Dataset Viewer
query
stringlengths 34
309
| positive
stringlengths 50
1.04k
| negative
stringlengths 48
1.04k
|
|---|---|---|
search_query: in football whats the point of wasting the first two plays with a rush - up the middle - not regular rush plays i get those | search_document: Keep the defense honest, get a feel for the pass rush, open up the passing game. An offense that's too one dimensional will fail. And those rushes up the middle can be busted wide open sometimes for big yardage. | search_document: A player "goes in motion" for two reasons: First, it helps the qb learn what defense the other team is using. If a defender follows or players shift, the defense is playing "man" defense, where each defender is assigned to a particular offensive player. If all defenders stay in place, they're playing zone, where each defender is responsible for a specific area. (EDIT: Defenses may find ways to fool the offense, of course, by shifting or not shifting as they please, regardless of defense type) Second, it may cause the defensive players to become confused about their assignments, leading to undefended areas of the field. |
search_query: in football whats the point of wasting the first two plays with a rush - up the middle - not regular rush plays i get those | search_document: Keep the defense honest, get a feel for the pass rush, open up the passing game. An offense that's too one dimensional will fail. And those rushes up the middle can be busted wide open sometimes for big yardage. | search_document: Well it's not their job or position. Each individual position has a specific job. The quarterback's is to pass. The running back's is to carry the ball. The wide receiver and tight end's is to catch. The Offensive Line is to block. It's like asking why the shortstop doesn't pitch in baseball. |
search_query: in football whats the point of wasting the first two plays with a rush - up the middle - not regular rush plays i get those | search_document: Keep the defense honest, get a feel for the pass rush, open up the passing game. An offense that's too one dimensional will fail. And those rushes up the middle can be busted wide open sometimes for big yardage. | search_document: For a kickoff, the ball is placed on a tee, as opposed to being held at the top by the holder. This (I would imagine) allows for less drag when kicked because the ball is just coming off the tee as opposed to coming off the grass and finger. The defense isn't rushing the kicker. This allows for a longer run-up to generate more power. This also allows for a lower launch angle since you're not trying to get it over the outstretched arms of the linemen who are ~5 yards away. Finally, when kicking off, you just need to make sure the ball lands between the sidelines. That's 160' of space you've got to play with. With a field goal, that space is cut down to 18.5' wide. And it's 10' off the ground. It's a much smaller space you can place the ball in. Much easier to just smash the ball knowing as long as your form allows you to hit it somewhat straight that you've got 8x the width to play with. |
search_query: in football whats the point of wasting the first two plays with a rush - up the middle - not regular rush plays i get those | search_document: Keep the defense honest, get a feel for the pass rush, open up the passing game. An offense that's too one dimensional will fail. And those rushes up the middle can be busted wide open sometimes for big yardage. | search_document: They basically learn to run a new way, a way where you pick up your knees and actually PUSH against the ground, not simply skipping over it like we all do when we run. High turnover is a must. |
search_query: in football whats the point of wasting the first two plays with a rush - up the middle - not regular rush plays i get those | search_document: Keep the defense honest, get a feel for the pass rush, open up the passing game. An offense that's too one dimensional will fail. And those rushes up the middle can be busted wide open sometimes for big yardage. | search_document: When a defensive lineman moves before the center snaps the ball into play. If an offensive lineman moves before the ball is snapped, it is called a false start. It is possible for the person snapping the ball to be called for false start, somehow. |
search_query: in football whats the point of wasting the first two plays with a rush - up the middle - not regular rush plays i get those | search_document: Keep the defense honest, get a feel for the pass rush, open up the passing game. An offense that's too one dimensional will fail. And those rushes up the middle can be busted wide open sometimes for big yardage. | search_document: He knows the down and distance. He knows the recent plays called. Plus, he's studied film of the opposing team playing games against other teams. All these ideas combine to form a distribution of likely, applicable play calls. The defense is set to present the most effective channelge to the plays in this expected set of plays. |
search_query: in football whats the point of wasting the first two plays with a rush - up the middle - not regular rush plays i get those | search_document: Keep the defense honest, get a feel for the pass rush, open up the passing game. An offense that's too one dimensional will fail. And those rushes up the middle can be busted wide open sometimes for big yardage. | search_document: When the runner has passed all defenders, going straight is the shortest path. But if the defender is in the middle of the field and has a chance of cutting him off, running toward the sideline gives the runner more separation. It all depends on the position of the defenders. |
search_query: Why are different tiers (regular < mid < premium) of gas' prices almost always 10 cents different? | search_document: As someone who uses quality Premium, I wish this was true. | search_document: You already got good replies to your question. Just wanted to add that in the end it is what people are willing to pay for a product. |
search_query: Why are different tiers (regular < mid < premium) of gas' prices almost always 10 cents different? | search_document: As someone who uses quality Premium, I wish this was true. | search_document: For the same reason people buy luxury cars when a beater performs the same function. For aficionados who appreciate the difference, the extra cost is worth it. Some other people have so much money they just buy the best of everything, regardless of whether they can perceive any qualitative difference or not, or even just because the $500 rice cooker fits better with their designer kitchen than the $50 one. |
search_query: Why are different tiers (regular < mid < premium) of gas' prices almost always 10 cents different? | search_document: As someone who uses quality Premium, I wish this was true. | search_document: > Why is everyone spending $150+ on these? Because marketing. > Are they really that great? No. |
search_query: Why are different tiers (regular < mid < premium) of gas' prices almost always 10 cents different? | search_document: As someone who uses quality Premium, I wish this was true. | search_document: The quote doesn't say that paying for something means that your data *won't* get sold to third parties. Sometimes it will, and sometimes it won't. The quote says that if you're getting something for free, your data **is** being sold to third parties 100% of the time (as opposed to X% of the time, where X < 100, for paid products). |
search_query: Why are different tiers (regular < mid < premium) of gas' prices almost always 10 cents different? | search_document: As someone who uses quality Premium, I wish this was true. | search_document: you can't get the same quality for the money, my camera can only get about 5 frames at full resolution in a second or two and then needs to catch up in the buffering.. it can shoot great quality video at 60fps but it is still a huge compromise in quality compared to what it can do for still images |
search_query: Why are different tiers (regular < mid < premium) of gas' prices almost always 10 cents different? | search_document: As someone who uses quality Premium, I wish this was true. | search_document: $$$ You'll notice that a lot of the software has a premium version and it tries to get you to upgrade after the trial period is over. These software companies pay the OEMs to load the trials onto the prebuilt machines in hopes that a small percentage of those who buy them will buy the premium version when the trial runs out. HP, Dell, and other OEMs load the software on the machine because it lets them charge less for the machine while still making the same amount of money and lets them move more machines that way. |
search_query: Why are different tiers (regular < mid < premium) of gas' prices almost always 10 cents different? | search_document: As someone who uses quality Premium, I wish this was true. | search_document: Pretty sure when someone watches with YouTube Premium, the content creator gets a small cut. I remember some Youtuber said it was roughly double the amount an ad would get them. So, YouTube Premium actually helps content creators. Edit from YouTube Premium FAQs: Will creators still be paid with YouTube Premium? Yes, of course. In fact, YouTube Premium provides a secondary revenue stream for creators in addition to what you're already earning today through ads. How is revenue determined? Currently, new revenue from YouTube Premium membership fees is distributed to video creators based on how much members watch your content. As with our advertising business, the majority of the revenue will go to creators. |
search_query: Stars and Visibility | search_document: It's a quirk of the human eye. At the center of the eye (the fovea) we mostly have colour-sensitive cone cells to see detail and colour of what we're focusing on. Around the fovea we mostly have rod cells that can't see colour but are more sensitive to variations in light intensity and movement. Looking slightly to the side of the thing you're examining sends more of the light to the rod cells and lets you see things more clearly in low-light conditions where cones don't work well. | search_document: If you look at the anatomy of the eye, the retina is lined with thousands and thousands of rods and cones. You have thousands and thousands of cones, which are responsible for seeing color, in the center part of your retina called the “fovea centralis”. If you look farther away from that and get to the peripheral part of the eye, you notice there are thousands of rods, which are responsible for seeing gradient of light and changes in the amount of light. This is why you will always see thing out of your peripheral vision. |
search_query: Stars and Visibility | search_document: It's a quirk of the human eye. At the center of the eye (the fovea) we mostly have colour-sensitive cone cells to see detail and colour of what we're focusing on. Around the fovea we mostly have rod cells that can't see colour but are more sensitive to variations in light intensity and movement. Looking slightly to the side of the thing you're examining sends more of the light to the rod cells and lets you see things more clearly in low-light conditions where cones don't work well. | search_document: For the scope of this question, you could say that our eyes have two kinds of light-sensitive cells. One type detects light/no light (rods), the other detects colour (cones). The cones are less sensitive to light than the rods. So in low light conditions, we can still see the difference between the light and the dark parts, but the cells that distinguish colours are no longer triggered. The result is a greyshade image. |
search_query: Stars and Visibility | search_document: It's a quirk of the human eye. At the center of the eye (the fovea) we mostly have colour-sensitive cone cells to see detail and colour of what we're focusing on. Around the fovea we mostly have rod cells that can't see colour but are more sensitive to variations in light intensity and movement. Looking slightly to the side of the thing you're examining sends more of the light to the rod cells and lets you see things more clearly in low-light conditions where cones don't work well. | search_document: our eyes have two types of light-sensors. cones, which see color but arent good in the dark, are clustered in the center. rods, which are good in the dark but cant see color, are dominant around the edges |
search_query: Stars and Visibility | search_document: It's a quirk of the human eye. At the center of the eye (the fovea) we mostly have colour-sensitive cone cells to see detail and colour of what we're focusing on. Around the fovea we mostly have rod cells that can't see colour but are more sensitive to variations in light intensity and movement. Looking slightly to the side of the thing you're examining sends more of the light to the rod cells and lets you see things more clearly in low-light conditions where cones don't work well. | search_document: The very center of your vision has a much higher density of color sensing cells (cones) than the rest of your eye. Unfortunately for your night vision, it's got less rods, which can't differentiate colors but are much more responsive to low light. See figure 11.10 [here](_URL_0_) for the distribution of each type relative to angle off of center of vision. I you're looking directly at something, there are practically no rods at all. But by looking a little bit to the side, you've put the star's light on a part of your retina that's much more sensitive to dim light. |
search_query: Stars and Visibility | search_document: It's a quirk of the human eye. At the center of the eye (the fovea) we mostly have colour-sensitive cone cells to see detail and colour of what we're focusing on. Around the fovea we mostly have rod cells that can't see colour but are more sensitive to variations in light intensity and movement. Looking slightly to the side of the thing you're examining sends more of the light to the rod cells and lets you see things more clearly in low-light conditions where cones don't work well. | search_document: This is due to the distribution of the photoreceptors in the retina (back of the eye). There are two types of receptors, cones and rods. Cones have color vision, but low sensitivity to light levels, whereas rods only "see" black and white, but are very sensitive to changes in light levels. Now look at this image: _URL_0_ It maps the receptor distribution along the retina. The fovea is the center. Notice how in the fovea (labelled as zero degrees), cones dominate while rods are non-existent - but rods are more prominent in the periphery. Hence the better ability to distinguish light in the peripheral vision. |
search_query: Stars and Visibility | search_document: It's a quirk of the human eye. At the center of the eye (the fovea) we mostly have colour-sensitive cone cells to see detail and colour of what we're focusing on. Around the fovea we mostly have rod cells that can't see colour but are more sensitive to variations in light intensity and movement. Looking slightly to the side of the thing you're examining sends more of the light to the rod cells and lets you see things more clearly in low-light conditions where cones don't work well. | search_document: There are two different types of light receptive cells in your eyes called rods and cones. The cones detect color and require bright light and the rods don't detect color, but work in dim light. The edges of your vision are detected almost entirely by rod cells, and as you move to the center of your vision more and more cone cells show up until you reach the very center of your eye, called the fovea centralis, which is made up entirely of cone cells. So you can see the dim stars better if you don't look directly at them because the edges of your vision are detected almost entirely by the rods (which work well in dim light), whereas when you look head on, the light is entirely detected by cones (which don't work so well in dim light). |
search_query: Stars and Visibility | search_document: It's a quirk of the human eye. At the center of the eye (the fovea) we mostly have colour-sensitive cone cells to see detail and colour of what we're focusing on. Around the fovea we mostly have rod cells that can't see colour but are more sensitive to variations in light intensity and movement. Looking slightly to the side of the thing you're examining sends more of the light to the rod cells and lets you see things more clearly in low-light conditions where cones don't work well. | search_document: I can actually answer this! It’s because when you look directly at something, the light from the object hits your fovea in your retina. Your fovea has an extremely high concentration of cones (the receptors that deal with color) and is normally used for picking out detail, and are basically useless in the dark. Rods are the receptors responsible for detecting shading in dim/dark lighting. When you don’t look directly at something in the dark, the light from the object hits areas in your retina other than your fovea, which have a higher concentration of rods so you’re able to make out the shading better |
search_query: How do we know all the money the government is getting from bank settlements is going back to the people? | search_document: I'm pretty confident most of it isn't going back to the people. That's how politics works. | search_document: The instability of every election is the strength of a democratic process. It means that, at least in theory, one person or group of people can't entrench themselves and turn the government into their own machine and the country into their own kingdom. The people gets a mandatory opportunity to replace those in power every few years, again in theory meaning that if we are dissatisfied with them, we can replace them. Of course over time people who crave that kind of enduring power have created all sorts of different ways to remain in power despite the rules, either by coup or by election fraud or simply by having a dual party system where both parties talk very differently, but act very similarly, and we get to pick a different figurehead every few years. |
search_query: How do we know all the money the government is getting from bank settlements is going back to the people? | search_document: I'm pretty confident most of it isn't going back to the people. That's how politics works. | search_document: The hope is that people more civil and open minded will replace the people in power at some point. |
search_query: How do we know all the money the government is getting from bank settlements is going back to the people? | search_document: I'm pretty confident most of it isn't going back to the people. That's how politics works. | search_document: Long story short: we have trust issues. We don't trust that our government is looking out for our best interests. Many of us believe that our politicians have been corrupted by 'big business' money. We don't trust major news outlets to give us an unbiased view of what's going on. We know many of these outlets are owned by the same people that have corrupted our politicians. Would corruption in our government benefit from distracting the masses? Sure. How do you distract millions of people? Train wreck. Tragedy. Distrust of those in power leads many people to connect whatever dots they can find. My two cents. |
search_query: How do we know all the money the government is getting from bank settlements is going back to the people? | search_document: I'm pretty confident most of it isn't going back to the people. That's how politics works. | search_document: It's a combination of features. 1. America has a very vocal minority on both sides of the aisle. When you see a big protest or rally, it's usually the same people every time. The average American is to busy living their lives to become politically involved. 2. The bystander effect causes people to not vote. "Everyone else will be voting, so I don't need to. I'm just one vote." 3. The news is a smaller, but noticeable influencer on voter turnout. When the news announces that a particular candidate is projected to win, many people will stay home and "not bother". |
search_query: How do we know all the money the government is getting from bank settlements is going back to the people? | search_document: I'm pretty confident most of it isn't going back to the people. That's how politics works. | search_document: A bunch of people get together to make it publicly known that they support/reject a cause, in the hopes that the publicity will inform and sway others to their side. Whether that leads to meaningful policy change depends on the government structure and the party in power. You can protest just about anything in America all you want, but if 95% of the population disagrees and your message is unconvincing you're just wasting your time and annoying people. |
search_query: How do we know all the money the government is getting from bank settlements is going back to the people? | search_document: I'm pretty confident most of it isn't going back to the people. That's how politics works. | search_document: Election results can affect party policies as well. If there is a swing to the left, Republicans may moderate their policies to try to recapture those voters, for example. It doesn't look like it's worked all that well in recent years in the US, but it's still worth trying. |
search_query: How do we know all the money the government is getting from bank settlements is going back to the people? | search_document: I'm pretty confident most of it isn't going back to the people. That's how politics works. | search_document: It is not unbelievable a person can change their viewpoints. It is not frequent, but it happens. It is far more believable that a politician will cynically adopt whatever viewpoints will get them elected. People don't want their elected officials to change their viewpoint on the things they find important, so historical consistency is important. It is less about not believe people can change their minds, and more about not elected one. |
search_query: What are good and bad sides of manual and automatic drive gear? | search_document: Automatics weigh more, so that alone makes gas mileage worse. They are also more complicated, so that means reliability is going to be lower. It is easier to operate, which may free up your attention for focus on what is *outside* the car. Some people derive satisfaction from shifting, and flexibility in using the power curve. | search_document: One main thing, automatic transmissions shift based on what is currently happening to the car. With a manual, a person can choose to shift if they're going to change speeds, or based on what's ahead of them. |
search_query: What are good and bad sides of manual and automatic drive gear? | search_document: Automatics weigh more, so that alone makes gas mileage worse. They are also more complicated, so that means reliability is going to be lower. It is easier to operate, which may free up your attention for focus on what is *outside* the car. Some people derive satisfaction from shifting, and flexibility in using the power curve. | search_document: Manual transmissions allow the driver to utilize exactly the torque they want exactly when they want. The driver gets exploit full range of the power band whenever they want. Its icy out, drive a gear higher than needed. Its dry and curvy, drop gears and have a little fun. Like track days, go race how you want. On a long trip and want the best mpg, always gear up early to keep rpms low. The driver gets to do all this decision making in a manual. The car does all this in an automatic. |
search_query: What are good and bad sides of manual and automatic drive gear? | search_document: Automatics weigh more, so that alone makes gas mileage worse. They are also more complicated, so that means reliability is going to be lower. It is easier to operate, which may free up your attention for focus on what is *outside* the car. Some people derive satisfaction from shifting, and flexibility in using the power curve. | search_document: Great if you drive a manual. Tells you if your revs are too high and you need to shift up, or too low and you need to shift down. No idea why you'd want one on an automatic. |
search_query: What are good and bad sides of manual and automatic drive gear? | search_document: Automatics weigh more, so that alone makes gas mileage worse. They are also more complicated, so that means reliability is going to be lower. It is easier to operate, which may free up your attention for focus on what is *outside* the car. Some people derive satisfaction from shifting, and flexibility in using the power curve. | search_document: Cost is a huge decider. Europeans face far higher gas prices then in the USA. Hence, European cars often focus on efficiency and good kilometers to the litre ratio. They generally have smaller engines, and thus a manual stick is necessary to get full usage out of the car. As Americans have cheaper gas to burn and bigger fuel tanks, they can afford the extra cost of automatic transmission. |
search_query: What are good and bad sides of manual and automatic drive gear? | search_document: Automatics weigh more, so that alone makes gas mileage worse. They are also more complicated, so that means reliability is going to be lower. It is easier to operate, which may free up your attention for focus on what is *outside* the car. Some people derive satisfaction from shifting, and flexibility in using the power curve. | search_document: Internal combustion engines don't provide power equally throughout their RPM range; there are certain RPM values that produce optimal torque. By having more gears, you can be in your optimal power band through more of the typical speeds. Similarly, lower RPMs means lower gas consumption, so rather than revving up to 3-4k RPMs you can go between 800 and 1200 and then shift into a slightly higher gear that puts you back at 800. Trucks (semi, not pickups) have had huge gearboxes with a dozen gears in various combinations for a while, but most commuters don't want to deal with that level of shifting for everyday driving, so before automatics were a thing, they had the 3-speed and 4-speed and 5-speeds as pretty standard for a passenger vehicle, but then automatics became a thing, and got better, and now we can fit 11 gears in them so we do, because gearing advantage is worth it and the costs are low enough now that it doesn't drastically spike the price of the car. |
search_query: What are good and bad sides of manual and automatic drive gear? | search_document: Automatics weigh more, so that alone makes gas mileage worse. They are also more complicated, so that means reliability is going to be lower. It is easier to operate, which may free up your attention for focus on what is *outside* the car. Some people derive satisfaction from shifting, and flexibility in using the power curve. | search_document: A manual gearbox gives you full control over the engines power. You can downshift from 5th to 3rd if you need some quick passing power. An automatic transmission does it all for you when the software tells it to. Manual cars are not more powerful, but you can get all of the performance out of them. |
search_query: What are good and bad sides of manual and automatic drive gear? | search_document: Automatics weigh more, so that alone makes gas mileage worse. They are also more complicated, so that means reliability is going to be lower. It is easier to operate, which may free up your attention for focus on what is *outside* the car. Some people derive satisfaction from shifting, and flexibility in using the power curve. | search_document: ELI5/TL;DR: Modern cars have a computer which takes a bunch of readings, and then tries to predict when the best time to shift is. The biggest input is the accelerator. If you're winding through gears, and all the sudden hit the gas harder, your car is going to ride out in the gear its in, and potentially downshift if the car knows it can't provide enough power to get you up to speed. The car is constantly waiting for you to lessen pressure on the accelerator, and as soon as you're off the accelerator for a bit and have steadied off, the car will upshift. With this information, the car's computer is trying to put the car in the best position to be both responsive and efficient. |
search_query: How do muscles grow? | search_document: I hope this answer qualifies as technical, yet simple enough (as I very rarely post here), but the basic idea that I understand is that your muscles rip and tear on a microscopic level when you are working out, and the harder you push those muscles, the more they rip. Hence where the idea comes from that more reps and less weight equal more tone, but more weight and less reps equal more muscle growth. What happens is that following those tiny rips and tears, your muscle heals over itself and essentially stacks on top of itself, healing bigger and stronger than before. The more those muscles are used, kept active and challenged, the more they will continue to build and grow over time. Other factors go into the growth of muscle as well, such as your nutrition. Protein, fats, etc. also play a factor, as they cause your body to "feed" your body and muscles in different ways of varying effectiveness - but I think that's an ELI5 for another day. | search_document: It's actually necessary. Your body won't let you stress your muscles hard unless there's something to actually stress them over: you can't simply move your limbs around a lot to build muscle. When you lift weights and force your muscles to work hard, micro tears form. The process of healing these tears also triggers the body to build more muscle, so that it won't face the microtearing problem in the future. Now that your muscles are a little more capable, you move up to heavier weights so they have to stress again and repeat the cycle. **edit:** like other people pointed out, it's more accurate to say ~resistance~ is what you need to build muscle. There's definitely lots of ways to do that. Weights are just great at providing a lot of resistance in one object that you can usually use for several muscle groups. |
search_query: How do muscles grow? | search_document: I hope this answer qualifies as technical, yet simple enough (as I very rarely post here), but the basic idea that I understand is that your muscles rip and tear on a microscopic level when you are working out, and the harder you push those muscles, the more they rip. Hence where the idea comes from that more reps and less weight equal more tone, but more weight and less reps equal more muscle growth. What happens is that following those tiny rips and tears, your muscle heals over itself and essentially stacks on top of itself, healing bigger and stronger than before. The more those muscles are used, kept active and challenged, the more they will continue to build and grow over time. Other factors go into the growth of muscle as well, such as your nutrition. Protein, fats, etc. also play a factor, as they cause your body to "feed" your body and muscles in different ways of varying effectiveness - but I think that's an ELI5 for another day. | search_document: The body has built in adaptive mechanisms for this, basically allocating resources to some things only if they are needed, as if not it is a pointless waste of resources according to the body. So, cell growth occurs when cells seem to work more, aka lifting. For muscles, this occurs for several reasons, but primarily because of muscle damage. Muscle cells are rich in protein fibers called myofibrils, they are basically responsible for cell contractions and muscle movement, though with the aid of other proteins, they are basically the skeleton of the cell, but this allows for them to contract. So as you work out, these break, and as you rest, they are repaired by the body's functions, but they reform to be stronger, thicker, and often better positioned. The proteins responsible for the movement of these are also manufactured in larger amounts, leading to more strength. |
search_query: How do muscles grow? | search_document: I hope this answer qualifies as technical, yet simple enough (as I very rarely post here), but the basic idea that I understand is that your muscles rip and tear on a microscopic level when you are working out, and the harder you push those muscles, the more they rip. Hence where the idea comes from that more reps and less weight equal more tone, but more weight and less reps equal more muscle growth. What happens is that following those tiny rips and tears, your muscle heals over itself and essentially stacks on top of itself, healing bigger and stronger than before. The more those muscles are used, kept active and challenged, the more they will continue to build and grow over time. Other factors go into the growth of muscle as well, such as your nutrition. Protein, fats, etc. also play a factor, as they cause your body to "feed" your body and muscles in different ways of varying effectiveness - but I think that's an ELI5 for another day. | search_document: When you contract a muscle, the actin and myosin filaments (two proteins in the muscle cell) overlap in order to shorten the length of the muscle fiber. Conversely, when you stretch, the whole fiber is lengthened and the actin and myosin get further apart. Don't get too caught up in the idea of 'tearing'. It's misleading to call it that, it just sounds romantic to gym warriors. Protein synthesis is happening in your muscles all the time. |
search_query: How do muscles grow? | search_document: I hope this answer qualifies as technical, yet simple enough (as I very rarely post here), but the basic idea that I understand is that your muscles rip and tear on a microscopic level when you are working out, and the harder you push those muscles, the more they rip. Hence where the idea comes from that more reps and less weight equal more tone, but more weight and less reps equal more muscle growth. What happens is that following those tiny rips and tears, your muscle heals over itself and essentially stacks on top of itself, healing bigger and stronger than before. The more those muscles are used, kept active and challenged, the more they will continue to build and grow over time. Other factors go into the growth of muscle as well, such as your nutrition. Protein, fats, etc. also play a factor, as they cause your body to "feed" your body and muscles in different ways of varying effectiveness - but I think that's an ELI5 for another day. | search_document: Generally the rule is: high rep, low weight= better stamina. low rep, high weight= better strength. Muscles get bigger by being torn (working out) and then rebuilding. If you do 10 push-ups every hour you aren't really working out muscles, causing tears in the muscle, which will then not regrow. 100 push-ups at once would lead to more tearing of the muscles (and therefore more regrowth). Muscle tearing= more muslce. This doesn't mean 100 push-ups at once is the best way to go, again you want to maximize the tearing of muscles. |
search_query: How do muscles grow? | search_document: I hope this answer qualifies as technical, yet simple enough (as I very rarely post here), but the basic idea that I understand is that your muscles rip and tear on a microscopic level when you are working out, and the harder you push those muscles, the more they rip. Hence where the idea comes from that more reps and less weight equal more tone, but more weight and less reps equal more muscle growth. What happens is that following those tiny rips and tears, your muscle heals over itself and essentially stacks on top of itself, healing bigger and stronger than before. The more those muscles are used, kept active and challenged, the more they will continue to build and grow over time. Other factors go into the growth of muscle as well, such as your nutrition. Protein, fats, etc. also play a factor, as they cause your body to "feed" your body and muscles in different ways of varying effectiveness - but I think that's an ELI5 for another day. | search_document: It doesn't need to, and that would have negative effects like lowering blood pressure. The heart is made of *cardiac muscle*, different from most other muscles, and what happens instead is it gets stronger as you exercise, which means it pumps more blood per beat, so it ends up that the heart works less for the same effect. This is good. Besides that, other muscles grow from being damaged and repaired (it's not called “getting ripped” for nothing). Muscle fibers tear when enough force is applied, and in the case of weightlifting and working out the tears are very^very^small. As you work muscles more the tears happen more often, so the body makes more muscle to patch the tears. |
search_query: How do muscles grow? | search_document: I hope this answer qualifies as technical, yet simple enough (as I very rarely post here), but the basic idea that I understand is that your muscles rip and tear on a microscopic level when you are working out, and the harder you push those muscles, the more they rip. Hence where the idea comes from that more reps and less weight equal more tone, but more weight and less reps equal more muscle growth. What happens is that following those tiny rips and tears, your muscle heals over itself and essentially stacks on top of itself, healing bigger and stronger than before. The more those muscles are used, kept active and challenged, the more they will continue to build and grow over time. Other factors go into the growth of muscle as well, such as your nutrition. Protein, fats, etc. also play a factor, as they cause your body to "feed" your body and muscles in different ways of varying effectiveness - but I think that's an ELI5 for another day. | search_document: Your body will realign and reallocate muscle fibers as you tear them and they get repaired. So, technically, yes - you will get better at doing one particular motion efficiently at one particular weight and rep range. In reality, though, you will likely up the weight as you build muscle and get better at the exercise, and so will end up burning MORE calories moving a higher weight and doing the same exercise. Lift heavy, lift compound. |
search_query: How do muscles grow? | search_document: I hope this answer qualifies as technical, yet simple enough (as I very rarely post here), but the basic idea that I understand is that your muscles rip and tear on a microscopic level when you are working out, and the harder you push those muscles, the more they rip. Hence where the idea comes from that more reps and less weight equal more tone, but more weight and less reps equal more muscle growth. What happens is that following those tiny rips and tears, your muscle heals over itself and essentially stacks on top of itself, healing bigger and stronger than before. The more those muscles are used, kept active and challenged, the more they will continue to build and grow over time. Other factors go into the growth of muscle as well, such as your nutrition. Protein, fats, etc. also play a factor, as they cause your body to "feed" your body and muscles in different ways of varying effectiveness - but I think that's an ELI5 for another day. | search_document: So when your muscle is sore, that means the fibers that make it up are torn. That’s how muscles are built, you work out, tear the fibers, and they are built back bigger than before. So when you extend the muscle, you’re tearing more fibers in the muscle. |
search_query: Why does the water from my kitchen faucet taste different than the water from my bathroom faucet? Doesn't it come from the same place? | search_document: Yes, but the pipes going to one place could have a build up that's changing the taste or the composition of the pipes can be different, i.e. pvc pipes going to your kitchen, but copper pipes to your bathroom. | search_document: That would necessitate two different water sources coming to your house and an additional plumbing system to keep your toilet separate from your sinks, showers, etc. |
search_query: Why does the water from my kitchen faucet taste different than the water from my bathroom faucet? Doesn't it come from the same place? | search_document: Yes, but the pipes going to one place could have a build up that's changing the taste or the composition of the pipes can be different, i.e. pvc pipes going to your kitchen, but copper pipes to your bathroom. | search_document: It sounds like you are describing [vacuum distillation](_URL_0_). |
search_query: Why does the water from my kitchen faucet taste different than the water from my bathroom faucet? Doesn't it come from the same place? | search_document: Yes, but the pipes going to one place could have a build up that's changing the taste or the composition of the pipes can be different, i.e. pvc pipes going to your kitchen, but copper pipes to your bathroom. | search_document: Def not interchangeable. I believe it is because generally pipe smokers want to puff on there pipe for awhile. If it was dry like cigarette tobacco it would burn up in a few puffs. The moist pipe tobacco burns and stays lit for a little while. |
search_query: Why does the water from my kitchen faucet taste different than the water from my bathroom faucet? Doesn't it come from the same place? | search_document: Yes, but the pipes going to one place could have a build up that's changing the taste or the composition of the pipes can be different, i.e. pvc pipes going to your kitchen, but copper pipes to your bathroom. | search_document: tap water is not temperature controlled but because the water pipes are buried, they aren't as affected by amibient temps |
search_query: Why does the water from my kitchen faucet taste different than the water from my bathroom faucet? Doesn't it come from the same place? | search_document: Yes, but the pipes going to one place could have a build up that's changing the taste or the composition of the pipes can be different, i.e. pvc pipes going to your kitchen, but copper pipes to your bathroom. | search_document: You may have noticed that houses will have a pipe sticking up from the roof, typically over each bathroom. That's a vent for your sewage system, and it's tied directly to the drain pipe of your toilet. Pressure changes caused by wind blowing over this pipe makes the water in your toilet move around a little. |
search_query: Why does the water from my kitchen faucet taste different than the water from my bathroom faucet? Doesn't it come from the same place? | search_document: Yes, but the pipes going to one place could have a build up that's changing the taste or the composition of the pipes can be different, i.e. pvc pipes going to your kitchen, but copper pipes to your bathroom. | search_document: As you increase the pressure, the flow through the pipe will increase. At some point, the water will solidify, which will probably stop the flow from increasing further. You can see the various phases of water in a diagram here: _URL_0_ |
search_query: Why does the water from my kitchen faucet taste different than the water from my bathroom faucet? Doesn't it come from the same place? | search_document: Yes, but the pipes going to one place could have a build up that's changing the taste or the composition of the pipes can be different, i.e. pvc pipes going to your kitchen, but copper pipes to your bathroom. | search_document: The pipes & Taps in your house may have things like limescale or in some cases be made of different material than the pipes in the mains ( that runs to the main cold water tap, kitchen ) all these can add a different taste to the water ! Also consider that if you only drank water from the bathroom tap, then surely the kitchen tap would taste funny? 99.9% of the time the water is perfectly safe to drink. In the UK tap water has to pass through 50+ different tests to insure that is safe to drink and as pure as possible. Bottled water only has to do 8 |
search_query: If dark colours absorb more heat, why does light skin burn easier than dark skin? | search_document: Two things going on here. First, heat doesn't have anything to do with sunburn, it's all about UV rays. Encountering more UV rays = more sunburn. However, dark skin absorbs more UV rays than pale skin. And in fact that's exactly why it burns less. The pigmented layer absorbs more UV in the upper layers of the skin, shading the cells underneath from UV and preventing burns (because it's the lower, reproducing cells that matter, the upper ones are disposable protection). Just like sitting outside under an opaque black umbrella would shade you more than sitting outside under a translucent white one. | search_document: Yes, that's what tanning is. It's a reaction by your body to stimulate melanin production, making your skin darker and more resistant to burning. Melanin is why people with pale skin will burn more than tan, while dark skin will burn very rarely. |
search_query: If dark colours absorb more heat, why does light skin burn easier than dark skin? | search_document: Two things going on here. First, heat doesn't have anything to do with sunburn, it's all about UV rays. Encountering more UV rays = more sunburn. However, dark skin absorbs more UV rays than pale skin. And in fact that's exactly why it burns less. The pigmented layer absorbs more UV in the upper layers of the skin, shading the cells underneath from UV and preventing burns (because it's the lower, reproducing cells that matter, the upper ones are disposable protection). Just like sitting outside under an opaque black umbrella would shade you more than sitting outside under a translucent white one. | search_document: Temperature does not play a role in tanning. If you were to tan in 15 degree weather or 80 degree weather, there would be no difference. Tanning happens when sunlight hits a person's skin, and the ultraviolet radiation contained in the sunlight causes melanin, a pigment in the skin, to darken. The association of tanning with heat comes from the fact that when it is warmer out we wear less clothing and therefore our skin in exposed to the sun and tans. When it is cold out we cover up, and there is no sun hitting our skin. |
search_query: If dark colours absorb more heat, why does light skin burn easier than dark skin? | search_document: Two things going on here. First, heat doesn't have anything to do with sunburn, it's all about UV rays. Encountering more UV rays = more sunburn. However, dark skin absorbs more UV rays than pale skin. And in fact that's exactly why it burns less. The pigmented layer absorbs more UV in the upper layers of the skin, shading the cells underneath from UV and preventing burns (because it's the lower, reproducing cells that matter, the upper ones are disposable protection). Just like sitting outside under an opaque black umbrella would shade you more than sitting outside under a translucent white one. | search_document: Remember that sunburn is caused by your skin's interaction with UV rays. Warmer air temperature wouldn't predispose you to a faster sunburn in itself. It just so happens that USUALLY, UV exposure is maximized when atmospheric conditions are clear, an event most of us associate with warmer weather. You could just as easily get sunburned at the same rate in Greenland at 40 below as you can in the Sahara at 120, given the condition that your UV exposure was the same at both places. |
search_query: If dark colours absorb more heat, why does light skin burn easier than dark skin? | search_document: Two things going on here. First, heat doesn't have anything to do with sunburn, it's all about UV rays. Encountering more UV rays = more sunburn. However, dark skin absorbs more UV rays than pale skin. And in fact that's exactly why it burns less. The pigmented layer absorbs more UV in the upper layers of the skin, shading the cells underneath from UV and preventing burns (because it's the lower, reproducing cells that matter, the upper ones are disposable protection). Just like sitting outside under an opaque black umbrella would shade you more than sitting outside under a translucent white one. | search_document: The warmth of a sunburn generally stems from increased blood flow to the exposed site. I am unaware of any temperature measurements of sunburned skin, but I suspect that even though the burned skin seems much warmer, it would still be close to 98.6 degrees. Any slight elevation in temperature would be a result of the inflammatory response generated from the chemical processes induced by ultraviolet radiation. & #x200B; [_URL_0_](_URL_0_) |
search_query: If dark colours absorb more heat, why does light skin burn easier than dark skin? | search_document: Two things going on here. First, heat doesn't have anything to do with sunburn, it's all about UV rays. Encountering more UV rays = more sunburn. However, dark skin absorbs more UV rays than pale skin. And in fact that's exactly why it burns less. The pigmented layer absorbs more UV in the upper layers of the skin, shading the cells underneath from UV and preventing burns (because it's the lower, reproducing cells that matter, the upper ones are disposable protection). Just like sitting outside under an opaque black umbrella would shade you more than sitting outside under a translucent white one. | search_document: It doesn't have anything to do with heat. As I understand it, melanin is produced in response to ultraviolet radiation. More UV will lead to more melanin being produced. That's why you tan. Melanin will block UV from reaching the delicate underlayers of your skin, because too much UV is bad for you. However, UV in some amount is necessary for your body to produce vitamin D in your skin. Too little vitamin D can cause rickets and other diseases. So if your ancestors came from an area with high levels of UV, such as areas around the equator, they will tend to have higher levels of melanin so as to block more of the UV. If your ancestors came from higher (northern or southern) latitudes, there isn't as much UV, so you won't need to block as much, and will need to absorb more of it. So you make less melanin. |
search_query: If dark colours absorb more heat, why does light skin burn easier than dark skin? | search_document: Two things going on here. First, heat doesn't have anything to do with sunburn, it's all about UV rays. Encountering more UV rays = more sunburn. However, dark skin absorbs more UV rays than pale skin. And in fact that's exactly why it burns less. The pigmented layer absorbs more UV in the upper layers of the skin, shading the cells underneath from UV and preventing burns (because it's the lower, reproducing cells that matter, the upper ones are disposable protection). Just like sitting outside under an opaque black umbrella would shade you more than sitting outside under a translucent white one. | search_document: Sunburn is caused because of cells dying causing an inflamation. Its your body going into protective mode because your skin is damaged. But the way sun does damage to the cell, it makes thymine diamers so really the body does not know its been hurt until your cells self suicide and that takes a bit. |
search_query: If dark colours absorb more heat, why does light skin burn easier than dark skin? | search_document: Two things going on here. First, heat doesn't have anything to do with sunburn, it's all about UV rays. Encountering more UV rays = more sunburn. However, dark skin absorbs more UV rays than pale skin. And in fact that's exactly why it burns less. The pigmented layer absorbs more UV in the upper layers of the skin, shading the cells underneath from UV and preventing burns (because it's the lower, reproducing cells that matter, the upper ones are disposable protection). Just like sitting outside under an opaque black umbrella would shade you more than sitting outside under a translucent white one. | search_document: Because we adapted to avoid sunburns by restricting exposure to direct sunlight, rather than by having thick hair or scales that cover our body. In addition, many people have darker skin (especially those whose ancestry originated most recently from equatorial regions, such as Africa) which does not burn as easily as very pale skin (such as that of northern European people, who are and have been exposed to less sunlight overall). |
search_query: How the fuck does Facebook know about people I know?! | search_document: Your email contacts, your academic/work institutions info you've put, and the friends of your friends. | search_document: Its possible if you've sent that teacher an email from the same account as the one you've connected with Facebook. It allows Facebook to find people on your email contact list and suggest them to you. |
search_query: How the fuck does Facebook know about people I know?! | search_document: Your email contacts, your academic/work institutions info you've put, and the friends of your friends. | search_document: It depends. Sometimes it's just given to link a university with a famous person. Other times it's given to people who have done private work in that area but they don't hold an actual degree in it. Think of some sort of "mad" scientist working in his garage but doesn't actually have a degree but ends up discovering or inventing something worthwhile. |
search_query: How the fuck does Facebook know about people I know?! | search_document: Your email contacts, your academic/work institutions info you've put, and the friends of your friends. | search_document: I worked for one of these. We googled you. You'd be surprised what we could find out, especially when Myspace was still a thing and nobody had anything on private. Also remember it's not just your own profile, it's anyone else's that has your full name. We also could see your message history with us. A surprising amount of texts came from people who'd texted the exorbitantly expensive service before. If you ask "Does John like me or does he just want to be friends?" then two weeks later ask us what we know, bam, we'll say you have a good friendship with John. |
search_query: How the fuck does Facebook know about people I know?! | search_document: Your email contacts, your academic/work institutions info you've put, and the friends of your friends. | search_document: Facebook gives you the option to use your email address book to look for people you know. If someone who has your email used this option, Facebook now knows there used to be a connection between you two. This other person might not have sent you a friend request, but Facebook still knows, so it might suggest this person to you. |
search_query: How the fuck does Facebook know about people I know?! | search_document: Your email contacts, your academic/work institutions info you've put, and the friends of your friends. | search_document: The [interwebs are your friend](_URL_0_): _URL_2_ _URL_1_ _URL_3_ |
search_query: How the fuck does Facebook know about people I know?! | search_document: Your email contacts, your academic/work institutions info you've put, and the friends of your friends. | search_document: Usually a combination of two ways: 1) Multiple phone numbers and e-mails. One would be strictly for personal use that they only give to close friends/family. Another would be for business matters and so on. The same way that you probably have more than one e-mail address -- a general e-mail that you give to companies/websites for accounts, spam, etc., and another for more personal business, like school or work. 2) Managers/agents. They handle all the business-related calls. If, say, a director wants to get in touch with an actor, they'd call his/her agent or representative. The agent would then relay the information to the actor's personal phone/e-mail. This is mainly why agents gets paid. They work out all the details and present the information to their client so they don't have to sort through it all. |
search_query: How the fuck does Facebook know about people I know?! | search_document: Your email contacts, your academic/work institutions info you've put, and the friends of your friends. | search_document: Do you have their phone numbers or email addresses and have ever used the feature that allows Facebook to search your contacts for potential friends? If you've done that they will show up in your recommended friends. Sometimes it seems to be so sensitive as to suggest someone who I have only contacted once. |
search_query: Why is chickenpox worse as an adult? | search_document: It's mostly due to the difference in immune system between a child and an adult. A primary varicella zoster infection (chickenpox) in adulthood is indeed associated with increased risk of complications. Most of these complications are due to the intense response by the adult immune system that comes into contact with the virus for the first time. Children have less active immune systems, but usually active enough to clear the virus - making them immune to it thereafter, and are therefore less likely to develop complications with this particular infection. The same goes to hepatitis A: adults develop jaundice, while children are asymptomatic. Note: a secondary varicella zoster infection during adulthood is called "shingles" and is generally less dangerous than a primary varicella during adulthood, due to the immunity that is already present at the time of the second infection. | search_document: You wouldn't get shingles and whooping cough. You might not get flu this year. If you're healthy then your immune system deals with lots of things every day. A few more viruses wouldn't faze it. |
search_query: Why is chickenpox worse as an adult? | search_document: It's mostly due to the difference in immune system between a child and an adult. A primary varicella zoster infection (chickenpox) in adulthood is indeed associated with increased risk of complications. Most of these complications are due to the intense response by the adult immune system that comes into contact with the virus for the first time. Children have less active immune systems, but usually active enough to clear the virus - making them immune to it thereafter, and are therefore less likely to develop complications with this particular infection. The same goes to hepatitis A: adults develop jaundice, while children are asymptomatic. Note: a secondary varicella zoster infection during adulthood is called "shingles" and is generally less dangerous than a primary varicella during adulthood, due to the immunity that is already present at the time of the second infection. | search_document: Chicken pox is a virus in the herpes family. And like all herpes viruses, once you get it, it stays in you forever. Your immune system is pretty good at keeping it suppressed. Similarly, if you get exposed to it again, your immune system will be prepared and kill it off quite quickly. The virus doesn't change very much over time. The chickenpox virus in you can re-activate when your immune system is compromised and result in Shingles. But that is the virus coming back from inside you, not you getting exposed by another sick person. Many (though not all) other viruses change their composition slightly much faster than chickenpox, and so we can catch them again. Also, for flu (caused by influenza viruses) and colds (caused by rhinoviruses, adenoviruses, coronaviruses and some others), there are many, MANY different strains you can come into contact with, each of which looks different to your immune system, even though you perceive them as all the same based on the symptoms they cause you. |
search_query: Why is chickenpox worse as an adult? | search_document: It's mostly due to the difference in immune system between a child and an adult. A primary varicella zoster infection (chickenpox) in adulthood is indeed associated with increased risk of complications. Most of these complications are due to the intense response by the adult immune system that comes into contact with the virus for the first time. Children have less active immune systems, but usually active enough to clear the virus - making them immune to it thereafter, and are therefore less likely to develop complications with this particular infection. The same goes to hepatitis A: adults develop jaundice, while children are asymptomatic. Note: a secondary varicella zoster infection during adulthood is called "shingles" and is generally less dangerous than a primary varicella during adulthood, due to the immunity that is already present at the time of the second infection. | search_document: Honestly, we don't know yet. The current theory is that there's a difference between a child's immune system and an adult's. A child's immune system prefers to eat up bacteria and viruses, while an adult's prefers to shoot bullets at bacteria and viruses (antibodies). Some think that the "eating" method is just more effective against the chicken pox virus. |
search_query: Why is chickenpox worse as an adult? | search_document: It's mostly due to the difference in immune system between a child and an adult. A primary varicella zoster infection (chickenpox) in adulthood is indeed associated with increased risk of complications. Most of these complications are due to the intense response by the adult immune system that comes into contact with the virus for the first time. Children have less active immune systems, but usually active enough to clear the virus - making them immune to it thereafter, and are therefore less likely to develop complications with this particular infection. The same goes to hepatitis A: adults develop jaundice, while children are asymptomatic. Note: a secondary varicella zoster infection during adulthood is called "shingles" and is generally less dangerous than a primary varicella during adulthood, due to the immunity that is already present at the time of the second infection. | search_document: Chickenpox is caused by the varicella zoster virus and smallpox by the variola viruses. Vaccina and variola are poxviruses, varicella zoster virus is not - so it is not surprising that vaccina immunization will not confer any immunity to chickenpox. "Pox" is an old term dating from the time before we had knowledge of infectious agents and was used to describe a number of diseases that seemed to spread easily and cause skin lesions. For example syphilis was once also known as the "great pox". |
search_query: Why is chickenpox worse as an adult? | search_document: It's mostly due to the difference in immune system between a child and an adult. A primary varicella zoster infection (chickenpox) in adulthood is indeed associated with increased risk of complications. Most of these complications are due to the intense response by the adult immune system that comes into contact with the virus for the first time. Children have less active immune systems, but usually active enough to clear the virus - making them immune to it thereafter, and are therefore less likely to develop complications with this particular infection. The same goes to hepatitis A: adults develop jaundice, while children are asymptomatic. Note: a secondary varicella zoster infection during adulthood is called "shingles" and is generally less dangerous than a primary varicella during adulthood, due to the immunity that is already present at the time of the second infection. | search_document: Chickenpox has always been around and I was never vaccinated for it in the UK (not by choice it just wasn't done at the time). I've had chickenpox 3 times and this could well be 3 different stains so it may be that there are still enough cases around and you just don't hear about them, chickenpox while uncomfortable is rarely more serious than that. Along with the seriousness of the illness you have to think about the infection rate and how they are spread. Measles is highly infectious so will spread easily amongst non vaccinated people. |
search_query: Why is chickenpox worse as an adult? | search_document: It's mostly due to the difference in immune system between a child and an adult. A primary varicella zoster infection (chickenpox) in adulthood is indeed associated with increased risk of complications. Most of these complications are due to the intense response by the adult immune system that comes into contact with the virus for the first time. Children have less active immune systems, but usually active enough to clear the virus - making them immune to it thereafter, and are therefore less likely to develop complications with this particular infection. The same goes to hepatitis A: adults develop jaundice, while children are asymptomatic. Note: a secondary varicella zoster infection during adulthood is called "shingles" and is generally less dangerous than a primary varicella during adulthood, due to the immunity that is already present at the time of the second infection. | search_document: Because 50 is when your odds of getting shingles starts to increase. This is important because if you develop a drug you need to run studies to show it's effectiveness. Since you want to make things easy when you're running your first study you concentrate on groups that are most susceptible to the condition you're trying to fight (because then you can keep your studies small and still get a meaningful amount of 'signal' in your data). In the case of the new "Shingrix" shingles vaccine GlaxoSmithKline ran studies like [this one targeting the 70+ age group](_URL_0_), and [this one targeting the 50+ age group](_URL_1_). This means that the effectiveness of this vaccine has only been proven in the 50+ age group, so that's all that groups like the CDC will recommend. |
search_query: Why is chickenpox worse as an adult? | search_document: It's mostly due to the difference in immune system between a child and an adult. A primary varicella zoster infection (chickenpox) in adulthood is indeed associated with increased risk of complications. Most of these complications are due to the intense response by the adult immune system that comes into contact with the virus for the first time. Children have less active immune systems, but usually active enough to clear the virus - making them immune to it thereafter, and are therefore less likely to develop complications with this particular infection. The same goes to hepatitis A: adults develop jaundice, while children are asymptomatic. Note: a secondary varicella zoster infection during adulthood is called "shingles" and is generally less dangerous than a primary varicella during adulthood, due to the immunity that is already present at the time of the second infection. | search_document: I don't know of any studies showing that adults who work in environments like that having better immunity. There are some studies showing that children who are raised in dirtier environments (playing outside more, having pets) had somewhat stronger immune systems than children raised in more sterile environments, and that they may be less susceptible to allergies than their cloroxed counterparts. People working in a health care setting are usually required to be up to date on immunizations, including flu shots. They often have earlier or better access to immunizations as well (EG: when the H1N1 outbreak happened a few years ago, people working in hospitals were able to get some of the first batches of vaccine, along with people who were prioritized because they were considered high-risk). |
search_query: How do movies not get uploaded online in HD from movie theater employees before their DVD release? | search_document: The theater will be fined a massive amount of money for allowing a leak, the person leaking it will be fined a massive amount of money for uploading it, and they automatically lose their job. This is a combination of copyright law violation and contracts that you sign when taking the job. So the risk are so extremely high that most will not risk it. They also have security features such as login codes to open, proprietary file types that need special programs to play, and the rooms operating the projector system requiring special key access at times. | search_document: Some may be, some are not. But due to the nature of their content the current leaks are protected by Whistleblower laws so even if they are technically illegal they are not actually illegal. |
search_query: How do movies not get uploaded online in HD from movie theater employees before their DVD release? | search_document: The theater will be fined a massive amount of money for allowing a leak, the person leaking it will be fined a massive amount of money for uploading it, and they automatically lose their job. This is a combination of copyright law violation and contracts that you sign when taking the job. So the risk are so extremely high that most will not risk it. They also have security features such as login codes to open, proprietary file types that need special programs to play, and the rooms operating the projector system requiring special key access at times. | search_document: It's way more complicated than that. [This great article at Stephen Follows](_URL_0_ ) explains how the money gets split up. The theater gets half of the ticket money after taxes (approx). They also have costs (building, electricity, workers, ...) so their profit on the ticket sales is pretty thin. They need a certain number of tickets sold or they can't afford to stay in business and try to make money selling popcorn. Lots of other people divvy up the money from the movie. Most people profit from tickets **and** video sales/streaming. That means that piracy impacts two of their sources of money. However piracy impacts both ways. Watching a pirate copy could get some to like the movie and buy it on bluray for future viewing. Piracy could cause some to say good things about the movie to their friends, and increase sales in the long run. There are no "with and without piracy" studies that don't have lots of agenda and dubious assumptions. |
search_query: How do movies not get uploaded online in HD from movie theater employees before their DVD release? | search_document: The theater will be fined a massive amount of money for allowing a leak, the person leaking it will be fined a massive amount of money for uploading it, and they automatically lose their job. This is a combination of copyright law violation and contracts that you sign when taking the job. So the risk are so extremely high that most will not risk it. They also have security features such as login codes to open, proprietary file types that need special programs to play, and the rooms operating the projector system requiring special key access at times. | search_document: It would be a trademark issue. If you could show that consumers were likely to be confused and think the new movie was related to your movie, then you can legally enforce that trademark. A title like "Room" is going to be too generic for an enforceable trademark. |
search_query: How do movies not get uploaded online in HD from movie theater employees before their DVD release? | search_document: The theater will be fined a massive amount of money for allowing a leak, the person leaking it will be fined a massive amount of money for uploading it, and they automatically lose their job. This is a combination of copyright law violation and contracts that you sign when taking the job. So the risk are so extremely high that most will not risk it. They also have security features such as login codes to open, proprietary file types that need special programs to play, and the rooms operating the projector system requiring special key access at times. | search_document: The formats used by theatre projectors are MASSIVE uncompressed files. In addittion I believe they are transported on a proprietary medium which you'd have a heck of a time getting it off of. I remember seeing a hard drive for a single movie labelled something like 100 + GB? Perhaps a theatre tech could tell you more. I'm making some educated guesses here. |
search_query: How do movies not get uploaded online in HD from movie theater employees before their DVD release? | search_document: The theater will be fined a massive amount of money for allowing a leak, the person leaking it will be fined a massive amount of money for uploading it, and they automatically lose their job. This is a combination of copyright law violation and contracts that you sign when taking the job. So the risk are so extremely high that most will not risk it. They also have security features such as login codes to open, proprietary file types that need special programs to play, and the rooms operating the projector system requiring special key access at times. | search_document: Theaters make agreements with the distributors which lay out the percentages each will get, a guaranteed number of weeks played, and if there are theaters close together there can be some bidding on exclusivity. During that agreement phase they would have to agree on what happens if a movie tanks and how bad before they can back out on the guaranteed number of weeks. |
search_query: How do movies not get uploaded online in HD from movie theater employees before their DVD release? | search_document: The theater will be fined a massive amount of money for allowing a leak, the person leaking it will be fined a massive amount of money for uploading it, and they automatically lose their job. This is a combination of copyright law violation and contracts that you sign when taking the job. So the risk are so extremely high that most will not risk it. They also have security features such as login codes to open, proprietary file types that need special programs to play, and the rooms operating the projector system requiring special key access at times. | search_document: I've gotta believe there's a pretty strict system in place for who gets to see what, and when. 'Access management' is probably the professional term, and it's probably a bit different between the two media. That said, workprints can still go 'missing' - as do the people who attempt to leak them. I'd imagine it takes longer to copy a 5-6GB movie file to a flash drive, which means you're exposed for longer. I also wouldn't be surprised to learn those 'access management' tools are the sort that log EVERYTHING and phone home frequently. |
search_query: How do movies not get uploaded online in HD from movie theater employees before their DVD release? | search_document: The theater will be fined a massive amount of money for allowing a leak, the person leaking it will be fined a massive amount of money for uploading it, and they automatically lose their job. This is a combination of copyright law violation and contracts that you sign when taking the job. So the risk are so extremely high that most will not risk it. They also have security features such as login codes to open, proprietary file types that need special programs to play, and the rooms operating the projector system requiring special key access at times. | search_document: > If so, why go through the trouble? There isn't any "trouble", copyright automatically applies unless they explicitly waive it. |
search_query: Can defense attorneys 'throw' a case if they know their clients are guilty? | search_document: Yes, they could 'throw' a case. However, that's a serious ethics violation which would almost certainly cause disbarment if found out, and not only that, the conviction could then be appealed based on ineffective assistance of counsel (embodied in the 6th amendment). If it makes it easier to wrap your head around, think of defense lawyers defending the integrity of the judicial system, not just their client. The idea being, the system must obey all of its own rules in proving that someone is guilty, or else it's a dishonest system and could easily "prove" that an innocent person is guilty next time. Defense lawyers are there to help ensure the system stays honest. | search_document: If you take the fifth, the judge cannot under any circumstances use that plea in his decision, and the jury cannot do so either. If they do, your lawyer can claim a mistrial and have the whole thing done over. As a result, the legal system has been very careful to avoid situations where someone actually pleads the fifth on the stand. |
search_query: Can defense attorneys 'throw' a case if they know their clients are guilty? | search_document: Yes, they could 'throw' a case. However, that's a serious ethics violation which would almost certainly cause disbarment if found out, and not only that, the conviction could then be appealed based on ineffective assistance of counsel (embodied in the 6th amendment). If it makes it easier to wrap your head around, think of defense lawyers defending the integrity of the judicial system, not just their client. The idea being, the system must obey all of its own rules in proving that someone is guilty, or else it's a dishonest system and could easily "prove" that an innocent person is guilty next time. Defense lawyers are there to help ensure the system stays honest. | search_document: In another thread on Reddit a couple of defense attorneys said that they did it not to prove a guy was innocent. Or to get the guy off the hook. But it was their job to make sure that their client got a good and fair trial. This helps clear the innocent. And prevents the guilty ones from being released because errors where made during the trial and not caught out. |
search_query: Can defense attorneys 'throw' a case if they know their clients are guilty? | search_document: Yes, they could 'throw' a case. However, that's a serious ethics violation which would almost certainly cause disbarment if found out, and not only that, the conviction could then be appealed based on ineffective assistance of counsel (embodied in the 6th amendment). If it makes it easier to wrap your head around, think of defense lawyers defending the integrity of the judicial system, not just their client. The idea being, the system must obey all of its own rules in proving that someone is guilty, or else it's a dishonest system and could easily "prove" that an innocent person is guilty next time. Defense lawyers are there to help ensure the system stays honest. | search_document: You are not convicted on the things that you did. You are convicetd on the things that the prosecution *can prove beyond reasonable doubt* you did. A good lawyer can minimize what the prosecution can prove by questioning the relevance of evidence, questioning wether evidence was obtained in a proper way, and by casting doubt on that which the prosecution produces as fact. |
search_query: Can defense attorneys 'throw' a case if they know their clients are guilty? | search_document: Yes, they could 'throw' a case. However, that's a serious ethics violation which would almost certainly cause disbarment if found out, and not only that, the conviction could then be appealed based on ineffective assistance of counsel (embodied in the 6th amendment). If it makes it easier to wrap your head around, think of defense lawyers defending the integrity of the judicial system, not just their client. The idea being, the system must obey all of its own rules in proving that someone is guilty, or else it's a dishonest system and could easily "prove" that an innocent person is guilty next time. Defense lawyers are there to help ensure the system stays honest. | search_document: It is to ensure that they can't be retried over and over in the same court until they finally give up and give a guilty/not guilty verdict. You can appeal and send it up the chain of command if new evidence comes to light and you think it would win you the case, but that's a totally different courtroom. |
search_query: Can defense attorneys 'throw' a case if they know their clients are guilty? | search_document: Yes, they could 'throw' a case. However, that's a serious ethics violation which would almost certainly cause disbarment if found out, and not only that, the conviction could then be appealed based on ineffective assistance of counsel (embodied in the 6th amendment). If it makes it easier to wrap your head around, think of defense lawyers defending the integrity of the judicial system, not just their client. The idea being, the system must obey all of its own rules in proving that someone is guilty, or else it's a dishonest system and could easily "prove" that an innocent person is guilty next time. Defense lawyers are there to help ensure the system stays honest. | search_document: Because that was the agreement, if they plea guilty, they'll face a lighter sentence. It's in the interest of the entire justice system for cases to not be bogged down unnecessarily, if someone is willing to not waste the courts time and money proving them guilty then they're rewarded with a slightly more mild sentence. Also in some cases the prosecution (people who are against the guy being charged) might not have a 100% solid case so a plea is less "risk" from their perspective. |
search_query: Can defense attorneys 'throw' a case if they know their clients are guilty? | search_document: Yes, they could 'throw' a case. However, that's a serious ethics violation which would almost certainly cause disbarment if found out, and not only that, the conviction could then be appealed based on ineffective assistance of counsel (embodied in the 6th amendment). If it makes it easier to wrap your head around, think of defense lawyers defending the integrity of the judicial system, not just their client. The idea being, the system must obey all of its own rules in proving that someone is guilty, or else it's a dishonest system and could easily "prove" that an innocent person is guilty next time. Defense lawyers are there to help ensure the system stays honest. | search_document: The judge will instruct a jury that their duty is to apply the law. But no one can force a jury to decide a certain way. If the jury decides that the defendant should go free, they can return a verdict of not guilty, even if they think the law is clear and the evidence shows that the defendant broke the law. |
search_query: Can defense attorneys 'throw' a case if they know their clients are guilty? | search_document: Yes, they could 'throw' a case. However, that's a serious ethics violation which would almost certainly cause disbarment if found out, and not only that, the conviction could then be appealed based on ineffective assistance of counsel (embodied in the 6th amendment). If it makes it easier to wrap your head around, think of defense lawyers defending the integrity of the judicial system, not just their client. The idea being, the system must obey all of its own rules in proving that someone is guilty, or else it's a dishonest system and could easily "prove" that an innocent person is guilty next time. Defense lawyers are there to help ensure the system stays honest. | search_document: When there's concrete evidence that they did it, the lawyer will work for a lower punishment. They'll find whatever excuse they can to get a shorter jail time, avoid death penalty, whatever the case may be. |
search_query: why, when intoxicated, does it feel like everything is spinning when you close your eyes but stops spinning when you open them? | search_document: the fluid in your inner ear keeps you orientated and standing upwards, although when your drunk certain functions in your brain don't work as well or as they are meant to. So if you've had a bit too much to drink, your brain might not be able to tell which way is up and which way is down if your inner ears are miscommunicating with your brain. So that's why when you close your eyes it feels like you're falling off the face of the world. | search_document: You have two eyes, and when you are not drunk, their images overlap to give you a 3D image with depth perception. When you're drunk, you have trouble focusing both eyes on the same picture, so they don't align properly and you get two different images. |
search_query: why, when intoxicated, does it feel like everything is spinning when you close your eyes but stops spinning when you open them? | search_document: the fluid in your inner ear keeps you orientated and standing upwards, although when your drunk certain functions in your brain don't work as well or as they are meant to. So if you've had a bit too much to drink, your brain might not be able to tell which way is up and which way is down if your inner ears are miscommunicating with your brain. So that's why when you close your eyes it feels like you're falling off the face of the world. | search_document: It starts in the ear, in the semi-circular canals, which have tiny hairs, called cilia, that help us to maintain balance, and they are also why our head spins when we drink. The semi-circular canals are filled with a fluid called endolymoh as well a more gelatinous substance called cupula, and as our head moves the endolymph and cupula move the cilia, firing signals to nerves, which sends that to the brain and gives us the sensation of motion. Essentially these are important motion detectors. When we drink, the alcohol in our blood stream travels throughout our body, including the inner ear where the semi-circular canals are located. This alcohol laced blood has a different density than our blood when sober, so it creates a density difference between the cupula and the endolymph, distorting the cupula's shape, which in turn bends and moves the cilia, telling your brain that you are moving even when you are not. |
search_query: why, when intoxicated, does it feel like everything is spinning when you close your eyes but stops spinning when you open them? | search_document: the fluid in your inner ear keeps you orientated and standing upwards, although when your drunk certain functions in your brain don't work as well or as they are meant to. So if you've had a bit too much to drink, your brain might not be able to tell which way is up and which way is down if your inner ears are miscommunicating with your brain. So that's why when you close your eyes it feels like you're falling off the face of the world. | search_document: From a medical perspective, alcohol affects different parts of the brain in different concentrations. The most sensitive area of the brain to alcohol is the prefrontal cortex. This is the area of the brain responsible for urge inhibition, planning, and executive thought. With alcohols intoxication, these processes are impaired leading to changes in behavior and poor impulse control. As you continue drinking and blood alcohol levels rise, more parts of the brain are impaired. The frontal cortex is next, leading to problems with speech, coordination, and certain reflexes (like visual tracking). After that, the hippocampus is affected leading to the inability to form memories (blacking out). If you continue to drink, the brainstem can be affected leading to depression of the reticular activating system and several centers critical to the support of vital functions. This will make you pass out and possibly stop breathing. |
search_query: why, when intoxicated, does it feel like everything is spinning when you close your eyes but stops spinning when you open them? | search_document: the fluid in your inner ear keeps you orientated and standing upwards, although when your drunk certain functions in your brain don't work as well or as they are meant to. So if you've had a bit too much to drink, your brain might not be able to tell which way is up and which way is down if your inner ears are miscommunicating with your brain. So that's why when you close your eyes it feels like you're falling off the face of the world. | search_document: Alcohol dilutes your blood (i.e., makes it less dense) because alcohol is lighter than water. Alcohol-soaked blood builds up more quickly in your ears than elsewhere in the body, and that throws off this jelly-like structure in your ears called cupula. Effectively, it makes the cupula want to float. As they float, they bend. This sends signals to your brain giving you the illusion that your center of gravity is changing. Because this signal is constant, it makes you feel like the acceleration is going faster and faster. This results in the dizziness feeling that throws you off-balance. To make matters worse, once the alcohol starts to leave your blood after many hours, the whole process happens in reverse. That's why you feel dizzy during a hangover |
search_query: why, when intoxicated, does it feel like everything is spinning when you close your eyes but stops spinning when you open them? | search_document: the fluid in your inner ear keeps you orientated and standing upwards, although when your drunk certain functions in your brain don't work as well or as they are meant to. So if you've had a bit too much to drink, your brain might not be able to tell which way is up and which way is down if your inner ears are miscommunicating with your brain. So that's why when you close your eyes it feels like you're falling off the face of the world. | search_document: Alcohol is called a depressant, which means that it hampers or suppresses nerve function. This can result in a perceived loss in hearing due to auditory nerves being suppressed by the alcohol you are consuming. |
search_query: why, when intoxicated, does it feel like everything is spinning when you close your eyes but stops spinning when you open them? | search_document: the fluid in your inner ear keeps you orientated and standing upwards, although when your drunk certain functions in your brain don't work as well or as they are meant to. So if you've had a bit too much to drink, your brain might not be able to tell which way is up and which way is down if your inner ears are miscommunicating with your brain. So that's why when you close your eyes it feels like you're falling off the face of the world. | search_document: Alcohol is a depressant to your nervous system so it dulls all your senses. Similar to if you bump into something while drunk, you don’t feel it until the next day, or why your vision gets blurry while drinking. |
search_query: why, when intoxicated, does it feel like everything is spinning when you close your eyes but stops spinning when you open them? | search_document: the fluid in your inner ear keeps you orientated and standing upwards, although when your drunk certain functions in your brain don't work as well or as they are meant to. So if you've had a bit too much to drink, your brain might not be able to tell which way is up and which way is down if your inner ears are miscommunicating with your brain. So that's why when you close your eyes it feels like you're falling off the face of the world. | search_document: It's not about the ear FLUID (called endolymph), it's about the gelatinous structure called the cupula, which is a part of that inner ear system. The gelatinous structure gains it's shape from blood flow, and alcohol thins the blood, which alters the shape of the cupula and causes the tiny hairs in your ear to bend, which causes the system to tell your brain that you're spinning, which is what causes dizziness. Interestingly, this is also why when you sustain a severe injury that causes massive blood loss, you'll also feel very dizzy. |
search_query: Why are some fish bones edible, and others are not? | search_document: They are small and soft so it does not matter if you swallow them, bigger and harder bones might get stuck in your throat and couse pain | search_document: Since the seem to be magnetic, once swallowed they could create some serious problems. As they pass through the small intestine they could stick together on opposite sides of the intestinal tract creating serious medical problems. |
search_query: Why are some fish bones edible, and others are not? | search_document: They are small and soft so it does not matter if you swallow them, bigger and harder bones might get stuck in your throat and couse pain | search_document: They are designed to dissolve at a certain speed. When you chew it up into smaller pieces, you break that designed dissolution threshold. |
search_query: Why are some fish bones edible, and others are not? | search_document: They are small and soft so it does not matter if you swallow them, bigger and harder bones might get stuck in your throat and couse pain | search_document: Skulls in general and especially jawbones are the densest and hardest bones in the body. That makes them more likely to be preserved and thus more likely to be found. |
search_query: Why are some fish bones edible, and others are not? | search_document: They are small and soft so it does not matter if you swallow them, bigger and harder bones might get stuck in your throat and couse pain | search_document: TIL there are people who chew on thier tongue in anticipation of a meal. |
search_query: Why are some fish bones edible, and others are not? | search_document: They are small and soft so it does not matter if you swallow them, bigger and harder bones might get stuck in your throat and couse pain | search_document: **Since swallowing involves closing the glottis, this works against the muscles that open the glottis in response to crying. We experience the resulting muscle tension as a lump in the throat.** |
search_query: Why are some fish bones edible, and others are not? | search_document: They are small and soft so it does not matter if you swallow them, bigger and harder bones might get stuck in your throat and couse pain | search_document: The muscles in your throat have to contract more when there is no food to push against, meaning each swallow involves more muscle work/movement and takes longer to complete. |
search_query: Why are some fish bones edible, and others are not? | search_document: They are small and soft so it does not matter if you swallow them, bigger and harder bones might get stuck in your throat and couse pain | search_document: The inner lining of the esophagus/mouth is a lot more sensitive than the lining of your stomach, and forcing certain things back up can cause more damage as it passes through these. |
search_query: What's the meaning of the phrase "I've got a bone to pick with you." | search_document: If you have a bone to pick with someone, it means they've annoyed or insulted you and you need to talk to them about it. According to the Oxford English Dictionary (via a thread in /r/etymology) "a bone to pick" originally meant something that occupies or distracts you (as a dog is occupied by picking at a bone) and somehow morphed into its modern meaning. | search_document: it signals to others that we need help without need for language. helpful in social animals. |
search_query: What's the meaning of the phrase "I've got a bone to pick with you." | search_document: If you have a bone to pick with someone, it means they've annoyed or insulted you and you need to talk to them about it. According to the Oxford English Dictionary (via a thread in /r/etymology) "a bone to pick" originally meant something that occupies or distracts you (as a dog is occupied by picking at a bone) and somehow morphed into its modern meaning. | search_document: Because it's a pic of an animal giving advice? |
End of preview. Expand
in Data Studio
README.md exists but content is empty.
- Downloads last month
- 68