• PhoenixDog@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      As someone with over 50, and hatching more this week, no it isn’t.

      Well, it isn’t when you have 14 acres… But man they’re so fun to just sit and watch.

    • LemmyFeed@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      19 hours ago

      How much does a fuck ton actually weight? Is it more or less than a regular ton? Or is it a ton of fucks? How does one even gather a ton of fucks? Are fucks stackable like in a pallet? Do all fucks weigh the same?

      So many questions.

      • luciferofastora@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 hours ago

        A fuck ton is the mass equivalent of a thousand kilofucks. Traditionally, a fuck is supposed to be the chemical and potential energy expended by an individual during an act of intercourse. The origin of “giving a fuck” is thus the figurative expense of mental energy afforded to a topic. Since the definitions and intensity of intercourse vary so wildly, the exact amount of investment a given person may associate with it is highly individual.

        Several efforts were started to determine and define a standard fuck. To date, none of these have concluded, as the involved scientists are still exploring all the different forms of kinks and constellations to gather representative samples. Critical voices have suggested that these studies are being intentionally dragged out for personal benefit.

        This is further hamstrung by various external influences attempting to limit or expand the definitions of intercourse. For instance, some groups are attempting to pressure researcher teams and their funding institutions into excluding all intercourse not performed by a heterosexual, wedded couple for the purpose of procreation. Others have campaigned for relaxing or abolishing the standards of consent, but Ethics Boards have largely blocked such efforts, most of them also forbidding the inclusion of data offered by proponents.

        As for physical representations of that mass equivalent, there is plainly no consensus. Some of the suggestions decay too quickly to be useful, while others have been hard to use. There’s just no realistic way to make any given solution fit all applications.

        In short, the topic is highly contentious still.

        Fun to research though.