Editing Talk:2551: Debunking
|
Please sign your posts with ~~~~ |
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
In the table it is mentioned that normal offices do not have microwave radiation. However, mobile phones use frequencies in the microwave band for communication. The same holds true for wireless networks (2.4 or 5 GHz is microwave radiation). [[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.183|162.158.92.183]] 10:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC) | In the table it is mentioned that normal offices do not have microwave radiation. However, mobile phones use frequencies in the microwave band for communication. The same holds true for wireless networks (2.4 or 5 GHz is microwave radiation). [[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.183|162.158.92.183]] 10:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC) | ||
:Is the 'number of microwaves' in the headline a reference to intensity of electromagnetic oscillations, or is it intended to be short for 'microwave ovens'? I had totally assumed the former (especially given the context). The idea that it could be referencing an appliance did not occur to me at all until reading the suggestion in the table that there would normally be "zero, with perhaps one or two in a break area," which took me a few beats to process. Personally I'm more fond of my original interpretation, but I'm starting to feel that it could be, uhm, debunked (although I suppose with digital technology and the right junction bandgap 'microwave photos' could be a thing). | :Is the 'number of microwaves' in the headline a reference to intensity of electromagnetic oscillations, or is it intended to be short for 'microwave ovens'? I had totally assumed the former (especially given the context). The idea that it could be referencing an appliance did not occur to me at all until reading the suggestion in the table that there would normally be "zero, with perhaps one or two in a break area," which took me a few beats to process. Personally I'm more fond of my original interpretation, but I'm starting to feel that it could be, uhm, debunked (although I suppose with digital technology and the right junction bandgap 'microwave photos' could be a thing). | ||
| β | |||
The Dorito debunking may be related to a rumour you can find via the search term dorito-powder-hoax. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.161|162.158.90.161]] 10:45, 7 December 2021 (UTC) | The Dorito debunking may be related to a rumour you can find via the search term dorito-powder-hoax. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.161|162.158.90.161]] 10:45, 7 December 2021 (UTC) | ||
: I'm thinking the headline would be along the lines of Doritos, the company, intentionally making powder that somehow defies gravity in order to cause irritation to consumers of the chips, in some kind of exotic mass social experiment about people's addiction to chips vs their exposure to unpleasant hygiene. I'm betting that most of the headlines here are some kind of 'extremification' of existing conspiracies. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.105|172.70.114.105]] 11:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC) | : I'm thinking the headline would be along the lines of Doritos, the company, intentionally making powder that somehow defies gravity in order to cause irritation to consumers of the chips, in some kind of exotic mass social experiment about people's addiction to chips vs their exposure to unpleasant hygiene. I'm betting that most of the headlines here are some kind of 'extremification' of existing conspiracies. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.105|172.70.114.105]] 11:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC) | ||
| β | |||
I think Randall missed an opportunity here to tie this into the Real Name of the Bear comics - refuting a conspiracy theory about bears while simultaneously refusing to name the theory or the animal involved. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.75.97|162.158.75.97]] 11:39, 7 December 2021 (UTC)Pat | I think Randall missed an opportunity here to tie this into the Real Name of the Bear comics - refuting a conspiracy theory about bears while simultaneously refusing to name the theory or the animal involved. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.75.97|162.158.75.97]] 11:39, 7 December 2021 (UTC)Pat | ||
