explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

3027: Exclusion Principle

2024-12-23T20:29:40Z

172.68.23.81: /* Explanation */ no point anthropomorphizing

{{comic
| number = 3027
| date = December 20, 2024
| title = Exclusion Principle
| image = exclusion_principle_2x.png
| imagesize = 264x336px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Fermions are weird about each other in a standoffish way. Integer-spin particles are weird about each other in a 'stand uncomfortably close while talking' kind of way.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a COLLIDING ATOM. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
In this comic, [[Randall]] lists the four {{w|fundamental forces}} of physics—{{w|gravity}}, {{w|electromagnetism}}, the {{w|weak interaction}}, and the {{w|strong interaction}}—then humorously adds a fifth force called "Electrons are weird about each other." This is a nod to how electrons cannot occupy exactly the same quantum state. The principle that underlies this is the {{w|Pauli exclusion principle}} (also covered in [[658: Orbitals]]), which says that no two electrons can have the same set of quantum numbers. The idea behind Pauli exclusion isn't really a conventional "force" like gravity or electromagnetism. Instead, it's a result of the fundamental quantum mechanical rules governing {{w|fermions}}, a class of particles that includes electrons. When combined with electromagnetism, it makes electrons repel each other more than mere electric charge would predict on its own.

This phenomenon is sometimes described via the {{w|exchange interaction}}, which can be tricky to explain to non-experts. Randall's joke is that physicists, frustrated with explaining the subtleties of quantum mechanics, have simply decided to create a "fifth force" to cover the weirdness of electrons. In reality, scientists cannot just invent new forces to patch up confusing behavior; they strive for genuine descriptions of how nature behaves, rather than rewriting the rules.

In the title text, Randall expands the idea from electrons to all fermions, which have half-integer {{w|Spin (physics)|quantum spin}} and obey the Pauli exclusion principle, and contrasts them with {{w|bosons}}, which have integer spin and can share the same space. He humorously likens fermions to people standing standoffishly far apart, while bosons are like those who stand uncomfortably close while talking—an imaginative analogy for the fundamental differences in their behaviors.

==Transcript==
:[Inside the panel, there is an underlined header and a numbered list, with the fifth and last item in red:]
:<u>Fundamental Forces</u>
:1. Gravity <br>
:2. Electromagnetism <br>
:3. The Weak Interaction <br>
:4. The Strong Interaction <br>
:<span style="color:red">''5. Electrons are weird about each other''</span>

:[Caption below the panel:]
:Big news: Physicists have finally given up trying to explain about the "exchange interaction" and agreed to just make the exclusion principle a force.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Comics with red annotations]]
[[Category:Physics]]

Talk:3026: Linear Sort

2024-12-23T18:07:11Z

172.68.23.81: r

First in linear time![[User:Mr. I|Mr. I]] ([[User talk:Mr. I|talk]]) 13:28, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Due to the fact that O(nlog(n)) outgrows O(n), the Linear Sort is not actually linear. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.174.227|162.158.174.227]] 14:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:If your sleep() function can handle negative arguments "correctly", then I guess it could work. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.91|162.158.91.91]] 16:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::Yes, on a machine where sleep() allowed negative values (somewhat similarly but more limited than [https://esolangs.org/wiki/TwoDucks TwoDucks]), the algorithm would take linear time regardless of the used constant in place of 1e6. Also, with a smaller constant, the so-called linear optimization is not completely dissimilar to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radix_sort Radix sort], which has time-complexity of O(mn), where m is the bitlength of the item, which becomes linear for any item of limited bitlength (such as int64_t). In school we were taught that this is effectively linear, but that is deceptive, since the actual sort time grows to log(n) by virtue of requiring longer memory per item to fit more items in such a list, because a radix sort of 16 bit integers would be limited to useful lists of up to 65536 unique values to sort, and you'd need to grow them to 32 bit integers. If the sleep constant was chosen precisely to match the worst case [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timosrt Timsort] would take - and I pick timsort because in addition to having O(n) best case, equal items won't be swapped or take time for such swaps - the time complexity deception would be identical to that of Radix sort: The algorithm would be linear, but only until you exceed e^(sleeping steps) unique items in the list (same as radix sort, although radix sort becomes unusable, and LinearSort() only becomes slower), and the time wasted is comparable as it in both cases bounded by a number proportional to the bitlength of the (longest) value, which is usually larger than log(n'), and never smaller, if n' are the number of distinct values. So, in some ways, 1e6 is corresponding to m in a radix sort. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.190.145|172.68.190.145]] 12:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:It relies on 1 second being long enough to outcompete the maximum input length provided. The joke is that most sort operations that take an entire second or more are considered too slow to be worth doing. 02:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

That was fast... [[User:CalibansCreations|'''<span style="color:#ff0000;">Caliban</span>''']] ([[User talk:CalibansCreations|talk]]) 15:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Do I even want to know what Randall's thinking nowadays? [[User:Definitely Bill Cipher|⯅A dream demon⯅]] ([[User talk:Definitely Bill Cipher|talk]]) 16:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:Does anyone every want to know what Randall is thinking nowadays? :P [[Special:Contributions/198.41.227.177|198.41.227.177]] 22:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

The title text would be more correct if Randall used e.g. Timsort instead of Mergesort. They both have the same worst-case complexity O(n*log(n)), but the former is linear if the list was already in order, so best-case complexity is O(n). Mergesort COULD also be implemented this way, but its standard version is never linear. [[User:Bebidek|Bebidek]] ([[User talk:Bebidek|talk]]) 16:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

According to my estimates extrapolated from timing the sorting of 10 million random numbers on my computer, the break-even point where the algorithm becomes worse than linear is beyond the expected heat death of the universe. I did neglect the question of where to store the input array. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.35|162.158.154.35]] 16:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:If the numbers being sorted are unique, each would need a fair number of bits to store. (Fair meaning that the time to do the comparison would be non-negligible.) If they aren't, you can just bucket-sort them in linear time. Since we're assuming absurdly large memory capacity. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.186.253|162.158.186.253]] 17:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

What system was the person writing the description using where Sleep(n) takes a parameter in whole seconds rather than the usual milliseconds? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.216.162|172.70.216.162]] 17:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
: First, I don't recognize the language, but sleep() takes seconds for python, C (et. al.), and no doubt many others. Second, the units don't have to be seconds, they just have to be whatever `TIME()` returns, and multiplicable by 1e6 to yield a "big enough" delay. Of course, no coefficient is big enough for this to actually be linear in theory for any size list, so who cares? To be truly accurate, sleep for `e^LENGTH(LIST)`, and it really won't much matter what the units are, as long as they're big enough for `SLEEP(e)` to exceed the difference in the time it takes to sort two items versus one item. Use a language-dependent coefficient as needed. [[User:Jlearman|Jlearman]] ([[User talk:Jlearman|talk]]) 18:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
: Usual where, is that the Windows API? The sleep function in the POSIX standard takes seconds. See https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man3/sleep.3.html . [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.194|162.158.62.194]] 18:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

If I had a nickel for every time I saw an O(n) sorting algorithm using "sleep"… But this one is actually different. The one I usually see feeds the to-be-sorted value into the sleep function, so it schedules "10" to be printed in 10 seconds, then schedules "3" to be printed in 3 seconds, etc., which would theoretically be linear time, if the sleep function was magic. [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 17:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

This comic also critiques/points out the pitfalls of measuring time complexity using Big-O notation, such as an algorithm or solution that runs in linear time still being too slow for its intended use case. [[User:Sophon|Sophon]] ([[User talk:Sophon|talk]]) 17:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Current text is incorrect, but I'm not sure how best to express the correction -- there <b>do</b> exist O(n) sorting algorithms, they're just not general-purpose, since they don't work with an arbitrary comparison function. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counting_sort counting sort]. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.134.151|172.69.134.151]] 18:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi! I'm just gonna say this before everyone leaves and goes on their merry way. Significant comic numbers coming soon:
Comics 3100, 3200, 3300, etc, Comic 3094 (The total number of frames in 'time'), Comic 4000, Comic Whatever the next April fools day comic will be, and Comic 4096. Wait for it...[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]] ([[User talk:DollarStoreBa'al|talk]]) 20:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:Comic 3141.592654[[Special:Contributions/172.70.163.144|172.70.163.144]] 09:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

As everyone observed, the stated algorithm is not theoretically linear, but only practically linear (in that the time and space to detect O(n log n) exceeds reasonable (time, space) bounds for this universe). Munroe's solution is much deeper than that though - it trivially generalises to a _constant_ O(1) bound. [run a sort algorithm, wait 20 years, give the answer]. That's the preferred way of repaying loans, too. {{unsigned ip|172.69.195.27|21:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)}}

Continues comic 3017's theme of worst-case optimization. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.207.115|172.70.207.115]] 00:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

It looks as though this function does not actually do the sort in Linear Time, it only returns in Linear Time.
The MERGESORT Function itself looks to only take one parameter and does not have an obvious return value indicating that it performs an in-place sort on the input mutable list.
This means that the list is sorted at the speed of the MERGESORT function, but flow control is only returned after Linear Time.
For a single threaded program calling this function there is no practical difference, but it would make a difference if some other thread was concurrently querying the list.
A clearer linear time sort might look like this:

function LinearSort(list):
StartTime=Time()
SortedList=MergeSort(list)
Sleep(1e6*length(list)-(Time()-StartTime))
return SortedList

Leon {{unsigned ip|172.70.162.70|17:31, 19 December 2024}}
:There's such a thing as pass-by-reference, variously implemented depending upon the actual programming language used. It's even possible to accept both ''list'' (non-reference, to force a return of ''sorted_list'') and ''listRef'' (returns nothing, or perhaps a result such as ''number_of_shuffles made''), for added usefulness, though of course that'd need even more pseudocode to describe. For the above/comic pseudocode, it's not so arbitrary that a programmer shouldn't know how to implement it in their instance.
:I might even set about to do something like use a SetStartTime() and CheckElapsedTime() funtion, if there's possible use; the former making a persistant (private variable) note of what =Time() it is, perhaps to an arbitrary record scoped to any parameterID it is supplied, and the latter returning the 'now' time minus the stored (default or explicitly IDed) moment of record. I could then have freely pseudocoded the extant outline in even briefer format, on the understanding what these two poke/peek functions are. Which is already left open to the imagination for MergeSort(). [[Special:Contributions/172.69.43.182|172.69.43.182]] 18:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

There are situations where you want to return in O(1) time or some other time that is not dependent on the input data to prevent side-channel data leaks. While the run-time of Randall's "O(n)" algorithm has an obvious dependencies on the input data, using the "Randall Algorithm" to obscure a different algorithm can reduce the side-channel opportunities. A more sure-fire way would be to have the algorithm return in precisely i seconds, where i is the number of seconds between now and the heat death of the universe. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.167.89|172.71.167.89]] 17:49, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

;Please write an explanation for non-programmers!
I don't understand this explainxkcd. The comic itself was less confusing. Can please someone who really gets this stuff write a section of the explanation that explains the joke to people like me who do not have a theoretical programming degree? I know that is a tall task but right now it reads as rambling and a bunch of 0(n) that makes no sense to me. I can cut and paste a bash script together and make it work. I can understand that putting a sleep for a million seconds in a loop somewhere makes it slow. But a layperson explanation of what makes a sort linear, what is linear, what is funny about that approach, would be better than all the arguing about 0(n) because we don't get it. Thanks in advance! You folks are awesome! [[Special:Contributions/172.71.147.210|172.71.147.210]] 20:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:Maybe this would be a good start:
::--cut here--
::An algorithm is a step-by-step way of doing things.
::A sorting algorithm is a step-by-step way to sort things.
::There are several commonly used sorting algorithms. Some have very little "overhead" (think: set-up time or requiring lots of extra memory) or what I call "molassas" (yes, I just made that up) (think "taking a long time or lots of extra memory for each step") but they really bog down if you have a lot of things that need sorting. These are better if you have a small list of items to sort.

::Others have more "overhead" or "molasses" but don't bog down as much when you have a lot of things that need sorting. These are better if you have a lot of things to sort.

::A linear sorting algorithm would take twice as long to sort twice as many unsorted items. If it took 100 seconds to sort 100 items, then it would take 200 seconds to sort 200, 300 seconds to sort 300, and so on. Algorithms that take "twice as long to do twice as much" are said to run in "Order(n)" or "O(n)" time, where "n" is the number of items they are working on, or in the case of a sorting algorithm, the number of items to be sorted.

::For traditional sorting algorithms that don't use "parallel processing" (that is, they don't do more than one thing in any given moment), a linear sorting algorithm with very little "overhead" or "molasses" would be the "holy grail" of sorting algorithms. For example, a hypothetical linear sorting algorithm that took 1/1000th of a second to "set things up" (low "overhead") and an additional 1 second to sort 1,000,000 numbers (not much "molasses") would be able to sort 2,000,000 numbers in just over 2 seconds, 10,000,000 numbers in just over 10 seconds, and 3,600,000,000 numbers in a hair over an hour.

::The reality is that there is no such thing as a general-purpose linear sorting algorithm that has very little overhead (in both time and memory) and very little "molasses." All practical general-purpose sorting algorithms either use parallel processing, they have a lot of overhead (set-up time or uses lots of memory), a lot of "molasses" (takes a long time or uses lots of memory for EACH item in the list) or they are "slower than linear," which means they bog down when you give them a huge list of things to sort. For example, let's say the "mergesort" in Randall's algorithm doesn't have much "overhead" or "molasses" and it sorts 1,000,000 items in 1 second. It's time is "O(nlog(n))" which is a fancy way of saying if you double the number, you'll more than double the time. This means sorting 2,000,000 items will take more than 2 seconds, and sorting 4,000,000 items will take more than twice as long as it takes to sort 2,000,000. Eventually all of those "more than's" add up and things slow to a crawl.

::The joke is that Randall "pretends" to be the "holy grail" by being a linear sorting algorithm, but he has lots of "molasses" because his linear sorting algorithm takes 1 million seconds for each item in the list, compared to the 1,000,000 items per second in the hypothetical "linear sorting algorithm" I proposed.

::As others in the discussion point out, Randall's "algorithm" is "busted" (breaks, doesn't work, gives undefined results) if the mergesort (which is a very fast sort if you have a large list if items) is sorting a list so big that it takes over 1 million seconds per item to sort anyways. I'll spare you the math, but if the mergesort part of Randall's "algorithm" could do 1,000,000 numbers in 1 second with a 1/1000th of a second to "set things up," it would take a huge list to get it to "bust" Randall's "algorithm."
::--cut here--
:[[Special:Contributions/162.158.174.202|162.158.174.202]] 21:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

:Layman's guide to O(n) time, second try:
::--cut here--
::First, "O" is "Order of" as in "order of magnitude." It's far from exact.
::O(1) is "constant time" - the time it takes me to give you a bag that contains 5000 $1 bills doesn't depend on how many bills there are in the bag. It would take the same amount of time if the bag had only 500, 50, or even 5 bills in it.
::O(log(n)) is "logarithmic time" - the time is the time it takes me to write down how many bills are in the bag. If it's 5000, I have to write down 4 digits, if it's 500, 3, if it's 50, 2, if it's 5, only 1.
::O(n) is "linear time" - the time it takes me to count out each bill in the bag depends on how many bills there are. It takes a fixed amount of time to count each bill. If there's 5000 $1 bills it may take me 5000 seconds to count them. If there's 500 $1 bills, it will take me only 500 seconds.
::O(nlog(n)) is "linear times logarithmic time" - the time it takes me to sort a pre-filled bag of money by serial number using a good general-purpose sorting algorithm (most good general-purpose sorting algorithms are O(nlog(n)) time). If it takes me 2 seconds to sort two $1 bills, it will take me about 3 or 4 times 5000 seconds to sort 5000 $1 bills. The "3 or 4" is very approximate, the important thing is that "logarithm of n" (in this case, logarithm of 5000) is big enough to make a difference (by a factor of 3 or 4 in this case) but far less than "n" (in this case, 5000).
::O(n<sup>2</sup>) is "n squared" time, which is a special case of "polynomial time." "Polynomial time" includes things like O(n<sup>3</sup>) and O(n<sup>1,000,000</sup>). Many algorithms including many "naive" sorting algorithms are in this category. If I used a "naive" sorting algorithm to sort 5000 $1 bills by serial number, instead of it taking about 15,000-20,000 seconds, it would take about 5,000 times 5,000 seconds. I don't know about you, but I've got better things to do with 25,000,000 seconds than sort paper money.
::It gets worse (O(2<sup>n</sup>) anyone? No thanks!), but you wanted to keep it simple.
:[[Special:Contributions/198.41.227.177|198.41.227.177]] 23:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::Personally, I've got better things to do than sort dollar bills, full stop.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.130|172.70.91.130]] 09:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:: O() notations is about behavior with large values, not small values. Try the "handing a bag of bills" algorithm with a few million dollar bills. You're going to need a forklift. Getting a forklift is not, in practice, instantaneous. Big N notation is almost always a joke for people trying to solve real problems. It only works on an abstract machine with some really weird (not physically achievable) properties. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.155.141|162.158.155.141]] 20:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Friendly reminder that some users of this site are just here to learn what the joke is, and not to read the entire Wikipedia article on Big O Notation. Perhaps the actual explanation could be moved up a bit, and some of the fiddly Big-O stuff could be moved down? I'd do it myself, but I'm not really sure which is which. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.176.28|172.70.176.28]] 06:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:I mean, it is fairly fundamental to the joke, and therefore to the explanation. It might be possible to slim it down a bit, but I don't think you can explain the joke without ''some'' explanation of Big O.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.130|172.70.91.130]] 09:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I've just come to the conclusion that I will never 100% understand 3026. [[User:Dogman15|Dogman15]] ([[User talk:Dogman15|talk]]) 10:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:Tell me that again when you've actually tried the official process...
function Understand(comic):
StartTime=Time()
ReadExplanation(comic)
Sleep(1e12*length(comic)-(Time()-StartTime))
return
:[[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.56|172.70.162.56]] 11:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::The article should start off "This is a joke about Big-O notation and sorting algorithms, a topic in introductory computer science education." then continue with something like "An algorithm is computer code for solving a general problem. Big-O notation is a method for describing the efficiency of algorithms." and maybe something like "Randall has designed an algorithm that appears more efficient than commonly considered possible, claiming to solve a popular challenge of many decades, by trying to game how the Big-O approach to analysis ignores the real speed of an algorithm, instead considering how it changes when the data is changed." [[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.209|172.68.54.209]] 02:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Here's my crack at a shorter explanation of the joke, without explaining the entirety of the Big-O notation Wikipedia article and without getting unnecessarily pedantic. (<em>Please keep this in mind when critiquing this explanation!</em> I probably know whatever simplification you notice.)
:The joke here consists of two parts: (1) a linear-time sort of a list is mathematically impossible, and yet (2) a linear-time algorithm is presented, with it being roughly correct because Big-O notation hides the full picture on purpose. The title-text joke is that someone realizes (1) and investigates (2) <em>because</em> of the purposeful full-picture-hiding.
:Let's start with part (2): how Big-O notation is a bit handwavy and inexact. This is not to say it's not useful in computer science research and explaining differences between algorithms, but it inherently and on purpose hides the full picture. It's kind of like rounding away unnecessary digits when doing a back-of-the-envelope physics calculation, except in Big-O, the thing that is rounded is a mathematical formula. The formula is for calculating the time it takes for an algorithm to run (whether in (nano)seconds or something abstract like "number of operations"), and it will be in terms of ''n'', which is basically "how many things does your algorithm need to process" (in this case, it's the size of a list). An algorithm might be calculated to have a running time of something complicated like 32''n''<sup>2.796</sup>+1.31''n''+6500, but it's Big-O "rounding" would be expressed as O(''n''<sup>2.796</sup>). This is because as ''n'' grows larger and larger (into the billions), the extra stuff is irrelevant: except in special cases, an algorithm with a running time of O(''n'') will take less time than an algorithm taking O(''n''<sup>2</sup>) time, because no matter what the stuff you "rounded away" was, the former will eventually be less than the latter once ''n'' grows big enough.
:With the relevant bits of Big-O notation explained, we can look at the problem of sorting a list. This is a classic problem in computer science and it comes up in coursework all the time, so Randall assumes a lot of his audience will be familiar with it. Part (1) of the joke is that a linear, ''i.e.'' O(''n'') time, sorting of a list is mathematically impossible: just checking whether a list is sorted in the first place requires comparing every pair of elements at least once, taking O(''n'') time, and after this you have to swap elements that are out of place and check again. If you build an algorithm carefully you can get away with doing log(''n'') "scans" back and forth along the list, ending up doing log(''n'') scans of ''n'' time each, which comes to O(''n'' × log(''n'')) time. This "O(''n'' log ''n'')" time is accepted as the lowest general sorting algorithm average-case run-time, and all improvements to sorting algorithms are in improving the stuff that Big-O notation hides – remember how we rounded away all those factors as unnecessarily complicated and irrelevant? Turns out they're actually relevant in practice! They can be fine-tuned for real computers and practical inputs; the mergesort in the comic is special because it's guaranteed to always take the same time, no matter the input.
:Putting both parts together: the "linear sort" presented is "linear", taking O(''n'') time, not because it has actually magically found a way to cheat at math and do sorting faster than is possible, but because O(''n'') notation hides the fact that it just waits for a million (milli)seconds for each item in the list: O(''n'') <em>looks</em> faster than O(''n'' log ''n''), but what's actually going on is that 1,000,000''n'' is way slower than mergesort's O(''n'' log ''n'').
:Curiously, this is actually a thing that [[wikipedia:Galactic algorithm|does happen in computer science]], although not as blatantly as this: there are some problems for which there exists an algorithm with a "better" Big-O-notated time, but which for whatever technical reason run worse in practice on real computers than apparently-slower algorithms.
(And again, please remember that I've on purpose left out irrelevant technical details! I know about radix sort etc., and I know the difference between O, Θ and Ω, and I know about space complexity also; I do actually have a master's degree in this stuff and know what I'm talking about.) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.136.141|172.69.136.141]] 16:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:Actually I already thought of an improvement to this explanation (if it were to be used as the main explanation): it's unnecessary to bring up Big-O notation in the first place, until explaining the title text. The comic itself just talks about linear time, and mergesort (and sorting in general) could just be explained as requiring "more than linear time" because of the repeated comparisons I already mentioned. (O(''n'' log ''n'') is "quasilinear" or "log-linear" time but introducing that term can – and in my opinion should – be avoided). The title text explanation requires explaining that "O(n) means linear", and a bit about how Big-O notation is "rounding" away the complicated parts of the formula. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.136.165|172.69.136.165]] 16:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Why is the prose so terrible on this site? Who writes "As one can image in most contexts one would wish for...." and thinks other people can understand it? Please run your text through ChatGPT, it's free now. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.147.54|172.71.147.54]] 17:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Regarding {{diff|360113|this edit}}, I have my reservations. While Log<sub>2</sub> ''may'' be 'logical' in a system using binary, there's no reason why the algorithm cannot be implemented upon a trinary-based "machine code" system, or one in quad (and I actually have created a four-instruction 'ultra-RISC' microcode kernel, of sorts, that used base-4 principles, not base-2), or decimal/BCD, and then byte-size is commonly 8-bit with 16-bit, 32-bit and 64-bit extensions to the basic unit and ''could'' translate to an equivalent higher-base if you are bothered about ''n'' vs. log<sub>''x''</sub> ''n'' efficiency at lower ''n''s and higher ''x''s. Could even be natural-log (for reasons entirely unrelated to the hardware/firmware/software it is implemented on, just what it needs to do). Most of the time, we don't care if it's O(log<sub>10</sub> ''n'') or O(ln ''n'') or whatever, because the difference is an appropriate constant multiple. That's something generally not retained... we may have O(''m'' log ''n''), for independent variable ''m'', but something like O(2 log ''n'') is treated as O(log ''n'') equivalent, like O(2) is just O(1) in the final analysis, and why the O(1e8*n) reality sneaks through here as O(n). So, ''by actual implementation'', you can't actually say that O(''n'' log ''n'') will be gte O(''n'') always. With 1<''n''<log_base, it won't be. ...Whether or not we're free to consider either generality, though, I definitely won't ask you how algorithms actually stack up next to each other where run under ''n''=0 conditions! But at least O(''n''<sup>-1</sup>) isn't a common thing... ;) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.194.19|172.69.194.19]] 18:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:What does this possibly have to do with explaining the comic? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.23.81|172.68.23.81]] 18:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

3001: Temperature Scales

2024-12-15T19:09:22Z

172.68.23.81: /* Explanation */ correct

{{comic
| number = 3001
| date = October 21, 2024
| title = Temperature Scales
| image = temperature_scales_2x.png
| imagesize = 740x535px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = In my new scale, °X, 0 is Earths' record lowest surface temperature, 50 is the global average, and 100 is the record highest, with a linear scale between each point and adjustment every year as needed.
}}

==Explanation==

Since the invention of the {{w|thermometer}}, a number of different {{w|temperature}} scales have been proposed. In modern times, most of the world uses the 1745 {{w|Celsius}} scale for everyday temperature measurements. A small number of countries (the USA and {{w|Territories of the United States|its territories}}, the Bahamas, Belize, the Cayman Islands, Liberia, and Palau) retain the {{w|Imperial units|imperial system}} (or the related {{w|United States customary units|US customary system}}), which uses the 1724 {{w|Fahrenheit}} scale. The other widely used temperature scale is the 1848 {{w|Kelvin}} scale, which uses the same degrees as Celsius, but is rooted at {{w|absolute zero}}, making it both useful in scientific calculations and easy to convert to and from Celsius (which, along with degrees Fahrenheit, is now defined relative to kelvins.) The Kelvin scale has been part of the widely adopted official {{w|metric system}} since 1954. Even in countries that use Fahrenheit, scientific measurements are usually made in degrees Celsius or kelvins.

The comic compares these scales, and a number of others, on [[Randall]]'s scale of "cursedness." The joke is highlighting how different the temperature scales are, and how impractical most of them are. All of the listed scales (except Randall's new °X scale defined in the title text) are real, but most are obsolete. See also [[1923: Felsius]].

{| class=wikitable
! scope="col" | Unit
! scope="col" | Water freezes
! scope="col" | Water boils
! scope="col" | Notes
! scope="col" | Cursedness
! scope="col" | Explanation
|-
| {{w|Celsius}} || 0 || 100 || Used in most of the world || 2/10 || The Celsius (°C) scale, also known as "centigrade", was devised by Swedish astronomer {{w|Anders Celsius}} in 1742 and revised in 1745, a year after his death. 0°C represents the freezing point of water and 100°C represents the boiling point, both under {{w|standard atmospheric pressure}}. The Celsius scale is now defined in terms of kelvin. By the given "cursedness," it is regarded as one of the least problematic temperature scales.
|-
| {{w|Kelvin}} || 273.15 || 373.15 || 0K is absolute zero || 2/10 || Kelvins (plural with a lowercase 'k' as a temperature unit, like meters, ohms, watts, and amps; or as the symbol 'K', without the degrees symbol '°', unlike most other such units) are a unit of temperature devised by {{w|Lord Kelvin}} in 1848. They use the same degrees as Celsius do, but shifted by 273.15 to set absolute zero at 0K (based on the {{w|Boltzmann constant}}.)
<center>Celsius = kelvin – 273.15</center>
<center>kelvin = Celsius + 273.15</center>
While kelvins are very useful for calculations in {{w|thermodynamics}} and material physics, they can be unintuitive to laypersons.
|-
| {{w|Fahrenheit}} || 32 || 212 || Outdoors in most places is between 0–100 || 3/10 || Fahrenheit (°F) is officially used in a few countries and informally in several others. It originated in a time when factors of 360 (amount of ''degrees'' in a circle) were favored in science over powers of 10, which is why the freezing and boiling points of water are set 180° apart. Devised around 1724, {{w|Daniel Fahrenheit}} chose to base 0° on the coldest temperature he could achieve: the freezing point of an {{w|ammonium chloride}} {{w|brine}} solution.
<center>Celsius = (Fahrenheit – 32) × 5/9</center>
<center>Fahrenheit = Celsius × 9/5 + 32</center>
Although those reference points are now considered arbitrary and outdated by modern scholars, the scale gained popularity in Anglophone countries, and - as Randall notes - some retroactive justification coined that claims 0°F to 100°F as covering the entire range of temperatures humans would encounter in daily life. 100°F is {{w|Human body temperature#Historical understanding|close to normal human body temperature}} (the original intent was to set 90°F as exactly this, 90 being a quarter of 360). The Fahrenheit scale remains officially used only in the U.S., its territories, the Bahamas, Belize, the Cayman Islands, Liberia and Palau.
|-
| {{w|Réaumur scale|Réaumur}} || 0 || 80 || Like Celsius, but with 80 instead of 100 || 3/8 || Abbreviated as °Ré, this system devised by {{w|René Antoine Ferchault de Réaumur}} in 1730 was used in some places until the early 20th century, mostly for cheese-making.
<center>Celsius = Réaumur / 0.8</center>
<center>Réaumur = Celsius × 0.8</center>
The rating (3/8) is a joke on the boiling point of water in this system being 80 instead of 100 as it is in the Celsius scale; converting this to an out-of-ten scale would give 3.75/10, labeling it as more cursed than Fahrenheit but less so than Rømer.
|-
| {{w|Rømer scale|Rømer}} || 7.5 || 60 || Fahrenheit precursor with similarly random design || 4/10 || Abbreviated as °Rø, this scale was created by the Danish astronomer {{w|Ole Rømer}} around 1702. Much like Fahrenheit, it originally used the freezing point of ammonium chloride brine as the benchmark for 0°, and the scale is built with factors of 360 in mind with the boiling point of pure water at 60°. Like the Fahrenheit scale, the freezing point of pure water was not originally considered significant by Rømer, but the scale was later updated to give the value of 7.5 at this point.
<center>Celsius = (Rømer – 7.5) × 40/21</center>
<center>Rømer = Celsius × 21/40 + 7.5</center>
The Rømer scale is considered the predecessor of both the Celsius and Fahrenheit scales, because Réaumur was inspired by Rømer's scale, Celsius based his work on Réaumur and Fahrenheit specifically designed his scale with more divisions than Rømer's to reduce the necessity for fractions.
|-
| {{w|Rankine scale|Rankine}} || 491.7 || 671.7 || Fahrenheit, but with 0°F [''sic''; should be 0°Ra] set to absolute zero || 6/10 || The Rankine scale (°R or °Ra), created by {{w|William Rankine}} in 1859, is to Fahrenheit what the Kelvin scale is to Celsius: an absolute temperature scale. The scale is mostly obsolete, but is still occasionally used in legacy industrial operations where absolute temperature scales are required. It is described as more cursed than the otherwise identical Fahrenheit scale, despite being rooted at a more universal zero point.
<center>Celsius = (Rankine – 491.67) × 5/9</center>
<center>Rankine = (Celsius + 273.15) × 9/5</center>
<center>Rankine = Fahrenheit + 459.67</center>
[[2292: Thermometer]] expresses disdain for this scale.
|-
| {{w|Newton scale|Newton}} || 0 || 33-ish || Poorly defined, with reference points like "the hottest water you can hold your hand in" || 7-ish/10 || The famous scientist and mathematician {{w|Isaac Newton}} published this scale in 1701, which was referred to by the °N symbol. Unfortunately, the degrees of temperature specified do not correlate exactly with amounts of {{w|heat}} because his scale is nonlinear. His scale used three fixed-points: 0ºN, the temperature of air when water begins to freeze, 12ºN, the heat of blood in the human body, and 34ºN, rapidly boiling water.<ref>https://www.whipplemuseum.cam.ac.uk/explore-whipple-collections/meteorology/early-thermometers-and-temperature-scales</ref> Therefore:
<center>Celsius = 37 × Newton / 12 if Newton ≤ 12;<br/>63 × (Newton – 12) / 22 + 37 if Newton > 12</center>
<center>Newton = 12 × Celsius / 37 if Celsius ≤ 37;<br/>22 × (Celsius – 37) / 63 + 12 if Celsius > 37</center>
Very few other than Newton ever used this scale, but it did appear on commercial thermometers around 1758.<ref>https://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/results.asp?image=10413117&wwwflag=&imagepos=43</ref> The cursedness rating (7-ish/10) jokes about the vagueness of the scale's definition.
|-
| {{w|Wedgwood scale|Wedgwood}} || –8 || –6.7 || Intended for comparing the melting points of metals, all of which it was very wrong about || 9/10 || Created by the potter {{w|Josiah Wedgwood}} in 1782, the '°W' scale was based on the shrinking of clay when heated above red heat, but was found to be very inconsistent.
<center>Celsius = (Wedgwood + 8) × 100/1.3</center>
<center>Wedgwood = (Celsius × 1.3/100) – 8</center>
The comic has a typo, as the scale is actually called Wedgwood, without the second 'e', but is spelled in the comic as "Wedgewood".
|-
| Galen || –4? || 4?? || Runs from –4 (cold) to 4 (hot). 0 is "normal"(?) || 4/–4 || The Greek physician {{w|Galen}} suggested a "neutral" temperature around 180 AD<ref>https://www.loebclassics.com/view/galen-temperaments/2020/pb_LCL546.3.xml</ref> when he was a prominent physician in the {{w|Roman Empire}}. Created by mixing equal parts of boiling water and ice, on either side of this neutral point he described four degrees of heat and four degrees of cold. Assuming his extremes were those points, Galen's scale is also nonlinear:
<center>Celsius = 22 × (Galen + 4) / 4 if Galen ≤ 0;<br/>78 × Galen / 4 + 22 if Galen > 0</center>
<center>Galen = 4 × Celsius / 22 – 4 if Celsius ≤ 22;<br/>4 × (Celsius – 22) / 78 if Celsius > 22</center>
This range from +4 to –4 is humorously used as its rating, implying –100% cursedness. Technically this makes it the least cursed of all the listed scales, but the idea of negative cursedness, and cursedness itself, is not clear. There is no standard modern abbreviation for Galen's scale.
|-
| {{w|Celsius#History|''Real'' Celsius}} || 100 || 0 || In Anders Celsius's original 1742 specification, bigger numbers are ''colder''; others later flipped it || 10/0 || Most scales' temperatures can be indefinitely large, but have an absolute minimum temperature. By starting at a maximum value and counting down, this scale is indeed cursed, as nearly all possible temperatures through 1.42×10<sup>32</sup>K, the maximum attainable physical temperature,<ref>https://doi.org/10.4236/jamp.2024.1210198</ref> will be negative on this scale. The cursedness rating (10/0) is a joke on the scale "flipping" the fixed points of modern Celsius. Division by zero is strictly undefined (see [[2295: Garbage Math]]) and may be interpreted in a number of counter-intuitive ways.
<center>Celsius = 100 – ''Real'' Celsius</center>
<center>''Real'' Celsius = 100 – Celsius</center>
The original logic was that zero could be easily calibrated to the height of a {{w|Millimetre of mercury|column of mercury}} at the temperature of boiling water, and further measurements then made of the amount it ''reduced'' in height under cooler conditions. This orientation survives in the historic {{w|Delisle scale}} devised in 1732 by French astronomer {{w|Joseph-Nicolas Delisle}}, which arguably inspired the Celsius scale. The scale originally used by Professor Celsius was changed, to more or less the form already described above, after his death in 1745. Delisle's scale was never reversed.
|-
| [https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/459851/john-daltons-temperature-scale#459863 Dalton] || 0 || 100 || A nonlinear scale; 0°C and 100°C are 0 and 100 Dalton, but 50°C is 53.9 Dalton || 53.9/50 || {{w|John Dalton}} proposed a logarithmic temperature scale in 1802 during his work on what became {{w|Charles's Law}}. The scale is defined so that absolute zero is at negative infinity, with the exponent chosen to match the Celsius scale at 0 and 100:
<center>Celsius = 273.15 × ''e''<sup>(Dalton / 320.55)</sup> – 273.15</center>
<center>Dalton = 320.55 × {{w|Natural logarithm|''ln''(}} (Celsius + 273.15) / 273.15 )</center>
There is no standard abbreviation for Dalton's scale. While Dalton temperature is defined for all positive and negative numbers, the nonlinear scale is difficult to work with since the amount of heat represented by a change of one degree Dalton is not constant. Degrees Dalton differ from Celsius ones by as much as 3.9 degrees between 0 and 100, but diverge much more for more extreme temperatures. The rating (53.9/50) is a joke about the unit, as 53.9 Dalton equates to 50 degrees Celsius — i.e., it could be said to be 107.8% (even more than entirely) cursed.
|-
| °X || 42.9 || 151.4 || '''Title text:''' "In my new scale, °X, 0 is Earths' [''sic''] record lowest surface temperature, 50 is the global average, and 100 is the record highest, with a linear scale between each point and adjustment every year as needed." || Randall has not stated the cursedness of his new scale. || The {{w|Lowest temperature recorded on Earth|record lowest surface temperature on Earth}} as of 2024 is –89.2°C (–128.6°F), recorded at the {{w|Vostok Station|Vostok Research Station}} in Antarctica on July 21, 1983.<ref>https://wmo.asu.edu/content/world-lowest-temperature</ref> The average surface temperature as of 2023, the most recent available, is 14.8°C (58.6°F.)<ref>https://climate.copernicus.eu/climate-indicators/temperature</ref> The {{w|Highest temperature recorded on Earth|record highest temperature}} is 56.7°C (134.1°F), recorded on July 10, 1913 at {{w|Furnace Creek, California|Furnace Creek Ranch}} in Death Valley, California.<ref>https://wmo.asu.edu/content/world-highest-temperature</ref>

{{cot|Derivation and graph}}
To break the scale into two linear parts (below and above 14.8°C), we define two separate equations for each range:

1. Below 14.8°C (from –89.2°C to 14.8°C):
* 0 °X corresponds to –89.2°C
* 50 °X corresponds to 14.8°C

We calculate the slope m₁:

<center>m₁ = (50 – 0) / (14.8 – (–89.2)) = 50 / (14.8 + 89.2) = 50 / 104 ≈ 0.48</center>

Now, using the point (14.8°C, 50 °X), we calculate the intercept b₁:

<center>50 = 0.48 × 14.8 + b₁</center>

<center>50 = 7.1 + b₁</center>

<center>b₁ = 50 – 7.1 = 42.9</center>

Thus, the equation for temperatures '''below 14.8°C''' is:

<center>'''X = 0.48 × C + 42.9'''</center>

2. Above 14.8°C (from 14.8°C to 56.7°C):
* 50 °X corresponds to 14.8°C
* 100 °X corresponds to 56.7°C

We calculate the slope m₂:

<center>m₂ = (100 – 50) / (56.7 – 14.8) = 50 / 41.9 ≈ 1.19</center>

Now, using the point (14.8°C, 50 °X), we calculate the intercept b₂:

<center>50 = 1.19 × 14.8 + b₂</center>

<center>50 = 17.6 + b₂</center>

<center>b₂ = 50 – 17.6 = 32.4</center>

Thus, the equation for temperatures '''above 14.8°C''' is:

<center>'''X = 1.19 × C + 32.4'''</center>

;Freezing and boiling points of water

Freezing point of water (0°C): Since 0°C is below 14.8°C, we use the equation X = 0.48 × C + 42.9:

<center>X = 0.48 × 0 + 42.9 = 42.9</center>

So, '''the freezing point is 42.9 °X.'''

Boiling point of water (100°C): Since 100°C is above 14.8°C, we use the equation X = 1.19 × C + 32.4:

<center>X = 1.19 × 100 + 32.4 = 119 + 32.4 = 151.4</center>

So, '''the boiling point is 151.4 °X.'''

[[File:XvsC.png|400px|center]]

See also [[2701: Change in Slope]] for a general discussion of separate linear scales between three points.
{{cob}}
<center>Celsius = (°X – 42.9) / 0.48 if °X < 50;<br/>or (°X – 32.4) / 1.19 if °X ≥ 50.</center>
<center>°X = 0.48 × Celsius + 42.9 if Celsius < 14.8;<br/>or 1.19 × Celsius + 32.4 if Celsius ≥ 14.8.</center>

Due to average temperature records increasing almost every year as a result of {{w|climate change}},<ref>https://www.space.com/last-12-months-broke-temperature-records</ref> Randall's new °X scale must be re-calibrated each year. While such °X values for everyday temperatures will vary over time, more extreme values like absolute zero or the {{w|Tungsten#Physical properties|melting point of tungsten}} will shift vastly more.

("Surface" temperatures are measured 1.5 meters above ground inside a shaded shelter, to accurately represent air temperature, because measurements closer to the ground are usually quite different due to sunlight, {{w|albedo}}, and the thermal capacity of soil.)
|}

[[File:Temperature Scales.png|center|600px]]

===Examples===

Some temperatures in the above scales:

{| class=wikitable style="text-align: center;"
! Unit scale
! Typical {{w|room temperature}}
! {{w|Properties of water#Melting point|Freezing point of water}}
! {{w|Boiling point#Boiling point of water with elevation|Boiling point of water}}
! Midrange {{w|human body temperature|human body core temperature}}
! Recommended {{w|Refrigerator#Temperature zones and ratings|refrigerator temperature}}<ref>https://www.realsimple.com/food-recipes/shopping-storing/food/refrigerator-temperature</ref>
! Recommended {{w|Refrigerator#Freezer|freezer temperature}}<ref>https://www.fsis.usda.gov/food-safety/safe-food-handling-and-preparation/food-safety-basics/freezing-and-food-safety</ref>
! Typical warm bath temperature<ref>https://www.kohlerwalkinbath.com/blog/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-ideal-bath-temperature/</ref>
! Typical {{w|Coffee#Brewing|hot coffee}} temperature
|-
| Celsius || 22 °C || 0 °C || 100 °C || 37 °C || 2.5 °C || –18 °C || 39 °C || 77 °C
|-
| Kelvin || 295 K || 273 K || 373 K || 310 K || 276 K || 255 K || 312 K || 350 K
|-
| Fahrenheit || 72 °F || 32 °F || 212 °F || 98.6 °F || 36.5 °F || 0 °F || 102 °F || 171 °F
|-
| Réaumur || 17.6 °Ré || 0 °Ré || 80 °Ré || 29.6 °Ré || 2 °Ré || –14.4 °Ré || 31.2 °Ré || 61.6 °Ré
|-
| Rømer || 19.1 °Rø || 7.5 °Rø || 60 °Rø || 26.9 °Rø || 8.8 °Rø || –2 °Rø || 28 °Rø || 47.9 °Rø
|-
| Rankine || 531 °Ra || 492 °Ra || 672 °Ra || 558 °Ra || 496 °Ra || 459 °Ra || 562 °Ra || 630 °Ra
|-
| Newton || 7.1 °N || 0 °N || 34 °N || 12 °N || 0.8 °N || –5.8 °N || 12.7 °N || 26 °N
|-
| Wedgwood || –7.71 °W || –8 °W || –6.7 °W || –7.52 °W || –7.97 °W || –8.23 °W || –7.49 °W || –7 °W
|-
| Galen || 0 || –4 || 4 || 0.8 || –3.5 || –7.3 || 0.9 || 2.8
|-
| ''Real'' Celsius || 78 || 100 || 0 || 63 || 98 || 118 || 61 || 23
|-
| Dalton || 24.8 || 0 || 100 || 40.7 || 2.9 || –21.9 || 42.8 || 79.6
|-
| °X || 59 °X || 43 °X || 151 °X || 76.4 °X || 44.1 °X || 34.3 °X || 78.8 °X || 124 °X
|-
| Felsius || 47 || 16 || 156 || 67.8 || 19.5 || –9.2 || 70.6 || 123.8
|}

Here are the conversion formulas for the [[1923: Felsius|Felsius scale]]:
<center>Celsius = (Felsius − 16) / 1.4.</center>
<center>Felsius = Celsius * 7/5 + 16.</center>

==Transcript==

:Temperature Scales

:[A table with five columns, labelled: Unit, Water freezing point, Water boiling point, Notes, and Cursedness. There are eleven rows below the labels.]

:[Row 1:] Celsius, 0, 100, Used in most of the world, 2/10
:[Row 2:] Kelvin, 273.15, 373.15, 0K is absolute zero, 2/10
:[Row 3:] Fahrenheit, 32, 212, Outdoors in most places is between 0–100, 3/10
:[Row 4:] Réaumur, 0, 80, Like Celsius, but with 80 instead of 100, 3/8
:[Row 5:] Rømer, 7.5, 60, Fahrenheit precursor with similarly random design, 4/10,
:[Row 6:] Rankine, 491.7, 671.7, Fahrenheit, but with 0°F set to absolute zero, 6/10
:[Row 7:] Newton, 0, 33-ish, Poorly defined, with reference points like "the hottest water you can hold your hand in", 7-ish/10
:[Row 8:] Wedgewood, –8, –6.7, Intended for comparing the melting points of metals, all of which it was very wrong about, 9/10
:[Row 9:] Galen, –4?, 4??, Runs from –4 (cold) to 4 (hot). 0 is "normal"(?), 4/–4
:[Row 10:] ''Real'' Celsius, 100, 0, In Anders Celsius's original specification, bigger numbers are ''colder''; others later flipped it, 10/0
:[Row 11:] Dalton, 0, 100, A nonlinear scale; 0°C and 100°C are 0 and 100 Dalton, but 50°C is 53.9 Dalton, 53.9/50

== References ==
{{reflist}}

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Science]]

3013: Kedging Cannon

2024-11-19T03:33:18Z

172.68.23.81: /* Explanation */ copyedit

{{comic
| number = 3013
| date = November 18, 2024
| title = Kedging Cannon
| image = kedging_cannon_2x.png
| imagesize = 740x259px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = The real key was inventing the windmill-powered winch.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a HEADCANNON. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

Sailing vessels can navigate upwind through a technique called {{w|Tacking_(sailing)|tacking}} (or "tacking against the wind") which involves zigzagging across the wind's direction. However, this comic describes a fictional scenario where a ship's captain, unfamiliar with tacking, has developed an alternative method based on {{w|kedging}}.

Kedging is a historical maritime technique typically reserved for specific situations where conventional sailing methods are impractical, such as in calm waters, during precise maneuvering, or against strong opposing winds or currents. Traditional kedging involves deploying an anchor from the vessel, either manually or via a smaller boat, and then winching the ship toward the anchor point using ropes or chains. The anchor points often utilize natural features such as trees or reefs. In this fictional account, the captain has modified this technique by inventing a specialized "kedging cannon" to project the anchor greater distances.

The title text indicates that the captain's system has evolved to incorporate a windmill mechanism that harnesses wind power to draw in the kedging rope. Interestingly, this mechanical process bears some fundamental similarities to actual tacking, as both methods utilize lateral forces to achieve forward progress against the wind, albeit with vastly different levels of efficiency.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[A two-masted sailing ship is floating on the sea. Two tiny figures can be seen at the ship's bow.]
:Captain: I hope someday someone invents a way to sail upwind.
:Captain: Using the kedging cannon just wastes so much gunpowder.
:[Close-up on the deck of the ship. Cueball is talking to the ship's captain, who is aiming a cannon containing an anchor. Chains are draped from the cannon.]
:Cueball: The ''what?''
:Cueball: Wait, do you not know how to sail upwind? Is that why your ship takes forever to--
:Captain: Stand by...''FIRE!''
:[Distant shot showing the anchor and its chain being launched out in front of the ship, towards the right of the panel.]
:SFX: BOOM
:[The line becomes taut and the ship is dragged forwards, towards the right of the panel.]
:SFX: Click click click

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]

3012: The Future of Orion

2024-11-18T04:26:48Z

172.68.23.81: /* Explanation */ explain crown in pic

{{comic
| number = 3012
| date = November 15, 2024
| title = The Future of Orion
| image = the_future_of_orion_2x.png
| imagesize = 740x300px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Dinosaur Cosmics
}}

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

Stars in the night sky sometimes change, occasionally varying in brightness, very rarely exploding, and imperceptibly moving. For example, {{w|Betelgeuse}}, a star in the constellation {{w|Orion (constellation)|Orion}}, is expected to explode as a {{w|supernova}} between [https://astrobites.org/2023/07/01/betelgeuse-betelgeuse-betelgeuse-is-it-supernovatime/ tens of] and [https://earthsky.org/brightest-stars/betelgeuse-will-explode-someday/ a thousand] years, and then disappear from the night sky. And all stars move relative to us and each other, which results in apparent movement in the sky called {{w|proper motion}}, a function of a star's relative movement in three dimensions and its distance from us.

This comic shows changes in Orion from Betelgeuse disappearing and three of its fastest moving stars, and recommends revising the {{w|constellation}} (or creating a new {{w|Asterism (astronomy)|asterism}}) from one which depicts a hunter to another matching the {{w|Tyrannosaurus}} from Ryan North's [https://www.qwantz.com Dinosaur Comics]. The proper motion of {{w|Chi1 Orionis|χ¹ Orionis}} shown near the top at the end of Orion's arm (and the back of the dinosaur's head) is 0.20 arcseconds per year, so it will traverse the depicted angular distance of 0.84 degrees in about 15,000 years. {{w|Pi1 Orionis|π¹ Orionis}} at the top of Orion's bow (and the end of the dinosaur's tail) has a proper motion of 0.14 arcseconds per year, so it will traverse its distance of 0.87° in about 23,000 years. However, with a proper motion of 0.46 as/yr, {{w|Pi3 Orionis|π³ Orionis}}, in the middle of the bow, will take only about 9,600 years to traverse its longer depicted distance of 1.24°. (The angular distances traversed by the stars were measured relative to the distance between Orion's two outermost belt stars, {{w|Alnitak}} and {{w|Mintaka}}, the dinosaur's hips.) Thus, the new constellation won't form until its current name has lasted more than three times as long as it already has.

[[File:School of Athens Raphael detail 03.jpg|thumb|Hipparchus and Ptolemy compare globes in {{w|Raphael}}'s famous fresco ''{{w|The School of Athens}}''. Ptolemy is shown with a crown because of his erroneous association with the royal house of Ptolemaic Egypt.]]
There are no official constellations depicting dinosaurs. However, {{w|Draco (constellation)|Draco}} depicts a mythological reptilian dragon, and the lizard {{w|Lacerta}} was recognized in 1687. The earliest constellations in the northern hemisphere were recognized around 3000 BC. By the 2nd century AD, the Greek mathematician and astronomer {{w|Ptolemy}} listed 48 constellations visible from the northern hemisphere in his ''{{w|Almagest}},'' following the star catalogs and globes made by {{w|Hipparchus}} which have since been lost to history. Dozens of {{w|former constellations}} were recognized, sometimes for hundreds of years, before being disregarded or replaced by others. The remaining modern southern constellations were mostly finalized by {{w|Nicolas Louis de Lacaille}} in 1756. {{w|Polynesian culture|Polynesian}} navigators settled {{w|Polynesian Triangle|a vast expanse of the south Pacific Ocean}} from 20,000 to 1,000 years ago apparently without naming constellations, but instead [https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/items/f617b33c-531b-41b4-b550-5aec81face2c recording the positions of stars on sidereal compass roses]. The {{w|International Astronomical Union}} established the current official list of 88 constellations in 1922. The first fossil to be later identified as a dinosaur was found in 1676, but the term "dinosaur" was not introduced until 1842.

The title text is another joke regarding Dinosaur Comics, replacing "comics" with "cosmics" because we're talking about a dinosaur in the sky.

Orion is also mentioned in [[1020: Orion Nebula]]. T-Rex is also featured in [[1452: Jurassic World]]. In 2006, Randall emulated the style of Dinosaur Comics with [[145: Parody Week: Dinosaur Comics]].

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:Orion Today:
:[Star map of Orion constellation 2024]

:Predicted Changes:
:[Scribbled on]: Star movement
:[Scribbled on]: Star Death (Betelgeuse)
:[Star map's predicted changes over next couple centuries]

:Orion in the future:
:[Scribbled on]: Suggested lines
:[New lines are drawn overlaying the future changes]

:[[https://www.qwantz.com/ Dinosaur Comics] dinosaur overlayed]

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Dinosaurs]]
[[Category:Astronomy]]
[[Category:Space]]
[[Category:Comics with red annotations]]

3012: The Future of Orion

2024-11-17T08:23:26Z

172.68.23.81: /* Explanation */ overuse of word

{{comic
| number = 3012
| date = November 15, 2024
| title = The Future of Orion
| image = the_future_of_orion_2x.png
| imagesize = 740x300px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Dinosaur Cosmics
}}

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

Stars in the night sky change over time. Some, like {{w|Betelgeuse}} (a star in the constellation {{w|Orion (constellation)|Orion}}), are expected to go {{w|supernova}} in less than about 100,000 years, and then disappear from the night sky. Additionally, all stars are moving relative to us and each other. This results in apparent movement in our sky, called {{w|proper motion}}, a function of a star's relative movement in three dimensions and its distance from us.

This comic shows some changes in Orion from three of its stars moving and recommends revising the {{w|constellation}}, or at least creating a new {{w|Asterism (astronomy)|asterism}}, from one which depicts a hunter to another matching the {{w|Tyrannosaurus}} from Ryan North's [https://www.qwantz.com Dinosaur Comics]. The proper motion of {{w|Chi1 Orionis|χ¹ Orionis}} shown near the top at the end of Orion's arm (and the back of the dinosaur's head) is 0.2 arcseconds per year, so it will traverse the depicted angular distance of 0.84 arc degrees in about 15,000 years. {{w|Pi1 Orionis|π¹ Orionis}} at the top of Orion's bow (and the end of the dinosaur's tail) has a proper motion of 0.14 arcseconds per year, so it will traverse its distance of 0.87° in about 23,000 years. However, with a proper motion of 0.46 as/yr, {{w|Pi3 Orionis|π³ Orionis}}, in the middle of the bow, will take only about 9,600 years to traverse its longer depicted distance of 1.24°. (The angular distance traversed by the stars was calculated relative to the distance between Orion's two outermost belt stars, {{w|Alnitak}} and {{w|Mintaka}}, which are shown becoming the dinosaur's hips.) Thus, the new constellation won't form until its current name has lasted more than three times as long as it already has.

There are no official constellations currently depicting dinosaurs. The process of recognizing constellations started around 3000 BC for the northern hemisphere, continued with the investigations like those of {{w|Ptolemy}} (in the 2nd century AD) who used Greek mythology for visible 'southern' constellations and was more or less set in stone after voyages to the southern hemisphere by European navigators, like {{w|Johann Bayer}}, in the early 17th century. The first fossil to be later identified as a dinosaur was found in 1676, and the term "dinosaur" was not introduced until 1842 to describe them. As the {{w|International Astronomical Union}} did not establish the current official list of constellations until 1922, though, they could have recognized a dinosaur constellation had one been proposed and widely accepted. There is, however, a constellation of another large, fearsome reptile, albeit mythological -- a {{w|Draco (constellation)|dragon}} (one of Ptolemy's) -- and {{w|Lacerta}} ("the lizard") was defined in 1687.

The title text is another joke regarding Dinosaur Comics, replacing "comics" with "cosmics" because we're talking about a dinosaur in the sky.

Orion is also mentioned in [[1020: Orion Nebula]]. T-Rex is also featured in [[1452: Jurassic World]]. In 2006, Randall emulated the style of Dinosaur Comics with [[145: Parody Week: Dinosaur Comics]].

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:Orion Today:
:[Star map of Orion constellation 2024]

:Predicted Changes:
:[Scribbled on]: Star movement
:[Scribbled on]: Star Death (Betelgeuse)
:[Star map's predicted changes over next couple centuries]

:Orion in the future:
:[Scribbled on]: Suggested lines
:[New lines are drawn overlaying the future changes]

:[[https://www.qwantz.com/ Dinosaur Comics] dinosaur overlayed]

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Dinosaurs]]
[[Category:Astronomy]]
[[Category:Space]]
[[Category:Comics with red annotations]]

3012: The Future of Orion

2024-11-17T08:21:17Z

172.68.23.81: /* Explanation */ no mention in comic of needing to plan

{{comic
| number = 3012
| date = November 15, 2024
| title = The Future of Orion
| image = the_future_of_orion_2x.png
| imagesize = 740x300px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Dinosaur Cosmics
}}

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

Stars in the night sky change over time. Some, like {{w|Betelgeuse}} (a star in the constellation {{w|Orion (constellation)|Orion}}), are expected to go {{w|supernova}} in less than about 100,000 years, and then disappear from the night sky. Additionally, all stars are moving relative to us and each other. This results in apparent movement in our sky, called {{w|proper motion}}, a function of a star's relative movement in three dimensions and its distance from us.

This comic shows some changes in Orion from three of its stars moving and recommends revising the {{w|constellation}}, or at least creating a new {{w|Asterism (astronomy)|asterism}}, from depicting one which depicts a hunter to another matching the {{w|Tyrannosaurus}} from Ryan North's [https://www.qwantz.com Dinosaur Comics]. The proper motion of {{w|Chi1 Orionis|χ¹ Orionis}} shown near the top at the end of Orion's arm (and the back of the dinosaur's head) is 0.2 arcseconds per year, so it will traverse its depicted angular distance of 0.84 arc degrees in about 15,000 years. {{w|Pi1 Orionis|π¹ Orionis}} at the top of Orion's bow (and the end of the dinosaur's tail) has a proper motion of 0.14 arcseconds per year, so it will traverse its depicted distance of 0.87° in about 23,000 years. However, with a proper motion of 0.46 as/yr, {{w|Pi3 Orionis|π³ Orionis}}, in the middle of the bow, will take only about 9,600 years to traverse its longer depicted distance of 1.24°. (The angular distance traversed by the stars was calculated relative to the distance depicted between Orion's two outermost belt stars, {{w|Alnitak}} and {{w|Mintaka}}, which are shown becoming the dinosaur's hips.) Thus, the new constellation won't form until its current name has lasted more than three times as long as it already has.

There are no official constellations currently depicting dinosaurs. The process of recognizing constellations started around 3000 BC for the northern hemisphere, continued with the investigations like those of {{w|Ptolemy}} (in the 2nd century AD) who used Greek mythology for visible 'southern' constellations and was more or less set in stone after voyages to the southern hemisphere by European navigators, like {{w|Johann Bayer}}, in the early 17th century. The first fossil to be later identified as a dinosaur was found in 1676, and the term "dinosaur" was not introduced until 1842 to describe them. As the {{w|International Astronomical Union}} did not establish the current official list of constellations until 1922, though, they could have recognized a dinosaur constellation had one been proposed and widely accepted. There is, however, a constellation of another large, fearsome reptile, albeit mythological -- a {{w|Draco (constellation)|dragon}} (one of Ptolemy's) -- and {{w|Lacerta}} ("the lizard") was defined in 1687.

The title text is another joke regarding Dinosaur Comics, replacing "comics" with "cosmics" because we're talking about a dinosaur in the sky.

Orion is also mentioned in [[1020: Orion Nebula]]. T-Rex is also featured in [[1452: Jurassic World]]. In 2006, Randall emulated the style of Dinosaur Comics with [[145: Parody Week: Dinosaur Comics]].

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:Orion Today:
:[Star map of Orion constellation 2024]

:Predicted Changes:
:[Scribbled on]: Star movement
:[Scribbled on]: Star Death (Betelgeuse)
:[Star map's predicted changes over next couple centuries]

:Orion in the future:
:[Scribbled on]: Suggested lines
:[New lines are drawn overlaying the future changes]

:[[https://www.qwantz.com/ Dinosaur Comics] dinosaur overlayed]

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Dinosaurs]]
[[Category:Astronomy]]
[[Category:Space]]
[[Category:Comics with red annotations]]

3012: The Future of Orion

2024-11-17T07:56:45Z

172.68.23.81: /* Explanation */ cleanup

{{comic
| number = 3012
| date = November 15, 2024
| title = The Future of Orion
| image = the_future_of_orion_2x.png
| imagesize = 740x300px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Dinosaur Cosmics
}}

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

Stars in the night sky change over time. Some, like {{w|Betelgeuse}} (a star in the constellation {{w|Orion (constellation)|Orion}}), are expected to go {{w|supernova}} in less than about 100,000 years, and then disappear from the night sky. Additionally, all stars are moving relative to us and each other. This results in apparent movement in our sky, called {{w|proper motion}}, a function of a star's relative movement in three dimensions and its distance from us.

This comic shows some changes in Orion from the stars moving and recommends revising the {{w|constellation}}, or at least creating a new {{w|Asterism (astronomy)|asterism}}, from depicting one which depicts a hunter to another matching the {{w|Tyrannosaurus}} from Ryan North's [https://www.qwantz.com Dinosaur Comics]. The proper motion of {{w|Chi1 Orionis|χ¹ Orionis}} shown near the top at the end of Orion's arm (and the back of the dinosaur's head) is 0.2 arcseconds per year, so it will traverse its depicted angular distance of 0.84 arc degrees in about 15,000 years. {{w|Pi1 Orionis|π¹ Orionis}} at the top of Orion's bow (and the end of the dinosaur's tail) has a proper motion of 0.14 arcseconds per year, so it will traverse its depicted distance of 0.87° in about 23,000 years. However, with a proper motion of 0.46 as/yr, {{w|Pi3 Orionis|Pi³ Orionis}}, in the middle of the bow, would take only about 9,600 years to traverse its longer depicted distance of 1.24°. (The angular distance traversed by the stars was calculated relative to the distance depicted between Orion's two outermost belt stars, {{w|Alnitak}} and {{w|Mintaka}}.)

There are no official constellations currently depicting dinosaurs. The process of recognizing constellations started around 3000 BC for the northern hemisphere, continued with the investigations like those of {{w|Ptolemy}} (in the 2nd century AD) who used Greek mythology for visible 'southern' constellations and was more or less set in stone after voyages to the southern hemisphere by European navigators, like {{w|Johann Bayer}}, in the early 17th century. The first fossil to be later identified as a dinosaur was found in 1676, and the term "dinosaur" was not introduced until 1842 to describe them. As the {{w|International Astronomical Union}} did not establish the current official list of constellations until 1922, though, they could have recognized a dinosaur constellation had one been proposed and widely accepted. There is, however, a constellation of another large, fearsome reptile, albeit mythological -- a {{w|Draco (constellation)|dragon}} (one of Ptolemy's) -- and {{w|Lacerta}} ("the lizard") was defined in 1687.

Note that this means the new constellation won't appear until the current name has lasted twenty times as long as it already has, highlighting the absurdity of "needing" to plan for this event.

The title text is another joke regarding Dinosaur Comics, replacing "comics" with "cosmics" because we're talking about a dinosaur in the sky.

Orion is also mentioned in [[1020: Orion Nebula]]. T-Rex is also featured in [[1452: Jurassic World]]. In 2006, Randall emulated the style of Dinosaur Comics with [[145: Parody Week: Dinosaur Comics]].

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:Orion Today:
:[Star map of Orion constellation 2024]

:Predicted Changes:
:[Scribbled on]: Star movement
:[Scribbled on]: Star Death (Betelgeuse)
:[Star map's predicted changes over next couple centuries]

:Orion in the future:
:[Scribbled on]: Suggested lines
:[New lines are drawn overlaying the future changes]

:[[https://www.qwantz.com/ Dinosaur Comics] dinosaur overlayed]

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Dinosaurs]]
[[Category:Astronomy]]
[[Category:Space]]
[[Category:Comics with red annotations]]

Category:Velociraptors

2024-11-16T01:52:12Z

172.68.23.81:

'''Velociraptor''' is a genus of {{w|dinosaur}} which was popularized by its appearance in the ''{{w|Jurassic Park}}'' film series. In the films, velociraptors are depicted as small (shorter than adult humans) bi-pedal scaled dinsaurs which frequently attacked and killed humans. They were one of the main antagonists in the films. The reference source used by the author of the original novel was somewhat outdated, and the dinosaurs as written and thereafter depicted in the film have some discrepancies with the size and appearance of the velociraptors. For example, scientists have since discovered that velociraptors were likely feathered.

''Jurassic Park'' could have been a scary film for children, and the film appears to have had a strong impact on [[Randall Munroe]]. Velociraptors in particular, and the irrational fear of being attacked by them in the modern world, are a subject of (or appear in) several strips of [[xkcd]].

[http://webcomicssobad.blogspot.com/2007/11/xkcd.html Sonty Mick] posits, perhaps facetiously, that velociraptors in xkcd symbolize {{w|God}}.

The last comic mentioning velociraptors was released approaching ten years ago, so perhaps Randall has decided to drop velociraptors as a recurring trope for the comic.

''See also: {{w|Velociraptor}}''

{{navbox-characters}}

[[Category:Jurassic Park]]
[[Category:Dinosaurs]]

3011: Europa Clipper

2024-11-14T19:03:42Z

172.68.23.81: /* Explanation */ no agency for substituting may for might: arguable but easier to read

{{comic
| number = 3011
| date = November 13, 2024
| title = Europa Clipper
| image = europa_clipper_2x.png
| imagesize = 333x356px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = They had BETTER make this a sample return mission.
}}

==Explanation==

{{incomplete|Created by a JOVIAN DESSERT. Please consider deleting this tag too soon, but refrain from doing so.}}

[[File:Animation of Europa Clipper trajectory around Jupiter.gif|thumb|right|The ''Europa Clipper's'' projected course around {{w|Jupiter}}, represented as the stationary <span style="color:green;">green</span> dot. In <span style="color:gold;">gold</span> is Jupiter's moon {{w|Callisto (moon)|Callisto}}, in <span style="color:cyan;">cyan</span> is the moon {{w|Europa (moon)|Europa}} — the primary target of the spacecraft's study — and in <span style="color:#FF4500;">orange-red</span> is the innermost of Jupiter's four {{w|Galilean moons|"Galilean"}} moons, {{w|Io (moon)|Io}}. The spacecraft's track is shown in <span style="color:magenta;">magenta</span>. Jupiter's largest moon {{w|Ganymede (moon)|Ganymede}} is not shown, but its gravitational pull affects the ''Clipper's'' trajectory. A mission goal is to achieve a 6:1 {{w|orbital resonance}} with Europa by September 2034.[https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Martin-Ozimek/publication/383115312_AAS_24-433_Europa_Clipper_Mission_Analysis_Pump_Down_Trajectory_Design/links/66bcd845311cbb094938dbd6/AAS-24-433-Europa-Clipper-Mission-Analysis-Pump-Down-Trajectory-Design.pdf] ]]

The ''{{w|Europa Clipper}}'' space probe was launched from the {{w|Kennedy Space Center}} in Florida on October 14, 2024. It is expected to arrive at Jupiter and begin exploration of Jupiter's moons, particularly {{w|Europa (moon)|Europa}}, in April of 2030.

Europa is an icy moon. Water ice covers its surface. Beneath the ice, there is expected to be liquid water which may contain some basic forms of life.[https://europa.nasa.gov/why-europa/ingredients-for-life/] To sample this liquid, its icy crust would need to be breached.

Europa's surface of ice over liquid water can be compared to the caramelized crust on the popular dessert {{w|crème brûlée}}, perhaps because the {{w|Cassini-Huygens}} probe, after landing on Saturn's moon Titan in January of 2005, found that its surface had what was described as [https://www.sciencenews.org/article/world-unveiled-cr%C3%A8me-br%C3%BBl%C3%A9e-titan a "crème brûlée" consistency]. The hard surface of the caramel cream dessert is traditionally cracked open with a spoon, and so Randall implies that this equipment [https://europa.nasa.gov/mission/about/ will be used] by the ''Europa Clipper''.

In truth, no such spoon is present on the probe, and the ice-layer would be far too thick to be so easily penetrated by the illustrated size of cutlery. More than that, its course is explicitly designed to avoid contact with Europa (though it will fly through sparse material ejected into space from it) so as to prevent {{w|Planetary protection|contamination by microorganisms from Earth}}. The successful deployment of ''any'' instrument is considered a cause for celebration, however, as deployable instruments on spacecraft have often failed to correctly extend, unfurl or undock, and the craft is equipped with a magnetometer that will be used at the end of a 8.5 meter boom as part of its closer studies.

<div style="display: flex; justify-content: center; align-items: center; margin: 1em 0;">
<div style="text-align: center; margin: 0 1em;">
[[File:Europa_-_Perijove_45_(cropped).png|200px|alt=Europa]]
<div>Europa</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center; margin: 0 1em;">
[[File:2014_0531_Crème_brûlée_Doi_Mae_Salong_(cropped).jpg|200px|alt=Crème brûlée]]
<div>Crème brûlée</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center; margin: 0 1em;">
[[File:Europa_Clipper_spacecraft_model.png|200px|alt=The Europa Clipper spacecraft]]
<div>The ''Europa Clipper'' spacecraft</div>
</div>
</div>

The title text expands on the joke by stating that the spacecraft "had BETTER" return samples of Europa to Earth. However, the ''Europa Clipper'' is not a {{w|sample-return mission}}.

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

:[A space probe with two rectangular solar panels, a circular dish of the front, and a very large spoon extending beneath, longer than the span of both solar panels]

:[Below the panel:]
:Good news: NASA's '''''Europa Clipper''''' is en route to Europa and has successfully deployed its crème brûlée spoon.

==Trivia==
Initially, the ''Europa Clipper'' mission was planned to include a lander component, but it was removed from the project early on. As of now, the Europa Lander proposal lags significantly behind the Clipper in development and has not secured funding. An actual sample return mission is currently far into the future of {{w|Ocean Worlds Exploration Program|the pertinent plans for exploration}}.

In Arthur C Clarke's novel '''2010''', the monolith aliens tell humanity ''"All these worlds are yours - except Europa. Attempt no landing there."'' Contrary to the suggestion of the comic, no landing or any other physical interaction beyond observation of the surface of Europa is planned.

In {{w|Greek mythology}}, {{w|Europa (consort of Zeus)|Europa}} was said to be a {{w|Phoenician}} princess who {{w|Zeus}}, the king of the gods, abducted after transforming himself into a bull. The name of the continent Europe derives from a north-western province of ancient Greece that may have been associated with this legend. Jupiter's moon was {{w|Europa (consort of Zeus)#Moon of Jupiter|named after her}} in relatively recent times. With the caramel cream dessert believed to have been [https://archive.org/details/lagastronomieaug00sabb/page/272/mode/2up invented in Europe], this could explain why [[Randall]] suggests that the spacecraft may encounter crème brûlée and require a spoon.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Space]]
[[Category:Space probes]]
[[Category:Food]]

3011: Europa Clipper

2024-11-14T19:01:35Z

172.68.23.81: /* Explanation */ comma unneeded to introduce this clause

{{comic
| number = 3011
| date = November 13, 2024
| title = Europa Clipper
| image = europa_clipper_2x.png
| imagesize = 333x356px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = They had BETTER make this a sample return mission.
}}

==Explanation==

{{incomplete|Created by a JOVIAN DESSERT. Please consider deleting this tag too soon, but refrain from doing so.}}

[[File:Animation of Europa Clipper trajectory around Jupiter.gif|thumb|right|The ''Europa Clipper's'' projected course around {{w|Jupiter}}, represented as the stationary <span style="color:green;">green</span> dot. In <span style="color:gold;">gold</span> is Jupiter's moon {{w|Callisto (moon)|Callisto}}, in <span style="color:cyan;">cyan</span> is the moon {{w|Europa (moon)|Europa}} — the primary target of the spacecraft's study — and in <span style="color:#FF4500;">orange-red</span> is the innermost of Jupiter's four {{w|Galilean moons|"Galilean"}} moons, {{w|Io (moon)|Io}}. The spacecraft's track is shown in <span style="color:magenta;">magenta</span>. Jupiter's largest moon {{w|Ganymede (moon)|Ganymede}} is not shown, but its gravitational pull affects the ''Clipper's'' trajectory. A mission goal is to achieve a 6:1 {{w|orbital resonance}} with Europa by September 2034.[https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Martin-Ozimek/publication/383115312_AAS_24-433_Europa_Clipper_Mission_Analysis_Pump_Down_Trajectory_Design/links/66bcd845311cbb094938dbd6/AAS-24-433-Europa-Clipper-Mission-Analysis-Pump-Down-Trajectory-Design.pdf] ]]

The ''{{w|Europa Clipper}}'' space probe was launched from the {{w|Kennedy Space Center}} in Florida on October 14, 2024. It is expected to arrive at Jupiter and begin exploration of Jupiter's moons, particularly {{w|Europa (moon)|Europa}}, in April of 2030.

Europa is an icy moon. Water ice covers its surface. Beneath the ice, there is expected to be liquid water which might contain some basic forms of life.[https://europa.nasa.gov/why-europa/ingredients-for-life/] To sample this liquid, its icy crust would need to be breached.

Europa's surface of ice over liquid water can be compared to the caramelized crust on the popular dessert {{w|crème brûlée}}, perhaps because the {{w|Cassini-Huygens}} probe, after landing on Saturn's moon Titan in January of 2005, found that its surface had what was described as [https://www.sciencenews.org/article/world-unveiled-cr%C3%A8me-br%C3%BBl%C3%A9e-titan a "crème brûlée" consistency]. The hard surface of the caramel cream dessert is traditionally cracked open with a spoon, and so Randall implies that this equipment [https://europa.nasa.gov/mission/about/ will be used] by the ''Europa Clipper''.

In truth, no such spoon is present on the probe, and the ice-layer would be far too thick to be so easily penetrated by the illustrated size of cutlery. More than that, its course is explicitly designed to avoid contact with Europa (though it will fly through sparse material ejected into space from it) so as to prevent {{w|Planetary protection|contamination by microorganisms from Earth}}. The successful deployment of ''any'' instrument is considered a cause for celebration, however, as deployable instruments on spacecraft have often failed to correctly extend, unfurl or undock, and the craft is equipped with a magnetometer that will be used at the end of a 8.5 meter boom as part of its closer studies.

<div style="display: flex; justify-content: center; align-items: center; margin: 1em 0;">
<div style="text-align: center; margin: 0 1em;">
[[File:Europa_-_Perijove_45_(cropped).png|200px|alt=Europa]]
<div>Europa</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center; margin: 0 1em;">
[[File:2014_0531_Crème_brûlée_Doi_Mae_Salong_(cropped).jpg|200px|alt=Crème brûlée]]
<div>Crème brûlée</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center; margin: 0 1em;">
[[File:Europa_Clipper_spacecraft_model.png|200px|alt=The Europa Clipper spacecraft]]
<div>The ''Europa Clipper'' spacecraft</div>
</div>
</div>

The title text expands on the joke by stating that the spacecraft "had BETTER" return samples of Europa to Earth. However, the ''Europa Clipper'' is not a {{w|sample-return mission}}.

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

:[A space probe with two rectangular solar panels, a circular dish of the front, and a very large spoon extending beneath, longer than the span of both solar panels]

:[Below the panel:]
:Good news: NASA's '''''Europa Clipper''''' is en route to Europa and has successfully deployed its crème brûlée spoon.

==Trivia==
Initially, the ''Europa Clipper'' mission was planned to include a lander component, but it was removed from the project early on. As of now, the Europa Lander proposal lags significantly behind the Clipper in development and has not secured funding. An actual sample return mission is currently far into the future of {{w|Ocean Worlds Exploration Program|the pertinent plans for exploration}}.

In Arthur C Clarke's novel '''2010''', the monolith aliens tell humanity ''"All these worlds are yours - except Europa. Attempt no landing there."'' Contrary to the suggestion of the comic, no landing or any other physical interaction beyond observation of the surface of Europa is planned.

In {{w|Greek mythology}}, {{w|Europa (consort of Zeus)|Europa}} was said to be a {{w|Phoenician}} princess who {{w|Zeus}}, the king of the gods, abducted after transforming himself into a bull. The name of the continent Europe derives from a north-western province of ancient Greece that may have been associated with this legend. Jupiter's moon was {{w|Europa (consort of Zeus)#Moon of Jupiter|named after her}} in relatively recent times. With the caramel cream dessert believed to have been [https://archive.org/details/lagastronomieaug00sabb/page/272/mode/2up invented in Europe], this could explain why [[Randall]] suggests that the spacecraft may encounter crème brûlée and require a spoon.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Space]]
[[Category:Space probes]]
[[Category:Food]]

3011: Europa Clipper

2024-11-14T14:33:53Z

172.68.23.81: /* Explanation */ grammar

{{comic
| number = 3011
| date = November 13, 2024
| title = Europa Clipper
| image = europa_clipper_2x.png
| imagesize = 333x356px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = They had BETTER make this a sample return mission.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a JOVIAN DESSERT. Please consider deleting this tag too soon, but refrain from doing so.}}

[[File:Animation of Europa Clipper trajectory around Jupiter.gif|thumb|right|The ''Europa Clipper's'' projected course around {{w|Jupiter}}, represented as the stationary <span style="color:green;">green</span> dot. In <span style="color:gold;">gold</span> is Jupiter's moon {{w|Callisto (moon)|Callisto}}, in <span style="color:cyan;">cyan</span> is the moon {{w|Europa (moon)|Europa}} — the primary target of the spacecraft's study — and in <span style="color:#FF4500;">orange-red</span> is the innermost of Jupiter's four {{w|Galilean moons|"Galilean"}} moons, {{w|Io (moon)|Io}}. The spacecraft's track is shown in <span style="color:magenta;">magenta</span>. Jupiter's largest moon {{w|Ganymede (moon)|Ganymede}} and its second largest moon {{w|Titan (moon)|Titan}} are not shown, but their gravitational pull affects the ''Clipper's'' trajectory. A mission goal is to achieve a 6:1 {{w|orbital resonance}} with Europa by September 2034.[https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Martin-Ozimek/publication/383115312_AAS_24-433_Europa_Clipper_Mission_Analysis_Pump_Down_Trajectory_Design/links/66bcd845311cbb094938dbd6/AAS-24-433-Europa-Clipper-Mission-Analysis-Pump-Down-Trajectory-Design.pdf] ]]

The ''{{w|Europa Clipper}}'' space probe was launched from the {{w|Kennedy Space Center}} in Florida on October 14, 2024. It is expected to arrive at Jupiter and begin exploration of Jupiter's moons, particularly {{w|Europa (moon)|Europa}}, in April of 2030.

Europa is an icy moon. Water ice covers its surface. Beneath the ice, there is expected to be liquid water, which might contain living microbes.[https://europa.nasa.gov/why-europa/ingredients-for-life/] To sample this liquid, its crust (water ice) would need to be broken.

In the comic, Europa's surface ice is likened to the caramel crust on the dessert ''{{w|crème brûlée}}''. To eat this dessert, its crust is broken with a spoon. The dessert is believed to have been [https://archive.org/details/lagastronomieaug00sabb/page/272/mode/2up invented in Europe], after which the moon and the space probe were named. Thus [[Randall]] suggests the spacecraft might encounter crème brûlée, and has therefore been equipped with a spoon for the purpose of collecting samples, as spoons are the traditional {{w|tableware}} provided for eating such desserts. More directly, the {{w|Cassini-Huygens}} probe, after landing on the surface of Saturn's moon Titan in January of 2005, found that ''its'' surface had what was described as [https://www.sciencenews.org/article/world-unveiled-cr%C3%A8me-br%C3%BBl%C3%A9e-titan a "crème brûlée" consistency], although there are significant differences between the two moons.

No such spoon is present on the ''Europa Clipper.''{{cn}} Its course is designed to avoid contact with Europa so as to prevent {{w|Planetary protection|contamination by microorganisms from Earth}}. The spacecraft is, however, equipped with a magnetometer at the end of a 8.5 meter deployable boom. Deployable instruments on spacecraft have often failed to deploy correctly, so the successful deployment of any instrument is considered a cause for celebration.

The title text expands on the joke by stating that the spacecraft "had BETTER" return samples of Europa to Earth. However, the ''Europa Clipper'' is not a {{w|sample-return mission}}.

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

:[A space probe with two rectangular solar panels, a circular dish of the front, and a very large spoon extending beneath, longer than the span of both solar panels]

:[Below the panel:]
:Good news: NASA's '''''Europa Clipper''''' is en route to Europa and has successfully deployed its crème brûlée spoon.

==Trivia==
The Clipper spacecraft was at one point to be developed alongside a lander, which was later dropped from being part of the same (or very closely partnered) mission. The latest version of the {{w|Europa Lander}} proposal is far behind the Clipper in implementation, not yet even being guaranteed funding.

Any actual sample return mission is currently far into the future of {{w|Ocean Worlds Exploration Program|the related plans for exploration}}, along with the possibility of digging deep enough into the ice to finally confirm or dismiss some of the more interesting theories about the world concerned.

In Arthur C Clarke's novel '''2010''', the monolith aliens tell humanity ''"All these worlds are yours - except Europa. Attempt no landing there."'' Contrary to the suggestion of the comic, no landing or any other physical interaction beyond observation of the surface of Europa is planned.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Space]]
[[Category:Space probes]]
[[Category:Food]]

3010: Geometriphylogenetics

2024-11-12T04:55:13Z

172.68.23.81:

{{comic
| number = 3010
| date = November 11, 2024
| title = Geometriphylogenetics
| image = geometriphylogenetics_2x.png
| imagesize = 316x391px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = There's a maximum likelihood that I'm doing phylogenetics wrong.
}}

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

{{w|Phylogenetics}} refers to the practice of examining relationships among things that follow the principle of "descent with modification of progeny". In the course of descent with modification, one thing may give rise to two (the progeny), different modifications happen to each, and those modifications become established. Iterated "splits" over time yield a tree of objects; it is the purpose of phylogenetics to recover these trees, and use the information gained to inform study of the things contained. Phylogenetics has been most commonly applied to the classification/taxonomy of biological species and investigations of their evolutionary history, but it has also been used to examine the evolution of genes and biosynthetic pathways, and also in the study of human languages and their evolution. Data for phylogenetic analyses may come from any attributes ("characters") of the things being examined; {{w|Computational_phylogenetics|rigorous techniques}} for these analysis became available starting in the {{w|Willi_Hennig|1950s}}. In phylogenetic studies of organisms, their DNA is far and away the most data-dense source of information, and consequently, most present-day investigations are based on analyses of selected genes and, increasingly, whole genomes. It is commonplace for such studies, especially on relatively understudied creatures, to reconstruct an evolutionary history (a phylogeny) that is radically different from what had previously been assumed.

This comic presents a tree, which purports to be a phylogenetic tree and resembles one, in which the endpoints ("terminal taxa") are geometric shapes, hence "geometriphylogenetics", a portmanteau of "{{w|geometry}}" and "phylogenetics". The claim, that triangles are more closely related to circles and ellipses than to squares, rectangles, pentangles, and the like, is a riff on the findings, and even the wording, of authentic phylogenetic research papers. The absurdity, and the joke, is that geometries do not change over time via descent with modification of progeny, therefore phylogenetic principles and techniques are inapplicable to their study. Moreover, geometries do not contain DNA, so genetic analysis, even if relevant, is impossible.

The title text alludes to {{w|Computational_phylogenetics#Maximum_likelihood|maximum likelihood}}, one of the most robust, and most frequently used, methodologies for phylogenetic analysis. The method builds a number of trees from the data, assigns to each a probability that it conforms to a pre-selected model of evolution, and then selects the tree that has the highest likelihood of conformity to the model. The key to the joke is that maximum likelihood is a probabilistic method; "there is a high probability that I'm doing phylogenetics wrong". Which is, in fact, the case.

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

:[A tree diagram, or a dendrogram is shown, consisting of lines that branch off from left to right, starting with one horizontal line on the left. Eight results are shown on the right: ellipse on Path 1, circle on Path 2, triangle on Path 3, parallelogram on Path 4, trapezoid on Path 5, square on Path 6, rectangle on Path 7, and a pentagon on Path 8. The paths are listed in order top to bottom.]
:[Path 3 and the triangle are bold black, while the other branches are dimmer. The paths are connected as follows: Path 2 and 3 are connected, then both connect together to Path 1; Path 4 and 5 are connected, as are Path 6 and 7, and these two paths are connected altogether; Path 8 is then connected to the branch containing Paths 4 to 7. All of Paths 1 to 3 are then connected to Paths 4 to 8, the branches all culminating in a single line on the left.]

:[Caption below the panel:]
:The phylogenetic revolution continues:
:Triangles were long believed to be related to squares, but genetic analysis proves that they are actually very pointy circles.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Geometry]]
[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Statistics]]