this post was submitted on 04 Dec 2024
499 points (99.8% liked)

Science Memes

11299 readers
3692 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 41 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 1 points 57 minutes ago

I mean, coyotes can't catch roadrunners despite having access to unlimited Acme products. They're no match for humans.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 hour ago

I bet that last commenter studied boolean math

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Most car accidents happen within a mile from home

...because that's where you're driving most often

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 hours ago

90% of fatal accidents occur in the northern hemisphere

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 hours ago

Good thing shaking babies doesn't kill you then, or that stat might be even higher

[–] [email protected] 8 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Well there was that one time the vending machine decided to attack, but in general, it's a human causing it to fall over.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 hours ago

sometimes humans cause me to fall over, but you don’t see me going around killing people

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 hours ago
[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 hours ago

It's hard to put into words how stupid that original take about coyotes in a corral even dares to be.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 7 hours ago (4 children)

No one shakes a vending machine. Its part of gen-x schooling to learn you rock the machine back just a bit and then let it settle back on its feet.

What are they teaching kids now, if not that?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 45 minutes ago

Um, there were more than a few Gen X that got hurt by vending machines. We didn’t have an immunity to that.

However, a skill we did have to exploit vending machines in the pre-digital age was to learn which alternating buttons you could press rapid-fire to get two sodas instead of one.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 hours ago

My GenX uncle broke his shoulder checking a vending machine over a Snickers bar

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

I know some (genX) people who discovered a neat trick to dislodge all the contents of a vending machine. Involves at least two people and a 2x4. I wouldn't call what is done "shaking" per se, but you can be sure when the vending machine gets set back down, it feels mighty shaken up. And also empty.

But that would be dangerous, so don't do it.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Why would smashing the glass require two people?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

Its not glass, it's typically acrylic and doesn't shatter easily. And no, the machine was typically left unharmed, if bereft.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 hours ago

I get it, but the joke was right there and I had to take the swing.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 hours ago

I only know Vending Machine lore from Hollywood because they're a lot rarer where I'm from so in my head "vending machine = shake" checks out.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 hours ago

Having grown up around coconut trees, and gravity, I've long been aware that it's foolish shake that tree if you don't want to loose the fruit it holds over your head.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 7 hours ago

If vending machines ejected their beverage as vigorously as coconut trees, people wouldn't put them on the same category on those statistics.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

Getting an error message and a tiny thumbnail.

edit =finally appeared. My life's dreams are fulfilled and joy reigns in the land.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

At least it didn't kill ya

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 hours ago

It came up this time. It's a good post and I'm glad I waited.

[–] [email protected] 35 points 8 hours ago (4 children)

The people pointing out the women killed by bears vs men stats a few months ago need to understand this as well lol

Like I am fine if you want to meme or dunk on men but once you bring bad stats into it that’s when I get serious.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 hours ago

yeah I think the way I always read that question was in the hundred duck sized horses vs one horse-sized duck sense. The average woman passes by, say, in public, hundreds of men per day in a city, right? I read that question (and the implication) that they’d prefer from a safety standpoint if each one of them was a bear, which is more of a video game premise than a situation anyone would survive.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 7 hours ago (5 children)

The first time I saw the man or bear question, I assumed it was a setup for victim blaming. Neither choice is going to be a win for the woman.

Based on experiences, she doesn't trust men so she picks bear? How dare she judge all men. So illogical!

Or she picks man? Then she should be prepared for an inevitable assault because eventually the man in the woods will be one of the bad ones and she should have known. She should have been more careful or just stayed home!

The whole thing was never a maths question. It was a rage bait question to rile up men who hate women and to give women an unwinnable binary choice. The only "winning" answer is to decline to play this stupid game.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 hours ago

no, it was a question to illustrate how women feel about safety around men. the rage came from male fragility. the refusal to understand a simple premise doesn't make the "game" stupid.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

All good points I hadn’t considered! However, some people did try to turn it into a math problem which I had to object to at that point, since they were doing it wrong.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 hours ago

I assume that part of the intent with these type of scenarios is to draw attention to toxic masculinity by baiting out toxic responses, which is fine and obviously it's effective if that is the intent. However, any attempt to respectfully disagree with the premise was also treated as toxicity and that just made me not want to engage with feminists or the discourse at all, which seems counter-productive.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

The new women in mens fields trend is the same thing. Its there to agravate people by doing the thing people claim to hate just to a different group. Equality does not mean every one gets a turn at being the opresser and I can see why young people start to consider themself anti feminists if these two trends are the most interaction you've ever done with feminism. Which is likely since I don't really see any other big social media movements for it.

Maybe its not my place to critisize the way they choose to operate but all im saying is if you told me both of those trends were Russian plots to stoke anger at feminists I'd believe you easily.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

It's obtuse to treat the bear metaphor as a math problem. It's doubly so to correct the work.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 hours ago

But would you rather be alone in the woods with a statistician or a bear?