87
submitted 2 years ago by GatoB@lemmy.ml to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] this@sh.itjust.works 52 points 2 years ago

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

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] potcandan@lemmy.one 36 points 2 years 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

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] Ordoviz@lemmy.ml 34 points 2 years ago
load more comments (6 replies)
[-] LecternCistern@sopuli.xyz 30 points 2 years ago
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] StoneBleach@lemmy.ml 28 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years 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 15 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years 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)
[-] ancedactyl@lemmy.ml 27 points 2 years ago

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

[-] EponymousBosh@beehaw.org 12 points 2 years ago

Spiders Georg really threw the average off

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

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

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] ada 26 points 2 years ago

That trans women on hormones have a significant advantage in sports

[-] AnagrammadiCodeina@feddit.it 13 points 2 years 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 22 points 2 years 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)
[-] branchial@feddit.de 25 points 2 years ago

You have to completely decharge batteries before recharging them.

[-] jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de 22 points 2 years ago

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] GatoB@lemmy.ml 12 points 2 years ago

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

[-] branchial@feddit.de 14 points 2 years ago

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

[-] Adi2121@lemmy.ml 25 points 2 years 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.

[-] mrmanager@lemmy.today 23 points 2 years ago

That there are heroic countries in the world.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Billy_Gnosis@lemmy.ml 23 points 2 years ago

The government is looking out for your best interests

load more comments (20 replies)
[-] TheOubliette@lemmy.ml 23 points 2 years 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 23 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

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

[-] stappern@feddit.it 21 points 2 years ago
load more comments (20 replies)
[-] GarbageShootAlt2@lemmy.ml 20 points 2 years ago

That people were killed in Tiananmen Square itself, that the soldiers were the first ones to kill, and that the death toll was something like 10,000. It gets played up on Reddit because of red scare propaganda and plain old chauvinism.

I wasn't going to say that at first [simply because it's a bit obnoxious] but since other people are courting drama and I was collecting links from another conversation so it's convenient to do, so I'll repost them here:

There was a great deal of violence and many students (along with other protestors, as well as the militants and soldiers) died, so I'll mark each link with an appropriate content warning, though that's mostly because the last one is rough, while the ones before it are unlikely to cause people issues.

First, here are video interviews with some of the former student leaders, the first one with Chai Ling actually being before the incident took place. There is some gunfire and yelling that a western news program uses for "ambience", but nothing is shown. Chai Ling describes a bloody scene, though that specific scene is patently fictional (this is established by the others who are interviewed).

Next is an article which discusses the subject, partly quoting student leaders above. It describes violence in broad strokes but doesn't have any pictures. It also talks about statements made by a British reporter who was there.

Third, here is secondary reporting leaked on documents from the US Embassy in Beijing and the actual report from a Latin American diplomat that was leaked. The latter revealing contains in its summary: "ALTHOUGH THEIR ACCOUNT GENERALLY FOLLOWS THOSE PREVIOUSLY REPORTED, THEIR UNIQUE EXPERIENCES PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INSIGHT AND CORROBORATION OF EVENTS IN THE SQUARE." (source text is all caps). There is very little description of violence, just mention of gunfire being present, people being wounded, etc.

{Caution} Lastly, here's an article written arguing that the event is misrepresented in mass media. I link it mainly because it includes photographic evidence that is very difficult to argue with for reasons beyond it being difficult to look at. Graphic depiction of stripped corpses of soldiers that were strung up after death.

Obviously there's more than this, but these were the links I collected recently. Chai Ling says things that are even more unhinged in footage I think they excluded from that excerpt of the interview.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] CannotSleep420@lemmygrad.ml 20 points 2 years ago

That the 13^th^ amendment outlawed slavery.

[-] SkepticElliptic@beehaw.org 19 points 2 years 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.

load more comments (12 replies)
[-] argv_minus_one@beehaw.org 18 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years 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 2 years 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)
[-] flipcoder@lemmy.ml 18 points 2 years ago

That the first amendment and free speech are the same thing

[-] cnschn@lemmy.cnschn.com 17 points 2 years ago

That "Nike" rhymes with "Bike".

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] PanaX@lemmy.ml 17 points 2 years ago

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

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] meliache@feddit.de 17 points 2 years ago
[-] fratermus@lemmy.ml 16 points 2 years ago
  1. "your money" is in an account at the Social Security administration.
  2. police have a duty of service toward any particular citizen
[-] jannis@feddit.de 15 points 2 years ago
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Rhabuko@feddit.de 14 points 2 years ago
[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 12 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

The Russiagate https://jacobin.com/2020/04/russiagate-christopher-steele-dossier-trump-election

edit: all the people being mad and downvoting just goes to underscore that once people internalize nonsense, no amount of evidence will change their minds

[-] cypherpunks@lemmy.ml 12 points 2 years ago
[-] bdonvr@lemmy.rogers-net.com 11 points 2 years 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)
[-] hmn@lemmy.staphup.nl 11 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

That ivermectin is a hazardous medicine..

It's actually donated by Merck since 1970's to African countries to fight river-blindness! The safety profile is well established and it's safe. https://mectizan.org/

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] SakamotoSan@lemmy.ml 11 points 2 years ago

Gun control benefitting them

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] Borgzilla@lemmy.ca 10 points 2 years ago

Wearing a cap will make you go bald.

[-] LinkOpensChest_wav@lemmy.one 11 points 2 years 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.

[-] misnina@lemmy.ml 10 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years 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 2 years 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 (100.0% liked)

Asklemmy

44149 readers
1000 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