wgbeethree Posted June 26 Share Posted June 26 (edited) One of my other newest favorite "nuh uh" geographical facts is that if you were standing in Times Square NYC and headed directly south you'd end up in the Pacific Ocean off the west coast of South America, Chile specifically. Edited June 27 by wgbeethree 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Guy Posted June 26 Share Posted June 26 15 minutes ago, wgbeethree said: One of my other newest favorite "nuh uh" geographical facts is that if you were standing in Times Square NYC and headed directly south you'd end up in the Pacific Ocean off the west coast of Soth America, Chile specifically. Does it matter that you'd have to go through Haiti first Columbia first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wgbeethree Posted June 26 Share Posted June 26 4 hours ago, Old Guy said: Does it matter that you'd have to go through Haiti first Columbia first. Nope. I was just discussing tropical vacations with my partner and we estimated it takes at least 50 poor people for a rich person to enjoy their vacation. If you're somewhere really beautiful and don't notice any scary abject poverty it's it's because you're rich enough to not have to see it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosser80 Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 5 hours ago, wgbeethree said: Nope. I was just discussing tropical vacations with my partner and we estimated it takes at least 50 poor people for a rich person to enjoy their vacation. If you're somewhere really beautiful and don't notice any scary abject poverty it's it's because you're rich enough to not have to see it. which means you're wealthy enough to fund the local authorities to keep those people corralled into an area away from you and everyone else around you. I had that experience in Acapulco once....honestly made me feel uncomfortable.... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wgbeethree Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 23 hours ago, ThatJerkDave said: Music bros, why wasn't/isn't the band White Lies massive? Their first record was number 1 in the UK, but only ever reached Gold status. And their second record was number 3 in the UK but is only certified Silver. Am I just hearing something that other people are not? Like, how are Kings of Leon multi-platinum sellers but White Lies aren't? I'm a pretty big music nerd and I had never heard of them. Listened to them yesterday and they're good. Kind of dancey and kind of loungey. I like the combination but they might be to dancey for people who like loungey music and too loungey for people who like dancey music? They remind me of The Killers if The Killers didn't suck. I'd guess that a lot of people would hear them and think I really liked that new Killers song and then go listen to The Killers and go oh wait nevermind this kind of sucks? As for why they aren't bigger I have no idea. There's so many bands out there that are IMO much better versions of incredibly popular bands and yet don't catch on. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatJerkDave Posted June 27 Author Share Posted June 27 3 minutes ago, wgbeethree said: I'm a pretty big music nerd and I had never heard of them. Listened to them yesterday and they're good. Kind of dancey and kind of loungey. I like the combination but they might be to dancey for people who like loungey music and too loungey for people who like dancey music? They remind me of The Killers if The Killers didn't suck. I'd guess that a lot of people would hear them and think I really liked that new Killers song and then go listen to The Killers and go oh wait nevermind this kind of sucks? As for why they aren't bigger I have no idea. There's so many bands out there that are IMO much better versions of incredibly popular bands and yet don't catch on. Take a football for saying the Killers suck. White Lies is kind of a more rocky Depeche Mode, IMO. And perhaps that is why I like them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bad Example Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 20 hours ago, Brat&Beer said: Packers will travel 1500 more miles to play a game in Sao Paulo than they traveled to play a game in London. It's easy to forget sometimes how big South America, and especially Brazil really is. Geography tricks you....two places I learned the location of several times were Paris and Atlanta - I obviously knew both were in France and Georgia, but always thought of them as being in the middle and they're both relatively far north in those countries. Another shocking one is how much of Mexico is north of Mexico City. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 10 hours ago, Rosser80 said: which means you're wealthy enough to fund the local authorities to keep those people corralled into an area away from you and everyone else around you. I had that experience in Acapulco once....honestly made me feel uncomfortable.... This is true of anywhere though. Any tourist destination in any country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Guy Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 2 hours ago, Mr Bad Example said: Geography tricks you....two places I learned the location of several times were Paris and Atlanta - I obviously knew both were in France and Georgia, but always thought of them as being in the middle and they're both relatively far north in those countries. Another shocking one is how much of Mexico is north of Mexico City. News to me regarding Atlanta. If is in the north half of the STATE of Georgia, but in the country of the USA it is south. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatJerkDave Posted June 27 Author Share Posted June 27 1 hour ago, Old Guy said: News to me regarding Atlanta. If is in the north half of the STATE of Georgia, but in the country of the USA it is south. Part of Alaska is in the Arctic Circle, no? So like, a lot of the country is in the south. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Guy Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 11 minutes ago, ThatJerkDave said: Part of Alaska is in the Arctic Circle, no? So like, a lot of the country is in the south. Regardless of Alaska, Atlanta is still very much in the southern half of the US. With Alaska it is obviously a greater percentage of the country being north of Atlanta. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatJerkDave Posted June 27 Author Share Posted June 27 18 minutes ago, Old Guy said: Regardless of Alaska, Atlanta is still very much in the southern half of the US. With Alaska it is obviously a greater percentage of the country being north of Atlanta. Alaska is the farthest North, West, and Eastern most state. Do you know the Southernmost? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Guy Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 1 hour ago, ThatJerkDave said: Alaska is the farthest North, West, and Eastern most state. Do you know the Southernmost? This does not compute to my brain. Please explain. Southern most? Key West, FL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PossibleCabbage Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 When exactly does west become east? Like if I'm flying to Japan from anywhere in the U.S., I'm going over the Pacific and not Eurasia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatJerkDave Posted June 27 Author Share Posted June 27 38 minutes ago, Old Guy said: This does not compute to my brain. Please explain. Southern most? Key West, FL The archipelago crosses 180 longitude making it as far west and east as it can go. Also, Hawaii is way further south than Florida. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.