What are commonly used idioms/metaphors that make no sense to anyone who knows about the topic they come from?
-
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.
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.
]
-
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
- 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
- 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
- Moore's law hasn't held for at least the last decade
- Even when Moore's Law was still holding ground, it was countered by Wirth's Law: software is getting slower at a more rapid pace than hardware is getting faster.
-
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.
I hadn’t heard this take. Did David cheat by using the slingshot? Was that not allowed? Was this like a duel with rules?
-
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.
There is a "learning curve" to it - used as "it will be easier after a while. It's the other way around. Learning curve is when you learn like crazy at first, but than after you knock out all the easy wins your progres slows dramaticaly.
-
I hadn’t heard this take. Did David cheat by using the slingshot? Was that not allowed? Was this like a duel with rules?
I don't know about ancient duel rules to say whether bringing a sling was permitted. The take is more along the lines of "David wasn't an underdog. If anything, David was the clear favourite to win because of his weapon". Because a sling at the time was a highly effective and deadly weapon which was still regularly used for centuries after the supposed events of that biblical story because of its effectiveness.
-
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.
Sleep like a baby. That is not what I'd consider a good night's sleep.
-
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.
What doesn't kill you makes you stronger, does not hold true for many diseases including many cancers
-
What doesn't kill you makes you stronger, does not hold true for many diseases including many cancers
What doesn’t kill you, cripple you for life or leave mental scars, might make you stronger. Chances are, it will make you weaker.
-
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.
Below par or under par. Used backwards by everyone. As a golfer, I want to be under par.
-
Below par or under par. Used backwards by everyone. As a golfer, I want to be under par.
Par comes from the Latin word meaning equal and that usage predates the golf term by 300 years.
-
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.
The use of "quantum leap" isn't about comparing the absolute size of the change to quantum phenomena. It's about the lack of a smooth transition. Quantum leaps in physics are instantaneous transitions between states with no intermediate. That's the idea with the colloquialism: a sudden shift from one state to another without a smooth transitional period.
-
Par comes from the Latin word meaning equal and that usage predates the golf term by 300 years.
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.
-
There is a "learning curve" to it - used as "it will be easier after a while. It's the other way around. Learning curve is when you learn like crazy at first, but than after you knock out all the easy wins your progres slows dramaticaly.
Depends on the slope of the curve.
-
Depends on the slope of the curve.
Sure. I could've been more precise, when people say or imply a "steep learning curve".
-
Sure. I could've been more precise, when people say or imply a "steep learning curve".
True, a literally steep learning curve means you'd learn very quickly!
-
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.
]
Why are so many about poop?
-
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.
I've never seen sub-par used to mean positive, always as "under average".
-
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.
The saying "shoot for the moon, even if you miss you'll land among the stars". No you won't, the stars are outside the solar system, they're much further away than the moon
-
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.
]
wrote on last edited by [email protected]They also tested the thing about toast landing butter side up
And also whether exotic meats taste like chicken
-
I've never seen sub-par used to mean positive, always as "under average".
Same, but the implication was that it was supposedly being used incorrectly, but then it turns out it is being used correctly after all.
