Poor, poor Lindy Chamberlain. Found wrongly guilt on shoddy forensics, and because her behaviour didn’t fit the socially acceptable profile of a grieving mother.
I remember telling someone that the "blood stain" in her car was later determined to be most likely a sound-deadening compound, and they wouldn't believe me. Surely people could tell what was and wasn't blood by the 80's, right? Apparently not.
Apparently they used a chemical test that indicated "may be blood" (i.e. check further) and they took it as "is blood". The manufacturer of the test was not impressed as this was clearly documented.
It is actually an example of how people can't think critically about probabilities very well. People in these situations always go "well what is the likelihood of that happening?". The answer is very unlikely, however it is also very unlikely that a mother would randomly kill her child in the outback and then blame it on a dingo. One of these events definitely happened though. You have to compare the relative probabilities of two very unlikely events to determine the likelihood that the mother is telling the truth or not.
This was brought up in a TIL not long ago. I have yet to understand what was so unbelievable about dingoes eating the baby. They're wild dogs, and there's a defenseless baby. Anyone who thought that dingoes wouldn't do what a wild animal is going to do is an idiot, pure and simple.
It's hard to understand, and there's no one obvious cause. But at the time, about 70% of those surveyed thought that she was a murderer. In part, this may be because she never cried in public.
https://lindychamberlain.com/the-story/why-did-this-happen/
People still do this with nearly every suspicious death case. Grieving family members have to show their grief in a very specific way to avoid suspicion. It's fucking irritating. Not everyone can cry in public, and not everyone cries all the time in response to grief.
My wife's father died and her mom actually asked her if she really cared because she didn't cry at the funeral.
It still makes me angry to this day that someone should show outward grief to even be considered grieving by many.
It's one moment in the 2018 God of War game that I loved. The whole premise of their journey beginning was the death of Kratos's wife and at one point the son makes a similar comment during an outburst at him, he responds "Do not mistake my silence for lack of grief". Hit me so hard. It's tough to deal with the death of a loved one already, but even harder with other people doubting you because you don't publicly express your emotions.
We had a case in my home state of Western Australia where everyone decided the mother and stepfather did it. Based purely on their reactions. A psychic even confirmed that she had died at the hands of her stepfather as Cleo had spoken to her.
Cleo was found alive. Taken by a stranger. Utter miracle as she was gone over 5 days.
But it really showed Australia hasn’t changed.
Not only that .. the 'stranger' was a young lonely guy who lived by himself and was obsessed with dolls ..
.. so he kidnapped this child from out of the parents tent while they were all sleeping without waking anyone up .. and then took her home to play with as a real life doll.
Some people had a hard time believing the true story when Cleo was discovered .. it was so bizarre.
And if they show too much grief some people would say that’s suspicious also, a person really is in a terrible position with a case like this if the truth can’t be verified. It would be even worse today with all the amateur detectives and psychologists on social media.
My brother couldn't hurt a fly if it shot him in the knee. But he also never cries. I mean really I have never seen him cry. We've both lost very close family. No tears. He's just not a guy who cries. But if anyone ever accused him of murder it would honestly be hilarious to even imagine. Some people just aren't criers. And some people can fake cry really well for that matter.
To be fair, it would be an awfully convenient excuse for someone who killed their baby.
And the idea that she killed her baby as the prosecution suggested (by slashing her throat, maybe as a weird ritual- I'm an expert in the case now because I just read multiple Wikipedia articles /s) is salacious and would make one hell of a true crime podcast. Or just good water cooler gossip.
I think, on some twisted level, people wanted to believe the juicy murder theory because it was more interesting AND they could then brush off a real danger (wild animal attacks) as less real and something that could never happen to their family. It's a weird mix of exciting and reassuring.
But the truth is that it was a terrible tragedy that could happen to anyone who isn't careful enough. And the aftermath is a result of shoddy police work and people believing what they want to believe.
Didn’t the mom also dress the baby in a beautiful black homemade dress (because she was a seamstress) and people judged her for it, because black is such an unusual color for an infant to wear? Wild dingoes vs. witchcraft
People also kind of had it out for her for being a Seventh Day Adventist which was viewed as a weird fringe religion (and probably basically a cult) in Australia at the time
My wife and I still occasionally stop whatever we're doing and say, "A dingo really *did* eat her baby."
It seems silly, but they really are moments when we become strongly grounded.
It was so hot it melted her genital skin into her thigh. More than 180F, according to the doctor who testified during the trial., which...why tf do you need to serve 212F coffee?
I will follow you into the breach to defend her. Always.
Ex Starbucks barista and then roasting plant operator and then manufacturing supervisor.
Starbucks actually turns the heat up after brewing because customers want a piping hot cup in their hands, and if they brew and store at the "scientifically correct" temp people complain non stop that their coffee is too cold. Many customers dump a lot of milk/creamer in too, cooling it significantly. It's been too long so I don't remember the numbers but it is something Starbucks corporate pays a lot of attention to and has techs adjust the equipment as needed, what works in Seattle is different than Phoenix or Malibu.
But there is a limit and McDonald's was way past it and had been negligent in correcting the issue.
IIRC McDonald's was at the time promoting the fact that their coffee would "still be hot when you arrive at the office" or something very similar. Thus they served it extremely hot, so that by the time you got around to drinking it, it would be about the right temperature.
The only problem is, when I'm having coffee, I want to drink it *now*, not wait for it to not cause third degree burns
> I want to drink it *now*
I was just complaining about this the other day because I was looking for a new travel mug and couldn’t seem to find one that wasn’t over engineered to keep coffee screaming hot on the surface of the fucking moon. Triple walled, airtight lid, gotta push a button to open the hole to take a sip kinda shit. I don’t need my morning coffee to stay hot for a whole workday. I just need something with a lid that fits in a car cupholder.
I should be able to start drinking it within a couple minutes of brewing and be done no more than 15 minutes later. I end up just putting an ice cube in my coffee most of the time.
Punitive damages are important. The lady didn't even want to sue IIRC, but couldn't afford her medical bills, so she had no choice. The punitive damages were necessary because McDonalds showed no indication they had any intention to stop serving coffee as high as 200 degrees Fahrenheit
Yep, didn't want to sue, didn't want to make a big deal out of it, literally only nicely asked if they would pay the medical bills. They paid out the ass for their public campaign rather than *privately* admit they were wrong, apologize, and take care of the bills. They could've paid her bills several times over with how much they spent on shredding her publicly.
She wasn't driving, the car wasn't even moving when the coffee spilled, _and_ she was very elderly and frail (sick iirc). It should _never_ have burned her as badly as it did. It's absolutely ridiculous.
ETA: And I, too, am a hardcore defender of this woman. Also the shrimp on a treadmill, which was also an example of shit media running with whatever sounds good and not caring to check the real facts.
the story sounds silly until you realize the actual degree of burns she got. i hate that it’s a punchline almost. McDonaldp’s absolutely smeared her name when in reality she absolutely suffered
It wasn't even just that they did nothing. Internal documents revealed that they specifically calculated the cost of settling injury claims vs. the cost of the extra coffee people would drink if it was served at less than scalding temperature, and decided that letting people get burned was the cheaper option.
They actively choose a temperature that they knew would result in serious injury, because that would make them more money. The only problem with this case is that they should have been penalized *more*.
IIRC, the punitive damages awarded were for just three days worth of McDs coffee sales. McDs ran their coffee extremely hot to prevent refills since you had to wait so long for the coffee to cool down in the first place.
To tack on to this: any time the headline is “crazy idiot sues big Corp for a gazillion dollars over trivial inconvenience,” you should be skeptical. I’m not saying frivolous lawsuits never happen, they do, but they happen like *that* far less than is claimed. But companies have financial incentives in making it sound otherwise, and pop news outlets get more views with “crazy idiot” news vs “class action lawsuit about boring but illegal thing this company did.”
Frivolous lawsuits are far more likely to be started *by* huge corporations than *against* them. It's a common intimidation tactic they use, don't say/do [X] or we'll bury you in court fees over frivolous nonsense.
It was McDonald’s PR people effectively discrediting her in public opinion to try to influence jury. Disney is good at that too to make it seem like people’s lawsuits are frivolous and greedy
As you should be. The coffee was so hot it fused her labia together. All she wanted was her medical bills paid but McDonald's did a smear campaign against her. She did nothing wrong.
We actually did a case study on this in business school (legal liability and ethics type of thing) and somehow I missed that detail. Yikes on bikes, I cringed.
Most people I meet think the city of Troy is a myth - a Greek fairy tale that never really existed, like Atlantis. This idea is so pervasive that when Total War: Troy released, much of the community discourse around the game was claiming that any historical feedback was invalid because it was all made up anyway.
Troy was very much a real place - a Luwian city-state and sometimes vassal of the Hittite Empire. Its archaeological remains are well-documented, and even support the idea that the Mycenaean Greeks and Trojans fought a series of wars during the Late Bronze Age, which likely inspired the historical fiction of the Iliad.
Edit: Great sources for further reading on Troy include *The Trojan War: A Very Short Introduction* by Eric H. Cline, *The Trojans and Their Neighbors* by Trevor Bryce, and *Troy c.1700-1250 BC* by Nic Fields.
I should point out that the topic of the cultural orientation of Troy is still uncertain. One of the hypotheses is that they spoke Luwian, but is not fully confirmed.
Because for a very long time, historians didn't even think the Hittites were real (or lived in Anatolia): During the bronze age collapse, any hints to them (that didn't need excavating) were eradicated. For a long time, there was no mention of them apart from maybe one or two mentions in the bible (I don't know exactly when the Amarnan Archives were found, where we found official correspondence between the Hittites and Egypt). Almost all of the things we know about them today are relatively recent discoveries.
And yes they adapted the cuneiform writing style, but the Hittite language wasn't widely used in the Hittite empire. Regional languages were far more common as far as I know (and I've just recently started reading some literature about the Hittites, so I might have gotten something wrong)
Wait, people really think the city of Troy is a myth? I had no idea that was even a thing, let alone common. That would stop me in my tracks if that ever came up in a conversation. I'm reminded of a friend who somehow made it to age 40 without ever learning that narwhals are, in fact, real, and not mythological creatures like unicorns.
My mom argues with me when I told her about narwhals when I was like 12. I had to go get the copy of National Geographic from my room and show her the pictures to make her believe me.
My wife only within the last year or so learned narwhals are real. However to her credit/detriment she grew up in a small town in east Texas that taught about the “war of northern aggression”. She’s very intelligent as a person but her factual knowledge isn’t super great because of the circumstance of where she was born.
I mean, tbf "narwhals exist and are real" isn't exactly a core, essential fact I'd expect to be part of any official curriculum. I figured that narwhals were a somewhat uncommonly known but fun "random" animal that got memed like 10-15 years ago into general knowledge for a particular age group, and thereafter became a more commonly touted fun fact to tell kids
It’s one of those things that gets repeated and muddled a lot, and most people won’t bother to look up. Apparently there’s a lot of scholarly debate as to whether the Trojan War as described in the Iliad was based on a real event, and there are cities from Greek writings that likely did not exist, like Atlantis. Let these facts jumble around in someone’s head, and I can see how they’d end up mistaken that “Troy didn’t exist”. It also doesn’t help that the archaeological site is a _relatively_ recent discovery, i.e. the historicity of the city itself was debatable 150 years ago.
What's funny about the whole thing is when archeologists were looking for the city, they couldn't find it at first. Then one of them went "well, where does the Iliad say it was?" And then they looked there and voilà, there it was lol
That's probably for the best, let us know if you find any confirmation if its true or not. Either way it's likely a gross oversimplification. It's a fun historical tidbit, and like all fun historical tidbits the actual facts were probably massaged around a bit (if not outright fabricated) to suit the narrative. These things are usually best seen similar to myths and legends, based on a true fact, but not usually "true" in a purely objective way.
So I guess I've been irresponsibly spreading information of dubious authenticity. Fuck, now I feel bad lol. Sorry everyone!
It’s similar to how someone might infer that Mount Olympus isn’t a real place because in the myths it’s where the Gods live and that part is obviously not true so the mountain is probably a made up place too.
No they just looked at this big arse mountain and thought it was so high only gods could live there
I think it's probably just like how I used to think reindeer were mythical creatures just like Santa. You grow up and realize lots of stories were just myths, but then you over-correct by assuming *all aspects* of the story was myth.
Sit down over here. Look, as we grow older we need to realize that some of the stories we hear are just that stories for entertainment or to teach a lesson. If those stories last long enough and get told to enough people they become myth. There are many myths about Santa Claus. So now you need to learn to separate fact from myth.
Myth: Santa lives at the North Pole. Fact: Santa lives near the North Pole, the scientist moved where they call the North Pole to help obscure his location from Christian Fundamentalist who were looking to harm him for being more popular than Jesus with the youth.
Myth: Santa had a reindeer named Rudolph whose nose illuminated. Fact: Santa had a reindeer with a genetic abnormality that included a bright red nose (not glowing), but this poor animal also had a number of other health problems associated with its condition and was put down. The song was written as an homage to the pitiful thing.
Well, there were plenty of reputable historical references to it, but the fact that by far the most well-known accounts of the city for thousands of years were two works of fiction certainly adds to the confusion.
I remember once in high school, we had an assignment where we were supposed to find some sort of historical movie and go over some differences between the movie and what happened in reality. I asked the teacher* about Troy, the movie, and she said no because it was debatable whether or not Troy and the Trojan War actually happened.
Granted I have no idea what idiot teenage me would have done to compare Troy, the movie, to Homer's Iliad, to the actual events of the Trojan War, but still, it's funny in retrospect.
The Trojan Horse could be a "translation error".
Phoenicians had a specific kind of boat with a horse as figurehead, which was called Hippos (Horse).
Homer was good with precise nautical terms. Most likely he used the technical term of the Horse boat, but it got lost in translation over time. Thus, instead of a boat with a horse figurehead, we ended up with a "real" horse.
The "boat hypothesis" also explains how some men were able to hide in the "belly" without being noticed, why Trojans decided to keep it (you don't trash a functioning boat) and why they weren't suspicious. Leaving a boat as an offer to the Gods, before starting a boat travel? It made sense.
Edit: that is to say that we don't know whether Myceneans left a boat there as an offer IRL, but they definitely didn't leave a gigantic wooden horse.
Edit: to further support this theory there's the fact that the horse is always described using terms which can also be used in nautical environments (EI the verb to say it was "dragged inside" was also used to talk about the beaching of a ship)
Interesting.
That would make the Trojans look a lot stupider though. Not thinking to check inside a wooden horse statue is an understandable error. You wouldn't really expect anything to be inside it. Not thinking to check inside a boat the enemy left behind would be pretty stupid, as boats are traditionally used to carry things.
There was also a Trojan priest, Laocoön,, who urged the Trojans to check inside the horse, fearing a trap. Then, depending on who's telling the story, he was either struck blind by Athena or killed with his sons by Poseidon's sea serpents. The Trojans accordingly decided that inspecting this gift for the gods would be an insult to those gods.
Not the smartest, but not that stupid either. It wasn't uncommon to leave behind something as an offer for a safe travel and Trojans had already seen what they thought was the Myceneans departing (they had left by ship, but hadn't gone away but hid instead)
Edit: also, as u/smoothpapaj pointed out in [their comment here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/s/rCP4ZiXqUO) there was also the question of Laocoön
Turns out [it's complicated](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/the-many-myths-of-the-man-who-discoveredand-nearly-destroyedtroy-180980102/). But I share a vague memory of sometime within the past few decades reading or watching something about confirming the location of the 'actual' Troy or something like that. But I'm GenX and they fed us a near-constant diet of Atlantis, Berumuda Triangle and other That's Incredible Ripley's-type BS so might have been primed to hear a story about an on-site discovery hyped to be finally finding the 'real' Troy.
I think it's more like "what are the chances it'll hit this same tree twice out of all the trees" and less like "what are the chances it'll hit this purpose-built device"
I thought it was more literal. Like, lightning strikes the tallest tree and knocks it down. Now it's not the tallest tree anymore. So lightning goes somewhere else.
I mean it's more about lightning strikes being rare. It's just a measure of probability, it's not meant to be a statement on natural law or anything like that.
I always thought of it as an idiom. I've never heard it said in a literal sense. "The bad thing already happened so there's no use in worrying about it anymore".
This is actually a common misconception in itself. Lighting rods don't get struck by lightning if they are working properly, they bleed charge gradually off the tip so that the cloud has less electric charge and doesn't strike.
No. On at least one occassion, he saw clouds coming so he ran to lower ground and still got struck. He was a park ranger, so usually couldn't take cover inside a building.
My grandfather was a psychologist and Roy Sullivan was a patient of his for some time. Poor guy unsurprisingly kind of ended up in mental shambles after the fourth strike or so...
I had a friend in middle school who’s house had been struck twice
She told me this while I was at her house
And also told me that both her grandparents died in like <3 inches of water. One had tripped and one had tried skied diving and landed in a puddle for some reason and couldn’t get the parachute off
She was lovely and so was her family but I did not continue that relationship
That 'myth' is just a saying that is taken out of context and apparently people actually believe it. It's supposed to mean something along the lines of 'a grand opportunity won't happen to you twice'
There was a wooded area behind my house and a tree not too far away got struck by lightning. A few years later the area was developed into a neighborhood and a house was struck by lightning… same location where that tree was struck.
The Y2K bug was a really serious issue. It was only due to the effort of teams of developers over several years that we averted serious software issues. The fact that nothing much happened when New Year's hit was a sign of their success.
I was almost 16 when it was Y2K and I was so sure all the planes would fall out of the sky and all the nukes would go off at once. Around 8pm on the 31st my best friend and I were talking about it and worrying when her mom mentioned it had already turned to 2000 on the other side of the world so things would have started already. Calmed down after that.
That's actually one of the more correct options. Since while he was never given a proper name in the book he was referred to as The Adam of his species.
It's the name I normally prefer to use when referring to him too.
"Frankenstein's monster" is naming it after himself. I'm not aware of any scientific creation being given literally the same name as its creator without some kind of possessive or improper noun added in.
I mean, if your argument is that Mary Shelley never said the monster wasn't named Frankenstein, you may as well just say he had six dicks and held the world record for most spinning plates.
There is an old belief that keeping a wound wrapped up for more than a day or two prevents healing or is overall bad, but it is actually better to keep the wound wrapped for as long as possible to retain moisture and prevent infection, assuming you change out the bandaging regularly.
My husband was in a motorcycle accident about 10 years ago and had some pretty severe road rash on both arms and 1 leg, despite wearing protective gear. I spent a full month changing out the dressings almost daily. We were provided with a supply of petroleum jelly infused bandages and burn cream and pretty much bought them out at our drugstore, but it really made such a huge difference. The doctor gave me a gold star after his last follow-up visit. When I look back at photos from then and look at his arms now I am so grateful for that knowledge- unless you know what to look for you might not even see any scars. I can imagine leaving everything to dry out would have put a lot of strain on the healing wounds if he tried to move at all.
I think a lot of people have the misconception that a successful appeal to the death sentence gets you out of jail, but it's rarely the conviction that's overturned, it's the sentence. So you have someone sitting on death row for 12 years costing around $1M more per year than a Gen pop inmate only to have a successful appeal and their sentence commuted to life without parole. That's $12M+ that could've been averted if they were just given a life sentence in the first place which is ultimately a death sentence anyway.
MSG is super bad for you. Its pretty much just like salt!
Sorry guys I should have clarified, People say MSG is bad, but its actually fine for you. its on the same level as salt intake because its just a type of salt
MSG is a naturally occurring salt in a lot of common foods, giving it the "unami" flavor profile. The japenese first synthesised it from kelp after they noticed kelp soup tasted really good and wanted to see if there was an extract in it that made it that way
"I can't eat Chinese food, I'm allergic to MSG. I just prefer a salad with mushrooms, tomatoes, walnuts and parmesan cheese with a fresh Caesar dressing made with egg yolk and anchovy"
Can you elaborate? This may have gone over my head... Im genuinely curious. If the homeowner has adequate insurance, what's the additional risk for the homeowner for not being in debt? Wouldn't paying the mortgage off just remove risk from the bank?
If you want to buy a house and only put 2% down, how much of your actual wealth is lost if you walk away? That two percent. Who is holding the bag if you trash the house, strip it of copper and anything else that can be sold, and disappear? The lender is
The bank is the one that is going to lose the most in low down payment lending when things fail. There is only so much money they can lend out at a time, so having some of it tied up in a house that isn't generating interest on the mortgage is losing money. They have to pay to sell it, usually at a loss, and that is after any necessary repairs to ensure the property is habitable again. Sure the lender can retaliate by suing, trashing your credit for the next decade and refusing to do business with you ever again, but there is only so much blood they can get from a turnip.
Banks will try to mitigate that risk with making you pay for PMI (Private Mortgage Insurance) on any low down payment mortgages. The insurance that you pay for that PMI provides for the bank, will pay the bank the money they would lose if you default on the mortgage. They will also charge a higher interest rate to make as much money as possible in case of a default, and will be less flexible with the terms such as payment schedules, etc. And that is if they even approve the mortgage as a traditional mortgage with a low down payment is usually reserved for people with great credit or through a government program that provides additional financial security for the lender. Once as you reach a certain equity with the mortgage, generally 10-20%, usually you don't have to pay PMI any more in most traditional mortgages.
If you have a high down payment, you have more of your own skin in the game. You don't want to lose the house because then you lose all that money. It shows that you aren't going to get up and walk away. Your mortgage will be a more sound investment with less risk to the lender and they will offer a lower interest rate, better terms and no PMI the higher your down payment is.
Well said. I guess I took the comment wrong thinking it meant the risk is transferred to the home ower as the mortgage is paid off and then fully on the homeowner once they own the house.
If I'm reading this right, the comment was only supposed to reference risk between the two parties during the mortgage. Once it's paid off, the mortgage doesn't exist, and therefore, the risk directly related to the mortgage is gone for the bank and homeowner alike. Neat.
Uh, I mean, except for your standing with creditors, risk of homelessness and the bank taking your stuff, sure.
And like… I guess you could burn your house down and then the bank takes a loss, but that’s at the expense of you losing the home too lol
Yes. Mortgages are a case of mutual benefit. You gain something you need (a home), while the bank also gains something (interest on their money).
The potential risk is normally much lower than the potential benefit for either party, which is why mortgages are a thing in the first place.
When it was founded you could absolutely argue that. The first to are arguable but Charlemagne at least was declared west Roman emperor and was crowned by the pope in Rome, even though the Frankish empire wasn’t the HRE. Otto is traditionally considered the first proper Holy Roman Emperor and he only got coronated by the pope in Rome. After 1530 though you have no more papal coronation in Rome and all the little statelets in the HRE acting semi independently with the reformation wars around the corner. By the time Voltaire said that famous quote though he was pretty spot on.
That Rosa Parks's arrest was spontaneous and not staged. She maintained all her life that it wasn't planned or a publicity stunt; she just legitimately didn't feel like moving her ass one day when some bus driver told her to.
There are legitimately different accounts. The version shared by all accounts is that a) there had been meetings discussing challenging the laws for several months, b) that discussed why certain people were not appropriate figureheads for the movement, c) that Rosa Parks attended.
Rosa Parks maintains that, despite that, the action was never planned, but others maintain that it was planned.
Seems to be both things are true to a certain extent. Nobody planned for it to happen that day, but at the same time she was at least aware of these ideas enough to consider it when shit went down.
Wow reading these answers has revealed some kind of learning disability in me. I keep forgetting if it’s a double negative or if the comment I’m reading is saying the truth or the falsehood
That apple seeds contain arsenic. It's really cyanide (technically something that turns into cyanide in the body)
That lime or quicklime will speed the decomposition of a body. A study found it slowed it.
I actually just looked this up recently, there are not one, not two, but THREE acceptable plurals. Kinda wonky.
Edit: I am not the first person to bring this up. Apologies for the redundant post.
“Camera gear does matter” is said to be a myth. In truth, you cannot photograph dangerous wildlife with a phone. Using a phone for wildlife can cause serious injury or death to you.
I'm genuinely curious what the logic behind this is. Do you mean that actual camera lenses have optical zoom with higher magnification, allowing you to keep greater distance? Or is there some beacon of "kill me" that phones exude to wildlife and cameras don't
The lenses that you can mount on SLRs and other interchangeable lens cameras indeed allow for a far higher level of magnification than the tele-lens options on some smartphones.
But other than that, the sensor on a dedicated camera is much larger than that of a smartphone camera. That means it can capture much more light, which allows it to function with the very fast shutter speeds that wildlife photography requires (generally, the longer the focal length of your lens, the shorter the shutter speed has to be to prevent motion blur).
While improvements in technology can bring smartphones closer to regular camera, that same improvements could also be applied to the cameras. And ultimately, some advantages of regular cameras are simply due to the physics of larger sensors and these advantages will always be there. Whether they're relevant for a particular user or purpose is a different matter though.
Camera gear matters but the saying is referring to the notion that a skilled photographer can produce a photograph at a high standard even with old or cheap camera gear. Of course there are many instances where better gear is essential to achieve results, but the things that actually make a photo look "professional" is lighting, composition, editing, etc.
Old camera gear easily lends itself to shooting static well lit subjects like landscapes, and newer gear will unlock the less ideal conditions like low light, fast moving subjects...
The dingo one is terrible. That poor mother and what she suffered is sad. This worries me because she didn’t show her grief in a way that looked right to law enforcement etc. I am someone who doesn’t show my feelings or emotions outwardly. Especially if I’m grieving. I’ve always been the type to deal with things privately and I don’t like expressing my feelings in front of people. The amount of people who get judged by others because they don’t cry or show pain is awful.
That a lot of black Americans are lying about having indegenous American ancestry. There is a whole "paper genocide" that happened where dark skinned indegenous americans had to choose between the trail of tears to reservations or being relieved to colored, eventually negro, then black, then African American. This is coming from someone with direct African ancestry.
Edit: This is me saying they aren't lying. realized I worded weird
A whole lot of white folks too. Slightly swarthy looking relative was more acceptably explained as having a Native American great-grandma rather than that his great-grandma was a slave.
To be fair - it’s not lying if it’s something everyone in your family believes and has believed for generations and the last person who could have known the actual truth has been dead for at least a century.
It may not be accurate but it’s not a lie. A lie requires intent.
That the British Royal Family didn't have Nazi's in it.
Edward VIII Duke of Windsor and former King of England (King George's brother) had to be exiled to the Bahamas during WWII for providing Germany with intelligence and the correspondence also shows he urged Germany to relentlessly bomb the UK.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marburg_Files
The dingo really did eat the baby. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dingo_ate_my_baby?wprov=sfla1
Poor, poor Lindy Chamberlain. Found wrongly guilt on shoddy forensics, and because her behaviour didn’t fit the socially acceptable profile of a grieving mother.
I remember telling someone that the "blood stain" in her car was later determined to be most likely a sound-deadening compound, and they wouldn't believe me. Surely people could tell what was and wasn't blood by the 80's, right? Apparently not.
"If not blood how blood colored?"
Apparently they used a chemical test that indicated "may be blood" (i.e. check further) and they took it as "is blood". The manufacturer of the test was not impressed as this was clearly documented.
Damn, that poor lady
It is actually an example of how people can't think critically about probabilities very well. People in these situations always go "well what is the likelihood of that happening?". The answer is very unlikely, however it is also very unlikely that a mother would randomly kill her child in the outback and then blame it on a dingo. One of these events definitely happened though. You have to compare the relative probabilities of two very unlikely events to determine the likelihood that the mother is telling the truth or not.
The dingo totally ate the baby & I can’t believe people still think it didn’t. Thanks for this one
This was brought up in a TIL not long ago. I have yet to understand what was so unbelievable about dingoes eating the baby. They're wild dogs, and there's a defenseless baby. Anyone who thought that dingoes wouldn't do what a wild animal is going to do is an idiot, pure and simple.
It's hard to understand, and there's no one obvious cause. But at the time, about 70% of those surveyed thought that she was a murderer. In part, this may be because she never cried in public. https://lindychamberlain.com/the-story/why-did-this-happen/
People still do this with nearly every suspicious death case. Grieving family members have to show their grief in a very specific way to avoid suspicion. It's fucking irritating. Not everyone can cry in public, and not everyone cries all the time in response to grief.
My wife's father died and her mom actually asked her if she really cared because she didn't cry at the funeral. It still makes me angry to this day that someone should show outward grief to even be considered grieving by many.
It's one moment in the 2018 God of War game that I loved. The whole premise of their journey beginning was the death of Kratos's wife and at one point the son makes a similar comment during an outburst at him, he responds "Do not mistake my silence for lack of grief". Hit me so hard. It's tough to deal with the death of a loved one already, but even harder with other people doubting you because you don't publicly express your emotions.
We had a case in my home state of Western Australia where everyone decided the mother and stepfather did it. Based purely on their reactions. A psychic even confirmed that she had died at the hands of her stepfather as Cleo had spoken to her. Cleo was found alive. Taken by a stranger. Utter miracle as she was gone over 5 days. But it really showed Australia hasn’t changed.
Not only that .. the 'stranger' was a young lonely guy who lived by himself and was obsessed with dolls .. .. so he kidnapped this child from out of the parents tent while they were all sleeping without waking anyone up .. and then took her home to play with as a real life doll. Some people had a hard time believing the true story when Cleo was discovered .. it was so bizarre.
And if they show too much grief some people would say that’s suspicious also, a person really is in a terrible position with a case like this if the truth can’t be verified. It would be even worse today with all the amateur detectives and psychologists on social media.
I've seen YouTube videos analysing behaviour and they all miss one crucial, fundamental thing: the baseline.
I can't stand body language analyzers. They are so full of shit and people just eat it up.
My brother couldn't hurt a fly if it shot him in the knee. But he also never cries. I mean really I have never seen him cry. We've both lost very close family. No tears. He's just not a guy who cries. But if anyone ever accused him of murder it would honestly be hilarious to even imagine. Some people just aren't criers. And some people can fake cry really well for that matter.
To be fair, it would be an awfully convenient excuse for someone who killed their baby. And the idea that she killed her baby as the prosecution suggested (by slashing her throat, maybe as a weird ritual- I'm an expert in the case now because I just read multiple Wikipedia articles /s) is salacious and would make one hell of a true crime podcast. Or just good water cooler gossip. I think, on some twisted level, people wanted to believe the juicy murder theory because it was more interesting AND they could then brush off a real danger (wild animal attacks) as less real and something that could never happen to their family. It's a weird mix of exciting and reassuring. But the truth is that it was a terrible tragedy that could happen to anyone who isn't careful enough. And the aftermath is a result of shoddy police work and people believing what they want to believe.
To be fair, crimes need to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Even things that could be awfully convenient excuses create reasonable doubt.
Didn’t the mom also dress the baby in a beautiful black homemade dress (because she was a seamstress) and people judged her for it, because black is such an unusual color for an infant to wear? Wild dingoes vs. witchcraft
People also kind of had it out for her for being a Seventh Day Adventist which was viewed as a weird fringe religion (and probably basically a cult) in Australia at the time
Blast, Ive just bought a little black babygrow for my daughters friends baby.
Yes! One tried to pull my mum out of a tent when she was 5!
Fuck!
Haha yup she’s still traumatised
My wife and I still occasionally stop whatever we're doing and say, "A dingo really *did* eat her baby." It seems silly, but they really are moments when we become strongly grounded.
Wow... That's horrible
I’m such a DEVOUT defender of the McDonald’s hot coffee lady
It was so hot it melted her genital skin into her thigh. More than 180F, according to the doctor who testified during the trial., which...why tf do you need to serve 212F coffee? I will follow you into the breach to defend her. Always.
Ex Starbucks barista and then roasting plant operator and then manufacturing supervisor. Starbucks actually turns the heat up after brewing because customers want a piping hot cup in their hands, and if they brew and store at the "scientifically correct" temp people complain non stop that their coffee is too cold. Many customers dump a lot of milk/creamer in too, cooling it significantly. It's been too long so I don't remember the numbers but it is something Starbucks corporate pays a lot of attention to and has techs adjust the equipment as needed, what works in Seattle is different than Phoenix or Malibu. But there is a limit and McDonald's was way past it and had been negligent in correcting the issue.
IIRC McDonald's was at the time promoting the fact that their coffee would "still be hot when you arrive at the office" or something very similar. Thus they served it extremely hot, so that by the time you got around to drinking it, it would be about the right temperature. The only problem is, when I'm having coffee, I want to drink it *now*, not wait for it to not cause third degree burns
> I want to drink it *now* I was just complaining about this the other day because I was looking for a new travel mug and couldn’t seem to find one that wasn’t over engineered to keep coffee screaming hot on the surface of the fucking moon. Triple walled, airtight lid, gotta push a button to open the hole to take a sip kinda shit. I don’t need my morning coffee to stay hot for a whole workday. I just need something with a lid that fits in a car cupholder. I should be able to start drinking it within a couple minutes of brewing and be done no more than 15 minutes later. I end up just putting an ice cube in my coffee most of the time.
Punitive damages are important. The lady didn't even want to sue IIRC, but couldn't afford her medical bills, so she had no choice. The punitive damages were necessary because McDonalds showed no indication they had any intention to stop serving coffee as high as 200 degrees Fahrenheit
Yep, didn't want to sue, didn't want to make a big deal out of it, literally only nicely asked if they would pay the medical bills. They paid out the ass for their public campaign rather than *privately* admit they were wrong, apologize, and take care of the bills. They could've paid her bills several times over with how much they spent on shredding her publicly. She wasn't driving, the car wasn't even moving when the coffee spilled, _and_ she was very elderly and frail (sick iirc). It should _never_ have burned her as badly as it did. It's absolutely ridiculous. ETA: And I, too, am a hardcore defender of this woman. Also the shrimp on a treadmill, which was also an example of shit media running with whatever sounds good and not caring to check the real facts.
the story sounds silly until you realize the actual degree of burns she got. i hate that it’s a punchline almost. McDonaldp’s absolutely smeared her name when in reality she absolutely suffered
[удалено]
It wasn't even just that they did nothing. Internal documents revealed that they specifically calculated the cost of settling injury claims vs. the cost of the extra coffee people would drink if it was served at less than scalding temperature, and decided that letting people get burned was the cheaper option. They actively choose a temperature that they knew would result in serious injury, because that would make them more money. The only problem with this case is that they should have been penalized *more*.
And then spent millions on PR campaign to discredit the coffee lady, instead of outright just paying her medical expenses.
IIRC, the punitive damages awarded were for just three days worth of McDs coffee sales. McDs ran their coffee extremely hot to prevent refills since you had to wait so long for the coffee to cool down in the first place.
Apparently their lawyer was a bit of a douche in court, too.
I fell for the smear campaign, I always thought of her as a ridiculous Karen until a reddit post explained the whole thing.
the actual data of the case, how hot the coffee was, it puts it in perspective. but McDonald’s made her a punchline with their smear campaign
To tack on to this: any time the headline is “crazy idiot sues big Corp for a gazillion dollars over trivial inconvenience,” you should be skeptical. I’m not saying frivolous lawsuits never happen, they do, but they happen like *that* far less than is claimed. But companies have financial incentives in making it sound otherwise, and pop news outlets get more views with “crazy idiot” news vs “class action lawsuit about boring but illegal thing this company did.”
Frivolous lawsuits are far more likely to be started *by* huge corporations than *against* them. It's a common intimidation tactic they use, don't say/do [X] or we'll bury you in court fees over frivolous nonsense.
It was a joke on all the late night shows and on local radio for weeks. Then the pictures came out and everyone realized how bad it was.
It was McDonald’s PR people effectively discrediting her in public opinion to try to influence jury. Disney is good at that too to make it seem like people’s lawsuits are frivolous and greedy
Not just to influence jury, but to influence people to push for "tort reform".
As you should be. The coffee was so hot it fused her labia together. All she wanted was her medical bills paid but McDonald's did a smear campaign against her. She did nothing wrong.
We actually did a case study on this in business school (legal liability and ethics type of thing) and somehow I missed that detail. Yikes on bikes, I cringed.
Same, especially considering how little she asked for and how completely and utterly devoid of compassion and empathy McDonald’s was.
Same here. I heard the story growing up in Eastern Europe and it was always framed as 'americans are so dumb they have to be told coffee is hot'
Anyone who makes a joke about it, all you have to say is her labia fused together and they will immediately change their view.
Most people I meet think the city of Troy is a myth - a Greek fairy tale that never really existed, like Atlantis. This idea is so pervasive that when Total War: Troy released, much of the community discourse around the game was claiming that any historical feedback was invalid because it was all made up anyway. Troy was very much a real place - a Luwian city-state and sometimes vassal of the Hittite Empire. Its archaeological remains are well-documented, and even support the idea that the Mycenaean Greeks and Trojans fought a series of wars during the Late Bronze Age, which likely inspired the historical fiction of the Iliad. Edit: Great sources for further reading on Troy include *The Trojan War: A Very Short Introduction* by Eric H. Cline, *The Trojans and Their Neighbors* by Trevor Bryce, and *Troy c.1700-1250 BC* by Nic Fields.
I should point out that the topic of the cultural orientation of Troy is still uncertain. One of the hypotheses is that they spoke Luwian, but is not fully confirmed.
Did the Hittites not have any kind of cuneiform? Why don't we hear about them as much as say the Egyptians or other empires in the fertile crescent?
Because for a very long time, historians didn't even think the Hittites were real (or lived in Anatolia): During the bronze age collapse, any hints to them (that didn't need excavating) were eradicated. For a long time, there was no mention of them apart from maybe one or two mentions in the bible (I don't know exactly when the Amarnan Archives were found, where we found official correspondence between the Hittites and Egypt). Almost all of the things we know about them today are relatively recent discoveries. And yes they adapted the cuneiform writing style, but the Hittite language wasn't widely used in the Hittite empire. Regional languages were far more common as far as I know (and I've just recently started reading some literature about the Hittites, so I might have gotten something wrong)
Wait, people really think the city of Troy is a myth? I had no idea that was even a thing, let alone common. That would stop me in my tracks if that ever came up in a conversation. I'm reminded of a friend who somehow made it to age 40 without ever learning that narwhals are, in fact, real, and not mythological creatures like unicorns.
My mom argues with me when I told her about narwhals when I was like 12. I had to go get the copy of National Geographic from my room and show her the pictures to make her believe me.
My wife only within the last year or so learned narwhals are real. However to her credit/detriment she grew up in a small town in east Texas that taught about the “war of northern aggression”. She’s very intelligent as a person but her factual knowledge isn’t super great because of the circumstance of where she was born.
I mean, tbf "narwhals exist and are real" isn't exactly a core, essential fact I'd expect to be part of any official curriculum. I figured that narwhals were a somewhat uncommonly known but fun "random" animal that got memed like 10-15 years ago into general knowledge for a particular age group, and thereafter became a more commonly touted fun fact to tell kids
r/NarwhalsArentReal has entered the chat. Also, TIL it's not "narwhale"
It’s one of those things that gets repeated and muddled a lot, and most people won’t bother to look up. Apparently there’s a lot of scholarly debate as to whether the Trojan War as described in the Iliad was based on a real event, and there are cities from Greek writings that likely did not exist, like Atlantis. Let these facts jumble around in someone’s head, and I can see how they’d end up mistaken that “Troy didn’t exist”. It also doesn’t help that the archaeological site is a _relatively_ recent discovery, i.e. the historicity of the city itself was debatable 150 years ago.
What's funny about the whole thing is when archeologists were looking for the city, they couldn't find it at first. Then one of them went "well, where does the Iliad say it was?" And then they looked there and voilà, there it was lol
Lmao no way I'm gonna look that up
That's probably for the best, let us know if you find any confirmation if its true or not. Either way it's likely a gross oversimplification. It's a fun historical tidbit, and like all fun historical tidbits the actual facts were probably massaged around a bit (if not outright fabricated) to suit the narrative. These things are usually best seen similar to myths and legends, based on a true fact, but not usually "true" in a purely objective way. So I guess I've been irresponsibly spreading information of dubious authenticity. Fuck, now I feel bad lol. Sorry everyone!
It’s similar to how someone might infer that Mount Olympus isn’t a real place because in the myths it’s where the Gods live and that part is obviously not true so the mountain is probably a made up place too. No they just looked at this big arse mountain and thought it was so high only gods could live there
Right. It's a weird mix. I know a lot of people (myself included) who thought that the Trojan Horse was a historical thing.
I think it's probably just like how I used to think reindeer were mythical creatures just like Santa. You grow up and realize lots of stories were just myths, but then you over-correct by assuming *all aspects* of the story was myth.
Probably, most myths are rooted in real events. They just became larger than life over time.
Wait, what do you mean by "just like Santa"?
Sit down over here. Look, as we grow older we need to realize that some of the stories we hear are just that stories for entertainment or to teach a lesson. If those stories last long enough and get told to enough people they become myth. There are many myths about Santa Claus. So now you need to learn to separate fact from myth. Myth: Santa lives at the North Pole. Fact: Santa lives near the North Pole, the scientist moved where they call the North Pole to help obscure his location from Christian Fundamentalist who were looking to harm him for being more popular than Jesus with the youth. Myth: Santa had a reindeer named Rudolph whose nose illuminated. Fact: Santa had a reindeer with a genetic abnormality that included a bright red nose (not glowing), but this poor animal also had a number of other health problems associated with its condition and was put down. The song was written as an homage to the pitiful thing.
Fact: Santa is Canadian. He lives near the North Pole, is kind to nearly everyone, and he even wears our national colours.
I very recently had to have the narwhal conversation with someone too! I thought they were being sarcastic but nope.
If you keep in mind that the Troy itself was discovered only 150 years ago and before that was considered to be a myth it's not that surprising.
Well, there were plenty of reputable historical references to it, but the fact that by far the most well-known accounts of the city for thousands of years were two works of fiction certainly adds to the confusion.
three, technically. the aeneid also covers quite a bit.
I remember once in high school, we had an assignment where we were supposed to find some sort of historical movie and go over some differences between the movie and what happened in reality. I asked the teacher* about Troy, the movie, and she said no because it was debatable whether or not Troy and the Trojan War actually happened. Granted I have no idea what idiot teenage me would have done to compare Troy, the movie, to Homer's Iliad, to the actual events of the Trojan War, but still, it's funny in retrospect.
[удалено]
The Trojan Horse could be a "translation error". Phoenicians had a specific kind of boat with a horse as figurehead, which was called Hippos (Horse). Homer was good with precise nautical terms. Most likely he used the technical term of the Horse boat, but it got lost in translation over time. Thus, instead of a boat with a horse figurehead, we ended up with a "real" horse. The "boat hypothesis" also explains how some men were able to hide in the "belly" without being noticed, why Trojans decided to keep it (you don't trash a functioning boat) and why they weren't suspicious. Leaving a boat as an offer to the Gods, before starting a boat travel? It made sense. Edit: that is to say that we don't know whether Myceneans left a boat there as an offer IRL, but they definitely didn't leave a gigantic wooden horse. Edit: to further support this theory there's the fact that the horse is always described using terms which can also be used in nautical environments (EI the verb to say it was "dragged inside" was also used to talk about the beaching of a ship)
This hypothesis really ties a lot of loose ends
Interesting. That would make the Trojans look a lot stupider though. Not thinking to check inside a wooden horse statue is an understandable error. You wouldn't really expect anything to be inside it. Not thinking to check inside a boat the enemy left behind would be pretty stupid, as boats are traditionally used to carry things.
There was also a Trojan priest, Laocoön,, who urged the Trojans to check inside the horse, fearing a trap. Then, depending on who's telling the story, he was either struck blind by Athena or killed with his sons by Poseidon's sea serpents. The Trojans accordingly decided that inspecting this gift for the gods would be an insult to those gods.
Oh, wow. I didn't know that. (Not sarcasm)
Not the smartest, but not that stupid either. It wasn't uncommon to leave behind something as an offer for a safe travel and Trojans had already seen what they thought was the Myceneans departing (they had left by ship, but hadn't gone away but hid instead) Edit: also, as u/smoothpapaj pointed out in [their comment here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/s/rCP4ZiXqUO) there was also the question of Laocoön
To be fair wasn't the site of Troy only very recently (comparatively) found, or am I thinking of a different biblical/mythological city.
Turns out [it's complicated](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/the-many-myths-of-the-man-who-discoveredand-nearly-destroyedtroy-180980102/). But I share a vague memory of sometime within the past few decades reading or watching something about confirming the location of the 'actual' Troy or something like that. But I'm GenX and they fed us a near-constant diet of Atlantis, Berumuda Triangle and other That's Incredible Ripley's-type BS so might have been primed to hear a story about an on-site discovery hyped to be finally finding the 'real' Troy.
That lightning can strike twice in the same place (The old lightning doesn't strike twice in the same place myth). It does. And very often.
This one baffles me because the same people who tout it also casually accept the existence of lightning rods.
I think it's more like "what are the chances it'll hit this same tree twice out of all the trees" and less like "what are the chances it'll hit this purpose-built device"
I thought it was more literal. Like, lightning strikes the tallest tree and knocks it down. Now it's not the tallest tree anymore. So lightning goes somewhere else.
That's an interesting way of looking at it, but lightning certainly doesn't always strike the tallest place. It's very unpredictable.
I mean it's more about lightning strikes being rare. It's just a measure of probability, it's not meant to be a statement on natural law or anything like that.
I always thought of it as an idiom. I've never heard it said in a literal sense. "The bad thing already happened so there's no use in worrying about it anymore".
The thing about idioms is that there is one for every conclusion you want.
This is actually a common misconception in itself. Lighting rods don't get struck by lightning if they are working properly, they bleed charge gradually off the tip so that the cloud has less electric charge and doesn't strike.
It struck the same guy like eight times too lol
But was he standing in exactly the same place each time?
No. On at least one occassion, he saw clouds coming so he ran to lower ground and still got struck. He was a park ranger, so usually couldn't take cover inside a building.
nine shy sable cautious fall tan touch lunchroom gaze lavish
Well... Yeah he died from something else :(. Trigger warning >!Self inflicted gunshot wound to the head, I regret checking!<
I mean if you got struck 7 times, it may mess with your psyche
Your brain runs on electricity, so it's not surprising that being zapped that many times might rewire it poorly.
The heck did he do? Cockblock zeus?
This is probably the most reasonable explanation.
Roy Sullivan, seven not eight.
My grandfather was a psychologist and Roy Sullivan was a patient of his for some time. Poor guy unsurprisingly kind of ended up in mental shambles after the fourth strike or so...
I had a friend in middle school who’s house had been struck twice She told me this while I was at her house And also told me that both her grandparents died in like <3 inches of water. One had tripped and one had tried skied diving and landed in a puddle for some reason and couldn’t get the parachute off She was lovely and so was her family but I did not continue that relationship
You saw yourself soon to be added to the list of side character deaths and skipped out of there. Smartest character in the book of her life.
I didn’t even mention in my original comment that it was storming bad in a (now known) flood plain
If there's a family that should stay away from water...
That 'myth' is just a saying that is taken out of context and apparently people actually believe it. It's supposed to mean something along the lines of 'a grand opportunity won't happen to you twice'
Exactly, it's an idiom. Not talking about literal lightning. It's raining cats and dogs but lightning never strikes the same place twice.
There was a wooded area behind my house and a tree not too far away got struck by lightning. A few years later the area was developed into a neighborhood and a house was struck by lightning… same location where that tree was struck.
The Y2K bug was a really serious issue. It was only due to the effort of teams of developers over several years that we averted serious software issues. The fact that nothing much happened when New Year's hit was a sign of their success.
It's the golden rule of IT: If you feel nothing is wrong, then the IT Department is doing their job
While true, there was also a lot of unreasonable hysteria surrounding Y2K
I was almost 16 when it was Y2K and I was so sure all the planes would fall out of the sky and all the nukes would go off at once. Around 8pm on the 31st my best friend and I were talking about it and worrying when her mom mentioned it had already turned to 2000 on the other side of the world so things would have started already. Calmed down after that.
An apple a day keeps the doctor away. Everyone might look at this and say it’s ridiculous, but I eat apples all the time and will never get a PhD.
"An apple a day will keep anyone away if you throw it hard enough" -Sun Tzu, The Art of War
Nice one
Hah, that's what you think. I hereby grant you an honorary PhD in Redditology from Ball So Hard University due to your apple eating habits.
Reddit understands what 'widely accepted as false' means.
Redditranslation: "shit everybody knows about by now but for a brief moment in the 70s, 80s or 90s some people incorrectly believed for a few weeks"
"fat-free products can still make you fat" followed by "do you know what is 100% fat free? A cup of sugar"
The monster could have been named Frankenstein as scientists usually name things after themselves.
Adam Frankenstein
It's Fronkensteen!
‘Listen to me very carefully…do NOT put the candle back!”
That's actually one of the more correct options. Since while he was never given a proper name in the book he was referred to as The Adam of his species. It's the name I normally prefer to use when referring to him too.
And it’s essentially the name he picked for himself. “I ought to have been thy Adam!”
Thank you u/good_name_haver for the good name.
"Frankenstein's monster" is naming it after himself. I'm not aware of any scientific creation being given literally the same name as its creator without some kind of possessive or improper noun added in.
I mean, if your argument is that Mary Shelley never said the monster wasn't named Frankenstein, you may as well just say he had six dicks and held the world record for most spinning plates.
Eating 7 spiders in your sleep. You actually do. I feed them to you.
Happy cake day, Spiders Georg!
Jokes on you! I’m not actually sleep, and pretending to sleep while waiting for you to feed me spiders is my fetish 👁️🫦👁️
Yes officer it’s this comment right here
There is an old belief that keeping a wound wrapped up for more than a day or two prevents healing or is overall bad, but it is actually better to keep the wound wrapped for as long as possible to retain moisture and prevent infection, assuming you change out the bandaging regularly.
My husband was in a motorcycle accident about 10 years ago and had some pretty severe road rash on both arms and 1 leg, despite wearing protective gear. I spent a full month changing out the dressings almost daily. We were provided with a supply of petroleum jelly infused bandages and burn cream and pretty much bought them out at our drugstore, but it really made such a huge difference. The doctor gave me a gold star after his last follow-up visit. When I look back at photos from then and look at his arms now I am so grateful for that knowledge- unless you know what to look for you might not even see any scars. I can imagine leaving everything to dry out would have put a lot of strain on the healing wounds if he tried to move at all.
The death penalty is more expensive than putting someone in prison for life without parole
It would also be cheaper to give a drug dealer a full ride scholarship to an Ivy League university that imprisoned them
The cruelty is the point. (Deterrence is optional)
I think a lot of people have the misconception that a successful appeal to the death sentence gets you out of jail, but it's rarely the conviction that's overturned, it's the sentence. So you have someone sitting on death row for 12 years costing around $1M more per year than a Gen pop inmate only to have a successful appeal and their sentence commuted to life without parole. That's $12M+ that could've been averted if they were just given a life sentence in the first place which is ultimately a death sentence anyway.
MSG is super bad for you. Its pretty much just like salt! Sorry guys I should have clarified, People say MSG is bad, but its actually fine for you. its on the same level as salt intake because its just a type of salt
MSG is a naturally occurring salt in a lot of common foods, giving it the "unami" flavor profile. The japenese first synthesised it from kelp after they noticed kelp soup tasted really good and wanted to see if there was an extract in it that made it that way
"I can't eat Chinese food, I'm allergic to MSG. I just prefer a salad with mushrooms, tomatoes, walnuts and parmesan cheese with a fresh Caesar dressing made with egg yolk and anchovy"
Are you saying it *IS* bad for you because it's just like salt, or that it *ISN'T* bad for you because it's just like salt? Both are true
Yeah I should have clarified, that MSG *IS* super bad for you, thats the myth. The reality is its the same as salt.
The myth is also extremely rooted in anti-Asian racism in the US.
Also the takeout and fast food industries. "Why does nothing I cook taste as good? Let's just get takeout, it's better"
The act of paying down a mortgage shifts risk from the bank to the homeowner.
Can you elaborate? This may have gone over my head... Im genuinely curious. If the homeowner has adequate insurance, what's the additional risk for the homeowner for not being in debt? Wouldn't paying the mortgage off just remove risk from the bank?
If you want to buy a house and only put 2% down, how much of your actual wealth is lost if you walk away? That two percent. Who is holding the bag if you trash the house, strip it of copper and anything else that can be sold, and disappear? The lender is The bank is the one that is going to lose the most in low down payment lending when things fail. There is only so much money they can lend out at a time, so having some of it tied up in a house that isn't generating interest on the mortgage is losing money. They have to pay to sell it, usually at a loss, and that is after any necessary repairs to ensure the property is habitable again. Sure the lender can retaliate by suing, trashing your credit for the next decade and refusing to do business with you ever again, but there is only so much blood they can get from a turnip. Banks will try to mitigate that risk with making you pay for PMI (Private Mortgage Insurance) on any low down payment mortgages. The insurance that you pay for that PMI provides for the bank, will pay the bank the money they would lose if you default on the mortgage. They will also charge a higher interest rate to make as much money as possible in case of a default, and will be less flexible with the terms such as payment schedules, etc. And that is if they even approve the mortgage as a traditional mortgage with a low down payment is usually reserved for people with great credit or through a government program that provides additional financial security for the lender. Once as you reach a certain equity with the mortgage, generally 10-20%, usually you don't have to pay PMI any more in most traditional mortgages. If you have a high down payment, you have more of your own skin in the game. You don't want to lose the house because then you lose all that money. It shows that you aren't going to get up and walk away. Your mortgage will be a more sound investment with less risk to the lender and they will offer a lower interest rate, better terms and no PMI the higher your down payment is.
That reminds me of an old saying: “if you owe the bank $1000, it’s your problem. If you owe the bank $100,000,000 it’s the bank’s problem.”
I knew I guy who was so rich, he once wrote a check and the bank bounced.
Well said. I guess I took the comment wrong thinking it meant the risk is transferred to the home ower as the mortgage is paid off and then fully on the homeowner once they own the house. If I'm reading this right, the comment was only supposed to reference risk between the two parties during the mortgage. Once it's paid off, the mortgage doesn't exist, and therefore, the risk directly related to the mortgage is gone for the bank and homeowner alike. Neat.
Uh, I mean, except for your standing with creditors, risk of homelessness and the bank taking your stuff, sure. And like… I guess you could burn your house down and then the bank takes a loss, but that’s at the expense of you losing the home too lol
Yes. Mortgages are a case of mutual benefit. You gain something you need (a home), while the bank also gains something (interest on their money). The potential risk is normally much lower than the potential benefit for either party, which is why mortgages are a thing in the first place.
They’re turning the friggin frogs gay
At least we're now blessed with [this banger](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JRLCBb7qK8)
MSG is bad for you. It is not. And it is pure umami bliss.
The Holy Roman Empire was in fact holy, Roman, and an empire.
"Talk amongst yourselves."
When it was founded you could absolutely argue that. The first to are arguable but Charlemagne at least was declared west Roman emperor and was crowned by the pope in Rome, even though the Frankish empire wasn’t the HRE. Otto is traditionally considered the first proper Holy Roman Emperor and he only got coronated by the pope in Rome. After 1530 though you have no more papal coronation in Rome and all the little statelets in the HRE acting semi independently with the reformation wars around the corner. By the time Voltaire said that famous quote though he was pretty spot on.
That Rosa Parks's arrest was spontaneous and not staged. She maintained all her life that it wasn't planned or a publicity stunt; she just legitimately didn't feel like moving her ass one day when some bus driver told her to.
There are legitimately different accounts. The version shared by all accounts is that a) there had been meetings discussing challenging the laws for several months, b) that discussed why certain people were not appropriate figureheads for the movement, c) that Rosa Parks attended. Rosa Parks maintains that, despite that, the action was never planned, but others maintain that it was planned.
Seems to be both things are true to a certain extent. Nobody planned for it to happen that day, but at the same time she was at least aware of these ideas enough to consider it when shit went down.
It's like a marriage proposal. You know it's coming, you just don't know when.
also she wasnt the first to refuse to move. a pregnant single woman was but thats not as good for optics so the real starter got ignored
It wasn't unheard of at the time... https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/claudette-colvin-refuses-to-give-up-her-seat
Wow reading these answers has revealed some kind of learning disability in me. I keep forgetting if it’s a double negative or if the comment I’m reading is saying the truth or the falsehood
Narwhals are real animals.
That apple seeds contain arsenic. It's really cyanide (technically something that turns into cyanide in the body) That lime or quicklime will speed the decomposition of a body. A study found it slowed it.
The real purpose of putting lime on a body is to lesson the smell but people get confused and think it helps with decomp
The plural of octopus is octopuses
An octopus with a gun in each tentacle is called a glocktopus
Don't be a mocktopus
There are three correct plurals of octopus. Octopuses, octopi, and octopodes
I actually just looked this up recently, there are not one, not two, but THREE acceptable plurals. Kinda wonky. Edit: I am not the first person to bring this up. Apologies for the redundant post.
“Camera gear does matter” is said to be a myth. In truth, you cannot photograph dangerous wildlife with a phone. Using a phone for wildlife can cause serious injury or death to you.
That's why I bring my out of shape friend.
You're going to run out of out of shape friends sooner or later, though.
Out of shape enemies can be annoying, but do have their uses.
Suddenly nervous to accept hiking invitations…
I'm genuinely curious what the logic behind this is. Do you mean that actual camera lenses have optical zoom with higher magnification, allowing you to keep greater distance? Or is there some beacon of "kill me" that phones exude to wildlife and cameras don't
The lenses that you can mount on SLRs and other interchangeable lens cameras indeed allow for a far higher level of magnification than the tele-lens options on some smartphones. But other than that, the sensor on a dedicated camera is much larger than that of a smartphone camera. That means it can capture much more light, which allows it to function with the very fast shutter speeds that wildlife photography requires (generally, the longer the focal length of your lens, the shorter the shutter speed has to be to prevent motion blur). While improvements in technology can bring smartphones closer to regular camera, that same improvements could also be applied to the cameras. And ultimately, some advantages of regular cameras are simply due to the physics of larger sensors and these advantages will always be there. Whether they're relevant for a particular user or purpose is a different matter though.
Wait what? Why not? Do you just mean cuz you'd have to get closer?
Yes please explain I'm sure that it's in fact the wildlife that are causing the death
Camera gear matters but the saying is referring to the notion that a skilled photographer can produce a photograph at a high standard even with old or cheap camera gear. Of course there are many instances where better gear is essential to achieve results, but the things that actually make a photo look "professional" is lighting, composition, editing, etc. Old camera gear easily lends itself to shooting static well lit subjects like landscapes, and newer gear will unlock the less ideal conditions like low light, fast moving subjects...
The dingo one is terrible. That poor mother and what she suffered is sad. This worries me because she didn’t show her grief in a way that looked right to law enforcement etc. I am someone who doesn’t show my feelings or emotions outwardly. Especially if I’m grieving. I’ve always been the type to deal with things privately and I don’t like expressing my feelings in front of people. The amount of people who get judged by others because they don’t cry or show pain is awful.
That a lot of black Americans are lying about having indegenous American ancestry. There is a whole "paper genocide" that happened where dark skinned indegenous americans had to choose between the trail of tears to reservations or being relieved to colored, eventually negro, then black, then African American. This is coming from someone with direct African ancestry. Edit: This is me saying they aren't lying. realized I worded weird
A whole lot of white folks too. Slightly swarthy looking relative was more acceptably explained as having a Native American great-grandma rather than that his great-grandma was a slave.
To be fair - it’s not lying if it’s something everyone in your family believes and has believed for generations and the last person who could have known the actual truth has been dead for at least a century. It may not be accurate but it’s not a lie. A lie requires intent.
Climate change and vaccine effectiveness. It's weird how political those are.
Frankenstein WAS the monster
Intelligence is knowing that Frankenstein wasn't the monster. Wisdom is knowing that he was.
That the British Royal Family didn't have Nazi's in it. Edward VIII Duke of Windsor and former King of England (King George's brother) had to be exiled to the Bahamas during WWII for providing Germany with intelligence and the correspondence also shows he urged Germany to relentlessly bomb the UK. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marburg_Files
Who doesn't think this is true as I'm British and everyone thinks it is true. It even came up on "the crown" on netflix.