explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:2133: EHT Black Hole Picture

2019-04-05T18:23:44Z

162.158.90.36:

...someone edited the page to describe the EHT as "This comic references the non-existent "Event Horizon Telescope", an international project dedicated to deceiving the masses into thinking that black holes are real, in accordance with the whims of the Zionist conspiracy." wot? [[User:9yz|9yz]] ([[User talk:9yz|talk]]) 17:43, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
:It's true, and you know that it's true, fucking shill.
::I know that it exists, and I'm not going to argue it. Oh, also not signing a post doesn't hide your IP. You can literally see the IPs of anyone who edits the page, Mr. 108.162.246.215 [[User:9yz|9yz]] ([[User talk:9yz|talk]]) 17:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
:::The IPs are irrelevant anyway, they're CloudFlare's -- [[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.36|162.158.90.36]] 18:23, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
In the transcript, Cueball is described as standing behind a podium. He may be standing /on/ a podium, but he is standing /behind/ a lectern.
[[User:Seezee|Seezee]] ([[User talk:Seezee|talk]]) 17:47, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
:Arent podiums and lecterns the same thing? [[User:9yz|9yz]] ([[User talk:9yz|talk]]) 17:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
::No - https://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-lectern-and-vs-podium/
::No. Podium (from the Latin root meaning "foot") is the thing you stand on, a raised platform or dais. Lectern (from Latin "to read") is the stand that provides a place for notes or other written prompts, from which a speaker may read during a lecture or presentation. It's not uncommon for people to conflate them. [[User:Seezee|Seezee]] ([[User talk:Seezee|talk]]) 18:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
::If enough people conflate them, it's not a mistake any more, it becomes another definition. And lexicographers often use written uses as confirmation, so anyone who wants to see podium get this sense should forward this URL to all the dictionary publishers.[[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 18:15, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2117: Differentiation and Integration

2019-02-27T21:03:10Z

162.158.90.36:

Darn, I have no idea what this comic is about. Randal has eluded my yet again. [[User:Linker|Linker]] ([[User talk:Linker|talk]]) 17:43, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
:Calculus. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.143|162.158.79.143]] 18:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

And Calc 2 is why I stopped being a Computer Science major and moved (eventually) to majoring in English. Consistent 4.0s in math through Trig and Calc I ... 1.6 in Calc II, retook and got a 1.8. Without the Calc, couldn't do the physics; without the physics, couldn't get my 2-yr degree and move on from community college to a full university. I don't know what all the integration stuff in the flowchart is (since I didn't do well in Calc and it was a long time ago), but there's so very many things that become [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonelementary_integral nonelementary integrals] that all sorts of special tricks have to be employed for things that look like they should be easy. It's like having a problem that's very easy to do division on, but requires special advanced mathematical tricks to use multiplication upon.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.208|108.162.216.208]] 19:07, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Basic ideas:
Integration by parts is the reverse of the Product Rule.
Substitution is the reverse of the Chain Rule.
Cauchy's Formula gives the result of a contour integration in the complex plane, using "singularities" of the integrand.
Partial fractions is just splitting up one complex fraction into a sum of simple fractions, which is relevant because they are easier to integrate.
Stokes theorem is the relationship between an integral over an area, and an integral over the boundary of said area.
Riemann integration was the first rigorous definition of integration. This has been superseded by Lesbesgue integration.
Bessel functions are like 2d versions of sin and cos, and turn up sometimes when doing integration.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.89.61|162.158.89.61]] 20:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't Wolfram Alpha be somewhere in that flowchart? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.142|162.158.255.142]] 20:54, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Glad to see I'm not the only one who is too dumb to integrate [[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.36|162.158.90.36]] 21:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2117: Differentiation and Integration

2019-02-27T21:02:57Z

162.158.90.36:

Darn, I have no idea what this comic is about. Randal has eluded my yet again. [[User:Linker|Linker]] ([[User talk:Linker|talk]]) 17:43, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
:Calculus. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.143|162.158.79.143]] 18:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

And Calc 2 is why I stopped being a Computer Science major and moved (eventually) to majoring in English. Consistent 4.0s in math through Trig and Calc I ... 1.6 in Calc II, retook and got a 1.8. Without the Calc, couldn't do the physics; without the physics, couldn't get my 2-yr degree and move on from community college to a full university. I don't know what all the integration stuff in the flowchart is (since I didn't do well in Calc and it was a long time ago), but there's so very many things that become [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonelementary_integral nonelementary integrals] that all sorts of special tricks have to be employed for things that look like they should be easy. It's like having a problem that's very easy to do division on, but requires special advanced mathematical tricks to use multiplication upon.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.208|108.162.216.208]] 19:07, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Basic ideas:
Integration by parts is the reverse of the Product Rule.
Substitution is the reverse of the Chain Rule.
Cauchy's Formula gives the result of a contour integration in the complex plane, using "singularities" of the integrand.
Partial fractions is just splitting up one complex fraction into a sum of simple fractions, which is relevant because they are easier to integrate.
Stokes theorem is the relationship between an integral over an area, and an integral over the boundary of said area.
Riemann integration was the first rigorous definition of integration. This has been superseded by Lesbesgue integration.
Bessel functions are like 2d versions of sin and cos, and turn up sometimes when doing integration.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.89.61|162.158.89.61]] 20:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't Wolfram Alpha be somewhere in that flowchart? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.142|162.158.255.142]] 20:54, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Glad to see I'm not the only one who is too dumb to integrate[[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.36|162.158.90.36]] 21:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

2114: Launch Conditions

2019-02-21T15:49:18Z

162.158.90.36: Undo revision 169958 by 108.162.246.173 (talk)

{{comic
| number = 2114
| date = February 20, 2019
| title = Launch Conditions
| image = launch_conditions.png
| titletext = Though I do think the tiny vent on one of the boosters labeled "O-RING" is in poor taste.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by an O-RING FAILURE. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

An image of a rocket with a progressively larger white cloud around it is shown, but no external object for scale is visible until the third panel.
It is then revealed to be a model or miniature when Ponytail walks into the shot.

The dialog reveals the miniature rocket is a domestic {{w|humidifier}} appliance, using its plumes of water mist to mimic the appearance of the exhaust plume of a full-size rocket.

Modern rocket launches are backed by a ''Sound Suppression System'' avoiding damages to the rocket itself, the payload, or even humans inside. This system drops vast amounts of water into the exhaust of the rocket engines and the water vaporizes immediately{{Citation needed|reason=Does it actually evaporate and condense later or is just dispersed by the exhaust?}}. This vapor mainly interrupts the sound reflections from the ground. This reduces the sound to a level the rocket can withstand but also produces a big cloud of water mist. In fact the cloud at the ground consists mostly of water and not the exhaust of the rocket engines. This article shows how the system works: [https://interestingengineering.com/nasa-sound-suppression-system-prevents-rocket-from-exploding NASA's Incredible Sound Suppression System Prevents Rockets from Exploding (interestingengineering.com)].

This comic appeared the day after the death of Peter Cosgrove, who was known for photographing many Space Shuttle launches, was reported.

The title text references the failed o-ring that led to the {{Wikipedia|Space Shuttle Challenger disaster|disintegration of the ''Challenger'' Space Shuttle}} and the death of all on board.
This disaster was a focal point of controversy, which Richard Feynman played a key {{Wikipedia|Rogers_Commission_Report#Role_of_Richard_Feynman|role in piercing}}. The o-ring in question failed to expand at freezing temperatures, resulting in a leak of gas around the edges that was visible as a small vapor plume on the recording. The launch was pushed to a day with lower temperatures than the engineers had planned for. For the humidifier to vent the water mist from this opening is indeed in poor taste, even though the model does not resemble a shuttle.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[A rocket sits on a launch pad and the tower to the left has retracted its access arms. The engines have just started firing and a small cloud at the bottom is visible.]

:[The rocket still sits on the pad but the cloud is growing and extending to both sides on the ground.]

:[Ponytail's head in a size like the rocket appears above. The cloud covers the full ground and hides a bigger part of the rocket.]

:[Zoom out. Ponytail stands behind a pedestal with a rocket model on top and the cloud is all around the bottom of the rocket and below.]
:Off screen: It's still pretty dry in here.
:Ponytail: I love the new humidifier, though.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Space]]

Talk:2113: Physics Suppression

2019-02-20T12:38:21Z

162.158.90.36:

That's how mafia works. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.134.111|172.69.134.111]] 16:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
:But White Hat didn't mention anything about a Mafia...? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.153|162.158.74.153]] 14:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
::No, but to suppress people publishing their results, a body like the mafia would be needed, is what Megan jokes about. And then takes an example (and one more in title text) about annoying results that did not get suppressed. Her example turned out to win a noble prize, the title text was later shown to be an error. But a mafia might have stopped both sets of results to have not been published. Basically proving that you can not suppress such results wether relevant or not. If White Hat's model is not taken serious it is probably because he has no data to back it up. Wild claims demands extraordinary well documentation. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 14:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
:::A "mafia" isn't the only candiate. "Inquistions" have also worked well for suppression, but (AFAIK) have less of a history of intramural violence. I think the image of a cabal of cloaked physics monks torturing dark energy heretics into recantation would have been striking enough, but RMMV (Randall's Mileage May Vary). [[Special:Contributions/172.69.70.23|172.69.70.23]] 17:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
::::if you need to spell out your initialism in full, you may not realize they're intended as shorthand.

:::Another fictional candidate may be "science by political committee" system — sending physicists that contest the "official" and "politically correct" theories and models to "corrective labour camps", where they would be forced to perform physical (sic!) work, until their untimely demise... Oh, wait, that actually happened! (See the fate of [[wikipedia:Nikolai Vavilov|Nikolai Vavilov]]) -- [[Special:Contributions/162.158.93.27|162.158.93.27]] 12:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

::::When did this site get like this? This may not be you specifically, but there’s been a lot more conspiracy theories as of late, and even some anti-semetism. I keep seeing “SOON THE TRUTH WILL BE REVEALED”. Knock it off please, you aren’t cool, just edgy, a vandal, and an annoyance. Also, to no ones surprise, the Russians and Nazis did bad things in WWII. Also, what the hell does politically correct physics death camps have to do with a Russian botanist who Stalin didn’t like? I’ll stay on topic if you do. [[User:Netherin5|Netherin5]] ([[User talk:Netherin5|talk]]) 17:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

:::::I've never seen anybody on this site so upset about completely-imagined content of the parent comment. What the fuck is "edgy" about posting a link to Wikipedia? In what way does speculation about in-universe organizations count as being a "vandal?" And in what universe did 162.158.93.27 ever say "SOON THE TRUTH WILL BE REVEALED?" Are you hallucinating? Do you need to adjust your medication? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.34.88|172.68.34.88]] 21:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

::::::The page was vandalized twice with the whole of the text replaced with "SOON THE TRUTH WILL BE REVEALED" (see below, and view edit history). Another IP editor replied to the comment below and seemed to imply it was them making the edits, even though the addresses don't match. So, it seems plausible that multiple IP users are actually the same (the two mentioned below, and the one mentioned above), since the tone and content of their comments are pretty similar. I believe this is what is being referred to.[[User:Cgrimes85|Cgrimes85]] ([[User talk:Cgrimes85|talk]]) 21:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

:::::::@Netehrin5 @Cgrimes85: I am the author of Feb 19 12:28 comment. First of all, it is my choice to either post "anonymously" or create an account, which is meaningless anyway as I could create many under any nick I choose. (IP address is somewhat random, blame today's ISPs, shortage of address space and complicated structure of today's Internet. In fact, 162.158.* belongs to [[wikipedia:Cloudflare|Cloudflare]] which means the originator of the content could be virtually anybody. Do some research before drawing conclusions.) Please stop insinuating that a particular edit of discussion space is related to some other edit of page space when you don't and can't have any proof, and specifically that the texts and purposes of edits are obviously unrelated. But to the point: Randall is trying to posit that suppressing valid science is next to impossible today, but it does not mean it had not been tried in the past with mixed success and – sadly – tragic fates of the involved. I have just provided one quite well-known end relatively recent example, there are many more. The reason I've posted it (in somewhat sarcastic form) in the ''discussion'' space is that in my opinion it just did not deserve being included in the main text — that's what discussion space is for! -- [[Special:Contributions/162.158.89.223|162.158.89.223]] 10:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Dark energy isn't a direct consequence of the cosmological constant. The cosmological constant could potentially have been 0 or even negative. There's nothing that currently implies that it should be a positive number. That's exactly why it is annoying. If general relativity dictated it, people would just praise this as another result showing relativity is true. But since it doesn't, it needs an explanation. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.65.6|172.68.65.6]] 21:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

:Dark energy IS the conspiracy! Quantum Inertia is being suppressed by [https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/436874/does-quantized-inertia-theory-violate-conservation-of-momentum Physics Exchange]! [[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.59|162.158.91.59]] 08:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

While it could be true that White Hat is ignored because of the lack of supporting data, Albert Einstein was in a similar situation when coming up with his Theory of Relativity. [[User:Mad max|Mad max]] ([[User talk:Mad max|talk]]) 06:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

== IP editor deleting all content ==

IP User 162.158.106.252 is deleting the entire page for some reason. [[User:Cgrimes85|Cgrimes85]] ([[User talk:Cgrimes85|talk]]) 18:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

:That's because you are censoring me, so I'm showing you the same. Soon the truth will be revealed. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.160|108.162.245.160]] 18:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

::Please look up the definition of the word censor, conspiracy theory, science, and wiki.[[User:Netherin5|Netherin5]] ([[User talk:Netherin5|talk]]) 18:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

::That individual is obviously trying to suppress the explanation -- they must be with the Physics Mafia. However the powers that be here likely have the larger powers of Ban. [[User:N0lqu|-boB]] ([[User talk:N0lqu|talk]]) 21:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
https://xkcd.com/1357/[[Special:Contributions/162.158.214.58|162.158.214.58]] 02:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

::Pet Conspiracy Theory - that individual is Randall, adding some meta lulz. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.150|162.158.90.150]] 09:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

:'''Technical Note:''' please take into consideration that IP addresses published by the wiki engine for not-logged-in persons are not the addresses of particular editors' computers, but of [[wikipedia:Cloudflare|Cloudflare]] servers, which act as proxies to protect this website from some forms of attack, '''not''' including editing vandalism. Therefore similarity of the addresses could not be construed as evidence that the same person is performing edits. We need to defend in the usual way, reversing edits. Hopefully there are fewer vandals than benevolent contributors.

Talk:1939: 2016 Election Map

2019-02-19T14:32:33Z

162.158.90.36: that "respond" was a bit pointless tho...

;Why now?

So why are we getting this map now instead of a year ago? Has something significant to this area just happened in the U.S.A.? (I am a Canadian so might well have missed something.) [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.154|108.162.216.154]] 16:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm from the midwest in the US and I'm really confused as well... I also don't find anything particularly funny or poignant in this. So yeah, color me confused in the US. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.75.76|162.158.75.76]] 16:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC) Sam

: At a guess, because we're coming up on the anniversary of Trump's inauguration. [[User:Wwoods|Wwoods]] ([[User talk:Wwoods|talk]]) 23:26, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the idea is that this map, while interesting as an object, still sort of fails as a map - it doesn't provide the sort of easily digestible information that a map of this variety is supposed to show. Conceptually, I don't think it's that different than #1138 (Heatmap) - the map more or less shows population density and fails to easily communicate party alignment. As to why it's showing up in the first year of 2018, my best guess is that mid-term elections are this year...? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.69.238|172.69.69.238]]

My friend I showed the comic to thinks it could be a general political commentary on the uselessness of these kinds of maps. 1. the map is a year old: useless. 2. there are no numbers: useless. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.75.76|162.158.75.76]] 17:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC) Sam.

I'm wondering if it has to do with the fact that [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/03/us/politics/trump-voter-fraud-commission.html Trump just disbanded the commission on voter fraud]. I think I heard somewhere that this commission was to "prove why Trump should have won the popular vote". I think the map relates to the whole popular vote versus electoral college discussion.--[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.172|108.162.216.172]] 17:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I think it might be claiming Trump only won because very many people failed to vote? Either that, or as already mentioned, it's about how useless these maps can be. [[User:Jacky720|That's right, Jacky720 just signed this]] ([[User talk:Jacky720|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jacky720|contribs]]) 17:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

The point of the map is that the standard choropleth map for the 2016 election shows the vast majority of us area voting for Donald Trump. (shown on this link http://brilliantmaps.com/2016-county-election-map/) The comic is criticizing the visual accuracy of chloropleth maps in giving a strong understanding of election results (as the majority of voters voted for Hillary). ---- {{unsigned| Widea}}

:Actually, less than "a majority of voters" voted for her. A majority of the voters that voted for either her or Trump voted for her. But a "majority of the voters" means more than half the voters (including those who voted for other candidates besides the two major ones), and she and Trump each got slightly less than half of the total.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.59.34|162.158.59.34]] 06:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

If this map is really so correct (as stated in the caption) then it has been a huge job to collect the data so precisely and calculate how to split voters across borders when not fitting. This says to me that this is a very big issue for Randall. Of course he has made it clear many times that he is [[1756: I'm With Her|against Trumps election]] and more or less [[1756:_I'm_With_Her#Sad_comics|anything he does]]... I believe there is a lot to learn from this map as opposed to those he mentions in the title text --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 19:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

If this map is correct, then there are 252 Trump guys on it and 263 Clinton guys on it, a difference of 11 guys. I don't know how many "other" guys are on it. Just in case someone would like to know. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.230.4|198.41.230.4]] 20:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

One thing that the map does clearly show is that voters of Clinton were clustered in heavily urbanized regions (New England to Delmarva, Miami region, Chicago region, Houston and Austin, and coastal California in particular). Those same Clinton clusters are also home to the most third-party voters. Meanwhile, Trump voters were spread out more evenly and in isolated pockets, and there are very few third-party voters living out in the boonies. I think the takeaway is that Democratic voters are underrepresented because they are grouped so closely together, and those same populations are also prone to giving rise to anti-two-party sentiment. These two factors combined work against liberalist movements in the United States. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.225|162.158.74.225]] 20:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

The placement of red vs blue is quite interesting. Was the vote differential used in any way? For instance, Urban San Diego leans heavily blue, but San Diego County lies slightly red. And it's a huge population center. Gotta put those red stickfigures somewhere! [[User:Breakthroughscelebration|Breakthroughscelebration]] ([[User talk:Breakthroughscelebration|talk]]) 21:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I never realized until now just how few people live in Michigan's Upper Peninsula. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.46|108.162.241.46]] 20:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I also think Randal needs a lesson in rural/urban voting, as the placement of many of the red figures on this map are, well, a bit off.[[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 22:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
: Not necessarily. Each figure represents 250,000 votes, and as someone who grew up in a rural area, it takes a lot of land to get that many people. Take those two red figures in northwestern-ish Pennsylvania. Counting only people who are of voting age, assuming about 2% are ineligible to vote, with a state voter turnout of 70%, and the fact that only ~60-70% of the voters in those counties voted for Trump, it takes all '''18 counties''' in that region--every single county north of Pittsburgh and west of State College (the blue figures beside those two red ones)--to come up with about 500,000 Trump voters. That matches up exactly with the map. (The total population of those 18 counties, if you're curious, is a little under 1.5 million, with Erie being the largest at 280k and Cameron the smallest at 5k.) [[User:Eosa|Eosa]] ([[User talk:Eosa|talk]]) 17:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

The claim about Trump being "obsessed" with how red the map appears seems to just be added to be inflammatory. As far as I know, he just gloated about the map a bit on Twitter on the days following his election. He definitely hasn't kept sharing red maps one year later like Randall, and I think we don't consider Randall obsessed. I'm removing it, and I'd rather this not be added back without a source that clearly shows such an obsession. [01000101] [[Special:Contributions/172.68.25.112|172.68.25.112]] 21:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
: I'm reinstating it. In April, Trump [http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/04/heres-the-electoral-map-president-trump-gave-reporters.html gave reporters a printout of the counties map], saying at the time, "Here, you can take that, that's the final map of the numbers. It's pretty good, right? The red is obviously us." He later [https://twitter.com/TreyYingst/status/862669407868391424/photo/1 framed and hung a similar map in the West Wing]. In a speech in June, he said, "And those maps, those electoral maps, they were all red. Beautiful red." He has mentioned the election—which keep in mind he only won because of the Electoral College, not because of the popular vote—one out of every five days over the last year. He is clearly obsessed. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.69.70|172.69.69.70]] 22:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
:: I toned down the language a bit, to hopefully address concerns about the potentially controversial use of the word 'obsessed'.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.76.16|141.101.76.16]] 08:59, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
::: I'm fine with the change, even if I personally would stand by the word. Based on his actions (immediately announcing his bid for reelection and holding rallies, etc.) and statements he has made and continues to make nearly a year into his actual presidency, I think a reasonable case can be made that he genuinely dislikes the job of being president and is clinging to the one time when he was really happy—when he was campaigning. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.69.70|172.69.69.70]] 15:55, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I count 31 "Green" folks, in addition to whoever counted the red and blues. That means our total is 546 little stick figures. I'm not sure why he picked that number, but it could be the correct number of folks to stick one on the small states of Alaska, Hawiaii, Wyoming, and the Dakotas. He also took the unusual step of counting VOTES instead of population. It'd be fun to have a version with non-voters on it.

There are 538 electoral votes. So if electoral votes were distributed in proportion to population, each electoral vote would correspond to 1.01486988848 stick figures. Maybe he was going for 1 electoral vote per stick figure but it got off due to rounding.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.142|108.162.215.142]] 03:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I think Randall has always been a map enthusiast. I read this as an alternative map. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.28|108.162.237.28]] 21:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

;136,669,237 votes in 2016
To all the guys who are counting the Cueballs in the map: 546 Cueballs multiplied by 250,000 is 136,500,000 votes.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 22:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

My count agrees. Red = 252, Blue = 263, Green = 31 [[User:Ansarya|Ansarya]] ([[User talk:Ansarya|talk]]) 00:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

The title text is probably referring to this map on wikipedia:[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cartlinearlarge.png] [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.106|108.162.249.106]] 06:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

"the small impact of the low-population states" Shouldn't it be "high impact"? The vote of a person living in a low-density state has a higher weight than the vote of a person living in a high-density state.
Right? [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 08:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
: Actually, Randall's map doesn't show much of anything as regards the relative influence of the states, because it only shows popular votes, and not Electoral College votes, which give proportionately higher representation to the lower population states. So I'd say that sentence should just be removed, or at least completely rewritten to state this as a deficiency of Randall's map (though criticising it for not showing something that it doesn't purport to show in the first place would be a bit unfair).[[Special:Contributions/141.101.76.16|141.101.76.16]] 09:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

The table looks weird on a mobile device. The first number column has a way bigger font than the other two. Can be reproduced on a PC by pressing Ctrl+Shift+I (in Chrome), selecting "Nexus 5X" (or similar) at the top and reloading.

--- Assuming the text above is correct, the count is as follows:

<source>
$ for color in red blue green; do ( cat text | pcregrep -o1 "(\d*) $color" | awk -v c=$color '{s+=$1} END {print c, s}') ; done
red 252
blue 264
green 30
</source>[[User:Sysin|Sysin]] ([[User talk:Sysin|talk]]) 12:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I think that this comic might have something to do with [[1902: State Borders]]. [[User:Herobrine|Herobrine]] ([[User talk:Herobrine|talk]]) 10:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

; rounding error
Randall's political leanings are obvious, but are we to believe that he picked a ceiling rounding just to get one extra blue guy? One figure is not be noticeable on such a large map. Its an effect of about 0.0018%. Its more likely an artifact of trying to distribute figures across states or an honest mistake. I think that paragraph should be reworked.
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.40|108.162.237.40]] 15:25, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
:I reworded it to state what the exact figure would be and included a note that he rounded both figures up, which I think is interesting trivia in both cases. I don't think anything should be mentioned about a potential bias, for the reasons you state. No one would notice that it's (arguably) off by one unless they obsessively checked every little thing about the map. Randall's choice to round up or down doesn't affect the overall accuracy of the map or whatever point he's trying to convey. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.69.70|172.69.69.70]] 15:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
::I added a possible unbiased reason for the use of ceiling rounding (avoiding the inclusion of partial Cueballs.) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.47|162.158.79.47]] 15:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
:::Regular rounding, which gets to whichever integer is closest (whether up or down), would also avoid broken people, but it would give Clinton one less guy. I removed your sentence, but added that it could be either due to Randall's political leanings or in order to achieve a better fit in a specific state. It's true that it is hard to point to either without further analysis. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.230.154|198.41.230.154]] 16:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
:::: I know this wiki is in love with speculation, but this is such an insignificant detail about this map that there is no need to make guesses about Randall's motivations (political or otherwise) for rounding the way he did. Just state the facts. If a reader wants to draw their own conclusion, that's up to them. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.69.70|172.69.69.70]] 18:52, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
::::: Couldn't the additional guy also be a result of using regular rounding for each state separately? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.202.76|162.158.202.76]] 21:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
:::::: Possibly, but the text on the map specifically states that "votes are distributed by states as accurately as possible while keeping national totals correct." [[Special:Contributions/172.69.69.70|172.69.69.70]] 22:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

As one of those Americans who doesn't like either major political party much, I'm disappointed that there wasn't a third color for voters who voted independent. More people voted independent in 2016 than any other recent Presidential election—that should be enough for at least two or three little yellow guys somewhere, right? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.75.166|162.158.75.166]] 15:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
:Is green not enough? [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 16:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

As a somewhat red-green color blind person, I have a hard time seeing the green Cueballs on this map. If I zoom in, I can see whether an individual Cueball is red or green, but I can't look at the map as a whole and easily see where all the green ones are. I wish Randall had instead made them dark green, dark brown, or even black so that seeing them wouldn't have been an issue for people like me (~6% of males). [[User:DKMell|DKMell]] ([[User talk:DKMell|talk]]) 21:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
:Actually, to the best of my knowledge I have no colour-blindness whatsoever, and under normal viewing I have trouble distinguishing the green ones from the blue (at first I actually thought they were grey). I actually thought they were very few, until I looked at the large version, THEN I can see they're green, look quite distinct from the blue, and are way more than the 4 or 5 I thought there were. However, it DOES seem like after red and blue, the next colour to use in any colour-coding system is green. Would be yellow, as a primary colour, but that's too light on a white background. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 03:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

This comic is number 1939. I was already getting upset when 1776 had nothing to do with the American Revolution, all the way to none from 1914-1918 having to do with WWI, and now 1939 has nothing to do with WWII?) Hopefully 2018 won't have nothing to do with current events.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.88.128|162.158.88.128]] 11:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
:Maybe its a reference to WWIII? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.9|162.158.74.9]] 19:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Democrats have now won the popular vote in 6 of the last 7 Presidential elections (1992, 1996, 2000, 2008, 2012, 2016). The last previous time that they did that well was when FDR won four consecutive elections (1932, 1936, 1940, 1944) and then Truman won one (1948), so they won 5 consecutive Presidential elections. FDR was President from 1933 to 1945. So the midpoint of his time in office was in 1939.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.142|108.162.215.142]] 03:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
:Ohhh, I missed this misleading comment long ago but this still needs a proper respond by some real facts:
:*1992, 1996 was democrats won by Clinton (dem.) - before was Bush, Reagan (rep.)
:*2000 (and of course 2004 too) was eight years Gorge W. Bush (rep.)
:*2008, 2012 was Obama (dem.)
:*2016 - in case you missed something: Donald Trump is maybe a democrat, but he definitely belongs to the Republican Party and won the last election.
:And for non US people FDR refers to Franklin Delano Roosevelt (dem.), the 32nd President who ignored the informal rule given by the first president George Washington not running for more than two times. This rule was later laid down in an amendment to the US constitution. And Truman (dem.), successor to him as the former vice president because of the dead of FDR in the beginning of the forth part, dropped two bombs on Japan, I still remember people on this. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 19:29, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
::Apparently, you also missed the part where it said it's about "popular vote", not about what the end result of the election was... -- [[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.36|162.158.90.36]] 14:32, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2109: Invisible Formatting

2019-02-09T13:59:16Z

162.158.90.36: space

This reminds me of the person who used l (lower-case "L") instead of 1 for data entry at some business. Amazingly, the computer accepted it (BAD programming!) and it wasn't found out until the end of the tax year, when all heck broke loose! [[Special:Contributions/162.158.75.136|162.158.75.136]] 14:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
:Some programming puzzles are often solved with stuff like this: AΑ [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 15:19, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
:"l" (lower-case "L") is a valid suffix to integer literals in C and derived languages. It indicates the number is of the "long int" type as opposed to a plain "int". Because C automatically upconverts the "int" type into "long int" when needed, the "l" suffix is rarely used. The result: "long int a = 1;" and "long int a = 1l;" mean exactly the same thing, and both statements are perfectly standard and won't raise any warning from compilers. "ll" (double el) is also a valid suffix, this time for the "long long int" type. [[User:GuB|GuB]] ([[User talk:GuB|talk]]) 15:39, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
:Typing lowercase ''L'' instead of ''1'' is a common thing for people of a certain age. Old manual typewriters usually don't have a "1" key, so people learned to use lowercase ''L'' instead -- and sometimes slip back into that habit on newer technology. --[[User:Aaron of Mpls|Aaron of Mpls]] ([[User talk:Aaron of Mpls|talk]]) 02:03, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I went to this page, expecting it to be self-referential. Was not disappointed. [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 15:19, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Some markup conversion tools don't handle hidden bold spaces correctly. This HTML to Markdown converter is an example: https://anthonychu.github.io/to-markdown/ It converts <code><nowiki>a </nowiki></code> to <code>**a **</code> instead of <code>**a** </code>. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.62.10|172.69.62.10]] 15:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
:Hah, this comment is not mine! Somehow I have your IP now. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.62.10|172.69.62.10]] 17:47, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Were the periods in the beginning there for a specific reason? [[User:Netherin5|Netherin5]] ([[User talk:Netherin5|talk]]) 17:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
:The user 108.162.245.16 thought it was a good idea for some reason. Glad you fixed it. I finished the job [[Special:Contributions/172.69.62.10|172.69.62.10]] 17:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I've had this happen when writing papers. Bold. Unbold. Later backspace into the hidden bold space and everything typed after gets put in bold. If a professor gives you a page count instead of a word count, you can make the punctuation in your paper bold (or increase the font) to add some extra padding that might go unnoticed. Don't actually do this if you can't convey your thesis in fewer words. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.210.52|172.69.210.52]] 18:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I hated when Microsoft Word took over and lacked a real "Reveal Codes" like WordPerfect used to have. I'm kind of like Randall, I think about those behind-the-scenes things that lots of companies like to try to hide from the user, and I like the power to do something about them. [[User:N0lqu|-boB]] ([[User talk:N0lqu|talk]]) 18:58, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
:When I saw the strip, I immediately thought of Word Perfect because its brain dead way of inserting formatting as special codes inline with the text. Hit "reveal codes" and it would reveal a string of bold on / bold off codes because it wasn't clever enough to optimise them away. I assume Word does it differently, perhaps with attributed strings and so doesn't need the reveal codes function so you can manually fix the mess the program has a made.

In Microsoft Word, where the majority of people would have experience with selecting and bolding text, the cursor appears as an "I-beam" when positioned over text and not as the "mouse pointer arrow" shown by Randall. Also, in Word double-clicking a word does select the following space(s), but when bold is applied it is applied only to the selected word, NOT to the trailing space (even though the space was selected when the bold was applied). So selecting just the word and un-bolding would not leave a bolded space behind, since the space was never bolded.
Clearly Randall's example is in some editor other than Word. Since Word is where most people have familiarity with selecting and bolding text, something should be added to the explanation noting this and speculating on which text editor Randall is actually showing. - [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.215|108.162.246.215]] 20:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
: Agreed. '''Most''' text editors do not select the trailing space when double-clicking. Microsoft Word is one of the few that does it. But in that case, the space is not formatted as bold. But in most word processors including Word, if you do select the word with the trailing space and apply the bold formatting, the space retains the formatting even if the word is un-bolded. So the first sentence of the explanation is incorrect.
::Do they not? Notepad does it. Notepad++ does it. Your browser does it. Where is the wealth of programs that don't? I reckon this is the default system-wide behavior for double-clicking in Windows, regardless of program. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.65.228|172.68.65.228]] 11:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
:::It seems to be indeed Windows issue, as everything I tried did highlight extra space (except Notepad++), but nothing I tried on Linux did. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.36|162.158.90.36]] 13:59, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Hidden formatting annoys translators greatly. Sometimes, the formatting of the word processor used and the formatting recognized by the CAT program (such as SDL Trados Studio or MemoQ) do not line up very well, which causes the formatting to appear as tags within the text (purple colored in the most widely used CAT software, Trados). If there is sloppy or hidden formatting all through the document, this turns into what most people call a "wall of purple", with tags everywhere within the document. Since tags need to be accounted for (otherwise the document does not save properly), and the formatting capability of most CAT tools is a lot more limited compared to any word processors, this is a colossal waste of time for any translator to wade through. Thus, if you leave any hidden formatting in a document and you know it will be translated somewhere down the line, you know there is a translator out there that curses the day you were born. (A note though - PDF conversion is responsible for a lot more wall of purple incidents than sloppy formatting. Seriously - if you expect a document to be translated at some point, never bring it anywhere close to the PDF format. That format is evil, I tell you. Pure evil.) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.89.61|162.158.89.61]] 05:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

In WordPerfect for DOS, the codes were [BOLD] to turn bold on and [bold] to turn it off again. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.38.40|162.158.38.40]] 11:30, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

2100: Models of the Atom

2019-02-06T19:26:55Z

162.158.90.36: Deleted the sentence about string theory, since it's not used to 'calculate shapes and densities of the atomic orbitals', not even in difficult ways - just not at all. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/443062/string-behavior-in-electron-orbitals

{{comic
| number = 2100
| date = January 18, 2019
| title = Models of the Atom
| image = models_of_the_atom.png
| titletext = J.J. Thompson won a Nobel Prize for his work in electricity in gases, but was unfairly passed over for his "An atom is plum pudding, and plum pudding is MADE of atoms! Duuuuude." theory.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a COMPLAINING EQUATION. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic humorously describes the changing view of what an {{w|atom}} is. This has happened so much it seems that we never really knew what we are looking at, and there have been many competing theories aside from the mainstream ones we are taught in school. He lists major depictions in the history of our understanding of an atom, and adds a few humorous ones in to poke fun at how diverse, contentious, and in retrospect often foolhardy, this history has been.

;Small hard ball model
The first model shown, in 1810, is said to be a "small hard ball model." Around this time, {{w|John Dalton}} published his textbook ''A New System of Chemical Philosophy'' which linked existing ideas of atomic theory and chemical reactivity to produce a combined {{w|Law of multiple proportions}} which proposed that each chemical element is comprised of a single unique type of atom, and introduced the concept of {{w|Molecular mass|molecular weight}}. Dalton's theories form the basis of what is known today as {{w|stoichiometry}}, which underpins chemical reactivity. As atoms were considered at this time to be the smallest possible division of matter the scientific community thought of them as "hard round balls" of different sizes; thus the name described here. The "small hard ball" model is still commonly used when teaching and discussing chemical molecules which do not require the level of detail provided by more advanced models, with atoms represented as small, hard, round balls connected by sticks representing chemical bonds.

;Plum pudding model
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the study of these "atom" things faced a crisis: where would the newly discovered "{{w|electron}}s" go? In 1904, physicist {{w|J. J. Thomson}}, who discovered electrons, had an idea: maybe the electrons were small point charges moving around in a big mass of positive charge. This was the "{{w|plum pudding model}}", the second model on the comic, called this because people imagined the positively charged mass as a "{{w|Christmas pudding|plum pudding}}". (The title text references Thomson as well, along with the humorous observation that plum puddings themselves are made of atoms.) The problem with this approach is that same charges generally repel, resulting in the more mobile or unbalanced charges forming a surface shell around the others, attempting to escape, rather than being content to being randomly distributed among them.

;Tiny bird model
There were many competing ideas in the formative years of what-are-atoms-made-of-ology, [[Randall]] makes up a 1907 "tiny bird model."

;Rutherford model
Ultimately, the tentative winner in the battle was the model of Thomson's student {{w|Ernest Rutherford}}, who discovered from electrostatic scattering experiments that the positive charge seemed to be concentrated in the center of the atom, and proposed his {{w|Rutherford model}}, or "planetary model", in 1911, where electrons orbit a very concentrated positive charge. This model has often been compared to the orbit of the planets around the sun, with the electrostatic attraction of the electrons and protons shaping the orbits, rather than gravity. This is the fourth model in the comic.

;Bohr model
The Rutherford model could not explain the discrete spectral lines in absorption and emission spectra. It also did not explain why electrons did not spiral in to the nucleus. {{w|Niels Bohr}} patched the model up by proposing that electrons could only exist in distinct "energy levels" at discrete distances from the nucleus. The 1913 "{{w|Bohr model}}", the fifth model shown here, was part of beginning quantum mechanics. Physics behaves differently at the small scale of atoms than the large scales we are more familiar with.

;Nunchuck model
Randall facetiously suggests a "{{w|Nunchaku|nunchuck}} model", the sixth model shown, of a packet of protons swinging a packet of electrons around. One can imagine a handle filled with electrons bonded by the strong nuclear force to a chain made of neutrons, bonded again by the strong nuclear force to a handle made of protons. The heavier protonic handle acts loosely as an orbital center as the electron-filled opposite handle swings wildly around it, attempting to resolve its electrostatic attraction within the restraints of its chain.

;Chadwick model
The next refinement was in the structure of the nucleus. Note that at this time, nobody thought of splitting up the nucleus into {{w|proton}}s and {{w|neutron}}s. But pretty soon people noticed that protons and neutrons existed; {{w|James Chadwick}}, who discovered the neutron, figured that the atom had a nucleus of neutrons and protons, along with a bunch of electrons orbiting around it in a Bohrish manner. This is what the layman today often thinks of as an atom, and is the seventh model shown here.

;538 Model
The eighth model shown is a made up "538 model," in 2008. {{w|FiveThirtyEight|538}} is a statistical analysis website that gained fame in 2008 for predicting every race but 2 correctly in the {{w|2008 United States presidential election|US presidential election}} and predicting every state and Obama's win in the 2012 election. Unlike most other media and polling institutes it saw a rather high probability of 29% for Trump to win the 2016 election by summing up the uncertainties in all the battle states. It has since been known for making mathematical models for everything; the model jokingly suggests that 538 has modeled and presumably made predictions about the atom. The {{w|pie chart}} shows the statistical composition of neutrons, protons and electrons, 38%, 31%, and 31% respectively. This could either be the average of a massive body with several isotopes or represent gallium-69, the most abundant {{w|Isotopes of gallium|isotope of gallium}}, with 31 protons, 31 electrons and 38 neutrons. FiveThirtyEight has previously been mentioned in several xkcd comics, including in [[477: Typewriter]], [[500: Election]], [[635: Locke and Demosthenes]], [[1130: Poll Watching]], [[1779: 2017]], and [[2002: LeBron James and Stephen Curry]]. It's appropriate to list the 538 model as a precursor to the quantum model, as it is a step towards considering the likelihood of different quantities of subatomic particles to be in different volumes of space, rather than considering them as strictly kinematic particles. The comic moves this development into 2008 in support of this joke, when it was actually made much earlier.

;Quantum model
But is the Chadwick model what scientists endorse today? No!
{{w|Maxwell's equations|The theory of electromagnetism}} says that accelerated charges, like the electrons circling, would lose energy emitted as electromagnetic waves and would quickly orbit into the nucleus. Bohr only postulated that this would not happen, but his model could not explain why. Another problem{{Citation needed}} is that atoms, even the hydrogen atom are not flat - which they would be, if a single electron orbited in a circular or elliptical trajectory (the circular motion of charge results in a magnetic moment; Otto Stern and Walter Gerlach {{w|Stern–Gerlach experiment|showed}} that independent from the direction of the measurement the angular momentum - for certain elements - always has the maximum positive or negative value, i.e. not only the radius, but also the angular momentum is quantized - and never zero. You cannot 'look at' the atom from above and 'see' the orbital circle. It always 'seems', as if you 'looked' from the side and would measure the full magnetic dipole. Stern and Gerlach actually saw the spin of an electron of the silver atom instead of the angular momentum, which is according to quantum mechanics 0).
Today (i.e. actually since 1926, 29 years after the discovery of the electron) physicists subscribe to a quantum model, which is the ninth model shown here. Instead of electrons with definite location and momentum (~speed), the parts of the atom are described by probability fields of possible locations and momentums. The changes in momentum probability normally cancel each other out, so there is no electromagnetic radiation. This is very abstract, and in the last model, the model is postulated to get so abstract that it is just a "small hard ball surrounded by math" model, the last model shown. This then is remarkably similar to the model we started out from, the "small hard ball model" (without the math).

;“Small hard ball surrounded by math” model
The picture for the "small ball surrounded by math" depicts a circle with several numbers around it. While the numbers seem to symbolize the "surrounding math" in a general sense, some of them suggest constants used in actual mathematical equations or other numbers related to the quantum model. The shapes and densities of the atomic orbitals are calculated with the {{w|Schrödinger equation}}, which is complex and difficult to solve. For this reason atoms are generally precisely considered in only very simple simulations, and the details of interactions of many atoms at large scales that form our daily lives are incredibly hard to precisely understand and predict on an atomic level. It comes down to "these roundish things we call atoms are moving around in these approximate ways obeying this complex equation with too many numbers involved in most situations to accurately model, so let's use a different, empirically derived formula that describes the behavior of the system in general."

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Number !! Explanation
|-
| 18 || Maximum number of electrons in the third (M) {{w|electron shell}}
|-
| 0.1 || 1/10th, a simple decimal. Could be the atomic radius in nm of elements like phosphorus, sulfur, and chlorine. Also part of the definition of the {{w|Decibel#Field_quantities_and_root-power_quantities|Decibel}} which is sometimes used when measuring fields
|-
| π || The {{w|Pi|number pi}} ratio of circumference of a circle to half its diameter. Pi is present in many physics equations, often as its double value (2π); also in the definition of the {{w|Planck_constant#Value|reduced Planck constant ħ (h bar)}} present in quantum-mechanical equations.
|-
| 173 || Could be the mass of the top quark in GeV/c². Or it could be the atomic number from which point {{w|Extended periodic table|supercritical atoms}} (the innermost electron shells of those supercritical atoms have such high binding energies that they {{w|Pair production|create electron-positron pairs from the vaccum}} and thus cannot be fully ionized) start. This atomic number can be calculated by a mathematical term and does not fit to a typical fundamental physical theory. Alternatively, a typo, and it should be 137, referring to the fine structure constant which value is approximately 1/137. As an interesting aside, the start of the supercritical atoms would be exactly the fine-structure-constant 137, if the nucleus is assumed to have zero size, and in the Bohr model of such an atom the speed of the innermost electron would reach light speed.
|-
| √2 || An irrational constant, the square root of two, which comes up frequently
|-
| 4i || A simple complex number; i is the principal square root of -1, 4i is the principal square root of -16
|}

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[One large panel with a caption centered on top and ten small drawings in two rows. Each drawing has a description below it.]

:'''Models of the Atom'''
:over time

:[A somewhat imperfectly drawn circle.]
:1810 Small hard ball model

:[A rounded-corners trapezoid inside which there are four small plus signs and four small circles with minus signs inside them.]
:1904 Plum pudding model

:[A bigger circle, with four birds on the surface and music notes above.]
:1907 Tiny bird model

:[A small circle with dots circling around it, drawn with paths.]
:1911 Rutherford model

:[A circle with a plus sign with three circles around it, each with a dot.]
:1913 Bohr model

:[A nunchuck swinging, with the left stick filled with circles with plus signs and the right stick filled with circles with minus signs.]
:1928 Nunchuck model

:[A nucleus with three circles around it, each with a dot.]
:1932 Chadwick model

:[A pie chart, where a part of it has a circle, a part of it has a circle with a minus sign and a part of it has a circle with a plus sign.]
:2008 538 model

:[A small circle with clover-like orbitals around it and surrounded by two outer partly dashed circles.]
:Today Quantum model

:[A circle surrounded with numbers.]
:Numbers: 18, 0.1, π, 173, √2, 4i
:Future "Small hard ball surrounded by math" model

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Comics featuring real people]] 
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Animals]]

Talk:2091: Million, Billion, Trillion

2018-12-28T16:19:47Z

162.158.90.36:

I actually think we have ''too many names'' for large numbers. It's really only necessary to introduce a new name when you reach the ''square'' of the previous name. So, we'd still have tens and hundreds, but there's no need for "one thousand, one hundred" when you can just have "eleven hundred". We'd be better off just naming 10^4, 10^8, 10^16, 10^32, and that's already well beyond anything needed for normal usage, with only a handful of names. None of this "quattuordecillion" stuff that no-one can remember without sitting down and working it out. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.86.64|172.68.86.64]] 05:32, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
: And what you get is a super-weird "double-log" scale! The British (and other nations') usage is correct. Anything above thousand is completely abstract for a human being and intuitively nonlinear (some nations - ancient Greeks and others - go as far as ten thousands, a myriad, but this is it). A thousand squared is already far beyond intuition so it is a good candidate for a new unit representing A BIG NUMBER, plus log scale is a good abstraction allowing for rapid expansion in magnitude. So taking Latin numerals and adding an -illion suffix (except the irregular million) for subsequent powers of 10^6 is a really convenient system. Of course, it goes only as far as ordinary Latin numbers go, then you need to invent something else, but at this point it's only for entertainment. For anything physical you probably would never need a number much larger than a googol. -- [[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.90|162.158.90.90]] 09:26, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

: I think we should refrain from saying one usage is correct over the other - that's just arrogant and mean. That said, the current explanation states that usage is different between American and British English, but my reading on Wikipedia (which is already hyperlinked in the explanation) states that in recent decades Britain has declared their use of short units and therefore British English is now the same as American English. The only regions where it appears there is still usage of the long system is in French and Spanish speaking regions, as well as some special cases around the world. Don't shoot the messenger - I'm just repeating what it states on the Wikipedia page. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 10:15, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

:: Rereading the Wikipedia page, it was in 1974 that Britain declared their use of the short scale for large numbers. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 10:19, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

::: Actually, Germany also uses the "long" (i.e. natural) scale to this day, and I remember how much trouble I had understanding the American system. As the second comment above states, the long scale is (prefix)-llion = 10^(prefix*6), or (prefix)-lliard''e'' = 10^(prefix*6+3); whereas in the short system, (prefix)-llion = 10^(prefix*3+3), which is rather less obvious, if you have any intuition for numbers (and a little Latin). [https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lange_und_kurze_Skala German Wikipedia] tells me that the long scale was invented 1484/1550 by French mathematicians, and the short one in the 17th century in Italy and France by some geniuses that thought when grouping the digits on paper by three instead of six, they should change the group names to make confusion complete. Also, they claim official usage of the short variant is in USA, Brazil, and English-language finance. The names for the systems, however, are from 1975, from yet another French mathematichan, Geneviève Guitel. --[[User:Khms|Khms]] ([[User talk:Khms|talk]]) 10:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

::: East Asian languages such as Japanese actually do use the power-4 scale, with the naming being ten, ten x ten = hundred, hundred x hundred = big'ousand, big'ousand x big'ousand = morebiggienoughty, morebiggienoughty x morebiggienoughty = superbiggienoughty, etc.

:::: Crore. Weird word unless you are in or from India. [[User:Snezzy|Snezzy]] ([[User talk:Snezzy|talk]]) 11:48, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I said this earlier, and I'm going to say it again - the split between use of the short scale and the long scale is NOT a U.S. thing, nor an Atlantic Ocean thing! Just navigate to the hyperlinked page on Wikipedia, and scroll down to the graphic map showing who uses which system to see this very clearly. The majority of the globe uses the short scale except for the following regions: Europe other than Britain, Iran, some countries in Africa, and some countries in Latin America and South America, as well as French speaking regions in otherwise short-scale countries. Notable non-U.S. short-scale countries include Russia and Australia, along with Eastern South America and most of Africa. It's frustrating when people insist on making something about those U.S.A. people that has nothing to do with us. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 14:51, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

: Even the line containing the "In Britian" hyperlink does NOT say what the linked page actually states - that Britain uses the short-scale now, although they used the long-scale quite some time ago (before 1974). [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 14:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

The line that includes "Though people in Britain often use the American definition as of the past few decades" is a bit misleading. In fact, the government of Great Britain announced, proclaimed, and declared that they will officially use the short-scale scheme in 1974. If you live there and are still using the long-scale system, then per your countries leadership you are wrong! The short-scale system is YOUR definition, not the American definition. Interestingly, we didn't invent the short-scale system because it was brought to the Americas by Europeans before the United States of America was even founded! We just continued to use it because it's all we knew until Randall came along and pointed out how screwed up the rest of the world is! [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 15:46, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Long live scientific / exponential notation! 16:19, 28 December 2018 (UTC)~

1391: Darkness

2018-12-04T15:53:56Z

162.158.90.36: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1391
| date = July 7, 2014
| title = Darkness
| image = darkness.png
| titletext = This was actually wish #406. Wish #2 was for him to lose the ability to remember that each new wish wasn't my first.
}}

==Explanation==
[[Ponytail]] as a [[:Category:News anchor|news anchor]] describes the {{w|sunset}} as though it were an unprecedented, newsworthy event, rather than [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MundaneMadeAwesome something mundane] that happens every day. They even have a reporter ([[Cueball]]) on the spot reporting from where the ''darkness'' has spread so far.

The sunset is a common event. {{w|Isaac Asimov}} based his short story {{w|Nightfall (Asimov short story and novel)|Nightfall}} on a fictional civilization that doesn't know darkness because the planet is always illuminated by the six stars surrounding it. The story describes how people would react (mass insanity, fall of civilization) when the orbital motion of the planet eventually leads to five of the suns setting, plus one in eclipse.

Describing mundane occurrences in unusual detail, to show off how odd they really are, is something [[Randall]] has done before (for instance about dreaming in [[203: Hallucinations]]). But the caption below the main panel adds another twist to the joke by showing that the news report wasn't a mere imagine spot, but something actually happening due to the interference of Randall's final wish to his {{w|genie}}, which caused all news reporters to forget the day–night cycle.

Another possible meaning is that this comic is a reference to the way the media often talk about {{w|global warming}} as if each weather occurrence had meaning outside of its context like in [[1321: Cold]]. That take on the weather and the day–night cycle being denied because of a skewed point of view was also used on the {{w|Daily Show}}. The segment "[http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/18l8gy/unusually-large-snowstorm Unusually Large Snowstorm]" from February 10, 2010 used the same trope. Several Daily Show correspondents have different views on the weather based on where they are, ending with a correspondent who equates nighttime with everlasting darkness.

The caption references the fact that there is a limit to the number of wishes. It is a common rule, often used in fiction, that you get [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ThreeWishes three wishes] from a [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GenieInABottle genie in a bottle]. There usually is an added stipulation that no wish may be used to acquire more wishes. In the title text, however, it is stated that Randall has managed to bypass the three wish limit rule. This was accomplished by using his second wish to simply make the genie unable to remember granting the speaker any wishes. He have thus used the same trick on the genie as he used here on the media. The media wish turns out '''not''' to have been his last (i.e. third), but rather wish number 406. This shows just how far, "make someone forget something", can go by applying it to the genie.

It is interesting that it was his second wish that gave him unlimited wishes. What did he wish for on wish #1? Maybe he wasted the first wish, because he did not believe the genie was able to grant wishes – a common error{{Citation needed}}. On the other hand, he may have used the first wish to learn a way where his second wish could circumvent the three rule limit. He did not wish for more wishes (a clear rule), but since the genie now always think the next wish is his first, it is not Randall who asks for more wishes, but the genie that forgets to stop at the limit.

There seem to be a conflict with the title text, and where the caption says ''Genie, for my last wish...'' because the genie does not know it isn't his first, and would otherwise think it could be, and not his last. It could, however, be to shock the reader, that he makes a point of him wasting a final wish on something this silly. Or he is just mocking the Genie because he won't remember the not-first-wish-thing. Then in the title text, he makes it clear that it was only a wish he used, because he had an unlimited number of wishes at hand. And to the genie he would simply have said, ''...for my first wish...''

*To have three wishes from a genie, but really only need one, was the joke in [[152: Hamster Ball]]. Perhaps this genie is the same, and the first wish was for a human-sized hamster ball. Much later - inspired by the hamster ball? - he breaks the genie rules to get access to unlimited (not limited to the normal three) genie wishes.
*The concept of having unlimited wishes has previously been explored in [[1086: Eyelash Wish Log]] - one of the wishes is also related to news anchors - the wish is to control the direction they are looking.
*Genies are also part of [[532: Piano]] and [[879: Lamp]], although these two jokes are of a more juvenile character.

==Transcript==
:[Ponytail is a news anchor at a media desk and she reports:]
:Ponytail: ...getting reports that the darkness has spread as far west as Texas. Let's go live to our reporter in Houston.

:[From a breaking news window in the bottom right corner of the panel, Cueball as a newscaster stands in darkness with two people walking behind him:]
:Cueball: It's been thirty minutes since the sun vanished...

:[There is a caption below the panel]:
:Caption: "Genie, for my last wish, make everyone in the media forget about the day-night cycle."

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:News anchor]]

1285: Third Way

2018-12-04T15:48:43Z

162.158.90.36: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1285
| date = November 1, 2013
| title = Third Way
| image = third way.png
| titletext = 'The monospaced-typewriter-font story is a COMPLETE FABRICATION!  WAKE UP, SHEEPLE' 'It doesn't matter! Studies support single spaces!' 'Those results weren't statistically significant!' 'Fine, you win. I'm using double spaces right now!' 'Are not!  We can all hear your stupid whitespace.'
}}

==Explanation==
This comic refers to the debate occurring in the United States about the correct {{w|Sentence spacing|number of space characters after a period at the end of a sentence}}.

While typewriter typists in the United States were traditionally taught to use two spaces between sentences, this is becoming less common and many sources now recommend having only one space, although this topic is still {{w|Sentence spacing#Controversy|controversial}}.

[[Cueball]] is advocating a line break (new paragraph) after every sentence, the eponymous "third way".

This obviates the problem, as a period will always appear at the end of a paragraph and the spacing after it becomes moot.

A line break after every sentence is sometimes called "[http://rhodesmill.org/brandon/2012/one-sentence-per-line/ semantic linefeeds]".

This is particularly useful when plain text files based on a markup language (such as {{w|HTML}}, {{w|TeX}}, or {{w|Wiki markup}}) are edited by multiple people using a {{w|Revision control|version control system}} where it helps to facilitate comparison of changes and avoid merge conflicts.

In most markup languages, a single line feed in the source is rendered as a simple space, while two linefeeds generate a paragraph break.

This approach allows the source to be easily manipulated and versioned, while the rendered output still keeps the regular flow and justification abilities of running text.

(Incidentally, HTML and languages derived from it such as {{w|BBCode}} and {{w|Wiki markup}} will generally render multiple consecutive whitespace characters as a single space, so pretty much every page on the internet uses single spacing whether the author wants to or not.)

The title text uses single spaces between the back-and-forth quotations; but within each quotation, the quoted speaker's preferred spacing is used.

In particular, when the single-spacing advocate claims to be using double spacing, this is indeed a lie.

However, realistically, it is implausible that one can hear whitespace{{Citation needed}}.

Sentence spacing was previously mentioned in the titletext of [[1070: Words for Small Sets]].

Note that this is not the first time Randall has [[:Category:Compromise|proposed a controversial third way]].

Randall's mocking characterization in the title text of overzealous advocates using the phrase "WAKE UP, SHEEPLE" has appeared in previous comics [[496: Secretary: Part 3]] and [[1013: Wake Up Sheeple]].

This debate is later referenced in [[1989: IMHO]].

==Transcript==
:[To the left a group with three Cueballs, a Ponytail and Megan at the front which face another group with two Cueballs, a Ponytail and a black haired ponytail at the front. Each group has a placard. A Cueball in the left group has a cutlass and a Cueball in the right group has a spear as they are angrily facing off against each other. Off to the far right side stands a lone Cueball also with a placard.]
:Left placard: '''Two''' spaces after a period
:Middle placard: '''One''' space after a period
:Right placard: Line break after every sentence

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Multiple Cueballs]]
[[Category:Sheeple]]
[[Category:Compromise]]
[[Category:Language]]

Talk:2080: Cohort and Age Effects

2018-12-03T18:11:52Z

162.158.90.36:

I'm going to assume the millennial injuries were covered on a news network. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.63.94|162.158.63.94]] 16:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Eh, millenials spend their entire lives sitting in front of a screen (yes, like you are right now), unlike the boomers that actually went out and did stuff. Millenial joints never get used, so they will never get replaced. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.36|162.158.90.36]] 18:11, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Talk:2073: Kilogram

2018-11-16T18:36:41Z

162.158.90.36:

I didn't know that weights and currencies could be converted 1:1, that's cool! [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 16:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I wish they ''had'' redefined the kilogram a little bit. It would have been neat if 1 kg was exactly the weight of 1 dm^3 (1 litre) of water under one atmosphere of pressure. Right now it's soooo close. It's a good enough estimate for simple maths, but whenever you tell people that a litre of water weighs one kilogram the pedants comes out of the woodworks... [[User:Kapten-N|Kapten-N]] ([[User talk:Kapten-N|talk]]) 16:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Up until 1964 a litre (and therefore actually the metre too) used to be defined as the volume that water with mass 1kg takes. But this is not good for exact measurements not only because you need exactly reproducable temperature, pressure (not so problematic, because you can measure them and then calculate the divergence) and gravity (not so easy to measure, because you need an exact mass and exact masses are impossible to keep the same), but also because you need pure water free of any polutions of other stuff (hard and expensive) and even free of tiny amounts of isotopes which are deuterium and tritium (even way more expensive).
Because the water that was used then was never close to pure the actual weight of water nowadays is 0.99997kg at 4°C and 1.013bar and I don't know which value for g. There is also another definition which I like, but is hard to measure in real life scenarios: E=mc². A kilogramm should be 1/c² of the mass which anything becomes heavier that you accelerate by the energy of one Joule. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.150|162.158.90.150]] 17:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
:But how do you define/measure a Joule then? [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 18:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
:No, until 1964, meter and litre were totally independent, a meter has never been defined directly or indirectly in relation to a mass of water. It is only since 1964 that the liter is defined as a cubic decimeter.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.36|162.158.90.36]] 18:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Actually, for the new definition of the kilo using the Kibble balance you need to measure the gravity... [[Special:Contributions/162.158.134.16|162.158.134.16]] 17:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Welp, looks like 1 kg, a.k.a. 1 lb, a.k.a 2.2 lb, is now officially defined to have zero mass.
[[Special:Contributions/172.69.50.28|172.69.50.28]] 16:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
:…or infinite. [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 16:59, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
::What I understand: the joke is not (only) about 1 (old) kg = 1 (old) lb, but (also) about 1 new kg = 1 old lb... or 1 new lb = 1 old kg :^) Or about a ring of positive characteristic --[[Special:Contributions/188.114.102.94|188.114.102.94]] 17:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Talk:1037: Umwelt

2017-07-27T00:18:12Z

162.158.90.36:

Normally I understand xkcd. But this one hurts my head. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]] ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 20:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
: I sorted all of them out. Phew!!! That was some work. The ones at the end have no appropriate picture in the image part. Atleast the hurricane one should be added. Please do so. [[User:TheOriginalSoni|TheOriginalSoni]] ([[User talk:TheOriginalSoni|talk]]) 11:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
:: I live in one of Umwelt's "hurricane areas", and that's the one I see. How do we add it? [[User:Ekedolphin|Ekedolphin]] ([[User talk:Ekedolphin|talk]]) 06:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

There is a fixed image used if your browser does not support javascript, which is missing. Additionally, the alt text varies at times. [[User:Divad27182|Divad27182]] ([[User talk:Divad27182|talk]]) 20:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I can't see any of them neither in Firefox nor in IE :( --[[User:Kronf|Kronf]] ([[User talk:Kronf|talk]]) 11:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

This has got to be one of my favourite xkcd's! That amount of ingenuity in one edition! [[User:D3KN0W|Dean]] ([[User talk:D3KN0W|talk]]) 22:33, 01 January 2013 (UTC)

There is now also a category page for Jurassic Park, but I'm not sure how to work that into the explanation. [[User:Kaa-ching|Kaa-ching]] ([[User talk:Kaa-ching|talk]]) 09:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't resist noting that Chrome is sadly mistaken in thinking that its puzzle piece links up to a corner piece - it would have to be an edge piece to do that. Firefox would never have that kind of issue... [[User:Natf|Natf]] ([[User talk:Natf|talk]])
: Supposedly, if there were a puzzle with inner corners, such as one with a plus cut out of it, this could link up as shown. ... I wanna make a puzzle like that now. [[Special:Contributions/99.44.200.140|99.44.200.140]] 08:00, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

It would be difficult to compile, but I think this page would benefit from having the conditions along with the image (for instance, "Displays when running Netscape:") [[Special:Contributions/24.41.66.114|24.41.66.114]] 03:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey, um, I think there is an AniMega Mega Mega Mega Maniacs reference. Namely, the question about hot dogs resembles Yakko's question to the Wally Llama except it dealt with packages of eight and packages of ten. (I forget which is which) {{unsigned ip|71.166.47.84}}

I came here to seek informartion about how each strip was seen. Disappointed... Especially after seeing there is a hebrew one!?!?!?!? (number 29) Is it real? Because I assume it should be visible from Israel and I can't see it [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.228|141.101.99.228]] 22:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Added two location references to the 2Fast2Furious and Snake comics, with browser references. Anyone know why I got those results? {{unsigned ip|173.245.50.77}}
: I don't, especially since I live in the UK (not Texas) and yet I see the Snake comic? [[User:Enchantedsleeper|Enchantedsleeper]] ([[User talk:Enchantedsleeper|talk]]) 14:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I found a new one, it seems to display when using TOR. Should I add it? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.49.60|173.245.49.60]] 02:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
:Yes definitely. [[User:Chriswampler|Chriswampler]] ([[User talk:Chriswampler|talk]]) 16:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
::The Reviews comic just as appearing under TOR is actually comic #1036. Can you confirm that it is actually showing up under Umwelt? [[User:Chriswampler|Chriswampler]] ([[User talk:Chriswampler|talk]]) 20:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
:::Yes. I checked like ten times. I just did it again.[[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.153|173.245.53.153]] 20:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
:Honestly I can't do much explaining. Does anyone get it? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.61|108.162.219.61]] 20:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
:For me, using TOR, it displayed the full Aurora comic. [[User:Zorlax the Mighty|Zorlax the Mighty'); DROP TABLE users;--]] ([[User talk:Zorlax the Mighty|talk]]) 17:50, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Has anyone tested the Steam browser, whatever it is, with this comic? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.66|108.162.219.66]] 18:50, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I tested the Steam browser and got the "This plugin requires Sergey Brin's permission to run" comic, same as when I use Chrome.[[User:RobotSnake|RobotSnake]] ([[User talk:RobotSnake|talk]]) 18:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
:That is because the Steam browser is WebKit/Chromium-based. (Now you know something!)[[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.88|173.245.50.88]] 03:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

For the Yahoo Chrome one with Sergey Brin, it reminds me a bit like how GerMega Mega Mega Mega Man tanks were unable to be moved on D-Day because Hitler, whose order was needed to move them, slept through the first five hours of the batter. It's the same theme of failure due to having only one person able to give permission, and that person being asleep.[[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.188|173.245.54.188]] 14:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I get Pond on both my laptop (Firefox) and iPhone 3. I live in North Holland. Hope it helps, ask some other Dutch people about it for affirmation. On Opera, I get the turtle one. I should also note that if I make my browser window smaller, the right part of it is cut off. This page is clearly incomplete... -Maplestrip

...Uhm, have you guys ever tried looking at this page in Lynx? Because, seriously, this is amazing. It's basically this entire page. The start in particular is hilarious: "<nowiki>[[two people...]]</nowiki> <<..wait.. <scrolls through a listing of everything> oh goddammit Randall. Thanks a bunch, dude. I better get a raise for typing out all of this>> [[Two people standing next to eachother..." Reading some of this, is this where you got all the transcripts for these comics from? -Maplestrip

In Ireland I get no comic strip loading at all! Just nothing in between the direction buttons, on Chrome or Safari! :/ {{unsigned ip|173.245.53.215}}

Just something I feel should be added to the "Blizzard" comic: it seems to also change the distance measurement (magnitude and system), in the last panel, depending on your location; for instance, the final panel refers to them only having [https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/22279334/Screen%20Shot%202015-03-25%20at%2010.03.06%20PM.png six more kilometres to travel] for me: fitting given that I'm located in central Ontario. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.17|108.162.216.17]] 02:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm in Georgia but I still got the Hurricane image. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.187|108.162.238.187]] 14:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I have the "Reviews" one. With Firefox/Linux without referer and without javascript, from France. With javascript I don't have any comic. Edit : I checked, it's because I have the "Reviews" one but inside a <noscript> tag, so it doesn't display when javascript is activated. [[User:Seipas|Seipas]] ([[User talk:Seipas|talk]]) 14:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

And now we need Randall to make an Umwelt page for Microsoft Edge.
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.61|108.162.221.61]] 02:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Note of interest: Windows 10, Georgia Tech campus in Atlanta, GA. Currently receiving "The Void" on both Chrome and Microsoft Edge unless Javascript is disabled. When disabled, "Reviews" is shown instead. Also: Chrome on HTC One M8 shows "Corporate Networks" with yellow triangle and Google - a combination which incidentally does not seem to be on this page. [[User:Castriff|Jimmy C]] ([[User talk:Castriff|talk]]) 05:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm on Windows 10 in NJ and I'm getting "Snake" instead of "Hurricane" on Opera, Chrome, Edge and Maxthon. Has this happened to other NJ users, or is "Hurricane" in only some parts on New Jersey? Maybe it's because it's on Windows 10. {{unsigned ip|69.123.50.168}}

I'm in Idaho using Firefox, and I get Reviews whenever I go to this comic. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.74|108.162.246.74]] 18:41, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Should I add to the article that I'm seeing "Snake" on Chrome version 49.0.2623.112 on Windows 8 in Massachusetts? --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.72|108.162.219.72]] 00:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
:I posted that comment before I had an account. Now that I'm looking back at this article a year later, I've gone ahead and done it. —[[User:CsBlastoise|CsBlastoise]] ([[User talk:CsBlastoise|talk]]) 22:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I got a variant of the snake one in Ohio using Windows 7 and Google Chrome Version 49.0.2623.112 m. As of now, it should only be visible in "Texas (on Chrome Version 33.0.1750.154 m), New Jersey, California (on Chrome Version 39.0.2171.95), Maryland, Massachusetts (Safari for iOS), Connecticut (Safari for iOS)."[[User:Bbrk24|Bbrk24]] ([[User talk:Bbrk24|talk]]) 16:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm getting Plugin Disabled in Safari, Firefox, Safari mobile, Chrome mobile, and the Google app. The only anomaly is Chrome desktop, where I'm getting Tornado (located in "the Midwest"), and I'm all out of browsers. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.72.113|162.158.72.113]] 21:37, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I get the review strip when sharing http://xkcd.com/1037/ on FB, and the full aurora strip using chrome on my android t-mobile phone [[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.89|173.245.48.89]] 17:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm in Virginia, but when i look at umwelt in firefox, it gives me the tornado, whith ohio in the third panel, and on chrome, it does aurora, still saying ohio. {{unsigned ip|172.68.78.127}}

== Comic Might Now be Broken? ==

For some reason, this comic does not seem to be working now. It doesn't work on Chrome version 57.0.2987.133 on Windows 8 in Massachusetts, even though it worked a year ago on the very same computer with version 49.0.2623.112 of Chrome in the same location (showing "Snake" then); I tried it on Internet Explorer on the same computer (only because it's the only other browser I have on it), and it didn't work there either; my brother grudgingly agreed to try it on Firefox on his Ubuntu 14.04 machine (in the same room), and we got the same result.

No, I'm not talking about the void; here, there is absolutely no image at all. It seems to be the same as the experience that an anonymous user posted above about two and a half years ago:
<blockquote>In Ireland I get no comic strip loading at all! Just nothing in between the direction buttons, on Chrome or Safari! :/ [[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.215|173.245.53.215]] 18:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC) <code>''(Comment was actually unsigned; contributor and timestamp are implied by <nowiki>{{unsigned ip}}</nowiki> template and edit history, respectively)''</code></blockquote>
Now, every time I tried on my computer, the browser said that the page was trying to load unsafe scripts. Maybe this is somehow linked to the fact that within the past few months, Randall (or more likely Davean) made all xkcd links secure (<nowiki>https://</nowiki>), and the now secure nature of the page could be blocking the location- and browser-sensing scripts in the comic itself. However, the comic still didn't work when I opted to "Load Unsafe Scripts", so maybe it isn't that simple.

Also, it might be helpful to note that [[User:Seipas|Seipas]] posted on here that he was having an issue that is probably quite similar to this one:
<blockquote>I have the "Reviews" one. With Firefox/Linux without referer and without javascript, from France. With javascript I don't have any comic. Edit : I checked, it's because I have the "Reviews" one but inside a <noscript> tag, so it doesn't display when javascript is activated. [[User:Seipas|Seipas]] ([[User talk:Seipas|talk]]) 14:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)</blockquote>
Anyway, with all that said, is there anyone else who is having this issue and/or knows what might be causing it?

—[[User:CsBlastoise|CsBlastoise]] ([[User talk:CsBlastoise|talk]]) 23:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

when using chromium on ubuntu 16.04 32 bit (yeah yeah yeah) I get no comic loaded, there is no element present. --> http://i.imgur.com/KZwpN8y.png have fun all. -[anon]

I live in Florida and I had the "Lake Diver Killer" comic show up for me in Umwelt. Then it changed to the "Void" comic despite the fact that JavaScript was supported (it was Google Chrome) and now nothing shows up at all. I don't get it.... --[[User:JayRulesXKCD|'''JayRules''XKCD''' ]][[User talk:JayRulesXKCD|what's up?]] 12:25, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I notified davean, since nobody said doing so. [[User:Musaran|Musaran]] ([[User talk:Musaran|talk]]) 14:26, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Developer console on Opera 46 shows this error:
GET http://umwelt.xkcd.com/story/ghenkEggov8?callback=waldoCallback&w=796&h=658…%3Dopera%26hs%3DuXE%26gbv%3D1%26sei%3Df5dkWd_9MMiGaJKyibAG&_=1499764695887 503 (Service Unavailable)
So it appears there are problems with the server.
Also, I confirm that disabling Javascript in the browser results in the reviews comic displaying. [[User:Jaalenja|Jaalenja]] ([[User talk:Jaalenja|talk]]) 09:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Israel is incorrect. I ive there and I got Saturday _OHF