What would be some fact that, while true, could be told in a context or way that is misinfomating or make the other person draw incorrect conclusions?
Is that world wide or in a specific country?
“I’ll call you back as soon as I can”
Working at Lowe’s I’ve learned that I need to tell people “and that might be hours from now this job is hectic”
Add “As soon as possible” to that list as well.
Boss wants something ASAP and it probably means ithey want it very soon and not when you’re free
Some customers get so upset when I explain to them that I have a queue of other customers that I’m helping.
Like they’re offended, as if I don’t care about my job. Pisses me off, because while you’re complaining about my lack of work ethic I’m the guy at work while we’re understaffed because other people have decided not to work. I’m the guy who showed up, and I’m overloaded, and people read it as I’m lazy because it takes me a long time to get back to them.
Switching from a 5mpg truck to a 10mpg truck does more for the environment than switching from 40mpg car to a 55mpg car.
How is that misleading, isn’t it true?
More outrageous sounding, switching from a 5 mpg truck to a 10 mpg truck saves more gas than switching from a 50 mpg car to a 100 mpg car
I still don’t understand hot that statement is “misleading”?
Well a lot of people would think gaining 50 mpg is way better than gaining 5 mpg, since it’s 10x as much, but really it just shows that you can’t use mpg as a unit to compare like that
The ask was
What would be some fact that, while true, could be told in a context or way that is misinfomating or make the other person draw incorrect conclusions?
This is why the rest of the world uses l/100km (liters per 100 kilometers), the comparison is linear and thus comparable between different vehicles in a simple manner.
- 5mpg = 20g/100mi
- 10mpg = 10g/100mi
- 40mpg = 2.5g/100mi
- 55mpg = 1.82g/100mi
The difference between 10 and 20g is easy to see as a lot bigger than the difference between 2.5 to 1.82g. 15 is a much bigger number than 5, but that 15 is relative to the initial mpg rating
In fact going from 5mpg to 10mpg is better than going from 10mpg to 100mpg, a 10g saving vs a 9g saving…the more you know
Environmental damage from emissions doesn’t care about relative efficiency, 15 free miles is objectively more than 5 free miles.
but it’s not like a person in a 50mpg car is likely to drive 5 times as much per year as the person in a 10mpg truck. over consistent distances, improving the shitty mileage vehicle will save a lot more gas.
swapping a 5mpg truck for a 10mpg truck will save 10 gallons per hundred miles, while switching a 40mpg car for a 55mpg car will only save 0.68 gallons per hundred miles. even going from 5mpg to 6mpg would save more than that.
It you travel 50 miles at 5mpg, you use 10g of fuel At 10mpg you use 5g…a saving of 5g
40mpg uses 1.25g 55mpg uses 0.91g a saving of 0.34g much less of a saving.
Yeah but if you’re already driving the more efficient vehicles to begin with…
but if we are trying to save the world getting the lowest mpg vehicles off of the road first will have a stronger effect
if you already drive a 30mpg car and you are ready to upgrade then definitely look for better efficiency but I think we should have incentives in place to get cars that operate at for instance 16 mpg (my first car for instance, 1996 Chevy blazer, now deceased) replaced by even 10 year old models which are much more efficient
…you have made a smart choice, and can focus on reducing your other emissions!
And this is why l/100km is a better unit
‘true fact’.
- Facts cannot be anything except for true.
- Anyone who uses the two words ‘true fact’ together cannot be trusted because they know neither the meaning of the word ‘true’ or the word ‘fact’.
Facts are just objective statements, which can be either true or false, but whichever they are it is objective and not dependant on the observer.
I mean, it’s a semantic argument, and semantics is subjective, but that’s probably how the people who say ‘true fact’ are defining fact.
No, a statement can be true or false. A fact is always true.
That’s why I clarified that the definition of any word, including the word fact, is subjective.
No it’s not or we’ll bicker over every word and square could mean triangle. We have agreed upon word definitions. That’s part of a language.
Language is constantly evolving. Deal with it.
That doesn’t mean that word definitions are absolutely not arbitrary nor subjective. They are agreed upon in a civilization at any given time. I don’t have to deal with anything.
That’s a true fact!
What about “alternative facts”?
Counterpoint: True Facts is a great series of humorous nature documentaries.
Imagine trying to move by riding a unicycle backwards and throwing up through a giant straw. That is how the nautilus do.
True facts.
I’m so sorry but it’s either/or & neither/nor. Gotta follow through with the negation.
That’s very negative, however I must concur that it’s a fact the correlative conjunctions were incorrectly placed to negate the possibilities.
Whether that fact is true or not is up to you.
I can’t trust you on this because you are using the words ‘true fact’.
Oh how I miss the before times.
Natural language is inherently imprecise.
Boom, pedants shook.
Thunderstorms & lightning strikes can severely affect “cloud” computing!
Well yeah, where do you think the lightning is??
You can see the moon from The Great Wall of China.
But the opposite is not true! At least, not with the naked eye.
The frequency with which I keep hearing this misconception repeated in popular media is boggling. Hell, I feel like I just heard it again recently in the new Star Trek.
Nice try, QI elf!
You’ve triple posted this comment…
Several (attempted) murderers have owned copies of The Catcher in the Rye.
I own a copy of The Catcher in the Rye.
Wearing your seatbelt increases your chances of dying from cancer.
This one is great! Made me think way too much
How?
You’ll live longer.
If you die from cancer you can’t die from a car wreck.
Other way around, for the purposes of this joke, but yes.
It increases your chance of drowning, but not for the reason people usually think.
You are much more likely to die in a hospital than anywhere else.
Wait until you hear the fatality rate for hospice residents
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
I don’t think this one is true, unless you mean it a different way than I’m interpreting it.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmc1911892#:~:text=In 2003%2C a total of,%25)%20to%20534%2C714%20(20.8%25).
(This is the US)
Centrifugal force does not exist
It doesn’t exist in an inertial frame of reference. In a non-inertial frame it’s a perfectly valid force
It does, it’s just called a different thing. Centripetal force is exactly the same thing as what most people assume centrifugal force means.
I know I’ve had it explained a million times to me since I was a kid but… I still can’t remember the difference between the two. I do, however, remember this little factoid about it.
I think centripetal force is whatever is pushing/pulling the object toward the center of rotation, such as the closed door of a car pushing on you while driving around a curve, where otherwise you would fly out of the car. Another example is the wheels of the car causing it to travel on a curve instead of straight. Or the rope of a tetherball for a pulling example.
In most cases (besides orbits in space) the force is question is actually the electromagnetic force, like any other case where objects made of atoms touch.
Personally I think it’s weird to call that a specific force, especially by those who don’t want to give centrifugal force a name - sure it’s really just things “tending” to travel straight instead of following the curve, but no reason that can’t have a special name, it’s certainly intuitive enough.
“A laughable claim, Mister Bond, perpetuated by overzealous teachers of science. Simply construct Newton’s laws into a rotating system and you will see a centrifugal force term appear as plain as day.” https://xkcd.com/123/
Do you seriously expect me to do this while strapped to a centrifuge?
deleted by creator
In places where more storks live, you also have more babies.
After the Corona lockdowns there was an increase in infections with the common cold. Researches tried to explain how this is connected to the immune system and a lot of people now assume you have to “train” your immune system with exposure to pathogens. Or that your immune system falls out of training (like a muscle) if you stop exposing it to pathogens regularly. A potentially dangerous misunderstanding.
People often draw false conclusions from reduced information about a fact. For example: Babies who are kept in one position for hours each day over weeks or months show developmental delay. For some reason this information got shortened so much that a lot of people (in Germany at least) now assume baby seats are hurting babies backs.
“Vending machines are more deadly than sharks”.
While it’s true that (at least for some years) more people are killed by vending machine accidents than shark attacks, your personal risk depends on what you do. If you’re a vending machine factory worker who never goes into the ocean, you’re far more likely to be killed by a vending machine than a shark. But if you live in a part of the world that doesn’t have vending machines and you swim in the ocean every day, the reverse is true.
Wait, so you’re telling me that there are no vending machines in the ocean that are preying on people swimming in the water?
There may be, the ocean is deep and not thoroughly explored.
You’re scaring me! Just the thought of having a swim and then suddenly hearing a bag of chips getting stuck behind a glass panel sends shivers down my spine.
I think this is going to become a stock response for me
Du Dun
Du Dun
Du Dun Du Dun
Num num
Num num
However sharks have a huge PR issue and Spielberg regrets how Jaws is a big source of that
human and chimp DNA is 98.8 percent the same
Still interested in how similar cow or earthworm DNA is. I’d be unsurprised to find they’re also quite high.
Pigs (98%) and bananas (60%) are often quoted examples. Not sure about worms
https://thednatests.com/how-much-dna-do-humans-share-with-other-animals/
I don’t know the exact number, but, come on! Look at those guys! They are basically hairy humans with a slightly less complex system of communication.
Yep but the point is the 1.2% represent millions of gene pairs and the ones we share are not always present or expressed in the same way. So just sharing genes doesn’t necessarily mean were the same or they do the same thing.
Yeah chimps are one of our very few (very very) distant cousins left. But i think they rip more faces off than us
