Isopods of the world(isopod.site) |
Isopods of the world(isopod.site) |
That is exactly what an AI Bot would say XDXD
There is curiously nothing on his website about this isopod site.
Take in mind that the first page cover different morphs of the same genus. Maybe even the same species. They all look variations generated by computer, because they all are Cubaris sp and have exactly the same cephalon shape.
What would be so worrying about someone using AI to generate images for their site?
AI generated images are not appropriate for source or reference material.
Not that it actually matters but if those images were generated it would feel pointless to me, even if I can't tell the difference.
The kangaroos from the invertebrate world. This group contains one infamous taxonomic troll move, when an English decided to name several different genus with anagrams. So everybody now needs to remember the differences between Nerocila, Cirolana, Conilera, Rocinela, Anilocra and Olencira. All because he wanted to impress a woman called Caroline. To add insult to the crime he created also Livoneca, that everybody was (wrongly) calling Lironeca, just because exceptions are annoying to remember. The joke was expanded by a second taxonomist later with Renocila and in 1990 a third author created Creniola and Norileca. I would wish to strangle all of then with my own hands. Slowly.
That means that they are made of thousands of small eyes, named ommatidia, each of which detects the light coming from a certain direction, so that all together can provide an image. Each small bump that you see on the surface of their blackberry-like eyes is one of the small eyes, i.e. one of the ommatidia.
Each of the ommatidia is a long tube, having at the interior end one or more photoreceptors. The length of the tube ensures that only the light coming from a direction parallel to the axis of the tube can reach the photoreceptors, instead of being absorbed by the walls of the tube.
In the photographs, it can be seen that even the species that are otherwise mostly transparent have black eyes, or at least eyes of a dark color. This is a requirement for any kind of eye, because in order to detect light it must absorb it. So in many animals where the eyes may not have a more obvious structure they can still be recognized by being black or at least dark spots.
In most compound eyes each of the ommatidia corresponds with 1 pixel of the image that they see, so the number of pixels in an image is only of a few thousands, thus they have poor angular resolution in comparison with vertebrates or cephalopods.
There are compound eyes where several ommatidia correspond to a single pixel, trading off angular resolution for a greater sensitivity in low light, or where each of the ommatidia corresponds to several pixels, because it contains a small lens that can separate the light coming from different directions, projecting it on distinct photoreceptors.
From the comments, there are apparently supposed to be amazing photos. But I see text, I see black backgrounds, but no photos--none at all. Neither on Firefox, nor on Chrome. Just empty boxes where say "Amber Ducky" should be.
The biggest terrestrial can reach 3cm or so, while the largest marine can reach 30-50cm.
That’ll be seriously weird.
Reptile and amphibian keepers use them, along with live plants, to set up a bioactive tank that is relatively self-cleaning and self-maintaining.
Keepers of very small reptiles sometimes maintain colonies as feeder insects.
And still others skip the scaly middlemen and keep isopods as pets. They can get hilariously expensive. Just a couple of years ago, rubber duckies (featured on this site) used to be $90 a pop due to their rarity and difficulty in keeping them. Since they exploded in popularity, however, they're a much more reasonable^1 $15 a head or so.
[1]: For certain definitions of reasonable.
100% generated website from the code to the text to the pictures.
So a workaround is to take a lot of photos with the focus plane at different depths. You sweep the focus plane through the scene, snapping a lot of photos as you go. This can be automatic with nice gear.
Then you take all of those photos and combined them digitally, with the algorithm selecting pixels from the photo with the best sharpness in that region. So the photo you see is a combination of many photos.
I think something that's at play here is that the site looks like it is meant to be authoritative and genuine, and could be unexpectedly deceptive, while many other sites are expected to be deceptive and that is accepted and doesn't cause plenty of worry. Kind of strange though. A random internet site might have some fake images on it, which causes plenty of worry, but we're okay being lied to 24/7 by official channels. Or maybe we're plenty worried about that too? Doesn't seem like people are plenty worried about it.
That's where I'm at with this stuff, and I think I am in good company.
The image represents a facsimile of seeing the real world with my own eyes, which an AI image does not. That is important to me in this context, that of learning about the real world by literally observing it.
I also very much felt like it doesn't really matter, perhaps too much and without considering other potential points of view, that's why the "plenty of worries" seemed so strange to me. How could you experience plenty of worry over an internet site being disingenuous about facts or images? You'd be freaking out all the time. But I can see now that it could be serious for some people in this case.
Thanks for the explanation. I honestly wasn't sure what could be causing "plenty of worries" in this context. At least now I know what the issue might be.
Knowingly posting lies is not ok.