theywilleatthestars@lemmy.world to Ask Science@lemmy.worldEnglish · 2 months agoHow long will the Great Lakes last?message-squaremessage-square16fedilinkarrow-up132arrow-down11
arrow-up131arrow-down1message-squareHow long will the Great Lakes last?theywilleatthestars@lemmy.world to Ask Science@lemmy.worldEnglish · 2 months agomessage-square16fedilink
minus-squarenickwitha_k (he/him)@lemmy.sdf.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up13arrow-down8·2 months agoUntil they become the Alright Lakes.
minus-squarenis@feddit.dklinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up4arrow-down1·2 months agoThis is askscience. We need a standardized scale for this. Great should obviosly be near the top. But is Ok above or below Alright?
minus-squarenickwitha_k (he/him)@lemmy.sdf.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up4arrow-down2·2 months agoPoint taken. I’d suggest something along the lines of this scale: great > good > alright > ok > adequate > meh > fair > subpar > unfortunate > abysmal
minus-square...m...linkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2arrow-down1·edit-22 months agofeeble < 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…
Until they become the Alright Lakes.
This is askscience. We need a standardized scale for this.
Great should obviosly be near the top. But is Ok above or below Alright?
Point taken. I’d suggest something along the lines of this scale:
great > good > alright > ok > adequate > meh > fair > subpar > unfortunate > abysmal
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…