RTANB,
I’m not in disagreement with you.
This reminds me of a post-college date I had with a pretty New Age chick. I picked her up at her house an she had all these sayings posted on her frig, like–“Doesn’t Love make the World go round”.
When asked, I said:“No, it’s geopolitical dollars dealing with oil in The Middle East”.
We weren’t fated for long time relationship!
The term “wetting” is used to describe the action of water in creating a film over a surface. Oily surfaces are difficult to get wet as the water doesn’t spread, it balls up into droplets and runs off. By lowering the surface tension of the water it is possible to get it to spread over, i.e. “wet”, surfaces it otherwise couldn’t.
Soap and detergent molecules have one end that mixes with water and another that mixes with oil. This allows them to act as emulsifiers, allowing oil and water to mix. This property is at least as important as the lowering of surface tension when it comes to removing oil.
To be fair, both your answers were pretty crap as explanations of what actually makes the world go round, which is a combination of conservation of angular momentum and inertia.
If you’re treating “to make the world go around” as a metaphorical equivalent of “to be important for humans”, then both your answers were about equally reasonable, in different contexts.
Technically royal jelly does cause queen bees to live longer than workers, given that (a) queen bees do live longer than workers and (b) the difference between a worker bee and a queen is that one is fed royal jelly during its infancy and the other is not; they come out of the same kind of egg. But as you say, that’s not even any reason at all why it should benefit anything that’s not a bee, much less promote hair health in humans.
However, if you incorporate royal jelly into pure beeswax and then use the resulting blend for Hopi ear candles, you can pretty much guarantee that the therapy will be ten or even a hundred times as effective!
Okay…
I have no trouble believing that the non-GMO Himalayan rock salt is intended as a real product, seeing all the other things that have been certified non-GMO (even though they or their ingredients have no GMO counterparts). And there are Himalayan salt products listed as certified by the Non-GMO Project (which has what sounds like a lucrative business model).
Other examples of anti-GMO craziness/opportunism: Blog - The Non-GMO Project
So, can we safely say that’s a real product and not some masterful satire someone’s perpetrated on Amazon?
Because I’ve see some funny fake ones. The Harry Potter vibrating broomstick, for example–“My girls just love to play for hours with this!”
The Harry Potter vibrating broomstick was a real product that was actually made. I know someone who has one. I don’t think it was in production for long.
I don’t think Amazon would let people use its system to sell things that did not actually exist. That’s fraud.
All I can say was that the customer reviews were hysterical [pun intended].
Harry Potter aside, can I add some vitriol to the weasel math used in advertising? “Users of Product X may lose up to 3 times more weight!” (When the monkeys fly out of their butts.) Pampers keep baby up to 4 times dryer (than leaves and moss alone. And how does one measure “dryer?”") Use up to four times less bathroom tissue! Weasel math!
4x less bathroom tissue? Talk to Sheryl Crow!
The number one all time bullshit commercial claim is the multi-blade razor. “The first blade grabs and pulls the whisker so the second blade…third blade, fourth blade, fifth blade, whatever…cuts it clean to the chin”. Oh yeah, baby, if that happened you’d be screaming through your morning shave.
Just trying to wrap my mind around the very concept of having multiples LESS of something gives me a huge headache.
A fraction can be the reciprocal of a multiple. But LESS is not a reciprocal of MORE.
Explain, please.
In 2007 Sheryl Crow said that, for environmental reasons, people should limit themselves to one square of toilet paper per bathroom visit. She says she meant it as a joke, but that didn’t keep her from being the butt of many jokes herself.
I don’t know about that particularly claim, but when it comes to cartridge razors at least, anecdotally I definitely find two- and three-blade razors give me a much smoother shave than single-blade ones. Beyond that, I don’t notice a difference.
I’m reasonably sure that it’s one of the Charmin bear ads that makes this dubious claim. Not positive, though, because Tony changes the channel now. I tend to throw things at the TV otherwise.
Yeah, that stuff will sink through my skin and skull and go right to the source of the pain. No doubt about it!
I think the point was that when twin-blades came out, the graphic showed the first blade pulling the hair out of the socket a little, the second blade chopping it off, then the hair sinks neatly back in to be under skin level (and thus a candidate for ingrowing - but I digress).
When triple-blade razors came out though, the same graphic then showed that second blade now mysteriously pulling the hair out further, and only the third blade doing the chopping.