Yup, I think it also has the perk of allowing two people to watch the same show/movie.

Wait, so you can plug a 3.5mm headset into either port, and you'll get your normal stereo sound from it?

Our genes contain instructions for making chemicals (proteins) that are used by our body to do stuff.

Our genes come in pairs - each member of a pair is called an "allele", which you can think of as a variant of the gene. Slightly different instructions for the proteins.

In some cases, a phenotype (an external characteristic) is determined by a single gene. Then, as you know, it might be that one allele is "dominant", and an alternative is "recessive". You only need one copy of a dominant allele to "express" that version of the protein, but you need two copies of the recessive one.

Here's one way that might work:

Suppose there's a version of the gene that produces a protein that makes a flower yellow. Without the protein, the flower will be white.

Let's call the allele that produces this protein Y.

Maybe there's a different version of Y which is "broken". The instructions it codes don't make the protein that makes flowers yellow. Maybe they make a protein that does something else, or maybe they make a protein that does nothing at all. Let's call that one y.

A plant might have two copies of Y, or two of y, or one of each.

If it has YY or Yy or yY, it's able to produce the protein, and so it has yellow flowers. The Yy ones might produce less of it, but that doesn't matter of the protein is like an "on/off" switch.

On the other hand, some plants have only yy, which means they can't produce the proteins, and so the flowers end up white.

So Y = "yellow flowers" is dominant, and y = "white flowers" is recessive, because the plant only needs one copy of Y to know how to make the protein that causes flowers to be yellow.

Your fat is stored energy, and energy is measured in calories. So say you want to loose 10lbs, you have to burn 10 lbs worth of calories more than you take in (a little more to it than that, but that's the high level). Each lb of fat has about 3500 calories, so to loses 10lbs, you have to burn about 35000 calories more than you consume. The good news is you burn about 2000 just being alive every day. So if you exercise you burn even more, watch what you eat...and you can pretty easily create a 500 or 1000 calorie per day gap.

This error be evolutionary good. It’s much more dangerous leaving a cave than entering it (assuming you know there’s nothing dangerous in the cave).

Flashy answers with whistles and bells impress and confuse while the rich laugh all the way to the next hoard, and people don't like to hear economies are simply based on choices made by the people with the money to make the choices. Imagining it based on external forces, complex and mysterious is much more stimulating, and believable as we have been conditioned. Like how a tantalizing conspiracy theory fills the brain with endorphins. It is easier to control the public if you keep them ignorant, sick, poor and constantly move the goal posts. This will insure downvotes.

Took me a few reads but that actually makes sense, thanks

> The delivery service takes 18% or more from the restaurant so the restaurant is very close to making nothing on the low price orders.

This just isn't true, for several reasons.

The restaurant saves money not needing to pay someone to take the order and collect the money. They save money on their credit card merchant fees and chargebacks (DoorDash/UberEats assume all the risk).

And if it's still not worth it to them, the restaurant can charge different prices than in-store. Some restaurants near me charge 20% more if you order on DoorDash than if you call in.

It's just economics. If the restaurant isn't making enough money they can charge more. If they charge too much and people don't want to pay, then people can either pick up themselves or go elsewhere.

> I think the Romans might have had a decent seedless apple at one point

I doubt there are seeds of a seedless apple.

Generally a gene for a dominant trait does something, and for a recessive one doesn't.

For example, a gene saying to put melanin in the iris of the eyes is going to be dominant- if you have one copy of it, you'll put melanin in your irises and have brownish eyes. All you need is one gene to do that to make that work.

Adjective order matters in the same way that all other grammar rules matter. It's what we expect. And when those expectations are broken we tend to get scared and confused because it takes more work for our brain to interpret what we are hearing or what we are reading.

Adjective order is a pretty unique one though, most other grammar rules are broken pretty often in really informal settings. But something about adjective order makes us really not want to break that rule. At least in English, other languages might have much less strict adjective order rules.

Profit extraction over value creation

Yes "me" is for when you are a object of a sentence (the thing being acted on) "I" is for when you are the subject of the sentence (the thing doing the action)

Like

I hit the ball. (correct, because you are the subject)

The ball hit me. (correct, because you are the object)

Me hit the ball (incorrect)

Yh, they get full cleans dude

Also note that while losing weight is simply calories in > calories out, in the long term there are some factors that can make a difference. First off the longer you spend starving yourself your body will start to slow your metabolism down. Your body wants to keep its fat, it makes you fitter for survival in lean times. So simply starving yourself typically isnt as efficient as doing things like intermittent fasting. Again this doesnt mean that one is better for this person or that person, but just mathematically you can lose more weight that way.

Also remember that even if you are intaking less calories, you still need certain nutrients to be healthy. Your body requires fats, carbohydrates and proteins, as well as nutrients and vitamins to survive.

Unless you are very skilled and knowledgeable about balancing diets and meeting all these requirements and such, cheat days are a benefit to your overall health. Your body will often crave things it needs, so every now and then, you should treat yourself.

[removed]

A whole bunch of rich executives hold a lion's share of the stock, but they take only a small compensation of salary.

They get, however, compensation in the form of shares of the company.

The company can produce a ton of profit by doing things like cutting corners and reducing salary, that profit can be reinvested in the company or paid out to the shareholders.

But... If it were paid out to the shareholders, they would have to pay taxes on it.

So the idea is, by using the money to artificially lower the supply of stocks through a buyback, you're increasing the proportional share each stock represents in the company.

If you have 100 stock issued, each one represents 1/100 stake in a company worth 10,000$. Each is worth 100.00$. The owners of the company can use their 1000$ profit to buy back 10 shares. Now there are 90 shares that represent 1/90 stake in the company, meaning you've effectively 'given' each shareholder around 0.11 stock for each share they own.

The issue with this is that you're basically giving people money tax-free. Executives and billionaires don't need to pay capital gains tax until they sell their stock.

Then, they have another trick! They just use it as collateral to secure low-interest loans and live lofty lives of luxury tax-free. A bank will happily 'lend' someone enough money to live an expensive extravagant life in exchange for having those assets as collateral.

So they can accumulate billions of dollars of funds, tax-free, by dodging income tax and instead inflating the value of held stock.

They don't ever need to sell that stock because they can buy anything they want using it as collateral.

So they never have to pay taxes on it.

'Buying back' stock also has unpredictable market effects. If a company is frequently issuing buybacks, people may speculate based on that pattern.

It's a big issue, a big scam, not enough people are talking about it and dissecting what it really means.

You can do that with air too, and much better to boot. Hot tubs go above 100, but saunas can safely go above 150.

Originally, a company issues equity (shares) of itself in exchange for cash. Equity is ownership of the company, whoever owns the equity (shares/stock/whatever form it is) owns a piece of the company. A buy back is what it sounds like, the company gives investors cash to buy back the equity it initially issued, thereby concentrating ownership back in the original owners. This is frowned upon mostly (I would argue) because it does not provide any economic benefit except to the shareholders who receive the cash, and the original owners who now have my ownership. Everyone else loses, that cash could have gone to making the company more efficient for society, gone back to employees, etc. Put another way, a buy back benefits those who typically already have more wealth than those without (shareholders and owners of a company are probably more wealthy than most others of course).

So basically buy backs "only benefit the rich," which is why they are frowned upon. How true is this claim? Research more and decide for yourself.

Even if that seed exists, how will you know what it is?

"Needle in a haystack" is nothing compared to "small seed somewhere in North Africa"

Baby formula has the same basic nutritional value as breast milk.

But breast milk is. . .alive, I guess you could say. Enzymes, antibodies, situational compositional changes.

And that can't be replicated.

So if you file taxes (and perhaps not owe anything to the US) and are subsequently unemployed in your country of residence, you can claim US social security?

Only one is correct?!

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.

Nah they are advertised to do both. My series S is set at 1440p 120hz which is advertised or I can do 4k60. Like the consoles in the title however, I don’t reach 1440p 120hz on a game