explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

2131: Emojidome

2019-04-02T13:56:25Z

162.158.92.34: /* How it works */

{{comic
| number = 2131
| date = April 1, 2019
| title = Emojidome
| image = emojidome.png
| titletext = 🤼🤼🤼🤼🤼🤼🤼🤼
}}
*To experience the interactivity, visit the {{xkcd|2131|original comic}}.

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by 😇. Needs more elaboration on font influencing emoji..}}

This is the ninth [[:Category:April fools' comics|April fools' comic]] released by [[Randall]]. The previous fools comic was [[1975: Right Click]] from Sunday April 1, 2018.

In this interactive comic, which began at noon ET (16:00 UTC) on April 1, 2019, users are shown two emoji, and vote for their favorite before the time runs out. 512 different emojis are paired against each other in a cup system, with only one winner. See more below under [[#How it works|How it works]].

Brackets, like the one in this comic - for finding the best emoji, is a recurring theme in xkcd. It is also relevant for this time of year, and two years ago in 2017 (the one year since these April Fools' Day comic became a thing in 2011 where there where no such comic), the first comic in April, [[1819: Sweet 16]] from April 3rd was a bracket, referencing the {{w|March Madness}}. The {{w|2019 NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Tournament|2019 version}} of the {{w|National Collegiate Athletic Association}} {{w|College basketball}} national champion began March 19th and ends April 8th 2019. So this comic could also be said to reference this, although it is not so explicit here.

The matches in that bracket is as silly as the ones here matching emojis, and earlier Randall has made another large and "silly" bracket in [[1529: Bracket]] (which someone then actually made into an online voting system, just like in this comic.

The title is a reference to the movie ''{{w|Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome}},'' which had the tagline: "Two men enter. One man leaves." The "Thunderdome" in the film is a gladiatorial arena where conflicts are resolved by a duel to the death.

==How it works==
In the first round, the voting period for each bout lasted 37.5 seconds. The voting period for each bout doubled for the second, third, and fourth rounds. The voting period for each bout for the fifth round through the end was 26 minutes. The entire bracket is expected to take 24 hours 6 minutes.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Round !! Start (ET) !! Start (UTC) !! Bouts !! Bout length !! Round length
|-
| 1 || 12:00 || 16:00 || 256 || 37.5 s || 2 h 40 m
|-
| 2 || 14:40 || 18:40 || 128 || 1 m 15 s || 2 h 40 m
|-
| 3 || 17:20 || 21:20 || 64 || 2 m 30 s || 2 h 40 m
|-
| 4 || 20:00 || 0:00 || 32 || 5 m || 2 h 40 m
|-
| 5 || 22:40 || 2:40 || 16 || 26 m || 6 h 56 m
|-
| 6 || 5:36 || 9:36 || 8 || 26 m || 3 h 28 m
|-
| 7 || 9:04 || 13:04 || 4 || 26 m || 1 h 44 m
|-
| 8* || 10:48 || 14:48 || 2 || 26 m || 52 m
|-
| 9 || 11:40 || 15:40 || 1 || 26 m || 26 m
|}

<nowiki>*</nowiki> projected

The competing candidates are periodically overlaid with heart emojis that float up from the vote button oscillating in a triangle wave pattern before disappearing above the candidate. Below, the results of past bouts are shown with the "loser" displayed in greyscale. Supposedly, the emoji will be eliminated one-by-one until there are a final two emoji facing off, with the one most voted-for being crowned the best emoji. This is likely a parody of March Madness.

The commentary appears to suggest that there's some real-time feedback from the results of the competition, for instance "It seems like our friends over Australia is joining the fun" appeared in the commentary. So does "We are getting a lot of questions on this today. This is live commentary, folks." https://i.imgur.com/8kPwjou.png, directly declaring that the commentary is live.

Note that the schedule might show different emoji pictures than the main voting screen, presumably because of fonts. The image is pre-rendered.

The competing candidates are chosen in order of unicode value at first, resulting in similar emojis being compared. Examples include:

😜 squaring off against 😛 - two emoji playfully sticking their tongues out

🤩 squaring off against 😍 - two smiling emojis with symbols for eyes

😂 squaring off with 🤣 - two emojis that are crying in laughter/joy.

The title text consists of the wrestlers emoji (🤼) eight times over. If it appears to be nonsense, then your browser may not be parsing the title text correctly.

It appears the eggplant emoji (🍆) and the peach emoji (🍑) have been left out of the bracket.

A robot face announcer-emoji (🤖) and a link to the full bracket was added at 38 minutes in.
https://www.xkcd.com/2131/emojidome_bracket.png shows 512 emojis in a single-elimination tournament.
https://www.xkcd.com/2131/emojidome_bracket_256.png was added later and shows the 256 emojis that competed on the second round.
https://www.xkcd.com/2131/emojidome_bracket_round_3.png was added for the third round. https://www.xkcd.com/2131/emojidome_bracket_round_4.png was added for the fourth round. The round 3 bracket was later updated with results during the Volcano vs Owl fight. There was an error where the flying saucer had beaten the stars, which was not the case.
A new bracket image was created for the Round of 32 which seems to be updated with new results as they come in. https://www.xkcd.com/2131/emojidome_bracket_round_of_32.png

It is not clear how the winner is decided when both emoji tie for first. This has happened once in 🧁 vs. 🎂 with 3658 points each, where 🎂 was declared winner.

==Alternative viewers==

Real live data with results (clicks) can be seen as JSON-websocket at '''https://emojidome.xkcd.com/2131/socket'''

A live (user-created) vote tally can be found at '''https://emojidome.playcode.io/'''. Thanks Andy! (live updates)

'''http://srv-01.valo.media/''' has a tally with more details, such as all the comments from the announcer, as well as an auto-clicker. (live updates)

'''https://phiresky.github.io/emojidome/''' is a [https://www.reddit.com/r/xkcd/comments/b89zz1/emojidome_live_bracket_viewer/ redditor-made] live bracket display (live updates)

'''https://dancoates.github.io/emojidome/index.html''' is a [https://www.reddit.com/r/xkcd/comments/b8g3av/emojidome_trend_viewer/ redditor-made] graph of the current match-up.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|This transcript is for the image that embeds and automated programs usually see. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
'''This should not be the transcript, also the picture at the top should not be the error image!)'''
:[A tournament bracket tree is shown with eight participants each on the left and right side, for a total of sixteen, all of which are the 😰 emoji (a face with eyebrows, one teardrop and a blue forehead). From both sides towards the middle the brackets reduce to eight, then four, two, and one line where the latter join to a rectangle in the middle.]

:Visit xkcd.com to participate

:If you ''are'' on xkcd.com, then you're seeing this
:because of something something JavaScript.

:Listen, websites are hard 😰

=== Round 1===
{| class="wikitable mw-collapsible mw-collapsed"
|-
! Competitors and score !! Commentary
|-
| 😀 (0) vs 😁 (0) '''(Tie - unclear how winner was chosen)''' ||
* You do not want to miss the fan favorite 😀. Coming up next!
|-
| 😆 (207) vs '''😅 (251)''' ||
* Next up, 😅 and 😆.
* I'm really looking forward to everything we're going to see today.
|-
| 😂 (772) vs '''🤣 (824)''' ||
* Oh, this one should be good.
|-
| 🙂 (939) vs '''🙃 (1494)''' ||
* You do not want to miss the fan favorite 🙂. Coming up next!
* You think this is something, folks, well... we're just getting started.
|-
| 😊 (857) vs '''😉 (1774)''' ||
* They have been attacking each other on social media all week. Next up! It's 😉 vs. 😊.
|-
| '''😇 (1417)''' vs 🥰 (1392) ||
* Welcome back, it's time for 😇 and 🥰 to go head to head.
|-
| '''😍 (2159)''' vs 🤩 (1447) ||
* We will be right back with 😍 vs. 🤩!
|-
| 😗 (1045) vs '''😘 (2595)''' ||
* They have been attacking each other on social media all week. Next up! It's 😗 vs. 😘.
* This is a day that 😗 has been anticipating for a long time.
|-
| 😚 (1619) vs '''😙 (1770)''' ||
* Have at it, 😙 and 😚!
* If you are just joining us, fear not! You haven't missed much.
|-
| 😋 (1549) vs '''😛 (2644)''' ||
* It's time to find out: Who would win in a match, 😋 or 😛?
* 😋 stole that win.
|-
| '''😜 (2302)''' vs 🤪 (2085) ||
* Next up, 😜 and 🤪.
*😜 didn't do their homework.
|-
| '''😝 (2568)''' vs 🤑 (1372) ||
* Don't change that channel, folks. We have 😝 and 🤑 warming up.
|-
| 🤗 (1598) vs '''🤭 (2316)''' ||
* Next up, 🤗 and 🤭.
* Sometimes miracles happen.
|-
| 🤫 (734) vs '''🤔 (4374)''' ||
* Oh, this one should be good.
|-
| 🤐 (1119) vs '''🤨 (2928)''' ||
* We will be right back with 🤐 vs. 🤨!
* Not sure which way this one goes.
|-
| 😐 (1506) vs '''😑 (1665)''' ||
* They have been attacking each other on social media all week. Next up! It's 😐 vs. 😑.
* One for the history books.
|-
| 😶 (2437) vs '''😏 (2659)''' ||
* It's time to find out: Who would win in a match, 😏 or 😶?
* This one was over before it started.
|-
| 😒 (1562) vs '''🙄 (2692)''' ||
* If you're like me, you've argued over who would win head-to-head, 😒 or 🙄.
|-
| '''😬 (3345)''' vs 🤥 (1137) ||
* Oh this one should be good.
*No surprises here. 🤥 skates to an easy win.
*I hope everyone has printed their brackets and are ready, because time waits for very few people!
*No surprises here. 😬 skates to an easy win.
|-
| 😌 (1980) vs '''😔 (2238)''' ||
* Next! Who would win in a match between 😌 and 😔? We are about to find out.
* 😔 comes out on top.
|-
| '''😴 (2770)''' vs 🤤 (1957) ||
* Oh, this one should be good.
*A dominant performance by 😴.
|-
| 😷 (1760) vs '''🤒 (2629)''' ||
* Welcome back, it's time for 😷 and 🤒 to go head to head.
* In the end, there was nothing 😷 could do to stop the power of 🤒.
|-
| 🤢 (2270) vs '''🤕 (2648)''' ||
* Next up, 🤕 and 🤢.
* 🤕 stole that win.
|-
| 🤧 (2325) vs '''🤮 (3260)''' ||
* Will it be 🤧 or 🤮? Find out next after this message from our sponsors.
* 🤮 opened strong and 🤧 never caught up.
|-
| 🥵 (1884) vs '''🥶 (3983)''' ||
* You do not want to miss the fan favorite 🥵. Coming up next!
* I have never seen 🥶 crush an opponent that mercilessly before.
|-
| 😵 (2920) vs '''🥴 (3762)''' ||
* Oh this one should be good.
* That was 😵's to give away and they did.
|-
| 🤯 (3055) vs '''🤠 (3110)''' ||
* They have been attacking each other on social media all week. Next up! It's 🤠 vs. 🤯.
* However this ends up, someone got blown away.
|-
| '''😎 (4316)''' vs 🥳 (2201) ||
* On deck, we have 😎 and 🥳.
*I guess it was that kind of a party.
|-
| 😟 (2184) vs '''😕 (3663)''' ||
* Uh oh. 😟 has had words with 😕 before. The next match will be good.
* 😕 one, 😟 zero.
|-
| ☹ (1638) vs '''😮 (5498)''' ||
* Next up, ☹ and 😮.
* I hope everyone has printed their brackets and are ready, because time waits for very few people!
|-
| 😲 (2383) vs '''😯 (3904)''' ||
* Don't change that channel, folks. We have 😯 and 😲 warming up.
* And 😲 falls to 😯. A suprising turn of events.
|-
| 😧 (3063) vs '''😳 (3754)''' ||
* We will be right back with 😧 vs. 😳!
* This one was over before it started.
|-
| 😨 (2082) vs '''😰 (4050)''' ||
* Oh, this one should be good.
* Well, this doesn't look good.
|-
| 😢 (2095) vs '''😭 (5108)''' ||
* Have at it, 😢 and 😭!
* This one's a real tear-jerker.
|-
| 😖 (2039) vs '''😱 (4758)''' ||
* If you're like me, you've argued over who would win head-to-head, 😖 or 😱.
* 😱 stole that win.
|-
| 😞 (2879) vs '''😣 (3528)''' ||
* Coming to you live from the Emojidome, it's 😞 vs. 😣!
* This one's painful.
|-
| 😩 (2785) vs '''😓 (3231)''' ||
* On deck, we have 😓 and 😩.
* It's early yet, folks. The coffee hasn't kicked in.
|-
| 😫 (1827) vs '''😤 (4871)''' ||
* Coming to you live from the Emojidome, it's 😤 vs. 😫!
* I didn't remember 😫 qualifying. I think they snuck in.
|-
| 😠 (1866) vs '''😡 (5192)''' ||
* Will it be 😠 or 😡? Find out next after this message from our sponsors.
* It is astounding how much competition we have in store for today.
|-
| '''😈 (4225)''' vs 🤬 (3072) ||
* Coming to you live from the Emojidome, it's 😈 vs. 🤬!
*Speak of the devil...
|-
| 👿 (2341) vs '''💀 (4739)''' ||
* We will be right back with 👿 vs. 💀!
* It has been a long road for 💀 to get to competing on the world stage.
|-
| '''💩 (4829)''' vs 🤡 (2514) ||
* Have at it, 💩 and 🤡!
*I think we all know how this is going to go.
|-
| 👻 (3680) vs '''👽 (3983)''' ||
* Have at it, 👻 and 👽!
|-
| 🏰 (2715) vs '''👾 (4412)''' ||
* They have been attacking each other on social media all week. Next up! It's 🏰 vs. 👾.
* 👾 opened strong and 🏰 never caught up.
|-
| 😸 (3334) vs '''😺 (3542)''' ||
* They have been attacking each other on social media all week. Next up! It's 😸 vs. 😺.
* This one is serious, folks.
|-
| 😹 (2778) vs '''😻 (3702)''' ||
* Welcome back, it's time for 😹 and 😻 to go head to head.
* The hearts are my favorite part. It all comes down to love. And that really says something.
|-
| 😽 (1815) vs '''😼 (3991)''' ||
* I'm looking forward to this.
* Sometimes miracles happen.
|-
| 😿 (1189) vs '''🙀 (4682)''' ||
* On deck, we have 😿 and 🙀.
|-
| 💋 (2122) vs '''😾 (3837)''' ||
* Oh, this one should be good.
|-
| 💌 (1659) vs '''💖 (3386)''' ||
* Next! Who would win in a match between 💌 and 💖? We are about to find out.
* 💌 is an fan favorite to go far today.
|-
| '''❤ (3904)''' vs 💔 (1920) ||
* Uh oh. 💔 has had words with ❤ before. The next match will be good.
|-
| 🖤 (2940) vs '''💯 (3866)''' ||
* It is a battle as old as time itself. 💯 and 🖤! Facing off against each other again!
* A dominant performance by 💯.
|-
| 💥 (3055) vs '''💦 (3843)''' ||
* Welcome back, it's time for 💥 and 💦 to go head to head.
* Like fire and water.
|-
| 🕳 (2476) vs '''💣 (4063)''' ||
* Don't change that channel, folks. We have 💣 and 🕳 warming up.
* This one was a mess.
|-
| 🤞 (2246) vs '''🤘 (4845)''' ||
* You do not want to miss the fan favorite 🤘. Coming up next!
* It feels like these early matches are over almost before they begin.
|-
| 👎 (2231) vs '''👍 (5077)''' ||
* Will it be 👍 or 👎? Find out next after this message from our sponsors.
* Nice to see the support for positivity.
|-
| 🙏 (3114) vs '''👊 (4861)''' ||
* Have at it, 👊 and 🙏!
* I don't think 🙏 expected to see 👊 opposite them today.
|-
| 💅 (2366) vs '''🦵 (4060)''' ||
* It's time to find out: Who would win in a match, 💅 or 🦵?
* If 🦵 wins this match, it will be interesting to see how far they can go.
|-
| 🦷 (1409) vs '''🧠 (5821)''' ||
* Oh this one should be good.
|-
| '''👀 (4052)''' vs 🦴 (2198) ||
* Uh oh. 🦴 has had words with 👀 before. The next match will be good.
|-
| 👄 (1712) vs '''👅 (4648)''' ||
* Don't change that channel, folks. We have 👄 and 👅 warming up.
|-
| 👶 (1414) vs '''🤦 (5666)''' ||
* Uh oh. 🤦 has had words with 👶 before. The next match will be good.
|-
| '''👩‍🔬 (6374)''' vs 🤷 (2385) ||
* Have at it, 👩‍🔬 and 🤷!
|-
| '''👩‍🚀 (5502)''' vs 🦸 (2302) ||
* It's time to find out: Who would win in a match, 👩‍🚀 or 🦸?
|-
| 🧚 (1909) vs '''🧙 (6294)''' ||
* Uh oh. 🧚 has had words with 🧙 before. The next match will be good.
* There are some titanic match-ups that could happen today.
* Yes, this is live commentary.
* We have only just started, folks. Stay tuned for more amazing contests!
|-
| 🧜 (3835) vs '''🧛 (3840)''' ||
* You do not want to miss the fan favorite 🧛. Coming up next!
* Not sure which way this one goes.
|-
| 💆 (2815) vs '''🧟 (3747)''' ||
* Next up, 💆 and 🧟.
* That's just a typical Monday for you.
|-
| 💇 (3029) vs '''🚶 (3055)''' ||
* We will be right back with 💇 vs. 🚶!
* It's going to be a busy day, folks. Remember to pace yourself.
|-
| 🏃 (2239) vs '''💃 (5833)''' ||
* On deck, we have 🏃 and 💃.
* Make some noise! Show 🏃 and 💃 some love!
* That was 🏃's to give away and they did.
|-
| 🕺 (1990) vs '''🕴 (5035)''' ||
* We will be right back with 🕴 vs. 🕺!
* I spoke with 🕴 before we started today. They were hoping to dodge 🕺. Too bad for them.
|-
| 🏇 (2563) vs '''🤺 (5157)''' ||
* Have at it, 🏇 and 🤺!
* Never bring a sword to a horse fight.
|-
| '''⛷ (4510)''' vs 🏂 (3762) ||
* Coming to you live from the Emojidome, it's ⛷ vs. 🏂!
*We have a lot of excited fans in the audience.
|-
| 🏌 (2557) vs '''🏄 (6285)''' ||
* It's time to find out: Who would win in a match, 🏄 or 🏌?
* Ok! Let's see those hearts!
* I have never seen 🏄 crush an opponent that mercilessly before.
|-
| ⛹ (2793) vs '''🏊 (5994)''' ||
* Have at it, ⛹ and 🏊!
|-
| 🏋 (2300) vs '''🚴 (8063)''' ||
* Will it be 🏋 or 🚴? Find out next after this message from our sponsors.
* Right now the crowd is chanting 🏋! 🏋! An early sign of a favorite?
|-
| '''🚵 (5650)''' vs 🤾 (4698) ||
* We will be right back with 🚵 vs. 🤾!
*It's neck and neck!
|-
| 👤 (2195) vs '''🛀 (5529)''' ||
* Don't change that channel, folks. We have 👤 and 🛀 warming up.
|-
| '''🐒 (4644)''' vs 🦍 (3336) ||
* Oh, this one should be good.
|-
| 🐕 (3458) vs '''🐶 (4004)''' ||
* You do not want to miss the fan favorite 🐕. Coming up next!
* Mostly a matter of perspective.
|-
| 🐺 (2774) vs '''🦊 (6024)''' ||
* Oh, this one should be good.
* Again, small variations make all the difference.
|-
| '''🐱 (4931)''' vs 🦝 (4017) ||
* They have been attacking each other on social media all week. Next up! It's 🐱 vs. 🦝.
*🦝 is an fan favorite to go far today.
*🐱 stole that win.
|-
| '''🐈 (5046)''' vs 🦁 (3957) ||
* Don't change that channel, folks. We have 🐈 and 🦁 warming up.
*Again, we are getting a lot of questions on this today. This is live commentary, folks.
*We have a lot of excited fans in the audience.
|-
| 🐆 (2186) vs '''🐅 (6280)''' ||
* It's time to find out: Who would win in a match, 🐅 or 🐆?
* Stripes or Spots, Stripes or Spots
|-
| 🐴 (3722) vs '''🐎 (4120)''' ||
* Next! Who would win in a match between 🐎 and 🐴? We are about to find out.
* I've got your horse right here.
|-
| 🦓 (3486) vs '''🦄 (6830)''' ||
* Next! Who would win in a match between 🦄 and 🦓? We are about to find out.
* I think we all know how this is going to go.
* It was neck and neck until the very end, but some necks are longer than others.
|-
| 🐮 (3658) vs '''🦌 (5111)''' ||
* Uh oh. 🦌 has had words with 🐮 before. The next match will be good.
* This is a close one!
|-
| 🐖 (3568) vs '''🐷 (5175)''' ||
* You do not want to miss the fan favorite 🐖. Coming up next!
* Who will bring home the bacon?
|-
| 🐗 (2576) vs '''🐏 (6073)''' ||
* It's time to find out: Who would win in a match, 🐏 or 🐗?
|-
| 🐪 (3329) vs '''🐐 (5304)''' ||
* It's time to find out: Who would win in a match, 🐐 or 🐪?
|-
| 🦙 (4397) vs '''🦒 (5164)''' ||
* Uh oh. 🦙 has had words with 🦒 before. The next match will be good.
* It's neck and neck!
* I hope 🦙 comes back next year. It would be a sham to see it all end like this.
|-
| '''🐘 (4809)''' vs 🦏 (3804) ||
* It's time to find out: Who would win in a match, 🐘 or 🦏?
*We'll never forget this.
|-
| 🐁 (4039) vs '''🦛 (4085)''' ||
* It's time to find out: Who would win in a match, 🐁 or 🦛?
|-
| 🐀 (2994) vs '''🐹 (4580)''' ||
* Will it be 🐀 or 🐹? Find out next after this message from our sponsors.
* Today is also about settling scores, there is no doubt about that for some of our contestants.
|-
| 🐰 (1865) vs '''🐿 (5175)''' ||
* If you're like me, you've argued over who would win head-to-head, 🐰 or 🐿.
* Its about reflexes.
|-
| 🦇 (3648) vs '''🦔 (4507)''' ||
* They have been attacking each other on social media all week. Next up! It's 🦇 vs. 🦔.
* This one is a toss-up in my book, folks.
|-
| 🐻 (2686) vs '''🐨 (5059)''' ||
* Coming to you live from the Emojidome, it's 🐨 vs. 🐻!
* Ok! You know what to do! Let's see those hearts!
|-
| 🐼 (2896) vs '''🦘 (5185)''' ||
* Next! Who would win in a match between 🐼 and 🦘? We are about to find out.
* It's exciting to look around and see so many joining us from all over the world.
* One for the history books.
|-
| 🦃 (2553) vs '''🦡 (5483)''' ||
* It is a battle as old as time itself. 🦃 and 🦡! Facing off against each other again!
* That was a stinker of a battle, if you ask me.
|-
| 🐓 (2883) vs '''🐣 (5153)''' ||
* Welcome back, it's time for 🐓 and 🐣 to go head to head.
|-
| 🕊 (2432) vs '''🐧 (5951)''' ||
* We will be right back with 🐧 vs. 🕊!
|-
| 🦅 (3871) vs '''🦆 (4800)''' ||
* Uh oh. 🦆 has had words with 🦅 before. The next match will be good.
|-
| 🦢 (1613) vs '''🦉 (7025)''' ||
* They have been attacking each other on social media all week. Next up! It's 🦉 vs. 🦢.
* 🦉 didn't do their homework.
* I hope everyone has printed their brackets and are ready, because time waits for very few people!
* Yes, this is live commentary.
* 🦉 one, 🦢 zero.
|-
| 🦚 (4333) vs '''🦜 (4803)''' ||
* Oh, this one should be good.
* I know some very invested audience members for this one.
|-
| 🐊 (3986) vs '''🐢 (6403)''' ||
* I'm looking forward to this.
|-
| '''🐍 (5378)''' vs 🦎 (4415) ||
* Have at it, 🐍 and 🦎!
*In the end, there was nothing 🐍 could do to stop the power of 🦎.
*Did you just see that!?
*Plenty of matches left to see. Don't go anywhere.
|-
| '''🐉 (5359)''' vs 🦕 (4855) ||
* Have at it, 🐉 and 🦕!
*One for the history books.
|-
| '''🐳 (5445)''' vs 🦖 (5411) ||
* I'm looking forward to this.
*Again, another difficult match-up for our audience.
|-
| 🐟 (1639) vs '''🐬 (8071)''' ||
* Will it be 🐟 or 🐬? Find out next after this message from our sponsors.
* I know which one I would choose, but I don't have time to vote!
|-
| 🐡 (2307) vs '''🦈 (6544)''' ||
* Have at it, 🐡 and 🦈!
* 🦈 opened strong and 🐡 never caught up.
|-
| 🐚 (1590) vs '''🐙 (8224)''' ||
* They have been attacking each other on social media all week. Next up! It's 🐙 vs. 🐚.
* This one was over before it started.
|-
| 🐌 (4816) vs '''🦋 (4835)''' ||
* We will be right back with 🐌 vs. 🦋!
* The hearts are flying on this one!
|-
| 🐜 (3194) vs '''🐛 (5132)''' ||
* I'm looking forward to this.
* 🐜 didn't do their homework.
|-
| 🐞 (3561) vs '''🐝 (5804)''' ||
* On deck, we have 🐝 and 🐞.
* This one is a true test of the audience today.
* Will luck be a ladybug tonight?
* Amazing!
|-
| '''🕷 (4806)''' vs 🦗 (4195) ||
* Uh oh. 🦗 has had words with 🕷 before. The next match will be good.
*And 🦗 falls to 🕷. A suprising turn of events.
|-
| 🦂 (3853) vs '''🦠 (4971)''' ||
* Next! Who would win in a match between 🦂 and 🦠? We are about to find out.
* Nope. Nope nope nope nope.
|-
| 🌷 (3767) vs '''🌻 (4374)''' ||
* We will be right back with 🌷 vs. 🌻!
* Now that's more like it.
|-
| 🌳 (1973) vs '''🌲 (6563)''' ||
* If you're like me, you've argued over who would win head-to-head, 🌲 or 🌳.
* Who would have thought, eh?
|-
| 🌴 (3876) vs '''🌵 (5468)''' ||
* Oh, this one should be good.
* In the end, there was nothing 🌴 could do to stop the power of 🌵.
|-
| 🍈 (2617) vs '''🍇 (5319)''' ||
* It's time to find out: Who would win in a match, 🍇 or 🍈?
* Folks, I am just as stunned at the outcome as you.
|-
| 🍋 (4186) vs '''🍉 (4720)''' ||
* They have been attacking each other on social media all week. Next up! It's 🍉 vs. 🍋.
* I just don't know why they can't find common ground.
* 🍉 one, 🍋 zero.
|-
| 🍌 (4704) vs '''🍍 (5525)''' ||
* Don't change that channel, folks. We have 🍌 and 🍍 warming up.
* Ok! Let's see those hearts!
* I guess it was that kind of a party.
|-
| '''🍎 (5111)''' vs 🥭 (3830) ||
* I'm looking forward to this.
|-
| 🍏 (2703) vs '''🍓 (6403)''' ||
* It's time to find out: Who would win in a match, 🍏 or 🍓?
* We might be close to some matches the audience is expecting or hoping to see today.
* Berry nice!
|-
| 🍅 (3002) vs '''🥝 (5348)''' ||
* They have been attacking each other on social media all week. Next up! It's 🍅 vs. 🥝.
|-
| 🥥 (3840) vs '''🥑 (5759)''' ||
* On deck, we have 🥑 and 🥥.
* Somehow, someone will blame millenials for this.
|-
| 🥕 (4577) vs '''🥔 (4620)''' ||
* Next! Who would win in a match between 🥔 and 🥕? We are about to find out.
* Ahhh the age old question, 🥕 or 🥔.
|-
| 🌽 (4074) vs '''🌶 (5087)''' ||
* Have at it, 🌶 and 🌽!
|-
| 🥬 (2694) vs '''🥒 (5472)''' ||
* You do not want to miss the fan favorite 🥒. Coming up next!
* Not sure which way this one goes.
|-
| '''🍄 (5850)''' vs 🥦 (2707) ||
* Will it be 🍄 or 🥦? Find out next after this message from our sponsors.
*Folks, we are nearly halfway through the first bracket!
*Again, we are getting a lot of questions on this today. This is live commentary, folks.
*Into the second half of the first round.
*That was 🥦's to give away and they did.
|-
| 🌰 (2698) vs '''🥜 (6225)''' ||
* It's time to find out: Who would win in a match, 🌰 or 🥜?
* I am not even sure what I am looking at here.
|-
| 🍞 (2934) vs '''🥐 (6465)''' ||
* They have been attacking each other on social media all week. Next up! It's 🍞 vs. 🥐.
* Well, I know who I would vote for.
|-
| 🥖 (4800) vs '''🥨 (5136)''' ||
* We will be right back with 🥖 vs. 🥨!
|-
| 🥯 (2470) vs '''🥞 (5926)''' ||
* Uh oh. 🥯 has had words with 🥞 before. The next match will be good.
* Now I am just hungry.
|-
| 🥩 (3959) vs '''🧀 (6225)''' ||
* Oh this one should be good.
* Truly a battle for the ages.
|-
| 🍟 (3719) vs '''🍔 (5352)''' ||
* Don't change that channel, folks. We have 🍔 and 🍟 warming up.
|-
| 🌭 (1340) vs '''🍕 (7881)''' ||
* If you're like me, you've argued over who would win head-to-head, 🌭 or 🍕.
|-
| '''🌮 (6417)''' vs 🥪 (2869) ||
* It's time to find out: Who would win in a match, 🌮 or 🥪?
*I'll be honest, even I voted in that last one.
*There are some titanic match-ups that could happen today.
*One for the history books.
|-
| '''🌯 (5359)''' vs 🥚 (3868) ||
* It's time to find out: Who would win in a match, 🌯 or 🥚?
*🥚 is an fan favorite to go far today.
*One for the history books.
|-
| '''🍳 (5293)''' vs 🥗 (3101) ||
* Have at it, 🍳 and 🥗!
*There can be very food-centric history books.
*If 🍳 wins this match, it will be interesting to see how far they can go.
|-
| '''🍿 (2640)''' vs 🧂 (2067) ||
* Oh, this one should be good.
*This one was over before it started.
|-
| '''🍱 (4931)''' vs 🥫 (1948) ||
* They have been attacking each other on social media all week. Next up! It's 🍱 vs. 🥫.
*It is early still. Possibly too early to predict an over-all winner. But I am hearing 🏇 mentioned a fair bit.
*And 🥫 falls to 🍱. A suprising turn of events.
|-
| 🍤 (2334) vs '''🍣 (5552)''' ||
* They have been attacking each other on social media all week. Next up! It's 🍣 vs. 🍤.
* Plenty of matches left to see. Don't go anywhere.
|-
| 🥡 (3101) vs '''🥟 (4128)''' ||
* They have been attacking each other on social media all week. Next up! It's 🥟 vs. 🥡.
* 🥟 one, 🥡 zero.
|-
| 🦀 (3762) vs '''🦞 (4739)''' ||
* Coming to you live from the Emojidome, it's 🦀 vs. 🦞!
|-
| 🦐 (2421) vs '''🦑 (6162)''' ||
* Will it be 🦐 or 🦑? Find out next after this message from our sponsors.
|-
| 🍦 (3804) vs '''🍨 (4698)''' ||
* If you're like me, you've argued over who would win head-to-head, 🍦 or 🍨.
|-
| 🍪 (3722) vs '''🍩 (5167)''' ||
* We will be right back with 🍩 vs. 🍪!
|-
| 🎂 (3658) vs 🧁 (3658) '''(Tie - unclear how winner was chosen)''' ||
* Next up, 🎂 and 🧁.
|-
| 🍬 (1244) vs '''🍫 (6674)''' ||
* We will be right back with 🍫 vs. 🍬!
|-
| 🍭 (2568) vs '''🍯 (5445)''' ||
* It's time to find out: Who would win in a match, 🍭 or 🍯?
* Thank you for tuning in. I promise you are in for a treat today.
|-
| 🍼 (1824) vs '''🥛 (5239)''' ||
* Will it be 🍼 or 🥛? Find out next after this message from our sponsors.
|-
| '''☕ (4813)''' vs 🍾 (3227) ||
* If you're like me, you've argued over who would win head-to-head, ☕ or 🍾.
*Time to get another feel for our audience today.
|-
| 🍷 (3021) vs '''🍹 (3561)''' ||
* It is a battle as old as time itself. 🍷 and 🍹! Facing off against each other again!
* Well now I am just getting thirsty.
|-
| '''🍺 (5763)''' vs 🥤 (3897) ||
* Will it be 🍺 or 🥤? Find out next after this message from our sponsors.
*Still thirsty!
|-
| 🍴 (3917) vs '''🥢 (4348)''' ||
* We will be right back with 🍴 vs. 🥢!
* I know which one I would choose, but I don't have time to vote!
|-
| '''🔪 (5627)''' vs 🥄 (1742) ||
* Have at it, 🔪 and 🥄!
|-
| 🏺 (2604) vs '''🧭 (4784)''' ||
* Don't change that channel, folks. We have 🏺 and 🧭 warming up.
* You just know that 🏺 is thinking about 🏎 right now.
|-
| ⛰ (1843) vs '''🌋 (6793)''' ||
* You do not want to miss the fan favorite ⛰. Coming up next!
* This one was over before it started.
|-
| 🏖 (3159) vs '''🏕 (5611)''' ||
* Welcome back, it's time for 🏕 and 🏖 to go head to head.
* Time to pick your poison!
|-
| 🏟 (2537) vs '''🏝 (6180)''' ||
* I'm looking forward to this.
|-
| '''🏗 (4093)''' vs 🧱 (3680) ||
* Oh this one should be good.
*What an amazing display of prowess from 🏗.
|-
| 🏢 (2178) vs '''🏠 (5829)''' ||
* Oh, this one should be good.
* 🏠 has every reason to be concerned about this match-up.
|-
| 🏨 (1367) vs '''🏥 (5326)''' ||
* Next! Who would win in a match between 🏥 and 🏨? We are about to find out.
* is $6,000,000 of one and Six million of the other, am I right?
|-
| 🏪 (3114) vs '''🗽 (4875)''' ||
* It is a battle as old as time itself. 🏪 and 🗽! Facing off against each other again!
|-
| '''⛲ (4296)''' vs ⛺ (3483) ||
* Don't change that channel, folks. We have ⛲ and ⛺ warming up.
*If you look away for a moment, you may miss your chance to send ⛺ into the later rounds.
|-
| 🌁 (3488) vs '''🌃 (4354)''' ||
* I'm looking forward to this.
|-
| 🏙 (2396) vs '''🌅 (6055)''' ||
* Next up, 🌅 and 🏙.
* 🏙 is fully committed to this match.
|-
| 🎠 (3307) vs '''🎡 (4648)''' ||
* It's time to find out: Who would win in a match, 🎠 or 🎡?
* Oh no. 🎠 fans are not going to like this match-up.
|-
| '''🎢 (5854)''' vs 💈 (2137) ||
* Next up, 🎢 and 💈.
*This one will be filled with twists and turns!
|-
| 🚂 (3915) vs '''🚄 (4826)''' ||
* They have been attacking each other on social media all week. Next up! It's 🚂 vs. 🚄.
* The future waits on no one. Let's see those hearts!
|-
| 🚇 (3395) vs '''🚝 (4881)''' ||
* Coming to you live from the Emojidome, it's 🚇 vs. 🚝!
* On the other hand, time and space are a matter of perspective, right?
* I guess it was that kind of a party.
|-
| 🚌 (2412) vs '''🚑 (5363)''' ||
* They have been attacking each other on social media all week. Next up! It's 🚌 vs. 🚑.
* Uh oh, that can't be good for 🚌.
|-
| 🚓 (2703) vs '''🚒 (6746)''' ||
* Oh, this one should be good.
* Uh oh, that can't be good for 🚓.
* This is a classic struggle.
|-
| 🚕 (3400) vs '''🚗 (3794)''' ||
* Don't change that channel, folks. We have 🚕 and 🚗 warming up.
* Well that's certainly something.
|-
| 🚘 (2922) vs '''🚜 (5363)''' ||
* Next up, 🚘 and 🚜.
* This one is a real nail biter!
* If 🚘 falls today, we might start hearing serious conversations about retirement.
|-
| 🏎 (3103) vs '''🛵 (4839)''' ||
* Don't change that channel, folks. We have 🏎 and 🛵 warming up.
* Well this is just fan service. And I am ok with it.
|-
| 🛴 (2103) vs '''🚲 (6970)''' ||
* Next! Who would win in a match between 🚲 and 🛴? We are about to find out.
* Frankly, I don't think anyone saw this coming.
|-
| 🛢 (3474) vs '''🛹 (4780)''' ||
* Next! Who would win in a match between 🛢 and 🛹? We are about to find out.
* And 🛢 falls to 🛹. A suprising turn of events.
|-
| '''⚓ (4816)''' vs 🚨 (2389) ||
* Welcome back, it's time for ⚓ and 🚨 to go head to head.
*Just to stress this again. Live commentary, folks. Completely unscripted and coming in hot.
*This one is a true test of the audience today.
|-
| '''⛵ (4941)''' vs 🚢 (2877) ||
* Coming to you live from the Emojidome, it's ⛵ vs. 🚢!
*SAIL!
|-
| 💺 (1776) vs '''🛩 (5947)''' ||
* You do not want to miss the fan favorite 💺. Coming up next!
|-
| 🚡 (3729) vs '''🚁 (4148)''' ||
* If you're like me, you've argued over who would win head-to-head, 🚁 or 🚡.
* Sometimes miracles happen.
* Plenty of matches left to see. Don't go anywhere.
|-
| 🛰 (3655) vs '''🚀 (4861)''' ||
* Welcome back, it's time for 🚀 and 🛰 to go head to head.
* 🛰 and 🚀 have been friends for a long time. I am not sure where that relationship is going to be after today.
|-
| ⏳ (3021) vs '''🛸 (5203)''' ||
* It's time to find out: Who would win in a match, ⏳ or 🛸?
* This one is serious, folks.
|-
| '''⌚ (4462)''' vs ⏰ (3619) ||
* You do not want to miss the fan favorite ⌚. Coming up next!
*If you believe in ⏰, now is the time to clap or whatever, because it is not looking good.
*If you believe in ⏰, now is the time to clap or whatever, because it is not looking good.
|-
| 🌕 (3690) vs '''🌒 (4145)''' ||
* You do not want to miss the fan favorite 🌒. Coming up next!
* What a shocking result!
|-
| 🌡 (2829) vs '''🌙 (4432)''' ||
* It is a battle as old as time itself. 🌙 and 🌡! Facing off against each other again!
|-
| 🌝 (3559) vs '''🌞 (3871)''' ||
* You do not want to miss the fan favorite 🌝. Coming up next!
|-
| ⭐ (2063) vs '''🌌 (5731)''' ||
* Uh oh. 🌌 has had words with ⭐ before. The next match will be good.
|-
| '''⛈ (5487)''' vs 🌦 (1983) ||
* Don't change that channel, folks. We have ⛈ and 🌦 warming up.
*And 🌦 falls to ⛈. A suprising turn of events.
|-
| 🌨 (3646) vs '''🌪 (4139)''' ||
* It is a battle as old as time itself. 🌨 and 🌪! Facing off against each other again!
* Folks, I am just as stunned at the outcome as you.
|-
| 🌀 (3034) vs '''🌈 (7070)''' ||
* Next! Who would win in a match between 🌀 and 🌈? We are about to find out.
|-
| ☂ (2117) vs '''⚡ (5125)''' ||
* You do not want to miss the fan favorite ☂. Coming up next!
|-
| '''☄ (4988)''' vs ⛄ (2602) ||
* They have been attacking each other on social media all week. Next up! It's ☄ vs. ⛄.
*Another curious match-up with significant implications on how the rest of the day will go.
|-
| 🌊 (3356) vs '''🔥 (5286)''' ||
* Oh, this one should be good.
* I am not sure if 🌊 was prepared for today.
|-
| 🎆 (3284) vs '''🎃 (4418)''' ||
* If you're like me, you've argued over who would win head-to-head, 🎃 or 🎆.
* This is a mystery.
|-
| 🎇 (2770) vs '''🧨 (4066)''' ||
* Coming to you live from the Emojidome, it's 🎇 vs. 🧨!
* Get ready for an explosive result!
|-
| 🎈 (2619) vs '''🎉 (4673)''' ||
* I'm looking forward to this.
* I guess it was that kind of a party.
|-
| 🎊 (2250) vs '''🎁 (4203)''' ||
* Welcome back, it's time for 🎁 and 🎊 to go head to head.
* This one was a mess.
|-
| 🎟 (2054) vs '''🏆 (4558)''' ||
* Don't change that channel, folks. We have 🎟 and 🏆 warming up.
* Truly a dizzying win.
|-
| ⚽ (3116) vs '''🏅 (4383)''' ||
* Have at it, ⚽ and 🏅!
* A dominant performance by 🏅.
|-
| '''⚾ (5479)''' vs 🥎 (2335) ||
* Uh oh. 🥎 has had words with ⚾ before. The next match will be good.
*Uhhhh. I can't tell the difference here, can you?
|-
| 🏐 (3742) vs '''🏀 (4148)''' ||
* Oh this one should be good.
* The ball is round, everything else is negotiable.
|-
| 🏈 (2932) vs '''🎾 (6003)''' ||
* Next up, 🎾 and 🏈.
* The ball is round ...er .... well .... uh.
|-
| 🎳 (4071) vs '''🥏 (4561)''' ||
* We will be right back with 🎳 vs. 🥏!
* I had BOWLING BALL in my March Madness bracket. I did not do well.
* Ok. Now this is just ridiculous.
|-
| 🏑 (2742) vs '''🏏 (3810)''' ||
* We will be right back with 🏏 vs. 🏑!
|-
| '''🏒 (5926)''' vs 🥍 (2291) ||
* Oh this one should be good.
*Floor stick vs. sky stick—who will win?
|-
| '''🏓 (5858)''' vs 🥊 (2203) ||
* Coming to you live from the Emojidome, it's 🏓 vs. 🥊!
|-
| ⛸ (2465) vs '''🛷 (4552)''' ||
* They have been attacking each other on social media all week. Next up! It's ⛸ vs. 🛷.
* Foot sled vs. regular sled!
|-
| 🎯 (1539) vs '''🥌 (1873)''' ||
* Next! Who would win in a match between 🎯 and 🥌? We are about to find out.
|-
| '''🎮 (6798)''' vs 🔮 (2657) ||
* Oh, this one should be good.
|-
| 🎭 (2137) vs '''🎲 (4868)''' ||
* If you're like me, you've argued over who would win head-to-head, 🎭 or 🎲.
|-
| '''🎨 (4172)''' vs 🧶 (2994) ||
* Uh oh. 🧶 has had words with 🎨 before. The next match will be good.
*A lot of cats clicking on screens right now.
|-
| '''👓 (4206)''' vs 🥽 (3986) ||
* Have at it, 👓 and 🥽!
*Glasses vs. Science Glasses!
|-
| 👛 (1029) vs '''🧦 (5468)''' ||
* Have at it, 👛 and 🧦!
|-
| '''🎒 (3516)''' vs 👟 (2756) ||
* Don't change that channel, folks. We have 🎒 and 👟 warming up.
*Time for school! Which one will you bring?
|-
| 👠 (1627) vs '''👑 (5203)''' ||
* Oh this one should be good.
|-
| '''🎩 (5611)''' vs 💄 (1719) ||
* They have been attacking each other on social media all week. Next up! It's 🎩 vs. 💄.
*The fanciest matchup!
|-
| 💍 (1284) vs '''💎 (5973)''' ||
* Will it be 💍 or 💎? Find out next after this message from our sponsors.
* If you like the one on the right, put a ring on it!
|-
| 🎤 (1728) vs '''🎵 (5239)''' ||
* On deck, we have 🎤 and 🎵.
* :notes::notes::notes:
* Music!
|-
| '''🎷 (4934)''' vs 📻 (2021) ||
* Don't change that channel, folks. We have 🎷 and 📻 warming up.
*The radio and the saxophone are having a music fight. Who can be louder?
|-
| 🎺 (3427) vs '''🎸 (4388)''' ||
* Uh oh. 🎺 has had words with 🎸 before. The next match will be good.
* Truly, this is a day that will live in the memories of everyone here.
|-
| '''🎻 (4450)''' vs 🥁 (2857) ||
* They have been attacking each other on social media all week. Next up! It's 🎻 vs. 🥁.
*You can hit either one with drumsticks, technically.
|-
| 📱 (3837) vs '''📞 (3980)''' ||
* They have been attacking each other on social media all week. Next up! It's 📞 vs. 📱.
* 📞 is fully committed to this match.
|-
| 📠 (2877) vs '''📟 (3262)''' ||
* Uh oh. 📠 has had words with 📟 before. The next match will be good.
* This one is a toss-up in my book, folks.
* Only 15% of the people voting recognize either of these antique devices.
|-
| 🔋 (2676) vs '''💻 (4418)''' ||
* Oh this one should be good.
* I spoke with 💻 before the match today, and they had this to say: 💻.
* Sparks fly!
|-
| '''⌨ (5293)''' vs 🖨 (1909) ||
* Oh, this one should be good.
*A keyboard is just a reverse printer.
|-
| 🖱 (2661) vs '''💾 (6308)''' ||
* I'm looking forward to this.
* Yes, this is live commentary.
* This one is a mystery to me, folks.
|-
| 📀 (2585) vs '''🧮 (5282)''' ||
* Will it be 📀 or 🧮? Find out next after this message from our sponsors.
|-
| 📺 (2752) vs '''📷 (4543)''' ||
* Next up, 📷 and 📺.
* 📷 certainly has its work cut out for it going up agaist 📺.
* The camera comes with a tiny TV on the back, which hardly seems fair.
|-
| 📼 (3648) vs '''🔎 (3663)''' ||
* It's time to find out: Who would win in a match, 📼 or 🔎?
* 🔎 has every reason to be concerned about this match-up.
* These two can combine for a very unsatisfying movie-watching experience.
|-
| 🕯 (3910) vs '''💡 (4178)''' ||
* Welcome back, it's time for 💡 and 🕯 to go head to head.
* I'm so happy to see 💡 here, after 🧠 didn't make it.
* Some would argue this one was settled in the 1800s.
|-
| 🔦 (1663) vs '''📚 (5960)''' ||
* It is a battle as old as time itself. 📚 and 🔦! Facing off against each other again!
* The flashlight illuminates the pages, but it only makes the books stronger!
|-
| 📰 (2524) vs '''📜 (5491)''' ||
* You do not want to miss the fan favorite 📜. Coming up next!
* I thought we had seen everything, but look at 📜 go! Amazing!
* A faceoff between two types of ancient scrolls.
|-
| 💳 (2655) vs '''💰 (5595)''' ||
* It is a battle as old as time itself. 💰 and 💳! Facing off against each other again!
|-
| 📬 (3218) vs '''📦 (3350)''' ||
* Don't change that channel, folks. We have 📦 and 📬 warming up.
* Will the package fit in the mailbox? Vote now!
|-
| 🗳 (2403) vs '''🖋 (4691)''' ||
* Welcome back, it's time for 🖋 and 🗳 to go head to head.
* The winner of this bout will go on to face The Sword.
* The winner of this bout will go on to face The Sword. Who’s mightier?
|-
| 🖌 (3530) vs '''🖍 (3897)''' ||
* It is a battle as old as time itself. 🖌 and 🖍! Facing off against each other again!
* If 🖍 falls today, we might start hearing serious conversations about retirement.
* Paintbrush (hard mode) vs. Paintbrush (easy mode)
|-
| 💼 (2264) vs '''📅 (3884)''' ||
* Oh, this one should be good.
* You have to wonder if 💼 even wanted to be here today.
|-
| 🗒 (2430) vs '''📊 (4726)''' ||
* They have been attacking each other on social media all week. Next up! It's 📊 vs. 🗒.
* *checks notes* Yikes.
|-
| 📌 (2799) vs '''📎 (4796)''' ||
* Uh oh. 📎 has had words with 📌 before. The next match will be good.
* I am excited about this match. This might be my favorite early match so far.
|-
| '''✂ (3762)''' vs 🗑 (2409) ||
* We will be right back with ✂ vs. 🗑!
*This is a day that ✂ has been anticipating for a long time.
|-
| 🔒 (2827) vs '''🗝 (5214)''' ||
* Oh this one should be good.
* Finally, an answer to the classic question.
|-
| 🔨 (3350) vs '''🗡 (5042)''' ||
* Oh, this one should be good.
* Between the two of these, you can cover almost any home improvement situation.
|-
| '''⚔ (5352)''' vs 🔫 (3734) ||
* I'm looking forward to this.
*Pew pew pew!
*[sword noises]
|-
| '''🏹 (4931)''' vs 🛡 (2629) ||
* Coming to you live from the Emojidome, it's 🏹 vs. 🛡!
*Where is the Master Sword when you need it?
*In this match, we see Legolas take on Captain America.
|-
| 🗜 (3393) vs '''🔧 (3481)''' ||
* Don't change that channel, folks. We have 🔧 and 🗜 warming up.
* [drops pretense of impartiality] VOTE C clamp!
|-
| '''⚖ (4961)''' vs 🧰 (1868) ||
* Coming to you live from the Emojidome, it's ⚖ vs. 🧰!
*I know some of you out there had a challenging commute. Hopefully today's matches will improve your day.
*If there’s any justice in the world, the one on the left will win.
|-
| 🧪 (4134) vs '''🧲 (4519)''' ||
* It's time to find out: Who would win in a match, 🧪 or 🧲?
* Do you want super-powers? Because this is how you get super-powers!
|-
| 🔬 (2587) vs '''🧬 (5487)''' ||
* Oh, this one should be good.
* Do you want super-science? Because this is how you get super-science!
|-
| 📡 (3609) vs '''🔭 (4607)''' ||
* You do not want to miss the fan favorite 📡. Coming up next!
* This one is a real nail biter!
|-
| 🚿 (3933) vs '''🚽 (4031)''' ||
* Next up, 🚽 and 🚿.
* Combine these to save time in the morning!
|-
| '''🛁 (4131)''' vs 🧷 (2740) ||
* You do not want to miss the fan favorite 🛁. Coming up next!
*Well that just doesn't seem fair.
|-
| 🧹 (2655) vs '''🧻 (5118)''' ||
* Will it be 🧹 or 🧻? Find out next after this message from our sponsors.
|-
| '''⚰ (4651)''' vs 🧯 (4009) ||
* You do not want to miss the fan favorite ⚰. Coming up next!
*You should have one of these handy in your house, although I guess which one is up to you.
|-
| 🆗 (5326) vs '''🆒 (5506)''' ||
* Don't change that channel, folks. We have 🆒 and 🆗 warming up.
* Here it is, the final match before the second round!
* At least this one is going to be over quickly.
* Here it is, the final match before the second round!
|-
|}

=== Round 2===
{| class="wikitable mw-collapsible mw-collapsed"
|-
! Competitors and score !! Commentary
|-
| 😁 (5968) vs '''😅 (9223)''' ||
* They have been attacking each other on social media all week. Next up! It's 😁 vs. 😅.
* What a shocking result!
* Welcome to round 2!
* Welcome to round 2! These rounds will be a little slower.
* Welcome to round 2!
|-
| '''🙃 (12578)''' vs 🤣 (5892) ||
* It's time to find out: Who would win in a match, 🙃 or 🤣?
*Round two is serious business, folks.
*Rolling-on-the-floor-laughing is a top seed, but the upside-down smiley has a certain intriguing ambiguity. Possible upset?
|-
| 😇 (4117) vs '''😉 (10595)''' ||
* Uh oh. 😉 has had words with 😇 before. The next match will be good.
* Is it winking *at* the halo? Or is it winking at me?
* I didn't remember 😉 qualifying.
|-
| 😘 (6659) vs '''😍 (8816)''' ||
* On deck, we have 😍 and 😘.
* I expect to see a lot of hearts on the page for this one.
|-
| 😙 (2284) vs '''😛 (11620)''' ||
* It is a battle as old as time itself. 😙 and 😛! Facing off against each other again!
* This one is a toss-up in my book, folks.
* Don’t you hate it when one of you sticks out your tongue right as the other goes for the kiss?
* Close one!
|-
| 😝 (6304) vs '''😜 (7167)''' ||
* You do not want to miss the fan favorite 😜. Coming up next!
|-
| 🤭 (1796) vs '''🤔 (15162)''' ||
* Will it be 🤔 or 🤭? Find out next after this message from our sponsors.
* You know what the correct answer is here.
|-
| 😑 (5943) vs '''🤨 (9223)''' ||
* You do not want to miss the fan favorite 😑. Coming up next!
* 😑 certainly has its work cut out for it going up agaist 🤨.
|-
| 🙄 (5122) vs '''😏 (8486)''' ||
* Welcome back, it's time for 😏 and 🙄 to go head to head.
* Why is the one on the right looking at me like that?
|-
| 😔 (4101) vs '''😬 (8574)''' ||
* It's time to find out: Who would win in a match, 😔 or 😬?
* I don’t think either competitor wants to win this round.
* See? That's how you should feel. Starting at a humble live commentator doing live commentary.
|-
| '''😴 (8582)''' vs 🤒 (2281) ||
* Coming to you live from the Emojidome, it's 😴 vs. 🤒!
*Mondays, am I right?
*Two big moods enter, one leaves.
|-
| 🤕 (5579) vs '''🤮 (8136)''' ||
* On deck, we have 🤕 and 🤮.
* I don't feel so good...
* Really leaving it all on the floor with this one.
|-
| 🥴 (5548) vs '''🥶 (7121)''' ||
* On deck, we have 🥴 and 🥶.
* Ice to see you.
* I think they might be trying to ice the kicker!
|-
| '''😎 (8912)''' vs 🤠 (5576) ||
* Have at it, 😎 and 🤠!
*Howdy, I’m the sheriff of cool!
|-
| 😕 (4748) vs '''😮 (7861)''' ||
* I'm looking forward to this.
* An unexpected pairing! This should be good.
* I mean ... you can *see* the bracket so it isn't completely unexpected.
|-
| 😳 (5552) vs '''😯 (6583)''' ||
* It is a battle as old as time itself. 😯 and 😳! Facing off against each other again!
* Wasn't 😯 in the last match?
|-
| 😰 (2756) vs '''😭 (9508)''' ||
* Oh, this one should be good.
* 😰 is going to have to dig deep if they want to continue.
|-
| 😣 (2674) vs '''😱 (10403)''' ||
* Oh, this one should be good.
* It doesn't get more real than this, folks.
|-
| 😓 (4790) vs '''😤 (7053)''' ||
* Welcome back, it's time for 😓 and 😤 to go head to head.
* Nice. Nice nice nice nice.
|-
| 😡 (4209) vs '''😈 (9437)''' ||
* It's time to find out: Who would win in a match, 😈 or 😡?
* This one is a toss-up in my book, folks.
|-
| 💩 (7681) vs '''💀 (12905)''' ||
* They have been attacking each other on social media all week. Next up! It's 💀 vs. 💩.
* This one is going to cause some arguments.
|-
| 👽 (4888) vs '''👾 (9937)''' ||
* I'm looking forward to this.
* Space invaders: Analog vs. Digital
|-
| 😻 (5800) vs '''😺 (6451)''' ||
* Coming to you live from the Emojidome, it's 😺 vs. 😻!
* I love cats. I love every kind of cat.
|-
| 😼 (4767) vs '''🙀 (7648)''' ||
* Oh this one should be good.
* Every. Kind. Of. Cat.
* Did someone say "V-E-T?"
|-
| 😾 (5464) vs '''💖 (7037)''' ||
* Next up, 💖 and 😾.
* 😾 looks pretty upset.
|-
| ❤ (7490) vs '''💯 (7881)''' ||
* You do not want to miss the fan favorite ❤. Coming up next!
* Two crowd-pleasers here, folks!
* The score is Love-100
|-
| 💣 (6379) vs '''💦 (7343)''' ||
* Next up, 💣 and 💦.
* From where I am standing 💦 has a commanding grip on this bracket.
* Well that's certainly something.
* I know which one I would choose, but I don't have time to vote!
|-
| '''👍 (7610)''' vs 🤘 (6417) ||
* On deck, we have 👍 and 🤘.
*This is going well, right? This is working for you?
|-
| '''👊 (8368)''' vs 🦵 (3323) ||
* Next up, 👊 and 🦵.
*Kickpuncher or punchkicker?
|-
| 👀 (6253) vs '''🧠 (6412)''' ||
* If you're like me, you've argued over who would win head-to-head, 👀 or 🧠.
* Whoever wins this one gets punched by the fist emoji in the next round. Choose wisely.
* Whoever wins this one gets punched by the fist emoji in the next round. Choose wisely.
|-
| 👅 (4726) vs '''🤦 (7496)''' ||
* It's time to find out: Who would win in a match, 👅 or 🤦?
* Look, we are a little disappointed, too.
|-
| 👩‍🚀 (5246) vs '''👩‍🔬 (7971)''' ||
* Oh, this one should be good.
* So, what do you want to be when you grow up?
* Neither of these professions go well with concussions.
|-
| 🧛 (2269) vs '''🧙 (13138)''' ||
* We will be right back with 🧙 vs. 🧛!
* Science?
|-
| '''🚶 (6112)''' vs 🧟 (6020) ||
* Oh this one should be good.
*Oh no. 🚶 fans are not going to like this match-up.
*Walk for your lives!
|-
| 🕴 (5070) vs '''💃 (7283)''' ||
* You do not want to miss the fan favorite 💃. Coming up next!
* The Matrix is TWENTY YEARS OLD
* The Matrix is *TWENTY* *YEARS* *OLD*
|-
| ⛷ (4388) vs '''🤺 (7484)''' ||
* On deck, we have ⛷ and 🤺.
* A slippery slope. En guard!
* The IOC has rejected this combination sport.
|-
| 🏊 (4139) vs '''🏄 (5491)''' ||
* They have been attacking each other on social media all week. Next up! It's 🏄 vs. 🏊.
* This one, too.
|-
| 🚴 (4082) vs '''🚵 (7642)''' ||
* Coming to you live from the Emojidome, it's 🚴 vs. 🚵!
* Why is 🚵 stuck in a box?
|-
| 🛀 (4042) vs '''🐒 (6948)''' ||
* They have been attacking each other on social media all week. Next up! It's 🐒 vs. 🛀.
* Uh-oh.
|-
| 🐶 (5214) vs '''🦊 (12396)''' ||
* We will be right back with 🐶 vs. 🦊!
* Again, we are getting a lot of questions on this today. This is live commentary, folks.
* 12/10 Both good doggos.
|-
| 🐱 (5182) vs '''🐈 (7578)''' ||
* We will be right back with 🐈 vs. 🐱!
* EVERY. CAT.
|-
| 🐎 (4944) vs '''🐅 (9398)''' ||
* Have at it, 🐅 and 🐎!
* If it were up to me, the last bracket would have eight cats and then just stop there with eight winners.
|-
| 🦌 (5619) vs '''🦄 (10318)''' ||
* Have at it, 🦄 and 🦌!
* The IOC had some words about this pairing as well
|-
| 🐷 (5341) vs '''🐏 (8541)''' ||
* Welcome back, it's time for 🐏 and 🐷 to go head to head.
* Or side to head, or whatever. VOTE!
* That was 🐷's to give away and they did.
|-
| 🐐 (6038) vs '''🦒 (8345)''' ||
* I'm looking forward to this.
* Yet more Very good dogs
|-
| '''🐘 (11342)''' vs 🦛 (3614) ||
* Oh, this one should be good.
*Another curious match-up with significant implications on how the rest of the day will go.
|-
| 🐹 (3660) vs '''🐿 (10713)''' ||
* It is a battle as old as time itself. 🐹 and 🐿! Facing off against each other again!
* We are incredibly excited to see so many fans here.
* Finally, the long-awaited showdown between Alvin and the Chipmunks and the Hamster Dance.
|-
| 🐨 (5171) vs '''🦔 (10929)''' ||
* On deck, we have 🐨 and 🦔.
* It doesn't get more real than this, folks.
* Tree pocket cat vs. spiky cat
|-
| 🦘 (6954) vs '''🦡 (7727)''' ||
* Will it be 🦘 or 🦡? Find out next after this message from our sponsors.
* If you believe in 🦘, now is the time to clap or whatever, because it is not looking good.
|-
| 🐣 (5846) vs '''🐧 (12239)''' ||
* We will be right back with 🐣 vs. 🐧!
* Don't count 🐣 out yet. They may have a contingent of fans just tuning in to battle.
* I thought we had seen everything, but look at 🐧 go! Amazing!
* A generational battle.
|-
| 🦆 (6558) vs '''🦉 (9674)''' ||
* Will it be 🦆 or 🦉? Find out next after this message from our sponsors.
* You just know that 🦆 is thinking about 🏥 right now.
* Duck... duck... duck... duck... owl!
|-
| '''🐢 (11594)''' vs 🦜 (3957) ||
* Uh oh. 🦜 has had words with 🐢 before. The next match will be good.
*Sometimes miracles happen.
|-
| 🐍 (5264) vs '''🐉 (6954)''' ||
* Have at it, 🐉 and 🐍!
* How spiky do you like your sneks?
* Snake is currently losing to Fanfiction Snake.
* Snake is losing to Snake Fanfiction
|-
| 🐬 (7916) vs '''🐳 (9398)''' ||
* On deck, we have 🐬 and 🐳.
* It's the battle of the blowholes!
|-
| '''🐙 (8799)''' vs 🦈 (3695) ||
* Next up, 🐙 and 🦈.
*This one is potentially a battle between two mimic octopuses.
|-
| 🐛 (5330) vs '''🦋 (9176)''' ||
* On deck, we have 🐛 and 🦋.
* Time waits for no one.
* Another generational struggle.
|-
| 🕷 (5714) vs '''🐝 (12151)''' ||
* We will be right back with 🐝 vs. 🕷!
* 🕷 and 🐝 have been friends for a long time. I am not sure where that relationship is going to be after today.
|-
| 🌻 (6639) vs '''🦠 (10448)''' ||
* Oh, this one should be good.
* You *knwo* what to do, folks.
* Oh no. 🦠 fans are not going to like this match-up.
* Fresh off its victory over the aliens in War of the Worlds…
|-
| 🌲 (8099) vs '''🌵 (8194)''' ||
* Will it be 🌲 or 🌵? Find out next after this message from our sponsors.
* DISAPPOINTED!
* both are surprisingly spiky!
* This is the closest battle in the bracket so far.
|-
| 🍇 (6548) vs '''🍉 (8681)''' ||
* Oh this one should be good.
* sweet!
|-
| 🍎 (5411) vs '''🍍 (10586)''' ||
* Have at it, 🍍 and 🍎!
* Regular apple versus Pine’s Apple
* Fancy apple holds a clear lead over Regular Apple.
|-
| '''🍓 (8877)''' vs 🥝 (7540) ||
* It's time to find out: Who would win in a match, 🍓 or 🥝?
*Seeds: Inside or Out?
*Outside: Seeds or Hair?
|-
| 🥔 (7800) vs '''🥑 (9580)''' ||
* Don't change that channel, folks. We have 🥑 and 🥔 warming up.
* Fun fact: Several different analyses confirm baby boomers like avocados more than millennials!
|-
| '''🌶 (8714)''' vs 🥒 (6360) ||
* You do not want to miss the fan favorite 🌶. Coming up next!
*I know some very invested audience members for this one.
|-
| '''🍄 (8929)''' vs 🥜 (5311) ||
* You do not want to miss the fan favorite 🍄. Coming up next!
*It's peanut butter mushroom time!
|-
| 🥨 (7003) vs '''🥐 (9204)''' ||
* Don't change that channel, folks. We have 🥐 and 🥨 warming up.
* Buttery curved bread: extra-buttery or extra-curved?
|-
| 🥞 (7881) vs '''🧀 (9457)''' ||
* Will it be 🥞 or 🧀? Find out next after this message from our sponsors.
* I wonder what cheesy pancakes are like.
|-
| 🍔 (5917) vs '''🍕 (11407)''' ||
* It is a battle as old as time itself. 🍔 and 🍕! Facing off against each other again!
* Friday Night Food Fight!
|-
| 🌮 (7714) vs '''🌯 (8885)''' ||
* Coming to you live from the Emojidome, it's 🌮 vs. 🌯!
* ………
* . . . . . .
|-
| 🍿 (7104) vs '''🍳 (8128)''' ||
* You do not want to miss the fan favorite 🍳. Coming up next!
* The saltiest and butteriest matchup yet
|-
| 🍱 (4259) vs '''🍣 (7578)''' ||
* Oh, this one should be good.
* Hungry again. Wasn't it just lunch time?
* This part of the bracket has been *wild*
* Sushi takes the lead!
|-
| 🥟 (5804) vs '''🦞 (7681)''' ||
* Oh this one should be good.
* A delicious dumpling vs some kind of large spider
|-
| 🍨 (7349) vs '''🦑 (7834)''' ||
* If you're like me, you've argued over who would win head-to-head, 🍨 or 🦑.
* I think there’s another squid hiding in the ice cream bowl.
|-
| 🎂 (4175) vs '''🍩 (8454)''' ||
* If you're like me, you've argued over who would win head-to-head, 🍩 or 🎂.
|-
| 🍯 (4787) vs '''🍫 (7565)''' ||
* Next! Who would win in a match between 🍫 and 🍯? We are about to find out.
* The beans vs. the bees!
|-
| '''☕ (7674)''' vs 🥛 (5344) ||
* Coming to you live from the Emojidome, it's ☕ vs. 🥛!
*Would you like some coffee with your milk?
|-
| 🍹 (4901) vs '''🍺 (7490)''' ||
* Uh oh. 🍺 has had words with 🍹 before. The next match will be good.
* how drunk do you want to get?
* One small glass of beer with an umbrella, please.
|-
| '''🔪 (7787)''' vs 🥢 (5468) ||
* Oh, this one should be good.
*The two most popular ways to eat food
|-
| '''🌋 (8706)''' vs 🧭 (4079) ||
* I'm looking forward to this.
*That compass is not leading you in a good direction.
|-
| 🏝 (5445) vs '''🏕 (8722)''' ||
* Coming to you live from the Emojidome, it's 🏕 vs. 🏝!
|-
| 🏠 (5722) vs '''🏗 (5804)''' ||
* It is a battle as old as time itself. 🏗 and 🏠! Facing off against each other again!
* It's building vs. building!
|-
| '''🏥 (7053)''' vs 🗽 (5981) ||
* We will be right back with 🏥 vs. 🗽!
|-
| ⛲ (5498) vs '''🌃 (6519)''' ||
* You do not want to miss the fan favorite ⛲. Coming up next!
|-
| 🎡 (3212) vs '''🌅 (8000)''' ||
* It is a battle as old as time itself. 🌅 and 🎡! Facing off against each other again!
|-
| 🎢 (4701) vs '''🚄 (7014)''' ||
* We will be right back with 🎢 vs. 🚄!
* Do you like your fast trains flat, or up-and-down?
|-
| 🚑 (4901) vs '''🚝 (7087)''' ||
* On deck, we have 🚑 and 🚝.
|-
| 🚗 (2707) vs '''🚒 (8391)''' ||
* Will it be 🚒 or 🚗? Find out next after this message from our sponsors.
|-
| 🛵 (5344) vs '''🚜 (6475)''' ||
* It's time to find out: Who would win in a match, 🚜 or 🛵?
* Both of these are popular rideshare vehicles.
|-
| 🛹 (3509) vs '''🚲 (9447)''' ||
* They have been attacking each other on social media all week. Next up! It's 🚲 vs. 🛹.
* next wave of rideshare vehicles.
|-
| '''⚓ (6608)''' vs ⛵ (6431) ||
* Welcome back, it's time for ⚓ and ⛵ to go head to head.
*Should I stay or should I go?
|-
| 🛩 (5694) vs '''🚁 (6529)''' ||
* Will it be 🚁 or 🛩? Find out next after this message from our sponsors.
* Here in the future, flying cars are common!
|-
| 🚀 (7266) vs '''🛸 (14945)''' ||
* They have been attacking each other on social media all week. Next up! It's 🚀 vs. 🛸.
* IFO vs UFO
|-
| ⌚ (6623) vs '''🌒 (7404)''' ||
* They have been attacking each other on social media all week. Next up! It's ⌚ vs. 🌒.
* Waxing crescent already? I must be running slow.
|-
| 🌙 (8921) vs '''🌞 (15703)''' ||
* Welcome back, it's time for 🌙 and 🌞 to go head to head.
* Two contenders as different as night and day.
* In five billion years, this battle will play out in real life with the same result.
|-
| ⛈ (9358) vs '''🌌 (17038)''' ||
* I'm looking forward to this.
* Astronomers are hammering the button on the right as hard as they can.
|-
| 🌪 (9848) vs '''🌈 (11326)''' ||
* You do not want to miss the fan favorite 🌈. Coming up next!
* The Wizard Of Oz (1938)
* The Wizard Of Oz (1939)
|-
| '''☄ (8014)''' vs ⚡ (7597) ||
* Oh, this one should be good.
*The two leading theories for what killed the dinosaurs: A comet strike, or Zeus.
*Boom!
|-
| 🎃 (4112) vs '''🔥 (10407)''' ||
* If you're like me, you've argued over who would win head-to-head, 🎃 or 🔥.
|-
| 🎉 (5422) vs '''🧨 (18509)''' ||
* Oh this one should be good.
* How emphatic do you like your celebrations?
|-
| 🏆 (5564) vs '''🎁 (6499)''' ||
* Have at it, 🎁 and 🏆!
|-
| ⚾ (5404) vs '''🏅 (7337)''' ||
* Oh, this one should be good.
* Sports fact: If you hit a medal-winner with a ball, you take their title.
|-
| 🎾 (6117) vs '''🏀 (6171)''' ||
* We will be right back with 🎾 vs. 🏀!
* Sports fact: If you hit a medal-winner with a ball, you take the medal (but they take first base.)
* Sports showdowns: Bouncy edition
* Would you rather play basketball with a tennis ball, or tennis with a basketball?
|-
| 🏏 (7343) vs '''🥏 (7546)''' ||
* You do not want to miss the fan favorite 🏏. Coming up next!
|-
| 🏒 (8078) vs '''🏓 (8739)''' ||
* Uh oh. 🏓 has had words with 🏒 before. The next match will be good.
|-
| 🛷 (7104) vs '''🥌 (7733)''' ||
* Have at it, 🛷 and 🥌!
|-
| 🎲 (11931) vs '''🎮 (14739)''' ||
* They have been attacking each other on social media all week. Next up! It's 🎮 vs. 🎲.
* Digital or analog?
* Devices or, uh, dices?
|-
| '''🎨 (5374)''' vs 👓 (4988) ||
* We will be right back with 🎨 vs. 👓!
*two ways to add color to your world
|-
| '''🎒 (4961)''' vs 🧦 (4819) ||
* We will be right back with 🎒 vs. 🧦!
*You can put your feet in either of these! No one can stop you.
|-
| '''🎩 (23265)''' vs 👑 (19274) ||
* Will it be 🎩 or 👑? Find out next after this message from our sponsors.
*Hats for fancy people!
|-
| '''🎵 (17951)''' vs 💎 (9378) ||
* We will be right back with 🎵 vs. 💎!
*C-notes
|-
| 🎷 (6954) vs '''🎸 (10692)''' ||
* They have been attacking each other on social media all week. Next up! It's 🎷 vs. 🎸.
* I've never heard the dueling banjos played like this!
|-
| '''🎻 (11568)''' vs 📞 (8172) ||
* They have been attacking each other on social media all week. Next up! It's 🎻 vs. 📞.
*Can I put you on hold? I can't hang onto both of these with my chin
|-
| 💻 (7355) vs '''📟 (9348)''' ||
* It is a battle as old as time itself. 💻 and 📟! Facing off against each other again!
* Over time, computers have gotten steadily smaller.
|-
| ⌨ (3372) vs '''💾 (8550)''' ||
* I'm looking forward to this.
* fun fact: it would take the average person 20 years to type an entire floppy disk
|-
| 📷 (10623) vs '''🧮 (12401)''' ||
* Oh, this one should be good.
|-
| 🔎 (7902) vs '''💡 (12706)''' ||
* On deck, we have 💡 and 🔎.
* it's mostly clicks either way.
* Both equally bad for bugs.
|-
| 📜 (4020) vs '''📚 (32459)''' ||
* Oh, this one should be good.
* Turning pages: hot new technology, or too much complication?
|-
| 💰 (5378) vs '''📦 (17957)''' ||
* Oh, this one should be good.
* Let's be real. Neither contain actual money.
|-
| 🖋 (6166) vs '''🖍 (42115)''' ||
* It is a battle as old as time itself. 🖋 and 🖍! Facing off against each other again!
* Neither is coming off your walls if a kid gets ahold of them.
|-
| 📅 (3309) vs '''📊 (5217)''' ||
* Have at it, 📅 and 📊!
* It’s cool how, if you design an emoji font, you get to tell everyone your birthday.
|-
| ✂ (4504) vs '''📎 (5846)''' ||
* It is a battle as old as time itself. ✂ and 📎! Facing off against each other again!
* Look, we all have too much paper in our lives, but we all deal with it differently
* Clippy, I swear…
|-
| 🗡 (5537) vs '''🗝 (6193)''' ||
* They have been attacking each other on social media all week. Next up! It's 🗝 vs. 🗡.
* There are two ways to open doors: The easy way and the fun way.
|-
| ⚔ (5514) vs '''🏹 (7201)''' ||
* Welcome back, it's time for ⚔ and 🏹 to go head to head.
* Close-up stabby, or stabby from a ways off?
|-
| '''⚖ (6153)''' vs 🔧 (4351) ||
* Will it be ⚖ or 🔧? Find out next after this message from our sponsors.
*⚖ comes out on top.
|-
| 🧲 (4654) vs '''🧬 (9019)''' ||
* Oh this one should be good.
|-
| 🚽 (4388) vs '''🔭 (8647)''' ||
* They have been attacking each other on social media all week. Next up! It's 🔭 vs. 🚽.
* I got these mixed up last week and I still haven't heard the end of it.
|-
| 🛁 (4540) vs '''🧻 (11347)''' ||
* Welcome back, it's time for 🛁 and 🧻 to go head to head.
* Needed both of these after the telescope incident.
|-
| '''⚰ (7909)''' vs 🆒 (6024) ||
* On deck, we have ⚰ and 🆒.
*And that wraps up the round!
|-
|}

=== Round 3===
{| class="wikitable mw-collapsible mw-collapsed"
|-
! Competitors and score !! Commentary
|-
| 😅 (6285) vs '''🙃 (31589)''' ||
* Uh oh. 🙃 has had words with 😅 before. The next match will be good.
|-
| 😍 (8430) vs '''😉 (10837)''' ||
* Next! Who would win in a match between 😉 and 😍? We are about to find out.
* Some of us are more suave than others...
|-
| 😛 (9010) vs '''😜 (10428)''' ||
* Uh oh. 😜 has had words with 😛 before. The next match will be good.
* Battle of the tongues
|-
| 🤨 (6519) vs '''🤔 (18849)''' ||
* Next up, 🤔 and 🤨.
* Some behind the scenes for you, folks. I know for a fact that 🤔 wanted first billing for this match and 🤨 refused to budge.
|-
| 😬 (8983) vs '''😏 (11449)''' ||
* It is a battle as old as time itself. 😏 and 😬! Facing off against each other again!
|-
| '''😴 (10588)''' vs 🤮 (7773) ||
* Have at it, 😴 and 🤮!
*🤮 opened strong and 😴 never caught up.
*I hope everyone has printed their brackets and are ready, because time waits for very few people!
*I guess it was that kind of a party.
|-
| '''😎 (11469)''' vs 🥶 (9176) ||
* Oh, this one should be good.
*🥶 has a chance here, but it is slipping away.
*What's cooler than being cool?
*What’s cooler than being cool?
*You need to be cooler than that!
|-
| 😯 (7648) vs '''😮 (7944)''' ||
* Oh, this one should be good.
* Anyone want to go bowling?
* Sometimes I spend so long deciding on which of these to use that the conversation moves on.
|-
| 😭 (7559) vs '''😱 (8894)''' ||
* They have been attacking each other on social media all week. Next up! It's 😭 vs. 😱.
* In these kinds of contests, everyone comes away a little hurt.
|-
| 😤 (5475) vs '''😈 (9739)''' ||
* Uh oh. 😤 has had words with 😈 before. The next match will be good.
* I don't think 😤 expected to see 😈 opposite them today.
* Devils over Cotton by a country mile. Let's see those hearts!
* This one was over before it started.
|-
| 💀 (6669) vs '''👾 (11173)''' ||
* It's time to find out: Who would win in a match, 👾 or 💀?
* It doesn't get more real than this, folks.
|-
| 😺 (7993) vs '''🙀 (8903)''' ||
* On deck, we have 😺 and 🙀.
* I spoke with 🙀 before we started today. They were hoping to dodge 😺. Too bad for them.
* The next few are contests are going to break friendships.
* This one is a real nail biter!
|-
| 💯 (9859) vs '''💖 (10041)''' ||
* Next! Who would win in a match between 💖 and 💯? We are about to find out.
* I've always considered 💖 to be one of the greats.
* Starting to think 100 might go all the way.
* Starting to think 💯 might go all the way.
|-
| 👍 (9892) vs '''💦 (9960)''' ||
* It's time to find out: Who would win in a match, 👍 or 💦?
* What an unexpected result!!
* Now what is going to happen here:
* We are seeing some real back and forth matches this round.
* Again, cannot stress this enough. This commentary is 100% (sorry) live.
|-
| 👊 (6867) vs '''🧠 (12115)''' ||
* They have been attacking each other on social media all week. Next up! It's 👊 vs. 🧠.
* Sometimes miracles happen.
* The match-up you have been waiting for!
|-
| '''👩‍🔬 (15141)''' vs 🤦 (7172) ||
* Oh this one should be good.
*Looks like someone forgot their PPE today!
|-
| 🚶 (2581) vs '''🧙 (17413)''' ||
* Welcome back, it's time for 🚶 and 🧙 to go head to head.
* Another fan favorite. Can 🚶 catch up to 🧙?
* Well folks, it is not looking good for 🚶.
* In the end, there was nothing 🚶 could do to stop the power of 🧙.
|-
| 💃 (10409) vs '''🤺 (10987)''' ||
* We will be right back with 💃 vs. 🤺!
* Pointy Dancy vs. Pointy Stancy
* This one should be familiar to anyone who has tried fencing in heels.
|-
| 🏄 (7355) vs '''🚵 (10300)''' ||
* Oh this one should be good.
* 🏄 has a chance here, but it is slipping away.
* Bicycle --> Unicycle --> None-cycle with left waves
* 🏄 has a chance here, but it is slipping away.
|-
| 🐒 (4784) vs '''🦊 (15635)''' ||
* It is a battle as old as time itself. 🐒 and 🦊! Facing off against each other again!
* Another challenging contest of cute!
* What *does* the fox say? "NOT TODAY, MONKEY."
|-
| 🐅 (7014) vs '''🐈 (11420)''' ||
* Oh this one should be good.
* I have taken this yoga class!
* It looks like it is Cat vs. Extremely Cat.
|-
| 🐏 (12498) vs '''🦄 (12505)''' ||
* On deck, we have 🐏 and 🦄.
* 🐏 is an fan favorite to go far today.
* This one is a real nail biter!
* This one is a real horn-biter!
|-
| '''🐘 (11723)''' vs 🦒 (6162) ||
* Have at it, 🐘 and 🦒!
*Two great examples of character creator parameters set to different extremes.
|-
| 🐿 (9539) vs '''🦔 (12565)''' ||
* Have at it, 🐿 and 🦔!
* I have no idea how you are going to handle this one, folks.
* 🦔 is out to an early lead, but don't count 🐿 out just yet.
* the crowd is going nuts!
* One for the history books.
|-
| '''🐧 (14230)''' vs 🦡 (7361) ||
* It is a battle as old as time itself. 🐧 and 🦡! Facing off against each other again!
*Arriving at the party ... same party two hours later.
|-
| 🐢 (10674) vs '''🦉 (10893)''' ||
* Coming to you live from the Emojidome, it's 🐢 vs. 🦉!
* Yeah, we know. This one is going to sting.
* It's neck and ... very interesting neck!
* Owl standing in for Hare in this round. We're all as surprised as you are.
|-
| 🐳 (9881) vs '''🐉 (12000)''' ||
* Welcome back, it's time for 🐉 and 🐳 to go head to head.
* Dry Snek vs. Wet Snek.
* A showdown between two mythical creatures!
* The dragon keeps beating real animals, even though dragons are just our animal fanfic.
* Save the whales!
|-
| '''🐙 (13431)''' vs 🦋 (6011) ||
* On deck, we have 🐙 and 🦋.
*save the butterwhales!
*Here we have a contest between two mimic octopuses
*The octopus has over twice as many clicks, folks. This one isn’t looking close.
*The octopus has over twice as many clicks, folks. This one isn’t close.
|-
| '''🐝 (19577)''' vs 🦠 (16657) ||
* I'm looking forward to this.
*nooooon, :butterfly:
*nooooon, butterfly (edited)
*Honeybees vs. colony collapse disorder
*I’m looking at the totals, and this one is extremely close.
*🦠 fans need to click more and faster!
*I mean, 🐝 fans need to keep clicking!
*Fun fact: You can click more than once, although if you click too much it ignores you.
*No! Save the bees!
*Bees!
|-
| 🍉 (12946) vs '''🌵 (13830)''' ||
* Have at it, 🌵 and 🍉!
* As a dessert for saving the bees, try one of these fine desert fruits.
* Ever wonder what the inside of a cactus looks like? We’ve cut one open for you here.
|-
| 🍓 (12167) vs '''🍍 (12522)''' ||
* Uh oh. 🍓 has had words with 🍍 before. The next match will be good.
* What fruit is best to eat in the night? Could it be Pine’s Apple?
* The weird-textured fruit showdown features two strong competitors.
|-
| 🌶 (13812) vs '''🥑 (13975)''' ||
* Uh oh. 🥑 has had words with 🌶 before. The next match will be good.
* We have reached the halfway point of round 3!
* As Twitter user @jitka said, “I like avocados because they taste pretty good and also they come with a cool wood ball you get to keep”
|-
| 🍄 (11290) vs '''🥐 (11348)''' ||
* Next up, 🍄 and 🥐.
* Don’t eat either of these if you find them on the ground in the woods.
|-
| '''🍕 (13520)''' vs 🧀 (8558) ||
* Don't change that channel, folks. We have 🍕 and 🧀 warming up.
*cheese: baked or not?
*pizza is just impure cheese
|-
| 🍳 (8407) vs '''🌯 (9848)''' ||
* Don't change that channel, folks. We have 🌯 and 🍳 warming up.
* one burrito, sunny-side up
* Now I want a burrito.
|-
| '''🍣 (11362)''' vs 🦞 (9488) ||
* It is a battle as old as time itself. 🍣 and 🦞! Facing off against each other again!
*I thought we had seen everything, but look at 🍣 go! Amazing!
|-
| 🍩 (12192) vs '''🦑 (12893)''' ||
* On deck, we have 🍩 and 🦑.
* Do not mix these flavors.
|-
| ☕ (7248) vs '''🍫 (13919)''' ||
* If you're like me, you've argued over who would win head-to-head, ☕ or 🍫.
* what a cruel choice
* in which form would you like your beans?
* mocha hold the chocolate vs. mocha hold the coffee
|-
| 🍺 (11448) vs '''🔪 (12597)''' ||
* Will it be 🍺 or 🔪? Find out next after this message from our sponsors.
* What an amazingly bad combination!
* Its ... a close shave.
|-
| 🏕 (6055) vs '''🌋 (13928)''' ||
* They have been attacking each other on social media all week. Next up! It's 🌋 vs. 🏕.
* What an amazingly bad combination! .... Again!
* the eruption of mt. Saint helens (artist's conception)
* ruuuuunn!
|-
| 🏥 (7225) vs '''🏗 (8415)''' ||
* You do not want to miss the fan favorite 🏗. Coming up next!
* the crane can build hospitals, so voting for the crane is like wishing for infinite wishes
|-
| 🌅 (7042) vs '''🌃 (10460)''' ||
* Oh this one should be good.
* all good things must come to an end
|-
| 🚄 (8128) vs '''🚝 (8903)''' ||
* I'm looking forward to this.
|-
| 🚜 (6598) vs '''🚒 (8085)''' ||
* Coming to you live from the Emojidome, it's 🚒 vs. 🚜!
* We can put out your fire, or we can move it over there.
|-
| ⚓ (6987) vs '''🚲 (9001)''' ||
* If you're like me, you've argued over who would win head-to-head, ⚓ or 🚲.
|-
| 🚁 (3409) vs '''🛸 (12591)''' ||
* Oh, this one should be good.
* Independence Day (1996)
|-
| 🌞 (6290) vs '''🌒 (11026)''' ||
* Coming to you live from the Emojidome, it's 🌒 vs. 🌞!
|-
| 🌈 (12417) vs '''🌌 (13194)''' ||
* Uh oh. 🌌 has had words with 🌈 before. The next match will be good.
|-
| ☄ (7687) vs '''🔥 (8315)''' ||
* Have at it, ☄ and 🔥!
* Armageddon (1998)
|-
| 🎁 (5311) vs '''🧨 (9417)''' ||
* I'm looking forward to this.
* Do you like surprises?
|-
| 🏀 (3729) vs '''🏅 (9083)''' ||
* If you're like me, you've argued over who would win head-to-head, 🏀 or 🏅.
* This match has me questioning 🏀's commitment.
|-
| '''🏓 (9290)''' vs 🥏 (7916) ||
* I'm looking forward to this.
*Don't blink.
|-
| 🎮 (11060) vs '''🥌 (14205)''' ||
* Welcome back, it's time for 🎮 and 🥌 to go head to head.
* Curling Simulator 2019
* If you love 🥌, you will have to show it now!
* Its a close match!
* 🎮 sweeping up
* 🥌 sweeping up
* I think 🥌 has it.
|-
| 🎒 (5682) vs '''🎨 (8574)''' ||
* Oh this one should be good.
* Is the backpack Blue or Red??
* Blue or Red isn't going to matter if 🎨 keeps their lead!
* This one was over before it started.
|-
| 🎩 (9120) vs '''🎵 (10259)''' ||
* It's time to find out: Who would win in a match, 🎩 or 🎵?
* Top Hat (1935)
|-
| 🎸 (7349) vs '''🎻 (10889)''' ||
* Don't change that channel, folks. We have 🎸 and 🎻 warming up.
* the day the music died
|-
| 📟 (3276) vs '''💾 (14470)''' ||
* Don't change that channel, folks. We have 💾 and 📟 warming up.
* 🖍, are you watching this match?
* At this rate, 📟 will lose worse than 🎒 earlier!
|-
| 💡 (7834) vs '''🧮 (10579)''' ||
* It is a battle as old as time itself. 💡 and 🧮! Facing off against each other again!
* What an illuminating contest.
* In case you were wondering, the obsolete tech bracket is coming to a close soon.
* 🧮 comes out on top.
|-
| 📦 (3650) vs '''📚 (13464)''' ||
* Uh oh. 📦 has had words with 📚 before. The next match will be good.
* Remember trees?
|-
| 📊 (7144) vs '''🖍 (8035)''' ||
* It is a battle as old as time itself. 📊 and 🖍! Facing off against each other again!
* Which crayon is the shortest
* Which crayon is the shortest?
|-
| 📎 (8114) vs '''🗝 (9019)''' ||
* Have at it, 📎 and 🗝!
* Have you considered just casting 'Knock'?
|-
| ⚖ (6910) vs '''🏹 (9251)''' ||
* You do not want to miss the fan favorite ⚖. Coming up next!
* I am not sure if there is anything else that 🏹 needs to prove.
|-
| 🔭 (9037) vs '''🧬 (11772)''' ||
* It's time to find out: Who would win in a match, 🔭 or 🧬?
* Pretty sure that is not how any of this works.
|-
| ⚰ (12470) vs '''🧻 (13083)''' ||
* Don't change that channel, folks. We have ⚰ and 🧻 warming up.
* This is the final match of round 3!
* You have died of Dysentery.
|-
|}

=== Round 4===
{| class="wikitable mw-collapsible mw-collapsed"
|-
! Competitors and score !! Commentary
|-
| 😉 (13589) vs '''🙃 (22912)''' ||
* Will it be 😉 or 🙃? Find out next after this message from our sponsors.
* Finally! A rivalry spoke only in whispers now takes center stage.
* I see our friends in Australia have joined in the fun.
* 😉 has some time to recover, but they are going to need help.
* Down to our last minute in the match!
* 😉 never had a chance.
|-
| 😜 (6578) vs '''🤔 (25692)''' ||
* Next! Who would win in a match between 😜 and 🤔? We are about to find out.
* This match-up reminds me of something clever I heard earlier ...
* Oh! I remember what it was!
* Someone said
|-
| 😴 (11518) vs '''😏 (12506)''' ||
* If you're like me, you've argued over who would win head-to-head, 😏 or 😴.
* Success is no stranger to 😏. Let's see if they can keep it going.
* Don't sleep on this match-up!
|-
| 😮 (18361) vs '''😎 (18415)''' ||
* Next up, 😎 and 😮.
* I don't know about you, but this is the match I have been waiting all day to see.
* Sunglasses pulling ahead.
* The betting markets had 😮 as favourite today, but it sure looks like 😎 is going to make it!
* It's all up to 😎 now. Can they hold 😮 back long enough to claim victory?
* The betting markets had 😮 as favourite today, but it sure looks like 😎 is going to make it!
* The gap is closing! Is there enough time for 😮 to take the lead?
* This one is coming down to the wire!
* Surprised Pikachu pulls ahead!
|-
| 😱 (4868) vs '''😈 (5411)''' ||
* It is a battle as old as time itself. 😈 and 😱! Facing off against each other again!
|-
| 👾 (18385) vs '''🙀 (18571)''' ||
* 👾 and 🙀 have been friends for a long time. I am not sure where that relationship is going to be after today.
* This could get interesting if 🙀 brings out their lasers!
* This could get interesting if 👾 brings out their lasers!
* Can we go back to the laser kittens for a minute?
* laser kittens! mew mew mew!
* Uh oh. The cat cheering section seems to be slacking.
* Can the cats make a comeback and save us all?
* It's gonna be tight!
|-
| 💦 (13865) vs '''💖 (15698)''' ||
* Someone has to win this match and someone has to lose, but you have to acknowledge the pure sportsmanship of these competitors.
* Click the link at the bottom of the comic to view the current bracket! (Just updated.)
* That last one came down to the wire, and this one's looking like it might too.
* The three other Planeteers are watching this match tensely.
* Sparkle Heart has been a surprisingly strong contender, knocking out the 100 emoji early!
* Click the link at the bottom of the comic to view the current bracket!
* Sparkle heart appears to be running away with another one.
|-
| '''👩‍🔬 (19865)''' vs 🧠 (9398) ||
* This is a match that no one wanted to deal with until the end.
*what exactly is 👩‍🔬 going to do with that beaker?
*Neuroscience vs. Neuro!
*There seems to be a commotion in the audience as to whether that was a flask or a beaker.
*I *was* a beaker, but someone changed it in post!
*Looks like 👩‍🔬 is really taking 🧠 to *flask*.
|-
| 🤺 (8947) vs '''🧙 (25337)''' ||
* 🤺 has been a fan favorite all day. Suprising literally no one.
* However, 🧙 has literally been disintegrating their competition all afternoon.
* What are we thinking here? 'Heat Metal'?
* Parry hotter vs Harry Potter?
|-
| 🚵 (7397) vs '''🦊 (27045)''' ||
* This is a match that no one wanted to deal with until the end.
* several people are typing.
* 🦊 is putting 🚵 in the rear-view mirror and stepping on the gas.
* I have never seen 🦊 crush an opponent that mercilessly before.
|-
| '''🐈 (25965)''' vs 🦄 (20912) ||
* Oh this one should be good.
*I am not sure if there is anything else that 🐈 needs to prove.
|-
| 🐘 (23083) vs '''🦔 (23975)''' ||
* I spoke with 🐘 before the match today, and they had this to say: 🐘.
* This is one grudge that won't be resolved soon: 🐘 never forgets.
* Hedgehog has been a strong contender but elephant is running surprisingly close.
* This is going to come down to the final seconds.
* An amazing match from 🦔.
|-
| 🐧 (19957) vs '''🦉 (22737)''' ||
* There are a lot of 🐧 fans in the audience today hoping to see their champ make it through.
* Another close match in the making!
* 1 minute for 🦉 to overtake 🐧!
* I think the bird has it.
|-
| 🐉 (25129) vs '''🐙 (25238)''' ||
* You wouldn't know it to look at them right now, but 🐉 and 🐙 have been friends for years.
* I think 🐉 may have finally met their match.
* 🐙 is trying to get back in the lead. But 🐉 is not having any of it.
* The totals are back and forth!
* An unbelievably close match is down to the final minute!
* It’s neck and neck, despite one being all neck and the other having none.
* The final seconds are here. Who will take the final lead?
|-
| 🌵 (17985) vs '''🐝 (18691)''' ||
* 🌵 has really suprised me today.
* another close match. Are all of the contests going to be like this now?
|-
| '''🍍 (19728)''' vs 🥑 (18099) ||
* 🍍 continues to show why they are just the dominant force to be reckoned with today.
*Avocado Toast or Pineapple Pizza
*Avocado Toast or Pineapple Pizza?
|-
| '''🍕 (19207)''' vs 🥐 (11100) ||
* Oh this one should be good.
*Pineapple pizza isn't real pizza
*There are two correct answers here. Choose wisely.
*Pizzas are like croissant tacos
*Looks like 🥐 is getting roasted.
*🥐 burn so easily. Who knew?
|-
| 🌯 (16204) vs '''🍣 (17599)''' ||
* 🌯 came to play. It is so obvious.
* why do we have to choose?
* I have definitely eaten food that was described as both of these.
|-
| 🍫 (17503) vs '''🦑 (18313)''' ||
* Oh this one should be good.
* No No Nothing about this is good.
* 🍫 is pretty sweet, but I'm a sucker for 🦑
|-
| '''🌋 (18049)''' vs 🔪 (7144) ||
* 🌋 has been a fan favorite all day. Suprising literally no one.
*before the knives come out of the mountain they're technically called "magma"
*before knives come out of a mountain they're technically called 'magma'
|-
| 🏗 (7355) vs '''🌃 (12660)''' ||
* Oh this one should be good.
* Has anyone ever seen one of these without the other? Hmm.
* 163
|-
| 🚒 (4736) vs '''🚝 (9570)''' ||
* 🚒 is dedicating this match to someone very special in their lives.
|-
| 🚲 (11477) vs '''🛸 (14994)''' ||
* 🚲 has really suprised me today.
* E.T. (1982)
|-
| 🌒 (7313) vs '''🌌 (15975)''' ||
* I am very excited to see 🌌 still in this competition.
* This battle is out of this world!
|-
| '''🔥 (13588)''' vs 🧨 (8239) ||
* This is a match with a special meaning for 🔥.
*Uh oh, this is one of those battles where nobody wins.
*🔥 bolting ahead with an alarming lead against 🧨
*Take cover folks, this looks like it's going to be a hot one.
*aaaaaand boom goes the dynamite!
|-
| 🏅 (9309) vs '''🏓 (11409)''' ||
* I am very excited to see 🏅 still in this competition.
* Ohhhhhhhh. That one is going to leave a mark.
|-
| 🎨 (11242) vs '''🥌 (20329)''' ||
* Look at where you came from 🎨. Look at where you started! You would think that this would be enough.
* C'mon baby put the rock in the house
|-
| 🎵 (10452) vs '''🎻 (11806)''' ||
* 🎵 came to play. It is so obvious.
* It is a battle as old as time itself. 🎵 and 🎻! Facing off against each other again!
* No, that's not the iTunes logo
* 🎻's tuning might be working against them right now.
|-
| '''💾 (16887)''' vs 🧮 (13339) ||
* 💾 is dedicating this match to someone very special in their lives.
*Welcome back to the Obsolete Technology Dome!
*MicroSD Card is watching closely at this battle of two square data storage options
|-
| 🖍 (6157) vs '''📚 (16083)''' ||
* This is going to be a challenge for 📚.
* 📚 really left a mark on 🖍 in their last match.
* 🖍 really left a mark on 📚 in their last match.
|-
| '''🏹 (14112)''' vs 🗝 (11789) ||
* 🏹 is looking fierce, but 🗝 is having none of it.
|-
| 🧻 (8107) vs '''🧬 (24415)''' ||
* 🧬 came to play. It is so obvious.
* 🧻 and 🧬 are neck and neck here in the final bout of round 3!
* when either is missing, you're in trouble
* And 🧻 falls to 🧬. A suprising turn of events.
|-
|}

=== Round 5===
{| class="wikitable mw-collapsible mw-collapsed"
|-
! Competitors and score !! Commentary
|-
| 🙃 (77562) vs '''🤔 (85714)''' ||
* all remaining rounds will be 26 minutes
* all remaining bouts will be 26 minutes
* Sometimes I think they've gone too far with plastic surgery
* This one's a fitting start to the round of 32, don't you think?
* Spiderman (2002)
* these vote totals are getting *close*! 🤔
* up is down, down is up! 🤔
* up is down, down is up! 🙃
* 🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔
* Getting knocked out in the round of 32 🙃
|-
| 😎 (35129) vs '''😏 (35485)''' ||
* 😎 and 😏 have been friends for a long time. I am not sure where that relationship is going to be after today.
* wink wink vs nudge nudge
* The Blues Brothers (1980)
* Can't read my p-p-p-poker face"
* Can't read my p-p-p-poker face
* David Caruso, is that you
* explicit vs. implicit
|-
| 🙀 (34060) vs '''😈 (46401)''' ||
* Are we about to see a huge upset?
* The devil went down to kittytown
* We're not sure which of these is a more accurate representation of a cat
* Both of them like to make your life hell.
* Which side are the Hellcats cheering for?
* 9 circles of hell. 9 lives. COINCIDENCE?
* Better the devil you know than the one you pet.
|-
| 💖 (15594) vs '''👩‍🔬 (43035)''' ||
* This is a match that no one wanted to deal with until the end.
* Love Potion No. 9 (1963)
* The shine seems to be wearing off for sparkle heart.
* The shine seems to be wearing off for sparkle heart. What's in that flask?
|-
| 🦊 (48941) vs '''🧙 (49275)''' ||
* 🦊 has really suprised me today.
* :leaves:: Target creature gets +3/+3 until end of turn targeting Devilthorn Fox
* G: Target creature gets +3/+3 until end of turn targeting Devilthorn Fox
|-
| 🐈 (32862) vs '''🦔 (42994)''' ||
* I don't care if you are a 🐈 fan or a 🦔 fan, you have to admire their work here today.
* Scoring of this bout might be delayed, we're having to re-calibrate our cuteness meter.
|-
| 🐙 (38553) vs '''🦉 (204094)''' ||
* Someone has to win this match and someone has to lose, but you have to acknowledge the pure sportsmanship of these competitors.
* This staring contest began hours before the match started.
* You obviously like owls.
|-
| 🍍 (25531) vs '''🐝 (28801)''' ||
* 🍍 is dedicating this match to someone very special in their lives.
* Neither of these really go well with a bonnet.
|-
| 🍕 (30696) vs '''🍣 (33247)''' ||
* We didn't expect 🍕 to show up today, and ... well ... we are just as suprised as you!
* It's come down to this... which one is going to get taken out.
* In Toronto, this isn't even a competition.
|-
| '''🌋 (24884)''' vs 🦑 (20329) ||
* There was never any doubt in my mind that 🌋 would be right here, right now.
*Finally the mastermind has an appropriate lair
|-
| 🌃 (21192) vs '''🚝 (24042)''' ||
* I am very excited to see 🌃 still in this competition.
|-
| '''🌌 (25884)''' vs 🛸 (14803) ||
* 🌌 has been a fan favorite all day. Suprising literally no one.
*Will we go to the stars, or will the stars come to us?
|-
| 🏓 (13494) vs '''🔥 (17154)''' ||
* 🏓 continues to show why they are just the dominant force to be reckoned with today.
* Would you rather be on fire, or on fire?
* Have you ever seen a ping pong paddle on fire? Me neither.
|-
| '''🎻 (26281)''' vs 🥌 (26221) ||
* 🎻 certainly has its work cut out for it going up agaist 🥌.
*Which do you prefer, classical or house?
|-
| 📚 (16770) vs '''💾 (19628)''' ||
* 💾 had an interesting previous round. Let's see what they do now.
* One of these is a universal icon for saving data, and the other is a floppy.
* The Persistence of Memory (1931)
|-
| 🏹 (9717) vs '''🧬 (20370)''' ||
* We didn't expect 🏹 to show up today, and ... well ... we are just as suprised as you!
* The latest ad targeting technology is pretty scary.
|-
|}

=== Round 6===
{| class="wikitable mw-collapsible mw-collapsed"
|-
! Competitors and score !! Commentary
|-
| 😏 (17357) vs '''🤔 (23903)''' ||
* Look at where you came from 😏. Look at where you started! You would think that this would be enough.
* I know something you don't know.
* How do you know for sure that your votes are doing anything?
|-
| 😈 (11306) vs '''👩‍🔬 (30208)''' ||
* This is a match with a special meaning for 👩‍🔬.
* The scientific method's problem is that the devil's in the details.
|-
| 🧙 (26205) vs '''🦔 (27999)''' ||
* 🦔 had an interesting previous round. Let's see what they do now.
* Hedge magic is generally more pragmatic than other forms of sorcery.
* The wizard didn't do it
|-
| 🐝 (21941) vs '''🦉 (28070)''' ||
* 🐝 came to play. It is so obvious.
* Of course we all know about the Owls and the Bees
* The Owlbee is a lesser known, but beloved D&D monster.
* The Owlbee is a lesser known, but beloved D and D monster.
* The Owlbee is a lesser known, but beloved DnD monster.
* Owls well that ends well
|-
| 🍣 (27026) vs '''🌋 (33364)''' ||
* 🌋 is dedicating this match to someone very special in their lives.
* Cooked or raw?
* Sushi is tasty, but the volcano offers free delivery.
* Click the link at the bottom for a just-updated bracket!
* Sushi has received a technical disqualification for being very very cooked
|-
| '''🌌 (36285)''' vs 🚝 (17405) ||
* 🌌 continues to show why they are just the dominant force to be reckoned with today.
*~future~
*The red carpet is empty tonight; the sky is full of stars.
*NIGHT TRAIN!
*Spaaaaaaaaace
|-
|}

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:April fools' comics]]
[[Category:Interactive comics]]
[[Category:Comics with animation]]
[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Emoji]]
[[Category:Sport]]

Talk:2126: Google Trends Maps

2019-03-20T10:28:22Z

162.158.92.34: yes, I'm dumb

I'm not quite sure I understand the comic. And no, the irony of saying that on a wiki dedicated to explaining them is not lost on me. Do the maps show which word/phrase is more common in google in each state by comparing only the options to each other or where they actually the top searched words/phrases at some point in time?[[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.34|162.158.92.34]] 10:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2121: Light Pollution

2019-03-09T00:13:10Z

162.158.92.34:

Small error in this comic. It's not possible to tile a sphere with just hexagons. https://stackoverflow.com/questions/749264/covering-earth-with-hexagonal-map-tiles
[[User:AlanKilian|AlanKilian]] ([[User talk:AlanKilian|talk]]) 16:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
:Six triangles form a hexagon - just an explanation for people with less mathematical or geometric knowledge. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 16:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
::but a indefinite large group of triangles doesn't automatically transform to hexagons, since it could be overlapping hexagons, or hexagons with their interim spaces filled up by triangles?--[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 16:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
:::Look at that hexagons (consisting of six triangles), each fitting to the next, and you will understand that this is only possible in a plane but not in a sphere. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 16:37, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
::::Yes, but if the triangles are not actually equilateral then they could form a sphere. And if the sphere is big enough (I think solar-system-surrouding or bigger counts) then you probably wouldn't be able to see it with the naked eye. [[User:Shamino|Shamino]] ([[User talk:Shamino|talk]]) 17:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
:::::But can it form a [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1365:_Inflation basketball?] [[User:Netherin5|Netherin5]] ([[User talk:Netherin5|talk]]) 17:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
:Your eyes are making the hexagons up. Some triangles would be left over if you tried to make every group of 6 triangles a hexagon. Triangle arrays like this are commonly used in computer graphics, as they are the closest approximation to a sphere: https://mft-dev.dk/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/icosahedron_frame_sub3.gif [[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.185|162.158.79.185]] 17:25, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
::Not really. On a plane, there are only three {{W|tesselation|tesselations}} made only of identical regular polygons: {{W|triangular tiling}}, {{W|square tiling}} or {{W|hexagonal tiling}}. But since a regular hexagon can be divided into six equilateral triangles, the tiling in the picture can be seen as both triangular and hexagonal. The leaving out you write about may have come from another tesselation which uses hexagons and triangles, the {{W|trihexagonal tiling}}. On a sphere, there's a completely different discussion as there's no tesselations, only approximations of them. {{unsigned|Malgond}}
There is no way to know that the triangles shown are equilateral (in fact, as drawn here they're quite ''un''even). All 3D renderings are in fact assembled from uneven-sided triangles, including renderings attempting to approximate rounded surfaces. And yes, you can buy a ball tiled only with triangles; they're not even-sided, but you can't tell with the naked eye. Also, there ''is'' one roughly spherical shape tiled only with equilateral triangles: It's the shape found on a 20-sided die. Skyboxes intended to minimize viewing angle distortions use triangles that are very nearly, but not quite equilateral. In fact, ''all shapes'' that use flat planes to tile a sphere can be broken down into triangles of one degree of asymmetry or another. Your argument is invalid.
[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 22:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

::Also note that we see just small part of sky there, so it's fully possible the few deformed/missing triangles are outside of what we see. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 23:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh man where are the conspiracy nuts from a few weeks ago ;-) [[User:Cgrimes85|Cgrimes85]] ([[User talk:Cgrimes85|talk]]) 17:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
:Hey, I think this works like Beetlejuice. Shush. Don’t jinx it. [[User:Netherin5|Netherin5]] ([[User talk:Netherin5|talk]]) 17:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I know most of the discussion is focused on the lattice, but are the ships a reference to something? LOTR maybe? Also there’s nothing about the title text at all, and the (more probable than LOTR) Lovecraft reference, considering the mentions of insanity, cosmic horror, and color. (I believe the book was Cool Air?) [[User:Netherin5|Netherin5]] ([[User talk:Netherin5|talk]]) 17:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I think it's notable that the world actually works this way. The sky is full of drones, satellites, {{w|Mesosphere#Exploration_and_uses|nearcraft}}, and we basically can't see them, but they can freely observe us, transmit things to us, and drop things on us. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.185|162.158.79.185]] 17:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
:While there are drones, satellites and various tools astronauts dropped all around the sky, the reason we can't see them is simply size (they are too small), not light pollution. The features mentioned in strip are gigantic. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 23:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I may be too nerdy, but my mind went to Spelljammer on this. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.62.160|172.69.62.160]] 18:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

:My thoughts exactly! it perfectly fits Spelljammer crystal spheres. I think it should be included in the explanation (and if not, then at least the source of the whole concept- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crystal_Spheres) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.34|162.158.92.34]] 00:13, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I went to the sky at the end of [https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0139809/ Thirteenth Floor]. But the one image I can find suggests that was rectangular. [[User:Jordan Brown|Jordan Brown]] ([[User talk:Jordan Brown|talk]]) 21:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2121: Light Pollution

2019-03-09T00:12:42Z

162.158.92.34:

Small error in this comic. It's not possible to tile a sphere with just hexagons. https://stackoverflow.com/questions/749264/covering-earth-with-hexagonal-map-tiles
[[User:AlanKilian|AlanKilian]] ([[User talk:AlanKilian|talk]]) 16:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
:Six triangles form a hexagon - just an explanation for people with less mathematical or geometric knowledge. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 16:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
::but a indefinite large group of triangles doesn't automatically transform to hexagons, since it could be overlapping hexagons, or hexagons with their interim spaces filled up by triangles?--[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 16:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
:::Look at that hexagons (consisting of six triangles), each fitting to the next, and you will understand that this is only possible in a plane but not in a sphere. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 16:37, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
::::Yes, but if the triangles are not actually equilateral then they could form a sphere. And if the sphere is big enough (I think solar-system-surrouding or bigger counts) then you probably wouldn't be able to see it with the naked eye. [[User:Shamino|Shamino]] ([[User talk:Shamino|talk]]) 17:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
:::::But can it form a [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1365:_Inflation basketball?] [[User:Netherin5|Netherin5]] ([[User talk:Netherin5|talk]]) 17:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
:Your eyes are making the hexagons up. Some triangles would be left over if you tried to make every group of 6 triangles a hexagon. Triangle arrays like this are commonly used in computer graphics, as they are the closest approximation to a sphere: https://mft-dev.dk/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/icosahedron_frame_sub3.gif [[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.185|162.158.79.185]] 17:25, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
::Not really. On a plane, there are only three {{W|tesselation|tesselations}} made only of identical regular polygons: {{W|triangular tiling}}, {{W|square tiling}} or {{W|hexagonal tiling}}. But since a regular hexagon can be divided into six equilateral triangles, the tiling in the picture can be seen as both triangular and hexagonal. The leaving out you write about may have come from another tesselation which uses hexagons and triangles, the {{W|trihexagonal tiling}}. On a sphere, there's a completely different discussion as there's no tesselations, only approximations of them. {{unsigned|Malgond}}
There is no way to know that the triangles shown are equilateral (in fact, as drawn here they're quite ''un''even). All 3D renderings are in fact assembled from uneven-sided triangles, including renderings attempting to approximate rounded surfaces. And yes, you can buy a ball tiled only with triangles; they're not even-sided, but you can't tell with the naked eye. Also, there ''is'' one roughly spherical shape tiled only with equilateral triangles: It's the shape found on a 20-sided die. Skyboxes intended to minimize viewing angle distortions use triangles that are very nearly, but not quite equilateral. In fact, ''all shapes'' that use flat planes to tile a sphere can be broken down into triangles of one degree of asymmetry or another. Your argument is invalid.
[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 22:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

::Also note that we see just small part of sky there, so it's fully possible the few deformed/missing triangles are outside of what we see. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 23:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh man where are the conspiracy nuts from a few weeks ago ;-) [[User:Cgrimes85|Cgrimes85]] ([[User talk:Cgrimes85|talk]]) 17:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
:Hey, I think this works like Beetlejuice. Shush. Don’t jinx it. [[User:Netherin5|Netherin5]] ([[User talk:Netherin5|talk]]) 17:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I know most of the discussion is focused on the lattice, but are the ships a reference to something? LOTR maybe? Also there’s nothing about the title text at all, and the (more probable than LOTR) Lovecraft reference, considering the mentions of insanity, cosmic horror, and color. (I believe the book was Cool Air?) [[User:Netherin5|Netherin5]] ([[User talk:Netherin5|talk]]) 17:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I think it's notable that the world actually works this way. The sky is full of drones, satellites, {{w|Mesosphere#Exploration_and_uses|nearcraft}}, and we basically can't see them, but they can freely observe us, transmit things to us, and drop things on us. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.185|162.158.79.185]] 17:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
:While there are drones, satellites and various tools astronauts dropped all around the sky, the reason we can't see them is simply size (they are too small), not light pollution. The features mentioned in strip are gigantic. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 23:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I may be too nerdy, but my mind went to Spelljammer on this. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.62.160|172.69.62.160]] 18:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

:My thoughts exactly! it perfectly fits Spelljammer crystal spheres. I think it should be included in the explanation (and if not, then at least the source of the whole concept- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crystal_Spheres)

I went to the sky at the end of [https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0139809/ Thirteenth Floor]. But the one image I can find suggests that was rectangular. [[User:Jordan Brown|Jordan Brown]] ([[User talk:Jordan Brown|talk]]) 21:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

2114: Launch Conditions

2019-02-21T09:22:34Z

162.158.92.34: /* Explanation */

{{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:2114: Launch Conditions

2019-02-21T09:18:57Z

162.158.92.34:

Queue a boost in hits for "rocket shaped humidifier" pages. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.59.108|172.68.59.108]] 19:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I've already done a search to see if this exists. Shouldn't take long for the internet to come through. [[User:Andyd273|Andyd273]] ([[User talk:Andyd273|talk]]) 19:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I've checked but all i can find is the steam coming out of the top, not the bottom [[Special:Contributions/162.158.142.34|162.158.142.34]] 19:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
: I'm thinking this would be a little challenging to create, because liquid water falls out of openings that under it. Humidifiers also usually have a larger reservoir of water than that rocket. I'm thinking the simplest approach would be to place a model rocket on top of a normal humidifier. Maybe you could also make a rocket with a mini-humidifier and a tube that goes from the top to the bottom, or that plugs into a faucet rather than having a reservoir. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.78.220|162.158.78.220]]
:: I looked closer at the comic, and you can see the body of the humidifier under the rocket. It may actually be a model rocket on top of a normal humidifer. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.78.178|162.158.78.178]] 21:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

How disappointing. All of the examples a quick search brought up emit mist from the tip, instead of the exhaust. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.62.10|172.69.62.10]] 19:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes! I want one! (A PROPER one, with exhaust.) {{unsigned ip|162.158.89.55}}
: But then the water reservoir might be limited to what fits into the rocket (see the comments above). [[User:Gunterkoenigsmann|Gunterkoenigsmann]] ([[User talk:Gunterkoenigsmann|talk]]) 06:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

What does it mean if a rocket is venting steam from its nose, anyway? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.58.83|172.68.58.83]] 19:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
: You are having a bad problem and you will not go to space today.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.75.226|162.158.75.226]] 20:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Nothing Good [[Special:Contributions/162.158.142.82|162.158.142.82]] 20:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

What people need is a "pea soup - micro rocket " fog machine and a model rocket. However that would set you back over 400 GBP or USD and do nothing much to humidify the room, being a type of vape machine. I suppose you could take a vape machine and add a fan to mimic a user inhaling, and exhaust into the model for less. Still not humidifying, but the voice off days "still dry in here" [[User:RIIW - Ponder it|RIIW - Ponder it]] ([[User talk:RIIW - Ponder it|talk]]) 20:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Whoops! I updated the Feynman story at the same time as somebody else removed it. It's currently back with changes. Maybe I'd better find a better citation to see how accurate it is. It's notable that it was Feynman who found the o-ring issue mentioned in the comic. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.62.220|172.69.62.220]] 20:46, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
:The Feynman story is from part II of "What do YOU care what other people think?: Further adventures of a curious character". [[Special:Contributions/162.158.106.6|162.158.106.6]] 21:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
::Thanks. I found it on library genesis ( http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=EA0CB0CF9A75A62E9F407CF1EE915F23 ) and my thirdhand telling was indeed rather inaccurate. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.78.178|162.158.78.178]] 21:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
: Removed the story and referenced wikipedia. But Feynman was a badass to stand up to the NASA administration and his silent peers so expressively. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.62.220|172.69.62.220]] 20:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Anyone else notice someone wrote (after the bit explaining how rockets take off) "This is, of course, preposterous, as rockets are a fake child's fantasy created by Jewish NASA employees"?[[Special:Contributions/172.68.34.76|172.68.34.76]] 21:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

O-Ring seemingly is potentially offensive in another way, too: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=o%20ring [[User:Gunterkoenigsmann|Gunterkoenigsmann]] ([[User talk:Gunterkoenigsmann|talk]]) 06:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm, I have always assumed that the water pumped to the base of the launch pad was intended to cool the exhaust so it won't destroy the concrete of the exhaust trench. But it's there to suppress sound? Well, one learns new things all the time... -- [[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.34|162.158.92.34]] 09:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

2114: Launch Conditions

2019-02-21T09:13:03Z

162.158.92.34: /* Explanation */ Water vapor is gaseous and transparent, so cannot be seen. It's water mist (tiny droplets of liquid water) what's emitted by an (ultrasonic) humidifier appliance

{{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. 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:2114: Launch Conditions

2019-02-21T09:01:23Z

162.158.92.34:

Queue a boost in hits for "rocket shaped humidifier" pages. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.59.108|172.68.59.108]] 19:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I've already done a search to see if this exists. Shouldn't take long for the internet to come through. [[User:Andyd273|Andyd273]] ([[User talk:Andyd273|talk]]) 19:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I've checked but all i can find is the steam coming out of the top, not the bottom [[Special:Contributions/162.158.142.34|162.158.142.34]] 19:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
: I'm thinking this would be a little challenging to create, because liquid water falls out of openings that under it. Humidifiers also usually have a larger reservoir of water than that rocket. I'm thinking the simplest approach would be to place a model rocket on top of a normal humidifier. Maybe you could also make a rocket with a mini-humidifier and a tube that goes from the top to the bottom, or that plugs into a faucet rather than having a reservoir. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.78.220|162.158.78.220]]
:: I looked closer at the comic, and you can see the body of the humidifier under the rocket. It may actually be a model rocket on top of a normal humidifer. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.78.178|162.158.78.178]] 21:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

How disappointing. All of the examples a quick search brought up emit mist from the tip, instead of the exhaust. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.62.10|172.69.62.10]] 19:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes! I want one! (A PROPER one, with exhaust.) {{unsigned ip|162.158.89.55}}
: But then the water reservoir might be limited to what fits into the rocket (see the comments above). [[User:Gunterkoenigsmann|Gunterkoenigsmann]] ([[User talk:Gunterkoenigsmann|talk]]) 06:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

What does it mean if a rocket is venting steam from its nose, anyway? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.58.83|172.68.58.83]] 19:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
: You are having a bad problem and you will not go to space today.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.75.226|162.158.75.226]] 20:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Nothing Good [[Special:Contributions/162.158.142.82|162.158.142.82]] 20:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

What people need is a "pea soup - micro rocket " fog machine and a model rocket. However that would set you back over 400 GBP or USD and do nothing much to humidify the room, being a type of vape machine. I suppose you could take a vape machine and add a fan to mimic a user inhaling, and exhaust into the model for less. Still not humidifying, but the voice off days "still dry in here" [[User:RIIW - Ponder it|RIIW - Ponder it]] ([[User talk:RIIW - Ponder it|talk]]) 20:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Whoops! I updated the Feynman story at the same time as somebody else removed it. It's currently back with changes. Maybe I'd better find a better citation to see how accurate it is. It's notable that it was Feynman who found the o-ring issue mentioned in the comic. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.62.220|172.69.62.220]] 20:46, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
:The Feynman story is from part II of "What do YOU care what other people think?: Further adventures of a curious character". [[Special:Contributions/162.158.106.6|162.158.106.6]] 21:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
::Thanks. I found it on library genesis ( http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=EA0CB0CF9A75A62E9F407CF1EE915F23 ) and my thirdhand telling was indeed rather inaccurate. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.78.178|162.158.78.178]] 21:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
: Removed the story and referenced wikipedia. But Feynman was a badass to stand up to the NASA administration and his silent peers so expressively. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.62.220|172.69.62.220]] 20:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Anyone else notice someone wrote (after the bit explaining how rockets take off) "This is, of course, preposterous, as rockets are a fake child's fantasy created by Jewish NASA employees"?[[Special:Contributions/172.68.34.76|172.68.34.76]] 21:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

O-Ring seemingly is potentially offensive in another way, too: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=o%20ring [[User:Gunterkoenigsmann|Gunterkoenigsmann]] ([[User talk:Gunterkoenigsmann|talk]]) 06:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm, I have always assumed that the water pumped to the base of the launch pad was intended to cool the exhaust so it won't destroy the concrete of the exhaust trench. But it's there to suppress sound? Well, one learns new thing all the time... -- [[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.34|162.158.92.34]] 09:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Footnote

2019-02-13T14:59:56Z

162.158.92.34: /*Clarified uselessness of boat mode*/

__TOC__
At the bottom of the [[xkcd]] comics beneath [[Randall|Randall's]] list of ''Comics I Enjoy'' there is a footnote written in a very tiny font, as to make it almost unreadable. The footnote has been all gone in between a change from the old to the new footnote.

== Current footnote ==
A new footnote was added either on [https://web.archive.org/web/20161004143542/http://xkcd.com/ October 4th] or on [https://web.archive.org/web/20161005090723/http://xkcd.com/ October 5th], 2016.

As of October 2016 the footnote/tiny print at the bottom of xkcd.com pages reads:
:xkcd.com is best viewed with Netscape Navigator 4.0 or below on a Pentium 3±1 emulated in Javascript on an Apple IIGS at a screen resolution of 1024x1. Please enable your ad blockers, disable high-heat drying, and remove your device from Airplane Mode and set it to Boat Mode. For security reasons, please leave caps lock on while browsing.

It did not replace the [[#Original footnote|Original footnote]] as there had been a span of [[#Removal of original footnote|22 days without a footnote]] in between these two footnotes.

The text gives questionable advice on how to view xkcd.com. Using a discontinued browser on an Apple computer released in 1986 with a screen resolution one pixel tall would be extremely difficult.

;Netscape Navigator 4.0 or below
:It is normal to specify browser and minimum version, as all later versions typically retain needed features from previous versions. Instead, the footnote claims that older versions are better (perhaps due to reliance on a bug fixed after version 4.0). No version of Netscape Navigator is currently maintained.

;on a Pentium 3±1
:Pentium was a brand of processors made by Intel. Instead of specifying just a minimum or maximum version, both are specified, in a syntax more often used for specifying tolerances, usually of a physical property.

;emulated in Javascript
:Javascript is a programming language used on web pages. While it may be possible to write a Pentium emulator in Javascript, this would be an unusual and probably inefficient choice.

;on an Apple IIGS
:The Apple IIGS was a computer made in the 1980's. Even the slowest Pentium computers are hundreds of times faster than the Apple IIGS. Combined with the inefficiencies of processor emulation, this would result in a painfully slow experience, if it worked at all.
The Apple IIGS was made before Internet connections were common, and there was probably no web Javascript-compatible browser for it, if any browser at all. There are now Ethernet cards available for the IIGS.

;at a screen resolution of 1024x1.
:If the dimensions given are in pixels, as they usually are, then the recommended display setting would only show one horizontal line. 1024 pixels is wider than the maximum supported display width of the Apple IIGS.

;Please enable your ad blockers,
:Many sites ask users to disable ad blockers, either so the owner can get ad revenue, or because blockers sometimes inadvertently block other parts of the page. But here it is recommended to enable the blockers.

;disable high-heat drying,
:This appears to be referring to clothes dryer heat settings, which are irrelevant to websites. Some clothing is damaged if dried with high heat.

;and remove your device from Airplane Mode and set it to Boat Mode.
:Many portable devices, especially cell phones and tablets, have an "Airplane Mode," which disables the wireless radios to avoid potentially interfering with an aircraft's operation while flying. "Boat Mode" is fictional. (Though it might be nice to have a boat mode that turns the phone off if dropped, to reduce water damage, although this wouldn't help much, as the phone would probably never be found.)

;For security reasons, please leave caps lock on while browsing.
:Having caps lock on would not improve security. It may reduce your security if it prevents you from using lower-case letters in passwords.

== Original footnote ==
Previously the footnote was (the earliest webarchive with it is from [https://web.archive.org/web/20070503171452/http://xkcd.com/ May 2007]):
:BTC 1FhCLQK2ZXtCUQDtG98p6fVH7S6mxAsEey
:We did not invent the algorithm. The algorithm consistently finds Jesus. The algorithm killed Jeeves.
:The algorithm is banned in China. The algorithm is from Jersey. The algorithm constantly finds Jesus.
:This is not the algorithm. This is close.

Relevant info/links:
*[[BTC]] means {{w|bitcoin}}. The string of alphanumeric characters is his bitcoin address.
**[https://blockchain.info/address/1FhCLQK2ZXtCUQDtG98p6fVH7S6mxAsEey 1FhCLQK2ZXtCUQDtG98p6fVH7S6mxAsEey]
*[http://www.flickr.com/photos/chrisnoessel/455335731/ The algorithm killed Jeeves].
*[http://www.flickr.com/photos/omargutierrez/444552272/ The algorithm is banned in China].
*[http://www.flickr.com/photos/19873723@N00/451996056/ The algorithm is from Jersey].
*[http://www.flickr.com/photos/thejof/453596732/ The algorithm constantly finds Jesus].

It was added by Randall in April 2007, according to his [http://blog.xkcd.com/2007/04/19/billboards/ April 19th, 2007] [[Blag]] post as a response to [http://web.archive.org/web/20070601192105/http://valleywag.com/tech/mystery-billboards/asks-advertising-campaign-249274.php random billboards] appearing in the New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco areas. It turned out these were a viral marketing campaign by the ask(jeeves) search engine to drive publicity around their new search algorithm. The campaign is long over, but Randall kept the text there (apparently) as a self referential advertising campaign. Specifically, people who find the small text will use a search engine to see what it means and the search engine will likely lead them back to [[xkcd]] — where they saw the text initially.

=== Removal of original footnote ===
The entire old footnote was removed on September 12th, 2016 as was the [[xkcd warning]] above it. The [https://web.archive.org/web/20160912181546/https://xkcd.com/ last day these were on the page] was September 12th, 2016 when [[1732: Earth Temperature Timeline]] was released.

It was maybe due to the [[1732#Popularity_of_comic|popularity of the comic]] that this footnote
was removed along with the warning to not scare new fans away.

Four hours later that day the page [https://web.archive.org/web/20160912204204/http://xkcd.com/ looked like this] with no footnote or warning.

There was then a span from the 12th September until the 5th of October where there where no footnote, before the [[#Current footnote|Current footnote]] was added.

== No footnote ==
Before the [[#Original footnote|Original footnote]] was printed there was no footnote at least [https://web.archive.org/web/20070406183323/http://xkcd.com/# up til April 2007].

[[Category:Meta]]

Talk:2105: Modern OSI Model

2019-01-30T10:47:05Z

162.158.92.34: agreeing on the google and amazon are the light gray blob theory

Randall seems to be saying that a startup doesn't need to create a new computer system to service their customers, all they have to do is put up a Facebook page which uses Google to find products and then has Amazon deliver them. The middle layer "Transport" is a joke because Amazon literally ships physical boxes, but the OSI model is not about actual boxes; it's about information and the way the information is presented to the user vs what goes on behind the scenes.
But I don't get the part about the horcruxes. Is it just the fact that there are seven of them? Or is there some subtle connection I'm missing here? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.106.180|162.158.106.180]] 05:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
:(Spoilers alert) Voldemort uses signifying objects of his life, heritage and his school's founders as horcruces. When the OSI layers are used as horcruces, one problem would be that Google/Amazon would have taken control of two horcruces, the other that some of the layers are frayed at the sides. Randall should not have put his horcruces in living standards - that was a very dangerous move. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.46|172.68.110.46]] 07:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Is there a meaning of the widths of the layers - not a block or a triangle/pyramid? Are there more layers than the named ones? Or the named ones multiple times? This would correspond to the design of ever more layers, virtualizations, abstractions and overall complexity of computer systems as time moved forward. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.46|172.68.110.46]] 07:49, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I think Google & Amazon are the grey blob that is slowly absorbing all of the layers [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.114|141.101.107.114]] 07:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
: Excellent remark! Google & Amazon are inserted between the Data Link and Network layers, and while it seems like an eight layer from the shape profile, they do not sit in their own bordered rectangle. Another view point is maybe Randall tried to display the fight between the Infrastructure providers to capture a new layer in gestation. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.114|141.101.107.114]] 08:21, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

: Agreed. There is no way that Randall wanted the label for the gray blob to just apply to a couple of layers. It's clearly labelling the entire gray blob as "Google and Amazon". Otherwise, he would have put in another dividing line or two. So all the glue between the layers is being described as "Google and Amazon". Meaning that the layers wouldn't even be able to talk to each other and function correctly without G+A glue between them. Maybe this is "glue" in the technical sense of trivial code which converts from one API to another. The basic point here is that Google lays cable in some places and writes Chrome and owns You Tube, so it's definitely at both ends. I'm not sufficiently knowledgeable to say if it owns/writes stuff in the middle. And I'd be surprised if this was true of Amazon. But it's not my place to comment on the veracity of Randall's remarks, I'm just trying to sort out what he's saying.

: That's how I understood it as well. By having there hands in *everything* G+A defeat the whole purpose of having a layered (ie. divided) model, making the 'modern model' just bits and pieces added to G+A code.

Trivia: (Major Spoiler alert) Voldemort originally intended to create six horcruces to divide his soul into 7 (including his own body) pieces. The 6th unintended horcrux is Harry Potter by Voldemort killing his parents. Later on after his revival Voldemort made the snake Nagini to his seemingly 6th horcrux, which was actually his 7th. Does that mean Randall embodies one of the OSI layers from the beginning of his existence? :-) Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.46|172.68.110.46]] 08:01, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

2105: Modern OSI Model

2019-01-30T08:12:32Z

162.158.92.34:

{{comic
| number = 2105
| date = January 30, 2019
| title = Modern OSI Model
| image = modern_osi_model.png
| titletext = In retrospect, I shouldn't have used each layer of the OSI model as one of my horcruxes.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a seven-layered BOT. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
The {{w|OSI Model}} is a computing model for network communications that abstracts a communication between two services like a Facebook client and Facebook servers all the way from physical to user interaction layers. As Facebook is one of the most used websites in the world with more than a billion users, Randall claims that the "application" layer (what the client sees and uses) is mostly Facebook.
The data link layer and physical layer refer to Amazon and Google's respective cloud hosting services: Amazon AWS and Google Cloud. Because they host the majority of the internet, Randall notes that most of both of these layers is made up by them. However, this is not entirely accurate because ISPs like Comcast or AT&T play a massive role in data link and physical layers as well.
The title text refers to Horcruxes used by Voldemort in the Harry Potter book series, of which there are 7 (same number of layers in the OSI model).

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

:'''Modern OSI Model'''

:Application (Facebook)

:Presentation

:Session

:Transport

:Network

::Google & Amazon

:Data link

:Physical

{{comic discussion}}

Talk:2101: Technical Analysis

2019-01-24T20:23:29Z

162.158.92.34: Bitching cynic

The Tobin citation comes from James Tobin's Fred Hirsch Memorial Lecture "On the Efficiency of the Financial System" in 1984 [https://economicsociologydotorg.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/tobin-on-the-efficiency-of-the-financial-system.pdf].

The explanation says “allego” and “prologue“ are “musical terms such as may be used in the introduction of a performed piece”. That may be true of “prologue” but “allegro”, according to Wikipedia, is “a tempo marking indicate to play fast, quickly and bright”. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.58|108.162.219.58]] 11:40, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

:And, derived from this, a movement of a piece that is performed quickly may be referred to as an allegro. It can also be used to refer to an entire piece, such as this piece by Mozart: [https://www.pianostreet.com/mozart-sheet-music/allegro-k-1-f-major.htm] [[User:Kazzie|Kazzie]] ([[User talk:Kazzie|talk]]) 12:00, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
::But based on the placement of the allego and the way it is written it is most likely a tempo. Tempo goes just above the music and in this case it is the only word on the page that is italicized. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.186.108|162.158.186.108]] 14:09, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

How would this compare with “candlestick patterns” - the bathtub one looks like a funny name for a pattern *meant* to signal that prices could rise https://www.investopedia.com/articles/trading/06/advcandlesticks.asp. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.144.145|172.68.144.145]] 13:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Random Walk might refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_walk [[User:Curtobi4|Curtobi4]] ([[User talk:Curtobi4|talk]]) 14:00, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_walk_hypothesis [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.202|108.162.241.202]] 16:33, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
:This is correct, also called Brownian Motion. The shape of these graphs is incredibly similar to that of the motion of a speck of dust floating in coffee. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.65.228|172.68.65.228]] 03:26, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Should we make a table for each term like there is for other comics? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.63.232|162.158.63.232]] 18:01, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
:Yes please. Also, the individual jokes could be explained better. For instance, I'm pretty sure "lumbar support" is there as a joke on the word "spline" looking & sounding a lot like "spine". I'm 90% certain it's a pun, but that's not mentioned yet.
:[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 19:30, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

XKCD lessons with Randall: Today I learned that the word "Allegro" actually has a meaning, and isn't just a random website name. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.160|162.158.92.160]] 19:27, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

The fundamental problem is that price movements are NOT a random walk. It is safe to assume that people who know a market well will study it, and make purchases/sells based on the underlying market drivers. And in doing so, they will leave "tells" in the pricing data. It becomes possible to look at markets, and see what the people in-the-know are doing, and follow along after them. That is the fundamental basis of technical analysis, and it works -- it works unbelievably well.

If there is a problem, it is that computers can do this pattern recognition so fast that there is longer any room for people to do this.

In other words, computerized arbitrage has gotten so good that people need not apply, and a few high-end groups with high speed electronic trading can get in before any person can.

[[User:Keybounce|Keybounce]] ([[User talk:Keybounce|talk]]) 00:31, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
:Keybounce, do you have any thoughts on how to share some of that with the layperson? The cryptocurrency markets are highly volatile and worth many billions of dollars. People with little resources are getting involved and either going bust or becoming millionaires. The trading history makes it clear there is a lot of automated trading for a long time, but I'm not sure many people really know what they are doing, and the publically available code appears pretty weak. There is a lot of opportunity here to make huge impacts on major economic and social groups in ways that could really help problems in the world. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.65.228|172.68.65.228]] 03:32, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

True that computerized arbitrage/high frequency trading occurs at speeds which leave zero room for human reaction times (see the $$$ made by shaving only 3 milliseconds’ [!!] from the transmission delay, when Jim Barksdale built a new straight-path fiber optic line from Chicago Mercantile to NASDAQ in NJ in 2010, and by McKay and Tradeworx using microwave tower relays since then), but computerized arbitrage is, broadly, not the same as technical analysis of markets. Arbitrage takes immediate advantage of brief pricing trends and inefficiencies, while analysis seeks to predict pricing. Of course, technical analysis is also computerized at inhuman speeds, and its algorithms are used in arbitrage, but seems to me the comic isn’t about arbitrage, as such.[[User:Miamiclay|Miamiclay]] ([[User talk:Miamiclay|talk]]) 20:03, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that there wasn't a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wow!_signal "WOW!"] entry [[User:John.Adriaan|John.Adriaan]] ([[User talk:John.Adriaan|talk]]) 01:38, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
:I fixed your link, hope that's okay. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.51.178|172.68.51.178]] 13:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I always cringe when I see some trader (who probably don't have an economy degree) try to show with technical analysis that he could predict X happening over a year in advance. Just this day I saw it in my daily economy news. No, sorry to tell you this... if you couldn't predict X happening the day before you sure as hell couldn't predict it a year in advance. Conversely it doesn't make sense to apply fundamental analysis to stocks that you don't plan to keep for more than a year. That's not to say these methods are useless, they are useful for making educated guesses but all should be aware of their limitations. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.89.61|162.158.89.61]] 19:30, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Despite the comment on the social usefulness of global trading, I'd argue that it has largely replaced outright wars. So we now have a lot more people than the world needs. Though implying that global trade is inherently evil is at best just not very well informed. The market can to some degree fix global inequalities, but it also concentrates money on a few hands, which is the inevitable outcome if it is not regulated somehow. The problem here is you can't really regulate capitalism unless you do it globally. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.34|162.158.92.34]] 20:23, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2100: Models of the Atom

2019-01-18T12:55:29Z

162.158.92.34:

No mention of the Platonic solid model? [[User:DanielLC|DanielLC]] ([[User talk:DanielLC|talk]]) 05:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Not yet. My favorite of those 5 is the double cube, AKA the Octahedron. [[User:Haph|Haph]] ([[User talk:Haph|talk]]) 06:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

:My good sir DanielLC: I presume that Randall neglected to mention it because the first evidence-based atom theory didn't come until 1810 and John Dalton. The atom theories of the ancient Greeks were mostly philosophical posturing, in my opinion.

:We seem to be missing the [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acorn_Atom| Acorm Atom]] as well. [[User:Kazzie|Kazzie]] ([[User talk:Kazzie|talk]]) 10:16, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

According to [[https://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/~trentham/cosmology/lec6.pdf|cosmology lecture notes by the astronomer Neil Trentham]], mass in the universe ist 75% H (mostly 1p+0n=1) and 25% He (mostly 2p+2n=4). As He is 4 times as heavy and 3 times as seldom, there is 12 times more H than He => The ratio n/p is 1/7.
We can assume that in the 538 model the statistics was done on atoms comprising few Hydrogene, e.g. only the earth's mantle. In heavier elements the ratio n/p > 1. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.70|172.68.110.70]] 07:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

What are the numbers? Is 173 an error for 137, the fine structure constant? [[User:Sabik|Sabik]] ([[User talk:Sabik|talk]]) 10:36, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

The tiny bird model puzzles me completely. Is it a reference to any interim (even if obscure) scientific model or is it a completely facetious Randall's invention? Or is it a reference to something unrelated? Any ideas? -- [[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.34|162.158.92.34]] 12:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

2097: Thor Tools

2019-01-14T10:59:07Z

162.158.92.34: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2097
| date = January 11, 2019
| title = Thor Tools
| image = thor_tools.png
| titletext = CORRECTION: After careful evaluation, we have determined that the axis label on this chart was printed backward.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Add a list of the tools in the comic. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

In Norse mythology, {{w|Thor}} is (in Scandinavian languages) the name of a god of thunder and lightning. His signature weapon is a magic hammer called {{w|Mjölnir}}. In popular culture, he might be best known for his role in {{w|Thor (Marvel Comics)|Marvel comics and films}}, which his appearance here seems to be referencing. In the Marvel Cinematic Universe movie, Avengers: Infinity War, Thor also wields an axe named Stormbreaker.

Although this hammer was historically a weapon, this comic interprets it as it would more commonly be interpeted today -- as a tool. The comic is listing various hand tools in order of utility and viability as Thor's weapon, besides his actual, enchanted hammer. Hammers are heavy, blunt, and can do large amounts of damage to an opponent, whereas a hand plane is sharp, but only in one place, and will only inflict surface wounds.

Some of these tools require power, which would generally require Thor to stay near an outlet or keep a battery charging, such as the circular saw, or Dremel. However, being the god of lightning may allow him to circumvent this, by producing electricity for the direct current (D.C.) tools, although he would need an inverter to convert the lightning (D.C.) to alternating current (A.C.) for the tools requiring it. Thor would also need compressed air for the nail gun or jackhammer, only allowing Thor so many shots before reloading the air tank at an outlet, or via a concentrated wind storm.

The nail gun and staple gun would also require nails or staples respectively to function as a weapon. Although Mjölnir is believed to return to Thor if thrown, it's not clear how similar system could work with nails and staples.

The usefulness of the nail gun as a weapon might depend on whether it was an older one that can be bump-fired or a newer one that requires a separate trigger pull for each nail.

In the title text, [[Randall]] writes that the order of the axis label should be reversed, making the plane the best tool and Mjölnir the worst. Considering that the title of the comic is "Thor Tools" ("tools", instead of "weapons"), the argument seems to be that a hammer is less useful than the rest, by seeing them as tools and not as weapons.

A few other interpretations of this could be:
* Randall proposes that Thor armed with a plane or digital calipers would be much more fearsome than with a hammer.
* The "value" of the more strange-seeming items would be much higher than his traditional hammer, perhaps more gory or more humorous.
* Thor tends to cause collateral damage, and would cause less with a plane or calipers.
* "Best" and "worst" are to be interpreted for Thor's enemies rather than Thor himself.
* Randall might just find the idea of Thor wielding a Plane as a weapon to be really funny.

The title may be a reference to Gary Larson's ''The Far Side'' comic, ''Cow Tools''.

===List of tools===

All shown tools are explained below:
;Hammer
:A {{w|hammer}} ''is a tool consisting of a weighted "head" fixed to a long handle that is swung to deliver an impact to a small area of an object''. Thor was a hammer-wielding god and produced the lighting by using this tool. A {{w|war hammer}} was an actual blunt weapon used for combat in medieval times, and is the original Thor's attribute. There exists a variety of craftsman's hammers designed for specific purposes which can be used as weapons of opportunity to various degrees, depending on the tool's size, weight and material.
;Axe
:An {{w|axe}} or just ax is another old human tool used to split and cut wood, but it also was used as a dangerous weapon in the medieval times. The battle-axes of old were of considerably different design than the woodworking ones, being lighter and having thinner and wider blades. Even though, a woodworking axe could be a formidable weapon of opportunity.
;Claw hammer
:A {{w|claw hammer}} is a hammer tool primarily used for driving nails into other objects, but also for pulling nails from them. This item seems a bit redundant in the presence of a general hammer on the axis, but could be seen as more scary because it has a pointed, curved and split back head (used for pulling nails). In fact, the usefulness of its back head for combat is debatable at least.
;Circular saw
:A {{w|circular saw}} is using a, mostly electric powered, fast-revolving toothed disc to cut materials. A stationary version is called a ''table saw'' but the figure of Thor drawn above presents him using a lighter hand-held version making a buzzing sound. Since the power of the saw is far beyond the human power it is quite a dangerous tool and could be fatal to the user himself. However, it would be rather unwieldy in combat, as it is quite heavy and bulky, and usually requires both hands to operate. Also, electric circular saw would be limited by its cord length, however cordless (battery-operated) saws exist today. This item could be a mock reference to a common trope in horror movies or computer games, when a {{w|chainsaw}} (not a circular saw) is used a weapon.
;Shovel
:A {{w|shovel}} is also a historic tool. It can be used to dig into the ground, move snow or dirt, harvest, and much more. Because it has a relatively thin, sharp metal blade at the end of a pole, it can be used as a weapon of opportunity. Indeed, a small (sometimes foldable), sturdy spade was and still is a standard issue item for an infantryman in some countries, intended mainly for entrenching work, but also usable as a weapon – and the soldiers are trained to use it as such, sometimes to a high skill, specifically among special forces. It is rumored that Russian Spetznaz operators are specifically trained to use their spades as throwing weapons.
;Jackhammer
:A {{w|jackhammer}} is a power tool used to drill and crush hard but brittle materials, like stone, concrete etc. It has a heavy body with a protruding shaft that makes hard and rapid back-and-forth (and optionally also rotary) movements that drive an implement (a drill, a chisel etc.) into the worked material. Like the circular saw jackhammer is a tool that is powered far beyond single human capabilities. Most jackhammers are very heavy and can be reasonably used only in the facing-down position to work on floors, pavements and other near-horizontal surfaces, nullifying combat application. However, since Thor is purportedly very strong, he may be able to hold it horizontally for some combat...
;Socket wrench
:An attached handle to a {{w|socket wrench}} is mostly used to tighten bolts or nuts. But since its socket together with the wrench resembles the physical conditions like a hammer it also could be used similar...
;Bolt cutters
:{{w|Bolt cutters}} are cutters with very long handles, typically 2 or 3 feet long, and comparatively tiny jaws. The length of the handles provides the user enough mechanical advantage to sheer through things like bolts, chain links, and lock shackles. Although this tool can cut some fairly tough objects, its usefulness in combat is limited.
;Hacksaw
:A {{w|hacksaw}} is a type of hand saw with very small teeth. Hacksaws are well suited to cutting materials like metal and plastic, where the larger teeth of a wood saw would tend to bind or damage the material around the cut. Hacksaw blades are fairly unlikely to seriously injure people, though a hacksaw may be useful against metal baddies like Ultron.
;Nail gun
;Staple gun
;Coping saw
;Screwdriver (flat)
;Ball-peen hammer
;Screwdriver (Phillips)
;Awl
;Digital Caliper
:{{w|Digital calipers}} are an instrument for precisely measuring the dimensions of small objects. Typically, digital calipers can measure inner diameters, outer diameters, and depth. The reason they are considered more formidable than Dremels and planes is likely how supprisingly sharp the calipers are. They need to be sharp to make accurate measurements, but it is not uncommon for people to cut themselves while using a digital caliper.
;Dremel
;Plane

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Please check typos. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[A wide image is shown in a single frame.]
:Hand tools Thor could have ended up with
:[Below is a small centered horizontal line with arrows at both ends, labeled "Best" to the left and "Worst" on the right.]

:[The rest of the image shows an other horizontal line in the middle, also with arrows at both ends, covering the full width. Items are marked by a dot with a text above or below, and sometimes a figure wearing a winged helmet, above the line, uses a tool mentioned below:]
:Hammer
:Axe
:Claw hammer
:Circular saw
:[Above, the winged helmet guy uses a circular saw:]
:''Bzzzz zzzz''
:Shovel
:Jackhammer
:Socket wrench
:[Above, the winged helmet guy spins the socket of a socket wrench with a tiny sound.]
:Bolt cutters
:Hacksaw
:Nail gun
:Staple gun
:[Above, the winged helmet guy fires staples into the ground in front of him:]
:''Kachunk kachunk''
:Coping saw
:Screwdriver (flat)
:Ball-peen hammer
:Screwdriver (Phillips)
:Awl
:Digital Caliper
:Dremel
:[Above, the winged helmet guy shows a running Dremel to the left:]
:''Bzzzzz''
:Plane

{{comic discussion}}

2097: Thor Tools

2019-01-14T10:46:00Z

162.158.92.34: /* List of tools */

{{comic
| number = 2097
| date = January 11, 2019
| title = Thor Tools
| image = thor_tools.png
| titletext = CORRECTION: After careful evaluation, we have determined that the axis label on this chart was printed backward.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Add a list of the tools in the comic. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

In Norse mythology, {{w|Thor}} is (in Scandinavian languages) the name of a god of thunder and lightning. His signature weapon is a magic hammer called {{w|Mjölnir}}. In popular culture, he might be best known for his role in {{w|Thor (Marvel Comics)|Marvel comics and films}}, which his appearance here seems to be referencing. In the Marvel Cinematic Universe movie, Avengers: Infinity War, Thor also wields an axe named Stormbreaker.

Although this hammer was historically a weapon, this comic interprets it as it would more commonly be interpeted today -- as a tool. The comic is listing various hand tools in order of utility and viability as Thor's weapon, besides his actual, enchanted hammer. Hammers are heavy, blunt, and can do large amounts of damage to an opponent, whereas a hand plane is sharp, but only in one place, and will only inflict surface wounds.

Some of these tools require power, which would generally require Thor to stay near an outlet or keep a battery charging, such as the circular saw, or Dremel. However, being the god of lightning may allow him to circumvent this, by producing electricity for the direct current (D.C.) tools, although he would need an inverter to convert the lightning (D.C.) to alternating current (A.C.) for the tools requiring it. Thor would also need compressed air for the nail gun or jackhammer, only allowing Thor so many shots before reloading the air tank at an outlet, or via a concentrated wind storm.

The nail gun and staple gun would also require nails or staples respectively to function as a weapon. Although Mjölnir is believed to return to Thor if thrown, it's not clear how similar system could work with nails and staples.

The usefulness of the nail gun as a weapon might depend on whether it was an older one that can be bump-fired or a newer one that requires a separate trigger pull for each nail.

In the title text, [[Randall]] writes that the order of the axis label should be reversed, making the plane the best tool and Mjölnir the worst. Considering that the title of the comic is "Thor Tools" ("tools", instead of "weapons"), the argument seems to be that a hammer is less useful than the rest, by seeing them as tools and not as weapons.

A few other interpretations of this could be:
* Randall proposes that Thor armed with a plane or digital calipers would be much more fearsome than with a hammer.
* The "value" of the more strange-seeming items would be much higher than his traditional hammer, perhaps more gory or more humorous.
* Thor tends to cause collateral damage, and would cause less with a plane or calipers.
* "Best" and "worst" are to be interpreted for Thor's enemies rather than Thor himself.
* Randall might just find the idea of Thor wielding a Plane as a weapon to be really funny.

The title may be a reference to Gary Larson's ''The Far Side'' comic, ''Cow Tools''.

===List of tools===

All shown tools are explained below:
;Hammer
:A {{w|hammer}} ''is a tool consisting of a weighted "head" fixed to a long handle that is swung to deliver an impact to a small area of an object''. Thor was a hammer-wielding god and produced the lighting by using this tool. A {{w|war hammer}} was an actual blunt weapon used for combat in medieval times, and is the original Thor's attribute. There exists a variety of craftsman's hammers designed for specific purposes which can be used as weapons of opportunity to various degrees, depending on the tool's size, weight and material.
;Axe
:An {{w|axe}} or just ax is another old human tool used to split and cut wood, but it also was used as a dangerous weapon in the medieval times. The battle-axes of old were of considerably different design than the woodworking ones, being lighter and having thinner and wider blades. Even though, a woodworking axe could be a formidable weapon of opportunity.
;Claw hammer
:A {{w|claw hammer}} is a hammer tool primarily used for driving nails into other objects, but also for pulling nails from them. This item seems a bit redundant in the presence of a general hammer on the axis, but could be seen as more scary because it has a pointed, curved and split back head (used for pulling nails). In fact, the usefulness of its back head for combat is debatable at least.
;Circular saw
:A {{w|circular saw}} is using a, mostly electric powered, toothed disc to cut materials. A stationary version is called a ''table saw'' but the figure of Thor drawn above presents him using a lighter hand-held version making a buzzing sound. Since the power of the saw is far beyond the human power it is quite a dangerous tool and could be fatal to the user himself. However, it would be rather unwieldy in combat, as it is quite heavy and bulky, and usually requires both hands to operate. Also, electric circular saw would be limited by its cord length, however cordless (battery-operated) saws exist today. This item could be a mock reference to a common trope in horror movies or computer games, when a {{w|chainsaw}} (not a circular saw) is used a weapon.
;Shovel
:A {{w|shovel}} is also a historic tool. It can be used to dig into the ground, move snow or dirt, harvest, and much more. Because it has a relatively thin, sharp metal blade at the end of a pole, it can be used as a weapon of opportunity. Indeed, a small (sometimes foldable), sturdy spade was and still is a standard issue item for an infantryman in some countries, intended mainly for entrenching work, but also usable as a weapon — and the soldiers are trained to use it as such, sometimes to a high skill, specifically among special forces. It is rumored that Russian Spetznaz operators are specifically trained to use their spades as throwing weapons.
;Jackhammer
:Like the circular saw a {{w|jackhammer}} is a tool that is powered far beyond single human capabilities. It not only can destroy concrete.
;Socket wrench
:An attached handle to a {{w|socket wrench}} is mostly used to tighten bolts or nuts. But since its socket together with the wrench resembles the physical conditions like a hammer it also could be used similar...
;Bolt cutters
:{{w|Bolt cutters}} are cutters with very long handles, typically 2 or 3 feet long, and comparatively tiny jaws. The length of the handles provides the user enough mechanical advantage to sheer through things like bolts, chain links, and lock shackles. Although this tool can cut some fairly tough objects, its usefulness in combat is limited.
;Hacksaw
:A {{w|hacksaw}} is a type of hand saw with very small teeth. Hacksaws are well suited to cutting materials like metal and plastic, where the larger teeth of a wood saw would tend to bind or damage the material around the cut. Hacksaw blades are fairly unlikely to seriously injure people, though a hacksaw may be useful against metal baddies like Ultron.
;Nail gun
;Staple gun
;Coping saw
;Screwdriver (flat)
;Ball-peen hammer
;Screwdriver (Phillips)
;Awl
;Digital Caliper
:{{w|Digital calipers}} are an instrument for precisely measuring the dimensions of small objects. Typically, digital calipers can measure inner diameters, outer diameters, and depth. The reason they are considered more formidable than Dremels and planes is likely how supprisingly sharp the calipers are. They need to be sharp to make accurate measurements, but it is not uncommon for people to cut themselves while using a digital caliper.
;Dremel
;Plane

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Please check typos. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[A wide image is shown in a single frame.]
:Hand tools Thor could have ended up with
:[Below is a small centered horizontal line with arrows at both ends, labeled "Best" to the left and "Worst" on the right.]

:[The rest of the image shows an other horizontal line in the middle, also with arrows at both ends, covering the full width. Items are marked by a dot with a text above or below, and sometimes a figure wearing a winged helmet, above the line, uses a tool mentioned below:]
:Hammer
:Axe
:Claw hammer
:Circular saw
:[Above, the winged helmet guy uses a circular saw:]
:''Bzzzz zzzz''
:Shovel
:Jackhammer
:Socket wrench
:[Above, the winged helmet guy spins the socket of a socket wrench with a tiny sound.]
:Bolt cutters
:Hacksaw
:Nail gun
:Staple gun
:[Above, the winged helmet guy fires staples into the ground in front of him:]
:''Kachunk kachunk''
:Coping saw
:Screwdriver (flat)
:Ball-peen hammer
:Screwdriver (Phillips)
:Awl
:Digital Caliper
:Dremel
:[Above, the winged helmet guy shows a running Dremel to the left:]
:''Bzzzzz''
:Plane

{{comic discussion}}

Talk:2095: Marsiforming

2019-01-07T15:38:21Z

162.158.92.34:

As it is we are quickly terraforming it to Venus...

Talk:2091: Million, Billion, Trillion

2019-01-03T11:43:58Z

162.158.92.34:

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.

::: Not quite--at least not nowadays. There's a word for "ten-thousand ('man' in Japanese)", so a million is "100 ten-thousands", a 10 million is "1000 ten-thousands", and 100 million goes to the new word "1 hundred-million ('oku' in Japanese)" The scale goes by 10^4, with a new word for 10^8, 10^12, 10^16, etc. though most people won't encounter anything much higher than that. Correspondingly, old Japanese text would put the commas every 4 digits. Modern practice is to put the comma every 3 digits to match Western practice, which actually makes it harder to read in Japanese. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.141.148|172.68.141.148]] 20:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

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

: The "named power-of-two power-of-ten" system you propose already exists, in the form of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/-yllion Donald Knuth's -yllion system]. 10^2 = hundred, 10^4 = myriad, 10^8 = myllion, 10^16 = byllion, 10^32 = tryllion, etc. 10^63 would be written as "ten hundred myriad myllion byllion tryllion", and the next power of 10, 10^64, is one quadryllion. 10^100 (i.e. googol) is one myriad tryllion quadryllion. It's quite efficient, as you point out, and were I to rewrite our number system from scratch, it's the system I would use. Unfortunately, nobody alive grew up with -yllions, so we're stuck with the inefficiency of named multiple-of-three powers-of-ten. Although apparently [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_numerals#Large_numbers some parts of East Asia at some points in time] used a similar system, with specific characters for the -yllions up to 10^4096. I find myself severely disappointed that those characters are now used to represent different (and much smaller) numbers. --[[User:Someone Else 37|Someone Else 37]] ([[User talk:Someone Else 37|talk]]) 01:38, 30 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)

Russian is a weird hybrid of short and long scale. We use milliard like long scale, then trillion like short scale. Not confusing at all :) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.34|162.158.92.34]] 11:43, 3 January 2019 (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)~

Set the first tick on the y-axis to have value 0, and set the last tick to have value 5. Then, the y-values of all the y-axis ticks are 0, 1.0053, 1.9973, 3.0127, 3.9947, and 5, approximately as expected. (The x-axis is at y-value -0.9903.) Now, setting the x-axis as the base-10 logarithm, the points' coordinates are as follows: (6, 0.5388); (7, 2.4800); (8, 3.7672); (9, 1.8009); (10, 3.3622); (11, 4.2860); (12, 3.2495); (13, 4.1125); (14, 4.5939). [[User:LegionMammal978|LegionMammal978]] ([[User talk:LegionMammal978|talk]]) 16:24, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I'd even say that 999,999,999 (especially when worded in full) seems like a way bigger number than 1 billion, despite being one less. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.229.28|108.162.229.28]] 16:42, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

The graph reminded me of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synesthesia#Number_form number-form synaesthesia], which I have. My number shape (and most people's) is different though, and much more curly. [[User:Cosmogoblin|Cosmogoblin]] ([[User talk:Cosmogoblin|talk]]) 17:20, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

The way I keep track of this is to remember that 1 trillion is 1 million millions. So if the US current national debt (counting neither debt by the states nor unfunded future liabilities) is 23 trillion dollars, then you would need a million dollars from 23 million people to pay it off. The US total population is roughly 327 million. So you would need a million dollars from every 14th person (counting adults, children and babies). Considering that there are only 11 million millionaires in the US and only 172 thousand people with net worth over 25 million, we are in deep doo-doo. Clearly, not even the fantasy "tax the rich" is not going to help pay the future. Lack of number appreciation is going to kill us. [[User:Rtanenbaum|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum|talk]]) 22:23, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Many of you may be too young to remember the nuclear reactor incident at Three Mile Island [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_Nuclear_Generating_Station]. There was a news broadcast at the time that stated that radiation of less than 5 rem (Roentgen Equivalent Man) was not considered biologically significant. He then went on to say that measurements at the plant showed 3,000 milli-REM, which was obviously (in his mind) much higher and extremely scary. In case you don't realize it, 3,000 milli-rem is 3 rem. In addition, some style guides recommend that you avoid the words billion and trillion. [https://www.sciencestyle.com.au/billion-trillion-illion Australian scientific style guied.] [[User:BradleyRoss|BradleyRoss]] ([[User talk:BradleyRoss|talk]]) 03:11, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Talk:2079: Alpha Centauri

2018-12-03T12:42:28Z

162.158.92.34:

Possible concept projects he's referencing: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2069_Alpha_Centauri_mission
or
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakthrough_Starshot 
[[Special:Contributions/172.68.65.150|172.68.65.150]] 18:18, 30 November 2018 (UTC) 
: Breakthrough Starshot sounds relevent enough to mention in the article. In 2016 an earth-like planet was discovered orbiting Proxima Centauri, which is the closest star in the universe to our sun. Other destinations are considered for the project, but the plan is to visit this planet. Expected velocity is 37,300 km/s. Estimated departure date is 2036, arriving by 2066. Significant funding exists. But some of the technologies do not quite yet. (for those who don't want to click the link) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.187.25|162.158.187.25]] 21:06, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Alpha century does have 3 stars: Alpha Centauri A (also named Rigil Kentaurus[15]), Alpha Centauri B (also named Toliman), and a small and faint red dwarf (Class M), Alpha Centauri C (also named Proxima Centauri[15])
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_Centauri 
[[Special:Contributions/172.68.65.150|172.68.65.150]] 18:18, 30 November 2018 (UTC) 
I don't know what the (voices off) is complaining about. We only have one star! So Alpha Centauti is an upgrade ;-) [[User:RIIW - Ponder it|RIIW - Ponder it]] ([[User talk:RIIW - Ponder it|talk]]) 18:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
:But if your going to upgrade, go all the way at least. (Definitely not an excuse I use to buy better PC hardware)[[User:Linker|Linker]] ([[User talk:Linker|talk]]) 18:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Check out figure 1 on page 3 of this 2016 study: http://www.ice.csic.es/personal/iribas/Proxima_b/pdf/Proxima_habitability_II.pdf showing how likely the researchers believe there to be oceans on Proxima b. They expect us to be able to determine what's true directly in 10 years when construction of larger telescopes is completed. Most other sources I found in my brief search are very careful to say that we do not know at all whether or not there is water on this nearby exoplanet. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.186.108|162.158.186.108]]

I (on the basis of no astrophysicists training, just being a Civil Engineer) can't help wondering that of the three planets in the Sun's Goldilocks zone* that only one has...
1. a strong enough magnetic field to prevent the solar wind stripping off a light atmosphere, that prevents the water boiling and being blown away.
2. an abnormally big moon**.
3. proven plate tectonics.
4. macro life.

And so that 2 is crucial to 1 and 3 and 3 is crucial to 4 (including 1 of course)

So why we expect liquid water everywhere is a mystery to me.

YMMV and I reserve the right to be (proved) wrong

*apparently according to various things I have read over the decades
**some believe Mars had a bigger moon (magnetic field and oceans) before it's orbit decayed and it collided.

[[User:RIIW - Ponder it|RIIW - Ponder it]] ([[User talk:RIIW - Ponder it|talk]]) 19:43, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Hmm:
4.367 light years / 35 years = 0.12477 light years/year

The above math assumes a constant speed, and requires a speed of ~0.0001c.

Wouldn't the assumed constant speed be about 12% of light-speed instead? 0.12477 light-years/year (cancel the years) = 0.12477 c.

While conventional rockets could not carry enough fuel for an accelerating trip, what about ion propulsion? Low mass ejected at really high speeds for a long time could accelerate the space craft over the entire distance, with a turn-around halfway. 0.0625 g has been achieved by modern ion thrusters. The question is whether you could still carry enough propellant for 35 years. [[User:Nutster|Nutster]] ([[User talk:Nutster|talk]]) 10:54, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
:Ion enigens usually use solar panels for their energy. However, in interstellar space, there is very little light so solar panels are not very efficient. They would first have to come up with an alternative power source to circumvent that problem. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.34|162.158.92.34]] 12:42, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Little do they realize, it's 3 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelin_Guide Michelin stars]. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.210.52|172.69.210.52]] 15:46, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

1933: Santa Facts

2017-12-25T12:32:42Z

162.158.92.34:

{{comic
| number = 1933
| date = December 25, 2017
| title = Santa Facts
| image = santa_facts.png
| titletext = We've gotten him up to 20% milk and cookies through an aggressive public campaign, but that seems to be his dietary limit. Anything above that and he starts developing nutritional deficiencies.
}}

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

This comic provides some dubious "Facts" and "Figures" of the creature known as "Santa." We can see from the drawing this is obviously meant to either be {{w|Santa Claus}} or a parody of Santa Claus.

{| class="wikitable"
!Fact/Feature
!Explanation
|-
|Type: Flying/Psychic
|A reference to Pokémon. The type of a Pokémon describes and determines its abilities (including attacks), affinities, and general nature. In most stories Santa Claus rides a sled pulled by flying reindeer (all other Flying-type Pokémon fly under their own power) and some kind of magical power (usually affiliated with Fairy-type Pokémon but not unheard-of with Psychic-type).
|-
|Plural: "Santa"
|The plural form of 'Santa' conveniently parallels that of 'reindeer.'

In real life, "santa" means "saint" in most {{w|Romance languages}}. However "santa" is not plural in any of these languages (for example, in Portugese the proper plural would be "santos"). Taking "Santa Claus" as a separate noun, the plural would be "Santa Clauses".
|-
|Active warrants: 5
|There is an active warrant for Santa's arrest in 5 jurisdictions, presumably for breaking and entering.
|-
|Lubricated for easy passage down chimneys
|The diagram indicates that Santa's attire is lubricated to ease his traditional method of ingress and egress. This explanation is incomplete, however, as a great many chimneys have cross-sectional area substantially smaller than that of a normal human body, let alone a portly one, as commonly described. The common presence of chimney caps, fireplace dampers, and the like would also impede Santa's passage down a great many chimneys. That said, if we take the classic poem "{{w|A Visit from St. Nicholas}}" into account, the statement is technically true, just "lubricated" with magic rather than physical lubrication.

The entire "lubrication" section is likely a reference to lubricated condoms.
|-
|Vertical Leap: 14 Miles
|A vertical leap of 14 miles (~23 km), ''ignoring air resistance'' would require an initial launch velocity of slightly more than 2180 feet per second (665 m/s), somewhat over twice the speed of sound. Achieving this velocity by means of bending then straightening the legs would require an acceleration of roughly 25,000 G, placing extraordinarily high demands on the strength of the legs. As Santa does not have a particularly aerodynamic shape, air resistance would increase the launch velocity and launch acceleration requirements substantially.
|-
|Sleigh Flag of Convenience: Panama
|The {{w|Flag_of_convenience|Flag of Convenience}} identifies the open registry in which an ocean-going vessel has its registration information. Panama maintains one of the top three open registries. Owners of a vessel may choose to use an open registry to avoid labor or safety regulations of the owner's country. They may also choose such a registry to help obscure ownership of the vessel. Which concern applies in the case of Santa's sleigh is not stated, or (more likely) not known.
|-
|9th in Presidential Line of Succession
|The {{w|United_States_presidential_line_of_succession|Presidential Line of Succession}} specifies the order in which persons may become or act as President of the United States if the incumbent President becomes incapacitated, dies, resigns, or is removed from office. Having Santa as the 9th in that order would place him above the Secretary of Agriculture. An alternative interpretation would hold that Santa '''is''' the present Secretary of Agriculture, Sonny Perdue.

Assuming Sonny Perdue is not Santa Claus, Santa is likely ineligible for the Oval Office, as most origin stories of Santa have him a natural-born citizen of a European country rather than the United States. However Santa might be old enough to qualify under the "citizen at the timeof the adoption of this constitution" clause.
|-
|Not technically an insect — actually an arthropod
|A somewhat common statement about ticks and other arthropods. Santa is apparently not human, but some sort of human-sized and human-mimicking arthropod. A common mistake is the identification of some organism as an insect when it is not. Most such organisms do tend to be arthropods (a slightly more general supertaxon of insects). So, correcting such errors will typically lead to the assertion that the organism in question is a non-insect arthropod. The wording here, though, is awkward in that "actually" implies a contradiction or contrast, but the word "arthropod" on its own does not preclude the possibility of the referent being, more specifically, an insect as well. In any case, such classification is humorous in the case of Santa, since he is traditionally depicted as being a human or elf with magical powers, and does not traditionally display any of the characteristics of an arthropod (such as an exoskeleton). However, because he does indeed seem to lack six appendages, instead seemingly having exactly four, he cannot be an insect - so the assertion is (probably) true in its first half.
|-
|Only known vampire able to enter house without being invited
|Vampires cannot enter dwellings without the occupant of the dwelling inviting them in. Santa must enter houses uninvited to do his job, so if he is a vampire he is the exception to that rule. In traditional vampire folklore, a vampire cannot enter an abode without an invitation from the owner of the same. Santa, however, seems to be able to enter houses even without explicit invitation (although plenty of children do welcome him either via written notes or by their general sentiments). This juxtaposes interestingly with the previous point about his arthropod nature.
|-
|Works with Alexa
|May mean that Alexa (Amazon's virtual assistant) is Santa's colleague, that Santa uses Alexa in his work, or Santa is functionally compatible with Alexa. A common advertisement states that a product is compatible with Amazon's smart device, Alexa. But it could also be a play on the idea or fear that Alexa may be used to spy on people from the privacy of their own homes, much like what is claimed of Santa ("he knows when you're sleeping, [...]").
|-
|Ribbed
| A reference to condoms, which have ridges or ribbing in order to promote pleasurable stimulation during coitus. Of course, this also puns on the fact that, as a humanoid, Santa presumably has a rib cage. (This might directly contradict the claims about his being an arthropod).
|-
|IUCN Red List: Critically endangered
| The [https://www.iucn.org/about International Union for Conservation of Nature] (IUCN) monitors the size and viability of populations of organisms; 'critically endangered' marks a population as being highly susceptible to extinction. Santa, being one (or possibly two, if we include his wife) of a kind and lacking any offspring (and, indeed, likely being incapable of effectively producing any), will most likely be the last member of his population; thus extinction will arrive with his or his wife's death. Note, however, that the presence on the Red List implies that "Santa" is a biological species, not a fantasy, robot, or other non-biological entity. This is consonant with Santa being an arthropod or vampire.
|-
|Diet: 80% Reindeer
|The Title Text states that prior as a result of intervention that the diet is now 20% milk & cookies, implying that previously it was 100% Reindeer.
|-
|Liability Insurance: None
|As a result of his diet (see above), alleged criminal activity (ditto), species ambiguity, and occupation, Santa would find the cost of liability insurance quite high. He instead chooses to 'go bare' and operate without any.
|}

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[An annotated picture of Santa]
:'''Santa'''
:Facts and Figures

:Type: Flying/Psychic
:Plural: "Santa"
:Active Warrants: 5
:Lubricated for easy passage down chimneys
:Vertical leap: 14 Miles
:Sleigh flag of convenience: Panama
:9th in presidential line of succession
:Not technically an insect—actually an arthropod
:Only known vampire able to enter house without being invited
:Works with Alexa
:Ribbed
:IUCN red list: Critically endangered
:Diet: 80% Reindeer
:Liability Insurance: None

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Christmas]]

Talk:what if?

2017-07-08T16:14:21Z

162.158.92.34:

[[Special:Contributions/108.233.66.118|108.233.66.118]] 21:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)so is anybody weirded out by last week's post on the worst thing pressure cookers can do, followed by yesterday's terror attacks using pressure cookers?[[Special:Contributions/108.233.66.118|108.233.66.118]] 21:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Do you want me to remove the articles not in the book, or label the ones IN the book? [[User:MadHaighaHatta|Completely sane (And not Anglo-Saxon)]] ([[User talk:MadHaighaHatta|talk]]) 11:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Do we want to add some references to the different What-If articles? Obviously putting up an explanation would be a bit of a waste since Randall goes into a lot of detail himself on any given subject. Some good things to mention might be the title-text on each image, mentions of recurring themes, and maybe some thought about the original subject mentioned (such as the "Space Oddity" music video that was the subject of a recent article). [[Special:Contributions/76.106.251.87|76.106.251.87]] 17:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

:"What if" is not {{w|Creative Commons}} related, so respect Randall's copyright. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 18:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
::Sorry. Didn't realize that reviewing a creative work fell into copyright issues. No disrespect intended, only ignorance. [[Special:Contributions/76.106.251.87|76.106.251.87]] 19:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

:I agree that "what if?" is not ''clearly'' under CC-BY-NC-2.5, but the link next to the Copyright goes to xkcd itself, which clearly does say it is. [[User:Markhurd|Mark Hurd]] ([[User talk:Markhurd|talk]]) 13:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

::Agreed. What-if appears to fall under the general xkcd copyright- it says "Copyright ©2012-13 xkcd." with the link pointing to general xkcd copyright info. "http://xkcd.com/license.html" also says that "you are free to copy and reuse any of my drawings (noncommercially) as long as you tell people where they're from." which includes what-if drawings, and I'm not sure if just part of a work could be copyrighted without Randall explicitly saying so. I also think it would be a good idea to have articles on the what-ifs for more information not stated in the what-if itself. {{unsigned ip|109.144.146.171}}

:IANAL, so I will leave the copyright issues unaddressed as I respond to the original question in the affirmative: yes, we should have a page for each What-if article. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.63|173.245.55.63]] 15:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

== Logo/Header ==

I'm convinced there is some sort of specific joke in the "What If" logo, but I'm failing to grasp it.
Knowing Randall, there has to be something funny about using a crane to lower a T-rex into the Sarlacc. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.49.90|173.245.49.90]] 11:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

[http://www.nerdist.com/2014/08/exclusive-heres-your-first-look-at-xkcds-what-if/ Nerdist Review] says "Remove the jacket, and you can see how that particular experiment worked out in Munroe’s mind" {{unsigned ip|199.27.128.118}}

== Discussion regarding [http://what-if.xkcd.com/91/ What-if 91] ==

I believe that Randall missed an opportunity to discuss means of harnessing thermal energy. See, original question specified HOT water!
:He has to pay the electric bill. He couldn't make back the energy spent to heat the water due to entropy. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.161|108.162.237.161]] 05:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Shall we forgive him this oversight and carry out some analysis to determine the harness-able energy content of hot water from the bathtub faucet in an average American apartment building?

:TODO: discuss Sterling engines or other strategies here. (That means you! :) )

:I believe that even when you "run out of hot water", the incoming water will still have energy added since the gas or electric water heater will be running non-stop, turning cold water into slightly-less-cold water. Since slightly-less-cold water is still colder than the ambient temperature in the apartment, I'm not sure how to harness the energy added by the water heater... But neither am I sure that "you can't". TODO: Can someone confirm that you can't?

Shall we then turn the dial up a notch, [http://what-if.xkcd.com/35/ What-if 35 style], and imagine how the scenario changes if the apartment building has a water heater that is perfectly capable of keeping the hot faucet piping hot, even if you run it 24/7?

: Suppose the super water heater turns 15C input water (cold) into 50C output water (hot). I think that means that the water heater adds 35 calories (not kilocalories) of energy per milliliter. I played with this expression in Google Calculator "(35/1000) calories per ml * 1 liter / 1 second" and determined that 1. Google uses kilocalories for "calories", thus the /1000 part... and 2. it takes ~150 watts to turn a liter of cold water into a liter of hot water in *one second*.

: Let's stop this for now and see if anyone is interested in participating. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.63|173.245.55.63]] 16:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

::Go here: [http://fora.xkcd.com/viewforum.php?f=60 What If? discussion]. That's a BIG forum to discuss your items. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 23:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

== Discussion area ==

Is there a discussion area for each of the "what-if?" pages? - Eg I'd like to point out that in #111 "All the money", the mouse-over text in the tombstone graphic says "Cash Ruled Everything Around Me" - or C.R.E.A.M. - coincidence? ;) Also, there have been past pages in which there have been items which I would contest some facts/statements, or seek further explanation. [[User:Jarod997|Jarod997]] ([[User talk:Jarod997|talk]]) 13:06, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I would love to see an analysis of the most recent "what-if" - [http://what-if.xkcd.com/120/ What-if #120] as I'm sure each excerpt from an alternate-universe "What-if" column has an interesting background. Surely even if the article isn't Creative Commons some discussion of it is legal. Yes, I see that there is a thread on the forum for discussing this what-if but it is not succinct. [[User:Momerath|Momerath]] ([[User talk:Momerath|talk]]) 05:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Is there a way this could auto-update like the regular part of the Wiki does? (I assume it auto-updates). This entry will never close if we don't do that and other than listing them and linking to them, there is nothing to say. [[User:4jonah|4jonah]] ([[User talk:4jonah|talk]]) 19:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

As Randal stated, He will return posting his "What If?" on Tuesday, July 14th 2015, at 07:49:59 EDT.
I have attached countdown below, to verify it.
Mori.G.
[http://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/generic?iso=20150714T074959&p0=43&fg1=ae7181&fg2=8e82fe&msg=What+if%3F+Returns%21&swk=1 What if? Returning!] {{unsigned ip|141.101.98.60}}

== List of articles ==

I don't have time to do much editing right now, so could someone else go and put the list of articles into a table to make more use of the page's width? Perhaps split it into groups of 20-40 entries in a cell, aligned left-right in chronological order and prefix each entry with the article number. Just an idea. [[User:Pixali|Pixali]] ([[User talk:Pixali|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Pixali|contribs]]) 00:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

== Why isn't there an explanation page for each what if? ==

I love the What If? series, and consider it to be a similar, yet separate, version of the normal comics. There are many things that, while reading the What If?, I was confused, interested, or amused by, and I wanted to read about it on this wiki. Randall puts much effort into these, as well as the normal series, so they deserve some explaining. I have no idea how I'd go about this on my own, and I don't have the time right now to spare. I merely want to (hopefully) get the ball rolling on this, if it isn't already. {{unsigned ip|108.162.221.145}}

== The UK Version of the book. ==

I've edited in the UK version's summary, as I own the book. I will write about the date of the UK book's release too and the foreword. Is there anything else about it that other users think should be added?

== Can we explain this? ==

Can we explain the questions there, or not? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.77|108.162.218.77]] 23:09, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

== No more what ifs ==

Should we include a note that Randall seems to have stopped creating What Ifs? The last one was over a month ago [[User:Mikemk|Mikemk]] ([[User talk:Mikemk|talk]]) 07:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

He might be working on his book ''Thing Explainer''. Xkcd last posted 2 days ago. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.77|108.162.218.77]] 22:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I think that we should conclude that this site is over if there isn't another post by New Years. [[User:Bbruzzo|Bbruzzo]] ([[User talk:Bbruzzo|talk]]) 19:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I think we should just say it's over now. There hasn't been a post in months and ''Thing Explainer'' has been out for quite a while now. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.87|108.162.237.87]] 19:10, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Nope! There is a NEW xkcd what-if today, [http://what-if.xkcd.com/141 Sunbeam]! All may rejoice! [[User:AJMansfield|AJMansfield]] ([[User talk:AJMansfield|talk]]) 16:23, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Sporadic at best. He seems to have stalled again at 150. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.114|108.162.250.114]] 10:12, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Any explanation on the disappearance of the what if #153 "Peptides"? [[Special:Contributions/198.41.242.88|198.41.242.88]] 12:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

They seem on getting more irregular and less frequently, if you can, PLEASE say why, we are all being kept on pins and needles here.[[User:Dontknow|Dontknow]] ([[User talk:Dontknow|talk]]) 05:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

So i guess we are past the previous 16.6 weeks record now? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.34|162.158.92.34]] 16:14, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

795: Conditional Risk

2017-05-15T12:00:44Z

162.158.92.34: /* Explanation */ typo

{{comic
| number = 795
| date = September 20, 2010
| title = Conditional Risk
| image = conditional_risk.png
| titletext = 'Dude, wait -- I'm not American! So my risk is basically zero!'
}}

==Explanation==
The comic deals with the difference between the general probability of a certain event based on history and the probability of the same event in particular circumstances. The chance of any American selected randomly from the general population to be killed by lightning is very low, but part of the reason for this is that an average American would seek shelter and safety when caught in a lightning storm. The joke is that someone armed with this particular statistical knowledge would not take the normal precautions and therefore leave themselves far more vulnerable.

In the title text, since the statistic provided talks only about Americans, the other character wrongly assumes that lightning strikes ''only'' happen to Americans, rather than the data for lightning strikes for other nationalities being simply not included in the discussion. Because of this, as a non-American, he believes his chance of being struck by lightning is nonexistent - which underlines the difference between knowing a certain event can't or didn't happen and not having any data about the event.

The "one in six" statistic is probably invented by the author - which also illuminates the danger of dealing with "statistical data" provided by random sources without any attribution to actual statistical surveys or hard data. And of course, now all xkcd readers know the statistic, likely bringing down the death rate.

==Transcript==
:[Lightning strikes the ground, illuminating trees with a bright white light. Two people are standing near it. One has a walking stick.]
:''CRACK''
:''BOOM''
:First person: Whoa! We should get inside!
:Second person: It's okay! Lightning only kills about 45 Americans a year, so the chances of dying are only one in 7,000,000. Let's go on!

:[Caption below the panel:]
:The annual death rate among people who know that statistic is one in six.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics with inverted brightness]]
[[Category:Statistics]]

Talk:1818: Rayleigh Scattering

2017-03-31T17:40:44Z

162.158.92.34: red-hot air

I keep trying to correct the misspelled joung Girl to Young Girl but it keeps reverting. I corrected the two non-capitalized sentences and they stay put. Does "joung" have a meaning i don't understand? [[User:ExternalMonolog|ExternalMonolog]] ([[User talk:ExternalMonolog|talk]]) 14:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
:There might be conflicting edits, that happens a lot with new comics[[User:Dontknow|Dontknow]] ([[User talk:Dontknow|talk]]) 15:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Question - while I understand the intent of the comic is that overly complicated explanations can be confusing, isn't the title-text analogy incorrect? Doesn't chlorophyll scatter green light and absorbs other colors, whereas with the sky, it's really just different levels of scattering and very little absorbing (hence why a clear sky at dusk can appear red, the sky wasn't absorbing red light, it was just scattering it differently than blue light). Isn't that fundamentally different from the way most other common objects get their perceived color? (ps - I'm not a scientist, just curious, appreciate any feedback)

"Why are leaves green?" "Well, the leaf absorbs most of the colors, but not the green light, which it scatters instead." "Why is my shirt black?" "Well the cloth absorbs most of the colors, but just scatters the black light... wait..." [[User:Andyd273|Andyd273]] ([[User talk:Andyd273|talk]]) 15:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I like to think this is Miss Lenhart, continuing her science teaching in the same vein as in 'Venus'. There's no proof in the comic, but it fits nicely. Potentially something to add as a possibility in the explanation? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.247|162.158.154.247]] 16:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Yesssss <3 I had the exact same thought the first time Rayleigh scattering was explained to me: "isn't that just a specific mechanism of air being blue?" For some reason such explanations majorly tend to insist that the air is not in fact blue, and it has always bothered me. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.111.19|162.158.111.19]] 16:41, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Maybe the explanation should point out that the real reason the planes "stay up" is that the tiny birds are on the '''underside''' of the wings.--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.34|162.158.92.34]] 17:20, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

If air is blue how come a sunset, with LOTS of air, is red? I know the answer but it is the obvious next question with this explanation. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.171|162.158.74.171]] 17:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
:During the day the Sun heats the air. At sunset you see the result of this heating, the air glows red-hot or orange-hot and starts to quickly cool down. You can't see it glowing during the day because of the very bright Sun.--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.34|162.158.92.34]] 17:40, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:1818: Rayleigh Scattering

2017-03-31T17:27:18Z

162.158.92.34:

Talk:1818: Rayleigh Scattering

2017-03-31T17:20:34Z

162.158.92.34: plain plane reason

I keep trying to correct the misspelled joung Girl to Young Girl but it keeps reverting. I corrected the two non-capitalized sentences and they stay put. Does "joung" have a meaning i don't understand? [[User:ExternalMonolog|ExternalMonolog]] ([[User talk:ExternalMonolog|talk]]) 14:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
:There might be conflicting edits, that happens a lot with new comics[[User:Dontknow|Dontknow]] ([[User talk:Dontknow|talk]]) 15:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Question - while I understand the intent of the comic is that overly complicated explanations can be confusing, isn't the title-text analogy incorrect? Doesn't chlorophyll scatter green light and absorbs other colors, whereas with the sky, it's really just different levels of scattering and very little absorbing (hence why a clear sky at dusk can appear red, the sky wasn't absorbing red light, it was just scattering it differently than blue light). Isn't that fundamentally different from the way most other common objects get their perceived color? (ps - I'm not a scientist, just curious, appreciate any feedback)

"Why are leaves green?" "Well, the leaf absorbs most of the colors, but not the green light, which it scatters instead." "Why is my shirt black?" "Well the cloth absorbs most of the colors, but just scatters the black light... wait..." [[User:Andyd273|Andyd273]] ([[User talk:Andyd273|talk]]) 15:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I like to think this is Miss Lenhart, continuing her science teaching in the same vein as in 'Venus'. There's no proof in the comic, but it fits nicely. Potentially something to add as a possibility in the explanation? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.247|162.158.154.247]] 16:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Yesssss <3 I had the exact same thought the first time Rayleigh scattering was explained to me: "isn't that just a specific mechanism of air being blue?" For some reason such explanations majorly tend to insist that the air is not in fact blue, and it has always bothered me. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.111.19|162.158.111.19]] 16:41, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Maybe the explanation should point out that the real reason the planes "stay up" is that the tiny birds are '''under''' the wings.--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.34|162.158.92.34]] 17:20, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:1818: Rayleigh Scattering

2017-03-31T17:13:58Z

162.158.92.34: cleanup

Talk:1813: Vomiting Emoji

2017-03-23T13:29:17Z

162.158.92.34: party goer 5

Did anyone else think of the Akatsuki member Deidara from Naruto when they saw the vomiting hand emoji? [[User:GoonPontoon|GoonPontoon]] ([[User talk:GoonPontoon|talk]]) 17:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC) - Nope, of Ygo from Unspeakable Vault of Doom. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.202.118|162.158.202.118]] 22:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Think of the "vomiting hand" emoji as a response to the "talk to the hand" meme.

The "Vomit Comet" was not a rocket, it was the name of NASA's KC-135 aircraft which simulated weightlessness on parable flights. Given that rockets must be airtight, it is a bit strange that you could vomit out of a rocket.--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.150.82|162.158.150.82]] 22:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
:You must be fun at parties.--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.34|162.158.92.34]] 13:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I wish Randall used a vomiting face vomiting (using the vomiting modifier) or a unicorn puking rainbows (U+1F984 U+1F93F U+1F308 🦄🤢🌈). --[http://windowsfreak.de/ Björn Eberhardt] 08:01, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

For those thinking of making a real proposal, it's not actually needed. You can combine any characters with the special combining character. Originally intended for languages such as arabic, it works with emoji too.--[[User:Henke37|Henke37]] ([[User talk:Henke37|talk]]) 10:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

There seems to be a minor edit war over citing the fact that the Moon is made of rock. I think we should just remove the citation entirely as well as the {{Citation needed}}. Should I go through with this? [[User:RamenChef|RamenChef]] ([[User talk:RamenChef|talk]]) 15:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
:Keep "Citation Needed" -- it's the best laugh I've had all day (and references xkcd #285)
::The emoji is a Man in the Moon vomiting and "he" is made of imagination, not rock. OTOH, the moon has vomited lava in the past, but can AFAIK no longer do so [[User:RIIW - Ponder it|RIIW - Ponder it]] ([[User talk:RIIW - Ponder it|talk]]) 18:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
:::Citation needed ref to [[285]] should only be used when a citation is needed! And of course there should not be one here --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 20:09, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
::::What? No, Citation needed is a joke. Hence why we link to a joke, not to some page about actually needing a citation. The moon being made of rock gets "citation needed" as a joke about it actually being made of green cheese. This is exactly how Randal often uses it. [[User:Trlkly|Trlkly]] ([[User talk:Trlkly|talk]]) 00:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Should the incomplete tag be removed? [[User:Dontknow|Dontknow]] ([[User talk:Dontknow|talk]]) 21:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

;Emoji Madness?
Anyone else think that the whole set needs a complete overhaul as there are seven different co?ours of binder, but no computer mouse or a chop / steak to name a few omissions.

Also the latest iPhone set have Male and Female versions of cowboy, police, guardsman et al. With some of them the difference iis small, but in all of them the female version appears to have her moth open, whereas the male ones do not. Is this sexist? [[User:RIIW - Ponder it|RIIW - Ponder it]] ([[User talk:RIIW - Ponder it|talk]]) 18:58, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

There ''is'' a computer mouse emoji http://emojipedia.org/three-button-mouse/ and "cut of meat" emoji http://emojipedia.org/cut-of-meat/

UNICODE is always accepting ideas for new emoji, as long as you're willing to write up a proposal proving the emoji would be useful: http://unicode.org/emoji/selection.html
--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.102.166|162.158.102.166]] 02:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

;What about proposal? And I'm asking srsly.
Anyone can write and send proposal to Unicode Consortium, and I was thinking - anyone did it actually / gonna do it?
--[[User:Marsjaninzmarsa|Marsjaninzmarsa]] ([[User talk:Marsjaninzmarsa|talk]]) 23:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:1814: Color Pattern

2017-03-23T13:04:35Z

162.158.92.34: haiku repair duty

This link, note 1, may help whomever is going to be editing the comic explanation, I don't have time this morning. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moir%C3%A9_pattern] [[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 13:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Did a quick google and copy/pasted from the Wikipedia page on Moiré patterns. [[User:Xseo|Xseo]] ([[User talk:Xseo|talk]]) 13:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
:This is a copyright infringement. The contents of Wikipedia are not in the {{w|public domain}}. When using text from Wikipedia anywhere, you must indicate the license (CC-BY-SA 3.0).--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.150.82|162.158.150.82]] 13:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
::This is fine. Wikipedia text is licensed for re-use by anybody, provided the original is referenced; Xseo referenced the source material in his comment above, and an explicit link is given in the article; furthermore, this entire website is CC-BY-SA 3.0, as indicated in the footer on every page. [[User:Cosmogoblin|Cosmogoblin]] ([[User talk:Cosmogoblin|talk]]) 15:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I can't be the only one for whom the note emoji are not showing up.
:I don't see them either. I'm running Chrome 48 Portable. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.225|162.158.62.225]] 14:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
::Running Chrome 57, Chromium 53, and Firefox 52; the note emoji doesn't work on any of these (Linux Mint 17.3 64-bit). I wonder why? [[User:Cosmogoblin|Cosmogoblin]] ([[User talk:Cosmogoblin|talk]]) 15:19, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
::: Works for me, Firefox 52. Bring up the menu bar (Alt or F10), "View > Text Encoding > Unicode". If you still don't see the notes, it may be an issue with the font settings. You could try to fiddle with "Tools > Options > Content > Default Font". Instead of using the menu, you can bring up "Options" by entering "about:preferences" in the address bar. If that doesn't work, you need professional help. ;) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.114.106|162.158.114.106]] 06:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
::Chrome 56 for Android, they display for me. [[User:Mikemk|Mikemk]] ([[User talk:Mikemk|talk]]) 10:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

AFAIK moiree patterns would not show up on an image that have been *properly* sampled, such moiree patterns are IIRC a byproduct of poorly sampled digital images. See WP for "aliasing" and "digital sampling" for reference. My two cents... [[User:Todor|Todor]] ([[User talk:Todor|talk]]) 14:31, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
:Good Lord. 24 hours! If any of you guys are actual engineers you should be ashamed of yourselves! I am not an engineer, but I do know a a tiny bit about signal theory, hence the tip. But then again this just shows how cheap shit chinese gizmos proliferate. Quality just cost too much, haha! Just need the looks, not the brainz! Only the zombies loves them BRAINZZZZZ! hurr hurr. [[User:Todor|Todor]] ([[User talk:Todor|talk]]) 19:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
::What are you trying to say with 24 hours. At this moment the comic has been up for 6 hours... If you think the explanation could be improved this is luckily a wiki, so you could just improve instead of rant ;-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 19:55, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

The Dean Martin version, which likely is the only version anyone younger than I has heard goes like this- When the moon hits your eye -
like a bigga pizza pie -
That's amore - -
When the world seems to shine -
like you've had too much wine -
That's amore [[User:ExternalMonolog|ExternalMonolog]] ([[User talk:ExternalMonolog|talk]]) 04:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
: At first I thought Russell was alluding to [[wikipedia:Tom Lehrer|Tom Lehrer's]] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7VQFfusQJk "That's Mathematics"]. :D [[Special:Contributions/162.158.114.106|162.158.114.106]] 06:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

"Amore" is pronounces as /aˈmɔːrɛ/ in Italian. The initial vowel is a clean open "a" and there's no final "ei" but rather a clean open "e". Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_Italian (Not counting I am Italian myself!)

Sorry, I can't help myself, but... If it's swimming in the sea and it's long and slippery, that's a moray [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.150|141.101.107.150]] 07:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
: "When you try write a song, but the rhythm is wrong, that's a pity... (but still witty)" ^_^ [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.180|141.101.107.180]] 10:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
: When it's sometimes quite slow but on average it goes, that's amor...tized
: If your alphabet soup is tied up like a sloop, that's a mored A
: (This nonsense definitely not by [[User:Quantum7|Quantum7]] ([[User talk:Quantum7|talk]]) 10:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC))
: If a diet's your wish, but you can't avoid the dish, that's a moreish [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.150|141.101.107.150]] 12:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:1810: Chat Systems

2017-03-14T12:41:41Z

162.158.92.34: Fixed link for humorous diagram

"Wall (bathroom)" might be a reference to the Spaceballs movie. President Skroob is using the bathroom when he gets a video call from one of his officers. "Ahh! I told you never to call me on this wall! This is an unlisted wall!" [[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.112|172.68.54.112]] 16:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
:Or "Wall (bathroom)" is just a pun on "Wall (Unix)". That would explain why only these two have disambiguation, and not "Telegram" or "Peach". See also how both Walls are next to each other. Shirluban [[Special:Contributions/141.101.88.106|141.101.88.106]] 11:54, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

From the explain section (User: Cosmogoblin): See [https://www.dropbox.com/s/8xpd3iggd47x51q/1810.ods this spreadsheet on Dropbox] for a list of each person in the diagram, as a basis for more complex analysis.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 16:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Man, IRC is not old. I remember using it at college in 1996... Oh, wait.{{unsigned ip|172.68.26.65}}

I'm pretty sure that says '''Wall (Unix)''', not '''Wall (Linux)'''. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.131|162.158.79.131]] 17:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

He left off the chat tab on wikipedia :o){{unsigned ip|172.68.86.100}}

He also left off [https://discordapp.com/ Discord]. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.160|108.162.241.160]] 23:22, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
:He also also left off explain xkcd talkpages. [[User talk:AgentMuffin|~AgentMuffin]]

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Euler_and_Venn_diagrams.svg Humorous diagram comparing Euler and Venn diagrams]--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 18:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

To whom are the individuals unique to some sets talking to? eg those in Apache Request logs, and wall (unix) and wall (bathroom)? I suppose there is no reason to assume anyone is receiving their messages.......[[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.160|108.162.241.160]] 18:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

:I'd assume that the diagram is the ways Randall communicates with people. So the person in the Apache Logs circle would be the only person he is able to reach using this method. Likely meaning that for the really big circles (like email), a person outside the circle doesn't necessarily mean they don't use email; just that Randall doesn't have their address. --(bah, I can't remember my username on here. Old laptop was left logged in) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.109|162.158.154.109]] 20:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

This seems related to #1254, and maybe #1789 as well. Randall really has a problem with his friends' bizarre methods of communicating.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.132.5|172.68.132.5]] 18:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

;Related comics
I've created this new section at the bottom of the explain section. Those references don't explain much but moving it to a trivia section would move this out of sight for the reader. Since many writers like to find such references this chapter groups them all together. Any suggestions? --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 19:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
:Related: #1305 [[User:BMB|BMB]] ([[User talk:BMB|talk]]) 08:01, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

;Transcript
I'm thinking it may be best to do the transcript by listing each person and the circles in which they are present, possibly condensing people in identical circles with the number in parentheses. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.246.82|162.158.246.82]] 22:23, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
:I'm also thinking about this. But the persons are some sticky figures like Cueball and so on; the character itself is unimportant... Important are all the "Chat Systems" and their connections together. That's not easy to transcribe.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 23:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
:: I think the easiest way is to use the "mathematical approach": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_(mathematics) [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 07:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

;XMPP
He forgot Jabber!

Talk:1808: Hacking

2017-03-09T21:52:44Z

162.158.92.34:

Some explanations for title text:
* a list of millions of prime factors: trivial to produce and useless without knowing the problem they're from
* a 0-day Tamagotchi exploit: sounds not very useful, unless modern Tamagotchis [http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39002142 have internet connection]
* and a technique for getting gcc and bash to execute arbitrary code: unlike other applications, these two programs (especially when used together) are specifically created to let user execute arbitrary code{{unsigned ip|141.101.80.106}}
--
Internet connected tamagotchis you say?
http://spritesmods.com/?art=tamasingularity -- [[Special:Contributions/141.101.76.202|141.101.76.202]] 06:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
--

Expanded the details; I know Tamagotchi hacking is a thing, but I'll leave it to someone who actually knows about it to decide whether it's worth mentioning in the page. Also, "a list of millions of prime factors" could just as well be called "a list of millions of prime numbers", which sounds much less important, but I couldn't think of a brief way to mention that. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.78.4|162.158.78.4]] 09:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

The television-show "Zondag met Lubach" (Sunday with Lubach) has prior to the elections in the Netherlands launched the Kamergotchi-app. In this app you have to cuddle and feed your partyleader to keep him/her alive. The party leader is randomly chosen. In the last episode of the show the results from the app were compared with the polls. Surely the CIA and the Russians would like to hack this Tamagotchi-clone. Vince 10:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC){{unsigned ip|141.101.105.174}}

- I think the joke regarding the "millions or prime factors" is that "millions" sounds like a lot, but it is in fact a very small set that can be easily computed, and even more easily downloaded. It is also useless for cracking any modern encryption. Bigprimes.net has a downloadable list of the first 1.4 billion primes; the 1.4 billionth prime (32416190071) is a 40-bit number, which is only useful for factoring 80-bit products at best. The CIA would likely need (and probably do have) at least a trillion primes pre-computed. [[User:Sysin|Sysin]] ([[User talk:Sysin|talk]]) 10:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Say, this was the first header on the WSJ today! [[User:Jacky720|That's right, Jacky720 just signed this]] ([[User talk:Jacky720|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jacky720|contribs]]) 10:54, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the 0 day tamagotchi exploit might be a pun on 0 day exploits as explained above and the fact that tamigotchis use an ingame time mechanic. So a 0 day tamigotchi exploit might allow you to do something special with or to your tamigotchi while it is still and egg. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.2.28|172.68.2.28]] 12:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)-

I think you're actually allowed to have an e-mail address like john dot doe@example.org - but a lot of programs will be greatly confused by it. That is not really a comment on the comic. Also, I once read someone's research which reported that spam list users simply delete obfuscated addresses, and particularly if "spam" appears in the address; for them, if not for the TLAs, to do more is pointless. So by all means set your real address to johnlovespamela@couples.com. Although you may have to change your names and sex. Robert Carnegie rja.carnegie@excite.com.fearless.not!:-) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.108|141.101.107.108]] 15:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

A list of one prime from each of the million most important RSA keys could accurately, if understatedly, be described as "a list of a million prime factors". If people realize what it is it would break the web. So it depends on which primes: the first million, meh; a million random primes; yawn; a million carefully chosen primes, yowza! The last two would not be obviously different unless you did some fairly minimal work. A prime the CIA classifies could be interesting. Or they could be messing with us.--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.21|162.158.62.21]] 15:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I can't resist pointing out that anything that has a speaker also has a microphone. So a network connected tamagotchi, which is presumably capable of playing sounds, could also be used as a bug, despite being a "low-end device" ☺{{unsigned ip|162.158.78.130}}

:I don't think you can turn a speaker into a microphone using only software, you have to reconnect wires. Also the sound card must already have hardware for audio input. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.34|162.158.92.34]] 14:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
::Any speaker can be a microphone too, so "hardware for audio input" is rather loose. It just has to be capable in some way, directly or indirectly, to measure the fluctuations from sound waves striking the speaker.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.78.130|162.158.78.130]] 17:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
:::By hardware for audio input I meant electronic circuits inside the sound card that accept analog input and convert it to a digital signal. If a device is designed just for sound output it might not have the necessary electronics for sound input. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.34|162.158.92.34]] 21:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

:If the device uses a RealTek (Conexant, IDT or other) audio codec chip, malware may silently "retask" the output channel as an input channel (as per Intel High Definition Audio specification) and record sound from normally connected speakers [https://www.wired.com/2016/11/great-now-even-headphones-can-spy/ without any hardware modification]. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.34|162.158.92.34]] 15:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

If the gcc/bash thing was actually a reference to ShellShock or some other real problem, then its inclusion wouldn't be funny... [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.51|162.158.74.51]] 19:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:1808: Hacking

2017-03-09T15:32:55Z

162.158.92.34:

Some explanations for title text:
* a list of millions of prime factors: trivial to produce and useless without knowing the problem they're from
* a 0-day Tamagotchi exploit: sounds not very useful, unless modern Tamagotchis [http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39002142 have internet connection]
* and a technique for getting gcc and bash to execute arbitrary code: unlike other applications, these two programs (especially when used together) are specifically created to let user execute arbitrary code{{unsigned ip|141.101.80.106}}
--
Internet connected tamagotchis you say?
http://spritesmods.com/?art=tamasingularity -- [[Special:Contributions/141.101.76.202|141.101.76.202]] 06:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
--

Expanded the details; I know Tamagotchi hacking is a thing, but I'll leave it to someone who actually knows about it to decide whether it's worth mentioning in the page. Also, "a list of millions of prime factors" could just as well be called "a list of millions of prime numbers", which sounds much less important, but I couldn't think of a brief way to mention that. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.78.4|162.158.78.4]] 09:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

The television-show "Zondag met Lubach" (Sunday with Lubach) has prior to the elections in the Netherlands launched the Kamergotchi-app. In this app you have to cuddle and feed your partyleader to keep him/her alive. The party leader is randomly chosen. In the last episode of the show the results from the app were compared with the polls. Surely the CIA and the Russians would like to hack this Tamagotchi-clone. Vince 10:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC){{unsigned ip|141.101.105.174}}

- I think the joke regarding the "millions or prime factors" is that "millions" sounds like a lot, but it is in fact a very small set that can be easily computed, and even more easily downloaded. It is also useless for cracking any modern encryption. Bigprimes.net has a downloadable list of the first 1.4 billion primes; the 1.4 billionth prime (32416190071) is a 40-bit number, which is only useful for factoring 80-bit products at best. The CIA would likely need (and probably do have) at least a trillion primes pre-computed. [[User:Sysin|Sysin]] ([[User talk:Sysin|talk]]) 10:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Say, this was the first header on the WSJ today! [[User:Jacky720|That's right, Jacky720 just signed this]] ([[User talk:Jacky720|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jacky720|contribs]]) 10:54, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the 0 day tamagotchi exploit might be a pun on 0 day exploits as explained above and the fact that tamigotchis use an ingame time mechanic. So a 0 day tamigotchi exploit might allow you to do something special with or to your tamigotchi while it is still and egg. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.2.28|172.68.2.28]] 12:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)-

I think you're actually allowed to have an e-mail address like john dot doe@example.org - but a lot of programs will be greatly confused by it. That is not really a comment on the comic. Also, I once read someone's research which reported that spam list users simply delete obfuscated addresses, and particularly if "spam" appears in the address; for them, if not for the TLAs, to do more is pointless. So by all means set your real address to johnlovespamela@couples.com. Although you may have to change your names and sex. Robert Carnegie rja.carnegie@excite.com.fearless.not!:-) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.108|141.101.107.108]] 15:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

A list of one prime from each of the million most important RSA keys could accurately, if understatedly, be described as "a list of a million prime factors". If people realize what it is it would break the web. So it depends on which primes: the first million, meh; a million random primes; yawn; a million carefully chosen primes, yowza! The last two would not be obviously different unless you did some fairly minimal work. A prime the CIA classifies could be interesting. Or they could be messing with us.--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.21|162.158.62.21]] 15:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I can't resist pointing out that anything that has a speaker also has a microphone. So a network connected tamagotchi, which is presumably capable of playing sounds, could also be used as a bug, despite being a "low-end device" ☺{{unsigned ip|162.158.78.130}}

:I don't think you can turn a speaker into a microphone using only software, you have to reconnect wires. Also the sound card must already have hardware for audio input. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.34|162.158.92.34]] 14:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

:If the device uses a RealTek (Conexant, IDT or other) audio codec chip, malware may silently "retask" the output channel as an input channel (as per Intel High Definition Audio specification) and record sound from normally connected speakers [https://www.wired.com/2016/11/great-now-even-headphones-can-spy/ without any hardware modification]. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.34|162.158.92.34]] 15:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

If the gcc/bash thing was actually a reference to ShellShock or some other real problem, then its inclusion wouldn't be funny... [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.51|162.158.74.51]] 19:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:1808: Hacking

2017-03-09T15:16:32Z

162.158.92.34:

Some explanations for title text:
* a list of millions of prime factors: trivial to produce and useless without knowing the problem they're from
* a 0-day Tamagotchi exploit: sounds not very useful, unless modern Tamagotchis [http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39002142 have internet connection]
* and a technique for getting gcc and bash to execute arbitrary code: unlike other applications, these two programs (especially when used together) are specifically created to let user execute arbitrary code{{unsigned ip|141.101.80.106}}
--
Internet connected tamagotchis you say?
http://spritesmods.com/?art=tamasingularity -- [[Special:Contributions/141.101.76.202|141.101.76.202]] 06:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
--

Expanded the details; I know Tamagotchi hacking is a thing, but I'll leave it to someone who actually knows about it to decide whether it's worth mentioning in the page. Also, "a list of millions of prime factors" could just as well be called "a list of millions of prime numbers", which sounds much less important, but I couldn't think of a brief way to mention that. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.78.4|162.158.78.4]] 09:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

The television-show "Zondag met Lubach" (Sunday with Lubach) has prior to the elections in the Netherlands launched the Kamergotchi-app. In this app you have to cuddle and feed your partyleader to keep him/her alive. The party leader is randomly chosen. In the last episode of the show the results from the app were compared with the polls. Surely the CIA and the Russians would like to hack this Tamagotchi-clone. Vince 10:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC){{unsigned ip|141.101.105.174}}

- I think the joke regarding the "millions or prime factors" is that "millions" sounds like a lot, but it is in fact a very small set that can be easily computed, and even more easily downloaded. It is also useless for cracking any modern encryption. Bigprimes.net has a downloadable list of the first 1.4 billion primes; the 1.4 billionth prime (32416190071) is a 40-bit number, which is only useful for factoring 80-bit products at best. The CIA would likely need (and probably do have) at least a trillion primes pre-computed. [[User:Sysin|Sysin]] ([[User talk:Sysin|talk]]) 10:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Say, this was the first header on the WSJ today! [[User:Jacky720|That's right, Jacky720 just signed this]] ([[User talk:Jacky720|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jacky720|contribs]]) 10:54, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the 0 day tamagotchi exploit might be a pun on 0 day exploits as explained above and the fact that tamigotchis use an ingame time mechanic. So a 0 day tamigotchi exploit might allow you to do something special with or to your tamigotchi while it is still and egg. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.2.28|172.68.2.28]] 12:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)-

I think you're actually allowed to have an e-mail address like john dot doe@example.org - but a lot of programs will be greatly confused by it. That is not really a comment on the comic. Also, I once read someone's research which reported that spam list users simply delete obfuscated addresses, and particularly if "spam" appears in the address; for them, if not for the TLAs, to do more is pointless. So by all means set your real address to johnlovespamela@couples.com. Although you may have to change your names and sex. Robert Carnegie rja.carnegie@excite.com.fearless.not!:-) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.108|141.101.107.108]] 15:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

A list of one prime from each of the million most important RSA keys could accurately, if understatedly, be described as "a list of a million prime factors". If people realize what it is it would break the web. So it depends on which primes: the first million, meh; a million random primes; yawn; a million carefully chosen primes, yowza! The last two would not be obviously different unless you did some fairly minimal work. A prime the CIA classifies could be interesting. Or they could be messing with us.--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.21|162.158.62.21]] 15:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I can't resist pointing out that anything that has a speaker also has a microphone. So a network connected tamagotchi, which is presumably capable of playing sounds, could also be used as a bug, despite being a "low-end device" ☺{{unsigned ip|162.158.78.130}}

:I don't think you can turn a speaker into a microphone using only software, you have to reconnect wires. Also the sound card must already have hardware for audio input. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.34|162.158.92.34]] 14:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

:If the device uses a RealTek (and maybe others) audio codec chip, malware may silently "retask" the output channel as an input channel and record sound from normally connected speakers [https://www.wired.com/2016/11/great-now-even-headphones-can-spy/ without any hardware modification]. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.34|162.158.92.34]] 15:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

If the gcc/bash thing was actually a reference to ShellShock or some other real problem, then its inclusion wouldn't be funny... [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.51|162.158.74.51]] 19:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:1808: Hacking

2017-03-09T14:59:36Z

162.158.92.34:

Some explanations for title text:
* a list of millions of prime factors: trivial to produce and useless without knowing the problem they're from
* a 0-day Tamagotchi exploit: sounds not very useful, unless modern Tamagotchis [http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39002142 have internet connection]
* and a technique for getting gcc and bash to execute arbitrary code: unlike other applications, these two programs (especially when used together) are specifically created to let user execute arbitrary code{{unsigned ip|141.101.80.106}}
--
Internet connected tamagotchis you say?
http://spritesmods.com/?art=tamasingularity -- [[Special:Contributions/141.101.76.202|141.101.76.202]] 06:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
--

Expanded the details; I know Tamagotchi hacking is a thing, but I'll leave it to someone who actually knows about it to decide whether it's worth mentioning in the page. Also, "a list of millions of prime factors" could just as well be called "a list of millions of prime numbers", which sounds much less important, but I couldn't think of a brief way to mention that. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.78.4|162.158.78.4]] 09:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

The television-show "Zondag met Lubach" (Sunday with Lubach) has prior to the elections in the Netherlands launched the Kamergotchi-app. In this app you have to cuddle and feed your partyleader to keep him/her alive. The party leader is randomly chosen. In the last episode of the show the results from the app were compared with the polls. Surely the CIA and the Russians would like to hack this Tamagotchi-clone. Vince 10:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC){{unsigned ip|141.101.105.174}}

- I think the joke regarding the "millions or prime factors" is that "millions" sounds like a lot, but it is in fact a very small set that can be easily computed, and even more easily downloaded. It is also useless for cracking any modern encryption. Bigprimes.net has a downloadable list of the first 1.4 billion primes; the 1.4 billionth prime (32416190071) is a 40-bit number, which is only useful for factoring 80-bit products at best. The CIA would likely need (and probably do have) at least a trillion primes pre-computed. [[User:Sysin|Sysin]] ([[User talk:Sysin|talk]]) 10:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Say, this was the first header on the WSJ today! [[User:Jacky720|That's right, Jacky720 just signed this]] ([[User talk:Jacky720|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jacky720|contribs]]) 10:54, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the 0 day tamagotchi exploit might be a pun on 0 day exploits as explained above and the fact that tamigotchis use an ingame time mechanic. So a 0 day tamigotchi exploit might allow you to do something special with or to your tamigotchi while it is still and egg. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.2.28|172.68.2.28]] 12:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)-

I think you're actually allowed to have an e-mail address like john dot doe@example.org - but a lot of programs will be greatly confused by it. That is not really a comment on the comic. Also, I once read someone's research which reported that spam list users simply delete obfuscated addresses, and particularly if "spam" appears in the address; for them, if not for the TLAs, to do more is pointless. So by all means set your real address to johnlovespamela@couples.com. Although you may have to change your names and sex. Robert Carnegie rja.carnegie@excite.com.fearless.not!:-) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.108|141.101.107.108]] 15:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

A list of one prime from each of the million most important RSA keys could accurately, if understatedly, be described as "a list of a million prime factors". If people realize what it is it would break the web. So it depends on which primes: the first million, meh; a million random primes; yawn; a million carefully chosen primes, yowza! The last two would not be obviously different unless you did some fairly minimal work. A prime the CIA classifies could be interesting. Or they could be messing with us.--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.21|162.158.62.21]] 15:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I can't resist pointing out that anything that has a speaker also has a microphone. So a network connected tamagotchi, which is presumably capable of playing sounds, could also be used as a bug, despite being a "low-end device" ☺{{unsigned ip|162.158.78.130}}

:I don't think you can turn a speaker into a microphone using only software, you have to reconnect wires. Also the sound card must already have hardware for audio input. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.34|162.158.92.34]] 14:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

If the gcc/bash thing was actually a reference to ShellShock or some other real problem, then its inclusion wouldn't be funny... [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.51|162.158.74.51]] 19:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

1808: Hacking

2017-03-09T14:41:51Z

162.158.92.34: added link to arstechnica article about trapdoored/weakened primes

{{comic
| number = 1808
| date = March 8, 2017
| title = Hacking
| image = hacking.png
| titletext = The dump also contains a list of millions of prime factors, a 0-day Tamagotchi exploit, and a technique for getting gcc and bash to execute arbitrary code.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|The main joke from the caption, that this is not dramatic revelation, like Cueball seems to think (sarcasm?) is not mentioned yet.}}
This comic is referencing an incident on the day before this comic was released, March 7, 2017, in which {{w|WikiLeaks}} exposed thousands of hacking exploits (thus the title) and programs from the CIA (see for instance this article: [https://www.wired.com/2017/03/wikileaks-cia-hacks-dump/ WikiLeaks Just Dumped a Mega-Trove of CIA Hacking Secrets]). Many of the tools that were in the leak were similar to publicly available tools, or not entirely unexpected, with several coming from sites such as StackOverflow and Reddit.

The main joke in this comic refers to the common practice of adding spaces between parts of an email address when publishing them on websites. For example, "john.doe@example.org" may be written as "john dot doe at example dot org". The purported goal of doing this is to thwart page scraping bots from harvesting the correct email addresses and prevent them from becoming the target of spam or being sold as address lists for email marketers. In this comic, [[Ponytail]] tells [[Cueball]] that there is a tool which can delete such spaces. Such a tool can fix the space and most likely convert the words "dot" and "at" into their respective symbols. This will overcome the problems faced by harvesting tools, and make these email addresses more prone to receive spam. Cueball appears shocked to hear this news, but given the caption below this is likely sarcasm by [[Randall]]. In fact, it is quite simple to devise a program which detects and converts/removes such spaces; it's naive to believe that one can prevent their address from being harvested just by writing their address in a slightly weird way.

The title text describes other fictitious "hacking" exploits which sound more interesting, but are still useless:
* Millions of prime factors: The security of the {{w|RSA (cryptosystem)|RSA cipher}} relies on the difficulty of finding prime factors for a large number. Successfully calculating or stealing a prime factor used in a RSA cipher would allow an attacker to decrypt messages and impersonate the true user. However, this description doesn't specify whether those "millions of prime factors" were actually used in any ciphers. Random prime factors are very easy to find but the chances of one matching a number used in a cipher is almost nonexistent. Thus simply possessing a list of many prime factors would not necessarily be useful at all. That said, some key generation systems have been shown to re-use prime factors with catastrophic impacts [https://eprint.iacr.org/2012/064.pdf 1] [https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/961.pdf 2] [https://arstechnica.com/security/2016/10/how-the-nsa-could-put-undetectable-trapdoors-in-millions-of-crypto-keys/ 3] so this could be a reference to a list of known shared primes.
* A 0-day exploit for {{w|Tamagotchi}}: A 0-day exploit is an exploit of which the manufacturer is not (yet) aware. 0-days are very valuable to hackers since defenses against them have not yet been developed, which makes it easy to catch victims off-guard. However, an exploit for a Tamagotchi is likely useless because they are very low-end entertainment devices that do not contain microphones or cameras, and usually don't have access to any valuable information that can be stolen. Modern Tamagotchi devices do have some network functionality, and so may be turned into a botnet.
* A way to get {{w|GNU_Compiler_Collection|gcc}} and {{w|Bash_(Unix_shell)|bash}} to execute arbitrary code: Unintentional execution of arbitrary code is serious vulnerability that allows attackers to do whatever they choose on a victim's computer. However the examples given here merely describe the intended purpose of the tools: gcc is a {{w|compiler}}, so preparing arbitrary code is its main purpose, and bash is a Unix shell, so executing {{w|Shell script|arbitrary code}} is one of its primary functions. These tools are typically isolated from any attack surface that hackers can access, and utilizing these tools for their intended purpose can't reasonably be called "hacking". Then again, this could be a reference to {{w|Shellshock_(software_bug)|ShellShock}}, a major vulnerability which allowed the unintentional execution of arbitrary attacker code. Likewise, it could be referring to a [http://wiki.c2.com/?TheKenThompsonHack compiler injection attack] which allows a compiler to inject backdoors via the binary executables in a toolchain and without leaving a trace in the source code being compiled or the compiler itself.

Actually... arbitrary code execution in gcc would be rather severe. gcc is expected to prepare executables for execution, _not_ run them, and some people (Intel compile robot listening on linux kernel mailing list) automatically compile code other people post. Arbitrary code execution in bash would be less severe, but still worth fixing.

==Transcript==
:[Ponytail is writing on her laptop at her desk while Cueball looks over her shoulder.]
:Ponytail: You know how sometimes people put a space in their email address to make it harder to harvest?
:Cueball: Yeah?
:Ponytail: ''They have a tool that can delete the space!''
:Cueball: Oh my god.

:[Caption below the panel:]
:Less-dramatic revelations from the CIA hacking dump

==Trivia==
*This is the second comic in a row about how computers can be misused and also the second in a row where Cueball is with Ponytail rather than [[Megan]].
**This setup with Ponytail at the computer and Cueball behind has been used several times for instance in [[1513: Code Quality]], part of the [[:Category:Code Quality|Code Quality]] series.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Computers]]
[[Category:Cryptography]]