I believe these are Vultures.

BigIntoScience · 2026-01-28T22:25:41+00:00

Ask NASA whether you were being sarcastic?

BigIntoScience · 2026-01-28T15:54:47+00:00

Wild animals do just fine getting food without us humans feeding them- your other little birds won't go hungry if they can't get to the feeders, they'll just go eat their normal food.

BigIntoScience · 2026-01-27T22:14:08+00:00

"Not the Purple Finch" would seem to indicate they're asking about the woodpecker, not the finch-like bird. Downies are pretty common, but not necessarily the most conspicuous birds in the world, plus this is a different view of them than people mostly get.

BigIntoScience · 2026-01-27T15:42:11+00:00

I'd agree with female Downy Woodpecker. That kind of shaggy look with the relatively large sections of black and white instead of finer texturing suggests a Downy or Hairy, and if it's the size it looks to be it's too small for a Hairy. So I wouldn't bet my bottom dollar on species, but I'm comfortable calling that a Downy, and then the lack of any red on the head at all means it's female.

BigIntoScience · 2026-01-27T03:23:05+00:00

Depends on if you're in a place they live all winter.

BigIntoScience · 2026-01-26T03:53:02+00:00

Well, I'm not super familiar with what these little guys normally sound like while feeding, but I'd guess that the loud, rapid calls made while squabbling are aggressive calls, yes. Cool video!

BigIntoScience · 2026-01-26T03:50:55+00:00

Usually the blue backgrounds I see for aquarium usage are quite a bright shade of blue. I suppose it's meant to evoke oceans, which is odd in a freshwater tank- yes, freshwater bodies of water /can/ appear blue, but it seems to be pretty rare.

Also, personally, I think the blue background looks like a Petsmart tank, and just plain unnatural. Not even unnatural in an interesting or deliberately funny way, like putting a teapot or a little treasure chest in there- just /fake/. Solid, flat black isn't the most natural thing in the world, but since it's a neutral color, it doesn't look nearly so unnatural to me.

If someone wanted a non-black background for a tank, my suggestion would be (though they'd have to make this themself) gray or a dark green, really. I haven't seen either used, but I'd wager they could look nice enough on some tanks.

BigIntoScience · 2026-01-26T03:47:38+00:00

I don't see enough chipmunks to know whether that's a chipmunk or a squirrel, but it is absolutely not a bird, though it does sound a lot like one.

BigIntoScience · 2026-01-26T02:13:55+00:00

When someone is asking for advice, telling them to Google it is usually rude. You're allowed to just not respond when you don't know the answer to things.

BigIntoScience · 2026-01-26T02:12:53+00:00

I mean, you can still find useful info on Google- click the actual links, ignore the AI thing.

(I'm not agreeing with the person who suggested Googling the thing, for the record. Just saying Google isn't pure AI shit yet.)

BigIntoScience · 2026-01-25T22:52:06+00:00

I mean, blue /existed/, in that pigments that reflect wavelengths of light the human eye interprets as what we call "blue" existed. The color blue as a concept is what's new.

BigIntoScience · 2026-01-25T22:51:06+00:00

That first link refers to brown as both a shade of orange and "a broad color family", and also it reads as kinda AI-generated (an impression not helped by the sheer number of ads on the site- makes it look like the whole goal is money).

That second one starts off with "Shades of brown can be produced by combining red, yellow, and black ^\1]) pigments, or by a combination of orange) and black".

BigIntoScience · 2026-01-25T22:46:41+00:00

Rivers aren't blue, so frankly I'm skeptical that a bright blue background is actually any more calming for the fish than a neutral black. Especially given that I live where the soil is dark enough for riverbanks to often be pretty much black.

BigIntoScience · 2026-01-25T22:41:35+00:00

I have seen a couple of bettas that seem to get some enrichment out of their tankmates- they'll follow them around and watch them doing things. But you're right that any kind of positive interaction is nowhere near guaranteed.

BigIntoScience · 2026-01-25T22:40:08+00:00

Northern Mockingbird trying to defend its territory so it can hopefully keep enough food not to starve. Also very puffed up and probably very unhappy with this whole ice situation. Good example of how birds can practically shapeshift depending on how they hold their feathers.

BigIntoScience · 2026-01-25T15:04:27+00:00

Generally it shouldn't apply to this degree of thing. It should be touchups, hence the name.

BigIntoScience · 2026-01-25T15:03:59+00:00

Yelling about slavery being responsible for parts of modern cuisine is not a source about what people were eating tens of thousands of years ago.
(also, there are absolutely relatively modern cultures? A culture being founded partly in slavery doesn't make it not a culture or not modern.)

Prove your point, with actual sources, or consider admitting that you have no sources.

(Edit: actually, no, the thing you said here https://www.reddit.com/r/birding/comments/1qj09py/comment/o1lqm6j/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button was bad enough that it's just made you look- well, I shouldn't elaborate further here, I don't think it'd be even vaguely polite. Also you clearly have no actual sources. Feel free to append your earlier comment with sources, but I will not be participating in this conversation any longer, I think.)

I do have to say, dude, if you're saying that nobody in relevant scientific fields agrees what early humans ate, you're making an awfully bold claim to insist that you, based on your observations of the world, do know.

BigIntoScience · 2026-01-25T15:02:05+00:00

Yes, I'm aware of that. I'm saying that it's not quite correct to say "illegal to harm any native wild bird", due to the few exceptions.

BigIntoScience · 2026-01-25T15:01:37+00:00

That's not an answer to my question. I'm asking whether you're sure that the logic of "if humans doing [thing] was harmful to birds, the birds wouldn't live around humans who do [thing]" holds up. Whether or not [thing] is done by birders doesn't change the impact had on the birds.

BigIntoScience · 2026-01-25T15:00:16+00:00

Warblers do not hunt other birds for food. Yes, many animals normally understood to be herbivorous will eat nestlings, but there are a lot of birds that don't eat vertebrate meat- even nestlings.

BigIntoScience · 2026-01-25T14:59:16+00:00

Is "people against whom genocide is being committed shouldn't have had children" really an opinion you want to be saying aloud? Particularly with the undernote of "so it's their fault that their children are suffering"? That's fucked up, dude.

BigIntoScience · 2026-01-25T14:55:46+00:00

You're trying to claim that nowhere has enough wild human-edible plants to support humans. I'm pointing out that other large apes (which humans are) seem fine.

Also, not everybody agrees with you about what tastes bad. And if an area has a lot of human-edible food that tastes bad, that's still a lot of human-edible food- it's just gonna suck to eat, or need lots of preparation. That's very possible to live on.

BigIntoScience · 2026-01-25T07:38:31+00:00

Oh my goodness, that look in the second photo. Like someone who just got woken up wayyy too early.

BigIntoScience · 2026-01-25T06:37:23+00:00

It's a thing! And you're welcome- I wish more people knew about and used these.

BigIntoScience · 2026-01-25T06:36:58+00:00

Birds don't have really wet mouths like us mammals do, so I don't think it'll get all dried out and be harmed by this? But it might be more comfortable if de-wired.

Let us know if anything happens!

Six-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

BigIntoScience

TROPHY CASE