explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:904: Sports

2025-05-07T17:20:07Z

162.158.42.48:

This comic highlights the tendency to interpret so-called "events" based on essentially random, day-to-day changes that are indistinguishable from trends. Sports writers and directly accused of this. Financial analysts are equally culpable. D&D Dungeon Masters are guilty as well, but I reckon Randall states this somewhat tongue-in-cheek as the role of a DM is to deliberately spin a good yarn.
--[[User:Smartin|Smartin]] ([[User talk:Smartin|talk]]) 04:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

having lived in america and abroad, i think this applies heavily to america more so than other countries, although, more generally, we could throw in other countries that have 24-hour sports coverage (which is not most). similar to 24-hour news coverage, eventually you're going to be left with dead air once you're done with real news and so you invent narratives and sensationalise the most insignificant events. as for some evidence that this is an american thing and not "all sports commentary", see trevor noah's take: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tev12nUgCJ0 Trevor Noah - Sports in America]
--[[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.23|141.101.99.23]] 19:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Got a link? [[User:Weatherlawyer| I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer|talk]]) 19:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

It feels more like Randall talks about sports with a kind of affection rather than with vicious sarcasm. While financial narratives derived from essentially random fluctuations are a bad thing in general (as people invest money in the belief that such things are more predictable than they are), sports is something different. For most people sports are just entertainment and part of the fun of is anticipation which means crawling over every drop of information and trying to guess if it'll make a difference or not. Fans want to be emotionally invested and somehow in control of their teams fate. And I'm pretty sure Randall knows that and as ever is just poking fun rather than trying to undermine a whole industry. It's very human to create narratives around our lives because it makes our day to day lives feel less random. When it's 'just for fun' then there's nothing bad about it it's only when it starts to involve people deluding themselves about large sums of other peoples money that it becomes a bad thing.
[[User:LostAlone|LostAlone]] ([[User talk:LostAlone|talk]]) 11:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

blaseball! {{unsigned ip|108.162.219.154|13:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)}}

Doesn't D&D use unweighted random number generators? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.42.48|162.158.42.48]] 17:20, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

3079: Air Fact

2025-04-23T14:53:51Z

162.158.42.48:

{{comic
| number = 3079
| date = April 21, 2025
| title = Air Fact
| image = air_fact_2x.png
| imagesize = 250x394px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = 'Wow, that must be why you swallow so many of them per year!' 'No, that's spiders. You swallow WAY more ants.'
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a MICROSCOPIC ANT. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}
Microbiologist [[Megan]] tells [[Cueball]] that every cubic meter of air contains thousands of microscopic ants. This is a tall tale. Adult workers in some species of the genus {{w|Carebara|Carebara}}, the [https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/341603-smallest-ant-species smallest known ants], can be 0.8 millimeters long, just below the 1.0 mm upper bound of [https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/resources/497-the-microscopic-scale what some consider "microscopic"]. It is therefore possible for an air sample to contain microscopic ants. However, given the subterranean, cryptic habitats typical of ''Carebara'' species, it is highly unlikely that these ants would appear in ''any'', never mind ''every'', air sample. Initially incredulous, Cueball accepts Megan's fib as a fact, because he doesn't have any easy way to assess what samples of air contain.

Air contains many microscopic particles, including minerals, plastics, combustion products, salt, water, pollen, spores, bacteria, fungi, and viruses. There are indeed {{w|aeroplankton|microorganisms floating in the air}}, and getting air samples that will allow these microorganisms to be identified and quantified is indeed hard. [https://www.btpm.org/health-wellness/2018-05-23/allergy-season-is-back-but-how-do-we-know-whats-in-the-air Methods, with specialized collecting devices, exist] that take (one hopes) known volumes of air and deposit the particles contained in that air onto sticky surfaces which are then viewed under the microscope, or onto culture media which are then incubated. The methods are time-consuming and dependent on specialized knowledge (e.g., the identification of pollen grains or spores by surface features under the microscope), and are subject to numerous biases. For example, "sticky surface" methods will likely miss bacteria, and fail to identify 'nondescript' objects, whereas culture-based methods will not detect anything that will not grow on the selected medium. The joke is that microbiologists are tempted to make up stories about what's in the air, because most people lack the data or skills to fact-check the stories.

Micro particle concentration in air varies considerably; 100 to 100,000 bacteria per cubic meter, and 100 to 1000 fungal spores per cubic meter are typical. In the comic, Megan could have sampled a 100 cubic centimeter (0.1 liter) space of air and found 1 microbe (e.g., a bacterium, a mold spore, a protozoan cyst) in it. If she assumed that this was a representative sample, Megan could extrapolate from this datum to say that there are 10,000 microbes (rather than ants) for every 1 cubic meter (1,000,000 cubic centimeters or 1000 liters). [[Randall]] has made numerous [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/Category:Extrapolation comics about dubious extrapolations], but in this case, Megan's number is [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4515362/ within the range of microbial counts] that have been made in various indoor and outdoor environments.

The title text refers to the commonly believed myth that [https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-66319172 people swallow 8 spiders a year in their sleep]. Though oft quoted, [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-fiction-people-swallow-8-spiders-a-year-while-they-sleep1/ it has no basis in fact], and was actually [https://www.snopes.com/lisa-birgit-holst/ made up] to see if people would repeat the rumor without checking the original source. Bona fide ants, microscopic or otherwise, would be no more likely to enter a human's mouth than spiders, while Megan's microscopic ants would mostly wind up in the lungs, not the stomach, where (one hopes) the immune system would take care of them.

==Trivia==
Microscopic (adult size less than 1.0 millimeter) insect species, that are more likely to appear in air samples than ''Carebara'' ants, do exist. For example, parasitoid wasps, such as those in the genera {{w|Dicopomorpha_echmepterygis|''Dicopomorpha''}}, {{w|Kikiki|''Kikikia''}}, and {{w|Tinkerbella|''Tinkerbella''}}, can have winged adults that are as small as 0.14 mm (140 µm), smaller than some protozoa. These insects, however, are not ants, and, unlike the microbes that Megan calls "ants" for the purpose of trolling Cueball, will not be found in ''every'' air sample.

==Transcript==
:[Megan, with her palm out, is talking to Cueball.]
:Megan: Did you know that every cubic meter of air contains over 10,000 microscopic ants?
:Cueball: Wow, really?
:Cueball: I had no idea.

:[Caption below the panel:]
:The fact that taking air samples is hard presents microbiologists with a constant temptation.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Ants]]
[[Category:Spiders]]
[[Category:Facts]]

Talk:3072: Stargazing 4

2025-04-11T17:04:15Z

162.158.42.48:

Is it not possible and even likely, due to the simplistic nature of the dialog here, that the falling stars here in fact have nothing to do with black holes and merely refer to "falling stars"? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.150.67|172.68.150.67]] 19:11, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
:I think they have to do with stars falling in to the black hole. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.17.125|172.69.17.125]] 00:53, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
::I must say that my first too hasty view of the comic page had me reading "...haven't seen a star fall''ing'' since...", and thus about "falling stars", i.e. meteorites (which... well, is another astronomically naïve 'fact'), but on a second reading I correctly realised it as "fall in" and therefore could only really be relating to the black hole thing that closes the comic-text.
::But so easy for a minor misreading to at least lead to this. If something about Earth's atmosphere had been mentioned, ''perhaps'' it could have remained ambiguous, but I don't have any doubts about its intention. Until someone points out ''another'' way to interpret the progressive back-referencing of text, I suppose, maybe leaving either me or they adamantly trapped down the wrong garden path/rabbit hole... ;) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.14|162.158.74.14]] 10:07, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

First comic explanation I've done. This is... somewhat harder than what I expected. [[User:MinersHavenM43|MinersHavenM43]] ([[User talk:MinersHavenM43|talk]]) 02:46, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

To be clear, the comic says grains of sand on Earth's *beaches* which presumably excludes deserts and such. I think another joke with that panel might be that Earth has more sand than just the beaches.
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.212.31|108.162.212.31]] 03:21, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Randal is rarely wrong. Have we seen TDEs (tidal disruption events) for Sag A* or only for other supermassive black holes? --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.242.247|172.70.242.247]] 07:44, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't think the voice in the title text should be identified with Randall. Furthermore it is said that we haven't seen a star fall into a black hole, which is different from a TDE. --[[Special:Contributions/172.71.102.194|172.71.102.194]] 08:23, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

She's back. SHE'S BACK!!!! /ref [[User:CalibansCreations|'''Caliban''']] ([[User talk:CalibansCreations|talk]]) 09:10, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

This feels like Cunk on Space [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.123|141.101.99.123]] 11:06, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Indeed we never saw a TDE for Sag A* provided context for that --[[User:Trimutius|Trimutius]] ([[User talk:Trimutius|talk]]) 11:13, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

In the last panel and title text, Megan states it's hilarious when "stars" fall into black holes, that they can't leave Yelp reviews, and that she has a list of stars she hopes are next to fall in. Is it possible she's now conflating Hollywood stars (movie/TV personalities) with the celestial bodies? Like she has a list of entertainment personalities she bears a grudge against and wishes they would leave the country (or universe)? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.126.154|172.70.126.154]] 11:54, 5 April 2025 (UTC)Pat
:I myself had that very thought, thinking that this statement might be a double-entendre that refers to some people. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 02:33, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Why isn't Danish called Danish in the transcript instead of a long-haired Megan?--[[User:Darth Vader|Darth Vader]] ([[User talk:Darth Vader|talk]]) 10:43, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
:That's not Danish. Danish's hair goes below her shoulders. I don't think it's Megan, either, though. The personality doesn't seem to fit Megan and the hair seems slightly longer. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.150.109|172.71.150.109]] 15:19, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
::Her hair does go quite low down (second character in second pane). Not sure what you mean about personality (this character doesn't say anything). Personally I still think its Danish. Also the comic is listed under the Danish category still...--[[User:Darth Vader|Darth Vader]] ([[User talk:Darth Vader|talk]]) 16:57, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
:::OH! Disregard. I misunderstood what character you were referring to. I thought you were talking about the planetarium presenter... who I don't think is Megan.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.42.48|162.158.42.48]] 17:04, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Still no April fools? Sad :( [[User:Aprilfoolsupdate!|Aprilfoolsupdate!]] ([[User talk:Aprilfoolsupdate!|talk]]) 11:05, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

"However, as the Roche limit of a black hole is always greater than its Schwarzschild radius,.." - I don't think so. Especially for heavy black holes the Schwarzschild radius is so far out that the tidal effects may be small. Additionally, the Roche limit depends on the structure of the small body too, while the Schwarzschild radius is just a function of the black holes mass and rotation. What does the community think? {{unsigned ip|108.162.221.151|14:03, 6 April 2025}}
:Wikipedia cites [https://pubs.aip.org/physicstoday/article/67/5/37/414728/The-tidal-disruption-of-stars-by-supermassive this paper] when it comes to this topic, I looked through this paper and it suggests that the event you described could happen. [[User:TomtheBuilder|TomtheBuilder]] ([[User talk:TomtheBuilder|talk]]) 16:18, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
::TDEs do happen, I don't question this aspect. I think most normal stars will be strongly deformed if not torn apart but more compact, "stiffer" object can easily cross the event horizon / Schwarzschild radius of a SMBH without structural damage. I couldn't find any publication right now but I guess neutron stars woud cross the event horizon quite unaffected because they are so small and the gravitational gradient across them would be orders of magnitude smaller that its own gravitation. But the text was changed to "usually" already - can live with that :-) {{unsigned ip|172.68.50.170|17:22, 6 April 2025}}

1232: Realistic Criteria

2025-04-09T21:55:41Z

162.158.42.48:

{{comic
| number = 1232
| date = July 1, 2013
| title = Realistic Criteria
| image = realistic criteria.png
| titletext = I'm leaning toward fifteen. There are a lot of them.
}}

==Explanation==
Many people are opposed to space exploration. While the overall budget of {{w|NASA}} is not very large compared to the big spenders such as health, education, social services and the military, individual space missions seem very expensive to the general public (typically hundreds of millions of dollars) and the actual benefits derived from them can seem intangible. To put it simply, many people think that the money can be better spent on Earth, where there are real, serious problems that need to be addressed. However, unbeknown to most, NASA not only makes back the money we spent on it (only about 33 dollars), but actally gains several billion dollars. It also provides hundreds of thousands of jobs, and things like GPS, cell phone service, the modern computer, the modern cellphone, and CAT scanner. Pretty good for costing less than a Netflix supscription.

The decision on how to best allocate our money is not a simple one. [[White Hat]] believes we should not explore space until "we have solved all our problems here on Earth". This is unreasonable, as the objective is vague, broad and near-impossible to achieve, at least within the span of a human life.{{citation needed}} The basic problems that face us all - war, disease, hunger, climate change, natural disasters, general malaise - have been with us since the dawn of humanity at least, and will certainly be around for much longer than ten or fifteen years; in fact, it is unclear if some of these problems will ever be solved. As of 2025, twelve years after this comic, it seems humanity has rather created more problems than it solved. Let's hope humanity can achieve the goal by 2028 then.

Cueball, however, is playing the naive engineer, thinking that everything is as easy and simple as the math problems he uses everyday. Alternatively, he could be replying sarcastically, knowing that there is no timeline for solving all of Earth's problems. This serves two purposes: First, it highlights the untenability of White Hat's statement by emphasizing their size, and second, it serves as a punchline, as anyone with a modicum of common sense knows nothing is that simple when humans are involved.

In the title text, Randall leans towards fifteen years, as ten doesn't seem sufficient given all the problems, once again humorously implying 15 years would be sufficient to solve everything. This also may be said by Cueball, or White Hat replying to Cueball.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball and White Hat stand talking. White Hat is making a forward gesture with his hand.]
:White Hat: We shouldn't be exploring other planets until we've solved all our problems here on Earth.
:Cueball: Sounds reasonable. So, what's the timeline on "Solving all problems"? Ten years? Fifteen?

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