• (cs)

    Here is YA error with the second image: it is July and sunset is at 4:46 PM?

    Sincerely,

    Gene Wirchenko

  • b0bg0ats3 (unregistered)

    FIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111!1oneone!!11eleven

  • (cs) in reply to gustavderdrache
    gustavderdrache:
    Actually, the first image isn't a WTF as presented. All 9s indicates missing data for that field (in this case, every field, indicating that the station missed an hourly report). Data is sent to NOAA as an ASCII flat file, so you can just imagine the kinds of WTFs committed in the sending of crucial meteorological data. God, I love the government.

    WTF? The programmer doesn't know what data he is being given, and doesn't know how to write "If value = 9999 display "N/A"

    Just because you know where the value came from, doesn't mean it ain't broken

  • sh3l1 (unregistered) in reply to Erk
    Erk:
    The real WTF here is that the US _still_ hasn't adopted the metric system.
    whats a metric system?

    I was just kidding... although, you may want to read this, it doesn't explain fully why we still have imperial units, but it explains a bit: http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/Metrication/metric_land.htm

  • (cs) in reply to Anon
    Anon:
    And you have to love the two columns of unrelated information. That's classic interface design!

    While the data presented isn't exactly presented like most weather forecasts. It does make sense. The left is the DAY forecast, the right is NIGHT forecast.

    Your argument is like saying the UI for a calendar presents a grid of unrelated information. See the stuff in the Grid marked 1 is stuff that takes place on the first of the month. And right next to it in square 2 is a whole bunch of unreleated stuff that takes place the next day!

  • (cs) in reply to Gene Wirchenko
    Gene Wirchenko:
    Here is YA error with the second image: it is July and sunset is at 4:46 PM?

    Sincerely,

    Gene Wirchenko

    Never lived on the South Island, have you, Gene?

    If you truly love sheep, it's the place to go.

  • G (unregistered)

    that is what you get when you don't use nullity (:

  • (cs) in reply to Paul
    Paul:
    AlpineR:
    Does everybody else think that a crescent moon results from the rest of the moon being eaten by a giant space goat?

    Yes.

    Not everybody, but we have to be honest here. If you look at the crescent through a decent telescope, you'll see it's pretty irregular at the edges.

    Now, which do you think is a more likely explanation?

    (a) So-called "meteorites" glancing off at just the right angle to make so-called "craters" that resemble teeth-marks?

    or

    (b) A giant space goat who likes nibbling cheese?

    I rest my case. I think we all know that those Apollo-era photographs were just faked. The stars and stripes blowing in the non-existent wind? What sort of scientist would believe that?

    Mind you, I haven't quite figured out how the giant space goat barfs up the rest of the moon afterwards, though. It's probably something to do with chewing the celestial cud.

  • Zygo (unregistered) in reply to AlpineR
    AlpineR:
    The really WTF is the smiling moon on a field of stars. Those stars are right where the shadowed side of the moon should be. There won't be any light there unless it's on the surface of the moon or between the moon and Earth.

    That's the poster for the Director's Cut of Apollo 13, with the alternate ending where the astronauts don't make it home.

  • (cs) in reply to AlpineR
    AlpineR:
    The really WTF is the smiling moon on a field of stars. Those stars are right where the shadowed side of the moon should be. There won't be any light there unless it's on the surface of the moon or between the moon and Earth.

    This moon and star symbolism is used in lots of places and I cringe every time I see it. Does everybody else think that a crescent moon results from the rest of the moon being eaten by a giant space goat?

    Not quite.... [image]

  • (cs) in reply to Gene Wirchenko
    Gene Wirchenko:
    Here is YA error with the second image: it is July and sunset is at 4:46 PM?

    Sincerely,

    Gene Wirchenko

    Not for half the world.

  • homer (unregistered) in reply to Rank Amateur
    Rank Amateur:
    The real WTF for the second one is that it's substantially colder at 4:46pm than at 6:54am.

    Oh, wait, it's Australia. Everything's reversed there.

    --Rank

    So hot snow falls up?

  • (cs) in reply to chrismcb
    chrismcb:
    gustavderdrache:
    Actually, the first image isn't a WTF as presented. All 9s indicates missing data for that field (in this case, every field, indicating that the station missed an hourly report). Data is sent to NOAA as an ASCII flat file, so you can just imagine the kinds of WTFs committed in the sending of crucial meteorological data. God, I love the government.

    WTF? The programmer doesn't know what data he is being given, and doesn't know how to write "If value = 9999 display "N/A"

    Just because you know where the value came from, doesn't mean it ain't broken

    You got me there. I'm so used to seeing it at work that I don't even bat an eye. Goes to show that WTFs are relative, I suppose.

  • basicsense (unregistered) in reply to Erk
    Erk:
    The real WTF here is that the US _still_ hasn't adopted the metric system.

    The US is the 800lb. gorilla in the world today. And it got there using feet, inches, pounds, ounces, miles, gallons, etc. The real WTF is that the people who use the metric system can only calculate in base10, and feel that they are superior to those that can use other systems... so piss off before we nuke ya!

  • goodness (unregistered) in reply to Linux FTW
    Linux FTW:
    #2 is the result of programmers doing interface design. Which also happens to be Linux's biggest downfall -- and, coincidentally, OS X's greatest feature.

    No, the WTF is using "cute" icons and pictures to try to convey information that could best be done in text:

    High Today 57F ............ Low today 50F Sunrise 6:54AM ............ Sunset 4:46PM Daytime Forecast Rain ..... Nighttime Forecast Rain

    Much easier to read, takes less bandwidth, looks better. A thousand words are better than a picture, when the picture sucks...

  • (cs)

    With regards to the moon with the stars:

    The easier alternative would be to make the symbol correct. We can achieve this by blowing star-shaped holes into earth, so that the sun can shine star shapes on the dark bits of the moon, where earth's shadow is cast.

    Sure saves a lot of trouble fixing symbols.

  • dkf (unregistered) in reply to foxyshadis
    foxyshadis:
    AlpineR:
    Does everybody else think that a crescent moon results from the rest of the moon being eaten by a giant space goat?
    Not quite.... [image]
    Woah! Photographic evidence! It is a giant space goat. (Everyone knows giraffes are just giant long-necked goats.)
  • Cope with IT (unregistered) in reply to jim steichen
    jim steichen:
    Actually, the last picture might be a future prediction -- of when the Sun goes supernova
    Don't worry, it's not going to do that, as its way to small to go super nova. The worst thing to happen in roughly 1.4 × 10^17 seconds is a nova. Time enough to get some sun screen...
  • David (unregistered)

    const ERR_NO_WEATHER_DATA = 1968969056

  • Madis (unregistered)

    I've always not loved non-metric systems :) Did you know that 123 mi² is 493 782 220 800 in² while 123 km² is just 1 230 000 000 000 cm² or even simpler 1.23*10^12 ?

    Btw, the saying goes "a couple of words say more that a crappy picture".

  • Adam (unregistered) in reply to Aidan
    Aidan:
    That's no moon...
    Nice... :o)

    In other news: The moon can never be 100% full, 'cos that's when we get a lunar eclipse. Come on, people, keep up.

  • (cs) in reply to chrismcb
    WTF? The programmer doesn't know what data he is being given, and doesn't know how to write "If value = 9999 display "N/A"

    Just because you know where the value came from, doesn't mean it ain't broken.

    Do not show this to the original programmer... you'll be getting stuff like

    if value = 9999 display "N/A" elsif value = 9998 display "N/A" elsif value = 9997 display "N/A" .. .. elsif value = 100 display "100" .. .. end

  • (cs) in reply to AlpineR
    AlpineR:
    The really WTF is the smiling moon on a field of stars. Those stars are right where the shadowed side of the moon should be.
    And the moon's nose isn't that big.
    AlpineR:
    This moon and star symbolism is used in lots of places and I cringe every time I see it.
    Well, as you say, it's symbolism...
  • rumpelstiltskin (unregistered) in reply to Madis
    Madis:
    I've always not loved non-metric systems :) Did you know that 123 mi² is 493 782 220 800 in² while 123 km² is just 1 230 000 000 000 cm² or even simpler 1.23*10^12 ?

    Btw, the saying goes "a couple of words say more that a crappy picture".

    On the other hand, if you're driving on the freeway, and your offramp is 4 miles away, you know that's 4 minutes. If your offramp is 4km away, it's 2.4 minutes. Which is easier, Euro-fellating metric fanbois?

  • R3sistance (unregistered) in reply to rumpelstiltskin
    rumpelstiltskin:
    Madis:
    I've always not loved non-metric systems :) Did you know that 123 mi² is 493 782 220 800 in² while 123 km² is just 1 230 000 000 000 cm² or even simpler 1.23*10^12 ?

    Btw, the saying goes "a couple of words say more that a crappy picture".

    On the other hand, if you're driving on the freeway, and your offramp is 4 miles away, you know that's 4 minutes. If your offramp is 4km away, it's 2.4 minutes. Which is easier, Euro-fellating metric fanbois?

    How do you know it's 4 minutes away? because you know your relative speed in MPH? 60MPH=1 mile per minute... but if your in a KM system at 4KM and your going at 60KMPH then your going at 1KM a minute so then you would know you are 4 minute away... tho you are more likely to be going about 90KMPH on a motor/highway... whatever you wanna call them. It does not really make much difference either way. However if your going to lay a piece of motorway about 1 Mile long, compared to say a 2KM piece of motorway and then need measurements in smaller pieces, you automatically know that 2KM=2000 Meters... 1 Mile is what.. about 5,280 Foot... KM then is surely the superior when it comes to switch around between units, if you are not switching units then it really does not matter.

  • Bosshog (unregistered) in reply to Madis
    Madis:
    I've always not loved non-metric systems :) Did you know that 123 mi² is 493 782 220 800 in² while 123 km² is just 1 230 000 000 000 cm² or even simpler 1.23*10^12 ?

    Btw, the saying goes "a couple of words say more that a crappy picture".

    Yeah, but to be fair, you're changing base units in your Imperial example. The only real complexity in Imperial is the fact that you have a choice of base units (some of which divide others for historical reasons).

    If you stick with one unit, say the "foot", it's not a lot different to metric. The use of "powers of ten" prefixes was introduced by metric, but it's not exclusive to it. In fact "kilofeet" are sometimes used for cable distances in the US.

    Furthermore, these "metric prefixes" are not always your friend. It wasn't immediately obvious that you'd got the right number of zeroes in your cm² measure (though you did ;). Schoolkids often struggle with the difference between 1000m² and 1km².

    Also interesting(ish), "centi-" is not a regular metric prefix, as it's a power of 100, not of 1000. It is an anachronism left over from an older version of metric.

    Finally, the real WTF is that the SI base unit of mass is the kilogram, not the gram!

  • Izacus (unregistered) in reply to Bosshog
    Bosshog:

    Also interesting(ish), "centi-" is not a regular metric prefix, as it's a power of 100, not of 1000. It is an anachronism left over from an older version of metric.

    Eh? All prefixes are powers of 10. That includes centi, deca, hecto.

  • Bosshog (unregistered) in reply to Izacus
    Izacus:
    Bosshog:

    Also interesting(ish), "centi-" is not a regular metric prefix, as it's a power of 100, not of 1000. It is an anachronism left over from an older version of metric.

    Eh? All prefixes are powers of 10. That includes centi, deca, hecto.

    Most of the prefixes are powers of 1000. There are a four oddball ones (hecto, deca, deci, centi), which are for the powers of ten (100, 10, 0.1, 0.01) on either side of unity.

    I believe that in engineering it's common to stick to powers of 1000, i.e. they'd usually prefer to express 10cm as 100mm.

  • rumpelstiltskin (unregistered) in reply to R3sistance
    R3sistance:
    rumpelstiltskin:
    Madis:
    I've always not loved non-metric systems :) Did you know that 123 mi² is 493 782 220 800 in² while 123 km² is just 1 230 000 000 000 cm² or even simpler 1.23*10^12 ?

    Btw, the saying goes "a couple of words say more that a crappy picture".

    On the other hand, if you're driving on the freeway, and your offramp is 4 miles away, you know that's 4 minutes. If your offramp is 4km away, it's 2.4 minutes. Which is easier, Euro-fellating metric fanbois?

    How do you know it's 4 minutes away? because you know your relative speed in MPH? 60MPH=1 mile per minute... but if your in a KM system at 4KM and your going at 60KMPH then your going at 1KM a minute so then you would know you are 4 minute away... tho you are more likely to be going about 90KMPH on a motor/highway... whatever you wanna call them. It does not really make much difference either way. However if your going to lay a piece of motorway about 1 Mile long, compared to say a 2KM piece of motorway and then need measurements in smaller pieces, you automatically know that 2KM=2000 Meters... 1 Mile is what.. about 5,280 Foot... KM then is surely the superior when it comes to switch around between units, if you are not switching units then it really does not matter.

    Try to keep your eye on the ball. The reason you go about 60mph on the freeway is, that's what the speed limit is. 60 is important, because that's how many minutes are in an hour. The point is, I want to convert a length measurement to a time measurement; I don't care about a length measurement to a length measurement.

  • Mike (unregistered) in reply to rumpelstiltskin
    rumpelstiltskin:
    R3sistance:
    rumpelstiltskin:
    Madis:
    I've always not loved non-metric systems :) Did you know that 123 mi² is 493 782 220 800 in² while 123 km² is just 1 230 000 000 000 cm² or even simpler 1.23*10^12 ?

    Btw, the saying goes "a couple of words say more that a crappy picture".

    On the other hand, if you're driving on the freeway, and your offramp is 4 miles away, you know that's 4 minutes. If your offramp is 4km away, it's 2.4 minutes. Which is easier, Euro-fellating metric fanbois?

    How do you know it's 4 minutes away? because you know your relative speed in MPH? 60MPH=1 mile per minute... but if your in a KM system at 4KM and your going at 60KMPH then your going at 1KM a minute so then you would know you are 4 minute away... tho you are more likely to be going about 90KMPH on a motor/highway... whatever you wanna call them. It does not really make much difference either way. However if your going to lay a piece of motorway about 1 Mile long, compared to say a 2KM piece of motorway and then need measurements in smaller pieces, you automatically know that 2KM=2000 Meters... 1 Mile is what.. about 5,280 Foot... KM then is surely the superior when it comes to switch around between units, if you are not switching units then it really does not matter.

    Try to keep your eye on the ball. The reason you go about 60mph on the freeway is, that's what the speed limit is. 60 is important, because that's how many minutes are in an hour. The point is, I want to convert a length measurement to a time measurement; I don't care about a length measurement to a length measurement.

    Well and at least in europe most countries have a (metric) speed limit of about 120km/h. This makes the 4km a 2min ride. Not that difficult, is it?

  • Paul (unregistered) in reply to Mike
    Mike:
    Well and at least in europe most countries have a (metric) speed limit of about 120km/h. This makes the 4km a 2min ride. Not that difficult, is it?

    Don't tell him that...

    Americans think 70mph is dangerously fast (watch their 'police chase' TV programs if you don't believe me) the concept of 70-80mph speed limits will blow their minds! ;)

    At least now we know why they have a slow speed limit - so you can work out how long it will take to get to the next exit (???)

  • (cs) in reply to vt_mruhlin
    vt_mruhlin:
    OK, I live in houston, and can guarantee that the temperature shown was accurate here.

    Damn! You beat me to it!

    I used to live there too, and I know there were days in the summer that were that hot.

  • Ian (unregistered) in reply to Gene Wirchenko
    Gene Wirchenko:
    Here is YA error with the second image: it is July and sunset is at 4:46 PM?

    It's Australia... July is the dead of winter.

  • galileo (unregistered) in reply to jim steichen

    The Sun is not massive enough to become a supernova.

  • Paul (unregistered) in reply to galileo
    galileo:
    The Sun is not massive enough to become a supernova.

    ..it is believed...

  • Holy Roller (unregistered) in reply to Anon
    Anon:
    rsynnott:
    To be honest, I'm more horrified by the interface in the second pic than by the numerical mistake...
    I dunno, I kinda like the sunrise and sunset icons. I mean, I wasn't able to figure out WTF they were until I tried to figure out WHY there was a coffee cup in a weather application.

    And you have to love the two columns of unrelated information. That's classic interface design!

    The left column appears to contain:

    Sunrise Time (see, the sun's waking up with a cup of coffee) Daily High (at least, I think that's what the thermometer is indicating) Day-time Forecast (mostly self-explanatory)

    While the right column contains:

    Sunset Time (see, the sun's now going to bed over the sea?) Daily Low (at least, I think that's what the thermometer is indicating) Night-time Forecast

    But there's also the nice two icons on the bottom of the forecasts. My best guess is that it's chance of precipitation, followed by humidity. But I have no idea if I'm right.

    This is another example of the classic WTF of trying to jam too much information into too small a space.

    My goodness, Anon. How did you arrive at the conclusion that the two columns are unrelated? And, "rsynnott" - you don't think this interface is appealing? I give you credit for having an opinion on something so subjective as aesthetics, but seriously, you didn't offer any suggestion to improve it. Back to "Anon" (my favorite poet, BTW)... the columns are related; Sunrise to Sunset, Hi to low, and Day and Night. What planet, or dimension, or plane of reality do YOU exist in? These are logical correlations in my book. Then you whined about icons you couldn't understand - allow me to share my quick identifying observation: one is chance of precipitation, the other below is is relative humidity. Finally to both of you... REAL ESTATE on most interfaces (and especially web interface 'widgets') is extremely important. When you can take so much information, and put it into a FINE collection, like this one is, save the little moon percent bug, it has plenty of value to folks like me.

    BTW, THRWTF is that some douche bag deployed this widget into production with that stupid calculation bug. The rest of the interface is rather nice... for SMART PEOPLE... not for you to poop on.

  • 28% genius (unregistered) in reply to Not Dorothy
    Not Dorothy:
    Can you actually have negative pressure, as in -999 hPa? I thought that once it got to zero that was as far as it went.

    Yes, but it sucks.

  • Anon (unregistered) in reply to gustavderdrache
    gustavderdrache:
    Actually, the first image isn't a WTF as presented. All 9s indicates missing data for that field (in this case, every field, indicating that the station missed an hourly report). Data is sent to NOAA as an ASCII flat file, so you can just imagine the kinds of WTFs committed in the sending of crucial meteorological data. God, I love the government.
    NOAA: part of the US government.

    The screenshot is showing weather in, presumably, Germany. Probably at an airport named "Tegel" in Berlin. But even if you were too lazy to look that up, it still gives its timezone: UTC+2.

    Last I checked, the US has no territory anywhere in that timezone.

    So the Real WTF is Americans thinking the US government covers the entire world.

  • rumpelstiltskin (unregistered) in reply to Mike
    Mike:

    Well and at least in europe most countries have a (metric) speed limit of about 120km/h. This makes the 4km a 2min ride. Not that difficult, is it?

    That's fine. Whoever said the metric system wasn't appropriate for Europe?

  • Mike (unregistered) in reply to Paul
    Paul:
    Mike:
    Well and at least in europe most countries have a (metric) speed limit of about 120km/h. This makes the 4km a 2min ride. Not that difficult, is it?

    Don't tell him that...

    Americans think 70mph is dangerously fast (watch their 'police chase' TV programs if you don't believe me) the concept of 70-80mph speed limits will blow their minds! ;)

    At least now we know why they have a slow speed limit - so you can work out how long it will take to get to the next exit (???)

    At least in California they increased the speedlimit at some highways to 75mph. (Which also screws up the nice and easy time estimate :-P...). But having spent most of my life in germany for most parts of my live this still is rather slow.

  • Mike (unregistered) in reply to rumpelstiltskin
    rumpelstiltskin:
    Mike:

    Well and at least in europe most countries have a (metric) speed limit of about 120km/h. This makes the 4km a 2min ride. Not that difficult, is it?

    That's fine. Whoever said the metric system wasn't appropriate for Europe?

    I just wanted to debunk your argument that your distance time conversion is easier with imperial units. Its not. (Unless of course you use "imperial speed limits" and metric distances. But who in his right mind would want to do this? (the UK...)
  • Steve (unregistered)

    Finally I can realize my dream of a winter retreat in Bismarck!

  • 008 (unregistered)

    The first one could be that the wind sensor went offline after 7, and was in the middle of an initiation test sequence when it was polled for it's reading. Since test sequences usually send dummy data (like 0 or 9999), the station used a huge windspeed in calculation of other factors like air pressure, temperature, etc. which fell below the displayable scale, so it used its minimum value (-999) when it displayed its data.

    Goes back to his chair and sips some cognac from a flask.

  • Your Name (unregistered) in reply to Mike
    Mike:
    Paul:
    Mike:
    Well and at least in europe most countries have a (metric) speed limit of about 120km/h. This makes the 4km a 2min ride. Not that difficult, is it?

    Don't tell him that...

    Americans think 70mph is dangerously fast (watch their 'police chase' TV programs if you don't believe me) the concept of 70-80mph speed limits will blow their minds! ;)

    At least now we know why they have a slow speed limit - so you can work out how long it will take to get to the next exit (???)

    At least in California they increased the speedlimit at some highways to 75mph. (Which also screws up the nice and easy time estimate :-P...). But having spent most of my life in germany for most parts of my live this still is rather slow.
    70 mph IS dangerously fast, you idiot. Ever hit a deer (or bear or moose) at 70 mph? How about a tree? You wouldn't be here talking, which is fine with me. Smooth concrete pavement and walls with manicured shoulders is the exception, typically only near urban areas. 70 mph limit on 2-lane highways would be suicidal.

    Also, 'police chase' TV programs portray the USA about as accurately as the Crocodile Dundee movies portray Australia.

  • Mr Fred (unregistered)

    Negative absolute pressure i.e. less than a vacuum is a very real phenomena caused by surface tension inside concave surfaces. It is how trees hundreds of feet tall are able to transport water to the top.

  • Shill (unregistered) in reply to Erk
    Erk:
    The real WTF here is that the US _still_ hasn't adopted the metric system.

    Of course we've adopted it we just prefer our real children.

  • Val (unregistered) in reply to Ron
    Ron:
    I'm still trying to understand the negative precipitation, myself. -999mm of water going flying upwards?

    Or perhaps it's just like tachyons. A tachyon with a negative mass traveling backwards in time is just like a positive one traveling forwards in the future.

  • Val (unregistered) in reply to Val
    Val:
    Ron:
    I'm still trying to understand the negative precipitation, myself. -999mm of water going flying upwards?

    Or perhaps it's just like tachyons. A tachyon with a negative mass traveling backwards in time is just like a positive one traveling forwards in the future.

    O, sorry, not mass but charge. Or whatever the hell those tachyons possess as the only attribute besides velocity... and... and imaginary rest mass. Well, perhaps someone will eventually figure it out.. So is that -999mm of water traveling backwards not only in space, but only in time, so they will be... erm... +999mm of water going up and forwards in time... wait!.. no.. they have real rest mass.. so, they should be built out of anti-hydrogens... maybe... But even CERN did produce only less then a millionth of a gram of anti-hydrogen since it's construction... So wait!! Someone is mass-producing antimatter in secret!!! Run for your lives!

  • Agouti (unregistered) in reply to 008
    008:
    The first one could be that the wind sensor went offline after 7, and was in the middle of an initiation test sequence when it was polled for it's reading. Since test sequences usually send dummy data (like 0 or 9999), the station used a huge windspeed in calculation of other factors like air pressure, temperature, etc. which fell below the displayable scale, so it used its minimum value (-999) when it displayed its data.

    Goes back to his chair and sips some cognac from a flask.

    Haha, well done. 'course, there's all kinds of delicious ways to get data-loss that would do that as well.

    As usual comments seem to have gotten into a pissing match between the US and the rest of the world. At least it's over SI vs metric. Oh, and what people consider safe road speeds.

    Pffft, I used to commute along a 1 1/2 lane dirt road at over 100KM/H (65 MP/H?), except for the blind corners. I mean, you had to just about park on the grass on the side to get around a truck.

  • Agouti (unregistered)

    oh and BTW this is why it's always a good idea to program "sanity checks", like most large programs, like games (should) have to to stop them accidentally trying to allocate like 1,854.something MB in a block (which BF2 tries to every now and then)

Leave a comment on “Oh The Weather Outside is Frightful”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article