Talk:1281: Minifigs

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Jump to: navigation, search

This is my first time at trying to explain something. Even if it's replaced by a better one, I hope it gets the point across.

Cheers! 05:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Your explanation looks good (perhaps somebody changed it, though). I am happy for you. Welcome to.the community. You are the type of people that make wikis great.
Zyxuvius (talk) 17:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Related question: what is the current population of Teddy bears? And what about Barbies? -- Hkmaly (talk) 08:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Might Mattel be the world's largest shoe maker? 16:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Then we are just waiting for a Wikipedian to remove the comparison of tires manufactures as Wikipedia is not the place for random facts appearing in XKCD comics. Pmakholm (talk) 10:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The information in the Wikipedia article on Lego tires, including the random fact that in 2011 it was the world's largest tire manufacturer, has been there since May 2012 -boB (talk) 13:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I, for one, welcome our new Lego overlords. 01:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Just a suggestion for discussion: instead of the final phrase of the second paragraph saying "the prognosis of this comic seems quite likely", I think "the prognosis of this comic seems at least possible if not highly likely" as the point of the previous extrapolations is that they were unwarranted/probably impossible, not just unlikely. Grahame (talk) 04:34, 24 October 2013 (UTC)Grahame

I find it extremely surprising (to the point of incredulity) that the human population has been growing linearly 06:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC) FirstTimeUserAmIDoingThisRight?

The comic is correct, it's nearly linear at that time range. Look here: world population.--Dgbrt (talk) 12:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
The graph you link to has a logarithmic scale for population, so the straight lines represent exponential growth. Randall's graph has a linear population scale, so the lines should have the form of an exponential function. 12:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Ups, but at that data ranges it doesn't make a big difference. Look at page 21 here: UN PDF dokument.--Dgbrt (talk) 13:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Has Randall taken into account that some of the manufactured lego minifigs have been destroyed? If not, then the number of minifigs should be compared to the number of humans that has ever been born, not only to those still alive today...(Maybe a billion or more of the minifigs have been destroyed?) Kynde (talk) 17:45, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Nice point. The Number of humans who have ever lived is estimated around 100 billions in total. But Randall compares the "Number of people in the world" with the "Number of Lego People in the world", so a good guess on the number of destroyed minifigs is needed. I think it's more likely about the half of the entire production.--Dgbrt (talk) 18:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Not sure that I completely agree. Keep in mind that a thrown out Lego minifigure will continue to exist for thousands of years (the same can be said of a dismembered one) while a buried or dismembered human will decompose within a few generations (with the occasional exception). Given that, it's fair to assume that every minifigure ever created still exists, while only the humans born in the past 200 years continue to do so. 04:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Has anyone here actually managed to destroy a minfig? I myself have only ever broken an arm or two, which leaves the minifigure mostly intact. I suppose you could melt it down, but most people who would have a reason to (i.e. to use as ink in a 3D printer) would just buy non-LEGOified plastic, as it's cheaper. 21:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Do you still count humans who have been permanently embalmed? (And how do minifigs that have been kragl'd compare?) 09:36, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

This strikes me as having a curious overlap with The Simulation Argument: If it is possible for technology to ever allow a civilization's members to casually run simulated universes, or even worlds, on their personal computers, then eventually there would be more human beings living in simulated worlds than the real one, meaning that (in an abstract sense that does not really conform strictly with the science of probability) it is more likely that WE are in a simulation, than in the real, original universe containing the simulations. — Kazvorpal (talk) 16:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Personal tools


It seems you are using noscript, which is stopping our project wonderful ads from working. Explain xkcd uses ads to pay for bandwidth, and we manually approve all our advertisers, and our ads are restricted to unobtrusive images and slow animated GIFs. If you found this site helpful, please consider whitelisting us.

Want to advertise with us, or donate to us with Paypal?