strombergnlp/rumoureval_2019 · Datasets at Hugging Face

id stringlengths 1 4	source_text stringlengths 7 272	reply_text stringlengths 2 3.76k ⌀	label class label 4 classes
4800	Would Labour win if young people voted?	>that if we're going to make 18 year olds We don't "make" 18 year olds do that. Or do we still have conscription that hasn't stopped from WW2 yet? Maybe I am behind the times on this policy, enlighten me.	3comment
4801	Would Labour win if young people voted?	The real question is; would young people be as shafted as they are now, if their turnout was as big as the older generations?	1deny
4802	Would Labour win if young people voted?	I have to say, whilst I admire the effort this is basically worthless because it only corrects for differential turnout between different age groups and not for differential turnout within them. Whilst the conclusion might be correct (I've no idea) the model sadly isn't.	3comment
4803	Would Labour win if young people voted?	Right now we don't "make" 18 year olds fight, but we have done and probably will do.	3comment
4804	Would Labour win if young people voted?	Thats what "simple and rough" means. I would expect turnout within age groups to be a second order effect of a magnitude less than that between groups. I am not aware of any evidence which shows that young tories are more or less likely to vote than young labour supports.	3comment
4805	Would Labour win if young people voted?	So Labour lose in every single scenario? Good. (Also, thanks for putting the time and effort into this, it's interesting.)	3comment
4806	Would Labour win if young people voted?	Second year student here, can confirm.	0support
4807	Would Labour win if young people voted?	[deleted]	3comment
4808	Would Labour win if young people voted?	It's unsurprising. Ed Miliband had all the charisma of a damp sock and spent all of his time agreeing with Cameron and co. Still, good work on crunching the numbers OP. It was like watching this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQY-wMdtGHU	3comment
4809	Would Labour win if young people voted?	Well, perhaps, but it could equally well be described as 'simplistic and inaccurate'. Turnout varies enormously by social grade, with 72% turnout from those in grade AB and 57% turnout from those in DE. AB voters lean Conservative (45% Con, 26% Lab) and DE voters lean Labour (27% Con, 41% Lab). Both groups account for roughly 25% of the population. So it's entirely possible that if you accounted for differential turnout according to both age and social class, you'd get a different result, and find that uniform turnout would have changed the results (ie voters represented a skewed sample of the electorate). To do that meaningfully you'd need (good) polling data dividing the population up by both criteria, though, and I'm not sure such data exists.	3comment
4810	Would Labour win if young people voted?	I'm not sure I agree, the party support percentages were based on polling, which presumably included non voters, so the case where everyone votes should not suffer from this issue.	1deny
4811	Would Labour win if young people voted?	Sorry, which party support percentages?	2query
4812	Would Labour win if young people voted?	> I'd say the majority of 16 year olds have no idea about politics and how it affects them. At what age do does this stop?	3comment
4813	Would Labour win if young people voted?	2014 EU Elections	3comment
4814	Would Labour win if young people voted?	The figures in the 2nd table.	3comment
4815	Would Labour win if young people voted?	That doesn't include non-voters. It is a description of 'how Britain voted', after all.	3comment
4816	Would Labour win if young people voted?	This is just a consequence of demographics, the younger age groups are really small compared to the older ones [as you can see here.](https://i.gyazo.com/9012a105b15db0798ecf96ec1e03572e.png) 18-44-year-olds are 45% of the electorate, Labour need to win with the older demographics if they are to win the election, simply doing well with 18-34-year-olds, which are only 28% of the electorate isn't enough.	3comment
4817	Would Labour win if young people voted?	Greens have a long base in the anti war movement and environmental politics (shockingly). Those people arent going to turn tory as they get old or are at least very unlikely to. The lib dems/non-corbyn labour/conservatives/ ukip all over lap in some areas (whether they like it or not). And this is where people often move parties.	3comment
4818	Would Labour win if young people voted?	I'm 28 and I'd vote for that.	3comment
4819	Would Labour win if young people voted?	Considering that all things being equal young people become older people, no.	1deny
4820	Would Labour win if young people voted?	Just compare what has/is happening to the policies that effect young people - university tuition fees, [cuts to spending affects them most](http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/oct/21/teenagers-spending-cuts-warning), unable to own a house, junior doctors' contracts etc., and what old people are getting... triple-lock pensions, a (overvalued) house (/mortgage repayments - not controlled by the government etc. The benefits the elderly have to do will not be reaped by the old people of tomorrow.	3comment
4821	Would Labour win if young people voted?	>16 year olds can join the armed forces, should we allow them to vote? 16 year olds can't be deployed in a warzone, so no.	1deny
4822	Would Labour win if young people voted?	> The benefits the elderly have to do will not be reaped by the old people of tomorrow. Except that people vote more as they age, which means that new policies that benefit them will be needed if parties are to get these ever ageing people to vote for them. So whilst they might not have identical policies benefiting them, they will have other policies benefiting them. I'm annoyed that I've been downvoted for this as it isn't a difficult point to understand and it is objectively and necessarily correct. Young people, en masse, get older.	3comment
4823	Would Labour win if young people voted?	Bu they'll still be worse off because of today's policy changes. Also, how sustainable due you think the policies the elderly receive are? As you said they won't have today's policies, but similar if not greatly different, policies - which will not be as good as today's. Furthermore, it's dependent on that they'll vote more as they get older, they still might be politically apathetic. If it helps, I haven't downvoted you...	3comment
4824	Would Labour win if young people voted?	> Bu they'll still be worse off because of today's policy changes. Yes, for a time, until they become part of a voting block that votes in greater numbers in which case their needs will be better served. > how sustainable due you think the policies the elderly receive are? As sustainable as any Ponzi scheme. > As you said they won't have today's policies, but similar if not greatly different, policies - which will not be as good as today's. So they won't do as well, they'll just do well. > Furthermore, it's dependent on that they'll vote more as they get older, they still might be politically apathetic. There is no reason to believe that just because previous generations have done so that future ones will also, but it is a reasonable supposition. > If it helps, I haven't downvoted you... Thanks, I wish more people were like you.	3comment
4825	Brits of Reddit, is it true that when you're done eating, you must place your cutlery together on the same side of the plate? What are other little things like that non-Brits might not know?	Uhh... no it's not true. I usually cross them over the plate if I'm honest, but it's not really something I do consciously, they need to go somewhere after all.	1deny
4826	Brits of Reddit, is it true that when you're done eating, you must place your cutlery together on the same side of the plate? What are other little things like that non-Brits might not know?	I'm not aware of this being a requirement, I just do it out of habit and tidiness.	3comment
4827	Brits of Reddit, is it true that when you're done eating, you must place your cutlery together on the same side of the plate? What are other little things like that non-Brits might not know?	That's what you do in a restaurant, to indicate that you're finished. We don't have that rule at home.	0support
4828	Brits of Reddit, is it true that when you're done eating, you must place your cutlery together on the same side of the plate? What are other little things like that non-Brits might not know?	I was taught to do that when I was like 5 years old. Not only Brits do that. It's a matter of tidiness and dining table etiquette.	3comment
4829	Brits of Reddit, is it true that when you're done eating, you must place your cutlery together on the same side of the plate? What are other little things like that non-Brits might not know?	exactly, it’s just what you are told to do in formal situations	0support
4830	Brits of Reddit, is it true that when you're done eating, you must place your cutlery together on the same side of the plate? What are other little things like that non-Brits might not know?	If your plate is a clock face then the cutlery should be together at 4.20	3comment
4831	Like in movies, Is it true when police are locating a phone call they need around 25 seconds to locate it ?	lol, maybe 20 years ago it worked like that, now it's instant.	3comment
4832	Like in movies, Is it true when police are locating a phone call they need around 25 seconds to locate it ?	Your phone constantly pings gps coordinates back to the network.	3comment
4833	Like in movies, Is it true when police are locating a phone call they need around 25 seconds to locate it ?	Yes but what about landlines (not VOIP) and phone-boot ?	3comment
4834	Like in movies, Is it true when police are locating a phone call they need around 25 seconds to locate it ?	Cop here: No. It's instant or doesn't work at all.	1deny
4835	Like in movies, Is it true when police are locating a phone call they need around 25 seconds to locate it ?	Thanks !	3comment
4836	What exactly is happening when you crack your joints, and is it true that it can cause arthritis?	cracking your joints does not cause arthritis, that is an old wives tale	1deny
4837	What exactly is happening when you crack your joints, and is it true that it can cause arthritis?	The fluid is squeezed and makes a popping noise. No, it’s not inherently bad for you.	3comment
4838	What exactly is happening when you crack your joints, and is it true that it can cause arthritis?	But how do you know for sure?	2query
4839	What exactly is happening when you crack your joints, and is it true that it can cause arthritis?	Caused by gas bubbles building up between the joints, and no, it can't.	3comment
4840	What exactly is happening when you crack your joints, and is it true that it can cause arthritis?	Because we have been told so since my youth. I am 50.	3comment
4841	What exactly is happening when you crack your joints, and is it true that it can cause arthritis?	True.	3comment
4842	What exactly is happening when you crack your joints, and is it true that it can cause arthritis?	Popping and clicking body parts may be a symptom of arthritis and like scratching an itch it may very well indeed exacerbate the symptoms. Who knows. I think science may some day prove a lot of these hunches we have. If I were you I would just exercise and practice good posture and try not to think about your joints.	3comment
4843	What exactly is happening when you crack your joints, and is it true that it can cause arthritis?	Fair enough. I accept that.	3comment
4844	What exactly is happening when you crack your joints, and is it true that it can cause arthritis?	Great advice. Thank you	3comment
4845	What exactly is happening when you crack your joints, and is it true that it can cause arthritis?	There's been several studies that investigated that possible link, and even [Harvard Medical](https://www.health.harvard.edu/pain/does-knuckle-cracking-cause-arthritis) concludes it most likely does not contribute significantly to arthritis.	3comment
4846	"Cancer is a fungus" - this idea from the 60s is apparently receiving new attention. Please advise.	To me, it seems ridiculously far-fetched, but I'm trying to be subjective. (Which is hard, considering that Mr. Icke treats the lizard-men myth, among others, with the same respect as this.) Many readers of pop-sci literature will be familiar with [Henrietta Lacks](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrietta_Lacks), whose tumor cells are widely reproduced - wouldn't somebody have noticed that these cells have non-human DNA? I would like to get some facts in, and good explanations that illustrate it to the lay-person. This link has been posted to the usually high-quality /r/RedditDayOf, and I think it'd be a shame if someone took the whole thing at face value.	3comment
4847	"Cancer is a fungus" - this idea from the 60s is apparently receiving new attention. Please advise.	There's a long (little bit older) debunking [here at scienceblogs](http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/08/07/a-fungus-among-us-in-oncology/)	3comment
4848	"Cancer is a fungus" - this idea from the 60s is apparently receiving new attention. Please advise.	Sequencing a tissue a tissue sample would put this to rest. Luckily that's already been done thousands of times in order to identify risk associated genetic markers for cancer. This research is carried out by universities, not the 'oh so evil pharma'. It would be immediately obvious if you found fungal DNA rather than mammalian material. This isn't even including all the chemical stains you could perform to identify whether a sample is a human cells or fungal cells. Maybe we should add radium to his food, as long as he has his sodium bicarbonate he should be fine right?	3comment
4849	"Cancer is a fungus" - this idea from the 60s is apparently receiving new attention. Please advise.	> but I'm trying to be subjective Do you mean objective? Just wow, there is so much wrong with this article I don't even know where to begin. I just found this subreddit today and I think I should maybe stay away from it. These articles are bad for my blood pressure.	3comment
4850	"Cancer is a fungus" - this idea from the 60s is apparently receiving new attention. Please advise.	David Icke was where i stopped reading	3comment
4851	"Cancer is a fungus" - this idea from the 60s is apparently receiving new attention. Please advise.	[removed]	3comment
4852	"Cancer is a fungus" - this idea from the 60s is apparently receiving new attention. Please advise.	Oops, of course. Apparently big words aren't so much my thing.	3comment
4853	"Cancer is a fungus" - this idea from the 60s is apparently receiving new attention. Please advise.	Maybe cancer is fungal in lizard men?	2query
4854	"Cancer is a fungus" - this idea from the 60s is apparently receiving new attention. Please advise.	Didn't he briefly claim to be a messiah or something?	3comment
4855	"Cancer is a fungus" - this idea from the 60s is apparently receiving new attention. Please advise.	Assuming that this article is correct and that cancer is caused by the candida fungus, the number of fallacious arguments proposed by Icke is numerous but should be considered not surprising considering his other beliefs and "support" he brings up for them. From the unsubstantiated claims throughout the article, to pathetically weak appeals to authority and complete misunderstandings of Tullio Simoncini's research, and oncology, its fairly obvious that Icke is merely trying to stir up trouble where non need be stirred up.	3comment
4856	Is it true there has never been a war between two democracies? Yes! Israel's no longer democracy.	False. The first step in one democracy declaring war on another is to carefully define democracy in such a way that it excludes your opponent. In this instance, you have chosen to define Israel as not a democracy.	1deny
4857	Is it true there has never been a war between two democracies? Yes! Israel's no longer democracy.	This is disgraceful. Israel has the chance to be a beacon of democracy in the middle east and/or a stable homeland for the Jewish people, but actions like this don't help either endeavor.	3comment
4858	Is it true there has never been a war between two democracies? Yes! Israel's no longer democracy.	Israel never really was a democracy. The government was formed as a quasi-democratic socialist (Zionist) entity by the leaders of various factions, unions, military, etc -- and for decades leaders have always been selected from that small group: Ben Gurion (from the Hagana/Histadrut), Menachem Begin (from the Irgun), Ariel Sharon (military), etc.	0support
4859	Is it true there has never been a war between two democracies? Yes! Israel's no longer democracy.	You beat me to it.	3comment
4860	[Debunk this]Carl Sagan settled an argument between Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke about how aliens should look in their film 2001	I don't see a conflict here. Both can be true. SK worked on an alien concept and took Sagan's advice. Also there is an alien star baby in the end.	3comment
4861	[Debunk this]Carl Sagan settled an argument between Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke about how aliens should look in their film 2001	Frewin says > SK was exploring ideas for the aliens later in 1965 and through 1966 ... None of this would have been done had SK followed Sagan's advice. The baby at the end is not an alien. David Bowman is an old man at the end and then becomes the baby.	3comment
4862	[Debunk this]Carl Sagan settled an argument between Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke about how aliens should look in their film 2001	The star child is an immortal being that is a fusion of Bowman and alien influence via the monolith. I don't think the result is terrestrial. So is that not an E.T?	3comment
4863	[Debunk this]Carl Sagan settled an argument between Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke about how aliens should look in their film 2001	Whatever. It's irrelevant to what Kubrick's aide Frewin said.	3comment
4864	[Debunk this]Carl Sagan settled an argument between Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke about how aliens should look in their film 2001	Please explain why both can't be true. They are not mutually exclusive positions. Kubrick worked on alien concepts and also considered Carl Sagan's recommendation not to show them. The idea that none of this would have been done if Kubrick followed Sagan's is false. He could still have gone ahead and looked at possible aliens but eventually agreed with Sagan's view.	2query
4865	[Debunk this]Carl Sagan settled an argument between Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke about how aliens should look in their film 2001	>Kubrick ... considered Carl Sagan's recommendations. I have no idea where you got that. Batman, you bullshitted us on the Susan Blackmore thread. You still haven't answered my question there: >I said, at what point in the video (minutes:seconds) does an expert say the sequence has been replicated? I don't have time for this.	3comment
4866	[Debunk this]Carl Sagan settled an argument between Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke about how aliens should look in their film 2001	Like I thought. The positions are not mutually exclusive. As for the other thread. Susan Blackmore can claim all she wants that OBE's haven't been replicated. They have been. Straussman's DMT experiments did exactly that. I certainly don't think you debunked Sagan here at all.	3comment
4867	[Debunk this]Carl Sagan settled an argument between Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke about how aliens should look in their film 2001	> at what point in the video (minutes:seconds)	3comment
4868	[Debunk this]Carl Sagan settled an argument between Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke about how aliens should look in their film 2001	[Here](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23881860) is the science paper. Rick Strassman - DMT The Spirit Molecule - A Doctor's Revolutionary Research into the Biology of Near-Death and Mystical Experiences, 320 pages, Park Street Press, 2001, ISBN 0-89281-927-8 is the book. The video would have been easier but there you go.	3comment
4869	[Debunk this]Carl Sagan settled an argument between Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke about how aliens should look in their film 2001	Batman, you don't provide a quotation in which the author refutes Blackmore. Yes, she says the events can be duplicated other ways but not the sequence.	3comment
4870	Is it true police officers must hit a quota at the end of every month? Why?	It depends on the laws of the state usually.	3comment
4871	Is it true police officers must hit a quota at the end of every month? Why?	How else would you measure a cop's job performance?	2query
4872	Is it true police officers must hit a quota at the end of every month? Why?	Most departments don't have a true quota, but officers are expected to generate revenue through ticketing.	3comment
4873	Is it true police officers must hit a quota at the end of every month? Why?	Fair, respectful, reflective performance assessments which are employee-driven and based on best-practices derived from evidence-based evaluation criteria that focus on not just a single metric (like arrests, which are mutually exclusive from the officer and therefore aren't a fair measurement) and....shit, where was I going with that? I was typing away and this loud ad for Space Force started autoplaying and forgot what I was yammering on about. You know what we need? Space prison.	3comment
4874	Is it true police officers must hit a quota at the end of every month? Why?	Thanos bro	3comment
4875	Is it true police officers must hit a quota at the end of every month? Why?	Yes in a city where I live, they occasionally post a man on every corner of an intersection for 4-5 blocks to ticket jay walkers once a month.	3comment
4876	Is it true police officers must hit a quota at the end of every month? Why?	Cop here: No. I've made maybe 3 traffic stops this month.	3comment
4877	Is it true police officers must hit a quota at the end of every month? Why?	How is this possible	3comment
4878	Is it true police officers must hit a quota at the end of every month? Why?	Contrary to what people think, our job isn't to go out and pull people over. 90% of my day is answering 911 calls.	3comment

4800

Would Labour win if young people voted?

>that if we're going to make 18 year olds We don't "make" 18 year olds do that. Or do we still have conscription that hasn't stopped from WW2 yet? Maybe I am behind the times on this policy, enlighten me.

3comment

4801

Would Labour win if young people voted?

The real question is; would young people be as shafted as they are now, if their turnout was as big as the older generations?

1deny

4802

Would Labour win if young people voted?

I have to say, whilst I admire the effort this is basically worthless because it only corrects for differential turnout between different age groups and not for differential turnout within them. Whilst the conclusion might be correct (I've no idea) the model sadly isn't.

3comment

4803

Would Labour win if young people voted?

Right now we don't "make" 18 year olds fight, but we have done and probably will do.

3comment

4804

Would Labour win if young people voted?

Thats what "simple and rough" means. I would expect turnout within age groups to be a second order effect of a magnitude less than that between groups. I am not aware of any evidence which shows that young tories are more or less likely to vote than young labour supports.

3comment

4805

Would Labour win if young people voted?

So Labour lose in every single scenario? Good. (Also, thanks for putting the time and effort into this, it's interesting.)

3comment

4806

Would Labour win if young people voted?

Second year student here, can confirm.

0support

4807

Would Labour win if young people voted?

[deleted]

3comment

4808

Would Labour win if young people voted?

It's unsurprising. Ed Miliband had all the charisma of a damp sock and spent all of his time agreeing with Cameron and co. Still, good work on crunching the numbers OP. It was like watching this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQY-wMdtGHU

3comment

4809

Would Labour win if young people voted?

Well, perhaps, but it could equally well be described as 'simplistic and inaccurate'. Turnout varies enormously by social grade, with 72% turnout from those in grade AB and 57% turnout from those in DE. AB voters lean Conservative (45% Con, 26% Lab) and DE voters lean Labour (27% Con, 41% Lab). Both groups account for roughly 25% of the population. So it's entirely possible that if you accounted for differential turnout according to both age and social class, you'd get a different result, and find that uniform turnout would have changed the results (ie voters represented a skewed sample of the electorate). To do that meaningfully you'd need (good) polling data dividing the population up by both criteria, though, and I'm not sure such data exists.

3comment

4810

Would Labour win if young people voted?

I'm not sure I agree, the party support percentages were based on polling, which presumably included non voters, so the case where everyone votes should not suffer from this issue.

1deny

4811

Would Labour win if young people voted?

Sorry, which party support percentages?

2query

4812

Would Labour win if young people voted?

> I'd say the majority of 16 year olds have no idea about politics and how it affects them. At what age do does this stop?

3comment

4813

Would Labour win if young people voted?

2014 EU Elections

3comment

4814

Would Labour win if young people voted?

The figures in the 2nd table.

3comment

4815

Would Labour win if young people voted?

That doesn't include non-voters. It is a description of 'how Britain voted', after all.

3comment

4816

Would Labour win if young people voted?

This is just a consequence of demographics, the younger age groups are really small compared to the older ones [as you can see here.](https://i.gyazo.com/9012a105b15db0798ecf96ec1e03572e.png) 18-44-year-olds are 45% of the electorate, Labour need to win with the older demographics if they are to win the election, simply doing well with 18-34-year-olds, which are only 28% of the electorate isn't enough.

3comment

4817

Would Labour win if young people voted?

Greens have a long base in the anti war movement and environmental politics (shockingly). Those people arent going to turn tory as they get old or are at least very unlikely to. The lib dems/non-corbyn labour/conservatives/ ukip all over lap in some areas (whether they like it or not). And this is where people often move parties.

3comment

4818

Would Labour win if young people voted?

I'm 28 and I'd vote for that.

3comment

4819

Would Labour win if young people voted?

Considering that all things being equal young people *become* older people, no.

1deny

4820

Would Labour win if young people voted?

Just compare what has/is happening to the policies that effect young people - university tuition fees, [cuts to spending affects them most](http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/oct/21/teenagers-spending-cuts-warning), unable to own a house, junior doctors' contracts etc., and what old people are getting... triple-lock pensions, a (overvalued) house (/mortgage repayments - not controlled by the government etc. The benefits the elderly have to do will not be reaped by the old people of tomorrow.

3comment

4821

Would Labour win if young people voted?

>16 year olds can join the armed forces, should we allow them to vote? 16 year olds can't be deployed in a warzone, so no.

1deny

4822

Would Labour win if young people voted?

> The benefits the elderly have to do will not be reaped by the old people of tomorrow. Except that people vote more as they age, which means that new policies that benefit them will be needed if parties are to get these ever ageing people to vote for them. So whilst they might not have identical policies benefiting them, they will have other policies benefiting them. I'm annoyed that I've been downvoted for this as it isn't a difficult point to understand and it is objectively and necessarily correct. Young people, en masse, get older.

3comment

4823

Would Labour win if young people voted?

Bu they'll still be worse off because of today's policy changes. Also, how sustainable due you think the policies the elderly receive are? As you said they won't have today's policies, but similar if not greatly different, policies - which will not be as good as today's. Furthermore, it's dependent on that they'll vote more as they get older, they still might be politically apathetic. If it helps, I haven't downvoted you...

3comment

4824

Would Labour win if young people voted?

> Bu they'll still be worse off because of today's policy changes. Yes, for a time, until they become part of a voting block that votes in greater numbers in which case their needs will be better served. > how sustainable due you think the policies the elderly receive are? As sustainable as any Ponzi scheme. > As you said they won't have today's policies, but similar if not greatly different, policies - which will not be as good as today's. So they won't do as well, they'll just do well. > Furthermore, it's dependent on that they'll vote more as they get older, they still might be politically apathetic. There is no reason to believe that just because previous generations have done so that future ones will also, but it is a reasonable supposition. > If it helps, I haven't downvoted you... Thanks, I wish more people were like you.

3comment

4825

Brits of Reddit, is it true that when you're done eating, you must place your cutlery together on the same side of the plate? What are other little things like that non-Brits might not know?

Uhh... no it's not true. I usually cross them over the plate if I'm honest, but it's not really something I do consciously, they need to go somewhere after all.

1deny

4826

Brits of Reddit, is it true that when you're done eating, you must place your cutlery together on the same side of the plate? What are other little things like that non-Brits might not know?

I'm not aware of this being a requirement, I just do it out of habit and tidiness.

3comment

4827

Brits of Reddit, is it true that when you're done eating, you must place your cutlery together on the same side of the plate? What are other little things like that non-Brits might not know?

That's what you do in a restaurant, to indicate that you're finished. We don't have that rule at home.

0support

4828

Brits of Reddit, is it true that when you're done eating, you must place your cutlery together on the same side of the plate? What are other little things like that non-Brits might not know?

I was taught to do that when I was like 5 years old. Not only Brits do that. It's a matter of tidiness and dining table etiquette.

3comment

4829

Brits of Reddit, is it true that when you're done eating, you must place your cutlery together on the same side of the plate? What are other little things like that non-Brits might not know?

exactly, it’s just what you are told to do in formal situations

0support

4830

Brits of Reddit, is it true that when you're done eating, you must place your cutlery together on the same side of the plate? What are other little things like that non-Brits might not know?

If your plate is a clock face then the cutlery should be together at 4.20

3comment

4831

Like in movies, Is it true when police are locating a phone call they need around 25 seconds to locate it ?

lol, maybe 20 years ago it worked like that, now it's instant.

3comment

4832

Like in movies, Is it true when police are locating a phone call they need around 25 seconds to locate it ?

Your phone constantly pings gps coordinates back to the network.

3comment

4833

Like in movies, Is it true when police are locating a phone call they need around 25 seconds to locate it ?

Yes but what about landlines (not VOIP) and phone-boot ?

3comment

4834

Like in movies, Is it true when police are locating a phone call they need around 25 seconds to locate it ?

Cop here: No. It's instant or doesn't work at all.

1deny

4835

Like in movies, Is it true when police are locating a phone call they need around 25 seconds to locate it ?

Thanks !

3comment

4836

What exactly is happening when you crack your joints, and is it true that it can cause arthritis?

cracking your joints does not cause arthritis, that is an old wives tale

1deny

4837

What exactly is happening when you crack your joints, and is it true that it can cause arthritis?

The fluid is squeezed and makes a popping noise. No, it’s not inherently bad for you.

3comment

4838

What exactly is happening when you crack your joints, and is it true that it can cause arthritis?

But how do you know for sure?

2query

4839

What exactly is happening when you crack your joints, and is it true that it can cause arthritis?

Caused by gas bubbles building up between the joints, and no, it can't.

3comment

4840

What exactly is happening when you crack your joints, and is it true that it can cause arthritis?

Because we have been told so since my youth. I am 50.

3comment

4841

What exactly is happening when you crack your joints, and is it true that it can cause arthritis?

True.

3comment

4842

What exactly is happening when you crack your joints, and is it true that it can cause arthritis?

Popping and clicking body parts may be a symptom of arthritis and like scratching an itch it may very well indeed exacerbate the symptoms. Who knows. I think science may some day prove a lot of these hunches we have. If I were you I would just exercise and practice good posture and try not to think about your joints.

3comment

4843

What exactly is happening when you crack your joints, and is it true that it can cause arthritis?

Fair enough. I accept that.

3comment

4844

What exactly is happening when you crack your joints, and is it true that it can cause arthritis?

Great advice. Thank you

3comment

4845

What exactly is happening when you crack your joints, and is it true that it can cause arthritis?

There's been several studies that investigated that possible link, and even [Harvard Medical](https://www.health.harvard.edu/pain/does-knuckle-cracking-cause-arthritis) concludes it most likely does **not** contribute significantly to arthritis.

3comment

4846

"Cancer is a fungus" - this idea from the 60s is apparently receiving new attention. Please advise.

To me, it seems ridiculously far-fetched, but I'm trying to be subjective. (Which is hard, considering that Mr. Icke treats the lizard-men myth, among others, with the same respect as this.) Many readers of pop-sci literature will be familiar with [Henrietta Lacks](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrietta_Lacks), whose tumor cells are widely reproduced - wouldn't somebody have noticed that these cells have non-human DNA? I would like to get some facts in, and good explanations that illustrate it to the lay-person. This link has been posted to the usually high-quality /r/RedditDayOf, and I think it'd be a shame if someone took the whole thing at face value.

3comment

4847

"Cancer is a fungus" - this idea from the 60s is apparently receiving new attention. Please advise.

There's a long (little bit older) debunking [here at scienceblogs](http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/08/07/a-fungus-among-us-in-oncology/)

3comment

4848

"Cancer is a fungus" - this idea from the 60s is apparently receiving new attention. Please advise.

Sequencing a tissue a tissue sample would put this to rest. Luckily that's already been done thousands of times in order to identify risk associated genetic markers for cancer. This research is carried out by universities, not the 'oh so evil pharma'. It would be immediately obvious if you found fungal DNA rather than mammalian material. This isn't even including all the chemical stains you could perform to identify whether a sample is a human cells or fungal cells. Maybe we should add radium to his food, as long as he has his sodium bicarbonate he should be fine right?

3comment

4849

"Cancer is a fungus" - this idea from the 60s is apparently receiving new attention. Please advise.

> but I'm trying to be subjective Do you mean objective? Just wow, there is so much wrong with this article I don't even know where to begin. I just found this subreddit today and I think I should maybe stay away from it. These articles are bad for my blood pressure.

3comment

4850

"Cancer is a fungus" - this idea from the 60s is apparently receiving new attention. Please advise.

David Icke was where i stopped reading

3comment

4851

"Cancer is a fungus" - this idea from the 60s is apparently receiving new attention. Please advise.

[removed]

3comment

4852

"Cancer is a fungus" - this idea from the 60s is apparently receiving new attention. Please advise.

Oops, of course. Apparently big words aren't so much my thing.

3comment

4853

"Cancer is a fungus" - this idea from the 60s is apparently receiving new attention. Please advise.

Maybe cancer is fungal in lizard men?

2query

4854

"Cancer is a fungus" - this idea from the 60s is apparently receiving new attention. Please advise.

Didn't he briefly claim to be a messiah or something?

3comment

4855

"Cancer is a fungus" - this idea from the 60s is apparently receiving new attention. Please advise.

Assuming that this article is correct and that cancer is caused by the *candida* fungus, the number of fallacious arguments proposed by Icke is numerous but should be considered not surprising considering his other beliefs and "support" he brings up for them. From the unsubstantiated claims throughout the article, to pathetically weak appeals to authority and complete misunderstandings of Tullio Simoncini's research, and oncology, its fairly obvious that Icke is merely trying to stir up trouble where non need be stirred up.

3comment

4856

Is it true there has never been a war between two democracies? Yes! Israel's no longer democracy.

False. The first step in one democracy declaring war on another is to carefully define democracy in such a way that it excludes your opponent. In this instance, you have chosen to define Israel as not a democracy.

1deny

4857

Is it true there has never been a war between two democracies? Yes! Israel's no longer democracy.

This is disgraceful. Israel has the chance to be a beacon of democracy in the middle east and/or a stable homeland for the Jewish people, but actions like this don't help either endeavor.

3comment

4858

Is it true there has never been a war between two democracies? Yes! Israel's no longer democracy.

Israel never really was a democracy. The government was formed as a quasi-democratic socialist (Zionist) entity by the leaders of various factions, unions, military, etc -- and for decades leaders have always been selected from that small group: Ben Gurion (from the Hagana/Histadrut), Menachem Begin (from the Irgun), Ariel Sharon (military), etc.

0support

4859

Is it true there has never been a war between two democracies? Yes! Israel's no longer democracy.

You beat me to it.

3comment

4860

[Debunk this]Carl Sagan settled an argument between Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke about how aliens should look in their film 2001

I don't see a conflict here. Both can be true. SK worked on an alien concept and took Sagan's advice. Also there is an alien star baby in the end.

3comment

4861

[Debunk this]Carl Sagan settled an argument between Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke about how aliens should look in their film 2001

Frewin says > SK was exploring ideas for the aliens later in 1965 and through 1966 ... None of this would have been done had SK followed Sagan's advice. The baby at the end is not an alien. David Bowman is an old man at the end and then becomes the baby.

3comment

4862

[Debunk this]Carl Sagan settled an argument between Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke about how aliens should look in their film 2001

The star child is an immortal being that is a fusion of Bowman and alien influence via the monolith. I don't think the result is terrestrial. So is that not an E.T?

3comment

4863

[Debunk this]Carl Sagan settled an argument between Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke about how aliens should look in their film 2001

Whatever. It's irrelevant to what Kubrick's aide Frewin said.

3comment

4864

[Debunk this]Carl Sagan settled an argument between Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke about how aliens should look in their film 2001

Please explain why both can't be true. They are not mutually exclusive positions. Kubrick worked on alien concepts and also considered Carl Sagan's recommendation not to show them. The idea that none of this would have been done if Kubrick followed Sagan's is false. He could still have gone ahead and looked at possible aliens but eventually agreed with Sagan's view.

2query

4865

[Debunk this]Carl Sagan settled an argument between Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke about how aliens should look in their film 2001

>Kubrick ... considered Carl Sagan's recommendations. I have no idea where you got that. Batman, you bullshitted us on the Susan Blackmore thread. You still haven't answered my question there: >I said, **at what point in the video (minutes:seconds)** does an expert say the sequence has been replicated? I don't have time for this.

3comment

4866

[Debunk this]Carl Sagan settled an argument between Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke about how aliens should look in their film 2001

Like I thought. The positions are not mutually exclusive. As for the other thread. Susan Blackmore can claim all she wants that OBE's haven't been replicated. They have been. Straussman's DMT experiments did exactly that. I certainly don't think you debunked Sagan here at all.

3comment

4867

[Debunk this]Carl Sagan settled an argument between Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke about how aliens should look in their film 2001

> **at what point in the video (minutes:seconds)**

3comment

4868

[Debunk this]Carl Sagan settled an argument between Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke about how aliens should look in their film 2001

[Here](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23881860) is the science paper. Rick Strassman - DMT The Spirit Molecule - A Doctor's Revolutionary **Research into the Biology of Near-Death** and Mystical Experiences, 320 pages, Park Street Press, 2001, ISBN 0-89281-927-8 is the book. The video would have been easier but there you go.

3comment

4869

[Debunk this]Carl Sagan settled an argument between Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke about how aliens should look in their film 2001

Batman, you don't provide a quotation in which the author refutes Blackmore. Yes, she says the events can be duplicated other ways **but not the sequence.**

3comment

4870

Is it true police officers must hit a quota at the end of every month? Why?

It depends on the laws of the state usually.

3comment

4871

Is it true police officers must hit a quota at the end of every month? Why?

How else would you measure a cop's job performance?

2query

4872

Is it true police officers must hit a quota at the end of every month? Why?

Most departments don't have a true quota, but officers are expected to generate revenue through ticketing.

3comment

4873

Is it true police officers must hit a quota at the end of every month? Why?

Fair, respectful, reflective performance assessments which are employee-driven and based on best-practices derived from evidence-based evaluation criteria that focus on not just a single metric (like arrests, which are mutually exclusive from the officer and therefore aren't a fair measurement) and....shit, where was I going with that? I was typing away and this loud ad for Space Force started autoplaying and forgot what I was yammering on about. You know what we need? Space prison.

3comment

4874

Is it true police officers must hit a quota at the end of every month? Why?

Thanos bro

3comment

4875

Is it true police officers must hit a quota at the end of every month? Why?

Yes in a city where I live, they occasionally post a man on every corner of an intersection for 4-5 blocks to ticket jay walkers once a month.

3comment

4876

Is it true police officers must hit a quota at the end of every month? Why?

Cop here: No. I've made maybe 3 traffic stops this month.

3comment

4877

Is it true police officers must hit a quota at the end of every month? Why?

How is this possible

3comment

4878

Is it true police officers must hit a quota at the end of every month? Why?

Contrary to what people think, our job isn't to go out and pull people over. 90% of my day is answering 911 calls.

3comment