What an innovation! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Zq qEr7SVQU

the audio sounds like stevie from malcolm in the middle without breathing heavily, he just says words without making a sentence out of them.

>>2204021
>Tiny half-gallon desktop fishtank
>innovation
This is why we deserve alien invasion.

sasuga chinks

can shrimp at least be able to live in these?

>>2204215

Maybe if 50% of it was taken up by moss with regular water changes.

It's no smaller than the "nano" tanks that are popular now. get over it you sperg fucks

File: Untitled.jpg (37KB, 435x274px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 435x274px

ok but even if you don't give a shit about the fish's health, this is so ugly, design-wise.

very small fish and shrimp would be okay in this, but i don't understand people who want to stuff a large fish into such a small tank. it looks so crowded and shitty and i imagine the fish would just knock over decorations trying to swim around

>>2204219
False. You are a retarded nigger who spergs out about dogs and cats.

>>2204219
Nobody puts full grown Angelfish or Goldfish in a nano tank. People put tiny gobies and shrimp in them.

>>2204644
That's to small for shrimp or gobies. I'd use it for a copepod culture.

>>2204215
You could get away with a very low stock of like 3-5 cherry/babaulti/ghost shrimp and lots of plant matter/moss, yet I would still prefer to use at least a 2.5gal as smallest size for shrimp.

>>2204021
>despite "your enjoyment" being mentioned countlesstims, he doesn't mention the fishes' ditto once
>mentions how small it is, like it's a good thing
>can apparently be used for any fish
can we colonise this shithole again

This would be good for beta fish

>>2204942
No, it wouldn't.
You can't heat it safely and stably, and bettas are tropical fish for one.

i don't own an aquarium because they're too much work but ***hypothetically***, if i had a table with a 50 gallon or so hidden "basin" cycling, filtering, heating, etc. water with an exposed 1-2 gallon "cell" with a fish or two in it, would that be acceptable?

>>2204955
I don't know why you'd do it that way, but I suppose it'd be alright if the fish still has enough room to really swim around.

>>2204958
>i don't know why you'd do it that way

-to trigger aquarium folk
-for minimalist aesthetic
but mostly
-just a hypothetical question

>>2204963
I guess as far as maintaining parameters, sure, you'd be fine. The issue would really be that a small area like that would stress a lot of fish out, it'd be impossible to adequate proper hiding areas and such for the fish to feel safe, and the lack of swimming space would freak them out.

Something that I think would be cool would be a desk with like 5 of these things connected with tunes, kinda like those hamster cages that you can connect. Have a bunch of little fish a shrimp that could go from one cube to the next and hide in the tubing as they wish

>>2205012
would they always want to hide in the hidden part or would they come out to the exposure area once in a while?

>>2205022
Depends on the fish. A comfortable fish definitely would, a sickly or stressed one wouldn't.

>>2204021
This has to be a joke

>>2204021
those fish only have 3x their length to swim
shame on these fucks

>>2205024
This. Fish are also a bit hypocritical, the more places to hide, the more they'll come out generally. If they only have 1 or 2 places, they tend to hole up. Makes sense though, if you were on the lookout for predators, you'd be more likely to come out if there were tons of places to hide fast.

>>2204038
It's a Japanese guy that can read English and do a decent American accent, but doesn't actually understand English at all.

>>2204946
You just bit the hook, my friend.