You must log in or register to comment.
Starts to make sense how some conspiracies come out when you get examples like this of people being blatantly ignorant of evidence right in front of their noses
In my experience it has less to do with stuff like this where people are just not looking close enough or are mistaken and more to do with the idea of them being wrong being impossible. Conspiracies that I interact with don’t even discuss evidence. Because they can’t be wrong and there’s no way to falsify their worldview.
This, in the post truth era, evidence is only useful to educated people that are willing. For most victims, we have to de program them first.
Every single discussion I have about climate ends with “yes, that’s one side of the argument, but who really knows what’s the truth”.
Motherfucker, you said something that’s false. I showed you you were wrong by a factor of several million. Where ever the exact truth lies, it’s way on the other side of the fucking moon from your standpoint.
You can’t prove what’s on the other side of the moon!
Yes I can! It’s mostly tacos!
*every known letter of the alphabet.
The implication that there are undiscovered letters creates excitement for the reader. Who knows what is out there!
My favorite is D2, the sequel to D
Removed by mod
math nerds delve into Greek and even Hebrew for special cases.
Þ,ƿ,Ȝ,Æ,ð,ſ
Þese Æ-y aſes
Ah yes, umlauts, diareses, schwas, accent marks, thorns, doubles, and so on.
Maybe it is like one of those ancient curses. Like every time someone says the undiscovered one it solves Bathla devour of souls
Those same people do math incorrectly and shout at everyone else to do it their way.
2+2=5
Don’t take my word for it research about it yourself there are lots of good videos on YouTube the government and science liars don’t want you to know the truth /s
2+2=5
For extrem values of 2.
For those confused
2.25+2.25=4.5 rounds to 2+2=5
2.5+2.5=5 truncates to 2+2=5
Both can crop up in programming, depending on the situation.
2.25 + 2.25 = 4.5
If you add two floats together then the output is a float, if you add an int and a float together the output is a float. Computers will always perform the calculation as is, unless you explicitly tell them to perform a rounding operation.
However, if you stuff them into an int at the last minute, you can get that effect.
Under the hood, it’s floats. On the output, it’s ints.
It’s obvious and silly with small examples. The problem can creep in when you are using larger libraries or frameworks.
A few months back I had a floating point that had a single 1 like 16 digits past the decimal place and I couldn’t get rid of it.
Remember when Terrance Howard tried to explain how 1x1=2 because bird people from Atlantis tricked us? Good times.
There are four lights
Just look at those viral math problems. I recently saw one that was something like (1+2*3)*(1*0) and most comments were arguing if it was 7 or 9
I think you mean (1+2*3)*(1*0).
Escape your asterisks, kids.
I mean, it doesn’t matter.
It does if you forgot everything you learned in school
(1+2*3)*(1*0) = (1+23)(1*0)
And I agree. You’re completely missing my point, though
The only advice I can give is to re-read the thread, starting from @hushable@lemmy.world’s comment. If the source of your confusion is that you don’t know what escaping the asterisks means, then just ask
I was going to claim 9 because I though there was some markdown that italicised things with a single ^, and your intent was (1+2³). Before the (1•0) of course.
Of course, there’s also the times where we just make the research hard to do.
Like, we teach kids PEMDAS, but then don’t actually follow PEMDAS in the original textbooks that introduce it and definitely not in common math or physics texts.
Like, you’ll see 1/2√r in Feynman’s lectures being written not to represent ½*√r = √r / 2 as pemdas would suggest, but 1/(2*√r).
Similarly, the original textbooks that introduced PEMDAS, if you read them, actually followed what you might call PEJMDAS, where multiplication via juxtaposition is treated as binding tighter than explicit multiplication, so 1÷2(2+3) would be interpreted not as ½(5) but as 1 ÷ (2 * 5), but they considered that so obvious they didn’t bother to explicitly spell it out in the rules.
And now we have Facebook memes and tiktok livestreams arguing about what 1÷2(2+3) actually means.
Laughs in RPN
Also by the time you’ve learned order of operations, you’ve outgrown the ÷ operator. You would never write 1 ÷ (2 * 5), you would write it with a proper numerator and denominator like anyone outside of elementary school would.
I hate these math problems you see on social media. No one would write that way or code that way. It is ambiguous, and even if it weren’t it is still hard to figure out. I think in my entire career I have seen one single line of code that took PEMDAS to sort out, I remember that line and the programmer told me that they were exploiting a feature of the complier to get slightly faster results. He was an annoying person
In the UK it’s (or at least was) BODMAS. Just to complicate things further.
It has become impossible to tell if these people are trolling, stupid, or both.
Poe’s law at its finest
Sphynx (SPHYNX) of black quartz judge my vow
Am I blind or is there no letter i?
There is a “y” in “my” so maybe “Sphinx” would complete the sentence?
The fuck happened with that one. Its literally the same word, this isnt an aluminum vs aliminium situation where the namer was a fuck up and called it both so people flipped a coin. Fucking English spelling is ratfucked.
No one has ever proposed “aliminium” for the name of the element.
“Alumium” was the original, “Aluminum” and “Aluminium” were battled in American and British journals.
British chemist Humphrey Davy named it alumium at first but immediately changed it aluminum. A journalist reporting on his discovery changed it to aluminium.
The -ium ending is the standard naming convention for elements, e.g., plutonium, natrium, kalium.
Platinum says hello.
That’s an after the fact convention though. I dont see anyone proposing we rename iron to ferium, silver to argentium, or lead to plumbumium.
Fair enough, I guess I was just miss remembering. I thought he called it both multiple times and the US and Britain just said fuck it and went with one or the other.
yeah it’s Sphinx
Sphinx of Black Quartz, Judge My Vow
Am I blind or is there no letter f?
Edit: Yup, I’m blind.
OF
Yup, I’m blind. Thanks!
deleted by creator
I spelt ‘sphynx’ (sphinx) wrong, it’s saved that way in my phone for some reason and I wasn’t paying attention.
Edit: Ah, yep just saw that comment with the cats. It’s because of cats.
Ha. I have this saved in my phone (with the “Sphinx” spelling), too. I guess waiting for this.moment?
You most definitely do your own research.
Edit: This person was very right I was just joking jeez.
where tf is it
edit: homie used y twice nvm
You were right I was just making a joke.
deleted by creator
Pack my box with five dozen liquor jugs
Veldt jinx grimps waqf zho buck
It rolls off the tongue.
Sphinx.
SPHINX!
Another Venture Bros. fan?
I even catch myself doing it out loud, on the rare occasion the word comes up.
Fucking brilliant show. Still need to watch the film but part of me feels like doing so is admitting it’s over, so I’m going to keep putting it off for a bit I think.
I understand that completely. I keep telling myself I’m going to rewatch the whole series, but I can’t quite bring myself to watch that final movie. Once I do, that’s it; there’s no more new VB.
It’s a nice close to the whole thing. Plus you can then rewatch the whole thing again looking for how it subtly ties everything together.
No f but a ph. You need five sphinxesFound it.
W is in brown
E is in over
V is in over
Z is in lazy
K is in quick
And I can’t endorse any viewpoint that tells me to accept something on faith. You might not have time to do your own research on every single issue but you are certainly welcome too
This isn’t about not doing your research. It’s a lesson in the pitfalls of thinking you’ve competently done your research…
Doesn’t say that in the picture. Did you determine this on your own?
I didn’t look at the picture or read any other comments, so I am going to say ‘yes’. Or ‘no’. I’m going to need coffee first and that usually ends up with me forgetting this post by the time I get back.
Most people are incapable of doing their own research. It takes time and money to do studies. It takes years of training to define proper study parameters.
Many people are also incapable of doing a meta analysis based on reading studies and opinions on the Internet. It takes years to root out the mental fallacies that we seem to be born with. But at least many can do this.
Most people should find a trusted source or two and just read those.
Should say to have your research peer reviewed
They did it and were wrong but now they can be corrected
when people don’t know how to spell English
How else would you spell it? I’ve only ever seen it as English. Inglish maybe?
Inglesh. Ingliti given the ti sound in words ending in tion. Englich if we use the soft ch option. I was functionally illiterate until my teens. By the end of highschool I had a college level reading comprehension but less than a third grade spelling ability. Trying to read something I wrote would have you convinced I wasn’t a native English speaker until I was in my late 20s. The less you know about English the more ways you can find to spell any word it offers up.
*high school
*Drugged school
Inglese.
They’re missing the V because they pronounce over as “o’er”
Da quik braun fox jumps o’va da lazy dog
No C, E, H or W either
the availability of text on the internet can make people believe they’re an expert on topics that take a lifetime to understand
if people should do their own research, we may as well shutter the national labs and universities
we may as well shutter the national labs and universities
That’s an extremely desirable outcome for the “do your own research” crowd.
Social media folks
Sphinx of Black Quartz; Hear My Vow!
(I vow never to become illiterate)
“judge” not “hear”
“judge” not “hear”
I was doubting for a second there. I was like, wait where is the V…
Over
Yeah I found it, but thanks
I especially like when the person who says “theres[sic] no letter e” is wrong 3 times and makes a spelling mistake. 😂
Absolute disasterclass.
This is actually a perfect representation of the shallow “research” conspiracy theorists do.
Quoting only the first few lines of an abstract outlining a problem/open question then ignoring the rest of the paper where they address the issue in the abstract.
This way, they can claim that the paper says the exact opposite of what it does.
I miss ä, ö, ü and ß though. /j
And æ, ø, å
Give me þ and ð while we’re at it.
