What I mean is like for example, a person having “gravitational pull” or someone making a “quantum leap” makes no sense to anyone who knows about physics. Gravity is extremely weak and quantum leaps are tiny.

Or “David versus Goliath” to describe a huge underdoge makes no sense to anyone who knows about history, because nobody bringing a gun to a sword fight is going to be the underdog but that’s essentially what David did.

I’m looking for more examples like that.

  • Squorlple@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    There are a number of idioms that MythBusters tested, some of which were disproven and some of which were confirmed/plausible.

    It is easy to punch out of a paper bag.

    10 pounds of poop will not fit in a 5-pound bag.

    People can easily recognize the backs of their own hands.

    Taking candy from a baby is not as easy as it sounds.

    People may literally get cold feet when they are scared/timid.

    If poop hits a fan it can indeed create a large mess.

    You can teach an old dog new tricks.

    With an enormous amount of force, it is possible to literally knock someone’s socks off.

    In a race, it is not literally better to hit the ground running.

    You can polish poop.

    Shooting fish in a barrel is fairly easy; the shock wave from a bullet can be enough to kill the fish.

    A bull in a china shop will actively avoid hitting the shelves.

    A rolling stone truly gathers no moss.

    Finding a needle in a haystack is difficult, even with modern technology.

    [EDIT: a couple of other idioms not in the idiom section of the link.

    It is possible to make a balloon out of lead.

    It is not possible to herd cats.

    A goldfish’s memory is not limited to three seconds.

    ]

    • shneancy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      if a poop hits the fan it can indeed create a large mess.

      😭 thanks for testing that, Mythbusters, never would’ve known. what was that quote of theirs? the difference between screwing around and science is writing it down?

  • RegalPotoo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    2 months ago

    Not quite an idiom, but one of the senior managers at work keeps talking about Moore’s Law in the context of AI stuff like it’s some kind of fundamental law of the universe that any given technology will double in capability every 2 years

    1. Moore observed that transistor density in microprocessors had historically been doubling every 18 months, and this trend more or less continued for a decade or so after he noted it
    2. Density has nothing to do with the capability of technology that uses those microprocessors. The performance of the chips roughly doubled every couple of years, but there was a lot more going on with that than just transistor density
    3. Moore’s law hasn’t held for at least the last decade
  • exixx@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Below par or under par. Used backwards by everyone. As a golfer, I want to be under par.

      • Victor@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 months ago

        So sub-par doesn’t really imply the golf way of being good, but actually means below equal/average? Then I’m fine with using below par as a negative.

  • KingOfTheCouch@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    “Does a bear shit in the woods?”

    Might be a regional thing but people would often say this as a sarcastic but emphatic “Yes” reply to people, particularly “obvious” answers.

    Truth is, my personal observation is that they will make every opportunity to come out on the nearest road or field and shit there.

    Obviously one could argue the pedantry (eg rural = woods, or most shit is in wooded areas) but my point is back to there actually being enough nuance to argue the point that they aren’t making the point they think they are when they say that.

    I’m fun at parties!

  • laurathepluralized@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    “Positive feedback loop” to indicate a situation in which circumstances feeding into each other result in more good things happening, or “negative feedback loop” to indicate bad circumstances feeding into each other to result in more bad things happening.

    I have worked with enough controls folks to know that positive feedback in a control loop often leads to instability (bad), while negative feedback in a control loop can be used to stabilize the system (good). It just comes down to the math in the situation.

    So people saying that they are in a positive feedback loop can, to a controls person, sound counterintuitive. E.g. “I’m in a positive feedback loop of working out, having more energy as a result, and working out more, making me healthier!” would be momentarily confusing.

    I did grad school at an engineering/STEM-focused school, and the campus psychiatrist actually used these terms correctly when discussing anxiety attacks! As an engineer myself, that made my nerdy heart happy 🤣

    Another control theory phrase issue: The phrase “more optimal” is incorrect and very well may earn the speaker an “umm, actually” from any controls folks in the conversation. Optimality is not a scale–either something is optimal (with respect to a specific metric), or it isn’t.

    (EDIT: reducing verbosity)