explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:3036: Chess Zoo

2025-01-10T20:41:47Z

172.69.222.164:

For the transcript, I’m thinking of saying that “there are alternating white and grey squares, with smaller black squares imposed on them. The pattern of squares goes ''[something like GWBWGWBWGBW]''“. Would that work? Or is it too confusing? '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 19:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:Re: "GWBWGWBWGBW", knowing who we are here, I presume people might want to distinguish black-on-white from black-on-gray. We'd probably have to have a full markup system for background (gray/white) and foreground (empty, human, barrier, white pawn, gray pawn...). Maybe something like {[gE][wE][gB][wQg]}... Hrm... Because, of course, it has to be as complicated and precise as possible. :) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.46.135|172.70.46.135]] 19:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't think it's safe to allow people to go into the bishop enclosure, especially with high aggression in that area since both colors are able to look at each other there but not capture. One of those bishops is eventually going to take it out on someone. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.210|162.158.90.210]] 19:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:I don't know how dangerous they are to visitors in general, but I wouldn't leave children with them unattended. Maybe the enclosures with the knights would be good petting zoos. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 19:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:Thank you for reporting the bishop feeding gate being open, as this was the fifteenth time the one responsible failed to close it after feeding, he has been summarily fired.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.47.106|172.70.47.106]] 20:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
The zoo seems to be missing an area for knights and bishops to interact. (It has a knight/queen area, a knight/rook area, and a rook/bishop area. It can't have queen/rook or queen/bishop areas if it wants to have areas for rooks or bishops that exclude queens, because nothing blocks queens without blocking rooks and bishops. But it could have a knight/bishop mingling area, accessible to knights via wall-jump and to bishops via a diagonal corridor, and it doesn't.) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.187.84|162.158.187.84]] 20:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't have permissions to upload an image to this wiki, but if anyone who does would like to copy it over, I illustrated each piece's range of movement here[https://pasteboard.co/64VsBMA5af8l.png]. [[User:D5xtgr|D5xtgr]] ([[User talk:D5xtgr|talk]]) 20:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:Similarly, couldn't the pawn promoting zones be more centrally located each side, and have passages respectively for queens/rooks and for knights? Of course then those could enter and interact with promoting pawns, but why would that be deemed a problem? --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.222.164|172.69.222.164]] 20:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:1505: Ontological Argument

2024-11-24T07:47:29Z

172.69.222.164:

Reminds me some kind of the [http://hitchhikers.wikia.com/wiki/Babel_Fish#Philosophical_implications Babel Fish]... [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 06:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

:Isn't the greatest fallacy of ontological argument the fact that the set of entities may not be well-ordered by "greatest" or "goodness"? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 11:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

::Step 1: Take S to be the set of such entities. Step 2: When I reach step 3, if S hasn't managed to find a well-ordering relation for itself....
::I can't think of what to say next.. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.242|108.162.221.242]] 22:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)BK201

::That's a great point, and (IMHO) a truly serious problem in these attempts to "order" gods (maybe it stems from being tied down to monotheistic thinking?). But it's not really a "fallacy," properly speaking. Not all flaws in reasoning are fallacies... {{unsigned ip|108.162.210.39}}

::I think that (using this argument) the first flaw arises when defining the "set of entities". How can we define it and make sure that it is indeed a set? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.245|141.101.98.245]] 14:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

::I think the greatest fallacy is that they start with the conclusion that the fantasy that God exists isn't a fantasy, and then try to "reason" their way into finding support for that conclusion. IOW, claiming to apply reason while working in exactly the opposite way that true reasoning demands. I realize ontological arguments, as the explanation currently says, "seek to prove that God exists using only premises about the nature of existence and logical deductions from them. This is '''in contrast to arguments that are based on observations of the world'''". But you don't get to reject the logical scientific method (marshal the facts and '''THEN''' draw conclusions from them) and then claim you're being logical. - Equinox [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.120|199.27.128.120]] 15:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

:::I'm not sure that checks out. While it's true that they are looking for proof of their belief rather than forming a belief, it's more like an experiment where you are looking for the cause of something you know about, at least from their perspective. It's a philosophical argument/thought experiment about religion, so they get away with some things that don't fly in science. No, the biggest flaw is the assumption that since we can conceive of it, it must exist. just because we can conceive of a perfect being, and it would be even greater if it existed, does not inherently mean it does. I can conceive of a world in which I do not exist, but that doesn't mean we are in that world, nor that such a world exists (ignoring anything to do with a multiverse). It's tautological at best, like saying, this thing would be true if it was true. it can also be thought of as "in order for a being to be perfect, it must exist, so such a being must exist so that it can be perfect," which is a little easier to wrap your head around. I'm not saying there is no god, to be clear, I'm just saying that the ontological argument is not acceptable proof of that god's existence. [[User:Stardragon|Stardragon]] ([[User talk:Stardragon|talk]]) 23:50, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

::I find some humor in that 'A god who could find a flaw in the ontological argument' could easily be accomplished by a being who met and/or exceeded the original premise of being 'that than which nothing greater can be conceived'. Some of the more obvious logical flaws are pointed out in this thread, and proving the thought process wrong doesn't really affect its overall truthiness in either direction. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.133|108.162.221.133]] 07:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Yay a potential large, all-encompassing argument about religion waiting to happen. Oh glory day. [[User:YourLifeisaLie|The Goyim speaks]] ([[User talk:YourLifeisaLie|talk]]) 13:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Any chance this is really about an omnipotence paradox? Can god create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it? Is he so powerful that he can find a flaw in any argument that proves he exists? {{unsigned ip|108.162.237.186}}

:I think it's analogous and worth mentioning. Added it. [[User:Djbrasier|Djbrasier]] ([[User talk:Djbrasier|talk]]) 15:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Why is the William Lane Craig section in there? If there are dozens of versions of the ontological argument on wikipedia, it makes sense to list the original (Anselm), the most famous critique of it (Dawkins), and then refer the reader to wikipedia for more information. The Craig variant is not explained here and seems cherry-picked out of the long list on wikipedia for no clear reason. [[User:Djbrasier|Djbrasier]] ([[User talk:Djbrasier|talk]]) 14:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

:The text I replaced claimed that ontological arguments for the existence of God are based on the idea that a God that exists is greater than a God that does not exist. I changed it to say that Anselm's version says that and there are other ontological arguments that don't say that. I used William Lane Craig as the clearest and easiest to understand example from the Wikipedia article for which that is not the case. That said, I like how people have edited it since better than what I wrote. [[User:Bugstomper|Bugstomper]] ([[User talk:Bugstomper|talk]]) 00:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Super ultra chocolate fudge cookies mega sundae (from here on refered to as "happy happy") is by definition the best ice cream imaginable, meaning we can't concieve of a better ice cream. but, if the happy happy exists solely in your mind as an idea, than surely you can concieve of a better happy happy, that is, the one that is sitting on a desk in front of you. Therefore, the happy happy must be the one that exists right in front of you. now, where's my ice cream?? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.244|141.101.98.244]] 16:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

:Someone should put a happy happy on 141.101.98.244's desk when he isn't looking.[[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.185|199.27.128.185]] 00:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

"Ontological arguments, in general, are arguments that attempt to prove a point by involving a "higher reason" or purpose for the point. " These are teleological arguments, not ontological. {{unsigned|Atnorman}}

I noticed by pure coincidence that Megan and Cueball are posed exactly as they were in [[1315: Questions for God]]. Is that the only time they were posed like that while posing a theological question, or is this a broader pattern? I haven't found any others, offhand. Also noticed that the Ontological argument came up very subtly in [[1052: Every Major's Terrible]]. [[User:Jachra|Jachra]] ([[User talk:Jachra|talk]]) 21:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

: [[1052: Every Major's Terrible]] does not reference the ontological argument. X therefore X exists is not the argument.{{unsigned|Atnorman}}

Yeah but that's a strawman fallacy. I win.
I commit no fallacy, except the fallacy fallacy. [[User:YourLifeisaLie|The Goyim speaks]] ([[User talk:YourLifeisaLie|talk]]) 17:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

: Errm, isn't "Goyim" a plural and therefore wouldn't "speaks" but "speak"? {{unsigned|‎Gearoid}}

There are some ontological arguments that actually work, though. Like Rule 34. Well, in most cases at least; I'm pretty sure there are some examples that fail the rule, but I don't want to check. --[[Special:Contributions/198.41.243.5|198.41.243.5]] 07:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Is a philosopher who assembles words into ("concieves") statements or questions that are inherently meaningless but appear meaningful greater than one who makes only meaningful ones? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.81|173.245.53.81]] 07:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

: Mu. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.11.53|172.68.11.53]] 15:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Is it worth mentioning that an omnipresent God would, by definition, have eaten EVERY skateboard that was ever eaten, and even if that number is zero, would therefore be at worst tied for the world record?

"Beings what can be conceived" are subset of greater category - "All things, including those what humans can't conceive". Therefore, let's say what God is "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". Then, let's say we have The Great Unconceivable One, "that than which nothing greater can or could exist, regardless of whether it's conceivable". Basically, The Great Unconceivable One is eldrich being of such power, what only God himself can merely '''conceive''' The Great Unconceivable One, and what '''even God can't match the The Great Unconceivable One in power'''. That would make The Great Unconceivable One greater than God. And then, we would have infinite recursion - next in line is The Greater Unconceivable One, what only The Great Unconceivable One can conceive - then even more eldrich and powerful things. At the "top" of said infinite line of increasingly powerful beings would be '''The Greatest Unconceivable One''', the greatest of them all. --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.222.164|172.69.222.164]] 07:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:1505: Ontological Argument

2024-11-24T07:45:18Z

172.69.222.164:

Reminds me some kind of the [http://hitchhikers.wikia.com/wiki/Babel_Fish#Philosophical_implications Babel Fish]... [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 06:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

:Isn't the greatest fallacy of ontological argument the fact that the set of entities may not be well-ordered by "greatest" or "goodness"? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 11:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

::Step 1: Take S to be the set of such entities. Step 2: When I reach step 3, if S hasn't managed to find a well-ordering relation for itself....
::I can't think of what to say next.. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.242|108.162.221.242]] 22:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)BK201

::That's a great point, and (IMHO) a truly serious problem in these attempts to "order" gods (maybe it stems from being tied down to monotheistic thinking?). But it's not really a "fallacy," properly speaking. Not all flaws in reasoning are fallacies... {{unsigned ip|108.162.210.39}}

::I think that (using this argument) the first flaw arises when defining the "set of entities". How can we define it and make sure that it is indeed a set? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.245|141.101.98.245]] 14:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

::I think the greatest fallacy is that they start with the conclusion that the fantasy that God exists isn't a fantasy, and then try to "reason" their way into finding support for that conclusion. IOW, claiming to apply reason while working in exactly the opposite way that true reasoning demands. I realize ontological arguments, as the explanation currently says, "seek to prove that God exists using only premises about the nature of existence and logical deductions from them. This is '''in contrast to arguments that are based on observations of the world'''". But you don't get to reject the logical scientific method (marshal the facts and '''THEN''' draw conclusions from them) and then claim you're being logical. - Equinox [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.120|199.27.128.120]] 15:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

:::I'm not sure that checks out. While it's true that they are looking for proof of their belief rather than forming a belief, it's more like an experiment where you are looking for the cause of something you know about, at least from their perspective. It's a philosophical argument/thought experiment about religion, so they get away with some things that don't fly in science. No, the biggest flaw is the assumption that since we can conceive of it, it must exist. just because we can conceive of a perfect being, and it would be even greater if it existed, does not inherently mean it does. I can conceive of a world in which I do not exist, but that doesn't mean we are in that world, nor that such a world exists (ignoring anything to do with a multiverse). It's tautological at best, like saying, this thing would be true if it was true. it can also be thought of as "in order for a being to be perfect, it must exist, so such a being must exist so that it can be perfect," which is a little easier to wrap your head around. I'm not saying there is no god, to be clear, I'm just saying that the ontological argument is not acceptable proof of that god's existence. [[User:Stardragon|Stardragon]] ([[User talk:Stardragon|talk]]) 23:50, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

::I find some humor in that 'A god who could find a flaw in the ontological argument' could easily be accomplished by a being who met and/or exceeded the original premise of being 'that than which nothing greater can be conceived'. Some of the more obvious logical flaws are pointed out in this thread, and proving the thought process wrong doesn't really affect its overall truthiness in either direction. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.133|108.162.221.133]] 07:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Yay a potential large, all-encompassing argument about religion waiting to happen. Oh glory day. [[User:YourLifeisaLie|The Goyim speaks]] ([[User talk:YourLifeisaLie|talk]]) 13:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Any chance this is really about an omnipotence paradox? Can god create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it? Is he so powerful that he can find a flaw in any argument that proves he exists? {{unsigned ip|108.162.237.186}}

:I think it's analogous and worth mentioning. Added it. [[User:Djbrasier|Djbrasier]] ([[User talk:Djbrasier|talk]]) 15:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Why is the William Lane Craig section in there? If there are dozens of versions of the ontological argument on wikipedia, it makes sense to list the original (Anselm), the most famous critique of it (Dawkins), and then refer the reader to wikipedia for more information. The Craig variant is not explained here and seems cherry-picked out of the long list on wikipedia for no clear reason. [[User:Djbrasier|Djbrasier]] ([[User talk:Djbrasier|talk]]) 14:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

:The text I replaced claimed that ontological arguments for the existence of God are based on the idea that a God that exists is greater than a God that does not exist. I changed it to say that Anselm's version says that and there are other ontological arguments that don't say that. I used William Lane Craig as the clearest and easiest to understand example from the Wikipedia article for which that is not the case. That said, I like how people have edited it since better than what I wrote. [[User:Bugstomper|Bugstomper]] ([[User talk:Bugstomper|talk]]) 00:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Super ultra chocolate fudge cookies mega sundae (from here on refered to as "happy happy") is by definition the best ice cream imaginable, meaning we can't concieve of a better ice cream. but, if the happy happy exists solely in your mind as an idea, than surely you can concieve of a better happy happy, that is, the one that is sitting on a desk in front of you. Therefore, the happy happy must be the one that exists right in front of you. now, where's my ice cream?? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.244|141.101.98.244]] 16:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

:Someone should put a happy happy on 141.101.98.244's desk when he isn't looking.[[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.185|199.27.128.185]] 00:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

"Ontological arguments, in general, are arguments that attempt to prove a point by involving a "higher reason" or purpose for the point. " These are teleological arguments, not ontological. {{unsigned|Atnorman}}

I noticed by pure coincidence that Megan and Cueball are posed exactly as they were in [[1315: Questions for God]]. Is that the only time they were posed like that while posing a theological question, or is this a broader pattern? I haven't found any others, offhand. Also noticed that the Ontological argument came up very subtly in [[1052: Every Major's Terrible]]. [[User:Jachra|Jachra]] ([[User talk:Jachra|talk]]) 21:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

: [[1052: Every Major's Terrible]] does not reference the ontological argument. X therefore X exists is not the argument.{{unsigned|Atnorman}}

Yeah but that's a strawman fallacy. I win.
I commit no fallacy, except the fallacy fallacy. [[User:YourLifeisaLie|The Goyim speaks]] ([[User talk:YourLifeisaLie|talk]]) 17:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

: Errm, isn't "Goyim" a plural and therefore wouldn't "speaks" but "speak"? {{unsigned|‎Gearoid}}

There are some ontological arguments that actually work, though. Like Rule 34. Well, in most cases at least; I'm pretty sure there are some examples that fail the rule, but I don't want to check. --[[Special:Contributions/198.41.243.5|198.41.243.5]] 07:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Is a philosopher who assembles words into ("concieves") statements or questions that are inherently meaningless but appear meaningful greater than one who makes only meaningful ones? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.81|173.245.53.81]] 07:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

: Mu. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.11.53|172.68.11.53]] 15:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Is it worth mentioning that an omnipresent God would, by definition, have eaten EVERY skateboard that was ever eaten, and even if that number is zero, would therefore be at worst tied for the world record?

"Beings what can be conceived" are subset of greater category - "All things, including those what humans can't conceive". Therefore, let's say what God is "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". Then, let's say we have The Great Unconceivable One, "that than which nothing greater can or could exist, regardless of whether it's conceivable". Basically, The Great Unconceivable One is eldrich being of such power, what only God himself can merely '''conceive''' The Great Unconceivable One, and what '''even God can't match the The Great Unconceivable One in power'''. That would make The Great Unconceivable One greater than God. --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.222.164|172.69.222.164]] 07:45, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

User:42.book.addict

2024-11-06T16:22:00Z

172.69.222.164: Undo revision 356028 by CalibansCreations (talk) Could easily be deliberate formatting. Changing someone else's User:Page isn't polite. Letting the owner make the final choice.

{{notice|I will be attempting reach out to [[User:Jeff|Jeff]]-the owner of this wiki and the only (sort of) active ‘crat-via Twitter/X DMs when I find the time. You can see my To-Do List for him at the bottom of my user page. If there is anything else you think is important, please add to it. I am also considering asking him for adminship, for I am pretty active and available, as well as very dedicated towards this project. What do you think?
TL;DR-will be DMing [[User:Jeff|Jeff]], asking him to do some very important things, I want to become an admin, please give me your thoughts.}}

Hi! If you see this, you have reached my user page! I’m 14, live in California, love reading, and started reading Randall’s works (What If?, Thing Explainer, XKCD) in 2018. I started editing on Feb. 1, 2024. I've done {{#cscore:42.book.addict|changes}} changes across {{#cscore:42.book.addict|pages}} pages, bringing to a total of {{#cscore:42.book.addict|score}} point contribution score. See my [[User:42.book.addict/userbox|userboxes]]!

==My Loves==
•Hatsune Miku 🥰 
•Classical music-Beethoven 
•Reading (seriously. I will read any book you give me. I will read the ingredients off the back of a mustard bottle for fun. I read an entire scientific encyclopaedia during the lockdown.) 
•ao3 
•Pokémon cards (I have a pretty solid portfolio/collection) 
•Bluey (yes, I enjoy watching a preschool show. sue me.) 
•Harry Potter (the book series) 
•Sciences 
•Maths

==To Do List==
•learn to use the goddamned preview button
:✓ '''{{{1|Done}}}''' 
•get a life 
:X '''impossible'''
•create a bot that fixes grammatical mistakes through the Pywiki library 
:•<nowiki>{{citation needed}}</nowiki>, extra periods/commas/spaces/whitespace
•clean out the maintenance report pages 
•update comic images, switch to 2x (?) 
•finish up [[2288: Collector's Edition]]

==Log==
•yayyyyy only 3 months on the wiki and already 43rd place in overall editing for the entire history of this wiki! also, first admin beat in edit count! more edits to come! (5/14/2024) 
•42nd place-the answer to life, the universe and everything else (5/16/2024) 
•what on earth did I do that made my contribution score jump 70 points (9/24/2024) 
•''must…figure…out…how…to…set…up…a…custom…sig (collapses after fighting with wikitext)'' (9/26/2024) 
•300 edits in a month! (10/1/2024, 2:13 PM PST) 
•broke my right wrist and yet I’m still editing this wiki at the hospital-what the hell am I doing with my life. (10/1/2024, 5:24 PM PST) 
•'''1000. EFFING. EDITS. YESSSSSSSSS.''' (I’m doing this edit with a damn cast 😭-I really need to take a break.) (10/1/2024, 6:20 PM PST) 
•wow, i did a 10 mile hike. i’m proud of myself. (10/13/2024) 
•organized user page, made a separate userbox page. (10/15/2024) 
•new sig, can’t use it due to “HTML tag errors”. gave out 2 barnstars, got both user/discussion pages protected. vandal count: 31! (10/25/2024) 
•just realized that it’s because my sig is way too damn long (10/30/2024) 
•AHHHHHHH [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aG7tmL5lJ0 WHITEPINE 3] CAME OUT AND I MISSED THE LIVESTREAM (happy halloween! 🎃) (10/31/2024)
•I have fixed my sig! 255 characters-exactly at the max. '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' (11/04/2024)

==To Do List for [[User:Jeff|Jeff]]==
•Update the MySQL and MediaWiki software 
•Promote another ‘craft 
•Promote some more active admins ([[User:Dtgriscom|Dtgriscom]] is a candidate, [[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]], maybe me?) 
•Find out the root cause behind all of these [[explain_xkcd:Community_portal/Technical#the_site_is_collapsing|errors]] (still happening as of October) 
•Give TheusafBOT bot status 
•De-sysop [[User:Markhurd|Markhurd]], [[User:Lcarsos|Lcarsos]], [[User:Mynotoar|Mynotoar]], [[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]], maybe [[User:Philosopher|Philosopher]] and other inactive admins (this list is only admins who haven’t edited in over 2 years) 
•Fix email confirmation

Talk:151: Mario

2024-05-29T10:51:58Z

172.69.222.164: Write comment

Mario is not the star, Mario's the plumber. Muahaha. --[[User:Kronf|Kronf]] ([[User talk:Kronf|talk]]) 12:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Am I the only person intrigued by the fact that he used European quotes («»)?[[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.185|162.158.79.185]] 22:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Those aren't European; they're French. And I don't think he meant them to be quotation marks, they remind me of how the work "1-up" flashes on the screen in early mario games. That's a hard thing to
represent with text, so maybe that's what he was going for. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.185|162.158.79.185]] 19:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
:: iirc chevrons are also used in Russian. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.134.161|172.70.134.161]] 17:47, 13 February 2022 (UTC)Bumpf

Bowser is definitely better! And the trash talk is ON POINT! Nice work, Ponytail! [[Special:Contributions/172.68.34.61|172.68.34.61]] 19:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Aren't we all missing the "For our anniversary" part? I feel this drastically changes the joke.

[[Special:Contributions/172.69.222.164|172.69.222.164]] 10:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

2922: Pub Trivia

2024-04-19T21:04:25Z

172.69.222.164:

{{comic
| number = 2922
| date = April 19, 2024
| title = Pub Trivia
| image = pub_trivia_2x.png
| imagesize = 422x666px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Bonus question: Where is London located? (a) The British Isles (b) Great Britain and Northern Ireland (c) The UK (d) Europe (or 'the EU') (e) Greater London
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by A BOT ASKING BAD TRIVIA QUESTIONS - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

Many pubs have trivia nights, where patrons form teams and compete to answer questions about a range of topics. The typical goal for trivia games is that they be challenging, yet possible, and so the questions whose answers are too difficult or too easy generally make for a poor game. In addition, it's usually preferable that questions are clearly worded with a single, objective answer, so as to avoid disputes about which answers are correct.

Cueball has apparently been hired by one bar to infiltrate ''other'' bars' quiz nights and ask particularly bad questions. The implication is that this will make the games unpleasant, in the hopes that people will leave, and possibly go to the bar that hired Cueball.

Cueball uses a variety of strategies to write bad questions, including questions that are trivial (where the answer is painfully obvious), unanswerable (either because there is no answer, or because the answer is unknown), ambiguously worded, or arguable.

Many of his questions could be altered slightly to make them more reasonable for such a game, but that would defeat Cueball's purpose.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Question !! Problem with the Question !! Explanation !! More Reasonable Alternative(s)
|-
|1. Which member of {{w|BTS}} has a birthday this year?||Multiple correct answers||All people have birthdays every year (other than pedantic exceptions due to calendar issues or someone dying before their birthday, none of which apply in this case). Therefore, all seven members of BTS have birthdays this year.||Which member of BTS has a birthday today/this week/this month? Which member of BTS turns a certain age this year?
|-
|2. How many sides does a {{w|platonic solid}} have?||Multiple answers, ambiguous language||There are five {{w|Platonic solids}}, with 4, 6, 8, 12, or 20 faces (colloquially called sides) in {{w|Euclid|Euclidean}} {{w|Euclidean geometry|3-space}}. The solids have, respectively, 6, 12, 8, 30, and 30 edges (also occasionally called sides colloquially). A more devious quizmaster might actually include this as a trick question with the correct answer being 'zero', since strictly speaking solids do not have 'sides', but that doesn't appear to be the case here.||How many Platonic solids are there? What is the highest number of faces on a Platonic solid? How many faces does a [specific platonic solid] have?
|-
|3. What is the smallest lake in the world?||Arguable||While the largest lakes are relatively straightforward to categorize, smaller bodies of water range in size down to individual puddles. There is no clear, definitional line at which a body goes from being a lake to a pond, for example. In addition, the size of small lakes will fluctuate due to variability in precipitation, and other weather effects, and some lakes only exist for brief periods (intermittent lakes). Hence, which small bodies of water are "lakes" and which is the smallest can't be clearly answered, without specifying a whole list of parameters and standards.||What lake has the largest surface area in the world? What is the world's deepest lake? What lake is recognized by the Guinness World Records as the world's smallest? (Benxi Lake in China).
|-
|4. Which Steven Spielberg movie features more shark attacks, {{w|Jaws (movie)|Jaws (1975)}} or {{w|Lincoln (movie)|Lincoln (2012)}}?||Trivial||Jaws is a famous movie about a killer shark, and features at least five fatal shark attacks. Lincoln is a movie about the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, containing zero shark attacks{{cn}}. Anyone with even a passing familiarity with American popular culture should be able to get this one right, and someone with no knowledge could likely guess the answer from the titles alone.||How many fatal shark attacks occur in "Jaws"? How many times is the shark seen on screen? Which film won more {{w|Academy Awards}}?
|-
|5. How many planets were there originally?||Ambiguous||The question doesn't specify a time frame or culture, and also doesn't specify that it's referring to our solar system (in the observable universe, there are almost certainly trillions of planets, as there are trillions of stars and almost every one of them has a planet orbiting it). Additionally, it asks how many "were there", as opposed to how many planets were known (the number which are known and defined as such is far smaller than the number of planets in the universe).||How many planets were known to Ancient Greece? How many planets were known to science prior to the invention of the telescope? How many planets in our Solar System before Pluto was declared a Dwarf Planet
|-
|6. What {{w|NFL}} player has scored the most points outside of a game?||Ambiguous, Unknowable||The term "scored the most points" generally only applies within the context of a game, making it very unclear what kind of "points" the question is referring to. Does it mean points in non-NFL games? Points in games other than football? Points outside the context of any game at all (such as 'making a point' in conversation)? Even if this were clarified, points scored in official games in professional sports leagues are meticulously recorded and published, points scored in any other context are not, so the question is likely impossible to answer.||Which NFL player scored the most points in a game/season/career?
|-
|7. The {{w|Wright brothers}} built the first airplane. Who built the last one?||Unknowable||Orville and Wilbur Wright are widely credited with designing and building the first airplane (in the sense of a heavier-than-air flying machine that could take off, steer and land under its own power). In modern times, design and construction of airplanes has become a huge, international industry, with many airplanes of widely varying sizings being built each year. Since airplanes are built continuously, which one was made most recently depends on when the question is asked (and would be very difficult for the average person to know). If it's asking about the last airplane ''ever'', that's impossible to know, since that plane hasn't been built yet (and hopefully won't for a very long time). Also, the question seems to be asking for a name, but modern airplanes are generally designed and built by companies, without a single person (or even a small number of people) being responsible.||Who built the first airplane '''after''' the Wright brothers.
|-
|8. Is every even number greater than 2 the sum of two primes?||Unknown, Possibly unknowable||This is an open question in math, known as {{w|Goldbach's conjecture}}. Mathematicians widely believe that it is true, and it has held true for every number checked up to 4 ⋅ 1018), but since it's impossible to check every number, we can't assume it's always true. No mathematical proof for its veracity exists at this point. Since it is {{w|Gödel's incompleteness theorems|known}} that something can be true but impossible to prove or disprove, this may be the situation forever.||According to which mathematical conjecture is every even number greater than 2 the sum of two primes?
|-
|9. Not counting {{w|Canberra}}, what city is the capital of {{w|Australia}}?||No answer exists||Australia has only one capital (unlike some countries, which divide the legislative and administrative capitals, for example), and that capital is Canberra. Hence, by definition, there is no capital "not counting Canberra".||What city is the capital of Australia? What is the largest city in Australia (as of 2024)?
|-
|10. Who played the drums?||Trivial, yet unknowable without context||As worded, the question could be answered with anyone who's ever played the drums, in any context, whether professional or not, in all of history. This would include a huge number of people, most of whom would not be well-known. Most people would be able to offer a technically correct answer, and almost none of them would be interesting.||Who played the drums for some specific band/album/track/concert?
|-
|(Title Text) Where is {{w|London}} located? (a) The {{w|British Isles}} (b) {{w|Great Britain and Northern Ireland}} (c) The {{w|United Kingdom|UK}} (d) {{w|Europe}} (or 'the {{w|European Union|EU}}') (e) Greater London||Multiple answers||All choices are technically correct as they are various geographical areas that include the city of London, England. The second to last choice, however, is both correct and incorrect, as conflates Europe and the EU. The United Kingdom (and therefore London) {{w|Brexit|left the European Union}} in 2020, but is still generally categorized as being part of Europe, geographically||What is the capital of Great Britain? (answer: London) Where is London '''not''' located? (a) The British Isles (b) Great Britain and Northern Ireland (c) The UK (d) Europe (e) The EU (f) Greater London (answer: (e) The EU)
|}

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

:[Cueball, holding a wireless microphone in one hand and a pencil and notebook in the other, reading from the notebook]:
:Welcome to pub trivia! Round one is 10 questions:

# Which member of BTS has a birthday this year?
# How many sides does a platonic solid have?
# What is the smallest lake in the world?
# Which Steven Spielberg movie features more shark attacks - ''Jaws'' (1975) or ''Lincoln'' (2012)?
# How many planets were there originally?
# What NFL player has scored the most points outside of a game?
# The Wright brothers built the first airplane. Who built the last one?
# Is every even number greater than 2 the sum of two primes?
# Not counting Canberra, what city is the capital of Australia?
# Who played the drums?

:[Caption below the panel]:
:A local pub trivia place hired me to run bad quizzes at competing bars.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category: Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category: Comics featuring real people]]
[[Category: American football]]
[[Category: Astronomy]]
[[Category: Geography]]
[[Category: Math]]
[[Category: Music]]