Editing 2914: Eclipse Coolness

Jump to: navigation, search

Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision Your text
Line 18: Line 18:
 
The graph in this strip points out that the difference between 91% (or even a 99%) eclipse and a total eclipse is dramatic. An almost total eclipse is barely noticeable, while a total eclipse is a visual phenomenon unlike any other. This is a situation where being close to the path of totality and being on it makes a huge difference.  
 
The graph in this strip points out that the difference between 91% (or even a 99%) eclipse and a total eclipse is dramatic. An almost total eclipse is barely noticeable, while a total eclipse is a visual phenomenon unlike any other. This is a situation where being close to the path of totality and being on it makes a huge difference.  
  
Forbes made a similar reference to total solar eclipses being only worthwhile seeing if in the direct path of 100% totality, with a [https://imageio.forbes.com/specials-images/imageserve/65ef95bf101386371bff5839/2024-04-08-TSE-regional-FUNNY-copy/0x0.png "map of nope"]. The map shows all of North America that's not directly in the 100% path of totality as "Nope" meaning that anyone in those areas won't experience the full "OMG!" experience of the total solar eclipse. The [https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamiecartereurope/2024/03/19/why-every-american-needs-to-see-the-map-of-nope-meme-before-april-8s-total-solar-eclipse/?sh=2aab9ab55725 article] mentions hotels may claim to be close enough to the eclipse with "nonsensical oxymorons like '99% coverage of the full total eclipse'" and that it is common for people to think: "I'm happy to avoid the traffic and settle for 95%'".
+
Forbes made a similar reference to total solar eclipses being only worthwhile seeing if in the direct path of 100% totality, with a [https://imageio.forbes.com/specials-images/imageserve/65ef95bf101386371bff5839/2024-04-08-TSE-regional-FUNNY-copy/0x0.png?crop=641,300,x288,y330,safe&height=300&width=641&fit=bounds "map of nope"]. The map shows all of North America that's not directly in the 100% path of totality as "Nope" meaning that anyone in those areas won't experience the full "OMG!" experience of the total solar eclipse. The [https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamiecartereurope/2024/03/19/why-every-american-needs-to-see-the-map-of-nope-meme-before-april-8s-total-solar-eclipse/?sh=2aab9ab55725 article] mentions hotels may claim to be close enough to the eclipse with "nonsensical oxymorons like '99% coverage of the full total eclipse'" and that it is common for people to think: "I'm happy to avoid the traffic and settle for 95%'".
  
 
The title text simply emphasises the point of the comic - the significant difference between a partial and a total eclipse. It is unclear whether the claim is that a partial eclipse is really 'like' a sunset, while a total eclipse seems like someone broke the sky — claims which would be hyperbolic — or if the intention is to say that the comparison between a partial and total eclipse is equivalent to the comparison between a cool sunset and a broken sky.
 
The title text simply emphasises the point of the comic - the significant difference between a partial and a total eclipse. It is unclear whether the claim is that a partial eclipse is really 'like' a sunset, while a total eclipse seems like someone broke the sky — claims which would be hyperbolic — or if the intention is to say that the comparison between a partial and total eclipse is equivalent to the comparison between a cool sunset and a broken sky.

Please note that all contributions to explain xkcd may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see explain xkcd:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!

To protect the wiki against automated edit spam, we kindly ask you to solve the following CAPTCHA:

Cancel | Editing help (opens in new window)