Bonus points if it's usually misused/misunderstood by the people who say it
"We only use ten percent of our brains."
People genuinely believe this and never learned where it came from.
That and the "Alpha Male" garbage. Even the author of the study on wolves has said repeatedly that his study was totally wrong. And yet some people continue to reference it and apply it to humans when even the original study wasn't about people.
People love excuses for bad behavior, no need to verify them. Sigh.
I think that one is finally starting to die off, aside from the last gasps of a man in prison. It takes a while for real science to filter through to common knowledge, and I'm constantly seeing the corrections about wolves and alpha status as flawed thinking.
I think it also got tied into the incel movement and became a toxic phrase. Even if you didn't know the actual science, would you want to call yourself an "alpha male" if it made people think you were an incel?
It came from early on in studying the brain. A scientist said that we only understand what 10 percent of the brain does, and everyone ran with a misunderstanding of that idea.
Okay well this is just trying to be funny. Did giggle a bit on the first one
The last one is perfection. We have !fuckcars@lemmy.world, maybe we can get a !fuck_sports somewhere?
I thought it was something about how much is active at any given time, but it doesn't look like it's that either.
It might be straight pulled out of thin air.
I understood it as "conscious thought". Subconsciously your brain is still sending and receiving tons of information and signals to move muscles like pumping your heart or contracting your diaphragm.
That's only true for Elon musk. He maybe even use less.
He uses more than 10%, but not of brain.
I mean, it's true for the people that use that phrase.
Often times, yes!
Ha ha yeah and we only use 10% of our muscles luckily :-D
I once read a documentary of what happens when someone uses 100%. It's called My Hero Academia.
The technical description of that feat is called Plus Ultra.
I think there’s a variety of Gillette disposable razors called Plus Ultra
At least it makes sense when people say "I couldn't care less."
"I tried to, I really did. But I just could not care less. I'd hit the bottom of the barrel."
I thought that was the joke: I could care less… but I can’t even be bothered to care any less because I care so little.
It's just people saying it wrong, like "bone apple tea" instead of " bon appetit". It's supposed to be "I couldn't care less". But I mean come on, these are the same people who searched for "Michael Jackson Billy's Jeans" so often on YouTube that it became a recommended search term. Lol.
It can be interpreted as sarcasm, as in "tell me more, I could care even less."
"Everything happens for a reason"
The cancer disagrees.
Or worse: "it's all part of God's plan!" every time something bad happens. "So... God's a sadist, or what? Cuz his plan is shit."
God did ruin Job’s life over a bet with Satan so maybe this is less of a plan and more of a downward spiral gambling addiction
Or the related one: "I'd like to thank God for coming through this surgery."
What about the doctors, nurses, and various other staff members?
As a surgical tech, I have to bite my tongue when this pops up. Like... bitch, your god sent you to the OR in the first place - you should be pissed!
Hear me out on this: God is creating jobs for the community. If there weren't stupid people around to get hurt, the smart ones wouldn't have anything to do!
I hate this phrase so, so much. Sometimes babies die within days of being born with no chance of getting baptized. Don't people realize that the implication of this is that God is dooming them to purgatory just to spite the parents? Do they not Pealize how fucked up that sounds?
Or he sucks so bad at planning that he can't make people happy without also hurting others.
"But happiness would be meaningless without sadness to compare it to!"
Bitch were you never happy before you learned what cancer was? Did you start enjoying life the moment you figured out what rape is? "Boy I sure am glad I'm not being raped today! Much happier than I would be if I didn't know there was an alternative!"
or when someone gets the benefit of excellent medical care and thanks God for it. ugh. A lifetime of dedication by the doctors and scientists that brought you this cure? A distant second place.
I actually love this one, because it's technically correct but not in the way people who use it mean, so you can turn it around easily.
Yes, you did get cancer for a reason. Because you insisted on maintaining your suntan every winter. Or perhaps merely because you pissed off the wrong banana.
In my case, it was through no action of my own and merely bad luck. So the only "reason" would be bad luck or a shitty all-powerful deity.
That's the malicious banana. Everything happens for a reason, but that doesn't mean it's reasonable
Hmmmm I do love to eat bananas 🤔 BRB, off to sue Chiquita
I mean, technically it did happen for a reason. Your body hates you.
Also, my sympathies for your condition.
To be fair I've been abusing with alcohol since my late teens. So I guess we're even now.
SUCK ON THAT CANCER!
Children starving to death
I usually answer “if you say so”
“They’re just one bad apple” in reference to (more often than not) shitty cops, but also for most malcontents in a position of public trust. This a misappropriation of the aphorism “one bad apple spoils the bunch” which is literally saying that if there’s one bad actor in a group, the entire group is comprised.
I think autocorrect got your "compromised".
You’re goddamn right.
One bad spelling spoiled the whole comment
The entire group is comprised of compromised compadres.
"Customer is always right" isn't a trump card for customers to win disputes with the staff. When it comes to matters of preference, yes, the customer is always right. Ketchup on ice cream? Great. Down jacket and shorts? Sure thing! If it makes you happy and you're paying for it then you're always right.
In most other matters though, customers are usually wrong. The idea that random people off the street know more about the products and the way a business should be run than the actual people selling said products and running said business is absolutely ridiculous.
I think the original quote was something along the lines of, "the customer is always right, in mattera of taste". Meaning to accommodate the customers wishes, even if it's ugly or a bad idea or whatever. Like if they want to paint their house pink with green trim, let them
I think it's even broader than that.
If customers want green socks, sell green socks.
It would be have been better said as demand is always right (not supply).
"if you can't handle me at my worst you don't deserve me at my best".
You're basically excusing bad behavior. And never taking accountability. People are wrong. Mostly when they are so blindly following some perception of greatness rather than caring for those around you.
Anyone who feels the need to say this is usually really, really bad at their worst, and just okay-ish at their best. They just need a reason why it's everyone else's fault nobody can put up with them.
"Survival of the fittest" when used to indicate the stongest should survive. Instead of the one best suited for (fitting) the situation.
Both wrong. Survival of the barely adequate.
We are all minimal viable products on this blessed day
Welcome to Costco. I love you.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
That is not the definition of insanity
Yeah, isn't it like practicing? You're not very good at something so you practice over and over and over and hopefully when you're done you do it better... You know different than when you started.
You know different than when you started.
Try again
Try again
Are you expecting a different result?
this quote works very well on computers who run instructions pretty consistent.
any larger/ life-level scope and it falls apart from niche cases.
Any software engineer you care to ask will tell you about situations in which doing the same thing has led to vastly different results.
*on deterministic computers.
Technically, even then doing the same can lead to different results, if nondeterministic events play a role and the different aspects of the software or system may contain bugs. For example mutlithreaded applications where the scheduler can passively influence the outcome of an operation. In one run it fails, in another it doesn't. A nightmare to debug.
yes, thanks for the add!
OH! I forgot about that one. I have hated it since I was a kid.
do or do not, there is no try
Fuck you. That was meant for a Jedi master not your fucking IT systems admin
I think you're misunderstanding it. Do what you do, you're going to break something anyways just don't half-ass it. Just like there's a graveyard behind every doctor, there's a pile of mistakes behind every sysadmin.
No, it's not about caring or not about the consequences.
The ideea is to do something, anything with full commitment, do it as you know you're going to be successful. This way you give 100% and you have the best chances to succeed.
If you just try something then from the start your mentally taking in consideration the possibility of failure and you're preparing for that scenario and searching for the signs of it, which means you're not 100% invested in the success of the task itself so the chances of success are smaller.
Yep but what about "only sith deals in absolutes"?
I think you're referring to generalisations in the sense of cognitive distortions, but this is not the case. The saying merely calls for one to be completely dedicated to whatever task he undertakes in order to maximize his chances of success.
Having doubts and starting to hatch a plan B actually takes resources (mental or emotional) from realisation of the actual task.
When you say: I'll try to ... you're actually stating your doubts about you capability to successfully do whatever task from the beginning. So you've already defined what failure is and what to do in that case. But you haven't even begin the task and the journey that comes with the realisation of it. You haven't even reach the first difficulties, the first hurdles.
I hope you know that The Sith is a fictional construct :)
"Agree to disagree." No, dipshit, you're just wrong.
I do not agree to disagree, because we're not arguing about opinions. Your belief is simply, objectively incorrect. Or mine is, which is something that I would be willing to accept. If I were wrong, you'd be able to convince me that I'm wrong. We can keep going until one of us accepts that we didn't have an accurate understanding of reality.
It's always the dipshits that fall back on "Well, we will have to agree to disagree," usually right after they've been presented with enough evidence to change the mind of a rational person. Fuck that, I do not agree to disagree.
Agree to disagree is for things like "what ice cream flavor is best", not for things like "2+2=4".
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that.
I have found that the issue is often that people tend to not realize they're arguing that 2+2=6, they think they're arguing what ice cream flavor is the best
This is exactly the sort of argument that I was thinking of when I wrote the comment. We can agree to disagree on the best ice cream flavor, because everyone has different tastes. We cannot agree to disagree on whether the earth is flat, because it's not and we have overwhelming proof that it isn't.
If I were wrong, you'd be able to convince me that I'm wrong. We can keep going until one of us accepts that we didn't have an accurate understanding of reality.
I had an ex like you.
Sara?
You don't get tired of arguments? I see it as a 'fine, be stupid if you want' because I'm not spending more time on the point.
You can walk away from an argument without agreeing to disagree.
Agreeing to disagree is just more polite and often nicer for both, if such agreement is reached. You're basically saying that we can't really convince each other of our position so let's just leave it at that instead of trying endlessly.
I just don’t like the phrasing because “agreeing to disagree” makes it seem like you are accepting that it’s good that they don’t agree with you. Saying literally anything else to convey what just said would make more sense.
I don't get that feeling at all, to me it sounds like you've just come to the conclusion that you shouldn't go on with arguing.
Well I do, so that’s why I don’t use that phrase and don’t like it when people use that phrase with me.
Makes sense
I use it as a politer version of "Could you stop talking now? Thanks."
Why do people keep acting like there’s nothing between 0 and 100? You could also say “I don’t think we’re going to convince each other in this conversation,” which is already politer, without having to ask someone to agree to something else that they don’t want to agree to.
Six of one, half a dozen of the other?
Yeah, but if I mean that, I say that.
I don't want to sound mean. It's just a nicety.
OK let's agree to disagree. 😉
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
Let's agree to disagree
No, dipshit, you're just wrong.
Your belief is simply, objectively incorrect.
If I were wrong, you'd be able to convince me that I'm wrong. We can keep going until one of us accepts that we didn't have an accurate understanding of reality.
Boy if this doesn't describe most people arguing online lol.
which is something that I would be willing to accept.
I've found this is much harder than it seems. People either don't understand they're wrong (which might be the reason they're wrong to begin with) or unwilling to admit to being wrong even to themselves. So you'll have the first part of my quote lol
Anything described as "just common sense." No, it's knowledge/awareness that you picked up from your particular environment. Not everyone has had the same exposure as you.
I've found that "common sense" just means "things that I believe, but I can't explain why".
Yeah, that's just common sense, really.
"Common sense is just the set of prejudices acquired by the age of eighteen."
~Albert Einstein
I find the best retort to be: "Common sense ain't all that common."
A while back I was in an internet argument about a bicycle race in which a parked car caused a massive pileup. People were saying in the comments that it was entirely the cyclists' fault because they were all grouped up, and you never operate a vehicle if you can't see some arbitrary distance in front of you, and the car was parked! Common sense applies in common situations. In a long distance bike race, there's an assumption that the road is clear. It's common in these races to be shoulder to shoulder with absolutely minimal forward visibility.
A similar argument in that Alec Baldwin thing. "The four rules of firearm safety! Don't point it at anything you don't want to kill! Keep your finger off the trigger!" This was a movie set. It's common on movie sets for the firearms to be checked and rechecked and checked again before they make it on set. If you're at someone else's house and they hand you a gun to look at, common sense applies–make sure there isn't a magazine in, make sure there's nothing in the chamber, and still don't point it at your buddies. It's different on a movie set. The common assumption is that the armorer has checked all the guns on set, and that the crew haven't brought a bunch of live ammo to play with. Of course Baldwin should have checked the gun. And of course the cyclists shouldn't have been so close together. But in a million other movies on a million other sets, and a million other races on a million other tracks, this was never a problem.
Yeah, this one annoys me no end. Especially as its used when workplace safety is concerned far too often.
Pull yourself up by your bootstraps. Especially when used by people claiming to have done just that.
Especially when you consider that it was coined to refer to literally impossible action. It's not meant to be about self-reliance or whatever, it's something that cannot be done.
THIS! A million times this!! It's literally implying the opposite of their intent in that you have to have someone else HELP YOU because you OBVIOUSLY can't pull yourself up by your own bootstraps!
One way to use this phrase correctly would be "No one can pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, we all need some help along the way."!
Whenever "woke" is brought up.
Please give me your definition of woke, because so far it's been different for everyone I've talked to.
My baby was too woke last night and kept me up.
Baby is woke AF, just Channel that energy to fight the right fights.
Imo woke means aware
That's what it should mean, but it usually implies political awareness specifically and has been hijacked by several minority groups and their allies to imply that they are wholly in support of whatever the latest minority issue is.
You haven't heard of lgbtbbqx+? I have because I'm woke!
"You haven't heard of lgbtbbqx+? I have because I'm aware!"
It was originally used by African American groups to describe white allies at the beginning of the last century.
It's evolved to describe any out group that's aware of an in group's problems.
It's been contorted be this decade's scare word that conservative media uses.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result. And as far as I can tell Einstein never said it but it's always attributed to Einstein
If I just rolled a 6 I'm not going to expect the same result if I roll the die again.
I would argue that you didn't roll the die the exact same way...
Of course there could be other things other than your movements like wind that also affects the outcome.
Right, so even if I'm doing the same thing I'm not doing it in the exact same way, so the result may be different.
"actually we're a republic" when someone defends democracy
Well to a lot of people democratic rule isn't their primary goal, that's why they emphasize it.
Well technically, we're a constitutional monarchy with the King of Canada as our nominal head of state. Gosh. Though I wouldn't mind opening that discussion.
...constitutional monarchy with the *rightful heir of Emperor Joshua Norton as our nominal head of state.
Fixed that for you, prepared to go to war over it
"They need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps!"
Apparently, the quote originates from like a late 1800s textbook or something, and it was a logic problem: "Why cannot a man pull himself up by his own bootstraps?" It's not possible, 'cause physics.
It could have been a reference to the story of Baron Munchausen from 1860 where the baron and his horse got stuck in a swamp and he lifted himself and his horse by pulling on his pigtail.
I only ever hear it in the context of people criticizing it. This is a perpetuation of something people used to say, by people who dislike it.
"not all heroes wear capes"
Only the dead ones.
NO CAPES!
— Edna Mode
"Fuck around and find out"
I don't see anything wrong with this one, since people keep proving it to be true time and time again, myself included.
I didn't claim there's anything wrong with it. I'm just tired of hearing that repeated over and over again.
The person who coined the phrase fucked around and you're the one finding out 😞
"If you know, you know"
My thoughts when I see this are “well I don’t so you’re wasting my time”
Occam's razor, because it seem it is often used wrong by using it for just shutting down possible explanations. Typically noone mentions, that this is about guessing probabilities without prior knowledge and not a way to completely ignore an explanation.
Yes, it's a way to move forward with incomplete knowledge, when you need to make assumptions regardless of which theory you go with. There will always be an asterisk by theories or decisions made with this method, because one of more of the assumptions themselves could later turn out to be incorrect, thereby invalidating your decision. Occams razor is very misunderstood and used or quoted incorrectly all the time.
People just use it as "this makes sense to me, therefore it's probably right"
In fictional media I've mostly seen this the other way round. Like "I don't want to believe this expanation, so it should not be considered "
"make it was simple as possible"
Super annoying, because the people who use this always forget the second half, which makes the saying useful.
"Make it as simple as possible, but no simpler" it is effectively a re-stating of Occam's razor.
KISS -keep it simple, stupid
No one wants to work anymore.
I sure as fuck don't
I live in the US and follow rugby.
"Rugby is a hooligan's sport played by gentlemen, soccer is a gentleman's sport played by hooligans."
So cringe. Different sports are different. I can like both, I can even play both, and neither suffers a loss.
I"m sorry but this is very true
It's a stereotype, maybe even a generalization. It's not "very true". It can't be; there's about 130,000 men in the world who play soccer professionally or semi-professionally.
Just because certain cultures incentivize hooligan behavior (looking at you, London), doesn't mean all everywhere do.
yes but this is too big to big ignored. It is still a problem people still die around the world because of football. that is not the case for rugby.
Until this situation changes this saying is very true.
I think it's because of the size difference in the fan base. Nobody in the USA, for instance, gets in fights because of futbol, but football rivalries have caused death. Heck, one of my coworkers saw a man get castrated because of a college rivalry on game day. The difference? Fan base in USA is very small for futbol, very large for football. A larger fanbase means that the long tail of the distribution curve is more likely to pop up.
They both result in awful cases of CTE unfortunately.
You can get CTE from faking injuries?
It's from heading the ball (at least in soccer) A lot of repeated head impacts can result in CTE.
I know I was just being rude
I didn't think you were being rude. I just assumed it was a joke. But, I'm tired, and been flying all day, so I explained it anyway, lol
I remember the average professional soccer player loses ~10 points of IQ per decade due to the repeated impacts to the head. There was a guy advocating for the introduction of helmets in children's leagues because of the potential.
Rugby League is a hooligans game played played by hooligans.
Ah, you must be one of these gentle hooligans
Yeah, those get old. I prefer:
Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.
Between Ronald Reagan and Karl Marx, where do you fall on the issue of gun control? 😆
A "well regulated militia" had a different meaning back then. Also, there's a comma in the middle of the amendment that means the first phrase is only a clarification. The second clause stands on its own.
It meant "properly equipped," not "heavily restricted."
I just attended a lecture about this specific comma today. It was there as a rhetorical pause, not to separate clauses. A great example of how ambiguity in punctuation can cause thousands of deaths.
Textualism and originalism
A group of linguistics scholars describe developments in the field of corpus linguistics, which did not exist when District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago were decided, that have allowed for a new understanding of the language used in the Second Amendment. Researchers in American and English history have digitally compiled thousands of Founding-era texts, making it possible, for the first time, to search and examine specific terms and usage from the period. The resulting evidence demonstrates that “keep and bear arms” had a “collective, militaristic meaning” in the late 18th century. The scholars write that, consistent with that meaning, Founding-era voters would have understood the right to be subject to regulation.
The resulting evidence demonstrates that “keep and bear arms” had a “collective, militaristic meaning” in the late 18th century.
And what is this even supposed to mean in a way that would contradict the originalist viewpoint? The definition of "militia" in the period is already understood to mean all able-bodied men that are suitable for military conscription. And by extension, a "well-regulated" meant said militia having proper equipment and knowledge of how to use said equipment. Quoting this changes nothing.
Also a side note: you should look at some of the arguments above the one you quoted in this link. There were 2 based on the State of New York discriminating against people, particularly racial minorities and LGBTQ individuals, which have the most need for the ability to defend themselves
Ah yes, because the founders wrote in modern American english that is wholly objective and unassailable in its original meaning. it is for this reason alone that no new laws have been passed or enforced since the penning of the Constitution.
The people that spout the second part are only slightly more annoying than the people that spout the first part. Both sides are idiots who think they have a "gotcha!". Rhetorical geniuses.
The second amendment exists. The courts have upheld it to mean the right of individual ownership. There is zero wiggle room here. If anyone wants to debate how it is vs. how it should be, I welcome that conversation! But be warned, we'll be arguing opinions, not these two facts.
The next comment is where some kid, fresh out of Remedial PolySci, tells us all that amendments can be changed. Who knew? Of course they can't explain the method by which that happens or propose a path forward in the foreseeable future. (Hint: The point is entirely moot.)
Yeah the genie is already waaaay out of the bottle in the US. It would be logistically impossible to get rid of guns, nice as that would be. This is something both extremes refuse to accept, because they wouldn't have a cause or solution to rally around. No, Bubba, nobody's going to take your guns. No Stewart, we can't just ban guns and wash our hands of it. Other countries have indeed mostly eradicated firearms in normal society, but nowhere near on the scale that the US has.
Ok, I'm not saying you need to agree with the principle, but the grammar clearly states that the citizens get guns because the government has a military (which is the well-regulated militia).
Again, not starting a debate on if that's good or bad, just grammar.
No, the "well-regulated militia" actually referred to a desire to have all able-bodied men of military age to commonly have most of the skills needed to fight in a war in case of a draft, such as marksmanship and survival skills, as well as already owning most of the necessary equipment.
What's important to note is that the US had a very small standing military for most of its history. It relied on being able to conscript a large number of recruits whenever a war started, and sent them home whenever the war was over. This requires a lot of the citizenry to already know most of the skills they'd need to raise an army quickly.
Oh, so because the state had a military people were allowed to have guns? That's shockingly similar to what I said.
"Galileo too was ostracized for his beliefs, but he was right"
Yeah but he did science, not that new age bullshit you think are an expert in.
They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
—Carl Sagan
Columbus thought the world was pear shaped. Meaning it was viable to get to India by going west. If the Americas didn't exist he would have died.
It was well known at the time that the world was round. The ancient Greeks had a very good calculation if the circumference of the earth.
"I took the road less traveled." Which in the original poem means pretty much the opposite of what people are trying to say.
"think of how stupid the average person is, and then think half of them are dumber than that"
So heavily overused.
This was actually the quote that inspired this thread. I love George Carlin but I hear this all the time online and I hate it
The people saying it aren't usually in the half they think they are, either.
95% of people think they belong to the top 5%.
Yeah but I actually am, right guys? ...guys?
Of course you are, buddy! Now go play with your crayons while the grown ups talk.
And I would think that a good 95% of that 5%, who don't think they belong in the top half, actually do belong in the top tiers.
"Half of them are smarter than that!" Doesn't have the same ring to it.
Half of the people who unironically use this quote are in the exact half he's making fun of
Not a quote, just a single word that's overused to death, and you can probably already guess the word...
"Woke"
Just shut the fuck up! Please please please just shut up!
I guess you don't see it too much these days (outside of maybe yearbooks or collections of inspirational quotes), but Frost's "I took the one less traveled by,/And that has made all the difference."
If you read the rest of the poem the narrator explicitly states in several different ways that the roads are pretty much the same. So the narrator is saying that by later on saying the roads are different he'll be retroactively be justifying his choice or just not telling the truth about it.
Even after rereading the poem I had to read the Wikipedia analysis section to be convinced you are right. It's a very subtle poem, which, honestly, just makes it better.
I always thought the confusion came from just seeing the last two lines out of context, because the poem itself has descriptions like "Then took the other, just as fair", "Had worn them really about the same", and "both that morning equally lay". It seemed like Frost was really hammering home the equality, considering 15% (3/20) of the lines are talking about the similarities.
That's the thing. Being just as fair doesn't necessarily imply it's equally travelled. Even being worn the same doesn't necessarily mean equally traveled, although it strongly implies it. I think the final line is so certain that it overrides the earlier lines and implies to the unwary reader that these similar paths actually were differently travelled.
I don't expect self contradiction in a story / poem. So that certainty of there being a difference overrides all.
It's only after reading the author's intentions that I know for sure that the contradiction was intended and that was actually the point of the poem.
As I said before, this makes me like the poem even more now.
"Early to bed and early to rise makes a man healthy, wealthy and wise"
You do realise that people who are awake during the night are of equal importance, who's gonna run those power plants and radio stations and petrol service stations and police forces and whatever else? If they shut off during the night, there'd be chaos. At least a chaos that most folks won't see because they're asleep or something.
You realize that “important” is a different word not appearing in the set of “healthy, wealthy, and wise” right?
I'm probably guessing that SOME night people are healthy, wealthy and wise. Huge emphasis on the word "some".
To be fair: The people messing up their bio rhythms doing night shift after night shift might not necessarily be considered 'healthy'.
Fair point
I suspect that this one comes from a time when society was much more agrarian.
Oh.
"It was the best of times, it was the blurst of times" -stupid monkeys
I don't care if you're sick of it. I'm going to keep saying it, and nothing can stop me!
It was the West of times, it was the East of times, and ever Mark Twain shall beat.
That trickle-down economics quote. There's studies about it [not working] published but it's just studies.
The original quote is "If you feed enough oats to the horse, some will pass through to feed the sparrows" from Galbraith.
I imagine people are not yet ready to learn this "promise" ain't holding water.
The original quote is "If you feed enough oats to the horse, some will pass through to feed the sparrows" from Galbraith.
If my goal is to feed sparrows that's a very costly and inefficient method. I also end up with an overweight horse.
... and a lot of horse shit.
Checks out with economics results
So we all get to eat shit? Is that the point of the quote?
I don't understand how that is meant to be supportive of trickle-down economics.
"horse and sparrow" discourse was intended to be a criticism of supply side economics, not supportive of it.
I don't think the original quote is what they use. I just found the relatively more glorified version commonly used:
give the tax cuts to the top brackets, the wealthiest individuals and largest enterprises, and let the good effects 'trickle down' through the economy to reach everyone else.
apparently also called "supply-side doctrine."
"Settled science." Used by people who don't understand that science at its heart is constantly questioning everything.
We're taught that intelligence is performative. So most people think intelligence is answer driven, clever people know that it's question driven. But a gameshow where contestants ask the right questions might not do as well as Jeopardy.
Edit: my dumb ass picks the gameshow where you famously have to literally ask the right questions as an example.
I said what I said...
Even worse when they admit they were wrong and still say “I stand by what I said”
"You must be funny at parties"
Specially if you're not around, bitch
At the end of the day...
It's tomorrow
We need to be like Amazon and hyper focus on the customer
"Blood is thicker than water" followed by the equally erroneous "covenant" explanation.
Well, maple syrup is thicker than blood, so should I move to Canada?
It's sad that such an answer isn't possible in my language, our version goes "blood is not water".
English is not my first language, so I don't know every English saying, could you spell out what you mean?
Basically, the family you're related to should always come first (that includes first before the people you have chosen to live with, like your partner) because you "share blood".
Usually said by people whose only "quality" as a person is being related to someone.
Seriously, if someone tells you this unironically, there's a pretty huge chance you should review your entire relationship with them and more often than not you should just stop talking to them whatsoever.
Thanks for the explanation, sometimes there are words I already saw somewhere but never bothered to look them up when they appear so rarely. This was only the second time in my life I read the word "covenant" the first time was for a videogame called Alien: Covenant, but I thought it was some science fiction term.
"Blood is thicker than water" a misquote of "The blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb" which has the exact opposite meaning.
That's not actually true (according to Wikipedia and a few other sources, at least). The 'blood is thicker than water' saying has been around for centuries in various forms with the current meaning, and the covenant/womb variation is relatively recent, and mostly stems from a few books that claim that it's the 'real meaning' without sources or proof.
Thank you so much for saying this! One time there was a Twitter thread that started with someone asking, "What are some things that people believe/accept without having liked into it further." Someone responded with this "the original phrase is... covenant...womb" and the OP replied with someone like, "yeah people are such sheep". I wanted to explode.
But to back your point, you can go and read for yourself the very first instance of this phrase in context as the very old book it comes from has been digitally scanned. It's old enough to be in middle English, but I still thought it was fairly easy to make out the original phrase as we know it today.
640k ought to be enough for anyone.
Bill Gates didn't even say it. And even if one only takes the spirit out of that quote whereupon software and hardware should be planned with foresight, it's so overused.
He denied he ever said it, but nearly 15 years after the quote. It was quoted heavily in 1980's computer magazine, always with a 1981 date. I've never seen the interview where he said it. Bill Gates is a consumate huckster, and I don't trust his word on anything, but without direct evidence, the most logical answer is all the times he did say in interviews that the (Microsoft) thought 640k would be enough memory for much longer than it was.
"This hurts me more than it hurts you"
No, I'm pretty sure being spanked hurts more than doing the spanking.
Being spanked is physical harm, vs doing the spanking is emotional harm. The argument is that emotional is more harmful than physical.
Of course this ignores that being spanked very likely also inflicts emotional harm. It also ignores that emotional harm isn't a scale.
“Literally 1984”… unless I’m asking you what year the Macintosh 128k came out I don’t wanna hear it.
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind".
No it doesn't. At most the world no longer has depth perception.
Isn't the idea that you'll keep taking more eyes until there are none left? No mentions that it's limited to one eye per person.
"Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
An individual, uneducated observer might not be able to tell them apart, but that doesn't mean there isn't a distinction.
One of the avengers movies dropped that line, and I feel like it's spread like wild fire since then, and it's just objectively not correct.
It's actually one of Arthur C Clarke's "laws."
Sorry but I've got to "well actually" this one though. Happipy, it's a simple misunderstanding. _The quote is from the perspective of the uneducated observer. _ To the one who understands the technology, sure there's absolutely a difference. But if I were to go back to ancient Rome and somehow facetime someone from what appeared to be a polished stone, it'd absolutely be considered magic. Even if I fully understood the difference. (Most limitations would be explained away as most magic in stories has limitations or rules, a wizard using a staff or needing ingredients etc.)
Understood - what I'm saying though is that it's a bad quote. It doesn't convey that it's indistinguishable only to people who don't know any better, it just says that it's indistinguishable, which again is objectively not correct. The cell phone in ancient Rome would absolutely be considered magic... in error, by people who don't understand what they're seeing; and limitations on magic doesn't make it suddenly not magic - just cuz some fiction establishes that you need a newt eye, 2 raccoon penises, and a 1/2 cup of sugar to summon a magma demon doesn't mean it wouldn't be creating a ton of energy and matter.
I could say a spruce and a pine are indistinguishable just because my dumb ass doesn't know the difference - but I'd be wrong.
Indistinguishable doesn't mean identical. It just means that the observer cannot tell the difference.
The observer being the one who doesn't know it is technology is implied by the quote.
Sometimes brevity is much better than a lot of explanation. To add in a fairly obvious point about this being for the uneducated observer would make it twice as long.
Edit: To reinforce that it's the observer, imagine how silly the quote would have been were it to reference all parties. Like, the person who understands that it is tech is going "oooooh, magic!"
I always interpreted Clarke's Law as first fixing an observer.
Then there exist technologies that are sufficiently advanced that the observer can only understand as magic.
Obviously someone had to understand it to make it in the first place, but there are (or will be) even more advanced technologies that that someone couldn't understand either.
There's two parts to it.
First of all, a lot of technology is doing straight up wizard shit. Fire in the palm of your hand? Carriages that travel without horse or driver? A house that obeys your commands by itself? A mirror you can speak into and another being can hear your words? This shit WAS magic.
Secondly, what counts as indistinguishable is based on our ability to distinguish things. To an omniscient 3rd party, they can see everything and notice what obeys physics and what does not. But for a long time, we couldn't tell between bacteria and curses, or between head pressure and demons.
So a 15th century bumpkin could not hope to distinguish between our technology and straight up magic. And there will be future tech to which we are not unlike that bumpkin ourselves.
What if the demon is actually an interdimensional traveller and the newt eye is the biometric lock to operate the portal device?
You're coming at it from the perspective of somebody who does understand the technology, which is not what the quote is about.
What if the demon is actually an interdimensional traveller and the newt eye is the biometric lock to operate the portal device?
Then it would be technology, and not magic. We can what-if new criteria all day long and assign the results to whatever category it would belong to under those criteria, but the two will always be definitively distinct.
You’re coming at it from the perspective of somebody who does understand the technology, which is not what the quote is about.
...which is why I dislike the quote - it doesn't actually convey any kind of limited scope, it just -incorrectly- says the two are indistinguishable. And anecdotally, every time I see that quote dropped in a discussion about tech or fiction, it's never done with any nod to a limited observer; it's used as a justification to conclude that the two are the same thing.
And idk why it rubs me the wrong way so hard, but it's become a pet peeve.
I understand much of the technology we use today isn't magic, but it may as well be with how much I understand about how it works.
I don't think you quite grasp what Arthur C Clarke was going for with this one.
I get what he was going for, I just think it was poorly executed.
An individual, uneducated observer might not be able to tell them apart, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a distinction.
What about when an involved educated observer can't tell them apart? I mean, we still can't fully explain how friction works but we know how to use it.
Inability to explain something doesn't make it magic, regardless of the observer. I haven't the faintest idea how the computer I'm typing on works; but I'm reasonably confident it doesn't break the laws of physics. And even if I'm wrong about that - computers are literally magic! - then... they're magic: the observer always makes a conclusion based on their observations, but whether or not that's correct is moot: the thing being assessed is what it is.
My argument here boils down to this:
"I can't tell these two things apart." =/= "These two things are the same."
"This looks/feels like magic!" =/= "This is magic!"
...I'm collecting downvotes like pokemon in this thread in this thread, which I assume means a lot of folks disagree, but I'm really scratching my head here at why that is.
"The cloud is just someone else's computers."
If that's what you really think the cloud is, still, then you are a dinosaur who is not evolving with the times.
I usually think of it this way, though I use the term server and acknowledge there are often many servers involved. Is this incorrect, or is there a better way to think about it?
Servers and and sometimes services
Wait what do you think the cloud is then? A bunch of computers owned by no one?
It's reductive but not untrue.
Do u think it's actually being stored in water vapor in the sky
Vote what is best for your pocketbook/wallet
The saying is "vote with your wallet". It just means that if you are unhappy with what a company is doing, stop buying their products.
Seems incredibly naive to think that's effective
People voting their wallet is why society is falling into disrepair.
Nobody wants to pay for infrastructure, schools, social programs so they vote against any taxes, levy, etc.
Off we slide into a Libertarian utopian dark age.
Bbbbbut that's cancel culture!!1
"If you don't like Nestle using slave labor for their chocolate and selling tainted baby formula in third world countries, just don't buy from them!"
I have other ideas for how I could vote, but The Man doesn't want me talking about those
"We only use ten percent of our brains."
People genuinely believe this and never learned where it came from.
That and the "Alpha Male" garbage. Even the author of the study on wolves has said repeatedly that his study was totally wrong. And yet some people continue to reference it and apply it to humans when even the original study wasn't about people.
People love excuses for bad behavior, no need to verify them. Sigh.
I think that one is finally starting to die off, aside from the last gasps of a man in prison. It takes a while for real science to filter through to common knowledge, and I'm constantly seeing the corrections about wolves and alpha status as flawed thinking.
I think it also got tied into the incel movement and became a toxic phrase. Even if you didn't know the actual science, would you want to call yourself an "alpha male" if it made people think you were an incel?
Limitless was fun though.
Lucy was not, though.
Why not? I found it enjoyable
I mean, sure, it makes a fun movie. But when people take it seriously, it stops being fun.
Ooh! Isn’t that the one where the guy becomes limitless?
I liked the part where he said "It's limitless time" and totally limited those other guys
Deunlimited them since some were also on the limitless vibe
I'm pretty sure "DM does GB" means something slightly sexual.
I think we only use 10 percent of our hearts.
A profound twist on a worn out wrong fact.
I like this comment
I like this comment
Where did the myth come from?
It came from early on in studying the brain. A scientist said that we only understand what 10 percent of the brain does, and everyone ran with a misunderstanding of that idea.
Neil DeGrasse Tyson explains here. https://youtube.com/shorts/E4EjYfUBEvw?si=LO3GIURgZesHjo85
Sidenote, why does everyone hate Neil these days?
He thinks he's so smart about everything and there's always this condescending tone.
Like no shit Neil?
Piling on...
Piling on, he totally misses the arguments and ideas being put forward by the interviewer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zT9Xv7pHG_4
Oh god I forgot about that one lol.
Piling on
https://youtu.be/sIJVopJe9F4
Okay well this is just trying to be funny. Did giggle a bit on the first one
The last one is perfection. We have !fuckcars@lemmy.world, maybe we can get a !fuck_sports somewhere?
I thought it was something about how much is active at any given time, but it doesn't look like it's that either.
It might be straight pulled out of thin air.
I understood it as "conscious thought". Subconsciously your brain is still sending and receiving tons of information and signals to move muscles like pumping your heart or contracting your diaphragm.
That's only true for Elon musk. He maybe even use less.
He uses more than 10%, but not of brain.
I mean, it's true for the people that use that phrase.
Often times, yes!
Ha ha yeah and we only use 10% of our muscles luckily :-D
I once read a documentary of what happens when someone uses 100%. It's called My Hero Academia.
The technical description of that feat is called Plus Ultra.
I think there’s a variety of Gillette disposable razors called Plus Ultra
"I could care less".
Oh really? How much less?
At least it makes sense when people say "I couldn't care less."
"I tried to, I really did. But I just could not care less. I'd hit the bottom of the barrel."
I thought that was the joke: I could care less… but I can’t even be bothered to care any less because I care so little.
It's just people saying it wrong, like "bone apple tea" instead of " bon appetit". It's supposed to be "I couldn't care less". But I mean come on, these are the same people who searched for "Michael Jackson Billy's Jeans" so often on YouTube that it became a recommended search term. Lol.
It can be interpreted as sarcasm, as in "tell me more, I could care even less."
"Everything happens for a reason"
The cancer disagrees.
Or worse: "it's all part of God's plan!" every time something bad happens. "So... God's a sadist, or what? Cuz his plan is shit."
God did ruin Job’s life over a bet with Satan so maybe this is less of a plan and more of a downward spiral gambling addiction
Or the related one: "I'd like to thank God for coming through this surgery."
What about the doctors, nurses, and various other staff members?
As a surgical tech, I have to bite my tongue when this pops up. Like... bitch, your god sent you to the OR in the first place - you should be pissed!
Hear me out on this: God is creating jobs for the community. If there weren't stupid people around to get hurt, the smart ones wouldn't have anything to do!
I hate this phrase so, so much. Sometimes babies die within days of being born with no chance of getting baptized. Don't people realize that the implication of this is that God is dooming them to purgatory just to spite the parents? Do they not Pealize how fucked up that sounds?
Or he sucks so bad at planning that he can't make people happy without also hurting others.
"But happiness would be meaningless without sadness to compare it to!"
Bitch were you never happy before you learned what cancer was? Did you start enjoying life the moment you figured out what rape is? "Boy I sure am glad I'm not being raped today! Much happier than I would be if I didn't know there was an alternative!"
or when someone gets the benefit of excellent medical care and thanks God for it. ugh. A lifetime of dedication by the doctors and scientists that brought you this cure? A distant second place.
I actually love this one, because it's technically correct but not in the way people who use it mean, so you can turn it around easily.
Yes, you did get cancer for a reason. Because you insisted on maintaining your suntan every winter. Or perhaps merely because you pissed off the wrong banana.
In my case, it was through no action of my own and merely bad luck. So the only "reason" would be bad luck or a shitty all-powerful deity.
That's the malicious banana. Everything happens for a reason, but that doesn't mean it's reasonable
Hmmmm I do love to eat bananas 🤔 BRB, off to sue Chiquita
I mean, technically it did happen for a reason. Your body hates you.
Also, my sympathies for your condition.
To be fair I've been abusing with alcohol since my late teens. So I guess we're even now.
SUCK ON THAT CANCER!
Children starving to death
I usually answer “if you say so”
“They’re just one bad apple” in reference to (more often than not) shitty cops, but also for most malcontents in a position of public trust. This a misappropriation of the aphorism “one bad apple spoils the bunch” which is literally saying that if there’s one bad actor in a group, the entire group is comprised.
I think autocorrect got your "compromised".
You’re goddamn right.
One bad spelling spoiled the whole comment
The entire group is comprised of compromised compadres.
"Customer is always right" isn't a trump card for customers to win disputes with the staff. When it comes to matters of preference, yes, the customer is always right. Ketchup on ice cream? Great. Down jacket and shorts? Sure thing! If it makes you happy and you're paying for it then you're always right.
In most other matters though, customers are usually wrong. The idea that random people off the street know more about the products and the way a business should be run than the actual people selling said products and running said business is absolutely ridiculous.
I think the original quote was something along the lines of, "the customer is always right, in mattera of taste". Meaning to accommodate the customers wishes, even if it's ugly or a bad idea or whatever. Like if they want to paint their house pink with green trim, let them
I think it's even broader than that.
If customers want green socks, sell green socks.
It would be have been better said as demand is always right (not supply).
"if you can't handle me at my worst you don't deserve me at my best".
You're basically excusing bad behavior. And never taking accountability. People are wrong. Mostly when they are so blindly following some perception of greatness rather than caring for those around you.
Anyone who feels the need to say this is usually really, really bad at their worst, and just okay-ish at their best. They just need a reason why it's everyone else's fault nobody can put up with them.
"Survival of the fittest" when used to indicate the stongest should survive. Instead of the one best suited for (fitting) the situation.
Both wrong. Survival of the barely adequate.
We are all minimal viable products on this blessed day
Welcome to Costco. I love you.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
That is not the definition of insanity
Yeah, isn't it like practicing? You're not very good at something so you practice over and over and over and hopefully when you're done you do it better... You know different than when you started.
Try again
Are you expecting a different result?
this quote works very well on computers who run instructions pretty consistent.
any larger/ life-level scope and it falls apart from niche cases.
Any software engineer you care to ask will tell you about situations in which doing the same thing has led to vastly different results.
*on deterministic computers.
Technically, even then doing the same can lead to different results, if nondeterministic events play a role and the different aspects of the software or system may contain bugs. For example mutlithreaded applications where the scheduler can passively influence the outcome of an operation. In one run it fails, in another it doesn't. A nightmare to debug.
yes, thanks for the add!
OH! I forgot about that one. I have hated it since I was a kid.
Fuck you. That was meant for a Jedi master not your fucking IT systems admin
I think you're misunderstanding it. Do what you do, you're going to break something anyways just don't half-ass it. Just like there's a graveyard behind every doctor, there's a pile of mistakes behind every sysadmin.
No, it's not about caring or not about the consequences.
The ideea is to do something, anything with full commitment, do it as you know you're going to be successful. This way you give 100% and you have the best chances to succeed.
If you just try something then from the start your mentally taking in consideration the possibility of failure and you're preparing for that scenario and searching for the signs of it, which means you're not 100% invested in the success of the task itself so the chances of success are smaller.
Yep but what about "only sith deals in absolutes"?
I think you're referring to generalisations in the sense of cognitive distortions, but this is not the case. The saying merely calls for one to be completely dedicated to whatever task he undertakes in order to maximize his chances of success. Having doubts and starting to hatch a plan B actually takes resources (mental or emotional) from realisation of the actual task.
When you say: I'll try to ... you're actually stating your doubts about you capability to successfully do whatever task from the beginning. So you've already defined what failure is and what to do in that case. But you haven't even begin the task and the journey that comes with the realisation of it. You haven't even reach the first difficulties, the first hurdles.
I hope you know that The Sith is a fictional construct :)
"Agree to disagree." No, dipshit, you're just wrong.
I do not agree to disagree, because we're not arguing about opinions. Your belief is simply, objectively incorrect. Or mine is, which is something that I would be willing to accept. If I were wrong, you'd be able to convince me that I'm wrong. We can keep going until one of us accepts that we didn't have an accurate understanding of reality.
It's always the dipshits that fall back on "Well, we will have to agree to disagree," usually right after they've been presented with enough evidence to change the mind of a rational person. Fuck that, I do not agree to disagree.
Agree to disagree is for things like "what ice cream flavor is best", not for things like "2+2=4".
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that.
I have found that the issue is often that people tend to not realize they're arguing that 2+2=6, they think they're arguing what ice cream flavor is the best
This is exactly the sort of argument that I was thinking of when I wrote the comment. We can agree to disagree on the best ice cream flavor, because everyone has different tastes. We cannot agree to disagree on whether the earth is flat, because it's not and we have overwhelming proof that it isn't.
I had an ex like you.
Sara?
You don't get tired of arguments? I see it as a 'fine, be stupid if you want' because I'm not spending more time on the point.
You can walk away from an argument without agreeing to disagree.
Agreeing to disagree is just more polite and often nicer for both, if such agreement is reached. You're basically saying that we can't really convince each other of our position so let's just leave it at that instead of trying endlessly.
I just don’t like the phrasing because “agreeing to disagree” makes it seem like you are accepting that it’s good that they don’t agree with you. Saying literally anything else to convey what just said would make more sense.
I don't get that feeling at all, to me it sounds like you've just come to the conclusion that you shouldn't go on with arguing.
Well I do, so that’s why I don’t use that phrase and don’t like it when people use that phrase with me.
Makes sense
I use it as a politer version of "Could you stop talking now? Thanks."
Why do people keep acting like there’s nothing between 0 and 100? You could also say “I don’t think we’re going to convince each other in this conversation,” which is already politer, without having to ask someone to agree to something else that they don’t want to agree to.
Six of one, half a dozen of the other?
Yeah, but if I mean that, I say that.
I don't want to sound mean. It's just a nicety.
OK let's agree to disagree. 😉
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
Let's agree to disagree
Boy if this doesn't describe most people arguing online lol.
I've found this is much harder than it seems. People either don't understand they're wrong (which might be the reason they're wrong to begin with) or unwilling to admit to being wrong even to themselves. So you'll have the first part of my quote lol
Love your username
Anything described as "just common sense." No, it's knowledge/awareness that you picked up from your particular environment. Not everyone has had the same exposure as you.
I've found that "common sense" just means "things that I believe, but I can't explain why".
Yeah, that's just common sense, really.
"Common sense is just the set of prejudices acquired by the age of eighteen."
~Albert Einstein
I find the best retort to be: "Common sense ain't all that common."
A while back I was in an internet argument about a bicycle race in which a parked car caused a massive pileup. People were saying in the comments that it was entirely the cyclists' fault because they were all grouped up, and you never operate a vehicle if you can't see some arbitrary distance in front of you, and the car was parked! Common sense applies in common situations. In a long distance bike race, there's an assumption that the road is clear. It's common in these races to be shoulder to shoulder with absolutely minimal forward visibility.
A similar argument in that Alec Baldwin thing. "The four rules of firearm safety! Don't point it at anything you don't want to kill! Keep your finger off the trigger!" This was a movie set. It's common on movie sets for the firearms to be checked and rechecked and checked again before they make it on set. If you're at someone else's house and they hand you a gun to look at, common sense applies–make sure there isn't a magazine in, make sure there's nothing in the chamber, and still don't point it at your buddies. It's different on a movie set. The common assumption is that the armorer has checked all the guns on set, and that the crew haven't brought a bunch of live ammo to play with. Of course Baldwin should have checked the gun. And of course the cyclists shouldn't have been so close together. But in a million other movies on a million other sets, and a million other races on a million other tracks, this was never a problem.
Yeah, this one annoys me no end. Especially as its used when workplace safety is concerned far too often.
Pull yourself up by your bootstraps. Especially when used by people claiming to have done just that.
Especially when you consider that it was coined to refer to literally impossible action. It's not meant to be about self-reliance or whatever, it's something that cannot be done.
THIS! A million times this!! It's literally implying the opposite of their intent in that you have to have someone else HELP YOU because you OBVIOUSLY can't pull yourself up by your own bootstraps!
One way to use this phrase correctly would be "No one can pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, we all need some help along the way."!
Whenever "woke" is brought up.
Please give me your definition of woke, because so far it's been different for everyone I've talked to.
My baby was too woke last night and kept me up.
Baby is woke AF, just Channel that energy to fight the right fights.
Imo woke means aware
That's what it should mean, but it usually implies political awareness specifically and has been hijacked by several minority groups and their allies to imply that they are wholly in support of whatever the latest minority issue is.
You haven't heard of lgbtbbqx+? I have because I'm woke!
"You haven't heard of lgbtbbqx+? I have because I'm aware!"
It was originally used by African American groups to describe white allies at the beginning of the last century.
It's evolved to describe any out group that's aware of an in group's problems.
It's been contorted be this decade's scare word that conservative media uses.
I like this Little Joel video about how conservatives use "woke"
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result. And as far as I can tell Einstein never said it but it's always attributed to Einstein
If I just rolled a 6 I'm not going to expect the same result if I roll the die again.
I would argue that you didn't roll the die the exact same way...
Of course there could be other things other than your movements like wind that also affects the outcome.
Right, so even if I'm doing the same thing I'm not doing it in the exact same way, so the result may be different.
"actually we're a republic" when someone defends democracy
Well to a lot of people democratic rule isn't their primary goal, that's why they emphasize it.
Well technically, we're a constitutional monarchy with the King of Canada as our nominal head of state. Gosh. Though I wouldn't mind opening that discussion.
Fixed that for you, prepared to go to war over it
"They need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps!" Apparently, the quote originates from like a late 1800s textbook or something, and it was a logic problem: "Why cannot a man pull himself up by his own bootstraps?" It's not possible, 'cause physics.
It could have been a reference to the story of Baron Munchausen from 1860 where the baron and his horse got stuck in a swamp and he lifted himself and his horse by pulling on his pigtail.
Here's an image of it. https://blogs.loc.gov/international-collections/?attachment_id=3246
Loopy-schwoopy troll physics!
I only ever hear it in the context of people criticizing it. This is a perpetuation of something people used to say, by people who dislike it.
"not all heroes wear capes"
Only the dead ones.
"Fuck around and find out"
I don't see anything wrong with this one, since people keep proving it to be true time and time again, myself included.
I didn't claim there's anything wrong with it. I'm just tired of hearing that repeated over and over again.
The person who coined the phrase fucked around and you're the one finding out 😞
"If you know, you know"
My thoughts when I see this are “well I don’t so you’re wasting my time”
Occam's razor, because it seem it is often used wrong by using it for just shutting down possible explanations. Typically noone mentions, that this is about guessing probabilities without prior knowledge and not a way to completely ignore an explanation.
Yes, it's a way to move forward with incomplete knowledge, when you need to make assumptions regardless of which theory you go with. There will always be an asterisk by theories or decisions made with this method, because one of more of the assumptions themselves could later turn out to be incorrect, thereby invalidating your decision. Occams razor is very misunderstood and used or quoted incorrectly all the time.
People just use it as "this makes sense to me, therefore it's probably right"
In fictional media I've mostly seen this the other way round. Like "I don't want to believe this expanation, so it should not be considered "
"make it was simple as possible"
Super annoying, because the people who use this always forget the second half, which makes the saying useful.
"Make it as simple as possible, but no simpler" it is effectively a re-stating of Occam's razor.
KISS -keep it simple, stupid
No one wants to work anymore.
I sure as fuck don't
I live in the US and follow rugby.
"Rugby is a hooligan's sport played by gentlemen, soccer is a gentleman's sport played by hooligans."
So cringe. Different sports are different. I can like both, I can even play both, and neither suffers a loss.
I"m sorry but this is very true
It's a stereotype, maybe even a generalization. It's not "very true". It can't be; there's about 130,000 men in the world who play soccer professionally or semi-professionally.
Just because certain cultures incentivize hooligan behavior (looking at you, London), doesn't mean all everywhere do.
yes but this is too big to big ignored. It is still a problem people still die around the world because of football. that is not the case for rugby.
Until this situation changes this saying is very true.
I think it's because of the size difference in the fan base. Nobody in the USA, for instance, gets in fights because of futbol, but football rivalries have caused death. Heck, one of my coworkers saw a man get castrated because of a college rivalry on game day. The difference? Fan base in USA is very small for futbol, very large for football. A larger fanbase means that the long tail of the distribution curve is more likely to pop up.
They both result in awful cases of CTE unfortunately.
You can get CTE from faking injuries?
It's from heading the ball (at least in soccer) A lot of repeated head impacts can result in CTE.
I know I was just being rude
I didn't think you were being rude. I just assumed it was a joke. But, I'm tired, and been flying all day, so I explained it anyway, lol
I remember the average professional soccer player loses ~10 points of IQ per decade due to the repeated impacts to the head. There was a guy advocating for the introduction of helmets in children's leagues because of the potential.
Rugby League is a hooligans game played played by hooligans.
Ah, you must be one of these gentle hooligans
Yeah, those get old. I prefer:
Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.
Between Ronald Reagan and Karl Marx, where do you fall on the issue of gun control? 😆
A "well regulated militia" had a different meaning back then. Also, there's a comma in the middle of the amendment that means the first phrase is only a clarification. The second clause stands on its own.
It meant "properly equipped," not "heavily restricted."
I just attended a lecture about this specific comma today. It was there as a rhetorical pause, not to separate clauses. A great example of how ambiguity in punctuation can cause thousands of deaths.
Yup. I'll go with the linguists on this one.
And what is this even supposed to mean in a way that would contradict the originalist viewpoint? The definition of "militia" in the period is already understood to mean all able-bodied men that are suitable for military conscription. And by extension, a "well-regulated" meant said militia having proper equipment and knowledge of how to use said equipment. Quoting this changes nothing.
Also a side note: you should look at some of the arguments above the one you quoted in this link. There were 2 based on the State of New York discriminating against people, particularly racial minorities and LGBTQ individuals, which have the most need for the ability to defend themselves
Ah yes, because the founders wrote in modern American english that is wholly objective and unassailable in its original meaning. it is for this reason alone that no new laws have been passed or enforced since the penning of the Constitution.
Alright, we can discuss the first clause. Here is another comment I made in the thread on that topic: https://sh.itjust.works/comment/4356959
The people that spout the second part are only slightly more annoying than the people that spout the first part. Both sides are idiots who think they have a "gotcha!". Rhetorical geniuses.
The second amendment exists. The courts have upheld it to mean the right of individual ownership. There is zero wiggle room here. If anyone wants to debate how it is vs. how it should be, I welcome that conversation! But be warned, we'll be arguing opinions, not these two facts.
The next comment is where some kid, fresh out of Remedial PolySci, tells us all that amendments can be changed. Who knew? Of course they can't explain the method by which that happens or propose a path forward in the foreseeable future. (Hint: The point is entirely moot.)
Yeah the genie is already waaaay out of the bottle in the US. It would be logistically impossible to get rid of guns, nice as that would be. This is something both extremes refuse to accept, because they wouldn't have a cause or solution to rally around. No, Bubba, nobody's going to take your guns. No Stewart, we can't just ban guns and wash our hands of it. Other countries have indeed mostly eradicated firearms in normal society, but nowhere near on the scale that the US has.
Ok, I'm not saying you need to agree with the principle, but the grammar clearly states that the citizens get guns because the government has a military (which is the well-regulated militia).
Again, not starting a debate on if that's good or bad, just grammar.
No, the "well-regulated militia" actually referred to a desire to have all able-bodied men of military age to commonly have most of the skills needed to fight in a war in case of a draft, such as marksmanship and survival skills, as well as already owning most of the necessary equipment.
What's important to note is that the US had a very small standing military for most of its history. It relied on being able to conscript a large number of recruits whenever a war started, and sent them home whenever the war was over. This requires a lot of the citizenry to already know most of the skills they'd need to raise an army quickly.
Oh, so because the state had a military people were allowed to have guns? That's shockingly similar to what I said.
"Galileo too was ostracized for his beliefs, but he was right"
Yeah but he did science, not that new age bullshit you think are an expert in.
—Carl Sagan
Columbus thought the world was pear shaped. Meaning it was viable to get to India by going west. If the Americas didn't exist he would have died.
It was well known at the time that the world was round. The ancient Greeks had a very good calculation if the circumference of the earth.
"I took the road less traveled." Which in the original poem means pretty much the opposite of what people are trying to say.
"think of how stupid the average person is, and then think half of them are dumber than that"
So heavily overused.
This was actually the quote that inspired this thread. I love George Carlin but I hear this all the time online and I hate it
The people saying it aren't usually in the half they think they are, either.
95% of people think they belong to the top 5%.
Yeah but I actually am, right guys? ...guys?
Of course you are, buddy! Now go play with your crayons while the grown ups talk.
And I would think that a good 95% of that 5%, who don't think they belong in the top half, actually do belong in the top tiers.
"Half of them are smarter than that!" Doesn't have the same ring to it.
Half of the people who unironically use this quote are in the exact half he's making fun of
Not a quote, just a single word that's overused to death, and you can probably already guess the word...
"Woke"
Just shut the fuck up! Please please please just shut up!
I guess you don't see it too much these days (outside of maybe yearbooks or collections of inspirational quotes), but Frost's "I took the one less traveled by,/And that has made all the difference."
If you read the rest of the poem the narrator explicitly states in several different ways that the roads are pretty much the same. So the narrator is saying that by later on saying the roads are different he'll be retroactively be justifying his choice or just not telling the truth about it.
Even after rereading the poem I had to read the Wikipedia analysis section to be convinced you are right. It's a very subtle poem, which, honestly, just makes it better.
I always thought the confusion came from just seeing the last two lines out of context, because the poem itself has descriptions like "Then took the other, just as fair", "Had worn them really about the same", and "both that morning equally lay". It seemed like Frost was really hammering home the equality, considering 15% (3/20) of the lines are talking about the similarities.
That's the thing. Being just as fair doesn't necessarily imply it's equally travelled. Even being worn the same doesn't necessarily mean equally traveled, although it strongly implies it. I think the final line is so certain that it overrides the earlier lines and implies to the unwary reader that these similar paths actually were differently travelled.
I don't expect self contradiction in a story / poem. So that certainty of there being a difference overrides all.
It's only after reading the author's intentions that I know for sure that the contradiction was intended and that was actually the point of the poem.
As I said before, this makes me like the poem even more now.
"Early to bed and early to rise makes a man healthy, wealthy and wise"
You do realise that people who are awake during the night are of equal importance, who's gonna run those power plants and radio stations and petrol service stations and police forces and whatever else? If they shut off during the night, there'd be chaos. At least a chaos that most folks won't see because they're asleep or something.
You realize that “important” is a different word not appearing in the set of “healthy, wealthy, and wise” right?
I'm probably guessing that SOME night people are healthy, wealthy and wise. Huge emphasis on the word "some".
To be fair: The people messing up their bio rhythms doing night shift after night shift might not necessarily be considered 'healthy'.
Fair point
I suspect that this one comes from a time when society was much more agrarian.
Oh.
"It was the best of times, it was the blurst of times" -stupid monkeys
I don't care if you're sick of it. I'm going to keep saying it, and nothing can stop me!
It was the West of times, it was the East of times, and ever Mark Twain shall beat.
That trickle-down economics quote. There's studies about it [not working] published but it's just studies.
The original quote is "If you feed enough oats to the horse, some will pass through to feed the sparrows" from Galbraith.
I imagine people are not yet ready to learn this "promise" ain't holding water.
If my goal is to feed sparrows that's a very costly and inefficient method. I also end up with an overweight horse.
... and a lot of horse shit.
Checks out with economics results
So we all get to eat shit? Is that the point of the quote?
I don't understand how that is meant to be supportive of trickle-down economics.
"horse and sparrow" discourse was intended to be a criticism of supply side economics, not supportive of it.
I don't think the original quote is what they use. I just found the relatively more glorified version commonly used:
apparently also called "supply-side doctrine."
"Settled science." Used by people who don't understand that science at its heart is constantly questioning everything.
We're taught that intelligence is performative. So most people think intelligence is answer driven, clever people know that it's question driven. But a gameshow where contestants ask the right questions might not do as well as Jeopardy.
Edit: my dumb ass picks the gameshow where you famously have to literally ask the right questions as an example.
I said what I said...
Even worse when they admit they were wrong and still say “I stand by what I said”
"You must be funny at parties"
Specially if you're not around, bitch
At the end of the day...
It's tomorrow
We need to be like Amazon and hyper focus on the customer
"Blood is thicker than water" followed by the equally erroneous "covenant" explanation.
Well, maple syrup is thicker than blood, so should I move to Canada?
It's sad that such an answer isn't possible in my language, our version goes "blood is not water".
English is not my first language, so I don't know every English saying, could you spell out what you mean?
Basically, the family you're related to should always come first (that includes first before the people you have chosen to live with, like your partner) because you "share blood".
Usually said by people whose only "quality" as a person is being related to someone.
Seriously, if someone tells you this unironically, there's a pretty huge chance you should review your entire relationship with them and more often than not you should just stop talking to them whatsoever.
Thanks for the explanation, sometimes there are words I already saw somewhere but never bothered to look them up when they appear so rarely. This was only the second time in my life I read the word "covenant" the first time was for a videogame called Alien: Covenant, but I thought it was some science fiction term.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_is_thicker_than_water
"Blood is thicker than water" a misquote of "The blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb" which has the exact opposite meaning.
That's not actually true (according to Wikipedia and a few other sources, at least). The 'blood is thicker than water' saying has been around for centuries in various forms with the current meaning, and the covenant/womb variation is relatively recent, and mostly stems from a few books that claim that it's the 'real meaning' without sources or proof.
Thank you so much for saying this! One time there was a Twitter thread that started with someone asking, "What are some things that people believe/accept without having liked into it further." Someone responded with this "the original phrase is... covenant...womb" and the OP replied with someone like, "yeah people are such sheep". I wanted to explode.
But to back your point, you can go and read for yourself the very first instance of this phrase in context as the very old book it comes from has been digitally scanned. It's old enough to be in middle English, but I still thought it was fairly easy to make out the original phrase as we know it today.
Bill Gates didn't even say it. And even if one only takes the spirit out of that quote whereupon software and hardware should be planned with foresight, it's so overused.
He denied he ever said it, but nearly 15 years after the quote. It was quoted heavily in 1980's computer magazine, always with a 1981 date. I've never seen the interview where he said it. Bill Gates is a consumate huckster, and I don't trust his word on anything, but without direct evidence, the most logical answer is all the times he did say in interviews that the (Microsoft) thought 640k would be enough memory for much longer than it was.
"This hurts me more than it hurts you"
No, I'm pretty sure being spanked hurts more than doing the spanking.
Being spanked is physical harm, vs doing the spanking is emotional harm. The argument is that emotional is more harmful than physical.
Of course this ignores that being spanked very likely also inflicts emotional harm. It also ignores that emotional harm isn't a scale.
“Literally 1984”… unless I’m asking you what year the Macintosh 128k came out I don’t wanna hear it.
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind".
No it doesn't. At most the world no longer has depth perception.
Isn't the idea that you'll keep taking more eyes until there are none left? No mentions that it's limited to one eye per person.
“ One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.”
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/one-small-misstep/
Now that’s interesting. Always thought it didn’t make a whole lot of sense strictly speaking. Never realized he intended the “a”.
“This is the way”
"Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
An individual, uneducated observer might not be able to tell them apart, but that doesn't mean there isn't a distinction.
One of the avengers movies dropped that line, and I feel like it's spread like wild fire since then, and it's just objectively not correct.
It's actually one of Arthur C Clarke's "laws."
Sorry but I've got to "well actually" this one though. Happipy, it's a simple misunderstanding. _The quote is from the perspective of the uneducated observer. _ To the one who understands the technology, sure there's absolutely a difference. But if I were to go back to ancient Rome and somehow facetime someone from what appeared to be a polished stone, it'd absolutely be considered magic. Even if I fully understood the difference. (Most limitations would be explained away as most magic in stories has limitations or rules, a wizard using a staff or needing ingredients etc.)
Understood - what I'm saying though is that it's a bad quote. It doesn't convey that it's indistinguishable only to people who don't know any better, it just says that it's indistinguishable, which again is objectively not correct. The cell phone in ancient Rome would absolutely be considered magic... in error, by people who don't understand what they're seeing; and limitations on magic doesn't make it suddenly not magic - just cuz some fiction establishes that you need a newt eye, 2 raccoon penises, and a 1/2 cup of sugar to summon a magma demon doesn't mean it wouldn't be creating a ton of energy and matter.
I could say a spruce and a pine are indistinguishable just because my dumb ass doesn't know the difference - but I'd be wrong.
Indistinguishable doesn't mean identical. It just means that the observer cannot tell the difference.
The observer being the one who doesn't know it is technology is implied by the quote.
Sometimes brevity is much better than a lot of explanation. To add in a fairly obvious point about this being for the uneducated observer would make it twice as long.
Edit: To reinforce that it's the observer, imagine how silly the quote would have been were it to reference all parties. Like, the person who understands that it is tech is going "oooooh, magic!"
I always interpreted Clarke's Law as first fixing an observer.
Then there exist technologies that are sufficiently advanced that the observer can only understand as magic.
Obviously someone had to understand it to make it in the first place, but there are (or will be) even more advanced technologies that that someone couldn't understand either.
There's two parts to it.
First of all, a lot of technology is doing straight up wizard shit. Fire in the palm of your hand? Carriages that travel without horse or driver? A house that obeys your commands by itself? A mirror you can speak into and another being can hear your words? This shit WAS magic.
Secondly, what counts as indistinguishable is based on our ability to distinguish things. To an omniscient 3rd party, they can see everything and notice what obeys physics and what does not. But for a long time, we couldn't tell between bacteria and curses, or between head pressure and demons.
So a 15th century bumpkin could not hope to distinguish between our technology and straight up magic. And there will be future tech to which we are not unlike that bumpkin ourselves.
What if the demon is actually an interdimensional traveller and the newt eye is the biometric lock to operate the portal device?
You're coming at it from the perspective of somebody who does understand the technology, which is not what the quote is about.
Then it would be technology, and not magic. We can what-if new criteria all day long and assign the results to whatever category it would belong to under those criteria, but the two will always be definitively distinct.
...which is why I dislike the quote - it doesn't actually convey any kind of limited scope, it just -incorrectly- says the two are indistinguishable. And anecdotally, every time I see that quote dropped in a discussion about tech or fiction, it's never done with any nod to a limited observer; it's used as a justification to conclude that the two are the same thing.
And idk why it rubs me the wrong way so hard, but it's become a pet peeve.
I understand much of the technology we use today isn't magic, but it may as well be with how much I understand about how it works.
I don't think you quite grasp what Arthur C Clarke was going for with this one.
I get what he was going for, I just think it was poorly executed.
What about when an involved educated observer can't tell them apart? I mean, we still can't fully explain how friction works but we know how to use it.
Inability to explain something doesn't make it magic, regardless of the observer. I haven't the faintest idea how the computer I'm typing on works; but I'm reasonably confident it doesn't break the laws of physics. And even if I'm wrong about that - computers are literally magic! - then... they're magic: the observer always makes a conclusion based on their observations, but whether or not that's correct is moot: the thing being assessed is what it is.
My argument here boils down to this:
"I can't tell these two things apart." =/= "These two things are the same."
"This looks/feels like magic!" =/= "This is magic!"
...I'm collecting downvotes like pokemon in this thread in this thread, which I assume means a lot of folks disagree, but I'm really scratching my head here at why that is.
"The cloud is just someone else's computers."
If that's what you really think the cloud is, still, then you are a dinosaur who is not evolving with the times.
I usually think of it this way, though I use the term server and acknowledge there are often many servers involved. Is this incorrect, or is there a better way to think about it?
Servers and and sometimes services
Wait what do you think the cloud is then? A bunch of computers owned by no one?
It's reductive but not untrue.
Do u think it's actually being stored in water vapor in the sky
Vote what is best for your pocketbook/wallet
The saying is "vote with your wallet". It just means that if you are unhappy with what a company is doing, stop buying their products.
Seems incredibly naive to think that's effective
People voting their wallet is why society is falling into disrepair.
Nobody wants to pay for infrastructure, schools, social programs so they vote against any taxes, levy, etc.
Off we slide into a Libertarian utopian dark age.
Bbbbbut that's cancel culture!!1
"If you don't like Nestle using slave labor for their chocolate and selling tainted baby formula in third world countries, just don't buy from them!"
I have other ideas for how I could vote, but The Man doesn't want me talking about those