ELI5: How come you can be falling asleep watching TV, then wide awake when you go to bed five minutes later?
Edit: Fell asleep a few minutes after posting this. Woke up to 1,200 replies! I'm not going to get much work done today...
The brain is like a group of people talking to each other. When you're watching TV, the part of your brain that watches TV says "Shut up guys, I'm watching TV," so you can focus without thinking about cake or math. As a result, the others sit silent, grow bored, and fall asleep, until only the TV watcher part of the brain is left. Left by himself, he too gets bored and falls asleep.
When you're in bed, assuming you aren't counting sheep or something, the entire brain is kind of in free time mode, and any part of the brain can speak up if it wants to. They start talking to each other, and even if one of them starts to drift to sleep, the others wake it up either by deliberately talking to the sleepyheads or just being noisy. Eventually more and more of the parts of the brain fall asleep from sheer exhaustion no matter how loud the others are, and eventually the last one passes out and you are asleep.
There was a post about this not too long ago. IIRC one of the reasons was that if you're lying on the couch and fall asleep, you're not actively trying to sleep, you just fall asleep because you're tired. When you go to bed, you're actively deciding to sleep, and thinking about trying to sleep actually keeps you awake.
I think when you're watching TV, you're typically only passively using your mind. You're just taking in the info. So your brain isn't very active, yet there's something going on to keep it from becoming too distracted.
Once you turn it off and try to sleep, your mind is free to wander and actively think about anything.
Since there's no empirical answer here, I'll throw my non-empirical answer in the mix:
TLDR: It could be many things.
It could be conditioning: You took a couple of naps on the couch with the TV on; now, your brain associates the TV, with just the right amount of fatigue, as sleep time, at the right place.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch (when you go to bed), you're staring at your phone, "doing some last few reddits" before bed. You have trained your brain to activate before your "alloted" sleep time. Chances are, you've done so much internet before bed--your brain does not associate bed time with sleep time.
Related: Your bed should be for two things only: Sex and/or Sleeping. This is to make sure your brain and body associate that with sleep, OR Sleep that usually follows sex.
Also, digital screens emit blue light. In short, it's a light wavelength that suppresses melanin. Melanin is a hormone that is produced in your body. When Melanin spikes up (usually after some hours of nighttime and sometimes around post-lunch hours) it makes you sleepy because that's the job of Melanin. They also sell melanin at the drug store, but it's always better to rely on your natural sleep cycles as nature intended. The Sun and Digital Blue Light from most electronics today suppress Melanin, making it harder to fall asleep. THIS along with not associating your bed with sleep will most definitely fuck up your sleep.
Sleep is still misunderstood for the most part (we don't know why we do it, generally), since it puts us at a huge disadvantage in the wild--yet, we must do it. This means that even if we don't understand it, it does something right. Studies where people were sleep deprived had slower time reactions, sometimes akin to a drunk person.
For example, cell regeneration and healing happen during sleep. The brain, oddly enough, is more active during sleep. There's a theory that "pruning" is occurring during sleep--AKA, your brain is getting rid of the stupid, useless information that won't help you survive. This is why "The First 20 Hours" method works well for advancing learning quickly seems to do well: reviewing before sleep/reviewing after sleep, in short time frames--so the brain associates that this is needed and doesn't prune it.
Another possible reason is that when you sleep, it takes some minutes (60ish or more on normal IF I recall correctly) to get to Rapid Eye Movement (REM sleep). REM sleep is ESSENTIAL. A lack of sleep with screw you up, but a lack of REM will really screw you up. So, when you're running on less sleep than usual, when you finally sleep/nap, you get to REM quicker! WOOHOO! LIFEHACK! NO, it's not. As stated earlier, sleep has a lot of functions. Anyway, if you're tired and fall asleep while "relaxing" watching TV, and wake up 30 mins later, chances are you got some REM sleep. This fucks you up because your body has gotten a little recharge to take you over for maybe, 6 hours? It's like your phone was dying, you charged it for 10 mins and got it to 25%. It's gonna take some time to get back below 10%.
Remember those people from the studies? Well, some of them were "disturbed" (on purpose) during REM sleep (enough to snap them out of REM, but not out of sleep). The next day, they felt they were fine and had good rest. However, their results on reaction time showed that they were not at full "normal" rested reaction capability.
Also, there have been many people throughout history that have experimented with various sleep cycles to "get the most out of their day." I think (and I may be way wrong here) it was DaVinci that famously tried the polyphasic sleep (fancy name for "different ways of sleeping"), where he would sleep one hour every 4-5 hours. Supposedly it worked, and I don't doubt he got used to it. So, you may have gotten used to sleeping 4-5 hours at night, with a nap right after dinner--and you may not realize that it's a habit now. You may not like it, but you did to your body--your bod is just doing what you taught it.
That's all I got. Some of it is scientific, but I did internet research long ago and don't have the patience currently to dig up the sources. If someone wants to disagree or bring up relevant points, or even call me out on wrong info, feel free. This is the internet, not The White House, I can admit I might be wrong.
EDIT: I want to add that "humming" sounds can easily relax the brain. Depending on what you're watching, if it doesn't have much flux, the TV can hum along, much like a quiet lullaby. This is why White Noise or the sound of rain, a fan, Air Conditioner, beach waves, background coffee shop can aid in sleep & focusing. In a weird way, it zens the mind to relax. I looked into it long ago, but I forgot why it is. Probably something with the infant brain associating a smooth sound (singing by mom) that you are safe and not in danger, so you can relax.
ELI5: What physically happens to your body when you get a second wind?
IIRC it's a combination of your body switching off non-essential functions such as digestive processes to redirect that energy to the muscle groups you are using and a blast of natural drugs released into your blood stream in order to facilitate your ability to 'escape' whatever it is you're running from.
Mostly the drugs/chemicals though.
The thing about second winds is that they can't be counted on when you need them. They're a real phenomenon, yes, but what they are not is a predictable phenomenon.
Second winds depend on a number of factors, including everything from exercise intensity and frequency to what kind of shape you're in. But although physiologists know they happen, they don't all agree what's going on behind the scenes to cause it. Some theorize that your second wind, also known as a runner's high, may be caused by the body's release of pain-relieving endorphins. However, that doesn't explain the whole thing. More commonly that "high" is believed to happen as the body's systems come back into balance: Your respiration is regulated; your oxygen intake is fast, deep and plenty; and your body is operating at a slightly elevated temperature, covering you in a light sweat.
When your second wind kicks in, which takes roughly 10 to 15 minutes to happen, give or take five minutes or so (generally, that is; some people may have to wait much longer), it's because your body has stopped focusing on expelling excess carbon dioxide and started taking in more oxygen. That's aerobic energy production (also called aerobic metabolism), and that translates into less pain, easier breathing and a renewed confidence that although you might not have wanted to exercise, maybe it wasn't such a bad idea after all.
Fueling Your Second Wind
An energy-carrying molecule known as adenosine triphosphate (ATP) fuels every living thing — you, me, plants, animals, all of it — and, when you get right down to it, it's what fuels your second wind.
Adenosine nucleotides are part of the energy production systems of your body, specifically the energy metabolism of your cells. ATP is created from the process of metabolizing the carbohydrates, fats and proteins you consume. It's formed by a high-energy bond between lower-energy phosphates, adenosine diphosphate (ADP) and inactive
The body makes an ongoing supply of ATP, and it starts with the breakdown of sugars from food. First, a reactive process called glycolysis traps and converts glucose, a monosaccharide, and converts it into fructose 1,6-bisphosphate. Next, that fructose 1,6-bisphosphate is split into two molecules of three-carbon pyruvic acid (CH3COCOOH); that's important, because ATP is produced when those three-carbon molecules are oxidized into pyruvate, the final product of the glycolysis energy-conversion process. In short, your body is constantly breaking down the food you eat and converting it to stored energy, which can fuel that second wind.
Because ATP is critical and stored only in limited amounts, the process of hydrolysis and resynthesis is circular and ongoing. ADP and Pi combine to synthesize and replenish the body's ATP, and through hydrolysis, ATP is broken down into ADP and Pi as needed for energy. That equation that looks like this: ATP + H2O → ADP + Pi + energy [source: Encyclopedia Britannica].
The Physiological Process of a Runner's High
The human body fuels itself through three types of energy production methods, depending on how intense and how long you engage in that physical activity: phosphagen, anaerobic and aerobic energy production.
When energy is needed in a hurry, it's the phosphagen system that gives the body immediate energy, lasting only for seconds; ATP is able to fuel some pretty intense muscle contractions, but not for very long. Because the supply of ATP stored in the muscles is limited, the body can only sustain short bursts of energy, like sprinting for no more than five to six seconds [source: Berg]. During intense, short periods of exercise, ATP is rapidly replenished by creatine phosphate, which is stored in the body's skeletal muscles.
After that first five seconds, the rate of glycolysis — that's the process that converts glucose to pyruvate, which is needed for cellular respiration — dramatically increases by 1,000 times than while the body's at rest. The anaerobic energy system, which uses carbohydrates but no oxygen to provide for the body's energy demands, takes over [source: Stipanuk et al.]. ATP is rapidly generated during anaerobic glycolysis, to be used during intense physical activities lasting between 30 seconds and three minutes [source: Gagliardi]. If the body's demand for oxygen becomes and remains greater than what you're supplying, there is an increased risk of lactic acidosis, when pH levels decrease in the body and byproducts of the breakdown of glucose to pyruvate accumulate in the body's tissues and bloodstream.
Most of the body's energy needs, though, are produced through a process called aerobic metabolism, also known as mitochondrial respiration. During aerobic endurance exercise, oxygen is required to generate energy from carbohydrates and fats — and to keep up the production of ATP, although its synthesis is low when the aerobic metabolism has kicked in. When the measure of your oxygen consumption (V02) reaches the maximum volume of oxygen your body can use (V02max), you've arrived at your second wind. You're what some refer to as "in the zone" — you're focused, you're not in pain, and your breathing deepens to provide maximum levels of oxygen to your working muscles and maximum ATP regeneration.
As your body gets accustomed to exercising and regulating its energy needs, the odds increase that you'll see your second wind kick in more frequently because your muscles, including your heart, will be more efficient.
"I know that I'm going to have a number of highs and lows over the course of an ultra, to the extent that I don't really think of it as a 'second wind' anymore," says Rob Colenso, ultra-marathoner and RRCA-certified running coach. "It's more like, I was able to properly eat and hydrate over the last hour, and so now I feel better and have gotten a burst of energy."
Your body's ability to produce energy has a momentum-like effect. The process of going from a relatively energy-efficient, low power consumption mode into a mode that is able to quickly convert stored glycogen and other bodily compounds into quick energy takes time to ramp up to full speed.
If you're relatively relaxed or just warmed up but still fresh, your body still isn't in full energy-burn mode. Once you leap into action, your body starts that transition. If you get winded and take a break, that process doesn't immediately slow down, so after a moment or two, your energy suddenly surges because your body is still supplying the energy level you were demanding of it a few moments ago.
While VERY informative and a fun read, that was definitely not an 'ELI5'
ELI5: Genetics are easy to understand when you have a few fixed outcomes like eye color. How do they work when it is something like height?
So the first thing to understand is the instruction set in your DNA is called your genotype. The way you actually look and are is called your phenotype. Most of genetics study is about understanding the relationship between the genotype and phenotype.
Now some aspects of your phenotype are easily mapped to a single gene in your genotype. This is the easy part. But some characteristics of your phenotype are determined by not one but the combined action of multiple genes. And some aspects of your phenotype are not determined directly by the genotype at all.
For example, there is no gene for 'height'. There are multiple genes that together determine things like how large your bones are, how fast they can grow, how sensitive your body is to growth hormones, how efficiently you can use the food you eat etc. And then there is a final factor which is the environment - how much food and of what quality was available to you when your were growing.
Your height is the net effect of all these things. That is why, you can talk about people being genetically predisposed to being taller or shorter, but there is no way to predict exactly what height will be. Even if you had extremely detailed information about a person's genotype and exactly how the hundreds of involved genes will contribute in miniscule ways to affect height, the environmental factor still remains a variable.
PS: Eye color is also determined by multiple genes and is not as simple as you might think https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_color
They're called polygenic traits, and they're much more complicated than simple mendelian traits. In the simplest case, each gene acts independently of the others, which produces a nice bell curve like the first graph in that article. But it's also possible for genes to interact with each other, so two genes together might have more impact than the sum of the same two genes separately.
Some good responses here. Just thought I'd add a few types of genes that make genetics more complex than a simple Punnett Square:Genes that code for proteins that help the cell replicate and perform its basic function (proteins involved in building bone, muscle, connective tissue, etc. that creates an increase in height) Genes that code for proteins that regulate the activity or expression of other proteins (proteins that speed up or slow down the proteins creating muscle, bone, connective tissue, etc.) Genes that code for proteins that regulate gene expression itself (proteins that attach to the DNA and speed up, slow down, or prevent DNA transcription of "height" genes entirely) There are also segments of DNA, such as introns, which were once thought to be useless but now are believed to play an important role in gene expression and the shape of the DNA molecule itself (a slightly modified intron size near a "height" gene might make it more/less accessible and therefore more/less frequently expressed)
Even for something as seemingly simple as eye color, there can be dozens if not hundreds of genes somehow involved in the production or regulation of eye pigments, and some of these genes may affect other processes as well. So instead of imagining a simple line of causality that connects a gene to a phenotype, imagine it as a web of interconnected genes that combine to form multiple phenotypes and affect each other in ways that aren't always easy to predict. It's not A --> 1 but rather ABCDEFG --> 123456789, with no way (yet) of knowing which one is causing what.
Eye color absolutely does not have a "few fixed outcomes", if that helps muddy the water any for you.
ELI5: Went on vacation. Fridge died while I was gone. Came back to a freezer full of maggots. How do maggots get into a place like a freezer that's sealed air tight?
So all I can think now is everytime I eat something it's just covered in eggs. Yup. I'll never get that out of my head now.
There was an egg on something before you even put it in there. Usually they just can't hatch because of the temp. At room temp they can hatch.
Everything in, on, and around you is covered in microscopic critters and their byproducts. If this is worrisome; never google and read about Demodex.
go ahead... take another shower. it will never help. :)
Most of these comments are probably wrong. Depending on what's in your freezer exactly, and when it was put in there, it shouldn't have viable preexisting eggs or larvae.
The blast-freezing process brings things to a temperature that kills most fly eggs, basically absolutely any that you're going to encounter. And without the blast freezing process, eggs on the surface of food (which is where most flies lay their eggs) will become nonviable in just a few days, max. If frozen slowly, the water in the egg will crystalize and rupture the egg.
Everything you buy in the freezer isle is blast frozen (Edit: OK, Almost everything). All meat that you buy with the exception of fresh-shellfish is most likely going to be egg free. And shellfish-bourne eggs don't turn in to flies, they turn into worms and other parasites. Flies generally don't lay eggs on unripe fruit. They lay eggs on wet stuff. There are exceptions, like the fig wasp, that inject eggs. But these insects need more unripe fruit to successfully have multiple generations, which wouldn't be the case here. I'm guessing OP is dealing with some sort of blowfly larva like the common house-fly.
Flies are very good at detecting the chemicals released as food spoils. As food spoils, it "outgasses". Solids and liquids are transformed by microorganisms into gasses. These gasses take up a much greater volume than the liquid and solid precursors. This puts pressure on the magnetically sealed door. This causes your freezer to begin to "burp" out these fly friendly gasses. Depending on the setup, there's a decent chance that the door will open and remain open. Regardless, fly noses act like leak-detectors on your fridge. They will find small cracks, and they will gleefully sneak through failed U-traps. Food in ziplock-bags will liquify, burst, and spill all over the freezer floor, weakening the magnetic seals, and luring flies to lay eggs right on the seal, allowing larvae to crawl in the direction of the scent.
A couple years back, I had a fruit-fly infestation that got rather bad. My freezer was new and in good working order. Fruit flies obviously are not going to be able to breed inside. But they are able to crawl inside, freeze, and die.
In my case, fruit-flies were likely going in the ice-dispenser, because that's where the largest collection of them were found. It has an inner funnel that is pushed up against the ice reservoir to work. They were trapped in that cold funnel region. The flap-gate on the ice-dispenser is not nearly as strong of a seal as the door seal. If you have an ice-dispenser, that's likely how they got in.
The only way it would be brought-in fly eggs would be if you froze some leftovers that a fly had time to lay eggs upon (this only takes seconds) and you did that like the same day the freezer failed.
ELI5: In the song "Taxman" the Beatles complain about the then 95% tax rate for top earners in the UK. Why was the tax rate so high back then, and was the rate sustainable?
Why were taxes so high? World War II.
All the military equipment, all the soldiers' pay, all the medical expenses, all the expenses had to be paid, somehow.
That somehow was with debt. Debt that had to be paid off by the government over the next 20-30 years.
So, during WWII, the British government (and ALL governments, actually), sold massive amounts of debt (war bonds) to everybody and anybody.
Years later, that debt had to be paid off. With interest. To raise the amount of money needed to pay off that debt, the tax rates had to be ridiculously high, especially on high earners.
Remember, England was VERY hard hit by the war. Rationing did not end until the mid 1950's.
Even the US had tax rates around 90% on top earners, in order to pay off the US war debt, pay for the rebuilding of Europe, and maintain the military at war footing for the first couple decades of the Cold War.
And, during that time, the US (and the UK) paid DOWN their massive deficits to more sustainable levels.
So, the whole debt crisis thing we keep talking about today, we KNOW how to reduce the debt.
We just don't wanna.
Were taxes that high sustainable? Short term,yes. Long term, there wasn't a NEED to maintain the tax rates that high, once the hump of paying down the War Debt was gone.
Its important to note that not all the income of a top earner was taxed at 95%. Income taxes usually work by brackets. Example with made up figures: Your first $18,000 is taxed at 10%, then $18,001 to $75,000 is taxed at 15%, etc.
In the U.S., the highest bracket currently is ~39% starting at ~$418k, so only income above 418k actually gets taxed at the highest rate.
I assume it works/worked like that in the U.K. too, where only income above a certain amount was taxed at 95%.
I wanted to point out tax brackets because I've run into so many people who don't realize that they're a thing.
As far as if it was sustainable...¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I have a feeling political ideology will drive the answers in here because economics is hard and confusing and usually doesn't give clear cut answers.
edit: fixed some typos. Rushed this answer then jumped in the shower so I didn't do any proofreading.
A lot of people have dealt with questions of tax brackets and flat taxes, but I'm going to turn to the second part of your question: was it sustainable? The short answer is, yes. Probably. The history of taxes (especially in the US) is a fraught one, but it really can be divided into two eras: pre-Reagan, and post-Reagan. It's not a case of Democrat or Republican, no matter who might tell you otherwise. Tax rates reached their peak under Eisenhower, and they were lower under Clinton and Obama than they were for six out of Reagan's eight years in office.
Historically speaking, it's important to note that current top tax rates are not normal. Between the start of WWII and the Reagan Administration, the top tax bracket never dropped below 70%; since 1987, it's never risen above 40%. Why? Well, it mostly boils down to trickle-down economics -- the belief (for better or for worse) that cutting taxes on the top earners will allow them to invest their money more freely, thus providing jobs down the line. As an economic theory, it's pretty flawed, not least because it assumes that the rich will reinvest their money, rather than squirrelling it away, as is often the case; if you want money put back into an economic system, it works better to give it to the poor, because they pretty much have to spend it. (Sidenote: 'trickle-down economics' is a branding nightmare to begin with, but it was originally known as 'horse and sparrow' economics -- the theory being that, 'if you feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows'. It's got its detractors, is what I'm saying.)
Recent Presidents haven't been too keen to be seen to raise the tax rates (even though a more progressive tax structure actually benefits the majority of people), because a lot of people have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the tax bracket system works. They hear that number go up, and they immediately assume they'll be worse off, when in most cases they wouldn't be. (Take Reagan's tax shift in 1988. Under Reagan's plan, someone earning the median individual income in 1988 ($25,872) would have paid about 19% in tax. Someone earning the same amount just two years earlier would have paid just 13.8% of his income in taxes. Compare that to someone earning $250,000, on the other hand: he would have paid about 27.7% in 1988, but 41.9% two years earlier. The top tax rate lowered from 50% in 1986 to 28% in 1988, but poorer people actually paid more.)
TL;DR: Similar systems worked for decades. It might have needed a little tweaking, but generally yes, it would have been sustainable.
Don't forget, a 95% taxrate is not ashigh as it sounds. I don't know the precise details of the rates that applied in the UK in the 1960s, but in general, the 95% rate would only have applied to income above a certain level. So maybe income below £500 was tax free, earnings between £500 and £5000 was taxed at 20%, £5000 to £20000 at 40%, and only income above that at 95%. So if you earned £20001, only that last £1 would have been taxed at 95%, the rest at lower rates.
ELI5: Why is carpet used in the floors of vehicles? It seems the worst possible material to use.
Automotive carpet is generally really tough and stands up well to being soiled and is easily cleaned. Source : I've done deep cleaning on quite a few cars 30-50 years old with original carpet. Hard surfaces wear much more obviously - painted metal, bare metal, plastic, wood or whatever else you think "should" be there would be much more likely to show wear earlier than decent carpet.
Carpet fiber is a polymer. The newer stuff is typically made of non-woven material that is designed to do exactly what you described. Depending on the fiber orientation, thickness and bonding method these fabrics can be extremely strong and durable. I know what you mean when you say "advanced polymers" but you gotta remember all the other aspects that go into high output production... For example, cost and ease of manufacturing. With respect to most textiles car carpet is pretty damn strong.
Source: Textile Technology B.S.
Edit: woke up to quite a few questions so I'm going to edit this comment to address some of them. -Still on mobile so bare with me
B.S. stands for bachelor's of science (good ole Reddit)
This carpet isn't perfect. If you don't want the Minnesota winter destroying your car after 120k miles get some extra floor mats. I mentioned earlier that cost is a big deal. I'm sorry but a Toyota Camry or something like that isn't going to have high dollar carpet in it... Let alone something that can stand up to the abrasiveness of snow, ice and most importantly salt. Remember, they use all sorts of abrasive materials to assist drivers when the road is shitty.
Carpet does play a big role in damping sound but nowadays cars have different kinds of damping materials to keep road noise down. Similar to subflooring or other types of insulation. This material is non-woven like the carpet and can come stock or be added in.
Vinyl and rubber options (jeeps, trucks etc) are available but in the past carpet was considered to be the premium option and evolved into the norm.
Edit 2: spelling cuz autocorrect
That makes sense, but I feel like the advanced types of polymers that are being produced today would be a much more viable option for both ease of cleaning and not showing wear.
Plus people want to feel special when they buy a new car, therefore carpet.
ELI5: How are whales, some of the largest creatures on the planet, able to survive by eating krill, some of the smallest?
Well they eat a lot of them.
You've eaten rice, haven't you? A single grain of rice isn't going to fill you up or give you a lot of nutrition, but you don't eat just one grain of rice, you eat a bunch of them. Similarly, whales eat a (figurative) ton of krill to maintain their nutritional requirements.
Edit: Might be a literal ton too. I'm unwilling to do the math on the subject at 1:47 am.
No good answer.. so i googled up that shit.
Tldw: Whales eat only during 4 months a year. Krill multiplicate in those months. There are lots of krill. Whales accumulate so much fat that they survive the "winter"
During the antartic summer the water gets warmer and the currents pull up plancton from ghe bottom. Thus is the core meal of the sea. Krill will feed on the plancton and in the arctic summer krill will proliferate and multiply. Now these little fuckers are like 2 inches long. Yet during the summer the total mass of all krill will surpass the mass of all humans on earth. Krill are the feast of the seas because they travel in tight packs. Since there are billions of them you have a tight patch of krill that spans for literal miles.
Makes easy to hunt and eat... just drive thru and open wide.
Now (not only)the whales will travel to the krill area in the summer and use some tricks to trap krill and will eat about 2 ton of krill every day building up fat.
This spectacle repeats every year. The ciecle of life
In terms of total mass, krill might be the most abundant animal on earth. Even though they are small individually, they comprise of a ton of food for whales to eat.
Simple. They eat a fuck ton of it. A single blue can eat 40 million krill every day. That's ~8,000 pounds of krill, in case you were wondering.
ELI5 how casinos can refuse to pay a jackpot, claiming the machine is broken, but not pay back everyone who played and lost?
Software developer here,
I wrote software for these one-armed bandits for ~5 years. Detecting a fault in the machine isn't too hard, I suppose, though I never had to do it. If the machine is a "participation" game, then some of the winnings of each game are paid out to the manufacturer, because just making and selling machines isn't profitable enough to stay in business. The catch is the manufacturer pays out the jackpots, not the casino. So the casino doesn't give a shit if you hit 10 jackpots in a row, and neither do the commissioners, for them, they're just doing their job.
When a jackpot is hit, the whole bank of machines are roped off and kept under guard. A poor (EDIT:) sonofabitch engineer or two are dragged out of bed in the middle of the night, or pulled out of their children's birthday party, whatever, and they're stuffed into a plane with all sorts of gear and shit. They will systematically diagnose, test, and dismantle that machine down to the rivets to make sure it wasn't tampered with or flawed. It's the company's responsibility to prove the win was false if they want to save their cash.
But even the manufacturer plans for payouts, it's all part of the budget. My employer designed the math behind their games so one of their participation games, in the entire market, like a Wide Area Progressive, would hit every 6 months. We had one WAP hit twice in one month just after release once, the execs puckered up so tight they shit diamonds to cover the bills that day.
We laugh all the way to the bank and release a patch.
I tell everyone - don't play 'em. They are fair, the machines don't cheat, they are truly random, no voodoo hand waving or combos of button pushes or fucking with your player tracking card is going to do anything to influence the game, and even in the event of total power loss, the game will later reboot to exactly the same state it was in before the power loss. But they have among the worst odds in the casino, more than doubly so if you're at a Cesar's.
The first thing that happens when you hit Spin is it saves the ONE randomly generated number that determines the total outcome of the game. Whether you win or lose, how much you're going to get in the bonuses, everything is already determined. You know those Pick'em bonus rounds where you touch to reveal what's under a number of items? It doesn't matter what you touch, your winnings have already been decided - BY LAW. But... but... but... It showed me what was underneath all the other options! Listen to me very carefully - whatever you pick, we put your winnings under that option, and the other values you didn't pick are bullshit. We put those there for psychological reasons. It entices players, it triggers your addiction centers. We don't officially talk about gambling addiction, but in the lunch rooms, we totally talk about how to hook players.
I've seen our games in action, and I've watched grandmothers drain their wallets of hundreds of dollars. Hundreds. I don't know how many $20's that woman attached to an oxygen tank had in her wallet when she started, I know she didn't have any when she left, and I counted hundreds of dollars. My wife was a data analyst for the same company, and she would go into the field to interview players. Our "best" players are those who are playing entire banks of machines at a time, pacing the row, hitting Spin. She's talking to this one guy and he's not even looking at the fucking game! He's talking to my wife, looking at her, and tapping Spin as fast as he can without paying attention.
He was so mentally fucked, and our machines did that to him. We did that to him.
The executives would park their DB9's practically sideways in the building handicap parking spots. They were self important cocks like you wouldn't believe because they had money. I'd call the police and report the plates while walking into the building. The salesmen would do coke with the clients, the casino execs, and they were fucking stupid, they really had no idea how to use a computer to check their email and couldn't do basic math. They'd be told they can't sell a unit for less than $X, and they'd undercut us anyway - we'd take a loss on 1/2 their orders because "they're selling relationships." Twats.
The company was doing great, so they threw extravagant parties that would go all night. You've seen Great Gatsby, they used it as a sort of manual on how to live in excess and debauchery. The company was doing poor, so they fired a bunch of people so it looked like we were doing great, and then they'd throw a party... I just remember the tents, and the hundreds of bottles of wine, troughs of beer... I bet we filled two dumpsters with just wine bottles alone per party.
I never liked slot machines. In fact, I fucking hated them before I even took the job. I was notorious around the office, and almost a decade later they still talk about me. I was so cynical. We have a suggestion box for themes. I suggested we build a large, multi-story black building. Completely featureless, no windows, painted concrete. Players will walk up and in the middle of one side, at waste level, is a bill validator. They put in their money, you hear a bit of rumbling, like the sound of large gears behind feet of concrete. And that's it. Eventually they just walk away confused and feeling unfulfilled. What's the difference between that and one of our machines?
I'll never understand why they didn't like me.
People like you and comments like this are why I'm still on Reddit after nearly 8 years.
What does the company do if they see the machine malfunctioned and people LOST for, say, 5 hours? Are they under any obligation to do anything or do they just laugh and pocket the winnings?
I love you. They were fools.
ELI5: Why can some people only sleep on their back, and others only on their front or side?
In my experience as a massage therapist there isn't really a prefect answer. Most of this is just preference and what the body is used to.
If you're a side sleeper, it's not that you can't sleep on your back it's just your body isn't used to it. If you laid there long enough you would fall asleep. And vice versa.
For those wondering, best sleeping position is on back with pillow or some support under the knees. If you're a side sleeper stick a pillow between your knees. Don't sleep on your stomach. (But thanks to those who do because you keep me in business.)
Edit: usually stomach sleepers have neck pain because the neck is always on one side for hours at a time. If you don't have pain and it's comfortable then go for it. If you wake up with a sore neck then consider changing positions.
In mattress sales over here, and the type of mattress that people buy can affect this a lot. That's why there's all types of sleep guarantees, and if you don't like it you can return it type of sales. When someone who always sleeps on their side gets a really nice firm mattress they aren't going to like it. It's going to put too much pressure on their shoulders and hips. Same way with a back sleeper switching to a soft mattress, it will not give them nearly the same support that they're used to.
Think about it like this, in your home you want slippers. They're nice and cozy. On a run you want tennis shoes, they're durable and flexible. When you're on your feet all day, you'd want a nice pair of dress shoes with enough support to help with your posture, but at the same time having a good comfortable sole. With stomach sleepers you want a very soft mattress to take the stress off of your lower back. Side sleepers want soft mattress to conform to their curves, but also enough support to keep from sinking in. Back sleepers need support to keep their spine in line. Not a perfect metaphor, but it gets the job done. Sometimes one might have to change the way you sleep based on the type of mattress you have.
Just because someone has a great mattress, it doesn't always mean it's a great mattress for them. P. S. Buy a mattress protector with at least a 10 year warranty, yes they're expensive but it goes a heck of a long way.
Edit: they're, their, there. Because that seemed like the end of the world to some people.
I will admit that was pretty atrocious though. I apologize for completely not proofreading.
Edit: I want to point out that if you have a firm mattress and you sleep on your stomach, I'm not saying that you need to go out and buy a new mattress tomorrow! Honestly if you're feeling pain then try to sleep on your back. I had to do this and it was super annoying at first and it honestly took me about 2 weeks to completely adjust, but once I did I started getting wonderful sleep with the same mattress I already had.
Edit: I'm not sure why people are so skeptical of my advice considering I'm getting no commission off of this, and the chances of me running into any of you is extremely unlikely. Take it as you may, I'm just trying to help out the everyday type people.
Final Edit: When I said tennis shoes I meant athletic shoes in general. I grew up around people who referred to athletic shoes as tennis shoes. I know the difference, but I'm just so used to calling them tennis shoes. Kind of like how a lot of people will call tissues "Kleenex", or call lip balm "Chapstick".
Habit for most, sleep apnea for the people who can't sleep on their back.
As someone who works in a sleep lab, I see a lot of people who "only sleep in (x) position" change that position once they're actually asleep.
Its just a matter of routine for most people.
Edit: Stop messaging me about your sleep positions. If it hurts see a doctor. If not then that's nice.
this thread just makes me feel horrible as a human being for sleeping on my stomach
ELI5: Why is under-cooked steak "rare"?
edit: Oops! I didn't mean that I was of the opinion that "rare" steak is undercooked (although, relative to a well-done steak, it certainly is). It was definitely a question about the word itself- not what constitutes a "cooked" steak.
Also, thanks to /u/CarelessChemicals for a pretty in-depth look at the meaning of the word in this context. Cheers, mate!
Here's what etymonline has to say about it. It comes from the Old English word "hrere" which meant lightly cooked.
"undercooked," 1650s, variant of Middle English rere, from Old English hrere "lightly cooked," probably related to hreran "to stir, move, shake, agitate," from Proto-Germanic *hrorjan (source also of Old Frisian hrera "to stir, move," Old Saxon hrorian, Dutch roeren, German rühren, Old Norse hroera), from PIE root *kere- "to mix, confuse; cook" (source also of Greek kera- "to mix," krasis "mixture"). Originally of eggs, not recorded in reference to meat until 1784, and according to OED, in this sense "formerly often regarded as an Americanism, although it was current in many English dialects ...."
EDIT: since this reply gained some traction, I'll pimp etymonline a bit. It is a great site for understanding why a particular word has its specific meaning. Here's the link to rare: http://etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=rare
I don't think your question was poorly written as much as reddit likes to take the piss out of posters. Sure, under-cooked is raw, and rare is "lightly cooked", but even as someone who loves rare steak, I understood your question just fine and was annoyed by all the other responses.
I'm more curious at how someone would pronounce hrere and hreran than how they relate, but that's just me.
Thanks for taking the time to answer! Even though my question may have been poorly worded, I'm glad that you caught the gist of what I was trying to ask.
I guess now I'm curious about how the words "Hrere" and "Hreran" relate, since one is about the quality of what's being cooked, while the other is about motion. Hmm...
The pathogens we aim to kill with heat are almost exclusively on the surface of the meat. Which is seared to a proper temp even when the middle is "rare". The type of food born illness that resides in bad meat is not gotten rid of via heat (or any other means). This is why ground beef is inherently more dangerous because once you grind larger pieces of meat you mix in any surface pathogens with the entirety of the product. This is also why my answer is specific to steaks and not burgers.
We have to understand as consumers that food born illness such as e. coli are by in large the result of the contamination of a product from an outside source. This usually means that the surface of a product is ground zero for our attention. Hell, cantaloupes are one of the biggest culprits of salmonella. The pathogen can contaminate the rind of the melon and we we slice into it with a knife we drag salmonella into and across the surface of the pieces of fruit we're going to eat. This is why we wash our produce before consumption (even if it is organic and/or labeled pre-washed).
Source: Am Chef
TL;DR When it comes to getting sick, the surface of a steak is the part that need to be brought up to temperature unless you are dealing with rotted meat, in which case no amount of heat will save you. Wash your vegetables.
Also, please don't wash your chickens in the sink with soap and water. Just thoroughly wash the things that come in contact with the raw product.