top 40 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 160 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [+] 64 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 52 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    This would have been a useful upgrade during Uni...

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 1 year ago

    They're filter feeders? Like whales, but the teeth are in the neck?

  • source
  • [–] 42 points 1 year ago

    Unfortunately if can also lodge inedibles in their throat such as plastic wrap.

  • source
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago

    Imagine if human digestion worked this way. Next to every drinking fountain would be a purge trough.

  • source
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    So do they just have no gut acid? How quickly does that regenerate if you’re giving your stomach a seawater oral enema every time you eat.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago

    Wouldn't a reverse filter mix things together

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago

    Now that's classy

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    So if they can’t swallow something do they just die

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    An odd dragon

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    I bet theres still always carrots in it.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Wouldn't check valve be more accurate?

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    It only stops solids above a certain size, so a filter is more accurate. Check valves generally stop everything or all of a class of things, the turtle passes all liquid and some solids

    Our heart valves are check valves

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    A class of things = large solid objects like jellyfish and food?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Reverse filter is a strainer or sieve.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Strainers and sieves are filters. A filter is a filter. A reverse filter is still a filter. Direction doesn't make a difference because direction is subjective.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

    Direction matters in what you keep. A filter you keep the water. A strainer/sieve you keep the contents. Direction does matter, that's why the comic has to specify reverse filter. But it's a poor choice of words because reverse means it's a strainer/sieve.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    Well, unless you used the strainer/sieve to get and keep fine cake flour (the water in your analogy) from coarse flour (the contents).

    Or like in the way they use sieves to sort gravel. They keep all of it.

    My point is, direction is relative.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Oh using multiple accounts then?

    The one here is water and contents. Like water filter, you keep the water. Or pasta strainer, you keep the pasta. Hell even the comic says reverse filter. You're trying to ignore common day parlance. Ciao.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Oh using multiple accounts then?

    Nope, multiple people disagree with you.

    Or pasta strainer, you keep the pasta.

    You're also supposed to keep some of the water to thicken the sauce typically

    You're trying to ignore common day parlance.

    And you're ignoring the gravel sieve example where everything is kept, because it's inconvenient for your argument.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    You said "My point" not "Their point".

    This comic is water and its contents. Anyway, you're being weird (b b but some water is kept!) and weirdly confrontational about this so ciao.

  • source
  • parent
  • That must feel so good

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Sspine doesn't make sense here at all. I assume OP meant esophagus/ gullet.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    It says spines, rather than spine. The esophagus is covered in spines (think like the spines on a porcupine, not a backbone).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Those "spines" are called papillae, for anyone wanting specifics.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Thanks to all for the English lesson! I've learned something.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    More a biology lesson. It's the scientific word for the appendage. Human's — I believe all mammals as well — have them lining our lower intestines. They help us absorb nutrients by increasing surface area.

    The word itself, papillae, just means "a small, rounded part which protrudes from an organ/ nipple" from Latin.

  • source
  • parent