explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

1462: Blind Trials

2024-04-18T21:36:04Z

141.101.98.127: /* Explanation */ punc

{{comic
| number = 1462
| date = December 19, 2014
| title = Blind Trials
| image = blind_trials.png
| titletext = Plus, you have to control for the fact that some people are into being blindfolded.
}}

==Explanation==
In research, a {{w|Blind Experiment|blind trial}} is an experiment where certain information about the test is concealed from the subjects and/or the testers, in order to reduce sources of bias in the results. A double-blind trial is one where neither the subject nor the testers know who has or has not received treatment (or for multiple treatments, which treatment).

A scientific approach also requires the use of {{w|control groups}} to determine the significance of observations in (clinical) trials. The members of the control group receive either no treatment or the "standard" treatment. However, to ensure "blindness" in the study, even if a control group is to receive no treatment, they must be given a {{w|placebo}}: an ineffective treatment given to ensure the doctors and/or patients are unaware whether they are being given the treatment.

For example, in clinical drug trials, when a treatment being tested is administered in the form of a pill, a visually-identical inert pill is given to the control group so no one will know if a subject has been given the treatment or a placebo. In pop culture, placebos in pill-form are often made of sugar, which has negligible medical effects.

Controls and blinding are crucial to distinguish the actual effects of the treatment from the {{w|placebo effect}}, or the psychologically-induced effects of a subject's belief that a treatment will or will not help them, which may have real physiologic effects or influence the reporting of subjective measures such as pain level or the presence of side effects. It is vital that there are no clues available to distinguish between the different groups. Even subtle cues from the body language of the testers are sufficient to trigger placebo effect, making double-blind trials necessary.

Challenges exist in designing placebo alternatives to certain physical treatments that might be tested, such as acupuncture; in this case the best quality trials have typically used either special 'joke' retractable needles that only give the illusion of proper penetration or the practitioner/researcher deliberately and safely avoids the traditional {{w|Meridian (Chinese medicine)|meridians}} on the body for the treatment concerned so that the patient remains 'blind' to their role in the trial. The practitioner must otherwise be consistent in treatment between groups and not be involved in the medical assessment phase for properly double-blinded conditions, where the most reliable results still seem to only show a significant placebo effect at work.

There are, however, certain cases where it is almost impossible to make the experience of the control group identical to that of the test group. Making a real and fake pill appear the same is a relatively trivial task, and the ignorance of participants to the details of a given established practice or procedure can allow for a certain level of blinding. However, it would be challenging (to say the least) to make the control group in the described experiment think that they are having lots of sex,{{Citation needed}} when in fact they are not. The description of the control group as taking sugar pills is a laughably poor placebo substitute, as the pills themselves may affect cardiovascular health, therefore ruining the concept of a {{w|controlled experiment}}, especially if it is a double-blind trial, and nobody knows who got sugar and who got sex.

Scientific research involving humans is extremely challenging to conduct because of the difficulty in finding appropriate control groups. This is one of the reasons animal experiments (for instance involving inbred strains of mice) are so common.

The title text adds another twist by taking “blind” literally, and noting that for some people, being blindfolded increases their enjoyment of sexual activity, thereby acting as a confounding variable.

Despite this, it should be noted that Cardiovascular health is typically measured in terms of objective data such as cholesterol levels, ejection fraction, and morbidity/mortality data like the frequency of myocardial infarctions, strokes, or sudden cardiac death. Even sighted, it would be difficult for either subjects or researchers to manipulate this kind of data.

==Transcript==
:[Megan is pointing at charts hanging on the wall.]
:Megan: We've designed a double-blind trial to test the effect of sexual activity on cardiovascular health.
:Both groups will ''think'' they're having lots of sex, but one group will actually be getting sugar pills.

:The limitations of blind trials

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Sex]]
[[Category:Psychology]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Scientific research]]

Talk:2845: Extinction Mechanisms

2023-10-31T10:27:59Z

141.101.98.127:

-We should change "Earth and other terrestrial planets" to Earth and its allies.[[User:Danger Kitty|Danger Kitty]] ([[User talk:Danger Kitty|talk]])

One obvious type of hole was not discussed. The Acme Portable Hole™ is an entirely different class of holes as extensively demonstrated in (this)[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wile_E._Coyote_and_the_Road_Runner] documentation.

-Hello, I'm a Christian that has done research to be intellectually fulfiled, and I would just want to say that I did not know that paleontologists were having trouble with this problem. A general Christian solution is that Noah's Flood, combined with the aftermath being much cooler, was the cause of the dinosaur extinction. Also, before you hate on me, I'm not trying to correct anyone, or be offensive. I just thought I'd share my thoughts on this and add another theory to the mix. This is my second time posting a comment, so sorry if I did something wrong or something. Also, I know there's a comic that "debunks" this, but there seems to have been more evidence and research done since then. Also, the biggest help to me has been ''The Case for A Creator'' by Lee Strobel. [[User:Azerty99|Azerty99]] ([[User talk:Azerty99|talk]]) 15:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

:Reading a book (or even many books) is not research. Science means you're never absolutely sure about anything. You're only relatively certain until contradictory proof of the currently theory (or theories) exists. This is not a weakness, but exactly the strength of the scientific method. If you have significant and non-controvertible proof that men and dinosaurs existed at the same time, I'll tentatively accept your ideas. Until then, it's all just bunk. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.197.151|162.158.197.151]] 15:32, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

:Paleontologists are not having an issue with this. It is merely the premise for the comic. The available evidence vastly points to the extinction of the non avian dinosaurs ~66 million years ago. Of course the scientific community always welcomes new evidence to evaluate and see if it leads to a different conclusion or modification of the current consensus.

:It's a troll folks, treat it with the contempt it deserves. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.43.240|172.69.43.240]] 19:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

::-Ok, thanks for the comments in return! And thanks for not being extremely rude! Here's one article that shows several bio-organic materials that should have decayed if in the situations they were in for -66 million years. https://genesisapologetics.com/faqs/dinosaurs-lived-recently-and-died-in-noahs-flood/ Also, can I see the evidence shown in the second comic? I would like to see all this evidence. Also, I wasn't aware that scientific ideas shown in xkcd that were heavily implied to be true were false. That sounds a bit rude, but usually xkcd
gives funny interpretations of actual problems, like all the ones about COVID, or the Heartbleed Bug. Also, I'm not a troll. I'm willing to debate as long as people aren't saying things like "Science says" and equivocal stuff, and shows evidence instead of just giving vague statements. Thanks! [[User:Azerty99|Azerty99]] ([[User talk:Azerty99|talk]]) 22:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
:::There's little disagreement that an asteroid striking the Yucatan around 66 mya caused or was a significant contributor to the extinction of the dinosaurs, but there are multiple (not necessarily mutually exclusive) hypotheses about what exact mechanisms had the biggest effects.
:::It's like finding a body with nineteen bullet wounds. The detectives will have to piece together the evidence and come to tentative conclusions about what kind of gun was used, from how far away, whether the body was moved after the shooting, whether the victim died immediately or after some time, etc. But until someone finds something major that suggests otherwise, "death by shooting" is going to have to remain the working theory. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.247.41|172.69.247.41]] 23:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

::::-That analogy makes almost perfect sense, except there's a pretty big difference between finding 19 bullet holes in a man and concluding "death by shooting" and thinking that a meteor caused extinction because fossils were found in rocks that could be from the time that the meteor struck. Also, assuming that the mechanisms shown in the comic that are crossed out have been shown to not be possible, then what evidence is there that the meteor was the cause at all besides the correlation of the meteor impact and the extinction time? Does the correlation imply causation? Also, the theory of the meteor assumes the time of the extinction of the dinosaurs, which, while excepted by the majority of scientists, has been called into question.
:::::Ah, you figured it out. The extinction of the dinosaurs must have caused the meteor impact. The crossed-out mechanisms have '''not''' been ruled out; they're the leading hypotheses. That's the whole joke. Whoosh! There's plenty of evidence to conclude that the meteor was the cause of the mass extinctions. I don't see the need to provide you with them - they can be easily found. But you're not really interested in learning about evidence that could falsify your beliefs; you're fighting tooth and nail against anything that contradicts your preconceived conclusion. --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.140|172.69.34.140]] 07:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::well dinosaur fossils are found below the cretaceous-paleogene boundary and not found above, so the major groups (excluding birds) most likely died out around that exact period; it contains a large amount of iridium, which is common in asteroids and there would be a low chance that there would be any other method to deposit iridium worldwide. its age can also be estimated using radiometric dating which puts it at around 66 mya (66.043 ± 0.011 mya to be exact) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.134.181|172.69.134.181]] 00:47, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::XKCD is a webcomic that often derives humor from science. However, it is not a reliable source of information.{{Citation needed}} Consider the various "phone ideas" comics that present phones with "features" that are absurd or impossible. The "crossing out" of the hypotheses in the comic should not be taken as an indication that these hypotheses have been discredited. The comic presents the hypothesis that a meteor broke into pieces, all of equal volume, that struck each square meter of the Earth's surface, and hit each dinosaur individually. I'm reasonably confident that that is physically impossible, but the comic lists this hypothesis together with some of the current leading hypotheses and shows those leading hypotheses crossed-out and describing this alternative hypothesis as "obvious." There idea that this alternative hypothesis is in any way comparable to the others listed, or has any legitimacy, is absurd to the point of being laughable, and thus funny. Regarding the apparently preserved tissue found in some fossils, I found this interesting link: [https://web.archive.org/web/20221202184025/https://www.uwstout.edu/about-us/news-center/researchers-identify-mechanisms-blood-vessel-preservation-t-rex-dinosaur Researchers identify mechanisms of blood vessel preservation in a T. rex dinosaur]--[[Special:Contributions/172.69.22.210|172.69.22.210]] 10:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

::::::-While Noah's Flood was likely an actual event, it would not have been worldwide. Christianity originated in ancient Rome, which is near the Mediterranean Sea, and it is likely that after the last Ice Age, the sea levels rose, and the Atlantic Ocean flooded through what is now the Strait of Gibraltar, creating the Mediterranean Sea. Although this was not a worldwide flood, to the people living in the affected area, it would have seemed as such. [[User:Unknown User|Unknown User]] ([[User talk:Unknown User|talk]]) 01:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Unknown User
:::::::(What's with the non-standard indenting? Anyway...) The biblical Flood wasn't initially recorded/conceived of in Rome (thus the Mediterranean), but in earlier Abrahamic/pre-Abrahamic sources. It could well be a mesopotanian-area event (or events), or the Black Sea or elsewhere (or a mix of several possible aural histories/tales, merged together by the time they entered the Old Testament's first official compilation process).
:::::::And to people living on wide and fertile riverine plains, they're going to encounter the occasional flood every few generations (too often and the original settlers wouldn't stay settled in a flood-endengared way for long, either invent a word for "floodplane" and moce away ''or'' just accept/expect the cycles and explicitly build their civilisation around it like Egypt did). But once-a-century catastrophes probably happened ''somewhere'' amongst most prebiblical peoples, and depending on whose imaginations were left (to wonder how and what happened) they could have come up with what could have been any kind of ur-legend. (If not an ''actual'' legend about Ur!) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.104|172.69.195.104]] 00:47, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

- Issues with Noah’s flood. 1. If it was worldwide and lasted 40 days, all the salty ocean water would have contaminated all fresh water on earth. This would have killed all fresh water fish within minutes or hours. Yet we have fresh water fish. Maybe in the millennia since fish have evolved the ability to survive in fresh water again? 2. The math shows that it would take 3-4 times the current amount of water to cover the earth worldwide. Where did all that water go? It’s not on earth now. We would be aware of that. The math ain’t mathing.

-Okay, to answer the comment directly above mine, if God can create the universe, I doubt he had a problem with seperating salt and fresh water for 40 days. Next comment: While early Christianity was started in Ancient Rome, Noah's Flood is in the first five books of the bible, which were written by Moses, about people that were about 30 generations his ancestors, passed down through traditions combined with the guidance of God. So they probably weren't near the Metiterranean during the flood. Next comment: I understand now that it's a joke, while I understood that the non-crossed out one was obviously a joke the whole time. Also, I'll be honest, I can't open that link, but I'll assume it was true, in which case that's a great discovery for them. I'm assuming that that link is to a good website, is true, and does not exagerate. Next comment up: The iridium thing is true, and I'm not going to make an argument from ignorance and say "we just haven't found the source yet". That's a valid point, but the rock layers could have been moved or solidified earlier, and just formed at that time. We have no concieved notion of how long the days were when God was making the earth, so each on could of been like 5 million years. But that's a valid point! Next comment up: Yes, I know. Also, "But you're not really interested in learning about evidence that could falsify your beliefs; you're fighting tooth and nail against anything that contradicts your preconceived conclusion." I'm honestly trying my best, but you're right that it's hard to accept evidence that goes aqainst you. But, please make sure you don't fall into that category as well.
I'm just some random guy on the internet, and I'm going to go through my day feeling a strange mixture of hopeful and grim, not because of what you've shown me, but how you've shown me it. If you're really interested in tearing down my religion, go after the Bible itself. Making some random dude feel like crap because some of you were rude won't do anything. To those of you who actually brought up valid points, thanks. I hope that you put thought into what I'm saying, instead of just refusing to go against your preconceived judgements. To those of you that just said, "there's so much evidence" know that you need to do better if you're arguing. Be polite. You never know how bad a day the person you're talking to just had. Thanks.
I probably won't post here anymore. This is a nitpicky thing inside of a nitpicky thing and you're saying that my religion is false because I have a different opinion than you. I hope you don't go away feeling smug and self-satisfied, but instead think about the ripple affect of everything you say. Bye! [[User:Azerty99|Azerty99]] ([[User talk:Azerty99|talk]]) 11:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:If God can create the universe, I doubt he has problems with just making everything He does look like a perfectly explainable phenomena. A God which has to tinker ''too much'' with his Creation, just to deal with an unforseen(??) necessary adjustment to it, isn't really worh Their own pillar-of-salt.
:The actual omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent deity wouldn't have to do anything, really, after the Letting There Be Light moment (give or take a good proportion of the following week). Perhaps They can reliably rely upon the imaginations of the humans to come up with the stories They value more as stories (centuries/millenia after the 'fact') than actual effort to adjust matters that They didn't realise They would not like to have happen.
:Though I tend to think that the God Of Logic actually made the universe to ''look'' logical and (through proper study) explainable, and doesn't even appreciate all the different Holy Books everyone keeps thinking is some particular form of Truth.
:Even better, the GOL could have created everything last Thursday, complete with seemingly arbitrary memories embedded in all the billions of people created, and everything else historic (books, dust on undusted mantlepieces, strata/seximents, light from distant stars, etc) installed in the ultimate Young Earth joke. But such that everyone reads the ''intended'' scientifically-observable 'previous' and comes to the conclusion that it all happened just like everyone is ''supposed'' to conclude. Those who reject that (and GOL surely knows who those will be, of course) and actually believe in some of the 'trap' materials (Bible, Koran, Torah, the Daozang, all those Sutras, all those Vedras, ..., the Mission Earth Dekalogy) are those who will be sent to whatever GOL's idea actually is of damnation. ((Some might suggest we already have been. Others might suggest that we're not actually at Creation ''yet'', what we're experiencing is the God's 'dry run' and mental check of how Creation will turn out, but of course the mere ponderings of such a god are so powerful that include details such as whether those so imagined are ever going to philosophise about whether they are even real or not.))
:The whole point of a 'capital-G' God (i.e. not confounded by fellow pantheon members with a similar magnitude of control over things and variously different motives of their own) is that they are just ''so all-powerful'' and ''perfect''. And it's clear that the biblical God is lacking in various ways (as with all the others in all other comparable holy scriptures, with their own adherents and supporters) that can be explained away by "having granted free will" but without helping the reputation of said deity to allow (the appearance of) Free Will and yet be annoyed by what inevitably happens inevitably happening... [[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.104|172.69.195.104]] 00:47, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

What the meteor does, looks like a cluster bomb. BTW does one like to do the math for the meteor falling apart into pieces of 1l and those being randomly distributed. What is the expected value of dinosaurs of various area sizes being hit? Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.94.219|162.158.94.219]] 07:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:You get one point for each brontosaur, twenty points for a velociraptor, thirty for a zhongjianosaurus and fifty for compsognathus. Double that for hitting their young (even harder to hit); double up again, per additional rock, if you can show that you hit every egg in a nest with a different fragment. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.194.155|172.69.194.155]] 11:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

The title text missed a great opportunity to call it the Comparably Light Bombardment But Oddly Restricted just for the acronym. [[User:Phil Srobeighn|Phil Srobeighn]] ([[User talk:Phil Srobeighn|talk]]) 11:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

- Reconciling religion and science is always going to be a bit challenging (gross understatement), but for what it's worth--I think the goal of each is substantially different, but can be complimentary. There are elements of the Bible that are clearly figurative / allegorical / metaphorical / designed to teach a principle but is not necessarily literal. The Bible's intent is to teach us about our relationship to God and each other, and how to become more like God. It's content is intended to be understood by a general audience, without requiring e.g. a degree in Physics. Science, on the other hand, is an inductive search to understand the reality we live in. This is an oversimplification, but you could see science as answering the "what" or "how" of existence, and religion, the "why". My personal approach is to accept scientific evidence, and consider how the current models--even things like evolution--may fit in to God's overall purpose. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.35.75|172.68.35.75]] 14:33, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

That's not how I think about it, but that's a great way too! [[User:Azerty99|Azerty99]] ([[User talk:Azerty99|talk]]) 18:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Talk:2780: Physical Quantities

2023-05-30T11:55:44Z

141.101.98.127:

Planck Length here actually refers to the length of Planck himself. The same may apply to other names. [[User:Unreliable Connection|2659: Unreliable Connection]] ([[User talk:Unreliable Connection|talk]]) 03:02, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
: And here I was thinking it meant the length of Planck ''planking''. [[User:Thisfox|Thisfox]] ([[User talk:Thisfox|talk]]) 22:00, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I wonder if this is alluding to the [[wikipedia:Smoot|Smoot]], a unit of measure devised by MIT students to represent the height of Oliver R. Smoot. Probably worth a mention in the description nonetheless. [[User:Trimeta|Trimeta]] ([[User talk:Trimeta|talk]]) 03:45, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Hawking radiation: ~100 W (through heat)

Planking is a thing.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planking_(fad) One pretends that one is a board, or plank. Are some funny pics. The opposite of planking would be good god how? How can even a cat!?!! [Special:Contributions/172.69.58.161|172.69.58.161]] 06:26, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Hubble length is {{w|Hubble Space Telescope|13.2 m}}. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.64|141.101.98.64]] 10:30, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

The m³ unit for Broca's area is surely a typo, right? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.94.47|162.158.94.47]] 14:55, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
:That would be my guess. I sent a note to Randall to ask. [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 21:24, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Just a couple of others: 1 Watt is what it takes to invent the condensing steam engine and Euler's number doesn't exist, because he died before telephones were invented. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.247.45|172.69.247.45]] 15:08, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
:There are lots of <someone>'s Number constants. We could have an entire phonebook of these. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 17:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
::I tried phoning Graham's Number, once. I'm still not yet finished dialling! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.186|172.70.91.186]] 19:22, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
:::I thought you meant Alexander Graham Bell's number. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.22.129|172.69.22.129]] 23:04, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
::::Shouldn't AG Bell's number be 1? [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 16:03, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
:::::Or 2. (Thomas Watson being on 1.) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.231|172.69.79.231]] 18:14, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
:Chandresekhar's Limit = 3 pints? [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 17:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
:Don't forget that numbers are now [[2721|Euler letters]]! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.137|172.70.85.137]] 20:41, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

From a friend, regarding Fermi's current temperature:
''The typical ground temperature of a burial plot in Chicago depends on the depth and the season. According to the Illinois State Climatologist Office, the average soil temperature at 4 inches depth ranges from about 25°F in January to about 75°F in July. The average soil temperature at 8 inches depth ranges from about 30°F in January to about 77°F in July. These measurements are made under grass, so the soil temperature under other ground covers or under bare ground may vary somewhat from those shown here. In the winter, when the ground is frozen, cemeteries are able to continue burying the dead by using special equipment such as frost rippers or steamers to break through the frozen layer of soil. They also use heaters or blankets to keep the graves open until the burial service is completed.'' [[User:RandalSchwartz|RandalSchwartz]] ([[User talk:RandalSchwartz|talk]]) 23:09, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
:Assuming his grave is 6 feet deep and his body is at 5 feet deep, he's going to be below the frost line, which is 40" in Chicago, so the temperature is never going to drop below 32°F. Based on the charts at https://www.builditsolar.com/Projects/Cooling/EarthTemperatures.htm, he should see temperatures ranging from 40° to 62°. Interestingly enough, at that depth, the soil temperature will lag behind the surface temperature enough that the coldest temperatures will be in March and the warmest will be in September. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.63.89|162.158.63.89]] 03:36, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Pretty sure the Schwarzschild radius is the radius of a curled up child, not of Mr. Schwarzschild. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.203.40|162.158.203.40]] 08:49, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

: 68cm diameter of a person curled up seems about right. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.139.32|172.68.139.32]] 15:23, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Besides Smoot, there's [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erd%C5%91s_number Erdős number].

: The Erdős number (Hungarian: [ˈɛrdøːʃ]) describes the "collaborative distance" between mathematician Paul Erdős and another person, as measured by authorship of mathematical papers.

The Erdős number or Paul Erdős is 0. Anyone who collaborated with him has Erdős number 1, and anyone who collaborated with someone with Erdős number 1 (but not Paul Erdős himself) has Erdős number 2 - and so on. Taking this comic's interpretation, the Erdős number should be either 1, 'cause there was only one Paul Erdős, or 0, because he's dead. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.139.32|172.68.139.32]] 15:23, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

: There's also the Helen: a unit of beauty names after Helen of Troy [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_(unit)]

Actually, anyone using Celsius degrees on daily basis, would write 36.6 degrees as human body temperature. 37 is slightly elevated. So 37 looks like "American converted known value from Farenheit scale" {{unsigned|172.68.138.182|12:18, 29 May 2023}}
:Well, 33.2–38.2°C (or 91.8–100.8°F, if you prefer, give or take the rounding in both) can actually be ''normal'', given acceptible changes in conditions (environmental) and condition (physiological). And of course it depends on which way you measure the core/surface temperature, even for the same person at the same instant. But it's the oft-quoted value. And just because it normally drifts doesn't mean that it hasn't ''ab''normally drifted, so can still be taken as a cue to check why it's a degree or three off the 'standard'.
:I suspect you could be more exacting with an uncomplaining long-dead corpse, but perhaps you don't need quite so much analysis when you already know that it's a long-dead corpse you're dealing with, once you've gotten past the need to assess the rate of insect pupation/etc. ;) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.132|172.70.85.132]] 13:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

2775: Siphon

2023-05-12T21:42:34Z

141.101.98.127: /* Explanation */ More (and more comprehensive) contrast between siphons and the rather distractng concet of capilliaries.

{{comic
| number = 2775
| date = May 12, 2023
| title = Siphon
| image = siphon_2x.png
| imagesize = 310x378px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = ADDITIONAL NOTES: Fixed a bug that caused some rocks to generate virtually infinite heat while just sitting there.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a SIPHONIC WINDS - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
Cueball and Megan have a demonstration of a {{w|siphon}}, by which the gravitational force on an upper reservoir of liquid and molecular cohesion move a liquid upward through a tube, traversing a higher peak to reach a lower exit. Randall has also mentioned siphons in his book, "how to," section "how to make a pool."

Siphons are commonly used in modern society (e.g., most American residential toilets are flushed by siphon action).

Siphons are separate from a similarly counterintuitive phenomenon of {{w|capillary action}}, where a liquid flows through narrow spaces (even upwards, entirely against gravity) in that a siphon need not be of such small diameter. Capillary action will also move liquid into an initially empty channel, whilst a siphon must be 'primed', by filling the tube, in order to draw liquid over a high point to ultimately always drop down into a lower container.

Apparently, even though Cueball and Megan have probably set up the experiment correctly, the water no longer demonstrates a siphon by flowing from the upper bucket to the lower. Cueball observes in surprise that "it's true," meaning that this is a very recent development, and Megan remarks that it was honestly weird in retrospect that scientists had ever tried to rationalise this admittedly counterintuitive phenomenon in the first place.

The punchline of the comic is in the caption, which delivers a piece of physics news that the "2023 update to the universe" finally fixed this phenomenon, dubbed "the siphon bug". The joke here is that the entire complex and multifaceted system of {{w|physics}} in and of itself is treated as though it's simply the logic (or perhaps the sometimes unintentional result of various default [[1620: Christmas Settings|configuration options]] combined) to a video game, and that siphoning (rather than being an interesting physical phenomenon worth studying) was nothing more than a bug unintentionally created by the "devs" (whoever that may be). In reality, siphons still very much exist in our universe,{{citation needed}} though {{w|simulation hypothesis|the idea that we live in a computer simulation}} is also prevalent in {{w|the matrix|our modern pop culture}}.

The title text is a reference to [[2115: Plutonium]]. It expands on the joke surrounding the idea of an "Earth dev log" by referencing {{w|nuclear power}}, and how it's apparently another bug that some nuclear elements (notably {{w|uranium}} and {{w|plutonium}}, among others) can be and have been harnessed by humanity in order to generate practically everlasting amounts of energy, all while the elements themselves are simply sitting there in the core of some {{w|nuclear reactor}}.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[There are two buckets: the one on the left is on a stool and is filled with water, the other on the right is on the ground and has a small amount of water. Cueball is standing on the left and holding a tube between the buckets. No water is flowing through the tube. Megan is standing on the right and watching the proceedings.]
:Cueball: Wow, it's true—the water doesn't flow up the tube anymore.
:Megan: Honestly, it's weird that it ever did.
:Megan: Why did we think that was normal?

:[Caption below the panel:]
:Physics news: The 2023 update to the universe finally fixed the "siphon" bug.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Physics]]

Talk:1743: Coffee

2016-10-07T10:21:15Z

141.101.98.127:

For me as a non-native speaker this XKCD looks like the guests ordered Ground Coffee and Cueball didn't realize that ground might come von "grind". [[User:Gunterkoenigsmann|Gunterkoenigsmann]] ([[User talk:Gunterkoenigsmann|talk]])--
: I hadn't even noticed that pun, thanks! [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.87|108.162.221.87]] 10:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

With "I'm a regular Starbuck" Megan says, she is a regular visitor of Starbuck and has learned her skills there watching. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.83.168|162.158.83.168]] 08:10, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
: Since the Starbucks coffee chain writes their name as a plural, I just assumed it was a cross-referential joke about the Starbuck character on Battlestar Galactica. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.87|108.162.221.87]] 10:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

The expensive coffee filter comment might be a reference to the ridiculously high prices for vacuum cleaner bags. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.85.249|162.158.85.249]] 08:12, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
: Ironic, since Dyson vacuums are "bagless" & use a canister instead. (Which is disgusting, by the way.) [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.87|108.162.221.87]] 10:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
:: Actually even Dyson vacuums have at least two filters in them. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.127|141.101.98.127]] 10:21, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Can you actually "hoover" something up with a Dyson? ;-) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.22.72|162.158.22.72]] 08:37, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
: Decidedly not! That's like saying you are "rollerblading" when you are actually just inline-skating, or calling any cola a "Coke". You don't go toyotaing in your Chevrolet & you don't Colgate your teeth; such branding idioms really annoy me. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to gutenberg some compuserve post-its before my redenbachers are done kenmoring. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.87|108.162.221.87]] 10:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk:1589: Frankenstein

2015-10-12T10:16:17Z

141.101.98.127: Moon landing reference

I get all that—I came here to find out what the moon landing reference is all about. Any ideas? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.191|108.162.249.191]] 04:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
: xkcd has referred to "moon landing hoax" theories and their proponents (whom xkcd disparages) a few times, including [http://xkcd.com/202/ 202 "YouTube"], [http://xkcd.com/258/ 258 "Conspiracy Theories"], and [http://xkcd.com/1074/ 1074 "Moon Landing"]; this is (at least) the 4th such reference. [[User:Mrob27|Mrob27]] ([[User talk:Mrob27|talk]]) 05:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
: He says that, because he is a MONSTER, and has a damaged brain from a complete moron instead of from a famous scientist. You know - the plot of the movie ;) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.115.22|162.158.115.22]] 08:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Frankenstein A.K.A Elvis. Judging by that hairstyle [[User:Prack|Prack]] ([[User talk:Prack|talk]])
: I suggest the moon landing reference is simply Randall's monster subverting the attempt to redefine the canon. If Randall succeeds in redefining the monster's name, then it also becomes canonical that the moon landings were faked. Randall is unlikely to agree with the canon he has just created.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.127|141.101.98.127]] 10:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

"The doctor" is a joke in itself because it's analog to "The monster" of the original, so it's likely to start the same discussions the other way around. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.212|162.158.90.212]] 09:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

1537: Types

2015-06-12T16:54:47Z

141.101.98.127: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1537
| date = June 12, 2015
| title = Types
| image = types.png
| titletext = colors.rgb("blue") yields "#0000FF". colors.rgb("yellowish blue") yields NaN. colors.sort() yields "rainbow"
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Title text not explained. More details before the list.}}

This comic is a series of programming jokes about a ridiculous new programming language, perhaps inspired by [https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/wat Gary Bernhardt's CodeMash 2012 lightning talk] on Javascript's unpredictable typing. The (highly technical) audience is unable to correctly guess the results of adding various Javascript types, and roars with laughter when they're revealed.

Most regular programming languages distinguish a number of types, e.g. integers , strings, lists,... All of which have different behaviours. The operation "+" is conventionally defined over more than one of these types. Applied to two integers, it returns their addition, but applied to two strings (denoted by being enclosed in quotes) it concatenates them:

<code>> 2 + 3

5

> "123" + "abc"

"123abc"</code>

While these behaviours are standard, conventional, and intuitive, there is a huge amount of variation among programming languages when you apply an operation like "+" to different types. One logical approach is to always return an error in all cases of type mixing, but it is often practical to allow some case mixing, since it can hugely simplify an operation. Variation and lack of a clearly more intuitive behaviour leads some languages to have weird results when you mix types.

# <code>2 + "2"</code> uses the <code>+</code> operator on a number and a string. In a normal language, this would result either the number <code>4</code> (addition), or <code>"22"</code> (string concatenation); however, the new language converts the string to an integer, adds them to produce <code>4</code> and converts back to a string. Alternately, it is adding 2 to the ASCII value of the character <code>"2"</code>, which (interpreted as a string) is <code>"4"</code>. This is (somewhat) consistent with the behavior for item 4.
# <code>"2" + []</code> adds a string to an array (a list), this time. This first inexplicably converts the string to a number again, and then it literally adds the number to the list by appending it (this would make sense if it was <code>[] + 2</code>, but usually not the other way around). And then the result (the entire array) is converted to a string again.
# <code>(2/0)</code> divides <code>2</code> by <code>0</code> and quite reasonably results in <code>NaN</code> (not a number).
# <code>(2/0)+2</code> adds <code>2</code> to <code>NaN</code>. <code>2</code> is "added" to the string <code>"NaN"</code> (again, the number is converted to a string for apparently no reason), which produces <code>"NaP"</code>, as if <code>2</code> was added to <code>"N"</code> to produce <code>"P"</code> (as per alphabetical order or ASCII encoding; <code>N</code> is <code>01001110</code>, and adding 2 to this results in <code>01010000</code> which is <code>P</code>).
# <code>""+""</code> looks like it is concatenating (adding) an empty string (i.e. <code>""</code>) to another empty string, which should produce an empty string. However, the entire thing is treated as one string (with the start quote being the first one and the end quote being the very last one), which produces the egregious '<code>"+"</code>'.
# <code>[1,2,3]+2</code> seems to test whether it's sound to append <code>2</code> to the list <code>[1,2,3]</code>, and concludes that it doesn't fit the pattern, returning the boolean value <code>false</code>. It could conceivably also be the result of an attempt to add <code>2</code> to the ''set'' <code>[1,2,3]</code>, which already contains that element (although <code>{1,2,3}</code> would be a more common notation for sets).
# <code>[1,2,3]+4</code> returns <code>true</code> for much the same reason.
# <code>2/(2-(3/2+1/2))</code> is a floating point joke. Floating point numbers are notoriously imprecise. With precise mathematics, <code>(3/2+1/2)</code> would be exactly 2, hence the entire thing would evaluate to <code>2/0</code> or <code>NaN</code> in Randall's new language. However, the result of <code>(3/2+1/2)</code> is "just slightly off," which makes the result "just slightly off" of <code>NaN</code> (which would be ridiculous in a real language). The ironic thing is that fractions with 2 in the denominator are ''not'' the kind of numbers that typically suffer from floating point impreciseness. Additionally, if there was indeed a rounding error, the actual calculation becomes something like <code>2/0.0000000000000013</code>, which should not return a <code>NaN</code> since it is not division by zero.
# <code>range(" ")</code> normally wouldn't make any sense. However, the new language appears to interpret it as ASCII, and in the ASCII table, character #32 is space, #33 is <code>!</code>, and #34 is <code>"</code>. So, instead of interpreting <code>" "</code> as a string, it seems to be interpreted as <code>34, 32, 34</code> (in ASCII), and then <code>range</code> appears to transform this into <code>34, 33, 32, 33, 34</code> (the "ranges" between the numbers), which, interpreted as ASCII, becomes <code>['"', '!', ' ', '!', '"']</code>.
# <code>+2</code> appears to be applying a unary <code>+</code> to the number <code>2</code>, which should just be <code>2</code>. However, the code is adding <code>2</code> to the line number <code>10</code> in this context.
# <code>2+2</code> would normally be <code>4</code>. However, the interpreter takes this instruction to mean to add the value 2 to the literal value of <code>2</code>, making it <code>4</code> and then reports that the work is "Done". This can be seen in the subsequent lines where all <code>2</code>s are replaced by <code>4</code>s. This could be a reference to languages like Fortran where [http://everything2.com/title/Changing+the+value+of+5+in+FORTRAN literals could be assigned new values].
# <code>range(1,5)</code> would normally return <code>[1, 2, 3, 4, 5]</code>. However, since the value of <code>2</code> has been changed to <code>4</code>, it returns <code>[1, 4, 3, 4, 5]</code>, and this even affects the line number (which is 14 instead of 12).
# <code>floor(10.5)</code> should return <code>10</code> (the "floor" of a decimal number is that number rounded down). However, it instead returns {{w|ASCII art}} of the number on a "floor."

The title text contains three further examples relating to color. <code>color.rgb("blue")</code> returns the hexadecimal code for pure blue (as would be used in HTML, for example), which is how a real programming language might work. The lookup for "yellowish blue" returns "NaN" (Not a Number) again, which makes sense at one level because there is no such color as "yellowish blue" (yellow and blue make green). However a more typical result would have been a failure indicating that the color database does not include the name, in the same way that a typo such as "bluw" would. Similarly sorting the colors would normally produce some defined ordering, such as alphabetical, but in this language it generates the string "rainbow". It seems that Randall's new language understands color theory in an unusually deep way.

==Transcript==
My new language is great, but it has a few quirks regarding type:
<pre>
[1]> 2+"2"
=> "4"
[2]> "2"+[]
=> "[2]"
[3]> (2/0)
=> NaN
[4]> (2/0)+2
=> NaP
[5]> ""+""
=> '"+"'
[6]> [1,2,3]+2
=> FALSE
[7]> [1,2,3]+4
=> TRUE
[8]> 2/(2-(3/2+1/2))
=> NaN.0000000000000013
[9]> range(" ")
=> ('"','!'," ","!",'"')
[10]> +2
=> 12
[11]> 2+2
=> DONE
[14]> RANGE(1,5)
=> (1,4,3,4,5)
[13]> FLOOR(10.5)
=> |
=> |
=> |
=> |
=> |___10.5___
</pre>

The alt text for the image starts out with colors.rgb("blue") yields "#0000FF". Again, it just took a string, turned it into a variable, and made it a string again. However, the .rgb function shouldn't be returning a hex code for the color!
It then transitions into colors.rgb("yellowish blue") yields "NaN". Seeing how it returned a hex code for the last one, attempting to get the RGB value of an [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossible_color impossible color] would predictably cause it to return NaN.
Finally, colors.sort() yields "rainbow". It just got stuffed through a prism, which sorted the colors into a rainbow!
{{comic discussion}}

1537: Types

2015-06-12T14:25:03Z

141.101.98.127: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1537
| date = June 12, 2015
| title = Types
| image = types.png
| titletext = colors.rgb("blue") yields "#0000FF". colors.rgb("yellowish blue") yields NaN. colors.sort() yields "rainbow"
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Title text not explained. More details before the list.}}

This comic is a series of programming jokes about a ridiculous new programming language, inspired by [https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/wat Gary Bernhardt's CodeMash 2012 lightning talk] on Javascript's unpredictable typing. The (highly technical) audience is unable to correctly guess the results of adding various Javascript types, and roars with laughter when they're revealed.

Most regular programming languages distinguish a number of types, e.g. integers , strings, lists,... All of which have different behaviours. The operation "+" is conventionally defined over more than one of these types. Applied to two integers, it returns their addition, but applied to two strings it concatenates them:

<code>> 2 + 3

5

> "123" + "abc"

"123abc"</code>

While these behaviours are standard, conventional, and intuitive, there is a huge amount of variation among programming languages when you apply an operation like "+" to different types. One logical approach is to always return an error in all cases of type mixing, but it is often practical to allow some case mixing, since it can hugely simplify an operation. Variation and lack of a clearly more intuitive behaviour leads some languages to have weird results when you mix types.

# <code>2 + "2"</code> uses the <code>+</code> operator on a number and a string. In a normal language, this would result either the number <code>4</code> (addition), or <code>"22"</code> (string concatenation); however, the new language converts the string to an integer, adds them to produce <code>4</code> and converts back to a string.
# <code>"2" + []</code> adds a string to an array (a list), this time. This first inexplicably converts the string to a number again, and then it literally adds the number to the list by appending it (this would make sense if it was <code>[] + 2</code>, but usually not the other way around). And then the result is converted to a string again.
# <code>(2/0)</code> divides <code>2</code> by <code>0</code> and quite reasonably results in <code>NaN</code> (not a number).
# <code>(2/0)+2</code> adds <code>2</code> to <code>NaN</code>. <code>2</code> is "added" to the string <code>"NaN"</code> (again, the number is converted to a string for apparently no reason), which produces <code>"NaP"</code>, as if <code>2</code> was added to <code>"N"</code> to produce <code>"P"</code> (as per alphabetical order or ASCII encoding; <code>N</code> is <code>01001100</code>, and adding 2 to this results in <code>01010000</code> which is <code>P</code>).
# <code>""+""</code> looks like it is concatenating (adding) an empty string to another empty string, which should produce an empty string. However, the entire thing is treated as one string (with the start quote being the first one and the end quote being the very last one), which produces the egregious '<code>"+"</code>'.
# <code>[1,2,3]+2</code> seems to test whether it's sound to append <code>2</code> to the list <code>[1,2,3]</code>, and concludes that it doesn't fit the pattern, returning the boolean value <code>false</code>. It could conceivably also be the result of an attempt to add <code>2</code> to the ''set'' <code>[1,2,3]</code>, which already contains that element (although <code>{1,2,3}</code> would be a more common notation for sets).
# <code>[1,2,3]+4</code> returns <code>true</code> for much the same reason.
# <code>2/(2-(3/2+1/2))</code> is a floating point joke. Floating point numbers are notoriously imprecise. With precise mathematics, <code>(3/2+1/2)</code> would be exactly 2, hence the entire thing would evaluate to <code>2/0</code> or <code>NaN</code> in Randall's new language. However, the result of <code>(3/2+1/2)</code> is "just slightly off," which makes the result "just slightly off" of <code>NaN</code> (which would be ridiculous in a real language). The ironic thing is that fractions with 2 in the denominator are ''not'' the kind of numbers that typically suffer from floating point impreciseness. Additionally, if there was indeed a rounding error, the actual calculation becomes something like <code>2/0.0000000000000013</code>, which should not return a <code>NaN</code> since it is not division by zero.
# <code>range(" ")</code> normally wouldn't make any sense. However, the new language appears to interpret it as ASCII, and in the ASCII table, character #32 is space, #33 is <code>!</code>, and #34 is <code>"</code>. So, instead of interpreting <code>" "</code> as a string, it seems to be interpreted as <code>34, 32, 34</code> (in ASCII), and then <code>range</code> appears to transform this into <code>34, 33, 32, 33, 34</code> (the "ranges" between the numbers), which, interpreted as ASCII, becomes <code>['"', '!', ' ', '!', '"']</code>.
# <code>+2</code> appears to be applying a unary <code>+</code> to the number <code>2</code>, which should just be <code>2</code>. However, the code is adding <code>2</code> to the line number <code>10</code> in this context.
# <code>2+2</code> would normally be <code>4</code>. However, the interpreter takes this instruction to mean to add the value 2 to the literal value of <code>2</code>, making it <code>4</code> and then reports that the work is "Done". This can be seen in the subsequent lines where all <code>2</code>s are replaced by <code>4</code>s. This could be a reference to languages like Fortran where literals were able to be assigned new values.
# <code>range(1,5)</code> would normally return <code>[1, 2, 3, 4, 5]</code>. However, since the value of <code>2</code> has been changed to <code>4</code>, it returns <code>[1, 4, 3, 4, 5]</code>, and this even affects the line number (which is 14 instead of 12).
# <code>floor(10.5)</code> should return <code>10</code> (the "floor" of a decimal number is that number rounded down). However, it instead returns {{w|ASCII art}} of the number on a "floor."

The title text contains three further examples relating to color. <code>color.rgb("blue")</code> returns the hexadecimal code for pure blue (as would be used in HTML, for example), which is how a real programming language might work. The lookup for "yellowish blue" returns "NaN" (Not a Number) again, which makes sense at one level because there is no such color as "yellowish blue" (yellow and blue are complements: mix them and you get white or black depending on whether you are using additive or subtractive colors). However a more typical result would have been a failure indicating that the color database does not include the name, in the same way that a typo such as "bluw" would. Similarly sorting the colors would normally produce some defined ordering, such as alphabetical, but in this language it generates the string "rainbow". It seems that Randall's new language understands color theory in an unusually deep way.

==Transcript==
My new language is great, but it has a few quirks regarding type:
<pre>
[1]> 2+"2"
=> "4"
[2]> "2"+[]
=> "[2]"
[3]> (2/0)
=> NaN
[4]> (2/0)+2
=> NaP
[5]> ""+""
=> '"+"'
[6]> [1,2,3]+2
=> FALSE
[7]> [1,2,3]+4
=> TRUE
[8]> 2/(2-(3/2+1/2))
=> NaN.0000000000000013
[9]> range(" ")
=> ('"','!'," ","!",'"')
[10]> +2
=> 12
[11]> 2+2
=> DONE
[14]> RANGE(1,5)
=> (1,4,3,4,5)
[13]> FLOOR(10.5)
=> |
=> |
=> |
=> |
=> |___10.5___
</pre>

The alt text for the image starts out with colors.rgb("blue") yields "#0000FF". Again, it just took a string, turned it into a variable, and made it a string again. However, the .rgb function shouldn't be returning a hex code for the color!
It then transitions into colors.rgb("yellowish blue") yields "NaN". Seeing how it returned a hex code for the last one, attempting to get the RGB value of an [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossible_color impossible color] would predictably cause it to return NaN.
Finally, colors.sort() yields "rainbow". It just got stuffed through a prism, which sorted the colors into a rainbow!
{{comic discussion}}

1537: Types

2015-06-12T14:20:05Z

141.101.98.127: /* Explanation */ i'm a dolt, that was lowercase

{{comic
| number = 1537
| date = June 12, 2015
| title = Types
| image = types.png
| titletext = colors.rgb("blue") yields "#0000FF". colors.rgb("yellowish blue") yields NaN. colors.sort() yields "rainbow"
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Title text not explained. More details before the list.}}

This comic is a series of programming jokes about a ridiculous new programming language, inspired by [https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/wat Gary Bernhardt's CodeMash 2012 lightning talk] on Javascript's unpredictable typing. The (highly technical) audience is unable to correctly guess the results of adding various Javascript types, and roars with laughter when they're revealed.

Most regular programming languages distinguish a number of types, e.g. integers , strings, lists,... All of which have different behaviours. The operation "+" is conventionally defined over more than one of these types. Applied to two integers, it returns their addition, but applied to two strings it concatenates them:

<code>> 2 + 3

5

> "123" + "abc"

"123abc"</code>

While these behaviours are standard, conventional, and intuitive, there is a huge amount of variation among programming languages when you apply an operation like "+" to different types. One logical approach is to always return an error in all cases of type mixing, but it is often practical to allow some case mixing, since it can hugely simplify an operation. Variation and lack of a clearly more intuitive behaviour leads some languages to have weird results when you mix types.

# <code>2 + "2"</code> uses the <code>+</code> operator on a number and a string. In a normal language, this would result either the number <code>4</code> (addition), or <code>"22"</code> (string concatenation); however, the new language converts the string to an integer, adds them to produce <code>4</code> and converts back to a string.
# <code>"2" + []</code> adds a string to an array (a list), this time. This first inexplicably converts the string to a number again, and then it literally adds the number to the list by appending it (this would make sense if it was <code>[] + 2</code>, but usually not the other way around). And then the result is converted to a string again.
# <code>(2/0)</code> divides <code>2</code> by <code>0</code> and quite reasonably results in <code>NaN</code> (not a number).
# <code>(2/0)+2</code> adds <code>2</code> to <code>NaN</code>. <code>2</code> is "added" to the string <code>"NaN"</code> (again, the number is converted to a string for apparently no reason), which produces <code>"NaP"</code>, as if <code>2</code> was added to <code>"N"</code> to produce <code>"P"</code> (as per alphabetical order or ASCII encoding; <code>N</code> is <code>01001100</code>, and adding 2 to this results in <code>01010000</code> which is <code>P</code>).
# <code>""+""</code> looks like it is concatenating (adding) an empty string to another empty string, which should produce an empty string. However, the entire thing is treated as one string (with the start quote being the first one and the end quote being the very last one), which produces the egregious '<code>"+"</code>'.
# <code>[1,2,3]+2</code> seems to test whether it's sound to append <code>2</code> to the list <code>[1,2,3]</code>, and concludes that it doesn't fit the pattern, returning the boolean value <code>false</code>. It could conceivably also be the result of an attempt to add <code>2</code> to the ''set'' <code>[1,2,3]</code>, which already contains that element (although <code>{1,2,3}</code> would be a more common notation for sets).
# <code>[1,2,3]+4</code> returns <code>true</code> for much the same reason.
# <code>2/(2-(3/2+1/2))</code> is a floating point joke. Floating point numbers are notoriously imprecise. With precise mathematics, <code>(3/2+1/2)</code> would be exactly 2, hence the entire thing would evaluate to <code>2/0</code> or <code>NaN</code> in Randall's new language. However, the result of <code>(3/2+1/2)</code> is "just slightly off," which makes the result "just slightly off" of <code>NaN</code> (which would be ridiculous in a real language). The ironic thing is that fractions with 2 in the denominator are ''not'' the kind of numbers that typically suffer from floating point impreciseness.
# <code>range(" ")</code> normally wouldn't make any sense. However, the new language appears to interpret it as ASCII, and in the ASCII table, character #32 is space, #33 is <code>!</code>, and #34 is <code>"</code>. So, instead of interpreting <code>" "</code> as a string, it seems to be interpreted as <code>34, 32, 34</code> (in ASCII), and then <code>range</code> appears to transform this into <code>34, 33, 32, 33, 34</code> (the "ranges" between the numbers), which, interpreted as ASCII, becomes <code>['"', '!', ' ', '!', '"']</code>.
# <code>+2</code> appears to be applying a unary <code>+</code> to the number <code>2</code>, which should just be <code>2</code>. However, the code is adding <code>2</code> to the line number <code>10</code> in this context.
# <code>2+2</code> would normally be <code>4</code>. However, the interpreter takes this instruction to mean to add the value 2 to the literal value of <code>2</code>, making it <code>4</code> and then reports that the work is "Done". This can be seen in the subsequent lines where all <code>2</code>s are replaced by <code>4</code>s. This could be a reference to languages like Fortran where literals were able to be assigned new values.
# <code>range(1,5)</code> would normally return <code>[1, 2, 3, 4, 5]</code>. However, since the value of <code>2</code> has been changed to <code>4</code>, it returns <code>[1, 4, 3, 4, 5]</code>, and this even affects the line number (which is 14 instead of 12).
# <code>floor(10.5)</code> should return <code>10</code> (the "floor" of a decimal number is that number rounded down). However, it instead returns {{w|ASCII art}} of the number on a "floor."

The title text contains three further examples relating to colour. <code>colour.rgb("blue")</code> returns the hexadecimal code for pure blue (as would be used in HTML, for example), which is how a real programming language might work. The lookup for "yellowish blue" returns "NaN" (Not a Number) again, which makes sense at one level because there is no such colour as "yellowish blue" (yellow and blue are complements: mix them and you get white or black depending on whether you are using additive or subtractive colours). However a more typical result would have been a failure indicating that the colour database does not include the name, in the same way that a typo such as "bluw" would. Simlarly sorting the colours would normally produce some defined ordering, such as alphabetical, but in this language it generates the string "rainbow". It seems that Randall's new language understands colour theory in an unusually deep way.

==Transcript==
My new language is great, but it has a few quirks regarding type:
<pre>
[1]> 2+"2"
=> "4"
[2]> "2"+[]
=> "[2]"
[3]> (2/0)
=> NaN
[4]> (2/0)+2
=> NaP
[5]> ""+""
=> '"+"'
[6]> [1,2,3]+2
=> FALSE
[7]> [1,2,3]+4
=> TRUE
[8]> 2/(2-(3/2+1/2))
=> NaN.0000000000000013
[9]> range(" ")
=> ('"','!'," ","!",'"')
[10]> +2
=> 12
[11]> 2+2
=> DONE
[14]> RANGE(1,5)
=> (1,4,3,4,5)
[13]> FLOOR(10.5)
=> |
=> |
=> |
=> |
=> |___10.5___
</pre>

The alt text for the image starts out with colors.rgb("blue") yields "#0000FF". Again, it just took a string, turned it into a variable, and made it a string again. However, the .rgb function shouldn't be returning a hex code for the colour!
It then transitions into colours.rgb("yellowish blue") yields "NaN". Seeing how it returned a hex code for the last one, attempting to get the RGB value of an [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossible_color impossible colour] would predictably cause it to return NaN.
Finally, colors.sort() yields "rainbow". It just got stuffed through a prism, which sorted the colours into a rainbow!
{{comic discussion}}

1537: Types

2015-06-12T14:18:50Z

141.101.98.127: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1537
| date = June 12, 2015
| title = Types
| image = types.png
| titletext = colors.rgb("blue") yields "#0000FF". colors.rgb("yellowish blue") yields NaN. colors.sort() yields "rainbow"
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Title text not explained. More details before the list.}}

This comic is a series of programming jokes about a ridiculous new programming language, inspired by [https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/wat Gary Bernhardt's CodeMash 2012 lightning talk] on Javascript's unpredictable typing. The (highly technical) audience is unable to correctly guess the results of adding various Javascript types, and roars with laughter when they're revealed.

Most regular programming languages distinguish a number of types, e.g. integers , strings, lists,... All of which have different behaviours. The operation "+" is conventionally defined over more than one of these types. Applied to two integers, it returns their addition, but applied to two strings it concatenates them:

<code>> 2 + 3

5

> "123" + "abc"

"123abc"</code>

While these behaviours are standard, conventional, and intuitive, there is a huge amount of variation among programming languages when you apply an operation like "+" to different types. One logical approach is to always return an error in all cases of type mixing, but it is often practical to allow some case mixing, since it can hugely simplify an operation. Variation and lack of a clearly more intuitive behaviour leads some languages to have weird results when you mix types.

# <code>2 + "2"</code> uses the <code>+</code> operator on a number and a string. In a normal language, this would result either the number <code>4</code> (addition), or <code>"22"</code> (string concatenation); however, the new language converts the string to an integer, adds them to produce <code>4</code> and converts back to a string.
# <code>"2" + []</code> adds a string to an array (a list), this time. This first inexplicably converts the string to a number again, and then it literally adds the number to the list by appending it (this would make sense if it was <code>[] + 2</code>, but usually not the other way around). And then the result is converted to a string again.
# <code>(2/0)</code> divides <code>2</code> by <code>0</code> and quite reasonably results in <code>NaN</code> (not a number).
# <code>(2/0)+2</code> adds <code>2</code> to <code>NaN</code>. <code>2</code> is "added" to the string <code>"NaN"</code> (again, the number is converted to a string for apparently no reason), which produces <code>"NaP"</code>, as if <code>2</code> was added to <code>"N"</code> to produce <code>"P"</code> (as per alphabetical order or ASCII encoding; <code>N</code> is <code>01101100</code>, and adding 2 to this results in <code>01110000</code> which is <code>P</code>).
# <code>""+""</code> looks like it is concatenating (adding) an empty string to another empty string, which should produce an empty string. However, the entire thing is treated as one string (with the start quote being the first one and the end quote being the very last one), which produces the egregious '<code>"+"</code>'.
# <code>[1,2,3]+2</code> seems to test whether it's sound to append <code>2</code> to the list <code>[1,2,3]</code>, and concludes that it doesn't fit the pattern, returning the boolean value <code>false</code>. It could conceivably also be the result of an attempt to add <code>2</code> to the ''set'' <code>[1,2,3]</code>, which already contains that element (although <code>{1,2,3}</code> would be a more common notation for sets).
# <code>[1,2,3]+4</code> returns <code>true</code> for much the same reason.
# <code>2/(2-(3/2+1/2))</code> is a floating point joke. Floating point numbers are notoriously imprecise. With precise mathematics, <code>(3/2+1/2)</code> would be exactly 2, hence the entire thing would evaluate to <code>2/0</code> or <code>NaN</code> in Randall's new language. However, the result of <code>(3/2+1/2)</code> is "just slightly off," which makes the result "just slightly off" of <code>NaN</code> (which would be ridiculous in a real language). The ironic thing is that fractions with 2 in the denominator are ''not'' the kind of numbers that typically suffer from floating point impreciseness.
# <code>range(" ")</code> normally wouldn't make any sense. However, the new language appears to interpret it as ASCII, and in the ASCII table, character #32 is space, #33 is <code>!</code>, and #34 is <code>"</code>. So, instead of interpreting <code>" "</code> as a string, it seems to be interpreted as <code>34, 32, 34</code> (in ASCII), and then <code>range</code> appears to transform this into <code>34, 33, 32, 33, 34</code> (the "ranges" between the numbers), which, interpreted as ASCII, becomes <code>['"', '!', ' ', '!', '"']</code>.
# <code>+2</code> appears to be applying a unary <code>+</code> to the number <code>2</code>, which should just be <code>2</code>. However, the code is adding <code>2</code> to the line number <code>10</code> in this context.
# <code>2+2</code> would normally be <code>4</code>. However, the interpreter takes this instruction to mean to add the value 2 to the literal value of <code>2</code>, making it <code>4</code> and then reports that the work is "Done". This can be seen in the subsequent lines where all <code>2</code>s are replaced by <code>4</code>s. This could be a reference to languages like Fortran where literals were able to be assigned new values.
# <code>range(1,5)</code> would normally return <code>[1, 2, 3, 4, 5]</code>. However, since the value of <code>2</code> has been changed to <code>4</code>, it returns <code>[1, 4, 3, 4, 5]</code>, and this even affects the line number (which is 14 instead of 12).
# <code>floor(10.5)</code> should return <code>10</code> (the "floor" of a decimal number is that number rounded down). However, it instead returns {{w|ASCII art}} of the number on a "floor."

The title text contains three further examples relating to colour. <code>colour.rgb("blue")</code> returns the hexadecimal code for pure blue (as would be used in HTML, for example), which is how a real programming language might work. The lookup for "yellowish blue" returns "NaN" (Not a Number) again, which makes sense at one level because there is no such colour as "yellowish blue" (yellow and blue are complements: mix them and you get white or black depending on whether you are using additive or subtractive colours). However a more typical result would have been a failure indicating that the colour database does not include the name, in the same way that a typo such as "bluw" would. Simlarly sorting the colours would normally produce some defined ordering, such as alphabetical, but in this language it generates the string "rainbow". It seems that Randall's new language understands colour theory in an unusually deep way.

==Transcript==
My new language is great, but it has a few quirks regarding type:
<pre>
[1]> 2+"2"
=> "4"
[2]> "2"+[]
=> "[2]"
[3]> (2/0)
=> NaN
[4]> (2/0)+2
=> NaP
[5]> ""+""
=> '"+"'
[6]> [1,2,3]+2
=> FALSE
[7]> [1,2,3]+4
=> TRUE
[8]> 2/(2-(3/2+1/2))
=> NaN.0000000000000013
[9]> range(" ")
=> ('"','!'," ","!",'"')
[10]> +2
=> 12
[11]> 2+2
=> DONE
[14]> RANGE(1,5)
=> (1,4,3,4,5)
[13]> FLOOR(10.5)
=> |
=> |
=> |
=> |
=> |___10.5___
</pre>

The alt text for the image starts out with colors.rgb("blue") yields "#0000FF". Again, it just took a string, turned it into a variable, and made it a string again. However, the .rgb function shouldn't be returning a hex code for the colour!
It then transitions into colours.rgb("yellowish blue") yields "NaN". Seeing how it returned a hex code for the last one, attempting to get the RGB value of an [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossible_color impossible colour] would predictably cause it to return NaN.
Finally, colors.sort() yields "rainbow". It just got stuffed through a prism, which sorted the colours into a rainbow!
{{comic discussion}}

1331: Frequency

2014-02-18T09:30:54Z

141.101.98.127: /* Explanation */ Reword explanation so as to avoid confusion when table is sorted

{{comic
| number = 1331
| date = February 17, 2014
| title = Frequency
| image = frequency.png
| titletext = This comic shows estimated average frequency. I wanted to include the pitch drop experiment, but it turns out the gif format has some issues with decade-long loops.
}}
This comic is animated. Click on the date above the comic to see the original version.
==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Incomplete.}}
This comic shows a number of common events, arranged in a grid. Each of the events flashes with their average frequency.

For example, statistically a child is born somewhere on the world approximately every 0.24 seconds, or four times per second. Therefore the tile "One birth" blinks about 4 times per second.

The table below lists all the events and their duration / frequency. Some events make reference to other comics.

The title text refers to the {{w|Pitch drop experiment}} which measures the flow of a piece of pitch over many years. At room temperature, tar pitch flows at a very slow rate, taking several years to form a single drop. The title text jokes that Randall tried to include a tile that flashes about once every {{w|decade|ten years}}, but the tiles are all {{w|Animated GIF|animated GIFs}} and the file format does not support animations that long.

{| class="wikitable sortable"
!Picture
!Text
!Period (seconds)
!Frequency (per minute)
!Frequency (per year, N/I = not interesting)
!Explanation and/or references to other comics.
|-
|[[File:heartbeat.gif]]
|Heartbeat||0.86||70||32,785,200||The typical resting {{w|heart rate}} in adults is 60–80 beats per minute (bpm).
|-
|[[File:birth.gif]]
|One birth||0.24||250||131,490,000|| [[746: Birth]]
|-
|[[File:death.gif]]
|One death||0.56||107||56,360,000||
|-
|[[File:wikipedia.gif]]
|Someone edits Wikipedia||0.67||90||47,100,000||{{w|Wikipedia}} is an online, freely editable encyclopedia.
|-
|[[File:vibrator.gif]]
|Someone buys a vibrator||2.99||20||10,550,000 || [[600: Android Boyfriend]]
|-
|[[ File:car china.gif ]]
|China builds a car||1.89||32||16,700,000||
|-
|[[ File:car japan.gif ]]
|Japan builds a car||4.01||15||7,870,000||
|-
|[[ File:car germany.gif ]]
|Germany builds a car||5.8||10||5,440,000||
|-
|[[ File:car us.gif ]]
|The US builds a car||6.95||8.6||4,540,000||
|-
|[[ File:car elsewhere.gif ]]
|Someone else builds a car||1.03||58||30,640,000||
|-
|[[ File:kiss.gif ]]
|A European Union resident has their first kiss||5.53||11||5,700,000||
|-
|[[ File:fire dept.gif ]]
|A US fire department puts out a fire||23||2.6||1,370,000||
|-
|[[ File:holeinone.gif ]]
|Someone hits a hole-in-one||180||20 times per hour||175,320||A {{w|hole in one}} is a feat in {{w|golf}} in which the player hits the ball directly from the tee into the cup with one shot.
|-
|[[ File:turnsignal1.gif ]]
|My turn signal blinks||0.94||64||N/I||This, together with "The turn signal of the car in front of me blinks", forms a reference to [[165: Turn Signals]].
|-
|[[ File:turnsignal2.gif ]]
|The turn signal of the car in front of me blinks||0.9||67||N/I||This, together with "My turn signal blinks", forms a reference to [[165: Turn Signals]].
|-
|[[ File:earthquake1.gif ]]
|Earthquake (magnitude 1)||2.43||25||13,000,000|| [[711: Seismograph]]
|-
|[[ File:earthquake2.gif ]]
|Earthquake (magnitude 2)||24.26||2.5||1,300,000|| Review [http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/map/#%7B%22feed%22%3A%221day_all%22%2C%22search%22%3Anull%2C%22sort%22%3A%22largest%22%2C%22basemap%22%3A%22grayscale%22%2C%22autoUpdate%22%3Atrue%2C%22restrictListToMap%22%3Atrue%2C%22timeZone%22%3A%22local%22%2C%22mapposition%22%3A%5B%5B-84.47406458459159%2C-25.6640625%5D%2C%5B84.4740645845916%2C425.390625%5D%5D%2C%22overlays%22%3A%7B%22plates%22%3Atrue%7D%2C%22viewModes%22%3A%7B%22map%22%3Atrue%2C%22list%22%3Atrue%2C%22settings%22%3Atrue%2C%22help%22%3Afalse%7D%7D USGS's Quake Map] for verification.
|-
|[[ File:earthquake3.gif ]]
|Earthquake (magnitude 3)||242.6||15 times per hour||130,000|| [[1037: Umwelt#Earthquake-Blizzard|1037: Umwelt]]
|-
|[[ File:earthquake4.gif ]]
|Earthquake (magnitude 4)||2426||1.5 times per hour||13,000|| [[723: Seismic Waves]]; below this magnitude earthquakes pass by largely unnoticed by Tweeters.[http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/topics/mag_vs_int.php]
|-
|[[ File:parliament toilet.gif ]]
|A member of the UK parliament flushes a toilet||10.06||6||3,140,000||Note that probably during the daytime in Britain such a toilet is flushed 8.5 times per minute, while at night it is flushed only 1 time per minute.
|-
|[[ File:flight.gif ]]
|An airline flight takes off||0.93||65||34,000,000||
|-
|[[ File:book mockingbird.gif ]]
|Someone buys ''To Kill a Mockingbird''||42.05||1.4||750,000||“{{w|To Kill a Mockingbird}}” is a famous novel by {{w|Harper Lee}}.
|-
|[[ File:cat mockingbird.gif ]]
|Someone's pet cat kills a mockingbird||1.82||33||17,340,000||Whereas the previous item references the well-known book “To Kill a Mockingbird”, this one talks about {{w|Mockingbird|mockingbirds}} being literally killed (in this case, by cats). There are 45 million mockingbirds in the world;[http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/accounts/Mimus_polyglottos/] this means that according to Randall, cats kill 39% of mockingbirds in one year, i.e. in 2.5 years they are able to kill all mockingbirds (excluding the ones that are born in the meantime).
|-
|[[ File:phoenixshoes.gif ]]
|Someone in Phoenix buys new shoes||1.08||56||29,200,000||Since {{w|Phoenix metropolitan area|metro Phoenix}} has 4,200,000 inhabitants, according to Randall people in Phoenix buy 7 pairs of shoes per capita per year.
|-
|[[ File:phoenix.gif ]]
|Someone in Phoenix puts on a condom||2.05||29||15,390,000||
|-
|[[ File:keys.gif ]]
|Someone locks their keys in their car||2.43||25||13,000,000||
|-
|[[ File:amelia.gif ]]
|A Sagittarius named Amelia drinks a soda||7.79||7.7||4,000,000||Randall Munroe is a [http://blog.xkcd.com/2014/01/31/the-baby-name-wizard/ fan of The Baby Name Wizard] blog and its [http://www.babynamewizard.com Name Voyager] tool which shows that "[http://www.babynamewizard.com/baby-name/girl/amelia Amelia]" has recently exploded in popularity. 
This particular frequency is taken from:
* The number of persons called {{w|Amelia_(given_name)|Amelia}} ([http://howmanyofme.com/ est. 82,572 people in the U.S.])
* The number of persons born between November 22nd and December 22nd under the astrological sign of {{w|Sagittarius (astrology)|Sagittarius}} (~1/12th of the population, i.e. approximately 6881 Amelias in the U.S.)
* The frequency of soda (soft drinks) being drunk (216 liters per person per year in the U.S.[http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/foo_sof_dri_con-food-soft-drink-consumption]).
According to our figures, 6881 Amelias drink 1,44 million liters of soft drinks per year in the United States alone, which means that Randall's figures only account for American Amelias (drinking 356 cc or 12 fl. oz. of soda in each drink).
|-
|[[ File:dogbite.gif ]]
|A dog bites someone in the US||7.01||8.6||4,500,000||
|-
|[[ File:bike.gif ]]
|Someone steals a bicycle||24.93||2.4||1,265,000||
|-
|[[ File:eagle.gif ]]
|A bald eagle catches a fish||2.69||22||11,700,000||
|-
|[[ File:bottles.gif ]]
|50,000 plastic bottles are produced||1.27||2.36 million bottles||1.24 trillion||
|-
|[[ File:recycled.gif ]]
|50,000 plastic bottles are recycled||4.64||646,552 bottles||340 billion||27% of the plastic bottles manufactured get [[885: Recycling|recycled]]
|-
|[[ File:meteor.gif ]]
|A bright meteor is visible somewhere||1.15||52||N/I||
|-
|[[ File:oldfaithful.gif ]]
|Old Faithful erupts||5640 (94 minutes)||15 times per day||5,595||{{w|Old Faithful}} is a geyser in {{w|Yellowstone National Park}} in the US, that tends to erupt every 65 or 91 minutes. XKCD's period of 1h 34m falls between the [http://geysertimes.org/getGeyserInfo.php?geyserID=2 mean and median of recent Old Faithful eruptions] and corresponds to a [http://geysertimes.org/getSingleEruption.php?id=645135 February 16, 2014 eruption].
|-
|[[ File:shark.gif ]]
|A fishing boat catches a shark||0.83||72||38,000,000|| [[1326: Sharks]]
|-
|[[ File:us cancer.gif ]]
|Someone in the US is diagnosed with cancer||18.99||3.2||1,660,000|| [[881: Probability]]
|-
|[[ File:us cancer death.gif ]]
|Someone in the US dies from cancer||54.34||1.1||580,000|| [[881: Probability]]
|-
|[[ File:dog.gif ]]
|Someone adopts a dog from a shelter||15.6||3.8||2,000,000||
|-
|[[ File:cat.gif ]]
|Someone adopts a cat from a shelter||21.3||2.8||1,5000,000||
|-
|[[ File:wedding.gif ]]
|Someone gets married||0.75||80||42,000,000||
|-
|[[ File:domain.gif ]]
|Someone registers a domain||0.64||94||49,300,000 ||
|-
|[[ File:house.gif ]]
|Someone in the US buys a house||6.22||9.6||5,000,000||
|-
|[[ File:tattoo.gif ]]
|Someone in the US gets a tattoo||2.06||29||15,300,000||
|-
|[[ File:pulsar.gif ]]
|The star PSR J1748-2446AD rotates 1,000 times||1.4||43,000 rotations||N/I||{{w|PSR J1748-2446ad}} is the fastest spinning {{w|pulsar}} known.
|-
|[[ File:facebook.gif ]]
|Someone lies about their age to sign up for Facebook||4.32||14||600,000 per month||To sign up for Facebook, [https://www.facebook.com/help/210644045634222 the user must claim to be at least 13 years old]. This is a reflection of the U.S. {{w|Children's Online Privacy Protection Act}}.
|-
|[[ File:iphone.gif ]]
|Someone breaks an iPhone screen||0.93||65||34,000,000||
|-
|[[ File:littleleague.gif ]]
|A Little League player strikes out||1.23||49||N/I||{{w|Little League Baseball|Little League}} is a system of local youth baseball and softball competitions. A {{w|strikeout}} is a situation in baseball and softball.
|-
|[[ File:ndsex.gif ]]
|Someone has sex in North Dakota||1.38||43||22,900,000||Since {{w|North Dakota}} has 723,000 inhabitants (ranked the 48th state), and if we estimate the sexually active population as 80% (and if ''someone'' means ''a couple)'' this means that people in North Dakota have sex 79.1 times a year. It is estimated that 3.93% of the world population has sex on a given day;[http://geography.about.com/od/culturalgeography/a/geographyofsex.htm] Randall's rate for North Dakota is 17.3% which is not low.
|-
|[[ File:bieber.gif ]]
|Justin Bieber gains a follower on Twitter||4.73||13||556,000 per month|| [[802: Online Communities 2#Twitter Region|802: Online Communities 2]];  {{w|Justin Bieber}} is a Canadian pop music singer whose [https://twitter.com/justinbieber Twitter account] is extremely popular
|-
|[[ File:denverpizza.gif ]]
|Someone in Denver orders pizza||1.27||47||2,000,000|| [[778: Scheduling]]
|}

==Transcript==
:[Repetitive events are written in grey and arranged in a grid. Each statement pulses to black and then returns to grey at an interval characteristic of the named event.]

{| style="text-align:center;"
|- style="vertical-align: top; background-color:#eeeeee;"
|Heartbeat (0.86 sec)
|One birth (0.24 sec)
|One death (0.56 sec)
|Someone edits Wikipedia (0.67 sec)
|Someone buys a vibrator (2.99 sec)
|- style="vertical-align: top;"
|China builds a car (1.89 sec)
|Japan builds a car (4.01 sec)
|Germany builds a car (5.8 sec)
|The US builds a car (6.95 sec)
|Someone else builds a car (1.03 sec)
|- style="vertical-align: top; background-color:#eeeeee;"
|A European Union resident has their first kiss (5.53 sec)
|A US fire department puts out a fire (23 sec)
|Someone hits a hole-in-one (180 sec)
|My turn signal blinks (0.94 sec)
|The turn signal of the car in front of me blinks (0.9 sec)
|- style="vertical-align: top;"
|Earthquake (magnitude 1) (2.43 sec)
|Earthquake (magnitude 2) (24.26 sec)
|Earthquake (magnitude 3) (242.6 sec)
|Earthquake (magnitude 4) (2426 sec, 42 min)
|Member of the UK Parliament flushes a toilet (10.06 sec)
|- style="vertical-align: top; background-color:#eeeeee;"
|An airline flight takes off (0.93 sec)
|Someone buys ''To Kill a Mockingbird'' (42.05 sec)
|Someone's pet cat kills a mockingbird (1.82 sec)
|Someone in Phoenix buys new shoes (1.08 sec)
|Someone in Phoenix puts on a condom (2.05 sec)
|- style="vertical-align: top;"
|Someone locks their keys in their car (2.43 sec)
|A Sagittarius named Amelia drinks a soda (7.79 sec)
|A dog bites someone in the US (7.01 sec)
|Someone steals a bicycle (24.93 sec)
|A bald eagle catches a fish (2.69 sec)
|- style="vertical-align: top; background-color:#eeeeee;"
|50,000 plastic bottles are produced (1.27 sec)
|50,000 plastic bottles are recycled (4.64 sec)
|A bright meteor is visible somewhere (1.15 sec)
|Old Faithful erupts (5640 sec, 94 min)
|A fishing boat catches a shark (0.83 sec)
|- style="vertical-align: top;"
|Someone in the US is diagnosed with cancer (18.99 sec)
|Someone in the US dies from cancer (54.34 sec)
|Someone adopts a dog from a shelter (15.6 sec)
|Someone adopts a cat from a shelter (21.3 sec)
|Someone gets married (0.75 sec)
|- style="vertical-align: top; background-color:#eeeeee;"
|Someone registers a domain (0.64 sec)
|Someone in the US buys a house (6.22 sec)
|Someone in the US gets a tattoo (2.06 sec)
|The star ''PSR J1748-2446ad'' rotates 1,000 times (1.4 sec)
|Someone lies about their age to sign up for Facebook (4.32 sec)
|- style="vertical-align: top;"
|Someone breaks an iPhone screen (0.93 sec)
|A little league player strikes out (1.23 sec)
|Someone has sex in North Dakota (1.38 sec)
|Justin Bieber gains a follower on Twitter (4.73 sec)
|Someone in Denver orders a pizza (1.27 sec)
|}

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Dynamic comics]]
[[Category:Charts]]