Editing Talk:1204: Detail

I'm not certain as to what the date should be, as I'm in New Zealand. I've taken one off of my current date (26th) as a precaution. Anyone who knows the right date (or right timezone) please edit it accordingly. --[[User:ZephireNZ|ZephireNZ]] ([[User talk:ZephireNZ|talk]]) 04:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

This comic arrive a day early, right?[[User:Afhoke|Afhoke]] ([[User talk:Afhoke|talk]]) 04:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
:Most likely a result of the time machine. [[Special:Contributions/184.66.160.91|184.66.160.91]] 05:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Any idea if the typo Ne*ghborhood is intentional and what it might refer to? [[Special:Contributions/141.17.83.10|141.17.83.10]] 07:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
: It appears to have just been a mistake, as it's now been corrected on the panel at kxcd. [[Special:Contributions/67.51.59.66|67.51.59.66]] 16:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

:: I see what you did there. ;) --[[Special:Contributions/24.145.230.202|24.145.230.202]] 23:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Forget electronic microscope. Where do you think they would be STORING the maps? Nearby galaxies? Other dimension? .... oh, I see: Black Mesa Research Facility is a google service company researching storage technologies. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 08:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't the vertical axis be reversed?  If the Planck length is the theoretical smallest length, wouldn't most readers expect the smallest value to be lowest on the vertical axis?  Thus the log scale line would angle downward, more clearly indicating that the resolution lengthy is getting smaller with time.  The way it it is drawn, the first impression might be that the resolution length is increasing, not decreasing.  Just a suggestion. XKCD is my favorite comic because I learn something new almost every day! {{unsigned|Matthew-e-hackman}}
: I had the same thought.  Had to pause a moment to reassure myself Planck Length is a small thing. [[Special:Contributions/67.51.59.66|67.51.59.66]] 16:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
:: The vertical increase works better for the joke, as it is representing the concept of the resolution increasing, rather than the resolution distance decreasing, even though the latter naturally leads to the former.[[User:Pennpenn|Pennpenn]] ([[User talk:Pennpenn|talk]]) 05:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 
Randall really likes pointing out the dangers of excessive extrapolation, doesn't he! One of his key themes. And this one is taking extremes to the extreme. [[User:Robbak|Robbak]] ([[User talk:Robbak|talk]]) 13:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Representation == Reality? {{unsigned|24.84.201.240}}

Whoa i just figured. the lines meet around 2100 - and in 2101.war was beginning - a coincidence? --[[Special:Contributions/178.203.192.19|178.203.192.19]] 20:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
: Remember, [[286: All Your Base]]. [[User:Tryc|Tryc]] ([[User talk:Tryc|talk]]) 15:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

"Shouldn't the vertical axis be reversed?"  I would say no.  As the smallest resolvable detail shrinks, people refer to resolution as increasing, so a rising line makes sense.  Maybe the axis should be denominated in pixels per meter though...  [[User:Gardnertoo|Gardnertoo]] ([[User talk:Gardnertoo|talk]]) 15:19, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


Can somebody explain the line labeled "Earth" at the top of the diagram? [[User:Spongebog|Spongebog]] ([[User talk:Spongebog|talk]])
:The resolution of actual Earth remains constant as the resolution of Google Earth approaches [[Special:Contributions/96.33.168.232|96.33.168.232]] 04:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


It's also quite fun to compare the graph to the first publication of Moore's law, which had just one datapoint more but looks more or less identical to the comic. (And it still holds after 50 years... although there are signs it'll be slowing down soon...) {{unsigned ip|212.64.51.153}}

"The images get finer as satellite imaging technology improves" - this is wrong; however, I have no idea currently how to rewite the sentence elegantly, maybe someone else does. The Google Maps/Earth finer images do not come from satellites, but are obtained by aerial photography. No commercial satellite can produce such images (maybe military ones come close - just maybe). In fact, Randall has written about that: http://what-if.xkcd.com/32/ [[Special:Contributions/89.174.214.74|89.174.214.74]] 13:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

"Each tick in the scale represents a resolution improvement by 1000x."  Am I being dense, or does the term "log scale" necessarily mean jumps of 10x? [[Special:Contributions/149.161.34.44|149.161.34.44]] 20:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

:"A simple example [of a logarithmic scale] is a chart whose vertical or horizontal axis has equally spaced increments that are labeled 1, 10, 100, 1000, instead of 1, 2, 3, 4." Taken from wikipedia's article titled "Logarithmic scale". [[Special:Contributions/24.251.209.253|24.251.209.253]] 03:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks like Google Earth resolution will surpass actual resolution by 2120*...
*must have "Google Eyes" (TM) to experience better than actual resolution [[Special:Contributions/207.126.189.4|207.126.189.4]] 17:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)dabeansdad

Can someone please explain why the Plank length being the resolution of the universe is a "myth", as it says in the explanation? [[Special:Contributions/75.69.96.225|75.69.96.225]] 01:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
:Thanks for your hint. It isn't a myth but fact in quantum mechanics. It's fixed.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 16:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Randall is wrong: Google Earth does not gain resolution exponentially, but logistically. Admittedly, that's somewhat less funny. --[[User:Jolbucley|Jolbucley]] ([[User talk:Jolbucley|talk]]) 04:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Why isn't the new version uploaded? <small>[[User:MrGameZone|0100011101100001011011010110010101011010011011110110111001100101]] ([[User talk:MrGameZone|talk page]])</small> 04:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)