• spittingimage@lemmy.world
    991·
    6 months ago

    Essential oils. Homeopathy. Chiropractic. Reiki. Juice cleanses. Perineum sunning. Internet accelerator software. Iridology. Faith healing. Organic food. Oil pulling. Gold plated digital audio cables.

    • bloodfart@lemmy.ml
      26·
      6 months ago

      It’s worth noting that gold plated connectors are not snake oil. Gold is a good conductor and doesn’t form a nonconductive oxide layer. That means it’s going to be more durable and won’t corrode together or apart like those old ass sheet metal tube sockets that all need to be cleaned.

    • thepreciousboar@lemm.ee
      173·
      6 months ago

      Everything marketed audiophiles, not only gold plated cables, but also anything that uses vacuum tubes because “they sound better”

      • PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world
        36·
        6 months ago

        There’s a LOT of snake oil in the audio world. Especially home theater and home studio setups. I’m a professional audio technician, and some of the “audiophile” setups I have seen are just outright asinine.

        Use balanced signal for runs over ~3 feet. Use the cheapest star-quad cable you can get, and the most basic $4 Neutrik connectors. Why? Because that album you’re using to test your “hi-fi” sound system was recorded using exactly that: Cheap ¢30/foot cable and basic Neutrik connectors.

        It’s also what concert setups use. You think a concert with six combined miles of cabling is going to be paying $2000 per cable? Fuck no, they’re using the cheap shit (which was hand soldered in bulk at the warehouse workbench by their lowest paid shop tech), to run that million dollar audio system. Their money goes to the speakers, amps, and mixer; Not gold plated wire, robotic soldering, or triple insulated jackets. In double-blind tests, audiophiles can’t hear the difference between a $500 cable and a couple of plasti-dipped coat hangers twisted together.

        The people who complain about digital audio also can’t tell the difference in double-blind tests. Because modern audio hardware is able to perfectly emulate old analog gear. Google the Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem for a breakdown of how we can perfectly capture and recreate analog audio with digital equipment. Vacuum tubes were groundbreaking when they were first used. But they had a lot of issues, and have very little relevance in today’s systems. They’re prone to burning out, notoriously fragile, and can be emulated perfectly.

        • intensely_human@lemm.ee
          101·
          6 months ago

          The Norquist-Shannon rate sampling theorem only asserts that for a given maximum frequency, you only need another other given maximum frequency of sampling to represent it.

          It does not say you can “perfectly” reproduce a signal. Only that you can reproduce all fourier components of the signal that are below half your sampling rate in frequency. It perfectly does that, yes.

          But the signals that only contain a finite number of frequencies all below a certain maximum frequency are abstractions used in signal theory classes for teaching that theorem, and in engineering to hit a “good enough” target, not a “perfect” target.

          Any frequencies bouncing around the room at over 22 kHz are lost at least to something using the 44 kHz sampling format.

          TL;DR: Norquist-Shannon lets you completely reproduce signals with finite information in them. But real life sound doesn’t have finite information in it.

          • Hugin@lemmy.world
            3·
            6 months ago

            It’s Nyquist–Shannon. Norquist is taxes.

            Also frequencies greater than half the sampling rate aren’t lost they fold into lower frequencies unless filtered out.

            But if you think it’s easiser to capture those room acoustics with analog equipment the non linear amplification and distortion of any analog system is going to change the sound just add much if not more then a good digital system.

            So yeah both lose or distort the signal but digital does it in avery predictable way that can be accounted for and it does have a frequency region that it captures precisely. Analog doesn’t.

            • intensely_human@lemm.ee
              3·
              6 months ago

              Nyquist, thank you.

              aren’t lost they fold into lower frequencies unless filtered out

              If by “fold into” you mean they add noise to and hence distort the readings on the lower frequencies, that’s correct. But that just takes it further from a perfect reproduction.

              • Hugin@lemmy.world
                2·
                6 months ago

                Frequency folding is the term used in DSP no need for quotes. The Nyquist frequency is commonly referred to as the folding frequency.

                And yes frequencies above the Nyquist folding frequency alias into lower frequencies. A simple low pass filter prevents this however.

                Properly filtered digital sampling produced a more accurate reproduction of the frequency range with less distortion then an analog signal.

                • intensely_human@lemm.ee
                  1·
                  6 months ago

                  I don’t disagree that there’s noise in analog signals too, limiting their information capacity. But that’s coming from the limitations of our physical implementations’ quality, no?

                • intensely_human@lemm.ee
                  1·
                  6 months ago

                  Also I used quotes to refer to your words, not to throw shade at a term’s validity. I use quote marks to quote.

                  If by “x” you mean …

                  Doesn’t mean the same thing as just randomly surrounding it with quotes in normal use means.

      • EtherWhack@lemmy.world
        7·
        6 months ago

        I agree, but with one caveat.

        Fully analog tube amps do definitely produce a warmer/richer sound with less complicated things to go wrong. Artists like them because they are reliable, generally user serviceable, (usually just need to replace bad/old tubes) and makes each recording sound relatively unique.

        The thing is, is that it really only works during production. Unless being cut direct to a master record, the sound will get saved in a digital format to produce the user-facing media, which can include digital-source vinyls.

        Those products marketed to audiophiles try to take the digitally recorded/archived products to “try” making it sound like the original.

      • binary45@lemmy.world
        41·
        6 months ago

        At best, organic food offers the same nutritional value as non organic food. At worst, it’s less nutritious and more expensive.

    • geoma@lemmy.ml
      1114·
      6 months ago

      Organic food? Please let me take that out of your list. Organic produce has a huge lot of benefits over industrial, to both the consumer and the environment.

  • aleph@lemm.eeEnglish
    664·
    6 months ago

    Hi-resolution audio, especially for streaming. The general idea is that listening to digital audio files that have a greater bit depth and sample rate than CD (24-bit/192Khz vs 16-bit/44.1 KHz) translates to better-sounding audio, but in practice that isn’t the case.

    For a detailed breakdown as to why, there’s a great explanation here. But in summary, the format for CDs was so chosen because it covers enough depth and range to cover the full spectrum of human hearing.

    So while “hi-res” audio does contain a lot more information (which, incidentally, means it uses up significantly more data/storage space and costs more money), our ears aren’t capable of hearing it in the first place. Certain people may try to argue otherwise based on their own subjective experience, but to that I say “the placebo effect is a helluva drug.”

    • Tehdastehdas@lemmy.worldEnglish
      5·
      6 months ago

      It’s for all the pets at homes hearing the same audio, now with original insects and birds outside and mice in the walls.

    • greenskye@lemm.eeEnglish
      51·
      6 months ago

      I’ve always kinda wondered about this. I’m not an audio guy and really can’t tell the difference between most of the standards. That said, I definitely remember tons and tons ‘experts’ telling me that no one can tell the difference between 720p and 1080p TV at typical distance to your couch. And I absolutely could and many of the people I know could. I can also tell the difference between 1080 and 4k, at the same distances.

      So I’m curious if there’s just a natural variance in an individual’s ability to hear and audiophiles just have a better than average range that does exceed CD quality?

      Similar to this, I can tell the difference between 30fps and 60fps, but not 60 to 120, yet some people swear they can. Which I believe, I just know that I can’t. Seems like these guidelines are probably more averages, rather than hard biological limits.

      • aleph@lemm.eeEnglish
        6·
        6 months ago

        It’s a fair question. Human hearing ability is a spectrum like anything else, however when it comes to discerning the difference in audio quality, the vast, vast majority of people cannot reliably tell the difference between high-bitrate lossy and lossless when they do a double blinded test. And that includes audiophiles with equipment worth thousands of dollars.

        Of that tiny minority who can consistently distinguish between the two, they generally can only tell by listening very closely for the very particular characteristics of the encoder format, which takes a highly trained ear and a lot of practice.

        The blind aspect is important because side-by-side comparisons (be they different audio formats, or 60fps vs 120fps video) are highly unreliable because people will generally subconsciously prefer the one they know is supposed to be better.

      • DjMeas@lemm.ee
        31·
        6 months ago

        I think this is the case where certain people simply can’t see it here the difference.

        I collect video game and movie soundtracks and the main difference I can hear between a 320kbps VS a FLAC that’s in the 1000kbps range is not straight up “clarity” in the sense that something like an instrument is “clearer” but rather the spacing and the ability to discern the difference where instruments come from is much better in a Hi-Res file with some decent wired headphones (my pair is $200). All this likey doesn’t matter much though when most users stream via Spotify which sounds worse than my 320kbps locally and people are using Bluetooth headphones at lower bitrates since they don’t have better codec compatibility like aptX and LDAC.

    • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
      2·
      6 months ago

      A lot of it will depend on your output device; cheap headphones will wreck audio quality.

      I remember the bad old days when .mp3 files for streaming were often 128kbps (or less!); I could absolutely hear audio artifacts on those, and it got significantly worse with lower bitrates. 320kbps though seems to be both fairly small, and I can’t personally tell the difference between that and any lossless formats.

  • hperrin@lemmy.world
    586·
    6 months ago

    Blue light filter on glasses. When I got my glasses, the lady said they come with blue light filter for free, and I said, “I don’t want that, my job requires that I see colors accurately, so I can’t have any sort of color filter.” She said don’t worry, it doesn’t filter any colors. Ok, then what the fuck is it exactly?

  • franzfurdinand@lemmy.world
    49·
    6 months ago

    I have a couple from the hip actually, because America has grifting baked into it’s soul. In no particular order:

    • MMS (Drinkin’ bleach)
    • Crystal healing (most sellers)
    • WitchTok kits (TikTok influencers selling expensive spices)
    • Brain pills
    • Any product peddled by a megachurch (see the Baker bucket for a great example)
    • Chiropractors

    As more of these come to me, I’ll try to expand the list.

    Update: I can’t believe I forgot chiros! They turned themselves into a religion at one point to try to dodge medical licensure laws.

    • Irelephant@lemm.eeOP
      10·
      6 months ago

      I would say that a lot of stuff being peddled through tiktok and Instagram are scams. Those anti-5g dongles come to mind.

      • franzfurdinand@lemmy.world
        3·
        6 months ago

        Anti-5g dongles? That’s new for me, but I consume a lot of these grifts secondhand through a few podcasts I listen to. I might be behind.

        Sounds like the bones of a good scam are there though, assuming the anti-5G conspiracy still gets traction and clicks.

        Edit: Do you know if someone like bigclive got one? He takes those sorts of devices apart a lot to explain them and I’d love to see what’s inside. I just don’t want to pay the money for one to fund the grift.

        • Irelephant@lemm.eeOP
          4·
          6 months ago

          There is a good few videos on them, it has died down significantly since the whole 5g panic went away. Some of them were just some clear USB keys, some were just stickers. Mr. Whosetheboss did a video on them.

    • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
      1·
      6 months ago

      Any product peddled by a megachurch (see the Baker bucket for a great example)

      Some megachurches have sold freeze-dried prepper food. It’s not a grift per se, because it’s perfectly edible freeze dried food, but it’s overpriced for what you’re getting.

      • franzfurdinand@lemmy.world
        2·
        6 months ago

        You’re right, but I was thinking of the buckets that are basically terrible quality slop that’s borderline inedible.

        I might still call it a grift because they’re asking for payment as “donations” to skirt paying taxes on them. That, and like you said, it’s not a great value for what you get. Maybe not pure snake oil, but there’s definitely still enough dishonesty involved imo that I’d be comfortable calling it a grift.

  • Trebuchet@lemm.ee
    391·
    6 months ago

    AI, particularly in how the likes of microsoft are marketing it to businesses.

  • BonesOfTheMoon@lemmy.world
    332·
    6 months ago

    Cleanses. You don’t need a cleanse if you have a liver and kidneys, and if you don’t you need dialysis.

    • UltraGiGaGigantic@lemm.eeEnglish
      2·
      6 months ago

      I think a lot of those herb pill things just introduces much needed fiber to peoples diets and people attribute the benefits of fiber to the herbs.

      Become old… drink fiber powder or eat psyllium fiber.

      Here is a smoothy to help you get fiber without resorting to the old people fiber powder:

      1 cup kale or spring greens

      1 cup frozen fruit (change type of fruit for desired flavor)

      1 serving Greek yogurt

      2 tbsp flax seed

      1 scoop protein powder

      1 cup almond milk

      Nutrition calculator

  • Lettuce eat lettuce@lemmy.ml
    30·
    6 months ago

    Any “quick fix/all-in-one” fitness or nutrition solutions. While there are minute optimizations for elite athletes, 99.99% of the population can adhere to the general consensus of nutrition and health science.

    1. Do something that gets your heart rate up for at least 30 minutes a day. Speed walk, bike, row, shoot hoops, jump rope, doesn’t matter, just get your heart pumping hard for at least half an hour a day.
    2. Roughly a third of your food should be fresh leafy greens & veggies. A third should be whole grains and unprocessed starches and sugars like sweet potato and fresh fruit. The final third should be a protein. Lean meat like fish or chicken, or if you’re veg/vegan, beans, tofu, seeds, peas, etc.
    3. To build strength, general bodyweight exercises combined with stretching is fine for most people. If you wanna get really strong, get a few kettle bells or adjustable dumbells on the used market for $50-$100. You don’t need an expensive fitness club membership or one of those all-in-one $2,000+ fancy machines that mounts on your wall.
    4. Don’t drink often, don’t smoke, don’t pound stimulants like caffeine or nicotine.
    5. Brush your teeth well.
    6. Get 6-8 hours a night of good quality sleep.
    7. Keep your brain engaged, read, play music, play games, learn a language, etc.

    I’m speaking from experience, because I have fallen for stuff over the years that promised fast results and optimal methods with minimal effort. Fact is, unless you’re training for the Olympics or you have very specific heath conditions, those basic bullet points will cover the vast majority if general health and fitness.

    • evasive_chimpanzee@lemmy.world
      2·
      6 months ago

      I agree with almost everything you said, except I wouldn’t advocate for people including stretching as a regular part of exercise. Despite what people tend to think, there isn’t really evidence to support broad general benefits of stretching. Obviously, if you are a gymnast or another type of athlete with specific needs for range of motion beyond what is “normal”, go for it. It may not hurt, but it is likely a waste of time, and if you are constrained in the amount of time you can spend on exercise, you should spend that time doing things with well established benefits, like weightlifting.

      The other thing I want to add on (again cause I agree with what you said) to the diet part is that people probably shouldn’t trust products like Athletic Greens to “count” as their daily vegetables, despite their marketing. I haven’t been able to find good research on it that wasn’t funded by them. Also, just more generally, I’m skeptical of the purported benefits of juice and smoothies. Again, it’s hard to find good studies on it, but much of the benefit of fruit and veggies is in the fiber and resulting delayed digestion, so it stands to reason that the processing removes some of the benefit.

    • boonhet@lemm.ee
      2·
      6 months ago

      If you want to get really strong, you might want protein and creatine supplements to speed up your progress, but even that’s not necessary and they only speed things up a little.

    • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
      2·
      6 months ago

      one of those all-in-one $2,000+ fancy machines that mounts on your wall.

      Actually about $4000 to start, plus the cost of the weight plates, bars (I prefer Ivanko), Iron Grip dumbbell sets, and so on.

      In almost all cases, it’s cheaper to have a gym membership at a decent hardcore gym.

      There are a lot of things you simply can’t do with bodyweight alone. And you can’t do it with just a couple kettlebells and adjustable dumbbells either. Having a lot of strength and muscle mass when you’re young is a very strong predictor of health in old age, since past the age of about 40, people just start losing mass and strength; the more you have before that, the better off you are.

      • Lettuce eat lettuce@lemmy.ml
        2·
        6 months ago

        I said $2,000+ to encompass even more expensive machines/setups.

        I never said bodyweight or a kettlebell set could provide exercises for every possible movement or strength vector.

        I said that the vast majority of people don’t need anything more than those to build a healthy level of fitness. And given that the average cost of a gym membership in the US is around $50 per month, after a few months, their used kettle bells or simple dumbell set has already paid for itself.

        And weights last basically forever unless they are severely damaged, so zero maintenance cost.

        Nothing wrong with going more hardcore if that’s your thing, but that’s not at all necessary to build a solid base of strength and general fitness.

  • Pacattack57@lemmy.world
    29·
    6 months ago

    Organic food versus GMOs. I think big farma is in on the organic food prices and put false narratives about the dangers of gmo foods.

    • TheOubliette@lemmy.ml
      13·
      6 months ago

      They’re also not even the same category. Organic vs. non was about what kinds of chemicals amwere allowed to be added. Herbicides, pesticides, that kind of thing. GMOs are about whether a certain technology was used to genetically engineer the plants (artificial selection vs. the techniques of molecular biology). But they get all mixed up together as a result of marketing and a public that does not receive information any other way.

      There are dangers with GMOs but they’re about farming sustainability and corporate power, particularly the use of IP law. The food itself, so far, is perfectly safe.

      Also, organic food is not necessarily safer. You can still put fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides on organic crops, you’re just restricted to the use of certain kinds. You still need to wash organic produce to get rid of potential residue.

    • EtherWhack@lemmy.world
      8·
      6 months ago

      Aren’t bananas and corn both genetically modified, at least in the analog sense? Both wouldn’t exist without humans altering them.

        • EtherWhack@lemmy.world
          3·
          6 months ago

          Yeah. Those were just two examples that came to mind. Tangelos or any “seedless” produce are some other ones.

          I see GMOs as just another form of agricultural development to decrease issues/problems with production. (like splicing in a gene that makes them less appetizing to pests so you would use less pesticides or one that makes them more drought tolerant)

          One of the largest drawbacks to GMOs though (aside from the capitalistic approach of introducing sterility) is due to allergies. This could however be easily mitigated by listing where each gene comes from so people who may be allergic to the gene of the donor would know if it should be avoided.

          • geoma@lemmy.ml
            31·
            6 months ago

            You guys are mixing too much concepts here. Non GMO doesnt necessarily mean organic. A lot of seedless varieties come from hybrids, not GMOs. IMHO though, GMOs and seed patents are the way of bringing capitalist concept of copyright into plants and food. It’s not good not being able to have your own seeds and grow them.

            • EtherWhack@lemmy.world
              3·
              6 months ago

              I don’t disagree on the symantics of the term. I’m just alluding to the fact that selective breeding/hybridizing foodstuffs can be similar to genetic modification from an outside perspective.

              There are a lot of people that will completely discredit anything that that says It has been genetically modified. What they don’t necessarily realize is that GMOs and selective breeding/hybridizing can both carry similar, if not the same risks/benefits. You can make your “all-natural” seeds (for instance) sterile. They can both carry similar risks for allergies. They can also both have the same benefits of of disease/pest/drought tolerance. (see the Great French Wine Blight)

              It’s also not good, not being able to feed your people without imports.

    • UnsavoryMollusk@lemmy.world
      7·
      6 months ago

      I wish the debate around gmos didn’t focus on bs about poison so that we could talk about it’s moral issues and the disgusting behavior that some gmo producers practiced

    • ForgotAboutDre@lemmy.world
      33·
      6 months ago

      This is a common misconception of the placebo effect. The placebo effect is a measurement issue, not an actual benefit.

      Tests are corrupted by using the reposnes and judgement of humans. People will say they had some sort of benefit because of expectations, poor recollection and politeness. It doesn’t mean a benefit was gained. A placebo group allows researchers to quantify how much the placebo effect has on the data they gathered, they can then see if the experiment they did had any effect. Placebo is literally our definition of zero effect.

      Anyone telling you placebo is a good thing is wrong, misinformed or deliberately misleading you. In many countries it is illegal for doctors to prescribe ‘placebo treatments’. They will still recommend such things to their patients - not because they work but because they get the patient out the door and less likely to come bother them again.

  • psmgx@lemmy.world
    338·
    6 months ago

    Crypto. Most LLM based AI. 80-90 percent of the startup world after 2009.

    Anything related to toxins or detox. Keto and Carnivore diets.

    Most online college programs.

    Those vibram finger shoes and barefoot running. Most gym memberships; honestly half of the gym bros need to diet more than they need to slam weights and HIIT

    Probably ozempic, since people going off it immediately balloon back up

    I’ve wondered for a long time what the long term impacts of aggressive teeth bleaching are on enamel, too, but not sure if I’d call that snake oil; it works entirely as intended

    • boonhet@lemm.ee
      5·
      6 months ago

      Keto works, but whether the supposed science behind it is the reason it works, I have no idea.

      People say something about ketones and so on, but for me, it’s just that eating carbs makes me hangry again soon after I’m done eating them, so I’ll want to eat again. Eat less carbs, get less hangry, easier to eat less.

        • flubba86@lemmy.world
          3·
          6 months ago

          You’re thinking of carnivore. Keto is a different thing that focuses on restricting carbs to less than 5g per day and getting most of your calories from good fats, in order to switch your body’s primary energy source from carbs to fats, that keeps you fuller and satisfied for longer, encourages the body to burn body fat, stabilises energy spikes and dips throughout the day, stabilises healthy insulin production.

        • Akareth@lemmy.worldEnglish
          2·
          6 months ago

          Keto is more about eating all protein all the time

          Keto is about being in a state of ketosis, which is typically done by getting most of your calories from fat instead of carbohydrates (and protein).

    • CaptPretentious@lemmy.world
      2·
      6 months ago

      I really like the vibram shoes. They were fine for running, granted you could also get running shoes. But they also work very well for squats and deadlifts. And I do make proper lifting shoes too. But that’s already too many pairs of shoes to bring to the gym for me.