Things you'd consider "common knowledge"

[Astralsideria]

I once knew a girl whom, despite her being a generally-lovely person, I still struggle to forgive for coming out of an exam asking "What's the Papacy?", pronouncing it "pap-uh-see". That and the memorable line from someone I once (embarrassingly) lost an election to, "What, you mean them Chinese Asians you get in Japan?" when discussing the topic (which he started) "Are there Asian people in Sri Lanka?". These are the things which have most contributed to the eradication in my mind of the idea of "common knowledge". Oh, and the fact that I flatter myself that I'm not an abnormally-stupid person, but I still don't know how many chromosomes we have. I do know that I've been told, several times, but I don't know how many.

[Conscentia]

I once knew a girl whom, despite her being a generally-lovely person, I still struggle to forgive for coming out of an exam asking "What's the Papacy?", pronouncing it "pap-uh-see". That and the memorable line from someone I once (embarrassingly) lost an election to, "What, you mean them Chinese Asians you get in Japan?" when discussing the topic (which he started) "Are there Asian people in Sri Lanka?". These are the things which have most contributed to the eradication in my mind of the idea of "common knowledge". Oh, and the fact that I flatter myself that I'm not an abnormally-stupid person, but I still don't know how many chromosomes we have. I do know that I've been told, several times, but I don't know how many.

Well considering that Sri Lanka is in Asia the answer to that question should be obvious. (Who asks such an uneducated question?!)

And Humans have 46 chromosomes.

[The Emerald Dawn]

why not to approach wild Bison in Yellowstone.

Bear with cubs? Stay the hell away from that bear with cubs.

HURRR let's throw sticks at the 1,000 kilogram animal! I'm such a victim!

[Astralsideria]

I once knew a girl whom, despite her being a generally-lovely person, I still struggle to forgive for coming out of an exam asking "What's the Papacy?", pronouncing it "pap-uh-see". That and the memorable line from someone I once (embarrassingly) lost an election to, "What, you mean them Chinese Asians you get in Japan?" when discussing the topic (which he started) "Are there Asian people in Sri Lanka?". These are the things which have most contributed to the eradication in my mind of the idea of "common knowledge". Oh, and the fact that I flatter myself that I'm not an abnormally-stupid person, but I still don't know how many chromosomes we have. I do know that I've been told, several times, but I don't know how many.

Well considering that Sri Lanka is in Asia the answer to that question should be obvious. (Who asks such an uneducated question?!)

And Humans have 46 chromosome.

I knew that Sri Lanka was in Asia, and he should've too, since we were both part of a group going there. Thinking back, I think he may have known it was in Asia, but just wasn't sure if that automatically meant there'd be Asians there or not. His mind always was something difficult to fathom, and, indeed, on some occasions, rather difficult to imagine existing. And thanks for the chromosome info; I shall probably remember that for an hour or two before reverting to my habitual ignorance, but I appreciate the effort

EDIT: In the interests of salvaging some sort of image of myself as knowing at least a thing or two, I'd like to reiterate that it was he who asked if there were Asians in Sri Lanka, and that the discussion was prolonged beyond two or three sentences only by some laughter and his reluctance to understand. The word discussion should not, although it may already have done, suggest that both sides needed to put thought into getting an answer; only he did

[United States of Raptors]

why not to approach wild Bison in Yellowstone.

Bear with cubs? Stay the hell away from that bear with cubs.

HURRR let's throw sticks at the 1,000 kilogram animal! I'm such a victim!

Yeah, that was the point of that comment XD

You throw a stick at a Bison and I will just sit back and watch you get trampled to death without calling for help. Sometimes I wonder why Yellowstone needs to warn visitors, just let them be stupid, that would be one less idiot to visit the park.

[The Emerald Dawn]

HURRR let's throw sticks at the 1,000 kilogram animal! I'm such a victim!

Yeah, that was the point of that comment XD

You throw a stick at a Bison and I will just sit back and watch you get trampled to death without calling for help. Sometimes I wonder why Yellowstone needs to warn visitors, just let them be stupid, that would be one less idiot to visit the park.

Well then you get the demented honking about how the government isn't protecting us.
Hot coffee is hot.

[Jagalonia]

Yeah, that was the point of that comment XD

You throw a stick at a Bison and I will just sit back and watch you get trampled to death without calling for help. Sometimes I wonder why Yellowstone needs to warn visitors, just let them be stupid, that would be one less idiot to visit the park.

Well then you get the demented honking about how the government isn't protecting us.
Hot coffee is hot.

Shit....Really? I thought it was luke warm.

[Conscentia]

[...] And thanks for the chromosome info; I shall probably remember that for an hour or two before reverting to my habitual ignorance, but I appreciate the effort
[...]

If you return to it periodically, it'll stick eventually.

[Cetacea]

Well considering that Sri Lanka is in Asia the answer to that question should be obvious. (Who asks such an uneducated question?!)

And Humans have 46 chromosome.

I knew that Sri Lanka was in Asia, and he should've too, since we were both part of a group going there. Thinking back, I think he may have known it was in Asia, but just wasn't sure if that automatically meant there'd be Asians there or not. His mind always was something difficult to fathom, and, indeed, on some occasions, rather difficult to imagine existing. And thanks for the chromosome info; I shall probably remember that for an hour or two before reverting to my habitual ignorance, but I appreciate the effort

EDIT: In the interests of salvaging some sort of image of myself as knowing at least a thing or two, I'd like to reiterate that it was he who asked if there were Asians in Sri Lanka, and that the discussion was prolonged beyond two or three sentences only by some laughter and his reluctance to understand. The word discussion should not, although it may already have done, suggest that both sides needed to put thought into getting an answer; only he did

thats because Asians come from China the people in Sri Lanka are obviously Indians who are obviously not Chinese

(sarcasm btw)

but yeah people should know the continents and generally where countries fit

[Astralsideria]

I knew that Sri Lanka was in Asia, and he should've too, since we were both part of a group going there. Thinking back, I think he may have known it was in Asia, but just wasn't sure if that automatically meant there'd be Asians there or not. His mind always was something difficult to fathom, and, indeed, on some occasions, rather difficult to imagine existing. And thanks for the chromosome info; I shall probably remember that for an hour or two before reverting to my habitual ignorance, but I appreciate the effort

EDIT: In the interests of salvaging some sort of image of myself as knowing at least a thing or two, I'd like to reiterate that it was he who asked if there were Asians in Sri Lanka, and that the discussion was prolonged beyond two or three sentences only by some laughter and his reluctance to understand. The word discussion should not, although it may already have done, suggest that both sides needed to put thought into getting an answer; only he did

thats because Asians come from China the people in Sri Lanka are obviously Indians who are obviously not Chinese

(sarcasm btw)

but yeah people should know the continents and generally where countries fit

If it weren't for the fact that I almost certainly wouldn't be believed, I'd tell the story about how we once had him describe how he imagined the map of Eurasia to look. The Black Sea having metamorphosed into more of a river, Russia was down the bottom of Asia, with China and Japan somewhere in the middle, India up the top, yet still surprisingly warm (and, for that matter, Russia rather chilly), Sri Lanka either alongside India (as now, but up the top) or below Russia (in about the same place as reality), and no other countries especially in evidence, except for an idea that Mongols lived somewhere. But, as I say, that sounds too much like I've made it up, so I won't bother to mention it. It is true, though...

[Cannot think of a name]

Yeah, that was the point of that comment XD

You throw a stick at a Bison and I will just sit back and watch you get trampled to death without calling for help. Sometimes I wonder why Yellowstone needs to warn visitors, just let them be stupid, that would be one less idiot to visit the park.

Well then you get the demented honking about how the government isn't protecting us.
Hot coffee is hot.

Not to be 'that guy' but when you watch the video, the stick is actually caught on the bison's horn and he flicks it off causing it to hit his back, they didn't throw the stick, unless they managed to land it on the horn before the video starts at which case bravo, because that didn't seem to set the bison off.

And the hot coffee was not an instance of someone not knowing that coffee was hot, but rather not knowing that McDonald's served their drive thru coffee 20-30 degrees hotter than normal so that when the woman pulled over to move her coffee the resulting spill caused third degree burns and disfigured her genitalia. And the 'ridiculous' settlement (after a jury was more or less disgusted by McDonald's "She should have gotten up" defense) was based on how much money McDonald's makes selling coffee in a single day. And it was reduced.

But the public perception, that it was simply not someone who did not know that coffee was hot, allowed the laws that protect consumers with the ability to sue if, say, you hand over something that's scalding when it's supposed to just be hot, were drastically reduced. And the best part, they managed to trick us into asking for it ourselves. Go us.

[Pope Joan]

Anything involving exact numbers, quantities, means running for a reference work. it can't be common knowledge.
I suppose if you allowed rough estimates it could be common knowledge.
But who wants to occupy memory banks with useless data, when we have all the phone numbers. ID, PIN (of various kinds), passwords and upcoming appointments to remember?

[The Emerald Dawn]

Well then you get the demented honking about how the government isn't protecting us.
Hot coffee is hot.

Not to be 'that guy'...

You can't say "not to" and then proceed to. That's like...breaking the rules and stuff.

[Neo Art]

And the hot coffee was not an instance of someone not knowing that coffee was hot, but rather not knowing that McDonald's served their drive thru coffee 20-30 degrees hotter than normal so that when the woman pulled over to move her coffee after her grandson who was driving the car had pulled over and the car was stationary, the resulting spill caused third degree burns and disfigured her genitalia. And the 'ridiculous' settlement (after a jury was more or less disgusted by McDonald's "She should have gotten up" defense) was based on how much money McDonald's makes selling coffee in a single day. And it was reduced.

Fixed.

Which makes this even WORSE. Somehow the public perception of this event has gotten so mutated that it became about some dumb bitch who sued McDonalds because she, this dumb stupid bitch, spilled coffee all over herself while she was driving!

The reality of it is, not only was the car STATIONARY when this happened, she was, in fact, in the passenger's seat. It was her grandson's car and he was the one driving it. She suffered her burns when attempting to remove the lid to add sugar to the coffee, caused it to spill in her lap.

This whole case is an evolution of a social construct. 20 years later, and everyone remembers the late Mrs. Liebeck (she died in 2004) as that dumb bitch who spilled coffee on herself while driving and sued for millions. The fact that not only was she not the driver, but that the car wasn't actually in motion at the time, are inconvenient facts offered up to the altar of hysterial bullshit, and have become inconvenient to the narrative about this dumb bitch who had the GALL to suggest that this company might have been unsafe when they served her coffee hot enough to melt skin.

And, of course, the fact is also, that the punitive damages award was based on a memoranda revealed during discovery that McDonald's executives had been warned by their own study that their coffee presented a significant burn risk, and a serious accident was only a matter of "when" and not "if", but they decided that the increased profit would more than offset any amount they'd have to settle any damage claims for. In other words, they KNEW that someone was going to get hurt, and decided to do it anyway, because they'd make more money that way. They KNEW somoene would be seriously injured, and they didn't care. That's why they got hit with such a large penalty. Which, in fact, is exactly the PURPOSE of such large penalties, to prevent such a thing from happening (a lesson Ford learned over the Pinto fiasco).

This, too, of course, is contrary to the narrative, and thus conveniently forgotten.

[The Emerald Dawn]

And the hot coffee was not an instance of someone not knowing that coffee was hot, but rather not knowing that McDonald's served their drive thru coffee 20-30 degrees hotter than normal so that when the woman pulled over to move her coffee after her grandson who was driving the car had pulled over and the car was stationary, the resulting spill caused third degree burns and disfigured her genitalia. And the 'ridiculous' settlement (after a jury was more or less disgusted by McDonald's "She should have gotten up" defense) was based on how much money McDonald's makes selling coffee in a single day. And it was reduced.

Fixed.

Which makes this even WORSE. Somehow the public perception of this event has gotten so mutated that it became about some dumb bitch who sued McDonalds because she, this dumb stupid bitch, spilled coffee all over herself while she was driving!

The reality of it is, not only was the car STATIONARY when this happened, she was, in fact, in the passenger's seat. It was her grandson's car and he was the one driving it. She suffered her burns when attempting to remove the lid to add sugar to the coffee, caused it to spill in her lap.

This whole case is an evolution of a social construct. 20 years later, and everyone remembers the late Mrs. Liebeck (she died in 2004) as that dumb bitch who spilled coffee on herself while driving and sued for millions. The fact that not only was she not the driver, but that the car wasn't actually in motion at the time, are inconvenient facts offered up to the altar of hysterial bullshit, and have become inconvenient to the narrative about this dumb bitch who had the GALL to suggest that this company might have been unsafe when they served her coffee hot enough to melt skin.

One small step for man. That's why these threads exist, now I've looked up the case and I know you're right. It's amazing what can happen when "common knowledge" isn't expected to be common.

[Ethel mermania]

And the hot coffee was not an instance of someone not knowing that coffee was hot, but rather not knowing that McDonald's served their drive thru coffee 20-30 degrees hotter than normal so that when the woman pulled over to move her coffee after her grandson who was driving the car had pulled over and the car was stationary, the resulting spill caused third degree burns and disfigured her genitalia. And the 'ridiculous' settlement (after a jury was more or less disgusted by McDonald's "She should have gotten up" defense) was based on how much money McDonald's makes selling coffee in a single day. And it was reduced.

Fixed.

Which makes this even WORSE. Somehow the public perception of this event has gotten so mutated that it became about some dumb bitch who sued McDonalds because she, this dumb stupid bitch, spilled coffee all over herself while she was driving!

The reality of it is, not only was the car STATIONARY when this happened, she was, in fact, in the passenger's seat. It was her grandson's car and he was the one driving it. She suffered her burns when attempting to remove the lid to add sugar to the coffee, caused it to spill in her lap.

This whole case is an evolution of a social construct. 20 years later, and everyone remembers the late Mrs. Liebeck (she died in 2004) as that dumb bitch who spilled coffee on herself while driving and sued for millions. The fact that not only was she not the driver, but that the car wasn't actually in motion at the time, are inconvenient facts offered up to the altar of hysterial bullshit, and have become inconvenient to the narrative about this dumb bitch who had the GALL to suggest that this company might have been unsafe when they served her coffee hot enough to melt skin.

if i remember the case correctly, mcdonalds had signed a bunch of conset degrees in other suits promising to lower the temp of the coffee and never did, the large damage award in part reflected mcdonalds deliberately ignoring the previous agreements it had made.

[Neo Art]

Fixed.

Which makes this even WORSE. Somehow the public perception of this event has gotten so mutated that it became about some dumb bitch who sued McDonalds because she, this dumb stupid bitch, spilled coffee all over herself while she was driving!

The reality of it is, not only was the car STATIONARY when this happened, she was, in fact, in the passenger's seat. It was her grandson's car and he was the one driving it. She suffered her burns when attempting to remove the lid to add sugar to the coffee, caused it to spill in her lap.

This whole case is an evolution of a social construct. 20 years later, and everyone remembers the late Mrs. Liebeck (she died in 2004) as that dumb bitch who spilled coffee on herself while driving and sued for millions. The fact that not only was she not the driver, but that the car wasn't actually in motion at the time, are inconvenient facts offered up to the altar of hysterial bullshit, and have become inconvenient to the narrative about this dumb bitch who had the GALL to suggest that this company might have been unsafe when they served her coffee hot enough to melt skin.

One small step for man. That's why these threads exist, now I've looked up the case and I know you're right. It's amazing what can happen when "common knowledge" isn't expected to be common.

Liebeck has become a particular pet peeve of mine, and how this innocent woman became lambasted in the media, and was publically humiliated until the day she died, and for nearly a decade since, has always bothered me.

I have always contented that any intellectually honest person, when confronted with the real, honest, actual facts of this case, would not only agree that the ruling was perfectly justified, but would be horrified by what McDonald's did. The fact that they knew this would happen and did it anyway, because it was more profitable, is horrifying.

[Neo Art]

if i remember the case correctly, mcdonalds had signed a bunch of conset degrees in other suits promising to lower the temp of the coffee and never did, the large damage award in part reflected mcdonalds deliberately ignoring the previous agreements it had made.

That is part of it, yeah. The other part was the internal memo that got uncovered that I mentioned in my edit. The fact is, McDonald's did a LOT of ethically shady shit, and ocntinued doing it, for as long as they could get away with it.

[The Emerald Dawn]

One small step for man. That's why these threads exist, now I've looked up the case and I know you're right. It's amazing what can happen when "common knowledge" isn't expected to be common.

Liebeck has become a particular pet peeve of mine, and how this innocent woman became lambasted in the media, and was publically humiliated until the day she died, and for nearly a decade since, has always bothered me.

I have always contented that any intellectually honest person, when confronted with the real, honest, actual facts of this case, would not only agree that the ruling was perfectly justified, but would be horrified by what McDonald's did. The fact that they knew this would happen and did it anyway, because it was more profitable, is horrifying.

I don't disagree at all, that's pretty much bullshit what McDonald's did, and thereby makes this case not an example of the "don't drink the windex" style problem I have. This is a company endangering people for profits. I now remove it from my lexicon of examples of over-protectiveness.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

Liebeck has become a particular pet peeve of mine, and how this innocent woman became lambasted in the media, and was publically humiliated until the day she died, and for nearly a decade since, has always bothered me.

I have always contented that any intellectually honest person, when confronted with the real, honest, actual facts of this case, would not only agree that the ruling was perfectly justified, but would be horrified by what McDonald's did. The fact that they knew this would happen and did it anyway, because it was more profitable, is horrifying.

I don't disagree at all, that's pretty much bullshit what McDonald's did, and thereby makes this case not an example of the "don't drink the windex" style problem I have. This is a company endangering people for profits. I now remove it from my lexicon of examples of over-protectiveness.

One thing that really should be common knowledge...corporations will always place profit above ethics if the level of risk is acceptable. Be it from endangering peoples lives to committing illegal acts.

[The Emerald Dawn]

I don't disagree at all, that's pretty much bullshit what McDonald's did, and thereby makes this case not an example of the "don't drink the windex" style problem I have. This is a company endangering people for profits. I now remove it from my lexicon of examples of over-protectiveness.

One thing that really should be common knowledge...corporations will always place profit above ethics if the level of risk is acceptable. Be it from endangering peoples lives to committing illegal acts.

But that doesn't mean that individuals will not seek to profit from laws that allow them to place themselves over the "collective good" at a corporation's expense.

[Martean]

Heh, that reminds me, during the last football world cup, we had an office bet that went as follows:

The participating countries were written on little strips of paper (luckily, that near enough matched the number of people in the office).
Every participant paid €5, and was allowed to draw one country from a hat. If that country won, they got the total takings.

My (then) manager pulled her slip of paper from the hat, read it and shouted: "Horrendous? Where in earth is Horrendous?"
Turned out to be Honduras, but she still had never heard of it and had no idea where it was...

Some people just aren't very good at geography. Apparently.

I met a canadian who thought Spain was in SA and its capital city was Barcelona...

[The Emerald Dawn]

Some people just aren't very good at geography. Apparently.

I met a canadian who thought Spain was in SA and its capital city was Barcelona...

One, I'm praying that's South America, and not South Africa.
Two, I'm praying it's not Saudi Arabia now.
Three, I won't disagree that many from South America can trace their lineage back to a hodge-podge of Meso-American and Hispanic roots.
Four, it'd be hard for Spain to compete in the Euro Finals if that were true.

[Miasto Lodz]

And Humans have 46 chromosomes.

So may I shoot this annoying kid with Down syndrome living on the 3rd floor now?

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

One thing that really should be common knowledge...corporations will always place profit above ethics if the level of risk is acceptable. Be it from endangering peoples lives to committing illegal acts.

But that doesn't mean that individuals will not seek to profit from laws that allow them to place themselves over the "collective good" at a corporation's expense.

But the harm that that individual can do is far less than that which can be done by a corp...of course I do not condone unethical behaviour of individuals either.