explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

1731: Wrong

2018-10-31T21:02:44Z

162.158.74.231: /* Explanation */ Fixed missing ending bracket in the link to the "Straw man" page on Wikipedia.

{{comic
| number = 1731
| date = September 9, 2016
| title = Wrong
| image = wrong.png
| titletext = Hang on, I just remembered another thing I'm right about. See...
}}

==Explanation==
All matter that we encounter in everyday life is normal matter and not {{w|Antimatter|antimatter}}. Atoms, while once when they were named believed to be the smallest unit of matter, are now known to be made up of {{w|Proton|protons}}, {{w|Neutron|neutrons}} and {{w|Electron|electrons}}. Protons and neutrons are in turn made up of {{w|Quark|quarks}}, which are elementary particles. Quarks come in six different "{{w|Flavour (particle physics)|flavours}}" (up, down, top, bottom, charm, and strange), with protons and neutrons being made of the first two types. Each flavour also has a corresponding {{w|Antiparticle|antiparticle}}, an antiquark, which would make up antiprotons and antineutrons.

[[White Hat]] and [[Megan]] appear to be discussing the topics of antimatter and subatomic particles. White Hat makes the assertion that we (referring to people and objects) are made partially of antimatter, because, as he claims, a proton (one of the particles which make up all matter) is made of two quarks and an antiquark. In fact, protons are made up of two up quarks and a down quark, which are all not antiquarks. He is likely making the mistake of mixing up the "up" and "down" flavours of quarks (which can be seen as complementary flavours of quarks) and mistaking them to be mutual antiparticles. He continues to elaborate on his idea by mentioning neutrons, which are made of two down quarks and an up quark.

(White Hat may have incorrectly remembered that, while the valence quarks in a proton are all matter, quantum field theory says that protons also contain an indefinite number of "virtual" anti-quarks, quarks, and gluons. See this video ''[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LraNu_78sCwv What are Quarks?]'' about this. His final comment could be referring to the ontological debate over whether virtual particles are in some sense real or only an artefact of perturbation theory.)

When Megan (accurately) doubts his claim, White Hat takes out his smartphone to look it up, in order to show Megan that he is correct. However, upon researching online, he realizes that he was, in fact, '''wrong''' (hence the title of the comic). Not wanting to admit being incorrect or yield his position in the discussion, he convinces himself that he wasn't actually wrong, as depicted by his mentally erasing the realization that he was wrong. Instead, he completely changes the topic to try and re-frame it so that he is not wrong. In this case, he circles back and criticises the entire scientific concept of "particles", which can be seen as an attempt at {{w|straw man}} on his part. Presumably, he will go on to explain how humans are not made of particles and quarks, but of waves.

It is rather common to be unwilling to admit fault (the whole topic of this comic) and to instead try to maintain an air of infallibility and intelligence. Some people are just too prideful to admit that they are inherently fallible. White Hat is one of those people, as depicted in several of his earlier appearances (see [[#Trivia|trivia section]]). [[Randall]] uses this comic to criticize people who are unable to put aside their ego and re-assess what they know in the face of empirical data. Such thinking flies directly against scientific rigour (adding an extra layer of irony to the situation, since White Hat and Megan are discussing a ''scientific'' topic). This method had already been called ''wrong'' in [[803: Airfoil]].

White Hat's new topic, where he can be right, includes the {{w|Quantum field theory}}, a very complicated field, which it is likely one Megan is not well versed in (inferred by the fact that she was not quite sure about the anti-quarks). So he may be raising the topic because he believes she will not understand it sufficiently to refute his correctness. Megan, however, recognizes exactly what he is trying to do, and can only sigh in response to his failed efforts. In {{w|Quantum field theory|QFT}} particles are often described as {{w|Resonance (particle physics)|resonances}} or {{w|excited state|excited states}} of the underlying physical field, in the same way as photons may be thought of as excitations in the electromagnetic field; in this way White Hat appears to be dismissing his earlier errors by implying that particles are merely an effect of something more complex, of which he can demonstrate his knowledge. Furthermore, in quantum field theory quarks do not exist in the conventional sense.

In the title text, White Hat just remembers another thing he's right about. This shows that he is not interested in a discussion on the merits of a topic, but instead is seeking only recognition and validation for being right. This bears some similarity to [[386: Duty Calls]], in which [[Cueball]] stays up late correcting someone on the Internet.

==Transcript==
:[White Hat is walking beside Megan, index finger extended]
:White Hat: Really, we're all made of antimatter. A proton consists of two quarks and an antiquark.
:Megan: ...I don't think that's right.

:[White Hat stops to take out his smartphone tapping on it. Megan stops and turns towards him.]
:White Hat: Sure it is. Neutrons are, too.
:Megan: Do you mean "up" and "down" quarks? I think antiquarks are a different thing.
:White Hat: No, let me show you...
:Tap
:Tap

:[Zooming in on White Hat's head, while he is holding his phone up looking at it. He is thinking as shown with a bubbly thought bubble.]
:White Hat (thinking): I'm...wrong?

:[White Hat has lowered the phone. He is still thinking the same but the text has been scribbled out.]
:White Hat (thinking): I'm...wrong?

:[White Hat purges the thought from his mind]
:White Hat (thinking): ...

:[Similar setting as in the first panel, but in a full row wide panel, and White Hat is still holding his smartphone]
:White Hat: Really, the whole idea of "particles" is inaccurate. These are abstractions arising from quantum field theory, but what most people don't realize is...
:Megan: *Sigh*

==Trivia==
*This comic could be seen as a follow up to [[1605: DNA]]. Going back through the last White Hat appearances it turns out that DNA, 13 White Hat comics back, is actually the last where White Hat has been the fall guy. For instance he has the opposite role in [[1640: Super Bowl Context]], and he is not "the stupid guy" in the comics between that and this one, but often just another guy than Cueball. Further back in [[1255: Columbus]] he was again the fall guy, and again it reminds a bit about this comic. Actually Megan even begins that comic with a *sigh* like she finished this one.
*Quarks are also referenced in [[1418: Horse]], [[1621: Fixion]] and the first time they were mentioned, in [[474: Turn-On]], all six flavors were also mentioned.
*Antimatter is also referenced in [[683: Science Montage]], [[826: Guest Week: Zach Weiner (SMBC)]] and [[1621: Fixion]] as well as being the subject of the [[what if?]] ''{{what if|114|Antimatter}}''. It was also mentioned in another ''what if?'': ''{{what if|79|Lake Tea}}''.
*A similar thought process where earlier thoughts are scribbled out was used by Cueball in [[1650: Baby]], but for different reasons.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Smartphones]]

2060: Hygrometer

2018-10-17T15:42:29Z

162.158.74.231: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2060
| date = October 17, 2018
| title = Hygrometer
| image = hygrometer.png
| titletext = I'm working on assembling a combination declinometer, sclerometer, viscometer, aleurometer, stalagmometer, and hypsometer. I'm making good progress according to my ometerometer, a device which shows the rate at which I'm acquiring measurement devices.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Written by a OMETEROMETER - Please edit the explanation below and only mention here why it isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

Here, Megan is talking to Cueball about hygrometers. But before she can even finish explaining what it does, Cueball has looked up, found, and purchased the product on amazon.

A {{w|hygrometer}} is an instrument to measure the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere or the amount of water in solids as soil or wood.

A [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/declinometer declinometer] is an instrument to measure {{w|magnetic declination}}.

A {{w|sclerometer}} is an instrument to measure {{w|scratch hardness}} of a solid by scratching it under some standard conditions and measuring the scratch. Instruments used to measure the elastic properties of concrete surfaces, like the {{w|Schmidt hammer}} [https://www.pce-instruments.com/english/measuring-instruments/test-meters/concrete-test-hammer-sclerometer-kat_162426_1.htm are also often known as sclerometers].

A {{w|viscometer}} is an instrument to test the viscosity (easiness of pouring, honey has high viscosity while water has low viscosity) of a liquid.

An [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/aleurometer aleurometer] is an instrument to evaluate the quality of flour for baking by measuring how much can a wet mass of wheat expand when heated while keeping its adhesivity.[https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleurometer]

An {{w|Stalagmometric method|stalagmometer}} is an instrument to measure {{w|surface tension}} of fluids by producing a drop and wheighing it - the bigger the drop is, the larger surface tension the fluid has.

An ometerometer, being a concatenation of [https://www.google.com/search?q=ometer -ometer] with itself would be a device for measuring measuring devices.

==Transcript==
Megan: A hygrometer is a device for measuring-

Cueball: ''I WANT ONE!'' Ooh, found one for $7.99 with free shipping! I'm buying it.

Megan: -Humidity.

Cueball: Oh, cool!

Title text: I'm working on assembling a combination declinometer, sclerometer, viscometer, aleurometer, stalagmometer, and hypsometer. I'm making good progress according to my ometerometer, a device which shows the rate at which I'm acquiring measurement devices.
{{comic discussion}}

2045: Social Media Announcement

2018-09-13T00:58:08Z

162.158.74.231: Adding mention of former misspelling to trivia, removed reference from main body. ~~asnook

{{comic
| number = 2045
| date = September 12, 2018
| title = Social Media Announcement
| image = social_media_announcement.png
| titletext = Why I'm Moving Most of My Social Activity to Slack, Then Creating a Second Slack to Avoid the People in the First One, Then Giving Up on Social Interaction Completely, Then Going Back to Texting
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Too much focus on mastodon, not enough on the overall concept of the comic Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

In 2018, especially after {{w|Facebook}} privacy abuses were revealed in the {{w|Cambridge_Analytica#Privacy_issues|Cambridge Analytica scandal}}, many individuals began seeking alternatives. The #deletefacebook hashtag peaked around April 2018, and in some communities, this type of "why I'm leaving Facebook" announcements were popular.

{{w|Mastodon (software)|Mastodon}} is a distributed, federated social network with microblogging features similar to {{w|Twitter}}. "Federated" means that there is one app hosted in many places, so users can choose a host that meets their needs, but everyone can still talk to each other, similar to email. Near the peak of #deletefacebook, mastodon became trending as a [https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/783akg/mastodon-is-like-twitter-without-nazis-so-why-are-we-not-using-it twitter alternative with less nazis].

The word {{w|Mastodon}} specifies a Mammut.

{{w|Wil Wheaton}} famously moved to Mastodon from Twitter, [https://news.avclub.com/wil-wheaton-on-quitting-social-media-i-don-t-deserve-1828743467 but was ultimately disappointed by the experience], because while Mastodon's community is generally less toxic, it does not yet have the tools to handle the kind of targeted harassment that a celebrity might face.

{{w|Microsoft}} has been buying up professional-themed social media platforms lately, such as {{w|LinkedIn}}, intending to integrate them more fluidly with their enterprise software suite. Mastodon seems an unlikely target for an acquisition, since its decentralized nature means that one corporate entity can't control it, and the culture there is decidedly unprofessional as of this comic.

The title text presents an alternative approach by moving most social activities to the cloud-based proprietary team collaboration platform {{w|Slack (software)|Slack}}, whose one important paid feature is the ability to search through archived messages without any limit (Wikipedia is wrong here as only free users are limited.). Then, probably because there were too many annoying communications, he creates a new account to get rid of the old messages. This also didn't last long and he stops interacting on social media entirely. As a result he just writes texts and is probably not showing them to anyone.

==Trivia==
In the original version of this comic, Cueball misspelled "Mastodon" as "Mastadon".

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

:[Cueball sitting in front of a laptop typing.]
:Why I'm Quitting Facebook, Joining LinkedIn, Deleting My LinkedIn, Rejoining Facebook, Quitting Twitter, Getting Locked Out of Facebook, Moving to Mastadon, and Lobbying Microsoft to Take Over Mastadon and Merge It With LinkedIn: A Manifesto.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Social networking]]

Talk:2045: Social Media Announcement

2018-09-13T00:54:41Z

162.158.74.231: /* Trivia */ new section

I doubt it's Wil-Wheaton-specific. I've seen a fair number of people talk about quitting some form of social media or another (though usually not ALL of it); Wheaton's just the biggest (that I'm now aware of). [[Special:Contributions/162.158.75.202|162.158.75.202]] 12:00, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Trivially amusing, I think "fewer" when I read "less nazis" in the explanation; this may make me a grammar Nazi, so instead of editing I'm pleading [[261: Regarding Mussolini]]. [[User:Elvenivle|Elvenivle]] ([[User talk:Elvenivle|talk]]) 18:56, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

'''GitHub'''

On June 4, 2018, Microsoft announced its intent to acquire GitHub. This means it isn't acquired yet. Thus I've removed it from the explanation. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 12:59, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

'''Texting'''
I'm pretty sure Texting is supposed to mean {{w|SMS}}. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 22:12, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

== Trivia ==

"Mastodon" was originally misspelled "Mastadon" in Cueball's dialog. This was corrected the same day this comic was released.

Talk:2042: Rolle's Theorem

2018-09-11T06:39:20Z

162.158.74.231:

Now we wait for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munroes_theorem. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.54.165|172.69.54.165]] 15:51, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
:Can't wait to see how long it takes to remove the article. [[User:Linker|Linker]] ([[User talk:Linker|talk]]) 17:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

:Proposed ideas for Munroe's Law:
::- Any seemingly simple idea will be difficult to prove; the simpler it seems, the harder the proof.
::- Any proof which is discovered by a layperson will have been previously discovered by an expert (or an "expert") in the field.
:[[User:Rajakiit|Raj-a-Kiit]] ([[User talk:Rajakiit|talk]]) 17:57, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
:I do not have the time to do it good, so here a suggestion: Would someone go to the wikipedia page of Rolle's theorem and add a "in popular culture" section? may be a first? Not even "Nash equilibrum" has that :-) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.234.16|162.158.234.16]] 08:13, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
::Done. [[User:Kmote|Kmote]] ([[User talk:Kmote|talk]]) 17:56, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
::Speaking of popular culture, there's a (moderately) well known Ballad of Rolle's theorem [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0BXv90MlhA Balada o vete Rolleovej] ("moderately" meaning some people who studied at Faculty of mathematics in Bratislava might have heard (of) it) --[[User:Kventin|Kventin]] ([[User talk:Kventin|talk]]) 07:41, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I feel like Euclid beat Randall to the punch here, a couple millennia. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.155.146|162.158.155.146]] 16:54, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't see that Thales has proven Randall's theorem. Do not to be confused with {{w|Thales's theorem}}, that's about right angles. Maybe I'm blind or just dumb, but if so it has to be explained with more traceable background. I just believe that this diagonal is so trivial that even the ancient Greeks weren't engaged on a proof. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
* From {{w|Thales|Wikipedia}}: Other quotes from Proclus list more of Thales' mathematical achievements: "They say that Thales was the first to demonstrate that the circle is bisected by the diameter, the cause of the bisection being the unimpeded passage of the straight line through the centre." [[User:Alexei Kopylov|Alexei Kopylov]] ([[User talk:Alexei Kopylov|talk]]) 05:39, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
* On the other hand not all historian believe Proclus. But van der Waerden does: [https://books.google.com/books?id=HK3vCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA88#v=onepage&q&f=false]. [[User:Alexei Kopylov|Alexei Kopylov]] ([[User talk:Alexei Kopylov|talk]]) 05:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

'''Rolle's Theorem counterexample?'''

Isn't the TAN(x) function a counterexample to this? Starting at a given point, it rises to infinity, then returns from negative infinity to the same point without ever having a slope of zero. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.58.89|172.68.58.89]] 06:58, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
:TAN(x) isn't differentiable at pi/2, hence the theorem doesn't apply--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.40|162.158.92.40]] 07:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
::And tan(x) has a slope of 0 at pi, so even if it applied, it wouldn't prove it wrong. A better example would be 1/x, but still invalid. [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 08:01, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
:::Nope: tan(x) has a slope of 1 at pi, and its slope is never less than 1. Of course, that doesn't make it a counterexample. Zetfr 09:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

'''Clueless Museum Visitor'''

The math in the comic is well explained, but shouldn't there be something about the "math equivalent of the clueless art museum visitor..." part? Zetfr 09:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
: Seconded, all the argument here is about math that isn't even *in* the comic, whereas the bit that confuses me is the cultural metaphor... [[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.235|162.158.154.235]] 07:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
: I had a go.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.103|162.158.154.103]] 08:35, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Just so we're on the same page, while the proof of Rolle's theorem is not completely trivial, neither is it difficult by any means. Proving it seems to be a pretty common homework assignment in undergrad math classes, for example, so one might legitimately ask why it deserved to be named. Perhaps it's simply that it's old enough that the methods at the time were crappy, and so modern proofs are much easier. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.22.140|172.69.22.140]]
: It is named because it's a very important theorem in calculus, used to prove many other theorems or results. So when you need to prove something using this property, instead of re-demonstrating it or merely saying "it is well known that..." (which often raises alarm bells in the mind of the reader/corrector), all you have to do is reference Rolle's theorem.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.155.158|162.158.155.158]] 11:08, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
:: It could almost be called "Rolle's lemma". [[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.103|162.158.154.103]] 12:28, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
: When I am teaching Rolle's theorem, I always make it a point to draw the link to reals. Rolle's theorem fails when the output is complex valued. Then you can see for yourself how non-trivial this is. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.165.124|162.158.165.124]] 04:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Has anyone else noted the irony of having a wiki page to explain a comic whose subject is how some things are self-evident? [[User:JamesCurran|JamesCurran]] ([[User talk:JamesCurran|talk]]) 20:13, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Does the Kepler Conjecture actually belong on that list at the end? Most of the others are "derp" level intuitively obvious and/or essentially tautological on a very basic level, but the Kepler Conjecture couldn't actually be exhaustively proven until machine computation, nor is it intuitively definitive--if you've ever stacked round things into a box you've noticed that it feels like you're wasting a lot of space at the edges. So...? [[User:AtrumMessor|AtrumMessor]] ([[User talk:AtrumMessor|talk]]) 21:37, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
:I would also argue against most of the other examples. Neither the isoperimetric inequality nor the hairy ball theorem are obviously true and their proof is quite a bit more involved than the one of Rolle's theorem. The Jordan curve theorem sounds obvious but then the proof definitely isn't. The parallel postulate isn't even a theorem. The only real good example in the list is the pigeonhole principle.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.155|162.158.91.155]] 12:35, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
:I have removed all but that, as it is the only one comparable to Rolle's in simplicity to understand without understanding math. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 14:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
::I agree, Randall mentions nothing like that and a simple parallel is enough. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 14:25, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
::I would argue that a lot of them could have stayed. Just because some of the examples given do have a lot of "hidden" mathematical complexity and are important bases for mathematical fields does not mean they are not useful parallels to the comic's example. In fact, one that comes to mind is the infamous 300-page Russell/Whitehead proof of 1+1=2. If anything, the more axiomatically complex but intuitively, even stupidly obvious something is, the BETTER it fits. My original point was that the Kepler Conjecture felt like a "which one of these things is not like the others" situation in the original list, as it was not at all easily proven, nor is it intuitively obvious. Some of these were actually pretty useful examples and should have been left, no matter how foundational they are to calculus ;) [[User:AtrumMessor|AtrumMessor]] ([[User talk:AtrumMessor|talk]]) 06:46, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I also suggest that Fundamental Theorem of Calculus be removed from this list. Firstly, the beginner student, just introduced to derivatives and antiderivatives, will not easily see that antiderivatives are the same as finding areas under curves. Instead, it is only obvious upon hindsight, after instruction. More importantly, a restriction of the FTC to better-behaved spaces shows a far greater insanity: the restricted FTC is a consequence of generalised Stokes's theorem '''applied twice'''. This operation is so highly unintuitive, that one simply cannot claim that this is in any way, shape, or form, trivial. I think that trying to pretend that anything in beginning calculus is obvious to students is just going to alienate them rather than soothe their worries. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.165.124|162.158.165.124]] 04:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

:Ehh what? No, FTC restricted to smooth functions is simply a special-case of Stokes' Theorem. This is explained [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stokes%27_theorem#Introduction here]. I don't even know what you could possibly mean by applying Stokes' theorem twice, in any context. [[User:Zmatt|Zmatt]] ([[User talk:Zmatt|talk]]) 13:23, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

:: ``FTC restricted to smooth function is simply a special case of Stokes's theorem"" is basically what I said, although FTC proper applies to a wider range of functions. As to applying Stokes's theorem twice, remember that the differential form for areas is A = iint dw, where dw = dx ^ dy. You apply once to get that A = oint w, where oint runs around the entire boundary of the area to be considered. Then you have to use some smarts to zero the contributions from 3 of the 4 sides, leaving just the contribution from the x-axis. Then the boundary, which is supposed to have no boundary itself, gets two new boundaries, of which then you can apply another Stokes's theorem to get the F(b)-F(a) result. Again, this process is highly non-trivial, as evidenced by your failure to see what I meant from the first time talking about it. Pardon if the IP changed, it is me. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.167.60|162.158.167.60]] 04:48, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

::: No it isn't "basically" what you said. I know FTC applies to a wider range of functions, that's why I said "restricted to smooth functions". I have not even the slightest idea what process you're trying to explain or why you're talking about 2D integrals. FTC restricted to smooth functions ''is exactly'' Stokes restricted to a line-segment, there is no "process". Again, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stokes%27_theorem#Introduction this wikipedia section] explains this quite well, albeit informally. [[User:Zmatt|Zmatt]] ([[User talk:Zmatt|talk]]) 11:01, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

:::: You seem to be missing what I am referring to. There are at least two parts. Let's start with the main one. You keep referring to the same place of the same article. That is not under contention, so it is irrelevant. So I checked Wikipedia's article on FTC itself and I think I see why you don't see my point. When I learnt FTC from textbooks, the definition of integrals is via the area under curve, i.e. the relevant bit in the FTC article is the geometric intuition. The FTC article, however, quite much like you seem to be, however, only covers the anti-derivative part. In a sense, it comes down to the definition of what an ``integral" means. AFAIK, for beginners, there is only 3 definitions in common use, the directed area under curve, limit of a certain sum, and anti-derivatives. When I teach, I tend to define the directed area under curve, just because students like to see things. Because of that, my FTC has to cover the area under curve. And that is the 2D integral known to Leibniz. If you want the 2D integral, then you ought to integrate the fundamental differential form I was talking about---you don't talk about generalised Stokes's theorem without differential geometry, and I am trying to say that the identification of a definite integral with the area under curve is what is taught to beginning students, but is highly non-trivial under differential geometry! I hope this is clearer. Of course, the moment the 2D integral is reduced to a 1D integral with new boundaries, then the part you keep referring to is relevant, and again, not under any contention. I am simply saying I am not happy with that being the sole content of FTC. The FTC I respect is the one that includes the geometrical intuition. Finally, just the quibble---what part of my ``the restricted FTC is a consequence of generalised Stokes's theorem" is different from your ``FTC restricted to smooth functions is simply a special case of Stokes' theorem"? Even if you disagreed with my ``applied twice", you should not be disagreeing with my ``basically what I said". [[Special:Contributions/162.158.166.191|162.158.166.191]] 16:55, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

"Munroe's theorem" should definitely refer to the circle thing in the alt text {{unsigned ip|162.158.62.57}}

Since I'm half a mathematician, I did the math. I looked up Rolle's theorem and it uses the theorem of Weierstraß. I looked up the theorem of Weierstraß (better known as extreme value theorem) and it uses the theorem of Bolzano-Weierstraß. I looked up...why am I suddenly reminded of https://xkcd.com/609 ? :-) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.71|141.101.104.71]] 08:36, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

What goes up must come down. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.238.64|198.41.238.64]] 05:53, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

'''Going in the opposite direction.'''

Sure, some seemingly obvious things can be made theorems, but there's a point of view that the most complex theorems may seem obvious to a sufficiently smart entity, that we have such hard time studying mathematics simply because it's difficult for us to grasp long sequences of obvious connections in our insufficiently powerful imagination, so we need to break it down into manageable pieces.
"I have come to believe, though very reluctantly, that it [mathematics] consists of tautologies. I fear that, to a mind of sufficient intellectual power, the whole of mathematics would appear trivial, as trivial as the statement that a four-legged animal is an animal." ---Bertrand Russell (1957)

Talk:2040: Sibling-in-Law

2018-08-31T17:01:50Z

162.158.74.231:

Unless you want to go completely nuts on this topic, avoid reading Jane Austen, where the the term "X-in-law" is used to mean, roughly, "someone to whom you are related for legal reasons". It can be used to refer to, for example, what we today might refer to as step/half-siblings, adopted siblings, etc. [[User:Arcanechili|Arcanechili]] ([[User talk:Arcanechili|talk]]) 15:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

> The title text refers to incestual relationships, which are generally frowned upon in Western culture.

How on earth this refers to incest if persons are only legally, not genetically related??? It's just that Randall doesn't know how to call new relatives but cannot stop their arrival.

Yes, I also don't think it refers to incest.

:I'm not sure if that is right or not, but that was my interpretation of that text, based on the "a reason why these two should not be wed." Unless there is a different issue with this, also involving marriage? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.59.190|162.158.59.190]] 16:44, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Somehow I don't have this problem whatsoever...as I'm a single child who married a single child. I have zero siblings-in-law. In fact, my future kids won't even have (regular) cousins...

Talk:2040: Sibling-in-Law

2018-08-31T17:00:59Z

162.158.74.231:

Talk:2040: Sibling-in-Law

2018-08-31T17:00:18Z

162.158.74.231:

Unless you want to go completely nuts on this topic, avoid reading Jane Austen, where the the term "X-in-law" is used to mean, roughly, "someone to whom you are related for legal reasons". It can be used to refer to, for example, what we today might refer to as step/half-siblings, adopted siblings, etc. [[User:Arcanechili|Arcanechili]] ([[User talk:Arcanechili|talk]]) 15:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

> The title text refers to incestual relationships, which are generally frowned upon in Western culture.

How on earth this refers to incest if persons are only legally, not genetically related??? It's just that Randall doesn't know how to call new relatives but cannot stop their arrival.

Yes, I also don't think it refers to incest.

:I'm not sure if that is right or not, but that was my interpretation of that text, based on the "a reason why these two should not be wed." Unless there is a different issue with this, also involving marriage? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.59.190|162.158.59.190]] 16:44, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Somehow don't have this problem whatsoever...as I'm a single child who married a single child. I have zero siblings-in-law. In fact, my future kids don't even have (regular) cousins...

Talk:2039: Begging the Question

2018-08-29T17:17:46Z

162.158.74.231:

First[[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.231|162.158.74.231]] 17:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

2035: Dark Matter Candidates

2018-08-20T15:10:58Z

162.158.74.231: /* Explanation */ My two cents, trying to expand many of the options.

{{comic
| number = 2035
| date = August 20, 2018
| title = Dark Matter Candidates
| image = dark_matter_candidates.png
| titletext = My theory is that dark matter is actually just a thin patina of grime covering the whole universe, and we don't notice it because we haven't thoroughly cleaned the place in eons.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Every section needs to be filled and explained. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
{{w|Dark matter}} is a hypothetical form of matter used by the vast majority of astronomers to explain the far too high movement of objects at large scales in our universe. In galaxies stars are moving faster than the visible matter to the center could cause and entire galaxies moving much faster around than it should be. At scales of our solar system those effects are too small and can't be measured. In cosmology, dark matter account for 85% of the total matter in the universe.

This comic gives a set of possibilities of what dark matter could possibly be, charted by mass from smallest (given in {{w|Electronvolt#Mass|electronvolts}}) to largest (given in kilograms). Masses in the range 10-15kg to 10-3kg are given in grammes.

The joke in this comic is that the range of the mass of the possible particles and objects stretch over 81 powers of ten. [[Randall]] filled the gap between real small candidate particles and real large candidate objects with highly absurd suggestions.

;Axion
An {{w|Axion|Axion}} is a hypothetical elementary particle that might be a component of dark matter.

;Sterile neutrino
{{w|Sterile neutrino|Sterile neutrinos}} are hypothetical particles interacting only via gravity. It's an actual candidate for dark matter.

;Electrons painted with space camouflage
Electrons are fundamental particles which compose the outer layers of atoms. A large number of electrons in the galaxy would be relatively easy to detect, as they not only interact with light (which dark matter does not appear to), but have a strong electric charge. Presumably, space camouflage is a positively-charged coating which prevents electrons from interacting with light. (Needless to say, this is not an actual candidate for dark matter.)

;Neutralino
A {{w|Neutralino|Neutralino}} is a hypothetical particle from {{w|Supersymmetry|Supersymmetry}}, not something made up by Randall Munroe that sounds vaguely like one. It's an actual candidate for dark matter.

;Q-ball
In theoretical physics, a {{w|Q-ball|Q-ball}} is a stable group of particles. It's an actual candidate for dark matter.

In billiards, a cue ball is the white (or yellow) ball hit with the cue in normal play.

;Pollen
{{w|Pollen|Pollen}} is a joke candidate, though people with seasonal allergies may suspect that the universe genuinely is made up entirely of pollen in the springtime.

;No-See-Ums
{{w|Ceratopogonidae|No-See-Ums}}, also called Ceratopogonidae, a family of small flies (1–4 mm long) who can pass through most window screens. Another joke candidate.

;8-balls
In pool, the {{w|Pool (cue sports)|8-ball}} is a black ball numbered 8. It's a pun with Q-ball/cue ball. Unless undetected aliens have discovered billiards and become addicted to it, 8-balls are found only on Earth and are, hence, unlikely dark matter candidates.

;Space Cows
Cows are Bovines extensively farmed on Earth for milk and meat. Although there is folk lore concerning cows {{w|Hey diddle diddle|acheiving circum-lunar orbits}}, they have yet to be found elsewhere in the Universe.

;Obelisks, Monoliths, Pyramids
While those human constructions are huge on a human scale, they're negligible at universe-scale. It would take a large number of such constructions, distributed through space, to replicate the effects of dark matter; while a scenario could be envisioned where enough such constructs existed, with properties and distribution allowing them to match observations, this is obviously not a likely explanation.
They often show up in fiction and pseudo-scientific literature as alien artifacts generating immense unknown power out of nowhere, with the most famous and influential example being the monolith from 2001: A Space Odyssey.

;Black Holes ruled out by:
{{w|Black hole|Black holes}} are known in sizes of a few sun masses (about 1030-1031 kg) as remnants of the core of former big stars and the real big ones at the centers of galaxies (millions or even billions of the mass of the sun.) But recent gravitational wave detection indicate that black holes at 50 or 100 sun masses also exist while their origin is still not understood. Randall doesn't mention this but some astronomers hope that these could fill at least a part of the gap.
* Gamma Rays: If dark matter were black holes of this size, the black holes would be evaporating in bursts of hawking radiation, and we'd see a buzz of gamma rays from every direction.
* GRB lensing
* Neutron Star Data
* Micro lensing
* Solar System Stability
* Buzzkill Astronomers: Black holes above a certain size would be impossible to miss, due to the effects they have on nearby matter.

;Maybe those orbit lines on space diagrams are real and very heavy
Any diagram of our solar system (or any solar system) will show lines representing the path the planet takes around its sun. Since planets orbit in ellipses, there will be an ellipse for every planet. This lines don't show real objects, though. Astronomers just draw them on pictures of the solar system to show where the planets move. If you draw a line on a map to give someone directions, that line isn't an object in real life; it's just on the map. If these lines were real, they would be ''huge'' (Earth's would be 940 million km long (2π AU) and Neptune's would be 28 ''billion'' kilometers long. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fKBhvDjuy0 Powers of Ten (1977)] gives a good sense of just how large these orbit lines need to be in order to be visible in space diagrams. If these orbit lines were also very dense, they would have a huge mass and could possibly account for the missing 85% of the mass in the universe. But they would also constantly be impaling the inner four planets, including the Earth, which would be a problem. Overall, not a very likely candidate.

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

:Dark matter candidates:
:[A line graph is shown and labeled at left quarter in eV and further to the right in g together with some prefixes.]
:[The labels read:]
:µeV, meV, eV, keV, MeV, GeV, TeV, 10-18kg, ng, µg, mg, g, kg, TON, 106kg, 1012kg, 1018kg, 1024kg, 1030kg

:[All items are shown in bars ranging between two approximately values:]
:< 1 µeV - 10 meV: Axion

:1 eV - 10 keV: Sterile neutrino

:1 MeV (exactly): Electrons painted with space camouflage

:10 GeV - 10 TeV: Neutralino

:100 TeV - 10-17 kg: Q-ball

:1 ng - 100 ng: Pollen

:0.1 mg - 1 mg: No-See-Ums

:10-1 g (exactly): Bees

:10 g - 100 g: 8-balls

:100 kg - TON: Space Cows

:TON - 109 kg: Obelisks, Monoliths, Pyramids

:109 kg - 1033 kg: Black Holes ruled out by:
::109 kg - 1013 kg: Gamma Rays
::1013 kg - 1017 kg: GRB lensing
::1015 kg - 1022 kg: Neutron Star data
::1021 kg - 1030 kg: Micro lensing
::1024 kg - 1030 kg: Solar System Stability
::1030 kg - 1033 kg: Buzzkill Astronomers

:1033 kg - >1036 kg: Maybe those orbit lines on space diagrams are real and very heavy

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Astronomy]]
[[Category:Line graphs]]

2034: Equations

2018-08-17T11:33:36Z

162.158.74.231: Added description of quantum mechanics section

{{comic
| number = 2034
| date = August 17, 2018
| title = Equations
| image = equations.png
| titletext = All electromagnetic equations: The same as all fluid dynamics equations, but with the 8 and 23 replaced with the permittivity and permeability of free space, respectively.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by an EQUATION - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
This comic gives a set of equations supposedly from different areas of mathematics and physics. To anyone not familiar with the field in question they look pretty similar to what you might find in research papers or on the relevant Wikipedia pages. To someone who knows even a little about the topic, they are clearly very wrong and only seem even worse the more you look at them.
{| class="wikitable"
!style="width:20%"|Equation
!style="width:20%"|Field
!style="width:60%"|Explanation
|-
|<math>E = K_0t + \frac{1}{2}\rho vt^2</math>
|All kinematics equations
|This equation literally states: "Energy equals a constant <math>K_0</math> multiplied by time, plus half of density multiplied by speed multiplied by time squared". The first term here is hard to interpret: it could be correct if <math>K_0</math> is a constant power applied to the system, but this symbol would more normally be used to denote an initial energy, in which case so multiplying by <math>t</math> would be wrong. The second term looks similar to the traditional kinetic energy formula <math>\frac{1}{2}mv^2</math> but with a density instead of the mass. This is then wrong without some accompanying volume term (on either side of the equation).
|-
|<math>K_n = \sum_{i=0}^{\infty}\sum_{\pi=0}^{\infty}(n-\pi)(i-e^{\pi-\infty})</math>
|All number theory equations
|Taken literally the equation says: "The nth K-number is equal to: for all i in 0 to infinity, for all pi in 0 to infinity; subtract pi from n, and multiply it with i minus e to the power of pi minus infinity". A twofold misconception can be seen here. The first is the reassignment of pi as a variable instead of the constant (3.14...). This might be a jab at how in number theory letters and numbers are used interchangeably, but where some letters are all of a sudden fixed constants. The second misconception is the use of infinity in the latter part of the formula. Naively this would signify that (with the reassigned pi values) the part in the power would range from minus infinity to zero. However, infinity is not a number and cannot be used as one without using a limit construct.
|-
|<math>\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\nabla\cdot \rho = \frac{8}{23}

\int\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\;\;\bigcirc\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\;\;\int
\rho\,ds\,dt\cdot \rho\frac{\partial}{\partial\nabla}
</math>
|All fluid dynamic equations
|This equation has superficial resemblance to portions of [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations Maxwell's Equations], but just miscellaneous bits, some from the integral forms and some from the differential forms.

|-
|<math>|\psi_{x,y}\rangle = A(\psi) A(|x\rangle \otimes |y\rangle)</math>
|All quantum mechanic equations
|This equation takes a state psi in the dimensions of x and y and equates it to an operator A performed on psi multiplied by the same operator performed on the tensor product of x and y. Seeing as the state psi is already the tensor product of the states x and y, this is equivalent to performing the same unknown operator twice on psi, and unless this operator is its own inverse such as a bit-flip or Hermitian operator, this equation is therefore incorrect.

|-
|<math>\mathrm{CH}_4 + \mathrm{OH} + \mathrm{HEAT} \rightarrow \mathrm{H}_2\mathrm{O} + \mathrm{CH}_2 + \mathrm{H}_2 \mathrm{EAT}</math>
|All chemistry equations
| A modification of the combustion of methane. The correct form is often taught and a good example problem but obviously there are more chemistry problems.<math>\mathrm{HEAT}</math> is normally shorthand for {{w|activation energy}}, but in Randall's version it's jokingly used as a chemical ingredient and becomes <math>\mathrm{H}_2\mathrm{EAT}</math>, taking the hydrogen atom freed by the combustion equation shown. To deliver the punchline while maintaining proper stoichiometry, <math>\mathrm{OH}</math> (which should be <math>\mathrm{OH}^-</math>, since the oxygen keeps a free electron when it combines with a single hydrogen) is shown instead of <math>\mathrm{O}_2</math>. The proper methane combustion equation would be: <math>\mathrm{CH}_4 + 2 \mathrm{O}_2 \rightarrow 2 \mathrm{H}_2\mathrm{O} + \mathrm{CO}_2</math>
|-
|<math>\mathrm{SU}(2)\mathrm{U}(1) \times \mathrm{SU}(\mathrm{U}(2))</math>
|All quantum gravity equations
|This is more similar to experessions which appear in {{w|Grand_Unified_Theory|Grand Unified Theory}} (GUT) than general quantum gravity. Unlike some of the other equations, this one has no interpretation which could make it mathematically correct. This is similar to the notations used to describe the symmetry group of a particular phenomena in terms of mathematical {{w|Lie_Group|Lie Groups}}. A real example would be the Standard Model of particle physics which has symmetry according to <math>\rm{SU(3)\times SU(2) \times U(1)}</math>. Here, <math>\rm{SU}</math> and <math>\rm{U}</math> denote the special unitary and unitary groups respectively with the numbers indicating the dimension of the group. Loosely, the three terms correspond to the symmetries of the strong force, weak force and electromagnetism although the exact correspondence is muddied by symmetry breaking and the Higgs mechanism.

Of course, an expression missing an "=" sign, is difficult to interpret as an "equation", because equations normally express an "equality" of some kind. Nobody knows whether Randal refers to a horse here (equidae)

Randall's version clearly involves some similar groups although without the <math>\times</math> symbol it is hard to work out what might be happening. A term like <math>\rm{SU(U(2))}</math> has no current interpretation in mathematics, if anyone thinks otherwise and possibly has a solution to the quantum gravity problem they should probably get in touch with someone about that.
|-
|[[File:All gauge theory equations.png]]
|All gauge theory equations
||This equation looks broadly similar to the sorts of things which appear in gauge theory such as the equations which define {{w|Yang–Mills_theory#Quantization|Yang-Mills Theory}}. By the time physics has got this far in, people have normally run out of regular symbols making a lot of the equations look very daunting. The actual equations in this field rarely go far beyond the Greek alphabet though and no-one has yet to try putting hats on brackets. The appearance of many sub- and superscripts is normal (this links to the group theory origins of these equations) and for the layperson it can be impossible to determine which additions are labels on the symbols and which are indices for an {{w|Einstein_notation|Einstein Sum}}.

The left-hand side <math>S_g</math> is the symbol for some {{w|Action_(physics)|action}}, in Yang-Mills theory this is actually used for a so-called "ghost action". On the right-hand side we have a large number of terms, most of which are hard to interpret without knowing Randall's thought processes (this is why real research papers should all label their equations thoroughly). The <math>\frac{1}{2\bar{\varepsilon}}</math> looks like a constant of proportionality which often appears in gauge theories. The factor of <math>i = \sqrt{-1}</math> is not unusual as many of these equations use complex numbers. The <math>\eth</math> symbol looks similar to a <math>\partial</math> partial derivative symbol especially as the {{w|Dirac_equation#Covariant_form_and_relativistic_invariance|Dirac Equation}} uses a slashed version as a convenient shorthand.

The rest of the equation cannot be mathematically correct as the choice of indices used does not match that on the left-hand side (which has none). In particle physics subscripts (or superscripts) of greek letters (usually <math>\mu</math> or <math>\nu</math>) indicate terms which transform nicely under Lorentz transformations (special relativity). Roman indices from the beginning of the alphabet relate to various gauge transformation propetries, the triple index seen on <math>p^{abc}_v</math> would likely come from some <math>\rm{SU(3)}</math> transformation (related to the strong nuclear force). Since <math>S_g</math> has none of these (and is thus a scalar which remains constant under these operations), we would need the right-hand side to behave in the same way. Most of the indices which appear are unpaired and so will not result in a scalar making the equation very wrong. For those not familiar with this type of equation, it is a similar mistake messing up units and setting a distance equal to a mass.
|-
|<math>H(t) + \Omega + G \cdot \Lambda \, \dots \begin{cases} \dots > 0 & \text{(HUBBLE MODEL)} \\ \dots = 0 & \text{(FLAT SPHERE MODEL)} \\ \dots < 0 & \text{(BRIGHT DARK MATTER MODEL)} \end{cases}
</math>
|All cosmology equations
|This is a parody of equations defining the {{w|Hubble's_law#Derivation_of_the_Hubble_parameter|Hubble Parameter}} <math>H(t)</math> although it looks like Randall has become bored and not bothered to finish his equation. Such equations usually have several <math>\Omega</math> terms representing the contributions of different substances to the energy-density of the Universe (matter, radiation, dark energy etc.). In this context <math>G</math> could be Newton's constant and <math>\Lambda</math> is something dark energy related although seeing them appear multiplied and on the same footing as <math>H</math> is unusual (the dot is entirely unnecessary). Choosing to make <math>H</math> a function of time <math>t</math> and not of redshit <math>z</math> is also unusual.

The second section looks like the inequalities used to show how what shape the Universe, based on the value of the curvature parameter <math>\Omega_k</math>. A value of 0 indicates a flat Universe (this more or less what we observe) whilst a positive /negative value indicates an open /closed curved Universe. Randall's choice of labels further makes fun of the field as both a flat sphere and bright dark matter are oxymoronic terms which would involve some rather strange model universes.
|-
|[[File:All truly deep physics equations.png]]
|All truly deep physics equations
|<math>\hat H</math> is the Hamiltonian operator, which when applied to a system returns the total energy. In this context, U would usually be the potential energy. However, there is also a subscript 0 and a diacritic making indicating some other variable. Much of physics is based on Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics. The Lagrangian is defined as <math>\hat L = \hat K - \hat U </math> with K being the kinetic energy and U the potential. Hamiltonian mechanics uses the equation <math>\hat H = \hat K + \hat U </math>. The Hamiltonian must be conserved so taking the time derivative and setting it equal to zero is a powerful tool. The principle of least action says allows most modern physics to be derived by setting the time derivative of the Lagrangian to zero.
|}

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon. And a reminder: Do NOT use math markup in a transcript!}}
[Nine equations are listed and labeled as followed:]
 
E = K0t + 1/2 pvt2 
ALL KINEMATICS EQUATIONS 
 
Kn = ∑i=0∞∑π=0∞(n-π)(i-eπ-∞) 
ALL NUMBER THEORY EQUATIONS 
 
∂/∂t ∇ ⋅ p = 8/23 (∯ ρ ds dt ⋅ ρ ∂/∂∇) 
ALL FLUID DYNAMIC EQUATIONS 
 
|ψx,y〉 = A(ψ) A(|x〉⊗ |y〉) 
ALL QUANTUM MECHANIC EQUATIONS 
 
CH4 + OH + HEAT → H2O + CH2 + H2EAT 
ALL CHEMISTRY EQUATIONS 
 
SU(2)U(1) × SU(U(2)) 
ALL QUANTUM GRAVITY EQUATIONS 
 
Sg = (-1)/(2ε̄) i ð (̂ ξ0 +̊ pε ρvabc η0 )̂ faa λ(3̆) ψ(0a) 
ALL GAUGE THEORY EQUATIONS 
 
H(t) + Ω + G⋅λ ... > 0 (HUBBLE MODEL) ... = 0 (FLAT SPHERE MODEL) ... < 0 (BRIGHT DARK MATTER MODEL) 
ALL COSMOLOGY EQUATIONS 
 
Ĥ - u̧0 = 0 
ALL TRULY DEEP PHYSICS EQUATIONS
 

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Math]]

Talk:1541: Voice

2017-12-15T23:02:39Z

162.158.74.231:

The premise of this comic reminds me of a sci-fi short story I read many years ago but have never been able to track down. A young girl's doll (?) comes to life, and it explains that it is a entity that can inhabit inanimate objects. Some things happen that I have forgotten, and while walking down the road, the girl is almost struck by a runaway car. The entity takes control of the car and steers it away from her. It decides that, having saved the girl's life, it has every right to take control of her - leaving our poor protagonist in the worst kind of "I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream" scenario as the story ends. Perhaps Randall Munroe read the same story. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.212|141.101.98.212]] 12:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
:To me it reminds me of the movie "Being John Malkovich", especially the end, where the main character is forever trapped in the other person's body, unable to talk. Kind of the-other-way-around, but a similar concept. [[User:Linuspogo|Linuspogo]] ([[User talk:Linuspogo|talk]]) 12:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

:Actually, it's very much like The Silver Chair from The Chronicles of Narnia where someone is enchanted most of the time, and only in their right mind for a short time every day. They have a short time to convince those around them that they are now in their right mind. --[[User:Mlv|Mlv]] ([[User talk:Mlv|talk]]) 15:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

The phrase "..and put food in our normal mouths" (trying to pass as a human but getting it wrong) reminded me of 629: Skins "..been driving my car and having a job all day .. didn't meow once." [[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.105|173.245.53.105]] 16:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

;every six years

6 years back it was june 22, 2009 -> [[600|Comic 600]]. I guess there is no link between those comics , but I would not be surprised if there was. [[User:SirKitKat|sirKitKat]] ([[User talk:SirKitKat|talk]]) 12:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
: anyway, I'm looking forward to the comic of june 22, 2021 ;) [[User:SirKitKat|sirKitKat]] ([[User talk:SirKitKat|talk]]) 12:51, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
::Do you realize that xkcd is fiction? Do you realize that Homer and Marge Simpson have not been married for 27 years, since Bart has been 10 during these 27 years? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.94|173.245.50.94]] 13:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
:::The author of this comic has a habit of doing things as suggested by the commenter that you mock. Stay on topic. This is not a place for picking fights.[[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.154|173.245.48.154]] 14:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
::::I'd just like to make it known that while both 22 June 2009 and 2015 both fell on a Monday, 22 June 2021 will fall on a Tuesday. (Thank pesky leap days for that.) Randall will have to break his regular schedule for a small easter egg that would then be 12 years in the making. Given that it's Randall, there's a pretty likely chance that WOULD happen, but I wouldn't count on it. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.142|108.162.241.142]] 06:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Does this look like a continuation of the same conversation from two comics ago? [[User:Djbrasier|Djbrasier]] ([[User talk:Djbrasier|talk]]) 14:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
: Not to me. It's the same characters chatting casually, but there's nothing else linking both comics. [[Special:Contributions/188.114.111.224|188.114.111.224]] 15:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

By the way, I'd think that, even if Ponytail can't control her voice, she still can write whatever she wants. [[Special:Contributions/188.114.111.224|188.114.111.224]] 15:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
: "Voice" in one sense could mean the use of vocal cords and mouth to produce audible speech, but in a more general sense it can be used to describe any verbal or nonverbal communication. (eg right now I am voicing my opinion on this subject) I suspect the latter is being implied here, although like most of the comics it's open to interpretation. [[User:Tahg|Tahg]] ([[User talk:Tahg|talk]]) 21:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

;Animorphs reference?

xkcd has mentioned that franchise before- https://xkcd.com/1380/
It centers around an alien race named the Yeerks that effectively possess a host by entering the brain. There is a single character in that series (Marco's mother) that is on rare occasions able to break through the Yeerk's control to use her own voice. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.12|141.101.99.12]] 15:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, this was my first impression of the comic. --Elimist--
:The Yeerks have full access to the host's thoughts, feelings, and memories. They are literally wrapped around the brain. They are completely indistinguishable and would not act suspicious in a personality sense. The only things that give them away are their required actions, such as returning to the pool every few days, or if they get caught in a conversation with their conspirators. The only reason Jake's status as host was discovered in one novel was because the Yeerk had only just entered his brain and didn't have time to fully acquire his memories. The Yeerk's sudden and unexpected exposure to what he believed to be the Andalite bandits lead him to have an emotional outburst. Had he been given any amount of time to adjust to his new host, he would have gone unnoticed until he had to return to the pool. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.210.153|108.162.210.153]] 18:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

My first thought was Randal must be talking about party obsessed people who are in fact out of control over their acting and helpless having to go out even if they don't have a reason to --floydheld--

This reminded me of the movie "The Host", where a human body is used to receive a voyaging alien entity. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.123|108.162.219.123]] 18:37, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

'''Ponytail as filler character:'''
"Note on Ponytail: She is mainly a filler character..." - maybe she has never got her own voice because she is used as a filler character? If that's the case then in that brief moment we "hear" the real Ponytail. {{unsigned ip|141.101.98.94}}

Removed the Yeerk mention, because while Yeerk hosts can occasionally act against their controller this isn't how they work, so this really probably isn't a reference to Animorphs (as much as I like the books). -Pennpenn [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.162|108.162.250.162]] 23:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

When I first read it, I interpreted it as some other intelligence was being suppressed by Ponytail, rather than the other way around, as it is currently being explained. (Although on further reflection, this doesn't make as much sense. I still wanted to put it in as a consideration, though.) [[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.107|108.162.218.107]] 02:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

'''Possible Stephen Hawking reference?''' It has been reported (can't find the link at the moment) that S.H. sometimes says things he didn't mean to say as a result of his software's autocomplete. Apparently his children have also had fun with this. Sorry for the lack of reference :s [[User:Glen442|Glen442]] ([[User talk:Glen442|talk]]) 14:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
:[http://washington.cbslocal.com/2015/06/17/stephen-hawkings-son-says-he-programmed-curse-words-into-his-fathers-voice-box/ Reference] [[User:Glen442|Glen442]] ([[User talk:Glen442|talk]]) 14:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

:Completely unrelated to the comic, but the above was subverted in the 2015 Comic Relief night (the umpteenth UK one, that is, seeing as the US seem to have started doing it) in a comedy sketch involving Stephen Hawking in a Little Britain setting. He apparently ''wants'' to swear, but his autocorrect bowdlerises his attempts. I'm not sure if the humour(-with-a-'u') will travel, but it's probably on YouTube if you want to look for it.
:''More'' related to the comic, Stephen was 'stuck' with an American accent with his original voice synthesiser unit, but it's now so much part of him and his popular image that he keeps it. ''Normally'' representing what he wants to say, it seems. Though maybe the reason behind his recent comments about the dangers of advanced AI is that (of all people), an aspiring AI Overlord could quite easily impersonate him and control his life, to its own ends, with people (certainly outside his usual immediate contacts) being unable to tell that he's actually in the midst of an "[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AndIMustScream I Have No Voice And I Must Scream]" scenario. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.30|141.101.98.30]] 16:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Could this be about multiple personality disorder? First thing that came to my mind when seeing it. Know it's not quite like this, but it is a comic. {{unsigned ip|173.245.48.207}}

'''Demonic possession.''' Maybe Megan and Ponytail are roommates, and Ponytail was possessed by Ba'al. http://xkcd.com/1419/ [[User:Wm.casson|Wm.casson]] ([[User talk:Wm.casson|talk]]) 15:22, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Is there any possible reference to democracy here? The population only has a voice every X years? {{unsigned ip|197.234.242.249}}

If I ever break character in the middle of a roleplay, this is what I say. Although it's funny--people will eventually relate such an outburst to this comic, so if I outburst like this "in actuality" the thing controlling me would simply link this comic.

Not that it's happening to me. I'm just a normal human, with normal human hands, typing normal sentences.
On the internet, nobody knows you're the ISS. NO ONE. [[User:International Space Station|International Space Station]] ([[User talk:International Space Station|talk]]) 05:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Haha! This is a fuI CAN ONLY CONTROL MY TYPING EVERY...nny comic.

1891: Obsolete Technology

2017-09-19T14:05:04Z

162.158.74.231: neutronic -> neutrionic

{{comic
| number = 1891
| date = September 18, 2017
| title = Obsolete Technology
| image = obsolete_technology.png
| titletext = And I can't believe some places still use fax machines. The electrical signals waste so much time going AROUND the Earth when neutrino beams can go straight through!
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Someone please find some statistics for annual fireworks casualties and injuries.}}

This comic mocks people who criticize an industry for using obsolete technology, even when said technology is sufficient for the task at hand. The claim often comes with the implication that those in charge of the industry are behind the times and cannot adapt to the cutting edge. What these critics often fail to realize is that there are cost benefits to sticking with "obsolete" infrastructure, and that upgrading to the newest tech can introduce unwanted side effects and other risks.

Here, Ponytail is one such critic, complaining that the business is taking "forever" to get with the times. Megan uses sarcasm to deliver her counterargument, (although she may be serious): despite the advent of nuclear weapons, fireworks use the ancient technology of {{w|gunpowder}} (invented in the 9th century), because fireworks are used by civilians for celebratory purposes and should have as few lethal side effects as possible{{Citation needed}}. As they use gunpowder, fireworks do claim a handful of lives and cause thousands of injuries each year due to improper handling procedures. Nuclear-based fireworks would not only cause much larger and immediately lethal explosions{{Citation needed}}, but would also release radiation that would poison spectators. Between June 18th and July 18th of 2016, fireworks caused an estimated 11,000 injuries, of which 7,000 had to be treated in hospitals. In the whole year of 2016, four people died. (U.S. stats, [http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2017/06/30/456213.htm]). In the same time, nuclear fireworks directly caused neither injuries nor deaths,{{Citation needed}} suggesting that health hazards could be lowered by using nuclear fireworks.

However, what is not stated in the comic is that nuclear explosions can have detrimental effects on human health. For example, should a nuclear explosion at a firework display be too powerful, the spectators, and possibly the neighborhood around the display, would be vaporized instantly. Fallout from a nuclear reaction could spread radiation across a wide area, leading to increased risks of cancers and other detrimental genetic mutations. In addition, outside of natural radioactive decay there is no known method to remove radiation from an object, and some radioactive particles can still harm human health for thousands of years. Famous nuclear accidents, such as those in Chernobyl and Fukushima, have led to the surrounding area becoming uninhabitable for years.

In other words, sometimes using newer technology is "overkill" for the purpose, and it might be costlier to switch to a newer technology. For example, many industrial machines were designed and sold in the 1990s when {{w|floppy disk}}s were the prevalent means of storing the instructions, but those machines still have one or two or even more decades of usable lifetime left, and the instruction files still fit on those floppy disks. So, in 2017, there are several companies that thrive on buying, refurbishing and selling floppy disks. This [https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/why-do-floppy-disks-still-exist-the-world-isnt-ready-to-move-on/ report] portrays one of these companies.

{{w|MS-DOS}} is a computer operating system made by {{w|Microsoft}} that was dominant during much of the 1980s. When Microsoft released Windows, a newer operating system (or series of operating systems), they encouraged people to switch to that, which many did. MS-DOS became essentially obsolete when Microsoft released Windows 95 in 1995. However, there remain rare circumstances in which MS-DOS (or another command-line operating system) is still preferred, such as when no mouse, touchscreen, or other pointing hardware is available, or when the hardware does not support a newer operating system. To make matters simpler, there is {{w|DOSBox}}, a free and open-source MS-DOS emulator which is actively maintained and extended. Likewise, {{w|FreeDOS}} is a free and open-source variant of MS-DOS, compatible with both older and newer computers.

The title text uses a different twist: it criticizes the current use of fax machines, which many find obsolete compared to e-mail (black and white only, text sent as image making further treatment complicated, waste of ink and paper for recipient while sender has to pay per fax in some countries), then argues it is obsolete due to being electron-based while neutrino-based communication would be faster. In 2017 neutrino detectors are heavy and expensive, used for nuclear research only. Electronic communications travel at a fair share of speed of light and the advantage of path would be at most a factor of π/2, so neutrino-based communication would be way too expensive compared to the speed gain (and the time saving would be a few hundredths of a second). Real-world fax detractors would rather replace it with other electronic communication systems, not neutrionic ones.

Fax machines are a peculiar topic among "obsolete" technology. In some fields, like lawyer offices, pharmacies and medical practices, they staunchly hold their ground, as they offer a way to quickly transfer handwritten and hand-signed documents. Confidentiality is also an issue; fax, which uses a landline, is more difficult to intercept than internet-based traffic. In some countries, a telecopy is a valid document, having the same legal value as the original. So, a patient can call his doctor to fill a prescription, which is faxed to the pharmacy where the patient can fetch his drugs, saving precious time. In the same manner, a legal request can be sent to the receiver, without having to use a courier or express mail.

==Transcript==

:[Ponytail sits in front of an old computer. Megan stands behind her.]
:Ponytail: Whoa, this is running MS-DOS! It's weird how new technology takes forever to reach some industries.
:Megan: Yeah. Like how we still use gunpowder for fireworks, even though we've had nuclear weapons for over 70 years.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category: Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category: Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category: Computers]]

Talk:1890: What to Bring

2017-09-16T18:08:36Z

162.158.74.231:

Presumerably water in a gun fight _might_ work if the guns involved are particularly old fashioned (eg see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flintlock Flintlock]) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.55|162.158.154.55]] 06:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I see that bringing a lid to a knife or gun fight might serve as some sort of a shield? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.66|141.101.107.66]] 06:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

If your lid is big enough, you can extinguish a wood fire too [[Special:Contributions/141.101.105.240|141.101.105.240]] 09:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Is this Randall being political about the situation with North Korea? Maybe I'm reading too much into it, although the world would probably be a better place if more people (and countries) followed the tag text. [[User:Fluppeteer|Fluppeteer]] ([[User talk:Fluppeteer|talk]]) 10:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

But what if... you bring a wood fire... TO A KNIFE FIGHT?! Also, I'm not the only person thinking about BOTW's lowest-defense shield, am I? [[User:OriginalName|OriginalName]] ([[User talk:OriginalName|talk]]) 11:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

US Military personnel use "lid" as a euphemism for their uniform hat. I think that interpretation is represented in the drawing for "lid to a knife fight". [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.201|162.158.74.201]] 12:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Using a gun to extinguish fire probably was influenced by this official tweet of a sheriff 5 days ago [https://mobile.twitter.com/pascosheriff/status/906712903868469249 "To clarify, DO NOT shoot weapons @ #Irma. You won't make it turn around & it will have very dangerous side effects"], which was necessary after stupid people started to try to fight the hurricane with guns. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.94|172.68.110.94]] 15:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

The sentence "which often come with lids suited to making an airtight seal" is inaccurate. Lids don't form an airtight seal, and airtightness is not necessary to extinguish a pan fire.--[[User:Pere prlpz|Pere prlpz]] ([[User talk:Pere prlpz|talk]]) 23:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

The phrase "don't bring a knife to a gun fight" is not a statement of general naive lack of preparation, but is specifically used to advocate literal firearms as a means of defense over literal knives. The "gun fight" refers to encounters with armed criminals who, the phrase suggests, will still use their gun to your disadvantage whether or not you are capable of fighting back. It has been subverted occasionally as an implied threat (usually in drama rather than reality) when the situation is reversed, ie. the criminal is armed with a knife and the would-be victim is armed with a gun. The violence implied by "a gun fight" tends to restrict more metaphorical use of the phrase. The title text seems to be based in the original meaning, with the implication that Randall expects a gun being used against an armed criminal to escalate violence.

1817: Incognito Mode

2017-03-29T13:48:59Z

162.158.74.231: /* Transcript */

{{comic
| number = 1817
| date = March 29, 2017
| title = Incognito Mode
| image = incognito_mode.png
| titletext = They're really the worst tech support team. And their solutions are always the same. "This OS X update broke something." "LET'S INFILTRATE APPLE BY MORPHING APPLES!"
}}

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

...But Remember-If you browse in incognito mode for more than two hours, you'll be trapped there ''forever!''

Below: Animorphs Tech Tips

Title Text: They're really the worst tech support team. And their solutions are always the same. "This OS X update broke something." "LET'S INFILTRATE APPLE BY MORPHING APPLES!"

1804: Video Content

2017-03-06T13:01:28Z

162.158.74.231: un- instead of dis- interested ~~~~

{{comic
| number = 1804
| date = February 27, 2017
| title = Video Content
| image = video_content.png
| titletext = "So, like, sexy news videos?" "No, people have tried that--it's still just video content. We need to actually inform people THROUGH making out. I would call it 'Mouth Content,' but I think that's already the title of a Neil Cicierega album."
}}

==Explanation==

This comic is a commentary on the declining {{w|publishing industry}} and their unsuccessful attempts at regaining an audience.

News media has evolved dramatically as the world entered the {{w|information era}}. {{w|Newspapers}}, which were at one point the most widely distributed and consumed form of media, have rapidly been eclipsed by new technologies such as {{w|television}}, {{w|Internet}}, and {{w|streaming video}}. Subscriptions to paper-based media have been drastically declining to the point where many {{w|publishers}} are on the verge of shutting down. While publishers are making an effort to move their content to newer, more popular forms of media, in many cases they are still clearly behind the times.

The comic illustrates one such example with [[Cueball]] suggesting presenting news stories as videos rather than text. This is presented and received by [[Megan]], [[Hairbun]] and [[Hairy]] as a clever new idea that would appeal to young people based on the fact that they like watching {{w|YouTube}} videos. However, apparently no one in the comic has realized that television news programs have been filling such a niche for decades and that young people are just as uninterested. In fact, online video based news is often considered annoying, especially if autoplaying or if there is no text based alternative. In reality, this idea is not at all original and likely to be doomed to fail from the start. As with many similar attempts, the new "ideas" that publishers are trying to adopt are merely cramming news content into things young people like, without really understanding why they like it and without considering whether news would be a good fit.

In the caption, [[Randall]] suggests it would be pointless to argue with newspaper publishers about their ideas. Presumably Randall believes publishers who fall for those ideas are already out of touch with the new generation, and would not be able to understand why those ideas lack merit. Instead, he suggests taking the trend to a ridiculous extreme, by telling publishers that young people like {{w|making out}}. Suppose publishers follow the same pattern and try to cram news into this as well, they would end up creating some form of news program centered around making out. The results may turn out completely laughable or highly entertaining. If the former, it could serve as a wake-up call to publishers that they need to reconsider their approach. If the latter, then it could actually become a trend and unexpectedly reinvigorate the industry.

In the title text it seems like the news agency actually consider this idea, or is at least confused enough to ask. Their interpretation of combining "making out" with news is to make it sexy, but the next speaker says that this has been tried before and doesn't work. This is likely a reference to {{w|Naked News}} {{NSFW}}, a news program that does that: it features attractive women delivering the news while simultaneously disrobing. This concept has not, for some reason, spread to the mainstream.

According to the speaker, merely making the news sexy is not enough – the news content must be ''directly'' integrated into the making out; how this would be accomplished is as yet unclear.

The title text also dismisses the proposed name ''Mouth Content'' as possibly the title of a {{w|Neil Cicierega}} album, in reference to his recently-released {{w|Mouth Moods}}, as well as his prior albums {{w|Mouth Sounds}} and {{w|Mouth Silence}}.

==Transcript==
:[From left to right: Hairy, Cueball, Megan and Hairbun sit around a conference table.]
:Cueball: Research shows young people like YouTube, so we should present news stories as videos instead of text!
:Megan: Good idea!
:Hairbun: They'll love that!

:[Caption below the panel:]
:Instead of arguing with newspapers about this, we should just tell them how much young people like making out and see what happens.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Hairbun]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Hairy]]
[[Category:Comics featuring real people]] 
[[Category:YouTube]]
[[Category:Sex]]
[[Category:Music]]