explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:2073: Kilogram

2018-11-17T16:38:21Z

162.158.134.34: Signed last comment.

I didn't know that weights and currencies could be converted 1:1, that's cool! [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 16:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I wish they ''had'' redefined the kilogram a little bit. It would have been neat if 1 kg was exactly the weight of 1 dm^3 (1 litre) of water under one atmosphere of pressure. Right now it's soooo close. It's a good enough estimate for simple maths, but whenever you tell people that a litre of water weighs one kilogram the pedants comes out of the woodworks... [[User:Kapten-N|Kapten-N]] ([[User talk:Kapten-N|talk]]) 16:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

:You'll get pedants whenever you refer to a kilogram as weight; it's a mass. The difference is that stuff weighs less on the Moon - or on tall mountains - although the mass is the same. I think the article as I just read it gets away with this. And, sure, what is the standard kilogram but a weight, that you take and weigh... rja.carnegie@excite.com [[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.59|162.158.91.59]] 23:57, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

::It ''used'' to be a mass. Now it's a ratio of the local gravitational strength versus the efficiency of an EM field. Kibble scales require EM shielding & an environment of ''precisely'' 1g, in order to be accurate. Since gravity isn't equal everywhere, our measurements of kilograms will now vary accordingly. [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 08:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

::: No, it doesn't require an environment of precisely 1g, it relies on the fact that the effect of local gravity is well understood, can be measured precisely, and compensated for. It's a fundamental aspect of the Kibble balance and you can rest assured that it hasn't been overlooked by the physicists designing it! [[Special:Contributions/162.158.134.34|162.158.134.34]] 16:38, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Up until 1964 a litre (and therefore actually the metre too) used to be defined as the volume that water with mass 1kg takes. But this is not good for exact measurements not only because you need exactly reproducable temperature, pressure (not so problematic, because you can measure them and then calculate the divergence) and gravity (not so easy to measure, because you need an exact mass and exact masses are impossible to keep the same), but also because you need pure water free of any polutions of other stuff (hard and expensive) and even free of tiny amounts of isotopes which are deuterium and tritium (even way more expensive).
Because the water that was used then was never close to pure the actual weight of water nowadays is 0.99997kg at 4°C and 1.013bar and I don't know which value for g. There is also another definition which I like, but is hard to measure in real life scenarios: E=mc². A kilogramm should be 1/c² of the mass which anything becomes heavier that you accelerate by the energy of one Joule. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.150|162.158.90.150]] 17:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
:But how do you define/measure a Joule then? [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 18:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
:No, until 1964, meter and litre were totally independent, a meter has never been defined directly or indirectly in relation to a mass of water. It is only since 1964 that the liter is defined as a cubic decimeter.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.36|162.158.90.36]] 18:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
:Also, in E=mc², E is the energy '''at rest''' (for a stationary object of mass m), so your definition using the acceleration makes no sense.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.88.254|162.158.88.254]] 18:47, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Actually, for the new definition of the kilo using the Kibble balance you need to measure the gravity... [[Special:Contributions/162.158.134.16|162.158.134.16]] 17:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Welp, looks like 1 kg, a.k.a. 1 lb, a.k.a 2.2 lb, is now officially defined to have zero mass.
[[Special:Contributions/172.69.50.28|172.69.50.28]] 16:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
:…or infinite. [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 16:59, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
::What I understand: the joke is not (only) about 1 (old) kg = 1 (old) lb, but (also) about 1 new kg = 1 old lb... or 1 new lb = 1 old kg :^) Or about a ring of positive characteristic --[[Special:Contributions/188.114.102.94|188.114.102.94]] 17:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
:I'm so glad other people see the problem with this supposed "official" definition. We've gone from a unit of measure problematically prone to contamination error, to a unit of measure that changes depending on where you measure it! [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 08:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

what about the ambiguity of the pound? would they reference an Avoirdupois bound or a Troy lb? --wonderkatn {{unsigned ip|172.69.50.16}}

I don't believe the Imperial system is "no longer used". Gills have been retired, but yards and even chains are still in use, not to mention the Imperial <s>lb</s> pint. [[User:Yngvadottir|Yngvadottir]] ([[User talk:Yngvadottir|talk]]) 18:49, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
:The imperial system has some good things about it. Feet are divisible by 12, and Fahrenheit is much nicer for human temperatures. [[User:Linker|Linker]] ([[User talk:Linker|talk]]) 18:55, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
::Yeah, coz it's so easier to divide by 12 than to divide by 10! {{unsigned ip|162.158.89.61}}
:::No it is easier to divide by 2, 3, 4, and 6, and yes, I can divide the number of feet by 10 easily in my head. [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 19:15, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
:::The idea is that with twelve parts, you can have 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/6, and 1/12 all be integer number of parts. This is why these types of systems developed in the past, and why so many systems also had multiples of 60 (you can do the math here.). They were easy to divide by merchants without access to any sort of calculation method. The base-10 system is great if you're only ever dealing with halves or tenths. But if you want a quarter or a third of something, you have to split the base units. It's no longer necessary in modern life, but it had a real advantage in ancient times. [[User:Cgrimes85|Cgrimes85]] ([[User talk:Cgrimes85|talk]]) 19:18, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
:::: No longer necessary in modern life... Which is why we should all switch to base-10 units of time! [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 08:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to point out something. What's a meter? 1000 milimeters. What's a milimeter? .....skipping the questions all the way to the end, the answer is "the wavelength of the color orange". Or at least that's what I read. So my question is: why orange? What's so special about orange? What as a species or as a solar system or as universe does the color orange have to do with anything? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.90.10|172.68.90.10]] 21:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC) SiliconWolf

: "The metre was originally defined in 1793 as one ten-millionth of the distance from the equator to the North Pole." That's why orange. Think of those lines from equator to pole... and how an orange is divided in segments beneath the peel. This is why the "Terry's Chocolate Orange" is so called, because it resembles the fruit orange. rja.carnegie@excite.com [[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.59|162.158.91.59]] 23:51, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

: The wavelength definition of the meter is not in use anymore either. Since 1983, the meter is defined as the distance the light (any light) travel in the vacuum in 1/299792458 seconds. Of course, all units have a part of arbitrary, and the value it is used to calculate the meter (the orange color, the 1/299792458 seconds...) are basically chosen because they are close to and more precise than the previous definition that existed, in order to not have to recalibrate things that don't need high precision. [[Special:Contributions/103.22.200.210|103.22.200.210]] 08:03, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

:I feel like we're starting to compare angstroms & millitrumps, here. [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 08:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

'''Be very careful'''

An announcement to a new definition of the kilogram is published wildly (I mean what I'm saying) today. Please do not present this issue as a final fact, I'm still missing an official statement -- it's just press hype. And there are two possible definitions taken account, not only the one from the US. The final decision right now looks like some of Randall's compromises. Just sayin... --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:01, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
:OK then, here's an after-the-vote November 16 web page from NIST, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, within the US Department of Commerce. It says it's a done deal. [https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2018/11/historic-vote-ties-kilogram-and-other-units-natural-constants historic-vote-ties-kilogram-and-other-units-natural-constants]. --JohnB [[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.89|162.158.79.89]] 21:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
::Thanks, but my German sources still preset something like counting atoms [https://www.ptb.de/cms/forschung-entwicklung/forschung-zum-neuen-si/ptb-experimente/kilogramm-und-mol-atome-zaehlen.html Kilogram and MOL, counting atoms], just meaning I'm not sure what will be true in May 2019, do we know the truth??? And in fact it looks like Europeans are fighting against US scientists, or vice versa. This is far of a standard I would prefer. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 22:29, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
:::I'm ''extremely'' skeptical of the Kibble scale definition. It won't maintain constant mass at different locations. [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 08:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

It will be very funny when we find out one of those constants is not really constant ... sure, planck length is less likely to change than physical object, but it MIGHT. Like, maybe it gets longer the older the universe is ... -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 23:17, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
:Since they're proposing to measure the gravitational force exerted on a unit of mass against the force exerted by an electromagnetic field (instead of comparing the downward force exerted on two masses), the new definition ''isn't'' a constant. For instance, on the moon such a scale would define 1kg as about 13.3lbs! The "new official definition" is a bad one. [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 08:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

You could not define the kilogram in terms of electric force when you defined the Amp in terms of the current that creates a given force. But by defining the amp in terms of numbers of elementary charges per second and setting Avogadro and other constants by fiat, you break the circle. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.38.190|162.158.38.190]] 23:54, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

In the Netherlands, we use the metric system. We also use the term "pond" to mean pound. However, we use metric pounds. Those are 0.500 kilogram, so it is actually easy to use.

US weight and length units definition is strictly based on metric system:
"Standards for the exact length of an inch have varied in the past, but since the adoption of the international yard during the 1950s and 1960s it has been based on the metric system and defined as exactly 2.54 cm."{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inch}
"the most common today is the international avoirdupois pound, which is legally defined as exactly 0.45359237 kilograms" {https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_(mass)}
Therefore the conversion proposed sounds recursive.
Also, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmSJXC6_qQ8
[[Special:Contributions/172.68.51.178|172.68.51.178]] 13:49, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

While it would be nice if the meter were equal to a yard, it would certainly be better if the meter were defined as 5.28 feet, so that kilometers and miles are the same.[[User:Mathmannix|Mathmannix]] ([[User talk:Mathmannix|talk]]) 13:54, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Talk:2073: Kilogram

2018-11-17T16:25:36Z

162.158.134.34: The effect of local gravity is well understood, can be measured precisely, and is compensated for when using a Kibble balance.

I didn't know that weights and currencies could be converted 1:1, that's cool! [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 16:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I wish they ''had'' redefined the kilogram a little bit. It would have been neat if 1 kg was exactly the weight of 1 dm^3 (1 litre) of water under one atmosphere of pressure. Right now it's soooo close. It's a good enough estimate for simple maths, but whenever you tell people that a litre of water weighs one kilogram the pedants comes out of the woodworks... [[User:Kapten-N|Kapten-N]] ([[User talk:Kapten-N|talk]]) 16:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

:You'll get pedants whenever you refer to a kilogram as weight; it's a mass. The difference is that stuff weighs less on the Moon - or on tall mountains - although the mass is the same. I think the article as I just read it gets away with this. And, sure, what is the standard kilogram but a weight, that you take and weigh... rja.carnegie@excite.com [[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.59|162.158.91.59]] 23:57, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

::It ''used'' to be a mass. Now it's a ratio of the local gravitational strength versus the efficiency of an EM field. Kibble scales require EM shielding & an environment of ''precisely'' 1g, in order to be accurate. Since gravity isn't equal everywhere, our measurements of kilograms will now vary accordingly. [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 08:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

::: No, it doesn't require an environment of precisely 1g, it relies on the fact that the effect of local gravity is well understood, can be measured precisely, and compensated for. It's a fundamental aspect of the Kibble balance and you can rest assured that it hasn't been overlooked by the physicists designing it!

Up until 1964 a litre (and therefore actually the metre too) used to be defined as the volume that water with mass 1kg takes. But this is not good for exact measurements not only because you need exactly reproducable temperature, pressure (not so problematic, because you can measure them and then calculate the divergence) and gravity (not so easy to measure, because you need an exact mass and exact masses are impossible to keep the same), but also because you need pure water free of any polutions of other stuff (hard and expensive) and even free of tiny amounts of isotopes which are deuterium and tritium (even way more expensive).
Because the water that was used then was never close to pure the actual weight of water nowadays is 0.99997kg at 4°C and 1.013bar and I don't know which value for g. There is also another definition which I like, but is hard to measure in real life scenarios: E=mc². A kilogramm should be 1/c² of the mass which anything becomes heavier that you accelerate by the energy of one Joule. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.150|162.158.90.150]] 17:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
:But how do you define/measure a Joule then? [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 18:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
:No, until 1964, meter and litre were totally independent, a meter has never been defined directly or indirectly in relation to a mass of water. It is only since 1964 that the liter is defined as a cubic decimeter.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.36|162.158.90.36]] 18:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
:Also, in E=mc², E is the energy '''at rest''' (for a stationary object of mass m), so your definition using the acceleration makes no sense.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.88.254|162.158.88.254]] 18:47, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Actually, for the new definition of the kilo using the Kibble balance you need to measure the gravity... [[Special:Contributions/162.158.134.16|162.158.134.16]] 17:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Welp, looks like 1 kg, a.k.a. 1 lb, a.k.a 2.2 lb, is now officially defined to have zero mass.
[[Special:Contributions/172.69.50.28|172.69.50.28]] 16:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
:…or infinite. [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 16:59, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
::What I understand: the joke is not (only) about 1 (old) kg = 1 (old) lb, but (also) about 1 new kg = 1 old lb... or 1 new lb = 1 old kg :^) Or about a ring of positive characteristic --[[Special:Contributions/188.114.102.94|188.114.102.94]] 17:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
:I'm so glad other people see the problem with this supposed "official" definition. We've gone from a unit of measure problematically prone to contamination error, to a unit of measure that changes depending on where you measure it! [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 08:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

what about the ambiguity of the pound? would they reference an Avoirdupois bound or a Troy lb? --wonderkatn {{unsigned ip|172.69.50.16}}

I don't believe the Imperial system is "no longer used". Gills have been retired, but yards and even chains are still in use, not to mention the Imperial <s>lb</s> pint. [[User:Yngvadottir|Yngvadottir]] ([[User talk:Yngvadottir|talk]]) 18:49, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
:The imperial system has some good things about it. Feet are divisible by 12, and Fahrenheit is much nicer for human temperatures. [[User:Linker|Linker]] ([[User talk:Linker|talk]]) 18:55, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
::Yeah, coz it's so easier to divide by 12 than to divide by 10! {{unsigned ip|162.158.89.61}}
:::No it is easier to divide by 2, 3, 4, and 6, and yes, I can divide the number of feet by 10 easily in my head. [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 19:15, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
:::The idea is that with twelve parts, you can have 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/6, and 1/12 all be integer number of parts. This is why these types of systems developed in the past, and why so many systems also had multiples of 60 (you can do the math here.). They were easy to divide by merchants without access to any sort of calculation method. The base-10 system is great if you're only ever dealing with halves or tenths. But if you want a quarter or a third of something, you have to split the base units. It's no longer necessary in modern life, but it had a real advantage in ancient times. [[User:Cgrimes85|Cgrimes85]] ([[User talk:Cgrimes85|talk]]) 19:18, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
:::: No longer necessary in modern life... Which is why we should all switch to base-10 units of time! [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 08:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to point out something. What's a meter? 1000 milimeters. What's a milimeter? .....skipping the questions all the way to the end, the answer is "the wavelength of the color orange". Or at least that's what I read. So my question is: why orange? What's so special about orange? What as a species or as a solar system or as universe does the color orange have to do with anything? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.90.10|172.68.90.10]] 21:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC) SiliconWolf

: "The metre was originally defined in 1793 as one ten-millionth of the distance from the equator to the North Pole." That's why orange. Think of those lines from equator to pole... and how an orange is divided in segments beneath the peel. This is why the "Terry's Chocolate Orange" is so called, because it resembles the fruit orange. rja.carnegie@excite.com [[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.59|162.158.91.59]] 23:51, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

: The wavelength definition of the meter is not in use anymore either. Since 1983, the meter is defined as the distance the light (any light) travel in the vacuum in 1/299792458 seconds. Of course, all units have a part of arbitrary, and the value it is used to calculate the meter (the orange color, the 1/299792458 seconds...) are basically chosen because they are close to and more precise than the previous definition that existed, in order to not have to recalibrate things that don't need high precision. [[Special:Contributions/103.22.200.210|103.22.200.210]] 08:03, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

:I feel like we're starting to compare angstroms & millitrumps, here. [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 08:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

'''Be very careful'''

An announcement to a new definition of the kilogram is published wildly (I mean what I'm saying) today. Please do not present this issue as a final fact, I'm still missing an official statement -- it's just press hype. And there are two possible definitions taken account, not only the one from the US. The final decision right now looks like some of Randall's compromises. Just sayin... --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:01, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
:OK then, here's an after-the-vote November 16 web page from NIST, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, within the US Department of Commerce. It says it's a done deal. [https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2018/11/historic-vote-ties-kilogram-and-other-units-natural-constants historic-vote-ties-kilogram-and-other-units-natural-constants]. --JohnB [[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.89|162.158.79.89]] 21:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
::Thanks, but my German sources still preset something like counting atoms [https://www.ptb.de/cms/forschung-entwicklung/forschung-zum-neuen-si/ptb-experimente/kilogramm-und-mol-atome-zaehlen.html Kilogram and MOL, counting atoms], just meaning I'm not sure what will be true in May 2019, do we know the truth??? And in fact it looks like Europeans are fighting against US scientists, or vice versa. This is far of a standard I would prefer. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 22:29, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
:::I'm ''extremely'' skeptical of the Kibble scale definition. It won't maintain constant mass at different locations. [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 08:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

It will be very funny when we find out one of those constants is not really constant ... sure, planck length is less likely to change than physical object, but it MIGHT. Like, maybe it gets longer the older the universe is ... -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 23:17, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
:Since they're proposing to measure the gravitational force exerted on a unit of mass against the force exerted by an electromagnetic field (instead of comparing the downward force exerted on two masses), the new definition ''isn't'' a constant. For instance, on the moon such a scale would define 1kg as about 13.3lbs! The "new official definition" is a bad one. [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 08:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

You could not define the kilogram in terms of electric force when you defined the Amp in terms of the current that creates a given force. But by defining the amp in terms of numbers of elementary charges per second and setting Avogadro and other constants by fiat, you break the circle. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.38.190|162.158.38.190]] 23:54, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

In the Netherlands, we use the metric system. We also use the term "pond" to mean pound. However, we use metric pounds. Those are 0.500 kilogram, so it is actually easy to use.

US weight and length units definition is strictly based on metric system:
"Standards for the exact length of an inch have varied in the past, but since the adoption of the international yard during the 1950s and 1960s it has been based on the metric system and defined as exactly 2.54 cm."{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inch}
"the most common today is the international avoirdupois pound, which is legally defined as exactly 0.45359237 kilograms" {https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_(mass)}
Therefore the conversion proposed sounds recursive.
Also, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmSJXC6_qQ8
[[Special:Contributions/172.68.51.178|172.68.51.178]] 13:49, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

While it would be nice if the meter were equal to a yard, it would certainly be better if the meter were defined as 5.28 feet, so that kilometers and miles are the same.[[User:Mathmannix|Mathmannix]] ([[User talk:Mathmannix|talk]]) 13:54, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Talk:2021: Software Development

2018-07-20T06:27:54Z

162.158.134.34:

It seems to me that the cannon is a metaphor for powerful hardware. The drill is a metaphor for elegant and efficient code. The computer is so powerful that the fact that the elegance or efficiency of the code is irrelevant to how it is actually used.[[User:Zeimusu|Zeimusu]] ([[User talk:Zeimusu|talk]]) 15:48, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi, first time posting ;)
To me it seems that the Title text is an example how after some time and many updates the original solution becomes some kind of abomination. Used in abstruse ways for something it was never intended for just because it works and is a quick and simple fix. After some time one always ends up doing unnecessary and arbitrary things in order to get what you actually wanted to achive. Like loading projectiles into a cannon just to use it as a battering ram. {{unsigned ip|162.158.91.137}}

Don't forget the fact that no one wants to figure out how to use the elegant drill, but instead use it for its most obvious if least elegant piece--the stationary pointy bit. -Todd 7/18/2018 17:32 UTC {{unsigned ip|172.69.69.88}}

The way I understand this, Hairy had the cannon done already to make holes in the wall, the typical brute force solution to the problem. But he needed ammo of a certain weight and gave that task to Cueball. Cueball then made a drill, an elegant solution that would do the job better than the canon. Hairy sees the drill and doesn't care about all the fancy functions, all he needed was an object of the proper weight to put 500 of them in the already built cannon. In programming, this shows either a reluctance from Hairy to adapt to the better solution and insist on using the brute force approach. Or, it shows how often programmers tend to make things way more complicated than is needed. Cueball went to remake a new solution for the problem when all he was supposed to do was make a cannonball of the proper weight.-Vince23 17:46, 18 July 2018 (UTC) {{unsigned|Vince23}}

This also shows the results of not clearly defining terms. Cueball interpreted 'drill' to mean 'a hand held drilling machine' whilst Hairy toolkit to mean a 'drill bit'. So when Cueball delivers his component, Hairy just uses it as a 'dumb' piece of ammo. [[User:RIIW - Ponder it|RIIW - Ponder it]] ([[User talk:RIIW - Ponder it|talk]]) 22:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Automatic-Drill Cannon is my new favorite impractical weapon. [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 01:44, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry if this is amazingly off topic, but is that an automatic-drill cannon or an automatic drill-cannon? Like a Gatling gun for power tools? -Milliways 3:38, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

It is so fitting that this comic came out on the same day as Minecraft 1.13, an update that was incredibly rushed due to a stupid deadline. An update that contains many amazing features and code cleanups and rewrites, but also crashes, save corruptions, lots of bugs and lag, etc. An update that was meant to mainly fix bugs and clean up code, but ended up getting merged with another feature update, which caused most of this mess. [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 08:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Definitely seems make more sense if you consider the person on the left to be the software developer and the person on the right to be the user, doesn't it? But equally valid if the person on the left is the hardware developer and the person on the right is the programmer. [[User:Swhitlock|Swhitlock]] ([[User talk:Swhitlock|talk]]) 18:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

:It makes most sense if these are two software developers who each have been given part of a task, with ill defined boundaries between the parts. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.134.34|162.158.134.34]] 06:27, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Example: Automatic drill <=> database. Cannon <=> foreach (var row in db.execQuery("select * from customer")) if (resultRow["name"] == searchTerm) return true; [[Special:Contributions/141.101.77.248|141.101.77.248]] 23:45, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Talk:2003: Presidential Succession

2018-06-12T07:50:22Z

162.158.134.34:

Aw, but what about Morgan Freeman? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.11|108.162.221.11]] 04:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
:And Kiefer -designated survivor- Sutherland?[[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.83|141.101.104.83]] 08:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
:Morgan Freeman> "I do solemnly swear / that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States..." [[User:Linker|Linker]] ([[User talk:Linker|talk]]) 12:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Academy awards have been won by actors playing kings / queens - of England, the United Kingdom and Siam - Princes - of Denmark - and Prime Ministers of Great Britain and even the President of the Uniter States / Member of the house of Representatives, but I do not believe it has been won by an actor playing a state govenor. Mind you it is not clear if an actor playing a prison govenor, would count. [[User:Arachrah|Arachrah]] ([[User talk:Arachrah|talk]]) 11:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
: Broderick Crawford, actually. I've added him. To the best of my ability to determine, the opposite group (Governors Award recipients who have played characters named Oscar) appears to be an empty set. I'll note that I don't have a really comprehensive filmography for {{w|Jean-Claude Carrière}}, but I consider it fairly unlikely that he ever played a character by that name. [[User:Squeamish Ossifrage|Squeamish Ossifrage]] ([[User talk:Squeamish Ossifrage|talk]]) 16:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Bill Pullman's eldest daughter Maesa is a film composer with an IMDB page in her own right. [[User:Arachrah|Arachrah]] ([[User talk:Arachrah|talk]]) 11:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Top 5 US astronauts? I only count three. Who are the other two? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.150.76|172.68.150.76]] 12:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

As of September 3, 2017, the 5 US astronauts with the most total time in space are Peggy Whitson (665 days), Jeff Williams (534), Scott Kelly (520), Mike Fincke (382), and Mike Foale (374), according to https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-station-astronaut-record-holders. Michael Lopez-Alegria has the second-most time in space for a single spaceflight (215 days, compared to Scott Kelly, 340). [[User:The Dining Logician|The Dining Logician]] ([[User talk:The Dining Logician|talk]]) 12:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Mike Foale was born in Louth - so ineligible. Michael Lopez-Alegria was born in Spain ditto [[User:Arachrah|Arachrah]] ([[User talk:Arachrah|talk]]) 15:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
:Foale was born to an American mother and should hence be a natural-born American. --[[User:Ycthiognass|Ycthiognass]] ([[User talk:Ycthiognass|talk]]) 09:40, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
::There is actually legal question about whether someone born on foreign soil to US citizens count as "natural-born" (or whether courts would just say it's a political question and pass the buck to Congress), though I will add Foale back to the list. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.207|162.158.62.207]] 14:04, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

The non-US-citizen-being-in-line-for-the-Presidency thing has already been cleared up IRL - several Presidential cabinets have had non-natural-born-US citizens on them (current Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao was born in Taiwan; in the past Madeline Albright was born in the then-Czechoslovakia). All the serious succession lists I've ever seen just list them and skip over them. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.51|162.158.62.51]] 13:19, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

How do we decide who gets a bye in the jousting tournament? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.147|162.158.74.147]] 13:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
:Random draw, probably. There's no jousting rankings AFAIK to enable any kind of seeding like in tennis. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.51|162.158.62.51]] 15:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Anyone with a jousting ranking would not need a bye. [[User:Arachrah|Arachrah]] ([[User talk:Arachrah|talk]]) 15:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Anyone else think it's interesting that Kate gets a "if available" but Tom Hanks doesn't? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.62.184|172.69.62.184]] 16:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
: Also, why doesn't Tom Hanks kids get to be in line, like Bill Pulman's? Colin Hanks is old enough. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.122.210|162.158.122.210]] 03:59, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I assume, but am too lazy to do all the maths, that the person born closest to Europa would be the one closest in time to the point Sun Earth and Jupiter are in line.
I found a table of opposition distances here: http://www.ianridpath.com/jupiter.htm
[[User:Arachrah|Arachrah]] ([[User talk:Arachrah|talk]]) 18:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

All of this talk about ''where'' people were born is very misleading. The general opinion is that you have to have been a citizen from birth, not born in the U.S. (or a U.S. territory or whatever). Ted Cruz was born in Canada, but he would have been eligible had he won the nomination and the election. See http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/mar/26/ted-cruz-born-canada-eligible-run-president-update/ for discussion. —[[User:TobyBartels|TobyBartels]] ([[User talk:TobyBartels|talk]]) 20:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
*Yes, Kate Brown (governor of Oregon) should be restored to Randall's line of succession, because she was born in Spain while her father was serving in the U.S. Air Force. Presumably she's a U.S. citizen by birth and thus eligible for the presidency. --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.150.52|172.68.150.52]] 22:44, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
** Added her. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_foreign-born_United_States_politicians#Governors This page says she's a natural-born citizen]. --[[User:Ycthiognass|Ycthiognass]] ([[User talk:Ycthiognass|talk]]) 08:49, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I read #7 being that we would have 5 people as co-president. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.122.210|162.158.122.210]] 03:59, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
:Would that also hold for other entries where multiple people are listed (e.g., multiple league MVPs meet the criteria)? Also, there is the "ties broken by born closest to Europa" title text. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.207|162.158.62.207]] 13:31, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

For the 'List of Specific Individuals', should it be maintained by who currently holds those positions, or left as who held them when the comic was posted? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.70.71|172.69.70.71]] 12:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
:If you want to come back and update the line as things change in the weeks, months, and years ahead, you're welcome to do so. If you do, I would recommend that both lists (the one accurate as of comic publishing and the one "updated") be maintained, perhaps as one table for fun comparison (adding blank spots as necessary if a current spot falls out of eligibility or a new one becomes eligible for whatever reason. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.207|162.158.62.207]] 13:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Tom Hanks is probably a reference to the June 4 Last Week Tonight episode, see http://time.com/5298479/john-oliver-last-week-tonight-guardianship/ {{unsigned ip|162.158.123.85}}

Oh! Question regarding Serena Williams - does it count if her latest match was in a ''doubles'' tournament? She pretty much always teams up with sister Venus in doubles. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.207|162.158.62.207]] 14:52, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Anyone else curious about the apostrophe in "Governor's award"? The current notes imply that it is simply a mistake in "Governors Awards" (the Academy Awards similar to the Oscars), but Governor's awards (i.e., an award by a state Governor) for other areas are quite common (e.g. Clemson University Governor's Award for Excellence in Science and Pennsylvania's Governor's Award for the Arts). Rearranging Oscar and governor from the preceding criterion certainly makes sense, but wild speculation is always more fun... {{unsigned ip|172.68.211.28}}

1933: Santa Facts mentioned Santa being 9th in the presidential line of succession. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.111.7|162.158.111.7]] 08:56, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

To me, #17 (Pullman '''and''' his descendants) seems to imply that we'd abolish the 4-year term and be presided by the Pullman clan for as long as there are eligible successors. #18 might imply that too. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.21|162.158.74.21]] 20:14, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
:Presidential elections are mandated in the Constitution every four years - Bill or any of his descendants, or any qualifying member of the UK royal line of succession, would only serve until the current term ends. (Whether a crisis that knocked so many people ahead of them out of the line would allow a reputable and accepted election is another story.) [[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.139|173.245.52.139]] 15:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I note that if Donald Trump wasn't already holding the office of President, he could only qualify from positions 7 and 20 on Randall's list. And not at all from the actual list. [[User:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For]] ([[User talk:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|talk]]) 01:09, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
:He wouldn't have been the only one - Obama's and JFK's previous job title before becoming President was US Senator, and Eisenhower was President of Columbia University. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.139|173.245.52.139]] 15:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

There are two problems with this explanation:
The line of succession applies only when the office of president becomes vacant. If the president is incapacitated, the vice president acts as president. If that office is vacant, or the vice precident is also incapacitated, the US will have to do without a president.

The constitution places no restrictions on who can act as president. The current law of succession stipulates that only those elegible to become president can act as president, the constitution does not.
--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.134.154|162.158.134.154]] 08:30, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
:Point 1, the office of President may be vacant but the powers of the Acting President execute the same by whomever the line falls to, and in times of crisis people will nearly certainly just consider them the new President (conflicting claims aside). Point 2 is just false - Article 2 of the Constitution stipulates natural-born citizen at 35 years old and having lived in the US for the last 14 years. Unless you're arguing that "President" and "Acting President" aren't the same? That sure as hell didn't stop John Tyler from refusing to acknowledge anyone who didn't acknowledge him as the new President after William Henry Harrison died a month into his term. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.139|173.245.52.139]] 15:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
::That is exactly what I am saying. Only the vice president can succeed to the presidency. The others would execute the powers of the president. What would most likely happen is that the acting president would appoint a vice president, who would succeed immediately when approved by congress.--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.134.34|162.158.134.34]] 07:50, 12 June 2018 (UTC)