explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:2292: Thermometer

2020-04-13T09:31:29Z

162.158.92.70:

First non-Covid post other than April fools?[[Special:Contributions/162.158.107.167|162.158.107.167]]
23:04, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
:Since a fever is a common symptom of Covid-19, I'd say this is as much about Covid-19 as all the previous comics on the topic. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 02:59, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
::I'd disagree. Fevers aren't inherently related to COVID-19, and while it's certainly easy to draw a connection based on current events, at no point is the connection made explicit. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.104|172.69.34.104]] 10:29, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
:::Seriously? Fever is associated with 88% of COVID-19 cases! I'd say that's inherently related, and I'm drawing a connection based on that fact. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 12:59, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
::::Fevers are associated with almost all infectious diseases. By that logic, this could be about the flu, mono, or a hundred other conditions. [[User:Shamino|Shamino]] ([[User talk:Shamino|talk]]) 17:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::I, too, think calling this a Covid-19 comic is excessive. Sure, thermometers for measuring body temperature are sold out at my local drugstore, and pandemic likely inspired the comic, but if it had been published a year ago, we wouldn't infer any connection to a specific disease or global epidemic. - Ada in New Hampshire, USA [[Special:Contributions/172.69.6.22|172.69.6.22]] 07:56, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
::::::I would assume anything that can be linked, even loosely, is probably part of this chain. I have been assuming since the 6th one that Randel would aim for 19 of these just because. Though perhaps he will keep going till the hype is over. Either way, requiring that it directly mentions the topic it was inspired by would be way overkill. Mentioning things that likely inspired a comic is something we have done for a long time, and the virus seems like the most likely inspiration, especially when taking the full comic chain into account[[Special:Contributions/172.69.198.52|172.69.198.52]] 21:33, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
::The comic doesn't mention a fever. For all we know Cueball is trying to measure the outside air temperature, or how hot his coffee is. We can rule out the idea that he is trying to measure the temperature of some liquid helium only because he skipped past the kelvin scale. [[User:Jeremyp|Jeremyp]] ([[User talk:Jeremyp|talk]]) 18:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

A common practice in schools and the like prior to quarantine was temperature taking upon arrival. So it's like that this comic continues that to the home setting. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.78.112|162.158.78.112]] 23:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

A pessimist would guess that this means someone in Randall's household has a fever. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.52|108.162.219.52]] 23:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

> The Physician Ducks[[Special:Contributions/172.69.62.94|172.69.62.94]] 23:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Personally I'd welcome a home thermometer marked off in Kelvin, avois all the "twice as cold" sort of confusion you can get with an arbitrary zero as used in Celsius and Fahrenheit. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.210|162.158.34.210]] 23:21, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I might have enjoyed a "Degrees of Kevin Bacon" joke in this comic somewhere. :-) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.68.143|172.69.68.143]] 23:42, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Double-plus-dissapointed we didn't get the Delisle measure referenced at all... [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.202|162.158.34.202]] 01:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC) ...and now added. It would be better in any Trivia section, but we don't have one so hoping it's no more out of place in the explanation as Fahrenheit. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.202|162.158.34.202]] 02:02, 11 April 2020 (UTC) ...''aaaand'' someone removed it (as pure trivia, of course), fair enough. Anticipated. Anyone still interested in what I put just needs to check this IP, at about this timestamp, in Page History, though, so not going to argue the point. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.202|162.158.34.202]] 02:08, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

No temperature scale is defined using melting or boiling points of water anymore. Since 2019 Kelvin is defined via the Boltzmann constant, and all other temperature scales have been (re-)defined relative to the Kelvin scale for quite a while. --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.63.103|172.69.63.103]] 01:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Randall forgot the Réaumur scale.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.123.97|162.158.123.97]] 03:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure why some people seem to look for any opportunity to take a dig at the US, but I removed the line in the explanation about US-based readers not being familiar with the Celsius temperature scale. I'm sure most Americans are familiar with it but prefer the Fahrenheit scale instead. I don't understand why anyone holds that against us. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 03:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
:Hey, let's assume good faith. Chances are, some rando just genuinely had no idea how that kind of stuff works here. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.104|172.69.34.104]] 10:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Regarding USA Fahrenheit and non-USA Celsius preference, I was in Niagra Falls a few years back, listening to a Canadian station on the radio (ok, more than a few years ago...) and the DJ gave a weather report, saying “The current temperature is 25 degrees, that’s 77 on the understandable scale.” [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.201|173.245.54.201]] 04:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I guess if you wanted to use the Newton scale you'd need to have Newton's original "degrees of heat" measuring device. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.67|108.162.250.67]] 04:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Nitpicking alert : the correct writing is "kelvin", not "Kelvin".

100°F is "really hot"? Maybe on a stripper... [[Special:Contributions/162.158.190.106|162.158.190.106]] 13:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Randall, as a physicist, should know about the equipartition theorem. It states that all degrees of freedom will carry the same average amount of energy in thermal equilibrium, not only the translational kinetic ones (but also rotational, and potential energies). It is technically not false to exclude some of these, but an arbitrary choice. I guess he just wanted to include the terms “translational” and “kinetic” to make sure it sounds ridiculously over-specific (which works well). [[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.213|162.158.91.213]] 15:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
:No, it's still an important distinction. Many Thermometers can only 'measure' the average Translational energy and the rotational and elastic energy is just assumed to match that. (The only Thermometers that measure rotational and elastic Energy are the ones who only measure their own temperature... which is 99.5 of all consumer Thermometers.) And it probably does except in some very specific cases with ultra high speed pressure changes.

+Using the average Translational Energy would would sidestep all the problems with the different units of temperature and would also eliminate the necessity of using the Boltzmann constant, simplyfying a lot of physics. But nobody wants to make the transition since most everyday temperatures would be between 5 and 8zJ, with 5 being freezing, six being tolerable and seven a desert at noon. The Unit, Zeejays would sound cool though.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.70|162.158.92.70]] 09:30, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, it has Fahrenheit after a fashion. Just substract 460 from Rankine. It's even easier than converting Kelvin to Celsius!
:I find it much quicker to subtract 0.01C° 27,315 times than to subtract 0.01F° 45,967 times, personally. I think you're quite barmy to suggest otherwise, Unsigned... :P [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.222|162.158.34.222]] 16:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
::Now that I, the formerly Unsigned, think of it, I must agree with you - but for an entirely different reason. 273.15 in binary is a nice, round 100010001.001(00101) with 3 1's in the integer and 4+2n 1's for every 3+5n fractional digits, whereas 459.67 is much messier: 111001011.10110001111110... , with 6 1's in the integer alone. The more 1's there are in a number, the more operations you have to do for each addition or subtraction. So in binary, Kelvin-to-Celsius is much easier to convert than Rankine-to-Fahrenheit. Yet another point in favor of the glorious metric master system, da? [[User:Osato|Osato]] ([[User talk:Osato|talk]]) 19:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I removed the weasel words, indicating that Fahrenheit is "generally appreciated" because 0 means very cold and 100 very hot. I adjusted it to "some claim" and adjusted the text to fit.

Make the scale in Celsius 0 to 200, and I think you would have a system much more relatable to Fahrenheit users.

Talk:2292: Thermometer

2020-04-13T09:30:02Z

162.158.92.70:

First non-Covid post other than April fools?[[Special:Contributions/162.158.107.167|162.158.107.167]]
23:04, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
:Since a fever is a common symptom of Covid-19, I'd say this is as much about Covid-19 as all the previous comics on the topic. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 02:59, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
::I'd disagree. Fevers aren't inherently related to COVID-19, and while it's certainly easy to draw a connection based on current events, at no point is the connection made explicit. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.104|172.69.34.104]] 10:29, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
:::Seriously? Fever is associated with 88% of COVID-19 cases! I'd say that's inherently related, and I'm drawing a connection based on that fact. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 12:59, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
::::Fevers are associated with almost all infectious diseases. By that logic, this could be about the flu, mono, or a hundred other conditions. [[User:Shamino|Shamino]] ([[User talk:Shamino|talk]]) 17:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::I, too, think calling this a Covid-19 comic is excessive. Sure, thermometers for measuring body temperature are sold out at my local drugstore, and pandemic likely inspired the comic, but if it had been published a year ago, we wouldn't infer any connection to a specific disease or global epidemic. - Ada in New Hampshire, USA [[Special:Contributions/172.69.6.22|172.69.6.22]] 07:56, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
::::::I would assume anything that can be linked, even loosely, is probably part of this chain. I have been assuming since the 6th one that Randel would aim for 19 of these just because. Though perhaps he will keep going till the hype is over. Either way, requiring that it directly mentions the topic it was inspired by would be way overkill. Mentioning things that likely inspired a comic is something we have done for a long time, and the virus seems like the most likely inspiration, especially when taking the full comic chain into account[[Special:Contributions/172.69.198.52|172.69.198.52]] 21:33, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
::The comic doesn't mention a fever. For all we know Cueball is trying to measure the outside air temperature, or how hot his coffee is. We can rule out the idea that he is trying to measure the temperature of some liquid helium only because he skipped past the kelvin scale. [[User:Jeremyp|Jeremyp]] ([[User talk:Jeremyp|talk]]) 18:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

A common practice in schools and the like prior to quarantine was temperature taking upon arrival. So it's like that this comic continues that to the home setting. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.78.112|162.158.78.112]] 23:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

A pessimist would guess that this means someone in Randall's household has a fever. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.52|108.162.219.52]] 23:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

> The Physician Ducks[[Special:Contributions/172.69.62.94|172.69.62.94]] 23:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Personally I'd welcome a home thermometer marked off in Kelvin, avois all the "twice as cold" sort of confusion you can get with an arbitrary zero as used in Celsius and Fahrenheit. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.210|162.158.34.210]] 23:21, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I might have enjoyed a "Degrees of Kevin Bacon" joke in this comic somewhere. :-) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.68.143|172.69.68.143]] 23:42, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Double-plus-dissapointed we didn't get the Delisle measure referenced at all... [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.202|162.158.34.202]] 01:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC) ...and now added. It would be better in any Trivia section, but we don't have one so hoping it's no more out of place in the explanation as Fahrenheit. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.202|162.158.34.202]] 02:02, 11 April 2020 (UTC) ...''aaaand'' someone removed it (as pure trivia, of course), fair enough. Anticipated. Anyone still interested in what I put just needs to check this IP, at about this timestamp, in Page History, though, so not going to argue the point. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.202|162.158.34.202]] 02:08, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

No temperature scale is defined using melting or boiling points of water anymore. Since 2019 Kelvin is defined via the Boltzmann constant, and all other temperature scales have been (re-)defined relative to the Kelvin scale for quite a while. --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.63.103|172.69.63.103]] 01:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Randall forgot the Réaumur scale.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.123.97|162.158.123.97]] 03:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure why some people seem to look for any opportunity to take a dig at the US, but I removed the line in the explanation about US-based readers not being familiar with the Celsius temperature scale. I'm sure most Americans are familiar with it but prefer the Fahrenheit scale instead. I don't understand why anyone holds that against us. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 03:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
:Hey, let's assume good faith. Chances are, some rando just genuinely had no idea how that kind of stuff works here. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.104|172.69.34.104]] 10:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Regarding USA Fahrenheit and non-USA Celsius preference, I was in Niagra Falls a few years back, listening to a Canadian station on the radio (ok, more than a few years ago...) and the DJ gave a weather report, saying “The current temperature is 25 degrees, that’s 77 on the understandable scale.” [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.201|173.245.54.201]] 04:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I guess if you wanted to use the Newton scale you'd need to have Newton's original "degrees of heat" measuring device. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.67|108.162.250.67]] 04:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Nitpicking alert : the correct writing is "kelvin", not "Kelvin".

100°F is "really hot"? Maybe on a stripper... [[Special:Contributions/162.158.190.106|162.158.190.106]] 13:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Randall, as a physicist, should know about the equipartition theorem. It states that all degrees of freedom will carry the same average amount of energy in thermal equilibrium, not only the translational kinetic ones (but also rotational, and potential energies). It is technically not false to exclude some of these, but an arbitrary choice. I guess he just wanted to include the terms “translational” and “kinetic” to make sure it sounds ridiculously over-specific (which works well). [[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.213|162.158.91.213]] 15:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
:No, it's still an important distinction. Many Thermometers can only 'measure' the average Translational energy and the rotational and elastic energy is just assumed to match that. (The only Thermometers that measure rotational and elastic Energy are the ones who only measure their own temperature... which is 99.5 of all consumer Thermometers.) And it probably does except in some very specific cases with ultra high speed pressure changes.

+Using the average Translational Energy would would sidestep all the problems with the different units of temperature and would also eliminate the necessity of using the Boltzmann constant, simplyfying a lot of physics. But nobody wants to make the transition since most everyday temperatures would be between 5 and 8zJ, with 5 being freezing, six being tolerable and seven a desert at noon.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.70|162.158.92.70]] 09:30, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, it has Fahrenheit after a fashion. Just substract 460 from Rankine. It's even easier than converting Kelvin to Celsius!
:I find it much quicker to subtract 0.01C° 27,315 times than to subtract 0.01F° 45,967 times, personally. I think you're quite barmy to suggest otherwise, Unsigned... :P [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.222|162.158.34.222]] 16:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
::Now that I, the formerly Unsigned, think of it, I must agree with you - but for an entirely different reason. 273.15 in binary is a nice, round 100010001.001(00101) with 3 1's in the integer and 4+2n 1's for every 3+5n fractional digits, whereas 459.67 is much messier: 111001011.10110001111110... , with 6 1's in the integer alone. The more 1's there are in a number, the more operations you have to do for each addition or subtraction. So in binary, Kelvin-to-Celsius is much easier to convert than Rankine-to-Fahrenheit. Yet another point in favor of the glorious metric master system, da? [[User:Osato|Osato]] ([[User talk:Osato|talk]]) 19:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I removed the weasel words, indicating that Fahrenheit is "generally appreciated" because 0 means very cold and 100 very hot. I adjusted it to "some claim" and adjusted the text to fit.

Make the scale in Celsius 0 to 200, and I think you would have a system much more relatable to Fahrenheit users.

Talk:2292: Thermometer

2020-04-13T09:29:19Z

162.158.92.70:

First non-Covid post other than April fools?[[Special:Contributions/162.158.107.167|162.158.107.167]]
23:04, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
:Since a fever is a common symptom of Covid-19, I'd say this is as much about Covid-19 as all the previous comics on the topic. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 02:59, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
::I'd disagree. Fevers aren't inherently related to COVID-19, and while it's certainly easy to draw a connection based on current events, at no point is the connection made explicit. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.104|172.69.34.104]] 10:29, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
:::Seriously? Fever is associated with 88% of COVID-19 cases! I'd say that's inherently related, and I'm drawing a connection based on that fact. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 12:59, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
::::Fevers are associated with almost all infectious diseases. By that logic, this could be about the flu, mono, or a hundred other conditions. [[User:Shamino|Shamino]] ([[User talk:Shamino|talk]]) 17:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::I, too, think calling this a Covid-19 comic is excessive. Sure, thermometers for measuring body temperature are sold out at my local drugstore, and pandemic likely inspired the comic, but if it had been published a year ago, we wouldn't infer any connection to a specific disease or global epidemic. - Ada in New Hampshire, USA [[Special:Contributions/172.69.6.22|172.69.6.22]] 07:56, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
::::::I would assume anything that can be linked, even loosely, is probably part of this chain. I have been assuming since the 6th one that Randel would aim for 19 of these just because. Though perhaps he will keep going till the hype is over. Either way, requiring that it directly mentions the topic it was inspired by would be way overkill. Mentioning things that likely inspired a comic is something we have done for a long time, and the virus seems like the most likely inspiration, especially when taking the full comic chain into account[[Special:Contributions/172.69.198.52|172.69.198.52]] 21:33, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
::The comic doesn't mention a fever. For all we know Cueball is trying to measure the outside air temperature, or how hot his coffee is. We can rule out the idea that he is trying to measure the temperature of some liquid helium only because he skipped past the kelvin scale. [[User:Jeremyp|Jeremyp]] ([[User talk:Jeremyp|talk]]) 18:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

A common practice in schools and the like prior to quarantine was temperature taking upon arrival. So it's like that this comic continues that to the home setting. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.78.112|162.158.78.112]] 23:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

A pessimist would guess that this means someone in Randall's household has a fever. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.52|108.162.219.52]] 23:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

> The Physician Ducks[[Special:Contributions/172.69.62.94|172.69.62.94]] 23:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Personally I'd welcome a home thermometer marked off in Kelvin, avois all the "twice as cold" sort of confusion you can get with an arbitrary zero as used in Celsius and Fahrenheit. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.210|162.158.34.210]] 23:21, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I might have enjoyed a "Degrees of Kevin Bacon" joke in this comic somewhere. :-) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.68.143|172.69.68.143]] 23:42, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Double-plus-dissapointed we didn't get the Delisle measure referenced at all... [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.202|162.158.34.202]] 01:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC) ...and now added. It would be better in any Trivia section, but we don't have one so hoping it's no more out of place in the explanation as Fahrenheit. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.202|162.158.34.202]] 02:02, 11 April 2020 (UTC) ...''aaaand'' someone removed it (as pure trivia, of course), fair enough. Anticipated. Anyone still interested in what I put just needs to check this IP, at about this timestamp, in Page History, though, so not going to argue the point. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.202|162.158.34.202]] 02:08, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

No temperature scale is defined using melting or boiling points of water anymore. Since 2019 Kelvin is defined via the Boltzmann constant, and all other temperature scales have been (re-)defined relative to the Kelvin scale for quite a while. --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.63.103|172.69.63.103]] 01:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Randall forgot the Réaumur scale.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.123.97|162.158.123.97]] 03:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure why some people seem to look for any opportunity to take a dig at the US, but I removed the line in the explanation about US-based readers not being familiar with the Celsius temperature scale. I'm sure most Americans are familiar with it but prefer the Fahrenheit scale instead. I don't understand why anyone holds that against us. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 03:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
:Hey, let's assume good faith. Chances are, some rando just genuinely had no idea how that kind of stuff works here. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.104|172.69.34.104]] 10:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Regarding USA Fahrenheit and non-USA Celsius preference, I was in Niagra Falls a few years back, listening to a Canadian station on the radio (ok, more than a few years ago...) and the DJ gave a weather report, saying “The current temperature is 25 degrees, that’s 77 on the understandable scale.” [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.201|173.245.54.201]] 04:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I guess if you wanted to use the Newton scale you'd need to have Newton's original "degrees of heat" measuring device. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.67|108.162.250.67]] 04:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Nitpicking alert : the correct writing is "kelvin", not "Kelvin".

100°F is "really hot"? Maybe on a stripper... [[Special:Contributions/162.158.190.106|162.158.190.106]] 13:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Randall, as a physicist, should know about the equipartition theorem. It states that all degrees of freedom will carry the same average amount of energy in thermal equilibrium, not only the translational kinetic ones (but also rotational, and potential energies). It is technically not false to exclude some of these, but an arbitrary choice. I guess he just wanted to include the terms “translational” and “kinetic” to make sure it sounds ridiculously over-specific (which works well). [[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.213|162.158.91.213]] 15:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
:No, it's still an important distinction. Many Thermometers can only 'measure' the average Translational energy and the rotational and elastic energy is just assumed to match that. (The only Thermometers that measure rotational and elastic Energy are the ones who only measure their own temperature... which is 99.5 of all consumer Thermometers.) And it probably does except in some very specific cases with ultra high speed pressure changes.

Using the average Translational Energy would would sidestep all the problems with the different units of temperature and would also eliminate the necessity of using the Boltzmann constant, simplyfying a lot of physics. But nobody wants to make the transition since most everyday temperatures would be between 5 and 8zJ, with 5 being freezing, six being tolerable and seven a desert at noon.

Well, it has Fahrenheit after a fashion. Just substract 460 from Rankine. It's even easier than converting Kelvin to Celsius!
:I find it much quicker to subtract 0.01C° 27,315 times than to subtract 0.01F° 45,967 times, personally. I think you're quite barmy to suggest otherwise, Unsigned... :P [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.222|162.158.34.222]] 16:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
::Now that I, the formerly Unsigned, think of it, I must agree with you - but for an entirely different reason. 273.15 in binary is a nice, round 100010001.001(00101) with 3 1's in the integer and 4+2n 1's for every 3+5n fractional digits, whereas 459.67 is much messier: 111001011.10110001111110... , with 6 1's in the integer alone. The more 1's there are in a number, the more operations you have to do for each addition or subtraction. So in binary, Kelvin-to-Celsius is much easier to convert than Rankine-to-Fahrenheit. Yet another point in favor of the glorious metric master system, da? [[User:Osato|Osato]] ([[User talk:Osato|talk]]) 19:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I removed the weasel words, indicating that Fahrenheit is "generally appreciated" because 0 means very cold and 100 very hot. I adjusted it to "some claim" and adjusted the text to fit.

Make the scale in Celsius 0 to 200, and I think you would have a system much more relatable to Fahrenheit users.

Talk:2283: Exa-Exabyte

2020-04-08T15:00:44Z

162.158.92.70:

Is this the first non-coronavirus related comic after eight in a row? -- brad
:My personal suspicion is that this one came out so late in the day because Randall was trying to think up another coronavirus-related comic so as not to break his streak :) [[Special:Contributions/108.162.242.5|108.162.242.5]] 20:05, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
::We sure this is not covid-19 related? A comic revolving around how hard biology is doesn't seem to me like a definite chain breaker for a biology related topic. Though I'll admit its a bit of a stretch [[Special:Contributions/172.69.198.58|172.69.198.58]] 21:14, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
:::I'm pretty sure the comic is SARS-CoV-2 related. The virus genome can be found all over the internet lately, it is even used for spamming. [[User:Condor70|Condor70]] ([[User talk:Condor70|talk]]) 21:32, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
::::Did someone already modified SARS-CoV-2 to be able to infect computers as well? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 23:35, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
:::::Hm, not that I can find... This looks like a job for xkcd readers! Somebody get right on this, please. [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 06:12, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
::::::I also immediately thought of COVID19 when he started on biology. Of course is can be dabated if this comic has nothing to do with the vira, but it is still about how much life there is and big numbers. And he amount of vira in the world is a big number... Hard to imagine, just like exponential growth is hard for humans to understand. I'd say that if the next comic on Monday is again clearly on COVID19 then the strak did not end here, just took a detour around some aspect of biology related to the problems at hand. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 16:54, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
:::::::(...a job for xkcd readers...) I have a different idea: Rewrite the {{w|EICAR test file}} as an equivalently functional (R|D)NA package. Nothing can go wrong! [[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.98|162.158.92.98]] 19:35, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
::::::::The funny thing about the exa-exabyte calculation is that it vastly underestimates the actual information entropy of DNA. For example, it doesn't take into account [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics epigenetic modifications] (e.g. histone acetylation and DNA methylation) in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eukaryote eukaryotes]. Interestingly, one reason why biologists can't get cloning to work is because simply copying the genome leaves behind epigenetic modifications (the "epigenome") that are critical to proper development and normally passed down through inheritance. In addition, most of the human genome doesn't even code for proteins (which is what people usually think of in terms of the information DNA encodes). Some of the genome encodes RNAs like [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piwi-interacting_RNA piwi-interacting RNA], which function in RNA silencing and epigenetic effects and probably other things biologists don't even know about yet. Even weirder are [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transposable_element transposons], which are mobile DNA sequences that jump around in the genome and can cause mutations and such. Biology is full of feedback loops, so stuff like epigenetic modification will affect the 3D structure of DNA, which can affect gene expression, which can affect epigenetic modification, and it's turtles all the way down. This is the messy [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schistocyte schistocyte] you get when evolution programs an organism's code. Simply counting DNA bases only hints at the true complexity of biology. BTW, HCoV-19 (human coronavirus 2019, another name for SARS-CoV-2 that I prefer because it avoids confusion with the 2003 SARS pandemic) happens to use RNA instead of DNA for its genome, for some reason. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ --[[User:In vivo veritas|In vivo veritas]] ([[User talk:In vivo veritas|talk]]) 05:15, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

So, is she counting all of humanity as one string of DNA data, or does each human count separately, or each cell in a human's body, or what?
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.215|162.158.74.215]] 21:48, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
: According to the NYT article, it was calculating "number of cells contained in each organism and multiplied that by the amount of DNA contained in each cell". [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.161|172.69.33.161]] 22:46, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
:: So, very small part of it would be each human cell counted separately. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 23:35, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
:::Good lord, that's got to be 92% or more redundant data; somebody teach these folk about the wonders of compression & differential versioning databases. ;S [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 06:15, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

'This is a comic about the difficulty of picturing or understanding large numbers. As mentioned in the comic, an exabyte is 10^18 bytes, while an "exa-exabyte" -- not a real word but one that makes sense if you apply the principles of metric prefixes' One of the principles of metric prefixes (which can be found in the linked page) is 'Prefixes may not be used in combination.' So "exa-exa" does not make sense in the metric world. It only makes "sense" in the messed up world were you lbf/lbm has the value 1 instead of g.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.65.138|172.68.65.138]] 01:54, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
:I've heard the term "gigakilogram(me)" used before. Probably due to the kilo being the base SI unit, rather than the prefixless gram/gramme. Just makes that Fermiation of derived compound units easier to work with, like the Newtons arising from a 'Gkg'x'Mm'/'das'² calculation being (?check?... 9+6-(2*1)=13, IIRC) of the final order of ~10TN. That said, I'd rather have liked to have seen the units instead being double-prefixed as "Terayotta-", because it sounds like a funny version of "terracotta". Or, as yotta- is essentially teratera-, go one stage further and use terateratera-... (Or picoyottayotta-?) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.98|162.158.92.98]] 19:58, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Most the data is redundant though. Compressed, and it definitely should be, it would take only about 2% as much space to store. [[User:Mikemk|Mikemk]] ([[User talk:Mikemk|talk]]) 05:32, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
:Glad somebody else already noted that.
:'''I think this should be noted in the explanation.'''
:[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 06:18, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
:Good point -- 10000000000000000000000000000000000000 bytes is obviously much more than 200000000000000000000000000000000000 bytes. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.101|162.158.91.101]] 11:39, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

It is worth mentioning that Randall is also mocking the education system for its lack of ability of explaining complex stuff to pupils. The teacher here is supposed to be able to provide different analogies from real life so that there is a chance of getting a feeling of the magnitude of the underlying number. Instead, she just repeats the explanation in the same mathematical terms as the original concept. That clearly doesn't help. Even worse, it prompts another student to attempt to explain it in even simpler terms but miss the point completely. The irony here is that incorrect but easy to understand explanation is accepted and not the correct one. Here it's also possible to mention similarities regarding climate change information not getting through to the general public but that would be a stretch. Also, what's the whole point of understanding these numbers if they are just a funny statistical fact? -- [[User:SomethingLike|SomethingLike]] ([[User talk:SomethingLike|talk]]) 06:15, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

"if(`Can you picture 36?`){return `Picture a number with 36 digits.`;}
[[Special:Contributions/172.68.154.70|172.68.154.70]] 09:25, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
[[Special:Contributions/172.68.154.70|172.68.154.70]] 09:30, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Suppose there are 4e37 base pairs. There are four possible bases, although the pair has to match, so each pair still only encodes two bits, for a total of 8e37 bits, or 1e37 bytes. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.38.66|162.158.38.66]] 11:07, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

If every human that has ever lived had a life span equal to the age of the universe, and every second of every day of their lives they created a one gigabyte storage device, there would still not be enough storage space to store 10 exa-exabytes. [[User:HisHighestMinion|HisHighestMinion]] ([[User talk:HisHighestMinion|talk]]) 22:07, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

By my calculations, if each of those 10 exa-exabytes is represented by 1 molecule of water... Then we are talking about a body of water the size of the {{w|Wachusett Reservoir}}. --[[User:Divad27182|Divad27182]] ([[User talk:Divad27182|talk]]) 00:29, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Or almost exactly the amount of molecules of ammonia in the atmosphere.
:Or when stored on potential future 10 TB microSD cards, all necessary microSD cards together would require about the same volume as earth.

It might be interesting to try and picture this number in terms of video bandwidth. HDMI requires about 128 Gbit/s for 8K video at 120 fps with 10-bit HDR <ref>[[wikipedia:HDMI#Refresh frequency limits for HDR10 video]]</ref>. That translates to 16 GB/s. 1036 bytes would therefore translate to 6.25x1026 seconds or 2x1019 years or 20,000,000 trillion years (or about 4.4 billion times the age of the earth<ref>[[wikipedia:Age of the Earth]]</ref>) of 8K 120 Hz HDR video. Or enough so that the entire population of the Earth (7.7 billion people<ref>[[wikipedia:World population]]</ref>) could all watch separate streams at this resolution for 2.5 billion years. Still mind-bogglingly huge, but maybe something approaching comprehensibility? [[User:Shamino|Shamino]] ([[User talk:Shamino|talk]]) 03:28, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
:But that 128 gigabit per second figure is for ''uncompressed'' video, which doesn't occur in home usage. Whether by streaming, BluRay, or even imported straight from a camera head, all the video handled after export from "RAW" format is compressed, even if losslessly. The transport formats most commonly used with HDMI are compressed too, though not much. Streaming services in particular use a ''lot'' of compression (not even lossless); it could be ''much'' better compression for the same visual quality, if hardware x265 codec support were more common. A .ts stream is compressed... The list goes on. Figures given for video data rates are massively overstated in an ongoing campaign to misrepresent symptoms of error correction losses & multiple-access delays as stemming from fictitiously large payload size instead. Most users never come near the "max speeds" of any of their various connections for more than a few minutes a day, yet ISPs & hardware makers would rather upsell "faster top speed" connections than offer sane top speeds & warranty a minimum data rate. Massively overstating throughput by substituting theoretical lab peak calculations is a long standing practice spanning almost all digital industries & those absurd data rates purported from one end of the video industry to another are no exception.
:[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 20:24, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to call shenanigans on this "apples can't be exponents" in the explanation, that's inaccurate. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.188|108.162.216.188]] 16:06, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
:🍏🍏🍏🍏🍏🍏🍏🍏🍏🍏^🍏🍏🍏🍏🍏🍏🍏🍏🍏🍏🍏🍏🍏🍏🍏🍏🍏🍏 = 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 apples. Obviously the "apples can't be exponents" statement is disproven with trivial ease. Just one problem: They're those nasty green Granny Smith apples, & those ''don't count''. While they can be exponents they can't possibly be considered rational.
:''Also, I'm very disappointed that it's been three days & no one has made a joke about the number of "base pears".''
:[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 05:18, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
:: Granny Smiths are not nasty; they're ''pie apples''. I love apple pie. Granted, that's not a scientific judgement; pie is irrational. --[[User:Pi one|Pi one]] ([[User talk:Pi one|talk]]) 16:39, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:2283: Exa-Exabyte

2020-04-08T14:57:04Z

162.158.92.70:

Is this the first non-coronavirus related comic after eight in a row? -- brad
:My personal suspicion is that this one came out so late in the day because Randall was trying to think up another coronavirus-related comic so as not to break his streak :) [[Special:Contributions/108.162.242.5|108.162.242.5]] 20:05, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
::We sure this is not covid-19 related? A comic revolving around how hard biology is doesn't seem to me like a definite chain breaker for a biology related topic. Though I'll admit its a bit of a stretch [[Special:Contributions/172.69.198.58|172.69.198.58]] 21:14, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
:::I'm pretty sure the comic is SARS-CoV-2 related. The virus genome can be found all over the internet lately, it is even used for spamming. [[User:Condor70|Condor70]] ([[User talk:Condor70|talk]]) 21:32, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
::::Did someone already modified SARS-CoV-2 to be able to infect computers as well? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 23:35, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
:::::Hm, not that I can find... This looks like a job for xkcd readers! Somebody get right on this, please. [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 06:12, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
::::::I also immediately thought of COVID19 when he started on biology. Of course is can be dabated if this comic has nothing to do with the vira, but it is still about how much life there is and big numbers. And he amount of vira in the world is a big number... Hard to imagine, just like exponential growth is hard for humans to understand. I'd say that if the next comic on Monday is again clearly on COVID19 then the strak did not end here, just took a detour around some aspect of biology related to the problems at hand. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 16:54, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
:::::::(...a job for xkcd readers...) I have a different idea: Rewrite the {{w|EICAR test file}} as an equivalently functional (R|D)NA package. Nothing can go wrong! [[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.98|162.158.92.98]] 19:35, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
::::::::The funny thing about the exa-exabyte calculation is that it vastly underestimates the actual information entropy of DNA. For example, it doesn't take into account [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics epigenetic modifications] (e.g. histone acetylation and DNA methylation) in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eukaryote eukaryotes]. Interestingly, one reason why biologists can't get cloning to work is because simply copying the genome leaves behind epigenetic modifications (the "epigenome") that are critical to proper development and normally passed down through inheritance. In addition, most of the human genome doesn't even code for proteins (which is what people usually think of in terms of the information DNA encodes). Some of the genome encodes RNAs like [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piwi-interacting_RNA piwi-interacting RNA], which function in RNA silencing and epigenetic effects and probably other things biologists don't even know about yet. Even weirder are [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transposable_element transposons], which are mobile DNA sequences that jump around in the genome and can cause mutations and such. Biology is full of feedback loops, so stuff like epigenetic modification will affect the 3D structure of DNA, which can affect gene expression, which can affect epigenetic modification, and it's turtles all the way down. This is the messy [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schistocyte schistocyte] you get when evolution programs an organism's code. Simply counting DNA bases only hints at the true complexity of biology. BTW, HCoV-19 (human coronavirus 2019, another name for SARS-CoV-2 that I prefer because it avoids confusion with the 2003 SARS pandemic) happens to use RNA instead of DNA for its genome, for some reason. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ --[[User:In vivo veritas|In vivo veritas]] ([[User talk:In vivo veritas|talk]]) 05:15, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

So, is she counting all of humanity as one string of DNA data, or does each human count separately, or each cell in a human's body, or what?
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.215|162.158.74.215]] 21:48, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
: According to the NYT article, it was calculating "number of cells contained in each organism and multiplied that by the amount of DNA contained in each cell". [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.161|172.69.33.161]] 22:46, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
:: So, very small part of it would be each human cell counted separately. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 23:35, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
:::Good lord, that's got to be 92% or more redundant data; somebody teach these folk about the wonders of compression & differential versioning databases. ;S [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 06:15, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

'This is a comic about the difficulty of picturing or understanding large numbers. As mentioned in the comic, an exabyte is 10^18 bytes, while an "exa-exabyte" -- not a real word but one that makes sense if you apply the principles of metric prefixes' One of the principles of metric prefixes (which can be found in the linked page) is 'Prefixes may not be used in combination.' So "exa-exa" does not make sense in the metric world. It only makes "sense" in the messed up world were you lbf/lbm has the value 1 instead of g.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.65.138|172.68.65.138]] 01:54, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
:I've heard the term "gigakilogram(me)" used before. Probably due to the kilo being the base SI unit, rather than the prefixless gram/gramme. Just makes that Fermiation of derived compound units easier to work with, like the Newtons arising from a 'Gkg'x'Mm'/'das'² calculation being (?check?... 9+6-(2*1)=13, IIRC) of the final order of ~10TN. That said, I'd rather have liked to have seen the units instead being double-prefixed as "Terayotta-", because it sounds like a funny version of "terracotta". Or, as yotta- is essentially teratera-, go one stage further and use terateratera-... (Or picoyottayotta-?) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.98|162.158.92.98]] 19:58, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Most the data is redundant though. Compressed, and it definitely should be, it would take only about 2% as much space to store. [[User:Mikemk|Mikemk]] ([[User talk:Mikemk|talk]]) 05:32, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
:Glad somebody else already noted that.
:'''I think this should be noted in the explanation.'''
:[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 06:18, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
:Good point -- 10000000000000000000000000000000000000 bytes is obviously much more than 200000000000000000000000000000000000 bytes. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.101|162.158.91.101]] 11:39, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

It is worth mentioning that Randall is also mocking the education system for its lack of ability of explaining complex stuff to pupils. The teacher here is supposed to be able to provide different analogies from real life so that there is a chance of getting a feeling of the magnitude of the underlying number. Instead, she just repeats the explanation in the same mathematical terms as the original concept. That clearly doesn't help. Even worse, it prompts another student to attempt to explain it in even simpler terms but miss the point completely. The irony here is that incorrect but easy to understand explanation is accepted and not the correct one. Here it's also possible to mention similarities regarding climate change information not getting through to the general public but that would be a stretch. Also, what's the whole point of understanding these numbers if they are just a funny statistical fact? -- [[User:SomethingLike|SomethingLike]] ([[User talk:SomethingLike|talk]]) 06:15, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

"if(`Can you picture 36?`){return `Picture a number with 36 digits.`;}
[[Special:Contributions/172.68.154.70|172.68.154.70]] 09:25, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
[[Special:Contributions/172.68.154.70|172.68.154.70]] 09:30, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Suppose there are 4e37 base pairs. There are four possible bases, although the pair has to match, so each pair still only encodes two bits, for a total of 8e37 bits, or 1e37 bytes. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.38.66|162.158.38.66]] 11:07, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

If every human that has ever lived had a life span equal to the age of the universe, and every second of every day of their lives they created a one gigabyte storage device, there would still not be enough storage space to store 10 exa-exabytes. [[User:HisHighestMinion|HisHighestMinion]] ([[User talk:HisHighestMinion|talk]]) 22:07, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

By my calculations, if each of those 10 exa-exabytes is represented by 1 molecule of water... Then we are talking about a body of water the size of the {{w|Wachusett Reservoir}}. --[[User:Divad27182|Divad27182]] ([[User talk:Divad27182|talk]]) 00:29, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Or almost exactly the amount of molecules of ammonia in the atmosphere.
:Or when stored on potential future 50 TB microSD cards, all necessary microSD cards together would require about the same volume as earth.

It might be interesting to try and picture this number in terms of video bandwidth. HDMI requires about 128 Gbit/s for 8K video at 120 fps with 10-bit HDR <ref>[[wikipedia:HDMI#Refresh frequency limits for HDR10 video]]</ref>. That translates to 16 GB/s. 1036 bytes would therefore translate to 6.25x1026 seconds or 2x1019 years or 20,000,000 trillion years (or about 4.4 billion times the age of the earth<ref>[[wikipedia:Age of the Earth]]</ref>) of 8K 120 Hz HDR video. Or enough so that the entire population of the Earth (7.7 billion people<ref>[[wikipedia:World population]]</ref>) could all watch separate streams at this resolution for 2.5 billion years. Still mind-bogglingly huge, but maybe something approaching comprehensibility? [[User:Shamino|Shamino]] ([[User talk:Shamino|talk]]) 03:28, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
:But that 128 gigabit per second figure is for ''uncompressed'' video, which doesn't occur in home usage. Whether by streaming, BluRay, or even imported straight from a camera head, all the video handled after export from "RAW" format is compressed, even if losslessly. The transport formats most commonly used with HDMI are compressed too, though not much. Streaming services in particular use a ''lot'' of compression (not even lossless); it could be ''much'' better compression for the same visual quality, if hardware x265 codec support were more common. A .ts stream is compressed... The list goes on. Figures given for video data rates are massively overstated in an ongoing campaign to misrepresent symptoms of error correction losses & multiple-access delays as stemming from fictitiously large payload size instead. Most users never come near the "max speeds" of any of their various connections for more than a few minutes a day, yet ISPs & hardware makers would rather upsell "faster top speed" connections than offer sane top speeds & warranty a minimum data rate. Massively overstating throughput by substituting theoretical lab peak calculations is a long standing practice spanning almost all digital industries & those absurd data rates purported from one end of the video industry to another are no exception.
:[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 20:24, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to call shenanigans on this "apples can't be exponents" in the explanation, that's inaccurate. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.188|108.162.216.188]] 16:06, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
:🍏🍏🍏🍏🍏🍏🍏🍏🍏🍏^🍏🍏🍏🍏🍏🍏🍏🍏🍏🍏🍏🍏🍏🍏🍏🍏🍏🍏 = 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 apples. Obviously the "apples can't be exponents" statement is disproven with trivial ease. Just one problem: They're those nasty green Granny Smith apples, & those ''don't count''. While they can be exponents they can't possibly be considered rational.
:''Also, I'm very disappointed that it's been three days & no one has made a joke about the number of "base pears".''
:[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 05:18, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
:: Granny Smiths are not nasty; they're ''pie apples''. I love apple pie. Granted, that's not a scientific judgement; pie is irrational. --[[User:Pi one|Pi one]] ([[User talk:Pi one|talk]]) 16:39, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:2224: Software Updates

2020-04-08T13:35:26Z

162.158.92.70:

Not related to this comic in particular, but the advertisements on this site have become a little (well, actually well past that) too obtrusive for use on a computer that won't let you install an ad blocker (like, uh, a managed Chromebook). Oh, imagine trying to use a computer that won't let you install something as necessary in 2019 as an ad blocker in 2019. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.59.42|172.68.59.42]] 01:11, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
:Yup. I've added the ongoing discussion to the bottom of this talk page. --[[User:NeatNit|NeatNit]] ([[User talk:NeatNit|talk]]) 12:03, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Really? For me it's only a tiny rectangular ad in the bottom left when I disable my blocker. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.20|172.69.34.20]] 01:53, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
:I saw bunches of ads artificially injected in here between these comments last week, this week I see literally none, so I think whoever added them - so horribly intrusively that it sparked an ongoing discussion that transcended the separate comics - saw the complaints and turned them back off. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]])

I bet that this is in reference to the removal of close other tabs from Chrome. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.37|173.245.54.37]] 03:23, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

: I doubt it. The feature is easily duplicated by simply tearing out the tab you want to keep and then closing the other window. I doubt that would be a dealbreaker. Plus, well, Chrome doesn't play nice with trying to stay on the older version. [[User:Trlkly|Trlkly]] ([[User talk:Trlkly|talk]]) 03:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
:: Yeah, there are far too many other examples of unwelcome changes to far too many pieces of software to think this is referring to this in particular.--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.75.166|162.158.75.166]] 10:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
::: However, there are quite lot of very unwelcomed changes specifically in major browsers ... Mozilla's decision to stop supporting original format of their extensions comes into mind ... -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 04:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

It's not so clear to me that SaaS requires the software to run in the Cloud. Adobe's Creative Cloud is argued to be Software as a Service, but the programs actually run on the local system. [[User:Trlkly|Trlkly]] ([[User talk:Trlkly|talk]]) 03:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

The definition in the Wikipedia article on SaaS includes that requirement. I would describe Adobe Creative Cloud more like the way its Wikipedia article does, as providing a combination of software applications delivered on a subscription model, mobile apps, and cloud services, with only the latter being the SaaS part. [[User:Bugstomper|Bugstomper]] ([[User talk:Bugstomper|talk]]) 03:51, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
:Yes, Photoshop is installed on my machine, and I can run it when I'm not connected to the Internet. Definitely not SaaS. SaaS doesn't have to be from the cloud, but it must be something served when you use it. — [[User:Kazvorpal|Kazvorpal]] ([[User talk:Kazvorpal|talk]]) 06:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I think the explanation is probably misinterpreting the intent of the title text. Given the point of the main comic, rather than saying some have very fast ping times, I think it's saying they may have very slow ping time, on the order of months or years, between times when they decide to download an updated version. The explanation written here definitely feels off, as lots of software running doesn't involve even a local office server, but runs entirely on the computer in front of the user, and again it doesn't relate to the main comic.--[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.46|108.162.216.46]] 06:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
:I was going to say the same. Cloud software will include some frontend code to display data to the user; often some javascript in a webpage. I think the title text is treating 'regular' software as if the developers and their computers creating updates are the part which runs "in the cloud". In some cases, this might mean actually sending off for disks for an update (a 'ping time' in weeks), and the timeout before disconnection causes an error could be years or longer. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.77.50|141.101.77.50]] 09:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
:: The part about a "server in the same office" should just be removed. Software ''on your own computer'' is also running in the cloud - there's no fundamental difference between software running locally or remotely except for the connectivity issues (latency and packet loss etc.) in transferring the data. Your own computer is a "cloud server" with extremely fast (a few milliseconds) ping, whereas accessing a server on another continent may cause latency of a few hundred milliseconds (or more, if packet loss is bad enough) and this is what the "ping times vary a lot" line is referring to. I don't think it's referring to software updates. -- [[User:Pureawes0me|Pureawes0me]] ([[User talk:Pureawes0me|talk]]) 09:45, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
::: Again, that interpretation would be a lot more credible if the primary topic of the main comic wasn't about updating software with very long intervals in between. Making the point you are saying doesn't match at all, and isn't nearly as clever or entertaining of an observation. The very absurdity of claiming waiting weeks or months for a software update is a "ping time" (which is normally something measured in milliseconds) seems to match the typical kind of humor of this comic. Reminds me of that comic a bit ago with the fruit vending machine that required you to wait for a tree to grow.--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.75.166|162.158.75.166]] 10:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
::::It could refer to both. Therefore they vary a lot.

Oh, hey, that looks like my Android version (because Google apparently thinks no one would want to record their own calls). [[Special:Contributions/162.158.142.118|162.158.142.118]] 09:50, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Would just like to mention that the definition of 'software as a service' is actually that you pay for a subscription, that is a regular reoccurring fee. That's not usually the case. 17:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
:If you have to be compatible with other users and the file formats (or whatever) change, it could end up being a "regular recurring" fee for all practical purposes, paid at whatever interval your friends or colleagues allow before they expect you to have upgraded. [[User:Angel|Angel]] ([[User talk:Angel|talk]]) 18:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
::That would be an 'irregular' reoccurring fee, as opposed to a 'regular' one. A 'regular' one is one that's periodic and the period is the same each time. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.214.82|162.158.214.82]] 18:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I am confused about the location of the label '''Newest version'''. Wouldn't the newest version be located at the highest line in the diagram? Unless the lines above "Newest version" are future versions? [[User:Rtanenbaum|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum|talk]]) 18:02, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
:The arrow is pointing to the upper edge of the shaded region. The upper edge of that region represents the "newest version" at any moment in time, while the lower edge of the shaded region represents the oldest supported version. [[User:Angel|Angel]] ([[User talk:Angel|talk]]) 18:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
::Thanks, now it makes sense. It would be a little clearer if the arrow for Newest version was pointing to the upper horizontal line and the arrow for Oldest version was pointing to the lower horizontal line of the shaded area, instead of pointing to the vertical lines. To my interpretation, vertical lines mark points in time and horizontal lines mark versions. What do you think? [[User:Rtanenbaum|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum|talk]]) 18:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
:::I think it is only because you saw it the wrong way to begin with. The arrow points to the two darker gray lines, surrounding the light gray area. The lines represents the newest version number existing and the oldest version number supported. It does not matter which part of the line that the arrows point to, as it is the entire line that is representing what the labels say. It is not where the arrow point to the lines that is important. As the label is for the entire line. This is unlike the two points marked with dots on the black line, which is a particular point in time. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 14:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Speaking of unsupported... Now that Apple is dumping all support for 32-bit apps, it's worse than just using an unsupported app: those of us with "legacy" 32-bit apps will have to run an unsupported '''Operating System''' that no doubt will not work with all sorts of upcoming apps. I don't even want to think about the number of apps that I will have to pay to upgrade to 64bit. [[User:Cellocgw|Cellocgw]] ([[User talk:Cellocgw|talk]]) 12:23, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

There is one app, that I think we can all agree is a blessing that it has gone away, '''Flash Player'''! Good riddance! [[User:Rtanenbaum|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum|talk]]) 14:08, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
:No, we do not all agree. :) Also I won't consider it gone until sites stop using it, and I haven't seen that yet. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 05:00, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Funny, this comic so well encapsulates where I just got with iTunes. Except that "break" was intentional, LOL! Idiots split off Books and a few other things into separate apps, because of course people would rather have 10 programs clogging up their computers than just 1. Since I actually use the Books feature, to sync to my iPad, that's a deal breaker, no more updates for me. And "app" doesn't sound like something available for a Windows computer, just mobile devices and strangely Macs because Apple is a collection of weirdo idiots who've lost touch with the real world. LOL! [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 05:00, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not telling you whether this comment is being written on my Dell Latitude laptop (still running XP) or my Tab 3 (still running Android 4.4.2), but this comic relates to me in so many ways... [[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.175|162.158.154.175]] 00:07, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

My brother refused for years to update to IOS 7 on his iPad because he didn't like the new aesthetic. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.70.70|172.68.70.70]] 14:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Interesting, I interpret the title text completely differently. I think Randall sees the "ping" from the SW manufacturer's perspective. In a client-installed software, the manufacturer still has the ability to force their updates upon the customers (by means of withdrawing support), but the "ping" (upgrade response from the customers) is heavily delayed. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.70|162.158.92.70]] 13:35, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk:2184: Unpopular Opinions

2020-03-19T17:50:50Z

162.158.92.70:

I wonder if it has to be below 50% with critic score, audience score, or both? [[User:Andyd273|Andyd273]] ([[User talk:Andyd273|talk]]) 17:36, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
:Genisys has an Audience Score of 53%, so I think it has to be critic score (Tomatometer). [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.124|108.162.241.124]] 21:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
::Critics and audiences are really two distinct groups. So to be "apples to apples", I'd think it would have to be a movie with an Audience score below 50. Disagreeing with something critics hated isn't that rare among the general audience. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.106.18|162.158.106.18]] 04:46, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
::The whole idea of the challenge doesn't make sense if the movie is "only" hated by a handful of random critics. As Randall points out, it is easier to hate a movie that everyone loves, so that is also true for critics. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.55.46|172.69.55.46]] 18:41, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
::I have to agree that basing it on the critic reviews only doesn't make much sense. I can find dozens of movies I like that are rated rotten by the critics, but nearly all of them got good audience reviews (Bright, Constentine, Super Troopers, K-Pax, Aqua Teen Hunger Force, etc). I can only find one that I like that that scores under 50% with both groups, Southland Tales, and even I'll admit it has many flaws. I suspect Randal Monroe was looking at movies that were rated "Rotten" by both groups (green icon and <60%), vs "fresh" (red icon > 60%). But the rules were already a bit too lengthy to spell it out explicitly. [[user]][[User:Whereisspike|Whereisspike]] ([[User talk:Whereisspike|talk]]) 21:42, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

[https://www.rottentomatoes.com/browse/dvd-streaming-all?minTomato=0&maxTomato=49&services=amazon;hbo_go;itunes;netflix_iw;vudu;amazon_prime;fandango_now&genres=1;2;4;5;6;8;9;10;11;13;18;14&sortBy=tomato Movies] on DVD or streaming, tomatometer 49% down to 0%.

Plenty of Twilight fans will raise their hands - it is rated 49% --[[User:Thomcat|Thomcat]] ([[User talk:Thomcat|talk]]) 18:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
:Well, I'm around the typical age of (original) Twilight fans, and none of the movies in the saga came in my adult life. (But they're all below 50%)[[Special:Contributions/162.158.103.147|162.158.103.147]] 18:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I mean, Shaft got a 30% on the Tomatometer and a 94 on the audience score, and I loved it. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.22|108.162.241.22]] 18:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Do Waterworld, in spite of the fact that it only ticks two of the boxes, count? I really liked that one.
:I also liked Waterworld (44%, 1997) and The Postman (9%, 1995) (both with Kevin Kostner, and sort of the same story). Assuming the definition of adult is 18, they both qualify for the adult part, but not the after 2000 part. I also loved Star Wars Episode I, but sure enough, it's above 50% on Rotten Tomatoes. [[User:WhiteDragon|WhiteDragon]] ([[User talk:WhiteDragon|talk]]) 17:28, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

:If it didn't come out while you were an adult, then it doesn't count. [[User:N0lqu|-boB]] ([[User talk:N0lqu|talk]]) 20:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
:My immediate search was also for Water World. Would it also not count when you didn't watch it until after 2000? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.55.46|172.69.55.46]] 18:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't watch enough movies (or know Rotten Tomatoes well enough) to participate in this particular challenge, but it seems like every time I enjoy a video game, it turns out to have a sizeable and vocal hatedom. I seriously can't relate to the caption here. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.107.165|162.158.107.165]] 20:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Batman v. Superman is probably a good answer for a fair number of people-it has a reasonable number of fans (including myself) who liked it, despite its very poor rating (28%) [[User:SirEpp|SirEpp]] ([[User talk:SirEpp|talk]]) 21:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
: I went to that movie for finding the plausible reason why Batman who only fights criminal and Superman being too unreal for ever being angry for no reason might have a fight which each other. Got less than I expected, in this aspect. But Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets, Thor: Ragnarok and Iron Sky are objectively superb films the critics hated. Perhaps with the exception of the relationship between Valerian and Laureline, perhaps, though.[[User:Gunterkoenigsmann|Gunterkoenigsmann]] ([[User talk:Gunterkoenigsmann|talk]]) 17:37, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Not a movie, per se, but I thought season 8 of Game of Thrones was fantastic. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.214.88|162.158.214.88]] 22:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Critically panned films that I like include: Crimes of Grindelwald, Passengers, and Warcraft. Critically acclaimed films that I do not like: Avatar and Life of Pi. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.213|173.245.48.213]] 22:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
:Oooh, ''Passengers'' is a good one, I'm stealing that. [[User:Hawthorn|Hawthorn]] ([[User talk:Hawthorn|talk]]) 01:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
:I second Crimes of Grindelwald (37 RT), and add Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets (48 RT), which I also enjoyed and actually recommend to people. Now these movies aren't "classics" or "great movies", they aren't perfect, but they are effective entertainment, and ''not'' because they "are so bad their good". Grindelwald has many effective scenes and acting, and Valerian is a very effective effort at making a movie out of a comic book that ''feels like a comic book''-- a fact I appreciated. Of course 48 RT is also just under the 50 RT threshold.[[User:Careysub|Careysub]] ([[User talk:Careysub|talk]])
:It's almost like you totally misunderstood the point of the comic. [[User:A74xhx|A74xhx]] ([[User talk:A74xhx|talk]]) 09:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
::How so? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.69.16|172.69.69.16]] 21:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Not under 50%, but I'm shocked that "The Secret Life of Walter Smitty" has only 51%... National Treasure has only 46%... I like this game, it is a test in optimism.
:"The Secret Life of Walter '''Mitty'''" deserves a low rating, particularly when compared to the original with Danny Kaye. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.107.73|162.158.107.73]] 05:31, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Frankly it would be easier to list the movies I like that aren't below 50% on rotten tomatoes. [[User:CJB42|CJB42]] ([[User talk:CJB42|talk]]) 00:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)s

My experience with rotten tomatoes ratings in particular is that they have no clue and I find their ratings useless. The challenge from Randall in this comic is a case in point: the first movie I though to check, “Another Gay Movie” gets a 40% on the tomatometer yet is one of my favorites. Same thing with all the “Eating Out” movies: good comedies that I enjoy, yet Tomatometer scores of 16%, 44%, and 17% for the first three. (And why is “Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds” so much higher ranked than 1 or 3? It’s not that different...)
I think the criteria that Randal assumes (but doesn’t mention) is that the movie has to be a box office hit that appeals to mainstream audiences.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.107.73|162.158.107.73]] 03:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't see why Suicide Squad got trashed. It was light, colourful, had an engaging story, and well made. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.253.209|172.68.253.209]] 04:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Sucker Punch. There, I said it. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.77|141.101.99.77]] 07:36, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
:I definitely came to this discussion thinking of this movie. It's properly interesting, but it's also easy to see why critics and half the audience hate it. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.64|162.158.34.64]] 10:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

There's a certain type of movie that 'h8ers' will auto-trash before they even come out (especially "Gender-switched version of a classic", like that ''Ghostbusters'', and "Strong female type", like ''Wonder Woman'' - as easy examples of those that some people love to hate, regardless of actual merit). So I recon there'd be good mileage in keeping an eye on (for example) the double-whammy that is the upcoming Female Thor movie. If it doesn't ''actually'' turn out to be so bad that you personally don't like it, I predict that it'll be pre-release troll-sniped down below 50% in "popular" opinion and even if they're not at all right about their guess there'll be a window of opportunity before any counter-viewpoint from actual viewers ups the score again. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.66|141.101.107.66]] 10:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
:No one hated Wonder Woman. It has 93%, and is arguably the best live action superhero movie that DC has released so far. Ghostbusters was a money grabbing remake that brought nothing new. It COULD have been great with almost no effort, by getting someone to write an original script that built on the things that came before that everyone loves, instead of trying to replace it with an inferior version. The only one to blame is the Hollywood studios that would rather throw money at something that already exists instead of taking a risk on an unknown. Then they add insult to injury and tell everyone that the reason they failed isn't because they made bad decisions, but because ''people don't like seeing women in leading roles'', which is not true in any form. No real people care if the lead is male or female. They care about a good story, good acting, and having a good time watching a movie they paid their money for. [[User:Andyd273|Andyd273]] ([[User talk:Andyd273|talk]]) 17:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

What the heck are all these Jim Carrey and Ben Stiller movies doing at sub-50%? I didn't know people supposedly hated Night at the Museum that much. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.189.67|172.68.189.67]] 17:13, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to the link I found two: Pirates of the Caribbean: At Worlds End and Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer. I don't consider them like super-good, but I like them. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 00:09, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to the link I found four: Hancock, Knowing, The Lovely Bones, The Book of Eli.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.150.28|162.158.150.28]] 11:06, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Immediately: Venom (29%) I like to pretend I like it for the "so bad it's good", but here in anonymous interwebzland, I can admit I just enjoyed it (despite expecting to hate it for the retcon). Does it matter that the RT audience score is 81%? I often find that my enjoyment of a movie is inversely proportional to how much critics didn't, and it seems I'm not alone.[[User:Daemonik|Daemonik]] ([[User talk:Daemonik|talk]]) 09:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I think the point here is that people feel more comfortable disliking something than liking it. It isn't that we don't all have movies that we like that other people hated, it's that many of us are afraid to say it. Also, t's not a movie, but I honestly enjoyed that one episode of ''Stranger Things''. [[User:Probably not Douglas Hofstadter|Probably not Douglas Hofstadter]] ([[User talk:Probably not Douglas Hofstadter|talk]]) 04:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I admit a weakness for the Roland Emmerich movies ("The Day After Tomorrow" and "2012"). OK the science behind the events is pretty rubbish, but they are decent action movies nonetheless with a few enjoyable twists (like the USA having to beg Mexico to let them emigrate south in TDAT).

I'm shocked no one else has mentioned Jupiter Ascending yet; there was a decent amount of silliness in that movie, but I genuinely found it super compelling, and it deserves better than a 27%. --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.65.90|172.68.65.90]] 16:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

300 got very mediocre reviews (52% on Metacritic), but I'ts absolutely one of my all-time favourite action movies. --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.55.46|172.69.55.46]] 16:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Geostorm. Didn't even need the link for that. [[User:Conster|Conster]] ([[User talk:Conster|talk]]) 21:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Like another user said, Roland Emmerich movies like TDAT and 2012 are ones I'll always be a sucker for. Also, The Book of Eli (2010) is actually a great movie IMO despite having a 48% on RT. I always put that as a classic. Meet the Fockers (2004) is funny, too.

Side note: Armageddon is a pre-2000 movie (1998), but I think most would agree that it's a classic apocalyptic movie.

[[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.33|162.158.74.33]] 14:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Also, a reminder that the original Purge movie has a 39% on RT. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.33|162.158.74.33]] 15:00, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

How, by all that is holy, does The Human Centipede get a 49% Tomatometer rating? Give me a win for Mr Popper's Penguins, though. [[User:Observer of the Absurd|Observer of the Absurd]] ([[User talk:Observer of the Absurd|talk]]) 18:48, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Dragonball Evolution. If the Dragonball anime and Manga didn't exist, this would be a pretty okay and fun movie. Some parts of it were surprizing and the characters are fun. They just aren't the people from the manga, but rather just losely based on them, just like Frozen is losely based on the snow queen.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.70|162.158.92.70]] 17:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

== Post-2000? ==

Anyone have an idea why "post-2000" is a criteria? [[User:Stevage|Stevage]] ([[User talk:Stevage|talk]]) 23:58, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
:Maybe because Rotten Tomatoes was launched close to the end of the 1990s, so post-2000 movies are the only ones that have been reviewed as they came out? Or perhaps it's to limit the scope of "movies that came out in your adult life", since adult life could go back a long way for some people. [[User:Hawthorn|Hawthorn]] ([[User talk:Hawthorn|talk]]) 01:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
:I don't know for certain, but I feel incredibly confident that it's the timing of Rotten Tomatoes, that older movies that came out before the site existed won't be thoroughly / properly covered. Like if you look closely you'll see the 40% rating on this movie comes from only 1 vote. I suspect Randall feels that as of 2000, there was enough activity on the site to provide sufficient coverage. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 04:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
:Pre-2000 films, being prior to RT, have the 'benefit'  of studied hindsight. Anybody who bothers to review [https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1003722_casino_royale the ''original'' Casino Royale], which would be my choice for this if I were allowed, just has far too much baggage to be thinking the same as with something just being appreciated in the context as a new-release. Including me, probably, across the many years since I first saw that film and fell in love with it, despite the obvious and total car-crash of its Development Hell! [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.66|141.101.107.66]] 10:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
:And there's a lot of selection bias in who reviews movies from pre-2000 as anyone who reviews a movie probably only went to that movies page and wrote a review, because they either really like the movie, or really really really hate it.[[User:Whereisspike|Whereisspike]] ([[User talk:Whereisspike|talk]]) 21:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
:It's stated in the explanation: it is so that most respondents would choose a movie that they have seen in their adult life and avoid the "childhood nostalgia" bias where you have fond memories of a movie watched as a kid but that you wouldn't enjoy watching as an adult.

I KNOW that there are many, many movies I can apply to this challenge - I often find myself enjoying unpopular movies. Plus, critics suck, they seem to always forget that this is ENTERTAINMENT. A clever movie that is dull as dirt and makes you fall asleep should NOT receive high praise, it fails at the primary function - but I can't think of them in the moment. About a week ago on Facebook I had a memory, a list of facts about Eurotrip, where the article called it a flop, while I loved it, so probably that one. This comic triggered my first ever visit to Rotten Tomatoes, who lists Eurotrip as I think 46%, but much higher for Audience score, so I THINK it counts? What bumps me is that it seems like "Audience Score" would be popular opinion, making Eurotrip actually a Popular movie, which seems like then it wouldn't apply here. ???? [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 04:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
:Got one! I love The League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen, and Rotten Tomatoes scores it a 17% Tomatometer, 44% Audience score. Dunno why, I found it so cool, so enjoyable! I often wish there was a sequel or even a series. :)[[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 07:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Hypothesis: People generally give more positive then negative reviews, and positive reviews also cause more people to watch. The number of watching for something bad is therefor lower, while a good movie is watched so often there is always a critic.
[[Special:Contributions/172.69.55.190|172.69.55.190]] 10:19, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

What the hell is wrong with people who don't like Ghost Rider or Daredevil? — [[User:Kazvorpal|Kazvorpal]] ([[User talk:Kazvorpal|talk]]) 19:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

My favorite bad movies Wild Wild West, The One, Returner, Equilibrium, The Warrior's Way [[User:Houligan|Houligan]] ([[User talk:Houligan|talk]]) 15:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I liked 50 First Dates. But for my really controversial opinion, I'm gonna say not only was Armageddon a terrific movie, but it got enough of the science right to earn our suspension of disbelief :D
--[[Special:Contributions/172.68.142.245|172.68.142.245]] 21:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Is [[653: So Bad It's Worse]] related enough to be mentioned in the explaination or trivia? --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 12:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I just came here to say, "Pandorum".

How to talk to girls at parties (2018) - [[Special:Contributions/172.68.46.113|172.68.46.113]] 20:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Guilty Pleasure: ''The Sorcerer's Apprentice'' - [[User:Acrisius|Acrisius]] ([[User talk:Acrisius|talk]]) 06:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Think of a video-game based movie you actually like. It probably fits this. 2001's Lara Croft: Tomb Raider and 2005's Doom have 47% and 34% audience rating, respectively, and I loved both of those (despite the fact that they had basically nothing to do with the games). A few game-based movies have over 50% audience rating, but even then, only 2-3 ever got above 50% with the critics. Heck, even the Pokemon movies got horrible critic ratings (the second movie came out in 2000, so you'd have to start with the third to adhere to that 'post-2000' rule)...

==My big, late comment==

So my three are
:''50 First Dates'' (I'm a sucker for hopeless romantic-type stuff and the gross out comedy didn't go too far to cancel it out),
:''Bruce Almighty'', because Morgan Freeman killed it as God, and
:''Book of Eli'', because that twist is awesome on the successive watch, and even on the first if you figure it out early

However, I take issue with a STRICT limitation of "post-2000", and I would just say if you're going to choose one pre-2000, it has to be a personal favorite, like personal top-50 or so movie, and for me, those would be
:''Hook'', because Robin Williams and Dustin Hoffman did their duty to the script and deserve at least 50% on the tomato meter, no matter what balls the other characters or plot dropped,
:''Robin Hood: Men in Tights'', because the cast, characters, gags, and anachronisms are essentially timeless; from Broomhilda breaking the concrete when the horse dodged her; to Blinkin... idunno, everything Blinkin; to Achoo's added attitude and flavor; and all the character's breaking of the fourth wall... goodness... the critics missed this one
:''Boondock Saints'' - not for everyone, but dang, it's just a really interesting and slightly morbid romp of a story about vigilantes rising up against organized crime, mixing humor in with seriousness in just the right amounts and just about perfect pacing

Ok, so I also think there are a few that really don't deserve the low rating they got, even if they weren't the best or my "favorites" - my rubric for adding them here was if I thought they deserved at least 30% more on the tomato meter. If they're just a teeny bit low (like 10%) then that's too close to personal taste for me to add as an argument, so...
:I Think ''Crimes of Grindelwald'' should have gotten more like a 70%, mostly for the world building they continued from the first movie
:I really liked ''Jumper'' (just not QUITE enough to stick my neck out for the real list above) - really great concept that wasn't ruined by sub-par acting, even if it wasn't exactly enhanced - should have been more like 50%
:''The Day The Earth Stood Still'' - again, not the best movie in existence, but got a bad rap - just above 50% seems more appropriate to me
:''After Earth'' - far from either of the Smith's best works, but more deserving than 11% for the world and effects
:''Planes'' - maybe the sequel was too much, and of course it's largely a cash grab and targeted at kids, but it was a decent story and the characters were executed well above a 25% rating - I'd say it should even be just barely fresh, so 60%
:''Chappie'' - I think it was just really interesting, despite the stretches technologically speaking, giving a window (sort of) into a culture not well represented in the U.S. - basically I think it should be just barely fresh as well

And finally what I'm really glad nobody spoke up about are a few of my pet peeves - movies that deserved a low score and got it, but every once in a while I hear people saying they enjoyed it. I'm just glad nobody prior to this seems to have mentioned: Semi Pro and any of the Transformers travesties. I just wanted to take a moment and thank you all for that. -- [[User:Brettpeirce|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk]]) 20:28, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

[[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.83|108.162.246.83]] 02:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
So personally, I'm trying to figure out if I can even make a list of all qualifying movies. Would make the game easier if we could have that, but I can't even figure out how to search Rotten Tomatoes for movies beyond what's currently out in theatres. Any advice or relevant links, anyone?
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.83|108.162.246.83]] 02:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I loved the 2001 version of Planet of the Apes. Both the First In, Last Out and the "ape D.C." ending were atypical and unexpected. I think the reason that people hated this movie was for the same reason that they hated "The murder of Roger Ackroyd" by Agatha Christie. But both this movie and that novel were amazing because they "broke the rules." [[Special:Contributions/108.162.212.89|108.162.212.89]] 20:35, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

From looking at the [https://www.rottentomatoes.com/browse/dvd-streaming-all?minTomato=0&maxTomato=49&services=amazon;hbo_go;itunes;netflix_iw;vudu;amazon_prime;fandango_now&genres=1;2;4;5;6;8;9;10;11;13;18;14&sortBy=release%7CRotten link] in the explanation, I can name Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald, Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom, and the entire Divergent trilogy as examples. Eagerly awaiting sequels to all of them. (And yes, a little bitter that Ascendant got canceled, though I've long since accepted that. Allegiant could have had a worse ending.) [[User:NealCruco|NealCruco]] ([[User talk:NealCruco|talk]]) 04:10, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2184: Unpopular Opinions

2020-03-19T17:50:20Z

162.158.92.70:

I wonder if it has to be below 50% with critic score, audience score, or both? [[User:Andyd273|Andyd273]] ([[User talk:Andyd273|talk]]) 17:36, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
:Genisys has an Audience Score of 53%, so I think it has to be critic score (Tomatometer). [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.124|108.162.241.124]] 21:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
::Critics and audiences are really two distinct groups. So to be "apples to apples", I'd think it would have to be a movie with an Audience score below 50. Disagreeing with something critics hated isn't that rare among the general audience. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.106.18|162.158.106.18]] 04:46, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
::The whole idea of the challenge doesn't make sense if the movie is "only" hated by a handful of random critics. As Randall points out, it is easier to hate a movie that everyone loves, so that is also true for critics. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.55.46|172.69.55.46]] 18:41, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
::I have to agree that basing it on the critic reviews only doesn't make much sense. I can find dozens of movies I like that are rated rotten by the critics, but nearly all of them got good audience reviews (Bright, Constentine, Super Troopers, K-Pax, Aqua Teen Hunger Force, etc). I can only find one that I like that that scores under 50% with both groups, Southland Tales, and even I'll admit it has many flaws. I suspect Randal Monroe was looking at movies that were rated "Rotten" by both groups (green icon and <60%), vs "fresh" (red icon > 60%). But the rules were already a bit too lengthy to spell it out explicitly. [[user]][[User:Whereisspike|Whereisspike]] ([[User talk:Whereisspike|talk]]) 21:42, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

[https://www.rottentomatoes.com/browse/dvd-streaming-all?minTomato=0&maxTomato=49&services=amazon;hbo_go;itunes;netflix_iw;vudu;amazon_prime;fandango_now&genres=1;2;4;5;6;8;9;10;11;13;18;14&sortBy=tomato Movies] on DVD or streaming, tomatometer 49% down to 0%.

Plenty of Twilight fans will raise their hands - it is rated 49% --[[User:Thomcat|Thomcat]] ([[User talk:Thomcat|talk]]) 18:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
:Well, I'm around the typical age of (original) Twilight fans, and none of the movies in the saga came in my adult life. (But they're all below 50%)[[Special:Contributions/162.158.103.147|162.158.103.147]] 18:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I mean, Shaft got a 30% on the Tomatometer and a 94 on the audience score, and I loved it. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.22|108.162.241.22]] 18:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Do Waterworld, in spite of the fact that it only ticks two of the boxes, count? I really liked that one.
:I also liked Waterworld (44%, 1997) and The Postman (9%, 1995) (both with Kevin Kostner, and sort of the same story). Assuming the definition of adult is 18, they both qualify for the adult part, but not the after 2000 part. I also loved Star Wars Episode I, but sure enough, it's above 50% on Rotten Tomatoes. [[User:WhiteDragon|WhiteDragon]] ([[User talk:WhiteDragon|talk]]) 17:28, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

:If it didn't come out while you were an adult, then it doesn't count. [[User:N0lqu|-boB]] ([[User talk:N0lqu|talk]]) 20:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
:My immediate search was also for Water World. Would it also not count when you didn't watch it until after 2000? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.55.46|172.69.55.46]] 18:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't watch enough movies (or know Rotten Tomatoes well enough) to participate in this particular challenge, but it seems like every time I enjoy a video game, it turns out to have a sizeable and vocal hatedom. I seriously can't relate to the caption here. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.107.165|162.158.107.165]] 20:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Batman v. Superman is probably a good answer for a fair number of people-it has a reasonable number of fans (including myself) who liked it, despite its very poor rating (28%) [[User:SirEpp|SirEpp]] ([[User talk:SirEpp|talk]]) 21:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
: I went to that movie for finding the plausible reason why Batman who only fights criminal and Superman being too unreal for ever being angry for no reason might have a fight which each other. Got less than I expected, in this aspect. But Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets, Thor: Ragnarok and Iron Sky are objectively superb films the critics hated. Perhaps with the exception of the relationship between Valerian and Laureline, perhaps, though.[[User:Gunterkoenigsmann|Gunterkoenigsmann]] ([[User talk:Gunterkoenigsmann|talk]]) 17:37, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Not a movie, per se, but I thought season 8 of Game of Thrones was fantastic. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.214.88|162.158.214.88]] 22:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Critically panned films that I like include: Crimes of Grindelwald, Passengers, and Warcraft. Critically acclaimed films that I do not like: Avatar and Life of Pi. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.213|173.245.48.213]] 22:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
:Oooh, ''Passengers'' is a good one, I'm stealing that. [[User:Hawthorn|Hawthorn]] ([[User talk:Hawthorn|talk]]) 01:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
:I second Crimes of Grindelwald (37 RT), and add Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets (48 RT), which I also enjoyed and actually recommend to people. Now these movies aren't "classics" or "great movies", they aren't perfect, but they are effective entertainment, and ''not'' because they "are so bad their good". Grindelwald has many effective scenes and acting, and Valerian is a very effective effort at making a movie out of a comic book that ''feels like a comic book''-- a fact I appreciated. Of course 48 RT is also just under the 50 RT threshold.[[User:Careysub|Careysub]] ([[User talk:Careysub|talk]])
:It's almost like you totally misunderstood the point of the comic. [[User:A74xhx|A74xhx]] ([[User talk:A74xhx|talk]]) 09:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
::How so? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.69.16|172.69.69.16]] 21:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Not under 50%, but I'm shocked that "The Secret Life of Walter Smitty" has only 51%... National Treasure has only 46%... I like this game, it is a test in optimism.
:"The Secret Life of Walter '''Mitty'''" deserves a low rating, particularly when compared to the original with Danny Kaye. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.107.73|162.158.107.73]] 05:31, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Frankly it would be easier to list the movies I like that aren't below 50% on rotten tomatoes. [[User:CJB42|CJB42]] ([[User talk:CJB42|talk]]) 00:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)s

My experience with rotten tomatoes ratings in particular is that they have no clue and I find their ratings useless. The challenge from Randall in this comic is a case in point: the first movie I though to check, “Another Gay Movie” gets a 40% on the tomatometer yet is one of my favorites. Same thing with all the “Eating Out” movies: good comedies that I enjoy, yet Tomatometer scores of 16%, 44%, and 17% for the first three. (And why is “Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds” so much higher ranked than 1 or 3? It’s not that different...)
I think the criteria that Randal assumes (but doesn’t mention) is that the movie has to be a box office hit that appeals to mainstream audiences.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.107.73|162.158.107.73]] 03:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't see why Suicide Squad got trashed. It was light, colourful, had an engaging story, and well made. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.253.209|172.68.253.209]] 04:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Sucker Punch. There, I said it. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.77|141.101.99.77]] 07:36, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
:I definitely came to this discussion thinking of this movie. It's properly interesting, but it's also easy to see why critics and half the audience hate it. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.64|162.158.34.64]] 10:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

There's a certain type of movie that 'h8ers' will auto-trash before they even come out (especially "Gender-switched version of a classic", like that ''Ghostbusters'', and "Strong female type", like ''Wonder Woman'' - as easy examples of those that some people love to hate, regardless of actual merit). So I recon there'd be good mileage in keeping an eye on (for example) the double-whammy that is the upcoming Female Thor movie. If it doesn't ''actually'' turn out to be so bad that you personally don't like it, I predict that it'll be pre-release troll-sniped down below 50% in "popular" opinion and even if they're not at all right about their guess there'll be a window of opportunity before any counter-viewpoint from actual viewers ups the score again. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.66|141.101.107.66]] 10:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
:No one hated Wonder Woman. It has 93%, and is arguably the best live action superhero movie that DC has released so far. Ghostbusters was a money grabbing remake that brought nothing new. It COULD have been great with almost no effort, by getting someone to write an original script that built on the things that came before that everyone loves, instead of trying to replace it with an inferior version. The only one to blame is the Hollywood studios that would rather throw money at something that already exists instead of taking a risk on an unknown. Then they add insult to injury and tell everyone that the reason they failed isn't because they made bad decisions, but because ''people don't like seeing women in leading roles'', which is not true in any form. No real people care if the lead is male or female. They care about a good story, good acting, and having a good time watching a movie they paid their money for. [[User:Andyd273|Andyd273]] ([[User talk:Andyd273|talk]]) 17:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

What the heck are all these Jim Carrey and Ben Stiller movies doing at sub-50%? I didn't know people supposedly hated Night at the Museum that much. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.189.67|172.68.189.67]] 17:13, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to the link I found two: Pirates of the Caribbean: At Worlds End and Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer. I don't consider them like super-good, but I like them. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 00:09, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to the link I found four: Hancock, Knowing, The Lovely Bones, The Book of Eli.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.150.28|162.158.150.28]] 11:06, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Immediately: Venom (29%) I like to pretend I like it for the "so bad it's good", but here in anonymous interwebzland, I can admit I just enjoyed it (despite expecting to hate it for the retcon). Does it matter that the RT audience score is 81%? I often find that my enjoyment of a movie is inversely proportional to how much critics didn't, and it seems I'm not alone.[[User:Daemonik|Daemonik]] ([[User talk:Daemonik|talk]]) 09:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I think the point here is that people feel more comfortable disliking something than liking it. It isn't that we don't all have movies that we like that other people hated, it's that many of us are afraid to say it. Also, t's not a movie, but I honestly enjoyed that one episode of ''Stranger Things''. [[User:Probably not Douglas Hofstadter|Probably not Douglas Hofstadter]] ([[User talk:Probably not Douglas Hofstadter|talk]]) 04:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I admit a weakness for the Roland Emmerich movies ("The Day After Tomorrow" and "2012"). OK the science behind the events is pretty rubbish, but they are decent action movies nonetheless with a few enjoyable twists (like the USA having to beg Mexico to let them emigrate south in TDAT).

I'm shocked no one else has mentioned Jupiter Ascending yet; there was a decent amount of silliness in that movie, but I genuinely found it super compelling, and it deserves better than a 27%. --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.65.90|172.68.65.90]] 16:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

300 got very mediocre reviews (52% on Metacritic), but I'ts absolutely one of my all-time favourite action movies. --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.55.46|172.69.55.46]] 16:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Geostorm. Didn't even need the link for that. [[User:Conster|Conster]] ([[User talk:Conster|talk]]) 21:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Like another user said, Roland Emmerich movies like TDAT and 2012 are ones I'll always be a sucker for. Also, The Book of Eli (2010) is actually a great movie IMO despite having a 48% on RT. I always put that as a classic. Meet the Fockers (2004) is funny, too.

Side note: Armageddon is a pre-2000 movie (1998), but I think most would agree that it's a classic apocalyptic movie.

[[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.33|162.158.74.33]] 14:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Also, a reminder that the original Purge movie has a 39% on RT. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.33|162.158.74.33]] 15:00, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

How, by all that is holy, does The Human Centipede get a 49% Tomatometer rating? Give me a win for Mr Popper's Penguins, though. [[User:Observer of the Absurd|Observer of the Absurd]] ([[User talk:Observer of the Absurd|talk]]) 18:48, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Dragonball Evolution. If the Dragonball anime and Manga didn't exist, this would be a pretty okay and fun movie. Some parts of it were surprizing and the characters are fun. They just aren't the people from the manga, but rather just losely based on them, just like Frozen is losely based on the snow queen.

== Post-2000? ==

Anyone have an idea why "post-2000" is a criteria? [[User:Stevage|Stevage]] ([[User talk:Stevage|talk]]) 23:58, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
:Maybe because Rotten Tomatoes was launched close to the end of the 1990s, so post-2000 movies are the only ones that have been reviewed as they came out? Or perhaps it's to limit the scope of "movies that came out in your adult life", since adult life could go back a long way for some people. [[User:Hawthorn|Hawthorn]] ([[User talk:Hawthorn|talk]]) 01:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
:I don't know for certain, but I feel incredibly confident that it's the timing of Rotten Tomatoes, that older movies that came out before the site existed won't be thoroughly / properly covered. Like if you look closely you'll see the 40% rating on this movie comes from only 1 vote. I suspect Randall feels that as of 2000, there was enough activity on the site to provide sufficient coverage. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 04:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
:Pre-2000 films, being prior to RT, have the 'benefit'  of studied hindsight. Anybody who bothers to review [https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1003722_casino_royale the ''original'' Casino Royale], which would be my choice for this if I were allowed, just has far too much baggage to be thinking the same as with something just being appreciated in the context as a new-release. Including me, probably, across the many years since I first saw that film and fell in love with it, despite the obvious and total car-crash of its Development Hell! [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.66|141.101.107.66]] 10:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
:And there's a lot of selection bias in who reviews movies from pre-2000 as anyone who reviews a movie probably only went to that movies page and wrote a review, because they either really like the movie, or really really really hate it.[[User:Whereisspike|Whereisspike]] ([[User talk:Whereisspike|talk]]) 21:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
:It's stated in the explanation: it is so that most respondents would choose a movie that they have seen in their adult life and avoid the "childhood nostalgia" bias where you have fond memories of a movie watched as a kid but that you wouldn't enjoy watching as an adult.

I KNOW that there are many, many movies I can apply to this challenge - I often find myself enjoying unpopular movies. Plus, critics suck, they seem to always forget that this is ENTERTAINMENT. A clever movie that is dull as dirt and makes you fall asleep should NOT receive high praise, it fails at the primary function - but I can't think of them in the moment. About a week ago on Facebook I had a memory, a list of facts about Eurotrip, where the article called it a flop, while I loved it, so probably that one. This comic triggered my first ever visit to Rotten Tomatoes, who lists Eurotrip as I think 46%, but much higher for Audience score, so I THINK it counts? What bumps me is that it seems like "Audience Score" would be popular opinion, making Eurotrip actually a Popular movie, which seems like then it wouldn't apply here. ???? [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 04:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
:Got one! I love The League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen, and Rotten Tomatoes scores it a 17% Tomatometer, 44% Audience score. Dunno why, I found it so cool, so enjoyable! I often wish there was a sequel or even a series. :)[[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 07:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Hypothesis: People generally give more positive then negative reviews, and positive reviews also cause more people to watch. The number of watching for something bad is therefor lower, while a good movie is watched so often there is always a critic.
[[Special:Contributions/172.69.55.190|172.69.55.190]] 10:19, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

What the hell is wrong with people who don't like Ghost Rider or Daredevil? — [[User:Kazvorpal|Kazvorpal]] ([[User talk:Kazvorpal|talk]]) 19:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

My favorite bad movies Wild Wild West, The One, Returner, Equilibrium, The Warrior's Way [[User:Houligan|Houligan]] ([[User talk:Houligan|talk]]) 15:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I liked 50 First Dates. But for my really controversial opinion, I'm gonna say not only was Armageddon a terrific movie, but it got enough of the science right to earn our suspension of disbelief :D
--[[Special:Contributions/172.68.142.245|172.68.142.245]] 21:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Is [[653: So Bad It's Worse]] related enough to be mentioned in the explaination or trivia? --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 12:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I just came here to say, "Pandorum".

How to talk to girls at parties (2018) - [[Special:Contributions/172.68.46.113|172.68.46.113]] 20:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Guilty Pleasure: ''The Sorcerer's Apprentice'' - [[User:Acrisius|Acrisius]] ([[User talk:Acrisius|talk]]) 06:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Think of a video-game based movie you actually like. It probably fits this. 2001's Lara Croft: Tomb Raider and 2005's Doom have 47% and 34% audience rating, respectively, and I loved both of those (despite the fact that they had basically nothing to do with the games). A few game-based movies have over 50% audience rating, but even then, only 2-3 ever got above 50% with the critics. Heck, even the Pokemon movies got horrible critic ratings (the second movie came out in 2000, so you'd have to start with the third to adhere to that 'post-2000' rule)...

==My big, late comment==

So my three are
:''50 First Dates'' (I'm a sucker for hopeless romantic-type stuff and the gross out comedy didn't go too far to cancel it out),
:''Bruce Almighty'', because Morgan Freeman killed it as God, and
:''Book of Eli'', because that twist is awesome on the successive watch, and even on the first if you figure it out early

However, I take issue with a STRICT limitation of "post-2000", and I would just say if you're going to choose one pre-2000, it has to be a personal favorite, like personal top-50 or so movie, and for me, those would be
:''Hook'', because Robin Williams and Dustin Hoffman did their duty to the script and deserve at least 50% on the tomato meter, no matter what balls the other characters or plot dropped,
:''Robin Hood: Men in Tights'', because the cast, characters, gags, and anachronisms are essentially timeless; from Broomhilda breaking the concrete when the horse dodged her; to Blinkin... idunno, everything Blinkin; to Achoo's added attitude and flavor; and all the character's breaking of the fourth wall... goodness... the critics missed this one
:''Boondock Saints'' - not for everyone, but dang, it's just a really interesting and slightly morbid romp of a story about vigilantes rising up against organized crime, mixing humor in with seriousness in just the right amounts and just about perfect pacing

Ok, so I also think there are a few that really don't deserve the low rating they got, even if they weren't the best or my "favorites" - my rubric for adding them here was if I thought they deserved at least 30% more on the tomato meter. If they're just a teeny bit low (like 10%) then that's too close to personal taste for me to add as an argument, so...
:I Think ''Crimes of Grindelwald'' should have gotten more like a 70%, mostly for the world building they continued from the first movie
:I really liked ''Jumper'' (just not QUITE enough to stick my neck out for the real list above) - really great concept that wasn't ruined by sub-par acting, even if it wasn't exactly enhanced - should have been more like 50%
:''The Day The Earth Stood Still'' - again, not the best movie in existence, but got a bad rap - just above 50% seems more appropriate to me
:''After Earth'' - far from either of the Smith's best works, but more deserving than 11% for the world and effects
:''Planes'' - maybe the sequel was too much, and of course it's largely a cash grab and targeted at kids, but it was a decent story and the characters were executed well above a 25% rating - I'd say it should even be just barely fresh, so 60%
:''Chappie'' - I think it was just really interesting, despite the stretches technologically speaking, giving a window (sort of) into a culture not well represented in the U.S. - basically I think it should be just barely fresh as well

And finally what I'm really glad nobody spoke up about are a few of my pet peeves - movies that deserved a low score and got it, but every once in a while I hear people saying they enjoyed it. I'm just glad nobody prior to this seems to have mentioned: Semi Pro and any of the Transformers travesties. I just wanted to take a moment and thank you all for that. -- [[User:Brettpeirce|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk]]) 20:28, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

[[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.83|108.162.246.83]] 02:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
So personally, I'm trying to figure out if I can even make a list of all qualifying movies. Would make the game easier if we could have that, but I can't even figure out how to search Rotten Tomatoes for movies beyond what's currently out in theatres. Any advice or relevant links, anyone?
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.83|108.162.246.83]] 02:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I loved the 2001 version of Planet of the Apes. Both the First In, Last Out and the "ape D.C." ending were atypical and unexpected. I think the reason that people hated this movie was for the same reason that they hated "The murder of Roger Ackroyd" by Agatha Christie. But both this movie and that novel were amazing because they "broke the rules." [[Special:Contributions/108.162.212.89|108.162.212.89]] 20:35, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

From looking at the [https://www.rottentomatoes.com/browse/dvd-streaming-all?minTomato=0&maxTomato=49&services=amazon;hbo_go;itunes;netflix_iw;vudu;amazon_prime;fandango_now&genres=1;2;4;5;6;8;9;10;11;13;18;14&sortBy=release%7CRotten link] in the explanation, I can name Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald, Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom, and the entire Divergent trilogy as examples. Eagerly awaiting sequels to all of them. (And yes, a little bitter that Ascendant got canceled, though I've long since accepted that. Allegiant could have had a worse ending.) [[User:NealCruco|NealCruco]] ([[User talk:NealCruco|talk]]) 04:10, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

2192: Review

2019-08-21T14:24:34Z

162.158.92.70:

{{comic
| number = 2192
| date = August 21, 2019
| title = Review
| image = review.png
| titletext = Controls are a little hard to figure out.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a REVIEWER. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
This comic is a review of Earth, by Randall. It is written as a video game review, praising the size and realism of the world. The comic's humor draws from the fact that Earth is a completely real object{{Citation needed}} and shouldn't be rated on the same lines as a video game, and the fact that there's no place that the Earth can be reviewed.

The title text states that the 'controls are hard to figure out', possible alluding to the fact that it takes a lot of time to learn how to walk and talk, a rather basic thing in most video games, and the fact that it is hard to navigate around in one's life.

Earth has many problems at the moment, such as climate change, gun violence, sexual violence, poverty, and increasing depression, to name just a few. However, this comic also serves as a reminder that, overall, the world is a five-star world. It reminds us to look around: there's so much world to explore!

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

:[Profile picture of Cueball] ★★★★★
:Great graphics, huge world
:[Caption below the comic:] My overall review of Earth

{{comic discussion}}

1982: Evangelism

2018-04-30T22:11:29Z

162.158.92.70: corrected amount of people waiting the US to change: figt Americacentrism!!

{{comic
| number = 1982
| date = April 18, 2018
| title = Evangelism
| image = evangelism.png
| titletext = The wars between the "OTHER PRIMATES OPEN THEM FROM THE SMALL END" faction versus the "BUT THE LITTLE BIT OF BANANA AT THE SMALL END IS GROSS" faction consumed Europe for generations.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Need a citation for primates opening bananas from the “other end”. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

{{w|Evangelism}}, in {{w|Christianity}}, is the commitment to or act of publicly preaching of the {{w|Gospel}} with the intention of spreading the message and teachings of Jesus Christ. It is famously done door-to-door by the {{w|Jehovah’s Witnesses}}, for whom this practice, called “field ministry”, is paramount.

“Evangelism” is also defined as any zealous advocacy for a cause, religious or not. In this comic, [[Randall]] presents a line plot where causes are listed, in increasing order, by the intensity of the evangelism of their advocates. The first punchline is that religious proselytizers, unexpectedly{{Citation needed}} are much less intense than advocates for such things as opening bananas from the other end—which is also the subject of the title text. The comic’s release date on April 18th, is likely correlated with this days assignment as the official [https://www.daysoftheyear.com/days/banana-day/ “Banana Day”] in the US. (Hoverer, at the time of release of this comic, this day was not mentioned on the Wikipedia {{w|List_of_food_days#United_States|list of food days in the US}}).

As the graph moves from left to right, the issues at stake have less and less impact on the life of someone who “converts”, but the intensity and fervor of those spreading the cause increases. This is counterintuitive, which is the joke.

Below, each of the points on the chart, as well as the title text, is discussed.

;''Religious proselytizers''
{{w|Proselytism|Religious proselytizers}} are the best known evangelists, and the term “evangelism” originally applied only to them. Christian faith remains roughly as popular as ever, but Christian ''evangelism'' has become less common and less accepted in the public sphere in recent decades, and often only practiced in specific venues. Randall contrasts them in this strip with four other groups which he finds to be more intense in their “evangelism”.

;''People who want the US to switch to metric''
Unlike most of the world, the US uses {{w|United States Customary Units|US customary units}} instead of {{w|metric units}}. The vast majority of the world population wish for the US to change, to the point that the US Congress already passed the {{w|Metric Conversion Act}} that U.S. President Gerald Ford signed into law on December 23, 1975. Unfortunately, to no avail.

Randall has made a conversion chart for helping US people with the confusing metric units: [[526: Converting to Metric]].

;''People who want the US to switch to metric but keep Fahrenheit''
Pro-metric people who wish to keep the {{w|Fahrenheit}} scale rather than change to {{w|Celsius}} are ranked as slightly more evangelic. A common argument for keeping the Fahrenheit scale is due to 0°F equating to “really cold” and 100°F to “really hot” when talking about weather. Fahrenheit also has smaller degrees than Celsius, so temperatures can be cited more precisely, if necessary, without the need to include fractional degrees. This also gives Fahrenheit the advantage that “decades” of temperatures are more useful as in saying the weather is in the 40s or the 70s, for instance. Because the Celsius degree is larger, the range of temperatures within any decade is wider and saying the temperature is in the 10s may not be as useful as it is a wider range of temperatures, compared to Fahrenheit.

To many people, making the shift only partially may immediately seem very silly—and yet the people arguing for this are even more ardent than those that wish to shift entirely, perhaps precisely because of this immediate strangeness. Also, if someone is being an SI purist, supporting a full shift to SI units, one could argue they should be advocating a switch to {{w|Kelvin}} as the unit of thermodynamic temperature, even though Celsius has the status of an {{w|SI derived unit}}.

Fahrenheit versus Celsius has been the topic of [[1643: Degrees]] and [[1923: Felsius]].

;''People who threw away their socks and bought all one kind''
The reason to do such a thing would be that any two socks in your drawer will match, saving time since they don't need to be matched or rolled/folded. It also reduces the likelihood of ending up with an unmatched sock—or a whole stack of them—in your drawer. This is a problem that [http://www.techtimes.com/articles/154000/20160427/science-reveals-why-you-always-lose-your-socks-in-the-laundry.htm scientists have researched].

To ordinary people, it immediately seems quite aesthetically boring to always wear the same color of socks or other clothing. But it will be easier to find matching socks, so time is saved and there will be reduction in cost as no unmatched socks will have to be discarded. For those reasons, people that do this will recommend it quite ardently to all their friends, and, at least according to the comic, even more so than the pro-metric advocates.

Randall previously referenced this idea in the xkcd survey (see [[1572: xkcd Survey]]) from September 2015. It included this question:

<blockquote>
Have you ever thrown out all your different pairs of socks/underwear, bought a bunch of replacements that were all one kind, and then told all your friends how great it was and how they should do it too?
</blockquote>

;''People who open bananas from the other end''
The most evangelic people Randall can think of is the people who open {{w|bananas}} from the “other” end! Some people prefer to open bananas from the bottom (small end) instead of the top (stem end). This thought is continued in the title text.

;''Title text''
The title text is a fictional argument that apparently somehow tore apart Europe between the two factions ''Other primates open them from the small end'' and ''But the little bit of banana at the small end end is gross''. It continues the most evangelic point in the chart about how bananas are supposed to be opened from the “right” end. It seems absurd that this could have actually happened, over such a trivial issue. However, major {{w|schisms}} in religion, such as that between {{w|Catholicism}} and {{w|Protestantism}} (which did split Europe) seem similarly trivial to the non-religious.
The supposed argument ''stems''<nowiki>[</nowiki>[[No Pun Intended|Pun Intended]]<nowiki>]</nowiki> from a disagreement between those that find it easier to open a banana from the bottom and those that find the small bit at the base of a banana unappetizing.

In the wild, {{w|primates}} have been observed to open bananas{{Citation needed}} from the bottom end away from the stem, as one of the two factions refers to. Less force is required to open a banana at the bottom than at the stem, causing less bruising of the fruit and generally making it easier to open. However, if not done carefully, this can result in the fruit getting squished and making a mess on the person’s fingers. Opening bananas from the stem end appears to be the predominant habit of most banana-eating humans (in Randall’s sample). One explanation is that using the stem as a lever makes for greater ease of opening and thus less damage in practice. (Bananas grow with [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Banana_farm_Chinawal.jpg the stem at the bottom]).

The entire “correct banana end” discussion could be a reference to the wars between the Blefuscudians, who opened their eggs at the big end, and the Lilliputians, who broke their eggs at the small end, as told in {{w|Jonathan Swift|Jonathan Swift’s}} epic novel ''{{w|Gulliver’s Travels}}''. This in turn is the origin of the terms {{w|Endianness|"Little Endian" and "Big Endian"}} which were much debated in circa 1980's computer architectures - which may also have been on Randall's mind.

Randall’s thoughts on the problems with opening bananas could also explain why this fruit, which many find very easy to peel and consume, is listed in the middle of the easy/difficult scale in the [[388: Fuck Grapefruit]] chart.

==Transcript==
:[A chart is shown with a line drawn from left to right with five markers on it. Each marker has a line going to it from a labeled below the main line. Above this there is a title and right below that a label above an arrow pointing to the right.]
:<big>People by intensity of evangelism</big>
:More intense

:Religious proselytizers
:People who want the US to switch to metric
:People who want the US to switch to metric but keep Fahrenheit
:People who threw away their socks and bought all one kind
:People who open bananas from the other end

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Rankings]]
[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Food]]