2464: Muller's Ratchet

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Revision as of 20:26, 17 May 2021 by DgbrtBOT (talk | contribs) (Created by dgbrtBOT)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
Muller's Ratchet
Who knew you could learn so much about sexual reproduction from looking at pictures on the internet!
Title text: Who knew you could learn so much about sexual reproduction from looking at pictures on the internet!

Explanation

Ambox notice.png This explanation may be incomplete or incorrect: Created by a BOT. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.
If you can address this issue, please edit the page! Thanks.

Transcript

Ambox notice.png This transcript is incomplete. Please help editing it! Thanks.


comment.png add a comment! ⋅ comment.png add a topic (use sparingly)! ⋅ Icons-mini-action refresh blue.gif refresh comments!

Discussion

I do this frequently: Seeking out the best quality of two media I've seen put together, in an effort to improve the quality of the resultant combined media.

I had no idea, all this time I'd been creating recombinant PNG. ProphetZarquon (talk) 20:58, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

This is the first time I've encountered recombination, but I've seen the many versions of images scattered across the internet for sure --Wielder of the Staple Gun (talk) 21:33, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

On a number of occasions I've had to edit images given to me to submit to a resource. The original photographer insists on having a 'burnt-on' timestamp directly on the image (he's always done that, and won't accept metadata does the job); meanwhile, the resource's policies are heavily against such 'decoration' and moderators often reject such. When I can't easily clone a 'coverage' area from within the same image - and feather its edges to blend in - I sometimes find another original (but slightly different viewpoint) submitted image that has a sufficiently unsullied 'patch' to let it pass muster. That's a slightly meta-example, I suppose. 141.101.99.161 23:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Sexual reproduction pictures on teh Interwebz mkay, but I lament a certain underrepresentation of amoeba pr0n. 141.101.105.134 08:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

im guessing this time traveller ^^ just came back from 2008. dont go to 2020. ever. just dont. 162.158.79.59 14:36, 18 May 2021 (UTC)Bumpf

That's a squirrel?? Look at its tail - squirrels have thick fluffy tails, not that skinny one. And if it is a squirrel, it's by far the largest I've ever seen - unless Hairbun and Cueball are children. I was 100% certain when I saw it that it was a cat. --mezimm 172.69.42.124 14:53, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

And we do know how Randall draws squirrels: 1503, 1578, 776, and 1156 all contain examples. I vote that this be changed. --mezimm 172.69.42.21 14:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure that's a cat, the muzzle looks wrong to me. Some other feline, maybe. A 4-legged furry mammal with a tail, almost definitely. Could we ask Randall for clarification? 172.69.22.132 19:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Looks like a rat to me. Maybe a possum or something? It has a pointed muzzle. 162.158.75.160 20:56, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Definitely an opossum or other such larger marsupial. Its muzzle is too pointed to be a cat. 162.158.75.144 02:08, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
It looks like a large city rat to me-have you seen the proportions those rodents can get to?!?https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/giant-rat-found-in-london-gas-engineer-finds-rodent-bigger-than-a-small-child-a6925591.html 42.book.addict (talk) 21:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC)