this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2023
110 points (100.0% liked)

Asklemmy

43895 readers
968 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. 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.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 66 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

The world population has quadrupled in my lifetime, so I would be willing to believe the old bit about “more people are alive now than have ever died.” But it’s bunk. Estimated count of all people ever is 100 billion. There weren’t that many people in the past but our species goes back 50,000 years and that makes it up.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-fiction-living-outnumber-dead/

[–] Fondots@lemmy.world 25 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The book is over half a century old now, so the numbers may be a bit off, but this sort of conversation always reminds me of this quote

"Behind every man now alive stand thirty ghosts, for that is the ratio by which the dead outnumber the living. Since the dawn of time, roughly a hundred billion human beings have walked the planet Earth."

-Arthur C. Clarke, 2001: A Space Odyssey

[–] raresbears@iusearchlinux.fyi 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Kinda reminds me of this

Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] hrimfaxi_work@midwest.social 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We're even older than that! There is compelling evidence that Homo Sapiens has existed for 400k years, and there's unprovocative evidence that we've been around for 250k years or so.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] TempleSquare@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

More adults are alive now than adults who died.

Most of humanity didn't survive to adulthood.

[–] Chainweasel@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Which is why the average life expectancy was in the 30s forever. If you made it past childhood you were likely to make it to old age, but the infant mortality rate was through the roof which brought the average down to less than half of what it is today. People regularly lived into their 70s-80s before, but the average of 30 years makes people think that's all the longer people normally lived.

[–] raresbears@iusearchlinux.fyi 4 points 1 year ago

Even if you look at monarchs (with relatively good living standards) who died of natural causes, those who make it to their 70s and certainly their 80s are pretty rare. Doesn’t mean the ‘everyone died in their 30s’ thing is true, but I’d say making it to your 50s and maybe 60s would be a more reasonable expectation

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Stillhart@lemm.ee 48 points 1 year ago (3 children)

"The days get shorter in the winter."

Actually winter begins on the shortest day of the year so the days are getting longer in the winter.

[–] hrimfaxi_work@midwest.social 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Plus, I'm pretty sure that days are always about 24 hours long 🙃

[–] Bunnylux@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Ok you silly pedant

[–] Bumblefumble@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

Depends a lot on your definition of winter. In Scandinavia, winter is defined as starting December first.

[–] cyberpunk007@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think what's meant by this is daylight and it's actually true up north.

[–] thetreesaysbark@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Just a heads up. You might want to read the comment you're replying to.

They're saying winter starts on the shortest day (daylight wise I believe they mean), meaning any days after that must be longer.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 45 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

In Shrek 2 Pinocchio is trying to avoid lying by using double negatives. He knows where Shrek is. He says "I don't know where he's not." This is actually a lie (though his nose doesn't grow). If he knew where Shrek was he would know everywhere Shrek isn't. You can't just randomly throw negatives into a sentence and expect it to be a double negative.

Edit: It was Shrek the Third, not Shrek 2.

[–] sunbytes@lemmy.world 33 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I guess it depends on if the nose grows with untrue information, or lies.

Because if it's lies all he needs to do is THINK it's the truth and his nose won't grow.

If his nose grows because the information is not true, then this is one hell of a power. You could get him to theorise on the meaning of life.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 16 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The intent of the scene was clear. He's just trying to say a lot of double negatives and be confusing. It's not a moment of world building for the mechanics of Pinocchio's nose lol

[–] ConditionOverload@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

Pinochio the philosophical scholar.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Crackhappy@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

That would make an interesting story about a superhero with that power.

[–] mvee@lemmy.ml 32 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'll have it done by the end of the week

[–] RustedSwitch@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago
[–] luthis@lemmy.nz 21 points 1 year ago (5 children)

I expect downvotes and deletion.

Left vs right wing politics. Both are the same. The real conflict is between powerful and powerless. Both sides claim to be fighting against this, while pitting the middle class against either the upper (left) or lower (right) classes.

[–] novibe@lemmy.ml 31 points 1 year ago

The “left” in the US is really actually center-right. And the “right” is far-right. So yes, both the “left” and “right” in the US are basically the same. Neoliberalism is just fascism with a smart suit and empty platitudes after all.

But saying the left and right are the same when talking about political ideology (and not the political landscape of the USA) is extremely wrong.

The right wants to conserve existing power structures or revert to previous ones. The left wants to dismantle power structures and bring about egalitarianism.

That is the dichotomy. To the right hierarchy, to the left egalitarianism.

The USA has been the subject of the most powerful and long lasting propaganda machine and psyops in history.

[–] glimse@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago

It'll get downvoted because it's an extremely cold Enlightened Centrist take. You're cherry picking one, albeit major, thing they have in common and ignoring the difference between the policies they enact.

Yes at the end of the day the real battle is absolutely between the 99% and 1% but to pretend that there is no discernable difference between the two major parties is asinine.

[–] Ilikecheese@lemm.ee 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It depends on if you’re talking about left vs right politicians or left vs right political viewpoints. If you’re talking about viewpoints, I absolutely disagree with what you’re saying. If you’re talking about politicians, especially in the US, then sadly, you’re mostly correct. The left say they want to make tons of changes but when push comes to shove, there’s enough money in politics to stop any real changes from happening no matter which party is supposedly in charge.

[–] RustedSwitch@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I would add that this is only true in general, and on a sliding scale. There are some pure of heart on both sides. True conservatives that mean well, and true progressives.

[–] ediculous@lemmy.fmhy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Not sure why you're being downvoted, what you said is false.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] fuzzybee@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

Yes, that sounds true, but is false.

[–] hrimfaxi_work@midwest.social 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Eskimos have a kabrillion words for snow.

Indigenous Alaskan/north Canadian languages have a few more words for snow than English, but it's not that that much more.

[–] luthis@lemmy.nz 2 points 1 year ago

Oh this one for sure.

[–] Interesting_Test_814@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If an object isn't pushed by any force, it'll stop moving. (It'll actually keep moving at the same speed).

[–] redballooon@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago (11 children)

Not in real life though. Only in Highschool physics class.

[–] usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

That's because of friction and air resistance which are still forces. Repeat the same experiment in outer space where there's no atmosphere or stuff in the way and you won't see that

There's even things like ion engines that take advantage of that by producing tiny amounts of thrust but run over long amounts of time to build up quite a bit of speed

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thruster

[–] redballooon@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Having taken not only Highschool physics but also university physics courses I know that.

That doesn’t change that for most people in most environments the sentence “if you don’t put in power continuously it’ll stop” or whatever the wording was is, in fact, true.

It becomes false only if you change the context, but I would argue, if you know all the facts and scenarios, that’s willful misunderstanding.

[–] Sethayy@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago

Ngl saying it isnt pushed vs isnt acted on by a force are entirely difference scenarios, a push is a subset of forces (as im sure you know with your uni courses right ;)

Else newtons laws would be incorrect on a macro scale, which to say at the least would be... concerning

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] Neon@feddit.uk 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The pyramids were already hundreds of years old when the last Woolly Mammoth died.

[–] tillimarleen@feddit.de 12 points 1 year ago

looking here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woolly_mammoth and here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pyramid_of_Giza tells me that the last woolly mammoths died around 4000 years ago and the pyramids of Gizeh were built around 4500 years ago.

[–] luthis@lemmy.nz 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Thousands. You can check old photos of the sphinx that show clear marks from water running vertically down the walls. The last time Egypt was that wet was many thousands of years before the official age of the sphinx and pyramids

Robert schock if you want to research more

[–] bady@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 year ago

Earth is flat!

[–] EdibleFriend@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Emma Stone is older than Margot Robbie

[–] haych@lemmy.one 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] EdibleFriend@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Damn you You caught me before I deleted. I had to question backwards I was posting something that sounds wrong but is true

[–] TauZero@mander.xyz 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)
[–] Pardal@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Read the titles again, bro!

[–] moridinbg@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

This one is the opposite

load more comments
view more: next ›