Most won’t consider it a tree but who am I to judge
Comment on bamboozled
LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 1 month agoTechnically you’re not wrong. Mainly because there’s no agreed upon technical definition of what does or doesn’t constitute a tree.
lugal@sopuli.xyz 1 month ago
jol@discuss.tchncs.de 1 month ago
Most are wrong then. If you can make toothpicks out of it, it’s a tree.
flicker@lemmy.world 1 month ago
You can make toothpicks out of anything if you’re willing to find a hard bit in it that can be sharpened or whittled.
Holds up a chicken. Behold! A tree!
Kolanaki@yiffit.net 1 month ago
shneancy@lemmy.world 1 month ago
bones are trees? o_o
flora_explora@beehaw.org 1 month ago
Nope, that’s not how the definition of a tree works. Look at swednek’s definition in the comments: it is a woody trunk with branches. There are many other plants you could make toothpicks out of (e.g. that are woody) that aren’t trees. For example, shrubs and lianas.
Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 1 month ago
the definition of tree is literally just something that looks like a tree: a woody trunk with branches.
Yondoza@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
TIL that trees are the same as vegetables and weeds, arbitrary cultural groupings. We should make an arbitrary cultural group name for arbitrary cultural grouped things!
So far the group is: Trees Vegetables Weeds Pets Continents The culinary use of fruit
Robust_Mirror@aussie.zone 1 month ago
I feel like sports could fit into that pretty well.
idiomaddict@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
Fish
Szyler@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
Berries
Yondoza@sh.itjust.works 5 weeks ago
I think both of those have rigid scientific definitions.