81 points

W…where’s the hidden Saddam Hussein‽

permalink
report
reply
24 points

The internet has ruined me to the point I’m looking for either Saddam or Loss.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

Are you ever gonna give it up?

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

🎶Not without my tree fid-dy🎶

Never gonna give, never gonna give

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

@aihorde@lemmy.dbzer0.com draw for me a comic in the style of Loss featuring Saddam Hussein.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Here are some images matching your request

Prompt: a comic in the style of Loss featuring Saddam Hussein.

Style: flux

permalink
report
parent
reply
47 points
*

This map bothers me as they omit Lake Tahoe, which is higher than Baikal (~6,200 ft) and deeper than everything except Baikal (~1,600 ft deep)

What’s the point of including all that empty space between Baikal and Titicaca when there’s a world renowned lake that would be great to include

permalink
report
reply
14 points

The map makes absolutely no sense to 97% of the planet and that’s what bothers you? 😂

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

This was originally just a map of the Great Lakes system. Someone added Baikal and Titicaca to it later for comparison.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

So you’re saying it’s not really special. Not the highest, not the deepest?

Sure. Throw it in!

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
*

TIL! Maybe Crater Lake too.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Crater Lake, Lake Tahoe, and Lake Chelan.

permalink
report
parent
reply
44 points

Why is lake Baikal the only one with measurements in meters?
Feels like the map maker made a half-hearted attempt and just gave up after the first one.

permalink
report
reply
2 points

You mean the second one

permalink
report
parent
reply
38 points

Who builds a lake on a cliff?

permalink
report
reply
30 points

Why bother making this at all if it’s not to scale? Sure, nobody expects the horizontal scale to be the same as the vertical scale. Vertical exaggeration is common when displaying profiles or cross sections, but those are generally still considered to be at a particular scale. But, if the vertical scale isn’t consistent, then what even is the point of the graphic? Just list some numbers in a table. Putting this in graphical form without a consistent scale is just lying and lazy.

permalink
report
reply
11 points

You don’t seem too enthusiastic about this map.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

No metric either, and only 2 non-american lakes.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

The world doesn’t only revolve around the rest of the world you know!

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

One of the lakes had normal units, but everything else was in fantasy units.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

It looks like these are two separate graphics spliced together, everything on the right seems to be to scale (or reasonably close to it)

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

I didn’t break out the ruler or anything, just going off of the pixelated disclaimer at the bottom.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

The disclaimer doesn’t say it’s inconsistent, though. Just exaggerated, which is good because otherwise everything except maybe Baikal would be a horizontal line.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Map Enthusiasts

!map_enthusiasts@sopuli.xyz

Create post

For the map enthused!

Rules:

  • post relevant content: interesting, informative, and/or pretty maps

  • be nice

Community stats

  • 3K

    Monthly active users

  • 215

    Posts

  • 2.8K

    Comments