Does XKCD guy know what diameter means? If something has a diameter of x meters and is x meters from you, it's not even close to being inside you.
The graph isn't being drawn relative to the surface of the object you fucking dumbass. It's relative to the center of mass.
It's a log scale so dividing by two doesn't really make it any more informative
>>7803163
Exactly. 10m from me to center of an object means the diameter has to be 20m, not 10m, because it's the radius that matters if we're talking center-to-center.
>>7803172
Good point, should still be clearly visible I think
>>7803175
You realize you're complaining that the dividing line isn't about 10 pixels higher, right?
>>7803175
ok true
but then just divide everything in the chart by 2
literally nothing about the chart changes but the axis labeling
>>7803182
I guess it's a bit unreasonable. I'm more bothered by the fact that it's right where it would be if y axis was radius instead
>>7803182
shit it's not even 10. On my screen the difference would be like 2-3 pixels at most.
Good luck with that aspergers, OP.
>>7803195
Sounds like BS. How did you come to that conclusion? The axis labeling goes (10 mm)^i for natural numbers, and 200 mm would be at (10 mm)^2.3, which is far from 100 mm visually
>>7803227
Oh, forget that
>>7803163
>you fucking dumbass
fucking dumbass detected
>ITT: comic-reading manbabies
and then you have the nerve to shit on popsci