Fire-damaged Brazilian tortoise receives new 3D shell | Hacker News Reader

Fire-damaged Brazilian tortoise receives new 3D shell

9news.com.au

70 pointsvladmiller26 comments

Would have been cooler if he received a new 2D shell in my opinion.

the lazy shell is pretty OP

Technically they are all at least 4d

Here's is cooler one. 3d printed prosthetic leg for a turtle https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkHHuVAaORE

Do natural shells grow continuously? I'm not remembering whether that's the case. I'm curious to know how this affects the tortoise's ability to continue proper shell function. Unless, of course, the poor thing was damaged to the point that new shell growth will not be impossible.

Aww they missed an opportunity to print a red shell, or a blue one. Wonder how an animal like a tortoise living with others would react to if it had a different colour shell.

I don't think their point was to experiment with reactions on unusual shells.

They painted it.

More importantly, they missed an important advertising opportunity. They should have sold placement to, idk, nascar maybe.

I was expecting a z shell...

I actually think the right thing would have been to shoot the tortoise right where they found it. These kinds of things are more done for the selfish joy of experimentation then for the actual benefit of the animal.

Do you feel the same way toward humans?

It's been actually discussed previously here on HN that it's more common for doctors and medical personnel to wear "No code" batches or tattoos.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/feb/08/how-doctors-c...

It's Australia mate. They don't have much in the way of gun ownership. Once a group of children were massacred there, see the 1996 Port Author massacre for reference, they collectively decided that gun control was needed. I doubt it would even occur to most Australians to kill anything with a firearm.

Your reaction freaks me out actually.

Would you have felt more comfortable if he had just said "euthanize?" I've never really understood the aversion to particular methods of killing felt by some people. Dead is dead. As long as something doesn't cause undue suffering, does it really make a difference if you shoot, stab, or gas the tortoise?

You tell me how you would like to die, a lethal dose of morphine delivered by a medical professional or being shot/stabbed by a wannabe gunslinger?

Furthermore, getting shot is not a guarantee of death. The poor turtle could have been badly burned AND shot and still not dead.

So yes, still freaked out by that comment.

A shotgun at close range would turn a turtle into pink mist. I'd go for the shotgun. (Source: grew up in the country)

> Your reaction freaks me out actually.

This is kind of an odd reaction. In most countries hunting is a way to control animal population and prevent the spread of diseases amongst certain populations. I also live in a country where arms are heavily regulated, but you can still call some form of animal protections services who will take care of the animal and even kill it if deemed necessary.

Um. I'm not entirely against hunting, but first came the hunting; then the animal-control justification for it.

You could argue that it might be wiser to let nature take its course, but hunting is popular and game is delicious.

In most countries hunting is a way to control animal population

After hunting, in a dictionary definition of irony, killed off all the natural predators of the animals that need "control". So I don't think parent was an odd reaction in light of "we created a problem by killing animals, so the obvious solution is more killing!", the outgrowth of which is "got a problem with an individual animal? Just kill it!"

Now you might not agree, but can you at least understand how someone might have an "odd reaction" when someone's first suggestion to the problem is to pick up a gun?

1/ You don't know what their motives were 2/ You weren't there so your opinion is worthless

Believe me, vets have quite a lot of training in making this kind of decision.

These cultures in some countries where people seem to think that the solution is always at the end of the barrel of a gun, are quite scary to say the least.

While many people here seem to recoil at guns because "spooky guns", the reality is that it is part of official policy basically everywhere that a gunshot may be the effective and humane way to euthanize an animal: https://www.avma.org/KB/Policies/Documents/euthanasia.pdf

In many places (especially for horses) it may be part of official vet training to know when and how to use this effectively.

It looks like they made the right decision by NOT choosing that course.

Based on what? Do you have any experience with animals? Animal rehabilitation, biology or even veterinary medicine to be able to make this kind of decision?

Can you develop your opinion? At least can you explain: Right thing to who? And why?

Otherwise you just look like someone that does not know anything about what you're talking but only want to voice whatever you think of.

Because there's nothing left to be learned from experimental prosthetics?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com