Talk:2945: Broken Model - Revision history

82.132.239.130 at 03:43, 30 March 2026

2026-03-30T03:43:29Z

172.70.160.249 at 11:34, 18 August 2024

2024-08-18T11:34:42Z

Ianrbibtitlht: AI content comment

2024-06-18T12:57:05Z

AI content comment

Eelitee at 00:41, 17 June 2024

2024-06-17T00:41:18Z

162.158.49.18 at 13:48, 16 June 2024

2024-06-16T13:48:49Z

172.69.34.16: /* Carnivorous grass? */ reply

2024-06-16T00:46:02Z

‎Carnivorous grass?: reply

Mathmannix at 07:43, 15 June 2024

2024-06-15T07:43:16Z

162.158.41.120 at 01:01, 15 June 2024

2024-06-15T01:01:22Z

162.158.41.22: reply

2024-06-14T19:09:19Z

ProphetZarquon: Cenchrus longispinus

2024-06-14T18:11:40Z

Cenchrus longispinus

@@ Line 39: / Line 39: @@
 :::Maybe a 2nd rule that when someone adds an AI explanation, they themselves should remove the redundant content and gushing endorsements for the comic strip from the explanation text. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 12:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
-== Carnivorous grass? ==
+;Carnivorous grass?
 I feel like this grass exists, even though I've never seen it named. Looks like grass, but puts out thorns tough enough to penetrate bike tires, & can sometimes be found as a patch growing extra thick around a snared animal carcass?
 : A quick search suggests that "carnivorous grass" with features like this is a trope in world-building games. However, you may be thinking of this {{w|Puya chilensis|real-world South American bromeliad}}. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.150.128|172.71.150.128]] 17:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:34, 18 August 2024
Line 61:		Line 61:
	::In fact, less than two foxes (excepting "one 'widowed' fox that's already pregnant") is effectively zero foxes, in a closed-system.		::In fact, less than two foxes (excepting "one 'widowed' fox that's already pregnant") is effectively zero foxes, in a closed-system.
	::But depends upon how quantized or probability-based you deal with each amalgamation of the differential/integral calculus figues... Or interpreting them correctly as the implied one. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.49.18\|162.158.49.18]] 13:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)		::But depends upon how quantized or probability-based you deal with each amalgamation of the differential/integral calculus figues... Or interpreting them correctly as the implied one. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.49.18\|162.158.49.18]] 13:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
		+
		+	In the basic "obligate vulpivoric leporid" model, the drastic reduction of the (already few) foxes would be catastrophic for the rabbits, leading to a crash in ''their'' population and (so long as at least one breeding pair of foxes survived, for long enough) re-establish a new dynamic equilibreum that might look somewhat similar (but the memberships flipped) to the starting condition that was supposed to be many prey and few predators. (Not exactly the same, probably, as breeding cycles would still be geated towards their respective original roles, so it'd probably settle at very few rabbits needing a truly huge population of foxes to support them. If it didn't end in mutual extinction first.)<br/>
		+	The title-text's addition (or restatement) of rabbits being vulpo-vegetarian omnivores is not only hell for the foxes due to carniverous gramineae (which at least can nominally be avoided, by sticking to bare earth/rock or becoming arboreal/aquatic in pursuit of whatever now sustains them in leiu of any traditional lagomorphic food-source) but because their "hungry for meat" predators are ''not'' actually restricted by the plunging fox population. Foxes that evade their twin enemies will still have a large grass-sustained population of hoppy predators after their hides (or at least selective innards) whenever they become careless enough to show themselves (or their hide-out dens happen to get tunneled into by the even more capable burrowers). It is not explained what sustains the grass that would sustain the rabbits in this way (beyond the odd unwary renard), perhaps it's also significantly dual-diet with its original source of energy (i.e. photo-carninverous), but even if it's also subject to a population dive (unable to hunt foxes, being nibbled at by slightly frustrated bunnies), the fox-eating-rabbits will survive (and initially thrive) long enough to make it next to impossible for a stable revival of foxes to occur.<br/>
		+	Though, depending upon whether foxes have ''any'' dietary requirements, via the miswrit equations, they ''might'' just get through to a "no grasses, no rabbits" situation where foxes are now mathematically unconstrained and potentially breeding like... well... their former foes. Hard times to get there, but now no longer hell. (At least until you add disease-burdening terms or other rates of mortality that scale up by population and/or population density.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.249\|172.70.160.249]] 11:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:57, 18 June 2024
Line 36:		Line 36:

	::I think it's a net positive because cleaning up an AI explanation takes less time than writing one from scratch. I do think we should have a rule that AI explanations need to be marked as such in the edit summary, which was done in this case. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.41.22\|162.158.41.22]] 19:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)		::I think it's a net positive because cleaning up an AI explanation takes less time than writing one from scratch. I do think we should have a rule that AI explanations need to be marked as such in the edit summary, which was done in this case. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.41.22\|162.158.41.22]] 19:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
		+
		+	:::Maybe a 2nd rule that when someone adds an AI explanation, they themselves should remove the redundant content and gushing endorsements for the comic strip from the explanation text. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht\|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht\|talk]]) 12:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

	== Carnivorous grass? ==		== Carnivorous grass? ==

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 :[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 16:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 :The cabbages are too busy eating the goats in the universe next door. [[User:Mathmannix|Mathmannix]] ([[User talk:Mathmannix|talk]]) 07:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 This "terrifying alternate universe" thing goes all the way back to the 5th century before the Common Era:

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:48, 16 June 2024
Line 56:		Line 56:
	Uhhhh the explanation is wrong saying that the 400 rabbits will drive the foxes extinct. This is one of the unphysical parts of the lotka volterra equations actually, no matter what the start values are, if they are non zero they will remain nonzero forever. (This is called the atto fox problem)[[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.83\|172.70.211.83]] 17:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)		Uhhhh the explanation is wrong saying that the 400 rabbits will drive the foxes extinct. This is one of the unphysical parts of the lotka volterra equations actually, no matter what the start values are, if they are non zero they will remain nonzero forever. (This is called the atto fox problem)[[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.83\|172.70.211.83]] 17:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
	:That's correct if there's any migration, but more generally less than half a fox is zero foxes. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.16\|172.69.34.16]] 00:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)		:That's correct if there's any migration, but more generally less than half a fox is zero foxes. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.16\|172.69.34.16]] 00:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
		+	::In fact, less than two foxes (excepting "one 'widowed' fox that's already pregnant") is effectively zero foxes, in a closed-system.
		+	::But depends upon how quantized or probability-based you deal with each amalgamation of the differential/integral calculus figues... Or interpreting them correctly as the implied one. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.49.18\|162.158.49.18]] 13:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:46, 16 June 2024
Line 55:		Line 55:

	Uhhhh the explanation is wrong saying that the 400 rabbits will drive the foxes extinct. This is one of the unphysical parts of the lotka volterra equations actually, no matter what the start values are, if they are non zero they will remain nonzero forever. (This is called the atto fox problem)[[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.83\|172.70.211.83]] 17:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)		Uhhhh the explanation is wrong saying that the 400 rabbits will drive the foxes extinct. This is one of the unphysical parts of the lotka volterra equations actually, no matter what the start values are, if they are non zero they will remain nonzero forever. (This is called the atto fox problem)[[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.83\|172.70.211.83]] 17:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
		+	:That's correct if there's any migration, but more generally less than half a fox is zero foxes. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.16\|172.69.34.16]] 00:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@@ Line 51: / Line 51: @@
 :::: Actually, Fungi were first recognized as a lineage at the "kingdom" level by {{w|Robert_Whittaker_(ecologist)|Robert Whittaker}} in 1969. Recognition that Fungi and Animalia are sister lineages came later. Remember that old line about how your boss must think you're a mushroom, 'cause dey keeps you in the dark and feeds you bullmanure? Your boss may have had more of a clue than you thought. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.146.53|172.71.146.53]] 23:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 :::::Today I learned. [[User:Psychoticpotato|Psychoticpotato]] ([[User talk:Psychoticpotato|talk]]) 12:47, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 Uhhhh the explanation is wrong saying that the 400 rabbits will drive the foxes extinct. This is one of the unphysical parts of the lotka volterra equations actually, no matter what the start values are, if they are non zero they will remain nonzero forever. (This is called the atto fox problem)[[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.83|172.70.211.83]] 17:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:09, 14 June 2024
Line 32:		Line 32:

	:I don't believe anyone has ever come out and said "don't use AI-generated text in explanations" at this point, but I'm finding it annoying that at least one person feels the need to do it. I find it disruptive to some degree, as it probably takes almost as much work to clean up the extra garbage included as it would to write the explanations from scratch. I fear it may discourage editors from contributing to explanations when they end up just cleaning up someone's AI additions. Just my 2 cents worth. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht\|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht\|talk]]) 22:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)		:I don't believe anyone has ever come out and said "don't use AI-generated text in explanations" at this point, but I'm finding it annoying that at least one person feels the need to do it. I find it disruptive to some degree, as it probably takes almost as much work to clean up the extra garbage included as it would to write the explanations from scratch. I fear it may discourage editors from contributing to explanations when they end up just cleaning up someone's AI additions. Just my 2 cents worth. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht\|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht\|talk]]) 22:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
		+
		+	::I think it's a net positive because cleaning up an AI explanation takes less time than writing one from scratch. I do think we should have a rule that AI explanations need to be marked as such in the edit summary, which was done in this case. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.41.22\|162.158.41.22]] 19:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

	== Carnivorous grass? ==		== Carnivorous grass? ==

@@ Line 40: / Line 40: @@
 ::[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 22:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 ::: Got it. Sounds like one of the 107 species in the genus {{w|Cenchrus|<em>Cenchrus</em>}}, which is a <em>bona fide</em> member of the grass family (Poaceae). [[Special:Contributions/172.71.146.53|172.71.146.53]] 23:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 Couldn't fungi be classified as carnivorous "grass"? [[User:Psychoticpotato|Psychoticpotato]] ([[User talk:Psychoticpotato|talk]]) 18:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)