this post was submitted on 04 Jun 2025
1115 points (98.7% liked)

Science Memes

14924 readers
683 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago

I'll have to use that one.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 days ago

I can specify: south of the arctic.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago

TBF it's also south of the Arctic Ocean.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I can construct a weird true statement from this: All continents besides Antarctica are located North of the South-Pole.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Technically, almost all of Antarctica is located north of the south pole

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 days ago

ZeroDivisionError: division by zero

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 days ago

Expedition 22 got some sweet tech

[–] [email protected] 20 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (18 children)

Mark here either has poor reading comprehension, or is intentionally being a little shit by cherry picking part of the title and not reading the whole thing.

The location specified is not 'north of Antarctica'.

It is, 'the Weddell Sea, north of Antarctica.'

Giving 'the Weddell Sea' as the location is actually decently specific, and the 'north of Antarctica' that follows is modifying / adding to the description of 'the Weddell Sea'... not the entirety of the location description.

I would snarkily, rhetorically, ask if people are even taught how to diagram out a sentence structure anymore, but I already know the answer is 'not really, no', because the average adult American literacy level is that of a 6th grader.

Mark, and anyone else who also finds this to be a funny, poignant zinger, need to go back to middle school and relearn grammar.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago

A 6th grader’s literacy level means they can write a book report.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Or - bear with me here - it’s just a funny detail and people are laughing about it. Because any sea is obviously going to be north of it

[–] [email protected] 23 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Nope. You could as well say: Mediterranean Sea, north of Antarctica.

I have two dollars, less than infinity.

The temperature is pleasant, higher than absolute zero.

Doesn't add anything. There are no seas south of Antarctica.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 3 days ago

It adds something, it specifies the nearest location, if we assume the basic sanity of the sentence. Mediterranean Sea, north of Antarctica would be insane thing to say. Mediterranean Sea, north of Africa however is a proper signifier.

[–] [email protected] 41 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Weddell sea is good, mentioning Antarctica is good, the word “North” is meaningless in this context which is what the OP is laughing about.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 days ago (1 children)

You're not wrong, you're just insufferable.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Nah, spectral IS wrong. The "complaint" isn't arguing grammar, it's explicitly pointing out that there's a very unhelpful couple of words in the sentence.

The sentence "I live north of Antarctica." gives you basically zero information but is perfectly grammatically correct.

The line may as well have been "The weddel sea, which is made of water,..."

[–] [email protected] 30 points 3 days ago (1 children)

It is still valid to point out that "north of Antartica" is a silly phrase in context, even though it's fine given the more specific Weddell Sea information. If you did want to help readers know the story based on a more well-known landmark, a less silly phrase would have been simply been "Weddell Sea, near Antarctica".

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 17 points 3 days ago (1 children)

show me which part of Weddell Sea isn’t North of Antarctica

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 days ago

I would snarkily, rhetorically, ask if people are even taught how to diagram out a sentence structure anymore, but I already know the answer is ‘not really, no’, because the average adult American literacy level is that of a 6th grader.

I agree with your overall statement. Just wanted to point out that there are a lot more people than Americans out there.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 3 days ago (1 children)

While you're not wrong, you're also massively over-analyzing and "WELL AKSHULLY"ing what appears to be a silly one-liner, not a serious attempted dunk on the article.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Yup, by naming Wedell, they located it quite well; there are 13 small named seas completely encircling Antarctica. By naming any of them, you can reasonably locate (to any point that matters to dear reader) the wreck

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 days ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 3 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

People have been talking shit about microplastic contamination for a while now...

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago

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

[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 days ago

3000 meters is pretty fucking deep.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›