explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

3023: The Maritime Approximation

2024-12-12T04:23:20Z

172.69.134.160:

{{comic
| number = 3023
| date = December 11, 2024
| title = The Maritime Approximation
| image = the_maritime_approximation_2x.png
| imagesize = 265x126px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = It works because a nautical mile is based on a degree of latitude, and the Earth (e) is a circle.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a SEMICIRCULAR SAILOR - Please change this comment when editing this page. Needs explanation of the origins of the units and constants involved for readers to investigate the coincidentality of the relationship. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

Mph ({{w|miles per hour}}) and {{w|Knot (unit)|knot}}s (''nautical miles'' per hour) are both units used to calculate the speed of vehicles. Miles per hour are typically used in the US for the speed of cars and other similar vehicles, while knots are used by some sailors or pilots to describe the speed of ships or aircraft. Novice sailors or sailors who spend a lot of time on land may find it helpful to quickly convert between mph and knots. Usually, this is the form of 1 knot = 1.2 mph, or 1 mph = 0.87 knots, however Randall has humorously noticed that π mph = e knots. This is a coincidence{{Citation needed}} despite the claim of the title text, since even though knots are based on nautical miles which are related to degrees of latitude (and thus to π, which is used to describe the circumference of a circle) miles per hour have no relation to either e or π. Randall has made similar observations of different dimensions that equal each other in the past in the past with comics such as [[687: Dimensional Analysis]], where he compares {{w|Planck Energy}}, the pressure at the earth's core, the gas mileage in a Prius, and the width of the English channel to Pi. In addition, in [[What If?]], he has compared the mass of Earth to be Pi "miliJupiters," or Pi times the mass of Jupiter divided by 1000, and noted that the volume of a cube with side lengths of one mile is roughly similar to the volume of a sphere with a radius of 1 kilometer.

The equality shown in this strip consists of several different parts:

# The mile per hour (mph) is a unit of speed common for motor vehicles in a few countries, such as the United States and United Kingdom.
# The knot is a unit of speed that is one nautical mile (1 852 m) per hour, used in nautical contexts.
# π is a number equal to the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter, about 3.14159.
# e is Euler's number, the base of the natural logarithm, about 2.71828.

π mph × (1609.344 meters/statute mile ÷ 1852 meters/nautical mile) ≈ 2.72996 knots. The result is only about 0.43% larger than ''e'' knots ≈ 2.71828 knots.

The joke is that it is not exact, but only correct to a certain percentage, unlike {{w|Euler's Identity}}, which is exact and that's what makes the latter truly remarkable. It isn't helped by the fact that it carries the implication that this neat, easy to remember identity is actual useful for sailors but indeed, being easy to remember is all it has going for it. Otherwise it doesn't make calculations any easier and is impossible to do without a calculator or paper, and doing it on paper is much harder than other conversions, given that pi and e are both irrational, and transcendental.

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

:[Equation inside a frame with a footnote:]
:π mph = ''e'' knots*
:*Correct to <0.5%

:[Caption below the panel:]
:The sailor's version of eiπ=−1

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Math]]

Talk:3022: Making Tea

2024-12-10T19:51:04Z

172.69.134.160:

I wonder where [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party making it in Boston Harbor, at ambient temperature, at scale] would fit on this scale. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.162|172.70.206.162]] 04:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
: A little to the left of the microwave thing. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.186.252|162.158.186.252]] 05:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:: Oh, no, much further to the right. You stole our colony from us, set up some tinpot, pretended 'country' in its place, and you didn't even have the class to make a decent cup of tea first. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.205.93|12.68.205.93]] 06:24, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:: And, even if [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68085304 this guy] is right, ''way'' too much salt... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.130|172.70.91.130]] 07:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
::: Soyuz nyerushimyy respublik svobodnik... [[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]] ([[User talk:DollarStoreBa'al|talk]]) 14:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:::: Well maybe if you didnt force us to buy discounted tea from you after fighting a war for us, we wouldn't be in this situation. [[User:Apollo11|Apollo11]] ([[User talk:Apollo11|talk]]) 15:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
: I would like to as a british person to corroborate this, in the 80's my Dad visited the USA (he did go to florida) and still is complaining that the freshly boiled water wasn't poured directly onto the tea bag but was instead the tea bag and the hot water(now luke warm water) and bag was delivered separately!!! The delivery of freshly boiling water on to the bag is the major issue with microwaves, not the nucleation thing in my experience. Bear in mind I don't even actually like tea, still care enough to right this, but i'll be signing this anonymously to avoid shame being bought on my family and my family's familys. Murderous royals are a lot less popular the tea [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.227|108.162.245.227]]
:: I first visited the US in 1980. A friend who was with hate coffee and was horrified when he ordered tea that he got the water and the tea bag separately. When he suggested they add the water as soon as it was boiled, the wait staff thought he was joking. Many years later in Texas, a waiter asked me why I, a Brit, was drinking coffee, not tea. "You don't know how to make it," I replied. (In my house, the electric kettle and teapot sit next to each other on the kitchen worktop.)--[[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.135|172.70.160.135]] 09:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

When I make ramen, I put the measuring cup in the microwave. Fight me. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.167.87|162.158.167.87]] 05:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:: On behalf of the British Empire: whateva. [[User:Kev|Kev]] ([[User talk:Kev|talk]]) 18:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

"...to the point virtually every home has an electric tea kettle as a standard appliance". If I'm reading it correctly, this and the comic suggests we (though not I, as I'm not a tea-drinker) make tea ''in the electric kettle''. Electric tea-urns, yes, or maybe a setup like a samovar. But, generally, the kettle itself (and, so far as I'm aware, always with an electric kettle) is used to heat the water, which you then pour into the tea''pot'' into which the requisite number of tealeaves/teabags are also put to steep. (Or, for the lazy way, into the mug-with-teabag.) I wouldn't be able to use my electric kettle to (for example) make my instant mashed-potato into the actual mash, if I'd have regularly used it to mash tea. Or top up the boiling saucepan that I'd realised I'd not quite enough water in to cover the pasta/vegetables/whatever. Or to easily add nust a little more heat (with less new water) to the washing-up bowl than would be possible from the hot tap, back to as hot as possible without scalding me. – Whether intentional or not, I suspect Randall has the role of kettle and teapot mixed up, and so (without the intent to parody) has the editor who wrote the above. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.135|172.70.160.135]] 05:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:: Agree, we make tea in a mug using water from a kettle. I'd be furious if an American made tea in my kettle, how will I then make up my instant Nescafe? [[User:Kev|Kev]] ([[User talk:Kev|talk]]) 18:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the section on 'Boiling the water in a pot' refers to a teapot - I think it means boiling the water in a pot on the hob, and then making tea with it (in a pot/mug). [[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.27|172.69.195.27]] 07:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:I agree, but I also think there's a language issue with the use of pot vs. pan that makes things more confusing. I think there are several types of cookware that Americans call pot and British call pan. So British would not say they boil water in a pot but rather in a saucepan (if there's no kettle available of course). [[User:Mtcv|Mtcv]] ([[User talk:Mtcv|talk]]) 09:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I (as Brit) am uncommon in using an electric filter coffee machine to make tea (two bags in what is supposed to be the coffee filter). Set up, press the button and come back to a not jug of fresh tea which is not stewed. If later, the hot plate has shut off and it is cold, you can zap it in a mug in the microwave. [[User:RIIW - Ponder it|RIIW - Ponder it]] ([[User talk:RIIW - Ponder it|talk]]) 08:11, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
: As another brit, what? I do not understand the mechanics of this, please elaborate. Additionally, my understanding is that the water would be *briefly acquainted* with the tea, thus would be a poor facsimile of "tea" and would rather be closer to something the americans would attempt. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.126|141.101.99.126]] 11:46, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
::I'm guessing the water would drip on to the teabags, then soak all the way through them and drip out into the jug, without allowing sufficient to accumulate that it would run straight out without passing fully through the bag. It's an intriguing idea. But most definitely wrong.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.239|172.70.85.239]] 17:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yMMTVVJI4c Technology Connections]! [[Special:Contributions/141.101.109.167|141.101.109.167]] 09:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

You Westerners have literally no idea how to make proper, good tea! SMH [[User:TPS|TPS]] ([[User talk:TPS|talk]]) 13:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

As a Brit who grew up in sight of the Yorkshire Tea factory – and worked there on occasion – and having travelled very widely around the world – including in the US – I feel I'm supposed to have an opinion. However, I have ''never'' encountered the microwaving of water as mentioned here, and I would not object to it as supposedly problematic for tea-quality reasons. I'd object for reasons of common sense. What mystifies me is the idea that kettles are tea-specific. They are for heating water, not making tea. Coffee uses hot water. Pasta, rice and potatoes use hot water. Peas, carrots, cabbage, sweetcorn...

Baking bread often involves a pan of steaming water in the oven.

"But I can boil water in a pan for cooking pasta or vegetables."

Yes, but you'll be waiting a l-o-o-o-ng time. I'll heat my water in the kettle, pour it into the now-hot pan, cook my pasta, and I'll be eating before your water is boiling.

A kettle is not a tea-making item any more than a frying pan is an omelette-making item; tea is simply one of the things you can make with water from a kettle. Hot water is a basic civilised human commodity, predating recorded history. That we should live in a mechanised world, and the Consumer Nation doesn't have water-boiling appliances as standard (saying instead "I don't have a kettle because I don't drink tea") is ludicrous.

Using a microwave rather than buying a kettle is a bit like not buying a hammer for driving in nails because you've got a big pair of pliers that will do. Sure, they're heavy lumps of metal than live in your toolbag, but they're not the right thing.

The Brits, incidentally, are not tea lovers. They are prolific consumers of awful tea that actual tea lovers wouldn't use for cleaning their drains. The most enthusiastic tea enthusiasts I've ever met were from Maryland.

It's all just social ceremony in the UK. Milk first, tea first, must use a saucer, must use a pot...tea is a British religion, not a British drink.[[User:Yorkshire Pudding|Yorkshire Pudding]] ([[User talk:Yorkshire Pudding|talk]]) 14:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I wonder what the Brits would feel about repurposing a single-cup coffee maker. These days, I usually put a tea bag in a mug and place it in a Keurig machine and run it (without a K-cup, of course) to deliver the hot water. Probably the wrong temperature, but fast and easy and the result is good enough. [[User:Shamino|Shamino]] ([[User talk:Shamino|talk]]) 14:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Would any British person care to evaluate my tea making practices? Boil water in electric kettle. Pour water over teabag, allow to steep, remove teabag. Add sugar and ice cubes. [[User:RegularSizedGuy|RegularSizedGuy]] ([[User talk:RegularSizedGuy|talk]]) 15:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:...well, seems a fairly standard "making one mug of tea for oneself" process. It lacks a milk-adding stage (thus no arguments about whether before or after the water). Removing the teabag at that point probably means it's not going to become a Builders' Brew, which is your choicd. Sugar is ok. And... Waitwhat... ''Ice Cubes?!?'' ...can I get back to you on that? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.163|172.70.162.163]] 17:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I can confirm (by inadvertent experiments conducted on flatmates) that they indeed do not like tea being make in the kettle. What really makes them angry though is making coffee in the teapot. It ruins the taste of the teapot forever apparently. There is also a faction that insists that a teapot should never be washed, and washing it invokes a lesser anger.[[User:Gopher|Gopher]] ([[User talk:Gopher|talk]]) 15:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

On rare occasions where I don't have a kettle available, I use a microwave oven to boil water for tea. But it doesn't look and taste quite the same, and often leaves an ugly foam at the surface when the tea bag is added. This phenomenon is investigated here: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/22264. So the British might be right... Disclaimer: I'm neither from the UK nor from the US. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.68.126|172.69.68.126]] 16:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

There is a [https://www.tumblr.com/elodieunderglass/669449994039853056/wizardlyghost-silverjirachi-pidoop tumblr thread] about the topic of teamaking in microwaves, kettles, etc. Funnily enough it showed up in my Instagram reels feed just a few hours before this comic was posted. I was thinking perhaps Randall saw it too and was inspired by it? Both of them have to deal with the different ways of making tea and how "absurd" or "unconventional" (etc.) they are. Even if Randall didn't have it in mind, it's certainly a funny little coincidence. [[User:Pie Guy|Pie Guy]] ([[User talk:Pie Guy|talk]]) 16:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm guessing my occasional summertime practice of filling a gallon jar with water and lots of tea bags, setting it on the back porch in the sun for a few hours until the water turns dark brown, then putting the whole thing in the refrigerator and later drinking it over ice would be toward the more angry end of the spectrum.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.126.204|172.70.126.204]] 16:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Pat
:I think the "in the sun for a few hours" part might just be too incomprehensible to most of us, here in Britain. If we ''have'' a few hours of sun (and we're not abroad and deliberately sunburning ourselves on the beach/beside the pool in our week at the Costa Lotta budget-all-inclusivs holiday) then we're either fuming at our workdesks complaining about the louts stripping down to their shirtsleeves and splashing in the town-centre fountains or we're on our lunch-break and we ''are'' the louts stripping down to our shirtsleeves and splashing in the town-centre fountains. In neither case would sun-stewed tea be a priority. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.163|172.70.162.163]] 17:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps it's worth to mention how dangerous it is to boil water in a microwave. https://tastecooking.com/dangerous-microwave-water/
[[User:Mestafais|Mestafais]] ([[User talk:Mestafais|talk]]) 15:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

There are several comics with unmarked scales. It would be interesting if the descriptions started using pixels to point where each mark is along the line. As a rough estimate, the four points mentioned here are at X-values: 90px, 115px, 345px, and 645px, indicating that the pot method is 10% as infuriating as the chalice method - or that making tea in a pot ten times would be equally as infuriating as making it once in a chalice (at least, assuming the kettle method causes zero furons. I know of {{w|hedons and dolors}}. I guess 'furons' are a unit of fury, right? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.46.236|172.70.46.236]] 16:11, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Interesting to see the interest in editing this. Had a quick check of the last ten comics, looking at the number of edits made in the first 14 hours (the exact time this page has been around, as of me starting the check) and in total, and extrapolated to edits/day (in the case of total edits, both just to the latest edit and right up to 'now'). Thought it'd be interesting to give you my results (assuming I tallied/etc correctly)...
*3022 - 14hr: '''61''' ('''105'''/day); Total: 61 ('''105/day...''')
*3021 - 14hr: 23 (39/day); Total: 39 (11/day -> 10/day)
*3020 - 14hr: 22 (38/day); Total: 36 (10/day -> 6/day)
*3019 - 14hr: 28 (48/day); Total: 54 (17/day -> 7/day)
*3018 - 14hr: 14 (24/day); Total: 48 (4/day -> 4/day)
*3017 - 14hr: 29 (50/day); Total: 33 (32/day -> 3/day)
*3016 - 14hr: 28 (48/day); Total: 46 (4/day -> 3/day)
*3015 - 14hr: 20 (32/day); Total: '''83''' (5/day -> 5/day)
*3014 - 14hr: 40 (69/day); Total: 66 (16/day -> 3/day)
*3013 - 14hr: 36 (61/day); Total: 68 (3/day -> 3/day)
...of course, the first 14 hours probably biases to British readers/editors, and it was too fiddly to add up ''|bytes changed per edit|'' as a more useful metric than mere number of pokes. But quite a bit of interest we already have here. More edits in fourteen hours than any other article less than fourteen (indeed, 17!) days old... ;) Seems to have really hit a mark, this subject! [[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.201|172.69.195.201]] 19:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

:This one is super weird. I may be weirdness incarnate... but... [[User:Maybe Bill Cipher|An anonymous Gravity Falls expert]] ([[User talk:Maybe Bill Cipher|talk]]) 19:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I would argue that the more pessimistic interpretation of the two low-end options makes sense, rather than the more generous versions offered in the current explanation. I think the first one does literally mean making tea in the kettle, and the second one does mean boiling water in a teapot. Making tea *using* a kettle isn't anything to get mad about, it's the default practice. That should put it at the zero point of the line, but it isn't, it's to the right. On the other hand, obviously making tea *in* the kettle would incite a modest amount of rage (on the scale of zero to microwaving a mug), and it makes sense that boiling water in a teapot would incite about 50% more, as shown.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.134.160|172.69.134.160]] 19:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

User:42.book.addict

2024-11-21T23:05:43Z

172.69.134.160: Undo revision 357580 by 172.69.195.231 (talk)

OH MY GODDDDD

2719: Hydrogen Isotopes

2023-01-03T07:40:49Z

172.69.134.160: /* Explanation */ Fermi velocity

{{comic
| number = 2719
| date = January 2, 2023
| title = Hydrogen Isotopes
| image = hydrogen_isotopes_2x.png
| imagesize = 442x250px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Oops, All Neutrons is also known as Neutral Quadrium, Nydnonen, and Goth Tritium.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a BREAK ROOM DE BROGLIE MICROWAVE USER. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

{{W|Hydrogen}} is the simplest of the chemical atoms, usually consisting of an electron orbiting an proton. This comic imagines other humorous fictional forms of hydrogen as follows:

{| class="wikitable"
! "Isotope"
! Real?
! Description
|-
|Hydrogen
|Yes
|Hydrogen is the most common {{w|isotope}} of hydrogen, with one proton and one electron, shown with the electron orbiting the proton. It is also known as protium.
|-
|Deuterium
|Yes
|Deuterium is the second most common isotope of hydrogen, with one electron, and both a neutron and proton in its nucleus. About one of every 6,760 hydrogen atoms in seawater is deuterium.
|-
|Tritium
|Yes
|Tritium is the third most common isotope of hydrogen, with one electron, and a nucleus of one proton and two neutrons, for an atomic mass of three {{w|Dalton (unit)|daltons}}. It is radioactive with a half-life of about twelve years, and is very rare (but not as rare as unbound "instant hydrogen" neutrons.)
|-
|Ium
|Not as such
|This imaginary isotope consists of one electron orbiting around nothing. The name relates to the fact that the two heavier isotopes are named from a prefix designating the number of {{w|nucleons}} followed by the suffix "-ium", which is sometimes used satirically, e.g., in "unobtainium." Free electrons are always in motion {{w|Fermi energy|even at absolute zero temperature}} but not in stationary orbits.
|-o
|Wheelium
|No
|This fictional form consists of a proton, electron, and neutron orbiting around nothing, shaped similarly to a wheel.
|-
|Instant hydrogen (ready in 15 minutes)
|Yes, but rare
|This is just a single neutron. Unbound neutrons will take about fifteen minutes to decay into a proton, an electron, and a neutrino, which ''can'' then form into a hydrogen atom, [https://van.physics.illinois.edu/ask/listing/1207 but do only four times in a million.] The name is likely a reference to "instant" meals that require less preparation time than traditional varieties, e.g., instant noodles.
|-
|Hydrogen (maximum strength)
|No
|This fictional isotope consists of a proton, an electron, and what appear to be at least 14 neutrons. This isotope's proton would not be bound to all the neutrons. It would immediately {{w|Nuclear drip line|drip}} away most of them.
|-
|Oops, All Neutrons
|Maybe
|This fictional form consists of four neutrons, a {{w|tetraneutron}}, with one orbiting around a group of three. The name is likely a reference to an American breakfast cereal called {{w|Cap'n Crunch#Variations|Oops! All Berries}}.

The title text provides three other names of this form: 1. "Neutral Quadrium": The proton and electron in tritium have both been replaced with neutrons, making this fictional atom neutral, and it's named with the "quad-" prefix designating four nucleons. 2. "Nydnonen" is likely a derivation of "hydrogen" with most of its consonants replaced with the letter 'n' representing four neutrons. 3. "Goth Tritium": all the particles in the depiction are black, resembling stereotypical {{w|goth fashion}}.
|}

{{notice2|The Mountain View, California Public Library is hosting an online chat with [[Randall Munroe]] Tuesday, January 31 at 11am Pacific. [https://libraryc.org/mountainviewlibrary/22032 Register here to send your question(s) to the moderators.]|image=Crystal Project Agt announcements.png}} 

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

There are 8 drawings of atoms, arranges 4 across and 2 down, as planetary models. Each has a label underneath. Here, they are listed left-to-right top-to-bottom.

1 electron, 1 proton: Hydrogen

1 electron, 1 proton, 1 neutron: Deuterium

1 electron, 1 proton, 1 neutron: Tritium

1 electron only: ium

1 electron, 1 proton, 1 neutron, all orbiting together around nothing: Wheelium

1 proton only: Instant Hydrogen (ready in 15 minutes)

1 proton, 1 electron, lots of neutrons: Hydrogen (Maximum Strength)

1 neutron orbiting 3 other neutrons: Oops, all neutrons
{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Chemistry]]

2719: Hydrogen Isotopes

2023-01-03T02:30:15Z

172.69.134.160: /* Transcript */ cat

2711: Optimal Bowling

2022-12-16T18:48:17Z

172.69.134.160: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2711
| date = December 14, 2022
| title = Optimal Bowling
| image = optimal_bowling_2x.png
| imagesize = 306x670px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = If you want to bowl a strike, the optimal place is almost certainly inside a bowling alley, although with a little luck any establishment uphill from one could also work.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a SUPERMASSIVE BOWLING BALL - Need a full analysis of each graph (preferably with input from someone who understands bowling). Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This series of line graphs purports to advise players on how to improve their odds of achieving a strike in the sport of {{w|bowling}} – presumably {{w|ten-pin bowling}}, the most popular version of the sport in the United States. As is typical for Randall, however, things start off halfway reasonable and quickly escalate to the absurd. Among the parameters being measured — those being angle of throw, throwing speed, spinning speed, and weight of the ball — all four graphs encompass a range far larger than would be useful for reference by a bowler. The latter three in particular are on {{w|logarithmic scale}}s, leading up to values that are physically impossible for a human to achieve.{{Citation needed}}

The first line graph indicates that a bowler has the greatest chance of achieving a strike by aiming the ball directly at the pins, with the chance of a strike decreasing rapidly as the ball is aimed to the left or the right. Even a novice bowler already knows to aim the ball at the pins, not elsewhere. While a novice bowler may have difficulty achieving a 0° angle roll, their roll would still not come close to a -90° or 90° angle (due left or due right), much less a -180° or 180° angle (which, in either case, would be the opposite direction from the pins). Unlike with the other graphs, it is physically possible for a bowler to aim the ball at any angle, albeit not permissible under bowling rules; aiming the ball at an angle which deviates significantly from 0° would most likely cause the ball to end up in the gutter, while more violent or wildly aimed actions could create a risk of the ball going into one of the other lanes or missing the lanes entirely, which would annoy or anger other bowlers and employees of the bowling alley (and possibly endanger them, if the absolute value of the angle is superior to 90° on either side).

The second graph indicates that a bowler has the greatest chance of achieving a strike by throwing the ball about 5-20 m/s (11-45 mph, 18-72 kph), with the chance of a strike decreasing as the speed is increased or decreased. Most bowlers cannot throw more than 45 m/s (100 mph or 160 kph).{{Citation needed}} According to the graph, any throw faster than 100 m/s would cause equipment damage, and then widespread destruction several orders of magnitude later. (Possibly a reference to {{what if|1|Relativistic Baseball}}.) The graph ends at the {{w|speed of light}}, as it is physically impossible to throw anything faster.{{Citation needed}}

The third graph concerns the rotational speed of the ball. The "ball explodes" section is a reference to one of Randall's favorite equations, which is that an object cannot spin faster than the square root of its specific tensile strength. Spinning the ball any faster than this limit would cause the bowling ball to lose its structural integrity and explosively disintegrate. At particularly high speeds, the material of the ball would be flung outwards at a significant fraction of the speed of light, causing, as in graph #2, widespread destruction (possibly a reference to {{what if|92|One-Second Day}}.)

The fourth graph in this comic illustrates a bowler's probability of a strike with a ball whose mass ranges from 100 kg (2.2 pounds) to close to 1010 kg (over 22 billion pounds), and continues by indicating that balls even larger than that would cause "equipment damage" (up to 1020 kg) or the creation of a black hole (starting from around 1025 kg and up). The last entry on the x-axis of this graph is 1040 kg, which is about 5 billion times the mass of the {{w|Sun}}.

By contrast, the {{w|United States Bowling Congress}} requires all bowling balls to weigh no more than 16 pounds (that is, a mass of no more than 7.257 kg), with no minimum weight. Hence, if the x-axis of the graph ran from, say, 0 to 8 kg, the graph might actually impart some useful information.

The title text continues the trend of providing unhelpful information by stating that the optimal place to stand when trying to bowl a strike is inside the bowling alley. It is quite obvious that if one is to attempt to bowl a strike, they should stand near the pins, hence inside a bowling alley. The title text also mentions the possibility of "any establishment uphill from one" working, with a little luck. This suggests the possibility of rolling the bowling ball downhill, into the bowling alley (possibly ''through'' it) and into the pins. If the ball were to be launched at very high speed, its destructive power would allow it to get a strike from any site with a bowling alley along the ball's path. If launched at sufficiently high rotational speed, it could achieve one or more strikes from outside of any bowling alley that doesn't have enough solid shielding between the pins and the exploding fragments of the ball.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[The header is surrounded on either side by small drawings of two bowling pins and a bowling ball.]
:Data for Optimal Bowling

:[Four line graphs are depicted. Each has a numbered one-word general description in a box at the top, an unlabeled y-axis, and a labeled x-axis. The relevant curve and other comments on each graph are in red.]

:1. Aim
:[The graph's x-axis is labeled from -180° to 180°.]
:Release Direction
:[The red curve on the graph is just above the x-axis at all points except for a steep peak around 0°. The red curve is labeled:]
:Relative Probability of Strike

:2. Speed
:[The graph's x-axis is labeled from 10-1 to 108, with the last point on the x-axis labeled "Speed of Light".]
:Ball Speed (m/s)
:[The red curve on the graph starts at the x-axis for 10-1, reaches its peak around 10, then declines and becomes a dashed line ending around three-quarters of the peak around 102. The remainder of the curve is replaced by two labels:]
:Equipment Damage
:Widespread Destruction

:3. Spin
:[The graph's x-axis is labeled from 0 to 1012.]
:Spin (RPMs)
:[The red curve on the graph starts about halfway from its peak for 0, reaches its peak somewhere between 0 and 1,000, then declines and becomes a dashed line around 1,000, soon after which the remainder of the curve is replaced by two labels:]
:Ball Explodes
:Widespread Destruction

:4. Weight
:[The graph's x-axis is labeled from 100 to 1040.]
:Ball Mass (kg)
:[The red curve on the graph starts just above the x-axis for 100, rises steeply and drops steeply ending just above the x-axis, then becoming a dashed line, all before reaching 1010. The remainder of the curve is replaced by two labels:]
:Equipment Damage
:Black Hole Created

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Line graphs]]
[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Sport]]

2710: Hydropower Breakthrough

2022-12-13T04:49:53Z

172.69.134.160: Added to strange powers of beret guy

{{comic
| number = 2710
| date = December 12, 2022
| title = Hydropower Breakthrough
| image = hydropower_breakthrough_2x.png
| imagesize = 261x303px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = A hydroelectric dam is also known as a heavy water reactor.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a PRACTICAL WATER REACTOR - Please don't change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag until the year 2039, or until fusion reactors have succeeded.}}

The comic parodies fusion reactors, with energy produced seemingly never positive. In the past years, constant developments in fusion reactors have slowly increased the energy output of fusion to more then the input. It is possible this is meant to directly parody the Department of Energy's anticipated announcement of Q>1 fusion. The announcement is scheduled for the day after this comics release, and the date of this announcement was announced the day this comic went up. [[https://www.ft.com/content/4b6f0fab-66ef-4e33-adec-cfc345589dc7]]

In the comic, Beret Guy, unscientific as always, presents a hydroelectric dam, which instead of generating energy, generates a flow of water. This is similar to the way that a fusion reactor takes energy (and hydrogen isotopes) as an input and energy (and helium isotopes) as outputs.

The symbol Q is normally used to refer to {{w|fusion energy gain factor}}, the ratio of power generated by a fusion reactor to the energy used to maintain it -- an energy source isn't useful if it takes more power to run it than it produces. Q also can represent the volumetric flow rate of water through a hydroelectric dam, and in this case, a Q > 1 would have no great significance. Beret Guy has somehow mixed the two up, making the rate of flow as the output of the reaction and increasing it.

A {{w|hydroelectric dam}} is a power facility that generates electricity from water flowing in a river passing through a water turbine and generator.

The title text further confuses the issue as it introduces nuclear ''fission'' and equates the hydroelectric dam with a heavy water reactor, which is a special type of nuclear fission reactor that uses deuterium as a moderator to absorb neutrons. This is also a pun because one could simplistically say that a hydroelectric dam runs on "heavy water". The electricity comes from potential energy stored in the water, which is directly related to its mass (U = mgh). Alongside that, it possibly is making a pun on water and fusion reactors. Heavy water is the primary source of deuterium, a specific isotope of hydrogen required for the most energy-efficient fusion reactions needed today. On the other hand, water is the liquid that passes through dams, and is rarely used for fusion reactions today. {{citation needed}}

==Transcript==

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

[Beret Guy is standing on a podium. A lectern is in front of him, and he is pointing to a picture behind him of a dam.]

Beret Guy: We are pleased to announce that our hydroelectric dam has achieved Q > 1, producing more water than we fed into it!

Off-panel voice: Hooray!

Off-panel voice: Wait.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Beret Guy]]
[[Category:Strange powers of Beret Guy]]

Talk:2708: Mystery Asterisk Destination

2022-12-09T02:56:23Z

172.69.134.160: Weird memory

ChatGPT explanation:
: The xkcd comic is a humorous reference to the use of asterisks in written text to indicate a footnote or additional information. In this case, the asterisk in the comic is not accompanied by a corresponding footnote, and instead, the text at the bottom of the panel explains that the asterisk points to this explanation. The joke is that the explanation itself is not particularly useful or illuminating, as it simply states that the asterisk points to this very explanation.
Mediocre at best. Trying again after removing the space after the asterisk from the transcript, and including the title text:
:This xkcd comic is a reference to the use of asterisks and other symbols in footnotes and endnotes to indicate a reference or explanation. In this case, the comic shows a blank panel with a note at the bottom that says "Whenever you see a mystery asterisk that doesn't have a matching footnote, it points here." This is a humorous way of saying that when an asterisk appears in a piece of text without a corresponding footnote, it is pointing to the explanation provided in this comic.

:The title text adds an additional layer of humor by saying that if a writer uses the "dagger" symbol (also known as a "†" symbol) without a corresponding footnote, it means that the writer is threatening the reader with a physical dagger. This is meant to be a tongue-in-cheek joke about the potential dangers of reading footnotes.
Better but still seriously flawed in the final sentence. The prompt prefix I used in front of the transcript was, "Explain the following xkcd comic. The title text should be explained in a separate paragraph.\n\n" [[Special:Contributions/172.69.134.16|172.69.134.16]] 20:10, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
:Adapted in part, fun and good. I wouldn't mind a bot posting to talk when the transcript is stable for half an hour, let's see what it can do! [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.123|172.69.33.123]] 20:41, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

"with no unmatched footnote" is shockingly bad grammar.

I swear I've seen this comic before somewhere. Was there a similar SMBC? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.166.218|172.71.166.218]] 08:51, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I feel that the current explanation misses that it's not that uncommon to see asterisks that ought to have a related footnote, but don't. Or a footnote pointed to nowhere in the text. This most often happends on packaging or advertisement. The fact that not every asterisk is there to mark a footnote is a valuable addition, but not the point of the comic.
[[Special:Contributions/172.71.114.7|172.71.114.7]] 13:23, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

This is like the Malkavian sourcebook which contains page XX (where XX is the placeholder page left blank for final pagination)

Isn't the hover text wrong? It seems like he means either "dagger symbol with an unmatched footnote" or "dagger symbol with no matched footnote." Am I missing something here? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.134.131|172.69.134.131]] 13:41, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Now I have a really bad time... Because I cannot think of any categories for this comic, and that bothers me like an unanswered footnote asterix* ;-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 14:02, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
:There is at least one other comic about footnotes, so we could make a Category:Footnotes --[[Special:Contributions/172.71.254.33|172.71.254.33]] 14:51, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I would like to re-emphasize that missing footnotes happen ALL THE TIME with junk mail. Drives me crazy.

This comic has resolved so much social anxiety I had! All those Kindle Unlimited stories and webnovels that had missing footnotes have now been solved! Thanks XKCD!!!

I remember Robert Anton Wilson giving a reading in at a Santa Cruz bookstore back in the 90s where he had some 1790s Catholic conspiracy theorist who went on at length about how the French revolutionists had been sending coded messages with asterisks in public documents. There were so many examples given. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.134.160|172.69.134.160]] 02:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Talk:2708: Mystery Asterisk Destination

2022-12-07T20:12:40Z

172.69.134.160: Point

2703: Paper Title

2022-11-26T04:48:39Z

172.69.134.160: /* Explanation */ better APA style guide

{{comic
| number = 2703
| date = November 25, 2022
| title = Paper Title
| image = paper_title_2x.png
| imagesize = 557x261px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT: The authors hope these results are correct because we all want to be cool people who are good at science.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a MICROBE TRYING TO LURE YOU WITH CLICKBAIT. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

Many if not most scientific research papers present a {{w|hypothesis}} and the result of testing the hypothesis. Scientific papers should also have titles which describe the content of the papers. See [[2456: Types of Scientific Paper]].

[[Cueball]] is writing a research paper with a {{w|clickbait}}, {{w|puffery}}, and insufficiently descriptive title, "Check out this cool microbe we found." His colleague [[Megan]] asks him whether science is supposed to be about formulating a hypothesis and testing it. Cueball agrees, changing the title to, "Is our lab really good at finding cool microbes? Some preliminary data." However, that is still an overly promotional and insufficiently descriptive clickbait title, purporting to be a study of the authors' own competence, which would be highly unusual because of the lack of objectivity due to the authors being the subject of investigation. [[:Category:Clickbait|Clickbait]] is a recurring theme on xkcd, recently considered within science publications in [[2001: Clickbait-Corrected p-Value]]. The title of a research article describing a novel organism will often contain the author(s) proposed {{w|Linnaean taxonomy|Linnaean}} name for it, which is granted as their prerogative within certain limitations.[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK8808/]

{{w|Empirical research|''Empirical investigations''}} and ''{{w|analysis}} papers'' almost always state and test a hypothesis, but there are many kinds of scientific papers which usually do not, including ''{{w|literature review}}s,'' which qualitatively summarize the results of other papers; ''{{w|meta-analysis|meta-analyses}},'' which quantitatively summarize the results and quality of other work; ''observational reports'' (or ''{{w|case study|case studies}}'' — not to be confused with {{w|observational study|observational studies}}, a kind of empirical analysis), which present data and a chronicle of its collection often without analysis, testing, or interpretation; ''{{w|Conference proceeding|conference papers}},'' which present preliminary work without peer review; ''definition papers,'' which attempt to formalize terms used in divergent ways in prior work; ''{{w|Dialectic#Hegelian dialectic|syntheses}},'' which present alternative views combining multiple and often conflicting concepts; ''{{w|Comparison|comparative studies}},'' which compare and contrast a class of concepts; ''{{w|Interpretive discussion|interpretive}} papers,'' showing a different perspective on previous work; ''{{w|technical report}}s,'' which may present information on a specific procedural topic or progress and results, if any, in a field; ''opinion'' and ''editorial essays,'' which are intended to argue a point of view persuasively; ''book reviews,'' which summarize monographs or biographies; and ''grant proposals,'' which make the case for funding a project. Mathematical or logic research papers which don't involve empirical observations or uncertainty would be considered technical reports in other fields. Engineering work can be reported as an empirical investigation or a technical report. Empirical research articles which do present and test a hypothesis are usually written in [https://opentextbc.ca/researchmethods/chapter/writing-a-research-report-in-american-psychological-association-apa-style/ American Psychological Association (APA) style].

Cueball seems to want to author an observational report, but Megan would prefer an empirical investigation or analysis, perhaps because they may be more likely to be accepted by peer reviewed journals, and as such are more prestigious than mere conference papers, "letters," or "communications" as observational reports are often published. However, research articles describing the discovery of new {{w|microbe}}s in prestigious peer-reviewed journals are often published as observational reports,[https://www.microbiologyresearch.org/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.004029][http://calamar.univ-ag.fr/mangroveSAE/articles/2022/Volland%20et%20al%202022.pdf][https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10482-021-01656-x] so Megan's concerns may be unfounded; even if so, the editors of any reputable journal would almost certainly require a far more descriptive and less overtly promotional title from Cueball. The question remains whether an intial submission with a catchy clickbait title might get more prompt attention from editors and reviewers.

In the title text, the {{w|conflict of interest}} statement says that the authors hope their results are correct because, "we all want to be cool people who are good at science." A scientific publication's potential conflict of interest usually refers to the authors' financial, familial, or other external interests in the research outcomes. The disclosure statement does not describe a conflict between the authors' {{w|extrinsic motivation}}s and factors influencing the accuracy and neutrality of their work; in fact it claims the opposite, an alignment between their {{w|intrinsic motivation}}s and the goal of producing high quality work, which should go without saying.{{cn}}

==Transcript==
:[Megan is standing behind and looking over the shoulder of Cueball who is sitting in his office chair at his desk typing on the keyboard. A line from the keyboard goes up to two boxes above them. A smaller one at the top, half the length and a third the height of the larger box below. There are text in both boxes. The bottom box is not filled out with text. At the end of the text in the bottom box the line indicating where the cursor are can be seen, as in this is what Megan can see on the screen:]

:Paper title:
: ''Check out this cool microbe we found''|

:[Pan to only showing Megan who has taken a hand up to her chin. Cueball replies from off-panel.]
:Megan: Isn’t science supposed to be about formulating a hypothesis and then testing it?
:Cueball - off panel: Oh. Yeah, I guess.

:[Same setting as in the first panel, but now the bottom box is filled out with text, but still with the cursor shown at the end:]

:Paper title:
: ''Is our lab really good at finding cool microbes? Some preliminary data''|

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Scientific research]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Clickbait]]