Buzzfeed out here doing the real work

The fucking MythBusters did an episode on that like 20 years ago.

Yeah, the concept is nice, but it tells me that the Big Bang doesn’t explain what happened before it (the leading hypothesis is that the Big Bang started time, so there is no “before”)

Which is entirely correct. Time as we know it is an "inside" parameter of our universe, and therefor any causality only exists inside our universe, too. Because causality always contains a temporal element as in "Event A happened, which caused Event B later". We cannot make any assumption of "before the big bang" and therefor no assumption of "what caused the big bang" either.

At least not in any way we could relate to.

the common myth about Daddy Longlegs being highly venomous

Quite a childrens tale, even back then. Two reasons for it: First, the "Daddy Longlegs" has no ability to bite us. Even extreme thin parts of the skin, e.g. the lips, are still way to thick for it to penetrate with its teeth. Second, even if it could inject its venom (which really exists!) it would need to inject about half a cup of it into a grown adult (IIRC about the amount, it could be a quarter cup or a whole cup or something, but still in the range of "thousands of total spider weights").

You still occasionally should, let it go all the way to dead, but for calibration reasons instead of safety reasons

I remember even testing that one out as a kid, observing that it obviously wasn't true, and bringing up my experience to my teacher. "No" was basically the only response I got. How did a myth like that catch on when it was so easily testable by literally anybody?

the landing page mentions "your tongue has taste zones". though on the other hand brontosauruses are real again

Planet 9 a conspiracy theory? Who's conspiring against whom there :|

Afaik it was a legit theory since we discovered planet 8 that way and then people tried to use the same method for further planets. Also beyond Mercury there was supposed to be Vulcanus and people reported sightings but nothing added up

Discovery of planet 8 (Wikipedia):

unexpected changes in the orbit of Uranus led Alexis Bouvard to hypothesise that its orbit was subject to gravitational perturbation by an unknown planet. After Bouvard's death, the position of Neptune was mathematically predicted from his observations, independently, by John Couch Adams and Urbain Le Verrier. Neptune was subsequently directly observed with a telescope

And then Mr Einstein had a thing or two to say about those gravitational disturbances being actually relativity and most things clicked into place (but you'll still have a discrepancy between the known spacetime curving and observed orbits because it's hard to know what mass is exactly where in the Kuiper belt etc.). Or something. I'm probably wrong on the details but that's the broad strokes as I remember them

We didn't get planet 9 in school either fwiw but I think it was in magazines or encyclopedia at my grandparents' place that I heard of it

Those false facts were on the site. I was never taught that.

Besides every girl in my school were better than any boy at mathematics.

Huh. I don't think national pride that was a factor in my disappointment. I was more sad because 9 is a better number than 8, and Pluto is just a cute little guy.

I care that it is draconian nonsense. It wasn't created by planetary scientists, or by consulting any. It was primarily created by a highschool teacher in Temecula California. It is temporally incongruent. Saying it is not a planet then calling it a planet in the following name is an oxymoron, or rather just moronic. And it impedes real science and science communication depreciating the era and discoveries that have happened.

The real definition of worlds is by gravitational differentiation and the point at which a body is dominated by geology.

No object is ever defined by external factors. It is a fundamental elementary logic failure to attempt to do so. If you drive your car in a bicycle lane and clear out all the cyclists, what the &%$# object is defined. Absolutely nothing! You may define a condition here, not an object, not a noun! The fact that this definition even exists is an epic embarrassment that makes the entire field look like a bunch of dogmatic clowns.