this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2024
881 points (100.0% liked)

xkcd

10122 readers
50 users here now

A community for a webcomic of romance, sarcasm, math, and language.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

https://xkcd.com/2897

Alt text:

When Pope Gregory XIII briefly shortened the light-year in 1582, it led to navigational chaos and the loss of several Papal starships.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 72 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why not redefine lightyears to include a leap year every four years. Except when the number ends on 00, but only if it is not divisible by 400. Physics would be so much easier!

[–] [email protected] 63 points 1 year ago

Alt text lol

[–] [email protected] 34 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 69 points 1 year ago (3 children)

there's never been a "Papal starship"^[citation ^needed]

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 year ago

There hasn't been a Papal starship yet. I'm pretty sure he could Christen one, or delegate that authority to the bishop of the moon, an actual thing that technically exists.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Clearly they don't know about Hyperion books

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

That was my first thought

[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Hmmm now that I think about this a light year would be (should be) based on an average year, not what we observe in any given year.

365.2425 days. Different searches give different results but that's what I'm going with.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

idk, it feels more intuitive for it to be based on the mode (most common) year length (365) instead of the average year length (365.2425).

[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 year ago

The boring answer is that in physics a year is just defined as the time it takes for the Earth to orbit the sun, they don't care about calendars and leap years

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

I would've said 365.25 days?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

No, years divisible by 100 aren't leap years, except if they're also divisible by 400.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

what is this, some sort of FizzBuzz calendar?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Interestingly, Wikipedia says they actually did base it on 365.25 instead of the actual 365.2425, so you’re technically right.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

They skip leap years every now and then. And then skip the skip. Etc. The rotation of the earth around the sun and the spin of the earth on its axis simply don't line up into a nice number.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You'd be imprecise for civil timekeeping, but spot on for astronomy

The civil rule is it's a leap year if the year is divisible by 4, unless it is also divisible by 100 unless it is also divisible by 400

We saw the rules play out in 2000 (at least those of us over 23 saw it) which is a year divisible by 100 and by 400 so it was a leap year

Yours (and astronomy's) is Julian style "if it's divisible by 4"

I prefer the newer calendars, where there is no good mental calculation for leap years - it's a leap year when the computer says it's a leap year

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

I would think that the best time period to use for a light year is whatever year definition has been used to date

Now let's work on the best second to use for the light second

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago (29 children)

Just wondering, but do people actually find xkcd funny? Are these comics supposed to be funny?

[–] [email protected] 101 points 1 year ago (2 children)

do people actually find xkcd funny?

Yes. And I should know, I'm a people.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 1 year ago (2 children)

get out, I'm people too. we should start a club.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

Peoplebros! Who'd have thought I'd meet another people here??

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

Bro, me too! I bet there are almost a dozen of us!

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm a people.

Citation needed

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't have an exact reference for you, but it sounds like a quote from Hawkeye (Alan Alda) from MASH.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 81 points 1 year ago (1 children)

absolutely.

not every joke is going to land with everyone. sometimes they're not even jokes, just pointing out absurdities.

if they don't land with you, i wouldn't stress it. sometimes the humor is extremely nerdy. it's like the Far Side or Monty Python. it's not everyone's cup of tea, and that's OK.

[–] [email protected] 36 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It falls often into sensible chuckle territory rather than stand-up comic material kind of funny.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 year ago

They're hit or miss. This one is mildly amusing to me. It's been going strong 3 comics a week for how many years now? Not all of them are good of course, some I consider just bad but I think most weeks have at least one good one.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 year ago

This one made me laugh. Most I just find to be novel, silly, or interesting, but a fair few are pretty funny to me.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago

It's a comic published multiple times a week. Common social etiquette is that if you find it funny (which is known to happen), you give it a grin or a mild chuckle or whatever, and then move on with your morning and, by extension, the rest of your life.

load more comments (23 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›