explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:2809: Moon

2024-10-18T19:22:45Z

172.69.195.106: Brung in from Article page...

Happy birthday to me. This comic is a good birthday present, so I'm gonna try to add some stuff to the explanation now. [[User:R3TRI8UTI0N|R3TRI8UTI0N]] ([[User talk:R3TRI8UTI0N|talk]]) 02:11, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Okay, added a Trivia section and a lot of stuff to the explanation. Request someone help add more information about lunar cycles and some wikipedia links. [[User:R3TRI8UTI0N|R3TRI8UTI0N]] ([[User talk:R3TRI8UTI0N|talk]]) 02:35, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
:Ah, well, I added more (sufficient? ...haven't wikilinked yet) info about the illumination/tide cycles. i.e. about half the time (at least) half reilluminating areas on the night side of Earth + roughly twice a day dragging/flinging the tides 'upwards' (modifying the Sun's own twice-daily effects).
:Had to heavily qualify the secondary Trivia point, for caveats. I mean selenically-specific names aren't rare, when refering to orb sometimes known as Phoebe/Cynthia, until you become more precise about "common English use". Didn't say anything about (the) Earth, but did mention the Sun(/suns in general) in the edit comment. Interesting point to make, but not so much unusual as stemming from long time (way into prehistory!) custom so really being the heavily weighted precedent. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.187|172.70.90.187]] 05:21, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
::...what? I don't understand. [[User:R3TRI8UTI0N|R3TRI8UTI0N]] ([[User talk:R3TRI8UTI0N|talk]]) 05:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
:::''"it can also be described by other titles such as "Luna" (directly taken from from Latin mythology/astronomy)."'' It's not true that "the Moon doesn't have a name". It is ''the'' Moon (unlike other moons), plus all kinds of other names (historical, other culture and/or other language; such as Chandra/Igaluk/Chang'e). But it is interesting to note that, until we were able to imagine (and/or see) moons orbiting other things up in the sky, there was ''just'' its proper name. Whatever it might be. Only after we anticipated the existence of satellites of other planets (and, perhaps, other satellites of our own planet), having first recognised what other planets actually were (distinct from stars, with those being other suns than ''our'' Sun/Sol/Ra/...) was it meaningful that the name(s) we did use for it might be re-used to describe the class of things that were like it. But they then really needed their own fresh names/catalogue numbers. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.15|172.71.242.15]] 10:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
:Reminds me of that conversation from Dragonheart (paraphrized as I only watched the German dub): "So instead of calling me 'dragon" in your language you call me 'dragon' in another language... I think I like it" [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 07:16, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

If there was no Moon, would an Earth astronomer that discovered moons around one of the other planets be considered a loony? [[User:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For]] ([[User talk:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|talk]]) 02:40, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
:If there was no moon, it's quite possible there would be no intelligent life on Earth. Also, when Galileo Galilei found Jupiter's moons, he was totally considered loony by some, while others said it's defect of the telescope. Remember that at that point of history, suggesting that if Earth has moon, other planets might have one too was something you could be burned on stake for. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 03:13, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

:Definitely not. (I see what you did there.) --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.247.155|172.70.247.155]] 12:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I doubt the title text is intended as a reference to that saying. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.247.51|172.69.247.51]] 04:17, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
:Yeah, I don't get how that is related either. The title text references that it is pretty, but the nmoves away from that. Not sure how that is related to a quote that doesn't even use the word "pretty". --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 09:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
::I mean, the word "beautiful" and "pretty" have common meanings, so I thought about that connection, but if no one else made the connection, so be it. [[User:R3TRI8UTI0N|R3TRI8UTI0N]] ([[User talk:R3TRI8UTI0N|talk]]) 05:30, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
:::I think if that connection was meant to be invoked it would just say beautiful, or get more into detail of the way it is pretty/beautiful. However it was just used as a kind of connector to make the other mentioned aspects seem more minor. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 08:05, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Like many things,{{Citation needed}} it has probably seemed usual whilst we only know our own example. Once we started to find other examples out there, we can discover the ways in which it's an outlier. (Martian: "Well of ''course'' there's those two small rock 'stars' visibly zipping around overhead, that's what the sky alsays looks like for me, and I imagine that it's much the same for anyone else..." Earthling/Venusian/Jovian/Tritonian/Plutoid: "...hold my beer!") [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.133|141.101.99.133]] 07:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I've been saying this about the Sun… A great fireball looming in the sky. It remotely powers life. (Even with 90% of that power lost at each trophic level!) It is worshipped as a god. It controls Earthlings' sense of time. When it leaves the sky at a regular interval, a wave of fear follows, and everything seeks shelter and goes dormant until its return. Oh, but it also burns and mutates the flesh of those who stand in its rays, to the point that it's ''dangerous to look at''. Sounds fake, right? And yet, there it is. [[User talk:AgentMuffin|~AgentMuffin]] 08:00, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I have a personal theory that the constant gravitational massage is responsible for sustaining the Earth's large magnetic field, thus preventing the solar wind making us like Venus or Mars, and probably keeping the tectonic plates on the move. (Oh and dogs domesticated themselves - just saying p.s. same for cats but only after we had barns). [[User:RIIW - Ponder it|RIIW - Ponder it]] ([[User talk:RIIW - Ponder it|talk]]) 09:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I think we’re well past the point of “plans being made” of humans returning to the Moon. [[User:SilverTheTerribleMathematician|Silver]] ([[User talk:SilverTheTerribleMathematician|talk]]) 19:29, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
:You mean that we are currently building rockets and stuff to send people to the moon at this very moment? [[User:R3TRI8UTI0N|R3TRI8UTI0N]] ([[User talk:R3TRI8UTI0N|talk]]) 05:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
::We are. Which I hope you're aware of. But if you weren't... this your [[1053: Ten Thousand|lucky day]]! [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.15|172.71.242.15]] 10:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Huh. I thought we were still only in the planning phase. Admittedly, paying attention to the news these days tends to be bad for one's mental health, all things considered. [[User:R3TRI8UTI0N|R3TRI8UTI0N]] ([[User talk:R3TRI8UTI0N|talk]]) 03:19, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
::::{{w|Space Launch System}} and {{w|Artemis 1}} built and launched with further SLSs and Artemises(/Artemii?/Artemoxen?) being built for the followup missions. The bit of the mission with {{w|SpaceX Starship}} has been built/tested over variously incremental degrees, but is still far short of even Artemis's trans-lunar test as far as proving itself capable. But there is definitely more than just plans. (Though wouldn't be surprised if there are also ''contingency'' plans, if MusX gets too distracted and cannot actually deliver his element contribution. Like shuffling the {{w|Blue Moon (spacecraft)|Bezos version}} up the order, though that's also far (indeed, further) from usability right now.)
::::Artemis 2 doesn't depend upon anything additional (manufacturing aside) and so the trans-/circum-lunar manned mission is likely to happen (eventually) unless actively cancelled/reconfigured, for possibly political reasons (the current schedule of November 2024 is potentially between the election and inaugoration/continuation of the next/incumbant/returning US President, so any slipping NASA schedules and sudden changes in direction from 'above' are possibly going to interact), even with current equipment already partly in existence. Artemis 3's landing mission is far more hypothetical, right now, but predominantly for all the various non-NASA reasons (e.g. politics and, possibly, the fallout of any further Twitter/X 'developments' that have knock-on-effects that hinder/do not help SpaceX to solve its own entirely different problems). Assuming '2' itself isn't a practical(/fatal) failure in its own right, of course.
::::But this is just my own (broad) thinking about what pieces are in place or in the process of being placed. There are both professionals and supra-amateurs who keep a very close eye on all these things and might be far more informed about current progress. Yet I think I'm safe to roughly update you on the current "beyond planning" status of the Artemis programme, giving you various interesting advances ''and'' caveats that you were not aware of. ...watch this space? (Or space in general!) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.15|172.71.242.15]] 10:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

August 1, 2023 the moon is a "Super Moon" [[User:KingPenguin|KingPenguin]] ([[User talk:KingPenguin|talk]]) 22:13, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

We need to make a category for these things which would sound outlandish if they didn't exist. [[2115]] is the first one I think of, and I'm sure there's more. I propose we call it Category: Things That Seem Like They Shouldn't Work But Do in honor of [[2540]]. [[User:Take The A Train To Watertown|Take The A Train To Watertown]] ([[User talk:Take The A Train To Watertown|talk]]) 12:20, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
:[[2085]] title text. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 05:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@84596Gamma - yes, really. (But not as much as a spoon.) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.186|172.71.178.186]] 15:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm kind of surprised no one has mentioned The Broken Earth Trilogy by N. K. Jemisin yet. [[User:Stickfigurefan|Stickfigurefan]] ([[User talk:Stickfigurefan|talk]]) 16:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Science (and science fiction) writer Isaac Asimov once theorized that if we hasn't had the Moon then the heliocentric model of the solar system might have taken root a lot earlier than it did. It's pretty obvious that both the Sun and the Moon orbit around the Earth (I know...) so obviously everything else does too, right? But then we had to come up with ways to explain the movement of the planets, and a lot of very smart people wasted a lot of time trying to figure out exactly how that worked. [[User:Jkshapiro|Jkshapiro]] ([[User talk:Jkshapiro|talk]]) 16:49, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

2809: Moon

2024-10-18T19:21:34Z

172.69.195.106: /* Explanation */ Indeed. *Looks* chatty enough to be intended to be a Talk comment. Removing to add it to that page...

{{comic
| number = 2809
| date = July 31, 2023
| title = Moon
| image = moon_2x.png
| imagesize = 313x402px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = I mean, it's pretty, but it doesn't really affect us beyond that. Except that half the nights aren't really dark, and once or twice a day it makes the oceans flood the coasts.
}}

==Explanation==
The {{w|Moon}} is a celestial body orbiting Earth, first formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago - about 50 million years after the initial formation of the solar system. As of the date of this comic, the Moon is still orbiting the Earth{{Citation needed}} at a distance of approximately 384,400 kilometers, or about 238,900 miles.

This comic points out how weird it is to have such an enormous celestial body near to us. The Moon has a radius more than one quarter of Earth's, and is around one eightieth of Earth's mass, and is so close that major surface features are visible, even with the naked eye, and much more clearly visible with even a simple telescope. Celestial distances tend to be so large that only truly immense objects can be seen without magnification, and even those tend to appear only as points of light to the naked eye. The second nearest body of notable size, Venus, is approximately 46.576 million kilometers away at its closest. The fact that there's "another world" that's close enough that humanity has always been aware of it, but distant enough that it couldn't be reached until a space program was developed, is a striking feature of Earth that we take for granted, only because it's always been that way.

While it's not uncommon for planets to have orbiting moons, no other planet in the solar system has a moon that's so large, in relation to the planet. Of the other rocky planets, only Mars has moons, and the largest of those is only 14 miles across.

Pluto and Charon are closer in size, than even the Earth/Moon system, but this meant that they had actually become seriously considered as a {{w|Double planet|double(/binary) planet pair}}, had not Pluto been redesignated as a "dwarf planet". There is the possibility a term such as "double dwarf planet" could be adopted, at some point, as "double minor planet" is sometimes already used for binary asteroid systems. The lesser bodies of the Pluto-Charon system may then even be considered as circumbinary moons.

Other than this, Earth is the only accepted planet we're currently aware of that has a satellite that's so visible from its surface.

The title text sarcastically claims that, other than being "pretty", the Moon doesn't impact us, then subverts it by mentioning substantial impacts it has on Earth. Having such a large satellite so close has impacts that we take for granted only because we're used to them, but if they hadn't always existed, they'd seem unbelievable. One is that, for half the lunar cycle, the moon reflects enough light to produce visibility at night. The other impact is tides, since the gravitational pull of the Moon is large enough to alter the surfaces of oceans, causing shorelines to shift on a daily cycle. The text mentions these dismissively, in a deliberate contrast with their huge significance. Moonlight alters the illumination cycle of the planet to a significant degree, which changes how both humans and other animals operate at night, even before the advent of artificial lighting. Tides had major impacts on the development of life, continue to affect ecosystems, and play an essential role in our ability to interact with the oceans. If someone from a planet without such a large moon were to observe these impacts, they'd likely be shocked and amazed by them, but we barely notice them.

==Transcript==
:[Ponytail is pointing and looking up to the left, while Cueball behind her looks the same way.]
:Ponytail: That thing hanging in the sky is a second nearby world. It's close enough that you can see its surface as it passes overhead.
:Cueball: Wow. Isn't that ... weird?
:Ponytail: I dunno, it's just always been there.

:[Caption below the panel:]
:If it didn't exist, the moon would sound like such an outlandish sci-fi concept.

==Trivia==
*Earth's moon can be considered weird for additional reasons.
**It is by far the largest and most massive moon relative to the planet it orbits.
**Our moon is the only moon in the solar system to not have a proper name, not even a jumble of letters and numbers. In English it is simply given the proper name of "the Moon" (capitalized), being the ancient archetype for all other moons discovered since the time of Galileo, although it can also be described by other titles such as "Luna" (directly taken from from Latin mythology/astronomy).
**It is almost exactly the same apparent size as the Sun in the sky which at various times enables both total solar eclipses (for which it needs to be close/large) and annular ones (for which it must not be ''too'' close/large). Much earlier in history it was too close to do both and much later it will gradually drift too far away to do so – making it additionally a temporal coincidence that humanity gets to witness it as we are so used to seeing it.
**There are even a couple of hypotheses that think that to get protein shaped right for life, the tides were needed, and that to evolve for living on land the tides are needed.
{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Astronomy]]

User talk:CalibansCreations

2024-10-17T12:25:00Z

172.69.195.106: /* Politics intrudes */

Please chat with me below.
----

== 1946?? Yes, at one point. ==

The change made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Car_wash&diff=prev&oldid=1212096331&diffonly=1 here] marks the point where the valid header/anchor of "1946" was removed. These things happen, especially cross-wiki. Just so you know (I was intruigued myself, so did a couple of minutes digging). Nice catch, though! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.139|172.70.85.139]] 10:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
:oh, my first talk page message, thx. [[User:CalibansCreations|'''Caliban''']] ([[User talk:CalibansCreations|talk]]) 11:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

==Politics intrudes==
randall still supports zionist harris... :'( [[User:CalibansCreations|'''Caliban''']] ([[User talk:CalibansCreations|talk]]) 07:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
: Do you really think Trump would be better? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.205.135|172.68.205.135]] 09:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
::i mean, both of them suck tbh [[User:CalibansCreations|'''Caliban''']] ([[User talk:CalibansCreations|talk]]) 09:35, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
:::so whats your alternative suggestion? Voting/Endorsing for a third party and then get trump into office? Great strategy --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 10:46, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
::::that ain't how it works. if we all vote for the third party, the third party will win. simple as that. [[User:CalibansCreations|'''Caliban''']] ([[User talk:CalibansCreations|talk]]) 11:30, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::''Which'' third-party? Vermine Supreme? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.206|172.70.90.206]] 12:04, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::Who exactly is "we all"?
:::::Nobody outside of your little internet bubble is voting third-party, because doing so without mass coordination is just throwing your vote away (meanwhile MAGA are all fully coordinated in voting for Trump).
:::::The risk of a Trump second term is bad enough even with everyone who is anti-Trump voting for Harris, and you think the average person over the age of 20 is going to risk that even further by voting for a third party?[[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.106|172.69.195.106]] 12:25, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
: I think you err if you think that "supports Israel against attackers" totally equates to "supports Israel's uncompromising attacks on others". And "Zionist" is such a loaded term, with {{w|Zionist antisemitism|various complications}}, with Kamala being no more this than is her primary opponent.
: Being consistently critical of one candidate by using a single word (e.g.. "fascist", for the other one) does not bode well for your appreciation of the many subtleties that make up anyone other than a cartoon hero/villain. Not that even the reality of the State Of Israel is simple (there are plenty of its citizen residents who decry their government's actions since/before last October, are they ''anti-''Zionist?), and even that is just a single relatively small mess in the much bigger mess that is the wider morass of foreign (and domestic) policy. By picking just one dogwhistle term (arguably in a very incorrect context) isn't helping whatever argument you're trying to make. All I get from this conversation is that you hate every candidate with any chance of winning (and most of those without, based upon their stated positions), without knowing what you are for. Employment? Social safety-nets? Smaller goverment? ''Better'' (define 'better'!) government? Who would you prefer to 'deal with' the issue of Ukraine, Taiwan, North Korea or countless other worldside issues out there?
: You also elsewhere announced yourself as a Brit (as am I), so you don't have a vote and precious little actual influence. Even if you or I had any useful analysis to say about this issue, it seems that most people are already polarised in opinion and you or I (or, indeed, Randall) can do little but be performative about our current views. It is unlikely we could swing even one notable vote, although we might just push some of the partially polarised fully over (whichever way) into their pre-chosen preferences, excited or annoyed by such a single-issue outburst that they find themself vehemently agreeing or disagreeing with. (As a Brit, I'm frankly embarrassed by those who put up "this house is supporting the LibDem/Labour/Tory/SNP/whoever candidate" signs in their windows. I'd put up OMRLP ones, maybe, but I've never been able to vote that way, anyway, so can certainly say that I've actually never voted for them. Even if they sometimes seem the better choice.)
: Furthermore, it has absolutely nothing to do with this comic (US geography, yes, US politics, no). I would heavily advise you to take this whole section out and place it all somewhere else. Perhaps your User Talk: area, so that you can wear your heartfelt antizionist (and perhaps no more) opinions on your sleeve without distracting from more relevent discussion, such as "Why is Idaho unlabeled" or "Why does everyone mississremember Mississippi's postostostal code?" [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.206|172.70.90.206]] 12:04, 17 October 2024 (UTC) Postscript: *I* have moved this. <-that IP

Talk:2995: University Commas

2024-10-08T13:29:38Z

172.69.195.106:

As Wikipedia notes, the {{w|Harvard comma}} is actually a thing, and synonymous with the Oxford comma. It's hard to understand whether Randall was just ignoring that.
It's interesting to also look at how the various commas are meaningful. For instance, the Yale comma here appears to be just plain ungrammatical, you'd never put a comma between a verb and a its direct object; similarly the Cambridge comma and Princeton commas are ungrammatical, you'd never put one after the word "and." The Stanford comma is unambiguously normal and it's not clear how you could have such a list without it (absent replacement with a [Stanford?] semicolon). The Columbia comma is being used to separate "mac and cheese" into "mac, and[,] cheese" which changes the semantic meaning (arguably into something meaningless, but maybe we're listing Apple Computers or even Macintosh apple fruit abbreviated). The MIT comma is a cute programming joke for multiline lists. Maybe there are hidden trick meanings (like MIT) I'm missing. [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 23:03, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
:On their own, few of them are intrinsically bad, in the right context.
:*"Please, buy" - valid comma. Prefixed subclause (general plea).
:*"Please buy, apples" - valid comma (more specific plea).
:*"apples, mac" - valid comma (list-type).
:*"mac, and" - valid comma (potentially a conjunctive sub-clause).
:*"mac and, cheese" - valid comma (potentially a post-conjunctive sub-clause).
:*"and cheese, milk" - valid comma (follow-up sub-clause).
:*"cheese, milk, and" - Oxford comma. (Thus invalid, by default. IMO.)
:*"milk and, bread." - ...would be valid, as above, except for the sentence ending.
:*"and bread,." - Ok. Definitely the worst. (Except for the Oxford Comma, which is still worserer!)
:Obviously, combinations of them (or counterpart lack of them, in some cases) can clash badly. Some can work well together, but using ()s, ;s or feetnete* is often better than diving in and out of sub-clauses in the midst of a comma-bound list and potentially making it ambiguous whether you're diving in/out of a clarifying aside or replacing a non-terminating conjunction or perhaps one of the other usages to which a comma might apply.
:* Or just generally rewriting a multi-clausal sentence completely! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.22|172.70.86.22]] 23:30, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
::Commas can go in a number of places in lists, and, occasionally, after the word "and". [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 23:34, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
::Potentially, anything is possible... I can see how a sentence like "Please buy apples, mac and cheese, milk, and, bread being out of stock, oats" would work, but I really don't see how the commas after "and" could work ''in this sentence''. [[User:Transgalactic|Transgalactic]] ([[User talk:Transgalactic|talk]]) 08:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

If each item in a list shall be followed by a comma then the MIT comma is quite proper. SDT [[Special:Contributions/172.68.245.206|172.68.245.206]] 05:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

The UCLA comma may refer to the 8 clap, a chant at UCLA which is begins with a string of 8 claps. {{unsigned ip|172.68.205.178|07:33, 8 October 2024}}

I thought the UCLA & Michigan commas referred to quotes within citations. This isn't uncommon in literary studies, where you quote articles quoting books. Depending on your quotation style, this can result in a long string of 3-4 "commas" (as in: short lines in punctuation marks). If you place the quote between actual commas, make that 4-5. [[User:Transgalactic|Transgalactic]] ([[User talk:Transgalactic|talk]]) 08:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I think the tirade against the Oxford comma in the article is not relevant for understanding the comic. "'To my mother, Ayn Rand and God' does not" is not saying that Ayn Rand is the mother. To express that one should write "To my mother, Ayn Rand, and to God". Thus the ambiguity can be resolved. I believe one of the editors is mixing in their personal taste here. --[[Special:Contributions/172.71.160.71|172.71.160.71]] 09:03, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
:Tirade? Hardly. It explains when it doesn't help (and when it might).
:And I think you misread. "'To my mother, Ayn Rand and God' does not" indeed does not say that Ayn Rand is the mother. In fact it ''explicitly'' says that "'To my mother, Ayn Rand and God'"... erm... does ''not'' say the thing that 'To my mother, Ayn Rand, and God' ''potentially'' does. (See table below.)
:The choice of how to disambiguate "my mother, who is Ayn Rand", as a concept, is another thing and has multiple options. Disambiguating in the direction of a simple list is the contention surrounding the Oxford(/Serial) Comma itself (it is, by definition, being used in the list format), given that some circumstances are most helped by it and others are most helped by its absence. If you're strongly for the OC, you'll hopefully rewrite problematic OCed formulations so that you can use it. If you're strongly against it you should change problamatic non-OCed versions so that you can better go without one. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.128|172.70.85.128]] 10:21, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Inspired (a bit) by the Three Laws permutation table, a set of possible ambiguations from the straight list...
{| class="wikitable"
!A !!B !!C !!"A, B and C" !!"A, B, and C"
|-
|my parents||Ayn Rand||God||"my parents (who are Ayn Rand and God)"||''list only''*
|-
|my parents||God||Ayn Rand||"my parents (who are God and Ayn Rand)"||''list only''*
|-
|Ayn Rand||my parents||God||''list only''* ||''list only''*
|-
|Ayn Rand||God||my parents||''list only''* ||"Ayn Rand (who is God), and my parents"
|-
|God||my parents||Ayn Rand||''list only''* ||''list only''*
|-
|God||Ayn Rand||my parents||''list only''* ||"God (who is Ayn Rand), and my parents"
|}
:-* - Assuming no other "All You Zombies" and/or divine incarnation scenarios.
:...maybe it's too early in the morning, but I'm sure I'm missing other ambiguities I've commented on before. (Without necesarily going into the asterisked territories.) Anyone want to amend this? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.186.105|172.68.186.105]] 09:56, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
::Love it! [[User:Transgalactic|Transgalactic]] ([[User talk:Transgalactic|talk]]) 10:14, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I realize that this comic focuses on University commas, however I feel that some mention should be made about the Walken Comma and the Shatner Comma! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.103|172.70.114.103]] 10:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
:What, do you,    mean by,   that? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.106|172.69.195.106]] 13:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

2935: Ocean Loop

2024-05-20T21:29:03Z

172.69.195.106: /* Explanation */ Merge the useful bit of the unseen co-author (it never gave me Edit Conflict notice...)

{{comic
| number = 2935
| date = May 20, 2024
| title = Ocean Loop
| image = ocean_loop_2x.png
| imagesize = 317x286px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = I can't believe they wouldn't even let me hold a vote among the passengers about whether to try the loop.
}}

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

The comic shows a large construction, rising out of the sea to dwarf a nearby cruise ship. It involves a submerged water-jet sending water up out of the surface and round a rollercoaster-loop-like water-flume trough. The scale is such that it seems that the ship, once caught in the necessarily powerful stream of water, is intended to itself be propelled around the inverting loop before 'safely' exiting at the other side.

Apart from various other issues regarding {{what if|43|large "loop-the-loop"s}}, the stream of water required to maintain this setup would be {{w|Entrainment (hydrodynamics)|acting upon the nearby water}} and so the nearby ship is probably already close enough to be drawn into the loop (with the best option left being to deliberately steer into it, rather than risk being swept uncontrollably into the structure), assuming that it isn't already caught in the tug of the water-jet's inward flow.

Even assuming a 'successful' loop (the stresses, and rotation, inflicted by the loop are likely beyond the design limits of such a vessel), the emergence back into the ''relatively'' calm and stationary waters beyond the exiting outflow would be a severe challenge to navigation. On the positive side, due to the nature of buoyancy, if the loop structure itself is capable of withstanding the force of the water being forced round it then it ''should'' be equally capable of withstanding the passage of the ship, unlike an impromptu rail-based loop which might stand up on its own but then shake itself apart when the first carriage is sent around it.

The bottom text, "I don't know why the cruise line fired me", implies that Randall either suggested or implemented this idea, much to the dismay of his company.

The title text suggests that the not only are those in charge of the ship skeptical about sailing into this loop, but that they are worried that opening the decision-making process to the passengers might favour the risk over (well-founded) reason.

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

[A cruise ship aproaches an enormous loop-de-loop flume. A large jet of water is being propeled into the loop-de-loop]

[Caption below the panel:]

I don't know why the cruise line fired me

==Trivia==
* '''This trivia section was created by a BOT'''
* The [https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/ocean_loop.png standard size] image was uploaded with a resolution/size larger than the supposed 2x version.
* This may have been an error.
* At the time of posting, the image was ''huge'', 4760 x 4295 pixels.

{{comic discussion}}