Bonus points if it’s usually misused/misunderstood by the people who say it
“Literally 1984”… unless I’m asking you what year the Macintosh 128k came out I don’t wanna hear it.
“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.
“We only use ten percent of our brains.”
People genuinely believe this and never learned where it came from.
That’s only true for Elon musk. He maybe even use less.
He uses more than 10%, but not of brain.
Limitless was fun though.
Ooh! Isn’t that the one where the guy becomes limitless?
I’m pretty sure “DM does GB” means something slightly sexual.
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 mean, sure, it makes a fun movie. But when people take it seriously, it stops being fun.
Removed by mod
Lucy was not, though.
Why not? I found it enjoyable
Removed by mod
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
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?
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?
Oh god I forgot about that one lol.
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
The last one is perfection. We have [email protected], maybe we can get a !fuck_sports somewhere?
Okay well this is just trying to be funny. Did giggle a bit on the first one
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.
I think we only use 10 percent of our hearts.
I like this comment
I like this comment
A profound twist on a worn out wrong fact.
I mean, it’s true for the people that use that phrase.
Often times, yes!
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!”
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.
“I took the road less traveled.” Which in the original poem means pretty much the opposite of what people are trying to say.
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.
Ah, you must be one of these gentle hooligans
Rugby League is a hooligans game played played by hooligans.
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.
“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.
“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.
deleted by creator
This “Do you listen to Weezer?” stuff is getting pretty old
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”?
“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.
I said what I said…
Even worse when they admit they were wrong and still say “I stand by what I said”
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.
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.
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.
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
It meant “properly equipped,” not “heavily restricted.”
Thats fine, make your arguments but its disingenuous to leave out half the statement. This is the constitution, the wording is quite intentional, nothing is superfluous.
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
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.
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.
There it is. Now we can have a reasonable discussion. We must arm the workers is unambiguous.
Between Ronald Reagan and Karl Marx, where do you fall on the issue of gun control? 😆
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.
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 "
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.
