Datasets:

Pavithree

/

eli5_0_19710

like 0

{ "a_id": [ "ds85lcx" ], "score": [ 4 ], "text": [ "Let's say you want to know if boys are equally likely to be left handed as girls. You can just tally a lot of data, but then the question is how far away from the expected equally-likely does the observed data have to be before you say \"well, it looks like they are not equally likely\". Both of these test try to measure something like that. What they answer is \"how likely is it you would see something as wonky as you did, just by chance, when the real pattern is 'equally likely'?\".\n\nThe Chi Squared test reduces the \"non-independence\" to a number, and then looks that number in a table. But this process has the problem that you can't observe 1.567 of a right-handed girl, which introduces some errors. Fisher's Exact Test addresses the rounding problem by enumerating all the possible results (which have whole number counts) which are more skewed than the one you observed, and summing up their probabilities." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cdigxmw", "cdis9mt" ], "score": [ 6, 2 ], "text": [ "DDR3 is a memory standard. There are speeds (called frequencies) that RAM runs at. Very roughly, it's a measure of how quickly it can read and write data, so higher is better. DDR3-1866 is faster than DDR3-1440, for example (those numbers might be made up but it doesn't matter). Unless you're a really serious performance geek, your RAM frequency will make absolutely no noticeable difference, so it's not something to worry about. Your motherboard and processor will have certain allowed frequencies, so just get one that's compatible.\n\nDDR2 is the older standard, and it's not as fast as DDR3. I don't think you can really even buy DDR2 these days.\n\nThere's no such thing as DDR5 RAM. There's **G**DDR5, which is VRAM (video card RAM). Your video card is like its own little computer, and it has its own RAM so that it can do video card things. GDDR5 is very fast video card RAM. It's actually based on DDR3 RAM, I don't know why they pick the names in such a confusing way.\n\n/r/buildapc is a great general resource for this kind of stuff if you have more questions about actually choosing specific parts and stuff.", "To truly understand what is so impressive, you need to understand how sine wave works. You see all electricity follows a [sine wave](_URL_0_). In this example, we will be talking about FREQUENCY specifically. The definition of frequency is as follows: \"the rate at which something occurs or is repeated over a particular period of time or in a given sample.\" So in our sine wave, we measure frequency by measuring how many of those peaks will pass in any given second.\n\nBack in the day, RAM used a standard called SDRAM or Single Data Rate RAM. This meant that RAM could only operate on the peak of each sine wave. With the introduction of DDR or Dual Data Rate RAM, the RAM can now operate at both the peak AND the valley of the sine wave. This immediately doubles the speed of RAM. Now as we are moving forward with the DDR standard, we are able to turn the frequency higher. This means that more peaks and valleys of a sine wave are passing every second, which means that more operations per second can be performed. \n \nNow something to keep in mind, as you increase frequency, you typically increase heat generated. Heat is the natural enemy of computers, as it greatly interferes with operation. So to go faster usually means more heat, which means that there would be an upper limit to how fast we can go. Basically we would only be able to go at a speed where we can still effectively cool. However with the newer DDR standards we are actually able to reduce the amount of power required to run the RAM, which greatly reduces the amount of heat that is put off. This means we can go at faster and faster speeds without having to come up with a way to cool more and more effectively." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "http://www.doctronics.co.uk/images/sig_03.gif" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "crtyfro", "crtyi65" ], "score": [ 2, 2 ], "text": [ "While the protocols will vary among countries, especially where royalty attend schools and universities in their own countries:\n\n > Are they expected to be referred to as \"Your Highness\" or their other titles by their professors and other students? Or would this annoy them?\n\nNo. \n\n > Do they get special treatment in classes, clubs or teams? Would clubs and teams want to have them?\n\nThere is typically no special treatment in classes, or for teams. As for social clubs, it would depend on the specific social club. The exceptions here relate to logistics/security, in some cases. \n\n > Are they treated like celebrities or do they fit in? Have any needed special security?\n\nDepends on the royal, but in general, they fit in, although sometimes as part of a subset of the student population that is generally distinguished by wealth. Security depends on the individual case. \n\n > Did/do they party like other students? Are they expected not to or do they take advantage of their status for partying?\n\nAgain, depends on the individual. \n\n", "In regards to special treatment in classes, all students at the time of accepting an offer at a university agree to bide by the rules and regulations of the institution. \n\nTake for example Prince William. He went to St Andrews. St Andrews has what is called a 'Sponsio Academia'. It is an oath taken by all students matriculating into the four ancient Scottish universities. Traditionally the oath - in Latin - was given orally but it is now appended to the matriculation form signed by each student. Each student who takes the oath promises that they have put themselves under the authority of the Senatus Academicus of their particular institution.\n\nAt the University of St Andrews the following oath is taken.\n\nNos ingenui adolescentes, nomina subscribentes, sancte pollicemur nos preceptoribus obsequium debitum exhibituros in omnibus rebus ad disciplinam et bonos mores pertinentibus, Senatus Academici authoritati obtemperaturos, et hujus Academiae Andreanae emolumentum et commodum, quantum in nobis sit, procuraturos, ad quemcunque vitae statum pervenerimus. Item agnoscimus si quis nostrum indecore turbulenterve se gesserit vel si parum diligentem in studiis suis se praebuerit neque admonitus se in melius correxerit eum licere Senatui Academico vel poena congruenti adficere vel etiam ex Universitate expellere.\n\nTranslation:\n\nWe students who set down our names hereunder in all good faith make a solemn promise that we shall show due deference to our teachers in all matters relating to order and good conduct; that we shall be subject to the authority of the Senatus Academicus and shall, whatever be the position we attain hereafter, promote, so far as lies in our power, the profit and the interest of our University of St Andrews. Further, we recognise that, if any of us conducts themselves in an unbecoming or disorderly manner or shows insufficient diligence in their studies and, though admonished, does not improve, it is within the power of the Senatus Academicus to inflict on such students a fitting penalty or even expel them from the University.\n\nAs for Special security, the royal family of the UK are served by the 'Royal Protection Squad' of the London Metropolitan Police, so they will always have armed police nearby, regardless of where they are. Prince William had security. I was at school in St Andrews at the time he was a student there. He was in Tesco buying his lunch one day, and two of his security were outside the shop waiting for him.\n\nAs for partying, I don't know. Same goes for how they are referred to. It's normally practice to refer to a member of the royal family by their title, but I can imagine that once that formality is done with, the individual might not want to be continually referred to as that in an informal setting." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d3dn3we" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "[Search result 1](_URL_1_)\n\n[Search result 2](_URL_0_)\n\nThese should adequately give you answers on what a weight station is and also on result 2 it gives you the ability to actually call or find other websites where weight station ifnformaton can be requested as well.\n\nThank you for utilizing your search bar first, have a pleasant day!" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/NovaScotia/comments/35eyba/weigh_stations_on_highway/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1xxlec/eli5truck_stop_weigh_stations/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cr8b1fu", "cr8b2di", "cr8bq6x", "cr8cdfs", "cr8cwoo", "cr8ftbh", "cr8nqvv" ], "score": [ 5, 2, 12, 6, 5, 3, 2 ], "text": [ "Because women are killing themselves from anorexia. There's probably a better balance between \"making fun of the fatties\" and \"letting people eat themselves to death\" than our society currently has.", " > why does society seem to promote body-positive messages about being overweight/obese\n\nWhat I've mostly noticed is promoting \"average\" over \"extremely thin.\" For example, France recently banned models with BMIs below a certain number, and is working on banning pro-anorexia websites. \n\nThere are still plenty of people who \"fat shame\" as well as people who \"thin shame.\" This is different from telling people not to stress about their bodies too much. ", "Because shaming someone most of the time does not fix the problem. It most likely will make it worse. The reason fat shaming gets more exposure than \"thin\" shaming is because there is simply more of it. Anorexia is a real issue and its a large issue but countless studies show atleast here in America, we're fat. Everything seems to be marketed to becoming fat. All of our food is packed with sugar and other unhealthy things, its a serious problem. \n\nPositivity usually makes better outcomes. Most people that are fat shamed comfort themselves with food. ", "Society doesn't \"promote body-positive messages about being overweight/obese\". It promotes body-positive messages, period. It's also an overstatement to say \"society\" does it, because it's a movement that still has a long way to go.\n\nIn any case, we have a variety of problems with weight and diet, and it's pretty clear that body-shaming contributes to those problems. Body-shaming causes people of all body types (morbidly thin to morbidly obese) to get caught up in horribly unhealthy eating disorders like anorexia and bulemia, and on the other end can contribute to depression, which is cyclically both a cause and an effect of obesity, and to compulsive/comfort eating. And a lot of the damage that is done by our image-obsessed culture is done to \"average\" people -- people who are either a healthy weight or slightly overweight, but who feel awful about themselves because they don't look like a magazine cover.\n\nLook at it this way: if you tell a woman she is fat, you're basically guaranteeing that she'll think you're an asshole, that she'll feel upset and discouraged, and that any impact on her life will likely be unhealthy rather than healthy. If you tell her she is beautiful, she'll think you're kind, she'll feel encouraged and motivated, and any impact on her lifestyle or diet will likely be positive. The only reason this whole issue is remotely controversial is because so many people think being an asshole will somehow be helpful.", "Fat shaming is just very thinly veiled verbal abuse. It serves more as an amusement for the people doing the shaming than any good for the fat person.", "First things first: it's not healthy to be really overweight or underweight, and anyone who says so needs a good bonk upside the head with a medical textbook. To a certain degree, one can change body composition by changing eating habits and lifestyle, although not everyone enjoys the same degree of freedom (sometimes genetics, sometimes opportunities, etc. limit the amount of control one realistically has).\n\nNo one (smart) is promoting messages about being obese or overweight; the idea of body-positive messaging is realizing that body health is a medically complex issue and sometimes, what's healthy for one person is not healthy for another person. \n\nAfter a few thousand years, doctors have gotten pretty good at what they do and would prefer to be able to advise healthy living. However, if someone lives a very healthy lifestyle and just so happens to be larger (maybe not even fatter) than another healthy person, that's fine, they don't care, most think that's great that they found their own places of comfort. It's just like big tall people and small short people having different dietary needs, or soldiers having different dietary needs from office workers. You really can't feed MREs to the average cubicle man when soldiers are deemed more attractive, it's not normal. So listen to doctors' best guesses. *^Ask ^your ^doctor ^what ^diet ^is ^right ^for ^you.*\n\nEven if someone is unhealthily large for their factors of living, criticizing them doesn't do much. It's probably obvious to them, and even if it's not, it's their responsibility to listen to the doctor at the checkup telling them to reduce their weight--it's a medical opinion. You're not their physician, and criticizing them just makes:\n\n* them feel bad, which isn't good for them as stress. If you don't have intense social taboo barriers to not speak, you're probably not the only one giving them this opinion (which may be wrong).\n* people dislike you as a judgmental butthead\n* it harder for you to get friends\n* absolutely no difference in their eating unless they start reacting out of stress, which is even worse because eating disorders baaad.\n* people with limited control over their body composition feel bad to no possible good outcome or change.\n\nComplaining out of *care* doesn't work. Take care of yourself and make yourself a healthy example. One problem in our society is that we don't have a lot of healthy examples to go off of (see the recent front page post about mothers thinking obesity looks okay) and being a healthy example will do loads better for both you and everyone else. Encourage them to be healthy with you by example, and be understanding. Negative comments will throw up defense mechanisms which do more harm than good.\n\nEdit:\n**tl;dr** *If you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything! It really doesn't help. Pick your own beeswax and get fit, then drag others with you in your good example. Leave the scales of judgment to the doctor.*", "Actually it is not a taboo and society does not promote these messages. The hype is merely due to the internet and the extreme sensitivity of many of its users. Being overweight is not a good thing and in most parts of the world, Fatty will know of it." ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "cxqhcyh", "cxqqs9f", "cxqvmte" ], "score": [ 71, 19, 8 ], "text": [ "As mentioned by others there is HVAC filtering, but the big reason is that it keeps people from driving and using other polluting forms of transport. \n\nAlso, if people don't go to work at construction sites there is less dust kicked up and if they don't run factories that produce particulates at full capacity that also cuts down. \n\nSo it's not just staying inside but all the other downstream effects of people not doing things to add more particulates to the atmosphere.", "Most airborne pollution is fairly large particulates, like smoke from factories, poorly tuned vehicles, dust, etc. These settle out relatively quickly, especially in the still air of a house, which may have a filtered HVAC system. Particles larger than 10 micrometers. \n\nSmaller particles in the 2.5 - 10 micrometers size range, are the most hazardous, because they can easily enter deep into the lungs. Again a house with closed windows and doors might not have significant air exchange with the outside, so the concentration indoors is less, even if the concentration is still hazardous. ", "Oxygen is far smaller than the smog molecules. How much smaller?\n\nOne molecule of oxygen (02) is approximately 60 picometers. The average piece of air pollution is about 10 micrometres. A picometer is 1 million times smaller than a micrometre. Which means that one particle of air pollution is close to 1 million times larger than a molecule of oxygen.\n\n > Isn't it the same air?\n\nYes - but only for oxygen. The oxygen is so small that unless you're in a very well sealed box/house, the oxygen is going to easily flow in an out of the structure. It is NOT the same air for the air pollution. Those gigantic particles are simply not going to be able to get into the house as easily as the oxygen. This means you'll have just as much oxygen, but far less pollution." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dixr733" ], "score": [ 4 ], "text": [ "All names, and names of places, begin with capitals. \n\n\"The cat is called Bill\" \n\n\"The ship was called Titanic\". \n\n\"My favourite city is London\" \n\n \"We might one day fly to Mars\". \n\n\nOur planet has the name \"Earth\" - with capital \"E\". Although people often use the term \"the world\" to describe our planet, \"world\" itself is not the name of our planet. It is usually used to describe the entire environment of Earth, including all of its societies/living things etc. The word \"world\" can equally apply to any other planet, environment, or even fictional environment. \n\n\n\"The world of Harry Potter\" \n\n\"The fastest creature in the animal world\" \n\n\"I was lost in my own world\" \n\n\"Mars is a hostile world\"\n\nSo \"world\" is not the name designated to our planet. Therefore it does not have a capital. Just like in the above examples, \"cat\", \"ship\" and \"city\" don't have capitals." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ddu1scx", "ddu1uhx" ], "score": [ 3, 4 ], "text": [ "Because if something is advertised to kill, say, 100% of bacteria, and then it gets tested and there's like 1 bacteria cell they didn't kill, they could technically get done for false advertising. There's always some amount of error or uncertainty in things. \n\nObviously likelihood is that no-one cares about that 1 bacterium, but just in case some arsehole does, it's safer for companies to advertise as 99.99%. ", "Its all CYOA. The company making the product can't advertise that it kills 100% bacertia. This is because of human error. If someone uses their product the wrong way, and gets sick, they can sue the manufacturer for false advertising, and in this society, they stupid person would probably win. \n\nSame thing with The Birth Control Pill. They say it's 99% effective because it relies on a human taking the pill everyday." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cg2irhv", "cg2logv" ], "score": [ 12, 3 ], "text": [ "Basically a lot of the tickets are bought up by large brokers. The two that I know get most of the tickets through inside connections at the arena or ticketing company. I've been to the office of one of the companies and they have about 10 people sitting at computers buying and selling tickets. There is software that connects all of these brokers together that they use to buy and sell to each other as well. It's almost like a stock market for tickets in a way. The people who own these type of companies are the ones that are getting rich. The guys you see selling on the street make little to no money. The ticket companies and arenas actually love these guys because they buy so many tickets compared to the average consumer, and usually have deals in place with them. To give you an example of the scale the company I am most familiar they have an inventory of around 1-2 million dollars worth of tickets at any given time to events all over the country.", "Here are some basics to understand before we get to your questions: \n\nThere are three majors types of ticket resale situations. \n\n1 \"Official\" resale. In this situation, the original issuer of the ticket, the primary seller, or the artist themselves, has some special relationship with the ticket reseller. In this situation, the broker will usually make a few percent on the sale over their marketing cost, and the artist or primary seller also gets a share (usually larger). There is much more of this going on than you would think. I think this is bad for ticket purchasers and concert goers, because everyone is colluding to set a premium price on the tickets. \n\n2 Non sanctioned, \"in hand\" sales. In this case, the broker has no official deal to get the tickets, and instead just got them somehow. Importantly, the broker has already purchased the tickets in this scenario. The broker takes a risk in doing this. Some ticket prices go up, some don't. In concerts in particular, artists are always pushing up primary prices, so the amount to make for the reseller then goes down.\n\n3 Non sanctioned speculative selling. In this case, the broker has not yet purchased the tickets, but given a fee, will procure them for you. Usually, in these situations, you could just buy them on your own by going to the venue or the venue's official website, but people just go to google, type in their search phrase, and stupidly assume that whatever result is number 1 is the official source for tickets. In this scenario the industry is providing the lowest level of service to the customer in my opinion. \n\nThere are also various types of firms involved in the business beyond just the broker. \n\nThe broker is usually different than the website owner, who controls the website you actually buy the tickets from. That website in turn is powered by one of the big \"exchanges\" which like ebay are a big database of everyone's inventory as most brokers do not have enough inventory to make a compelling web offering without including the inventory from other brokers. \n\nSo, we have brokers, primary sellers, artists, website owners, and the exchanges. \n\nBrokers pay fees to the exchanges to list their inventory and pay commissions on sales. Except in the \"official resale\" scenario I described before, none of this money goes to the primary seller or artist. \n\nAnyway, now to your questions:\n\nAre they computer geniuses? For the most part, the most tech savy group are the exchanges and the website owners. The exchanges are actually software companies for the most part, so tech is their expertise. Generally, ticket resale is an incredibly avant garde and cutting edge field in terms of marketing and web tech, as it is incredibly competitive, so you have to be very efficient to succeed. Most brokers are not that tech savy, though the people that have joined in the last 10 years are generally younger and more savy than the prior generation. Most brokers with huge amounts of inventory are from the prior generation. \n\nWho is profiting? Everyone. Mainly google. Website owners spend huge amounts in online advertising, and margins are very low. Brokers make money or lose it depending on how well they pick their tickets. If you have a sure thing (red sox tickets, some artist or team that always sells out), and lots of key season tickets, they you can make a lot of money. However, they also work really hard. Most exchanges have increasingly high standards for brokers, and so it is not uncommon for people to work long hours repricing things, and organizing getting rid of their last minute inventory on the street if the web has failed them. \n\nIndividuals also benefit from the industry. It is very common for non broker / regular people to resell their extra tickets for high prices. So, your neighbor may be the \"broker\" and they may just do this on occasion rather than having an established business. \n\nAre they living like kings? No. Sure, there are a few very well off brokers, but compared to bankers / stock brokers, they aren't that rich. Many brokers are very middle class or lower middle class. Most brokers come from fairly humble origins and socially are quite working class. Again, as mentioned above, many also work quite hard. Some people set up auto pilot situations, but usually those folks have been in the industry for a long time, and worked really hard at some point. \n\nAnyway, if you are concerned about tickets selling out, brokers aren't the ones to blame. Pressure the artists you like to play bigger arenas and more dates. A band can easily kill the resale market for their tickets by playing lots of shows in a town and thus giving opportunity to everyone to see them. \n\nLet's face it, America is a very unfair country in many ways. Rich people get the best stuff. Tickets are no different than anything else. As with anything that is sold, if you are wealthy, you can always secure your lot, albeit at a higher price. So, before you get too mad at brokers, just realize they provide a valuable service (you can always get tickets, they never fully sell out), it just costs a premium. That premium mainly goes to marketing expenses. The website selling you the tickets isn't getting rich usually anyway, at best it is the broker in possession of the tickets, and as mentioned earlier, like with stocks, sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. Brokers go out of business just like everyone else. It isn't some magic path to riches. That being said, if you like working from home in front of a computer screen, and you are into gambling, it can be a good choice for some folks. \n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cz21r6u", "cz2hsew" ], "score": [ 9, 2 ], "text": [ "I remember seeing a documentary on this, years ago so forgive the lack of formal names.\n\nBascially, those knockout punches are thrown in a way to make the head go up and to the side which causes the brain to move slightly inside of your cranium. This causes the brain to hit the sides, causing swelling, which leads to unconsciousness. Now, why that swelling causes it I can't remember.", "When I was in nursing school the best way I heard it explained was that your brain is like Jello in a bowl and it sloshes around inside your skull. So even though you get hit in the chin, the impact to the chin makes the brain slosh around and the brain get damage from it bouncing up against the opposite side of the head where the impact was. So if you hit someone on the chin hard enough, the energy created by the blow moves from the chin through the skull in a shock wave. The shock wave will cause the brain to hit the wall of the skull at a spot 180 degrees opposite of the blow to the chin with enough counter force that it is actually like the brain is being hit in the spot from something. The same thing happens if the skull is hit on the left side with enough force that it causes damage to the right side as well. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dicgrw5" ], "score": [ 6 ], "text": [ "That's called a \"high dynamic range\" effect, actually.\n\nThere are several tricks your body uses, but one of them is that your brain really *does* weave together numerous separate exposures to create the image you think you are seeing. In reality your eyes are constantly jumping around and making adjustments." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cbpr8im", "cbpvfd5" ], "score": [ 16, 11 ], "text": [ "The dogs don't necessarily know that the baby is delicate before being trained. Keep in mind, dogs are highly socialized animals that pick up on cues very quickly, often without you noticing what is going on. In terms of babies, we of course treat them delicately and physically protect them. When introducing a dog that has NEVER seen a baby before, you'll force the dog to be quieter and gentler than it is allowed to be with anything else. This lesson, in many dogs, is just going to carry through to any baby it encounters.\n\nIf you have a dog that is not already socialized with children, it is very important to do so as soon as you bring a new baby home. ", "Dogs take their cues from others, like any animal. That includes humans. It's your (involuntary) movements, your intent and your general demeanor. \n\nRead up on the [Clever Hans effect](_URL_0_): Hans, a horse, was able to solve mathematical questions by tapping the answer with his hooves, or so the story goes. It's actually a pretty awesome, if not very revealing story.\n\n\"Pfungst found that the horse could get the correct answer even if Von Osten himself did not ask the questions, ruling out the possibility of fraud. However, the horse got the right answer only when the questioner knew what the answer was, and the horse could see the questioner. [...]\n\nPfungst then proceeded to examine the behaviour of the questioner in detail, and showed that as the horse's taps approached the right answer, the questioner's posture and facial expression changed in ways that were consistent with an increase in tension, which was released when the horse made the final, correct tap. This provided a cue that the horse could use to tell it to stop tapping. [...]\n\nPfungst made an extremely significant observation. After he had become adept at giving 'Hans performances' himself, and fully aware of the subtle cues which made them possible, he discovered that he would produce these cues involuntarily regardless of whether he wished to exhibit or suppress them. \"\n\n**TL;DR:** your body language gives away more than you know! \n\nAnd cats just don't give a f..." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clever_Hans#The_Clever_Hans_effect" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cdnb85u", "cdnb8o7", "cdnbba4", "cdneieu" ], "score": [ 6, 23, 5, 2 ], "text": [ "Her boobs and ass are very nice.\n\n\nShe released a sex tape.", "Kim Kardashian was a young wealthy socialite, a friend to Paris Hilton and daughter of Robert Kardashian who was one of OJ Simpson's lawyers. Her big break (if you want to call it that) was when a sex tape with Kim and her boyfriend was 'accidentally' leaked. THAT is how Kim Kardashian became famous - by making a sex tape.\n\n\nWhat's worse is that her sisters and half-sisters are famous for even less; they're famous for being related to her.\n\n\nNow they have the kind of bizarre, circular fame that almost only exists on 'reality' TV: they get paid a lot of money to be on TV, and the subjects of the shows are them spending a lot of money, for which they paid a lot of money, which they get filmed spending.... and the cycle continues.\n\n\nThe next question is why do people watch these wealthy do-nothings? ", "Because of the target market. You can say all you want about how fucking annoying these useless pricks are, but at the end of the day, it's their audience that make them rich and famous. So we should really be blaming their hordes of fans for being tasteless, mindless sheep, rather than criticising the icons. ", "Drip Drip Drip" ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "cusnl18", "cuso949" ], "score": [ 2, 11 ], "text": [ "I used to hunt on public land. One day a few guys decided they were going to push the deer through the woods which is a common technique but can be dangerous if done incorrectly. So while I sat there I began to hear shots off to my right and one of the slugs buried itself into the ground about twenty yards to my right. I ducked to the other side of a tree and started to yell quite a few cuss words at these assholes. Before they quit a few slugs passed by the tree I was around and I can tell you a shotgun slug makes a very distinct whizzing noise while it's flying through the air. After they figured out I was there they immediately apologized and made sure all was well which it was. So as for a shotgun slug a high-pitched whizz is the noise I heard.", "Veteran here: I've been shot at many times, so I feel like I'm qualified to answer.\n\nBullets do \"wizz\" when they're at more of a distance. The cracking sound is when they're closer to you.\n\nGames and movies usually don't feature it because it would just be a confusing audio overload for the viewer. They also don't show flash-to-bang for the same reason.\n\nI do remember being impressed with Battlefield 3's audio. It's probably the most realistic I've experienced." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cj35797", "cj35drz", "cj35pn7", "cj36ao3", "cj3eaio" ], "score": [ 2, 3, 7, 10, 2 ], "text": [ "The majority of the US is Christian. Christians won't vote for an atheist candidate.", "It's a numbers game. I wouldn't say it is an outright impossibility to elect an atheist, but it's a lot harder. People think if you do not follow the same religion as them, then you likely do not share some of their values, so they will vote for someone who does. Time was, even being Catholic was a major hurdle since most people were Protestant (Kennedy, in the 1960s, was America's first Catholic president). ", "In America right now, atheists are the [least trusted](_URL_0_) minority group. Voter seem to trust just about everybody else in the world before they would trust an atheist.\n\n(Some polls may suggest that rapists and pedophiles are trusted less than atheists, but that seems like cold comfort, doesn't it?)", "As a UK citizen, I am unaware and uninterested in the religion of our politicians.\n\nStrange, since the US makes a great fuss about separation of Church and State, that people seem so concerned.", "because too many people believe you can't be good without god" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [ "http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=1786422" ], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d3f71zj", "d3f7k2m", "d3f8b5l", "d3f9zi7" ], "score": [ 4, 9, 3, 13 ], "text": [ "Common names are names for animals in YOUR language. However, scientific names can pass through language barriers.", "The common names generally come before the scientific names. The common name is just what people normally call that animal in their language or region. Scientific names are needed because common names are very imprecise.\n\nSometimes many similar species will be grouped under the same common name, so you need scientific names to distinguish between them. Sometimes a single species will have different names in different places (even where people speak the same language). And sometimes people in different regions use the same common name for completely different animals.\n\nScientific names provide a way to unambiguously refer to a specific species, across the entire scientific community across the whole world. Scientific names are also structured so you can tell if two species are related from their names.", "To add to what others have said, nobody wants to go \"I'm taking my canis lupus familiaris for a walk! I hope she doesn't chase an oryctolagus cuniculus again!\"", "The scientific names are excellent for science, and that's what they were invented for. They very clearly explain what kind of an animal or plant it is -- for example, a Eurasian blackbird is *Turdus merula*, which positively identifies it as a species of thrush (the *Turdus* part of the name); the red-winged blackbird found in the Americas is *Agelaius phoeniceus*, which means it's related to the tricolored blackbird (*Agelaius tricolor*), but less closely related to the red-breasted blackbird (*Sturnella militaris*).\n\nWhy do we bother with the common names? Well, as has been pointed out, the common names came first, before people thought to categorize species in a systematic manner. But also, can you imagine this conversation:\n\n\"Have you seen the *Felis catus*?\" \n\"No. I expect he's out hunting *Mus musculus*.\" \n\"Well, as long as he doesn't bring back a *Rattus norvegicus*. I'm off to take the *Canis lupus familiaris* for a walk.\" \n\"Don't be late. I'm making fried *Gallus gallus domesticus* with fried *Solanum tuberosum* roots for dinner.\" \n\"Sounds delicious.\" \n\"Oh, and while you're out, could you just drop in to the grocery store for a pound of ground roast *Coffea arabica* seeds?\"\n\nThe scientific terms are precise, scientific and unambiguous; but they also, frankly, take too long to say (the scientific names refer to cat, mouse, rat, dog, chicken, potato and coffee respectively).\n\nThe scientific terms are examples of jargon: they're used in specific situations when exact definitions are extremely important. In everyday speech, they're not: it hardly matters whether what your cat has brought in is a *Rattus norvegicus* or a \"*Rattus rattus*\" -- it's a rat either way -- but to scientists working in certain specific fields, the distinction may be important.\n\nI'm a linguist (well, sort of), and I use a different type of jargon. When, for example, describing to you the sound the \"ch\" makes in the German name \"Bach\", I might describe it as a sort of raspy noise made in the back of the throat and then hope that you get it approximately right. But to a fellow linguist I would called it a \"voiceless uvular fricative\", and he would instantly know how, in theory, he's supposed to make it." ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "c4fq6j2" ], "score": [ 4 ], "text": [ "Very, very simply:\nSome countries in the eurozone sell a lot to other countries, like Germany. Some countries in the eurozone buy from other countries a lot, like Spain. So if Spain (amongst other countries) is buying a lot from Germany (amongst other countries) were does the money come from? Remember, Germany doesn't buy a lot of things from Spain so the money can't come from there. Well you see Germany lends Spain that money. So basically Germany lends Spain money so that Spain can buy german products. So being in debt is basically the same as buying more than you are selling to other countries. This lets you see the eurozone crisis in a whole new way, Spain has two issues: debt and buying too much from other countries. To solve one problem it has to solve the other. \n\nSo you can solve this problem in two quite simple ways: You can make sure Spain can't buy things abroad. How? By making sure everyone in Spain is too poor to afford german goods. This is quite unpopular.\n\nYou can make sure Germany buys a lot of things from Spain. How? Well Germany has a lot of savings, so it can use those to buy things from Spain. At the same time Germany could give everyone raises allowing germans to buy more things from abroad. Germany doesn't want to do this, which many economists think is bad for the Eurozone, and is the reason why it's accused of mercantilism.\n\nOff course not everything is black and white, but that is the essence of the problem. Perhaps these [two](_URL_0_) [blog posts](_URL_0_) will interest you as Krugman, an economist, tries to explain this same problem in detail" ] }

[]

[ "http://prestowitz.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/04/16/mercantilism_is_a_state_of_mind" ]

[ [ "http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/22/neo-calvinists-and-the-euro-crisis/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cszan7w", "cszap4n", "cszasnu", "cszb4qq", "cszbhpv" ], "score": [ 2, 3, 2, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "Because it tricks the mind into thinking it is less because your mind sees the 0 in 0.99 rather than 1 so it thinks its less more than it is", "Not just the US, but it tends to make the price seem cheaper: $49.99 looks better than $50 even though it is only 1c difference. It's a mind game ", "It's a psychological tactic. They hope your brain (subconscious) only focuses only on the number before the dot. With that they hope your brain goes something like:\n\n\"Hey neat, only 19 bucks!\", instead of 20 bucks. \n\nOfc it's a bit more complicated. They want you to focus more on the 1 in $19,00 for example, so you subconsciously think it's closer to $10.00 instead of $20.00\n\nYou can read more on Wikipedia about [Psychological pricing](_URL_0_)\n\n\nSincerely,\n\nUnplugged", "When you see $9.99 you're inclined to think \"oh it's $9\" or \"hey, that's less than $10\". It's a simple trick but it works quite well as they have a tiny difference mathematically but a huge difference visually.", "It's actually so that tellers were forced to open the drawer to return change after each sale. With most registers, the sale amount must be entered to open the drawer, so it made it much harder to steal.\nThey used X.99 as opposed to Y.01 because they didn't want to be seen as cheating customers out of a few cents on each sale. \n\nFrom there it became a psychological thing which is why it was kept around after the advent of surveillance and more advanced registers." ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "cd4pkjz", "cd4pqlo", "cd4q2f0", "cd4q5tb", "cd4qxxg", "cd4sa93", "cd4sadd", "cd4snim", "cd4spmd", "cd4ss0u", "cd4tqjc", "cd4ttk1", "cd4tw37", "cd4ubzs", "cd4uoiu", "cd4uu05", "cd4uzog", "cd4v82t", "cd4vbqv", "cd4vbtr", "cd4vg8p", "cd4vhuf", "cd4vstm", "cd4vyw2", "cd4wb0p", "cd4xmno", "cd4xrqv", "cd4yhzc", "cd4yidz", "cd4yn4k", "cd4zf5u", "cd4zzr2", "cd50pcn", "cd51u0c", "cd524tv", "cd52czg", "cd52e9y", "cd52kdh", "cd53nae", "cd550fb", "cd55xd0", "cd56epb", "cd56kfi", "cd56o05" ], "score": [ 101, 1168, 32, 28, 9, 5, 3, 13, 3, 5, 4, 2, 2, 5, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 8, 48, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 16, 2, 3, 2, 2, 5, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "In a winner-take-all/first-past-the-post system, voting for a third party actually makes it more likely that the party you like *least* will win. Third party votes are worse than throwing your vote away; they are essentially a vote for your opposition.", "This has been explained a couple of times here in ELI5. \n\nBasically, the first-past-the-post system ensures competition between two opponents. If I have 100 votes, and 3 participants, then those 100 votes will be shared between the 3. So, instead of having two participants with a close competition, the third participant just takes votes from one of the other two, meaning that one of the participants could win having a minority of the votes.\n\nLet me put you an example:\n\nYou have Bill Murray, Michael Jordan and Kanye West running for the position of \"Best Person Ever\". I like Bill Murray and Michael Jordan, but I dislike Kanye West. And most people would agree with me. But those same people also prefer Jordan over Murray (or the other way around).\nSo the time of election comes, the votes are casted and surprise surprise, Kanye West is declared Best Person Ever.\n\nHow?\n\nWell, let's say there were 100 voters. Of those voters, 65% hated Kanye West and would have prefered any of the other two. But, as I said, they prefer one over the other. So you have 65 votes divided between Bill Murray and Michael Jordan. \n\nThat's 32,5 each, but because that's not possible let's say Michael Jordan had 33 and Bill Murray had 31 (I am biased, I know). Each of them, even though they were prefered by the big majority, have less votes than Kanye West, who has 35. Thus, the least likely and less wanted candidate won.\n\nThat's why there won't be any third party rising up in the U.S. any time soon. Even though most would prefer a third party, those voters wouldn't agree on one single party to vote for, so their majority of votes would still be lost, ensuring that one of the two bigger parties still wins. Maybe even one the majority of voters doesn't agree with.", "I would assert that most people dislike the *other* party, and their biggest complaint is that their own party isn't extreme enough. \n\nIt's not like they're looking for a fundamentally different third position. There are a couple different factions within the Republican Party (wealthy supply-side free market esstablishment types, the tea party, and a small libertarian group), and the democrats are basically 'everybody else'.\n\nA multi-party system ultimately just forms a majority coalition then behaves the same way.\n\nThe problem, I think, is how seats are awarded. The way that districts are drawn and gerrymandered results in most seats having little actual contention.", "SpaceStalin and the_ferpectionist are right as far as the practical problems with a three-party system in our voting system, but there's also the issue of politics. Namely, that for a third party to be successful it has to both have a coherent, organized, and consistent idea of how the government should be run, and that idea needs to have a broad enough appeal so that a majority, or a large minority, of Americans want to vote for their candidates.\n\nMany third parties fail on one of those two, typically the latter. They end up being about very specific issues (like the Prohibition Party) or a very specific political view (like the Libertarian or Green Parties). Remember, when people say they're not satisfied with either party, that doesn't mean that everyone who says that has the same opinion. If one person doesn't like either party because they think the Constitution should be replaced with the Bible and Atlas Shrugged, and another person doesn't like either party because they think we should all live in socialist communes, those two people are not going to vote for the same third party candidate.", "Fear.\n\nThe only thing worse than \"your\" shitty party getting elected is \"their\" even shittier party getting elected. If you leave \"your\" well supported but still shitty party to support an unknown but amazing party, \"your\" original shitty party along with the small amazing party might be overwhelmed but \"their\" shitty party.\n\nProbably shouldn't say shit this much to a five year old.", "Because most Americans are complacent and content. As long as Candy Crush works, Facebook and YouTube, they've got their new iGadgets, etc etc then we don't care. At all. We deserve what we get. ", "$$$$$ $$ $$$$ $ $$$$$$$ $$$$. $$$$ $$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$ $$ $$$$$$ $$$$$$. $$$ $$$$$ $$$$ $$$$$$$$$$ $$. $$$$$$$ $$$$ $$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$ $$$$ $$$ $$$$$$$$.", "One more point. Despite what people say on Reddit, to pollsters and to their friends, there are practically no independent voters. Research is very clear that most people vote consistently for one party or the other at the state and federal level. I don't know if its because we've only had two choices for so long or what but Americans generally stick to one party. It's not unusual for a voter to switch allegiances for a candidate in a single election or to make a party switch as they age or even if they move to a new community. But, generally, once folks decide to adopt a political perspective, they stick with it in the voting booth.\n\nTLDR: In the voting booth, Americans generally stick to one party or the other year after year.", "As the voting system is [First Past the Post](_URL_0_).", "The problem is that we are being asked to choose betweens parties. I would prefer to just choose my candidates based on their ideas and political platform as opposed to who is associated with the party that will do the least damage.", "Because all of these people complaining about Obama now will forget come 2016 and they'll be all excited to vote for Hillary Clinton.", "because the system is rigged. the two parties system is an illusion of choice, a show put on for the masses. the real rulers are behind the scene and they do not want another party...", "One day, fellow libertarians, one day.....", "It's certainly not that there are no other parties, as there are plenty. It's that none of those other parties has won enough adherents. The Green Party started to gain some traction about a decade ago, but has lost most of its momentum by this point.\n\nImagine that you are in an ice cream parlour, and have a choice of a dozen flavours. The two most popular by far are chocolate and vanilla, but you've lost the taste for both of those and want to try something different. All the other flavours are *interesting,* but none of them really appeal to you. You try the free tasting of a few, and realise they're all *weird* somehow, or have some distasteful note that you find unappealing. That analogy gives some idea of why non-major parties aren't getting bigger.\n\nBut now we'll throw in another wrinkle: At the end of every day, the parlour tallies up its sale, and whichever flavour sold the *most* gets to be represented the next day, all day, by a representative from the flavour that 'won' the previous day. So, on the day you show up, a rep from The Chocolate Council is running the shop, and makes sure to position all the chocolate and chocolate-heavy flavours prominently, to help them sell even more. Next week, a guy from The Vanilla Federation is in charge for a couple days, because Chocolate got a little full of himself and people decided to give Vanilla a shot. And Vanilla of course does the same thing, for the same reasons. Neither one's trying to be a jerk, they're just very self-interested, like most people are. And that's a big reason why you're unlikely to see anyone from The Strawberry Advisory Board behind the counter. Occasionally, a Fruit Flavours Coalition forms, and gets some media buzz, but never enough to displace the two heavyweights from behind the counter.\n\nThere's more, of course. Many people reliably buy the same flavour their dad did, or that their wife buys, without caring or thinking much. Some are convinced that Chocolate or Vanilla contains something bad for them, no matter how good they may seem to hide it. But many others don't trust minority flavours to run the entire shop for a whole day, as much as they may like them on their own. And so on.\n", "Beyond the obvious ability to win responses, another problem with having a successful third party deals with the question of what would the third party's agenda be?\n\nEven if we just simplify it to the Reddit community (a small and largely skewed to young and middle/upper middle class demographic.) What is the problem (according to Reddit) with the mainstream 2 parties that merits a third party?\n\nYou'd get as many answers as there are people, but I think they could generally be grouped into 3 categories:\n\n1. People who want a more libertarian candidate like Ron/Rand Paul/Gary Johnson\n\n2. People who want a more economically left leaning candidate like Bernie Sanders/Dennis Kucinich\n\n3. People who want a \"centrist\" candidate that sits between the two major parties on most issues, and is more honest with constituents.\n\nI think in an election where the 2 major parties really took a hit in public opinion, you would see someone representing at least 2 if not all 3 of these positions, and now you are splitting the limited 3rd party vote even more ways. Even in the last election, where third party turnout was very limited, you still had the Libertarians, Greens, and Justice Party, along with a bunch of more minor parties splitting the few third party votes.\n\nAnd it is difficult to unite that coalition. Upper middle class white people are never going to vote in any huge numbers for a candidate who is fore decreasing income inequality, blue collar working class people (especially non-anglos) aren't going to get behind a libertarian candidate running on the platform of giving their employer more leverage to screw them, and there isn't going to be a lot of energy among anyone for electing a \"between the parties\" candidate.", "The more relevant question, is how do we get the people who have been elected by this system to change the system?", "Because liberals will vote for any politician that promises them gay sex, free stuff, benefits, entitlements, etc. Notice what they did to Ron Paul. Opposition and dissent only happens within conservative groups, liberals only pretend to be dissatisfied but they're suckers who will vote for anyone with catch phrases, entitlements, pandering, or anyone who breaks social norms like \"black\" Obama.", "Because the GOP and Dems appeal to one small part of many people's beliefs. Obama said healthcare for everyone and they all forgot his shortcomings in hopes of getting free healthcare. George W. Bush said we'll fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here then went on to start a war based on lies while overseeing the driving of the last nail in the coffin of American economic superiority. ", "Oklahoma has laws preventing a third party from getting on the ballot.\n\nSo, we don't have a choice.", "Meh, we'll get around to it next cycle.", "My government teacher made a good point about it. While everyone complains about everyone else, people think their representative is doing a great job and isn't part of the problem, and think that it is everyone else's reps that are corrupt. Even if they don't know a single thing their rep has voted on.\n ", "Ross Perot almost broke the mold when he ran. The parties in power got scared and made a law declaring that parties have to poll a certain percentage in order to participate in national debates. \n\nThird parties run every election but without the financial backing and ability to debate the major parties its pretty much pointless. People dont read past news headlines so the chances of a third party being heard with this law are very slim. Dems/reps are some smart gangs.", "There is the inherent design reasons why you don't see third parties winning races which many have described (first past the post.) But it's also about voter participation: People are unhappy with their leading parties (Republican and Democrats) but unwilling to invest time to change them. People who are unwilling to invest time anyway in politics would be no more willing to work hard to create a third party than to inject change in to their own race.\n\nThe Tea Party was very successful at taking on party leaders of the GOP (including heavily funded, industry/corporate types) because they took over and worked hard at the local level. They filled local and state committee positions and chairs, and this allowed them a lot of input in to party platforms and votes in primaries. Money helped, but it was people working on the ground consistently that really let this happen.", "Because voting for the least evil one is considered a logical argument.\n\nBecause people are encouraged to vote even if they have no fucking clue about the constitution or the candidates. \n\nBecause the people \"on the right\" are actually just fascists, along with the majority of the democratic party which are just t.v. based fans of state socialism, while paleoconservatives and real sociaists are limited in numbers and are laughed at. \n\ntldr; because the people in the country have lost all morals, intelligence, respect, and the ability to comprehend basic cause & effect", "It is clear the US government is more concerned with control than defending individual rights. It seems like every week (if not every day) there is a new release of information regarding what lengths the security apparatus of the US government takes to spy on US citizens absent any suspicion. The baseless assumption by US officials that every person is a potential terrorist leads to much harsher treatment towards everyday citizens and various immoral practices by our own government. I say immoral because it is plain the judiciary of the US will side with state interests over the individual most of the time, making the behavior of the US government not exactly illegal, but certainly not moral. ", "Because like most of their lives, people live in cruise control and can't think past blue or red. ", "Because the 2 parties have become so powerful and dominant that anyone that tries to run as anything outside of them is laughed at or a joke. The last time it happened the population was brainwashed into thinking that voting for anything but Republican or Democrat was a wasted vote because that candidate stood no chance. I would love to see multiple parties running but it's been going on for so long that most people are brainwashed into thinking it is either Rep or Dem and nothing else exists.", "A lot of people here describe voting for a 3rd party as \"throwing your vote away.\"\n\nIn states with clearly defined political affinities it isn't.\n\nIn California if you vote Democrat, you're throwing your vote away - you're voting for the party that's going to win California's electoral votes anyway.\n\nIf you vote Republican, again, *that* is throwing your vote away. The Dems are going to pull it every time *anyway*.\n\nBy putting your lot in with a 3rd party, you are contributing towards a 3rd party hitting the 5% mark, at which point by law their candidate must be included in national debates the next time around. (IIRC. I'm pretty sure it's 5%)\n\nVoting 3rd party is only throwing your vote away if you only care about the next 4 years. If you're at all interested in enacting change, you've got to play the long game. So long as so many of you see fit to perpetuate the panicky, short-sighted rhetoric that voting 3rd party is a waste, that isn't going to happen.\n\nYou'd think by now more people would have noticed that the Democrats and Republicans are not actually different from each other.", "Another thing worth mentioning is that third parties have polices that a lot of people may not like. I think a lot of people would stick with the Democrats and Republicans in an MPP system. ", "So, to be as direct as possible, the problem lies with how much coverage the other candidates are given. \n\nObama and Romney during the 2012 Presidential Election, if you look at a list, only spoke at events where the other candidates were not invites. (_URL_0_) \n\nThe heavily broadcasted talks, which were hosted by broadcasters like CNN, CNBC, CBS, BBC and ABC were the ones everyone watched, tweeted, commented about on facebook and talked about. They were the ones that garnished attention because they were everywhere in the media. The other candidates, however, didn't receive equal coverage and weren't invited to the \"big debates\". \n\nVery few solutions were presented to fight this. Democracy Now! had hour long segments where they gave the other candidates talking time in the \"big debates\" by splicing their responses in between Obama's and Romney's responses. Ralph Nader hosted a debate, but that didn't receive any coverage in the mainstream media. \n\nNow, the problem is more diverse than this and other things tie into it, but at its heart and soul, if you don't give other candidates air time, and refuse to let them talk at major debates, they might as well not exist. \n\nNow, as to solve the issue with people not being satisfied with the current affair of things, I think John Stewart really put it best in his Rally to Restore Sanity. The media is doing a very, very poor job at being an unbiased lens. The financial backers for the newsgroups back the candidates, and they have every interest in making the two party system the most interesting thing on the agenda. The only real solution to this is to have alternatives that are as powerful as the \"big debates\", like the debates the League of Women Voters used to moderate, that would compel the \"major candidates\" to come and talk at.\n", "Something to add: in statistics, we have a thing called voluntary response bias. Voluntary response bias is the phenomenon in which if you leave it up to people's discretion whether to express their opinion, such as on Reddit, usually only the strongly opinionated will do so because those who don't really care much and who feel like any change caused by expressing their opinion is not worth the time are unlikely to voluntarily respond. This means that only those redditors who have a strong opinion on either party are likely to post about it, so that Reddit appears to be populated by lots of people who hate the GOP/Democrats when really, you're only seeing the empassioned few of an enormous indifferent population.", "because there is no 3rd party in the same sense of a party as there are democrats and republicans.\n\nA party needs to have at least the entire USA covered with their own propaganda channels, that means there needs to be a lot of money spent. In order for the party to get the money they need rich backers, but guess what? people who are rich are pretty happy with the 2-party system.", "Because we're too terrified of the thought that we'd be wasting a vote on a third party, and then the other side would win. ", "Third party is impossible until First Past the Post Voting is replaced. \n_URL_0_\n", "People with a lot of money use their money to make sure things don't change too much. That way they can keep making lots of money.", "Reddit is not a accurate sampling of the nations' opinions. ", "There are a lot of good answers here about the flaws in our electoral system. But in the end it still comes down to people and their ignorance. \n\nEven with the stupid first past the post voting system, and even with the corrupt campaign funding people could still inform themselves if they wanted to and choose the best candidate, most just don't want to.\n\nAnd it's mostly the fault of confirmation bias and everyone's desire to quickly label other people, and their focus on single issues. Ron Paul wouldve been the best thing to happen to this country in decades had he been elected.\n\nBut even Reddit, for all their wanking about how theyre such intelligent, critical-thinking atheists, couldn't see past his stance on gay marriage. Even though it's a complete non issue for the vast majority of people, and even though both the other candidates wouldn't evem mention the intrusive crap the NSA has been up to, this entire site rallied behind Obama who had already shown that he was more of the same with his first term, and labelled everyone else a bible thumping racist misogynist.", "Because it takes a lot of money, and the people with all the money are quite happy with their two choices.", "I have a really hard time feeling bad for Americans who are complaining now since many voted for Obama. Anyone with a brain knew he was going to be a disaster but you morons elected him so you could feel good. ", "Because if a third party gets popular enough, it gets absorbed by the GOP or the Democrats for votes. ", "\"Democracy\" and \"the party system\" are simply cons to keep you from going from a spectator and follower to a factor who participates in reality and can actually cause some grass roots change, which the criminals in power can never allow because it could cause ripples through society out of their control. \n\nThis has been understood as far back as the time of Plato.\n\nYou are a slave with no rights in a feudal system.\n\nWhen has government asked for your opinion on anything?\n\nWhen have they consulted you regarding anything they do?\n\nDoes any actor politician make their campaign speech say \"I'm going to take hundreds of millions of dollars that you work for extorted from you every single day, and hand it straight to private central banks owned by foreigners who gave the country nothing and run it\"?\n\nDoes any actor politician say \"I'm going to let private organizations unelected by the public and unresponsible to the public like the UN create laws that you are forced to live by under threat of murder or imprisonment by police in black military uniform whose assault rifles you pay for\"?\n\nWhen has any politician ever came in and undone the absurd acts of treason and imprisoned the previous traitors, like those who gave your country to foreign private central bankers, or those who shut down all manufacturing in your country, deliberately destroying your economy forever, and volunteered you to pay to build ALL of communist China from a 3rd world country, as well as all the factories for those corporations for free, or the traitors who volunteered the public to eat the cancer causing GMOs in a fascist deal with Monsanto without telling them anything, meanwhile the biowarfare scientists at Monsanto refuse to have any GMOs served in their cafeteria, and the politicians do the same, but they want you to eat it.\n\nAnd you think you live in a \"democracy\"?\n\nHilarious\n\nWhat does the fact that no \"new\" party or politician ever undoes these acts of treason that are not in national interest but in the interest of a few criminal psychopaths?\n\nEvery traitor actor you're given the option to vote for is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, a private organization created by private central bankers for the stated purpose of taking over the entire world and all of its resources. Which is exactly what they're doing.\n\nYou can confirm the public fact that your politician is a bought and paid for whore actor by going to _URL_0_ and seeing the public fact for yourself. The CFRs own historian, Professor Carrol Quigley admitted that every President and Prime Minister has been a script reading errand boy of the CFR since the late 1800s.\n\nMind you that \"democracy\" could work if it was designed to work. It's designed not to work. It's not your system. It's a con to keep you from recognizing the self evident fact that you are a slave with no rights and getting upset and doing something about it.\n\nYou will never be able to \"vote\" your way out of slavery.\n\nUNLESS YOU SEE A POLITICIAN WHOSE PLATFORM IS BASED ON:\n\n-tearing up the entirely fraudulently created debt, \n\n-restoring control of the monetary system to the country instead of private banks owned by foreigners who rape the country with the help of their whore politicians, as it was before the country was taken over and had no debt and was not ran by foreigners, \n\n-actually acting in NATIONAL interest instead of using the entire country as a resource to be exploited for the benefit of a few foreign war criminal psychopaths\n\n-Says that if they ever deviate from this prestated intention of acting in national interest and try to sell out to the globalists they should be immediately imprisoned for treason\n\nDon't vote, because you're just giving your consent to be ran by people who don't know or care about you, and have repeatedly proven they act in direct opposition to your interest because they are simply prostitutes owned by psychopaths to whom your life is worth no more than any slave in China or genocide victim in Syria, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan and all the other countries that did not have a fraudulent private central bank owned by foreigners your country was used to destroy and got no benefit from whatsoever, just the bill and the body bags", "Because the majority of people are stupid and are unable to think critically. ", "One thing I haven't seen mentioned yet here is the role of the electoral college. This is all good and well saying you'll vote third party in a Congressional election (although that doesn't work under FPTP for reasons described above, plus gerrymandering and the spoiler effect and whatnot) but for Presidential elections, this is all a moot point. The popular vote in the US doesn't determine who the President is, the electoral college votes do. The EC entrenches two-party politics even more than a popular vote could ever hope to. Let's say you live in a swing state like Ohio and you vote for a Republican presidential candidate who gets 49.2% of the popular vote, and the Democrat in that instance wins the election with 50.7% of the popular vote. Guess what? Your state gives all electoral college votes to the winner, so your vote for a Republican has effectively just been turned into a vote for the Democrat winner. Tough shit. I think Nebraska is the only state that splits its electoral college votes *sort of* based on proportions of the popular vote. And this doesn't even factor in the fact that electoral college votes don't adequately represent the number of voters in that state, so votes for bigger states are 'worth less' than votes for smaller states.\n\nIf you want any change in presidential elections, the electoral college needs to go before you can even begin to hope to change that system.", "The few times Republicans and Democrats agree, as in suppressing and marginalizing a third party." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [ "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo" ], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama-Romney_debates" ], [], [], [], [ "http://youtu.be/s7tWHJfhiyo" ], [], [], [], [], [], [], [ "www.cfr.org" ], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cn9z2o9" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "They use water soluble paint and a machine that looks like a lawn mower but is basically a giant scrubber. It generally takes 10-15 people and several hours to remove it and then several more hours to paint the new logo." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cm07tuy", "cm07zw4", "cm080h9" ], "score": [ 2, 2, 5 ], "text": [ "No. They are usually removed from scene or not published.\n\nThey're there, bits and pieces everywhere, burned if there's a fire, or possibly intact still on the chair.", "Oh there are bodies all right, but those photos aren't made public. Usually there's so little left intact that the forensic investigators have to compare teeth found to dental records of the passengers. \n\n", "Well, they are shredded to little bits and splattered all over the ground, or incinerated by burning fuel little Jimmy, now go to sleep." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "f4goxra", "f4hxq4s", "f4j1csg", "f4j2g0u", "f4j9xuf", "f4jfutv", "f4jqypr" ], "score": [ 1790, 61, 49, 3, 5, 9, 2 ], "text": [ "Muscle Relaxer - Prevents muscle constriction. Keeps them loose and relaxed. Helps with some muscle diseases.\n\nStretching - Makes the muscle more adaptive to stretch and less stiff. Useful for increasing your flexibility which **may or may not** increase performance in some ways. (Help you get into a proper squat stance, increase ability in certain sports)\n\nWorking out - You're putting your muscles through stress which forces them to adapt. The muscle cells are damaged by the stress and they respond by growing bigger in size.\n\nEdit - I had originally said muscle cells increased in number due to exercise here but I was wrong and a bunch of people were right to call me out on that. I'm in pharmacy school and we're going over CHF and there's a lot of hypertrophy and hyperplasia going hand in hand so it was a force of habit. I had also originally posted that stretching makes the muscle longer. Some studies with certain muscle groups (hamstrings) showed no such correlation. Does that mean muscle lengthening isn't a thing? Not exactly as far as I can tell.", "So would it be possible too take muscle relaxers before static stretching to increase speed of muscle stretching.", "Muscle relaxers (most popular of which is Flexeril/cyclobenzaprine) help cramped muscles relax by inhibiting the signals to the muscles that start in the spinal cord. They don’t actually work on the muscle tissue itself, they work on the spinal cord/brain stem signals that are the ones telling the muscles to cramp. These are specifically meant to help muscle cramps that are due to injury or dysfunction. They will not improve muscle length or flexibility, they simply reduce the painful contraction associated with cramping/spasm that occurs with, for example, spraining your neck or tearing your rotator cuff.\n\nStretching (sometimes) improves the actual length and range of motion of a muscle, i.e. flexibility. By holding a stretch for a certain length of time (static stretching), the muscle will literally add more structural units to its end to grow longer. Longer muscles with a greater range of motion are generally healthier because they don’t get injured as easily, and they also don’t put as much tension on the structures they are attached to. For example, tight hamstrings put tension on your pelvis which can cause low back pain. \n\nSport stretching is different from static stretching, because generally for a sport warm up we don’t hold the stretches long enough to stimulate the muscles to actually grow longer. But sport stretching is still beneficial because it puts the muscle through its full range of motion prior to your workout or sport, which helps it get ready to work and makes it less likely to cramp or get pulled.\n\nRegarding your last topic, “work out,” that’s hard to answer because that is a very broad term. Sticking with the theme of muscle health, I’ll assume we’re talking about muscle. Strengthening your muscles is helpful for a lot of reasons, the most important of which is that strength provides stability for your whole body. For example, having strength in the muscles in between your shoulder blades is important for posture. Muscles that are too weak to do their jobs become irritable. A lot of people get knots and cramps in between the shoulder blades because those muscles are too weak to stabilize the shoulder blades, so the shoulder blades drift apart and pull on the muscles.\n\nTLDR: muscle relaxers work on the spinal cord signals to stop muscle cramps, stretching for a long period makes muscles grow longer, stretching for a short period helps you avoid cramps during sport, and strengthening muscles makes them less mad because they’re better stabilized.", "A lot of it has to do with muscle tone! All of your muscles have a certain amount of cells firing at a given time, even when relaxed, this is muscle tone. Strength requires sustained high frequency firing. Strengthening the connections to allow that requires working out, which causes damage to cells attempting to do more than they can, signaling your body to grow increase connections and also store more energy (glycogen) in those areas. This results in increased muscle tone but decreased flexibility. Muscle relaxers interfere with signals from nerves and artificially lower muscle tone, making you weaker but more flexible/relaxed. Stretching regularly can lower muscle tone and improve flexibility, but it also does so by other means, which take longer, involving reinforcing your tendons. While higher muscle tone generally means stronger and less flexible, it's possible, through exercise and stretching to achieve the best of both worlds. Muscle relaxers won't do this for you.", "Another thing would be the difference between a anti-spasm and anti-spasticity. Or is that outside the scope?", "On another note, how does massaging effect muscles? If I recall from A & P, it has something to do with stimulating the over-contracting reflex? (Can't remember what the exact term is.)", "I'm as big of a drug lover as anyone, but a) effective muscle relaxers cost money and it's hard to get a typical doctor to prescribe them more than twice. 2) They work fine for a month or so, then the become ineffective. 3) Your body wants more and you get sick." ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "cmgtsw0" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Because multitasking is harder than you think - driving, processing music, looking for an address, etc at the same time" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dl4kpwx", "dl4l4q9" ], "score": [ 11, 34 ], "text": [ "I'd never heard this before and thought you were making things up. Back when I was in school, 20+ years ago, Dixon pencils were pretty much the standard - if you've got kids in school, you probably remember using them as well.\n\nDoing a little digging and it appears that the quality of Dixon pencils has gone dramatically downhill in recent years. I found some forums where people were claiming the quality is so bad now that the frequent need to sharpen them becomes a classroom distraction.\n\n", "Are you sure it isn't \"No. 2 Dixon Brand\"? And \"HB\" is the same as \"No. 2,\" (international vs. U.S. nomenclature) so it seems odd that a school would specify *not* bringing the most popular weight. \n\nSounds more like the schools are *requiring* Dixon brand or at least No. 2/HB pencils. Could that be?" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "eyss4kj", "eyssnsg", "eyst6xy" ], "score": [ 3, 2, 3 ], "text": [ "Pretty much everyone who owns a house buys it with debt, not just the extremely wealthy. It's called a mortgage- you take out a loan and use the house as collateral. If you can't make the mortgage payments, the bank takes the house and auctions it off to repay the debt.", "When buying real estate, one typically does so through a mortgage. A mortgage is essentially a loan through the bank. In order to take out this loan, a high credit score is usually required. This is accomplished by racking up debt and consequently paying it off.\n\nThis effect compounds when buying multiple properties, as not only is one paying off mortgage debt and building/maintaining credit, but one builds equity on the house as it is paid off. Depending on the market and condition of the property, real estate owners can use this as an advantage to make even more money.", "Let's say to be able to get a mortgage on a house you need to have 10% as a deposit. That also means if you have enough money to buy a house outright, you could instead get 10 houses with mortgages and lease 9 of them out to tenants that cover most of the mortgage. If you can afford to cover the difference between the rent and mortgage, or even better if the rent is more than the mortgage repayments, you're set. If over time the value of the houses goes up, you've made some money and can use it to buy more and more houses until you've fucked over more and more of the next generation.\n\nThat's the important thing, the generational side. Older people that have had more opportunity to save money can use the above tactic to essentially extort the younger generation. It happens big time where I'm from (Australia)." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cdn2h5t", "cdn5om5", "cdn6uf2", "cdn9wta" ], "score": [ 5, 3, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "In the case of athletes, many times they are taxed at the federal level AND at the state level of, not just the state they live in BUT, the state in which they earned the money. Let's say your a baseball player and earn 1 million dollars a year.\n\nNot only do you have to pay 350K in federal taxes BUT you have 81 games per season in (mostly) other states. meaning 50% of your salary is taxable in the state you live in and 50% in all the other states you played in). \n\nThe tax situation can be very complicated...", "*\"I'm the most irresponsible person in the world. The reason I'm like that is because, at 21, you all gave me $50 or $100 million, and I didn't know what to do. I'm from the ghetto. I don't know how to act. One day I'm in a dope house robbing somebody. The next thing I know, 'You're the heavyweight champion of the world.'... Who am I? What am I? I don't even know who I am. I'm just a dumb child. I'm being abused. I'm being robbed by lawyers. I think I have more money than I do. I'm just a dumb pugnacious fool. I'm just a fool who thinks I'm someone. And you tell me I should be responsible?\"* --Mike Tyson", " > Are they just not even trying to pay their taxes?\n\nWell sometimes that's the case. \n\nThe thing is, as others have pointed out, being rich is actually quite complicated. Most rich people build up to the process, you own a local store, then you own 2 stores, then 5, then 50, then 500. Or you invest in one place, then 10 then 100 or whatever. Or you just own one business and that's it for your career. \n\nAthletes, celebrities and lottery winners all have a problem, athletes particularly because you are at a young age with no experience with money handed a fortune. You don't know what to do with it and you don't even know who to ask. So you try and hire accountants and lawyers and the problem is you don't have the skills to know the good ones from the bad. Most americans can't do their taxes coming out of highschool for a 30k a year job, when it's 3 million earned in lots of places with all sorts of complexity you basically hire an accountant, follow their advice and hope you don't fuck it up. Assuming you know enough to even do that. \n\nWesley Snipes got himself an advisor who didn't believe income tax was legal - which as you can imagine the IRS does not agree with. So Snipes was in a world of trouble. \n\nNow in the case of athletes they are in the worst of it, because your career doesn't usually gradually slide into oblivion, you make 10 million dollars one year, and 0 the next, or you get injured part way through, cannot play anymore, and suddenly your lifestyle that expected making X million dollars before you retire at age 30 now has you trying to make do with 15% of X. Or 2% of X or whatever. And you're boned. \n\nActors can just keep working, even if you get less money you at least can make something by doing more movies and commercials and you can make bad movies or take your clothes off, do stage work etc. \n\nLottery winners and athletes though, they have no idea what to do. The guy at H & R block you pay 40 bucks to do your taxes isn't going to talk to you if you have millions in income. So you need advisors and you have very poor prospects for long term income. \n\nAdd to that divorces, failed business ventures, theft by crooked advisors and well, you get the idea. When you have a lot of money and you get a pet project (think 38 studios) that you hope will keep you going for years and it fails suddenly you can't pay your bills and part of that ends up being taxes. \n\n", "Most people with normal jobs have taxes deducted from their paychecks, and file a 'return' that calculates their annual tax bill, adding and subtracting for deductions, credits, etc.\n\nProfessional athletes, actors, and such aren't employees, they're generally contractors. That means there are no taxes deducted when they're paid-they are responsible to pay all of the taxes themselves.\n\nMany see that big fat check, and think it's all theirs to blow as they wish. They never set any aside for taxes, or when they can no longer perform (look how many dead broke former stars there are).\n\nThe tax bill can add up quite fast, with state, federal and sometimes local taxes, with also FICA (15% of total income) added on top of all that. Depending upon what tax bracket they fall into, it's not hard to give half to one government or another.\n " ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "f0e13wm" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "It's one of the most highly evolved diseases that there is. It's not \"simple\" in any medical way. It's developed sophisticated mechanisms to prevent the immune system from kicking it out, without accidentally killing the host." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dlxwj8e" ], "score": [ 7 ], "text": [ "If the force on it was perfectly uniform, then yes, the water level would be the same everywhere. But the forces aren't perfectly uniform.\n\nFor one thing, the Earth is rotating. That means the sea level will be higher nearer the equator than the poles due to centripetal acceleration.\n\nThen, there is the influence of the Moon. The sea level is higher on the side of the Earth that faces the Moon, and also on the opposite side. This effect gives us the tides - as the Earth rotates faster than the Moon orbits, the sea level rises and falls throughout the day.\n\nAlso, gravity isn't the only force that acts on the water surface. There is also atmospheric pressure, which is not constant everywhere. Low pressure weather systems cause the sea level to rise, which is why hurricanes often cause flooding when they make landfall." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cfkcqth", "cfkefww" ], "score": [ 2, 2 ], "text": [ "Because its awkward to walk up to someone you aren't very familiar with and just start talking about some super specific topic. You ease into conversation with very general things, like the current time of day(your examples) or the current weather, etc. \n\nIt starts out 'How are you doing on this fine morning' and overtime devolves into 'Good morning' from repitition and popularity, for example.", "Probably because those segments of the day (morning/afternoon/evening/night) are, to humans, fairly cohesive time periods that can be good or bad. So, if you're going to wish someone a good time, which is what you're literally doing when you say \"good morning\" etc., those are reasonable periods to choose. If you were to wish them a \"good hour,\" that would be kind of cheap of you, because why wouldn't the rest of the morning be nice? And if you wish someone a \"good week,\" that's a bit long because who knows what's going to happen in that time? Also, perhaps you're quite likely to see them again before that time is up. In contrast, if you meet someone and they're doing well at the moment, you can in good faith (i.e. expecting your wish to come true) wish them a good day or a good part of the day as a pleasantry." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "chm7ln8" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "Firstly the PM is a she... And it's not martial law but a state of emergency - so increased security measures and an ability to detain or break up groups. Given the violence has reduced significantly (but not completely) since introduced, it probably wasn't such a bad idea. \n\nBut the pm just got booted by the courts, and with the opposition not really keen on finding a solution politically it's possible the military will step in. \n\nI live in bangkok." ] }

[]

[ "http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-27480845#TWEET1133418" ]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cs59ob9" ], "score": [ 4 ], "text": [ "There have been 5 major extinction events in Earth's history. They've generally been caused by (relatively) fast shifts in the environment at a global scale that most organisms living at the time were not able to adapt to.\n\nMassive increases in volcanic activity, meteors striking earth, and other massive, global shocks to the environment caused them. [Here](_URL_0_) is a short, approachable, and informative video over viewing the 5 major mass extinction events in history and what we believe caused each one." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlUes_NPa6M" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dazj22d" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "It just comes down to cost and time. It's relatively inexpensive to develop a pilot for a TV show, and TV stations have a lot more air-time to fill (whereas movies cost Tens of Millions of dollars, and only have about 2 - 3 hours).\n\nIt also takes a lot longer to film and produce a movie, than it does a TV show.\n\nYou also don't have to sell tickets to a TV show to make money. The advertisers pay for the screen time during the commercial breaks. The more eyes on the screen during the show, the more the station can charge for commercial time. Which is why advertising time during the super bowl is so expensive. Cause a LOOOOOT of people are watching." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c88fur5", "c88hyaq", "c88ijhh", "c88ityz", "c88kcij", "c88l0if" ], "score": [ 2, 3, 3, 4, 2, 5 ], "text": [ "It's not just being sad. It is being totally apathetic towards the world, you see no point in getting up out of bed in the morning and just want to lay there all day. ", "Imagine the normal things you do every day not only seeming incredibly hard, but pointless. Hygiene is one of the first things to go in a depressive episode. It just seems too difficult to get up and take a shower and brush the teeth and put on clean clothes. And at the same time, there is no one to impress.", "The saddest part of the day is waking up. time seems to move much slower as you feel like all you do is wait for things to end. you stop caring about everything. you start wishing you werent awake. ", "I found the most defining characteristic was a complete loss of motivation. Stuff that I'd usually love to do, I couldn't get myself to do it. I'd wonder what the point was, it felt like a marathon to go out with friends.\n\nEverything feels hollow; I would spend hours awake at night trying to sleep, get about 4 hours of sleep, and then hate waking up again in the morning.\n\nMy recommendation is cognitive behaviour therapy; for you in particular, I recommend trying to get your friends to do fun stuff with you even though they don't feel like it/don't want to. One of the things I did find was that even though it felt like more effort than I could bother with to go out and see a movie or hangout with friends - if I did force myself to do it, I had a good time and would be free for a while of the weight.", "This is the way I explained it to my mom: When you get home from a long, trying day at work and literally you are so mentally and physically exhausted to just want to sit in bed/on the couch and talk to no one and do nothing. That's how I feel all the time.", "It's like watching TV on mute. Everything is boring. Things you used to be extremely passionate about now hardly interest you at all. Regret sets up shop in your brain and will relentlessly torment you about the smallest mistakes. You stop trying to do new things either because you know that you will fail or that you straight up just won't give a shit about a positive outcome. Loneliness becomes your best friend. It becomes easier to vent your feelings to an empty sheet of notebook paper than it is to bother starting a conversation with a once-close friend. You die a little on the inside every single day. Anxiety becomes normalcy. Being constantly on edge qualifies as being \"just fine\". Suicide stops sounding like such a stupid idea because living in this relentless hell shows no positive qualities to you and you get over the fact that your death may hurt the people that \"care\" about you because you haven't heard from them in months. Sometimes you need nothing more than to vent, but no one seems to care. " ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "cyleuca", "cylf51n", "cylf6pt", "cylfbza", "cylh4cs" ], "score": [ 15, 11, 7, 3, 2 ], "text": [ "No, but if you're trying to claim to be the good guys, you can't use information or evidence that has been obtained illegally, or that makes you no better than the \"bad guys\"", "To remove the incentive from illegally obtaining evidence, if illegally obtained evidence could be used it would encourage it.", "It comes down to credibility and protecting the innocent. Rules of evidence have evolved over the years to prevent entrapment and false prosecution/conviction.\n\nObtaining evidence incorrectly leads to reasonable doubt which prevents conviction. The odds are stacked heavily in the accused person's favour but to stop false imprisonment that's the way it has to be.", "Because you have a right to a fair trial (I assume you are in the US) and illegally obtained evidence being used makes it unfair. ", "Follow up question I've been wondering about but I don't want to make a separate post.. \n\nIs there anything saying that if you are unlawfully caught committing something crazy that they let it slide? What if a cop suspects me of a crime and illegally enters my house and I'm committing something crazy? Like I'm suspected of growing drugs and they unlawfully barge in and I'm murdering someone or cutting up an endangered animal because I like the taste of exotic game meat? " ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "c583in0" ], "score": [ 4 ], "text": [ "The concern with Y2K was that a lot of programs stored years as 2-digit numbers like 88, 92, 99. Problem is, when you run out of numbers, you have to start over and there was a lot of concern over how code would react to year 00, 01, 12, and so on. Would it make a difference? Would it have a huge impact if the program thought it was 1912?\n\nThe leap second thing is somewhat similar. A lot of computers use what's called the Unix Epoch to keep track of time. It's the number of seconds since the start of 1970. Every day has the same number of seconds (86400) but if you have changes to that you can run into issues. With a leap second, you basically use the same second twice. That can cause problems if you're doing things like transactions where seconds are critical.\n\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ey29cry", "ey2idew" ], "score": [ 18, 3 ], "text": [ "Farmers set the Amazon on fire to free up land to plant soy and for their cattle to graze.\n\nIt’s forbidden but the current nationalist government doesn’t care about the environment and doesn’t enforce the law. \n\nSo the rate of fires have increased because there is no risk of prosecution to the farmers.", "Hello, I am brazilian, let me explain the general situation to you:\n\nThe landowners set fire in the forest, it was planned and not an accident or natural, and the government fully supports them. That's why they are doing nothing besides sending the military police to expel the rest of the natives there. Bolsonaro is just a puppet and he's replaceable anyway and Brazil don't care about international pressure, you should blame Washington D.C., because all orders to destabilize Latin America are coming from there. The source? [_URL_2_](_URL_1_)\n\nIn addition you can watch the video of Sabrina Fernandes explaining better the whole situation: [_URL_0_](_URL_0_)" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfiutlJ7uWc", "https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/09BRASILIA1282_a.html", "https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/09BRASILIA1282\\_a.html" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d6nlpif", "d6nm509", "d6nnc2y", "d6nnxds", "d6nt9h9", "d6o0i86" ], "score": [ 22, 4, 10, 2, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "There are a couple of reasons.\n\n1) By growing their produce in countries where the cost of living is low they don't spend very much on wages for people who work their plantations. \n\n2) many times those same countries have far lower standards in construction and safety, so they spend as little as possible in those areas.\n\n3) size. A company like Dole has a massive market share so even if they only make a little off each banana they sell so many of them that it adds up to huge profits.", "This is what globalization is all about! It truly is amazing. It's the result of hundreds of self-interested parties doing only what they believe will produce a positive outcome for them, an no one else. The farmer in a poor country doesn't grow bananas because Dole is evil and wants to keep them down, they do it because they see it as the activity that will maximize their wealth. Because many people in those countries believe the same, and because their costs are lower, production of bananas shifts to these countries. \n\nShipping is another story that comes down to a very global market shipping billions of goods on a daily basis. With heavily automated shipping yards and massive boats, you can ship bananas for probably less than a penny each. ", "Back of the envelope math - ~10lbs of bananas per american(2010), 315 million americans. That's 3.15 billion lbs of bananas a year.\n\nThat's $315,000 per year per penny of profit they can squeeze out of that 'less than a dollar per pound.'\n\nShipping and handling get CRAZY cheap in bulk. ", "The simplest answer I can give is: Volume. They don't make much on each banana, but it adds up because so many bananas are sold, and consumed globally. It is the most popular fruit in the world.\n\n", "Shipping stuff halfway across the world in bulk by container ship costs practically nothing.\n\n[For example:](_URL_0_)\n\n > As of March 2016, it costs around $400 to move a 40-foot container from Shenzhen to Rotterdam\n\nA 40 foot container has a payload of up to 58,000 punds. So the shipping cost is 1.45 cents per pound. Maybe 2 or 3 times that if it's refrigerated, but still almost irrelevant.", "[Economies of scale](_URL_0_) is the term that describes what you're asking about. \n\nShipping one bunch of bananas across the ocean is very expensive. But the cost to add one additional bunch to that cargo goes down as you add more (to a point). So the more you add the cheaper things become overall. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [], [ "https://www.flexport.com/blog/why-are-ocean-freight-rates-so-low/" ], [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_scale" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "erlsv2f" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Usually clearing your throat gets rid of liquid sitting on top of your airway which makes your voice sound clearer." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cy31c1q", "cy31cfh", "cy31hft", "cy31kwi", "cy31mgv" ], "score": [ 10, 5, 2, 16, 2 ], "text": [ "Because people can be unexpectedly judgemental. Although many people accept the lifestyle choices of others there are those who don't show the same respect. It's simply easier to say SO and let people assume what they will rather than put their life choices out there to be judged. Should they have to feel the need to say SO? Probably not, but society changes slowly and some people can be behind the curve.", "Because some people are judgmental of homosexuality, many gay people prefer to say \"significant other\" and similar gender-neutral terms, so as not to reveal the gender of their partner and thereby their sexuality.", "Not everyone wants to (or has the luxury to) be specific about who they love. I use the term SO (significant other) about my (opposite sex) fiancé sometimes because I don't feel the need to include his gender or whether or not we're married when I'm mentioning him to someone who doesn't need to know. ", "It isn't just gays/lesbians. Plenty of straight people I know use the term. In the last 10 years or so it's become more and more the norm. Probably because, past a certain age \"boyfriend\" and \"girlfriend\" sound a little infantile. ", "Because it leaves out the any specific information about the person and somewhat yourself other than their significant ties to you (the speaker). This is why it's more prevalent online than boy/girl friend as either would indicate the speaker's gender or orientation." ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "c8k9n6l", "c8kaja6", "c8kbidk" ], "score": [ 13, 5, 3 ], "text": [ "Spanish and Portuguese developed from Latin. English did not.", "The romance or latinate languages (The big 5 are Spanish, Portuguese, French, Italian and Romanian) developed from Latin in the 6th-9th centuries. Spanish and Portuguese are the main languages of Latin America. Latino and Latina refer to male and females from Latin America. ", "On top of what others have commented - Spanish and Portuguese, the main languages of Latin America, are derived from Latin - the concept of \"Latin America\" was actually coined by the French. In the mid-19th century, Britain was the main business partner of the Latin American countries, and rival France, trying to foster a sense of community between itself and the continent, created the expression \"Latin America\", and it stuck, even if the French incursion didn't. Before this, the continent was referred mainly to as \"our America\" or \"Hispanoamerica\" (particularly because Brazil, which not only speaks a different language but was also a monarchy headed by a European dynasty, didn't feel much a part of Latin America)." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "daufeiz" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "As they get higher, the air gets thinner, and they actually can't fly higher, because every wing flap will not be able to push enough air downwards to propel them up. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ee5dcpm", "ee5dtin", "ee5errs" ], "score": [ 6, 2, 3 ], "text": [ "They build them at another time of year, when the seas are calmer. The photos are taken at the very highest wave times.", "Short answer from the early years of building lighthouses: the job sites had constant problems with the materials and tools being swept away. Light houses were important enough to trade to build them despite the expense.", "Carefully, one piece at the time when the season was good.\n\nTo start with, the photos you see with these huge waves are extremes, there are a lot more peaceful days also.\n\nIf you consider the Rock Bell Lighthouse, that is a lighthouse on a 20 hours a day submerged rock in the North Sea. It took them four years to build it. They had to build their own shed on poles there first otherwise they would have commute from and to their boat at 1.5 km away from the rock by boat. They had to bring all the stones by boat to there, all pre-cut.\n\nHave a read up on _URL_0_ to find out what kind of madness this lighthouse constructoin was, the constraints they had to work in were idiotic.\n\nLater in a documentary on the industrial wonders of the world this lighthouse was included." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Rock_Lighthouse#Construction" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cleldvr" ], "score": [ 8 ], "text": [ "There was a draft during the Vietnam war, which meant someone could be forced to go to war, and maybe die, so you had a good reason to protest. Having your emails stored or read by someone has no actual \"feeling\" to you, not like \"Oh no, I might get drafted and killed\"." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c9q1k0c", "c9q1kd5", "c9q690b", "c9q922x", "c9qa85v" ], "score": [ 17, 2, 7, 12, 3 ], "text": [ "It's a ripple effect. An earlier accident or delay will 'ripple' down a highway for miles (or hours) so that by the time you are stuck in it there will be no sign of the problem that caused it.\n\nedit: video explaining it \n_URL_0_", "In heavy traffic, it just takes one vehicle to slow down for a lane change or to allow another driver to merge and it creates a chain reaction that slows everything down. ", "As several people have said, there is a ripple effect. That is, an event (slowing down or speeding up) propagates backward due to the delay of vehicle movement in traffic. \n\nA simple example: Four cars are driving right behind one another on the freeway. When the car in front steps on the brakes, it takes the reaction time of the 2nd driver for the 2nd car to repeat the action, and then the reaction time of the 3rd driver to repeat the action, and the reaction time of the 4th driver to repeat the action. Thus, an event of slowing down propagated backwards because the action of drivers does not depend on the source of the event, but the vehicle(s) immediately in front of the driver. \n\nThis gets more complex when you are dealing with 3-5 lanes of traffic and there are hundreds of cars in each lane. The ripple effect only occurs when cars are driving close enough to each other for the event to propagate, so it really only occurs in rush hour (7-9:30 am and 3-7 pm for the most part) and when the flow of traffic is disrupted by construction or an accident. During rush hour, there are a lot of lane changes that cause people to have to slow down, and people are trying to get on the freeway. Another important factor that causes slow traffic during rush hour is that aside from lane changes and merging, the flow of traffic is only as fast as the slowest driving car, which is usually around 45-50 mph in the best conditions (some people are afraid to go the speed limit). Accidents can cause bottlenecks when the accident disrupts one or more lanes, so the slow traffic in that situation is caused by increased merges. The same is true of construction. Another unfortunate extra effect of accidents and construction is the rubbernecker effect. When most people go past accidents or construction, their attention comes off of driving and focuses on the accident or construction, and they will stop accelerating as they go past, causing slow traffic as well. That is why there can be extremely slow traffic for miles and as soon as you get past the accident it speeds up. \n\nWhat you're talking about is a result of the fact that while slowing down events propagate backwards, speeding up events also propagate backwards at the same speed. When an accident occurs and emergency personnel arrive, a slowing down event is triggered and it propagates backwards. When the accident is cleaned up and traffic is allowed to continue normally, a speeding up event is triggered. But if you are 10 miles behind the accident, the speeding up event isn't even close to you yet. It will take a few minutes for it to get to you, and then you will be confused because traffic seemed to just randomly speed up, and there will be no evidence of an accident by the time you get to the spot. \n\nTraffic science is fascinating, and I give massive props to the people who have to engineer traffic flow.", "Traffic engineer and modeller reporting in. Most of the answers already given explain how delay can propagate back through a traffic stream, but don't really explain the cause of the delay in the first place.\n\nIn simple terms, the free flow capacity of a lane of traffic is a function of the time headway between vehicles. In most countries, drivers usually have a minimum headway of between two to three seconds. That means that when a car passes a particular point in space, the car following behind it will pass the same point two to three seconds later.\n\nSo, if there are 3600 seconds in an hour, the number of vehicles that can pass a particular point in an hour in one lane is 3600/3 or 1200 vehicles. Decrease the average headway to 2.5, and the capacity goes up to 1,440 vehicles per hour.\n\nOn a congested freeway, vehicles tend to drive closer together (in time, not necessarily in space) and the capacity increases and flow increases, however, the closer vehicles get to one another, the smaller their headway is in relationship to their reaction time. Typical reaction times for drivers are between 0.8 and 1.5 seconds. Driving at small headways requires a lot of concentration; you can think of the headway as a \"cushion\" that buffers drivers from one another. The larger this cushion, the less likely that a change in speed by one driver will affect the driver following them and so on.\n\nWhat happens in \"ghost jams\" is that drivers are driving very close together, with smaller time headways, and it only takes a small adjustment in speed by one driver for the next driver to have to change their speed and because there is very little \"flex\" in the traffic (time spacing between cars), these changes in speed are amplified by reaction times, eventually causing traffic to slow, or in some cases even stop.\n\nWhat causes drivers to abruptly change speed? All kinds of things; sometimes they pass a distraction on the road (like a crash or a topless woman) or maybe their favorite song came on the radio and they lost concentration, ending up a bit too close to the car ahead and needed to slow down.", "Not tailgating can help a lot, as it gives you a buffer so you don't have to slam on your brakes, thus causing said ripple effect. But yeah, if it's not an accident, it's usually someone that slowed down suddenly" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Suugn-p5C1M" ], [], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c8tfuvg", "c8thman", "c8tiyvh" ], "score": [ 5, 10, 2 ], "text": [ "Hope. Hope and the [hedonic treadmill](_URL_0_). We can never be satisfied, but to live we must have the delusion that somehow we could be. Humanity can deal with pain and deprivation, but even the most comfortable can't bear the idea that *this is it*.\n\nAs to your second question, no. You can't just fucking logic your way out of everything anymore than you can up and decide you're going to eat through your ass and shit out your mouth. Accept your weakness and learn to deal with it, because spending forever fighting yourself in the hopes of becoming the fucking ubermench will just make you crazy and miserable. \n\nHTH", "You know how some of your friends have nicer toys than you do? Maybe their parents buy them more stuff? And you think, wow, it'd be great if my parents bought me all that stuff too!\n\nAnd then Christmas comes around! And you get some new toys and a new game or two and it's great! \n\nBut then it's the middle of January and you're feeling not so good. You want more stuff because the last time you got stuff, you felt really good about it. So, you think, if you got _more_ stuff, you'd be happy again! And the stuff that made you really happy doesn't make you happy anymore. It's just stuff. Sitting there. In your way. Reminding you of all the stuff you _don't_ have.\n\nWell, there's a problem. There's always new stuff. More stuff. You can't have all of it! It wouldn't fit in your room. Or your whole house! And it'd cost a lot of money. Your parents would have to work really really hard to buy all that stuff for you and then they couldn't play with you. Or have fun with you. They'd be too busy working to buy you stuff. You'd get lonely and want _more_ stuff because your parents were never around. And still you'd want more because, and here's the secret, it's not the stuff you want. It's the happy feeling of _getting_ the stuff that you want. The stuff is just a way to get that feeling. \n\nThe truth is, you'll never have enough. You have to switch over to other things to get that jolt of new. Take up new hobbies. Go to the park and play basketball until you're really good at it. Then take up soccer once you get bored with basketball. Then maybe take up swimming or something. That way the \"new\" things will be cheap and easy to get and you'll be healthier too! \n\nA lot of adults confuse the happy feeling of getting what they want with happiness itself. A lot of them never learn the difference.", "If the grass is greener on the other side, perhaps you should start taking care of the grass on your side." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmill" ], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c9bvldh" ], "score": [ 6 ], "text": [ "I've heard anecdotal stories that it's possible to train dogs to dislike, and even attack, people of a certain race.\n\nIt's also possible for dogs to learn to dislike people who look a certain way (for example, people of a certain race) if they have a bad experience with one individual at a young age, especially if they're not exposed to other people of the same race.\n\nIt's nothing inherent in the dog itself. If it is possible, it's due to its training by humans, or its experiences as a puppy." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d0ew234" ], "score": [ 7 ], "text": [ "The mother hen after mating will lay eggs across a week that will all hatch around the time." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d1k45g1", "d1k4k30", "d1k4miy", "d1k64ie", "d1k6o18", "d1k8k1g" ], "score": [ 46, 2, 4, 17, 6, 4 ], "text": [ "The Piratebay has the double edged sword of being the poster child of internet piracy. Even if it is no larger or worse than other services, they make a large symbolic target to those who would want to sue.\n\nuTorrent is a software provider, what they do and provide isnt illegal, just can be used for illegal purposes.\n\nTorrentZ is a bit more culpable, but have the defense that they are merely a search engine for torrent files. They do not actually host the files like TPB does.", "That's like at & t getting in trouble because someone used their cell towers for communication for something illegal.\n\nBittorrents just allow people to transfer information, where as piratebay hosts the connection for pirateing", "For the same reason a gun dealer isn't held liable for the murders that the guns they sell might cause. \n\nuTorrent is simply a platform for peer-2-peer sharing. It can used for legitimate purposes or illegal acts, but in the end it's how the end-user uses the program that matters, not the platform, they can't be blamed for how users use the program. \n\nuTorrent wasn't made exclusively for the purpose of illegal pirating (well, even it was they still have plausible deniability), whereas TPB is. Ignoring the fact that the word 'Pirate' is in the name of the website, TPB doesn't have plausible deniability, i.e., they can't say \"we don't control what our users upload\" because they've been given explicit orders to take down links and have explicitly refused and continue to host illegal material. \n\n", "ELI5 answer: Using utorrent to torrent legal stuff is legal. Using utorrent to torrent illegal stuff is illegal. \n\nPirate Bay is just a site that leads people to the file they want through torrents. They don't actually have the data. Torrenting uses something called P2P. ELI5 for P2P: some people finished downloading it and is now uploading parts of it for everyone else. Also known as seeding. ", "TPB is openly mocking the copyright industry. That puts a big target on them. Also, thay make it a political statement and ideology, and that scares the copyright industry.\n\nOther sites keep a low profile, and does not make it a political movement, just a \"get files here\".\n\nAnother difference is that the Swedish government happily does whatever USA asks, even if it means ignoring our laws.", "Why doesn't anyone mention Kickass (_URL_0_)? That is an extremely popular website and it seems like people talk more about pirate bay. Why is that? I am surprised it is not mentioned here yet. Kickass is also a lot better in my opinion" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [], [], [ "kickass.to" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cfv1kck" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "Hell yeah it's a bubble. Have a look at this [Economist Magazine Graph charting the rise](_URL_0_). \n\nWhy are they unaffordable yet still rising: A myriad of reasons.\n\n1) The UK economy is excessively South East UK centric. I'm not saying huge chunks of the North and Wales are wastelands, but there are sizeable chunks of economic wastelands, where jobs are few and far between. So people move to where the jobs are, and no government since the 80's has made any substantial effort to encourage economic growth elsewhere.\n\n2) Rental laws are pretty weak in the UK, and widely abused. You're supposed to be registered as a landlord, have annual safety checks (the boiler for example), but there are thousands who don't bother. If you complain as a tenant and challenge them, they can kick you out within a month (legally) or less than that (illegally). Rare is the landlord that permits pets, decorations, even sticking a sodding poster on the wall. Furniture is often deserving of a final trip to the rubbish tip, carpets often no longer resemble their original shade. Landlords can pop by when they like (not legal, but almost all do it) to check up on you. It doesn't feel like home. People want somewhere they can label as themselves, with their own tastes, where they're left in peace, so they will want to buy.\n\n3) Interest rates are at all time historical lows. Mortgages are still affordable, despite the high prices. A Guardian article suggested that if interest rates went back up to base rate of 5%, 2 million households would default on their mortgages. That would dump 2 million houses on banks' assets, but they don't do fixed assets, so they'd offload them ASAP - even at a discount, which would cause a crash in market prices as everyone adjusts their own sales price to match the banks who want a quick sale. Don't believe that's possible, turn off everything except Japan on that graph I linked to.\n\nEDIT: This message was brought to you by a pissed off 35 year old Brit expat who still can't afford to buy in the UK despite a degree and slightly above average salary.\n\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/11/global-house-prices" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "czdyp6j", "czdyudv", "czdz31k", "czdziq1", "czdzr69" ], "score": [ 2, 9, 3, 5, 2 ], "text": [ "It's normally not done 'creatively' but is meant to ensure no one can deny receiving documents. \n\nAlso to establish time and date of receipt. ", "When it's done creatively, it's because the subject has been actively dodging service, and the process server has to pretend to be someone else to get close enough to the subject to serve the papers.", "When you're served, it's important to document that you--in particular--have received the documents from the courts. If the service is not properly documented, it can be harmful for the plaintiff in court. Often, it's pretty simple. Just serve them via certified mail, or hand it to them in person somehow. Usually it won't be the lawyer doing this, since the lawyer's time is expensive, and better spent researching and preparing the case itself. Most of the time it will be pretty straightforward, with no major issues one way or the other.\n\nThe issue comes when people try to avoid being served, as an adult version 'Hahahah you can't catch me!'. This can be because they refuse to receive certified mail, or answer the door for anyone who they suspect might be serving them. In a situation like that the plaintiff has to get creative, and so might turn to a company that provides for legally serving people. This is where those subtle and creative methods come up, as they want a way that: a) will get the servee to confirm their identity, b) without being suspicious of the individual serving them. Since it's much more entertaining to watch someone get their court summons in a cool and interesting way, rather than watching them sign a letter or accept their summons like a regular person, you'll often see/hear of the more creative methods rather than the many more times nothing untowards happens.\n\nDo note, however, that being particularly good at running away and hiding does not get you out of being properly served by the court. There are other rules for if you can't be served directly, such as putting notice out in a local newspaper, and the courts are likely not going to be happy when they finally drag you in, since you've wasted so much of everyone's time and money trying to avoid your legal summons. ", "serving a legal doc is the last resort. it means the recipient has failed to respond to a non direct confrontation serving (aka registered mail, phone call, etc etc)\n\nif you're watching it on tv, it's because those ones MAKE ENTERTAINMENT. ", "Most of the time papers are served via courier. I've served papers via fedex. If the other party is cooperative, they'll send you back a notarised statement saying they were served. \n\nWhen you have an unwilling recipient, you need to get creative. And guess which one of those scenarios is more interesting in a TV show (: " ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "exmwd1c" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "If the lakes are fed by glacial run-off, then yes, it is because of that.\n\nThe glacial run-off contains extremely fine particles of rock that has been ground by the glacier. This ground rock is so small (like flour) that it doesn't sink and is suspended in the water. It reflects the blue wavelengths of light more than others, so that is what you see.\n\nGo to Wikipedia and search for \"rock flour\"" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cvdx1ih" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "The issue the Google is running into is that bundling their apps with the Android OS it makes things difficult for manufacturers that *only* want Android (the Google map app is only free to you because your phone's manufacturer paid Google for you). Similarly implementing apps on Android to compete with Google's may be difficult.\n\nThis is simular to where Microsoft ran into trouble. By bundling Internet Explorer with Windows it meant that consumers who wanted Windows had to effectively pay for IE too, even if they didn't want it (at the time IE was software you could pay for on older versions of Windows). On top of this, because everyone suddenly had to have IE it meant very few people would then pay to buy Netscape.\n\nOverall a formal case hasn't been brought yet in this matter.\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "f7ebn9u", "f7ecjgl", "f7edian", "f7f3o0a" ], "score": [ 24, 11, 6, 5 ], "text": [ "The Fed Funds Rate is the primary -- and easiest -- \"tuning knob\" which the Fed can use to try to influence the economy.\n\nRaising it means that they are worried more about inflation than they are unemployment and economic growth. \n\nLowering it means they are worried more about unemployment and economic growth than they are inflation.\n\nNormally these adjustment are small and highly telegraphed (they don't like investors to ever be surprised!). They become newsworthy when they think that they are worried about inflation so much that they might actually trigger a minor recession with their rate hike... or if they end up lowering the rate super low to near zero. Once the rate gets to zero the Fed is \"out of bullets\" and extraordinary measures might be needed the next time around.", "One of the very few things I remember from college was my economics professor always saying the most powerful man in America was not the president, it was Alan Greenspan ( then leader of the Fed)", "The goal is to manipulate the market and control the economy. Lower rates are an attempts to spur spending/investing to push the market up. Higher rates attempt to reduce spending/investing to prevent bubbles/poor investment. Lowering rates means the Fed thinks the economy is weakening, increasing rates means the Fed thinks the economy if strengthening.", "Previous responses here are correct on the general topic of interest rates. But the Fed Funds Rate applies to a special set of transactions only: Short-term loans among banks.\n\nThe Fed's goal in manipulating the FFR is to exert some control over the money supply (a term which typically includes money velocity as well). \n\nWhen money supply/velocity in the system is low, the Fed can take steps to lower the FFR so that money can flow more freely between banks. This \"loosening\" of monetary policy has the effect of letting inter-bank loans happen more easily, which in effect makes more money available to the entire system. \n\nWhen money supply/velocity in the system is high, the Fed can take steps to raise the FFR so that money flows less freely between banks. This \"tightening\" of monetary policy has the effect of restricting the ease with which inter-bank loans can happen, which in effect reduces the amount of money available to the entire system.\n\nThe Fed typically effects these changes in the FFR by \"open market operations\" — transactions with a bank or group of banks in which cash is exchanged for securities. When the Fed wants to increase the money supply, it pays out cash and receives securities; when the Fed wants to lower the money supply, it demands cash and pays out securities. The cash is typically returned in the short term; the securities act as collateral on the loan and just sit tight, rather than being further traded by the receiver." ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "c4i77pt", "c4i78r7", "c4i7btr", "c4i7dxz", "c4i7feb", "c4i8cyh", "c4i8ddp", "c4i8eu4", "c4i8svb", "c4i9d8l", "c4i9m6u", "c4iahli", "c4ian7a", "c4ib38f", "c4icewe", "c4ictub", "c4id7fw", "c4if4bk" ], "score": [ 16, 50, 16, 447, 3, 23, 81, 4, 22, 22, 2, 2, 2, 19, 3, 7, 4, 2 ], "text": [ "I frequent SRS so take this with a grain of salt. It could be a little biased. \n\nSRS mainly exists to find and point out posts that are deemed offensive or ignorant. Once posted, they are typically made fun of, etc. \n\nI can think of a few reasons why reddit doesn't like SRS:\n\n1. It's a circle jerk. It evenly explicitly says that in the SRS rules. Therefore dissenting options are often mocked and quickly banned. There is very little discussion. r/srsdiscussion is a better place to talk about the issues. Most people view the subreddit as being unwilling to listen to dissenting opinion, but those are just the rules o the subreddit. \n\n2. People don't like having there opinions thrown in their face (this is the biased part). But generally people don't like people called out on their shit and SRS does this a lot. \n\n3. A lot of the posts in SRS are offensive jokes and people perceive this as SRS having no sense of humor and wanting to censor reddit. \n\nIf you want to find out more about SRS visit the subreddit and if you want to see why a lot of redditors don't like SRS I suppose you could visit r/antisrs. There's porobably more to all it, but this is a very succinct explanation. ", "Keeping with the theme of this subreddit. \n\nThere is somebody in your kindergarten class who keeps a notebook of things said in class ****they**** find stupid. \n\nOn the playground, they pass this notebook around so that other kids can see stupid things from class that they might have missed.\n\nOne of the [failed] premises is that kids aren't supposed to think poorly of those kids who've said such things. But since each entry in the notebook has the name of the kid who said it, this is impossible to avoid. \n", "Isn't it basically a way for something awful to show people how shitty Reddit users are?", "Because they claim to be calling out the worst parts of Reddit on ignorance on bigotry but in fact may be the most ignorant and bigoted subreddit in existence. They invent conflict and intent where it does not exist, they hypocritically make extremely disturbing and unfounded accusations and generalizations that are more fucked up than anything they complain about (I saw a post where an SRSer claimed that most males on reddit \"probably have raped someone, but they don't want to admit it to themselves\") and then claim that it's \"all part of the really funny circle jerk and you just don't get it\". Which is ironically the logic they so viciously berate Redditors for using to defend slightly off-color comments and jokes.\n\nBut the biggest reason is that they instantly perma-ban anyone who dares to question the raging mob of self-aggrandizing inoffensiveness. People in that subreddit will call out individual users by name, and say how that person is a pathetic, sexist, racist, virgin who has probably raped someone and then instantly ban anyone who claims otherwise, especially the person they are so gleefully tearing to shreds. They are taking the worst parts of people like the extreme Christian Fundamentalists who wrap themselves in a shield of God's love and then tell every normal person they are going to burn in hell for all eternity because they are a sinner and pure evil, and take any dissent as an all-out attack and respond like it's war. Anyone who disagrees with SRS's militant justice must be pedophiles and neo-nazi's. They are the most fucked thing I have ever seen on this site. \n\nEDIT: Oh lord, they found me. This post has taken about 80 downvotes today. Last night it stopped moving at about 400, but this afternoon every time I check a reply it's less and less. Not a downvote brigade my ass.", "They will place anything that isnt the most insanely politically correct comment possible. I once pointed out, to someone who was wondering why the level of discussion was deteriorating in /r/nba (the mod threatened to leave the whole subreddit because of this, he wanted to implement a zero tolerance policy), that reddit getting more popular meant that there were more than just middle-upper class white people in this subreddit. I play basketball in many courts and half of them people smoke weed right there and do deals in the park. Thats a huge demographic of basketball, so dont be surprised if the level of discussion went down. \n\nTo SRS I was the KKK. You cannot touch race or sex in any way or its offensive to them. Reddit hates them because they hate reddit. ", "As someone who's been within vaguely similar communities before, it's largely a place where people who are incredibly frustrated with some aspects of the culture congregate to vent about it in a sympathetic environment. Everyone is basically there to blow off steam, so small things (\"microaggressions\") get magnified to increase the catharsis. However, the fact that everyone's there to do the same thing makes it act as kind of an echo chamber. The sheer volume of the things being talked about, considering the size and reach of the community, intensifies the feeling that they are literally surrounded by the things they complain about, and the fact that everyone in the community is only venting, not approaching things rationally (because that's not the point), makes it easier and easier to believe that they're at the center of a giant conspiracy of complete monsters specifically out to infuriate them, since opposing opinions would defeat the purpose.\n\nThen the venting community is found by the people it's complaining about and those people, understandably, get really pissed off, because their side isn't being represented. The community responds with *extreme* force, not just because of the ideas they've created as mentioned above, but because the community has become a sort of sacred space for them - they've built up an image of it as the one place they can complain and let their frustrations out without being shot down, where they will always be in the presence of a sympathetic ear. When people come in and try to argue with them, or start referring to the community as something bad and evil, that sacred space is, in their eyes, being violated, and they *must* act to defend it. So everything just gets worse and worse, because in order to put up a strong defense they must show absolutely no weakness or inconsistency, which means there is less and less room to step back and recognize both sides of the issue.\n\nIt's a very fucked-up situation, basically. No one is really to blame, it just seems to be one of the natural consequences of trying to create these spaces. But you can't say no one can *have* those spaces because they're psychologically very necessary. It's one of the main reasons I stepped away from social justice a while back, because I have literally no idea how to avoid it.", "This is exactly the kind of topic they want to exist.\n\nThey are a bunch of trolls from the SomethingAwful forums, or at least originated there.\n\nReddit hates it because they are successful at trolling for the most part. They derail discussions in mass with what is deservingly a touchy subject - bigotry. Everyone has a strong opinion on it, and they say things to piss off both parties involved. They will be bigoted in their anti-bigotry arguments, which pisses off both bigots and non-bigots.\n\nIf you think of it like the evolution of trolling, where only the strongest trolls survive (or are successful), SRS is probably one of the top contenders, with such an easy topic to push.\n\n[Here are examples of them being hypocritical/bigoted](_URL_0_), i.e. evidence that what they say is not legitimate. /r/SSRSS is sort of a spin-off/mockery of SRS. Similarly, /r/antisrs has a lot of content. If you think of /r/SSRSS as ShitRedditSays, /r/antisrs is a lot like SRSDiscussion.\n\nMost important post: [SRS mod admits SRS is trolls](_URL_0_/comments/owtbz/srs_mod_most_of_us_are_very_skilled_trolls_not_a/).", "[This is what I think](_URL_0_), but this guy is more eloquent than me.", "It is a type of airbag :-)", "It is a troll, don't feed it.\n\nReddit doesn't like it when people criticize their morality, whether or not this is a serious sub they are extremely good at making many of the people on Reddit rage. I guess they are still sensitive that jailbait got so much attention. Many people here seem pretty conflicted between saying how this site has such great unmoderated content, but they have to show they are somehow intrinsically more moral than 4chan, because everyone knows that is the cesspool of the internet. \n\nReddit sort of hates it in part because people always have to say when the comment or thread has been posted on srs, so we continuously talk about it, making it a big deal.\n\n\nIn better language for a 5 year old, we get really mad when they tattle on us for using bad words.", "wow thanks for the post, I've been wondering this myself. Its like it sprouted up from nowhere and you cant throw a stone around reddit these days without hitting something SRS related.", "Off topic but I thought in my half-awake state that this was about why reddit hates sexual reassignment surgery! ", "I'd also like to ask: is SRS merely a circlejerk or not? I've never really understood, and halv of the time it seems like it is and the other half they seem serious. But fuck they cant be, really? Or are they? Naaah. Or?", "I read and I occasionally comment on threads in SRS. So, read and be aware there's some possible bias. I've done my best to provide no bias either way.\n\nSRS proper is a circlejerk. SRS does not want to actually rip the foreskins off of all straight white American men. SRS does, however, strive to point out the treatment that minorities (women, non-white ethnicities, different sexual orientations, transpeople) undergo on reddit by circlejerking to that theme. It can be as unwelcoming to your standard redditor as reddit can be to the non-majority.\n\nr/ShitRedditSays proper is satire on the rest of reddit. It's like what reading reddit is to anyone who isn't in the majority. The SRS fempire exists because a lot of the mirrored subreddits (example r/gaming to r/srsgaming) can include triggering comment, racist, homophobic, or transphobic slurs, et cetera. And further, the defense of these actions, sometimes by saying things that just don't make much sense. The fempire exists as a safe place for members to discuss content or social issues pertaining to the content.\n\nSRS has been accused of a lot of things: wanting to restrict people's free speech, being overly politically correct, being a cult, being a group of Something Awful trolls, etc. Recent dramatic events surrounding r/SRS includes r/jailbait, the sister_of_dark_visions stuff (and the dark_visions stuff), the current bannings of any SRS frequenter who posts on antiSRS. A lot of the drama can surround SRS 'invasions' or 'downvote brigades.' SRS members are encouraged to not 'touch the poop' (downvote) as SRS is a museum of the crappy things redditors have said and subsequently upvoted. SRS members do, however, sometimes call people out or engage in debate.\n\nBy the way, if you want to go discuss or debate things with the members of r/ShitRedditSays, you don't do it on r/ShitRedditSays. You do it in one of the other subreddits (r/SRSDiscussion, iirc). r/ShitRedditSays has a strict 'no breaking the circlejerk' policy, which tends to result in people being banned.", "SRS is also known as Super Rotation System, found in Tetris brand tetris games. A lot of people dislike it because it enables you to kick off the floor indefinitely, essentially giving you an unlimited amount of time to place your tetromino (although certain games have a limit on the amount of floor kicks you can do). Another problem is the T-spin triple, which results in the T tetromino rotating in such a way that none of the squares it occupies after the rotation overlap with the squares it occupies before the rotation, making its status as a valid rotation dubious. More info can be found on the wonderful [tetris concept wiki](_URL_0_).", "Since you've gotten all the anti-SRS views from everyone else, make sure to also see [SRS's FAQ](_URL_0_) for their side of things.", "I got banned from /r/Earthporn just for subscribing to SRS. That's really silly.", "The greatest thing since circle jerk." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [], [], [], [ "http://www.reddit.com/r/SSRSS", "http://www.reddit.com/r/SSRSS/comments/owtbz/srs_mod_most_of_us_are_very_skilled_trolls_not_a/" ], [ "http://ww.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/s60bw/a_month_ago_a_suicidal_redditor_left_his_final/c4bekog" ], [], [], [], [], [], [], [ "http://tetrisconcept.net/wiki/Main_Page" ], [ "http://www.reddit.com/r/ShitRedditSays/comments/o0pdv/meta_srs_faq/" ], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c79cbyl" ], "score": [ 4 ], "text": [ "Companies bid to buy the recipes for things like twinkies." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cd4i10d" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "It depends, some unlocked phones can. All cell phones have special cellular radios inside, but what you might not know is that there are two major types, CDMA and GSM. If you have a GSM phone, it will not work with Verizon regardless of whether or not it's locked because Verizon uses CDMA. \n\nSo if a phone is unlocked, but can't be used with Verizon, then it's most likely because it's a GSM phone.\n\nKeep in mind that dual-type phones exist but are less common because few people need them." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d6eaw35" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "It's a little tricky to explain this without props, but I'll give it a try.\n\nThe axis of Earth to first approximation always points to the same points on the sky (there is a wobble, but it's small and slow). That means that the rotation of Earth makes it appear that the stars circle around the celestial poles, where the celestial north or south pole is the point that would be directly overhead if you were standing on the geographic north or south pole.\n\nNow when you live away from the geographic poles, the celestial poles are still fixed points in the sky, they just aren't directly overhead. Through the magic of the internet, I see that Griffith, New South Wales is at about latitude 34°S, which means that the south celestial pole will be in your sky at a point due south about 34° above the horizon. All the stars in your sky will appear to rotate around this point.\n\nThat means that any star that is less than 34° away from the celestial south pole is never going to drop below the horizon where you are. So when night comes around it is guaranteed to be in your sky, just in a different part of the sky depending on the time of year.\n\nStars further than 34° from the celestial south pole will drop below your horizon at some point. The further away from the pole, the more time the star will spend hidden by the Earth. Some parts of the year that period of time will coincide with daytime when you wouldn't see the star anyway and other parts of the year it will coincide with night meaning that the star will be lost to view." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cm3kaik", "cm3kb57" ], "score": [ 2, 3 ], "text": [ "Yes, you inhale through the cigarette slowly as you light it in order to get it to light more evenly. Also, it leaves your other hand free to shield the lighter flame.", "Having it in your mouth allows you to draw the flame into the end of the cigarette. You could probably light it without inhaling, but it would take much longer and wouldn't light nearly as evenly." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cwia8gl", "cwib1kd", "cwigi15", "cwixqmf" ], "score": [ 68, 9, 4, 3 ], "text": [ "it's a counterbalance.\n\nYour body in fact is constantly fine-tuning your gait for maximum caloric efficiency. Now, you can help it by walking properly with a straight back, but if there's one thing the human body does extremely well it's maximise our efficiency when moving.\n\nSwinging our arms means we can keep going without having to stop every so often to sort out our momentum. It means we're not burning valuable calories using our core muscles to stay upright against the momentum of our own legs.\n\nPretty neat, huh?", "Can we get a link or gif to the Seinfeld episode where Elaine makes fun of the way Molly Shannon walks? Peas & mashpotatoes", "I used to walk without swinging my arms, never thought about it until people mentioned that I looked \"special\". Sometimes I still have to swing my arms back into motion when they stop and I'm not paying attention.", "I read \"talk\" and didn't understand why the hell somebody would swing their arms when they talk." ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "cnzvq5r", "cnzw2py", "cnzw4kz", "cnzw9e6", "cnzxdlj", "cnzygre" ], "score": [ 4, 5, 2, 4, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "I think your definition of 'faith' isn't that well aligned with how Abrahamic religions view faith, and so you're having a hard time understanding it. Faith has nothing to do with there being or not being evidence. Many people have 'faith' despite believing that there is overwhelming evidence for a God or their God.\n\nIt's hard to give you a better definition that would satisfy the theology of *every* Christian group, however, so I'm going to be speaking in very broad terms that might go against what some of the smaller denominations believe.\n\nIn the Catholic tradition, faith is simply knowing and understanding Catholicism, and how strictly you follow its teachings. It's very similar to *piety*. Catholicism actually explicitly emphasises that faith requires some form of argument or evidence, in keeping with Catholicism's reliance on theology, and if you accept it blindly you actually are not considered as faithful as someone like Aquinas, who approached it critically but still believed.\n\nMost Protestant denominations share a central tenant of that Catholic idea of faith, which is that faith requires some degree of understanding (they disagree on the exact relationships, though). The non-charismatic dissenters generally agree that blind faith is as bad as the Catholics think it is, the mainstream Protestants and the charismatic dissenters think it's not as bad, and that faith is relative to your understanding. \n\nIt might be better to generalise the Protestant idea of 'faith' as being similar to 'perseverance' or 'authenticity'. Faith, for most Protestants, is sticking with your belief. This might sound like it's endorsing blind faith, and it is more so than the Catholic definition, but not fully: the reason it is celebrated is because someone who is authentic in their belief will not, for example, simply believe for some sort of benefit, they must genuinely believe, and will do so even if their circumstances change. They will not, for example, only believe and pray when things are going badly, and then change when things are good (or vice verse). \n\nIn Islam, a similar debate exists, where some believe that faith simply means 'belief' and following those beliefs and others see it as something more unshakeable and to do with the *nature* of belief, focusing on 'genuine', almost unshakeable belief. I am tempted to say that most Muslims lean towards the second belief, as it is more closely aligned with ideas like 'fear no one but Allah' and 'submission', but I'm not certain.\n\n\n\n\n\n", "Outside of religion, faith can be considered a positive trait. Imagine having to do a school assignment or work task that you've never done before. You can have \"faith\" that you'll be able to do it, even if you encounter unfamiliar difficulties. You have certainty you'll be up to the task, which in turn allows you to persevere and, hopefully, succeed. That's an example of positive and useful form of \"faith\".\n\nThis can also be a negative, however, if the task is way out of your league. Amateur brain surgery, for instance.", "I think the fundamental problem is that \"faith\" when taken in it's true form, doesn't attempt to explain things in the same way that science does. Think of the phrase \"everything happens for a reason.\" To a scientist that might mean that there is a biological/physical reason that something happened that can be studied, tested, etc. However, in a religious sense faith is a hope and a trust that there are larger forces at work (which ones depends on the religion). In another sense, faith could mean sticking with your moral convictions in spite of outside pressure which is praised in the political, social, and artistic world when the person happens to be on the right side of history. I think my final thought is that faith is not an \"unquestioned belief\" it's staying true while seeking the spiritual evidence that most religions aim to find (inner peace, nirvana, a conversion experience) even though it is easy to doubt.", "Religions derive their power by people having faith in them, so naturally they will elevate faith (but only the right kind) as a virtue.", "Faith is a virtue in religions that require faith to accept the premise. \n\nFaith is not a virtue when applied to anything outside the tenets of the religion. \n\n\n\n\n\n", "Because the people who regard faith as a positive trait have faith in their religions. They were taught that it was a positive trait, in order to not sway away from the religions they were brought up in." ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "cg1fuqg", "cg1g044" ], "score": [ 3, 2 ], "text": [ "They load it on as part of the OS so it's not removable. It's like how you aren't allowed to uninstall the default keyboard.\n\n If they just put on some default apps using the app store they'd be removable the standard way but some organizations go out of their way to be a bother with their bloatware.\n\nSomeone can make an app but it'd need root permissions to touch protected OS files... and that means the hassle is still there to go through.\n\nThey load it on that way because they don't want you getting rid of it simply. They make money off it some way or another.\n\n", "You can remove some bloatware by resetting a phone to factory defaults." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "e7wze83", "e7wzhbe", "e7x0qrl", "e7x2r7m" ], "score": [ 8, 2, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "There is no difference between the water that comes out of any faucets or spigots in your house or yard. It’s all coming from the same place. ", "nothing, you have one main waterline coming into your house and from there it branches off to feed all your fixtures throughout the house. it's all comes from the same place so it's all the same water. yes, even the toilet. ", "Maybe because parents prefer the kids to drink where there is more effort into being sanitary and where they can be supervised so as not to know electric razor into sink etc.", "Nothing really. Though in my house the water enters at the corner where the kitchen is and then goes through the whole house to get to where the bathroom is so the water gets cooled by the house AC a bit when sitting in the pipe during summer. \n\nNow if your sink is in the same room as the toilet and you do not close the lid when you flush you can (will) have fecal matter on it and so that could potentially be a point of contamination, but it is a fairly small one. " ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "cdnndj6" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "This pretty much depends on the spaceship.Usually, those rocket engines contain not only fuel, but oxygen also as this allows a detonation to take place and power the rocket in the respective direction. Technically, if you take a shuttle with its rocket engines still attached to its hull, teleport it into deep space, tore open the rocket engines and light the match you will witness some great fireworks. Those tanks will provide enough oxygen for the fuel to ignite and explode.\n\nAs for implosions - those are impossible to occur on a space ship. The fact that the Cosmos is a vacuum means that there is no pressure, which means that there is no force being exerted on the ship, making it implode. Actually, the main force being exerted on the ship is coming not from the outside, but the inside. The ship is actually a pressurized container and all that pressured air tries to escape in space. This is the reason why when a rupture occurs, everything is sucked out into space - you should've seen it in the movies and that is actually true.\n\nThings that do implode very oftenly are stars. However, they collapse because on themselves due to the huge ammount of weight that is being exerted. However - this is another story." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cpgelu3", "cpgfmk7" ], "score": [ 3, 2 ], "text": [ "Money is imaginary. It's a promise of value in return for value given.", "The way that banks work is with a fractional reserve system. This system allows them to lend more money then they have in reserve hence the name \"fractional reserve\". They only need a fraction of what they loan in reserve. \n\nTechnically we don't really have money anymore, money is backed by a valuable commodity such as gold which we haven't had since I belive it was Nixon that took us off the gold standard in 1971. What we use now is currency. The value of currency is not tied to anything of real value. \n\nSo basically we are using monopoly money. The history of money, currency and economics is pretty interesting and I encourage you to find some good books if you are interested, it will change your understanding of how the world operates. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d4mietk", "d4mjmez" ], "score": [ 6, 6 ], "text": [ "In five words: He fucked up our country. \n\nSold off national assets that were not his to sell (to his mates cheap) \nDidn't invest in anything useful - no-one wants a fast train to London from the north. 2/3hours is fast enough. \nMuch more minor things that add up to his 6years of destruction. ", "He warmed over the failed policies of greed and corruption promoted by Maggie Thatcher. He promoted tax dodging by corporations while saying he would stop it. He bullied and robbed the worst off in our society while giving cash breaks to the mega rich. He implemented policies based on dogma rather than what is best for the country. \n\nOh, he also opened the Pandora's Box of nationalism. As a political leader he had a responsibly to keep that box tightly shut. That is his biggest crime. \n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cul68wm", "culenfg", "culh9fj", "culhvil" ], "score": [ 26, 4, 5, 3 ], "text": [ "It's just the matter of preferance.\nThe important thing to note is that Swiss confections that are availble internationally are usually made of real chocolate and are not chocolate-like products. I'm sure that in your country, wherever you are from, you can get local real chocolate products, but they are usually high end and quite expensive. Another thing is that many of Swiss chocolate factories have highly refined and nicely tunded proccess of manufacturing that also helps. There's no specific reason, no secret ingredient that every Swiss chocolate confections have.\nI personally love Belgium chocolate. I don't know why, but it just tastes best for me.", "Hershey's, etc, taste so bad compared to Swiss because they use what is essentially soured milk to extend the shelf-life of the product.", "If you're comparing it to North American chocolate, the reason is because North American chocolate often has butyric acid added, which changes the taste of the chocolate. This is because of the [Hershey Process](_URL_0_)\n > \"Hershey process\" milk chocolate is popular in North America. The process was invented by Milton S. Hershey, founder of The Hershey Company, and yields chocolate that can be produced more cheaply than other processes since it is less sensitive to the freshness of the milk. The process is a trade secret, but experts speculate that the milk is partially lipolyzed, producing butyric acid, which stabilizes the milk from further fermentation. This compound gives the product a particular taste, to which the North American public has become accustomed, to the point that other manufacturers now simply add butyric acid to their milk chocolates", "I work with a dude married to a Swiss lady. It's like Christmas when she comes back from vacation because she brings these awesome [Swiss Army chocolate.](_URL_0_) I'm a grown-ass man, but when I get one of these I giggle like a little kid." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_chocolate#Classification" ], [ "http://imgur.com/4qPMxcb" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c80hfei" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Been asked multiple times in the past 48 hours. Removed." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dqoe1af" ], "score": [ 8 ], "text": [ "Ceramic body armor is usually covered by kevlar and has a metal plate in the center of 2 ceramic plates. So when a bullet hits the ceramic it breaks and causes the bullet to expand and slow enough to stop it before entering the person. Fun fact: military strike plates (ceramic body armor) are rated to stop 5 7.62 rounds within a 4 cm triangle!" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "e1e38vw", "e1e5c40" ], "score": [ 2, 5 ], "text": [ "Shampoos and body wash perform the same function and are largely the same product. The difference is mainly that body wash is designed for the skin, so it has to cater to people who have senstive skin. Shampoo can be stronger because it's mostly cleaning your hair, which is not sensitive.", "Shampoo and soaps/body wash are known as emulsifiers.\nThese bond oil and water together and remove dirt and all the nasties.\n\nShampoo is a somewhat stronger emulsifier than soaps as it has to deal with thicker oils but they are the same thing.\n\nSoaps are weaker as removing too much oil can be bad for the skin and cause a number of problems if stronger.\n\nThere is no issue using shampoo as body wash or body wash as shampoo other than it might not give you the same nice feeling due to a different formulation or skin irritation." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cjpjz12", "cjpkc0v" ], "score": [ 7, 3 ], "text": [ "They don't, it's a myth. ", "Like /u/_PM_ME_YOUR_SMILE said, it's a myth.\n\nThe average woman's cycle is approximately 28 days, some are a little shorter at 25-27 and some are longer, a 29 or 30.\n\nAnd each one takes up about a week (again some being shorter and some being longer).\n\nBecause of this, and how cycles overlap, it's inevitable that at some point it will appear to \"synchronize\" but in reality it doesn't, it'll desynchronize soon enough.\n\nThink of it like a line of car waiting to make a left hand turn. You watch all the blinkers and it seems like they all synchronize and then it goes back to randomness. It's because they blink at different intervals." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ewttkmv", "ewtvf7b", "ewtvvrv" ], "score": [ 14, 13, 6 ], "text": [ "It's all about dynamics and feeling? but they put like hella compression and limiters so that the lowest sound comes up and the high peaks get squashed so that it remains at the sameish level. but becuz of how the instruments are played the feeling of the song seems quieter to louder haha", "Our ability to percieve the loudness isn't constant. Different frequencies can feel louder or quieter despite being the same volume.", "It's called Shepard Tone, and it's an auditory illusion.\n\n_URL_0_" ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "c2lyfwc", "c2lyfwc" ], "score": [ 2, 2 ], "text": [ "Like ants coordinating their actions together.", "Like ants coordinating their actions together." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cjc28n6", "cjc2ggu" ], "score": [ 13, 2 ], "text": [ "Interesting trick! You know what else works? Counting down from ten, or up, or meditating, or punching something, or doing anything at all, or doing nothing at all!\n\n\n\nAnger is a very short-lived emotion. It only lasts a few minutes, so almost anything you do in those few minutes will seem to alleviate it. This is called illusory correlation. Just because temperature drop is followed by anger reduction doesn't mean cooling off caused cooling off.", "It doesn't I guess. You just get a bit of distraction." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cikw5l5", "cikwb2v", "cikx47f" ], "score": [ 4, 3, 3 ], "text": [ " > That weird feeling your dick gets when you take it off on an airplane \n\nI did an honest to god double take. ", "That weird sinking/weightless feeling. I get it when I drive over hills too fast sometimes. No idea what causes it, but you're not alone", "I think it's the urine touching the top of the bladder or just floating around or something." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c2gm79q", "c2gmxt4", "c2gmy7z", "c2go0mj", "c2gmxt4", "c2gmy7z", "c2go0mj", "c2gm79q" ], "score": [ 2, 11, 3, 3, 11, 3, 3, 2 ], "text": [ "The path of least resistance.\nHumans by nature are rather lazy, we do what we have to and little else. It's hard to drive yourself to do things. Once you start it is easy to keep going though. \n\nSo starting a task is the hardest part. \n\nBasically laziness", "I guess it's a light form of procrastination: you're not actively resisting cleaning up, but subconsciously you're finding other things to do that would bring faster satisfaction: watch a movie, read a book, etc.\n\nTo really get started on something you have to do, break it down into smallest steps, like in the case of cleaning, the first step might be to \"just hang all the tees on their hangers,\" the second to \"just put these books on their shelves.\" Your brain will think, fine, we'll just hang the tees and then we can go have a cookie. But once you're started, the satisfaction of having done something outweighs the satisfaction if having a cookie, and you'll most likely proceed to the next step, and to the next, shar then just get the while thing over with.", "Because willpower requires energy! It is a finite resource that you exhaust during the day.\n\nSee: _URL_0_", "I have heard that there is a form of thinking that causes a split between doing something and thinking about doing it. It's an actual neurological (brain-functioning) condition. It's like getting on a train at stop A and knowing that it is supposed to end at stop B, but there are no tracks between the stops.", "I guess it's a light form of procrastination: you're not actively resisting cleaning up, but subconsciously you're finding other things to do that would bring faster satisfaction: watch a movie, read a book, etc.\n\nTo really get started on something you have to do, break it down into smallest steps, like in the case of cleaning, the first step might be to \"just hang all the tees on their hangers,\" the second to \"just put these books on their shelves.\" Your brain will think, fine, we'll just hang the tees and then we can go have a cookie. But once you're started, the satisfaction of having done something outweighs the satisfaction if having a cookie, and you'll most likely proceed to the next step, and to the next, shar then just get the while thing over with.", "Because willpower requires energy! It is a finite resource that you exhaust during the day.\n\nSee: _URL_0_", "I have heard that there is a form of thinking that causes a split between doing something and thinking about doing it. It's an actual neurological (brain-functioning) condition. It's like getting on a train at stop A and knowing that it is supposed to end at stop B, but there are no tracks between the stops.", "The path of least resistance.\nHumans by nature are rather lazy, we do what we have to and little else. It's hard to drive yourself to do things. Once you start it is easy to keep going though. \n\nSo starting a task is the hardest part. \n\nBasically laziness" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [ "http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/21/magazine/do-you-suffer-from-decision-fatigue.html?pagewanted=all" ], [], [], [ "http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/21/magazine/do-you-suffer-from-decision-fatigue.html?pagewanted=all" ], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "du0r9ze" ], "score": [ 6 ], "text": [ "In general, the postal service that collects the mail keeps the full amount of the fee. The postal service in the recipient's country delivers the mail for free. The expectation is that the volume of mail is usually the same in both directions, so it balances out in the long run.\n\nAs an exception, the members of the Universal Postal Union agreed a few years ago that when there's a very large imbalance, the postal service that's sending a lot more mail will compensate the postal service that's delivering a lot more. China compensates the U.S., for instance, because the U.S. Postal Service delivers much more mail from China than it sends there. The fee is based on the annual imbalance in mail, in tons." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "e99at9a" ], "score": [ 16 ], "text": [ "Same reason skulls from ancient times typically have pretty good teeth (crooked maybe, but typically few cavities): refined sugars in food - i.e. back then sugar was a luxury, very few could afford sweets and usually they were from natural sources like honey. Now, almost all of our processed foods are chock full of dexy fructose glucose processed corn syrup crap, even our bread (our north American \"white\" bread anyways)… its like cake (as our European friends like to say)… its all sugar. Long ago, you had meat, vegetables, raw fruits and only natural whole grain breads. Low in bad sugars that cause tooth decay! Teeth were good! Now we eat so much refined and processed sugars its like we're force feeding the bacteria that eat our teeth, like John Pinnette at a buffet." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "colrh4v", "colrlav", "colwzpf", "colx2mz", "colxr3d", "colynav", "com3ae8", "com3ftf", "com3sxg", "com418d", "com5lr3", "com5mz0", "com5vsk", "com5xxk", "com6we2", "com8pvi", "coma69u", "comcfcq" ], "score": [ 16, 2003, 53, 91, 5, 1550, 2, 5, 8, 2, 2, 4, 11, 2, 3, 4, 4, 13 ], "text": [ "Maybe the theory assumes that the universe was always here, never had a beginning. I have no idea though.", "Fancy math applied to Einsteins original theories. The paper, and the authors aren't like \"hey, you are all wrong.\" It's more of \"hey, look at this model too.\" \n\nIn short, it's just another idea, that currently is not very accepted. However that may change. The bulk of the idea is that the universe is, and always was, and just because we see it expanding, does not mean it all comes back to a singularity. \n\nThink of finding a not inflated balloon on the ground with knot in it. While the evidence may suggest it deflated, it is also possible someone just tied a knot in the balloon and left it there. ", "There was a documentary released recently covering how all the worlds cosmologists have decided that the singularity idea doesn't make sense anymore. Basically that there must have been something before the big bang.\n \nThis means that it's now open slather for them all to come up with competing theories on the birth of the universe, each one wackier than the next.\n\nMy favorite one I've heard is that when a star goes supernova and creates a black hole a universe is created on the other end in a parallel dimension. The matter that it sucks in is then spewed out the other end like a giant cosmic asshole feeding a brand new universe.\n\nI think it was called \"Before the big bang\"", "So the idea behind the big bang is that all matter in the universe originated from a single point, a singularity that contained all the energy the universe contains. At some point the singularity ceased to be a singularity and started expanding, and the universe was born.\n\nWe have the mathematical and computational capabilities to model the universe after the big bang occurred. Once the singularity begins to expand our math can pretty much explain what happened next. Imagine time running in reverse: All the matter in the universe comes together into a single, infinitely small spot and it all collides with each other at the singularity. The big problem is that all our math sort of breaks down when we hit the singularity itself. It's a little like dividing by zero: it's simply undefined.\n\nThe new theory that you're referring to tries to solve this problem by eliminating the need for a singularity. Essentially, they went as far back in time as our models can go and then they applied some new ideas relating to quantum mathematics. They were able to show (mathematically) that the particles could come together to the same location but still pass each other by on a quantum level.\n\nThat means the particles come together but never actually hit each other, which means there's never any singularity, which means that there's never any \"bang\" it can expand from. What it actually does mean, though, I can't tell you.\n\nAt least, that's my understanding. I'm not a physicist or a mathematician.", "I've heard so many science-minded people say that we can observe the remnants of the big bang in the universe - not just relying on mathematics to offer a hypothesis. How, then, can mathematics override that which scientists claim to observe? I figured we'd default to math only if we had no observable phenomenon.", "The media bungled up this story as usual. A lot of journalists misconstrue the Big Bang Theory as being either the cause or the beginning of our universe rather than it being a description of what happened immediately after the beginning of the universe. If this new theory happens to be correct then it would not contradict the Big Bang Theory. It would contradict the common prediction arising from the Big Bang Theory that the universe began as an infinitely dense point. So in this new model the universe would not be 13.5 billion years old. It would be an eternally existing universe which for some reason began expanding 13.5 billion years ago. \n\n\n\n", "I tried to search, but didn't see much. \n\nThe new theory doesn't say the BBT didn't happen. It really might just expand on it. It says there might not have been an actual start to the universe, as the original theory states. It may still allow for the big bang, but also allows for more to have existed before that. \n\nThe big bang is still the most viable theory we have for the current state of the universe. ", "I suspect it's that some folks have a problem with the teleological implications of a universe with a finite duration and a beginning which began as a singularity with no way for us to peer into what occurred causally prior to that singularity.\n\nUntil someone can come up with a falsifiable theory about the full nature of the universe, the best explanation we have so far—the one that explains the data most fully with the fewest inconsistencies—is the Big Bang. Lacking a falsifiable theory, we are into the realm of philosophy, not science.", "ELI5: Doesn't the \"eternal universe\" theory contradict the second law of thermodynamics? Like... if the universe were eternal, wouldn't it have experienced heat death a long ago? And wouldn't planets and stars have turned to powder by now?", "New *headline* says the Big Bang might not have happened. \nFTFY", "The authors of the paper add two inversely proportional terms to quantum wave functions modeling spacetime. One is the cosmological constant (expansion due to dark energy) the other is an inversely proportional radiation constant. \n\nThese two constants allow the universe to expand and contract, but not to infinity. So the universe bounces back and forth between an expanding universe and a contracting universe. This model predicts that at small sizes the radiation term would cause the universe to expand again rapidly without forming a singularity. It still predicts inflation and all of the cosmological evolution we already think happened, it just doesn't include the possibility of a Big Bang or Big Crunch. \n\nIt really isn't much different from the theory we use now, as long as you start both theories just after the singularity. ", "Does this mean that horrible show will get canceled?", "I don't mean to be hostile, but can someone tell me why believing both in a higher being and scientific explanations of the origins of the universe are mutually exclusive? The universe is so mysterious and unknowable...Why does even having a vague, agnostic \"well, there *could* be something out there\" hunch not bode well with theoretical physicists etc? I understand why some theist interpretations of the beginning of the universe are insane (re:creation stories in general) but I still don't think we know enough (or that we ever even will) to definitively denounce the existence of something greater.", "Shit like this always reminds me how juch we really don't know. We've been around for a millisecond compared to the rest of the universe.", "I don't think the theory is that the Big Bang Didn't happen. It's that the big bang wasn't the beginning of this universes existence, rather that it happened later on during this universes life. The Big Bang happened, we know this at this point. We have the back ground radiation to pretty much confirm that a huge fucking explosion happened a long time ago. \n\nIt's just possible that our universe, the space that we exist in, has been here for much longer than that. Is it possible that something exist before this, possibly. Or it could have been an empty blackness filled with particles that had no mass. \n\nI really like the theory, and I hope to see more light get brought on to the subject. Which will only happen with more research. The thing about science, especially with theories concerning the origins of the universe, is that they are damn hard to prove. We still don't know what caused the big bang, and it's likely that we never will know. ", "Everything was created last Thursday. End of theory. \n\nDisclaimer: I am a pleb and have no idea what theory op is talking about.", "What if the \"infinitely dense point\" was a universe just like ours, one that just seemed waaaaay smaller than ours. And then in the future, our universe will \"bang\" outwards and our planets and stars will become the atoms of the next universe.", "Look we all wish that show wouldn't have happened, we just need to accept that this is the world we live in now " ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "cstmeds" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "People tend to fit into common demographic categories, all the rapes occurred with a certain radius, so probably the attacker lived near that area, or frequented that area.\n\nFrom the way he spoke, or stalked his victims, it gives clues to his education and intelligence. Maybe a victim saw his skin color. A well dressed white man in a good part of town wouldn't be noticed like a black man who dressed like he recently game from the ghetto would. \n\nHe used a diamond knot, which isn't the type of knot you learn in a trade, it's something you learn by studying ropes and knots. His attacks all occurred late at night or early morning, making going to work early in the morning difficult.\n\nOther rapists, especially serial rapists may have had similar patterns. " ] }

[]

[ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_Night_Stalker" ]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "clo7wpo", "clo8ygk" ], "score": [ 3, 2 ], "text": [ "They dry out your eyes and can lead to infection.", "If they're not extended wear, you should follow instructions to take them out. Contact lenses can be colonized by Staph bacteria from your hands and so should be cleaned daily each night before bed. That's not to say that I haven't occasionally slept in mine in the past, but be aware you are running an increased risk of corneal abrasions (when the lenses dry out overnight) and infection as well.\n\nExtended wear lenses may be better for you if you're going to sleep in them. They're formulated from different material which allow more oxygen to pass through them and they are designed to stay hydrated. You corneas need oxygen to maintain their health. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dmcn572" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "Because you mention mining, I'm assuming you're talking about cryptocurrency.\n\n > I don't mean the mining process, but the currency itself\n\nThe mining is what 'creates' the currency. Try not to think of cryptocurrency as an actual thing, like gold coins or dollar bills, but rather as a big list of 'who owes who'; a ledger, so to speak. Every time a transaction is made, the ledger updates and debts are swapped around in lieu of physical currency.\n\nMining is where people essentially do the hard work of 'upkeeping' the ledger for everyone else (using algorithms and other computer stuff, not actually doing it manually), and they're rewarded for their time by being given a little bonus currency. This is actually how new 'currency' is introduced into the world\n\n > who makes it and why\n\nI can't say for sure, but probably people that are hoping their cryptocurrency will take off and gain a large amount of value. The important and very key thing that makes cryptocurrencies special is that they're **decentralized**, which means no company or individual 'owns' or manages the system. It's not like there's a central bitcoin bank that all the users connect to to trade bitcoins, but rather a complex web of peer to peer connections (held together by the mining system) make bitcoin possible. For this reason, if you can create your own cryptocurrency and convince enough people to use it from the beginning, you might cash out big in the long run *as a user* rather than as an owner, which would come with it's own set of complications between you and your potential money.\n\n > why would people use it after it is released when they can trade it to very few individuals\n\nThey probably see a lot of potential in it becoming 'the next big one'. Like I said before, if they can get in on it early, they can cash out big later on. This is kind of a gamble though, so for a lot of the smaller cryptocurrencies there are very very few users." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "fn7m0lh" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Different mineral composition is one of the main reasons. Some minerals are very fluid-like and thinner when molten, where as others are thicker and denser. \n\nThink of it like the difference between pudding and milk. They're both kind of liquids, but one flows easily because its made of different stuff that gives it a thin consistency. The other is made of something else that makes it thick." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dbzfrco", "dbzujsm", "dbzvl4v", "dc02sog", "dc09jwt" ], "score": [ 164, 14, 11, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "Because they all are randomly out of tune, but just slightly, so they add up around the proper notes.\n\nOn average you get a sound that is more intense around the right notes and their harmonics (which makes it sound non-dissonant), and the out of tune sounds just becomes a bunch of overtones making the sound a richer and more complex timbre.\n\n[See this old comment I made](_URL_0_) for some technical details and visuals.", "It's sometimes called \"detuning\", used in music recording when a whole bank of synthesizers are all tuned slightly differently, producing a very \"fat\" and \"soft\" waveform.\n\nVery similar is the difference between a solo violin and an orchestra full of them. Love the latter, not a fan of the former. In a group of violinists, each will be playing a slightly different tone, but they'll average out to the right one, so that's the one we hear.\n\nWhen a solo violinist is a little off key (which they often are), it's easy to hear and unpleasant to the trained ear.", "Can you give an example of 50,000 people singing out of tune which sounds amazing? I don't believe the premise.", "It's the same reason that a choir can sound fuller than a soloist, or an orchestra can sound fuller than a single instrument. It is very difficult for multiple singers or instruments to be perfectly in pitch with each other all the time. These slightly detuned pitches get averaged together when we hear them and this leads to a thick and full sound. \n\nWe can produce this artificially by doing the same thing, take a tone and split it into several tones each slightly detuned from the others and we call this a chorus effect. The sound of 1980's pop guitars was heavily influenced by this. \n\nHowever, when there is just one tone that is out of tune, this causes 'beating' which is when the sound waves sync up in an irregular pattern and it sounds harsh. \n\nWhen two tones are in tune, they either sound at the same frequency, or at perfect divisions of that frequency. For instance 440hz and 880hz sound good together because the 880 vibrates exactly twice for every vibration of the 440. It adds up. \n\nBut 440hz and 450hz do not perfectly match up, and so it causes the sound to fluctuate unharmonically leading to beating. \n\nTo put it another way, music is math that we can hear. Chords are fractions and if the fractions divide evenly, it sounds good. If the fractions do not divide evenly, it sounds bad. When you hear about people comparing music to math, this is what they are talking about. Each note has a numeric value in hertz, and chords are formed by taking a root note or root tone in hz and producing complimentary tones that divide well with that root note. Notes that do not divide well will produce chaotic waves that break up the simplicity of the root tone instead of re-inforcing it and we find this displeasing. So music sounds good because math. ;) ", "One possible explanation is that engaging in coordinated behavior such as singing or chanting significantly changes perception of self and others, creating a sense of identity that is corporate rather than individual. \n\n\"...the auditory suppression that commonly accompanies speech production is absent during synchronous speech with a live person, and hypothesize that this may alter the subjective experience of self versus other when participating in unison speech.\"\n\n\"These cortical activations may correlate with a change in the locus of control of the interaction: when people coordinate their actions, they minimize movement degrees of freedom by becoming part of a self-organizing system with the locus of control “outside” either individual...\"\n\n_URL_0_" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/4mur7n/why_do_some_objects_emit_a_pitchless_sound_when/d3yqdk5/" ], [], [], [], [ "http://www.jneurosci.org/content/36/17/4669" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d5t8cmg", "d5t9cbr" ], "score": [ 2, 6 ], "text": [ "Roads, bridges and dams come to mind first. A lot of dams are waaay over their life expentancies.", "Many bridges have been ignored for decades, because shutting down major bridges = traffic nightmare for years and no mayor/governor wants to be the person that caused that.\n\nThe electrical grid is absurdly inefficient. We could save a significant amount of energy consumption just by building a new tech electrical grid.\n\nMany eastern towns are beginning to face water pipe issues, because they are all getting to the age when you have to replace these things, and it's been ignored for a while, again, because if you are mayor of a town of 50k, you don't want to be the guy/woman that digs up all the roads and makes people boil water for a couple of weeks." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d17tdrr", "d17te90", "d17tgto", "d17tk7m", "d17uzgz", "d17wgw6" ], "score": [ 21, 11, 5, 3, 3, 3 ], "text": [ "The Senate leadership gets to decide when votes are scheduled. They can legally choose to take the votes for the Supreme Court nominee and adjourn them without a set date.\n\nWhether it's *politically* acceptable is a totally different matter.", "No. Technically the Congress and the Senate don't have to do anything while in office. It might be shitty of them to do so but it's their prerogative. I mean Congress can literally shut down the govt., this is nothing compared to that.\n\nThe Constitution just says:\n\n > he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, \n\nThere's nothing in there that says the Senate has to do anything. Just that the President can't appoint (except for a recess appointment) a justice without their advice and consent.\n\nEdit: Also there's precedent for this as it was done in the 1840s when the Senate really hated president Tyler. Also, the whole nature of a filibuster is a pretty strong precedent that the Senate has no obligation to get anything done. Lastly, as the Senate is a continuous body, technically they'll still be fulfilling the duty as long as the position is eventually filled.", "I think it's annoying that they aren't doing it (since I'm liberal) but I actually don't think it's unconstitutional. The Senate is able to set its own rules for debate and the constitution only States \"he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . . Judges of the supreme Court . . . whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law\". Nothing in the text mandates a procedure that the Senate follow in appointing judges. The constitution purposefully *avoids* such a question by its own language. \n\nEdit: I should also mention that this is an example of special pleading at its finest. If a liberal justice had passed whilst a Republican held the presidency and the Democrats controlled the senate, I don't see why they wouldn't do the same thing, and there wouldn't be as much outrage from the liberal community about that (though I realize history suggests otherwise). ", "You're starting with a premise here that they disagree with. Who says it is \"their job\" the vote on a Supreme Court nominee? The Constitution says that the President appoints Justices to the Supreme Court, with the advice and consent of the Senate. Logically, the requirement for consent includes the Senate's power to *deny* consent.\n\nThat power is the Senate's to wield as it sees fit. It may reject candidates after a thoughtful consideration of their individual merits, or it can decide that is has some categorical objection to the nominees presented. The American federal government is designed with a separation of powers in mind, so that no one may second-guess the Senate's legitimate use of its allotted powers. You may not think the Senate's judgment is *wise*, and if so you should punish your state's Senators for it on Election Day, but it is quite in accordance with the constitutional scheme.", "The Constitution doesn't mandate that these hearings come within a certain time period or something, only that they must happen in the Senate. So they're not doing anything illegal or unconstitutional by stalling out Obama. They're just choosing to set the date for the hearing after Obama leaves office.\n\nThat doesn't make it \"acceptable\" though. There is no constitutional command that the people have to have a say in who gets nominated to the SCOTUS (quite the opposite actually) and this is not a good precedent to set. The Reps clearly do not value effective government, and that's a problem. The Constitution was designed to make an effective, if inefficient government, and the fact that the Reps are invoking the Constitution while doing the opposite of what it says is a pretty bad sign for our system.", "I am a lawyer, so here is how I see this from a Constitutional perspective. \n\nArticle 2, section 2 of the Constitution, says the President \"shall nominate\".\n\nArticle 2, section 2 of the Constitution, also says this must be done \"with the Advice and Consent of the Senate\".\n\nHow do you get that advice and consent, you might wonder?\n\nThe Constitution has an answer for that too. Article 1, Section 5, provides that \"Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings\".\n\nThis is called a plenary power, or an absolute power. It is an area where there is no check nor balance. The Senate can, quite literally, make up any rules or process it wants, or not do that, and can change the rules at any time because ... any reason - such as it is a Tuesday and they felt like it when they woke up. If the Senate doesn't want to have a process, no one can make it. In short, the Senate is God when it comes to their own internal rules and procedures. \n\nNo court would touch whatever the Senate decided about its own internal processes. It's a Political Question. Check out articles on the political question doctrine if you interested in learning more about why this is not subject to court review." ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "cfc7fya", "cfc7t79" ], "score": [ 2, 2 ], "text": [ "It depends on the country, but in the US, non-citizens are not given the same extra-territorial protections that citizens are when they're at an embassy, so no.\n\nFor a US citizen, an embassy is \"US soil\". For a non-US citizen, an embassy is an office building with armed guards where foreigners work.", "The whole \"US soil\" thing is a misnomer. Embassies have a special diplomatic status that puts them in a unique class of jurisdiction, but they are *not* sovereign soil.\n\nA non-American born in an US embassy would be afforded no special status." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "deoldiy", "deolmeo", "deony75" ], "score": [ 2, 9, 4 ], "text": [ "There's a theory that there's a black hole at the center of every galaxy. Black holes attract solar systems, and those solar systems then pull other solar systems towards them, so eventually there's a central point that everything on the outside orbits, making a galaxy.", "Solar systems do not orbit the sun (star), they orbit the center-of-mass of the system. It just so happens that the center-of-mass is inside the star in most cases, because the star is so massive compared to the rest of the system. Same goes on the galactic scale. The galaxy has a center-of-mass that everything orbits around.\n\nThe star in a solar system actually wobbles around this center-of-mass. Observing this wobble is one way that astronomers determine things about distant solar systems.\n\nMore information here if you want to look into it, and a gif showing what I just described: _URL_0_", "[Here is an excellent gif that puts into perspective the mass of a supermassive galactic core-grade black hole.](_URL_0_) \n\nIt is so amazingly, astoundingly, incomprehensibly huge that it swings all of the star systems around it like an incredibly slow older brother swinging around a sibling. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_spectroscopy" ], [ "https://i.imgur.com/MUg63B0.gifv" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ej308g7" ], "score": [ 7 ], "text": [ "Music is actually fairly \"small\" in size in the big scheme of things and for how fast most broadband connections are (including mobile connections) its a really easy thing to work with.\n\nGenerally, the music would be downloaded and cached on your local device within seconds of needing it... potentially even before you need it as it may get the next song before the last song is over (ads actually do this more often though). After that, it can play the song locally even if you don't have an internet connection.\n\nIf you've ever been on a subway or something where internet connection is intermittent, you can see this, the song will play, as its already downloaded and stored locally, even when you don't have constant connection, but the next song or so won't play until you get your connection back.\n\ntl;dr: The whole song is generally downloaded and stored locally very very fast, then played that way. Your connection doesn't really \"stream\" the song, as much as it just downloads it quickly and then plays it locally.\n\nNote: Streaming video is much more bandwidth and storage intensive and doesn't necessarily work this way" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dlm9qfj", "dlmhmu4", "dln1miz", "dlnex57" ], "score": [ 15, 26, 3, 2 ], "text": [ "Are you referring to [this test](_URL_0_) that optometrists use? If so, that is a test to see if you are colorblind. People who are colorblind often have a hard time distinguishing between the colors red and green, which is why the test is designed this way.", "This is actually a way to fine tune your refraction. Red and green focus at different planes in front of, on, or behind the retina. In order to ensure that you will focus clearly at far distance, i.e., for driving, we will often \"keep you in the green\". If you see the letters in the red better, you may be focused slightly closer than optical infinity, blurring road signs etc, especially at night.", "This test is called 'duochrome test'; it's used to estimate if you're short or long sighted.\n\nThis 'red and green' test works on the principle that the wavelengths of red and green light are focused slightly differently by the eye, red being closer to the retina with short sight (i.e. clearer) and green focused closer to the retina in long sight.\n", "As many have said, his is called the duochrome test but many people haven't heard of it. Apparently it isn't commonly used on people with eyesight worse than 20/30 because the difference in the two sides wouldn't be distinguishable...which explains why I had never heard of it; my eyes suck." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.google.com/search?q=optometrist+color+blind+test&safe=off&rlz=1C1GGRV_enUS752US752&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiBlcf5ttfVAhWr7YMKHRs-DAcQ_AUICigB&biw=1362&bih=680" ], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "e1nq5om" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "They are laws, and they are enforced like any other financial law. If you get caught making a transaction in violation of the law, you go to jail.\n\nThe concept behind these laws is to isolate internal transactions from the global economy. This protects local transactions from the rapidly fluctuating currency, at the expense of a thriving black market for stable money like dollars or euros." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "daxmykl" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "The heap holds dynamically allocated memory that exists beyond the scope of the current function.\n\nLets say I write a function that reads some string from the user. If I stored this string on the stack, then it would be deleted as soon as the function exits, which means I won't be able to use it. Instead, when I read the string, I ask the operating system to allocate me some space on the heap and store the string there. When the function exits it can return a pointer to that location, so now whoever called the function also has access to the string." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "do7q5u3", "do7qi09", "do7rjuf", "do7s4c9", "do7tpmn", "do7ttb0", "do7uujf", "do7v5b5", "do7vgmg", "do7vihr", "do7vj7a", "do7vnc2", "do7w1t3", "do7w28m", "do7wcan", "do7xb1j", "do7zkx3", "do7zvip", "do83ne6", "do83qhn", "do83qxk", "do83zeu", "do8450b", "do85cag", "do868j4", "do869vh", "do86qp9" ], "score": [ 3, 147, 167, 8405, 2, 288, 4, 2, 7, 9, 14, 4, 39, 206, 28, 2, 5, 2, 6, 5, 3, 3, 9, 6, 4, 4, 5 ], "text": [ "What what I understand, it has to do with low levels of a chemical called serotonin, and neurotransmitters in the brain misfiring. Anxiety and depression seem to go hand in hand due to having the same cause. Most antidepressants are called SSRIs: selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, so they work for anxiety as well.", "Antidepressants and antianxiety meds work by altering the availability of certain chemicals in the brain, primarily serotonin and dopamine. They do this through chemical action on brain receptors and cells, usually preventing the reabsorption of the chemicals once released, thus increasing their availability.\n\nSerotonin and dopamine have roles that play a part in both mood and anxiety levels, so they often work for both mental health conditions. ", "Some people will take SSRIs for only a period of time until their anxiety has settled, but to have an anxiety disorder, its a chronic imbalance. This can cause everything from stomach problems to pain, overwhelming fear, and so on. My neurologist did a good job of reminding me that when you get embarrassed, you blush, meaning that the blood vessels in your cheeks actually expand. This is just a little explaination of the effect that the hormones which control your \"feelings\" can affect your physical self. \nI know this isn't exactly answering the rest of your question (cause it's already been answered), but that is really what anxiety is. An imbalance of chemicals in your brain. So any pain or nausea that comes with it, isn't someone being \"crazy\" it's a very real pain. \nI just went through 6 doctors to find out why I've been having overwhelming pain, tremors, nausea, fatigue, vertigo (and so on),and two years and many ER visits, mris, ct scans, xrays, and LOTS of blood tested, I am diagnosed with PTSD. Turns out that the back of my mind is still processing things that have occured, even if the part of my mind which I can control, feels accepting of the trauma.\n(This means that I have hormones running through me that are causing damage to my body) the mind is so very weird. I've been on anxiety meds for about 5 years already, and I'm soon going to be on other meds to help with the current situation.\nI hope this helps to explain anxiety and stress disorders more. I have a genetic anxiety disorder and a stress disorder brought on by trauma. It's crazy stuff.", "When you are confronted with a stressful event, your brain anticipates the energy and focus for the event. It's gonna stimulate or slow different systems in your body. In stressful situations (good or bad), you are gonna use your accelerator (sympathetic system) and pump more blood, breathe more oxygen, get more focus and make your muscles more reactive. This is you, bracing and getting ready to get through the event.\n\nIn an anxiety disorder, you have your foot constantly on the accelerator. Any situation can become stressful by the way your brain analyse it and adjust to it. Your brain perceives danger in a non-threatening situation or over stimulate in stressful events. This is what happens when you have a panic attack, your body responds excessively to stress.\n\nAntidepressants regulate some pathways of this nervous system. It forces the accumulation of certain chemicals in your brain so these nervous pathways are not constantly stimulated. It may help to manage the disorder better.\n\nEdit: Grammar, better phrasing. For all the redditors going through anxiety and/or depression: you are strong and resilient, you can adapt to everything. What you feel is temporary, nothing lasts, you are not defined by your diagnosis. Your doctor loves you, has seen you distressed and prescribed you antidepressants and/or anxiolytics to help you get through. If your symptoms or depression longers for way too long or you have difficulty to manage it, please seek help, please see a psychologist/counsellor/GP/psychiatrist. You'll be amazed by what you are capable to overcome. We love you.\n\nTo respond to some questions and stays in an ELI5:\n\nAnxiety is your physiologic response to a stressful event. A disorder is a maladaptive response to what we consider the norm. When you have an anxiety disorder, you chronically react too much or have difficulty to come back to a normal state.\n\nAnxiolytics (for benzodiazepines, most commonly used) work on your central nervous system by making your neurons less excitable, this is extremely useful to calm you down during a panic attack or in prevention when you have to confront a stressful event. Your muscles respond less to the accelerator, your heart calms down, you breathe slower, your muscles relax. Unfortunately, this is highly addictive and just treat your physical symptoms.\n\nDepression is a low mood state, a temporary inability to feel excited or joy. It is normal to feel that way. What we consider not normal it's when this state last for more than 6 months or is accompanied with worthless feelings and/or suicidal thoughts. Your antidepressants medications will help you having more good feeling molecules in your brain, helping you a get through the rough events you are going through. However, this takes time to have an effect and this will make your brain produce or recapture less of these molecules (this is why you need progressive withdrawal and develop tolerance).\n\nDepression and anxiety are commonly seen together. A lot of anxious persons develops depression states or juggle with both disorders. We do not know exactly all the mechanisms, different theories going on. Same with medications, we know half the exact mechanisms of very common molecules on our nervous system. That is why it seems off to put people on antidepressants with chronic pain or anxiety, but we do know there is an effect on the nervous system.\n", "Evolution programmed animals to have a way to cope with stressful situations, and that is precisely the sympathetic nervous system, which, when activated, enables us to \"fight or flight\". Both fighting and fleeing result in fear, palpitations, dry mouth, shortness of breath, sweating, restlessness, etc - these are symptoms of anxiety. For somebody with an anxiety disorder, trivial situations would result in this response even if they are not life-threatening. Anti-depressants are a class of medication used to regulate chemicals in the brain, predominantly serotonin and dopamine. Both mood (depression) and anxiety symptoms are related to chronically imbalanced levels of these chemicals, and anti-depressants help in regulating them better.", "Long time anxiety sufferer (GAD), only recently got it under control in my early 20s after exhausting all options before use-as-needed benzos. My self developed abilities to cope combined with this medicinal solution makes me finally feel I have it under control and am no longer running from it. I tried therapy when I was 16 and she actually dismissed me saying everything I was doing to keep it at bay was what she was going to teach me, so it was no help as far as help goes lol.\n\nI now survive day by day with my usual coping strategies that are on auto pilot (they basically boil down to thought analysis which ill explain below), and every now and then there will be an event that spurs up more anxiety than usual in me and I take it out with a benzo.\n\n > What exactly is an anxiety disorder \n\n\nSome will say chemical balance, but it almost always (in normal people) is the result of a way of thinking you've developed. Imagine your brain as a field of tall grass, there are two cabins (results) you can walk to. If you always choose to walk down the negative thinking path to a negative, often irrational result, it becomes more and more easier for you to think like that next time around because the grass starts to die and the path becomes more defined. Soon enough every thought is taking the pre-defined negative thinking route. This can have a side effect of not only anxiety (by triggering the fight or flight response) but also depression, because you'll see the worst in everything. This negative thought loop is what things like CBT (cognitive behavior therapy) help to correct.\n\n\n**The very short answer to what is an anxiety disorder is that it's an over active fight or flight response combined with irrational thinking**. We often obsess over unlikely things and this is why anxiety and depression will go hand and hand.\n\n\n > Why do antidepressants work on anxiety?\n\nJust want to throw in there are actually an equal amount of studies saying SSRI's don't work as there are saying they do. And in the cases where they did work the placebo effect was found to be almost entirely responsible. The data behind SSRI's working suggests that when faced with a hyped up \"miracle pill\" the possibility of getting better through external means is enough to cause them to feel better. \n\n\n*\"Analyzing the data we had found, we were not surprised to find a substantial placebo effect on depression. What surprised us was how small the drug effect was. Seventy-five percent of the improvement in the drug group also occurred when people were give dummy pills with no active ingredient in them. Needless to say, our meta-analysis proved to be very controversial. Its publication led to heated exchanges (e.g., Beutler, 1998; Kirsch, 1998; Klein, 1998). The response from critics was that these data could not be accurate. Perhaps our search had led us to analyze an unrepresentative subset of clinical trials. Antidepressants had been evaluated in many trials, the critics said, and their effectiveness had been well established.*\n\n*In an effort to response to these critics, we decided to replicate our study with a different set of clinical trials (Kirsch, Moore, Scoboria, & Nicholls, 2002). To do thi..\"*\n\nVERY good read: [NCBI Antidepressants and the Placebo Effect](_URL_1_)\n\nThis is important because there is a growing community of victims that now have permanent sexual dysfunction due to SSRI use, known as [PSSD](_URL_0_). Note that this expands far beyond just impotence, it is coupled with anhedonia which is an inability to feel pleasure mentally. For example, an orgasm (if you manage to get there) becomes just contractions with no release of feel good feelings.\n\n\n\nThere are people who hate them and people who swear by them. It's safe to say at this point we don't really know for sure what we're doing when it comes to serotonin. For a friend of mine the smallest dose (25mg) seems to prevent his random panic attacks.\n\n\nThat is just SSRI's though. There are definitely medicines that work for anxiety, and benzos are the holy grail. If you can avoid a physiological addiction they absolutely annihilate all my anxiety for a good 5 hours (for the low abuse potential non xanax/euphoric ones). Usually long enough for me to calm down and think rationally, or do anything in public. They work by temporarily slowing down the rate at which signals are fired in your brain, it is pretty much a sedative. Since those of us with anxiety have racing thoughts this feels like we are now brought to a normal level of thinking. For someone abusing the drug they will feel high.\n\n**I want to make it clear to anyone taking advice from this that benzos are one of the most physically addictive substances on the planet. If you do seek them for anxiety treatment I strongly advise a MAXIMUM usage of 2 days on and 5 days off with a wildcard here and there just in case, despite the bottle saying take daily. DO NOT TAKE DAILY, the withdrawal once addicted CAN kill you in rare cases. Also you do not want Xanax, go for a longer acting benzo such as Ativan or klonopin. You will be taking it less often and slow the rate of dependence compared to the euphoric nuke the highly abusive Xanax can give you. (Note: Xanax does have a purpose for sudden onset panic attacks, but it's useless in a fight against GAD)**\n\n\n**I'm not saying benzos are the only solution, they were my last resort. I've been on them for 10 months and with controlled usage I still am not dependent. My bottle has \"take daily\" written on it even though both myself and my doctor agreed I wouldn't be.**", "Have antidepressant actually been proven more effective than placebo?", " > Why do antidepressants work on anxiety?\n\nThat's a good question and highly dependent on the antidepressant itself. \n\nPeople here are telling you that low levels of serotonin cause all sorts of issues, and while that is true, to the current understanding it's *probably* fairly irrelevant in the overall pathophysiology of anxiety disorders. It turns out SSRIs are fairly weak in mild-to-moderate MDD, too. And more importantly increasing BDNF levels, leading to improvement.\n\nModulating the excitatory glutamate system is the current direction of research. In Europe, Lyrica (pregabalin) is approved for GAD. While it is a GABA analogue, it has no action on the GABA system (directly), instead with chronic administration it lowers the levels of some neurotransmitters like glutamate, NE and substance P. \n\nThere is a good reason why some anticonvulsants see widespread use in anxiety disorders.\n\nThere is no good all-around answer for this question. Moclobemide is a 2nd generation MAOI (a reversible MAOI), and while it retains the activity of older MAOIs that are highly efficient in all sorts of mental illnesses, it failed to show true efficacy in the treatment of GAD. It doesn't really make sense since it also boosts the amount of monoamine neurotransmitters like serotonin, NE and dopamine by interfering with the enzymatic breakdown.\n\nMoreover, for something to be considered an antidepressant by drug class, it doesn't take much. It doesn't need to better the core symptoms of depression, which are anhedonia and lethargy. Mirtazapine is a good example, being one of the most potent and selective antihistamines on the market, probably having some success in trials because it is in fact slightly sedating and thus improves depression scores in fields such as sleep problems.\n\n", "tl;dr We're not really sure.\n\nFirst, I am bipolar and did **some** research on this. Please note that this is not all accurate, but should suffice for a superficial understanding.\n\nSome of the older medications, we have a better grasp on: Lithium, for example, is an excellent mood regulator and well-understood and tolerated (Except for the whole liver-damage thing that eventually causes all lithium users to switch)\n\nNewer meds are... More problematic. I'm bipolar, and a number of treatments are based on anti-schizophrenia or anti-seizure medications that have been repurposed (very effectively, I might add) for treatment of mood disorders such as bipolar, anxiety, etc.\n\nFor example, a drug like risperdal is an anti-psychotic, but its exact mechanism to control bipolar in the brain is not well-understood.\n\n", "Antidepressants are a mixed bag for anxiety. Sometimes they help, but not always, so I'm not sure how to fully address that question. BUT I can tell you what I tell my actual 5-year-old when she asks why mommy is upset. \n\nOur brain has many functions in the body, two of which are to regulate our \"stop\" and \"go\" through the use of chemicals we make inside us. Our \"go\" is set off by chemicals that tell us to hurry, or watch out-- like when someone jumps out and scares you. Our \"stop\" is the opposite-- it's when your brain realizes that what scared you isn't actually going to hurt you, or when the danger has passed.\n\nAnxiety is when your brain does too much \"go\" and not enough \"stop.\" This could be learned or genetic, but most likely it's both. Some have looked into the idea that it's evolutionary. The most anxious member of the tribe is the first to alert the rest to danger.\n\nAs for how this is linked to the sympathetic nervous system, I'm not entirely sure what you're asking. The brain is what pilots your entire body, and your systems are heavily dictated by what it processes from the outside world. I might go so far as to say that we have a sympathetic nervous system specifically so our brains can regulate stop and go.\n(I could be wrong on this, so please correct me if I am.)\nCould you elaborate on the question? Maybe I can answer it better. \n\n(And I'm sorry if any of this seems so elementary that it's condescending. I'm never sure what people do and don't know. I can advance it up if you'd like.)", "Med student here. It's hard to say exactly what causes anxiety but i'll try to simplify it.\n\nYour brain runs on many different molecules which regulate function. Of these, there are 3 that among other things, help balance mood and are closely related. These are norepinephrine, dopamine and serotonin. Cells in the brain called neurons release these to other neurons to communicate with each other. For example, one neuron would release serotonin and the molecules would attach to receptors on another neuron, causing some effect. \n\nUnder normal conditions, the sympathetic nervous system regulates the release of these molecules. But in anxiety, it is thought that lower levels of these molecules are released, especially norepinephrine. Lower norepinephrine = lower serotonin. That's why you feel happy after exercising. Your body releases norepinephrine which then causes more production of serotonin, boosting your mood. Put simply, antidepressants reduce the degradation of serotonin after it's release. This causes it to linger around longer, prolonging the effects.\n\nHope this helps!", "Antidepressants don’t work as well as everyone thinks they do because we legitimately don’t fully understand how/why they work. \n\nThere are other ways to treat anxiety disorders other than medication such as cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) that are highly effective. The problem with prescribing someone antidepressants is that the side effects can be really rough, in fact they are so bad that placebos are better to give someone instead of the actual medication in most cases. It’s been proven that CBT is more efficacious in the long run versus medication. ", "Best way I've heard it explained: Ever play a video game, that boss music starts playing but you haven't seen the boss yet and you get that scared feeling? Anxiety disorder is like walking around hearing that boss music 24/7 but the boss never comes. Anti-depressants turn the volume of that music down to where you can't hear it over everything else.", "I'm a long-term patient/sufferer of a severe/chronic anxiety disorder (panic w/agoraphobia, which I assume is based on GAD because it's been so many years but I dunno).\n\nI like understanding things so have asked lots of questions of my doctors and done lots of research. The following is according to my understanding, although as described, I'm not in a position to call myself an expert.\n\n**What exactly is an anxiety disorder?**\n\nThis question has two potential meanings: When do we consider anxiety a disorder? And, what causes anxiety disorders? So I'm going to broach both.\n\n**When do we consider anxiety a disorder?**\n\nAnxiety disorders are not singular entities. It is not a fact that you either have or do not have one in the same way as you can either have or not have a cold. There is not a single pathogen, or single physical issue, or anything we can objectively see on a scan or in a blood test that can tell us whether you do or don't have a disorder. \n\nInstead, anxiety disorders are classified according to clusters of symptoms. The main 'symptom' of any mood disorder is that the mood (whether anxiety, depression, whatever) causes significant distress and dysfunction. So if you're 'a worrier' but it doesn't really bother you and it doesn't mess with your life at all, then depending on country (the US seems to enjoy pathologising from what I see/hear...) a psych is going to be reticent to call that a disorder. Generally, it's only considered a disorder if it's actually causing you pain and holding you back in life. (As an aside, this is not true for ego-syntonic disorders like personality disorders and some cases of eating disorders - e.g. people with anorexia often claim to 'choose' their disorder and do not consider it a 'bad' thing - but when it comes to mood disorders like anxiety, suffering and dysfunction are key).\n\nAs for the different 'types' of mood disorders, the lines are really just drawn in the sand. That's why many people have a long list of 'disorders', because there's significant overlap and you can fit into many categories at once. People with GAD often experience OCD features. Most people with GAD also have social anxiety. People with panic disorder often have GAD. Most agoraphobics have panic disorder. Most people with anxiety have depression and vice versa. This is because we're not dealing with a specific disease entity here, these labels just describe which symptoms you're experiencing at the moment.\n\n**What causes an anxiety disorder?**\n\nNo one knows exactly. There are many theories. These span genetics, neurochemistry, and social and environmental factors (such as how you were brought up). It is generally accepted that the cause is *probably*, a bit of all of these things, but treatment normally focuses on changes thoughts and behaviours that you have learned in childhood (which have been shown to be a significant factor in either causing or perpetuating anxiety), or changing neurochemistry with antidepressants. Even when it comes to medication, most people agree that antidepressants aren't the 'cure', personal change through therapy is the more sustainable way to recover. Antidepressants are generally seen as a way to stabilise mood so that one can make necessary changes to themselves/their lives to reduce overall stress.\n\n**How is this linked to the sympathetic nervous system?**\n\nThe sympathetic nervous system is activated under stress regardless of whether you have an anxiety disorder or not. The physical symptoms of an anxiety disorder are experienced by everybody under stress, but they tend to be worse with an anxiety disorder simply because you experience them more severely and more often. \n\nThe sympathetic nervous system governs your fight/flight response. Under stress, all human bodies will go into 'turbo mode' and start prioritising all the systems needed to help you flee danger or fight it. Your blood is directed to your muscles and away from your digestive system and skin. So you get pale/blanched skin; nausea; diarrhoea; vomiting; IBS etc. You breathe faster and your heart beats faster to get super oxygenated blood to your muscles to help them move more quickly. So you feel dizzy, faint, and get heart palpitations and sometimes chest pain (which is actually just muscle pain). With so much energy sent to them and a sudden desire to move, move, fucking move; your muscles tense up in readiness. So you get aches and pains all over your body. You also sweat to cool you down during your flight/fight. \n\nSo, like I say, everybody gets these symptoms to varying degrees when nervous/anxiety/stressed. But in an anxiety disorder your body is constantly reacting like this and your body isn't really made to be in turbo mode all the time, so you get additional symptoms -exhaustion, fatigue, confusion, brain fog, insomnia etc. Essentially, your body is just *knackered* and it's struggling because it's being pushed so hard.\n\n**Why do antidepressants work on anxiety?**\n\nNo one knows. No one knows why antidepressants work on depression either. They also don't always work, but there's no good way of seeing who they will work for and who they won't. Many people find no benefit from medication; many others find enormous benefit from medication. \n\nSome people believe that this may be because of a chemical imbalance in the brain; but another way of seeing it would be that when you are depressed/anxious, your brain creates/reuptakes different neurotransmitters in different amounts. What are depression/anxiety anyway in the physical sphere except a brain process? So it could be that by artificially disrupting the brain process that is triggered by stress/danger, you can reverse engineer the situation so that you 'trick' the brain into behaving as if it isn't under stress/danger. \n\nThis is already an overlong response so I will stop there. Hope it went some way to answering your question.", "Paramedic/anxiety sufferer here. I see anxiety/panic attacks on a daily basis, and I have a general script I use to crudely explain/understand them.\n\nThe \"Fight or Flight\" aspect of your nervous system is a highly evolved survival mechanism. The ability to instantly put your body in a ready state to deal with life threats has been a key factor in animal development. However, humans have two traits which have complicated this mechanism.\n\nThe first is higher brain function. We can form complex thoughts, thus materializing threats and confusing or overloading the reflex. Our ancestors risked becoming the prey of larger carnivores, whereas modern man risks unemployment or losing a parking space....yet our brains perceive those threats similarly.\n\nThe second is our domain over our environment. We've eliminated large carnivores from the equation. Similarly we've shaped our terrain into (mostly) harmless cities, suburbs, farms etc. Shelter protects us from all but the most extreme weather events. Science has uncovered the mystery of disease. Simply put, the lack of consistent life threatening stimuli has possibly de-calibrated the sympathetic nervous system slightly. (much like some experts suspect \"germophobic\" people have a higher chance to develop allergies due to lack of immune system exposures.) \n\nI hope this helps in some respect.", "Imagine a regular morning waking up. You just do it, there's no pressure to wake up. Your body is just ready to not sleep anymore, and you wake up feeling, if anything, relaxed and slow.\n\nWhen a panic attack wakes you up, it's like waking up because *the house is on fire and you need to get up and get out*, so you get up but there's no fire. You lay back down but get the same feeling, and since you aren't \"reacting appropriately\" (read: following the incorrect instructions to run in panic given by your hypothalamus), you get sick to your stomach.\n\nThe sympathetic nervous system comes into play when the appropriate medications are administered. Everybody reacts to meds differently and the goal is not to suddenly take a magic pill, it's to find the treatment that fits you like a shoe. \n\n[I AM NOT A DOCTOR, THIS IS WHAT I KNOW FROM MEMORY] If you're on the right meds, the many overwhelmed facets of your nervous system will chemically \"realign\".\n\nThink about what SSRI actually stands for and what they actually do. Those types of meds selectively prohibit the body from flushing it's active serotonin levels. This, in theory, let's someone suffering from depression artificially find things easier to cope with.\n\nMedications that affect the nervous system can do a myriad of things but a main goal of treatment is to hit the chemical reset button, so to speak.", "Part of is the connection between the mind and gut. Something like 80-90% of serotonin is produced in the gut. A healthy gut doesnt mean you'll be mentally healthy but an unhealthy gut defintely means you'll struggle with depression and anxiety.", "Anti depressants act on Serotenergic and Dopaminergic receptors.Anxiety is due to adrenergic receptor action.The mechanisms are quite different and so you can't use Antidepressants for anxiety ", "I have panic disorder and it's absolutely miserable. I've gotten to a place where I understand the biological reasons behind it which can help me manage during a panic attack but it's still very unnerving. I would compare it to the sensation that you get when you lean too far back in your chair and you suddenly feel like you're going to tip but then you don't. Except during one, feel like I'm going to tip for about 30 minutes. And in the course of it I get hot flashes, shaky, nauseous, and the worst is a sense of derealization like I'm watching myself go through it all which makes me feel like I'm going crazy. Then, after about 15 to 30 minutes, it subsides and you're left feeling kind of exhausted from all the physical symptoms. And unfortunately you start to get anxiety relating to the fear of having another panic attack which kind of becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy and very cyclical.", "You know the feeling you get in your chest instantly when you have a close call when your driving? I get that feeling over small things, and sometimes randomly. My antidepressants suppress that considerably.", "William Glasser's unconventional take on this subject should be part of this discussion, imo. I'm a fan of Glasser's *Choice Theory* but no expert, on him or conventional psychology. Hopefully a better-informed person can add to this and correct me if I get some of this wrong.\n\nWhere conventional psychology sees *states*, Glasser sees *actions*. So in many situations where conventional psychology assesses the problem to be an \"anxiety disorder,\" in Glasser's eyes the problem is simply that the person is freaking out. And they're seeking professional help because their approach of freaking out is no longer working for them.\n\nOne of the links he'd make with the sympathetic nervous system is simply that when one acts in certain ways, it provokes a physiological response. For example, a hypervigilant person always on the lookout for threats may trigger their own fight-or-flight response constantly. One approach is to use medication to treat what conventionally would be assessed as a chemical imbalance or abnormal psychology. Glasser disputes these assessments, arguing that the person's brain chemistry is par for the course *given* that they are conducting themself in a hypervigilant way. For him, the path to treatment involves reconsidering one's approach and finding more satisfying alternatives.\n\nThe way I'm describing it, it may not be well-received. But Glasser himself had a wonderful way of conveying his views so that his patients felt new options opening for them, rather than a finger pointed at them.", "Long term sufferer, I believe it's all a manifestation of what happens early on in life. The building blocks of interraction shape a person for years to come. These can be modified over time to help overcome, yet it's no small task to rewire a brain", "I have OCD, which is an anxiety disorder. Basically, your fight or flight system is not functioning correctly. You perceive danger in social situations or thoughts you fear, that causes your body reacts like its a genuine threat, hence the palpitations and worrying/dreadful thoughts.\n\nAnd while it's not a certainty, antidepressants can potentially fix any imbalance with the chemicals in your brain. In theory, it treats the root disorder more than Benzo medications do.\n\nI'm all for people getting help any way they can, but speaking from experience I think Anxiety can be managed with a shift in your mentality... Having OCD taught me that you shouldn't take your thoughts seriously because at the end of the day, they're just thoughts that you ultimately have no control of. Ever since I learned this, I've been compulsion free :)\n\nIf anyone reading this is struggling with Anxiety or OCD, I suggest you check out a book called \"Brainlock\", it's geared towards OCD but the message in the book can help you with any thoughts that cause you anxiety.", "I'm late to the party here but as an anxiety sufferer I'll chip in. Pretty much an anxiety disorder is a constant misfiring of the fight or flight response, it never truly switches off. This can manifest in different ways, such as an inability to \"switch off\" form work because random deadlines two weeks away have you stressed or the much less fun obsessing over every pain and accelerated heartbeat as a sign of impending doom. The rational brain understands that everything is ok, but the sympathetic nervous system is going to be firing as if there is a problem, and will eventually overpower your rational mind until you are sweating and in full blown panic from some minor issue. No matter what you do, it's nearly impossible to stop it. The antidepressants work by increasing certain \"feel good\" chemicals in the brain, and these chemicals can also block the fight or flight response. In short it allows the rational brain to be able to come out on top of the sympathetic nervous system with a bit of chemical backup, and you can calm down in the same way a typical person would form stress. Living with the disorder is a real bitch that can fuck up your life, and despite what any people say the medication is a true damn lifesaver. I certainly couldn't function in my career without it. ", "If anyone in here has panic attacks or GAD, I suggest reading \"how to stop worrying and start living your life\" by Dale Carnegie. I used to be on Xanax/Alprazolam after back to back panic attacks which basically made me use up all my FMLA and sick time -and put me into unemployment. However, after listening to the audio book by Dale Carnegie, I really started to apply what was in that book to my life and now I no longer need anxiety medication. As with anything, your mileage will vary, but I can say that it has helped me out a TON. The part about living your life in day tight compartments and completing small tasks at a time is what helped me out the most. ", "To put it simply, an anxiety disorder is when your fight or flight system is pretty much on overdrive 24/7.\n\nIf there's a mountain lion in front of you looking hungry, your brain needs to decide what to do. This causes symptoms mentally and physically that helps your body react correctly to evade danger or to face it head on.\n\nSomeone with an anxiety disorder commonly has anxiety/panic attacks, which is basically the mountain lion situation...without the mountain lion.\n\nGAD (Generalized Anxiety Disorder) is pretty much a constant state of anticipating the next panic attack which causes general anxiousness. Kind of like a hiker hearing a growl or noise prior to being confronted by the mountain lion, they become nervous and tense, anticipating something is about to happen. \n\nThat's the analogy my doctor used to explain it to me. Hope it helped!", "You know when you are playing a video game and you hear the battle/boss music start? Anxiety is kinda like that all the time but never being able to find the boss. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [], [], [ "https://rxisk.org/post-ssri-sexual-dysfunction-pssd/", "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4172306/" ], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "e20cghw", "e20d2uu", "e20e7gr", "e20jw39" ], "score": [ 2, 7, 6, 6 ], "text": [ "Multicentre = ??? \n\nrandomized = randomized \n\ndouble-blind = Doctors/researchers don't know who is getting meds/placebos, and subjects don't know what they're being tested for. eg: offering subjects a fat reduction pill study, but *actually* testing for depression. \n\nplacebo-controlled = some subjects are getting no medication. Patients who believe they are getting help, tend to feel better. The brain and body have a way of doing things, based solely on belief. humans are weird. \n\nphase 1/2a = ???", "Multicenter - more than one hospital, chain, or research site is performing the same study. Helps control for unforeseen bias by having one physical location. ", "I'll talk just about double-blind. In tests like these they have two groups of patients. One gets the actual medication, the other group gets a placebo. A placebo is basically a pill that does nothing. Both groups are told they're getting the medication though. This is just to see if the group that actually gets the medication has a different response overall from people who are just told they're getting the medication. You have something to compare against.\n\nYou don't want the patients to know which they got because that could affect how they act. Double-blind means that the doctors evaluating the patients don't know who belongs to which group. This is to prevent them from being biased without realizing it.\n\nThe goal of an experiment being double-blind is to eliminate unconscious biases as much as possible.", "I'll start with defining a clinical trial. These trials typically follow up on research the comes from what you might imagine a research lab looks like, people in white coats working with test tubes and beakers. That is called preclinical research, and it often lays the basic foundation for an idea that later translates to a clinical idea. Now when researchers want to see if the clinical idea (a new drug or treatment for a disease or other medical problem) is a solid idea, they begin a clinical trial where you experiment with real humans. Typically, researchers will set out to compare a new drug or therapy to a therapy that people have been using for that disease for a while (standard of care). Or, when there is no standard of care, they compare their new drug to a fake drug (placebo). Researchers have to progress through the different phases of a trial before the drug they are testing can be approved. In the US, clinical trials have extensive ethical, legal, and other regulatory requirements that are in place to protect patients and remove biases that can be introduced as part of experimentation. \n\nThat brings me to [Phase 1/2/3](_URL_1_). These phases are the steps that the treatment being tested in the trial must progress through to gain a chance at approval. Phase 1 involves gaining 20-100 healthy volunteers or people with the disease and it intends to check for the safety of the treatment as well as the dosage of the drug or other stuff involved with the treatment. They do this by checking for adverse events and seeing if these adverse events, like getting headaches, increase when you are given the experimental treatment. This helps researchers determine how much drug to give somebody safely, and if the compound is even safe at all for humans. Next, the drug goes to a phase 2 trial. Here, the researchers assess a few hundred people with the actual disease. They are checking for efficacy (does the drug work) as well as taking a closer look at various side effects the drug can have. It is basically a small scale phase 3 trial. Phase 3 is also testing for efficacy, but becomes much larger bringing in thousands of patients, preferably from many different hospitals (i.e. multicenter, but we will get to that). The researchers also take an even closer look at the adverse reactions that occur, helping to further ensure safety. If the drug passes phases 1/2/3 it is likely safe and efficacious, and can be approved. Then a phase 4 trial (nobody really talks much about these) occurs after approval, and further monitors efficacy and safety of the drug. \n\n\n[Multicenter](_URL_2_): This is typically, but not always, part of a phase III trial. It means that the patients who are participating in the trial are recruited from different hospitals. The benefit of this is that the population that one center (hospital) is receiving patients from is going to be very different than the population another hospital pulls from. Think of a cancer trial being run in New York City vs one in Texas, patients in New York will have a particular genetic, environmental, ethnic etc makeup than those in Texas. Therefore, multicenter trials are used to control against these population level effects.\n\n\n[Randomized](_URL_5_): Again, this is mostly done in phase 3 but is sometimes done in phase 2 trials. Patients are assigned to different treatment groups by random chance, like flipping a coin. Heads, the patient gets the standard therapy that doctors have been using to treat that condition for years. Tails, the patient gets the new experimental treatment that doctors hypothesize is better than the standard of care. Randomization helps prevent doctors from putting their healthiest patients in the experimental group, thus risking the drug falsely looking effective when in reality it was only because they gave healthy people the drug who would have otherwise done better than the control subjects. \n\n[Double-blind](_URL_4_): This one is easy. Neither the patient, nor the doctor knows which group that the patient was assigned to. This means that it is unknown if the patient is receiving the new experimental therapy or the old standard therapy. It prevents various biases that could impact the outcome of the trial, like a physician rating the experimental patients differently than the control patients.\n\n[Placebo-controlled](_URL_0_): Placebos are basically fake drugs (no known effects) that are given to some people in the trial so that the [placebo effect](_URL_3_) does not impact the trial. This is a specific type of control that is used for both phase 1 testing (safety) as well as for phase 2/3 (efficacy) trials where there is no standard of care for the disease being studied. A trialist might compare their drug to a placebo only in phase 1 to assess safety in a healthy population. Here, some people would take the drug and others would take the placebo. Since they are healthy, they are not being deprived of some standard care and this is ethical. Then, in phase 2 or 3 trials where you are examining people who have the disease being studied you have to give them the standard of care, not a placebo. But if there is no standard, then you would use a placebo as the control. An alternative." ] }

[]

[ "https://www.bbc.com/news/health-44738642" ]

[ [], [], [], [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo-controlled_study", "https://www.fda.gov/ForPatients/Approvals/Drugs/ucm405622.htm", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multicenter_trial", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blinded_experiment#Double-blind_trials", "https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/clinical-trials/what-are-trials/randomization" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cmoqcwu", "cmoqoep", "cmorln8", "cmosbrq", "cmp3pe9" ], "score": [ 5, 2, 34, 9, 2 ], "text": [ "If someone on the internet wants to connect to your computer, he has to know your IP address (aaa.bbb.ccc.ddd), and will give a port number to connect to (each computer has 65535 ports it can be \"listening\" to others trying to connect to it).\n\nNow, if you have a router, if that other computer tries to connect to you, the IP address it reaches will be assigned to the router. Now that router will know all computers in the local home network (eg your desktop, your laptop, your iPad etc), but which of those is the incoming request for? That is what you tell it by enabling port forwarding.\n\nSo if you create a port forwarding entry \"forward port XXXX to internal IP address mydesktop.internal.network\", that's what will happen if an incoming package arrives, and your desktop will be able to reply to it correctly and establish the connection.", "Ports are used by computers to distinguish between different types of communication. For example, you could have a server that has a web page, but also acts like an e-mail server. Well that server needs to know whether traffic coming to it is meant for the web page or for the e-mail part. To do this it will use ports. When traffic is received by the server, that traffic will say what port it is trying to access (the port is just a number between 0 and 65535). For example, traffic for the web page would come in on port 80, but port 25 for the e-mail.\n\nFor a variety of reasons, certain ports may not be directly accessible. Port forwarding us a strategy used by firewalls and routers. It takes traffic destined for one port, then forwards that traffic to a different computer on a different port.", "TLDR - ports are mailboxes. Port forwarding forwards the mail from mailbox X to mailbox Y.\n\nThink of ports as mailboxes. Let's say you wanted to hand deliver a letter to Joe at the Acme Brick company. You would go to the address of the Acme Brick Company. The company employs 5,000 people. So you would see a grid of boxes with people's names on them. You find the one that belongs to Joe and you put the letter in there.\n\nThis is kind of how computer's talk to each other. The street address is the IP address of the computer (say 192.168.1.1) and the grid of mailboxes is the port. If you want to talk to a computer via http, you would send your information and requests to port 80. If you wanted to talk to them with a different protocol like RDP, you would talk to 3389. If you wanted to talk to the SMTP service on that computer, you'd talk to port 25. You are going to that computer and putting your correspondence in a particular mailbox (port).\n\nNow, let's say that Joe is a secret agent who works for the Acme Brick Company. To you, he's known as Joe. To everyone inside the company, he's known as Bob. This identity may be so super-secret that Bob doesn't even know what name you know him by. You just know him as Joe. You want to talk to Joe so you go to the Acme Brick Company, you find their grid of mailboxes and you put your letter in Joe's mailbox. Some poor mail clerk on the other side (your router) know's Joe's secret identity. So he takes the mail from Joe's box and put's it in Bob's mailbox. This way Bob can pick it up. This is port forwarding. ", "Imagine a movie theatre. You go in, get a ticket, guy rips your ticket and tells you directions to the specific theatre in which your movie is being shown. \n\nIn this example:\n\nYou are the data. \n\nYour ticket is the port number.\n\nYour router is the ticket guy.\n\nAnd the specific theatre is the specific computer on the network.", "When the Internet was set up, there were about 4 billion addresses created. Each computer was supposed to be able to have an address, but they did not know networked computers would be so common. Since we have more than 4 billion people in the world, and multiple computers/devices per person, this is a problem.\n\nIn most first-world countries, if you have a home connection, you will have one address dedicated to your household, but it may change occasionally. You may have many devices in your house, so there needs to be some way to connect to them from the outside world.\n\nWhen a computer is hosting a service, like e-mail or web, it waits for incoming communication on something called a port, and then can reply back once it gets a request. Due to the limited number of addresses, it does not have a global address of its own, so just listening will not allow the connections.\n\nYour home connection's single address is managed by a router. If you add a port forward, it will send traffic coming into a specific port to a computer inside your house instead of handling it by itself. Note that since there is only one global address for the house, only one computer can handle incoming traffic for any given port.\n\nIn some places, home or cell networks may not have enough IP addresses to even give every customer one. In these cases, there is no good way to forward a port and it is very difficult to run a server. There are still workarounds, such as using another computer that does have full connectivity as a middleman, but they can make connections slower or introduce delay in starting them.\n\nFortunately, there is a solution to the limited address problem, called IPv6. This protocol has so many addresses that every computer could have 4 billion squared addresses and still not be anywhere close to using up the addresses. With IPv6, every computer can have global addresses, so any computer can talk to any other. There are still firewalls in place for security purposes, but allowing traffic to a port is just a matter of adding an allow/accept rule rather than needing to forward. This also allows as many computers as you want to listen on a given port. Most ISPs now are at least starting to support IPv6, though you do need a modem and router that can handle it.\n\nTL;DR: There aren't enough addresses for all the computers, so in order to allow a direct connection from the Internet to a computer, a rule (\"port forward\") needs to be set up on a router that controls the address to send traffic to a computer within its network. IPv6 has enough addresses that every computer can have them, so this will no longer be needed once everyone has it." ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "c4rpl2h", "c4rpmxg", "c4rprfn", "c4rpvhr", "c4rq76y", "c4rqp2d", "c4rr14k", "c4rr890", "c4rr905", "c4rrgts", "c4rsdvk", "c4rsdxu", "c4rt56a", "c4rtd0y", "c4ru9yq", "c4rubn7", "c4rvm0l", "c4rvxn7", "c4rwt6q", "c4s2tru" ], "score": [ 2, 5, 5, 10, 19, 39, 3, 7, 4, 20, 4, 6, 3, 2, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "It depends on where you live.", "You have the right to remain silent. Don't say anything. Odds are that it'll be used to incriminate you.", "The cops need a warrant to search your house and belongings unless there are exigent circumstances. You have a right against self incrimination aka your right to remain silent. You also have the right to confront the witnesses being used to prosecute you and the right to obtain witnesses in your defense and the right to a lawyer. If you want to know anymore look up supreme court cases involving the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendment. ", "If they are asking questions they don't have proof. Don't give them anything to go on. Also, if you get a speeding ticket always go to the court date. If the cop doesn't show you can have the case dismissed because the state does not have a witness to testify to the claims. ", "If you are in the U.S., do not every say a word. There is a great video that basically explains how answering questions will NEVER benefit you in any way. The only thing answering questions can do is hurt you. \n\nVideo: _URL_0_\n\n*video might be a little heavy for ELI5, but I think everyone should see it. ", "1. You don't need to talk to them or answer their questions without a lawyer present.\n2. They cannot unreasonably detain you unless they intend to arrest you.\n3. Police can lie when they talk to you with immunity. And they usually do.", "Blocking a road where there is civilian traffic without a permit does not constitute a \"peaceful protest\". \n\n\nAnd also, a lot depends on your state. I know in my state, another cop can testify on behalf of the cop who pulled you over, even if they were not tere. \n\n\nAs far as green goes, them being able to smell it constitutes reasonable suspicion and this gives them a right to search without a warrant. If they come to your door, crack your door open the smallest amount and step outside your door, making sure to close the door behind you.\n\nOn school property (Even University) you do not have te same rights and police do not need warrants to search in a pedagogical setting. ", "* Things which you have a \"reasonable expectation of privacy\" like a backpack or inside pockets are not searchable without your permission except in a few cases like entering a particular crowded area like a stadium or airport.\n\n* Police may search if they have \"probable cause\" and the smell of \"smoke\" and particular actions are sometimes considered probable cause depending on other details.\n\n* Police may lie about evidence (\"your buddy is giving you up\" type stuff) but may not lie about the law.\n\n* If they are asking you questions you don't need to answer.\n\n* If you ask to leave and they do not let you, you are \"detained\" and have the right to a lawyer.\n\n* If you have a right to a lawyer and invoke that right, they can not do anything with the intention of getting evidence. \n\nLastly (and this goes for anything dealing with common law) the details are *extremely* important, even the subtle ones. So take any advice, including my own, with a grain of salt. Depending on the details different rules may apply.", "[Flex Your Rights](_URL_0_)", "For god's sake, just please don't yell \"I know my rights\". Everyone who does this looks like an idiot.", "If You're 5, then all you need to know is your mommy and daddy's address and phone number.\n", "First, chill. Take a deep breath. Cops aren't evil monsters. They're just doing their job. \n\nThat being said, read the other comments to know your rights. Please just remember that they're people, like you.", "***can we specify which country you're answering from please***\n\nI'm assuming people are answering about America, but Joe from England might have different law. And there's no way to tell which country you mean if you don't say so.", "First off, don't be a dick. If you're holding but aren't high (you shouldn't be driving high anyway), odds are you have a tail-light out or were speeding or something. Address that situation calmly, if you get immediately with the \"Am I under arrest, am I free to go?\" you're just making things a lot worse for yourself. Contrary to popular belief, odds are they want to give you a speeding ticket and let you on your way. Being ridged and \"acting like you have something to hide\" won't do you any favors.\n\nThat said, always have illegal stuff away and out of view. Locked glove compartments (but only after you've moved the license and reg to the visor or center console) or the trunk are both good ideas. Bullshit though it is, even having a dutch or papers on your passenger seat could get you in trouble; stow those out of sight too. The best way to deal with a search is to not give them any apparent reason to search you.\n\nIf you've gotten this far and the cop doesn't like your \"Legalize it!\" stickers or dreadlocks and gets all searchy, then go to these other tips.", "I found this lecture by a law professor & a police interogator to be very enlightening. _URL_0_\n\n\ntl/dw : Don't talk to the Police. Ever. You have nothing to gain and everything to lose.", "Don't talk to the cops. Don't allow searches without a warrant as it violates your 4th amendment rights. If you are arrested, do not make a statement without a lawyer present. Be polite, provide only the necessaries such as name, address, etc. Some would argue providing even this info but better to be polite and give the basics than to get an obstruction charge.", "You can take as many pictures in public places as you want. The only case where you might not be able to do that is if you're chasing someone and harassing them. But if you're just taking shots of a building or a park, then it's perfectly legal. I've seen many situations where some security guy comes out and starts shouting that it's illegal, which is bullshit. Best option in such situation is to ask him to cite the law. Give him some time, offer to wait outside while he googles that. ", "This one is huge. I come from a family of attorneys and they've all repeatedly told me this.\n\nIf you are pulled over and and officer asks you to take the field sobriety test, always decline. \n\n1. You are no legally required to submit to the test, regardless of what the officer tells you.\n2. The test is designed to make you fail. Even if you are sober, you are liable to not pass the test and it can then be used as evidence against you in court.", "You don't have to speak to police in the United States, except you must truthfully identify yourself upon request.\n\nYou must comply and cooperate with an officer, but that does not include speaking.\n\nIf you do speak, you waive your right to silence. That means once you start talking, you can, at worst, be compelled by a judge to continue talking.\n\nWhen you get pulled over, make sure your doors are locked and the windows are rolled up most of the way. You only need a crack to communicate. When you step out of the car, lock the door. If they ask to search your car, say no. It doesn't matter if you have nothing to hide, you have your right to privacy. Declining his request is not probabable cause. Ultimately, he can still search your car, but then it's him putting his ass on the line.\n\nWhen a cop shows up to your house, you can speak through the door until they ask you to open said door. At such time, step outside and close/lock the door behind you. Don't invite them in. If they ask, say no. If they ask to search your home, say no. It doesn't matter if you have nothing to hide, you have your right to privacy. Declining his request is not probabable cause. Ultimately, he can still search your home, but then it's him putting his ass on the line.\n\nIt doesn't matter if you called them for help or they were called on you, police, even when helping you, have the power to arrest you. Treat them with extreme caution and don't volunteer information or waive your rights.", "There are 3 stages of a police stop.\n\n1. Contact - you two are just talking.\n\n2. Detainment - The officer has the right to hold you where the detainment occurred to determine wtf is up. The officer is not allowed to move you to another location (barring safety issues, securing a scene, etc...think of this like a golf drop, minimum movement required, no closer to the hole).\n\n3. Arrest.\n\nWhen you are approached and contact is established, your job is to move things into detainment as fast as possible because that starts the clock ticking on what the courts consider a \"reasonable\" amount of time for what you're being accused of. You do this by nicely chatting with the cop for a minute and, if the officer is persisting in talking to you, you establish your status by asking: \"Am I being detained, or am I free to go?\"\n\nIf the officer does not say you are being detained, then you are free to go. SO GO. He'll keep talking to you, avoid the question, etc. Leave. If he follows you and keeps talking, continue removing yourself until he doesn't. If you have to, go somewhere where you have an expectation of privacy, a bathroom or your car or home or whatever. (If you are even suspected of being high or drunk, obviously go to the back seat.)\n\nIn the first two phases of contact, here is what you limit yourself to saying: \"Wait, I don't understand, how can I help you? What is happening? I want to help you but I don't understand how this involves me or why you're asking me these questions. I want to help but I'm not sure how. Am I being accused of something? Am I being detained or am I free to go?\"\n\nBasically: you are very nice, you want to be helpful, but you can't figure out *how* you can be of any help because you don't know what's going on. And no matter how long the detainment lasts, you are Mr. Clueless Helpful Guy that desperately wants to help if only the officer will tell you in the greatest of detail every single thing he knows about everything while you give him absolutely nothing in return. And you do NOT make any statements and you do NOT answer any questions except, \"Can I search you, your vehicle, etc?\" and the answer to this is, clearly and slowly: \"I do not consent to any searches.\"\n\nThe words \"yes\" and \"no\" are not part of your vocabulary. The reason is recounted in one of the other threads here: officers are trained to ask compound questions, \"Do you have anything to hide or can I search your vehicle?\" If you say yes, he hears, \"Yes you can search,\" if you say no, he hears, \"No I don't have anything to hide, go ahead and search.\" Someone else responded saying that this is not really true, officers don't do this, and that person is wrong. There are cases where police probably don't need your consent but they will always try to get it anyway–it only makes their case stronger, and if they didn't really need it, and you *seemed* to say it was ok, well hey one less problem for the cop in court.\n\nIf you are being detained, stay put and be Mr. Helpful Clueless Guy that won't consent to any search (but doesn't resist if the cop does it anyway, never, ever physically resist).\n\nIf you are arrested, you are silent as a crypt, except for three things. You can say exactly **three things** so memorize them.\n\n1. I want a lawyer.\n\n2. I want a phone call.\n\n3. I need to eat/drink/sleep/use the bathroom.\n\nKnow this: the police are ALWAYS recording you. In the holding cell. In interrogation. In the car on the ride over. Everything you say and do is being recorded. They can and will question you at length. You do not defend yourself and you do not admit to anything. You only say what your needs are above, in that order. The stronger the urge is to talk, the more you keep your mouth shut. If they say they have 10 eye witnesses and videotape of you doing whatever it is you're being charged with and the sworn statement of Barack Obama himself, you look them dead in the eye and say, \"I want a lawyer, a phone call, a bathroom break, some food and beverage, and a nap.\"\n\nAnd keep this in mind: the harder they grill you in interrogation, the better. The longer and harder they press you in interrogation, the more likely it is their case depends upon you making a mistake, and the more you're winning. Your inner dialog should be something like this:\n\nCop: Isn't blah blah blah true? So-and-so said x, y, and z. What do you have to say?\n\nYou (inner): Why is this cop asking me these questions? This is not my job, these are questions for my lawyer. Man I could really go for a burrito.\n\nYou (outwardly): I want a lawyer. I'm hungry.\n\nCop: The guy we picked you up with is singing like a canary. You should help yourself, he's pinning everything on you. We know you're not the one completely at fault, why don't you tell us your side?\n\nYou (inwardly): He's still bugging me about lawyer stuff. I just don't get why he keeps trying to get me to do the lawyer's job. Man I could go for a beer too with that burrito.\n\nYou (outwardly): I want a lawyer. I'm really hungry and thirsty.\n\nMake sure you don't elaborate. Don't try to bolster your case for being tired by telling the cop you've been awake for 18 hours. For all you know they have an eyewitness that proves you took a nap only 8 hours ago, and now you're lying to police (as far as they're concerned anyway)." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [], [ "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc" ], [], [], [], [ "http://flexyourrights.org/" ], [], [], [], [], [], [ "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86XmQra5WMU" ], [], [], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "e7ngckd", "e7ngebi" ], "score": [ 2, 2 ], "text": [ "Demand. Basically you need a specific number of people on a flight to make it profitable so if where you flight from does not have a normal amount of people flighting to the same destination to make the flight profitable they fly you to the closest location that does. ", "Oftentimes, there aren’t direct flights between two places on the day you’re trying to fly. Also, a series of connecting flights that don’t pass over the city might have an extensive layover, in which case it might take less time to actually fly farther. Or if an airport is remote, you might have to fly to a close major city that is farther from your origin. There might be other cases but that’s probably most of it." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "drkjoi7", "drkjsa6", "drklxdz" ], "score": [ 5, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "Razor thin profit margins (you buy a $50 item on Amazon, it's likely they're making like $0.20 profit) propped up by massive amounts of sales, and a willingness to lose out money today, in the interest of destroying your competition later. \n\nThey also rely on the fact that most people aren't going to buy just 1 thing, and in Walmart's case they strategically lay out their stores to steer your towards items that matter to them. They actually regularly change product placement in the store so that you can't really learn where things are at, in the hopes that you'll find more impulse buys during your search. \n\nThey also lay things out so that you'll pretty much always walk by some item that they don't heavy discount, but pretty much everyone needs. ", "In short, by cutting costs elsewhere in the business.\n\nIf your revenue is low, you can similairly lower operating costs to achieve a profit.\n\nLow prices also attract more shoppers slightly compensating the low prices", "A number of factors:\n\n- quantity discounts... Samsung will give a discount if you’re buying 100k TVs than 10k TVs, and Wal-Mart and Amazon can commit to huge quantities\n\n- they set low prices on strategic items people tend to know price of and that sets perception across the board. If you know Wal-Mart’s milk and toilet paper you buy weekly are cheapest, you’ll assume the coffee maker is, too, even if not.\n\n- Lots of data on purchasing patterns to reduce spoilage, items needing to be put on sale/clearance.\n\n- smaller margin on a lot more stuff is still a lot of profit, especially when you become people’s default stop for pretty much everything." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ccfp64l", "ccfqyts", "ccfuqt5", "ccfutcp" ], "score": [ 8, 13, 9, 7 ], "text": [ "Very little - ham radio refers to radio transmitters and receivers *operated by an amateur for personal entertainment or education* (as opposed to commercial enterprises, government bodies, the transport sector and so on). There are usually designated frequency bands for this purpose, but they vary by jurisdiction so you can't give a universal distinction based on that. ", "In addition to the other good information here, there is a difference between ham radio and most other radios. On the ham frequencies we are allowed to select our own frequencies on which to operate, as long as it is within a certain range. Our radios usually have a \"VFO\" or variable-frequency oscillator which will let us tune to any old frequency. Most other radios, including business band, police, CB, marine, FRS, etc., have been restricted to work on certain frequencies, which are designated as \"channels\". Also, most ham radios are transceivers (2-way, like a walkie talkie or CB), where as most \"normal radios\" only receive (like am/fm).", "Hi! It's ham, not HAM. Come to /r/amateurradio to find out more! ", "A normal radio is different from HAM radio in many ways, but here are the introductory basics:\n\n* Normal radios require no government-issued license. Just buy at the store and start using.\n* HAM radio requires a license to use and a test to be taken and passed.\n* Normal radios have fixed frequencies assigned to channels.\n* HAM radios are frequency adjustable.\n* Normal radios will prevent you from breaking regulations & rules. HAM radios will not.\n* Normal radios use frequencies suited best for only short-distance communications of 25km (16 miles). In addition to short-distance frequencies, HAM radio is allowed use of shortwave frequencies which allow worldwide communications of 4000+ km (2500+ miles).\n* Licensed HAM radio operators are allowed to use very high power amplifiers of 1000 watts or more, depending on that country's rules.\n* Lastly, but most important in my opinion, is the fact that HAM radios can be home-build or modified. Normal radios must undergo a certification process to ensure non-interference operation. HAM radio operators on the other hand are responsible for ensuring their own and each other's rule compliance.\n\n" ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "cgu72xy", "cgu73gw", "cgu757t" ], "score": [ 7, 4, 3 ], "text": [ "Haha, those plastic containers are actually welded together using ultrasonic sound. As in the atoms from both sides of plastic are actually fused together, not just glued. So it's literally encased in a solid shell of plastic. They always trick us cause the welded part looks like it's just glued and meant to be easily opened, but in reality it's welded and is one of the strongest parts of the container.\n\nThey do it so it can't be easily removed and shop lifted from the store.\n\n_URL_0_", "The primary reason is so that it's very difficult to steal. The security strip doesn't have to be part of the product be can be part of the packaging. \n\nThe next reason is very much like you mentioned: The product cannot be returned in it's original packaging. Retailers can then return it to the vendor as \"unsalable\" and get their money back. ", "It makes it more difficult to tamper with the packaging. You can't bring it back and say that it was opened when you bought it and it's missing pieces, or open one in the back of the store and try to return it, or leave with it. It's intended to ensure that you can't interact with or mess with the product while in the store.\n\nIt's easy to open a cardboard box and snatch something out of it, but it's hard for even the most apathetic of employees to fail to notice you trying to get into a heavy plastic blister case." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrasonic_welding" ], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cjavwbh", "cjazeb1", "cjazfxw", "cjb08ao", "cjb0na9", "cjb0oyg", "cjb1tyb", "cjb1uwu", "cjb1y8a", "cjb2dcx", "cjb2nk8", "cjb742o", "cjb80g8", "cjb82ml", "cjb86iu", "cjb8chf", "cjb8gkr", "cjb8ih8", "cjb8mfg", "cjb93to", "cjb94om", "cjb95f1", "cjb9mko", "cjb9rev", "cjba9kx", "cjbamko", "cjbayzm", "cjbb8xn", "cjbbu2h", "cjbc0qc", "cjbc8i7", "cjbcmsb", "cjbcnf2", "cjbdlhg", "cjbdm7a", "cjbdstb", "cjbdsy0", "cjbe4vn", "cjbejun", "cjbfcnj", "cjbffi7", "cjbfuy6", "cjbgq8o", "cjbh33j", "cjbhbd5", "cjbhmz4", "cjbhpb9", "cjbhpqr", "cjbhs3o", "cjbhuad" ], "score": [ 483, 70, 14, 6, 3, 3, 10, 2, 2, 3, 2, 7, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 4, 3, 3, 2, 2, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 2, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 10, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 3 ], "text": [ "Sounds to me like Alice in Wonderland Syndrome _URL_0_\n\nLots of people find that when they are tired, their sense of scale gets kinda messed up. I get this too, especially, as you said, when lying in bed. Other triggers can include focusing on small print or staring for too long at very far away or close up objects. Tiredness and illness can trigger it, but so can many other things like stress, apparently.\n\nAnecdotally, I've noticed that people are always annoyed by it and find it an unpleasant, disorienting experience. I don't personally know a whole lot about it but you shouldn't worry about it, as it's very normal. Hopefully now you know what it's called you can do a little bit more research into it :)\n\nEdit: I retract my previous statement; a whole bunch of people seem to really enjoy it, according to this thread. Mostly I've only ever seen discussions about how to stop experiencing it :p", "Can anybody else induce this with their eyes closed, while on the verge of sleeping? You feel tiny, and it feels like everything in the room is much bigger and closer? I love this feeling", "As a result of less than stellar LASIK surgery, I am hyper aware of my pupil dilation (when my pupils are dilated, my vision degrades).\n\nAnyway, because of this, I've noticed that this happens when my pupils shrink in size. Normally for me a little bit of alcohol will cause it, or a change in lighting, or if I'm particularly in a relaxed / sleepy state.\n\nYour pupils dilating will change your perception of the size of objects you are focused on. Kind of like changing the aperture of a SLR camera while taking pictures of the same subject, the change in depth of field will change your perception of the object.", "Will somebody help me please?\n\nIf I'm in a room, usually an office where everything is white, and I'm staring at a person for a long time talking to them, the room seems to dim, I get a sort of tunnel vision and the person starts to become out of focus. I also kind of lose touch of the conversation. I don't mean to hijack, I just want to know if anyone else experiences this and what it means.", "I have a much simpler explanation for this. When you stare off into a fixed point, your retina begins to habituate as there is no change in stimuli going into your eyes. It's actually shown that retinal cells only fire to changes in stimuli. So when you stare off, your vision begins to fade and that can give the illusion that you're having tunnel vision or it begins to zoom. ", "This is the best way I've ever heard someone explain this. I too can \"zoom in\" and feel as if I'm in extremely close quarters with objects and those surrounding me. When I try to tell friends about this, they think I'm crazy.\n\n**I always kind of thought, what if that secondary or zoomed in perception is actually the true look of the world, but our minds are so good at imagining we see a more beautiful and balanced world?** \n\nI can't trigger mine just by focusing. It comes and goes, but I guess when I'm tired it's easier to fall in and out of it. Thought I was alone in this!", "This happens to me all the damn time. I fix it by staring out the window and/or at a distant object. Never would have thought to ask if anyone else had the same thing. Cool reddit.", "I used to experience this strange thing whenever i would get excited. Almost always when i was playing a very i tense game. I would see and hear the world in slow motion, and feel a if i was moving very slowly, but knew that everything was going at normal speeds, and my reaction time seemed faster than normal. When i was young i assumed i was a super hero, but im pretty sure it was just adrenaline rushes. Though i never really get this sensation anymore.", "I kinda get this if i stare at stars out the window", "Does anyone get that feeling when you are just about to sleep, the room or rather yourself starts to spin around?", "Oooh, oooh, this is one of my migraine symptoms! The doc said it's a part of my \"aura\", along with the typical light/sound sensitivity, flashes of light, and supersaturation of colors.", "You have no idea what feeling crept over me when I read all of this. I thought I'd never be able to articulate it and here you all are not only sharing your definitions of it but explaining it perfectly. It's sickeningly relieving.", "I've always gotten this after spending hour or two drawing. After I stop I look around its like everything is really focused no matter where I look near or far.\n\nI rather enjoy it though. It makes me feel like I have super vision for a short while.", "I had this all the time when I was a kid. I would be watching TV in my bed and the TV would get big. Not too bad when you have a small TV. It has not happened in a long time and I have never had migraines, though others in my immediate family do. ", "It is especially irritating in the tongue, this thing can feel huge.", "Used to happen to me as a child when I was in bed going to sleep.\n\nSpecifically, it was the top corners of the ceiling that I used to focus on. ", "Doesn't this make you a war wizard or the next seeker of truth...?", "I find that my vision gets dimmer when this happens and I'm staring at the same spot...", "I discovered what it was through Google when I was in middle school, probably around 12-14 y/o even though it had occurred plenty of times in the past. I remember having a nasty fever that night and I was laying in bed, trying to sleep when my mind would totally distort the normal thoughts in my head and make things larger/smaller or louder/softer like everyone else is describing. It was extremely annoying and when I opened my eyes I started noticing that it was happening to my vision. My ceiling fan would all of a sudden seem extremely distant and when I turned my head, the lamp next to my bed would stretch a hundred feet out. If I kept looking at it, it would all of a sudden be uncomfortably large and close, like it had some overwhelming presence. At that point, I didn't know better and thought my brain had fried itself cause of the intense fever I had. Lol. I'll never forget that. I got out of bed to tell my parents what was happening but they must've assumed I was just half-asleep and disoriented. I was able to sleep after a while but the next day I managed to somehow find out what it was on Google. Made me feel a lot better putting a name to the symptom and finding out it was pretty common. I have to say, though, Alice in Wonderland Syndrome is a pretty damn accurate name for the shitfux that goes on in your head.", "I've had similar symptoms for a while now. I reported it to my optometrist, who referred me to my GP, who referred me to a neurologist, who called it a \"migraine, with aura, without pain\" -- and told me it was nothing to worry about. Though if you are concerned, you should definitely tell your doctor or specialist who will know best what is going on.", "I'm really surprised at the number of people who dislike this sensation. I used to love it as a kid and wish I could experience it again. I don't think anyone has said they like it yet.", "Holy crap! I thought I was the only that has experienced this. When I was very young, I used to run into my parents bedroom crying and trying to explain what I was seeing. I could watch TV in my parents bedroom and eventually it would go away, but I was never able to describe it to my parents. I still get this sensation occasionally, but not nearly as much. It's nice to know I'm not a neurological mess", "Have u had any cough syrup? I used to get this when I was a kid on low doses of dxm", "Oh my god I used to have that happen to me when I was a kid, I had no idea what it was. It went away around 12-13 though.", "Ever since I was a kid I've had these feelings, usually while lying in bed. It's not just a visual thing for me because I still feel it with my eyes closed. I never found it disturbing or scary though, just weird and a little bit disorienting. ", "I have loved this since I was a child.", "Do or have you taken drugs? ", "You are becoming one with the carpet.", "It allways happens to me in class :(", "Always read the label", "I have days with the opposite. Everything is zoomed out and far away. I try to make it stop and can't. ", "Holy crap I thought this was just me. I remember as a kid I would stare in the corner of my room, and everything would appear 'smaller' as the corner became 'bigger' and more focused.\n\nThanks for clearing up one of the most confusing parts of my childhood!", "YES! I have this sometimes. I have never ever heard anyone mention this before. \n\nEdit: Actually with me everything kind of zooms out more instead of zooming in.", "Sometimes i have experienced vision that looks like film. Everything has as a frame rate sync effect. Is this similar to alice in wonderland syndrome? ", "Is there a way for us non-mutants to experience this?", "It happens to me a few times but only all things in my sight zoom out and seems smaller.", "As one who has never experienced this I feel a bit left out here; sounds like a fun effect", "Dude... you have superpowers!", "This happens to me, but only with people. Or maybe I've never noticed it as much as with people. It's like their head gets huge and they are my focus for a little while. ", "###I do not know what you are talking about.", "Huh. I've had this happen numerous times when I stayed up particularly late working on homework. Never knew there was a name for it. Thanks for posting.", "I'm glad many of you find it pleasant! It was horrifying for me. It plagued me during childhood. It usually happened at night but not always, and I couldn't get it to go away. Usually it just stopped on its own. Forget trying to explain it to my parents. \"Everything's big...but small.\"\n\n\"Ok honey go back to sleep.\" Gradually it went away though. Hasn't happened in several years now.", "Well, I'm no eyeologist but if its dark in your room, that's just your eyes adjusting so that you can see better. It's literally just your eye getting pushed out further to help you see.", "Neuroscience grad student who's taken perception classes and studied the visual system.\n\nAlice in the Wonderland Syndrome is a very interesting phenomenon, as is many of the bizarre brain disorders documented.\n\nThis is likely a much more simpler case. When you stare off into a fixed point, your retina begins to habituate as there is no change in stimuli going into your eyes. It's actually shown that retinal cells only fire to changes in stimuli. So when you stare off, your vision begins to fade and that can give the illusion that you're having tunnel vision or it begins to zoom. \n\nIn addition, when you relax your eyes while staring off, your eyes have a tendency to stop fixating on a point. This fixation comes from muscle movements in the eyes that move the pupils inward(as in going crosseyed) for closer objects and vice versa for far away objects. The stretch of the muscles actually serves as a depth cue for the eye. So if your muscles is in a position that cues for a position closer than the actual object, it'll feel like you're zoomed in.\nA good way to demonstrate this effect is to look at a repeated pattern such as tiles. Go slightly crosseyed so that your vision doubles just enough so that adjacent tiles overlap. You'll notice that the tiles suddenly look zoomed in.\n_URL_0_\n", "I get this all the time when sitting talking to someone. I have to work hard to not get disoriented in job interviews that go on more than 30 minutes, because while I'm looking at the person they begin to strangely seem really far away. If I look away and blink lots, then look back, it goes back to normal briefly, but soon resumes.", "I can remember as far as I was 8 years old, I'd be watching TV laid down on my bed really late, and I was kinda sleepy and I would get this thing were the TV seemed so fucking huge. I really liked when it happened. So I would try to keep it as long as it could go.", "I have always had this phenomenon happen to me. My reasoning for what is occurring is that your eyes are returning to neutral focus. It takes energy to focus your eyes on something so when you reach a state of relaxation or exhaustion your eyes go to some neutral point. \nFocusing requires your eyes to be pointed inward at some space or object, but when you go into your magic vision your eyes are probably pointed parallel with each other in a non-focused state. You see more because you are now seeing a complete field of vision with each eye including peripherals. You can hold your hand up in front of you and you will see two hands. Each eye processes the image separately. \nEverything is bigger because you have lost your 3D vision that two-eyed focus gives you. You start to see everything in relation to what is around it rather than truly estimating its distance. \nYou are naturally going into the state that the \"Magic Eye\" books bring you to. It makes the world into your private magic eye.", "This used to happen to me as a kid, especially when I was getting lectured by my dad! I've tried to explain it to other people, but they never seem to know what I'm talking about! Thanks for posting! ", "I believe what you're referring to is called tunnel vision. It is briefly mentioned in this video, I found it very informative. \n\n_URL_0_", "Has anyone else noticed that all the hallucinations described in this thread sound like a ketamine/salvia trip? It seems as if the deactivation of certain regions of the brain due to a ketamine dose might relate to the lack of blood running to these areas in the brain in AIW syndrome.\nInteresting." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_in_Wonderland_syndrome" ], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [ "http://server1.she777.com/images/www.wallsandfloors.co.uk/admin/uploads/ZoomImageZoomImageMediterranean_mosaic_tiles13118445421322824644.jpg" ], [], [], [], [], [ "http://youtu.be/L_W-IXqoxHA" ], [] ]