Talk:2852: Parameterball

added transcript and a kinda crappy explanation Me^{[citation needed]} 17:36, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

added a bit of crappy info to the explanation. also hi nqh someone, i guess^{(talk i guess|le edit list)} 17:42, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

added crappy edits. also do i have an account or… TenGolf MathHacker (talk) 19:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Does the tennis court in upper right look about 50% larger than normal to anyone else? The ping-pong table definitely looks too small, about half size. Barmar (talk) 18:07, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I'd say the the upper right is similar width to a tennis court but is 25% longer. The lower left looks to be similar width to table tennis / ping pong but is about half as long. So the explanations for those need revising. 162.158.62.51 18:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

My first reaction to the upper right was very clear: “Aha, Randall means that the players are scaled down to 20cm! Therefore parameterball.”--162.158.87.89 23:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I have some neat plans for that Incomplete template. Get ready for an occasional change to something random that uses anything but metric... someone, i guess^{(talk i guess|le edit list)} 18:29, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

mobile account here, first of many implemented 172.70.42.48 20:55, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

If no limits, then neutron star or black hole ball exists as much as more non lethal games. 172.71.151.139 (talk) 00:06, 9 November 2023 (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

Could the title text be talking about the mass of a bowling ball, rather than then density? If the diameter of a bowling ball is 20cm and the diameter of a table tennis ball is 4cm, which is consistent with a quick Google search, than the volume of the bowling ball is around 125 times as big as the table tennis ball (because we have to cube it for three dimensions). Let's assume a bowling ball is 12 pounds, which is about average. Therefore, a ping pong ball with the density of a bowling ball would weigh much less than a pound. A 12 pound table tennis ball, however, could easily cause equipment damage. Thexkcdnerd (talk) 02:44, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure a one-pound table tennis ball could do sufficient damage to destroy a racquet, but I guess there's really only one way to find out, and I don't know where to find a one-pound ping pong ball. Or is it pingpong? Ping-Pong? pingPong? 172.70.214.62 05:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Originally "gossima", with hard rubber balls, even before "whiff-waff" (or "wiff-waff" or "whiff-whaff" or something). First properly marketed as "ping-pong", in its recognisable form though. 172.71.122.115 09:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

A snooker/pool ball would probably have similar density to a bowling ball. I can well imagine equipment (and bodily) damage playing table tennis with a snooker ball. 172.71.242.37 (talk) 13:23, 9 November 2023 (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

Isn't the bowling ball a reference to the 'bowling ball on a sheet' metaphor for the distortion of space-time by the gravitational fields of massive objects?172.71.123.146 09:31, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, isn't the density of a bowling ball also a changing parameter in the game of ten-pin bowling? Don't have bowling balls different weights, and unlike nine-pin bowling a fixed volume/size, and thus a variable density? It doesn't really matter for the explanation but describing the end point with an item that itself is variable isn't really helpful. The entries giraffe, screwdriver and large board game board are having the same problem. "A large boulder the size of a small boulder" https://twitter.com/SheriffAlert/status/1221881862244749315 Elektrizikekswerk (talk) 12:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

The size isn't fixed, but yes, the weight can be changed by varying the size or density (within limits), and they can even have varying density within the ball.172.69.194.244 17:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, too dense a ping-pong "ball" (e.g. a pebble) is able to damage the foam coating of a "more professional" racket models. As a kid I have had been yelled at by the PE teacher for such horseplay and I have been given a basic and inferior plywood-and-thin-rubber model (with the rubber peeling off) as a punishment. -- 162.158.102.250 13:32, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Does the screwdriver measurement relate to the drink or the tool?172.69.194.245 09:32, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

The explanation claims that the max density depicted is that of a bowling ball. However, the balls in the first three panels look much too light for that, and the ball in the fourth would probably have crushed the player if it was that dense. I would guess a solid rubber ball would be a better estimate (although the one in the second panel is hard to judge).172.71.242.83 11:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Only now have I learned that links can exist in the incomplete explanation text. It seems self-evident now,, but still. 172.68.58.142 13:55, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Can each player choose a different raquet[sic] size? None of the examples suggest this. Also, is the construction of the racket a parameter? Tennis rackets have woven strings in the racket head, which a really tiny ball could pass through, and would have trouble controlling something marble-sized. Ping-pong paddles have a solid head with a rubber surface, which nothing larger than atomic size is likely to pass through. Barmar (talk) 14:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

The racquets they're using in the different panels are different sizes, and the title text says that 'players don't learn the [ball density] until after choosing their raquets Or do you mean could the two players have different racquets from each other?.172.70.91.205 09:35, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, Megan in the lower-right panel appears to have one about half the size of Cueball’s. At least if I measure it against the tip of my mouse cursor. --162.158.94.5 13:37, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

The fact that people keep editing the EXPLANATION NEEDED template made me realize we should have an archive for that purely for the lols 172.71.30.14 15:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

That's a bet someone, i guess^{(talk i guess|le edit list)} 16:21, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I didn't think anyone would actually do that, thanks! =) 172.71.30.178 16:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Was actually planning on doing it earlier today, but this reminded me about it someone, i guess^{(talk i guess|le edit list)} 17:02, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I wonder how long this will keep going. My guess is that I'll be the only one still doing it when the next comic gets released 172.71.30.178 17:04, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I have a few more to push out (wink) someone, i guess^{(talk i guess|le edit list)} 17:06, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

This would make a GREAT video game.... - 172.71.254.113 09:17, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Idea: To avoid edit spam, we make another copy of the page meant for parameter editing. 108.162.238.140 12:40, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Idea: We don't bother. I had collected a whole lot of Incomplete non-BOT versions (from the point just before someone removes them, mainly) and was going to put them up in my userpage (once I bothered to get one), but I don't think it's worth kt. And, in this case, it's just self-promotion to alter one when not making any other valid change. I prefer spontaneity in my humor, not "trying to one-up the last person". Personal opinion, YMMV. 172.69.194.245 13:49, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough, but could we least link to the archive page SomeoneIGuess made? 172.71.30.42 12:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I doubt the misspelling is anything more than a typo of "racquet". The French derivation is an interesting side note, but it seems like a leap to say it's "likely" Randall's intention. 172.70.38.174 15:21, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Randall has just made plain typos, but he's also several times made deliberate 'errors' with actual reference to his love of language/writing and skill. And, given his US-spelling bias, it's a strange leap to a Anglo-French mish-mash if he just miswrote (in typing and comic-lettering) something quite so far from his 'normal' version. On balance, having had no part in that particular bit of wording, I think "likely" is a good hedge by the one who wrote that. And still perfectly allows for it to be a typo, if it was. (But keep an eye out for revised comic/alt-text!) 172.71.182.48 15:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I often find I understand Randall's thinking well above average, that I just instinctively get what he's getting at even when others are stuck in debate, and I'm of the opinion that he just wanted to get fancier/more formal than "racket" (maybe partly to stay distinct from other uses of that word), but since that spelling is unusual in North America that he simply forgot or didn't realize there's a C. I find this explanation is strengthened by him spelling it the same way in the Mouseover text. I feel confident it's nothing more complicated than that (remembering Occam's Razor). :) NiceGuy1 (talk) 05:31, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Why fixate on these bizarre details? Randall is a normal, fallible human writing with his human hands. ~AgentMuffin 13:27, 11 November 2023 (UTC)