Talk:1727: Number of Computers - Revision history

Nitpicking: Time

2022-10-08T12:40:26Z

Time

172.69.69.207: Added question

2021-09-29T19:38:48Z

Added question

Davidy22: awfully mouthy for someone who can't read instructions

2016-09-12T06:27:55Z

awfully mouthy for someone who can't read instructions

108.162.237.136 at 00:39, 12 September 2016

2016-09-12T00:39:30Z

Davidy22 at 03:56, 5 September 2016

2016-09-05T03:56:44Z

Hkmaly at 21:28, 4 September 2016

2016-09-04T21:28:26Z

Hkmaly at 21:28, 4 September 2016

2016-09-04T21:28:08Z

108.162.237.133 at 15:02, 3 September 2016

2016-09-03T15:02:07Z

162.158.74.27: The mission is impossible.

2016-09-02T03:01:38Z

The mission is impossible.

162.158.86.137 at 17:51, 1 September 2016

2016-09-01T17:51:14Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:40, 8 October 2022
Line 21:		Line 21:

	Just out of curiosity, does anyone have a source for number of computers created? I'd be really interested to see that, whether it's the one Randall used when making the comic, or a newer source. Thanks! [[Special:Contributions/172.69.69.207\|172.69.69.207]] 19:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)		Just out of curiosity, does anyone have a source for number of computers created? I'd be really interested to see that, whether it's the one Randall used when making the comic, or a newer source. Thanks! [[Special:Contributions/172.69.69.207\|172.69.69.207]] 19:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
		+
		+	As of 2022, Juno's mission has been extended through at least September, 2025. https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/juno/overview/index.html [[User:Nitpicking\|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking\|talk]]) 12:40, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:38, 29 September 2021
Line 19:		Line 19:

	Is that really so hard to send probe on Jupiter orbit into Jupiter? I would expect it would likely happen even if not trying, either because orbit not being totally stable or because the probe will hit something. Or get under Io. ... -- [[User:Hkmaly\|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly\|talk]]) 21:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)		Is that really so hard to send probe on Jupiter orbit into Jupiter? I would expect it would likely happen even if not trying, either because orbit not being totally stable or because the probe will hit something. Or get under Io. ... -- [[User:Hkmaly\|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly\|talk]]) 21:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
		+
		+	Just out of curiosity, does anyone have a source for number of computers created? I'd be really interested to see that, whether it's the one Randall used when making the comic, or a newer source. Thanks! [[Special:Contributions/172.69.69.207\|172.69.69.207]] 19:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 Did you miss the point about the left axis being logarithmic, or do you need an "explain explain xkcd" page to teach you basic graphing concepts?
-     flounder
+flounder {{unsigned ip|108.162.237.136}}
 If the implied goal is destroying computers ''in Jupiter'' I’m afraid it is completely impossible for NASA to finish even if we stopped manufacturing them now. Some computers have already been destroyed by other means. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.27|162.158.74.27]] 03:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 The line is indicating linear growth, not exponential. Exponential growth would be parabolic, not straight. Tinny 17:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 :Note the log scale.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.86.137|162.158.86.137]] 17:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 If the implied goal is destroying computers ''in Jupiter'' I’m afraid it is completely impossible for NASA to finish even if we stopped manufacturing them now. Some computers have already been destroyed by other means. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.27|162.158.74.27]] 03:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 If the implied goal is destroying computers ''in Jupiter'' I’m afraid it is completely impossible for NASA to finish even if we stopped manufacturing them now. Some computers have already been destroyed by other means. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.27|162.158.74.27]] 03:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
-Could there be a reference to Lord of the Rings? Having to travel a long distance to destroy an object in the one location it can be destroyed.
+Could there be a reference to Lord of the Rings? Having to travel a long distance to destroy an object in the one location it can be destroyed. {{unsigned ip|108.162.237.133}}
 Is that really so hard to send probe on Jupiter orbit into Jupiter? I would expect it would likely happen even if not trying, either because orbit not being totally stable or because the probe will hit something. Or get under Io. ... -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 21:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:28, 4 September 2016
Line 15:		Line 15:
	Could there be a reference to Lord of the Rings? Having to travel a long distance to destroy an object in the one location it can be destroyed.		Could there be a reference to Lord of the Rings? Having to travel a long distance to destroy an object in the one location it can be destroyed.

−	:Is that really so hard to send probe on Jupiter orbit into Jupiter? I would expect it would likely happen even if not trying, either because orbit not being totally stable or because the probe will hit something. Or get under Io. ... -- [[User:Hkmaly\|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly\|talk]]) 21:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)	+	Is that really so hard to send probe on Jupiter orbit into Jupiter? I would expect it would likely happen even if not trying, either because orbit not being totally stable or because the probe will hit something. Or get under Io. ... -- [[User:Hkmaly\|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly\|talk]]) 21:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:28, 4 September 2016
Line 14:		Line 14:

	Could there be a reference to Lord of the Rings? Having to travel a long distance to destroy an object in the one location it can be destroyed.		Could there be a reference to Lord of the Rings? Having to travel a long distance to destroy an object in the one location it can be destroyed.
		+
		+	:Is that really so hard to send probe on Jupiter orbit into Jupiter? I would expect it would likely happen even if not trying, either because orbit not being totally stable or because the probe will hit something. Or get under Io. ... -- [[User:Hkmaly\|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly\|talk]]) 21:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:02, 3 September 2016
Line 12:		Line 12:

	If the implied goal is destroying computers ''in Jupiter'' I’m afraid it is completely impossible for NASA to finish even if we stopped manufacturing them now. Some computers have already been destroyed by other means. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.27\|162.158.74.27]] 03:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)		If the implied goal is destroying computers ''in Jupiter'' I’m afraid it is completely impossible for NASA to finish even if we stopped manufacturing them now. Some computers have already been destroyed by other means. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.27\|162.158.74.27]] 03:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
		+
		+	Could there be a reference to Lord of the Rings? Having to travel a long distance to destroy an object in the one location it can be destroyed.

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:01, 2 September 2016
Line 10:		Line 10:
	The line is indicating linear growth, not exponential. Exponential growth would be parabolic, not straight. Tinny 17:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)		The line is indicating linear growth, not exponential. Exponential growth would be parabolic, not straight. Tinny 17:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
	:Note the log scale.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.86.137\|162.158.86.137]] 17:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)		:Note the log scale.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.86.137\|162.158.86.137]] 17:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
		+
		+	If the implied goal is destroying computers ''in Jupiter'' I’m afraid it is completely impossible for NASA to finish even if we stopped manufacturing them now. Some computers have already been destroyed by other means. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.27\|162.158.74.27]] 03:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:51, 1 September 2016
Line 9:		Line 9:

	The line is indicating linear growth, not exponential. Exponential growth would be parabolic, not straight. Tinny 17:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)		The line is indicating linear growth, not exponential. Exponential growth would be parabolic, not straight. Tinny 17:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
		+	:Note the log scale.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.86.137\|162.158.86.137]] 17:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)