Talk:2671: Rotation - Revision history

172.70.90.252 at 15:00, 19 June 2023

2023-06-19T15:00:22Z

172.71.178.64 at 14:31, 19 June 2023

2023-06-19T14:31:33Z

198.41.231.180 at 13:41, 21 September 2022

2022-09-21T13:41:01Z

172.70.90.61 at 00:30, 17 September 2022

2022-09-17T00:30:35Z

172.70.210.209: Reply

2022-09-16T22:11:22Z

172.71.178.65 at 10:57, 15 September 2022

2022-09-15T10:57:55Z

162.158.222.211: Multiple devices & lossy compression

2022-09-15T07:40:43Z

Multiple devices & lossy compression

172.70.211.162: Reply

2022-09-14T21:03:45Z

162.158.222.211 at 09:29, 14 September 2022

2022-09-14T09:29:53Z

162.158.222.211: 1683: Digital Data

2022-09-14T09:27:22Z

1683: Digital Data

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:00, 19 June 2023
Line 49:		Line 49:
	A similar case in real life: https://9gag.com/gag/aL2e3YM {{unsigned ip\|198.41.231.180\|13:41, 21 September 2022}}		A similar case in real life: https://9gag.com/gag/aL2e3YM {{unsigned ip\|198.41.231.180\|13:41, 21 September 2022}}

−	[https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2671:_Rotation&oldid=315629 "(Why was '.' being used instead of '*' for multiplication?)" – possibly because it's one of the various {{w\|Multiplication#Notation and terminology\|valid notations}} in use, although I might have used ''x•a'', or even just gone for ''xa'', myself. Just a matter of style choice, really, though there are indeed many different styles that some situations might (differently) stronly suggest. But it's perfectly understandable in context. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.64\|172.71.178.64]] 14:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC)	+	[https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2671:_Rotation&oldid=315629 "(Why was '.' being used instead of '*' for multiplication?)"] – possibly because it's one of the various {{w\|Multiplication#Notation and terminology\|valid notations}} in use, although I might have used ''x•a'', or even just gone for ''xa'', myself. Just a matter of style choice, really, though there are indeed many different styles that some situations might (differently) stronly suggest. But it's perfectly understandable in context. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.64\|172.71.178.64]] 14:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:31, 19 June 2023
Line 47:		Line 47:
	::"This is funny because..." is redundant if true, I would say. The explanation can reveal the humour explicitly or by cluing the reader into it, but those four extra words add nothing. And subtract much when wrong. Interesting interpretations (like the above? Do people actually downscale by screenshotting?) may add to understanding, but not any humour. And then the statement is wrong, as it stands. That's without the "...or two steps", which I also think is just plain wrong, just never got around to editing out. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.61\|172.70.90.61]] 00:30, 17 September 2022 (UTC)		::"This is funny because..." is redundant if true, I would say. The explanation can reveal the humour explicitly or by cluing the reader into it, but those four extra words add nothing. And subtract much when wrong. Interesting interpretations (like the above? Do people actually downscale by screenshotting?) may add to understanding, but not any humour. And then the statement is wrong, as it stands. That's without the "...or two steps", which I also think is just plain wrong, just never got around to editing out. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.61\|172.70.90.61]] 00:30, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

−	A similar case in real life: https://9gag.com/gag/aL2e3YM	+	A similar case in real life: https://9gag.com/gag/aL2e3YM {{unsigned ip\|198.41.231.180\|13:41, 21 September 2022}}
		+
		+	[https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2671:_Rotation&oldid=315629 "(Why was '.' being used instead of '*' for multiplication?)" – possibly because it's one of the various {{w\|Multiplication#Notation and terminology\|valid notations}} in use, although I might have used ''x•a'', or even just gone for ''xa'', myself. Just a matter of style choice, really, though there are indeed many different styles that some situations might (differently) stronly suggest. But it's perfectly understandable in context. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.64\|172.71.178.64]] 14:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:41, 21 September 2022
Line 46:		Line 46:
	: What's more useful on this site than explaining the jokes? If you want to teach people how to fish, you should be on WikiHow. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.209\|172.70.210.209]] 22:11, 16 September 2022 (UTC)		: What's more useful on this site than explaining the jokes? If you want to teach people how to fish, you should be on WikiHow. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.209\|172.70.210.209]] 22:11, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
	::"This is funny because..." is redundant if true, I would say. The explanation can reveal the humour explicitly or by cluing the reader into it, but those four extra words add nothing. And subtract much when wrong. Interesting interpretations (like the above? Do people actually downscale by screenshotting?) may add to understanding, but not any humour. And then the statement is wrong, as it stands. That's without the "...or two steps", which I also think is just plain wrong, just never got around to editing out. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.61\|172.70.90.61]] 00:30, 17 September 2022 (UTC)		::"This is funny because..." is redundant if true, I would say. The explanation can reveal the humour explicitly or by cluing the reader into it, but those four extra words add nothing. And subtract much when wrong. Interesting interpretations (like the above? Do people actually downscale by screenshotting?) may add to understanding, but not any humour. And then the statement is wrong, as it stands. That's without the "...or two steps", which I also think is just plain wrong, just never got around to editing out. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.61\|172.70.90.61]] 00:30, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
		+
		+	A similar case in real life: https://9gag.com/gag/aL2e3YM

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:30, 17 September 2022
Line 45:		Line 45:
	" This is funny because the default resolution of contemporary camera phones can be too large to meet size requirements for e.g. mobile phone {{w\|Multimedia Messaging Service}}, web file uploads, or email attachments, so one or two steps of this awkward procedure are sometimes necessary." - if true (presumedly screen-res and thus screencap-res is lower than the camera output, so after the image viewer is used to effectively downscale (maybe even pinch-zoom in and reframe the image) without using an actual image-editor/cropper app) then I don't see why two steps are necessary. The second scrcap step has the same number of pixels as the first... But, hey, it sounds like a kludge anyway. And I just thought I'd comment, don't mind me. (Can't see how "this is funny because", though. This is lacking all the humour of the almost-literal ''reductio ad absurdum'' already demonstrated and discussed. I don't think many times "This is funny because..." has been a useful thing to add to an Explanation, even if that's the intention of the site.) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.65\|172.71.178.65]] 10:57, 15 September 2022 (UTC)		" This is funny because the default resolution of contemporary camera phones can be too large to meet size requirements for e.g. mobile phone {{w\|Multimedia Messaging Service}}, web file uploads, or email attachments, so one or two steps of this awkward procedure are sometimes necessary." - if true (presumedly screen-res and thus screencap-res is lower than the camera output, so after the image viewer is used to effectively downscale (maybe even pinch-zoom in and reframe the image) without using an actual image-editor/cropper app) then I don't see why two steps are necessary. The second scrcap step has the same number of pixels as the first... But, hey, it sounds like a kludge anyway. And I just thought I'd comment, don't mind me. (Can't see how "this is funny because", though. This is lacking all the humour of the almost-literal ''reductio ad absurdum'' already demonstrated and discussed. I don't think many times "This is funny because..." has been a useful thing to add to an Explanation, even if that's the intention of the site.) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.65\|172.71.178.65]] 10:57, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
	: What's more useful on this site than explaining the jokes? If you want to teach people how to fish, you should be on WikiHow. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.209\|172.70.210.209]] 22:11, 16 September 2022 (UTC)		: What's more useful on this site than explaining the jokes? If you want to teach people how to fish, you should be on WikiHow. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.209\|172.70.210.209]] 22:11, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
		+	::"This is funny because..." is redundant if true, I would say. The explanation can reveal the humour explicitly or by cluing the reader into it, but those four extra words add nothing. And subtract much when wrong. Interesting interpretations (like the above? Do people actually downscale by screenshotting?) may add to understanding, but not any humour. And then the statement is wrong, as it stands. That's without the "...or two steps", which I also think is just plain wrong, just never got around to editing out. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.61\|172.70.90.61]] 00:30, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:11, 16 September 2022
Line 44:		Line 44:

	" This is funny because the default resolution of contemporary camera phones can be too large to meet size requirements for e.g. mobile phone {{w\|Multimedia Messaging Service}}, web file uploads, or email attachments, so one or two steps of this awkward procedure are sometimes necessary." - if true (presumedly screen-res and thus screencap-res is lower than the camera output, so after the image viewer is used to effectively downscale (maybe even pinch-zoom in and reframe the image) without using an actual image-editor/cropper app) then I don't see why two steps are necessary. The second scrcap step has the same number of pixels as the first... But, hey, it sounds like a kludge anyway. And I just thought I'd comment, don't mind me. (Can't see how "this is funny because", though. This is lacking all the humour of the almost-literal ''reductio ad absurdum'' already demonstrated and discussed. I don't think many times "This is funny because..." has been a useful thing to add to an Explanation, even if that's the intention of the site.) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.65\|172.71.178.65]] 10:57, 15 September 2022 (UTC)		" This is funny because the default resolution of contemporary camera phones can be too large to meet size requirements for e.g. mobile phone {{w\|Multimedia Messaging Service}}, web file uploads, or email attachments, so one or two steps of this awkward procedure are sometimes necessary." - if true (presumedly screen-res and thus screencap-res is lower than the camera output, so after the image viewer is used to effectively downscale (maybe even pinch-zoom in and reframe the image) without using an actual image-editor/cropper app) then I don't see why two steps are necessary. The second scrcap step has the same number of pixels as the first... But, hey, it sounds like a kludge anyway. And I just thought I'd comment, don't mind me. (Can't see how "this is funny because", though. This is lacking all the humour of the almost-literal ''reductio ad absurdum'' already demonstrated and discussed. I don't think many times "This is funny because..." has been a useful thing to add to an Explanation, even if that's the intention of the site.) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.65\|172.71.178.65]] 10:57, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
		+	: What's more useful on this site than explaining the jokes? If you want to teach people how to fish, you should be on WikiHow. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.209\|172.70.210.209]] 22:11, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:57, 15 September 2022
Line 42:		Line 42:
	This comic reminds me a lot of [[1683: Digital Data]], which is also about degradation of images through re-posting screenshots. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.222.211\|162.158.222.211]] 09:27, 14 September 2022 (UTC)		This comic reminds me a lot of [[1683: Digital Data]], which is also about degradation of images through re-posting screenshots. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.222.211\|162.158.222.211]] 09:27, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
	: Absolutely no question, I spent half an hour looking for that one. Added; thanks! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.162\|172.70.211.162]] 21:03, 14 September 2022 (UTC)		: Absolutely no question, I spent half an hour looking for that one. Added; thanks! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.162\|172.70.211.162]] 21:03, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
		+
		+	" This is funny because the default resolution of contemporary camera phones can be too large to meet size requirements for e.g. mobile phone {{w\|Multimedia Messaging Service}}, web file uploads, or email attachments, so one or two steps of this awkward procedure are sometimes necessary." - if true (presumedly screen-res and thus screencap-res is lower than the camera output, so after the image viewer is used to effectively downscale (maybe even pinch-zoom in and reframe the image) without using an actual image-editor/cropper app) then I don't see why two steps are necessary. The second scrcap step has the same number of pixels as the first... But, hey, it sounds like a kludge anyway. And I just thought I'd comment, don't mind me. (Can't see how "this is funny because", though. This is lacking all the humour of the almost-literal ''reductio ad absurdum'' already demonstrated and discussed. I don't think many times "This is funny because..." has been a useful thing to add to an Explanation, even if that's the intention of the site.) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.65\|172.71.178.65]] 10:57, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 ::I took almost the reverse approach. Estimate phone height is 0.2 metres, Planck length is 1.6e-35 metres, ratio is 1.25e34, then take the 101th root. That would give about 2.176 as the reduction factor, which is also the screen aspect ratio. Then ask, "how far off might this be?" I assumed the 101th reduction is just barely smaller than the Planck length, it could be almost another reduction and still work. In other words, the aspect ratio is constrained to be between the 101th root and the 102nd root of the screen height in Planck units. With a 20 cm high screen, that puts the aspect ratio between 2.159 and 2.176 -- so the 9:20 aspect ratio (2.222) is completely ruled out. However <s>all the</s> [https://mediag.com/blog/popular-screen-resolutions-designing-for-all/ latest iPhone sizes] work just fine: 1792/828=2.164, <s>2436/1125=2.165, 2688/1242=2.164, 2436/1125=2.165</s>. I'll just guess that Randall has one of those. [[User:Mrob27|Mrob27]] ([[User talk:Mrob27|talk]]) 06:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 ::Adding: I forgot to apply your method to constrain the width in pixels. 1125 and 1242 is ruled out because they are bigger than 2.159^9. In fact all the phone dimensions in that list I linked are ruled out except one: '''iPhone XR, 828x1792 pixels'''. [[User:Mrob27|Mrob27]] ([[User talk:Mrob27|talk]]) 07:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 This seems like it could actually be really cool. Can anyone do this and put the picture here as an example? Also, if possible, include an AI upscale of the one pixel. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.90.83|172.69.90.83]] 19:07, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:03, 14 September 2022
Line 39:		Line 39:

	This comic reminds me a lot of [[1683: Digital Data]], which is also about degradation of images through re-posting screenshots. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.222.211\|162.158.222.211]] 09:27, 14 September 2022 (UTC)		This comic reminds me a lot of [[1683: Digital Data]], which is also about degradation of images through re-posting screenshots. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.222.211\|162.158.222.211]] 09:27, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
		+	: Absolutely no question, I spent half an hour looking for that one. Added; thanks! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.162\|172.70.211.162]] 21:03, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:29, 14 September 2022
Line 38:		Line 38:
	I thought Randall was poking fun at all the dumb movies and TV programs that have the magic ability to “enhance” images and recover sub-pixel detail. It’s such an egregious plot point that you can recognize computer scientists by their groans in movie theaters. There’s even a TV Trope about it: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EnhanceButton — Also, the infinitely regressing image is called a ''Droste Image''. --[[User:Dúthomhas\|Dúthomhas]] ([[User talk:Dúthomhas\|talk]]) 08:08, 14 September 2022 (UTC)		I thought Randall was poking fun at all the dumb movies and TV programs that have the magic ability to “enhance” images and recover sub-pixel detail. It’s such an egregious plot point that you can recognize computer scientists by their groans in movie theaters. There’s even a TV Trope about it: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EnhanceButton — Also, the infinitely regressing image is called a ''Droste Image''. --[[User:Dúthomhas\|Dúthomhas]] ([[User talk:Dúthomhas\|talk]]) 08:08, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

−	This comic reminds me a lot of [[1683: Digital Data]], which is also about degradation of images through ~~digital processes~~. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.222.211\|162.158.222.211]] 09:27, 14 September 2022 (UTC)	+	This comic reminds me a lot of [[1683: Digital Data]], which is also about degradation of images through re-posting screenshots. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.222.211\|162.158.222.211]] 09:27, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:27, 14 September 2022
Line 37:		Line 37:

	I thought Randall was poking fun at all the dumb movies and TV programs that have the magic ability to “enhance” images and recover sub-pixel detail. It’s such an egregious plot point that you can recognize computer scientists by their groans in movie theaters. There’s even a TV Trope about it: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EnhanceButton — Also, the infinitely regressing image is called a ''Droste Image''. --[[User:Dúthomhas\|Dúthomhas]] ([[User talk:Dúthomhas\|talk]]) 08:08, 14 September 2022 (UTC)		I thought Randall was poking fun at all the dumb movies and TV programs that have the magic ability to “enhance” images and recover sub-pixel detail. It’s such an egregious plot point that you can recognize computer scientists by their groans in movie theaters. There’s even a TV Trope about it: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EnhanceButton — Also, the infinitely regressing image is called a ''Droste Image''. --[[User:Dúthomhas\|Dúthomhas]] ([[User talk:Dúthomhas\|talk]]) 08:08, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
		+
		+	This comic reminds me a lot of [[1683: Digital Data]], which is also about degradation of images through digital processes. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.222.211\|162.158.222.211]] 09:27, 14 September 2022 (UTC)