• Montagge@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    155
    ·
    6 months ago

    I went to a Christian private school.That list would take down the website for days!

      • Strawberry@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        out of curiosity, what is the Christian flag? I can only think of St George’s cross - England’s flag - or maybe the Vatican’s yellow/white one?

    • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      6 months ago

      Only if an incompetent made the site. User input is a drop in the bucket compared to aggregation, searching, and now “AI”.

  • Duranie@literature.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    92
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    6 months ago

    Antibiotics aren’t for viruses. Cold air doesn’t make you sick. Tongues don’t have “taste zones.” Muscles don’t have memory.

    And because you threw up for one day, you didn’t have “the 24hr flu.” You ate something bad or someone didn’t wash their hands. The flu is short for influenza, which is a respiratory virus, which typically does not make you throw up and shit. More likely it was the dodgy gas station sushi.

    Let’s keep going…

    • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      45
      ·
      6 months ago

      Anyone who has taken FDA mandated food safety training can confirm that food borne illness is the cause of most “stomach bugs.”

      Also, there’s poop on everything. Wash your hands.

    • mxcory@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      6 months ago

      gas station sushi.

      One day I WILL buy sushi from a gas station. I just want to be able to say that I have done it.

    • IlovePizza@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      6 months ago

      To be fair, cold air can contribute to making you sick. I got more misled by being told getting a cold had nothing to do with temperature because it is a virus. It is indeed a virus, but you’re more likely to get infected if you get cold.

        • areyouevenreal@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          It’s a combination of different factors. Cold weather makes it harder for your airways to defend themselves. There are I believe some cold viruses that are viable for longer or are stronger in cold weather, but since the cold is many different viruses I am not sure how much difference it makes.

        • Mercury@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          It’s because your immune system is less efficient at lower temperatures. So being cold doesn’t directly make you sick, but it can indirectly contribute to getting you sick.

    • Dizzy Devil Ducky@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      Cold air doesn’t make you sick

      I hate this one. Doesn’t matter how many times I’ve had to hurry to catch a bus to get to college over the past 3 quarters, my mom will always tell me how I’m gonna get sick from having wet hair because I don’t have enough time to dry it after I shower. So far I have yet to have any negative consequences for those (in)actions.

      • Duranie@literature.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        6 months ago

        That’s the difference between gray matter and white matter. Gray matter readily communicates with it’s crowding neighbors and can retain information, while white matter is myelinated so it can send messages over distances. Gray matter extends from our brains down our spinal cords.

        Muscles are dumb meat who take their orders from the nervous system. They have no capacity for memory. But training can create reflexes at the spinal cord level which some refer to as “muscle memory,” except it’s not the muscle that should get the credit here.

        • groet@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          21
          ·
          6 months ago

          I never thought muscle memory was “stored” in the muscles. The same way a memory of a smell is not stored in the nose. I was quite confused to see this as a common misconception but it makes sense from the name

            • FozzyOsbourne@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              6 months ago

              Same, do some people think it literally means the muscles have memory rather than you have the memory of what to do with your muscles?

            • Duranie@literature.cafe
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              As a massage therapist, unfortunately not only are there massage therapists who have been poorly educated and taught that this is true, but I’ve had countless clients repeat it back to me over the years enough times that I feel the need to attempt to reeducate if I think the person will be receptive to the discussion.

              From my experience many people “learn” this because someone well meaning wanted to dumb things down a bit too much and the information wasn’t conveyed very clearly, or there’s practitioners of a variety of flavors that explain how “traumatic experiences are stored in the body’s tissues” and that’s why they have to (insert their brand of therapy.) Another group is surrounding athletes and trainers, who use the term as blurry language and people take them literally as they are then as experts.

              It doesn’t sound like that big of a deal until you get a client who thinks that if you hurt them enough with an aggressive massage that it’ll “fix” a past trauma. I wish I were joking.

    • fiercekitten@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      6 months ago

      Wait the flu doesn’t typically cause nausea?!

      …that was food poisoning I got as a kid, wasn’t it.

      • asteriskeverything@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        Dude idk this is the one thing that makes me scratch my head.

        Kids seem to throw up often when they are sick. When the adults catch it from their kids, they very rarely have any GI issues but especially not nausea/vomiting. This is absolutely anecdotal evidence, but I anticipate a lot of parents and childcare workers will find rings true enough.

        Or maybe it’s my really shitty family genetics and we are all more likely to puke lol

        • kofe@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          6 months ago

          Pretty sure there are strains that can cause nausea. I had one back around 2011 or so that nearly killed me after a week of puking non-stop. I reached a point of just sipping broth, not sleeping for like 36 hours towards the tail end. It’s what made me realize the times I thought I’d had it before were probably just food poisoning

        • Trainguyrom@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          6 months ago

          Kids seem to throw up often when they are sick.

          The explanation I heard was that kids bodies are still learning how to pilot and maintain their meat ships so their stomachs will sometimes get upset and purge when they don’t need to/shouldn’t

          Source: foggy memory of I think it was a SciShow video like 5-10 years ago?

        • Duranie@literature.cafe
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          6 months ago

          This is why I said “typically does not” instead of never. Some people’s immune systems will go ape shit and get every possible symptom under the sun, and children’s immune systems/reactions can be more stressed till they build some strength and have more exposures through life so their bodies learn how to handle them.

          But if someone has a bad day that they’re throwing up/have diarrhea (no stuffy nose, congestion, or other respiratory symptoms) then chances are they consumed something their body is trying to reject.

    • Juvyn00b@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 months ago

      Tongue taste zones I clearly remember learning about in third grade or so. Also the food pyramid. Saw a video on that recently - what a joke.

  • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    63
    ·
    6 months ago

    Better still there were a bunch of facts that were false when they were taught to you but for some reason were still taught to you.

    Like the obvious one, the tongue doesn’t actually have different regions on it for tasting different things, a fact that you probably didn’t believe even back then because anyone with a sugar cube and 5 minutes can disprove that.

    • fitjazz@lemmyf.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      41
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      My 6th grade science teacher taught us that blood is red but that some people think it is blue until it touches air because our veins look blue under our skin. He explained how the different wavelengths of light are absorbed differently and they was why it looks that way. Two years later my 8th grade science teacher taught us that blood is blue until it touches air. She was not happy when I told her she was wrong. I even explained it and told her to go talk to the other teacher if she still did not understand. She still would not listen to me. Over half the class was in the same sixth grade class as me but I was the only one that either remembered or was willing to stand up to the teacher. I finished losing faith in the education system on that day.

      • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        27
        ·
        6 months ago

        Well my 6th grade science teacher told us that Chernobyl was fortold in the book of revelations and it meant that the world will end soon. Public school. In New England. In the 90s. The 1990s.

        • ArxCyberwolf@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          6 months ago

          Yup, because people 2000 years ago knew exactly what a nuclear reactor is and that one would explode 1900 years later. How the hell do people come up with this?!

        • humorlessrepost@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          You unlocked a childhood memory of my insane conspiracy theorist father ranting about “wormwood” in connection with Chernobyl.

        • AA5B@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          These stories are so crazy to me …… sometimes it seems looks I got a better secular education from my religion school in the 1970s, with nuns. For many years the science teacher was the only lay teacher, never mentioned religion and we were certainly never fed any of that creationist crap from anyone.

          It was not a Jesuit school but they really left a great impression of the long history Jesuit pursuit of knowledge and science

      • Hadriscus@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        6 months ago

        A teacher not able to fathom being corrected by a student. Terrible and terribly common. Afraid to lose their authority, perhaps? I had this happen to me at around 8 or 9yo : I corrected my teacher on a specific conjugation (the infinitive of a verb), but she wouldn’t admit she was wrong. That day I swore I’d respect anybody in a discussion, even when I thought I was right and they were wrong. I would consider their take at the minimum

      • Ragnarok314159@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        My 7th grade science teacher told us that air is a perfect mixture. I raised my hand and said “how is it a perfect mixture when some cities have smog alerts, and the ozone layer hole?”

        I want sent to the principal and told to never question teachers, they know more than I ever will. It was then I kind of gave up and saw behind the veil on education.

        • AA5B@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          6 months ago

          This is also crazy to me - correcting the teacher was at worst a way to get extra homework and present the facts to the class.

          Except computers. Those teachers were lost and welcomed any help

    • Varven@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      I remember when they taught me this in kindergarten didn’t believe them for a second

    • ziggurat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      6 months ago

      First thing I did when I read that was to put rub something all over my tongue just as a sanity check. When I tried to tell someone they went bonkers trying to defend the school book. From that point on I never took anything school books or adults said as fact without evidence.

    • BrerChicken @lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      Some classics:

      • lactic acid buildup makes your muscles hurt after a workout
      • blood that’s returning to the heart and lungs is blue, blood that’s leaving your heart to go do it’s thing is red
      • sugar makes kids hyper

      All three of those things have been thoroughly debunked, and are demonstrably false, and yet we teach them all the time. Sometimes it’s even SCIENCE TEACHERS that are repeating these things, and sometimes it’s right in the textbook!

      • Ragnarok314159@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Don’t forget how chocolate, even in tiny amount, will kill a dog. My mother told this to my kids, and they were all confused because our dog ate a bunch of chocolate easter candy and she was fine.

        • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          Dogs, and cats although they’re unlikely to actually eat it, cannot eat artificial sweetener as their livers cannot break it down and it becomes toxic to them in moderate quantities. It is often used in a lot of cheaper chocolate, particularly American chocolate. Sugar’s fine though, other than the obvious issues with it.

          Somehow dogs cannot eat large amounts of artificial sweetener, got changed into dogs cannot eat small amounts of sugar.

          • crater2150@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 months ago

            I thought the problem with chocolate is theobromine, same effect as you describe, but bitter and comes from cocoa, so less sweet / more expensive chocolate with higher amount of cocoa is actually more dangerous.

            But still, as with any poison, the dose is important, this veterinary page says “One ounce of milk chocolate per pound of body weight is a potentially lethal dose in dogs”, so a dog would need to eat 1/16th of its own weight for it to be deadly, even for small dogs that’s more than a whole bar.

  • HexesofVexes@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    49
    ·
    6 months ago

    Actually, this is a really really amazing idea.

    Set country as an option, and private/public school (different lies…)

    It’d be great to let us all face our biases _

    • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      Hard to call it a bias when that was the accepted convention for a large portion of the population.

      Can’t really blame someone for being taught something than never having it come up again.

    • blindbunny
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      6 months ago

      Biases? Ignorances, is that the word you meant?

    • aeronmelon@lemmy.world
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      6 months ago

      different lies

      A Japanese person asks, “What did my school get wrong about Japan’s involvement in World War II?”

      is given an exhaustive history of the World War II Pacific Theater

  • merc@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    6 months ago

    Even just the map of the world is outdated pretty much by the time it’s taught.

    In 2023 Micronesia made a fairly minor change from the former name, “Federated States of Micronesia”. But, in 2022 Turkey now wants you to use its metal name: Türkiye.

    Then there’s the new country of South Sudan, Bougainville on its way to splitting from Papua New Guinea. And Kosovo shows another problem – whether its an independent country or not depends on who you ask. That includes regions like South Ossetia, Transnistria, Catalonia and Taiwan.

    Then there are things that students are taught that we’ve known are wrong for over a century, but the fully correct version is too complex for anything below a university course. Like, Newton’s laws are appropriate for high school, but they’re known to be incorrect and are simplifications of Einstein’s refinements. But, they’re close enough for most purposes, and understanding Einstein’s stuff is pretty hard. Same with models of the atom.

    And, history is another subject where the deeper you dig, the more the generalizations you’re taught are shown to be wrong. The names and dates might be the same, but the reason X happened is often a whole lot more complex than the simple reasons given in high school.

    • ziggurat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      6 months ago

      I don’t think outdated maps is as important as other things. Because two reasons. Maps are expensive to replace, and maps are politics. So no matter how you print the map, someone will think it’s wrong.

      Now if they thought you this knowledge about the maps, that would be really cool.

      • merc@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        The interesting thing is that these days the maps people most use are digital ones. They can be updated instantly for everyone who uses them. But, even in that world you have problems.

        In many countries it’s a legal requirement that the maps reflect the country’s definition of its borders. That means that in some cases Google Maps has 3 versions of a map, the one shown to users in country X (say India), the one shown to users in country Y (say China) and the one shown to users in the rest of the world, where the border is marked as disputed.

    • Bob@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      6 months ago

      I went to visit my mum and dad last year and I found a globe in my sister’s old bedroom from our childhood. It was interesting seeing the handful of countries on there that have since changed.

      • HackerJoe@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        6 months ago

        My globe has the USSR, a very different looking Europe, Ceylon, Formosa and tons of colonies on it. Thanks for that thing, grandpa.

      • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        In high school, (mid 90s,) I tracked down when the odd globe we had at our house was produced. It must have been made in 1952 according to the encyclopedias. Tons of countries that no longer existed. Strangely enough this particular globe showed the major water bodies as black, not blue.

    • uis@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      6 months ago

      Like, Newton’s laws are appropriate for high school, but they’re known to be incorrect and are simplifications of Einstein’s refinements. But, they’re close enough for most purposes, and understanding Einstein’s stuff is pretty hard.

      There is difference between good enough approximation and completely wrong. Some of stuff was last.

      Same with models of the atom.

      Not same. Physics textbooks for I had had planetary model, while chemistry textbooks explained quantuum mechanics model.

    • Trainguyrom@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      I remember a teacher very excitedly explaining the outdated nature of the map mounted on the wall and showing us the current map. Us 4th graders were not super impressed, but as an adult I’d be just as excited as the teacher

    • Asafum@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      6 months ago

      Because they used Texan hieroglyphics!

      🥩 🤠 🥩 🐮 🔫 👢 🔫 🤠

      • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        So I’m super liberal overall, but I’m also Texan, so I do in fact love shooting guns and being on the ranch…

        Dammit you nailed me.

        Though I don’t love cowboy boots. They’re just too uncomfortable and difficult to get on and off for something that costs what my first car did.

      • PugJesus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        6 months ago

        The Middle Ages were not “a time of ignorance, barbarism and superstition”; the Church did not place religious authority over personal experience and rational activity;

        Like hell it didn’t.

        and the term “Dark Ages” is rejected by modern historians

        Because it’s a prejudicial term, not because the past isn’t fucking shitty.

  • Got_Bent@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    6 months ago

    I went to religious school. Graduated thirty four years ago. That list would be mighty long.

    • dumbass@leminal.space
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      6 months ago

      I went to religious school. Graduated thirty four years ago. That list would be mighty long.

      The list: Everything we taught you.

      • Got_Bent@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        6 months ago

        Pretty much

        Funny thing, I think back to how batshit that education was, and I’d say it was way more moderate bordering on sensible compared to the horseshit they teach today.

        It’s getting worse, not better.

        • uis@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          bordering on sensible compared to the horseshit they teach today.

          Hey! Horseshit isn’t as bad as what they teach today!

          - Colorful Ponies Association

    • Jarix@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      But at least you only have to identify everything once and every other student for the last 30 years can help you remember…

  • Vigge93@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    6 months ago

    ITT: People misinterpreting the idea as “facts that your school taught wrong”, when it’s really saying, “things that have changed since you went to school” (either through a change in definition or by new research).

    E.g. If you went to school before the early 2000’s, you were taught that Pluto is a planet, while that is no longer true since it was recategorized in 2006.

    • matlag@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      6 months ago

      This is the wrong aporoach.

      You should build a mockup site, use it to raise 2M$ for the startup behind it you just created arguing you’re about to collect personal data about the age, education level and place, curiosity, etc. with overinflated numbers on their real values.

      Then you hire a bench of students, or better: launch a competition for the best “fact you were told that turned out wrong” with a 1k$ prize that you eventually give to some biz angel’s investrent adviser’s child.

      Once data are acquired, claim the company is now worth 10M$ and raise that much in a new round.

      Finally, sell the company for 20M$ either to a tech company that will enshitify, paywall and crater it.

      You still don’t have your website, but now you’re rich and you no longer care about these things.

      • nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        6 months ago

        I started a subreddit called facefacts at one point, was gonna debunk Facebook bullshit with a JS bookmarklet, but got too busy with work, then Trump flooded the zone and deleted my Facebook and twitter accounts.

  • Sentient_Modem@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    I could throw a site together if the community is willing to help curate the data.

    From what I read here are some keys to follow:

    Year Taught: Year of irrelevance: Country: Fact:

    I could throw a form together for submissions to feed this site. Thoughts?

    • medgremlin@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 months ago

      For America, you’ll also need to have a drop-down for states. I graduated from high school in California in 2009, and I’m currently working on a medical degree, so I’d be delighted to contribute to this. I’d especially like to help with a sex ed section for Americans.

      • Sentient_Modem@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        6 months ago

        I’m not sure I’d want to get that granular because of the same fact was taught across the country there’s no need for the redundancy. Also trying to make this a global website helps removing that level of granularity from the states as well.

        • Jarix@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          6 months ago

          Design it so that it can get that granular later(when someone else wants to do that work)

          As long as it’s got the capability it can grow into that later. Assuming unexpected and explosive popularity/growth it would be great if wikifoundation acquired it someday as a dataset if nothing else, but having a structure that can be expanded globally at a granular scale baked into it from the beginning would be awesome

          Sorry I’m not great with computers or i would offer more of a technical opinion not just design commentary

        • medgremlin@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          The differences in curricula across states mean that some states would have gotten the correct information while others may not have. I know the science and history classes in my state were pretty different from some other states.

            • medgremlin@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              That’s part of my point. My American education was pretty limited on the internal politics and civics of other countries, but my husband who went to high school in a different state did get a decent amount of information about how modern/current European countries are structured. So I guess it’s safe to assume that other countries will also have differences across regions.

    • arc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      You’d probably need to verify all submissions

      Unless you throw an LLM into the mix

      Or maybe there’s already some resources giving you all debunked facts with their dates

      • optional@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        You believe an LLM can be used to distinguish facts from fiction? I wonder up to which year that misconception was taught in school.

        The whole point of LLMs is, to convince their users that the “facts” they generate are actual facts.

        • arc@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          They can browse the web, and I never meant it would be 100 accurate just easier. Don’t think this is going to be a mission critical website

          • Ragnarok314159@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            6 months ago

            That just it, these “facts” won’t be on the web for stuff approximately 2005 and before. No where on the web is the racist and homophobic shit I was taught in the 80’s and 90’s listed on some wiki.

            LLM’s are mostly useless anyways at distinguishing real information, they are just shit summary tools and poor search engines.

      • ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        6 months ago

        LLMs are not magic, otherwise one just have to request that any submission will have references to reputable sources.

      • Sentient_Modem@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        I would probably start out by proofing or approving them before they post to the site. It say I get a notification read it do a little reading over it and get to a point where I can use a large language model to siphon the submissions.

    • Bye@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      There are at least 9

      Pluto is a dwarf planet. Planet. You wouldn’t say that a dwarf person isn’t a person.

      • BrerChicken @lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        You wouldn’t call a person a dwarf, period. So don’t do that. If you ever meet a little person, they’ll probably refer to themselves as a little person. You should just follow their lead

        A dwarf planet is not a category of planets. It is a category of sub-planetary objects. This is how the term “dwarf planet” was adopted by the IAU in 2006. It did used to mean “type of planet”, but there are just too many of them, and they’re really too different from planets, so it literally does not mean that anymore. At least to astronomers.

        • Bye@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          Whatever a red car is still a car.

          It’s dumb to say it isn’t a planet just because it hasn’t yet cleared its orbit. The decision to make it “not a planet” was also made by astronomers, not by planetary scientists. Like people with “Star” in their name know more about planets than people with “planet” in theirs.

          Anyways it’s extra silly because if you have “real planets” and “dwarf planets” then what is the higher group containing those two? “Things that orbit the sun”? No, they should both be planets.

    • Twitches@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      What about Uranus

      Edit: or is that a moon 🤣 I crack myself up!

      • fiercekitten@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        I’m sorry, Fry, but astronomers renamed Uranus in 2620 to end that stupid joke once and for all.

        Oh…what’s it called now?

        Urectum.

    • Crowfiend@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      I’m torn on this one, cause recently they’ve been finding evidence of a ‘new’ 9th planet, way beyond Pluto’s orbit. So I’m on the fence of “there are 8 planets” and “there are 9 planets.” 🤔

        • TheDoozer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          6 months ago

          The issue is, as I understand it, we either have 8 planets (or 9, if there is an exoplanet), or a whole bunch of planets, depending on how narrowly we define them.

          • Crowfiend@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            6 months ago

            Yeah this is the correct take. Either Pluto (and by extension, any object of similar size) is a planet, which would mean there’s thousands of Pluto-sized planets in the solar system; or pluto is ‘too small’ to be a planet. Which is the answer they (Sci community) settled on, because if every comet/asteroid is within the threshold definition of ‘planet’ then there would be no point in distinguishing planets at all.

            Kinda like how we have dwarf-stars and supermassive stars 1000x bigger than our sun. If they were all the same size there would be no point defining them beyond ‘star’.

            • Skua@kbin.earth
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              Pluto being too small isn’t actually the grounds on which it got demoted. The size requirement is just being massive enough to reach hydrostatic equilibrium - that is, be heavy enough that it’s round. Pluto does meet this one

              The one it fails is clearing its orbit. This basically means being much heavier than everything else in the same orbit. Be gravitationally in charge of your orbit. The other eight are all hundreds if not thousands of times heavier than everything else in their orbit (not including moons, since they’re gravitationally bound to the planet anyway), whereas Pluto is less than a tenth of the total mass in its own orbit. Ceres is actually more gravitationally dominant over its orbit than that, although still nowhere near the eight planets.

              This one sounds a bit weird at first, but I kinda like how it has such a massive delineation between the things we instinctively think of as planets and everything else.

          • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 months ago

            It’s also the fact that Pluto doesn’t have its own orbital slot. It is clearly something that escaped Uranus at some point, that’s why their orbits intersect. A planet doesn’t just have to have a certain size, it also has to have its own distinct orbital path.

        • theneverfox@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          6 months ago

          I’m of the opinion we made up all the words, but those mouth sounds must have a strict meaning whenever possible. Words are important, they’re how you communicate concepts. Everyone should be precise with their words to the best of their understanding, if you have to redefine the word planet in every conversation the concept is diluted and you waste a lot of time

          In this case, if Pluto is a planet, we have at least 13. We might discover another 10 or 20 if there’s no planet 9 hiding behind the kyper belt and it’s all dwarf planets… Ain’t no one got time to remember 30+ planets

          • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 months ago

            30+ planets should be pretty easy. They name them after mythology. The 50 states aren’t difficult to remember, and those don’t have any sort of naming convention.

        • Crowfiend@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          That’s pretty much how it is. In ancient times, planets would have been objects that were distinguishable from stars in ways they had the ability to differentiate from. For example, with a telescope, any object that doesn’t shine like a star, that moves across the sky at a different rate than the stars, or maybe has visible rings.

          Then once science found things that past science couldn’t account for, they redefined what a planet was, according to its size/gravitational pull or other factors, and which Pluto didn’t fit. Apparently due to Pluto’s small size, it’s not even a dwarf-planet, and by that measure is basically just a really big asteroid (we even know of asteroids that are bigger than Pluto).

      • Zagorath@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        Recently? I’ve been hearing about a possible large trans-Pluto object since before Pluto lost its status as a planet.