explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:2860: Decay Modes

2023-11-28T19:11:37Z

162.158.62.120:

Omega Decay has a didtinctive Star Trek Voyager vibe, I believe... ;-) https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Omega_molecule [[Special:Contributions/162.158.203.70|162.158.203.70]] 23:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

There appears to be an issue- the ''fungal decay'' and ''sea peoples'' are missing. I don't remember what they were! Help!
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.226|162.158.159.226]] 23:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[[Fizzgigg]]

There are a few things Omega could relate to: Rick and Morty Omega Device https://rickandmorty.fandom.com/wiki/Omega_Device, Galaxy Quest Omega 13 Device https://galaxyquest.fandom.com/wiki/The_Omega_13_Device [[Special:Contributions/172.68.126.134|172.68.126.134]] 02:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

"One big nucleon" looks a lot like a planet to me.[[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 03:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Omega voyager vibe? Nah, Voyager just used a cool sounding name. They share a root, but this isn't depending on ST:VOY [[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.47|172.69.195.47]] 09:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I was rather hoping that [[1812: Onboarding|bismuth]] would appear as a product, even if entirely unintentional, but it's far too high up the chain to ever occur from "bronze decay"... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.147|172.70.85.147]] 14:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Protons shown in white, while the neutrons in black in the comic. Nothing wrong with this but if you visualize it the other way it makes this very confusing.

Talk:2860: Decay Modes

2023-11-28T19:10:52Z

162.158.62.120:

Omega Decay has a didtinctive Star Trek Voyager vibe, I believe... ;-) https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Omega_molecule [[Special:Contributions/162.158.203.70|162.158.203.70]] 23:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

There appears to be an issue- the ''fungal decay'' and ''sea peoples'' are missing. I don't remember what they were! Help!
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.226|162.158.159.226]] 23:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[[Fizzgigg]]

There are a few things Omega could relate to: Rick and Morty Omega Device https://rickandmorty.fandom.com/wiki/Omega_Device, Galaxy Quest Omega 13 Device https://galaxyquest.fandom.com/wiki/The_Omega_13_Device [[Special:Contributions/172.68.126.134|172.68.126.134]] 02:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

"One big nucleon" looks a lot like a planet to me.[[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 03:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Omega voyager vibe? Nah, Voyager just used a cool sounding name. They share a root, but this isn't depending on ST:VOY [[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.47|172.69.195.47]] 09:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I was rather hoping that [[1812: Onboarding|bismuth]] would appear as a product, even if entirely unintentional, but it's far too high up the chain to ever occur from "bronze decay"... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.147|172.70.85.147]] 14:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Protons shown in white and neutrons in black in the comic. Nothing wrong with this but if you visualize it the other way it makes this very confusing.

Talk:2614: 2

2022-05-02T23:32:30Z

162.158.62.120: Notes on some of the notations

Hello people. Anyone got an explanation for this? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.229|172.70.114.229]] 22:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

To the person who has requested a citation that two is a number... here you go: https://youtu.be/dBVoIUASFS0?t=82. Can someone who knows how to add citations add it? :D --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.110.209|172.70.110.209]] 23:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Hey all, the group theory thing reminds me a lot of cyclic groups or ideals generated by the value 2. Also equivalence classes (which come up in group theory) can be written with [brackets] but may be confused with <cyclic groups> or (ideals).

The 2;2 notation looks like the notation \mu; \nu that is used for covariant derivatives of tensors in physics. Also 2,2 looks like \mu, \nu that is used for partial derivatives of tensors. And as mentioned above, (2) could be a cyclic subgroup or ideal generated by two or a special case of cycle notation for elements of symmetry groups used to mean an element that keeps 2 fixed. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.120|162.158.62.120]] 23:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Talk:564: Crossbows

2022-03-06T15:08:00Z

162.158.62.120:

Is there ''any'' evidence for involvement of velicoraptors in this comic?[[User:Guru-45|Guru-45]] ([[User talk:Guru-45|talk]]) 17:24, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
:I did add the incomplete tag. Physicists are unsure on gravity? I also can't see any hints for Velociraptors at the comic. The explain does need a major review. When I have enough time I will give a try.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 17:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The "explanation" is really bad and contains many errors. The first sentence "Physicists are unsure of most of the forces that govern our everyday lives" is extremely vague; "attraction" is a certain sign of a force (i.e. the force pulls two particles together instead of pushing them apart), "gravity" is a certain type of force (like electromagnetism or the nuclear forces). The Higgs Boson is not a force, it wasn't theorized in the late 1900s, and it acts on the scale of fundamental particles which are several orders of magnitude smaller than atoms. The LHC was not set to be released, but to be activated. No serious particle physicist expected that the experiments at the LHC would have drastic ramifications. That accelerator had a malfunction shortly after its first activation had nothing to do with the Higgs Boson. etc. I Think this needs to be completely rewritten. --[[Special:Contributions/37.209.61.239|37.209.61.239]] 15:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Err yes. This piece was a train wreck which I turned into a rundown shack. It needs a few more citation links (for the confirmation, and to Cueball and Randall), a few more examples of infestations, and a more fleshed out explanation of why a crossbow in particular (and if velociraptors come in). --[[User:Quicksilver|Quicksilver]] ([[User talk:Quicksilver|talk]]) 21:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The point of this was missed completely by this explanation. The physics Nobel price has never been avarded to more than three people and is only awarded to people alive when the price is given. As the discovery of the Higgs certainly will give a Nobel price to someone, and there are more than three people working in that particular lab on the Higgs, they prepare for some kind of battle royale until there are less than three researchers left, such that they can be awarded the price. {{unsigned ip|176.11.125.174}}

I did add the incomplete tag again because a summarize of some theories doesn't help.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it's more likely to be option number 2, as they talk about how Cueball hasn't yet done the maths. If it was just a Nobel prize, they would've already known they were close to a breakthrough, without having to do any calc. Obviously the maths reveals the possibility of some sinister mutation as explained in point 2. Just a random opinion floating through. [[User:Alcatraz ii|Alcatraz ii]] ([[User talk:Alcatraz ii|talk]]) 10:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

No 2 might also be a reference to the quote by an American physicist that the LHC might discover dragons (see eg
http://blog.iandavis.com/2008/09/15/the-lhc-may-discover-dragons/). I still like explanation 1 best though, even dispute the math thing. Maybe it just refers to counting the lab members? [[Special:Contributions/85.164.251.29|85.164.251.29]] 17:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad people are not complaining about the explanation anymore (I did put more effort into this baby than any page yet). I do not, however, think we can proceed any further until we get something straight from the horse's mouth, i.e. a clear indication from Randall of which way this comic was to be interpreted.

Until then, this explanation has explained all it can, and I thus see it as complete. --[[User:Quicksilver|Quicksilver]] ([[User talk:Quicksilver|talk]]) 03:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it just might be pointing at all the inside jokes a group of people have and the nuances the newbies have to put up with in order to be "IN" the group. Might also be a precursor to {{xkcd|794}}, although seemingly unrelated. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.217|173.245.55.217]] 15:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)BK201

I vote for the results of this experiment being society changing. Or #2. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.212.196|108.162.212.196]] 17:16, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the only point is that cueball doesn't understand why they have crossbows, I think the possible explanations as to why they have them don't really matter. [[user:halfhat]] 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think explanation #1 is correct. In the last panel Megan says "he has until Tuesday", suggesting that he has a chance to "get it" and thus avoid "something". But just having a chance would seem to suggest that they don't plan on shooting/killing each other. Having "until Tuesday" would seem to indicate that Cueball has a chance to prepare, likely for explanation #2 - the "Half-Life" scenario. That's my 2 cents. =8o) [[User:Jarod997|Jarod997]] ([[User talk:Jarod997|talk]]) 14:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

With the Nobel prize teams being up to three members, perhaps they're doing an intellectual survival of the fittest. If the third member of the team isn't up to speed then kill him and replace him. Poor guy... {{unsigned ip|173.245.55.75}}

I think this comic is a callback to [[476: One-Sided]], since it mentions a crossbow as well. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.124|108.162.241.124]] 21:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

This panel includes numerous clues its explanation one. Unfortunately, its all rather *logical*.. which is only thematic with other xkcd panels. There is no need to reference any other cartoon , the use of crossbows is incidental.

1. HE SAID it will be solved by tuesday. Logically this implies HE analzyed the thought processing rate of humans brains and the higgs puzzle,and determined it will be done by tuesday.
2. Since it will be done by tuesday, the people who are the only possible people to do it by tuesday will be the ones
3. Where does someone assess the speed someone thinks at ??? Only the perfect logicians puzzles.. "Three perfect logicians, who think at the same rate, are given a puzzle. They sit stumped for three seconds. Then they all deduce the solution at the same time." Ok so the solution is the one that takes three seconds for all three to not solve, and then they solve it.. (its absurd but the material the joke references doesn't itself have to be sensible, it just has to be a well known thing. )
4. ERGO He said they are perfect logicians who think at the same rate.
5. ERGO when both of the other people in the lab have crossbows, its clear that both of the other people have deduced they are the perfect logicians that HE SAID they are !
6. "Perhaps he is slow at MATHS". That is, he can solve logic at the same rate, but he is only slow at math. THis is where I get the "think at the same speed from".. he is slow at math.. he thinks at the same speed.. two sides of the same coin.. a reference to the "perfect logicians who think at the same speed".

7. Therefore they have no doubt that their solution (to being the one creditted with the observation of Higgs particle or effect.) .. the crossbow.. is a perfectly logical solution. Because HE said .

The joke is that when you treat what HE SAID as the utter truth, you have to form conclusions like this...
[[Special:Contributions/172.68.118.11|172.68.118.11]] 05:39, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
:Add the following to the actual page...
but Randy's panel was released in the week that Higgs' prediction was going to fail...

If Peter Higgs can say that the aims will be met within a year, he must have done two things. 1. Analyzed the complexity, and hence the exact number of steps, of the problem to meet the aims. and 2. That the people meeting the aims will carry out those steps at some specific rate, at least... Meaning definitely never slower.

Further, what does it mean for the other guy to say "Maybe he is slow with the math". Speed of thought , and the assumption that people think at the same rates, is part of the logic puzzle that starts "Three perfect logicians who think at the same rate are given a puzzle".... The two with crossbows have deduced that they are the perfect logicians who think at the same rate. Because they have accepted what Peter Higgs said about tuesday to be true, and to refer to them. Their lab is going to have detected the Higgs thingy by Tuesday.

What does it mean that both of the other two lab people have crossbows ? They both think the same, they both have them at the same time... they are the perfect logicians who think at the same rate.. the mouse other text "I hate being the slowest person in the lab".. really points at the idea that these two have deduced that since they both thought of crossbows, it must be the one logical solution ... (whereas real humans deduce that murdering other top scientists just to claim the Nobel prize is completely wrong... ) Its proof that there is a problem when you raise "what Peter Higgs predicted" to be "Must be absolutely true since Peter Higgs said it"....

Before the full text of this explanation was entered, there were alternatives, which may be read just in case they somehow gained similar merit. {{unsigned|Leong}}

I... I undid Leong's edits. This article went from trainwreck, to run-down shack, to abandoned cottage, to a nice little bungalow, to a rather fine suburban townhouse. Then M. Leong threw a train at it. I was, suffice to say, rather shocked at how appalling the explanation was. The fact that there were major edits (totaling nearly 1,500 characters added and God knows how many actually changed) several ''years'' after the comic's release was a red flag. [[User:Papayaman1000|Papayaman1000]] ([[User talk:Papayaman1000|talk]]) 08:08, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I thought they were just going to shoot the Cueball without the crossbow or they would kill the slowest guy in the lab.
:Please sign your posts with 4 ~’s, and put your comments at the bottom.[[User:Netherin5|Netherin5]] ([[User talk:Netherin5|talk]]) 17:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

What does explanation 2 have anything to do with being slow with the math? IMO it's obviously going for explanation 1, but some sort of variant where instead of causing black holes somehow it releases zombies or whatnot.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.219|162.158.79.219]] 03:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I also read it as raptors or some other attacking creature, due to the double meaning in "I hate being the slowest guy in the lab." As the joke goes, you don't need to run faster than the raptor, you just need to run faster than the slowest guy. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.233.5|162.158.233.5]] 05:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

This is my first time coming to this explanation page. I burst out chuckling on reading the first line. You wiki editors are a riot. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.120|162.158.62.120]] 15:08, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

1842: Anti-Drone Eagles

2021-12-06T17:54:58Z

162.158.62.120: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1842
| date = May 26, 2017
| title = Anti-Drone Eagles
| image = anti_drone_eagles.png
| titletext = It's cool, it's totally ethical--they're all programmed to hunt whichever bird of prey is most numerous at the moment, so they leave the endangered ones alone until near the end.
}}

==Explanation==
Law enforcement and security agencies often use [http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-35750816/eagles-trained-to-take-down-drones birds of prey] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/02/21/terrorists-are-building-drones-france-is-destroying-them-with-eagles/ to combat drones] flying unlawfully over restricted sites. Probably not as cost effective as using eagles to transport golden rings or bearers thereof to volcanoes in foreign lands. This is often more cost effective than using technological means (such as scramblers and counter-drones) and safer for the public than using conventional weaponry (such as shotguns).

Eagles, being predators, have natural tendencies to attack the central components of drones while avoiding the sharp and spinny bits.

[[Cueball]] argues that this is unethical as it forces rare animals to put their lives at risk, and compares it to using police dogs for traffic control, which people would generally frown upon.

Effectiveness depends upon the conditions of use. Obviously eagles can't be used everywhere that drones are restricted, but they are often effectively used where ground security is also present to identify and arrest those that might be unlawfully flying the drones, so they can't indefinitely replenish their hardware. The first paragraph has links to real life examples. Not only would it be unethical, but also ineffective. The supply of Eagles is rather limited, and there are biological limits to how fast it can be replenished, whereas more drones can be created very quickly to replace those that are destroyed. Traffic control dogs would be similarly ineffective, as dogs would struggle to run as fast as a speeding motorcycle, and would be powerless to stop the motorcycle even if they could.

[[Megan]] thinks both ideas (eagles and dogs) sound cool, but she understands the ethical argument against using them for traffic control.

[[Black Hat]], on the other hand, goes a step further and says that he has created a drone that hunts the eagles, flipping the premise from “anti-drone eagles” to “anti-eagle drones”. In the title text, he continues that is ethical because they (only the title text mentions that there are several of such drones) only target the most populous species first, although they will eventually eradicate the endangered ones once they bring down the number of all birds of prey (note that this implies that he wants to make all birds of prey extinct or endangered). He seems to {{tvtropes|ComicallyMissingThePoint|miss the point}} that it is not merely the relative number of birds that creates the ethical problem, but the fact that animals' lives are being put at direct risk by humans. His construction of the anti-eagle drone may be simply for the point of making the eagles' goals not only dangerous, but also entirely ineffective. This is probably not an opposition to privacy but merely his trademark [[72: Classhole|classholery]] in action.

Nevertheless, Black Hat raises a crucial point in {{w|ecology}}: There are generalist and specialist predators (as well as herbivores). A specialist hunts or eats only one species (e.g. the {{w|koala}} eats only {{w|eucalyptus}}), while a generalist hunts or eats the most available food. Thus, a generalist often spares species that have become rare due to overhunting, disease or famine. A generalist predator (or herbivore) thus manages the wildlife, and a healthy population of generalists is almost always beneficial. Now, if Black Hat creates a drone that hunts the most available species, he gets the right idea (a food generalist manages wildlife), but gets the other one seriously wrong: Eagles are already doing their job as generalists, and as predatory birds are not so abundant, a generalist that feeds on predatory birds would need to have a very large territory. And as drones cannot reproduce yet and do not need to hunt as an energy source, releasing a drone to fulfil an ecological role would not make any sense. How does the drone know it has hunted enough eagles? Does the eagle-hunting drone feel hunger and decide to hunt elsewhere after reducing the number of local eagles, or does it just hibernate?

==Transcript==
:[Black Hat, Cueball and Megan are standing and talking.]
:Cueball: Everyone loves these eagles that take down drones, but... I dunno.
:Megan: You gotta admit, it's pretty cool.

:[Close-up of Cueball.]
:Cueball: Yeah, but... training rare animals to hurl themselves at whirling machinery can only get us so far, you know?

:[In a frame-less panel the setting is back to that of the first panel.]
:Cueball: At some point, it's like releasing police dogs onto freeways to attack speeding motorcycles.
:Megan: Also cool, but I see your point.

:[Black Hat lifts his hand and Cueball turns his face towards him.]
:Black Hat: Plus, I just finished my autonomous drone that hunts eagles.
:Cueball: Man, '''''you''''' are an entirely separate class of problem.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Black Hat]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Animals]]
[[Category:Drones]]

1842: Anti-Drone Eagles

2021-12-06T17:54:39Z

162.158.62.120: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1842
| date = May 26, 2017
| title = Anti-Drone Eagles
| image = anti_drone_eagles.png
| titletext = It's cool, it's totally ethical--they're all programmed to hunt whichever bird of prey is most numerous at the moment, so they leave the endangered ones alone until near the end.
}}

==Explanation==
Law enforcement and security agencies often use [http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-35750816/eagles-trained-to-take-down-drones birds of prey] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/02/21/terrorists-are-building-drones-france-is-destroying-them-with-eagles/ to combat drones] flying unlawfully over restricted sites. Probably not as cost effective as using eagles to transport golden rings or bearers thereof to volcanoes in foreign lands. This is often more cost effective than using technological means (such as scramblers and counter-drones) and safer for the public than using conventional weaponry (such as shotguns).

Eagles, being predators, have natural tendencies to attack the central components of drones while avoiding the sharp and spinny bits.

[[Cueball]] argues that this is unethical as it forces rare animals to put their lives at risk, and compares it to using police dogs for traffic control, which people would generally frown upon. [[Citation Needed]]

Effectiveness depends upon the conditions of use. Obviously eagles can't be used everywhere that drones are restricted, but they are often effectively used where ground security is also present to identify and arrest those that might be unlawfully flying the drones, so they can't indefinitely replenish their hardware. The first paragraph has links to real life examples. Not only would it be unethical, but also ineffective. The supply of Eagles is rather limited, and there are biological limits to how fast it can be replenished, whereas more drones can be created very quickly to replace those that are destroyed. Traffic control dogs would be similarly ineffective, as dogs would struggle to run as fast as a speeding motorcycle, and would be powerless to stop the motorcycle even if they could.

[[Megan]] thinks both ideas (eagles and dogs) sound cool, but she understands the ethical argument against using them for traffic control.

[[Black Hat]], on the other hand, goes a step further and says that he has created a drone that hunts the eagles, flipping the premise from “anti-drone eagles” to “anti-eagle drones”. In the title text, he continues that is ethical because they (only the title text mentions that there are several of such drones) only target the most populous species first, although they will eventually eradicate the endangered ones once they bring down the number of all birds of prey (note that this implies that he wants to make all birds of prey extinct or endangered). He seems to {{tvtropes|ComicallyMissingThePoint|miss the point}} that it is not merely the relative number of birds that creates the ethical problem, but the fact that animals' lives are being put at direct risk by humans. His construction of the anti-eagle drone may be simply for the point of making the eagles' goals not only dangerous, but also entirely ineffective. This is probably not an opposition to privacy but merely his trademark [[72: Classhole|classholery]] in action.

Nevertheless, Black Hat raises a crucial point in {{w|ecology}}: There are generalist and specialist predators (as well as herbivores). A specialist hunts or eats only one species (e.g. the {{w|koala}} eats only {{w|eucalyptus}}), while a generalist hunts or eats the most available food. Thus, a generalist often spares species that have become rare due to overhunting, disease or famine. A generalist predator (or herbivore) thus manages the wildlife, and a healthy population of generalists is almost always beneficial. Now, if Black Hat creates a drone that hunts the most available species, he gets the right idea (a food generalist manages wildlife), but gets the other one seriously wrong: Eagles are already doing their job as generalists, and as predatory birds are not so abundant, a generalist that feeds on predatory birds would need to have a very large territory. And as drones cannot reproduce yet and do not need to hunt as an energy source, releasing a drone to fulfil an ecological role would not make any sense. How does the drone know it has hunted enough eagles? Does the eagle-hunting drone feel hunger and decide to hunt elsewhere after reducing the number of local eagles, or does it just hibernate?

==Transcript==
:[Black Hat, Cueball and Megan are standing and talking.]
:Cueball: Everyone loves these eagles that take down drones, but... I dunno.
:Megan: You gotta admit, it's pretty cool.

:[Close-up of Cueball.]
:Cueball: Yeah, but... training rare animals to hurl themselves at whirling machinery can only get us so far, you know?

:[In a frame-less panel the setting is back to that of the first panel.]
:Cueball: At some point, it's like releasing police dogs onto freeways to attack speeding motorcycles.
:Megan: Also cool, but I see your point.

:[Black Hat lifts his hand and Cueball turns his face towards him.]
:Black Hat: Plus, I just finished my autonomous drone that hunts eagles.
:Cueball: Man, '''''you''''' are an entirely separate class of problem.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Black Hat]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Animals]]
[[Category:Drones]]

1842: Anti-Drone Eagles

2021-12-06T17:54:12Z

162.158.62.120: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1842
| date = May 26, 2017
| title = Anti-Drone Eagles
| image = anti_drone_eagles.png
| titletext = It's cool, it's totally ethical--they're all programmed to hunt whichever bird of prey is most numerous at the moment, so they leave the endangered ones alone until near the end.
}}

==Explanation==
Law enforcement and security agencies often use [http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-35750816/eagles-trained-to-take-down-drones birds of prey] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/02/21/terrorists-are-building-drones-france-is-destroying-them-with-eagles/ to combat drones] flying unlawfully over restricted sites. Probably not as cost effective as using eagles to transport golden rings or bearers thereof to volcanoes in foreign lands. This is often more cost effective than using technological means (such as scramblers and counter-drones) and safer for the public than using conventional weaponry (such as shotguns).

Eagles, being predators, have natural tendencies to attack the central components of drones while avoiding the sharp and spinny bits.

[[Cueball]] argues that this is unethical as it forces rare animals to put their lives at risk, and compares it to using police dogs for traffic control, which people would generally frown upon. {{Citation Needed}}

Effectiveness depends upon the conditions of use. Obviously eagles can't be used everywhere that drones are restricted, but they are often effectively used where ground security is also present to identify and arrest those that might be unlawfully flying the drones, so they can't indefinitely replenish their hardware. The first paragraph has links to real life examples. Not only would it be unethical, but also ineffective. The supply of Eagles is rather limited, and there are biological limits to how fast it can be replenished, whereas more drones can be created very quickly to replace those that are destroyed. Traffic control dogs would be similarly ineffective, as dogs would struggle to run as fast as a speeding motorcycle, and would be powerless to stop the motorcycle even if they could.

[[Megan]] thinks both ideas (eagles and dogs) sound cool, but she understands the ethical argument against using them for traffic control.

[[Black Hat]], on the other hand, goes a step further and says that he has created a drone that hunts the eagles, flipping the premise from “anti-drone eagles” to “anti-eagle drones”. In the title text, he continues that is ethical because they (only the title text mentions that there are several of such drones) only target the most populous species first, although they will eventually eradicate the endangered ones once they bring down the number of all birds of prey (note that this implies that he wants to make all birds of prey extinct or endangered). He seems to {{tvtropes|ComicallyMissingThePoint|miss the point}} that it is not merely the relative number of birds that creates the ethical problem, but the fact that animals' lives are being put at direct risk by humans. His construction of the anti-eagle drone may be simply for the point of making the eagles' goals not only dangerous, but also entirely ineffective. This is probably not an opposition to privacy but merely his trademark [[72: Classhole|classholery]] in action.

Nevertheless, Black Hat raises a crucial point in {{w|ecology}}: There are generalist and specialist predators (as well as herbivores). A specialist hunts or eats only one species (e.g. the {{w|koala}} eats only {{w|eucalyptus}}), while a generalist hunts or eats the most available food. Thus, a generalist often spares species that have become rare due to overhunting, disease or famine. A generalist predator (or herbivore) thus manages the wildlife, and a healthy population of generalists is almost always beneficial. Now, if Black Hat creates a drone that hunts the most available species, he gets the right idea (a food generalist manages wildlife), but gets the other one seriously wrong: Eagles are already doing their job as generalists, and as predatory birds are not so abundant, a generalist that feeds on predatory birds would need to have a very large territory. And as drones cannot reproduce yet and do not need to hunt as an energy source, releasing a drone to fulfil an ecological role would not make any sense. How does the drone know it has hunted enough eagles? Does the eagle-hunting drone feel hunger and decide to hunt elsewhere after reducing the number of local eagles, or does it just hibernate?

==Transcript==
:[Black Hat, Cueball and Megan are standing and talking.]
:Cueball: Everyone loves these eagles that take down drones, but... I dunno.
:Megan: You gotta admit, it's pretty cool.

:[Close-up of Cueball.]
:Cueball: Yeah, but... training rare animals to hurl themselves at whirling machinery can only get us so far, you know?

:[In a frame-less panel the setting is back to that of the first panel.]
:Cueball: At some point, it's like releasing police dogs onto freeways to attack speeding motorcycles.
:Megan: Also cool, but I see your point.

:[Black Hat lifts his hand and Cueball turns his face towards him.]
:Black Hat: Plus, I just finished my autonomous drone that hunts eagles.
:Cueball: Man, '''''you''''' are an entirely separate class of problem.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Black Hat]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Animals]]
[[Category:Drones]]

Talk:2014: JWST Delays

2021-12-06T02:31:27Z

162.158.62.120:

Haha - I made this same graph 2 weeks ago! [[User:Cosmogoblin|Cosmogoblin]] ([[User talk:Cosmogoblin|talk]]) 17:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Suggest the last sentence be made more general: "The title text refers to a fundamental question of the Big Bang Theory; will the universe expand forever, or will is collapse back on itself? The likely answer to this question has changed over the decades as new measurements have been made, and new theories such as dark matter and dark energy developed to explain the new measurements. Apparently, and for an analogous reason, between 2018 and 2020 the likely answer to the fundamental JWST question will change." [[User:GODZILLA|GODZILLA]] ([[User talk:GODZILLA|talk]]) 17:58, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
:I agree to the current sentence saying "and compares the universe’s accelerating expansion to the apparently ever-delaying schedule" but were the hell comes the conclusion that "the JWST will have enough delays to fill a universe"? This does not make any sense. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 07:59, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Does today's prediction of 2026 count? If that is included in the data set, it would then skew the best-fit line to be steeper. If a new prediction is made using that new best-fit line, that would further skew the line, and so on, causing the acceleration the title text anticipates between 2018 and 2020.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.63.88|162.158.63.88]] 20:10, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

> Until the slope of the line becomes more than one and the prediction goes to the past, right? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.16|108.162.216.16]] 21:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

:No, it doesn't count, because it's just '''prediction''', while the data set is of (official) '''planned launch dates'''. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 22:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

:The Wikipedia data (taking the midpoint for ranges) fits a linear function with slope 0.660618 and intercept 687.739. This implies convergence at 2026.45, which is why Randall is predicting late 2026 for the actual launch. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.22.56|172.69.22.56]] 15:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

[[wikipedia:Heinz von Foerster#Doomsday equation|Von Foersters's doomsday]] is Friday 13th of November 2026. (cue Twilight Zone intro) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.89.175|162.158.89.175]] 21:20, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Why does he keep saying it's 2021? Is he trying to skip Trump's term or what? --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.211.10|172.68.211.10]] 00:30, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Why do you think that Trump will get only 1 term?[[Special:Contributions/141.101.76.70|141.101.76.70]] 17:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

This is the same chart for the new airport in Berlin. Sadly its slope is not less than one, it is indeed accelerating... 
2006     2011 
2010     2012 
2012     2013 
2013     2014 
2014     2016 
2015     2018 
2016     2018 
2017     2022 
[[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 07:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
:[https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bau_des_Flughafens_Berlin_Brandenburg#cite_ref-136] says that the planned launch date from December 2017 is in October 2020 (not 2022). That would make the slope slightly less than 1 (unless you ignore the 2016->2011 data point, as outlier) --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.35|162.158.91.35]] 09:27, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
::There was a 2022 prediction earlier in 2017, I took the maximum value for each year. And honestly, 2202 sounds more reasonable than 2020 for me. [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 14:39, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I feel a quadratic regression would be needed to determine acceleration / deceleration [[Special:Contributions/172.68.59.24|172.68.59.24]] 13:54, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

: If you plot out the least-squares fit as it changes over time (i.e. repeat Randall's graph as each new data point was added), it fits a quadratic quite well. And converges to a 2025 date.

I wonder what this chart would look like for new york's 2nd avenue subway.
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.75.130|162.158.75.130]] 17:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

At least there _is_ a slope. How about Trump's wall? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.151|173.245.52.151]] 00:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Two more lines are coming together... the year and the XKCD index. 2018 should happen next week. [[User:IonFreeman|IonFreeman]] ([[User talk:IonFreeman|talk]]) 14:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

The last three data points have a slope greater than one. Just sayin'. [[User:Redbelly98|Redbelly98]] ([[User talk:Redbelly98|talk]]) 19:55, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

:"NASA announced that the launch date has once again been delayed to 31 October 2021." THE RIDE NEVER ENDS [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.188|108.162.215.188]] 05:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

::November to December 2021 now... amazing. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.35.65|172.69.35.65]] 20:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

== November 2021 ==

Is [https://www.space.com/james-webb-space-telescope-launch-delay-november-2021] on track for the extrapolation shown? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.35.115|172.69.35.115]] 18:31, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

== Update from 2021 ==
Turns out the last update in the comic seems to have been correct. As of Sept '21, it's still due to go up in Nov. '21.
https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/content/about/launch.html
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-announces-new-james-webb-space-telescope-target-launch-date

[https://i.imgur.com/BssUkbG.png '''Updated Image''']. I've added the blue dots to represent the updated launch dates. (Still in 2021) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.48.147|172.69.48.147]] 20:43, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

On September 8, ESA has announced December 18, 2021, as the planned launch date.[https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Webb/Targeted_launch_date_for_Webb_18_December_2021] 2021 remains possible, but if there are further delays (and launches like this are delayed frequently), we may indeed slip into 2022. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.245|162.158.92.245]] 05:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

The launch readiness date is moving to no earlier than Dec. 22 because they [https://blogs.nasa.gov/webb/2021/11/22/nasa-provides-update-on-webb-telescope-launch/ '''almost dropped it''']
[[Special:Contributions/141.101.76.223|141.101.76.223]] 09:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I find it interesting that in [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/2550:_Webb Comic #2550], posted 3 December 2021, Mr. Munroe returns to the topic of the Webb with a gag involving a particular launch date. This suggests to me that he has confidence the launch is indeed drawing nearer.
[[Special:Contributions/172.70.126.221|172.70.126.221]] 08:08, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

: Actually, I think that the December 2021 launch date is good. The vehicle is complete and the Ariane 5 is ready. (Edit: i forgot to sign my post) --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.120|162.158.62.120]] 02:31, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Talk:2014: JWST Delays

2021-12-06T02:30:43Z

162.158.62.120:

2544: Heart-Stopping Texts

2021-11-19T20:09:48Z

162.158.62.120:

{{comic
| number = 2544
| date = November 19, 2021
| title = Heart-Stopping Texts
| image = heart_stopping_texts.png
| titletext = Was this your car? [looping 'image loading' animation]
}}

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

Text messages have become a ubiquitous form of communication in most countries, and have become a basic part of many peoples' everyday lived experience. Conversations over text frequently jump straight to the purpose of the communication, without salutation or prelude. Certain texts, particularly when delivered without context, can carry implications that cause immediate anxiety.

This comic lists texts that would be extremely worrying to receive with no context, for a variety of reasons:

==== Did you forget what day it is? ====
This implies that the recipient has forgotten some important event happening today. This could be an important day to a spouse or friend, and a relationship can be damaged by the recipient having forgotten. Or it could mean that the recipient has failed to deliver on an important commitment scheduled for that day, which can create a variety of other problems.

==== I bet you're probably getting bombarded with texts right now, huh? ====
This implies that something of major significance has happened, that would make many people want to get in touch with the recipient. There are a lot of possibilities, many of which are negative. The non-specific nature of the text leaves the recipient wondering what has happened, and how bad it is.

==== Did you mean to post that to everyone? ====
Implies that the recipient has made a public post (presumably on some form of social network) that was offensive or otherwise inappropriate to post publicly; so much so that the text sender is asking if they perhaps meant it to be private. This is not an uncommon occurrence as on many platforms it can be easy to accidentally post something with the wrong visibility.

==== Is this your house? ====
{{w|CNN}} is a popular news outlet in the United States. This text implies that the recipient's house has for some reason been mentioned (or probably photographed) in a CNN article. This would mean that a newsworthy event has occurred there, or at least very nearby. Many newsworthy events are upsetting, possibly dangerous (eg. a fire, a natural disaster, a violent crime, etc).

==== You didn't click on any weird emails recently, did you? ====
{{w|Phishing}} is the practice of sending fraudulent messages to someone in order to steal information (credentials, etc.), infect them with {{w|malware}}, or otherwise perform some undesirable action. One overwhelmingly common form of this is getting people to click on {{w|hyperlink|hyperlinks}} in emails, which generally purport to lead somewhere reputable but instead lead to somewhere controlled by the sender.

This text implies something makes the sender think the recipient has fallen victim to such an attack. It's not uncommon for the victim of such an attack to not be the first to discover it. For example, some attacks hijack the victim's email, and use it to bombard everyone in their contact list with further phishing attempts. If the sender of this text had received such an email, they might suspect an attack. If this has already happened, it's likely to cause major problems.

==== Can I call? ====
While this is a seemingly benign and simple request, contacting someone by text to ask whether you can call is usually a sign that they expect the conversation to be long and serious, and want to ensure that the other party is available for such a discussion. Many such situations are negative (ranging from a breakup to the death of a loved one), and there's a great deal of tension in knowing that something is serious, but not knowing what it is.

==== Wait, do you know Joe Rogan? How does he know your name? ====
{{w|Joe Rogan}} is a public personality, best known for his podcast {{w|The Joe Rogan Experience}}. This message implies that the recipient has been discussed by Rogan for some reason. Similarly to the CNN case, this is likely to cause worry about what possible circumstances would prompt this.

==== Why are you trending on Twitter? ====
{{w|Twitter}} is a social network, which – among other features – tracks and shows topics that are currently being discussed by a large number of users on the platform, or "trending". An individual trending across the entire network (unless that person is a public figure) is usually either because they're connected with a news story, or because something they did or wrote has gone viral. There are sufficiently many negative things that can cause such unexpected fame that hearing about it would be worrying..

Twitter in particular is known for frequently involving very heated discussion, and often even the targeting of individuals by "mobs" who perceive them to have done something wrong.

==== Was this your car? [looping 'image loading' animation] ====
(title text) The past tense ('was') implies that your car no longer exists, with the animation additionally implying a video of it being damaged or destroyed somehow.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

:[Comic heading:]
:Most heart-stopping texts to receive out of the blue

:[A collection of light gray text bubbles in two columns:]

:Did you forget what day it is?

:I bet you're probably getting bombarded with texts right now, huh?

:Did you mean to post that to everyone?

:Is this your house? cnn.com/2021/11/19/S...

:You didn't click on any weird emails recently, did you?

:Can I call?

:Wait, do you know Joe Rogan? How does he know your name?

:Why are you trending on Twitter?

{{comic discussion}}

2412: 1/100,000th Scale World

2021-08-28T23:30:10Z

162.158.62.120: /* Table */

{{comic
| number = 2412
| date = January 15, 2021
| title = 1/100,000th Scale World
| image = 1_100000th_scale_world.png
| titletext = The floor should be slightly curved, but we haven't figured out artificial gravity yet, so for now we just added a trace intoxicating gas to the air that messes with your inner ear and gives you a sense that the ground is tilting away from you.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a TOXIC AURORA. The table needs to be filled out, and the explanation needs more work as well. More on the title text with the gas mentioned. Also Cueball's remark not mentioned yet. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic is the second in the [[:Category:Scale World|Scale World]] series.

[[Randall]] has another seemingly complete {{w|scale model}} of {{w|Earth}}, this time at a smaller {{w|Scale (ratio)|scale}} of 1:100,000 – that is, 1 meter in this scale world represents 100,000 meters in the real world. (This is one tenth the size of his [[2411|previous scale world]].) Again, real-world features and phenomena are depicted at scale and labeled with warnings. Details on the various remarks are in the [[#Table|table]] below.

The title text states that the floor should be slightly curved. In fact, given that the model in the comic is about 10 meters long, it represents about 1000 km of Earth, which spans about 9 degrees of a great circle. Therefore, if the model wasn't larger than the part shown in the panel, its edges would have a very noticeable slope of 4.5 degrees. What's more, the note that they haven't invented artificial gravity reveals that the scale worlds are nothing more than a mundane model, rather than some supernatural phenomenon that allows giants to roam about the surface of the Earth.

===Table===
{| class="wikitable"
!Rule
!Reason
!Notes
|-
|Our aurora are probably non-toxic but please stop trying to taste them
| The aurora in the image is now temptingly at head height, and presumably look a lot like cotton candy or other inviting foodstuffs.
| The plural of "{{w|aurora}}" should actually be "auroras" or "aurorae".
|-
|No breaking off pieces of the ice caps to put in your drink
|An ice cap is a mass of ice that covers less than 50,000 km2 (19,000 sq mi) of land area.
|Breaking off pieces of ice caps would affect the climate of the scale world. In addition, breaking off pieces of somebody's models is ''very'' rude. However, at about 2-3 km thickness in real world, 1/100,000 scaled ice caps have a 2-3 cm thickness, which is a very convenient size to put in drinks.
|-
|Warning: Limited cell network coverage above the ionosphere, crouch down to get more bars
| The ionosphere reflects radio signals, in this case keeping terrestrial cellular phone signals from reaching phones higher up.
|The ionosphere would be at around 48-965 centimeters in the scale world, so visitors would need to place their phones below it to receive cellphone signals. Usually, people try to get as high as possible to get better cell coverage, so this is a comic twist to that.
|-
|Do not step on Mt. Everest
| Mt. Everest, the highest peak on Earth,{{Citation needed}} is several inches tall at 1:100,000 scale.
|Mt. Everest would probably be extremely sharp and hurt or puncture your foot.
|-
|Caution! Ocean floor slippery when wet
| Due to the smaller scale, the ocean depths would only be a few inches deep at most; this amount of liquid would cause more of a 'slippery surface' than a 'water region'.
|Since the ocean floor is primarily underwater{{Citation needed}}, it would likely be wet and therefore slippery in the scale model.
|-
|Wear sunscreen; the ozone layer only protects you below the knees.
|The ozone layer is a layer of the Earth's stratosphere that shields the Earth from the Sun's ultraviolet (UV) rays.
|The ozone layer is approximately 15-35 kilometers above Earth, or 15-35 centimeters in this scaled world, below knee height. Visitors would need sunscreen to protect them from UV rays. In the real world, most humans live with their bodies entirely below the ozone layer{{Citation needed}} but wear sunscreen anyway, so visitors should probably also wear sunscreen below their knees as well as above if they're going to be visiting around midday.
|-
|Beware of chest-level meteors
|Meteors typically occur (i.e. become more visible than in space) in the mesosphere at altitudes from 76 to 100 km (250,000 to 330,000 ft).
|In the scale world, meteors would occur at 76 to 100 centimeters, around chest height. You'd expect head-level asteroids too, as precursors, but this may be (mutually) covered by the eye-protection against satellite re-entry, below. (A hard-hat would also be suggested.)
|-
| -100°C mesopause vest recommended
|The mesopause is the boundary in the earth's atmosphere between the mesosphere and the thermosphere. Due to the lack of solar heating and very strong radiative cooling from carbon dioxide, it is the coldest region on Earth with temperatures as low as -100 °C (-148 °F).
|Without protection, visitors would succumb to hypothermia, in addition to extreme discomfort, due to the extremely low temperature.
|-
|If Lake Tahoe or the Dead Sea dries up, refill them with this 5oz wine glass
|Five ounces, times 100,0003 (because this is volume, so the linear scale factor applies to each of three dimensions), would be about 150 cubic kilometers, which is the approximate volume of {{w|Lake Tahoe}}; the {{w|Dead Sea}} is recently about 115 cubic kilometers, though it used to be somewhat larger.
|Five fluid ounces (US customary) is a tad below 148 cubic centimeters, or milliliters. (Elsewhere, if used, it is actually nearer 142cc.) Modern wine glasses may actually hold 450ml (filled to the brim), but 150ml is typical of a late 19thC antique glass or a modern 'serving' level that is more tasteful/economic than an overgenerous 'drown your sorrows' one. The reason Randall gives this rule is because the Dead Sea is drying up and Lake Tahoe has experienced recent low water levels due to drought.
|-
|Safety glasses required for protection from reentering spacecraft
|It is at approximately head height in this model that de-orbiting spacecraft are at their fastest, depending upon where their decayed or departed original was. At scale, they'd probably equate to a metalworking fragment, perhaps more dangerous in quantity than individually.
|We also tend to know about satellites and fairings returning to Earth and most (unless intended to) won't significantly survive. Meteors (see above) are hard to spot in space unless particularly big, may only be detected when spotted burning up, may be significantly denser/less fragile, and could be traveling five times faster. General head protection may be advised, just in case.
|-
|Do not anger the sprites
| {{w|Sprite (lightning)|Sprites}} are poorly understood electrical phenomena in the upper atmosphere. They are enormous but very short-lived.
| Sprites are also a name given to a form of forest spirit known for mischievous and sometimes harmful behavior. In some fairy tales, a warning would be given to not anger the spirits in case of grave repercussions.
|-
|Please stop digging through the Moho. Staff are tired of cleaning up large igneous provinces.
|Short for the {{w|Mohorovičić discontinuity}}, the Moho is the boundary surface separating the Earth's crust from the mantle. It can be found at a depth of 6-7 miles under the ocean bed, and about 24-30 miles under the continents.
|Using Randall's 1/100,000th scale world, 6-7 miles would be approximately 4 inches, while 24-30 miles would be about 16 inches, making the Moho easily accessible via digging. It would indeed create {{w|Large igneous province|large igneous provinces}}, and make a big mess of lava that the staff would have to clean up, which would not be fun {{Citation needed}}. The lava has a decent chance to burn through a mop or some other tool, so it would be pretty tricky to clean up as well since your cleaning items would light on fire unless soaked in water or something. "Large igneous provinces" may be a reference to [[2061: Tectonics Game]], where making them is "the worst."
|-
|ISS (14 feet up) Returns every 90 minutes - Hit it with a nerf dart, win a prize!
| The {{w|International Space Station}} is the largest human-made object in space and orbits the Earth once every 90 minutes.
| This idea of treating modern research as a toy is in the same general panel area as the weather balloon smacking from the previous comic, except instead of a rule preventing people from doing so, this time the visitor is being incentivised to attempt it, similarly to a {{w|carnival game}}. Hitting the ISS with a nerf dart in this scaled world would have a potentially devastating effect on the ISS; however, at this scale, the ISS would be about a millimeter across, so that hitting it so far above your head as it goes by would be very difficult. Rather like a target in a typical carnival-game, the scale ISS is moving past at a moderate speed, about three inches per second (7.7 cm/s), so you can have several attempts before it's entirely out of range till its next orbit.
|}

==Transcript==
:[At the top of the image, inside the panel, a large title is floating in the air.]
:RULES
:For visitors to my 1/100,000th scale world
:1 meter = 100 km, 1 ft=100,000ft≈20 miles

:[Each of the following rules is written near a character or point of interest on the map.]

:[Dark-colored aurorae are floating in the air.]
:Our aurora are probably non-toxic but please stop trying to taste them

:[Ponytail is kneeling and breaking off part of an ice cap. In her other hand, she holds a wine glass.]
:No breaking off pieces of the ice caps to put in your drink

:[At around ankle height, a mountain is shown.]
:Do not step on Mount Everest

:[A relatively small ocean is shown on the right of Mount Everest.]
:Caution! [A pictogram of a person slipping.] Ocean floor slippery when wet

:[A cell coverage icon with one cell bar.]
:Warning: Limited cell network coverage above the ionosphere. Crouch down to get more bars

:[Megan is facing the aurorae. Thin horizontal lines are at her knees.]
:Wear sunscreen; the ozone layer only protects you below the knees.

:[Cueball is standing with three meteors whizzing both at and away from him.]
:Beware of chest-level meteors

:[A dotted line is at the Cueball from the last rule's chest.]
:-100°C mesopause vest recommended

:[A wine glass is resting on the ground near a shallow depression.]
:If Lake Tahoe or the Dead Sea dries up, refill them with this 5oz wine glass

:[Another Cueball is standing, holding both hands up to his face.]
:Safety glasses required for protection from reentering spacecraft
:Cueball: ''OW!''
:(off-panel voice): What?
:Cueball: I got a Soyuz in my eye

:[A tornado-shaped lightning sprite is hovering over a cloud.]
:Do not anger the sprites

:[A dotted line weaves belowground.]
:Please stop digging through the Moho. Staff are tired of cleaning up large igneous provinces.

:[An arrow pointing above the panel top.]
:ISS (14 feet up)
:Returns every 90 minutes
:Hit it with a Nerf dart, win a prize!

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Scale World]]
[[Category:Comics sharing name|1/10]]
[[Category:Illustrations of scale]]
[[Category:Geography]]
[[Category:Geology]]
[[Category:Space]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Multiple Cueballs]]