Cool Guides

A pretty good number of these are just pointing out differences between colloquial language and specific language.

Botanical language is useful for botanists to communicate with each other but I’m not putting tomatoes in the fruit salad. Thinking of tomatoes as veggies in your kitchen isn’t some MYTH! Calling a tall plant a tree is useful for you and I to communicate. That does not mean we are deceived or attempting to undermine the work of our botany friends.

Palm "trees" are a type of grass. That one fucks with me.

The coriolis force affects water in toilets, but about a thousandth as much as the shape of the toilet/the way water enters the bowl.

The banana argument is dumb, too, because there is no taxonomic definition of what a "tree" even is.

I've also commonly heard "Palm trees aren't actually trees, they're grass," which is correct from a taxonomic standpoint but ignores the fact that "tree" isn't an official classification of anything. It's simply a term applied to any tall plant with a woody trunk, which banana definitely counts among.

First one that got me was the black hole. If I dig a hole in the ground, is that not really a hole? If I find a hole in your logic is that not a hole? If I model the flow of charge with positive 'holes' between electrons, are they not holes? And... do people really commonly think a 'black hole' is a traditional sort of hole? 'Hole' seems a perfectly reasonable name for what it really is.

Now what a black hole really is is fascinating stuff, but not in a "see, people are so ignorant to think it's a hole" kind of way.

The sugar one drives me nuts. Like yeah sugar doesn’t cause DSM-5 “hyperactivity”. Like of course not! It does give a little energy boost. And the rugrats will use the highly available energy and become a hilarious unmanageable dufus for a half hour or so.

If you actually thought that candy was going to give your child a diagnosable psychiatric condition… you’re a huge fucking idiot. If you haven’t ever noticed that giving a kid a bag of sour patch kids gets them riled up, you haven’t spent much time with kids.

I don't think you understood most of those things correctly.

The graphic says the circle size is based on Google search hits, not arbitrary.

Evolution is a scientific theory, which is different than the layman's idea of a "theory".

Bats are definitely not almost blind, like most nocturnal/crepuscular animals they have fairly good night vision.

It didn't say sugar doesn't cause energy spikes, it says excessive consumption during childhood doesn't contribute to hyperactive disorders.

Your knee-jerk reaction to this post is weird. It's okay that you didn't know some of these things. You don't have to try to tear it down because it made you feel dumb.

we have more than 5 external senses tho

evolution is a theory, it just is

I realize the person I'm replying to has no interest in the truth, but in case others are interested, read the first paragraph here to get a sense of what a scientific theory is. The myth/misunderstanding is that a scientific theory is a theory in sense 3 here. Not only is it a myth, it's a very common and very dishonest way to dismiss evolution without having to address the fact that it's a fact.

The sugar one is about the glycemic index. Ingest sugar > blood sugar spike (kiddos with energy) > blood sugar crash (hangry, dysregulated kiddos)

Of course sugar doesn't cause ADHD, though; is that a myth people believe?

That's only true in the cladistic sense though.

The real question is which pre-human dinosaur would be best with stuffing and gravy.

If you look at the sources, they corrected it.

Salted water boils at a higher temp vs. unsalted water - this is known as boiling point elevation. But I don't know offhand (there's a formula) how much salt would be required to meaningfully raise the boiling point.

If you throw it in just before it's boiling yes, you will see the water bubble up for a moment for the reason you said... once dissolved if anything at those amounts, it raises the boiling temp a little

I mean not really. Greater jihad is a fully inner struggle to be a good person. Lesser jihad is about converting others, the lesser jihad of the pen/tongue is about debate and proselytizing, onky jihad of the sword is about violence and only those in active combat. For all Muslims the greater jihad is the most important part, and for 95% of Muslims the jihad of the pen is the only relavent part. In the Qur'an there are roughly 30 references to greater jihad, and 10 or so for the lesser jihad.