Difference between revisions of "Talk:3079: Air Fact"
(Technically correct comment.) |
|||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
:There isn't even such a thing as a "microscopic ant". The smallest ant species is 0.8mm long. That's tiny, but easily visible without aid. And if there were 10,000 of them in a cubic meter of air, you'd notice. It would be like walking through a thick swarm of gnats. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 17:47, 21 April 2025 (UTC) | :There isn't even such a thing as a "microscopic ant". The smallest ant species is 0.8mm long. That's tiny, but easily visible without aid. And if there were 10,000 of them in a cubic meter of air, you'd notice. It would be like walking through a thick swarm of gnats. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 17:47, 21 April 2025 (UTC) | ||
Speaking for myself, I don't understand what would be difficult about taking air samples. Currently the article claims it's sampling bias, but why should that be anymore difficult with air than with e.g. soil?[[Special:Contributions/172.69.67.22|172.69.67.22]] 18:14, 21 April 2025 (UTC) | Speaking for myself, I don't understand what would be difficult about taking air samples. Currently the article claims it's sampling bias, but why should that be anymore difficult with air than with e.g. soil?[[Special:Contributions/172.69.67.22|172.69.67.22]] 18:14, 21 April 2025 (UTC) | ||
| + | : Tried to address this ... [[Special:Contributions/172.71.146.123|172.71.146.123]] 19:23, 21 April 2025 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 19:23, 21 April 2025
average person eats 3 spiders a year" factoid actualy just statistical error. average person eats 0 spiders per year. Spiders Georg, who lives in cave & eats over 10,000 each day, is an outlier adn should not have been countedโ 172.68.7.184 15:19, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฅ Broseph (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- [citation needed]172.68.174.138 15:52, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- This is one of those factoids like "Over 5% of the population has an above average number of fingers."
172.68.245.136 16:16, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- That factoid sounds true. Assuming there are more people who have fewer than ten fingers than those who have extra fingers (some people have whole hands missing, but extra digits to my knowledge normally only come in ones and twos), then the average is slightly less than ten, and the ten-fingered vast majority of people have an above-average number of fingers, certainly more than 5% of the population. 141.101.98.164 19:10, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- I don't really get the way the title text is written. Why is "so many ants" assumed to be a small number, like the number of spiders? Barmar (talk) 17:47, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
The term "microscopic ants" supposedly refers to viruses and other microorganisms, not actual tiny ants. The actual concentration of airborne germs is pretty much in that ballpark, so it's not about sampling bias, it's about framing. 162.158.103.36 17:00, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- There isn't even such a thing as a "microscopic ant". The smallest ant species is 0.8mm long. That's tiny, but easily visible without aid. And if there were 10,000 of them in a cubic meter of air, you'd notice. It would be like walking through a thick swarm of gnats. Barmar (talk) 17:47, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
Speaking for myself, I don't understand what would be difficult about taking air samples. Currently the article claims it's sampling bias, but why should that be anymore difficult with air than with e.g. soil?172.69.67.22 18:14, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Tried to address this ... 172.71.146.123 19:23, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
