Recent comments in /f/explainlikeimfive

CompletelyPresent t1_jeduv5n wrote

Reply to Eli5 why does a survey need to have a minimum of 30 respondees to be statistically significant? by shashwathj

I always heard 1500 participants are required to make it valid.

But look how easy even that many can be corrupt. What if they're saying 100% of people think God is real, but the survey featured 1500 people from rural Texas. It would be heavily biased.

Source: Took 4 Statistic classes in a row when getting my MBA.

3

anax44 t1_jedu1fz wrote

Reply to comment by Welpe in eli5 What does “indicted” mean? by jcw10489

>I would still probably stress to not get your hopes up TOO high (Or worry TOO much if you are a fan) but this has potential.

Neither hopeful, nor a fan. Just an interested non-American.

Fwiw though, I think Trump was a test for America, and America failed.

2

Welpe t1_jedtfer wrote

Reply to comment by anax44 in eli5 What does “indicted” mean? by jcw10489

I would still probably stress to not get your hopes up TOO high (Or worry TOO much if you are a fan) but this has potential. This is the first time that it honesty looks possible that he will be convicted of something. Even if the prosecutor has some very strong evidence (Which it increasingly looks like is true), you never know anything for certain when it comes down to a jury. One person with a different impression of the evidence or beliefs about the president could be what keeps him out of prison.

1

GetARoundToIt t1_jedte67 wrote

Reply to ELI5: I understand that sound waves essentially stretch and disperse very quickly, but technically, aren’t the very tiny sound waves still there, thousands of miles away? by Strict_Alternative74

So the answer is “yes”. Enter the Bloop. Note here we are talking about ultra low frequency, high amplitude sound that is traveling in the deep ocean.

Similarly, earthquake detection also rely on detecting “sound”. The waves generated by earthquakes are also low frequency and high amplitude. In this case, the sound is traveling through Earth’s mantle, and can be detected by sensors around the world.

But when it comes to the kind of sound that we humans can hear, that travels through the air — the Earth is just too noisy of a place for weak sound signals to be detectable over noise at thousands of miles away.

2

Pyryn t1_jedsxbh wrote

Reply to comment by Pegajace in ELi5 If the universe is expanding, what is it expanding into? by cashmoneyhash

I feel like this has to be a pretty clear argument for there being at least 4 spatial dimensions. The production of new "space/universe" essentially from...."nowhere." Reminds me of the idea of if a 3 dimensional sphere were to pass through a 2 dimensional space, to the 2 dimensional observer - this sphere would simply be a slice (or really, a line - to them) that simply goes from nothing, to smaller, to larger, to smaller, then back to nothing - all without the two dimensional observer ever having an awareness as to even the idea that the object they're witnessing essentially "appear out of thin air, then disappear" exists within 3 dimensions.

The production of new "space/universe" being generated everywhere across the universe, at all times, to me - would mean an expectation that this added space is coming into existence from a 4 dimensional (spatial) existence. If new "space" were being generated from a central locus, then perhaps something else - but the whole "everything, everywhere, all at once" aspect really has me imagining only that its production must be borne of a 4th dimensional space.

If that's irrational or if there are theories stronger than that - please let me know, but intuitively it's the only thing that would make sense (when considering the idea of imagining a 3 dimensional object in a 2 dimensional space, which would appear, under those conditions, exactly the way we view the view the expansion of spacetime in 3 dimensions)

3

BurnOutBrighter6 t1_jedsw65 wrote

Reply to Eli5:How does alcohol kill germs?? by invisible_potion

To resolve the apparent contradiction, your question has a false assumption in it.

When you drink alcohol, it absolutely does damage and kill human cells too. That's why it increases your cancer risk. It's not like our cells aren't immune to it in some way that bacteria cells aren't.

It's just that bacteria only are one cell, so if alcohol kills that cell, that's it it's dead. But humans have tons of cell, so if doing a shot kills a few thousand cells in your mouth and throat, you can regrow them.

...But every time cells divide there's a chance something messes up and it becomes cancer.

15

atomfullerene t1_jedsuqu wrote

Reply to ELI5: How do we continue to grow seedless fruit if they don't contain seeds? by CuriousHuman111

There are three basic ways to do this.

For long-lived vines, bushes, and trees, it's done by cuttings. You find a rare mutant plant that produces good fruit with no seeds, then take cuttings from it. You root those in soil or graft them on to roots, and you essentially make a bunch of clones of the original. This is how it works for bananas and grapes.

For annual plants, it's done by hybrids. For example, seedless watermelons are made by hybridizing two strains that produce infertile watermelons with few seeds. It's a bit like breeding mules.

Finally, in some circumstances you can get seedless fruit by preventing fruit from being pollenated. This is how pineapples are kept seedless, for example, and it's why Hawaii was a major pineapple producer. There were no native pollinators that would pollenate the fruit, resulting in seed free pineapples.

98