1992: "SafetySat"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

Joe_CoT
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 2:23 pm UTC

1992: "SafetySat"

Postby Joe_CoT » Fri May 11, 2018 5:46 pm UTC

Image
Title text: During launch, in the event of an unexpected sensor reading, SafetySat will extend prongs in all directions to secure itself and any other cubesats safely in the launch vehicle until the source of the problem can be determined.

I mostly posted the comic thread because I had absolutely no idea what this one was about. And now I know it's about making sure your image resizing script works correctly when you post comics. Apparently if you're on a "high" resolution monitor you see the whole picture, but if you're on a "low" resolution monitor you just get a nice cropped image of the very top left corner. I've updated the top image with the bigger, working, picture.

The original version (which might no longer be just the top left corner of the image, ie 2 intersecting black lines at the corner of a white image)
Image
Last edited by Joe_CoT on Fri May 11, 2018 6:36 pm UTC, edited 4 times in total.

jozwa
Posts: 138
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 3:16 pm UTC
Location: Finland

Re: 1992: "SafetySat"

Postby jozwa » Fri May 11, 2018 5:48 pm UTC

I was just going to make the post because I have no clue what I'm looking at

Velo Steve
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu May 05, 2011 12:27 am UTC

Re: 1992: "SafetySat"

Postby Velo Steve » Fri May 11, 2018 5:49 pm UTC

I downloaded the image link in the HTML and it has lots of detail, unlike what's seen on the main page. Maybe the message is "this comic simultaneously violates every rule of web design"?

See https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/safetysat_2x.png

Joe_CoT
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 2:23 pm UTC

Re: 1992: "SafetySat"

Postby Joe_CoT » Fri May 11, 2018 5:53 pm UTC

Velo Steve wrote:I downloaded the image link in the HTML and it has lots of detail, unlike what's seen on the main page. Maybe the message is "this comic simultaneously violates every rule of web design"?

See https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/safetysat_2x.png


Thank you! You have resolved my confusion, and I've updated the post.

Felderburg
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 7:09 am UTC

Re: 1992: "SafetySat"

Postby Felderburg » Fri May 11, 2018 6:21 pm UTC

Joe_CoT wrote:
Velo Steve wrote:I downloaded the image link in the HTML and it has lots of detail, unlike what's seen on the main page. Maybe the message is "this comic simultaneously violates every rule of web design"?

See https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/safetysat_2x.png


Thank you! You have resolved my confusion, and I've updated the post.


Boooo! Leave it so everyone can see what it looked it like and why we were confused!

MongoTheGeek
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 3:38 am UTC

Re: 1992: "SafetySat"

Postby MongoTheGeek » Fri May 11, 2018 6:28 pm UTC

The differences between https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/safetysat_2x.png and https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/safetysat.png are astounding.

I totally didn't understand what was going on until I switched to my high res monitor.
Attachments
safetysat.png
safetysat.png (753 Bytes) Viewed 4385 times

jonbly
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 8:44 pm UTC

Re: 1992: "SafetySat"

Postby jonbly » Fri May 11, 2018 6:29 pm UTC

Velo Steve wrote:Maybe the message is "this comic simultaneously violates every rule of web design"?

If so, putting the text from the bottom of the image into the alt text might have made more sense...

Joe_CoT
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 2:23 pm UTC

Re: 1992: "SafetySat"

Postby Joe_CoT » Fri May 11, 2018 6:31 pm UTC

Felderburg wrote:
Joe_CoT wrote:Thank you! You have resolved my confusion, and I've updated the post.


Boooo! Leave it so everyone can see what it looked it like and why we were confused!


I've updated the post to also include the broken image. I hope your day is slightly happier now.

GreatLimmick
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 6:58 am UTC

Re: 1992: "SafetySat"

Postby GreatLimmick » Fri May 11, 2018 6:41 pm UTC

In this context, what is the minimum threshold for "high" resolution?

Anonymously Famous
Posts: 241
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2010 4:01 am UTC

Re: 1992: "SafetySat"

Postby Anonymously Famous » Fri May 11, 2018 6:45 pm UTC

Once I came here and saw that there was something to see other than just a corner, I messed around on my browser a little and found that I was able to see the image by zooming in.

SuicideJunkie
Posts: 265
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2015 2:40 pm UTC

Re: 1992: "SafetySat"

Postby SuicideJunkie » Fri May 11, 2018 6:46 pm UTC

GreatLimmick wrote:In this context, what is the minimum threshold for "high" resolution?

420p

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3370
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1992: "SafetySat"

Postby Soupspoon » Fri May 11, 2018 6:56 pm UTC

Without looking into all the .js links, I can't see where being on a higher-resolution monitor would have sent me to anything but the (non-2x) image, which basically just looks like an improperly rezoomed-and-cropped version of an ultra-high-res authoring version of the image.

But I'll know more when I check on a desktop and don't need to keep on putting "view-source:" to the front of URLs to get the necessary skills insights. (I hadn't yet decided whether Randall was trolling, we were going to have to Wait For It or it was a genuine publishing error.)

PPE: No 'pinch-zoom' method, either on the default page URL or direct to the original image URL, did anything useful.

PPE2: Ok, it seems to be fixed now. Just this minute, as I went back to check something, which I now can't/needn't check.

RyanofTinellb
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat May 05, 2018 5:07 am UTC

Re: 1992: "SafetySat"

Postby RyanofTinellb » Fri May 11, 2018 6:58 pm UTC

The alt-text on this one is very reminiscent of the early Stargate SG-1 episode Message in a Bottle. Except that was a sphere.

Yu_p
Posts: 51
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 9:00 am UTC

Re: 1992: "SafetySat"

Postby Yu_p » Fri May 11, 2018 6:59 pm UTC

SuicideJunkie wrote:
GreatLimmick wrote:In this context, what is the minimum threshold for "high" resolution?

420p
When I tried, I displayed the image on a 1920x1080 display, maximized window, 125% zoom, and saw the broken image. Now it is fixed though.

User avatar
XbHW_TestEngr
Posts: 95
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 9:29 pm UTC
Location: Kirkland, WA
Contact:

Re: 1992: "SafetySat"

Postby XbHW_TestEngr » Fri May 11, 2018 7:00 pm UTC

MongoTheGeek wrote:...I totally didn't understand what was going on until I switched to my high res monitor.


So, I'm running 3440 x 1440 and 1920 x 1080 monitors. ... What do you consider to be high res? Do I need a 4k?

In other news, I used one of my Chrome plugins (Pixelzoom???), "Inspect scaled", and was able to see the image. Thanks for the hints.
... and there will be cake.

I have traveled from 1960 to be a member of the unofficial Council of Elders. Phear M3

benbald72 wrote:I feel connected to the author and therefore appreciate the comic, regardless of whether or not I understand the joke ....

User avatar
The Snide Sniper
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2016 7:25 pm UTC
Location: UTC-6:00

Re: 1992: "SafetySat"

Postby The Snide Sniper » Fri May 11, 2018 7:09 pm UTC

I don't really get the "wet sand dispenser" part. At all. Incidentally, Explain xkcd is down. Can someone explain it to me?
Also known as "RamenChef" on various other fora.
Me on: Drawception | Explain xkcd | NationStates | The Sluggite Zone | Stack Overflow

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 4681
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1992: "SafetySat"

Postby Pfhorrest » Fri May 11, 2018 7:32 pm UTC

Firsts thought was that wet sand is great for extinguishing a variety of chemical fires, but why would that be a safety hazard? Second thought: loose fluids and fine-grained particulates get into fucking everything when floating around in zero G.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

drxenocide
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri May 11, 2018 7:50 pm UTC

Re: 1992: "SafetySat"

Postby drxenocide » Fri May 11, 2018 8:05 pm UTC

So, I just took "Space Law" at CUA Law school.

While you have ample violations of the FAA, FCC, ITU and DOD rules. To violate EVERY regulator of Satellites that I know of, you need:

*A violation of the Outer Space Treaty - A nuke or WMD will do.
*A violation of the NOAA rules - any earth remote sensing system that is not a handheld camera.

User avatar
Heimhenge
Posts: 219
Joined: Thu May 01, 2014 11:35 pm UTC

Re: 1992: "SafetySat"

Postby Heimhenge » Fri May 11, 2018 8:31 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:Firsts thought was that wet sand is great for extinguishing a variety of chemical fires, but why would that be a safety hazard? Second thought: loose fluids and fine-grained particulates get into fucking everything when floating around in zero G.


I tend to agree with your second thought. The part that has me puzzled is the solar panel (found). What's the hazard there?

richP
Posts: 177
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2011 3:28 pm UTC

Re: 1992: "SafetySat"

Postby richP » Fri May 11, 2018 8:33 pm UTC

Does it have a re-entry system modeled on lawn darts?

User avatar
somitomi
Posts: 596
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2015 11:21 pm UTC
Location: can be found in Hungary
Contact:

Re: 1992: "SafetySat"

Postby somitomi » Fri May 11, 2018 9:22 pm UTC

Heimhenge wrote:I tend to agree with your second thought. The part that has me puzzled is the solar panel (found). What's the hazard there?

Reminds me of the rocket parts "found lying by the side of the road" in Kerbal Space Program. Judging by 1244 and my experience with KSP, the hazard is probably using KSP methods in real life.
—◯-◯

jello34543
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 11:08 pm UTC
Location: Madison, WI

Re: 1992: "SafetySat"

Postby jello34543 » Fri May 11, 2018 9:39 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:Firsts thought was that wet sand is great for extinguishing a variety of chemical fires, but why would that be a safety hazard? Second thought: loose fluids and fine-grained particulates get into fucking everything when floating around in zero G.


Wet sand is somewhat sticky though, and would stay together in one piece. Dry sand, on the other hand, would turn into a cloud of orbiting destruction.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3370
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1992: "SafetySat"

Postby Soupspoon » Fri May 11, 2018 10:53 pm UTC

The wet sand reminds strongly me of this old favourite. (Though I initially imagined its 'utility' was as per railway usage, when dampness is something to avoid or account for.)

qvxb
Posts: 132
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2016 10:20 pm UTC

Re: 1992: "SafetySat"

Postby qvxb » Fri May 11, 2018 10:59 pm UTC

Should this comic also be posted on EDC Forums?

cphoenix
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 2:45 pm UTC

Re: 1992: "SafetySat"

Postby cphoenix » Sat May 12, 2018 9:24 am UTC

This reminds me of a CubeSat I worked on. It had a CO2 canister in it (like they use in paintball) which was rigged to be punctured by a mechanism which was restrained by a string. I tried to figure out how much damage it could do if the string broke during launch and the CubeSat expanded. I'm still surprised that they let us fly it.

wumpus
Posts: 527
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2008 12:16 am UTC

Re: 1992: "SafetySat"

Postby wumpus » Sat May 12, 2018 4:53 pm UTC

drxenocide wrote:So, I just took "Space Law" at CUA Law school.

While you have ample violations of the FAA, FCC, ITU and DOD rules. To violate EVERY regulator of Satellites that I know of, you need:

*A violation of the Outer Space Treaty - A nuke or WMD will do.
*A violation of the NOAA rules - any earth remote sensing system that is not a handheld camera.


While it does need them, it doesn't violate the safety requirements. I still think it needs a three-body chaotic motion generator to randomly move the CoM.

SuicideJunkie
Posts: 265
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2015 2:40 pm UTC

Re: 1992: "SafetySat"

Postby SuicideJunkie » Mon May 14, 2018 5:39 pm UTC

That wouldn't affect the CoM at all.
It could make the body of the satellite body jerk around randomly across a fairly small distance.

I imagine you'd be better off if it waved around a long stick with a radar reflector on it.
Unless you're just trying to jitter around to keep astronauts from getting a grip on it during EVA...

User avatar
jc
Posts: 345
Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 5:48 pm UTC
Location: Waltham, Massachusetts, USA, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way Galaxy
Contact:

Re: 1992: "SafetySat"

Postby jc » Tue May 15, 2018 1:00 pm UTC

Anonymously Famous wrote:Once I came here and saw that there was something to see other than just a corner, I messed around on my browser a little and found that I was able to see the image by zooming in.

I've been quite impressed by how many web sites have learned how to defeat the browsers' zooming feature, typically by changing the sizes of parts of the pages in random-looking directions, and even changing the size-change patterns for each zoom. I recall my reaction the first time I saw this: Wow! That's incredibly perverse user hostility. I wonder how they do it.

I still haven't figured out most of their zoom-defeating tricks, but by experimenting a bit, I've found how some of them work. I also learned that it's not just the web-site developer's doing; most browsers have lately adopted some sizing tricks that seem aimed at interfering with legibility. The simplest is probably Safari's approach of sizing a page for a window much larger than the screen you're holding in your hand, and if you pinch it to make it smaller, it makes the font size smaller, too, so the text becomes unreadable.

But there are a lot of other size-related tricks now that make difficult or impossible to create a page that "works" everywhere. The main one seems to be the growing abandonment of the main reason that HTML was invented: To "reflow" text so it fits inside whatever rectangle the browser has available at the moment. The other, of course, is the growing use of whitespace to minimize what's visible in that rectangle. Thus, the Preview panel for this comment has a whitespace area on the right that's about 1/3 the window's width; changing the window size causes the text to reflow, but that 1/3 of wasted space remains at all window sizes.

(I have some vision-limited friends who are convinced that these changes are aimed at them, to force them to pay for new gadgets that restore their ability to read things online. I've wasted a lot of time trying to defeat this user hostility, and make my pages maximally readable, but it's slowly getting more difficult as the browser makers learn more readability-defeating tricks.)

speising
Posts: 2252
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: 1992: "SafetySat"

Postby speising » Tue May 15, 2018 1:04 pm UTC

jc wrote:I still haven't figured out most of their zoom-defeating tricks, but by experimenting a bit, I've found how some of them work. I also learned that it's not just the web-site developer's doing; most browsers have lately adopted some sizing tricks that seem aimed at interfering with legibility. The simplest is probably Safari's approach of sizing a page for a window much larger than the screen you're holding in your hand, and if you pinch it to make it smaller, it makes the font size smaller, too, so the text becomes unreadable.

But there are a lot of other size-related tricks now that make difficult or impossible to create a page that "works" everywhere. The main one seems to be the growing abandonment of the main reason that HTML was invented: To "reflow" text so it fits inside whatever rectangle the browser has available at the moment.


i like to plug Opera for Android here: that does exactly what you and i want: it reflows text naturally to the visible width. just like the android browser used to do in earlier times.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 45 guests