Crypto bros stealing all the consumer GPUs :‘’(

Son of Neil Ty, duh.

At some point you just gotta realise you won’t support 2+k consumer graphics & simply let it render at less details.

Who is gonna know? Yes, boobs have always been triangles.

A cow is a bird without being a bird, you just have to expand you perspective & neglect the original context.

What I’m realising is that cows are spying on us …

There are WAY more rats than cows. Period.

So if you know that, why would you insist it’s saying that instead of immediately looking for something that does fit?

Also a planet is not a pen and no farmer ever will say they have 241 animals!

Yes, that describes the complexities of language perfectly (and the process of how you decipher the meaning)!

We tend to forget how complex communication is, expressing huge concepts with a few sounds/characters/gestures is one of the greatest achievements of Earth’s animals (humans included).

It’s amazing it even works. But requires a lot of brainpower to encode & decode.

Oh, no, I knew that (it fascinated me before), this isn’t even the first such study, but mammals are there dominant species, a lot of other biomass is supporting it (eg oxygen, weather, etc).

I’m basically saying that you can see from the context (the numbers) that it’s biomass - the same-ish as below even when/if the first thing you think about doesn’t make sense, you search for the way it does (again, not dissing, but strictly technically it is about literacy, which in this case the pic is at fault for not all of the audience not getting it, and you for not understanding it, an overlap just didn’t happen):

And yes, since this is pun-ish territory, it’s normal to feel some anger, puns are there worst.

Oh, I see now, thx.

For me (how I perceived the simplified pic) the main difference was that I didn’t think ‘in a pen on a farm’ but ‘on a planet’.
And your example also screams of ‘it’s not comparable, don’t do that, in what scenario would you need a number 241 that would made sense?’
(I really can’t think of on answer short of making a Twitch channel for each individual animal.)

Also that question is leading bcs you ask how many, whereas the pic in the post doesn’t specifically say anything (which is the complaint as I gather - but we deduct the meaning of words from context all the time in all languages, if the ‘by individual’ doesn’t make sense, it’s obviously not that).

you have 240 rats and one cow in a pen on a farm

Do you not think the farmer saying he has 241 animals would be made fun of?

A planet used up for specific food cultivation (which left no ecosystem unaffected).

Should have invented (energy to) food replicators before having the hubris to feed 100s of millions.

Why would the infographic be by number?
(I’m not dissing you, I only ask bcs I never even thought about it being my population, like, what would it compare by population in such a vast group as mammals.)

this is the way it’s been for tens of thousands of years

Human population needed to be fed 10+k years ago:
> 1,000,000
vs now
10,000,000,000

Which just means it has never been the way it is now. Those two numbers on a finite planet are represented by the pic perfectly.

WhooMonsOly is just observing their little competition.

Yeah, 4 million years of various “humanoid” species cohabiting & barely making it through (one big event wiping out the whole species - that’s why we have such a shallow gene pool & all look “identical” relative to difs in other species).

But the rapid growth was always unsustainable, the gens lived on natural wealth that they just took out of (into?) the economy way quicker than the replenishing cycle. But the difference between a million and a billon is unimaginable, that’s why we can now witness the collapse (mass extinction event) within a generation.

Social status with the local HOA,
not the social status with the local coven.

Yes, humans.
We destabilised to fairly high extend literally all the ecosystems (unless you count battery cage farming as an (artificial) ecosystem, that one boomed, agricultural monocultures too).

But I’m not just continuing a bit, humans are rally the source of a lot of invasive species introduced to local environments where otherwise that wouldn’t happen. And it mostly happened unintentionally, but intentionally too.

The dif I wanna point out is the scale & timeframes.
Eg naturally (by which I mean without human involvement) invasive species mostly happen really slowly, and from adjacent ecosystems (sure, there are exceptions, but it’s like spiders shooting butt-strings into the air & just by chance floating to Hawaii). Bcs ecosystems overlap, there is no strict boundary for the species.

And that is what always happened throughout history, it’s part of evolution (ever fauna actively transferring various species to new environments).

True. Which still leads to an infestation.

On non-logarithmic scale:

And don’t forget that shown is just the last couple of thousand of years - there are 4 more millions of years prior to this of slow growth (and some collapses) but it wouldn’t even register on such a chart.

Ugh, I guess this is far off topic.

My sounding port is DC 24V compatible, just hook me up, I have still decades of battery life to offer!

aggressive spread and resilience to removal

Humans are a weed.

becomes a weed when it’s suddenly everywhere and you are fighting constantly to get rid of it

(Humans! :))
But you are fighting constantly to get rid of it bcs of some arbitrary goals. And the fact it’s spreading means that it’s perfectly adapted for survival in that environment you created, so it’s perfect for that pace.

Yes, this was a real educational technicality fuckup, it seemed sus but everyone was like “don’t you know it’s a weed”? - “No, no I do not. And you don’t even have a field to worry abut crop yields, it’s just a lawn & now there is a flower in it, wtf.”

I know it’s economy (or even sociology), but it’s too close to biology not to directly explain it properly.