Talk:3248: 182.8 Meters - Revision history

134.134.139.75 at 04:48, 28 May 2026

2026-05-28T04:48:14Z

88.217.185.170 at 20:22, 25 May 2026

2026-05-25T20:22:00Z

88.217.185.170 at 20:21, 25 May 2026

2026-05-25T20:21:06Z

76.180.39.133 at 21:41, 23 May 2026

2026-05-23T21:41:47Z

76.180.39.133 at 21:40, 23 May 2026

2026-05-23T21:40:03Z

81.179.199.253 at 18:52, 23 May 2026

2026-05-23T18:52:04Z

81.179.199.253 at 18:50, 23 May 2026

2026-05-23T18:50:13Z

SDSpivey at 14:09, 23 May 2026

2026-05-23T14:09:52Z

2003:EA:CF3C:DF00:2CA3:97D1:71DE:FF7C at 21:25, 22 May 2026

2026-05-22T21:25:09Z

IIVQ: bridge height

2026-05-22T12:06:35Z

bridge height

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:48, 28 May 2026
Line 65:		Line 65:

	They could have just said: "In some (all) places, the bay is less than 182.9 meters deep." Easy and correctly rounded! Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/88.217.185.170\|88.217.185.170]] 20:21, 25 May 2026 (UTC)		They could have just said: "In some (all) places, the bay is less than 182.9 meters deep." Easy and correctly rounded! Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/88.217.185.170\|88.217.185.170]] 20:21, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
		+
		+	I have a digital indoor/outdoor thermometer that seems to have 0.1°F precision, but I noticed it sometimes skipped values. 69.1 69.3 69.4 69.6 It drove me crazy until, like Cueball in this comic, I realized it internally used Celsius with 0.1°C precision, then converted to Fahrenheit and rounded, F=round(C*9/5+32,1). Another masterful observation about [my] life by XKCD! [[Special:Contributions/134.134.139.75\|134.134.139.75]] 04:48, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:22, 25 May 2026
Line 64:		Line 64:
	A non-nautical example that is an actual hobby is in mountaineering. People are fond of making lists of (and arguing about) all the peaks over a particular height. A Scottish peak over 3000 ft is called a Munro and there are fierce arguments about how to identify one on the current metric maps. There is a different argument about whether 3000 ft counts as a mountain or a valley. [[Special:Contributions/76.180.39.133\|76.180.39.133]] 21:40, 23 May 2026 (UTC)		A non-nautical example that is an actual hobby is in mountaineering. People are fond of making lists of (and arguing about) all the peaks over a particular height. A Scottish peak over 3000 ft is called a Munro and there are fierce arguments about how to identify one on the current metric maps. There is a different argument about whether 3000 ft counts as a mountain or a valley. [[Special:Contributions/76.180.39.133\|76.180.39.133]] 21:40, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

−	They could have just said: "In some (all) places, the bay is less than 182.9 meters deep." Easy! Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/88.217.185.170\|88.217.185.170]] 20:21, 25 May 2026 (UTC)	+	They could have just said: "In some (all) places, the bay is less than 182.9 meters deep." Easy and correctly rounded! Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/88.217.185.170\|88.217.185.170]] 20:21, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:21, 25 May 2026
Line 63:		Line 63:

	A non-nautical example that is an actual hobby is in mountaineering. People are fond of making lists of (and arguing about) all the peaks over a particular height. A Scottish peak over 3000 ft is called a Munro and there are fierce arguments about how to identify one on the current metric maps. There is a different argument about whether 3000 ft counts as a mountain or a valley. [[Special:Contributions/76.180.39.133\|76.180.39.133]] 21:40, 23 May 2026 (UTC)		A non-nautical example that is an actual hobby is in mountaineering. People are fond of making lists of (and arguing about) all the peaks over a particular height. A Scottish peak over 3000 ft is called a Munro and there are fierce arguments about how to identify one on the current metric maps. There is a different argument about whether 3000 ft counts as a mountain or a valley. [[Special:Contributions/76.180.39.133\|76.180.39.133]] 21:40, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
		+
		+	They could have just said: "In some (all) places, the bay is less than 182.9 meters deep." Easy! Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/88.217.185.170\|88.217.185.170]] 20:21, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:41, 23 May 2026
Line 62:		Line 62:
	Another nautical example is navigational lights on ships and boats. They must shine in specific colors and shaped in specific circle sectors with odd numbers such as 112.5°. The values originate not from degrees, but from "compass points", where 32 points make a full circle. --[[Special:Contributions/2003:EA:CF3C:DF00:2CA3:97D1:71DE:FF7C\|2003:EA:CF3C:DF00:2CA3:97D1:71DE:FF7C]] 21:25, 22 May 2026 (UTC)		Another nautical example is navigational lights on ships and boats. They must shine in specific colors and shaped in specific circle sectors with odd numbers such as 112.5°. The values originate not from degrees, but from "compass points", where 32 points make a full circle. --[[Special:Contributions/2003:EA:CF3C:DF00:2CA3:97D1:71DE:FF7C\|2003:EA:CF3C:DF00:2CA3:97D1:71DE:FF7C]] 21:25, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

−	A non-nautical example that is an actual hobby is in mountaineering. People are fond of making (and arguing about) all the peaks over a particular height. A Scottish peak over 3000 ft is called a Munro and there are fierce arguments about how to identify one on the current metric maps. There is a different argument about whether 3000 ft counts as a mountain. [[Special:Contributions/76.180.39.133\|76.180.39.133]] 21:40, 23 May 2026 (UTC)	+	A non-nautical example that is an actual hobby is in mountaineering. People are fond of making lists of (and arguing about) all the peaks over a particular height. A Scottish peak over 3000 ft is called a Munro and there are fierce arguments about how to identify one on the current metric maps. There is a different argument about whether 3000 ft counts as a mountain or a valley. [[Special:Contributions/76.180.39.133\|76.180.39.133]] 21:40, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:40, 23 May 2026
Line 61:		Line 61:

	Another nautical example is navigational lights on ships and boats. They must shine in specific colors and shaped in specific circle sectors with odd numbers such as 112.5°. The values originate not from degrees, but from "compass points", where 32 points make a full circle. --[[Special:Contributions/2003:EA:CF3C:DF00:2CA3:97D1:71DE:FF7C\|2003:EA:CF3C:DF00:2CA3:97D1:71DE:FF7C]] 21:25, 22 May 2026 (UTC)		Another nautical example is navigational lights on ships and boats. They must shine in specific colors and shaped in specific circle sectors with odd numbers such as 112.5°. The values originate not from degrees, but from "compass points", where 32 points make a full circle. --[[Special:Contributions/2003:EA:CF3C:DF00:2CA3:97D1:71DE:FF7C\|2003:EA:CF3C:DF00:2CA3:97D1:71DE:FF7C]] 21:25, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
		+
		+	A non-nautical example that is an actual hobby is in mountaineering. People are fond of making (and arguing about) all the peaks over a particular height. A Scottish peak over 3000 ft is called a Munro and there are fierce arguments about how to identify one on the current metric maps. There is a different argument about whether 3000 ft counts as a mountain. [[Special:Contributions/76.180.39.133\|76.180.39.133]] 21:40, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

@@ Line 40: / Line 40: @@
 :The 98.6F average was published by a doctor prior to Celsius creating his scale. So not a back-formation. Coming to an even integer is just co-incidence. [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 14:09, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
 ::The Celsus scale was created in the 18th century (though 'inverted', but also later in the same century converted to more or less the form we know now...). Though originally as Centigrade, rather than Celsius, it was still "degrees C"... The exactly-quoted 37-degrees value (with the fractional Fahrenheit equivalent) was published in the late 19thC (1868, to be precise).
-::Actually, the most interesting{{Actual citation needed}} thing about that was that it was actually "36.88 degC, or 98.38 degF" which was then quoted as 'about' "37 degC, or 98.4 degF", having applied (totally independent) rounding . Until it was noted that ''exactly'' 37 degC is actually (to within rounding) 98.6 degF. Which is actually a rather appropriate comic-related thing to have happened. (Almost worthwhile mentioning in the main Explanation... But probably not quite!) [[Special:Contributions/81.179.199.253|81.179.199.253]] 18:50, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
+::Actually, the most interesting{{Actual citation needed}} thing about that was that it was actually "36.88 degC, or 98.38 degF" which was then quoted as 'about' "37 degC, or 98.4 degF", having applied (totally independent) rounding to the value that was already supposed to be no more than the ''mean'' value of something that was known to have significant variation. Until it was noted that ''exactly'' 37 degC is actually (to within rounding) 98.6 degF. Which is actually a rather appropriate comic-related thing to have happened. (Almost worthwhile mentioning in the main Explanation... But probably not quite!) [[Special:Contributions/81.179.199.253|81.179.199.253]] 18:50, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
 Another possibility is that someone had 200m of rope, but needed 17.2m and cut those off, so they could only determine that the remaining length of rope was not enough to reach the seabed and in conclusion the bay must be deeper than 182.8m, coincidentally close to 100 fathoms. The proper way to deal with a unit conversion however isn't to quibble about significant digits but to get a proper measurement, because if the only number you have is fathoms, chances are there's a more recent measurement recorded with a more recent unit. You would probably end up with "deeper than 200m", but again, don't randomly choose the significant digit. {{unsigned ip|94.31.94.181|14:32, 21 May 2026 (UTC)}}

@@ Line 38: / Line 38: @@
 :Normal body temperature is acutally a range, generally from 97 F to 99 F (if measured with an oral thermometer- will be different if using a body surface or rectal thermometer) [[User:BorQhue del Sol|BorQhue del Sol]] ([[User talk:BorQhue del Sol|talk]]) 14:54, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
 ::Really good example too cause the precision is actively misleading! This is how you get people calling 911 cause they measured 99.1 F on their thermometer and "they saw your temperature should be 98.6 F" [[Special:Contributions/38.15.87.124|38.15.87.124]] 23:27, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
 Another possibility is that someone had 200m of rope, but needed 17.2m and cut those off, so they could only determine that the remaining length of rope was not enough to reach the seabed and in conclusion the bay must be deeper than 182.8m, coincidentally close to 100 fathoms. The proper way to deal with a unit conversion however isn't to quibble about significant digits but to get a proper measurement, because if the only number you have is fathoms, chances are there's a more recent measurement recorded with a more recent unit. You would probably end up with "deeper than 200m", but again, don't randomly choose the significant digit. {{unsigned ip|94.31.94.181|14:32, 21 May 2026 (UTC)}}

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:25, 22 May 2026
Line 56:		Line 56:

	Matt Parker recently made a [https://youtu.be/kH_bSvf7EVA video about bridge clearance signs in the UK] (which are given in metric and imperial units, but due to the official way of measuring, safety margin and rounding, one metric value can map to three different imperial values (and he promptly finds three bridges with the same imperial value but different metric ones, which should be impossible when the rules are followed) [[User:IIVQ\|IIVQ]] ([[User talk:IIVQ\|talk]]) 12:06, 22 May 2026 (UTC)		Matt Parker recently made a [https://youtu.be/kH_bSvf7EVA video about bridge clearance signs in the UK] (which are given in metric and imperial units, but due to the official way of measuring, safety margin and rounding, one metric value can map to three different imperial values (and he promptly finds three bridges with the same imperial value but different metric ones, which should be impossible when the rules are followed) [[User:IIVQ\|IIVQ]] ([[User talk:IIVQ\|talk]]) 12:06, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
		+
		+	Another nautical example is navigational lights on ships and boats. They must shine in specific colors and shaped in specific circle sectors with odd numbers such as 112.5°. The values originate not from degrees, but from "compass points", where 32 points make a full circle. --[[Special:Contributions/2003:EA:CF3C:DF00:2CA3:97D1:71DE:FF7C\|2003:EA:CF3C:DF00:2CA3:97D1:71DE:FF7C]] 21:25, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:06, 22 May 2026
Line 54:		Line 54:

	Every 2.54 cm a king! [Shakespeare] [[Special:Contributions/2A10:3781:52D7:1:482E:A953:D690:42B8\|2A10:3781:52D7:1:482E:A953:D690:42B8]] 11:31, 22 May 2026 (UTC) Paul		Every 2.54 cm a king! [Shakespeare] [[Special:Contributions/2A10:3781:52D7:1:482E:A953:D690:42B8\|2A10:3781:52D7:1:482E:A953:D690:42B8]] 11:31, 22 May 2026 (UTC) Paul
		+
		+	Matt Parker recently made a [https://youtu.be/kH_bSvf7EVA video about bridge clearance signs in the UK] (which are given in metric and imperial units, but due to the official way of measuring, safety margin and rounding, one metric value can map to three different imperial values (and he promptly finds three bridges with the same imperial value but different metric ones, which should be impossible when the rules are followed) [[User:IIVQ\|IIVQ]] ([[User talk:IIVQ\|talk]]) 12:06, 22 May 2026 (UTC)