Hacker News Reader

Which is all wrong.

The monolith in 2001 had dimensions in ratios of 1:4:9 [and continuing into other dimensions...].

Why the heck would you go to all the work of putting a monolith of the wrong shape out there?

1:4:9 is too 2000's. 1:9:49 is what you want these days.

Can you please explain the significance?

television ratios joke. 4:3 became 16:9 for widescreen. Further from square and closer to the "golden ratio", so make something closer with different prime squares.

1:22:33 becomes 1:33:77

In reality I was joking about fashion. The new trend in monoliths is a metallic finish and slender proportions, skipping one prime square - The original is 1²:2²:3² and the new one is 1²:3²:7² (skips primes 2 and 5). The dimensions continue, of course. In Clarke's 2010 it's kind of assumed it'd mean it'd be integers, but the new one fits better with primes.

Nobody prooved it has any relation to 2001. It's not even black, why do people even assume it must have some connection with that story?

Because of the hilarious implication that the installer believe intelligent life had not yet been seeded in the Utah area.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com