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:How after 5000 years of humanity surviving off of bread do we have so many people within the last decade who are entirely allergic to gluten?\n\nA: Just so we're clear: Allergy to gluten is a thing, but is different from celiac disease. Both are well-defined and different from gluten intolerance, which is less clear. The most common explanation for increased allergies is the hygiene hypothesis. The idea is that aggressive modern hygiene removes the parasites and bacteria that help calibrate the immune system, leaving it more likely to react to harmless targets. It's also been suggested that modern wheat could be more allergenic. The cross-breeding of new wheat strains in the 1960s, which allowed us to feed billions of people, could have selected for a protein variant that immune systems just don't like. Modern wheat processing has also been noted as a potential contributor.\n\nB: We don't know. There are a number of theories about this. To clarify, while the increase may be exaggerated by people who falsely claim intolerance when they probably have other health issues (or are hypochondriacs), there is actually an increase in people with diagnosable gluten intolerance. And gluten intolerance is different than celiac. I'm taking here about gluten intolerance. Some possible causes include changes in the gut microbiome and changes in how we process and make bread. Changes in the gut microbiome are a likely cause/contributor but the causes and effects of that are just stating to be understood, and barely. So I won't go into that too much, but if anyone has questions I may be able to answer. On the processing side, one interesting theory is that the germ of wheat helps us process the gluten in some way. It has lots of nutrients, vitamins, fats, etc. Modern wheat flour (even most whole grain stuff) is made by separating the germ from the rest of the wheat first, then processing. This causes the flour to keep longer but removes all those nutrients. This is why flour/cereals need to be fortified. However, we only fortify with the vitamins and minerals for which we notice obvious deficiencies. So it's entirely feasible that we are neglecting to add something back into the flour that helps SOME people not develop gluten intolerance. This may be via some immune response or due to changes caused in the gut microbe (e.g. we are no longer giving some micronutrients to a specific bacteria in our gut so it dies out. That bacteria helped us process gluten or a byproduct and without its help we get sick). It's also possible that our body just needs some nutrient in the germ to process gluten efficiently. We really just don't know. Tldr: shits complicated literally edit: First, I know the difference between a theory and hypothesis. I was using the term colloquially, which *even scientists* do sometimes. People seem to have extrapolated way more than they should have from my comment. Like are asking me where to buy bread with wheat germ and how to fix their gut microbes. That's really not how this works. Anybody who gives you an easy answer to your problems is probably trying to sell you something (I'm looking at you, supplement/probiotics industry...). Until relatively recently we didn't even know bacteria could survive in your gut, so expecting the scientific community to have a solid understanding of the gut microbiome now is absurd. These questions span the fields of nutrition, microbial ecology, microbe-host interactions, immunology, and more. I'm sure there are hundreds of plausible explanations, but we are VERY FAR AWAY from definitively answering most questions related to the gut microbe. We DO know that it affects digestive health, mood, weight, and all kinds of other human physiology. What we don't know is how to bend it to our will or how it causes all of these things. We do know that the answer is complicated. How do different bacteria interact with each other in your gut, and then with your body? We also don't know much about that. But we're learning. There is a unique soup of maybe 1000 species of bacteria in your gut, and they are mostly different than the species that live in mine. We are just starting to learn how specific individual species of bacteria can affect their hosts. But even with this research, we don't think that it will be the same in everyone. example: Maybe bacteria A has effect B on me, but it has effect C on you, because I have bacteria Q in my gut and you don't, and bacteria Q is necessary for effect B. Now consider that x 1000 species, and that a genetic component also affects this, and diet and stress levels and fitness also affect this. See where I'm going? We do know that the gut microbe is influenced by stress, diet, sleep, environmental exposure, your parents, exercise, infection, travel, antibiotics, alcohol consumption, genetics, epigenetics (which is affected by all of these things and more), social habits, sun exposure, etc. Just to name a few. The extent to which these affect each person is probably highly variable. So asking about specific solutions or a quick fix is a waste of time, especially on the internet. And if you have a shitty diet - especially one high in carbs and sugar - or high stress levels, or you drink a lot, addressing those first is probably a smarter solution than asking about wheat germ and special bread and probiotics (may work in some cases for some people sometimes, and usually not as a \"fix\" but as a supplement. it's just not well studied enough.) and GMOs (no evidence of them affecting any of this or even a feasible mechanism for how they would). tldr2: no really, shit's complicated. Something that works for one person may not for another for hundreds of reasons that we don't know much about yet, but are sort-of on the verge of understanding. This is also why the human microbiome is so hard to study. Remember, none of this is well researched enough for there to be standardized advice for anybody outside of the normal \"live a healthy lifestyle\" advice, and slowly figuring out what makes you feel better. So don't ask for a quick fix and don't trust anyone who offers one. Here are some links about the microbiome and a couple on the microbiome and gluten. http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/microbiome/changing/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_microbiota https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/10/161003113009.htm https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-guts-microbiome-changes-diet/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26605783 https://genomemedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13073-016-0295-y http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/309642.php edit2: yes, non celiac wheat/gluten intolerance exists. some studies have shown that people who claim to have it do not, but that does not encompass all the literature. the key to those studies is that they were looking at SELF REPORTED gluten intolerance, so basically your average \"but gluten\" person, not people who were medically evaluated and thought to have it. turns out you just have to find the right people to study (who actually have it). just skim this google scholar search and you will see significant evidence of its existence: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=non+celiac\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 after 5000 years of humanity surviving off of bread do we have so many people within the last decade who are entirely allergic to gluten?\n\nA: Gluten intolerance remains fairly rare, and often not particularly severe. We have higher expectations for our own health now that we ever had in the past, so historically, people with a sensitivity to gluten may have just ignored it. Further, while many people relied on wheat-based food products, it wasn't the only diet out there, and only became as dominant as it is now in the 20th century.\n\nB: We don't know. There are a number of theories about this. To clarify, while the increase may be exaggerated by people who falsely claim intolerance when they probably have other health issues (or are hypochondriacs), there is actually an increase in people with diagnosable gluten intolerance. And gluten intolerance is different than celiac. I'm taking here about gluten intolerance. Some possible causes include changes in the gut microbiome and changes in how we process and make bread. Changes in the gut microbiome are a likely cause/contributor but the causes and effects of that are just stating to be understood, and barely. So I won't go into that too much, but if anyone has questions I may be able to answer. On the processing side, one interesting theory is that the germ of wheat helps us process the gluten in some way. It has lots of nutrients, vitamins, fats, etc. Modern wheat flour (even most whole grain stuff) is made by separating the germ from the rest of the wheat first, then processing. This causes the flour to keep longer but removes all those nutrients. This is why flour/cereals need to be fortified. However, we only fortify with the vitamins and minerals for which we notice obvious deficiencies. So it's entirely feasible that we are neglecting to add something back into the flour that helps SOME people not develop gluten intolerance. This may be via some immune response or due to changes caused in the gut microbe (e.g. we are no longer giving some micronutrients to a specific bacteria in our gut so it dies out. That bacteria helped us process gluten or a byproduct and without its help we get sick). It's also possible that our body just needs some nutrient in the germ to process gluten efficiently. We really just don't know. Tldr: shits complicated literally edit: First, I know the difference between a theory and hypothesis. I was using the term colloquially, which *even scientists* do sometimes. People seem to have extrapolated way more than they should have from my comment. Like are asking me where to buy bread with wheat germ and how to fix their gut microbes. That's really not how this works. Anybody who gives you an easy answer to your problems is probably trying to sell you something (I'm looking at you, supplement/probiotics industry...). Until relatively recently we didn't even know bacteria could survive in your gut, so expecting the scientific community to have a solid understanding of the gut microbiome now is absurd. These questions span the fields of nutrition, microbial ecology, microbe-host interactions, immunology, and more. I'm sure there are hundreds of plausible explanations, but we are VERY FAR AWAY from definitively answering most questions related to the gut microbe. We DO know that it affects digestive health, mood, weight, and all kinds of other human physiology. What we don't know is how to bend it to our will or how it causes all of these things. We do know that the answer is complicated. How do different bacteria interact with each other in your gut, and then with your body? We also don't know much about that. But we're learning. There is a unique soup of maybe 1000 species of bacteria in your gut, and they are mostly different than the species that live in mine. We are just starting to learn how specific individual species of bacteria can affect their hosts. But even with this research, we don't think that it will be the same in everyone. example: Maybe bacteria A has effect B on me, but it has effect C on you, because I have bacteria Q in my gut and you don't, and bacteria Q is necessary for effect B. Now consider that x 1000 species, and that a genetic component also affects this, and diet and stress levels and fitness also affect this. See where I'm going? We do know that the gut microbe is influenced by stress, diet, sleep, environmental exposure, your parents, exercise, infection, travel, antibiotics, alcohol consumption, genetics, epigenetics (which is affected by all of these things and more), social habits, sun exposure, etc. Just to name a few. The extent to which these affect each person is probably highly variable. So asking about specific solutions or a quick fix is a waste of time, especially on the internet. And if you have a shitty diet - especially one high in carbs and sugar - or high stress levels, or you drink a lot, addressing those first is probably a smarter solution than asking about wheat germ and special bread and probiotics (may work in some cases for some people sometimes, and usually not as a \"fix\" but as a supplement. it's just not well studied enough.) and GMOs (no evidence of them affecting any of this or even a feasible mechanism for how they would). tldr2: no really, shit's complicated. Something that works for one person may not for another for hundreds of reasons that we don't know much about yet, but are sort-of on the verge of understanding. This is also why the human microbiome is so hard to study. Remember, none of this is well researched enough for there to be standardized advice for anybody outside of the normal \"live a healthy lifestyle\" advice, and slowly figuring out what makes you feel better. So don't ask for a quick fix and don't trust anyone who offers one. Here are some links about the microbiome and a couple on the microbiome and gluten. http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/microbiome/changing/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_microbiota https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/10/161003113009.htm https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-guts-microbiome-changes-diet/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26605783 https://genomemedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13073-016-0295-y http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/309642.php edit2: yes, non celiac wheat/gluten intolerance exists. some studies have shown that people who claim to have it do not, but that does not encompass all the literature. the key to those studies is that they were looking at SELF REPORTED gluten intolerance, so basically your average \"but gluten\" person, not people who were medically evaluated and thought to have it. turns out you just have to find the right people to study (who actually have it). just skim this google scholar search and you will see significant evidence of its existence: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=non+celiac\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 after 5000 years of humanity surviving off of bread do we have so many people within the last decade who are entirely allergic to gluten?\n\nA: Probably the same reason people are lactose intolerant. Unless milk could actually out right kill them, they stay in the gene pool. I've been drinking milk since I was a kid. Had bad cramps every day. But since every kid eats cereal for breakfast, milk being the culprit never dawned on me. Suddenly lactose-free milk comes out, I suddenly find that moo juice was the cause. I'm sure generations have suffered the same fate before me.\n\nB: We don't know. There are a number of theories about this. To clarify, while the increase may be exaggerated by people who falsely claim intolerance when they probably have other health issues (or are hypochondriacs), there is actually an increase in people with diagnosable gluten intolerance. And gluten intolerance is different than celiac. I'm taking here about gluten intolerance. Some possible causes include changes in the gut microbiome and changes in how we process and make bread. Changes in the gut microbiome are a likely cause/contributor but the causes and effects of that are just stating to be understood, and barely. So I won't go into that too much, but if anyone has questions I may be able to answer. On the processing side, one interesting theory is that the germ of wheat helps us process the gluten in some way. It has lots of nutrients, vitamins, fats, etc. Modern wheat flour (even most whole grain stuff) is made by separating the germ from the rest of the wheat first, then processing. This causes the flour to keep longer but removes all those nutrients. This is why flour/cereals need to be fortified. However, we only fortify with the vitamins and minerals for which we notice obvious deficiencies. So it's entirely feasible that we are neglecting to add something back into the flour that helps SOME people not develop gluten intolerance. This may be via some immune response or due to changes caused in the gut microbe (e.g. we are no longer giving some micronutrients to a specific bacteria in our gut so it dies out. That bacteria helped us process gluten or a byproduct and without its help we get sick). It's also possible that our body just needs some nutrient in the germ to process gluten efficiently. We really just don't know. Tldr: shits complicated literally edit: First, I know the difference between a theory and hypothesis. I was using the term colloquially, which *even scientists* do sometimes. People seem to have extrapolated way more than they should have from my comment. Like are asking me where to buy bread with wheat germ and how to fix their gut microbes. That's really not how this works. Anybody who gives you an easy answer to your problems is probably trying to sell you something (I'm looking at you, supplement/probiotics industry...). Until relatively recently we didn't even know bacteria could survive in your gut, so expecting the scientific community to have a solid understanding of the gut microbiome now is absurd. These questions span the fields of nutrition, microbial ecology, microbe-host interactions, immunology, and more. I'm sure there are hundreds of plausible explanations, but we are VERY FAR AWAY from definitively answering most questions related to the gut microbe. We DO know that it affects digestive health, mood, weight, and all kinds of other human physiology. What we don't know is how to bend it to our will or how it causes all of these things. We do know that the answer is complicated. How do different bacteria interact with each other in your gut, and then with your body? We also don't know much about that. But we're learning. There is a unique soup of maybe 1000 species of bacteria in your gut, and they are mostly different than the species that live in mine. We are just starting to learn how specific individual species of bacteria can affect their hosts. But even with this research, we don't think that it will be the same in everyone. example: Maybe bacteria A has effect B on me, but it has effect C on you, because I have bacteria Q in my gut and you don't, and bacteria Q is necessary for effect B. Now consider that x 1000 species, and that a genetic component also affects this, and diet and stress levels and fitness also affect this. See where I'm going? We do know that the gut microbe is influenced by stress, diet, sleep, environmental exposure, your parents, exercise, infection, travel, antibiotics, alcohol consumption, genetics, epigenetics (which is affected by all of these things and more), social habits, sun exposure, etc. Just to name a few. The extent to which these affect each person is probably highly variable. So asking about specific solutions or a quick fix is a waste of time, especially on the internet. And if you have a shitty diet - especially one high in carbs and sugar - or high stress levels, or you drink a lot, addressing those first is probably a smarter solution than asking about wheat germ and special bread and probiotics (may work in some cases for some people sometimes, and usually not as a \"fix\" but as a supplement. it's just not well studied enough.) and GMOs (no evidence of them affecting any of this or even a feasible mechanism for how they would). tldr2: no really, shit's complicated. Something that works for one person may not for another for hundreds of reasons that we don't know much about yet, but are sort-of on the verge of understanding. This is also why the human microbiome is so hard to study. Remember, none of this is well researched enough for there to be standardized advice for anybody outside of the normal \"live a healthy lifestyle\" advice, and slowly figuring out what makes you feel better. So don't ask for a quick fix and don't trust anyone who offers one. Here are some links about the microbiome and a couple on the microbiome and gluten. http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/microbiome/changing/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_microbiota https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/10/161003113009.htm https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-guts-microbiome-changes-diet/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26605783 https://genomemedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13073-016-0295-y http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/309642.php edit2: yes, non celiac wheat/gluten intolerance exists. some studies have shown that people who claim to have it do not, but that does not encompass all the literature. the key to those studies is that they were looking at SELF REPORTED gluten intolerance, so basically your average \"but gluten\" person, not people who were medically evaluated and thought to have it. turns out you just have to find the right people to study (who actually have it). just skim this google scholar search and you will see significant evidence of its existence: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=non+celiac\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 after 5000 years of humanity surviving off of bread do we have so many people within the last decade who are entirely allergic to gluten?\n\nA: We don't know. There are a number of theories about this. To clarify, while the increase may be exaggerated by people who falsely claim intolerance when they probably have other health issues (or are hypochondriacs), there is actually an increase in people with diagnosable gluten intolerance. And gluten intolerance is different than celiac. I'm taking here about gluten intolerance. Some possible causes include changes in the gut microbiome and changes in how we process and make bread. Changes in the gut microbiome are a likely cause/contributor but the causes and effects of that are just stating to be understood, and barely. So I won't go into that too much, but if anyone has questions I may be able to answer. On the processing side, one interesting theory is that the germ of wheat helps us process the gluten in some way. It has lots of nutrients, vitamins, fats, etc. Modern wheat flour (even most whole grain stuff) is made by separating the germ from the rest of the wheat first, then processing. This causes the flour to keep longer but removes all those nutrients. This is why flour/cereals need to be fortified. However, we only fortify with the vitamins and minerals for which we notice obvious deficiencies. So it's entirely feasible that we are neglecting to add something back into the flour that helps SOME people not develop gluten intolerance. This may be via some immune response or due to changes caused in the gut microbe (e.g. we are no longer giving some micronutrients to a specific bacteria in our gut so it dies out. That bacteria helped us process gluten or a byproduct and without its help we get sick). It's also possible that our body just needs some nutrient in the germ to process gluten efficiently. We really just don't know. Tldr: shits complicated literally edit: First, I know the difference between a theory and hypothesis. I was using the term colloquially, which *even scientists* do sometimes. People seem to have extrapolated way more than they should have from my comment. Like are asking me where to buy bread with wheat germ and how to fix their gut microbes. That's really not how this works. Anybody who gives you an easy answer to your problems is probably trying to sell you something (I'm looking at you, supplement/probiotics industry...). Until relatively recently we didn't even know bacteria could survive in your gut, so expecting the scientific community to have a solid understanding of the gut microbiome now is absurd. These questions span the fields of nutrition, microbial ecology, microbe-host interactions, immunology, and more. I'm sure there are hundreds of plausible explanations, but we are VERY FAR AWAY from definitively answering most questions related to the gut microbe. We DO know that it affects digestive health, mood, weight, and all kinds of other human physiology. What we don't know is how to bend it to our will or how it causes all of these things. We do know that the answer is complicated. How do different bacteria interact with each other in your gut, and then with your body? We also don't know much about that. But we're learning. There is a unique soup of maybe 1000 species of bacteria in your gut, and they are mostly different than the species that live in mine. We are just starting to learn how specific individual species of bacteria can affect their hosts. But even with this research, we don't think that it will be the same in everyone. example: Maybe bacteria A has effect B on me, but it has effect C on you, because I have bacteria Q in my gut and you don't, and bacteria Q is necessary for effect B. Now consider that x 1000 species, and that a genetic component also affects this, and diet and stress levels and fitness also affect this. See where I'm going? We do know that the gut microbe is influenced by stress, diet, sleep, environmental exposure, your parents, exercise, infection, travel, antibiotics, alcohol consumption, genetics, epigenetics (which is affected by all of these things and more), social habits, sun exposure, etc. Just to name a few. The extent to which these affect each person is probably highly variable. So asking about specific solutions or a quick fix is a waste of time, especially on the internet. And if you have a shitty diet - especially one high in carbs and sugar - or high stress levels, or you drink a lot, addressing those first is probably a smarter solution than asking about wheat germ and special bread and probiotics (may work in some cases for some people sometimes, and usually not as a \"fix\" but as a supplement. it's just not well studied enough.) and GMOs (no evidence of them affecting any of this or even a feasible mechanism for how they would). tldr2: no really, shit's complicated. Something that works for one person may not for another for hundreds of reasons that we don't know much about yet, but are sort-of on the verge of understanding. This is also why the human microbiome is so hard to study. Remember, none of this is well researched enough for there to be standardized advice for anybody outside of the normal \"live a healthy lifestyle\" advice, and slowly figuring out what makes you feel better. So don't ask for a quick fix and don't trust anyone who offers one. Here are some links about the microbiome and a couple on the microbiome and gluten. http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/microbiome/changing/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_microbiota https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/10/161003113009.htm https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-guts-microbiome-changes-diet/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26605783 https://genomemedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13073-016-0295-y http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/309642.php edit2: yes, non celiac wheat/gluten intolerance exists. some studies have shown that people who claim to have it do not, but that does not encompass all the literature. the key to those studies is that they were looking at SELF REPORTED gluten intolerance, so basically your average \"but gluten\" person, not people who were medically evaluated and thought to have it. turns out you just have to find the right people to study (who actually have it). just skim this google scholar search and you will see significant evidence of its existence: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=non+celiac\n\nB: Reddit has a weird hate boner about gluten, so a lot of folks are going to tell you the rise in allergies is psychosomatic. That's not true: > For reasons that remain largely unexplained, the incidence of celiac disease has increased more than fourfold in the past sixty years. Researchers initially attributed the growing number of cases to greater public awareness and better diagnoses. But neither can fully account for the leap since 1950. Murray and his colleagues at the Mayo Clinic discovered the increase almost by accident. Murray wanted to examine the long-term effects of undiagnosed celiac disease. To do that, he analyzed blood samples that had been taken from nine thousand Air Force recruits between 1948 and 1954. The researchers looked for antibodies to an enzyme called transglutaminase; they are a reliable marker for celiac disease. **Murray assumed that one per cent of the soldiers would test positive, matching the current celiac rate. Instead, the team found the antibodies in the blood of just two-tenths of one per cent of the soldiers.** Then they compared the results with samples taken recently from demographically similar groups of twenty- and seventy-year-old men. In both groups, the biochemical markers were present in about one per cent of the samples. The whole article is interesting, and it's well reported (it's from the New Yorker, not some sketchy clickbait \"GlutenAlert365.com\" meme your aunt posts on Facebook).\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 after 5000 years of humanity surviving off of bread do we have so many people within the last decade who are entirely allergic to gluten?\n\nA: The wheat of today and the wheat of our ancestors is vastly different in terms of constitution, cultivation and processing. It has been hybridized for greater yield, bathed in pesticides and then largely stripped of its remaining nutrition to produce the ubiquitous wheat flour that is in a huge percentage of our foods today. Our bodies have had essentially 1-2 generations to adapt to this largely new food product that has more differences than similarities to the ancient grain and subsequent processing our ancestor's bodies were accustomed to. Also, ITT people are conflating true wheat (gluten) allergy with wheat (gluten) sensitivity. These are matters of degree and have significant differences. edit: sp\n\nB: We don't know. There are a number of theories about this. To clarify, while the increase may be exaggerated by people who falsely claim intolerance when they probably have other health issues (or are hypochondriacs), there is actually an increase in people with diagnosable gluten intolerance. And gluten intolerance is different than celiac. I'm taking here about gluten intolerance. Some possible causes include changes in the gut microbiome and changes in how we process and make bread. Changes in the gut microbiome are a likely cause/contributor but the causes and effects of that are just stating to be understood, and barely. So I won't go into that too much, but if anyone has questions I may be able to answer. On the processing side, one interesting theory is that the germ of wheat helps us process the gluten in some way. It has lots of nutrients, vitamins, fats, etc. Modern wheat flour (even most whole grain stuff) is made by separating the germ from the rest of the wheat first, then processing. This causes the flour to keep longer but removes all those nutrients. This is why flour/cereals need to be fortified. However, we only fortify with the vitamins and minerals for which we notice obvious deficiencies. So it's entirely feasible that we are neglecting to add something back into the flour that helps SOME people not develop gluten intolerance. This may be via some immune response or due to changes caused in the gut microbe (e.g. we are no longer giving some micronutrients to a specific bacteria in our gut so it dies out. That bacteria helped us process gluten or a byproduct and without its help we get sick). It's also possible that our body just needs some nutrient in the germ to process gluten efficiently. We really just don't know. Tldr: shits complicated literally edit: First, I know the difference between a theory and hypothesis. I was using the term colloquially, which *even scientists* do sometimes. People seem to have extrapolated way more than they should have from my comment. Like are asking me where to buy bread with wheat germ and how to fix their gut microbes. That's really not how this works. Anybody who gives you an easy answer to your problems is probably trying to sell you something (I'm looking at you, supplement/probiotics industry...). Until relatively recently we didn't even know bacteria could survive in your gut, so expecting the scientific community to have a solid understanding of the gut microbiome now is absurd. These questions span the fields of nutrition, microbial ecology, microbe-host interactions, immunology, and more. I'm sure there are hundreds of plausible explanations, but we are VERY FAR AWAY from definitively answering most questions related to the gut microbe. We DO know that it affects digestive health, mood, weight, and all kinds of other human physiology. What we don't know is how to bend it to our will or how it causes all of these things. We do know that the answer is complicated. How do different bacteria interact with each other in your gut, and then with your body? We also don't know much about that. But we're learning. There is a unique soup of maybe 1000 species of bacteria in your gut, and they are mostly different than the species that live in mine. We are just starting to learn how specific individual species of bacteria can affect their hosts. But even with this research, we don't think that it will be the same in everyone. example: Maybe bacteria A has effect B on me, but it has effect C on you, because I have bacteria Q in my gut and you don't, and bacteria Q is necessary for effect B. Now consider that x 1000 species, and that a genetic component also affects this, and diet and stress levels and fitness also affect this. See where I'm going? We do know that the gut microbe is influenced by stress, diet, sleep, environmental exposure, your parents, exercise, infection, travel, antibiotics, alcohol consumption, genetics, epigenetics (which is affected by all of these things and more), social habits, sun exposure, etc. Just to name a few. The extent to which these affect each person is probably highly variable. So asking about specific solutions or a quick fix is a waste of time, especially on the internet. And if you have a shitty diet - especially one high in carbs and sugar - or high stress levels, or you drink a lot, addressing those first is probably a smarter solution than asking about wheat germ and special bread and probiotics (may work in some cases for some people sometimes, and usually not as a \"fix\" but as a supplement. it's just not well studied enough.) and GMOs (no evidence of them affecting any of this or even a feasible mechanism for how they would). tldr2: no really, shit's complicated. Something that works for one person may not for another for hundreds of reasons that we don't know much about yet, but are sort-of on the verge of understanding. This is also why the human microbiome is so hard to study. Remember, none of this is well researched enough for there to be standardized advice for anybody outside of the normal \"live a healthy lifestyle\" advice, and slowly figuring out what makes you feel better. So don't ask for a quick fix and don't trust anyone who offers one. Here are some links about the microbiome and a couple on the microbiome and gluten. http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/microbiome/changing/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_microbiota https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/10/161003113009.htm https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-guts-microbiome-changes-diet/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26605783 https://genomemedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13073-016-0295-y http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/309642.php edit2: yes, non celiac wheat/gluten intolerance exists. some studies have shown that people who claim to have it do not, but that does not encompass all the literature. the key to those studies is that they were looking at SELF REPORTED gluten intolerance, so basically your average \"but gluten\" person, not people who were medically evaluated and thought to have it. turns out you just have to find the right people to study (who actually have it). just skim this google scholar search and you will see significant evidence of its existence: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=non+celiac\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 after 5000 years of humanity surviving off of bread do we have so many people within the last decade who are entirely allergic to gluten?\n\nA: Gluten intolerance remains fairly rare, and often not particularly severe. We have higher expectations for our own health now that we ever had in the past, so historically, people with a sensitivity to gluten may have just ignored it. Further, while many people relied on wheat-based food products, it wasn't the only diet out there, and only became as dominant as it is now in the 20th century.\n\nB: Just so we're clear: Allergy to gluten is a thing, but is different from celiac disease. Both are well-defined and different from gluten intolerance, which is less clear. The most common explanation for increased allergies is the hygiene hypothesis. The idea is that aggressive modern hygiene removes the parasites and bacteria that help calibrate the immune system, leaving it more likely to react to harmless targets. It's also been suggested that modern wheat could be more allergenic. The cross-breeding of new wheat strains in the 1960s, which allowed us to feed billions of people, could have selected for a protein variant that immune systems just don't like. Modern wheat processing has also been noted as a potential contributor.\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 after 5000 years of humanity surviving off of bread do we have so many people within the last decade who are entirely allergic to gluten?\n\nA: There's a great Netflix 4-part documentary called Cooked that delves into this. The documentary series 4 parts were titled Earth, Air, Fire & Water, and it looked at an anthropological history of our diets and hunting/eating/cooking rituals. The Air episode was all about bread, and about how it has been a staple of our diets for so long. Their postulate was that for the vast majority of people, gluten isn't the issue. Sure there are some people for whom the gluten is the problem, they just assume it is because modern bread doesn't agree with them because of the accelerated processes they use to make it. Or perhaps there used to be something in bread that prevented gluten from having such an adverse reaction. It used to be that bread was fermented. The dough was a living, breathing colony. In more recent years, to speed up the bread making process, instead of allowing the natural bacteria in the water supply to thrive in the wheat and change it - they instead use \"clean\" additives, such as yeast. Due to this, there are various nutrients that used to be in bread that aren't any more, so manufacturers have also added fortifications in also, to make up for those that were missing and actually have it be nutritious. TLDR: The bread we eat now isn't really anything like the bread our bodies evolved with.\n\nB: Gluten intolerance remains fairly rare, and often not particularly severe. We have higher expectations for our own health now that we ever had in the past, so historically, people with a sensitivity to gluten may have just ignored it. Further, while many people relied on wheat-based food products, it wasn't the only diet out there, and only became as dominant as it is now in the 20th century.\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 after 5000 years of humanity surviving off of bread do we have so many people within the last decade who are entirely allergic to gluten?\n\nA: There's a great Netflix 4-part documentary called Cooked that delves into this. The documentary series 4 parts were titled Earth, Air, Fire & Water, and it looked at an anthropological history of our diets and hunting/eating/cooking rituals. The Air episode was all about bread, and about how it has been a staple of our diets for so long. Their postulate was that for the vast majority of people, gluten isn't the issue. Sure there are some people for whom the gluten is the problem, they just assume it is because modern bread doesn't agree with them because of the accelerated processes they use to make it. Or perhaps there used to be something in bread that prevented gluten from having such an adverse reaction. It used to be that bread was fermented. The dough was a living, breathing colony. In more recent years, to speed up the bread making process, instead of allowing the natural bacteria in the water supply to thrive in the wheat and change it - they instead use \"clean\" additives, such as yeast. Due to this, there are various nutrients that used to be in bread that aren't any more, so manufacturers have also added fortifications in also, to make up for those that were missing and actually have it be nutritious. TLDR: The bread we eat now isn't really anything like the bread our bodies evolved with.\n\nB: A documentary was made for this exact question. It's called Cooked: Air. From what I remember, it basically said that the way we make bread has changed drastically in the past 200 years (wonder bread, pure white flour, instant yeast, etc.) and that is what has caused people's \"gluten allergies,\" not to be confused with Celiac's disease. It says that the original way to make bread, with homemade flour and long periods of fermentation, is better for people, and that most people aren't allergic to it.\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 after 5000 years of humanity surviving off of bread do we have so many people within the last decade who are entirely allergic to gluten?\n\nA: Probably the same reason people are lactose intolerant. Unless milk could actually out right kill them, they stay in the gene pool. I've been drinking milk since I was a kid. Had bad cramps every day. But since every kid eats cereal for breakfast, milk being the culprit never dawned on me. Suddenly lactose-free milk comes out, I suddenly find that moo juice was the cause. I'm sure generations have suffered the same fate before me.\n\nB: There's a great Netflix 4-part documentary called Cooked that delves into this. The documentary series 4 parts were titled Earth, Air, Fire & Water, and it looked at an anthropological history of our diets and hunting/eating/cooking rituals. The Air episode was all about bread, and about how it has been a staple of our diets for so long. Their postulate was that for the vast majority of people, gluten isn't the issue. Sure there are some people for whom the gluten is the problem, they just assume it is because modern bread doesn't agree with them because of the accelerated processes they use to make it. Or perhaps there used to be something in bread that prevented gluten from having such an adverse reaction. It used to be that bread was fermented. The dough was a living, breathing colony. In more recent years, to speed up the bread making process, instead of allowing the natural bacteria in the water supply to thrive in the wheat and change it - they instead use \"clean\" additives, such as yeast. Due to this, there are various nutrients that used to be in bread that aren't any more, so manufacturers have also added fortifications in also, to make up for those that were missing and actually have it be nutritious. TLDR: The bread we eat now isn't really anything like the bread our bodies evolved with.\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 after 5000 years of humanity surviving off of bread do we have so many people within the last decade who are entirely allergic to gluten?\n\nA: Reddit has a weird hate boner about gluten, so a lot of folks are going to tell you the rise in allergies is psychosomatic. That's not true: > For reasons that remain largely unexplained, the incidence of celiac disease has increased more than fourfold in the past sixty years. Researchers initially attributed the growing number of cases to greater public awareness and better diagnoses. But neither can fully account for the leap since 1950. Murray and his colleagues at the Mayo Clinic discovered the increase almost by accident. Murray wanted to examine the long-term effects of undiagnosed celiac disease. To do that, he analyzed blood samples that had been taken from nine thousand Air Force recruits between 1948 and 1954. The researchers looked for antibodies to an enzyme called transglutaminase; they are a reliable marker for celiac disease. **Murray assumed that one per cent of the soldiers would test positive, matching the current celiac rate. Instead, the team found the antibodies in the blood of just two-tenths of one per cent of the soldiers.** Then they compared the results with samples taken recently from demographically similar groups of twenty- and seventy-year-old men. In both groups, the biochemical markers were present in about one per cent of the samples. The whole article is interesting, and it's well reported (it's from the New Yorker, not some sketchy clickbait \"GlutenAlert365.com\" meme your aunt posts on Facebook).\n\nB: There's a great Netflix 4-part documentary called Cooked that delves into this. The documentary series 4 parts were titled Earth, Air, Fire & Water, and it looked at an anthropological history of our diets and hunting/eating/cooking rituals. The Air episode was all about bread, and about how it has been a staple of our diets for so long. Their postulate was that for the vast majority of people, gluten isn't the issue. Sure there are some people for whom the gluten is the problem, they just assume it is because modern bread doesn't agree with them because of the accelerated processes they use to make it. Or perhaps there used to be something in bread that prevented gluten from having such an adverse reaction. It used to be that bread was fermented. The dough was a living, breathing colony. In more recent years, to speed up the bread making process, instead of allowing the natural bacteria in the water supply to thrive in the wheat and change it - they instead use \"clean\" additives, such as yeast. Due to this, there are various nutrients that used to be in bread that aren't any more, so manufacturers have also added fortifications in also, to make up for those that were missing and actually have it be nutritious. TLDR: The bread we eat now isn't really anything like the bread our bodies evolved with.\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:How after 5000 years of humanity surviving off of bread do we have so many people within the last decade who are entirely allergic to gluten?\n\nA: a little off topic : one thing I read a long time ago in nature before the anti-gluten trend we're seeing. It was an article about fibre in our modern western diets. and how we lack a lot of fibre in our diets and how the lack of fibre causes the lower intestines to not be healthy, getting swollen and enflamed. When the lower intestines get to this stage, gluten can and has been shown to pass through the walls into the blood stream. At that point, once past the barrier, problems occur. It was a good read and I'm sure I'm paraphrasing it way wrong, but what I took from it, because our diets are bad in one way it's causing other problems to appear. And you didn't have to have an allergy or Celiacs to see some of the problems appearing. note: I think this is very different then the trend we are seeing today where everybody is afraid of the \"glutens\" I'd love to find that old magazine or online version to re-read it and see how relevant it is.\n\nB: There's a great Netflix 4-part documentary called Cooked that delves into this. The documentary series 4 parts were titled Earth, Air, Fire & Water, and it looked at an anthropological history of our diets and hunting/eating/cooking rituals. The Air episode was all about bread, and about how it has been a staple of our diets for so long. Their postulate was that for the vast majority of people, gluten isn't the issue. Sure there are some people for whom the gluten is the problem, they just assume it is because modern bread doesn't agree with them because of the accelerated processes they use to make it. Or perhaps there used to be something in bread that prevented gluten from having such an adverse reaction. It used to be that bread was fermented. The dough was a living, breathing colony. In more recent years, to speed up the bread making process, instead of allowing the natural bacteria in the water supply to thrive in the wheat and change it - they instead use \"clean\" additives, such as yeast. Due to this, there are various nutrients that used to be in bread that aren't any more, so manufacturers have also added fortifications in also, to make up for those that were missing and actually have it be nutritious. TLDR: The bread we eat now isn't really anything like the bread our bodies evolved with.\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 after 5000 years of humanity surviving off of bread do we have so many people within the last decade who are entirely allergic to gluten?\n\nA: There's a great Netflix 4-part documentary called Cooked that delves into this. The documentary series 4 parts were titled Earth, Air, Fire & Water, and it looked at an anthropological history of our diets and hunting/eating/cooking rituals. The Air episode was all about bread, and about how it has been a staple of our diets for so long. Their postulate was that for the vast majority of people, gluten isn't the issue. Sure there are some people for whom the gluten is the problem, they just assume it is because modern bread doesn't agree with them because of the accelerated processes they use to make it. Or perhaps there used to be something in bread that prevented gluten from having such an adverse reaction. It used to be that bread was fermented. The dough was a living, breathing colony. In more recent years, to speed up the bread making process, instead of allowing the natural bacteria in the water supply to thrive in the wheat and change it - they instead use \"clean\" additives, such as yeast. Due to this, there are various nutrients that used to be in bread that aren't any more, so manufacturers have also added fortifications in also, to make up for those that were missing and actually have it be nutritious. TLDR: The bread we eat now isn't really anything like the bread our bodies evolved with.\n\nB: The wheat of today and the wheat of our ancestors is vastly different in terms of constitution, cultivation and processing. It has been hybridized for greater yield, bathed in pesticides and then largely stripped of its remaining nutrition to produce the ubiquitous wheat flour that is in a huge percentage of our foods today. Our bodies have had essentially 1-2 generations to adapt to this largely new food product that has more differences than similarities to the ancient grain and subsequent processing our ancestor's bodies were accustomed to. Also, ITT people are conflating true wheat (gluten) allergy with wheat (gluten) sensitivity. These are matters of degree and have significant differences. edit: sp\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 after 5000 years of humanity surviving off of bread do we have so many people within the last decade who are entirely allergic to gluten?\n\nA: A documentary was made for this exact question. It's called Cooked: Air. From what I remember, it basically said that the way we make bread has changed drastically in the past 200 years (wonder bread, pure white flour, instant yeast, etc.) and that is what has caused people's \"gluten allergies,\" not to be confused with Celiac's disease. It says that the original way to make bread, with homemade flour and long periods of fermentation, is better for people, and that most people aren't allergic to it.\n\nB: Probably the same reason people are lactose intolerant. Unless milk could actually out right kill them, they stay in the gene pool. I've been drinking milk since I was a kid. Had bad cramps every day. But since every kid eats cereal for breakfast, milk being the culprit never dawned on me. Suddenly lactose-free milk comes out, I suddenly find that moo juice was the cause. I'm sure generations have suffered the same fate before me.\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 after 5000 years of humanity surviving off of bread do we have so many people within the last decade who are entirely allergic to gluten?\n\nA: A documentary was made for this exact question. It's called Cooked: Air. From what I remember, it basically said that the way we make bread has changed drastically in the past 200 years (wonder bread, pure white flour, instant yeast, etc.) and that is what has caused people's \"gluten allergies,\" not to be confused with Celiac's disease. It says that the original way to make bread, with homemade flour and long periods of fermentation, is better for people, and that most people aren't allergic to it.\n\nB: Reddit has a weird hate boner about gluten, so a lot of folks are going to tell you the rise in allergies is psychosomatic. That's not true: > For reasons that remain largely unexplained, the incidence of celiac disease has increased more than fourfold in the past sixty years. Researchers initially attributed the growing number of cases to greater public awareness and better diagnoses. But neither can fully account for the leap since 1950. Murray and his colleagues at the Mayo Clinic discovered the increase almost by accident. Murray wanted to examine the long-term effects of undiagnosed celiac disease. To do that, he analyzed blood samples that had been taken from nine thousand Air Force recruits between 1948 and 1954. The researchers looked for antibodies to an enzyme called transglutaminase; they are a reliable marker for celiac disease. **Murray assumed that one per cent of the soldiers would test positive, matching the current celiac rate. Instead, the team found the antibodies in the blood of just two-tenths of one per cent of the soldiers.** Then they compared the results with samples taken recently from demographically similar groups of twenty- and seventy-year-old men. In both groups, the biochemical markers were present in about one per cent of the samples. The whole article is interesting, and it's well reported (it's from the New Yorker, not some sketchy clickbait \"GlutenAlert365.com\" meme your aunt posts on Facebook).\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 after 5000 years of humanity surviving off of bread do we have so many people within the last decade who are entirely allergic to gluten?\n\nA: a little off topic : one thing I read a long time ago in nature before the anti-gluten trend we're seeing. It was an article about fibre in our modern western diets. and how we lack a lot of fibre in our diets and how the lack of fibre causes the lower intestines to not be healthy, getting swollen and enflamed. When the lower intestines get to this stage, gluten can and has been shown to pass through the walls into the blood stream. At that point, once past the barrier, problems occur. It was a good read and I'm sure I'm paraphrasing it way wrong, but what I took from it, because our diets are bad in one way it's causing other problems to appear. And you didn't have to have an allergy or Celiacs to see some of the problems appearing. note: I think this is very different then the trend we are seeing today where everybody is afraid of the \"glutens\" I'd love to find that old magazine or online version to re-read it and see how relevant it is.\n\nB: A documentary was made for this exact question. It's called Cooked: Air. From what I remember, it basically said that the way we make bread has changed drastically in the past 200 years (wonder bread, pure white flour, instant yeast, etc.) and that is what has caused people's \"gluten allergies,\" not to be confused with Celiac's disease. It says that the original way to make bread, with homemade flour and long periods of fermentation, is better for people, and that most people aren't allergic to it.\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 after 5000 years of humanity surviving off of bread do we have so many people within the last decade who are entirely allergic to gluten?\n\nA: A documentary was made for this exact question. It's called Cooked: Air. From what I remember, it basically said that the way we make bread has changed drastically in the past 200 years (wonder bread, pure white flour, instant yeast, etc.) and that is what has caused people's \"gluten allergies,\" not to be confused with Celiac's disease. It says that the original way to make bread, with homemade flour and long periods of fermentation, is better for people, and that most people aren't allergic to it.\n\nB: The wheat of today and the wheat of our ancestors is vastly different in terms of constitution, cultivation and processing. It has been hybridized for greater yield, bathed in pesticides and then largely stripped of its remaining nutrition to produce the ubiquitous wheat flour that is in a huge percentage of our foods today. Our bodies have had essentially 1-2 generations to adapt to this largely new food product that has more differences than similarities to the ancient grain and subsequent processing our ancestor's bodies were accustomed to. Also, ITT people are conflating true wheat (gluten) allergy with wheat (gluten) sensitivity. These are matters of degree and have significant differences. edit: sp\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 after 5000 years of humanity surviving off of bread do we have so many people within the last decade who are entirely allergic to gluten?\n\nA: Probably the same reason people are lactose intolerant. Unless milk could actually out right kill them, they stay in the gene pool. I've been drinking milk since I was a kid. Had bad cramps every day. But since every kid eats cereal for breakfast, milk being the culprit never dawned on me. Suddenly lactose-free milk comes out, I suddenly find that moo juice was the cause. I'm sure generations have suffered the same fate before me.\n\nB: Reddit has a weird hate boner about gluten, so a lot of folks are going to tell you the rise in allergies is psychosomatic. That's not true: > For reasons that remain largely unexplained, the incidence of celiac disease has increased more than fourfold in the past sixty years. Researchers initially attributed the growing number of cases to greater public awareness and better diagnoses. But neither can fully account for the leap since 1950. Murray and his colleagues at the Mayo Clinic discovered the increase almost by accident. Murray wanted to examine the long-term effects of undiagnosed celiac disease. To do that, he analyzed blood samples that had been taken from nine thousand Air Force recruits between 1948 and 1954. The researchers looked for antibodies to an enzyme called transglutaminase; they are a reliable marker for celiac disease. **Murray assumed that one per cent of the soldiers would test positive, matching the current celiac rate. Instead, the team found the antibodies in the blood of just two-tenths of one per cent of the soldiers.** Then they compared the results with samples taken recently from demographically similar groups of twenty- and seventy-year-old men. In both groups, the biochemical markers were present in about one per cent of the samples. The whole article is interesting, and it's well reported (it's from the New Yorker, not some sketchy clickbait \"GlutenAlert365.com\" meme your aunt posts on Facebook).\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 after 5000 years of humanity surviving off of bread do we have so many people within the last decade who are entirely allergic to gluten?\n\nA: The wheat of today and the wheat of our ancestors is vastly different in terms of constitution, cultivation and processing. It has been hybridized for greater yield, bathed in pesticides and then largely stripped of its remaining nutrition to produce the ubiquitous wheat flour that is in a huge percentage of our foods today. Our bodies have had essentially 1-2 generations to adapt to this largely new food product that has more differences than similarities to the ancient grain and subsequent processing our ancestor's bodies were accustomed to. Also, ITT people are conflating true wheat (gluten) allergy with wheat (gluten) sensitivity. These are matters of degree and have significant differences. edit: sp\n\nB: a little off topic : one thing I read a long time ago in nature before the anti-gluten trend we're seeing. It was an article about fibre in our modern western diets. and how we lack a lot of fibre in our diets and how the lack of fibre causes the lower intestines to not be healthy, getting swollen and enflamed. When the lower intestines get to this stage, gluten can and has been shown to pass through the walls into the blood stream. At that point, once past the barrier, problems occur. It was a good read and I'm sure I'm paraphrasing it way wrong, but what I took from it, because our diets are bad in one way it's causing other problems to appear. And you didn't have to have an allergy or Celiacs to see some of the problems appearing. note: I think this is very different then the trend we are seeing today where everybody is afraid of the \"glutens\" I'd love to find that old magazine or online version to re-read it and see how relevant it 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 did we get to the point where laptops and smartphones are in the same price range?\n\nA: The difference is that most people are buying the top spec smartphones ($1000+), but not nearly as many people buy top spec laptops ($2500+).\n\nB: Demand for fancier phones with bigger screens and better cameras = higher cost, more people willing to pay for them. That being said, this is only true if you're comparing very specific subsets of price ranges. Laptops are still notably more expensive. Unless you're say, comparing a middle of the road phone to a low end laptop which isn't really a fair comparison. Looking at only big namebrands here to remove extreme outliers. A low-end smartphone (Samsung Galaxy A10) might be $120. A low-end laptop (Asus Chromebook C523) might be $240. A top-end smartphone (iPhone XS Max) might be $1500. A top-end laptop might be anywhere from $2500 for a more general purpose high-performer (High end macbook pro) or $3200+ for a high-end gaming laptop with a high-end display (ASUS ROG Zephyrus S GX701)\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 did we get to the point where laptops and smartphones are in the same price range?\n\nA: A smartphone is a handheld computer that does most of the computing you need at any given moment of the day, occasionally you can use it to make phone calls. A laptop is a more powerful computer, usually, that allows you to do the stuff you can't do with the smartphone. You pay what you pay for a smartphone for the convenience and you pay what you do for a laptop for what it offers. I like having a computer that can also make phone calls in my pocket throughout the day, having a laptop for school/work, and having a desktop setup for everything else.\n\nB: The difference is that most people are buying the top spec smartphones ($1000+), but not nearly as many people buy top spec laptops ($2500+).\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 did we get to the point where laptops and smartphones are in the same price range?\n\nA: Why aren’t smartphones getting cheaper? I remember buying my first big screen TV, a 1080p 50” plasma for almost $2k. Now all TV’s are much better and much cheaper. Smartphones? The iPhone I bought years ago was cheaper than the iPhones now. Maddening.\n\nB: The difference is that most people are buying the top spec smartphones ($1000+), but not nearly as many people buy top spec laptops ($2500+).\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: So how does the the human brain ignore the second the?\n\nA: Short version: Our brains are tuned for pattern recognition and prediction, not detail. That's also why things that break the expected pattern/outcome can be so jarring. Sometimes it's in a fun way, though. See movie twists, stage magic, joke punchlines and so on. It's a filtering mechanism. Ignore the leaves, see the broken up/partial shape or movement of the predator hiding behind them.\n\nB: We're too used to reading English that we don't actually read every word, but the sentence as a whole. (When I was learning Spanish in school I had to read every word and then combine them to understand what it means)\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 can people walk many miles without discomfort, but when they stand for more than 15 minutes or so, they get uncomfortable?\n\nA: When you stand, the same muscles in your feet fire repeatedly as the pressure on them remains constant. However, when you walk about, the pressure shifts to and from different areas of your foot as the same muscles aren’t working all the time. If you have a sore area on your foot, walking will be less painful than standing as the pressure is on the area for less time\n\nB: I work at a vein surgeon's office. I actually asked him this. Basically, when you are standing, blood flow slows and \"pools\" in your legs due to gravity. But when you walk, your muscles contract and push the blood in your veins and vessels back up into your upper body. On the side note, seasoned military personnels are able to stand at ease for long periods of time because they are actually swaying back and forth very slowly in micro-movements to contract their muscles and relieve the tingling and numb sensation you get when you keep standing for long periods of time. Edit: As others have suggested, not locking your knees is also key Edit 2: As others have mentioned, micro movements could be flexing your calves, distributing weight back and forth between your heels and toes, wiggling your toes, etc. Edit 3: If you have persistent leg problems even without prolonged standing and even after conservative measures (compression stockings, exercise, etc.), I would recommend getting a referral to a vein specialist from your PCP (in the US) to get it properly treated. You may just have bad veins. Whoa! My very first gold. Thank you stranger 😝\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 people walk many miles without discomfort, but when they stand for more than 15 minutes or so, they get uncomfortable?\n\nA: Your leg veins have one way valves in them. They work when the skeletal muscles around them contract and release. When you are walking around, the flexion/relaxation of the walking muscles are literally pumping the blood back to your torso. When you are standing still, you aren't getting that pumping action naturally. You *could* flex/release your legs intentionally, while standing, but it's not nearly as effective as walking is. Hope that makes sense!\n\nB: I work at a vein surgeon's office. I actually asked him this. Basically, when you are standing, blood flow slows and \"pools\" in your legs due to gravity. But when you walk, your muscles contract and push the blood in your veins and vessels back up into your upper body. On the side note, seasoned military personnels are able to stand at ease for long periods of time because they are actually swaying back and forth very slowly in micro-movements to contract their muscles and relieve the tingling and numb sensation you get when you keep standing for long periods of time. Edit: As others have suggested, not locking your knees is also key Edit 2: As others have mentioned, micro movements could be flexing your calves, distributing weight back and forth between your heels and toes, wiggling your toes, etc. Edit 3: If you have persistent leg problems even without prolonged standing and even after conservative measures (compression stockings, exercise, etc.), I would recommend getting a referral to a vein specialist from your PCP (in the US) to get it properly treated. You may just have bad veins. Whoa! My very first gold. Thank you stranger 😝\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 can people walk many miles without discomfort, but when they stand for more than 15 minutes or so, they get uncomfortable?\n\nA: I work at a vein surgeon's office. I actually asked him this. Basically, when you are standing, blood flow slows and \"pools\" in your legs due to gravity. But when you walk, your muscles contract and push the blood in your veins and vessels back up into your upper body. On the side note, seasoned military personnels are able to stand at ease for long periods of time because they are actually swaying back and forth very slowly in micro-movements to contract their muscles and relieve the tingling and numb sensation you get when you keep standing for long periods of time. Edit: As others have suggested, not locking your knees is also key Edit 2: As others have mentioned, micro movements could be flexing your calves, distributing weight back and forth between your heels and toes, wiggling your toes, etc. Edit 3: If you have persistent leg problems even without prolonged standing and even after conservative measures (compression stockings, exercise, etc.), I would recommend getting a referral to a vein specialist from your PCP (in the US) to get it properly treated. You may just have bad veins. Whoa! My very first gold. Thank you stranger 😝\n\nB: Walking increases blood flow. Standing causes it to pool in your legs. More blood flow means more oxygen to the muscles and more efficient removal of edit: lactic acid buildup. Standing also means keeping your muscles rigid, which is much more stressful on them than simply moving, where periods of contraction and release have points where less energy is being used. If you want an example, try doing slow curls vs fast curls. Your muscles will fatigue faster from slow tension than quick tension. edit: This really applies to any muscle groups used in moving around.\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 can people walk many miles without discomfort, but when they stand for more than 15 minutes or so, they get uncomfortable?\n\nA: I work at a vein surgeon's office. I actually asked him this. Basically, when you are standing, blood flow slows and \"pools\" in your legs due to gravity. But when you walk, your muscles contract and push the blood in your veins and vessels back up into your upper body. On the side note, seasoned military personnels are able to stand at ease for long periods of time because they are actually swaying back and forth very slowly in micro-movements to contract their muscles and relieve the tingling and numb sensation you get when you keep standing for long periods of time. Edit: As others have suggested, not locking your knees is also key Edit 2: As others have mentioned, micro movements could be flexing your calves, distributing weight back and forth between your heels and toes, wiggling your toes, etc. Edit 3: If you have persistent leg problems even without prolonged standing and even after conservative measures (compression stockings, exercise, etc.), I would recommend getting a referral to a vein specialist from your PCP (in the US) to get it properly treated. You may just have bad veins. Whoa! My very first gold. Thank you stranger 😝\n\nB: Also your mind is more active as you walk so it's focused less on discomfort. Different hormones are released too and this also affects the way your brain is working in response to discomfort. So me boxers continue fighting with a broken hand. Some runners with sprains and maybe fractures. Sometimes people who just work hard forget to eat.\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 can people walk many miles without discomfort, but when they stand for more than 15 minutes or so, they get uncomfortable?\n\nA: Blood in your body is pumped by the heart. This moves it out, away from your heart. The blood vessels that lead away from your heart have valves that keep the blood from flowing backwards. As blood reaches the farthest part of your body it is separated into many tiny tubes that supply all the parts of your body. This causes the blood to slow down A LOT. When blood goes to return to the heart there are valves in the in those blood vessels which help to prevent blood from flowing backwards. Also, because it has now slowed down it does not move back to the heart very easily, the forward pressure is much lower than in your arteries. This allows gravity to overcome them and allow blood to flow backwards (this is less common in a healthy person). The tubes in your legs that send blood back to the heart are surrounded by your leg muscles. When you walk they are squeezed and this pushes the blood back to your heart. Without the extra pressure from your leg muscles pumping it can be difficult to overcome the force of gravity pulling downwards on the blood. When you stand those muscles aren't pushing the blood so it becomes harder to move it. This means that the old, used up blood, is stuck in the lowest point of your body. This is your feet. Because the blood is used up it has no oxygen to keep the muscles in your feet healthy. When your body senses there is not enough oxygen it sends signals to your brain that trick it into thinking there is pain. This causes you to try and move the part of the body that is in pain which ideally allows fresh blood to flow in with new oxygen. This is also why it feels like your chest burns when you hold your breath.\n\nB: I work at a vein surgeon's office. I actually asked him this. Basically, when you are standing, blood flow slows and \"pools\" in your legs due to gravity. But when you walk, your muscles contract and push the blood in your veins and vessels back up into your upper body. On the side note, seasoned military personnels are able to stand at ease for long periods of time because they are actually swaying back and forth very slowly in micro-movements to contract their muscles and relieve the tingling and numb sensation you get when you keep standing for long periods of time. Edit: As others have suggested, not locking your knees is also key Edit 2: As others have mentioned, micro movements could be flexing your calves, distributing weight back and forth between your heels and toes, wiggling your toes, etc. Edit 3: If you have persistent leg problems even without prolonged standing and even after conservative measures (compression stockings, exercise, etc.), I would recommend getting a referral to a vein specialist from your PCP (in the US) to get it properly treated. You may just have bad veins. Whoa! My very first gold. Thank you stranger 😝\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 can people walk many miles without discomfort, but when they stand for more than 15 minutes or so, they get uncomfortable?\n\nA: Walking increases blood flow. Standing causes it to pool in your legs. More blood flow means more oxygen to the muscles and more efficient removal of edit: lactic acid buildup. Standing also means keeping your muscles rigid, which is much more stressful on them than simply moving, where periods of contraction and release have points where less energy is being used. If you want an example, try doing slow curls vs fast curls. Your muscles will fatigue faster from slow tension than quick tension. edit: This really applies to any muscle groups used in moving around.\n\nB: Your leg veins have one way valves in them. They work when the skeletal muscles around them contract and release. When you are walking around, the flexion/relaxation of the walking muscles are literally pumping the blood back to your torso. When you are standing still, you aren't getting that pumping action naturally. You *could* flex/release your legs intentionally, while standing, but it's not nearly as effective as walking is. Hope that makes sense!\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 can people walk many miles without discomfort, but when they stand for more than 15 minutes or so, they get uncomfortable?\n\nA: Also your mind is more active as you walk so it's focused less on discomfort. Different hormones are released too and this also affects the way your brain is working in response to discomfort. So me boxers continue fighting with a broken hand. Some runners with sprains and maybe fractures. Sometimes people who just work hard forget to eat.\n\nB: Your leg veins have one way valves in them. They work when the skeletal muscles around them contract and release. When you are walking around, the flexion/relaxation of the walking muscles are literally pumping the blood back to your torso. When you are standing still, you aren't getting that pumping action naturally. You *could* flex/release your legs intentionally, while standing, but it's not nearly as effective as walking is. Hope that makes sense!\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 can people walk many miles without discomfort, but when they stand for more than 15 minutes or so, they get uncomfortable?\n\nA: Your leg veins have one way valves in them. They work when the skeletal muscles around them contract and release. When you are walking around, the flexion/relaxation of the walking muscles are literally pumping the blood back to your torso. When you are standing still, you aren't getting that pumping action naturally. You *could* flex/release your legs intentionally, while standing, but it's not nearly as effective as walking is. Hope that makes sense!\n\nB: Blood in your body is pumped by the heart. This moves it out, away from your heart. The blood vessels that lead away from your heart have valves that keep the blood from flowing backwards. As blood reaches the farthest part of your body it is separated into many tiny tubes that supply all the parts of your body. This causes the blood to slow down A LOT. When blood goes to return to the heart there are valves in the in those blood vessels which help to prevent blood from flowing backwards. Also, because it has now slowed down it does not move back to the heart very easily, the forward pressure is much lower than in your arteries. This allows gravity to overcome them and allow blood to flow backwards (this is less common in a healthy person). The tubes in your legs that send blood back to the heart are surrounded by your leg muscles. When you walk they are squeezed and this pushes the blood back to your heart. Without the extra pressure from your leg muscles pumping it can be difficult to overcome the force of gravity pulling downwards on the blood. When you stand those muscles aren't pushing the blood so it becomes harder to move it. This means that the old, used up blood, is stuck in the lowest point of your body. This is your feet. Because the blood is used up it has no oxygen to keep the muscles in your feet healthy. When your body senses there is not enough oxygen it sends signals to your brain that trick it into thinking there is pain. This causes you to try and move the part of the body that is in pain which ideally allows fresh blood to flow in with new oxygen. This is also why it feels like your chest burns when you hold your breath.\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 people walk many miles without discomfort, but when they stand for more than 15 minutes or so, they get uncomfortable?\n\nA: Walking increases blood flow. Standing causes it to pool in your legs. More blood flow means more oxygen to the muscles and more efficient removal of edit: lactic acid buildup. Standing also means keeping your muscles rigid, which is much more stressful on them than simply moving, where periods of contraction and release have points where less energy is being used. If you want an example, try doing slow curls vs fast curls. Your muscles will fatigue faster from slow tension than quick tension. edit: This really applies to any muscle groups used in moving around.\n\nB: Also your mind is more active as you walk so it's focused less on discomfort. Different hormones are released too and this also affects the way your brain is working in response to discomfort. So me boxers continue fighting with a broken hand. Some runners with sprains and maybe fractures. Sometimes people who just work hard forget to eat.\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 people walk many miles without discomfort, but when they stand for more than 15 minutes or so, they get uncomfortable?\n\nA: Walking increases blood flow. Standing causes it to pool in your legs. More blood flow means more oxygen to the muscles and more efficient removal of edit: lactic acid buildup. Standing also means keeping your muscles rigid, which is much more stressful on them than simply moving, where periods of contraction and release have points where less energy is being used. If you want an example, try doing slow curls vs fast curls. Your muscles will fatigue faster from slow tension than quick tension. edit: This really applies to any muscle groups used in moving around.\n\nB: Blood in your body is pumped by the heart. This moves it out, away from your heart. The blood vessels that lead away from your heart have valves that keep the blood from flowing backwards. As blood reaches the farthest part of your body it is separated into many tiny tubes that supply all the parts of your body. This causes the blood to slow down A LOT. When blood goes to return to the heart there are valves in the in those blood vessels which help to prevent blood from flowing backwards. Also, because it has now slowed down it does not move back to the heart very easily, the forward pressure is much lower than in your arteries. This allows gravity to overcome them and allow blood to flow backwards (this is less common in a healthy person). The tubes in your legs that send blood back to the heart are surrounded by your leg muscles. When you walk they are squeezed and this pushes the blood back to your heart. Without the extra pressure from your leg muscles pumping it can be difficult to overcome the force of gravity pulling downwards on the blood. When you stand those muscles aren't pushing the blood so it becomes harder to move it. This means that the old, used up blood, is stuck in the lowest point of your body. This is your feet. Because the blood is used up it has no oxygen to keep the muscles in your feet healthy. When your body senses there is not enough oxygen it sends signals to your brain that trick it into thinking there is pain. This causes you to try and move the part of the body that is in pain which ideally allows fresh blood to flow in with new oxygen. This is also why it feels like your chest burns when you hold your breath.\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 people walk many miles without discomfort, but when they stand for more than 15 minutes or so, they get uncomfortable?\n\nA: Also your mind is more active as you walk so it's focused less on discomfort. Different hormones are released too and this also affects the way your brain is working in response to discomfort. So me boxers continue fighting with a broken hand. Some runners with sprains and maybe fractures. Sometimes people who just work hard forget to eat.\n\nB: A lot of the answers on here are focused on blood flow which is great but it misses a big part of it. Your joints are lubricated by their joint fluid (synovial fluid). The way the get new fluid and nutrients is through movement. When you stand still the fluid is not refreshed and it tends to dry out in a sense. This makes joints painful and causes that stiff feeling when you try to start moving again. Shortly after moving the fluid and nutrients are replenished and things move again. Circulation is a big part but joint movement is what provides the fluid flow. If you kept your joints still and contracted the muscles to get blood flowing you would still feel the majority of stiffness and aches.\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 can people walk many miles without discomfort, but when they stand for more than 15 minutes or so, they get uncomfortable?\n\nA: A lot of the answers on here are focused on blood flow which is great but it misses a big part of it. Your joints are lubricated by their joint fluid (synovial fluid). The way the get new fluid and nutrients is through movement. When you stand still the fluid is not refreshed and it tends to dry out in a sense. This makes joints painful and causes that stiff feeling when you try to start moving again. Shortly after moving the fluid and nutrients are replenished and things move again. Circulation is a big part but joint movement is what provides the fluid flow. If you kept your joints still and contracted the muscles to get blood flowing you would still feel the majority of stiffness and aches.\n\nB: Blood in your body is pumped by the heart. This moves it out, away from your heart. The blood vessels that lead away from your heart have valves that keep the blood from flowing backwards. As blood reaches the farthest part of your body it is separated into many tiny tubes that supply all the parts of your body. This causes the blood to slow down A LOT. When blood goes to return to the heart there are valves in the in those blood vessels which help to prevent blood from flowing backwards. Also, because it has now slowed down it does not move back to the heart very easily, the forward pressure is much lower than in your arteries. This allows gravity to overcome them and allow blood to flow backwards (this is less common in a healthy person). The tubes in your legs that send blood back to the heart are surrounded by your leg muscles. When you walk they are squeezed and this pushes the blood back to your heart. Without the extra pressure from your leg muscles pumping it can be difficult to overcome the force of gravity pulling downwards on the blood. When you stand those muscles aren't pushing the blood so it becomes harder to move it. This means that the old, used up blood, is stuck in the lowest point of your body. This is your feet. Because the blood is used up it has no oxygen to keep the muscles in your feet healthy. When your body senses there is not enough oxygen it sends signals to your brain that trick it into thinking there is pain. This causes you to try and move the part of the body that is in pain which ideally allows fresh blood to flow in with new oxygen. This is also why it feels like your chest burns when you hold your breath.\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 can people walk many miles without discomfort, but when they stand for more than 15 minutes or so, they get uncomfortable?\n\nA: A lot of the answers on here are focused on blood flow which is great but it misses a big part of it. Your joints are lubricated by their joint fluid (synovial fluid). The way the get new fluid and nutrients is through movement. When you stand still the fluid is not refreshed and it tends to dry out in a sense. This makes joints painful and causes that stiff feeling when you try to start moving again. Shortly after moving the fluid and nutrients are replenished and things move again. Circulation is a big part but joint movement is what provides the fluid flow. If you kept your joints still and contracted the muscles to get blood flowing you would still feel the majority of stiffness and aches.\n\nB: Surgeon here. It all has to do with physiologic load. We are not anatomically designed to accommodate static (standing in one position) loads for an extended period of time. None of our load-bearing tissues (primarily bone) have rigid viscoelastic properties sufficient to withstand static stress (bone is actually a relatively soft material compared to metal etc). Walking,or even shifting weight while standing, will redistribute our body's load on the weight bearing tissues in our legs and allows those tissues to 'recover' during the phase when the body position changes.\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: There are infinite numbers between 0 and 1. There are also infinite numbers between 0 and 2. There would more numbers between 0 and 2. How can a set of infinite numbers be bigger than another infinite set?\n\nA: Here's a way to see that there are the same \"size\". We're going to show that for each number between 0 and 1, there exists a number between 0 and 2, and vice versa. 1. Pick any number between 0 and 1. 2. Multiply it by 2. 3. You now have a number between 0 and 2. 4. Vice versa, pick any number between 0 and 2 5. Divide it by 2. 6. You now ave a number between 0 and 1. This works both for the case of rational and real numbers. We just constructed a so-called bijection between the intervals \\[0,1\\] and \\[0,2\\].\n\nB: I think the problem is you are thinking of \"infinite\" to be \"a very big number\". It is not a very big number, it's a different kind of thing. A similar problem exists with zero, in that it's not just \"a really small number\", it's actually zero. For example if I take a really small number like 0.0000001 and double it, I get 0.0000002. If I take 0 and double it, I still get zero. 2x0 is not bigger than 1x0. If I have an infinite number of numbers between 0 and 1, then they are separated by 0. If I double all of those numbers, then they are separated by 2x0, so they are still separated by 0. Edit: thanks for the kind words and shiny tokens of appreciation. This is now my second highest voted post after a well timed Hot Fuzz quote, I guess that's what reddit is like.\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: There are infinite numbers between 0 and 1. There are also infinite numbers between 0 and 2. There would more numbers between 0 and 2. How can a set of infinite numbers be bigger than another infinite set?\n\nA: Your intuition for size comes from the structure of intervals, rather than the amount of elements they have. The intervals [0, 1] and [0, 2] have the same quantity of points, because you can pair them up. However, the interval [0, 2] is twice as long as the interval [0, 1]. The particular elements within [0, 2] and their relation to each other is what gives it that length, not the amount of elements.\n\nB: I think the problem is you are thinking of \"infinite\" to be \"a very big number\". It is not a very big number, it's a different kind of thing. A similar problem exists with zero, in that it's not just \"a really small number\", it's actually zero. For example if I take a really small number like 0.0000001 and double it, I get 0.0000002. If I take 0 and double it, I still get zero. 2x0 is not bigger than 1x0. If I have an infinite number of numbers between 0 and 1, then they are separated by 0. If I double all of those numbers, then they are separated by 2x0, so they are still separated by 0. Edit: thanks for the kind words and shiny tokens of appreciation. This is now my second highest voted post after a well timed Hot Fuzz quote, I guess that's what reddit is like.\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: There are infinite numbers between 0 and 1. There are also infinite numbers between 0 and 2. There would more numbers between 0 and 2. How can a set of infinite numbers be bigger than another infinite set?\n\nA: I think the problem is you are thinking of \"infinite\" to be \"a very big number\". It is not a very big number, it's a different kind of thing. A similar problem exists with zero, in that it's not just \"a really small number\", it's actually zero. For example if I take a really small number like 0.0000001 and double it, I get 0.0000002. If I take 0 and double it, I still get zero. 2x0 is not bigger than 1x0. If I have an infinite number of numbers between 0 and 1, then they are separated by 0. If I double all of those numbers, then they are separated by 2x0, so they are still separated by 0. Edit: thanks for the kind words and shiny tokens of appreciation. This is now my second highest voted post after a well timed Hot Fuzz quote, I guess that's what reddit is like.\n\nB: Well, two things are happening here. There are different kinds of infinities, some of which are larger than others. However, the number of real numbers between 0 and 1 is the same as the number of real numbers between 0 and 2. You can prove this second one by creating what's called a bijection - showing that for every member of group A there is exactly one member of group B. This is easier to show with another set but it does carry over into this situation. Let's say we're comparing every even number with every even AND odd number. It seems like the second one should be larger, right? But if we take every even number and divide it by two, we go from 0, 2, 4, 6... to 0, 1, 2, 3... That second set sure looks like the set of all even and odd numbers. The same thing applies here. If you take every real number between 0 and 2, and divide them all by 2, you get every real number between 0 and 1. There is also a way to show that some infinities are larger than others. This one is a bit harder to picture, but imagine a list of every real number between 0 and 1. This is every rational number, but also every irrational, every transcendental, every number that is between all of those forever. It's not obvious how you could sort such a list but let's say you just write down the numbers randomly. Well, this is a list that you can order 1, 2, 3 etc. Sure, it's infinite, but so is the list of counting numbers. Right now there's no obvious problem; if they're both infinite, you're good to say that they're the same size. However, we can do something that breaks this. Let's create a new number; the rule is that it's different from the first number in the first decimal place, different from the second number in the second decimal place, and so on forever. This is definitely a real number, meaning it should be on the list, but it's definitely not on the list, since it's different from every number on the list in at least one place. Even if you added this new number to the list, you could just do this again. What we've done is shown that, even if we use all the counting numbers, all infinity of them, we can still create numbers that are not on that list and for which there is no matching number. There are numbers left over after we've used all the counting numbers. Even though they're both infinite, there are *more* real numbers than there are counting numbers. I hope this makes sense.\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: There are infinite numbers between 0 and 1. There are also infinite numbers between 0 and 2. There would more numbers between 0 and 2. How can a set of infinite numbers be bigger than another infinite set?\n\nA: I think the problem is you are thinking of \"infinite\" to be \"a very big number\". It is not a very big number, it's a different kind of thing. A similar problem exists with zero, in that it's not just \"a really small number\", it's actually zero. For example if I take a really small number like 0.0000001 and double it, I get 0.0000002. If I take 0 and double it, I still get zero. 2x0 is not bigger than 1x0. If I have an infinite number of numbers between 0 and 1, then they are separated by 0. If I double all of those numbers, then they are separated by 2x0, so they are still separated by 0. Edit: thanks for the kind words and shiny tokens of appreciation. This is now my second highest voted post after a well timed Hot Fuzz quote, I guess that's what reddit is like.\n\nB: The concept of size that’s used for infinite sets is basically this: Two sets are the same size if you can pair the members from one up with the members of the other with no leftovers. You can do that with the two sets OP asked about, so they’re actually the same size. But you can’t do that with the set of all integers and the set of all numbers between 0 and 1.\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: There are infinite numbers between 0 and 1. There are also infinite numbers between 0 and 2. There would more numbers between 0 and 2. How can a set of infinite numbers be bigger than another infinite set?\n\nA: This is actually pretty interesting because there are the same number of numbers between 0 and 1 and 0 and 2. Vsauce did videos that explains this much better than I can in a reddit comment: Banach–Tarski Paradox, directly related to question, and How To Count Past Infinity\n\nB: I think the problem is you are thinking of \"infinite\" to be \"a very big number\". It is not a very big number, it's a different kind of thing. A similar problem exists with zero, in that it's not just \"a really small number\", it's actually zero. For example if I take a really small number like 0.0000001 and double it, I get 0.0000002. If I take 0 and double it, I still get zero. 2x0 is not bigger than 1x0. If I have an infinite number of numbers between 0 and 1, then they are separated by 0. If I double all of those numbers, then they are separated by 2x0, so they are still separated by 0. Edit: thanks for the kind words and shiny tokens of appreciation. This is now my second highest voted post after a well timed Hot Fuzz quote, I guess that's what reddit is like.\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: There are infinite numbers between 0 and 1. There are also infinite numbers between 0 and 2. There would more numbers between 0 and 2. How can a set of infinite numbers be bigger than another infinite set?\n\nA: Here's a way to see that there are the same \"size\". We're going to show that for each number between 0 and 1, there exists a number between 0 and 2, and vice versa. 1. Pick any number between 0 and 1. 2. Multiply it by 2. 3. You now have a number between 0 and 2. 4. Vice versa, pick any number between 0 and 2 5. Divide it by 2. 6. You now ave a number between 0 and 1. This works both for the case of rational and real numbers. We just constructed a so-called bijection between the intervals \\[0,1\\] and \\[0,2\\].\n\nB: This is actually pretty interesting because there are the same number of numbers between 0 and 1 and 0 and 2. Vsauce did videos that explains this much better than I can in a reddit comment: Banach–Tarski Paradox, directly related to question, and How To Count Past Infinity\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: There are infinite numbers between 0 and 1. There are also infinite numbers between 0 and 2. There would more numbers between 0 and 2. How can a set of infinite numbers be bigger than another infinite set?\n\nA: Well, two things are happening here. There are different kinds of infinities, some of which are larger than others. However, the number of real numbers between 0 and 1 is the same as the number of real numbers between 0 and 2. You can prove this second one by creating what's called a bijection - showing that for every member of group A there is exactly one member of group B. This is easier to show with another set but it does carry over into this situation. Let's say we're comparing every even number with every even AND odd number. It seems like the second one should be larger, right? But if we take every even number and divide it by two, we go from 0, 2, 4, 6... to 0, 1, 2, 3... That second set sure looks like the set of all even and odd numbers. The same thing applies here. If you take every real number between 0 and 2, and divide them all by 2, you get every real number between 0 and 1. There is also a way to show that some infinities are larger than others. This one is a bit harder to picture, but imagine a list of every real number between 0 and 1. This is every rational number, but also every irrational, every transcendental, every number that is between all of those forever. It's not obvious how you could sort such a list but let's say you just write down the numbers randomly. Well, this is a list that you can order 1, 2, 3 etc. Sure, it's infinite, but so is the list of counting numbers. Right now there's no obvious problem; if they're both infinite, you're good to say that they're the same size. However, we can do something that breaks this. Let's create a new number; the rule is that it's different from the first number in the first decimal place, different from the second number in the second decimal place, and so on forever. This is definitely a real number, meaning it should be on the list, but it's definitely not on the list, since it's different from every number on the list in at least one place. Even if you added this new number to the list, you could just do this again. What we've done is shown that, even if we use all the counting numbers, all infinity of them, we can still create numbers that are not on that list and for which there is no matching number. There are numbers left over after we've used all the counting numbers. Even though they're both infinite, there are *more* real numbers than there are counting numbers. I hope this makes sense.\n\nB: Your intuition for size comes from the structure of intervals, rather than the amount of elements they have. The intervals [0, 1] and [0, 2] have the same quantity of points, because you can pair them up. However, the interval [0, 2] is twice as long as the interval [0, 1]. The particular elements within [0, 2] and their relation to each other is what gives it that length, not the amount of elements.\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: There are infinite numbers between 0 and 1. There are also infinite numbers between 0 and 2. There would more numbers between 0 and 2. How can a set of infinite numbers be bigger than another infinite set?\n\nA: The concept of size that’s used for infinite sets is basically this: Two sets are the same size if you can pair the members from one up with the members of the other with no leftovers. You can do that with the two sets OP asked about, so they’re actually the same size. But you can’t do that with the set of all integers and the set of all numbers between 0 and 1.\n\nB: Your intuition for size comes from the structure of intervals, rather than the amount of elements they have. The intervals [0, 1] and [0, 2] have the same quantity of points, because you can pair them up. However, the interval [0, 2] is twice as long as the interval [0, 1]. The particular elements within [0, 2] and their relation to each other is what gives it that length, not the amount of elements.\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: There are infinite numbers between 0 and 1. There are also infinite numbers between 0 and 2. There would more numbers between 0 and 2. How can a set of infinite numbers be bigger than another infinite set?\n\nA: This is actually pretty interesting because there are the same number of numbers between 0 and 1 and 0 and 2. Vsauce did videos that explains this much better than I can in a reddit comment: Banach–Tarski Paradox, directly related to question, and How To Count Past Infinity\n\nB: Your intuition for size comes from the structure of intervals, rather than the amount of elements they have. The intervals [0, 1] and [0, 2] have the same quantity of points, because you can pair them up. However, the interval [0, 2] is twice as long as the interval [0, 1]. The particular elements within [0, 2] and their relation to each other is what gives it that length, not the amount of elements.\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: There are infinite numbers between 0 and 1. There are also infinite numbers between 0 and 2. There would more numbers between 0 and 2. How can a set of infinite numbers be bigger than another infinite set?\n\nA: This is actually pretty interesting because there are the same number of numbers between 0 and 1 and 0 and 2. Vsauce did videos that explains this much better than I can in a reddit comment: Banach–Tarski Paradox, directly related to question, and How To Count Past Infinity\n\nB: Well, two things are happening here. There are different kinds of infinities, some of which are larger than others. However, the number of real numbers between 0 and 1 is the same as the number of real numbers between 0 and 2. You can prove this second one by creating what's called a bijection - showing that for every member of group A there is exactly one member of group B. This is easier to show with another set but it does carry over into this situation. Let's say we're comparing every even number with every even AND odd number. It seems like the second one should be larger, right? But if we take every even number and divide it by two, we go from 0, 2, 4, 6... to 0, 1, 2, 3... That second set sure looks like the set of all even and odd numbers. The same thing applies here. If you take every real number between 0 and 2, and divide them all by 2, you get every real number between 0 and 1. There is also a way to show that some infinities are larger than others. This one is a bit harder to picture, but imagine a list of every real number between 0 and 1. This is every rational number, but also every irrational, every transcendental, every number that is between all of those forever. It's not obvious how you could sort such a list but let's say you just write down the numbers randomly. Well, this is a list that you can order 1, 2, 3 etc. Sure, it's infinite, but so is the list of counting numbers. Right now there's no obvious problem; if they're both infinite, you're good to say that they're the same size. However, we can do something that breaks this. Let's create a new number; the rule is that it's different from the first number in the first decimal place, different from the second number in the second decimal place, and so on forever. This is definitely a real number, meaning it should be on the list, but it's definitely not on the list, since it's different from every number on the list in at least one place. Even if you added this new number to the list, you could just do this again. What we've done is shown that, even if we use all the counting numbers, all infinity of them, we can still create numbers that are not on that list and for which there is no matching number. There are numbers left over after we've used all the counting numbers. Even though they're both infinite, there are *more* real numbers than there are counting numbers. I hope this makes sense.\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: There are infinite numbers between 0 and 1. There are also infinite numbers between 0 and 2. There would more numbers between 0 and 2. How can a set of infinite numbers be bigger than another infinite set?\n\nA: The concept of size that’s used for infinite sets is basically this: Two sets are the same size if you can pair the members from one up with the members of the other with no leftovers. You can do that with the two sets OP asked about, so they’re actually the same size. But you can’t do that with the set of all integers and the set of all numbers between 0 and 1.\n\nB: This is actually pretty interesting because there are the same number of numbers between 0 and 1 and 0 and 2. Vsauce did videos that explains this much better than I can in a reddit comment: Banach–Tarski Paradox, directly related to question, and How To Count Past Infinity\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: There are infinite numbers between 0 and 1. There are also infinite numbers between 0 and 2. There would more numbers between 0 and 2. How can a set of infinite numbers be bigger than another infinite set?\n\nA: This is actually pretty interesting because there are the same number of numbers between 0 and 1 and 0 and 2. Vsauce did videos that explains this much better than I can in a reddit comment: Banach–Tarski Paradox, directly related to question, and How To Count Past Infinity\n\nB: The thing which helped me wrap my head around it (as much as I have) was when it was explained to me that infinity is not a number. Being infinite is a property of a set. So if you consider it as a different property - like “blue”, or “hot” - it makes more sense. You can’t count to blue, and whether one set is bigger than another doesn’t affect whether it is blue or not.\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 is 12 hour time even taught? Wouldn’t it just be easier to remember 13:00 instead of 1:00pm?\n\nA: 12 hour time is a *very* ancient system that traces back to the Mesopotamian empires. They had a cultural fixation on the number 12, used a base-12 numerical system, and divided up most things into 12ths whenever possible - including day and night. The 12 hours of day and 12 hours of night system spread throughout Europe and the Middle East and has defied multiple attempts to change it over the centuries.\n\nB: Analogue clocks only have 12 hours on them in most circumstances, and teaching them is a good way to introduce the concept of dividing hours into 60 minutes.\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 12 hour time even taught? Wouldn’t it just be easier to remember 13:00 instead of 1:00pm?\n\nA: Most of the world does use 24 hour time (at least when writing down times). 12 hour time has some advantages (quicker to say, can be more easily shown on an analog clock face), but it's probably mostly historic reasons, just like how the US still uses imperial units.\n\nB: Dividing the 24-hour clock into two periods came about because of sundials. For a couple thousand years, sundials were the main method of timekeeping, so you could only keep accurate time during half the day. The changeover happened at noon (at the sun's highest point) because it's an observable, universal frame of reference. Mechanical clocks kept the division because it's simpler to make a 12-hour clock than a 24-hour one. Obviously the system is obsolete in the age of electronic timekeeping, but it's still a well-established system that most people are familiar with.\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 12 hour time even taught? Wouldn’t it just be easier to remember 13:00 instead of 1:00pm?\n\nA: Analogue clocks only have 12 hours on them in most circumstances, and teaching them is a good way to introduce the concept of dividing hours into 60 minutes.\n\nB: Dividing the 24-hour clock into two periods came about because of sundials. For a couple thousand years, sundials were the main method of timekeeping, so you could only keep accurate time during half the day. The changeover happened at noon (at the sun's highest point) because it's an observable, universal frame of reference. Mechanical clocks kept the division because it's simpler to make a 12-hour clock than a 24-hour one. Obviously the system is obsolete in the age of electronic timekeeping, but it's still a well-established system that most people are familiar with.\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 12 hour time even taught? Wouldn’t it just be easier to remember 13:00 instead of 1:00pm?\n\nA: Clocks, for about 600 years, were principally mechanical and had what amounts to an analog display: a circular dial. Making clocks which cycled through in twelve hours was easier, the twelve-hour dial was easier to read, and everyone *knew* whether it was morning or night so there was really no difficulty with them. There were, from time to time, other sorts of clocks built: some which had 24-hour dials, some of which showed weekdays, some of which ran counterclockwise. But most clocks worked the same way. Now that it is cheaper - at least in the sorts of quantities we produce - to make electronic clocks with character-based displays, the twelve-hour format may well die out. Give it another hundred years. We'll see.\n\nB: Dividing the 24-hour clock into two periods came about because of sundials. For a couple thousand years, sundials were the main method of timekeeping, so you could only keep accurate time during half the day. The changeover happened at noon (at the sun's highest point) because it's an observable, universal frame of reference. Mechanical clocks kept the division because it's simpler to make a 12-hour clock than a 24-hour one. Obviously the system is obsolete in the age of electronic timekeeping, but it's still a well-established system that most people are familiar with.\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 is 12 hour time even taught? Wouldn’t it just be easier to remember 13:00 instead of 1:00pm?\n\nA: Analogue clocks only have 12 hours on them in most circumstances, and teaching them is a good way to introduce the concept of dividing hours into 60 minutes.\n\nB: Most of the world does use 24 hour time (at least when writing down times). 12 hour time has some advantages (quicker to say, can be more easily shown on an analog clock face), but it's probably mostly historic reasons, just like how the US still uses imperial units.\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: Military officers swear to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, not the President Can the military overthrow the President if there is a direct order that may harm civilians?\n\nA: The president is the Commander in Chief of the military. When you swear in to the military, you also swear \"that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.\" So, no, they can not legally overthrow the president. But, they are also legally obligated to not follow orders that would be considered \"unlawful\" *edit* OK, I get it - I quoted the wrong oath. I will drop and give myself 50.... But, even with officers, trying to overthrow the CIC would be punishable by law and UCMJ\n\nB: A lot of the Constitution is set up to protect the peaceful transfer of power. Basically, the only way the government should ever change hands is through different candidates winning elections. So while the armed forces swear to the Constitution, not the president, the Constitution itself includes a couple of methods (impeachment and the 25th amendment) by which a bad, crazy, sick etc. president can be removed and replaced. Ideally this would remove the need for the army to overthrow the president, because the other parts of our government (legislature and judiciary) could handle it. The problem with the armed forces doing it is that a.) it's not a peaceful transfer of power, and b.) the armed forces are now in charge of the government, which is bad. Having the military swear to the Constitution also serves another purpose, which is to separate them from the president, even though he's the commander in chief. One important move that Hitler made when he came to power was to have the military stop pledging to serve Germany and start pledging to him personally. His hope was that their loyalty to him would lead them to follow his orders even if they were harmful to the nation or its citizens. This fear goes back at least as far as ancient Rome, when (for example) Julius Caesar was able to become ~~emperor~~ dictator because he had a large army of soldiers who were loyal to him personally, rather than to the Roman Republic. *Edit:* Thank you for the gold! And thanks to those who are correcting and refining my history. This was all off the top of my head so there were bound to be mistakes.\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: Military officers swear to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, not the President Can the military overthrow the President if there is a direct order that may harm civilians?\n\nA: The president is the Commander in Chief of the military. When you swear in to the military, you also swear \"that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.\" So, no, they can not legally overthrow the president. But, they are also legally obligated to not follow orders that would be considered \"unlawful\" *edit* OK, I get it - I quoted the wrong oath. I will drop and give myself 50.... But, even with officers, trying to overthrow the CIC would be punishable by law and UCMJ\n\nB: In theory, military commanders are supposed to disobey an order that is unconstitutional: no need for a coup. In theory. Of course, if said commanders back the President anyway, that won't make any difference -- and it's not as if there's anyone else in a position to stop the military. This is the problem with a standing army, one which the US, in its early history, actively tried to avoid (hence the Second Amendment, which speaks of the need for a \"well-regulated militia\"). You should probably cross your fingers and hope we never have to find out. Suppose the President suddenly announces that all presidential elections are cancelled, and that he is President for life. A blatantly illegal and unconstitutional act. What could happen? Well, if things work correctly, either Congress or the Supreme Court, or both, will put a stop to that. For example, Congress could impeach the President -- effectively putting him on trial, and if found guilty, removing him from office. But what if things go really, horribly wrong. Perhaps Congress refuses to impeach. Maybe the President and those around him have been using personal and direct threats against Congressmen and their families (Hitler did something similar to ensure his rise to the top). For whatever reason, that mechanism has broken down, and those few brave souls who dare speak out are silenced, perhaps arrested or simply dismissed. Can the military stage a coup? To be honest, if things have got to that stage, then the rule of law has irretrievably broken down anyhow: doing nothing at all would simply allow the totalitarian dictatorship to establish itself. And I would imagine an awful lot of civil unrest, as civilians opposed to the President protest and are met with those sympathetic to him, and that might be serious enough for the military to impose martial law, simply to restore some kind of order. But here we're talking about a military coup, and military coups are not often good news. If you're lucky, a military coup might succeed in removing the dictatorship, and returning the country to civilian rule as quickly and painlessly as possible. If you're unlucky, a military coup simply replaces a civilian dictatorship with a military dictatorship. EDIT: Thanks for the gold.\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: Military officers swear to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, not the President Can the military overthrow the President if there is a direct order that may harm civilians?\n\nA: If you look at it objectively, the military could easily overthrow the civilian government and install its own leader. We have the monopoly on weaponry. It happens in other countries. However, our democracy is safeguarded from this by several things: Some folks may not realize this but one of the reasons we have ROTC on college campuses is to ensure that future military leaders will always have a connection to the general public. This is to balance the effects of a dedicated military academy, by its makeup, tends to lean more tribal. Also, we also have another safeguard by maintaining separate branches of the Armed Forces instead of having a unified military command. In the third world, it is quite common to have one branch side with the government while another sides with the rebels. Checks and balances, if you will.\n\nB: Most people who have never served in the armed forces (the vast majority of the present population of adult Americans) have no idea how strongly our veterans feel about the oath of enlistment or oath of commission that they took when they joined our armed forces. I am 66 years old. When I was a boy, virtually all adult men were veterans of WWII or the Korean War. Those veterans all shared a common military experience. They were patriotic, and they expected certain behavior and attitudes out of other adults. With the upheavals associated with the Vietnam War, and the cessation of the Draft in 1972, this is no longer the case. Most adults today do not consider our armed forces to be \"part and parcel\" of the civilian population, and have never served as a soldier. They do not understand, because they never experienced military boot camp and training, that our servicemen and servicewomen are taught that they are to *defend the Constitution.* Most of us cannot imagine a situation where a tyrant might attempt to seize control of the United States. Conditioned by a recent history of presidents who attempt to do as they please through Executive Orders, many people believe the power of the president is not checked by Congress or the Supreme Court. This is not the case, and don't think for a second that the men and women of our armed forces are not acutely aware of this fact. As a young Marine sergeant, I saw teen-aged Marines outraged and offended when they believed General Haig (the Secretary of State at that time) was trying to take control of the government when President Ronald Reagan was shot. They were shouting, \"He's not next in the line of succession! It's the VICE-PRESIDENT!\" Haig later apologized, but as a general officer and the *Secretary of State,* for pete's sake, he should have known better. This little story is *exactly* why we need to continue to teach Civics and Government in high school. Americans should trust their armed forces more. Soldiers are CITIZENS, not robots. In my opinion, the Republic is in no danger from its armed forces. (Plus, the civilian population is armed to the teeth with 300 million firearms.)\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: Military officers swear to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, not the President Can the military overthrow the President if there is a direct order that may harm civilians?\n\nA: The people on this thread have explained the legal situation of this question pretty well, but, historically, governments that come from a military coup are ALWAYS worse than the one they replace, so I wouldn't suggest hoping for this situation to occur.\n\nB: Most people who have never served in the armed forces (the vast majority of the present population of adult Americans) have no idea how strongly our veterans feel about the oath of enlistment or oath of commission that they took when they joined our armed forces. I am 66 years old. When I was a boy, virtually all adult men were veterans of WWII or the Korean War. Those veterans all shared a common military experience. They were patriotic, and they expected certain behavior and attitudes out of other adults. With the upheavals associated with the Vietnam War, and the cessation of the Draft in 1972, this is no longer the case. Most adults today do not consider our armed forces to be \"part and parcel\" of the civilian population, and have never served as a soldier. They do not understand, because they never experienced military boot camp and training, that our servicemen and servicewomen are taught that they are to *defend the Constitution.* Most of us cannot imagine a situation where a tyrant might attempt to seize control of the United States. Conditioned by a recent history of presidents who attempt to do as they please through Executive Orders, many people believe the power of the president is not checked by Congress or the Supreme Court. This is not the case, and don't think for a second that the men and women of our armed forces are not acutely aware of this fact. As a young Marine sergeant, I saw teen-aged Marines outraged and offended when they believed General Haig (the Secretary of State at that time) was trying to take control of the government when President Ronald Reagan was shot. They were shouting, \"He's not next in the line of succession! It's the VICE-PRESIDENT!\" Haig later apologized, but as a general officer and the *Secretary of State,* for pete's sake, he should have known better. This little story is *exactly* why we need to continue to teach Civics and Government in high school. Americans should trust their armed forces more. Soldiers are CITIZENS, not robots. In my opinion, the Republic is in no danger from its armed forces. (Plus, the civilian population is armed to the teeth with 300 million firearms.)\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: Military officers swear to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, not the President Can the military overthrow the President if there is a direct order that may harm civilians?\n\nA: The president is the Commander in Chief of the military. When you swear in to the military, you also swear \"that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.\" So, no, they can not legally overthrow the president. But, they are also legally obligated to not follow orders that would be considered \"unlawful\" *edit* OK, I get it - I quoted the wrong oath. I will drop and give myself 50.... But, even with officers, trying to overthrow the CIC would be punishable by law and UCMJ\n\nB: Most people who have never served in the armed forces (the vast majority of the present population of adult Americans) have no idea how strongly our veterans feel about the oath of enlistment or oath of commission that they took when they joined our armed forces. I am 66 years old. When I was a boy, virtually all adult men were veterans of WWII or the Korean War. Those veterans all shared a common military experience. They were patriotic, and they expected certain behavior and attitudes out of other adults. With the upheavals associated with the Vietnam War, and the cessation of the Draft in 1972, this is no longer the case. Most adults today do not consider our armed forces to be \"part and parcel\" of the civilian population, and have never served as a soldier. They do not understand, because they never experienced military boot camp and training, that our servicemen and servicewomen are taught that they are to *defend the Constitution.* Most of us cannot imagine a situation where a tyrant might attempt to seize control of the United States. Conditioned by a recent history of presidents who attempt to do as they please through Executive Orders, many people believe the power of the president is not checked by Congress or the Supreme Court. This is not the case, and don't think for a second that the men and women of our armed forces are not acutely aware of this fact. As a young Marine sergeant, I saw teen-aged Marines outraged and offended when they believed General Haig (the Secretary of State at that time) was trying to take control of the government when President Ronald Reagan was shot. They were shouting, \"He's not next in the line of succession! It's the VICE-PRESIDENT!\" Haig later apologized, but as a general officer and the *Secretary of State,* for pete's sake, he should have known better. This little story is *exactly* why we need to continue to teach Civics and Government in high school. Americans should trust their armed forces more. Soldiers are CITIZENS, not robots. In my opinion, the Republic is in no danger from its armed forces. (Plus, the civilian population is armed to the teeth with 300 million firearms.)\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: Military officers swear to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, not the President Can the military overthrow the President if there is a direct order that may harm civilians?\n\nA: Most people who have never served in the armed forces (the vast majority of the present population of adult Americans) have no idea how strongly our veterans feel about the oath of enlistment or oath of commission that they took when they joined our armed forces. I am 66 years old. When I was a boy, virtually all adult men were veterans of WWII or the Korean War. Those veterans all shared a common military experience. They were patriotic, and they expected certain behavior and attitudes out of other adults. With the upheavals associated with the Vietnam War, and the cessation of the Draft in 1972, this is no longer the case. Most adults today do not consider our armed forces to be \"part and parcel\" of the civilian population, and have never served as a soldier. They do not understand, because they never experienced military boot camp and training, that our servicemen and servicewomen are taught that they are to *defend the Constitution.* Most of us cannot imagine a situation where a tyrant might attempt to seize control of the United States. Conditioned by a recent history of presidents who attempt to do as they please through Executive Orders, many people believe the power of the president is not checked by Congress or the Supreme Court. This is not the case, and don't think for a second that the men and women of our armed forces are not acutely aware of this fact. As a young Marine sergeant, I saw teen-aged Marines outraged and offended when they believed General Haig (the Secretary of State at that time) was trying to take control of the government when President Ronald Reagan was shot. They were shouting, \"He's not next in the line of succession! It's the VICE-PRESIDENT!\" Haig later apologized, but as a general officer and the *Secretary of State,* for pete's sake, he should have known better. This little story is *exactly* why we need to continue to teach Civics and Government in high school. Americans should trust their armed forces more. Soldiers are CITIZENS, not robots. In my opinion, the Republic is in no danger from its armed forces. (Plus, the civilian population is armed to the teeth with 300 million firearms.)\n\nB: As a prior enlisted Marine, the President is your boss, officer or not. He has direct authority over Marines and can send us anywhere for a limited time without approval from congress. That's the first part. Second part, think of overthrowing him as the same thing as mutiny on a ship or secession from the US. If you're gonna do it, you better be right and you better have the power to do so. It would be the equivalent of fighting England for Independence. Win and be right and it's gravy. Lose and you're spam.\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: Military officers swear to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, not the President Can the military overthrow the President if there is a direct order that may harm civilians?\n\nA: Most people who have never served in the armed forces (the vast majority of the present population of adult Americans) have no idea how strongly our veterans feel about the oath of enlistment or oath of commission that they took when they joined our armed forces. I am 66 years old. When I was a boy, virtually all adult men were veterans of WWII or the Korean War. Those veterans all shared a common military experience. They were patriotic, and they expected certain behavior and attitudes out of other adults. With the upheavals associated with the Vietnam War, and the cessation of the Draft in 1972, this is no longer the case. Most adults today do not consider our armed forces to be \"part and parcel\" of the civilian population, and have never served as a soldier. They do not understand, because they never experienced military boot camp and training, that our servicemen and servicewomen are taught that they are to *defend the Constitution.* Most of us cannot imagine a situation where a tyrant might attempt to seize control of the United States. Conditioned by a recent history of presidents who attempt to do as they please through Executive Orders, many people believe the power of the president is not checked by Congress or the Supreme Court. This is not the case, and don't think for a second that the men and women of our armed forces are not acutely aware of this fact. As a young Marine sergeant, I saw teen-aged Marines outraged and offended when they believed General Haig (the Secretary of State at that time) was trying to take control of the government when President Ronald Reagan was shot. They were shouting, \"He's not next in the line of succession! It's the VICE-PRESIDENT!\" Haig later apologized, but as a general officer and the *Secretary of State,* for pete's sake, he should have known better. This little story is *exactly* why we need to continue to teach Civics and Government in high school. Americans should trust their armed forces more. Soldiers are CITIZENS, not robots. In my opinion, the Republic is in no danger from its armed forces. (Plus, the civilian population is armed to the teeth with 300 million firearms.)\n\nB: I don't know about OCS, but other routes to a commission as an officer include plenty of ethics and morals classes in which they discuss this exact topic, among many other moral obligations. A large part of the answer lies within the exhilarating and suspenseful \"Naval Officer's Guide\", but I'll spare you those details as it's not quite as exhilarating as I may have talked it up to be. In short: an officer serves his/her crew and superiors, as well as the constitution. If they receive an unlawful, and/or immoral order by their standards, they're *morally obligated* to follow up on it/question it rather than blindly follow, for the sake of their crew's safety and the upholding of the constitution; albeit, you better be more sure of the immorality of that order than you've ever been before because the UCMJ does not take disobeying orders lightly.\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: Military officers swear to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, not the President Can the military overthrow the President if there is a direct order that may harm civilians?\n\nA: If you look at it objectively, the military could easily overthrow the civilian government and install its own leader. We have the monopoly on weaponry. It happens in other countries. However, our democracy is safeguarded from this by several things: Some folks may not realize this but one of the reasons we have ROTC on college campuses is to ensure that future military leaders will always have a connection to the general public. This is to balance the effects of a dedicated military academy, by its makeup, tends to lean more tribal. Also, we also have another safeguard by maintaining separate branches of the Armed Forces instead of having a unified military command. In the third world, it is quite common to have one branch side with the government while another sides with the rebels. Checks and balances, if you will.\n\nB: The people on this thread have explained the legal situation of this question pretty well, but, historically, governments that come from a military coup are ALWAYS worse than the one they replace, so I wouldn't suggest hoping for this situation to occur.\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: Military officers swear to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, not the President Can the military overthrow the President if there is a direct order that may harm civilians?\n\nA: The president is the Commander in Chief of the military. When you swear in to the military, you also swear \"that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.\" So, no, they can not legally overthrow the president. But, they are also legally obligated to not follow orders that would be considered \"unlawful\" *edit* OK, I get it - I quoted the wrong oath. I will drop and give myself 50.... But, even with officers, trying to overthrow the CIC would be punishable by law and UCMJ\n\nB: If you look at it objectively, the military could easily overthrow the civilian government and install its own leader. We have the monopoly on weaponry. It happens in other countries. However, our democracy is safeguarded from this by several things: Some folks may not realize this but one of the reasons we have ROTC on college campuses is to ensure that future military leaders will always have a connection to the general public. This is to balance the effects of a dedicated military academy, by its makeup, tends to lean more tribal. Also, we also have another safeguard by maintaining separate branches of the Armed Forces instead of having a unified military command. In the third world, it is quite common to have one branch side with the government while another sides with the rebels. Checks and balances, if you will.\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: Military officers swear to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, not the President Can the military overthrow the President if there is a direct order that may harm civilians?\n\nA: As a prior enlisted Marine, the President is your boss, officer or not. He has direct authority over Marines and can send us anywhere for a limited time without approval from congress. That's the first part. Second part, think of overthrowing him as the same thing as mutiny on a ship or secession from the US. If you're gonna do it, you better be right and you better have the power to do so. It would be the equivalent of fighting England for Independence. Win and be right and it's gravy. Lose and you're spam.\n\nB: If you look at it objectively, the military could easily overthrow the civilian government and install its own leader. We have the monopoly on weaponry. It happens in other countries. However, our democracy is safeguarded from this by several things: Some folks may not realize this but one of the reasons we have ROTC on college campuses is to ensure that future military leaders will always have a connection to the general public. This is to balance the effects of a dedicated military academy, by its makeup, tends to lean more tribal. Also, we also have another safeguard by maintaining separate branches of the Armed Forces instead of having a unified military command. In the third world, it is quite common to have one branch side with the government while another sides with the rebels. Checks and balances, if you will.\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: Military officers swear to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, not the President Can the military overthrow the President if there is a direct order that may harm civilians?\n\nA: If you look at it objectively, the military could easily overthrow the civilian government and install its own leader. We have the monopoly on weaponry. It happens in other countries. However, our democracy is safeguarded from this by several things: Some folks may not realize this but one of the reasons we have ROTC on college campuses is to ensure that future military leaders will always have a connection to the general public. This is to balance the effects of a dedicated military academy, by its makeup, tends to lean more tribal. Also, we also have another safeguard by maintaining separate branches of the Armed Forces instead of having a unified military command. In the third world, it is quite common to have one branch side with the government while another sides with the rebels. Checks and balances, if you will.\n\nB: I don't know about OCS, but other routes to a commission as an officer include plenty of ethics and morals classes in which they discuss this exact topic, among many other moral obligations. A large part of the answer lies within the exhilarating and suspenseful \"Naval Officer's Guide\", but I'll spare you those details as it's not quite as exhilarating as I may have talked it up to be. In short: an officer serves his/her crew and superiors, as well as the constitution. If they receive an unlawful, and/or immoral order by their standards, they're *morally obligated* to follow up on it/question it rather than blindly follow, for the sake of their crew's safety and the upholding of the constitution; albeit, you better be more sure of the immorality of that order than you've ever been before because the UCMJ does not take disobeying orders lightly.\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: Military officers swear to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, not the President Can the military overthrow the President if there is a direct order that may harm civilians?\n\nA: The people on this thread have explained the legal situation of this question pretty well, but, historically, governments that come from a military coup are ALWAYS worse than the one they replace, so I wouldn't suggest hoping for this situation to occur.\n\nB: The president is the Commander in Chief of the military. When you swear in to the military, you also swear \"that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.\" So, no, they can not legally overthrow the president. But, they are also legally obligated to not follow orders that would be considered \"unlawful\" *edit* OK, I get it - I quoted the wrong oath. I will drop and give myself 50.... But, even with officers, trying to overthrow the CIC would be punishable by law and UCMJ\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: Military officers swear to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, not the President Can the military overthrow the President if there is a direct order that may harm civilians?\n\nA: As a prior enlisted Marine, the President is your boss, officer or not. He has direct authority over Marines and can send us anywhere for a limited time without approval from congress. That's the first part. Second part, think of overthrowing him as the same thing as mutiny on a ship or secession from the US. If you're gonna do it, you better be right and you better have the power to do so. It would be the equivalent of fighting England for Independence. Win and be right and it's gravy. Lose and you're spam.\n\nB: The people on this thread have explained the legal situation of this question pretty well, but, historically, governments that come from a military coup are ALWAYS worse than the one they replace, so I wouldn't suggest hoping for this situation to occur.\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: Military officers swear to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, not the President Can the military overthrow the President if there is a direct order that may harm civilians?\n\nA: I don't know about OCS, but other routes to a commission as an officer include plenty of ethics and morals classes in which they discuss this exact topic, among many other moral obligations. A large part of the answer lies within the exhilarating and suspenseful \"Naval Officer's Guide\", but I'll spare you those details as it's not quite as exhilarating as I may have talked it up to be. In short: an officer serves his/her crew and superiors, as well as the constitution. If they receive an unlawful, and/or immoral order by their standards, they're *morally obligated* to follow up on it/question it rather than blindly follow, for the sake of their crew's safety and the upholding of the constitution; albeit, you better be more sure of the immorality of that order than you've ever been before because the UCMJ does not take disobeying orders lightly.\n\nB: The people on this thread have explained the legal situation of this question pretty well, but, historically, governments that come from a military coup are ALWAYS worse than the one they replace, so I wouldn't suggest hoping for this situation to occur.\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: Military officers swear to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, not the President Can the military overthrow the President if there is a direct order that may harm civilians?\n\nA: As a prior enlisted Marine, the President is your boss, officer or not. He has direct authority over Marines and can send us anywhere for a limited time without approval from congress. That's the first part. Second part, think of overthrowing him as the same thing as mutiny on a ship or secession from the US. If you're gonna do it, you better be right and you better have the power to do so. It would be the equivalent of fighting England for Independence. Win and be right and it's gravy. Lose and you're spam.\n\nB: I don't know about OCS, but other routes to a commission as an officer include plenty of ethics and morals classes in which they discuss this exact topic, among many other moral obligations. A large part of the answer lies within the exhilarating and suspenseful \"Naval Officer's Guide\", but I'll spare you those details as it's not quite as exhilarating as I may have talked it up to be. In short: an officer serves his/her crew and superiors, as well as the constitution. If they receive an unlawful, and/or immoral order by their standards, they're *morally obligated* to follow up on it/question it rather than blindly follow, for the sake of their crew's safety and the upholding of the constitution; albeit, you better be more sure of the immorality of that order than you've ever been before because the UCMJ does not take disobeying orders lightly.\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: Military officers swear to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, not the President Can the military overthrow the President if there is a direct order that may harm civilians?\n\nA: US Army Officer here. It's as simple as it sounds, but at the same time quite brilliant. Our oath is different than the enlisted soldiers (the actual fighters) in that obeying orders is not part of our oath. We are only required to use the Constitution and our principles as a guide when deciding if we should follow an order. By virtue of how the oath is written, we swear to place the Constitution above the President. This is designed to prevent the President from being able to subvert the Constitution via the military. The reality that an order may not be followed by subordinate officers is a form of checks and balances that is designed to prevent tyrannical, unethical, or just plain dumb efforts from getting off the ground. What makes it brilliant is that the US military learned long ago that decentralized execution, meaning empowering subordinates to make decisions, works very well in combat situations as well as operational design and our central leaders are willing to accept the risk that comes along with that approach. Of note, enlisted soldiers have an obligation not to obey unlawful orders which makes them accountable for their actions. But officers have an obligation to disobey even those that could be classified as a lawful orders if it violates the aforementioned criteria.\n\nB: I don't know about OCS, but other routes to a commission as an officer include plenty of ethics and morals classes in which they discuss this exact topic, among many other moral obligations. A large part of the answer lies within the exhilarating and suspenseful \"Naval Officer's Guide\", but I'll spare you those details as it's not quite as exhilarating as I may have talked it up to be. In short: an officer serves his/her crew and superiors, as well as the constitution. If they receive an unlawful, and/or immoral order by their standards, they're *morally obligated* to follow up on it/question it rather than blindly follow, for the sake of their crew's safety and the upholding of the constitution; albeit, you better be more sure of the immorality of that order than you've ever been before because the UCMJ does not take disobeying orders lightly.\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 do humans need to eat many different kind of foods to get their vitamins etc but large animals like cows only need grass to survive?\n\nA: In addition to the 'efficiently breaking down grass' thing, and the 'they eat a variety of plants' thing, there's also the fact that species typically evolve the ability to make vitamins that they can't get easily in their diet. For example, humans make vitamin D because there aren't many food sources of it, but we can't make vitamin C, but can find it in food. But other species can make their own vitamin C. It's a trade off between needing to find a variety of food and not needing the cellular machines to make more stuff.\n\nB: Ruminants like cows are able to extract more nutrients from vegetation than we are, due to their specially adapted digestive system and gut flora. Ruminants ferment food in their four-chambered stomach over an extended period, which enables their gut bacteria to break down complex carbohydrates, proteins, fiber, which in turn synthesize their own nutrients that the host can absorb. Additionally, ruminants will consume animal bones in order to obtain phosphate and calcium if they're not able to obtain it elsewhere in their diet.\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 humans need to eat many different kind of foods to get their vitamins etc but large animals like cows only need grass to survive?\n\nA: Fun fact: We actually still have most of the genes required to synthesize vitamins, such as the gene to synthesize vitamin C which dogs and cats possess, but it is deactivated. When we started living arboreal lifestyles and consuming a lot of fruit, it was no longer evolutionary preferential to synthesize our own vitamin C- it takes much less energy to absorb it from food, where the plants have already expended the energy to synthesize it- and therefore the gene has gradually grown redundant in chimps and eventually humans. The same has occurred for many other aspects of our genes. Any expense of energy which can be avoided is generally selected against, because individuals who could survive longer with less food were more likely to survive periods of scarcity and thus produce offspring.\n\nB: In short... because as humans got smarter, our diets became better and more diverse because we had the anatomy and ability to get better food. Therefore our digestive system became much more streamlined and simple. That means it doesn’t pull as many nutrients from each meal, cuz we have trained our guts that it doesn’t need to. Extra details... The human brain has tripled in size over the last 3 million years. This is because humans began to eat a wider range of food, and began to cook our food. This meant the digestive system needed to work way less than it did before. Less energy to the gut, meant more energy to the brain. Better food = bigger brain. You can see this in the animal kingdom, as animals with very simple, nutrient deficient diets, tend to have very small brains. The body has to spend so much energy on the digestive system, that little goes to the brain, and evolution keeps the brain small. TLDR; We need better food cuz we eat better food, and we made our body accept that.\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 did Germany stop being Nazis after the end of WWII? Did everyone just \"snap out of it\" after Hitler's death?\n\nA: In addition to what’s been mentioned above, in Germany they teach about the Holocaust. They don’t try and pretend it didn’t happen or that it was just a few ppl participating. They take full blame and teach how it was wrong.\n\nB: Time and silence. For 13 years, almost all of the elite had to join the Nazi party. In 1952, 25% of West Germans admitted to having a \"good opinion\" of Hitler. In his first official address to the parliament, Chancellor Adenauer (in 1949) said \"The government of the Federal Republic, in the belief that many have subjectively atoned for a guilt that was not heavy, is determined where it appears acceptable to do so to put the past behind us.\" The German government was generally determined to forget. In 1968, Germany had its own set of internal revolutions, where the baby boom children grew up and protested against the crimes of their fathers, so to speak. This was helped along by the fact that the actual chancellor, the third in the history of West Germany, was himself a former Nazi and a party member from 1933-1945 who served under Ribbentrop. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Georg_Kiesinger#Early_life_and_Nazi_activities They made it illegal to continue to be a Nazi or to support Hitler, but for the most part, if you were a Nazi and said \"sorry about all that Nazi stuff\" the German government was fine with it.\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 did Germany stop being Nazis after the end of WWII? Did everyone just \"snap out of it\" after Hitler's death?\n\nA: Time and silence. For 13 years, almost all of the elite had to join the Nazi party. In 1952, 25% of West Germans admitted to having a \"good opinion\" of Hitler. In his first official address to the parliament, Chancellor Adenauer (in 1949) said \"The government of the Federal Republic, in the belief that many have subjectively atoned for a guilt that was not heavy, is determined where it appears acceptable to do so to put the past behind us.\" The German government was generally determined to forget. In 1968, Germany had its own set of internal revolutions, where the baby boom children grew up and protested against the crimes of their fathers, so to speak. This was helped along by the fact that the actual chancellor, the third in the history of West Germany, was himself a former Nazi and a party member from 1933-1945 who served under Ribbentrop. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Georg_Kiesinger#Early_life_and_Nazi_activities They made it illegal to continue to be a Nazi or to support Hitler, but for the most part, if you were a Nazi and said \"sorry about all that Nazi stuff\" the German government was fine with it.\n\nB: A lot of people didn't stop. They just stopped talking about the past. Or they talked about their views only in private. Also, a lot of powerful people just kept their influence, and the institutions they worked for helped them by keeping quiet so as not to draw negative public scrutiny to the institutions past (there were a lot of outspoken Nazis in academia for example). At some point it was then decided that the matter was dealt with and a thing of the past, but in reality victims often did not get justice, and their neighbors still had kept their racist views, and did not treat them better then before. At least that is what happened where I am from.\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 did Germany stop being Nazis after the end of WWII? Did everyone just \"snap out of it\" after Hitler's death?\n\nA: Germany was full of Nazi supporters after the war. They just weren't in a position to say or do anything about it. The country was occupied, its leaders were executed or imprisoned, it was not allowed to have a military until 1955, and it was split into two opposing halves until 1990. The people who emerged from all that were essentially denazified.\n\nB: Time and silence. For 13 years, almost all of the elite had to join the Nazi party. In 1952, 25% of West Germans admitted to having a \"good opinion\" of Hitler. In his first official address to the parliament, Chancellor Adenauer (in 1949) said \"The government of the Federal Republic, in the belief that many have subjectively atoned for a guilt that was not heavy, is determined where it appears acceptable to do so to put the past behind us.\" The German government was generally determined to forget. In 1968, Germany had its own set of internal revolutions, where the baby boom children grew up and protested against the crimes of their fathers, so to speak. This was helped along by the fact that the actual chancellor, the third in the history of West Germany, was himself a former Nazi and a party member from 1933-1945 who served under Ribbentrop. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Georg_Kiesinger#Early_life_and_Nazi_activities They made it illegal to continue to be a Nazi or to support Hitler, but for the most part, if you were a Nazi and said \"sorry about all that Nazi stuff\" the German government was fine with it.\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 did Germany stop being Nazis after the end of WWII? Did everyone just \"snap out of it\" after Hitler's death?\n\nA: Time and silence. For 13 years, almost all of the elite had to join the Nazi party. In 1952, 25% of West Germans admitted to having a \"good opinion\" of Hitler. In his first official address to the parliament, Chancellor Adenauer (in 1949) said \"The government of the Federal Republic, in the belief that many have subjectively atoned for a guilt that was not heavy, is determined where it appears acceptable to do so to put the past behind us.\" The German government was generally determined to forget. In 1968, Germany had its own set of internal revolutions, where the baby boom children grew up and protested against the crimes of their fathers, so to speak. This was helped along by the fact that the actual chancellor, the third in the history of West Germany, was himself a former Nazi and a party member from 1933-1945 who served under Ribbentrop. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Georg_Kiesinger#Early_life_and_Nazi_activities They made it illegal to continue to be a Nazi or to support Hitler, but for the most part, if you were a Nazi and said \"sorry about all that Nazi stuff\" the German government was fine with it.\n\nB: Not at all Both east and west Germany had tons of Nazis after Well into the 60s, many judges etc were nazi supporters There's actually quite a bit of info on it, I'd watch the documentary the accountant of Auschwitz it's a very good film but quite devastating\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 did Germany stop being Nazis after the end of WWII? Did everyone just \"snap out of it\" after Hitler's death?\n\nA: In addition to what’s been mentioned above, in Germany they teach about the Holocaust. They don’t try and pretend it didn’t happen or that it was just a few ppl participating. They take full blame and teach how it was wrong.\n\nB: A lot of people didn't stop. They just stopped talking about the past. Or they talked about their views only in private. Also, a lot of powerful people just kept their influence, and the institutions they worked for helped them by keeping quiet so as not to draw negative public scrutiny to the institutions past (there were a lot of outspoken Nazis in academia for example). At some point it was then decided that the matter was dealt with and a thing of the past, but in reality victims often did not get justice, and their neighbors still had kept their racist views, and did not treat them better then before. At least that is what happened where I am from.\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 did Germany stop being Nazis after the end of WWII? Did everyone just \"snap out of it\" after Hitler's death?\n\nA: Germany was full of Nazi supporters after the war. They just weren't in a position to say or do anything about it. The country was occupied, its leaders were executed or imprisoned, it was not allowed to have a military until 1955, and it was split into two opposing halves until 1990. The people who emerged from all that were essentially denazified.\n\nB: In addition to what’s been mentioned above, in Germany they teach about the Holocaust. They don’t try and pretend it didn’t happen or that it was just a few ppl participating. They take full blame and teach how it was wrong.\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:Do donated organs age according to the donor´s age or do they adapt to the age of the new body?\n\nA: I haven’t seen anyone mention the fact that once inside the recipient the donated organ will be under constant attack from the recipients immune system, which will prematurely age the organ. Because of this transplant recipients take immunosuppressive drugs to reduce the amount of damage their own immune system will do to the new organ. It’s a balancing act between suppressing the immune system enough to stave off rejection of the new organ (which is almost always inevitable) and having enough of an immune system to fight off basic infections. This is why it can be difficult to find a match when looking for an organ. The closer the new organ is to the recipients own genetic markers the better. Source : I used to be an RN on an transplant unit.\n\nB: Just wondering, is it possible then to receive and 80 year old liver/heart into a 20 year old and then when they are 80 pass it on indefinitely?\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:Do donated organs age according to the donor´s age or do they adapt to the age of the new body?\n\nA: Age is very relevant in organ transplant. You wouldn't want to put a grown man's kidneys inside of a child or vice versa. However once the candidate and donor are fully grown, age is much less of a factor in terms of compatibility.\n\nB: I haven’t seen anyone mention the fact that once inside the recipient the donated organ will be under constant attack from the recipients immune system, which will prematurely age the organ. Because of this transplant recipients take immunosuppressive drugs to reduce the amount of damage their own immune system will do to the new organ. It’s a balancing act between suppressing the immune system enough to stave off rejection of the new organ (which is almost always inevitable) and having enough of an immune system to fight off basic infections. This is why it can be difficult to find a match when looking for an organ. The closer the new organ is to the recipients own genetic markers the better. Source : I used to be an RN on an transplant unit.\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:Do donated organs age according to the donor´s age or do they adapt to the age of the new body?\n\nA: No. So there's this thing called the Hayflick Limit, and its important. Every time (most of) your cells divide they lose a little bit of DNA. At first the DNA being lost is useless stuff off the end, but eventually they will start losing useful DNA. The number of times they can divide without losing real DNA is the Hayflick limit, and for a human the number is 50ish. Cells can divide about 50 times before they start losing DNA that is valuable (and thereby rapidly declining). So let's say you are getting a new kidney from someone who was 70 years old. Just by being that old, they've probably burned through a lot of those cellular divisions over the years. We can put that kidney in a 25 year old, but that won't add any DNA back to the kidney cells that it lost through normal division. And so when people talk about being hard on your body, it usually boils down to killing off cells and forcing them to divide to replace themselves - effectively accelerating their aging. Do you box and take a lot of punches to the kidneys? That's going to force those kidneys to repair the damage via cellular division, and those are a finite resource. When people start breaking down of old age what basically happens is the number of cells that are able to have continued healthy divisions is starting to become scarce, so the organs are having a hard time maintaining themselves. And all of this Hayflick limit stuff may sound bad, but it basically makes you immune to cancer while it is working (for cancer to develop a mutation to remove this natural limitation must occur). So it guarantees you will die some day due to aging, but it makes it much less likely to be from cancer at an extremely early age.\n\nB: Just wondering, is it possible then to receive and 80 year old liver/heart into a 20 year old and then when they are 80 pass it on indefinitely?\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:Do donated organs age according to the donor´s age or do they adapt to the age of the new body?\n\nA: No. So there's this thing called the Hayflick Limit, and its important. Every time (most of) your cells divide they lose a little bit of DNA. At first the DNA being lost is useless stuff off the end, but eventually they will start losing useful DNA. The number of times they can divide without losing real DNA is the Hayflick limit, and for a human the number is 50ish. Cells can divide about 50 times before they start losing DNA that is valuable (and thereby rapidly declining). So let's say you are getting a new kidney from someone who was 70 years old. Just by being that old, they've probably burned through a lot of those cellular divisions over the years. We can put that kidney in a 25 year old, but that won't add any DNA back to the kidney cells that it lost through normal division. And so when people talk about being hard on your body, it usually boils down to killing off cells and forcing them to divide to replace themselves - effectively accelerating their aging. Do you box and take a lot of punches to the kidneys? That's going to force those kidneys to repair the damage via cellular division, and those are a finite resource. When people start breaking down of old age what basically happens is the number of cells that are able to have continued healthy divisions is starting to become scarce, so the organs are having a hard time maintaining themselves. And all of this Hayflick limit stuff may sound bad, but it basically makes you immune to cancer while it is working (for cancer to develop a mutation to remove this natural limitation must occur). So it guarantees you will die some day due to aging, but it makes it much less likely to be from cancer at an extremely early age.\n\nB: Age is very relevant in organ transplant. You wouldn't want to put a grown man's kidneys inside of a child or vice versa. However once the candidate and donor are fully grown, age is much less of a factor in terms of compatibility.\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:Do donated organs age according to the donor´s age or do they adapt to the age of the new body?\n\nA: Just wondering, is it possible then to receive and 80 year old liver/heart into a 20 year old and then when they are 80 pass it on indefinitely?\n\nB: Age is very relevant in organ transplant. You wouldn't want to put a grown man's kidneys inside of a child or vice versa. However once the candidate and donor are fully grown, age is much less of a factor in terms of compatibility.\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: Went on vacation. Fridge died while I was gone. Came back to a freezer full of maggots. How do maggots get into a place like a freezer that's sealed air tight?\n\nA: Most of these comments are probably wrong. Depending on what's in your freezer exactly, and when it was put in there, it shouldn't have viable preexisting eggs or larvae. The blast-freezing process brings things to a temperature that kills most fly eggs, basically absolutely any that you're going to encounter. And without the blast freezing process, eggs on the surface of food (which is where most flies lay their eggs) will become nonviable in just a few days, max. If frozen slowly, the water in the egg will crystalize and rupture the egg. Everything you buy in the freezer isle is blast frozen (Edit: OK, *Almost* everything). All meat that you buy with the exception of fresh-shellfish is most likely going to be egg free. And shellfish-bourne eggs don't turn in to flies, they turn into worms and other parasites. Flies generally don't lay eggs on unripe fruit. They lay eggs on wet stuff. There are exceptions, like the fig wasp, that inject eggs. But these insects need more unripe fruit to successfully have multiple generations, which wouldn't be the case here. I'm guessing OP is dealing with some sort of blowfly larva like the common house-fly. Flies are very good at detecting the chemicals released as food spoils. As food spoils, it \"outgasses\". Solids and liquids are transformed by microorganisms into gasses. These gasses take up a much greater volume than the liquid and solid precursors. This puts pressure on the magnetically sealed door. This causes your freezer to begin to \"burp\" out these fly friendly gasses. Depending on the setup, there's a decent chance that the door will open and remain open. Regardless, fly noses act like leak-detectors on your fridge. They will find small cracks, and they will gleefully sneak through failed U-traps. Food in ziplock-bags will liquify, burst, and spill all over the freezer floor, weakening the magnetic seals, and luring flies to lay eggs right on the seal, allowing larvae to crawl in the direction of the scent. A couple years back, I had a fruit-fly infestation that got rather bad. My freezer was new and in good working order. Fruit flies *obviously* are not going to be able to breed inside. But they are able to crawl inside, freeze, and die. In my case, fruit-flies were likely going in the ice-dispenser, because that's where the largest collection of them were found. It has an inner funnel that is pushed up against the ice reservoir to work. They were trapped in that cold funnel region. The flap-gate on the ice-dispenser is not nearly as strong of a seal as the door seal. If you have an ice-dispenser, that's likely how they got in. The only way it would be brought-in fly eggs would be if you froze some leftovers that a fly had time to lay eggs upon (this only takes seconds) and you did that like the same day the freezer failed.\n\nB: Haven't seen this answer on here so I'll chime in. Although the fly eggs were probably already on some food, your fridge is also not 100% sealed. Assuming you have a modern fridge, it has automatic defrost. This defrost cycle runs once typically during a 24 hr period. During defrost, a heating element will come on, and melt away any accumulated ice on the evaporator coils. This melted ice has to go somewhere - and where it goes is through a drain tube. This water is collected in a pan underneath, near the fan and compressor. The warm air produced from the compressor / condenser evaporates this water away. Anyway, this drain is big enough for a fly to crawl up no problem.\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: Went on vacation. Fridge died while I was gone. Came back to a freezer full of maggots. How do maggots get into a place like a freezer that's sealed air tight?\n\nA: Most of these comments are probably wrong. Depending on what's in your freezer exactly, and when it was put in there, it shouldn't have viable preexisting eggs or larvae. The blast-freezing process brings things to a temperature that kills most fly eggs, basically absolutely any that you're going to encounter. And without the blast freezing process, eggs on the surface of food (which is where most flies lay their eggs) will become nonviable in just a few days, max. If frozen slowly, the water in the egg will crystalize and rupture the egg. Everything you buy in the freezer isle is blast frozen (Edit: OK, *Almost* everything). All meat that you buy with the exception of fresh-shellfish is most likely going to be egg free. And shellfish-bourne eggs don't turn in to flies, they turn into worms and other parasites. Flies generally don't lay eggs on unripe fruit. They lay eggs on wet stuff. There are exceptions, like the fig wasp, that inject eggs. But these insects need more unripe fruit to successfully have multiple generations, which wouldn't be the case here. I'm guessing OP is dealing with some sort of blowfly larva like the common house-fly. Flies are very good at detecting the chemicals released as food spoils. As food spoils, it \"outgasses\". Solids and liquids are transformed by microorganisms into gasses. These gasses take up a much greater volume than the liquid and solid precursors. This puts pressure on the magnetically sealed door. This causes your freezer to begin to \"burp\" out these fly friendly gasses. Depending on the setup, there's a decent chance that the door will open and remain open. Regardless, fly noses act like leak-detectors on your fridge. They will find small cracks, and they will gleefully sneak through failed U-traps. Food in ziplock-bags will liquify, burst, and spill all over the freezer floor, weakening the magnetic seals, and luring flies to lay eggs right on the seal, allowing larvae to crawl in the direction of the scent. A couple years back, I had a fruit-fly infestation that got rather bad. My freezer was new and in good working order. Fruit flies *obviously* are not going to be able to breed inside. But they are able to crawl inside, freeze, and die. In my case, fruit-flies were likely going in the ice-dispenser, because that's where the largest collection of them were found. It has an inner funnel that is pushed up against the ice reservoir to work. They were trapped in that cold funnel region. The flap-gate on the ice-dispenser is not nearly as strong of a seal as the door seal. If you have an ice-dispenser, that's likely how they got in. The only way it would be brought-in fly eggs would be if you froze some leftovers that a fly had time to lay eggs upon (this only takes seconds) and you did that like the same day the freezer failed.\n\nB: Your fruit is contaminated with all sorts of insects, urine, feces, and bacteria. It's in your fridge because it's always been in or on your food. Rotted fruit erupts in tiny fruit flies because they have always been in your produce. ~~Remember when Mythbusters tested dozens of cases of retail obtained soda cans and found that rat urine was on the lids of *ALL OF THEM*? When was the last time you drank straight from an unwashed can?~~ (Edit: I misunderstood the Mythbusters conclusion from their website. They didn't find rat urine on their retail samples, but on their controlled test that showed rats would spread urine if allowed to walk on the cans.) This is the FDA Defects Level Handbook, and it contains guidelines of just how much shit is allowed in your food stuffs. The list is... Extensive... If you're going to grow food stuffs outside a hermetically sealed and sterile environment, consider this the lower bound obtainable. All you can do is accept it as reality and typically harmless unless you have a particular sensitivity. This reminds me, remember that time Mythbusters tested a number of means of storing your toothbrush in your bathroom, like we all do, and found that *THEY ALL TESTED POSITIVE* for fecal coliform?\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: Went on vacation. Fridge died while I was gone. Came back to a freezer full of maggots. How do maggots get into a place like a freezer that's sealed air tight?\n\nA: Most of these comments are probably wrong. Depending on what's in your freezer exactly, and when it was put in there, it shouldn't have viable preexisting eggs or larvae. The blast-freezing process brings things to a temperature that kills most fly eggs, basically absolutely any that you're going to encounter. And without the blast freezing process, eggs on the surface of food (which is where most flies lay their eggs) will become nonviable in just a few days, max. If frozen slowly, the water in the egg will crystalize and rupture the egg. Everything you buy in the freezer isle is blast frozen (Edit: OK, *Almost* everything). All meat that you buy with the exception of fresh-shellfish is most likely going to be egg free. And shellfish-bourne eggs don't turn in to flies, they turn into worms and other parasites. Flies generally don't lay eggs on unripe fruit. They lay eggs on wet stuff. There are exceptions, like the fig wasp, that inject eggs. But these insects need more unripe fruit to successfully have multiple generations, which wouldn't be the case here. I'm guessing OP is dealing with some sort of blowfly larva like the common house-fly. Flies are very good at detecting the chemicals released as food spoils. As food spoils, it \"outgasses\". Solids and liquids are transformed by microorganisms into gasses. These gasses take up a much greater volume than the liquid and solid precursors. This puts pressure on the magnetically sealed door. This causes your freezer to begin to \"burp\" out these fly friendly gasses. Depending on the setup, there's a decent chance that the door will open and remain open. Regardless, fly noses act like leak-detectors on your fridge. They will find small cracks, and they will gleefully sneak through failed U-traps. Food in ziplock-bags will liquify, burst, and spill all over the freezer floor, weakening the magnetic seals, and luring flies to lay eggs right on the seal, allowing larvae to crawl in the direction of the scent. A couple years back, I had a fruit-fly infestation that got rather bad. My freezer was new and in good working order. Fruit flies *obviously* are not going to be able to breed inside. But they are able to crawl inside, freeze, and die. In my case, fruit-flies were likely going in the ice-dispenser, because that's where the largest collection of them were found. It has an inner funnel that is pushed up against the ice reservoir to work. They were trapped in that cold funnel region. The flap-gate on the ice-dispenser is not nearly as strong of a seal as the door seal. If you have an ice-dispenser, that's likely how they got in. The only way it would be brought-in fly eggs would be if you froze some leftovers that a fly had time to lay eggs upon (this only takes seconds) and you did that like the same day the freezer failed.\n\nB: The eggs were already there. At some point, the food had to make its way from the farm to the grocery store. There are plenty of places along the way for food to become contaminated. When properly refrigerated, though, many contaminating species die, but most become dormant. When the fridge lost power and returned to room temperature, it was warm enough for the fly eggs to develop. Congratulations, you've discovered why it took until Pasteur for ~~abiogenesis~~ spontaneous generation to lose prominence.\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: Went on vacation. Fridge died while I was gone. Came back to a freezer full of maggots. How do maggots get into a place like a freezer that's sealed air tight?\n\nA: Your fruit is contaminated with all sorts of insects, urine, feces, and bacteria. It's in your fridge because it's always been in or on your food. Rotted fruit erupts in tiny fruit flies because they have always been in your produce. ~~Remember when Mythbusters tested dozens of cases of retail obtained soda cans and found that rat urine was on the lids of *ALL OF THEM*? When was the last time you drank straight from an unwashed can?~~ (Edit: I misunderstood the Mythbusters conclusion from their website. They didn't find rat urine on their retail samples, but on their controlled test that showed rats would spread urine if allowed to walk on the cans.) This is the FDA Defects Level Handbook, and it contains guidelines of just how much shit is allowed in your food stuffs. The list is... Extensive... If you're going to grow food stuffs outside a hermetically sealed and sterile environment, consider this the lower bound obtainable. All you can do is accept it as reality and typically harmless unless you have a particular sensitivity. This reminds me, remember that time Mythbusters tested a number of means of storing your toothbrush in your bathroom, like we all do, and found that *THEY ALL TESTED POSITIVE* for fecal coliform?\n\nB: Haven't seen this answer on here so I'll chime in. Although the fly eggs were probably already on some food, your fridge is also not 100% sealed. Assuming you have a modern fridge, it has automatic defrost. This defrost cycle runs once typically during a 24 hr period. During defrost, a heating element will come on, and melt away any accumulated ice on the evaporator coils. This melted ice has to go somewhere - and where it goes is through a drain tube. This water is collected in a pan underneath, near the fan and compressor. The warm air produced from the compressor / condenser evaporates this water away. Anyway, this drain is big enough for a fly to crawl up no problem.\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: Went on vacation. Fridge died while I was gone. Came back to a freezer full of maggots. How do maggots get into a place like a freezer that's sealed air tight?\n\nA: The eggs were already there. At some point, the food had to make its way from the farm to the grocery store. There are plenty of places along the way for food to become contaminated. When properly refrigerated, though, many contaminating species die, but most become dormant. When the fridge lost power and returned to room temperature, it was warm enough for the fly eggs to develop. Congratulations, you've discovered why it took until Pasteur for ~~abiogenesis~~ spontaneous generation to lose prominence.\n\nB: Haven't seen this answer on here so I'll chime in. Although the fly eggs were probably already on some food, your fridge is also not 100% sealed. Assuming you have a modern fridge, it has automatic defrost. This defrost cycle runs once typically during a 24 hr period. During defrost, a heating element will come on, and melt away any accumulated ice on the evaporator coils. This melted ice has to go somewhere - and where it goes is through a drain tube. This water is collected in a pan underneath, near the fan and compressor. The warm air produced from the compressor / condenser evaporates this water away. Anyway, this drain is big enough for a fly to crawl up no problem.\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: Went on vacation. Fridge died while I was gone. Came back to a freezer full of maggots. How do maggots get into a place like a freezer that's sealed air tight?\n\nA: First off, most of the posters here are *probably* wrong about the insect eggs. Flies that lay eggs that create meat-eating maggots do not lay their eggs randomly about. They only lay their eggs on rotting flesh. They would not have been randomly mixed in your produce. They also don't just a lay a few eggs that are hard to miss. They lay a small pocket of hundreds of eggs and you would *probably* notice them if they were a frequent occurrence on food. Second, most of the *other* posters here are probably right in that your fridge is not as air tight as it may otherwise seem. Their reasons as to how the flies may have gotten in are reasonable. Additionally, you should consider how a fridge door seal works. When you close the door and the seal collapses a bit, you are forcing a little more air out. When the door rebounds a bit as the seal uncompressed you generate a little bit of lower pressure inside the fridge as compared to the outside environment. You can test this with a well-sealed freezer like a chest freezer. You can feel the air squeeze out on shutting, and if you have a good seal it is harder to open back up than just the weight of the lid. It's actually progressively harder to open the door up until the point the seal fails, since you are creating additional volume inside the fridge by lifting the door while the seal is intact and the pressure lowers until the seal fails. Also adding to this phenomena is that any room temperature air that entered the freezer will cool, shirking its partial pressure and further helping to hold the door shut. Now, consider what happens when food (in the absence of insects for now) begins to rot. That rot is caused by bacteria and fungus eating your food. And what happens when bacteria eat? I mean other than your food spoiling? They poop out CO2, methane, and other gases. If that builds up it can overcome the slightly lower pressure otherwise enjoyed by the interior and force the door deal to fail, providing an egress for the trapped gases inside. Once those gases are free it's like a massive neon sign to critters that feed on rot. And they are very, very good at finding where such gases are leaking from, and are pretty determined little critters about finding a way to worm inside and fulfill their biological imperatives. TL;DR - fridges are very good about keeping outside air out when cool & running. They are not so good at keeping inside air in when temperatures equalize to the outside environment.\n\nB: Your fruit is contaminated with all sorts of insects, urine, feces, and bacteria. It's in your fridge because it's always been in or on your food. Rotted fruit erupts in tiny fruit flies because they have always been in your produce. ~~Remember when Mythbusters tested dozens of cases of retail obtained soda cans and found that rat urine was on the lids of *ALL OF THEM*? When was the last time you drank straight from an unwashed can?~~ (Edit: I misunderstood the Mythbusters conclusion from their website. They didn't find rat urine on their retail samples, but on their controlled test that showed rats would spread urine if allowed to walk on the cans.) This is the FDA Defects Level Handbook, and it contains guidelines of just how much shit is allowed in your food stuffs. The list is... Extensive... If you're going to grow food stuffs outside a hermetically sealed and sterile environment, consider this the lower bound obtainable. All you can do is accept it as reality and typically harmless unless you have a particular sensitivity. This reminds me, remember that time Mythbusters tested a number of means of storing your toothbrush in your bathroom, like we all do, and found that *THEY ALL TESTED POSITIVE* for fecal coliform?\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: Went on vacation. Fridge died while I was gone. Came back to a freezer full of maggots. How do maggots get into a place like a freezer that's sealed air tight?\n\nA: Francesco Redi did an experiment on spontaneous generation using rotting meat and maggots. One chunk of meat had an airtight jar, one had a gauze covering and the other was open. In the 17th century it was widely accepted that some organisms would spontaneously generate under the right conditions, and Redi set out to disapprove it. In his experiment the airtight container spawned no maggots. The gauze spawned few and the uncovered was crawling. Now that we know the maggots didn't magically grow from the meat there are a few possible explanations: 1.Your fridge is not airtight 2.The meat was already contaminated but within safety guidelines as cooking red meat from refrigerated to serving temp kills the eggs and baddies.\n\nB: First off, most of the posters here are *probably* wrong about the insect eggs. Flies that lay eggs that create meat-eating maggots do not lay their eggs randomly about. They only lay their eggs on rotting flesh. They would not have been randomly mixed in your produce. They also don't just a lay a few eggs that are hard to miss. They lay a small pocket of hundreds of eggs and you would *probably* notice them if they were a frequent occurrence on food. Second, most of the *other* posters here are probably right in that your fridge is not as air tight as it may otherwise seem. Their reasons as to how the flies may have gotten in are reasonable. Additionally, you should consider how a fridge door seal works. When you close the door and the seal collapses a bit, you are forcing a little more air out. When the door rebounds a bit as the seal uncompressed you generate a little bit of lower pressure inside the fridge as compared to the outside environment. You can test this with a well-sealed freezer like a chest freezer. You can feel the air squeeze out on shutting, and if you have a good seal it is harder to open back up than just the weight of the lid. It's actually progressively harder to open the door up until the point the seal fails, since you are creating additional volume inside the fridge by lifting the door while the seal is intact and the pressure lowers until the seal fails. Also adding to this phenomena is that any room temperature air that entered the freezer will cool, shirking its partial pressure and further helping to hold the door shut. Now, consider what happens when food (in the absence of insects for now) begins to rot. That rot is caused by bacteria and fungus eating your food. And what happens when bacteria eat? I mean other than your food spoiling? They poop out CO2, methane, and other gases. If that builds up it can overcome the slightly lower pressure otherwise enjoyed by the interior and force the door deal to fail, providing an egress for the trapped gases inside. Once those gases are free it's like a massive neon sign to critters that feed on rot. And they are very, very good at finding where such gases are leaking from, and are pretty determined little critters about finding a way to worm inside and fulfill their biological imperatives. TL;DR - fridges are very good about keeping outside air out when cool & running. They are not so good at keeping inside air in when temperatures equalize to the outside environment.\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: Went on vacation. Fridge died while I was gone. Came back to a freezer full of maggots. How do maggots get into a place like a freezer that's sealed air tight?\n\nA: The eggs were already there. At some point, the food had to make its way from the farm to the grocery store. There are plenty of places along the way for food to become contaminated. When properly refrigerated, though, many contaminating species die, but most become dormant. When the fridge lost power and returned to room temperature, it was warm enough for the fly eggs to develop. Congratulations, you've discovered why it took until Pasteur for ~~abiogenesis~~ spontaneous generation to lose prominence.\n\nB: First off, most of the posters here are *probably* wrong about the insect eggs. Flies that lay eggs that create meat-eating maggots do not lay their eggs randomly about. They only lay their eggs on rotting flesh. They would not have been randomly mixed in your produce. They also don't just a lay a few eggs that are hard to miss. They lay a small pocket of hundreds of eggs and you would *probably* notice them if they were a frequent occurrence on food. Second, most of the *other* posters here are probably right in that your fridge is not as air tight as it may otherwise seem. Their reasons as to how the flies may have gotten in are reasonable. Additionally, you should consider how a fridge door seal works. When you close the door and the seal collapses a bit, you are forcing a little more air out. When the door rebounds a bit as the seal uncompressed you generate a little bit of lower pressure inside the fridge as compared to the outside environment. You can test this with a well-sealed freezer like a chest freezer. You can feel the air squeeze out on shutting, and if you have a good seal it is harder to open back up than just the weight of the lid. It's actually progressively harder to open the door up until the point the seal fails, since you are creating additional volume inside the fridge by lifting the door while the seal is intact and the pressure lowers until the seal fails. Also adding to this phenomena is that any room temperature air that entered the freezer will cool, shirking its partial pressure and further helping to hold the door shut. Now, consider what happens when food (in the absence of insects for now) begins to rot. That rot is caused by bacteria and fungus eating your food. And what happens when bacteria eat? I mean other than your food spoiling? They poop out CO2, methane, and other gases. If that builds up it can overcome the slightly lower pressure otherwise enjoyed by the interior and force the door deal to fail, providing an egress for the trapped gases inside. Once those gases are free it's like a massive neon sign to critters that feed on rot. And they are very, very good at finding where such gases are leaking from, and are pretty determined little critters about finding a way to worm inside and fulfill their biological imperatives. TL;DR - fridges are very good about keeping outside air out when cool & running. They are not so good at keeping inside air in when temperatures equalize to the outside 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: Went on vacation. Fridge died while I was gone. Came back to a freezer full of maggots. How do maggots get into a place like a freezer that's sealed air tight?\n\nA: The eggs were already there. At some point, the food had to make its way from the farm to the grocery store. There are plenty of places along the way for food to become contaminated. When properly refrigerated, though, many contaminating species die, but most become dormant. When the fridge lost power and returned to room temperature, it was warm enough for the fly eggs to develop. Congratulations, you've discovered why it took until Pasteur for ~~abiogenesis~~ spontaneous generation to lose prominence.\n\nB: Francesco Redi did an experiment on spontaneous generation using rotting meat and maggots. One chunk of meat had an airtight jar, one had a gauze covering and the other was open. In the 17th century it was widely accepted that some organisms would spontaneously generate under the right conditions, and Redi set out to disapprove it. In his experiment the airtight container spawned no maggots. The gauze spawned few and the uncovered was crawling. Now that we know the maggots didn't magically grow from the meat there are a few possible explanations: 1.Your fridge is not airtight 2.The meat was already contaminated but within safety guidelines as cooking red meat from refrigerated to serving temp kills the eggs and baddies.\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: If ants love sugar, and bees make honey, why aren’t bee hives constantly attacked by ants?\n\nA: Ants are constantly trying to attack beehives. Other bees and insects will also try to attack the beehives. This is why a large number of bees is dedicated to protecting their hives from these intruders.\n\nB: Because the bees will murder the ants. Bees are much bigger and will bite an ant in two without much trouble. And there are up to tens of thousands of bees in a big hive.\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: Eli5: If ants love sugar, and bees make honey, why aren’t bee hives constantly attacked by ants?\n\nA: In some southern states beekeepers will actually put the leg stands of some raised hives in containers of water to prevent small insects that will rob a weakened hive. In theory the water will prevent small insects from reaching the stand legs and crawling up into the hive. Source: I am a beekeeper\n\nB: As someone with Beehives I can tell you they very much do. If you have a strong hive they manage to keep the ants out. If they're weaker, or for example, you give them too much space when there are too few bees, then ants can and will steal the honey. And God forbid you drop a little bit of it in your kitchen...\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: Eli5: If ants love sugar, and bees make honey, why aren’t bee hives constantly attacked by ants?\n\nA: If people like money why aren’t banks constantly robbed. It’s because very bad things will happen to you if you try. Bees are a good bit bigger than ants and will kill any ant that tries to get into the hive.\n\nB: In some southern states beekeepers will actually put the leg stands of some raised hives in containers of water to prevent small insects that will rob a weakened hive. In theory the water will prevent small insects from reaching the stand legs and crawling up into the hive. Source: I am a beekeeper\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: Eli5: If ants love sugar, and bees make honey, why aren’t bee hives constantly attacked by ants?\n\nA: Ever try to take honey from a bee without a bee keeping suit? Ants don't have bee keeping suits.\n\nB: In some southern states beekeepers will actually put the leg stands of some raised hives in containers of water to prevent small insects that will rob a weakened hive. In theory the water will prevent small insects from reaching the stand legs and crawling up into the hive. Source: I am a beekeeper\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: If ants love sugar, and bees make honey, why aren’t bee hives constantly attacked by ants?\n\nA: As someone with Beehives I can tell you they very much do. If you have a strong hive they manage to keep the ants out. If they're weaker, or for example, you give them too much space when there are too few bees, then ants can and will steal the honey. And God forbid you drop a little bit of it in your kitchen...\n\nB: If people like money why aren’t banks constantly robbed. It’s because very bad things will happen to you if you try. Bees are a good bit bigger than ants and will kill any ant that tries to get into the hive.\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 traditional cars lack any decent ability to warn the driver that the battery is low or about to die? You can test a battery if you go under the hood and connect up the right meter to measure the battery integrity but why can’t a modern car employ the technology easily? (Or maybe it does and I need a new car)\n\nA: The technical people answering are technically correct, that a voltmeter would indicate the voltage of a battery, but they’re missing what OP is after: when won’t a battery work anymore? In other words, they are wondering “why can’t I know the health of my battery?” With car batteries (the 12V lead acid type) the voltage isn’t really a good indicator of health. An old dead battery can read ~12V just fine. It would likely power most lights and equipment, too. The real test of health comes when trying to start the engine; the “load” test. An old battery can read 12V until asked to turn the starter, then immediately drops to an unusable voltage. The simple answer is that traditional 12V car batteries do not have the sophisticated tech to indicate their health like, say, laptop batteries. Nor is there a good way to test the health except for hooking the battery to a load, which isn’t an easy thing to build into a car’s circuitry. Basically, starting the engine IS the load test. Edit: To all those asking why a load tester couldn’t be added into the hardware or software of a car: it could. Nearly anything is possible with time and money. But I agree with the comments from those in the industry; it comes down to three basic things: 1) Added cost (automotive margins are very thin) 2) Added complexity and engineering effort for nearly no return (exactly who would truly want this?) 3) Service side (auto companies do not wish customers to have to think about maintenance beyond knowing to take the vehicle in when the light turns on) Edit 2: Since this blew up from my original simple answer, we’ve attracted the attention of my more astute engineering colleagues. It appears my answer is a little dated. The fact is that this diagnostic capability DOES exist in more modern vehicles. But just as auto companies have chosen to shroud engines in giant swaths of plastic to hide the ugly technical bits, so have they chosen to hide most of these diagnostic abilities from the consumer behind a simple light or “Service Soon” message. Good discussion!\n\nB: There's a battery light that pops up when battery voltage is low on some cars. Diagnosing lead-acid battery health is not as simple as measuring voltage, it can be near full voltage and go down super low when you actually try and draw power. You're required to change batteries often enough that it shouldn't be a problem, but many people only change them when they die leaving them in a field.\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 traditional cars lack any decent ability to warn the driver that the battery is low or about to die? You can test a battery if you go under the hood and connect up the right meter to measure the battery integrity but why can’t a modern car employ the technology easily? (Or maybe it does and I need a new car)\n\nA: Batteries in traditional (i.e. gasoline-powered internal combustion engine) cars are only used for (a) powering the starter motor to start the engine or (b) running electrical features (e.g. radio, lights) when the engine isn't running. Car batteries are automatically re-charged by the alternator, which uses power from the engine to generate electricity while the engine is running, both for re-charging the battery and running electrical features of the car. Traditional car batteries don't really store that much energy, since their primary purpose is only to power the starter motor that gets the combustion engine running. Basically, they need to put out one big boost to start the engine, then they get automatically re-charged once the engine is humming. So there are two reasons your car battery will die: 1. The alternator is failing to do it's job, so, while driving, anything that relies on electricity like lights or windshield wipers or radio will drain the battery instead of getting electricity from the alternator. 2. The engine isn't running, but something else is draining the battery. E.g. lights are left on while the car isn't running or there's a short somewhere in the electrical system. Most modern cars (at least in the US) *have* an alternator/battery-warning dashboard light that comes on when the alternator is failing to provide sufficient power to re-charge the battery. That takes care of #1. However, #2 occurs when the engine isn't running ... which usually means you aren't in the car. Since a car battery doesn't store all that much energy on its own, if you're away from the car for a few hours with something draining the battery, it's not going to start when you get back to the car. (And if it didn't drain the battery enough to prevent the car from starting, then the battery will be re-charged by the engine as soon as you start driving again.) So, as long as your alternator is working correctly, your battery generally won't have issues. Cars have warning lights to let the driver know if the alternator is failing. But if your battery loses its charge for some other reason (e.g. human error or electrical system problems), it's going to go from a usable charge to insufficient charge to start the car pretty quickly *while you're not driving and not in the car*, so a warning light isn't any help. TL;DR: if you leave your car lights on overnight, a warning light that you're draining the battery isn't much use while you're asleep in bed.\n\nB: The technical people answering are technically correct, that a voltmeter would indicate the voltage of a battery, but they’re missing what OP is after: when won’t a battery work anymore? In other words, they are wondering “why can’t I know the health of my battery?” With car batteries (the 12V lead acid type) the voltage isn’t really a good indicator of health. An old dead battery can read ~12V just fine. It would likely power most lights and equipment, too. The real test of health comes when trying to start the engine; the “load” test. An old battery can read 12V until asked to turn the starter, then immediately drops to an unusable voltage. The simple answer is that traditional 12V car batteries do not have the sophisticated tech to indicate their health like, say, laptop batteries. Nor is there a good way to test the health except for hooking the battery to a load, which isn’t an easy thing to build into a car’s circuitry. Basically, starting the engine IS the load test. Edit: To all those asking why a load tester couldn’t be added into the hardware or software of a car: it could. Nearly anything is possible with time and money. But I agree with the comments from those in the industry; it comes down to three basic things: 1) Added cost (automotive margins are very thin) 2) Added complexity and engineering effort for nearly no return (exactly who would truly want this?) 3) Service side (auto companies do not wish customers to have to think about maintenance beyond knowing to take the vehicle in when the light turns on) Edit 2: Since this blew up from my original simple answer, we’ve attracted the attention of my more astute engineering colleagues. It appears my answer is a little dated. The fact is that this diagnostic capability DOES exist in more modern vehicles. But just as auto companies have chosen to shroud engines in giant swaths of plastic to hide the ugly technical bits, so have they chosen to hide most of these diagnostic abilities from the consumer behind a simple light or “Service Soon” message. Good discussion!\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 traditional cars lack any decent ability to warn the driver that the battery is low or about to die? You can test a battery if you go under the hood and connect up the right meter to measure the battery integrity but why can’t a modern car employ the technology easily? (Or maybe it does and I need a new car)\n\nA: The technical people answering are technically correct, that a voltmeter would indicate the voltage of a battery, but they’re missing what OP is after: when won’t a battery work anymore? In other words, they are wondering “why can’t I know the health of my battery?” With car batteries (the 12V lead acid type) the voltage isn’t really a good indicator of health. An old dead battery can read ~12V just fine. It would likely power most lights and equipment, too. The real test of health comes when trying to start the engine; the “load” test. An old battery can read 12V until asked to turn the starter, then immediately drops to an unusable voltage. The simple answer is that traditional 12V car batteries do not have the sophisticated tech to indicate their health like, say, laptop batteries. Nor is there a good way to test the health except for hooking the battery to a load, which isn’t an easy thing to build into a car’s circuitry. Basically, starting the engine IS the load test. Edit: To all those asking why a load tester couldn’t be added into the hardware or software of a car: it could. Nearly anything is possible with time and money. But I agree with the comments from those in the industry; it comes down to three basic things: 1) Added cost (automotive margins are very thin) 2) Added complexity and engineering effort for nearly no return (exactly who would truly want this?) 3) Service side (auto companies do not wish customers to have to think about maintenance beyond knowing to take the vehicle in when the light turns on) Edit 2: Since this blew up from my original simple answer, we’ve attracted the attention of my more astute engineering colleagues. It appears my answer is a little dated. The fact is that this diagnostic capability DOES exist in more modern vehicles. But just as auto companies have chosen to shroud engines in giant swaths of plastic to hide the ugly technical bits, so have they chosen to hide most of these diagnostic abilities from the consumer behind a simple light or “Service Soon” message. Good discussion!\n\nB: Even a bad battery can show you 12v. But as soon as a load is present, drop to 8v. When you test the battery in the shop, a big load is put on, for example some heating coils (inside the tester). It should be hard to automate this and not overstrain the battery.\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 can your body have a \"sleep debt\" but not a \"sleep surplus\"? Why does my 15 hours of sleep on the weekend not counteract the 4 hours I get on a weeknight?\n\nA: Its like your laptop - once you use is for a while you need to charge it up and if it falls to 0 you need to charge it before it works again but if you leave it overnight the max is only 100%\n\nB: Your brain is like a trash can. Throughout the day it fills up with garbage, and at night that garbage is slowly removed. If you don't get enough sleep, only some of the garbage gets taken out. Over time, it builds up until your can is almost always full. A full can is bad and makes you fall asleep or hallucinate. However if you sleep lots and lots, your trash-can can't get under 0% full. It will always only hold a certain amount of garbage.\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 can your body have a \"sleep debt\" but not a \"sleep surplus\"? Why does my 15 hours of sleep on the weekend not counteract the 4 hours I get on a weeknight?\n\nA: Your brain is like a trash can. Throughout the day it fills up with garbage, and at night that garbage is slowly removed. If you don't get enough sleep, only some of the garbage gets taken out. Over time, it builds up until your can is almost always full. A full can is bad and makes you fall asleep or hallucinate. However if you sleep lots and lots, your trash-can can't get under 0% full. It will always only hold a certain amount of garbage.\n\nB: Not getting enough sleep doesn’t let the body and brain finish its cycles. The damage and lack of sleep build up (debt) Once the body is finished with the cycles, that’s it. It can’t store sleep to repair future damage and build future neural pathways. It can only work on what has already been done.\n\nPlease respond with only A or B.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "A", "role": "assistant" } ]