31–40 of 53 posts
Very cool. I will note that it is significantly less picturesque than the stock photo used in the article. https://explorersweb.com/taam-ja-blue-hole-mexico/
Worth pointing out, the image in the article is actually of the 'Great Blue Hole' off the coast of Belize, which is about twice the diameter but half the depth[1] of the one in the paper. Also quite the opposite of 'recently discovered'; it has been one of the best known diving spots in the world for over 50 years, and one of the very few ocean floor features that I can recognize by eye... https://en.wikipedia.org/wi…
What is it with those weird metrics? 147,000 square feet across , this is what science communication picks up from the paper? The major axis of the TJBH at ~10 mbsl was estimated to be ~151.8 m and was oriented ~10.76° clockwise from the north, similar to the main direction of geological faults in the region. The minor axis, perpendicular to the major axis, was ~124.4 m across. The surface area covered by the blue ho…
The conversion from square meters to square feet is 13690 * 3.28 * 3.28 = 147282.496, so at least it's the correct number for area. But yeah, adding "across" sounds weird there. Edit: Actually for a much easier visual, it's right about 2.5 American football fields.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not a joke, the article converted from meters to feet so the demographic limitation is ~the same. Don't know why the title on HN uses metres, the original title doesn't have any size. I only included "American" because I knew someone would jump on it with soccer/non-American football fields.
> I knew someone would jump on it with soccer/non-American football fields. There is no such thing as "soccer". The correct name is "football", because you use your feet to move the ball inside the field during the game. There is also American football, which is an entirely different game, that's neither played with feet, or a ball. ;-P
> Guided by tips from fishermen, scientists from Colegio de le Frontera Sur explored a tropical estuary off the southeastern coast
> the scientists names their new discovery the Taam ja' Blue Hole, using the Mayan language phrase
Clearly the locals have known about this already. If your argument is that the difference is when it's published in some scientific paper then that's also contradictory to:
> the new blue hole was discovered in 2021, the researchers only recently detailed their findings in a study published in Frontiers in Marine Science
"Discovered in 2021" pretty obviously means Western people here. If it was about "scientific description" then we would've said 2023.
It reminds me of that one white person that traveled to Mexico and "discovered" a variety of corn that produces a mucus-like goo that traps nitrogen from the air itself instead of using bacteria. This variety had an indigenous name and the people who've been growing it for thousands of years could trace back their entire lineage of people who've developed the variety specifically to grow in those low-nitrogen conditions
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The conversion from square meters to square feet is 13690 * 3.28 * 3.28 = 147282.496, so at least it's the correct number for area. But yeah, adding "across" sounds weird there. Edit: Actually for a much easier visual, it's right about 2.5 American football fields.
> Edit: Actually for a much easier visual, it's right about 2.5 American football fields. OK, but how many elephants would that be?
;D
> Our knowledge of blue holes is limited by accessibility issues, sometimes due to opening being too small or the depths being so great, and sometimes due to limited oxygen in the water, making it dangerous to explore without specialized equipment. I'm curious why lack of oxygen is a problem? We don't breathe water, so why should oxygen content matter?