Someone on Bluesky last night mentioned Woody Allen for some offhand reason, and some sock puppet account was loudly defending Woody and saying he never did anything wrong and that Soon-Yin was never parented by him or anything like that. Imagine being a shill for Woody Allen of all people.
So someone chimed in on a subject that was never broached in the first place? It reminds me of the people on reddit who will always pipe in about how mean John Lennon was no matter what the subject about him is.
Literally someone joked "don't Woody Allen me" and this account went off with a bunch of "facts". It was super odd.
When I was on Reddit I was talking about Jian Ghomeshi's sexual abuse charges on r/Canada (before it got overrun by racists), and a sock puppet account sent me the weirdest PM, about how I wanted to "touch the diamond that is Jian's life, but holding a melting diamond in your hands is dangerous" or some such shit. I actually feel it was Jian Ghomeshi because it was so narcissistic and weird. I could of course be wrong, but I really think it was. The wording was just too weird.
In a video someone discussed the average us household income. Someone commented that that number was actually inflated and it would be better to use median. I found the article the OP was referencing and pointed out that it was in fact the median and pointed out a median is a type of average. They argued for far far too long that average exclusively refers to mean, that median "isn't even an expected value" and that they were right and I was wrong because they are an engineer who works with this all day long. I ended up getting ganged up by several different accounts, I eventually screenshotted the Wikipedia page for average and got them to all delete their posts.
Average vs mean vs median is always a clusterfuck argument waiting to happen.
I was talking with someone from the UK about this article that they showed me. They were outraged by it, and I said I don't see what the problem is with it. They were weirdly fixated on the "asylum seekers" part, to which I told them the article says it will apply to vulnerable persons regardless of immigration status, and I asked them why they were fixating so much on this applying to one specific demographic.
This caused them to go on a tirade about "migrants are getting more rights than people who were born in this country" and how they aren't a racist because they married an Italian. They said "it's all about divide and conquer" and I asked them why they care so much about what ethnicity or nationality a person is, over if they're vulnerable and receiving healthcare equality or not. This quickly devolved into them going on about how the UK is "being taken over by migrants". So, I asked them if they knew any of these migrants, if the UK is "being taken over" by them. They said no.
This started from them watching a YouTube video made by some influencer who was getting angry over the same article. I'm more than convinced that social media can have its bad sides.
I can kind of see their thought processes there. They're sharing right-wing media so they're likely already primed for those biases, plus that article title is intentionally misleading by suggesting asylum seekers will by default get priority over all other patients. It isn't until the sixth paragraph that they admit it's priority care for vulnerable people which is a group that happens to include asylum seekers and undocumented migrants (terms which this writer uses interchangeably, because of course they do). Very poor journalistic integrity even for a rag like this one, imo.
This type of article is intentionally misleading and written primarily to rile up people with poor media literacy. Making people angry makes it easier to manipulate them, and vulnerable groups are naturally less able to fight back so they're an easy target.
In an ideal world after being challenged they would have reevaluated the source and their beliefs. In practice very few people do that and they just get more entrenched instead. Especially if it's someone anonymous online just telling them they're wrong.
Yeah, it seems like there are a lot of people who will only read the headlines, which when combined with what headline they went with is egregious. Honestly, clickbait such as this is a pet peeve I have with media in general.
Let's give more money to billionaires, they will make us rich too.
Ah, trickle-down economics. A tale as old as time.
My wife and I bought 10 lottery tickets at a time when the pot got up to 300 million or something like that. we were talking about what we would would do with the money once we won and couldn't agree on how many of our friends mortgages we would pay off. we MAY have had some other things going on in a relationship at that time, but it's still one of the stupidest arguments I've ever gotten in.
Any time I think of the lottery I can't help thinking of this infamous reddit post that should be mandatory reading by anyone who wins.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/24vo34/comment/chb4v05
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/24vo34/comment/chb4yin
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/24vo34/comment/chb51su
I like to believe that I would pay off mortgages for immediate family, and buy a house for any immediate members who don't have one. If I have some left over I would think about extended family and friends.
I think I'm with your wife on this one.
I really shouldn't respond to this since I'm just rehashing up one of the stupidest arguments I've ever had. but, what you said is actually pretty close to what my position was. we parted ways when it came to the more distant cousins. I suggested a cool hundred K USD out to second cousins 'cause, after all, 300 million doesn't buy as much as it used to
but surprisingly, it didn't really matter because we didn't win the lottery. imagine that. /s.
My lesson learned was that arguing on principle isn't usually worth it
Oh, when I said "I'm with your wife", I meant physically. No way do I agree with her.
HA! sick burn
I'd make trust funds for them and make it clear that this was it. If you give them cash they will hate you because you gave them only $1,000,000 a year ago and didn't give them more this year.
Well, definitely arguing with my mom over me going outside in winter with hair that wasn't fully dry, when I didn't have time or I'd miss the bus and be late for college. I usually dry my hair enough that if I cover it with a hood or hat during colder days I'm perfectly fine, but she insists that one of these days going out with wet hair in the cold is gonna get me sick, which has never happened. I ain't changing the habit of not fully drying my hair after I get sick from going out with wet hair and that is the sole cause of me getting sick (so, probably never).
This happens every time I go outside without a coat during winter. If I'm going to the grocery store, and I'm only outside for 60 seconds, I dont need a coat. Obviously if I was going on a hike then I'd need it.
Where'd this myth even come from about cold causing colds? Its even in the name! I can't imagine how many hours of pointless arguing occurred between parents and children because of it
I'd hike across campus in college with wet hair and it would be frozen solid by the time I got to class in the winter. lol
I'm lucky I don't live in an area where it normally gets cold enough for my hair to freeze during the cold season. Closest I've ever had to that was a miserably cold winter last year. Only subzero winter I've ever been in and I would never wish it even on my worst enemies.
A really stupid one was when my older sister started tossing out a bunch of random attacks on my character when I was about to drive her to work. I asked when I ever demonstrated any of these traits and she brought up when I jumped into an argument that had nothing to do with me the night before and supposedly said horrible things.
Anyone who knew me would have known I was in my room with headphones watching the Gravity Falls finale the night before. I think that was the first time anyone failed at gaslighting me, because I was that obsessed with Gravity Falls.
I told her to call a cab to work and she started crying. :/ Like, what did you expect...
Toss up : a coworker who I would have counted as quite intelligent said we haven't been to the moon because "it's impossible to launch a rocket to the moon and land on it because rockets go in a straight line. Trying to time the shot of the rocket, and get to the moon at the exact moment when the moon gets to the right spot would be astronomically impossible. The odds of pulling that off at the speed you would be traveling and the distance you travel... Well the odds are effectively zero."
"Also you can't catch up to the moon because the moon is traveling faster then our rockets can go "
Either that or a prochoice individual who voted for Trump....
How does this person think things like ICBMs work? They just go straight up and away from the earth and can't turn?
When he used both arguments in the same conversation. I shrugged and stopped talking. Nothing to gain by continuing the conversation
No, you must go back and tell him that the moon moves at a very predictable rate and once you get close enough it will even pull you in.
Also I'm pretty sure the ISS moves a lot faster than the moon but we still manage to dock spacecraft with it. I'm pretty sure it's a bit smaller than the moon and docking can require higher precision than landing on a surface. Even Boeing managed to do it.
How does this person think guided missiles work? "Well the plane moved so we missed."
"Also you can’t catch up to the moon because the moon is traveling faster then our rockets can go "
If you really want to confuse most folks tell them why shooting stuff into the sun is actually VERY hard to do.
Okay im curious. What about shooting something into the sun is very hard?
The earth has a lot of angular momentum, in fact the planets combined have more than the sun and planet formation may actually be necessary to "bleed off" angular momentum from protostellar discs for star formation, but I digress. So if you were to aim directly at the sun you'd miss it wildly as the tangential motion of the earth would be added to your motion. Even worse it would miss the sun, go around it, and orbit back to where you came from. A bad thing if you were trying to toss, say, radioactive waste into the sun. To hit the sun you have to bleed off all of that angular momentum by using rockets (very expensive) or do what NASA usually does and use gravity assists swinging by planets to gain or lose energy. The Parker solar probe had to do a bunch of swings past Venus to lose enough angular momentum to get close to the sun.
I was assuming rockets were an option like going to the moon. Cost wasnt something i thought we were factoring in thats not really a factor in just trying to send a space ship at the sun and having it get there. It doesnt have to be moving fast (relatively) to get there so you just need good aim and to keep it on track.
Cost should be its own problem separate from the objective. Assume 0 costs, how hard would it be?
It requires a LOT of energy to counter the earth's orbital motion. Hitting the moon is different because the moon is traveling with the earth and you are going outwards. Energy is always part of the equation since orbital mechanics is all about energy. You can't ignore it by saying "Assume 0 costs, how hard would it be?" then we could just say it can approach the speed of light since we are ignoring any energy costs.
"It doesnt have to be moving fast"
But you will be moving fast, you are starting at an angular speed of 30km/s. The Apollo missions with their massive engines reached 11 km/s. Now think of someone wanting to dump hundreds of tons of nuclear waste into the sun and the energy that would require.
Maybe this explains it better:
The moment I knew that I had to break it off with my ex was when a comment about tea-cup saucers turned into an accusation that I "always had to be right".
We were having cake for dessert:
Her: "Can you grab plates?"
Me: Grabs a couple of small plates.
Her: "No, those aren't for cake. It's the really small ones."
Me: "Okay, but FYI the small ones are actually teacup saucers. You can tell the difference because they have the indent in the middle so the teacup doesn't slip around."
Her: "You just always have to be right, don't you?"
What followed was a truly bonkers argument where I found myself accused of "lording my intelligence" and told that I had to be right in everything.
For the record, I told her I literally didn't give a shit what she wants to eat cake off of. I'm the guy that would happily use a Tupperware lid as a plate if it was the closest thing to hand. I was just pointing out an "interesting fact" (in my mind at least).
How dare you point out something. Stop hurting her feelings by pointing out anything she doesn't know. "I would've pointed out you were about to drink soap but then I'd 'Always need to be right'."
it was about nutrition. it started with the fact that proteins, fats and sugars all have different energy densities and so how much weight you gain is dependent on what the food is, which is all fair. but then i made the mistake of saying "your weight won't go up by more than the weight of the food, anyway." and that spiralled out of control completely. apparently that's wrong and you can gain infinite weight from one chocolate bar.
as usual for this person they felt that i refused to take the "holistic" view into account.
a more recent conversation started with them talking about some sort of blood sugar sensor that athletes use and when i said "that's interesting, what's it called?" they started talking about gut microbes.
There's almost some truth to it. Certain foods, like salts and carbs, in certain situations, like low salt/carb diets, can have a ripple effect. 100g of carbs, or a few grams of salt, can cause your body to retain water. The effect being that you gained several pounds from eating just a few (hundred) grams of certain foods.
However, for your body to retain that water, you must also consume said water.
Though even in that case, I'd consider water consumed to be covered under "food".
The only exceptions I can think of are from gaining mass from things other than what you eat. Like tar buildup from smoking, snorting or injecting various substances, boffing something (I think that's what it's called... Up the butt instead of out the butt), things sticking to your skin, absorbing through the skin, or bugs/aliens laying eggs inside you. Maybe getting possessed by a ghost, if ghosts have mass. But I don't think all of those combined would even come close to a single meal, other than extreme cases.
I was curious and looked into how much mass the average adult loses through breathing, and apparently it's at least about 69g (at rest, if you are metabolizing fat).
you can gain infinite weight from one chocolate bar.
Eventually you'll turn into a black hole.
“holistic”
Aka, "Keep science and evidence out of this"
Well, nutritional science doesn't have a great track record. While a lot of bullshit is justified using the word "holistic", it is also true that nutrition and in general our metabolism are affected by so many factors that a reductionist approach to nutrition more often than not fails to give actionable insights, especially if you move away from very broad statements. It doesn't help that every few years, some core concept of nutritional science is discovered to be the result of lobbying.
I fought with my aunt about "mom jeans." I was telling her it was a style of jeans and she was adament that it was any kind of jeans that a "mother" is wearing.
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~