explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:3049: Incoming Asteroid

2025-02-13T11:04:58Z

162.158.134.90: Missing one power

Asteroids are surprisingly destructive even at small sizes - I remember reading somewhere that the Armageddon movie asteroid was supposed to be "the size of Arlington, Texas", but that it sounded too small so they changed it to "the size of Texas" which is a drastic size increase and also proportionally far more deadly. For scale, Arlington is 250 square km and Texas is 700 000 square km. The Chixulub asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs was between 10 and 15 km across. If it was a perfect circle, it would have an area of between 79 and 176 sq km. Arlington would be 18 km across, still within "species" range, and Texas would be 944 km across, clearly in "new moon" territory. But it _sounds_ much cooler! [[User:Zakator|Zakator]] ([[User talk:Zakator|talk]]) 22:32, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
:And that's for asteroids with normal speed (for asteroid, which is still kinda fast). The level of danger asteroid means is proportional to kinetic energy, meaning proportional to mass and SQUARE of speed, so if it's faster, it gets to extinction level even when small ... -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 23:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
:: "for asteroids with normal speed" - which is generally orbital velocity. If much faster, it would have left the solar system by now. If much slower, it has fallen into the Sun already. All objects (even Teslas) at a given distance soon have similar velocities. --[[User:PRR|PRR]] ([[User talk:PRR|talk]]) 00:04, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
::: It could be going at ''a'' speed (similar to Earth, give or take, for the sake of being on an Earth-incident orbit) and yet have such different effects. If basically following the Earth (or leading it), it'll be relatively gentle, at least before you start considering the Earth's (and the asteroid's, in the event it's significantly large) gravity well pulling it. Well, 'gentle' in comparison to one doing the 'same speed' but in the anti-orbit, for a full head-on impact. Course, that's why we need to think of velocities, and in particular the relative ones. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.241.37|172.71.241.37]] 01:31, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
:::Considering just two-body physics... Escape speed for the Sun at the distance of Earth's orbit is 42 km/s, so that's the upper limit anything is likely to be going (otherwise it's just got one shot at us). That would be something falling towards the Sun from a very large distance. If the asteroid is moving in the opposite direction as Earth, that gets added to Earth's orbital speed of 30 km/s, for a total of 72 km/s. On the other hand, Earth has an escape speed of 11 km/s at the surface, so that's the lower bound for an impact. A 6.5x factor on speed is about a 40x factor on impact energy. Which, I'm not sure exactly how that would scale devastation, but ... I'll take the low end for anything big, thanks. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.111.22|172.70.111.22]] 14:18, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
::::The upper limit is actually someting in the range of 500-600 km/s - for an interstellar object... That'd be an astronomically huge bad luck! Or should we consider an intergalactic rogue planet... -- [[User:Malgond|Malgond]] ([[User talk:Malgond|talk]]) 23:28, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
::::: ''ORRRR...'' we could go for getting crushed between ''two'' rogue planets moving at relativistic speeds in opposite directions! :-) [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 01:33, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

The 1m danger makes me think of the meteor impact that was caught on a home security camera last July in Prince Edward Island. But the Sky & Telescope article https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-news/hear-the-first-ever-recording-of-a-meteorite-slamming-into-the-ground/ says that it would have been only a 6-7 cm across. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 00:42, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

The sizes in the explanation are out of sync with the image. Has Randall updated it, or may it be location dependent? ~~Guest~~ 07:12, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
:I saw the comic before any explanation was put up and it was the same as it is now, all exactly powers of 10. But the labels aren't exactly at those spots, so people are probably estimating the exact point where the labels are at, though my interpretation would be that Randall meant for the labels to be attached to ranges rather than points. [[User:Tharkon|Tharkon]] ([[User talk:Tharkon|talk]]) 11:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
::Same here, all powers of 10. I don't think it makes any sense at all to guess at where on the axis the labels are meant to be when the labels themselves give an explicit number. The labels should probably be the ranges, eg "1cm to 10cm", "10cm to 1m" and so on.[[User:Mazz0|Mazz0]] ([[User talk:Mazz0|talk]]) 14:00, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
:::There are small markers between the labeled spots, so it's not unreasonable to estimate which marker the ellipsis points to. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 14:41, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

"Good news everyone! We were supposed to make a delivery to the planet Tweenis 12 but it's been completely destroyed!" [[Special:Contributions/162.158.94.203|162.158.94.203]] 11:24, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

It's not the first comic comparing our reaction to different scales of cosmic events, even though the asteroid "happiness level" does not peak like the supernova chart: https://xkcd.com/2878/ {{unsigned ip|172.69.195.172|21:14, 11 February 2025}}
:Indeed. This one peaks ''twice'', if taken at face value. ;) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.241.145|172.71.241.145]] 21:32, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I'd noted that technically, when it comes to "asteroid collides with Earth" vs. "Earth collides with asteroid", neither is correct. In a centre-of-mass reference frame, the two objects collide. This was removed as "pedantry", but it seems appropriate to me. Thoughts? [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 01:29, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
:I would say if a smaller asteroid hit Earth then yes it collides with Earth. If two similar planet sized object hit each other, then I would say they collided with each other, and if Earth hit Jupiter I would say Earth collided with Jupiter. This may not be physically correct, but it is how language and meaning works. So I would say it was correctly removed. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 11:44, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

:: Yet the logic is reversed when talking about vehicles on Earth. You would say "the car collided with the bicycle" and "the train collided with the car" (or the car got hit ''by'' the train). "{Bigger object} collided with {smaller object}" in this case. --[[User:StapleFreeBatteries|StapleFreeBatteries]] ([[User talk:StapleFreeBatteries|talk]]) 23:26, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
:::Annoyingly, the standard phrase tends to be "the bike was in collision with a car", with the implication of perhaps equal fault, if not switched round entirely. Yes, a cyclist ''can'' be the one who "hits the blameless car", or pedestrian steps into the side of the passing cyclist (or car, bus, lorry, etc, potentially), but it's more often the other way round, and the balance of sympathies (regardless of who most erred, to result in the incident) should probably be considered by who is most damaged (trickier in foot vs bike incident, one is initially struck by a lump of metal with spinning bits and various hard protusions, the other may then be struck by(/strikes) the ground). [[Special:Contributions/172.71.241.37|172.71.241.37]] 00:09, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

===missing===
1cm, 10, ''100'', 1m

Talk:3038: Uncanceled Units

2025-01-16T10:40:46Z

162.158.134.90:

DUDE I'M STILL IN SCHOOL RN, WHAT?
(also, the joke is that energy is power*time, so kWh is kJ/s... in an hour [[User:CalibansCreations|'''Caliban''']] ([[User talk:CalibansCreations|talk]]) 13:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I guess not every comic can be a winner. Talking about an appliance using a certain amount of kWH per day is clear and normal. Power gets billed by the kWh, not the Joule. While technically not wrong, wanting "cancel" a sub-part of the commonly-used energy unit kWh and leaving it in deliberately-obscured units most people are less familiar with is the sort of insanity I'd more expect from White Hat than Cueball. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.35.171|172.70.35.171]] 13:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:Maybe that is a meta-joke? To frame kWh/day as something crazy by giving that line to whitehat --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 13:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:There's a difference between instantaneous power draw, and the total "volume"(/area, really) of power over time. Though a fridge is "always on", it is still only irregularly at full-draw. But, to the power company (or to the gas company, who will generally give a kWh measure of 'energy taken from the network'), they don't (generally) care whether you used twice as many kW over half the time or half as many over twice the time, within any given total billing period, even if it affects what you think. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.163.46|172.70.163.46]] 14:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::Using joule as if it was an everyday unit of energy would be weird but I don't agree that watt is crazy. It's a normal unit of energy consumption that does mean something to people, e.g. 1000W microwave, 100W (incandescent) light bulb. Don't get me wrong kWh/day is also useful to translate it to your energy bill, but I do feel slightly uncomfortable every time I see that time divided by time :-) [[User:Mtcv|Mtcv]] ([[User talk:Mtcv|talk]]) 14:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:I don't think the complaint is that it's unclear, it's that Cueball/Randall instinctively wants units simplified - as they would be in a science context rather than a useful-for-normal-people's-everyday-needs context. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.183|108.162.238.183]] 02:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

This is especially funny with US units. My car needs about 5l/100km, or 0.05mm². Now I am wondering how many ft^(-2) my car does... --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 13:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
: You make a good point about the units (at least in one instance). Shouldn't the reduced units for fuel economy be inverse area? Effectively, it is a measure of the distance the vehicle could travel while consuming a column of fuel with a specific height and specific top (or bottom) surface area. Or, The better the fuel economy, the less the surface area that is necessary to move a specific distance. [[User:SammyChips|SammyChips]] ([[User talk:SammyChips|talk]]) 20:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::It depends on what the original unit is. In my country (Germany) we measure it in volume/distance, which would reduce to area. North American convention is in distance/volume which would reduce to inverse area. Good thing about distance/volume is that "high number = good". However I think outside of escaping from a nuclear disaster or in a zombie apocalypse it isn't a really helpful thing to know. Because how often do you know "I got x amount of fuel. Wonder how far I can get." But you will likely be in the situation where you quickly want to see "How much fuel do I need to get to place x which is y distance from here". --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 21:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::: how often do you know "I got x amount of fuel. Wonder how far I can get." Quite often, because the question I'm really asking is whether I can get where I'm going with some margin built in before I need to refuel my car. When I do refuel or recharge the car, I'll go to 100% of capacity. I just want to know whether I have to do that now or if I can wait and do it later because later would be more convenient. The only time I want the number the other way is when I'm buying a car and want to make it as efficient as possible. Once I have it, the amount of fuel I need isn't going to change.[[User:Yttrium|Yttrium]] ([[User talk:Yttrium|talk]]) 09:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Mhh... probably a question of what one is used to. If I need to go 400 km, and I know my car uses 5l/100km, I just multiply 4*5 to see that I need 20l, and will know if what I have is enough or not. But I guess with mpg you can do a just as easy calc: If my car gets 50mpg (roughly 5l/100km) and I have 5 gallons (roughly 20l), I can go 50*5=250 miles, which is roughly 400km. My nitpick is: My car, and I think all cars I ever drove just shows me a dial from empty to full. Knowing how much "full" is, I can estimate how much gas I have, while my GPS will tell me a pretty exact number of km I need to go. So if I am fuelling up on a monday morning (where gas tends to be more expensive in my area than on other times), or fuel up right before I get my next salary, I might just put in as much as I need right now. But yes, maybe/probably it is mostly a thing about habits and what you are used to. And might be more of an European issue, since fuel is basically free in North America in comparison. So I guess everyone just fuels up fully all the time, but has to be cautious to reach the next gas station when travelling through the more sparely-populated areas...--[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 10:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:: More usefully imagined as the front (or back) end of a horizontal column (or, twisting as it may, a pipeline) that traverses the journey made by the vehicle. As if (instantaneous variations excepted) you consume precisely the fuel that your vehicle passes 'through/around'. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.76.92|141.101.76.92]] 20:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::: Yeah. Maybe we should express fuel consumption in terms of the speed fuel needs to be drawn through a standard fuel line. [[User:SammyChips|SammyChips]] ([[User talk:SammyChips|talk]]) 21:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

fridge [[Special:Contributions/172.70.126.147|172.70.126.147]] 14:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

The late [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_J._C._MacKay Sir David MacKay] wrote an excellent book, [http://www.withouthotair.com/ Sustainable Energy – without the hot air] (which is available free online).
On [http://www.withouthotair.com/c2/page_24.shtml this page] he talks about the units he uses in the book: kWh for energy ("one unit") and kWh/day for power - becuase it's simple for lay-people to understand - how many units does this appliance use per day.
It's a good book if any of you are interested in sustainable energy (although it was written in 2008, so some bits might be out of date by now) {{unsigned ip|172.70.85.33|14:33, 15 January 2025}}

If anyone's curious, I found an online gallons per square foot calculator: https://www.omnicalculator.com/construction/gallons-per-square-foot [[Special:Contributions/172.71.223.6|172.71.223.6]] 15:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

The answer to Cueball's question is likely NO in the US and YES in the UK, due not just to gallon size but also fridge size (a model like that is a particularly large fridge, when I bought one 10 years ago going for the smallest available I had to modify my cabinet above the fridge as there wasn't one less than 6'8"- the fridge hole was 6' previous).[[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 16:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I disagree with this comic, and I think the final paragraph in the explanation about Hubble's constant best explains why. [[User:Beanie|Beanie]] [[User talk:Beanie|talk]] 15:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:It doesn't make any sense to 'disagree' with an observation.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.245|141.101.98.245]] 09:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Technically, kWh should be written as kW⋅h or kW h, because it literally means "kilowatts multiplied by one hour", not "kilowatts per hour" as many people assume. However, almost nobody writes it correctly. (kW/h is sometimes also seen, but egregiously incorrect.) Also, particularly now that electric vehicles are becoming more popular, people often get confused between kW and kW h. The car can charge at a peak or average rate expressed in kW, but energy billed by a charging service provider is expressed in kWh. People frequently either add or remove the "h" incorrectly because they don't understand the difference. In some places like India, a kilowatt-hour is simply referred to as a "unit" to avoid confusion. In my opinion, it was an enormous mistake to use kWh when we could be using mJ instead, which I think is probably something close to the point Randall may have been trying to make. Anyway, I wasn't sure if there was a place for any of this random trivia in the article itself, but feel free to use it. [[User:Equites|Equites]] ([[User talk:Equites|talk]]) 17:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Relevant XKCD… I mean relevant YouTube video: "Cursed units" 1 and 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkfIXUjkYqE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zg7xe8MkJHs [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 17:31, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

: Highly relevant, in fact. The first video referred to the kilowatt-hour as "cursed", which became a highly polarizing issue in the comments, something that was addressed at the beginning of part 2. Assuming these responses weren't cherry-picked, I get the impression that there are a lot of people on both sides of this. It seems like the same kind of thing we're seeing in this very comment section. [[User:ISaveXKCDpapers|ISaveXKCDpapers]] ([[User talk:ISaveXKCDpapers|talk]]) 18:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I always wonder why people here prefer liter/m^2 for the amount of rain. Where the same number as mm is way easier to imagine. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.50.99|172.68.50.99]] 18:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
: At first, I was wondering if you would have rather had it in microliters/mm^2, but you meant the column height of the rain, like inches are used in the US. Along the line of L/m^2, something like mL/cm^2 might be nice considering the density of water, although the value also would be different by a factor. [[User:SammyChips|SammyChips]] ([[User talk:SammyChips|talk]]) 20:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
: That's the neat thing about the metric system, they are trivially simple to convert. 1l/m² is exactly 1mm. The fact that the meteorology uses the former just stems from the fact that that's how they measure it. The catch the rain on an area of 1m² into a beaker that contains some volume which is measured in liters. What annoys me though, is that noone seems to be talking about how terribly inefficient the fridge in the comic is. Mine only needs a tenth of the one that Whitehat tries to sell, and that's not even particularly good. --21:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:: UK measurements, once it gets to weather reports/forecasts, tend to be in millimetres (or centimetres, where more for the layperson who don't need mm-resulution; or occasionally recast as 'old money' inches, with ''really'' bad rain events summarised in relation to whole feet), which is implicitly the depth to which ''any'' area would be filled (in a case where large catchment + funnelling valley situation is concerned, suffering from the run-off, might be ''reported'' as "equivalent to ''N'' feet of rain", down where the bad effects get concentrated, but this is not a meteorological measure as such).
:: Not sure I've ever seen volume/area as an end-result figure (might be relevent as an intermediate for measurement/calculation, especially when discussing the funelling effects of the given local geography), but of course it's trivially relatable.
:: Density of water would only figure in from replacing litres with kilogrammes (litres are 1/1000th of metres³ and any m² is 10,000 times the cm² (or millilitre), so a factor of 10 between L/m² and mL/cm²; divide L to mL by 1000, times m² to cm² by 10,000, => 10x) but I always find it useful to know that three 2L bottles of pop are (very close to, going by the nominal water content alone) 6kg... makes me feel better about lugging the weekly shopping home, where these might be the single most significant part of the weight. More usefully than cross-converting into length-cubed measure. ;) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.69|141.101.98.69]] 21:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Isn't the point that KwH/day can be simplified to Watts (an average perhaps, but still) {{unsigned ip|162.158.41.72|21:24, 15 January 2025}}
: Yes, the joke seems pretty clearly about watts or kilowatts, not megajoules. Using megajoules doesn't result in any units being canceled; the denominator remains "/day". [[User:BatmanAoD|BatmanAoD]] ([[User talk:BatmanAoD|talk]]) 23:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

If the argument for kWh/day is that it's easy for the consumer to understand how it will affect their electricity bill – then kWh/month would be the right choice, because I doubt anyone receives an electricity bill every day. But the salesman prefers 3 kWh/day because it sounds like a smaller number than 90 kWh/month. And of course, if electricity bills were written in joules instead of illogical watt-hours, then MJ/month would be the easiest for the consumer. {{unsigned ip|162.158.134.90|22:31, 15 January 2025}}
:Per-month is tricky. You seem to assume month=30 days, when it can be 28-31 and is only 30 days a third of the time. Per quarter(-year) is a bit more consistent, less fractionally variant ''and'' closer to most utility bill frequencies as well, if you're looking for something not as eye-wateringly frightening as an annual estimate (which 'only' varies every 4.1237... years, on average). [[Special:Contributions/172.70.163.47|172.70.163.47]] 00:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:: "''Per-month is tricky. You seem to assume month=30 days, when it can be 28-31...''" My electric bill for December 2024 is 33 days. The company closes the book when it is convenient, not per some calendar. --[[User:PRR|PRR]] ([[User talk:PRR|talk]]) 05:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Which is why electric consumption per month is even more tricky. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 06:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::It's still per some calendar. Just a calendar of the electric company, that you're not privy to.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.245|141.101.98.245]] 09:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::It's an average. We're not talking specifically about February. You could multiply by 365.24/12 and get 91.31 kWh/month on average – but there's only one significant figure in 3 kWh/day. White Hat doesn't say 3.000 kWh/day. You have to round 91.31 to 90 to avoid false precision.
::The stated average is an estimate based on assumptions about how much you'll fill the fridge, how often you'll open the door, how long you'll leave the door open, the room temperature in your kitchen, how much surrounding cabinets will restrict air flow across the condenser, et cetera. The combined uncertainties make it meaningless to state a highly precise power consumption. The length of the month is just one of many sources of variation. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.134.90|162.158.134.90]] 10:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I suspect this comic is inspired by the much more common pet peeve of incorrect/nonsensical units, frequently encountered in similar contexts. I'm so used to hearing kWh mistakenly written simply as kW, that I initially misread and assumed that's what the comic is about. That's a particularly common example, where you'll hear battery capacities listed in kW, or instantaneous power described in watt-hours. [[User:PotatoGod|PotatoGod]] ([[User talk:PotatoGod|talk]]) 09:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:3038: Uncanceled Units

2025-01-15T22:31:21Z

162.158.134.90:

Talk:2347: Dependency

2020-08-18T14:52:14Z

162.158.134.90:

I worked for the Linux Foundation on the Core Infrastructure Initiative supporting OpenSSL and other projects. The one that scared me was Expat the XML parser maintained by two people on alternate Sunday afternoons assuming no other distractions. We did get funding for a test suite. Joe Biden was a supporter of LF and CII and was going to host a fund raiser for us at the White House until a perverse result.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.222|141.101.98.222]] 22:46, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

== Relevance of Imagemagick? ==

Could someone perhaps add to the explanation an explanation of how this applies to Imagemagick (as mentioned in the title text)? —[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.174|108.162.219.174]] 22:58, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
:I don't use it myself, but it is a very versatile standalone utility that does a lot through command-line (batched) processing or can be accessed through actual API interface (I use GIMP tools that way, in automation, when not using it directly as a manual interface, but I understand there's a lot of love out there for IM). There's potentially untold uses for that, hidden in the background of other applications. If it disappeared or changed in just the wrong way, could perhaps half the CAPTCHA dialogues suddenly break? Could a self-driving car company find its vehicles are suddenly blind? We might suddenly have so many fewer Doge memes! (Wow! Much up-to-datedness! So topical!).
: In Randall's (or his characters') world, that is. In our world, I see someone mentioned Leftpad in the Explanation, which probably needs more Explanation (or else wikilinking) but is an interesting thing that actually happened in our world, albeit not ''quite'' armagg3don for society... [[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.131|162.158.154.131]] 23:22, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
: Imagemagick is the de-facto standard for Image processing. Since the 90's engineers were either adding support for new formats to ImageMagick or adding new language bindings for ImageMagick. This resulted in a single library that is available on almost every server and desktop platform and can read and write almost every image format. Using imageMagick is sometimes unwieldly. e.g. on nodeJS it actually spawns a sub-process to run imagemagick. But it is still the de-facto (and the only practical) choice in most cases.--[[User:Deepjoy|Deepjoy]] ([[User talk:Deepjoy|talk]]) 00:24, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

== from the late 2010s onwards? ==

I'm pretty sure re-use and modularization was a thing long before then. Maybe it got more popular in the 2010s, but it's been around since at least the '70s.
: The ideal of reusable code libraries has been around for nearly ever, but except for some popular Fortran statistics libraries I don't think it achieved widespread achievement until much later, e.g. CPAN. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 03:25, 18 August 2020 (UTC)p

The timezone database (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tz_database#History) has been around since 1986. libc in various forms has been around as long as C has. Reuse and modularity is a fundamental principle of software engineering, and not an invention of the last few years. I'd just remove any mention of date.
: I think it's relatively recent that you can delete a file from one Web server and everything on the internet breaks. Dependencies are one thing, dependency on live updated resources is new. Because it's rather a bad idea. Incidentally overall... I think today's comic needs to be explained slower. Most people in the world are very unfamiliar with these concepts. Although coronavirus responses have taught a lot of us about "supply chains" that put stuff into shops for us to buy. Robert Carnegie rja.carnegie@excite.com [[Special:Contributions/141.101.69.87|141.101.69.87]] 10:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

== This has happened before ==

It may be worth mentioning a case where this actually happened, like https://www.theregister.com/2016/03/23/npm_left_pad_chaos/ [[Special:Contributions/141.101.97.101|141.101.97.101]] 01:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

One particularly big risk that instantly came to mind is the timezone database, which is maintained by volunteers yet underpins basically everything: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tz_database#Maintenance

== Some random person in Nebraska ==

Is the reference to a random person in Nebraska totally arbitrary, or is it a reference to someone in particular?

Also, it would be good to have examples of heavily used projects with very small (especially one person) maintainer teams. OpenSSL definitely comes to mind, from what I have read. [[User:Stevage|Stevage]] ([[User talk:Stevage|talk]]) 01:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Nebraska came up in 1667, "Algorithms" as well.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.33|162.158.79.33]] 02:22, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
:Nebraska is... Well, I'm sure some Nebraskonians might have a more fully-fleshed out and accurate opinion of its subtleties, depth of culture(s?) and Diety-given geographic artisanship but viewed from further afield it is one of the contenders for "miles and miles of not much going on", or similar, peopled by people that largely live within that promise.
:It may be just a [https://wiki.lspace.org/mediawiki/Power_Cable meme of such a generality], as a brief look at a {{w|List_of_people_from_Nebraska|list of people from Nebraska}} tends to support the hypothesis that the ones who became significant (Astair, Brando, Carson...) probably did so only once they left.
:OTOH, there are (at least) four computing pioneers/developers mentioned among them, creator or authors of significant 'products', and maybe {{w|Sketchpad|one of these}} matches the (intellectual) dependency meme quite well - other than being written in Massachusetts. Or {{w|Blogger_(service)|this one}}, though that might have been LA-baked, maybe?
:I learnt [[1053|some interesting things]] when investigating this issue, just now. Cheers! [[Special:Contributions/108.162.229.142|108.162.229.142]] 09:54, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

== Microservices reference ==
Microservices reference is not related to this comic, as ImageMagick is monolith application. Also microservices are way of operating and deploying web services, not utility apps.
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.103.177|162.158.103.177]] 07:56, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

== The Thirty Million Line Problem ==
See [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZRE7HIO3vk The Thirty Million Line Problem]. Randall's drawing looks like a house of cards on the verge of collapse. In the video, Casey talks about how the lack of a "hardware ISA" causes critical software (like OS'es and browsers) to bloat like crazy (a "hardware ISA" would be a standard for how hardware works, just like the x86 ISA is a standard for how an x86 CPU works, that both AMD and Intel agrees on). Also, he mentions how fragile and broken software is due to this "Thirty Million Line" bloat.