explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

535: It Might Be Cool

2021-11-15T10:02:37Z

141.101.77.21: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 535
| date = January 26, 2009
| title = It Might Be Cool
| image = it_might_be_cool.png
| titletext = 'And ovaries. Man, ovaries, huh?' [awkward pause] '... faithfully.'
}}

==Explanation==
[[Cueball]] (or [[Randall]]) is musing about the possibility of being a woman, to the confusion of the man next to him. His uninsightful rambling would likely be unimpressive and somewhat odd in most situations, but not odd enough on its own to prompt the second man's baffled reaction. However, the true reason for his confusion is revealed by the caption: Cueball is administering the {{w|Oath of office of the President of the United States|presidential oath}}. The oath is administered by reciting it to prompt a new president to repeat them back to him. However, he botches it completely by forgetting about his task completely and wondering aloud about an unrelated topic. Thus, the president's confused question at the beginning is not him asking for clarification; he is repeating what he at first believed to be the oath of office, but got flustered when he realized Cueball had deviated from the script. When Cueball then continues by replying that "the menstruation thing is freaky," the president is completely derailed.

Cueball might be an [https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Egg |egg]

On January 20, 2009 the inauguration of {{w|Barack Obama}}'s first office took place. Chief Justice {{w|John Roberts}}, who was administering the oath, {{w|Oath of office of the President of the United States#Oath mishaps|made a mistake}} while reciting the words. This comic references the event and wildly exaggerates the deviation from the oath for comedic purposes.

In truth, the error was rather small: the oath as prescribed in the constitution is:
:I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Due to a missed memo on the pauses planned by the Chief Justice, Obama inadvertently interrupted Roberts during the first phrase - Roberts begins by saying I, Barack Obama, do solemnly swear, and Obama repeats his name while Roberts finishes that sentence. This disturbs Roberts who was not using notes, and he rendered the next phrase as "that I will execute the office of president to the United States faithfully," misplacing the word ''faithfully'' and saying ''president to'' instead of ''president of''. Obama repeated, "that I will execute", then paused. Roberts attempted to correct the wording, but stumbled: "the off— faithfully the pres— the office of President of the United States." Obama then repeated Roberts' initial incorrect wording.

However small the error was it was big enough that Obama did {{w|Oath of office of the President of the United States#Oath mishaps|retake the oath of office}} the day after the mistake was made.

The title text continues the wondering about being a woman going on from the {{w|menstruation}} to the {{w|ovaries}}. To make sure it is clearly the oath mistake that is referenced the sentence ends with '... faithfully.' Thus mimicking the real mistake of placing this word last.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball is administering the presidential oath.]
:Cueball: You know, it might be cool to be a woman.
:President: It... might be cool to be a woman?
:Cueball: Yeah, but the menstruation thing is freaky.
:President: Yeah, but... the... um. What?
:[Caption below the frame:]
:Turns out I'm even worse at administering the presidential oath than John Roberts.

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

2540: TTSLTSWBD

2021-11-15T07:37:20Z

141.101.77.21: Undo revision 220756 by 172.70.114.159 (talk) Yes it is.

{{comic
| number = 2540
| date = November 10, 2021
| title = TTSLTSWBD
| image = ttsltswbd.png
| titletext = Tomorrow's sessions will be entirely devoted to sewing machine rotary hooks.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by an ELATSLIWBD. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

[[Cueball]] is standing at a lectern on a [[1661: Podium|podium]], addressing a large crowd. He is describing the program of some event, listing the different topics that will be covered. These appear to be random, but the caption gives the punchline: it is a conference on things that seem like they shouldn't work but do.

By "things that seem like they shouldn't work", it means things that the average person would have some intuitive sense that the function of thing was impossible, and yet ample real-world experience shows that they do, and may become a routine function that people depend upon. TTSLTSWBD in the title and the banner is the abbreviation for "Things That Seem Like They Shouldn't Work, But Do".

{{w|Organ transplantation}}, where a functioning organ is cut out of one person (possibly a dead one) and put into another person where it will now operate for their benefit. Given the very complex and delicate nature of living tissue, it's rather surprising that this could work at all. In reality, it's not a simple process, and a lot of things could go wrong, but modern medicine is advanced enough that organ transplantation is widely accepted and regularly practiced, usually functioning well enough to extend life.

{{w|Airship|Airships}}, or dirigibles, are [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ee/Giant_Aircraft_Comparison.svg huge], rigid structures which are filled with bags of lighter-than-air gas, which causes the entire structure to float, and could carry both passengers and significant loads. The idea of such a huge vessel traveling, able to both move rapidly and float in place, would be hard to imagine if it didn't exist, yet zeppelins functioned and were a practical mode of transportation for a time. Unlike the other things mentioned, airships are largely obsolete (having lost favor due to {{w|Hindenburg_disaster|safety concerns}} and surpassed by other technologies)

{{w|Lunch|Lunch}} is listed as if it was another topic of the TTSLTSWBD, but it actually just means that after discussing airships, the conference will take a break to eat lunch, as many [[1530:_Keyboard_Mash|humans]] usually do.{{Citation needed}} Because lunch is a relatively modern construction, filling a niche that grew after dinner shifted later into the day, it may defy one's intuition. In this sense, a three-meal day may seem like it shouldn't work, but most who observe all three meals on schedule would likely argue that it does.

Mechanical {{w|gyroscope}}s are simple devices consisting of a spinning disc mounted inside three concentric {{w|gimbal}}s as a fixture, or more often observed at work as a single spindle in a free-standing external frame that can be held or moved around by hand. The rotational inertia of the spinning disc resists change in orientation, and tends to remain in a single orientation (if free to do so) or else exert counter-intuitive forces (where directly encouraged to change its central axis). The notion that a disc can remain so steady can be counterintuitive even to those who understand the physical principles. This weirdness has been previously referenced in [[332: Gyroscopes]]. An {{w|Ring laser gyroscope|optical gyroscope}} does not mechanically resist any motion but (relying upon {{w|Sagnac effect|an effect}} originally exploited in a failed attempt to disprove {{w|Special Relativity}}) ultimately provides similar feedback about the rotation of the unit into which it is mounted.

{{w|Butterfly|Butterflies}} fly with an unusual fluttering pattern, which works in part due to the {{w|Ornithopter#Aerodynamics|notoriously complex principles of fluid dynamics}} that may look like uncontrolled fluttering but yet somehow allows the creature to land directly on specific flowerheads to feed. This is not as intuitively understandable as the flight of larger creatures such as birds.

The title text refers to {{w|Rotary hook|rotary hooks}} on sewing machines, which are a complicated (and complicated looking) mechanism whose purpose is to feed one thread in a loop around a whole spool of another thread, and are apparently counterintuitive enough that the conference feels they need a whole day to cover them.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[Cueball stands at a lectern gesturing with one hand held out, speaking to an audience. A banner hangs on the wall with the acronym "TTSLTSWBD" displayed in large text, with illegible smaller text under it.]
:Cueball: Next we have a session on organ transplants and another on airships.
:Cueball: Then lunch, then we'll have one on gyroscopes and one on butterflies.
:[Caption below panel:]
:The first annual conference on Things That Seem Like They Shouldn't Work But Do

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Animals]]

2540: TTSLTSWBD

2021-11-12T07:10:30Z

141.101.77.21: Undo revision 220695 by 108.162.215.129 (talk) While it is not an actual topic, one might be confused about it since it is listed like the actual topics. We explain that it's not.

{{comic
| number = 2540
| date = November 10, 2021
| title = TTSLTSWBD
| image = ttsltswbd.png
| titletext = Tomorrow's sessions will be entirely devoted to sewing machine rotary hooks.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by an EXCESSIVELY LONG ACRONYM THAT SEEMS LIKE IT SHOULD WORK BUT DOESN'T. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

[[Cueball]] is standing at a lectern on a [[1661: Podium|podium]], addressing a large crowd. He is describing the program of some event, listing the different topics that will be covered. These appear to be random, but the caption gives the punchline: it is a conference on things that seem like they shouldn't work but do.

By "things that seem like they shouldn't work", it means things that you wouldn't expect to be able to function at all. TTSLTSWBD in the title and the banner is the abbreviation for "Things That Seem Like They Shouldn't Work, But Do".

{{w|Organ transplantation}}, where a functioning organ is pulled from a (possibly deceased) person and put into another person where it will continue to operate, is not a simple process, and a lot of things could go wrong and make it not work. Nevertheless, humanity’s medical knowledge is advanced enough that organ transplantation is a widely accepted and largely effective life-saving procedure.

{{w|Airship|Airships}}, or dirigibles, are big,{{citation needed}} and look pretty heavy [[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Hindenburg_disaster.jpg 1]], but are able to be held aloft by the lighter than air gas inside.

{{w|Lunch|Lunch}} is listed as if it was another topic of the TTSLTSWBD, but it actually just means that after discussing airships, the conference will take a break to eat lunch, as many [[1530:_Keyboard_Mash|humans]] usually do.[[[285: Wikipedian Protester|''citation needed'']]]

{{w|Gyroscope|Gyroscopes}}, where a spinning disk will tend to keep its orientation in space despite the movement of the structure around it, can be counterintuitive even to those who understand the physical principles. This weirdness has been previously referenced in [[332: Gyroscopes]].

{{w|Butterfly|Butterflies}} fly with an unusual fluttering behaviour, which works in part due to the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ornithopter#Aerodynamics notoriously complex principles of fluid dynamics] that may look like uncontrolled fluttering but yet somehow allows the creature to land directly on specific flowerheads to feed. This is not as intuitively understandable as the flight of larger creatures such as birds.

The title text refers to {{w|Rotary hook|rotary hooks}} on sewing machines, which are a complicated (and complicated looking) mechanism whose purpose is to feed one thread in a loop around a whole spool of another thread, to the extent that the conference feels they need a whole day to cover them.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[Cueball stands at a lectern gesturing with one hand held out, speaking to an audience. A banner hangs on the wall with the acronym "TTSLTSWBD" displayed in large text, with illegible smaller text under it.]
:Cueball: Next we have a session on organ transplants and another on airships.
:Cueball: Then lunch, then we'll have one on gyroscopes and one on butterflies.
:[Caption below panel:]
:The first annual conference on Things That Seem Like They Shouldn't Work But Do

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Animals]]

2540: TTSLTSWBD

2021-11-11T15:07:34Z

141.101.77.21:

Talk:1357: Free Speech

2021-11-08T15:20:32Z

141.101.77.21:

I think the last frame should be interpreted as whoever Cueball is preaching to getting tired of his drivel and showing him the door [[User:BarnZarn|BarnZarn]] ([[User talk:BarnZarn|talk]]) 05:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
:Really? I think it's the reverse, personally. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.24|172.69.34.24]] 19:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

This comic is terribly outdated now.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.57|162.158.158.57]] 07:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
:Yeah, everyone knows doors don't exist anymore. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.24|172.69.34.24]] 19:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
::Doors were those wall hole lids, right?[[Special:Contributions/141.101.77.21|141.101.77.21]] 15:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

It would be nice to mention how this applies only to the Federal government; discussions of how it is enforced on the states may be beyond the scope of this wiki. In addition, it might be amusing to note that freedom of association and other freedoms specified in the Bill of Rights have the same scope. That is, there are very few enumerated powers given to the Federal government, the Bill of Rights specifies some limitations on the Congress - but in general, the restriction on Congress was to the enumerated powers, a concept that made the Bill of Rights redundant - and the Bill of Rights does not apply (as written) to anyone but the Federal government. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.40|173.245.54.40]] 20:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

: The First Amendment also applies to the various State governments (including their subsidiaries, such as local governments) through the {{w|Incorporation Doctrine}}, which is based on the Fourteenth Amendment (which is about the States). To be sure, the text of the Fourteenth Amendment doesn't spell out this doctrine, so the whole thing is a bit of a stretch, but it's how the courts interpret it now. This (along with the courts' broad interpretation of the enumerated powers) makes the Bill of Rights far from redundant (and I for one am happy to have it applied as broadly as possible). —[[User:TobyBartels|TobyBartels]] ([[User talk:TobyBartels|talk]]) 23:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

:I have attempted to address some of the concerns you raised by editing the first paragraph. Please feel free to edit/improve my work. [[User:Orazor|Orazor]] ([[User talk:Orazor|talk]]) 11:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I've clarified the sentence about the Constitution being a legal document. Legal documents are not necessarily limited to government activity (for example, an apartment lease is a legal document but says nothing about what the government can or cannot do). I added the phrase "that defines the structure and powers of the government" to the end of the sentence. [[User:Elsbree|Elsbree]] ([[User talk:Elsbree|talk]]) 04:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Another recent event (within the past couple of weeks) was a campaign against Stephen Colbert for an out-of-context quote taken from a bit on his show. It was hash-tagged under "CancelColbert". Interestingly, people from Fox News that had supported the Duck Dynasty guy were completely against Colbert. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.218|108.162.237.218]] 05:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

That door in the last frame is a backdoor to fascism. --[[User:Mus|Mus]] ([[User talk:Mus|talk]]) 06:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
: Are you [http://gawker.com/5951080/vp-debate-attendee-tells-chris-matthews-obama-is-a-communist-but-cant-explain-what-a-communist-is related to this woman?] LOL.
: Nevertheless, I agree the comic would be stronger and more accurate if it didn't have that last panel. Disagreeing with someone's speech doesn't mean you get to throw them out. Places of public accommodation, such as most businesses, are required to be non-discriminatory. - [[User:Frankie|Frankie]] ([[User talk:Frankie|talk]]) 11:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
:: Reading-comprehension fail. Read the '''entire''' bottom row; it is a complete sentence. Removing the last clause negates the first. — [[User:Fluffy Buzzard|Fluffy Buzzard]] ([[User talk:Fluffy Buzzard|talk]]) 14:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
::Businesses are allowed to throw people out for almost any reason. The non-discriminatory clause has nothing to do with what people say, and isn't even tangential to the First Amendment. And yes. Disagreeing with someone in your domain does mean you get to throw them out. In fact, you can throw them out if you do agree with them. Or don't know them. Or if they're your brother. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.218|108.162.237.218]] 21:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Can someone add something saying that other countries also have similar laws on free speech? I would do it myself, but I'm new to editing the wiki and I wouldn't know how to word it. [[User:Cheeselord99|Cheeselord99]] ([[User talk:Cheeselord99|talk]]) 07:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
:I would if there was some sort of summary of them available. Though there's the {{w|Universal Declaration of Human Rights}} from the UN, I don't think it specifically requires any entity (such as a government body) to do (or not do) anything, just like I understand most anything U.N. related to be. I believe it's a guide/declaration/definition/resolution/statement of belief, and it would then be up to any soverienty to actually enforce or comply with it. [[User:Brettpeirce|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk]]) 12:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
::"Can someone add something saying that other countries also have similar laws on free speech?" Are you implying that you think ALL other countries have similar laws, or SOME other countries have similaar laws? Saying that the local dictator sucks, or that the local religion is bullshit is certainly not protected free speech in many, many countries. --[[User:RenniePet|RenniePet]] ([[User talk:RenniePet|talk]]) 23:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

This is going to be one of those XKCDs everyone is linking to, to make a point.[[User:Jkrstrt|Jkrstrt]] ([[User talk:Jkrstrt|talk]]) 08:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Though, I will say, I'm a bit concerned that the point people may be making is that "Argumentum ad Populum" is totally legit, as there is a suggestion one could infer that if a bunch of people are mad at you for something you say you deserve to be shown the door. And I'm not sure that's the intended message, and even if it is, I'm not sure it's a good one. Speaking an uncomfortable or undesired truth to a community (Which will almost certainly anger them, and make them think you're an asshole, let's say) doesn't mean the door is an appropriate response. On the other hand, when speaking such truths, one probably has a better justification than "Because Free Speech," just hopefully the disgruntled masses will actually listen to it.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.46|108.162.216.46]] 10:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
: That's the point, if your only defense is "Free Speech" - you should be shown the door. --[[User:Jeff|Jeff]] ([[User talk:Jeff|talk]]) 15:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
:: Obviously, no one making an argument personally thinks the only defense is "it is not illegal for me to say this". Other people, defending him afterwards, do not agree with the argument but are offended by censorship of his argument. Democrats think there are no merit to Republican arguments, and most Republicans think there are no merit to Democrat arguments; by your logic, a Democrat defending a Republican's right to hold a job, attend college, go to grocery stores, and generally be tolerated, is being hypocritical and should actually believe Republicans should be shown the door. Imagine what a shit world we'd live in if everyone wanted to show the door to people they disagreed with. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.197|108.162.218.197]] 00:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
::: That's not obvious at all, actually. I believe the English language has a noun for the specific kind of person who, making an argument, personally thinks the only defense is "it is not illegal for me to say this": troll. And in any case, imagine what a shit world we'd live in if sincerity of belief were considered to mitigate the legal import of direct incitement to violence. "Yes, your honor, I did tell that man that the owners of that pizza place deserved to have their place shot up in retaliation for their crimes, for which I had no evidence, and which turned out not to exist; but in my defense, I believed it so sincerely that I wanted to shoot it up myself." [[Special:Contributions/162.158.214.76|162.158.214.76]] 20:06, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Both Jeff and 108.162.216.46 are accurate. 108.162.216.46's example of an uncomfortable or undesired truth causing anger is possible. It's up the the messenger to make sure that they frame the point properly and use appropriate supporting materials to justify their claims. A messenger with bad news won't say "free speech," they will say "this is the evidence" if they want to avoid being shown the door. {{unsigned ip|173.245.55.85}}
: The issue, of course, is that a lot of people aren't willing to listen to evidence when told things they don't want to hear. Say, I dunno, if you're hanging out on a particularly conservative forum where people are taking turns bashing "Obamacare," even if you have a perfectly rational, backed up by numbers, etc. reason to say it may not be all bad, or may even be good, there's a decent chance that you could get shown the door simply because that's an unpopular opinion no matter how good your reasons are. And it's the sort of person who wants to punish someone simply for saying something unpopular on a forum, simply because it's unpopular (Or, in the case of some admins/mods, something they just don't personally like), who I'm concerned about using this comic as rhetorical backup. For the message of this comic to work, the community/etc. has to be willing to listen to rational evidence and they frequently aren't. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.46|108.162.216.46]] 22:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
:: Frankly, it would be entirely appropriate for all those sorts of people to use this comic as rhetorical backup. Your "right" to say what you think, free from interference, applies only in public spaces and on your own property. You certainly do not have the right to use other people's media as vehicles for your thoughts. So yes, it is perfectly right (and, incidentally, the only workable solution) for the person who controls the medium to decide what is said on that medium. And it is perfectly right and just for even the most woefully misguided, closed-minded, power-hungry, dogmatic or extremist admin to point to this comic and say: "I'm not willing to broadcast your opinions". That is the whole point. The freedom NOT to disseminate ideas you disagree with is just as fundamental and suffers very few exceptions. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.229.122|108.162.229.122]] 00:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Just happened to see this today, thought it was relevant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJMqYcRgf-A&t=51s [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.60|173.245.54.60]] 16:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
:The video doesn't exist anymore lmao [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.24|172.69.34.24]] 19:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

This comic has it <s>completely</s> backwards! There are people who say "You're violating the First Amendment." when they're being censored by somebody who's not the government; they are mistaken, and this comic would be absolutely correct if it were addressing them. But it's not. In fact, it doesn't talk about the First Amendment (or similar provisions in other constitutions or other laws) at all; it talks only about freedom of speech. [ETA April 19: Whoops, that's wrong! The first panel has it backwards, but the third panel is perfectly correct. So my complaint is that the comic ''conflates'' freedom of speech and the First Amendment, not that it addresses ''only'' freedom of speech.] And if you're being censored on Facebook, or in the privately-owned shopping mall, or wherever, then yes, your freedom of speech is being violated.

It's not illegal, and it may not even be wrong (why should my blog have to display your speech, after all?), but it's still a limitation on your freedom to speak. And if you want to argue that Facebook or the shopping mall (or even my blog) should not do that, then that's a perfectly legitimate position to take. As long as you say nothing about the First Amendment or the like, but instead complain about freedom of speech, then my only response (if I want to respond) is to explain why you shouldn't have free speech on that forum, not some irrelevant blather about the government. —[[User:TobyBartels|TobyBartels]] ([[User talk:TobyBartels|talk]]) 23:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

: The comic does not address the concept of free speech itself; it addresses the *right* to free speech. Sure, your speech might be restricted on certain forums or in certain communities, but you generally have no actual *right* to free speech there. It's simply that the forum or community does not want to support your ideas. --[[User:V2Blast|V2Blast]] ([[User talk:V2Blast|talk]]) 02:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

:: Who decides whether that is a right or not? {{unsigned ip|108.162.217.47}}

:: Rights aren't just for governments. Any entity can grant you rights and then uphold or violate them. (Facebook actually calls its terms of service a "Statement of Rights and Responsibilities", which it is, even though it's primarily their rights and our responsibilities.) So one might argue that Facebook (as a public forum intended for everybody and everything) ought to grant freedom of speech (which it kind of does, with a few exceptions, but only implicitly), while a personal blog should not (and then there are also forums that should maybe grant freedom of on-topic speech or something like that). People also consider natural rights (which is how the Declaration of Independence treats them, although free speech is not on its list), but personally I think that it's clearer to discuss what rights ''should'' be rather than what natural rights ''are''. So if somebody claims that FB (eg) is violating their right to free speech, then at best you have them on a technicality (because that is not a natural right and also not a right explicitly granted by FB), but their real point is that FB is violating their freedom of speech (which FB sometimes really does, including in ways that its terms of service does not authorize, hence various complaints from time to time like [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/18/breastfeeding-photos-facebook-respect-the-breast_n_1285264.html this one]). —[[User:TobyBartels|TobyBartels]] ([[User talk:TobyBartels|talk]]) 17:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I see 2 ironies:
1. Those from the BGLT+ side tend to use the 'Free Speech' argument, too.
2. This was posted in Good Friday.
[[User:Greyson|Greyson]] ([[User talk:Greyson|talk]]) 23:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
:Looking at #1, I have no idea what you're trying to say. Are we reading the same comic? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.24|172.69.34.24]] 19:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

:: On the first irony, I think this article rather misrepresents the uproar around the Duck Dynasty incident (which is mentioned in the article explanation). It wasn't just that people felt the guy's rights were violated (the merits of which argument I am not commenting on), but that A&E essentially ambushed him after he gave an opinion, in an interview, that no one should expect he didn't have. It's essentially the same issue with the Chik-fil-a incident, where people became extremely angry over an open Christian donating money to anti-gay groups, even though he was doing so for several years previously. It's not just the first amendment rights, it's that A&E, a company who is so prideful about being open minded and tolerant with the BGLT community, would drop the hammer so hard on someone who was already well-known for having opposite opinions. The point is, while A&E does technically have the right to show the Duck Dynasty guy the door, they cannot seriously do so without seriously undermining their own reasons for firing him. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.45|173.245.54.45]] 18:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I've had the situation where I express disagreement with someone and they accuse me of violating their right of free speech. A possible response to this, which I wouldn't actually use, is "I absolutely defend your First Amendment right to behave like a jerk." [[User:Mark314159|Mark314159]] ([[User talk:Mark314159|talk]]) 15:14, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, while it is correct to say that the kind of actions talked about in this comic don't violate the ''First Amendment'', it's not at all beside the point to point out that there are problems with the ''free speech'' involved. Basically, Randall Munroe is repeating a popular line of argument these days, and one that unfortunately sidesteps the entire issue of whether non-state entities can be censors. If you think the issue through for more than two seconds, it's pretty clear that they can be. Take for example some group of armed thugs physically threatening a journalist. (Hardly a hypothetical - there's a lot of that going on in the world today.) If they don't represent a government, according to a strict interpretation of the argument just made in the above ''xkcd'', they're just providing consequences and "showing the door" to someone who's speech they don't like. So, obviously, there are very clearly non-state actions that amount to censorship.
:The fact that it has to be explained to you that blackmail is illegal... [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.24|172.69.34.24]] 19:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

OK, what about non-violent actions? That still can run into a lot of grey areas. Most certainly, nobody owes anybody else the use of their venue or platform for someone else to make their point - *that* would be a violation of free speech rights to be compelled to do so. And certainly, boycotts of those who's views one disagrees with in order to influence public opinion have a solid history in democratic societies. What is problematic, however, and crosses the line into a kind of privatized censorship is the kind of "no platform" activism that seems to be in fashion these days, that seeks to deny *any* venue to those who are deemed to have unacceptable views or are practicing "hate speech" - slippery and ever-expanding concepts, it seems to me. Who is it that should have the power to "show the door" into outright silencing? BTW, a recent blog post raises these concerns in response to the above cartoon [http://blog.erratasec.com/2014/04/xkcd-is-wrong-about-free-speech.html here], and I blogged about this at length last year [http://www.skepticink.com/skepticallyleft/2013/04/07/sunday-sinner-guest-post-iamcuriousblue/ here] in regards to some of the more censorious actions of Ada Initiative. [[User:Iamcuriousblue|Iamcuriousblue]] ([[User talk:Iamcuriousblue|talk]]) 04:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

:Look, the two concepts you raise are different things. And it's not a government's job to determine which point of view is valid or best, or even to protect or promote that PoV. The point is that the U.S. government (in this case) must remain un-hostile (if that's a word) to dissenting points of view. In fact, ''especially'' towards dissenting points of view. Thugs threatening journalists? I agree that's a problem. And the state/local government (in most cases) should do its best to prevent this kind of coercion. The overarching principle is that within the U.S. is that we want to create as open a marketplace for ideas as possible. That marketplace structure does not determine the value of a speech's content. It simply allows it to exist.

:So the USG can't prevent others from not listening, or even from telling a speaker to shut up. You must see that this ''cannot'' be the role of a government that is seeking to promote open and constructive discourse. Because once the government starts favoring one PoV or providing "more favored treatment" for, let's say, your coerced journalist, then it is condoning or supporting that particular speech over others. And that, if you think about it for more than two seconds, is in itself infringing on the very same free speech guarantee. [[User:Orazor|Orazor]] ([[User talk:Orazor|talk]]) 11:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

In fact, there are (admittedly rare) situations in which the "right to free speech" can require a private entity to host a speaker. Marsh v. Alabama involved a Jehovah's Witness handing out literature in a company town completely owned by a corporation. The Supreme Court held that because the admittedly private spaces in a company town were akin to public spaces, the company could not enforce a trespassing law against the Jehovah's Witness without violating the First Amendment. So long as one is talking about the "right to free speech" (which goes beyond the First Amendment), the Pruneyard Shopping Center case, in which a mall owner was forced to allow participation by a speaker due to a California law expanding free speech rights in commercial areas, serves as another example of where a private entity can be forced to accommodate another's speech. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.13|173.245.54.13]] 10:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

'''TL;DR''' --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 18:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

A very recent article that pretty much shreds this comic. XKCD is usually on point, but this one goes a bit too far. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/04/22/freedom_to_marry_freedom_to_dissent_why_we_must_have_both_122376.html {{unsigned ip|173.245.56.86}}
:I have no idea what you were trying to use "shred" to mean. "shredding" refers to either cutting or the name of a skateboard trick.

I find it very disturbing that one of the most popular science-themed comics on the Internet gives a free pass to the Catholic church like this. The Catholic church is not a government, it is an international cultural institution, therefore, if the Catholic church bans people, ideas, speech, and behavior from all domains of its organizational influence, this comic clearly supports such a move. (I doubt the author needs a primer on that part of history.) The stated position that free speech only means that government can't come after you, but cultural institutions can and you just need to be quiet and leave if you disagree with that. {{unsigned ip|108.162.215.85}}
:As an atheist, the Catholic church's policies have no relevance to me. I do not visit Catholic churches, I do not attend Catholic schools, and I do not use Catholic businesses. If anyone doesn't like what they do, they -can- just leave. When enough people are fed up, they'll be a cultural institution of zero. Or one, or whatever. A number too small to have any bearing on society at large. Unless you're suggesting that people somehow have a right to impose things on someone else's property, which is false. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.218|108.162.237.218]] 09:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
:: I believe that Randall made this comic without fully thinking of the implications of the stance it takes. I mean, it certainly is a backlash against currently so-called homophobic (I have problems with this word) community, but it also essentially justifies a whole lot of other stuff this society wouldn't deem right. {{unsigned ip|173.245.56.86}}
:::Seems kinda irrelevant to the comment you're replying to. And weirdly vague, too. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.24|172.69.34.24]] 19:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

:: I'd like to explain all the ways I think this comic is ridiculous- if, indeed, he;s talking about what everyone thinks he's talking about:

::1. His casual and condescending dismissal of actual, seriously held points of view as mere trolling.

::2. His pretending that all these debates are about is so much trolling, akin to a website choosing to remove someone disruptive.

::3. Every who's protested this has stressed that they have no argument that Mozilla had a legal right to do as they please; they are making a more moral argument. To many, alas, *anything* is government action or it's nothing at all, so moral arguments, interestingly, end up having no weight.

::4. Many on the "other side" have had no problem calling "Freedom of Speech!" with little to no actual legal basis. Turnabout is...

::5. Those same people have often had no issue with actual repression even when government (e.g., a state university) is involved. One wonders what the argument would be like if, say, Woolworth's refused to serve blacks at their lunch counters. Oh wait. Well, turnabout again.

::That's most of what I can think of off the top of my head.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.88.224|141.101.88.224]] 20:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

HAAY GUISE I HAS A OPINON AND YOU ALL MUST LISTEN TO ME OKAY HERE GOES WAIT DON'T DELETE ME WAAAGH!!! [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.71|199.27.128.71]] 06:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

How recent was the Clippers scandal in relation to this comic? I just saw on Facebook's trending bar that sponsors are pulling away so they won't be associated with racism, and people are crying about the First Amendment. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.218|108.162.237.218]] 05:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

;Off topic — Free Speech Schtonk!
At {{w|The Great Dictator}}, the greatest movie Charlie Chaplin ever did, the Führer shouts: "Demokratsie Schtonk! Liberty Schtonk! Free Sprekken Schtonk!“ The word {{w|Schtonk!}} was also used as the title of a satirical German movie, retelling the hoax of the {{w|Hitler Diaries}}.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 18:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

"The 1st amendment doesn't shield you from criticism or consequences." - Of course it doesn't, I live in the UK --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.10|141.101.99.10]] 18:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Little disturbed that nobody else has called out the specious defense that [http://popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/ shouting fire in a crowded theatre] actually is. If you want to use something like '''that''' to prove that not all speech is free, go for it, but it's a pretty weak argument, especially considering the very judge that ruled on it recanted several years later in a later decision. Protesters got the right to protest, yo. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.129|108.162.219.129]] 23:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Conversation on a mincraft server:
Moderator: Please stop
Idiot: No, I have the right to free speech!
Moderator: And we have the right to ban you
*Idiot left the game {{unsigned ip|173.245.56.180}}

Ironically, the title text also applies in the other direction. "If I don't like your speech, I can respond by unfriending you, boycotting you, etc. The First Amendment only limits government action; what I'm doing *isn't illegal*! [[Special:Contributions/162.158.85.117|162.158.85.117]] 12:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
:Where's the irony? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.24|172.69.34.24]] 19:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

The reference to Schenck completely mischaracterizes it. The defendants were convicted of urging draft resistance, and their conviction had nothing to do with allegations that they were lying. They were convicted of opposing Wilson's war and the laws that forced people to fight in it. The expression "shouting fire in a crowded theater" has since then been a popular way for censorship advocates to justify all sorts of prohibitions on speech.

Munroe is wrong. The right to free speech means a lot more than "the government can't arrest you for what you say." It means the government can't discriminate against people based on their views. It can't deny them jobs, block them from using a public forum, or punish students of government-run universities on the basis of what they say. If the only thing the First Amendment only stopped the government from arresting dissidents, we'd have all kinds of censorship.

Munroe's suggestion that views which provoke yelling or boycotting are "bullshit" is also disturbing. [[User:Gmcgath|Gmcgath]] ([[User talk:Gmcgath|talk]]) 11:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

This comic shows that Munroe, at the time at least, fell for the common error of confusing an objection about human rights with an objection about legal rights. Anybody who spends time saying unpopular things will realize that it is most often the community, not the government, that moves to restrict your freedoms when you have an unpopular position. This sounds perfectly acceptable and even just to people holding the majority position, but it displays a certain naivety that they don't consider what it would be like if they found themselves in the minority. Freedom of Speech does not originate from the First Amendment; it is a universal ideal that was incorporated into the First Amendment, as it was realized that the government is an organization with sufficient power to oppress people with minority views. Similarly, any other organization with the power to oppress those with minority views is morally obligated to adopt similar policies of open discourse, just as the government was. The Title text is the most egregious part, in that it gets the situation completely bass-ackwards. Contrary to what he was once told - that citing freedom of speech when told to shut up is the ultimate concession that you don't have a good argument - it is the person attempting to silence you that has admitted they have no good argument. To delete, silence, or ban someone is to admit that you cannot address their words with words of your own. It's frankly baffling that Munroe would express this view when it is quite contrary to the views expressed in pretty much everything else he produces. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.214|108.162.219.214]] 17:16, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
:It seems like the entire point of the existence of the government is to ensure human rights and to intervene whenever they need to achieve that goal, so... [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.80|172.69.34.80]] 19:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

In the 19th century, Western Union routinely engaged in discrimination by preventing certain people of a particular political viewpoint from sending telegrams. One of the eventual consequences of this was the common carrier rule, which required telegraph companies, and later phone companies, to accept communications from all people on all topics. These platforms were deemed so important to the functioning of society that censoring speech was against the interest of the public. If the phone company or telegram company doesn't like what you're saying on their platform, they can't just show you the door. Today, social media companies routinely discriminate against political viewpoints by censoring speech they don't agree with. Surely social media is a platform just as, if not more important to the functioning of society than the telegram and phone was in the 19th and 20th centuries. [185.181.9.120] 21:19, June 32rd 2018 (UTC)

:Social media sites are not common carriers. Internet service providers (ISPs) are. If all ISPs (and telegraph and phone companies and the post office) block you, then you can't send a message to your friend. If all social media sites block you, then you can still call/text/email your friend, even if you have to get their IP address manually and use a peer-to-peer protocol. If anything, being banned from a social media site is like being banned from taking out ads in a newspaper. It's their right to decide how to use their speech. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.46.155|172.68.46.155]] 03:21, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

This comic. This is one of (if not ''the'') my favourite comic.

2170: Coordinate Precision

2021-11-08T12:36:27Z

141.101.77.21: /* Chart */

{{comic
| number = 2170
| date = July 1, 2019
| title = Coordinate Precision
| image = coordinate_precision.png
| titletext = 40 digits: You are optimistic about our understanding of the nature of distance itself.
}}

==Explanation==

This cartoon gives increasingly precise latitude and longitude coordinates for a location on the planet Earth. However, a given pair of coordinates covers a trapezoidal region of land, and thus leaves some ambiguity; therefore, greater precision requires an increasing count of decimal places in your coordinates. This comic uses this information to roughly identify how precise a given coordinate length might be.

The increasing precision of coordinates in this cartoon are similar to the increasing magnification in the short documentary {{w|Powers of Ten (film)|"Powers of 10,"}} which can be found [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fKBhvDjuy0 here]. (Also parodied in [[271|#271:Powers of One]]).

The coordinates at [https://tools.wmflabs.org/geohack/geohack.php?pagename=Cape_Canaveral&params=28.52345_N_80.68309_W_type:landmark_region:US-FL_scale:10000 28.52345°N, 80.68309°W] (in {{w|decimal degrees}} form; in {{w|geographic coordinate system}} form using degrees, minutes, and seconds, 28° 31′ 24.4″N, 80° 40′ 59.1″W) are pointing to the {{w|Rocket Garden}} at the {{w|Kennedy Space Center}} in {{w|Merritt Island, Florida}} —specifically, the tip of the [https://www.kennedyspacecenter.com/-/media/DNC/KSCVC/Blog-Images/Rocket-Garden/rocket-garden-with-labels.ashx?h=860&w=1173&la=en&hash=7B9ADC7AFF5370E462AC98D9651945B806B77B2C Delta] rocket.

The sixth entry in the table, with seven digits of precision, includes the caveat that, while your coordinates map to areas small enough on the Earth's surface to indicate pointing to a specific person in a room, "since you didn't include datum information, we can't tell who". This is a reference to the ''{{w|geodetic datum}}'' or ''geodetic system'' — different ways of dealing with the fact that the Earth is neither perfectly spherical nor perfectly an oblong ellipsoid. The various datums do not make much difference at six digits of precision, but at seven, there is enough skew depending on which system is in use that the person in a room you are referring to with the coordinates is ambiguous. It is unstated, but the remaining lines in the table with ever-greater precision suffer from this same issue and are equally ambiguous without datum information.

The final entry, with seventeen digits of precision, suggests that either the user is referring to individual atoms in the much-larger-scale whole-Earth coordinate system, or (perhaps more likely) has not bothered to format the values from the GPS module for viewing in the software UI in any way whatsoever, resulting in a value that is {{w|False precision|meaninglessly precise}} because the measurement wasn't that {{w|Accuracy and precision|accurate}} to begin with. Even if the value is accurate, locating individual atoms by coordinates is not actually useful in most cases, and the motions of multiple systems within our physical world (continental drift, subtle vibrations, {{w|Brownian motion}}, etc.) would render the precise value obsolete rather quickly.

For the decimal places past the 5th on the latitude, the digits given are actually the first part of the decimal expansion of the constant ''e'' (2.7182818284), while for the decimal places past the 5th on the longitude, the digits given are part of the decimal expansion of the constant ''π'' (3.14159265358) starting with the second digit (4).

The title text references how at sufficiently small distances, our understanding of reality itself begins to break down. Smaller than the {{w|Planck length}}, which is more than a quintillion times smaller than the diameter of a proton, the ideals of Euclidean geometry no longer apply and space itself may be composed of a {{w|quantum foam}} where the very geometry of spacetime itself fluctuates, meaning coordinate systems based on an assumption that space doesn't change would no longer work. String theory, on the other hand, assumes that at a short enough distance the world is composed of ten space dimensions, which precludes the use of a two-dimensional coordinate system (not that our “normal” three dimensions don't do so in themselves).

The actual number of longitude digits needed to identify a point to a particular precision depends on its latitude. Near the poles, you need fewer longitude digits than at the equator – starting with one digit fewer at around lat. 85°, past all constantly inhabited human settlements, and with two digits fewer at lat. 89.5°, inaccessible to anyone but polar researchers and the occasional guided tour. The number of latitude digits for some particular accuracy stays essentially the same everywhere.

==Chart==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Decimal places
! Resolution*
! In the comic
! Location
! Explanation/notes
|-
| 0
| 110 km (70 mi)
| Something space-related
| Somewhere near the east coast of Florida
| This resolution is enough to point out a large-scale feature like a country, a mountain range, a large lake, or a significant island on a map of the world. It can also be used to tell if certain celestial phenomena are visible from a given location.
|-
| 1
| 11 km (7 mi)
| A specific city
| Cape Canaveral
| Cities typically span a couple kilometers/miles in diameter and are far enough from each other to distinguish them at this resolution. There are exceptions though, and the veracity of this statement depends greatly on the definition of a “city”, which varies by location and history.
|-
| 2
| 1.1 km (¾ mi)
| A neighborhood
| Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex
|
|-
| 3
| 110 m (360 ft)
| A suburban cul-de-sac
| The Rocket Garden at the Kennedy Space Center
|
|-
| 4
| 11 m (36 ft)
| A particular corner of a house
| Somewhere near the center of the Rocket Garden
|
|-
| 5
| 1.1 m (3½ ft)
| A specific person in a room (given geodetic datum information)
| The [https://www.kennedyspacecenter.com/-/media/DNC/KSCVC/Blog-Images/Rocket-Garden/rocket-garden-with-labels.ashx?h=860&w=1173&la=en&hash=7B9ADC7AFF5370E462AC98D9651945B806B77B2C Thor-Delta] rocket in Rocket Garden
| As the comic notes, the differences between {{w|geodetic datum}}s – different ways to map geodetic coordinates to specific points on the Earth's surface – become large enough that one needs to specify the one in use when supplying coordinates to this degree of precision (or greater, of course). Since the Earth is not a perfect ellipsoid, different parts of the planet conform best to ellipsoids of slightly different proportions, resulting in different coordinates for a specific location; not to mention that locally used datums have local reference points, which means that the local and global standards are slowly drifting away from each other with the tectonical plates.
Note that the comment in the comic concerns only the {{w|North American Datum|NAD 1983}} datum which is fairly close to the international, “one size fits all” standard {{w|WGS-84}}. Other datums may be shifted by tens or even hundreds of meters (1.09361 yards each), making geodetic datum specification necessary for less precise coordinates as well.
|-
| 7
| 1.1 cm (⁷⁄₁₆ in)
| Waldo on a page
| Presumably the very tip of the rocket
| This refers to ''{{w|Where's Wally?|Where's Waldo?}}'', a series of books and magazines containing various scenes (densely packed with people) where one must find Waldo, a character wearing a red and white striped shirt. In the puzzles, he usually stands less than 2 cm (1 in) tall.
Finding Waldo on a page using satellites was also referenced in [[1358:_NRO|#1358]].
|-
| 9
| 0.11 mm (4⅜ thou)
| A specific grain of sand
| rowspan=3 | N/A
|
|-
| 15
| 110 pm (1.1 Å)
| Raw floating point precision or an individual atom
| A double-precision (64-bit) floating point variable stores 52 significant bits (with an implicit 1 in front), so that 180.00000000000000 and 179.99999999999997 may be represented as distinct values. (This is only 14 decimals, however; the larger the integral part, the fewer bits remain to represent the fractional part.) This level of precision is useful for mitigating rounding errors in computations, but this advantage only shows if the last few digits are treated as non-significant and thus, ideally, hidden from view. To work with data that is actually this precise – like tracking individual atoms or representing continental drift up to the second –, one must make allowance for these additional non-significant digits and store the coordinates in ''quadruple'' precision.
To track atoms, however, one needs very sensitive (and expensive) equipment with a severely limited range (according to our current understanding of science and technology). Using a global-scale coordinate system when a micrometer-scale would fit much better is either an abuse of the system and a great waste of memory and computing power, or it means that a significant portion of the Earth's surface has been blanketed by quantum microscopes, which would be an abuse and a waste of many other things as well.{{Citation needed}}
|-
| 40
| 1.1 × 10–11 ym (1.1 × 10–35 m)
| Near (or past) our current understanding of the nature of distance
| This is where the resolution reaches the Planck length (1.6 × 10–35 m). At this scale, the very structure of spacetime (and thus, the notion of distance) may be different than what we know; measuring anything to Planck length precision would necessitate such tremendous amounts of energy in one place that would create minuscule black holes, warping spacetime further (in addition to wreaking havoc with whatever you were trying to pinpoint).
|}
<nowiki>*</nowiki>Since the Earth is not exactly spherical, the actual length of one degree of latitude varies between 110.574 km (68.707 mi) at the equator and 111.694 km (69.403 mi) at the poles, while one degree of longitude is 111.320 km (69.171 mi) at the equator, 55.800 km (34.673 mi) at lat. 60°, and 0 km (0 mi) at the poles.

==Transcript==
:[Single panel containing a table with two columns for "Lat/Lon Precision" and "Meaning" and a caption above the table.]
:Caption: What The Number of Digits in Your Coordinates Means

:[Row 1]
:Lat/Lon: 28°N, 80°W
:Meaning: You're probably doing something space-related

:[Row 2]
:Lat/Lon: 28.5°N, 80.6°W
:Meaning: You're pointing out a specific city

:[Row 3]
:Lat/Lon: 28.52°N, 80.68°W
:Meaning: You're pointing out a neighborhood

:[Row 4]
:Lat/Lon: 28.523°N, 80.683°W
:Meaning: You're pointing out a specific suburban cul-de-sac

:[Row 5]
:Lat/Lon: 28.5234°N, 80.6830°W
:Meaning: You're pointing to a particular corner of a house

:[Row 6]
:Lat/Lon: 28.52345°N, 80.68309°W
:Meaning: You're pointing to a specific person in a room, but since you didn't include datum information, we can't tell who

:[Row 7]
:Lat/Lon: 28.5234571°N, 80.6830941°W
:Meaning: You're pointing to Waldo on a page

:[Row 8]
:Lat/Lon: 28.523457182°N, 80.683094159°W
:Meaning: "Hey, check out this specific sand grain!"

:[Row 9]
:Lat/Lon: 28.523457182818284°N, 80.683094159265358°W
:Meaning: Either you're handing out raw floating point variables, or you've built a database to track individual atoms. In either case, please stop.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Space]]
[[Category:Geography]]
[[Category:Programming]]

1618: Cold Medicine

2021-11-04T09:44:57Z

141.101.77.21: /* Explanation */ visibility of vital information?

{{comic
| number = 1618
| date = December 18, 2015
| title = Cold Medicine
| image = cold_medicine.png
| titletext = Seriously considering buying some illegal drugs to try to turn them back into cold medicine.
}}

==Explanation==
In this comic [[Cueball]] is probably representing [[Randall]] who seems to have been suffering from a long lasting {{w|Common cold|cold}} that he just can't get rid of. Two weeks before this comic Randall posted another comic about how a cold works: [[1612: Colds]]. This is also supported by the way the title text is phrased to make it sound like something Randall writes, disconnected with the action in the comic (see below).

The comic was released in December, and since Randall is living in {{w|Massachusetts}} in the {{w|Geographical zone|North Temperate Zone}} he, and everyone else living in this zone, is very likely to catch a cold at least at some point during fall and winter.

In the comic Cueball is evidently suffering from a cold and he is searching the shelves labeled cold and {{w|Influenza|Flu}} at a {{w|pharmacy}} for any kind of '''cold medicine''' (hence the title), to alleviate his symptoms. Note that this is all he can hope for, as there are still {{w|Common_cold#Management|no cure}} that really helps getting rid of the cold any faster. All medication can do is help relieving the symptoms until the body's own {{w|immune system}} takes care of the relatively harmless cold virus.

After looking at several different options Cueball is clearly unsatisfied with what he finds. Either he doesn't feel that any of the unmonitored drugs available on the serve-yourself-shelf is useful, or he is actually too sick to properly ascertain which medicine he needs. In the end he approaches the counter and asks the {{w|pharmacist}} ([[Ponytail]]) to give him one of every kind of cold medicine which requires an ID to purchase. Two years later Randall finds a solution for Cueball's problem with a new cold medicine with only active ingredients, including among other all the active ingredients from all the cold medicines on the market, see [[1896: Active Ingredients Only]].

'''Warning:''' [https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ArtisticLicenseMedicine|Taking lots of different medicines together in real life could harm, or even kill you], because certain combinations of medications interact in ways that make them dangerous or even lethal.

Back in the comic, Ponytail tries to warn Cueball of another danger, that by simply ''purchasing'' so much cold medicine he would end up on a law enforcement watchlist, presumably one of the government agencies ({{w|DEA}}, {{w|FBI}}, {{w|CIA}} etc.) But she never gets to finish her sentence because Cueball is beyond caring and tells her this.

In the USA, cold medicines containing {{w|pseudoephedrine}} are kept behind the counter and IDs purchasing them are monitored, because pseudoephedrine can be used to make the {{w|List of Schedule I drugs (US)|scheduled}} drug {{w|methamphetamine}} or meth (a more hydrophobic - and thus potent - version of {{w|amphetamine}}). However, it is also an extremely effective {{w|decongestant}} (a pharmaceutical drug that is used to relieve {{w|nasal congestion}}/plugged nose), much more so than the common substitutes such as {{w|phenylephrine}} and {{w|oxymetazoline}} which have no clinically proven decongestant effect.

This could be one reason why Cueball just requests all kinds of cold medicines of amongst other this type; he does not appear to care what exactly he is purchasing, believing that his one criterion will provide him medicine powerful enough for his illness. It may also be that he is just too sick to care or realize that this will arouse suspicion of him being a drug dealer, or to recognize the need to select only one medication of these type.

This could be a reference to the medicine with the brand name {{w|Sudafed}}, sold as an over the counter decongestants with pseudoephedrine as the active ingredient. Now the manufacturer also sells a different type of medicine with the same brand name without pseudoephedrine, but with phenylephrine, which seems to be much less effective. If you buy this off the shelf (where it can be sold because it does not contain methamphetamine precursors) then you could easily get home with the once effective Sudafed, only to realize later that it does not alleviate any symptoms. This could offer another explanation for Cueball's request and outburst in the final panel.

The title text seems to be Randall's own comment on how badly he is affected by his cold. He thus, humorously, suggests that he is now ready to purchase illegal drugs (this would then be ''meth'') in order to turn it back into a cold medicine (i.e. pseudoephedrine). This would not be safe to do, but may be a reference to this spoof paper: ''[http://heterodoxy.cc/ A Simple and Convenient Synthesis of Pseudoephedrine From N-Methylamphetamine''], a take on the long-going joke about the recent difficulty in obtaining pseudoephedrine, i.e. it is now easier to get your hands on the illegal drug made from it.

It is a humorous exaggeration of how far Randall is willing to go to get the best cold medicine, and the potency of the drugs needed to treat his apparently debilitating illness. There are many illegal drugs that when first synthesized were planned to be used as a medical drug, but then later abused by drug addicts, but given the subject of the comic, the title text obviously refers to meth.

Randall continued in the medical world with the next comic: [[1619: Watson Medical Algorithm]].

==Transcript==
:[Cueball is standing in a drug store, with a drug in his hand he has taken from the shelf he is standing next to. The shelf is labeled.]
:Cueball: *Sniffle*
:Label: Cold & Flu

:[Cueball is standing alone, examining some medicine he is holding up, while having some other medicine in the other hand.]
:Cueball: *Cough*
:Cueball: *Sniff*

:[Cueball continues examining more medicine. Looking down on one in his hand, having another in the other hand and there are also three packages at his feet.]
:Cueball: Ughhh...

:[Cueball is at the labeled counter in the drug store with computer etc. Ponytail is behind the counter.]
:Counter label: Sale
:Cueball: Just gimme one of every kind of cold medicine you need ID to buy.
:Ponytail: You'll go on the watchlist for—
:Cueball: Don't care.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]