• Gestrid@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      29 minutes ago

      No, viruses don’t mean the scientific definition of life. IIRC, the primary reason why is because, in order to make copies of itself, it must hijack a living cell’s reproductive system to do so. It can’t simply divide to make more of itself.

  • AVincentInSpace@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    4 hours ago

    E. Coli reproduces so fast that a population can double in size in half an hour, and human feces is 50% bacteria by weight.

    If your gut microbiome got snapped it’d be back so fast you wouldn’t even notice. Bacteria are kinda scary.

  • Annoyed_🦀 @monyet.cc
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    8 hours ago

    Does that mean for the people that got snapped, some will leave some of their sperm behind?

    And pregnant woman might leave their fetus behind.

    • Fredthefishlord
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 hours ago

      No because a fetus doesn’t mean the criteria of having a soul (:

      Also sperm most certainly doesn’t

      • AndrewZabar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        6 hours ago

        There was never any such ideas being part of it. It affected plantlife and bacteria as well. The idea of a soul to begin with is not even supported by science, although most people consider it to have some kind of validity, even if it’s not quite definable. But the relevant issue is that it’s all life period.

        • piecat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          6 hours ago

          Macroscopic creatures are made of different types of cells and stuff… what constitutes a living thing?

          People didn’t lose half of their cells, it was all or none.

  • don@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    10 hours ago

    Or the 50% of all people that got snapped took 50% of the gut bacteria with them, leaving the rest with no loss to their gut biomes. (taps forehead)

  • zalgotext@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    9 hours ago

    Thanos’ snap wouldn’t kill 50% of each survivors’ gut microbiome, it would kill 50% of all the lil buggies that compromise all gut microbiomes, and if the snap effects individuals randomly, you’d see a normal distribution (I think, I haven’t taken stats in a decade). So some survivors would retain 100% of their microbiome, some would lose it all, with a bell curve in between, probably with the peak around 50%.

    • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      8 hours ago

      That bell curve would be extremely narrow. You have so many lil buggies that basically every human survivor would lose ~50% buggies.

  • deegeese@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    84
    ·
    14 hours ago

    Killing 50% of your gut bacteria is a big nothing.

    These things reproduce on the timescale of hours.

    I kill 90% of my sourdough starter every time I feed it, and it bounces back the same day.

    • Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      11 hours ago

      Yeah, I have been on antibiotics that wiped out most of my gut bacteria. It was easy to upset my stomach for a few months, then I was fine.

      • HonkyTonkWoman@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        10 hours ago

        I had the same experience with norovirus this spring.

        Probiotics did the trick, but it was t so much fun.

  • PriorityMotif@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    11 hours ago

    I want the show where the snapped people come back and then the survivors have to awkwardly explain that they have gotten remarried and otherwise moved on.

  • kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    133
    ·
    edit-2
    17 hours ago

    That would imply that 50 percent of the snapped people’s biomes remained behind. All of the produce in the grocery stores would be covered in an airborne mist of E. coli, and snapped surgeons that were mid-operation would give their patients staph infections, assuming the suriviving surgery team was able to stablize and close them up before they died anyway. Neat.

    Also when those snapped people returned with the half of their biomes that also got snapped, you would get a sequel to the diarrhea. Diarrhea 2: Electric Boogapoo.

    • xXSirDanglesXx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      edit-2
      9 hours ago

      Right? Taking even the people who disappeared into account, and their gut biomes, would you not consider them all as part of all life?

      If so, there may be some survivors with all of their guy biomes perfectly intact, and others who get unfortunately zilched.

    • loaExMachina@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      16 hours ago

      If the 50% are homogeneously spread -and it’s implied that it is-, then one may assume 50% per person also applies. Like how he didn’t leave 50% of planets alone and purge the rest.

      • enkers@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        12 hours ago

        I would think it’s basically a coin flip for each living thing. It’s possible, for example, that all humans survive, however the probability is so astronomically small, it’s functionally impossible.

        Same with gut biome. Even with several billion attempts, the probability that even 60% of any individual’s trillion gut microbes get snapped would be essentially functionally impossible.

        • enkers@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          11 hours ago

          Just to give an idea of the unlikelihood we’re talking about here, you can model this as a Bernoulli process with a binomial distribution.

          If N is the number of beings potentially snapped, then (√N)/2 is the standard deviation. (If you’re curious about why, you can read more here.) So for 8.2 billion people, the standard deviation is ~90,000. The chance of being more than ~3 standard deviations below the mean is 0.1%. That means there’s only a 0.1% chance of snapping less than 4,099,720,200 people.

      • Amputret@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        15 hours ago

        I’m not sure it’s stated, but I thought the planets that had already been purged by Thanos’ armies, like Gamora’s planet and Xandar were spared the snap.

  • MudMan@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    16 hours ago

    Look, we’re in the realm where the guy decided to remove 50% of all life… as a resource conservation attempt.

    Lovely movies, but the “guy’s a literal death cultist” required way less suspension of disbelief. Jilted incel Thanos pining after an annoyed Aubrey Plaza or whoever would have been way more timely, too.

    But if we’re doing it this way… 50% of the plants, algae and plankton would have died too. XKCD MUST have figured out what that’d do to the atmosphere by now, right?

  • MeatsOfRage@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    17 hours ago

    I think the intention was sentient life as having Thanos stop the film to explain the terms and conditions of his snap would’ve impacted the pacing of the film.

    • zalgotext@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 hours ago

      He coulda just slipped the word “sentient” in to the monologue where he explains his plan. I don’t think that would have impacted pacing at all.