explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:3164: Metric Tip

2026-04-09T14:42:29Z

172.223.58.201:

!tsrif --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User Talk:DollarStoreBa'al|Converse]] 21:08, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
:If you like to have fun with first comments, the place to do it is The Daily WTF comment pages. https://thedailywtf.com. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 21:25, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Would have helped avoid the Mars Climate Orbiter [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiter] feature. [[User:SubtrEM|SubtrEM]] ([[User talk:SubtrEM|talk]]) 07:41, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I am switching from metric to imperial: I am 1m34.5" --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 08:18, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
:You mean 1m2'26⅔cm. Or ''very nearly'' 2yd4cm½"..? [[Special:Contributions/82.132.244.220|82.132.244.220]] 12:08, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
::This actually is how I remember how much a Yard is. I am slightly over 2Yards, while being under 2m, so a Yard is a bit less than a meter. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 15:36, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
:::Can I introduce you to the fathom? It's exactly 2 yards, and generally used for harbor depth, but saying you're a fathom tall is technically correct... {{unsigned ip|176.165.208.89|20:21, 6 November 2025 (UTC)}}
::::It's hard to fathom any of this.[[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 09:19, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Wait, what? ounce can be volume or weight? So you could give the density of a material in oz/oz? Imperial units are really weird... --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 08:21, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
:That would be highly nonstandard. Density is usually given in pennyweight/cubic barleycorn. [[Special:Contributions/209.188.63.33|209.188.63.33]] 08:52, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
:Not just that - it can be an areal density or a thickness, too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ounce#Other_uses Strictly speaking, though, the imperial measure of volume is not an 'ounce', but a 'fluid ounce' - it's just that Americans have mangled the two together. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 10:21, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
: Weirdly enough, the active ingredient in something like medication is given in mg/oz (fluid ounce, presumably). That's just wrong.--[[User:Coconut Galaxy|Coconut Galaxy]] ([[User talk:Coconut Galaxy|talk]]) 10:35, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

"...are usually effectively one or other measurement of weight..." The grammar here seems wrong and confusing. [[Special:Contributions/2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:54C4:F71B:724:CBE7|2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:54C4:F71B:724:CBE7]] 10:30, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
: Better now? [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 10:41, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm so glad I live in a metric country now. Helping people fix their terminally naff cars in the 80s in the UK was a trauma - spanner/socket sizes, like 13/16ths and 10/12ths and 1/2 and... so the guy takes one, not right, asks for the next size up. Well, what size is that then? You mean the six and a quarter eighths, yes? 😪
Oh, and don't get me started on American recipes - you'll very quickly discover that US Imperial and British Imperial are not the same (and far too many American recipes measure stuff in "cups"). So, really, Imperial is complicated enough without translating half into metric! [[Special:Contributions/92.184.141.48|92.184.141.48]] 14:07, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
:Most recipes don't require the measurements to be very precise and you can get away with adding too few.or too much of an ingredient. A "cup" is just a large cup. So for a cup of wheat, just fill a cup or even looser, throw in what you estimate to be a cup.
:Certain bakeware and especially homemade pasta and cakes are picky about the relative quantities (especially of wheat and water), so beware! [[User:IIVQ|IIVQ]] ([[User talk:IIVQ|talk]]) 20:13, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I ran some numbers, and assuming 28.349523125 grams in an ounce and 16 ounces in a pound, "7 kg and 9 ounces" would be 7255.145708125 grams, assuming the "9 ounces" doesn't involve rounding, while 16 pounds would be 7257.47792 grams, which differs by only about 2.332211875 grams, or about 0.08 ounce - it's possible the weight is actually 16 pounds exactly, which feels like it makes "7 kg and 9 ounces" even worse than it already is. [[User:Conster|Conster]] ([[User talk:Conster|talk]]) 14:13, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
:Don't see why - it's easy to see the equivalence: 7 + 9 = 16. Simples! [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 14:30, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
::This is an interesting coincidence - I made a [https://www.desmos.com/calculator/dqbzb8gfjf desmos] to find other places this happens. Unfortunately, looks like it's just in the 7kg, 9oz case (7257g) and integer multiples of it, up to 30kg. After 30kg, there are no more coincidences like this one. Maybe someone could mention this case in the trivia section. [[User:R128|R128]] ([[User talk:R128|talk]]) 16:04, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

To sell the metric system to Americans, you should make it sound bigger. Americans love big things, and telling them a "metric yard" (a meter) is longer than a yard, or a "metric pound" is weightier (500g) than a pound should work wonders... Except against their most confusing unit, the mile per gallon, that one is a doozy {{unsigned ip|176.165.208.89|20:31, 6 November 2025 (UTC)}}

Of course, one should also use esoteric units. Like: 1 meter, 7 hands, and 175 picolightseconds. [[User:Divad27182|Divad27182]] ([[User talk:Divad27182|talk]]) 23:17, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
:I prefer 1 smoot 5 cm. [[User:TomtheBuilder|TomtheBuilder]] ([[User talk:TomtheBuilder|talk]]) 03:50, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
:Wait, mpg is confusing to non-Americans? It's just the amount of miles you can drive per gallon of gas used...--'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User Talk:DollarStoreBa'al|Converse]] 14:00, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
::It's because we all know that the typical US 'runabout' car is a gas-guzzling monster-truck (despite the bumpiest terrain it encounters being the traffic-calming bumps on the school run) for which the amount of fuel it uses (whether petrol, diesel, aviation fuel or RP-1) is best measured in ''gallons per mile''... ;)
::(Or, more seriously, for even those of us who still habitually deal with miles, we work with the miles/litre 'standard'. And even the older subset of us who still would ''like'' to have stayed with the previous miles-per-gallon know that the US gallon is different from the UK(/Commonwealth) gallon, and yet ''perhaps'' vastly less likely to know the approximate conversion factors for that than the ones between gallons and litres that they normally use to work out "what's that in 'old money'?"...) [[Special:Contributions/82.132.244.181|82.132.244.181]] 15:15, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
:::Miles per liter is how far I can run divided by how much water I consume (in liters) that I would not have consumed had I been sitting down during that time. [[Special:Contributions/64.201.132.210|64.201.132.210]] 16:42, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
::::Oh god the US is more confusing than I thought. GALLONS ARE DIFFERENT? --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User Talk:DollarStoreBa'al|Converse]] 16:51, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
::::: See {{w|Gallon#Definitions}} (including this {{w|File:Gasoline_unit.svg|related image}}) and {{w|Comparison of the imperial and US customary measurement systems}}... Enjoy! [[Special:Contributions/2.98.65.8|2.98.65.8]] 19:30, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
::Yes, mpg is not a hard concept, but to me as a German, there are two uncommon units involved there and a reciprocal. An economic car uses 3l/100km here. Try to figure out what that is in mpg. It is 0.8 gallons per 62 miles... so maybe 78 mpg? (assuming I got the right types of miles and gallons) --[[User:Bmwiedemann|Bmwiedemann]] ([[User talk:Bmwiedemann|talk]]) 05:32, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
:::Well, you're ''probably'' using the {{w|Mile (disambiguation)|right mile}} (even the US survey mile is just 3.2mm longer than what we'd normally use in the UK).
:::Doesn't help that you'll be primarily used to km. Personally, the way I convert (either way) is remembering that from the Earth to the Sun is 93 million miles or 150 million kilometres (well, actually it averages as 92.96 million vs 149.60 million, but I'm sure you'll agree that those are not nearly as memorable and workable, and results in just a fraction of a percentage of difference ...so I'm sure you'll excuse the slight sloppiness).
:::...anyway, it makes it easy to convert in your head. And significantly lot better than the 5/8ths or 8/5ths factor most people make do with.[[Special:Contributions/2.98.65.8|2.98.65.8]] 20:49, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
::: * Yep, '''fuel consumption''' vs '''fuel mileage''' (kilometrage?): US Americans tend to think about range per capacity ("I put in 20 gal; therefore, I can travel 600 miles"), while Europeans tend to think of consumption ("I need to travel 200 km; therefore, I need 10 liters"). Wasn't there a strip on consumption vs mileage? Or was it a comment in What-If? {{w|fuel efficiency}} [[Special:Contributions/191.101.157.75|191.101.157.75]] 18:28, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Re: ''This is worse than saying it all in one single system, as it is much more awkward and confusing for the receiver. '' Is it really? It gives people an idea of what a centimeter is for distances up to 30 cm. Some educational models refer to that as "{{w|instructional scaffolding}}", introducing a simpler version of a system to help people adopt the full system. [[Special:Contributions/181.214.173.156|181.214.173.156]] 20:25, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Are there other comics mentioning the height of Cueballs? I thought of [[721: Flatland]] where Cueball is about four times as high as A. Square, and <q>The greatest length or breadth of a full grown inhabitant of Flatland may be estimated at about eleven of your inches.</q> [[User:物灵|物灵]] ([[User talk:物灵|talk]]) 11:52, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Could the package in the title text contain a bobcat? 7kg 9oz is comfortably in the range for an adult female. {{unsigned ip|142.181.217.191|23:48, 8 March 2026 (UTC)}}

You know? I don't care in the slightest which system is used, I can convert between them pretty easily. If a recipe uses one system for some ingredients and the other for the rest, it's odd but doesn't bother me. This? This hurt to read! [[Special:Contributions/172.223.58.201|172.223.58.201]] 14:42, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Talk:3138: Dimensional Lumber Tape Measure

2025-10-05T16:19:02Z

172.223.58.201:

I was under the impression this was actually a thing that exists, somewhere. (Separate and apart from so-called "shrink rules" used by patternmakers who create patterns for metal castings). No? [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 00:36, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

https://www.inchcalculator.com/actual-size-of-dimensional-lumber/ for reference --- MEL

: Wikipedia has {{w|Lumber#Dimensional_lumber|a similar table}}. Interestingly, if the values on this table are correct, the xkcd measure fails for the 8 x 8 board. [[Special:Contributions/2605:59C8:160:DB08:988B:772A:4E5:B209|2605:59C8:160:DB08:988B:772A:4E5:B209]] 02:18, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

:: >''the xkcd measure fails for the 8 x 8 board'' Studs and joists are routine repetitive structure and should be the same as their neighbors. 8x8 are non-routine; even in say a heavy mill building 8x8s are costly enough for the carpenter to measure or trim every column. --[[User:PRR|PRR]] ([[User talk:PRR|talk]]) 17:10, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
:: My house has near full-size 2x4s and 2x6. Very-dry trees were sawn on site, the saw set for 2.0" centers. Band saw has very narrow kerf. About 1.9". A profitable saw-mill would use a coarser blade and push the size down as much as customers would accept (and even a junior carpenter can tell an undersize stud by feel). But here they were clearing land as much as saving money. --[[User:PRR|PRR]] ([[User talk:PRR|talk]]) 17:10, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

:"I was under the impression this was actually a thing that exists, somewhere" - if doesn't exist now, it soon will. [[Special:Contributions/70.115.234.146|70.115.234.146]] 03:59, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Thinking that there might be a typo in the comic - It says : A "1x8" IS "3/4 BY 7 1/8", yet it should be "3/4 BY 7 1/4".

I no longer want to be a lumberjack! [[Special:Contributions/2A02:2455:1960:4000:748F:2291:F005:1989|2A02:2455:1960:4000:748F:2291:F005:1989]] 06:57, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
:I'm a lumberjack and I'm OK. I sleep all night and I work all day! ;-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 05:31, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

This reminds me of when I changed my friend’s text replacements to be slightly misspelled whenever she tried to type a common word in college. She was getting a degree in linguistics and it was SO FUNNY 《プロキシ》(XKCD中毒者) 13:29, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
:She should have claimed that she was undertaking "applied linguistics" and investigating how to create a deliberate {{w|language change}}! [[Special:Contributions/92.17.62.87|92.17.62.87]] 20:23, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
:I once set a stoned friend's keyboard to French. 90% of the letters and 20% of the special characters are the same, so he spent multiple minutes getting frustrated why he kept "missing" the correct keys. :D [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 07:26, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

I was told (and maybe this is wrong), that the dimensions are intended to represent the final thickness of a wall when drywall (usually 0.5" thick) is attached to the studs. [[User:Shamino|Shamino]] ([[User talk:Shamino|talk]]) 20:58, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
:I think that's just a convenient side effect. Of course, if the drywall is 1/2 thick, a wall with 2x4 studs will be 4.5 inch thick. [[User:RegularSizedGuy|RegularSizedGuy]] ([[User talk:RegularSizedGuy|talk]]) 22:22, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

:That would be pretty ahistorical, so I think it is indeed wrong. Drywall is a relatively modern invention, and I think the standardization of 2x4s as 1.5″ thick predates it (need to check that…but even if it didn't, then it would be worse). Wood lath and plaster walls are more like 5/8″ from the stud face, if not more. And, of course, in modern American multifamily residential construction 5/8″ walls are more common, or even double-5/8″ walls (making 1 1/4″) in fire-rated assemblies. So it does not even end up being "convenient," not that a 4" wall assembly is particulary more "convenient" than a 4.5″ or a 4.125″ or a 4.75″ wall assembly…very little turns on the thickness of the stud plus wallboard, but a lot turns on the thickness of the stud cavity (insulation, space for utilities, &c.) or the thickness of the drywall (spacing of electrical outlets, mudrings, etc.). [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 04:20, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
Once again, the UK wins on ridiculousness. I bought some fencing materials yesterday. The panels were 1.83m x 1.22m, so they could be metric but nevertheless 6' x 4'. I got some presawn posts that were 2400mm long (so kind of 8', or close enough), and they were sold as 75mm x 75mm, so they were 3x3, but they fit perfectly into the 70mm x 70mm post supports I got to go with them. Using metric to sidestep the need for traditional-measurement nonsense...but just keeping the nonsense and throwing new numbers at it. Actually, that should rendered into Latin and put on a scroll as part of a national coat of arms. [[User:Yorkshire Pudding|Yorkshire Pudding]] ([[User talk:Yorkshire Pudding|talk]]) 09:49, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Since the tape measure uses variable length inches, the watch (provided by the cartoonist) might be similar to Vetinari's clock. (Where individual ticks are of random duration.) I looked to see if xkcd had covered such a clock before (for possible link), but didn't find one. [[Special:Contributions/2600:387:4:803:0:0:0:90|2600:387:4:803:0:0:0:90]] 19:16, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

As an aside, I am always bemused about Americans being so stuck on imperial measurements when metric is so much easier. Oh except money...Americans are happy with metric money :o). [[Special:Contributions/59.101.181.77|59.101.181.77]] 20:42, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
:Oh, undoubtedly. It's literally just counting. The system we all use for enumerating everything (including feet and inches, or furlongs and chains, or drachms and scruples, or whatever else) is base 10. So just use base 10 and give names to 1,10,100,1000, etc. of length/capacity/mass/etc. units, and nobody needs to know anything beyond counting to deal with absolutely everything. Anybody who says pounds and ounces, or yards and miles (or whatever) is superior is objectively wrong.

:But.

:People get used to things.

:So you get the mess I mentioned above.

:Adopt the metric system, but then sell milk in 568ml bottles, because that's a pint, and milk inherently belongs in pints, so people have to have that much milk as a unit. Sell syrup and treacle in 454g and 907g cans, so 1lb and 2lb cans of sugary stuff can still exist. Nobody would be able to cope with 400g, 450g, 500g, 900g or 1kg! Keep selling beer and cider in pints, but change spirits to 25ml or 35ml (which you choose is up to you as a licensed bar) from 1/6 of a gill (or 1/5 of a gill in Scotland). Sell fuel in litres, but advertise vehicle fuel consumption in miles per gallon. [[User:Yorkshire Pudding|Yorkshire Pudding]] ([[User talk:Yorkshire Pudding|talk]]) 22:59, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
:I know, obviously not {{wiktionary|the full shilling}}! [[Special:Contributions/92.17.62.87|92.17.62.87]] 23:16, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
:I was amused to see, watching the women's rugby world cup at the weekend that distances were given in metres.--[[Special:Contributions/86.163.160.215|86.163.160.215]] 08:56, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

::I will venture the hypothesis that folk in this conversation are not cooks. It's in the kitchen that the difficulties with the metric system are most frequently encountered. Many Imperial measures are factors of two; it's easy and intuitive to double something or halve something and have the result make sense, as several kitchen veterans have told me over the years, with varying degrees of irritation. A pound (16 ounces), half a pound (8), a quarter pound (4), yada. Too many halvings in the metric system, and you're into fussy decimals. Moreover, if the recipe calls for a pound of butter, and you feed it half a kilogram, thinking that's the metric equivalent and close enough, the biscuits/cookies ain't gonna come out the same, and folk are gonna come after you. I learned years ago to check the cup measure carefully to see if it was graded in ounces or milliliters, and whether the recipe it was supposed to be serving came from Yankeeland or Godzone. Or else. The metric system may be logically superior, but may not be practically superior in all contexts. It might be well to seek reasons, other than the usual dismissive ones, for why, for example, {{w|https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrication_in_Canada#Metrication_stalled|Canada took 15 years to fail to fully convert to the metric system}}.[[Special:Contributions/2605:59C8:160:DB08:F102:9332:DCBD:89C6|2605:59C8:160:DB08:F102:9332:DCBD:89C6]] 03:10, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
:::I very much ''am'' a cook, and that is, I'm afraid, nonsense. Cooking is the perfect example of why metric is better! A recipe written in imperial, or the almost-identical US Customary Units, doesn't work if you substitute a round number of grams in for it, no. Obviously. But that presupposes that recipes naturally occur in imperial, with conversion being necessary if grams are used. Plenty of recipes exist natively in metric though, and are a clumsy mess if performed in avoirdupois.

:::And "fussy" decimals aren't a problem. If you need to halve 325ml (for example), no recipe will be affected by your using 163ml instead of 162.5 – much as fluid ounce measurements aren't accurate to the half millilitre, millilitres don't need to be either. Being a Brit, I learned to bake bread in imperial because we're across two systems here, and were even more so when I was young, but I forced myself to change, because metric is, inarguably, vastly superior. Working with percentages of hydration when you're in fluid ounces of water and pounds of flour (or the entirely nonsensical volumetric cup system) is utterly ridiculous when you could just use numbers that are exactly equivalent to each other. 1kg of flour, at a 66% hydration ratio? Why, that'll be 660ml of water, which can simply be weighed into the bowl at 660g. Can pounds, ounces, pints, fluid ounces and cups do that? Very much no.

:::And your halveable measures are all well and good...if you're halving those particular numbers. Anyone can think of numbers that are easily halved though. But what if it's a 2 egg recipe with 3oz of flour, and you want to make 3 eggs' worth? Well, then you need 4.5oz of flour. A bit...fussy, no? Imperial and US-measure recipes feel like examples of pounds working neatly, because they've been constructed around easy-to-use quantities in that system. But metric recipes behave just as neatly, and are far more readily scalable, because the numbers are all just base 10, which everybody uses for everything all the time.

:::I know both. I can use both. I started out with imperial. But I choose to use metric, because metric is so very obviously superior. [[User:Yorkshire Pudding|Yorkshire Pudding]] ([[User talk:Yorkshire Pudding|talk]]) 15:17, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

::::I am also a cook. I do all or part of the cooking on a regular basis for multiple families. The system ''I am accustomed to'' is the "obviously superior" one. While I can use both, multiplication by two (or three or five or 19) is just as easy as by ten. More importantly, grabbing the "nonsensical volumetric cups", while more than a little inaccurate, is very easy compared to grabbing the scale and making sure it's tare'd correctly for each ingredient. You also ignore the intrinsic issues with the metric system as well, given your example: two eggs is very easy to work with, while 114gm of eggs just begs for the same half-again issues. While the metric system has many advantages, I'm responding to your very clear tone that you feel superior since you "upgraded" which system you use. Perhaps most importantly, as a cook AND a baker, I'm also well aware that no measurements really need that much precision in cooking. Source: I do almost all my "measuring" by "feel" which is so very obviously superior to both. AlexaDTink [[Special:Contributions/172.223.58.201|172.223.58.201]] 16:19, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

:::Of course, American recipes get round this problem by measuring things by volume, using a standard cup size.--[[Special:Contributions/86.163.160.215|86.163.160.215]] 11:15, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

::::See Technology Connection's latest video where he goes through a ridiculous series of imperial conversions to get from 192g of water to "about 0.2L". {{unsigned ip|80.189.2.17|23:49, 8 September 2025}}
:::::This is, of course, already covered by [[2585: Rounding]] and [[3065: Square Units]], in which a value of [exactly?] X <unitOne>s is described as [roughly?] Y <unitTwo>s ''then'' the premise becomes that it's [exactly!] Y <unitTwo>s or [roughly?] Z <unitThree>s, etc (including immediately/eventually back to X′ <unitOne>s, where X′≠X, and it may even be doubtful if X′≈X to a useful degree).
:::::Conversely, where the conversion ratio is exact and rational (especially ''decimally'' rational, yet may have {{w|International yard and pound|a number of significant digits}} actual precision may get lost by there being an unknown/unstated/misstated exactitude (and the inverse of any rational number is often (decimally!-)irrational/even more unweildy).
:::::This is not to say that 192g of water (especially if overprecise, for the circumstances) cannot be usefully summarised as "about 0.2L", even without transitioning through non-metric scales or convolutions. (How many pounds weight? ...that means a given amount of pounds force, in a given situation. ...that could be expressed as newtons. Which, in a particular setup conveys a given pressure as of <blah> atmospheres... The number of moles of a gaseous substance that would apply that same degree of pressure at a given temperature is... and ''eventually'' that's then related back again to a volume of water under STP.) But you really need to know where (and how much of) the fuzziness crept in along the way.
:::::The usual culprit is when information is translated between audiences. A scientific paper mentions a phenomenon as a large number of kilogrammes (SI), ''maybe already with an 'errorbar'/rounding to that''. Some more public article relates that as "N [thousand/million/etc, additionally rounded?] kg" but also in (rounded) tons. Long or short tons, maybe. Perhaps tonnes, for the least problematic conversion! That, though, then gets taken up and reprinted elsewhere again, intermediate journalist/subeditor now reporting the ton(ne)s, but explaining how many pounds-weight that is (or numbers of elephants/jumbo-jets/Sydney Harbour Bridges that is, by some look-up value that might itself be a vague average or estimate), more or less. Picked up by someone who likes the latter value, but feels the need to state (their own calculation of) what the SI-compatible units would be... YGTI.
:::::That was, of course, the whole point of 2585 and 3065, only relevant to this comic's side-conversation about units. To which I'd add, maybe you can more easily read ⅛th-inches from an 'imperial' measuring tape, than the equivant not-exactly-3-centimetres from a metric one, but ⅕th-cm is easier than whatever that is in inches (2½-sixteenths, so five-thirty-twoths? ...just cross-comparing on my own measuring tape, which is top-half (feet-and-)inches with sixteenths, bottom half centimetres with tenths, in the British style). So it largely depends upon what scale works best/good enough for your use, and that you're used to. I, personally, still think of my ''own'' bodyweight in 'stone(s)', but am no longer quick enough to do the factor-14 conversion to relate that to what's often stated in US-lbs (rather than st+lbs, or "Xn''and a half'' stone"-ish, how we use them here) in common US usage. Nor have I ever really dwelt upon my weight in kg. So, unlike my height in feet-and-inches also being known in its reasonable dqyivalent of centimetres(/metres-point-two-decimals, give or take how unruly/untrimmed my hair currently is), I'd have to always do/accept a conversion (or just read off what the scales tell me, though I rarely bother to find out for my own 'fun'). Yet I usually bake/etc in grammes (or kilogrammes, as necessary), or ''perhaps'' ounces (three ounces of chocolate chips in one of my otherwise gramme-measured recipies, with perhaps 250g of this and 175g of that, for the rest of the mixture) just out of long-standing habit and the divisions being handier (ok, so basically that's basically 85g, but aiming for a 1 oz division (and slightly going over, if ''strictly necessary'' ;) ) is better than aiming half way between two 10nbsp;g ones on a scale that only otherwise has 25 g 'intersticial' graduations.
:::::Additionally: has anyone else appreciated that the 'hook head' of a metal tape-measure is ''loosely'' riveted to the steel tape, such that when measuring the external distance (the hook 'hooking' over one end of the long item, or the edge of a windowsill/frame/etc, in tension) it makes an accurate internal measure of the tape-end, but when measuring an internal distance (pushed up against the internal corner of the wall, or whatever, in slight compression) the end pushes into the tape so your 'zero' is the external limit of the hook-bend? Not precisely equivalent, especial on cheap and/or worn retracting tapes where the hook has lateral wobble/angling to it, but clearly intentional to lessen the worry about the hook-metal's thickness (16th″? Half-mil? Where's my micrometer, so that I may measure my measuring tape's actual dimensions?!), even if it's usually barely significant a distinction when used over (in my current case) a 9′+ tape (at least 2.80 m, but I feel its spring complaining, so not trying for the full three metres, or possibly ten feet or more, just for fun!). And the tape-body is marked with graduations, too ("METRICmeters"{{asic}} on one side, "Non-METRICinches"(!) on the other) so I can add to the 'visible tape' the correct suplementary length of 'unexposed' tape still within the casing. [[Special:Contributions/82.132.238.27|82.132.238.27]] 11:58, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
::::::Re "''Additionally: has anyone else appreciated…,"'' people on the (notional) tape measure forums '''can't stop talking about this'''! With stories about the children or apprentices who "fix" the problem leading to non-stopped cursing by the storyteller, &c, &c. Was that supposed to be a rhetorical question? Not sure why this is topical here, though. [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 13:09, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

More notes on nominal wood sizing - The nominal lengths of framing lumber are not adjusted, so a nominal 2"x4"x8' board is actually 1.5"x3.5"x8'. In fact they are often slightly oversize to allow for cutting to exact length. However, the nominal length and width for sheet goods like plywood are normally accurate although thickness may or may not be, with softwood sheet goods usually being around 1/4" thinner than stated and hardwood typically being accurate. {{unsigned ip|2600:1700:b39:3010:30e0:301c:3150:8abf|18:17, 9 September 2025}}

I tried to pay for some gasoline with dimensional currency, and the Secret Service has just pulled me over. :( [[User:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For]] ([[User talk:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|talk]]) 00:17, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Talk:3119: Flettner Rotor

2025-10-05T13:05:26Z

172.223.58.201:

You don't actually need the rocks to dress up as a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightship lightship], which is unfortunately not a spacecraft moving at relativistic speeds. [[Special:Contributions/90.155.35.67|90.155.35.67]] 20:01, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

:And it also is not a ship that is light lol [[User:TheTrainsKid|TheTrainsKid]] ([[User talk:TheTrainsKid|talk]]) 20:08, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

:This is probably inspired by the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lighthouse_and_naval_vessel_urban_legend Lighthouse and Naval Vessel Urban Legend]. [[Special:Contributions/128.187.112.68|128.187.112.68]] 20:55, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
::Already linked that, myself. Though not so sure it's a direct inspiration, only an interesting onward read (which is how I chose to link it).
::(Also, top tip: note the use of the {{template|w}} method to wikilinking it, much more efficient, in the form you might have used it, and slightly more aesthetic.) [[Special:Contributions/82.132.247.118|82.132.247.118]] 21:01, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Not sure why there's commentary about anchored vessels - the comic doesn't reference them, nor claim that it would make _every_ vessel give you right of way? [[Special:Contributions/91.84.189.119|91.84.189.119]] 21:47, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
: Agree - removed it, and clarified the rest of that sentence a bit. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 16:22, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Would a Flettner rotor with a truncated cone shape like in the picture actually work? [[Special:Contributions/46.162.122.132|46.162.122.132]] 22:25, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Ah, that's what those are on Danish ferries.[[Special:Contributions/62.220.2.194|62.220.2.194]] 11:07, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Won't add it to the page because I fear it might be too insufferably pedantic - but here it is just in case! Randall is wrong to say "...give you the right of way" - this isn't how the maritime Rules of the Road work. The other vessel could *give way* to the Flettner craft - but not give it *right* of way: right of way is given by international convention (specifically the International Regulations for the Prevention of Collision at Sea (COLREGS)), not by individual ships.

To be considerably more pendantic: you don't give way to lighthouses because they have right of way. There's nothing in maritime law (at least, not in the working knowledge a sailor would possess) that explicitly says you have to give way to lighthouses. The closest thing I can think of is the STCW convention but as far as I'm aware even that just uses phrases like "Navigate with due care" and doesn't explicitly say "give way to lighthouses".

To be even more pendantic still: under the COLREGS neither ship ever has a right of way - one ship has an obligation to give way and the other ship has an obligation to stand-on (ie. keep her current course and speed until the ships are past one another) and if the ships collide both are held responsible under maritime law. Navigators are very, very clear about drilling into their Officers of the Watch that you never have "right of way" like you would in a car and you always have many obligations under the COLREGS, including obligations to give way under certain circumstances even when you're the stand-on vessel.--[[Special:Contributions/80.189.28.58|80.189.28.58]] 23:10, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

:No that's usefeul! I adde dit to the trivia section! --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 15:15, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

:: The same technicality applies for cars: your "right of way" is what allows you to use a public road. You "yield your right of way" or "give way" when you encounter other traffic that has priority. [[Special:Contributions/2A0B:E541:E99:0:1A4D:8EA:E34D:5053|2A0B:E541:E99:0:1A4D:8EA:E34D:5053]] 09:04, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

<<... ''In fact, there would be no need to have a Flettner rotor at all to achieve this effect — a simple, non-rotating column with a rotating or flashing light would do just the same thing for a boat that is powered by other means, and seems a small additional effort if you're already taking the trouble to install the fake rocks and light.'' ...>> This line annoys the crap out of me. Generally, the only thing you would need would be the rotating/flashing light at the top. If there's enough light and proximity to distinguish a "''simple, non-rotating column''" then they can clearly see it's not a lighthouse. On the other hand, and the point I think Randall was probably after, if you already have a boat with a Flettner Rotor, then it's just a couple cosmetic tweaks from a lighthouse.

Talk:3115: Unsolved Physics Problems

2025-10-05T12:54:01Z

172.223.58.201:

I didn't notice that the linked paper on zink whiskers was from NASA at first, but it was immediately apparent that an American wrote it... The style is super American. "Oh, no! People who ''chose'' to read this paper won't get it unless I write really big and '''EMPHASISE''' words." It's a very "I Can't Believe It's Not Butter" style of naming margarine, so to say. [[User:Kapten-N|Kapten-N]] ([[User talk:Kapten-N|talk]]) 07:23, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
:The linked pdf is not a scientific paper, but a slide presentation. I think especially for safety-related presentations it is not uncommon to go a bit over the top with "be aware that this seemingly harmless effect can have serious consequences" -- especially if the risk is seemingly low, but the possible damage is really high. --[[Special:Contributions/134.102.219.31|134.102.219.31]] 08:25, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
:@Kapten-N, your Ameriphobia is duly noted. [[Special:Contributions/76.216.164.118|76.216.164.118]] 14:20, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

It seems that there is a typo on the second panel about the Gallium anomaly. According to Wikipedia "The resulting production of 71Ge was calculated in 2005 to be 79% of expected", not 75%. Should this be mentioned? [[User:Rps|Rps]] ([[User talk:Rps|talk]]) 12:12, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Unremoved background on the middle title: The middle title has unerased lettering with a slightly different style.{{unsigned ip|92.40.191.220|08:41, 15 July 2025 (UTC)}}

You know, Hair Metal is a thing. Just sayin'. [[Special:Contributions/92.184.140.165|92.184.140.165]] 12:39, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
:If metal inexorably produces hair and unwanted behaviour, which I believe it does, could you explain to me why rock doesn't? [[Special:Contributions/2001:1C00:31C:0:90DD:6826:AA7C:C80F|2001:1C00:31C:0:90DD:6826:AA7C:C80F]] 19:57, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
::Because it absolutely ''refuses'' to be in any way vulnerable to scissors! [[Special:Contributions/92.23.2.228|92.23.2.228]] 22:55, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
::If we can't explain why metal grows hair, why would you think we could explain why rocks don't? [[User:DL Draco Rex|DL Draco Rex]] ([[User talk:DL Draco Rex|talk]]) 19:23, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
::An (overly) simplified explanation: Rocks frequently are made out of multiple different chemicals which are less likely to all behave the same way when mixed together than in a pure sample of an element like Zinc or Tin. In the explanation it notes that mixing different chemicals into Zinc or Tin (an alloy, but I'm simplifying) can change the behavior and prevent the "hair" from growing. [[User:Tomb|Tomb]] ([[User talk:Tomb|talk]])

If you look closely where it says ‘precise’, it looks like Randall traced it! [[User:Broseph|Broseph]] ([[User talk:Broseph|talk]]) 12:44, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

The zinc whiskers are similar to joke in [[3112: Geology Murder]] where the
dagger-shaped object precipitated within the wound
[[User:KingPenguin|KingPenguin]] ([[User talk:KingPenguin|talk]]) 02:19, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

A rare case where gallium is the somewhat normal behaving metal. [[User:RegularSizedGuy|RegularSizedGuy]] ([[User talk:RegularSizedGuy|talk]]) 13:00, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

First-year chem lab on purification by recrystallization. We started with human gallstones — I don't recall if we had the actual "stones" and crushed them or even just dissolved them whole, or started with the powdered material. This material was dissolved in the smallest amount of boiling solvent that would do the job, giving a dark brown solution. The solution was cooled in an ice bath, and the cholesterol precipitated out (leaving some still in solution, which reduced the yield). The crystals were filtered out, very pale beige. The procedure was repeated, and the resulting crystals were white/colourless. One interesting observation was that the crystals that came out of the first stage were wide flat thin plates, but the second stage gave long needle-like crystals. Same materials, same solvent, same temperatures, same procedures and handling... but the concentrations of the impurities in solution completely changed how the crystals grew. [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 17:13, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

I would add that some fields like avionic and medicine are still allowed to use lead in solder because while lead is toxic, NOT using it could easily cost more lives in such cases. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 23:07, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

<<... ''In reality, metallic elements do not have motivations and intentions'' ...>> I just ''knew'' while reading this statement that a "citation needed" would be at the end. It really bothers me that there isn't one indicating, to me at least, that there normally is on this site after such a statement. But I don't want to step on any toes and change it. AlexaDTink [[Special:Contributions/172.223.58.201|172.223.58.201]] 12:54, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Talk:2999: Bad Map Projection: The United Stralia

2025-10-03T23:13:38Z

172.223.58.201:

He forgot the Idaho abbreviation. [[User:Danger Kitty|Danger Kitty]] ([[User talk:Danger Kitty|talk]])
hello[[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.64|172.68.54.64]] 19:49, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

:: And Mississippi has stolen Michigan's abbreviation! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.240|172.70.206.240]] 23:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

5 likes and I will make this a reality [[User:CalibansCreations|'''Caliban''']] ([[User talk:CalibansCreations|talk]]) 20:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Probably this is because I'm more familiar with the map of Australia than of the US, but Melbourne seems to have moved quite a bit to the east and is now presumably in Gippsland? Oddly that's the most jarring change for me... [[User:Zoid42|Zoid42]] ([[User talk:Zoid42|talk]]) 20:26, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

:: Yep. {{w|Melbourne Florida}}. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.47.10|172.70.47.10]] 21:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
::: Yes, I guess that explains the location -- though I'd not heard of the Melbourne in Florida previously. The other jarring thing is (on the east coast at least) the climates don't match up. Florida is closer to Queensland in terms of climate (and maybe culturally), Tasmania is colder and I guess probably closer to the north-eastern US states. Plus I can't really see Adelaide as being that much like New Orleans... {{unsigned|Zoid42|21:58, 17 October 2024}}

An eight-legged gator with fangs the size of your arm, six eyes, and the ability to spin webs is truly a horrifying thought. [[User:Psychoticpotato|P?sych??otic?pot??at???o ]] ([[User talk:Psychoticpotato|talk]]) 21:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

:: At that point most of the NT would become to dangerous for people to live. [[User:SomeRandomNerd|SomeRandomNerd]] ([[User talk:SomeRandomNerd|talk]]) 23:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

If find it weird how tasmania is florida, as while they are in the same place, they are the least alike 2 places you could think of. [[User:SomeRandomNerd|SomeRandomNerd]] ([[User talk:SomeRandomNerd|talk]]) 22:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

:: Agreed. If cartoons and television have taught me anything, one is home to a bunch of snarling, slobbering, ravenous beasts, moving across the landscape as whirlwinds of wanton destruction. And the other is Tasmania. [[Special:Contributions/172.64.238.130|172.64.238.130]] 04:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Part of the joke is that the contiguous 48 States plus DC have nearly the same area as Australia, though the US has a larger total area. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.109.166|141.101.109.166]] 01:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

As an Australian citizen, this map hurts my soul. This is amazingly painful and I kinda love it. [[User:OmniDoom|OmniDoom]] ([[User talk:OmniDoom|talk]]) 01:36, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

:: I apparently now live in Adelaide/Louisiana (or New Orleans/South Australia). [[User:FourW|FourW]] ([[User talk:FourW|talk]]) 06:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)FourW

Environmentalists will be upset with Randal for finally finishing the {{w|Cross Florida Barge Canal}}. And just in time for the centennial!--[[User:The Mess|The Mess]] ([[User talk:The Mess|talk]]) 07:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
:I was wondering if it was a sidelong comment upon the effects of {{w|Hurricane Milton}}... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.188|172.70.160.188]]

:: No, no, no. It's the Gap Chasm.[https://xanth.fandom.com/wiki/Gap_Chasm] {{unsigned ip|172.71.183.173|17:26, 17 October 2024}}

::: Rarely have I so desperately wanted to upvote a comment!

The distortion of Washington State, where I live, is painful, but funny. Can't wait for comic 3000! [[Special:Contributions/172.71.146.58|172.71.146.58]] 16:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

:I know, it's probably going to be sometime on monday- i saw a website who said they would rank all 3000 comics then! [[User:SomeRandomNerd|SomeRandomNerd]] ([[User talk:SomeRandomNerd|talk]]) 09:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

::Ohh, could you send me the link to that website? [[User:Willintendo|Willintendo]] ([[User talk:Willintendo|talk]]) 14:16, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Being about to shift to the right at an election next weekend, it is very prescient (and scary) that SE Queensland, where I live, is in North Carolina. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.64.212|172.68.64.212]] 18:53, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

That's great! As a Sydney resident this cartoon gave me an earworm. I'll be singing it all day; "South Carolina On My Mind". [[User:Ozhamada|Ozhamada]] ([[User talk:Ozhamada|talk]]) 22:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Stralia might not have anything directly equivalent to Hawaii and Alaska (significantly distant non-contiguous states), but it does have an island state (Tasmania) as well as several non-state island territories, and a mahoosive chunk of Antarctica that might have done in place of Alaska.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.35|172.70.90.35]] 09:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
:Well, Tasmsnia's already there, you'll note, which is there for that broken-Florida-like bit. Torres Straight islands and wider-afield territories/semi-adopted aren't really as handy replacements for the non-contiguous bits of the US, though. I can see why it was only taken as far as it was, for parody purposes. Diminishing returns on anything further. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.194.11|172.69.194.11]] 15:18, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
::New Guinea looks like Alaska, while Australia also has some small islands that may resemble Hawaii. [[User:ConscriptGlossary|ConscriptGlossary]] ([[User talk:ConscriptGlossary|talk]]) 06:40, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm. Not convinced that the description's assertion that "Florida would be cold" if its weather were analogous to the south of Australia was written be someone who has been to Australia. Granted, the red centre will cook you alive, and the cold water comes out of the taps hot in NT...but still. SA is hardly "cold". [[User:Yorkshire Pudding|Yorkshire Pudding]] ([[User talk:Yorkshire Pudding|talk]]) 22:32, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Someone has edited (changed from the original) the paragraph about Australia's north being closer to the equator than its south in a way which makes no sense. The climate of Australia is created by a number of factors, many of them which would still be true even if the land formations of the USA replaced the land formations which exist in reality in the USA. Anything closer to the equator is going to be hotter than those things closer to the antarctic. The ocean currents would also remain the same. It is true that the land formations of the USA do affect its climate and these would have some affect if those formations replaced Australia's but the path of the Sun over that part of the globe and the ocean currents would affect the climate in a way different from what is suggested by the edited content. --00:51, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[[Special:Contributions/172.70.254.172|172.70.254.172]]

Anyone else see a *very* similar map on social media recently? I think it might've been one of those "bad maps" X accounts that posted one that's almost identical but with different labeling a couple days ago, clearly the inspiration for Randall. Probably worth mentioning that in the explanation somewhere. [[User:PotatoGod|PotatoGod]] ([[User talk:PotatoGod|talk]]) 22:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I have been referencing this map for years, to try to explain how isolated Perth is. I say: imagine San Francisco is the only city on the west coast, and the edge of the state runs south from the Montana/Dakotas border. And the next nearest city is Houston. Although I guess I need to change that to SLO and New Orleans. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.0.190|172.68.0.190]] 01:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
: Or, to put it another way, Perth is closer to the capital cities of Indonesia and Timor Leste than it is to its own national capital, and only barely closer to Brisbane, Queensland than it is to Singapore (whole different continent). [[User:Paddles|Paddles]] ([[User talk:Paddles|talk]]) 04:26, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

As a Canberrian I am a little offeneded ACT didn't deserve it's own area on the map. It doesn't deserve a state, because it isn't one. We are important though! We have an airport! Oh and something something parliament. Urban ACT is weirdly small and I challenge anyone to live there and never cross into NSW by accident. Oh and no label for Tassie. {{unsigned ip|172.68.126.134|22:02, 19 October 2024}}
:The same holds true for Maryland and Washington DC (Although DC's airports are in Virginia) [[User:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For]] ([[User talk:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|talk]]) 03:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Do the same mountain ranges, rivers, and bodies of water that define USA state boundaries exist in The United Stralia? If not, a hell of a lot of surveyors were blind, stinking drunk when they were working. [[User:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For]] ([[User talk:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|talk]]) 03:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

This is probably the third time that Randall has split Michigan. [[User:ConscriptGlossary|ConscriptGlossary]] ([[User talk:ConscriptGlossary|talk]]) 08:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

May I get this printed on a poster, pretty please? [[User:Aaron Liu|Aaron Liu]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu|talk]]) 20:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

==Request: Map Merge/Morph==
Could someone please post a simple map outline of the contiguous US and of Australia, and then try to merge / morph the two maps together? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.47.88|172.70.47.88]] 17:24, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
:could you please elaborate on how you want to merge these two maps? [[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]] ([[User talk:42.book.addict|talk]]) 18:22, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
: Aren't you just asking us to do exactly what Randall did this week? But if you want to see the two outlines ''without'' morphing, then you might want to try [https://www.thetruesize.com/#?borders=1~!OTc1MjU4Mw.MzU2MjU4Mg*MTY4MjQ1Mg(MjA5NTY4NjY~!AU*MA.MTgwMDAwMDA)Ng~!CONTIGUOUS_US*MTUzNTQwOTE.ODM0ODczOA(MTk0)Nw this superposition of Australia and US48 from thetruesize.com]. [[User:Paddles|Paddles]] ([[User talk:Paddles|talk]]) 04:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
:: Me again. Randall has artistic license. I have seen maps here where his version is different from the way a cartographer would apply the same techniques. [[2999]]: Exterior Kansas is an example. Scroll down through the article to see what a true Azimuthal Projection with an Exterior Kansas would look like. I wonder how much 2999 resembles a 'true' [A|]US[A|] map merge. (Is "[A|]US[A|]" the best representation for this?) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.98.101|172.71.98.101]] 16:25, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
::: Are you saying there's some algorithm which would produce a somehow canonical merge? That seems unlikely to me. Perhaps you can point to examples of the technique you want? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.142.63|172.71.142.63]] 15:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

== New Zealand/Hawaii ==

I feel like not including this one is a real missed opportunity in the alt text. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.134.107|172.69.134.107]] 16:27, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
:Hawaii is four(ish) 'major' islands in a loose east-west group that have been part of the US since 1959 and has about 6.4k mi² of land area.
:To contrast, New Zealand is two ''biiig'' islands, north-south orientated and practically touching in relative scale, that has been never been "part of Australia" (though part of the British Empire, along with Australia, until gradually shucked off in various changes to that across the 19th and 20th centuries) and covers over 100k mi².
:Apart from anything else, it's probably a bit insulting to Kiwis to be assumed to be "the Hawaii of Australia". And for PNG/Indonesian peoples possibly being considered "the Alaskans", to follow up on that suggestion, that's problematic on various additional fronts. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.182|172.69.195.182]] 00:27, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I found it idiotic to declare this the LAST map projection so far, seeing as AFAIK this comic is still going (though I got months behind in my XKCD reading), if and when Randall does another one someone would have to know/remember to come here and change that, so I removed that declaration. Calling something "last" only makes sense if it's impossible for there to be another, in this case if XKCD ended. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 05:28, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
:I have the same problem with "as of" statements, being updated to the current time. If it's "as of the publication of the comic, <blah>", then Ok, but if "as of <arbitrary last date of editing>, <thing predicted by comic> hasn't happened yet" then that is troublesome.
:I had once suggested an <nowiki>{{asof|...}}</nowiki> template, that would present an auto-accurate "<current date>" according to a chosen template ("as of <year>", "as of "<month, year>", "as of <full date>", maybe as options), but also insert membership into a <nowiki>[[Category:Articles with As Of]]</nowiki> so that anyone who wants to can quickly dip into any relevent page and investigate the possible need to change it to "this was true up until <now known date>", or however.
:...anyway, this could have been used to justify the currentness of it being the last (so far). But, yes, best just to avoid writing too much for the here'n'now, when you never really know how far in the future what you write will stick around. There's always some leeway for it, and unforeseen sudden changes at any time can make a lie of any originally true statement, but a good idea not to use built-in out-datedness. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.71|172.70.85.71]] 19:49, 23 March 2025 (UTC)