explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

2893: Sphere Tastiness

2024-02-13T07:46:44Z

162.158.63.21:

{{comic
| number = 2893
| date = February 12, 2024
| title = Sphere Tastiness
| image = sphere_tastiness_2x.png
| imagesize = 388x392px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Baseballs do present a challenge to this theory, but I'm convinced we just haven't found the right seasoning.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a STRANGELY TASTY MOON MADE OF CHEESE - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic takes the tastiness of four spheres: {{w|melons}}, {{w|grapes}}, {{w|Earth|Earth}}, and {{w|Moon|the Moon}}. Melons and grapes are small and very tasty to most people, but the Earth and Moon are large and [https://news.uchicago.edu/explainer/formation-earth-and-moon-explained made of rocks and metals], which are not very tasty. It is unknown what the line would be like if [[Randall]] included grapefruit.

The comic takes these four data points and makes a linear regression with them. Randall interpolates from this line that there must be a medium-sized sphere that "tastes okay".

The title text points out that {{w|baseball (ball)|baseballs}} seem to refute this theory, since they're not usually depicted as tasty, but they're between the sizes of grapes and melons. However, it suggests that if the right seasoning were found, they would be as tasty. Baseballs are balls used in the sport {{w|baseball}}, usually made out of a combination of a rubber or cork centre wrapped in yarn, and covered either by either horsehide, cowhide or a synthetic leather. Although most baseballs may not be immediately lethal to consume, baseballs are not likely to be very delicious to eat by the sheer nature of the taste of the materials that make up it, something that any seasoning is unlikely to be able to mask (at least in reasonable quantities).

This is the second comic in a row to feature fruit, graphs and predictions, after [[2892: Banana Prices]], and continues the theme of a logarithmic axial scale to facilitate plotting a linear regression. Here the line is interpolated between known data, rather than extrapolated beyond it. This would ordinarily be far more accurate than extrapolating outside the range of known data. However, this regression line is unlikely to be accurate, given that there are only four points and that they come in very close pairs, making it basically two. Also, it should be noted that edible things are not manufactured in 800-meter (½-mile) spheres, as that may be hard to prepare and consume. The 800 meter wide sphere could also be a small asteroid or other celestial object, but would not be very tasty, as they are made of of rocks and metals, just like the Earth and the Moon. If this is true, then Randall’s interpolation on the graph would probably be incorrect. Or perhaps the problem is just seasoning, just like a baseball. However, it is hard to believe that sauce is the solution to making rocks tasty.

Other fruit opinions have previously been mentioned in [[388: Fuck Grapefruit]].

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[Graph with Y axis using an arrow indicating tastiness from "Not Tasty" to "Tasty" and X axis labeled "Sphere Diameter (meters)" with a logarithmic scale running from 10-5 to around 108 (with 10-3, 100, 103 and 106 labeled).]

:[The graph contains two points points for "Grapes" and "Melons" at the "Tasty" end of the Y axis, between 10-2 and 10-1 meters, and two points for "The Earth" and "The Moon" at the "Not Tasty" end, both around 107 meters. A straight dashed line shows a linear interpolation between the points. There's a circle with a question mark about halfway between them.]

:[Caption below the panel:]
:My research suggests the existence of an 800-meter sphere that tastes okay.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Food]]
[[Category:Astronomy]]
[[Category:Baseball]]

2893: Sphere Tastiness

2024-02-13T07:40:18Z

162.158.63.21:

{{comic
| number = 2893
| date = February 12, 2024
| title = Sphere Tastiness
| image = sphere_tastiness_2x.png
| imagesize = 388x392px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Baseballs do present a challenge to this theory, but I'm convinced we just haven't found the right seasoning.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a STRANGELY TASTY MOON MADE OF CHEESE - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic takes the tastiness of four spheres: {{w|melons}}, {{w|grapes}}, {{w|Earth|Earth}}, and {{w|Moon|the Moon}}. Melons and grapes are small and very tasty to most people, but the Earth and Moon are large and [https://news.uchicago.edu/explainer/formation-earth-and-moon-explained made of rocks and metals], which are not very tasty. It is unknown what the line would be like if [[Randall]] included grapefruit.

The comic takes these four data points and makes a linear regression with them, which is unlikely to be accurate, given that there are only four points and that they come in very close pairs, making it basically two. Randall interpolates from this line that there must be a medium-sized sphere that "tastes okay". However, since this line is unlikely to be very useful, given the severe lack of data points, this moderately tasty sphere probably doesn’t exist. Also, it should be noted that edible things are not manufactured in 800-meter (½-mile) spheres, as that may be hard to prepare and consume. The 800 meter wide sphere could also be a small asteroid or other celestial object, but would not be very tasty, as they are made of of rocks and metals, just like the Earth and the Moon. If this is true, then Randall’s extrapolations on the graph would probably be incorrect. Or perhaps the problem is just seasoning, just like a baseball. However, it is hard to believe that sauce is the solution to making rocks tasty.

The title text points out that {{w|baseball (ball)|baseballs}} seem to refute this theory, since they're not usually depicted as tasty, but they're between the sizes of grapes and melons. However, it suggests that if the right seasoning were found, they would be as tasty. Baseballs are balls used in the sport {{w|baseball}}, usually made out of a combination of a rubber or cork centre wrapped in yarn, and covered either by either horsehide, cowhide or a synthetic leather. Although most baseballs may not be immediately lethal to consume, baseballs are not likely to be very delicious to eat by the sheer nature of the taste of the materials that make up it, something that any seasoning is unlikely to be able to mask (at least in reasonable quantities).

Other fruit opinions have previously been mentioned in [[388: Fuck Grapefruit]].

This is the second comic in a row to feature fruit, graphs and predictions, after [[2892: Banana Prices]], and continues the theme of a logarithmic axial scale to facilitate plotting a linear feature (here being interpolated between known data, rather than extrapolated beyond it).

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[Graph with Y axis using an arrow indicating tastiness from "Not Tasty" to "Tasty" and X axis labeled "Sphere Diameter (meters)" with a logarithmic scale running from 10-5 to around 108 (with 10-3, 100, 103 and 106 labeled).]

:[The graph contains two points points for "Grapes" and "Melons" at the "Tasty" end of the Y axis, between 10-2 and 10-1 meters, and two points for "The Earth" and "The Moon" at the "Not Tasty" end, both around 107 meters. A straight dashed line shows a linear interpolation between the points. There's a circle with a question mark about halfway between them.]

:[Caption below the panel:]
:My research suggests the existence of an 800-meter sphere that tastes okay.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Food]]
[[Category:Astronomy]]
[[Category:Baseball]]

2740: Square Packing

2023-02-20T22:14:48Z

162.158.63.21:

{{comic
| number = 2740
| date = February 20, 2023
| title = Square Packing
| image = square_packing_2x.png
| imagesize = 326x295px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = I also managed to improve the solution for n=1 to s<0.97, and with some upgrades I think I can hit 0.96.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a HYDRAULIC PRESS - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
Herein, Randall claims to have found a more efficient 11-square packing for the {{w|square packing in a square}} problem, by physically deforming the squares involved with a hydraulic press. Geometrical shapes are not conventionally assumed to be deformable in this manner {{citation needed}}.

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

{{comic discussion}}

149: Sandwich

2021-12-21T01:53:17Z

162.158.63.21: Added citiation

{{comic
| number = 149
| date = August 28, 2006
| title = Sandwich
| image = sandwich.png
| titletext = Proper User Policy apparently means Simon Says.
}}

==Explanation==
On both {{w|Windows}} and {{w|UNIX}} computer systems, users can be assigned all kinds of rights, for example rights to access certain directories and files, or to execute certain commands. The ''{{w|sudo}}'' command (pronounced "sue due" or "pseudo") lets certain (authorized) UNIX users override these policies by executing the command (everything after the word "sudo" on the command line) as the root user. Root (sometimes called the superuser) has complete system powers, exempt from all access controls; it is similar to a Windows administrator, however even the powers of a Windows administrator is limited - the ''system32'' folder, for example, cannot be deleted because it is a critical part of the operating system, while there is no such restriction on UNIX - if a root user feels like (or accidentally) deletes a vital file, they are free to do so. As a result, common advice is to not use sudo unless the command in question absolutely requires it - indeed, most commands do not require such privileges.

One very common activity for UNIX administrators is to install or configure software using the UNIX ''{{w|Make (software)|make}}'' command, e.g. <code>% '''make install'''</code>. Often this command requires administrative permissions in order to complete successfully, which in practice means the "<code>make ''this''</code>" command will fail unless it is typed as "<code>sudo make ''this''</code>" instead. However as mentioned before since most commands work just fine without sudo, along with general discouragement from using it willy-nilly, it is fairly common for people who use or administer UNIX systems to attempt a straight up <code>% make install</code> and have it fail. They then need to repeat the command with "sudo," whereupon the computer responds obediently, and everything works smoothly.

[[Cueball]] is demanding a sandwich from his friend. Not being properly asked, the friend denies the request. Cueball then (ab)uses the sudo command on the friend, who then has no choice but to go and make the sandwich, and now does so without complaint, because Cueball has all the rights. For anyone versed in installing system software with the <code>make</code> command, this exchange is intensely reminiscent of the analogous onscreen experience.

{{w|Simon Says}} is a children's game in which a leader gives various commands that must be followed if and only if ([[1033: Formal Logic|iff]]) the leader prefixes the command with "Simon says." The title text compares the way the computer will run some commands if they are preceded with "sudo" to the way Simon Says players are supposed to follow orders if (and only if) they are preceded with "Simon says."

Alternatively, the title text might merely be referring to the similarity between Cueball ordering his friend around with "sudo" to the Simon Says game leader ordering other players around. Wikipedia suggests that the "Simon" in the name of the game may be the powerful lord Simon de Montfort, or a corruption of Cicero, both of whom were influential politicians of their day.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball is sitting on a couch, talking to a Cueball-like friend.]
:Cueball: Make me a sandwich.
:Friend: What? Make it yourself.
:Cueball: Sudo make me a sandwich.
:Friend: Okay.

==Trivia==
*This comic is available as a T-shirt in the [https://store.xkcd.com/products/sudo xkcd store].
*This comic is available as a signed print in the [https://store.xkcd.com/products/signed-prints xkcd store].
*The sudo tool has adopted a sandwich-based logo, as seen on the [https://www.sudo.ws/sudo.html Sudo main page] (and the bottom of the [https://www.sudo.ws/contributors.html list of contributors]).
*Typing in "make me a sandwich" into DuckDuckGo [https://duckduckgo.com/?q=make+me+a+sandwich&t=h_&ia=answer tells you to make it yourself.]

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Multiple Cueballs]]
[[Category:Linux]]
[[Category:Food]]
[[Category:Comics with xkcd store products]]

2552: The Last Molecule

2021-12-11T03:49:57Z

162.158.63.21: Adds an explanation of the comic in terms of the completeness of arithmetic, which was proven to be incomplete 100 years ago. If I knew how, I'd link to comic 435 ("Purity"), which makes a similar point.

{{comic
| number = 2552
| date = December 8, 2021
| title = The Last Molecule
| image = the_last_molecule.png
| titletext = Biology is really struggling; they're barely at 93% and they keep finding more ants.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a CONFUSED PARTIAL BIOCHEMIST - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
This comic jokingly proposes a situation in which chemists have discovered and catalogued every single possible molecule. Thus they declare they have "completed chemistry." As deep learning algorithms can now predict chemical properties of proteins in advance of measurement, this situation may be looming closer.

Like [[2268:_Further_Research_is_Needed|comic 2268]], this may be a reference to a quote from around 1900, often attributed to Lord Kelvin or Albert Michelson: "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement." More likely, this is a reference to attempts by Frege and by Russell and Whitehead a century ago to prove using symbolic logic the completeness of arithmetic. This turned out to be impossible since Kurt Goedel's famous Incompleteness Theorem proved that at least one proposition could neither be proved true or false. Against this background, the idea that natural sciences could be 90+% complete is humorously exaggerated.

In real life the number of ways to arrange atoms into molecules grows combinatorically with the number of atoms in a molecule. Since molecules can be extremely large (up until the point where gravity takes over and initiates nuclear fusion), the number of possible combinations is much much larger than the number of particles in the observable universe, making the full cataloging of all molecules impossible. Thus, a "final molecule" cannot be reached. In addition, chemistry is the study of the interaction and changing states of atoms and molecules, not simply the cataloging of all specimens of molecule. Even if we did have a list of every molecule, there are a far greater number of ways to continue studying them, so the field would still be nowhere near completed.

This is reminiscent of biology's focus in previous centuries on simply cataloging the species on Earth, or Mathematics' {{w|classification of finite simple groups}} (only the latter was, surprisingly, actually completed successfully).

Further, the goal of science is not to "complete" a field, but to understand it better and better (finite order group theory did not shutter its doors after all finite groups were classified). No scientific field is considered fully understood. As readers are aware of this, part of the humor comes from the very high percentages given to the different fields. Putting Biology at 93% and Physics at 98% is patently absurd. Another part of the humor is the precision. As mentioned in the title text, we can't even give a definitive answer to changing-target yet deceptively simple questions like "How many kinds of ants are there?"

If biology ''were'' simply a matter of cataloging species, we are currently at around 10-20%. And yes many of them are ants; when J.B.S Haldane, founder of the field of population genetics, was asked what he learned about God from studying creation, he reportedly said [https://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/06/23/beetles/ "God is incredibly fond of beetles"]. Counting species aside, fundamental and important problems such as what genes promote which traits, the nature of cognition, and the mechanism behind several diseases remain complete mysteries. We know less about our own ocean floor than we do about the surface of Mars.

The title text in particular makes fun of Biology lagging behind due to the inherent difficulty of cataloging all species. Species are being constantly created and recategorized, so even if it were possible to know exactly what animals were alive on Earth at any one time, and which could interbreed, there would still be no agreement on the number of species they constituted, and that's without even getting into historic species, such as the contentious question of whether Neanderthals are considered a subspecies of homo sapiens, or a whole separate species.

As for Physics, all the elementary particles of the Standard Model of particle physics have been experimentally detected, culminating in the 2012 detection of the {{w|Higgs Boson}}. But questions such as "what is dark matter?", "how do we unify the four fundamental forces?", "how do we make nuclear fusion possible on earth?", "is the speed of light symmetrical?", and "how many dimensions does the universe have?" make it clear that the field still has a long, long way to go.

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

:[Ponytail is presenting on a stage. To the top-center of the slide which Ponytail is pointing to, there is a circled "100% complete" under "Chemistry", then to the left is "Biology" which is at "93% complete" and to the right is "Physics" which is at "98% complete". The bottom of the slide shows the [[wikipedia:structural formula|structural formula]] of a molecule which is captioned "The Last One", along with a few smaller captions around it drawn as squiggles.]

:Ponytail: With the discovery of the last molecule, I'm pleased to announce that chemistry is finally complete.
:Ponytail: Best of luck to our competitors in their race for second place.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Chemistry]]
[[Category:Physics]]

Talk:2527: New Nobel Prizes

2021-10-12T03:09:44Z

162.158.63.21:

I can't understand the title text --[[User:GcGYSF(asterisk)P(vertical line)e|GcGYSF(asterisk)P(vertical line)e]] ([[User talk:GcGYSF(asterisk)P(vertical line)e|talk]]) 02:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
:I think it's implying that they're so desperate to stop Dr. Adams that they're offering a Nobel Prize to whoever gets her to stop. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.63.21|162.158.63.21]] 03:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)