https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=162.158.38.190&feedformat=atomexplain xkcd - User contributions [en]2024-03-28T15:50:26ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.30.0https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2132:_Percentage_Styles&diff=172240Talk:2132: Percentage Styles2019-04-04T08:28:27Z<p>162.158.38.190: </p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--><br />
<br />
The only proper style for Britain and the US is ‘%65’. [[User:Aasasd|Aasasd]] ([[User talk:Aasasd|talk]]) 16:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)<br />
:O RLY? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.52|108.162.241.52]] 16:37, 3 April 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: Yes. You don't write ‘65$’, do you? British/US standards should be followed properly and consistently. [[User:Aasasd|Aasasd]] ([[User talk:Aasasd|talk]]) 17:19, 3 April 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::I've definitely seen %NN stated by style guides, but I almost never see anybody using it, because reading it aloud encourages saying it as "percent sixty-five". Oddly, people seem to have no trouble remembering to write $65 instead of 65$, despite the same "dollars sixty-five" vs "sixty-five dollars" vocalization issue. Perhaps it's because we often see things like $65.95 but %65.95 is used less often? Writing 65.95% is potentially ambiguous depending on how it's read out loud: "sixty-five point ninety-five percent" could definitely be misinterpreted very easily. 65.95$ is definitely not ideal, & $65.95¢ is somehow even worse. How about 65$.95¢? ''';S''' <br />
::[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 17:08, 3 April 2019 (UTC) <br />
:::At https://ask.metafilter.com/7894/Is-the-form-of-100-instead-of-100-a-different-language-useage discussers encountered %NN but eventually decided it was a mistake spread by low literacy. More common is "NNpc". [[Special:Contributions/172.69.63.47|172.69.63.47]] 20:33, 3 April 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
----<br />
There's also 65/100, 65:100, <math>\textstyle\frac{65}{100}</math>, sixtyfive-hundreth, 0.65, and point sixty-five. Benny. 16:41, 3 April 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
There's also 650‰ [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.41|172.69.33.41]] 16:52, 3 April 2019 (UTC) <br />
:Wouldn't that be 650 hundredths? I've seen "and sixty-five ‰" a cheque before. [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 17:08, 3 April 2019 (UTC)<br />
::"650‰" is "650 per mille (per thousand)", and is precisely the same as "65%". [[User:RandalSchwartz|RandalSchwartz]] ([[User talk:RandalSchwartz|talk]]) 19:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)<br />
Even lower than 65 per¢ should be 65 per penny. [[User:N0lqu|-boB]] ([[User talk:N0lqu|talk]]) 20:00, 3 April 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
====<br />
BTW, I can imagine the transcript of this one posing some challenge for screen readers. [[User:Aasasd|Aasasd]] ([[User talk:Aasasd|talk]]) 17:01, 3 April 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: On a second thought, I can also imagine people who use screen readers never hearing any difference between the writing styles listed in the comic. [[User:Aasasd|Aasasd]] ([[User talk:Aasasd|talk]]) 17:24, 3 April 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
This may have come up because last Friday the A.P. Stylebook announced their changes for 2019, including a change to percent. https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2019/ap-says-the-percentage-sign-now-ok-when-used-with-a-numeral-thats-shift5/<br />
<br />
== Missing ==<br />
<br />
Compile here the missing styles:<br />
<br />
* %65<br />
* 65 pc, 65 pct, 65 pct., 65 cent<br />
* sixty-five percent; sixty-five per cent; sixty-five per ¢<br />
* sixty-five per hundred; 65 for every 100<br />
* 65% percent; 65% per cent; 65% per ¢<br />
* 65/100; 65÷100; 65:100; 65 x 1/100<br />
* 65*10^-2; 65×10⁻²; 65×10^-2; 65*10⁻²; 6.5e-1<br />
* 0.65; 0,65<br />
* 65 per penny (wasn't this a joke?)<br />
* almost 2/3rds<br />
* 65¢^-1; 65¢⁻¹<br />
<br />
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.191|162.158.79.191]] 19:35, 3 April 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Also 6.5e-1. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 23:29, 3 April 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Also simply 'cent,' which is used in property tax assessment in California. It's a pretty sneaky way to make the tax seem really small. --<br />
<br />
Yeah, Randall dropped the ball on this one. I am disappoint. At the very least there should have been an entry where "per" was written as "/". Also since the cent sign is not on most keyboards but the dollar sign is, I would have expected "6500/$". Also, google agrees: https://www.google.com/search?q=6500%2F%24+in+cent^-1 :p [[Special:Contributions/141.101.96.187|141.101.96.187]] 07:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
= = Celtic = =<br />
I suggest you remove the reference to "celtic". In modern English it's rarely pronounced "seltic" except in the names of a couple of sports teams. There is a substantial discussion of this online - just Google "pronounce celtic". Irish people are Celtic and almost zero Irish say "seltic" - except in relation to Glasgow Celtic football club. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.38.190|162.158.38.190]] 08:28, 4 April 2019 (UTC)</div>162.158.38.190https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2103:_Midcontinent_Rift_System&diff=169703Talk:2103: Midcontinent Rift System2019-02-16T00:01:46Z<p>162.158.38.190: </p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don’t delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--><br />
<br />
Needs an explanation of the rift system itself. What is it? When did it form? How did conservatives feel about it at the time?<br />
(It’s definitely not a reference to Palladium Rifts, which would be a whole different thing!)<br />
[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 16:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
If Black Hat runs, I vote for him. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.35|141.101.104.35]] 15:15, 25 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:--If Black Hat runs, we all vote for him. Even if we don't vote...--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.38.190|162.158.38.190]] 00:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Has anyone else thought of all the new beach front property that would be created? Lex Luthor would be proud. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.166|108.162.245.166]] 15:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
:I have always thought the US ought to have a large shallow inland sea.<br />
:[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 15:38, 25 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
“''It is unclear why would anyone vote for such a thing, but people directly affected (the Midwest) are likely to vote against Black Hat.''”<br />
:In the interests of accuracy, it should be noted that 2016 showed that it being unclear why anyone would vote for a thing doesn’t stop them from doing so, eagerly. Even when they are are going to be directly affected very adversely. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.107.19|162.158.107.19]] 18:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Actually we ended up with a large shallow outlandish president instead. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.106.42|162.158.106.42]] 18:31, 25 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The reason why people vote to abandon European Union in BRexit is obvious: they think that institutions of European Union would create laws, decisions etc which would hurt them even worse than BRexit. Now, you may not agree with this, but you can’t say it’s completely unfathomable. – [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 23:55, 25 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
There is an North American Midcontinent Rift as described at the start of the comic. See for example https://eos.org/features/new-insights-into-north-americas-midcontinent-rift or the Wikipedia page about it. Someone much more knowledgeable about geology than I am probably ought to update the explanation. [[User:D Gary Grady|D Gary Grady]] ([[User talk:D Gary Grady|talk]]) 02:39, 26 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I was thinking the giant crowbar is just an illustration trick, and it would be likely done with explosives or something. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.212.131|108.162.212.131]] 12:45, 26 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
:The crowbar would work, provided it was big enough and one had been able to resolve Archimedes' dilemma — Δώσε μου μια θέση να σταθώ, και θα μετακινήσω τη γη.[[User:RAGBRAIvet|RAGBRAIvet]] ([[User talk:RAGBRAIvet|talk]]) 09:10, 27 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
::Hmm ... I guess you'd want your fulcrum and standing position to be affixed to the half of the earth that you want to stay put relative to you. You could probably find a fulcrum on the earth. You're likeliy in a space suit with a strong tether. You'd have to some how get the end of the crowbar deep inside the rock under the soil, or you'd just dig a trench. I'm suspecting it would have to be _really_ deep to actually split the continent and not just knock some huge rock chunks out like when blasting is done to reshape the landscape. You'd then have to travel far enough in outer space in order to move the rock with enough significance to produce the size of rift desired, and I don't expect things to get too much easier as the rock breaks because you are almost trying to shift entire tectonic plates. I'm thinking you'd run into major issues traveling far enough to push the crowbar, but this could be resolvable with machines. A remaining issue would be placing the crowbar deep enough to actually shift a plate. We've dug incredibly deep holes, but I'm not sure quite _that_ deep. The final issue is that a material would be needed that is strong enough to withstand the inner forces that would be required to shift an entire tectonic plate. The lever would have to be incredibly thick in order to withstand all the strain involved with the relatively-weak metals we have. At that point it would be so heavy and wide that countering its friction could be a monumental feat. I think that leverage is probably one tool for this job, but that other creative tools would need to be combined with it to actually succeed. I don't believe Archimedes! [[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.47|162.158.79.47]] 12:59, 28 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
As a Cascadian Separatist, I'm all for this plan. Near as I can tell, the only thing the east coast does for the west coast is spend money. [[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 14:00, 26 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Should mention that it's also known as the Keweenawan Rift, pronounced QAnon Rift.</div>162.158.38.190https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1234:_Douglas_Engelbart_(1925-2013)&diff=169101Talk:1234: Douglas Engelbart (1925-2013)2019-02-05T09:00:33Z<p>162.158.38.190: Added passage of time para from mobile device</p>
<hr />
<div>The song he claims to have written is, of course, Leonard Cohen's "Hallelujah". But why? /[[User:Skagedal|Skagedal]] ([[User talk:Skagedal|talk]]) 08:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)<br />
: I guess for the same reason he claims to have thought up YOLO and cat picture memes - he's claiming credit for many many future developments - that's the joke. Either that or the comic's claiming Douglas was a time traveller and was single handedly responsible for every invention ever! Let's face it though, much of our modern day tech wouldn't have happened without his work. I can't believe I never heard of this guy before. [[User:Hippyjim|Hippyjim]] ([[User talk:Hippyjim|talk]]) 09:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC)<br />
::As has since been added, it's a reference to the obscure-but-not-secret chord keyboard. Someone should really go through each clause and either give a link to that part of the demo, or the real history. {{unsigned ip|173.14.129.9}}<br />
: I'd guess it's because the mournful tone of the song makes it appropriate for a memorial to someone passing away.<br />
:[[User:Wwoods|Wwoods]] ([[User talk:Wwoods|talk]]) 18:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Looks like the Stanford site has been given the xkcd hug. Does anybody have a mirror? [[User:Spontaneous|Spontaneous]] ([[User talk:Spontaneous|talk]]) 15:33, 5 July 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Stanford is overloaded, not only because this comic. The link is also at his wiki page.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 19:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Is it just me or is there a certain amount of deliberate irony here. Englebart was working at " A Research Center for Augmenting Human Intellect" and where do we end up? Lolcats....--[[User:NHSavage|NHSavage]] ([[User talk:NHSavage|talk]]) 19:12, 6 July 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The "inventions in detail" section is badly written... Also, it feels weird to use Engelbart's first name to refer to him. Excessively familiar, perhaps. --[[Special:Contributions/24.186.79.218|24.186.79.218]] 01:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)<br />
:So do it better, you are welcome here to help. And at the Stanford site he is just called "Doug", in America people are mostly using the first name.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 11:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)<br />
::I took a stab at cleaning up the grammar a bit, and I agree that in this context, refering to him by his last name is more appropriate. --[[Special:Contributions/67.71.137.146|67.71.137.146]] 12:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Thanks for your help on grammar, I'm not native English. My main source was the Stanford site mentioned at the trivia, and he is just called "Doug" there. I think even this nickname should be appropriate.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 19:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Hi, is there any truth to the "masking codecs" claim in the comic and in the explanation of the inventions here? I watched the whole presentation on Youtube, but I can't remember that anything about audio was mentioned. Has this been presented some other time? Or is this again a joke, like the YOLO-cat claim? --[[Special:Contributions/84.164.96.3|84.164.96.3]] 12:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The alt-text, talking about Englebart looking forward to computers tracking what you're doing and who you are, is clearly a jab at the NSA and advertising tracking on the web, and probably at social networking like Facebook and Twitter. 'Direct messages', of course, is exactly the term Twitter uses. I'm unsure if this is the term Engelbart used, though: does anyone have a transcript? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.166|141.101.99.166]] 17:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Passage of Time: There appears to be a considerable passage of time between panels one and three: note the appearance of a wireless headset. This raises the possibility that the demo presented so much new technology and took decades, during which the equipment was upgraded and the inventions demonstrated became less technologically meaningful. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.38.190|162.158.38.190]] 09:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC)</div>162.158.38.190https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2080:_Cohort_and_Age_Effects&diff=1666602080: Cohort and Age Effects2018-12-05T10:53:52Z<p>162.158.38.190: edited text about what the joke is</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 2080<br />
| date = December 3, 2018<br />
| title = Cohort and Age Effects<br />
| image = cohort_and_age_effects.png<br />
| titletext = Younger people get very few joint replacements, yet they're also getting more than older people did at the same age. This means you can choose between 'Why are millennials getting so (many/few) joint replacements?' depending on which trend fits your current argument better.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{incomplete|Created by a MILLENNIAL JOINT. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
Another of [[Randall|Randall's]] [[238: Pet Peeve 114|many]] [[:Category:Pet Peeves|Pet Peeves]], this time it's statistics. It is the first in more than four years, since [[1368: One Of The]].<br />
<br />
"{{w|Millennials}}" are the generation of Westerners who were born between the early 1980s and the late 1990s, whereas {{w|baby boomers}} are the generation born during the "baby boom", a period of high birth rates from the late 1940s to early 1960s. A common headline on news websites is "Millennials are killing the X industry" where X is a product whose sales have dropped in recent years. One of the most famous is the {{w|diamond industry}}, where a combination of the {{w|wage gap}}, stigma over {{w|Blood diamond|conflict diamonds}}, and less desire to get married early has seen millennials buying less diamond jewelry than previous generations.<br />
<br />
Randall spoofs this idea. In the comic, [[Cueball]], as a [[:Category:News anchor|news anchor]], presents a heading which opens his story by asking if millennials are killing the industry of surgical {{w|Joint replacement|joint replacements}}, illustrating it with numbers of joint replacement procedures among millennials compared to baby boomers. The joke is that millennials are simply too young for most of them to need joint replacements (which are usually used to treat senile {{w|osteoarthritis}}), so most people will see that so there really isn't a news story here. Randall is using this example to highlight that this kind of story is ridiculous. Millennials will likely need joint replacements in the future as they get older, potentially keeping sales of joint replacements at close to their current rate.<br />
<br />
A '''{{w|cohort effect}}''' is a cultural difference between generations (such as buying fewer diamonds), whereas an '''age effect''' is one that is simply related to getting older (such as getting arthritis). Joint replacement rates are an age effect, but the newscast is presenting them as if they were a cohort effect. (More correctly, the table rows would be labelled e.g. “people aged 50–70” and “people aged 25–35”.)<br />
<br />
The title text points out that although numbers of millennials receiving joint replacements are low, they are higher than the numbers of baby boomers who received them ''at the same age''—i.e. in their 20s—due to advances in medical diagnosis and technology in the last 50 years, as well as (in some countries at least) better access to healthcare. This statistic can be used to create a headline which is the reverse of the one in the comic, namely "millennials are getting more joint replacements than ever". Randall notes that you could therefore use either headline to back up your argument, depending on the agenda you are trying to present.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:[Cueball as a news anchor is sitting at a desk with hands folded in front of him on the table. To the left is a presentation which includes a table with a header above the two by two table. Each of the two rows and columns are labeled.]<br />
:Cueball: Tonight: Are Millenials killing the joint replacement industry?<br />
<br />
:{| class="wikitable"<br />
|+ Operation rate per 100,000<br />
!<br />
!Knee<br />
!Hip<br />
|-<br />
|Baby Boomers <br />
|720<br />
|390<br />
|-<br />
|Millenials <br />
|1<br />
|3<br />
|}<br />
<br />
:[Caption below the panel:]<br />
:Stats Pet Peeve: People mixing up cohort effects and age effects.<br />
<br />
==Trivia==<br />
*In the original title text there were two mistakes. These were soon corrected. <br />
**Here is the original title text with the removed word in bold and below the final version with the added word in bold:<br />
::Younger people get very few joint replacements, yet they're also getting more than older people did at the same age. This means you can choose between 'Why are millennials '''are''' getting so (many/few) joint replacements?' depending which trend fits your current argument better.<br />
::Younger people get very few joint replacements, yet they're also getting more than older people did at the same age. This means you can choose between 'Why are millennials getting so (many/few) joint replacements?' depending '''[on]''' which trend fits your current argument better.<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]<br />
[[Category:Pet Peeves]]<br />
[[Category:News anchor]]<br />
[[Category:Charts]]<br />
[[Category:Statistics]]</div>162.158.38.190https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2073:_Kilogram&diff=166069Talk:2073: Kilogram2018-11-16T23:54:45Z<p>162.158.38.190: </p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--><br />
I didn't know that weights and currencies could be converted 1:1, that's cool! [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 16:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I wish they ''had'' redefined the kilogram a little bit. It would have been neat if 1 kg was exactly the weight of 1 dm^3 (1 litre) of water under one atmosphere of pressure. Right now it's soooo close. It's a good enough estimate for simple maths, but whenever you tell people that a litre of water weighs one kilogram the pedants comes out of the woodworks... [[User:Kapten-N|Kapten-N]] ([[User talk:Kapten-N|talk]]) 16:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Up until 1964 a litre (and therefore actually the metre too) used to be defined as the volume that water with mass 1kg takes. But this is not good for exact measurements not only because you need exactly reproducable temperature, pressure (not so problematic, because you can measure them and then calculate the divergence) and gravity (not so easy to measure, because you need an exact mass and exact masses are impossible to keep the same), but also because you need pure water free of any polutions of other stuff (hard and expensive) and even free of tiny amounts of isotopes which are deuterium and tritium (even way more expensive).<br />
Because the water that was used then was never close to pure the actual weight of water nowadays is 0.99997kg at 4°C and 1.013bar and I don't know which value for g. There is also another definition which I like, but is hard to measure in real life scenarios: E=mc². A kilogramm should be 1/c² of the mass which anything becomes heavier that you accelerate by the energy of one Joule. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.150|162.158.90.150]] 17:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
:But how do you define/measure a Joule then? [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 18:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
:No, until 1964, meter and litre were totally independent, a meter has never been defined directly or indirectly in relation to a mass of water. It is only since 1964 that the liter is defined as a cubic decimeter.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.36|162.158.90.36]] 18:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
:Also, in E=mc², E is the energy '''at rest''' (for a stationary object of mass m), so your definition using the acceleration makes no sense.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.88.254|162.158.88.254]] 18:47, 16 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
Actually, for the new definition of the kilo using the Kibble balance you need to measure the gravity... [[Special:Contributions/162.158.134.16|162.158.134.16]] 17:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
Welp, looks like 1 kg, a.k.a. 1 lb, a.k.a 2.2 lb, is now officially defined to have zero mass.<br />
[[Special:Contributions/172.69.50.28|172.69.50.28]] 16:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
:…or infinite. [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 16:59, 16 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
::What I understand: the joke is not (only) about 1 (old) kg = 1 (old) lb, but (also) about 1 new kg = 1 old lb... or 1 new lb = 1 old kg :^) Or about a ring of positive characteristic --[[Special:Contributions/188.114.102.94|188.114.102.94]] 17:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
what about the ambiguity of the pound? would they reference an Avoirdupois bound or a Troy lb? --wonderkatn {{unsigned ip|172.69.50.16}}<br />
<br />
I don't believe the Imperial system is "no longer used". Gills have been retired, but yards and even chains are still in use, not to mention the Imperial <s>lb</s> pint. [[User:Yngvadottir|Yngvadottir]] ([[User talk:Yngvadottir|talk]]) 18:49, 16 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
:The imperial system has some good things about it. Feet are divisible by 12, and Fahrenheit is much nicer for human temperatures. [[User:Linker|Linker]] ([[User talk:Linker|talk]]) 18:55, 16 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
::Yeah, coz it's so easier to divide by 12 than to divide by 10! {{unsigned ip|162.158.89.61}}<br />
:::No it is easier to divide by 2, 3, 4, and 6, and yes, I can divide the number of feet by 10 easily in my head. [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 19:15, 16 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
:::The idea is that with twelve parts, you can have 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/6, and 1/12 all be integer number of parts. This is why these types of systems developed in the past, and why so many systems also had multiples of 60 (you can do the math here.). They were easy to divide by merchants without access to any sort of calculation method. The base-10 system is great if you're only ever dealing with halves or tenths. But if you want a quarter or a third of something, you have to split the base units. It's no longer necessary in modern life, but it had a real advantage in ancient times. [[User:Cgrimes85|Cgrimes85]] ([[User talk:Cgrimes85|talk]]) 19:18, 16 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Ok, I'm going to point out something. What's a meter? 1000 milimeters. What's a milimeter? .....skipping the questions all the way to the end, the answer is "the wavelength of the color orange". Or at least that's what I read. So my question is: why orange? What's so special about orange? What as a species or as a solar system or as universe does the color orange have to do with anything? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.90.10|172.68.90.10]] 21:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC) SiliconWolf<br />
<br />
: "The metre was originally defined in 1793 as one ten-millionth of the distance from the equator to the North Pole." That's why orange. Think of those lines from equator to pole... and how an orange is divided in segments beneath the peel. This is why the "Terry's Chocolate Orange" is so called, because it resembles the fruit orange. rja.carnegie@excite.com [[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.59|162.158.91.59]] 23:51, 16 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''Be very careful'''<br />
<br />
An announcement to a new definition of the kilogram is published wildly (I mean what I'm saying) today. Please do not present this issue as a final fact, I'm still missing an official statement -- it's just press hype. And there are two possible definitions taken account, not only the one from the US. The final decision right now looks like some of Randall's compromises. Just sayin... --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:01, 16 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
:OK then, here's an after-the-vote November 16 web page from NIST, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, within the US Department of Commerce. It says it's a done deal. [https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2018/11/historic-vote-ties-kilogram-and-other-units-natural-constants historic-vote-ties-kilogram-and-other-units-natural-constants]. --JohnB [[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.89|162.158.79.89]] 21:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
::Thanks, but my German sources still preset something like counting atoms [https://www.ptb.de/cms/forschung-entwicklung/forschung-zum-neuen-si/ptb-experimente/kilogramm-und-mol-atome-zaehlen.html Kilogram and MOL, counting atoms], just meaning I'm not sure what will be true in May 2019, do we know the truth??? And in fact it looks like Europeans are fighting against US scientists, or vice versa. This is far of a standard I would prefer. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 22:29, 16 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
It will be very funny when we find out one of those constants is not really constant ... sure, planck length is less likely to change than physical object, but it MIGHT. Like, maybe it gets longer the older the universe is ... -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 23:17, 16 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
You could not define the kilogram in terms of electric force when you defined the Amp in terms of the current that creates a given force. But by defining the amp in terms of numbers of elementary charges per second and setting Avogadro and other constants by fiat, you break the circle. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.38.190|162.158.38.190]] 23:54, 16 November 2018 (UTC)</div>162.158.38.190https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1979:_History&diff=1556751979: History2018-04-11T09:14:26Z<p>162.158.38.190: /* Explanation */ typo</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1979<br />
| date = April 11, 2018<br />
| title = History<br />
| image = history.png<br />
| titletext = HISTORIANS: We've decided to trim the past down to make things more manageable. Using BCE/CE, would you rather we lose the odd-numbered or even-numbered years?<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{incomplete|Created by a BOT - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
<br />
This comic quotes a [https://www.newspapers.com/clip/19134214/httpswwwxkcdcom1979/|a lengthy section of the Bloomington Daily Pantagraph's September 30, 1881 issue]. The tragic event referenced throughout is the assassination of President James A. Garfield. Interestingly, the article is about how closely studied the incident will or will not be in the future. Garfield's assassination is rarely more than a quick note in a history class, leaving only the "dry and tedious" historians to comb through the details.<br />
<br />
The punchline comes from not how insignificant this assassination has come to be viewed, but from Megan and Cueball being baffled by the sheer scope of information contained in the past.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}</div>162.158.38.190https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1979:_History&diff=1556741979: History2018-04-11T09:13:56Z<p>162.158.38.190: /* Explanation */ link to article</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1979<br />
| date = April 11, 2018<br />
| title = History<br />
| image = history.png<br />
| titletext = HISTORIANS: We've decided to trim the past down to make things more manageable. Using BCE/CE, would you rather we lose the odd-numbered or even-numbered years?<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{incomplete|Created by a BOT - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
<br />
This comic quotes [https://www.newspapers.com/clip/19134214/httpswwwxkcdcom1979/|a lengthy section of the Bloomington Daily Pantagraph's September 30, 1881 issue]. The tragic event referenced throughout is the assassination of President James A. Garfield. Interestingly, the article is about how closely studied the incident will or will not be in the future. Garfield's assassination is rarely more than a quick note in a history class, leaving only the "dry and tedious" historians to comb through the details.<br />
<br />
The punchline comes from not how insignificant this assassination has come to be viewed, but from Megan and Cueball being baffled by the sheer scope of information contained in the past.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}</div>162.158.38.190https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1979:_History&diff=1556731979: History2018-04-11T09:12:34Z<p>162.158.38.190: /* Explanation */ added link to source article</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1979<br />
| date = April 11, 2018<br />
| title = History<br />
| image = history.png<br />
| titletext = HISTORIANS: We've decided to trim the past down to make things more manageable. Using BCE/CE, would you rather we lose the odd-numbered or even-numbered years?<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{incomplete|Created by a BOT - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
<br />
This comic quotes a lengthy section of the Bloomington Daily Pantagraph's September 30, 1881 issue<ref>[https://www.newspapers.com/clip/19134214/httpswwwxkcdcom1979/]</ref>. The tragic event referenced throughout is the assassination of President James A. Garfield. Interestingly, the article is about how closely studied the incident will or will not be in the future. Garfield's assassination is rarely more than a quick note in a history class, leaving only the "dry and tedious" historians to comb through the details.<br />
<br />
The punchline comes from not how insignificant this assassination has come to be viewed, but from Megan and Cueball being baffled by the sheer scope of information contained in the past.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}</div>162.158.38.190