Live data from Hacker News

Snails' teeth beats spider silk as nature's strongest material (2015)

smithsonianmag.com

71–80 of 179 posts

Re: Snails' teeth beats spider silk as nature's strongest material (2015)

#71
post #3

> 3,300 one-pound bags of sugar Ah, but how many one pound bags of concrete could it hold?? Why bags of anything? This is a poor way of communicating weight. Just say "a modern passenger car".

because as a reader, bags of sugar are more engaging to me than bags of concrete.

Yeah, I am quite certain I have an easier time visualizing a one-pound bag of sugar—which I have seen at the grocery-store/kitchen/pantry—versus a single-pound bag of concrete.

Re: Snails' teeth beats spider silk as nature's strongest material (2015)

#72
post #3

> 3,300 one-pound bags of sugar Ah, but how many one pound bags of concrete could it hold?? Why bags of anything? This is a poor way of communicating weight. Just say "a modern passenger car".

I noticed that too. I feel like this might be a new way of laundering AI written text, just provide the quote verbatim as if the they believe it was actually written by the author.

The AI is so good that it traveled back to 2015 and published this paper.

Re: Snails' teeth beats spider silk as nature's strongest material (2015)

#73
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, but that's what 14 (standard) pickup trucks of yak hair was invented for.

ok but what color is the yak hair?

Not from Unitzikstan I see

White, of course; that way the statisticians can dye them any color they want. But for ultra high precision I do recommend the Boeing system. But be sure to use the older models, before private equity firms replaced all the metal parts with zipties. If you can't find a quality Boeing (plausible), consider 1.1 Blue Whales (tricky).

fnordpiglet was being deliberately humble with the decimals. It's accurate down to the semi firkin. Not to be confused with a quarter Tod.

Ignore the redundant bike shed comment, as that fits precisely 3,300 one-pound bags of sugar. Anyone with a bike should know that.

Re: Snails' teeth beats spider silk as nature's strongest material (2015)

#75
post #17

I wanted to see some pictures, this paper has good ones: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ece3.10332 If you put your finger in front of a garden slug it may try to eat it, it's a very odd sand-paper sensation but I never knew why.

"try"? If it's harder than your skin it means it did, not tried.

Just because it's harder doesn't mean it necessarily has the strength to tear off skin.

Re: Snails' teeth beats spider silk as nature's strongest material (2015)

#76
post #24

> Thats’s comparable to a single strand of spaghetti holding up about 3,300 one-pound bags of sugar What an odd example. A mid-sized car would have been much clearer.

> 3,300 one-pound bags of sugar

Woah that must weigh almost 3,301 pounds!

Re: Snails' teeth beats spider silk as nature's strongest material (2015)

#77
post #3

> 3,300 one-pound bags of sugar Ah, but how many one pound bags of concrete could it hold?? Why bags of anything? This is a poor way of communicating weight. Just say "a modern passenger car".

Sorry I only understand football field based units of measurement

A football field is by far a better measurement than 3300 one pound bags of sugar.

Re: Snails' teeth beats spider silk as nature's strongest material (2015)

#79
post #24

> Thats’s comparable to a single strand of spaghetti holding up about 3,300 one-pound bags of sugar What an odd example. A mid-sized car would have been much clearer.

I can't wait until our LLM agents spot these and substitute in our own favorite, personally intuitive format conversions appropriate for the scale.

I'd like this to be expressed in units of pallet(s) of standard cinder blocks.

Re: Snails' teeth beats spider silk as nature's strongest material (2015)

#80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry I only understand football field based units of measurement

Understandable, with how many there are to pick from, and the wiggle room in the longest ones - https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8b/As...

OP is talking about a football field, not a soccer field. It’s a common joke in America that things have to be measured in football terms.

In the “for what it’s worth” department, Brits called it soccer too. I have no idea why they swapped to football recently.

Post reply on HN