Latest revision |
Your text |
Line 30: |
Line 30: |
| | | |
| :This is the first total eclipse visible in the continental US since 1979. About half the current US population wasn't even born then. That totality was visible in a much smaller and mostly sparsely-populated part of the US. The last eclipse with totality visible near a significant percentage of the US population was in 1970. It's a pretty safe bet that >80% of the US population has never seen a total eclipse in person. So, while perhaps eclipses are an ordinary event for Canadians, the 2017 eclipse is indeed a "weird, uncommon, unheard-of phenomenon".[[Special:Contributions/162.158.78.226|162.158.78.226]] 18:17, 16 August 2017 (UTC) | | :This is the first total eclipse visible in the continental US since 1979. About half the current US population wasn't even born then. That totality was visible in a much smaller and mostly sparsely-populated part of the US. The last eclipse with totality visible near a significant percentage of the US population was in 1970. It's a pretty safe bet that >80% of the US population has never seen a total eclipse in person. So, while perhaps eclipses are an ordinary event for Canadians, the 2017 eclipse is indeed a "weird, uncommon, unheard-of phenomenon".[[Special:Contributions/162.158.78.226|162.158.78.226]] 18:17, 16 August 2017 (UTC) |
− | :: My reaction is more along the lines of the next xkcd, that it isn't mysterious or once-in-a-lifetime (except perhaps being located conveniently to see the full effects). Though come to think of it, I might never have seen an eclipse myself, or if so YEARS ago when I was young (you referenced one in 1979, maybe I saw that one). I actually wonder if it's like tornados, that we simply don't see them this far north? Really, it's just that it seems like I'm hearing a bigger deal here than makes sense. Cool experience if you can get it, but that's it. :) "Weird", no, completely normal and expected. Hell, this discussion only can exist because it's predicted. "Uncommon", certainly not. A Google search I did just now to try to see if there were any I might have seen led to a page about eclipses visible in Canada in the 20th century, which says there were something like 270. That's approaching an average of 3 per year, just from Canada, while this one seems like it won't even partially be visible to my area. "Unheard Of", definitely not. It would take an incredibly sheltered life to have not heard of eclipses, to know what they are. Sheltered with irresponsible parents. So I stand by that statement. :) [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 06:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
| |
− |
| |
− | [http://kron4.com/2017/08/14/eclipse-traffic-jam-may-be-greatest-in-oregon-history/ Eclipse may cause greatest traffic jam in Oregon history.] [http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article166570472.html A million out-of-state travelers expected to pack Missouri roads for solar eclipse.] [http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/08/solar_eclipse_2017_how_to_driv.html Solar eclipse 2017: How to drive during Aug. 21 eclipse.] [http://www.ajc.com/lifestyles/north-georgia-towns-brace-for-huge-crowds-for-solar-eclipse/1CNySlBBpxuN9VQKXAzTlJ/ North Georgia towns brace for huge crowds for eclipse.] There has been a lot of online activity related to the eclipse in the past few weeks. [[User:Amdir|Amdir]] ([[User talk:Amdir|talk]]) 21:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
| |
− |
| |
− | It is unlikely that the volume of Google searches will reach the same ultimate height as election searches do in the second graph. After all, the result is a forgone conclusion. Right? [[User:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For]] ([[User talk:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|talk]]) 01:54, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
| |
− |
| |
− | Are there any usefully updated trackers of the search/in comparison to the election search? The linked WaPo article doesn't seem to include it.
| |
− | : I wanted to verify the data myself, so I compared them in Google Trends. Here's a comparison between the 2 terms, similar to the one in the comic. [https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=2017-06-20%202017-08-23,2016-09-04%202016-11-04&geo=US,US&q=eclipse,election Google Trends: Eclipse vs Election] <span style="color:green;">Saibot84</span> 14:48, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
| |
− | ::Well fuck, looks like Randall's predictions really did pan out. Election hype was BURIED under eclipse hype. [[User:Aepokk|Aepokk]] ([[User talk:Aepokk|talk]]) 08:09, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
| |
− | :::Actually, [https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=2017-06-19%202017-08-24,2016-09-07%202016-11-11&geo=US,US&q=eclipse,election that's not really the case at all]. I don't know what Saibot84 was doing. [[User:SuperSupermario24|<span style="color: #c21aff;">Just some random derp</span>]] 02:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
| |
− |
| |
− | Can somebody add whether these predictions actually happened? [[User:RamenChef|RamenChef]] ([[User talk:RamenChef|talk]]) 19:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
| |
− | Probably not worth much, but I was on the path of the total eclipse. Even back roads were crowded six hours before the eclipse, and larger areas had much more severe traffic. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.44.133|172.69.44.133]] 10:07, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
| |
− |
| |
− | I guess you could say that "eclipse" searches really eclipsed "election" searches. [[User:ISaveXKCDpapers|ISaveXKCDpapers]] ([[User talk:ISaveXKCDpapers|talk]]) 23:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
| |