niccl 44 minutes ago

In some book by P G Wodehouse (inventor of Jeeves the butler), one character says (out of nowhere) that all the humans on the planet could fit in a cubic hole 1/2 mile on each side. It took me a little while to convince myself that was true. It still is, apparently

  • schnevets 35 minutes ago

    I usually say if every human being on the planet were placed in Texas, it would be less dense than Paris as an argument against an area being "too crowded", but this is an even more jarring comparison.

    • DennisP 17 minutes ago

      Take food production into account and the planet looks a little more crowded.

  • GMoromisato 6 minutes ago

    Nightmare fuel for the next Terminator or Matrix sequel.

NDlurker 4 minutes ago

What would .2 billion tons of viruses look like? Or any large mass of viruses? Goopy? What color what it be? These are probably questions for an LLM

ortusdux 1 hour ago

Facts I try not to think about:

- More than 2/3rds of the world's avian biomass is poultry

- There are more Panda Expresses than pandas (edit - in the wild)

  • sidewndr46 1 hour ago

    Aren't there more just about any retail store than pandas?

    • anukin 43 minutes ago

      How does

      “There are more jiffy’s lubes than pandas in the world “

      sound?

      • komodo99 41 minutes ago

        Slippery.

        Now I want to give a panda a slip-n-slide and film it.

    • ortusdux 26 minutes ago

      Actually it looks like I had the numbers wrong. There are about 1800 wild pandas and 750 in captivity, while there are about 2200 panda express locations. I think the original fact was "more panda expresses than wild pandas".

      It looks like 39 restaurant chains have more than 2550 locations - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_fast_food_...

  • stult 10 minutes ago

    I didn't know they had Panda Expresses in the wild

gumby 1 hour ago

Famously, when asked about a god, J.B.S. Haldane allegedly said that if there is a god or gods, they must have an “inordinate fondness for beetles.”

  • adammarples 52 minutes ago

    This is because when they would lay a sheet on the ground and shake the branches of a tree, they would often find more species of beetles than anything else. However, they may have been extrapolating a bit far from the few places they tried this.

  • 0cf8612b2e1e 8 minutes ago

    There is a Discworld joke about this. After being introduced to the God of evolution, God shows off the magnum opus he has been developing, the cockroach.

gkoenig 8 hours ago

It was fun and gave human written. Thanks for that!

  • apsurd 1 hour ago

    funny that i didn’t think about it till i read your comment. and then realized i read the entire thing. checks out.

    on the other hand i don’t think I’m physically capable of reading the AI landing pages of every new product on HN.

  • elevation 1 hour ago

    English words like "goodbye" are contracted from longer expressions after centuries of common use[0]. Reading your phrase "gave human written" made me wonder how this phrase would contract if it were still in use centuries from today.

    [0]: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/t2ew2UHaCuY

imzadi 56 minutes ago

I feel like it might be bamboo, but they sort of skipped over grasses

  • yorwba 41 minutes ago

    Grasses mentioned in the article: rice, wheat, maize and sugar cane. I think all of them likely beat the bamboos because there are too many different bamboo species, not a single dominant one.

    • shevy-java 30 minutes ago

      That's not necessarily grasses though. Rice is a Poaceae, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poaceae, so these are covered by the grass family - but grasses would be the non-eatable variants in the wild. See Wikipedia:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grass

      "The three major families of grasslike plants are true grasses (Poaceae), sedges (Cyperaceae), and rushes (Juncaceae)."

      So he at best only did the family Poacaea but where are the wild poaceae in his calculations?

      Tons of things are missing in that article.

shevy-java 33 minutes ago

He did not calculate the weight of bacteria, archaea, viruses?

I understand that they each individually are small, but they are literally everywhere - and include carbon too.

a3w 56 minutes ago

How come algae did not make the list?

andai 1 hour ago

Obligatory xkcd has a nice visualization of the land mammals by mass:

https://xkcd.com/1338/

  • dhosek 30 minutes ago

    It’s nice to see he separated the sheep and the goats.

JoeAltmaier 7 hours ago

Anaerobic bacteria in rock underground. Because they inhabit cubic volume, not 2D surfaces, there can be no comparison.

  • xboxnolifes 1 hour ago

    I'm not sure what cubic volume vs 2D surfaces means to you, but these comparisons are by mass, not volume. Plus, anaerobic bacteria would only come up on top if you counted all of them as one species, which they are not.

    • QuadmasterXLII 1 hour ago

      Pretty much all life is 1 g / ml give or take 20%

vlyan 49 minutes ago

>There are thousands of species of ants and termites, and just one species of human.

that's rather debatable. unless, of course, you're an adherent of creationism.

  • pfdietz 46 minutes ago

    It's talking about species that currently exist. As far as we know there is only one currently existing species in the genus Homo.