• blackbrook
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is good, but presenting the blobs as such different shapes makes it harder to get a sense of relative size. (Obviously some of the differences are huge enough it doesn’t matter, but comparing humans and cattle say.)

    And which blob is chickens? I guess chickens are so much smaller and lighter than other domestic animals they don’t show very big here.

      • blackbrook
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Cool, thanks! I’d love to see this format with pets and livestock broken down.

      • SeaOtter@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Another suggestion would be to not include the number of blocks in the label. That doesn’t make sense. If you want an absolute number to be included, but the weight (scaled to millions of tons appropriately). It is less abstract than number of blocks.

        Also, this is more subjective, but the font makes it look very amateur in my opinion.

    • SkyeCat@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s specifically a visualization of land mammals, so chickens wouldn’t appear, being birds.

      • over_clox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Fair enough, but in a way chickens kinda should be on there anyways. They can’t exactly fly very far, spend like 98% of their life on the ground, and humans breed them for food.

          • over_clox@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Ah, indeed. Still seems they should have been a bit more broad than restricting the data to land mammals, more like humans vs food.

            Oh well, it is what it is.

        • TWeaK@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          They don’t spend 98% of their life on the ground in the wild. They sleep in trees, just like turkeys and peacocks.

          • over_clox@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            90%+ chickens are bred for food, I don’t think there’s all that many truly wild chickens out there anymore.

            • TWeaK@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              There are probably some somewhere, but yeah not many. However the ones that are bred for food typically weigh more.

              Hell, if you let a meat chicken grow beyond its sell-by date, there’s a good chance it will develop so much muscle mass it cannot stand up anymore, and it will rot to death on the spot.

            • blackbrook
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I’m pretty sure they were domesticated from something (a South Asian jungle fowl, I believe) to the extent that they are no longer even the same species. So any “wild” chickens would just be feral escapees.