|
|
| (7 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | <!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.-->
| + | What about Missouri though? |
| − | Most likely though of course not guaranteed reference for the title text is the recent stories out (about 2 days ago) saying that William Shatner regrets directing Star Trek V: The Final Frontier.
| |
| − | Quick example of one story here [https://www.cinemablend.com/news/2456761/william-shatner-regrets-directing-star-trek-v]
| |
| − | --[[User:Wjbodin3|WJBodin3]] ([[User talk:Wjbodin3|talk]]) 21:17, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
| |
| − | :I would find the timing very suspicious at the very least. I think it's highly likely the news inspired this comic, especially in light of Star Trek being outright named - and specifically that instalment. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 13:22, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
| |
| | | | |
| − | It is interesting that all the current frontiers seem somewhat equidistant from the "center" of the squarish figure, as if we have achieved the same level of knowledge/exploration in each category... [[User:Daiemos|Daiemos]] ([[User talk:Daiemos|talk]]) 15:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
| + | == "Around 95% of the oceans haven't been explored and mapped by humans." == |
| − | :Each is on its own (unlabeled) axis, scaled to imply parity among the topics. See [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/2023:_Y-Axis] [[Special:Contributions/172.68.58.89|172.68.58.89]] 16:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
| |
| | | | |
| − | ;...finished exploring it by now (Title text)
| + | Is there a source for this fact? It isn't even clear what the sentence is saying. Is this a fraction of the surface of the ocean? The ocean floor? The water column? What counts as "exploring" a part? Do you just have to see it from a distance, or go there yourself, and if so, how close do you have to get? Will a ship that's twice as wide explore twice as much ocean per mile? That doesn't seem reasonable. How will we know when we are done exploring the ocean? |
| − | If Randall means space and not the movie alone this would contradict the comic itself where space is still a big challenge. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 16:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
| |
| | | | |
| − | :I was thinking that myself, he could be saying that star trek has been fully explored, which the could be a slight reference to the relatively hot topic about star trek discovery. Some trekkies lamenting the fact that they didn't want another prequel... If on the other hand it is a reference to space itself, randall could have left the contradiction in on purpose, as part of the joke. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.70.143|172.69.70.143]] 18:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC) Sam
| + | Also, if that does refer to some actual figure, it's probably out of date by now anyway. [[User:EebstertheGreat|EebstertheGreat]] ([[User talk:EebstertheGreat|talk]]) 06:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC) |
What about Missouri though?
"Around 95% of the oceans haven't been explored and mapped by humans."[edit]
Is there a source for this fact? It isn't even clear what the sentence is saying. Is this a fraction of the surface of the ocean? The ocean floor? The water column? What counts as "exploring" a part? Do you just have to see it from a distance, or go there yourself, and if so, how close do you have to get? Will a ship that's twice as wide explore twice as much ocean per mile? That doesn't seem reasonable. How will we know when we are done exploring the ocean?
Also, if that does refer to some actual figure, it's probably out of date by now anyway. EebstertheGreat (talk) 06:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
