Difference between revisions of "Talk:1741: Work"
Flymousechiu (talk | contribs) |
|||
(3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
An engineer worked into the night? Maybe if the engineer had let a draftsman do the job for him all that time could have been saved. Mind you, ACAD is a drawing package. Modelling up that lamp assembly in any quarter decent 3D package is a tutorial exercise. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.2.54|162.158.2.54]] 10:16, 11 October 2016 (UTC) | An engineer worked into the night? Maybe if the engineer had let a draftsman do the job for him all that time could have been saved. Mind you, ACAD is a drawing package. Modelling up that lamp assembly in any quarter decent 3D package is a tutorial exercise. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.2.54|162.158.2.54]] 10:16, 11 October 2016 (UTC) | ||
+ | |||
+ | All of these objects look like they were designed <= 1950. So no AutoCAD involved.--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.83.108|162.158.83.108]] 10:52, 29 October 2016 (UTC) | ||
+ | :Huh? How so? I can buy all of those products in a store today, and while yes, the general products were in existence before/around the '50s, the Korean company that made my el-cheapo dollar store versions had to make the designs from scratch. Yes, they had a general *idea* on how to make it, that only goes so far into what's discussed. {{unsigned|Papayaman1000}} | ||
+ | |||
+ | Not saying that I've ever done that, but some of the curves might have been drawn with one hand while the engineer is scratching the butt-cheek with the other ;) [[User:Flymousechiu|Flymousechiu]] ([[User talk:Flymousechiu|talk]]) 22:00, 26 September 2022 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 22:00, 26 September 2022
Whoa, I've never been early enough to beat the explanation before. 173.245.50.82 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
- To 173.245.50.82, please remember to sign your posts. --JayRulesXKCD (talk) 13:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
I wrote the transcript. Feel free to change it so it's not so bare and write the explanation. Thanks. --JayRulesXKCD (talk) 13:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
To prevent fire hazards, objects in California are not allowed to surpass a certain temperature, 140 °C if I'm correct . Can't find the actual law quick. 162.158.114.230 18:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
I think Randall underestimates the problem. I used to work for the research arm of the electronics multinational, Philips. When a product design was "finished", it had to go to a special committee who decided where, exactly, on the product did the word "PHILIPS" and their little shield logo go - and (rarely) whether these things should be done in black or white. It was VERY frequently the case that the committee would take longer to come to a conclusion than the product took to design. SteveBaker (talk) 20:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
I often wonder about those tiny, cheap plastic toys that come in Xmas crackers (UK) or the 25 cent toy vending machines (USA). They are completely crappy things - but thinking that someone thought about what kind of toy should be made - then designed the shape of it, thought about the color of plastic to use, spent tens of thousands of dollars machining an injection mold for it - and STILL turned out a complete piece of junk...it's anyone's guess what effort that took. I know it costs around $40,000 to make a mold like that - but those toys look like someone who was being paid very, very little, spent no more than an afternoon designing each one! SteveBaker (talk) 20:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
What a coincidence. I just got out of my Product Development class. I remember having to deal with so many of these things that it's completely relatable. Jeudi Violist (talk) 21:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Wow, that curve would be a bitch to draw in AutoCAD. I still shudder... Papayaman1000 (talk) 21:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
If anything, I'll bet the timeframes listed are shorter than they really took (only months of tip-over tests? only 9 hours of meetings on the arm?? David Lang 173.245.48.105 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
I don't know anything about glass production, but is it true that "what compounds are allowed around the glass during production" matters? It sounds like those martini recipes where one waves a bottle of vermouth towards the glass. Miamiclay (talk) 05:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- I'm no expert, but if impurities gets into the glass the color or refraction may change or the strength. And if it is a drinking glass there may be any kind of toxic products that may be used in creating window glass etc. that could not be allowed to enter the production. --Kynde (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- I wouldn't call myself an expert on glass in cups, either, but I've learned about FDA guidelines, studied manufacturing processes, and visited a glass production company once. The FDA has issued a warning on lead crystal glass cups, and lead has been found in regular glass, and as you said there are many contaminants that can be present during manufacturing from any material but if the material comes in contact with food or drink (such as cups) special care has to be taken to avoid those toxins. I am not 100% sure this is done with drinking glass, but it makes sense. Even if nobody cares about getting toxins in drinking glasses, this comic is about "imaging the work that went into design" and not "knowing exactly what went into design". Jeudi Violist (talk) 03:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- My favourite (fake) dry martini recipe included having a friend in Hong Kong (the writer was based in Britain) whisper the word "Vermouth" over the 'phone, whilst the handset was held close (but not too close) to the Gin!RoyT (talk) 07:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Randall may, indeed, be annoyed about the cord switch, but there is nothing in the comic or the title text to suggest that. He does, however, have a strong opinion on the "cord switch _firing_ incident". Perhaps that bit of the explanation should be amended? RoyT (talk) 06:48, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- I think they say that because he implied in the title text of a previous comic that having the switch on the cord is worse than having your dog possessed by a demon. 108.162.218.136 11:43, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Removed an abusive and trolling "disclaimer" asking us to evaluate our life choices and our support of the comic. Trolling is unwelcome. Enfield (talk) 17:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
I think about design a lot and however many hours are spent on some products it never ceases to amaze me how the primary feature can fail so terribly, like pouring a liquid without the liquid spilling. 108.162.215.235 00:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
It's a bit strange to emphasize the work that went into designing these things, but to completely fail to mention to work that went in to *actually* making them. Shades of Marx and the table's wooden brain? Arctother (talk) 18:56, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
An engineer worked into the night? Maybe if the engineer had let a draftsman do the job for him all that time could have been saved. Mind you, ACAD is a drawing package. Modelling up that lamp assembly in any quarter decent 3D package is a tutorial exercise. 162.158.2.54 10:16, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
All of these objects look like they were designed <= 1950. So no AutoCAD involved.--162.158.83.108 10:52, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- Huh? How so? I can buy all of those products in a store today, and while yes, the general products were in existence before/around the '50s, the Korean company that made my el-cheapo dollar store versions had to make the designs from scratch. Yes, they had a general *idea* on how to make it, that only goes so far into what's discussed. -- Papayaman1000 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
Not saying that I've ever done that, but some of the curves might have been drawn with one hand while the engineer is scratching the butt-cheek with the other ;) Flymousechiu (talk) 22:00, 26 September 2022 (UTC)