Editing 1727: Number of Computers

Jump to: navigation, search

Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision Your text
Line 18: Line 18:
 
The caption below the comic humorously implies that NASA's reasons for causing the probes to deorbit into Jupiter is merely an attempt to destroy all the computers of the world. The caption notes that they are failing horribly, given that they have destroyed only three computers out of more than 10 billion. However, due to the semi-log scale, those three computers appear to have more significance than they actually have. The caption states that NASA really needs to pick up the pace (having only destroyed two since the 1940s, when computers were created), if they wish to actually finish the job of destroying all computers by hurling them into Jupiter. In addition, seeing as there have been many computers destroyed by other means, NASA will never actually catch up, no matter how hard they try, making this statistic even more irrelevant.
 
The caption below the comic humorously implies that NASA's reasons for causing the probes to deorbit into Jupiter is merely an attempt to destroy all the computers of the world. The caption notes that they are failing horribly, given that they have destroyed only three computers out of more than 10 billion. However, due to the semi-log scale, those three computers appear to have more significance than they actually have. The caption states that NASA really needs to pick up the pace (having only destroyed two since the 1940s, when computers were created), if they wish to actually finish the job of destroying all computers by hurling them into Jupiter. In addition, seeing as there have been many computers destroyed by other means, NASA will never actually catch up, no matter how hard they try, making this statistic even more irrelevant.
  
βˆ’
Destroying unwanted objects by hurling them into Jupiter pokes fun at the common science fiction trope of destroying objects by hurling them into the Sun [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HurlItIntoTheSun].  Hurling objects into the Sun is in fact extremely difficult because of the need to cancel out the orbital velocity of the earth.  Randall may be referencing calculations ([https://qntm.org/destroy#sec3], see item 11) that show that hurling items into Jupiter requires 38% less energy than hurling them into the Sun.
+
Destroying unwanted objects by hurling them into Jupiter pokes fun at the common science fiction trope of destroying objects by hurling them into the Sun [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HurlItIntoTheSun].  Hurling objects into the Sun is in fact extremely difficult because of the need to cancel out the orbital velocity of the earth.  Randall may referencing calculations ([https://qntm.org/destroy#sec3], see item 11) that show that hurling items into Jupiter requires 38% less energy than hurling them into the Sun.
  
 
The title text continues the caption by mentioning that in NASA's annual reports they try to make their numbers look better by counting the redundant computer systems on Galileo and its probe, thus doubling the numbers of destroyed computers to four. This of course makes no big difference given the exponential growth of computer production, which is also noted. This indicates that this is a top priority for NASA. That NASA might try to make themselves look better in a report by doubling a number could be realistic, presumably for political reasons or to get better funding.
 
The title text continues the caption by mentioning that in NASA's annual reports they try to make their numbers look better by counting the redundant computer systems on Galileo and its probe, thus doubling the numbers of destroyed computers to four. This of course makes no big difference given the exponential growth of computer production, which is also noted. This indicates that this is a top priority for NASA. That NASA might try to make themselves look better in a report by doubling a number could be realistic, presumably for political reasons or to get better funding.

Please note that all contributions to explain xkcd may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see explain xkcd:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!

To protect the wiki against automated edit spam, we kindly ask you to solve the following CAPTCHA:

Cancel | Editing help (opens in new window)