354

THANK YOU (mander.xyz)

submitted 2 months ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to c/science_memes@mander.xyz

24 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 24 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] ekZepp@lemmy.world 117 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Dude...

Ants are cute.

[-] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 43 points 2 months ago

Gotta admit the way the meme crops the rest the face out makes it look metal as hell. That's a great monster design.

[-] SuzyQ@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 months ago

I agree. My first thought was "that's a great hell hound."

[-] moosetwin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 38 points 2 months ago

this ant still looks scary to me

the last two are friend shaped

[-] Taleya@aussie.zone 3 points 2 months ago

Looks more like a jim henson creation than scary

[-] driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br 23 points 2 months ago

Extremely cute:

[-] Drewfro66@lemmygrad.ml 8 points 2 months ago

Agreed but that fourth picture has to be AI slop

[-] casmael@lemm.ee 1 points 2 months ago

Yup well spotted that one looks like it’s almost certainly ai generated now that you mention it

[-] gjoel@programming.dev 62 points 2 months ago

Is no one going to comment on the "magnified five times under a microscope"? Five times? What kind of weak, low refraction plastic lens, cost of bubblegum microscope are you using to magnify your enormous monster ants?

[-] Nikelui@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago

Considering the size of an ant and the picture, I'd say at least 50x

[-] davidgro@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago

What is this, a magnification for ants?

[-] GiveMemes@jlai.lu 3 points 2 months ago

400x is more than enough to see and differentiate eukaryotic cells so I feel like 50x might be a slight overshot

[-] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 months ago

At first I thought 5 orders of magnitude, but 10,000x is way off. The closest I can reckon is they mean "magnified 100% five times", i.e. 2⁵, or 32x, which seems like it could be right.

[-] DrDystopia@lemy.lol 1 points 2 months ago

Browsing on a 32" monitor, "I wonder how they handle cat-sized ants where ever that's from".

[-] scytale@lemm.ee 55 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

It's "less" frightening when you realize those red things aren't the eyes, and the “teeth” are more like a mustache for its mandibles; like the other pictures in the comments that show them better

[-] angrystego@lemmy.world 33 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

This picture has no right to say it shows a face when it omits the eyes and jaws. It's like posting a picture of a human nose and saying what an ugly face people have.

[-] luciole@beehaw.org 22 points 2 months ago

This picture is kind of misleading though. Much of the photo’s creepiness comes from mistakenly assimilating the red dots to its eyes. Ants have those big familiar insect eyes we are familiar with. Quote from Snopes:

This is a closeup of a section of the ant's face but not the full face. In a text message, Kavaliauskas [the photographer] told us, "This is just the front part of the portrait [...] the eyes are already in the shadow area. [...] if the eyes are illuminated, all the mystery disappears and the photograph appears ordinary and uninteresting."

[-] stupidcasey@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago

Given a single bulldog ant can kill a full grown adult and we are several orders of magnitude larger than them and there are 20 quadrillion of them each able to lift 50 times their own weight yeah, I would say it’s a good thing we are bigger than them.

Nothing to do with the picture of this ants antennas though.