimer formation, free radical formation, and subsequent mutations/cancer risk. Therefore, by absorbing more of the sunlight, the pigment molecules are helping to decrease cancer risk by preventing DNA from absorbing it.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-31790", "score": 0.7719694972038269, "text": "Skin color isn't really based on how hot you can get. Instead it is based on getting Vitamin D, and not getting bad sunburns. Vitamin D is a vitamin people can make if they are exposed to sunlight. It helps with a lot of things such as born formation. There is a molecule found in skin called melanin, and the more melanin you have the darker your skin will be. If you are white, your skin doesn't have much melanin, so it has an easier time absorbing Vitamin D, but at the same time is easier to be harmed by the suns rays. If you are black, then your skin has a lot of melanin, so you have a harder time absorbing Vitamin D, but you don't get hurt by the sun as easily. So white people generally live in places without that much sunlight (like Russia) when black people live in places with lots of sunlight (like Africa)", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-55767", "score": 0.7665881514549255, "text": "The dark skin tone comes from a compound called melanin which absorbs UV light safely. Preventing UV damage to tissues is a very useful trait.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-186887", "score": 0.7661087512969971, "text": "Assuming you meant to ask why certain color objects get hotter than others in sunlight: - Heat (or more precisely, temperature) is essentially a measurement of energy. - Colors aren't things that can absorb heat. Color is just your brain's perception of different energies (frequencies/wavelengths) of light, detected by your eyes. - Objects that appear to be a certain color either reflect or emit light at certain frequencies/wavelengths, and absorb most of the rest of the light that impacts them. - The more energy something absorbs, the hotter it gets. - Objects that appear different colors will absorb different frequencies of light and gain the appropriate energy/temperature (e.g. blue light is higher frequency/energy than red, so a red shirt will generally get hotter than a blue shirt - a red shirt will absorb the higher energy blue light, while a blue shirt will absorb the lower energy red light). True black will absorb all light, so it will get much hotter than either of those.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-127171", "score": 0.7661080956459045, "text": "Higher melanin concentrations in the skin make it darker. In areas where it's really sunny you're much more likely to find darker skinned peoples because the melanin can shield you from some of the negative aspects of the sun's rays. In area's with less sunlight, lighter skin is advantageous because we need sunlight to get vitamin D, and having lighter skin allows this to happen more effectively.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-10084", "score": 0.7660282850265503, "text": "Dark skin is caused by melanin. When the sun hits your skin it gets absorbed by melanin and not by your skin cells. This is a good thing because if your skin cells absorb the sun it can cause damage that can possibly lead to skin cancer.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-9", "score": 0.8173702359199524, "text": "It's mostly due to the difference in immune system between a child and an adult. A primary varicella zoster infection (chickenpox) in adulthood is indeed associated with increased risk of complications. Most of these complications are due to the intense response by the adult immune system that comes into contact with the virus for the first time. Children have less active immune systems, but usually active enough to clear the virus - making them immune to it thereafter, and are therefore less likely to develop complications with this particular infection. The same goes to hepatitis A: adults develop jaundice, while children are asymptomatic. Note: a secondary varicella zoster infection during adulthood is called \"shingles\" and is generally less dangerous than a primary varicella during adulthood, due to the immunity that is already present at the time of the second infection." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-187038", "score": 0.7748981714248657, "text": "People who get chickenpox as adults can get lethal complications. When my brother and I had it as children, my Mum had already had it as a child and did not get it again. My Dad had not had it as a child, and experienced a more severe case than us. Also it is bad for pregnant women to catch it because it can have a bad effect on the baby, which is why doctors often check then if you are immune and vaccinate if you are not. Also you have to avoid people with shingles and chicken pox when pregnant, in case you catch it. e.g. My friend had shingles, and while her yet to be vaccinated baby was in the potentially developing chickenpox timeframe, pregnant friends stayed away to be safer.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-317573", "score": 0.7666249871253967, "text": "A similar question was posted 3 years ago (_URL_0_), and to my knowledge, there hasn't been significant new breakthroughs since then. To summarize the answer given by /u/Tangychicken, who seems much more qualified than myself, chicken pox seems to be evolutionary adapted to be a mild illness in children. When infected adults, it is outside of its evolved environment and behaves differently, leading to increased viral load and thus a more dangerous disease.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-33788", "score": 0.7599872946739197, "text": "They're not exactly sure why, but adults are much more likely to get dangerous side effects from chicken pox than children. They are more likely to end up in the hospital with complications like pneumonia and meningitis which is what can kill them. [_URL_0_](_URL_1_) has one of the theories which is that \"Kids' immune systems are dominated by phagocytes, which are big cells that \"eat\" any foreign material, while adult immune systems employ more antibodies, which attack microbial invaders like X-Wings attack TIE Fighters. It might be that the hungry, hungry hippo style of immune system is just more effective against certain viruses.\"", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-322502", "score": 0.7473018169403076, "text": "After a bit of research, it looks like it’s due to where the virus is. As you may know, chicken pox and shingles are both caused by the varicella-zoster virus. In children, the virus is often inhaled and travels through the bloodstream to the skin, where it causes the typical rash. From here, it travels to the nerve tissues, where it lies dormant until adulthood, when it reappears and causes shingles. The difference between the two, that I can tell, is that chicken pox is an infection of the skin, whereas shingles is an infection of the nerves. This is why shingles is more painful. [Here is where I got my info](_URL_1_) A little bit more research shows that the main cause of nerve pain in adults is the immune system attacking the infected cells. In children, who are immunologically naive to the virus (they haven’t seen it before) this doesn’t happen. [Source](_URL_0_)", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-12356", "score": 0.7396122217178345, "text": "You seem to have your facts wrong. Chickenpox is not deadly to adults. Mumps poses a great risk to post-pubertal males, because it can render them sterile once the testes have fully developed. However, it won't kill them. Rubella poses a great risk in pregnancy, as it causes birth defects. Measles is dangerous to everyone, but moreso to children.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-284683", "score": 0.7393169403076172, "text": "Shingles is a reactivation of the chickenpox (varicella zoster) virus as an adult. You can't get shingles without getting chickenpox. What you probably heard was that it is better to get childhood chickenpox, which is unlikely to be severe. Adult chickenpox is a very serious illness that can knock even a healthy person into an ICU. Not to mention if you are pregnant (it can also affect the fetus) or otherwise immune suppressed. Chickenpox, even in kids, though, can be quite serious and now that there is a > 88% effective vaccine, it is nearly universally recommended to children. The childhood vaccine thus would also prevent against shingles later in life. The TV ads that you are seeing are probably for the fairly new anti-shingles vaccine, Zostavax. It is indicated for prevention of shingles in individuals over the age of 50.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-176712", "score": 0.7301490306854248, "text": "Honestly, we don't know yet. The current theory is that there's a difference between a child's immune system and an adult's. A child's immune system prefers to eat up bacteria and viruses, while an adult's prefers to shoot bullets at bacteria and viruses (antibodies). Some think that the \"eating\" method is just more effective against the chicken pox virus.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-177166", "score": 0.7290926575660706, "text": "It's not particularly recommended to get it as a kid anymore, because an effective vaccine was released in 1995 that can prevent the possible dangerous effects of contracting the disease. Chickenpox can even be fatal. The effects of the disease can tend to be more severe in adults than children, which (especially before a vaccine existed) led some people to have their children infected to reduce the likeliness that they'd first be exposed to it in adulthood, as it is highly contagious. I would suggest any continued preference for chickenpox parties is largely a holdover from pre-vaccine times, rather than a good idea.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-34858", "score": 0.7285952568054199, "text": "As I understand it, when you recovered from the chickenpox, some of the virus remained inside you. Your immune system beat it into submission and, so to speak, contained the incident, but the virus is still there in much reduced numbers and right now not causing any problems. Later in life, under stress of some kind, your immune system may turn its attention briefly away from those locked-away suckers and they reproduce and start up the inflammation, rash, and other symptoms that go with shingles. The virus basically escapes from your immune system's quarantine and causes new symptoms.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-297674", "score": 0.7221274375915527, "text": "Chickenpox is the physical manifestation of the varicella zoster virus. Once it \"goes away\" it continues to live and replicate VERY slowly in your spinal nerve cells. The slight infection that continues is well contained by your immune system. Sometimes, as an adult, if your body is immunocompromised due to anything from drugs to stress, the virus freely migrates down a line of nerve cells and breaches the skin. Thus, shingles is usually expressed on a patch of skin on one side of the body along a single nerve. It is, however, the same virus that infected you as a kid! Just a more condensed version. The vaccines are made of the same stuff, but the shingles version is about 14x as concentrated and loaded with chemicals called adjuvants that make your body think a real infection is happening. Your body amps up its defenses, specialized B and T cells with a memory to the proteins associated with the virus roam through your blood for the next several decades just waiting for shingles to try and emerge again.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-14284", "score": 0.7156360745429993, "text": "It's a virus, and typically with viruses, you only get it once. Then your body has made antibodies for it so it can fight off the virus if you're exposed again. However, your body doesn't completely cure you of the virus. The virus stays dormant in your nerve tissues. Then, years later, it can resurface, but instead of taking the form of chicken pox again, it is shingles, which are itchy, painful sores that inflame your nerve pathways. It's very unpleasant. It was kind of accepted as just happening because it's not usually that dangerous as long as you get it as a child. When adults get it, it can be a lot more dangerous and there are deaths every year from it. Shingles can also be quite a plague on people. So they have developed a vaccine for chickenpox and a vaccine for shingles. Neither vaccine lasts that long so you have to get it several times.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-132408", "score": 0.7149601578712463, "text": "Chicken pox is a virus in the herpes family. And like all herpes viruses, once you get it, it stays in you forever. Your immune system is pretty good at keeping it suppressed. Similarly, if you get exposed to it again, your immune system will be prepared and kill it off quite quickly. The virus doesn't change very much over time. The chickenpox virus in you can re-activate when your immune system is compromised and result in Shingles. But that is the virus coming back from inside you, not you getting exposed by another sick person. Many (though not all) other viruses change their composition slightly much faster than chickenpox, and so we can catch them again. Also, for flu (caused by influenza viruses) and colds (caused by rhinoviruses, adenoviruses, coronaviruses and some others), there are many, MANY different strains you can come into contact with, each of which looks different to your immune system, even though you perceive them as all the same based on the symptoms they cause you.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-275876", "score": 0.7135220170021057, "text": "Antibodies obtained from breast milk only last a few months after stopping. Chances are you just got lucky with not getting chicken pox later on in life. This means you probably should get the chicken pox vaccine as getting it as an adult is much worse then when you’re a child.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-268614", "score": 0.7112011909484863, "text": "Normally you only get chickenpox once because the varicella zoster virus (which is part of the herpes family) that is responsible for it causes a powerful immune reaction that is highly protective against symptomatic reinfection, preventing another bout of chickenpox. Repeat bouts of chickenpox can, however, occur in people with a severely impaired immune system.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-89620", "score": 0.7050984501838684, "text": "Your body creates antibodies to the virus which prevent it from being a threat to your health. However, like hepatitis viruses the varicella (chickenpox) virus remains dormant in your nerve cells. For some unknown reason it can reactivate, causing the symptoms of shingles, which are very painful due to the location in a nerve.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-64714", "score": 0.7035044431686401, "text": "Generally kids have weaker immune systems than adults do. Symptoms of disease are sometimes products of the immune system fighting the infection. Since adults have stronger defenses against infectious diseases, adults will have worse and more apparent symptoms.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-296839", "score": 0.6892217993736267, "text": "Shingles and Chickenpox are 2 conditions with different presentations caused by the same virus, Varicella zoster. The two conditions are a primary infection, called chickenpox, which is a mild acute infection characterised by a broad systemic rash. It can also cause secondary re-occurrences of symptoms called \"shingles\" or technically herpes zoster, this is typified by a rash which is localised to bands or half bands around the body. herpes is a term, derived from Greek and Latin, which means \"a creeping or spreading rash\". Zoster is an ancient greek word meaning belt. The shingles rash typically forms in bands around the torso, hence the characterisation as a belt. Ultimately shingles and chickenpox have 2 different names because > 400 years ago people didn't realise these two different rashes which usually occur at very different times in life are the presentation of the same infectious agent. tl;dr: There is only 1 name for the virus and 2 names for the 2 different conditions that it can cause.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-305310", "score": 0.687218427658081, "text": "Chickenpox is caused by the varicella zoster virus and smallpox by the variola viruses. Vaccina and variola are poxviruses, varicella zoster virus is not - so it is not surprising that vaccina immunization will not confer any immunity to chickenpox. \"Pox\" is an old term dating from the time before we had knowledge of infectious agents and was used to describe a number of diseases that seemed to spread easily and cause skin lesions. For example syphilis was once also known as the \"great pox\".", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-69724", "score": 0.6872106790542603, "text": "The difference is that chickenpox is the virus acting on the skin, traveling thoth the blood, while shingles is the virusting on the nerves. As far as I know, shingles doesn't occur on a first infection of the virus. It only pops up on subsequent reactivations.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-184415", "score": 0.6810203194618225, "text": "Chickenpox has always been around and I was never vaccinated for it in the UK (not by choice it just wasn't done at the time). I've had chickenpox 3 times and this could well be 3 different stains so it may be that there are still enough cases around and you just don't hear about them, chickenpox while uncomfortable is rarely more serious than that. Along with the seriousness of the illness you have to think about the infection rate and how they are spread. Measles is highly infectious so will spread easily amongst non vaccinated people.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-10", "score": 0.6825271844863892, "text": "The theater will be fined a massive amount of money for allowing a leak, the person leaking it will be fined a massive amount of money for uploading it, and they automatically lose their job. This is a combination of copyright law violation and contracts that you sign when taking the job. So the risk are so extremely high that most will not risk it. They also have security features such as login codes to open, proprietary file types that need special programs to play, and the rooms operating the projector system requiring special key access at times." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-150511", "score": 0.6479979753494263, "text": "The files are carefully controlled to prevent that happening, and it is identifiable where and who such a leaked file would have come from. Someone working on the film isn't likely to have access to the entire thing, just the part they work on. Generally speaking people don't want to ruin their lives by breaking their contracts, destroying their careers, and being sued into oblivion just to give people a free movie.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-2292628", "score": 0.6479906439781189, "text": "I told my friend I hate DVD because the low resolution smeared across a 4K screen looks terrible. He then told me that he has a 4K TV and player that upscales the resolution and makes it look amazing. Apparently according to him the information is there on the DVD, we just haven’t had players capable of playing the DVD in 4K until recently. Is this true or does he not know what he’s talking about?", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-144542", "score": 0.6475861668586731, "text": "Piracy. The longer people have to wait for a movie the more chance illegal downloads will happen...", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-189870", "score": 0.6473283767700195, "text": "With digital recordings, the raw footage is usually higher quality than 4K (IIRC, 8K is fairly common). For final release, you just render the video in the release quality and write it to the DVD or blu-ray (or digital download/streaming service). With film, we're lucky because film is actually very high quality. People tend to think film has low quality because back in film days, the film *duplication and distribution* technologies were not-so-great, making the version in theaters of lower quality. To go from a film recording to a 4K digital video, you essentially put each frame of the film into a digital scanner (like the one in a multifunction printer) and make sure they line up with software. You can optionally use software to remove defects in the film from the digital file. You then send the scanned images off to be written to the DVD, bluray, etc.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-2048498", "score": 0.6473276615142822, "text": "If I purchase a UHD movie on amazon and try to watch it on a non-4K tv, will it be downscaled? Or just not work?", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-181644", "score": 0.6472362279891968, "text": "Regular film is really high resolution. Even if it was broadcast at a lower resolution back in the day. Movies, stored on film, can be scanned to 8k with little to no issues - mostly depending on the quality of the film and storage conditions over the years.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-53007", "score": 0.6471860408782959, "text": "Until *very* recently — like minutes ago, in the grand scheme of things — movies were shot on film. This produces a set of camera negatives. The negatives are printed, then the prints are edited, then once the edit is locked, the same edits are applied to the original camera negative. The cut negative is then printed repeatedly to make the release prints. It's no problem to go back to the original cut camera negative (or a first-generation interpositive) and scan it to videotape in high definition, a process called \"telecine.\" (From \"television\" and \"cinema,\" obviously.) In fact, it's become … well, not *commonplace,* but not unheard of, to scan the negative not to videotape, but rather to computer files at resolution significantly higher than videotape. From there you can do exactly the same kind of digital-intermediate post workflow you'd do if the film had been shot yesterday.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-115429", "score": 0.6470790505409241, "text": "That encryption method hasn't been broken yet. The equipment needed to read the drives is expensive & not widely available. You can't really tamper with anything without facing serious legal issues. Somebody would have to physically steal some movies *and* the cameras *and* then reverse engineer everything. It's safe to assume that once the theaters found out a given set of encryption keys had been compromised, they'd just stop using them & blacklist the device involved (and probably sue the fuck out of the theater that had it). Since we're dealing with limited numbers of items given to specialized outlets, they can be a lot more heavy-handed with their DRM than you can do with a DVD or BluRay player. It's perfectly possible to make sure each copy they send out is only able to be read by a single camera or set of keys. It's perfectly acceptable to force a theater to upgrade their encryption every few months.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-519549", "score": 0.6469730734825134, "text": "Im new to pirating movies, is there a reason that some films never really get pirated?", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-2050041", "score": 0.6465519666671753, "text": "Take Skyfall for example: \nIt says the 4k bluray is native 4k (meaning no upscale was used) \nbut if you go to the IMDb page it says the cameras used had a 2.8K resolution: \nSo how does that make any sense?", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-361596", "score": 0.6462699174880981, "text": "I've seen ANONYMOUS and AMIABLE crop up, all with the same filesizes and fake stats, downloaded on a VM reveals them all to be fake codec scams. TPB is getting flooded with them and it seems like a hack with fake stats. None of the new movies are out on bluray, so stay careful friends.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-2048134", "score": 0.6460940837860107, "text": "Sometimes when i watch a movie which i know has a 1080p stream it will stream it in like 720p, how can i force it to always do 1080P? i get like 75mbps but in the room i have my htpc i get around 10-30 with wifi", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-943092", "score": 0.645885169506073, "text": "supposedly with 2 movie files they will auto choose the lower or higher quality movie file based on the connection at hand.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-130273", "score": 0.6454736590385437, "text": "I've gotta believe there's a pretty strict system in place for who gets to see what, and when. 'Access management' is probably the professional term, and it's probably a bit different between the two media. That said, workprints can still go 'missing' - as do the people who attempt to leak them. I'd imagine it takes longer to copy a 5-6GB movie file to a flash drive, which means you're exposed for longer. I also wouldn't be surprised to learn those 'access management' tools are the sort that log EVERYTHING and phone home frequently.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-184662", "score": 0.6454467177391052, "text": "If they were made to be shown on television, and not on a computer, they were likely made before HD was a thing, so at best they were mastered at 480i resolution. If the videos were made on film, they could be remastered to 4k (most film is incredibly high quality which is why you can take a 1940's film and make it 4K if it's in good shape). If they were shot on digital video or video tape, you're stuck with the original resolution.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-68149", "score": 0.6451906561851501, "text": "Old movies were captured on analog film which has no particular resolution associated with it. If you can acquire the original film that the movie was captured on, you can take each frame of the film and scan it into a computer and digitize it at an extremely high resolution (e.g. 1080p HD or 4K / Ultra HD). The quality of the new scans will be roughly equivalent (although not quite the same) as modern digital video captured at high resolutions. As part of re-mastering, editors may perform color grading and color correction and sometimes also replace or enhance the titles and visual effects in the film.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-88912", "score": 0.6445968747138977, "text": "Because that movie was formatted for a resolution different from your TV. For example, if it was more widescreen than your TV then it would either have the sides cut off (which means you miss seeing anything happening at the sides of the screen) or they fit the width to your TV width and thus leave bars along the top and bottom.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-691410", "score": 0.6441689133644104, "text": "Does it take a bit longer to render the further qualities? If so, how do other YouTubers have their videos have HD from the start since thousands and thousands of people have notifications on for them and likely watch right away?\n\nThanks in advance.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-57233", "score": 0.6441687345504761, "text": "Because they weren't SD. They were made on film, which doesn't really have \"resolution.\" The sharpness of the image depends on the quality of the film of course, but high quality film is way above HD. That means that the version released on VHS or DVD is a major downgrade compared to the real quality of the source. All they need to do is go back to that source and convert it to a digital format again with newer technology in order to make an HD version. That's one of the downsides of the shift to digital technology: as more and more movies are filmed with digital cameras, we're getting more and more movies that can never have their quality improved. A movie filmed with a 1080p camera will always be 1080p, and the best you can do with it is use some tricks to \"guess\" what the extra pixels might be if you want to increase the resolution.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-410603", "score": 0.6440784335136414, "text": "I have hd movie box but I'm tired of it buffering and having to search for the right link so does anyone have any suggestions? Please leave links if possible.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-11", "score": 0.8381332159042358, "text": "Yes, they could 'throw' a case. However, that's a serious ethics violation which would almost certainly cause disbarment if found out, and not only that, the conviction could then be appealed based on ineffective assistance of counsel (embodied in the 6th amendment). If it makes it easier to wrap your head around, think of defense lawyers defending the integrity of the judicial system, not just their client. The idea being, the system must obey all of its own rules in proving that someone is guilty, or else it's a dishonest system and could easily \"prove\" that an innocent person is guilty next time. Defense lawyers are there to help ensure the system stays honest." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-105894", "score": 0.7834694385528564, "text": "Quite the contrary, the defense attorney has a duty to defend his client to the best of ability, which means getting a verdict of not guilty if possible or the lowest possible sentence otherwise. Whether he knows the defendant is guilty or not does not change this (though it's awfully useful for your attorney to know!). However, the attorney must not instruct the defendant to make any false statements. Typically the defendant does not testify at all (the \"right to remain silent\" you hear about so much), which helps avoid this problem.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-486006", "score": 0.7701472043991089, "text": "Like, the lawyer knows thattheir client commited murder for exemple, but due to circumstancial evidences they can slip through the cracks and get a non-guilty, can they legally/ would they morally do it?", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-2743", "score": 0.7548074722290039, "text": "My understanding... it isn't relevant if your client is innocent or guilty. A defense attorney's job is to make sure the prosecutor's job is being done correctly. A prosecutor wants a conviction. They need to prove \"beyond a reasonable doubt\" that the defendant is guilty. A defense attorney needs to make sure that we don't starting doing \"close enough\" in a courtroom. That is a slippery slope, and one that would destroy our legal system.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-24129", "score": 0.7312906980514526, "text": "A lawyer can't purposely introduce testimony or evidence they know to be false. So for example, if I'm defending someone and their alibi is that they were at work and the evidence is a time card that's actually been falsified, if I know it that'd be a disbarrable offense. Though there's nothing illegal about simply instructing a client to be vague. Most defense lawyers try to have their client do as little confessing to them as possible while still learning enough to know what could blindside their defense or be a liability going in.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-15426", "score": 0.7293567061424255, "text": "There's nothing more for the lawyer to do. He has successfully defended his client, which is his job. When you are a criminal defense attorney, your entire job is to represent your client to get them the best outcome possible. An acquittal is the best case scenario. Anyone who has a problem with helping guilty people go free would never become a criminal defense attorney.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-1508754", "score": 0.7286366820335388, "text": "So I'm not sure how the law works in the US (except it's a shitty system) but in Australia if your client tells you their guilty, as their lawyer, you can still defend them but you can't put forward a positive defence. The following are/are not allowed \n(i) must not falsely suggest that some other person committed the offence charged; \n(ii) must not set up an affirmative case inconsistent with the confession;\n (iii) may argue that the evidence as a whole does not prove that the client is guilty of the offence charged;\n (iv) may argue that for some reason of law the client is not guilty of the offence charged; and \n(v) may argue that for any other reason not prohibited by (i) and (ii) the client should not be convicted of the offence charged\n\nSo if Adnan told Cristina he was guilty, she wouldn't be able to say... put forward an alibi witness!!!", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-174142", "score": 0.726847231388092, "text": "usually the attorney's job is to ensure the defendant's legal rights are not infringed on and then make a deal that lessens the sentence if at all possible. If they're arguing that they didn't actually do it they're usually ACTUALLY arguing that you can't PROVE they did it.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-156803", "score": 0.7246662378311157, "text": "The accuser doesn't need a lawyer in a criminal case. The defendant's lawyer generally operates on the assumption that his client isn't guilty, even when there is strong evidence to the contrary. Everyone has a right to a rigorous defense, even the guilty.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-45204", "score": 0.7216073274612427, "text": "It is a defense attorney's job to represent their client to the best of their abilities with neither passion nor prejudice without violating rules of conduct and ethics (they can't lie or induce perjury). Their job is *not* to prove that their client was innocent. Their job is to introduce reasonable doubt and hold the prosecution to its various burdens.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-152249", "score": 0.7215272188186646, "text": "A defense attorney's job in't always necessarily to get their client off. We don't let everyone mount a defense to see if they can get away with it. It's to make sure the prosecution actually proves their case. It's about keeping the system honest.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-148682", "score": 0.7198123335838318, "text": "There have been AMAs by defense attorneys in the past and the one that stuck out he said he still defends the people he knows are guilty to the fullest extent he can because it's part of the process. He wants his client to go to jail. He doesn't want him to get off on a technicality of bad defense. He's part of the system, which says the state *has* to prove he did it. It's his job to keep the prosecution honest.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-99732", "score": 0.719022810459137, "text": "The lawyer is required by law to give his client the best defense possible. Even if they know their client is guilty, they can still defend their client based on procedural issues in the prosecution's case. For example, they could say that the smoking gun you used to murder your uncle was obtained by the police illegally. If this is true, then the prosecution may no longer be able to *legally* prove your guilt, and thus you are *legally* not guilty. The only thing the lawyer can't do is knowingly introduce falsehoods (so they can't flat out ask you to perjure yourself if you testify). They absolutely cannot share the information you give them as their client. This is called attorney-client privilege, and if a lawyer violates it they can lose their legal license.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-63153", "score": 0.7155693769454956, "text": "NO! Just because a defendant is found guilt in the court of law doesn't mean that the defense is conceded to guilt. In fact, more times than not, the defendant is going to appeal the verdict, and go to the appellate courts to argue their innocence again. That, and every person has the right not to incriminate themselves.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-172994", "score": 0.7152803540229797, "text": "This falls in the realm of attorney-client privilege. _URL_0_ While the attorney is communicating with their client in a professional capacity, the client must be guaranteed the expectation of a private conversation. Even if the conversation reveals evidence of guilt, the attorney is not allowed to reveal or testify about information from confidential correspondence with their client. This is because the defendant must have the ability to openly communicate with their lawyer to construct a proper strategy for their defense. To be clear, this applies to past crimes. Attorney client privilege doesn’t apply when a lawyer conspires with their client to commit a future crime. But they’re not considered accessories to a crime because they’re aware of their own client’s previous criminal acts.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-191616", "score": 0.7146561741828918, "text": "The point of a lawyer is to make sure his defendant receives a fair trial. Not to make him walks free, for example if the accuse is of intentional murder etc.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-82763", "score": 0.7117353081703186, "text": "The goal isn't to win and get the client off the hook in a lot of cases. At some point it ends up as making sure that the clients rights aren't infringed upon. This can include things like making sure evidence was handled correctly, the jury is impartial, and the charges fit the crime.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-97423", "score": 0.7116894721984863, "text": "No, attorney-client privilege means that you're attorney cannot legally disclose anything told to them in confidence. *However*, if they know you did the crime then they cannot offer alternative scenarios for how the crime took place. For example, if \"someone\" murdered your spouse they couldn't float the idea that maybe it was their lover in a fit of jealous rage. They'd simply have to try to prove you not guilty in legal terms.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-8041", "score": 0.7112735509872437, "text": "When there's concrete evidence that they did it, the lawyer will work for a lower punishment. They'll find whatever excuse they can to get a shorter jail time, avoid death penalty, whatever the case may be.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-185108", "score": 0.7110454440116882, "text": "It's what we call an adversarial system. The idea is that the best, most truthful outcome happens when both sides have to argue it out. Even if the defendant did it beyond a doubt he or she is still entitled to a defense, and their lawyer is actually required to make their best effort to support the client's interests. Even in the case that the defendant is guilty, the government might have done something wrong while investigating the defendant, and the lawyer will argue against that, not just because the lawyer wants to get his client off the hook but also because it's a way to make sure the government doesn't abuse it's power. Also the client might get a better outcome by pleading guilty, so the lawyer will be there to advise him or her about that option.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-1730126", "score": 0.71048504114151, "text": "Hypothetically if I am on triAl for a crime and I plead guilty, but do not have a plea deal in place with the prosecutor or the court would I be required to Allocute to the crime? Would the prosecution still have to prove their case?", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-12", "score": 0.8215634822845459, "text": "the fluid in your inner ear keeps you orientated and standing upwards, although when your drunk certain functions in your brain don't work as well or as they are meant to. So if you've had a bit too much to drink, your brain might not be able to tell which way is up and which way is down if your inner ears are miscommunicating with your brain. So that's why when you close your eyes it feels like you're falling off the face of the world." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-124860", "score": 0.7797834277153015, "text": "In relative terms, drunk \"spins\" is actually dizziness, or vertigo. A quote from [Wikipedia](_URL_0_). > Alcohol can affect balance, by changing the viscosity of the endolymph within the otolithic membrane, the fluid inside the semicircular canals inside the ear. The endolymph surrounds the cupula which contains hair cells within the semicircular canals. When the head is tilted, the endolymph flows and moves the cupula. The hair cells then bend and send signals to the brain indicating the direction in which the head is tilted. By changing the viscosity of the endolymph to become less dense when alcohol enters the system, the hair cells can move more easily within the ear, which sends the signal to the brain and results in exaggerated and overcompensated movements of body. This can also result in vertigo, or \"the spins.\"[8][9] Edit: This is a more definitive answer to /u/teachgold 's answer, which was correct. Upvote him.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-185076", "score": 0.7746958136558533, "text": "Alcohol gets your inner ears drunk too! When you don't have your vision to tell your brain that you're standing still, your drunk inner ears (responsible for balance and knowing which way is up) don't know what's going on. That causes the feeling of spinning or being on a boat.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-305340", "score": 0.7731943726539612, "text": "Your balance was off due to you being drunk. Your brain thought you were rotating due to false information from your ears and attempts to adjust accordingly. Your ears have 3 semicircular canals with tiny hairs in them that react to gravity and your movement and they send signals to your brain. This is how you can tell you are moving if your eyes are shut. When you are drunk your blood has a different density, which distorts the shape of the inner ear, meaning your brain receives a load of false information and attempts to align your non-moving vision with your \"moving\" sense of balance.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-75058", "score": 0.7693170309066772, "text": "The dizziness that you get when you are drunk is due to the fluid in your ear becoming less dense from alcohol dissolved in it. This means when you tip your head, the fluid in your ear moves at a different speed to normal and therefore what your eyes are seeing doesn't match up with what the fluid in your ear tells your brain. You'll notice if you're lying in bed after drinking the dizziness will start to subside as the fluid in your ear moves back to how it normally is, but if you turn over you disrupt it again and will feel dizzy. Edit: source: _URL_0_", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-144174", "score": 0.7659783363342285, "text": "There's an organ in your inner ear that helps you stay balanced. When you drink, it affects that organ and causes it to be oversensitive. So, even the force of gravity will make it feel like your head is rotating.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-18116", "score": 0.7643975615501404, "text": "Nystagmus. It's an involuntary left-and-right movement of the eye associated with alcohol intoxication. You don't normally notice that it's happening, but it drives your vestibular system crazy. It's particularly pronounced when your head is parallel to the floor, such as when you're laying in bed. That's the origin of what the kids call \"room spin.\"", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-40690", "score": 0.7612279653549194, "text": "The spins happen because of an odd effect alcohol has on your ears -- specifically, on three tiny, fluid-filled structures called the semicircular canals. Inside each of these canals is a fluid called endolymph. As you move around, the movement of the endolymph lags behind the more solid cupula, distorting and bending it -- and those little hairs. When the hairs bend, the electrical signal they send to your brain is altered, helping you to make sense of the rotations your head experiences on each of the three planes the canals sets. LPT: Looking at a fixed object and keeping your feet planted on the ground can help lessen the effect.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-14691", "score": 0.7605564594268799, "text": "I am no expert but it is because you are not using your legs/balance and when you sit and when you stand up it causes you to use these functions and since you were not using them before you did not notice them but when you stand up you realize you are intoxicated because it affects them.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-274945", "score": 0.7523073554039001, "text": "Med student here. When you spin, the liquor in the semicircular canals begin moving after a certain delay because of their specific density. Even when you have already stopped spinning, the liquor is still moving/spinning. This causes the dizziness because the information which come from your eyes and muscles (that you are actually NOT moving/spinning anymore) do not match with the information which come from your N. vestibulocochlearis (the VIII cranial nerve a.k.a. auditory vestibular nerve; responsible for transmitting sound and equilibrium/balance). This leads to a misinformation according to your brain. Your brain is like: \"lol wtf is going on\". Nausea can result from that. I though don't know whether there's a way to stop the dizziness instantly. I don't think that it exists.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-158660", "score": 0.750253438949585, "text": "the reason you are dizzy while drunk is that not all of your senses are working like they should. If you sit your tactile sense, inner ear and eyes are getting clear information. Once you stand up your tactile sense goes missing, your inner ears are are not getting clear information (because the alc effects the blood and the blood effects the inner ear fluids). Now your inner ear information are not equal to your eyes and your tactile sense are missing. If you spin around and stop, your ear fluids are moving while your eyes are steady - > dizzy. Once we lay down in bed your tactile sense goes missing again, our inner ear are getting wrong information since we reached over 0,5 ‰ while our eyes are steady - > dizzy. There is a really simple solution, get your tactile senses back; lay down on bed while one foot stays on the ground (hangs out) if you get contact to the ground the information of your tactile sense and eyes are the same again. Or skip the booze !", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-125683", "score": 0.7497323751449585, "text": "You have alcohol in your blood. It changes the density of it, and causes your inner ear, which gives you information on 'up' and 'down' to float wrong. Your brain interprets this as movement, but can't make sense of what your eyes are telling it.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-1901256", "score": 0.7471461296081543, "text": "It use to happen a lot when I was a child but more recently it only happens when I am intoxicated. The only way that I can describe this is that it like I can zoom in on something that is about a foot and a half from my eyes. I really cannot see anything else that is around when this happens but only the object that I'm looking at. If I look away briefly my focus goes back to normal. When I was a child it would happen sometimes when I was reading a book in bed. Now that I'm an adult in my mid 20's, it only happens when I'm very drunk and lying in bed. Can anyone relate to this or have an explanation for what is happening?", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-139621", "score": 0.7463868260383606, "text": "I know why alcohol messes up your balance (and why you feel like the world is spinning): After a certain blood alcohol level, the alcohol in your blood-stream starts replacing water in your inner ear. It's here that your body keeps balance by monitoring how little hairs move around in a sea of sloshing water (imagine when you lean over, the water in the inner ear sloshes around and your body detects this as you leaning). Back to alcohol. Because alcohol less viscous than water, it sloshes around much easier in your inner ear (think of water as maple syrup compared to alcohol in this context). So your body freaks out, since it has no idea how to keep balance with this \"easy sloshing\" liquid .", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-95318", "score": 0.7460899949073792, "text": "Alcohol interferes with your sense of balance (yes you have more than 5 senses). But using vision you are able to keep your balance -- you know which way is up, and you know that you're not spinning for example. Close your eyes and this visual aid disappears, and without your sense of balance working your brain gets very confused about what's happening.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-67124", "score": 0.7440727353096008, "text": "Well, after the alcohol has gone through your liver and into your bloodstream, it gets into the brain fairly quickly because alcohol molecules can pass the \"blood-brain barrier\", which is exactly why it sounds like. Most molecules can't cross the barrier, but alcohol's chemical properties allow it to diffuse across readily. Once in the brain alcohol heavily affects the cerebral cortex, a section of the back of the brain that is responsible for motor control and other movement related tasks. It is my understanding that it's the alcohol's effects on the cerebral cortex that give you the spins. It's kinda cool, studies have shown that ballerinas don't get dizzy because they condition their cerebral cortex into not sending \"dizzy signals\" by spinning all the time.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-181335", "score": 0.7417692542076111, "text": "You're right in that its the fluid in your ears is the cause. Things appear to be spinning because your brain attempts to interpret contradicting information. This subsides as the fluid finds a level again. Nothing is actually spinning though. If you lay down and close your eyes immediately, all the sensations including the visual ones will continue.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-192923", "score": 0.7392849922180176, "text": "When you swirl a glass of water, then stop suddenly, the water inside keeps swirling. There's a similar sort of thing inside each of your ears. As you spin, you're swirling the water inside those structures. When you stop, the water keeps swirling, so your brain thinks that you're still spinning. In response to that spinning, the brain 'modifies' its movements. Eg, it tries to maintain balance and posture and eye direction to counteract the spin. Which is what 'dizziness' is, more or less. You can replicate this yourself with a spinning chair and a friend. Sit them down, spin the chair, then stop and look at their eyes. You'll see their eyes 'twitching', or shifting back and forth, left and right, very quickly. This is called nystagmus. The brain thinks it's spinning, so moves the eyes the opposite way to keep vision 'locked', but eventually the eyes go too far and 'snap' back. [Example here](_URL_0_).", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-161344", "score": 0.7371071577072144, "text": "When you're drunk and seeing double/fuzzy, what's basically happening is your brain is having trouble coordinating your two eyes to focus on the same spot. Normally the two inputs is helpful, by allowing depth perception, but without that coordination it actually causes confusion. By closing one eye, you are removing one of the inputs so that your brain no longer has to try to coordinate them. It's like if two people are talking about different things at the same time; your brain has trouble picking the two apart and understanding both. By telling one to shut the hell up, you can now clearly process the input from the other.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-90107", "score": 0.7323181629180908, "text": "The condition is called nystagmus. It has to do with alcohol diffusing into the membrane of your inner ear. This changes the specific gravity of the membrane that is perceived as motion by your brain, which tries to accommodate. It’s coupled with an eye twitch to one side as you sense things moving, try to track with your eyes, and they quickly reset. The same process happens in reverse as you’re sobering up, with all of this changin direction. Have fun tracking this through your inebriation! Maybe with a couple selfie vids in the mirror?", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-88673", "score": 0.7299529314041138, "text": "There's fluid within tiny tubes in your ears, and these tubes have hairs on them. Your brain pays attention to these hairs and how the fluid moves them in order to figure out where you are in space and how you're moving, but it also uses what your eyes see. Normally, your eyes and ears tell your brain the same thing and there's no problem, but when you're drinking, the density of the fluid in those tubes changes. This confuses your brain because now the fluid is moving those hairs in a way that doesn't match what your eyes are telling you, so you feel disoriented.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-14", "score": 0.8713470697402954, "text": "If you have a bone to pick with someone, it means they've annoyed or insulted you and you need to talk to them about it. According to the Oxford English Dictionary (via a thread in /r/etymology) \"a bone to pick\" originally meant something that occupies or distracts you (as a dog is occupied by picking at a bone) and somehow morphed into its modern meaning." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-16974", "score": 0.690778374671936, "text": "I'm not expert but I would assume it has to do with the phrase \"having skeletons in your closet\"", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-39198", "score": 0.6862333416938782, "text": "When u both wanna bone each other A lot of the time it includes wanting to bone each other but not being able to for some reason, like friends not wanting to ruin a friendship or co-workers who don't want to ruin a professional relationship", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-1394612", "score": 0.6823469400405884, "text": "My grandfather has asked me to help him figure out what his mother used to say when she had enough of something; i.e. tired of a conversation topic. He said it would have translated into English as \"a licked off old soup bone.\" I cannot figure out if this was an idiomatic phrase back in the 1930's and 40's or if it was just something she said. I haven't been able to find anything similar online. I tried to literally translate it back into German as \"ein alter abgeleckter Suppenknochen\", but I'm not sure that sounds right...\n\nThanks for any help!\nDanke :D", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-1173431", "score": 0.6806291937828064, "text": "A phrase or idiom and it's something like \"the tall stalk gets cut\". I feel like an idiot saying that, but I am having trouble remembering the exact one.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-1393683", "score": 0.6743099689483643, "text": "Philadelphian here. We have tons of expressions (and dialects used to say them). But my favorite is \"jawn\". Which is essentially a bastardized way of saying \"joint\". Pretty much means a person, place, or thing.\n\n\"Yo Bobby, can ya pass me that jawn that's on the table?\"\n\"Did you see that jawn that just walked by? Nice set of legs on that one.\"\n\"Me and my sis went to that new arcade jawn down the street.\"\n\nEtc.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-11947", "score": 0.6676982045173645, "text": "It means that people often don't appreciate you for doing something good, or are even outright hostile. For instance, you hold the door open for a women and she calls you a chauvinist pig who thinks she can't open the door herself. Or you pick up a wallet that someone dropped, and they accuse you of stealing it. Stuff like that is where the phrase came from.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-1034565", "score": 0.6602677702903748, "text": "What does \"Bonetrousled\" actually mean? Haven't been able to find any definitions for 'trousle' or anything.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-1981135", "score": 0.659813642501831, "text": "It says knucklebones. Usually this word means an animal’s talus (anklebone), especially a sheep’s. They used to be used as game pieces or dice\n\nBut on a human a knuckle is a joint between two phalanges (finger bones), and a human talus is weirdly shaped for a bead. But Tasmyn Muir is usually much more precise in naming exactly which bone she means (e.g. proximal or distal phalanges). \n\nAnyone else though about this or am I just being weird here?", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-1922061", "score": 0.6578395366668701, "text": "If you send someone a text and say, \"Hey, come over and I'll smoke you out\" what does that mean to you? I think my term is more generous than most. You come over I offer my entire stash to you!\n\nI ask because I am honestly not sure what protocol is. Although I'm still happy to just give full reign of my stash. I like sharing!", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-2806923", "score": 0.6561094522476196, "text": "I'm really not quite sure where the reference/association comes from. Dogs and bones, maaayybe i can understand, but cats and fish? Do cats even know how to... fish? Seriously, Reddit, help me out here.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-866040", "score": 0.6527504324913025, "text": "\" You have hedged me behind and before, and laid Your hand upon me.\"\n\nWhat is the meaning of this? I am terribly confused.\n\nThank you for your answers, and may the peace and joy of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ be with you", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-719611", "score": 0.6527017951011658, "text": "English is not my first language so I'm kind of confused on what does that phrase mean.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-59403", "score": 0.6526349186897278, "text": "In this context, the word 'Pawn' means a pledge, or a promise. Let's say that you see the newest Dora the Explorer toy in a shop window. You have an MP3 player, but you really want that Dora toy. So, you go to your local pawn shop to borrow some money, but the pawn shop owner doesn't know you, and doesn't know that you'll pay the money back. So, he asks you to leave a material pledge - in this case, your MP3 player - as a guarantee that you'll pay the money back. So, you give the pawn shop owner your MP3 player, he gives you money, and you go and buy that Dora the Explorer toy. If you come back and repay the money you borrowed from the pawn shop owner, you get your MP3 player back. If you don't pay the money back, the pawn shop owner will sell your MP3 player to someone to recoup their losses. The amount of time that passes before the sale varies from shop to shop.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-1858140", "score": 0.6504079699516296, "text": "This question pertains to a situation between two friends who have had romantic interests for each other in the past. Timing didnt fit then. \n\nI havent talked to her in a few years, outside of cordial or occasional flirty exchange. Shes a kind person and if I were to reach out for a meeting, I can see her agreeing even if shes taken or not available - we were friends. \n\nWith this person, if shes taken, I'm moving on and cant look back. I plan to make it apparent that I'm meeting for romantic interest, and my idea is to simply add a phrase like \"if you're taken, my bad, its okay\". \n\nThis could be a simple way to broach the subject, and due to work and life, it'll be maybe another few weeks until I initiate anything. So in the mean time, figured I drop a note here to see some responses.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-775978", "score": 0.6494534611701965, "text": "And I must say, at first I was pretty confused. I had to google it to realize it meant \"break a leg\". Anybody knows where did this phrase come from?", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-1171925", "score": 0.6489928364753723, "text": "I've heard it thrown around a few times, but I am not really sure what it means. Thanks.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-2099202", "score": 0.6480737328529358, "text": "Ran across this phrase earlier and was curious what it means to this sub.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-1172717", "score": 0.6465869545936584, "text": "hey,guys! I was watching a SNL episode, where there was a slang or odiom- \"can't shake hands with a ghost!\".\n\nI don't konw what's that meaning . Need your help.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-418369", "score": 0.6465354561805725, "text": "“Wanna go rock collecting with me? Not like a date or anything, haha. Unless?”", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-1916057", "score": 0.6464584469795227, "text": "Lets take a moment to decode Hun Batz spontaneous vernacular And figure out what each one means because I played him for the first time today and I just cannot for the life of me understand what he is saying.\n\nTaunts:\n\n- \"It is not wise to put a basket on your head or you will be eaten by a dog.\": To put it simply, it's not wise to show off your power or you'll be beaten down by the people you feel are lesser to you. (Basket on the head. Oh look at me, I can balance stuff better than you!)\n\n- \"One finger cannot remove lice from the head.\": You and you alone can definitely not defeat me.\n\n- \"Do not throw away your hair, fingernails or teeth because if you don't find them upon your death, you will regret it.\": Do not overlook the little things in your life because once you're on your deathbed, you will not have time to enjoy those last moments in peace.\n\n\nJokes:\n\n- \"It is not good to point at a rainbow, or your finger will rot!\": It's not wise to stare at, or chase after beauty for too long, or your life will be meaningless and you'll whither away over things that are merely momentary in terms of pleasure.\n\n- \"It is not good to hit a dog, for he will no longer help you in case you need to pass the flames of a fire.\": Don't anger your friends or they won't help you in your time of need.\n\n- \"It is not good to remove the first layer of the tortillas, or pimples will appear on your face.\": It's not good to try to analyze people who have multiple-layered personalities, or they'll get angry and punch you in the face....? (I don't know, this one was just really weird).", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-15", "score": 0.7383313179016113, "text": "You absolutely could. But the fact is that evolution shaped our tastes. That's why fatty foods and sweet foods are so appealing to out taste buds. It is our bodies way of saying \"That has lots of calories and will help us avoid starving.\" The 'satisfaction' you feel on swallowing it is simply the body saying \"Good job. Remember that tastes good so we will eat it again if we find it again.\" Rewarding you for fueling it. You can see why this system that evolved when we were hunter gatherers to keep us from starving and helping us learn whats best to eat leads to obesity now that we have food options everywhere anytime we want. Fun fact: Most people mistake the bodies thirst craving for being hungry. More often than not if you drink a glass of water when you feel the urge to snack it will go away. Thus helping you lose weight by reducing total calorie intake." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-171937", "score": 0.7005655765533447, "text": "If medicine tasted good, people would be way more likely to use more than they needed. That could cause problems if people took medicine they didn't need, or overdosed on medicine because it tasted good. Making medicine taste bad enough to discourage overuse while still good enough for people to tolerate is difficult.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-29129", "score": 0.700067400932312, "text": "Gum contains flavorings and sugar, in addition to the 'gum base', which is the somewhat rubbery stuff that makes the gum. The chewing action, along with your saliva, helps release and dissolve the stuff that flavors the gum, but eventually, that stuff is all gone - you've 'sucked out' all the flavor. At that point, you are left chewing a piece of very soft plastic, which doesn't have a very good flavor. At that point, you spit it out, and insert a new piece of gum! It's worth mentioning that swallowing a piece of gum isn't very hazardous. It isn't very digestible, and just goes through your digestive system, usually within a few days. But it's gummy texture makes it difficult for me to swallow, so I always spit it out.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-100702", "score": 0.6997766494750977, "text": "Probably several reasons, but here's what occurs to me first: Chewing a tablet releases the medicine much more quickly, and can allow it to be absorbed much quicker, too. For some medicines that's a good thing. But other medicines simply *aren't supposed* to be absorbed quickly, and need a delayed release for maximum effect. Making it taste like delicious raspberries would just *encourage* people to chew it quickly, defeating the point of the pill in the first place. If it tastes like rotten lemons, you're going to get it down with as little interference as possible.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-1314190", "score": 0.699484646320343, "text": "I bought like 6 bags of sour spaghetti, and after eating the first one, I felt bad about eating so much candy, so I said to myself, \"Hey just chew on it, and spit it out!\" But it just wasn't the same.....Why?", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-27531", "score": 0.6981073021888733, "text": "The urge to swallow comes when the food is mashed into a sort of runny paste that can very easily be swallowed. Try chewing up a piece of bread, but then use your tongue to mash it back into a single big mass, you'll probably notice an urge to chew it up again before swallowing. Also, try eating some really dry food. You might crush it into very small pieces, but without enough liquid to get a similar paste, you still won't feel like swallowing it. Gum stays all in one piece. Sure, it stretches and changes shape, but you can't get it into a paste, no matter how much liquid you add or how long you chew it, so you never feel the urge to swallow.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-72072", "score": 0.6979489922523499, "text": "I think what the other person said might be right, but I think the more immediate reason is because fruit has two tastes in it, sour and sweet. Candy just tastes sweet, and it tastes a lot sweeter than fruit does. You've 'primed' your taste buds with super-sweet tastes, and now when you pick up fruit, the sugar in it doesn't really stand out in comparison to the sugar blast you just gave your tongue earlier. What *does* stand out is the sourness.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-58438", "score": 0.6978521943092346, "text": "If it tasted good, people (especially kids) would take it all the time. It actually should taste unpleasant so that you only take it when the alternative is worse.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-56212", "score": 0.6977285742759705, "text": "The easiest way to explain it is this: The body is primed to produce chemicals like insulin when sweet foods come in contact with the tongue and stomach. When your mouth tastes sweet food then your body releases chemicals to break down that food, but the sugar never comes. Over time this confuses the body and when you DO eat those sweet foods your body doesn't know what to do and at some point decides it doesn't need to release chemicals this time. A very simple example of this is how your mouth waters when you imagine yourself eating a lemon. At first your mouth waters but if you keep thinking about it your mouth won't do that anymore. That effect often causes people to GAIN weight - though they aren't eating the sugars from, say, soda, the body retains energy from other sources That and of course there is evidence that some sweeteners like aspartame is linked to cancer in mice or rats who consume it.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-99199", "score": 0.6977013945579529, "text": "Most of the time, bitterants are added to the chemistry to make sure that children don't drink a gallon of the stuff. if you're five, and you get a brightly colored gelcap that looks like candy, and you bite it and it DEFINITELY doesn't taste like candy, you're probably going to put it down and go do something else, rather then eat a bunch and get a fatal dose. on the other hand, if you know what's in it and know it's going to help you, and know how much to take, then you can work through the bitterness and swallow your medicines.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-59063", "score": 0.6976825594902039, "text": "Eating is pleasurable because it excites many senses at once. There's touch (texture), taste (sweet, salty, sour, bitter, savory, and possibly fatty), smell, and temperature. Spicy or sour foods stimulate the touch and temperature senses. It's like saying, \"If everything is going to end up as mush inside our stomachs, why don't we just blend a burger and drink it instead of eat it?\" Taking out one part of the sensation of eating can make a dish much less appealing for a person. Likewise, increasing a particular sensation would make it more appealing for certain people.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-17039", "score": 0.6975358128547668, "text": "Your body has evolved to love sugars and fats because they're quick, easy energy. If you were starving to death and had the option between a bar of chocolate and a bunch of kale, the chocolate is the thing that would keep you moving, because you'd need those sweet, sweet calories. So we've evolved a taste for sweet foods because if we have to choose, those should be the things we're looking to eat. Obviously, in a society where starvation isn't much of a problem, that can lead to problems like obesity, but evolution builds up traits that kept us alive for millennia.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-162565", "score": 0.697473406791687, "text": "Your nose and throat are connected, so a lot of that 'taste' is actually smell. The sense of taste itself is just the initial feeling of sweet/sour etc that prepares our body for different types of foods. This is why it can be much more bearable to eat or drink things we don't particularly like if you have no sense of smell or hold your nose when you swallow it.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-104094", "score": 0.6967427730560303, "text": "The main reason is that the majority of chemical ingredients taste pretty foul. Drug manufacturers add some flavoring to make the mixture more palatable, but they limit that because they don't want it tasting *too* good, which could cause a child to consume too much.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-106726", "score": 0.6964524388313293, "text": "Vitamins that taste like candy have sugar/sweeteners added that many people don't want in their health supplement. There is also the issue of not making adult vitamins taste like candy so kids don't mistake them for candy and overdose because they taste good.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-181708", "score": 0.6959699392318726, "text": "It does not know it can not process them. The body knows that when something tastes sweet that means the blood sugar level will soon increase and that it needs to produce insulin. So the body starts producing insulin as a response to the sweetness. You even have similar responses to external stimulus as well. You may know the famous Pavlov experiment where he gave dogs treats after ringing a bell and then measured that they started producing saliva when you rang the bell. And tasting sweetness triggering an insulin response is a similar response.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-182780", "score": 0.6959335803985596, "text": "I don't remember the exact name of it, but we have specialized nerves/brain functions that control things like appetite, swallowing reflex, and breath-holding reflex. For example, the \"myth\" that rabies makes you afraid of water is actually true. Since rabies affects the brain, one of the things it does is make even the sight of water trigger the anti-drowning reflex. Anyways, lots of factors go into how easily you can swallow things - how much stuff is in your stomach, the flavor and texture of what you're trying to swallow, as well as stuff completely unrelated to appetite, such as stress level, body temperature... Basically your body has a crapton of mechanisms from billions of years of evolution. You've simply noticed one of them. & #x200B; Note: if you want to experiment with this, try different beverages. Mineralized water or sports drinks almost always go down easier than pure water because very primitive responses identify that beverage as something safe and desirable to drink.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-63816", "score": 0.6956022381782532, "text": "Most non-nutritive sweeteners (\"artificial sweetener\" doesn't include things like stevia which are natural) are *vastly* sweeter than sugar so you don't need near as much to get the same amount of sweetening power. Aspartame, for example, is 200x stronger than table sugar by weight. Regular soda is water + sugar + flavor. If you replace the sugar with something else, it's still just sweet water. It might have a slightly different mouthfeel but nobody's really going to notice much. Most candy, however, uses sugar to make up the physical structure of it. If you take all the sugar out of a Jolly Rancher, there's nothing left. Finding stuff that you can make candy out of that *also* has no calories and doesn't have negative affects on your digestive system is a bit trickier. Baked good, like cookies and cakes, are even harder to strip calories from.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-253501", "score": 0.6955469250679016, "text": "Taste is a property of the molecules in whatever you eat. Certain parts can activate receptors on your tongue that transmit a signal to the brain. Depending on which receptor sends the signal the brain \"tastes\" sweet/sour/etc. That's how sweeteners taste sweet without being sugar, afaik sweetness needs multiple carboxyl-groups on one molecule", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-61614", "score": 0.6940009593963623, "text": "Yeah, I think you may just be strange. No one chews pudding. Now, people might move it around their mouth a bit so they can actually taste it before swallowing, but chew? Nope.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-24093", "score": 0.6937251091003418, "text": "Sodium is not inherently unhealthy. In fact, it's *necessary* for us to survive. The problem is *too much* sodium. So the reason that we like it is the same reason that fat and sugar taste appealing: We evolved in an environment of scarcity, where, if we came across one of these things, we *really* needed to consume them.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-17", "score": 0.7740589380264282, "text": "If I had to take a guess, no expert, just had anatomy and physiology through college, I'd imagine it'd have something to do with the rods and cones in your eyes and the optic nerve. When you push on your eyes, you probably disrupt the innervation action of the rods and cones and it's just trying to adjust back. Just my guess!" } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-323503", "score": 0.7352464199066162, "text": "I'm on my mobile right now, so I'll come back and edit in some sources later, but by and large this is a fatigue or stress response. Additionally, excessive caffeine can cause this to happen as well. It really is fascinating how sensitive our eyes are to general stress.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-182180", "score": 0.735092282295227, "text": "Because the light sensitive cells in your eye are just slightly out of center. You have more color focused cells there instead.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-29631", "score": 0.7350911498069763, "text": "Because the light coming through your eyelids is more to the red end of the spectrum (flesh/blood filtering). Your red light receptors are a little \"depleted\" for lack of a better term, and when you open your eyes it take a little moment for the colour balance to be restored in your eye's receptors.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-56597", "score": 0.7346702814102173, "text": "One eye had been receiving more light than the other. Your color-receptors get tired if they are stimulated a lot. So if you are seeing a lot of blue with one eye, when you look at something else, it'll appear less blue (more red) than it really is, since your blue-receptors are kind of tired and don't react as well. Try it! _URL_0_", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-163559", "score": 0.7343640327453613, "text": "It's likely caused by pressure on your retna. The same reason you see light when you close your eyes and press on them. The pressure activates the photoreceptors in your retna.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-93400", "score": 0.7342425584793091, "text": "It is an artifact of how your eyes process color. A normal human eye has cone cells sensitive to red, green, and blue. However, the red cone is a little quirky and is also sensitive to a region in the blue spectrum. As the frequency of light increases, the red cone fires, then the green, then both blue and the red, which is why violet looks a little reddish. In fact, RGB screens can't produce monochromatic violet light, so they simulate it by combining red and blue in a manner the stimulates our eyes in about the same way violet would.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-246027", "score": 0.7333471775054932, "text": "It's due to chromatic aberration of the lens in the eye. No lens can avoid chromatic aberration entirely: different wavelengths are bent slightly differently by lenses. In human perception, the effect is known as [Chromostereopsis](_URL_0_).", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-56146", "score": 0.7330509424209595, "text": "The phenomenon is called phosphenes, and it happens because of the pressure in our eyes stimulate the cells we use to see. There is no real light, but the stimulation in the cells make our brains think there is. _URL_0_ Edit: words.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-175120", "score": 0.7324255108833313, "text": "The pressure activates the cells in your eyes, which send nerve impulses to your brain. It attempts to interpret this pressure as if it were light, but with no image to see it just kinda comes out looking strange, like visual noise. The reason it appears to be at least somewhat symmetrical is that the pressure is over a very large area, rather than a very small area expected. Since your eyes are curved this area becomes distorted around the edges.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-57184", "score": 0.7322889566421509, "text": "The skin pulls on your eyelid and the lid puts pressure on the eyeball. This slightly deforms it and messes up your focus.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-93120", "score": 0.7320305705070496, "text": "They are called Phosphenes which basically mean you see light without a light source. This is caused due to mechanical stimulation of the retina when you either ub your closed eyes or forcefully shut them.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-31433", "score": 0.7319430112838745, "text": "Basically, your retina has nerve cells and these are activated by pressure as well. Think the phenomena are called phosphenes...", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-259108", "score": 0.7319047451019287, "text": "You mean you saw different colors as rings around the white light source? It's the chromatic aberration caused by your cornea/lens. _URL_0_", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-72568", "score": 0.7316158413887024, "text": "This phenomenon is called [phosphene](_URL_0_). When light hits the cells in the eye, these cells send a signal to the brain to give an image of what is seen. These cells are called photoreceptor cells, and their main means of activation is when a photon of light hits them. Another way to activate them is via mechanical stimulation (aka applying pressure to they eyes). When you apply mechanical stimulation, the subsequent activation of the cells will be random (not patterned), and when this signal is transmitted to the brain areas that are responsible for generating an image, you will see weird patterns instead of the normal images that would be generated by photon-induced stimulation.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-51478", "score": 0.7313472032546997, "text": "This happens to me when I close my eyes, roll my eyeballs upwards and then open them. I see an endoptic ring of light, the same greeny-purple color as other endoptic hallucinatory lights (like from rubbing your eyes hard. I like to think that this greeny-purple color is what Terry Pratchett refers to as the \"color of magic\"). I thought it might be a residual image of the pupil ring, but I don't know.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-4992", "score": 0.7301181554794312, "text": "Your finger pushes against your eye and distorts the lens that focuses light on the back of your eye. A small indentation can create a black spot where light doesn't focus, or focuses very poorly. It's similar to how you can have dark spots on the bottom of a pool by distorting the surface.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-45673", "score": 0.7299944758415222, "text": "This is called photopsia. When one rubs their eyes or if you move your eyes quickly, the gel (vitreous) inside the eye pulls on the retina causing the photoreceptors in the retina to be electrically stimulated causing you to see a flash of light.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-132480", "score": 0.7299152612686157, "text": "You're using a liquid crystal display. This means that there's a sheet of liquid crystals in between a bunch of other screens and filters, and behind all of that is a light. When you apply an electrical charge to liquid crystals you can change their shape, and when that happens the direction and color of the light as it passes through can be changed. But you can also change the shape by pressing on them through the filters. Because this is much less precise than you can get with an electric current, it sort of warps into a blob of colors instead of a coherent image. When you remove pressure, the electrical current takes back control and forces the liquid crystals into the correct shape again. Its hard to predict the colors since you have to take into account the previous configuration of the liquid crystals, the amount of pressure you're putting on them, the location of the pressure, and the type of light and filters used in the display. So it usually just creates a strange gray sort of color.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-60253", "score": 0.7297642827033997, "text": "Do you mean rainbow specks that dance across your field of vision? Because I get this too sometimes. Your eye turns light into electrical signals and sends them to the brain, and your brain makes a map of the world. That's how vision works. Sometimes, when you sneeze, you can create pressure behind the eye, which can stimulate the nerves into firing, creating false visuals in the form of floating bright lights.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-64012", "score": 0.7295299172401428, "text": "Looking at something exercises the rod and cone cells in the back of your eyeballs which then send the signal down your optic nerves to allow your brain to process the information. If the subject is very bright, then your rod and cone cells get overworked and start to become less sensitive to whatever type of light they detect - *red*, *blue* or *green* for cones and varying brightness for rods. That means that, when you close your eyes or look away, a shape is retained over the area where your rod cells have become desensitised. The same principle explains negative colour illusions like [this](_URL_0_) except these rely on cone cells rather than rod cells.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-18", "score": 0.7130869030952454, "text": "It has to include equipment, pay for employees (all cast, crew, and extras), fees, *food* on larger productions, constryucting sets, making costume,s all of the makeup artists, set design, sound guy, camera guy, lighting guy, dozens of other specific jobs, and yes, the actors." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-100356", "score": 0.6773223876953125, "text": "Quite a lot. First the cinema will take a cut to pay expenses, which depends on all different things. The money left after in-house expenses will then be divided between the cinema and the studio. The split will depend on what has been negotiated, but from memory the studio usually takes 80-90%.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-1130710", "score": 0.6771658658981323, "text": "I know this sounds like a dumb question but like in the store I work in we have an amount each day and as long as we hit it, all the staff salary, the electricity, the rent is all paid for. Obviously out goal is to to as high as we can but breaking even isnt seen as a horrible thing like losing money. Once a studio factors in the cost of the film and marketing and all other factors and reaches that, doesnt that comfortably cover the process of what everyone's paid? Obviously all these movies can make more through rental, merchandising, etc but even if it just broke even...why would that be so bad if everyone got paid?", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-1294160", "score": 0.6760948896408081, "text": "I’ve been offered 2% of the budget as pay if the movie gets made. Not 2% of the full budget. 2% of the “below the line” budget. Excluding cast fees. They guess 1mil on shooting the movie. 1mil on cast (at least).\n\nI’ve countered with 3% of total budget (which I see as pretty standard), with a ceiling of 150k (which in my experience with other options is standard, to cap writer’s payment if the cast got huge names or the budget went over).\n\nThey argue a 20k payout for me is amazing for a first timer. Even if the total budget reaches 2-3mil.\n\nIs standing my ground at 3% of total budget fair/smart?\n\nI can’t go into toooo much detail, just incase anyone involved clocks this post. May have already said too much.\n\nThank you all.\n\nEdit: I have yet to sign anything.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-129781", "score": 0.6758317947387695, "text": "You have to pay the actors. You have to pay the writers, and the producers, director(s), film crew, sound crew, stage crew, video editing team, special effects team. Just... a lot of people. Then you have to pay for the equipment. Stages to shoot, props, costumes, special effects (I'll get back to that in a moment.), cameras, microphones, lighting, and there's a lot of that to pay for. A lot of visual effects are on a computer, but it's not as easy as \"push button - done\". There are calculations, programming, testing, editing, and other processes that actually take a fair bit of time. While I can't put exact estimates on what portions cost more, you do end up paying for all of the people involved, all of the stuff used for, in, and on the movie, and the time is takes to complete it. The more time it takes, the more it will cost.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-107552", "score": 0.6757125854492188, "text": "Filming a movie takes thousands of people from assistant directors and personal assistants to caterers and drivers. Their salaries alone are massively expensive. If you're filming on location, imagine the cost of getting people and equipment to the locations as well as the cost of staying there. A movie is made up of a million little parts, all of which cost a little something and add up to those ridiculous numbers we see.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-515479", "score": 0.675631046295166, "text": "Hello all,\n\nMyself & three other friends entered a film competition. We won $5000. \n\nWhen it came to splitting the money up, there was a bit of discussion. One friend was only there for the day as an actor, while the rest of the team had been prepping for 2 full days beforehand. \n\nThe idea was that we would give ourselves a $500 day rate. So, $1500 for 3 of us, $500 for the friend who acted on the day.\n\nIs this super unfair? Should it be a even split? I'm so cut up about this I am all over the place. \n\nMoney is the root of all evil. \n\nAppreciate your time reader. \n\nEdit: Had written myself & four friends when we are four in total.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-143027", "score": 0.6741366386413574, "text": "Well you see, people like to watch movies So, when a movie comes out, millions of people might pay money to see it That means that big movies make 100’s of millions of dollars A small part of that 100’s of millions goes to the actors as payment for their work. But, even a small part of 100’s of millions of dollars is still a LOT of money, so big actors who make big movies can make a lot of money.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-86801", "score": 0.6722095012664795, "text": "Just because a show has a huge fan base doesn't mean there is guaranteed money in the venture. You have to consider the cost of production.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-957144", "score": 0.669417142868042, "text": "say you are a group of 4 friends making a movie together. no one is getting paid upfront but everyone will split the 'profit' if the movie makes any money. say you have 1 director, 1 writer and 2 actors... who is most valuable? who is least valuable? how do you quantify this value? split it 4 ways and everybody gets 25%? should the director or person who was responsible for making the movie happen get a bigger cut?", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-114223", "score": 0.6685066819190979, "text": "If \"quality\" was just a filter, why would Hollywood spend $10k on cameras (they actually spend much, much more than that). The aspects that we associate with Hollywood quality film is a combination of professional lighting, professional cinematography, and professional equipment. The latter is by and large a *physical* thing. Our phones will never be able to take images like a real camera *because it fits in your pocket*. This means the lens and sensor has to be tiny. Movie cameras use massive lenses that capture WAY more light, and are capable of very shallow depth of field, and huge dynamic range.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-164393", "score": 0.6683278679847717, "text": "The are multiple factors: 1. Marketing Budget is not included in production costs. 2. In North America typically the studios take 80-100% of the take for the frist week of box office sales and then it drops off quickly after that. (which is why theathers charge so much for snacks). 3. Forgin box office takes are much lower, usually around 20% 4. Sometimes producers will take a certain percentage of the gross from the film as payment for their investment.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-41798", "score": 0.6678488850593567, "text": "You're not paying the folks that made the movie to watch it: you're paying the theater. That costs the same. Their equipment costs the same to run no matter how expensive the film is.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-168685", "score": 0.6670482754707336, "text": "You make a movie with me. Your contract says you get 10% of the profit the movie makes. The movie makes $100,000,000 in revenue. I hire my other company for $100,000,000 to provide catering. $100,00,000 goes into my bank account. Then I turn to you and say \"Sorry, there was no profit on the movie. My catering business sure is doing well though.\"", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-118074", "score": 0.6669541597366333, "text": "Theatres get paid by movie companies to screen that movie. That's why low budget films struggle to get a box office return, whereas Pirates of the Carribean can pull a billion across their movies. Having a big budget aides not only the production but the release.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-58401", "score": 0.6664928197860718, "text": "when you say a movie \"grosses\" 1 billion dollars, youre takking about total ticket sales. this doesnt include the what the theater gets, sales taxes, or other expenses. for a $10 ticket, the studio sees about $4 of that.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-87997", "score": 0.6662254333496094, "text": "The general explanation for this is that an individual movie (particularly a big budget action-type film) has only one shot to be successful. A TV show costs less per episode, and has more time to spend establishing characters and bringing in viewers. A movie has basically one or two weekends to make it's budget back and then some, otherwise it is likely to be a failure. This makes many of the people who back movies pretty risk-averse. If they think that looking like generic white guy number three makes it more likely that they will make the money they need, then they will push for that hard. Of course, that doesn't mean that this is the correct view. The most profitable film this year was Get Out, which is basically the opposite of standard big budget film material. But it's why people tend to make movies that don't depart much from the \"average.\"", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-191669", "score": 0.6647049784660339, "text": "Logistics is a big part. Building sets, moving costumes. Cars, props, people, supporting staff, etc. Is expensive. Modern movies like to skip practical effects and pay large digital firms to complete CGI elements, which is absurdly expensive. And is the reason some scenes are stripped down for cost.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-1292802", "score": 0.6644731760025024, "text": "Or then you have a case like Marvel who stump up the budget and distribute the film and keep all box office gates.\n\nThen you have a film that will be distributed by one studio who take the box office but then another company will take the dvd / blue ray / VOD money. Is this correct? \n\nThen you have The Cloverfield Paradox. Paramount put up the 40mil budget, but made it back when Netflix paid 50 mil for “distribution” rights (apart from China and home video).\n\nWhat about the start of a movie when you see five or so companies at the start before the credits.\n\n\nAnd on a smaller scale, what about films who go to festivals like Cannes in the hope of being bought? Are they specifically looking for distributors? Would they be self funded productions and look for a bigger company to get them in cinemas?\n\nI thought I knew all this but apparently I don’t fully understand how things work.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-106159", "score": 0.6644471883773804, "text": "That cash will likely be used to offset production costs, resulting in higher profits -- slightly higher, at least, but not much considering the scale of the money they are spending on the movie in the first place. The point of the tax credit is that it will make it easier for them to hire more people than their original budget allowed; ideally, the government would want them to spend that entire $35m in Detroit in order to boost the economy.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-1522", "score": 0.6624221205711365, "text": "They generally don't unless you win an award. They're usually funded by art grants or private investors as a proof of concept for the director and/or crew's talents.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-19", "score": 0.8036856651306152, "text": "While not universally true (especially in the case of Europe who gets to be called its own continent for purely cultural/political reasons) A continent is considered to be the primary landmass on its tectonic plate. If you look at a map of tectonic plates: _URL_0_ You can clearly see that with a few notable exceptions such as Europe and India. In general continents occupy their own tectonic plate. So then if you are a landmass that is part of a continent's tectonic plate but is not connected by land to that continent, than you would be an island. Although even this is a fairly tenuous definition." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-292642", "score": 0.7529268860816956, "text": "Well there are small islands just off the coast off the mainland around the world too. The middle of the ocean is very deep. Continents exist because the continental crust is higher than the ocean crust. Islands just off the mainland exist for the same reason, they are just separated by (relatively shallow) water from the mainland coast. Small island chains like Hawaii are created by volcanoes and stop growing when the volcano stops erupting. Islands like the British isles can be big because they used to be part of the mainland of Europe before the English channel formed.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-153403", "score": 0.7500366568565369, "text": "The difference between an island and a continent is fuzzy. There are a few things that suggest that Australia is not \"just\" an island though. For one thing, Australia is the dominant land mass on its own tectonic plate, so it's geologically separate from the other continents. If it was an island, where is its mainland? For another, it has relatively distinct wildlife, where an island would tend to share its wildlife with its mainland. It's also just really big, islands don't typically require multiple days to drive across.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-186031", "score": 0.746704638004303, "text": "Australia has its own continental plate, so it is a continent. Greenland on the other hand sits firmly on another continents continental plate (north America’s), so it counts as an island.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-124605", "score": 0.7403992414474487, "text": "It's basically random. Continents and islands aren't really things though. Like look at the Moon or Mars, they have low valleys and canyons and high plateaus and mountains and stuff, but if Mars or the Moon had a shit ton of water on the surface, you would see continents and a scattering of islands, surrounded by ocean. The Earth is the same. Water has submerged most of the surface, but some areas are at a high enough elevation that they are above the ocean's surface, and these areas are continents and islands. Think of it this way, an island is just an isolated mountain that is mostly submerged under water. The islands of Hawaii are a mountain range, but most of it is underwater, with just the \"peaks\" above the surface.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-644421", "score": 0.7222585082054138, "text": "Like the deepest parts of the oceans are way deeper than the tallest mountains, and more of the earth is covered with water than land, so wouldn't that mean that all land is just islands and if it was all flattened out, the water would easily cover it all? Never realized it could be a thing until the other day.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-294845", "score": 0.7220859527587891, "text": "Antarctica is a proper continent. It's just referred to as an archipelago in what you read because a sizable chunk of the actual land mass is below sea level (maybe because it's got a few miles of ice on top weighing it down). But underneath the ice is a continental plate like any other, that moves around like any other.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-97352", "score": 0.7189427018165588, "text": "Continents sit on continental lithosphere which is part of tectonic plates floating high on Earth's molten mantle. And Islands are either extensions of the oceanic crust, like Hawaii or other volcanic islands, or geologically they are part of some continent sitting on continental lithosphere.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-131984", "score": 0.7161334156990051, "text": "When used in the context of being a continent it includes Australia. Otherwise it just refers to a region of islands and not a continent.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-75105", "score": 0.709412693977356, "text": "Also, Greenland [is an archipelago](_URL_1_). But if the ice was gone for thousands of years, it would sponge back up and become an island again.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-271159", "score": 0.7049345970153809, "text": "OK, geographically it is considered the same continent. Geologically [New Zealand is on two separate tectonic plates](_URL_0_) - there is a singificant tectonic boundary which passes between North and South Island, and down the Southern Alps. So North island and the Western edge of South Island are on the Australian tectonic plate, while the rest is part of the Pacific tectonic plate. The problem I think you're having is that the word continent has several different meanings (and a craton is something different again).", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-110493", "score": 0.7031587958335876, "text": "It's simply too big. 7,692,024 square km according to Google. Of course the line between continent and island is some what arbitrary to a certain degree. But Australia is just so dam huge. Edit: It's also generally agreed that continents have a lower overall density and so \"Float\" on the mantle. Where as Islands are protrusions in the mantle that happen to be above sea level.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-661001", "score": 0.7005885243415833, "text": "There’s no way a little 100ft wide island can just be sitting out there, way in the middle of the ocean right? It seems like islands way out would have to be huge (an underwater mountain essentially). And then the tiny, tropical, single palm tree, desert islands we think of, seem like they could only exist right off the coast of some larger land mass.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-49406", "score": 0.6999941468238831, "text": "Land is not floating on the sea. Land is attached to the crust. The crust is what you find below the sea and surrounds the entire planet. Now, the crust is sort of floating on the magma layer below. The thicker parts of the crust (5-70 km thick) are high enough to be above water, the thinner (oceanic crust, under 5-10 km thick) are covered by the water. A typical bottom of the sea would be at 3.5 km below sea surface, a typical continental platform would be like 200 m. This means, surrounding the continents, there is a 200 m deep and like 100 km wide shelf than then steeply falls to the 3.5 km see bottom. On that shelf, any mountain, if you will, is an island. And big plateaus are \"continents\". You can also have underwater volcanoes, that spit the magma underneath the crust and can, with time, become higher and higher until they become visible islands. Like Hawaii. And then, there is The Netherlands.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-305684", "score": 0.6997217535972595, "text": "An interesting question! I suppose it comes down to the way tectonic processes work. The processes that form continental crust mostly occur at convergent plate boundaries, which means they don't occur in random little spots throughout the oceans to create islands (hot spots do that! But we're talking about continents here). That means that we tend to add continental crust onto existing continental crust, which favors large continent chunks rather than lots of small pieces. Furthermore, lots of stuff moves towards subduction zones, which are often (although not always) found on the edges of continents. As islands move towards these zones, they're sometimes sort of scraped off the descending plate and added to the continent, again favoring adding pieces to already-big pieces of land.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-38711", "score": 0.6991418600082397, "text": "Most of the Caribbean is volcanic in origin, and many of the smaller (as well as larger) islands have a central volcanic peak or a mountainous interior. These occur at the joint of two of the plates that make up the surface of the earth - the Atlantic and Caribbean plates. As well, some of the larger islands are part of mountain ranges. So, the islands are mostly the tops of mountains or the tops of volcanoes and there are lots of them. Stolen from [here](_URL_0_).", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-319516", "score": 0.6980916857719421, "text": "Basically it's arbitrary. Continents are decided based mainly on convention rather than specific criteria. Also Greenland is quite a bit smaller than say Australia. 2,166,086 square kilometers as opposed to 7,617,930 square kilometers.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-211774", "score": 0.6972044110298157, "text": "You'll have to be a bit more specific. Also \"discovered\" often denotes being found by a Westerner, despite being inhabited by natives. Australia was likely the last continent discovered. Many may argue Madagascar and New Zealand were some of the latest to be discovered/inhabited larger islands.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-27800", "score": 0.6939440369606018, "text": "No one decides. What a continent is just loosely defined and there is no official list of what is and isn't a continent. _URL_0_", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-1835", "score": 0.6934874057769775, "text": "It's not an island in the typical sense of a chunk of land you can walk on. It's a region of the ocean with a larger than expected concentration of microscopic plastic particles. The existence of this \"island\" is a problem because of it's size and it's risk to ocean life, but you could only realize you were even floating in it if you sampled the water around you and examined it closely. Edit: It appears it isn't **always** microscopic pieces, according to some of the videos shown below.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-203611", "score": 0.6924875974655151, "text": "I'm not really sure I understand what you're asking. Some countries were defined by pure geology. Islands such as Japan, Ireland/Britain, Australia, Madagascar I think are pretty obvious in some regards. Other nations were formed politically and over time. (obviously all nations changed over time and for political reasons.) There wasn't a convention where everyone sat down and decided how big each country would be. For example America was originally much smaller but after land purchases from Mexico, France, and Russia; prizes from war; and the original colonies, America became what we know of it today. Likewise, countries like Italy, Germany, and Spain were smaller kingdoms that formed together over time.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-20", "score": 0.766430675983429, "text": "Wikipedia's biggest issue is that their amazing service requires constant overhead. So donations keep it running. Have you ever been inside a server location. That shit is cold, and cold is expensive." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-68498", "score": 0.7245928645133972, "text": "_URL_0_ The main reason is that ads will compromise Wikipedia's neutrality and integrity. With ads, companies could use their leverage on Wikipedia to force it to change its content.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-46870", "score": 0.7194273471832275, "text": "Fundamentally, it's the same as Reddit or Facebook or any other website. When you submit content - be it an article, a post or a like - a record gets made in a database. The next time somebody views that page, the server reads that information from the database and builds a new page out of it. What makes Wikipedia unique is that (almost) anybody can edit (almost) anything and the system is set up to keep a history of it.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-85681", "score": 0.7173712849617004, "text": "They are always growing, but do not use ads to make money. This basically means that their only source of income is donations, which they use to pay for programmers, server hosting, etc. If they don't get enough money they will either have to shut down, reduce their size (less articles or access to less people), or take on ads (which could make usage more annoying and give companies some control over the site). They want to avoid this and so they are asking for donations. If you feel like they offer a useful/important service and you want to keep the site ad-free, then you should consider donating.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-17709", "score": 0.715265691280365, "text": "It can, but we wouldn't lose anything. When you're asking \"can Wikipedia go bankrupt\" you're really asking \"can the Wikimedia Foundation go bankrupt?\" - the answer is yes, should expenditures exceed revenue. We wouldn't lose anything though. The WMF doesn't own the content on Wikipedia. All of the original content (i.e. non fair use content) is legally copyrighted to whoever contributed the content. Wikipedia has as much of a right to host the content as I - or anyone else - does. We're all legally allowed to use the content because the copyright holder (i.e. the original contributing editor) released the content under the CC BY SA license. So should the WMF go bankrupt, we'd lose nothing except an inefficient organization which spends more money on \"outreach\" efforts than actually goes to maintaining and hosting the encyclopedia. Anyone can download a copy of Wikipedia's content at _URL_0_ and host it themselves.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-132378", "score": 0.7143216729164124, "text": "It's not laziness, Wikipedia doesn't want to worry about YouTube changing things or pulling down content. They also don't want to deal with potential copyright infringement claims. Legal or not those claims are a pain in the butt and can ruin a site's reputation. Disney is notorious for enforcing copyright and nobody really wants to fight them on it.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-191390", "score": 0.7112032771110535, "text": "Some people trust a central authority that vets the information that gets published, like Encyclopedia Brittanica. Others prefer a crowd sourced model where anyone can modify or add information, like Wikipedia. Of course, this means that anyone can add almost anything to Wikipedia, even if it’s known to be untrue. However, Wikipedia keeps a full edit log, and if an article gets noticed, misinformation will eventually get cleaned up. But an encyclopedia of any type is meant to be a jumping off point or quick reference; if you’re actually wanting to learn about a subject, you start with the works cited.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-150963", "score": 0.7098780274391174, "text": "You have to remember that the people who take time out of their day to write for Wikipedia are often people who care. That said, every information site has a specific \"style\" that people write in, and people who care would generally want to make their work become part of a bigger thing. Those articles that don't conform are usually fixed, if it has any informational value, by another good person.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-164268", "score": 0.7086216807365417, "text": "I like to think sometimes it's because people don't think to use google and want an easier answer than what Wikipedia provides. That and Karma Farming.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-457354", "score": 0.7082160115242004, "text": "hey everybody,\nIs there any sort of source on Reddit where I can ask for help and tips on publishing/editing Wikipedia articles? I feel as if this environment on the internet would be ideal for collaboration/help. Let me know if there is anything close to what i'm searching for. Thanks!", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-134052", "score": 0.7074115872383118, "text": "The strength of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it, and there's enough dedicated users that pranks and incorrect information gets fixed pretty quickly. Locking all of the entries would be counterproductive.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-565147", "score": 0.7058966159820557, "text": "I love that they are trying to live without adverts, but really, if that means that at some point we may not have a wikipedia, I am very willing to accept an ad bar to secure it's future forever.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-207448", "score": 0.7045151591300964, "text": "Wikipedia is the first and last place I go when doing research. I use it to get a feel of the subject matter, and then to mine the references at the bottom of the page. Upon completion of my research, I return to Wikipedia and use my newly gleaned knowledge to make the page better. If I cannot update Wikipedia, then I probably did not glean a sort of fluency with the subject matter and that I need to go do more research.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-157636", "score": 0.7041724324226379, "text": "Reddit has ads. Craigslist charges for certain kinds of job postings. Wikipedia operates on donations.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-220657", "score": 0.7033575177192688, "text": "[META]: Not wanting to backseat mod here, but could you please rehost that image of the pantheon dome to _URL_2_, rather than the (donation-driven) Wikimedia servers? Reddit (and this subreddit) are pretty high traffic, and I'd hate to see AskScience costing Wikimedia a bunch of money.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-72338", "score": 0.7024498581886292, "text": "Community policing mostly, and they do have staff that check articles that keep getting vandalized and such. The wiki community is astonishingly quick at times, and will fight to retain control over articles they contribute to.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-144473", "score": 0.700040876865387, "text": "The entire idea of Wikipedia is that it's a world wide, public collaboration. You might as well ask why Reddit doesn't stop letting people post links and just hire a team of professionals to post stuff instead.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-1381848", "score": 0.6993992328643799, "text": "I found this Chrome extension, but it only kicks out a percentage. I want to be able to know not only how many articles I've read in a given time period, but which articles. \n\nI actually went through my browser history once and dumped it into Word and sorted it alphabetically to pull out just the Wikipedia links, then I removed anything that were links to pictures/named anchors (if there was already a link to the original page) and then I numbered them in order to give me a count. I did this for a three-month timespan, and I think my average was somewhere around 200 Wikipedia articles per month.\n\nBut there has to be an easier way than this! I can't be the first person to think of something like this--anyone have any idea? Anyone want to write an extension or Greasemonkey script like this/know someone who can? :-)", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-109981", "score": 0.6979119181632996, "text": "Iirc, the more someone clicks on something, the higher it ends up in search results. And a lot of people search \" < thing > Wikipedia.\"", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-68775", "score": 0.6973332166671753, "text": "There's no iron-clad guarantee that all of the information on Wikipedia is accurate. The prevailing pattern however is that there are more benevolent people adding correct information than vandals intentionally adding incorrect information. Some people take a personal attachment to certain articles and set up notifications that will email them whenever there is a change. Because of this, most popular articles are fixed within minutes of vandalization. But, that still doesn't mean that incorrect information can't slip through if done more subtly.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-657577", "score": 0.6964622735977173, "text": "This may not be the right place to ask this question, but I can't think of anywhere else to get an answer. I've been very curious if it's just coincidence, or what. Any input would be helpful. \n\nAlso the days I get donations are usually just slightly busier than the days I don't get donations. Maybe 25 visitors instead of 20 a day. If even that.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-21", "score": 0.739503026008606, "text": "The passive type of jug won't filter out bacteria and other things that can make you sick. There is a thing called [LifeStraw](_URL_0_) that can do this, but it forces water through a filter as you use it. Something like a reverse osmosis system can make water safe, but that also involves forcing water through a membrane. These things can't be done with just gravity." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-239", "score": 0.6706701517105103, "text": "Lots of people out there live outside of cities, they have water softeners, etc. But still the water is skanky and nasty. So, the britta filter comes to the rescue! It removes sulfer, iron, calcium, nitrates, and other nasty tasting stuff. In 3rd world countries they have similar things with silver membranes to kill nasties. Such as the Tata Swach. _URL_0_ The also have micron filters, UV lamps, and various other gizmos.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-65421", "score": 0.6624842882156372, "text": "Well I've done it for a long while. It's actually a bit of a process. I collect the water that runs off the house. bird crap and just general stuff like leaves runs into the gutter so I built a bit of a strainer and a small filter in the actual drain, right before the containment unit (in this case a large bin. (New from Home depot. Like a big durable black trash can). On a really rainy day, it will backup just a bit but nothing serious. I change the filter once in a while. Typically after a heavy rain. It's drinkable (check the pH and take samples) however, I typically just use it to water my plants. Any other questions feel free to ask.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-1565722", "score": 0.6607118844985962, "text": "Single health conscious male. Bought a condo recently, water tastes horrible out of tap water. Plumbers even told me not to drink the city water. I have a costco membership and and have been buying water bottles, until I found a deal on a PUR Filter Jug. \n\nWhat's the most economical way to have access to drinking water? Should I keep buying the PUR filters every few months or invest in a water cooler from costco and buy the big gallon jugs from home depot / lowes?", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-10859", "score": 0.6605176329612732, "text": "It does. The SODIS method is a way to use clear 2-liter bottles and sunlight to make water safe(r) to drink, very useful in third world countries.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-3942", "score": 0.6590595841407776, "text": "Living as I do in the rural western U.S., I was initially astonished at your question. For people going \"off-grid\" in my region, collecting rainwater in cisterns, for household use and not just gardening, can be a viable choice, and I know plenty of people who do it. So, I'll have to answer your question with two others. \"Says who?\" and \"Where are you?\" Those questions being asked, I'd be inclined to say that rainwater *is* safe to drink, as long as 1) you aren't living downwind from horrible sources of atmospheric pollution, and 2) you take reasonable steps to ensure the water isn't being made dirty by whatever you are collecting it with.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-275972", "score": 0.6562449336051941, "text": "[Yes and no](_URL_0_). Rainwater is basically distilled. It is not lab-grade pure - it naturally has a slightly acid pH from absorbed carbon dioxide and can gather pollen and dust as it falls - but pure enough for most purposes as it falls from the sky through clean air. That doesn't mean you'd want to drink from a rain barrel in Shanghai which has never been washed. Air is not necessarily very clean and your roof is [very likely not super-clean either](_URL_1_) (bird poop etc), and neither are many cisterns. Mosquitoes and pathogens can breed in the water and some states actually have laws against collecting rainwater.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-2295759", "score": 0.6547291278839111, "text": "I've been reading about filtering devices and such for BOBs and started asking myself, why not test the water first and see if its within acceptable limits of drinking it instead of filtering straight away. Maybe the water in question is actually relatively pure and can save the life of the filter. Let us know if you have some kind of testing setup and if so what it is.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-847672", "score": 0.6537179946899414, "text": "I live in Texas where the summers are pretty brutal. Im wanting to store some of those 7 gal water jugs in my garage on a shelf. How safe is that to do? My biggest concern is the water not tasting right or the jugs busting\n\nEdit-Im talking about the 7 gal Aqua tainer jug", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-712485", "score": 0.6534120440483093, "text": "I live in a small town that's a little bit hilly. Directly behind my neighbor's house is a pond which is fed by water from storm drains. As far as I can tell, it's only water from the two nearby streets that end up in it. It does have a large vertical cement pipe in one corner so that when the water level goes up the water will drain somewhere else.\n\nIt's pretty dirty water: green, lots of plant life on the bottom and algae on top, some fish in it, black plastic around the edges to indicate that it's an artificial pond... Is there a way to filter this water to make it safe to drink? I know that it can be filtered through gravel and sand to help remove large particulate, and then something like a life straw or simple boiling to remove harmful bacteria. But what I'm worried about most is chemical or oil residue. The neighborhood went up in the late 1950's and early 1960's, and even if there are regulations today about how and where storm drain water can be routed, there likely weren't strong regulations back then.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-145706", "score": 0.6528667211532593, "text": "The first thing is that there is way more oxygen in a full jug. Second is that you contaminated the empty one with your mouth, the full container has cleaner water.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-551476", "score": 0.6488162875175476, "text": "Water is precious in my part of the world, so i have a big (~300L) plastic container to use as a reservoir for my recirculation needs (I'm a homebrewer / distiller, without recirculation the water charges would kill me).\n\nCovering it well enough to stop the bugs isn't practical, does anyone have any suggestions on how to deal with this? I can put chemicals in the water as long as it won't eat away at the submersible pump in the reservoir.\n\nDeath to all bloodsucking insects.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-192481", "score": 0.6477864384651184, "text": "well, you can, you just have to get used to it. BTW, if you've drunk clean water your whole life, drinking water in India or Mexico will usually make you very sick at first, but once you have developed the right gut bacteria from drinking that water, you'll be fine. Truth be told, some people never get to \"fine\"...", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-430511", "score": 0.6470643281936646, "text": "I drink bottle water almost daily as well as tap water after I boil it. I'm new to filters and purifiers, so was wondering what's the best way of going about that? I was thinking of boiling and then using a filter?", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-126104", "score": 0.6454206109046936, "text": "If you live in a city with municipal water and sewage systems, then it goes to a water treatment plant where it gets filtered, cleaned, purified, and then goes right back into the water supply. If you live in a suburban or rural area without municipal water, you probably have a septic tank. The septic tank will filter the solids out of the sewage and pipe the water to a leaching field. The leaching field acts like a big filter for the liquid sewage and allows the water to enter the ground, becoming ground water again. If you have a pump for your own water supply, you'll be pumping that water back up at some point and using it.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-1255271", "score": 0.6445690989494324, "text": "I've been here a really long time and I've only consume bottled water, which is starting to bother me. Due to working from home I'm seeing exactly how much of a plastic waste this is creating and honestly, I am appalled by it.\n\nSo I'm wondering if anyone has a solution for it. I've looked through the online shops for water filters, and the most common solution seems to be those 3-4 filtration systems that connect to the water line. It's nice and all, but my current accommodation isn't quite suitable for adding something like that.\n\nThus, I was wondering if anyone knows if it'd be safe enough to just boil the water and then pass it through something like a Brita jug for additional filtration? I **REALLY** need to cut out the 18plastic bottles/week ending in the garbage.\n\nThanks.\n\nEdit : Think I should add this : I'm a bit outside Bangkok, in Pathumthani. The water supply is under PWA. Tastes similar to Bangkok, though haven't ingested either.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-934611", "score": 0.6441172957420349, "text": "I do some ultra distance hiking and running now and then and some of the most useful and weight saving gear I use is a bottle with a built-in water filter. \n\nI personally use a Lifestraw Go (600 ml bottle). The filtration is excellent. You can pour muddy water into your bottle and drink perfectly clean out of the nozzle.\n\nI do not recommend the straw. The flow rate is very low and usually water is at the lowest point around you so you have to lie head first into a stream for 5 minutes just to get a few mouthfuls.\n\nBut the bottle is great.\n\nFor families I would suggest more bottles or even larger solutions, I've seen plenty online. Just make sure the filter is of a very high quality.\n\nThis is the one I use: \n\nIt's basically filtering water though something like an N100 mask or better\n\nMembrane microfilter: 0.2 micron pore size. Removes 99.999999% of bacteria, 99.999% of parasites, and 99.999% of microplastics\n\n(sorry if linking is not allowed, I have no affiliation with Life Straw or any other similar company)", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-2577390", "score": 0.644079327583313, "text": "I’ve seen mention them a few times but haven’t had any luck finding them myself when searching! Just looking for something that will filter harmful stuff out of normal tap water ideally", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-144013", "score": 0.6435998678207397, "text": "I don't think there would be a problem drinking it. For modern designs, the water doesn't actually touch radioactive material so it should just be normal water.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-39845", "score": 0.6424281597137451, "text": "That's a good idea, and it definitely works, but a lot of people don't have the space to keep a ton of empty containers around waiting to be filled with tap water and find it more convenient just to buy bottled water when needed. You can always fill up the bathtub - not great for drinking out of, but if you need to flush the toilet you can just grab a bucket from the bath tub and pour it down.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-708541", "score": 0.6422445774078369, "text": "I'm heading off on a trip next week where I will need to treat flood waters that are extremely muddy and I was wondering if anyone has any advice on how to best treat this.\n\nI'm planning to allow the water to settle overnight in a bucket and then use a MSR Miniworks to filter it in the morning, and potentially adding some bleach overnight as a secondary disinfectant. However, I am concerned that the water will still clog the MSR filter quickly.\n\nI was originally planning to simply boil the water, and this was what I did for the first leg that took 7 days. However this was fairly putrid still and I was feeling slightly nauseous after drinking the water for 3 days so I will be looking for better ideas for a 3 month trip.\n\nIt's a trip down the Murray-Darling river system in Australia, a long flat river system similar to the Mississippi River in the US. However, unlike the Mississippi, this is the first time it has flowed in 2 years so it has a lot of crap in the water.\n\nAny advice will be gratefully received!\n\nAlso posted to CampingandHiking\n\n\\[edit\\]\n\nSo potentially overkill, but the following method will be deployed\n\n1. ~~Homemade Milbank Bag to prefilter into a 10 L bucket.~~ My homemade bag was not effective, so I didn't use, but in the end, I didn't need this :)\n2. Alum treatment to clarify water overnight. Only a few pinches were required, and very salty if you overdue the dosage.\n3. ~~MSR Miniworks to filter in the morning~~ Apparently Alum clogs filters, boiled the water instead\n4. ~~Storage with 1/2 dose Katadyn Micropur tablets for 24 hrs before use~~. Tasted like crap, didn't use.\n\nI'm hoping the milbank bag will minimise the amount of alum required. Both will reduce the turbidity of the water extending the filter life and making the chemical treatment more effective.\n\nKatadyn tablets are a backup in case of a filter failure as this trip is in fairly remote locations where Cryptosporidium is common. Apparently sodium dichloroisocyanurate is required for treating Cryptosporidium. This is a source of free chlorine that is oxidative and should help reduce any blue-green algae toxins that could be present, albeit in low concentrations after the flood.\n\nIF the water gets really bad, I'll consider making a sock filter using charcoal that I can make using a stainless steel pot with lid on a campfire. Normal charcoal is not as effective as activated charcoal, but still has fairly good absorption properties!\n\nWith luck, I'll be taking enough water not to need any of this with maybe the exception of a couple of longer legs.\n\nThanks for all the feedback!\n\n\\[edit two\\]\n\nPost trip update here\n\n \n\nI only used Alum and a campfire to boil the water. Apparently Alum is bad for filters and the chemical treatment tasted like crap!", "topk_rank": 19 } ]