87
submitted 1 year ago by GatoB@lemmy.ml to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] this@sh.itjust.works 48 points 1 year ago

At the risk of upsetting people, most if not all religions. They can't all be right.

[-] CookieJarObserver@feddit.de 12 points 1 year ago

They however can all be wrong...

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] potcandan@lemmy.one 36 points 1 year ago

I always think about when I was taught about taste and the human tongue back in grade school, they had these diagrams about zones on the tongue corresponding to sweet, sour, bitter, etc. like a "taste map". I'm not sure how many generations were taught about it but turns out it just isn't true at all. So, not like it's important but you got a lot of misinformed folks out there in regards to taste lol

[-] ilost7489@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago

I wonder why they teach it too. Why teach misleading information that has no benefit but give people a wrong impression on how taste works

[-] Mars@beehaw.org 14 points 1 year ago

Most school science is oversimplification by design. It’s part of the learning process. Yo first learn colors, then when you are ready can learn about wavelengths, color spaces, biology of the eye, color psicology and many many other knowledge fields.

Even when you get into the anatomy of the eye you get “false” information, like the “perfect” cones that only percibe one color, or the misconception that every color is equal. More advanced education gives you more context and nuances.

In the taste and tongue case can be useful to explain that senses are the product of discrete sensors. That you don’t taste with your tongue but with specialized little taste buds. The different concentrations are mostly real, so the tongue map is a first step, even being so so far from the objetive and complex truth.

The problem is people that think they only need whatever high school education they got to be experts in pandemics, gender, biological sex, business, economics, history, politics and everything else.

Take note that I’m not only talking about a formal education. You can really learn a lot (most things? Maybe everything?) by yourself. But you have to be critical with your sources. You have to know how to learn. You have to understand how little you know about everything and how much you still have to learn.

Most “do your own research” people in the internet do not do actual research, don’t know how to do research and I don believe they know what research is.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Ordoviz@lemmy.ml 33 points 1 year ago
load more comments (6 replies)
[-] LecternCistern@sopuli.xyz 29 points 1 year ago
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Martin@lemmy.ml 26 points 1 year ago

That they're right. You should be able to question your own opinions. A lost art, it seems

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] ancedactyl@lemmy.ml 26 points 1 year ago

That the average person will swallow 8 spiders a year in their in their sleep.

[-] EponymousBosh@beehaw.org 12 points 1 year ago

Spiders Georg really threw the average off

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] StoneBleach@lemmy.ml 26 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

That looking too closely at the screen will blind you or damage your eyes. This myth originated decades ago in the 1960s from an advertisement by a television manufacturer. Basically in 1967 General Electric reported that their color TVs were emitting too many x-rays due to a factory error, so health officials recommended keeping children and pretty much anyone else at a safe distance from the screen. The problem was soon resolved, but the myth endured.

If you ask me I would say that x-ray radiation has little to do with going blind, I have no idea if radiation can actually make you blind, but it's funny how somehow eye diseases got in the way as the only possible consequences in the myth just because we use our eyes to watch TV.

[-] Inductor@feddit.de 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

CRT screens generate bremsstrahlung (x-rays) from slowing electrons, so the front piece of glass is normally made of lead glass, or barium-strontium glass to block it.
After the General Electric incident, testing showed that nearly every manufacturers TVs were emitting too many x-rays. This led to the recommendation to stay 6 ft. away from the TV when it was on. The FDA then later imposed limits on how much radiation a TV was allowed to emit.
With the these regulations, if you were to absorb all x-rays from a CRT for 2 hours a day, every day, you would get 320 millirem per year (comparable to the average US background radiation of 310 millirem per year). See here, as well as this article.
Edit: Also, significant doses of x-rays can blind you. Radiologists in medicine particularly have to shield against it, since they are exposed to it every day, and exposure builds up. See here and here.
Edit again: Wasn't paying enough attention. That last source talks about ionizing radiation specifically, so not x-rays.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] branchial@feddit.de 24 points 1 year ago

You have to completely decharge batteries before recharging them.

[-] jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de 22 points 1 year ago

For modern lithium batteries, that is even harmful for the battery.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] GatoB@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 year ago

I think it depends on the battery type but I am not sure

[-] branchial@feddit.de 15 points 1 year ago

Yeah it's a thing for Nickel-Cadmium batteries which aren't used much anymore.

[-] Adi2121@lemmy.ml 23 points 1 year ago

Nearly anything abouth Pre-Columbian North and South America. Turns out, there was no homogeneous "Native" culture, just as there was no "European" culture. Every different group had their own traditions and stories. They all were complex people, not one-dimensional savages or pacifists. We should simply view them as any other people.

[-] TheOubliette@lemmy.ml 22 points 1 year ago

That by not being ridiculously overtly bigoted, they have actually interrogated and rejected their own bigotry. The former is basic and mostly relies on social conditioning. The latter requires reading history and people who are criticizing things with which you may identify and therefore take very personally. The latter is not taught in school and school does not provide the tools (outside of literacy) to do so, so it's a difficult, painful, abd regrettably rare thing to see, usually requiring sone trauma to change.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Dubois_arache@lemmy.blahaj.zone 21 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

That global warming is not true, but they are totally taken by right-wing extremist propaganda.

[-] Billy_Gnosis@lemmy.ml 20 points 1 year ago

The government is looking out for your best interests

load more comments (20 replies)
[-] CannotSleep420@lemmygrad.ml 19 points 1 year ago

That the 13^th^ amendment outlawed slavery.

[-] mrmanager@lemmy.today 19 points 1 year ago

That there are heroic countries in the world.

[-] CookieJarObserver@feddit.de 17 points 1 year ago

There are, but who they are depends on who is asking and who is asked.

[-] animist@lemmy.one 8 points 1 year ago

I mean define heroic, it's super subjective

[-] SkepticElliptic@beehaw.org 18 points 1 year ago

That cold water will boil faster than warm water.

It's a confusion. You should always cook with cold tap water, not hot, because hot tap water can contain excessive amounts of lead.

There are several instances where hot water can freeze faster than lukewarm water. I believe people saw this on shows such as Bill Nye and then forgot the specifics.

[-] OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago

Wait what's this about hot water and lead? I love me some hot showers, is it making me dumb?

[-] Inductor@feddit.de 8 points 1 year ago

According to the Minnesota Department of Health, if your house was built before 1940, then you should let the water run for 3-5 minutes before drinking it or cooking with it. Showering is probably fine, since they recommend doing showering and running the dishwasher first as one way to let the water run before cooking.
This should especially apply if the water has been sitting in the pipes for a long time (e.g. after a holiday).

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[-] flipcoder@lemmy.ml 17 points 1 year ago

That the first amendment and free speech are the same thing

[-] argv_minus_one@beehaw.org 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

“The human eye can only see 30 [or 60] frames per second.” Truth is, there are some events only 1ms long that a human eye can see, so the real upper limit is [edit: at least] 1000 frames per second. There are diminishing returns, but there is plenty to be gained by getting to at least a significant fraction of that limit.

[-] Venus@slrpnk.net 14 points 1 year ago

so the real upper limit is 1000 frames per second.

This is basically the same misconception just kicked further down the road. The truth is that the human eye simply does not see in any way similarly to the way a camera sees and can't be compared. There is no upper limit.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] meliache@feddit.de 16 points 1 year ago
[-] fratermus@lemmy.ml 16 points 1 year ago
  1. "your money" is in an account at the Social Security administration.
  2. police have a duty of service toward any particular citizen
[-] cnschn@lemmy.cnschn.com 16 points 1 year ago

That "Nike" rhymes with "Bike".

[-] butter@lemmy.jamestrey.com 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I will start pronouncing bike like nike

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] PanaX@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 year ago

I know it's low hanging fruit, but religion.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Rhabuko@feddit.de 13 points 1 year ago
[-] bdonvr@lemmy.rogers-net.com 12 points 1 year ago

You'd be shocked at how many people think the moon's phases are caused by earth's shadow

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] cypherpunks@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 year ago
[-] Borgzilla@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 year ago

Wearing a cap will make you go bald.

[-] LinkOpensChest_wav@lemmy.one 11 points 1 year ago

There are a lot of misconceptions about hair growth. Another one is the myth that if you shave, the hair will grow back thicker.

[-] ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 1 year ago

That trans women on hormones have a significant advantage in sports

[-] AnagrammadiCodeina@feddit.it 12 points 1 year ago

From: https://www.bbc.com/sport/61346517

*Tucker: When boys reach the age of 13-14, things start to change physically and we see increased muscle mass, bone density; [it] changes the shape of the skeleton, changes the heart and the lung, haemoglobin levels, and all of those things are significant contributors to performance.

Lowering the testosterone has some effect on those systems, but it's not complete, and so for the most part, whatever the biological differences are that were created by testosterone persist even in the presence of testosterone reduction - or, if I put that differently, even after testosterone levels are lowered.

It leaves behind a significant portion of what gives males sporting performance advantages over females.*

So i guess it depends on when the transition happens?

[-] ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone 15 points 1 year ago

Nah. There's a million studies that look at isolated physical traits, but mostly have one of two common problems. 1) they are often written by people with an explicitly anti trans inclusion bias and 2) they look at physical traits in isolation without attempting to quantify if and how those traits apply to sports.

If trans women can out perform cis women, it only takes one to set a women's world record, yet that just doesn't happen. There are often articles claiming this has happened, but when you look closer, it turns out that they're talking about age/regional/federation specific records that are mis presented as world records.

If trans women out perform cis women, we should expect to see them more likely to end with podium finishes than the cis women they're competing with. It should be pretty trivial to gather the data and show that advantage. But it doesn't happen, because the truth is, trans women are on average, more likely to under perform compared to cis women.

No study that looks at a trait in isolation and makes educated guesses about the effect of hormone replacement on that trait is ever going to tell you how real world sporting outcomes will be impacted.

The only thing that will tell you that is actual real world sporting results, and the limited results we have so far don't show any hint of an advantage. If it is in there, it's small enough that it's not immediately obvious. We both know that if it was obvious, the media would be screaming it from the hills.

Some numbers. There are 50,000 athletes in the Olympics each year. From memory, there have been 4 or 5 Olympics in which trans people have been able to participate. So, that's at least 200,000 athletes participating in that time. Now, trans people make up 1% of the population. Lets say that trans people are 10x less likely to get involved in sports though due to external factors. Using those numbers, 1 in 1000 of those 200,000 athletes should have been trans, which comes out 200. Lets say trans people are 100 times less likely to participate in sports. Even then, we should have seen 20 trans athletes. And those athletes should have got more gold medals than you would expect. Instead, we have had exactly 1 trans woman athlete in that time, and she came last in her event.

That's what people are afraid of.

No amount of articles about testosterone and puberty change the reality that people are trying to exclude a vulnerable minority to solve a problem they can't even show to exist in the first place.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] misnina@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

People believe that picking 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 as your lottery ticket numbers is insane, because that would have a insanely low/lucky chance of being picked like that. If all numbers are chosen randomly, it is the same chance. No matter any combination of any numbers chosen, 1 ticket has 1 in 13,983,816 chance of being the jackpot numbers. (For US Powerball, specifically)

[-] Skwalin@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 year ago

However, don't the odds of splitting your winnings increase if you pick something more likely to be chosen by others?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 07 Jun 2023
87 points (97.8% liked)

Asklemmy

43027 readers
1688 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS