explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:2561: Moonfall

2021-12-30T09:34:09Z

141.101.77.64:

Well, it did fund 8 out of 10 seasons of Mythbusters[[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 19:11, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
:What is "it"? [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 21:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
::Explosions, probably. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 23:15, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

This synopsis makes me eager to never ever see this tripe, which the comic failed to achieve. Thank you, explainxkcd, for saving me time and money.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.107.18|162.158.107.18]] 20:03, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
:It doesn't sound much different from most other action blockbusters, like the "Terminator" franchise, or "Armageddon". And it will probably be better than the "Transformer" movies. As Cueball and Megan indicate, it's mostly about watching lots of things blow up, not about plausibility. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 21:57, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
:”…only to find out that our Moon is not what we think it is.” – Wait, what, the moon isn’t cheese?? --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.183.164|162.158.183.164]] 22:32, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Only thing less likely than Moon suddenly getting on collision course is that we will be able to prevent the collision. Wait. I see he lowered the bar even more with only THREE people somehow fixing it without help of rest of NASA ... how do they even get to space without help? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 23:14, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
:"[O]ne astronaut from her past, Brian Harper and a conspiracy theorist K.C. Houseman" is grammatically confusing. That could be either three people (assuming it's an omitted Oxford comma) or one person (an astronaut named Brian Harper who spreads conspiracy theories under the pseudonym "K.C. Houseman"). It needs at least one more comma if "Brian Harper" is supposed to be an appositive [[Special:Contributions/162.158.78.77|162.158.78.77]] 06:06, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
:: I believe it's a quote. So the grammatical errors are on the movie producers. ----

To be fair, Shakespeare not writing Shakespeare is NOT the idea of Emmerich, and the idea was so seriously discussed that it has a Wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespeare_authorship_question [[Special:Contributions/141.101.77.64|141.101.77.64]] 09:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

2560: Confounding Variables

2021-12-27T16:28:56Z

141.101.77.64: Added raw text of the transcript

{{comic
| number = 2560
| date = December 27, 2021
| title = Confounding Variables
| image = confounding_variables.png
| titletext = You can find a perfect correlation if you just control for the residual.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a BOT - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
If you don't control for confounding variables, they'll mask the real effect and mislead you.
But if you control for too MANY variables, your choices will shape the data and you'll mislead yourself.
Somewhere in the middle is the sweet spot where you do both, making you doubly wrong.
Stats are a farce and truth is unknowable. See you next week!
{{comic discussion}}

Talk:2552: The Last Molecule

2021-12-09T10:25:12Z

141.101.77.64:

Unsuccessfully tried to search for a match to the image of the chemical compound. Did find this, which is difficult to use on a cellphone: OSRA: Optical Structure Recognition: https://cactus.nci.nih.gov/cgi-bin/osra/index.cgi [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.172|172.70.211.172]] 07:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I truly don't understand the God part of the current explanation. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.121|172.68.110.121]] 07:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
:There is an article at [https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/humans-make-110000th-earths-biomass-180969141/ Smithonian Magazine] that sums it up quite nicely: Of the 550 gigatons of biomass carbon on Earth, animals make up about 2 gigatons, with insects comprising half of that and fish taking up another 0.7 gigatons. Everything else, including mammals, birds, nematodes and mollusks are roughly 0.3 gigatons, with humans weighing in at 0.06 gigatons.
::About half of all known living species on earth are insects. Therefore if there was a god who created all life, it would be reasonable to assume he likes them. [[User:Bischoff|Bischoff]] ([[User talk:Bischoff|talk]]) 08:26, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Chemistry. I love chemistry :-) There is a concept called "Chemical Space" that I learned about in school. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_space may help, in short: Chemical space is a huge but finite space of all possible atom arrangements in molecules. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.106|162.158.91.106]] 07:59, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I've heard the claim, that we know less about our own ocean floor than we do about the surface of Mars several times before. Is there actually a credible source for this and how do we even quantify how much we know about either area? [[User:Bischoff|Bischoff]] ([[User talk:Bischoff|talk]]) 08:26, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
:This essay might shed some light on the question. [[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/just-how-little-do-we-know-about-the-ocean-floor/ Just How Little Do We Know about the Ocean Floor?]] From a geographical perspective, our maps of the ocean floor are much less detailed than those covering Mars. (5km resolution for ocean floor, 100m resolution for Mars - radar doesn't work underwater). [[Special:Contributions/162.158.107.18|162.158.107.18]] 09:25, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

The current explanation says that there are an infinite number of chemicals. Is that true? Source? Explanation how that is possible?
Obviously the number of possible molecules is huge, but is it actually a literal, mathematical infinite? Given a finite observable universe, with presumably a finite number of atoms in it. There appear to be a finite number of elements which are stable for any appreciable amount of time and capable of forming molecules.
It seems like there might be practical limitations to the size of a molecule, so that you can't keep making bigger and bigger ones just by adding more atoms/subunits?
If you just keep adding carbon atoms to a diamond will you eventually reach a point where forces such as gravitation become a factor and the molecular bonds fail? I can imagine that long chain molecules light years long might reach point where other forces overwhelm the bond strength? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.76|108.162.246.76]] 09:10, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
:For obvious reasons, as long as you limit the number of atoms involved the number of possible "molecules" is - in a mathematical sense - finite. (As there is only a finite number of reasonable stable elements.) But already simple things like polymers can bind millions of atoms in a single molecule. Together with the possible variations intrinsic to such polymers a simple "material" like phenolic resin [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenol_formaldehyde_resin]] is a mixture of more different chemical compounds (in a strict sense) than mankind can ever describe. For all practical application this compexity is not relevant, so no one really cares about.
Additionally there is no clear boundary between typical molecules and other types of condensed matter, like crystals. Same applies to biochemistry. Does chemistry include bio-molecules? If yes, the chemistry guy have to include all the gene sequencing in their to-do list.

"how fast does light travel in one direction?" is not a good example for incompleteness in physics, because this question was settled by Michelson and Morley in the 19th century (answer: it travels with the speed of light)
: It's not clear to me either what was meant here - seems out of place.