this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2024
632 points (93.6% liked)

Science Memes

11189 readers
2370 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] lunarul@lemmy.world 68 points 1 week ago (1 children)

If surviving humans lost 50% of their gut bacteria, that means that those snapped away left 50% of their gut bacteria behind.

[–] Benjaben@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago

More gut bacteria for the rest of us, that's what I say!

[–] aesopjah@lemm.ee 50 points 1 week ago (1 children)

or 100% of the 50% that are destroyed are the gut bacteria in the humans etc that got snapped

[–] Enkers@sh.itjust.works 43 points 1 week ago (2 children)

The alternative is even more disturbing: snapped humans leave behind a cloud of poopy gut microbes.

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 47 points 1 week ago (10 children)

That's not how it worked. He killed 50% of gut bacteria by killing 50% of the hosts.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] nieminen@lemmy.world 46 points 1 week ago (1 children)

In reality, since it was more random, some poor soul would have their whole biomes destroyed, and just be rekd.

[–] Enkers@sh.itjust.works 39 points 1 week ago (2 children)

That would be incredibly unlikely. Due to the huge number of gut microbes, the chance to even lose 5% off of the median, even with billions of trials, is functionally zero.

[–] errer@lemmy.world 39 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Maybe in your gut biome, but mine is just two or three really, really large bacteria

[–] thejml@lemm.ee 6 points 1 week ago

So, what are their names?

[–] HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

What are their names, and do they bite?

[–] DannyBoy@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 week ago

Have you ever been prescribed a wolf?

https://xkcd.com/1471/

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

To expand a little:

For a much smaller sample size of just 1 million, the probability to lose just 1% off of the median is basically zero.

WolframAlpha doesn't even bother to calculate the exact result and just rounds it:

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=P%5B490000+%3C+X+%3C+510000%5D+for+X%7EB%281000000%2C0.5%29

[–] Enkers@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Yeah, I was trying to compute the "ballpark" of the odds, but it's actually hard to do because of how astronomically improbable it is. Even computation systems that are designed to compute rather big/small numbers (think 100,000,000^1,000,000 big) fail.

Here's another example: If a human only had 1,000 gut microbes, the chance that over 900 of them get snapped is 1 in ~10^162 [WA]. (This was roughly the biggest number I could get WA to yield a non-zero answer for a >90% snap.)

Now if you do that for every human on earth, the probability is still essentially zero. [WA]

When you consider that humans don't have 1000 gut microbes, they have over 10 trillion, it's just mind bogglingly improbable.

[–] yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

I've found a proper approximation after some time and some searching.

Since the binomial distribution has a very large n, we can use the central limit theorem and treat it as a normal distribution. The mean would be obviously 500 billion, the standard deviation is √(n * p * (1-p)) which results in 500,000.

You still cannot plug that into WA unfortunately so we have to use a workaround.

You would calculate it manually through:

Φ(b) - Φ(a), with
b = (510 billion - mean) / (standard deviation) = 20,000
and
a = (490 billion - mean) / (standard deviation) = -20,000
and
Φ(x) = 0.5 * (1 + erf(x/√2))

erf(x) is the error function which has the neat property: erf(-x) = -erf(x)

You could replace erf(x) with an integral but this would be illegible without LaTeX.

Therefore:

Φ(20,000) - Φ(-20,000)
= 0.5 * [ erf(20,000/√2) - erf(-20,000/√2) ]
= erf(20,000/√2)
≈ erf(14,142)

WolframAlpha will unfortunately not calculate this either.

However, according to Wikipedia an approximation exists which shows that:

1 - erf(x) ≈ [(1 - e^(-Ax))e^(-x²)] / (Bx√π)

And apparently A = 1.98 and B = 1.135 give good approximations for all x≥0.

After failing to get a proper approximation from WA again and having to calculate every part by itself, the result is very roughly around 1 - 10^(-86,857,234).

So it is very safe to assume you will lose between 49% and 51% of your gut bacteria. For a more realistic 10 trillion you should replace a and b above with around ±63,200 but I don't want to bother calculating the rest and having WolframAlpha tell me my intermediary steps are equal to zero.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] marcos@lemmy.world 37 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Losing 50% of your gut bioma will be fixed in an hour or two.

[–] Kalkaline@leminal.space 11 points 1 week ago

Yeah, yeast doubling rate is around 90 mins in optimal conditions, I would assume the rest of the microbes in your gut would have a very similar rate and they would be well adapted to those conditions.

[–] s_s@lemm.ee 15 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Fewer than 50% of the cells in "your body" contain your own DNA.

There are many more bacteria, since they are much much smaller than "your own" eukaryotic cells.

Where you end and your "gut flora" begin and end is not as clear as you might first believe.

[–] blady_blah@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago (3 children)

The snap was always the dumbest part of the entire avenger series. Let's say for example, you have a bunch of deer that are eating the forest bare, so you let hunters kill half of them... Then what happens next? You have the exact same problem in a few years. The snap solves nothing.

Also if you can snap your fingers and do this, why can't you snap your fingers and make twice the food supply?

The snap is just stupid, even in a world made-up physics-defying superheroes.

[–] djsoren19@yiffit.net 13 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It's stupid only because they try to rationalize it.

Comics Thanos just wants to commit genocide so his crush notices him. That's also stupid, but he's a big purple space alien so what can you expect? Using a magic space glove powered by stardust and wishfish to kill half of all life as an incredible gesture of his devotion to Death makes internal sense.

[–] BatmanAoD@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

His crush is literally Death, so it kinda makes sense that genocide would be the way to get her attention.

[–] zod000@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

To be fair, it made slightly more sense in the comics, though still batshit. In the comics there was no noble purpose like they tried to shoehorn in for the MCU. IIRC, Thanos was literally doing it to impressed Death (the cosmic entity) to gain her affection.

[–] jdeath@lemm.ee 4 points 1 week ago

makes more sense for sure

[–] Bytemeister@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

Even worse than that. 50% of all life dies, right? That's 50% of the plants too. If you know anything about food chains, taking 50% of everything leaves the top of the chain massively overloaded.

[–] Etterra@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yeah but I thought about this I realized that whenever somebody vanished from the snap it would leave behind a slurry of gut microbes and a (different looking) dust from all of the skin mites, microbes, and stuff that just live all over the human body. Meaning the aftermath would have been even messier.

[–] jol@discuss.tchncs.de 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Maybe that's exactly what the dust was.

[–] Etterra@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

Then it should have been goopier lol

[–] Contramuffin@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago

So will bacteriophages and viruses be snapped as well? Does it mean that scientists can utilize the Thanos snap to determine for good whether viruses are alive?

[–] iAvicenna@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

he would have to snap his fingers infinitely many times to kill everyone so he is not that powerful

[–] Zron@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago (10 children)

That’s an interesting question as to whether the infinity gauntlet rounds down.

Like, if there were 3 survivors of a species and thanos snapped the universe, does the gauntlet round up to 2 survivors, or down to one?

[–] Bytemeister@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I thought it was just an instantaneous, every living thing has a 50/50 chance of living or dying. No rounding, no species specific exceptions.

[–] HK65@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

So that means that since bacteria and the like outnumber us by orders of magnitude, statistically speaking, multicellular life would be wiped out completely.

[–] Bytemeister@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

No, they reproduce pretty quickly. Wipe out 50 % of the bacteria in your body, and they will recover in a few hours.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 10 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

The snap must take intention into account, like a genie, and not the literal wording of the wish, like a monkey's paw, because otherwise everyone in the universe would have just been cut in half.

But also: what if Thanos himself got snapped out, along with the power glove (because for some reason it turned their clothes into dust, too)? The heroes would have been fucked, right? It's been a minute since I saw the movies but IIRC, they used the time stone to go back in time. But what if the stone was gone because it was part of Thanos' attire? He himself used the stones to destroy the stones, so there is probably a timeline where he got snapped away with everyone else, destroying the stones in the process.

[–] The_Decryptor@aussie.zone 3 points 1 week ago

I imagine the stones would survive it, just fall out of the vanishing gauntlet. It's not like the stones were a part of it, they were just being held in place by it, but then there's the question of whether or not the contents of people's pockets got snapped as well, we know the pager Fury had didn't count as "part of him".

And no, they used the ant man tech to go back in time, no stones there.

[–] T156@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

But also: what if Thanos himself got snapped out, along with the power glove (because for some reason it turned their clothes into dust, too)? The heroes would have been fucked, right? It’s been a minute since I saw the movies but IIRC, they used the time stone to go back in time. But what if the stone was gone because it was part of Thanos’ attire? He himself used the stones to destroy the stones, so there is probably a timeline where he got snapped away with everyone else, destroying the stones in the process.

It might not be possible, since the stones were also performing the action, and Thanos didn't want to destroy the stones while snapping everyone in half. Otherwise, they might just self-destruct by going for the nearest target first (Thanos), and stop there, not fulfilling the desired action. You'd have to destroy/scatter them separately.

I don't think that they used the time stone to go back in time, since it was destroyed when they got there. They had to get it from the past, since a decent part of the movie surrounded that.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] fsxylo@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 week ago

It's bullshit space magic, it probably considers what Thanos thinks of as life. Why it snapped the birds is a different plot hole altogether, because it means he snapped away half the food, too.

load more comments
view more: next ›