7% of Americans actually think chocolate milk comes from brown cows...

[Deuces ll]

I have chocolate milk with my corn flakes every morning... Yummy!😋

[Snake45]

And I'll bet that more than 7% of Americans think the electricity for electric cars will come from...wait for it..."the wall." 

[Rodent]

25 minutes ago, Deuces ll said:

I have chocolate milk with my corn flakes every morning... Yummy!😋

I must admit that I bought 6 boxes of Count Chocula when it was available at Halloween.

[Deuces ll]

Great stuff!.... I also pour chocolate milk on Frosted Flakes... They're GREAT!.....😁👍

[Ace-Garageguy]

48 minutes ago, Snake45 said:

And I'll bet that more than 7% of Americans think the electricity for electric cars will come from...wait for it..."the wall." 

I once heard a twinkie at a car show pontificating on the virtues of electric cars, and how all the gas guzzling hot-rods were destroying the planet.

I acted interested and asked him where the electricity came from. "Well, you, like, plug it in".

So I asked him how it got to the plug. "It's in the wires."

OK. How did it get in the wires? "It's just there"...said like I must be the dumbest guy on Earth..

Edited May 20, 2021 by Ace-Garageguy
TYPO

[JollySipper]

30 minutes ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

I once heard a twinkie at a car show pontificating

I have this saying....... "The less people know, the louder they know it".

 

[Snake45]

1 hour ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

OK. How did it get in the wires? "It's just there"...said like I must be the dumbest guy on Earth..

Was his name Tesla? 

If not, maybe he was a government economist. 

[Mark]

You should have asked him, "what if there's a kink in the wire that won't let the electric through?"

[Tom Geiger]

Many years ago I was putting in a new outlet. My wife’s brother is mechanically inept and told me to stop, I was going to get electrocuted!  
 

I told him it wasn’t an issue because the power was off. His response, “What about the electricity that’s still in the wires!”

I had a lamp in the room so I told him I had already drained the wires with that lamp. That satisfied him!

[Snake45]

18 minutes ago, Tom Geiger said:

Many years ago I was putting in a new outlet. My wife’s brother is mechanically inept and told me to stop, I was going to get electrocuted!  
 

I told him it wasn’t an issue because the power was off. His response, “What about the electricity that’s still in the wires!”

I had a lamp in the room so I told him I had already drained the wires with that lamp. That satisfied him!

Sometimes there's nothing you can do but just lean into the stupid. 

[Brian Austin]

Three pages in and I'm the only one seriously questioning the validity of the survey or its reporting?  The video is less than a minute long.  It says nothing regarding the methodology of the survey.  The report spins the narrative of the supposed stupidity of people in general, and you guys just ran with it without question.

 

The article linked below discusses the survey, and the fact that its methodology is kept secret.  That renders the supposed survey unscientific IMHO.  MYTHBUSTERS took great pains to show how the scientific process works to yield useful results.  This "survey" lacks credit.  Who were the people surveyed?  What were their backgrounds?

...............

https://www.livescience.com/59666-do-people-believe-chocolate-milk-from-brown-cows.html

"...Indeed, early media coverage focused on the 7 percent statistic but left out the fact that 48 percent of respondents said they don't know where chocolate milk comes from. This gives context to the 7 percent number. While it's conceivable that 7 percent of the population doesn't know that chocolate milk is just milk with chocolate, the idea that a full 55 percent — over half of adults — don't know or gave an incorrect response begins to strain credulity. This points toward a confusing survey question.

 

We reached out to Lisa McComb, the senior vice president of communications for Dairy Management, Inc., about the survey. She confirmed that it's not publicly available. “The purpose of the survey was to gauge some interesting and fun facts about consumers' perceptions of dairy, not a scientific or academic study intended to be published,” she told us. ..."

.......................

So, basically the video posted at the head of this thread is a several-year-old useless report of a pointless "survey".  The average person is probably not as stupid as you think.  You folk are average people, right?

[Snake45]

6 minutes ago, Brian Austin said:

Three pages in and I'm the only one seriously questioning the validity of the survey or its reporting? ....The average person is probably not as stupid as you think.  You folk are average people, right?

One need only turn on a TV, read a newspaper, or just watch people in everyday life to see just how far "average" has fallen. 

[Brian Austin]

The problem with surveys is how the questions are formulated and communicated, and then how the responses are communicated and noted.   Language can get distorted for any number of reasons.  I just recently saw a great video on Adam Savage's YT channel addressing a certain myth that has caused much heated argument some years ago in the MYTHBUSTERS show history.  Note here that Adam cuts to the core of the story.  All it comes down to the language of the question, and he stresses that those who disagree with his conclusions aren't stupid,  but just misunderstand the surprisingly complex question in the first place.

 

 

[peteski]

On 5/19/2021 at 4:52 PM, John1955 said:

Actual hot dogs are supposed to made of pork, NOT beef. The origin is traced back to the 13th century, to Wurstchen. They were pork sausages similar in size to modern hot dogs and called Frankfurters. Beef hot dogs are tasty but are not real hot dogs as they were originally intended and few people can afford to buy 100% beef 'hot dogs' anyway. 

Problem with pork is that it is not Kosher. I suspect that all-beef hot dogs are result of creative merchandising to the part of the population that does not eat pork (for whatever reasons).  Chicken and turkey got added to the mix later again, due to creative merchandising to  the health-conscious folks, as poultry is generally considered to be more healthy than beef or pork meat.  Now we also have meatless hot dogs. Again, more creative merchandising to vegetarians and vegans among us.  Funny thing is that those meatless dogs are usually more expensive than the "real thing".

We joke about what goes into hod dogs while there are plenty of authentic Asian dishes which use ingredients that would turn your stomach.  And even Scottish people have their haggis. Look it up.  And you thought hot dogs were bad . . .

Then there is the head cheese.  No there is no brain in it, but some people would find what is used unsavory.

I'm first generation Pole, and as a kid I used to eat some things like beef tongue, horse sausage, and kidney stew (to name a few) which most American would find unsavory.  But my parents and grandparents eat things that seem much more disgusting.   Things like fish heads in a chowder (sucking the gills and brains out of them), sauteed brain, tripe, chicken feet, giblets, etc.  Especially in poor countries, there isn't much wasted when it comes to food.  And no, there was no such thing as "dog food" in Poland at that time, so most animal parts were consumed by humans.  Pets got table scraps.

Any of you like Jello or gummy bears?  Look up where gelatin comes from.

[John1955]

Very true comments, Peter, well said. I'll add that we don't want to see the kitchens of our favorite restaurants either. And I don't mean fast food joints, I mean your favorite family owned ones. In fact, as a general rule, fast food is usually safer than meals at smaller establishments is, less chance of Salmonella and E. coli. Thinking back to my childhood, I'm not sure I want or need to know exactly how my mom made her delicious homemade gravies but I do know that she saved fat/grease etc and that she fried eggs in bacon grease. They were fantastic! None of us kids ever died from her cooking or became overweight. 

I pay little attention to the health police anyway, I can recall when we were warned that ALL dairy products were harmful, then they changed their minds, then they changed their minds again. Years ago, the health police warned us that turkey was BAD, now they've changed their minds. Wheat is bad, beef and pork is BAD, sugar is BAD, sodium is BAD, on and on ad nauseum, blah blah blah. Coffee is harmful, no it isn't, yes it is. Caffeine will kill you, no it won't, yes it will. I suggest that a lot of people in this world need to find better ways to spend their time than going out of their way to find more things to worry about and keep their gloom and doom attitudes to themselves. 
 

[Lunajammer]

On 5/22/2021 at 8:38 PM, Brian Austin said:

So, basically the video posted at the head of this thread is a several-year-old useless report of a pointless "survey".  The average person is probably not as stupid as you think.  You folk are average people, right?

Having come to this thread a few days late, I too was wondering why nobody was questioning the language of the survey. If it was multiple choice, and one of the answers was "...comes from brown cows" then you could guarantee that 7-percent of a thousand people will be smart alecks and pick that answer. Heck 7-percent aren't even likely to answer any of it honestly or seriously.

[Spex84]

Just wanted to comment on the methodology thing: according to census.gov and the 2010 census results, roughly 7% of the US population is 7 years old or younger.

I'm gonna cut those 6-year-olds a break. They'll learn where chocolate milk comes from eventually.

But seriously, if it was 7% of adult respondents, and the sample group was like 100 people, and 7 out of the hundred decide that messing with the survey would be fun, well....I remember reading a comment somewhere from a guy who claimed that when his grade 9 class was surveyed about their cohort's drug use, they happily checked off every drug known to man 😄 I would have done the same (as long as it was anonymous, haha)!

Everything in moderation. That includes sodium, outrage, and model cars 😜 Oh, and cursive?? What are ya, a hipster?

[Ace-Garageguy]

On 5/22/2021 at 10:58 PM, Brian Austin said:

...All it comes down to the language of the question, and he stresses that those who disagree with his conclusions aren't stupid,  but just misunderstand the surprisingly complex question in the first place

Nope. Anyone who thinks this question is "surprisingly complex" has zero understanding of why an aircraft flies and the elementary school physics involved. (Well...maybe it was elementary when there was still a functioning primary education system; I knew this by the sixth grade.)

An aircraft's ground speed has absolutely no bearing on its ability to take off. The speed of air moving over its wing is the only factor that needs to be considered to answer this silly question, but the fact there's even a controversy clearly illustrates the appalling lack of basic scientific literacy among the general populace.

EDIT: ...and what used to fall under the heading of "common knowledge". How many people mistakenly believe that "the sun is not a star"?  How many can explain in simple terms how electricity is generated, or how an internal combustion engine works? How many know that water is endlessly recycled by nature? Again, these concepts (and dozens more) of the functioning of the world around us were imparted to me and my classmates by the sixth grade.

Scientific Literacy: How Do Americans Stack Up?   (as of 2007, and you can bet it's worse now)

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070218134322.htm

Edited May 24, 2021 by Ace-Garageguy
TYPO

[NOBLNG]

53 minutes ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

An aircraft's ground speed has absolutely no bearing on its ability to take off. The speed of air moving over its wing is the only factor that needs to be considered to answer this silly question, but the fact there's even a controversy clearly illustrates the appalling lack of basic scientific literacy among the general populace.

Exactly! I don’t know why it took Adam Savage 11 minutes to explain that? Those who disagree with the facts are not dumb, just uneducated....or unwilling to be educated.🤨

Edited May 24, 2021 by NOBLNG

[Snake45]

1 hour ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

Nope. Anyone who thinks this question is "surprisingly complex" has zero understanding of why an aircraft flies and the elementary school physics involved. (Well...maybe it was elementary when there was still a functioning primary education system; I knew this by the sixth grade.)

An aircraft's ground speed has absolutely no bearing on its ability to take off. The speed of air moving over its wing is the only factor that needs to be considered to answer this silly question, but the fact there's even a controversy clearly illustrates the appalling lack of basic scientific literacy among the general populace.

You are of course correct. If you have enough "headwind," you can take an airplane off--or land it--with zero ground speed, or nearly so. This is why aircraft carriers always (if possible) steam into the wind for aircraft launch and recovery operations. Speed of the ship into the headwind adds just that much headwind vector, and lowers necessary airspeeds. 

I went on U2be and watched not just the discussion, but the actual test with the real airplane. Wind speed at time of test was zero (or so he said, and I'll so stipulate). In other words, the air speed is the same as the ground speed--zero--except for the propwash, and I doubt that little ultralight produced anywhere near the propwash necessary to produce enough airspeed over the wings for flight (there would of course be some right at the roots). 

They had orange traffic cones laid out on the stationary ground next to the "conveyor belt" (tarp being pulled backward by a truck). In at least two scenes you can clearly see the airplane moving forward relative to the cones, meaning it was moving forward faster than the tarp was moving backward--meaning it had net forward ground speed and thus net airflow over the wings. Clearly it developed enough forward speed to take off. In fact, it was a completely normal takeoff except the airplane wheels would have been turning twice as fast (roughly) as usual.

Some of the commenters called this out. 

I don't believe Jamie proved what he thought he proved. 

Edited May 24, 2021 by Snake45

[Ace-Garageguy]

3 minutes ago, Snake45 said:

You are of course correct. If you have enough "headwind," you can take an airplane off--or land it--with zero ground speed, or nearly so. This is why aircraft carriers always (if possible) steam into the wind for aircraft launch and recovery operations. Speed of the ship into the headwind adds just that much headwind vector, and lowers necessary airspeeds. Etc.   

Exactly.

Interesting aside...I've seen a couple of very light but high-horsepower STOL aircraft that were swinging big props take off apparently flying backwards (to the casual onlooker) while pointed into a stiff headwind.

I've also flown an old Cub into a strong headwind, and at a few thousand feet, the apparent groundspeed seemed to be about zero.

While cruise speed is around 70 MPH, they don't stall 'til down around 35 or 40, so it's easy to see that at a low power setting flying into a stiff breeze, you could look down and feel like you were getting nowhere.    

[Snake45]

1 minute ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

I've seen a couple of very light but high-horsepower STOL aircraft that were swinging big props take off apparently flying backwards (to the casual onlooker) while pointed into a stiff headwind.

I've not only seen it, but done it. My Dad used to fly Pilatus Turbo-Porters. 

[Ace-Garageguy]

2 minutes ago, Snake45 said:

...My Dad used to fly Pilatus Turbo-Porters. 

Excellent. That, sir, is one seriously cool airplane.    

[stitchdup]

12 minutes ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

Exactly.

Interesting aside...I've seen a couple of very light but high-horsepower STOL aircraft that were swinging big props take off apparently flying backwards (to the casual onlooker) while pointed into a stiff headwind.

I've also flown an old Cub into a strong headwind, and at a few thousand feet, the apparent groundspeed seemed to be about zero.

While cruise speed is around 70 MPH, they don't stall 'til down around 35 or 40, so it's easy to see that at a low power setting flying into a stiff breeze, you could look down and feel like you were getting nowhere.    

I've been on many britten norman islander aircraft and experienced some extremely short take offs and landings, usually in muddy fields. One of my usual flights is a the worlds shortest commercial flight, lasting less than a minute. We also had a vintage plane land at our vintage rally one year and it seemed to stop before it landed.

[Snake45]

21 minutes ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

Excellent. That, sir, is one seriously cool airplane.    

At one point, Dad was flying the airplane on the cover of the sales brochure. I still have it around here somewhere (and the Fokker F.28 brochure he got Elvis to autograph).