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

Second massive “blue hole” found, 270 metres deep

popularmechanics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 53 posts

Re: Second massive “blue hole” found, 270 metres deep

#21

Post by OJFord »

Izkata wrote: post #17
OJFord wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the main point was the measurement of area 'across', not the non-SI unit.

The article converted all the measurements for a US audience, but the "square feet across" line halfway down is the only one they jumped on. Plus questioning why not just use diameter at the bottom of their comment.

We agree then?

Edit: Oh wait, sorry, I must have misread/not read that you agreed adding 'across' was weird initially. Thought you were just saying 'sqm/sqft no big deal move on' sort of thing.

Re: Second massive “blue hole” found, 270 metres deep

#22

Post by HeyLaughingBoy »

kwhitefoot wrote: post #7
Izkata wrote: post #5

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.

> a much easier visual, it's right about 2.5 American football fields. One that means absolutely nothing to the majority of the people on the planet.

And to a lot of Americans also.

Re: Second massive “blue hole” found, 270 metres deep

#23

Post by nradov »

hamandcheese wrote: post #12

> 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?

Right, any explorers would dive with their own breathing gas. The actual risk in some of those blue holes is not low oxygen but high hydrogen sulfide.

Re: Second massive “blue hole” found, 270 metres deep

#24

Post by davemp »

Izkata wrote: post #5
mxfh wrote: post #4

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.

Or ~147 avg house footprints

Re: Second massive “blue hole” found, 270 metres deep

#27

Post by osamagirl69 »

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/wiki/Great_Blue_Hole

Re: Second massive “blue hole” found, 270 metres deep

#28

Post by chmod775 »

davemp wrote: post #24
Izkata wrote: post #5

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.

Or ~147 avg house footprints

Average house sizes vary wildly (>2x) across countries.

For the US it's 201 m2, whereas in Ireland it's 89 m2.

Re: Second massive “blue hole” found, 270 metres deep

#29

Post by rbanffy »

Izkata wrote: post #16
speedgoose wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it was a joke. But I’m not sure.

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

Re: Second massive “blue hole” found, 270 metres deep

#30

Post by rbanffy »

Izkata wrote: post #5
mxfh wrote: post #4

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.

> Edit: Actually for a much easier visual, it's right about 2.5 American football fields.

OK, but how many elephants would that be?

Post reply on HN