[ ajp / m / mu / s4s ] [ 〜recent〜 ]

/s4s/ - Shit [s4s] Says

DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

File: 1581634485390.png (35.62 KB, 149x153, Capture.PNG)

No.27842

BAVI

No.27845

I think the first method is unambiguously better. Both ways obscure the bird's vision in the immediate front, but most birds' heads are shaped in a way to mitigate that.

The first advantage of method 1 is the positioning of the weight. The ancillary (non-beak) donut is farther back compared to method 2, causing less disturbance to the center of balance.

The second advantage is stability of the ancillary donut. The vision blockage, combined with the added weight, means the bird is far more likely to stumble than if it were not carrying any donuts. In the event of such stumbling, a bird using method 2 runs a much higher risk of losing a donut. The bird using method 1 need only concentrate on closing his beak to completely secure both donuts.

Also, bird 1 looks calm and collected, while bird 2 is clearly just screwing around. He's not serious. Does he even want those donuts?

No.27846

>>27845
Shut up

No.27847

File: 1581658091170.jpeg (52.56 KB, 540x540, 7ABABECC-B1C3-43B4-A283-E834D8…)

>>27842
posting in le sticky

No.27848

File: 1581711963121.png (86.67 KB, 299x233, nyoro~n.png)




Delete Post [ ]
[Return]
[ ajp / m / mu / s4s ] [ 〜recent〜 ]