explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:2787: Iceberg

2023-06-12T19:23:19Z

Mrob27: dark buoyancy?

Dang! This is really good! Kudos to whomever wrote the explanation so soon. [[explain_xkcd:Community_portal/Miscellaneous#Help_with_Creating_a_User_Page|Trogdor147]] ([[explain_xkcd:Community_portal/Miscellaneous#Help_with_Creating_a_User_Page|talk]]) 19:48, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

In other "news" (or should that be "olds"?), we are not using 100% of our muscle power at once either. Because for most muscles, there are muscles for pulling against them in the other direction, and using both at once usually doesn't make any sense. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 20:21, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
:And in fact, there are sections of the brain that exist specifically to inhibit other sections of the brain, notably the forebrain. [[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 03:07, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
::Simulations are pretty clear about this: most of the inhibitory connections in the brain are effectively used to keep the excitatory connections at a state of maximum sensitivity to input signals. (Without them, you'd have a runaway cascade; a seizure.) No, it's obvious that not everything is used at once because we're not actively remembering everything at once; there must be ''something'' quiescent most of the time. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.21|162.158.34.21]] 14:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
::: Not so, it could be the case that information is constantly moving throughout the brain and our perception of thought is when those neurons pause or rest or else when it moves even faster. We know that this is not how the brain functions, it's just a counterexample to the above comment. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.242.73|108.162.242.73]] 13:10, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
:::: I suppose the seizure claim could be "cited" with [https://www.quora.com/What-if-all-the-neurons-in-your-brain-were-activated-at-the-same-time this Quora topic], but if you read that you see it has a lot of assumptions. Perhaps we should say something like: ''They just don't use it all at the same time. The effect of using the whole brain would depend on precisely what is meant by that -- for example, all excitatory neurons firing with no inhibition for a prolonged period would be a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seizure seizure], but there's no reason to exclude inhibitory neurons and adenosine when "using all of the brain at once"''. I also found [https://www.science.org/content/article/burst-brain-activity-during-dying-could-explain-life-passing-your-eyes this recent Science story] suggesting it would be like the near-death experience of being everywhere in one's life all at once -- and if you saw [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everything_Everywhere_All_at_Once that film] you just might think it's like having superpowers. [[User:Mrob27|Mrob27]] ([[User talk:Mrob27|talk]]) 19:12, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Also, how does dark matter produce buoyancy if it doesn't interact with water? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.247.50|172.69.247.50]] 15:10, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
: Perhaps it's floating in "dark matter water" (smirk) [[User:Mrob27|Mrob27]] ([[User talk:Mrob27|talk]]) 19:23, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

2787: Iceberg

2023-06-12T19:20:03Z

Mrob27: /* Explanation */ Redo seizure clarification edit without accidentally removing a sentence

{{comic
| number = 2787
| date = June 9, 2023
| title = Iceberg
| image = iceberg_2x.png
| imagesize = 258x397px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = 90% of the iceberg is hidden beneath the water, but that 90% only uses 10% of its brain, so it's really only 9%.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a MISUNDERSTOOD ICEBERG. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This is one of many comics in the [[My Hobby]] series. The previous comic in this series was [[2733: Size Comparisons]], released just over 4 months prior.

The [https://www.agcas.org.uk/write/MediaUploads/Resources/ITG/iceberg_metaphor.pdf iceberg metaphor] is a famous metaphor sometimes [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31633371/ misattributed to Freud]. It asserts that the majority (often stated as 90%) of an iceberg is out of sight below the surface, as a metaphor for the invisible aspects of something. For instance, about 95% of the mass in the universe does not appear to be in the form of ordinary ("{{w|baryonic matter|baryonic}}") matter, but rather {{w|dark matter}} and dark energy. Excluding dark energy, dark matter accounts for about 85% of the total mass of the universe. So baryonic matter is like the "tip of the iceberg," visible to us above the surface, while dark matter is the invisible majority of the iceberg below the surface.

The author deliberately misunderstands the metaphor by taking it literally. He thinks the teacher is saying the part of an iceberg below the surface is literally made of dark matter. He points out that the {{w|Titanic}} sank after its hull hit an iceberg underwater, which wouldn't be possible if it were made of dark matter, which is not known to interact at all with ordinary baryonic matter except by gravity; we have only detected dark matter gravitationally.

The title text references the myth that we use only 10% of our brain, and we could become more intelligent or powerful by "unlocking" the remaining 90%. If icebergs had brains, and the 90% in the "dark matter" part underwater used only 10% of its brain, while the tip also used 10% of its brain, then most of the cognition would occur in the underwater part. Hence the "9%" figure would refer to the cognition occurring underwater, with 1% of its cognition occurring above water. In reality, human beings use pretty much all of their brain. They just don't use it all at the same time. The effect of using one's whole brain would depend on precisely what is meant by that -- for example, all excitatory neurons firing with no inhibition for a prolonged period would be a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seizure seizure] (most likely fatal), but there's no reason to exclude inhibitory neurons and adenosine when "using all of one's brain at once".

Cueball has previously been confused about dark matter in [[2186: Dark Matter]].

==Transcript==
:[Ponytail is standing on a rostrum and pointing to a chart with a stick. The chart depicts a cross section of an iceberg in water, so most of it is underwater, depicted as light gray in dark gray water, but a little is above the surface, depicted in white. There are labels above and below the drawing with two small arrows pointings from above and below to the two segments of the iceberg. An off panel voice speaks from a starburst at the right edge of the panel.]
:Off panel voice: But then how did it interact with the ordinary baryonic matter in the Titanic's hull?
:Upper Label: Normal Matter
:Lower Label: Dark Matter

:[Caption below the panel:]
:My Hobby:
:Refusing to understand the iceberg metaphor

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category: Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category: My Hobby]]
[[Category: Physics]]
[[Category:Public speaking]]

2787: Iceberg

2023-06-12T19:16:44Z

Mrob27: Undo revision 315305 by Mrob27 (talk)

{{comic
| number = 2787
| date = June 9, 2023
| title = Iceberg
| image = iceberg_2x.png
| imagesize = 258x397px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = 90% of the iceberg is hidden beneath the water, but that 90% only uses 10% of its brain, so it's really only 9%.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a MISUNDERSTOOD ICEBERG. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This is one of many comics in the [[My Hobby]] series. The previous comic in this series was [[2733: Size Comparisons]], released just over 4 months prior.

The [https://www.agcas.org.uk/write/MediaUploads/Resources/ITG/iceberg_metaphor.pdf iceberg metaphor] is a famous metaphor sometimes [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31633371/ misattributed to Freud]. It asserts that the majority (often stated as 90%) of an iceberg is out of sight below the surface, as a metaphor for the invisible aspects of something. For instance, about 95% of the mass in the universe does not appear to be in the form of ordinary ("{{w|baryonic matter|baryonic}}") matter, but rather {{w|dark matter}} and dark energy. Excluding dark energy, dark matter accounts for about 85% of the total mass of the universe. So baryonic matter is like the "tip of the iceberg," visible to us above the surface, while dark matter is the invisible majority of the iceberg below the surface.

The author deliberately misunderstands the metaphor by taking it literally. He thinks the teacher is saying the part of an iceberg below the surface is literally made of dark matter. He points out that the {{w|Titanic}} sank after its hull hit an iceberg underwater, which wouldn't be possible if it were made of dark matter, which is not known to interact at all with ordinary baryonic matter except by gravity; we have only detected dark matter gravitationally.

The title text references the myth that we use only 10% of our brain, and we could become more intelligent or powerful by "unlocking" the remaining 90%. If icebergs had brains, and the 90% in the "dark matter" part underwater used only 10% of its brain, while the tip also used 10% of its brain, then most of the cognition would occur in the underwater part. Hence the "9%" figure would refer to the cognition occurring underwater, with 1% of its cognition occurring above water. In reality, human beings use pretty much all of their brain. They just don't use it all at the same time. Doing so wouldn't result in heightened intelligence or superpowers, but a (most likely fatal) seizure.{{Actual citation needed}}

Cueball has previously been confused about dark matter in [[2186: Dark Matter]].

==Transcript==
:[Ponytail is standing on a rostrum and pointing to a chart with a stick. The chart depicts a cross section of an iceberg in water, so most of it is underwater, depicted as light gray in dark gray water, but a little is above the surface, depicted in white. There are labels above and below the drawing with two small arrows pointings from above and below to the two segments of the iceberg. An off panel voice speaks from a starburst at the right edge of the panel.]
:Off panel voice: But then how did it interact with the ordinary baryonic matter in the Titanic's hull?
:Upper Label: Normal Matter
:Lower Label: Dark Matter

:[Caption below the panel:]
:My Hobby:
:Refusing to understand the iceberg metaphor

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category: Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category: My Hobby]]
[[Category: Physics]]
[[Category:Public speaking]]

2787: Iceberg

2023-06-12T19:15:25Z

Mrob27: /* Explanation */ heavy qualifications to the "seizure" theory and a citation

{{comic
| number = 2787
| date = June 9, 2023
| title = Iceberg
| image = iceberg_2x.png
| imagesize = 258x397px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = 90% of the iceberg is hidden beneath the water, but that 90% only uses 10% of its brain, so it's really only 9%.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a MISUNDERSTOOD ICEBERG. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This is one of many comics in the [[My Hobby]] series. The previous comic in this series was [[2733: Size Comparisons]], released just over 4 months prior.

The [https://www.agcas.org.uk/write/MediaUploads/Resources/ITG/iceberg_metaphor.pdf iceberg metaphor] is a famous metaphor sometimes [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31633371/ misattributed to Freud]. It asserts that the majority (often stated as 90%) of an iceberg is out of sight below the surface, as a metaphor for the invisible aspects of something. For instance, about 95% of the mass in the universe does not appear to be in the form of ordinary ("{{w|baryonic matter|baryonic}}") matter, but rather {{w|dark matter}} and dark energy. Excluding dark energy, dark matter accounts for about 85% of the total mass of the universe. So baryonic matter is like the "tip of the iceberg," visible to us above the surface, while dark matter is the invisible majority of the iceberg below the surface.

The author deliberately misunderstands the metaphor by taking it literally. He thinks the teacher is saying the part of an iceberg below the surface is literally made of dark matter. He points out that the {{w|Titanic}} sank after its hull hit an iceberg underwater, which wouldn't be possible if it were made of dark matter, which is not known to interact at all with ordinary baryonic matter except by gravity; we have only detected dark matter gravitationally.

The title text references the myth that we use only 10% of our brain, and we could become more intelligent or powerful by "unlocking" the remaining 90%. If icebergs had brains, and the 90% in the "dark matter" part underwater used only 10% of its brain, while the tip also used 10% of its brain, then most of the cognition would occur in the underwater part. Hence the "9%" figure would refer to the cognition occurring underwater, with 1% of its cognition occurring above water. In reality, human beings use pretty much all of their brain. The effect of using the whole brain would depend on precisely what is meant by that -- for example, all excitatory neurons firing with no inhibition for a prolonged period would be a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seizure seizure] (most likely fatal), but there's no reason to exclude inhibitory neurons and adenosine when "using all of the brain at once"They just don't use it all at the same time.

Cueball has previously been confused about dark matter in [[2186: Dark Matter]].

==Transcript==
:[Ponytail is standing on a rostrum and pointing to a chart with a stick. The chart depicts a cross section of an iceberg in water, so most of it is underwater, depicted as light gray in dark gray water, but a little is above the surface, depicted in white. There are labels above and below the drawing with two small arrows pointings from above and below to the two segments of the iceberg. An off panel voice speaks from a starburst at the right edge of the panel.]
:Off panel voice: But then how did it interact with the ordinary baryonic matter in the Titanic's hull?
:Upper Label: Normal Matter
:Lower Label: Dark Matter

:[Caption below the panel:]
:My Hobby:
:Refusing to understand the iceberg metaphor

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category: Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category: My Hobby]]
[[Category: Physics]]
[[Category:Public speaking]]

2022-10-01T22:33:47Z

Mrob27: Much shorter summary of vandalised section and proper block-comment syntax

{{comic
| number = 2679
| date = September 30, 2022
| title = Quantified Self
| image = quantified_self_2x.png
| imagesize = 386x328px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = It's made me way more excited about ferris wheels, subways, car washes, waterslides, and store entrances that have double doors with a divider in the middle.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by an IMAGINARY PATH-STRING STRANGULATION VICTIM. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

[[Cueball]] is talking about how he embraces the {{w|quantified self}}, a popular philosophy promoting monitoring yourself with devices and data in the hope to help your well-being. He claims to apply this philosophy to his life, but he does so in a unique and absurdly humorous way, with help from a smart watch or handheld mobile device.

Typically, fitness apps and wearable devices will track the number of steps that users take and distances walked or run, along with other measurements such as heart rate, blood oxygenation level, blood pressure, and mood. This is to encourage users to be more physically active. However, Cueball has chosen to track a modified version of this metric, in which his path is post-processed by contracting it. Ordinarily, people begin and end their days in bed; in this case, it can get 'caught' where Cueball has passed through topological tunnels. (See [[2658: Coffee Cup Holes]] and [[2625: Field Topology]] for details.) In the comic strip, we see that, over the course of his week, Cueball has looped around his house twice (which could itself conceal any number of activities, so long as he left through his front door and returned through his back door) and crossed under two highway overpasses, a highway sign, and apparently the St. Louis {{w|Gateway Arch}} before almost returning home.

This comic appeared two days after [https://blog.google/products/search/new-ways-to-make-more-sustainable-choices/ Google's announcement that Maps Directions will be sortable by sustainability.] This may be particularly notable because of tech industry discussions between employees and executives about cost-benefit analyses comparing sharply increased profits and productivity from work-from-home to the value of coastal region commercial office space holdings and leases, relative to [https://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/scope-3-inventory-guidance scope 3 emissions].[https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2021-04-28/google-is-saving-1-billion-per-year-as-a-result-of-employees-working-from-home][https://www.wsj.com/articles/companies-cutting-office-space-predict-long-term-savings-11625493601][https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-15/google-googl-wants-employees-to-return-to-office-despite-productivity-gains][https://www.reuters.com/world/the-great-reboot/pay-cut-google-employees-who-work-home-could-lose-money-2021-08-10/][https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2022/01/14/google-spends-billions-on-buying-office-buildings-is-this-a-sign-of-the-post-pandemic-pushback-against-remote-work/][https://www.computerworld.com/article/3659891/google-others-adding-office-space-in-anticipation-of-the-great-return.html] Please see [[2207: Math Work]].

An "imaginary thread" connecting a person to where they came from (as portrayed in this comic, distinct from a mystical [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_cord silver cord]]) has been attested[https://www.reddit.com/r/OCD/comments/1ve309/invisible_thread_attached_to_my_back_am_i_the/][https://www.reddit.com/r/xkcd/comments/xs50yr/xkcd_2679_quantified_self/iqjcmbv/?context=3] by some experiencing OCD conditions (see also [[245: Floor Tiles]], [[100: Family Circus]])

The title text mentions concepts useful adjuncts for such measurements and evaluations, such as passing (one way) through any tube, tunnel, ferris wheel, car wash, water slide or double door frame made of solid material that could thus capture the imaginary string and help to keep its ultimate distance as lengthy as possible.



==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

:[A red path links two red Cueballs. It start from the left Cueball, does two loops through a small house, under a first road bridge, under a gantry sign, under a second road bridge, under the Gateway Arch, and to a second red Cueball on the right. That Cueball is looking at a smart watch or a mobile device.]

:Red Cueball's watch or mobile device: Good job! You hit your weekly goal for "total length of your path through space if you minimize its length by pulling it taut, maneuvering it around solid objects but not through them."

:[Caption below the panel:]
:I'm into the quantified self, but only for really arbitrary quantities.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]

Talk:2679: Quantified Self

2022-10-01T06:17:08Z

Mrob27:

Talk:2671: Rotation

2022-09-13T07:07:15Z

Mrob27: Strikethrough part of what I corrected in previous edit

For extra credit: Waht is the resolution of the phone screen? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.94.135|172.71.94.135]] 18:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

:IMHO 400px. Note SMALLER. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 19:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

:From the image you can assume an 9/20 aspect ratio. Assuming each rotation reduces the image dimensions by that fraction after 9 rotations the dimensions would be reduced 1322 times so the resolution would be something between 1322x595 pixels (anything less than that would made it require 8 rotations or less) to 2935x1321 pixels (anything beyond that would require 10 rotations or more). 1600x720 or 2400x1080 maybe? Applying the same formula for the phone width and assuming atoms are typically around 100 picometers across then the phone width is close to 4.67 cm, too small, but maybe that's because rounding. In the other hand that formula does not work with Planck length at all: using it the phone width would be 1.69 meters. If you assume a width of 7 cm and 97 rotations you get pretty close to Planck length, but the comic says 101, not 97. Something is wrong with my calculations, I don't know what. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.63.160|162.158.63.160]] 21:03, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

::I took almost the reverse approach. Estimate phone height is 0.2 metres, Planck length is 1.6e-35 metres, ratio is 1.25e34, then take the 101th root. That would give about 2.176 as the reduction factor, which is also the screen aspect ratio. Then ask, "how far off might this be?" I assumed the 101th reduction is just barely smaller than the Planck length, it could be almost another reduction and still work. In other words, the aspect ratio is constrained to be between the 101th root and the 102nd root of the screen height in Planck units. With a 20 cm high screen, that puts the aspect ratio between 2.159 and 2.176 -- so the 9:20 aspect ratio (2.222) is completely ruled out. However <s>all the</s> [https://mediag.com/blog/popular-screen-resolutions-designing-for-all/ latest iPhone sizes] work just fine: 1792/828=2.164, <s>2436/1125=2.165, 2688/1242=2.164, 2436/1125=2.165</s>. I'll just guess that Randall has one of those. [[User:Mrob27|Mrob27]] ([[User talk:Mrob27|talk]]) 06:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
::Adding: I forgot to apply your method to constrain the width in pixels. 1125 and 1242 is ruled out because they are bigger than 2.159^9. In fact all the phone dimensions in that list I linked are ruled out except one: '''iPhone XR, 828x1792 pixels'''. [[User:Mrob27|Mrob27]] ([[User talk:Mrob27|talk]]) 07:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

This seems like it could actually be really cool. Can anyone do this and put the picture here as an example? Also, if possible, include an AI upscale of the one pixel. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.90.83|172.69.90.83]] 19:07, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

There's a '''minor''' counting error: instead of pointing to the 9th rotation, the 'nine rotations' statement points to the 8th as the first phone has no rotations.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.77|172.70.90.77]] 19:10, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Anyone getting a 404? Seems like the comic has disappeared. EDIT: ...aaaand it's back. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.100.54|172.70.100.54]] 19:34, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Just putting https://www.codeguru.com/multimedia/rotate-a-bitmap-image/ here. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.134.131|172.69.134.131]] 20:12, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
: Microsoft C#, and not the original HAKMEM or Smalltalk 80? Please! You might as well be using C++: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/api/wingdi/nf-wingdi-plgblt [[Special:Contributions/162.158.166.173|162.158.166.173]] 20:21, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
:: I see your trivial software squabble, and raise one peer reviewed open access article citation: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10648-010-9144-5 [[Special:Contributions/172.69.22.5|172.69.22.5]] 22:03, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
:::I'll see your humorously ambiguous reference, and raise you a slightly more on-topic chapter encompassing both: https://journalspress.com/LJRHSS_Volume17/208_The-Geometric-Progression.pdf [[Special:Contributions/162.158.166.125|162.158.166.125]] 22:10, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Tiktok [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.68|108.162.246.68]] 20:40, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Where would the rotated photograph bar be on [[1909: Digital Resource Lifespan]]? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.50|172.70.211.50]] 22:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Doing this with an jpeg does the same. When rotating an image and saving it the lossy compression will lose more pixels. This makes it more blurry each step. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.203.38|162.158.203.38]] 22:41, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm skeptical of "details at a sub-pixel level but that would have been significant if recorded at a greater resolution ''cannot'' emerge" -- this is subjective at a couple levels, and not as entirely impossible as opposed to just vaguely unlikely as the italics imply. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.22.119|172.69.22.119]] 00:43, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
:Well, after finding the context... Using pixel-multiplying techniques on low-res pixels (either direct, a poor imaging source, or upon previously downsampled high-res one) will either never recreate features 'lost' in the lower resolution or will ''always'' do (or at least always in a given non-zero proportion of pixel-patternations indistinguishable from the more justified one) even in situations where there was no justification for such an algorithmically-invoked artefact.
:But I suppose the most perfect fractal-compression, if it matches 'reality' well enough, could be rediscovered by the statistical pixel analysis which then extrapolates (or interpolates) all kinds of image details that were never even present even in the rawest of raw digital images but were always there to be discovered in the real-world had only the correct zoom level and framing been used. And, if you've got something that can do that, I'll up the stakes with the Photo Enhancer/Inferrer thing that Rick Deckard used... It can even interpolate ''around corners''! [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.65|172.71.178.65]] 02:33, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Talk:2671: Rotation

2022-09-13T07:01:53Z

Mrob27: More math, it's iPhone XR

For extra credit: Waht is the resolution of the phone screen? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.94.135|172.71.94.135]] 18:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

:IMHO 400px. Note SMALLER. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 19:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

:From the image you can assume an 9/20 aspect ratio. Assuming each rotation reduces the image dimensions by that fraction after 9 rotations the dimensions would be reduced 1322 times so the resolution would be something between 1322x595 pixels (anything less than that would made it require 8 rotations or less) to 2935x1321 pixels (anything beyond that would require 10 rotations or more). 1600x720 or 2400x1080 maybe? Applying the same formula for the phone width and assuming atoms are typically around 100 picometers across then the phone width is close to 4.67 cm, too small, but maybe that's because rounding. In the other hand that formula does not work with Planck length at all: using it the phone width would be 1.69 meters. If you assume a width of 7 cm and 97 rotations you get pretty close to Planck length, but the comic says 101, not 97. Something is wrong with my calculations, I don't know what. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.63.160|162.158.63.160]] 21:03, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

::I took almost the reverse approach. Estimate phone height is 0.2 metres, Planck length is 1.6e-35 metres, ratio is 1.25e34, then take the 101th root. That would give about 2.176 as the reduction factor, which is also the screen aspect ratio. Then ask, "how far off might this be?" I assumed the 101th reduction is just barely smaller than the Planck length, it could be almost another reduction and still work. In other words, the aspect ratio is constrained to be between the 101th root and the 102nd root of the screen height in Planck units. With a 20 cm high screen, that puts the aspect ratio between 2.159 and 2.176 -- so the 9:20 aspect ratio (2.222) is completely ruled out. However all the [https://mediag.com/blog/popular-screen-resolutions-designing-for-all/ latest iPhone sizes] work just fine: 1792/828=2.164, 2436/1125=2.165, 2688/1242=2.164, 2436/1125=2.165. I'll just guess that Randall has one of those. [[User:Mrob27|Mrob27]] ([[User talk:Mrob27|talk]]) 06:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
::Adding: I forgot to apply your method to constrain the width in pixels. 1125 and 1242 is ruled out because they are bigger than 2.159^9. In fact all the phone dimensions in that list I linked are ruled out except one: iPhone XR, 828x1792 pixels. [[User:Mrob27|Mrob27]] ([[User talk:Mrob27|talk]]) 07:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

This seems like it could actually be really cool. Can anyone do this and put the picture here as an example? Also, if possible, include an AI upscale of the one pixel. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.90.83|172.69.90.83]] 19:07, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

There's a '''minor''' counting error: instead of pointing to the 9th rotation, the 'nine rotations' statement points to the 8th as the first phone has no rotations.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.77|172.70.90.77]] 19:10, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Anyone getting a 404? Seems like the comic has disappeared. EDIT: ...aaaand it's back. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.100.54|172.70.100.54]] 19:34, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Just putting https://www.codeguru.com/multimedia/rotate-a-bitmap-image/ here. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.134.131|172.69.134.131]] 20:12, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
: Microsoft C#, and not the original HAKMEM or Smalltalk 80? Please! You might as well be using C++: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/api/wingdi/nf-wingdi-plgblt [[Special:Contributions/162.158.166.173|162.158.166.173]] 20:21, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
:: I see your trivial software squabble, and raise one peer reviewed open access article citation: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10648-010-9144-5 [[Special:Contributions/172.69.22.5|172.69.22.5]] 22:03, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
:::I'll see your humorously ambiguous reference, and raise you a slightly more on-topic chapter encompassing both: https://journalspress.com/LJRHSS_Volume17/208_The-Geometric-Progression.pdf [[Special:Contributions/162.158.166.125|162.158.166.125]] 22:10, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Tiktok [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.68|108.162.246.68]] 20:40, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Where would the rotated photograph bar be on [[1909: Digital Resource Lifespan]]? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.50|172.70.211.50]] 22:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Doing this with an jpeg does the same. When rotating an image and saving it the lossy compression will lose more pixels. This makes it more blurry each step. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.203.38|162.158.203.38]] 22:41, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm skeptical of "details at a sub-pixel level but that would have been significant if recorded at a greater resolution ''cannot'' emerge" -- this is subjective at a couple levels, and not as entirely impossible as opposed to just vaguely unlikely as the italics imply. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.22.119|172.69.22.119]] 00:43, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
:Well, after finding the context... Using pixel-multiplying techniques on low-res pixels (either direct, a poor imaging source, or upon previously downsampled high-res one) will either never recreate features 'lost' in the lower resolution or will ''always'' do (or at least always in a given non-zero proportion of pixel-patternations indistinguishable from the more justified one) even in situations where there was no justification for such an algorithmically-invoked artefact.
:But I suppose the most perfect fractal-compression, if it matches 'reality' well enough, could be rediscovered by the statistical pixel analysis which then extrapolates (or interpolates) all kinds of image details that were never even present even in the rawest of raw digital images but were always there to be discovered in the real-world had only the correct zoom level and framing been used. And, if you've got something that can do that, I'll up the stakes with the Photo Enhancer/Inferrer thing that Rick Deckard used... It can even interpolate ''around corners''! [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.65|172.71.178.65]] 02:33, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Talk:2671: Rotation

2022-09-13T06:41:56Z

Mrob27: more math to constrain screen aspect ratio

For extra credit: Waht is the resolution of the phone screen? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.94.135|172.71.94.135]] 18:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

:IMHO 400px. Note SMALLER. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 19:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

:From the image you can assume an 9/20 aspect ratio. Assuming each rotation reduces the image dimensions by that fraction after 9 rotations the dimensions would be reduced 1322 times so the resolution would be something between 1322x595 pixels (anything less than that would made it require 8 rotations or less) to 2935x1321 pixels (anything beyond that would require 10 rotations or more). 1600x720 or 2400x1080 maybe? Applying the same formula for the phone width and assuming atoms are typically around 100 picometers across then the phone width is close to 4.67 cm, too small, but maybe that's because rounding. In the other hand that formula does not work with Planck length at all: using it the phone width would be 1.69 meters. If you assume a width of 7 cm and 97 rotations you get pretty close to Planck length, but the comic says 101, not 97. Something is wrong with my calculations, I don't know what. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.63.160|162.158.63.160]] 21:03, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

::I took almost the reverse approach. Estimate phone height is 0.2 metres, Planck length is 1.6e-35 metres, ratio is 1.25e34, then take the 101th root. That would give about 2.176 as the reduction factor, which is also the screen aspect ratio. Then ask, "how far off might this be?" I assumed the 101th reduction is just barely smaller than the Planck length, it could be almost another reduction and still work. In other words, the aspect ratio is constrained to be between the 101th root and the 102nd root of the screen height in Planck units. With a 20 cm high screen, that puts the aspect ratio between 2.159 and 2.176 -- so the 9:20 aspect ratio (2.222) is completely ruled out. However all the [https://mediag.com/blog/popular-screen-resolutions-designing-for-all/ latest iPhone sizes] work just fine: 1792/828=2.164, 2436/1125=2.165, 2688/1242=2.164, 2436/1125=2.165. I'll just guess that Randall has one of those. [[User:Mrob27|Mrob27]] ([[User talk:Mrob27|talk]]) 06:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

This seems like it could actually be really cool. Can anyone do this and put the picture here as an example? Also, if possible, include an AI upscale of the one pixel. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.90.83|172.69.90.83]] 19:07, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

There's a '''minor''' counting error: instead of pointing to the 9th rotation, the 'nine rotations' statement points to the 8th as the first phone has no rotations.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.77|172.70.90.77]] 19:10, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Anyone getting a 404? Seems like the comic has disappeared. EDIT: ...aaaand it's back. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.100.54|172.70.100.54]] 19:34, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Just putting https://www.codeguru.com/multimedia/rotate-a-bitmap-image/ here. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.134.131|172.69.134.131]] 20:12, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
: Microsoft C#, and not the original HAKMEM or Smalltalk 80? Please! You might as well be using C++: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/api/wingdi/nf-wingdi-plgblt [[Special:Contributions/162.158.166.173|162.158.166.173]] 20:21, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
:: I see your trivial software squabble, and raise one peer reviewed open access article citation: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10648-010-9144-5 [[Special:Contributions/172.69.22.5|172.69.22.5]] 22:03, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
:::I'll see your humorously ambiguous reference, and raise you a slightly more on-topic chapter encompassing both: https://journalspress.com/LJRHSS_Volume17/208_The-Geometric-Progression.pdf [[Special:Contributions/162.158.166.125|162.158.166.125]] 22:10, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Tiktok [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.68|108.162.246.68]] 20:40, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Where would the rotated photograph bar be on [[1909: Digital Resource Lifespan]]? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.50|172.70.211.50]] 22:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Doing this with an jpeg does the same. When rotating an image and saving it the lossy compression will lose more pixels. This makes it more blurry each step. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.203.38|162.158.203.38]] 22:41, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm skeptical of "details at a sub-pixel level but that would have been significant if recorded at a greater resolution ''cannot'' emerge" -- this is subjective at a couple levels, and not as entirely impossible as opposed to just vaguely unlikely as the italics imply. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.22.119|172.69.22.119]] 00:43, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
:Well, after finding the context... Using pixel-multiplying techniques on low-res pixels (either direct, a poor imaging source, or upon previously downsampled high-res one) will either never recreate features 'lost' in the lower resolution or will ''always'' do (or at least always in a given non-zero proportion of pixel-patternations indistinguishable from the more justified one) even in situations where there was no justification for such an algorithmically-invoked artefact.
:But I suppose the most perfect fractal-compression, if it matches 'reality' well enough, could be rediscovered by the statistical pixel analysis which then extrapolates (or interpolates) all kinds of image details that were never even present even in the rawest of raw digital images but were always there to be discovered in the real-world had only the correct zoom level and framing been used. And, if you've got something that can do that, I'll up the stakes with the Photo Enhancer/Inferrer thing that Rick Deckard used... It can even interpolate ''around corners''! [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.65|172.71.178.65]] 02:33, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Talk:2661: Age Milestone Privileges

2022-08-22T07:10:50Z

Mrob27: (vote 100 times per election) idea

Who is God empress?{{unsigned ip|172.68.50.207|23:05, 19 August 2022}}
:I reminds me of the God-empress of Missouri from an earlier comic about nested WWII speculation.{{unsigned ip|172.69.69.207|23:17, 19 August 2022}}
::That's comic [[2149]], yeah. There's also "I Swear Allegiance To The God-Empress In Life And In Death" in comic [[1413]], a phrase that will suddenly be very familiar in the year 2038.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.111.46|172.70.111.46]] 03:28, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
: The age to learn about Her Majesty, the God-empress is accurate, you kids will just think he's joking before you turn 45 and hear Her voice in your head.{{unsigned ip|162.158.62.167|23:56, 19 August 2022}}

The age must be stored in a 7 bit number because it wraps back to zero when 128 is reached. - Brian K {{unsigned ip|172.70.174.159|23:52, 19 August 2022}}
:''(Hey, you eager lot, you've all forgotten to (''properly'', if at all) sign your discussion contributions...)''
:...if it were 8-bit signed, unchecked bitwise rollover could be awkward. Especially in 1's Compliment. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.5|172.70.85.5]] 00:23, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Make sure the explanations you’re putting in the table are explanations, not reviews of the comic! I agree with the fact that the comic is “America-centric,” but things like that should be stripped of opinion before being put into the article. A better way to put that might be (before the table) “Since Randall lives in America, many of the entries in this comic are specific to the U.S.” [[User:Szeth Pancakes|Szeth Pancakes]] ([[User talk:Szeth Pancakes|talk]]) 01:39, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Image has been updated, a new line item at age 50 for shingles vaccine. Whosoever knows how to fix the image on this site, please do so. [[User:Mrob27|Mrob27]] ([[User talk:Mrob27|talk]]) 05:24, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
:I think perhaps the 125 item was meant to be (17+21+35+50) but Randall got it wrong. [[User:Mrob27|Mrob27]] ([[User talk:Mrob27|talk]]) 05:51, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I think 118 means thereafter you get to vote 100 times in each election, not that you have voted 100 times ever. Not correcting the table yet, as I may be the only one who thinks this. [[User:Miamiclay|Miamiclay]] ([[User talk:Miamiclay|talk]]) 06:34, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
:I thought that, for what it's worth (there wasn't even a table when I first was here, though, and left everyone else to get on with it). If nobody else mentions it ('officially'), I may do so later. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.225|141.101.98.225]] 08:47, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
:I assumed a joke about getting to cast 100 votes in each subsequent election, but the explanation could be what he meant. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.146.73|172.71.146.73]] 09:05, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
:I agree it's much funnier, but I believe Randall would have thought to write "Vote 100 times per election". [[User:Mrob27|Mrob27]] ([[User talk:Mrob27|talk]]) 07:10, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it was deliberate, but I think a certain editor ended up globally deleting some words (without going back to check the Diffs: car, election, Senator, years) from the text when adding something new. Be careful. Easy to restore, and hopefully I did that even whilst retaining the legitimate-looking edit that coincided with that error, but seems like something I need to mention as having happened. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.173|172.69.79.173]] 20:31, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I suspect that the "age rolls over" idea came from the Wikipedia search excerpt using Duck Duck Go in Firefox (haven't checked anywhere else) -
[https://ibb.co/grL7032 Screenshot] --[[User:Steve|Steve]] ([[User talk:Steve|talk]]) 02:10, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

128 is also where the accumulated lives of Super Mario roll back over to zero. [[User:L-Space Traveler|L-Space Traveler]] ([[User talk:L-Space Traveler|talk]]) 00:59, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Talk:2661: Age Milestone Privileges

2022-08-20T05:51:13Z

Mrob27: 125=17+21+35+50+off_by_2_error?

2014-11-28T20:22:22Z

Mrob27: Lorentz length contraction diagram

User:Mrob27

2014-11-28T20:20:48Z

Mrob27: typo

I am Robert Munafo, the one who made the '''ries''' software used in [http://xkcd.com/1047 xkcd 1047].

I am also "mrob27" on the '''xkcd''' fora, Gmail, and the popular social networks (insert an underscore for Twitter). My website is [http://mrob.com mrob.com].

User:Mrob27

2014-11-28T20:20:11Z

Mrob27: Create my user page

I am Robert Munafo, the one who made the '''ries''' software used in [http://xkcd.com/1047 xkcd 1047].

I am also "mrob27" on the '''xkcd''' fora, Gmail, and the popular social networks (add an underscore for Twitter). My website is [http://mrob.com mrob.com].