14 points

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.

permalink
report
reply
1 point

There are just two years to select and “two facts” in total? Or it doesn’t work on mobile as expected.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

The site was design mobile first. What is seen is what has been submitted. It is a community driven site.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Sorry, it was just a place holder while testing the database. Once I have an entry or two I’ll remove it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Get back on your shit!

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

lol, I have never been more confused that looking up “Edging is not skibidi and or goated”. Thanks for the submission.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

You can do this with AI now, except the computer still thinks they’re facts

permalink
report
reply
2 points

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?

permalink
report
reply
3 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

So many would say “Pluto” and I would cry.

permalink
report
reply
0 points

Who wants to check the dictionary definitions that changed over time?

Anyone knows the changes to the definition of the “vaccine” in the past 4-5 years?

Exactly!

permalink
report
reply
3 points
*

I would literally be irate at some of them

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

You’re such a Nimrod.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

Thank you! There is a beginning for anything.

permalink
report
parent
reply

People Twitter

!whitepeopletwitter@sh.itjust.works

Create post

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

  1. Mark NSFW content.
  2. No doxxing people.
  3. Must be a tweet or similar
  4. No bullying or international politcs
  5. Be excellent to each other.
  6. Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it’s a major figure or a politician.

Community stats

  • 7.3K

    Monthly active users

  • 813

    Posts

  • 20K

    Comments