Thousands of octopuses gather off California to brood eggs at a warm spot
npr.org
npr.org
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zEXUOPkQPo8
It's worth the click, they're the group doing the research here.
For me it was instant recognition, I was rather surprised that lived in my subconsciousness.
Where the seagrass's green and the girls are eight-armed.
</GnR>
This is just mind boggling. And during that time the females aren't feeding?!
I first heard this on a linguistics podcast called "Talk the Talk"[2] (now superseded by "Because Language"[3]). The hosts go on to clarify that language evolves over time and is most importantly defined by what people actually use, so there's nothing wrong with modern English deviating from the ancient greek pluralization.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octopus#Etymology_and_pluralis... [2] https://talkthetalkpodcast.com/ [3] https://becauselanguage.com/
Octopodes is acceptable in some contexts because it matches a greek root word with a greek suffix. Octopi is just wrong because it applies a latin suffix to a greek root.
This came up notably a few years ago as the winning answer to a high-stakes HQ Trivia game. [1]
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/05/arts/hq-trivia-app-appoin...
If we were speaking Latin, would “Octopi” still be wrong? Given the logic used to claim that Octopuses is the correct pluralization, I don’t see how it could be.
Thus, I’m left to conclude that Octopodes is the only correct form since it lacks this spoken language dependency.
Wasn't my point, however. I'm really just being stubborn on the plural actually being Octopodes :)
After all, we have a ton of words that mix latin and greek roots/-fixes. Eg bioluminescence, bigamy, homophobic, etc.
* octopodes
* octopi
* octopuses
My elementary school teachers sure did. And they insisted that it was "octopi".
I recall talking to an elementary school teacher who insisted that the only way to comprehend whether a number was even was to determine if the least significant digit was 0 or 2 and I was met with hostility when I mentioned that while that may be easier for the child to understand within a base-10 world, if even the educator can't understand why an even number is more accurately described as a number which when divided by 2 has a remainder of 0 then I should be very concerned about the state of education.
But spending too much time on nuance may be especially counterproductive with younger children. I'm not sure about that but it's a reasonable hypothesis.
They’re all fine.
<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37268852>
(Based on NY Times coverage.)
Atop an Underwater Hot Spring, an ‘Octopus Garden’ Thrives - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37268852 - Aug 2023 (10 comments)
Watch Baby Octopuses Hatch from a Surprising Deep-Sea Nursery - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36600179 - July 2023 (54 comments)
We would rather eat live octopuses and pretend that finding life on other planets is more important than saving life on this one.
To be fair, the eugenics experiment that is the "dog" significantly increased the species intelligence.
That's what they said to Ocean Gate customers, too. /s
I hope that. Will love to see their faces with the mouth full of ammonia
I'm 99% sure the number 6000 is an estimation, and in that case, how would you start to estimate such number? Divide the area into a grid of N cells, count all of them in one cell and then apply to the entire area? Seems they would be many clusters so the number would be very unreliable.
/s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEXUOPkQPo8
The 6000 is what they counted in one area.
They estimate 20000 total.
Skip to 1:50 for the part they talk about the counts.
Cheers neighbour!
like how the ground fungus communicates through earth, the invisible flying fungus might have a wifi-type system.. 'we found bread!'
Follow up question since I can guess your answer: what about mentally disabled chimpanzees? What about mentally disabled octopuswhiches[0]? I'm talking to the point where they would not survive outside of human intervention. Or maybe not. Where is the line?
[0] as defined as the plural of octopus elsewhere in the comments
If we have collectively decided that intelligence is a factor when deciding whether an animal can be eaten by humans, then it's a perfectly logical conclusion for many people that eating octopuses is disgraceful.
Tip: "We" haven't decided that.
Second tip: All this chatter is sterile, I bet that this species isn't edible at all
They are not “savages,” just different.
We’ve eaten meat, of land, sea, and air, for far longer than anyone has tried to convince anyone else they should be vegan. That’s all I’m saying.
You have, and that’s completely okay.
But to unilaterally call a culture’s cuisine “absolutely reprehensible,” is, in my opinion, the actually reprehensible act.
In particular, calling someone’s cuisine (or really almost anything else) “absolutely reprehensible” is a great, surefire way to not convince anyone your point has merit.
To be ultra clear: I have no issues with vegetarians, vegans, or anyone else. My issue is with people who have issue with those who have different beliefs or ways of life, labeling those people as “absolutely reprehensible.”
That, in essence, is my issue with the original comment.
I do mean we as in humankind.
> Clearly the Portuguese and Spanish still love their pulpo, so we as a “collective” of humans have apparently not collectively re-evaluated our values over time, deciding that eating meat is cruel and savage.
I'm saying we evolve our collective moral views in general. For example, slavery even just 300 years ago was way more prevalent than today, and more people find it morally reprehensible. It still exists today, but it's a clear example of an area we've collectively re-evaluated our values over time. The acceptance of homosexuality and interracial relationships are even more recent. Do you disagree that we've evolved as a collective on those issues?
Sure, today it's not a majority view that eating octopus is "absolutely reprehensible" but imo that's a valid point of view and there's no telling whether that will become the majority opinion. If Christians get to walk around saying "we believe everyone else goes to hell" then I'm not going to complain about someone from expressing their opinion that octopus consumption is barbaric. You can say both groups are equally intolerant (Christians and octopus-lovers) but I'd encourage you to consider how they're different too, because they are.
I think the key point in your reaction is interpreting this sentiment as cultural slander. Reminder that cultural practices don't automatically become things we all have to respect. Like, do you have any reservations about cultural repression of women (e.g. certain Islamic countries as an extreme example)? I sure do, and I think that's okay. Would you have considered anti-slavery folks intolerant 300 years ago just because their viewpoint cut against the (global!) cultural grain?
Eating octopus isn't a culture just as trading crypto currency isn't a personality.
Can you give some examples ? Because when i think at Guantanamo and various wars, i don't see any reduction.