You must log in or # to comment.
The compression artifacts (from converting B/W line art to jpg) being printed on the page have given me a new pet peeve
Now imagine these corrupted images being engraved into stone or steel by machine. Turned into literal artifacts for future generations to ponder over.
“The intentional grey diamonds, you see this was a highly advanced society capable of high definition videos and images, represents a loving fealty to that which is complete or known. The imperfections in the art represent an acknowledgement of their societal short falls. This will be on the exam by the way.”
"There is much debate about how aware the primitive minds were of the degradation of their information. Did they believe older things looked worse when they were photographed or did they understand it was their photographs themselves that got worse over time?
Even more surprising is that their oldest media wasn’t even able to maintain any information at all about colour."
“In fact, here is one now:“
Jpg for photos, png for everything else.
It’s an easy rule of thumb, it hurts that 20 years of repeating it seems to have had zero effect.
Maybe this helps: Jpg fucks up your image, and png doesn’t.
Or: jpg is lossy, png is lossless.
Or: It’s better to save photos as png than cartoons as jpg.
Seriously, I hope some of this breaks through because deep fried images are so fucking unnecessary.
I hear WebP can often offer much better compression than PNG in lossless mode so that could be an alternative.
Could be. I’m not as familiar with that format – a major strength of png is that anything can open and view it properly. It’s been a standard for decades, so it has universal compatibility.
e: I’m not going to look into that specific format (I stopped caring about the inner workings of file formats like 15 years ago when I stopped getting paid to care), but I think I could bet you that webp is a document hierarchy wrapper on png, jpg, gif, mpeg, etc, ad inf.
I had to exit this comment and look again because I couldn’t remember if you’d said webm or webx or webp or whatever. The last I knew, that’s not a file format but a codepage (nowadays, that’s usually a cheap wrapper over code they found and repackaged).
That’s massively simplified, but if you’re asking that in this thread, I’m worried people are being sold a difference that doesn’t exist.
Are there any downsides to saving photos as pngs?
Slightly larger file size, which mattered in like 2002, but it’s only a few mb, which doesn’t matter at all now.
e: if you’re a professional photographer and saving stupidly high resolution images by the thousands, you’ll want to use jpg, but in that case, you’ll understand why.
John Warnock is rolling in his grave right now.
At which point does an egg of non-chicken become an egg of chicken?
Chickenness is a spectrum, not a binary
Is archeopteryx a chicken?
If I say no, are you going to pick the next most recent named ancestor of the chicken, and keep repeating until someone says yes?
Maybe
That was the original question
I’ve never seen one run from a fight.
That’s quite controversial.
Is a “chicken egg” an egg laid by a chicken, or an egg that will hatch into a chicken?
It’s an egg that will hatch into a chicken, since the “first” chicken must have hatched out of an egg that was laid and fertilized by two “non-chickens” whose DNA combined together to make a full-blown chicken. Of course it wasn’t actually just one egg, but really, no matter how you think about it, the egg came first.
Can mutations that occurred during life be transmitted to offspring? Biology classes were a long time ago.
That depends on what you mean.
Did a giraffe stretch its neck longer and longer, and then pass that long-necked gene onto its kids? No.
Can an embryo that gets a random mutation while developing in the egg/womb pass it on to their children? Yes.
This gets a bit more complicated if you really dig into it, though. Environment does change the expression of genes, and that particular sequence of genes that have been activated/shut-off/whatever can be passed on to children too.
Hence why children who were born to two shorter parents will often grow much taller than them if given much better nutrition. Or why obesity often shows up chronically in families that were poor or had limited access to healthier foods in other ways; their bodies had adapted to grab and store every extra calorie they could to guard against starvation, and unfortunately shutting that gene expression off naturally takes multiple generations.
This was a fascinating comment to read, thanks for posting 🙂
Yes, that’s the driving force of evolution.
I agree, and I’ve made the same argument. It’s perfectly valid, Unless the egg belongs to the creature who laid it, instead of the creature that hatched from it.
If the egg in question is a “proto-chicken’s egg” because it was laid by a proto-chicken, then the chicken would have come before the chicken egg.
No it wouldn’t. If we’re going to talk about the creation of chickens as happening at a single instance of egg-laying, the two progenitors of said first chicken would be proto-chickens whose DNA combined in the fertilized egg to make, for the first time ever, a chicken. Yes, it’s a chicken egg, because it contains a chicken, but it’s also a proto-chicken’s egg because it wasn’t laid by a full chicken. It couldn’t have been, they didn’t exist yet.
There is no question as to the biology. The first egg that would hatch a chicken was laid by a proto-chicken. The genetic mutation that delineated chicken from proto-chicken first existed in that egg.
By your argument, the status of the egg is dependent on what it contains.
Suppose that proto-chicken pair laid an egg. And instead of it hatching into a chicken, I ate it. This egg never became a chicken; it was only an egg. It couldn’t be a chicken egg, because it never contained a chicken. It could only be a proto-chicken egg.
The egg that the chicken hatched from only became a chicken egg once there was a chicken inside it. The chicken egg, therefore, could not precede the chicken.
I can’t believe I’m actually reading this thread.
Discourse as old as time, song as old as rhyme, chicken or the egg.
No, if a chicken could hatch out of it, regardless of whether or not it actually did, it’s a chicken egg. Nothing else could hatch out of it and it didn’t somehow cease to have been an egg just because it doesn’t hatch.
it didn’t somehow cease to have been an egg just because it doesn’t hatch.
Correct. But, it was an egg laid by a proto-chicken; it is a proto-chicken egg.
Our proto-chicken couple also laid an egg that would have become a “Shicken”, if I hadn’t eaten it first. But, because there was never a “Shicken”, there could never be a “Shicken” egg; the egg was only a proto-chicken egg.
Feel like any kind of mutation that turns the pre chicken into the proto chicken happens at birth, if the pre chicken had a mutated offspring, I’d wager the egg is mutated significantly from what a normal pre chicken egg would be, since after all it has to support a proto chicken, not a pre chicken.
The former, otherwise it would be “chicken’s egg”.
Incorrect, a “chicken’s egg” would be an egg in the possession of a chicken, which would be the egg a chicken lays. The “first chicken” did not hatch out of an egg laid by a chicken because they didn’t exist.
You’re right. I just realized that I typed the opposite of what I meant. And then in another comment said what you did thinking I was defending my og opinion. I’m all over the place this morning.
Amy is a chicken. Amy lays an egg. Brenda is a chicken. Brenda hatched from the egg Amy laid. The egg in question is clearly a chicken’s egg, but is it Amy’s egg, or Brenda’s egg?
It was Amy’s egg that Brenda inherited, so now it’s Brenda’s egg. So the OG egg was Amy’s.
So, it doesn’t become a Chicken’s egg until Brenda has come into existence. Brenda being the chicken. The chicken has to exist for the egg to become a Chicken’s egg.
The first chicken egg is the egg that Brenda hatched from, but it didn’t become a chicken egg until Brenda was a chicken and not just a (proto-chicken) egg.
Right and wrong. It was a chicken’s egg when Amy laid it, but it was a chicken egg when Brenda was hatched. So yes, the chicken has to exist for the first chicken’s egg, but the first chicken hatched from a chicken egg, that was not a chicken’s egg.
To clarify, I’m assuming that in this case Amy was the first evolution of the chicken, therefore she laid the first chicken’s egg that was the second chicken egg, bevause her parents weren’t chickens, so what was laid wasn’t a chicken’s egg until Amy hatched. Schrodinger’s egg if you will.
Amy is a proto-chicken. Her offspring, Brenda, is the first creature containing the mutation that distinguishes chickens from proto-chickens. Brenda is the first chicken.
Amy’s egg couldn’t be a chicken egg because there was no such thing as a chicken when she laid it. There would be no such thing as a chicken until Brenda existed, at which time the egg that would become Brenda also became a chicken egg.
The chicken egg could not have come first. The first chicken egg was laid by something that was not quite a chicken, but it didn’t become a chicken egg until it had developed into a chicken.
I feel like my comment in another thread is even more relevant here:
I have no direct knowledge about that, but if we take the analogy of the egg (shell, albumen and yolk sack) being the life-support system of the embryo during gestation, in humans the placenta would be a big part of that, and exactly whose body it is part of its not simple (from what I remember both mother and child contribute cells, and the ‘plan’ for building it comes from the father’s genes). So maybe for chickens it could be ambiguous whether the shell ‘belongs’ to the laying generation or the hatching one. Seems like mostly a human taxonomy distinction to make anyway, obviously it’s in between the two, but we like to draw the line somewhere.
I think it’s an egg laid by a chicken. Unfertilized eggs laid by chickens that will never become chickens are still chicken eggs.
That’s about where I got to as well. A proto-chicken’s egg that contains the genetic code for a chicken doesn’t become a chicken egg if I eat it first. At best, the creature has to have become a chicken before the surrounding egg can be described as a chicken egg, which means that the chicken has to come first (or simultaneously). The egg cannot come first.
We’re not talking about eggs laid by chickens, we’re talking about eggs laid by the things that weren’t quite chickens, but the eggs of which contain chickens, due to a novel DNA combination.
The question posed is what is a chicken egg? Is it an egg from which a chicken hatches or an egg which a chicken lays? I’d argue it’s the latter. Because we already consider eggs from which no chicken could hatch but that a chicken laid, chicken eggs.
When first chicken lay egg, duh!
Unless you define a chicken egg as an egg of which a chicken is born (or of which a chicken could be born)
Doesn’t matter as it’s not a stated in the question. It just needs to be an egg.
Wherever humans draw the line. The meme uses the assumption that there is a clear change from earlier species to later descendants, when it reality it is a continuous change of many characteristics each time an individual reproduces and spreads their genetics. It’s the flaw of the missing link argument.
When genetic mutation happened between non-chicken and its egg to create real chicken
The chicken vs egg question has never been about chronology or science.
It’s been about religion vs science.
Science says the egg came first: something nearly imperceptibly not quite a chicken laid an egg that hatched a chicken. That’s how evolution works, with the egg coming first.
Religion says a god poofed a chicken into existence. The chicken came first, and only ever laid pure chicken eggs. The eggs will forever hatch a chicken and nothing but a chicken.
That’s the chicken vs egg thing. It’s not a puzzle at all, it’s just science vs religion.
e: simplified. I’m too wordy by default.
You can interpret it that way now but that’s not the original meanig.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_or_the_egg
I understand and respect where you are coming from but i prefer not to rewrite history while arguing about ideas.
Yes, thank you, you’re exactly right. The person you’re responding to is correct that it’s come to have science vs religion overtones, but that’s not what the expression meant to people for ages and ages.
a metaphoric adjective describing situations where it is not clear which of two events should be considered the cause and which should be considered the effect
I guess the overtones are a product of their times. Currently, it seems to be: is science/religion the “cause” or “effect”.
I always staked claim that it was a “scientific vs philosophical” question; but I never considered how timeline could change the overtones or underlying thinking of “The chicken and the egg” concept. Neat
You’re right, I shouldn’t have said ‘never’. It was a paradox in ancient history, but at least in my lifetime, I’ve read it as basically solved. That may be a relatively recent stance (since 100-200 years ago), but it doesn’t seem useful to continue presenting it as a paradox at this point.
I’ve always interpreted it as which came first, the chicken or the chicken egg?
But I’d just like to point out not all religions have that view of creationism vs evolution, and even within Christianity it’s really only your super conservative, and very loud, fundamentalists. Catholicism doesn’t have an official stance on evolution, iirc, the Episcopal church in the USA is fully supportive of evolution, as are most mainline Christians. Not to detract from your point or anything, I just don’t like seeing all religious people, or all Christians, lumped together with some of the worst examples of religiosity that the US has to offer.
Religion is usually bad, so I don’t have an issue lumping them all together.
C’mon man Sikhs are fucking chilled out
Compared to other religions, I understand that take, if we neglect stuff like not living up to their own doctrine of, e.g., equal rights between women and men, or the Khalistan movement, which has caused death and abused human rights on several occasions, also by killing civilians.
Still, as most organized religions, it became emergent as a tool of mass control and subjugation. Moral behaviour is not formed by critical thought and self-reflection, but by devotion to some mysterious higher power. Which is and always has been a core issue of problematic behaviour we can so often observe today with religious people. A side-effect is that it has the danger of hindering progress and societal evolution by having a creationism as one of it’s core teachings, as far as I know.
A further form of subjugation, hindering freedom of individual human (and harmless) expression, can be found among the Kakkars. For example the “dress-code” with having uncut hair, cotton undergarments etc…
I could go on. So to make it short, no, religions are usually detrimental for the long term constructive development of humanity and Sikhism is no exception.
A lot of what you say can be applied to other, non-religious cultures, not least that of the west, albeit in different measure. Any society will develop an overarching system of rules and standards; it’s necessary to avoid anarchy, which is more inimical to the broader progress of mankind. People naturally band together, it’s an evolutionary trait, so regardless of what intangible strictures those tribes are subject to, there will always be friction between and indeed amongst them. Voltaire said “If God did not exist it would be necessary to create him.” and he was dead right, he just didn’t mean ‘God’ in the strictly theistic sense.
Ultimately, people are people, meaning they need reeling in or things go to shit. Perhaps there exists an ideal set of circumstances under which civilised man can live peacefully without noticeably impinging on his moral objectivity, but let’s not hold our breath. As long as there are groups, there will be some cunts who tighten the shackles for everyone, whether it be by breaking the rules, or making the rules.
So yes, all religions are bad, but in the spirit of catching all, I’d go broader.
Not necessarily… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Indira_Gandhi
Whats a little light assassination between friends?!
And why she was assassinated? It was her fault.
I’m not sure why you think that’s relevant.
This has vibes of “and why was she raped? it was her fault.”
To be fair though I haven’t even clicked the link and I know nothing about this. For all I know, maybe this person was literally Hitler and assassination was the only way to stop them. But even then, we can conclusively say that this was not chill.
Nope realy poor analogy. Ya she was Indian Hitler.
If a Jew had killed Hitler would u have called it Judaism’s fault.
Jesus is the Ted McGinley of family gatherings.
I’ve always interpreted it as which came first, the chicken or the chicken egg?
I agree. And this boils down to how you define ‘chicken egg’. If the definition is “egg laid by a chicken”, then the chicken had to have come first. If it’s “egg that hatches a chick” (which will grow into a chicken), then the egg must have come first. But this ignores the pretty huge problem of picking a precise point on the evolutionary timeline where a non-chicken gave birth to a chicken. There isn’t going to be such a clearly-defined point.
Yeah, but it’s at least an interesting pointless unsolvable conundrum, whereas the other interpretations aren’t even interesting. Lol.
literally no one in the world means that when they talk about chicken vs egg. what a weird way to look at the world.
also citation needed on religion saying god proofed chicken into existence without the egg.
It made Fox News in 2015.
A biology paper that same year.
Religious people seem to care.
Biologists have been talking about it.
I didn’t pull this out of my arse.
And re: that citation you asked for:
God created mature birds with the ability to reproduce. So the bird was first, ready to lay eggs.
first of all kudos on the citations; thank you for your effort.
I don’t think these prove that the question is about religion vs science. the question is philosophical, and the fact that some religious people have a take on it that doesn’t agree with what would be the scientific/technical answer doesn’t make it about religion vs science.
if a tree falls and no one around to hear it, does it make a sound? that would also have a scientific answer, and depending on the religion, you may have a religious argument that disagrees with the scientific answer. the question would remain a philosophical one, and not one of science vs religion.
I wasn’t trying to prove the question is about religion vs science; I was responding to the previous comment that said:
literally no one in the world means that
My links show lots of people in the world say that. Not everyone, but enough that it does come up sometimes.
There are multiple facets and perspectives in every philosophical question.
I think there are two valid scientific/philosophical answers without taking religion into it, based on one question:
Are we specifically talking a chicken egg, or the concept of an egg?
In the former case, eggshells contain compounds that cannot exist in nature, and must come from a creature. a chicken egg cannot exist without a chicken before it, thus the chicken came first.
In the latter case, various evolutionary splits happened between animals evolving egg developing capability and some animals evolving into chickens. From this we can say that the egg came before the chicken.
Worst case, this solved exactly nothing. Best case, it can be an exercise in reasoning.
deleted by creator
This is by far the most correct answer to the chicken and egg question.
Not really, it still doesn’t answer the question as the main thing is still unclear.
Is the first chicken egg the one the chicken hatched from or the first egg a chicken laid.
Both can be argued as correct.
Not-quite-a-chicken laid an egg containing a definitely-chicken. Actual chicken egg was first.
We are so zoomed in evolution at this point that the arbitrary distinction between what is a chicken and what not doesn’t make any sense anymore. Evolution does some jumps, but it is still hard to actually draw the line where a nearly-chicken has not been a chicken yet. Maybe someone could fill in my mental gap in here for me, but hasn’t Richard Dawkins given the example of some animal (possibly a rabbit?) that is traced back in evolution and since you cannot draw the line when it hasn’t been that animal it is rabbits all the way down?
Yeah, the fossil record and dna analysis is such a gradient, any lines we draw are arbitrary. To be fair, those lines were always for our own convenience, in much the same way it’s useful for print designers to specify Pantone 032, but if most people look at the full colour chart they couldn’t even tell you where ‘red’ becomes ‘orange’.
It’s definitely rabbits (or turtles) all the way down.
We’re prokaryotes, and vertebrates, and mammals, and from there some people get bent. Are we apes? Genus homo? Where must we draw the line to ensure we’re not actually animals like other living things and were divinely inspired special creations?
I like simplicity. Life is a beautiful prismatic projection and it doesn’t matter that much what our Pantone swatch turns out to be.
(Sorry, /mini rant)
Well, I actually completely agree with you and thought your initial comment to be quite interesting. I’ve never viewed this thought experiment as to be science vs religion.
My point in my previous comment was exactly that, all our lines and categories are arbitrary. They’re really useful to us, but in the end still arbitrary. I enjoy categorizing stuff and so I like taxonomy a lot. But I always have to keep in mind that the categories I choose are ultimately human made and can never represent the full spectrum of nature.
Pantone 032 feels to aggressive to me, can I have another color? :P
I like 14-4317 TCX. 😎👌
What came first? Chicken or egg?
It doesn’t say if the question is about “chicken egg” but only egg
Otherwise the question would be:
What came first? Chicken or chicken egg?
I don’t like this because it’s not addressing the actual saying. Obviously the saying is about chicken eggs specifically.
But I’ve always felt obviously the egg came first. The first chicken was born in an egg, so the egg came first. That egg could have been produced from a creature with a mutation which caused it to produce the first chicken egg when it is not itself the exact same species.
deleted by creator
The newly classified creature didn’t mutate as soon as it hatched, it was a chicken inside the egg the whole time.
Is it the mom’s egg or the chicken’s egg I guess is the argument you are making. I call it the chicken’s egg. So the egg came first.
Ah, but when that line of tiny change is so arbitrary… Is it a true chicken until it grows up and fulfils its destiny? Is it a chicken based purely on its genetic code, so the egg whence it hatched is a chicken egg; or is it truly a chicken when it becomes a chicken… meh, I write this far and find I still agree with you: even in that case the egg it hatched from becomes a chicken egg by virtue of the chicken it grew into.
In other words, the question becomes: “Is an egg defined by the creature that laid it, or the creature that will hatch from it?”
Hatch or grow. Because once you’re asking those questions, is the first chick truly the first chicken?
“Is a juvenile defined by what it currently is or what it will/might become?” And, “is chicken-ness an innate quality of the animal, or in relation to the animal fulfilling/presenting (or being able to fulfil) some chicken-ness?”
The thing that defines chicken-ness is crossing the road. So if the egg rolled across the road before hatching does that mean the egg is a chicken egg?
But of course the chicken must also see the other side of the road. Since it’s impossible for see outside of the egg before hatching it might be the egg lacks sufficient chicken-ness to be considered a chicken egg.
But once the egg hatches the chicken will see the other side of the road. So if the egg crosses the road and the chicken that hatches from the egg sees the other side of the road, both the egg and chicken must both be considered to be sufficiently chickenly to complete the sequence required to establish the complete chicken.
This shit is getting deep
It’s somehiw obvious now, but the question appeared 25 centuries ago when it wasn’t even remotely clear what was the answer.
But I think it’s not about chicken at all. People just don’t know which creature on earth laid the first egg, so the chicken is just a stand-in. As chicken are the species we most associate with eggs for obvious reasons. What came first: the first egg or the first egg-laying creature? Has to be the egg-laying creature, but then how did that get born?
I believe this is correct as I read in a book somewhere that it was a kind of proto-chicken if you will, that laid an egg of which came a the first chicken.
The more interesting question is how long did it take for the first BBQ Chicken.
Real question is which came first, BBQ chicken or the Eggs Benedict?
That is an interesting one.
I did a quick search using Arc and it says eggs Benedict was 1860s and BBQ. Chicken is unknown.
I very much like that I have a clear cut answer for this now.
Over time, a population of proto-chickens lay eggs with unique genetic variations that randomly direct the population towards laying eggs that result in modern chickens. The egg comes first, and it’s a whole bunch of them
deleted by creator
That’s some good jpeg
delicious, sweet jpeg
Delicious artifacts uhmm
Tongue test, tried and true. I prefer the teeth tap personally, more efficient.
I know this is a science meme community but the amount of factually inaccurate comments is concerning.
There are more stars in the galaxy than there are atoms in the universe
Lmao
Unironically would be interested in a list of them, with explanations why they’re wrong. Not to dunk on them but to check my own misconceptions.
This cladogram is outdated about turtles, which are no longer considered the most phylogenetically basal reptiles.
deleted by creator
Last I heard they might be closer to crocs and birds than to zards and snakes
The snake and lizard branch is wrong. I care very much about the accuracy of memes, and I have to point out that many lizards are more closely related to snakes than they are to other lizards.
Genetically, maybe, but you have to remember intermarriage and cultural separation within the lizard-snake community.
TIL turtles are older than crocodiles
No, turtles and crocodiles share an older closest common ancestor than lizards and crocodiles.
As a child I was really into dinosaurs and came to this conclusion
Are chickens even real?
Or are they local?
Yes, unless declared integer.
But which came first:
The chicken or the chicken’s egg? Did the first chicken come from a chicken egg? Or did it come from a snake egg?
Based on the jpeg, this meme came first
I recall reading somewhere that it would have been a proto- chicken kind of thing. Like not quite a chicken but it laid an egg and the first chicken came out.
Maybe a gene mutation of some sort.
Even that’s not that clear cut. The mutants and the nonmutant proto chickens interbred regularly and different mutants showed up and also interbred. The real answer is there’s no platonic ideal chicken but we really want to categorize this thing.
Edit: I guess the platonic ideal chicken is a man according to diogenes.
i think it would depend on whether the genes from the mother or embryo build the shell.
I have no direct knowledge about that, but if we take the analogy of the egg (shell, albumen and yolk sack) being the life-support system of the embryo during gestation, in humans the placenta would be a big part of that, and exactly whose body it is part of its not simple (from what I remember both mother and child contribute cells, and the ‘plan’ for building it comes from the father’s genes). So maybe for chickens it could be ambiguous whether the shell ‘belongs’ to the laying generation or the hatching one. Seems like mostly a human taxonomy distinction to make anyway, obviously it’s in between the two, but we like to draw the line somewhere.
that’s really interesting, didn’t know that about humans.
yeah for sure, all abstractions are just that: abstractions. and it’s fun to pick at their holes
