| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| | <!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~--> | | <!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~--> |
| − | Started edit today - mostly easy and self explanatory although suspect someone will explain Moore's law better than I can. Have, unfortunately got to work, but hopefully start and template is good.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | I believe that the rightmost section (that increases faster than Moore's Law) should be labeled as the "Kardashian Zone"
| |
| − |
| |
| − | [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.197|141.101.99.197]] 13:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Not sure why the top-right line (above which is "Can't sleep, too busy sifting through photos to find the best ones") slants down as the number-of-photos-taken-per-day increases. Surely if the amount of time you spend sorting through photos is steady, the amount of sleep you lose due to sorting photos should be steady, too (assuming no other factors).
| |
| − | :I believe this is in reference to the decreasing threshold at which picture sorting will become all-consuming, since there would be more to sort. But yes, based on the axis label, this does seem a bit odd.
| |
| − | [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.51|162.158.74.51]] 23:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
| |
| − | :Randall is actually correct here. sleep time = 24 hours - other time - photo taking time - photo sorting time, which rearranges to: sorting time = C - taking time, i.e. the negatively sloped line you see on the graph (since we're not given the axes scales). Or put it another way, let's say you need 8 hours of sleep. Then if you extend the top-right line all the way to both axes, the top-left corner would be (0, 16), the bottom-right corner (16, 0), and the midpoint (8, 8). [[Special:Contributions/172.68.133.210|172.68.133.210]] 07:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Taking photos uses up time in the day, therefore as you take more and more photos per day you naturally have less time left over to sort the photos [[Special:Contributions/162.158.89.229|162.158.89.229]] 08:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | This comic is in direct contrast to the days of past when cameras used film, and people viewed pictures behind sticky plastic in photo albums. The idea, as I remember, was to take only what you thought were the best pictures and to keep checking the number on your camera to see how many pictures were left (24?). These days, of course, you take as many pictures as your phone will hold, then... well, view comic above ;)
| |
| − | :I've recently sorted through a box of pictures from my wife's high school days that conflicts with this. Just the media and delay were different. If you had as much film as you wanted, or about 200 of those disposable cameras (and enough money to buy that), you can generate enough pictures to make it time-prohibitive to sort. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.51|162.158.74.51]] 17:18, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The lines in the middle section really should extend at least into the bottom section and overlap -- not only would you not be able to find photos in the lower right, but your collection would also be growing faster than Moore's law.
| |
| − | [[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.10|162.158.255.10]] 23:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | We need a category for comics that mention Moore's Law. Seems to be a minor recurring concept. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.82|108.162.249.82]] 07:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Why does this explanation assume everything refers to Randall personally? Usually Exkcd only does that when there's an "I" in the text somewhere, as I understand it.[[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 11:47, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
| |
