Difference between revisions of "Talk:1727: Number of Computers"
(The mission is impossible.) |
|||
| 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) | ||
Revision as of 03:01, 2 September 2016
Huh. Just noticed I missed a sentence at the beginning, but I'm too lazy to fix it. Could someone else rewrite my horrible draft? 173.245.50.85 06:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- I have done that now. ;-) And added a "few" extra details. --Kynde (talk) 14:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
The dotted line may also mean that the mission could possibly be extended, as happened to many NASA missions, in which case the destruction would occur later than currently planned. Zetfr 15:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
There's a HAL9000 joke in there all over it. Aasasd (talk) 16:26, 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.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. 162.158.74.27 03:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
