explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:2319: Large Number Formats

2020-06-18T07:47:07Z

Tracy Hall: Quibbling over the ambiguous order of operations implied by English in the absence of parentheses

Wouldn't Lincoln be:
Two score and nine score and six score and fourteen score and seven score and one score and eighteen score and two score and three score score and four? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.155.194|162.158.155.194]] 11:25, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

: Or rather: Two score score score score score score score score score score and nine score score score score score score score score score and six score score score score score score score score and fourteen score score score score score score score and seven score score score score score score and one score score score score score and eighteen score score score score and two score score score and three score score and four. [[User:Tracy Hall|Tracy Hall]] ([[User talk:Tracy Hall|talk]]) 06:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

:: What format did you use? Mine was ((((((((2*20+9)*20+6)*20+14)*20+7)*20+1)*20+18)*20+2)*20+3)*20*20+4 [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.249|162.158.158.249]] 12:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

::: Two score and nine score make eleven score, as opposed to (two score and nine) score. I could tell that expression was what you meant, but what you actually wrote translates back to 2*20 + 9*20 + 6*20 + 14*20 + 7*20 + 1*20 + 18*20 + 2*20 + 3*20*20 + 4, because there is nothing in the English to tell you where parentheses should be placed. If you multiply out your expression to get rid of all the parentheses, it becomes what I wrote. [[User:Tracy Hall|Tracy Hall]] ([[User talk:Tracy Hall|talk]]) 07:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I've added the way I'm familiar with (Polish) to the "normal person in Europe outside of UK" caveat, but I think this still might be over-generalization to say that all Europe outside UK uses "." separator; I've actually never seen it used, but I've seen "'" used, even though I have no connection whatsoever with Switzerland. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.175|162.158.154.175]] 11:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

: Yes. We also use the single apostrophe as a thousands separator in Sweden. And in Excel we use the semicolon in formulas, since the comma is used for decimals.
[[User:Embridioum|Embridioum]] ([[User talk:Embridioum|talk]]) 22:18, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

:: No!? Swedes commonly use blank as thousands separate, eg. 6 500 000. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.183.119|162.158.183.119]] 19:06, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Would love an explanation of the scientist avoiding rounding one. Would make sense to me with 2.525997..., but as 2.5997... I'm at a loss! {{unsigned ip|198.41.238.106|22:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)}}
: Truncating the number just before a digit less than 5 so that the final digit is not rounded up. (I do this all the time, and, I am a scientist.) {{unsigned ip|108.162.216.172|00:48, 13 June 2020‎ (UTC)}}
(The above was posted (anonymously?) seconds before I could get mine in, so here it is in the original format.)

This is probably completely irrelevant but it seems Randall made a small typo when trying to show a "Scientest trying to avoid rounding up."
I assume it should be 2.525997*10^13. It seems he left out a 5 and a 2 and I say such because whether he forgot the 52 or 25 is up for debate.

Relevant screenshot: [[https://i.imgur.com/NrvOivy.png]]

Also, if I'm just being completely daft and am missing something completely, please feel free to criticize me harshly and I'll go back to my little hideyhole. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.24|108.162.237.24]] 22:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

: In reality, a scientist would probably say 6.416*10^13 cm. (Although possible counterpoint, this comic is really about the ''number'' 25,259,974,097,204, not the distance 25,259,974,097,204 inches.) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.207|172.69.33.207]] 22:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
:: Centimetres are not an SI unit. it would be 6.416*10^11 m [[Special:Contributions/172.68.255.14|172.68.255.14]] 01:51, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
::: Depends on field. It can easily be 35.67 light minutes. Or 2140 light seconds if you insist on SI units. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 22:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I believe the "2.5997" was intentional, or at least I thought it was when reading it. At first I thought it was a typo, but Randall calls that number "Scientist ''trying'' to avoid rounding up" which makes me think Randall intentionally made that "mistake" as if the scientist had accidentally forgotten the first two digits (25) and used the remainder of the number (259974...), rounding it to "2.5997x10^13" [[User:Kirypto|Kirypto]] ([[User talk:Kirypto|talk]]) 23:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
: Randall fixed it! [[User:Gvanrossum|Gvanrossum]] ([[User talk:Gvanrossum|talk]]) 05:43, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
:: Looks like that was just a typo, Randall replaced it with a new version. [[User:Natg19|Natg19]] ([[User talk:Natg19|talk]]) 02:55, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

As a (not so?) old British person, I approve. Let the Trillions come around later, when it's ''worth'' increasing the prefix to "level 3". Don't waste them on the more petty numbers. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.155.122|162.158.155.122]] 23:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
:I'm also a not-so-old British person, and therefore use the short-scale as a matter of course. But, although I'm too young to ever have used the long scale, I regret its passing, for all that. On a visual level, if a million gives us a chunk of six zeroes, there's a simple elegance to the "bi-", "tri-", "quad-" (etc.) prefixes numerating two chunks, three chunks, four chunks, etc. From a less visual, more linguistically neat perspective, if you've got a million^2, a million^3, a million^4 and so on, then using "bi" to mean two, "tri" to mean three, "quad" to mean four makes sense...because that's what those things mean.[[User:Yorkshire Pudding|Yorkshire Pudding]] ([[User talk:Yorkshire Pudding|talk]]) 10:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

;"Engineering" notation omitted?
I find it somewhat strange that Randall doesn't offer '''25e12''' or any of those variants ('''25.259...*10^12'''). I feel like a lot of "non-normal" people would map billion to E12 instead of requiring a single digit to the left of the decimal point. shrug [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 23:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
: Honestly I thought "engineering" notation was a myth invented by HP's calculator division. But I'm personally offended that the programmers' notation 25_259_... was omitted. Maybe Randall still uses Python 2. :-) [[User:Gvanrossum|Gvanrossum]] ([[User talk:Gvanrossum|talk]]) 05:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
::Well, just because HP's calculator division invented something doesn't mean it's a myth. They do have the power to invent things and had the market penetration for their names to have power and influence the world; but for sure, having used HP calculators in high school affected how I thought about numbers in college. But I think anyone who works with SI prefixes on a regular basis and reports results using them will appreciate "engineering" notation given the direct correspondence. And, of course, it also corresponds to how "normal" people use write numbers in the millions/billions/trillions, as this comic shows…which was the point… [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 12:03, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
:::Engineering notation is what engineers use all the time to make the maths simpler (one quip is an engineer is a physicist with poor maths). Except for the 'everyday' centimetre and decimetre, SI unit names are all in 10^3 steps. [[User:RIIW - Ponder it|RIIW - Ponder it]] ([[User talk:RIIW - Ponder it|talk]]) 18:56, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

"What's an inch?" [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.119|162.158.62.119]] 23:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
: The imaginary nano-scale multiple of the speed of light times Planck's constant. Which, dimensionally, would seem to be kg.m³/s²? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.73|162.158.154.73]] 00:15, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

As an article pointed out to me the other day that seemed obvious after it was said it's a non-tariff trade barrier used as American protectionism that doesn't get tariffed back. {{unsigned ip|172.69.63.81|00:10, 13 June 2020 (UTC)}}

Can someone explain the set theory notation? {{unsigned ip|172.68.255.14|01:56, 13 June 2020 (UTC)}}
: You can use only sets to construct the natural numbers, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_number#Constructions_based_on_set_theory - {{unsigned ip|172.68.215.76|02:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)}}

It seems nobody has pointed out that the power of 10 in the title text is really just the log(x) of the number, which is in fact very common in scientific contexts -> log(25,259,974,097,204) = 13.4024 [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 02:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

The alternative would be for him to write 10^13.402432900872993447734410070128 (Rounded up). Notation that produces a longer string of digits than the original number seems useless on all fronts but somehow even more fun. I like the current explanation, though. It was insightful, IMO. -B- [[Special:Contributions/162.158.106.126|162.158.106.126]] 17:14, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

We have kept the olden ways here in the north. Miljon (10^6), miljard (10^9), biljon (10^12), biljard (10^15). Also, "biljard" is the same word as the game of pool in Swedish.
[[User:Embridioum|Embridioum]] ([[User talk:Embridioum|talk]]) 07:17, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
:Another thing an Older British Person might argue about is Billiards, the cue-and-ball game. Often, among all the vaiations, it was the three-ball version (white and white-spot cueballs, for each player, and red ball as the common target) on either pocketted or non-pocketted tables (the former mostly as a sop to using an unmodified snooker table) or, explicitly, Bar Billiards with target holes and obstacle pegs (quite common as early coin-operated pay-to-play tables). Only by succumbing to the americanism was Pool (usually 15-ball, spots+stripes+8ball) ever called billiards. Well, ''I'' thought that was interesting... [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.136|162.158.159.136]] 12:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
::"Why sure I'm a billiard player, certainly mighty proud to say, I'm always mighty proud to say it. I consider that the hours I spend with a cue in my hand are golden." -Harold Hill [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.60|108.162.216.60]] 14:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Also Italian uses the long scale for large numbers, and also in Italian the word for the game of pool coincides with 10^15. Albeit I have to say that I've never heard anyone use bilione and biliardo referring to numbers. We usually stop at miliardo, saying things like "un milione di miliardi" when we need to say those large numbers, or use the scientific notation. --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.198.106|172.68.198.106]] 09:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

While we're on different languages, how about this one: 1262998704860-vingt-quatre - French person. --[[User:IByte|IByte]] ([[User talk:IByte|talk]]) 11:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

:Russian uses the short scale, like million, billion, trillion, quadrillion, etc. But it calls a billion a milliard, and a thousand milliards is a trillion. Why? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.68.195|172.69.68.195]] 18:09, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
:: Sounds to me like Russia 'inherited' Milliards from its usage by trade partners at one point in time when that was a number people were starting to want to use seriously, but adopted the short-Trillion from a later time when (different) people were needing to discuss higher values and adopt terms for these into their own tongue. If you check the chequered history of what-means-what (before Short and Long scales were mad3 at least self-consistent among their adherents) you could reasonably blame/credit many different sources for each development. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.249|162.158.158.249]] 01:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Why *that* number? OK, so it's a big number (well, maybe not compared to all the other numbers). One oddity is that the prime factors are:

2 2 7 11 82012902913

7 11? Subliminal advertising? If you turn the big prime upside-down calculator style, you get: eigzogzlos8

I'm surprised that 5 and 23 are missing. In fact, that's almost suspicious.
: I think you're overthinking this, or maybe you got nerdsniped. Randall probably just chose a large number with different digits and being a fan of space, this one worked for him. [[User:Bischoff|Bischoff]] ([[User talk:Bischoff|talk]]) 08:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I thought in all or most of Europe the thousands separator was a space not a dot. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.238.4|162.158.238.4]] 03:09, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
: That's actually something interesting I learned from this explanation. I always assumed everyone either used commas (US and UK) or dots (pretty much the rest of at least Europe, never thought much about other continents in this regard) and grouped them in threes. Apparently I was very wrong. The Indian system of grouping digits looks a bit confusing to me, but apparently it corresponds well to their language. [[User:Bischoff|Bischoff]] ([[User talk:Bischoff|talk]]) 08:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Please refrain from using new sections in the comment section! --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 06:43, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
: What's so bad about them? At least in a comic like this one, where people are actually discussing/commenting on different aspects of the comic, I find sections very helpful to keep track of different conversations. [[User:Bischoff|Bischoff]] ([[User talk:Bischoff|talk]]) 08:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Re: Software developer, the "power" operand varies wildly across programming languages, some do indeed use ^, some go for ** and some have to resort to something like a pow(x,y) function, but in the languages/dialects I use most the ** operator binds closer than (has order of precedence over) the * operator, so x*10**y would not be (10x)y as currently suggested in the Explanation. But ^ is the bitwise operator (lower precedence than *), so would do something even more 'interesting' to the result. Now, obviously, different codes for different coves and all - but I'm dredging my memory for all kinds of obscure scripting languages I've not used for years (what does COBOL do..? Forth is Reverse Polish. Lisp(is(more(Forward(Polish))))) not sure which one Randall is basing it on (if it's not just geek-sniping at its finest). [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.234|141.101.107.234]] 10:47, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
: The link I provided for "every common programming language" which someone edited to say "most common programming languages" is a site that shows what some code snippets look like in some huge number of languages that includes all the common ones. That's why I said "every" for supporting the scientific notation with e for the exponent, it really is all of them. There is much more variation in the syntax for exponentiation, more using ** than ^ and quite a few only having a function to call instead of an operator symbol. However, every one that does use ^ for exponentiation would parse x*10^13 be x times the 13th power of 10. [[User:Bugstomper|Bugstomper]] ([[User talk:Bugstomper|talk]]) 06:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Speaking as a set theorist, I'd also describe that number as "Pretty small, just slightly bigger than 1." [[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.73|162.158.154.73]] 11:44, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

No comment in the explanation about the fact that inches are a pretty inadequate unit to express astronomical distances in the first place?[[Special:Contributions/162.158.155.224|162.158.155.224]] 08:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
: I actually thought it funny that using ''inches'' in the first place is telling in itself a lot about who one is (most likely American, or at least from the Anglo-sphere).

The set theory bit is a bit too specific, and also not specific enough. This construction (the ''Von Neumann'' natural numbers) doesn't rely on details of the underlying set theory, so it will work just fine with theories other than the Zermelo-Fraenkel one. On the other hand, there exist other (less popular) constructions of the natural numbers using set theory, including one by Zermelo. [[User:Dfeuer|Dfeuer]] ([[User talk:Dfeuer|talk]]) 21:33, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

2320: Millennium Problems

2020-06-16T06:33:26Z

Tracy Hall: shrinking is a call-out to Perelman's technique

{{comic
| number = 2320
| date = June 15, 2020
| title = Millennium Problems
| image = millennium_problems.png
| titletext = The hard part about opening a hole in the proof of the Poincaré conjecture is that Grigori Perelman will come out of retirement to try to fix it by drawing a loop around the hole and contracting it to a point.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by an ISOMORPHIC HODGE. Needs expert attention on Hodge, Yang-Mills, and Birch/SD. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

Cueball is presenting a slide on the {{w|Millennium Prize Problems}}, seven problems designated by the Clay Mathematics Institute in the year 2000 as some of the most important unsolved problems in mathematics, a sort of successor to David Hilbert's {{w|Hilbert's problems|list of 23 problems}} announced in 1900. The seven problems are:

# The {{w|P versus NP problem}}, the problem of whether or not a problem whose solutions can be verified in polynomial time must necessarily have a method for producing a solution in polynomial time. This is thought not to be the case, i.e. "P != NP", but is not proven (nor mentioned on Cueball's slide).
# The {{w|Hodge conjecture}}.
# The {{w|Poincaré conjecture}}, which asserts that the 3-sphere (the "surface" of a four-dimensional ball) is the only closed and simply-connected (i.e. no holes) 3-dimensional space. It was solved in 2003 by {{w|Grigori Perelman}}.
# The {{w|Riemann hypothesis}}, which asserts that all non-trivial zeroes of the {{w|Riemann zeta function}} have real part one-half.
# The {{w|Yang–Mills existence and mass gap}}, the problem of why the color force is conveyed by massless gluons but only observed in massive particles. This one is not mentioned on Cueball's slide.
# The {{w|Navier–Stokes existence and smoothness}} problem, which questions whether or not there must be a solution to the {{w|Navier-Stokes equations}} (the laws of fluid motion) for any smooth set of initial conditions.
# The {{w|Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture}}, abbreviated "Birch/SD" here, which asserts that there is a simple way to tell the number of rational solutions to an elliptic curve.

There are $1,000,000 prizes attached to each problem, although {{w|Grigori Perelman}}, the mathematician who proved the {{w|Poincaré conjecture}}, has turned down his prize.

Cueball is attempting to demonstrate relationships between the various problems. According to the presentation, proving one might either disprove or prove others, and the proposed interactions between problems are so complex that the Institute might decide to award an additional prize to whomever can figure out which problem or problems have actually been solved by any given proof. This eighth prize could perhaps be funded by the award Perelman rejected.

Cueball has previously been [[:Category:Banned from conferences|banned from conferences]] for various provocative acts; presumably he's on his way to getting thrown out of this one.

The title text mentions that, if someone were to find a hole (a common expression for a deficiency or error) in Perelman's proof of the Poincaré conjecture, the famously reclusive author might show up again and fix the problem by applying the theoretical mathematics of differential geometry, where "hole" has a different meaning, to the figurative "hole" in the sequence of logical conclusions. The suggested method of enclosing the hole in a loop and then shrinking it away is reminiscent of the specific technique (Ricci flow with surgery) by which Perelman solved the Poincaré conjecture in the first place.

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

[Cueball is presenting in front of a projector screen. Ponytail is watching him, and another Cueball is looking off-panel.]

[The slide on the projector screen shows a four-by-four matrix with illegible entries, connected by lines to the words "Hodge", "Riemann", "Navier-Stokes", and "Birch/SD". The phrase "Poincaré ''wrong??''" is written at the bottom of the slide. "Riemann" and "Navier-Stokes" are connected by an illegible equation, and arrows point from "Riemann" to "Hodge", from "Hodge" to "Birch-SD", from "Navier-Stokes" to "Birch-SD", from "Birch-SD" to "Poincaré ''wrong??''", and from "Poincaré ''wrong??''" to "Navier-Stokes".

Cueball: ...Proving that one of these four is unsolvable, but ''not'' which. If it's one of ''these'', it would open a hole in Perlman's Poincaré conjecture proof.

Cueball: But it would ''also'' mean that solving either of the other two would ''re''-prove Poincaré, and imply Hodge is isomorphic to...

Other Cueball: ''Security?!''

Caption below panel: I'm trying to make it so the Clay Mathematics Institute has to offer an eighth prize to whoever figures out who their other prizes should go to.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Banned from conferences]]
[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category: Multiple Cueballs]]

Talk:2319: Large Number Formats

2020-06-16T06:18:00Z

Tracy Hall: score score score eggs and score

Wouldn't Lincoln be:
Two score and nine score and six score and fourteen score and seven score and one score and eighteen score and two score and three score score and four? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.155.194|162.158.155.194]] 11:25, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

: Or rather: Two score score score score score score score score score score and nine score score score score score score score score score and six score score score score score score score score and fourteen score score score score score score score and seven score score score score score score and one score score score score score and eighteen score score score score and two score score score and three score score and four. [[User:Tracy Hall|Tracy Hall]] ([[User talk:Tracy Hall|talk]]) 06:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I've added the way I'm familiar with (Polish) to the "normal person in Europe outside of UK" caveat, but I think this still might be over-generalization to say that all Europe outside UK uses "." separator; I've actually never seen it used, but I've seen "'" used, even though I have no connection whatsoever with Switzerland. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.175|162.158.154.175]] 11:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

: Yes. We also use the single apostrophe as a thousands separator in Sweden. And in Excel we use the semicolon in formulas, since the comma is used for decimals.
[[User:Embridioum|Embridioum]] ([[User talk:Embridioum|talk]]) 22:18, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

:: No!? Swedes commonly use blank as thousands separate, eg. 6 500 000. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.183.119|162.158.183.119]] 19:06, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Would love an explanation of the scientist avoiding rounding one. Would make sense to me with 2.525997..., but as 2.5997... I'm at a loss! {{unsigned ip|198.41.238.106|22:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)}}
: Truncating the number just before a digit less than 5 so that the final digit is not rounded up. (I do this all the time, and, I am a scientist.) {{unsigned ip|108.162.216.172|00:48, 13 June 2020‎ (UTC)}}
(The above was posted (anonymously?) seconds before I could get mine in, so here it is in the original format.)

This is probably completely irrelevant but it seems Randall made a small typo when trying to show a "Scientest trying to avoid rounding up."
I assume it should be 2.525997*10^13. It seems he left out a 5 and a 2 and I say such because whether he forgot the 52 or 25 is up for debate.

Relevant screenshot: [[https://i.imgur.com/NrvOivy.png]]

Also, if I'm just being completely daft and am missing something completely, please feel free to criticize me harshly and I'll go back to my little hideyhole. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.24|108.162.237.24]] 22:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

: In reality, a scientist would probably say 6.416*10^13 cm. (Although possible counterpoint, this comic is really about the ''number'' 25,259,974,097,204, not the distance 25,259,974,097,204 inches.) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.207|172.69.33.207]] 22:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
:: Centimetres are not an SI unit. it would be 6.416*10^11 m [[Special:Contributions/172.68.255.14|172.68.255.14]] 01:51, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
::: Depends on field. It can easily be 35.67 light minutes. Or 2140 light seconds if you insist on SI units. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 22:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I believe the "2.5997" was intentional, or at least I thought it was when reading it. At first I thought it was a typo, but Randall calls that number "Scientist ''trying'' to avoid rounding up" which makes me think Randall intentionally made that "mistake" as if the scientist had accidentally forgotten the first two digits (25) and used the remainder of the number (259974...), rounding it to "2.5997x10^13" [[User:Kirypto|Kirypto]] ([[User talk:Kirypto|talk]]) 23:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
: Randall fixed it! [[User:Gvanrossum|Gvanrossum]] ([[User talk:Gvanrossum|talk]]) 05:43, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
:: Looks like that was just a typo, Randall replaced it with a new version. [[User:Natg19|Natg19]] ([[User talk:Natg19|talk]]) 02:55, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

As a (not so?) old British person, I approve. Let the Trillions come around later, when it's ''worth'' increasing the prefix to "level 3". Don't waste them on the more petty numbers. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.155.122|162.158.155.122]] 23:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
:I'm also a not-so-old British person, and therefore use the short-scale as a matter of course. But, although I'm too young to ever have used the long scale, I regret its passing, for all that. On a visual level, if a million gives us a chunk of six zeroes, there's a simple elegance to the "bi-", "tri-", "quad-" (etc.) prefixes numerating two chunks, three chunks, four chunks, etc. From a less visual, more linguistically neat perspective, if you've got a million^2, a million^3, a million^4 and so on, then using "bi" to mean two, "tri" to mean three, "quad" to mean four makes sense...because that's what those things mean.[[User:Yorkshire Pudding|Yorkshire Pudding]] ([[User talk:Yorkshire Pudding|talk]]) 10:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

;"Engineering" notation omitted?
I find it somewhat strange that Randall doesn't offer '''25e12''' or any of those variants ('''25.259...*10^12'''). I feel like a lot of "non-normal" people would map billion to E12 instead of requiring a single digit to the left of the decimal point. shrug [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 23:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
: Honestly I thought "engineering" notation was a myth invented by HP's calculator division. But I'm personally offended that the programmers' notation 25_259_... was omitted. Maybe Randall still uses Python 2. :-) [[User:Gvanrossum|Gvanrossum]] ([[User talk:Gvanrossum|talk]]) 05:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
::Well, just because HP's calculator division invented something doesn't mean it's a myth. They do have the power to invent things and had the market penetration for their names to have power and influence the world; but for sure, having used HP calculators in high school affected how I thought about numbers in college. But I think anyone who works with SI prefixes on a regular basis and reports results using them will appreciate "engineering" notation given the direct correspondence. And, of course, it also corresponds to how "normal" people use write numbers in the millions/billions/trillions, as this comic shows…which was the point… [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 12:03, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
:::Engineering notation is what engineers use all the time to make the maths simpler (one quip is an engineer is a physicist with poor maths). Except for the 'everyday' centimetre and decimetre, SI unit names are all in 10^3 steps. [[User:RIIW - Ponder it|RIIW - Ponder it]] ([[User talk:RIIW - Ponder it|talk]]) 18:56, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

"What's an inch?" [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.119|162.158.62.119]] 23:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
: The imaginary nano-scale multiple of the speed of light times Planck's constant. Which, dimensionally, would seem to be kg.m³/s²? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.73|162.158.154.73]] 00:15, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

As an article pointed out to me the other day that seemed obvious after it was said it's a non-tariff trade barrier used as American protectionism that doesn't get tariffed back. {{unsigned ip|172.69.63.81|00:10, 13 June 2020 (UTC)}}

Can someone explain the set theory notation? {{unsigned ip|172.68.255.14|01:56, 13 June 2020 (UTC)}}
: You can use only sets to construct the natural numbers, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_number#Constructions_based_on_set_theory - {{unsigned ip|172.68.215.76|02:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)}}

It seems nobody has pointed out that the power of 10 in the title text is really just the log(x) of the number, which is in fact very common in scientific contexts -> log(25,259,974,097,204) = 13.4024 [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 02:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

The alternative would be for him to write 10^13.402432900872993447734410070128 (Rounded up). Notation that produces a longer string of digits than the original number seems useless on all fronts but somehow even more fun. I like the current explanation, though. It was insightful, IMO. -B- [[Special:Contributions/162.158.106.126|162.158.106.126]] 17:14, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

We have kept the olden ways here in the north. Miljon (10^6), miljard (10^9), biljon (10^12), biljard (10^15). Also, "biljard" is the same word as the game of pool in Swedish.
[[User:Embridioum|Embridioum]] ([[User talk:Embridioum|talk]]) 07:17, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
:Another thing an Older British Person might argue about is Billiards, the cue-and-ball game. Often, among all the vaiations, it was the three-ball version (white and white-spot cueballs, for each player, and red ball as the common target) on either pocketted or non-pocketted tables (the former mostly as a sop to using an unmodified snooker table) or, explicitly, Bar Billiards with target holes and obstacle pegs (quite common as early coin-operated pay-to-play tables). Only by succumbing to the americanism was Pool (usually 15-ball, spots+stripes+8ball) ever called billiards. Well, ''I'' thought that was interesting... [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.136|162.158.159.136]] 12:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
::"Why sure I'm a billiard player, certainly mighty proud to say, I'm always mighty proud to say it. I consider that the hours I spend with a cue in my hand are golden." -Harold Hill [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.60|108.162.216.60]] 14:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Also Italian uses the long scale for large numbers, and also in Italian the word for the game of pool coincides with 10^15. Albeit I have to say that I've never heard anyone use bilione and biliardo referring to numbers. We usually stop at miliardo, saying things like "un milione di miliardi" when we need to say those large numbers, or use the scientific notation. --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.198.106|172.68.198.106]] 09:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

While we're on different languages, how about this one: 1262998704860-vingt-quatre - French person. --[[User:IByte|IByte]] ([[User talk:IByte|talk]]) 11:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

:Russian uses the short scale, like million, billion, trillion, quadrillion, etc. But it calls a billion a milliard, and a thousand milliards is a trillion. Why? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.68.195|172.69.68.195]] 18:09, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
:: Sounds to me like Russia 'inherited' Milliards from its usage by trade partners at one point in time when that was a number people were starting to want to use seriously, but adopted the short-Trillion from a later time when (different) people were needing to discuss higher values and adopt terms for these into their own tongue. If you check the chequered history of what-means-what (before Short and Long scales were mad3 at least self-consistent among their adherents) you could reasonably blame/credit many different sources for each development. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.249|162.158.158.249]] 01:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Why *that* number? OK, so it's a big number (well, maybe not compared to all the other numbers). One oddity is that the prime factors are:

2 2 7 11 82012902913

7 11? Subliminal advertising? If you turn the big prime upside-down calculator style, you get: eigzogzlos8

I'm surprised that 5 and 23 are missing. In fact, that's almost suspicious.
: I think you're overthinking this, or maybe you got nerdsniped. Randall probably just chose a large number with different digits and being a fan of space, this one worked for him. [[User:Bischoff|Bischoff]] ([[User talk:Bischoff|talk]]) 08:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I thought in all or most of Europe the thousands separator was a space not a dot. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.238.4|162.158.238.4]] 03:09, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
: That's actually something interesting I learned from this explanation. I always assumed everyone either used commas (US and UK) or dots (pretty much the rest of at least Europe, never thought much about other continents in this regard) and grouped them in threes. Apparently I was very wrong. The Indian system of grouping digits looks a bit confusing to me, but apparently it corresponds well to their language. [[User:Bischoff|Bischoff]] ([[User talk:Bischoff|talk]]) 08:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Please refrain from using new sections in the comment section! --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 06:43, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
: What's so bad about them? At least in a comic like this one, where people are actually discussing/commenting on different aspects of the comic, I find sections very helpful to keep track of different conversations. [[User:Bischoff|Bischoff]] ([[User talk:Bischoff|talk]]) 08:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Re: Software developer, the "power" operand varies wildly across programming languages, some do indeed use ^, some go for ** and some have to resort to something like a pow(x,y) function, but in the languages/dialects I use most the ** operator binds closer than (has order of precedence over) the * operator, so x*10**y would not be (10x)y as currently suggested in the Explanation. But ^ is the bitwise operator (lower precedence than *), so would do something even more 'interesting' to the result. Now, obviously, different codes for different coves and all - but I'm dredging my memory for all kinds of obscure scripting languages I've not used for years (what does COBOL do..? Forth is Reverse Polish. Lisp(is(more(Forward(Polish))))) not sure which one Randall is basing it on (if it's not just geek-sniping at its finest). [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.234|141.101.107.234]] 10:47, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
: The link I provided for "every common programming language" which someone edited to say "most common programming languages" is a site that shows what some code snippets look like in some huge number of languages that includes all the common ones. That's why I said "every" for supporting the scientific notation with e for the exponent, it really is all of them. There is much more variation in the syntax for exponentiation, more using ** than ^ and quite a few only having a function to call instead of an operator symbol. However, every one that does use ^ for exponentiation would parse x*10^13 be x times the 13th power of 10. [[User:Bugstomper|Bugstomper]] ([[User talk:Bugstomper|talk]]) 06:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Speaking as a set theorist, I'd also describe that number as "Pretty small, just slightly bigger than 1." [[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.73|162.158.154.73]] 11:44, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

No comment in the explanation about the fact that inches are a pretty inadequate unit to express astronomical distances in the first place?[[Special:Contributions/162.158.155.224|162.158.155.224]] 08:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
: I actually thought it funny that using ''inches'' in the first place is telling in itself a lot about who one is (most likely American, or at least from the Anglo-sphere).

The set theory bit is a bit too specific, and also not specific enough. This construction (the ''Von Neumann'' natural numbers) doesn't rely on details of the underlying set theory, so it will work just fine with theories other than the Zermelo-Fraenkel one. On the other hand, there exist other (less popular) constructions of the natural numbers using set theory, including one by Zermelo. [[User:Dfeuer|Dfeuer]] ([[User talk:Dfeuer|talk]]) 21:33, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Talk:2213: How Old

2019-10-15T03:42:52Z

Tracy Hall:

Interestingly enough this comic is actually not about [[:Category:Comics to make one feel old|feeling old]]... Even with this title. Was all surprised :-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 09:37, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
:Well for many elderly people it is quite a nuisance to be treated like a little kid, especially when in retirement homes. While some might enjoy childish activities, for others, especially those whose mental state may be better than their physical, it is very annoying to be "forced" to play children games. That, and that being treated like a kid, kinda makes them notice their age even more. So even though this doesn't make the reader old (unless the reader is at an age where being treated similar to a child is a regular experience), it might make Cueballs dad feel old. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 09:42, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

:For adults, especially Women, it is often considered rude to ask for their age. Whereas for kids, and to a lesser extent for elderly adults, it can be considered polite to ask about their age. In the case of kids, they are very aware of their age and how it relates to others, and are usually happy to talk about it. For the elderly, their age can be a source of pride if many of their peers have died but they are still in relatively good health. [[User:N0lqu|-boB]] ([[User talk:N0lqu|talk]]) 17:14, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

"I'd like you to meet my ''$foo''." 
"Aww, what's [ten times] the natural logarithm of their age?" 
[[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 11:21, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
:You mean the base 10 logarithm or the ln? {{unsigned|172.68.65.252|23:13, 9 October 2019}}
::Well, '.252, I think "natural logarithm" is pretty clear. It means ''ln''. In this case, I chose the natural log because human development is far more rapid around age 2.718281828 than it is around age 10. So a ''deciln()'' of 10 or 20 or 30 corresponds to an ''e''-year-old, a 7 year-old, or a 20-year-old. Whereas in base 10, it'd be a 10-year-old, a 100-year-old, or a 1000-year-old. That's a lot less useful. I also like the idea of a negative ''deciln()'' indicating a person who probably can't meaningfully speak. If the max human lifetime is 160 years, a ''deciln()'' gives a range from -58 to 51, which is a more helpful than base ten range of -25 to 22. Contrariwise, I agree that a range -100 to +100 has some appeal, which would suggest a base of 1.6611, but since that's not a common log base, I did not suggest it. [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 23:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
::: +1! I ''really'' like this idea! [[User:John.Adriaan|John.Adriaan]] ([[User talk:John.Adriaan|talk]]) 04:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
:::a deciln would be a tenth of a ln, not ten times. [[Special:Contributions/188.114.103.131|188.114.103.131]]
::::Yes, a better name would be [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decalogue ''decalog.''] [[User:Tracy Hall|Tracy Hall]] ([[User talk:Tracy Hall|talk]]) 03:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

While old people ''may'' indeed become more "compressed" (as per current version of explanation - skeletal or specifically spinal one presumes, though head hair might be flatter and less prominent) perhaps the word "stooped" would be better, as it covers a dec(/inc)line of posture (involuntary or passively voluntary spinal curveture converting youthful height into a lean, bandied/steadying sacrificing verticality legs, hunching of the kneck, lessening of chest inflation and general hunching) as well as the age-related joint compression and bone decalcification effects. (Another possible reference is that the one remembering how high the person was might have been shorter themselves the last time they could have held their hand up to a given height, so their self-centric relative measure is now overheight to the 'datum' of the already matured person in front of them. But I actually do think that elder-shrinkage ''is'' the actual intention of the words, if it's just one thing.) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.222|162.158.34.222]] 15:39, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

== Randall's relatives ==
Given Randall's inclination to use a sailor's cap to represent older relatives, I wonder if ''his'' father was a sailor? [[User:John.Adriaan|John.Adriaan]] ([[User talk:John.Adriaan|talk]]) 04:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
:Also, that might be the influence of his time in the Hampton Roads area. With a major shipyard and Naval Station Norfolk in the area, I'm sure there's a lot of Navy influence. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.63.37|172.69.63.37]] 13:53, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2212: Cell Phone Functions

2019-10-15T03:32:02Z

Tracy Hall: nail file comment

I know of someone who DID build a taser into a phone... (but that's all it is now, was no space for the phone's electronics anymore) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.54.39|172.69.54.39]] 08:05, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
: Well, there are actual commercial taser phone cases available for purchase today - [https://youtu.be/XaJSYxit1qI here's one example]. Not necessarily a good idea and not legal everywhere, but it exists. --[[User:NeatNit|NeatNit]] ([[User talk:NeatNit|talk]]) 12:03, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
And even without checking if it already existed, tasers immediately struck me as the only idea in the comic that was remotely plausible. Most of the things in the list for one would require additional hardware to be a part of the phone, and the added weight and bulk would not seem worthwhile given the expected times one would use these things. One exception would be a steering wheel, as using wireless comunication, any necessary hardware could be added to the car instead of the phone. This doesn't seem like a good idea though normally, but once you have driverless cars, commands for where the car should go might be incorporated into a phone app. And theoretically, maybe you could have a dog wear an electric shock collar that would trigger if it got too far away from the phone without changing much on the phone hardware, though it seems there would be a lot of possible issues with making that work.--[[Special:Contributions/172.68.59.126|172.68.59.126]] 04:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
: A nail clipper might be a bit much, but I actually do use my iPhone 5 as a nail file. Once I finally upgrade it (long overdue), I will no longer be able to use my phone for that—the iPhone 5 was the last model to have a hard 90° glass edge all around the home button, an edge that happens to work perfectly for smoothing off any snags or rough edges that remain after I've trimmed my nails with scissors. [[User:Tracy Hall|Tracy Hall]] ([[User talk:Tracy Hall|talk]]) 03:32, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

It seems a bit peculiar that one of the move "obvious" devices a cellphone can replace is missing: the watch. [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 08:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
: That's because no one sane would do that ;) Some may use a Smart Watch instead of a classic watch but except of the case when you were used to pocket watches anyways a replacement of a wacth by a phone would be a downgrade usability wise. /edit: That being said: My personal "Now" bar is at the first quarter (more or less at the web browser's bar end) [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 08:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)So that physics is nothing but the harmonies of the vibrating rubber bands.

:: I realize it's unlikely you're being entirely serious here, but the same argument applies to almost all of the devices listed in this comic. So…no, that's not the reason for its omission. [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 08:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
::: There are other things that phones can do that separate devices exist for as well that aren't listed in the comic. For instance, calculators, daily planners and memo pads, calendars, address books, video games and watching tv shows/movies, reading books (remember dedicated eReaders?), etc--[[Special:Contributions/172.68.59.126|172.68.59.126]] 04:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
::: Actually I was dead serious. Well except of the "no one sane" part. I don't want to offend anyone :) In the time you take your phone out of the pocket to check the time I've looked thrice at my wrist watch [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 08:54, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
:::: The time taken isn't awfully relevant, unless you're checking the time awfully frequently. For the number of times a day I need to check the time when I'm not at a computer or already looking at my phone, the convenience of a wristwatch could easily be outweighed by the inconvenience of taking it off and putting in on each day. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.178.69|162.158.178.69]] 09:34, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
::::: Assuming you'd put it off. ;) (Despite the emoticon I'm serious again. I only put my watch off to change the battery) And even if I would put it off it would be more likely I forgot my phone on my desk than forgetting to put the watch on. I'm wearing a wrist watch since I was 8 or 9. But granted, the time is not as relevant as the fact that you have to put a device from out of somewhere and push a button to activate the screen just to check time. But in the end it's just a matter of personal taste and habit, I guess. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 10:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
::::::Yeah, whether it's as convenient or even as good is irrelevant: Cell phones are not as good at photos as a dedicated camera but they are used for that because they can do it without the need for a separate device, which is the point of this comic. Most people do not wear watches anymore & just use their phones instead. Watches really would belong on this list, except it might be more difficult to pin down a transitional point! Some of us stopped needing watches when we realized our Nokia 3390 had a clock in the corner. Other people may have a link to whattimeisitrightnow dot com on their smartphone's home screen... [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 14:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
:::: A phone in the pocket is infinitely better for me than a watch because watches make the skin underneath the wristband itch from the continuous contact. (I have atopic dermatitis.) -- [[Special:Contributions/162.158.93.135|162.158.93.135]] 13:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
: there was a brief period between ubiquitous cell/mobile phone use and the advent of the smartwatch where experts predicted the demise of the watch other than as a piece of jewellery [[User:Boatster|Boatster]] ([[User talk:Boatster|talk]]) 08:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
: I always hated wearing a watch - I do sometimes use my phone for finding the time - but "Hey Google - what time is it?" works without taking it out of my pocket. The thing is though - watches were obsolete before the smartphone existed. When just about 100% of electronic devices have clock display - my cooker, microwave, toaster, car, TV, computer, etc, etc ALL tell me the time. Why would I need a watch? SmartWatches seem like a retrograde step. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 13:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
:: Well, with a watch you always know, where to look, especially when not in your own home. So just looking at your own wrist is much faster, then scanning your enviroment for the nearest screen. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 13:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
::"Smart Watches" that don't do much without a smartphone to connect to seem especially backwards to me. A smart watch with cellular radio would be useful on its own. Side note: So ''you're'' that one person who leaves voice activation on all the time!?! Setting the very real privacy & safety issues aside for a moment... Doesn't it trigger from random conversations on an almost daily basis? I don't even know anyone who was able to leave Siri or Alexa on touchless, much less Google. [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 15:21, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
:::Newer generations are able to do so, at least partially. E.g. new generation from Garmin is able to play music to your bluetooth earpieces, without of need of a phone. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 08:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
:I agree, it seems to me that the majority of people who had a cell phone as a teenager never acquired the habit of wearing a watch. I happen to still wear a watch and I also have a separate device that I use instead of my cell phone to make phone calls when I am at home. It's called a "telephone". And it's a fact that very few people who had a cell phone as a teenager have one of these in their homes. [[User:Rtanenbaum|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum|talk]]) 19:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
::I used to wear watch. Then the strap broke (well, the things connecting the strap to watch). So I got used to wearing them in pocket, no big deal, didn't needed them that often and never got to finding the shop where they would fix it. Then the watch broke. I got used to looking at phone. On the other hand, I'm still using "dumb" cellphone instead of smartphone for calling, the shape is just better for holding next to ear. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 22:16, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Try to translate "die eierlegende Wollmilchsau"
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.89.97|162.158.89.97]] 09:52, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
:Sounds a lot like a schmoo from ''Lil Abner'' by Al Capp! I wonder if the egg-legend woolmilksow is where he got the idea? [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 15:21, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
::Die eigerlegende Wollmilchsau is a joke on tools/machines/etc which are designed to perform a lot of incompatible tasks, but often fail to work properly.
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.221|162.158.91.221]] 16:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
:::So it doesn't pre-date the Schmoo? Well that's disappointing. [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 19:05, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

There is a terrible movie - [[Wikipedia:Shorts: The Adventures of the Wishing Rock|Shorts: The Adventures of the Wishing Rock]] - where everyone has a device called The Black Box that can do all of that, as well as pretty much anything. Its function changes kind of like a Rubik's Cube. It's an obvious parody of smartphones, except that it came out right around the time they were getting popular so I'm not sure if smartphones are the true inspiration. I can't recommend that movie (really, it's awful) but this comic reminded me of it and I wanted to share. --[[User:NeatNit|NeatNit]] ([[User talk:NeatNit|talk]]) 10:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
:Also see the Guide 2.0 as depicted in the later ''Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy'' novels. It would do anything its user asked, including removing all Earths from all timelines (which is what it was built for). There's an old SciFi story about a man with a hypnotic paisley tie who accidentally leaves behind a futuristic universal remote & the contemporary guy who finds it gets in trouble. Overall, the "one device that does everything" has been an idea for at least a hundred years; but I think it's not just dismissed as whimsy so easily these days. [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 15:21, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Re: steering wheel, there was a James Bond movie (Pierce Brosnan era I think) where he could control a car from a phone (they were not yet called smartphones at the time). I wouldn't be surprised that the technology has already been implemented, even though I don't want to think of the legal consequences if this became mainstream: "Honestly officer, I wasn't LOOKING at my phone, I was DRIVING my car!"[[Special:Contributions/162.158.155.110|162.158.155.110]] 11:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
: sure it's *technically* possible: all you need is to pair the gyro/accelerometer of your phone with your car's servo steering. any vehicle with a parking assistant can be controlled that way (and security researchers have demonstrated that in impressive talks back in 2015: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OobLb1McxnI). [[User:Gir|-- //gir.st/]] ([[User talk:Gir|talk]]) 11:37, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
:It was in ''Tomorrow Never Dies'' (https://youtu.be/BxTvfVZjR_Q) with a 'slightly' non-standard phone (pre-smartphone) and a 'slightly' non-standard car... Hardly the most unbelievable feature, though. ;) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.235|162.158.158.235]] 16:06, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I've written a first draft of the explanation and transcript, but I don't have time for anything else today. It turned out more high-flown than I intended, so feel free to reword as necessary. Also, because I'm sure it'll come up eventually, regarding the transcript: since Randall has not given any time scale, we should refrain from over-interpreting when something happened. For the joke to get through, knowing which elements happened in the past and which (might) happen in the future is enough. [[User:Gir|-- //gir.st/]] ([[User talk:Gir|talk]]) 11:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm - so let's fact check this:
* My phone is indeed being used as a car key (I own a Tesla and my phone unlocks the car and lets me drive it), phone, camera, newspaper, credit card and flashlight - so short bars for all of these is good.
* As a TV remote, that could be true - but we're actually edging into a "post-phone" era on that one. I can (and occasionally do) use my phone to control the Roku - but it's easier to use voice commands through Google Home for that...although I suppose I could use the phone to run Google Home instead of the Google Mini in my living room...so 50/50 on being "post-phone" on this one.
* As a Web Browser, I could use the phone - but only rarely actually do that. Mostly I use my ChromeBook for that, and also the screen on my Tesla - the piddly little cellphone screen guarantees it won't take over that role for more than 10% of the time.
* He missed out "Text messaging" - but I'm using the phone less and less for that because having a decent keyboard is good - so the ChromeBook is stealing that capability.
* Steering wheel...well, the Tesla already steers itself about 80% of the time that I drive. I predict that the steering wheel will cease to exist (at least for me) before I use my phone for that...although it certainly is capable of it in theory...and I'm pretty sure Tesla demonstrated the car being used as a radio controlled toy from a phone a few years ago...although it never made it into production (mercifully!).
* You probably could use a phone as a bird feeder (for smaller birds - draping a dead rabbit over it to attract vultures might be a bad idea).
* All of the others are well into the future...so I agree with him on those.
[[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 13:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I feel like we could/should be reading this more literally. If we assume that Randall lives on the fairly early edge of technology, then the time from the left side of the chart to now is ~25 years. If we also assume that the time axis is linear, then we should be driving our cars with our phones in 7-8 years (though I can now drive my car through a parking lot at least using my phone, it's still doing the steering for me). Sadly brushing our teeth is still about 20 years out according to this prediction, however maybe by then our phones will be able to do some sort of ultrasonic cleaning. [[User:Jasonk|Jasonk]] ([[User talk:Jasonk|talk]]) 13:58, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
:I'm continually surprised that nobody is known to have fallen for a joke digital toilet-tissue app called iWipe. [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 15:21, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

It seems like it would be good to reference Randall's [[:Category:xkcd Phones|rather unusual phone function proposals]] in the explanation. Perhaps he's suggesting that these phones will become commonly used (or at least used by him) in the future. [[User:Dry Paratroopa|Dry Paratroopa]] ([[User talk:Dry Paratroopa|talk]]) 14:38, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Maybe when he says "TV remote" he's actually talking about "cable box remote". I think there's an Xfinity X1 mobile app. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 16:45, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
:Some (or many?) Smart TVs, such as my 6 year old LG Smart TV are also possible to connect to an app. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 08:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
::Any of the many ''many'' smartphones with an infrared port can control any number of common devices. Every Samsung Galaxy phone is effectively a universal remote, all the user needs to do is download one of hundreds of free apps & ''bam'', their device is now a fully programmable touchscreen universal remote with customizable buttons, labels, & scripted sequences. A "Smart" TV is not needed, but most of those actually use infrared remotes as well (''some'' use RF remotes, but even TVs with WiFi typically still use an infrared remote until you get up into the more expensive models). Infrared is still used all over the place; in fact, with the proliferation of household devices with remotes, I'd wager that the average home has ''more'' infrared controlled devices in it today than ten or twenty years ago, when I first started using my Palm PDAs & then Palm Treo as a universal remote. Randall is pretty technologically savvy & also seems to be an early adopter, so I wouldn't be surprised if he's been using his smartphone as a remote since before the first iPhone was released. (Note that iPhones, being more toy than tool, do ''not'' have an infrared port. Fortunately, iOS devices have never been more than about a third of the smartphones in use.) [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 19:02, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Could the cheese grater be a reference to Apple's newest computers? I could imagine an iPhone with the "cheese grater" texture. [[User:Billtheplatypus|Billtheplatypus]] ([[User talk:Billtheplatypus|talk]]) 17:01, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
:The Palm Pre worked as a cheese *slicer* back in 2009! https://gizmodo.com/palm-pre-cuts-the-cheese-5279413 [[Special:Contributions/162.158.214.88|162.158.214.88]] 17:48, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I am very curious as to what specific device Randall used for his telephone way back when before he used his phone. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.70.28|172.68.70.28]] 17:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
:Before he used his phone, the specific device was likely his parents phone. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 08:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

The comic says "I just use MY phone." Presumably, before that, he used someone else's phone, or a payphone or something. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.189.19|172.68.189.19]] 21:54, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
:I think he means "I just use my CELL phone". I have a separate device that I use instead of my "cell" phone to make phone calls when I am at home. It's called a "telephone". This is probably what he used before cell phones. [[User:Rtanenbaum|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum|talk]]) 17:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

If you think about it, the phone started out with maybe 4 components: microphone, speaker, bell ringer, and gizmo to alert the operator to connect to you. Newspaper was paper and ink. Flashlight was bulb and battery. They had nothing in common at all. So dog leash? Better GPS + bluetooth shock collar. Tazer? Better battery + extendable prongs. Toilet paper is easy: bluetooth enabled bidet. Honestly, the only device I would bet money on being wrong is the bird feeder. After all, who would deliberately walk away from their phone for hours on end? (besides me) [[Special:Contributions/172.68.90.100|172.68.90.100]] 21:41, 7 October 2019 (UTC) SiliconWolf
:Toilet paper is even easier than that, and you can do it with any phone. Just install three C shells. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.63.83|172.69.63.83]] 22:59, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I can imagine using phone as a dog leash. It could be connected with smart dog-collar that gives a shock to a dog if it moves further than chosen distance. Not that I would like such idea, but seems possible. [[User:Tkopec|Tkopec]] ([[User talk:Tkopec|talk]]) 08:00, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
:You would still need a specific device (the dog-collar), instead of "just" using your phone. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 08:12, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Unmentioned single purpose devices that cell phones have partially or totally replaced: radio, MP3 player, music player, personal assistant device, voice recorder, video camera. [[User:Rtanenbaum|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum|talk]]) 13:12, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Tazer sounds like a good idea, but some other personal protective devices could also be welcomed: personal alarm (press a button and loud piercing alarm scares away attacker), pepper spray, accident alert. [[User:Rtanenbaum|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum|talk]]) 13:12, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm surprised that Randall omitted using smart phones as replacements for stand-alone GPS units for mapping and driving directions. [[User:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For]] ([[User talk:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|talk]]) 05:35, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

;y axis order
I wonder if there is a rationale for the ordering on the vertical axis. They are mostly, but not exclusively, monotonically increasing in time. {{unsigned|Mwh001}}
:I didn't research this, but it looks like the order of availibility it is sorted by. But web browser wasn't used at first, because it was just so expensive and hard to use. TV remote apps are available for quite some time, but often it is easier to just grab the remote when its close to the sofa, instead of opening the app. It remains unclear, why he switched at all. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 08:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

;Mind Bleach please!
Toothbrush, ''and'' toilet paper? [[User:John.Adriaan|John.Adriaan]] ([[User talk:John.Adriaan|talk]]) 00:16, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

;Make America Grate Again
Randall may be onto something with the cheese grater. If Americans ever stop grating their cheese and someone wants to force them to resume, then they could start a movement to require cell phones be designed so that you have to grate cheese with the phone before you can use the phone for anything else, and this movement could use the slogan "Make America Grate Again", and the existing MAGA hats.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.92|172.69.34.92]] 04:52, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

A dog leash is entirely plausible, you put a real shock-collar on the dog, then control it from the phone. But I'm disappointed that it's not a graph of how much time per day one spends doing each task on the phone. Because using it like a phone would be the shortest one, just as in the pic above. — [[User:Kazvorpal|Kazvorpal]] ([[User talk:Kazvorpal|talk]]) 16:23, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Hoot you trap off. :-)

;Ever see the “pomegranate”?
A few years ago I saw a video (spoof) of a new tech device. It was a phone with increasingly implausible and absurd features. Started off with a language translator well ahead of state of the art. Went on to things including coffee maker and harmonica. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomegranate_(phone)
[[Special:Contributions/172.69.68.111|172.69.68.111]] 19:37, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
:I don't know about the pomegranate. But I know about the XPhone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-nezImUP0w [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 09:52, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

2081: Middle Latitudes

2018-12-07T03:28:38Z

Tracy Hall: There are actually two contributions to the equation of time, of similar magnitudes.

{{comic
| number = 2081
| date = December 5, 2018
| title = Middle Latitudes
| image = middle_latitudes.png
| titletext = Snowy blizzards are fun, but so are warm sunny beaches, so we split the difference by having lots of icy wet slush!
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by WINTER WHILE GETTING A SUNTAN. Need much more details on why it's bleak in the Winter in the middle. Also explain the title text Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

The Earth can be divided into five major circles of latitude, from North to South:

* {{w|Arctic Circle}} (66°33′N)
* {{w|Tropic of Cancer}} ((23°26′N)
* {{w|Equator}} (0°)
* {{w|Tropic of Capricorn}} ((23°26′S)
* {{w|Antarctic Circle}} (66°33′S)

The {{w|middle latitudes}} are those that occur in two specific bands: between the Arctic Circle and the Tropic of Cancer, and between the Tropic of Capricorn and the Antarctic Circle. These are two important pairs of latitudes on the globe that delineate some features of how the Sun rises and sets during the day.

At latitudes which are either north of the Arctic Circle or south of the Antarctic Circle, there is at least one day every summer when the sun doesn't set and at least one day every winter when it doesn't rise. Below that latitude, the sun will rise and set every day - if only for a short time. At any latitudes between the Tropics, including the equator, there is at least one day of the year where the sun will shine directly from above. The length of the day between the tropics will also be close to 12 hours regardless of whether it is Summer or Winter. At the tropics the maximum day/night is about 13.5 hours and the minimum is 10.5 hours. At the equator, which is midway between the tropics, days and nights are always 12 hours with minor changes due to the {{w|equation of time}} (a combination of effects from Earth's axial tilt and slightly eccentric orbit).

At latitudes between 23.5 and 66.5, north or south, there will be no such "special" days, as the sun will always shine from an angle and always be above the horizon for part of the day and below it for the rest. In the Winter days are shorter, while in the Summer days are longer. These changes are more visible the farther one gets away from the equator, and close to the Arctic the sun will only rise for a few hours in the Winter, and similarly will only set for a few hours in the Summer.

The comic refers to these facts that inside the middle latitudes there are simply no interesting features at any time of the year, however in Winter the sun will set earlier, and generally because of the lower temperatures and shorter days it has a bleak feeling.

The comic also plays on the idiom "split the difference" by applying it to the length of day vs. night. To split the difference is to agree (or settle) on an amount of something, such as money, that is halfway between two others. This can sometimes be characterized as a compromise where nobody gets what they want.

Cueball starts by wishing to experience two extremes: normal sunrise and sunset, vs. weeks of 24-hour darkness. Satisfying one or the other condition requires locating either to the Equator or to one of the poles. Megan proposes a "split the difference" compromise, which turns out to involve dim, bleak winters. Satisfying the compromise would mean locating in the "middle latitudes". Thus the bottom caption, "middle latitudes are the worst."

The title text extends the idea. Splitting the difference between "fun" snowy blizzards and "fun" warm sunny beaches would mean having neither, but instead icy wet slush.

There are other comics that refer to the length of the day, and how it is different each day, a recent one for example is [[2050: 6/6 Time]]

==Transcript==
:[Cueball and Megan standing and talking, Megan with her arms raised.]
:Cueball: It would be nice if the sun could rise and set at normal times. But it would also be cool to experience 24-hour darkness for weeks on end.
:Megan: Well, what if we split the difference, so all winter everything was normal but slightly more dim and bleak?
:Cueball: Perfect!
:[Caption below the frame:]
:Middle latitudes are the worst

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Astronomy]]
[[Category:Time]]
[[Category:Compromise]]