▲ 233 ▼ TIL how tall buildings are (thelemmy.club) submitted 9 months ago by ooli3@sopuli.xyz to c/til@lemmy.ca 65 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] Eheran@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago* (7 children) Is the picture to scale in both height and width? permalink fedilink source hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Nanook@lemmy.zip -3 points 9 months ago (6 children) It’s missing 4K, better would be if the buildings were half their current size permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] schnokobaer@feddit.org 4 points 9 months ago (3 children) Those buildings are at least approximately to scale as those 828 meters fit in the top 4611 meters roughly 5 times. If you made them half as tall it would be all wrong. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Nanook@lemmy.zip 0 points 9 months ago (2 children) But you’re only seeing half the mountain. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] schnokobaer@feddit.org 1 point 9 months ago (1 child) So? That's still obviously accounted for in the scale of the buildings. The buildings are roughly 1/10 of the whole mountain but since only half of the mountain is in frame they are 1/5 of what is in view. It's correct. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Nanook@lemmy.zip 0 points 9 months ago Except the bottom half of the mountain isn’t in the picture. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Eheran@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago (1 child) Hm? Bottom of the picture is at 4000 m above sea level? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Nanook@lemmy.zip 0 points 9 months ago Yep permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Nanook@lemmy.zip -3 points 9 months ago (6 children) It’s missing 4K, better would be if the buildings were half their current size permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] schnokobaer@feddit.org 4 points 9 months ago (3 children) Those buildings are at least approximately to scale as those 828 meters fit in the top 4611 meters roughly 5 times. If you made them half as tall it would be all wrong. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Nanook@lemmy.zip 0 points 9 months ago (2 children) But you’re only seeing half the mountain. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] schnokobaer@feddit.org 1 point 9 months ago (1 child) So? That's still obviously accounted for in the scale of the buildings. The buildings are roughly 1/10 of the whole mountain but since only half of the mountain is in frame they are 1/5 of what is in view. It's correct. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Nanook@lemmy.zip 0 points 9 months ago Except the bottom half of the mountain isn’t in the picture. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Eheran@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago (1 child) Hm? Bottom of the picture is at 4000 m above sea level? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Nanook@lemmy.zip 0 points 9 months ago Yep permalink fedilink source parent
[–] schnokobaer@feddit.org 4 points 9 months ago (3 children) Those buildings are at least approximately to scale as those 828 meters fit in the top 4611 meters roughly 5 times. If you made them half as tall it would be all wrong. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Nanook@lemmy.zip 0 points 9 months ago (2 children) But you’re only seeing half the mountain. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] schnokobaer@feddit.org 1 point 9 months ago (1 child) So? That's still obviously accounted for in the scale of the buildings. The buildings are roughly 1/10 of the whole mountain but since only half of the mountain is in frame they are 1/5 of what is in view. It's correct. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Nanook@lemmy.zip 0 points 9 months ago Except the bottom half of the mountain isn’t in the picture. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Nanook@lemmy.zip 0 points 9 months ago (2 children) But you’re only seeing half the mountain. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] schnokobaer@feddit.org 1 point 9 months ago (1 child) So? That's still obviously accounted for in the scale of the buildings. The buildings are roughly 1/10 of the whole mountain but since only half of the mountain is in frame they are 1/5 of what is in view. It's correct. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Nanook@lemmy.zip 0 points 9 months ago Except the bottom half of the mountain isn’t in the picture. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] schnokobaer@feddit.org 1 point 9 months ago (1 child) So? That's still obviously accounted for in the scale of the buildings. The buildings are roughly 1/10 of the whole mountain but since only half of the mountain is in frame they are 1/5 of what is in view. It's correct. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Nanook@lemmy.zip 0 points 9 months ago Except the bottom half of the mountain isn’t in the picture. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Nanook@lemmy.zip 0 points 9 months ago Except the bottom half of the mountain isn’t in the picture. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Eheran@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago (1 child) Hm? Bottom of the picture is at 4000 m above sea level? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Nanook@lemmy.zip 0 points 9 months ago Yep permalink fedilink source parent