• EdibleFriend@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        Then there’s another 1% that aren’t even part of the original statistic because they’re spawned by the pure awesomeness of what’s inside that cave.

    • Kepabar@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Aside from some fish which evolved with no eyes (which is kind of cool), the only other thing you are likely to find down there is a dead body that everyone decided was too dangerous to recover.

  • comrade19@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    71
    ·
    1 year ago

    Theres a good podcasts by stuff you should know on this. A scary thought to me is about kicking up sediment, causing zero visibility and they cant even see their hand in front of their goggles

    • bmsok@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’ve done training dives in man made quarries under zero visibility conditions. There’s no way in hell I’d go into an actual cave under those conditions.

      It was bad enough when you’d almost run into a purposefully placed sculpture or bathtub in that flooded quarry.

      You had to do a scavenger hunt to find stuff to pass your training and it was super disorienting.

      I don’t know if PADI still does that sort of thing or if it was unique to my training center conditions but it was wild.

      I’ll stick to open water, thank you very much.

      • subtext@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        Oh those sorts of training conditions absolutely still exist. I got my rescue diving certification in an old quarry much like what you said. Really helps make you appreciate the conditions when out in the Caribbean and you have >100 ft of visibility in every direction.

        • bmsok@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Oh, I totally agree with you. It’s literally like night and day. You just transported me from those murky depths to those absolutely crystal clear Caribbean waters… So many fun memories in every condition.

    • figjam@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Caves are also not uniformly shaped, the way you go in could look a lot different on the way out.

  • Cringe2793@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    59
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    There’s nothing in this cave worth dying for

    That’s precisely what someone would say if there’s stuff worth dying for in there.

  • TheFriar@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    There’s nothing in this cave worth dying for

    There’s nothing outside it to live for. Show me the damn cave

  • picnic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    1 year ago

    But what if there really is something valuable, wouldn’t they put a sign just like this to prevent people walzing in?

    • bbbbbbbbbbb@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      You have to ignore many different warnings to even get to the area youre not supposed to be in! First and foremost, humans by design do not breathe water, therefore we have no reason to be under water.

      • Daft_ish@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        humans by design do not breathe water

        I don’t know how you can just go around making claims like this without a source. I’ll give you 10 minutes to provide me five peer reviewed research papers that assert your claim.

  • hakunawazo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    1 year ago

    Okay, they almost had me convinced. But the second to last sentence is just crying out for a treasure.

    • Mamertine@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s a good point. If I was hiding treasure in an underwater cave, I’d wanta sign like this at the entrance. It’d keep it out most of those medeling kids.

  • Beelzebob@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I believe this is one of the caves at Ginnie Springs. If so, I know a guy who died in there. Cave diving is no joke.

  • Skipper_the_Eyechild@lemmings.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    1 year ago

    Farther is the correct word, and has been confused with further for so long (over a hundred years), that they both mean exactly the same thing nowadays, so not sure why people are taking issues with it.

    Unless I’m missing something?

    • Subverb@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t see any comments of people taking issue with it. But words do mean things, and some people like to speak with precision.

      • whosdadog@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Words apparently don’t mean things anymore, Merriam Webster added a new definition for “literally” this year

        • Pipoca@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          1 year ago

          Merriam Webster is a descriptive dictionary. They don’t tell you how words “should” be used, they say how words are used.

          Using literally as an intensifier goes back literal centuries. The earliest written citation we’ve found of that usage goes back to 1769. It can be found everywhere from Dickens to Brontë.

          It’s also hardly the first word to go on a similar path towards becoming an intensifier. Very originally meant “genuine”, really meant “in fact”, absolutely meant “completely”, etc.

          But who complains about sentences like “I was really bored to death”, or “I was absolutely rooted to the ground”? Does saying “it’s very cold” just mean “it is a genuine fact that it is cold”?

          Literally still means what it means. You can’t use literally to mean “yellow”, for example. People aren’t generally confused when they come across the word.

        • Bgugi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          Language is a complex and nuanced subject, but it often helps to remember that “all words are made up.”

          Idioms and hyperbole are both used extensively in language to imbue feeling to statements, most people would roll their eyes at someone who interjects with a “there’s no actual evidence that boredom can be lethal” or a “I highly doubt that vendor would accept human limbs as payment,” but somehow lots of people stan for “literal” snobbery.

          If it makes you feel any better, you can think of it as a homophone from the same root: “in a manner related to literature,” speaking to artistic yet inexact use of words in a sentence.

        • Skipper_the_Eyechild@lemmings.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Also… I’m all for the language evolving and words changing their meaning over time, as they’ve always done, but that one is crazy. Hopefully common use will, in time, fix that and get that new definition changed… but ehh, I don’t hold much hope.

          Bring on the AI overlords? Reading the Polity (Sci Fi) series at the moment, and it really doesn’t seem like a bad option!

        • MrSqueezles@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          They also added a new definition for “very” to mean something other than, “factually”, or, “verifiably”.

      • Skipper_the_Eyechild@lemmings.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The title correcting it to further is what caught my attention, but no, I’m not seeing people taking huge issue with it either.

        And there’s nothing wrong with being correct, I like to be eloquent too.

        I was just saying farther is just as correct as further, and found it interesting is all. They may have been misused a hundred years ago, but not for a long long time, they have identical meanings nowadays!