| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 317: |
Line 317: |
| | | | |
| | Am i alone in thinking that there are many "references to other comics" which are not references at all, but merely about the same subject? "One birth" is supposedly a reference to 746, with presumably the only reason that they both handle the subject of concieving children. The only "correct" reference in my opinion is the reference to 165 (turn signals). [[Special:Contributions/141.101.80.215|141.101.80.215]] 15:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC) | | Am i alone in thinking that there are many "references to other comics" which are not references at all, but merely about the same subject? "One birth" is supposedly a reference to 746, with presumably the only reason that they both handle the subject of concieving children. The only "correct" reference in my opinion is the reference to 165 (turn signals). [[Special:Contributions/141.101.80.215|141.101.80.215]] 15:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC) |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Just returning to the "10 years = too large a GIF" thing, without trying to slot into the huge mess it became above ... the thing we should be looking at here is not overall file size, but *rate*. The overall size was somewhere beyond 10mb? OK, but, so what - we've got 10 years to download it, and GIF is an inherently streaming format (each frame displays as it loads, if there hasn't been enough time / bandwidth to pre-buffer it). 1 megabyte per year is 2871 bytes per average day, 120 per hour, 1.99 per minute... and a grand total of 0.266 BITS per second (ie 3.76 seconds per bit). A tortoise could transmit that GIF using morse code and it wouldn't be badly delayed. And the amount of storage represented by 10mb by the time it's finished sending won't even be worth calculating in terms of cost or percentage of available space, when a 16gb flashdrive already costs under £10 retail.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Also, these GIFs seem to be pretty inefficiently compressed; I'm following another webcomic at the moment where most of the frames are high-resolution full-colour aniGIFs, and each one tends to clock in around 40 to 100kb unless there's a lot of action in it... but the "magnitude 1 earthquake" one here is 123kb. Even so, the mag 4 quake GIF - 1000x longer - is but 280kb, so the size obviously doesn't scale linearly with length. The difference is most likely in levels of grey shown during the fade, and as even the 42-second "to kill a mockingbird" one is noticeably slower fading than the more frequent ones around it (not quite enough, at 30fps and maybe 3-4 seconds of fading, to cover the whole 166 shades between lightest and darkest text - but the mag 4 one would easily manage it even at a lower framerate, as it probably takes a good 30 seconds if not a couple minutes). It's possible that 300kb is all it takes for the actual image payload even of a full-fade panel with a lot of high frequency, non repeating patterned text, and all the rest is just padding / blank / repeat overheads.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Which means even our 0.27-bit-per-second tortoise would get all THAT sent in a little over three months, not much more time than would be needed to show the likely fadeout in realtime if it was the first thing that actually appeared. If it was sent by any other realistic communication method, even as POST data from the client end of a 1200/75 baud modem, it'd have entirely ample time to buffer (the first frame would likely appear within 1 to 5 minutes), and your more realistic concern would be not only stopping your computer from rebooting before the GIF had time to run through a cycle, but keeping it running continuously for that length of time (and, if needed, downloading the file really slowly throughout) in any case. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.150|141.101.98.150]] 19:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Anyone notice how the explanations for the car-related frequencies are nonsensical? They're so nonsensical that I can't tell how to fix them without actually knowing the subject. Please fix.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.206|108.162.219.206]] 05:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | I'm filling in the remaining fields the best I can. I did the last one; Denver pizza. Math is not my strong point. It's probably a joke statistic, but someone may want to double-check my math. I didn't see any figures for Denver's pizza consumption, but I figured it was one of those things where it just maybe worked out to match the Denver population. {{unsigned|4jonah}}
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | All fields are now filled out to the best of my ability. I have not edited ones already completed, but finished empty ones as accurately as possible. {{unsigned|4jonah}}
| |
| − |
| |
| − | "About half of all cyclists have their bikes stolen, oftentimes more than once, but riders have a 90% chance of theft, all according to this report." It's a very confusing sentence and doesn't match the data in the linked report. About half of all people who ''ever'' cycle get their bikes stolen at some point. People who cycle ''every day'' are 90% more likely to have their bike stolen than people who cycle infrequently. Not 90% chance of theft. I will update this if nobody objects. [[User:AmbroseChapel|AmbroseChapel]] ([[User talk:AmbroseChapel|talk]]) 23:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Not sure if it's the sort of interesting fact that should be added or not, but under the "Sagittarius named Amelia" section, that link to the Baby Name Wizard shows the peak popularity for the name "Amelia" was in 2012. The character of Amelia Pond was on Doctor Who from 2010 to mid-2012, and that was also the height of the immense popularity in America of Matt Smith playing the title role. Might be the source of the popularity of that name. Also, does the previous analysis take into account the fact that Sagittarius named Amelia wouldn't start drinking soda until they are at least a few years old? Would taking out all the ones under the age of five or six let us bring back in SNA in the rest of the world, given that soda is much more popular in America than elsewhere? [[User:CritterKeeper|CritterKeeper]] ([[User talk:CritterKeeper|talk]]) 19:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Anyone want to help calculate the odds of all of these flashing at the same time? [[User:IJustWantToEditStuff|IJustWantToEditStuff]] ([[User talk:IJustWantToEditStuff|talk]]) 01:01, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
| |
| − | :If I have all the timings entered correctly (because I just did it on a calculator when I should have gone with a script on the source data) it's... Approximately 2.77x10<sup>46</sup> years.
| |
| − | :That's because I have factorised the ms durations of each gif (as given above, give or take a typo) and the lowest common multiple is built up as being (2⁷ * 3⁵ * 5⁴ * 7 * 11 * 13 * 19 * 23 * 29² * 31 * 41 * 43 * 47 * 67 * 71 * 79 * 83 * 103 * 127 * 139 * 211 * 269 * 277 * 311 * 401 * 503 * 701 * 1213) milliseconds... But feel free to validate my assumptions. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.4|172.70.86.4]] 03:50, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
| |
