This has to be one of the stupidest infogeaphics I’ve seen. Never mind the mix of km and miles, or the lack of any semblence of uniformity in scale, but ststing toilet paper usage in terms of distance to planets?
5 Likes
The idea makes sense to me. The toilet paper lengths are given in both kilometres and miles, and I can’t think of anything I’d want to compare those kind of distances to other than how far away different planets are. The problems are using miles only for the planets, distance lines that bend down, and the strange choice to redraw the entire solar system to represent its “edge” (the termination of the heliosphere, I think, but it’s not a sharp line).
2 Likes
7 Likes
Yes the usage of only miles for planetary distances when km are used elsewhere is annoying.
I may have been overly harsh but I think if you are communicating information using a relative scale, the chosen reference scale should be relatable to the audience. Most people don’t know how far away Neptune is, but do know how far away a city is or how tall a building is.
I also thought there was a math error. 144 rolls per person per year in the USA seems huge, but apparently they’re industry figures. Toilet paper algebra will take longer to solve than Fermat’s last theorem.
6 Likes
just LOOK at it…
5 Likes
Airedale or Yorkshire?
3 Likes
5 Likes
16 Likes
The mythical man hour strikes again.
10 Likes
That’s a trick question: the smaller orchestra would take the same amount of time, but they’d be playing the 4.5th Symphony.
12 Likes
My grandfather could play the Minute Waltz in 49 seconds.
7 Likes
And yet it took England and France 116 years to fight the Hundred Years’ War. Everyone’s in such a hurry these days.
10 Likes
I have an elaborate presentation based on a joke about that to explain cost disease in education and why it’s a really fucking stupid idea (it does include a midi file going to 1000bpm) but it’s one of those things that doesn’t really take the audience with you.
Unfortunately.
4 Likes
3 Likes
7 Likes
Just came across this mindf*cking measurement “system” for wire gauges:
Any two successive gauges (e.g., A and B ) have diameters whose ratio (dia. B ÷ dia. A) is
(approximately 1.12293), while for gauges two steps apart (e.g., A, B, and C), the ratio of the C to A is about 1.122932 ≈ 1.26098.
The diameter of an AWG wire is determined according to the following formula:
(where n is the AWG size for gauges from 36 to 0, n = −1 for No. 00, n = −2 for No. 000, and n = −3 for No. 0000.
9 Likes
As if AWG isn’t bonkers enough! Who thought 0 should be the largest diameter… forcing them to add zero’s? Sometimes engineers get too creative.
3 Likes
