explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:1275: int(pi)

2013-10-15T12:29:54Z

Gardnertoo:

The math part of it went way over my head (Thank you Explain xkcd for clarifying.) The only thing I really laughed at was "floor pie". Although I didn't think of Homer Simpson.[[Special:Contributions/72.193.171.120|72.193.171.120]] 14:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, I get the int(Pi) thing, but what's with avoiding 3's? [[Special:Contributions/95.35.58.168|95.35.58.168]] 05:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

What is "''floor pie''"? --[[User:JakubNarebski|JakubNarebski]] ([[User talk:JakubNarebski|talk]]) 05:31, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
: reminds me of weebl‘s „hmm pie!“, but I think the homer-thing is correct. --[[User:Quoti|Quoti]] ([[User talk:Quoti|talk]]) 18:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I thought this was a reference to [http://www.strangehorizons.com/2000/20001120/secret_number.shtml Bleem] and reminds me of comic [[899]]. <span style="color:green;">Saibot84</span> 06:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

:So is bleem related to (the same as) ''umpt''? Umpt being a number between 3 and 4, found by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bursar#Bursar The Bursar] in ''Science of the Discworld'', it is much more frequently used in the form where ten is added to the number, i.e. umpteen. [[Special:Contributions/64.40.54.39|64.40.54.39]] 18:11, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Prudent mathematicians just refer to it as "The Scottish Number". [[User:Dr Pepper|Dr Pepper]] ([[User talk:Dr Pepper|talk]]) 06:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC) Dr Pepper

I can give you one '''rational''' reason for spelling out things like INT(PI) in programming. Back in the ancient times, there was a piece of electronics dubbed then a ''personal computer'' with an NSA code name of ZXSPECTRUM. It had a built-in interpreter of the ancient language codenamed BASIC. Memory was very precious in those times, every single byte counted. The creators of the interpreter did a (somewhat) clever thing - all keywords of this particular dialect of the BASIC language were stored in memory as single-byte codes, and were only spelled out by text display routines. On the other hand, CPU cycles were precious, too, so they did another (not so) clever thing by storing number constants (like the cursed number mentioned above) twofold - both in an ASCII decimal form for display purposes and in a 6-byte internal binary form for computing purposes. Therefore each number occupied the space of six bytes plus the number of digits (or other characters like sign, decimal point, etc.) BASIC hackers exploited this (mis)features to save a few bytes on some commonly-used constants by saying INT PI (parentheses were not needed), NOT PI (to get 0) or SGN PI (to get 1), thus using only 2 bytes of memory instead of 7 if the numbers were used directly. Another trick to use with larger numbers was VAL "12345", which saved 3 bytes for each number spelled this way (number of digits plus three bytes for the VAL keyword and two quote marks instead of number of digits plus six bytes of internal representation). [[Special:Contributions/89.174.214.74|89.174.214.74]] 08:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
: Actually the internal binary form of the number was 5 bytes, but there was a special prefix byte used for two purposes, a) when listing the program the text display routines would simply skip the six bytes b) when a digit character was encountered at run time, the prefix byte was located instead of parsing the number again. It was even possible to patch the source code to replace all the digits with a single decimal point because the syntax wasn't checked at runtime. Also the trick was originally used with the ZX81 as it was slower and had less memory. I don't think the sign was stored with the number though, as that would have caused confusion with the unary minus operator. (All of the space-saving tricks mentioned above would slow the program down, of course. Even PI had to be calculated as internally the ZX81/Spectrum only knew the value of π/2.) --[[Special:Contributions/81.138.95.57|81.138.95.57]] 10:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I suspect in many languages 4/INT(pi) is 1 (as it does integer division) [[Special:Contributions/193.34.186.165|193.34.186.165]] 08:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
:This is true in C and python and many others. I think it is standard.[[Special:Contributions/96.251.85.48|96.251.85.48]] 18:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Why is the number 3 cursed? [[Special:Contributions/109.90.202.41|109.90.202.41]] 18:15, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
:I don't remember all the details, but it involves Alan Turing and an ancient vampire.[[Special:Contributions/96.251.85.48|96.251.85.48]] 18:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
::Randall is just joking about the rule that values used often should be defined as a constant. So he just shows us how to use the constant Pi. In general you would define a constant THREE=3 instead of this Pi calculations.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 19:44, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
:::Instead of adding a constant you could just redifine Pi. [[Special:Contributions/46.122.128.93|46.122.128.93]] 00:03, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm surprised the equation doesn't use getRandomNumber(), since it is guaranteed to be 4 in comic #[[221]] [[Special:Contributions/108.252.249.9|108.252.249.9]] 19:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Can anyone identify the programming language? It appears to be a function, but in programming, integers divide with integer division, which would make the 4/3 a 1. Also, the ^ character often doesn't usually do exponents. Usually it's the XOR command.[[Special:Contributions/75.69.96.225|75.69.96.225]] 21:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
: That's also how I understood the joke. The (newbie) programmer noticed that the code didn't work when 4/3 was used in the code (because that returns an integer division), so he/she tried replacing it by floor(PI) which returns a double and generates slightly better solutions. He doesn't understand why it would make a difference, so he concludes the number 3 must be cursed or something. Since the code still doesn't work, he desperately tries changing 4 by ceil(PI) as well, but the real problem is ^ which doesn't mean power but xor. The code he or she is working on is most likely C++ or Java. Frankly, I don't think magic numbers have anything to do with the joke. [[Special:Contributions/213.251.189.203|213.251.189.203]] 22:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
:(Edit conflict? But the conflicted code's timestamp indicates ''somebody's'' clock is wrong. Anyhoo...) It's one of those programming languages from the XKCD universe, where reserved words and functions are overwhelmingly defined in ALLCAPS rather than alllower (or possibly one or other camelCase variations) that we'd expect to see almost anywhere in code or pseudo-code, this side of the hay-day for either BASIC or COBOL.
:(Actually... oooh, it's been a while, but add a "DEFFN" in front of it and maybe it ''could'' actually be one or other flavour of BASIC, from the early eighties, what with the function-name and "one parameter, which is 'R'" feature to the code-snippet. I'm sure "^" was used for power (rather than "**" or a "POWER(x%,y%)" function) and "XOR" for both actual bitwise and logical 'xor'ing, in BBC BASIC... BICBW.) [[Special:Contributions/178.98.212.190|178.98.212.190]] 22:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Anybody want to clarify the "because it is used more than one time" bit? There needn't be a reason for 3 to be cursed, nor the 4, and a few lines later we are told that new programmers are told to do things without being told the reason. [[User:Gardnertoo|Gardnertoo]] ([[User talk:Gardnertoo|talk]]) 12:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:1263: Reassuring

2013-09-11T16:49:22Z

Gardnertoo:

Does anyone know of any specific Go program/progress this comic is referring to? Nothing on Slashdot prior to the comic, so unless it's just looking forward I don't know of any current events it's referring to. {{unsigned ip|192.55.54.36}}

Panel 2 seems to be set up as a reference to [[894: Progeny]]. [[Special:Contributions/100.40.49.22|100.40.49.22]] 07:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems that there's been progress since [[1002: Game AIs]] [[Special:Contributions/188.221.199.135|188.221.199.135]] 09:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I am reminded of Isaac Asimov's comment: "It always amuses me to hear some perfectly ordinary human being say that a computer 'can't compose a symphony', as though he himself could." [[User:SteveMB|SteveMB]] ([[User talk:SteveMB|talk]]) 10:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The tooltip text is a reminder that PCs become to be obsolete as well, I think. [[Special:Contributions/217.31.207.1|217.31.207.1]] 11:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Is the Dell Inspiron supposed to be quietly amusing humans, which it might be, or itself? I don't think it can be amusing itself. [[User:Jb|Jb]] ([[User talk:Jb|talk]]) 15:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that the screensaver thing is in itself a reference to futility, as screensavers are getting more obsolete with every flatscreen there is - although people are still using them to no avail. [[Special:Contributions/213.55.184.130|213.55.184.130]] 16:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Screensavers are more of a security tool now, as they can be set up to require login credentials to resume work. [[User:Gardnertoo|Gardnertoo]] ([[User talk:Gardnertoo|talk]]) 16:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:1254: Preferred Chat System

2013-08-22T16:02:09Z

Gardnertoo:

It seems like an owl to me, a Harry Potter reference maybe.{{unsigned ip|186.56.198.178}}
:Please sign your posts with <nowiki>--~~~~</nowiki>. But you are right, it's an owl.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 11:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Clearly that owl is a reference to the owl who carries written messages in the Harry Potter series.

Google voice bills itself as a number that is "tied to you [the user]" instead of a device [like a phone]. Cueball is operating under the assumption that like begets like; that is, if I phone you, you are on a phone. Google voice negates this because it allows the user to control how messages reach the receipient. The comic takes this a step further and applies it to any method of communication [[User:Zim|Zim]] ([[User talk:Zim|talk]]) 12:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)zim

[[Special:Contributions/24.91.233.200|24.91.233.200]] 12:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Can I coin the term "e-synaesthesia"? [[Special:Contributions/178.104.103.140|178.104.103.140]] 13:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
:If that were a Facebook post, I would *like* it. [[Special:Contributions/138.162.8.57|138.162.8.57]] 14:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

;Pricing

Cueball's friend might just be avoiding expensive mediums. Because of how cellular carriers price their services in some countries, some plans charge far more for voice or SMS than for low-bandwidth data such as IRC or VoIP. Wired ISPs in many countries even offered unmetered data or close to it (Comcast's quarter TB per month). --[[User:Tepples|Tepples]] ([[User talk:Tepples|talk]]) 14:43, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

It is quite common that my mobile phone is off and reloading in another room, while I am actively engaged on my PC and receiving email immediately. So I kind of relate to the comic. With today's notification possibilities (SMS, Email, ...) and interconnected services (e.g. receive Facebook chat messages with a personalized facebook email address and be notified to another email of yours), this gets kind of confusing what is the individual's preferred way of communication. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/178.26.45.117|178.26.45.117]] 17:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

When he said the email woke him up it reminded me [http://dontevenreply.com/view.php?post=99 emails from an a**hole] maybe he is a reader. [[User:Prussell84|Prussell84]] ([[User talk:Prussell84|talk]]) 20:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Frame 4, amazing future tech: They know where cue ball is, then remote control the owl's brain to deliver the message. Indistinguishable from magic indeed. [[User:MarcoLinux|MarcoLinux]] ([[User talk:MarcoLinux|talk]]) 21:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC)MarcoLinux

:Nah, they simply trained the owl to go to this place. It's not like their time was limited, they already send the owl in a way it appeared just after the voicemail was sent, which suggest they send it BEFORE the voicemail started as owls are not really able to move at speed comparable to wireless signal. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 07:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

;Audible email

On the contrary, standard unix behaviour is to make a noise when email arrives. Only it's a single short beep of ctrl+G and computer must be running for it to be played, so it's not really probable it would wake up someone ... at least not if they are sleeping at bed. It may wake up someone dozing off while sitting at the computer. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 07:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The iPhone (and I imagine any smartphone) sounds an audible tone when an email comes in, and many of us sleep with the phone very near the bed. [[User:Gardnertoo|Gardnertoo]] ([[User talk:Gardnertoo|talk]]) 16:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:1243: Snare

2013-07-26T20:15:58Z

Gardnertoo:

Incidentally, St. Louis is about 300 miles from Chicago, so the shaft would be 40 miles short.
:It depends on how large the giant ring is. 20 mile radius would put it adjacent. Also, "outside" Chicago is flexible.
:More importantly, [[Black Hat]] is such a jerk. He builds a freaking {{w|space elevator}} but only uses it for a particularly silly kind of evil. - [[User:Frankie|Frankie]] ([[User talk:Frankie|talk]]) 14:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

By the way, what is [[Black Hat]] sitting at? It looks like there is open laptop on desk, but he uses separate keyboard in a special shelf... --[[User:JakubNarebski|JakubNarebski]] ([[User talk:JakubNarebski|talk]]) 15:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
:It's entirely possible that he has exactly that. My mother uses an ergonomic keyboard instead of the crappy, built-in one on the laptop. Her desk has a keyboard shelf, so that's where the ergonomic one goes. [[Special:Contributions/68.231.138.149|68.231.138.149]] 18:05, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

== Real giant ring observed over Chicago today. ==

A smoke ring from an exploded transformer.
I honestly think this could have inspired the comic.
[http://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/1j2idy/the_power_went_out_in_my_whole_neighborhood_and/ on reddit]
[http://www.kbtx.com/home/headlines/Power-Outage-in-College-Station--217039531.html on the news]
[[Special:Contributions/92.204.27.3|92.204.27.3]] 11:31, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Funny, I immediately flashed on the world's largest electromagnet, delivered today to the Fermilab facility in Batavia IL, which is just outside Chicago: http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2013/07/26/massive-electromagnet-completes-arduous-trip-to-fermilab/ [[User:Gardnertoo|Gardnertoo]] ([[User talk:Gardnertoo|talk]]) 20:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk:1207: AirAware

2013-05-03T13:30:04Z

Gardnertoo:

I somehow has the feeling that the business-plan behind is that people will pay you that the drone LEAVES. --[[User:DaB.|DaB.]] ([[User talk:DaB.|talk]]) 08:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

:That would certainly work, but I'm not sure Black Hat wants that money. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 09:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The "as it does not seem to generate money" bit seems a bit premature in the explanation. At the stage he's questioning whether it ''is'' a business, the question is "''who'' would even pay?". Only in the last frame does the utter lack of generated money (above idea from DaB. aside) arise and make him assert that it is ''not'' one, which gets him shouted at. Not sure how to re-write it, though. [[Special:Contributions/31.110.91.76|31.110.91.76]] 09:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I think this could also be to do with how Google Now works - e.g. it will often tell you things that you are semi-aware of, but ignoring.--[[Special:Contributions/194.201.25.22|194.201.25.22]] 12:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Google will make money on Now the same as always. By renting our eyeballs. I used it for the first time last night. It located me and showed me nearby businesses. If they weren't paying for clickthrough then, they will over time. ''— [[User:Tbc|tbc]] ([[User talk:Tbc|talk]]) 12:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)''

The bit about "must nake money" being WRONG is probably a reference to the scores of dotcoms who came to market with the idea that "We'll make something cool now, figure out how to make money from it later" [[User:Gardnertoo|Gardnertoo]] ([[User talk:Gardnertoo|talk]]) 13:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Talk:1205: Is It Worth the Time?

2013-04-30T16:48:28Z

Gardnertoo:

The title text is just silly.[[Special:Contributions/220.255.1.25|220.255.1.25]] 08:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Is it worth all of the time we've spent on 1190, developing wikis, and wget scripts to pull the pictures efficiently, etc.? [[User:Bdemirci|Bdemirci]] ([[User talk:Bdemirci|talk]]) 08:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I would just like to ask if there is an interactive version of this comit out there. I suppose it wouldn't be too hard to create...
--[[User:Charlesisbozo|Charlesisbozo]] ([[User talk:Charlesisbozo|talk]]) 09:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
: Well, it would be really simple indeed. For now, you can try [http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%285+years%29+*+%285+%2F+week%29+*+%282+minutes%29 Wolfram|Alpha] --[[User:Mormegil|Mormegil]] ([[User talk:Mormegil|talk]]) 10:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
: I have a site up that does the calculation : http://c.albert-thompson.com/xkcd/ --[[User:Whitecat|Whitecat]] ([[User talk:Whitecat|talk]])[[User:whitecat|whitecat]] ([[User talk:whitecat|whitecat]]) 18:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The graph ignores the fact that it is much more satisfying to shave off time from task, especially by automating it. Also note that it IS possible to shave off 6 hours from task you do daily and one day from task you do weekly. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 10:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
: The table also ignores all monetary costs associated with the work: e.g. buying a new tool --[[Special:Contributions/66.46.212.10|66.46.212.10]] 15:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking the same, but then realised it's NOT practical if you assume a 6 hour working day and 5 day working week. [[Special:Contributions/41.134.254.53|41.134.254.53]] 12:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

If Momo taught us 1 thing, than it is that you can not save time ;-). --[[User:DaB.|DaB.]] ([[User talk:DaB.|talk]]) 13:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Why is it "not possible" to shave a day off of a task that you perform weekly? [[User:MrBigDog2U|MrBigDog2U]] ([[User talk:MrBigDog2U|talk]]) 14:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
: It definitely possible, but Randall feel it's just not worth the time to put it there. :-) [[User:Arifsaha|Arifsaha]] ([[User talk:Arifsaha|talk]]) 16:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
:: Then the explanation is inaccurate as it states that "blacked out areas represent times which are impossible to save". It is possible, perhaps just not worthwhile. [[User:MrBigDog2U|MrBigDog2U]] ([[User talk:MrBigDog2U|talk]]) 14:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

For most people in most circumstances, a net present value comparison would be most relevant. Even if I can save a day every year for the next 5 years, it may not be worth 5, or event 4, days input now, because my time now is more valuable to me than my time in the future (as of now), and my opportunity cost for time spent now greater. It would be interesting to see the chart revised assuming a particular discount factor, and that all efficiency-improvement input occurs up front. [[User:RyanDonovan|RyanDonovan]] ([[User talk:RyanDonovan|talk]]) 17:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Agreed! :¬D

[http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/TL;DR TL;DR] --[[User:DanB|DanB]] ([[User talk:DanB|talk]]) 21:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Reminds me of this chart: http://i.imgur.com/Q8kV8.png
And of course, Randall has covered similar ground before: http://xkcd.com/974/[[User:Gardnertoo|Gardnertoo]] ([[User talk:Gardnertoo|talk]]) 16:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Talk:1205: Is It Worth the Time?

2013-04-30T16:46:00Z

Gardnertoo:

The title text is just silly.[[Special:Contributions/220.255.1.25|220.255.1.25]] 08:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Is it worth all of the time we've spent on 1190, developing wikis, and wget scripts to pull the pictures efficiently, etc.? [[User:Bdemirci|Bdemirci]] ([[User talk:Bdemirci|talk]]) 08:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I would just like to ask if there is an interactive version of this comit out there. I suppose it wouldn't be too hard to create...
--[[User:Charlesisbozo|Charlesisbozo]] ([[User talk:Charlesisbozo|talk]]) 09:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
: Well, it would be really simple indeed. For now, you can try [http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%285+years%29+*+%285+%2F+week%29+*+%282+minutes%29 Wolfram|Alpha] --[[User:Mormegil|Mormegil]] ([[User talk:Mormegil|talk]]) 10:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
: I have a site up that does the calculation : http://c.albert-thompson.com/xkcd/ --[[User:Whitecat|Whitecat]] ([[User talk:Whitecat|talk]])[[User:whitecat|whitecat]] ([[User talk:whitecat|whitecat]]) 18:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The graph ignores the fact that it is much more satisfying to shave off time from task, especially by automating it. Also note that it IS possible to shave off 6 hours from task you do daily and one day from task you do weekly. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 10:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
: The table also ignores all monetary costs associated with the work: e.g. buying a new tool --[[Special:Contributions/66.46.212.10|66.46.212.10]] 15:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking the same, but then realised it's NOT practical if you assume a 6 hour working day and 5 day working week. [[Special:Contributions/41.134.254.53|41.134.254.53]] 12:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

If Momo taught us 1 thing, than it is that you can not save time ;-). --[[User:DaB.|DaB.]] ([[User talk:DaB.|talk]]) 13:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Why is it "not possible" to shave a day off of a task that you perform weekly? [[User:MrBigDog2U|MrBigDog2U]] ([[User talk:MrBigDog2U|talk]]) 14:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
: It definitely possible, but Randall feel it's just not worth the time to put it there. :-) [[User:Arifsaha|Arifsaha]] ([[User talk:Arifsaha|talk]]) 16:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
:: Then the explanation is inaccurate as it states that "blacked out areas represent times which are impossible to save". It is possible, perhaps just not worthwhile. [[User:MrBigDog2U|MrBigDog2U]] ([[User talk:MrBigDog2U|talk]]) 14:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

For most people in most circumstances, a net present value comparison would be most relevant. Even if I can save a day every year for the next 5 years, it may not be worth 5, or event 4, days input now, because my time now is more valuable to me than my time in the future (as of now), and my opportunity cost for time spent now greater. It would be interesting to see the chart revised assuming a particular discount factor, and that all efficiency-improvement input occurs up front. [[User:RyanDonovan|RyanDonovan]] ([[User talk:RyanDonovan|talk]]) 17:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Agreed! :¬D

[http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/TL;DR TL;DR] --[[User:DanB|DanB]] ([[User talk:DanB|talk]]) 21:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Reminds me of this chart: http://i.imgur.com/Q8kV8.png [[User:Gardnertoo|Gardnertoo]] ([[User talk:Gardnertoo|talk]]) 16:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Talk:1204: Detail

2013-04-27T15:19:23Z

Gardnertoo:

I'm not certain as to what the date should be, as I'm in New Zealand. I've taken one off of my current date (26th) as a precaution. Anyone who knows the right date (or right timezone) please edit it accordingly. --[[User:ZephireNZ|ZephireNZ]] ([[User talk:ZephireNZ|talk]]) 04:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

This comic arrive a day early, right?[[User:Afhoke|Afhoke]] ([[User talk:Afhoke|talk]]) 04:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
:Most likely a result of the time machine. [[Special:Contributions/184.66.160.91|184.66.160.91]] 05:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Any idea if the typo Ne*ghborhood is intentional and what it might refer to? [[Special:Contributions/141.17.83.10|141.17.83.10]] 07:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
: It appears to have just been a mistake, as it's now been corrected on the panel at kxcd. [[Special:Contributions/67.51.59.66|67.51.59.66]] 16:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

:: I see what you did there. ;) --[[Special:Contributions/24.145.230.202|24.145.230.202]] 23:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Forget electronic microscope. Where do you think they would be STORING the maps? Nearby galaxies? Other dimension? .... oh, I see: Black Mesa Research Facility is a google service company researching storage technologies. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 08:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't the vertical axis be reversed? If the Planck length is the theoretical smallest length, wouldn't most readers expect the smallest value to be lowest on the vertical axis? Thus the log scale line would angle downward, more clearly indicating that the resolution lengthy is getting smaller with time. The way it it is drawn, the first impression might be that the resolution length is increasing, not decreasing. Just a suggestion. XKCD is my favorite comic because I learn something new almost every day! {{unsigned|Matthew-e-hackman}}
: I had the same thought. Had to pause a moment to reassure myself Planck Length is a small thing. [[Special:Contributions/67.51.59.66|67.51.59.66]] 16:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Randall really likes pointing out the dangers of excessive extrapolation, doesn't he! One of his key themes. And this one is taking extremes to the extreme. [[User:Robbak|Robbak]] ([[User talk:Robbak|talk]]) 13:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Representation == Reality? {{unsigned|24.84.201.240}}

Whoa i just figured. the lines meet around 2100 - and in 2101.war was beginning - a coincidence? --[[Special:Contributions/178.203.192.19|178.203.192.19]] 20:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

"Shouldn't the vertical axis be reversed?" I would say no. As the smallest resolvable detail shrinks, people refer to resolution as increasing, so a rising line makes sense. Maybe the axis should be denominated in pixels per meter though... [[User:Gardnertoo|Gardnertoo]] ([[User talk:Gardnertoo|talk]]) 15:19, 27 April 2013 (UTC)