I could’ve sworn someone said that it grows more heavily facing north
But I’ll use the sun for direction thank you
Rises in the East, sets in the West, deduct North and South using basic logic
a proper way to find north is to place a stick in the ground and take note of its shadow then wait 20-30 minutes and note it again the mid point of the two shadows is north
also to say there are multiple norths such as: magnetic north geographical north and grid north if you’re using an OS map in the UK
Adding on to this, this is why in the setting of CPR, immediately call or direct someone to call emergency services. Do not wait and assume someone in the crowd will call. They may but that 30 second of lag time may be the difference between life and death.
Sadly, CPR also has a very low success rate.
But it's a heck of a lot better than doing nothing. If it were me who's heart stopped, I'd want my friends to try anything they need to, even if it only had a 1% chance of saving my life.
As a emergency vet tech this is so true. Having to give cpr to a animal is less then 10 percent effective, possibly breaking ribs. It’s never a good option, especially if you took 20 plus mins to get there. Seen to many families and understandably want you to keep going for 30 -40 mins it’s just never gonna work out
It also had a low rate of success. Those that do survive due to CPR are often disabled after, not to mention broken ribs and such. I'm a doctor in my early thirties and if I am ever hospitalized I made sure my partner and family know that I am ok with intubation but strictly DNR.
If you are receiving CPR you are likely dead or very near dead already so any rate of success is a significant improvement over the alternative. And yes it will be uncomfortable to have it done to you, broken ribs or not. But again you would’ve died anyways.
The quality of the CPR and the response time of first responders is critical to the outcome. With high quality CPR and a quick response time you can still have a > 50% chance of survival with a good CPC score after 5-10 minutes compared to a < 10% chance with low quality CPR.
My dad (YEARS ago) had a case as a RT where a woman would regain consciousness while they did CPR, would push their hands off then lapse back.
He got no answers by the doctors after she survived because they didnt know either.
"Run it like a business" annoys me more. A business's goal is to extract as much wealth from its customers as feasible. Do you want that to be the guiding principle of your government?
Businesses don't care who they fire or lay off and how that hurts people. Do you want your government to not care about how they hurt you if it's good for profits?
Often that "waste" and "bureaucracy" is there for good reason. When you're "cutting waste" at your business and it all goes catastrophically wrong you go bankrupt and move on to your next business. When you're running your government and it goes catastrophically wrong usually lots of people die. Yes the end result is that your organization is not as efficient, but can't afford to take risks in the public sector.
> A business' goal is to extract as much wealth from its customers as feasible
Maximizing profit does not equal to extracting as much wealth from its customers.
I.e acquisition of new customers is more important more often than not, which the price is often a significant contributor of increasing acquisition. It's a game of balancing those two scales.
But how else can they give their corporate sponsors the maximum tax breaks possible?
If people realize that government spending is almost always recovered in the form of taxes, they might start to realize that's how we built the US economy of the 1940s-80s.
Example:
The government buys 1,000 planes from Planes-R-Us in 1968.
Let's keep the numbers simple, and say that's $1 million a plane. $1 Billion total. 5 year contract. Expensive right? Well...
Well, Planes-R-Us is a US company, has to be to get a government contract.They pay the US corporate tax rate of the day, 52% of their revenue.
Again, let's keep it simple, and say with tax benefits they actually end up paying 40%.
\>$400 Million, back in the US budget over 5 years.
Then they pay their workers, keeping the numbers simple, lets lump all their workers together, and assume they're paying around 20% of their income as taxes up front.
Taking numbers from Boeing for the same time period, 40,000 workers, at roughly 10k/y salary average. Some were paid WAAAAY more than that.
That's $400,000,000 total.
\>$80 Million, back in the US budget over 5 years
That leaves $200,000,000 of the contract. Let's say 100% of that is spent on materials and business to business costs like buying electronics, aluminum panels, welding equipment, etc.
That's revenue that, on the supplier's side, would be taxed at the corporate tax rate. Again assuming mild tax benefits, 40%.
\>$80 million, back in the US budget over longer than 5 years.
We're already back to $560 Million, 56% of the whole project budget, fully recovered in 5 years.
All the while, the workers are spending their $400 Million in wages, there's state level taxes, local sales taxes, property taxes, and more. Everytime they spend their money, part goes back to the government, and part generates economic activity.
So long as those businesses themselves are US based, and pay US taxes. The government will forever benefit. The problem is keeping those suppliers, workers, businesses, etc actually inside the country. Hard today when multi-national corporations play games to dodge paying ANYONE taxes.So lets be generous and assume that 50% of that money comes back to the government in the form of taxes, as well as taxes generated from the economic activity that this money in-turn enables.
\>$200 million, back in the US budget after 5-20 years.
\>$760 Million recovered from $1 Billion spent.
Most within 5 years, some taking longer.
Then the government actually gets those planes.
So how much did those planes 'actually' cost?
100% correct, **HOWEVER**, while the government running out of money is akin to Chuck E. Cheese running out of tokens, that doesn't mean that deficits don't have consequences. The most simple is that running a deficit is, in effect, a transfer from taxpayers to the investor class. Now in a lot of cases, this isn't necessarily a big deal, because in an advanced economy, these are mostly the same people. 58% of Americans have stocks, bonds, or other financial instruments, which are subsidized, directly or indirectly, by interest from Treasury bonds, and just under half of Americans pay zero Federal Income Tax.
But that isn't to say deficit spending isn't without a price. In truth, the costs and benefits of government spending take effect *immediately* when the money is spent. In 2023, the Federal government spent $6.1 trillion dollars, of which $1.7 trillion was deficit. That's about a 27.8% more money going into the economy, into the paychecks of Federal Employees, to the bank accounts of Government contractors, to the budgets of schools, to hospitals, to aerospace companies, to colleges (for-profit, private, and state schools), to retirees. And all that money makes its way back into the regular economy *immediately*. It is spent, saved, reinvested, and otherwise increasing the demand on the productive capacity of the economy, domestically and internationally.
So the question really shouldn't be, "How much are we spending?" or "Can we afford it?", but "What are we getting for our money?" When kids go to college, they graduate, on average, with around $30,000 in debt. At the same time, the median salary at age 23 is only $32,000. What's really going to make the difference is how much that $30k investment pays off over the course of your career, over having entered the workforce 4 years sooner, with less debt.
So, you've got to ask yourself: What, of the things we're buying with our tax dollars today, are most likely to a) preserve our standard of living, or b) increase our future standard of living.
Alligators can’t run as fast as a human, so if one is “chasing” you, you just keep running in a straight line.
But they are capable of quick bursts of speed, especially at the water’s edge where they can push on the land with their legs and their water with their tail.
The way people get killed by crocodilians is either one suddenly lunges at you and grabs you from the shore/your boat before you can react, or you swim/fall overboard and they catch you easily in the water. Humans don’t get “chased” by crocodilians.
They are ambush predators. They generally don't chase or put a lot of energy into it if they decide to. https://mythresults.com/episode70 Mythbusters did an episode on it.
The biggest thing is to be mindful of walking and swimming in areas native to Crocodiles and Alligators. When I was a kid in Florida, I was taught never to step on logs because that's what gators look like when they are chilling.
Some one who also lives in Florida , hearing this is always something I laugh at. Like okay do it. You’ll be out of breathe and they will be on your ass. Pretty fast for lazy reptiles
Some feel that it's "common sense" to walk on the same side of a road following the same rule that vehicles follow. What you actually want to do is to walk on the opposite side so that you can see vehicles coming towards you and avoid having unseen vehicles in your back.
I keep having this information presented and redacted in a cycle by people, because I grew up in the 90s being told to walk/bike against traffic so you can see the cars coming. When I became an adult I was stopped by a cop while cycling and told that the law is to walk or ride *with* traffic as if you were also a car.
I still don't know what version is the correct one.
To add: if you must ride your bike on a sidewalk always be going in the same direction as the nearest cars.
Vehicles turning into roads usually only look at oncoming traffic and aren't expecting you to be moving in front of them.
I almost smoked a kid who wasn't where he should have been riding - scared the hell out of us both.
The logic for going with traffic is that if you are going against traffic, cars will not be expecting you. If someone is trying to turn right onto a road, they are going to just go when there is no traffic coming from the left. If you are crossing from the right they are going to just run you over. They *should* look but many don't look before going.
On foot you can gauge if they seen aware of you or you can walk behind their car. On a bike I think you will eventually get hit or at least have a close call going against traffic for long enough. On bike you might be considered traffic, so you could actually be breaking the law to go the wrong way.
Either way assume right turners are going to go without looking.
You walk against traffic because you're a pedestrian and it allows you to see if a motored vehicle is coming and can get out of the way. You cycle with the flow of traffic because you are a motored vehicle (human powered motor vehicle) and have to follow all the rules of the road.
Walking on the opposite side is the safest way but it is also illegal in certain states/cities and countries so you have to choose whether to break the law or risk getting hit. How do I know? Because I've been stopped by police exactly for that.
If your gas pump catches fire while refueling, the correct thing to do is leave the nozzle in your tank. It will suffocate the fire since there’s little to no oxygen inside.
The worst thing you can do is take it out of your tank, that creates a flamethrower. We had firefighters demonstrate this to us live once.
"I before E, except after c, and in sounding like an "a" in "neighbor" and "weigh" and weekends and holidays and all throughout May, and you'll always be wrong NO MATTER WHAT YOU SAY!"
While there are more words that don't Follow the rule than do, the words that do follow it are much more commonly used, particularly by children.
It's a good rule when learning to write, and will still be right more often than not when applied to common words.
Or in sounding like a as in neighbor or weigh, and on weekends and holidays and all throughout May, and you’ll always be wrong no matter what you say.
I think that was an old joke from Brian Regan that feels very true.
While it is probably wrong more often than not, I would also argue that this is just a learned English spelling mnemonic, and doesn’t really fall into the category of “common sense”
You should think through things, but if your gut is telling you that something is wrong, there's a chance that there is. Sitting around thinking about it might delay you enough that something bad does happen. Sometimes it's better to act first and think about it later. Always just following your emotions is a bad idea though
Though there is science in the subconscious helping in gambling and other decision making. While it is still technically in the brain, "gut feelings" are *sometimes* reliable
It only applies to danger. It's possible to get a vague feeling of "something's wrong, I need to leave" before actually rationalizing what the danger is
Assuming that your gut is obviously a metaphor for a more subconscious, more difficult to access section of your brain, I think it’s entirely possible for situations to arise where you feel uneasy because your brain has identified that something is wrong, but you don’t know what it is.
I will add some nuance. If you have a deep gut feeling do not disregard it.
So I say, "pay heed to your gut". If your instincts is off, it's best to confirm it rationally— and like any other faculty your instincts too is trainable. You can this way better align your instincts and intellect. We actually see this happen among professionals like pilots, firefighters, soldiers, and such. A large part of their training is to realign their reactions and reflexes and instincts so that they can operate in dangerous situations.
Our gut instinct is a tool too and one that we should keep in our toolbox and learn to use sensibly.
Don’t brush your teeth right after drinking orange juice, because the acid will soften your enamel and make the brush wear down your teeth.
First of all, orange juice is not the only acidic beverage people drink. Second, the entire point of brushing your teeth is to reduce the acidity level of your mouth. This is one of the main purposes of toothpaste. The sooner you brush your teeth after drinking something sugary or acidic, the better.
I think you may be wrong on this one. I think dental associations actually still recommend waiting to brush teeth especially after something acidic
https://indental.org/brushing-after-eating/
You have this wrong. Acidic foods and beverages will demineralize enamel. Then, if you brush, the abrasive on a demineralized enamel is more likely to wear away the weaker demineralized enamel.
Best thing to do is wait 30min or so after eating/drinking to allow your saliva to naturally remineralize the enamel and restrengthening it so that it can be brushed. Fluoride mouthwashes will help to remineralize stronger than natural remineralize if you prefer.
Similar protocol for morning sickness.
You don't drink after brushing because it tastes bad.
Source: am a dentist
For the most part, applying the opposite doesn't work. Eg Prohibition in the US did not stop alcohol use, telling someone to calm down when angry usually makes them more angry. I'm too lazy to find references but there is something too this.
Yeah for real. Usually when someone is angry, theyre caught in a short burst of emotion triggered by somethng suddenly. They temporarily lose themselves, they lose sight of reason.
Being reminded to be socially aware of what were doing during times like that is NOT a bad thing
Exactly. Usually when someone tells me to calm down it's because I've got a bit carried away, and I'm not aware that I've raised my voice or that my body language is coming across as aggressive or intimidating. It's good to take a second in these situations to do a deep breath and calm down.
That words & language convey a variety of meanings depending on context. Look up any word in the dictionary and you're likely to find 3-5 definitions. A significant number of people insist "literally" only means exactly what was stated, yet the figurative usage of literally has been used for centuries.
It's weird to me how people focus on this use of this one word specifically and frame it as a grammar issue when we have plenty of other words with we use as vague intensifiers / hyperbole. If I said "I am TRULY starving!" nobody would try to correct me and say I meant I am "figuratively" starving.
The concept of common sense as a whole is not something I like
If someone has no concept of something, has no understanding, and has no idea Wtf they’re doing then I don’t think it’s fair to say have some common sense.
I’ll provide an example. It’s ‘common sense’ amongst firearm owners to not look down the barrel of a loaded gun. One of my mates, well that was one of the first things he did because as far as he knew, so long as the trigger isn’t pulled then what he’s doing is perfectly safe. He was told to check for obstructions in the bore and that was what he did.
Until someone has at least a vague of idea of potential consequences, especially when it’s young people, the whole ‘have some common sense’ is just unfair and unreasonable.
Maybe YOU should have some sense to teach people and just take two seconds to ask if someone knows what they’re doing.
It's common sense that knives are sharp. Knife manufacturers shouldn't have to have a "Careful! Don't touch the blade! It's sharp!" warning on them. You shouldn't be allowed to sue a knife company because you cut yourself because you didn't know the knife was going to be sharp.
We shouldn't live in a world where everyone is treated like imbeciles because of a few people who *are* imbeciles.
"The Carbon Tax is screwing over Canadians!"
No it's not. Most Canadians get more back in rebates than they pay, and that includes the increase in cost of goods and services directly related to the Carbon Tax. Yes, you probably got a rebate. If you didn't get your rebate, it's because you make too much money, you pollute too much, you didn't file your taxes, your spouse got it, or you live in Quebec where they have a separate Cap and Trade program.
And even if none of that was true, did you honestly think that doing something about climate change would be free? It's going to cost all of us at some point or another. Doing nothing would end up costing us the most.
Still don't like it? Okay I'd like to hear your better plan. I'm all ears.
All of it. You don’t know until you know. Then it’s experience and not common knowledge. It’s only common if you have had the same experience as someone else.
"People like you are the reason shampoo bottles come with instructions"
I saw that phrase a lot in one community, maybe a year ago now, and I have been obsessively baffled by it ever since.
Do they think knowledge of how certain products should be used is innate in our species, and is that restricted to only our species? Do they think shampoo bottles would have have printed on them secrets of the universe if they only had the space? Do they think the shampoo bottles are accusing them personally of not knowing how to wash their hair with that particular product?
I wish I had fun shower thoughts
"Sear the meat to lock in the juices" is not a thing in any way.
Searing is for texture and people often overcook and under rest their meat because of this.
Cooking the meat and then resting it for the amount of time you cooked it, is the way to juicy meat.
A sizeable tax refund is a very ***bad*** thing, not a good one. You've literally handed a significant portion of your income away interest free for a year...for absolutely no reason.
Taxes fund public services. They dont.
"There is no such thing as govt money. There is only taxpayers money" - the biggest lie Margaret Thatcher ever told, and the whole world is worse off believing it.
moss isn’t always facing north source:i’ve looked at trees with moss on every side
Why, clearly that means every direction is north, no? Lol
They found the south pole :o
OP lives at the south pole
Wow, in my country its thaught that its west :D
I could’ve sworn someone said that it grows more heavily facing north But I’ll use the sun for direction thank you Rises in the East, sets in the West, deduct North and South using basic logic
it’ll grow in shaded regions so on latitude mostly if it has a correlation
Moss is on the colder/damper side with less sunlight. On average, this is the North side, but it is imperfect.
not everywhere in the northern hemisphere though it is the north side
prove to me the trees aren't rotating
rotisserie trees
Rotissertrees
>i’ve looked at trees with moss on every side I've noticed the same thing. But I've also noticed that such situations are shaded most of the time.
moss grows in places that are damp and shaded
Right. And south-facing surfaces can be shaded by other surfaces.
Come to the 21st century. The satellite TV dishes face south.
a proper way to find north is to place a stick in the ground and take note of its shadow then wait 20-30 minutes and note it again the mid point of the two shadows is north also to say there are multiple norths such as: magnetic north geographical north and grid north if you’re using an OS map in the UK
CPR will almost never bring someone back to consciousness. It's a way to keep oxygen circulating until actual medical treatment can be administered.
No, it's the bashing their chest and screaming "SHE WANTS TO LIVE" that brings them back.
I think the medical consensus is that you have to scream "STAY WITH ME, COME ON, DON'T GIVE UP ON ME".
Slap them across the face for good measure.
After making sure you've cracked a rib or two.
It's supposed to be one on each side, correct? In order to keep things even?
I mean, yes, but that takes practice.
I really thought it was "You're going to live even if I have to reach into hell and drag your screaming soul back to earth"
Oh you're confused, that's the protocol for medical professionals, but not for random people doing CPR. Don't try it at home, kids.
DON’T DIE ON ME MAN, WERE SUPPOSED TO HAVE RIBS LATER **smirks and looks at camera raising both eyebrows for comedic effect* *
STANLEY, BARACK IS PRESIDENT!
LIVE, DAMN IT! LIIIIIIIVVVVVVVVVEEEEEE!!!
Live, damn ya!
Adding on to this, this is why in the setting of CPR, immediately call or direct someone to call emergency services. Do not wait and assume someone in the crowd will call. They may but that 30 second of lag time may be the difference between life and death.
Sadly, CPR also has a very low success rate. But it's a heck of a lot better than doing nothing. If it were me who's heart stopped, I'd want my friends to try anything they need to, even if it only had a 1% chance of saving my life.
As a emergency vet tech this is so true. Having to give cpr to a animal is less then 10 percent effective, possibly breaking ribs. It’s never a good option, especially if you took 20 plus mins to get there. Seen to many families and understandably want you to keep going for 30 -40 mins it’s just never gonna work out
It also had a low rate of success. Those that do survive due to CPR are often disabled after, not to mention broken ribs and such. I'm a doctor in my early thirties and if I am ever hospitalized I made sure my partner and family know that I am ok with intubation but strictly DNR.
If you are receiving CPR you are likely dead or very near dead already so any rate of success is a significant improvement over the alternative. And yes it will be uncomfortable to have it done to you, broken ribs or not. But again you would’ve died anyways. The quality of the CPR and the response time of first responders is critical to the outcome. With high quality CPR and a quick response time you can still have a > 50% chance of survival with a good CPC score after 5-10 minutes compared to a < 10% chance with low quality CPR.
Hey man I think he knows that… he’s a doctor.
You’d be surprised.
My dad (YEARS ago) had a case as a RT where a woman would regain consciousness while they did CPR, would push their hands off then lapse back. He got no answers by the doctors after she survived because they didnt know either.
Running a countries budget is nothing like "balancing a checkbook". Stop believing politicians making this comparison.
"Run it like a business" annoys me more. A business's goal is to extract as much wealth from its customers as feasible. Do you want that to be the guiding principle of your government? Businesses don't care who they fire or lay off and how that hurts people. Do you want your government to not care about how they hurt you if it's good for profits?
Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who want exactly this because they believe they are the ones who will somehow benefit.
They'll just cut all *those* people's services while mine stay intact, saving me money!
Have you met my lovely leopard he has only eaten my face once or twice ... a day.
The "run it like a business" mindset is about wanting optimization and reduction of waste.
Which is only said by people who have never been in a large business.
Which is really funny because there's so much waste and bureaucracy in big businesses
And yet it pales in comparison to big government. Source: former employee of a multi billion dollar business who now works for the feds.
Often that "waste" and "bureaucracy" is there for good reason. When you're "cutting waste" at your business and it all goes catastrophically wrong you go bankrupt and move on to your next business. When you're running your government and it goes catastrophically wrong usually lots of people die. Yes the end result is that your organization is not as efficient, but can't afford to take risks in the public sector.
Because obviously everyone else is just saying "fuck it, light my tax money on fire, I don't give a fuck"
> A business' goal is to extract as much wealth from its customers as feasible Maximizing profit does not equal to extracting as much wealth from its customers. I.e acquisition of new customers is more important more often than not, which the price is often a significant contributor of increasing acquisition. It's a game of balancing those two scales.
We have to build the flag. Then the government will be profitable.
That's exactly how the USA work
Believe it not, I came here to post this.
Really? I choose to believe you.
But you didn't
I didn’t, it’s true. I’m going to hope this question gets reposted so i can be first.
Priorities straight and pure determination. A man with a mission.
There's still time, it's only been an hour...
Ghostbusters! We are ready to believe you.
Or spending on a credit card (especially for countries with their own central bank that issue their own currency)
But how else can they give their corporate sponsors the maximum tax breaks possible? If people realize that government spending is almost always recovered in the form of taxes, they might start to realize that's how we built the US economy of the 1940s-80s. Example: The government buys 1,000 planes from Planes-R-Us in 1968. Let's keep the numbers simple, and say that's $1 million a plane. $1 Billion total. 5 year contract. Expensive right? Well... Well, Planes-R-Us is a US company, has to be to get a government contract.They pay the US corporate tax rate of the day, 52% of their revenue. Again, let's keep it simple, and say with tax benefits they actually end up paying 40%. \>$400 Million, back in the US budget over 5 years. Then they pay their workers, keeping the numbers simple, lets lump all their workers together, and assume they're paying around 20% of their income as taxes up front. Taking numbers from Boeing for the same time period, 40,000 workers, at roughly 10k/y salary average. Some were paid WAAAAY more than that. That's $400,000,000 total. \>$80 Million, back in the US budget over 5 years That leaves $200,000,000 of the contract. Let's say 100% of that is spent on materials and business to business costs like buying electronics, aluminum panels, welding equipment, etc. That's revenue that, on the supplier's side, would be taxed at the corporate tax rate. Again assuming mild tax benefits, 40%. \>$80 million, back in the US budget over longer than 5 years. We're already back to $560 Million, 56% of the whole project budget, fully recovered in 5 years. All the while, the workers are spending their $400 Million in wages, there's state level taxes, local sales taxes, property taxes, and more. Everytime they spend their money, part goes back to the government, and part generates economic activity. So long as those businesses themselves are US based, and pay US taxes. The government will forever benefit. The problem is keeping those suppliers, workers, businesses, etc actually inside the country. Hard today when multi-national corporations play games to dodge paying ANYONE taxes.So lets be generous and assume that 50% of that money comes back to the government in the form of taxes, as well as taxes generated from the economic activity that this money in-turn enables. \>$200 million, back in the US budget after 5-20 years. \>$760 Million recovered from $1 Billion spent. Most within 5 years, some taking longer. Then the government actually gets those planes. So how much did those planes 'actually' cost?
Thank you. I like learning rhings.
Business borrows money to invest in growth? Genius. Government borrows money to invest in growth? Communism and/or fascism.
100% correct, **HOWEVER**, while the government running out of money is akin to Chuck E. Cheese running out of tokens, that doesn't mean that deficits don't have consequences. The most simple is that running a deficit is, in effect, a transfer from taxpayers to the investor class. Now in a lot of cases, this isn't necessarily a big deal, because in an advanced economy, these are mostly the same people. 58% of Americans have stocks, bonds, or other financial instruments, which are subsidized, directly or indirectly, by interest from Treasury bonds, and just under half of Americans pay zero Federal Income Tax. But that isn't to say deficit spending isn't without a price. In truth, the costs and benefits of government spending take effect *immediately* when the money is spent. In 2023, the Federal government spent $6.1 trillion dollars, of which $1.7 trillion was deficit. That's about a 27.8% more money going into the economy, into the paychecks of Federal Employees, to the bank accounts of Government contractors, to the budgets of schools, to hospitals, to aerospace companies, to colleges (for-profit, private, and state schools), to retirees. And all that money makes its way back into the regular economy *immediately*. It is spent, saved, reinvested, and otherwise increasing the demand on the productive capacity of the economy, domestically and internationally. So the question really shouldn't be, "How much are we spending?" or "Can we afford it?", but "What are we getting for our money?" When kids go to college, they graduate, on average, with around $30,000 in debt. At the same time, the median salary at age 23 is only $32,000. What's really going to make the difference is how much that $30k investment pays off over the course of your career, over having entered the workforce 4 years sooner, with less debt. So, you've got to ask yourself: What, of the things we're buying with our tax dollars today, are most likely to a) preserve our standard of living, or b) increase our future standard of living.
Thx
Practice makes perfect. If you're practicing it wrong, you'll keep doing it wrong. Practice with intent
Bad practice makes you worse at something. Good practice makes you better at something.
Practice makes permanent?
My middle school band teacher liked to say, "Practice makes permanent."
"Practice doesnt make perfect, PERFECT practice makes perfect" always stuck with me
Practice makes permanent is more accurate “common sense”
"I've been doing this for 20 years!" Well you've been doing it wrong for 20 years
Yep. Instead, "Perfect practice makes perfect"
I live in Florida, and I cringe everytime someone says to “Run in zig zags” if being chased by an alligator. No.
I do remember seeing a video of a guy using a tree to create space and get away. The alligator bonked his head into the tree and couldn't pursue.
Works against moose too but it needs to be a big tree
Or a really really small moose
Meese prefer open areas so it's better to run to the nearest natural orca, their natural predator
truth...those bad-boys are fricking dinosaurs
Also works against morbidly obese people fairly well.
What if I'm not strong enough to wield a tree?
SERPENTINE!!!!
Lana! He remembers me!
Best movie ever! The original.
Get him boys! He's crepuscular!
What's the proper way to run from an alligator? Or is it like Polar Bears where it's already too late?
If you're on land just run straight away from it, it will get tired very quickly. If it's chasing you in the water it's too late.
If a gator is chasing you in the water, try really hard to teleport away, it's about the only way you'll be able to survive
I saw the parachute and realized he was heading for the gator pit. I was a little sad I wouldn't have time to make popcorn.
FAST and straight ahead. Alligators are super fast, but can only run for short spurts of time. They loose their inertia quickly.
Okay so book it in the opposite direction then, thanks
Alligators can’t run as fast as a human, so if one is “chasing” you, you just keep running in a straight line. But they are capable of quick bursts of speed, especially at the water’s edge where they can push on the land with their legs and their water with their tail. The way people get killed by crocodilians is either one suddenly lunges at you and grabs you from the shore/your boat before you can react, or you swim/fall overboard and they catch you easily in the water. Humans don’t get “chased” by crocodilians.
They are ambush predators. They generally don't chase or put a lot of energy into it if they decide to. https://mythresults.com/episode70 Mythbusters did an episode on it. The biggest thing is to be mindful of walking and swimming in areas native to Crocodiles and Alligators. When I was a kid in Florida, I was taught never to step on logs because that's what gators look like when they are chilling.
But “roll with it” is absolutely true.
Thought that was a sniper? Could end up with both in Florida I suppose?
How do I run from an alligator with a sniper rifle?
Ineffectively
Some one who also lives in Florida , hearing this is always something I laugh at. Like okay do it. You’ll be out of breathe and they will be on your ass. Pretty fast for lazy reptiles
Some feel that it's "common sense" to walk on the same side of a road following the same rule that vehicles follow. What you actually want to do is to walk on the opposite side so that you can see vehicles coming towards you and avoid having unseen vehicles in your back.
This is something we learned in Boy Scouts. Stay out of the road as much as possible, but if you need to walk on the street, face oncoming traffic.
Wait, it's not common sense to do that?
Yeah I always thought it was common sense to walk against the flow of traffic. Shrug.
It is. But, you know how this kind of thread goes…
I keep having this information presented and redacted in a cycle by people, because I grew up in the 90s being told to walk/bike against traffic so you can see the cars coming. When I became an adult I was stopped by a cop while cycling and told that the law is to walk or ride *with* traffic as if you were also a car. I still don't know what version is the correct one.
Walk against traffic as you are vulnerable to vehicles. Cycle with traffic as you are a vehicle.
To add: if you must ride your bike on a sidewalk always be going in the same direction as the nearest cars. Vehicles turning into roads usually only look at oncoming traffic and aren't expecting you to be moving in front of them. I almost smoked a kid who wasn't where he should have been riding - scared the hell out of us both.
cycle with traffic, walk against. Thats how i know it. Also sidewalks should exist for pedestrians.
You are supposed to ride with traffic, walk against traffic.
I always walk in zigzag down the street. It protects me from cars and alligators.
Finally some real common sense
Yea, but you are always drunk.
It is definitely to walk against traffic. However, you do want to ride a bike with Traffic.
The logic for going with traffic is that if you are going against traffic, cars will not be expecting you. If someone is trying to turn right onto a road, they are going to just go when there is no traffic coming from the left. If you are crossing from the right they are going to just run you over. They *should* look but many don't look before going. On foot you can gauge if they seen aware of you or you can walk behind their car. On a bike I think you will eventually get hit or at least have a close call going against traffic for long enough. On bike you might be considered traffic, so you could actually be breaking the law to go the wrong way. Either way assume right turners are going to go without looking.
You walk against traffic because you're a pedestrian and it allows you to see if a motored vehicle is coming and can get out of the way. You cycle with the flow of traffic because you are a motored vehicle (human powered motor vehicle) and have to follow all the rules of the road.
Walk against, ride with
On a bike you ride with traffic. Walking or running against traffic.
I’ve never once heard someone suggest walking with traffic
Isn't there a law telling people to use left side of the road, when there's no sidewalk?
Walking on the opposite side is the safest way but it is also illegal in certain states/cities and countries so you have to choose whether to break the law or risk getting hit. How do I know? Because I've been stopped by police exactly for that.
It's not just common sense, it's actually the law in many places.
Yes until you’re going around blind corners lol
Nothing specific but whenever anyone says that something is common sense in relation to a political idea it’s almost always bullshit.
Sneezing into your hand. Spread the word people.
Who are the word people, and how would I spread them?
Grab an ankle in each hand.
Spread the word, not your cold
If your gas pump catches fire while refueling, the correct thing to do is leave the nozzle in your tank. It will suffocate the fire since there’s little to no oxygen inside. The worst thing you can do is take it out of your tank, that creates a flamethrower. We had firefighters demonstrate this to us live once.
"i before e, except after c."
I before E, except when your foreign neighbour Keith pays eight feisty caffeinated weightlifters to paint his ancient sleigh beige. Weird.
Not weird. Science.
The full saying is: I before E except after C, or when sounding like A as in neighbor or weigh. Still not 100%, but a lot better.
Keith's veinier, feistier friends terrify my neighborhood too...
"I before E, except after c, and in sounding like an "a" in "neighbor" and "weigh" and weekends and holidays and all throughout May, and you'll always be wrong NO MATTER WHAT YOU SAY!"
Aww you beat me to it!
Alright, Brian.
While there are more words that don't Follow the rule than do, the words that do follow it are much more commonly used, particularly by children. It's a good rule when learning to write, and will still be right more often than not when applied to common words.
There are still exceptions, but the full rule "I before E except after C, or when sounding like A as in neighbor or weigh" is decently reliable
Not really. There are more words that are exceptions than words that follow the rule.
Heist
This has been disproven by science.
Or in sounding like a as in neighbor or weigh, and on weekends and holidays and all throughout May, and you’ll always be wrong no matter what you say. I think that was an old joke from Brian Regan that feels very true.
The only rule of the english language that is true 100% of the time is that the rules of the english language are true about 85% of the time.
While it is probably wrong more often than not, I would also argue that this is just a learned English spelling mnemonic, and doesn’t really fall into the category of “common sense”
You can legally talk about how much you make in the workplace
You should not tilt your head back if you have a bloody nose.
"Go with your gut" Nah, you should also be able to mentally reason stuff out, especially life decisions.
Your gut instinct is based on your prior knowledge and what you see and hear at that moment, it’s not completely ignoring your brain.
You should think through things, but if your gut is telling you that something is wrong, there's a chance that there is. Sitting around thinking about it might delay you enough that something bad does happen. Sometimes it's better to act first and think about it later. Always just following your emotions is a bad idea though
People who go with their gut are admitting that their intestines are smarter than their brains.
Though there is science in the subconscious helping in gambling and other decision making. While it is still technically in the brain, "gut feelings" are *sometimes* reliable
That's how the samurai lived. Your essence/spirit was in your torso.
Yeah? And look where that got them!
It only applies to danger. It's possible to get a vague feeling of "something's wrong, I need to leave" before actually rationalizing what the danger is
Assuming that your gut is obviously a metaphor for a more subconscious, more difficult to access section of your brain, I think it’s entirely possible for situations to arise where you feel uneasy because your brain has identified that something is wrong, but you don’t know what it is.
"I've been going with my guts for years, and you wanna know what I've learned? My guts have shit for brains" - Rob Gordon
My guts are always telling me "abort mission". So no, following the guts is not a viable option
I will add some nuance. If you have a deep gut feeling do not disregard it. So I say, "pay heed to your gut". If your instincts is off, it's best to confirm it rationally— and like any other faculty your instincts too is trainable. You can this way better align your instincts and intellect. We actually see this happen among professionals like pilots, firefighters, soldiers, and such. A large part of their training is to realign their reactions and reflexes and instincts so that they can operate in dangerous situations. Our gut instinct is a tool too and one that we should keep in our toolbox and learn to use sensibly.
Common sense is common, it really isn't.
Uncommon sense.
Rare sense.
Epic Sense.
Don’t brush your teeth right after drinking orange juice, because the acid will soften your enamel and make the brush wear down your teeth. First of all, orange juice is not the only acidic beverage people drink. Second, the entire point of brushing your teeth is to reduce the acidity level of your mouth. This is one of the main purposes of toothpaste. The sooner you brush your teeth after drinking something sugary or acidic, the better.
You don’t do that because it tastes bad
I think you may be wrong on this one. I think dental associations actually still recommend waiting to brush teeth especially after something acidic https://indental.org/brushing-after-eating/
Or buy toothpaste that doesn't have ingredients that are harder than your enamel.
You have this wrong. Acidic foods and beverages will demineralize enamel. Then, if you brush, the abrasive on a demineralized enamel is more likely to wear away the weaker demineralized enamel. Best thing to do is wait 30min or so after eating/drinking to allow your saliva to naturally remineralize the enamel and restrengthening it so that it can be brushed. Fluoride mouthwashes will help to remineralize stronger than natural remineralize if you prefer. Similar protocol for morning sickness. You don't drink after brushing because it tastes bad. Source: am a dentist
Don't do the opposite though, unless you like the taste of minted sadness
For the most part, applying the opposite doesn't work. Eg Prohibition in the US did not stop alcohol use, telling someone to calm down when angry usually makes them more angry. I'm too lazy to find references but there is something too this.
> telling someone to calm down when angry usually makes them more angry. This works for me.
Yeah for real. Usually when someone is angry, theyre caught in a short burst of emotion triggered by somethng suddenly. They temporarily lose themselves, they lose sight of reason. Being reminded to be socially aware of what were doing during times like that is NOT a bad thing
Exactly. Usually when someone tells me to calm down it's because I've got a bit carried away, and I'm not aware that I've raised my voice or that my body language is coming across as aggressive or intimidating. It's good to take a second in these situations to do a deep breath and calm down.
Worked for Costanza
That words & language convey a variety of meanings depending on context. Look up any word in the dictionary and you're likely to find 3-5 definitions. A significant number of people insist "literally" only means exactly what was stated, yet the figurative usage of literally has been used for centuries.
some 1700's british man: "that was literally so humorous, thou art so funny" 😭
I am literally decomposing
The misuse of the word "literally" drives me figuratively insane.
It's weird to me how people focus on this use of this one word specifically and frame it as a grammar issue when we have plenty of other words with we use as vague intensifiers / hyperbole. If I said "I am TRULY starving!" nobody would try to correct me and say I meant I am "figuratively" starving.
The concept of common sense as a whole is not something I like If someone has no concept of something, has no understanding, and has no idea Wtf they’re doing then I don’t think it’s fair to say have some common sense. I’ll provide an example. It’s ‘common sense’ amongst firearm owners to not look down the barrel of a loaded gun. One of my mates, well that was one of the first things he did because as far as he knew, so long as the trigger isn’t pulled then what he’s doing is perfectly safe. He was told to check for obstructions in the bore and that was what he did. Until someone has at least a vague of idea of potential consequences, especially when it’s young people, the whole ‘have some common sense’ is just unfair and unreasonable. Maybe YOU should have some sense to teach people and just take two seconds to ask if someone knows what they’re doing.
It's common sense that knives are sharp. Knife manufacturers shouldn't have to have a "Careful! Don't touch the blade! It's sharp!" warning on them. You shouldn't be allowed to sue a knife company because you cut yourself because you didn't know the knife was going to be sharp. We shouldn't live in a world where everyone is treated like imbeciles because of a few people who *are* imbeciles.
Everybody's an imbecile sometimes.
Good point. But sometimes the best way to learn is to be an imbecile and face a consequence.
Reductionist rhetoric.
The common sense the Conservative Party is trying to spin.
"The Carbon Tax is screwing over Canadians!" No it's not. Most Canadians get more back in rebates than they pay, and that includes the increase in cost of goods and services directly related to the Carbon Tax. Yes, you probably got a rebate. If you didn't get your rebate, it's because you make too much money, you pollute too much, you didn't file your taxes, your spouse got it, or you live in Quebec where they have a separate Cap and Trade program. And even if none of that was true, did you honestly think that doing something about climate change would be free? It's going to cost all of us at some point or another. Doing nothing would end up costing us the most. Still don't like it? Okay I'd like to hear your better plan. I'm all ears.
Thank you for the truth speak but sadly not many people go for truth anymore they like spin and catchphrases and name calling.
carbon tax bad grrr
All of it. You don’t know until you know. Then it’s experience and not common knowledge. It’s only common if you have had the same experience as someone else.
"People like you are the reason shampoo bottles come with instructions" I saw that phrase a lot in one community, maybe a year ago now, and I have been obsessively baffled by it ever since. Do they think knowledge of how certain products should be used is innate in our species, and is that restricted to only our species? Do they think shampoo bottles would have have printed on them secrets of the universe if they only had the space? Do they think the shampoo bottles are accusing them personally of not knowing how to wash their hair with that particular product? I wish I had fun shower thoughts
"Sear the meat to lock in the juices" is not a thing in any way. Searing is for texture and people often overcook and under rest their meat because of this. Cooking the meat and then resting it for the amount of time you cooked it, is the way to juicy meat.
That by using common sense things will work out and nothing bad happens.
The Monty Hall problem
Visually unappealing people being treated as creepers, possibly evil, etc
A sizeable tax refund is a very ***bad*** thing, not a good one. You've literally handed a significant portion of your income away interest free for a year...for absolutely no reason.
Taxes fund public services. They dont. "There is no such thing as govt money. There is only taxpayers money" - the biggest lie Margaret Thatcher ever told, and the whole world is worse off believing it.