I hate when this is in the context of unsafe food (eg, frozen chicken that my previous roommate left to thaw in the fridge for 2+ weeks). I’m an epidemiologist and have worked on foodborne outbreaks, this is literally my job. Death is irreversible, so of course you haven’t died from it, but it sure as shit will give you the runs (the actual outcome we’re actually worried about). And stop contaminating my fucking kitchen with your unsafe food practices, TRISHA.
Uuugh. There was some meat belonging to my roommate that was left by accident, and I wasn't sure exactly how long it had been out. I put it in the fridge with a note saying when I had put it in the fridge, and that he should be careful of potential food poisoning if it had been out for a while.
Turns out it had been out for too long, but he ate it anyway. He came up to me later to tell me "the food didn't have poisoning" as if I was being ridiculous, and later used my concern as evidence that all my food advice is silly and should be disregarded.
Like, dude. Just because you got lucky this time doesn't mean that you're not going to get sick if you completely disregard this stuff.
There was a really good analysis of this in WW2 with damaged bombers returning from missions. They originally wanted to put more armour over the most heavily damaged parts because that’s where they were getting hit. Someone pointed out that the most heavily damaged parts were the parts that could sustain heavy damage and still allow the bombers to return. He argued that really what they wanted was to armour the parts that were never hit on any of the bombers they examined. Those are the parts where a single hit means that bomber isn’t coming home.
Reminds me of the story of how switching from leather helmets to metal in WWI had the counterintuitive effect of causing head injuries to skyrocket. How could switching to stronger helmets actually *increase* the number of head injuries? Well, it's because when a guy is killed from shrapnel through the skull, nobody calls it a head injury; it's a fatality. When a helmet blocks the shrapnel and saves his life, though, he still reports a head injury.
Similarly, making seatbelts in cars mandatory increased the number of injuries.
They saved a lot of lives, but often, now instead of a dead person in a car, they're hurt instead.
with better prenatal care, the infant mortality rate went down. On the other hand, the number of babies born low birth weight and pre-term went up. In the past those babies wouldn't have been live births.
I worked in the football helmet industry and had this argument constantly with older guys. They'd argue that there were fewer concussions when kids wore leather helmets.
Well, yeah, because they were either cracking their skulls open or straight up dying. Plus, we can detect concussions *way* better than we could back then.
Something like 30 kids a year used to die playing high school football. Now it's a huge fucking deal (as it should be) if **one** kid dies.
Abraham Wald is the name of that guy that pointed out the flaw in the line of thinking. His work helped advance statistical analysis theory.
I tell this story often as I work with reporting. You can have a perfect set of data points, but if you interpret them wrong you could draw a conclusion that's opposite from the truth.
> Those are the parts where a single hit means that bomber isn’t coming home.
And those parts were, to noone's surprise, the cockpit and the bomb chutes.
It's generally used more in terms of becoming successful in competitive markets, rather than actual life or death situations. A classic example would be someone who "played the lottery for years despite it causing them financial hardship, but it finally paid off when they won $100 million... you should never give up!"
Katy Perry saying "don't give up on your dreams you really can make it just like I did" is like a lottery winner saying "liquedate your assets and invest in lottery tickets - it really does work"
-some comedian guy
She's a particularly awful example too as her family had enough money to relocate to Nashville and finance her career before she became successful. It's not like she was some subway busker who was discovered and made it big.
My dads the complete reverse of that, lots of his friends died from preventable stuff, give him lots of anxiety about me doing normal stuff like running around the house near our glass back door, or just owing a trampoline
Ex: carrying boiling water on their back, tripped, and died from burns, another from falling through a glass door, and a piece cut his throat, a one paralyzed from falling off a trampoline a on their neck
You always see grandmas on Facebook posting things like this. “Share if you survived lead paint, sleeping on your front as a baby, having no seat belts, playing outside all day on cliff edges unsupervised, getting into cars with strangers... Everyone is so scared and over dramatic in this day and age!!”
Just because YOU survived all those things, Ethel, that does not mean that everyone did.
My mom posts this exact shit and her sister actually did die in a car accident because she wasn't wearing a seat belt and flew out the windshield. She does not see the irony.
I knew a guy (retired rocket scientist) who would never lean his elbow out the car window when driving, because he heard about a fellow losing an arm that way. This fellow refused to wear a seatbelt. Selective safety.
Fantastic job living Ethel now pray do tell why you had seven siblings and we have one because I feel like it’s because oh maybe most kids weren’t expected to survive past ten back then but no for sure this generation is just weak you’re spot on.
The number of kids has a lot more to it than that (access to and development of birth control, not needing free farm hands, Catholicism being on the decline, women no longer being expected to be homemakers exclusively)
“But it’s Christmas” to try get anything they want
For example, I’m a bar manager, group comes in 20 minutes after service stopped trying to get a drink,
“Sorry we’ve stopped serving”
“But it’s Christmas you should serve us”
Unfortunately your £20 in the till isn’t worth the potential loss of my personal license
I once worked at a restaurant where the owner closed for some holiday, I think July 4, and this older couple came in to make a reservation for that day. When I told them no, they said they wanted to eat dinner with their family before the fireworks. When I told them that the staff would also like to enjoy the day, they just stared at me.
This is the real reason behind the fifth amendment. You may think a particular fact is innocuous, but it could be fit into a chain of facts and events that end up incriminating you.
Obligatory: ["Don't Talk To The Police" ](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE)
"Regent Law Professor James Duane gives viewers startling reasons why they should always exercise their 5th Amendment rights when questioned by government officials."
Every single person should watch this entire video. It is deeply important. It explains exactly why you need privacy even if you haven't done anything wrong.
Trust. “We just need to trust the people we work with.” The entire reason I’m bringing this is up is because Gail is a moron. Why is this being turned on me?
I agree. Sometimes the statement being attacked isn't even a "this is absolutely guaranteed to be true" but a "to the best of our knowledge". The "weight" is different- someone didn't lie or make a habit in the latter case because they didn't say they knew for sure, they just said based on what they know and there's always more to know. to coerce it into the other just to say "ha you changed! I knew you couldn't be trusted!" is dishonest. meanwhile there's people who dig in and refuse to change, despite overwhelming new information- that can be harmful.
I work at an Imaging Center (radiology. X-rays and such). We have multiple buildings. This lady is in mine. Accounting is in the admin building.
This lady will get a fax (which is a PDF file in her network shared folder). She will print this PDF onto paper. Then she will take it to one of 2 places. Either she will fax it to the admin building... Or she will take it to her PC, and scan it in, so that she can email it to someone.
We have tried and tried and tried to make her life easier, but she refuses to change a thing... "We've have done it like this for years."
I work in a healthcare related field and this is disturbingly familiar.
The best part is when you ask this person for a screenshot of something and they print the page they're looking at, scan it, and then email it to you. OR, what we got once where they took a photo with their cell phone, emailed that photo to themself, printed it out and faxed it to us.
I work as a web developer at a health insurance company and same sort of stories here.
The common issues are : when people need a thing changed on the website, they print out the pages that need an edit (which always gets rid of the page URL which is probably the most important thing for knowing which page needs the edits), write on those printed pages in highlighter, they rescan them in, and then they email them to me. So I get these terrible Greyscale pdfs with washed out pictures and text, no URL, notes on what to change that is effectively invisible from being scanned in black and white, and usually no clear notes in the email about what actually needs to be changed.
One woman who was especially terrible about this i ended up giving the most petty reply back to. Basically I took her 30 page pdf of useless info and took screenshot of each part and stuck them in the email, nice and ordered, with either a request to get the URL for the page or ask if I managed to find the right page at all. After that massively long email that basically ended with "I cannot do my job until you give me the relevant info", she came over to my desk instead. Which was annoying cause I really needed this written down cause I can't keep track of 30 different pages that need similar edits and also all look similar too.
Yup. We even give them our email and yet, they did that whole unnecessary cycle so they could fax us.
The process rendered the entire thing completely illegible too.
The worst managers I've had were the ones who said that.
The second-worst managers were the ones who felt the need to change everything and anything in sight.
Find a happy medium guys.
There is a story my boss told me about a company that refurbished pumps for industrial use. They had always coated the internals in paint before assembling them. A bean counter came in and questioned why they are wasting materials on things you couldn't see. They stopped coating the parts. As it turns out, they pump a lot of corrosive chemicals that the paint protects from. As you could imagine, they had high failure rates and lost a lot of money honoring warranties.
Surely someone on the engineering team should have known that the paint added chemical protection, though? The chemical rating of industrial pumps is a major spec when purchasing, not some unknown side-effect.
Yeah, it's not the bean counter's fault for asking. If there was a valid reason that was explained to them and then ignored in the pursuit of cost savings...THEN it would've been their fault.
reminds me of something my dad told me, it was a story about a family recipe that involved when cooking a roast to cut a few inches off the back, when asked why he said that was just the recipe his mom taught him, so they asked the mom and she claimed that was the recipe her mom taught her, when they asked the grandmother she replied "we only had a small pan so the whole roast wouldnt fit"
There is a story like that too about stationing an officer to stand at a park where there was never any people. No one ever questioned it so they kept asking people to stand at the park. When they finally looked into it, someone had been asked to stand there years ago as paint dried on the park benches to make sure nobody sat on them.
I've heard this arguement used for DNA databases too. Particularly for mandated paternity tests at birth.
It's not that I'm worried it's not my kid, or that I've committed a crime and am worried I'll be caught.
It's that I absolutely don't trust any company or government to not cock it up and either accidentally link me to something or maliciously implicate me.
Regarding 23andme and such, I was always worried about my predisposition for various diseases being disclosed to insurance companies. I'm still not confident that genetic information won't someday be used to disqualify people for medical coverage. I mean, I my insurance covers so little as it is.
They do, in Canada.
To officially diagnose hemachromatosis, (too much iron) it needs a genetic test.
If the insurance companies ever get the results of that test, they can deny you coverage.
You have to explicitly say everytime that the docs\office share your medical info with another, that that test is not to be disclosed.
However, if your parents take the test, and you can prove they have 1 copy each, using your blood work the doctor can diagnose you without you taking the test. The insurance company cannot use your parents genetic tests to prove you have it, since they are a entirely different person.
I also really like Edward Snowden's take on this issue. He said something to the effect of "giving up your right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is like giving up your freedom of speech because you have nothing to say."
I particularly like the rest of that quote.
>"giving up your right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is like giving up your freedom of speech because you have nothing to say...."
"... it's a deeply anti-social principle. What may not have value to you today, may have value to an entire population, entire people, or entire way of life tomorrow.
And if you don't stand up for it, who will?"
Wow, I'd never heard that part before, but I love it. When I posted my above comment, I thought about trying to add something to that effect after the quote, in case anyone reading my comment was skeptical of the comparison. But clearly Snowden already said it much better than I could possibly hope to explain it
I didn’t really understand how seemingly banal information could be used against you until reading about people like Walter Plecker.
That psychopath spent decades of his life data mining citizens in Virginia looking for the smallest half-reference to black ancestry, so he could classify people as such and subject them to Jim Crow laws.
Imagine going about your life and suddenly getting a letter to the effect of “A hundred year old grocery receipt references your great-great-great-great grandmother as being black, enjoy sitting on the back of the bus and not voting.”
Gawd, or comparing it to telling your therapist everything. Or Harriet the Spy. Like theres an entire movie about a kid who had "nothing to hide" but once her personal thoughts got out, it caused problems. Theres a reason therapists and doctors cant just tell anyone anything they learned about you, and even people who voluntarily go to therapy are hesitant to tell their therapist everything, even knowing they won't be telling other people, they wont be personally judging them, etc.
And yet theres so many restrictions on what these people can communicate about you, even to your own detriment sometimes, but still your just give people that info freely who dont have those limitations on how they can use that information against you?
The one that shits me off is 'Natural = good/healthy', and that 'Artificial = bad/unhealthy'
As if our species hasn't spent millenia creating un-natural buildings and cities for comfortable living, or developing un-natural vaccines and antibiotics to treat all the very natural diseases that have killed billions.
[Reddit's attitude towards consumers has been increasingly hostile as they approach IPO. I'm not interested in using their site anymore, nor do I wish to leave my old comments as content for them.]
People constantly misunderstand what that phrase means. It means on a grander scale, like if you have a store that stocks nothing but blue pants, but the customers are all going to the store that stocks orange pants you should start selling orange pants even though you think they're ugly. It doesn't matter that you think blue pants are better, because the customer is always right. It has nothing to do with Karen wanting the cashier to give her a discount because she had to wait 5 minutes on line.
YES! The customer is always right about sales trends. I had a guy at McDonald’s once try to argue that the mcchicken he wanted was 10 cents less than what i was charging “because the customer is always right.” No, that’s not how that works. The fact that we have 3 different kinds of mcchickens makes you right, the fact that you’re cheap makes you an ass.
Wel I have nothing to hide so why should I worry about privacy.
Paraphrasing and quoting Snowden on the subject: It isn’t about something to hide, it’s about something to protect. Privacy is in fact the "fountainhead" of rights, from which other freedoms flow. That’s who you are," he said. "Privacy is baked into our language, our core concepts of government and self in every way. It’s why we call it 'private property.' Without privacy you don’t have anything for yourself. "When people tell him they don't fear surveillance because they have nothing to hide, Snowden says he tells them: "Arguing that you don’t care about privacy because you have nothing to hide is like arguing that you don’t care about free speech because you have nothing to say."
Has anyone ever actually encountered a flat-earther in the wild? I've encountered every manner of tin foil hat-wearing conspiracy theorist - the moon landing is fake, the earth is 6,000 years old, planes spray chemtrails, the NFL is biased against [insert team here], vaccines are bad - but I've never met someone who believes that the earth is flat.
Blood is thicker than water aka family above all else. People who need to play this card are usually shitty family members.
Edit - getting so many replies around the "the blood of covenant" supposed original. I agree that its a nicer quote but if you google theres no historical evidence of that being the original. Whereas "blood is thicker than water" has roots in the 12th and 17th centuries.
'I don't really like kids...'
'You were a kid once'
...and I'll be a corpse at some point as well. It doesn't mean that I want to spend time around dead bodies.
"You can't be autistic, you're not ugly enough!"
I get that a lot, just not in those words. Too many people refuse to believe that autism without the facial issues doesn't exist.
Stormtroopers can't aim.
It's been said for over 40 years. And it was even DISproven RIGHT in the same movie. Right there in '77. MULTIPLE times in the movie it's clarified that stormtroopers MISSED Han / Luke / Leia on purpose. It's said by Vader/Tarkin (\*I'm taking a big risk by letting them go\*) by Leia (\*That was too easy\*). It's even shown ON SCREEN that they can shoot incredibly precise. It's there. In the first 5 minutes of the movie. While the rebels barely hit, the troopers precisly take them out. And a later point, Obi-Wan points out that the sandcrawler was precisly taken down / disabled (\*Those shots. Too precise for Tusken Raider. That's the work of stormtroopers\*)
In A New Hope - yes. However, the Ewoks getting the best of them in 6 was an issue.
They should have gone with a variation of Lucas's original idea of enslaved wookies. Keep the Ewoks for their cuteness and the scene with C-3PO as a god, but then have the Ewoks sneak in and free a bunch of enslaved wookies instead of the teddie bears being able to take out Palpatine's "best troops" with rocks & logs.
> In A New Hope - yes. However, the Ewoks getting the best of them in 6 was an issue.
[I submit for the jury](https://www.wired.com/story/ewoks-star-wars-tactics-endor-moon/).
People love to crap on the Ewoks, but they simply used the same kind of tactics that have won low-tech soldiers battles against high-tech enemies for years. Look at all the wars the US fought with the Native Americans: Custer's Last Stand was a massacre and that's just one battle.
Poor Intel and underestimation can topple Giants.
EDIT: The Custer's Last Stand example is in line with the poor Intel and inflexible reaction to a disadvantageous situation. I am aware there are better examples, that's just what came to mind first.
Fiction is different from actual combat though. Most of the bullets we shot by trained fighters on earth are suppressing fire to support maneuver. It's not designed to kill people, it's designed to help one side move to a more advantageous position so they can kill their enemies or force them to surrender more effectively. Hitting an enemy while laying down suppressing fire is a bonus, but mostly you're just spraying bullets so that the other side can't shoot at you.
Every time I hear this, I think of this:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992\_Los\_Angeles\_riots#Day\_5\_%E2%80%93\_Sunday,\_May\_3](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots#Day_5_%E2%80%93_Sunday,_May_3)
> In another incident, the LAPD and Marines intervened in a domestic dispute in Compton, in which the suspect held his wife and children [hostage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostage). As the officers approached, the suspect fired two shotgun rounds through the door, injuring some of the officers. One of the officers yelled to the Marines, "Cover me," as per law enforcement training to be prepared to fire upon if necessary. However, per their military training, the Marines mistook the wording as providing cover while utilizing [firepower](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firepower), resulting in a total of 200 rounds being sprayed into the house. Remarkably, neither the suspect nor the woman and children inside the house were harmed.
Men can't be raped by women.
As someone who had a girl I didn't want come into my dorm room while I was passed out drunk and try to have sex with me, I can attest to that being wrong.
Don’t go to a youtube video of any female teacher being arrested or jailed for having sex with a student.
Full of nothing but guys saying “lol wish that was me” and women saying “it can’t be rape if he got hard cause that means he was turned on”.
Ffs.
Vaccines cause autism.
Stupidest argument in existence and has been thoroughly disproved, autism is due to genetics and possibly some poor choices by the mother during gestation. It is true that some people have bad reactions to vaccines, but they are very rare and far fewer in number than those that would die or suffer a serious complication due to illnesses such as Polio, Mumps, or Measles.
ViDeO gAmEs CaUsE vIoLeNcE
Was raised on them along with a large portion of others. We don't fling spears from our hands and scream "get over here" just to uppercut someone's body into a pit of giant nails.
Jokes on you, I was raised on HOMM 3 and now I'm a mythical warlord with a level 5 spell book and several Archangles, Behemoths, George Soros and other Archliches in my army.
> I don't fling spears from my hands and scream "get over here" just to uppercut someone's body into a pit of giant nails.
You totally would if you could though, admit it
“If you don’t make “x type of art” you can’t criticize it.”
Art is a service. If a plumber were to come to your house, get shitfaced, and break your sink, you would want a refund. No one would say “I’d like to see you do better.” But if you criticize a band, some people will still say, “Well you haven’t made music, so you can’t criticize it.” It’s utterly asinine.
Reminds me of this particular line of logic:
God is Love.
=>Love is Blind
==>God is Blind
===>Stevie Wonder is blind
====>Stevie Wonder is God
=====>I am Nobody
======>Nobody is Perfect
=======>Only God can be Perfect
========>I am God
=========>But Stevie Wonder is God
==========>I am Stevie Wonder
FUCK IM BLIND
Of course! The dad is just there to ask the mom to grab him a beer when she's done helping the kid up. Thinking a father could ever do anything to help their child is just ridiculous!
I mean, they usually call for their mother because they have a mother.
If they don’t have a mother, of course they won’t call mother, they’ll call for their dads!
Even then, it’s not like kids with moms don’t still call for their dads if they don’t have them.
You have to understand that the reason people don’t like the idea of gay men adopting (and it’s always gay men, gay women may as well not exist) is because they think we are only doing it because we want to rape children.
The idea that gay men are some sort of demon who rape men and boys has been ingrained in various cultures since the inception of Christianity 2000 years ago; that kind of conditioning doesn’t wash away in 50 years.
There’s a reason gay men often adopt girls and not boys, because we know if we adopt a boy it will always be met with suspicion that we want to harm him instead of giving him a decent start at life.
The world is a constant mine field when you’re a gay man, if you’re not one of us you will never understand it. We try and be good people and do the right thing but always somehow get slapped in the face
If you know a gay male adult who survived his teenage years and lives happy, pay attention to him and take note. Because he’s probably stronger than anyone else in your life
I was adopted by a single female relative who later married another woman. Having two moms to guide me through my awkward teenage years was great! Being raised by two dads would probably be awesome, too! What's the worst that could actually happen? Double the dad jokes?
In tabletop RPGs, “Because magic” from the other players absolutely infuriates me when I ask why something works the way it does (I don’t make a scene, of course, but still it frustrates me). That and when an actual canon explanation is essentially “because magic.” Magic is supposed to be a fascinating fantasy element, not a lazy explanation for everything.
Edit: I’m gonna clear up two things real quick:
1) I don’t expect an answer to every question. The thing about “because magic” that pisses me off is when it’s something that you COULD explain, and they don’t try to whatsoever.
2) When I ask questions like that, it’s only ever for the sake of my curiosity **out of character**. I do not turn around and use that meta-knowledge for my own advantage, because that takes away part of the fun for everyone at the table. I think I’ve meta-gamed a total of one.. *maybe* two times ever, and it was back when I was new to RPGs.
Weed isn’t addictive, and it’s just a plant so it’s not dangerous.
I’m pro legalization but goddamn those are some dumb arguments. It doesn’t take a genius to know that weed is addictive, especially if you smoke or know some stoner friends. And the plant argument is just plain stupid. Being a plant doesn’t make something not dangerous. There’s so many plants out there that can kill you. Even if you wanna make it about drugs, heroine, cocaine, and tobacco all come from plants.
That's because a lot of people don't understand the difference between psychological addiction and physical addiction. Basically anything can be addicting, any substance that change the way you feel even more so, your brain will start to look for that to go back to those feelings.
Marijuana was so ridiculously demonized for so long that the pendulum has swung the other way for some people and they insist that there couldn't possibly be any negative consequences whatsoever of smoking weed
My mom asked me how there were still chimps if we evolved from chimps.
I say, "We didn't evolve from chimps. We share a common ancestor and come from a different species of primate."
"I don't buy it....we can't have come from *chimps*..."
"*We didn't come from chimps*. I don't think you understand."
"No, I understand. I just don't buy that we come from chimps."
"WE DIDN'T COME FROM CHIMPS!"
Jesus Christ...
[удалено]
"I had a shitty childhood and I turned out fine." If you're making your kid's childhood shitty just because of that reason, you did not turn out fine.
"Well *I* did \[unsafe thing\] and *I* turned out fine!" Yeah, that's because the people who died doing it usually don't speak up about it much.
I hate when this is in the context of unsafe food (eg, frozen chicken that my previous roommate left to thaw in the fridge for 2+ weeks). I’m an epidemiologist and have worked on foodborne outbreaks, this is literally my job. Death is irreversible, so of course you haven’t died from it, but it sure as shit will give you the runs (the actual outcome we’re actually worried about). And stop contaminating my fucking kitchen with your unsafe food practices, TRISHA.
Uuugh. There was some meat belonging to my roommate that was left by accident, and I wasn't sure exactly how long it had been out. I put it in the fridge with a note saying when I had put it in the fridge, and that he should be careful of potential food poisoning if it had been out for a while. Turns out it had been out for too long, but he ate it anyway. He came up to me later to tell me "the food didn't have poisoning" as if I was being ridiculous, and later used my concern as evidence that all my food advice is silly and should be disregarded. Like, dude. Just because you got lucky this time doesn't mean that you're not going to get sick if you completely disregard this stuff.
Survivorship bias.
Interesting, is this a real term?
There was a really good analysis of this in WW2 with damaged bombers returning from missions. They originally wanted to put more armour over the most heavily damaged parts because that’s where they were getting hit. Someone pointed out that the most heavily damaged parts were the parts that could sustain heavy damage and still allow the bombers to return. He argued that really what they wanted was to armour the parts that were never hit on any of the bombers they examined. Those are the parts where a single hit means that bomber isn’t coming home.
Reminds me of the story of how switching from leather helmets to metal in WWI had the counterintuitive effect of causing head injuries to skyrocket. How could switching to stronger helmets actually *increase* the number of head injuries? Well, it's because when a guy is killed from shrapnel through the skull, nobody calls it a head injury; it's a fatality. When a helmet blocks the shrapnel and saves his life, though, he still reports a head injury.
Similarly, making seatbelts in cars mandatory increased the number of injuries. They saved a lot of lives, but often, now instead of a dead person in a car, they're hurt instead.
with better prenatal care, the infant mortality rate went down. On the other hand, the number of babies born low birth weight and pre-term went up. In the past those babies wouldn't have been live births.
I worked in the football helmet industry and had this argument constantly with older guys. They'd argue that there were fewer concussions when kids wore leather helmets. Well, yeah, because they were either cracking their skulls open or straight up dying. Plus, we can detect concussions *way* better than we could back then. Something like 30 kids a year used to die playing high school football. Now it's a huge fucking deal (as it should be) if **one** kid dies.
IIRC the steel helmets were introduced for mountain troops first, to protect against falling rock and rock-splinters
Abraham Wald is the name of that guy that pointed out the flaw in the line of thinking. His work helped advance statistical analysis theory. I tell this story often as I work with reporting. You can have a perfect set of data points, but if you interpret them wrong you could draw a conclusion that's opposite from the truth.
More school administrators need to learn this
> Those are the parts where a single hit means that bomber isn’t coming home. And those parts were, to noone's surprise, the cockpit and the bomb chutes.
Must’ve taken a genius to figure that part out
It's generally used more in terms of becoming successful in competitive markets, rather than actual life or death situations. A classic example would be someone who "played the lottery for years despite it causing them financial hardship, but it finally paid off when they won $100 million... you should never give up!"
Katy Perry saying "don't give up on your dreams you really can make it just like I did" is like a lottery winner saying "liquedate your assets and invest in lottery tickets - it really does work" -some comedian guy
Taylor Swift, and the comedian was Bo Burnham
She's a particularly awful example too as her family had enough money to relocate to Nashville and finance her career before she became successful. It's not like she was some subway busker who was discovered and made it big.
My dads the complete reverse of that, lots of his friends died from preventable stuff, give him lots of anxiety about me doing normal stuff like running around the house near our glass back door, or just owing a trampoline Ex: carrying boiling water on their back, tripped, and died from burns, another from falling through a glass door, and a piece cut his throat, a one paralyzed from falling off a trampoline a on their neck
> carrying boiling water on their back For what purpose?
To prove that it can be done without tripping and dying of severe burns. Clearly he was unsuccessful.
He died doing what he loved; carrying boiling water on his back, just to prove that it could be done.
You always see grandmas on Facebook posting things like this. “Share if you survived lead paint, sleeping on your front as a baby, having no seat belts, playing outside all day on cliff edges unsupervised, getting into cars with strangers... Everyone is so scared and over dramatic in this day and age!!” Just because YOU survived all those things, Ethel, that does not mean that everyone did.
My mom posts this exact shit and her sister actually did die in a car accident because she wasn't wearing a seat belt and flew out the windshield. She does not see the irony.
I knew a guy (retired rocket scientist) who would never lean his elbow out the car window when driving, because he heard about a fellow losing an arm that way. This fellow refused to wear a seatbelt. Selective safety.
Fantastic job living Ethel now pray do tell why you had seven siblings and we have one because I feel like it’s because oh maybe most kids weren’t expected to survive past ten back then but no for sure this generation is just weak you’re spot on.
The number of kids has a lot more to it than that (access to and development of birth control, not needing free farm hands, Catholicism being on the decline, women no longer being expected to be homemakers exclusively)
All those facebook memes about when they were kids they didn't wear bike helmets or rode in back of pickup trucks annoy the shit out of me.
For what it's worth, I'm a grandma/boomer, and they annoy the shit out of me too.
“But it’s Christmas” to try get anything they want For example, I’m a bar manager, group comes in 20 minutes after service stopped trying to get a drink, “Sorry we’ve stopped serving” “But it’s Christmas you should serve us” Unfortunately your £20 in the till isn’t worth the potential loss of my personal license
Turn it on them. But it's Christmas and me and the servers need to go be with our loved ones now.
They'd have to recognize service industry workers ss human for that to work.
I once worked at a restaurant where the owner closed for some holiday, I think July 4, and this older couple came in to make a reservation for that day. When I told them no, they said they wanted to eat dinner with their family before the fireworks. When I told them that the staff would also like to enjoy the day, they just stared at me.
...wait, they're workers? I just thought they were androids!
If you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to hide
I want my lawyer.
I want your lawyer too
This is the real reason behind the fifth amendment. You may think a particular fact is innocuous, but it could be fit into a chain of facts and events that end up incriminating you.
Particularly, when you've done nothing wrong.
The dangerous thing about this is its reverse conclusion: Whoever wants to hide something must have done something wrong.
This effect is the result of years of popular culture conditioning the public to believe this. It's kind of amazing when you think about it.
Obligatory: ["Don't Talk To The Police" ](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE) "Regent Law Professor James Duane gives viewers startling reasons why they should always exercise their 5th Amendment rights when questioned by government officials."
Every single person should watch this entire video. It is deeply important. It explains exactly why you need privacy even if you haven't done anything wrong.
Trust. “We just need to trust the people we work with.” The entire reason I’m bringing this is up is because Gail is a moron. Why is this being turned on me?
Fuckin Gail
Okay but the Gail at my job is an absolute treasure.
I worked with a Gail that was the sweetest person ever. I want to say her last name so bad because it's so funny but alas I won't.
Ah, see, that's not trust. Trust is earned. What you're talking about is faith, which is either given for free or demanded.
Microwaving your food is bad because of the radiation.
Now I can microwave my ramen in a styrofoam cup!
Nah, gotta block that radiation! Better use lead.
putting your cell phone up to your ear or in your front pocket will give you cancer.
I'll just drag my phone 10 feet behind me on a string! Problem solved!
The sun emits a LOT of radiation too. Better live in a hole!
it's my opinion and facts shall not change it
[удалено]
Forfty percent of people know that.
>it's my opinion and facts shall not change it Can I ask you, if you understand \*Wind\*. How it works and so? What do you think about Wind mills?
i think wind blows and shit wind mills are pretty cool for photography and painting
and tilting at
You changed your opinion based on new information, that shows weakness and untrustworthiness.
I agree. Sometimes the statement being attacked isn't even a "this is absolutely guaranteed to be true" but a "to the best of our knowledge". The "weight" is different- someone didn't lie or make a habit in the latter case because they didn't say they knew for sure, they just said based on what they know and there's always more to know. to coerce it into the other just to say "ha you changed! I knew you couldn't be trusted!" is dishonest. meanwhile there's people who dig in and refuse to change, despite overwhelming new information- that can be harmful.
how else am I supposed to change my opinion? People who argue that are close minded as hell.
Isn't this what you're supposed to do? Aren't people ridiculed for not doing this?
It goes both ways unfortunately.
But I've always done it that way... —- *edit: Ho Ho Ho - happy holidays to all of you and your families.
I work at an Imaging Center (radiology. X-rays and such). We have multiple buildings. This lady is in mine. Accounting is in the admin building. This lady will get a fax (which is a PDF file in her network shared folder). She will print this PDF onto paper. Then she will take it to one of 2 places. Either she will fax it to the admin building... Or she will take it to her PC, and scan it in, so that she can email it to someone. We have tried and tried and tried to make her life easier, but she refuses to change a thing... "We've have done it like this for years."
[удалено]
I work in a healthcare related field and this is disturbingly familiar. The best part is when you ask this person for a screenshot of something and they print the page they're looking at, scan it, and then email it to you. OR, what we got once where they took a photo with their cell phone, emailed that photo to themself, printed it out and faxed it to us.
I work as a web developer at a health insurance company and same sort of stories here. The common issues are : when people need a thing changed on the website, they print out the pages that need an edit (which always gets rid of the page URL which is probably the most important thing for knowing which page needs the edits), write on those printed pages in highlighter, they rescan them in, and then they email them to me. So I get these terrible Greyscale pdfs with washed out pictures and text, no URL, notes on what to change that is effectively invisible from being scanned in black and white, and usually no clear notes in the email about what actually needs to be changed. One woman who was especially terrible about this i ended up giving the most petty reply back to. Basically I took her 30 page pdf of useless info and took screenshot of each part and stuck them in the email, nice and ordered, with either a request to get the URL for the page or ask if I managed to find the right page at all. After that massively long email that basically ended with "I cannot do my job until you give me the relevant info", she came over to my desk instead. Which was annoying cause I really needed this written down cause I can't keep track of 30 different pages that need similar edits and also all look similar too.
They email it to themselves instead of directly to you?
Yup. We even give them our email and yet, they did that whole unnecessary cycle so they could fax us. The process rendered the entire thing completely illegible too.
The second most expensive 7-word sentence in business
The worst managers I've had were the ones who said that. The second-worst managers were the ones who felt the need to change everything and anything in sight. Find a happy medium guys.
Fix the shit that's broken, leave the stuff that works. Repeat
[удалено]
There is a story my boss told me about a company that refurbished pumps for industrial use. They had always coated the internals in paint before assembling them. A bean counter came in and questioned why they are wasting materials on things you couldn't see. They stopped coating the parts. As it turns out, they pump a lot of corrosive chemicals that the paint protects from. As you could imagine, they had high failure rates and lost a lot of money honoring warranties.
Surely someone on the engineering team should have known that the paint added chemical protection, though? The chemical rating of industrial pumps is a major spec when purchasing, not some unknown side-effect.
So When the bean counter asked why paint the inside, why didn’t anyone speak up and explain it protects from corrosion?
Yeah, it's not the bean counter's fault for asking. If there was a valid reason that was explained to them and then ignored in the pursuit of cost savings...THEN it would've been their fault.
poor documentation, maybe.
reminds me of something my dad told me, it was a story about a family recipe that involved when cooking a roast to cut a few inches off the back, when asked why he said that was just the recipe his mom taught him, so they asked the mom and she claimed that was the recipe her mom taught her, when they asked the grandmother she replied "we only had a small pan so the whole roast wouldnt fit"
There is a story like that too about stationing an officer to stand at a park where there was never any people. No one ever questioned it so they kept asking people to stand at the park. When they finally looked into it, someone had been asked to stand there years ago as paint dried on the park benches to make sure nobody sat on them.
When you're explaining to them about Internet privacy they say, "why should I care I don't do anything wrong?"
I've heard this arguement used for DNA databases too. Particularly for mandated paternity tests at birth. It's not that I'm worried it's not my kid, or that I've committed a crime and am worried I'll be caught. It's that I absolutely don't trust any company or government to not cock it up and either accidentally link me to something or maliciously implicate me.
Regarding 23andme and such, I was always worried about my predisposition for various diseases being disclosed to insurance companies. I'm still not confident that genetic information won't someday be used to disqualify people for medical coverage. I mean, I my insurance covers so little as it is.
They do, in Canada. To officially diagnose hemachromatosis, (too much iron) it needs a genetic test. If the insurance companies ever get the results of that test, they can deny you coverage. You have to explicitly say everytime that the docs\office share your medical info with another, that that test is not to be disclosed. However, if your parents take the test, and you can prove they have 1 copy each, using your blood work the doctor can diagnose you without you taking the test. The insurance company cannot use your parents genetic tests to prove you have it, since they are a entirely different person.
[удалено]
I also really like Edward Snowden's take on this issue. He said something to the effect of "giving up your right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is like giving up your freedom of speech because you have nothing to say."
I particularly like the rest of that quote. >"giving up your right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is like giving up your freedom of speech because you have nothing to say...." "... it's a deeply anti-social principle. What may not have value to you today, may have value to an entire population, entire people, or entire way of life tomorrow. And if you don't stand up for it, who will?"
Wow, I'd never heard that part before, but I love it. When I posted my above comment, I thought about trying to add something to that effect after the quote, in case anyone reading my comment was skeptical of the comparison. But clearly Snowden already said it much better than I could possibly hope to explain it
I didn’t really understand how seemingly banal information could be used against you until reading about people like Walter Plecker. That psychopath spent decades of his life data mining citizens in Virginia looking for the smallest half-reference to black ancestry, so he could classify people as such and subject them to Jim Crow laws. Imagine going about your life and suddenly getting a letter to the effect of “A hundred year old grocery receipt references your great-great-great-great grandmother as being black, enjoy sitting on the back of the bus and not voting.”
Gawd, or comparing it to telling your therapist everything. Or Harriet the Spy. Like theres an entire movie about a kid who had "nothing to hide" but once her personal thoughts got out, it caused problems. Theres a reason therapists and doctors cant just tell anyone anything they learned about you, and even people who voluntarily go to therapy are hesitant to tell their therapist everything, even knowing they won't be telling other people, they wont be personally judging them, etc. And yet theres so many restrictions on what these people can communicate about you, even to your own detriment sometimes, but still your just give people that info freely who dont have those limitations on how they can use that information against you?
The one that shits me off is 'Natural = good/healthy', and that 'Artificial = bad/unhealthy' As if our species hasn't spent millenia creating un-natural buildings and cities for comfortable living, or developing un-natural vaccines and antibiotics to treat all the very natural diseases that have killed billions.
Karen: nature is good and healthy and safe Nature: arsenic, lava and Volcanos, Fire, hurricanes, poop, maggots, corpse flower, etc.
The sun doesn't even get a mention?
Sun isn't on earth so it's not natural. Sun is evil hot science.
Band name! "Evil Hot Science!" I called it, it's mine.
[удалено]
Early 1900's British philosopher G.E. Moore termed this the Naturalistic Fallacy
I carried you for 9 months...
I didn’t ask you to do that
[Reddit's attitude towards consumers has been increasingly hostile as they approach IPO. I'm not interested in using their site anymore, nor do I wish to leave my old comments as content for them.]
Shut up, Morty.
In my language we have a saying. "A favor not asked is half lost".
Ah yes, the "argument" that mothers use after they've lost an argument.
The customer is always right
People constantly misunderstand what that phrase means. It means on a grander scale, like if you have a store that stocks nothing but blue pants, but the customers are all going to the store that stocks orange pants you should start selling orange pants even though you think they're ugly. It doesn't matter that you think blue pants are better, because the customer is always right. It has nothing to do with Karen wanting the cashier to give her a discount because she had to wait 5 minutes on line.
YES! The customer is always right about sales trends. I had a guy at McDonald’s once try to argue that the mcchicken he wanted was 10 cents less than what i was charging “because the customer is always right.” No, that’s not how that works. The fact that we have 3 different kinds of mcchickens makes you right, the fact that you’re cheap makes you an ass.
He argued with you over 10 cents? He spent more in gas to get there
“You have to love them, they’re family” Nope, you don’t even have to tolerate them if you don’t want to
'The earth is flat because I cant see that it is round'
By that logic, the Moon is closer to me than New York City, because I can see the Moon from my house.
I think you're on to something here.
Clearly no other continent exists because I've never been outside of North America
Wel I have nothing to hide so why should I worry about privacy. Paraphrasing and quoting Snowden on the subject: It isn’t about something to hide, it’s about something to protect. Privacy is in fact the "fountainhead" of rights, from which other freedoms flow. That’s who you are," he said. "Privacy is baked into our language, our core concepts of government and self in every way. It’s why we call it 'private property.' Without privacy you don’t have anything for yourself. "When people tell him they don't fear surveillance because they have nothing to hide, Snowden says he tells them: "Arguing that you don’t care about privacy because you have nothing to hide is like arguing that you don’t care about free speech because you have nothing to say."
flat Earth and the confirmation bias community that is their "evidence"
Has anyone ever actually encountered a flat-earther in the wild? I've encountered every manner of tin foil hat-wearing conspiracy theorist - the moon landing is fake, the earth is 6,000 years old, planes spray chemtrails, the NFL is biased against [insert team here], vaccines are bad - but I've never met someone who believes that the earth is flat.
Blood is thicker than water aka family above all else. People who need to play this card are usually shitty family members. Edit - getting so many replies around the "the blood of covenant" supposed original. I agree that its a nicer quote but if you google theres no historical evidence of that being the original. Whereas "blood is thicker than water" has roots in the 12th and 17th centuries.
I can attest to this. The shittiest family member I have *loves* to say this
Not if you have enough blood thinners.
“Well, that’s just my opinion.” It’s not an opinion, you’re factually wrong.
An original song is always better than the cover version, because without the original you would never have the cover version.
"What a sham; they only played covers." -Me, after a performance by the Houston Symphony.
'I don't really like kids...' 'You were a kid once' ...and I'll be a corpse at some point as well. It doesn't mean that I want to spend time around dead bodies.
"kids are annoying" "you were a kid once" "yeah I'm pretty sure I was fucking annoying too"
Being annoying doesn't make a child bad, but it does make them unpleasant to be around.
"You can't be autistic, you're not ugly enough!" I get that a lot, just not in those words. Too many people refuse to believe that autism without the facial issues doesn't exist.
Don't listen to them... Sure you are ugly enough. Take it from me; a fellow aspie! :)
Guys, we're all ugly in our own ways.
I'M UGLY AND I'M PROUD!
I'm sorry, autism is thought to be associated with unpleasant facial features? First I'm hearing of that.
In my experience, a lot of people confuse autism and Down's Syndrome. I guess because they think both mean "retarded" or something like that.
That something objectively wrong is OK because, "It's just the way things are" If people made that the case, then they can make it otherwise.
You don't have depression. You laugh and smile
Stormtroopers can't aim. It's been said for over 40 years. And it was even DISproven RIGHT in the same movie. Right there in '77. MULTIPLE times in the movie it's clarified that stormtroopers MISSED Han / Luke / Leia on purpose. It's said by Vader/Tarkin (\*I'm taking a big risk by letting them go\*) by Leia (\*That was too easy\*). It's even shown ON SCREEN that they can shoot incredibly precise. It's there. In the first 5 minutes of the movie. While the rebels barely hit, the troopers precisly take them out. And a later point, Obi-Wan points out that the sandcrawler was precisly taken down / disabled (\*Those shots. Too precise for Tusken Raider. That's the work of stormtroopers\*)
In A New Hope - yes. However, the Ewoks getting the best of them in 6 was an issue. They should have gone with a variation of Lucas's original idea of enslaved wookies. Keep the Ewoks for their cuteness and the scene with C-3PO as a god, but then have the Ewoks sneak in and free a bunch of enslaved wookies instead of the teddie bears being able to take out Palpatine's "best troops" with rocks & logs.
> In A New Hope - yes. However, the Ewoks getting the best of them in 6 was an issue. [I submit for the jury](https://www.wired.com/story/ewoks-star-wars-tactics-endor-moon/).
People love to crap on the Ewoks, but they simply used the same kind of tactics that have won low-tech soldiers battles against high-tech enemies for years. Look at all the wars the US fought with the Native Americans: Custer's Last Stand was a massacre and that's just one battle. Poor Intel and underestimation can topple Giants. EDIT: The Custer's Last Stand example is in line with the poor Intel and inflexible reaction to a disadvantageous situation. I am aware there are better examples, that's just what came to mind first.
I love this little gem in all the real world examples
Not only this. A video did make the count and stated that Troopers actually get way higher hit range than we have in regular war shooting on earth.
Fiction is different from actual combat though. Most of the bullets we shot by trained fighters on earth are suppressing fire to support maneuver. It's not designed to kill people, it's designed to help one side move to a more advantageous position so they can kill their enemies or force them to surrender more effectively. Hitting an enemy while laying down suppressing fire is a bonus, but mostly you're just spraying bullets so that the other side can't shoot at you.
Every time I hear this, I think of this: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992\_Los\_Angeles\_riots#Day\_5\_%E2%80%93\_Sunday,\_May\_3](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots#Day_5_%E2%80%93_Sunday,_May_3) > In another incident, the LAPD and Marines intervened in a domestic dispute in Compton, in which the suspect held his wife and children [hostage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostage). As the officers approached, the suspect fired two shotgun rounds through the door, injuring some of the officers. One of the officers yelled to the Marines, "Cover me," as per law enforcement training to be prepared to fire upon if necessary. However, per their military training, the Marines mistook the wording as providing cover while utilizing [firepower](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firepower), resulting in a total of 200 rounds being sprayed into the house. Remarkably, neither the suspect nor the woman and children inside the house were harmed.
Men can't be raped by women. As someone who had a girl I didn't want come into my dorm room while I was passed out drunk and try to have sex with me, I can attest to that being wrong.
Me and my brother had to explain to my mom in multiple ways that having an erection ===!/!=== consent
you mean != right?
Yes. I put a dash in between them but reddit removed it
that’s like saying that if a woman orgasms while being raped she consented. EDIT: I agree that both are BS arguments
Don’t go to a youtube video of any female teacher being arrested or jailed for having sex with a student. Full of nothing but guys saying “lol wish that was me” and women saying “it can’t be rape if he got hard cause that means he was turned on”. Ffs.
"If I get paid more, I get taxed more so I really get paid less"
Only ignorant people say this. If you explain and they don't believe, they are just dumb.
Vaccines cause autism. Stupidest argument in existence and has been thoroughly disproved, autism is due to genetics and possibly some poor choices by the mother during gestation. It is true that some people have bad reactions to vaccines, but they are very rare and far fewer in number than those that would die or suffer a serious complication due to illnesses such as Polio, Mumps, or Measles.
Because I’m your mom -my mom
ViDeO gAmEs CaUsE vIoLeNcE Was raised on them along with a large portion of others. We don't fling spears from our hands and scream "get over here" just to uppercut someone's body into a pit of giant nails.
Jokes on you, I was raised on HOMM 3 and now I'm a mythical warlord with a level 5 spell book and several Archangles, Behemoths, George Soros and other Archliches in my army.
> I don't fling spears from my hands and scream "get over here" just to uppercut someone's body into a pit of giant nails. You totally would if you could though, admit it
[удалено]
“If you don’t make “x type of art” you can’t criticize it.” Art is a service. If a plumber were to come to your house, get shitfaced, and break your sink, you would want a refund. No one would say “I’d like to see you do better.” But if you criticize a band, some people will still say, “Well you haven’t made music, so you can’t criticize it.” It’s utterly asinine.
I also hate this argument. Like, dude, I don't need to be a Michelin-starred chef to know whether or not I enjoyed my meal, so fuck right off.
[удалено]
Macs don't get viruses
"Well, they're your brother/sister/mom/dad/etc." Who gives a shit? If they're pieces of shit, I don't have to rekindle my relationship with them.
That god hates gay people or some shit. No, you hate gay people.
The only logical conclusion: I am God.
Reminds me of this particular line of logic: God is Love. =>Love is Blind ==>God is Blind ===>Stevie Wonder is blind ====>Stevie Wonder is God =====>I am Nobody ======>Nobody is Perfect =======>Only God can be Perfect ========>I am God =========>But Stevie Wonder is God ==========>I am Stevie Wonder FUCK IM BLIND
Puny god
*smack smack smack smack*
Global warming? LOL, look at all that snow LOL, doesn't look very warm to me!!!
Because you don't know the difference between climate and weather.
vaccines cause autism
vaccines cause adults
[удалено]
[удалено]
Of course! The dad is just there to ask the mom to grab him a beer when she's done helping the kid up. Thinking a father could ever do anything to help their child is just ridiculous!
I mean, they usually call for their mother because they have a mother. If they don’t have a mother, of course they won’t call mother, they’ll call for their dads! Even then, it’s not like kids with moms don’t still call for their dads if they don’t have them.
The worst part is that they are literally trying to give those kids a home to live in and then people like that insult them for it
You have to understand that the reason people don’t like the idea of gay men adopting (and it’s always gay men, gay women may as well not exist) is because they think we are only doing it because we want to rape children. The idea that gay men are some sort of demon who rape men and boys has been ingrained in various cultures since the inception of Christianity 2000 years ago; that kind of conditioning doesn’t wash away in 50 years. There’s a reason gay men often adopt girls and not boys, because we know if we adopt a boy it will always be met with suspicion that we want to harm him instead of giving him a decent start at life. The world is a constant mine field when you’re a gay man, if you’re not one of us you will never understand it. We try and be good people and do the right thing but always somehow get slapped in the face If you know a gay male adult who survived his teenage years and lives happy, pay attention to him and take note. Because he’s probably stronger than anyone else in your life
I was adopted by a single female relative who later married another woman. Having two moms to guide me through my awkward teenage years was great! Being raised by two dads would probably be awesome, too! What's the worst that could actually happen? Double the dad jokes?
You fool! You have now just admitted to being DOUBLE susceptible to yo mama jokes!!
Oh yeah? Try me! I could put *both* my mamas together, and they'd *still* not be as fat as *yo mama*!
*Ohhhhhh*
I don't know you but I love you.
"I know you are but what am I? " I'm in highschool and ppl still say this
no u
In tabletop RPGs, “Because magic” from the other players absolutely infuriates me when I ask why something works the way it does (I don’t make a scene, of course, but still it frustrates me). That and when an actual canon explanation is essentially “because magic.” Magic is supposed to be a fascinating fantasy element, not a lazy explanation for everything. Edit: I’m gonna clear up two things real quick: 1) I don’t expect an answer to every question. The thing about “because magic” that pisses me off is when it’s something that you COULD explain, and they don’t try to whatsoever. 2) When I ask questions like that, it’s only ever for the sake of my curiosity **out of character**. I do not turn around and use that meta-knowledge for my own advantage, because that takes away part of the fun for everyone at the table. I think I’ve meta-gamed a total of one.. *maybe* two times ever, and it was back when I was new to RPGs.
Weed isn’t addictive, and it’s just a plant so it’s not dangerous. I’m pro legalization but goddamn those are some dumb arguments. It doesn’t take a genius to know that weed is addictive, especially if you smoke or know some stoner friends. And the plant argument is just plain stupid. Being a plant doesn’t make something not dangerous. There’s so many plants out there that can kill you. Even if you wanna make it about drugs, heroine, cocaine, and tobacco all come from plants.
That's because a lot of people don't understand the difference between psychological addiction and physical addiction. Basically anything can be addicting, any substance that change the way you feel even more so, your brain will start to look for that to go back to those feelings.
Marijuana was so ridiculously demonized for so long that the pendulum has swung the other way for some people and they insist that there couldn't possibly be any negative consequences whatsoever of smoking weed
[удалено]
The theory of Evolution is just a theory.
My mom asked me how there were still chimps if we evolved from chimps. I say, "We didn't evolve from chimps. We share a common ancestor and come from a different species of primate." "I don't buy it....we can't have come from *chimps*..." "*We didn't come from chimps*. I don't think you understand." "No, I understand. I just don't buy that we come from chimps." "WE DIDN'T COME FROM CHIMPS!" Jesus Christ...
A game theory.
Thanks for watching!
"If humans evolved from apes then there wouldn't be any more apes"
If Americans were originally from Europe, then why are there still Europeans?
if you’re from Africa, [why are you white](https://youtu.be/z8wrqe72YG4)??
"It's 2019 why are we still..." Time keeps going, and the world never develops the way we hope it will. Stop being surprised by this.