For me, it was: you need to think critically, but you also need to employ proper experts. They did a lot of cringe 'science' early.
this post was submitted on 10 Dec 2024
778 points (99.5% liked)
Memes
8458 readers
863 users here now
Post memes here.
A meme is an idea, behavior, or style that spreads by means of imitation from person to person within a culture and often carries symbolic meaning representing a particular phenomenon or theme.
An Internet meme or meme, is a cultural item that is spread via the Internet, often through social media platforms. The name is by the concept of memes proposed by Richard Dawkins in 1972. Internet memes can take various forms, such as images, videos, GIFs, and various other viral sensations.
- Wait at least 2 months before reposting
- No explicitly political content (about political figures, political events, elections and so on), [email protected] can be better place for that
- Use NSFW marking accordingly
Laittakaa meemejä tänne.
- Odota ainakin 2 kuukautta ennen meemin postaamista uudelleen
- Ei selkeän poliittista sisältöä (poliitikoista, poliittisista tapahtumista, vaaleista jne) parempi paikka esim. [email protected]
- Merkitse K18-sisältö tarpeen mukaan
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I hate the trombone episode they did For context I play the trombone
So the myth was that there was this performer who put a firework in his trombone mute and it ended up launching the slide off
They used a crappy pawn shop trombone with no oil to test it
The slide should be so smooth that if you simply hold it upside down and let go of the slide it should fall with near zero resistance
But if your trombone isn't properly maintained All it takes is one tiny dent to mess that up and significantly increasing the drag
Hell all it would of took is one of the producers to drop it or bump into it to dent it ruining the whole experiment
would of took
would have taken. Even without took/taken. would have, could have. never of. The confusion comes from would've could've.
For me, they signify a time when Television/streaming companies produced content promoting science , rational thought, and blowing crap up.
Their show was running alongside all the Discovery and History crap about ancient aliens, mermaids, and Bigfoot, so I'm not sure about those first two things.
In its first years, it actually ran alongside a lot of interesting and significantly more scholarly shows (than what we have now) on those two networks. The early 2000s actually had some solid programming on the history channel. Pretty quickly devolved into pawn stars and ancient aliens after that, though. So, yeah, half to most of its run was alongside utter garbage.
Edit for clarification: More scholarly than the current and last decade and a half of shows on history channel and discovery.
Yeah, Adam did say they would never have the same opportunity today than they have in 2003, the landscape of edutainment show is just too different today.
They could probably do something similar with YouTube and a big patreon following. But they would have had trouble starting from scratch the way that Discovery’s production money allowed. Would have taken a lot longer to ramp up, but also a lot less lawyers would have been involved probably.
The same people working for David Zaslav who pushed discovery and history to be almost entirely pseudoscience and low effort variety/reality TV are currently running HBO's streaming service, Max.
It shows.
That's both disheartening and not at all surprising.
Now it's still all WW2 revisited with "never before seen" enhanced footage, usually centred around Hitler. Clone, clone, clone.
I'd like to see them challenge themselves to have to actually dig up some info for once.
They're remembered well for both, though. And the fact that there's no conflict between rational thought and blowing crap up.
Remember kids: the only difference between screwing around and science is writing it down.
Actual quote from Adam Savage on an episode of Mythbusters.
And that's why you can't totally trust their findings 100% of the time :)
My favorite example is of how napalm was invented at Harvard. But yeah, I hate how napalm was used sigh
More critical thinking in world would good right now.
At least adam still doing his thing on youtube.
I still see Jamie at the beach sometimes, he’s usually sunbathing.
Savage
No, that's Adam.
Busted
No, that's my nuts.
I grew up thinking that. As I got older, I realized they're actors like Bill Nye. That style of edu- tainment helped me internalize the scientific method. I loved the explosions growing up, but now I just love the humility, educational content, and entertainment. All that being said, the explosion tests they did were a good wake-up call for any young kids who wanted to play with explosives/ fireworks. Also, Discovery should have better advertised the fact they weren't scientists. They curtailed it by calling them professionals, which is anyone who's paid.
Aren't they introduced as special effects artists in the intro of every episode?
Why are they not scientists? Sure their profession was in special effects, but you don't need a degree or a lab to carry out scientific research.
I don’t understand anyone starting from the premise they’re scientists. Nobody made that claim about the hosts? They’re very much entertainers who have an educational angle (sort of). I follow Adam and one thing he discusses often enough about the Mythbusters is that they were storytellers first, the scientific process was part of the story, and teaching was never really the intent even though we all feel like we learned from the show.
You don't need a degree to be a scientist, all you need is to apply the scientific method to your quest for knowledge.
Micheal Faraday never attended schools after about the age of 8. He was absolutely a scientist, and certainly one of the greatest. Look around and see the world he gave you.
And you can see his model work in Attack of the Clones
And grant imahara made r2d2 in prequel trilogy.
RIP grant imahara.
I think quite a lot of the Myth Busters worked at ILM during the Prequels
That whole article basically sums to they settled out of court, which proves nothing.
Innocent until proven guilty.
Also a lot of famous people are "alleged r*pists", unfortunately that seems to come with the fame, especially in the last 10 years.
Settling doesn't prove innocence nor guilt - but as #MeToo has shown - SA is so prevalent that's it's usually better to err on the side of caution and assume the worst instead of claiming "fame" as a reason people try to seek justice from their abusers.
#MeToo has also shown that there are people out there will claim SA as a form of revenge or in attempt to get money of the situation.
As things are, the man is always assumed guilty even when proven innocent.
I try not to take accusations at face value for this reason. You have to put your self in their shoes; If someone accuses you of SA 30 years ago, what do you do? How do you convince people it never happened or in the case of two consenting adults hooking up, how do convince people it was consensual?
By the time you prove your innocence, you've lost your job, friends, family, possibly divorced, children all have 100 mile restraining orders and have been told terrible things about you....your life is fucked because some saw the #MeToo movement and figured out there are 0 consequences for fucking up someone's life.
That being said, if the accused is proven guilty, then feel free to chop of their head (not the one attached to the neck).
Adam would have been 9 through 12 at the time. Awful and fucked up, sure.
I find it hard to hold it over him. Over the past decades he has been nothing but the opposite of his childhood self.
The "r*ping blob" saying "I hope that my sister gets the help she needs to find peace, but this needs to end. For many years, she has relentlessly and falsely attacked me and other members of my family to anyone who will listen" - sounds a lot like denial, deflection and victim blaming - having read her blog all I can see is just someone trying to heal from very real SA trauma and sharing her experience so others know they're not alone. And suing her abuser for said abuse isn't a "pursuit of a financial bonanza" but a very real recognition of the trauma she's been left to deal with while her abuser is praised for his ingenuity and given a "boys will be boys" excuse for r*pe.
Let's assume she is telling the truth.
If this happened between ages 9-12, I'd be looking at the family as a whole to determine how this happened at such a young age and for so long with out any adult knowing. There wasn't the internet where information about such topics is freely avalible. Someone planted the seeds and some one else failed to educate the kids about personal space while also somehow making the girl not want to tell her parents "hey my brother invented a wired new game!".
I'll also acknowledge that the girl may have been "consenting" to secret play time with out really knowing what was going on. At the time all was fine, but retrospectively all was clearly not fine.
Ultimately it's a he said, she said fight and we will never know the truth. I wish the best for both individuals.
Jamie Hyneman is a legend
Wulrus likes the left guy