ELI5: Explain Like I'm 5
Do you demand a simple and concise explanation of complicated and complex topics?
Fret not, dear voater, for ELI5 is here! Ask a complex question, and get a simple answer!
General guidelines:
Your explanation should be friendly and straightforward, but not condescending.
- 1.1. Above all, you're here to answer questions concisely. Don't get needlessly hostile or complicated in your response.
- 1.2. We aren't literally 5 year olds. Well, most of us aren't. We can handle big words and long sentences. There's no need to dumb down an explanation unless specifically asked to do so by the asker.
- 1.3. If specified by the asker, responses to particular levels of expertise are encouraged.
/v/ELI5 is a place to get simple explanations of complex topics.
- 2.1. Yes/no answer questions, and questions pursuing an answer without an explanation of that answer, are not allowed.
- 2.2: If it doesn't have an explanation, it isn't an explain like I'm five question.
- 2.3. Refrain from posing hypothetical or personal questions. Ideally, every question should have a factually based, reasonable explanation.
Feel free to send prohibited questions to /v/nostupidquestions, they'll help you out instead!
This isn't a debating subverse:
- 3.1. Don't ask for personal opinions (and don't ask potentially loaded questions)
- 3.2. Don't present a biased response
Top-level comments should be on-topic.
- 4.1. Self-explanatory, really.
- 4.2. Jokes are allowed and appreciated if they're on topic and not a whole top-level comment.
Someone came here for an answer, don't send them somewhere else.
- 5.1. Your response should not consist wholly of a redirection link within a sentence.
- 5.2. It is acceptable to link to outside sources for singular words or concepts. This can be done to save you explaining concepts that are non-central (yet still important) to your response.
- 5.3. Don't copy+paste from outside sources without paraphrasing. Outside sources don't always explain concepts in layman's terms.
Don't know? Don't teach.
- 6.1. If you don't know what you're talking about, don't try to teach someone else about it.
You are allowed to post a question that's been posted before, but to save your own time, search for it before posting anyway.
Tag your post as "Explained" once you're satisfied with an answer
All moderation decisions are made at the moderation team's discretion. You won't be protected by loopholes if you're using them to a detrimental effect.
Now featuring CSS, by /u/jvanderb!
The Questions Network
Own a questions subverse? Doesn't match any of the ones above? Send a mod a message, and we'll gladly add a link to it!
view the rest of the comments →
[–] Flaaffy [S] ago
So the Indians first didn't want their burial grounds being destroyed and dug up for the pipeline, so construction was moved off their land, and now the protesters are still upset because it can damage the environment and the rivers?
Aren't there already several pipelines that have been built?
Couldn't we see if previously installed pipelines caused environmental damage to see how this would really affect the water?
The more I look into this, the more ridiculous this whole situation appears to me, honestly.
[–] 7856110? 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
It is a fact that other pipelines have had leaks. Some were small but some were massive. So it is a real possibility that it could happen. I have often thought companies building pipelines should be required to have a certain amount of money per mile held in reserves to insure against the government having to pick up the cost in cases where it does happen. But it isn't common to have any problems with them really as long as they are maintained well.
[–] ZYX321 1 point 0 points 1 point (+1|-1) ago
That's kind of like saying we don't have a problem with terrorists as long as they don't have the opportunity to blow shit up. :-)