Simplifying, the value of a company is the cash it has on had plus the present value of all the future cash it is going to earn. When the company pays out a dividend that money has to come from somewhere, and it comes from the company's checking account. The company is simply worth less after the dividend. You are worth more. There is nothing about dividends that magically creates value, they just transfer cash from company to stockholder.

So why do they pay it? Because some investors prefer to receive dividends rather than sell a few shares anytime they need cash. Not all companies choose to pay dividends, for various reasons including the tax treatment, but they are very popular especially among older folks with lots of stocks in their retirement accounts.

Have you ever made or constructed anything?

Please read this entire message

Your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):

• Top level comments (i.e. comments that are direct replies to the main thread) are reserved for explanations to the OP or follow up on topic questions (Rule 3).

Anecdotes, while allowed elsewhere in the thread, may not exist at the top level.

If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the detailed rules first. If you believe it was removed erroneously, explain why using this form and we will review your submission.

[removed]

Please read this entire message

Your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):

• Top level comments (i.e. comments that are direct replies to the main thread) are reserved for explanations to the OP or follow up on topic questions (Rule 3).

Very short answers, while allowed elsewhere in the thread, may not exist at the top level.

If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the detailed rules first. If you believe it was removed erroneously, explain why using this form and we will review your submission.

Please read this entire message

Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):

Subjective or speculative replies are not allowed on ELI5. Only objective explanations are permitted here; your question is asking for speculation or subjective responses. This includes anything asking for peoples' subjective opinions, any kind of discussion, and anything where we would have to speculate on the answer. This very much includes asking about motivations of people or companies. This includes Just-so stories.

If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the detailed rules first. If you believe this submission was removed erroneously, please use this form and we will review your submission.

Basically, you make a copy of the tree (or bush or vine, whatever)

What you do is you plant any old seed for that fruit until you get a seedling. Then you take a living branch from the tree that makes the seedless fruit and you replace the top of the seedling with it. This is called grafting. Basically, the seedling will repair itself with that new branch and continue growing from that new branch until it becomes a fruit bearing tree, making new seedless fruit. The beginning stages of the graft are the most dangerous because the seedling basically has an open wound and a very weak connection, but once that heals over its just like caring for a normal tree.

This is exactly what we have to do for apples because when apple trees reproduce, their offspring is very different from its parent, and very unpredictable. It makes it hard to get good apples from seeds, so we use grafts to essentially cline existing trees that we know make good apples. This also means that most fruit you eat is genetically identical (ie all honeycrisp apples are the same, all strawberries are the same)

This does lead certain varieties of fruit to be prone to disease. For example, the dominant banana in supermarkets in the 50s was the Gros Michel, and it tasted like the banana flavoring we have today (because the flavor was based on that variety of banana) but most of the trees died out due to a fungus that specifically attacked that tree. Bananas we have today are a different variety called the cavendish banana. They could easily fall victim to a similar fate, because like other fruits, they are all genetically identical to each other. We do have other varieties of banana produced in smaller quantities that are prepared to take over should the cavendish die out.

Well, they'd have to take the film and do minimal processing on it, and yes it was pretty time consuming. They would sometimes have different cameras just for dailies.

However, starting in the 1960s, they started using videotape alongside film cameras for the dailies. This greatly simplified the process. The first movie to do this was The Party starring Peter Sellers and directed by Blake Edwards, which was released in 1968.

(And I know this because it's one of my favourite movies (; ).

They were created just as you would imagine. They processed film, then synced audio. They had a staff dedicated to taking film and doing all this all day long.

They were not edited. Just the raw film as captured.

When it comes to "cancel culture," most of the people doing the cancelling/boycotting are people who weren't consuming it, anyway. It's only a real problem for the person/act/show being cancelled when they get fired/lose their contracts, which only happens in instances where publishers/producers market to a wide-ranging audience and they're afraid that the cancelling/boycott will hurt their sales, like when Paula Deen lost book deals in 2013 because she admitted to using the N-word in the 80s. Her publisher didn't just publish her books, they also published things that pretty much covered anything and everything you could think of, and they decided there was a very real risk to losing more money to the impending boycott than they'd lose by not paying the publishing costs and just cutting her lose.

In South Park's case, the network knows full well what South Park is, as does their audience, and the show makes it obvious right up front that they're likely going to offend you. They took some real risks with the Scientology and Book of Mormon episodes, but the network itself is pretty well insulated from most of whatever legal action anyone can take (and Stone and Parker like it that way). Therefore, anyone getting upset at whatever they see there (and South Park has offended me more times than I can count, but I still watch it) have only themselves to blame for watching it in the first place, because that disclaimer at the beginning makes it clear that, "hey, we warned you." As a result, South Park doesn't lose a lot of viewers due to controversy.

You don't get anything extra, yes. Only about 50% of stocks pay dividends, which means investors can see the profits of their investments go into increases in the stock price or get paid out directly in the form of dividends. A stock represents a share of ownership of the company which includes the bank account from which dividends are paid, so paying dividends reduces the value of the company. In essence it is just converting something a stockholder already owns into cash in their hand.

Thanks very much

[removed]

I have heard trainers talk about the “snapping” of the shoulder when trying to throw a punch.

It almost seems like you hit harder when you ‘whip’ a punch into someone (if you will) instead of forcefully just driving your arm and fist into someone/something.

Basic physics - specifically Newton's 2nd Law of Motion.

The force acting on an object (like a fist) is equal to mass times velocity. More mass, more force.

Same reason why the damage a vehicle accident causes varies depending on the size of the vehicles involved. Two cars at 30mph is generally survivable. A train hitting a car at 30mph... not so much.

What? No.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Button_cell#Electrochemical_system

Lithium button cells operate at 3V, most other chemistries operate at around 1.5V.

The voltage is the chemistry, you can stack multiple layers (button) together to create higher voltages.

The disclaimer in the beginning says it shouldn’t be viewed by anyone so basically it’s your fault for watching it in the first place.

Two parts of this:

1. The amount of sugar in fruit is fairly low compared to the amount of sugar in candy and soft drinks. You’d have to eat an enormous quantity of fruit to consume as much sugar as you can from sources with all this added sugar.

2. The sugar in fruits is normally mostly tied up in the various plant cells. It takes your body a little time to actually get at it all, so it doesn’t spike your blood sugar as much. Added sugar in candy/sodas is almost all immediately absorbable so hits your system all at once and spikes blood sugar and then spikes insulin production.

These aren’t comprehensive, but are two factors.

They are one of the few examples of dark humor done well, they do satire perfectly. And they make fun of absolutely everything, so they aren't only targeting marginalized groups in an attempt to hide real racist / homophobic / transphobic / etc thoughts masked as jokes.

There's a false premise in your question. We certainly know in theory that shorter wavelengths of light allow for smaller features, but the technology to generate extreme UV did not exist and needed to be developed. Right now there's only one company in the world that knows how to do it

A lot of censorship is really self-imposed. When someone really doesn’t care what a small group of people complain about then there isn’t much that can be done to make them change their ways.

Similarly you could say Fox News is immune to cancel culture, because they’re happy to go on doing what they do no matter how much the progressive left despise them for it

We know theory and practice don't precisely align in semiconductors. They live on the finnicky edge of quantum physics

Semiconductor devices books will have two charts next to each other. One telling you what the equation says the values should be and one showing you what the actual measured values tend to be. They can be off by >20% at times because exactly where in the silicon crystal that phosphorous atom landed matters a lot

South Park is satire. An actor saying the N-word or some other hateful, bigoted or misogynistic thing is not satire. That is the difference.

South Park is a show known for its edgy humor and pushing boundaries. It has been around for a long time, and its creators, Trey Parker and Matt Stone, have built a reputation for making fun of everyone and everything. This has given the show a kind of immunity to cancel culture because people expect South Park to be offensive and controversial. It's seen as satire, which can make it harder for people to take it too seriously or hold it to the same standards as other shows.

​

I personally think it's refreshing.

For most of human history, we kind of thought that how rich a country was depended on how much money it has. That kinda makes sense, rich people have the most money so rich countries must have the most money. However, our thinking about this began to change in the 1700s.

Countries like Spain began bringing in enormous amounts of silver from the New World. Back then, most currency was made of silver (and other precious metals), so they had by far the most money. Despite all of this, Spain continually lost power and influence to two upstart countries: the Netherlands and England. These countries did not have access to precious metal on anything like the same scale as Spain, but were able to support larger navies, feed their population, and develop advanced technologies. People began to question the old notion of what makes a nation wealthy.

A Scotsman named Adam Smith wrote a book entitled 'The Wealth of Nations' and among many groundbreaking ideas, he argued that wealth goes beyond money and is actually all of the output of an economy (everything produced domestically), minus the inputs (things imported from abroad). When you turn wheat into bread, the wheat has become more valuable and you have become more wealthy, and on and on for everything in the economy. This is what GDP seeks to measure, all of the value created by production in the economy.

GDP just one measure, but it is very highly correlated with things that matter. Countries with higher GDP per person tend to have better schools and universities, lower infant mortality, longer lifespans, and higher overall happiness. Lots of other factors like inequality, political instability, etc. can play into it, but GDP is almost always the best starting point for any economic analysis.