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

41–50 of 53 posts

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

#41

Post by red_trumpet »

culi wrote: post #38

What is it with articles like these still using language like "discovered" > 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…

Yeah talking about discovery is weird. The title even says it "just showed up" making me think there was a geologic events involved.

Though I wouldn't dismiss any relevance of the year 2021, as that was when the scientists did their field work. Imagine another team did study the same hole in 2022 but published earlier, then that would be relevant.

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

#42

Post by biorach »

culi wrote: post #38

What is it with articles like these still using language like "discovered" > 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…

> Clearly the locals have known about this already

Clearly they knew there was a small patch of deep water. Maybe not much more than that. I think you're being way too quick to jump to self righteousness

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

#43

Post by driggs »

culi wrote: post #38

What is it with articles like these still using language like "discovered" > 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…

Because its depth was discovered by researchers in 2021.

The Mayans knew that it was a blue hole. They didn't know that it was among the deepest known in the world, simply that it was one of many blue holes.

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

#44

Post by rikroots »

bandyaboot wrote: post #20
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.

I can’t possibly visualize its overall Size without knowing how many Olympic sized swimming pools it could fill.

I need more granularity to get a sense of the volume we're talking about here. Has anyone measured it in double-decker buses yet?

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

#45

Post by s1artibartfast »

culi wrote: post #38

What is it with articles like these still using language like "discovered" > 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…

>Discovered in 2021" pretty obviously means Western people here. If it was about "scientific description" then we would've said 2023.

If the meaning is clear what seems to be the problem? It seems like manufactured outrage to be upset by this. I just discovered fuente avocados last week. I'm not claiming to be the first human to ever behold them.

As a thought experiment, can a secret never be discovered?

On the facts of the story, it seems highly unlikely that the locals knew that it was the second deepest blue hole on the planet.

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

#46

Post by rbanffy »

CydeWeys wrote: post #36
rbanffy wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

You might do well to read up on the history of asSOCiation football.

I was joking.

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

#47

Post by rbanffy »

Izkata wrote: post #39
rbanffy wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Edit: Actually for a much easier visual, it's right about 2.5 American football fields. OK, but how many elephants would that be?

Somewhere between 1291 and 3506 adult African elephants from the measurements I found. ;D

What's the conversion from African to European elephants?

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

#48

Post by rpeden »

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.

To clear things up, then, it's about 1.64 Canadian football fields.

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

#49

Post by JdeBP »

rbanffy wrote: post #29
Izkata wrote: post #16

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

I've made the same joke that "Rules" is so named because it doesn't have any. (-:

Having had the "soccer is what Americans call it" mantra drummed in from an early age, I was very interested to learn, only very recently, that "soccer" for Association Football has the same English upper-class slang roots as "rugger" for Rugby Football, and it's not actually an Americanism at all, as checking some old dictionaries from the 19th and early 20th centuries as well as Notes and Queries has since confirmed.

Partridge actually has a name for it, the "Oxford -er"; hence "topper" for "top hat", "header" for "heading a ball", "diner" for "dining car", "camper" for "camping car", and so forth.

So one should dislike it for the right reasons: not because it's an Americanism, which it isn't in the first place, but because it's an invention of 19th century Oxbridge toffs who stuck "-er" after the first syllable of everything as a social-class shibboleth. (-:

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

#50

Post by JdeBP »

foobarbecue wrote: post #35
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.

It's not just "weird" -- it's completely nonsensical. It's like saying "the color of a stop sign is triangle"

Absolutely. Everyone knows that the colour is octagon, by international standard. (-:
Post reply on HN