At least 400 kilobyte.
If it’s a really reliable source and sounds plausible, very little. Iran hit a hospital in Israel recently.
If it’s some random person and sounds plausible, probably many repetitions from unrelated people in unrelated contexts, with some time as “word is” after a couple or few mentions. Airport security is theater and misses actual weapons all the time. I guess I should add the caveat that if it’s something easily refuted like “TSA hires out of malls” it gets promoted to fact faster, because of Cunningham’s law.
If it sounds implausible, a lot. Like, it might be a thing I painstakingly confirm or deny over the course of years. Thermodynamics is always explained in a way that has massive gaping logical holes. It obviously empirically works, but a rigorous derivation without any sneaky tricks would probably imply a proof of P~=NP - and it took me years to work my way through enough papers and literature to confirm that.
If it’s a source or type of source with a history of making up the sort of thing they’re saying, infinite - it will be all noise regardless of how much data there is.
Laying it out like this, I clearly put a lot of emphasis on the motivation and past track record of sources. There’s so many things to see and measure, far too many, and there’s also lies and mistakes, so I guess one has to. That’s probably been true since the stone age, and probably drove some human evolution, although it’s intensified quite a lot more recently.
Note that even facts are still subject to skepticism, discussion and revision. Absolute certainty it it’s own beast and it’s not a fact that it even exists.
A couple kilobites, minimum.
Reading it once on social media
I think this applies to vastly more of us than are comfortable admitting
Hearing it in a YouTube short linked by a one day old account
Yes, but only if it matches my current beliefs.
If I can find three reputable sources that say the same thing, I feel pretty confident in accepting it as fact. The real trick is finding reputable sources. Media Bias Fact Check is really helpful for this.
deleted by creator
Also, doctors used to say smoking doesn’t cause cancer.
Doctors paid by cigarette companies said that, and they were in a tiny minority of doctors.
There are scientists now who say global warming is a hoax because they have a monetary interest.
It is itself extremely biased, you believed an authority that isn’t neutral.
How so? Seemed reasonable enough for the few things I checked.
To my knowledge they have been criticized for being biased, but from what I can find their ratings don’t differ drastically from other providers.
Their problem is that any news agency in the middle east is automatically “untrustworthy” with quotes like “they haven’t been found to report false stories, but we still give them an untrustworthy rating”.
Do you have examples of reputable sources from the middle east that have an unfair rating?
I already gave you the examples, I said that they unfairly represent middle eastern news as untrustworthy. Or are you here to nitpick and “um ackthcshually”?
It is itself extremely biased, you believed an authority that isn’t neutral.
Their problem is that any news agency in the middle east is automatically “untrustworthy” with quotes like “they haven’t been found to report false stories, but we still give them an untrustworthy rating”.
I already gave you the examples, I said that they unfairly represent middle eastern news as untrustworthy. Or are you here to nitpick and “um ackthcshually”?
You have provided 0 examples of a middle eastern news source that is unfairly ranked.
Are you going to keep being combative and waste both of our time refusing to answer a simple good faith question?
From their own description of Al Jazeera
Al Jazeera has been a valuable voice for the Palestinians as most Western media favors Israel. While most of its reporting has been factual in covering the conflict they have demonstrated one-sided reporting that tends to denigrate Israel.
Mixed for factual reporting. They cite 2 articles that they have found to be false since forever. They complain about “loaded language”. Yet they say “straight news has minimal bias”. Then they give Times of Israel “high credibility” and speak how unbiased their language is, giving the same examples as they gave in the Al Jazeera one for “biased language”.
High credibility is 2 “levels” higher than the middle of the field “mixed”.
Have you ever tried the 1 Left, 1 center, 1 right source when looking into something? I try to do this myself when I have the time and can find the articles.
How do you define the centre? Do you account for existing wide-spread social biases? E.g. systemic racism, or the neoliberal belief that we can have infinite growth on a finite planet?
The center is the middle of the right and left.
I am unsure what you are asking after that.
They’re referring to the shifting variance between political sides and the range expressed between them. The Overton Window usually.
The Overton window is the range of subjects and arguments politically acceptable to the mainstream population at a given time. It is also known as the window of discourse. The key to the concept is that the window changes over time; it can shift, or shrink or expand. It exemplifies “the slow evolution of societal values and norms”.
Outside of this window you still have Left and Right, but they’re the more extreme beliefs that the general populace doesn’t currently accept. The window shifting over time means something that would have been considered absolutely insane 20 years ago, could be entirely mainstream now.
A current example would be federal deployment of the military to handle local protests when there is no declared State of Emergency and local government doesn’t need or want assistance.
But left and right aren’t absolute positions, they change in time. E.g. democrats now hold a lot of similar positions to what the republicans held in the 1980s (and also a lot of different ones).
Left and right are also a unidimensional approximation of a multidimensional value space… E.g. most people on the left disagree with nearly everything Marjorie Taylor Greene says, but they agree with her that the US should not be supporting Israel’s war on Iran.
There are also people on the left AND the right that oppose global economic liberalisation, but what is often called the “centre” supports it - clearly not a “middle” stance.
So how can you meaningfully define what is led and what is right, for the purpose of your reading?
But left and right aren’t absolute positions, they change in time.
What do you think that means for the center?
That it also changes in time and is not absolute. And also, in many ways, that it does it does not exist (in the sense that the “centre” in one dimension might be correlated with extremes in another)
If the center, right, and left change over time how do you expect me to define “center” beyond that which is situated between left and right?
Basically, if it’s in the Bible, it’s fact. Everything else is entirely made up by the devil.
I’m like 90% sure this is sarcastic, but you never know.
It’s sarcasm
Like, i found this youtube channel from the video “mom founf the yaoi”. And now its latest video is about the rapture? Its just morse code, this description, and 2 links in the comments.
As soon as i get home, im yt-dlp this channel to preserve this.
I have no earthly idea what you’re talking about (replied in the wrong place, maybe?), but that is some prime internet weirdness.
Not sure if people on the internet are doing a bit for the funnies, or actually serious with what the believe.
If we’re talking about things that are easily quantifiable, not very much at all.
What would you classify as easily quantifiable?
yeah that makes sense, like a math proof
It isn’t quantity. It is the quality and logical reasoning.
I would argue that quantity is just as important as quality and logical reasoning. The Triforce of Science, if you will.
I’m not sure how I would even quantify this.
But I could qualify this: having a consensus across multiple trusted sources.
really depends on the source and if it makes sense in the first place.
Depends how interesting or important or complex the thing is. If you tell me that your foot is 25cm long, I’ll believe you without question. If you tell me it’s 52cm, then you’re going to have a hard time convincing me (unless you’ve already convinced me that you’re a talking kangaroo).
This is why it’s much more important to be skeptical of people’s views on political issues too, because the situations are always complex, and important to different people in different ways.
It takes a lot for me to accept something as fact, but I’m okay with living my life on a combination of likelihoods, reasonable plausibilities, and vibes
A sufficient amount
I remember there was one fact I was really beating my head on; A dishwasher should always have some food or other gunk on the dishes before starting the machine, otherwise the detergent will attack the coloring on the dishes instead.
How has no company solved this problem? It makes no sense. Many people do wash their kitchenware so it doesn’t stink up the entire dishwasher if it has been sitting for a while… idk.
I would be happy to hear if anyone can help confirm or dismiss this.
Phosphates were banned in dishwasher detergents in 2011, so most of the name brand companies switched to enzyme-based cleaners that use amylase and protease, which dissolve starches and proteins, respectively. And then some traditional detergent, which allows oil and water to mix, washes it all away.
The nature of the enzymes are that as soon as they’ve broken up the starch or protein, they survive the reaction and can happily move onto the next starch or protein molecule. So if they’re overactive, without enough targets, then any portion of the dishes that are sensitive to that particular cleaner is going to get a higher “dose” of that cleaner working specifically at it.
I’m going out on a limb and saying untrue.
How would the dish soap not “attack” the pigments on the crockery not covered by gunk, do you need to make sure that the plate is covered in an even spread? It’s a desurficant, iirc, with hydrophobic molecules to get into molecular scale sized spaces. Maybe unvarnished crockery could lose the colour… But eating off that and washing it wouldn’t be the best choice either.
Also, most dishwashers instruct you to rinse the worst off in the sink before loading. And we’ve followed that and most of our china still has good colours, the one that doesn’t I know was left in direct sunlight for over a summer.
I have heard this before and as far as I was ever able to find it is a bunch of bunk that seemed to originate from damage done by a recalled detergent.
is it a fun fact that impacts nothing? i’ll accept it as fact immediately and without question
is it a fact that has some weight to it? i’ll probably double check and if i find a reliable source that also claims it to be fact i’ll accept it (if i’m reading about it from a reliable source i will accept it immediately)
is it a fact that contradicts my current beliefs/understanding of the world? i’ll do some research on it, check if there’s any recent articles like “that thing you thought was right? is not!”, and depending on the nature of the fact think about why it’s been debunked and how that changed my perception on the world
