Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why is Chile so long?

unchartedterritories.tomaspueyo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 468 posts

Re: Why is Chile so long?

#301

Post by eps »

guidoism wrote: post #220
throwup238 wrote: post #3

My key takeaway from this article is that the best place to go see the Milky Way is deep in the Amazon rainforest… where the tree cover is nearly 100% and there isn’t a single road for a hundred miles. That’s a neat collection of graphics. I’m curious how bespoke the creation process is for each graphic or if this is something everyone just does in ArcGis or similar. That last graphic about the Western US being the o…

The most amazing sky I’ve ever seen was when I arrived in Urubichá in Guarayos region of Bolivia in 1998 before the electricity arrived in the area. I traveled by bus to visit my friend’s childhood home. The bus only went to the big city an hour away so I road in the back of a jeep the rest of the way, at night. I remember vividly not understanding what this super-bright light was in the sky. I know now it was either…

Venus always appears near the sun (hence the "morning star" moniker).

Re: Why is Chile so long?

#302

Post by LargoLasskhyfv »

perfectstorm wrote: post #250
w4der wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really, that would probably be the north of Chile on the Atacama desert, there's a reason why the Extremely Large Telescope, Giant Magellan Telescope and Vera C. Rubin are being built there.

i'm going to assume that commoners like us don't have access to that telescope.

It wouldn't give you the bombastic views you are used to from press realeases.

Those are all longer exposure, at different wavelengths, stitched together digitally.

With your bare eye in the focal point of that thing you'd just see Jupiter and some of its moons, the Rings of Saturn, some extrasolar nebulae and some galaxies better than with common amateur telesecopes. Otherwise just more and brighter stars, with some more hints of color.

You'd have more immersion by using binoculars with a wide field of view, and low magnification, like 10 to 20, maybe 30 times. But the latter with a wide field of view are rather heavy, so bring a foldable camping chair to lie down on, and some contraption to have the binoc hanging down on you, easily movable, but not shaky. Or a tripod, but they are impractical for looking straight up. (with common binocular eye-pieces)

Re: Why is Chile so long?

#303

Post by sandworm101 »

langcss wrote: post #287
sandworm101 wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> just rent a boat and gave it a try? As someone who once worked tangentially in search and rescue, please do not even consider this. The ocean is a serious thing, doubly so at night. Unless you are renting a boat large enough to come with its own staff, please do not just head over the horizon simply to see the stars. And fyi, the stars at sea move as the boat you stand on moves. They are brighter, but also more bl…

Would a simple cruise ship ticket do it? Or be too lit up at night?

Cruise ships dont have dark decks or other places to view the ocean directly at night. It would be like standing on your porch with the exterior lights of ypur house left on.

Avoiding light pollution is not really about seeing stars through light pollution. Thats for astronomers with telescopes. For human eyes it is more about being dark enough thay your iris can relax and let in more light. Try a dark forest, even a city park, surrounded by trees but able to see up. You will see more stars even if inside an urban area.

Re: Why is Chile so long?

#305

Post by svcphr »

kragen wrote: post #266
fluoridation wrote: post #10

How is the table of dialects constructed? It's obvious if two dialects are at 1, but what does it mean if they're at 0? They can't be mutually unintelligible, since that would make them different languages. I ask because the dialects spoken in Argentina and in Uruguay are practically identical, save for a few regional words. If the scale being used puts them at 0.35, then it makes me wonder about the usefulness of th…

yeah, literally the only difference i can think of is 'contigo' (which is 'con vos' in argentina)

People from both countries can speak a version of Spanish that is mutually intelligible. But if you go into a high school (or even listen to adults that are being very casual) then it'd sound wildly different.

I speak Chilean Spanish. Distinctive characteristics include no use of vos; the "tú" conjugation is often "-ai" (cómo estai?) or "-i" (qué teni allí?); saying weón every sentence; using "po" for emphasis (sí po!); specific words like "fome" (boring), "la raja" (awesome), "bacán" (cool); phrases like "estoy cagado de hambre", "estoy chato", "pasarlo chancho", "cachai?"...

It's also very related to class, at least in Chile. Even I struggle to understand people in tougher neighborhoods of Santiago.

Re: Why is Chile so long?

#306

Post by [deleted] »

langcss wrote: post #287
sandworm101 wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> just rent a boat and gave it a try? As someone who once worked tangentially in search and rescue, please do not even consider this. The ocean is a serious thing, doubly so at night. Unless you are renting a boat large enough to come with its own staff, please do not just head over the horizon simply to see the stars. And fyi, the stars at sea move as the boat you stand on moves. They are brighter, but also more bl…

Would a simple cruise ship ticket do it? Or be too lit up at night?

[deleted]

Re: Why is Chile so long?

#307

Post by kragen »

svcphr wrote: post #305
kragen wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yeah, literally the only difference i can think of is 'contigo' (which is 'con vos' in argentina)

People from both countries can speak a version of Spanish that is mutually intelligible. But if you go into a high school (or even listen to adults that are being very casual) then it'd sound wildly different. I speak Chilean Spanish. Distinctive characteristics include no use of vos; the "tú" conjugation is often "-ai" (cómo estai?) or "-i" (qué teni allí?); saying weón every sentence; using "po" for emphasis (sí po…

sorry, i was talking about the differences between buenos aires spanish and uruguay spanish. i totally cacho that chilean is a different language entirely, however much germán garmendia tries to pretend otherwise :)

Re: Why is Chile so long?

#308

Post by rukuu001 »

eatonphil wrote: post #11

The article mentions it, but I only learned recently that Bolivia did not used to be landlocked. Chile took Bolivia's coastline somewhat recently (late 1800s/early 1900s). > The dispute began in 1879, when Chile invaded the Antofagasta port city on its northern border with Bolivia as part of a dispute over taxes. Within four years Chileans had redrawn the map of South America by taking almost 50,000 square miles of B…

Yeah everyone in Chile, Bolivia & Peru will argue about this all day long.

Re: Why is Chile so long?

#310

Post by duckmysick »

kragen wrote: post #291
duckmysick wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would it be incorrect? Sometimes two or three different words describe the same thing and that's ok. If you poll enough people you can get a rough idea if one version is more dominant that the other, if there's an even split, or if different regions in the same country prefer different versions. Similar to soda/pop/coke in the US. You can design a study with a high level of data granularity. You could even track…

because 'we usually say coche but sometimes say auto ' is almost the same as 'we usually say auto but sometimes say coche ', but they differ from 'we always say carro '. if a study is saying spanish is radically different in montevideo and in buenos aires, it's just wrong. this may not be the particular design error that resulted in these incorrect results, but it seems like a promising candidate

I think we're both in agreement. Perhaps my example of coche/carro was unfortunate and I didn't make my point clear enough.

A well-designed study, in my mind, would compare the usage of a varied bag of words. Starting from articles, pronouns, numbers, common verbs, then common objects, verb forms, less common adjectives, ending with uncommon objects and phrases. The compared words would be weighted based on their frequency. If two dialects have the same articles, pronouns, numbers, etc. and some differences in less frequent nouns, they would be similar rather than radically different - at least lexically. Things might look differently if we look at pronunciation.

I don't know what list of words was compared in the study linked in this subthread, so it's hard for me to say anything about it.

Post reply on HN