Talk:2513: Saturn Hexagon

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Revision as of 20:17, 10 September 2021 by (talk)
Jump to: navigation, search

Interesting, I wrote a basic description since the page was blank, and apparently, within the time I was writing someone else posted an explanation so mine wasn't saved. It's interesting that that's how the site deals with things like that. In this case, the explanation the other guy wrote is better so it's fine, but what if you wrote something super long and detailed and it vanished because someone else was editing at the same time? It didn't appear in the version history so it's not like I could go back and retrieve the text. Again, it doesn't matter here but it's interesting to think about. Zman350x (talk) 02:23, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry --the other guy 2:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
That sounds like a mediawiki bug that should be reported somewhere. It's supposed to give you an opportunity to merge your changes in. 10:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
I suspect the lack of a merge opportunity has something to do with the fact that the page was blank before the two edits, although I can't say that with any definitive expertise. Ianrbibtitlht (talk) 14:23, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Maybe, because usually I get an opportunity to review my text compared with the new. And thus do not loose what I just wrote. So could be if the page was completely blank? Or just a browser issue? --Kynde (talk) 08:26, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
I have noted that *possibly* when adding new material to a section when another new section is added within an edit that includes that sectionn(never quite established the true circumstances) the backend is happy to allow 'compound changes' that normally would be blocked (even if it's simultaneous edits to different paras that needn't be considered as a clash).
Possibly (assuming it didn't include very improbable personal editing errors) I've also seen a non-clash clash actually duplicate a paragraph, perhaps where it is positionally dislocated due to inserted paragraph 'objects' above.
(But I don't entirely know how the engine stores and shuffles its comparable input data. It does reveal some of its possible mechanics when you see in edit-comparisons a 'minor' edit, for human glance, as entire original paras 'deleted' from the left and entire barely/rarely changed paras - save for some single-punctuation correction or two, perhaps) 'created' on the right. But at other times it 'deletes'/'creates' at the word-level for similar punctuation changes, or just does the comma!! In ways I haven't yet resolved into any great codifiable insight (nor sought out the source code to analyse). But it keeps me entertained to think about it, as the occasion arises. :) ) 09:03, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

So soccer balls appear in the very tiny (Fullerenes) and the very large, as noted here. I wonder if there is a relation, or if the chemists and astronomers are referencing the same group of sports-enthusiast mathematicians. Nutster (talk) 03:20, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Just to note (in case anyone wonders why one particular edit, in passing) that the only SI length unit is the metre (and, yes, with the French-inspired '-re' ending in all 'English' nations except the US, who don't even want to use it so can't complain (/jk!)). Millimetres, centimetres, kilometres, etc are only present in the broader 'decimalised' metric system using the SI-prefixes. Just as the litre (ditto on spelling!) is not SI, but also is not SI-unit in size, being 1000 of the SI-derived baseline 'cubic centimetres' (each also being 1 millilitre), rather than anything as logical as being 1 whole cubic decimetre or awkward as a "milli-(cubic metre)". 04:16, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I find it oddly amusing that soccer vs football discussion takes up most of the description, much more than actual explanation. 12:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh, it's probably not a matter of life and death. It's much more important than that! (Wait until someone brings up Rugby League and Rugby Union, and which distinction is better. - Though of course both are much more dynamic than the stateside 'handegg' where everyone is slowed down by padding and frequent stoppages. ;P )
...seriously, there could be more depth to the Magic 8-Ball bit, but the rest of the non-ballgame/metric stuff just mostly writes what the comic says. Unless someone has something to say about what might (or might not) be in the depths of Saturn, IRL, e.g. the core, and how it/Jupiter became the way they did. 13:20, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
We could always move it to a trivia section -- 17:10, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

//However, BSBIT also stands for Bachelor of Science in Business Information Technology [2], a relatively new specialization where business majors learn programming techniques [3], so the acronym could also have been used to imply that a graduate of this major came up with the soccer ball model listed in the presentation.//

No. No, it could not have be used to mean that, because that's completely absurd. Does anyone here actually think that BSBIT was intended this way? Even if you were the person who invented the "Bachelor of Science in Business Information Technology," I guarantee you would not have interpreted Randall to have been using this particular abbreviation in this incredibly contrived and obscure way. As far as I'm concerned, it is 100% certain that "BSBIT" refers to "Big Soccer Ball In There" and absolutely nothing else. The idea that we need to find alternate interpretations of everything, no matter how unlikely it is that anyone will see them that way, and present them as equally plausible as what everyone knows is the intended interpretation, is getting ridiculous. My guess is that someone plugged "BSBIT" into an acronym finder, found this particular acronym, and decided to plug it in - possibly thinking it was actually helpful, or possibly just for grins. And sure, maybe we can have something in a seperate "trivia" section, but in my view, it's just silly to put it in the main explanation. mezimm 20:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)