Funny

13796 readers

1377 users here now

General rules:

Be kind.
All posts must make an attempt to be funny.
Obey the general sh.itjust.works instance rules.
No politics or political figures. There are plenty of other politics communities to choose from.
Don't post anything grotesque or potentially illegal. Examples include pornography, gore, animal cruelty, inappropriate jokes involving kids, etc.

Exceptions may be made at the discretion of the mods.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

TheDude@sh.itjust.works

kersploosh@sh.itjust.works

example@reddthat.com

VicksVaporBBQrub@sh.itjust.works

395

Just so there's no confusion (infosec.pub)

submitted 12 hours ago by cm0002@toast.ooo to c/funny@sh.itjust.works

43 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] python@lemmy.world 3 points 3 hours ago

If a chicken egg is an egg that hatches into a chicken, then unfertilized chicken eggs would not be chicken eggs. But if you took an alligator egg and transplanted a developing chicken embryo into it, that would become a chicken egg.
You'd get the heuristic "All chickens have hatched from chicken eggs", which sounds pretty elegant.

If a chicken egg is an egg laid by a chicken, then you couldn't reliably say that a chicken egg hatches into a chicken - the heuristic from before would become "Not all chickens have hatched from chicken eggs". And that one, while it feels a bit imprecise, might be closer to what we observe in reality, especially with that Proto-chicken argument. So the Proto-chicken would have laid a Proto-chicken egg, which hatched into a chicken, which laid chicken eggs.
And it would work with the current scientific hijinks like hatching chickens from different eggs or straight from test tubes.