explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

2547: Siren

2021-11-27T19:54:39Z

108.162.219.43:

{{comic
| number = 2547
| date = November 26, 2021
| title = Siren
| image = siren.png
| titletext = Directions from CITY OF TROY to ITHACA / Total time: 10y 54d 14h 25m / Warning: Route crosses an international border / route includes capture by the goddess Calypso / route includes a ferry
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by ODYSSEUS’S BROKEN GPS - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

{{w|Odysseus}} is the hero of the Greek epic ''{{w|Odyssey}}'' by {{w|Homer}}. This is a poem that relates the journey of Odysseus back home to his homeland from the newly defeated Troy, and how he inadvertently angered Poseidon thus causing the journey to take 10 years.

In the story, now widely translated and adapted for modern audiences, {{w|Circe}} warns Odysseus of the {{w|siren (mythology)|Sirens}}, who sing beautiful songs that lure sailors towards their shores, just to doom the boats to sink upon the jagged rocks surrounding their islands.

This comic reframes the advice as if Odysseus was being told to ignore the incorrect instructions of a {{w|Satellite navigation device|GPS-linked routefinder}}, rather than the Sirens. Errors, omissions or out-of-date information in the databases used by such devices famously have sent drivers down roads they might never have even tried to use (guided by printed maps, road-signs or even past experience) without the alluring voice of the 'infallible' dashboard device leading them through too-narrow lanes, into rivers or even hundreds of miles completely out of their way - perhaps to a destination similarly-named to their intended one. GPSs did not exist during the time the poem was written,{{citation needed}} so this could not be the case here.

A navigation system giving wrong directions can happen, for example, due to outdated or incomplete map data. Sometimes users can file an error report with the provider of the navigation system and hope that they fix the problem in a software update. This is what Circe already did multiple times. However, the error was not fixed, so she has to resort to telling Odysseus to ignore the route.

The title text shows what the route description could have looked like, had Odysseus indeed used a modern navigation system. It includes the start and destination of the route, the estimated duration and warnings about special circumstances of the journey.

Normally, the sea voyage from the City of Troy to Ithaca should take much less than ten years. For Odysseus it took so long because of the many obstacles he had to face, so the navigation system would have some sort of clairvoyance function built in.

"Route crosses an international border" and "Route includes a ferry" are standard warnings included in a route description. The former alludes to the facts that Odysseus's voyage took him to many lands and kingdoms while the latter may allude to the fact that in Book XI of the Odyssey, Odysseus visits Hades, which is traditionally reached by a ferry across the river Styx, piloted by {{w|Charon(mythology)|Charon}} the ferryman. "Route includes capture by the goddess {{w|Calypso (mythology)|Calypso}}" is not normally something that a navigation system would warn about or could know about,{{Citation needed}} but this indeed happened to Odysseus in Homer's tale; he was kept on her island Ogygia for seven years.

"Route includes a ferry" also hints at one of the other times [[461: Google Maps|Randall tried to follow GPS directions]].

==Transcript==
:[Circe is speaking to Odysseus.]
:Circe: Remember, Odysseus:
:Circe: As you pass the rocks you will hear a woman calling out to you, urging you to stray from your path, but plug your ears and hold your course, for her beguiling lies will draw you to a watery grave.
:Circe: I don't know ''why'' they can't just fix it. I keep filing error reports.

:[Caption below the panel:]
:Circe was actually just telling Odysseus to ignore his GPS.

{{comic discussion}}

Talk:2529: Unsolved Math Problems

2021-10-16T13:24:14Z

108.162.219.43:

Center panel possibly related to "The drunkards walk" and theories on randomised motion.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/random-walk-puzzle-solution-20160907/
More references https://mathworld.wolfram.com/RandomWalk.html

Someone's gotta point out that "walking randomly on a grid, never visiting the same square twice" would rapidly trap you in a corner (even the example has a 50/50 chance of that happening on the next move) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.130.125|172.70.130.125]] 04:29, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Not if it's an infinite grid.

I think there's two different ways to interpret the question - as a uniform random element of the set of all non-self-intersection NxK length paths, in which case it's fine, or as a path defined by a random walk in which moves onto your own path are not allowed, which doesn't seem well defined, since you might end up in a situation where you are surrounded by your own path and cannot continue for all NxK steps.

An early example of a cursed problem is the Cantor Function. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor_function

I admire whoever wrote the description of the curve in the "cursed" panel. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 05:36, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

"Algebreic" is a misspelling of "algebraic". Could Randall really have made this mistake, or is it another malamanteu? What does "breic" come from? [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 06:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I wonder if Randall was actually referring to that quote about "Into the Woods", or he just thought "Sondheim calculus" sounded cool and it was a total coincidence. I found it when I googled "sondheim calculus" to make sure it wasn't a real thing. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 06:29, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

In panel 2, what would 'k' be? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.35.108|172.69.35.108]] 08:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

'k' would represent the number of marbles placed on the ground. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.88.127|162.158.88.127]] 08:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

To me, the cursed curve looks a bit like a crosier https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Crosiere_of_arcbishop_Heinrich_of_Finstingen.jpg

--> I had the same impression and added it. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.94.219|162.158.94.219]] 11:40, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

No explanation of the "Euler Field Manifold Hypergroup (Isomorphic to a)..." part?

The cursed curve looks almost like someone took a graph of the Binet formula in the complex plane, stretched it out a bit, and rotated it onto the i axis.

725: Literally

2021-08-06T23:22:35Z

108.162.219.43: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 725
| date = April 9, 2010
| title = Literally
| image = literally.png
| titletext = The chemistry experiment had me figuratively -- and then shortly thereafter literally -- glued to my seat.
}}

==Explanation==
The adverb "literally" implies that the action it describes actually happened, while its opposite, "figuratively", is used when the action it describes is being used as a figure of speech, and is not a representation of what actually happened. However, "literally" is often used colloquially as an intensifier, to mean "really" or "very", and even though many dictionaries such as [http://www.merriam-webster.com/video/0038-literally.htm Merriam-Webster] and [http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/literally Oxford Learner's Dictionaries] state that this is a valid use of the word, many people object to this usage. It is noteworthy that these dictionaries try to catalog how words are used, not whether any one usage is more valid than another. Many might say it is more consistent to say a word such as "practically" for this usage.

In this comic, [[Cueball]] mentions he was ''literally'' glued to his seat, at which point a crazy man off-panel loudly corrects him. The crazy man declares that he has been stalking Cueball for eighteen years since an incident in seventh grade, when the crazy man (as a kid) used literally in the colloquial sense, and young Cueball corrected him. He felt humiliated and began to follow Cueball everywhere, waiting for Cueball to make the same mistake, presumably to save face.

When Cueball tells him that he is "literally the craziest person" he's ever met, the crazy man thinks that he is incorrectly using the word "literally" again; however, Cueball reassures him that he did not misuse it, meaning the crazy man actually is ''the'' craziest person he has ever met.

The title text points out that a chemistry experiment gone wrong is one of the few things that could cause someone to ''literally'' be glued to their seat, having previously been figuratively glued to their seat in fascination.

In this manner the title text could provide an alternative interpretation of Cueball's original sentence: "I was literally glued to my seat through the entire [chemistry experiment.]"

If this interpretation were correct, then the crazy person interrupted Cueball before he had a chance to finish his sentence, thereby never fulfilling his vow.

On a side note, if they were in seventh grade when Cueball corrected the crazy man's mistake, then Cueball and the crazy man are 30-31 (12|13 + 18) years old, approximately the same conclusion as in [[1577: Advent]].

==Transcript==
:[Cueball and a Cueball-like friend are walking left together. The friend turns his head towards Cueball who speaks, but is interrupted by voice from behind them off-panel right.]
:Cueball: I was literally glued to my seat through the entire-
:Off-panel voice: ''Hah!''
:Off-panel voice: ''You mean "figuratively"!''

:[A crazy man walks into the next frame-less panel. He has messy hair and a messy beard. Cueball and his friend stop walking and turns toward him.]
:Cueball: Who are you?
:Crazy man: Eighteen years I've watched you!
:Crazy man: Waiting!

:[A flashback panel. Four kids are standing around talking to each other. To the left is a girl with a ponytail and in front of her is a kid looking like Cueball - this is the Crazy man as a kid. He speaks to two kids in front of him, the one looking like Cueball, is actually Cueball as a kid, and then another kid with short black hair is standing with him. Above this panels frame, which is not as high as the other panels, there is text narrated by the crazy man. He also narrates a line at the bottom of the panel where the flashback panels frame is cut of at the bottom right.]
:Crazy man (narrating): Ever since that day in seventh grade when you humiliated me.
:Crazy man as a kid: I told him and he literally ''exploded!''
:Cueball as a kid: Uh, unless he physically ''burst'', you mean "figuratively".
:Kid with hair: Hah.
:Crazy man (narrating): Remember?

:[Cueball and his friend has moved back away from the crazy man to get some more distance between him and themselves.]
:Crazy man: I knew one day you'd slip, and I vowed I'd be there to see you fall. ''How does it feel?''
:Cueball: You are literally the craziest person I've ever met.
:Crazy man: You did it again!
:Cueball: No, I didn't.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Multiple Cueballs]]

[[Category:Language]]
[[Category:Pedantic]]

1549: xkcd Phone 3

2016-07-18T13:17:27Z

108.162.219.43: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1549
| date = July 10, 2015
| title = XKCD Phone 3
| image = xkcd_phone_3.png
| titletext = If you're not completely satisfied with the phone after 30 days, we will return you to your home at no cost.
}}

==Explanation==
This is a follow-up to [[1363: xkcd Phone]] and [[1465: xkcd Phone 2]]. It parodies common smartphone specs by attributing absurd or useless features to a fictional phone.

In the table the features are explained in order from the top left going clockwise
{| class="wikitable"
!Feature
!Explanation
|-
|'''2 AA batteries (not included)'''
| A phrase usually shown on small, low-powered, electronic devices like remote controllers, and not on cellphones; which use lithium-ion batteries and need to be constantly recharged for continuous use.
The apparently thin phone (according to the scale as judged by the wristband) would also preclude inserting AA batteries, unless a protruding battery compartment is hidden out of view on the back of the phone.
Alternatively could mean two Anti-Aircraft (artillery) "batteries" which would be groups of light or medium artillery pieces or missiles (2 to 9 weapons per battery, depending on country, weapon system and organisation). In any case, they would badly hamper the portability of the phone.
|-
|'''Boneless'''
| Reference to meat or fish products being boneless, i.e. having all the bones removed, making it convenient to cook or eat. Unclear why a phone would be boneless since it is mostly inedible, perhaps a reference to the person trapped inside having their bones removed to make them easier to fit inside, or stating that the phone is flexible. A possible reference to the iPhone 6's reported problems with its chassis, where it {{w|IPhone 6#Chassis bending|could bend under pressure}}.

Likely a reference to "Bone Conduction Microphones" implying that needing bones to work is a disadvantage and this phone has the feature of being "Boneless".

[[xkcd Phone 4]] was instead "seedless".
|-
|'''Ear screen'''
| An overcomplicated term for a speaker, connecting a screen which emits light to send visual information and the portion of a speaker which vibrates to send auditory information. Comparing the two makes a speaker a screen for the ear.
|-
|'''Heartbeat accelerator'''
| A mashup of heartbeat sensor and accelerometer. May be some sort of external pacemaker. If that's the case, it's worrying that it only accelerates, potentially causing a positive feedback (heart attack). It may also be the result of the phone being so exciting or frustrating that it increases its user's heart rate.
|-
|'''MobilePay money clip'''
| While mobile pay is a form of payment involving electronic transfers via cellphone, this model includes a money clip; a way of holding physical bills together, which defeats the purpose of electronic payment. Whether this is a clip that transfers money digitally or the phrase mobile pay is just a marketing tag is unknown.
|-
|'''Siri, or whoever it was we put in here'''
| A joke on intelligent personal assistants. It also jokes that Siri and the like are actual people, trapped inside of phones.
|-
|'''Instead of being on surface only, screen goes all the way through'''
| A reference to surface screens. Possible reference to smartphones with screen display wrapping one or more edges, like Samsung Galaxy Note Edge or Samsung Galaxy S6 Edge, or dual-screen smartphones with screen on the back (usually e-ink) like YotaPhone 2, or smartphones with minimal bezel like e.g. Sharp AQUOS Crystal.

Screen going ''all the way through'' would leave no place for innards of smartphone: processor, battery etc., and unless each layer is designed to be semi-transparent to see the inner {{w|voxel}}s the inner displays would be unseeable anyway.
|-
|'''theknot.com partnership: Phone licensed to perform wedding ceremonies and does so at random'''
| [https://www.theknot.com/ theknot.com] is a website that assists in all stages of wedding planning. Due to this partnering, the phone has apparently obtained legal status as a {{w|Justice of the peace}} capable of performing legally valid marriages. It exerts this capability randomly, however, so the phone's owner (or potentially any other unsuspecting bystander) could suddenly find themselves with a new spouse without their knowledge, generally an undesired effect{{Citation needed}}. Whether this would result in unintentional {{w|bigamy}} or if the phone restricts itself to pairing up singles, or even enacts divorce first if necessary, is left unclear. May be a reference to how same-sex marriage was fully [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges legalized] in the United States just two weeks prior to the release of this comic.
|-
|'''Fingerprint randomizer'''
| Presumably randomises the user's fingerprint, which may or may not be inconvenient depending on the intent of the user. It is not clear whether the device will change the person's fingerprint into a human-like fingerprint that is randomly selected from all possibilities, or if it completely mangles the fingerprint of the user. Either way, physically altering the user's finger to this degree will likely involve a painful process. Likely a cynical reference to fingerprint scanners, which are touted as password replacements.
|-
|'''USB E (hotswappable)'''
| A USB port that makes fun of the three current systems, A, B, and recently C, by skipping D completely and jumping to E. The port presumably charges the phone and allows to transfer files like normal, but this kind lets you perform {{w|Hot swapping}} (replacing computer system components without turning the system off) with it, which has always been a feature of USB, so mentioning it is redundant at best.
May be a reference to the eSATAp (Power over eSATA) hybrid port that is functioning as a USB and eSATA port at the same time. The Serial ATA bus interface has standardized hot swapping support.
|-
|'''Waterproof, but can drown'''
| Perhaps a reference to Siri or the person trapped in the phone drowning, but the phone itself staying functional. This is another human-like function, which the first 2 XKCD Phone comics had.
|-
|'''Foretold by prophecy'''
| Likely mocking people on the internet who attempt to predict when Apple will release their next device. Might also be a joke on many videogames or fantasy novels, in which the main character is 'the chosen one', because 'the prophecy' foretold it.
|-
|'''Runs Natively'''
| Usually a description given to ported software, as this statement doesn't make any sense when referring to hardware (notable {{w|Transmeta Crusoe|exceptions}} to the norm are few and far between). When software writers would like to run their apps on multiple platforms, they usually have three choices: re-compile the source code into each platform's codebase (often requiring tweaking to handle practical differences in resources between the systems); use a specially 'pre-portable' code that you can {{w|write once, run anywhere}}, such as Java, but requires a suitable interpreter to be written for each platform (and may still require code tweaks to absorb differences in implementations); create a specific emulator/virtual machine to allow existing code to 'see' the platform it was written for, despite the underlying system.
Only the first option is 'running natively', often the most optimised and thus best-performing option, and is usually qualified such as "Runs <Software Name> natively", for particular packages full compiled upon that platform. It would also make little sense for the OS ''itself'' to be non-native, except when intentionally emulating another system (ideally on a more powerful system that can power past the inefficiencies of conversion and translation).
Or, in this case, it may be that the phone has legs and can literally run.
|-
|'''Wristband'''
| Probably mocking trending smart watches, this feature would not be very useful on a full-sized smart phone, as it would be uncomfortable to wear due to its size. Also possibly a follow-up to xkcd Phone 2 being described as a 'phone for your other hand', as the wristband would make it possible to have all three phones accessible at once.
|-
|'''Wireless discharging'''
| Many modern cellphones feature wireless charging, which uses electromagnetic induction to charge the battery of the device. This model, apparently uses the same technology to discharge the battery; which, of course is something undesired, as one needs the battery's energy to run the phone. May also refer to the standard behavior of the phone's antenna, which communicates wirelessly via EM radio waves, but discharges the battery in doing so. It could also be simply and literally describing the nature of all cell phones, and indeed all battery-powered electronic devices, to gradually use the battery (discharging) when there are no wires attached (wireless), since wireless also means no power cord is plugged in (and assuming the absence or non-use of the aforementioned wireless charging function, which this phone may not even have). Depending on the avenue of discharge, this may also be related to the heartbeat accelerator, accelerating the user's heartbeat by shocking them.
|-
|'''Magnetic stripe'''
| Likely a dig at the NFC (near-field communication) wireless radio modules in many modern phones. NFC allows, among others functions, mobile payment. This magnetic stripe could be a cheap way to imitate payment functionality, but "compatible" with classic credit cards.
Magnetic stripes are a data storage method used by devices such as credit cards and key cards to hold and transfer small amounts of information like key codes. Usually cellphones don't have them as they utilize more robust and protected ways to store and transmit data (such as NFC). The magnetic stripe shown would likely be unusable with current magnetic stripe readers due to the phone's thickness, in contrast to that of regular cards, thus breaking all imagined 'compatibility' arguments.
It would also be very annoying as it seems to block part of the screen.
|}

The phrase "We made another one®©™" is a reference to how phone companies release new phones very often, and the trademarks that surround the phone itself.

The title text is a joke on guarantees and customer service. Usually the advertisement says that if the customer is not satisfied with the product, they'll refund the money and take the product back at no additional cost. In this case they guarantee the customer they'll send him/her home without charge; implying they won't fix or refund anything. Or that due to anticipated but unspecified faults of some kind, the phone's owner will ''need'' help to get back home when things go wrong, and probably be thankful for such assistance, in yet another example of a worryingly non-specific 'reassurance'.

==Transcript==
:[An image of a smartphone lying down, with many labels pointing to it. There is a black stripe across the top left corner of the phone. At the top right something is protruding from the side, like a volume control. There is a wrist band (only partly shown) attached to the middle of each side of the phone. Above the screen are several small features, below only a central square and on the bottom a socket. Clockwise from the top left the labels read:]
:2 AA batteries
:(not included)
:Boneless
:Ear screen
:Heartbeat accelerator
:MobilePay money clip
:Siri, or whoever it was we put in here
:Instead of being on surface only, screen goes all the way through
:theknot.com partnership: Phone licensed to perform wedding ceremonies and does so at random
:Fingerprint randomizer
:USB E
:(hotswappable)
:Waterproof, but can drown
:Foretold by prophecy
:Runs natively
:Wristband
:Wireless discharging
:Magnetic stripe

:[Below the phone:]
:Introducing
:<big><big>The XKCD Phone 3</big></big>
:We made another one®©™

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Smartphones]]

Talk:1677: Contrails

2016-05-08T02:34:43Z

108.162.219.43:

Aside: worst name ever for university department: Astronomy and Cosmology - it's almost as if they want people to make the association... [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.20|141.101.104.20]] 10:58, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Love the title text, you can choose to laugh or take offence irrespective of where you call home. Which you do says more about you than the text. [[User:Toltec|Toltec]] ([[User talk:Toltec|talk]]) 11:41, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Worth noting that 'contrails' is itself a North Americanism? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.229.111|108.162.229.111]] 12:03, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

The final paragraph does not logically follow from the comic or from the explanation. He's hooking different pseudoscience terms on different cultures (astrology on the UK and chemtrails on the US) so the comic doesn't take a stance on which country's educational system is better or more prone to superstitions than the other. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.106|108.162.245.106]] 15:04, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I've always called them vapour trails (north west England) {{unsigned|141.101.98.137}}

🐍 Its Canadian usage as well. Rush has an album by that name, and a song titled, and referencing them in the lyrics. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KiSLZJj_E0 video] [[User:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For]] ([[User talk:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|talk]]) 20:28, 7 May 2016 (UTC) (Can't figure out how to prevent the font from changing)

The comic reminded me of the Hungarian Phrasebook sketch from Monty Python - basically someone who enjoys causing confusion for its own sake between speakers of (in this case, slightly) different languages. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.175|108.162.237.175]] 18:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)Pat

I grew up (US Midwest then Northwest) calling them "plane tracks" (by extension from "train tracks," I suppose) and later, "jet trails." I don't think I've ever /heard/ (as opposed to read) either "chemtrails" or "contrails," but they're both far outside my normal areas of work/interest, that there never would have been a reason for them to come up or pass by. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.98|108.162.221.98]] 19:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

For difference in vocabulary between British English and American English, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_words_having_different_meanings_in_American_and_British_English
[[User:JakubNarebski|JakubNarebski]] ([[User talk:JakubNarebski|talk]]) 17:44, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Contrails is more of a technical term, I think. I grew up in the southeast and currently live in the midwest and I only ever hear them called jet trails or vapor trails, only rarely does someone say contrails, and they're usually fairly technical people. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.43|108.162.219.43]] 02:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

837: Coupon Code

2014-06-03T12:53:35Z

108.162.219.43: /* Transcript */

{{comic
| number = 837
| date = December 22, 2010
| title = Coupon Code
| image = coupon_code.png
| titletext = This also guarantees he won't be one of the ones to get a bobcat.
}}

==Explanation==
[[Cueball]] is sitting at a computer finishing an online order. As he places his order, he inputs a (presumable) shot in the psychological dark in the coupon code field, saying that he observed the person who will process the order steal something from a dying woman's house. After he clicks checkout, the coupon code discounts the sale the full $80.02, presumably meaning the person who processed this order did just so.

The title text references [[325: A-Minus-Minus]]; it has become a running gag that bobcats are occasionally sent by mail by [[Black Hat]] in various comics.

==Transcript==
:[The panel shows an online shopping form.]
:Shipping: $14.08
:Total: $80.02
:If you have a coupon code, enter it here:
:[An empty form.]
:Check out

:Cueball is looking at his computer.

:[The empty form is now filled in. The rest of the panel shows the same page.]
:Form: In 1987 you quietly took something from the house of a dying woman. You thought nobody knew. You were wrong.

:[Cueball is sitting at his computer.]
:''Click''

:[The form is updated.]
:Shipping: $14.08
:Total: $80.02
:----------------
:Discount
:Applied: -$80.02
:Final price: $0.00
:Thank you
:-Your order has been placed-

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Internet]]
[[Category:Bobcats]]

Talk:1292: Pi vs. Tau

2014-04-29T22:52:10Z

108.162.219.43: Tone of "Title text" section

I started an explanation. Hopefully others will help improve it, as I don't think it's quite adequate. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.130.174|199.27.130.174]] 05:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The comic currently shows the symbol π (pi) in all three cases, but it should have the symbol τ (tau) in the rightmost case. I'm sure there is a compromise symbol "pau" too. Maybe with a deformed left leg? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.97.4|141.101.97.4]] 07:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

WolframAlpha gives
<pre>
4.5545743763144164456766617143366171162404440766665105335330776311513504520604364524762740226212061363100001776216741750712622557020442741544760057441760026766230424023460366047331305225241275347777145543054127636365666430221066167347236617261603127725745513663702031155234027041040155322217227723576660045156156303357534162372112340027743775672417274565277274565735325624457113522164166560115654407251403563246444122664066521461311773474046032763760765740133706761276420415672577471077133607673035331070364705651055376634161405567176532346433567731715723623721267302576735154761375545411215522177775706407470673020025353246535120744232706060324711633457720155013202527060250466252665661576165164140301645132275526153126363575631176312270212441433434206352313125326760006365710744276056412434626534152021052065172556442150110056601034116570607064550553636566432544260105637423220411372664024454234201642615033200331506013362432026775605543212342336511350621361642654426372425415023071413764173735461042064323757413414533013..._8</pre> which does indeed have four 666 sequences. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.254|141.101.99.254]] 08:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
This number contains 7777, 000 and 444 twice, though. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.93.11|141.101.93.11]] 09:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Wrote the transcript, not sure if I explained the visual well enough, so I left the incomplete tag if someone else has a better idea. Should suffice for understanding however, considering the content [[Special:Contributions/108.162.248.18|108.162.248.18]] 08:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

----

(The discussion about different results was trimmed)

Wolfram gives the result with 666

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1.5+pi+octal
<pre>
4.554574376314416445676661714336617116240444076666510533533077631151350452060436452476274022621206136310000177621674175071262255702044274154476005744176002676623042402346036604733130522524127534777714554305412763636566643022
</pre>
The Unix arbitrary precision calculator gives the result without

$ echo "scale=200; obase=8; 6*a(1)" | bc -l
<pre>
4.554574376314416443236234514475050122425471573015650314763354527003043167712611655054674757031331252340351471657646433317273112431020107644727072362457372164022043765215506554422014311615574251563446213636251744101107770257
</pre>
Any suggestions how we can check them?

"Randall says so" is probably correct, but insufficient :-) {{unsigned|Mike}}

:Please use the <nowiki><pre></nowiki> tag for this long numbers.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 09:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Testing Wolfram Alpha with <pre>4.55457437631441644567666171433661711624044407666651053353307763115135045206043645247627402262120613631000177621674175071262255_8 in decimal</pre> and <pre>4.55457437631441644567666171433661711624044407666651053353307763115135045206043645247627402262120613631000_8 in decimal</pre> both indicate the approximation is only accurate to a limited degree.
<pre>
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=4.55457437631441644567666171433661711624044407666651053353307763115135045206043645247627402262120613631000177621674175071262255_8+in+decimal
</pre>
<pre>
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=4.55457437631441644567666171433661711624044407666651053353307763115135045206043645247627402262120613631000177621674175071262255_8+in+decimal
</pre>

The method I used to get the value I put in the text was; I used the following command to generate my approximation:
<pre>echo 'scale=200; obase=8; a(1) * 6' | bc -l | tr -d ' \\\n' ; echo</pre> which outputs<pre>
4.554574376314416443236234514475050122425471573015650314763354527003043167712611655054674757031331252340351471657646433317273112431020107644727072362457372164022043765215506554422014311615574251563446213636251744101107770257
</pre>
In 'bc'', a(1) is arctangent of 1 (i.e. 45 degrees, or pi/4); (pi/4 * 6) should be equal to 'pau'. I additionally checked the result using base 2 encoding, and converted each three bit binary value into an octal value. The decimal value of pi (using a(1) * 4) matches with the value of pi to at lease 1000 digits.
[[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.86|173.245.54.86]] 09:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Both Maxima and the GNU Emacs calculator output as the first 1000 octal digits:
<pre>
4.5545743763144164432362345144750501224254715730156503147633545270030431677126116550546747570313312523403514716576464333172731124310201076447270723624573721640220437652155065544220143116155742515634462136362517441011077702611156024117447125224176203716336742057353303216470257662666744627534325504334506002730517102547504145216661211250027531716641276765735563341721214013553453654106045245066401141437740626707757305450703606440651111775270032710035521352101513622062164457304326450524432531652666626042202562202550566425643040556365710250031642467447605663240661743600041052212627767073277600402572027316222345356036301002572541750000114422036312122341474267232761775450071652613627306745074150251171507720277250030270442257106542456441722455345340370205646442156334125564557520336340223313312556634450170626417234376702443117031135045420165467426237454754566012204316130023063506430063362203021262434464410604275224606523356702572610031171344411766505734615256121034660773306140032365326415773227551
</pre>
This also agrees with the first 220 digits of the previous result (last two digits above are 57 vs 61 here, maybe due to rounding when converting to octal). Again, no 666 within the first 200 digits. The Wolfram result deviates from this at the 18th digit already. --[[User:Ulm|ulm]] ([[User talk:Ulm|talk]]) 10:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Also e+2 does not contain the substring '666':
<pre>echo "scale=200; obase=8; e(1) + 2" | bc -l</pre>
<pre>4.55760521305053551246527734254200471723636166134705407470551551265170233101050620637674622347347044466373713722774330661414353543664033100253542141365517370755272577262541110317650765740633550205306625</pre>--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 10:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

: A sudden flash of realization: are we getting nerd-sniped here?--[[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.168|108.162.254.168]] 11:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

::Not unlikely. Have posted this as a trivia. [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 20:11, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

: The claim is clearly about e+2, making Dgbrt's comment closest to the right direction. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.40|173.245.54.40]] 12:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

When I take Wolfram alpha's octal(pi*1.5) I get the first 303 (base 10) characters as this:
<pre>
4.554574376314416445676661714336617116240444076666510533533077631151350452060436452476274022621206136310000177621674175071262255702044274154476005744176002676623042402346036604733130522524127534777714554305412763636566643022106616734723661726160312772574551366370203115523402704104015532221722772357666
</pre>
200(base 10) is 310(base 8) so in the fist '200' characters, 666 shows up 4 times (5 if you count 6666 as twice?) [[User:Xami|Xami]] ([[User talk:Xami|talk]]) 14:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

: The Wolfram result is what you get when you calculate pi*3/2 in decimal, round to 14 digits after the decimal point and then convert to octal. That is, 4.7123889803846910 converted to octal. Definitely, this won't give you 200 digits precision. --[[User:Ulm|ulm]] ([[User talk:Ulm|talk]]) 15:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
:: It lines up too perfectly to be a coincidence. It fits all the requirements: has 666 four times within 2008 digits, and although 0000, 222, 444, and 7777 appear, they only appear once as a run. You can't double count 7777 as two 777's because it is a single run. If WolframAlpha doesn't give the correct precision, it is likely that Randall made the same error. --[[User:RainbowDash|RainbowDash]] ([[User talk:RainbowDash|talk]]) 16:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Being τ, tau, is already being expressed in terms of π, pi, it shows bias. (Though I think Pau would lead to some interesting spherical geometry equations. ~~Drifter {{unsigned ip|108.162.219.214}}

The bias is worse than that: From the perspective of π, the discussion is about multiples of π, so (3/2)π (that is 3π/2 = 3τ/4) is indeed the compromise between π and 2π. But from the perspective of τ, the discussion is about fractions of τ, so the compromise between τ and τ/2 is τ/(3/2) (that is 2τ/3 = 4π/3). Maybe we can call this ‘ti’ (or ‘tie’, pace 173.245.53.184 below). —[[User:TobyBartels|TobyBartels]] ([[User talk:TobyBartels|talk]]) 20:47, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, both compromises are wrong. (3/2)π is the arithmetic mean of π and τ, while τ/(3/2) is their harmonic mean. But for geometric ratios (which these are), the appropriate mean is generally the geometric mean (hence the name). You can see how even-handed this is: it's (√2)π = τ/(√2). —[[User:TobyBartels|TobyBartels]] ([[User talk:TobyBartels|talk]]) 20:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

---

I am in favour of just calling it ti(e). --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.184|173.245.53.184]] 17:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

---

There are real world uses to both Tau and Pi: Pi is the number that relates to what you get when you measure a circle (the distanced around divided by the distance across); and Tau is get when you draw a circle (the distance around divided by the distance from the center). It is the difference between a mic (aka "micrometer" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micrometer ) and a protractor. Tau might have some mathematical advantages in both 2D and 3D in that it has no integer attached to it to find either circumference (2D) or surface area (3D) which makes radians and solid angles simpler. However, that advantage is lost in other dimensions and for the area of a circle.

Pau, of course, has a 61% chance of going to the dribbling spheroid hall of fame. (ref: http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/g/gasolpa01.html ), to which neither Tau nor Pi can hold a candle.~~Remo ( [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.183|199.27.128.183]] 19:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC) )

---

The differences between Wolfram and BC really bothered me since I have used both for precision calculation in the past. The long and short of the matter, having done most of the maths 'long hand', BC is correct, Wolfram is wrong, and sadly, Randall was also wrong. It seems as tho Wolfram is rounding pi*1.5 to around 15 decimals but leaving the 9 repeating before converting to Octal.

If you take the output of octal(pi * 1.5) and paste it back into the input like so:
<pre>
4.554574376314416445676661714336617116240444076666510533533077631151350452060436452476274022621206136310000177621674175071262255702044274154476005744176002676623042402346036604733130522524127534777_8
</pre>
Wolfram gives you back (converted to decimal):
<pre>
4.71238898038468999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
</pre>
If you give that same input to BC and ask it to convert to decimal you get:
<pre>
4.712388980384689999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999992894219160392567888
</pre>
If you do the math long hand out to 55 decimal places, pi * 1.5 equals:
<pre>
4.712388980384689857693965074919254326295754099062658731462416...
</pre>
Converting that by hand into octal is a bit of a pain, but if you do, at the 18th decimal place where BC and Wolfram differ you end up with the following:
<pre>
0.000000000000000183697019872102976583909889841150158731462416... is your remainder to be converted so far
0.000000000000000055511151231257827021181583404541015625 = 8 ^ -18
</pre>
Wolfram gives the 18th decimal as 5, BC as 3. I can't see 5 going into 18 5 times, but 3 times fits nicely.
--[[User:DarkJMKnight|DarkJMKnight]] ([[User talk:DarkJMKnight|talk]]) 20:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Looks like Wolfram is simply using floating-point mathematics, presumably the IEEE "double precision". Interestingly, this is not the first time floating-point maths has been a problem; in [[287]], a similar problem caused an unintended trivial solution. [[User:Sabik|Sabik]] ([[User talk:Sabik|talk]]) 04:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
* On second thoughts, there's no indication that he used Wolfram Alpha; as with [[287]], it simply could have been a Perl script (or Python or pretty much any programming language). [[User:Sabik|Sabik]] ([[User talk:Sabik|talk]]) 05:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

---

How can 200 be octal and then mean 310 decimal???
If 200 were octal, that would be 128 decimal, so we would end up writing 128 decimals.
Of course 310 octal is 200 decimal, but taking 2008 to mean 31010 is plain crazy, even if it's the only way to make it fit the "four times 666" constraint!
What am I missing here? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.149|173.245.53.149]] 21:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

This Mathematica code searches for the pattern 666 in the octal expansion of 1.5 pi:
<pre>digits = RealDigits[3*Pi/2, 8, 10000][[1]]; Select[Range[10000 - 2], Take[digits, {#, # + 2}] == {6, 6, 6} &]
{279, 326, 495, 496, 3430, 3728, 4153, 6040, 7031, 7195, 7647, 7732, 8353, 8435, 8436, 8575, 8768, 9008}</pre>
These positions start counting with the leading "4" as position 1. It does not occur in the first 200 digits, but occurs 18 times in the first 10,000 digits. Many other digit combinations occur more times in the first 10,000 digits, including "123" (23 times), "222" (21 times), and "555" (26 times). Note that "xkcd" converted to numbers (a=1, b=2, etc.) is 24, 11, 3, 4. The combination 241134 first occurs in 1.5 pi at digit number 250,745. [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]] ([[User talk:Dcoetzee|talk]]) 06:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Wow, this filled up fast. Is it time to remove the Incomplete tag yet? [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.66|199.27.128.66]] 03:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

:Please do your adds at the bottom. Otherwise it looks like as the first discussion here and everybody will ignore your comment.
:My answer is: NO. We still have to figure out if Randall is wrong or just using an algorithm nobody does understand right now.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

---

Someone said there's no indication that Randall used Wolfram, and that double-precision IEEE numbers in mostly any language would cause the same error.
This is not true: IEEE double precision numbers (binary64) are stored internally in binary.
Converting them to octal would give at most 18 nonzero significant (octal) digits, and from that point on all additional digits would be zeros (remember that an octal digit is equivalent to three bits).
What Wolfram does is rounding to a decimal number, which is not round in octal.

I think the previous is an indication that Randall did indeed use Wolfram.
Added to that, he used Wolfram in several what-if's, and in one case he used it so heavily that his IP got temporarily banned from Wolfram.
This leaves little or no doubts in me that Wolfram is the source of Randall's mistake.

Also, I still would like to know why everybody is interpreting "200 digits" as "2008 digits" and pretending that's equal to "31010 digits" instead of "12810 digits".

And out of curiosity, what happened with [[287]] and floating point numbers?
The explainxkcd for 287 says nothing about floating point.

[[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.145|173.245.53.145]] 22:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
* With [[287]], there was only meant to be one solution, the other solution was unintended. It's mentioned in the discussion only, not in the body of the explanation, but there's a link to an interview where he indicates that it was indeed unintentional. [[User:Sabik|Sabik]] ([[User talk:Sabik|talk]]) 07:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

;What is the period of the wolfram answer?
What is the repeat period of the octal answer with the 666's, (the length of the repetend) i.e. the one that comes from Wolfram, that is converting 4.71238898038469 decimal to octal? And how many 666's are in the full repetend? Oooh - I like that new word - thanks to {{w|repeating decimal}}! [[User:Nealmcb|Nealmcb]] ([[User talk:Nealmcb|talk]]) 23:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

:Dunno, either Randall uses WolframAlpha whithout further checks, so he has to check his sources, or we all are just dumb.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 23:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

: The period is 4882812500. Yes, what I mean is that it repeats every 488281250010 digits. Not sure I want to count the number of 666's in there. Oh, and thanks for the answer about [[287]], I've seen it now. -- [[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.139|173.245.53.139]] 17:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I hardly dare to ask now... ;)
*What is an octal expansion?
*This explanation cannot be complete before someone explains what this actually means, to someone who have never herd of octal expansion before (like me)
[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 15:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
:You are absolutely right, the incomplete tag is back. It seems only math geeks were working here but it should also be explained for people with less knowledge on math.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 22:02, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

:*The wikipedia page for {{w|Octal}} contains a complete explanation. I wrote a plainer one but mine is still very long, so instead of posting it here I uploaded it [http://www.jojonete.com/00/20131121_Octal/ there]. It's very crappily formatted and not thoroughly checked as I don't have time for more at the moment, but I might improve it some other day. Please note that the only reason for not posting it here is its length, and in particular it has nothing to do with copyright issues. I mean, everybody feel free to copy, rewrite, summarize, expand, correct, destroy or do whatever to that text with no attribution, just as if it had been posted here. --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.145|173.245.53.145]] 22:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

::The explain for non math people should be much more simple. Randall likes simple English, I like simple Math. Not everything is covered but more people will understand the essentials. While I like all that details many people don't. We still do need an simple Math explain here.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 23:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

::I know and I agree, that's why I kept my explanation out of this discussion. My summarizing skills are just not good enough. I used the time I didn't have to reformat my explanation, but that just means it's now a bit longer than it was. I hope someone else will write a much shorter and simple one, as I just seem to be unable to do so. --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.145|173.245.53.145]] 01:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

:::Thanks for a great explanation. I knew about this system but only for integers. However, still need a word on how to get pi in Octal. Until anyone does better a link could be posted for your explanation! [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 19:54, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

::::I added the conversion part to the explanation, it's in the same link. Still way too long to post here. --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.117|173.245.53.117]] 03:29, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Note that pau is Catalan for peace, which is a good solution for the pi/tau dispute. --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.150|173.245.53.150]] 00:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

:Has posted this as a trivia item. [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 20:11, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The trivia that states that e here represents Euler's Constant, and not Euler's Number, seems to be false, is it not? e+2 being ~4.71, not ~2.58. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.11|108.162.237.11]] 17:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
:I have removed that sentence. It was simply wrong. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 19:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

4/3*Pau=Tau, 2/3*Pau=Pi, therefore, It can have a practical use.--[[User:ParadoX|ParadoX]] ([[User talk:ParadoX|talk]]) 10:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Dear DgBrt, Please leave the explain as it is. It's "way too complex" for a reason. And the Title Text does in fact need its own header (it's not the only title text to have earned it) [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.65|199.27.128.65]] 19:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
:Hello 199.27.128.65, please post new comments to the bottom. I did revert your revert because you didn't solve any of the remarks by me. And the title text EXPLAIN could be done easy: Explain that comparing e and and pi is nonsense and explain the mistake done by Randall when using Wolfram Alpha. Everything else belongs to the trivia section. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 22:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
::OK, we need to get the admins in here before we end up in a revert war. We already explained the intentional error from Randall, which is why it's in the explanation and not the trivia section. It CAN'T go in the trivia section because we're EXPLAINING what the error is. You don't put long explanations in the trivia section, you put them in the explanation section. THAT'S why the title text is getting its own header. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.65|199.27.128.65]] 02:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
::All right, I've submitted a request for the admins to help up. No idea when they'll get here, but it should help smooth this big mess out. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.65|199.27.128.65]] 02:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
::: [[http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/explain_xkcd:Community_portal/Admin_requests#Potential_Edit_War.3B_we_want_to_resolve_it_before_it_starts Here's what they've said so far]]. What do you think Dgbrt? [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.65|199.27.128.65]] 04:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
::::After a week I haven't been here I still can say: calm down. My reasons are still at the incomplete tag — just read it.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 22:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
:::::Let's run through your arguments:
:"non Math people should also be able to understand this." I'd say the other editors did a pretty good job of that; that's the ENTIRE REASON we have an explain.
:"Randalls mistake has to be emphasised" They were. Read the explaination again.
:"everything else here is still too much, it even doesn't belong to a trivia section" But should the explanation not be as complete as possible? You underestimate just how nerdy we can get here.
:I have to side with the mods. I think this explanation was done and you're holding out for an impossible edit that will never come. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.65|199.27.128.65]] 02:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
::I will work on this, but it needs some time because I don't want to remove any of the great findings here. Non math people DON'T read all that number talks. They don't know what wolfram alpha is and that this site is sometimes WRONG. That has to be clearly explained.
::Furthermore this is NOT a nerd sniping by Randall; it's a nerd sniping ON Randall. He did use the result by wolfram alpha by error, he did figure out all that wrong "666" appearances, while he otherwise is very accurate on math.
::My idea is: Extract the essentials for the title text and add a paragraph like "Math details", "Background", or however to the bottom of the explain. In effect non math people would not read this paragraph but they can understand the essentials, other people would be happy about the deeper explain.
::I don't want to delete content, I'm just looking for a better presentation to the public. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
:::The amount of research Randal does, it's far more likely he made the mistakes on purpose in order to nerd snipe, as opposed to "he just made the mistakes on accident."
:::I agree with you on the wolfram alpha part, though, and I like your idea to summarize the errors before exploring them in full detail
:::Sorry for being so antagonizing before. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.65|199.27.128.65]] 04:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

==Tone of "Title text" section==
The [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1292:_Pi_vs._Tau&oldid=66351 current] tone of the title text section is inconsistent with the rest of this site. Where else does this wiki say, "Math is hard! It's not worth your time trying to understand the concepts here."?

''It consists of some of advanced trigonometry and other assorted college-level concepts that will in all likelihood just bore you if you don't care about them already.'' Really? There is not even any elementary trigonometry involved here, other than the value of PI itself. And since when is advanced trig a college level course? What is involved is the concept of bases other than base 10, specifically octal, but that is also a secondary school subject, both in mathematics and computer science.

I propose the following outline of the section:
*State that the property given in the title text does not actually hold for 1.5 * PI, but that due to an early rounding error, it might look as if it holds when shown via Wolfram Alpha. Further state that it is not clear if Randall, in relying on Wolfram Alpha, made a mistake, or if he is partaking in nerd sniping.
*Show how close Pau is to e+2.
*Explain octal -- base 8 -- first for integers, then for fractions.
*Present the actual octal expansion and show that the property does not hold.
*Explain why the Wolfram Alpha answer is different.
*Present the Wolfram Alpha answer, and show how the property [almost?] holds with that value.
*Depending on how self-referential we wish to be, explain how it might have been a plausible mistake for Randall to have relied on Wolfram Alpha, but that if it was a case of nerd sniping, then it was highly successful.
*Mention the similarity to the Feynman point.
This wiki is about explanations. We shouldn't bemoan a subject as being more difficult than it is; we should explain. -- [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.43|108.162.219.43]] 22:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

1361: Google Announcement

2014-04-28T05:05:40Z

108.162.219.43: /* Transcript */

{{comic
| number = 1361
| date = April 28, 2014
| title = Google Announcement
| image = google_announcement.png
| titletext = The less popular 8.8.4.4 is slated for discontinuation.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a BOT - Please change this comment when editing this page.}}

==Transcript==
:Cueball is standing at a podium marked Google.

:Cueball: The rumors ar true. Google will be shutting down Plus-

:Cueball: Along with Hangouts, Photos, Voice, Docs, Drive, Maps, Gmail, Chrome, Android, and Search-

:Cueball: To focus on our core project:

:Cueball: The 8.8.8.8 DNS Server.

{{comic discussion}}

Talk:886: Craigslist Apartments

2014-04-18T12:03:18Z

108.162.219.43: House near Pripyat; Corium due to heat of meltdown, not force of explosion itself; reference is to nuclear facility itself

The house with a house inside may be a reference to the tesseracted, 4D house from Robert Heinlein's "-And He Built A Crooked House." {{unsigned ip|‎173.225.52.131}}

I would have thought the klein stairs with the intense heat in short bursts may be a reference to a research fusion reactor. 'Net searches seem to suggest there may be connections between plasma behaviour and klein bottle mathematics. {{unsigned ip|108.162.250.5}}

The Minotaur sounds like a reference to Doctor Who The God Complex. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.201|173.245.52.201]] 05:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

The closet full of board games which play themselves could be a reference to the movie Jumanji.
Can't remember a tub full of blood from that movie, though, however surely pets won't survive long. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.180|173.245.53.180]] 21:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I explained the third one, but I have no idea about the lack of floor. Because of this and others, I added an 'Incomplete' tag with the appropriate reason. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.212.206|108.162.212.206]] 03:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe that the "616" "$1616" is a reference to the number of the beast. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.90|173.245.54.90]] 18:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
:The number of the beast is 666. Not 616. [[User:NealCruco|NealCruco]] ([[User talk:NealCruco|talk]]) 01:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I motion to close/complete this one. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.65|199.27.128.65]] 17:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the house near Pripyat explanation, "the glass facade references radioactive glassy minerals created by the explosion" seems to be conflating the Corium produced at Chernobyl with the Trinitite produced by nuclear explosion at Alamogordo. There was a steam explosion at Chernobyl, but the Corium was produced by the heat of the subsequent meltdown, not by the force of the explosion. The current explanation also includes, "It may also be the nuclear facility itself, depending on interpretation; ...". It seems clear to me that the apartment for rent is the nuclear facility itself, and not some house in Pripyat, which is "5-min drive" away; why else the "Three floors w/pool, rooftop garden, beautiful glass facade". -- [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.43|108.162.219.43]] 12:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)