Confirmed with Link: Meme/Like Thread 6 - A new season on the horizon

[Daeavorn]

This seems very cool to me. Also if any of you are skeptical, this is precisely what Cats did about 5k years ago. And Foxes are very catlike in their behaviors.

 

[Nogatco Rd]

This seems very cool to me. Also if any of you are skeptical, this is precisely what Cats did about 5k years ago. And Foxes are very catlike in their behaviors.

I’ve seen the fox population explode in my metro area over the last 25 years, so I don’t doubt that there are way more instances of human/fox interaction than in the past.

If accepting food from friendly humans is a more efficient source of obtaining calories for a given fox population (as compared to predation), then it might be expected that an evolutionary advantage will be conferred to those foxes who are more bold in approaching humans, while being less aggressive.

I take issue with the language of that tweet though, which implies a level of cognition/abstraction that, as far as I’m aware, foxes aren’t capable of.

 

[Nogatco Rd]

This seems very cool to me. Also if any of you are skeptical, this is precisely what Cats did about 5k years ago. And Foxes are very catlike in their behaviors.

That nature is amazing twitter account is a goldmine btw thanks for sharing

 

[Daeavorn]

I’ve seen the fox population explode in my metro area over the last 25 years, so I don’t doubt that there are way more instances of human/fox interaction than in the past.

If accepting food from friendly humans is a more efficient source of obtaining calories for a given fox population (as compared to predation), then it might be expected that an evolutionary advantage will be conferred to those foxes who are more bold in approaching humans, while being less aggressive.

I take issue with the language of that tweet though, which implies a level of cognition/abstraction that, as far as I’m aware, foxes aren’t capable of.

Yeah he's definitely implying a level of sapience that really isn't there but it is cool to see natural selection at work.

Also there is a Russian guy that's been breeding foxes as domestic pets for 50 years now as well so that's kinda cool.

 

[Lempo]

 

[Daeavorn]

View attachment 878319

Based on what we now know about Diddy I actually feel bad for Bieber.

 

[Daeavorn]

 

[LakeLivin]

View attachment 878446

Clever, but joke aside, technically, is two not considered a group?

 

[Lempo]

Clever, but joke aside, technically, is two not considered a group?

Curiously, no, I would think. There are residues of the grammatical number of dual (between singular and plural) even in the English language. I would guess that the group terms are instinctively applied only to a unit of three or more specimens, but not to a pair.


"Dual (abbreviated du) is a grammatical number that some languages use in addition to singular and plural. When a noun or pronoun appears in dual form, it is interpreted as referring to precisely two of the entities (objects or persons) identified by the noun or pronoun acting as a single unit or in unison. Verbs can also have dual agreement forms in these languages.

The dual number existed in Proto-Indo-European and persisted in many of its descendants, such as Ancient Greek and Sanskrit, which have dual forms across nouns, verbs, and adjectives; Gothic, which used dual forms in pronouns and verbs; and Old English (Anglo-Saxon), which used dual forms in its pronouns. It can still be found in a few modern Indo-European languages such as Irish, Scottish Gaelic, Lithuanian, Slovene, and Sorbian languages.

The majority of modern Indo-European languages, including modern English, have lost the dual number through their development. Its function has mostly been replaced by the simple plural. They may however show residual traces of the dual, for example in the English distinctions: both vs. all, either vs. any, neither vs. none, and so on. A commonly used sentence to exemplify dual in English is "Both go to the same school." where both refers to two specific people who had already been determined in the conversation."

 

[LakeLivin]

Curiously, no, I would think. There are residues of the grammatical number of dual (between singular and plural) even in the English language. I would guess that the group terms are instinctively applied only to a unit of three or more specimens, but not to a pair.


"Dual (abbreviated du) is a grammatical number that some languages use in addition to singular and plural. When a noun or pronoun appears in dual form, it is interpreted as referring to precisely two of the entities (objects or persons) identified by the noun or pronoun acting as a single unit or in unison. Verbs can also have dual agreement forms in these languages.

The dual number existed in Proto-Indo-European and persisted in many of its descendants, such as Ancient Greek and Sanskrit, which have dual forms across nouns, verbs, and adjectives; Gothic, which used dual forms in pronouns and verbs; and Old English (Anglo-Saxon), which used dual forms in its pronouns. It can still be found in a few modern Indo-European languages such as Irish, Scottish Gaelic, Lithuanian, Slovene, and Sorbian languages.

The majority of modern Indo-European languages, including modern English, have lost the dual number through their development. Its function has mostly been replaced by the simple plural. They may however show residual traces of the dual, for example in the English distinctions: both vs. all, either vs. any, neither vs. none, and so on. A commonly used sentence to exemplify dual in English is "Both go to the same school." where both refers to two specific people who had already been determined in the conversation."

Just looked it up and Merriam-Webster has as their first entry:
"two or more figures assembled together or having some unifying relationship"

Other dictionaries aren't that specific, only defining it as "a number of" instead of "two or more". (Collins, Dictionary.com, etc.) Can't see how OED defines it, as that's a pay site.

 

[sabremike]

https://x.com/i/web/status/1796600416345718903

 

[Daeavorn]

 

[LakeLivin]

 

[Blueline Bomber]

This seems very cool to me. Also if any of you are skeptical, this is precisely what Cats did about 5k years ago. And Foxes are very catlike in their behaviors.

Not to be a downer, but it's more likely that foxes are approaching humans for food because we've basically destroyed their habitats and have encroached so far into it that getting food from us might be the only way to get any anymore. They're not "tired" of the wild. There's just less "wild" for them to live in.

 

[Nikishin Go Boom]

Not to be a downer, but it's more likely that foxes are approaching humans for food because we've basically destroyed their habitats and have encroached so far into it that getting food from us might be the only way to get any anymore. They're not "tired" of the wild. There's just less "wild" for them to live in.

Maybe they are just tired of being chased by dogs and Englishmen on horseback.

 

[Lempo]

Not to be a downer, but it's more likely that foxes are approaching humans for food because we've basically destroyed their habitats and have encroached so far into it that getting food from us might be the only way to get any anymore. They're not "tired" of the wild. There's just less "wild" for them to live in.

For what's it worth, I live in the rural, plenty of forest around my whereabouts for foxes to do their fox things devoid of human presence, but still I got a fox friend that comes to check me up and hangs close by when I'm reaping hay in the field. My personal experience says there might be something to this. It's an interesting thought.

 

[SoupNazi]

 

[Unsustainable]

 

[Porvari]

 

[Surrounded By Ahos]

View attachment 879270

@Beef Invictus

 

[Unsustainable]

 

[TheGreenTBer]

View attachment 879308

OH HELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL NO

 

[Unsustainable]

 

[Beef Invictus]

@Beef Invictus

A nice treat

 

[DaveG]