I don't have time to read the article in full right now but this gorgeous description will have me returning to it and Barry Webb's images later today:
> Iridescent rainbow orbs bursting into tangerine spun sugar. Pearly spheres of goo. Sorbet corn dogs leaning into one another with matching bouffants. Bright yellow blackberries. A bunch of Mr. Blobby’s babies. Golden goblets overflowing with effervescent honeycomb. Opalescent spherules in crinkled sweet wrappers. Amaretti flecked with flakes of soap. Honestly, go and check it out if you don’t believe me.
What a tiresome article. It's laced with the stupidest kind of anthropomorphism - always interpreting a creature in nature as though it is a human mind. For example, the first sentence including "fluid, nonbinary way of being". For those in the know, these are references to genderfluidity, non binary and queer ways of being. None of this - as it applies to humans - is relevant to the study of slime molds! There may be a weak (very weak!) parallel, but such a matter doesn't affect the slime mold, nor inform how a human being should live in the world.
And then later it refers to some lesbain poet who talked about slime molds in a poem. And meaningless speculation about how slime molds are "unstudied" due to a revulsion of slime, which is pointed out to be feminine. Not an argument I'm going to buy, for if there extremely well studied from early times, then this article would perhaps be talking about how slime molds are seminal in nature. So, meaningless in the sense it's unfalsifiable. Maybe search for actual reasons why they're unstudied and improperly categorised, like they're difficult to study? Or that good scientists try to be as parsimonious with category as possible, so that those categories retain explantory power? But that has to be ignored, so the Queer theoretic "violence of categorization" can be undermined with nature.
It's tiresome. If you've found an interesting creature in nature, then write what makes that creature interesting. It doesn't (ever) need to include what a lesbian writer thought it taught humans how to live. Because it doesn't, really.
I enjoyed it, and read it through. I didn't find the nonbinary/queer stuff relevant, but she did. It was part of her emotional reaction, and that was the apparent purpose of the article: to capture and evoke an emotional response. Clearly it missed you but it did so successfully for me. It was beautifully written and it made me feel a particular way, in sympathy with someone else who felt that way. I didn't have to share the author's world view for that to work, and I'm glad it was posted.
Your comment, on the other hand, feels mean-spirited and is far more dominated by the topic of gender and sexuality, in a wholly negative way, than the article was.
> If you've found an interesting creature in nature, then write what makes that creature interesting.
this is literally what they did.
I think you just have a bias against queer people. you say in another comment “actual cool people laugh at those blue-haired weirdos” and in this one that an article “doesn't (ever) need to include what a lesbian writer thought.”
these aren’t legitimate criticisms, and your claim that an unfalsifiable argument is meaningless is not a valid criticism either. you can’t falsify the theory of evolution, but the the theory still has meaning. in many cases, you can’t ethically set up control groups for medical interventions which save lives, but that doesn’t mean you can’t reason about those interventions. an unfalsifiable argument can certainly still have meaning and utility, and claiming otherwise is ridiculous.
saying “actual cool people laugh at those blue-haired weirdos” is also ridiculous. first because it’s obviously biased. second because cool is subjective, and you were just complaining about OP being subjective.
Ayep. Putting aside how totally, unnecessarily long this article was, trying to force slime molds to be relevant to the human condition is a ridiculous leap. Slime molds are incredibly cool. That doesn't mean they say anything about how people should relate to one another.
If I’d been his editor I would’ve rewritten the article to make this much stronger point.
1) There are some people who claim that male and female is one of those universal binaries, woven into the fabric of the universe, like light and dark. Actually pretty common for religious people to make the strong form of this claim for example.
2) Slime molds prove that isn’t necessarily true and doesn’t have to be true for living organisms. It’s the way evolution went but it wasn’t inevitable. (Article then delves into this but more scientifically)
[...] After three cold snaps the scientists stopped changing the temperature and humidity and watched to see whether the amoebas had learned the pattern. Sure enough, many of the cells throttled back right on the hour in anticipation of another bout of cold weather
I wish they'd have a scale next to pictures (in this article and elsewhere). We're out in the woods a lot, but it's hard to know what to look for as you're walking along.
A macro lens is defined as one having 1x magnification, meaning 1cm in real life at the focus plane is mapped to 1cm on the image sensor. A full frame sensor is 3.6cm across horizontally, so a 3.6cm object fills a photo. These things are smaller, so they need a super macro lens with 2x or even 5x magnification. You can get that by buying such a lens, using macro bellows, clipping a separate magnifying lens in front of your normal macro lens, etc.
In any case, with such a high magnification, the plane of focus becomes very narrow, so they're very likely also doing focus stacking.
And you need a lot of light, so they're probably also using a flash.
And that further elaborates (in the Barry Webb section): "a Micro Four Thirds system with a 60mm macro lens [...] also often use between one and three extension tubes and, on occasions, a Raynox close-up lens" (plus a whole lot more info.)
[+] [-] thedailymail|2 years ago|reply
https://www.barrywebbimages.co.uk/Images/Macro/Slime-Moulds-...
Edit: As noted below, the correct surname of the photographer is Webb, not White!
[+] [-] omnicognate|2 years ago|reply
> Iridescent rainbow orbs bursting into tangerine spun sugar. Pearly spheres of goo. Sorbet corn dogs leaning into one another with matching bouffants. Bright yellow blackberries. A bunch of Mr. Blobby’s babies. Golden goblets overflowing with effervescent honeycomb. Opalescent spherules in crinkled sweet wrappers. Amaretti flecked with flakes of soap. Honestly, go and check it out if you don’t believe me.
[+] [-] Baeocystin|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] bqmjjx0kac|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Waterluvian|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] automatic6131|2 years ago|reply
And then later it refers to some lesbain poet who talked about slime molds in a poem. And meaningless speculation about how slime molds are "unstudied" due to a revulsion of slime, which is pointed out to be feminine. Not an argument I'm going to buy, for if there extremely well studied from early times, then this article would perhaps be talking about how slime molds are seminal in nature. So, meaningless in the sense it's unfalsifiable. Maybe search for actual reasons why they're unstudied and improperly categorised, like they're difficult to study? Or that good scientists try to be as parsimonious with category as possible, so that those categories retain explantory power? But that has to be ignored, so the Queer theoretic "violence of categorization" can be undermined with nature.
It's tiresome. If you've found an interesting creature in nature, then write what makes that creature interesting. It doesn't (ever) need to include what a lesbian writer thought it taught humans how to live. Because it doesn't, really.
[+] [-] omnicognate|2 years ago|reply
Your comment, on the other hand, feels mean-spirited and is far more dominated by the topic of gender and sexuality, in a wholly negative way, than the article was.
[+] [-] tessierashpool|2 years ago|reply
this is literally what they did.
I think you just have a bias against queer people. you say in another comment “actual cool people laugh at those blue-haired weirdos” and in this one that an article “doesn't (ever) need to include what a lesbian writer thought.”
these aren’t legitimate criticisms, and your claim that an unfalsifiable argument is meaningless is not a valid criticism either. you can’t falsify the theory of evolution, but the the theory still has meaning. in many cases, you can’t ethically set up control groups for medical interventions which save lives, but that doesn’t mean you can’t reason about those interventions. an unfalsifiable argument can certainly still have meaning and utility, and claiming otherwise is ridiculous.
saying “actual cool people laugh at those blue-haired weirdos” is also ridiculous. first because it’s obviously biased. second because cool is subjective, and you were just complaining about OP being subjective.
[+] [-] YeGoblynQueenne|2 years ago|reply
Why the hell is this kind of comment again at the top of the thread?
[+] [-] nathan_compton|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] causi|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] julianeon|2 years ago|reply
1) There are some people who claim that male and female is one of those universal binaries, woven into the fabric of the universe, like light and dark. Actually pretty common for religious people to make the strong form of this claim for example.
2) Slime molds prove that isn’t necessarily true and doesn’t have to be true for living organisms. It’s the way evolution went but it wasn’t inevitable. (Article then delves into this but more scientifically)
[+] [-] zabzonk|2 years ago|reply
well, no. i would say it can performs some simple algorithms.
> It knows itself
this is useful, performing those algorithms, and so will be selected for.
> It is able to learn and anticipate.
anticipate? don't know about that.
> It can learn, for example, to avoid something potentially harmful.
bacteria do this, via very rapid natural selection.
> It makes decisions
not in the sense we do.
[+] [-] satori99|2 years ago|reply
[...] After three cold snaps the scientists stopped changing the temperature and humidity and watched to see whether the amoebas had learned the pattern. Sure enough, many of the cells throttled back right on the hour in anticipation of another bout of cold weather
https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/71-slime-molds...
[+] [-] mcphage|2 years ago|reply
> not in the sense we do.
Isn't that the point? That in some ways it seems familiar, yet gets there in ways utterly foreign?
[+] [-] mcswell|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] david422|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ftxbro|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ftxbro|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] examplary_cable|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thih9|2 years ago|reply
As in: is it a camera and a macro lens? Or is there some focus stacking and image composition involved? Or perhaps some other approach?
[+] [-] bla3|2 years ago|reply
In any case, with such a high magnification, the plane of focus becomes very narrow, so they're very likely also doing focus stacking.
And you need a lot of light, so they're probably also using a flash.
[+] [-] zimpenfish|2 years ago|reply
Which links to https://amateurphotographer.com/technique/macro_photography/...
And that further elaborates (in the Barry Webb section): "a Micro Four Thirds system with a 60mm macro lens [...] also often use between one and three extension tubes and, on occasions, a Raynox close-up lens" (plus a whole lot more info.)
[+] [-] BlueTemplar|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] interfixus|2 years ago|reply