So dumb.
Hour argument, that the final cliff fall scene in Predator 1 was two different jumps in the 2 cuts.
Can see in the first one he is rotating. Second cut is a straight plumb drop into the water.
How were the rotational moments counteracted?
They weren’t, it’s two different jumps/takes.
2 friends came up with some hair-brained arguments that you could stop rotating on the way down. (눈_눈)
The only way would be air resistance, and hands/arms is not going to be enough to create drag to counter the rotation.
Jackie Chan: Always shoot the punch twice.
I was not invested in the outcome of the argument, just seeing how far they were willing to take being wrong about aerodynamics/physics. Quite far it turns out.
Ah, trickle-down economics. A tale as old as time.
I was talking with someone from the UK about this article that they showed me. They were outraged by it, and I said I don’t see what the problem is with it. They were weirdly fixated on the “asylum seekers” part, to which I told them the article says it will apply to vulnerable persons regardless of immigration status, and I asked them why they were fixating so much on this applying to one specific demographic.
This caused them to go on a tirade about “migrants are getting more rights than people who were born in this country” and how they aren’t a racist because they married an Italian. They said “it’s all about divide and conquer” and I asked them why they care so much about what ethnicity or nationality a person is, over if they’re vulnerable and receiving healthcare equality or not. This quickly devolved into them going on about how the UK is “being taken over by migrants”. So, I asked them if they knew any of these migrants, if the UK is “being taken over” by them. They said no.
This started from them watching a YouTube video made by some influencer who was getting angry over the same article. I’m more than convinced that social media can have its bad sides.
I can kind of see their thought processes there. They’re sharing right-wing media so they’re likely already primed for those biases, plus that article title is intentionally misleading by suggesting asylum seekers will by default get priority over all other patients. It isn’t until the sixth paragraph that they admit it’s priority care for vulnerable people which is a group that happens to include asylum seekers and undocumented migrants (terms which this writer uses interchangeably, because of course they do). Very poor journalistic integrity even for a rag like this one, imo.
This type of article is intentionally misleading and written primarily to rile up people with poor media literacy. Making people angry makes it easier to manipulate them, and vulnerable groups are naturally less able to fight back so they’re an easy target.
In an ideal world after being challenged they would have reevaluated the source and their beliefs. In practice very few people do that and they just get more entrenched instead. Especially if it’s someone anonymous online just telling them they’re wrong.
Yeah, it seems like there are a lot of people who will only read the headlines, which when combined with what headline they went with is egregious. Honestly, clickbait such as this is a pet peeve I have with media in general.
In a video someone discussed the average us household income. Someone commented that that number was actually inflated and it would be better to use median. I found the article the OP was referencing and pointed out that it was in fact the median and pointed out a median is a type of average. They argued for far far too long that average exclusively refers to mean, that median “isn’t even an expected value” and that they were right and I was wrong because they are an engineer who works with this all day long. I ended up getting ganged up by several different accounts, I eventually screenshotted the Wikipedia page for average and got them to all delete their posts.
Average vs mean vs median is always a clusterfuck argument waiting to happen.
Whether if something is deceptively [a trait] does it mean it’s the inverse of the trait or more of the trait than it appears, ie: if you call something deceptively shallow, does that mean it is shallow, but looks deep, or that it is deep but looks shallow. Hours of arguing with my family and checking numerous sources, we came to the conclusion that the phrasing can be used either way.
I think if something is described as deceptively shallow it means that it looks deeper than it is. IMO
Goddamit. I was so certain it was the inverse, and now here I am debating myself
You’re debating whether not-3 is the same as “less than three”.
It’s => but not <= so it’s not ==.
AAAAHHH
You can thank me later
An event that happens biweekly could occur at the same frequency as an event that happens bimonthly.
Shouldn’t that be semi-monthly? Rounding months to 4 weeks, of course.
Or maybe that’s just me wanting bi and semi to have consistent meanings. Bi is two, semi is a half.
Probably should be, but isn’t. Bimonthly can mean twice a month or every two months.
Which side were you arguing?
My mom was playing Jeopardy on her Alexa and one of the questions was about a state in Mexico. Her boyfriend, who was very drunk, adamantly insists that it’s a trick question because “Mexico doesn’t have states.” It’s literally called the United Mexican States. Two of my aunts are from Mexico. It took like two hours to get him off the subject.
Confidently ignorant people really bother me. Even if I thought that I would’ve thought “Is that true?” and spent a second googling it. It is amazing how some folks are devoid of even the slightest curiosity but are blindly overconfident.
ugh. gotta be the one about jesus preaching pacifism. The person said the turn the other cheek was not to be taken literally but a thing he says after he admonishes a disciple for cuting off a soldiers ear and healing the ear but then he says his fight is yet to come and he will need to be armed and armored for it. that he feels is literal and not prose at all. smh.
Obligatory mention: Full Body Workout Every Other Day?
Holy butts, that was the good kind of bonkers
Or if you’d prefer it in video form: https://youtu.be/eECjjLNAOd4
the one where the democrats are the ‘party of slavery’ because of what the parties stood for in 1860. yeah that’s why I’m voting for Lincoln and the union this year dumbfucks
And yet California—a solidly blue state—just voted by public referendum to uphold slavery. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_California_Proposition_6
Yeah, the problem here is calling them the party of slavery, when both parties are blatantly in favor of it.
Probably had a big fight with Jefferson Davis
They might want to look up how the parties flipped during the civil rights era.
i got into an argument with my in law about a 60$ sticker to block the ‘waves’ on my phone. for my health. and my phone will still work… it was a hologram sticker.
well, they do sell ones that work. you can measure them blocking all em radiation from exiting out the back of your phone… instead blasting all of it into your head. significantly more of it too, since the normal reaction of a phone that loses signal is to boost its own in order to find a tower.
But blocking any of it is useless because none of it is going into your head, the wavelength of the radio waves is too large to penetrate skin or bone, it bounces off harmlessly like am/fm radio waves. It’s in the nonionizing range of the em spectrum, unlike ionizing em waves like X-rays, gamma rays, radon emissions, etc that do penetrate human bodies and can cause protein or DNA damage.
actually no, some of it gets absorbed. that’s why there are SAR values available for all cellphones. it measures how many watts of heat get absorbed per kilogram of brain.
since it’s non-ionizing though, the only effect is a slight heating. like microwatts of heating. 15 minutes in direct sunlight is equal to millions of phone calls. but we do measure it!
No question it causes a little heat when it bounces off and the heat is absorbed, but if that heat gets to the point where you’re causing damage cooking yourself with a phone the phone is seriously malfunctioning and broken.
it was about nutrition. it started with the fact that proteins, fats and sugars all have different energy densities and so how much weight you gain is dependent on what the food is, which is all fair. but then i made the mistake of saying “your weight won’t go up by more than the weight of the food, anyway.” and that spiralled out of control completely. apparently that’s wrong and you can gain infinite weight from one chocolate bar.
as usual for this person they felt that i refused to take the “holistic” view into account.
a more recent conversation started with them talking about some sort of blood sugar sensor that athletes use and when i said “that’s interesting, what’s it called?” they started talking about gut microbes.
There’s almost some truth to it. Certain foods, like salts and carbs, in certain situations, like low salt/carb diets, can have a ripple effect. 100g of carbs, or a few grams of salt, can cause your body to retain water. The effect being that you gained several pounds from eating just a few (hundred) grams of certain foods.
However, for your body to retain that water, you must also consume said water.
Though even in that case, I’d consider water consumed to be covered under “food”.
The only exceptions I can think of are from gaining mass from things other than what you eat. Like tar buildup from smoking, snorting or injecting various substances, boffing something (I think that’s what it’s called… Up the butt instead of out the butt), things sticking to your skin, absorbing through the skin, or bugs/aliens laying eggs inside you. Maybe getting possessed by a ghost, if ghosts have mass. But I don’t think all of those combined would even come close to a single meal, other than extreme cases.
I was curious and looked into how much mass the average adult loses through breathing, and apparently it’s at least about 69g (at rest, if you are metabolizing fat).
you can gain infinite weight from one chocolate bar.
Eventually you’ll turn into a black hole.
“holistic”
Aka, “Keep science and evidence out of this”
Well, nutritional science doesn’t have a great track record. While a lot of bullshit is justified using the word “holistic”, it is also true that nutrition and in general our metabolism are affected by so many factors that a reductionist approach to nutrition more often than not fails to give actionable insights, especially if you move away from very broad statements. It doesn’t help that every few years, some core concept of nutritional science is discovered to be the result of lobbying.
I can’t remember the specifics (both because it was dumb and because it’s so embarrassing I think my brain is trying to protect me), but from what I recall I got into a heated argument on the internet with someone because I felt that fans weren’t cheering hard enough for a band I liked at a concert.
…yeah, I know. I’m grateful, though, because it was so colossally stupid and pointless that I had a come-to-Jesus moment and swore off internet arguments entirely. I can only imagine the countless hours of my life it’s saved me in the intervening years.
I fought with my aunt about “mom jeans.” I was telling her it was a style of jeans and she was adament that it was any kind of jeans that a “mother” is wearing.
Well technically you are both right though she is being pedantic.
