From a New York Times article in 1901.
Posted Sep 26, 2020, 5:27 AM UTC
53819
This is aged like wine, wrong sub. This sub is for wrong predictions, not right ones
38
Yeah, I realize now that I probably should have posted it elsewhere. I just got really excited finding it
11
This post has no relevance to the sub
24
u/Learningle has provided this detailed explanation:
This is a new york times article I found from November 23 1901. It details the danger of Icebergs drifting southward to Atlantic Shipping. 11 years later the Historical and tragic sinking of the Titanic was caused by an Iceberg.
Is this explanation a genuine attempt at providing additional info or context? If it is please upvote this comment, otherwise downvote it.
1†
This is a new york times article I found from November 23 1901. It details the danger of Icebergs drifting southward to Atlantic Shipping. 11 years later the Historical and tragic sinking of the Titanic was caused by an Iceberg.
-7
Off the coast of Newfoundland which the article is referring to.
-5
Right but if anything it aged like wine because it's saying it's a danger. It would have aged like milk if they were saying they drifted down but posed no threat.
6
[removed]
1
[removed]
1
[removed]
1
[removed]
1
Everyone in the comments say this actually aged like wine. It didn't. This article was warning about the dangers of icebergs and people ignored it, therefore making it age poorly because a tragic accident happened. It could have been prevented, the knowledge was there, just ignored.
-11
If it happened today they'd blame global warming...
2
It’s not aged like milk. the newspaper that says something like “North Star Line unveils the titanic, the worlds first unsinkable ship” is aged like milk. This newspaper is dead-nuts on.
Edit: I don’t mean to imply you are saying it belongs in aged like milk. Just saying it’s not for here. Maybe a r/wellthatsucks.
2
Maybe more of a r/interesting post
[deleted]
You should cross post to r/karmawhore
[deleted]
I feel it'd be more agedlikemilk-ish if the article was about how the icebergs won't be a danger.
Agree, this aged perfectly. It turned out to be completely accurate
Yeah...ten and a half years later.
Sorry, I was just trying to point out the general shift in the amount of icebergs in the liners paths. I thought that 11 years isn't a lot of time when discussing the movement of icebergs. Nevertheless, I just thought the article was ominous and worth sharing.