3 ms·
> ... climb the ramp for the uniformly measured 1.1-inch pieces of squid that all of the other trained eels received. Why 1.1 inches? I assumed that this was a
by valarauko 5y ago
> ... climb the ramp for the uniformly measured 1.1-inch pieces of squid that all of the other trained eels received.
Why 1.1 inches? I assumed that this was a whole number in centimetres, but its 2.794 cm. My guess is that its 3 cm, which works out to 1.1811 inches - and the NYTimes rounded down to 1.1.
- FredPret 5y agoIt’s almost like when you read an article that says point A is “about” 16 km from point B
- Armisael16 5y agoMaybe it’s a certain mass of meat? I also don’t see any reason the food chunk needs to be an integer number of whatever unit it’s measured in.
- valarauko 5y agoSomething like 10g of meat would make sense in this context too. The fact that the article specifies that the strips are measured out in length suggests weight isn't the criteria. It doesn't have to be an integer value (or a reasonable in-between value like 1.5 or 2.5) of whatever unit they used, but its the most parsimonious approach for the graduate student who actually does the work - unless there is a good reason not to. EDIT: from the paper:- > Individuals were offered squid pieces that were 3 mm by 30 mm. These prey dimensions were ideal for this study because they were small enough that feeding on a single prey item would not result in satiation, which could influence feeding kinematics (Sass and Motta, 2002). Also, offering prey of a rectangular shape rather than a square shape provided length that elicited head movements, which enabled us to observe multiple protraction and retraction cycles during transport.
- jjk166 5y ago~15.3 millifathoms ~93 light-picoseconds ~139 microfurlongs ~0.9 attoparsecs ~16.4 millismoots