what is north?

Narrowed it down to a single planet.

narrowed it down to 95% of a single planet!
- If you exclude the landmass you narrowed it down to ~70% of a single planet.
What a shame. A wreck on another planet would have been way more interesting

I assume they mean "just north of Antarctica". But really it could be any body of water on the planet it could fit in.

"Just north of Antarctica" is still not helpful at all though. Even a hemisphere would narrow it down more.
- Just north of Antarctica in the southern hemisphere.
- The peninsula is considered the north side. So the location of the shipwreck is south of South America.
- It literally says beneath the Weddell sea.
- Yeah... probably "between Antarctica and the South Atlantic" would be the best reference here.
  [Now it's probably not the time for me to ramble on how the Atlantic should be considered two oceans instead of one, right?]
- The location is being kept secret to prevent looting.
- It is helpful in that it gives an idea of what sort of waters it sank at. Being close to Antarctica my mind immediately goes to heavy seas with cold weather.
Yeah, the Weddell Sea is basically in Antarctica
- Ah. South of the Arctic.
Yeah even "near Antarctica" narrows it down to the South Atlantic, South Pacific and South Indian oceans.
- if we suppose "just" means near in this context, "Just north of antarctica" and "Near antarctica" has exactly the same meaning.

Fun fact: I have never actually seen a clip of this with audio, so I always give this guy the Skeletor voice in my head and I just realized he probably doesn't sound like that.
- I looked it up. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XdWlWUUYejc
- I might have seen it once a long time ago, but I don't remember what he sounded like, so I can't confirm that for you.

If "north of Antarctica" isn't enough to narrow it down, here are a few tips: it's also south of the Arctic, further from the Sun than Venus, closer to the Sun than Mars. Now it's easy to find it!

We don't talk about what's South of Antarctica

You mean beyond the ice wall that marks the edge of the disc? We're not allowed to know /s

Mark here either has poor reading comprehension, or is intentionally being a little shit by cherry picking part of the title and not reading the whole thing.

The location specified is not 'north of Antarctica'.

It is, 'the Weddell Sea, north of Antarctica.'

Giving 'the Weddell Sea' as the location is actually decently specific, and the 'north of Antarctica' that follows is modifying / adding to the description of 'the Weddell Sea'... not the entirety of the location description.

I would snarkily, rhetorically, ask if people are even taught how to diagram out a sentence structure anymore, but I already know the answer is 'not really, no', because the average adult American literacy level is that of a 6th grader.

Mark, and anyone else who also finds this to be a funny, poignant zinger, need to go back to middle school and relearn grammar.

Weddell sea is good, mentioning Antarctica is good, the word “North” is meaningless in this context which is what the OP is laughing about.
- It should probably say, "off the Antarctic coast", or even "X kilometers off the Antarctic coast".
Or - bear with me here - it’s just a funny detail and people are laughing about it. Because any sea is obviously going to be north of it
- Just looking at that map seems to show the Ross sea to the south
It is still valid to point out that "north of Antartica" is a silly phrase in context, even though it's fine given the more specific Weddell Sea information. If you did want to help readers know the story based on a more well-known landmark, a less silly phrase would have been simply been "Weddell Sea, near Antarctica".
- I'd go with "the Antarctic's Weddell Sea".
While you're not wrong, you're also massively over-analyzing and "WELL AKSHULLY"ing what appears to be a silly one-liner, not a serious attempted dunk on the article.
- I am not going to apologize for having humor standards above that of a middle schooler.
Nope. You could as well say: Mediterranean Sea, north of Antarctica.
I have two dollars, less than infinity.
The temperature is pleasant, higher than absolute zero.
Doesn't add anything. There are no seas south of Antarctica.
- It adds something, it specifies the nearest location, if we assume the basic sanity of the sentence. Mediterranean Sea, north of Antarctica would be insane thing to say. Mediterranean Sea, north of Africa however is a proper signifier.
- The map he linked literally shows the Ross sea south of Antarctica.
  Also since its earth is spherical and its near the south pole you can really go any direction and find a sea... that just becomes a matter of perspective.
  In this case, specifically, the wedell sea is to the north of the continent
- It looks like some parts are south, east or west of parts of Antarctica. Sure, it's all north of the south pole but that isn't the question.
The Weddell Sea, north of Antarctica, brought to you by the department of redundancy department.
I would snarkily, rhetorically, ask if people are even taught how to diagram out a sentence structure anymore, but I already know the answer is ‘not really, no’, because the average adult American literacy level is that of a 6th grader.
I agree with your overall statement. Just wanted to point out that there are a lot more people than Americans out there.
Yup, by naming Wedell, they located it quite well; there are 13 small named seas completely encircling Antarctica. By naming any of them, you can reasonably locate (to any point that matters to dear reader) the wreck
- Sure, if you happen to already know where the Wedell Sea is or if you look it up it you can reasonably locate it, in which case adding the "north of Antarctica" part is superfluous. But if you don't already know where the Wedell Sea is, adding in the "north of Antarctica" part doesn't actually narrow it down any, which is why it's a funny thing to point out.
  If they had wrote "just north of Antarctica" or "off the coast of Antarctica" or "near Antarctica", that would have narrowed it down significantly.
  Now that I have thoroughly explained the joke, I imagine it's much funnier now.
  I'm sure that "Mark "Three-Jabs" Newton" and the rest of us who found this funny were able to deduce from the context that is actually what the writer meant . That isn't what they actually wrote though so "sp3ctr4l" is not only incorrect in asserting that Mark has "poor reading comprehension", he is also wrong that 'reading the whole thing' would have clarified things and was extremely condescending about his incorrect statement at the same time, which makes him kind of an ass imo.
  He was correct that Mark was "intentionally being a little shit" so 1 out of 3 wouldn't have been so bad if he weren't such a douche about it at the same time.
You're not wrong, you're just insufferable.
- Nah, spectral IS wrong. The "complaint" isn't arguing grammar, it's explicitly pointing out that there's a very unhelpful couple of words in the sentence.
  The sentence "I live north of Antarctica." gives you basically zero information but is perfectly grammatically correct.
  The line may as well have been "The weddel sea, which is made of water,..."
You better believe I'm here for this squabbling
Could you enlighten me, then? How on earth does "north of Antarctica" modifiy or add to "the Weddell Sea" in any way, shape, or form?
- The Endurance has been found, 3000 metres beneath the Weddell Sea, [which is]north of Antarctica.
  See nonrestrictive modifiers
A 6th grader’s literacy level means they can write a book report.
Yeah that popped out to me immediately. I looked up the Weddell Sea and as your shared map shows, it's a big but well identified area. It's not like they said it's in the Pacific Ocean or some shit.
Prime "AKSHUALLY" moment.

Baby don’t hurt me.

Here I’ll help, it’s also south of the North Pole.

And west of the equator.

Just in the South of the Arctic

Top left corner is the Weddell Sea so we know it’s somewhere in that direction
- everybody know "top-left" means north-west ! just say that !

I can construct a weird true statement from this: All continents besides Antarctica are located North of the South-Pole.

Technically, almost all of Antarctica is located north of the south pole
- If the south pole is a point, then it has no surface area, so the entirety of antartica is located north of the south pole

I used to ask my dad where we were on car trips.

"Directly above the center of the earth." Thanks asshole.

That's a good one *takes notes
The earth is a bit lumpy, so chances are that was a lie and he was actually lost and couldn't figure out how to get everybody else out of the car so he could go on a trip to get milk.
- *Directly above the gravitational center of mass of the Earth
  Sheeeeesh, happy?

Was Ernest okay?

Eventually, yes! To find out how, read his book. It's honestly one of the best books I've ever read.
- Also the miniseries with Kenneth Branagh is pretty good. Then for counterpoint watch The Last Place on Earth
A bit damp, but no complaints. Considering a new career distributing swords.

"this is a picture of me when I was younger" - Mitch Hedberg

Baby don't drift me 🎶🎵

No moor
- This is the stuff I'm in Lemmy for. 💛

I can specify: south of the arctic.

Might as well just write it's north of south

most probably between southamerica and antartica.

See that actually does narrow it down

Near the British Empire then.

Are kids today so Vine-brained they don't understand headline syntax? The Weddell Sea just north of Antarctica.

For further clarification:
The Antarctic Peninsula(the long bit sticking out) is the furtest part away from the south pole in the antarctic and is thus the northernmost part, and is generally considered to be the "north" when using cardinal directions there. The Weddell Sea is off the coast of the peninsula.
- And is part of the southern ocean, to make it real clear
The entire Weddell Sea is just north of Antarctica. That's where the Weddell Sea is. The problem is that everything near Antarctica is just north of Antarctica, including things on the complete opposite side of the entire continent. It's just a way of saying near Antarctica that sounds like you're giving more information than you really are.
We all probably understood that's what they meant but it's funny and not super clear. "The Weddell Sea just north of Antarctica." or "The Weddell Sea near Antarctica." work much better.
- "off the coast of" is the phrasing I would have used. I've honestly never heard of the Weddell sea until just now.
Yeah, you're right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weddell_Sea?wprov=sfla1
Headline syntax sucks.
If you leave Antarctica, you're heading north. Is it North of Antarctica toward Australia, South Africa, Patagonia or some other northerly direction from Antarctica?
That's the ambiguity inherent to the headline.
- Where else would you succinctly say the Weddell sea is?

I don't know where his ship is, but the man had great taste in blended Scotch! If you run across a bottle of Shackleton in your local liqueur store, buy it.

I’m good with it. Keep it somewhat hidden. Once the position gets out, every asshat with a scuba tank and calls themselves “an explorer” will ruin the place.

asshat with a scuba tank
3000 meters beneath the Weddell Sea
Good luck
- Someone will try it don’t worry.
  That or some billionaire will send private subs down to it.

Better north of antarctica than north of arctica.

Don't be too hard on them, they're new.

But they aren't wrong

I appreciate the "perhaps", like, the headline qualifies how annoyed they are at imprecision.

They must be thinking in Mercator map instead of Globe.

ZeroDivisionError: division by zero

It's like a basic reading comprehension thing....

The ship is located in the Weddell Sea, which is north of Antarctica.

they're saying everywhere outside Antarctica is north of Antarctica, so that doesn't add anything. it's deliberately obtuse for humorous effect. basic joke comprehension should be a thing.
Or south from the Equator line.

TBF it's also south of the Arctic Ocean.

I'll have to use that one.

Of course they aren’t going to give the exact location. That wreck would be ransacked for scrap metal if it isn’t resting too deep. Like in Indonesia several WW2 shipwrecks have gone missing.

a fun fact about this, by the way
the reason we scavenge steel from old shipwrecks is because all modern peoduced steel is contaminated with a miniscule - but still present - amount of radioactive isotopes, incompatible with some incredibly precise scientific instruments and other nieche, but essential applications, that not only require old steel, but old steel that wasn't exposed to all the radioactive fallout during the nuclear tests in the cold war, hence why the sunken ships.
wikipedia article
adding a personal note here, if some nuclear tests around the world contaminated everything THIS MUCH, what will we say about microplastics in a couple decades? just food for thought
- People have been talking shit about microplastic contamination for a while now...
3000 meters is pretty fucking deep.
Like - 6 times deeper than the deepest hardsuit dive in history.
There's only a few ships in the world that can salvage at that depth, and they're not fly-by-night pirate operations.

Anyway this turns only absurd if it referred to the exact pole, geographic or magnetic, but not from the continent as is.