explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:715: Numbers

2023-04-27T18:09:27Z

162.158.158.146:

It seems pretty obvious that the spike at "I'm 18 and have never had a boyfriend" is thanks to porn sites. I don't think that has anything to do with "anxiety about reaching adulthood." {{unsigned ip|‎108.162.216.54}}

I think it should be noted that many of the graphs use.an exponential scale of measurement, which destroys any credibility the visuals had in a quite posssibly intentional moment of internet satire. {{unsigned ip|199.27.128.190}}

I'm from Poland and when I was joining Mensa, the test score was in the Cattell scale, in which 148 is required to join. So that may be a reason for 147 ;) [[User:ArchieT|ArchieT]] ([[User talk:ArchieT|talk]]) 07:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it's a funny little coincidence, that the graph for breast size slightly resembles a pair of breasts [[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.209|162.158.91.209]] 18:59, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Just for the record, for the people that didn't read the explanation; the correct number of glasses that you should have per day (on average) is 6. [[User:Beanie|Beanie]] ([[User talk:Beanie|talk]]) 11:49, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
:The problem with any claim of a correct number of water glasses is that glass volume isn't standardized. For example, https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/2d9bcf/mom_asked_for_the_largest_glass_of_water_i_can/:
:The part that is always left out is that you already get that much fluid intake just from normal eating and drinking! The common misconception that you need to separately drink six glasses of water is flat out wrong and potentially even dangerous.

Talk:2764: Cosmological Nostalgia Content

2023-04-23T05:00:34Z

162.158.158.146:

When I added the transcript it broke the "Created by a BOT" tag on explanation, even though I didn't touch explanation [[Special:Contributions/172.71.151.98|172.71.151.98]] 05:30, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
:No, it was broken before your edit. Someone else changed "BOT" to "Z=90s KID". The equal sign causes problems for mediawiki, but it's been fixed now. --[[User:Orion205|Orion205]] ([[User talk:Orion205|talk]]) 06:03, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
::For anyone who would benefit from a deeper explanation: 
::In the syntax for templates, equals signs come after parameter names (see [[mw:Help:Templates#Parameters|Help:Templates § Parameters]]). So, <code>Created by a Z</code> was parsed as the name of a nonexistent template parameter, and <code>90s KID - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.</code> was passed in as that parameter's value. 
::That still wouldn't necessarily be a problem. It just also left the first parameter empty. This specific template is programmed to show an error message when that happens. [[User talk:AgentMuffin|~AgentMuffin]] 06:13, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Two times the red tint around Megan has been mentioned, in explanation and transcript... I cannot see that, no matter how much I zoon in. Is it actually there (can it be measured on the image file?) or is it just someone who wished it was like that? If it can be measrued it should be explained and if not then the mention should be deleted --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 07:13, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
:What I meant was that Megan's line art in this comic appeared more brownish/reddish to me than the line art of the other characters. Specifically, the colour hex #472425 using an online colour hex checker. --[[User:Multiuniverse|Multiuniverse]] ([[User talk:Multiuniverse|talk]]) 07:22, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

:It's definitely there, but I didn't notice it until I saw it mentioned. It's subtle enough that I imagine certain displays or differences in individual color perception could make it harder to see, but trust me, it's certainly there. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.222.5|162.158.222.5]] 07:24, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

::Why is everyone so unsure? it's definitely there. [[User:Mushrooms|Mushrooms]] ([[User talk:Mushrooms|talk]]) 09:00, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

:::Not all monitors have the same quality, I can imagine that on some cheapish laptop screens it can be a lot harder to see -- [[Special:Contributions/172.71.131.134|172.71.131.134]] 12:20, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
:::: On this laptop (Dell Latitude 600 - good for its time, a rather archaic thing now) it shows ''just''. Took the explanation mentioning it for me to notice. (And, yes, I'm using pretty archaic kit, at this moment. Though not my oldest, because I tend not to throw away 'perfectly working' things. That said, when it comes to remembering how the universe is, I'm not ''quite'' in the "I remember when all this was fields" category...) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.203|172.71.242.203]] 19:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
:::: For cheap laptops try tilting the screen (or moving your head).[[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.146|162.158.158.146]] 05:00, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

:::For me: {{w|Congenital_red–green_color_blindness|red green color blindness}} [[User:Josot|Josot]] ([[User talk:Josot|talk]]) 12:27, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

For anybody wondering: the current (accurately measured) {{w|Redshift#Highest_redshifts|Highest redshifts}} is z = 11.1 [[User:Josot|Josot]] ([[User talk:Josot|talk]]) 12:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Isn't it a bit ironic that Randall now clearly identifies "Want to feel old" content as clickbait, while I remember that he himself did a number of comics around that topic some years ago? I imagine that he changed his opinion BECAUSE that became such a popular clickbait topic. Could you link to some of these older comics?
("Want to feel old? Randall Munroe did "want to feel old" comics closer to the inception of xkcd than to today.")--[[Special:Contributions/172.71.160.38|172.71.160.38]] 07:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
: 😄 --[[User:Catherine|Catherine]] ([[User talk:Catherine|talk]]) 22:14, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Light's velocity is limited only by the speed of causality. As such, I'd recommend modifying the language about light having a "finite" velocity. Technically speaking, the speed of a photon, from the photon's perspective, is non-existent, and what the photon sees, traveling at the speed of causality, is everything happening all at once across it's path. In other words, from the perspective of the photon, there is no passage of time. However, simultaneity varies based on the perspective of the observer.

;InB4
Before anyone embarrasses themself by asking, "multimanteau" is obviously a portmanteau of "multiple" and "portmanteau". Sheesh, get with the neurolinguistic program. "Phrasemanteau" would also be an acceptable neologism. - [[User:Frankie|Frankie]] ([[User talk:Frankie|talk]]) 11:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
:I'm not fond of a explanation needing an explanation :/
The first relevant use of "multimanteau" found by Google is this page
[[User:Victor|Victor]] ([[User talk:Victor|talk]]) 09:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
::Presumably that makes everything else a unimanteau?[[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.67|172.70.85.67]] 14:40, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
:::That word and the first sentence needs to be deleted from the explanation! --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 19:43, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

;Inconstant "Constant"
I find it weird that so much professional study still refers to an assumed "cosmological constant", when it is observably ''not'' constant. Feels like we should be calling it "the cosmological value", since expansion has not been occurring uniformly & considerable localized variation in "vacuum energy" seems relatively certain. Parts of the observable universe are considerably older than the "big bang" that so much theory is hung upon; what part of "these laws are localized effects, not unchanging constants" has ''not'' been obvious, for >30 years?
[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 14:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
:This may be related to the fact that there are so many actual problems around the cosmological "constant" that noone wants to bother renaming it before getting better idea what it actually is. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 21:01, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
:: I'm in agreement with you,[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]], with a slight change. In most of the sciences we call something that's not constant a "variable". Thus we'd have the "cosmologicial variable". Which admittedly does not roll off the tongue as easily. Maybe "cosmic variable" instead? Which seems too alike a "Cepheid variable" star now. Hmm. Maybe I agree with [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] afterall. 😂 [[User:Iggynelix|Iggynelix]] ([[User talk:Iggynelix|talk]]) 13:40, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

;Missing comic
It's mid-morning (ET) on Thursday and there's still no new Wednesday comic. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 13:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
:Very late (definitely Thursday, I think in all time-zones if it isn't even Friday already), but now exists. The interactivity of it might have had to absorb more time to set up in a working manner... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.158|172.70.162.158]] 17:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
::Wednesday's very late (i.e. Thursday) is followed by also very late Friday (''not yet'' seen on Saturday, UTC or almost all(?) US timezones). Maybe shortly, but if this continues to be A Thing with a Monday->Tuesday delay then... Certainly check whether defacto publication dates/days need to be revised from the traditional expectation (or even the official publication one). [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.157|141.101.99.157]] 09:23, 22 April 2023 (UTC) (ps. or, meant to say, ''late and/or meta'' April Fool..?)

Talk:2757: Towed Message

2023-04-04T00:55:18Z

162.158.158.146:

I hear there were plane(s) pulling banners (Draftkings) around the Boston area yesterday (MLB opening day), perhaps that influenced Randall. [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 23:31, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I think that he edited the sign midflight somehow. --[[User:Purah126|Purah126]] ([[User talk:Purah126|talk]]) 00:06, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, how do they answer the telephone call mid-flight? --[[User:Purah126|Purah126]] ([[User talk:Purah126|talk]]) 01:59, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
:Well, they didn't, but that means they flew out of range of any suitable cell towers before any call came in. Which is their oversight/error given that it should be easier to maintain line-of-sight than if you're stuck on the ground in a canyon or something.
:Otherwise, I'm sure they could waggle the stick with one hand whilst holding the handset to their ear with the other. I'm sure the FAA has rules against it (given that many jurisdictions don't like drivers driving whilst on a phone) but probably the least of the problems for a pilot who has to deal with a banner that they don't know how to handle... [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.87|172.71.242.87]] 03:06, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
:I also don't think that there are any exchanges left in the USA which will accept a seven-digit number, the area code must be included. I reckon Randall understood this, and drew accordingly, to further protect against an 867-5309 incident. As for the call that went through, convenient for the joke. Or maybe White Hat made it.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.207.183|172.70.207.183]] 20:52, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Is it some kind of [[:Category:Self-reference|self-reference]]? [[2659: Unreliable Connection]] 02:03, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Actual answer: Fly over an open field and pull the lever that releases the cable, letting the sign fall to the ground. Then land normally.

Is this supposed to be the April Fools comic, but a day early, or is that comic late?20:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
:I can't wait for the April Fools comic! --[[User:Purah126|Purah126]] ([[User talk:Purah126|talk]]) 15:19, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
::April third, still no april fools comic :( [[User:Mushrooms|Mushrooms]] ([[User talk:Mushrooms|talk]]) 09:18, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
I noticed that image quality on the comics seems to have dropped, I wonder if this is some kind of quiet joke.

Talk:2750: Flatten the Planets

2023-03-16T18:32:11Z

162.158.158.146:

I have to wonder, would you slide down to the sun, or be flung outwards? [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 19:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
: The discs are centered on the orbit of the parent planet, and presumably rotating at the same frequency as the parent planet's orbit. That means the inner edge of each disc is going slower than you'd need to orbit the Sun at that distance, and the outer edge faster. If you moved inward from the original planet's orbit, the Sun's gravity would pull you in, but when you crossed the boundary to the next disc, you'd get flung back outward.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.61|162.158.62.61]] 19:58, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
::No Each planet fills out the space within their orbit into the next planet. Easy to see as the outer edge of Neptune's orbit is the same as with the planet flattened. There is a distance from Mercury to the Sun indicated. Maybe because it would melt if it got any closer? --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 20:03, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
:::Take another look at the top and bottom images, you'll notice that the Neptune disc is significantly larger than Neptune's orbit (especially on the left hand side of the image). I suspect that, as the other response suggested Mercury and Neptune takes the inner edge of the disc as the average between Neptune and Uranus's orbital radii, and then the outer radius the same distance on the other side of Neptune's orbit. Similar for Mercury.
:::First, they're rings not discs, but I'm skeptical of the math. And it looks to me like the ring's edges are halfway between the orbits, with Neptune extended outwards the same distance as halfway to Uranus's orbit. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.22.4|172.69.22.4]] 20:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

{{cot|My mistake, Randall's math is correct, sorry.}}

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right;"
|-
! Planet !! Volume (109 km3) !! Orbital radius (106 km) || halfway to prior || halfway to next || Annulus area (10<s>9</s> ''12'' OOPS! km2) || Thickness (<s>cm</s> ''10s of microns'')
|-
| Mercury || 61 || 58 || 29 (to 0) || 83 || 19,000 || 321
|-
| Venus || 928 || 108 || 83 || 129 || 30,637 || 3,029
|-
| Earth || 1,083 || 150 || 129 || 189 || 59,942 || 1,802
|-
| Mars || 163 || 228 || 189 || 504 || 685,794 || 24
|-
| Jupiter || 1,4310,00 || 779 || 504 || 1,107 || 3,051,847 || 46,890
|-
| Saturn || 827,130 || 1,434 || 1,107 || 2,154 || 10,726,236 || 7,711
|-
| Uranus || 68,340 || 2,873 || 2,154 || 3,684 || 28,061,145 || 244
|-
| Neptune || 62,540 || 4,495 || 3,684 || 5,304 (symmetry) || 45,743,348 || 137
|}

:::: The volumes in this table are at 2 different scales. Only the Mercury to Mars volumes are at 1010 km3. Jupiter to Neptune are at 1012 km3 [[User:Sandor|Sandor]] ([[User talk:Sandor|talk]]) 21:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
::::: Thanks, fixed; I had the scale wrong for the radii too. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.158.231|172.71.158.231]] 21:16, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
:::Someone please double-check this, I think Randall is off by a factor of 1000. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.154.229|172.71.154.229]] 21:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
:::: I did my own spreadsheet, and my figures agree with Randall's (roughly). I think your thinkness figures are mostly out by 1000, and a few of your volume figures also have the wrong scale (Mercury is smaller than Mars, and the giants are too big by a factor of 10). [[User:Sandor|Sandor]] ([[User talk:Sandor|talk]]) 22:07, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
::::: 61 * 10^9 km^3 is [https://www.google.com/search?q=61+*+10%5E9+km%5E3+in+cm%5E3 6.1 × 10^25 cm^3], 19000 * 10^9 km^2 is [https://www.google.com/search?q=19000+*+10%5E9+km%5E2+in+cm%5E2 1.9 × 10^23 cm^2], and (6.1 × 10^25 cm^3) / (1.9 × 10^23 cm^2) is [https://www.google.com/search?q=%286.1+%C3%97+10%5E25+cm%5E3%29+%2F+%281.9+%C3%97+10%5E23+cm%5E2%29 3.2 meters]. I'm afraid I'm correct. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.22.145|172.69.22.145]] 22:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
::::: According to {{w|List_of_Solar_System_objects_by_size#Objects_with_radius_over_400_km}} yes I had Mars wrong (corrected) but the others are roughly correct. I stand by my claim that Randall is in error. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.154.86|172.71.154.86]] 22:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
:::::: Mercury's orbital radius is about 58 * 106 km, not 58 * 109 km, which makes the annulus' area 19000 1012 km2. [[User:Sandor|Sandor]] ([[User talk:Sandor|talk]]) 23:20, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
::::::: I fixed that label, hold on... [[Special:Contributions/172.71.154.86|172.71.154.86]] 23:30, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
::::::: You're right. Thanks. Sorry. Reverted on main. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.154.215|172.71.154.215]] 23:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

|} 

This makes about as much sense as other Flat Earth theories. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.200.137|172.70.200.137]] 20:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
:But this would actually be a flat Earth. Albeit with a rather larger surface area ;-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 20:03, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
:And..the Earth-ring is not a disc and it's also in the same plane as the sun. Meaning If you were to stand on the surface of this ring earth , there would be a perpetual sunrise / sunset... And similar for everything else in the plane of the ecliptic. [[User:Iggynelix|Iggynelix]] ([[User talk:Iggynelix|talk]]) 12:36, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

But what does the plot of surface gravity vs distance from the Sun look like? Gravity of an infinite plane and all that?--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] ([[User talk:Brossa|talk]]) 00:01, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

The explanation currently says that it would require "several solar system's worth" of matter, but isn't there enough matter in the actual solar system? --[[User:Purah126|Purah126]] ([[User talk:Purah126|talk]]) 00:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
:That was said in reference to the Alderson Disk, which requires 1000km or so of thickness. Clearly more than the proposal here that gives a minute thickness (relatively) from the ''actual'' planetary mass in the solar system. Even if you reduced its extent (smaller outer, bigger hole for the Sun) it wouldn't thicken up enough. The prior (non-xkcd) version would require a mass of material rivaling, if not exceeding, that of the Sun itself. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.222|172.70.162.222]] 02:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

One of the reasons NASA rejected this could've been the use of inches. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.102.13|172.71.102.13]] 02:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
: Except for Mars. I can only imagine that use of the metric system for the Mars ring is a reference to the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiter#Cause_of_failure Mars Climate Orbiter] fiasco, which certainly would not endear Randall, or his proposal, to a NASA granting agency program officer. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.214.150|172.70.214.150]] 02:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
:: I assume the use of microns there is simply because 5/512 is a really awkward fraction. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.223.25|172.71.223.25]] 05:48, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
::: Awkward? Its vulgar! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.56|172.70.162.56]] 08:05, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
:: Oh right, the Mars Climate Orbiter reference makes sense! I was wondering why Randall would mix imperial and metric units like that. No sane physicist would do that, especially not Randall. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.250.88|172.71.250.88]] 12:52, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
::: And Randall rubs more salt into the wound by using "micron", when the formal/correct SI unit name is "micrometer".[[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.187|172.70.206.187]] 17:13, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

If the planets of the solar system were to become disks centered on the respective planet's current orbit, how do we deal with the different orbital eccentricities? For example, per That Other Wiki, Venus has an orbital eccentricity of 0.006772, Earth has 0.0167086, and Mars has 0.0934. Not to mention Neptune's 0.008678 and Pluto's 0.2488; Pluto's orbit actually crosses Neptune's. Surely that would cause issues with the disks? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.98.5|172.71.98.5]] 08:33, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
:Pluto isn't involved, so at least that difficulty doesn't have to be dealt with. Maybe Pluto and other dwarf planets could be used to supplement the asteroid ball bearings.[[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.63|172.71.242.63]] 10:55, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

It appears that there is enough material in the asteroid belt to do this, since a ring of asteroid ball bearings with a 1 trillion kilometer diameter where each ball bearing was a cube 1 meter by 1 meter (clearly more than enough!) would be less than 10 trillion cubic meters. Since the total mass of the asteroid belt is 10^21 kg, and the average density is around 2 g/cm^3, = 2000 kg/m^3, then the amount of matter required is 2,000*10 trillion = 2 quadrillion which is much less than 10^21. (Not sure if this is actually correct) --[[User:Purah126|Purah126]] ([[User talk:Purah126|talk]]) 12:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
:Ahh yes, the classic cubic-bearing. Just what we need in this planetary ring system we've created. Since Randall elects to eschew spheres for the planets, let's go all in and refuse them for the bearings as well. Bravo. ;-) [[User:Iggynelix|Iggynelix]] ([[User talk:Iggynelix|talk]]) 12:40-12:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC) 
::''I just want to say that this line of logic ''really'' tickled my funnybone. Well done! ...I've got no other valid contribution at this time, just that.'' [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.101|172.70.90.101]] 13:11, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
::That was to further overestimate the material needed, since a cube is more mass than a sphere. --[[User:Purah126|Purah126]] ([[User talk:Purah126|talk]]) 15:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Did anyone notice that this came out just after pi-day? [[User:Iggynelix|Iggynelix]] ([[User talk:Iggynelix|talk]]) 12:40, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
: That's really crusty of Randall. It does explain the rolling pin. He probably also knows, and chooses (for cause) not to disclose, that pronunciation of the Greek letter as "pie" [https://www.dude-n-dude.com/2023/03/14/amoebas-lorica-14-march-icymi/ doesn't conform to modern language usage]. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.232|162.158.90.232]] 17:01, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

== Death's End ==

I don't know if there's a non spoilery-way to mention that there are similar ideas explored in the novel ''Death's End'' by Liu Cixin. [[User:Nedlum|Nedlum]] ([[User talk:Nedlum|talk]]) 13:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

What would even happen here? Would the rings collapse into planets again? Where will the atmospheres go? Are the rings a uniform material like rock or many small pebbles? What happens at the borders? Would i be squished or will all life still be intact? If i a squished, do i have to put up with my worst enemy next to me? Will it be like the flat skins from //All Tomorrows//? Will i die? I expect to see this in «What If 2» coming out 13th october. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.134.38|172.68.134.38]] 14:31, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Presumably for the gas giants to hold a disc shape, the gas would have to be encased in hollow discs made out of the solid cores. How thick would the walls be? What if we used thinner cavities to store the inner planets' atmospheres as well? And how much would the core material decompress as a result of not being a core? [[User:Promethean|Promethean]] ([[User talk:Promethean|talk]]) 18:18, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Talk:2510: Modern Tools

2021-09-02T11:18:21Z

162.158.158.146:

Note that this is the second time Randall tried to tell bash and zsh apart. (First time was in [[1678]].) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.88.83|162.158.88.83]] 05:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
:Great memory. Has added it to this first attempt at an explanation. Do not know enough about these files, environment etc. so I hope someone will improve. Rare I come here and there is nothing added to the explanation yet. Only your coment showed me I was not here first. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 06:48, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
You can generate makefiles today with a number of causal language models. I wonder what other approaches there are. [[User:Baffo32|Baffo32]] ([[User talk:Baffo32|talk]]) 10:02, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Is randall literally just making jokes for himself and nobody else at this point? Even if someone knows what this all means, I doubt it many of them find it funny. - [[Special:Contributions/172.70.130.125|172.70.130.125]] 10:09, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
: How does the joke land with you? I tell jokes like Randall's a lot to process how my life was destroyed by AI, and I found the comic as funny as I find my own jokes, but big and public. It seems nice that people are learning about and talking about these things. [[User:Baffo32|Baffo32]] ([[User talk:Baffo32|talk]]) 10:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
: @172.70.130.125: YMMV. I can say that I find it funny. Certainly amusing, and thought-provoking. And then after a few moments contemplating... *POW*. ...the idea of actually doing this also starts to appeal to me (as a pipe-dream, perhaps). But I am just a single datum-point, and you are another. Maybe neither of us are entirely representative of the usual audience.
: And, even if nobody found it funny, except Randall, he can post anything he wants (within ethical and legal bounds, etc), even if it's just AI-autogenerated rubbish. And then you can stop reading if your own fun-maximiser function decides it would be more beneficial to its goals. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.73|162.158.159.73]] 10:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Modern tools… require modern problem? [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 10:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

The best part is that pretty much this have actually happened in real world: https://thedailywtf.com/articles/No%2C_We_Need_a_Neural_Network. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.10.205|172.68.10.205]] 10:46, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I believe part of the humor is that creating a Python (development) environment from scratch can literally be typing two or three commands on a command line, or clicking on a few links for the mouse-dependent. Building and training an AI to repair one specific Python environment is overkill, like buying a car to get from one room to another of a building. One selling point of Python is how simple it is to set up and work in. [[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 10:54, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
:I usually install most optional dependencies that my package manager suggests. I bet I already have a Python IDE lying around somewhere without knowing it. Well, I have Intellij Idea, I bet that could be used for Python as well, with a plugin if needed. I definitely know that I once got a working Qt IDE at one point without intending to. [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 11:13, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

----
Non-comic note (that I'm not sure would help to add to prior Community Portal reports as it never seemed to get noticed when I did it before): I'm getting Cloudflare errors (fully blaming the site host) and even 'plain text' site error responses (503? ...may not be) a number of times while interacting with this page, today. Also had a "failed to contact CAPTCHA" on the first attempt to submit one edit, though that ''must'' be a different glitch so probably coincidental (my own link jittering wouldn't give me Cloudfare/server-responses as above) and Not Your Problem™. I don't know if others are getting this, but the last time I had such a flurry of momentary/refresh-overcomable errors was shortly before explainxkcd went ''completely'' off-air (month or two ago?) - perhaps no similarity, just saying. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.146|162.158.158.146]] 11:18, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Talk:2509: Useful Geometry Formulas

2021-08-31T13:24:31Z

162.158.158.146:

Area formulas are for 2D object as seen instead of surface of a projected 3D object. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.89.200|162.158.89.200]] 02:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

The "decorative stripes and dotted lines" are the parts of the diagrams that are intended to indicate the third dimension. The conceit of the comic is that these are superfluous. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 02:56, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Ca someone explain how the last one works? [[User:GcGYSF(asterisk)P(vertical line)e|GcGYSF(asterisk)P(vertical line)e]] ([[User talk:GcGYSF(asterisk)P(vertical line)e|talk]]) 04:28, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

: ''bh'' is the area of the front face. The top face is a parallelogram with sides ''d'' and ''b'', with an angle of ''θ'' between them, so its area is ''d b sin(θ)''. The right face is a parallelogram with sides ''d'' and ''h'', with an angle of ''90º - θ'' between them, so its area is ''h d sin(90º - θ) = h d cos(θ)''. So the area of the whole picture is ''bh + d b sin(θ) + d h cos(θ)''.
: --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.24.165|172.68.24.165]] 04:46, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

:: In case you don't know the area of a parallelogram by heart, you can read d b sin(θ) as b * d sin(θ), where d sin(θ) is the height of the parallelogram; if you cut the right corner of the parallelogram off and add it on the left, you get a rectangle where the bottom side is b and the height is that d sin(θ), so it works out. The other parallelogram's area is h * d cos(θ), with the same reasoning. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.241|162.158.90.241]] 05:00, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Funnily enough, both this comic and [[2506]] are about projection. [[User:CRLF|CRLF]] ([[User talk:CRLF|talk]]) 05:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

: I had considered working that into the explanation, but that needs to account for the fact that the indicated measurements (e.g. the angle θ) have to be read in 2D, not in 3D and projected. But it would be correct to say that the 2D shapes are projections of simple 3D objects. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.149|162.158.90.149]] 05:23, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

;Does the bottom-left formula have a mistake?</s>
It seems like the bottom-left formula should be ''A''=''d''(''πr''+''h'') rather than ''A''=''d''(''πr''/2+''h''), because there are two half-ellipses that add up to a complete ellipse. Am I missing something? (This doesn't ''seem'' like an extra joke, does it?) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.106.179|162.158.106.179]] 05:28, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
: No, it's correct. ''d'' is all of the major axis, not just half, so we have to divide that by ''2''. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.83|162.158.92.83]] 05:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
:: Oh, right; good call! [[Special:Contributions/162.158.106.179|162.158.106.179]] 06:49, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

;Does the top-right formula have a mistake?
I think it should be in brackets, the top triangle area needs the ''1/2'' also, so it should be: ''A''=''1/2(πab + bh)''
:No, it's correct. The bottom is a half ellipse, with area ''1/2 π a b'', and the top is a triangle with base ''2 b'' and height ''h'', so its area is ''1/2 2b h = bh''. The total area is ''1/2 π a b + b h''.
--[[Special:Contributions/172.68.25.144|172.68.25.144]] 06:49, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

;3D formulae for reference:
''4πr^2''

''πb(a+√(b^2+h^2))'' if a=b

''πr(2r+h)''

''2(bd+bh+dh)''

[[Special:Contributions/162.158.107.80|162.158.107.80]] 09:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
:It would be clarifying to add these to the comic, but of course they are flagrantly wrong. [[User:Baffo32|Baffo32]] ([[User talk:Baffo32|talk]]) 09:57, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
::Surely ripe for a table, in place of much of the longhand paragraph spiel (which could be kept, but simpler for just the narrative but otherwise non-technical details)... "Shape (2D)", "Area", "Pretended Shape (3D)", "Surface Area", "Volume", ¿"Notes"? (Not sure about specific Notes, some things could/should be said below the formulae/descriptions in the relevent cell to which that matters, in special cases where necessary, which might be better than a Notes either empty or jammed up with all the combined row-specific corollaries, etc, that I can imagine.) Anyway, an idea. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.76.11|141.101.76.11]] 11:56, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
:::I think the formulas are correct. Those given should be from the text book, not for those with ellipse bases. Someone has put a lot of work into giving these complicated formulas for the cone and cylinder. But I think that is overkill. I have added to the explanation the simple versions before, and would suggest deleting the complicated, which was never the intention of either text book or Randall! ;-)--[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 12:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

add an extra edited image that is the comic without dotted lines to make it easier to see the 2d shapes? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.71.177|172.69.71.177]] 12:46, 31 August 2021 (UTC)Bampf

Please do check my (additional) changes to the bottom-right item (hexagon-cum-prism) in both main and transcript texts. As hinted in my edit notes, cos-theta is important because the skewed tetrahedron (rhomboid, whether in plan or the true area of the 'fake' perspective) is not d*b in area. The fact that without the theta it would look like a standard oblique orthographic projection with entirely right-angled corners is perhaps part of the (intended?) confusion, although we can probably assume that all unmarked (and, of course, unconcongruent/uncomplimentary) angles are 90° so that it isn't a full on parallelepiped with an additional phi-angle on an adjacent face and a complicated third dependent-angle somewhere upon the remaining face-plane. As such, I put in the cosine element to both the 3d surface formula (it only affects the bd-shape, the both of them) and the 3d volume (from this shape, extrudes without further adjustment straight up the h-axis), but I ''always'' have to second guess if I've done this simple bit of trig right, it seems, even though I should know better and just trust to SOCAHTOA... ;) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.146|162.158.158.146]] 13:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC)