Talk:1796: Focus Knob

Too much existential paralysis can often lead to fiddling with email. Less frequently, too much time spent fiddling with email can lead to those existential crises. The knob can turn all the way around - there aren't stoppers on either side of the rotation... --162.158.255.124 14:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)kb

Well since the two at the end points are larger than the other 35 I would say that it cannot go past these. That would make sense and is also like on several knobs I have seen. This is also like the speedometer in my car, which does not shown anything below 0 or above 240 km/h... --Kynde (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Maybe Randall is implying that he has issues with keeping the big picture in mind while doing detail work and gets lost in the details of implementation and vice versa. This means that for him the knob is more of an on/off or selection switch. Pulse Width Modulation would then allow him to use this on/off switch more like the knob in the picture shown. (... or whoevers voice Randall is speaking in as many people probably have issues with this, myself included.) I wonder if he obsessed over how to implement this comic: 1. As an on/off switch? 2. As a knob with limited none-usefull settings with "ideal" labeled between the actual settings available? 3. Like this, for simplicity, keeping the big picture in mind and not obsessing over the details of how it may under some circumstances be viewed? --162.158.91.95 10:19, 8 February 2017 (UTC)cdm

Since the knob clearly is set at the 13th tick he does not use it as an on/off which invalidates most of the arguments in this comment. But since he goes in e-mail mode left of the healthy balance and in panic to the right there is some kind of on/off behavior. But still he can focus more an more on the big picture even though he stays with his settings, until he goes past tick 25. --Kynde (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

If the knob only has discrete positions, none of which lies within the balanced region, he could use PWM to simulate that position. Let's say the focus variable goes from 0 to 10, the knob can only stay on integer values and the "sweet spot" is around 7,38. He can make a cycle that rests on 7 62% of the time and at 8 38% of the time, and repeat this cycle with a high enough frequency so that his mind wouldn't know the difference from actually being at the knob's focused on the approximate mirror location of the "healthy balance" section. I don't really have anything to suggest based on that though :/ 108.162.241.82 12:55, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

IMHO it's just a visual thing to balance the whole image. If you search for watch ads on google images, you'll see that the analogical ones pretty much always show an hour close to 10:10. Beside being balanced, I think those positions are chosen to look "random" (which is paradoxical), or "without a specific meaning", when a 0°, 45° or 90° would seem to have been chosen on purpose. 141.101.88.184 13:19, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

IMHO Randall has placed it there on purpose a long way from looking at the big picture because he do not wish a panic attack by reading the news on Trump. --Kynde (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I noticed 2 things that are not already mentioned: 1) The dial is currently set to somewhere along the left side, which suggests that Randall is overly detail‐oriented. 2) Randall misspelled existential as existental. 108.162.245.196 16:55, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

An "existental" crisis is what happens when you are so focused on the big picture you forget details like how to spell "existential."108.162.238.11 18:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I have added explanation on where and why the knob is turned to tick 13, and also a trivia about the spell error, and thanks, I had corrected it in the transcript, but now turned it back, as it should be as in the comic. Maybe Randall updates it, as he has done so often when he makes bland mistakes like this, but that has not happened so far when I post here. If he does that should be noted in the trivia along with the reason why. --Kynde (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2017 (UTC)