The System 333: Full Gadget Ratio
UPDATE-UPDATE: I know what you’re thinking. The equation is crap! Here’s how you can help me fix it!
Everything you need to know to calculate the true size of the gadgets you carry. There are way more factors than you may have considered. I invite you to calculate yours, and post in the comments. Use standard metric system for all measurements. As for Planck’s Apple Constant (based on his original work on Planck’s Constant), everyone knows that’s a physical constant used to describe the size of the smallest iPod available used in the pricing of running arm bands and quantum mechanics.
Systemic Harris has helped us better define the Full Gadget Ratio, with an equation that has now been reflected in the above image. Here’s his breakdown:
On the FGR of Mobile Devices:
Clearly, FGR should be a measure of how bulky/inconvenient the object is, amortized over how useful it is. So:
FGR, the base term at first glance should be affine in S,A,B, as these all contribute more or less additively to bulkiness. T is an issue, though for now we can add it in as well. I see lots of people use S*T or some such, which is clearly not right, though my S+T isn’t much better. Really, the question is whether S is a volume, or the bulkiest dimension, or maybe, it’s the largest face divided by the opposite direction (screen size divided by thickness, say). The question is whether S should be a measure of useful dimensions vs. non-useful dimension, like the latter, or a general matter of how bulky something is to carry around, so a simple volume, or the bulkiest dimension. The interaction w/ T then plays into that. Not sure the best way to handle it. The most accurate would be to break S into the three dimensions and apply T directly, recomputing the volume, but that will complicate the device enormously. So for now we leave it linear.
If a device is twice as useful, it’s clearly functionally half as bulky, so divide by U.
Higher H makes it more useful, but how? On the one hand, H should essentially contribute to higher U, as you can’t use it if the battery is dead, so will use it more. But only past a point, as if it can do, say, 24 or 48 hours w/out recharge, it’s not an inconvenience to recharge every so often. So replacing 1/U by (1 + 1/H)/U is good for bulkiness, as low H decreases effective usefulness a lot, but past a point high H is diminishing returns.
Additionally, though, H plays off against A, as the longer it lasts w/out power the less you need to carry the power adapter around. So perhaps replace the A term by A/H, that is, the bulk of the adaptors is reduced by you maybe not needing to carry them around. Really this should be a threshold effect of some kind, though, where either you are carrying the adaptors around or you aren’t, so maybe multiply A by an appropriate shifted Heaviside function of H. Still, the linear approximation is ok for now. And of course, that you rolled chargers & adapters into the same category muddles the issue.
The worry factor increases bulkiness, presumably linearly. But, if newer versions are out, you don’t mind it breaking as much because you want to buy the new one. So there should be a W/N factor in there (where obviously we must count N as the number of generations at least as new as this one, to avoid division by 0). Again, though once it is old enough you don’t worry at all, but this shouldn’t go to 0, so it should be (1+ W/N).
And the constant should definitely be used as a multiplier, to get the units (whatever they are) to come out right.
So maybe:FGR = (S + T + A/H + B) * (1+1/H)/U * (1 + W/N) * h, or reordered to look a little nicer
FGR = h(1+W/N)(1+1/H)(S+T+A/H+B)/U
This is why I outsource the really mathy stuff. It’s just easier that way.
UPDATE: As always, if you want a print of this comic (or any comic), they are all only $10 at our online store, Hilariawesome.com!
February 2nd, 2010 at 2:52 pm
Ha, awesome.
Though, I might add a term F to the top of the equation, where F = Number of weeks since the last full backup of the Gadget. This term should probably be squared for geeks and cubed for obsessive programmers (ahem, not that I’d know).
Good work, though. My MacBook Pro FGR is greater than my kindle’s disproportionate to their true difference in size (particularly with (3 weeks)^3 in there!)
February 2nd, 2010 at 7:50 pm
Truly the best you've done in a while. Rossmom would be- IS, is proud. *sniff*
February 2nd, 2010 at 7:59 pm
Should it not be FGR = ((S*(T+A) *plus* B)…
February 2nd, 2010 at 5:31 pm
[...] screen, and so on — now it’s just that much more likely to snap in half. This chart, by Rosscott Inc., presents a method for determining the true impact of a gadget on your [...]
February 2nd, 2010 at 10:13 pm
Is anyone else reading that as "stab wound"?
February 2nd, 2010 at 6:57 pm
[...] screen, and so on — now it’s just that much more likely to snap in half. This chart, by Rosscott Inc., presents a method for determining the true impact of a gadget on your [...]
February 3rd, 2010 at 12:28 am
what units of meaurment do you use to substitute variables A B & W?
February 3rd, 2010 at 2:02 am
Geek factor = Cool factor / FGR
This is why true geeks always carry backpacks. Messenger bags geeks are just pretenders, or fixie geeks
February 3rd, 2010 at 3:25 am
Dividing by W seems to imply that the more you worry about carrying a gadget around, the smaller it gets. I would expect the reverse to be true, since pricier gadgets 'weigh' more on your mind.
Also constants like h are typically multiplied, as in E=hv.
February 3rd, 2010 at 11:40 am
"Also constants like h are typically multiplied, as in E=hv."
Actually, constants are also commonly used to provide a non-zero intercept point, a minimum base level, within an equation. It's really not a mathematical truth to suggest that it's more common for constant values to be used as multipliers than additive (positive or negative) modifiers.
Planck's constant, now that IS usually seen as a multiplier within the appropriate equations, but since the FGR is based on Plank's Apple Constant, rather than the more traditionally well known alternative, that's irrelevant
As for the impact of Worry (W) on the FGR, I think you're right – increased worry should make a gadget "bigger" in that you notice it more, it has to be kept more obvious (to you) so you can keep track of it. Unless of course the worry factor is smaller the more you worry about it (trending towards zero for infinite worry). This would have the desired effect on the FGR.
February 3rd, 2010 at 3:41 pm
Depending on what FGR really means, it could be:
If bigger is worse:
[(S*T+B+A)*(N+1)*W*h]/(U*H)
or, if size of unit is cool, but everything else detracts:
[(S*T-B-A)*h]/[(N+1)*W*U*H]
You have to add 1 to N to prevent division by zero when the unit is new.
February 3rd, 2010 at 8:36 pm
Yes, Rossmom is indeed proud, but not at all surprised!
I agree w/the calculation (Yes, i can follow these things. I do understand such beautiful equations.)
I have a prime factor for this equation which is my basic criteria in looking at any new gadget–how much does the thing weigh. Second to that is the size. I use those in my calculation for determining if it is really worth the price.
I don't agree that "pricier gadgets weigh more on your mind". It isn't the price that would concern as much as the "if I lose the thing, how will I recover all that data–you know, the telephone #s of the good-looking people you want to ask out. (Do you people still ask someone "out" anymore. Or better yet, if you are the askor, do you automatically cough up all the $ spent?)
February 4th, 2010 at 9:57 pm
[...] gadget. One thing is clear: the Apple fanboy constant automatically sets the weigh to near-zero. [Not Quite Wrong] Tagged:data [...]
February 4th, 2010 at 10:41 pm
[...] Full Gadget Ratio Formula Calculates the Actual Size of Gadgets [Infographics] The math itself doesn’t make much sense, but I like the concept of this formula to calculate the real size of your gadget. One thing is clear: the Apple fanboy constant automatically sets the weigh to near-zero. [Not Quite Wrong] [...]
February 4th, 2010 at 10:42 pm
[...] The math itself doesn’t make much sense, but I like the concept of this formula to calculate the real size of your gadget. One thing is clear: the Apple fanboy constant automatically sets the weigh to near-zero. [Not Quite Wrong] [...]
February 5th, 2010 at 12:47 am
[...] The math itself doesn’t make much sense, but I like the concept of this formula to calculate the real size of your gadget. One thing is clear: the Apple fanboy constant automatically sets the weigh to near-zero. [Not Quite Wrong] [...]
February 5th, 2010 at 7:42 am
[...] NotQuitWrong ¡Comparteme! 5/02/2010 en Social | Autor Tuti | tags: Gadget, Tamaño Puntuación: Post [...]
February 7th, 2010 at 1:01 pm
[...] screen, and so on — now it’s just that much more likely to snap in half. This chart, by Rosscott Inc., presents a method for determining the true impact of a gadget on your [...]
February 7th, 2010 at 7:13 pm
IMO, the smallest it is, the more I worry about it. for examle: if it is as small as a button, there would be much greater chance to loose it.
February 8th, 2010 at 8:23 am
[...] SOURCE:rosscottinc [...]
March 19th, 2010 at 11:48 am
[...] Full Gadget Ratio Formula Calculates the Actual Size of Gadgets [Infographics] On February 5, 2010, In Fun, by RSS Feed The math itself doesn’t make much sense, but I like the concept of this formula to calculate the real size of your gadget. One thing is clear: the Apple fanboy constant automatically sets the weigh to near-zero. [Not Quite Wrong] [...]
April 24th, 2010 at 6:39 am
No, you don't. When every unit is new, it's FGR is infinite until time passes by
May 2nd, 2010 at 4:48 am
Heh. Planck. Ed, Edd ‘n’ Eddy <3
August 19th, 2010 at 9:38 pm
I might just be complicating things here, but S might need to become "relative size" of the object. Or maybe we need a new variable. It's not just how big the object is, but how big the objects it replaces would have been. Uh, bad sentence. For example, the Kindle. I saw someone using one today. At the time, I had three different books in my bag. If I were considering the FGR of a potential Kindle (or other e-reader), I would have to subtract, divide, or otherwise consider the FBR of those texts.