Off-Topic Posts

[exfret]

Well, there haven't been any major wars or baby booms in the past few decades, so yes, it is a straight line.

Why'd I miss this before? Anyways, this is exactly why it should NOT be a straight line. W/o wars or anything, unrestrained population growth (which is what this is) will be exponential. Besides, that line is just too perfect. Admit it, xkcd messed up their graph!!!

[robly18]

Well, there haven't been any major wars or baby booms in the past few decades, so yes, it is a straight line.

Why'd I miss this before? Anyways, this is exactly why it should NOT be a straight line. W/o wars or anything, unrestrained population growth (which is what this is) will be exponential. Besides, that line is just too perfect. Admit it, xkcd messed up their graph!!!

Don't forget: more developed countries means less babies!
The following website, which I cite because it was the first result on google, tells us the following:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762181.html
Baby population in - Total world population
1980 - 4,453,831,714
1990 - 5,278,639,789
2000 - 6,082,966,429
Let's see if this checks out:
Population in 1980 was about 4.5 million. The graphic is around the same area. Check.
Population in 1990 was around 5.25 million. Graphic appears to check out.
Population in 2000 was just over 6 million. Graph looks about right to me.
I couldn't find any (reliable) sources giving me total world population in 2010 without being a projection, but that probably has to do with me not digging deep enough.
Nonetheless, it's pretty noticeable how the population did rise in a linear manner:
4.5 + 0.75 = 5.25
5.25 + 0.75 = 6
So the graphic does check out.
Ergo, the graphic is correct.

[exfret]

Well then, that's a strange population rise. I guess development and other factors are keeping population growth linear.

[exfret]

A       H      !!!     It's...

 n          a
 d          l
 y          l

[testtubegames]

A       H      !!!     It's... Agent Higgs?

[exfret]

A       H      !!!     It's... Agent Higgs?

No, Agent Higgs' initials are



 A

[exfret]

Did you know if you start with any wikipedia article (click on "Random Article" if you can't think of one that's sufficiently random) and click the first link not in italics or in parentheses, you eventually end up at the wikipedia article "Philosophy"? (After that, it just goes in an endless loop, as you might expect). If something is italicized because it's the name of a major work, like a book, you can still click on it, but don't click on the italicized words at the very beginning of the article that usually contain information about disambiguations. Also, if a link leads to part of an article, you can either start from that part of the article or from the very beginning of the article. Either way, you should still end up at the same place. Obviously, don't click on citation links (e.g. [1]) or pronunciation links (most of those should be in parentheses anyways). Freaky, right? (BTW, I got this from the title text of xkcd comic #903: Extended Mind).

[testtubegames]

Yeah, I was that xkcd comic, never gave it a go, though. Just tried it with United Kingdom -- when I hit 'metaphor' I knew I was doomed to reach philosophy. There's gotta be some loops that don't hit philosophy, though, right? Like two articles that point back and forth. (And since this is xkcd, I'm sure someone with tons of time on their hands did a near academic study of this question...)

[A Random Player]

Yeah, I was that xkcd comic, never gave it a go, though. Just tried it with United Kingdom -- when I hit 'metaphor' I knew I was doomed to reach philosophy. There's gotta be some loops that don't hit philosophy, though, right? Like two articles that point back and forth. (And since this is xkcd, I'm sure someone with tons of time on their hands did a near academic study of this question...)

Well, this is Wikipedia as well, so it changes pretty often. I do remember a small tree generated with it though. People find loops all the time. If you want you can try looking in the xkcd fora thread about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... Philosophy

[A Random Player]

Hmm. The last two tweets by andy look weird. It doesn't seem like him (and it's not like he needs, what is it, weight loss products?). He doesn't tweet anything that doesn't have to do with games/science. And it's a duplicate, spaced by ~50 minutes.
Any explanation? A hack, or just something weird?

Edit: They were removed, they said something like "I just lost 14 pounds! [bit.ly link]"