https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=70.31.159.230&feedformat=atomexplain xkcd - User contributions [en]2024-03-28T14:33:57ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.30.0https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1173:_Steroids&diff=28381Talk:1173: Steroids2013-02-18T21:50:21Z<p>70.31.159.230: </p>
<hr />
<div>Does anyone know what that 'something' is? That's what I came here to find out... :/ --[[User:NeatNit|NeatNit]] ([[User talk:NeatNit|talk]]) 11:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I had a lot of ideas, but I don't know. It might be a molecule, some sort of portal transmitting sound, a star, a future life form.<br />
:--[[User:Jaap-Jan|Jaap-Jan]] ([[User talk:Jaap-Jan|talk]]) 12:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::My first instinct was that Megan was talking to the asterisk that gets put next to world records held by athletes who have been suspected of using steroids.<br />
::[[User:Smperron|Smperron]] ([[User talk:Smperron|talk]]) 17:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::It looks to me like the God from Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal. Though that God would know all about the steroid scandal, presumably. [[Special:Contributions/98.234.113.134|98.234.113.134]] 00:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::It's the crystalline life-form from the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode "Home Soil". When not killing red shirts, it keeps taunting humans that they're "ugly bags of mostly water".[[User:Columbus Admission|Columbus Admission]] ([[User talk:Columbus Admission|talk]]) 00:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::My first association was this "entity of pure energy" from Futurama: http://theinfosphere.org/Energy_being [[Special:Contributions/94.126.74.17|94.126.74.17]] 10:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::::It reminded me of the white hole from Diane Duane's "So You Want to be Wizard".<br />
<br />
I think the "artificial boundary" isn't so artificial. There is a clear difference between food chemicals, which are healthy for us, vs steroid chemicals, which cause all sorts of health problems. Of course, then Megan would have to explain that we have limited lifespans and we greatly value our quality of life, and these steroids would decrease our quality of life. [[Special:Contributions/70.31.159.230|70.31.159.230]] 13:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC) <br />
:So on the one side of this "clear boundary" you'd have something like Big Macs (food, good for us) and on the other you'd have vitamin supplements (non-food chemicals, bad)?<br />
::I think the theory is that things that improve athletic performance but hurt the body should not be allowed. That way, athletes who are willing to sacrifice their health in order to win do not have an advantage over those who are not willing to make such a sacrifice. If people want to eat Big Mac's they are welcome to because it doesn't give them any advantage. Basically, you can put bad stuff into yourself all you want, but not if it gives you a competitive advantage. [[Special:Contributions/74.92.219.153|74.92.219.153]] 17:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Which is good theory except that we have hardly any idea what are long-term effect of most chemicals, not speaking about fact that any chemical which is beneficial in reasonable amount (which we often don't know and it may depend on individual or other condition) is dangerous if you take it too much. The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_C L-ascorbic acid] is particularly interresting example, as the official recomendation is 90mg per day, but depending on doctor and on situation (like illness or stress level) even 10,000mg may be considered healthy. Another good example is already mentioned [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testosterone testosterone], which IS actually steroid. Oh yes, and then there is the problem of DETECTING that the athlets are getting those "unnatural" chemicals. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 09:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::Your argument seems to suggest that just because we can't catch all criminals, or because we don't know the long term effects of people's actions, we should just release convicted murderers. No one ever said the system's perfect. I grant that there are many grey areas, and we can't come close to policing every athlete. I don't think we should stop athletes from taking vitamin C given our current amount of knowledge, but I do think we should try to stop the athletes that are detected to be using chemicals in quantities that are known to be unhealthy in order to gain a competitive advantage.[[Special:Contributions/70.31.159.230|70.31.159.230]] 21:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Like trying to line up all the people in the world and draw a clear line to divide blacks from whites, it's too much of a gradual spectrum to be anything other than arbitrary. [[Special:Contributions/67.51.59.66|67.51.59.66]] 17:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
::I explained my point very poorly. "Good" performance enhancing chemicals (like healthy foods) tend to also make us more healthy while "bad" performance enhancing chemicals (like steroids) cause all sorts of health problems. Athletes are generally encouraged to take the "good" stuff while avoiding the "bad" stuff. Of course there's a huge grey area in between (including non-performance-enhancing Big Macs), but I think steroids clearly fall outside this grey area. [[Special:Contributions/70.31.159.230|70.31.159.230]] 19:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::|Um, you do realize that the human body itself creates "Steroids"? Which are also in found within the plants and animals that we eat. (Especially soybeans.) Testosterone is supposedly one of these "bad" steroids, which cause many problems for humans. [[Special:Contributions/69.181.140.191|69.181.140.191]] 12:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::I suppose my point requires further explanation; devil's advocates will never be satisfied. Testosterone isn't intrinsically "bad" for us (as you mentioned, it is an integral part of our chemistry), but taking significant amounts of it from external sources has been shown to damage our bodies' ability to produce it and/or regulate its levels, among other effects. Hence, taking steroids is bad for us. Compare that with healthy food, which is generally accepted to "increase" our athletic performance (compared with unhealthy food, or no food) without any serious avoidable side effects. <br />
::::However, you do bring up the point of testosterone being present in some things we consider to count as "food". I guess there is a certain amount of testosterone you are allowed to ingest (for these contests) that cause a negligible effect. [[Special:Contributions/70.31.159.230|70.31.159.230]] 13:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::::So it should be permitted to take non-dangerous levels of steroids? Either way, blood doping is the practice of boosting the number of red blood cells in the bloodstream, seems like a difficult argument to make for that to be bad (unless you have too many, but until that point). [[Special:Contributions/67.87.171.116|67.87.171.116]] 07:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::::I guess by my logic, it should indeed be permitted to take steroids at a non-dangerous level. It sort of is the way things are; if I take 1 miligram of testosterone a day I don't think anyone would stop me because they couldn't catch me. At such a low level, I doubt it would have an effect on my blood testosterone levels. It gets a lot murkier when you get into the question of "what is the highest amount you should permit?"[[Special:Contributions/70.31.159.230|70.31.159.230]] 21:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
Blood doping is not the same as steroid use. {{unsigned|98.204.81.157}}<br />
:EDIT: I think for the purposes of this discussion, blood doping does have its recognized risks. I guess it's another form of performance enhancement that is difficult to do properly, and can kill you or transmit dangerous diseases if done improperly. Check out the Wikipedia article for more information. I think it should be controlled in the same manner as steroids, not because it's inherently bad, but because it can be difficult to self-regulate for athletes. [[Special:Contributions/70.31.159.230|70.31.159.230]] 21:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
== Douglas Adams ==<br />
<br />
Does anyone else feel that the title text has a strong Douglas Adams flavour?<br />
And if so, can we make that hard with a quote from one of his books?<br />
<br />
:It's a biblical reference, Genesis 3:19, "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return", King James version.[[User:Jasqm|Jasqm]] ([[User talk:Jasqm|talk]]) 14:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:D.N.A. has been known to reference the bible: <br />
:-"In the beginning, the universe was created. This made a lot of people unhappy and has been widely regarded as a bad move."<br />
:-"And then one day, nearly two thousand years after one man was nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be if people were nice to each other for a change..."<br />
:[[User:Smperron|Smperron]] ([[User talk:Smperron|talk]]) 17:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:You're probably thinking of his quotes that reference digital watches and what a big mistake it was to leave the oceans (combined with the scene from the show where the guy walks back into the ocean).[[User:CityZen|CityZen]] ([[User talk:CityZen|talk]]) 21:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Ive said that Douglas Adams write for XKCD for years now...Notice if you change all the letters to their corresponding number (A=1, B=2, etc) and add them, you get 42 ;) [[Special:Contributions/90.205.199.80|90.205.199.80]] 12:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Yeah, I'm pretty sure we all know that was a coincidence; Randall said so.<br />
:I wrote a quick program to check for four-letter combinations and add their value. I'm assuming (hoping) that I coded correctly and got accurate results (I was using a library that I am unfamiliar with). Of the 26^4 possible letter combinations, 8840 (roughly 2%) will result in a total of 42 (order matters). This comes to 449 different sets of letters (in whatever order) that total 42. The numbers change if we assume Randall would only choose a letter once to be in the title. I'd rewrite the program to count up all combinations that total 4 to 104 for comparison (with and without repetition), but it's after 5am now. [[Special:Contributions/76.122.5.96|76.122.5.96]] 10:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Not just a Biblical reference, the comic is published on (western christian) Ash Wednesday... [[User:Patmiller|Patmiller]] ([[User talk:Patmiller|talk]]) 14:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I didn't think of Douglas Adams when I read it, I thought of Paul Erdos' definition of a mathematician as a device for turning coffee into theorems. [[User:MGK|MGK]] ([[User talk:MGK|talk]]) 15:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)</div>70.31.159.230https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1173:_Steroids&diff=28379Talk:1173: Steroids2013-02-18T21:45:31Z<p>70.31.159.230: </p>
<hr />
<div>Does anyone know what that 'something' is? That's what I came here to find out... :/ --[[User:NeatNit|NeatNit]] ([[User talk:NeatNit|talk]]) 11:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I had a lot of ideas, but I don't know. It might be a molecule, some sort of portal transmitting sound, a star, a future life form.<br />
:--[[User:Jaap-Jan|Jaap-Jan]] ([[User talk:Jaap-Jan|talk]]) 12:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::My first instinct was that Megan was talking to the asterisk that gets put next to world records held by athletes who have been suspected of using steroids.<br />
::[[User:Smperron|Smperron]] ([[User talk:Smperron|talk]]) 17:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::It looks to me like the God from Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal. Though that God would know all about the steroid scandal, presumably. [[Special:Contributions/98.234.113.134|98.234.113.134]] 00:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::It's the crystalline life-form from the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode "Home Soil". When not killing red shirts, it keeps taunting humans that they're "ugly bags of mostly water".[[User:Columbus Admission|Columbus Admission]] ([[User talk:Columbus Admission|talk]]) 00:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::My first association was this "entity of pure energy" from Futurama: http://theinfosphere.org/Energy_being [[Special:Contributions/94.126.74.17|94.126.74.17]] 10:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::::It reminded me of the white hole from Diane Duane's "So You Want to be Wizard".<br />
<br />
I think the "artificial boundary" isn't so artificial. There is a clear difference between food chemicals, which are healthy for us, vs steroid chemicals, which cause all sorts of health problems. Of course, then Megan would have to explain that we have limited lifespans and we greatly value our quality of life, and these steroids would decrease our quality of life. [[Special:Contributions/70.31.159.230|70.31.159.230]] 13:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC) <br />
:So on the one side of this "clear boundary" you'd have something like Big Macs (food, good for us) and on the other you'd have vitamin supplements (non-food chemicals, bad)?<br />
::I think the theory is that things that improve athletic performance but hurt the body should not be allowed. That way, athletes who are willing to sacrifice their health in order to win do not have an advantage over those who are not willing to make such a sacrifice. If people want to eat Big Mac's they are welcome to because it doesn't give them any advantage. Basically, you can put bad stuff into yourself all you want, but not if it gives you a competitive advantage. [[Special:Contributions/74.92.219.153|74.92.219.153]] 17:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Which is good theory except that we have hardly any idea what are long-term effect of most chemicals, not speaking about fact that any chemical which is beneficial in reasonable amount (which we often don't know and it may depend on individual or other condition) is dangerous if you take it too much. The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_C L-ascorbic acid] is particularly interresting example, as the official recomendation is 90mg per day, but depending on doctor and on situation (like illness or stress level) even 10,000mg may be considered healthy. Another good example is already mentioned [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testosterone testosterone], which IS actually steroid. Oh yes, and then there is the problem of DETECTING that the athlets are getting those "unnatural" chemicals. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 09:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::Your argument seems to suggest that just because we can't catch all criminals, or because we don't know the long term effects of people's actions, we should just release convicted murderers. No one ever said the system's perfect. I grant that there are many grey areas, and we can't come close to policing every athlete. I don't think we should stop athletes from taking vitamin C given our current amount of knowledge, but I do think we should try to stop the athletes that are detected to be using chemicals in quantities that are known to be unhealthy in order to gain a competitive advantage.[[Special:Contributions/70.31.159.230|70.31.159.230]] 21:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Like trying to line up all the people in the world and draw a clear line to divide blacks from whites, it's too much of a gradual spectrum to be anything other than arbitrary. [[Special:Contributions/67.51.59.66|67.51.59.66]] 17:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
::I explained my point very poorly. "Good" performance enhancing chemicals (like healthy foods) tend to also make us more healthy while "bad" performance enhancing chemicals (like steroids) cause all sorts of health problems. Athletes are generally encouraged to take the "good" stuff while avoiding the "bad" stuff. Of course there's a huge grey area in between (including non-performance-enhancing Big Macs), but I think steroids clearly fall outside this grey area. [[Special:Contributions/70.31.159.230|70.31.159.230]] 19:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::|Um, you do realize that the human body itself creates "Steroids"? Which are also in found within the plants and animals that we eat. (Especially soybeans.) Testosterone is supposedly one of these "bad" steroids, which cause many problems for humans. [[Special:Contributions/69.181.140.191|69.181.140.191]] 12:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::I suppose my point requires further explanation; devil's advocates will never be satisfied. Testosterone isn't intrinsically "bad" for us (as you mentioned, it is an integral part of our chemistry), but taking significant amounts of it from external sources has been shown to damage our bodies' ability to produce it and/or regulate its levels, among other effects. Hence, taking steroids is bad for us. Compare that with healthy food, which is generally accepted to "increase" our athletic performance (compared with unhealthy food, or no food) without any serious avoidable side effects. <br />
::::However, you do bring up the point of testosterone being present in some things we consider to count as "food". I guess there is a certain amount of testosterone you are allowed to ingest (for these contests) that cause a negligible effect. [[Special:Contributions/70.31.159.230|70.31.159.230]] 13:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::::So it should be permitted to take non-dangerous levels of steroids? Either way, blood doping is the practice of boosting the number of red blood cells in the bloodstream, seems like a difficult argument to make for that to be bad (unless you have too many, but until that point). [[Special:Contributions/67.87.171.116|67.87.171.116]] 07:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::::I guess by my logic, it should indeed be permitted to take steroids at a non-dangerous level. It sort of is the way things are; if I take 1 miligram of testosterone a day I don't think anyone would stop me because they couldn't catch me. At such a low level, I doubt it would have an effect on my blood testosterone levels. It gets a lot murkier when you get into the question of "what is the highest amount you should permit?"[[Special:Contributions/70.31.159.230|70.31.159.230]] 21:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
Blood doping is not the same as steroid use. {{unsigned|98.204.81.157}}<br />
:He does raise a good point though. I can't really think of any ethics or sportsmanship reasons that would make blood doping wrong.[[Special:Contributions/70.31.159.230|70.31.159.230]] 21:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
== Douglas Adams ==<br />
<br />
Does anyone else feel that the title text has a strong Douglas Adams flavour?<br />
And if so, can we make that hard with a quote from one of his books?<br />
<br />
:It's a biblical reference, Genesis 3:19, "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return", King James version.[[User:Jasqm|Jasqm]] ([[User talk:Jasqm|talk]]) 14:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:D.N.A. has been known to reference the bible: <br />
:-"In the beginning, the universe was created. This made a lot of people unhappy and has been widely regarded as a bad move."<br />
:-"And then one day, nearly two thousand years after one man was nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be if people were nice to each other for a change..."<br />
:[[User:Smperron|Smperron]] ([[User talk:Smperron|talk]]) 17:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:You're probably thinking of his quotes that reference digital watches and what a big mistake it was to leave the oceans (combined with the scene from the show where the guy walks back into the ocean).[[User:CityZen|CityZen]] ([[User talk:CityZen|talk]]) 21:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Ive said that Douglas Adams write for XKCD for years now...Notice if you change all the letters to their corresponding number (A=1, B=2, etc) and add them, you get 42 ;) [[Special:Contributions/90.205.199.80|90.205.199.80]] 12:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Yeah, I'm pretty sure we all know that was a coincidence; Randall said so.<br />
:I wrote a quick program to check for four-letter combinations and add their value. I'm assuming (hoping) that I coded correctly and got accurate results (I was using a library that I am unfamiliar with). Of the 26^4 possible letter combinations, 8840 (roughly 2%) will result in a total of 42 (order matters). This comes to 449 different sets of letters (in whatever order) that total 42. The numbers change if we assume Randall would only choose a letter once to be in the title. I'd rewrite the program to count up all combinations that total 4 to 104 for comparison (with and without repetition), but it's after 5am now. [[Special:Contributions/76.122.5.96|76.122.5.96]] 10:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Not just a Biblical reference, the comic is published on (western christian) Ash Wednesday... [[User:Patmiller|Patmiller]] ([[User talk:Patmiller|talk]]) 14:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I didn't think of Douglas Adams when I read it, I thought of Paul Erdos' definition of a mathematician as a device for turning coffee into theorems. [[User:MGK|MGK]] ([[User talk:MGK|talk]]) 15:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)</div>70.31.159.230https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1173:_Steroids&diff=27887Talk:1173: Steroids2013-02-14T13:21:49Z<p>70.31.159.230: </p>
<hr />
<div>Does anyone know what that 'something' is? That's what I came here to find out... :/ --[[User:NeatNit|NeatNit]] ([[User talk:NeatNit|talk]]) 11:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I had a lot of ideas, but I don't know. It might be a molecule, some sort of portal transmitting sound, a star, a future life form.<br />
:--[[User:Jaap-Jan|Jaap-Jan]] ([[User talk:Jaap-Jan|talk]]) 12:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::My first instinct was that Megan was talking to the asterisk that gets put next to world records held by athletes who have been suspected of using steroids.<br />
::[[User:Smperron|Smperron]] ([[User talk:Smperron|talk]]) 17:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::It looks to me like the God from Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal. Though that God would know all about the steroid scandal, presumably. [[Special:Contributions/98.234.113.134|98.234.113.134]] 00:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::It's the crystalline life-form from the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode "Home Soil". When not killing red shirts, it keeps taunting humans that they're "ugly bags of mostly water".[[User:Columbus Admission|Columbus Admission]] ([[User talk:Columbus Admission|talk]]) 00:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think the "artificial boundary" isn't so artificial. There is a clear difference between food chemicals, which are healthy for us, vs steroid chemicals, which cause all sorts of health problems. Of course, then Megan would have to explain that we have limited lifespans and we greatly value our quality of life, and these steroids would decrease our quality of life. [[Special:Contributions/70.31.159.230|70.31.159.230]] 13:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC) <br />
:So on the one side of this "clear boundary" you'd have something like Big Macs (food, good for us) and on the other you'd have vitamin supplements (non-food chemicals, bad)?<br />
:Like trying to line up all the people in the world and draw a clear line to divide blacks from whites, it's too much of a gradual spectrum to be anything other than arbitrary. [[Special:Contributions/67.51.59.66|67.51.59.66]] 17:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
::I explained my point very poorly. "Good" performance enhancing chemicals (like healthy foods) tend to also make us more healthy while "bad" performance enhancing chemicals (like steroids) cause all sorts of health problems. Athletes are generally encouraged to take the "good" stuff while avoiding the "bad" stuff. Of course there's a huge grey area in between (including non-performance-enhancing Big Macs), but I think steroids clearly fall outside this grey area. [[Special:Contributions/70.31.159.230|70.31.159.230]] 19:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::|Um, you do realize that the human body itself creates "Steroids"? Which are also in found within the plants and animals that we eat. (Especially soybeans.) Testosterone is supposedly one of these "bad" steroids, which cause many problems for humans. [[Special:Contributions/69.181.140.191|69.181.140.191]] 12:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::I suppose my point requires further explanation; devil's advocates will never be satisfied. Testosterone isn't intrinsically "bad" for us (as you mentioned, it is an integral part of our chemistry), but taking significant amounts of it from external sources has been shown to damage our bodies' ability to produce it and/or regulate its levels, among other effects. Hence, taking steroids is bad for us. Compare that with healthy food, which is generally accepted to "increase" our athletic performance (compared with unhealthy food, or no food) without any serious avoidable side effects. <br />
::::However, you do bring up the point of testosterone being present in some things we consider to count as "food". I guess there is a certain amount of testosterone you are allowed to ingest (for these contests) that cause a negligible effect. [[Special:Contributions/70.31.159.230|70.31.159.230]] 13:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Blood doping is not the same as steroid use.<br />
== Douglas Adams ==<br />
<br />
Does anyone else feel that the title text has a strong Douglas Adams flavour?<br />
And if so, can we make that hard with a quote from one of his books?<br />
<br />
:It's a biblical reference, Genesis 3:19, "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return", King James version.[[User:Jasqm|Jasqm]] ([[User talk:Jasqm|talk]]) 14:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:D.N.A. has been known to reference the bible: <br />
:-"In the beginning, the universe was created. This made a lot of people unhappy and has been widely regarded as a bad move."<br />
:-"And then one day, nearly two thousand years after one man was nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be if people were nice to each other for a change..."<br />
:[[User:Smperron|Smperron]] ([[User talk:Smperron|talk]]) 17:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:You're probably thinking of his quotes that reference digital watches and what a big mistake it was to leave the oceans (combined with the scene from the show where the guy walks back into the ocean).[[User:CityZen|CityZen]] ([[User talk:CityZen|talk]]) 21:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Ive said that Douglas Adams write for XKCD for years now...Notice if you change all the letters to their corresponding number (A=1, B=2, etc) and add them, you get 42 ;) [[Special:Contributions/90.205.199.80|90.205.199.80]] 12:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Not just a Biblical reference, the comic is published on (western christian) Ash Wednesday... [[User:Patmiller|Patmiller]] ([[User talk:Patmiller|talk]]) 14:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)</div>70.31.159.230https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1173:_Steroids&diff=27850Talk:1173: Steroids2013-02-13T19:59:04Z<p>70.31.159.230: </p>
<hr />
<div>Does anyone know what that 'something' is? That's what I came here to find out... :/ --[[User:NeatNit|NeatNit]] ([[User talk:NeatNit|talk]]) 11:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I had a lot of ideas, but I don't know. It might be a molecule, some sort of portal transmitting sound, a star, a future life form.<br />
:--[[User:Jaap-Jan|Jaap-Jan]] ([[User talk:Jaap-Jan|talk]]) 12:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::My first instinct was that Megan was talking to the asterisk that gets put next to world records held by athletes who have been suspected of using steroids.<br />
::[[User:Smperron|Smperron]] ([[User talk:Smperron|talk]]) 17:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think the "artificial boundary" isn't so artificial. There is a clear difference between food chemicals, which are healthy for us, vs steroid chemicals, which cause all sorts of health problems. Of course, then Megan would have to explain that we have limited lifespans and we greatly value our quality of life, and these steroids would decrease our quality of life. [[Special:Contributions/70.31.159.230|70.31.159.230]] 13:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC) <br />
:So on the one side of this "clear boundary" you'd have something like Big Macs (food, good for us) and on the other you'd have vitamin supplements (non-food chemicals, bad)?<br />
:Like trying to line up all the people in the world and draw a clear line to divide blacks from whites, it's too much of a gradual spectrum to be anything other than arbitrary. [[Special:Contributions/67.51.59.66|67.51.59.66]] 17:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
::I explained my point very poorly. "Good" performance enhancing chemicals (like healthy foods) tend to also make us more healthy while "bad" performance enhancing chemicals (like steroids) cause all sorts of health problems. Athletes are generally encouraged to take the "good" stuff while avoiding the "bad" stuff. Of course there's a huge grey area in between (including non-performance-enhancing Big Macs), but I think steroids clearly fall outside this grey area. [[Special:Contributions/70.31.159.230|70.31.159.230]] 19:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Douglas Adams ==<br />
<br />
Does anyone else feel that the title text has a strong Douglas Adams flavour?<br />
And if so, can we make that hard with a quote from one of his books?<br />
<br />
:It's a biblical reference, Genesis 3:19, "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return", King James version.[[User:Jasqm|Jasqm]] ([[User talk:Jasqm|talk]]) 14:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:D.N.A. has been known to reference the bible: <br />
:-"In the beginning, the universe was created. This made a lot of people unhappy and has been widely regarded as a bad move."<br />
:-"And then one day, nearly two thousand years after one man was nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be if people were nice to each other for a change..."<br />
:[[User:Smperron|Smperron]] ([[User talk:Smperron|talk]]) 17:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Ive said that Douglas Adams write for XKCD for years now...Notice if you change all the letters to their corresponding number (A=1, B=2, etc) and add them, you get 42 ;) [[Special:Contributions/90.205.199.80|90.205.199.80]] 12:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Not just a Biblical reference, the comic is published on (western christian) Ash Wednesday... [[User:Patmiller|Patmiller]] ([[User talk:Patmiller|talk]]) 14:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)</div>70.31.159.230https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1173:_Steroids&diff=27849Talk:1173: Steroids2013-02-13T19:58:10Z<p>70.31.159.230: </p>
<hr />
<div>Does anyone know what that 'something' is? That's what I came here to find out... :/ --[[User:NeatNit|NeatNit]] ([[User talk:NeatNit|talk]]) 11:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I had a lot of ideas, but I don't know. It might be a molecule, some sort of portal transmitting sound, a star, a future life form.<br />
:--[[User:Jaap-Jan|Jaap-Jan]] ([[User talk:Jaap-Jan|talk]]) 12:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::My first instinct was that Megan was talking to the asterisk that gets put next to world records held by athletes who have been suspected of using steroids.<br />
::[[User:Smperron|Smperron]] ([[User talk:Smperron|talk]]) 17:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think the "artificial boundary" isn't so artificial. There is a clear difference between food chemicals, which are healthy for us, vs steroid chemicals, which cause all sorts of health problems. Of course, then Megan would have to explain that we have limited lifespans and we greatly value our quality of life, and these steroids would decrease our quality of life. [[Special:Contributions/70.31.159.230|70.31.159.230]] 13:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC) <br />
:So on the one side of this "clear boundary" you'd have something like Big Macs (food, good for us) and on the other you'd have vitamin supplements (non-food chemicals, bad)?<br />
:Like trying to line up all the people in the world and draw a clear line to divide blacks from whites, it's too much of a gradual spectrum to be anything other than arbitrary. [[Special:Contributions/67.51.59.66|67.51.59.66]] 17:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
== Douglas Adams ==<br />
:I explained my point very poorly. "Good" performance enhancing chemicals (like healthy foods) tend to also make us more healthy while "bad" performance enhancing chemicals (like steroids) cause all sorts of health problems. Athletes are generally encouraged to take the "good" stuff while avoiding the "bad" stuff. Of course there's a huge grey area in between (including non-performance-enhancing Big Macs), but I think steroids clearly fall outside this grey area. [[Special:Contributions/70.31.159.230|70.31.159.230]] 19:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Does anyone else feel that the title text has a strong Douglas Adams flavour?<br />
And if so, can we make that hard with a quote from one of his books?<br />
<br />
:It's a biblical reference, Genesis 3:19, "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return", King James version.[[User:Jasqm|Jasqm]] ([[User talk:Jasqm|talk]]) 14:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:D.N.A. has been known to reference the bible: <br />
:-"In the beginning, the universe was created. This made a lot of people unhappy and has been widely regarded as a bad move."<br />
:-"And then one day, nearly two thousand years after one man was nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be if people were nice to each other for a change..."<br />
:[[User:Smperron|Smperron]] ([[User talk:Smperron|talk]]) 17:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Ive said that Douglas Adams write for XKCD for years now...Notice if you change all the letters to their corresponding number (A=1, B=2, etc) and add them, you get 42 ;) [[Special:Contributions/90.205.199.80|90.205.199.80]] 12:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Not just a Biblical reference, the comic is published on (western christian) Ash Wednesday... [[User:Patmiller|Patmiller]] ([[User talk:Patmiller|talk]]) 14:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)</div>70.31.159.230https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1173:_Steroids&diff=27823Talk:1173: Steroids2013-02-13T13:41:28Z<p>70.31.159.230: </p>
<hr />
<div>Does anyone know what that 'something' is? That's what I came here to find out... :/ --[[User:NeatNit|NeatNit]] ([[User talk:NeatNit|talk]]) 11:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I had a lot of ideas, but I don't know. It might be a molecule, some sort of portal transmitting sound, a star, a future life form.<br />
:--[[User:Jaap-Jan|Jaap-Jan]] ([[User talk:Jaap-Jan|talk]]) 12:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think the "artificial boundary" isn't so artificial. There is a clear difference between food chemicals, which are healthy for us, vs steroid chemicals, which cause all sorts of health problems. Of course, then Megan would have to explain that we have limited lifespans and we greatly value our quality of life, and these steroids would decrease our quality of life. [[Special:Contributions/70.31.159.230|70.31.159.230]] 13:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC) <br />
<br />
== Douglas Adams ==<br />
<br />
Does anyone else feel that the title text has a strong Douglas Adams flavour?<br />
And if so, can we make that hard with a quote from one of his books?<br />
<br />
<br />
Ive said that Douglas Adams write for XKCD for years now...Notice if you change all the letters to their corresponding number (A=1, B=2, etc) and add them, you get 42 ;) [[Special:Contributions/90.205.199.80|90.205.199.80]] 12:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)</div>70.31.159.230https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1172:_Workflow&diff=27663Talk:1172: Workflow2013-02-11T15:05:32Z<p>70.31.159.230: </p>
<hr />
<div>It's not a bug, it's a feature! '''[[User:Davidy22|<span title="I want you."><u><font color="purple" size="2px">David</font><font color="green" size="3px">y</font></u><sup><font color="indigo" size="1px">22</font></sup></span>]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 05:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
What? The explanation makes no sense. Where did the user reconfiguring his cpu to overheat upon pressing control come from?[[Special:Contributions/67.5.239.109|67.5.239.109]] 06:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
No idea where this coming from, but reminds me [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=656433 this bug] and [http://dmcritchie.mvps.org/firefox/firefox-problems.htm#fx7 this reaction to it]. Firefox is good example in general: about:config was obviously CREATED to make much more settings available that is sane to put in configuration windows. On the other hand, this problem is old, so the comix is probably about some other, more recent problem, possibly in completely different software. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 09:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I'm constantly running stuff like Folding@Home, but I usually underclock my components to conserve power and lengthen the lifespan. However, I created a macro that overclocks my GPU at the press of a button, and I use it to act as a heater for my room whenever I get cold. It works. Those children could follow my example. [[Special:Contributions/70.31.159.230|70.31.159.230]] 15:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)</div>70.31.159.230https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1168:_tar&diff=26826Talk:1168: tar2013-02-01T13:46:32Z<p>70.31.159.230: </p>
<hr />
<div>I thought the title text would be "tar --help"<br />
[[Special:Contributions/123.202.19.132|123.202.19.132]] 06:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The comic is about the difficulty of the tar program options.<br />
<br />
Even if his life depended on it and after years of usage, Bob/Randall could not come up with the right parameters without looking them up. So a situation is shown, where Bob's life depends on coming up with the right parameters:<br />
<br />
* It shows an atomic warhead<br />
* It has a user interface, which requests any valid tar command<br />
* If it is not entered on the first try within 10s, the bomb is not disarmed and potentially explodes on the spot<br />
<br />
Randall has come up with a situation, where the unix guy Bob can be the hero by knowing tar parameters. This is a pipe dream of a geek; nobody cares IRL, if you know tar parameters on the first try.<br />
<br />
It is hilarious, that<br />
* the bomb says in full detail the rules including that you should not cheat and it probably has no means to check whether you cheated. This is no game, but feels like one. In war and love every means is allowed - even cheating; it would also be self-defense for disarming the bomb; Bob and his colleagues are not even considering to cheat.<br />
* the user has root access to the bomb, shown by the bomb as ~#, the tilde is the home directory, the # signifies super-user rights; even if the available programs prevent the bomb from being shutdown or disabled by a nonintended way, normally no root access is given for users of linux devices during normal usage; and disarming the bomb with official rules is normal usage of a bomb; a root prompt should not be necessary, if the bomb software is designed and configured well; possibly the unix prompt is a simulation for entering an answer<br />
* Bob shurely needs more than 10s to come. So the bomb will have announced that questions, which require unix knowledge will follow - or has already asked other Unix questions; perhaps after 10s without entering anything a new question comes up<br />
* this bomb can be disarmed with "common knowledge"<br />
<br />
Small notes:<br />
* The screen looks to be really grayscale (esp. the inverted "TEN") - not just because of the comic; it has at least 3 colors (black, white, tar gray); it could be that the "TEN" is updated dynamically and is thus inverted<br />
* The comic is quite black: The screen and the bomb; Randall seldomly uses solid black areas; the bomb is a gloomy topic so it is black like "tar" (pun)<br />
<br />
Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/178.26.121.97|178.26.121.97]] 07:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think there is a visual double pun in this strip: the bomb disarmed by a tar command is a reference to the [[wikipedia:Tar (computing)#Tarbomb|tarbombs]], but it also looks like the [[wikipedia:File:Tsar Bomba Revised.jpg|Tsar Bomb(a)]]. --[[User:Koveras|Koveras]] ([[User talk:Koveras|talk]]) 08:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
: I don’t think it looks like Tsar Bomba. If anything, it is much more similar to [[wikipedia:Fat Man|Fat Man]]. --[[User:Mormegil|Mormegil]] ([[User talk:Mormegil|talk]]) 08:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
:: Yeah, but "Fat Man" doesn't sound like "tarbomb". --[[User:Koveras|Koveras]] ([[User talk:Koveras|talk]]) 10:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think another joke is in the fact that you don't know which Unix is running on the bomb so you don't actually know which parameter layout is supported. tar --help for example may or may not be valid since -- is a GNU extension.<br />
<br />
tar -bvzx for a tar.bzip2 .... wait... no... argh... I've always just trusted my fingers.. --[[Special:Contributions/59.167.191.93|59.167.191.93]] 10:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
tar -lvvb archive.tar.bz<br />
File not found. Sorry, you're dead.<br />
~#<br />
[[Special:Contributions/74.82.68.68|74.82.68.68]] 12:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Googling tar commands would definitely take more than 10 seconds, especially considering that Rob did not take his computer. (A smartphone is an option, but...) <br />
Then again, why would "ten" be written in letters instead of numerals? [[User:Greyson|Greyson]] ([[User talk:Greyson|talk]]) 13:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Explanation is not exact ==<br />
I think the current explantion is missing an important point: the tar commands are not that much difficult. What makes tar complicated is that there are many different implementations. The linux guy knows only gnu tar, but some unices have much different implementations and different commands. "tar --help" is certainly not available on an old hpux, for example. '''That''' make is difficult to type a valid tar command – even more if you don't know the implementation.<br />
[[Special:Contributions/212.222.53.78|212.222.53.78]] 10:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I'm a Windows user, so bear with me. Couldn't he type something like "man tar" to get the proper usage of the "tar" command on this particular system? It's a "man" command, so it shouldn't count as a try towards typing a "tar" command. Of course, maybe the bomb would explode if he entered anything else. [[Special:Contributions/70.31.159.230|70.31.159.230]] 13:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)</div>70.31.159.230https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1160:_Drop_Those_Pounds&diff=25406Talk:1160: Drop Those Pounds2013-01-14T20:54:36Z<p>70.31.159.230: </p>
<hr />
<div>"Dropping Thirty Pounds Fast"? Is that a reference to the projectile weight being approx 30lb and "dropping" it on someone's walls? [[User:DreamingDaemon|DD]] ([[User talk:DreamingDaemon|talk]]) 10:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
:I was thinking more along the lines of thirty pounds of blood and dismembered flesh. '''[[User:Davidy22|<span title="I want you."><u><font color="purple" size="2px">David</font><font color="green" size="3px">y</font></u><sup><font color="indigo" size="1px">22</font></sup></span>]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 10:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
A trebuchet works by dropping a large weight connected to the swing arm, thereby propelling the projectile in a parabola (hopefully) towards the target. Thus, by dropping 30 lbs fast, you may literally hit your target. {{unsigned|62.109.36.140}}<br />
<br />
<br />
:Anyhow the explanation is a little off. The "subtlety" referred to is not that people tend to ignore weight loss flyers. It is that the flyer ''looks'' like a flyer for a weight loss programme, while it is actually trying to recruit people for something entirely different. Most people would not get this and sign up thinking that they would lose body weight, while they would be signing up for the trebuchet club. The only hint is the drawing, really. I agree with the above comment that the "dropping 30lbs" probably refers to the projectile. [[Special:Contributions/62.25.36.19|62.25.36.19]] 10:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Actually - I didn't mean that the 30lbs was the projectile but rather the counterweight propelling the projectile. [[Special:Contributions/62.109.36.140|62.109.36.140]] 12:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
My vote is that 30lbs stands for the projectile. [[Special:Contributions/70.31.159.230|70.31.159.230]] 15:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
30lbs for the projectile is most consistent with the alt-text, which implies that they will be hurling projectiles at the town. A 30lbs counterweight would only be able to fling a projectile an order of magnitude smaller. Also, for medieval trebuchets the "average mass of the projectiles was probably around 50–100 kg" ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trebuchet#Counterweight_trebuchet Wikipedia article]) --[[User:Forlackofabettername|Forlackofabettername]] ([[User talk:Forlackofabettername|talk]]) 16:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:A trebuchet club would likely be building smaller models than the original medieval ones, so my vote is the 30lbs is referring to the counterweight, not the projectile. In a trebuchet, the counterweight drops fast, whereas the projectile doesn't initially drop at all, but it rather launches upwards and sideways; it'll be some time before it starts dropping, and even then not very quickly as the vertical speed takes some time to switch from up to zero, and then finally down, eventually building up speed to something that might be considered "FAST". But the "FAST" is mostly in the horizontal direction rather than seen as a "drop". In the meantime, that counterweight had already dropped more directly a long time ago. --boB<br />
<br />
::Even the projectiles will take more to drop, it still quite "FAST" compare any weight loss program, so I think it can still refer to the projectile. [[User:Arifsaha|Arifsaha]] ([[User talk:Arifsaha|talk]]) 18:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::I can just imagine someone from the club saying "Let's drop 30 lbs on the target". Besides, I'd consider the usage of the word "drop" to be more metaphorical because in the operation of a trebuchet, no individual actually drops a counterweight; they simply pull a pin or cut a rope. [[Special:Contributions/70.31.159.230|70.31.159.230]] 20:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
A what-if wonder: considering a {{w|trebuchet}} is a {{w|weapon}}, will it be legal to own and place a {{w|trebuchet}} in your own {{w|backyard}}? [[User:Arifsaha|Arifsaha]] ([[User talk:Arifsaha|talk]]) 18:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
: The art of [http://www.amazon.com/dp/1613740646 backyard ballistics] is a firmly established niche hobby -- presumably for people with really big backyards. --[[User:Prooffreader|Prooffreader]] ([[User talk:Prooffreader|talk]]) 20:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)</div>70.31.159.230https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1160:_Drop_Those_Pounds&diff=25389Talk:1160: Drop Those Pounds2013-01-14T15:55:00Z<p>70.31.159.230: </p>
<hr />
<div>"Dropping Thirty Pounds Fast"? Is that a reference to the projectile weight being approx 30lb and "dropping" it on someone's walls? [[User:DreamingDaemon|DD]] ([[User talk:DreamingDaemon|talk]]) 10:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
:I was thinking more along the lines of thirty pounds of blood and dismembered flesh. '''[[User:Davidy22|<span title="I want you."><u><font color="purple" size="2px">David</font><font color="green" size="3px">y</font></u><sup><font color="indigo" size="1px">22</font></sup></span>]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 10:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
A trebuchet works by dropping a large weight connected to the swing arm, thereby propelling the projectile in a parabola (hopefully) towards the target. Thus, by dropping 30 lbs fast, you may literally hit your target. {{unsigned|62.109.36.140}}<br />
<br />
<br />
:Anyhow the explanation is a little off. The "subtlety" referred to is not that people tend to ignore weight loss flyers. It is that the flyer ''looks'' like a flyer for a weight loss programme, while it is actually trying to recruit people for something entirely different. Most people would not get this and sign up thinking that they would lose body weight, while they would be signing up for the trebuchet club. The only hint is the drawing, really. I agree with the above comment that the "dropping 30lbs" probably refers to the projectile. [[Special:Contributions/62.25.36.19|62.25.36.19]] 10:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Actually - I didn't mean that the 30lbs was the projectile but rather the counterweight propelling the projectile. [[Special:Contributions/62.109.36.140|62.109.36.140]] 12:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
My vote is that 30lbs stands for the projectile. [[Special:Contributions/70.31.159.230|70.31.159.230]] 15:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)</div>70.31.159.230https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1052:_Every_Major%27s_Terrible&diff=251581052: Every Major's Terrible2013-01-10T19:40:11Z<p>70.31.159.230: /* Explanation */ Added a link of SFU's rendition of this song.</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1052<br />
| date = May 7, 2012<br />
| title = Every Major's Terrible<br />
| image = every_majors_terrible.png<br />
| imagesize = <br />
| titletext = Someday I'll be the first to get a Ph. D in 'Undeclared'.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
'Undeclared' is sometimes called "General Studies".<br />
<br />
Here's a YouTube video of "I Am the Very Model of A Modern Major's General" [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSGWoXDFM64] for those who need to get the tune.<br />
<br />
Here's is Tom Lehrer's Elements.[http://www.privatehand.com/flash/elements.html]<br />
<br />
And [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3zAbQ0aMK8 here] is Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious from Mary Poppins.<br />
<br />
In panel 4, {{w|Methyl acetate}} is the solvent used to remove stamps from their envelope.<br />
<br />
In panel 8, {{w|underwater basket weaving}} is a commonly used metaphor for any college major that is easy or worthless.<br />
<br />
In panel 25, {{w|supermoon}} and {{w|zodiac}} are terms invented not by astronomers, but rather by early {{w|astrology|astrologists}}.<br />
<br />
In panel 26, {{w|agronomy}} is the science of using plants as food or fuel, while the unrelated {{w|agoraphobia}} is the fear of wide open spaces.<br />
<br />
And {{w|Sophie's Choice}} is any dilemma where choosing one cherished person or thing over the other will result in the death or destruction of the other, derived from the theme of the novel, and has also been turned into a romantic drama film. <br />
<br />
People have done renditions of this song. See [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seGpYa8UO0E]<br />
<br />
{{Comic discussion}}<br />
[[Category:Comics with color]]<br />
[[Category:Songs]]</div>70.31.159.230https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:724:_Hell&diff=25120Talk:724: Hell2013-01-10T01:29:42Z<p>70.31.159.230: </p>
<hr />
<div>That playable version is actually quite fun. My best was 22 pieces on the screen ([[:File:22 pieces.png|screenshot]]).<br />
[[User:Shine|Shine]] ([[User talk:Shine|talk]]) 18:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Guess what, this is actually scorable. The trick is to form a solid base with your blocks, and play normal tetris over that. [[Special:COntributions/116.76.175.236|116.76.175.236]] 13:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I'm not sure if saying the hell came "cannot be won" is worth saying. Keep in mind, the regular game of tetris can't be won either. [[Special:Contributions/70.31.159.230|70.31.159.230]] 01:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)</div>70.31.159.230https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1151:_Tests&diff=24594Talk:1151: Tests2013-01-04T16:12:31Z<p>70.31.159.230: </p>
<hr />
<div>I would buy one for the people I know, but they apparently cost 140$ upwards. Randall is a rich man. [[User:Davidy22|<span title="I want you."><u><font color="purple" size="2px">David</font><font color="green" size="3px">y</font></u><sup><font color="indigo" size="1px">22</font></sup></span>]][[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 08:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:'ve restored the capital G's: the stain is named after {{w|Hans Christian Gram}}, so should be capitalized. [[Special:Contributions/81.174.149.183|81.174.149.183]] 09:19, 25 December 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Do E. coli bacteria mask the response of Staphylococcus? Do the responses go through the gift wrapping? The gift from the guy should have shown Gram-positive, because of Staphylococcus. Thus the mistake. --[[Special:Contributions/79.201.88.62|79.201.88.62]] 13:08, 25 December 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Of course, the dye used in Gram-staining is DYE and will color hands, clothing, (wrapping) paper, and floors. Megan might not have a bunch of bacteria coated presents (except for the one from That Guy in the title text), and instead she has just ruined her own Christmas. Or made it more awesome, YMMV[[User:FredG|FredG]] ([[User talk:FredG|talk]]) 16:50, 25 December 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Given that she colored the wrappings, most presents should be still fine. Especially considering you usually wrap the present INCLUDING the original packaging. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 09:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I found this funny, especially with it seemingly be tangentially related to [[761|Depth-First Search (DFS)]]. [[User:Genux|Genux]] ([[User talk:Genux|talk]]) 00:42, 26 December 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Most species of Staphylococcus (such as S. epidermidis) are harmless; most strains of E. coli (with the notable exception of O157) are harmless. --[[User:Prooffreader|Prooffreader]] ([[User talk:Prooffreader|talk]]) 09:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Is it just me or does the one on the left on the third frame seems to be purple (Gram-positive)? [[Special:Contributions/189.123.131.245|189.123.131.245]] 02:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I just noticed that her hands are stained purple in the last frame. [[Special:Contributions/70.31.159.230|70.31.159.230]] 16:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)</div>70.31.159.230https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1154:_Resolution&diff=242111154: Resolution2013-01-01T16:53:38Z<p>70.31.159.230: /* Explanation */ Corrected "definition of stupidity" to "definition of insanity" as per the guy from Far Cry 3</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1154<br />
| date = December 31, 2012<br />
| title = Resolution<br />
| image = resolution.png<br />
| titletext = If at first you don't succeed, that's one data point.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
This comic is a little reminder that it's the last day of 2012, and it's time to make your resolutions!<br />
<br />
[[Cueball]] wants to break a very common habit of resolving to do something (go on a diet, for example), not doing it, and then trying the same, dysfunctional plan again, thinking it will work "this year." This is another way of stating a common definition of insanity: to keep doing what you always do yet expecting different results.<br />
<br />
The irony is that Cueball resolved the same thing last year, and it is implied it didn't work, but he says it'll be different "this year."<br />
<br />
The title text is a parody of the saying "if at first you don't succeed: try, try, try again."<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]</div>70.31.159.230