explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

3080: Tennis Balls

2025-04-24T15:12:54Z

162.158.158.7: /* Explanation */

{{comic/sandbox 
| number = 3080
| date = April 23, 2025
| title = Tennis Balls
| image = tennis_balls_2x.png
| imagesize = 411x574px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = After initial tests created a series of large holes in the wall of the lab, the higher-power Scanning Tunneling Tennis Ball Microscope project was quickly shut down.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a SCANNING WIKI BOT WITH NO BLACK HAT. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}

A {{w|scanning electron microscope}} produces images of a sample by scanning the surface with a focused beam of electrons, and interpreting the different signals that are generated in response. Since [[Megan]] and [[Cueball]] find electrons too small to work with, they have created a macroscopic version using tennis balls instead. The tennis ball launcher uses a similar mechanism to a scanning electron microscope: it fires tennis balls, instead of electrons, over a wide range of heights, and detects objects obstructing the stream (in this case a person) by the noises generated on impact. However, this would mostly be 'useful' in scanning things at a macroscopic level, so is not really a microscope. {{Computational microscopy}} can be used to increase the resolution of a sample beyond the size of the carrying medium by extensively analyzing details of interactions, and the tennis ball microscope could potentially be used to tune such algorithms at an observable scale -- the joke of striking a human being implies that Randal did not intend this more realistic use.

Megan and Cueball have detected a person using their device, by the fact that it generated two yells during the scan, presumably from impacting the person's face and, er, somewhere further down. They intend to repeat the experiment to determine the person's height, by working out the angle of the tennis balls that generate the yells. Combined with the velocity and time to impact, this should give them enough information to work out the height above ground at impact and the distance from the launcher. The joke is that this height measurement could probably have been completed with a visual assessment, and with far more accuracy than using tennis balls to approximate their height. Most humans do not see using a microscope.{{Citation needed}} This method is also likely to be problematic, as the person would likely duck or run away in response to being bombarded with tennis balls, affecting future measurements. This is known as the {{w|Observer effect (physics)|Observer Effect}}. (It may also be why the 'scanning' is done from the top down, as early low-hitting projectiles might reduce the height that later projectiles can detect.)

The title text is a reference to {{w|scanning tunneling microscope}}s, which take advantage of the {{w|quantum tunnelling}} effect. In this case, the tennis balls were actually tunneling through the wall, creating holes in the process, which is not what tunneling electrons would do.

==Trivia==

{{w|Electron_tomography#Atomic_Electron_Tomography_(AET)}} uses electrons to precisely identify and map the individual atoms of a sample and is leading to extensive novel materials research.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball fires eight tennis ball at decreasing heights using a tennis ball machine, making four "thunk" noises. Megan is standing behind him.]

:[Ten noises come from the right side of the panel.]
:Bonk
:Bonk
:Bonk
:Bonk
:Bonk
:OW!
:Bonk
:OW!
:Bonk
:Bonk
:[Megan has her hand to her chin.]
:Megan: Ok, there's definitely a person over there. Let's do one more pass to try to measure their height.

:[Caption below the panel:]
:Electrons are small and hard to work with, so some scientists have developed a scanning tennis ball microscope instead.

{{comic discussion}}

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

3080: Tennis Balls

2025-04-24T15:08:56Z

162.158.158.7: /* Explanation */

{{comic/sandbox 
| number = 3080
| date = April 23, 2025
| title = Tennis Balls
| image = tennis_balls_2x.png
| imagesize = 411x574px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = After initial tests created a series of large holes in the wall of the lab, the higher-power Scanning Tunneling Tennis Ball Microscope project was quickly shut down.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a SCANNING WIKI BOT WITH NO BLACK HAT. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}

A {{w|scanning electron microscope}} produces images of a sample by scanning the surface with a focused beam of electrons, and interpreting the different signals that are generated in response. Since [[Megan]] and [[Cueball]] find electrons too small to work with, they have created a macroscopic version using tennis balls instead. The tennis ball launcher uses a similar mechanism to a scanning electron microscope: it fires tennis balls, instead of electrons, over a wide range of heights, and detects objects obstructing the stream (in this case a person) by the noises generated on impact. However, this would only be 'useful' in scanning things at a macroscopic level, so is not really a microscope.

Megan and Cueball have detected a person using their device, by the fact that it generated two yells during the scan, presumably from impacting the person's face and, er, somewhere further down. They intend to repeat the experiment to determine the person's height, by working out the angle of the tennis balls that generate the yells. Combined with the velocity and time to impact, this should give them enough information to work out the height above ground at impact and the distance from the launcher. The joke is that this height measurement could probably have been completed with a visual assessment, and with far more accuracy than using tennis balls to approximate their height. Most humans do not see using a microscope.{{Citation needed}} This method is also likely to be problematic, as the person would likely duck or run away in response to being bombarded with tennis balls, affecting future measurements. This is known as the {{w|Observer effect (physics)|Observer Effect}}. (It may also be why the 'scanning' is done from the top down, as early low-hitting projectiles might reduce the height that later projectiles can detect.)

The title text is a reference to {{w|scanning tunneling microscope}}s, which take advantage of the {{w|quantum tunnelling}} effect. In this case, the tennis balls were actually tunneling through the wall, creating holes in the process, which is not what tunneling electrons would do.

==Trivia==

{{w|Electron_tomography#Atomic_Electron_Tomography_(AET)}} uses electrons to precisely identify and map the individual atoms of a sample and is leading to extensive novel materials research.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball fires eight tennis ball at decreasing heights using a tennis ball machine, making four "thunk" noises. Megan is standing behind him.]

:[Ten noises come from the right side of the panel.]
:Bonk
:Bonk
:Bonk
:Bonk
:Bonk
:OW!
:Bonk
:OW!
:Bonk
:Bonk
:[Megan has her hand to her chin.]
:Megan: Ok, there's definitely a person over there. Let's do one more pass to try to measure their height.

:[Caption below the panel:]
:Electrons are small and hard to work with, so some scientists have developed a scanning tennis ball microscope instead.

{{comic discussion}}

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

1313: Regex Golf

2021-04-30T07:06:52Z

162.158.158.7: Updated for new president

{{comic
| number = 1313
| date = January 6, 2014
| title = Regex Golf
| image = regex_golf.png
| titletext = <nowiki>/bu|[rn]t|[coy]e|[mtg]a|j|iso|n[hl]|[ae]d|lev|sh|[lnd]i|[po]o|ls/ matches the last names of elected US presidents but not their opponents.</nowiki>
}}

==Explanation==
The comic talks about {{w|regular expressions}}, which are a way to specify textual patterns. Given a regular expression, one can search for the pattern it specifies inside a text string. If the pattern is found, it's said that the pattern "matches" the string; if it's not found, it's said it doesn't match.

The title of the comic and the first panel is based on "[http://regex.alf.nu/ regex golf]", which is a discipline of "{{w|code golf}}", a game in which programmers attempt to solve a given programming problem using as few characters as possible, analogous to the number of {{w|golf}} shots it takes to reach the goal. In regex golfing, the programmer is given two sets of text fragments, and tries to write the shortest possible regular expression which would match all elements of one set, while at the same time not matching any element from the other set.

The regex golf challenge Megan faces consists of matching all subtitles of (then extant) ''{{w|Star Wars}}'' films, while not matching any subtitle of ''{{w|Star Trek}}'' movies. {{w|Subtitle (titling)|Subtitles}} are the secondary titles of the movies, after the ''"Star Trek: "'' or ''"Star Wars Episode N: "''. For example, in ''Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace'', the subtitle is ''The Phantom Menace''. In the first panel, she created a 12-character regex solving the challenge.

Then she moved on to building a tool which would automatically build such a regex for arbitrary lists of text, which could be described as {{w|meta}}- regex golfing. But as she has lost this tool, she needs to search through her files and chooses a tool called "{{w|grep}}" to find it. This implies that she needs a regular expression that would find any code that appears to be a regex golf generator, which leads to another "meta-" layer of abstraction. At the end, Megan notes this sequence of meta-meta-... might go to infinity and Cueball quips that she now has "infinite problems" as a result of her efforts; Megan retorts that she already had "infinite problems" because she's geeky enough to run meta-versions of programs on themselves, and stubborn enough to continue on until she fails, to the exclusion of all else. This also seems to be a reference to a famous quote (see also ''[[1171: Perl Problems]]''):

<blockquote>''Some people, when confronted with a problem, think "I know, I'll use regular expressions." Now they have two problems.''</blockquote>

===Regular expressions===
The first regex Megan uses is <code>/m | [tn]|b/</code>, said to match ''Star Wars'' subtitles but not ''Star Trek''.

The forward slashes <code>/</code> just mark the start and end of the regex. The <code>|</code> character means "or", so the regex matches any string that contains the patterns "<code>m </code>", "<code> [tn]</code>" or "<code>b</code>" (including the spaces). The square brackets match one of the enclosed characters, meaning that "<code> [tn]</code>" matches either "<code> t</code>" or "<code> n</code>". The regex is apparently case-insensitive, because it wouldn't work otherwise.

The Star Wars subtitles match the parts of the regex in the following way:
*"The Phantom Menace" is matched by "<code>m </code>".
*"Attack of the Clones" is matched by "<code> [tn]</code>".
*"Revenge of the Sith" is matched by "<code> [tn]</code>".
*"A New Hope" is matched by "<code> [tn]</code>".
*"The Empire Strikes Back" is matched by "<code>b</code>".
*"Return of the Jedi" is matched by "<code> [tn]</code>".

Note that if the animated film "Star Wars: The Clone Wars" were included, it would not be matched by "<code> [tn]</code>" because the T is the start of the subtitle and is not preceded by a space. None of the "Star Wars:" films titles announced since this comic ("The Force Awakens", "The Last Jedi", and "The Rise of Skywalker") match this regex.

On the other hand, none of the Star Trek subtitles contains an M followed by a space, a T or an N preceded by a space, or any B, so the regex does not match any of them. Note that in the original series all subtitles start with a "T" but it's the first character so it's not preceded by a space.

Here is the list that Megan probably used:
*Original series:
**The Motion Picture
**The Wrath of Khan
**The Search For Spock
**The Voyage Home
**The Final Frontier
**The Undiscovered Country
*The Next Generation:
**Generations
**First Contact
**Insurrection
**Nemesis
*Reboot series:
**Into Darkness

"Star Trek Beyond", which was released after this comic, would incorrectly match the regex since it is the first "Star Trek" title to contain a "b". However, since "Star Trek Into Darkness" and "Star Trek Beyond" both lack a colon in their titles, it is [[1167: Star Trek into Darkness|debatable]] whether they can truely be considered to have subtitles.

In the last panel "and beyond" Megan uses the regular expression <code>/(meta-)*regex golf/</code> to describe her problem. <code>*</code> means "zero or more" of the preceding character/group (parentheses <code>()</code> group characters). So this regex matches "regex golf", "meta-regex golf", "meta-meta-regex golf", etc. In a way this is regex golf in itself, matching all levels of meta-regex golf while not matching anything else.

In the title text, there is a long regex that is the solution of another regex golf challenge: matching the last names of all elected US presidents but not their opponents. Note that the list of opponents include some people who were previously or later became presidents, or whose last name matches that of another person who was president, so taken literally this is impossible. To make this work the list of opponents must exclude any names of presidents. The regular expression itself works in a very similar way to the Star Wars/Trek one, including several different patterns separated by <code>|</code>. Each elected president matches one pattern while each opponent matches none.

The regex does not match either of the presidents elected since the comic’s release ("Trump" and "Biden"), and thus would need to be updated. The regex does match Hillary Clinton's last name, but because a person with the same last name (Bill Clinton) was president, this does not count as a mistake. There was already a losing opponent called George Clinton who ran in 1792 and 1812.

Here is a list of elected president and the patterns they match:
{| class="wikitable"
!Number
!President
!Matched expression
|-
|1
|{{w|George Washington|George Washington}}
|<code>sh</code>
|-
|2
|{{w|John Adams|John Adams}}
|<code>[ae]d</code>
|-
|3
|{{w|Thomas Jefferson|Thomas Jefferson}}
|<code>j</code>
|-
|4
|{{w|James Madison|James Madison}}
|<code>[mtg]a</code>
|-
|5
|{{w|James Monroe|James Monroe}}
|<code>[coy]e</code>
|-
|6
|{{w|John Quincy Adams|John Quincy Adams}}
|<code>[ae]d</code>
|-
|7
|{{w|Andrew Jackson|Andrew Jackson}}
|<code>j</code>
|-
|8
|{{w|Martin Van Buren|Martin Van Buren}}
|<code>bu</code>
|-
|9
|{{w|William Henry Harrison|William Henry Harrison}}
|<code>iso</code>
|-
|11
|{{w|James K. Polk|James K. Polk}}
|<code>[po]o</code>
|-
|12
|{{w|Zachary Taylor|Zachary Taylor}}
|<code>[mtg]a</code>
|-
|14
|{{w|Franklin Pierce|Franklin Pierce}}
|<code>[coy]e</code>
|-
|15
|{{w|James Buchanan|James Buchanan}}
|<code>bu</code>
|-
|16
|{{w|Abraham Lincoln|Abraham Lincoln}}
|<code>[lnd]i</code>
|-
|17
|{{w|Andrew Johnson|Andrew Johnson}}
|<code>j</code>
|-
|18
|{{w|Ulysses S. Grant|Ulysses S. Grant}}
|<code>[rn]t</code>
|-
|19
|{{w|Rutherford B. Hayes|Rutherford B. Hayes}}
|<code>[coy]e</code>
|-
|20
|{{w|James A. Garfield|James A. Garfield}}
|<code>[mtg]a</code>
|-
|22
|{{w|Grover Cleveland|Grover Cleveland}}
|<code>lev</code>
|-
|23
|{{w|Benjamin Harrison|Benjamin Harrison}}
|<code>iso</code>
|-
|24
|{{w|Grover Cleveland|Grover Cleveland}}
|<code>lev</code>
|-
|25
|{{w|William McKinley|William McKinley}}
|<code>n[hl]</code>
|-
|26
|{{w|Theodore Roosevelt|Theodore Roosevelt}}
|<code>[po]o</code>
|-
|27
|{{w|William Howard Taft|William Howard Taft}}
|<code>[mtg]a</code>
|-
|28
|{{w|Woodrow Wilson|Woodrow Wilson}}
|<code>ls</code>
|-
|29
|{{w|Warren G. Harding|Warren G. Harding}}
|<code>[lnd]i</code>
|-
|30
|{{w|Calvin Coolidge|Calvin Coolidge}}
|<code>[lnd]i</code>
|-
|31
|{{w|Herbert Hoover|Herbert Hoover}}
|<code>[po]o</code>
|-
|32
|{{w|Franklin D. Roosevelt|Franklin D. Roosevelt}}
|<code>[po]o</code>
|-
|33
|{{w|Harry S. Truman|Harry S. Truman}}
|<code>[mtg]a</code>
|-
|34
|{{w|Dwight D. Eisenhower|Dwight D. Eisenhower}}
|<code>n[hl]</code>
|-
|35
|{{w|John F. Kennedy|John F. Kennedy}}
|<code>[ae]d</code>
|-
|36
|{{w|Lyndon B. Johnson|Lyndon B. Johnson}}
|<code>j</code>
|-
|37
|{{w|Richard Nixon|Richard Nixon}}
|<code>[lnd]i</code>
|-
|39
|{{w|Jimmy Carter|Jimmy Carter}}
|<code>[rn]t</code>
|-
|40
|{{w|Ronald Reagan|Ronald Reagan}}
|<code>[mtg]a</code>
|-
|41
|{{w|George H. W. Bush|George H. W. Bush}}
|<code>bu</code>
|-
|42
|{{w|Bill Clinton|Bill Clinton}}
|<code>[rn]t</code>
|-
|43
|{{w|George W. Bush|George W. Bush}}
|<code>bu</code>
|-
|44
|{{w|Barack Obama|Barack Obama}}
|<code>[mtg]a</code>
|}

Some presidents are missing because they weren't elected but became presidents after the resignation/death of their formers.

And here is a list of how many unique last names are matched by each expression:

{| class="wikitable"
!Expression
!Match count
|-
| bu
| 3
|-
| [rn]t
| 3
|-
| [coy]e
| 3
|-
| [mtg]a
| 7
|-
| j
| 3
|-
| iso
| 1
|-
| n[hl]
| 2
|-
| [ae]d
| 2
|-
| lev
| 1
|-
| sh
| 1
|-
| [lnd]i
| 4
|-
| [po]o
| 3
|-
| ls
| 1
|}

Randall's regular expression does ''not'' match presidential opponents Pinckney, King, Clay, Cass, Scott, Douglas, McClellan, Seymour, Greeley, Tilden, Hancock, Blaine, Bryan, Parker, Hughes, Cox, Davis, Smith, Landon, Willkie, Dewey, Stevenson, Goldwater, Humphrey, McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, Dole, Gore, Kerry, McCain, or Romney. However, it must be modified slightly, because it ''does'' match {{w|John C. Fremont|John C. Fremont}}, the runner-up to James Buchanan in 1856, as discussed by {{w|Peter Norvig}} at [http://nbviewer.ipython.org/url/norvig.com/ipython/xkcd1313.ipynb xkcd 1313: Regex Golf]. It also matches {{w|Aaron Burr|Aaron Burr}}, the runner-up to Thomas Jefferson in 1800. Note that Norvig provides a small amount of Python code which actually plays regex golf with arbitrary lists, and found a shorter solution than Randall's for the ''Star Wars'' vs ''Star Trek'' game (<code>/ t|p.*e/</code>).

==Transcript==
:[Caption at top of panel:]
:Regex golf:
:[Megan is sitting at a laptop. Cueball is standing behind her.]
:Megan: You try to match one group but not the other.
:Megan: /m | [tn]|b/ matches ''Star Wars'' subtitles but not ''Star Trek''.
:Cueball: Cool.

:[Caption at top of panel:]
:Meta-regex golf:
:[A close-up of Megan at her laptop.]
:Megan: So I wrote a program that plays regex golf with arbitrary lists...
:Cueball (offscreen): Uh oh...

:[Caption at top of panel:]
:Meta-meta-regex golf:
:[Megan typing at her laptop.]
:Megan: ...But I lost my code, so I'm grepping for files that look like regex golf solvers.
:[Cueball facepalming.]

:[Caption at top of panel:]
:...And beyond:
:[Another closeup of Megan at her laptop.]
:Megan: Really, this is all /(meta-)*regex golf/.
:Cueball: Now you have ''infinite'' problems.
:Megan: No, I had those already.

==Trivia==
*There are now at least four comics that reference regular expressions. The other three are: [[208: Regular Expressions]], [[224: Lisp]], and [[1171: Perl Problems]].
*Additionally, regular expressions are mentioned in the title text of [[1277: Ayn Random]].
*A regular expression is used in the [http://what-if.xkcd.com/75/ 75th] post of [[what if?]] to calculate the answer to that week's question.
*Also, Randall mentions [http://regex.alf.nu/ a website with a regexp golf game] he got distracted by while researching for the [http://what-if.xkcd.com/78/ 78th] post of [[what if?]] (which was published one day after this comic).

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Regex]]
[[Category:Star Trek]]

857: Archimedes

2021-04-25T12:07:21Z

162.158.158.7:

{{comic
| number = 857
| date = February 7, 2011
| title = Archimedes
| image = archimedes.png
| titletext = Give a man a fish, or he will destroy the only existing vial of antidote.
}}

==Explanation==
This comic references a famous quote made by {{w|Archimedes}}: [http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Archimedes δῶς μοι πᾶ στῶ καὶ τὰν γᾶν κινάσω], which could translate as "Give me a long enough lever and a place to rest it, and I will move the Earth". Archimedes was illustrating the power of {{w|force multiplication}} by stating that, in theory, even a mass as immense as the entire planet Earth could be moved by a single human being using a simple {{w|lever}}.

While Archimedes is theoretically correct, in practice the lever would need to be millions of light years long, and the person operating it would need to push it by several light years to move the Earth even a microscopic amount. In fact, a much simpler way to move the Earth, which achieves similar distances, is to jump in the air - by Newton's third law, the same amount of force that is applied to you will also be applied to the Earth.

Here, [[Cueball]] begins as if he is quoting Archimedes, but then produces a gun and threatens to execute hostages if he does not receive the lever, indicating that he is, for some reason, actually trying to enact Archimedes' thought experiment for real.

The title text references another famous proverb, "Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime." The quote starts out the same, but again ends with a sentence that is more fitting for an action movie.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball is standing normally.]
:Cueball: In the words of Archimedes,

:[Cueball extends his left arm slightly.]
:Cueball: Give me a long enough lever and a place to rest it

:[Cueball is now holding a gun in his right hand.]
:Cueball: Or I will kill one hostage every hour.

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

Talk:2387: Blair Witch

2020-11-19T17:38:33Z

162.158.158.7:

The whole Blair Witch legend didn't exist before the movie. This doesn't seem too evident from the explanation, which is written as though there was a historical basis for it.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.245|172.69.33.245]] 03:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

https://www.google.com/search?q=single+sex+lizard+species&oq=single+sex+lizard+species

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Mexico_whiptail
Not the result that I can't remember right now, a tropical location? Has (moving to had) an all female lizard species.
SDT [[Special:Contributions/162.158.75.46|162.158.75.46]] 03:28, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Have you considered the possibility that the Blair Witch, if female, could be bred with human males? They may not need Blair Witch males to reproduce. I seem to remember that some parthenogenic lizards need to have sex with a male of a different species to reproduce. The male sperm does not contribute to the genome of the offspring but is required to trigger necessary hormonal, etc. changes. I could not find a reference to this. (~Unsigned?~)
:It's a bit sparse, but mentioned in here anyway: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tremblay%27s_salamander (meanwhile, I was going to mention either the 'Jurassic Park' thing or the Komodo Dragon as an example (but WZ-parthonegenisis of isolated females would produce just male offspring). Maybe they have sequential hermaphrodism, probably protogynous given what we might consider the active population's active gender-bias. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.229.86|108.162.229.86]] 06:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Why is the pointer called a baton? If it's not called a pointer, why not call it a wand?[[User:J Milstein|J Milstein]] ([[User talk:J Milstein|talk]]) 04:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
:I've never seen anyone call it a "baton" before this analysis. Maybe it's a foreign thing? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.65.214|172.68.65.214]] 09:45, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
::I would associate "baton" primarily with music conductors (but also relay races) where English has adopted the French/similar word for "stick". Meanwhile "pointer" ''might'' be right, but in my head relates more to a mouse-cursor these days, if there's a projected image. "Stick" itself seems to fit (there's much symmantic overlap, given it's just a different linguistic root of the same broad concept) but with not enough context could easily be a twig, thumb-drive, etc, so not entirely sure if it's the ideal replacement. English is complex like that, and I don't think there's a simple name that's universally better than any other. An imperfect search on an online store under office items gives "telescopic pointing stick" or (rarer) "...rod", from which we ''might'' drop the telescopic aspect given that's not an obvious/relevent detail above. But it was interesting to ponder... [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.7|162.158.158.7]] 17:38, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Talk:1944: The End of the Rainbow

2020-11-11T23:11:01Z

162.158.158.7: Response to 198.41.238.70's comment about the inside out cone

Hey, an early comic that I understand! Typed up a transcript (though the description of the first panel was already there, and the empty explanation already had the Incomplete Explanation set as "Created by a LEPRECHAUN"), but using an iPad and typing in Notes to avoid editing conflicts, so I can't see the comic while I'm typing. So the inherent magic of the Telephone Game comes into play, where the mind likes to summarize and put into different words, LOL! I think I managed to get it completely accurate, though. I'll see if I can come up with an explanation shortly. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 07:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

If you think about leprechauns while thinking about pots of gold then there will indeed be leprechauns at both ends.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.166.125|162.158.166.125]] 08:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

There is a *huge* difference between 10^-7 and 10^7... just fyi[[Special:Contributions/162.158.2.82|162.158.2.82]] 08:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
:This is one of those cases where the phrase "Orders Of Magnitude" comes in, LOL! Kind of glad someone else beat me to providing an explanation now, not my goof. LOL! [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 08:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that the part about solar gold volume is correct. The density used only applies to gold in solid state in room temperature, and the Sun is neither. In a way, gold indise Sun has the volume of the Sun itself. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.168|162.158.90.168]] 10:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
: Yes I realized that a few minutes after posting my original edit, and added a parenthesis to explain that I used the volume that much gold would have on Earth-like conditions. Not that the fact has any concrete application anyway, but I thought it would show that the claim that there is more gold in the Sun than water on Earth can't simply be pictured as an ocean volume of gold. Maybe there's a sea somewhere that's about the right volume and you could say "taking all the gold from the Sun would fill <that particular sea>" [[Special:Contributions/141.101.88.16|141.101.88.16]] 11:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

:There may be more gold in the sun than water in the oceans but the oceans have a higher concentration of gold than the sun does. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.62.136|172.69.62.136]] 11:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Leprechauns live on the night side of the Sun to avoid being incinerated, that's why we can't see them from this side.
Zetfr 12:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
:The night side... Of the sun... Is there a cartoon about this? I feel like there needs to be a cartoon about this. Just one observation: On the night side of the sun, there's no moon? Or if there is, what's lighting it up? ;D This is even better than the "dark" side of the Moon. [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 15:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
::Reminds me of this [https://www.reddit.com/r/vexillology/comments/7awoek/nepal_space_exploration_flag/dpdetpi/ Reddit conversation] [[Special:Contributions/162.158.167.138|162.158.167.138]] 09:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
:::That ''is'' amusing. On that flag, I'm more concerned with why there's a massive explosion depicted on the moon at the top of the flag: It can't be the sun, because the sun goes behind the moon, not the other way around, therefore that starburst must represent a catastrophic explosion of some kind. It's like a space exploration flag made for people with no understanding of astronomy. [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 19:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

"far more than a [...] leprechaun's pot of gold" - I'm pretty sure a leprechaun's pot of gold is self-refilling, and therefore infinite.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.111.204|162.158.111.204]] 13:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
:Oh no, the pot is just a container they had handy; The pot of gold is the measure of their ransom. ... No idea why I feel so sure of that. I don't think I want to re-read all the lore I studied as a kid to find the source... [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 15:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

did anyone else notice that the cone from the clouds to your eye isn't actually a cone, since it's slightly truncated at the point, otherwise we'd see an ideal point (i.e. not see it.) just me, then. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.88.170|162.158.88.170]] 13:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
:Wellllllll the cone comes to a point inside your eyeball, assuming you have perfect far vision, and then redisperses to project the image onto your retina upside-down and backwards. But we're really starting to split the hairs of 'what is a rainbow' here, as the rainbow is visible from a wide variety of vantage points, and the paths of light (and positions at which the light bounces off the cloud particles) are all different, some minutely, some vastly. Our eye is not a pinhole camera, and different views of the rainbow will enter it and hit the retina at slightly different spots. But the rainbow isn't this set of particular projections. It seems more arguable that the rainbow is either the rough set of cloud vapor that happens to reflect the light from the areas the rainbow is visible combined with this light reflected (a partial, fuzzy circle, and a partial, fuzzy cone) ... or simply the phenomenon of the water and light forming this image to us. Where is the rainbow???? If you move closer, it will move too! It's over there if and only if you are over here. It's certainly in that direction ... right? Or is it just in your brain? Maybe the rainbow is in your eyes for perceiving scattered light at all. Rainbows kind of violate the consensus we've come to in language about referring to objects. Perhaps they show that our language is insufficient to describe all of our experiences accurately. It looks pretty in the sky over there. That's a rainbow! It looking pretty in the sky with a curved band of color. Like a blur. Where is the blur? Okay; now I agree with Randall; the rainbow exists on your retina, and in the projected image you see, which forms a cone shape. But somebody else can see the same rainbow, and their cone is different! So clearly that's insufficient. It's like having the idea of a shared projected image. Like a reflection. Where is the reflection? There we go. Perhaps if the reflection is in the mirror, the rainbow is in the clouds.[[User:Baffo32|Baffo32]] ([[User talk:Baffo32|talk]]) 18:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
::Two monks were watching a flag flapping in the wind. One said to the other, “The flag is moving.”
::The other replied, “The wind is moving.”
::Huineng overheard this. He said, “Not the flag, not the wind; mind is moving.” --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.88.170|162.158.88.170]] 13:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the logic of the title text is: gold is at the other end of the rainbow is there, because in that moment the person (his/her brain) is thinking about the gold. To put in a dumber way: when you think about gold, then gold is in your brain, ergo if your brain is one end of the rainbow, and you're wondering if there's gold at the end of the rainbow, then in a self-fulfilling way, it is. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.238.82|162.158.238.82]] 13:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC) .tnm

:I don't think the current title-text explanation makes any sense: The title-text portion of the comic doesn't seem to reference leprechauns at all. Was the comic edited after being posted? [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 15:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

:I fixed the title text explanation. Also does this comic imply that if someone thinks about carnivorous giant neon zombie tomatoes while looking at a rainbow, then they exist at one end? ;) [[User:PotatoGod|PotatoGod]] ([[User talk:PotatoGod|talk]]) 15:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the numbers are completly wrong, 0.3 parts per trillion probably comes from [https://www.quora.com/Is-there-any-gold-in-the-sun-If-so-how-much-gold-could-be-contained-in-it here] (because the same article was used as a reference at some point in the history of the explanation), but I think this is the ratio of atoms, not mass. The answer on quora uses the same value of 0.3 parts per trillion but instead of 6*10^17 kg of gold, deduces from that number that there is 10^20 kg of golds. One atom of gold is ~195 times as heavy as one atom of hydrogen, and since the Sun is mostly hydrogen and also some heavier elements, the mass of gold over the average mass of atoms in the Sun should be a little below 195. The ratio between 10^20 and 6*10^17 is 167.
There's still a ratio of 20 between that value (10^20 kg) of the mass of gold on the sun and the one [https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(abundance+gold+sun)+*+(mass+sun) from wolframalpha], and I'm quite expecting Randall to have used the latter, which is of 2 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_large_numbers quintillion] tons of gold on the Sun, IE "quintillions of tons" as expressed by Megan. Maybe that value is wrong, but I think it should be mentionned to show that Randall probably didn't just make up a number. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.88.16|141.101.88.16]] 17:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
:I've attempted to get to the bottom of this - Wikipedia gives limited sources. A search for [[https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(abundance+gold+sun)|(abundance+gold+sun) on WolframAlpha]] gives 10^-7% by mass, but again, their references don't seem to support that (at least from a brief scan). Quora cites [[http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1968PASAu...1..133A&data_type=PDF_HIGH&filetype=.pdf&type=PRINTER&whole_paper=YES|a 1968 paper] but I can't read that very well - I've attempted to analyse their data but I'm afraid I've been unable to determine how Quora reached their ".3 parts per trillion" from that paper. (I might drag out some textbooks and try again later.) In any case these two numbers are in wild disagreement, even if we assume Quora meant atomic ratios and multiply their number by 197 (atomic mass of gold; gold only has one stable isotope).
:As mentioned, WolframAlpha's number gives 2.0x10^21 kg, or 2 quintillion tonnes, whereas Quora's gives 6.0x10^17 kg, or 0.0006 quintillion tonnes (0.12 quintillion tonnes if we mutiply by 197).
:Of course, none of these results are small! I'd be happy with a pot of gold of even half a quadrillion tonnes. [[User:Cosmogoblin|Cosmogoblin]] ([[User talk:Cosmogoblin|talk]]) 20:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

How can 'more than' be off by a factor of anything, given that it's non-specific? It could be 'fractionally more than' or 'a thousand times more than'.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.111.204|162.158.111.204]] 18:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
:In this case, because the true amount is LESS than, not more than. (The author of that part of the explanation assumed the minimum amount that could be called "quintillions" is 2 quintillion, and the calculated true amount is 4000 times smaller.) [[User:Cosmogoblin|Cosmogoblin]] ([[User talk:Cosmogoblin|talk]]) 20:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I've got a different quibble about sizes here. Despite the fact that the sun is so far away from the earth that it appears as a relatively small disk in the sky, the sun is thousands of times LARGER than our planet. As such, the longer cone in Megan's explanation is such a gross oversimplification of the way light from the sun works as to be wildly inaccurate. If anything, this cone should be reversed (larger at the sun's end) to illustrate the portion of the sun's light energy that actually hits the whole planet, let alone just the area that any person is looking at when they see a rainbow. (Granted, the angle of the cone would be extremely shallow due to the distances involved, but it would still be larger-to-smaller, not smaller-to-larger as explained here.) The cone as she describes it only makes sense if we're talking about a very small portion of the sun's surface emitting that light. It's unclear to me if this was meant to be a flawed, oversimplified or metaphorical explanation (in which case it's not very clear), or if Randall was actually attempting to explain how this works, but this particular comic feels pretty far "off" to me in that respect, compared to similar comics he's done in the past. [[User:KieferSkunk|KieferSkunk]] ([[User talk:KieferSkunk|talk]]) 02:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
:That occurred to me as well. The cone is just from a single point (in the comic's diagram, the centre of the apparent disc of the sun).
:A ray diagram would show that each ray traces a single path, which means it does in fact come from a single point on the sun. For a given colour, therefore, this is correct; the various paths for the rainbow's ring of colour would indeed trace out a cone, from a single point. Other colours would trace out a different cone, but the difference would be the arrival point (on your retina), not the departure point (on the sun).
:My explanation is slightly lacking, in that (a) I haven't considered the variable distances to each individual raindrop, and (b) a verbal description is nothing compared to a diagram. I may try to draw one later, if I have time. [[User:Cosmogoblin|Cosmogoblin]] ([[User talk:Cosmogoblin|talk]]) 18:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
::The color a cell on your retina sees is not from a single ray. It's from multiple rays that have passed through the area of your pupil, from the area of the sun disc, through the areas on the surfaces of the water molecules that produce the correct angles for each combination of points in your pupil and on the sun given the index of refraction for the water. That's why rainbows look so blurry! [[User:Baffo32|Baffo32]] ([[User talk:Baffo32|talk]]) 20:39, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
: I think the reality is that it isn't a two-ended cone, it's just... a cone. Wide end at the sun, point on your retina, rainbow is where the cone is bent back, bounced in your direction. Megan's explanation is probably just a simplification due to it being difficult to think of the sun as anything but a point. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 00:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
:: Given the sun's great distance from the Earth and the Earth's minuscule size in proportion, it is safe to assume that all light rays from the Sun are parallel. This is an assumption made in countless contexts and is close enough to reality for all practical purposes. As such, you've got parallel rays from the sun that get refracted by the rain drops, causing some wavelengths to focus on your retina, forming a cone (with the point at the focal point of your eye's lens). So the shape we're probably really talking about is a cone from your eye (apex) to the apparent position of the rainbow and a cylinder from there to a similar-sized circle on the sun's photosphere. At least it seems plausible to me. [[User:Shamino|Shamino]] ([[User talk:Shamino|talk]]) 21:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Extra credit to Baffo32 for "the value of gold would plummet astronomically". :o) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.111.204|162.158.111.204]] 23:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The accuracy of Megan's statement is being discussed in https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/24590/how-much-gold-is-there-in-our-sun and their conclusions are contradicting the one published here. I haven't still checked but I think somebody should.--[[User:Pere prlpz|Pere prlpz]] ([[User talk:Pere prlpz|talk]]) 11:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Relating to the trivia section, couldn't you hold the gold and increase the supply at roughly the growth rate of the economy, which would keep the value consistent? (I mean, technically you couldn't store that much gold, but since we're considering selling it I think we can assume you have a Bag of Holding or something and can store it.) I don't know if I'm misunderstanding economics with this idea though. Also, I don't know how long it would take to sell everything with that strategy, but I imagine you could get your future generations into the scheme, and they could profit too. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.230.172|198.41.230.172]] 12:04, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I wonder if the light which refracts in the raindrops to create the image of the rainbow actually come from ONE POINT on the surface of the sun, or come from a 'circle' on the surface of the sun with a radius the size of the apparent rainbow. (The sun is, after all, SEVERAL TIMES the size of the earth.) I remember in physics classes we always treated 'rays of sun' to be parallel to each other, but that may have just been due to the angle between them being so very small. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.29|162.158.79.29]] 17:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

The author giving 0.3ppt of gold has misinterpreted the referenced paper. The values in the paper are NOT ppt! The concentration (mass fraction) is calculated as 197 * 10^(0.32 - 12). The value of 0.32 is from the table in the paper, and the value of 197 is the atomic mass ratio of Au to H. This gives a mass concentration of 0.4ppb (0.4 x 10^-9). I have not changed the explanation of the comic because it would require a complete rewrite. Note that other sources give different values for Au. For example, [[http://www.physics.mcgill.ca/~patscott/publications/ApSS_328_179.pdf]] gives a value of 0.92 in the Sun's photosphere, which, if assumed to hold for the entire sun, gives a mass fraction of 1.64ppb! [[User:Sigma9|Sigma9]] ([[User talk:Sigma9|talk]]) 01:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Megan says in panel 3: “One end of that cone is your retina”. Another cool thing about this comic is that the neural cells tiling your retina, transducing photon energy into neurochemical signals and thus beginning the pathway through which visual information is transmitted to the rest of your brain, are your “cone” [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoreceptor_cell photoreceptors]. So - at the end of all those “inside-out two-ended” optical cones, arising from each point emitter in the sun, are a set of neural cones essential for discerning the rainbow’s poem-inspiring colours. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unweaving_the_Rainbow Unweave the rainbow], indeed! ☺ - Andrew [[Special:Contributions/162.158.2.58|162.158.2.58]] 03:41, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

; "Inside out"?

No-one's worked out what an "inside out" cone is then? [[Special:Contributions/198.41.238.70|198.41.238.70]] 07:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
: The "inside out" cone is a reference to the second cone, between the circular reflection of the light and the point it is received in the eye. This cone is "inside out" because the surface which is usually on the interior of a hollow cone is on the outside of the completed shape. A hollow cone would typically be closed off by a circle where the rainbow appears, but because the shape is formed by the path of light from the sun, the shape is instead closed by another cone outside of the one in question - because the closing cone encompasses what is usually considered the outside of the cone in question it becomes the inside, and vice versa, making the cone "inside out"
:--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.7|162.158.158.7]] 23:11, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Talk:2383: Electoral Precedent 2020

2020-11-11T00:58:48Z

162.158.158.7: /* Is there some joke to trump being impeached? */

Can anyone identify the faded background text in the 2016 panel?

Is there some shadow text behind the main text in the 2016 square? I can barely make it out.
It looks like "No nominee whose first name contains a "k" has lost", which would be the same from the 1122 comic.
[[User:ChunyangD|ChunyangD]] ([[User talk:ChunyangD|talk]]) 00:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

It's the alternative text from the 2016 one: "No nominee whose first name contains a "K" has lost." [[Special:Contributions/172.69.235.143|172.69.235.143]] 00:58, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm quite sure that Obama did in fact have a campaign website in 2008 when he was a challenger. See http://www.4president.us/websites/2008/barackobama2008website.htm [[User:Bobjr|Bobjr]] ([[User talk:Bobjr|talk]]) 01:15, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
:I think "challenger" means that they're going against the incumbent. Obama was up against McCain, who wasn't an incumbent. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 01:31, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

How much do we want the explanation for this one to repeat what is in that of 1122?--[[User:Troy0|Troy0]] ([[User talk:Troy0|talk]]) 01:19, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
:We shouldn't. If the explanation of 1122 is missing something it should be added there. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 08:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Didn't Clinton win after being impeached? [[User:Alcatraz ii|Alcatraz ii]] ([[User talk:Alcatraz ii|talk]]) 01:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
:Yes, he was impeached during his first term. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 01:31, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
:: No, this is not true, Clinton was impeached during his 2nd term, in 1998, and he was not eligible for a 3rd term. George W. Bush won the following presidential election in 2000. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.42|172.69.34.42]] 01:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

You could also say Joe was the first President with a rescue dog [[User:Squire80513|Squire80513]] ([[User talk:Squire80513|talk]]) 01:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)Squire80513
:Does not Lyndon B Johnson's dog, Yuki, count? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.128|162.158.159.128]] 02:30, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
::LBJ's Yuki was a "rescue" (found wandering aimlessly around a gas station) but not a "shelter" dog. Joe's dog is the first first canine from a shelter. It's subtle distinction that many repeating the statistic miss [[User:MAP|MAP]] ([[User talk:MAP|talk]]) 03:08, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Point of order, why is Biden being referred to as president elect? I was under the impression that the term shouldn't be used until the dispute is resolved. With several pending legal cases and the votes uncertified by the states. -172.69.170.142 3:45 11/10/20 {{template:unsigned IP|172.69.170.142|03:45, 10 November 2020}}
: All major media sources have called the race for Biden as of Saturday, November 8th. XKCD, and this wiki, will follow the lead of the Associated Press or New York Times, both of whom say the race has concluded and Joe Biden is the president elect. -162.158.62.93 4:38 11/10/20 {{template:unsigned IP|162.158.62.93|04:38, 10 November 2020}}
:: Except for one of the most trusted- RealClearPolitics.com still has Pennsylvania up for grabs due to lawsuits and is about to move Michigan back into play after a poll worker claimed that a delivery of Biden-only votes came into a Detroit counting room at 3:30 am on November 4.[[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 14:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
::: Your assertion of trust without reason comes across as fake news; however, I checked the web.archive.org history for realclearpolitics.com, and it has over a decade of history. I also visited the site and at a cursor glance it might have rational articles from both political sides, which seems commendable. If it is actually trustworthy, why didn't you explain that it is and why it is, given the current news environment? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.77|162.158.62.77]] 14:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
:::: My bad, I had assumed that the trio of sites covering the electoral college, 270toWin, RealClearPolitics, and 538 were all well known and respected sites by now, after having played a big role in the last 4 elections. [[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 15:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
:: Not only that, but A) while "the votes uncertified by the states" may influence the exact total, they can't make Trump win, B) a Trump victory would require that ALL legal cases are resolved in Trump's favor (depending on uncertified votes) and C) the Republican party asked to Trump to concede victory, meaning that nobody with political experience believes those legal cases have a chance of success. The only unknown point is the result of the EC election, but it is naturally assumed they will vote for the elected candidate.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.55.104|172.69.55.104]] 08:29, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
: "Presumptive president elect" would be more accurate (and I say this as someone that voted for Biden). --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.72|108.162.219.72]] 10:06, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand how the statement for 1876 could have been true: if J.Q. Adams won in 1824 without a popular majority, then his opponent won the majority and still lost, so Tilden couldn't have been the first in 1876 to win the majority and lose?[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.38|141.101.98.38]] 08:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
: Simple: there were more than two candidates. In 1824, there were four candidates who each got over 10% of the vote. That's how Adams could win without the majority, without one of his opponents then having the majority. (In fact, Jackson had the plurality of the votes, but not the majority, but Adams was elected by the House.) --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.74|141.101.98.74]] 11:30, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
::Thanks![[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.96|162.158.159.96]] 16:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
:::More details: {{w|1824 United States presidential election}}. Jackson only got about 41% of the popular vote (in states that had one -- not all did back then), and 99 out of 261 electoral votes (~38%). Nobody got enough votes in enough states for an electoral majority, so the election went to Congress. --[[User:Aaron of Mpls|Aaron of Mpls]] ([[User talk:Aaron of Mpls|talk]]) 00:41, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Bad with formatting here, but I updated the bit about precedent to include that Trump's raw vote total (approx 71.5 million, also not yet certified) is ''also'' breaking the precedent set by Obama in 2008. Love them or hate them, in this high-turnout election, both major party candidates had record numbers for their raw vote totals. Trump doesn't make it to first place above Obama because Biden makes it to first place above Trump. I didn't look into whether the percentage of eligible population numbers are different, but higher turnout combined with higher population makes breaking that barrier a little easier.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.5|108.162.238.5]] 13:02, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
:Especially since poll workers were caught on camera in Wisconsin putting Trump Votes upside-down into the scanner, but scanning Biden votes correctly.[[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 14:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
::How was this discovered? How can we hunt down more occurrences? Did the machine reject the ballots and the people fix the error? (and what are the ramifications of a camera recording vote ballots?) There is no reason to not suspect the opposite happens too: that anybody's votes could be put in upside down. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.77|162.158.62.77]] 14:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
:::It's part of the lawsuit based on a complaint from an observer. But there is an easy way to track down and correct this problem on both sides- hold a recount.[[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 15:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
::::I have not found a reference to any current Wisconsin lawsuit. Seems like you should either document the claims or delete them.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.174.126|172.68.174.126]] 23:13, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, the outcome's still not 100%, so, if, by some stroke of (bad?) luck, Trump becomes president again, then the precedents might change.- another user

Is it just me, or is Randall using this comic as an excuse to throw some shade on Trump? The two squares about Trump are "he has no military experience or political experience" and "he got impeached and then lost." He could've picked more neutral things (his age perhaps, or his appearance on WWE or something) so these choices seem pretty deliberate and, pointed, shall we say? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.63.183|172.69.63.183]] 00:13, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
:It's still in keeping with the other 'serious' precedents in prior elections, like not winning without a specific state, or having/not having certain experience. --[[User:Aaron of Mpls|Aaron of Mpls]] ([[User talk:Aaron of Mpls|talk]]) 00:41, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

== Table ==

If you really feel the need to explain every item in a table then please do so in comic 1122 as this is the original. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 18:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I removed the redundant options, sorry - user who made table (...Unsigned)
: When I changed the word from "Redundant" (I know what you meant, just that's not quite right) I was hoping to #anchor the link to the prior comic exactly upon the new(?) section someone set up with the previously-relevent lines of table. But it turns out there's only two href="#..."s on that page, and no section titles are given that honour (unlike, say, wikipedia's Table Of Contents entries) I don't want to try to mess with the expkcd wiki at that level of things, but I think it'd be slightly more useful to set that up than it would cost in effort (i.e. a slightly larger version of 'barely'). That's my suggestion, anyway. Just putting it out there. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.216|141.101.98.216]] 23:52, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

== Is there some joke to trump being impeached? ==

I thought he was acquitted, I checked wikipedia and they say he was acquitted. I'm not American if this is some in joke in America you guys may need to explain it.
Thank you :)
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.87|108.162.250.87]] 00:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
:He was impeached, which is an equivalent to being indicted (i.e. being formally charged with a crime, but in a way necessary to deal with statutory protections and obligations of elected officials), but at the next stage was (almost inevitably) acquitted. Because politics. (For some the impeachment was politics, for some the acquittal was politics. There'll be overlap, but also a very partisan split between those that definitely consider just the one of them to be politics, but not the same one.) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.7|162.158.158.7]] 00:57, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Talk:2383: Electoral Precedent 2020

2020-11-11T00:57:32Z

162.158.158.7: /* Is there some joke to trump being impeached? */

Can anyone identify the faded background text in the 2016 panel?

Is there some shadow text behind the main text in the 2016 square? I can barely make it out.
It looks like "No nominee whose first name contains a "k" has lost", which would be the same from the 1122 comic.
[[User:ChunyangD|ChunyangD]] ([[User talk:ChunyangD|talk]]) 00:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

It's the alternative text from the 2016 one: "No nominee whose first name contains a "K" has lost." [[Special:Contributions/172.69.235.143|172.69.235.143]] 00:58, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm quite sure that Obama did in fact have a campaign website in 2008 when he was a challenger. See http://www.4president.us/websites/2008/barackobama2008website.htm [[User:Bobjr|Bobjr]] ([[User talk:Bobjr|talk]]) 01:15, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
:I think "challenger" means that they're going against the incumbent. Obama was up against McCain, who wasn't an incumbent. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 01:31, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

How much do we want the explanation for this one to repeat what is in that of 1122?--[[User:Troy0|Troy0]] ([[User talk:Troy0|talk]]) 01:19, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
:We shouldn't. If the explanation of 1122 is missing something it should be added there. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 08:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Didn't Clinton win after being impeached? [[User:Alcatraz ii|Alcatraz ii]] ([[User talk:Alcatraz ii|talk]]) 01:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
:Yes, he was impeached during his first term. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 01:31, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
:: No, this is not true, Clinton was impeached during his 2nd term, in 1998, and he was not eligible for a 3rd term. George W. Bush won the following presidential election in 2000. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.42|172.69.34.42]] 01:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

You could also say Joe was the first President with a rescue dog [[User:Squire80513|Squire80513]] ([[User talk:Squire80513|talk]]) 01:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)Squire80513
:Does not Lyndon B Johnson's dog, Yuki, count? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.128|162.158.159.128]] 02:30, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
::LBJ's Yuki was a "rescue" (found wandering aimlessly around a gas station) but not a "shelter" dog. Joe's dog is the first first canine from a shelter. It's subtle distinction that many repeating the statistic miss [[User:MAP|MAP]] ([[User talk:MAP|talk]]) 03:08, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Point of order, why is Biden being referred to as president elect? I was under the impression that the term shouldn't be used until the dispute is resolved. With several pending legal cases and the votes uncertified by the states. -172.69.170.142 3:45 11/10/20 {{template:unsigned IP|172.69.170.142|03:45, 10 November 2020}}
: All major media sources have called the race for Biden as of Saturday, November 8th. XKCD, and this wiki, will follow the lead of the Associated Press or New York Times, both of whom say the race has concluded and Joe Biden is the president elect. -162.158.62.93 4:38 11/10/20 {{template:unsigned IP|162.158.62.93|04:38, 10 November 2020}}
:: Except for one of the most trusted- RealClearPolitics.com still has Pennsylvania up for grabs due to lawsuits and is about to move Michigan back into play after a poll worker claimed that a delivery of Biden-only votes came into a Detroit counting room at 3:30 am on November 4.[[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 14:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
::: Your assertion of trust without reason comes across as fake news; however, I checked the web.archive.org history for realclearpolitics.com, and it has over a decade of history. I also visited the site and at a cursor glance it might have rational articles from both political sides, which seems commendable. If it is actually trustworthy, why didn't you explain that it is and why it is, given the current news environment? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.77|162.158.62.77]] 14:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
:::: My bad, I had assumed that the trio of sites covering the electoral college, 270toWin, RealClearPolitics, and 538 were all well known and respected sites by now, after having played a big role in the last 4 elections. [[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 15:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
:: Not only that, but A) while "the votes uncertified by the states" may influence the exact total, they can't make Trump win, B) a Trump victory would require that ALL legal cases are resolved in Trump's favor (depending on uncertified votes) and C) the Republican party asked to Trump to concede victory, meaning that nobody with political experience believes those legal cases have a chance of success. The only unknown point is the result of the EC election, but it is naturally assumed they will vote for the elected candidate.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.55.104|172.69.55.104]] 08:29, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
: "Presumptive president elect" would be more accurate (and I say this as someone that voted for Biden). --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.72|108.162.219.72]] 10:06, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand how the statement for 1876 could have been true: if J.Q. Adams won in 1824 without a popular majority, then his opponent won the majority and still lost, so Tilden couldn't have been the first in 1876 to win the majority and lose?[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.38|141.101.98.38]] 08:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
: Simple: there were more than two candidates. In 1824, there were four candidates who each got over 10% of the vote. That's how Adams could win without the majority, without one of his opponents then having the majority. (In fact, Jackson had the plurality of the votes, but not the majority, but Adams was elected by the House.) --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.74|141.101.98.74]] 11:30, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
::Thanks![[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.96|162.158.159.96]] 16:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
:::More details: {{w|1824 United States presidential election}}. Jackson only got about 41% of the popular vote (in states that had one -- not all did back then), and 99 out of 261 electoral votes (~38%). Nobody got enough votes in enough states for an electoral majority, so the election went to Congress. --[[User:Aaron of Mpls|Aaron of Mpls]] ([[User talk:Aaron of Mpls|talk]]) 00:41, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Bad with formatting here, but I updated the bit about precedent to include that Trump's raw vote total (approx 71.5 million, also not yet certified) is ''also'' breaking the precedent set by Obama in 2008. Love them or hate them, in this high-turnout election, both major party candidates had record numbers for their raw vote totals. Trump doesn't make it to first place above Obama because Biden makes it to first place above Trump. I didn't look into whether the percentage of eligible population numbers are different, but higher turnout combined with higher population makes breaking that barrier a little easier.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.5|108.162.238.5]] 13:02, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
:Especially since poll workers were caught on camera in Wisconsin putting Trump Votes upside-down into the scanner, but scanning Biden votes correctly.[[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 14:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
::How was this discovered? How can we hunt down more occurrences? Did the machine reject the ballots and the people fix the error? (and what are the ramifications of a camera recording vote ballots?) There is no reason to not suspect the opposite happens too: that anybody's votes could be put in upside down. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.77|162.158.62.77]] 14:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
:::It's part of the lawsuit based on a complaint from an observer. But there is an easy way to track down and correct this problem on both sides- hold a recount.[[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 15:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
::::I have not found a reference to any current Wisconsin lawsuit. Seems like you should either document the claims or delete them.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.174.126|172.68.174.126]] 23:13, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, the outcome's still not 100%, so, if, by some stroke of (bad?) luck, Trump becomes president again, then the precedents might change.- another user

Is it just me, or is Randall using this comic as an excuse to throw some shade on Trump? The two squares about Trump are "he has no military experience or political experience" and "he got impeached and then lost." He could've picked more neutral things (his age perhaps, or his appearance on WWE or something) so these choices seem pretty deliberate and, pointed, shall we say? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.63.183|172.69.63.183]] 00:13, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
:It's still in keeping with the other 'serious' precedents in prior elections, like not winning without a specific state, or having/not having certain experience. --[[User:Aaron of Mpls|Aaron of Mpls]] ([[User talk:Aaron of Mpls|talk]]) 00:41, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

== Table ==

If you really feel the need to explain every item in a table then please do so in comic 1122 as this is the original. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 18:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I removed the redundant options, sorry - user who made table (...Unsigned)
: When I changed the word from "Redundant" (I know what you meant, just that's not quite right) I was hoping to #anchor the link to the prior comic exactly upon the new(?) section someone set up with the previously-relevent lines of table. But it turns out there's only two href="#..."s on that page, and no section titles are given that honour (unlike, say, wikipedia's Table Of Contents entries) I don't want to try to mess with the expkcd wiki at that level of things, but I think it'd be slightly more useful to set that up than it would cost in effort (i.e. a slightly larger version of 'barely'). That's my suggestion, anyway. Just putting it out there. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.216|141.101.98.216]] 23:52, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

== Is there some joke to trump being impeached? ==

I thought he was acquitted, I checked wikipedia and they say he was acquitted. I'm not American if this is some in joke in America you guys may need to explain it.
Thank you :)
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.87|108.162.250.87]] 00:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
:He was impeached, which is an equivalent to being indicted (i.e. being formally charged with a crime, but in a way necessary to deal with statutory protections and obligations of elected officials), but at the next stage was (almost inevitably) acquitted. Because politics. (For some the impeachment was politics, for some the acquittal was politics. There'll be some overlap, but also a very partisan split between those that definitely consider just the one of them to be politics, but not the same one.) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.7|162.158.158.7]] 00:57, 11 November 2020 (UTC)