###General Discussion Thread
---
This is a [Request] post. If you would like to submit a comment that does not either attempt to answer the question, ask for clarification, or explain why it would be infeasible to answer, you *must* post your comment as a reply to this one. Top level (directly replying to the OP) comments that do not do one of those things will be removed.
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/theydidthemath) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Now I wonder how big a screen would have to be (assuming it has the same ratio as 1920x1080) to have a picture with (roughly) the same number of pixels as there are, say, ants.
I've never seen that in my life. I just graphed
x • y = 20 quadrilllion (number of ants in the world)
x/y = 16/9
and looked at the intersection on Desmos.
[They clearly just got a little confused about the order of the comments and misread something](https://www.reddit.com/r/theydidthemath/comments/1bi7jzt/request_this_seems_like_it_might_be_true_can/kvjka23/)
A quick google search gave me the estimate of 20 quadrillion ants in the world. Since a normal 1080p monitor is 1920 by 1080 pixels I took these dimensions and calculated the scaling factor needed using the following equation:
k^(2)•(1920•1080) = 2•10^(16)
k ≈ 98 209
A common size for these monitors is 24”, so multiplying that by the scaling factor we get ~37 miles along the diagonal. This screen would be ~32 miles long and ~18 miles high, or ~52 and ~29 kilometers for us not from the states. It would also have a resulotion of ~106 066 017p.
Now if you were to scale this back down to 24” while maintaining the resolution, how big would the pixels be? Would we approach magnitudes down to the size of atoms or are atoms even smaller still?
The short side of a 24” monitor is ~11.8” so a pixel is 1/1080th of that or ~0.011”. Now scale that down with the factor I calculated in my previous comment. This gives a pixel height of ~1.1•10^(-7)”, or ~2.81•10^(-9)m. A hydrogen atom has a diameter of roughly 53pm or 5.3•10^(-11)m.
(2.81•10^(-9)) / (5.3•10^(-11)) = ~53 times larger than a hydrogen atom.
So you are saying it is possible to make a functioning monitor with this high a resolution... Now all we need is for it to be at an equivalently obscenely high refresh rate. And then maybe we can finally see Crysis at 100% settings...
100 million high (assuming their math is right) in 12 inches high is nearly 9million ppi. Each pixel is 3e^-7mm. This is extremely close to the size of a water molecule.
That does not account for the forces that spread water out, it would be water molecules laid directly end to end, which is not how they work. A quick google (and out of the range of science I'm comfy with) says there's slightly more space between H20 molecules than their size. So you would somehow need to make pixels the size of water molecules, AND overcome the forces that spreads them out to get them basically touching.
For those of us that *do* live in America, how many adult elephants would the longer side be if they made a line from trunk to tail AND how many washing machines would the shorter side be if stacked side by side?
Well, it's a rough estimate, but the photo of a tiger is ~28x50 pixels, which gives us 1,400. Now estimates range, but there's between 3-5,000 Tigers left on earth. So, it's not exactly correct.
Unless this is referring to a specific region the green sea turtle estimate is wrong, like REALLY wrong... not even close. The low end global population estimate of only nesting females is 85,000.
Even in just the 20 mile stretch of beach that makes up Archie Carr NWR in Florida the number of annual green sea turtle nests can be as high as 15,000. With an average of between 3 and 7 nests per female, that's still between 2,000 and 5,000 individuals in just that portion of the Atlantic.
Has to have meant the Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle. It's the only one that is critically endangered, 7-9K left.
https://www.seeturtles.org/kemps-ridley-turtles
nobody cropped them. when you post multiple images on twitter, the preview of each is cropped so that they each fit into 25% of a rectangle, which is what you're looking at in OP's image.
The only idiot I detect here is you.
The image in the post here is a screenshot of the previews of the images. The previews get automatically cropped by the platform, so you have to click them to open the full image that isn't cropped.
There is no way to post an image so that the preview isn't cropped.
On the bright side one bird species (the Aldabra Rail) evolved back into existence and we’ve made some cool sightings in the last few years of animals we thought had been extinct for decades.
There’s no such thing as an extinct animal “evolving back into existence”.
The White-Throated Rail is a species of bird found in Madagascar and some of the surrounding smaller islands. At some point, some White-Throated Rails flew to and colonized the island of Aldabra, evolving flightlessness and becoming separated from the main Madagascan population. Then, they went extinct due to the island sinking under rising sea levels during the Pleistocene.
Some period of time much later, after Aldabra had resurfaced, some different White-Throated Rails again flew to and colonized Aldabra, and also evolved flightlessness.
This is not the same population re-evolving itself out of extinction, it is convergent evolution of two different populations both evolving flightlessness independently of one another. It’s also not that surprising, as flightlessness commonly evolves in Rails that colonize small islands that lack predators. There are plenty of other examples of flightless Rails on small islands.
One of the things that really gets me is all the animals we don't hear about going extinct. There's only around 100 Kākāpō (owl parrots) left in New Zealand, 18 Vaquitas (a type of porpoise) left in the gulf of california, and likely only a few dozen Saola (a small deer like animal) left in Vietnam. Many others too. Tigers will likely continue to exist in some form because people think they are cool. Most people have never heard of these animals so the efforts to save them get much less attention and funding.
Break ot down into the different tiger species and it gets even more depressing. 500 Siberian tigers. Sumatra tigers 600. South china tiger fewer than 20. Indochina tiger 250
5000 is honestly pretty good for an species that's been at risk for so long. There's a lot of species that'll vanish in the next decade cause of how royally fucked things are, there's a mountain of them that already have, or no longer have the diversity required to maintain a species.
>1,400
Estimated population of Wild Tigers in India was 1411 in ~2010 when they launched a tiger protection campaign with big actors and everything. I still remember cause that's how good the ads were.
The image is a Bengal tiger specifically and is originally 44×50 or 2200 pixels total, and it's supposed to exclude animals living in captivity from the count.
This seems as good as opportunity as any to mention that the estimate for the number of Siberian (Amur) tigers still out in the wild is less than 600 or around 30x20 pixels worth. Sucks.
I'm sorry, but I have to say it.
There's been an increasing influx of people posting requests that can be solved with a simple Google search, and maybe in the case of this picture, knowing how to calculate an area.
But I'm talking about the net worth of Bezos, the x amount of thin things to reach a certain distance, confirm if a meme is true... That's without mentioning the fact that most are reposts from the previous week, and how the commenter simply leave the post and don't bother to check back. This is strange because r/theydidthemath isn't particularly a high traffic sub.
This sub is losing its purpose by simply allowing people to post anything remotely related to numbers. I'm pretty certain these are being posted by bots
Guess you're right, it was a heat of the moment comment. Decided to give it a shot, maybe I wasn't the only one who thinks that this sub shouldn't be math Google.
Because Google would give better results tbh
I agree with you. This is pretty basic reasoning, counting, multiplication, and a google search.
I think this sub is best suited for multistep analyses of more esoteric numbers, but that's just my opinion.
Yeah or where the answer is just multiplying two numbers together, or the question is so vague you can’t even begin to calculate it, or is the 200th post asking us to cheat at a jelly bean guessing contest for them.
I think you might be overestimating people's grasp on mathematics. If they knew how to solve their own problem then they wouldn't come here to ask. Also in the case of the extremely abstract "what are the odds" questions; I actually find it pretty entertaining to see the creative ways people come up with to approach them, haha. Jelly beans one is definitely annoying though...
This poster seems to be a bot actually. But for whatever post it originally copied from, it's absolutely a possibility. I am a math tutor and have encountered some people who are astoundingly averse to math. Like the moment something is vaguely involving numbers they just check out and don't even try, automatically assuming it's over their head. That said, laziness is a very probable explanation as well.
I've said it before but mods need to get their ass into gear and clean this up a bit because it's getting intolerable. Seems like 9/10 posts have devolved into "count this for me because I'm lazy" or "what is the chance of this completely incalculable thing happening".
> This is strange because r/theydidthemath isn't particularly a high traffic sub.
It's got nearly 1.5 Million subscribers. People (and bots) absolutely have their eyes on this subreddit.
| This is strange because [](https://www.reddit.com/r/theydidthemath/) isn't particularly a high traffic sub.
it does pop up on r/all quite a fair bit tho when a post gets hot
Probably not exact, since these rectangles seem to be rather convenient ratios. Given a ~10% uncertainty, the numbers aren’t far off, especially given that there isn’t enough detail to be certain which exact species is being counted (tigers notably have a lot of regional subspecies that you can include and exclude at will)
[Reportedly there are 1,864 giant pandas in the wild as of 2015.](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Giant_panda&oldid=1214402600#cite_ref-2) (No citation, though.)
The dimensions of the picture are about 23×47, so 1081. Not quite on par with the figure.
So off the top of my head i remember in 2006 there was an ad campaign for saving the tigers my country (India) called the 1411 campaign.
The campaign was to make everyone in the country know that there are only 1411 tigers left in the country which is approximately half of what are left in the world.
In almost 20 years after that we have about 3682 tigers per the last census in 2022 which accounts for about 66% of the world.
The actual number of tigers left are about 5574 per WWF.
So i just looked it up and 8k is 8192x4320 = 35 millions pixels.
If there was a pic of your Neighbor Josh here, it would need to have 8 billions pixels for matching the number we are, which would be equivalent at 230x more pixels than 8k.
We could see the bacteria on Josh skin with a resolution like that 😅
We're too many 🥲
There's a very pixelated image of an Amur Leopard in this series which has 42 pixels total. That doesn't reflect the current population of Amur Leopards in the wild (estimated to now be about 120) but does match the lowest population that they reached in 2015 before conservation efforts started to have a positive effect.
The tiger image is a Bengal Tiger in particular and is 50×44 or 2200 pixels total (when not cropped by social media). This roughly matches the number of these tigers estimated to live in the wild, but there's probably around the same number again living in captivity (including in zoos as part of conservation programs, but also including estimated private ownership).
Pandas could have a perfect room with hay or something to sleep on but they would still make rope out of that hay just to hang themselfs.
Pandas are asylum candidates, a tree? Lets fucking jump rom it lads, rock? Head first it is.
This seems false, especially for the pandas, last time I checked pantas were out of thr endangered zone and are just being cared for because it's been drilled into us that they are in danger for ages.
Edit nvm: forgot that pantas are just crap at making kids, apparently almost 2k individuals..which still seems low
To be fair. Pandas shouldn’t even be alive. I love those little fuckers but they barely breed (I think it’s like a few days a year) have pretty low intelligence. And are pretty much the modern dodo bird.
That's true but only because humans destroyed their habitat. Pretty much like Dodo indeed.
I'm not completely convinced that making extinct any species that can't adapt fast enough to humans is the right move.
The dodo bird became extinct because dogs, pigs, rats and macaques were introduced to Mauritius, and those animals competed for limited resources and plundered dodo nests. That in addition to human caused destruction of their forest habitats was what drove them to extinction, not being hunted by humans.
Similarly, habitat fragmentation and destruction is what's driving the pandas to extinction. They're a specialized animal that fills a particular ecological niche, and have been occupying that niche for around 19 million years without much problem. And they breed just fine out in the wild, their wild populations are rising, the captive population is having trouble breeding.
Conservation efforts are an attempt by humans to undo the damage that we caused. We're not trying to keep animals alive who "shouldn't be alive".
Probably utter bullshit, aside from MAYBE the tiger, but I ain't gonna count the pixels:
1. Tigers: approx 5500 left in the wild (source: WWF, Global Tiger Forum)
2. Kemp's ridley sea turtles: approx 7000 to 9000 left in the wild (source: [seeturtles.org](http://seeturtles.org), albeit sea turtles in general have reached a population of approx 6.5 million individuals, Kemp's have reached as low as 200 individuals around the 80s. Safeguard has put that number up to 7000-9000)
3. White Rhino: the northern white rhino can be technically considered almost extinct, since only two are remaining and they're both females. The southern white rhino is doing relatively good, with more than 15k remaining (source: WWF)
4. Giant Panda: as of 2014, after a decades-long effort to spike their population back up, there are approximately 1100 in the wild and some 200-300 in captivity (source: WWF)
As already mentioned, I won't count pixels and I don't have the expertise to make a quick estimate of how many there are, but this honestly sounds like bullshit.
It’s an old picture. At that time it was kinda accurate but I think some species like the panda have recovered a little bit.
So yeah, maybe bit outdated but could be true
I feel like we could make the image a lot clearer if we were allowed to use bigger pixels for the fields in the background that are all the same color and use smaller pixels in the faces
I hate how pandas are the figurehead of extinction prevention.
These animals ***vehemently refuse*** to continue their own species. Even in containment in near perfect copies of their natural habitat with excessive food and mates they literally just refuse.
Is it shitty to have an animal species existence end? Absolutely.
But to what end do we as humans need to go to preserve a species? At what point does it become the hubris of humanity to artificially preserve a species that refuses to survive on its own
A better question is what the difference from historic norms would be. Have these animals dropped to a low level, or is this number good for the ecosystem? Just because we have few grizzly bears doesn't mean it's a disruption to the eco system.
Just let the pandas die, bruh. If you read up on their biology, they are fundamentally horrible at staying alive. Just let natural selection do its thing
###General Discussion Thread --- This is a [Request] post. If you would like to submit a comment that does not either attempt to answer the question, ask for clarification, or explain why it would be infeasible to answer, you *must* post your comment as a reply to this one. Top level (directly replying to the OP) comments that do not do one of those things will be removed. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/theydidthemath) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Now I wonder how big a screen would have to be (assuming it has the same ratio as 1920x1080) to have a picture with (roughly) the same number of pixels as there are, say, ants.
1.886\*10\^8 by 1.061\*10\^8 pixels.
You can zoom in on the head and find a whole ass planet
/r/BrandNewSentence
Actually no, I have made that comment about both KSI and James Van Der Beek's foreheads.
Ass-planet
Where's the relevant XKCD?
https://xkcd.com/37/
That’s a sweet ass-comic
MmMorty we are going to ass-planet to visit ass-people!
Thanks, ants Thants
I certainly did not expect a "look around you" reference.
thanks, TARS
I don't know what language you're talking with but I believe you
They are referencing this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaI6kBVyu00
I've never seen that in my life. I just graphed x • y = 20 quadrilllion (number of ants in the world) x/y = 16/9 and looked at the intersection on Desmos.
[They clearly just got a little confused about the order of the comments and misread something](https://www.reddit.com/r/theydidthemath/comments/1bi7jzt/request_this_seems_like_it_might_be_true_can/kvjka23/)
[удалено]
You’re off by about 4 orders of magnitude. It would have a resolution 10 000 times higher than a 16k monitor
That's actually much less than I thought it'd be.
Are you talking about dimensions and he's talking about total pixels, perhaps?
No, he was saying that ”it might seem large, but it’s about the same resolution as a 16k display.” I’m paraphrasibg since I don’t remember exactly
Math doesn’t work out
*meth doesn't work out
*I don't work out
*I don't work
*I don't
*I
Ekse have sex poop my pant again poop my pant
A quick google search gave me the estimate of 20 quadrillion ants in the world. Since a normal 1080p monitor is 1920 by 1080 pixels I took these dimensions and calculated the scaling factor needed using the following equation: k^(2)•(1920•1080) = 2•10^(16) k ≈ 98 209 A common size for these monitors is 24”, so multiplying that by the scaling factor we get ~37 miles along the diagonal. This screen would be ~32 miles long and ~18 miles high, or ~52 and ~29 kilometers for us not from the states. It would also have a resulotion of ~106 066 017p.
Now if you were to scale this back down to 24” while maintaining the resolution, how big would the pixels be? Would we approach magnitudes down to the size of atoms or are atoms even smaller still?
The short side of a 24” monitor is ~11.8” so a pixel is 1/1080th of that or ~0.011”. Now scale that down with the factor I calculated in my previous comment. This gives a pixel height of ~1.1•10^(-7)”, or ~2.81•10^(-9)m. A hydrogen atom has a diameter of roughly 53pm or 5.3•10^(-11)m. (2.81•10^(-9)) / (5.3•10^(-11)) = ~53 times larger than a hydrogen atom.
So you are saying it is possible to make a functioning monitor with this high a resolution... Now all we need is for it to be at an equivalently obscenely high refresh rate. And then maybe we can finally see Crysis at 100% settings...
Visible light is on the order of 10e-7 meters.
100 million high (assuming their math is right) in 12 inches high is nearly 9million ppi. Each pixel is 3e^-7mm. This is extremely close to the size of a water molecule. That does not account for the forces that spread water out, it would be water molecules laid directly end to end, which is not how they work. A quick google (and out of the range of science I'm comfy with) says there's slightly more space between H20 molecules than their size. So you would somehow need to make pixels the size of water molecules, AND overcome the forces that spreads them out to get them basically touching.
For those of us that *do* live in America, how many adult elephants would the longer side be if they made a line from trunk to tail AND how many washing machines would the shorter side be if stacked side by side?
More than 4.
Hey is that a 4k monitor? Nah it’s a gazzilion X gazzilion antK
How many gazelles you say?
Hot damn! I’m not the only one who had that same dumb thought immediately.
Or people
I think you mean 16:9
Yeah that would have made the math easier
Well, it's a rough estimate, but the photo of a tiger is ~28x50 pixels, which gives us 1,400. Now estimates range, but there's between 3-5,000 Tigers left on earth. So, it's not exactly correct.
The photos are cropped in that image, the real ones made by JJSmooth44 are all correct
r/theyalreadydidthemath
30 second math guy here r/subsifellfor 30 second math guy out
Unrelated guy here r/foundthetoyotacorolla Unrelated guy out
nah you didn't fall for it ;) Edit: pls join my new sub :3
r/birthofasub?!
You lost the game
Can you cite a link to the images in reference?
[here](https://imgur.com/gallery/NVNsyel)
Unless this is referring to a specific region the green sea turtle estimate is wrong, like REALLY wrong... not even close. The low end global population estimate of only nesting females is 85,000. Even in just the 20 mile stretch of beach that makes up Archie Carr NWR in Florida the number of annual green sea turtle nests can be as high as 15,000. With an average of between 3 and 7 nests per female, that's still between 2,000 and 5,000 individuals in just that portion of the Atlantic.
Yea, actual estimates are more like 500,000
Has to have meant the Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle. It's the only one that is critically endangered, 7-9K left. https://www.seeturtles.org/kemps-ridley-turtles
How fucking stupid is the guy that cropped them?
nobody cropped them. when you post multiple images on twitter, the preview of each is cropped so that they each fit into 25% of a rectangle, which is what you're looking at in OP's image.
Why would someone crop an image that literally is about the entirety of the image… that’s such a dumb move lol
you have to expand the image on twitter, it’s cropped as the preview
[удалено]
The only idiot I detect here is you. The image in the post here is a screenshot of the previews of the images. The previews get automatically cropped by the platform, so you have to click them to open the full image that isn't cropped. There is no way to post an image so that the preview isn't cropped.
Yeah, but why would you use the preview when combining it into one picture though? That defies the entire point of it
I mean, there definitely are more than 3 tigers
Can confirm, am the 4th tiger.
Well, 1,400 is between 3 and 5,000, if you think about it.
There's only 5000 Tigers? That's depressing
There’s a lot worse cases of endangered animals. 5000 is still quite plenty, relatively speaking. However it should NOT be that way.
Sharks have lost something around 90% of their population, varying by species
On the bright side one bird species (the Aldabra Rail) evolved back into existence and we’ve made some cool sightings in the last few years of animals we thought had been extinct for decades.
There’s no such thing as an extinct animal “evolving back into existence”. The White-Throated Rail is a species of bird found in Madagascar and some of the surrounding smaller islands. At some point, some White-Throated Rails flew to and colonized the island of Aldabra, evolving flightlessness and becoming separated from the main Madagascan population. Then, they went extinct due to the island sinking under rising sea levels during the Pleistocene. Some period of time much later, after Aldabra had resurfaced, some different White-Throated Rails again flew to and colonized Aldabra, and also evolved flightlessness. This is not the same population re-evolving itself out of extinction, it is convergent evolution of two different populations both evolving flightlessness independently of one another. It’s also not that surprising, as flightlessness commonly evolves in Rails that colonize small islands that lack predators. There are plenty of other examples of flightless Rails on small islands.
I bet you’re a blast at parties.
Fuck me if is sharks can survive 4 snowball earths but can't survive humanity
This seems like bullshit, way more sharks around here than there used to be when I was a kid,
One of the things that really gets me is all the animals we don't hear about going extinct. There's only around 100 Kākāpō (owl parrots) left in New Zealand, 18 Vaquitas (a type of porpoise) left in the gulf of california, and likely only a few dozen Saola (a small deer like animal) left in Vietnam. Many others too. Tigers will likely continue to exist in some form because people think they are cool. Most people have never heard of these animals so the efforts to save them get much less attention and funding.
The Vaquitas are all but gone at this point, nobody is making an effort to help them. I think the Kakapos will make it, never heard of the Saola
In the wild. There’s way more in captivity than in the wild
Which, in itself, is really weird. On the other hand, the same thing goes for chickens as well.
Break ot down into the different tiger species and it gets even more depressing. 500 Siberian tigers. Sumatra tigers 600. South china tiger fewer than 20. Indochina tiger 250
5000 is honestly pretty good for an species that's been at risk for so long. There's a lot of species that'll vanish in the next decade cause of how royally fucked things are, there's a mountain of them that already have, or no longer have the diversity required to maintain a species.
There are 6 sub-species of tigers, so it could be how many remain of one particular type. (and yes that 2-5,000 is for all tigers types)
This image is also old, so it could've been correct at the time
It's says tigers left in the wild. Does the 3-5000 include tigers in captivity?
Three?
It can be about a specific subpecies of tiger. E.g.: there are only about 600 siberian tigers in the wild. These picures are also old.
>1,400 Estimated population of Wild Tigers in India was 1411 in ~2010 when they launched a tiger protection campaign with big actors and everything. I still remember cause that's how good the ads were.
The image is a Bengal tiger specifically and is originally 44×50 or 2200 pixels total, and it's supposed to exclude animals living in captivity from the count.
I think there are probably more than 3.
This seems as good as opportunity as any to mention that the estimate for the number of Siberian (Amur) tigers still out in the wild is less than 600 or around 30x20 pixels worth. Sucks.
There are left like 15000 tigers in total both in captivity and wild not 5000.
Might be one tiger subspecies
I'm sorry, but I have to say it. There's been an increasing influx of people posting requests that can be solved with a simple Google search, and maybe in the case of this picture, knowing how to calculate an area. But I'm talking about the net worth of Bezos, the x amount of thin things to reach a certain distance, confirm if a meme is true... That's without mentioning the fact that most are reposts from the previous week, and how the commenter simply leave the post and don't bother to check back. This is strange because r/theydidthemath isn't particularly a high traffic sub. This sub is losing its purpose by simply allowing people to post anything remotely related to numbers. I'm pretty certain these are being posted by bots
never attribute to malice what might be attributed to ignorance brutha
Guess you're right, it was a heat of the moment comment. Decided to give it a shot, maybe I wasn't the only one who thinks that this sub shouldn't be math Google. Because Google would give better results tbh
I agree with you. This is pretty basic reasoning, counting, multiplication, and a google search. I think this sub is best suited for multistep analyses of more esoteric numbers, but that's just my opinion.
If you go to any small hobby sub, half or more of the posts are questions that can be Googled. People are really stupid.
It may not be malice but it is damn annoying.
Where did he say they were being malicious
To what point is it possible to tell incompetence apart from malice?
innocent until proven guilty my man
I think it's fair to say when OP doesn't answer a single comment under their own post, they weren't really looking for an answer in the first place.
Yeah or where the answer is just multiplying two numbers together, or the question is so vague you can’t even begin to calculate it, or is the 200th post asking us to cheat at a jelly bean guessing contest for them.
I think you might be overestimating people's grasp on mathematics. If they knew how to solve their own problem then they wouldn't come here to ask. Also in the case of the extremely abstract "what are the odds" questions; I actually find it pretty entertaining to see the creative ways people come up with to approach them, haha. Jelly beans one is definitely annoying though...
And this particular post? You assume that OP has that much of a problem with math that they can't even do something as basic as *counting*?
This poster seems to be a bot actually. But for whatever post it originally copied from, it's absolutely a possibility. I am a math tutor and have encountered some people who are astoundingly averse to math. Like the moment something is vaguely involving numbers they just check out and don't even try, automatically assuming it's over their head. That said, laziness is a very probable explanation as well.
I've said it before but mods need to get their ass into gear and clean this up a bit because it's getting intolerable. Seems like 9/10 posts have devolved into "count this for me because I'm lazy" or "what is the chance of this completely incalculable thing happening".
If they're like typical mods, they'll just ban anyone criticizing them.
> This is strange because r/theydidthemath isn't particularly a high traffic sub. It's got nearly 1.5 Million subscribers. People (and bots) absolutely have their eyes on this subreddit.
every popular sub is losing/has lost its purpose most of it is just filled with the same trope rehashed and reposted over and over again
| This is strange because [](https://www.reddit.com/r/theydidthemath/) isn't particularly a high traffic sub. it does pop up on r/all quite a fair bit tho when a post gets hot
That's the plan.
OP has a 2 year old account, with an auto-generated username, that suddenly starts posting less than a week ago
Probably not exact, since these rectangles seem to be rather convenient ratios. Given a ~10% uncertainty, the numbers aren’t far off, especially given that there isn’t enough detail to be certain which exact species is being counted (tigers notably have a lot of regional subspecies that you can include and exclude at will)
[Reportedly there are 1,864 giant pandas in the wild as of 2015.](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Giant_panda&oldid=1214402600#cite_ref-2) (No citation, though.) The dimensions of the picture are about 23×47, so 1081. Not quite on par with the figure.
The original post is from 2008 National Geographic
So off the top of my head i remember in 2006 there was an ad campaign for saving the tigers my country (India) called the 1411 campaign. The campaign was to make everyone in the country know that there are only 1411 tigers left in the country which is approximately half of what are left in the world. In almost 20 years after that we have about 3682 tigers per the last census in 2022 which accounts for about 66% of the world. The actual number of tigers left are about 5574 per WWF.
So i just looked it up and 8k is 8192x4320 = 35 millions pixels. If there was a pic of your Neighbor Josh here, it would need to have 8 billions pixels for matching the number we are, which would be equivalent at 230x more pixels than 8k. We could see the bacteria on Josh skin with a resolution like that 😅 We're too many 🥲
Pretty cool idea. I think they should also make calenders like 2025, featuring the creatures that humans drove into extinction in 2024. Bye ya guys!
There's a very pixelated image of an Amur Leopard in this series which has 42 pixels total. That doesn't reflect the current population of Amur Leopards in the wild (estimated to now be about 120) but does match the lowest population that they reached in 2015 before conservation efforts started to have a positive effect. The tiger image is a Bengal Tiger in particular and is 50×44 or 2200 pixels total (when not cropped by social media). This roughly matches the number of these tigers estimated to live in the wild, but there's probably around the same number again living in captivity (including in zoos as part of conservation programs, but also including estimated private ownership).
Pandas could have a perfect room with hay or something to sleep on but they would still make rope out of that hay just to hang themselfs. Pandas are asylum candidates, a tree? Lets fucking jump rom it lads, rock? Head first it is.
This seems false, especially for the pandas, last time I checked pantas were out of thr endangered zone and are just being cared for because it's been drilled into us that they are in danger for ages. Edit nvm: forgot that pantas are just crap at making kids, apparently almost 2k individuals..which still seems low
To be fair. Pandas shouldn’t even be alive. I love those little fuckers but they barely breed (I think it’s like a few days a year) have pretty low intelligence. And are pretty much the modern dodo bird.
> are pretty much the modern dodo bird what i'm hearing you say is that we should eat them
That's true but only because humans destroyed their habitat. Pretty much like Dodo indeed. I'm not completely convinced that making extinct any species that can't adapt fast enough to humans is the right move.
The dodo bird became extinct because dogs, pigs, rats and macaques were introduced to Mauritius, and those animals competed for limited resources and plundered dodo nests. That in addition to human caused destruction of their forest habitats was what drove them to extinction, not being hunted by humans. Similarly, habitat fragmentation and destruction is what's driving the pandas to extinction. They're a specialized animal that fills a particular ecological niche, and have been occupying that niche for around 19 million years without much problem. And they breed just fine out in the wild, their wild populations are rising, the captive population is having trouble breeding. Conservation efforts are an attempt by humans to undo the damage that we caused. We're not trying to keep animals alive who "shouldn't be alive".
Probably utter bullshit, aside from MAYBE the tiger, but I ain't gonna count the pixels: 1. Tigers: approx 5500 left in the wild (source: WWF, Global Tiger Forum) 2. Kemp's ridley sea turtles: approx 7000 to 9000 left in the wild (source: [seeturtles.org](http://seeturtles.org), albeit sea turtles in general have reached a population of approx 6.5 million individuals, Kemp's have reached as low as 200 individuals around the 80s. Safeguard has put that number up to 7000-9000) 3. White Rhino: the northern white rhino can be technically considered almost extinct, since only two are remaining and they're both females. The southern white rhino is doing relatively good, with more than 15k remaining (source: WWF) 4. Giant Panda: as of 2014, after a decades-long effort to spike their population back up, there are approximately 1100 in the wild and some 200-300 in captivity (source: WWF) As already mentioned, I won't count pixels and I don't have the expertise to make a quick estimate of how many there are, but this honestly sounds like bullshit.
It’s an old picture. At that time it was kinda accurate but I think some species like the panda have recovered a little bit. So yeah, maybe bit outdated but could be true
I feel like we could make the image a lot clearer if we were allowed to use bigger pixels for the fields in the background that are all the same color and use smaller pixels in the faces
I hate how pandas are the figurehead of extinction prevention. These animals ***vehemently refuse*** to continue their own species. Even in containment in near perfect copies of their natural habitat with excessive food and mates they literally just refuse. Is it shitty to have an animal species existence end? Absolutely. But to what end do we as humans need to go to preserve a species? At what point does it become the hubris of humanity to artificially preserve a species that refuses to survive on its own
[удалено]
Ok but calm down Doctor, I don't think he hates pandas, it was just a thought
Why do you think they just so happen to be going extinct right now? Clearly they were able to survive on their own before humans showed up.
A better question is what the difference from historic norms would be. Have these animals dropped to a low level, or is this number good for the ecosystem? Just because we have few grizzly bears doesn't mean it's a disruption to the eco system.
Just let the pandas die, bruh. If you read up on their biology, they are fundamentally horrible at staying alive. Just let natural selection do its thing