Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note

2023-07-27 22:02:32 UTC - MISINFORMED_OR_POTENTIALLY_MISLEADING

Some people may interpret the expression 6/2(1+2) as being 6/(2*(1+2)) due to how it's written. If we follow this interpretation, the result would be 1. But this interpretation is contrary to the standard order of operations (PEMDAS/BODMAS/BIDMA). Here, the correct answer is 9.

Written by 9A3BC21FA55A60F1BF2A74F03619D73976136624B48F65DA870DB8F039B15BA0
Participant Details

Original Tweet

Tweet embedding is no longer reliably available, due to the platform's instability (in terms of both technology and policy). If the Tweet still exists, you can view it here: https://twitter.com/foo_bar/status/1684198563130097665

Please note, though, that you may need to have your own Twitter account to access that page. I am currently exploring options for archiving Tweet data in a post-API context.

All Information

  • ID - 1684685728356151299
  • noteId - 1684685728356151299
  • participantId -
  • noteAuthorParticipantId - 9A3BC21FA55A60F1BF2A74F03619D73976136624B48F65DA870DB8F039B15BA0 Participant Details
  • createdAtMillis - 1690495352243
  • tweetId - 1684198563130097665
  • classification - MISINFORMED_OR_POTENTIALLY_MISLEADING
  • believable -
  • harmful -
  • validationDifficulty -
  • misleadingOther - 0
  • misleadingFactualError - 1
  • misleadingManipulatedMedia - 0
  • misleadingOutdatedInformation - 0
  • misleadingMissingImportantContext - 0
  • misleadingUnverifiedClaimAsFact - 0
  • misleadingSatire - 0
  • notMisleadingOther - 0
  • notMisleadingFactuallyCorrect - 0
  • notMisleadingOutdatedButNotWhenWritten - 0
  • notMisleadingClearlySatire - 0
  • notMisleadingPersonalOpinion - 0
  • trustworthySources - 0
  • summary
    • Some people may interpret the expression 6/2(1+2) as being 6/(2*(1+2)) due to how it's written. If we follow this interpretation, the result would be 1. But this interpretation is contrary to the standard order of operations (PEMDAS/BODMAS/BIDMA). Here, the correct answer is 9.

Note Status History

createdAt timestampMillisOfFirstNonNMRStatus firstNonNMRStatus timestampMillisOfCurrentStatus currentStatus timestampMillisOfLatestNonNMRStatus mostRecentNonNMRStatus participantId
2023-07-27 22:02:32 UTC
(1690495352243)
1969-12-31 23:59:59 UTC
(-1)
2023-07-28 02:13:08 UTC
(1690510388150)
NEEDS_MORE_RATINGS 1969-12-31 23:59:59 UTC
(-1)

Note Ratings

rated at rated by
2023-07-27 18:52:32 -0500 Rating Details
2023-07-27 18:29:24 -0500 Rating Details
2023-07-27 18:24:14 -0500 Rating Details
2023-07-27 18:12:00 -0500 Rating Details
2023-07-27 17:47:59 -0500 Rating Details
2023-07-27 17:32:45 -0500 Rating Details
2023-07-27 17:24:54 -0500 Rating Details
2023-07-27 17:19:34 -0500 Rating Details
2023-07-27 17:18:18 -0500 Rating Details
2023-07-27 17:15:53 -0500 Rating Details
2023-07-27 17:14:28 -0500 Rating Details
2023-07-27 17:09:48 -0500 Rating Details
2023-07-27 17:06:54 -0500 Rating Details
2023-07-27 17:06:26 -0500 Rating Details
2023-07-27 17:05:41 -0500 Rating Details
2023-07-27 17:05:15 -0500 Rating Details
2023-07-28 11:27:20 -0500 Rating Details
2023-07-28 09:10:03 -0500 Rating Details
2023-07-28 07:53:16 -0500 Rating Details
2023-07-28 06:39:47 -0500 Rating Details
2023-07-28 06:19:04 -0500 Rating Details
2023-07-28 05:41:23 -0500 Rating Details
2023-07-28 05:00:59 -0500 Rating Details
2023-07-28 03:21:27 -0500 Rating Details
2023-07-28 03:00:47 -0500 Rating Details
2023-07-28 02:29:57 -0500 Rating Details
2023-07-27 23:25:47 -0500 Rating Details
2023-07-27 21:28:38 -0500 Rating Details
2023-07-29 08:02:34 -0500 Rating Details
2023-07-29 03:44:57 -0500 Rating Details
2023-07-30 13:11:41 -0500 Rating Details
2023-07-30 00:52:20 -0500 Rating Details
2023-08-03 03:50:50 -0500 Rating Details
2023-08-17 18:05:43 -0500 Rating Details
2023-08-17 00:31:39 -0500 Rating Details