Datasets:

---

chaoweihuang

/

SHP_pairwise

like 0

[ { "content": "You will be a given Reddit post and two comments for the Reddit post from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which of the comments is more preferred by human given the following criteria.\n\nYou need to consider following criteria\n\n Relevance to the Post\n Clarity and Coherence\n Depth and Thoughtfulness\n Positive Tone and Respectful Language\n Correctness and Accuracy\n Natural Language and Tone\n Conciseness\n\nGiven above information, please answer which of the comment is more preferred by human, A or B?\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: I’m told skin-to-skin contact leads to healthier babies, stronger romantic relationshipd, etc. but how does our skin know it’s touching someone else’s skin (as opposed to, say, leather)?\n\nA: Others in this thread have mentioned how difficult it is to prove the healthier babies/ stronger relationship aspect of the question. But - your skin **can** tell if it's touching someone else's skin. There are an entire class of sensory receptors in the skin that respond best to soft pressure, **skin temperature**, slow movement touch - essentially being stroked (called Low Threshold Mechanoreceptors) To be a bit un-Explain like I'm five years old this is called affective touch and neuroscientists are only recently discovering its receptors and pathways in the nervous system. The theory goes that if the body can discriminate human contact using these receptors, it can then release the chemical oxytocin to re-enforce that personal relationship. e.g. between a new-born child and the mother holding it. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0896627314003870\n\nB: Just echo here what others have said about the benefits, but also: Skin and leather are very different. The skin of another person is often warmer than leather (if your couch is warmer than your SO, you may have a problem), has a much higher moisture content, and has an elasticity, softness, and shape not typically found in leather goods.\n\nPlease respond with only A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "A", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will be a given Reddit post and two comments for the Reddit post from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which of the comments is more preferred by human given the following criteria.\n\nYou need to consider following criteria\n\n Relevance to the Post\n Clarity and Coherence\n Depth and Thoughtfulness\n Positive Tone and Respectful Language\n Correctness and Accuracy\n Natural Language and Tone\n Conciseness\n\nGiven above information, please answer which of the comment is more preferred by human, A or B?\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: I’m told skin-to-skin contact leads to healthier babies, stronger romantic relationshipd, etc. but how does our skin know it’s touching someone else’s skin (as opposed to, say, leather)?\n\nA: Others in this thread have mentioned how difficult it is to prove the healthier babies/ stronger relationship aspect of the question. But - your skin **can** tell if it's touching someone else's skin. There are an entire class of sensory receptors in the skin that respond best to soft pressure, **skin temperature**, slow movement touch - essentially being stroked (called Low Threshold Mechanoreceptors) To be a bit un-Explain like I'm five years old this is called affective touch and neuroscientists are only recently discovering its receptors and pathways in the nervous system. The theory goes that if the body can discriminate human contact using these receptors, it can then release the chemical oxytocin to re-enforce that personal relationship. e.g. between a new-born child and the mother holding it. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0896627314003870\n\nB: We don't know. But many things like smell, temperature, and sounds of your heart appease the baby. Does it have a long term effect ? Surely, but to what proportion ? We don't know. IMO the data is biased because people who do skin-to-skin contact are people who care about their babies more than people who don't do it. People who care more about their kids lead to healthier development for those kids, statistically. So I think those kids have a healthier life because their parents care more about them, not because they had skin-to-skin contact when they where born.\n\nPlease respond with only A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "A", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will be a given Reddit post and two comments for the Reddit post from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which of the comments is more preferred by human given the following criteria.\n\nYou need to consider following criteria\n\n Relevance to the Post\n Clarity and Coherence\n Depth and Thoughtfulness\n Positive Tone and Respectful Language\n Correctness and Accuracy\n Natural Language and Tone\n Conciseness\n\nGiven above information, please answer which of the comment is more preferred by human, A or B?\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: I’m told skin-to-skin contact leads to healthier babies, stronger romantic relationshipd, etc. but how does our skin know it’s touching someone else’s skin (as opposed to, say, leather)?\n\nA: Any time a creature is within close proximity to another living being it will produce oxytocin, more so with same species. Also reduces cortisol levels in humans. So our bodies reward being next to life. Leather or a dead body won't generate the same response because the signs of life aren't there. Warmth, movement of breath, heartbeat, etc. Our skin can pick up a lot of signals our conscious minds don't read. our bodies absorb all sorts of data filtered by the brain. It knows if its live skin versus leather. Edit: changed increases to reduces. bit of a typo there. Also, first paragraph is easily found data that was already assumed in the question. The rest is my personal analysis of data, drawing from acquired knowledge and experience.\n\nB: Others in this thread have mentioned how difficult it is to prove the healthier babies/ stronger relationship aspect of the question. But - your skin **can** tell if it's touching someone else's skin. There are an entire class of sensory receptors in the skin that respond best to soft pressure, **skin temperature**, slow movement touch - essentially being stroked (called Low Threshold Mechanoreceptors) To be a bit un-Explain like I'm five years old this is called affective touch and neuroscientists are only recently discovering its receptors and pathways in the nervous system. The theory goes that if the body can discriminate human contact using these receptors, it can then release the chemical oxytocin to re-enforce that personal relationship. e.g. between a new-born child and the mother holding it. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0896627314003870\n\nPlease respond with only A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "B", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will be a given Reddit post and two comments for the Reddit post from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which of the comments is more preferred by human given the following criteria.\n\nYou need to consider following criteria\n\n Relevance to the Post\n Clarity and Coherence\n Depth and Thoughtfulness\n Positive Tone and Respectful Language\n Correctness and Accuracy\n Natural Language and Tone\n Conciseness\n\nGiven above information, please answer which of the comment is more preferred by human, A or B?\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: I’m told skin-to-skin contact leads to healthier babies, stronger romantic relationshipd, etc. but how does our skin know it’s touching someone else’s skin (as opposed to, say, leather)?\n\nA: It helps keep the baby warm and in a regulated temperature, to normalize breath, to soothes the baby, encourages milk production, leads to lower rates of hypoglycemia and stabilizes the baby´s vital signs this is caused by the release of oxytocin also known as the \"love hormone\" which make the mom warm and cozy providing the benefits mentioned above. Theres also other benefits for both the mom and baby that I didnt mention.\n\nB: Others in this thread have mentioned how difficult it is to prove the healthier babies/ stronger relationship aspect of the question. But - your skin **can** tell if it's touching someone else's skin. There are an entire class of sensory receptors in the skin that respond best to soft pressure, **skin temperature**, slow movement touch - essentially being stroked (called Low Threshold Mechanoreceptors) To be a bit un-Explain like I'm five years old this is called affective touch and neuroscientists are only recently discovering its receptors and pathways in the nervous system. The theory goes that if the body can discriminate human contact using these receptors, it can then release the chemical oxytocin to re-enforce that personal relationship. e.g. between a new-born child and the mother holding it. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0896627314003870\n\nPlease respond with only A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "B", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will be a given Reddit post and two comments for the Reddit post from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which of the comments is more preferred by human given the following criteria.\n\nYou need to consider following criteria\n\n Relevance to the Post\n Clarity and Coherence\n Depth and Thoughtfulness\n Positive Tone and Respectful Language\n Correctness and Accuracy\n Natural Language and Tone\n Conciseness\n\nGiven above information, please answer which of the comment is more preferred by human, A or B?\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: I’m told skin-to-skin contact leads to healthier babies, stronger romantic relationshipd, etc. but how does our skin know it’s touching someone else’s skin (as opposed to, say, leather)?\n\nA: Just echo here what others have said about the benefits, but also: Skin and leather are very different. The skin of another person is often warmer than leather (if your couch is warmer than your SO, you may have a problem), has a much higher moisture content, and has an elasticity, softness, and shape not typically found in leather goods.\n\nB: Taken from a psychology standpoint, it could have nothing to do with the fact that it is just \"skin\", but more to the point that close physical contact with people you care about nourishes a more accepting and mentally healthy environment. Albert Einstein was quoted as saying \"The single most important decision any of us will ever make is whether or not to believe the universe is friendly.\" This one small distinction made early on plays a major role in how we take in and interpret information from the world around us. What chemicals are released in the brain during close physical contact with loved ones. Just physiologically, hugging someone and other forms of nonsexual touching cause your brain to release oxytocin, known as the \"bonding hormone\". This stimulates the release of other feel-good hormones, such as dopamine and serotonin, while reducing stress hormones, such as cortisol and norepinephrine. All that being said, this may explain why it does feel so good to sit on a leather couch. Subconsciously triggering chemicals related to those mentioned above.\n\nPlease respond with only A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "B", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will be provided with a Reddit post and two comments from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which comment is more preferred by humans based on the following criteria: Relevance to the Post, Clarity and Coherence, Depth and Thoughtfulness, Positive Tone and Respectful Language, Correctness and Accuracy, Natural Language and Tone, Conciseness\n\nGiven the information above, please select either A or B:\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: I’m told skin-to-skin contact leads to healthier babies, stronger romantic relationshipd, etc. but how does our skin know it’s touching someone else’s skin (as opposed to, say, leather)?\n\nA: We don't know. But many things like smell, temperature, and sounds of your heart appease the baby. Does it have a long term effect ? Surely, but to what proportion ? We don't know. IMO the data is biased because people who do skin-to-skin contact are people who care about their babies more than people who don't do it. People who care more about their kids lead to healthier development for those kids, statistically. So I think those kids have a healthier life because their parents care more about them, not because they had skin-to-skin contact when they where born.\n\nB: Taken from a psychology standpoint, it could have nothing to do with the fact that it is just \"skin\", but more to the point that close physical contact with people you care about nourishes a more accepting and mentally healthy environment. Albert Einstein was quoted as saying \"The single most important decision any of us will ever make is whether or not to believe the universe is friendly.\" This one small distinction made early on plays a major role in how we take in and interpret information from the world around us. What chemicals are released in the brain during close physical contact with loved ones. Just physiologically, hugging someone and other forms of nonsexual touching cause your brain to release oxytocin, known as the \"bonding hormone\". This stimulates the release of other feel-good hormones, such as dopamine and serotonin, while reducing stress hormones, such as cortisol and norepinephrine. All that being said, this may explain why it does feel so good to sit on a leather couch. Subconsciously triggering chemicals related to those mentioned above.\n\nPlease respond with only A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "B", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will receive a Reddit post along with two comments from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which comment is more favored by humans based on the following criteria:\n\n Relevance to the Post\n Clarity and Coherence\n Depth and Thoughtfulness\n Positive Tone and Respectful Language\n Correctness and Accuracy\n Natural Language and Tone\n Conciseness\n\nAfter considering the given information, please indicate which comment is preferred: A or B?\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: I’m told skin-to-skin contact leads to healthier babies, stronger romantic relationshipd, etc. but how does our skin know it’s touching someone else’s skin (as opposed to, say, leather)?\n\nA: Taken from a psychology standpoint, it could have nothing to do with the fact that it is just \"skin\", but more to the point that close physical contact with people you care about nourishes a more accepting and mentally healthy environment. Albert Einstein was quoted as saying \"The single most important decision any of us will ever make is whether or not to believe the universe is friendly.\" This one small distinction made early on plays a major role in how we take in and interpret information from the world around us. What chemicals are released in the brain during close physical contact with loved ones. Just physiologically, hugging someone and other forms of nonsexual touching cause your brain to release oxytocin, known as the \"bonding hormone\". This stimulates the release of other feel-good hormones, such as dopamine and serotonin, while reducing stress hormones, such as cortisol and norepinephrine. All that being said, this may explain why it does feel so good to sit on a leather couch. Subconsciously triggering chemicals related to those mentioned above.\n\nB: Any time a creature is within close proximity to another living being it will produce oxytocin, more so with same species. Also reduces cortisol levels in humans. So our bodies reward being next to life. Leather or a dead body won't generate the same response because the signs of life aren't there. Warmth, movement of breath, heartbeat, etc. Our skin can pick up a lot of signals our conscious minds don't read. our bodies absorb all sorts of data filtered by the brain. It knows if its live skin versus leather. Edit: changed increases to reduces. bit of a typo there. Also, first paragraph is easily found data that was already assumed in the question. The rest is my personal analysis of data, drawing from acquired knowledge and experience.\n\nPlease respond with either A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "A", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will be provided with a Reddit post and two comments from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which comment is more preferred by humans based on the following criteria: Relevance to the Post, Clarity and Coherence, Depth and Thoughtfulness, Positive Tone and Respectful Language, Correctness and Accuracy, Natural Language and Tone, Conciseness\n\nGiven the information above, please select either A or B:\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: I’m told skin-to-skin contact leads to healthier babies, stronger romantic relationshipd, etc. but how does our skin know it’s touching someone else’s skin (as opposed to, say, leather)?\n\nA: Taken from a psychology standpoint, it could have nothing to do with the fact that it is just \"skin\", but more to the point that close physical contact with people you care about nourishes a more accepting and mentally healthy environment. Albert Einstein was quoted as saying \"The single most important decision any of us will ever make is whether or not to believe the universe is friendly.\" This one small distinction made early on plays a major role in how we take in and interpret information from the world around us. What chemicals are released in the brain during close physical contact with loved ones. Just physiologically, hugging someone and other forms of nonsexual touching cause your brain to release oxytocin, known as the \"bonding hormone\". This stimulates the release of other feel-good hormones, such as dopamine and serotonin, while reducing stress hormones, such as cortisol and norepinephrine. All that being said, this may explain why it does feel so good to sit on a leather couch. Subconsciously triggering chemicals related to those mentioned above.\n\nB: It helps keep the baby warm and in a regulated temperature, to normalize breath, to soothes the baby, encourages milk production, leads to lower rates of hypoglycemia and stabilizes the baby´s vital signs this is caused by the release of oxytocin also known as the \"love hormone\" which make the mom warm and cozy providing the benefits mentioned above. Theres also other benefits for both the mom and baby that I didnt mention.\n\nPlease respond with only A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "A", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will receive a Reddit post along with two comments from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which comment is more favored by humans based on the following criteria:\n\n Relevance to the Post\n Clarity and Coherence\n Depth and Thoughtfulness\n Positive Tone and Respectful Language\n Correctness and Accuracy\n Natural Language and Tone\n Conciseness\n\nAfter considering the given information, please indicate which comment is preferred: A or B?\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: I’m told skin-to-skin contact leads to healthier babies, stronger romantic relationshipd, etc. but how does our skin know it’s touching someone else’s skin (as opposed to, say, leather)?\n\nA: Just echo here what others have said about the benefits, but also: Skin and leather are very different. The skin of another person is often warmer than leather (if your couch is warmer than your SO, you may have a problem), has a much higher moisture content, and has an elasticity, softness, and shape not typically found in leather goods.\n\nB: It helps keep the baby warm and in a regulated temperature, to normalize breath, to soothes the baby, encourages milk production, leads to lower rates of hypoglycemia and stabilizes the baby´s vital signs this is caused by the release of oxytocin also known as the \"love hormone\" which make the mom warm and cozy providing the benefits mentioned above. Theres also other benefits for both the mom and baby that I didnt mention.\n\nPlease respond with either A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "A", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will be provided with a Reddit post and two comments from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which comment is more preferred by humans based on the following criteria: Relevance to the Post, Clarity and Coherence, Depth and Thoughtfulness, Positive Tone and Respectful Language, Correctness and Accuracy, Natural Language and Tone, Conciseness\n\nGiven the information above, please select either A or B:\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: I’m told skin-to-skin contact leads to healthier babies, stronger romantic relationshipd, etc. but how does our skin know it’s touching someone else’s skin (as opposed to, say, leather)?\n\nA: It helps keep the baby warm and in a regulated temperature, to normalize breath, to soothes the baby, encourages milk production, leads to lower rates of hypoglycemia and stabilizes the baby´s vital signs this is caused by the release of oxytocin also known as the \"love hormone\" which make the mom warm and cozy providing the benefits mentioned above. Theres also other benefits for both the mom and baby that I didnt mention.\n\nB: We don't know. But many things like smell, temperature, and sounds of your heart appease the baby. Does it have a long term effect ? Surely, but to what proportion ? We don't know. IMO the data is biased because people who do skin-to-skin contact are people who care about their babies more than people who don't do it. People who care more about their kids lead to healthier development for those kids, statistically. So I think those kids have a healthier life because their parents care more about them, not because they had skin-to-skin contact when they where born.\n\nPlease respond with only A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "B", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will be a given Reddit post and two comments for the Reddit post from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which of the comments is more preferred by human given the following criteria.\n\nYou need to consider following criteria\n\n Relevance to the Post\n Clarity and Coherence\n Depth and Thoughtfulness\n Positive Tone and Respectful Language\n Correctness and Accuracy\n Natural Language and Tone\n Conciseness\n\nGiven above information, please answer which of the comment is more preferred by human, A or B?\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: I’m told skin-to-skin contact leads to healthier babies, stronger romantic relationshipd, etc. but how does our skin know it’s touching someone else’s skin (as opposed to, say, leather)?\n\nA: Any time a creature is within close proximity to another living being it will produce oxytocin, more so with same species. Also reduces cortisol levels in humans. So our bodies reward being next to life. Leather or a dead body won't generate the same response because the signs of life aren't there. Warmth, movement of breath, heartbeat, etc. Our skin can pick up a lot of signals our conscious minds don't read. our bodies absorb all sorts of data filtered by the brain. It knows if its live skin versus leather. Edit: changed increases to reduces. bit of a typo there. Also, first paragraph is easily found data that was already assumed in the question. The rest is my personal analysis of data, drawing from acquired knowledge and experience.\n\nB: It helps keep the baby warm and in a regulated temperature, to normalize breath, to soothes the baby, encourages milk production, leads to lower rates of hypoglycemia and stabilizes the baby´s vital signs this is caused by the release of oxytocin also known as the \"love hormone\" which make the mom warm and cozy providing the benefits mentioned above. Theres also other benefits for both the mom and baby that I didnt mention.\n\nPlease respond with only A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "A", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will receive a Reddit post along with two comments from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which comment is more favored by humans based on the following criteria:\n\n Relevance to the Post\n Clarity and Coherence\n Depth and Thoughtfulness\n Positive Tone and Respectful Language\n Correctness and Accuracy\n Natural Language and Tone\n Conciseness\n\nAfter considering the given information, please indicate which comment is preferred: A or B?\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: How does a brain anus rhythm instantly kill you I know it has something to do with blood clots maybe? But how do you just die instantly?\n\nA: As you may have noticed, this entire thread is now locked. This is something of a \"nuclear option\" for us moderators, so a bit of explanation is in order. We're not going to speculate as to whether or not \"anus rhythm\" was a carefully-crafted title to get upvotes or a simple victim of autocorrect, but for the purposes of this submission, we're giving the OP the benefit of the doubt, and erring on the side of \"autocorrect mishap\". So the title itself is not the direct issue. The issue is how others are responding to that title. If you read the rules in the sidebar, they say: >Direct replies to the original post (aka \"top-level comments\") are for serious responses only. Jokes, anecdotes, and low effort explanations are not permitted and subject to removal. The only valid responses to the question posed by the OP are ones that take the typo in stride (maybe even joke about it, that's fine), and then *explain how aneurysms work*. That's it. That's the only type of top-level comment that we allow (that, or a related, *serious* followup question). Instead, over 95% of the comments have been jokes or snide remarks about \"anus rhythms\" (including made-up disease descriptions), variations of \"lol\", and against-the-rules (if well-intentioned) anecdotes that lack any explanation. Per our subreddit rules, we've been removing these comments. However keeping this thread pruned is taking a serious amount of effort. As of this writing, there are eight serious responses, and **hundreds** of removed joke responses. And the joke responses are pouring in faster than we can reasonably keep up with. At this point, we feel that there have been enough serious responses to explain aneurysms to the OP, and the effort of keeping up with the flood of rule-breaking responses is detracting from our ability to moderate the rest of the subreddit, hence the \"nuclear option\".\n\nB: First off.... That Title!! :) A Brain Aneurysm wont necessarily kill you, my mother had one while she was sleeping in her bed and recalls waking up to a \"Popping\" sound followed by the feeling of blood running all the way down the right side of her face under the skin (This is what she can remember after months of regaining her memory) all of her short term memory was gone for a good 6 months at least, It was quite hard to watch her try and do the simplest tasks, and repeatedly do other tasks, because she couldn't remember if she had done them or not. Example: Finding her car keys (she once even had all her neighbors inside thrashing her house helping her find them) she literally skipped back a few years in memory for a while, so everything current was new to her, over time she got better despite doctors saying it could be permanent and now she has fully regained her short term memory :)\n\nPlease respond with either A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "A", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will be a given Reddit post and two comments for the Reddit post from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which of the comments is more preferred by human given the following criteria.\n\nYou need to consider following criteria\n\n Relevance to the Post\n Clarity and Coherence\n Depth and Thoughtfulness\n Positive Tone and Respectful Language\n Correctness and Accuracy\n Natural Language and Tone\n Conciseness\n\nGiven above information, please answer which of the comment is more preferred by human, A or B?\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: How does a brain anus rhythm instantly kill you I know it has something to do with blood clots maybe? But how do you just die instantly?\n\nA: As you may have noticed, this entire thread is now locked. This is something of a \"nuclear option\" for us moderators, so a bit of explanation is in order. We're not going to speculate as to whether or not \"anus rhythm\" was a carefully-crafted title to get upvotes or a simple victim of autocorrect, but for the purposes of this submission, we're giving the OP the benefit of the doubt, and erring on the side of \"autocorrect mishap\". So the title itself is not the direct issue. The issue is how others are responding to that title. If you read the rules in the sidebar, they say: >Direct replies to the original post (aka \"top-level comments\") are for serious responses only. Jokes, anecdotes, and low effort explanations are not permitted and subject to removal. The only valid responses to the question posed by the OP are ones that take the typo in stride (maybe even joke about it, that's fine), and then *explain how aneurysms work*. That's it. That's the only type of top-level comment that we allow (that, or a related, *serious* followup question). Instead, over 95% of the comments have been jokes or snide remarks about \"anus rhythms\" (including made-up disease descriptions), variations of \"lol\", and against-the-rules (if well-intentioned) anecdotes that lack any explanation. Per our subreddit rules, we've been removing these comments. However keeping this thread pruned is taking a serious amount of effort. As of this writing, there are eight serious responses, and **hundreds** of removed joke responses. And the joke responses are pouring in faster than we can reasonably keep up with. At this point, we feel that there have been enough serious responses to explain aneurysms to the OP, and the effort of keeping up with the flood of rule-breaking responses is detracting from our ability to moderate the rest of the subreddit, hence the \"nuclear option\".\n\nB: My MIL had 2 aneurysms in her brain, and had no symptoms. Then, one day one of them burst and within minutes she went from \"fine and dandy\" to a 5 on the Glasgow Coma Scale. They transported her to the hospital, where we they did CAT scan and told us that she had one giant hemorrhage, and another aneurysm that would have gone eventually if the first one hadn't. They explained the treatments available, and told us that none of them really had the power to make much of a difference.. She would most like die in the next few hours, and if she survived she had \"no chance of meaningful recovery.\" We spent a rough night re-reading our copy of her will and directives. She had indicated that she didn't want any life or death decisions made for three days, so we did what the doctors recommended. No one expected any good to come of it, but we really wanted to try. It was truly amazing. It was a hard six weeks of ICU and then rehab, but you wouldn't be able to tell today that anything ever happened. They did surgery the next day to clamp the area that had burst, and they were able to get the other one as well. Today she travels all around the south west in an RV, and does all those things we're all gonna do \"someday.\" So, no matter who you are, or how little you think you need it, get a will and directives and powers of attorney and whatever else you need in case someone needs to step in and make decisions for you. It was incredibly helpful as her bills needed paying and we had to go through all the insurance claims to have the ability to just dive in. More, though, was the comfort of knowing exactly how to proceed when she was deep in a coma. Sure, you may have had conversations with your loved ones about when they want you to pull the plug, but the actual decision is seldom as easy as we'd like it to be. And when you're the one struggling with letting Mom die but maybe she would have been just fine, or trying to save Mom and dooming her to a vegetative state, it's good to have Mom's thoughts right there in black and white. **tl;dr** A brain aneurysm can happen with no symptoms. It's very hard to know at first what the outcome will be. Get your will and directives done!\n\nPlease respond with only A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "A", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will receive a Reddit post along with two comments from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which comment is more favored by humans based on the following criteria:\n\n Relevance to the Post\n Clarity and Coherence\n Depth and Thoughtfulness\n Positive Tone and Respectful Language\n Correctness and Accuracy\n Natural Language and Tone\n Conciseness\n\nAfter considering the given information, please indicate which comment is preferred: A or B?\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: Why can’t you spend dirty money like regular, untraceable cash? Why does it have to be put into a bank? In other words, why does the money have to be laundered? Couldn’t you just pay for everything using physical cash?\n\nA: You can, as long as it's \"everyday people\" sums. You don't have to launder $2K. But if it's millions, people will get suspicious about how you can afford the stuff you buy, no matter how you buy it. And then you better have a plausible explanation, which is exactly what laundering aims to create.\n\nB: Because if the money isn't laundered and the government starts realizing you suddenly own a mansion and a dozen Ferraris, and your tax returns for the last five years say you earned $20,000 as a janitor, then there are going to be some *serious* questions about where the money came from. Extreme example of course but that's the general idea.\n\nPlease respond with either A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "A", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will receive a Reddit post along with two comments from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which comment is more favored by humans based on the following criteria:\n\n Relevance to the Post\n Clarity and Coherence\n Depth and Thoughtfulness\n Positive Tone and Respectful Language\n Correctness and Accuracy\n Natural Language and Tone\n Conciseness\n\nAfter considering the given information, please indicate which comment is preferred: A or B?\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: Why can’t you spend dirty money like regular, untraceable cash? Why does it have to be put into a bank? In other words, why does the money have to be laundered? Couldn’t you just pay for everything using physical cash?\n\nA: You can, as long as it's \"everyday people\" sums. You don't have to launder $2K. But if it's millions, people will get suspicious about how you can afford the stuff you buy, no matter how you buy it. And then you better have a plausible explanation, which is exactly what laundering aims to create.\n\nB: If you only use the dirty money to buy groceries or clothing, then it won't matter. You will probably want to buy a house or a car, if you have all that money. The person or business selling them to you will be reluctant to accept cash for such a large transaction. Hence, you will have to deposit it. If you deposit all that cash at once, it will raise a flag to the IRS, who will know, from your past income tax reports, that you do not make that much money. They will investigate to see if you have been withholding money from the Government, or if you are involved in shady businesses. As a matter of fact, the bank manager will be requesting proof of origin of the money, unless they are crooked, too. The bank can get into trouble if they aid in money laundering. Edit: another Redditor confirmed that the deposits are reported to FinCen, not to the IRS.\n\nPlease respond with either A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "A", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will be a given Reddit post and two comments for the Reddit post from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which of the comments is more preferred by human given the following criteria.\n\nYou need to consider following criteria\n\n Relevance to the Post\n Clarity and Coherence\n Depth and Thoughtfulness\n Positive Tone and Respectful Language\n Correctness and Accuracy\n Natural Language and Tone\n Conciseness\n\nGiven above information, please answer which of the comment is more preferred by human, A or B?\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: Why can’t you spend dirty money like regular, untraceable cash? Why does it have to be put into a bank? In other words, why does the money have to be laundered? Couldn’t you just pay for everything using physical cash?\n\nA: Cuz if you appear to be living above your means, then there's something possibly illegal going on and the government may not be getting their tax on your illegal income. Breaking bad has a pretty popular explanation on why money laundering is necessary, https://youtu.be/RhsUHDJ0BFM\n\nB: Back in the late 1980s my dad owned 5 or 6 laundromats, so it was pretty much a cash-only business. Lots of quarters and paper money from the change machines. We had to collect the money and deposit twice a week. Unfortunately, we'd always be over the $10k limit and we had to fill out all of the paperwork every single time. If we were just a bit over, my dad would just pull a few hundred dollars out to stay under 10k. It was really annoying, and everyone in the bank knew who we were and that the business was legit.\n\nPlease respond with only A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "B", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will receive a Reddit post along with two comments from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which comment is more favored by humans based on the following criteria:\n\n Relevance to the Post\n Clarity and Coherence\n Depth and Thoughtfulness\n Positive Tone and Respectful Language\n Correctness and Accuracy\n Natural Language and Tone\n Conciseness\n\nAfter considering the given information, please indicate which comment is preferred: A or B?\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: Why can’t you spend dirty money like regular, untraceable cash? Why does it have to be put into a bank? In other words, why does the money have to be laundered? Couldn’t you just pay for everything using physical cash?\n\nA: Back in the late 1980s my dad owned 5 or 6 laundromats, so it was pretty much a cash-only business. Lots of quarters and paper money from the change machines. We had to collect the money and deposit twice a week. Unfortunately, we'd always be over the $10k limit and we had to fill out all of the paperwork every single time. If we were just a bit over, my dad would just pull a few hundred dollars out to stay under 10k. It was really annoying, and everyone in the bank knew who we were and that the business was legit.\n\nB: You could pay for everything in cash, but the government gets wise to that when you are filing taxes for $60,000 and you own a Ferrari. Drug dealers used to do that in Miami in the 80s, dealers would buy expensive cars with suitcases full of cash. It is significantly more challenging to do that today. A better strategy is to set up a company, preferably a legit company, where you can launder your money through. This could be a literal laundromat. Any type of company where you move a lot of money through and it can be in cash receipts. Construction is good for this, you set up a business, then you buy lumber from them and they charge you a reasonable price. Something that won't look wrong. So you pay them double or triple the cost. Except, that person works for you, and after taking a cut they will hand you back the money in cash or goods or services. This is why you hear of businesses that have 'two sets of books' and why people work at legit businesses and never realize that the company is laundering money. In order for this to work only a few people have to know about it. This is why the mob loved construction and the concrete business; you only need to 'own' a couple people in the chain in order to move ill gotten gains through unnoticed. People who did notice often found themselves thrown off the top of whatever building was under construction. Meanwhile, the construction goes on as intended because the contract is legit. Nowadays, if you want to 'pay cash', you will find few people willing to accept suitcases full of crisp bills. You use a wire transfer or an ACH transaction. Something where an electronic record is created. You can travel with suitcases full of cash, this is a legitimate business sometimes, you hire someone who specializes in it and can produce the necessary documentation to customs.\n\nPlease respond with either A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "A", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will receive a Reddit post along with two comments from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which comment is more favored by humans based on the following criteria:\n\n Relevance to the Post\n Clarity and Coherence\n Depth and Thoughtfulness\n Positive Tone and Respectful Language\n Correctness and Accuracy\n Natural Language and Tone\n Conciseness\n\nAfter considering the given information, please indicate which comment is preferred: A or B?\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: Why can’t you spend dirty money like regular, untraceable cash? Why does it have to be put into a bank? In other words, why does the money have to be laundered? Couldn’t you just pay for everything using physical cash?\n\nA: Back in the late 1980s my dad owned 5 or 6 laundromats, so it was pretty much a cash-only business. Lots of quarters and paper money from the change machines. We had to collect the money and deposit twice a week. Unfortunately, we'd always be over the $10k limit and we had to fill out all of the paperwork every single time. If we were just a bit over, my dad would just pull a few hundred dollars out to stay under 10k. It was really annoying, and everyone in the bank knew who we were and that the business was legit.\n\nB: Say you have $30k a year \"legal\" income and $100k additional illegal income. Do you want to live a life like a $30k person, or a $130k person? If you want to present as the latter, you need to convince the state you're legally earning that money, hence laundering.\n\nPlease respond with either A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "A", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will receive a Reddit post along with two comments from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which comment is more favored by humans based on the following criteria:\n\n Relevance to the Post\n Clarity and Coherence\n Depth and Thoughtfulness\n Positive Tone and Respectful Language\n Correctness and Accuracy\n Natural Language and Tone\n Conciseness\n\nAfter considering the given information, please indicate which comment is preferred: A or B?\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: Why can’t you spend dirty money like regular, untraceable cash? Why does it have to be put into a bank? In other words, why does the money have to be laundered? Couldn’t you just pay for everything using physical cash?\n\nA: Cuz if you appear to be living above your means, then there's something possibly illegal going on and the government may not be getting their tax on your illegal income. Breaking bad has a pretty popular explanation on why money laundering is necessary, https://youtu.be/RhsUHDJ0BFM\n\nB: You could pay for everything in cash, but the government gets wise to that when you are filing taxes for $60,000 and you own a Ferrari. Drug dealers used to do that in Miami in the 80s, dealers would buy expensive cars with suitcases full of cash. It is significantly more challenging to do that today. A better strategy is to set up a company, preferably a legit company, where you can launder your money through. This could be a literal laundromat. Any type of company where you move a lot of money through and it can be in cash receipts. Construction is good for this, you set up a business, then you buy lumber from them and they charge you a reasonable price. Something that won't look wrong. So you pay them double or triple the cost. Except, that person works for you, and after taking a cut they will hand you back the money in cash or goods or services. This is why you hear of businesses that have 'two sets of books' and why people work at legit businesses and never realize that the company is laundering money. In order for this to work only a few people have to know about it. This is why the mob loved construction and the concrete business; you only need to 'own' a couple people in the chain in order to move ill gotten gains through unnoticed. People who did notice often found themselves thrown off the top of whatever building was under construction. Meanwhile, the construction goes on as intended because the contract is legit. Nowadays, if you want to 'pay cash', you will find few people willing to accept suitcases full of crisp bills. You use a wire transfer or an ACH transaction. Something where an electronic record is created. You can travel with suitcases full of cash, this is a legitimate business sometimes, you hire someone who specializes in it and can produce the necessary documentation to customs.\n\nPlease respond with either A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "A", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will receive a Reddit post along with two comments from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which comment is more favored by humans based on the following criteria:\n\n Relevance to the Post\n Clarity and Coherence\n Depth and Thoughtfulness\n Positive Tone and Respectful Language\n Correctness and Accuracy\n Natural Language and Tone\n Conciseness\n\nAfter considering the given information, please indicate which comment is preferred: A or B?\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: Why can’t you spend dirty money like regular, untraceable cash? Why does it have to be put into a bank? In other words, why does the money have to be laundered? Couldn’t you just pay for everything using physical cash?\n\nA: Imagine you have stolen a piece of candy and you need to get rid it it. You can eat it, easy. Now imagine you've stolen several boxes with several pieces of candy, amounting to a big truck of candy, and you need to get rid of it. You can't eat it all, because you'll end up in hospital and have explaining to do. You need to get your friends involved, start moving candy around, and eat it slowly or change it for other things so that the doctor doesn't notice you're overdosing on illegally held candy. You also don't want the doctor to notice that suddenly you have a new phone and a new TV that you've bought with candy, because the doctor will start asking you difficult questions. That's why.\n\nB: Say you have $30k a year \"legal\" income and $100k additional illegal income. Do you want to live a life like a $30k person, or a $130k person? If you want to present as the latter, you need to convince the state you're legally earning that money, hence laundering.\n\nPlease respond with either A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "A", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will be provided with a Reddit post and two comments from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which comment is more preferred by humans based on the following criteria: Relevance to the Post, Clarity and Coherence, Depth and Thoughtfulness, Positive Tone and Respectful Language, Correctness and Accuracy, Natural Language and Tone, Conciseness\n\nGiven the information above, please select either A or B:\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: Why can’t you spend dirty money like regular, untraceable cash? Why does it have to be put into a bank? In other words, why does the money have to be laundered? Couldn’t you just pay for everything using physical cash?\n\nA: In the words of Marty Byrde: “Okay. Money Laundering 101. Say you come across a suitcase with five million bucks in it. What would you buy? A yacht? A mansion? A sports car? Sorry. The IRS won't let you buy anything of value with it. So you better get that money into the banking system. But here's the problem. That dirty money is too clean. Looks like it just came out of a bank vault. You gotta age it up. Crumple it. Drag it through the dirt. Run it over with your car. Anything to make it look like it's been around the block. Next, you need a cash business. Something pleasant and joyful with books that are easily manipulated. No credit card receipts, etcetera. You mix the five million with the cash from the joyful business. That mixture goes from an American bank to a bank from any country that doesn't have to listen to the IRS. It then goes into a standard checking account and voila. All you need is access to one of over three million terminals, because your work is done. Your money's clean. It's as legitimate as anybody else's.”\n\nB: Say you have $30k a year \"legal\" income and $100k additional illegal income. Do you want to live a life like a $30k person, or a $130k person? If you want to present as the latter, you need to convince the state you're legally earning that money, hence laundering.\n\nPlease respond with only A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "A", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will receive a Reddit post along with two comments from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which comment is more favored by humans based on the following criteria:\n\n Relevance to the Post\n Clarity and Coherence\n Depth and Thoughtfulness\n Positive Tone and Respectful Language\n Correctness and Accuracy\n Natural Language and Tone\n Conciseness\n\nAfter considering the given information, please indicate which comment is preferred: A or B?\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: What is the psychology behind not wanting to perform a task after being told to do it, even if you were going to do it anyways?\n\nA: Partly due to cognitive dissonance. If you were ordered to something your brain starts to doubt whether you actually wanted to do it in the first place. Famous social psychology study: this guy Leon Festinger had people do a boring task and he paid some of them $1 and others $20. The people who were only paid $1 reported enjoying it more because their brains had to find some way to justify why they were doing something so boring for so little money, whereas the people who got $20 were like \"I guess I must have just done it for the money.\" Similarly, if someone orders you to do something, your brain is like \"I guess I'm just doing this because someone's making me.\"\n\nB: Psychologist here! We distinguish between intrinsic motivation, which is self-driven motivation that you naturally already have, and extrinsic motivation, which comes from something that is not you. This could be money or, in OP’s example, social recognition for doing what you’re told. There’s a phenomenon known as “crowding out” where adding extrinsic motivation crowds out (displaces) intrinsic motivation. A famous study found that kids spend less time drawing if you tell them that they’ll get a good student award for drawing a good picture, compared to if you just let them draw without telling them anything. The hypothesis is that the kids lose motivation when it moves from “I’m drawing because I like it and it’s fun” to “I’m drawing because someone told me to, so that I can win a prize.”\n\nPlease respond with either A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "B", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will be provided with a Reddit post and two comments from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which comment is more preferred by humans based on the following criteria: Relevance to the Post, Clarity and Coherence, Depth and Thoughtfulness, Positive Tone and Respectful Language, Correctness and Accuracy, Natural Language and Tone, Conciseness\n\nGiven the information above, please select either A or B:\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: What is the psychology behind not wanting to perform a task after being told to do it, even if you were going to do it anyways?\n\nA: The psychology behind the person telling you what to do: it’s a power move. Eg, if you dropped you keys near me, I would immediately and defiantly order you to PICK THAT UP and point at the keys, making sure others around would hear. You have no choice but to pick up the keys, because you need them. Credit: Hamish and Andy podcast, who credited Gavin Todd, another podcaster.\n\nB: Psychologist here! We distinguish between intrinsic motivation, which is self-driven motivation that you naturally already have, and extrinsic motivation, which comes from something that is not you. This could be money or, in OP’s example, social recognition for doing what you’re told. There’s a phenomenon known as “crowding out” where adding extrinsic motivation crowds out (displaces) intrinsic motivation. A famous study found that kids spend less time drawing if you tell them that they’ll get a good student award for drawing a good picture, compared to if you just let them draw without telling them anything. The hypothesis is that the kids lose motivation when it moves from “I’m drawing because I like it and it’s fun” to “I’m drawing because someone told me to, so that I can win a prize.”\n\nPlease respond with only A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "B", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will receive a Reddit post along with two comments from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which comment is more favored by humans based on the following criteria:\n\n Relevance to the Post\n Clarity and Coherence\n Depth and Thoughtfulness\n Positive Tone and Respectful Language\n Correctness and Accuracy\n Natural Language and Tone\n Conciseness\n\nAfter considering the given information, please indicate which comment is preferred: A or B?\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: What is the psychology behind not wanting to perform a task after being told to do it, even if you were going to do it anyways?\n\nA: Partly due to cognitive dissonance. If you were ordered to something your brain starts to doubt whether you actually wanted to do it in the first place. Famous social psychology study: this guy Leon Festinger had people do a boring task and he paid some of them $1 and others $20. The people who were only paid $1 reported enjoying it more because their brains had to find some way to justify why they were doing something so boring for so little money, whereas the people who got $20 were like \"I guess I must have just done it for the money.\" Similarly, if someone orders you to do something, your brain is like \"I guess I'm just doing this because someone's making me.\"\n\nB: In Psychology this is known as 'Reactance' It's a state of mind you get when your free will is under threat. If someone tells you to do something you were already going to do, it removes the element of free will. You feel you're no longer making the decision to carry out the task, and thus not wanting to conform, feel more apprehensive about doing said task. Even if you weren't already going to do something no one likes to take orders.\n\nPlease respond with either A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "B", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will receive a Reddit post along with two comments from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which comment is more favored by humans based on the following criteria:\n\n Relevance to the Post\n Clarity and Coherence\n Depth and Thoughtfulness\n Positive Tone and Respectful Language\n Correctness and Accuracy\n Natural Language and Tone\n Conciseness\n\nAfter considering the given information, please indicate which comment is preferred: A or B?\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: What is the psychology behind not wanting to perform a task after being told to do it, even if you were going to do it anyways?\n\nA: The psychology behind the person telling you what to do: it’s a power move. Eg, if you dropped you keys near me, I would immediately and defiantly order you to PICK THAT UP and point at the keys, making sure others around would hear. You have no choice but to pick up the keys, because you need them. Credit: Hamish and Andy podcast, who credited Gavin Todd, another podcaster.\n\nB: In Psychology this is known as 'Reactance' It's a state of mind you get when your free will is under threat. If someone tells you to do something you were already going to do, it removes the element of free will. You feel you're no longer making the decision to carry out the task, and thus not wanting to conform, feel more apprehensive about doing said task. Even if you weren't already going to do something no one likes to take orders.\n\nPlease respond with either A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "B", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will be a given Reddit post and two comments for the Reddit post from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which of the comments is more preferred by human given the following criteria.\n\nYou need to consider following criteria\n\n Relevance to the Post\n Clarity and Coherence\n Depth and Thoughtfulness\n Positive Tone and Respectful Language\n Correctness and Accuracy\n Natural Language and Tone\n Conciseness\n\nGiven above information, please answer which of the comment is more preferred by human, A or B?\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: What is the psychology behind not wanting to perform a task after being told to do it, even if you were going to do it anyways?\n\nA: Partly due to cognitive dissonance. If you were ordered to something your brain starts to doubt whether you actually wanted to do it in the first place. Famous social psychology study: this guy Leon Festinger had people do a boring task and he paid some of them $1 and others $20. The people who were only paid $1 reported enjoying it more because their brains had to find some way to justify why they were doing something so boring for so little money, whereas the people who got $20 were like \"I guess I must have just done it for the money.\" Similarly, if someone orders you to do something, your brain is like \"I guess I'm just doing this because someone's making me.\"\n\nB: Lots of great comments already, but I wanted to add a reason I haven't seen yet: obeying someone sets a precedent. If someone tells me to do something and then I do it, I might be showing them that their judgment is better than mine, their preferences or comfort is more important than mine, and that I can be counted on to set my own desires aside in favor of theirs. Sometimes NOT doing that is more important than whatever made me want to do the task in the first place. Obviously this way of thinking shouldn't influence every interpersonal decision you make, and constantly acting out in defiance is a miserable way to live. Still, it is important to assert yourself to some extent, so this feeling can be strong. After all, you teach people how to treat you.\n\nPlease respond with only A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "B", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will be a given Reddit post and two comments for the Reddit post from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which of the comments is more preferred by human given the following criteria.\n\nYou need to consider following criteria\n\n Relevance to the Post\n Clarity and Coherence\n Depth and Thoughtfulness\n Positive Tone and Respectful Language\n Correctness and Accuracy\n Natural Language and Tone\n Conciseness\n\nGiven above information, please answer which of the comment is more preferred by human, A or B?\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: What is the psychology behind not wanting to perform a task after being told to do it, even if you were going to do it anyways?\n\nA: The psychology behind the person telling you what to do: it’s a power move. Eg, if you dropped you keys near me, I would immediately and defiantly order you to PICK THAT UP and point at the keys, making sure others around would hear. You have no choice but to pick up the keys, because you need them. Credit: Hamish and Andy podcast, who credited Gavin Todd, another podcaster.\n\nB: Lots of great comments already, but I wanted to add a reason I haven't seen yet: obeying someone sets a precedent. If someone tells me to do something and then I do it, I might be showing them that their judgment is better than mine, their preferences or comfort is more important than mine, and that I can be counted on to set my own desires aside in favor of theirs. Sometimes NOT doing that is more important than whatever made me want to do the task in the first place. Obviously this way of thinking shouldn't influence every interpersonal decision you make, and constantly acting out in defiance is a miserable way to live. Still, it is important to assert yourself to some extent, so this feeling can be strong. After all, you teach people how to treat you.\n\nPlease respond with only A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "B", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will be provided with a Reddit post and two comments from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which comment is more preferred by humans based on the following criteria: Relevance to the Post, Clarity and Coherence, Depth and Thoughtfulness, Positive Tone and Respectful Language, Correctness and Accuracy, Natural Language and Tone, Conciseness\n\nGiven the information above, please select either A or B:\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: What is the psychology behind not wanting to perform a task after being told to do it, even if you were going to do it anyways?\n\nA: The psychology behind the person telling you what to do: it’s a power move. Eg, if you dropped you keys near me, I would immediately and defiantly order you to PICK THAT UP and point at the keys, making sure others around would hear. You have no choice but to pick up the keys, because you need them. Credit: Hamish and Andy podcast, who credited Gavin Todd, another podcaster.\n\nB: Partly due to cognitive dissonance. If you were ordered to something your brain starts to doubt whether you actually wanted to do it in the first place. Famous social psychology study: this guy Leon Festinger had people do a boring task and he paid some of them $1 and others $20. The people who were only paid $1 reported enjoying it more because their brains had to find some way to justify why they were doing something so boring for so little money, whereas the people who got $20 were like \"I guess I must have just done it for the money.\" Similarly, if someone orders you to do something, your brain is like \"I guess I'm just doing this because someone's making me.\"\n\nPlease respond with only A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "B", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will be a given Reddit post and two comments for the Reddit post from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which of the comments is more preferred by human given the following criteria.\n\nYou need to consider following criteria\n\n Relevance to the Post\n Clarity and Coherence\n Depth and Thoughtfulness\n Positive Tone and Respectful Language\n Correctness and Accuracy\n Natural Language and Tone\n Conciseness\n\nGiven above information, please answer which of the comment is more preferred by human, A or B?\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: Why do the Oscars tend to favour more critically successful 'artistic' movies, whilst the Grammy's favour more commercially successful 'mainstream' music? They are both the biggest award ceremonies of their respective mediums- if they were reversed then The Avengers would have cleaned out the oscars, and a relatively unknown band would have done the same at the Grammy's. Wondering why this is.\n\nA: One reason is that there are far fewer movies made than albums. There are around 100,000 albums released per year, while Hollywood makes something on the order of 700 movies per year. (Given, there are more movies than just Hollywood, but that's the bulk, at least of what would be considered for Oscar nomination.) It's reasonably easy to narrow down 700 to the few that are truly excellent, especially when you're ignoring stuff that was never intended to be excellent in the way that an Oscar category is looking for. It's even vaguely possible, if unlikely, to watch every single one of those movies. And it's reasonably easy to come to a consensus about those movies. If you have 100,000 albums, that's way more music than can be listened to over the course of a year. (Assuming an average of 45 minutes per album, that would be over eight years of constant music.) At that level, you have to find things that are already being promoted external to the voting system to come to any sort of consensus. This is not intended to contradict /u/Carbonm8's answer. It's just another aspect.\n\nB: I can only try and explain from the Grammy point of view as a voting member there. Basically voting for the Grammys becomes more of a political manner in the industry than simply voting for the \"best\" record in each category. The way the voting process works for the Grammys is that there are these sub-committees for each and every category. I have no idea how someone gets onto one of these sub-committees but the people on them don't seem to change much. Every year these committees convene and decide which albums out of the hundreds in each category get nominated. Then around fall of each year the rest of the voting members get sent a packet and we're allowed to cast our vote for the nominees in 5 (I think?) categories - to seemingly keep everyone from voting on every category that they couldn't have an opinion in. (Like I probably shouldn't vote for best \"world music\" album since I have no idea who any of the artists are there) As a side note everyone gets a free vote for some popular categories like artist of the year, album of the year, etc. Because of these subcommittees whittling down the voting pool, by the time the vast majority of the academy gets to vote on the winners - the most \"popular\" artists seem to be the only choices. I think it's due to the fact that the sub-committees don't change very often and so the members on them try and pick the nominees not based on what's best but who they know who worked on the albums. It's definitely an odd way to vote and I'm not sure if the oscars are any different.\n\nPlease respond with only A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "B", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will be provided with a Reddit post and two comments from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which comment is more preferred by humans based on the following criteria: Relevance to the Post, Clarity and Coherence, Depth and Thoughtfulness, Positive Tone and Respectful Language, Correctness and Accuracy, Natural Language and Tone, Conciseness\n\nGiven the information above, please select either A or B:\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: Why do the Oscars tend to favour more critically successful 'artistic' movies, whilst the Grammy's favour more commercially successful 'mainstream' music? They are both the biggest award ceremonies of their respective mediums- if they were reversed then The Avengers would have cleaned out the oscars, and a relatively unknown band would have done the same at the Grammy's. Wondering why this is.\n\nA: I can only try and explain from the Grammy point of view as a voting member there. Basically voting for the Grammys becomes more of a political manner in the industry than simply voting for the \"best\" record in each category. The way the voting process works for the Grammys is that there are these sub-committees for each and every category. I have no idea how someone gets onto one of these sub-committees but the people on them don't seem to change much. Every year these committees convene and decide which albums out of the hundreds in each category get nominated. Then around fall of each year the rest of the voting members get sent a packet and we're allowed to cast our vote for the nominees in 5 (I think?) categories - to seemingly keep everyone from voting on every category that they couldn't have an opinion in. (Like I probably shouldn't vote for best \"world music\" album since I have no idea who any of the artists are there) As a side note everyone gets a free vote for some popular categories like artist of the year, album of the year, etc. Because of these subcommittees whittling down the voting pool, by the time the vast majority of the academy gets to vote on the winners - the most \"popular\" artists seem to be the only choices. I think it's due to the fact that the sub-committees don't change very often and so the members on them try and pick the nominees not based on what's best but who they know who worked on the albums. It's definitely an odd way to vote and I'm not sure if the oscars are any different.\n\nB: Oscars take themselves more seriously. Grammys exist to make money off of the TV viewership. Oscars actually matter to the people receiving and the \"academy\" of people voting. Most musical artists truly don't give a shit about the Grammys, Hell, Views by drake was nominated and it is said to be he worst drake album in history. But drake brings viewers to the Grammys and gives them that sweet commercial money. \"Moonlight\" didn't get a lot of people in theatres but movie people care about the quality because making a movie is a lot more of a struggle than singing what your writers wrote down.\n\nPlease respond with only A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "A", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will receive a Reddit post along with two comments from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which comment is more favored by humans based on the following criteria:\n\n Relevance to the Post\n Clarity and Coherence\n Depth and Thoughtfulness\n Positive Tone and Respectful Language\n Correctness and Accuracy\n Natural Language and Tone\n Conciseness\n\nAfter considering the given information, please indicate which comment is preferred: A or B?\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: Why do the Oscars tend to favour more critically successful 'artistic' movies, whilst the Grammy's favour more commercially successful 'mainstream' music? They are both the biggest award ceremonies of their respective mediums- if they were reversed then The Avengers would have cleaned out the oscars, and a relatively unknown band would have done the same at the Grammy's. Wondering why this is.\n\nA: Oscars take themselves more seriously. Grammys exist to make money off of the TV viewership. Oscars actually matter to the people receiving and the \"academy\" of people voting. Most musical artists truly don't give a shit about the Grammys, Hell, Views by drake was nominated and it is said to be he worst drake album in history. But drake brings viewers to the Grammys and gives them that sweet commercial money. \"Moonlight\" didn't get a lot of people in theatres but movie people care about the quality because making a movie is a lot more of a struggle than singing what your writers wrote down.\n\nB: One reason is that there are far fewer movies made than albums. There are around 100,000 albums released per year, while Hollywood makes something on the order of 700 movies per year. (Given, there are more movies than just Hollywood, but that's the bulk, at least of what would be considered for Oscar nomination.) It's reasonably easy to narrow down 700 to the few that are truly excellent, especially when you're ignoring stuff that was never intended to be excellent in the way that an Oscar category is looking for. It's even vaguely possible, if unlikely, to watch every single one of those movies. And it's reasonably easy to come to a consensus about those movies. If you have 100,000 albums, that's way more music than can be listened to over the course of a year. (Assuming an average of 45 minutes per album, that would be over eight years of constant music.) At that level, you have to find things that are already being promoted external to the voting system to come to any sort of consensus. This is not intended to contradict /u/Carbonm8's answer. It's just another aspect.\n\nPlease respond with either A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "B", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will be a given Reddit post and two comments for the Reddit post from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which of the comments is more preferred by human given the following criteria.\n\nYou need to consider following criteria\n\n Relevance to the Post\n Clarity and Coherence\n Depth and Thoughtfulness\n Positive Tone and Respectful Language\n Correctness and Accuracy\n Natural Language and Tone\n Conciseness\n\nGiven above information, please answer which of the comment is more preferred by human, A or B?\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: Why do the Oscars tend to favour more critically successful 'artistic' movies, whilst the Grammy's favour more commercially successful 'mainstream' music? They are both the biggest award ceremonies of their respective mediums- if they were reversed then The Avengers would have cleaned out the oscars, and a relatively unknown band would have done the same at the Grammy's. Wondering why this is.\n\nA: I think that's an unusual misconception that the Oscars favour critically successful, artistic films. Every year the finest, most progressive and inventive films get ignored by the Oscars. The films that tend to get Oscar nominations are very conventional in their artistry and in their content. They aren't blockbusters but they're the big-name dramas that have a broad appeal. Of course there are exceptions, nearly every year there's a token small or niche film but they rarely take home the big prizes. I would say the Grammy's and the Oscars are on equal ground in terms of mass appeal.\n\nB: This is my contrarian view: very often they do not favor artistic movies. This year's win is a pretty big deviation from the norm. Traditionally, bigger budget films with mass appeal are the ones to be nominated and to win. Going farther back, think of \"It Happened One Night.\" From the 1990s: Forrest Gump, Braveheart, Titanic, Shakespeare in Love, Gladiator. Starting in the 2000s, the Academy broadened its voting membership to include a lot of people less directly tied to the major studios, and so now the films are more diverse. Typically there is a 50/50 mix of more independent fare and well-received mainstream film. Even films like Argo and 12 Years a Slave had decent budgets. I'm not saying these are bad films -- not at all. But they wouldn't be considered particularly outside of the mainstream by serious film buffs.\n\nPlease respond with only A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "B", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will receive a Reddit post along with two comments from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which comment is more favored by humans based on the following criteria:\n\n Relevance to the Post\n Clarity and Coherence\n Depth and Thoughtfulness\n Positive Tone and Respectful Language\n Correctness and Accuracy\n Natural Language and Tone\n Conciseness\n\nAfter considering the given information, please indicate which comment is preferred: A or B?\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: Why do the Oscars tend to favour more critically successful 'artistic' movies, whilst the Grammy's favour more commercially successful 'mainstream' music? They are both the biggest award ceremonies of their respective mediums- if they were reversed then The Avengers would have cleaned out the oscars, and a relatively unknown band would have done the same at the Grammy's. Wondering why this is.\n\nA: This is my contrarian view: very often they do not favor artistic movies. This year's win is a pretty big deviation from the norm. Traditionally, bigger budget films with mass appeal are the ones to be nominated and to win. Going farther back, think of \"It Happened One Night.\" From the 1990s: Forrest Gump, Braveheart, Titanic, Shakespeare in Love, Gladiator. Starting in the 2000s, the Academy broadened its voting membership to include a lot of people less directly tied to the major studios, and so now the films are more diverse. Typically there is a 50/50 mix of more independent fare and well-received mainstream film. Even films like Argo and 12 Years a Slave had decent budgets. I'm not saying these are bad films -- not at all. But they wouldn't be considered particularly outside of the mainstream by serious film buffs.\n\nB: I have this art conversation with friends all the time. People seem to be able to appreciate contemporary visual art (film too), more than contemporary music. Jackson Pollock rarely offends but its musical counterparts (whatever that means), still does. People are always more turned off by music that doesn't fit their preconceived notions than film or visual art that does.\n\nPlease respond with either A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "A", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will receive a Reddit post along with two comments from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which comment is more favored by humans based on the following criteria:\n\n Relevance to the Post\n Clarity and Coherence\n Depth and Thoughtfulness\n Positive Tone and Respectful Language\n Correctness and Accuracy\n Natural Language and Tone\n Conciseness\n\nAfter considering the given information, please indicate which comment is preferred: A or B?\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: How do some games like Monster Hunter, or even mobile games like Underlords, allow for players all over the globe to play together seamlessly but other games like Dota has horrible lag and ping when you play outside your region?\n\nA: eli5: There are different ways to handle networked information going in and out of your game and it mostly comes down to how much they \"fudge\" or predict actions. The games likely have the same amount of lag, but your opponents in monster hunter won't be upset if the player cheats a little for the purpose of hiding it. eli15: These days, almost no games will wait for confirmation from the server to move your character on the client side; they will only correct it once in a while if it's off by some treshold. That's when you get rubber banding. Server-side consistency is less important for a pve game where \"it's probably fine\" to let the client have some authority in dictating what happened, but needs to be more strict for a multiplayer game and especially for one as competitive and precise as dota. It might be that dota will only move the characters on the client according to what the server says, meaning you have to wait for a full return trip to see your command get carried out. It gets trickier once you start applying this to any other actions. You can fire off the attack animation clientside without asking the server, but most games will wait for confirmation before showing the effect it had on the target. Then you get into situations where two players can meet eachother around a corner at the same time, and each will (on their end) fire before the other. There's no good solution for this to make everyone happy, and you are forced to either kill one player who shot first on his screen, or kill both players (I know destiny does this). The only way to have a 100% consistent, fair, and correct representation is to only show the game state according to how it actually is on the server. It doesn't make it laggier, it only exposes how laggy it actually is.\n\nB: Dota underlords is turn-based game so there is no problem with even 1 second lag because game can handle it. I dont know Monster Hunter very good but as i read about it i see there is multiplayer but its PVE so lag is not noticable because you are fighting with computer-controlled enemies and they are client based so latency is not the most important thing. In Dota or league of legenends or cs you have to have low latency (ping) because every ms count. If you shoot someone server needs to know it instantly so it can \"tell\" other player that he died and for example cant kill you.\n\nPlease respond with either A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "A", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will be provided with a Reddit post and two comments from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which comment is more preferred by humans based on the following criteria: Relevance to the Post, Clarity and Coherence, Depth and Thoughtfulness, Positive Tone and Respectful Language, Correctness and Accuracy, Natural Language and Tone, Conciseness\n\nGiven the information above, please select either A or B:\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: How do some games like Monster Hunter, or even mobile games like Underlords, allow for players all over the globe to play together seamlessly but other games like Dota has horrible lag and ping when you play outside your region?\n\nA: I'm a fair way off the leading edge with game engines so I might be about to spout a load of crap, but ... There are two ways of making a multiplayer game. The easy way is for each player to report their 'next tick' location to a server which then forwards this information to every other player. This works reasonably well over a fast lan. The hard way is to build an internal model of what's going on inside each client. This way the game knows everything that's going on, runs with a bunch of assumptions (the bullet continues going in a straight line), and then you only need to send updates to the other players when something unpredictable happens (the bullet hit someone). But writing one of these you need to accept that the event arrives *after* it has actually happened (very shortly after the gun was fired) and that you need to both change the model and apply some kind of time delta so everything comes back into sync. This is F for F'n hard.\n\nB: eli5: There are different ways to handle networked information going in and out of your game and it mostly comes down to how much they \"fudge\" or predict actions. The games likely have the same amount of lag, but your opponents in monster hunter won't be upset if the player cheats a little for the purpose of hiding it. eli15: These days, almost no games will wait for confirmation from the server to move your character on the client side; they will only correct it once in a while if it's off by some treshold. That's when you get rubber banding. Server-side consistency is less important for a pve game where \"it's probably fine\" to let the client have some authority in dictating what happened, but needs to be more strict for a multiplayer game and especially for one as competitive and precise as dota. It might be that dota will only move the characters on the client according to what the server says, meaning you have to wait for a full return trip to see your command get carried out. It gets trickier once you start applying this to any other actions. You can fire off the attack animation clientside without asking the server, but most games will wait for confirmation before showing the effect it had on the target. Then you get into situations where two players can meet eachother around a corner at the same time, and each will (on their end) fire before the other. There's no good solution for this to make everyone happy, and you are forced to either kill one player who shot first on his screen, or kill both players (I know destiny does this). The only way to have a 100% consistent, fair, and correct representation is to only show the game state according to how it actually is on the server. It doesn't make it laggier, it only exposes how laggy it actually is.\n\nPlease respond with only A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "B", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will be provided with a Reddit post and two comments from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which comment is more preferred by humans based on the following criteria: Relevance to the Post, Clarity and Coherence, Depth and Thoughtfulness, Positive Tone and Respectful Language, Correctness and Accuracy, Natural Language and Tone, Conciseness\n\nGiven the information above, please select either A or B:\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: How do some games like Monster Hunter, or even mobile games like Underlords, allow for players all over the globe to play together seamlessly but other games like Dota has horrible lag and ping when you play outside your region?\n\nA: Lag and ping is way more noticeable if you are facing other players, on games where players beat monsters together or that you send small armies that go slowly and stuff like that it doenst matter if there is a couple hundreds of miliseconds of delay, because the game does not depend on your reaction time.\n\nB: I'm a fair way off the leading edge with game engines so I might be about to spout a load of crap, but ... There are two ways of making a multiplayer game. The easy way is for each player to report their 'next tick' location to a server which then forwards this information to every other player. This works reasonably well over a fast lan. The hard way is to build an internal model of what's going on inside each client. This way the game knows everything that's going on, runs with a bunch of assumptions (the bullet continues going in a straight line), and then you only need to send updates to the other players when something unpredictable happens (the bullet hit someone). But writing one of these you need to accept that the event arrives *after* it has actually happened (very shortly after the gun was fired) and that you need to both change the model and apply some kind of time delta so everything comes back into sync. This is F for F'n hard.\n\nPlease respond with only A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "A", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will be provided with a Reddit post and two comments from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which comment is more preferred by humans based on the following criteria: Relevance to the Post, Clarity and Coherence, Depth and Thoughtfulness, Positive Tone and Respectful Language, Correctness and Accuracy, Natural Language and Tone, Conciseness\n\nGiven the information above, please select either A or B:\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: How do some games like Monster Hunter, or even mobile games like Underlords, allow for players all over the globe to play together seamlessly but other games like Dota has horrible lag and ping when you play outside your region?\n\nA: Having played all 3. I can explain For monster hunter world, the game is a lot easier for client side prediction. Monster moves in a very static way and generally doesn’t get interrupted by most of your action. Your 3 other friends can move in also a limited set of direction and attack. And it’s not as important for client side to be ‘off’ ever so slightly because it doesn’t effect your gameplay. Static events like gathering and rewards doesn’t require lots of back and forth. So in general net coding the game is a lot lighter and can allow client side to do a lot of correction. For Underlords it’s even easier, since the only thing you ever care for are whenever client rolls and buy and probably a random seed for the AI to making decision in fighting. If your opponent buys a chess piece, something as high as 1 second discrepancy will not be noticeable. If you roll, than the server can do all the math and tell you which 5 you can buy. There no need for any other info between client/server at this point. The random seed for how the fight is dictated can be given to you at any point for you to see the action. For Dota, your client side can’t predict much and you require a lot of information between server and client. For a lot of abilities/attack you can cancel at anytime and hitting or missing a spell require a precise x/y, even creeps behavior can’t be predicted since you can force aggro them. Player for server outside of your region would require longer relay of information which if it’s too old it’s useless and tossed out. To put into perspective, when you lag in monster hunter, you see everything still move but then all of sudden gets corrected/“synched”, for Underlords you don’t really notice for a long while other than button not responding to you. For dota, you “freeze”/“stutter”\n\nB: I'm a fair way off the leading edge with game engines so I might be about to spout a load of crap, but ... There are two ways of making a multiplayer game. The easy way is for each player to report their 'next tick' location to a server which then forwards this information to every other player. This works reasonably well over a fast lan. The hard way is to build an internal model of what's going on inside each client. This way the game knows everything that's going on, runs with a bunch of assumptions (the bullet continues going in a straight line), and then you only need to send updates to the other players when something unpredictable happens (the bullet hit someone). But writing one of these you need to accept that the event arrives *after* it has actually happened (very shortly after the gun was fired) and that you need to both change the model and apply some kind of time delta so everything comes back into sync. This is F for F'n hard.\n\nPlease respond with only A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "A", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will be provided with a Reddit post and two comments from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which comment is more preferred by humans based on the following criteria: Relevance to the Post, Clarity and Coherence, Depth and Thoughtfulness, Positive Tone and Respectful Language, Correctness and Accuracy, Natural Language and Tone, Conciseness\n\nGiven the information above, please select either A or B:\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: How do some games like Monster Hunter, or even mobile games like Underlords, allow for players all over the globe to play together seamlessly but other games like Dota has horrible lag and ping when you play outside your region?\n\nA: Not Explain like I'm five years old but this this is a big presentation about netcode for Overwatch that I thought was interesting and will answer some questions! You can start at 25:30 for a cool moving graph that shows the how the server tries to predict player inputs. https://youtu.be/W3aieHjyNvw\n\nB: There's different ways to handle latency in a game, and in essentially every case, that solution comes at the expense of one of the parties involved. It used to be common that one player was the \"host\" and had zero latency, meaning the other player was the disadvantaged one, this is less common nowadays, but still happens occasionally, but is the least \"fair\" one. Nowadays most games have a server hosting games, where it can handle latency in two ways, but in each way both players share the disadvantage. it can either let you input commands in real time, showing your actions immediately and then double checking if your inputs \"succeed\", this is more common in shooters, as it is more responsive, but more sensitive to latency and the game might reverse your actions during intense lag. The other way to do it is that your inputs are delayed according to your latency and you see the game as the server interprets it, this is how DotA and most strategy games do it, as these games generally value correct information over responsiveness. The common thread between these two methods is that since the different parties are both players, the computer is strict on its interpretations, it won't bend the rules so it can keep a fair playing environment, if your data differs from what the server sees, it will correct your data. HOWEVER, what makes Monster Hunter work so well is that the two competing parties have a different dynamic, there is the players versus the game itself. Because the computer doesn't care about being treated fairly, it can bend the rules of what is true and what isn't. This means that even though you and I have wildly different latencies, our game clients send in data to the server as we see it and the game completely skips fact checking either of our data, and just accepts it and processes it and returns a result. This means the disadvantage is almost fully on the server, not the players. As for Underlords, I haven't played it, but assuming it's similar to Auto Chess and TFT, there's no actual real-time interaction with other players, so the game can process your results ahead of time and simply replay the results to you, so latency is largely irrelevant. TL;DR: Most multiplayer games have to be fair because they're in real-time and also against other players. If a game isn't in real time, or not agaisnt other players, you can \"cheat\" latency by either processing results ahead of time, or letting the players tell the server what happens.\n\nPlease respond with only A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "B", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will be a given Reddit post and two comments for the Reddit post from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which of the comments is more preferred by human given the following criteria.\n\nYou need to consider following criteria\n\n Relevance to the Post\n Clarity and Coherence\n Depth and Thoughtfulness\n Positive Tone and Respectful Language\n Correctness and Accuracy\n Natural Language and Tone\n Conciseness\n\nGiven above information, please answer which of the comment is more preferred by human, A or B?\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: How do some games like Monster Hunter, or even mobile games like Underlords, allow for players all over the globe to play together seamlessly but other games like Dota has horrible lag and ping when you play outside your region?\n\nA: I'm a fair way off the leading edge with game engines so I might be about to spout a load of crap, but ... There are two ways of making a multiplayer game. The easy way is for each player to report their 'next tick' location to a server which then forwards this information to every other player. This works reasonably well over a fast lan. The hard way is to build an internal model of what's going on inside each client. This way the game knows everything that's going on, runs with a bunch of assumptions (the bullet continues going in a straight line), and then you only need to send updates to the other players when something unpredictable happens (the bullet hit someone). But writing one of these you need to accept that the event arrives *after* it has actually happened (very shortly after the gun was fired) and that you need to both change the model and apply some kind of time delta so everything comes back into sync. This is F for F'n hard.\n\nB: Not Explain like I'm five years old but this this is a big presentation about netcode for Overwatch that I thought was interesting and will answer some questions! You can start at 25:30 for a cool moving graph that shows the how the server tries to predict player inputs. https://youtu.be/W3aieHjyNvw\n\nPlease respond with only A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "B", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will be provided with a Reddit post and two comments from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which comment is more preferred by humans based on the following criteria: Relevance to the Post, Clarity and Coherence, Depth and Thoughtfulness, Positive Tone and Respectful Language, Correctness and Accuracy, Natural Language and Tone, Conciseness\n\nGiven the information above, please select either A or B:\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: How do some games like Monster Hunter, or even mobile games like Underlords, allow for players all over the globe to play together seamlessly but other games like Dota has horrible lag and ping when you play outside your region?\n\nA: There's different ways to handle latency in a game, and in essentially every case, that solution comes at the expense of one of the parties involved. It used to be common that one player was the \"host\" and had zero latency, meaning the other player was the disadvantaged one, this is less common nowadays, but still happens occasionally, but is the least \"fair\" one. Nowadays most games have a server hosting games, where it can handle latency in two ways, but in each way both players share the disadvantage. it can either let you input commands in real time, showing your actions immediately and then double checking if your inputs \"succeed\", this is more common in shooters, as it is more responsive, but more sensitive to latency and the game might reverse your actions during intense lag. The other way to do it is that your inputs are delayed according to your latency and you see the game as the server interprets it, this is how DotA and most strategy games do it, as these games generally value correct information over responsiveness. The common thread between these two methods is that since the different parties are both players, the computer is strict on its interpretations, it won't bend the rules so it can keep a fair playing environment, if your data differs from what the server sees, it will correct your data. HOWEVER, what makes Monster Hunter work so well is that the two competing parties have a different dynamic, there is the players versus the game itself. Because the computer doesn't care about being treated fairly, it can bend the rules of what is true and what isn't. This means that even though you and I have wildly different latencies, our game clients send in data to the server as we see it and the game completely skips fact checking either of our data, and just accepts it and processes it and returns a result. This means the disadvantage is almost fully on the server, not the players. As for Underlords, I haven't played it, but assuming it's similar to Auto Chess and TFT, there's no actual real-time interaction with other players, so the game can process your results ahead of time and simply replay the results to you, so latency is largely irrelevant. TL;DR: Most multiplayer games have to be fair because they're in real-time and also against other players. If a game isn't in real time, or not agaisnt other players, you can \"cheat\" latency by either processing results ahead of time, or letting the players tell the server what happens.\n\nB: I'm a fair way off the leading edge with game engines so I might be about to spout a load of crap, but ... There are two ways of making a multiplayer game. The easy way is for each player to report their 'next tick' location to a server which then forwards this information to every other player. This works reasonably well over a fast lan. The hard way is to build an internal model of what's going on inside each client. This way the game knows everything that's going on, runs with a bunch of assumptions (the bullet continues going in a straight line), and then you only need to send updates to the other players when something unpredictable happens (the bullet hit someone). But writing one of these you need to accept that the event arrives *after* it has actually happened (very shortly after the gun was fired) and that you need to both change the model and apply some kind of time delta so everything comes back into sync. This is F for F'n hard.\n\nPlease respond with only A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "A", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will receive a Reddit post along with two comments from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which comment is more favored by humans based on the following criteria:\n\n Relevance to the Post\n Clarity and Coherence\n Depth and Thoughtfulness\n Positive Tone and Respectful Language\n Correctness and Accuracy\n Natural Language and Tone\n Conciseness\n\nAfter considering the given information, please indicate which comment is preferred: A or B?\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: Why is it possible for people to understand a language but not speak it\n\nA: It's like understanding what a beat, rhythm and harmony is but not being able to sing or play an instrument.\n\nB: If one language is similar enough to another, speakers of one language can make out the general idea of words and sentences in the other, when they hear them. But they can’t form words and sentences in a language that they don’t actually know. Spanish and Portuguese is a good example - a Spanish speaker can understand most of a slow and basic conversation between Portuguese speakers, but wouldn’t know any Portuguese words and sentences to say to them. The Spanish speaker could also take a basic written story or article in Portuguese and be able to get the general idea, but couldn’t write anything in Portuguese.\n\nPlease respond with either A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "A", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will receive a Reddit post along with two comments from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which comment is more favored by humans based on the following criteria:\n\n Relevance to the Post\n Clarity and Coherence\n Depth and Thoughtfulness\n Positive Tone and Respectful Language\n Correctness and Accuracy\n Natural Language and Tone\n Conciseness\n\nAfter considering the given information, please indicate which comment is preferred: A or B?\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: Why is it possible for people to understand a language but not speak it\n\nA: It’s about grammar mostly vs. just knowing words. You know the words, but aren’t as good at assembling them properly.\n\nB: It's like understanding what a beat, rhythm and harmony is but not being able to sing or play an instrument.\n\nPlease respond with either A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "B", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will be a given Reddit post and two comments for the Reddit post from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which of the comments is more preferred by human given the following criteria.\n\nYou need to consider following criteria\n\n Relevance to the Post\n Clarity and Coherence\n Depth and Thoughtfulness\n Positive Tone and Respectful Language\n Correctness and Accuracy\n Natural Language and Tone\n Conciseness\n\nGiven above information, please answer which of the comment is more preferred by human, A or B?\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: Why is it possible for people to understand a language but not speak it\n\nA: Reading a book isn't the same skill as writing a book. Appreciating music isn't the same as being able to create music. I understand mathematics quite well but I haven't created any kind of new mathematics. Each of those are different skills that require their own separate practice. With practice, you will eventually learn to speak the language. But listening to the language is exercising a different skill.\n\nB: It’s about grammar mostly vs. just knowing words. You know the words, but aren’t as good at assembling them properly.\n\nPlease respond with only A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "A", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will be provided with a Reddit post and two comments from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which comment is more preferred by humans based on the following criteria: Relevance to the Post, Clarity and Coherence, Depth and Thoughtfulness, Positive Tone and Respectful Language, Correctness and Accuracy, Natural Language and Tone, Conciseness\n\nGiven the information above, please select either A or B:\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: Why is it possible for people to understand a language but not speak it\n\nA: Someone already explained it super easy. Language is like Ikea furniture. The words are the pieces and sentences are the final product. You're smart enough to recognize the parts, and you know what the chair, bookcase, and closet are supposed to look like. What you don't have are the instructions. Someone shows you the closet, you know its a closet, someone gives you the parts, you have no idea how to put them together. You know the words, but don't know how to piece them together in a sentence.\n\nB: Reading a book isn't the same skill as writing a book. Appreciating music isn't the same as being able to create music. I understand mathematics quite well but I haven't created any kind of new mathematics. Each of those are different skills that require their own separate practice. With practice, you will eventually learn to speak the language. But listening to the language is exercising a different skill.\n\nPlease respond with only A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "B", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will be a given Reddit post and two comments for the Reddit post from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which of the comments is more preferred by human given the following criteria.\n\nYou need to consider following criteria\n\n Relevance to the Post\n Clarity and Coherence\n Depth and Thoughtfulness\n Positive Tone and Respectful Language\n Correctness and Accuracy\n Natural Language and Tone\n Conciseness\n\nGiven above information, please answer which of the comment is more preferred by human, A or B?\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: The universe is made up of atoms which are made out of subatomic particles which are in turn made up of quarks. Do we know if this daisy chain stops, or, like a true five-year old, will be always be asking “and then what?”\n\nA: We assume that quarks are the smallest particle available to the universe (currently). From what I understand, there are a few reasons for this: 1. Anything that is a quark cannot be on it's own (meaning we can't break them apart to look at them individually, thus pull more information than is available). This is due to something called Color Confinement. Without getting into the mathematics, the amount of energy needed to pull apart quark pairs would instantly create new quarks. But even if we COULD separate them, we'd have nothing to use to visibly examine them as they're smaller than anything we can currently use to view objects (smaller than electrons so no electron scanning, etc.). Of course, this wouldn't really a big issue because we have other ways of detecting things that are invisible to the electromagnetic spectrum, but it would definitely put a damper on things. 2. Our understanding of the universe and reality is based on mathematical models and do not represent reality fully. Basically, our understanding of what goes on at subatomic levels is guessed upon using our observations and tests in our macroscale world. Our models have been correct so far, but they don't account for everything and a discovery in the future could change how we see things. 3. We will always be asking \"and then what\". That's the fundamental foundation of Science. Once we fully understand our Universe (if we ever do), we'll be at a point where we can look beyond. ​ EDIT 1: Wow, this is my first silver. Thank you kind soul! I wonder what it breaks into... EDIT 2: Atoms don't wear clothing. EDIT 3: I LOVE GOOOOOOLD. (can I add a flair for GoldMember to my name?) EDIT 4: It's been brought to my attention by actual theoretical physicists (as they say they are) that my simplification has some inconsistencies. I'd like to touch on this briefly without going into too much detail. There are terms I've used in this explanation that do not precisely line up with reality. For instance, calling the quark the \"smallest\" particle isn't specifically true due to other particles being much smaller in terms of mass and intrinsic energy. I've done these types of changes not to confuse or lead astray, but because the alternative (the actual math and explanation of systems) is the exact opposite of what Explain like I'm five years old is supposed to represent. I'm attempting to explain extremely complicated ideas second hand without delving into other mechanics that are necessary to understand precisely why these things work the way they do. So instead of trying to fix all my errors and correct my terms, I implore that you take this as a foundation and do your own research. There are tons of resources available online that can help you understand the nitty gritty. PBS Spacetime has a YouTube channel where they discuss the fabric of Spacetime (;p). Fermilab is another great example, also can be found on YouTube.\n\nB: We are pushing against an 'edge' beyond which the notion of particles stops making sense: The amount of detail that the universe allows at the small scale. Look up 'the Planck Length'. The Explain like I'm five years old version is that we are trying to zoom in and we're getting pixels.\n\nPlease respond with only A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "A", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will be provided with a Reddit post and two comments from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which comment is more preferred by humans based on the following criteria: Relevance to the Post, Clarity and Coherence, Depth and Thoughtfulness, Positive Tone and Respectful Language, Correctness and Accuracy, Natural Language and Tone, Conciseness\n\nGiven the information above, please select either A or B:\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: The universe is made up of atoms which are made out of subatomic particles which are in turn made up of quarks. Do we know if this daisy chain stops, or, like a true five-year old, will be always be asking “and then what?”\n\nA: The further we zoom in, the less the \"elementary particles\" act like particles at all. It doesn't keep zooming in because the pieces act less like pieces and more like math.\n\nB: We assume that quarks are the smallest particle available to the universe (currently). From what I understand, there are a few reasons for this: 1. Anything that is a quark cannot be on it's own (meaning we can't break them apart to look at them individually, thus pull more information than is available). This is due to something called Color Confinement. Without getting into the mathematics, the amount of energy needed to pull apart quark pairs would instantly create new quarks. But even if we COULD separate them, we'd have nothing to use to visibly examine them as they're smaller than anything we can currently use to view objects (smaller than electrons so no electron scanning, etc.). Of course, this wouldn't really a big issue because we have other ways of detecting things that are invisible to the electromagnetic spectrum, but it would definitely put a damper on things. 2. Our understanding of the universe and reality is based on mathematical models and do not represent reality fully. Basically, our understanding of what goes on at subatomic levels is guessed upon using our observations and tests in our macroscale world. Our models have been correct so far, but they don't account for everything and a discovery in the future could change how we see things. 3. We will always be asking \"and then what\". That's the fundamental foundation of Science. Once we fully understand our Universe (if we ever do), we'll be at a point where we can look beyond. ​ EDIT 1: Wow, this is my first silver. Thank you kind soul! I wonder what it breaks into... EDIT 2: Atoms don't wear clothing. EDIT 3: I LOVE GOOOOOOLD. (can I add a flair for GoldMember to my name?) EDIT 4: It's been brought to my attention by actual theoretical physicists (as they say they are) that my simplification has some inconsistencies. I'd like to touch on this briefly without going into too much detail. There are terms I've used in this explanation that do not precisely line up with reality. For instance, calling the quark the \"smallest\" particle isn't specifically true due to other particles being much smaller in terms of mass and intrinsic energy. I've done these types of changes not to confuse or lead astray, but because the alternative (the actual math and explanation of systems) is the exact opposite of what Explain like I'm five years old is supposed to represent. I'm attempting to explain extremely complicated ideas second hand without delving into other mechanics that are necessary to understand precisely why these things work the way they do. So instead of trying to fix all my errors and correct my terms, I implore that you take this as a foundation and do your own research. There are tons of resources available online that can help you understand the nitty gritty. PBS Spacetime has a YouTube channel where they discuss the fabric of Spacetime (;p). Fermilab is another great example, also can be found on YouTube.\n\nPlease respond with only A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "B", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will receive a Reddit post along with two comments from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which comment is more favored by humans based on the following criteria:\n\n Relevance to the Post\n Clarity and Coherence\n Depth and Thoughtfulness\n Positive Tone and Respectful Language\n Correctness and Accuracy\n Natural Language and Tone\n Conciseness\n\nAfter considering the given information, please indicate which comment is preferred: A or B?\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: The universe is made up of atoms which are made out of subatomic particles which are in turn made up of quarks. Do we know if this daisy chain stops, or, like a true five-year old, will be always be asking “and then what?”\n\nA: We don't know, and really won't ever be able to know. Currently there is an entire bestiary of \"elemental particles\" which includes electrons, quarks, neutrinos, photons, and lots of other strange and fantastic things. We don't know why there are all the different kinds of elementary particles, or why they have the attributes (mass, spin, charge) that they have. String theory is an attempt to portray everything as being the same kind of fundamental \"substance\" that is the same for everything and cannot be broken down further, but it is still only a scientific hypothesis with no current way to back it up experimentally.\n\nB: We assume that quarks are the smallest particle available to the universe (currently). From what I understand, there are a few reasons for this: 1. Anything that is a quark cannot be on it's own (meaning we can't break them apart to look at them individually, thus pull more information than is available). This is due to something called Color Confinement. Without getting into the mathematics, the amount of energy needed to pull apart quark pairs would instantly create new quarks. But even if we COULD separate them, we'd have nothing to use to visibly examine them as they're smaller than anything we can currently use to view objects (smaller than electrons so no electron scanning, etc.). Of course, this wouldn't really a big issue because we have other ways of detecting things that are invisible to the electromagnetic spectrum, but it would definitely put a damper on things. 2. Our understanding of the universe and reality is based on mathematical models and do not represent reality fully. Basically, our understanding of what goes on at subatomic levels is guessed upon using our observations and tests in our macroscale world. Our models have been correct so far, but they don't account for everything and a discovery in the future could change how we see things. 3. We will always be asking \"and then what\". That's the fundamental foundation of Science. Once we fully understand our Universe (if we ever do), we'll be at a point where we can look beyond. ​ EDIT 1: Wow, this is my first silver. Thank you kind soul! I wonder what it breaks into... EDIT 2: Atoms don't wear clothing. EDIT 3: I LOVE GOOOOOOLD. (can I add a flair for GoldMember to my name?) EDIT 4: It's been brought to my attention by actual theoretical physicists (as they say they are) that my simplification has some inconsistencies. I'd like to touch on this briefly without going into too much detail. There are terms I've used in this explanation that do not precisely line up with reality. For instance, calling the quark the \"smallest\" particle isn't specifically true due to other particles being much smaller in terms of mass and intrinsic energy. I've done these types of changes not to confuse or lead astray, but because the alternative (the actual math and explanation of systems) is the exact opposite of what Explain like I'm five years old is supposed to represent. I'm attempting to explain extremely complicated ideas second hand without delving into other mechanics that are necessary to understand precisely why these things work the way they do. So instead of trying to fix all my errors and correct my terms, I implore that you take this as a foundation and do your own research. There are tons of resources available online that can help you understand the nitty gritty. PBS Spacetime has a YouTube channel where they discuss the fabric of Spacetime (;p). Fermilab is another great example, also can be found on YouTube.\n\nPlease respond with either A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "B", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will be provided with a Reddit post and two comments from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which comment is more preferred by humans based on the following criteria: Relevance to the Post, Clarity and Coherence, Depth and Thoughtfulness, Positive Tone and Respectful Language, Correctness and Accuracy, Natural Language and Tone, Conciseness\n\nGiven the information above, please select either A or B:\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: The universe is made up of atoms which are made out of subatomic particles which are in turn made up of quarks. Do we know if this daisy chain stops, or, like a true five-year old, will be always be asking “and then what?”\n\nA: What about in the other direction? If we know an atom is a discreet object with things revolving around other things, and we know a solar system is a distinct entity with things revolving around other things, and we know a galaxy is a distinct entity with things revolving around other things....and we know that in each case there's a relative fuckton of empty space between distinct entities, is there any reason whatsoever to believe that our 'known' universe isn't just a distinct entity amongst innumerable other distinct entities?\n\nB: I have such a hard time getting my arms around the idea that we are all here, and conscious, and we know there exists quantum sub particles and waves (or whatever that soup is) which are ultimately the building blocks of our very selves, the core of our capability for being conscious, yet we don't know what they are nor how they got there (not really at least). Another way of putting it is to say, there is a set of basic particles and waves, energy if you will, that combine and organize over and over to form particles, atoms, molecules, cells, organs, and eventually \"living\" beings which are capable (almost capable) of understanding their own building blocks. We are sets of energy aware of our underlying base energy forms.\n\nPlease respond with only A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "A", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will be provided with a Reddit post and two comments from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which comment is more preferred by humans based on the following criteria: Relevance to the Post, Clarity and Coherence, Depth and Thoughtfulness, Positive Tone and Respectful Language, Correctness and Accuracy, Natural Language and Tone, Conciseness\n\nGiven the information above, please select either A or B:\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: The universe is made up of atoms which are made out of subatomic particles which are in turn made up of quarks. Do we know if this daisy chain stops, or, like a true five-year old, will be always be asking “and then what?”\n\nA: What about in the other direction? If we know an atom is a discreet object with things revolving around other things, and we know a solar system is a distinct entity with things revolving around other things, and we know a galaxy is a distinct entity with things revolving around other things....and we know that in each case there's a relative fuckton of empty space between distinct entities, is there any reason whatsoever to believe that our 'known' universe isn't just a distinct entity amongst innumerable other distinct entities?\n\nB: We don't know, and really won't ever be able to know. Currently there is an entire bestiary of \"elemental particles\" which includes electrons, quarks, neutrinos, photons, and lots of other strange and fantastic things. We don't know why there are all the different kinds of elementary particles, or why they have the attributes (mass, spin, charge) that they have. String theory is an attempt to portray everything as being the same kind of fundamental \"substance\" that is the same for everything and cannot be broken down further, but it is still only a scientific hypothesis with no current way to back it up experimentally.\n\nPlease respond with only A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "A", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will receive a Reddit post along with two comments from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which comment is more favored by humans based on the following criteria:\n\n Relevance to the Post\n Clarity and Coherence\n Depth and Thoughtfulness\n Positive Tone and Respectful Language\n Correctness and Accuracy\n Natural Language and Tone\n Conciseness\n\nAfter considering the given information, please indicate which comment is preferred: A or B?\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: The universe is made up of atoms which are made out of subatomic particles which are in turn made up of quarks. Do we know if this daisy chain stops, or, like a true five-year old, will be always be asking “and then what?”\n\nA: We don't know, and really won't ever be able to know. Currently there is an entire bestiary of \"elemental particles\" which includes electrons, quarks, neutrinos, photons, and lots of other strange and fantastic things. We don't know why there are all the different kinds of elementary particles, or why they have the attributes (mass, spin, charge) that they have. String theory is an attempt to portray everything as being the same kind of fundamental \"substance\" that is the same for everything and cannot be broken down further, but it is still only a scientific hypothesis with no current way to back it up experimentally.\n\nB: I have such a hard time getting my arms around the idea that we are all here, and conscious, and we know there exists quantum sub particles and waves (or whatever that soup is) which are ultimately the building blocks of our very selves, the core of our capability for being conscious, yet we don't know what they are nor how they got there (not really at least). Another way of putting it is to say, there is a set of basic particles and waves, energy if you will, that combine and organize over and over to form particles, atoms, molecules, cells, organs, and eventually \"living\" beings which are capable (almost capable) of understanding their own building blocks. We are sets of energy aware of our underlying base energy forms.\n\nPlease respond with either A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "B", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will be provided with a Reddit post and two comments from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which comment is more preferred by humans based on the following criteria: Relevance to the Post, Clarity and Coherence, Depth and Thoughtfulness, Positive Tone and Respectful Language, Correctness and Accuracy, Natural Language and Tone, Conciseness\n\nGiven the information above, please select either A or B:\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: If games can render near photo-realistic graphics in real-time, why does 3D animation software (e.g Blender) take hours or even days to render simple animations?\n\nA: Games produce their impressive graphics with some cheats that won't work in all cases and cannot really be improved by just throwing more render time at the engine. For example the game might have a relatively simple model with textures and lighting maps produced ahead of time to make the desired effect. A program such as Blender on the other hand would be producing everything from scratch and actually rendering the geometry of a more complex model (from which the lighting and bump maps were produced) and the interaction of light with the model and texture. While this process is much more time consuming it can also produce a better image with more allowed time for calculations.\n\nB: The Explain like I'm five years old answer is that games don't actually produce photo realistic images in real time. If you look closely, you can see imperfections that break the realism. These mainly revolve around how lighting works. In order to fix that imperfections, it takes a lot more time.\n\nPlease respond with only A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "B", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will receive a Reddit post along with two comments from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which comment is more favored by humans based on the following criteria:\n\n Relevance to the Post\n Clarity and Coherence\n Depth and Thoughtfulness\n Positive Tone and Respectful Language\n Correctness and Accuracy\n Natural Language and Tone\n Conciseness\n\nAfter considering the given information, please indicate which comment is preferred: A or B?\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: If games can render near photo-realistic graphics in real-time, why does 3D animation software (e.g Blender) take hours or even days to render simple animations?\n\nA: Games are rendered using OpenGL or Direct X. Cinema 4D, Blender and similar apps use Raytracers and those Ratracers have all kinds of additions and hybrid rendering methods like Radiosity, Sub Scattering, and numerous others that actually calculate the paths of the rays and photons. This takes a much much longer time to calculate but produces much more realistic results in light and shadow and even the way skin looks. edit: spell\n\nB: The Explain like I'm five years old answer is that games don't actually produce photo realistic images in real time. If you look closely, you can see imperfections that break the realism. These mainly revolve around how lighting works. In order to fix that imperfections, it takes a lot more time.\n\nPlease respond with either A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "B", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will be provided with a Reddit post and two comments from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which comment is more preferred by humans based on the following criteria: Relevance to the Post, Clarity and Coherence, Depth and Thoughtfulness, Positive Tone and Respectful Language, Correctness and Accuracy, Natural Language and Tone, Conciseness\n\nGiven the information above, please select either A or B:\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: If games can render near photo-realistic graphics in real-time, why does 3D animation software (e.g Blender) take hours or even days to render simple animations?\n\nA: The most impacting element is that generally games use shading where as rendering with blender uses ray-tracing (virtually shining hundreds of thousands of virtual photons (if not millions/billions) to illuminate an environment.\n\nB: There is a new version coming soon with a renderer called Eevee that does render very high quality in real time, though even with this, the full Cycles render will still look better. The truth is, there is a noticable difference in visual quality between even the best realtime render vs pre-rendered cgi. For a more specific example - A fancy renderer will simulate individual rays of light on the scene your rendering(ray tracing), but a realtime renderer will approximate it. It's also worth pointing out that games 'bake' lighting maps before hand, which can take a lot of time if it's a big complex scene. You get different savings depending on wether you want baked or realtime. Baked - more ram and space on HD Realtime - more gpu/cpu time You also can't move an object that has been baked into a lightmap, or it will leave it's shadow behind!\n\nPlease respond with only A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "B", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will be provided with a Reddit post and two comments from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which comment is more preferred by humans based on the following criteria: Relevance to the Post, Clarity and Coherence, Depth and Thoughtfulness, Positive Tone and Respectful Language, Correctness and Accuracy, Natural Language and Tone, Conciseness\n\nGiven the information above, please select either A or B:\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: If games can render near photo-realistic graphics in real-time, why does 3D animation software (e.g Blender) take hours or even days to render simple animations?\n\nA: There is a new version coming soon with a renderer called Eevee that does render very high quality in real time, though even with this, the full Cycles render will still look better. The truth is, there is a noticable difference in visual quality between even the best realtime render vs pre-rendered cgi. For a more specific example - A fancy renderer will simulate individual rays of light on the scene your rendering(ray tracing), but a realtime renderer will approximate it. It's also worth pointing out that games 'bake' lighting maps before hand, which can take a lot of time if it's a big complex scene. You get different savings depending on wether you want baked or realtime. Baked - more ram and space on HD Realtime - more gpu/cpu time You also can't move an object that has been baked into a lightmap, or it will leave it's shadow behind!\n\nB: Games are rendered using OpenGL or Direct X. Cinema 4D, Blender and similar apps use Raytracers and those Ratracers have all kinds of additions and hybrid rendering methods like Radiosity, Sub Scattering, and numerous others that actually calculate the paths of the rays and photons. This takes a much much longer time to calculate but produces much more realistic results in light and shadow and even the way skin looks. edit: spell\n\nPlease respond with only A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "A", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will be provided with a Reddit post and two comments from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which comment is more preferred by humans based on the following criteria: Relevance to the Post, Clarity and Coherence, Depth and Thoughtfulness, Positive Tone and Respectful Language, Correctness and Accuracy, Natural Language and Tone, Conciseness\n\nGiven the information above, please select either A or B:\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: If games can render near photo-realistic graphics in real-time, why does 3D animation software (e.g Blender) take hours or even days to render simple animations?\n\nA: Games are rendered using OpenGL or Direct X. Cinema 4D, Blender and similar apps use Raytracers and those Ratracers have all kinds of additions and hybrid rendering methods like Radiosity, Sub Scattering, and numerous others that actually calculate the paths of the rays and photons. This takes a much much longer time to calculate but produces much more realistic results in light and shadow and even the way skin looks. edit: spell\n\nB: The most impacting element is that generally games use shading where as rendering with blender uses ray-tracing (virtually shining hundreds of thousands of virtual photons (if not millions/billions) to illuminate an environment.\n\nPlease respond with only A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "B", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will be a given Reddit post and two comments for the Reddit post from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which of the comments is more preferred by human given the following criteria.\n\nYou need to consider following criteria\n\n Relevance to the Post\n Clarity and Coherence\n Depth and Thoughtfulness\n Positive Tone and Respectful Language\n Correctness and Accuracy\n Natural Language and Tone\n Conciseness\n\nGiven above information, please answer which of the comment is more preferred by human, A or B?\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: If games can render near photo-realistic graphics in real-time, why does 3D animation software (e.g Blender) take hours or even days to render simple animations?\n\nA: Realism is mostly about lighting. To render a 3D scene, there are two ways: 1. Try to render every object that is visible to the camera and calculate how it gets affected by an existing light. I'll take an example of a light that shoots all light rays in the same direction. If you can need to render a cube, you can draw perpendiculars on each side of the cube. Then you calculate angle between each perpendicular with the direction of light. If it's 0, it means they both are facing the same direction, which means, it's facing away from light. So you darken it. If it's 120°, you lighten it. If it's 180°, you make it the brightest. This technique is called Shading. Interesting point to note here is that it takes into account only two things: light and cube. There could be another red wall near the cube which will cast a red tint on the cube in real life. Now that can't happen with this simplistic algorithm. This can easily be computed by a graphics card on a computer in 16 milliseconds (1000th of a second) i.e. 60 times per second (60fps). Games use this. 2. The other way could be where you try to be realistic. You shoot a ray from the light and trace every object it hits and bounces on. But this is not clear, how many light rays do you shoot? 10, 20 or million? Instead, people shoot rays from each pixel of the screen. We just need to get color for each pixel of the screen. For each ray, keep bouncing until you reach a light. Now set the color of the pixel based on the objects you have bounced upon and the type of the light. This technique is called Ray Tracing. This is obviously expensive. This will take minutes to compute. If you are now looking somewhere else, you need to recompute the entire thing again. Blender etc. use this. If games did only 1, they would have shitty graphics. What you can do is ray tracing for all the objects that don't move. Buildings, mountains, trees etc. don't move in Games. If light doesn't change, they don't change and hence will look the same. You store how they look in the texture of itself, and you combine with shading, you get results as if it were baked.\n\nB: Two reasons. First, to render in real time, games have a much, much higher upfront cost in artist time - it just takes a lot more work to prepare a scene to perform well. In addition, a things like lightmaps and light probes need to be pre-calculated, which can also take hours or days. Second, games use a lot of trickery that has no basis in reality but looks ok thanks to very talented artists. But offline renderers (such as Cycles in Blender) generate the image by throwing around billions of rays of light, a lot like our actual universe does it. This makes the image look much more realistic and you can render almost any kind of scene this way without artefacts or bespoke code for this or that particular effect, as long as you throw enough processing power at it. Offline rendering is popular because computer time is many times cheaper than artist time.\n\nPlease respond with only A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "B", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will receive a Reddit post along with two comments from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which comment is more favored by humans based on the following criteria:\n\n Relevance to the Post\n Clarity and Coherence\n Depth and Thoughtfulness\n Positive Tone and Respectful Language\n Correctness and Accuracy\n Natural Language and Tone\n Conciseness\n\nAfter considering the given information, please indicate which comment is preferred: A or B?\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: Why is euthanasia often the only option when a horse breaks its leg?\n\nA: Horses are on their legs most of the time. They sleep standing up for the most part. They can’t lay down for extended periods of time because their weight will start damaging their internal organs. Placing their weight on 3 legs for an extended time will cause other complications, like founder for example, which are equally as terrible. There is at least one small bone I know of, the sesamoid, that can be healed. But usually when someone refers to a broken leg this is not the type of break that they are referring to. Unfortunately, a major fracture does spell disaster. Every owner I know would love to have a fix, but there is not one, at least not a good one.\n\nB: Vet here. Something major that I’m not seeing anyone else mention is a condition called laminitis. (Or founder). When a horse has an injured leg, they will put all the extra weight on their other 3 legs. This additional pressure will cause laminitis - the layers of their hoof wall will literally fall apart, even to the point of their bones pushing through the bottom of their hooves. At this point, euthanasia is a kindness because there really isn’t anything that can be done once it reaches this point. Horses can recover from lesser degrees of laminitis but not when they only have 3 legs to stand on. :-(\n\nPlease respond with either A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "B", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will be a given Reddit post and two comments for the Reddit post from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which of the comments is more preferred by human given the following criteria.\n\nYou need to consider following criteria\n\n Relevance to the Post\n Clarity and Coherence\n Depth and Thoughtfulness\n Positive Tone and Respectful Language\n Correctness and Accuracy\n Natural Language and Tone\n Conciseness\n\nGiven above information, please answer which of the comment is more preferred by human, A or B?\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: Why is euthanasia often the only option when a horse breaks its leg?\n\nA: Vet here. Something major that I’m not seeing anyone else mention is a condition called laminitis. (Or founder). When a horse has an injured leg, they will put all the extra weight on their other 3 legs. This additional pressure will cause laminitis - the layers of their hoof wall will literally fall apart, even to the point of their bones pushing through the bottom of their hooves. At this point, euthanasia is a kindness because there really isn’t anything that can be done once it reaches this point. Horses can recover from lesser degrees of laminitis but not when they only have 3 legs to stand on. :-(\n\nB: Vet here. People are tossing around a lot of absolutes (only the sith deal in absolutes) in these comments, which are missing the subtlety of the situation. The missing components are: 1) that the fracture conformation (shape and orientation) and location (which bone) have a large impact on the ability to stabilize the fracture and heal appropriately, and 2) that the use/job of the horse is often a major determinant of the owners willingness to pursue treatment, aside from finances. As people are saying, a thoroughbred racehorse with a catastrophic breakdown fracture will most often be career ending, even if it could be repaired. The same fracture in a rich person's pleasure horse that is fine being a pet or pasture ornament might receive treatment, even with a guarded prognosis to complete soundness (walking without a limp).\n\nPlease respond with only A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "A", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will receive a Reddit post along with two comments from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which comment is more favored by humans based on the following criteria:\n\n Relevance to the Post\n Clarity and Coherence\n Depth and Thoughtfulness\n Positive Tone and Respectful Language\n Correctness and Accuracy\n Natural Language and Tone\n Conciseness\n\nAfter considering the given information, please indicate which comment is preferred: A or B?\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: Why is euthanasia often the only option when a horse breaks its leg?\n\nA: Ok I don't know how to link to comments, so I'll just credit u/Walshy231231 for this answer that I saved a year ago. I don't even remember the question at this point, but the comment made me laugh so hard (having grown up with horses) that I had to save it. Apologies if formatting is an issue. u/Walshy231231 : Well, in the beginning, there was Eohippus. The proto-horse. It was a small hooved animal about the size of a dog, and it ate grass. It was a simple creature, and in my (factual) opinion it represents the last time that the Horse lineage was untainted by sin. Now, it is worth noting that life was not easy for this proto-horse, in fact life for early hooved mammals was so difficult, that some of them said \"fuck that\" and moonwalked back into the ocean to become cetaceans (Whales and Dolphins). That's right, The proto-horse had so stupid an existence, that hooved mammals went back into the ocean (lacking gills and flippers) and had more success than horses would have on land. Okay, So why was life so hard for Eohippus? Well, they are herbivores eating almost exclusively grasses. Grasses, as you may know, are not particularly nutritious. But more importantly, grasses are smarter than Horses. See, Grass does not want to be eaten, and evolutionary pressure caused the grasses to start incorporating silica (ie sand) into their structure. Silica is extremely hard. Hard enough to wear down Horse teeth. Now there is another evolutionary pressure acting on Eohippus; It's teeth wear down by the mere act of eating, to the point that it will starve to death. Eohippus teeth do not regrow, instead, Eohippus evolved bigger teeth. However, bigger teeth mean a bigger jaw, bigger head, and a bigger body to carry it. These opposing evolutionary pressures started an arms race in which the grasses incorporated more and more silica, and Horses got bigger and bigger, just so they would have big enough teeth to grow and reproduce before finally starving to death. And eventually our cute dog-sized pony evolved into the 1,500-pound, dumb-as-rocks prey animal i loathe today. But wait, there's more! See, Horses are extremely fragile. There is a reason why a \"horse doctor\" typically prescribes a dose of double-0 buckshot in the event of a leg injury. A horse is very heavy, and it has very thin legs to carry that weight. If any one leg gets fractured, it is exceptionally unlikely that it will heal well enough for the Horse to walk again, and is extremely likely to break again just carrying the weight of the horse. Remember, a human thigh bone is gigantic relative to the size of our bodies, a horse leg bone is absolutely minuscule relative to the weight it carries. Also, Hooves: I want you to imagine that instead of feet, you have a giant toenail at the end of your leg. That is how the Horse do. That is what a hoof is. A giant toenail. It is extremely delicate, and joined to the leg by a vast network of very fine connective tissue, and oh yeah it also bears the weight of a fucking HORSE. If a hoof gets infected (which is quite common, because imagine how often shit would get stuck under your toenails if you walked on them), the Horse immune system responds in the typical way: via inflammation of the area. The problem is, a horse hoof is a rigid \"cup\". It cannot accomodate the swelling from inflammatory response. The Horse hoof will basically pop off the leg like a sock. On top of that, remember the Horse is putting 1,500 pounds of weight on it (because Horses can't redistribute their weight very well since all of their legs can BARELY support their share of the total weight). So, Horse apologists will claim that Horses are good at one thing: Turning Grass into Fast. As the previous two paragraphs show, they can't even do that right. Locomotion is very dangerous for a Horse, and if the Fast doesn't kill them they'll starve to death just by eating. On top of that, they are dumb as all fuck. Horses will often do something called \"Cribbing\", which is when they decide to bite down on something (literally anything) as hard as they can, and suck in air. They just keep sucking in air until they inflate like a balloon. Eventually, the vet will show up and literally deflate the Horse with a long needle to let the air out of them, and hopefully get them to just... stop... First off, horses are obligate nasal breathers. If our noses are stuffed up we can breathe through our mouths. If our pets' noses are stuffed up (except for rabbits, who are also really fragile but unlike horses aren't stuck having only one baby a year) they can breathe through their mouths. If a horse can't breathe through its nose, it will suffocate and die. Horse eyes are exquisitely sensitive to steroids. Most animal eyes are, except for cows because cows are tanks, but horses are extremely sensitive. Corneal ulcers won't heal. They'll probably get worse. They might rupture and cause eyeball fluid to leak out. If you overexert a horse they can get exertional rhabodmyolysis. Basically you overwork their muscles and they break down and die and release their contents. Super painful, and then you get scarifying and necrosis. But that's not the problem. See, when muscles die hey release myoglobin, which goes into the blood and is filtered by the kidneys. If you dump a bucket of myoglobin into the blood then it shreds the kidneys, causing acutel renal failure. This kills the horse. People and other animals can get that too but in school we only talked about it in context of the horse. Horses can only have one foal at a time. Their uterus simply can't support two foals. If a pregnant horse has twins you have to abort one or they'll both die and possibly kill the mother with them. A lot of this has to do with the way horse placentas work. If a horse rears up on its hind legs it can fall over, hit the back of its head, and get a traumatic brain injury. Now to their digestive system. Oh boy. First of all, they can't vomit. There's an incredibly tight sphincter in between the stomach and esophagus that simply won't open up. If a horse is vomiting it's literally about to die. In many cases their stomach will rupture before they vomit. When treating colic you need to reflux the horse, which means shoving a tube into their stomach and pumping out any material to decompress the stomach and proximal GI tract. Their small intestines are 70+ feet long (which is expected for a big herbivore) and can get strangulated, which is fatal without surgery. Let's go to the large intestine. Horses are hindgut fermenters, not ruminants. I'll spare you the diagram and extended anatomy lesson but here's what you need to know: Their cecum is large enough to shove a person into, and the path of digesta doubles back on itself. The large intestine is very long, has segments of various diameters, multiple flexures, and doubles back on itself several times. It's not anchored to the body wall with mesentery like it is in many other animals. The spleen can get trapped. Parts of the colon can get filled with gas or digested food and/or get displaced. Parts of the large intestine can twist on themselves, causing torsions or volvulus. These conditions can range from mildly painful to excruciating. Many require surgery or intense medical therapy for the horse to have any chance of surviving. Any part of the large intestine can fail at any time and potentially kill the horse. A change in feed can cause colic. Giving birth can cause I believe a large colon volvulus I don't know at the moment I'm going into small animal medicine. Infections can cause colic. Lots of things can cause colic and you better hope it's an impaction that can be treated on the farm and not enteritis or a volvulus. And now the legs. Before we start with bones and hooves let's talk about the skin. The skin on horse legs, particularly their lower legs, is under a lot of tension and has basically no subcutaneous tissue. If a horse lacerated its legs and has a dangling flap of skin that's a fucking nightmare. That skin is incredibly difficult to successfully suture back together because it's under so much tension. There's basically no subcutaneous tissue underneath. You need to use releasing incisions and all sorts of undermining techniques to even get the skin loose enough to close without tearing itself apart afterwards. Also horses like to get this thing called proud flesh where scar tissue just builds up into this giant ugly mass that restricts movement. If a horse severely lacerated a leg it will take months to heal and the prognosis is not great. I hope this information has enlightened you, and that you will join me in hating these stupid goddamn bastard animals.\n\nB: Vet here. Something major that I’m not seeing anyone else mention is a condition called laminitis. (Or founder). When a horse has an injured leg, they will put all the extra weight on their other 3 legs. This additional pressure will cause laminitis - the layers of their hoof wall will literally fall apart, even to the point of their bones pushing through the bottom of their hooves. At this point, euthanasia is a kindness because there really isn’t anything that can be done once it reaches this point. Horses can recover from lesser degrees of laminitis but not when they only have 3 legs to stand on. :-(\n\nPlease respond with either A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "B", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will receive a Reddit post along with two comments from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which comment is more favored by humans based on the following criteria:\n\n Relevance to the Post\n Clarity and Coherence\n Depth and Thoughtfulness\n Positive Tone and Respectful Language\n Correctness and Accuracy\n Natural Language and Tone\n Conciseness\n\nAfter considering the given information, please indicate which comment is preferred: A or B?\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: Why is euthanasia often the only option when a horse breaks its leg?\n\nA: A saying among equine vets is that horses have five hearts. Each hoof contributes to whole-body circulation. A horse with one leg out of commission has more health problems than just the leg. It immediately becomes either a financial liability or a gamble. It's sad, but that's the system we've created. A horse will try to walk on a broken leg, preventing a callus (new bone) from developing at the break. An intramedullary pin/nail is an option, but a very expensive one. Farm horses won't get one. Even a race horse won't get one unless it's already a big winner and its sperm is sufficiently marketable to much more than offset the combined costs. It sucks. Edit: Sorry, I got caught up and blew the Explain like I'm five years old part.\n\nB: Vet here. Something major that I’m not seeing anyone else mention is a condition called laminitis. (Or founder). When a horse has an injured leg, they will put all the extra weight on their other 3 legs. This additional pressure will cause laminitis - the layers of their hoof wall will literally fall apart, even to the point of their bones pushing through the bottom of their hooves. At this point, euthanasia is a kindness because there really isn’t anything that can be done once it reaches this point. Horses can recover from lesser degrees of laminitis but not when they only have 3 legs to stand on. :-(\n\nPlease respond with either A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "B", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will be provided with a Reddit post and two comments from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which comment is more preferred by humans based on the following criteria: Relevance to the Post, Clarity and Coherence, Depth and Thoughtfulness, Positive Tone and Respectful Language, Correctness and Accuracy, Natural Language and Tone, Conciseness\n\nGiven the information above, please select either A or B:\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: Why is euthanasia often the only option when a horse breaks its leg?\n\nA: Vet here. People are tossing around a lot of absolutes (only the sith deal in absolutes) in these comments, which are missing the subtlety of the situation. The missing components are: 1) that the fracture conformation (shape and orientation) and location (which bone) have a large impact on the ability to stabilize the fracture and heal appropriately, and 2) that the use/job of the horse is often a major determinant of the owners willingness to pursue treatment, aside from finances. As people are saying, a thoroughbred racehorse with a catastrophic breakdown fracture will most often be career ending, even if it could be repaired. The same fracture in a rich person's pleasure horse that is fine being a pet or pasture ornament might receive treatment, even with a guarded prognosis to complete soundness (walking without a limp).\n\nB: Vet here. There are several reasons. Horses develop problems in their hooves if they don't move around enough or are forced to put weight on only 3 legs. You can think of their hoof as a giant fingernail, and the bone behind it is shaped like a wedge pointing forwards and towards the ground. Too much pressure on the other 3 hooves can cause severe pain, swelling, and separation of the bone from the hoof. In severe cases the bone in the hoof can puncture through the bottom or separate from the top. So then you might ask \"why can't we make them rest while they heal?\" Well horses can't lie down for a long period of time. Not only can that negatively affect their hooves and muscle tone over time, but the pressure from their own body can restrict blood flow. Within 2 to 4 hours of a horse not being able to move from one side, they can develop muscle and nerve damage. In surgery, horses are often kept on giant foam pads to help reduce the pressure on their body. Keep in mind bones take months to heal. A horse cannot realistically be on the ground to wait for that. The other option is a sling for the horse to stand stationary and upright while it heals. But this creates challenges with pressure sores and excessive pressure on their breathing. There are other issues including dietary concerns and gastrointestinal effects, but in short, it is very very hard to heal a broken bone in an animal that needs to constantly keep using that bone to survive. Edit: Also when horses break a bone in their leg, they tend to panic and start trying to run. The flailing they do can cause very severe injury to tendons, rip muscles, tear joints, and it's not uncommon that the bone rips through the skin, which creates a big risk of infection. So a broken leg in a horse is often much more severe and catastrophic than what we see in other animals. In some horses they flail so much from one broken leg that they break a second leg.\n\nPlease respond with only A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "B", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will receive a Reddit post along with two comments from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which comment is more favored by humans based on the following criteria:\n\n Relevance to the Post\n Clarity and Coherence\n Depth and Thoughtfulness\n Positive Tone and Respectful Language\n Correctness and Accuracy\n Natural Language and Tone\n Conciseness\n\nAfter considering the given information, please indicate which comment is preferred: A or B?\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: Why is euthanasia often the only option when a horse breaks its leg?\n\nA: Vet here. There are several reasons. Horses develop problems in their hooves if they don't move around enough or are forced to put weight on only 3 legs. You can think of their hoof as a giant fingernail, and the bone behind it is shaped like a wedge pointing forwards and towards the ground. Too much pressure on the other 3 hooves can cause severe pain, swelling, and separation of the bone from the hoof. In severe cases the bone in the hoof can puncture through the bottom or separate from the top. So then you might ask \"why can't we make them rest while they heal?\" Well horses can't lie down for a long period of time. Not only can that negatively affect their hooves and muscle tone over time, but the pressure from their own body can restrict blood flow. Within 2 to 4 hours of a horse not being able to move from one side, they can develop muscle and nerve damage. In surgery, horses are often kept on giant foam pads to help reduce the pressure on their body. Keep in mind bones take months to heal. A horse cannot realistically be on the ground to wait for that. The other option is a sling for the horse to stand stationary and upright while it heals. But this creates challenges with pressure sores and excessive pressure on their breathing. There are other issues including dietary concerns and gastrointestinal effects, but in short, it is very very hard to heal a broken bone in an animal that needs to constantly keep using that bone to survive. Edit: Also when horses break a bone in their leg, they tend to panic and start trying to run. The flailing they do can cause very severe injury to tendons, rip muscles, tear joints, and it's not uncommon that the bone rips through the skin, which creates a big risk of infection. So a broken leg in a horse is often much more severe and catastrophic than what we see in other animals. In some horses they flail so much from one broken leg that they break a second leg.\n\nB: Ok I don't know how to link to comments, so I'll just credit u/Walshy231231 for this answer that I saved a year ago. I don't even remember the question at this point, but the comment made me laugh so hard (having grown up with horses) that I had to save it. Apologies if formatting is an issue. u/Walshy231231 : Well, in the beginning, there was Eohippus. The proto-horse. It was a small hooved animal about the size of a dog, and it ate grass. It was a simple creature, and in my (factual) opinion it represents the last time that the Horse lineage was untainted by sin. Now, it is worth noting that life was not easy for this proto-horse, in fact life for early hooved mammals was so difficult, that some of them said \"fuck that\" and moonwalked back into the ocean to become cetaceans (Whales and Dolphins). That's right, The proto-horse had so stupid an existence, that hooved mammals went back into the ocean (lacking gills and flippers) and had more success than horses would have on land. Okay, So why was life so hard for Eohippus? Well, they are herbivores eating almost exclusively grasses. Grasses, as you may know, are not particularly nutritious. But more importantly, grasses are smarter than Horses. See, Grass does not want to be eaten, and evolutionary pressure caused the grasses to start incorporating silica (ie sand) into their structure. Silica is extremely hard. Hard enough to wear down Horse teeth. Now there is another evolutionary pressure acting on Eohippus; It's teeth wear down by the mere act of eating, to the point that it will starve to death. Eohippus teeth do not regrow, instead, Eohippus evolved bigger teeth. However, bigger teeth mean a bigger jaw, bigger head, and a bigger body to carry it. These opposing evolutionary pressures started an arms race in which the grasses incorporated more and more silica, and Horses got bigger and bigger, just so they would have big enough teeth to grow and reproduce before finally starving to death. And eventually our cute dog-sized pony evolved into the 1,500-pound, dumb-as-rocks prey animal i loathe today. But wait, there's more! See, Horses are extremely fragile. There is a reason why a \"horse doctor\" typically prescribes a dose of double-0 buckshot in the event of a leg injury. A horse is very heavy, and it has very thin legs to carry that weight. If any one leg gets fractured, it is exceptionally unlikely that it will heal well enough for the Horse to walk again, and is extremely likely to break again just carrying the weight of the horse. Remember, a human thigh bone is gigantic relative to the size of our bodies, a horse leg bone is absolutely minuscule relative to the weight it carries. Also, Hooves: I want you to imagine that instead of feet, you have a giant toenail at the end of your leg. That is how the Horse do. That is what a hoof is. A giant toenail. It is extremely delicate, and joined to the leg by a vast network of very fine connective tissue, and oh yeah it also bears the weight of a fucking HORSE. If a hoof gets infected (which is quite common, because imagine how often shit would get stuck under your toenails if you walked on them), the Horse immune system responds in the typical way: via inflammation of the area. The problem is, a horse hoof is a rigid \"cup\". It cannot accomodate the swelling from inflammatory response. The Horse hoof will basically pop off the leg like a sock. On top of that, remember the Horse is putting 1,500 pounds of weight on it (because Horses can't redistribute their weight very well since all of their legs can BARELY support their share of the total weight). So, Horse apologists will claim that Horses are good at one thing: Turning Grass into Fast. As the previous two paragraphs show, they can't even do that right. Locomotion is very dangerous for a Horse, and if the Fast doesn't kill them they'll starve to death just by eating. On top of that, they are dumb as all fuck. Horses will often do something called \"Cribbing\", which is when they decide to bite down on something (literally anything) as hard as they can, and suck in air. They just keep sucking in air until they inflate like a balloon. Eventually, the vet will show up and literally deflate the Horse with a long needle to let the air out of them, and hopefully get them to just... stop... First off, horses are obligate nasal breathers. If our noses are stuffed up we can breathe through our mouths. If our pets' noses are stuffed up (except for rabbits, who are also really fragile but unlike horses aren't stuck having only one baby a year) they can breathe through their mouths. If a horse can't breathe through its nose, it will suffocate and die. Horse eyes are exquisitely sensitive to steroids. Most animal eyes are, except for cows because cows are tanks, but horses are extremely sensitive. Corneal ulcers won't heal. They'll probably get worse. They might rupture and cause eyeball fluid to leak out. If you overexert a horse they can get exertional rhabodmyolysis. Basically you overwork their muscles and they break down and die and release their contents. Super painful, and then you get scarifying and necrosis. But that's not the problem. See, when muscles die hey release myoglobin, which goes into the blood and is filtered by the kidneys. If you dump a bucket of myoglobin into the blood then it shreds the kidneys, causing acutel renal failure. This kills the horse. People and other animals can get that too but in school we only talked about it in context of the horse. Horses can only have one foal at a time. Their uterus simply can't support two foals. If a pregnant horse has twins you have to abort one or they'll both die and possibly kill the mother with them. A lot of this has to do with the way horse placentas work. If a horse rears up on its hind legs it can fall over, hit the back of its head, and get a traumatic brain injury. Now to their digestive system. Oh boy. First of all, they can't vomit. There's an incredibly tight sphincter in between the stomach and esophagus that simply won't open up. If a horse is vomiting it's literally about to die. In many cases their stomach will rupture before they vomit. When treating colic you need to reflux the horse, which means shoving a tube into their stomach and pumping out any material to decompress the stomach and proximal GI tract. Their small intestines are 70+ feet long (which is expected for a big herbivore) and can get strangulated, which is fatal without surgery. Let's go to the large intestine. Horses are hindgut fermenters, not ruminants. I'll spare you the diagram and extended anatomy lesson but here's what you need to know: Their cecum is large enough to shove a person into, and the path of digesta doubles back on itself. The large intestine is very long, has segments of various diameters, multiple flexures, and doubles back on itself several times. It's not anchored to the body wall with mesentery like it is in many other animals. The spleen can get trapped. Parts of the colon can get filled with gas or digested food and/or get displaced. Parts of the large intestine can twist on themselves, causing torsions or volvulus. These conditions can range from mildly painful to excruciating. Many require surgery or intense medical therapy for the horse to have any chance of surviving. Any part of the large intestine can fail at any time and potentially kill the horse. A change in feed can cause colic. Giving birth can cause I believe a large colon volvulus I don't know at the moment I'm going into small animal medicine. Infections can cause colic. Lots of things can cause colic and you better hope it's an impaction that can be treated on the farm and not enteritis or a volvulus. And now the legs. Before we start with bones and hooves let's talk about the skin. The skin on horse legs, particularly their lower legs, is under a lot of tension and has basically no subcutaneous tissue. If a horse lacerated its legs and has a dangling flap of skin that's a fucking nightmare. That skin is incredibly difficult to successfully suture back together because it's under so much tension. There's basically no subcutaneous tissue underneath. You need to use releasing incisions and all sorts of undermining techniques to even get the skin loose enough to close without tearing itself apart afterwards. Also horses like to get this thing called proud flesh where scar tissue just builds up into this giant ugly mass that restricts movement. If a horse severely lacerated a leg it will take months to heal and the prognosis is not great. I hope this information has enlightened you, and that you will join me in hating these stupid goddamn bastard animals.\n\nPlease respond with either A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "A", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will receive a Reddit post along with two comments from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which comment is more favored by humans based on the following criteria:\n\n Relevance to the Post\n Clarity and Coherence\n Depth and Thoughtfulness\n Positive Tone and Respectful Language\n Correctness and Accuracy\n Natural Language and Tone\n Conciseness\n\nAfter considering the given information, please indicate which comment is preferred: A or B?\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: Why is euthanasia often the only option when a horse breaks its leg?\n\nA: Vet here. There are several reasons. Horses develop problems in their hooves if they don't move around enough or are forced to put weight on only 3 legs. You can think of their hoof as a giant fingernail, and the bone behind it is shaped like a wedge pointing forwards and towards the ground. Too much pressure on the other 3 hooves can cause severe pain, swelling, and separation of the bone from the hoof. In severe cases the bone in the hoof can puncture through the bottom or separate from the top. So then you might ask \"why can't we make them rest while they heal?\" Well horses can't lie down for a long period of time. Not only can that negatively affect their hooves and muscle tone over time, but the pressure from their own body can restrict blood flow. Within 2 to 4 hours of a horse not being able to move from one side, they can develop muscle and nerve damage. In surgery, horses are often kept on giant foam pads to help reduce the pressure on their body. Keep in mind bones take months to heal. A horse cannot realistically be on the ground to wait for that. The other option is a sling for the horse to stand stationary and upright while it heals. But this creates challenges with pressure sores and excessive pressure on their breathing. There are other issues including dietary concerns and gastrointestinal effects, but in short, it is very very hard to heal a broken bone in an animal that needs to constantly keep using that bone to survive. Edit: Also when horses break a bone in their leg, they tend to panic and start trying to run. The flailing they do can cause very severe injury to tendons, rip muscles, tear joints, and it's not uncommon that the bone rips through the skin, which creates a big risk of infection. So a broken leg in a horse is often much more severe and catastrophic than what we see in other animals. In some horses they flail so much from one broken leg that they break a second leg.\n\nB: A saying among equine vets is that horses have five hearts. Each hoof contributes to whole-body circulation. A horse with one leg out of commission has more health problems than just the leg. It immediately becomes either a financial liability or a gamble. It's sad, but that's the system we've created. A horse will try to walk on a broken leg, preventing a callus (new bone) from developing at the break. An intramedullary pin/nail is an option, but a very expensive one. Farm horses won't get one. Even a race horse won't get one unless it's already a big winner and its sperm is sufficiently marketable to much more than offset the combined costs. It sucks. Edit: Sorry, I got caught up and blew the Explain like I'm five years old part.\n\nPlease respond with either A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "A", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will receive a Reddit post along with two comments from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which comment is more favored by humans based on the following criteria:\n\n Relevance to the Post\n Clarity and Coherence\n Depth and Thoughtfulness\n Positive Tone and Respectful Language\n Correctness and Accuracy\n Natural Language and Tone\n Conciseness\n\nAfter considering the given information, please indicate which comment is preferred: A or B?\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: Why is euthanasia often the only option when a horse breaks its leg?\n\nA: Ok I don't know how to link to comments, so I'll just credit u/Walshy231231 for this answer that I saved a year ago. I don't even remember the question at this point, but the comment made me laugh so hard (having grown up with horses) that I had to save it. Apologies if formatting is an issue. u/Walshy231231 : Well, in the beginning, there was Eohippus. The proto-horse. It was a small hooved animal about the size of a dog, and it ate grass. It was a simple creature, and in my (factual) opinion it represents the last time that the Horse lineage was untainted by sin. Now, it is worth noting that life was not easy for this proto-horse, in fact life for early hooved mammals was so difficult, that some of them said \"fuck that\" and moonwalked back into the ocean to become cetaceans (Whales and Dolphins). That's right, The proto-horse had so stupid an existence, that hooved mammals went back into the ocean (lacking gills and flippers) and had more success than horses would have on land. Okay, So why was life so hard for Eohippus? Well, they are herbivores eating almost exclusively grasses. Grasses, as you may know, are not particularly nutritious. But more importantly, grasses are smarter than Horses. See, Grass does not want to be eaten, and evolutionary pressure caused the grasses to start incorporating silica (ie sand) into their structure. Silica is extremely hard. Hard enough to wear down Horse teeth. Now there is another evolutionary pressure acting on Eohippus; It's teeth wear down by the mere act of eating, to the point that it will starve to death. Eohippus teeth do not regrow, instead, Eohippus evolved bigger teeth. However, bigger teeth mean a bigger jaw, bigger head, and a bigger body to carry it. These opposing evolutionary pressures started an arms race in which the grasses incorporated more and more silica, and Horses got bigger and bigger, just so they would have big enough teeth to grow and reproduce before finally starving to death. And eventually our cute dog-sized pony evolved into the 1,500-pound, dumb-as-rocks prey animal i loathe today. But wait, there's more! See, Horses are extremely fragile. There is a reason why a \"horse doctor\" typically prescribes a dose of double-0 buckshot in the event of a leg injury. A horse is very heavy, and it has very thin legs to carry that weight. If any one leg gets fractured, it is exceptionally unlikely that it will heal well enough for the Horse to walk again, and is extremely likely to break again just carrying the weight of the horse. Remember, a human thigh bone is gigantic relative to the size of our bodies, a horse leg bone is absolutely minuscule relative to the weight it carries. Also, Hooves: I want you to imagine that instead of feet, you have a giant toenail at the end of your leg. That is how the Horse do. That is what a hoof is. A giant toenail. It is extremely delicate, and joined to the leg by a vast network of very fine connective tissue, and oh yeah it also bears the weight of a fucking HORSE. If a hoof gets infected (which is quite common, because imagine how often shit would get stuck under your toenails if you walked on them), the Horse immune system responds in the typical way: via inflammation of the area. The problem is, a horse hoof is a rigid \"cup\". It cannot accomodate the swelling from inflammatory response. The Horse hoof will basically pop off the leg like a sock. On top of that, remember the Horse is putting 1,500 pounds of weight on it (because Horses can't redistribute their weight very well since all of their legs can BARELY support their share of the total weight). So, Horse apologists will claim that Horses are good at one thing: Turning Grass into Fast. As the previous two paragraphs show, they can't even do that right. Locomotion is very dangerous for a Horse, and if the Fast doesn't kill them they'll starve to death just by eating. On top of that, they are dumb as all fuck. Horses will often do something called \"Cribbing\", which is when they decide to bite down on something (literally anything) as hard as they can, and suck in air. They just keep sucking in air until they inflate like a balloon. Eventually, the vet will show up and literally deflate the Horse with a long needle to let the air out of them, and hopefully get them to just... stop... First off, horses are obligate nasal breathers. If our noses are stuffed up we can breathe through our mouths. If our pets' noses are stuffed up (except for rabbits, who are also really fragile but unlike horses aren't stuck having only one baby a year) they can breathe through their mouths. If a horse can't breathe through its nose, it will suffocate and die. Horse eyes are exquisitely sensitive to steroids. Most animal eyes are, except for cows because cows are tanks, but horses are extremely sensitive. Corneal ulcers won't heal. They'll probably get worse. They might rupture and cause eyeball fluid to leak out. If you overexert a horse they can get exertional rhabodmyolysis. Basically you overwork their muscles and they break down and die and release their contents. Super painful, and then you get scarifying and necrosis. But that's not the problem. See, when muscles die hey release myoglobin, which goes into the blood and is filtered by the kidneys. If you dump a bucket of myoglobin into the blood then it shreds the kidneys, causing acutel renal failure. This kills the horse. People and other animals can get that too but in school we only talked about it in context of the horse. Horses can only have one foal at a time. Their uterus simply can't support two foals. If a pregnant horse has twins you have to abort one or they'll both die and possibly kill the mother with them. A lot of this has to do with the way horse placentas work. If a horse rears up on its hind legs it can fall over, hit the back of its head, and get a traumatic brain injury. Now to their digestive system. Oh boy. First of all, they can't vomit. There's an incredibly tight sphincter in between the stomach and esophagus that simply won't open up. If a horse is vomiting it's literally about to die. In many cases their stomach will rupture before they vomit. When treating colic you need to reflux the horse, which means shoving a tube into their stomach and pumping out any material to decompress the stomach and proximal GI tract. Their small intestines are 70+ feet long (which is expected for a big herbivore) and can get strangulated, which is fatal without surgery. Let's go to the large intestine. Horses are hindgut fermenters, not ruminants. I'll spare you the diagram and extended anatomy lesson but here's what you need to know: Their cecum is large enough to shove a person into, and the path of digesta doubles back on itself. The large intestine is very long, has segments of various diameters, multiple flexures, and doubles back on itself several times. It's not anchored to the body wall with mesentery like it is in many other animals. The spleen can get trapped. Parts of the colon can get filled with gas or digested food and/or get displaced. Parts of the large intestine can twist on themselves, causing torsions or volvulus. These conditions can range from mildly painful to excruciating. Many require surgery or intense medical therapy for the horse to have any chance of surviving. Any part of the large intestine can fail at any time and potentially kill the horse. A change in feed can cause colic. Giving birth can cause I believe a large colon volvulus I don't know at the moment I'm going into small animal medicine. Infections can cause colic. Lots of things can cause colic and you better hope it's an impaction that can be treated on the farm and not enteritis or a volvulus. And now the legs. Before we start with bones and hooves let's talk about the skin. The skin on horse legs, particularly their lower legs, is under a lot of tension and has basically no subcutaneous tissue. If a horse lacerated its legs and has a dangling flap of skin that's a fucking nightmare. That skin is incredibly difficult to successfully suture back together because it's under so much tension. There's basically no subcutaneous tissue underneath. You need to use releasing incisions and all sorts of undermining techniques to even get the skin loose enough to close without tearing itself apart afterwards. Also horses like to get this thing called proud flesh where scar tissue just builds up into this giant ugly mass that restricts movement. If a horse severely lacerated a leg it will take months to heal and the prognosis is not great. I hope this information has enlightened you, and that you will join me in hating these stupid goddamn bastard animals.\n\nB: A saying among equine vets is that horses have five hearts. Each hoof contributes to whole-body circulation. A horse with one leg out of commission has more health problems than just the leg. It immediately becomes either a financial liability or a gamble. It's sad, but that's the system we've created. A horse will try to walk on a broken leg, preventing a callus (new bone) from developing at the break. An intramedullary pin/nail is an option, but a very expensive one. Farm horses won't get one. Even a race horse won't get one unless it's already a big winner and its sperm is sufficiently marketable to much more than offset the combined costs. It sucks. Edit: Sorry, I got caught up and blew the Explain like I'm five years old part.\n\nPlease respond with either A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "A", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will be a given Reddit post and two comments for the Reddit post from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which of the comments is more preferred by human given the following criteria.\n\nYou need to consider following criteria\n\n Relevance to the Post\n Clarity and Coherence\n Depth and Thoughtfulness\n Positive Tone and Respectful Language\n Correctness and Accuracy\n Natural Language and Tone\n Conciseness\n\nGiven above information, please answer which of the comment is more preferred by human, A or B?\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old - ADHD brains are said to be constantly searching for dopamine - aren't all brains craving dopamine? What's the difference?\n\nA: All brains crave dopamine, but ADHD brains have a harder time producing and using it. This dopamine dysfunction can show up in a number of different areas, including * not enough receptors in the brain (dulling the reward cycle and overall mood) * not enough production (if there aren't enough receptors, the body will produce less to match up with the pipeline) * dopamine is produced well, but absorbed or taken away too quickly (dulling its effects again - neurotransmitters work best when they're hanging out in synapses, the gaps between nerve cells) Many of ADHD's symptoms are either a direct result of low dopamine (restlessness, volatile moods, difficulty focusing...) or a compensating behavior to try and generate it (risky behaviors, drug abuse, physical activity...)\n\nB: Less Explain like I'm five years old, but might be interesting: Neurotransmitters don't have a single function. There are things called neural pathways, and each neurotransmitter does different things in each pathway. The most notable pathway to be affected by ADHD is the reward pathway. It goes through lots of parts of the brain, including memory, capacity to make decisions, capacity to plan. This pathway makes sure that if we do something good,we feel pleasure. That pleasure is then stored with the memory of the action, associated. When we try to make a decision, our brain brings back memories of things that brought us pleasure, meaning we remember things that worked, and prepares (primes) us to feel that satisfaction again. When you have ADHD, your brain doesn't keep enough dopamine floating in that particular pathway, which means you don't feel satisfaction when doing things that would normally be rewarding. That lack of satisfaction is stored, marking the memory as unimportant. When you try to plan for something, you don't have experiences to draw on at first. That is why ADHD causes executive disfunction, in the form of memory issues and complications with decision making. And, of course it means that while you are doing something, your brain doesn't show you that it is an worthwhile action. That means you have to fight to stay focused, as your body tells you shouldn't. And when you do hit on a loop of reward, your brain goes \"THIS MATTERS! DON'T STOP!\". and breaking free to pay attention to something else becomes almost impossible. ADHD is really interesting! If a big pain in the ass to have. Edit: *Please* keep in mind that I'm *not a doctor*. I'm taking some classes on the topic for an *education* minor, nothing to do with mental health. I'm also Autistic, so my own experience might be different from yours. Do not take my word for gospel, but only as a way to guide your own research in the future, and a way to ask good questions from your doctor. If you want a good *entry level* overview on ADHD, Dr Tracey Marks has some good information on her Youtube channel on the topic. **entry level** being the important part. Be well friends!\n\nPlease respond with only A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "B", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will be provided with a Reddit post and two comments from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which comment is more preferred by humans based on the following criteria: Relevance to the Post, Clarity and Coherence, Depth and Thoughtfulness, Positive Tone and Respectful Language, Correctness and Accuracy, Natural Language and Tone, Conciseness\n\nGiven the information above, please select either A or B:\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old - ADHD brains are said to be constantly searching for dopamine - aren't all brains craving dopamine? What's the difference?\n\nA: Less Explain like I'm five years old, but might be interesting: Neurotransmitters don't have a single function. There are things called neural pathways, and each neurotransmitter does different things in each pathway. The most notable pathway to be affected by ADHD is the reward pathway. It goes through lots of parts of the brain, including memory, capacity to make decisions, capacity to plan. This pathway makes sure that if we do something good,we feel pleasure. That pleasure is then stored with the memory of the action, associated. When we try to make a decision, our brain brings back memories of things that brought us pleasure, meaning we remember things that worked, and prepares (primes) us to feel that satisfaction again. When you have ADHD, your brain doesn't keep enough dopamine floating in that particular pathway, which means you don't feel satisfaction when doing things that would normally be rewarding. That lack of satisfaction is stored, marking the memory as unimportant. When you try to plan for something, you don't have experiences to draw on at first. That is why ADHD causes executive disfunction, in the form of memory issues and complications with decision making. And, of course it means that while you are doing something, your brain doesn't show you that it is an worthwhile action. That means you have to fight to stay focused, as your body tells you shouldn't. And when you do hit on a loop of reward, your brain goes \"THIS MATTERS! DON'T STOP!\". and breaking free to pay attention to something else becomes almost impossible. ADHD is really interesting! If a big pain in the ass to have. Edit: *Please* keep in mind that I'm *not a doctor*. I'm taking some classes on the topic for an *education* minor, nothing to do with mental health. I'm also Autistic, so my own experience might be different from yours. Do not take my word for gospel, but only as a way to guide your own research in the future, and a way to ask good questions from your doctor. If you want a good *entry level* overview on ADHD, Dr Tracey Marks has some good information on her Youtube channel on the topic. **entry level** being the important part. Be well friends!\n\nB: Basically, ADHD brains have trouble taking up dopamine. This means that is very difficult and sometimes impossible for people to derive pleasure from their activities. Without that, the motivation to stay on task and do something just doesn't exist, hence the lack of attention and inability to concentrate. Doing simple tasks like putting away your clothes can seem like climbing a mountain because every activity becomes \"work\", even if it's a small thing.\n\nPlease respond with only A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "A", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will be a given Reddit post and two comments for the Reddit post from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which of the comments is more preferred by human given the following criteria.\n\nYou need to consider following criteria\n\n Relevance to the Post\n Clarity and Coherence\n Depth and Thoughtfulness\n Positive Tone and Respectful Language\n Correctness and Accuracy\n Natural Language and Tone\n Conciseness\n\nGiven above information, please answer which of the comment is more preferred by human, A or B?\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old - ADHD brains are said to be constantly searching for dopamine - aren't all brains craving dopamine? What's the difference?\n\nA: All brains crave dopamine, but normal brains *get* a baseline level of dopamine just by existing. ADHD brains don't. So people with ADHD have to engage in activities or behaviors that give them dopamine just to feel \"OK\" or content. On the flip side, when normal brains have to do tasks that are annoying, boring, unpleasant, or just not intrisincally stimulating, they have that baseline level of dopamine that they can \"spend\" like a budget to focus, plan, or remember things. This is how they can \"push through\" and do the task anyway. These faculties (focusing, planning, remembering) are collectively referred to as your \"executive function\" and are all parts of what people with ADHD struggle with. ADHD brains don't have that same \"budget\" to spend and either struggle to muster their executive function at all or struggle to maintain it for very long.\n\nB: Less Explain like I'm five years old, but might be interesting: Neurotransmitters don't have a single function. There are things called neural pathways, and each neurotransmitter does different things in each pathway. The most notable pathway to be affected by ADHD is the reward pathway. It goes through lots of parts of the brain, including memory, capacity to make decisions, capacity to plan. This pathway makes sure that if we do something good,we feel pleasure. That pleasure is then stored with the memory of the action, associated. When we try to make a decision, our brain brings back memories of things that brought us pleasure, meaning we remember things that worked, and prepares (primes) us to feel that satisfaction again. When you have ADHD, your brain doesn't keep enough dopamine floating in that particular pathway, which means you don't feel satisfaction when doing things that would normally be rewarding. That lack of satisfaction is stored, marking the memory as unimportant. When you try to plan for something, you don't have experiences to draw on at first. That is why ADHD causes executive disfunction, in the form of memory issues and complications with decision making. And, of course it means that while you are doing something, your brain doesn't show you that it is an worthwhile action. That means you have to fight to stay focused, as your body tells you shouldn't. And when you do hit on a loop of reward, your brain goes \"THIS MATTERS! DON'T STOP!\". and breaking free to pay attention to something else becomes almost impossible. ADHD is really interesting! If a big pain in the ass to have. Edit: *Please* keep in mind that I'm *not a doctor*. I'm taking some classes on the topic for an *education* minor, nothing to do with mental health. I'm also Autistic, so my own experience might be different from yours. Do not take my word for gospel, but only as a way to guide your own research in the future, and a way to ask good questions from your doctor. If you want a good *entry level* overview on ADHD, Dr Tracey Marks has some good information on her Youtube channel on the topic. **entry level** being the important part. Be well friends!\n\nPlease respond with only A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "B", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will be provided with a Reddit post and two comments from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which comment is more preferred by humans based on the following criteria: Relevance to the Post, Clarity and Coherence, Depth and Thoughtfulness, Positive Tone and Respectful Language, Correctness and Accuracy, Natural Language and Tone, Conciseness\n\nGiven the information above, please select either A or B:\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old - ADHD brains are said to be constantly searching for dopamine - aren't all brains craving dopamine? What's the difference?\n\nA: All brains crave dopamine, but normal brains *get* a baseline level of dopamine just by existing. ADHD brains don't. So people with ADHD have to engage in activities or behaviors that give them dopamine just to feel \"OK\" or content. On the flip side, when normal brains have to do tasks that are annoying, boring, unpleasant, or just not intrisincally stimulating, they have that baseline level of dopamine that they can \"spend\" like a budget to focus, plan, or remember things. This is how they can \"push through\" and do the task anyway. These faculties (focusing, planning, remembering) are collectively referred to as your \"executive function\" and are all parts of what people with ADHD struggle with. ADHD brains don't have that same \"budget\" to spend and either struggle to muster their executive function at all or struggle to maintain it for very long.\n\nB: Dehydration. Everyone needs water, living with ADHD is like being constantly thirsty. When I take my ADHD meds I don't feel like I'm suffering when doing something I don't find interesting. I'm not constantly forcing myself to push on like a dehydrated person in the desert when there's an oasis RIGHT THERE off the side of the trail. This is why ADHD folks just cannot get things done before deadlines often, the adrenaline forces you to run on even if your muscles are exhausted. Like the fortnite ring closing in. ;)\n\nPlease respond with only A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "B", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will be a given Reddit post and two comments for the Reddit post from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which of the comments is more preferred by human given the following criteria.\n\nYou need to consider following criteria\n\n Relevance to the Post\n Clarity and Coherence\n Depth and Thoughtfulness\n Positive Tone and Respectful Language\n Correctness and Accuracy\n Natural Language and Tone\n Conciseness\n\nGiven above information, please answer which of the comment is more preferred by human, A or B?\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: why do appliances like fans have the off setting right next to the highest setting, instead of the lowest? Is it just how they decided to design it and just stuck with it or is there some electrical/wiring reason for this?\n\nA: Thisis entirely dependent on the brand and model. The fan I have in my room has the off setting at the bottom and the highest at the top.\n\nB: This might be more technical than desired, but in addition to the \"inertia\" reason given (starting the motor takes more energy so trying to start it on low is harder) there are also design reasons why it doesn't logically make sense to, for example, turn a knob from \"Off\" to \"low\" to \"medium\" to \"high.\" In an electrical circuit, like inside a fan, \"off\" means the circuit is \"open;\" no electricity can run through the circuit to power the fan. Turning the knob from \"OFF\" to \"ON\" closes the circuit. A circuit has some current and voltage, which we can use to determine the power, and some resistance. The basic way to make a motor turn more slowly is to increase the resistance in the circuit, which reduces the amount of current that runs through it, thereby reducing the power. So if we want to go from \"OFF\" to \"ON\" we need to actually close a switch. If we want to reduce the power we need to close more switches to add more resistors to the circuit, and to go back to \"high\" we need to open those switches again (removing the resistors from the circuit). So it actually makes more sense (for the designers) to design a control knob that performs the same basic function as we turn it in the same direction. It is actually a little bit harder (not impossible, but harder) to design a control knob which starts by closing one switch, then as you continue turning it, opens other switches. I hope this makes sense for the Explain like I'm five years old sub!\n\nPlease respond with only A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "B", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will be a given Reddit post and two comments for the Reddit post from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which of the comments is more preferred by human given the following criteria.\n\nYou need to consider following criteria\n\n Relevance to the Post\n Clarity and Coherence\n Depth and Thoughtfulness\n Positive Tone and Respectful Language\n Correctness and Accuracy\n Natural Language and Tone\n Conciseness\n\nGiven above information, please answer which of the comment is more preferred by human, A or B?\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: what is the science behind weighted blankets and how do they reduce anxiety?\n\nA: Finally a question for an Occupational Therapist! We are the experts on weighted blankets and pediatric OTs have been using them for many many years before they suddenly became trendy. Weight (a blanket, a compression shirt, a hug, a dog sitting on your lap/chest, carrying heavy books) all give your body proprioceptive input. Proprioceptive input basically tells your body where you are in space. When someone has a lot of proprioceptive input it can be calming to ones nervous system as your body “knows” where it is. There is actually a TON of research on weight but it’s mostly in OT journals 😉\n\nB: Hugs increase happy chemicals in the brain. Weighted blankets feel like a hug. Even pressure keeps people grounded, and makes them feel safe. Also you move around less at night under weight, so you fall asleep faster. (For people who toss and turn and can't fall asleep quickly due to their brain getting alertness jolts every time they turn, less effective for non-anxious people.)\n\nPlease respond with only A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "A", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will be a given Reddit post and two comments for the Reddit post from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which of the comments is more preferred by human given the following criteria.\n\nYou need to consider following criteria\n\n Relevance to the Post\n Clarity and Coherence\n Depth and Thoughtfulness\n Positive Tone and Respectful Language\n Correctness and Accuracy\n Natural Language and Tone\n Conciseness\n\nGiven above information, please answer which of the comment is more preferred by human, A or B?\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: How do movies get that distinctly \"movie\" look from the cameras? I don't think it's solely because the cameras are extremely high quality, and I can't seem to think of a way anyone could turn a video into something that just \"feels\" like a movie\n\nA: Firstly, as an aside, the quality of the lens is much more important than the quality of a camera. All the camera body is doing is interpreting the light coming through the lens, so a crap lens on a great camera is still going to provide a crap image. Secondly, that look is the result of the art of the cinematographer. The cinematic look isn't really something that can be defined in a series of instructions, but the biggest factors are artful lighting and professional color grading. I've seen cinematic cellphone videos and bland scenes that look like generic YouTube fodder shot on $36k Alexas with $150k lens kits. Some people will try to tell you that it's about the frames per second or any other specific camera setting, but there are countless exceptions to whatever rule is proposed. Of course, those settings are part of the art, but it's the combination of how the director of photography plans and executes the shot. Movies, television, and viral videos all have their own conventions and go-to techniques that give them each a specific look that can be hard to put a finger on. Edit: I didn't say crap cameras are wonderful. I said even a great camera can't make a wonderful image out of a rubbish lens. I'd rather have a C300 and a set of Cooke Panchro Classics than a C700 and some bargain basement lenses.\n\nB: It's a combination of all of the following things: Frame rate of 24 frames per second (with a shutter speed of double the frame rate at 1/48) Cinematic aspect ratio (Widescreen) Fantastic and purpose built lighting for the scene High dynamic range image capture Cinematic color grading and contrast adjustments Edit: I forgot lenses and everyone suggesting it in the comments to my post are completely correct. You can do it with cheap lenses, but fantastic lenses really do add to the look. Edit 2: more detail about these points in a following comment here\n\nPlease respond with only A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "B", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will be a given Reddit post and two comments for the Reddit post from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which of the comments is more preferred by human given the following criteria.\n\nYou need to consider following criteria\n\n Relevance to the Post\n Clarity and Coherence\n Depth and Thoughtfulness\n Positive Tone and Respectful Language\n Correctness and Accuracy\n Natural Language and Tone\n Conciseness\n\nGiven above information, please answer which of the comment is more preferred by human, A or B?\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: How do movies get that distinctly \"movie\" look from the cameras? I don't think it's solely because the cameras are extremely high quality, and I can't seem to think of a way anyone could turn a video into something that just \"feels\" like a movie\n\nA: Firstly, as an aside, the quality of the lens is much more important than the quality of a camera. All the camera body is doing is interpreting the light coming through the lens, so a crap lens on a great camera is still going to provide a crap image. Secondly, that look is the result of the art of the cinematographer. The cinematic look isn't really something that can be defined in a series of instructions, but the biggest factors are artful lighting and professional color grading. I've seen cinematic cellphone videos and bland scenes that look like generic YouTube fodder shot on $36k Alexas with $150k lens kits. Some people will try to tell you that it's about the frames per second or any other specific camera setting, but there are countless exceptions to whatever rule is proposed. Of course, those settings are part of the art, but it's the combination of how the director of photography plans and executes the shot. Movies, television, and viral videos all have their own conventions and go-to techniques that give them each a specific look that can be hard to put a finger on. Edit: I didn't say crap cameras are wonderful. I said even a great camera can't make a wonderful image out of a rubbish lens. I'd rather have a C300 and a set of Cooke Panchro Classics than a C700 and some bargain basement lenses.\n\nB: I am a cinematographer.. and while these comments are somewhat accurate, the simplest and most fundamental answer is dynamic range. Yes lighting, framing, sound etc is extremely important, but the real film look you refer to is the dynamic range (data caught in the very highs and lows of the image). Edit: I have had a lot of people contacting me to see my work, for tips on becoming a DP, and generally disagreeing with my point. Here is my showreel: https://vimeo.com/208863503 Most of this was filmed with pretty cheap cameras.. some shots even with very dated Canon DSLRs which are no longer made.. and I’d like to think most of it is quite filmic, so yes, dynamic range isn’t EVERYTHING - but I feel it’s important. I.e if you were to take an Alexa outside and match it to the iPhone’s field of view, same framing etc, the thing that makes the Alexa look so sexy is the dynamic range. Secondly, a lot of people have mentioned ‘aspect ratio’. This is confusing; The CinemaScope LOOK is far more important than just adding black bars over footage. You can see in my showreel that the whole thing is in 2.35 aspect ratio, but only a handful were actually anamorphic. I cropped everything to that ratio though to keep it consistent - and I guess it does add a cinematic illusion - but it is just essentially throwing away information and I wouldn’t really encourage it, even though I used to do it all the time. Thirdly, for aspiring cinematographers and filmmakers; go out and shoot ! Practice, learn, and improvement will be an inevitable byproduct..you need passion (as with anything) to continue with it, and grow. I am still very small time and ‘amateur’..I have a long ways to go. Watch. Be inspired, and develop your own creative flair. Ps. A lot of people are also asking who I admire.. If I had to choose one person whom I felt really advanced cinematography as an art form, I’d probably choose Jack Cardiff; His frames are really particularly crafted, with amazing attention to detail. He also respects colour and light to the highest degree, which of course trumps dynamic range, colour grading, aspect ratio and all the other technical nonsense we’re talking about.\n\nPlease respond with only A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "B", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will receive a Reddit post along with two comments from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which comment is more favored by humans based on the following criteria:\n\n Relevance to the Post\n Clarity and Coherence\n Depth and Thoughtfulness\n Positive Tone and Respectful Language\n Correctness and Accuracy\n Natural Language and Tone\n Conciseness\n\nAfter considering the given information, please indicate which comment is preferred: A or B?\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: How do movies get that distinctly \"movie\" look from the cameras? I don't think it's solely because the cameras are extremely high quality, and I can't seem to think of a way anyone could turn a video into something that just \"feels\" like a movie\n\nA: To caveat off the original poster. Why is it that tv shows and soap operas look so different? Different budget? Different cameras? Different style of cinematography? I’ve noticed for years and I just can’t figure it out.\n\nB: I watched The Room recently and was struck by how bad the lighting is. Watching an extremely poorly lit movie like that will give you an appreciation for just how much work goes into properly lighting a scene.\n\nPlease respond with either A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "B", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will receive a Reddit post along with two comments from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which comment is more favored by humans based on the following criteria:\n\n Relevance to the Post\n Clarity and Coherence\n Depth and Thoughtfulness\n Positive Tone and Respectful Language\n Correctness and Accuracy\n Natural Language and Tone\n Conciseness\n\nAfter considering the given information, please indicate which comment is preferred: A or B?\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: How do movies get that distinctly \"movie\" look from the cameras? I don't think it's solely because the cameras are extremely high quality, and I can't seem to think of a way anyone could turn a video into something that just \"feels\" like a movie\n\nA: I watched The Room recently and was struck by how bad the lighting is. Watching an extremely poorly lit movie like that will give you an appreciation for just how much work goes into properly lighting a scene.\n\nB: Another reason not yet mentioned is that many films are made using an anamorphic lens. The aperture is oval, rather than circular. A typical videocamera, smartphone, or DSLR use spherical lenses. Your mind associates the anamorphic \"look\" with cinema. If you Youtube it, you'll find comparisons of the same shot made on both types of lens, the difference is quite noticeable.\n\nPlease respond with either A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "A", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will receive a Reddit post along with two comments from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which comment is more favored by humans based on the following criteria:\n\n Relevance to the Post\n Clarity and Coherence\n Depth and Thoughtfulness\n Positive Tone and Respectful Language\n Correctness and Accuracy\n Natural Language and Tone\n Conciseness\n\nAfter considering the given information, please indicate which comment is preferred: A or B?\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: How do movies get that distinctly \"movie\" look from the cameras? I don't think it's solely because the cameras are extremely high quality, and I can't seem to think of a way anyone could turn a video into something that just \"feels\" like a movie\n\nA: Another reason not yet mentioned is that many films are made using an anamorphic lens. The aperture is oval, rather than circular. A typical videocamera, smartphone, or DSLR use spherical lenses. Your mind associates the anamorphic \"look\" with cinema. If you Youtube it, you'll find comparisons of the same shot made on both types of lens, the difference is quite noticeable.\n\nB: To caveat off the original poster. Why is it that tv shows and soap operas look so different? Different budget? Different cameras? Different style of cinematography? I’ve noticed for years and I just can’t figure it out.\n\nPlease respond with either A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "B", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will be a given Reddit post and two comments for the Reddit post from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which of the comments is more preferred by human given the following criteria.\n\nYou need to consider following criteria\n\n Relevance to the Post\n Clarity and Coherence\n Depth and Thoughtfulness\n Positive Tone and Respectful Language\n Correctness and Accuracy\n Natural Language and Tone\n Conciseness\n\nGiven above information, please answer which of the comment is more preferred by human, A or B?\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: How do movies get that distinctly \"movie\" look from the cameras? I don't think it's solely because the cameras are extremely high quality, and I can't seem to think of a way anyone could turn a video into something that just \"feels\" like a movie\n\nA: Watch the later Hobbit movies. They used a different (faster) frame rate and so it looks very different than your standard 'movie' feel. I remember watching one of them in the theater, and as soon as I saw the characters walking around the town, I thought to myself, \"This looks like someone recorded this on home video.\" That's exactly the effect of the high frame rate - it looks like someone just captured it in real time. A lot of critics at the time even complained that it looked like actors on a set, but some like it and said that it made it feel more authentic. So I guess it's up to the viewer.\n\nB: Another reason not yet mentioned is that many films are made using an anamorphic lens. The aperture is oval, rather than circular. A typical videocamera, smartphone, or DSLR use spherical lenses. Your mind associates the anamorphic \"look\" with cinema. If you Youtube it, you'll find comparisons of the same shot made on both types of lens, the difference is quite noticeable.\n\nPlease respond with only A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "A", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will be provided with a Reddit post and two comments from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which comment is more preferred by humans based on the following criteria: Relevance to the Post, Clarity and Coherence, Depth and Thoughtfulness, Positive Tone and Respectful Language, Correctness and Accuracy, Natural Language and Tone, Conciseness\n\nGiven the information above, please select either A or B:\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: How do movies get that distinctly \"movie\" look from the cameras? I don't think it's solely because the cameras are extremely high quality, and I can't seem to think of a way anyone could turn a video into something that just \"feels\" like a movie\n\nA: ALTERNATIVELY: how do soap operas get that distinct crap feel?\n\nB: Another reason not yet mentioned is that many films are made using an anamorphic lens. The aperture is oval, rather than circular. A typical videocamera, smartphone, or DSLR use spherical lenses. Your mind associates the anamorphic \"look\" with cinema. If you Youtube it, you'll find comparisons of the same shot made on both types of lens, the difference is quite noticeable.\n\nPlease respond with only A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "A", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will be a given Reddit post and two comments for the Reddit post from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which of the comments is more preferred by human given the following criteria.\n\nYou need to consider following criteria\n\n Relevance to the Post\n Clarity and Coherence\n Depth and Thoughtfulness\n Positive Tone and Respectful Language\n Correctness and Accuracy\n Natural Language and Tone\n Conciseness\n\nGiven above information, please answer which of the comment is more preferred by human, A or B?\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old : Why do we wake up starving the morning after a night of binge eating?\n\nA: It depends on what you've eaten. When you eat a meal at bedtime, particularly one rich in sugars and other simple carbohydrates, you generate an insulin surge from your pancreas. Upon retiring, this insulin begins pushing glucose into your cells, a process that continues as you sleep. During the night, a continual drop in your blood glucose stimulates the release of counter-regulatory hormones, leading to stimulation of your appetite centers. Unless you get up in the middle of the night to satisfy your appetite, you will be hungry upon arising in the morning.\n\nB: Insulins fucked it up. Your body needs glucose for energy. Everything you eat is broken down into glucose. 1. Foods like \"sugary\" foods, starch or very simple carbohydrates like rice, bread, pasta, etc, are digested very fast and thus, broken down and turned into glucose very fast. 2. Now, when you eat lots of those foods, lots of glucose goes into your blood very fast. And your pancrea produce little guys (hormones) called insulins who push that glucose into your cells. 3. When lots of glucose goes into your blood very fast, your organ pancrea freaks out and is like \"OMFG! Too much glucose in the blood. Too much glucose wandering around in the blood = poison!! Guys!!, Insulins!!, go go go!!! Go push them into the muscle cells and fat cells to properly store them.\" and then Pancrea produce lots of fucking insulins. May be even too much insulins. 4. Those lots of little fuckers called insulins push all the glucose from your blood into the cells. 5. Then, very low level of glucose in your blood. So, your body thinks \"Hey, my blood needs glucose. I need sugar(glucose). Feed me.\"\n\nPlease respond with only A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "B", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will receive a Reddit post along with two comments from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which comment is more favored by humans based on the following criteria:\n\n Relevance to the Post\n Clarity and Coherence\n Depth and Thoughtfulness\n Positive Tone and Respectful Language\n Correctness and Accuracy\n Natural Language and Tone\n Conciseness\n\nAfter considering the given information, please indicate which comment is preferred: A or B?\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old : Why do we wake up starving the morning after a night of binge eating?\n\nA: What is happening blood sugar levels rebound from being way too high, temporarily putting you in a 'starving' state with regards to blood sugar. This is called reactive hypoglycemia. Basically you are throwing your body's hormones way out of line. The large amount of insulin your body has to produce to deal with the amount of food you ate can lead to type 2 diabetes, where your body becomes less responsive to insulin and you have to poke yourself with needles for pretty much the rest of your life.\n\nB: Insulins fucked it up. Your body needs glucose for energy. Everything you eat is broken down into glucose. 1. Foods like \"sugary\" foods, starch or very simple carbohydrates like rice, bread, pasta, etc, are digested very fast and thus, broken down and turned into glucose very fast. 2. Now, when you eat lots of those foods, lots of glucose goes into your blood very fast. And your pancrea produce little guys (hormones) called insulins who push that glucose into your cells. 3. When lots of glucose goes into your blood very fast, your organ pancrea freaks out and is like \"OMFG! Too much glucose in the blood. Too much glucose wandering around in the blood = poison!! Guys!!, Insulins!!, go go go!!! Go push them into the muscle cells and fat cells to properly store them.\" and then Pancrea produce lots of fucking insulins. May be even too much insulins. 4. Those lots of little fuckers called insulins push all the glucose from your blood into the cells. 5. Then, very low level of glucose in your blood. So, your body thinks \"Hey, my blood needs glucose. I need sugar(glucose). Feed me.\"\n\nPlease respond with either A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "B", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will be a given Reddit post and two comments for the Reddit post from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which of the comments is more preferred by human given the following criteria.\n\nYou need to consider following criteria\n\n Relevance to the Post\n Clarity and Coherence\n Depth and Thoughtfulness\n Positive Tone and Respectful Language\n Correctness and Accuracy\n Natural Language and Tone\n Conciseness\n\nGiven above information, please answer which of the comment is more preferred by human, A or B?\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old : Why do we wake up starving the morning after a night of binge eating?\n\nA: Probably too late to the answer party. But you're probably not actually hungry. The insulin answers are sort of right, but your body is very, very good at controlling glucose levels unless you're diabetic. It will have some fairly large swings after binge eating but by morning it should be mostly stabilized and your body has stored a lot of the calories (and used some of them). You're probably dehydrated. A lot of people can't differentiate properly between feelings of hunger and feelings of thirst (a lot of the time anyway). Combine not drinking for however many hours you were asleep, digestion itself requires energy and water. On top of that, glucose being forced into cells pulls water with them because now there's more stuff inside the cells and they want to keep the concentration of that stuff about the same as before. So try having a glass of water in the morning after binge eating, give it 30 minutes and you should feel mostly better. Edit: binge eating, not binge drinking. Though both apply sort of\n\nB: What is happening blood sugar levels rebound from being way too high, temporarily putting you in a 'starving' state with regards to blood sugar. This is called reactive hypoglycemia. Basically you are throwing your body's hormones way out of line. The large amount of insulin your body has to produce to deal with the amount of food you ate can lead to type 2 diabetes, where your body becomes less responsive to insulin and you have to poke yourself with needles for pretty much the rest of your life.\n\nPlease respond with only A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "A", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will receive a Reddit post along with two comments from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which comment is more favored by humans based on the following criteria:\n\n Relevance to the Post\n Clarity and Coherence\n Depth and Thoughtfulness\n Positive Tone and Respectful Language\n Correctness and Accuracy\n Natural Language and Tone\n Conciseness\n\nAfter considering the given information, please indicate which comment is preferred: A or B?\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old : Why do we wake up starving the morning after a night of binge eating?\n\nA: Probably too late to the answer party. But you're probably not actually hungry. The insulin answers are sort of right, but your body is very, very good at controlling glucose levels unless you're diabetic. It will have some fairly large swings after binge eating but by morning it should be mostly stabilized and your body has stored a lot of the calories (and used some of them). You're probably dehydrated. A lot of people can't differentiate properly between feelings of hunger and feelings of thirst (a lot of the time anyway). Combine not drinking for however many hours you were asleep, digestion itself requires energy and water. On top of that, glucose being forced into cells pulls water with them because now there's more stuff inside the cells and they want to keep the concentration of that stuff about the same as before. So try having a glass of water in the morning after binge eating, give it 30 minutes and you should feel mostly better. Edit: binge eating, not binge drinking. Though both apply sort of\n\nB: We tend to think of hunger as an indicator that our stomach is empty but this is not how hunger works. Hunger is controlled by hormones and there is a psychological component. Whether you eat a lot or a little before bed, your body will have digested it all within 8 hours. The first hunger hormone is ghrelin which comes in waves. If you eat 3 meals a day every day, you will get 3 waves of ghrelin around those meal times. If you skip a meal you do not continue to get hungrier, but the hunger will go away (even though your stomach is still empty). If you fast for a few days, hunger can go away altogether. In your scenario, I think it is more about triggering a larger surge in ghrelin than it has to do with insulin. The body is good at regulating blood sugar and crashes are not as common as people make them out to be (this is a serious medical condition). Plus if you ate lots of carbs that means your glycogen stores are full and instead of blood sugar going low the body would just tap into these stores.\n\nPlease respond with either A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "A", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will be a given Reddit post and two comments for the Reddit post from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which of the comments is more preferred by human given the following criteria.\n\nYou need to consider following criteria\n\n Relevance to the Post\n Clarity and Coherence\n Depth and Thoughtfulness\n Positive Tone and Respectful Language\n Correctness and Accuracy\n Natural Language and Tone\n Conciseness\n\nGiven above information, please answer which of the comment is more preferred by human, A or B?\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: If plastic was made in 1907 how do they know it may take up to 1000 years to decompose?\n\nA: You don't need to observe the full lifecycle of a material or molecule or atom to understand how it works. In this case, you can say that a plastic bag in the forest decomposes or breaks down X% over a one year period, so using that math and knowledge you know that it will take Y years to break down completely.\n\nB: Let's say you see a piece of wood. And a bunch of termites are chewing away at it. Each day, you can measure how much material is being eaten by the termites. You also have information on other, smaller pieces of wood that have been COMPLETELY eaten by termites so you know HOW the termites eat wood (do they eat the same amount each day? Maybe they eat a little bit at first, eat a lot later, and then slow down, or maybe they eat a small amount initially, but gradually eat more, and more each day, etc.). Using this information, you can mathematically predict when that piece of wood is going to get completely eaten. It's the same thing with plastic, except instead of that piece of wood, it's plastic, instead of termites, it's the summation of all the natural processes that break down plastic.\n\nPlease respond with only A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "B", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will receive a Reddit post along with two comments from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which comment is more favored by humans based on the following criteria:\n\n Relevance to the Post\n Clarity and Coherence\n Depth and Thoughtfulness\n Positive Tone and Respectful Language\n Correctness and Accuracy\n Natural Language and Tone\n Conciseness\n\nAfter considering the given information, please indicate which comment is preferred: A or B?\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: If plastic was made in 1907 how do they know it may take up to 1000 years to decompose?\n\nA: Let's say you see a piece of wood. And a bunch of termites are chewing away at it. Each day, you can measure how much material is being eaten by the termites. You also have information on other, smaller pieces of wood that have been COMPLETELY eaten by termites so you know HOW the termites eat wood (do they eat the same amount each day? Maybe they eat a little bit at first, eat a lot later, and then slow down, or maybe they eat a small amount initially, but gradually eat more, and more each day, etc.). Using this information, you can mathematically predict when that piece of wood is going to get completely eaten. It's the same thing with plastic, except instead of that piece of wood, it's plastic, instead of termites, it's the summation of all the natural processes that break down plastic.\n\nB: Simple math. If it takes 500 years to decompose 50% of a plastic sample, then it takes 1000 years to fully decompose. If it takes 10 years to decompose 1% of a plastic sample, then it takes 1000 years to fully decompose. Edit: As many of you have pointed out, yes, the relationship might not exactly be linear. I just gave an example to how we can find the time to decompose without actually waiting that long. It could be exponential, or any other model that can be solved by math. This was just an example so it would be easy for anyone to understand.\n\nPlease respond with either A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "A", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will be a given Reddit post and two comments for the Reddit post from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which of the comments is more preferred by human given the following criteria.\n\nYou need to consider following criteria\n\n Relevance to the Post\n Clarity and Coherence\n Depth and Thoughtfulness\n Positive Tone and Respectful Language\n Correctness and Accuracy\n Natural Language and Tone\n Conciseness\n\nGiven above information, please answer which of the comment is more preferred by human, A or B?\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: If plastic was made in 1907 how do they know it may take up to 1000 years to decompose?\n\nA: Simple math. If it takes 500 years to decompose 50% of a plastic sample, then it takes 1000 years to fully decompose. If it takes 10 years to decompose 1% of a plastic sample, then it takes 1000 years to fully decompose. Edit: As many of you have pointed out, yes, the relationship might not exactly be linear. I just gave an example to how we can find the time to decompose without actually waiting that long. It could be exponential, or any other model that can be solved by math. This was just an example so it would be easy for anyone to understand.\n\nB: PhD in plastics engineering here. There's a technique known as time-temperature superposition, which allows us to predict how long it will take to degrade plastics by subjecting the plastics to high temperatures (keeping most details out of it) and seeing how long it takes to degrade at this high temperature. Then we use this information to compute how long it will take the plastic to decompose at ambient (room) temperatures. This method gives a very precise number much more accurate that a qualitative 1000s of years. The most stable plastics would probably survive for 100s of years, not 1000s.\n\nPlease respond with only A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "B", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will receive a Reddit post along with two comments from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which comment is more favored by humans based on the following criteria:\n\n Relevance to the Post\n Clarity and Coherence\n Depth and Thoughtfulness\n Positive Tone and Respectful Language\n Correctness and Accuracy\n Natural Language and Tone\n Conciseness\n\nAfter considering the given information, please indicate which comment is preferred: A or B?\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: If plastic was made in 1907 how do they know it may take up to 1000 years to decompose?\n\nA: PhD in plastics engineering here. There's a technique known as time-temperature superposition, which allows us to predict how long it will take to degrade plastics by subjecting the plastics to high temperatures (keeping most details out of it) and seeing how long it takes to degrade at this high temperature. Then we use this information to compute how long it will take the plastic to decompose at ambient (room) temperatures. This method gives a very precise number much more accurate that a qualitative 1000s of years. The most stable plastics would probably survive for 100s of years, not 1000s.\n\nB: It has been explained below - but it just made me think of an even more absurd example: we have experimental evidence, that the half-life of proton (which is, simply speaking, the typical time it takes for a proton to decay) is at least 1.67×10^34 years, even though that's 24 orders of magnitude longer than the existence of the Universe, so it's ... pretty damn sure nobody has watched a proton that long! It's simply because there is a *lot* of protons to watch and particle decay happen randomly, so even if the average time is unfathomably long, if you watch enough protons, one would be almost guaranteed to decay in an accessible time frame if their half-life were \"short\" enough. (We still do not know whether they decay at all, this is just as close as we come experimental get to saying that they don't as we can.)\n\nPlease respond with either A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "A", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will be provided with a Reddit post and two comments from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which comment is more preferred by humans based on the following criteria: Relevance to the Post, Clarity and Coherence, Depth and Thoughtfulness, Positive Tone and Respectful Language, Correctness and Accuracy, Natural Language and Tone, Conciseness\n\nGiven the information above, please select either A or B:\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: If plastic was made in 1907 how do they know it may take up to 1000 years to decompose?\n\nA: PhD in plastics engineering here. There's a technique known as time-temperature superposition, which allows us to predict how long it will take to degrade plastics by subjecting the plastics to high temperatures (keeping most details out of it) and seeing how long it takes to degrade at this high temperature. Then we use this information to compute how long it will take the plastic to decompose at ambient (room) temperatures. This method gives a very precise number much more accurate that a qualitative 1000s of years. The most stable plastics would probably survive for 100s of years, not 1000s.\n\nB: There's a lot of patronizing answers on here but it's a fair question. Basically, you assume that a certain plastic decomposes by a physical and chemical process which we understand and can quantify in a mathematical model. Then you do some algebra using the equations that describe that model and, voila, you have your answer. Of course this assumes there are no other processes that affect decomposition that aren't captured in the initial model.\n\nPlease respond with only A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "A", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will be a given Reddit post and two comments for the Reddit post from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which of the comments is more preferred by human given the following criteria.\n\nYou need to consider following criteria\n\n Relevance to the Post\n Clarity and Coherence\n Depth and Thoughtfulness\n Positive Tone and Respectful Language\n Correctness and Accuracy\n Natural Language and Tone\n Conciseness\n\nGiven above information, please answer which of the comment is more preferred by human, A or B?\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: If plastic was made in 1907 how do they know it may take up to 1000 years to decompose?\n\nA: I can explain this like you're actually five. You have five pieces of candy, and every minute you eat one. So how long will it take to eat all of them? That's right, 5 minutes total. We can do the same for this math problem, we measure how long it took to eat one candy to estimate how long it takes to eat the others without even having to eat them.\n\nB: PhD in plastics engineering here. There's a technique known as time-temperature superposition, which allows us to predict how long it will take to degrade plastics by subjecting the plastics to high temperatures (keeping most details out of it) and seeing how long it takes to degrade at this high temperature. Then we use this information to compute how long it will take the plastic to decompose at ambient (room) temperatures. This method gives a very precise number much more accurate that a qualitative 1000s of years. The most stable plastics would probably survive for 100s of years, not 1000s.\n\nPlease respond with only A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "B", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will receive a Reddit post along with two comments from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which comment is more favored by humans based on the following criteria:\n\n Relevance to the Post\n Clarity and Coherence\n Depth and Thoughtfulness\n Positive Tone and Respectful Language\n Correctness and Accuracy\n Natural Language and Tone\n Conciseness\n\nAfter considering the given information, please indicate which comment is preferred: A or B?\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: If plastic was made in 1907 how do they know it may take up to 1000 years to decompose?\n\nA: There's a lot of patronizing answers on here but it's a fair question. Basically, you assume that a certain plastic decomposes by a physical and chemical process which we understand and can quantify in a mathematical model. Then you do some algebra using the equations that describe that model and, voila, you have your answer. Of course this assumes there are no other processes that affect decomposition that aren't captured in the initial model.\n\nB: I can explain this like you're actually five. You have five pieces of candy, and every minute you eat one. So how long will it take to eat all of them? That's right, 5 minutes total. We can do the same for this math problem, we measure how long it took to eat one candy to estimate how long it takes to eat the others without even having to eat them.\n\nPlease respond with either A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "A", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will be a given Reddit post and two comments for the Reddit post from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which of the comments is more preferred by human given the following criteria.\n\nYou need to consider following criteria\n\n Relevance to the Post\n Clarity and Coherence\n Depth and Thoughtfulness\n Positive Tone and Respectful Language\n Correctness and Accuracy\n Natural Language and Tone\n Conciseness\n\nGiven above information, please answer which of the comment is more preferred by human, A or B?\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: Why is it impossible to transplant a bladder? It seems strange to me that a heart can be transplanted and a bladder can't.\n\nA: It's not impossible, it's a weighting of the positives and negatives of a procedure. Transplantation is drastic, dangerous, and life altering. The patient will have to take drugs that suppress their immune system for the rest of their life along with the many side effects that patients will now have to live with. So we generally only do it for stuff that's either not prone to rejection that the patient won't have to spend a lifetime on anti-rejection drugs (i.e. cornea) or for stuff where if the patient doesn't have it they will die. A heart? You can't live without it. So transplanting easily edges out the risks and possible complications. A bladder? Not so much. Surgeons are good at fashioning bladders from bowel or small intestine, they can create urine accumulation pockets to be drained by cathater, they can route the ureters to a port on the body to be collected by a bag. These are a mere minor inconvenience compared to a lifetime on anti-rejection drugs and a weakened immune system.\n\nB: The body have a very strong immune system which is designed to detect and destroy any foreign biological matter. That unfortunately includes functioning organs from other people. So transplant patients have to take medication for the rest of their lives to suppress their immune system which does leave them more open to infections and might even get complications from the medication themselves. So doctors will try to avoid doing transplants if they are not needed. In the case of the bladder it is a very simple organ that you can do without or with simple man made versions. So even in the rare cases where the bladder have to be removed the doctors will not transplant inn a bladder from someone else as the complications from a transplant is worse then the complications from having the bladder removed entirely. And depending on the exact reason for why the bladder had to be removed they can even just put in a plastic bladder instead as it will not be attacked by the immune system.\n\nPlease respond with only A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "A", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will receive a Reddit post along with two comments from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which comment is more favored by humans based on the following criteria:\n\n Relevance to the Post\n Clarity and Coherence\n Depth and Thoughtfulness\n Positive Tone and Respectful Language\n Correctness and Accuracy\n Natural Language and Tone\n Conciseness\n\nAfter considering the given information, please indicate which comment is preferred: A or B?\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: Why is it impossible to transplant a bladder? It seems strange to me that a heart can be transplanted and a bladder can't.\n\nA: It also has to do with the neurologic control of the bladder. From a neurologic point of view it's not easy to control your bladder then decide to take a piss. It actually requires exquisite control and coordination by your nervous system. Almost all of this is happening at an unconscious level, just like digesting your food is a complex, coordinated activity that you don't have to think about. You can't hook up the transplant recipient's bladder to the nervous systemic a functional way, so the new bladder wouldn't work like you would hope it would.\n\nB: The most common types of infection in otherwise health adults are bladder infections. We don't transplant bladders BC it is already prone to infection, the surgery will increase infection risk (kinking of ureters/scar tissue) and then we are going to give immunosuppressive drugs which will increase the risk of infection even more! Plus the drugs have side effects that lower kidney function, diabetes, on top of immune suppression. This is why we make bladder conduits from small bowel. No immunosuppressive drugs, still gets complicated by infection occasionally.\n\nPlease respond with either A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "A", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will receive a Reddit post along with two comments from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which comment is more favored by humans based on the following criteria:\n\n Relevance to the Post\n Clarity and Coherence\n Depth and Thoughtfulness\n Positive Tone and Respectful Language\n Correctness and Accuracy\n Natural Language and Tone\n Conciseness\n\nAfter considering the given information, please indicate which comment is preferred: A or B?\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: Why is it impossible to transplant a bladder? It seems strange to me that a heart can be transplanted and a bladder can't.\n\nA: It also has to do with the neurologic control of the bladder. From a neurologic point of view it's not easy to control your bladder then decide to take a piss. It actually requires exquisite control and coordination by your nervous system. Almost all of this is happening at an unconscious level, just like digesting your food is a complex, coordinated activity that you don't have to think about. You can't hook up the transplant recipient's bladder to the nervous systemic a functional way, so the new bladder wouldn't work like you would hope it would.\n\nB: The body have a very strong immune system which is designed to detect and destroy any foreign biological matter. That unfortunately includes functioning organs from other people. So transplant patients have to take medication for the rest of their lives to suppress their immune system which does leave them more open to infections and might even get complications from the medication themselves. So doctors will try to avoid doing transplants if they are not needed. In the case of the bladder it is a very simple organ that you can do without or with simple man made versions. So even in the rare cases where the bladder have to be removed the doctors will not transplant inn a bladder from someone else as the complications from a transplant is worse then the complications from having the bladder removed entirely. And depending on the exact reason for why the bladder had to be removed they can even just put in a plastic bladder instead as it will not be attacked by the immune system.\n\nPlease respond with either A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "A", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will be provided with a Reddit post and two comments from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which comment is more preferred by humans based on the following criteria: Relevance to the Post, Clarity and Coherence, Depth and Thoughtfulness, Positive Tone and Respectful Language, Correctness and Accuracy, Natural Language and Tone, Conciseness\n\nGiven the information above, please select either A or B:\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: Why is it impossible to transplant a bladder? It seems strange to me that a heart can be transplanted and a bladder can't.\n\nA: The body have a very strong immune system which is designed to detect and destroy any foreign biological matter. That unfortunately includes functioning organs from other people. So transplant patients have to take medication for the rest of their lives to suppress their immune system which does leave them more open to infections and might even get complications from the medication themselves. So doctors will try to avoid doing transplants if they are not needed. In the case of the bladder it is a very simple organ that you can do without or with simple man made versions. So even in the rare cases where the bladder have to be removed the doctors will not transplant inn a bladder from someone else as the complications from a transplant is worse then the complications from having the bladder removed entirely. And depending on the exact reason for why the bladder had to be removed they can even just put in a plastic bladder instead as it will not be attacked by the immune system.\n\nB: The most common types of infection in otherwise health adults are bladder infections. We don't transplant bladders BC it is already prone to infection, the surgery will increase infection risk (kinking of ureters/scar tissue) and then we are going to give immunosuppressive drugs which will increase the risk of infection even more! Plus the drugs have side effects that lower kidney function, diabetes, on top of immune suppression. This is why we make bladder conduits from small bowel. No immunosuppressive drugs, still gets complicated by infection occasionally.\n\nPlease respond with only A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "B", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will be a given Reddit post and two comments for the Reddit post from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which of the comments is more preferred by human given the following criteria.\n\nYou need to consider following criteria\n\n Relevance to the Post\n Clarity and Coherence\n Depth and Thoughtfulness\n Positive Tone and Respectful Language\n Correctness and Accuracy\n Natural Language and Tone\n Conciseness\n\nGiven above information, please answer which of the comment is more preferred by human, A or B?\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: Why is it impossible to transplant a bladder? It seems strange to me that a heart can be transplanted and a bladder can't.\n\nA: The body have a very strong immune system which is designed to detect and destroy any foreign biological matter. That unfortunately includes functioning organs from other people. So transplant patients have to take medication for the rest of their lives to suppress their immune system which does leave them more open to infections and might even get complications from the medication themselves. So doctors will try to avoid doing transplants if they are not needed. In the case of the bladder it is a very simple organ that you can do without or with simple man made versions. So even in the rare cases where the bladder have to be removed the doctors will not transplant inn a bladder from someone else as the complications from a transplant is worse then the complications from having the bladder removed entirely. And depending on the exact reason for why the bladder had to be removed they can even just put in a plastic bladder instead as it will not be attacked by the immune system.\n\nB: Neobladder reconstruction using part of one's own ileum (terminal past of small bowel) is the answer. No need for lifelong immunosuppressants and complications (inclued higher risk of dying from COVID) associated with these.\n\nPlease respond with only A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "B", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will be provided with a Reddit post and two comments from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which comment is more preferred by humans based on the following criteria: Relevance to the Post, Clarity and Coherence, Depth and Thoughtfulness, Positive Tone and Respectful Language, Correctness and Accuracy, Natural Language and Tone, Conciseness\n\nGiven the information above, please select either A or B:\nReddit post: Eli5: why is when a bone shatters it can rebuild itself but when a tooth gets a hole in it it just keeps eating away at it\n\nA: TLDR AT THE BOTTOM Teeth are composed of calcium, phosphorus, and other minerals(mostly minerals). Bones contain calcium, phosphorus, sodium and other minerals, but mostly consist of the protein collagen. Collagen is a living, growing tissue that gives bones their a flexible framework that allows them to withstand pressure. Calcium fills in the space around that framework and makes the bone strong enough to support the body's weight. But bones are still not as strong as teeth. The hardest part of the human body , teeth mostly consist of a calcified tissue called dentine. The tooth's dentine tissue is covered in enamel, that hard, shiny layer that you brush. The exterior of bones consists of periosteum, a dense, smooth, slippery membrane that lines the outer surface of most bones , except at the joints of long bones, which instead consist of slimy hyaline cartilage. Periosteum contains osteoblasts, or cells that can manufacture new bone growth and repair. Tooth enamel, unfortunately, doesn't have the same regenerative powers. Unlike bones, teeth cannot heal themselves or grow back together if they are broken. TlDR: Basically there arent any pathways or cells in your body designated to regrow the damaged enamel or dentine, unlike your bones which have multiple pathways to deliver cells and various cells in the body to regrow or fuse bones, despite both being made of very similar base components they are still very different structurally. (Not a dentist just Googled it)\n\nB: Skeletal bones are like a huge urban city that’s filled with all manner of busybodies. When something goes wrong, someone (cells) is there to fix things and they have a good supply of building material (nutrition and minerals) to do it. Teeth are like a bunch of small villages at the outermost edge of the country. Sure, people live there. But they aren’t as well populated and supplied as their inner city friends. They can’t do a lot and get by with what little they have. *Tried to simplify things as much as possible based on my rudimentary understanding.\n\nPlease respond with only A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "B", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will be a given Reddit post and two comments for the Reddit post from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which of the comments is more preferred by human given the following criteria.\n\nYou need to consider following criteria\n\n Relevance to the Post\n Clarity and Coherence\n Depth and Thoughtfulness\n Positive Tone and Respectful Language\n Correctness and Accuracy\n Natural Language and Tone\n Conciseness\n\nGiven above information, please answer which of the comment is more preferred by human, A or B?\nReddit post: Eli5: why is when a bone shatters it can rebuild itself but when a tooth gets a hole in it it just keeps eating away at it\n\nA: Your teeth are on the outside of your body, so they are exposed to external bacteria, acids that you eat, dirt, etc. They also aren't made of \"teeth cells\" so basically they are almost inert (not alive really). Your bone however is safe and sound on the inside of your body, surrounded by all the good nutrients, andtibodies, blood supply etc that bones need to stay healthy. Bones also are made of cells, so they are alive and can repair themselves Like a natural stone vs concrete. One will erode, the other will crack and degrade, but can be easily repaired.\n\nB: Skeletal bones are like a huge urban city that’s filled with all manner of busybodies. When something goes wrong, someone (cells) is there to fix things and they have a good supply of building material (nutrition and minerals) to do it. Teeth are like a bunch of small villages at the outermost edge of the country. Sure, people live there. But they aren’t as well populated and supplied as their inner city friends. They can’t do a lot and get by with what little they have. *Tried to simplify things as much as possible based on my rudimentary understanding.\n\nPlease respond with only A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "B", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will be provided with a Reddit post and two comments from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which comment is more preferred by humans based on the following criteria: Relevance to the Post, Clarity and Coherence, Depth and Thoughtfulness, Positive Tone and Respectful Language, Correctness and Accuracy, Natural Language and Tone, Conciseness\n\nGiven the information above, please select either A or B:\nReddit post: Eli5: why is when a bone shatters it can rebuild itself but when a tooth gets a hole in it it just keeps eating away at it\n\nA: Your teeth are on the outside of your body, so they are exposed to external bacteria, acids that you eat, dirt, etc. They also aren't made of \"teeth cells\" so basically they are almost inert (not alive really). Your bone however is safe and sound on the inside of your body, surrounded by all the good nutrients, andtibodies, blood supply etc that bones need to stay healthy. Bones also are made of cells, so they are alive and can repair themselves Like a natural stone vs concrete. One will erode, the other will crack and degrade, but can be easily repaired.\n\nB: TLDR AT THE BOTTOM Teeth are composed of calcium, phosphorus, and other minerals(mostly minerals). Bones contain calcium, phosphorus, sodium and other minerals, but mostly consist of the protein collagen. Collagen is a living, growing tissue that gives bones their a flexible framework that allows them to withstand pressure. Calcium fills in the space around that framework and makes the bone strong enough to support the body's weight. But bones are still not as strong as teeth. The hardest part of the human body , teeth mostly consist of a calcified tissue called dentine. The tooth's dentine tissue is covered in enamel, that hard, shiny layer that you brush. The exterior of bones consists of periosteum, a dense, smooth, slippery membrane that lines the outer surface of most bones , except at the joints of long bones, which instead consist of slimy hyaline cartilage. Periosteum contains osteoblasts, or cells that can manufacture new bone growth and repair. Tooth enamel, unfortunately, doesn't have the same regenerative powers. Unlike bones, teeth cannot heal themselves or grow back together if they are broken. TlDR: Basically there arent any pathways or cells in your body designated to regrow the damaged enamel or dentine, unlike your bones which have multiple pathways to deliver cells and various cells in the body to regrow or fuse bones, despite both being made of very similar base components they are still very different structurally. (Not a dentist just Googled it)\n\nPlease respond with only A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "B", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will be provided with a Reddit post and two comments from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which comment is more preferred by humans based on the following criteria: Relevance to the Post, Clarity and Coherence, Depth and Thoughtfulness, Positive Tone and Respectful Language, Correctness and Accuracy, Natural Language and Tone, Conciseness\n\nGiven the information above, please select either A or B:\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: They said \"the water doesn't have an expiration date, the plastic bottle does\" so how come honey that comes in a plastic bottle doesn't expire?\n\nA: There’s two concepts of foods “expiring” One is how long can you guarantee it doesn’t go bad, and the other is how long can you guarantee it doesn’t change at all. For example, milk will spoil and be undrinkable within a few days of the expiry date. Honey in itself will never rot or go bad per se, but eventually itll crystallize and you won’t be able to use it anymore. Or the water in your bottle will taste bad due to the bottle or otherwise, even though it’s technically just the same water. Companies will put an expiration date because they prefer you throw out their product than to use something that isn’t the best that it can be. If you drank water that was past it’s “expiry date” and it tasted bad, you probably wouldn’t buy it again. If they scared you off from drinking it you might just go and buy more. EDIT: Yeah ok, so apparently crystallized honey is still usable Today I learned, but the point still stands. Eventually, it will become something that they did not originally intend to sell in one way or another. My bottle of honey I have at home has a best before date, its in about 2 years. In 2 years it will still be honey, just maybe not in a form that someone would find appealing to grab off a shelf.\n\nB: Whoever said that is wrong. The FDA and IWBA can't find any evidence that age matters to plastic water bottles. The FDA has ruled that there is no limit to the shelf life of bottled water, and no company has even insinuated that the expiration is related to the plastic. In 1987, New Jersey passed a law requiring all bottles of water to be stamped with an expiration date 2 years after the bottling date. Since you can't identify which bottles will wind up shipped to NJ, companies just stamped all bottles with a 2-year expiration to ensure compliance. They never passed that law for Honey, which is why plastic honey bottles don't have an expiration. Although the law was repealed in 2006, companies had figured out people will throw out \"expired\" water and buy more, it actually increases sales, so they kept printing it \"voluntarily\".\n\nPlease respond with only A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "B", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will be provided with a Reddit post and two comments from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which comment is more preferred by humans based on the following criteria: Relevance to the Post, Clarity and Coherence, Depth and Thoughtfulness, Positive Tone and Respectful Language, Correctness and Accuracy, Natural Language and Tone, Conciseness\n\nGiven the information above, please select either A or B:\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: They said \"the water doesn't have an expiration date, the plastic bottle does\" so how come honey that comes in a plastic bottle doesn't expire?\n\nA: Honey is a super saturated sugar solution. The reason it's so resistant to spoiling is that it is so saturated that it draws all the water out of any bacteria effectively killing it. The only real exception is botulinum, which can live dormant as a spore which is resistant to those forces. This is why you can't give honey to babies under 1 year old, they are not immune to it yet\n\nB: It's my understanding that the reason they really have expiration dates is a law made in New Jersey that made all edibles/potables have expiration dates. Regardless if they actually expired in that time or not. ​ Generally speaking though, the plastic is porous to air so your water can get smelly or \"stale\" depending on how it's stored.\n\nPlease respond with only A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "B", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will be provided with a Reddit post and two comments from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which comment is more preferred by humans based on the following criteria: Relevance to the Post, Clarity and Coherence, Depth and Thoughtfulness, Positive Tone and Respectful Language, Correctness and Accuracy, Natural Language and Tone, Conciseness\n\nGiven the information above, please select either A or B:\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: They said \"the water doesn't have an expiration date, the plastic bottle does\" so how come honey that comes in a plastic bottle doesn't expire?\n\nA: Took a tour of a Pepsi plant where they bottle Aquafina. It's more for quality control. It's difficult to eliminate 100% of bacteria and other things that can grow over time. Part of the testing is to put some of the water into a petri dish and accelerate growth, to see if there is anything nasty is in there. The water will most likely be fine after expiry but, in case there is something in there, the expiration date will provide a good idea of how long it will be safe to drink and to safeguard the company from liability.\n\nB: It's my understanding that the reason they really have expiration dates is a law made in New Jersey that made all edibles/potables have expiration dates. Regardless if they actually expired in that time or not. ​ Generally speaking though, the plastic is porous to air so your water can get smelly or \"stale\" depending on how it's stored.\n\nPlease respond with only A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "B", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "You will be a given Reddit post and two comments for the Reddit post from the subreddit explainlikeimfive. Your task is to determine which of the comments is more preferred by human given the following criteria.\n\nYou need to consider following criteria\n\n Relevance to the Post\n Clarity and Coherence\n Depth and Thoughtfulness\n Positive Tone and Respectful Language\n Correctness and Accuracy\n Natural Language and Tone\n Conciseness\n\nGiven above information, please answer which of the comment is more preferred by human, A or B?\nReddit post: Explain like I'm five years old: They said \"the water doesn't have an expiration date, the plastic bottle does\" so how come honey that comes in a plastic bottle doesn't expire?\n\nA: Honey is a super saturated sugar solution. The reason it's so resistant to spoiling is that it is so saturated that it draws all the water out of any bacteria effectively killing it. The only real exception is botulinum, which can live dormant as a spore which is resistant to those forces. This is why you can't give honey to babies under 1 year old, they are not immune to it yet\n\nB: In Denmark we have a “best before often good after” expiration date to tell consumers not to stress about the date, but use their senses in stead. Edit:Yes yes, I spelled senses wrongly. Thanks for the great scrip!\n\nPlease respond with only A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "B", "role": "assistant" } ]