• @xkforce
    link
    English
    15
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    At the current rate of sediment accumulation in lake Erie, it would accumulate enough fine grained material to fill its volume in less than 70,000 years.

    This assumes a lot i.e that we wouldnt dredge material, that something else doesnt wipe them out first etc.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      35 months ago

      This is askscience. We need a standardized scale for this.

      Great should obviosly be near the top. But is Ok above or below Alright?

      • nickwitha_k (he/him)
        link
        fedilink
        English
        25 months ago

        Point taken. I’d suggest something along the lines of this scale:

        great > good > alright > ok > adequate > meh > fair > subpar > unfortunate > abysmal

        • ...m...
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          feeble < poor < typical < good < excellent < remarkable < incredible < amazing < monstrous < unearthly

          …based upon how my elementary school teachers used to grade assignments, great is just above excellent, so they’ll diminish to excellent lakes first, then good lakes, then typical lakes…

    • slazer2au
      link
      English
      -35 months ago

      Seconds? Years? Decades? Meters? AU?

      Care to give a unit?

      • @MisterChief
        link
        English
        85 months ago

        It’s a joke. It’s a reference to Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy where the answer to the ultimate question is 42. It’s designed to not make sense.

        • slazer2au
          link
          English
          -55 months ago

          Yep. Which is why I said time and distance units.