That's awesome - my kids loved it too!Why did I only just learn about these cool butterflies?
That's awesome - my kids loved it too!Why did I only just learn about these cool butterflies?
If you do this enough, it lets you fly on it...Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I'm not sure how this isn't a dinosaur
I asked my wife what she thought this sound was. Response: "Russia invaded Ukraine?"Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I'm not sure how this isn't a dinosaur
It can be argued that all birds are dinosaurs.I'm not sure how this isn't a dinosaur
You might almost rather ask: what's the counterargument?
Sharks too…well to be more accurate, sharks existed before dinosaurs. They’re truly ancient - there was a fact I read recently on how sharks predate Saturn’s rings, which is just mind boggling to me.
They're the most perfect being this planet has come up with and they nailed it a couple hundred million years ago. Incredible.Sharks too…well to be more accurate, sharks existed before dinosaurs. They’re truly ancient - there was a fact I read recently on how sharks predate Saturn’s rings, which is just mind boggling to me.
Sharks would be dead/nonexistent without everything 'below' on the food chain.They're the most perfect being this planet has come up with and they nailed it a couple hundred million years ago. Incredible.
And your point is?Sharks would be dead/nonexistent without everything 'below' on the food chain.
SuperorganismAnd your point is?
They contain the driest deserts in the world in terms of rainfallIs this a new thing? It's pretty nuts.
Though, the Arctic or the Antarctic, can't remember which, probably Antarctica, counts as a desert because of the lack of water in the air. So there's nothing that says deserts have to be hot
Its argued that technically it is.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I'm not sure how this isn't a dinosaur
It's not the Atacama?They contain the driest deserts in the world in terms of rainfall
Bugger off and answer the question instead of insulting my intelligence. What's your point? We all know that everything is connected. That doesn't take away from the perfection that is sharks.Superorganism
It's a school of thought regarding things like how a cell is a part of a superorganism that is a plant/animal is part of a superorganism of the collective human species is a part of a superorganism of DNA-based life, etc etc.
I mean this is shit that aspiring Disney princesses in tutus are aware of.
Did you take a friendly nudge to contribute to positive expansion of awareness and bristle instead?
EDIT: Definition of bristle added due to possible re-evaluation of Dr. Dwayne
That's the driest sand desertIt's not the Atacama?
Sounds like a day in an American school.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I'm not sure how this isn't a dinosaur
Sounds like a day in an American school.
Interesting. Thanks for that.That's the driest sand desert
Crocodilians too, though I don’t know where the cutoff point is in exactly how old they are.They're the most perfect being this planet has come up with and they nailed it a couple hundred million years ago. Incredible.
From WIkipedia:Interesting. Thanks for that.
Yea I remember years ago on QI he asked what was the driest desert in the world and I said Atacama.Interesting. Thanks for that.
All birds are cnuts? Or at least most of them.You might almost rather ask: what's the counterargument?
Huh? All animals are in a food chain. So what?Sharks would be dead/nonexistent without everything 'below' on the food chain.
There is only one problem with this theory. It's bollocks.Superorganism
It's a school of thought regarding things like how a cell is a part of a superorganism that is a plant/animal is part of a superorganism of the collective human species is a part of a superorganism of DNA-based life, etc etc.
I mean this is shit that aspiring Disney princesses in tutus are aware of.
Did you take a friendly nudge to contribute to positive expansion of awareness and bristle instead?
EDIT: Definition of bristle added due to possible re-evaluation of Dr. Dwayne
I see where you're coming from - I read another article about the intelligence of Australian cockatoos this week.All birds are cnuts? Or at least most of them.
Wings don't eat and can't be hungry?There is only one problem with this theory. It's bollocks.
They are pricks. Amusingly arrogant and bolshy pricks.I see where you're coming from - I read another article about the intelligence of Australian cockatoos this week.
I have to admit that I love it when animals are basically just laughing at us.They are pricks. Amusingly arrogant and bolshy pricks.
They love trashing things. Trees first and foremost- they don't just eat the seeds and fruit - they love to trash the whole tree at the same time.
They also love breaking human stuff. Like anti-perch spikes.
Not everyone can conceptualize further and further how much. No real reason to get angry when someone presents the opportunity, yet your default was to do so. Right? I didn't contradict the sharks thing. You're the one who bristled when said opportunity was presented. And the one who's still treating it as some adversarial encounter and by default assuming someone is trying to insult you.Bugger off and answer the question instead of insulting my intelligence. What's your point? We all know that everything is connected. That doesn't take away from the perfection that is sharks.
If that's what you feel, sure. Perhaps as long as you are aware of the irony that there are many many objectively 'smarter' people who are able to entertain and have fun discussing the 'theory' would never dismiss anyone holding the bolded opinion.There is only one problem with this theory. It's bollocks.
This was the part where I felt insulted.:Not everyone can conceptualize further and further how much. No real reason to get angry when someone presents the opportunity, yet your default was to do so. Right? I didn't contradict the sharks thing. You're the one who bristled when said opportunity was presented. And the one who's still treating it as some adversarial encounter and by default assuming someone is trying to insult you.
A: sharks are perfect
B: sharks are useless without plankton
A: wtf is your point bugger off etc.
Read that back to yourself; who's insulted whom.
Now this, would be B being an asshole:
A: sharks are perfect
B: sharks can't use a dumaresq you moron
Apparently, I have less awareness than an aspiring Dinsey princess. You're also making a lot of assumptions on what I do and do not conceptualize.I mean this is shit that aspiring Disney princesses in tutus are aware of.
I suppose it's (partially) a function of my non-use of smilies. Either way, I apologize. My default switch is rimaldo. The lead in *was* 'mighty' sharks being useless without 'lowly bottom-feeders', right?This was the part where I felt insulted.:
I'm making zero assumptions regarding the conceptualizing part. There is no positive or negative either way ('more ability'/'less ability') - each entity is unique and encounters the universe in its own way.You're also making a lot of assumptions on what I do and do not conceptualize.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Like that, nature doesn't look all that wild really!Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I'm well aware of what it is and humans are not a superorganism because they don't meet the definition of what one is. Humans are holobionts although that concept also has problems.If that's what you feel, sure. Perhaps as long as you are aware of the irony that there are many many objectively 'smarter' people who are able to entertain and have fun discussing the 'theory' would never dismiss anyone holding the bolded opinion.
There is definitely a cutoff where certain aspects become impossible for people to understand and hence it gets shunted into 'bollocks/nonsense'. Posted a video a while back where a gentleman discusses the idea of cell-based emergent behavior etc. Maybe check it out if you have the time.
SameI have to admit that I love it when animals are basically just laughing at us.
I am entirely confused why you would respond to someone saying that sharks are perfect by pointing out that they're part of a food chain or, more widely, of the earth's ecosystem. I mean, isn't everything?Not everyone can conceptualize further and further how much. No real reason to get angry when someone presents the opportunity, yet your default was to do so. Right? I didn't contradict the sharks thing. You're the one who bristled when said opportunity was presented. And the one who's still treating it as some adversarial encounter and by default assuming someone is trying to insult you.
A: sharks are perfect
B: sharks are useless without plankton
A: wtf is your point bugger off etc.
Read that back to yourself; who's insulted whom.
Now this, would be B being an asshole:
A: sharks are perfect
B: sharks can't use a dumaresq you moron
If that's what you feel, sure. Perhaps as long as you are aware of the irony that there are many many objectively 'smarter' people who are able to entertain and have fun discussing the 'theory' would never dismiss anyone holding the bolded opinion.
There is definitely a cutoff where certain aspects become impossible for people to understand and hence it gets shunted into 'bollocks/nonsense'. Posted a video a while back where a gentleman discusses the idea of cell-based emergent behavior etc. Maybe check it out if you have the time.
That's awesome!Same
I want these objectively smarter people hunted down and eliminated.I am entirely confused why you would respond to someone saying that sharks are perfect by pointing out that they're part of a food chain or, more widely, of the earth's ecosystem. Yeah, duh, isn't everything?
It's also hilarious how you adopt such a condescending tone (the aspiring Disney princesses), followed by the above argument from authority with a sprinkle of condescension ('many objectively smarter people') - while actually your use of the term 'superorganism' here is pretty obscure and not accepted scientific consensus at all.