There you can download it in high quality, and it’s a pay-what-you-want: you can get it for free if you want, or pay what you feel like and support me. Either way, I’m happy that you enjoy it!
The music should also be on Spotify, Apple Music, and most music streaming services within the next 24h.
A bit about the process of scoring Size of Life:
I’ve worked with Neal before on a couple of his other games, including Absurd Trolley Problems, so we were used to working together (and with his producer—you’re awesome, Liz!). When Neal told me about Size of Life, we had an inspiring conversation about how the music could make the players feel.
The core idea was that it should enhance that feeling of wondrous discovery, but subtly, without taking the attention away from the beautiful illustrations.
I also thought it should reflect the organisms' increasing size—as some of you pointed out, the music grows with them. I think of it as a single instrument that builds upon itself, like the cells in an increasingly complex organism. So I composed 12 layers that loop indefinitely—as you progress, each layer is added, and as you go back, they’re subtracted. The effect is most clear if you get to the end and then return to the smaller organisms!
Since the game has an encyclopedia vibe to it, I proposed to go with a string instrument to give it a subtle “Enlightenment-era” and “cultural” feel. I was suspecting the cello could be a good instrument because of its range and expressivity.
Coincidentally, the next week I met the cellist Iratxe Ibaibarriaga at a game conference in Barcelona, where I’m based, and she immediately became the ideal person for it. She’s done a wonderful job bringing a ton of expressivity to the playing, and it’s been a delight to work with her.
I got very excited when Neal told me he was making an educational game—I come from a family of school teachers. I’ve been scoring games for over 10 years, but this is the first educational game I’ve scored.
In a way, now the circle feels complete!
(if anyone wants to reach out, feel free to do so! You can find me and all my stuff here: https://www.aleixramon.com/ )
The dynamic soundscape is delightful, as it subtly adds instruments and musical texture as you progress. And going back down the scale regresses it to simple again. Smoothly done.
It reminded me of Operation Neptune (1991): each level starts with just one channel, probably percussion, and as you progress through the rooms it adds and removes more channels or sometimes switches to a different section of music. It is unfortunately all sharp cuts, no attempts at smoothing or timing instrument entry and exit. A couple of samples: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0LNaatyoQk is an hour of gameplay revelling in “the dynamic and sometimes beautiful music of Operation Neptune” using a Roland MT-32 MIDI synthesiser; and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPxEdQ4wx9s&list=PL3FC048B13... is the PCM files used on some platforms (if you want to compare that track with the MT-32, it starts at 28 minutes).
Hi there, I'm the composer of the soundtrack—glad that you enjoyed the music.
The idea was to have a single instrument (a cello) that builds upon itself, like the cells in an organism. It starts with a very minimalistic loop, and new layers of music are progressively added as the organisms grow in size.
Thanks for sharing Operation Neptune! I didn't know about it, but it's a great example of early adaptive game music.
Man I played Operation Neptune a lot when I was a kid. I wonder if it was the first game to do this style of adaptive music layering. It predates the iMUSE system used in LucasArts games like X-Wing and TIE Fighter.
The arcade classic Space Invaders had a primitive soundscape in that every time the remaining invaders advance, it plays a short bass note. As fewer and fewer invaders remain, it takes less time for them to advance, and the note repeats faster and faster, it adds a remarkable amount of increasing tension as each level progresses.
So not exactly the same, but perhaps prototypical. I think Asteroids did as well.
The game speeding up as invaders are eliminated was an unintended consequence of the hardware running full speed to draw all 55 invaders. As invaders are eliminated the draw calls finish faster and the game speeds up. There is no code in the game to throttle the speed. The 2 Mhz 8080 is always drawing full speed. It's delightfully serendipitous this happens to ramp up the difficulty as you near the end of each level in such a compellingly perfect way. (https://www.tomshardware.com/video-games/retro-gaming/space-...)
I've watched some interviews with the game's programmer Tomohiro Nishikado and, although translated (so subject to garbling), he seems to confirm this was a 'happy accident'. He indicates he set the max number of invaders based on what the hardware could draw but there was no intent to have the speed ramp up. Of course, he noticed that it did this during play testing but decided to keep it that way. Arguably, it's one of the most compelling aspects of the game. Modern emulators have to add code game-specific code to limit the speed or the game plays too fast. Leaving no CPU cycles unused is the sign of an elegant design.
That reminds me of the music in the film "Inception", in which the extremely low-register bass-heavy music in the background of scenes from lower levels of dream-in-dream is actually the main score, played back dramatically (and semantically / thematically) slower and lower.
It truly is, thanks for pointing it out! I just went through the entire site 5 minutes ago and it didn’t occur to me to grab my headphones and turn sound on first.
Anyone find an actual link for the finished track? Credits are mentioned on his site and twitter but I didn't find it anywhere when searching for the artist names.
Nice display, but it starts off with misleading measurements of DNA. The spacing between DNA base pairs is 0.34 nm, so the 10 base pairs pictured are in fact 3.4 nm. But the DNA in a single human cell is about 2 meters, and chromosome lengths vary from 2 to 10 cm. I am skeptical of the hemoglobin vs ribosome sizes as well; hemoglobin has a molecular weight of about 60,000, while ribosomes weigh more than 5 million.
Deep Sea one is scary for some reason. It just gives me shivers to think about how deep the sea is, and what horrors lurk down there. I know that I'll never encounter such a being, but still kinda creepy.
I love Neal's work so much. He's constantly making some of the coolest stuff on the web. I'm utterly delighted every time I see his domain on the front page of HN.
I hope he never stops making these art pieces - everything he creates brings joy, regardless of whether it's educational or funny or whimsical. I'm in awe of his creative output, his manner of communication, and his ability to steal hours of our time playing ridiculous little games that make us question the fundamentals of life and society.
He's right up there with XKCD in my mind.
--
This is probably the only time I'll use my super pedantic mode on Neal's work, and it's only because I love biology -
> DNA
> The genetic instructions for life
> 3.5 nanometers tall
DNA has a lot of dimensional metrics. It gets complicated. The people that study this stuff really care because it's essential for how our enzymes work, and small differences in spacing tolerances would totally break all of the machinery.
This "3.5 nm" figure is roughly the height of one turn of the helix for one form of DNA (B-DNA). The figure is showing multiple turns in the cartoon illustration.
In theory, you could create a polymer of infinite length (or height).
B-DNA is 34 Å per turn, with 10.5 bp per turn (table 1) :
> King of the animal kingdom, it is the largest animal to have ever lived. It can eat up to 40 million krill per day during peak feeding season.
Please fix this one, Neal! We don't know that the blue whale is the largest animal to have ever lived (even assuming we know we're just talking about earth).
Blue whales are perhaps the largest animal to have ever lived on earth. But we simply do not know. The fossil record is woefully incomplete.
We even have new papers coming up all the time that challenge this:
This is undoubtedly the last time the claim to largest will ever be challenged. Even if we dug up no new fossils, the estimations of previous finds change all the time as we learn more.
Also - what does "largest" mean? Mass? Length? Surface area?
It's okay to say that they're the largest (by some metric) that we know of. But it is not correct to say that they're the largest to have ever lived - at least as far as we know or could ever know. And by setting an absolute, inquiring minds memorize the point and stop wondering.
It's very probable that we'll never know the definitive answer to this.
> (even assuming we know we're just talking about earth)
This is a nitpick, but life on other planets wouldn't be called “animals”. Animal is a clade defined by common ancestry. The only way you could have an extraterrestrial animal is for it to have evolved on Earth and then migrated somehow, and I think we can fairly confidently rule that out.
The dimensioning of DNA was an immediate turn-off for me. A common biochemistry demo is to show how long and macroscopically visible a chromosome can be. Saying DNA is 3.5 nm tall (long?) flies in the face of what is a pretty interesting and notable experience for a lot of people.
It essentially starts the whole project with a weird take on "How long is a piece of string?"
> In theory, you could create a polymer of infinite length (or height).
Neal delivers. I recently learned that viruses are not considered living being, but I'm nevertheless happy they're included here because they're both relevant and interesting in this context.
Not that I'm qualified to reply, but I think this is debated. I seem to recall reading in "Immune" by Philipp Dettmer that there is an argument that a virus is analogous to a spore stage of life, and the virus begins "living" when it plants itself inside a cell full of "nutrients", sheds it's skin and begins consuming and replicating.
It is always going to be controversial but after discovery of prions - needle shifted to "self-replicating means nothing and viruses are also dead". Then scientists also found viruses large enough that they get infected with other viruses, and parasitic cells that are missing most parts required for metabolism, so it is getting more fuzzy again.
From what I remember from undergrad the reason they're not life is that they lack their own metabolism, they use the metabolism of host cells. And metabolism needs to be a constant thing, they don't have any when outside a cell.
Hey, if they originated naturally and interact with the environment and reproduce, they are living beings. Mere human taxonomists can't just "classify" away the fact.
If you’re interested to read something on that topic I highly recommend the essay "That's About the Size of It" by Isaac Asimov (in his book "View from a Height").
He argues that human perception of animal size is skewed because humans use themselves as a benchmark.
He takes a logarithmic approach to illustrate where humans actually fit within the overall scale of the animal kingdom. We are way larger than we think we are!
It seems to be like some of the scales slightly off?
If you are looking at the ladybird (ladybug) with the amoeba to the left, the amoeba isn't an order of the magnitude smaller - it would actually be visible by the human eye (bigger than a grain of sand)? Indeed, the amoeba seems the same size as the ladybird's foot?
Similarly, this makes the bumblebee appear smaller than a human finger (the in the adjacent picture), which isn't the case?
I found that jarring as well. There's a toggle in the upper right to switch to metric.
Even with setting it to metric, it progresses through units based on the scale. I realize that scientists love to work in scientific notation, and progressing from nanometers to micrometers, mm, cm, and finally meters sort of follows that kind of logic. I wonder how it would feel if the whole thing was in constant units or at least there was an option for that.
I'm seeing the amoeba as approximately the size of the heel segment of a ladybug's leg. I consider lady bugs pretty small in an intuitive sense, their legs quite small and the smallest end segment to be especially small. I think that leaves an amoeba on the fringes of distinguishable perception which seems right to me, unless I'm overestimating their size.
I came to the comments to express surprise that amoebas were so large. It appears they vary wildly in size (as small as 2.3 micrometers... but up to 20 cm, or nearly 8 inches).
It is not right to call the xenophyophore that is on the last row, and which can have a size of up to 20 cm as an "amoeba".
Only the next row above it, with Pelomyxa, is indeed an amoeba and one that is very frequently encountered and which usually has sizes not much less than 1 millimeter and sometimes it can reach a size of a few mm.
The true amoebas are much more closely related to humans, than to xenophyophores (giant marine unicellular living beings) or to plants.
Besides the true amoebas there are also a few other kinds of unicellular eukaryotes with shape-shifting cells, e.g. foraminifera, radiolarians and others, but already in the first half of the 19th century it was recognized that those other groups change their shapes in a different way than the amoebas, so they were classified separately, even if the term "amoeboid cell" has always been used about any cell with variable shape.
The true amoebas are related to the group formed by animals and fungi, and there are some amoebas that have a simple form of multicellularity, so it is likely that some of the mechanisms needed for the evolution of multicellularity have been inherited from a common ancestor of animals, fungi and amoebae.
The multicellular or multinucleate amoebae that belong to Myxomycetes (one of the kinds of slime moulds) can reach much bigger sizes, e.g. a diameter of up to 1 meter, because they do not have the size limitation that exists for simple unicellular eukaryotes.
On the other side, wasps could be so tiny. like you could put thousands of them inside an amoeba volume.
"Megaphragma mymaripenne is a microscopically sized wasp. At 200 μm in length, it is the third-smallest extant insect, comparable in size to single-celled organisms. It has a highly reduced nervous system, containing only 7400 neurons, several orders of magnitude fewer than in larger insects."
I got surprised by that too, and while comparing its size to the next organism (Tardigrade) I learned that every member of the same species of tardigrades has the exact same number of cells [1], which was even more surprising for me:
> Eutelic organisms have a fixed number of somatic cells when they reach maturity, the exact number being relatively constant for any one species. This phenomenon is also referred to as cell constancy. Development proceeds by cell division until maturity; further growth occurs via cell enlargement only.
Actually the tardigrade used as an example is quite big at 500 micrometers.
Most tardigrades are not much bigger than 100 micrometers.
Tardigrades, together with nematodes, rotifers, mites and a few more rarely encountered groups are among the smallest animals and they are smaller than many of the bigger among the unicellular eukaryotes. That is why they have been discovered only after the invention of the microscope.
The tardigrades have evolved towards smaller and smaller sizes very early, already during the Cambrian. It is interesting that they are segmented animals, like their relatives the arthropods and the velvet worms, but they have very few segments, because in order to achieve such a small size they have lost all intermediate segments, so the segments that now form their body were originally the segments of the head, and now they are followed immediately by the original segments of the tail, without the original body that connected the head to the tail. Thus they have been miniaturized by losing their body and becoming a walking head (the legs of the tardigrades are what in arthropods have become appendages of the mouth, e.g. mandibles and maxillae).
I would have definitely left normally. Just wanted to see the site.
And I know this also likely not Neil's idea of fun, and mostly the silly EU rules that are to blame but still, dialogs without a directly available "refuse all" are the worst
Reminds me of https://scaleofuniverse.com . I think confining it to just living things removes the perspective of "Wow, we're really small compared to the rest of the universe".
One of the books that got me introduced to this fascinating aspect of our natural world is John Tyler Bonner's Size and Cycle. It has features amazing log-log plots of how different organisms from grow with time: from eggs to full-grown organisms. This kind of visualisation gives you a different perspective on growth and scale
For example, Sequoia gigantea
Sequoia is the largest tree and can be effectively compared
to the annual plant shown above. Fertilization
and the early growth to the seed stage are essentially
similar, but because of the cambium and the possibility
of secondary thickening, the size of the tree can
increase enormously. As can be seen from Figure 1 in
the text, the sequoia does not begin to set seed until
it is sixty years old and eighty meters tall.
Maybe it's a stupid question, but how does the poliovirus "work"? Like at this scale, the DNA strand is still pretty visible and a decent-ish percentage of the polio virus in size.. is it just a ball with DNA inside and not much else? How does it pack enough DNA to replicate itself into it's own size at that scale?
You’re pretty close actually. It’s a single strand of positive-sense RNA 7.5kb long, and a protein capsule. +ssRNA is treated as mRNA by the host and is directly translated into proteins.
When my daughter is old enough, I'm definitely going to show her a bunch of visualizations on Neal's site as supplementary education. I learned so much from these visualizations as an adult, and even without being able to read you can get a sense of scale.
Fwiw, I've done a pinch-nail-hand-arms 1-10-100-1000 mm "body as size reference" a couple of times around 5ish. And a 1000x "micro view" "pinch is zoomed to arms size" "it's like a scale model or doll playset - everything zoomed together" world of "bacteria sprinkles, red blood cell candies (M&M minis or concave Smarties minis or Sweetarts - there's lots of cell candy analogs), hair poles, salt/sugar boxes". Stories of sitting on a grain of salt and eating... etc; pet eyelash mites. No idea if it actually worked.
I did some user-test videos, now only on archive.org.[1] Hmm... the "Arms, hands" video there now doesn't seem to play inline? - but does wget'ed and browsered. :/
The music is so moving, tear inducing. One of the best links I've seen posted here and I've been here 15+ years. Well done Neal. I wish credit was given to the music, anyone know who created it?
If you liked the first half of this site and want an extension, Cell Biology by the Numbers (2015, Milo, Phillips, https://book.bionumbers.org/) is great and has a similar intuition-building fun sense about size as well as various other measurements, including weight, time and energy at the atomic to micro-organism level.
I would like to play an open world game (like Minecraft) where 1 in-game meter equals 1 micrometer in the real world. That way, one could get a feeling about the scale of things.
Hmm, perhaps with flying? When stuck on the ground, people's feel for size gets poorer as things get bigger (tall buildings, clouds, map distances). I think of having 4ish orders of magnitude available for visual reference in a classroom (cm to 10 m), plus less robustly 100 m and km in AR. At that micrometer per meter, a grain of salt towers over a city skyline - "nano view" in [1] (eep - a decade ago now - I was about to take another pass at it as covid hit).
It makes me emotional when I think about where life started and what it evolved into. Life created so many different types of organisms, each having different features while maintaining the equilibrium of the planet. From bacteria, to massive dinosaurs, to tiny homosapiens who inevitably control the largest organisms.
This has DNA as the smallest object and has a large protein next to it, so it misses the fact that a gene's DNA is almost always larger by weight and volume than the protein it encodes.
Never before have I seen the message "Firefox has been terminated by the Linux kernel because the system is low on memory". Thanks for a new experience!
Great visualization! It would have been nice to zoom out to a view of the world from space at the end, since this is really the max size of life as we know it (n=1 so far).
Great webapp. There is a similar app that I love to scroll through from time to time. Its free and needs no internet connection.
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/universe-in-a-nutshell/id15263...
The range of size in the universe, from the tiniest particles to the epic galaxies - we take you on a journey of size that lets you explore it all with a single swipe.
Neal.fun is good clean fun - my kids love it too. Neal, if you are listening, would pay for an ad-free version (I already bought you some coffees too).
Very cool. I was surprised that orangutans are described as being only 2 feet 9 inches tall, I think most are a bit larger. Maybe when sitting they're under 3 feet? From wikipedia:
"females typically stand 115 cm (45 in) tall and weigh around 37 kg (82 lb), while adult males stand 137 cm (54 in) tall and weigh 75 kg (165 lb). The tallest orangutan recorded was a 180 cm (71 in)."
It's using the size of the ruler, matching the posture as shown in the image. A few keys over and there's a picture of a grizzly bear that says it is 1m or 3'4" tall. And maybe when it's on all fours, that's a typical measurement to the shoulders - its arm length, more or less.
That's much shorter than the human at 1.7m or 5'7". From just those numbers, you might think that a human would weigh more than a grizzly or take one in a fight: But when a bear stands on its hind legs, it's 2.4m/8' tall and can be 800 lbs, I'd have put a grizzly way further to the right.
The spot on the ladybug is black against red, usually (there are many varieties); it's very conveniently highlighted. We're better at seeing "bold colour on bold colour" than "semi-translucent thing in water".
Because you clearly haven't spent enough time closely looking at pond and river water!
Our local parks department has several annual events where they ask for volunteers to help perform benthic macroinvertebrate surveys. It basically amounts to meeting up at a local park with a couple people in waders dragging special nets along the bottom, dumping scoops of material into buckets and large, shallow, white trays, and others sitting at picnic tables with spoons, magnifying glasses, and muffin tins sorting out the critters that get caught in the nets.
The cool part is that at the end, you can score the creek based on the quantity and types of larvae that you find: Caddisfly, mayfly, and stonefly larvae are very sensitive to factors like runoff from agriculture and road salt, sediment, water oxygenation, and other factors, beetles, crayfish, dragonflies, and scuds are moderately tolerant, while leeches, worms, midges, and flies will grow in anything. Thousands of these surveys happen every year, so you can compare the relative frequency and quantity of various species and determine the relative health of the stream.
I don't know how many tardigrades you'll find just scooping 4-8mm nymphs and larvae by eye, but I've brought my microscope to a couple and put random droplets of water under a cover and slide: there are an astonishing number of tiny critters swimming around at any zoom level.
No, sorry if that wasn't clear, I've not identified one by eye without a scope. Maybe your fine vision is better than mine, but all the tiniest things in a drop of water are just about indistinguishable without magnification. The kinds of water that have sufficient density to contain a tardigrade just look like they're full of grit, I don't think you could identify which speck was a tardigrade and which was just dirt.
Nymphs are larger (that's why they call them "macro" invertebrates), but it's always good to have at least a magnifying glass if not a loupe or microscope on site.
I did a side project that helps with comparisons, but in a rather different way (e.g. how many African elephants does something weigh). Not as slick as this site, but someone might find it useful:
Nice. Two quick UI thoughts. Upon loading, perhaps start with some unit selected, and a default amount 1, so there's immediate content to be seen? And to extend the experience, maybe add a "dice roll" button, so users can "see more neat things" click-click-click without the cognitive overhead of pathing the option space
I always thought that the best we could do for targeted drug delivery was an adenovirus. But after seeing that parasite being only slightly bigger than a red blood cell, I think we can do better...
Reminds me of the video game Everything. Its a really cool game where you explore the various scales of the universe. It has its quirks (somewhat phoned in graphics like animals walking) but the concept and execution are great IMO, would love a sequel. Also bonus points for featuring Alan watts as a core character.
Reminds me of the classic "powers of 10" video: https://youtu.be/0fKBhvDjuy0. Someone ought to remake that but as a gaussian splat reconstruction, so you can freely move the camera as well as zoom.
If anyone wants to set this up to auto-run all the way to the right and then all the way back to the left, here is a vibe-coded (sorry) browser console script. Makes a great "screen-saver" if you kick off the script and then put your browser in full screen mode :)
(function() {
let direction = 'right'; // Start by going right
let intervalId;
function getCurrentAnimalName() {
const animalDiv = document.querySelector('.animal-name');
return animalDiv ? animalDiv.textContent.trim() : '';
}
function pressKey(keyCode) {
const event = new KeyboardEvent('keydown', {
key: keyCode === 37 ? 'ArrowLeft' : 'ArrowRight',
keyCode: keyCode,
code: keyCode === 37 ? 'ArrowLeft' : 'ArrowRight',
which: keyCode,
bubbles: true
});
document.dispatchEvent(event);
}
function autoScroll() {
const currentName = getCurrentAnimalName();
if (direction === 'right') {
pressKey(39); // Right arrow
if (currentName === 'Pando Clone') {
console.log('Reached Pando Clone, switching to left');
direction = 'left';
}
} else {
pressKey(37); // Left arrow
if (currentName === 'DNA') {
console.log('Reached DNA, switching to right');
direction = 'right';
}
}
}
// Start the interval
intervalId = setInterval(autoScroll, 3000);
// Log start message and provide stop function
console.log('Auto-scroll started! To stop, call: stopAutoScroll()');
// Expose stop function globally
window.stopAutoScroll = function() {
clearInterval(intervalId);
console.log('Auto-scroll stopped');
};
})();
You could try posting both at the LLM and ask it to explain the stuff I changed, if you're interested in learning more Javascript. Assuming you aren't already deep in the JS trenches and only vibed bc you couldn't be bothered.
It claims a banana isn't technically living, but a banana has living cells so I'm not sure how accurate that is. I'm not sure when they're all considered 'dead' after harvesting though - maybe some wiggle room there.
My understanding is that picked fruits and veg are still alive [1], and often respirating [2]. This is a big component in figuring out how to refrigerate them at the optimal temperatures and atmospheric makeup.
My main takeaway was that I had no clue how large Krill can get.
To think that Antarctic Krill is as long as the Bee Hummingbird is tall is absurd to me.
Did a great job keeping the scale jumps fresh. Every step had a little twist instead of just a commonly known larger animal on the next slide. Wild that the Japanese spider crab is basically the same size as an orangutan.
I’m pleasantly surprised that Tyrannosaurus rex’s tiny hands were depicted so accurately. As far as I recall, scientists are still puzzled about why it even had hands. Apparently, they were too small to be useful for anything, not even scratching its face.
And the atoms in the proteins and DNA that are exactly replicated to the atom each have a feature sizes resolved at fractions of a nanometer in 3 dimensions (and likely in time/dynamics too).
This is super infuriating. I wish there was a way to offshore the effort and work needed to toggle each option off to the culprit website.
Perhaps when website A presents you with such hostile prompts, take their contact email, and subscribe it with automation to each of the vendors. I'm just too tired of this shit.
(Uninsightful comment but I’m gonna put it here anyway)
The US spelling of haemoglobin is all kinds of wrong.
Love the site. Would love some algae in there though. Perhaps a desmid or diatom?
I didn't know tardigrades can be big enough to be seen with the naked eye. Apparently big enough to be seen but not big enough to be recognised without magnification.
this has more of an indie gem feel compared to the blockbuster that was stimulation clicker. as others have mentioned it reminds me of scale of the universe flash animation. I think borrowing some ideas from that, including zooming in and out rather than side to side, could have benefits here.
Nit: the tool-tips on the action icons in the top-right aren't consistent.
When music is playing the tool tip is "unmute" which is a verb. It should either be "mute" (to indicate what clicking will do) or "unmuted" (adjective) indicating the current state. Similarly, when the music is muted the tool-tip should either be "muted" or "unmute".
I'm not sure _which_ is wanted (verb or adjective) because the ruler tool-tip uses "Hide Ruler" and "Show Ruler" (verb), while the units tool-tip uses "Units: imperial" and "Units: Metric" (adjective). The info tool-tip ("Info") is also an adjective.
For consistency, I'd use a verb-phrase in all the tool tips:
- "Show info"
- "Switch units to metric/imperial"
- "Hide/show ruler"
- "Mute/unmute music"
I mean, I know this is pedantic nit-picking, but the site is so perfect, what else am I going to do?
I don't understand how the location of a 377 foot tall tree could be kept secret. Wouldn't that type of thing be visible in satellite imagery at the very least?
"The exact location of Hyperion is nominally secret but is available via internet search.[12] However, in July 2022, the Redwood Park superintendent closed the entire area around the tree, citing "devastation of the habitat surrounding Hyperion" caused by visitors. Its base was trampled by the overuse and as a result ferns no longer grow around the tree.[13]
Measures to protect the Hyperion tree were officially implemented in 2022 when the National Park Service (NPS) closed public access to its location in Redwood National Park.[14][15] Anyone who gets too close could face up to six months in jail and a $5,000 maximum fine.[13][16][17]"
EDIT: Nevermind. Perhaps it was an ad that I clicked on. Lots of comments here indicating they don't see it, and some that did.
My Original comment here (too late to delete):
Beware. When you reach the end there is a "more projects" button. In there is a cute IQ test (possibly appealing to the HN crowd). When you reach the end of the test it asks for email, and then ultimately wants $1 to get your results. If you pay by credit card due note that there is an auto-checked box for some $29.99 per month subscription for... something.
This is definitely not something Neal would ever do. Can you share the URL you're talking about? There's no IQ test in his projects list at all. https://neal.fun/
For me it appears in millimetres, but I'm in Canada not the US. I'm guessing the default is chosen based on your browser's language. You can change the units in the top right.
Edit: I checked the page's code and it does indeed set the units based on language. If your language is "en-US" you get imperial by default, everyone else gets metric.
A week ago, I learned that animals weren't bigger in the past.
Sure, there were dinosaurs that were quite big, but they weren't living all at the same time. So there was maybe a big one, that died out, and the next big one would evolve much later.
As this project shows, the biggest animals and plants are living right now.
Also, we're living in the time with the biggest spiders in history. Somehow they don't get that big on average. Turns out, the high oxygen levels in the past didn't affect arachnid sizes as much as insect sizes.
double clicking makes the animation jitter. ive had to deal with matching derivatives of smooth slopes in rendering as well. the animation seems to be finite time (and so variable velocity) and mashing click is just updating the final point without matching the current derivative.
Cool, but a little more thought on the content rather than the presentation would improve it. For example starting with an arbitrary segment of DNA double helix and saying how "tall" this arbitrary segment is, is just silly.
Instead, it should show how _wide_ it is. And for extra coolness, keep it in frame, coiling longer and longer as you go, and eventually have the same strand, which has been with us all the time, as a specific example (e.g. human chromosome 7 or some such) by _length_
In generalized, abstract sort of way it's probably accurate, but in reality most neurons don't look much like that and many have dendrites orders of magnitude longer than the one in that image. Stringing all your dendrites end-to-end they can probably easily go to the moon and back.
I wish Neal would do behind the scenes, how he built this art. I wonder whether LLM assistants like Claude Code make such an interactive show more feasible.
He previously did a game "Infinite Craft" which leveraged Llama models. However, I was only able to find an outdated blog from 2019.
I think you'd notice a pretty big difference in an LLM clone of this site. The art, music, and other small wouldn't be as consistent or hang together as nicely.
If I could download the LLM clone, and share it, I think I'd prefer it. This is just a website that could at any moment disappear, it isn't like a book.
Sorry to say that my first reaction was that this is heresy. . . all this talk of science is a hoax.
But then the music calmed me right down and I wended my way through, not understanding 99% of what I saw but in awe of nature and Neal's art nonetheless.
- Smallest animal: Myxobolus Shekel. Smaller than a WBC at 10 micrometeres.
- Biggest butterfly: Queen Alexandra's Birdwing. Bigger than human brain at 18cm.
- Largest insect to ever live: Meganeura (283 MYA). At 40cm long, a dragonfly larger than a house cat.
- Rafflesias are larger than German Shepherds
- Earth's largest crab: Japanese Spider Crab. 1m, legs pan of 3.75m. More than half the size of a human.
- Always thought Mososaurs were largest animal to ever live but it's the Blue whale at 26m. I don't think I ever appreciated how unfathomably huge they are. (The largest Mosasaur found was 13m. There's a speculated size of 17m as well.)
- World's largest living tree: Hyperion - a giant redwood in california at 115m.
Love seeing something so polished and inspiring. Amazing illustrations and even better music.
Since some of you asked, here’s the soundtrack on Bandcamp: https://aleixramon.bandcamp.com/album/size-of-life-original-...
There you can download it in high quality, and it’s a pay-what-you-want: you can get it for free if you want, or pay what you feel like and support me. Either way, I’m happy that you enjoy it!
The music should also be on Spotify, Apple Music, and most music streaming services within the next 24h.
A bit about the process of scoring Size of Life:
I’ve worked with Neal before on a couple of his other games, including Absurd Trolley Problems, so we were used to working together (and with his producer—you’re awesome, Liz!). When Neal told me about Size of Life, we had an inspiring conversation about how the music could make the players feel.
The core idea was that it should enhance that feeling of wondrous discovery, but subtly, without taking the attention away from the beautiful illustrations.
I also thought it should reflect the organisms' increasing size—as some of you pointed out, the music grows with them. I think of it as a single instrument that builds upon itself, like the cells in an increasingly complex organism. So I composed 12 layers that loop indefinitely—as you progress, each layer is added, and as you go back, they’re subtracted. The effect is most clear if you get to the end and then return to the smaller organisms!
Since the game has an encyclopedia vibe to it, I proposed to go with a string instrument to give it a subtle “Enlightenment-era” and “cultural” feel. I was suspecting the cello could be a good instrument because of its range and expressivity.
Coincidentally, the next week I met the cellist Iratxe Ibaibarriaga at a game conference in Barcelona, where I’m based, and she immediately became the ideal person for it. She’s done a wonderful job bringing a ton of expressivity to the playing, and it’s been a delight to work with her.
I got very excited when Neal told me he was making an educational game—I come from a family of school teachers. I’ve been scoring games for over 10 years, but this is the first educational game I’ve scored.
In a way, now the circle feels complete!
(if anyone wants to reach out, feel free to do so! You can find me and all my stuff here: https://www.aleixramon.com/ )
It reminded me of Operation Neptune (1991): each level starts with just one channel, probably percussion, and as you progress through the rooms it adds and removes more channels or sometimes switches to a different section of music. It is unfortunately all sharp cuts, no attempts at smoothing or timing instrument entry and exit. A couple of samples: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0LNaatyoQk is an hour of gameplay revelling in “the dynamic and sometimes beautiful music of Operation Neptune” using a Roland MT-32 MIDI synthesiser; and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPxEdQ4wx9s&list=PL3FC048B13... is the PCM files used on some platforms (if you want to compare that track with the MT-32, it starts at 28 minutes).
The idea was to have a single instrument (a cello) that builds upon itself, like the cells in an organism. It starts with a very minimalistic loop, and new layers of music are progressively added as the organisms grow in size.
Thanks for sharing Operation Neptune! I didn't know about it, but it's a great example of early adaptive game music.
For anyone curious, you can actually play it here: https://archive.org/details/msdos_Super_Solvers_Operation_Ne...
So not exactly the same, but perhaps prototypical. I think Asteroids did as well.
The game speeding up as invaders are eliminated was an unintended consequence of the hardware running full speed to draw all 55 invaders. As invaders are eliminated the draw calls finish faster and the game speeds up. There is no code in the game to throttle the speed. The 2 Mhz 8080 is always drawing full speed. It's delightfully serendipitous this happens to ramp up the difficulty as you near the end of each level in such a compellingly perfect way. (https://www.tomshardware.com/video-games/retro-gaming/space-...)
I've watched some interviews with the game's programmer Tomohiro Nishikado and, although translated (so subject to garbling), he seems to confirm this was a 'happy accident'. He indicates he set the max number of invaders based on what the hardware could draw but there was no intent to have the speed ramp up. Of course, he noticed that it did this during play testing but decided to keep it that way. Arguably, it's one of the most compelling aspects of the game. Modern emulators have to add code game-specific code to limit the speed or the game plays too fast. Leaving no CPU cycles unused is the sign of an elegant design.
[1] https://x.com/nealagarwal/status/1998788695449808920
Tomorrow it should also be on Spotify, Apple Music, etc.
https://ufo50.miraheze.org/wiki/Porgy
And you're right, the music following the player's actions is common in games; we call it "adaptive music.
The authors deserve our support. Buy them a coffee via the provided link.
Thank you for sharing this on HN.
Space Elevator: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45640226
Deep Sea: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21850527
(It's utterly brilliant but monstrous.)
Thank you!
all achievements.. and i made stacks on bitcoin
This is a pretty common fear, just look up thalassophobia (or don't! sorry!)
I hope he never stops making these art pieces - everything he creates brings joy, regardless of whether it's educational or funny or whimsical. I'm in awe of his creative output, his manner of communication, and his ability to steal hours of our time playing ridiculous little games that make us question the fundamentals of life and society.
He's right up there with XKCD in my mind.
--
This is probably the only time I'll use my super pedantic mode on Neal's work, and it's only because I love biology -
> DNA
> The genetic instructions for life
> 3.5 nanometers tall
DNA has a lot of dimensional metrics. It gets complicated. The people that study this stuff really care because it's essential for how our enzymes work, and small differences in spacing tolerances would totally break all of the machinery.
This "3.5 nm" figure is roughly the height of one turn of the helix for one form of DNA (B-DNA). The figure is showing multiple turns in the cartoon illustration.
In theory, you could create a polymer of infinite length (or height).
B-DNA is 34 Å per turn, with 10.5 bp per turn (table 1) :
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6545/
> Blue Whale
> King of the animal kingdom, it is the largest animal to have ever lived. It can eat up to 40 million krill per day during peak feeding season.
Please fix this one, Neal! We don't know that the blue whale is the largest animal to have ever lived (even assuming we know we're just talking about earth).
Blue whales are perhaps the largest animal to have ever lived on earth. But we simply do not know. The fossil record is woefully incomplete.
We even have new papers coming up all the time that challenge this:
https://www.science.org/content/article/whale-whale-may-be-b...
Then refutations:
https://www.science.org/content/article/have-blue-whales-reg...
This is undoubtedly the last time the claim to largest will ever be challenged. Even if we dug up no new fossils, the estimations of previous finds change all the time as we learn more.
Also - what does "largest" mean? Mass? Length? Surface area?
It's okay to say that they're the largest (by some metric) that we know of. But it is not correct to say that they're the largest to have ever lived - at least as far as we know or could ever know. And by setting an absolute, inquiring minds memorize the point and stop wondering.
It's very probable that we'll never know the definitive answer to this.
This is a nitpick, but life on other planets wouldn't be called “animals”. Animal is a clade defined by common ancestry. The only way you could have an extraterrestrial animal is for it to have evolved on Earth and then migrated somehow, and I think we can fairly confidently rule that out.
It essentially starts the whole project with a weird take on "How long is a piece of string?"
> In theory, you could create a polymer of infinite length (or height).
Works pretty well in practice too.
Definitely worthy the scroll!
He argues that human perception of animal size is skewed because humans use themselves as a benchmark.
He takes a logarithmic approach to illustrate where humans actually fit within the overall scale of the animal kingdom. We are way larger than we think we are!
If you are looking at the ladybird (ladybug) with the amoeba to the left, the amoeba isn't an order of the magnitude smaller - it would actually be visible by the human eye (bigger than a grain of sand)? Indeed, the amoeba seems the same size as the ladybird's foot?
Similarly, this makes the bumblebee appear smaller than a human finger (the in the adjacent picture), which isn't the case?
I'd suggest keeping the SI unit , or at least having both once we get to the level of inches.
Even with setting it to metric, it progresses through units based on the scale. I realize that scientists love to work in scientific notation, and progressing from nanometers to micrometers, mm, cm, and finally meters sort of follows that kind of logic. I wonder how it would feel if the whole thing was in constant units or at least there was an option for that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amoeba#Size_range
Only the next row above it, with Pelomyxa, is indeed an amoeba and one that is very frequently encountered and which usually has sizes not much less than 1 millimeter and sometimes it can reach a size of a few mm.
The true amoebas are much more closely related to humans, than to xenophyophores (giant marine unicellular living beings) or to plants.
Besides the true amoebas there are also a few other kinds of unicellular eukaryotes with shape-shifting cells, e.g. foraminifera, radiolarians and others, but already in the first half of the 19th century it was recognized that those other groups change their shapes in a different way than the amoebas, so they were classified separately, even if the term "amoeboid cell" has always been used about any cell with variable shape.
The true amoebas are related to the group formed by animals and fungi, and there are some amoebas that have a simple form of multicellularity, so it is likely that some of the mechanisms needed for the evolution of multicellularity have been inherited from a common ancestor of animals, fungi and amoebae.
The multicellular or multinucleate amoebae that belong to Myxomycetes (one of the kinds of slime moulds) can reach much bigger sizes, e.g. a diameter of up to 1 meter, because they do not have the size limitation that exists for simple unicellular eukaryotes.
"Megaphragma mymaripenne is a microscopically sized wasp. At 200 μm in length, it is the third-smallest extant insect, comparable in size to single-celled organisms. It has a highly reduced nervous system, containing only 7400 neurons, several orders of magnitude fewer than in larger insects."
I never knew about these either.
> Eutelic organisms have a fixed number of somatic cells when they reach maturity, the exact number being relatively constant for any one species. This phenomenon is also referred to as cell constancy. Development proceeds by cell division until maturity; further growth occurs via cell enlargement only.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eutely
Most tardigrades are not much bigger than 100 micrometers.
Tardigrades, together with nematodes, rotifers, mites and a few more rarely encountered groups are among the smallest animals and they are smaller than many of the bigger among the unicellular eukaryotes. That is why they have been discovered only after the invention of the microscope.
The tardigrades have evolved towards smaller and smaller sizes very early, already during the Cambrian. It is interesting that they are segmented animals, like their relatives the arthropods and the velvet worms, but they have very few segments, because in order to achieve such a small size they have lost all intermediate segments, so the segments that now form their body were originally the segments of the head, and now they are followed immediately by the original segments of the tail, without the original body that connected the head to the tail. Thus they have been miniaturized by losing their body and becoming a walking head (the legs of the tardigrades are what in arthropods have become appendages of the mouth, e.g. mandibles and maxillae).
And I know this also likely not Neil's idea of fun, and mostly the silly EU rules that are to blame but still, dialogs without a directly available "refuse all" are the worst
https://youtu.be/XRdh8gmVR90?si=PvgoXrgjV62tsUy6
For example, Sequoia gigantea Sequoia is the largest tree and can be effectively compared to the annual plant shown above. Fertilization and the early growth to the seed stage are essentially similar, but because of the cambium and the possibility of secondary thickening, the size of the tree can increase enormously. As can be seen from Figure 1 in the text, the sequoia does not begin to set seed until it is sixty years old and eighty meters tall.
https://postimg.cc/hfdGGJ8H
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eunice_aphroditois
Thankfully they don't live on land.
So it was not a dangerous predator, though it could have been poisonous, like many modern millipedes.
[1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/strange-but-true-...
Thanks for the laugh!
Fwiw, I've done a pinch-nail-hand-arms 1-10-100-1000 mm "body as size reference" a couple of times around 5ish. And a 1000x "micro view" "pinch is zoomed to arms size" "it's like a scale model or doll playset - everything zoomed together" world of "bacteria sprinkles, red blood cell candies (M&M minis or concave Smarties minis or Sweetarts - there's lots of cell candy analogs), hair poles, salt/sugar boxes". Stories of sitting on a grain of salt and eating... etc; pet eyelash mites. No idea if it actually worked.
I did some user-test videos, now only on archive.org.[1] Hmm... the "Arms, hands" video there now doesn't seem to play inline? - but does wget'ed and browsered. :/
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20221007220513/www.clarifyscienc...
> Created by Neal Agarwal
> Illustrations by Julius Csotonyi
> Production by Liz Ryan
> Music & SFX by Aleix Ramon
> Cello performance by Iratxe Ibaibarriaga
Beautiful work.
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20221007220513/http://www.clarif...
A highly social, relatively hairless bipedal ape that was once a nomadic hunter-gatherer, but has adapted to create websites. :)
https://htwins.net/scale2/
I do like the visualization.
We really dont need playStore and appStore to run beautiful things like this.
"females typically stand 115 cm (45 in) tall and weigh around 37 kg (82 lb), while adult males stand 137 cm (54 in) tall and weigh 75 kg (165 lb). The tallest orangutan recorded was a 180 cm (71 in)."
That's much shorter than the human at 1.7m or 5'7". From just those numbers, you might think that a human would weigh more than a grizzly or take one in a fight: But when a bear stands on its hind legs, it's 2.4m/8' tall and can be 800 lbs, I'd have put a grizzly way further to the right.
Our local parks department has several annual events where they ask for volunteers to help perform benthic macroinvertebrate surveys. It basically amounts to meeting up at a local park with a couple people in waders dragging special nets along the bottom, dumping scoops of material into buckets and large, shallow, white trays, and others sitting at picnic tables with spoons, magnifying glasses, and muffin tins sorting out the critters that get caught in the nets.
The cool part is that at the end, you can score the creek based on the quantity and types of larvae that you find: Caddisfly, mayfly, and stonefly larvae are very sensitive to factors like runoff from agriculture and road salt, sediment, water oxygenation, and other factors, beetles, crayfish, dragonflies, and scuds are moderately tolerant, while leeches, worms, midges, and flies will grow in anything. Thousands of these surveys happen every year, so you can compare the relative frequency and quantity of various species and determine the relative health of the stream.
I don't know how many tardigrades you'll find just scooping 4-8mm nymphs and larvae by eye, but I've brought my microscope to a couple and put random droplets of water under a cover and slide: there are an astonishing number of tiny critters swimming around at any zoom level.
Nymphs are larger (that's why they call them "macro" invertebrates), but it's always good to have at least a magnifying glass if not a loupe or microscope on site.
> [Loupes] generally have higher magnification than a magnifying glass, and are designed to be held or worn close to the eye.
I did a side project that helps with comparisons, but in a rather different way (e.g. how many African elephants does something weigh). Not as slick as this site, but someone might find it useful:
http://howmanyelephants.co.uk/
This is an interesting fact.
I always thought that the best we could do for targeted drug delivery was an adenovirus. But after seeing that parasite being only slightly bigger than a red blood cell, I think we can do better...
[0] https://www.yout-ube.com/watch?v=pUF5esTscZI
Even if you've never taken a mild psychedelic, this video hits in a similar manner (as sober metaphor).
----
I still drive with Neal.fun's Internet Roadtrip (same OP link author), every time I'm out in my workshop.
1. https://healthland.time.com/2013/06/21/theyre-alive-harveste... 2. https://agriculture.institute/food-chemistry-and-physiology/...
How is that possible? Doesn’t it contain at least thousands?
Star Size Comparison 3, simply a stunning visualization.
https://www.asml.com/en/products/euv-lithography-systems/twi...
It's the second or third time I see this "managed by Google compliant with IAB" (note: not with GDPR)
A simple idea but fabulous execution!
Great work -> the minimalist UI, art and music fits amazingly.
One thing I noticed: the site's images fail to load if the brave adblocker is on
When music is playing the tool tip is "unmute" which is a verb. It should either be "mute" (to indicate what clicking will do) or "unmuted" (adjective) indicating the current state. Similarly, when the music is muted the tool-tip should either be "muted" or "unmute".
I'm not sure _which_ is wanted (verb or adjective) because the ruler tool-tip uses "Hide Ruler" and "Show Ruler" (verb), while the units tool-tip uses "Units: imperial" and "Units: Metric" (adjective). The info tool-tip ("Info") is also an adjective.
For consistency, I'd use a verb-phrase in all the tool tips:
- "Show info"
- "Switch units to metric/imperial"
- "Hide/show ruler"
- "Mute/unmute music"
I mean, I know this is pedantic nit-picking, but the site is so perfect, what else am I going to do?
"The exact location of Hyperion is nominally secret but is available via internet search.[12] However, in July 2022, the Redwood Park superintendent closed the entire area around the tree, citing "devastation of the habitat surrounding Hyperion" caused by visitors. Its base was trampled by the overuse and as a result ferns no longer grow around the tree.[13]
Measures to protect the Hyperion tree were officially implemented in 2022 when the National Park Service (NPS) closed public access to its location in Redwood National Park.[14][15] Anyone who gets too close could face up to six months in jail and a $5,000 maximum fine.[13][16][17]"
http://famousredwoods.com/hyperion/
Nevermind!
My Original comment here (too late to delete):
Beware. When you reach the end there is a "more projects" button. In there is a cute IQ test (possibly appealing to the HN crowd). When you reach the end of the test it asks for email, and then ultimately wants $1 to get your results. If you pay by credit card due note that there is an auto-checked box for some $29.99 per month subscription for... something.
edit: I turned off my ad blocker and discovered the site is showing some ads. Guessing you clicked on an ad?
also it's pretty ironic because one of his projects is showcasing dark patterns: https://neal.fun/dark-patterns/
Edit: I checked the page's code and it does indeed set the units based on language. If your language is "en-US" you get imperial by default, everyone else gets metric.
Got a link to the music?
If it helps, AFAIK (I do atomic force microscopy of DNA), DNA's height is closer to 2nm than 4.
Sure, there were dinosaurs that were quite big, but they weren't living all at the same time. So there was maybe a big one, that died out, and the next big one would evolve much later.
As this project shows, the biggest animals and plants are living right now.
Also, we're living in the time with the biggest spiders in history. Somehow they don't get that big on average. Turns out, the high oxygen levels in the past didn't affect arachnid sizes as much as insect sizes.
I don't want to have to keep on scrolling to "discover" new images.
Instead, it should show how _wide_ it is. And for extra coolness, keep it in frame, coiling longer and longer as you go, and eventually have the same strand, which has been with us all the time, as a specific example (e.g. human chromosome 7 or some such) by _length_
absolutely foul
He previously did a game "Infinite Craft" which leveraged Llama models. However, I was only able to find an outdated blog from 2019.
But then the music calmed me right down and I wended my way through, not understanding 99% of what I saw but in awe of nature and Neal's art nonetheless.
- Smallest animal: Myxobolus Shekel. Smaller than a WBC at 10 micrometeres.
- Biggest butterfly: Queen Alexandra's Birdwing. Bigger than human brain at 18cm.
- Largest insect to ever live: Meganeura (283 MYA). At 40cm long, a dragonfly larger than a house cat.
- Rafflesias are larger than German Shepherds
- Earth's largest crab: Japanese Spider Crab. 1m, legs pan of 3.75m. More than half the size of a human.
- Always thought Mososaurs were largest animal to ever live but it's the Blue whale at 26m. I don't think I ever appreciated how unfathomably huge they are. (The largest Mosasaur found was 13m. There's a speculated size of 17m as well.)
- World's largest living tree: Hyperion - a giant redwood in california at 115m.
Love seeing something so polished and inspiring. Amazing illustrations and even better music.
Thanks Neal for these projects!