10 Answers To Questions You Always Wondered About

January 21, 2015 | 2 Comments » | Topics: Answers, Interesting


Why don’t car manufacturers make all cars as visually appealing as Ferrari’s or Lamborghini’s?

1.) Form follows function. There’s no way to make a car that looks like an exotic sports car that can still haul 5+ passengers and carry lots of cargo.

2.) Platform sharing. many vehicles in production today share platforms, engineering, chassis designs, etc with other models. Ferrari’s and Lamborghinis have bespoke chassis (although yes the Gallardo does share it’s platform with the also exotic Audi R8). Carmakers want to design a platform that is as versatile as possible and able to used in as many different vehicles. Toyota uses the same design architecture (in various forms) to underpine the Camry, Highlander, Avalon, Venza, Lexus ES, and Lexus RX. Nissan is unique in having designed a platform that can be used on everything from a sports car (370z) to a SUV (Infiniti FX) to a large luxury sedan (Infiniti M). Then again, the 370z does not quite have the same stance as a purebred sports car like an S2000 or Boxster, and the FX is also just about the most car like SUV you’ll find. When you compare the Mustang, Challenger, and Camaro, one key reason the Mustang is several hundred pounds lighter is the Camaro and Challenger are essentially two door sedans (the Camaro sharing it’s platform with the late lamented Pontiac G8 and the Challenger with the Charger), so they are heavier, whereas the Mustang does not and is designed to be a sports coupe. Common architectures/platforms/chassis designs require compromise, and that’s not something Ferrari or Lamborghini have to really do.

3.) Not everyone likes the look. for some people, their car is no different than their washing machine – it’s an appliance. they want something bland and simple that gets the job done. making a bland looking car is also the least offensive and polarizing, and therefore more likely to have the broadest appeal. People are far more likely to buy a car who’s styling has no effect on them than one that they find ugly.

4.) A carmaker may have it’s own design language that it is trying to convey. A Mercedes or a BMW have their own distinct looks that identify the brand, and styling one of their cars to look like a Ferrari or Lamborghini wouldn’t look right. Brand identity is something very important to many carmakers, and they try hard to make their cars recognizably theres. Look at the grill Ford is now putting on all their cars, or Cadillacs vertical headlights and tailights. Same goes for muscle cars like Camaros, Challengers, and Mustangs. They just wouldn’t look right any other way.



questions to answers

Why is Picasso considered to be a great artist?

Picasso did not make images the way he did because he couldn’t do realism. He was more than capable of realism. He would break down a subject into its core elements, remove what wasn’t necessary, and emphasize what was.

One famous example is his series of bull images, showing the range from realistic to highly-abstracted. The most abstract image is still clearly a bull, but has eliminated the extraneous details. The bull is still there, but the photorealism has been banished.

Here’s a better article on his bull series




Why are mosquitos unable to spread HIV and AIDS?

Studies with HIV clearly show that the virus responsible for the AIDS infection is regarded as food to the mosquito and is digested along with the blood meal. Once digested it can’t be transmitted.

Source – http://www-rci.rutgers.edu/~insects/aids.htm



Why did society’s view of ‘The Future’ change from being classically futuristic to being post-apocalyptic?

It’s easy to underestimate the amount of knowledge and scientific advancement that have taken place in the last fifty years. In the movies, scientific achievements solve problems; in the real world, they often highlight them.

We got more and more information on the problems with the environment, with the political system, with poverty and class inequality, corporate greed, and all aspects of our society. And the media perpetuated the shocking and fearful in order to sell their services. We arrived at the future and saw ourselves still stuck with the same problems we’ve always had, the same problems we will probably always have. So it’s easy to turn to cynicism and extrapolate that we’re hopeless and will eventually self-destruct in one way or another.

I think of the situation somewhat differently…like what happens when someone hurts themselves badly in public. They’re bleeding badly and everyone is watching, but because nobody is doing anything, nobody does anything. Until someone breaks ranks, takes off their shirt and starts applying pressure to the wound. I believe individual effort will push us towards a better future, but it’s not something that’s going to happen on its own.




What really happens when people die of “old age” or “natural causes” ?

What happens is the family and doctors agree it is not worth determining what the actual cause of death was.

The actual cause is often heart failure, but frankly could be almost anything that isn’t blatantly obvious from an external inspection.

Stroke is another common cause. may actually be even more common that heart attack for “old age” deaths, as it can hit suddenly with less obvious symptoms.



questions to answers

Why do I get sleepy after reading 2 hours or studying but my scumbag brain can play Skyrim all night without getting tired?

2 Hours of studying requires extensive use of the brain centers which releases a host of different kinds of neurotransmitters that stimulate long term potentiation. Skyrim on the otherhand, does not really utilize the brain at all that much. All you are doing in skyrim is the same old practiced routines over and over again. Probably the first couple times of playing skyrim, you had trouble playing for 5 hours a day, until you practiced it enough to be easy. It’s kind of like a baby walking. First couple of times, only 2 minutes a day. Now, you can walk for hours. Same stuff, just practiced until you aren’t really thinking anymore.




Why does congress have a 13% approval rate but incumbents are re-elected at a rate of 90%

People like their own representatives, but don’t like Congress as a whole.

Most people are familiar with their own representative. That makes sense; when their local politician does stuff, it gets on the news (and the rep makes sure it gets on the news). Despite popular perception, a lot of the staff work in their offices is “constituent service”: It has nothing to do with policy or party but everything to do with civic bureaucracy (getting licenses renewed, pushing through car registrations, etc.) Locally, a lot of people might say “Oh, I don’t agree with X’s stance on this issue, but he helped get my visa application through so I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt.”

In addition, politicians can speak to their constituents; they have a sounding board through which they can explain their positions more fully. A politician can release a statement tailored to their area to help explain why a vote is important.

Incumbency is also important; it generally has an advantage (name recognition, local connections, etc.) It can sometimes be a liability, but most of the time it’s a benefit.

Finally, they can start local projects (“pork”). Now that earmarks are gone, that’s not as effective as it used to be, but it’s still there.

All of these factors are things that are locally known, and none of them are nationally known. So when people say “I hate Democrats/Republicans!” they’re looking at the wide view–they only are aware of the upper-level decisions made on important issues. But for their own representative, they can say “Well, I only agree with about 40% of what his party stands for, but he got that baseball park built for us, and I know the local pipefitters like him, and he helped my aunt get a wheelchair from Medicare, so I trust him to do the right thing.” You don’t think those things about a representative across the nation because it doesn’t help you, but they’re doing the exact same thing



questions to answers

What does the One Ring actually do?

A little background: Sauron wants to rule over all the peoples of Middle-earth. His “team” had just lost a huge, earth-shaking war at the end of the First Age of the world and he was “on parole” and stuck around nominally to do some community service/rebuilding and whatnot.

Eventually, his original tendencies took over again (“The best way to get the world back into shape is to make sure that it has effective leadership and I’m just the guy to do it!” – devolving into an intent to do this via domination rather than benign leadership/guidance).

The strategy he took with this was to trick the Elves. He went around (in a pleasing appearance) trying to convince them to accept his help in the creation of Rings that would allow their wielders to halt the decay of time and make Middle-earth more like the Undying Lands across the western sea (this “preservation” aspect was the common power of all Rings – mortals that held them did not age or die, the lands where they were used like Rivendell and Lothlorien had a timeless quality, the foundations of the Dark Tower remained after an age of neglect, etc). The problem is that Sauron included a back-door exploit in the technology: when he created the One it allowed him to behold all that had been done with the lesser Rings and dominate the minds of those who wielded them.

The Elves caught onto him immediately and took their Rings off. He went to war, recovered a bunch and gave them to Men and Dwarves instead (after further tinkering with them to do the whole Nazgul thing).

So, to address the actual question: it holds powers related to preservation of physical things as well as the extra intent to dominate the wills of others. Sauron was already pretty good at the latter, the Ring acted as a focus so that, while he wore it, his powers were actually enhanced (Tolkien said in a letter that the power he put into the Ring was not lost to him just because he did not have possession of it, only that he didn’t get to added effect, so him commanding the armies you see in Lord of the Rings is his base level ability). It provides a similar effect for others, but only to the proportion to their spirit. “Small” beings like men and hobbits get shoved into the wraith world (go invisible) when wearing it, but adds to their perceived authority just by holding it (Frodo becomes a daunting figure when commanding Gollum, Sam’s assault on the Tower drives orcs before him as they perceive him to be some great champion, etc). This effect is not wasted on the wielder, though, for it is a seductive power and makes the person feel that with it they might do great things, even if they can’t really.

Beings of greater inherent “power” like Gandalf or the more learned Elves like Elrond or Galadriel might be able to more fully use the Ring, but since its true purpose is meant to be used to dominate the wills of other intelligent beings, getting into the mindset required to do so makes one more like Sauron to begin with (thus Galadriel’s line “All shall love me and despair”).




Why are ice hockey players allowed to beat the crap out of each other?

It helps to remember that fights in hockey are 99% consensual. If you don’t want to fight you turn your back and that’s it. There are players that fight and players that don’t, and it’s not really a machismo/honor thing that you MUST fight. No one thinks less of you for not being a fighter.

If you jump someone who is NOT looking for a fight you are usually going to get tossed from the game and probably suspended for a few games to boot. It’s not OK to blind-side someone who is not likewise spoiling for a fight and generally speaking that is frowned upon.

So the minor penalties and general lack of punishment is only in the case of two people who have collaboratively decided to go at it, which is true for almost every fight you see. They are pre-arranged (often at the face-off) and mutually agreed. At that point, two consenting adults doing what they want, basically, and the refs leave it alone until someone is at risk of getting seriously hurt — usually once someone goes down and it’s no longer a standing fight, or if other people are getting involved, or if one person is effectively incapacitated, etc.

To some degree hockey is a self-regulated game. Refs are there for line calls, not necessarily behavior control. 10 people flying around a small ice surface at 40km/h with wooden sticks can REALLY hurt each other while the ref is looking the other way if they want to.

To avoid this, fighting is used as a pressure relief… all the pent up aggression you feel for the wrongs and slights done to your team goes into cheering for your guy in the fight. Afterward everyone chills out. This is generally true even if the two guys fighting aren’t the actual guys you were mad at. But the thing is, everyone on your team is going to be mad at someone different for some random thing that happened, so it’s not practical to expect everyone will “pay” individually.

This mostly works because most players aren’t assholes. If they do something to earn your ire it was probably by accident or a “one time” thing. It’s unlikely you’ll remember it for more than 5 minutes and unlikely that guy is going to specifically tick you off again. So the fight serves to release the cumulative pressure of all those little things, not necessarily any specific incident.

Where this fails is if there is just that one total dick on a team that is constantly cheap-shotting people or otherwise behaving in a douchey way not consistent with the overall tone of the game. Especially if that person keeps doing it even after a fight or two. At some point the other team is going to remember his number and a “generic fight” won’t fix the issue. That guy now has a target painted on his back and at some point — maybe not even that game but in a future game — someone is going to risk getting tossed from the game/suspended to teach that specific player a lesson.

Though usually half of that guy’s own team are just as happy to watch him get creamed because, honestly, he IS a dick. We’d never say it out loud of course, team solidarity, rah rah rah… but at some point people get what they deserve and everyone on both sides knows it.



If being attractive is an important aspect of sexual attraction, why hasn’t natural selection turned us all into super models?

In comparison to even a couple hundred years ago, we are generally super models. We are taller, freer from birth defects, ethnically interesting, overall healthy, generally able to spend time and resources on our hygiene and appearance.

The bar just keeps rising.


You Might Like