I ended up making a site that will let people submit facts. They will be fact checked by my till I have the filtering completed. Please check it out and let me know what yall think. It was made to be extensible
whatthefacts.info.
this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2024
1694 points (98.2% liked)
People Twitter
4959 readers
1612 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a tweet or similar
- No bullying.
- Be excellent to each other.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
There are just two years to select and "two facts" in total? Or it doesn't work on mobile as expected.
The site was design mobile first. What is seen is what has been submitted. It is a community driven site.
The Y2K issue was real, but a lot of people spent a lot of effort to fix it before it became a problem. The dire warnings were exaggerated, it was never going to end the world, but the problem really did exist and it really could have led to some pretty serious issues especially with financial institutions.
Sorry, it was just a place holder while testing the database. Once I have an entry or two I’ll remove it.
Get back on your shit!
??
lol, I have never been more confused that looking up "Edging is not skibidi and or goated". Thanks for the submission.
You can do this with AI now, except the computer still thinks they're facts
It's kind of a fun idea, but as everyone has pointed out: every school is different, even of there is some centralized board of education, some times teachers just say dumb shit.
Also, when does a fact become a fact? Like, dinosaurs had feathers. It was theorized, then debated, then clarified, and now there are some reasonable consensus about it, but theropauds probably still aren't presented as having feathers in some books. And what teachers know this?
Or you get common misconceptions that were never facts. Like you only use 10% of your brain. I don't think science ever said that, but man the idea is/was really common.
There are also plenty of things in science that are taught that are technically incorrect, but give you a working model that you can build on later. The atomic model being a rather typical example.
That's fair: abstraction. The technical wrongness of "orbiting electrons" as in the whichever-model serves a purpose: the truth is hairy, and more importantly not practically relevant if you're calculating sliding boxes around planes and that sort of thing.
On the other hand, "10% of the brain" and similar nuggets of common "wisdom" are just flat-out wrong, often stupidly so. There's very little use in that.
Oh. Yeah. That's a good point. When I taught a dead language, I would tell my students that all grammars lie to you, but some of the lies are useful.
The Wittgensteinian Ladder. The pedagogical expedient misinformation.
So many would say "Pluto" and I would cry.
view more: next ›