Ideally the answers aren’t just political soapboxing.
Well, more than 50% of people tend to think they are average. So illusions of mediocrity?
More than 50% of people can be average, depends on the distribution.
97% of people are average (3 standard deviations), so they are not deluded. Its actually higher than that as the intellectually impaired don’t live very long.
Irs impossible to build beautiful citys like they used to. It is still possible and cheaper even
Climat ≠ Weather
Artificial leather is better than natural leather for the enviorment (its not. Atleast where i am from you are not allowed to rais cattle just for leather production. And i rather would use all parts of a slaughtered animal that had to die, than poluting nature with chemicals)
I think animal welfare is the bigger factor for most people avoiding leather, and while artificial leather is just plastic and certainly not great environmentally, traditional leather production is also very very much polluting nature with chemicals (Chromium tanning etc. ) plus it still supports the whole factory farming system which is terrible in its own right. I’m hoping fungus based leather or some lab grown variant will bring a real alternative someday.
Natural leather is durable and lasting and where its used can be repaired, unlike artificial leather.
If a cow has to be killed due to people wanting its meat, why waste its hide instead of using it? The poluter here is the meat industry. Not leather production. To turn hide into leather one can use chemicals yes, but natural tanning is still used widely.
In a perfect world lether can also come from animals that have died of natural causes.
Plastic leather also wears out so quickly. Real leather is much stronger and easier to repair/restore.
As the person highlighted (and you have expanded on), there are a lot of ethical and sustainability problems with the leather industry as it is, but I think it’d be far better to improve the problems with natural leather than to expect much from the plastic leather
They make vege leather nowadays, I think. Never got my hands on anything made of it because it was so expensive, though.
You’ve got to keep in mind that everyone doesn’t feel the same. I personally feel gross having anything to do with leather because I can’t shake the feeling it’s a corpse’s skin. It would be the same to me if it was a dead human’s skin.
I’m not asking for understanding on how I feel, but more just understanding that maybe natural leather is the best option for most people right now in terms of environmental impact - but it’s important we develop other solutions too and try to make them more environmentally over time, because not everyone is the same.
Tax Brackets. “I got a pay raise and will now be taxed more and make less money than before the raise”
If <=30k was taxed at 25% and 30+k taxed at 30% and you go from 30k to 31k a year, only the 1k is taxed at the higher rate.
Benefit cliffs do exist however.
I get that this might not be super intuitive. but how can one not notice that this is untrue? don’t people check their accounts and see that there is still more coming in and not less? just not as much as one might want, but still.
You assume people look at their accounts and do some form of account keeping?
Actually, yeah. I just cannot fathom how one could not at least check what goes in and what comes out. Nowadays you get push notifications for everything anyways, so I just do not get it.
Is this really a common misconception?
Yes, unfortunately.
Very very common in Australia.
This depends on the country
That the bible is a good book from a good deity. The bible is filled with deity advocated slavery, rape, genocide, and totally unnecessary blood sacrafice.
Lmao cringe soapboxing. Your position is the Bible is simply a book promoting slavery, rape, and genocide. Can you reconcile why it has also inspired movements against slavery, for civil rights, and for charity. Do you think describing something in the Bible is the same as endorsing it? And how do you distinguish between laws given to ancient Israel and moral principles Christians believe apply today? Feels like the kind of statement an edgy 16 year old with the inability/inexperience to understand historic, cultural or theologic context would make. Yes, I recognize this is Lemmy and I’ll heavily be in the minority with any opinion that isn’t “religion bad”.
People cherry pick the bible. Yes, the deity of the bible explicitly advocates for rape, slavery, and murder in the bible. Not only does it describe it, it advocates for it. It’s not my job to distinguish between bullshit laws in the bible and today’s laws. That is a christian problem they need to ask themselves. I for one, do not take what the bible says seriously. I’m just stating that it’s not what people make it out to be. It’s not good.
Hit me with some verses that support your statement.
If you want to debate, I’ll do you one better. Listen to the atheist experience 30.27. They talk about this very topic. They have the bible verses you want. I don’t feel googling bible verses for you and debating you. Maybe call them and defend your faith as instructed to you by 1 Peter 3:15 (I remember that). It’s a call in show. I always enjoy listening to people try to defend slavery, rape, murder and their deity.
Awww, came here with my political soap box :(
People who put their toast butter side down are idiots, that much we can all agree on.
Yes, but if you eat it buttered side down you’ll taste the butter better.
Thanks for reading
What other people really think of them.
You never know just how you look through other people’s eyes.
Some will die in hot pursuit in fiery auto crashes. Some will die in hot pursuit while sifting through my ashes.
It’s like that joke on The Simpsons.
Fat Tony thinks of himself as a legitimate businessman with 75 arrests and only three convictions, while Ned Flanders thinks he’ll burn in Hell if he doesn’t pay his taxes by January 3.
You can win in a game of chance.
But you win sometimes!?!? /S haha. Agreed.
High price = high quality.
The luxury pricing model has totally enveloped markets at this point and the correlation rarely applies now.
Absolutely. I’ve learned over the years that it usually works out pretty well to find out how much the cheapest dogshit option is and aim for an option roughly 1.5x the cost. Obviously not a blanket rule but it covers a surprising amount of common items and I’ve gotten plenty of long-lasting affordable alternatives that I actually enjoy using rather than having the crappiest version of everything.
I selected my toaster by visiting a store and physically fiddling with the levers. From 20€ onwards, the feeling got noticeably better until 120€ price point after which it got worse. The range ended at 300€ SMEG(ma) toaster that felt like what it sounds like. I’m happy with my 120€ toaster.
What store are you shopping at that has €300 toasters??? How could anyone ever get that much value from a toaster???
You spent 120€ to toast bread! I don’t think you get it…
It’s the best toaster apparently. Tbh I don’t know why I would care about the feeling of the lever but at least they have the best toaster lever money can buy.
For that kind of money I would expect it to make, cut and toast the bread for me.
Yeah I look for the cheapest option and go a step or two higer
Depends on what it is but as a general rule to start from it isn’t a terrible idea.
Veg I will go cheapest because I don’t care if a carrot has a curve. Cooking equipment I usually go midrange and try to find out WHY the really expensive ones are better, then look for those specific features if they actually matter.
My bike is quite a bit higher, though there is a very wide range for bikes. I went for the cheapest of the high end bike range at £600. Probably spent close to than in accessories and maintenance by now too. Although some maintenance costs are me buying tools I didn’t have before too.
As much as I’m laughing at people spending more than $50 on a kettle or toaster or toothbrush or what have you and calling themselves clever shoppers, I think it’s worth spending on anything that goes between you and the ground, e.g. tires, shoes, bikes, etc.
Though I’m sure that adage has also been incorporated into modern pricing models and every damn thing is a fucking scam to manipulate you into thinking you’ve made a shrewd and balanced decision when you spend just a weeee bit more.
I despise every company with a fiery passion.
Expensive doesn’t mean the shoes are good, but cheap does mean they are shit. Of course you also get different types of shoe that may not directly compare with others.
Then you also get different shops selling the same product at different prices.
Broke: You get what you pay for.
Woke: You don’t get what you don’t pay for.
that is true, or just slapping a label like supreme, or tesla on thier products and people thinks its high quality. or with ELECTRIC toothbruses, 100-200 seems to be more likely to be defective than cheaper lines of the same company. Always seek out reviews and peoples experience on specific products. same goes with healthcare/insurance, paying more doesnt mean you will get better quality(it actually incentivized that customers dont seek out care due to potential costs), likewise if you get too cheap of insurance you will get cheap results, not decent and not so-so.
Fuck me that is a lot, think my electric toothbrush was like £20-30
the higher price one are the “smart toothbruses” its not worth it anyways. either go off-brand or buy the 1000-1500 oral braun series.
That’s a great one
That’s true but the other direction is generally true. Not always, but often high quality does come at a cost.
With automobiles, there is an anti-correlation.
That the world is a zero sum game. That in order to have something, someone else has to go without. That in order to be great you have to drag others down.
It’s the driver for misogyny, homophobia, racism, xenophobia, and so much else.
A lot of those aren’t necessarily a “zero sum game” strategy and more of just that many people are genuinely judgemental, ignorant piles of shit.
It’s a mix of things! Many racists don’t think of themselves as racist and primarily worry about actions to empower minorities because of the zero sum thinking, not so much because it’s helping “the wrong people”
Exactly. If we could lose that somehow the world would be so much nicer to live in.
Capitalism is worse. It’s literally Monopoly. We’ve all played that shitty fucking game. With capitalism you get perpetual inflation. A negative sum game. A zero sum game at least implies some basic conservation mechanics, perhaps even a fairness. A negative sum game is a total debt based economy. Waste is a feature. Disposability and commodities go together like peas and carrots, and that ethos sadly reverberates across ecosystems until the planet is dead but you got those pounds or dollars or pesos or whatever. Can’t eat them. Can’t really do Jack shit with them.
The rich gonna wake up some day soon and find the farmer has a well oiled rifle. They’ll make rich fertilizer… 🤑
Yeah I agree that isn’t true
These people must fail to understand how consensual sex works
Probably never had it
It has been my experience that, if you could identify these people, they are the best to avoid. Excising these people from your life can very quickly prove it.
Decimation means “lose 10%”, not “lose all BUT 10℅”
If two people suddenly quit your twenty-man team you’ve been decimated. If eight or eighteen people quit you’ve been devastated.
(Plus a bunch of “politics” and civil rights things.)
Great answer
Worked in a company that decimated their workforce with redundancies. I word it correctly and other people wrongly assume it means something else.
Linguistics just doesn’t deal with definitions like that. It does mean that, and certainly even connotatively historically. Today, in modern parlance, it definitely means “to kill a large portion of” something, and is almost never used as a 10% reference. So your team could be correctly described as “decimated” in both scenarios.
Dictionaries are free to note whatever definition they want, but so is everyone else
Language - wait for it - evolves.
Linguistics are descriptive, not prescriptive. There can be no “common misconception” in language, because the moment a misconception is common enough, it becomes true
That understanding someone or something means agreeing with them.
Or that not vocally disagreeing is agreement.
On a related note, this is one of my favorite quotes: “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” -Aristotle
I’m not sure if its get what you mean.
For example, I can put in the effort to try and understand why a triple Trumper MAGA Republican did what they did without agreeing with the actions they took.
Oh jesus I’m a moron lmao. I misread what you said given the context of my post.
Way too many people think that if you explain something, you’re endorsing it–even when you explicitly say that you do not endorse it. So frustrating, and it’s a huge problem here on the fediverse.
Exactly. Like, how do you expect to beat an opponent if your refuse to understand why they do what they do?
Or that refusing to understand is a valid counterargument.
Folks, you can understand why someone decided to kill themselves: e.g. a tragic life, and from their perspective, there’s no one to support them, no one to love them, no one for them to love.
But it doesn’t mean you agree with their decision to kill themselves.
If understanding = agreeing, a lot more people would be committing suicide while trying to understand why such a person would kill themselves. It makes no logical sense. Or it means that those alive is either of these: they either don’t understand it out of naivety, choose to not understand it to not kill themselves. Assuming it’s an adult with their full faculty, who witnessed such a tragedy, that’s just… such a sad world.
Math is memorizing and performing algorithms. So many adults looked at the common core math curriculum and said teachers aren’t teaching math anymore because they didn’t see their favorite long division algorithm taught, but memorizing and performing any particular algorithm is not what is important about learning math. Math is about taking axioms and seeing what you can build with them.
Pure maths that was taught over 5 years in the 18th century in university is now taught in 3 years in high school with several other subjects.
So material is stripped down into small pieces and learnt by heart completely out of context- it is basically just learning algorithms.
Common core got a really bad rap because of the poor implementations by companies like Pearson. But the actual curricula are very good.
The word you’re missing is “arithmetic”. For most people “math(s)” and “arithmetic” are the same thing, when the latter is only the commonly encountered part of the former.
And for many of those people, algorithms are the only way they can use arithmetic to reach a goal because the intuition isn’t there otherwise.
I say this in full knowledge that even though I’m pretty good at arithmetic, much of the intuition I have now took me years after leaving school, and sometimes for more advanced things it’s still not there.
For example, on a good day I can complete the square, and I understand the geometric intuition, but most of the time I’m just going to plug and chug with the quadratic formula.
Our sun’s proper name in English is not Sol. It’s just the Sun. It’s referred to as Sol in various scifi franchises and some Romance languages which is where the misconception comes from, but in English it’s just “the Sun.”
Yeah, well, me and Sol are bros, so imma keep calling him by the cool nickname he got when he was travelling through Spain
Better Call Sol.
I think part of it just comes from the practice of naming other star systems after the star they orbit. E.g. the Epsilon Eridani system orbits Epsilon Eridani. Our own star system is generically called the “Solar System,” so sci-fi likes to formalize into the Sol System.
Isn’t sol latin?
It is, and it’s Spanish as well.
One of the biggest misconceptions is that internet discussion is political action.
11/10 answer
Pandas reproduce just fine in nature. The myth of them being bad at fucking and making babies was a myth started from before we understood zoochosis. No animal wants to have babies in a prison, it’s not just pandas.
