Mike Sowden
@mikeachim.bsky.social
Writer (on science, travel & curiosity), Yorkshireman, tedious enthusiast, professional overthinker, Megathreader. Now: Scotland.
Writes Everything Is Amazing: https://everythingisamazing.substack.com/
Writes Everything Is Amazing: https://everythingisamazing.substack.com/
All credit due to @rebeccasolnit.bsky.social and the book the quote is from, which I will never tire of rereading.
November 5, 2025 at 2:55 PM
All credit due to @rebeccasolnit.bsky.social and the book the quote is from, which I will never tire of rereading.
This vast descent doesn’t happen all at once, though.
It’s 1000km before this current of cold water reaches its maximum depth, & pools to form one of the densest concentrations of seawater on the planet, 4.8km below the ocean surface.
Even so, it's a COLOSSAL piece of underwater geography...
8/
It’s 1000km before this current of cold water reaches its maximum depth, & pools to form one of the densest concentrations of seawater on the planet, 4.8km below the ocean surface.
Even so, it's a COLOSSAL piece of underwater geography...
8/
November 3, 2025 at 11:37 AM
This vast descent doesn’t happen all at once, though.
It’s 1000km before this current of cold water reaches its maximum depth, & pools to form one of the densest concentrations of seawater on the planet, 4.8km below the ocean surface.
Even so, it's a COLOSSAL piece of underwater geography...
8/
It’s 1000km before this current of cold water reaches its maximum depth, & pools to form one of the densest concentrations of seawater on the planet, 4.8km below the ocean surface.
Even so, it's a COLOSSAL piece of underwater geography...
8/
...and as you can see, it has a combined plunge & downslope that's 11,500 feet, or almost two miles, high.
Here's that Burj Khalifa photo again.
Now please imagine *four* of these, stacked on top of each other, plus an extra few hundred metres on top.
BLIMEY.
7/
Here's that Burj Khalifa photo again.
Now please imagine *four* of these, stacked on top of each other, plus an extra few hundred metres on top.
BLIMEY.
7/
November 3, 2025 at 11:31 AM
...and as you can see, it has a combined plunge & downslope that's 11,500 feet, or almost two miles, high.
Here's that Burj Khalifa photo again.
Now please imagine *four* of these, stacked on top of each other, plus an extra few hundred metres on top.
BLIMEY.
7/
Here's that Burj Khalifa photo again.
Now please imagine *four* of these, stacked on top of each other, plus an extra few hundred metres on top.
BLIMEY.
7/
Since this current of incoming water & melting ice is fiercely cold, it sinks below the warmer waters & descends to the sea-bed - which, halfway down the strait, plunges over a cliff.
Here’s an illustration of it, courtesy of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
5/
Here’s an illustration of it, courtesy of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
5/
November 3, 2025 at 11:22 AM
Since this current of incoming water & melting ice is fiercely cold, it sinks below the warmer waters & descends to the sea-bed - which, halfway down the strait, plunges over a cliff.
Here’s an illustration of it, courtesy of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
5/
Here’s an illustration of it, courtesy of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
5/
Look at this stretch of ocean between Greenland & Iceland, on NatGeo's 1968 map of the sea floor based on the work of Marie Tharp and Bruce Heezen. (Vertical scale is exaggerated.)
Look at the almost-meeting continental margins of Iceland & Greenland, save for that narrow channel between them.
3/
Look at the almost-meeting continental margins of Iceland & Greenland, save for that narrow channel between them.
3/
November 3, 2025 at 11:16 AM
Look at this stretch of ocean between Greenland & Iceland, on NatGeo's 1968 map of the sea floor based on the work of Marie Tharp and Bruce Heezen. (Vertical scale is exaggerated.)
Look at the almost-meeting continental margins of Iceland & Greenland, save for that narrow channel between them.
3/
Look at the almost-meeting continental margins of Iceland & Greenland, save for that narrow channel between them.
3/
Let's start on top of the tallest building in the world.
This photo is from the Burj Khalifa skyscraper in Dubai. At 829.8 metres or just over half a mile high, it’s both the world’s tallest building and its tallest structure, at roughly the height of Angel Falls.
Hold this view in your mind.
2/
This photo is from the Burj Khalifa skyscraper in Dubai. At 829.8 metres or just over half a mile high, it’s both the world’s tallest building and its tallest structure, at roughly the height of Angel Falls.
Hold this view in your mind.
2/
November 3, 2025 at 11:10 AM
Let's start on top of the tallest building in the world.
This photo is from the Burj Khalifa skyscraper in Dubai. At 829.8 metres or just over half a mile high, it’s both the world’s tallest building and its tallest structure, at roughly the height of Angel Falls.
Hold this view in your mind.
2/
This photo is from the Burj Khalifa skyscraper in Dubai. At 829.8 metres or just over half a mile high, it’s both the world’s tallest building and its tallest structure, at roughly the height of Angel Falls.
Hold this view in your mind.
2/
This is Angel Falls in Venezuela, with its 807-metre sheer plunge - the tallest waterfall on our planet.
Except - it isn't. There's one that's bigger. MUCH bigger. And when I learned about it this week, my mind was fully blown.
OK. Buckle up! (Especially if you don't have a head for heights.)
1/
Except - it isn't. There's one that's bigger. MUCH bigger. And when I learned about it this week, my mind was fully blown.
OK. Buckle up! (Especially if you don't have a head for heights.)
1/
November 3, 2025 at 11:07 AM
This is Angel Falls in Venezuela, with its 807-metre sheer plunge - the tallest waterfall on our planet.
Except - it isn't. There's one that's bigger. MUCH bigger. And when I learned about it this week, my mind was fully blown.
OK. Buckle up! (Especially if you don't have a head for heights.)
1/
Except - it isn't. There's one that's bigger. MUCH bigger. And when I learned about it this week, my mind was fully blown.
OK. Buckle up! (Especially if you don't have a head for heights.)
1/
"Unlike cynicism, hopefulness is hard-earned, makes demands upon us, & can often feel like the most indefensible and lonely place on Earth. Hopefulness is not a neutral position - it is adversarial. It is the warrior emotion that can lay waste to cynicism."
- Nick Cave to Stephen Colbert, Aug. 2024.
- Nick Cave to Stephen Colbert, Aug. 2024.
November 2, 2025 at 11:15 PM
"Unlike cynicism, hopefulness is hard-earned, makes demands upon us, & can often feel like the most indefensible and lonely place on Earth. Hopefulness is not a neutral position - it is adversarial. It is the warrior emotion that can lay waste to cynicism."
- Nick Cave to Stephen Colbert, Aug. 2024.
- Nick Cave to Stephen Colbert, Aug. 2024.
You don’t get naturalists like the Very Reverend William Buckland (1784-1856) any more.
At least, I certainly hope not.
(Via everythingisamazing.substack.com/p/the-fun-is...)
At least, I certainly hope not.
(Via everythingisamazing.substack.com/p/the-fun-is...)
November 2, 2025 at 10:34 PM
You don’t get naturalists like the Very Reverend William Buckland (1784-1856) any more.
At least, I certainly hope not.
(Via everythingisamazing.substack.com/p/the-fun-is...)
At least, I certainly hope not.
(Via everythingisamazing.substack.com/p/the-fun-is...)
Hi everyone, here is my new conspiracy theory.
October 31, 2025 at 12:56 PM
Hi everyone, here is my new conspiracy theory.
"Even experienced Wikipedians lose their heads & devote every waking moment to edit warring over the most trivial thing...debating topics of no practical value, wrestling over questions whose answers hold no practical consequence. This page documents our lamest examples."
What's not to love?
8/
What's not to love?
8/
October 29, 2025 at 4:52 PM
"Even experienced Wikipedians lose their heads & devote every waking moment to edit warring over the most trivial thing...debating topics of no practical value, wrestling over questions whose answers hold no practical consequence. This page documents our lamest examples."
What's not to love?
8/
What's not to love?
8/
But it's so, so great that we can all *see* it.
A century back, when paper encyclopedias were the repositories of general knowledge, we couldn't see the editing-wars (where they existed).
Which is a shame, because Wikipedia's are glorious fun to read!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...
7/
A century back, when paper encyclopedias were the repositories of general knowledge, we couldn't see the editing-wars (where they existed).
Which is a shame, because Wikipedia's are glorious fun to read!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...
7/
October 29, 2025 at 4:50 PM
But it's so, so great that we can all *see* it.
A century back, when paper encyclopedias were the repositories of general knowledge, we couldn't see the editing-wars (where they existed).
Which is a shame, because Wikipedia's are glorious fun to read!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...
7/
A century back, when paper encyclopedias were the repositories of general knowledge, we couldn't see the editing-wars (where they existed).
Which is a shame, because Wikipedia's are glorious fun to read!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...
7/
There are over 7 million articles on Wikipedia - so it's a testament to how hardworking its editors are that hoaxes are rare.
But the sneakiest can go under the radar for years!
To Wikipedia's credit, it has a page for all known pranks that fooled its editors:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...
6/
But the sneakiest can go under the radar for years!
To Wikipedia's credit, it has a page for all known pranks that fooled its editors:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...
6/
October 29, 2025 at 4:44 PM
There are over 7 million articles on Wikipedia - so it's a testament to how hardworking its editors are that hoaxes are rare.
But the sneakiest can go under the radar for years!
To Wikipedia's credit, it has a page for all known pranks that fooled its editors:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...
6/
But the sneakiest can go under the radar for years!
To Wikipedia's credit, it has a page for all known pranks that fooled its editors:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...
6/
He reported in: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...
A hoax, then. A huge one: 4,200 words. Convincing as all hell!
Which is why it'd evaded detection for *5 years*.
5/
A hoax, then. A huge one: 4,200 words. Convincing as all hell!
Which is why it'd evaded detection for *5 years*.
5/
October 29, 2025 at 4:38 PM
He reported in: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...
A hoax, then. A huge one: 4,200 words. Convincing as all hell!
Which is why it'd evaded detection for *5 years*.
5/
A hoax, then. A huge one: 4,200 words. Convincing as all hell!
Which is why it'd evaded detection for *5 years*.
5/
In late 2012, a Wikipedia editor called ShelfSkewed (I'm presuming that's a pseudonym) started investigating the sources listed at the bottom of the article on that battle.
He found many of the links led him back to one place: the article he was editing. A perfect loop.
Ruh-roh!
4/
He found many of the links led him back to one place: the article he was editing. A perfect loop.
Ruh-roh!
4/
October 29, 2025 at 4:35 PM
In late 2012, a Wikipedia editor called ShelfSkewed (I'm presuming that's a pseudonym) started investigating the sources listed at the bottom of the article on that battle.
He found many of the links led him back to one place: the article he was editing. A perfect loop.
Ruh-roh!
4/
He found many of the links led him back to one place: the article he was editing. A perfect loop.
Ruh-roh!
4/
OK. Have you heard of the Bicholim conflict?
It's an obscure 17th-Century war that raged between the Portuguese rulers of Goa, western India, and the neighbouring Maratha Empire.
Don't look for it on Wikipedia, though. It's not there.
At least, *now* it isn't.
3/
It's an obscure 17th-Century war that raged between the Portuguese rulers of Goa, western India, and the neighbouring Maratha Empire.
Don't look for it on Wikipedia, though. It's not there.
At least, *now* it isn't.
3/
October 29, 2025 at 4:25 PM
OK. Have you heard of the Bicholim conflict?
It's an obscure 17th-Century war that raged between the Portuguese rulers of Goa, western India, and the neighbouring Maratha Empire.
Don't look for it on Wikipedia, though. It's not there.
At least, *now* it isn't.
3/
It's an obscure 17th-Century war that raged between the Portuguese rulers of Goa, western India, and the neighbouring Maratha Empire.
Don't look for it on Wikipedia, though. It's not there.
At least, *now* it isn't.
3/
I'm old enough to remember t'days before t'Internet (black & white, everyone walked really fast, piano music etc) so I can emphatically say I love Wikipedia.
An encyclopedia edited by nearly 200,000 people - and it's *that* readable? (And well-organised?)
I'm a fan! But...
2/
An encyclopedia edited by nearly 200,000 people - and it's *that* readable? (And well-organised?)
I'm a fan! But...
2/
October 29, 2025 at 4:23 PM
I'm old enough to remember t'days before t'Internet (black & white, everyone walked really fast, piano music etc) so I can emphatically say I love Wikipedia.
An encyclopedia edited by nearly 200,000 people - and it's *that* readable? (And well-organised?)
I'm a fan! But...
2/
An encyclopedia edited by nearly 200,000 people - and it's *that* readable? (And well-organised?)
I'm a fan! But...
2/
Following Jemima's example, I asked it too, and...
This is impressively definitive! Either you believe Grok and Wikipedia is more reliable - or you don’t believe Grok, which is the editor of Grokipedia, and have to conclude in a whole other way that Wikipedia is more reliable!
Ludicrous.
This is impressively definitive! Either you believe Grok and Wikipedia is more reliable - or you don’t believe Grok, which is the editor of Grokipedia, and have to conclude in a whole other way that Wikipedia is more reliable!
Ludicrous.
October 29, 2025 at 1:25 PM
Following Jemima's example, I asked it too, and...
This is impressively definitive! Either you believe Grok and Wikipedia is more reliable - or you don’t believe Grok, which is the editor of Grokipedia, and have to conclude in a whole other way that Wikipedia is more reliable!
Ludicrous.
This is impressively definitive! Either you believe Grok and Wikipedia is more reliable - or you don’t believe Grok, which is the editor of Grokipedia, and have to conclude in a whole other way that Wikipedia is more reliable!
Ludicrous.
Ha! This is what I got:
October 29, 2025 at 12:33 PM
Ha! This is what I got:
Yup, I'm getting it too. And when this wording disappears - especially "Wikipedia, despite it flaws, mandates balanced viewpoints" - because Musk orders it, that's further proof his entire ecosystem of nonsense can't be trusted.
October 29, 2025 at 12:29 PM
Yup, I'm getting it too. And when this wording disappears - especially "Wikipedia, despite it flaws, mandates balanced viewpoints" - because Musk orders it, that's further proof his entire ecosystem of nonsense can't be trusted.
To anyone claiming that science is "boring", I would point them towards this award-winning study from 1939 showing that repeatedly exploding paper bags next to a cat that was standing on the back of a cow caused that cow to produce less milk than normal:
academic.oup.com/jas/article-...
1/
academic.oup.com/jas/article-...
1/
October 26, 2025 at 5:18 PM
To anyone claiming that science is "boring", I would point them towards this award-winning study from 1939 showing that repeatedly exploding paper bags next to a cat that was standing on the back of a cow caused that cow to produce less milk than normal:
academic.oup.com/jas/article-...
1/
academic.oup.com/jas/article-...
1/
In all seriousness, I know building underground makes sense in some situations! (I was chatting to @philplait.bsky.social a while back about why the moonbase in 'For All Mankind' is *above* ground where its occupants would be cooked by radiation. Still seems weird?)
But - not *this*, guys. Surely.
But - not *this*, guys. Surely.
October 23, 2025 at 1:12 PM
In all seriousness, I know building underground makes sense in some situations! (I was chatting to @philplait.bsky.social a while back about why the moonbase in 'For All Mankind' is *above* ground where its occupants would be cooked by radiation. Still seems weird?)
But - not *this*, guys. Surely.
But - not *this*, guys. Surely.
SOMETHING SOMETHING TORMENT NEXUS, GUYS.
October 23, 2025 at 1:02 PM
SOMETHING SOMETHING TORMENT NEXUS, GUYS.
@sketchplanations.bsky.social has a terrific illustration of this: the Emotional Hot Potato Effect! sketchplanations.com/emotional-ho...
October 23, 2025 at 11:36 AM
@sketchplanations.bsky.social has a terrific illustration of this: the Emotional Hot Potato Effect! sketchplanations.com/emotional-ho...
ME TO MY ARTISTIC FRIEND ANNA BRONES: oh hey Anna, any chance I could get a testimonial from you about my newsletter
ANNA: yeah sure
*email arrives*
ME: uh
ANNA: yeah sure
*email arrives*
ME: uh
October 21, 2025 at 6:06 PM
ME TO MY ARTISTIC FRIEND ANNA BRONES: oh hey Anna, any chance I could get a testimonial from you about my newsletter
ANNA: yeah sure
*email arrives*
ME: uh
ANNA: yeah sure
*email arrives*
ME: uh