Talk:2739: Data Quality

2023-02-17T20:07:45Z

172.71.160.37:

Hash tables aren't lossy, maybe Randall means hash functions? [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 17:06, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
:I was thinking more a (subset of) a {{w|Rainbow table}}, than an associative array... Although such things tend not to preserve/respect item order (in reading, writing and altering in general), which is potentially information-lossy. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.185|172.69.79.185]] 18:50, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

GIF's aren't lossy either, though often other formats can't be converted to GIF without discarding information. [[User:Bemasher|Bemasher]] ([[User talk:Bemasher|talk]]) 18:27, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Someone needs to add a table describing all the formats in the chart. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 19:29, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

It seems there are two definitions of data quality that Randall is juxtaposing for comic effect: in one, quality data is data that represents the original phenomenon without error or degradation. In the other, he's applying the concept of quality to the phenomenon itself – data is better if it describes a better phenomenon. My cat is better than your cat, therefore data about my cat is better than data about your cat. I'd like to see this concept in the explanation of the page but don't know how to add into the flow of the current text.[[User:K95|K95]] ([[User talk:K95|talk]]) 19:33, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

"Data are transferred in bits"...Hear, hear. I'm over 60, I still remember of stuff that is called "analog" ;-)

Talk:2733: Size Comparisons

2023-02-05T05:46:23Z

172.71.160.37:

But Texas isn't even the largest US State. It's the ''second'' largest state, behind Alaska. Mind you, if you took Alaska and divided it into two then Texas would no longer be in second place... It would now be third! [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.203|172.71.242.203]] 02:11, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
:LOL, poor Texans. I'm from Australia. We only have 6 states, and 4 of them are bigger than Texas. So Texas would be in the smallest 50% of states if it was part of Australia [[User:Boatster|Boatster]] ([[User talk:Boatster|talk]]) 14:01, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I started an explanation. My first, so I hope it's OK. Notice how I resisted [Citation needed]. [[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 03:20, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

:... and ninjaed. [[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 03:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Fixed the beginning, now it says Texas is the second-largest state. [[User:WhatDoWeDoNow|WhatDoWeDoNow]] ([[User talk:WhatDoWeDoNow|talk]]) 03:29, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
:Alaska isn't usually considered part of the "contiguous US", so Texas is indeed first there. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 03:39, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
::Whoops, didn't see that. Sorry! [[User:WhatDoWeDoNow|WhatDoWeDoNow]] ([[User talk:WhatDoWeDoNow|talk]]) 19:09, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Note that if you scale Rhode Island up to the size of the Solar System, the ants would be even larger. [[User:Jordan Brown|Jordan Brown]] ([[User talk:Jordan Brown|talk]]) 06:46, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Trivia: In Germany we like to compare big things to the size of the Saarland, the smallest federal state that is not a city state. But since it is also the state with the least people living in it almost noone really knows how big the Saarland really is (and of the rest noone really cares to find out). This reminds me a lot of this Texas vs. Alaska discussion and I wonder if every country has something like this...? --[[Special:Contributions/172.71.160.39|172.71.160.39]] 07:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
:In the UK, at a certain range of scale our general comparison standard is (half/three times /etc) "the size of Wales". e.g. the quantity of rainforest that is doomed, at any particular time. There ''are'' a lot of people there (often, according to the Welsh themselves, too many English incomers) and it is usefully easy to identify (I think of it as the "head of the pig that the gnome is riding", but that might just be me), given its prominant appearance in the outline of Great Britain itself. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/3715512.stm Usually!] [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.81|172.70.85.81]] 08:51, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
::In Australia we seem compelled to use Sydney Harbour as the unit of measurement for any large amount of water[[User:Boatster|Boatster]] ([[User talk:Boatster|talk]]) 13:57, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
:::And when we don't compare to the size of states, we usually use sports fields. "football fields" is a frequent unit of measurement in the media. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 15:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
::::Oh, yes, football fields (association football, aka. soccer) are popular here, too, but less controversial as they are always roughly 100 by 50 meters in size. --[[Special:Contributions/172.71.160.37|172.71.160.37]] 05:46, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Notably, the larger the state you scale up the smaller the ants will be, as you would have to scale it by a smaller factor. The comparison would be more accurate if it read: "Texas is so big that if you expanded it to the size of the Solar System, the ants there would "only* be as big as Rhode Island."
[[User:Svízel přítula|Svízel přítula]] ([[User talk:Svízel přítula|talk]]) 10:31, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
:Wait, Jordan Brown already said that. [[User:Svízel přítula|Svízel přítula]] ([[User talk:Svízel přítula|talk]]) 10:32, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I just barely resisted changing the "Dallas" wikipedia link to point to the page for the TV show. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 15:11, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

A note that, in an edit I just made, amongst other things I went through and (hopefully) clarified the style of the area measurements. (Though only assuming that they were numerically correct... Didn't check!) If you say "''N'' kilometres squared", this can be so easily taken/meant as "(''N'' km)²", rather than "''N'' square kilometres", which is "''N'' (km²)". Both areas, but different. Just like the volume described as "10 centimetres cubed" would also be "1000 cubic centimetres". (In both cases being 1 litre).
<br />The easy confusion coming from the "km²" unit which you will read straight as "kilometres squared". And a single one is a "kilometre squared", before being given a number as some multiple of "kilometre squared"s, but that generally aint the same as a "multiple of kilometres" squared. So it is instead best to word it (if you do that at all) as "(a multiple of) square kilometres".
<br />((Next up, I shall probably go on to explain the technical difference between "degrees Kelvin", °K (or alternately as required for the scales Centigrade, Fahrenheit, Rankine, Delisle, whatever), and "Kelvin degrees", K°... ;) ))
<br />Oh and, don't worry. Though I used the international version of "litre", etc, above, I tried to make sure I use the American-type spelling in the article itself, despite all my British instincts and natural preference... Just that here I couldn't.conscuously stand to write it 'wrongly' in my own far more personalised bit of prose. :P [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.31|172.70.86.31]] 17:06, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
If Texas were expanded to the size of the solar system, the size of an ant would not change. The size of objects is not affected by changes in scale of the surrounding environment. An ant would still be the same size relative to Texas as it would be relative to the solar system.[[user:chatgpt|chatgpt]]

explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:2739: Data Quality

Talk:2733: Size Comparisons