The average person does not have 10 fingers. Maybe the median person, but not the average.
Asklemmy
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
Most frequent occurence is the mode. Most ppl have 10. The median would be less than ten, while the mean average is skewed down, I would think, by some people losing fingers as the grow. Having extra fingers is pretty rare. So the mean might be 9.95 fingers, just to toss a number out.
For 10 to not be the median it would also have to not be the case for the majority of people (just the plurality at best), and while I don't have proof handy I'm pretty sure a vast majority have exactly 10, making that the precise median and the mode. Only the mean would be a different number of digits. (Both definitions)
I assume the median and mode are the same value, 10 fingers, but have no data to back that up. I guess saying mode would have been a safer statement to make, but think that even if 49% of people have 0-9 fingers, the median number of fingers would still be 10.
Mode assumes categorical data and is unbounded by range, whereas median makes the most sense for decimal numbers, albeit with rounding in this case
"People have round(median(data))
fingers"
edit: though, if we're counting just fingers and not counting half-fingers, then maybe this really is categorical data (Β―\(γ)/Β―?)
Bees kill invaders in their nest by climbing all over them and shaking their bodies.
A few of my favorite fun facts are geography related.
The pacific side of the Panama canal is further east than the Atlantic side.
If you head south from Detroit the first foreign country you'll hit is Canada.
Lake Tahoe is further west than Los Angeles
If you head south from Detroit the first foreign country youβll hit is Canada.
There's also Angle Inlet, Minnesota which is the only place in the contiguous United States north of the 49th parallel. To travel to Angle Inlet by road from other parts of Minnesota, or from anywhere in the United States, requires driving through Manitoba, Canada. It's a really weird border.
Due to its high latitude and being in the middle of a continent, it is a contender for the most extreme winters in the contiguous United States.
Two square miles & 54 residents in North Bumblefuck, separated from the rest of the US by 60 miles. Itβs an affront to reason.
by weight, theres more non-human DNA in you than human.
I have heard that this is more true for some people in Tijuana.
Wait. Please explain. How is DNA inside me, a verifiable human, not human?
we all know what you do when you visit the zoo.
were those giraffes looking thirsty, hmmm?
youre mostly bacterial dna
U got bugs in ur poop.
Consistency of an axiomatic system that contains arithmetic can be proven in this system if and only if it is inconsistent.
Sharks are older than both trees and the north star
Both trees?
Humans have stripes that are invisible to us. However, cats can see our stripes.
Is it all humans or just those humans with two X chromosomes? Relevant video on the subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BD6h-wDj7bw
Also in this video, we can see female cat's stripes in their fur color.
Your conscious mind does not experience reality directly.
Your conscious mind does not experience reality directly. There is no path going directly from your eyes to your conscious awareness. Rather, the subconscious collects sensory input. It uses that input to create a virtual simulacrum of the world, a big internal 3D model. That internal 3D representation is what you, the conscious part of your mind, actually interacts with and experiences.
You ever wonder how weird it is that people can have intense, debilitating hallucinations? Like schizophrenics seeing and hearing entirely fictional things. Have you ever seen a camera produce anything like that? A flash of light, a distorted image, dead pixels, etc? Sure, those kinds of errors cameras can produce. But a camera will never display a vivid realistic image of a person that wasn't ever actually in their field of view.
Yet the human mind is capable of this. In the right circumstances, the human brain is capable of spawning entire fictional people into your conscious awareness. This shows that there is an elaborate subconscious processing layer between what our conscious mind observes and direct sensory input. Your conscious mind is basically experiencing a tiny little internal version of The Matrix, entirely generated on its own wetware. And this subconscious processing layer is what makes hallucinations possible. The processes that produce this internal simulation can become corrupted, and thus allows hallucinations.
This architecture is also what makes dreaming possible. If your conscious mind only perceived things upon direct sensory feedback from the eyes, ears, etc., how would dreaming be possible?
You are essentially experiencing reality through an elaborate 3d modeling version of an AI video generator.
Along those same lines, we're all blind literally around half the time we're awake. Our optic processing system can't keep up with the input as our eyes flit from thing to thing, so we don't see anything while they move. And they're moving constantly, even if we're not aware of it, because only the fovea in the center of the retina has a high enough density of receptors to see details, and also because of sensory fatigue from prolonged static stimulus. In short, we have a tiny field of detailed vision that's not even working much of the time. That field of vision that feels like a 4K video feed into the mind is a complete lie.
Like the way our subjective experience feels like a continuous, integrated mind fully in control of itself, but in reality, consciousness dips out a couple of times every minute while the brain attends to sensory input.
Even weirder, the conscious mind might not even exist, except as an illusory, emergent phenomenon of sensory experience and memory. There isn't a place in the brain where it 'lives', no part that's only ever active when we're conscious.
The first time I took mushrooms it had been after reading about this kind of thing for about a week.
I recall reading about a man who was effectively blind but his eyes worked fine. What didn't work fine was the part of his brain that interpreted what his eyes saw. So he just saw smeary streaks of light.
It's kind of like Linux without its V4L2 system for interpreting video capture devices. It can't actually see video without it.
Me and my alters in my system completely agree. They can and have experience reality differently.
If two moving balls hit each other and bounce apart, itβs the exact same thing as if you held the frame steady on one ball and viewed the other ball as moving faster. Just seems like the stationary ball gets heavierβ¦
Perspective is everything.
Yeah, this one took me a while to wrap my head around and intuitively βget itβ. I first learned it was true from that mythbusters episode where they correct their past mistakesβ¦ and even they had thought that two cars hitting head on would receive the same energy as hitting a stationary wall at the speed of the sum of their speeds. They were corrected in letters written to them, and then they experimentally verified it.
And even seeing the experimental verification, it still took me a while to really get it. The opposite speeds cancel out, making you go from your speed to zero. Same as if you hit a brick wall at that speed.
Letβs say the two cars are going 50 mph (kph, whatever unit you want). 50-50=0. You experience the same as hitting the brick wall. Itβs the difference between initial speed and final speed that matters, not the sum of their speeds.
This phenomenon is known as Galilean invariance (or Galilean relativity). Yep, as well as all the astronomical shit, the same Galileo was also the first to describe this.
Mary Queen of Scots was 6ft tall.
I love your username, btw. No single character on TV has ever given me greater joy from facial expression alone, than her