I assume this is two statements: one without the parentheses, and one where each parenthesized word replaces the word before it. This is a compact, but borderline unreadable way to write two statements with the same structure. I hate it.

Edit: it makes a lot more sense in a live lecture, where the lecturer writes down the first sentence, then says aloud the second sentence while only replacing the necessary words on the board.

In the tree of life, flounders are a sub-sub-…-sub-species of bilaterally symmetrical animals: https://www.onezoom.org/life/@Holozoa=5246131?otthome=%40_ozid%3D1&highlight=path%3A%40Apionichthys_finis%3D3640785&highlight=path%3A%40Bilateria%3D117569#x2913,y-2310,w8.2796

Edit: let me preemptively be a pedant to myself and say that “sub-…-species” is wrong because “bilaterally symmetrical animals” is not a species. Flounder is itself a species AFAIK, not a sub-species of anything. It is a descendant of the common ancestor of all bilaterally symmetrical animals. There, now surely no one will find anything to be pedantic about :D

Sure, but what about Trick IMPLIES Treat?

There are exceptions to every rule. Sometimes it ends up being “between five and 15” which is psychotic.

Sooner or later they’re going to become meander scars or oxbow lakes, when the river reconnects with itself.

Theodore John Kaczynski, also known as the Unabomber, was an American mathematician and domestic terrorist.

Thanks, Wikipedia.

It looks like a super genetic stock image, and I always assumed that’s what it is.

I am beginning to think this community is not for me, as I need every other joke explained. But I haven’t given up yet… What is the joke here?

Reality is so unoriginal

I didn’t sit through any of those and I don’t get the joke. Do I upvote anyway, trusting that it’s funny? Or just based on the conversation below? Such a dilemma…

Embedded for convenience:

Usually when that happens there’s a way to tie it back to circles, but it’s not always easy to find

(link to original comic)

This screenshot is a little bit hard to see, but from what I can tell:

°RA is pointing at °R and °C
°C is pointing at K and °F
K is pointing at °R and at °F
°R is pointing at °F (and the other gun isn’t aimed at anyone in particular)
°F is pointing at K and at °C

Emphasis disproves your claims, sadly. Perhaps there was another way to label them to make it fit, but that’s not what was done here.

If using log scale, 0 is at -∞

Pedantry:

K and °R agree on 0
K and °C agree on the unit difference
°F and °R agree on the unit difference
°R and °Ra are the exact same thing (??)

From what I can gather, R and Ra are the same thing?

I don’t think any context is needed, it’s just about when you have an idea that you think is great and novel but it turns out it has already been done 30 years prior.

I know the Wikipedia link is relevant, but specifically the except seems totally disconnected to me from the post. It feels inorganic, to the point I almost doubt OP’s motives. Maybe I’m wrong.

Anyway I’m not trying to say any of it is untrue, just that it should be taken with a pinch of salt.

I hope I’m not gatekeeping, but if I’m gatekeeping anything it’s not ‘good news’, it’s what can be posted under a meme post. But as I said, I’m just trying to provide context, I guess it came out pretty gatekeepy so I’ll try to tone that down next time.

Not what I said at all