• Lvxferre [he/him]@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    56
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    If “north of Antarctica” isn’t enough to narrow it down, here are a few tips: it’s also south of the Arctic, further from the Sun than Venus, closer to the Sun than Mars. Now it’s easy to find it!

  • SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 month ago

    Of course they aren’t going to give the exact location. That wreck would be ransacked for scrap metal if it isn’t resting too deep. Like in Indonesia several WW2 shipwrecks have gone missing.

    • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      3000 meters is pretty fucking deep.

      Like - 6 times deeper than the deepest hardsuit dive in history.

      There’s only a few ships in the world that can salvage at that depth, and they’re not fly-by-night pirate operations.

    • isolatedscotch@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      1 month ago

      a fun fact about this, by the way

      the reason we scavenge steel from old shipwrecks is because all modern peoduced steel is contaminated with a miniscule - but still present - amount of radioactive isotopes, incompatible with some incredibly precise scientific instruments and other nieche, but essential applications, that not only require old steel, but old steel that wasn’t exposed to all the radioactive fallout during the nuclear tests in the cold war, hence why the sunken ships.

      wikipedia article

      adding a personal note here, if some nuclear tests around the world contaminated everything THIS MUCH, what will we say about microplastics in a couple decades? just food for thought

        • _stranger_@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          You can’t see radiation filling up a bird’s stomach. People are, ultimately, very bad about dealing with things we cannot see.

  • saltesc@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    87
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    I assume they mean “just north of Antarctica”. But really it could be any body of water on the planet it could fit in.

    • dellish@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 month ago

      You mean beyond the ice wall that marks the edge of the disc? We’re not allowed to know /s

  • Zerush@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 month ago

    Anyway this turns only absurd if it referred to the exact pole, geographic or magnetic, but not from the continent as is.

  • The Octonaut@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    1 month ago

    Are kids today so Vine-brained they don’t understand headline syntax? The Weddell Sea just north of Antarctica.

    • meeeeetch@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      If you leave Antarctica, you’re heading north. Is it North of Antarctica toward Australia, South Africa, Patagonia or some other northerly direction from Antarctica?

      That’s the ambiguity inherent to the headline.

        • meeeeetch@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 month ago

          East of the Antarctic peninsula.

          Anyplace off the coast of Antarctica is, by definition, north of it. But the Weddell Sea is a specific area of the Southern Ocean.

    • Yozul@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      The entire Weddell Sea is just north of Antarctica. That’s where the Weddell Sea is. The problem is that everything near Antarctica is just north of Antarctica, including things on the complete opposite side of the entire continent. It’s just a way of saying near Antarctica that sounds like you’re giving more information than you really are.

    • Wolf@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      We all probably understood that’s what they meant but it’s funny and not super clear. “The Weddell Sea just north of Antarctica.” or “The Weddell Sea near Antarctica.” work much better.

      • ouRKaoS@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        “off the coast of” is the phrasing I would have used. I’ve honestly never heard of the Weddell sea until just now.

    • Raltoid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      For further clarification:

      The Antarctic Peninsula(the long bit sticking out) is the furtest part away from the south pole in the antarctic and is thus the northernmost part, and is generally considered to be the “north” when using cardinal directions there. The Weddell Sea is off the coast of the peninsula.