Talk:2439: Solar System Cartogram

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Revision as of 23:59, 20 March 2021 by Gvanrossum (talk | contribs) (2399)
Jump to: navigation, search


Planet list seems incomplete

Where's Pluto? 172.68.65.154 20:30, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Demoted to dwarf planet status in 2006, to the continued frustration of people like myself. Captain Video (talk) 20:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
If the biggest Kuiper Belt object is a planet, the biggest Asteroid Belt object (Ceres) should be one too. They're both dwarf planets. Ceres was also considered a planet upon discovery until the rest of the similar-looking belt around it was discovered. Zowayix (talk) 00:24, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Okay. 172.69.34.186 02:11, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
See 473: Still Raw--Kynde (talk) 09:31, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
The Pluto thing is just never going to go away. The IAU is in ego lock about how bad this decision was. "Clearing the neighborhood" serves no scientific value whatsoever. Supporters I've asked can't even articulate how big Pluto's neighborhood actually is. 162.158.75.106 12:55, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

What about exoplanets? Wilh3lm (talk) 20:49, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

They're not in our solar system. bubblegum-talk|contribs 20:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
We should rectify that ASAP! A few more planets slotted between/woven through the current set would make for some interesting possibilities... 141.101.99.207 22:52, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, interesting in the "ancient Chinese curse" way: despite most of solar system being empty, you would need to be VERY careful to fit even single planet inside without risking collision. -- Hkmaly (talk) 04:31, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
We'll never know for sure without trying, right? ;p 141.101.98.22 22:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)


Surprised no one has gotten technical and talked about how Earth is not drawn to be 7.8 billion times larger than the others (which would be around 300,000px wide) , meaning it's still off the same way other depictions tend to be. Trlkly (talk) 05:51, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Maybe it's a logarithmic cartogram. Log scales are generally needed when differences in sizes are so vast. Barmar (talk) 06:01, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
The dots are dimensionless, thus have zero size according to their population. Only exception is Mars, but with two it would still almost be zero size and thus just a dot. --Kynde (talk) 09:31, 20 March 2021 (UTC)


Needs to be amended to note that this reflects only HUMAN life detected on these planets.  Just because we haven't found any yet doesn't mean that Jupiter might not be housing billions of Jovians, or Mars isn't teeming with Martians. RAGBRAIvet (talk) 06:53, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Well there is no evidence of any lifeforms in the solar system beyond Earth. It talks about Persons in the title text, thus it needs to be intelligent to have that label. And thus animals would not count. So until we have evidence of aliens on the other planets, or until we inhabit them, their population would be zero. --Kynde (talk) 09:31, 20 March 2021 (UTC)


Bad map projection?

IMHO, this also qualify as kind of a bad map projection (in the wider sense of a population density-anamorphic cartogram) 141.101.77.160 21:11, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

No, it is not a map at all. But you could mention in the explanation that it has similarity to bad maps projections. But this one is not actually bad, it is technically correct, it is just useless. Also removed the map category as there is not map in this comic! It is a globe. --Kynde (talk) 09:31, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
How do you tell the difference between a picture of a globe and a picture of a map? In any case a picture of a globe is a map with an orthographic projections. 172.69.63.71 19:08, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
At least mention that Randall has previously published several distorted maps that are actually useful. E.g. https://xkcd.com/2399/ Gvanrossum (talk) 23:59, 20 March 2021 (UTC)