If those images are to scale (and I’m pretty sure they are), that would make one heck of a diluted drink. The cross-sectional area of the booze tankers are comparable to that of the comet, but they’re only a few tens of meters wide, to the comet’s few kilometers.
If your margarita’s too weak, they’ll make you another.
As soon as the next comet comes along.
I don’t think it’s necessarily to scale. A ULCC tanker carries 3.7M barrels, or 575,000 m^3. That’s 2.3B m^3 for 4000 of them. A smallish 2 km comet would be 6.28B m^3. Not particularly dilute.
One of the limited access highways in the Chicago area was like that but forcing merges in the inside. Four or five lanes wide and at each on-ramp the lane continued on so the driver didn’t have to merge, but eventually reach the median and have to constantly change lanes to the right.
Agreed; that’s probably the most common case I’ve seen. Onramps get their own lane, but so as not to have the highway continually get wider, the inner lane merges back in eventually. Might be safer overall; slow trucks especially have a hard time safely merging into fast traffic, whereas the two left lanes are already at speed.
Right.
Elaborate frameworks and massive products die of neglect and inertia. Throwaway code lives forever.
The happy medium is to write code that you wouldn’t mind revisiting 5 years from now. That excludes uncommented spaghetti code as well as overelaborate frameworks. Just write clear code that does the task at hand, is self-commenting as much as possible, with code comments to fill in the gaps. Use good coding practices (basic stuff like using functions instead of copy-and-pasting the same thing 10 times), but don’t generalize the code far beyond what’s required.
This reminds me of an amusing moment of my time with IBM. One of my colleagues, in his many years of service, had exactly 1 of his analyses reach the desk of the CEO.
That analysis? Some crappy rush job that he absolutely did NOT have the time to do properly.
That hat feels vaguely anachronistic.
(No, there’s nothing else remarkable in that scene, why do you ask?)
It’s a perfectly fine 16th C hat shape.
If you expand Rhode Island to the size of the Solar System, the ants there would be as big as Texas. OK, I haven’t actually done the math, but it’s probably close to right. Assuming the statement in the strip is right, of course.
But less than half the size of Alaska.
Isn’t this actually “Texas is so small that…”? I mean, by the same token, if you expand Rhode Island to the size of the Solar System, the ants there would be as big as Texas. Because you need an even greater expansion factor for Rhode Island than you do for Texas.
And the Solar System is so large that, if you expanded it to the size of the Solar System, the ants there would be as big as ants.
I think that was why it was labeled as “unhelpful size comparisons.”
So, if you shrink the Solar System down to the size of Texas, would Rhode Island be the size of an ant?
But the ants would be shrunk too.