3248: 182.8 Meters - Revision history

24.204.209.94: /* Explanation */

2026-05-22T17:33:41Z

‎Explanation

DKMell: it's done

2026-05-22T16:05:54Z

it's done

GSLikesCats307 at 12:38, 22 May 2026

2026-05-22T12:38:24Z

82.13.184.33: /* Explanation */

2026-05-22T10:01:23Z

‎Explanation

82.13.184.33: /* Explanation */

2026-05-22T09:57:30Z

‎Explanation

82.13.184.33: /* Explanation */

2026-05-22T08:38:46Z

‎Explanation

2A02:26F7:F6EF:A6A7:0:4800:0:F: /* Explanation */

2026-05-22T02:59:53Z

‎Explanation

82.132.238.236: /* Explanation */

2026-05-21T16:58:45Z

‎Explanation

82.132.238.236: /* Explanation */

2026-05-21T16:41:46Z

‎Explanation

82.132.238.236: /* Explanation */

2026-05-21T16:08:32Z

‎Explanation

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 ==Explanation==
 {{incomplete|This page was created recently by a 1.8288 meter high individual. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}
-This is a comic in the [[:Category:My Hobby|My Hobby]] series — the hobby here being reverse-engineering original units from oddly specific measurements in another unit. Unlike many of the My Hobby comics, where [[Cueball]]'s hobby is something eccentric, prankish or [[53|dangerous]], in this situation he uses his hobby simply to understand the origin of someone else's unusual phrasing. Also unlike most other My Hobby comics, this is one that people actually do in real life.
+This is a comic in the [[:Category:My Hobby|My Hobby]] series — the hobby here being reverse-engineering original units from oddly specific measurements in another unit. Unlike many of the My Hobby comics, where [[Cueball]]'s hobby is something eccentric, prankish or [[53|dangerous]], in this situation he uses his hobby simply to understand the origin of someone else's unusual phrasing. Also unlike most other My Hobby comics, this is one that people actually do in real life, being the first "My Hobby" comic since [[Hyphen]] to feature a hobby that real people have.
 When presenting measurements where perfect accuracy is not required, such as in casual conversation or when giving simple presentations to the public, speakers will often use approximations, such as {{w|rounding}} to the nearest whole number, or the nearest ten, or using only the most {{w|significant figures|significant digit}}. When translating these approximations into other measurement systems, however, people will often treat them as precise, and use the standard conversion formulae to get an exact value. This leads to examples of {{w|false precision}}, where the presentation of a measurement implies more information than is actually contained in it. In this case, a {{w|fathom}} is a unit of measurement used to measure how deep water is. One fathom is equal to six feet, or 1.8288 metres. The depth of the bay has been measured as being greater than 100 fathoms, and someone has converted that (via the value 182.88) to 182.8 meters.

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 ==Explanation==
 {{incomplete|This page was created recently by a 1.8288 meter high individual. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}
-This is a comic in the [[:Category:My Hobby|My Hobby]] series — the hobby here being reverse-engineering original units from oddly specific measurements in another unit. Unlike many of the My Hobby comics, where [[Cueball]]'s hobby is something eccentric, prankish or [[53|dangerous]], in this situation he uses his hobby simply to understand the origin of someone else's unusual phrasing.
+This is a comic in the [[:Category:My Hobby|My Hobby]] series — the hobby here being reverse-engineering original units from oddly specific measurements in another unit. Unlike many of the My Hobby comics, where [[Cueball]]'s hobby is something eccentric, prankish or [[53|dangerous]], in this situation he uses his hobby simply to understand the origin of someone else's unusual phrasing. Also unlike most other My Hobby comics, this is one that people actually do in real life.
 When presenting measurements where perfect accuracy is not required, such as in casual conversation or when giving simple presentations to the public, speakers will often use approximations, such as {{w|rounding}} to the nearest whole number, or the nearest ten, or using only the most {{w|significant figures|significant digit}}. When translating these approximations into other measurement systems, however, people will often treat them as precise, and use the standard conversion formulae to get an exact value. This leads to examples of {{w|false precision}}, where the presentation of a measurement implies more information than is actually contained in it. In this case, a {{w|fathom}} is a unit of measurement used to measure how deep water is. One fathom is equal to six feet, or 1.8288 metres. The depth of the bay has been measured as being greater than 100 fathoms, and someone has converted that (via the value 182.88) to 182.8 meters.

@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 False precision may also sometimes be used in product labelling to present things as "more than a" precise number, to make the product sound more enticing, cheap or worthwhile (for example, saying "now with more than 28.4% more water", when the product only has 28.5% more water). That also relates to the confusion between "five times more than" and "five times as much as", which some people use synonymously, creating a potential off-by-one error.
-Randall has previously used conversion between measurement systems as main subject of his comics, including using the [[2585: Rounding|overly exact conversion and re-rounding]] of values, which also involved fathoms to achieve an unfathomable result.
+Randall has previously used conversion between measurement systems as main subject of his comics, including using the [[2585: Rounding|overly exact conversion]] [[3065: Square Units|and re-rounding]] of values, which also involved fathoms to achieve an unfathomable result.
 ==Transcript==

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 When presenting measurements where perfect accuracy is not required, such as in casual conversation or when giving simple presentations to the public, speakers will often use approximations, such as {{w|rounding}} to the nearest whole number, or the nearest ten, or using only the most {{w|significant figures|significant digit}}. When translating these approximations into other measurement systems, however, people will often treat them as precise, and use the standard conversion formulae to get an exact value. This leads to examples of {{w|false precision}}, where the presentation of a measurement implies more information than is actually contained in it. In this case, a {{w|fathom}} is a unit of measurement used to measure how deep water is. One fathom is equal to six feet, or 1.8288 metres. The depth of the bay has been measured as being greater than 100 fathoms, and someone has converted that (via the value 182.88) to 182.8 meters.
-In most cases, 182.88 would round to 182.9. As the title text explains, in this case they rounded down in order to prevent a possibly incorrect statement. This is a comical attempt at mitigating the false precision; it retains the overly-precise initial statement (of unknown {{w|Accuracy and precision|precision ''or'' accuracy}}, having just one obviously significant figure) was too approximate to imply. It suggests that they were worried that the maximum depth may be between 182.88 meters and 182.9 meters — a margin of just 2 centimeters, which is beyond the accuracy/precision with which anyone is likely to be measuring such things. Moreover, in most areas of seawater it would be within the daily variance due to {{w|tide|tidal activity}} (requiring reference to a specific choice of {{w|chart datum|tidal datum}}), and the {{w|seabed}} is typically a dynamic environment in which the depth profile could be changing by this much over very short periods through the redistribution of sediment from both tides and weather-induced events. A more reasonable attempt to translate 'the bay is more than 100 fathoms deep' might be "the bay is more than 180 meters deep"; this stays close to the initial measurement while rounding to the nearest ten, to convey that the measure is approximate.
+In most cases, 182.88 would round to 182.9. As the title text explains, in this case they rounded down in order to prevent a possibly incorrect statement. This is a comical attempt at mitigating the false precision; it retains the overly-precise 2.8 from the conversion, that the initial statement (of unknown {{w|Accuracy and precision|precision ''or'' accuracy}}, having just one obviously significant figure) was probably too approximate to imply. It suggests that they were worried that the maximum depth may be between 182.88 meters and 182.9 meters — a margin of just 2 centimeters, which is beyond the accuracy/precision with which anyone is likely to be measuring such things. Moreover, in most areas of seawater it would be within the daily variance due to {{w|tide|tidal activity}} (requiring reference to a specific choice of {{w|chart datum|tidal datum}}), and the {{w|seabed}} is typically a dynamic environment in which the depth profile could be changing by this much over very short periods through the redistribution of sediment from both tides and weather-induced events. A more reasonable attempt to translate 'the bay is more than 100 fathoms deep' might be "the bay is more than 180 meters deep"; this stays close to the initial measurement while rounding to the nearest ten, to convey that the measure is approximate.
 Assuming that the original "100 fathoms" was itself a rounding of the measurement (or even just a vague 'best estimate') to ''the nearest ten'' (i.e. above 95 fathoms but no higher than 105 fathoms), the precisely converted limits would have been 18.288 meters apart, which might have been better converted to a ±10 meter 'tolerance'; slightly more 'flexible' than the original assumption, but at no risk of being incorrectly exact about an inherently inexact fact. Although even that may be wrong, if the rounding to 100 was instead to the nearest twenty or even ''one hundred'' fathoms. The value could have been rounded to just a single figure of accuracy, and without further information it is impossible to rule that out; it was in order to avoid this very misunderstanding that {{w|Mount Everest#19th century|one of the first accurate measurements of Mount Everest}} was subtly adjusted to ''not'' appear to be an approximate value. It is also possible that this was not a rounding at all, but that 100 fathoms was simply the limit of the available measuring equipment, and that it exceeded that by some unknown amount.

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 Assuming that the original "100 fathoms" was itself a rounding of the measurement (or even just a vague 'best estimate') to ''the nearest ten'' (i.e. above 95 fathoms but no higher than 105 fathoms), the precisely converted limits would have been 18.288 meters apart, which might have been better converted to a ±10 meter 'tolerance'; slightly more 'flexible' than the original assumption, but at no risk of being incorrectly exact about an inherently inexact fact. Although even that may be wrong, if the rounding to 100 was instead to the nearest twenty or even ''one hundred'' fathoms. The value could have been rounded to just a single figure of accuracy, and without further information it is impossible to rule that out; it was in order to avoid this very misunderstanding that {{w|Mount Everest#19th century|one of the first accurate measurements of Mount Everest}} was subtly adjusted to ''not'' appear to be an approximate value. It is also possible that this was not a rounding at all, but that 100 fathoms was simply the limit of the available measuring equipment, and that it exceeded that by some unknown amount.
-False precision may also sometimes be used in product labelling to present things as "more than a" precise number, to make the product sound more enticing, cheap or worthwhile (for example, saying "now with more than 28.4% more water", when the product only has 28.5% more water). That also relates to the confusion between "five times more than" and "five times as much as", which some people use synonymously creating a potential off-by-one error.
+False precision may also sometimes be used in product labelling to present things as "more than a" precise number, to make the product sound more enticing, cheap or worthwhile (for example, saying "now with more than 28.4% more water", when the product only has 28.5% more water). That also relates to the confusion between "five times more than" and "five times as much as", which some people use synonymously, creating a potential off-by-one error.
 Randall has previously used conversion between measurement systems as main subject of his comics, including using the [[2585: Rounding|overly exact conversion and re-rounding]] of values, which also involved fathoms to achieve an unfathomable result.

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:41, 21 May 2026
Line 20:		Line 20:

	False precision may also sometimes be used in product labelling to present things as "more than a" precise number, to make the product sound more enticing, cheap or worthwhile (for example, saying "now with more than 28.4% more water", when the product only has 28.5% more water). That also relates to the confusion between "five times more than" and "five times as much as", which some people use synonymously creating a potential off-by-one error.		False precision may also sometimes be used in product labelling to present things as "more than a" precise number, to make the product sound more enticing, cheap or worthwhile (for example, saying "now with more than 28.4% more water", when the product only has 28.5% more water). That also relates to the confusion between "five times more than" and "five times as much as", which some people use synonymously creating a potential off-by-one error.
		+
		+	Randall has previously used conversion between measurement systems as main subject of his comics, including using the [[2585: Rounding\|overly exact conversion and re-rounding]] of values, which also involved fathoms.

	==Transcript==		==Transcript==

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 In most cases, 182.88 would round to 182.9. As the title text explains, in this case they rounded down in order to prevent a possibly incorrect statement. This is a comical attempt at mitigating the false precision; it retains the overly-precise initial statement (of unknown precision ''or'' accuracy, having just one obviously significant figure) was too approximate to imply. It suggests that they were worried that the maximum depth may be between 182.88 meters and 182.9 meters — a margin of just 2 centimeters, which is beyond the accuracy/precision with which anyone is likely to be measuring such things. Moreover, in most areas of seawater it would be within the daily variance due to {{w|tide|tidal activity}} (requiring reference to a specific choice of {{w|chart datum|tidal datum}}), and the {{w|seabed}} is typically a dynamic environment in which the depth profile could be changing by this much over very short periods through the redistribution of sediment from both tides and weather-induced events. A more reasonable attempt to translate 'the bay is more than 100 fathoms deep' might be "the bay is more than 180 meters deep"; this stays close to the initial measurement while rounding to the nearest ten, to convey that the measure is approximate.
-Assuming that the original "100 fathoms" was itself a rounding of the measurement (or even just a vague 'best estimate') to ''the nearest ten'' (i.e. above 95 fathoms but no higher than 105 fathoms), the precisely converted limits would have been 18.288 meters apart, which might have been better converted to a ±10 meter 'tolerance' (slightly more 'flexible', but at no risk of being incorrectly exact about an inherently inexact fact. Although even that may be wrong, if the rounding to 100 was instead to the nearest twenty or even ''one hundred'' fathoms. The value could have been rounded to just a single figure of accuracy, and without further information it is impossible to rule that out; it was in order to avoid this very misunderstanding that {{w|Mount Everest#19th century|one of the first accurate measurements of Mount Everest}} was subtly adjusted to ''not'' appear to be an approximate value.
+Assuming that the original "100 fathoms" was itself a rounding of the measurement (or even just a vague 'best estimate') to ''the nearest ten'' (i.e. above 95 fathoms but no higher than 105 fathoms), the precisely converted limits would have been 18.288 meters apart, which might have been better converted to a ±10 meter 'tolerance'; slightly more 'flexible' than the original assumption, but at no risk of being incorrectly exact about an inherently inexact fact. Although even that may be wrong, if the rounding to 100 was instead to the nearest twenty or even ''one hundred'' fathoms. The value could have been rounded to just a single figure of accuracy, and without further information it is impossible to rule that out; it was in order to avoid this very misunderstanding that {{w|Mount Everest#19th century|one of the first accurate measurements of Mount Everest}} was subtly adjusted to ''not'' appear to be an approximate value.
 False precision may also sometimes be used in product labelling to present things as "more than a" precise number, to make the product sound more enticing, cheap or worthwhile (for example, saying "now with more than 28.4% more water", when the product only has 28.5% more water). That also relates to the confusion between "five times more than" and "five times as much as", which some people use synonymously creating a potential off-by-one error.