I never realised the Dire Wolf was a real historical animal, not just a fantasy one like the Owlbear.
Oh shit, the next instagram thing will be DnD cosplayers trying to get selfies with them.
The Dire Wolf Is Back
31–40 of 208 posts
Re: The Dire Wolf Is Back
#32I never realised the Dire Wolf was a real historical animal, not just a fantasy one like the Owlbear.
It's not just an MtG card. https://scryfall.com/card/ice/230/dire-wolves
Even if it weren't a real extinct animal it wouldn't have just been an MtG card
Re: The Dire Wolf Is Back
#33Very cool, but is it ethical?
Hmmm, are you suggesting that the scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could they didn't stop to think whether or not they should?
Re: The Dire Wolf Is Back
#34Here's[0] a recent editorial about Colossal, the company behind this.
Basically, they make some flimsy claims about conservation and combating climate change to justify creating a poor imitation of Jurassic Park. Naturally, there's some real moral dilemmas that they gloss over in pursuit of the money a few wealthy people will pay to be able to say "I saw a Mammoth!"
[0]: https://arstechnica.com/science/2025/04/editorial-mammoth-de...
Re: The Dire Wolf Is Back
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
Meanings shift with time. The original meant that (doled out as a very harsh collective punishment by the Romans: groups of 10 would draw straws and be forced to kill the one who draw the short straw). Now it's meanining is more along the lines of 'severely reduced', where how much is 'severely' depends on the context.
indeed, this particular one though has the added complication of having part of it's meaning contained in the composition of the word. It's usage is still changing, obviously , but for me it's a more difficult transition because of the 'deci'
I think this one is already past the past the inflection point, to be honest. I see people using the word with the new meaning far more than the old one; hell, I see people complaining about how the word is used more than I see it used for the original meaning. My take is that the original meaning is so narrow that it's almost inevitable that any more broad usage that appeared would overtake it to the point of drowning out the original.
Re: The Dire Wolf Is Back
#36Farmer here. The return of the regular wolf has been a tragedy of historic proportions. Wolves slaughter tons of livestock for fun. Farmers are not allowed to protect their herds at all. What will a dire wolf do to livestock if we bring them back? So dumb.
Re: The Dire Wolf Is Back
#37There is an article about this in Time magazine, no paywall. https://time.com/7274542/colossal-dire-wolf/
Thanks, that's a terrific article
Re: The Dire Wolf Is Back
#38Unrelated. The article uses the word "decimated". It seems to me a lot of people misinterpret the meaning of this word. It does not mean "kill 90%", but "kill on in every 10" aka 10%.
Semi-related: very few people, even capable professional writers, use "disinterested" correctly.
Using a word "correctly" isn't actually something everyone agrees on, though. As much as certain usages rub me the wrong way, it's hard for me not to fall on the side of descriptivism and that the issue is with my reaction rather than other people; words are all just made up sounds (and written symbols, of course) that we use to communicate, after all, and if enough people use them in a certain way, it doesn't really make sense to me that there would be some inherent meaning that overrides that. Language evolving isn't a new thing, and once a meaning reaches enough mindshare, there's no turning back.
Re: The Dire Wolf Is Back
#39Very cool, but is it ethical?
Would it be ethical to let all this lightning striking the castle's copper spire go to waste?
Re: The Dire Wolf Is Back
#40Farmer here. The return of the regular wolf has been a tragedy of historic proportions. Wolves slaughter tons of livestock for fun. Farmers are not allowed to protect their herds at all. What will a dire wolf do to livestock if we bring them back? So dumb.
Where is this? In US the deer herds have grown so much out of control that they are worse than biblical locust - they trample and eat everything they find because there is no natural control of their numbers, until they eat everything they can find and starve. At least in theory wolves are meant to thin out their numbers.
>>hat will a dire wolf do to livestock if we bring them back?
Is a dire wolf any worse than regular wolf here?
>> Wolves slaughter tons of livestock for fun.
Almost no predator slaughers their prey "for fun". Hunting has a massive cost to it - risk of death, injury and expenditure of energy always have to be balanced with the potential gains. Wolves hunt when they are hungry, not because they are bored.