randomaccount43543,

Centrifugal force does not exist

lotanis,

“A laughable claim, Mister Bond, perpetuated by overzealous teachers of science. Simply construct Newton’s laws into a rotating system and you will see a centrifugal force term appear as plain as day.” xkcd.com/123/

bobthened,

It does, it’s just called a different thing. Centripetal force is exactly the same thing as what most people assume centrifugal force means.

Cyna,

It doesn’t exist in an inertial frame of reference. In a non-inertial frame it’s a perfectly valid force

Firefly7,
@Firefly7@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

Every year, traffic congestion wastes billions of gallons of gas.

Firefly7, (edited )
@Firefly7@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

explanation, since this one might be more confusing than most:

Traffic congestion does indeed waste gas. However, any place worth driving to is going to have congestion–driving without congestion is easy, fast, and comfortable, so people generally won’t take other options until roads become congested. Thus, congestion actually reduces gas usage overall, because it is only once areas become congested that people stop driving places.

Trying to avoid congestion, on the other hand, usually involves expanding roads, something which increases driving, and makes other forms of transportation less useful/comfortable, thus increasing gas usage overall.

match,
@match@pawb.social avatar

shouldn’t your first post say congestion saves billions of gallons of gas?

Firefly7,
@Firefly7@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

no, since the misleadingly-true fact is still that congestion wastes gas - congestion is cars spending gas on going nowhere, so the gas is wasted

peter,
@peter@feddit.uk avatar

Every single rapist and murderer was found to have dihydrogen monoxide inside their body at the time they committed their crimes, and your friends and family may be using it recreationally without you knowing

JackGreenEarth,

I don’t think something you need to survive can be called being taken ‘recreationally’.

OwenEverbinde, (edited )
@OwenEverbinde@reddthat.com avatar

I don’t know if this counts, since it’s only a “true fact” if you are fine with carefully chosen words and the omission of crucial information…

But the 13-50 stat is dangerously misleading.

You know,

Black people make up 13% of the population, but 50% of the violent crime.

Black people in America do, in fact, make up 50% of the murder arrests according to FBI crime statistics

That much is true.

But certain people tend to use this fact to assert that police officers are far more likely to be killed by black people than by white people. Therefore, the stats that show them brutalizing black people at a higher rate – since they fall short of that 50% number – are evidence that they hold back around black people to avoid appearing racist.

The users of this stat heavily imply black people are more violent and murder-prone, and hence a greater threat. The argument also carries with it an implied benefit to eugenics or a return to slavery (to anyone paying attention.)

But no one using this stat ever explores potential causes for the arrest rate disparity, instead letting their viewers assume it comes from “black culture” (if they are closeted racists) or “bad genes” (if they are open racists).

There’s no attention paid to the fact that black people make up over half of overturned wrongful convictions

There’s no attention paid to the stats further down in that same FBI crime stats table that make it clear that black people make up 25% of the nation’s drug arrests, despite making up close to 13% of the US’s total drug users. (Their population’s rate of drug use is within a margin of error of white people’s rate of drug use). It should be strange that a small portion of the perpetrators of drug crimes make up such an outsized portion of the total drug arrests in this country. But the disparity doesn’t even get a mention.

There’s no attention paid to the fact that more than half of US murders go unsolved, meaning even assuming impartial sentencing and prosecution, we would only know black people committed 50% OF 50% of the murders – 25%. And in a country where 98% of the land is owned by white people and the public defender system is in shambles? Which demographic do you think would be able to afford the best defense, avoiding conviction even when guilty, and ending up overrepresented in the “unsolved murder” category? If only 50% of murders end in a conviction, that means every murderer who walks into a courtroom has a solid chance at getting away with it. Even more solid if the murderer belongs to the richest race. The murder arrest rate by race winds up just being a measure of which demographics can afford the best lawyers, rather than any proportional representation of each demographic’s tendencies.

They mention none of that. The people hawking this statistic intentionally lead their viewers to assume, “arrested for murder” is equivalent to “guilty of murder.” And that 50% of the murder arrests is equivalent to 50% of the total murders. The entire demographic is assumed to be more dangerous.

Rhoeri,
@Rhoeri@lemmy.world avatar

This guy facts.

tom,

Excellent explanation, thanks.

OwenEverbinde,
@OwenEverbinde@reddthat.com avatar

My pleasure.

humanreader,

I’ve seen similar stuff multiple times, often with misquoted statistics. What many miss is that context is as important as stats.

BendyLemmy,
@BendyLemmy@lemmy.ml avatar

‘true fact’.

  • Facts cannot be anything except for true.
  • Anyone who uses the two words ‘true fact’ together cannot be trusted because they know neither the meaning of the word ‘true’ or the word ‘fact’.
Stan,
@Stan@lemmywinks.com avatar

Oh how I miss the before times.

JackGreenEarth,

Facts are just objective statements, which can be either true or false, but whichever they are it is objective and not dependant on the observer.

I mean, it’s a semantic argument, and semantics is subjective, but that’s probably how the people who say ‘true fact’ are defining fact.

koreth,

Counterpoint: True Facts is a great series of humorous nature documentaries.

WagnasT,

Imagine trying to move by riding a unicycle backwards and throwing up through a giant straw. That is how the nautilus do.

Therefore,

I’m so sorry but it’s either/or & neither/nor. Gotta follow through with the negation.

bady,
@bady@lemmy.ml avatar

Thunderstorms & lightning strikes can severely affect “cloud” computing!

ch00f,

Switching from a 5mpg truck to a 10mpg truck does more for the environment than switching from 40mpg car to a 55mpg car.

Linssiili,

How is that misleading, isn’t it true?

ferrousfair,

More outrageous sounding, switching from a 5 mpg truck to a 10 mpg truck saves more gas than switching from a 50 mpg car to a 100 mpg car

youtu.be/oLQmwOX6Xds

Linssiili,

I still don’t understand hot that statement is “misleading”?

ferrousfair,

Well a lot of people would think gaining 50 mpg is way better than gaining 5 mpg, since it’s 10x as much, but really it just shows that you can’t use mpg as a unit to compare like that

absGeekNZ,
@absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz avatar

This is why the rest of the world uses l/100km (liters per 100 kilometers), the comparison is linear and thus comparable between different vehicles in a simple manner.

  • 5mpg = 20g/100mi
  • 10mpg = 10g/100mi
  • 40mpg = 2.5g/100mi
  • 55mpg = 1.82g/100mi

The difference between 10 and 20g is easy to see as a lot bigger than the difference between 2.5 to 1.82g. 15 is a much bigger number than 5, but that 15 is relative to the initial mpg rating

In fact going from 5mpg to 10mpg is better than going from 10mpg to 100mpg, a 10g saving vs a 9g saving…the more you know

Therefore,

Environmental damage from emissions doesn’t care about relative efficiency, 15 free miles is objectively more than 5 free miles.

absGeekNZ,
@absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz avatar

It you travel 50 miles at 5mpg, you use 10g of fuel At 10mpg you use 5g…a saving of 5g

40mpg uses 1.25g 55mpg uses 0.91g a saving of 0.34g much less of a saving.

4am,
@4am@lemmy.world avatar

Yeah but if you’re already driving the more efficient vehicles to begin with…

planforrain,

but if we are trying to save the world getting the lowest mpg vehicles off of the road first will have a stronger effect

if you already drive a 30mpg car and you are ready to upgrade then definitely look for better efficiency but I think we should have incentives in place to get cars that operate at for instance 16 mpg (my first car for instance, 1996 Chevy blazer, now deceased) replaced by even 10 year old models which are much more efficient

ch00f,

The ask was

What would be some fact that, while true, could be told in a context or way that is misinfomating or make the other person draw incorrect conclusions?

jossbo,

Nice try, QI elf!

jossbo,

Nice try, QI elf!

MartinXYZ,

You’ve triple posted this comment…

jossbo,

Nice try, QI elf!

count_duckula,
@count_duckula@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

I’ll finally know all the answers in the next episode of No Such Thing As A Fish!

JuxtaposedJaguar,

“Vending machines are more deadly than sharks”.

While it’s true that (at least for some years) more people are killed by vending machine accidents than shark attacks, your personal risk depends on what you do. If you’re a vending machine factory worker who never goes into the ocean, you’re far more likely to be killed by a vending machine than a shark. But if you live in a part of the world that doesn’t have vending machines and you swim in the ocean every day, the reverse is true.

MrPear,

Wait, so you’re telling me that there are no vending machines in the ocean that are preying on people swimming in the water?

Hupf,

Du Dun

Du Dun

Du Dun Du Dun

Storca,

Num num

Num num

metic,
@metic@lemmy.world avatar

Several (attempted) murderers have owned copies of The Catcher in the Rye.

SelfHigh5,

The large percent of traffic accidents that take place within 5 miles of home. Most people only cover a fairly small radius on a day to day basis so it makes sense if there is an accident, it’s close to home and not 80 miles away… just on average of how far how often you drive. Makes it seem like neighbourhoods are more dangerous than highways or something.

6mementomori,

that is actually an interesting way to think about it

Kolanaki,
@Kolanaki@yiffit.net avatar

One of my favorite Brian Regan bits kinda fits, maybe?

“In 1939, Germany invaded Poland. One thing led to another and the United States of America dropped two atomic bombs on the sovereign nation of Japan.”

President_Pyrus,
@President_Pyrus@feddit.dk avatar

Each year, Dihydrogen Monoxide is a known causative component in many thousands of deaths and is a major contributor to millions upon millions of dollars in damage to property and the environment. Some of the known perils of Dihydrogen Monoxide are:

Death due to accidental inhalation of DHMO, even in small quantities.

Prolonged exposure to solid DHMO causes severe tissue damage.

Excessive ingestion produces a number of unpleasant though not typically life-threatening side-effects.

DHMO is a major component of acid rain.

Gaseous DHMO can cause severe burns.

Contributes to soil erosion.

Leads to corrosion and oxidation of many metals.

Contamination of electrical systems often causes short-circuits.

Exposure decreases effectiveness of automobile brakes.

Found in biopsies of pre-cancerous tumors and lesions.

Given to vicious dogs involved in recent deadly attacks.

Often associated with killer cyclones in the U.S. Midwest and elsewhere, and in hurricanes including deadly storms in Florida, New Orleans and other areas of the southeastern U.S.

Thermal variations in DHMO are a suspected contributor to the El Nino weather effect.

www.dhmo.org/facts.html#DANGERS

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • asklemmy@lemmy.ml
  • localhost
  • All magazines
  • Loading…
    Loading the web debug toolbar…
    Attempt #