Personally, the biological nitpick I had was that a creature with a digestive tract so weak and sensitive that it can instantly die from having a balloon explode inside it can somehow can eat live, violently thrashing horses and even 40+ people with only some digestive problems.
Continuously reading, studying, and (hopefully) growing.It's the difference between being able to swallow a sea urchin and being able to swallow a grenade.
ERROR: The current state of the world is unacceptable. Save anyway? YES/NOThis, and I’ll add one more to it. Jean’s eye placement isn’t made expressly clear where it is (in the film at least, idk about the book), and it’s made it’s home near a pretty well-traveled interstate freeway.
So if it’s somehow able to tell if someone is looking at it from a pretty considerable distance, then there’s no way in hell it wouldn’t have gone after a fair few people driving on the freeway and thus been discovered sooner.
Chain an angry nature god at your own peril.Really interesting video essay on the "what killed the dinosaurs" debate, and the problems with how science is communicated to the public.
Edited by harryhenry on Jul 10th 2023 at 7:21:00 AM
Compare the final episode of WWD with the enterity of Prehistoric Planet. WWD was highly conservative even for its day, and Hell Creek being portrayed as a dying world that got put out of its misery by the impact is quite telling.
And, well, there are plenty of mass extinctions anyway, yet they don't validate preevolutionist hypothesis.
Edited by Eriorguez on Jul 9th 2023 at 6:44:43 PM
It's worth noting that it doesn't seem to react to anyone looking at it when it's hiding inside a cloud. Like, if it's actively hiding, it won't respond to a brief glance and no further response. The other question is if it can tell what a car is.
@Redmess Probably not something to take too seriously.
The state of California is comically trigger-happy about slapping warnings about things causing cancer. To my understanding the problem is usually that they don't say anything about, say, the quantity of the chemicals in question or how likely the chemicals involved are to cause cancer.
For example, "contains trivial, trace amounts of a chemical that according to a few studies slightly raises cancer risk if taken in high doses"
Leviticus 19:34Yeah, Proposition 65 was really not well written, pretty much every commercial venue is required to hang one of those up somewhere, be it a hardware store or a coffee shop.
I don't think there's much interest in a ballot initiative to narrow its definitions though, even as it blinds people to actual warning labels. It could be worth worrying about, but it could also not be.
It's probably no more dangerous than any other shelf as cancer and birth defect risk goes. Either way, the real danger from the shelf is it could fall on you or drop something important or drop something important on you.
Edited by Florien on Jul 11th 2023 at 2:52:44 AM
oh
lawd
he
comin'
Nature: Could this ancient whale be the heaviest animal ever?
Perucetus colossus, a basilosaurid from the mid-late Eocene (around 38 mya), was described by palaeontologists from a set of extraordinarily large and dense vertebrae, ribs and a bit of pelvis excavated in Peru. As always, it's not an easy task to estimate the exact size and mass of a creature from partial remains, but the researchers put it between 85 and 340 tonnes,
with a best-guess estimate at around 180 tonnes. For comparison, the modern blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus) normally weighs 100-150 tonnes as an adult, although some individuals might have grown as large as 200 tonnes.
This estimate obviously isn't set in stone, but it's worth looking at what Perucetus's bones suggest. Researchers think that it was a shallow-water animal that couldn't collapse its lungs for deep diving like modern whales can; as a result, it evolved very dense bones as ballast to let it dwell along the seabed, sort of like an oversized manatee.
One day, we will read his name in the news and cheer.Keep an eye on that one, as the paper is a bit on the sensationalist side. Restoration went HARD on the sirenian angle, and it wasn't really subject to phylo testing, only deemed a basilosaur due to a few characters (and, well, we have early baleen whales with basilosaur characters at roughly the same time... which makes sense, as modern whales are nested within basilosaurs).
In any case, the animal would had been VERY big no matter what, but right now I'm seeing that the data is open to interpretation.
So, we need more of this fascinating animal.
And, c'mon, what a waste of a name; "Peru whale" doesn't hold very well as a genus, when you are likely to find a relative of comparable size elsewhere, AND Peru is pretty much the country where most oceanic fossil whales were found. Colossocetus peruvensis would have worked far better as a name IMO.
Is this calculation correct ? I've seen several people Point out it seems wrong. Especially when you remember basiolaurds feed on a much higher trophic level than blue whales Meaning they would need to hunt and eat way more to sustain themselves which in turn means a smaller size.
"That's right mortal. By channeling my divine rage into power, I have forged a new instrument in which to destroy you."This one has adaptions for a shallow water bottom dwelling lifestyle; perhaps a seaweed grazer. Its vertebrae are more massive than those of a blue whale, but mostly due to adding bone to them to make them denser, rather than by just sheer size:
The main body of the vertebra, the round disc, is noticeably smaller than that of a blue whale vertebra, but the spinous and traverse processes (the spines that go up and sideways) are THROUGHLY ossified and enlarged. The rib is also far more massive despite overall pointing out to a smaller trunk size.
And, for the record, this more conservative restoration was also seen as plausible by cetacean workers:
In any case, a quite weird and very large animal. And likely not a macropredator like Basilosaurus likely was as well, this thing is seemingly adapted for bottom feeding.
Edited by Eriorguez on Aug 3rd 2023 at 12:51:17 PM

My nitpick was that it seems unlikely to me that Jean Jacket's eye structure would have the resolution to make out someone's individual eye movements to begin with, so maybe everyone is just mistaken in a way that still supports the underlying theme. I've never gotten around to reading the in-universe research paper made to document its biology, though.
ERROR: The current state of the world is unacceptable. Save anyway? YES/NO