Do not get me wrong - I think in general the MythBusters TV series was fantastic for raising awareness of the utility (and fun) science holds. But sometimes they get something so wrong that it upsets me. I have complained about some of these errors before. This time however, the mistake was not with a specific myth as much as with the scientific approach in general.

MythBusters repeatedly refers to the scientific process they are following in their show. In specific, when performing tests they usually point out that they need a larger sample size to ensure a meaningful result, as a single test will hardly yield useful information, as they said: "If it is not repeatable, it is not science". So how is it then, in the episode Unfinished Business where one of the myths they tested whether a computer game simulating a real life skill can improve your real life skill, they fail completely in this regard? Specifically:

1. They did not account for the fact that Adam might be a quick learner and have more natural talent for physical sports than Jamie (which is in fact the case) - hence using Adam for the real life training and Jamie for the video game was actually the wrong way round.
2. They did not account for the fact that there are multiple different type of games out there - not all games transfer skill from the virtual world to the real world equally.
3. They did not account for the fact that Wii is just one way of interacting with a virtual game - not necessarily the best way.

A simple thing such as reading a product label and understanding what it says is beyond my cognitive abilities apparently. Is the below juice 70% juice, 100% juice or what? My head is melting.

It sure is not me...

The internet is just full of these idiotic comparisons.

I am frustrated because it is comparing apples and oranges. Sure - both take photos, however most comparisons made are unfair, biased and just plain wrong. Let me get this out of the way first - any DSLR or modern mirrorless camera will smoke any cellphone camera under all circumstances, ignoring for the moment the photographer and the concept of availability. Once you start arguing that the camera you have with you is better than the one left at home, you are no longer comparing cameras. You are comparing laziness and personal attributes of the photographer. I am not saying it does not contribute to a camera system's success or usefulness, but one cannot use it in image quality comparisons - which is what all these reviews are about. Furthermore, all these reviewers have the tendency to show images at small web resolutions of about 0.3MP. Granted, for exclusive online use that is a fair comparison, but once you use it as background image on your computer or try to print it, the small resolution images are misleading.

So we have established three aspects to describe the relative benefit of one camera system over another:
1. Camera
2. Portability / Availability
3. Photographer skills

Americans especially like to advertise stuff to people as if people are idiots. Agreed - most of the time they would be correct in assuming so. However, when it could potentially adversely affect your well being I think they have gone overboard. Look at the bottle of nice carrot juice below:

If your RDA (Recommended Daily Allowance) is determined to be x, and you consume 7x of it per day, I presume you would be 7 times as healthy? Logic suggests that by this reasoning, the RDA should be infinite. Why? Because if 7x is 700% better than x, then surely 100x is 10000% better, and so on.