Recent comments in /f/explainlikeimfive

Perfect-Editor-5008 t1_jd6pc5p wrote

Time is a human construct. We have named a year to be the time it takes for 1 orbit of the sun. However every planets orbit is different in duration. Hence a "year" is different depending on what planet you are on. So say an orbit for a planet is 100 years in the way we look at time then the universe to them would only be 138 million "years" old.

You also need to remember that when we started keeping track of days and hours it would have been possible to break them up differently than we did. We could have had days with 57 "hours" in a day, 10 "days" to a month and so on.

0

Lirdon t1_jd6nqcn wrote

Year is what we define it to be. For us as humans it was easy to set a year relatively to the cycle of seasons. Only later that we found out that a year is how long it takes for the earth to go around the sun.

So you see, every planet has its own year, its own orbital period. Venus year is 255 earth days, what with it being closer to the sun.

Neptune being so far, it's year is as long as 165 earth years.

The reason we look at the age of the universe in time relative to us – to the earth year, is because it's much easier to conceptualize it, instead of spending time inventing a new unit of time.

Even speed on a galactic level we measure in the distance light travels in an earth year.

So, was a year different in different times?

actually... yeah, though not how you might think. Different calendars had slightly different day counts for years. For instance, old persian calendars had 360 days in a year. The old roman calendar – before the introduction of the Julian calendar was 304 days long. When transitioning to the Julian Calendar there was a transitional year with 445 days.

But when speaking of age of the universe, people refer to it as it is today – 365 days per year –> 24 hour per day –> 60 minute per hour –> 60 second per minute. a Second scientifically defined in relation to the frequency of a caesium 133 atom.

So the year one of the universe, is the same year you expirience today.

1

Antithesys t1_jd6nn7y wrote

> the Julian calendar that added June and July as months

Usually this piece of incorrect trivia is cited as July and August, but regardless, it was January and February that were added to the end of the calendar. July and August were always there but were renamed. And the Julian calendar didn't add or rename anything.

Oh, and the Julian calendar had leap years too. The Gregorian calendar didn't add leap years, it took some away.

1

NNovis t1_jd5mtbl wrote

There is some good answers here but something I'm not seeing is that, frankly, you're not studying the statistical likelihood of deformities in a population. You're seeing pictures or news articles or social media posts and social media has a bias for trying to get the most clicks through outrage or shock or awe or sex, whatever. So how you came to see those instances aren't representative of what's happening in reality.

4

homeboi808 t1_jd5a8ub wrote

2 main ways banks make money are by charging fees and giving out loans.

Checking accounts are accessed multiple times a day, so pretty volatile.

Savings accounts are accessed less (some even have limits, like 6 a month), so easier for a bank to use to give out loans. As a reward for allowing them to do that, they give you a cut of the interest they earn off loans. Bank of America and similar give terrible rates, starting at 0.01% APY, many online-only banks are now giving >3% APY, some even up to 5% APY (note that these will go down in the future once interest rates on loans go back down).

APR is the actual % that they use for calculations. However, sometimes they pay-out the earned interest multiple times a year, which means future interest is on the new, higher balance, so the pay-out is more, so for the year the actual amount of interest earned is more, this is APY, and this is the effect of compounding.


Examples:

1% APR paid once on $10000:
1% • $10000 = $100

1% APR paid semi-annually (twice) on $10000:
0.5% • $10000 = $50
0.5% • $10050 = $50.25
So an extra 25¢ where the APY is 1.0025%.


> Is your credit score looked at at all when opening one

It can be.

> Does having a better score mean you get a better rate on investment?

No.

2

brickmaster32000 t1_jd4sbtq wrote

>I still don't know how they did it..

Sinple, they didn't make it an option. If you can't buy the older version with the perpetual license you can't use it. Within piracy the companies can quarentee that the number of people on such licenses slowly decreases down to nothing.

1

x1uo3yd t1_jd4oixw wrote

Yes, one part of it is due to the sheer size of the population leading to larger total numbers (even if incidence rate is equal to other parts of the world).

Another part of it is the fact that some religions there venerate children with certain visible deformities - they take it as a sign of being blessed/touched by the gods. This means that these children are showcased prominently, rather than being cloistered away for sake of pity or shame. So, even if the numbers are comparable to other parts of the world, they are more visible or more often encountered.

6

Few-School-3869 t1_jd4nmiz wrote

Indian people are living in the midst of risk factors for birth defects, e.g., universality of marriage, high fertility, large number of unplanned pregnancies, poor coverage of antenatal care, poor maternal nutritional status, high consanguineous marriages rate, and high carrier rate for hemoglobinopathies. Lack of prenatal/antenatal care is a huge reason. 70 percent of birth defects are preventable through community genetic services!

51

Lithuim t1_jd4nlrx wrote

The gigantic population certainly helps, they have four times the sample size as the US.

Then there’s the mix of medical care that’s good enough to keep these deathly ill infants alive but not good enough to fix them and an abundance of cell phones to capture it.

Places that are even more impoverished might not keep such an unlucky infant alive long enough to document it. Places that are wealthier will fix it surgically.

18

mkhrrs89 OP t1_jd488vx wrote

interesting. Idk if what I have is considered "large" right now, but what would those better investment options be?

The only other things I have looked into are ETFs as pretty stable options and REITs that can pay out bigger dividends

1

pineapple_and_olive t1_jd44gsw wrote

Aha because you're giving up something else in return. In finance there is no free lunch ever.

So what's the catch? Most typically these higher yield savings/deposits will lock out the money for a term (3/6/12 months), or the account requires a minimum balance or deposit, or the better rates only apply to non-local currencies, etc etc it's all up to the bank.

[edit] Credit pertains to debt. Taking out loans is when your credit score matters.

1