last time i checked, visualising 0.014 pixels is not possible. would make much more sense to standardize age of humanity at 1 pixel.
+ area relationships shown are completely wrong – age of universe (1370 pixels) is supposedly 3x age of earth (457)??? – the black area is much larger than 3x blue area.
Peter, that 0.014 pixel is too small to see was exactly the point of this five-minute execution. I was aware of the fact that the area relationships are totally wrong, but keep in mind that this was a quickie rather than something I published – I merely sent out a tweet about it. It was a quick test to see if a series of such visualisations could work out. Thanks for your feedback, but not for your condescending tone.
If you knew it was wrong, why did you make it in the first place? Your “point” only exists in your meaningless visualization – if you did it correctly, the humanity part would be a couple of pixels in size.
If you’re going to be making stuff that is obviously wrong (and even knowing it yourself), you’re just going to have to accept people will be condescending.
I knew it! The universe was cut from vinyl.
Aug 20th, 2009 / 10:09 am
I prefer the old metaphor of the calendar. If the Universe is a total of One Year old, humans didn’t appear until 31 Dec. at 10:00 pm.
Aug 20th, 2009 / 10:46 am
FIRST PRESSING!
Aug 20th, 2009 / 1:44 pm
I saw something like this once before, but this is a new ‘world record’.
Aug 21st, 2009 / 12:01 am
last time i checked, visualising 0.014 pixels is not possible. would make much more sense to standardize age of humanity at 1 pixel.
+ area relationships shown are completely wrong – age of universe (1370 pixels) is supposedly 3x age of earth (457)??? – the black area is much larger than 3x blue area.
was this made by a 5-year old?
Aug 21st, 2009 / 3:45 am
Thanks Tina for the post.
Peter, that 0.014 pixel is too small to see was exactly the point of this five-minute execution. I was aware of the fact that the area relationships are totally wrong, but keep in mind that this was a quickie rather than something I published – I merely sent out a tweet about it. It was a quick test to see if a series of such visualisations could work out. Thanks for your feedback, but not for your condescending tone.
Aug 21st, 2009 / 8:52 am
If you knew it was wrong, why did you make it in the first place? Your “point” only exists in your meaningless visualization – if you did it correctly, the humanity part would be a couple of pixels in size.
If you’re going to be making stuff that is obviously wrong (and even knowing it yourself), you’re just going to have to accept people will be condescending.
Aug 21st, 2009 / 11:30 am
nice work, and despite the one non-supporting commenter. I love seeing stats in a visual and graphic way.
here is a ture pixel count based off Thierry’s numbers. And yes I even got the .014 pixel ;-)
http://uploads.willdunkin.com/Universe_PixelTime.jpg
Aug 21st, 2009 / 12:53 pm