Talk:3065: Square Units - Revision history

172.68.164.68 at 06:36, 29 March 2025

2025-03-29T06:36:17Z

162.158.74.69: Obvious error of mine. Maybe.

2025-03-25T00:23:27Z

Obvious error of mine. Maybe.

172.70.58.46 at 00:19, 25 March 2025

2025-03-25T00:19:31Z

Show changes

172.68.119.56: 80 is small

2025-03-21T15:46:19Z

80 is small

172.69.109.87 at 15:43, 21 March 2025

2025-03-21T15:43:03Z

162.158.154.5 at 15:41, 21 March 2025

2025-03-21T15:41:17Z

172.69.109.89 at 15:33, 21 March 2025

2025-03-21T15:33:45Z

172.70.230.38: percentages considered harmful

2025-03-20T21:30:30Z

percentages considered harmful

TomtheBuilder at 18:26, 20 March 2025

2025-03-20T18:26:38Z

172.70.47.53 at 17:57, 20 March 2025

2025-03-20T17:57:58Z

@@ Line 39: / Line 39: @@
 "The title text tells us that Randall once found an 80-fold error in a reported distance in a published source. However, it is left as an exercise for the reader to figure out which one." Isn't that what explainxkcd is for? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.5|162.158.154.5]] 15:41, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
+:Yes! That is the ENTIRE reason I came to this page! [[Special:Contributions/172.68.164.68|172.68.164.68]] 06:36, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
 I was playing, originally with the following, but gave it up when the current table was inserted. Given the complaints about explaining the colours, etc, and a few problems with the one we see (no way of differentiating when it becomes a "square of side BLAH" instead of "BLAH square units", etc), I thought maybe someone might want to give it a revamp. - Note that I took inspiration from the "Template:Diagonal split header" that exists on actual Wikipedia, but flipped it (unfortunately, flipped it so that one defines Bottom Right colour then Top Left colour, but still gives Top Left text before Bottom Right text, which was the ''next'' thing on my list of editing to do). And in the Key I had intended to also demonstrate a value taken from the Bottom Right (X units²) of one row being misused as a Top Left (X x X unit square) 'feed'. One could still apply the colours for how much of an increase (or, occasionally, mild-decrease) of each step (here, based upon the definitive value ''of'' that step, vis-a-vis the prior one(s), not the conversion, which is mostly a fairly accurate and consistant-to-the-statement conversion) there was, but the general trend of a rise in cumulative factor can basically be read easily enough. Oh, and check the figures, maybe. I hand-copied them, for reasons best known to my past self, rather than autogenerated the entire table lines from the same thing that I used to organise the figures I had calculated. Other, non-numeric errors in transcribing/non-consistent formattings may also have slipped in.

@@ Line 196: / Line 196: @@
 | style="background:var(--background-color-neutral,#eaecf0);color:inherit;background:linear-gradient(to top left,var(--background-color-neutral,#8FF) 49%,var(--border-color-base,#a2a9b1) 49.5%,var(--border-color-base,#a2a9b1) 50.5%,var(--background-color-neutral,#FFF) 51%);line-height:1.2;padding:0.1em 0.4em;"|<div style="margin-right:2em;text-align:left">283*</div><br/><div style="margin-left:2em;text-align:right">8.00×10<sup>4</sup><br/>(8.09×10<sup>4</sup>)</div><!-- m (Spoken) -->
 | style="background:#0F0" | 20<!-- ac (Spoken) -->
-| style="background:#8F8" | 8<br/>(8.09)<!-- ha (Spoken) -->
+| style="background:#FF8" | 8<br/>(8.09)<!-- ha (Spoken) -->
 | style="background:var(--background-color-neutral,#eaecf0);color:inherit;background:linear-gradient(to top left,var(--background-color-neutral,#FFF) 49%,var(--border-color-base,#a2a9b1) 49.5%,var(--border-color-base,#a2a9b1) 50.5%,var(--background-color-neutral,#FFF) 51%);line-height:1.2;padding:0.1em 0.4em;"|<div style="margin-right:2em;text-align:left">0.284</div><br/><div style="margin-left:2em;text-align:right">8.09×10<sup>-2</sup></div><!-- km (Calculated) -->
 | style="background:var(--background-color-neutral,#eaecf0);color:inherit;background:linear-gradient(to top left,var(--background-color-neutral,#FFF) 49%,var(--border-color-base,#a2a9b1) 49.5%,var(--border-color-base,#a2a9b1) 50.5%,var(--background-color-neutral,#FFF) 51%);line-height:1.2;padding:0.1em 0.4em;"|<div style="margin-right:2em;text-align:left">0.176</div><br/><div style="margin-left:2em;text-align:right">3.13×10<sup>-2</sup></div><!-- mi (Calculated) -->

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 ::Realistically, if "diphenhydrazine" is diphenylhydrazine, it would be a much poorer rocket fuel than hydrazine. It's a known substance, used in chemical manufacture, melting point a bit above the boiling point of water, moderately nasty in terms of health risks. Flammable, yes, but not particularly exciting. [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 15:05, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
 :A particularly vexing origami issue.[[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.156|172.71.178.156]] 14:42, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
 The land area of Australia really depends on when it last rained. There are very large areas that will be completely dry prior to rain that will be flooded after. [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 12:28, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

@@ Line 29: / Line 29: @@
 : "X prefixunits" is (X × prefix) units, for the sake of preserving the units ''so "7 decagrammes" is "70 grammes" (or 0.07 kg, if you need that, for whatever reason) [though not to be confused with "grammage", which is "grammes per square metre"!] and "450 nanometres" is "450×10<sup>-9</sup> metres" or "4.5×10<sup>-7</sup> metres"'' [[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.62|172.69.195.62]] 14:26, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
 ::Getting a bit off-topic, but is "grammage" really a unit or rather a quantity? I.e., "Grammage measured in gram(mes) per square meter", same as "mass in kilogram". Or would you say "Standard office paper has 80 grammage(s)?" (Disclaimer: I'm not a native English speaker, so honest question). --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.109.89|172.69.109.89]] 15:33, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
 I don't see that the table is too wide to display (on a "normal" full-hd screen). But I agree that more than ~3 significant digits are kind of useless. We could even add a column with the unit "area of Australia" --[[Special:Contributions/172.71.160.61|172.71.160.61]] 16:19, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:41, 21 March 2025
Line 35:		Line 35:

	There are other mistakes being made in communicating the factoid. One is called out by the comic itself (namely the defoliation of Australia in particular rather than a nondescript Australia-sized area of land), but there are others too. For example, it has become more ambiguous whether the factoid is about a single insect or the insect as a species. It'd be somewhat believable if you're talking about an entire species eating that much per day. The other miscommunication is that it's gone from talking about grass to foliage in general, but foliage in general can vary in density a lot more than a patch of grass, creating additional inaccuracies. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.47.53\|172.70.47.53]] 17:57, 20 March 2025 (UTC)		There are other mistakes being made in communicating the factoid. One is called out by the comic itself (namely the defoliation of Australia in particular rather than a nondescript Australia-sized area of land), but there are others too. For example, it has become more ambiguous whether the factoid is about a single insect or the insect as a species. It'd be somewhat believable if you're talking about an entire species eating that much per day. The other miscommunication is that it's gone from talking about grass to foliage in general, but foliage in general can vary in density a lot more than a patch of grass, creating additional inaccuracies. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.47.53\|172.70.47.53]] 17:57, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
		+
		+	"The title text tells us that Randall once found an 80-fold error in a reported distance in a published source. However, it is left as an exercise for the reader to figure out which one." Isn't that what explainxkcd is for? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.5\|162.158.154.5]] 15:41, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:30, 20 March 2025
Line 11:		Line 11:

	I just got the mail notification for this and the previous comic at the same time. I would say that Randall forgot to send out the previous one before, but surely this is automated, so I guess something went wrong with that setup. [[User:Fabian42\|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42\|talk]]) 00:01, 20 March 2025 (UTC)		I just got the mail notification for this and the previous comic at the same time. I would say that Randall forgot to send out the previous one before, but surely this is automated, so I guess something went wrong with that setup. [[User:Fabian42\|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42\|talk]]) 00:01, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
		+
		+	Percentages? Could we not? Can't we use multiplication factors instead? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.230.38\|172.70.230.38]] 21:30, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

	I really want to know what the 80-fold error was now [[User:Thief\|Thief]] ([[User talk:Thief\|talk]]) 10:54, 20 March 2025 (UTC)		I really want to know what the 80-fold error was now [[User:Thief\|Thief]] ([[User talk:Thief\|talk]]) 10:54, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:26, 20 March 2025
Line 19:		Line 19:

	The land area of Australia really depends on when it last rained. There are very large areas that will be completely dry prior to rain that will be flooded after. [[User:SDSpivey\|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey\|talk]]) 12:28, 20 March 2025 (UTC)		The land area of Australia really depends on when it last rained. There are very large areas that will be completely dry prior to rain that will be flooded after. [[User:SDSpivey\|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey\|talk]]) 12:28, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
		+	:I used the area from the CIA world factbook that included both land and water area. [[User:TomtheBuilder\|TomtheBuilder]] ([[User talk:TomtheBuilder\|talk]]) 18:26, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

	You should never write `square cm`, etc. but always `cm²`. Same for seemingly standard abbreviations: Don't write `ccm` for "cubic centimeter", but `cm³`. Even though, in spoken language "square centimeter" is correct. Another confusion can sometimes arise from not knowing that squaring or cubing binds less than the centi-/kilo-/... prefix. I.e., `cm³` is `(0.01m)³` not `0.01(m³)`. A liter (`l`) is `0.001m³` or `1dm³ = (0.1m)³`. A milliliter is `0.001l = 0.000001m³ = (0.01m)³ = 1cm³` --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.109.92\|172.69.109.92]] 12:48, 20 March 2025 (UTC)		You should never write `square cm`, etc. but always `cm²`. Same for seemingly standard abbreviations: Don't write `ccm` for "cubic centimeter", but `cm³`. Even though, in spoken language "square centimeter" is correct. Another confusion can sometimes arise from not knowing that squaring or cubing binds less than the centi-/kilo-/... prefix. I.e., `cm³` is `(0.01m)³` not `0.01(m³)`. A liter (`l`) is `0.001m³` or `1dm³ = (0.1m)³`. A milliliter is `0.001l = 0.000001m³ = (0.01m)³ = 1cm³` --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.109.92\|172.69.109.92]] 12:48, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:57, 20 March 2025
Line 30:		Line 30:

	Another point: The percentage "gain" column is mostly wrong, e.g. from 1 to 144 you have a "gain" of 143 or 14300% not 14400% (I'd rather show a gain factor though). --[[Special:Contributions/172.71.160.60\|172.71.160.60]] 16:18, 20 March 2025 (UTC)		Another point: The percentage "gain" column is mostly wrong, e.g. from 1 to 144 you have a "gain" of 143 or 14300% not 14400% (I'd rather show a gain factor though). --[[Special:Contributions/172.71.160.60\|172.71.160.60]] 16:18, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
		+
		+	There are other mistakes being made in communicating the factoid. One is called out by the comic itself (namely the defoliation of Australia in particular rather than a nondescript Australia-sized area of land), but there are others too. For example, it has become more ambiguous whether the factoid is about a single insect or the insect as a species. It'd be somewhat believable if you're talking about an entire species eating that much per day. The other miscommunication is that it's gone from talking about grass to foliage in general, but foliage in general can vary in density a lot more than a patch of grass, creating additional inaccuracies. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.47.53\|172.70.47.53]] 17:57, 20 March 2025 (UTC)