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).

Plagiarism is a serious offense, and is not allowed on ELI5. Although copy/pasted material and quotations are allowed as part of explanations, you are required to include the source of the material in your comment. Comments must also include at least some original explanation or summary of the material; comments that are only quoted material are not allowed.

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.

It’s just how each language has its own nuances. In Spanish, the adjectives come after the nouns.

A long time ago, someone decided to do it that way. Everyone else agreed that was pretty good and they kept doing it. That’s how language works.

Me and Joe went to the park means basically the same as Joe and I went to the park, but only one is correct.

If you don't want to tip, go get your food. That being said, I simply refuse to use any delivery app because I don't believe in paying into that system. Also, the cost of delivery isn't worth the convenience to me. If I'm hungry enough to eat, I'm hungry enough to go get my food.

Everything I know about stocks and shares comes from playing Railroad Tycoon. I remember the options for short selling and buying back, and seem to recall that buying back temporarily put up the share price as you were effectively reducing the supply of shares, making the existing shares worth more?

It does need more elaboration, but using loans with stock as collateral is a way to avoid, or at least minimize, taxes very long term. If the collateral raises in value at least as fast as the interest rate, you can take out more loans to service the initial debt. If the collateral raises faster than the interest rate, this can be extended to add on more debt load in total. Using this is risky, in the same way that margin stock is dangerous: losses are magnified more than gains are, and a stock drop can wipe out many times the amount of wealth from the owner.

The loans will also let them do better timing with sells, delaying payments such that they can liquidate a stock that lost value at the same time as stock that gained value, reducing the taxable liability when they do actually sell. This is presuming they hold any stock that actually lost value.

Most of the rich will have outside sources of income that they can use to service any debts they have. This will include items such as base pay and stock grants from the companies they own.

If they manage to delay the repayment until death, proper estate planning allows other tricks with minimizing tax liability.

To add on, occasionally there’s a public money angle that makes it even less appealing to the general public.

A company is failing, but deemed “too big to fail,” so Uncle Sam gives that company a bunch of cash to keep them running.

6 months later, the company is doing well again, has a ton of extra money, and starts doing buybacks. Meanwhile, all of the citizens whose taxes paid for that bailout get nothing.

[removed]

Aka it works like your doc's stethoscope

The two pin electric earphone jack might be a carry over from this two hole air tube system. I've seen this air tube setup even in the early 2000s.

“What’s your vector Victor?”

They're probably talking about the Bose noise cancelling ones they lend you.

Most of it is burned to keep your body temp up. The rest of it is to just do the basic functions, lungs, heart and organs working, the brain takes up a good chunk of energy as well.

Your right, you wont lose much weight by excercise unless you do it for many hours a day. You best bet is portion control, and eating less calorie dense foods, ie vegetables and fruits and natural meat instead of things with corn syrup, oils, butter, etc. its better to eat a giant bowl of spinich than it is like 1 slice of cheese.

The problem is our bodys have evolved to crave energy dense foods, so it basically means good tasting stuff is bad for you.

Please read this entire message

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

• Rule #2 - Questions must seek objective explanations

• Straightforward or factual queries are not allowed on ELI5. ELI5 is meant for simplifying complex concepts (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.

Amen brother

But if you didn't get them for whatever reason, you could put your ears to the holes in the armrest to hear! Made it hard to see the screen, but if you alternated, you could get most of the gist of the show.

For some reason, what really stands out in my mind is the clicky scroll wheel to change the channels.

[removed]

Sort of. Everyones bodies are different, but lets just assume your body burns 1500 calories a day just surviving, thats what it takes to keep your body temp up, and your organs working etc. And if your pretty sedentary, you might use another 500 calories to work your muscles, bringing your average calories per day at 2000.

If you keep the same amount of activity, and only ate 1000 calories a day, then yes, you would lose a pound every 3.5 days or approximinately 2 lbs a week.

But, your body really doesnt like starvation, and its going to make you feel like shit for a while. So typically what is "easier" for people is to exercise, which lets say means you now need 2500 calories a day, and you eat 2000 calories instead of 1000.

This way your still at a caloric deficit (500) and youll still lose about a pound of fat a week, you will lose weight, but you wont be starving all the time. Also you might have days where you work harder, and some days that are cheat days that you eat more, this is up to the persons preference.

Please read this entire message

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

• ELI5 requires that you search the ELI5 subreddit for your topic before posting. Users will often either find a thread that meets their needs or find that their question might qualify for an exception to rule 7. Please see this wiki entry for more details (Rule 7).

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.

Companies pay dividends to their shareholders.

Companies that have some money lying around might normally try to invest it in opening new stores, or developing new products/services, or advertising, or hiring more staff, or upgrading their building, etc etc. This would be 'investment'.

However, sometimes companies can't find a good investment. They judge that there isn't enough demand for a new store, or that they are investing enough into produt developement, or that more advertising wouldn't help because they've already reached their target audience.

They could instead "Invest in themselves" so-to-speak by buying their own shares back. This effective destroys those shares since they issued them, so getting them back basically makes them cease to exist. This has a few effects:

• They are aiming to profitit the shareholders buy directly paying out the ones they buy these shares from.
• The spike in demand from them buying back the shares, and the reduced supply of shares, concentrates them in the hands of those who kept hold of them, so that also tries to help the profit of shareholders.
• They could pay out less in dividends (i said they shares are essentially destroyed, but if you still imagine them holding onto their own shares, then they are just paying the dividends to themselves, i.e. not having to pay them for those shares), which is like saving money, i.e. the 'investment' into themselves pays off.

-

It can sometimes be seen as a poor business move. Shareholders might like share buybacks since it is kinda diretly trying to give them value, but something they believe the business should expand, rather than consolidate like that.

It can be seen as greedy, because the money could instead go to employees or reducing prices, rather than aiming to help the shareholders.

It can be seen as corrupt, as the executives and board members that might have a say in this decision, might own some of the shares, and so might directly profit in some scenarios. e.g. they have an opportnity to buy up shares before the company does a buy-back, hence preempting the spike in demand and maybe getting an unfair gain.

Please read this entire message

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

• ELI5 requires that you search the ELI5 subreddit for your topic before posting.

Please search before submitting.

This question has already been asked on ELI5 multiple times.

If you need help searching, please refer to the Wiki.

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

Another reason that buybacks are preferable to shareholders is that the upper middle class and below will likely not pay tax when selling stock due to capital gains tax law, while they do at their standard income tax bracket for dividends.

Not sure that the theory about loans holds water though. You have to pay the piper one way or another, and whatever you do to earn that money is a taxable event unless you're living on a small enough amount of money to keep your sales under the threshold for 0% cap gains tax.

We need a new folk hero. Johnny Appleclone or Johnny Applegraft?

Transport costs would be a major factor, in addition deserts aren't empty they have ecosystems which are fairly vulnerable to changes.

Please read this entire message

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

• ELI5 requires that you search the ELI5 subreddit for your topic before posting. Users will often either find a thread that meets their needs or find that their question might qualify for an exception to rule 7. Please see this wiki entry for more details (Rule 7).

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.

Please read this entire message

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

• ELI5 requires that you search the ELI5 subreddit for your topic before posting.

Please search before submitting.

This question has already been asked on ELI5 multiple times.

If you need help searching, please refer to the Wiki.

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

Breast milk evolves with the baby. The fat and other nutrient concentration changes as the baby gets older. Also, if the baby is sick, the breast milk will contain antibodies to help fight off the disease.

We don’t really know how the mother’s body senses these changes and adapts the milk. And we don’t have a good way to store antibodies in formula on a shelf somewhere for several months.

We could probably get pretty close by further breaking down formula into stages: 0-3 month milk, 3-6 month milk, etc. But that adds a lot of complexity for very little improvement in quality.