xkcd

[137beth]

The most recent one is kind of funny, but it is essentially rehashing a point that has been made in previous XKCDs: humans do not have an intuitive grasp of how big big numbers are.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

The most recent one is kind of funny, but it is essentially rehashing a point that has been made in previous XKCDs: humans do not have an intuitive grasp of how big big numbers are.

I feel like I have a semi-decent grasp of stuff up to 10^20, or at least I can compare it to other stuff. Above 10^20 I just give up. (I call it the scientific Sesame Street limit, 20 being the highest number I've ever seen Sesame Street count to, making 20 the normal people Sesame Street limit.)

[Lord Torath]

I feel like I have a semi-decent grasp of stuff up to 10^20, or at least I can compare it to other stuff. Above 10^20 I just give up. (I call it the scientific Sesame Street limit, 20 being the highest number I've ever seen Sesame Street count to, making 20 the normal people Sesame Street limit.)

Right on the verge of Avogadro's number: 6.03x10²³. Where "verge" in this case means "about 1000 times smaller".

I think part of the problem is we don't intuitively grasp exponents. 10¹²⁰ sounds pretty close to 10¹²⁵. They're only 5 numbers apart, right? I always need to remind myself that "no, that second number is 100,000 times larger than the first one."

[Peelee]

The most recent one is kind of funny, but it is essentially rehashing a point that has been made in previous XKCDs: humans do not have an intuitive grasp of how big big numbers are.

Even those comics (and especially the second one) doesn't really do the sheer scale of it justice, especially if you think of it in terms of actual units. For example, if you have a dollar and I have a thousand dollars, then I have roughly a thousand dollars more than you. And it seems that way to the average person right off the bat. Conversely, if you have a million dollars and I have a billion dollars, then I have roughly a billion dollars more than you. And it does not seem that way to the average person right off the bat.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Right on the verge of Avogadro's number: 6.03x10²³. Where "verge" in this case means "about 1000 times smaller".

That's a pretty good example really. I have some tools to get to that scale. I know a molecule is about a thousand times as small as a bacteria, which is about a thousand times as small as really large cells or really small micro animals, which are about a thousand times as small as a flee or an ant, which is about a thousand times as small as me, or a large house. You know, roughly in the same area. I can kinda grasp the number of molecules needed to make a small vesicle or the amount of bases in our genetic code, I can find reason in the number of bacteria I will have after letting the flask incubate for 24 hours. But actually imagining individual molecules in a mole of something? I've been taught I shouldn't even try that. You can't determine the properties of a macroscale material from its molecular properties without considering the mesoscale structure, where the material is already not acting like a collection of atoms, ions or molecules.

So yeah, around there.

[Tetrimino]

I briefly thought the title of today's OOTS (Move Slow and Preserve Things) was a reference to xkcd's Move Fast and Break Things and thought it was pretty cool. Turns out "move fast and break things" is just a common saying I was somehow totally unaware of until today.

[Max_Killjoy]

I briefly thought the title of today's OOTS (Move Slow and Preserve Things) was a reference to xkcd's Move Fast and Break Things and thought it was pretty cool. Turns out "move fast and break things" is just a common saying I was somehow totally unaware of until today.

It's Zuckerberg's motto, and reflects his utter lack of personal accountability or responsibility -- it reflects the worst of the "disruption" attitude towards innovation... charge full speed ahead and break things so you can charge people to fix them, destroy as much of what came before as possible to make room for your minimally-viable products and services.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

It's Zuckerberg's motto, and reflects his utter lack of personal accountability or responsibility -- it reflects the worst of the "disruption" attitude towards innovation... charge full speed ahead and break things so you can charge people to fix them, destroy as much of what came before as possible to make room for your minimally-viable products and services.

That's not really what the motto means. It comes from an era when a lot of startups were struggling and dying because they tried to come out with a perfect polished product to compete with the bigger companies, and in so doing either never actually released anything because their product was never "good enough" to meet their benchmark (and then died), or released something but were then afraid to change it and were out-innovated by said bigger companies (and then died).

"Move fast" in this case means "get something to market as fast as possible so you have something to show investors and get the public interested," and "break things" means "don't be afraid to make radical changes to improve or expand the product, even if it results in non-working code for a while." It's something a lot of startups could benefit from taking to heart.

The problem with Facebook is not that philosophy, which is basically what let them overtake MySpace and become the behemoth they are today (which isn't necessarily a good thing for society, obviously, but it was a good thing for Facebook). The problem is that once they grew past the "plucky startup" phase they continued to act as if they were a startup instead of pivoting to a more sustainable model, and that's what led to the stuff you mentioned.

[Max_Killjoy]

That's not really what the motto means. It comes from an era when a lot of startups were struggling and dying because they tried to come out with a perfect polished product to compete with the bigger companies, and in so doing either never actually released anything because their product was never "good enough" to meet their benchmark (and then died), or released something but were then afraid to change it and were out-innovated by said bigger companies (and then died).

"Move fast" in this case means "get something to market as fast as possible so you have something to show investors and get the public interested," and "break things" means "don't be afraid to make radical changes to improve or expand the product, even if it results in non-working code for a while." It's something a lot of startups could benefit from taking to heart.

The problem with Facebook is not that philosophy, which is basically what let them overtake MySpace and become the behemoth they are today (which isn't necessarily a good thing for society, obviously, but it was a good thing for Facebook). The problem is that once they grew past the "plucky startup" phase they continued to act as if they were a startup instead of pivoting to a more sustainable model, and that's what led to the stuff you mentioned.

That might be true of Zuckerberg's original intent -- but the way I described it is also how many other startups and entrepreneurs and VCs have acted since, and they reference that quote as influencing their attitude.

Good news is, there's growing backlash in the consumer market, in politics, etc, against the attitude.

[Fyraltari]

The problem with Facebook is not that philosophy, which is basically what let them overtake MySpace and become the behemoth they are today (which isn't necessarily a good thing for society, obviously, but it was a good thing for Facebook). The problem is that once they grew past the "plucky startup" phase they continued to act as if they were a startup instead of pivoting to a more sustainable model, and that's what led to the stuff you mentioned.

That's your problem with Facebook? I would rate their reckless data mining and selling higher, myself.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

That might be true of Zuckerberg's original intent -- but the way I described it is also how many other startups and entrepreneurs and VCs have acted since, and they reference that quote as influencing their attitude.

Good news is, there's growing backlash in the consumer market, in politics, etc, against the attitude.

Well, yeah, people taking a quote that they don't actually understand as inspiration are going to do dumb things. Much like people loved Google's "Don't Be Evil" motto and where aghast when it stopped being Google's motto, without knowing what it meant in the first place or why it stopped being relevant. My point was that one shouldn't conflate "Facebook has been a crappy company that's set a bad example in the market" (true) with "Facebook's motto is crappy advice that leads to bad results" (false).

That's your problem with Facebook? I would rate their reckless data mining and selling higher, myself.

No, I said the change in size and resources without a corresponding change in philosophy is what specifically led to the flaky infrastructure, poor code quality, and other things that Max mentioned. Their total disregard for privacy was there from the beginning and hasn't changed at all, just become more obvious to the public.

[Lord Torath]

This year's "April Fools" comic: Collector's Edition.

[keybounce]

How do you use the backpack on that one?

[Rockphed]

How do you use the backpack on that one?

I think you needed to collect stuff back on the first.

[hajo]

How do you use the backpack on that one?

You know xkcd-explained ?

[Kornaki]

That's a very cool setup. I didn't really understand what was going on, I'm glad you posted that.

[georgie_leech]

That's a very cool setup. I didn't really understand what was going on, I'm glad you posted that.

I came into it late and saw it crammed full of unrelated things; I assumed it was making a joke about what XKCD With Ads would look like.

[137beth]

Well, this method/ of general-audience news sources reporting on scientific research is still more accurate than the one from a previous XKCD.

[jayem]

Slightly disappointed that todays XKCD "wrong multiplation" is commutative. Obviously if that's how Randell thinks that what he thinks, but I'd expect some more 7*X=56 and 8*x=56, and perhaps some other odd effects based on the order you hear things.

[Rockphed]

Slightly disappointed that todays XKCD "wrong multiplation" is commutative. Obviously if that's how Randell thinks that what he thinks, but I'd expect some more 7*X=56 and 8*x=56, and perhaps some other odd effects based on the order you hear things.

There are a few places where the same answer shows up multiple times in a row or column, but I was also sad that, for example, 1*2 is 1/2 and 2*1 is 1/2 (instead of 21). I haven't checked that it is reflected across the diagonal everywhere, but I think that would have stood out.

Also, that one is from Friday. Maybe he will post a new one later today.

[keybounce]

The "Low background metal" reminds me of DMFA (web comic), where the current plot revolves around trying to find metal that is pure from traces of magic -- low levels of background magic in the metal.

[Eldan]

Apparently, low-background metal is a real thing. It's used in various ultra-sensitive detectors.

[Max_Killjoy]

Apparently, low-background metal is a real thing. It's used in various ultra-sensitive detectors.

It is, and it's very valuable, to the point that looters will try to salvage pre-1945 shipwrecks that are considered war graves, historical sites, etc for the metal.

[TaRix]

It is, and it's very valuable, to the point that looters will try to salvage pre-1945 shipwrecks that are considered war graves, historical sites, etc for the metal.

What's wrong with freshly-mined metal from a deep deep vein? Too close to the mantle?

[georgie_leech]

What's wrong with freshly-mined metal from a deep deep vein? Too close to the mantle?

The deep deep part. Most mining is done at/near the surface.

[DeTess]

What's wrong with freshly-mined metal from a deep deep vein? Too close to the mantle?

When I looked it up, the problem isn't with the lack of uncontaminated ore, but that all current processing systems would then contaminate it in the process of turning it into actual metal. The smelting process contaminates it from sources in the air: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-background_steel

[Keltest]

The deep deep part. Most mining is done at/near the surface.

Elaborating on this, it gets very hot once you start getting deeper underground, and getting air to people/equipment down that deep becomes extremely difficult. You start running into problems like "how do we get the material out without dying?" where the answer tends to be "we dont. anything we send down there cant be alive in the first place." At which point youre investing so much keeping your digging robots working that it just isnt worth it anymore, assuming they work long enough to get anything out in the first place.

[137beth]

New comic about a non-occurrence of the Golden Ratio.

[Fyraltari]

New comic about a non-occurrence of the Golden Ratio.

As somebody who's studied a lot of maths and a little of the basics of graphic design, I want to say:

I hate this. I hate everything about this.

[keybounce]

You start running into problems like "how do we get the material out without dying?" where the answer tends to be "we dont. anything we send down there cant be alive in the first place."

So, we're mining too deep?

I'm not sure if I should be thinking of Doctor Who or Lord of the Rings.