• whotookkarl@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      5 days ago

      Of course, let’s not let things like knowledge or consequences get in the way of reactionary & spiteful arrogance informed only by propaganda induced fear and hate, emotions know to prevent rational thought /s

  • Th4tGuyII@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    96
    ·
    6 days ago

    Bloody hell, this is the US version of Brexit… this world would be such a better place if people just did the bare minimum of reading into what they were actually voting for before they fucking voted!

    Also, seeing the other top searches being about the tariffs would have me creasing if it weren’t so disappointingly stupid that these peoole seemingly knew nothing about Trumps most advertised economic policy before (assumably) voting for him

    • vxx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      5 days ago

      Whenever I see all the trash on the side of the road, I know why the world is that way.

    • Furbag@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      5 days ago

      No, the US version of Brexit was Trump’s first term, since they both happened in the same year.

      This is just people saying they know exactly how bad Brexit went the first time and they want that again.

    • aamram@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      Español
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      5 days ago

      I think that most of them do a lot of reading. The problem is that they just read news and info that they like and have no ability to criticise arguments. Critic thinking is the main problem imho.

      • WolvenSpectre@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        55
        ·
        6 days ago

        That is a percentage score. So you take the highest level of searches and it will always be 100% and all lesser scores are in comparison to that score of 100(%). If you can find out what the actual number of searches are for that one score, you can derive the approximate number of searches in the other places. It shows an informational tool tip on desktop.

        • Cris@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          28
          ·
          6 days ago

          Well that’s less than entirely helpful.

          Thank you very much for the explanation!

          • WolvenSpectre@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            21
            ·
            6 days ago

            Your welcome… I liked it when it was Google Zeitgeist and they published hard numbers but since they rebranded and named their video series Google Zeitgeist good luck finding out the actual numbers 🤐

        • WindyRebel@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          5 days ago

          Iowa is just where that term was the most popularly searched. However, it was searched in all states.

          I explained Google Trends a bit more here if you’re curious.

      • WindyRebel@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        5 days ago

        100 means that’s when the searches hit their most popular peak while 0 means nothing was really searched. Google trends does not show actual search volumes.

        Google Trends looks at search terms compared with all searches done (in a specific geographic region and time point). That data is then normalized.

        It’s essentially looking at popularity trends of is this hot or not.

        Source: I am a former SEO

        Edit: here are specifics about what I mentioned above if you’re curious.

      • WolvenSpectre@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        6 days ago

        It could have been droves… it also could have been 10 people. It also doesn’t say which way they wanted to change their vote. It could all be LIV’s who learned something they didn’t know after voting early or it could have been people torn about their vote panicking and seeing if they could change their mind.

        This doesn’t tell you anything but people searched it and not how many.

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

          It doesn’t say if it was a metric drove or an imperial drove. Shoddy journalism, if you ask me.

  • Saleh@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    61
    ·
    5 days ago

    The relative numbers are worth little without knowing the underlying numbers. If it went from 100 to 700 people, that is still negligble. Also crazy how people immediately take that as a base to remove voters rights unless they pass some sort of test. Nothing could go wrong with stripping voters rights amirite?

      • treefrog@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        5 days ago

        RFK Jr, who is likely to be our new head of health and human services, wants to ban it nationally.

      • shiftymccool@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        5 days ago

        You’re not swallowing toothpaste. I don’t know enough about the effects of fluoride to agree or disagree with the removal. Being a guy with healthy teeth, a …few years under his belt and living on well water for damn near all of them, I’m pretty comfortable saying leave it in the toothpaste where it’ll have fewer unintended consequences

        • Strykker@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          5 days ago

          It has been proven in repeated studies that fluoride in the water helps prevent tooth issues for children in low income families.

          There is much less fluoride in water than in toothpaste, so the swallowing comparison is a little bit extra.

        • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          5 days ago

          I don’t know enough about the effects of fluoride to agree or disagree with the removal

          Then why even comment on it? You realize that there are people who do know a lot about this stuff. Like they’ve dedicated their lives to studying it. And I imagine you could even find their published research online. You know, like actual science? Do you remember how the scientific method works?

          But nah, instead you’ll just make an unwarrantedly confident comment about something you know nothing about based on “vibes”

          Just like American voters.

      • wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        5 days ago

        Unfortunately RFK isn’t all wrong on this one. Recent evidence is showing it is indeed linked to neurological issues… Furthermore the effects are kind of negated by fluoride in the toothpaste.

        https://keck.usc.edu/news/fluoride-exposure-during-pregnancy-linked-to-increased-risk-of-childhood-neurobehavioral-problems-study-finds/

        The long-awaited report released Wednesday comes from the National Toxicology Program, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. It summarizes […] that drinking water containing more than 1.5 milligrams of fluoride per liter is consistently associated with lower IQs in kids.

        […]

        Since 2015, federal health officials have recommended a fluoridation level of 0.7 milligrams per liter of water, and for five decades before the recommended upper range was 1.2. The World Health Organization has set a safe limit for fluoride in drinking water of 1.5.

        https://apnews.com/article/fluoride-water-brain-neurology-iq-0a671d2de3b386947e2bd5a661f437a5

        These margins are razor thin.

        https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/still-need-fluoride-drinking-water-benefits-may-waning-study-suggests-rcna173790

        • Smoogs@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          3 days ago

          The researchers analyzed 229 mother-child pairs, calculating fluoride exposure from urine samples collected during the third trimester of pregnancy. Most urine samples were collected from fasting women, which improves the accuracy of chemical testing. Children were then assessed at age three using the Preschool Child Behavior Checklist, which uses parent reports to measure a child’s social and emotional functioning.

          Children exposed to an additional 0.68 milligrams per liter of fluoride in the womb were 1.83 times more likely to show behavioral problems considered to be clinically significant or borderline clinically significant. Specifically, children exposed to more fluoride had more problems with emotional reactivity, somatic complaints (such as headaches and stomachaches), anxiety and symptoms linked to autism.

          No association was found with several other neurobehavioral symptoms, including “externalizing behaviors” such as aggression and attention problems.

          Hmm, they are using a statistic as their study and parental reporting… what with PFOAs, pthalates, microplastics and parabens already present in water linked as endocrine disrupters I wonder how that plays over top of all of this fluoride as well.

        • Pips@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          5 days ago

          Respectfully, I’m going to be immediately suspicious of any study that uses IQ as the measuring standard. IQ is not an objective measure of intelligence or cognitive ability. The same person taking the test will probably have a different score every time they take it. I’m not saying fluoride does or does not have an effect on cognitive ability or intelligence. But IQ is hardly going to be the way to figure that out.

          Edit: I also don’t know how you’d conclude it’s fluoride and not literally anything else they’re consuming.

            • Pips@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 days ago

              You only linked one? The other is referenced in an article. The way these studies were conducted and the populations used does not immediately translate to fluoride being the issue since that wasn’t the only variable. It’s worth exploring, but it’s really not enough to change decades of dental hygiene improvements.

    • eletes@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      5 days ago

      Years of GOP meddling with education, which is only gonna nose dive when dept of education gets dismantled

  • CAVOK@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    5 days ago

    Is this the “Find out” stage then?

    Actions have consequences. Sad people had to figure it out this way.

  • zephorah@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    5 days ago

    Once again, these are the a validation headlines that create and support echo chambers. Honestly, what does it matter now?

    We already know the regret is strong on this nation and will only get worse.