explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:1455: Trolley Problem

2014-12-05T02:08:14Z

108.162.250.204: Hitting "Add a comment" brought me to the edit page - and it didn't appear correctly, so I moved my comment to the end where it should have gone.

I think Randall missed a trick here.. He should have had Black Hat offer to leave the lever (killing the 5) if Cueball was the 1 person on the other track, for $1 of course. That way Cueball is put in a situation of moral contradiction: The utilitarian in him says save the 5 (sacrifice self), self interest says save yourself (thereby killing 5). --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 09:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:Randall had to make a choice between your scenario and Black Hat interrupting Cueball to emphasise BH's lack of care for the people on the track. As he chose the latter, BH didn't know there was a person on the second track, so couldn't have offered your scenario. -- [[User:Notso|Notso]] ([[User talk:Notso|talk]]) 11:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
::Good point, I hadn't noticed that BH was never aware of the single person. That makes BH an even less moral person than I'd realised! As far as he knows, he could save 5 lives with no consequences, but that means standing up.... --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 12:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:: I think Randall made the morally correct choice there, don't you? -- [[User:Brettpeirce|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk]]) 12:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:::Thats the thing with morals, something is only 'morally correct' if I subscribe to your moral viewpoint. While not such a popular view, some would argue that intervening to switch the track (thus causing the 1 worker to die) is morally wrong (because of your action you have changed the course of events, or some other reason). While most would agree that it is morally wrong to kill a human, as you start changing the circumstances, it become difficult to stick to hard and fast rules. What about abortion of a foetus, abortion where a life-limiting condition is detected, use of condoms, the death penalty, euthanasia? I would really recommend anyone to run through some of the [http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/ Philosophy Experiments], it certainly made me examine my own morals, which previously I thought were well defined and logical. --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 13:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
::::"''some would argue that intervening to switch the track (thus causing the 1 worker to die) is morally wrong (because of your action you have changed the course of events''"
::::If you base morality on what choices are made, rather than what actions are taken, then '''failing''' to intervene, choosing not to take action, would be morally wrong. Basing morals on actions suggests someone could stand by and always do nothing and remain moral. A position I don't think anyone could seriously defend. But you're absolutely right that "morals" are never well defined or logical. An example can always be found to put someone's strong moral stance in an immoral position. --Equinox [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.117|199.27.128.117]] 17:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::The majority of people will make a distinction between killing someone and letting someone die, even if that distinction isn't something they are conscious of. Of course the end result is the same, whether it is classed as killing or letting die. For those whose morals are guided by christianity for example, the ten commandments specifically states 'Thou shalt not kill', and your action of pulling the lever could be seen as killing the 1 person, whereas by not acting, or choosing not to act, you are 'merely' letting 5 people die. --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 21:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::Folks who make some kind of moral distinction between choosing to kill someone and choosing to let someone die are just trying to avoid responsibility for their actions. It's a self-righteous and self-serving. Masking that by claiming some religeous basis (God said "Thou shall not kill" so I'm, ''ahem'', just following orders.) doesn't change that.
::::::I'm not in any way suggesting it wouldn't be a wrenching and difficult decision to have to make. But someone claiming they can choose not to decide who lives and who dies (while in fact they are thereby actually making that decision) and therefore not have any responsibility for what happens as a consequence is simply lying.
::::::To perhaps more clearly show how choosing to "let" multiple people die isn't really OK morally, make it a large number of people. What if the train is headed toward 500 people? Most folks who might be OK with "letting" 5 die would balk well before the exchange rate got near 500:1. I realize this kind of contemplating "where do you draw the line" is what the trolley problem is designed to produce. Thanks for the discussion.--Equinox [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.117|199.27.128.117]] 17:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Black Hat first sells his hypothetical decision for $1, which can be seen as a cheap bargain for one's life; but how probable is this concrete situation with these exact persons to come true, except we are speaking of Black Hat here. $5 still is for a hypothetical, but more probable scenario given Black Hat's attitude; agreeing to pay would make Cueball open for further blackmailing in general and so be imprudent, but even for that counter-argument Black Hat has an even more expensive solution. Black Hat goes more and more meta and counters arguments bringing the concrete decision from hypothesis to reality and earning money on the way. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.68|108.162.231.68]] 10:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Pudder

Or one can treat this like Captain Kirk did with the infamous "Kobayashi Maru" problem and cheat, and say that they would throw the lever after the lead wheels have cleared the switch. This would divert the trailing wheels onto the other track which would cause the trolley to derail and thus save all six.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.94|108.162.216.94]] 13:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:And kill everyone on board! Its easy to cheat, and construct ways to avoid the hypothetical situation, or reasons why it could never happen in the first place. To me its more interesting to examine and challenge the thought process involved in making a decision where the answer isn't necessarily 'correct'. --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 13:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
::Nowhere does it say there are people on the trolley. You are assuming that there are. I am assuming the opposite — that it is a runaway and no one is aboard; otherwise someone would be able to apply the brakes.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.94|108.162.216.94]] 15:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:::My response was an off the cuff joke, it doesn't matter whether there are people on board, whether they would survive, whether they could pull the brakes on, if the brakes have failed, whether you could fire an orange portal in front of the 5 people and a blue one after them, etc etc etc. The importants part is the second half of my statement, that its easy to cheat, and construct ways to avoid the hypothetical situation, or reasons why it could never happen in the first place. Once you accept the hypothetical limits of the situation, that is where the interesting philosophical questions lie. --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 15:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
::The correct answer is to have a moral trolley company that trains its workers to OSHA rules; thus the correct answer would be to throw the lever to head towards the worker, confident that the worker has been trained to listen to the "singing of the rails" indicating an approaching vehicle and will jump out of the way. [[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 13:49, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:::In the original problem, all 6 potential victims are bound and helpless and none of them are "workers". [[User:Smperron|Smperron]] ([[User talk:Smperron|talk]]) 14:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
::If the trolley is a runaway trolley, then it's a good chance that all on board (if anyone) would die anyway, so may as well save all six people on the track. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.217.131|108.162.217.131]] 14:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
The explanation is missing that Black Hat doesn't offer to press the lever for $1. He offers to promise to press the lever for $1. [[User:Hsdgsgh|Hsdgsgh]] ([[User talk:Hsdgsgh|talk]]) 13:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

It depends - are any/all of those five people Hitler? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.48|108.162.215.48]] 16:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The tiered levels appear similar to kickstarter campaigns. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.91|108.162.216.91]]

The trolley problem continues: The trolley is under control, but heading towards a bend. If the driver brakes now, then the five people hidden round the corner will survive. You could certainly make the driver brake by pushing someone onto the track. If you would divert the trolley in the original scenario, would you also push a random stranger into the path of an oncoming train, and if not, why not. Does the more visceral act of pushing someone onto a track make this morally different? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.201|141.101.98.201]] 20:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:[http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/fatman/Default4.aspx The statistics] show that far fewer people will push the person onto the track than would change the lever. As you say, its far more visceral and personal to push someone than to flick a switch. {{unsigned|Pudder}}
Depending on the speed of the trolley and the steepness of the turn after the points, the trolley could derail anyway, saving the lives of all six but bringing a hastened demise to anyone on board. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.204|108.162.250.204]] 02:06, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk:1455: Trolley Problem

2014-12-05T02:06:45Z

108.162.250.204:

Depending on the speed of the trolley and the steepness of the turn after the points, the trolley could derail anyway, saving the lives of all six but bringing a hastened demise to anyone on board. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.204|108.162.250.204]] 02:06, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I think Randall missed a trick here.. He should have had Black Hat offer to leave the lever (killing the 5) if Cueball was the 1 person on the other track, for $1 of course. That way Cueball is put in a situation of moral contradiction: The utilitarian in him says save the 5 (sacrifice self), self interest says save yourself (thereby killing 5). --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 09:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:Randall had to make a choice between your scenario and Black Hat interrupting Cueball to emphasise BH's lack of care for the people on the track. As he chose the latter, BH didn't know there was a person on the second track, so couldn't have offered your scenario. -- [[User:Notso|Notso]] ([[User talk:Notso|talk]]) 11:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
::Good point, I hadn't noticed that BH was never aware of the single person. That makes BH an even less moral person than I'd realised! As far as he knows, he could save 5 lives with no consequences, but that means standing up.... --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 12:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:: I think Randall made the morally correct choice there, don't you? -- [[User:Brettpeirce|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk]]) 12:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:::Thats the thing with morals, something is only 'morally correct' if I subscribe to your moral viewpoint. While not such a popular view, some would argue that intervening to switch the track (thus causing the 1 worker to die) is morally wrong (because of your action you have changed the course of events, or some other reason). While most would agree that it is morally wrong to kill a human, as you start changing the circumstances, it become difficult to stick to hard and fast rules. What about abortion of a foetus, abortion where a life-limiting condition is detected, use of condoms, the death penalty, euthanasia? I would really recommend anyone to run through some of the [http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/ Philosophy Experiments], it certainly made me examine my own morals, which previously I thought were well defined and logical. --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 13:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
::::"''some would argue that intervening to switch the track (thus causing the 1 worker to die) is morally wrong (because of your action you have changed the course of events''"
::::If you base morality on what choices are made, rather than what actions are taken, then '''failing''' to intervene, choosing not to take action, would be morally wrong. Basing morals on actions suggests someone could stand by and always do nothing and remain moral. A position I don't think anyone could seriously defend. But you're absolutely right that "morals" are never well defined or logical. An example can always be found to put someone's strong moral stance in an immoral position. --Equinox [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.117|199.27.128.117]] 17:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::The majority of people will make a distinction between killing someone and letting someone die, even if that distinction isn't something they are conscious of. Of course the end result is the same, whether it is classed as killing or letting die. For those whose morals are guided by christianity for example, the ten commandments specifically states 'Thou shalt not kill', and your action of pulling the lever could be seen as killing the 1 person, whereas by not acting, or choosing not to act, you are 'merely' letting 5 people die. --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 21:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::Folks who make some kind of moral distinction between choosing to kill someone and choosing to let someone die are just trying to avoid responsibility for their actions. It's a self-righteous and self-serving. Masking that by claiming some religeous basis (God said "Thou shall not kill" so I'm, ''ahem'', just following orders.) doesn't change that.
::::::I'm not in any way suggesting it wouldn't be a wrenching and difficult decision to have to make. But someone claiming they can choose not to decide who lives and who dies (while in fact they are thereby actually making that decision) and therefore not have any responsibility for what happens as a consequence is simply lying.
::::::To perhaps more clearly show how choosing to "let" multiple people die isn't really OK morally, make it a large number of people. What if the train is headed toward 500 people? Most folks who might be OK with "letting" 5 die would balk well before the exchange rate got near 500:1. I realize this kind of contemplating "where do you draw the line" is what the trolley problem is designed to produce. Thanks for the discussion.--Equinox [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.117|199.27.128.117]] 17:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Black Hat first sells his hypothetical decision for $1, which can be seen as a cheap bargain for one's life; but how probable is this concrete situation with these exact persons to come true, except we are speaking of Black Hat here. $5 still is for a hypothetical, but more probable scenario given Black Hat's attitude; agreeing to pay would make Cueball open for further blackmailing in general and so be imprudent, but even for that counter-argument Black Hat has an even more expensive solution. Black Hat goes more and more meta and counters arguments bringing the concrete decision from hypothesis to reality and earning money on the way. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.68|108.162.231.68]] 10:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Pudder

Or one can treat this like Captain Kirk did with the infamous "Kobayashi Maru" problem and cheat, and say that they would throw the lever after the lead wheels have cleared the switch. This would divert the trailing wheels onto the other track which would cause the trolley to derail and thus save all six.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.94|108.162.216.94]] 13:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:And kill everyone on board! Its easy to cheat, and construct ways to avoid the hypothetical situation, or reasons why it could never happen in the first place. To me its more interesting to examine and challenge the thought process involved in making a decision where the answer isn't necessarily 'correct'. --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 13:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
::Nowhere does it say there are people on the trolley. You are assuming that there are. I am assuming the opposite — that it is a runaway and no one is aboard; otherwise someone would be able to apply the brakes.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.94|108.162.216.94]] 15:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:::My response was an off the cuff joke, it doesn't matter whether there are people on board, whether they would survive, whether they could pull the brakes on, if the brakes have failed, whether you could fire an orange portal in front of the 5 people and a blue one after them, etc etc etc. The importants part is the second half of my statement, that its easy to cheat, and construct ways to avoid the hypothetical situation, or reasons why it could never happen in the first place. Once you accept the hypothetical limits of the situation, that is where the interesting philosophical questions lie. --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 15:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
::The correct answer is to have a moral trolley company that trains its workers to OSHA rules; thus the correct answer would be to throw the lever to head towards the worker, confident that the worker has been trained to listen to the "singing of the rails" indicating an approaching vehicle and will jump out of the way. [[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 13:49, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:::In the original problem, all 6 potential victims are bound and helpless and none of them are "workers". [[User:Smperron|Smperron]] ([[User talk:Smperron|talk]]) 14:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
::If the trolley is a runaway trolley, then it's a good chance that all on board (if anyone) would die anyway, so may as well save all six people on the track. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.217.131|108.162.217.131]] 14:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
The explanation is missing that Black Hat doesn't offer to press the lever for $1. He offers to promise to press the lever for $1. [[User:Hsdgsgh|Hsdgsgh]] ([[User talk:Hsdgsgh|talk]]) 13:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

It depends - are any/all of those five people Hitler? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.48|108.162.215.48]] 16:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The tiered levels appear similar to kickstarter campaigns. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.91|108.162.216.91]]

The trolley problem continues: The trolley is under control, but heading towards a bend. If the driver brakes now, then the five people hidden round the corner will survive. You could certainly make the driver brake by pushing someone onto the track. If you would divert the trolley in the original scenario, would you also push a random stranger into the path of an oncoming train, and if not, why not. Does the more visceral act of pushing someone onto a track make this morally different? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.201|141.101.98.201]] 20:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:[http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/fatman/Default4.aspx The statistics] show that far fewer people will push the person onto the track than would change the lever. As you say, its far more visceral and personal to push someone than to flick a switch. {{unsigned|Pudder}}

Talk:1412: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles

2014-09-19T06:15:22Z

108.162.250.204:

Looks like they renamed the Wikipedia article mentioned as "Maple Syrup Urine '''Syndrome'''" to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maple_syrup_urine_disease Maple Syrup Urine '''Disease'''].[[User:Keavon|Keavon]] ([[User talk:Keavon|talk]]) 05:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

This rythmic sounding has to do with metrical <strike>foots</strike> feet, I think. Maybe someone more into it than I can explain...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot_%28prosody%29 [[Special:Contributions/108.162.229.164|108.162.229.164]] 05:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

: It's just a 4-foot trochaic ("trochaic octameter"?) meter. ^- ^- ^- ^-. Also, I'm curious now, is "foots" the proper plural when discussing meter, or is that just a typo/misunderstanding? [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.150|199.27.128.150]] 06:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

:: Oh, right, the plural must be "feet". I just had a brain fart. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.229.164|108.162.229.164]] 10:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

:: It is a trochaic tetrameter. Tetra = 4, octa = 8.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.38|108.162.216.38]] 12:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

::: Right, it's number of feet, not number of syllables. My mistake. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.150|199.27.128.150]] 15:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

: This one is definitely related: http://xkcd.com/856/ --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.68|141.101.104.68]] 08:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Unless "Gloucester" is two syllables, Randall made a mistake/wanted to see if we're awake.--[[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.224|108.162.246.224]] 06:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
:Depending on where you're from, it can be pronounced (quasi-phonetically) as "Glow-ster". [[User:Jarod997|Jarod997]] ([[User talk:Jarod997|talk]]) 13:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

: Actually it is. Silly British accents. It's pronounced roughly "Gloss-ter". [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.150|199.27.128.150]] 06:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

::In that case, I retract my previous statement and apologize.--[[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.224|108.162.246.224]] 07:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

With regards to the roll-over text, mention could be made of the long-running BBC radio show "I'm sorry I haven't a clue" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%27m_Sorry_I_Haven%27t_A_Clue ). It is comedy panel game, and one of the regular rounds is 'One Song to the Tune of Another'. It may be coincidence, but one panellist of the show is Barry Cryer ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Cryer ) who happened to have recorded Purple People Eater... [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.184|141.101.98.184]] 08:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Why isn't Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles in the list? [[Special:Contributions/103.22.201.120|103.22.201.120]] 11:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

There's a typo in "Quantuum vacuum plasma thruster". [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.184|141.101.98.184]] 12:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Dang someone beat me to writing in the transcript. Oh well, you did a much better job than I was doing anyway. =8o) [[User:Jarod997|Jarod997]] ([[User talk:Jarod997|talk]]) 13:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Is it just me, or do these lyrics not REALLY match the TMNT title song? The first three lines are OK, but the following lines just repeats the pattern - the TMNT song has a different rhythm. {{unsigned ip|141.101.98.169}}

:Each title is meant to be sung only to the "TMNT" part of the song. They aren't meant to be sung one after another to match the whole song. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.211|173.245.52.211]] 03:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

If you speak with a western US accent like me, museum is pronounced with 2 syllables (myoo zahm). I guess if you pronounce it correctly, its more like myoo-zee-uhm, which would make 'Edgar Allan Poe Museum' fit. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.213|108.162.246.213]] 03:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
:Please check with your friends and relations about the pronunciation of museum. All dictionaries show /mjuˈzi.əm/ (myoo-ZEE-um). [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.144|108.162.238.144]] 19:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

It's a shame that "Infra Turbo Pigcart Racer" has a syllable too many, because that would've been perfect. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.197|141.101.104.197]] 08:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
:What's the extra syllable? I count In-fra Tur-bo Pig-cart Ra-cer. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.144|108.162.238.144]] 19:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Is there any particular need to have a separate section for the wikilinks, rather than just embedding them in the transcript?--[[User:Marcus Hill|Marcus Hill]] ([[User talk:Marcus Hill|talk]]) 09:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
:I wouldn't think so - that's how they were originally... [[User:Jarod997|Jarod997]] ([[User talk:Jarod997|talk]]) 13:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

This makes me think of "We Didn't Start the Fire" by Billy Joel. {{unsigned ip|108.162.216.150}}

Damnit Monroe, for two reasons: 1. Now this all I can think about whenever I find a phrase that fits the syllable stress pattern, and 2. Why couldn't you have held off until 1413 for this - XKCD fourteen thirteen fits the stress pattern as well. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.204|108.162.250.204]] 06:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

1416: Pixels

2014-09-03T21:06:40Z

108.162.250.204: /* Fire Hydrant */ grammo

{{comic
| number = 1416
| date = September 3, 2014
| title = Pixels
| image = pixels.png
| titletext = It's turtles all the way down.
}}
'''NOTE: The above is only a zoomed out version of the this interactive comic.''' For a collection of images that appear when zooming in on this comic, see [[1416: Pixels/Images]].

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Individual panels need explanations}}
This interactive comic begins with a panel where [[Cueball]] is stacking turtles. This is a reference to the idiom "turtles all the way down," which refers to the problem of infinite regression: if everything in the universe is "on top of" something else, so to speak, there must be a "bottom." A joking solution to the paradoxical nature of such a bottom is the proposition that {{w|Turtles_all_the_way_down|the world rests on a semi-infinite stack of turtles}}.

As can be read you should "scroll to zoom". This can be done by placing the cursor inside the panel of the comic. When scrolling up (using the mouse wheel) the picture zooms in until the pixels are visible. When you continue to scroll on each pixel then resolves into another comic picture, with black-on-white comic panels making up the white pixels and white-on-black panels making up the black pixels. Scrolling on until you can see the pixels of the comic picture you are now zooming into the process is repeated again and will be so for all subsequent sets of comic panels. Not all white and all black panels are the same; some sets involve more than two different panels, but all involve repetitive tiling.

===Book Launch===
This comic was released on September 3rd, 2014, the day after Randall's book ''[http://www.amazon.com/What-If-Scientific-Hypothetical-Questions/dp/0544272994 What If]'' was launched. The book is shown and referred to in a number of frames, for example it is [[:File:pixels-upgoer.png|'''literally''' launched]] as a part of an <strike>rocket</strike> [[1133:_Up_Goer_Five|''up goer'']] built by Cueball.

The model ''up goer'' is [[:File:pixels-assembly-1.png|made of Rocket Parts from KSP]]. KSP is the {{w|Kerbal Space Program}}, a spaceflight simulator. Perhaps XKCD's 'parts' refers to KSP's large community of mod developers who contribute 'parts' to the game.

The frames showing the book launch use URIs that include the text "upgoer" in reference to the [[Up Goer Five]] comic.

===Holism, Reductionism, Mu===
These three words refer to "A MU offering", an essay by Douglas Hofstatder in his book [[24|Godel, Escher, Bach]]. It includes a similar multiple level drawing: {{w|Mu (negative)|the word MU}} is composed of copies of the words HOLISM and REDUCTIONISM, each of which are in turn made of smaller copies of the other, which are in turn made of [http://newtonexcelbach.wordpress.com/2011/02/16/two-more-letters/ tiny copies] of the word MU.

===Needs More Struts===
{{w|Strut|Struts}} are structural members in engineering, and are are one of the components used in Kerbal Space Program to construct rockets. 'Needs More Struts' seems to be a meme amongst players of Kerbal Space Program, along the lines of 'When in doubt, overengineer'. Megan deems Cueball's rocket to be insufficiently structurally sound, and declares that it "[[:File:pixels-assembly-4.png|Needs More Struts]]"

===Cantor Set===
[[:File:pixels-cantor.png|One panel]] contains a number of lines and dots, which are in fact a depiction of the first 5 steps of a {{w|Cantor set|Cantor Ternary Set}}, mirrored about the horizontal centreline. The Cantor ternary set is constructed by repeatedly deleting the open middle thirds of a set of line segments.

===Time Turners===
The time turner is a device from the Harry Potter series of novels by JK Rowling. It allows the user to re-live a period of time over again. In the third novel Hermione is given the time-turner to allow her to take extra classes, however it is eventually used to spare Buckbeak the hippogryph from execution. This prompted many questions regarding why time-turners weren’t used on other occasions to saves peoples lives (among other things).

While J.K Rowling has “[http://pottermore.wikia.com/wiki/Time-Turner solved the problem to her own satisfaction]” she admits that she entered into the subject of time-travel too lightly.
This panel jokes that if the real life JK Rowling had a fictional time-turner which worked, she would have gone back and removed the time-turner plotline from the book, saving her all the hassle of dealing with the resulting time-travel questions. This act would result in a time-travel paradox.

===Stockholm Syndrome===
{{w|Stockholm syndrome}} is the name for a psychological phenomenon, in which hostages develop sympathy, empathy and/or positive feelings towards their captors. These feelings are usually seen as irrational, seeing as the hostage is held against their wishes, usually with the threat of physical harm or death.

[[:File:pixels-stockholm.png|This panel]] asks "How do we know anyone really ''wants'' to live in Stockholm?", questioning whether everyone who lives in the city of Stockholm is in fact held hostage there and only stays because they have developed to like life there (due to Stockholm Syndrome).

===Shut Down the Server===
Cueball tells an offscreen character that he is going to shut down the server, while carrying a bucket of water.

Usually shutting down a server is done via the operating system or software, in this case it appears that cueball is simply going to douse it with water, likely resulting in serious water damage to the hardware.

=== du ===
`du` is a Linux command to indicate the "disk usage" of a file or directory.

~$ du -s video/
4170882256

This is a command that shows how large all the files are in this user's "video" directory - presumably where they store their personal videos. The units of the result is probably kilobytes (depending on settings)

This number is clearly large and difficult to parse, and the units are not clear. More appropriate units would be terabytes rather than bytes. The du command offers an option to display units in "human readable format", which will adapt to use kilobytes, megabytes, gigabytes, terabytes, etc. as appropriate. The next command purports to request the same result in more human-readable form.

~$ du -hs video/
A lot.
~$

It seems that the computer, rather than giving a specific answer, simply says that the size of the video directory is "A lot."

The final line indicates the computer is now ready to accept a new command.

===Fire Hydrant===
Black Hat is talking to a fireman, with a fire engine on fire in the background, he asks "To be fair, what else would you expect to come out of a 'Fire Hydrant'?"

Black Hat appears to have managed to replace the usual water supply to the hydrant with some sort of flammable liquid. Thus when the hydrant is used, the result is, quite literally, fire. In Black Hat's logic, a hydrant which delivers water should be called a water hydrant.

===Evolution===
The {{w|March of Progress}} image is a famous and instantly recognisable image showing the stages of human evolution by way of a series of primate figures as if marching in a line. The panel parodies the March of Progress image, with 5 ducklings following an adult duck. In this case they don’t actually ‘evolve’ into the adult duck however. The comic has some resemblance to [[537: Ducklings]].

===The Only Copy===
Cueball & Megan turn to each other having just launched the What-If book rocket into space (construction and launch are seen in other panels). perhaps Megan realises they may have misunderstood the term 'book launch' and that they may have just lost the only copy of the book.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball is stacking turtles, and is about to put the fourth turtle on his pile. At the bottom right there is a small panel. Inside this is written:]
:Scroll to zoom

:[When zooming in there will be several panels with text. The transcript of these may not be possible to complete - but add the transcript of these panels here: [[1416: Pixels/Transcript|interactive transcript]]]

==Bugs==
Doesn't seem to work properly in all browsers (e.g. Firefox and Safari on MacOSX), giving "TypeError: this.data is null" in line 173 of zoom.js: "var item = this.data.get(dims)"
Doesn't seem to work in IE8, comic is blank, but title text works.

Does not work on xkcd.org neither www.xkcd.org in Firefox and Chrome. Currently you should visit http://xkcd.com for this comic to work properly.

The comic (along with many other features of the site) will not work at all at present, as the server for dynamic content, c.xkcd.com, is down.

There is a bug/typo, where there is a chance of white pixels zoom into a missing panel, resulting in a white screen.
This is affecting several panels: "du" (1-in-13), "server-1" (1-in-13), and "time-turner" (1-in-14).
In each case the missing (404) tile is "what-if-trade" (probably should be "whatif-trade").

Also, it doesn't work on HTTPS.

==Gallery==
[[File:1416_Pixels_layout.png|237px|right]]
[[1416: Pixels/Images|This gallery]] contains some of the 79 images used in this comic. The images are related in a [[:File:1416_Pixels_layout.png|directed graph]].

==Images Database==
This google sheet describes all possible images, their associated codes, and what possible images can be used as sub-images for each zoom level: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1nldKAkeVcK606CY12KI9bah9rDmK9E7CZOyinsEj2Lo/edit?usp=sharing

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Interactive comics]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]