Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

10^6 Giraffes

onemilliongiraffes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–37 of 37 posts

Re: 10^6 Giraffes

#31

Post by sjf »

doodyhead wrote: post #19
ugh wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is this one submitter of Giraffes[1], responsible for two percent of all German giraffes, or this one[2], responsible for nearly five percent. I didn’t even have to look all that hard to find them. [1] http://www.onemilliongiraffes.com/search?name=Sanne [2] http://www.onemilliongiraffes.com/search?name=Ediktonia

[1] "I found 4 085 giraffes created by people named Sanne!" [2] "I found 9 988 giraffes created by people named Ediktonia!" The actual statistic is that 2% of all Germans who submitted giraffes were named Sanne and 5% were named Ediktonia. It doesn't say they were all the same person.

Sanne has actually only submitted 15 pictures. This is one of them, http://www.onemilliongiraffes.com/?id=54374 There are ~2000 giraffes on one page. Ediktonia has similar images.

Personally, I think these works are kind of taking the piss.

Re: 10^6 Giraffes

#32

Post by showerst »

TallGuyShort wrote: post #26
tzury wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

same applies on counting human photos on social site altogether (flickr, facebook, tweetpic, etc.) would be far more than 6,819,100,000 (population of the world - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population <- Anyone know the reason for the UN's low and medium estimates having serious downturns in population in the next century? Is it because of lowering child-birth rates, or because of expectations of resources/diseases, etc...?

According to the PDF: http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/longrange2/Wor... it's virtually all due to changes in fertility.

As countries grow in wealth and life expectancy, the number of children per woman tends to drop off drastically.

Re: 10^6 Giraffes

#33

Post by m0th87 »

RiderOfGiraffes wrote: post #22
RiderOfGiraffes wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing to do with me, but I watch with interest. Sadly I can't send a photo of my giraffes because she's store-bought.

Sorry - typo and it's too late to correct it. s/giraffes/giraffe/ Singular. I only own one, although I have ridden several.

I didn't even know giraffe riding existed. I always figured your username was some inside joke.

Re: 10^6 Giraffes

#34

Post by RiderOfGiraffes »

m0th87 wrote: post #33
RiderOfGiraffes wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry - typo and it's too late to correct it. s/giraffes/giraffe/ Singular. I only own one, although I have ridden several.

I didn't even know giraffe riding existed. I always figured your username was some inside joke.

It's not an inside joke, and it is "real" for some definition of "real". I leave you to ponder the question. Email me if desperate.

I should have a photo somewhere ...

Re: 10^6 Giraffes

#35

Post by mbrubeck »

RiderOfGiraffes wrote: post #15
pavlov wrote: post #8

I'm reminded of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terracotta_Army "My friend, Zhang, doesn't believe I can collect one million soldiers by 209 BC. I'm gonna prove him wrong, but I need your help. (Or you'll be beheaded.) Thanks, Qin." Our time is gentler -- the Age of the Giraffes.

Exercise for the interested reader - why could he not have said: > ... I can collect one million soldiers by 209 BC. ??

Don't you have a lot of giraffes you should be riding right now?

Re: 10^6 Giraffes

#36

Post by ganley »

TallGuyShort wrote: post #26
tzury wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

same applies on counting human photos on social site altogether (flickr, facebook, tweetpic, etc.) would be far more than 6,819,100,000 (population of the world - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population <- Anyone know the reason for the UN's low and medium estimates having serious downturns in population in the next century? Is it because of lowering child-birth rates, or because of expectations of resources/diseases, etc...?

It's due to zombie apocalypse. Duh.
Post reply on HN