this post was submitted on 18 Nov 2024
1028 points (99.2% liked)

Science Memes

11161 readers
1472 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 173 points 5 days ago (37 children)

According to the links in this post It's 95%-99% survival.

[–] [email protected] 62 points 5 days ago (35 children)

Then why can't I yeet a bunch of goldfish

[–] [email protected] 114 points 5 days ago (19 children)

One of the bigger reasons has to do with the square cube law - as the size of something increases, surface area increases by a factor of 2 but mass increases by a factor of 3, so little fishes have a surface area-to-mass ratio that is quite a bit higher than a larger fish, and they're more susceptible to abrupt changes in temperature.

Kinda like how an ice cube will melt a lot faster than a big slab of ice, the core temperature of some small fish like a goldfish is gonna change more rapidly than the core temperature of a big fish like a trout so they tend to be a lot more finnicky in regard to significant and instantaneous changes to temperature and stuff. A larger fish might shrug off a significant change because it affects them more slowly, but that might be a totally wild an overwhelming experience for a little fish to go through

[–] TriflingToad 55 points 5 days ago (1 children)

something i love about Lemmy is that on the drop of a hat someone is willing to calculate the "surface area to fish ratio"

[–] [email protected] 35 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Problem is, you almost never know if that's actually true or complete bullshit.

It seems plausible, but killing virgins for rain also seemed plausible back then in the 70s.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

"But it has rained, hasn't it?" Smug look

An example of why arguing with idiots is impossible to win.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 days ago

The 70s was a wild time.

load more comments (17 replies)
load more comments (32 replies)
load more comments (33 replies)