Creator of xkcd Reveals Secret Back-story of His Epic, 3,099-Panel 'Time' Comic

vikingpower writes "Randall Munroe, the comic author best known as the creator of the xkcd webcomic, reveals the secret backstory of his epic, 3099-panel 'Time' strip in an interesting interview with Wired. He says, 'In my comic, our civilization is long gone. Every civilization with written records has existed for less than 5,000 years; it seems optimistic to hope that the current one will last for 10,000 more ... The Earth’s axis wobbles over the millennia, and some individual stars move visibly, so I used a few different pieces of astronomy software–with a lot of hand correction and tweaking–to render the future night sky. When the Sun sets in the night sequence, one of the first things you see is the gap where Antares should be, which was the first clue that this is taking place in the far future. Later in the night–which lasted for several days of real time–more astronomical details let readers pin down the date more precisely.' The comic can be seen as an animation on YouTube. There is also a complete click-through version available on geekwagon. This comic inspired a dedicated wiki and has its own glossary."

Comments

Re:xkcd is overrated

[I'm New Around Here]

Fine. What about the comics he makes that have nothing to do with computers?

He did ones about Money, Gravity Wells, and Non-Technical Rockets. He had one you had to mouse through that was a couple miles wide, and referenced many of our favorite geeky cultural icons. So go be a sysadmin because you like computers. We'll go enjoy something we like, such as a webcomic.

XKCD is normally really funny

[Anonymous Coward]

and it usually makes you think in order to 'get it'. But this one, I dunno. It was never funny, obviously in the future (regardless what extreme calculations were made for the night sky scene) and ended like a bad movie. There was never an overall point (unless I missed it) and I feel like I looked at it in hopes of something that wasn't. I'll bet many others were like me in that they watched it, waiting (as instructed), only to find out that it was a big fat bitch, sorta like "The X Files". I did think the way the one character's accent (the one that spoke multiple languages), or way of speaking (how he blurred the letters, and added multiple synonyms etched over each other), really neat, and well thought out.

That being said, his comic is really funny, when it's funny.

Re:xkcd is overrated

[I'm New Around Here]

First, not everyone is rushing to defend him. Some don't like the comic either. Most of those people make better points than you could.

As to your "question I posed which shows why his "5,000 years" argument is nonsense."

And how long has writing existed for?

You must not be able to read correctly. His quote is:

Every civilization with written records has existed for less than 5,000 years;

He isn't saying that no one ever made a mark on a stick to keep track of how many sheep he has. He is specifically saying "written records", meaning things the civilization is keeping from generation to generation. Whether heroic stories or family inheritence or tax receipts.

Now looking at Wikipedia's "History of writing" article, it points out the invention of writing at 3200 B.C.* So maybe Randall should have rounded differently, or said "about 5000 years" rather than "less than 5,000 years". But that is more a rounding error than your proof of his mediocrity.

*Note: I don't use BCE in place of B.C. As a non-religious person, I don't care which church made the calendar I am used to using. They can peg 'Year 0' at whatever point they want. Labeling the years before that as 'Before (our messiah)' is not offensive. What I find unacceptable is scientists who won't use B.C, because that implies a religious influence which they can't accept, but whose solution is is to change it to BCE and keep the dates exactly the same.

If you don't want to use B.C. because it stands for "Before Christ", and as an atheist that offends you, fine, you have the right to make whatever calendar you want. But be more original that simply removing the periods and adding the letter E, and calling your result "Before the Common Era". You are still saying the Common Era starts with the birth of Jesus, and your calendar starts with (or near) that event. You are agreeing to tie yourself to the church, while acting like you won't stand for it. (Does this offend Muslims as much as it does me?)

I would be fine if the authorities created a new calendar numbering plan that started at the dawn of civilization. Unfortunately, the only time I saw that plan, it was to pin 'Year 0' at 10,000 B.C. So then, to convert from today's date, you would simply add a '1' to the front, and go from 2013 to 12013. So they are still making what they claim to be scientifically valid choices based on the church's calendar.