top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 110 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (3 children)

Petition to make the names less confusing by renaming the top one to "Bear" and the bottom one to "Twink".

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 74 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    Except it's nothing to do with that and comes from the Arctic being marked by Ursa Minor & Major in the Northern sky, and Antarctica being the opposite of that.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 63 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    Soon we can call them both Antarctica

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 37 points 8 months ago (13 children)
  • [–] 149 points 8 months ago (11 children)
  • [–] 27 points 8 months ago (9 children)

    It's still mind blowing, even if it is a coincidence.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 8 months ago (8 children)

    You’re going to name constellations after things that you know well, so the fact that there are a lot of bears relative to other megafauna in northern regions means that in a way the original idea still holds, just not quite as basic.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago* (7 children)

    Some constellations, including the Great Bear, were named long before our languages even existed.

    Etymology wise we might say it comes from ancient Greek, but it's also called Great Bear in languages that have no origin in Greek.

    Wikipedia - Cosmic Hunt

    I'm going out on a limb here, but I believe the Great Bear is actually named after a great bear.

    Not all cultures though. In Brazil, the Big Dipper is also known as "large anus of the snake".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • load more comments (7 replies)
  • [–] 13 points 8 months ago*

    kinda, not really

    arctic, from ancient greek ἀρκτικός did mean "of the bear" originally, probably as a reference to the constellation (cause i don’t think the ancient greeks ever went to the arctic to confirm if there were bears or not)

    antarctica doesn’t mean "no bears", it means "the opposite of the arctic"

    the truth is less fun, but i guess you could still view arctic as "bear place" and antarctica as "not the bear place" and that’s still kinda funny i think

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 30 points 8 months ago (5 children)

    What would the equivalent be for “penguins” and “no penguins”?

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 19 points 8 months ago (12 children)

    It's like when I see a place named "Westmoreland" I'm like "Ok, so someone thought, "there's more land west of where I was, and I'm not very creative".

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago (9 children)

    Wait until you find out about Greenland and Iceland!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago

    if you dig deep enough that's what almost all place names are, and as stupid as it feels it's a great way to make fantasy place names feel not stupid.

    There are a series of cities on the northeastern coast of sweden that all lie near the mouth of a long river, and those cities are quite literally named [Name of the river valley]-stream, while the rivers themselves are named [Name of the river valley]-river. It's so profoundly stupid and yet no one ever thinks about it at all.
    Luleå, on Lule älv. Piteå, on Pite älv. Umeå, on Ume älv. Etc etc..

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (26 children)

    Well, it* is about the only actual predator to the human species so we make a big deal out of it.

    *polar bear specifically I mean

  • source
  • hideshow 26 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 8 months ago (13 children)

    How come no places are called No Wolves or No Lions or No Tigers?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    we made doggos out of wolves :)

    but lions and tigers... guess they were harder to spot among the foliage

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    but lions and tigers... guess they were harder to spot among the foliage

    Lions live in the savanna and grassland. They can hide among the grass, but they generally hunt by chasing prey in turns until the prey tires. Tigers are ambush predators and excellent at hiding.

    Healthy lions and tigers do not hunt humans. They can kill humans pretty easily, but prefer meatier prey. But when they get too old / sick to hunt wild animals, they might hunt humans out of desperation.

    Also Asian lions have become used to humans since their protected area has tribal settlements and is surrounded by villages. Local people sometimes feed the lions, and on youtube you can find videos of people even touching them. (This is dangerous, messes with the lions' ecology and is illegal, but people do it and stopping them now might cause new problems.)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (6 children)

    Idk.
    They don't really prey on humans & we coexisted without much issues for humans (very much a lot of issues for them). Then that is not that hugely dissimilar with polar bears (seals are still better than humans).

    Eating a baby in case of big dogs & cats every so many years doesn't really count I think, in nature it's usually disregarded even if a regular thing bcs of the size difference (and the mortality rate to adulthood). A bit along the lines that babies of all species are food & that doesn't give you much representative info.

    With polar bears, even with villages in the migrating area (their ecosystem is shrinking rapidly), you just can't be outside, they will munch you.

    Hikers can hike through woods with wolves, you can park your car next to lions, ... tigers would be borderline (and endangered), but it seems they fear us, they fear injury & our unpredictability generally (when forced to individuals can prey on humans, they were a few documented cases, but doesn't seem the default behaviour).

    Polar bears don't back off if they need food, they can stalk you & (try to) break obstacles.
    Maybe it's just that it harder to fight of a polar bear just of it's mass & power?

    Also wiki/Polar_bear_jail.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • load more comments (6 replies)
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    We could accidentally release some polar bears in Antarctica, guess they could survive there.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (4 replies)
    [–] 6 points 8 months ago

    That the names translated accurately describes the presence or absence of bears is a coincidence.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Interesting. There's also no penguins in the arctic. But there are penguins in Antarctica. I wonder if the was penguins in the north originally, but the bears ate them all. And the only reason the continue to exist in Antarctica is because there aren't bears to eat them.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 4 points 8 months ago

    It helps you orient yourself if you find yourself in one of these places.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago

    Oh nice you talk to yourself when in public? Me toooo 😃😎

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago

    what would be latin based names for penguins an no penguins.

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›