The girl you see walking up behind you in the mirror when you finish shaving will be 52% hotter, if Gilette ads are accurate.
The shave you get will never be more than 52% closer.
I wish that was of some help, but I can no longer use this as a constant. For some reason (in terms of the space/time continuum) I’ve noticed that over the last thirty years either this distance has increased, or else time has slowed down.
I blame gravity.
That’s interesting, but in the interest of complete accuracy, Chicago blocks are shorter from Madison (0N/S) all the way south to 31st. (12 blocks to the mile from Madison to Roosevelt [1200S], 10 blocks to the mile from Roosevelt to Cermak [2200S], 9 blocks to the mile from Cermak to 31st [3100S], 8 blocks to the mile the rest of the way. Also 8 blocks to the mile on the north side of the city, and in the east-west direction [where the distance between adjacent streets is a half-block]).
Posted by Kent Brockman:
"Kent Brockman: Good evening. Did you know that 34 million American adults are obese? Putting together that excess blubber would fill the Grand Canyon two fifths of the way up. That may not sound impressive, but keep in mind it is a very big canyon. "
And, also from the Simpsons:
“See the happiest fish in the world at the fabulous Beerquarium and don’t forget about Beeramid, this pyramid contains so much aluminium that it would take five people to lift it…”
Apparently, the writers feel the same way.
The one that bugs me is describing an area (or, worse, a volume) in terms of the size of certain states. This is extremely common during the California Wildfire Season (Feb-Nov).
I just hope dearly that the state of Rhode Island never catches on fire because, if it did, and the news people were trying to report it, they would have absolutely nothing of similar size to compare it to.
A close cousin to the “infinite comparative:”
“Slylock Fox found over 20 differences between these two panels. Can you find more?”
Don’t get me started on people using the word massive to mean “big” and massively to mean “very”. I’m not talking about mass vs. weight, that’s understandable, if sloppy.
I’m waiting for someone to describe something as massively lightweight or massively tiny.
That’s massively headachy don’t cha know.
I’ve never seen it used to mean anything other than 100 yards. My problem with it is, as you point out, that a football field is actually 120 yards, but I guess they figure most people don’t think about the end zones.
Even as someone who has played football and finds it as an easy visual reference, I agree that using a fraction of a mile would probably make more sense.
But then there’s people who can’t even do that right, like a line that has always irritated me from Shawkshank Redemption: “…five-hundred yards. That’s the length of five football fields, just shy of half a mile.” Okay, I get that you mean 100 yard fotoball fields, so I can forgive that, but how the hell is “just shy of half a mile” even remotely accurate? Half a mile is 880 yards; it’s actually closer to being twice as much as it is being the same. I get that perhaps they were exaggerating to make it seem like a long distance, but it would have been way more accurate without losing any dramatic effect to have said something like “more than a quarter mile”.
So, sure I can get on board with this pitting. I think pretty much anyone in this country can visualize a mile. Didn’t most people run the mile when they were a kid, or do laps on the track in PE at their high school? Don’t people at least know that it’s 0.8 miles (or whatever it is) to the 7-Eleven/gas station/liquor store? Seriously, if you can visualize a distance within about an order of magnitude of common unit then something is wrong with you. I can understand needing an aide to imagine a few hundred yards, but certainly using a fraction of a mile will probably make a lot more sense in most cases.
So, 450 yards shouldn’t be “four and a half football fields” it should be “about a quarter mile”, and an inch is just a freaking inch and if they REALLY need a visual for a single unit, pick something that is, you know, a one to one comparison like the width of your thumb. Who the hell thinks of the width of a pencils as a visualization method? Hell, I can’t even remember the last time I even saw a pencil.
It loses most, if not all, of its dramatic effect that way. Aside from which, you’re being told a story, with exaggeration for the sake of emphasis as an element, not listening to someone give evidence in court.
I actually read a useful one today regarding the Hubble Deep Field photo. The slice of the sky that is being pictured was described as “a dime seen from 75 feet away” I don’t think any direct measurement of the field would as immediately understandable as this.
GorillaMan, would it have lost dramatic effect if it was 800 yards instead of 500 yards?
No - it’s not the distance that has the effect, but the phrase ‘just shy of’, which gives the impression of it being a long way, as opposed to ‘about’ or ‘a little more than’.
Put it this way: an American on a diet might say they’ve ‘lost eight pounds’, whereas a Brit would have dropped ‘over half a stone’. Even if you don’t know how many pounds in stone, the latter surely has a greater immediate impact.
When I hear someone talk about a length in centimeters or inches, I visualize a ruler, not pencils.
I saw one about a year ago (that’s the amount of time it takes for light to travel 9,460,730,472,580,800,000 centimeters).
I bet it would sink, too. 