[deleted]

you nearly escaped the matrix /s

Catholicism is a form of Christianity. The Pope is the head of the Catholic church and is the one who can interpret the bible. There is a hierarchy or organizational structure to it - under the Pope you'd have Cardinals and under them you'd have Bishops and then Priests (there might be others, don't remember off the top of my head).

I hope you can see how stupid this sound.

If you're in a situation where you know you can't reach target EVEN if all the budget is spent, the reasonable thing is NOT dump the extra money into anything so you can save face.

Big companies are a place where logic is not required, and not optional, it's actually undesirable.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[deleted]

Oops I can’t type. “Your blood pressure”

This is exactly it for “active noice cancelling” headphones. There’s also passive noise cancelling headphones which are far easier in terms of technology and thus far cheaper but they don’t cancel noise as well. Passive noice cancelling just plays a white noise, similar to the sound you hear when you put a seashell to your ear. This noise can help drown out outside noise, particularly when the headphones are also playing something else as well.

[deleted]

I saw something about humans evolving stronger, more nimble thumbs help with texting.

Evolution doesn't work that way. If your texting ability stops you from reproducing, then the stronger texters who do reproduce may, eventually lead to a race called homotextus or something.

Basically, if it doesn't stop you from reproducing, it won't affect evolution.

It's stupid. I always believed in zero-based budgeting. Yes, you can use the previous year's budget as a guide, but rushing to spend money just leads to waste. I used to work for a large corporate software reseller and the amount of crap customers/governments would buy just before their fiscal year ended was insane.

Opioids do suppress the cough reflex tho

Not like an ELI 5 but I thought this explanation would be a good follow up to the comment you just made. Maybe a bit long but I have a lot of experience in this area and you seem genuinely interested so I hope it's helpful to you.

You're absolutely right that type of thinking is prevalent in companies and that there is an enormous amount of value to be unlocked if everyone has a cost saving attitude. As someone who works in corporate financial planning I can tell you that most CFOs and people in Finance roles don't want the entire budget spent, particularly if its on fluff that's not needed. Alternatively, finance can also be ok with some areas going over budget. For example, the sales department is over budget because they have higher commission expense due to greatly exceeding revenue projections.

It's mainly a problem with human behavior based on outdated expectations and assumptions around how corporate budgets work. A lot of companies would historically budget just by taking last year's spending and then deciding to add %, keep it the same, or cut % based on business conditions. In that kind of environment front line managers are incentivized to spend because if they don't they get less funding, and they care more about their specific scope of work than the overall corporate profitability. Finance groups set controls and policy to try and mitigate this behavior.

There are still companies that operate that way, but many companies now are much more sophisticated than that and have a team dedicated to working with business leaders to set budgets based on bottoms-up business plans, zero based budgeting, or some other methodology which focuses on justifying all spend. Companies can tie funding to specific plans and then require a specific level of approval for when business requirements deviate from the plan in order to change it.

Senior leadership's role is to set constraints and ensure that the various business plans come together in a way that keeps the overall corporate financial picture right, and make trade offs if needed. They also approve or reject changes.

There are a lot of reasons why companies don't have a policy of letting each department keep their saved money for future years. Two main ones are the need to reallocate to different areas and also the tendency for people to overspend if they have control over contingency funding.

Here's one example to think about. The customer service department is under budget for the year because they have less customer service reps than they projected they would need, which saves the company $500k. From a finance perspective there can be good and bad reasons for that. Bad reasons might be things like recruiting wasn't able to hire enough reps, attrition was higher than expected because of bad work conditions, etc. In those cases you would expect to keep the $500k in the budget for the next year because the customer service group still needs to increase their headcount in order to meet things like customer satisfaction or average wait time requirements.

A good reason might be that the newest product release was smooth and complaints decreased which means that the call center can be sustainably staffed at a lower level. In that case you might want to take the $500k and either expect a higher profit margin or invest it into another department. Maybe the IT team can accelerate development on an application for customer service reps that will lead to more savings in the future.

TL,DR: Many companies actually do look at this stuff in great detail and try to plan logically. It's typically individual department heads and front line managers who make bad financial decisions. They do this because of the way there incentives are set up and human nature. Finance companies try to design control processes and policies to mitigate it.

[deleted]

no

I believe you are making this up.

There is virtually no evidence that honey reduces the severity of symptoms or reduces time to recover for respiratory infections.

Really most of the evidence comes from this one review: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22419319/

But everyone citing this review as proof that honey works is misunderstanding what the study is saying. Here is the Conclusions section (emphasis mine):

> > Honey may be better than 'no treatment' and diphenhydramine in the symptomatic relief of cough but not better than dextromethorphan. There is no strong evidence for or against the use of honey.

A lot of studies come out with these "may" conclusions. They use weasel words like this because the study usually has some flaw, such as a low sample size, or some significant uncontrolled variables (eg., are you sure it was the honey or just that they drank something?). You get to scientific (thus medical) truth through multiple studies with different methodologies, and only when you get consistent agreement do you start accepting something as truth. We're not there with honey.

But even here they were talking about pasteurized honey. Raw honey specifically is never recommended medically due to the high risk of botulism. If your doctor is prescribing raw honey for a cough they should be referred to their medical board.

As I keep saying, please don't take medical advice from randoms on social media. Just talk to your doctor and stop spreading medical misinformation until you do.

Lol. Vancouver Washington DC?? People are silly.

Without knowing what specific type of lift you are talking about, here are just three ways off the top of my head with something like a bicep curl.

1. A bicep curl with a dumbbell can do a pretty good job at isolating the lift to only use the bicep, especially if you are seated with your elbow on your knee. If you are doing a standing two handed bicep curl with a barbell, you have the ability to engage other muscles, particularly at the start to overcome inertia. You can engage your shoulders and back to help get the bar moving. This overcoming inertia is the hardest part of the lift as it requires extra force just to get it moving.

2. Along these same lines, if one arm is slightly stronger than the other, then when using two hands this arm could begin moving the barbell slightly which helps the other arm in overcoming inertia to start moving.

3. this is more specific to a slight increase in two handed… let’s say you can do bicep curls with a 30lb dumbbell, but you can’t go up to 35lb. But if there was a 31 or 32lv dumbbell, maybe you could. So with both hands, you could possibly do 65 lbs, because your arms working together adds in that slight little bit more each could do.

Please read this entire message

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

• Rule #2 - Questions must seek objective explanations

• Subjective or speculative replies are not allowed on ELI5. Only objective explanations are permitted here; your question is asking for speculation or subjective responses (Rule 2).

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.

...people pasteurize honey? Why?

[deleted]

Although, to be honest, most noise canceling headphones are not that exact, so some noise still comes through.

I've personally built a crucible that can reach over 1,000C from parts I bought mostly at Home Depot for about $150. Imagine what you could do with an actual budget -- there are plenty of materials that can contain molten steel.