Talk:1655: Doomsday Clock

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Jump to: navigation, search

Ignoring for the moment that we wouldn't want to deep freeze such a clock, if the scenario is tied only to the hour hand passing vertical the actual sweep of doom is no more than 12h. Perhaps the real problem is that moving the hour hand in this way (unless it can slip) would do some pretty terrible things to the gears. Elvenivle (talk) 05:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Or (I'm very tired, please forgive me) at a time rate change of 3600s/s, playing with Google that's an orbital acceleration to about 1/3 lightspeed, magnificent inertial effects and some exciting drag forces. It's no wonder things start on fire. Elvenivle (talk) 06:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Not only we definitely don't have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the planet, I wouldn't be sure the catastrophe we can do with nuclear weapons would make it into top 10 extinction events. We likely killed more species with deforestation than we would do with nuclear weapons. Especially considering most of those weapons are armed at population centers ... -- Hkmaly (talk) 11:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Is no one talking about the fact that the title text apparently refers to a digital clock with 24-hour display format, the one used by scientists but despised by most of the US? --Troy0 (talk) 12:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Many digital clocks blink 00:00 when they aren't set regardless of whether they are 12-hour or 24-hour format. So the blinking 00:00 doesn't really say anything one way or the other. Non-blinking, 00:00 would mean midnight in 24-hour format, vs 12:00 or 12:00am in 12-hour format. -boB (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Why does Cueball assume that the clock hasn't *already* been moved to DST? 13:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Because he happens to arrive at exactly 12:57 the day after DTS and sees a clock showing 11:57. This has now been mentioned in the explanation. Else the way he adjust it would make no sense. --Kynde (talk) 09:28, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Hasn't Randall said, multiple times, that he hates DST? That was pretty much the first thing I saw. NickOfFørvania (talk) 22:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I would really like to see a citation for that. It would make that part of the explanation true, not just an assumption. DST doesn't make any sense today, if it ever did. People are up all day today, so someone is up using power regardless of what time the clock shows. And it can disturb sleep for many people, especially kids, but also adults, and lack of sleep can be dangerous if you have other problems with your health. I think I have heard people say that it probably "kills" several people every time this adjustment is made, but I have no citation for that... Anyone who know about such allegations? I would vote for stopping this stupid practice. We still have to wait a few weeks for DTS in Europe, as it here happens in the last weekend before April, so this year it will be on Easter Sunday (at 2:00 Am when the time will change to 3:00 AM). --Kynde (talk) 09:28, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Every year there are cities/municipalities that experiment with no DST, and every time it's shown that there's a clear power savings. There may be people up 24/7, but not enough to make a difference. That being said, DST makes less sense the closer to the equator you are, so it makes more sense in Idaho than in Arizona, for instance. 23:14, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
The title text in 1268 refers to DSTHisHighestMinion (talk) 05:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)