Hacker News Reader

Comment by elijahparker | Hacker News Reader

"It is estimated that some 40,000 moths per day can end up in the stomach of a hungry bear."

Seems to imply up to 40k/bear, but doesn't give much more for details.

It mentions moths are about a half a calorie each, so just from the moths a bear can consume 20,000 calories/day.

I'd read it as implying the opposite: that there are 40,000 moths out there who will wind up in a bear's stomach tonight. Like "some 40,000 people per day are hit by a car"; you wouldn't take that as meaning one car hit 40,000 people.

"That means that 20,000 calories of just moths per day can be consumed by "A" rock-turning grizzly bear." How can you possibly read this and think this was about the whole bear population?

"some 40,000 people per day are hit by "A" car". How can you possibly read this and think this was about the all cars on the road?

Sorry for being cheeky but the parent literally just addressed your question.

"Hit by cars" means multiple cars. "Hit by a car" suggests one car. We're often sloppy, and often there's an implicit understanding that contradicts what's said directly. Clearly this is silly, one car can't do that so we interpret.

Neither figure seems particularly compelling here, of its "eaten by bears" it seems way too small if it's "eaten by a [single] bear" it seems too big.

I don't understand why we're arguing about this when a simple Google search reveals the answer.

"It is estimated that an ambitious bear may consume in excess of 10,000 moths per day, with some estimates ranging as high as 40,000 moths per day."

"One group of scientists analyzed bear scat and revealed that a foraging grizzly could gobble 40,000 moths in a day."

Depends how you read it. If you take the numbers to be each moth will end in the stomache of a single bear, it still works. Yes, that is a silly way to see it, since bears probably don't share meals. But it does work with the numbers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com