• noobface@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      6 days ago

      That’s actually just the first part of the phrase. The whole thing is “je ne suis pas français, chappeau”

      edit: Ok this was supposed to be a joke about mansplaining something you know nothing about, but we fell into Poe’s law.

      • Victor@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        7 days ago

        just the first part of the phrase

        Seems to me like it was the last part of the phrase.

      • Vespair@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        7 days ago

        je ne suis pas français, chappeau

        I tried googling this to see if I was missing some reference or something and it led to strange google behavior I’ve never seen before… When I search “je ne suis pas français, chappeau” without the quotation marks, Google automatically changes the French to English in the search bar when I hit the search button.

        Anyone else experienced this? For what possible fucking purpose would that exist?

        • mogranja@lemmy.eco.br
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 days ago

          I didn’t get that behavior, but no significant result to explain the expression either.

          But on the topic of weird behaviors, try to get copilot or meta AI to make a sign or an image for you with a phrase in a different language than your own.

          They always translate it, I can’t get them to keep the exact text at all.

      • mavu@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        6 days ago

        Huh, this is an interesting intercultural communiaction trap.

        In my area, this is just used as a shorthand/slang/idiom for “nice, i respect that” or in place of a nod or “thank you”

        Edit: i should add, that as far as i know, a chappeau is a type of cap or hat? Right? have to google that.

        edit2: yes, a hat. The origin of the use I know for it is probably a salute where you touch your finger or hand to the hat, or lifting the hat.
        Here saying “hat” seems to be enough :D

  • NutWrench@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    6 days ago
    • Number of hydrogen atoms in a single molecule of water (H2O): 2
    • Number of stars in our (ENTIRE) solar system: 1

    That’s the joke.

    • Etterra@discuss.online
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 days ago

      Thanks, I never would have been able to understand 2>1 if you hadn’t written up that amazing power point slide.

  • psud@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 days ago

    It’s 2 > 1, so correct two hydrogens versus one star: Sol

  • pyre@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    7 days ago

    I skipped reading the word stars, and I thought it was deliberately wrong to rile people up.

  • don@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    6 days ago

    There are fewer hydrogen atoms in a single molecule of water than there are fingers on my hand.

    Check and mate.

  • Subverb@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 days ago

    There actually are more molocules of H2O in 10 drops of water than there are stars in the observable universe.

    • Hammocks4All@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      Optimists: the glass is half full

      Pessimists: this half empty glass of water has more molecules than there are stars in the observable universe; life is meaningless

      • vithigar@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        7 days ago

        “Observable universe” isn’t how much we can see, rather how much it is theoretically possible to observe by any physical means.

        I also don’t think that water drop fact is correct. The estimated number of stars in the observable universe is 10^24, which is about an order of magnitude more than 1 mol, and 1 mol of water is about 18g, which is quite a bit more than 10 drops.

  • NaevaTheRat [she/her]@vegantheoryclub.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    Also interesting: If you were to take your nerves out and lay them end on end you would die.

    Actually interesting fact

    Your height is closer in scale to a light second than the size of an atom. And yet atoms seem more approachable than light seconds. Fascinating stuff!

  • Steal Wool@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 days ago

    Infeel like this gets reposted here at least once a month, but this one has a different t pic, and way more likes

          • AnIndefiniteArticle@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            6 days ago

            IAU is well known for coming up with shitty arbitrary classifications about nomenclature that many astronomers don’t agree with. They are wrong here because they don’t take into account post-Cassini/Juno understanding of gas giant morphology. The IAU definition is outdated and highly misleading.

            Copied from another reply I gave in this thread:

            I’ve seen 13 MJ argued as a boundary, but it’s selected somewhat arbitrarily and based around idealized models of Deuterium fusion, which has never been observed, and which is a process these brown dwarves would only undergo for a brief flash in their early life. Deuterium isn’t abundant enough for its fusion to significantly alter the stellar morphology that has already become established for objects larger than Saturn. Saturn is our solarsystem’s example of an object that does not fit cleanly into one side or the other of a mass-based binary classification scheme for determining a hard boundary between “planet” and “star”. To understand what is a planet vs what is a star, study Saturn.

              • AnIndefiniteArticle@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                5 days ago

                The planet definition that excluded pluto was decided upon at the end of an IAU conference after most planetary scientists had left. As a result, only dynamicists are happy with it. Planetary geologists in particular HATE it and have always vocally pushed back.

          • AnIndefiniteArticle@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 days ago

            And if you want more, check out what I said last time this meme was posted.

            As someone who worked as an astrophysicist for 9 years, I assure you that the question of “what is a planet?” is a nuanced discussion with a lot of diverse opinions and no clear answer that gets endlessly debated by students as they learn that these definitions aren’t as cut and dry as irresponsible science communicators made it seem during the disastrous and highly politically motivated demotion of Pluto to dwarf planet.

        • Mortacus@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          6 days ago

          I’d say Jupiter would need to be about 3 times massive to count as one. And more realistically around 10ish.

          • AnIndefiniteArticle@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 days ago

            Based on what criteria?

            Jupiter is large enough for the hydrogen to become a plasma and dissolve the rocky “planetary” core that was once at the center. Morphologically, it has passed the transition from planet to star. Saturn appears to be somewhere along that transition and is harder to cleanly classify.

            Morphologically, Jupiter is a star.

            I’ve seen 13 MJ argued as a boundary, but it’s selected somewhat arbitrarily and based around idealized models of Deuterium fusion, which has never been observed, and which is a process these brown dwarves would only undergo for a brief flash in their early life. Deuterium isn’t abundant enough for its fusion to significantly alter the stellar morphology that has already become established for objects larger than Saturn. Saturn is our solarsystem’s example of an object that does not fit cleanly into one side or the other of a mass-based binary classification scheme for determining a hard boundary between “planet” and “star”. To understand what is a planet vs what is a star, study Saturn.