explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

248: Hypotheticals

2022-11-08T01:29:05Z

172.69.34.80: /* Transcript */ food

{{comic
| number = 248
| date = April 13, 2007
| title = Hypotheticals
| image = hypotheticals.png
| titletext = What if someone broke out of a hypothetical situation in your room right now?
}}

==Explanation==
The comic is, in short, a new take on the common comedy {{w|trope (literature)|trope}} in which characters in a thought bubble will sometimes look out of the bubble and talk directly to the person thinking it, another person nearby, or even the viewer. In this comic, however, it features [[Cueball]] and [[Beret Guy]] in a conversation together, in which Beret Guy talks of a hypothetical situation by imagining he had ice cream. This then, to Cueball's dismay, creates a hypothetical situation in which Beret Guy has ice cream, which he promptly begins to eat. Cueball then creates a hypothetical situation in which his hypothetical self has a knife to 'cut' out of the thought. He then gives this knife to Cueball, who supposedly will use it to cut out of his hypothetical situation.

The title text puts the comic into context, noting the unlikely possibility — and your most likely surprised reaction — if a person in a hypothetical situation you'd involuntarily created managed to break out of it and suddenly appear in your room. Or it could be understood the other way, that a person you have forced into your hypothetical situation breaks free from it, and disappears from your room. Also, it points out that the situation is in fact a hypothetical situation itself, creating some irony.

Another "thought bubble comic" can be seen in [[429: Fantasy]], and the topic of people escaping from hypothetical situations appears again in [[1582: Picture a Grassy Field]].

==Transcript==
:[Cueball is holding up his hand towards Beret Guy, who talks to him. From Beret Guy's head go three bubbles to a big thought bubble, where the next part of the comic takes place.]
:Beret Guy: What if I had some ice cream? Wouldn't that be awesome?
:Cueball: No, stop-

::[The comic continues inside Beret Guy's thought bubble. The two characters have switched places, and Beret Guy is now eating from an ice cream cone. Cueball is holding his hand to his chin, and from his head go four bubbles to a thought bubble in the lower right corner, where the last part of the comic takes place.]
::Cueball: Great, you've trapped us in a hypothetical situation!
::Beret Guy: Mmm, ice cream.
::Cueball: Maybe if I had a knife I could cut our way free...

:::[Inside Cueball's thought bubble, Beret Guy continues to eat his ice cream, but Cueball has cut a hole through the last thought bubble with a knife and is handing it to the Cueball who thinks about this].
:::Beret Guy: Mmm, ice cream!
:::Cueball: Here, take this one.

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

2659: Unreliable Connection

2022-11-03T06:37:02Z

172.69.34.80:

Are you looking for motor control products like hysteresis brakes, tensioners or motor dynamometer, industrial V belt, PU belt, Timing belts?

Our belts and simple motor test system for torque, speed and power with own controller and software

We even go further to take some customized or sample orders (at our own cost) that nobody wants to do as it is not profitable, but just for improving our technology and gaining experience for the past 18 years.

Send us your requirement or samples, we will do it better or cheaper!

Accurate and Reliable!

I am looking forward to hearing any comment from you.
Thank you and have a nice day!
Best Regards,
Josephine
Valid Belt Limited
8F, Leader Industrial Centre, Fo Tan, Hong Kong
Website: https://www.validbelt.com/
Whatsapp: 852-64628287
Email: info@validbelt.com

Talk:2536: Wirecutter

2022-11-03T01:48:15Z

172.69.34.80:

Note: they don't say they tried out a large number of ''religions'' but a large number of '''belief systems'''. This could include things like "Libertarianism" or "Monarchists". (By CWALLENPOOLE, but not signed in.)
:But the picture of the article title says “The Best Religion” [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.233|108.162.216.233]] 20:31, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

The phrase "highly controversial" should not be used in the explanation. For the record, I am opposed to the things listed in that sentence and my objection is not based in a desire to defend them. Religion itself might be said to be "highly controversial" so the use in the last sentence is both superfluous and biased. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.82.53|172.70.82.53]] 00:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I really want this article to be real. ----Dave
: Me too. I did something similar in my early 20s, and feel such an article honestly done would be a great help to many. In fact, the current description is slightly inaccurate- in that even lifelong practitioners, do usually have a wandering time in early adulthood if not given direction. Such an article would give some direction.[[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 15:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
:Try kialo.com/what-is-the-best-religion-to-believe-3371 . [[Special:Contributions/172.70.82.53|172.70.82.53]] 00:16, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

The major problem with trying multiple religions is that to fully test a religion you need to die - and most people only die once, with the ability to die multiple times being exclusive feature of small number of religions. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 04:49, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
:I ain't mad Hkmaly, but the idea that a religion's primary purpose is to promote a vision of the afterlife is alien to a lot of religions (including my own flavor of Judaism), whose policy on the hereafter is "afterlife, shmafterlife, pass the bagels." Hence also my edits toning down the "religions are about provable belief claims" rhetoric (eyeroll). ----Ben
::Reviewers rarely fully test tech items. (e.g. they often don't cover complete lifecycle costs - what happens to the device after it dies, how easy is it to move on to a new one, etc.) Don't have to test everything to have a meaningful review.
::Many religions make claims about impacts in this life. (e.g., intercessory prayer) Such claims are eminently testable. A comparative review would be interesting. I am only aware of a few such tests, mostly comparing a single product to general average or to no intervention {{w|Efficacy of prayer}}. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.167|108.162.245.167]] 19:18, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't look like the search bar text says "search," but I can't make out what it actually says.--[[User:KrazyKat|KrazyKat]] ([[User talk:KrazyKat|talk]]) 06:33, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
:Maybe it says Seance, since for "seach" the high stoke from the H is missing. -- [[Special:Contributions/162.158.203.10|162.158.203.10]] 07:33, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
::or Sermon maybe, that would fit the theme
:Could be Search with large S and smaller caps for the rest? Anyone subscribe to the NYT and care to visit the actual WireCutter site to see the formatting? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.147.195|172.70.147.195]] 12:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
:: Don't need to be a subscriber to see the site. It says "Show me the best..." [[User:Paddles|Paddles]] ([[User talk:Paddles|talk]]) 13:26, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't want to sound controversial but tithing would be a refreshing change comparing to current tax systems [[User:Tkopec|Tkopec]] ([[User talk:Tkopec|talk]]) 10:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
: Agreed- 10% is much less than the near 50% I'm paying when I figure it all in.[[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 15:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
:: You really want to pay tithes AND taxes? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.63|108.162.249.63]] 18:54, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Last night I was writing a huge thing about religions' almost universal reluctance to be 'tried out' (lestways allowing easy unsubscription at the end)  but on reflection, after a night's sleep, I'm wondering if they just had 70+ 'mystery shoppers' tasked to report back on one assigned 'product' each, their reports aggregated so this didn't matter too much (to the overall report-writers, at least). [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.175|172.70.85.175]] 14:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Also, the 'religious' wars metaphor extends quite easily to different platforms, yet (say) laptop reviews might compare a set of Windows vs a Mac or two (vs Chromebook, and maybe others) as options. And when it comes to keyboards, the QWERTY-Othodoxy and the Dvorak-Reformists both have bad (and untrue) things to say about each other, when 'enough time' with any given layout should be good enough to prosper in that. (That said, I had a {{w|Casio_FX-702P|programmable calculator}} from the '80s until it gave up the ghost some time post-Millenium, and I really did not get on with its ''alphabetical''-order keyboard all that time, perhaps because I was QWERTYing almost everywhere else.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.175|172.70.85.175]] 14:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
:In the case of religions though, the wars are not allegorical, they are literal. Nothing else in human experience really compares to the effects of a religious war (except ''maybe'' our wars to support a certain socioeconomic idealogy). The impact of format wars don't even come close; even if you count Uranium VS Thorium. This comic doesn't really draw a ''comparison'' between reviewing religions & reviewing products; so much as it ''contrasts'' the enormous differences in how we approach the two subjects... 
:[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 17:41, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

(Also also: QWERTY with UK-layout is my own personal sub-sect, with occasional need to adapt to US-layout (physically printed keycaps and/or what the computer ''thought'' was plugged in) with " and # and ~ characters amongst the main jumbled up ones, and no easy £ access. Which wasn't actually as unnerving as being in the 'wrong' bit of Belfast, but had the same subtle note of discordant undertone to it until I shifted my mental gears or ideally corrected the situation satisfactorarily by configuration.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.175|172.70.85.175]] 14:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

There's a book by John S. Dunne, ''The Way of All the Earth'', that advocates essentially trying out religions while keeping one foot in one's own (Dunne describes it as "crossing the abyss and crossing back"). [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.158|162.158.74.158]] 17:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Surprised no-one has yet mentioned this joke was done in almost exactly the same way on the UK satirical TV show TW3 in 1963 by David Frost (of later Frost/Nixon fame). --- jg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRZWyfERiCc

I was just looking for psychological/psychiatrical papers that say something about the frequency of mental illnesses by religion. Maaaaaaaaaayyybeeeeeeeeee there is a religion that is clearly superior to other religions in that regard, and so government health officials could make a recommendation to change to a specific religion. :-P --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.88.57|162.158.88.57]] 10:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
:But then, illnesses (as well as the symptoms of the same illness) depend on the culture, so my sardonic idea was probably left unresearched...--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.106|162.158.91.106]] 12:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Feels like there should be a line in there about how religion is itself often "that which determines what is valued" and therefore very hard to treat objectively. So, for example, if your religion taught that discipline was inherently good, you would think less of another religion that specifically warned against the dangers of excessive discipline. Meanwhile, a member of that religion might think YOUR religion was worse, because - according to the tenets of THEIR religion - you put TOO MUCH emphasis on discipline, while you think your emphasis is correct and THEY are wrong for not having it.
Now, granted, people might want different things from their technology - one person might want user-friendliness, another might value greater customizability - but religion is different in that it, in itself, informs our understandings of "what is valuable". It would be like if Apple users actively began extolling the benefits of user-friendliness BECAUSE they are Apple users and Apple itself is what taught them to value user-friendliness, while Linux users were originally indifferent but BECAME fans of customizability BECAUSE they used Linux. (And yes, there can be cult-like elements of both fandoms, but hopefully the distinction I'm drawing here is reasonably clear: religion tells you what is valuable, technology does not.)

(Also, why all the Judaism-specific stuff now?) --mezimm [[Special:Contributions/172.69.68.106|172.69.68.106]] 16:42, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Rather than picking one religion - join them all. Slag-blah takes a militant agnostic approach (we don't know, and neither do you). So they believe in/practice all religions (one a day for a year, so their calendar is 7,823 days long). From [https://web.archive.org/web/20150428210028/http://www.airshipentertainment.com/buckcomic.php?date=20071222 Buck Godot Zap Gun for Hire - Learning about Slag-blah by Phil Foglio, Dec. 2007] Sadly hard to find online, but here is the relevant page from the archive. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.167|108.162.245.167]] 19:18, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Went to graduate school (Wash U, St Louis) where one of my classmates said [of the weather!], "I don't know what religion to be." Huh? He explained his habit was to try out a different religion each season, but the weather that month had been changing so often that he didn't know which one to follow on a given day! [Think he was only half serious]

I feel like the explanation's focus on "can't easily change religion" is both inaccurate and quite missing the point. Religious freedom is not about whether belief is inherent or chosen, but rather about the fact that no one has the right to tell anyone else what to believe. The controversial part, IMO, is not "criticism of an inherent feature like race", but rather, it's the fact that Wirecutter is analysing belief systems, not by trying to judge their truthfulness, but in simple ROI terms. It's a bit like analysing whether female or male children are more cost-effective; people will get upset about the fact that you made the analysis in such mercenary terms at all.

I am also concerned with the paragraph speculating about ease of changing religion and its possible implications towards comparison between discrimination on the basis of political belief versus skin color. This is a topic about which there is much debate in many places and I'm not sure that debate is appropriate for this site. I say this not out of any particular stance regarding that debate, I say that because this site is intended to provide explanations relating to XKCD and not really for comparison of different kinds of discrimination. I'm going to remove that paragraph. If you strongly disagree please feel to revert my edit but I'd appreciate it if you would then share here why you think it helps explain the comic to someone who might not otherwise understand. [[User:Tomb|Tomb]] ([[User talk:Tomb|talk]]) 13:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

:The fact that people cannot compare and choose a religion (and are also willing to die with their chosen religion, e.g. in the face of persecution) is the very reason religious freedom exists. Thank you for deleting the section. I will not contribute here for a while.--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.89.128|162.158.89.128]] 22:42, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
::This wiki is exclusively about presentation of the comic, not discussion. Nor is it a Mom an' Pop shop where you can threaten their lively hood and stomp out and feel superior. Consider going to reddit or any other media to discuss the expanded meanings of these comics. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.126.125|172.70.126.125]] 18:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Pascal's Wager has literally nothing to do with this comic. Literally nothing. I'm tempted to remove that paragraph altogether, especially since it's also presenting an atheistic critique of the idea and thereby slanting the neutrality of the explanation. --mezimm [[Special:Contributions/172.69.71.47|172.69.71.47]] 13:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

The assumptions here really need pruning. For starters, groups *exist* to do exactly what is suggested here: http://shipoffools.com/mystery-worshipper/ being a perfect example. Just as brand loyalty to car manufacturers doesn't prevent reviews, neither does loyalty to religions. And while the claim that all wars are purely economic has been debunked, the idea of purely religious wars will get similar mocking from historians. The claim of exclusivity is absurd, given that Christians use the Jewish scriptures, and Muslims regard both Moses and Jesus as prophets; the Messianic Jews are the most famous example of belonging to two religions.

:Huh? Mystery worshipper isn't about reviewing *religions* but different congregations of the same religion (at least if we consider Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox etc. all part of the same religion, which many do). This is a much easier (and less self-defeating) task than what the comic suggests.--[[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.80|172.69.34.80]] 01:48, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

2687: Division Notation

2022-10-20T10:38:55Z

172.69.34.80: /* Explanation */ physical units

{{comic
| number = 2687
| date = October 19, 2022
| title = Division Notation
| image = division_notation_new_2x.png
| imagesize = 235x310px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Science tip: Scientists hardly ever use the two-dot division sign, and when they do it often doesn't even mean division, but they still get REALLY mad when you repurpose it to write stuff like SALE! ALL SHOES 30÷ OFF!
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a GROUP OF SCHOOLCHILDREN DIVIDED AMONGST THEMSELVES. Do NOT delete this tazg too soon.}}

This comic pokes fun at some of the ways to write the {{w|Division (mathematics)|division}} operation in math. In this comic, [[Randall]] has used A as the dividend (the number being divided) and B as the divisor (the number that A is divided by). Division is the fourth simplest arithmetic operation in mathematics, after addition, subtraction, and multiplication.[https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/principia-mathematica/#PartIVRelaArit]

The first two of the seven notations shown are the {{w|division sign}} (÷) and the {{w|radix}} used for {{w|short division}} and {{w|long division}} in beginning arithmetic. (Note: the short/long division radix is only used in some countries, and there are [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_division#Notation_in_non-English-speaking_countries different notations in the non-English speaking world]). These methods of division are often used by school children because the ÷ sign is what most people use when first learning division, and the short division radix is usually the first algorithm learned for dividing arbitrary dividends, typically starting with the easier abbreviated short division form.

The expression on the third line, A/B, is the way division is usually written in software code. The four simple arithmetic operations in programming usually are +, -, *, /. This one was missing in the first version of the comic. This is most commonly seen in regular mathematics as it somewhat saves space, and is easy to type with the slash key. Additionally, it uses standard {{w|ASCII}} characters instead of sophisticated notation.

The expression on the forth line, a/b, is how division is usually written when typography costs are not in question, in fraction notation. The Unicode character sets provide some specific fractions such as ⅓ as well as some superscript and subscript characters, so someone familiar with it might use it to write fractions such as ²²⁄₇. But this is tedious and can't be used on more complex expressions, so it is rarely used in everyday life (the fraction A/B cannot be written this way; there is a superscript A, but no subscript B).

The fifth notation is the way division is written in science: the dividend on the top of the expression over the divisor on the bottom under a horizontal line. This is the closest format to how a {{w|Fraction|fraction}} would be written. It has the advantage of clearly separating the numerator and denominator when they are longer expressions, such as polynomials, without needing to add parentheses. This format is mostly used in written and professionally typeset math, as it can't be typed without something like {{w|MathML}}, {{w|LaTeX}} or HTML tables.

The sixth notation uses a negative exponent. The exponent -1 is equivalent to {{w|Multiplicative inverse|reciprocation}}. It can be used to keep the entire expression on one line. Note that ab-1 is equal to a/b. This format is often used to express physical units.

The final form of notation declares a function. The writer defines a new function, F, that takes in the parameters A and B, before listing out the function's definition (trailing off in increasingly smaller text). Randall warns the reader they should escape while they still can, because both the function itself and the math environment as a whole are going to get relatively tedious. Integer division can be defined in terms of multiplicative inequalities and the remainder, or modulo ('%' in Python), operator. This situation is likely to occur in abstract algebra, where one might have to define what "division" means for two elements of a mathematical object such as a group, ring, or magma. One example would be an object G, such that, for two elements A and B of G, "A divided by B" is defined as an element C such that CB=A, or alternatively as an element C such that BC=A. These definitions will differ if multiplication in G is not commutative. Furthermore, if such a C is not unique, the function F(A,B) will need to include a method to select a unique value for "A divided by B" for each A and B. Thus, the F(A,B) in the comic might not even refer to a uniquely defined operation, but simply to the property of a function F(A,B) that is a valid division operation on G, given some definition of division.

The title text recommends distinguishing ÷ from %.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:Division notation
:A÷B
:B⟌A Schoolchild.
:A/B Software engineer.
:A⁄B Normal person or Unicode enthusiast.
:A over B Scientist.
:AB-1 Fancy scientist.
:F(A, B) such that F(G)= (text getting smaller) Oh no, run

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Programming]]
[[Category:Science tip]]

Talk:2681: Archimedes Principle

2022-10-06T01:53:47Z

172.69.34.80: reply

I started an explanation, but I can't really figure out what Archimedes' "plan" is. I guess it has something to do with swapping out the fake crown with the king's real gold crown. Heist movies and TV shows always confuse me (I liked "Leverage" for the characters, but could never understand the plans). [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 23:12, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
:Under the guise of demonstrating the displacement principle (the buoyancy effect has no real part in this, given the non-floating nature of any crown... I think the focus in the explanation should just be upon the displaced volume of liquid which traditionally would quantify the volume of an object of known weight and a density to be tested to ensure it is that of the purported substance) he will dunk the real crown in the water. Then ''either'':
:* extract the fake crown, now 'proven true', satisfying everyone but leaving him the really-true crown, or,
:* extract the fake crown, possibly fudging the interpretation (how much water sloshes out) to make it ''seem'' like a fake crown went in (and the fake that came out can now be destructively examined to confirm this, now having just cause to utterly ruin the craftwork in the process, and framing the original artisan for fraud), again leaving him with the crown he was given for testing.
:If the original crown was itself already fake then it might not be worth it (or have to lean towards the latter outcome with a bit of extra care not to 'upgrade' the fake) but that's probably covered by the typical Batman Gambit of a typical heist movie characterm [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.49|172.70.85.49]] 00:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
::The first of the two options makes way more sense. I don't like this plan at all though. How do you hide a colored shiny thing in a bucket of transparent water?!? I feel like we're missing something obvious. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.80|172.69.34.80]] 01:53, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

2266: Leap Smearing

2021-03-03T07:11:40Z

172.69.34.80: /* Transcript */ cat

{{comic
| number = 2266
| date = February 10, 2020
| title = Leap Smearing
| image = leap_smearing.png
| titletext = Some people suspect that it started as a "No, I didn't forget Valentine's Day" excuse that got out of hand.
}}

==Explanation==
Clocks {{w|Japanese clock|usually}} measure time by regularly-sized intervals, but the natural world is not always so accommodating. Since the solar year is not an integral number of days long, we add {{w|leap days}} every four years (except for years divisible by 100 but not 400) to prevent our calendars from drifting with respect to the seasons. We also add {{w|leap seconds}} to the clock every now and then, to prevent noon on our clocks from drifting away from solar noon. Unfortunately, Earth's day is not as regular as Earth's year, so leap seconds cannot be predicted with a formula but are added as needed, most recently in 2016. Officially, the leap second is added at midnight UTC (so a clock will tick 23:59:59...'''23:59:60'''...00:00:00), but this is an extremely inconvenient edge case, to the point that there are many proposals to do away with leap seconds entirely (as of this comic strip's publication, the matter will be discussed in the World Radiocommunication Conference in 2023).

Rather than inserting an extra tick into timestamps and dealing with the resulting hiccups (e.g. programs hard-coded to expect that [https://infiniteundo.com/post/25509354022/more-falsehoods-programmers-believe-about-time#_=_ every minute will contain exactly sixty seconds]), {{w|Google}}'s services 'smear' the leap second over the course of a 24-hour period, officially called [https://developers.google.com/time/smear Leap Smear] by Google. The smear is centered on the leap second (at midnight) so from noon the day before to noon the day after each second is 11.6 μs longer (1s/(24*60*60) = 11,574 μs). This difference is too small for most of Google's services to be bothered with, and by centering on midnight, the difference in time will never be more than half a second at midnight; just before midnight it will be half a second behind, after midnight it'll be half a second ahead. This comic's joke arises from the idea of extending this practice to smearing leap days over the month of February. This comic strip was published February 10th, 2020, almost three weeks before the leap day on February 29th, 2020.

In the comic, [[Cueball]] is visiting one of Google's facilities, presumably during office hours on the 10th day of February, when the comic was released. But when he looks at their clocks he sees they are all around 3:00 AM (which is in the middle of the night). He thus asks [[Ponytail]] and [[Hairy]] why their clocks are wrong. Ponytail tells him it is because of leap day smearing.

Ponytail explains that adding an extra day creates too many glitches. So they just run their clocks 3.4% slower during February. She thus states that it works approximately like leap smearing for seconds, so that the extra day's 24 hours are spread evenly over the course of February, keeping it at the regular 28 days, but still running over 24*29 = 696 hours, even though their clocks only go through 672 hours = 24*28.

Thus the 24 hours less to count are spread out over the 696 real hours, which means their clocks run 24/696 = 3.445 % slower (matching the 3.4% Ponytail mentions). Every smeared day will thus be about 0.86 hours, or 51 minutes and 40 seconds, longer (24/28) than a standard day. So when day-smearing clocks read 3:02 AM on February 10th (the comic was released on February 10th), about 9.1264 smeared days will have passed. This translates to about 9.4523 standard days (9.1264*29/28), which is approximately 10:51 AM on February 10th, well within normal working hours.

The joke of course is that contrary to leap second smearing this would be very inconvenient for those following it, due to the fact that clocks would be noticeably out of sync with Earth's rotation (and perhaps more importantly, with everyone else's clocks) for most of the month. (Although it does mean they would sync up better with some of their partners abroad; see [[1335: Now]] and [[448: Good Morning]].) A different kind of time-smearing was looked at in the far earlier comic [[320: 28-Hour Day]], which was actually designed with a form of convenience in mind, and it would be interesting to see what the results could be of creatively combining both systems.

The title text humorously suggests that some people (at Google) suspect that the real reason for the leap day smearing was actually a "No, I didn't forget Valentine's Day" excuse that got out of hand. The idea is, that maybe a CEO at Google forgot to buy something for their romantic partner for Valentine, and thus tried to suggest that it was not because they forgot, but that at work it was still February 14th. Presumably, in February 2016, they used this excuse to buy 12 extra hours (as the end of a smeared Feb 14 is exactly halfway through the month) to get their partner a present, and then required the company to actually implement "leap day smearing" by 2020 to maintain the illusion.

[[Randall]] has some issues with [[:Category:Valentines|Valentines]], see for example [[1016: Valentine Dilemma]]. This comic was released four days before {{w|Valentines Day}} of 2020. It was the first time in 8 years he made any reference to Valentine around this time of year, but the seventh time in total. Randall has since not mentioned Valentine's day.

[[1481: API]] also covered leap seconds in its title text.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball, Ponytail, and Hairy are looking up at a digital clock on a wall. It displays the time in white on a black background, with a logo on the frame beneath the time.]
:3:02 AM
:Google

:Cueball: Why do the clocks say it's 3AM?
:Ponytail: Adding an extra day creates too many glitches. Instead, we're just running our clocks 3.4% slower during February, to avoid the irregularity.

:[Caption below the panel:]
:This year, Google has expanded their leap second "smearing" to cover leap days as well.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Valentines]] 
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Hairy]]
[[Category:Time]]
[[Category:Calendar]]

1061: EST

2021-03-03T06:42:56Z

172.69.34.80: Cat

{{comic
| number = 1061
| date = May 28, 2012
| title = EST
| image = est.png
| titletext = The month names are the same, except that the fourth month only has the name 'April' in even-numbered years, and is otherwise unnamed.
}}

==Explanation==
This comic pokes fun of attempts to "fix" the calendar by making it simpler or more rational, which inevitably result in a system just as complicated. This is an example of the paradox in complexity theory that if you attempt to simplify a system of problems by creating a new system of evaluation for the problems you often have instead made the problem more complex than it was originally.

[[Randall]] advertises his idea for a "Universal Calendar for a Universal Planet". He combines {{w|calendar#Calendars in use|calendar}} definitions with {{w|Time zone|time zone}} definitions. The abbreviation '''EST''' in this comic stands for ''Earth Standard Time'' (hence the title), but it is in itself a joke on the American {{w|Eastern Time Zone|Eastern Standard Time}}. In the rest of the explanation EST refers to the comic's Earth Standard Time!

===Length of year===
Because there are approximately 365.2422 days in a {{w|solar year}}, various calendars use different means to keep the calendar year in sync with the solar year and the seasons. The Julian Calendar, for example, has leap days every four years, giving it an average year length of 365.25 days. The most widely used system is the {{w|Gregorian Calendar|Gregorian Calendar}}, which also has leap days every four years, but skips leap days in years divisible by 100 unless the year is also divisible by 400, the latter additions come from Earth's {{w|axial precession}}. This gives it an average year length of 365.2425 days, which is very close to the length of a solar year (see detailed explanation in this video: ''[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82p-DYgGFjI Earth's motion around the Sun, not as simple as I thought]''.)
{{w|Calendar reform|Other calendars}} have been proposed, such not counting leap days and special "festival days" as a day of the week, in order to make every date fall on the same day of the week every year.

*At "24 hours 4 minutes", EST days are longer, though there are only 360 of them in the year. The extra 4 minutes over the course of 360 days adds up to one standard day, so Randall's EST calendar would at this point have a year that is 361 standard days long. The 24 hours plus 4 minutes length may be a reference to {{w|sidereal day}}, whose duration is 24 hours ''minus'' 4 minutes.

*Running the clock backwards for 4 hours after every full moon gives 8 additional hours at each full moon, twelve or thirteen times in a year. Because a thirteenth full moon will occur once every 2.7 solar years on average, this modification adds 4.1228 standard days to an EST year, bringing it to 365.1228 days.

*The doubling of the non-prime numbers of the first non-reversed hour after each solstice and equinox is a final, very complicated way to bring Randall's EST year in extremely close sync with the solar year. There are 17 prime numbers between 0 and 59 and 43 non-primes. There are 2 equinoxes and 2 solstices each year, so a total of 4x43 = 172 minutes will occur twice. This brings the average length of Randall's EST year to 365.2422 standard days, equal to the solar year to four decimal places.

===Claimed benefits===
Many of the claimed benefits for the calendar are highly dubious:
*While it is fairly ''simple'' to describe, EST is far from simple to understand or put in practice. Clocks in particular would have to regularly undertake very complicated processes like running backwards or duplicating non-prime minutes.
*EST does appear to be fairly ''clearly defined''.
*EST fails completely to be ''unambiguous''. Following each full moon, four hours occur three times, twice forward and once backward. Several minutes are also duplicated, making times during those periods ambiguous.
*The only way EST is ''free of historical baggage'' is that it breaks free of any sensible bits of historical baggage; it keeps such things as the 30-day month and 12-month year, but adopts a different (and variable) length of day that would make it wildly out of sync with the Earth's day-night cycle.
*EST is ''compatible with old units'', as far as seconds, minutes, and hours are concerned, though not for days, months, or years.
*EST is indeed very ''precisely synced with the solar cycle''. The joke is that this has nothing to do with the day/night cycle or the Earth's yearly orbital cycle; the {{w|solar cycle}} is a period of magnetic fluctuation within the sun, lasting 11 Earth years.
*EST is ''free of leap years'', though some EST years are 8 hours longer than others on account of having an extra full moon.
*A calendar ''amenable to date math'' makes it easy to find the length of time between two dates and times by having standardized periods of time. The complex variability of the length of EST years, days, and hours mean it is only ''intermittently'' amenable to date math, which is to say not at all.

===Other features===
The features of the calendar get increasingly bizarre as the description proceeds:

*The {{w|Epoch (reference date)|Epoch}} for EST is set by reference to the {{w|Julian calendar}}, which was superseded by the {{w|Gregorian calendar}}. The Julian calendar is currently 13 days behind the Gregorian calendar.

*The different zone for the United Kingdom is a reference to 1 yard being equal to 0.9144 meters, a pun on using {{w|imperial units}} instead of the {{w|metric system}}. This has been the joke before in [[526: Converting to Metric]] and is also mentioned in [[1643: Degrees]].

*Randall does not like {{w|Daylight saving time}} (DST) very much, as has been made clear in [[:Category:Daylight saving time|several comics]] both before and after this one. See Narnian time below.

*Narnian time is a reference to the fictitious world of {{w|Narnia (world)|Narnia}} in {{w|CS Lewis|CS Lewis'}} book {{w|The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe}} and its sequels. In Narnia, time passes much more quickly than in the real world. You could be in Narnia for several days and only a few minutes would have passed in the real world. However, synchronizing this effect would be impossible because it is not a consistent rate; it fluctuates wildly based on the whims of drama and magic. This and the DST mentioned above should be seen as a pair. Because when a country goes into DST time may not pass, which is basically what happens (more or less) when a child enters into Narnia. Whereas in EST Narnian time is synchronized to normal time, which DST is but for the one hour difference in the real calendar. Using the weird Narnian time was used as the plot in the bottom left drawing in [[821: Five-Minute Comics: Part 3]].

*The Gregorian calendar does not include the year "0"; after "1" BC the next year is "1" AD. Randall's invention fixes this according to correct Mathematics, only to reintroduce the problem immediately by arbitrarily omitting the year 1958. The year 1958 is significant because January 1, 1958 is the epoch (time zero) in {{w|International Atomic Time}} (TAI), which is part of the basis for {{w|Coordinated Universal Time}} (UTC). (The main difference is that TAI doesn't add leap seconds.)

*According to the title text, the month of April would become unnamed on odd-numbered years. Although this may have no impact on the mathematics of timekeeping, it would impede ability to refer to the month in writing or conversation. Notably, {{w|April Fools' Day}} could be restricted to the even-numbered years, else observants would be exclaiming the word "Fools!" without the usual informative "April" prefix.

==Transcript==
:[Caption above the frame:]
:xkcd presents
:<big>'''Earth Standard Time'''</big>
:(EST)
:'''A universal calendar for a universal planet'''
:EST is...
:Simple • Clearly defined • Unambiguous
:Free of historical baggage • Compatible with old units
:Precisely synced with the solar cycle • Free of leap years
:Intermittently amenable to date math

:[Inside the frame a list of the details concerning EST is shown:]
:Units
:Second: 1 S.I. second
:Minute: 60 seconds
:Hour: 60 minutes
:Day: 1444 minutes (24 hours 4 minutes)
:Month: 30 days
:Year: 12 months

:Rules
:For 4 hours after every full moon, run clocks backward.
:The non-prime-numbered minutes of the first full non-reversed hour after a solstice or equinox happen twice.

:[In two columns the "Epoch" is put into a contrasting juxtaposition to "Time Zones":]
:Epoch
:00:00:00 EST, January 1st, 1970 = 00:00:00 GMT, January 1st, 1970 (Julian Calendar)
:Time Zones
:The two EST time zones are ''EST'' and ''EST (United Kingdom)''. These are the same except that the UK second is 0.9144 standard seconds.

:[A few further statements:]
:Daylight saving: Countries may enter DST, but no time may pass there.
:Narnian Time: Synchronized✔
:Year Zero: EST ''does'' have a year 0. (However, there is no 1958.)

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Calendar]]
[[Category:Time]]
[[Category:Daylight saving time]]
[[Category:Astronomy]]
[[Category:Chronicles of Narnia]]

1930: Calendar Facts

2021-03-03T06:42:19Z

172.69.34.80: Calendar

{{comic
| number = 1930
| date = December 18, 2017
| title = Calendar Facts
| image = calendar_facts.png
| titletext = While it may seem like trivia, it (causes huge headaches for software developers / is taken advantage of by high-speed traders / triggered the 2003 Northeast Blackout / has to be corrected for by GPS satellites / is now recognized as a major cause of World War I).
}}

==Explanation==
[[Randall]] presents what appears to be a generator of 156,000 facts [20 x 13 x (8 + 6 x 7) x 12], about calendars, most of which are false or have little meaning{{Citation needed}}. The facts are seeded by a mishmash of common tidbits about the time of year.

The formula for each generated fact goes as follows: "Did you know that '''[a recurring event]''' '''[occurs in an unusual manner]''' because of '''[phenomena or political decisions]'''? Apparently '''[wild card statement]'''."

This is [[:Category:Supermoon|the fifth time]] that Randall has referred to the phenomenon of a {{w|supermoon}}, which he typically makes fun of, most prominently in [[1394: Superm*n]].

The title text continues the chart with supposed real-life consequences of the trivia in the comic.

There are multiple online generators of Calendar 'facts' using this formula [https://www.pibweb.com/xkcd_calendar.php here] and [http://yahel.com/calendarfacts/ here].

All 156 000 possible combinations can be found [https://www.dropbox.com/s/866fwtpwvd0z9hq/combinations%20xkcd%201930.txt?dl=0 here], lovingly assembled by hand (or rather, by a python script) for your entertainment. A random fact generator (including title text), written in Python, can be found [https://gist.github.com/petersohn/6c8f9d124bd961e909d2dc9a967ade2e here].

==Table==
{| class="wikitable"
! Entry
! What it is
! Relation to other entries
|-
! colspan="3" | Recurring Events
|-
| The [Fall/Spring] {{w|Equinox}}
| The time of year at which the apparent position of the overhead sun passes the equator. During the equinox, the time that the Sun is above the horizon is 12 hours across the globe.
| Before the adoption of the {{w|Gregorian calendar}} in 1582, the equinoxes fell on earlier and earlier dates as the centuries went by, due to the {{w|Julian calendar}} year being 365.25 days on average compared to the tropical Earth year of 365.2422 days. {{w|Pope Gregory}}'s decision to remove the leap days on years that were multiples of 100 but not 400 corrected the average length of the calendar year to 365.2425 days.
|-
| The [Winter/Summer] {{w|Solstice}}
| The time of year when the apparent position of the overhead sun reaches its most extreme latitude. During the Winter and Summer solstices the days are the shortest and longest respectively.
| Similar to the equinoxes, the solstices were also falling on earlier dates every year before the Gregorian calendar.
|-
| The [Winter/Summer] {{w|Olympics}}
| The Olympic Games occur during the summer and the winter, alternating between the two seasons every two years.
| The Olympic Games do not have any set dates, and seem to only be included humorously as something else that alternates between occurring during the summer and winter.
|-
| The [latest/earliest] [sunset/sunrise]
| The extremes of times that the sun crosses a horizon according to a clock that keeps a fixed 24 hours as opposed to varying with the sun like a sundial.
| The latest sunset and earliest sunrise occur around the summer solstice; the latest sunrise and earliest sunset occur around the winter solstice. They do not occur exactly on these dates due to the {{w|equation of time}} causing drift in the times that sunsets and sunrises occur.
|-
| Daylight [saving/savings] time
| {{w|Daylight saving time}}, commonly referred to as daylight savings time, is the practice of setting clocks ahead, typically by one hour, during the summer months of the year.
| Daylight saving time will push the time of certain events such as sunrise and sunset past their "natural" times. For example, solar noon will occur around 1:00 PM instead of 12:00 noon when daylight saving time is active, making it the "wrong" time.
|-
| Leap [day/year]
| Because the durations of celestial events are not generally nice multiples of each other, they will tend to fall out of sync with each other. Leap days are days inserted into specific years to bring the calendar back into sync, and the years on which these {{w|leap day}}s occur are called {{w|leap year}}s.
|
|-
| {{w|Easter}}
| Easter is a holiday celebrating the death and resurrection of {{w|Jesus}}. It is defined as the Sunday after the first full moon after the spring equinox. This complicated formula has a long tradition behind it, known as {{w|Computus}}.
| When Pope Gregory decided to change the calendar in 1582, it was because the spring equinox was putting Easter on unexpectedly early dates.
|-
| The [harvest/super/blood] moon
|
* The {{w|harvest moon}} is the full moon that appears closest to the autumnal equinox.
* The {{w|supermoon}} is a phenomenon in which the moon is full at its closest approach to the Earth.
* The {{w|blood moon}} is a moon that appears tinted red during a total lunar eclipse because of light refracted from the Earth's atmosphere. It can also refer to the {{w|hunter's moon}}, the full moon directly after the harvest moon.
| Each of these lunar events happens approximately once a year.
* The harvest moon appears exactly once because it has a particular definition based on the time of year.
* The cycle of the distance of the full moon lasts about 13.5 months (14 full moons). However, because a supermoon is defined as any full moon that is within 10 percent of the closest relative distance possible (with 0 being perigee and 1 being apogee), it happens multiple times a cycle, for a total of usually 3 to 4 times per year.
* The blood moon during a lunar eclipse appears between zero to two times a year. The hunter's moon appears exactly once like the harvest moon.
|-
| Toyota Truck Month
| Toyota offers a discount for {{w|Toyota Tacoma|Tacoma}} trucks one month a year. Mainly notable because radio and television ads hype this discount up as "Toyota Truck Month".
|
|-
| {{w|Shark Week}}
| Every year, the {{w|Discovery Channel}} dedicates a week during the summer to programming featuring or about sharks.
|
|-
! colspan="3" | Unusual manners in which the events occur
|-
| happens [earlier/later/at the wrong time] every year
| colspan="2" | The solstices and equinoxes happened earlier every year ''before'' the decree by Pope Gregory in 1582. The earliest sunrise happens one hour later than it "should" happen due to daylight saving time having turned the clocks forward one hour.
|-
| drifts out of sync with the [sun/moon]
| colspan="2" | The Sun and Moon are generally what calendars are based on. If something were to drift out of sync, some corrective mechanism would have to be put in to put it back. This is the motivation behind leap years, leap months (in countries with lunisolar calendars) and leap seconds.
|-
| drifts out of sync with the zodiac
| colspan="2" | The dates on which the Sun crosses the constellations in the traditional zodiac has shifted in the past centuries due to the precession of the Earth's axis. In the period of time traditionally known as {{w|Aries}} (March 21–April 20), for example, the Sun actually points to {{w|Pisces}} instead.
|-
| drifts out of sync with the [Gregorian/Mayan/lunar/iPhone] calendar
| colspan="2" |
*The {{w|Gregorian calendar}} is a solar calendar with a mean calendar year length of 365.2425 days.
*The {{w|Mayan calendar}} is based on two cycles or counts, with a 260-day count combined with a 365-day "vague" solar year.
*A {{w|lunar calendar}} is based on Moon's phases, with each {{w|lunation}} being approximately 29.5 days, and a lunar year lasting roughly 354 days. An example of a lunar calendar is the {{w|Hebrew calendar}}.
*The {{w|iPhone calendar}} is listed humorously due to its data synchronization issues.
|-
| drifts out of sync with the atomic clock in {{w|Colorado}}
| colspan="2" |
{{w|NIST-F1}} is an {{w|Atomic clock}} used as a reference for official time in the USA.
|-
| might [not happen/happen twice] this year
| colspan="2" | Some events may have a period of slightly more or slightly less than one year. If an event has a period of slightly less than one year (e.g. the Islamic calendar), it can occur twice in the same year (e.g. the year 2000 had two {{w|Eid al-Fitr}}s—one on January 8, and one on December 28). If an event has a period of slightly more than one year, there can be a year in which it does not occur at all, instead occurring near the end of the previous year and the beginning of the next.
|-
! colspan="3" | Cause (phenomena or political decisions)
|-
| time zone legislation in [Indiana/Arizona/Russia]
| Some states or provinces have time zone legislation that sets the standard time to something other than what the natural longitude of that location would suggest.
|
* The state of {{w|Arizona}} generally does not observe daylight saving time, keeping their clocks on {{w|UTC-7:00}} Mountain Standard Time year round. However, the {{w|Navajo nation}} reservation inside Arizona does observe it, causing the two regions to have different times in the summer and the same time in the winter.
* Time zones in Russia are all one hour ahead of what their longitude would suggest, which puts them in a "permanent" state of daylight saving time. (For example, {{w|St. Petersburg}} is 30°E, which means that its natural time zone is {{w|UTC+2:00}}, but its time zone is actually {{w|UTC+3:00}}.) From 1981 until 2011 Russia used to have the daylight saving time on top of it as well. The other changes include the abolition of the one-hour shift in 1991 and a return it back in 1992, and an increase to two hours in 2011 and a restoration back to one hour in 2014.
* {{w|Indiana}} has {{w|Time in Indiana|a complicated history}} with daylight saving time, likely related to the state being split between two time zones.
|-
| a decree by the Pope in the 1500s
| In 1582, Pope Gregory introduced the Gregorian Calendar, the calendar we use today, to replace the Julian Calendar. The calendar applied retroactively to the birth of Jesus Christ, which means that they had to skip 10 days, going straight from October 4 to October 15, 1582, during the switchover.
| The introduction of the Gregorian calendar brought Easter and the dates that months started back in sync with what they were in the 3rd century AD.
|-
| the precession of
| The Earth's axis is slowly changing position, in a phenomenon called the {{w|Axial precession|precession of the equinoxes}}.
| The precession of the equinoxes causes the seasons to occur about 20 minutes earlier than would be expected with the Earth's position relative to the stars, which could be construed as the equinox happening "later every year" if you use the stars as your frame of reference.
|-
| the libration of
| The Moon is {{w|tidal locking|tidally locked}} to its orbit around the Earth, which means that the same side of it tends to face the Earth at any given point in time. However, there are slight variations in the angle over the course of a month, which are known as {{w|libration}}.
| The libration of the Moon does not affect anything else in the chart, and seems only be included humorously as another example of a celestial phenomenon.
|-
| the nutation of
| Besides precession, there is also a smaller wobbling effect called {{w|Astronomical nutation|nutation}}.
|
|-
| the libation of
| A {{w|libation}} is a drink, often used in the context of a ritual offering of liquid to a deity by pouring it onto the ground or into something that collects it.
| This entry seems to have been included simply as a humorous misspelling of the word "libration". Certainly libation of any of the entities listed would be inadvisable.{{Citation needed}}
|-
| the eccentricity of
| Orbital eccentricity is the deviation of a body's orbit from a perfect circle. Orbital travel is faster when it's closer to the body being orbited and slower when farther away.
| The Earth's eccentric orbit causes the equinoxes and solstices to occur at irregular intervals. For example, summer in the northern hemisphere lasted 93 days in 2017, while fall only lasted 90 days.
|-
| the obliquity of
| The tilt of the Earth's axis relative to the ecliptic is also known as its obliquity.
|
|-
| the Moon
| The Moon is the primary satellite of the Earth.
|
|-
| the Sun
| The Sun is the star that the Earth orbits around.
| The Sun is the basis for many timekeeping events, such as the day and year.{{Citation needed}}
|-
| the Earth's axis
| The Earth's axis of rotation defines the Geographic North and South Pole, as well as the lines of latitude.
|
|-
| the Equator
| The Equator is the line on the Earth's surface which is equidistant from both poles of the Earth's axis.
|
|-
| the Prime Meridian
| The Prime Meridian is the line that starts at the geographic North Pole, runs through the {{w|Royal Observatory, Greenwich|Greenwich Royal Observatory}} in London, and ends at the South Pole. It is the basis for longitude when calculating coordinates for positions on the surface of the Earth.
| The Prime Meridian (and in particular the Greenwich Observatory) gives us Greenwich Mean Time (GMT), which is the basis for UTC and the time zone system.
|-
| the International Date Line
| The International Date Line is a line on the opposite side of the Earth as the Prime Meridian that separates regions that use time set behind UTC versus regions that are set ahead of UTC. It has many irregularities due to political changes that put certain countries or islands on either side of the divide contrary to their natural longitude.
| The irregular shape of the International Date Line means that certain regions of the Pacific Ocean (such as Kiribati) are more than 24 hours ahead of some other regions (such as Baker Island and American Samoa), which may cause problems with timekeeping.
|-
| the Mason-Dixon Line
| The Mason-Dixon line is a line delineating a portion of the border between Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Delaware.
| The Mason-Dixon line is included as a humorous example as another imaginary geographic line.
|-
| magnetic field reversal
| The Earth's magnetic field has been reversed several times in its geologic history, so that what we would currently call the "magnetic North Pole" was near the geographic South Pole about 780,000 years ago, before the most recent reversal.
|
|-
| an arbitrary decision by Benjamin Franklin
| Benjamin Franklin wrote [http://www.webexhibits.org/daylightsaving/franklin3.html a letter to the Journal of Paris in 1784] in which he advised them to rise with the sun in order to save candlelight, after he observed that the Parisians were getting up at the same time by the clock and burning a lot of candles in the winter as a result.
An "arbitrary decision by Benjamin Franklin" also likely refers humorously to Franklin having defined positive charge to be that which is left on a glass rod by rubbing it with silk. As described in [[567: Urgent Mission]], this had the unfortunate consequence of assigning a negative value to the charge of the electron, which was later identified as the fundamental carrier of electric charge.
| Benjamin Franklin is often touted as "the father of daylight saving time", despite him never actually proposing to alter the clocks.
|-
| an arbitrary decision by Isaac Newton
| Possibly a reference to how Newton divided the colour spectrum into the now-familiar seven colours of the rainbow, on a somewhat arbitrary basis. Newton did spend time working on the problem of calendar reform, but it's unlikely that any decisions he made as a result would affect anything, since he never published his work, and by the time it gained attention the Gregorian Calendar had been widely adopted.
| The spectrum fact is one of those standard bits of trivia of the kind the chart alludes to. Although it has nothing to do with time-keeping, Newton is the sort of person who seems like he should have made decisions like this.
|-
| an arbitrary decision by FDR
| Franklin Delano Roosevelt set all time zones one hour ahead year-round during World War II. The law was repealed after the war ended.
Additionally, he changed the date of Thanksgiving from the last Thursday in November to the third Thursday in November as a way to increase the length of the Christmas shopping season. It was later changed to the fourth Thursday after his death.
| Setting the time permanently one hour ahead would make everything happen at the "wrong" time celestially.
|-
! colspan="3" | Related 'fact'
|-
| It causes a predictable increase in car accidents.
| colspan="2" | The week following daylight saving time, car accidents increase by about 5-7%<ref>http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/end-of-daylight-saving-time-2015-6-eye-opening-facts-1.3296353</ref>.
|-
| That's why we have leap seconds.
| colspan="2" | Leap seconds occur because the time required for one rotation of the Earth is actually slightly longer than the 86,400 seconds in a standard UTC day. The Earth's rotation is slowing down by about 2 × 10-5 seconds every year due to tidal friction caused by the Moon's gravity; however, this is not one of the possible entries in the list of phenomena.
|-
| Scientists are really worried.
| colspan="2" |
|-
| it was even more extreme during the [Bronze Age/Ice Age/Cretaceous/1990s].
| This may be reference to debates over climate change, where global temperature changes during these periods are frequently cited as supposedly proving / disproving human-related change.
| Solar events, such as sunspot activity, are often invoked as explaining temperature change in these debates. However, while there are a number of potential sun-related 'facts' that could be generated, none touch on sunspots.
|-
| There's a proposal to fix it, but it [will never happen/actually makes things worse/is stalled in Congress/might be unconstitutional].
| colspan="2" | Time zone reform is surprisingly a very controversial and politicized issue, with special interests on either side looking to modify it to fit their needs. Examples of proposals to modify the scheme include:

* Extend the duration of daylight saving time by one month, which was done in 2007 in many states as part of an energy-saving proposal by George W. Bush.
* Reduce the duration of daylight saving time back to its original span, or further.
* Eliminate daylight saving time altogether, going back to using standard time.
* Abolish daylight saving time but advance the time zone by one hour, effectively instating daylight saving time year round. This was done during World War II, and is also done in certain areas of Canada like Saskatchewan (which from 1966 onwards has observed Central Standard Time despite the entire province being squarely in the Mountain longitudes).
* Abolish daylight saving time and advance the time zone by 30 minutes, splitting the difference between the current standard time and daylight saving time.
* Abolish daylight saving time, but make government offices open one hour earlier in the summer, encouraging private businesses to do the same. This was done by Warren G. Harding in 1922 because he felt that changing the clocks was a "deception", but was rolled back the next year as it caused mass chaos in terms of what businesses decided to do to adapt to the change in business hours.
* Reduce the number of time zones in the United States to two, consolidating Pacific time into Mountain time (UTC-7:00), and Eastern time into Central time (UTC-6:00). This was proposed in a [https://qz.com/142199/the-us-needs-to-retire-daylight-savings-and-just-have-two-time-zones-one-hour-apart/ 2013 article in Quartz] by Allison Schrager.

At best, these time zone proposals will be fraught with controversy, with both sides arguing for the benefits of their time system. Some proposals, such as the 30-minute and 20-minute suggestions, would put the minute hands of the entire United States out of sync with the rest of the world, defeating the purpose of time zones with hourly UTC offsets in the first place, which could be construed as "making things worse".
|-
| It's getting worse and no one knows why.
| colspan="2" |
|-
! colspan="3" | Title Text: Consequences
|-
| causes huge headaches for software developers
| colspan="2" | Trying to support time zones correctly for all dates present and historic is a mishmash of different regional laws, time zones, and DST changes. The headache is best exemplified in [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5wpm-gesOY this video] by Tom Scott.
|-
| is taken advantage of by high-speed traders
| colspan="2" | A leap second must be taken into account by trading software, and may cause bugs if not accounted properly. Because leap seconds happen at midnight UTC, it might happen in regular trading hours for somebody living in Seattle, where the time zone is UTC-08:00. Somehow, a high-frequency trader may try to take advantage of any bugs in the software if they are not built to handle this particular case. This scenario is relatively unlikely because the market software can keep its own "market-official time" and synchronize with the correct time while the market is closed.
|-
| triggered the 2003 Northeast Blackout
| colspan="2" | The {{w|Northeast blackout of 2003}} was caused by a race condition in the energy management software at a power plant in Ohio. In a race condition the result of a computation is different depending on the order of completion of the operations, even though the result is supposed to be independent of that order. Race conditions can theoretically be caused by mismatched timestamps.
|-
| has to be corrected for by GPS satellites
| colspan="2" | Because {{w|Global Positioning System}} (GPS) satellites are further from the earth than surface receivers, their clocks run faster than clocks on the surface due to general relativity. But they are also slower because they are moving faster than surface receivers, as explained by special relativity. Also, their clocks are not updated for leap seconds. All these factors mean that GPS satellites have a different timekeeping standard than clocks on the ground which are generally synchronized to Greenwich solar time.
|-
| is now recognized as a major cause of World War I.
| colspan="2" | Daylight saving time was first implemented in World War I as a fuel-saving measure. Randall seems to be humorously implying that World War I was started in order to implement these fuel-saving measures during peacetime as well.
|-
|}
<references />

==Examples of true complete statements==

# Did you know that '''the spring equinox''' '''drifts out of sync with the zodiac''' because of '''the precession of the Earth's axis'''? Apparently '''it was even more extreme during the Ice Age'''.
# Did you know that '''daylight saving time''' '''might happen twice this year''' because of '''time zone regulation in Russia'''? Apparently '''there's a proposal to fix it, but it actually makes things worse'''. (True in Russia in 1981)
# Did you know that '''leap year''' '''might not happen this year''' because of '''a decree by the pope in the 1500s'''? Apparently '''there's a proposal to fix it, but''' '''it will never happen'''. While it may seem like trivia, '''it causes huge headaches for software developers'''. (The Pax calendar proposes that 2018 be a leap year. If anyone finds a calendar in which 2017 is a leap year, I'd love to see it!)

==Transcript==

:<big>-Calendar Facts-</big>

:[Shown below is a branching flow chart of sorts that begins at the phrase "Did you know that", then flows through various paths to build up a sentence. (Note that the "→" arrow symbol is used below to indicate a new branch with no intermediate text from a previous branch.)]

:Did you know that:
::the ( Fall | Spring ) Equinox
::the ( Winter | Summer ) ( Solstice | Olympics )
::the ( Earliest | Latest ) ( Sunrise | Sunset )
::Daylight ( Saving | Savings ) Time
::Leap ( Day | Year )
::Easter
::the ( Harvest | Super | Blood ) Moon
::Toyota Truck Month
::Shark Week
:→
::happens ( earlier | later | at the wrong time ) every year
::drifts out of sync with the
:::Sun
:::Moon
:::Zodiac
:::( Gregorian | Mayan | Lunar | iPhone ) Calendar
:::atomic clock in Colorado
::might ( not happen | happen twice ) this year
:because of
::time zone legislation in ( Indiana | Arizona | Russia )
::a decree by the pope in the 1500s
::( precession | libration | nutation | libation | eccentricity | obliquity ) of the
:::Moon
:::Sun
:::Earth's axis
:::equator
:::prime meridian
:::( International Date | Mason-Dixon ) Line
::magnetic field reversal
::an arbitrary decision by ( Benjamin Franklin | Isaac Newton | FDR )
:?
:Apparently
::it causes a predictable increase in car accidents.
::that's why we have leap seconds.
::scientists are really worried.
::it was even more extreme during the
:::Bronze Age.
:::Ice Age.
:::Cretaceous.
:::1990s.
::there's a proposal to fix it, but it
:::will never happen.
:::actually makes things worse.
:::is stalled in congress.
:::might be unconstitutional.
::it's getting worse and no one knows why.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Calendar]]
[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Comics featuring real people]]
[[Category:Daylight saving time]]
[[Category:Time]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Astronomy]]
[[Category:Supermoon]]
[[Category:Sharks]]

1140: Calendar of Meaningful Dates

2021-03-03T06:41:30Z

172.69.34.80: Calendar

{{comic
| number = 1140
| date = November 28, 2012
| title = Calendar of Meaningful Dates
| image = calendar of meaningful dates.png
| titletext = In months other than September, the 11th is mentioned substantially less often than any other date. It's been that way since long before 9/11 and I have no idea why.
}}

==Explanation==
The calendar used in the comic is the standard {{w|Gregorian calendar}} used by most of Western Civilization. The comic looks at the frequencies of which dates appear in English writings indexed in the {{w|Google Books Library Project}}, by using the {{w|Google Ngram Viewer}} ([http://books.google.com/ngrams link]).

Some dates are more (or less) frequently mentioned because they have a special significance. Other dates have correlations for which there doesn't appear to be any obvious reasons. September 11th, which is noted in the title text for being popular before the 9/11 attack, has also been the date of 2 significant battles in the War of 1812, one where the British landed in what was George Washington's large plantation, which likely contributed to its search volume.
The date mentioned in the sub-heading (October 17th) is Randall's birthday.

The title text mystery is explained [http://drhagen.com/blog/the-missing-11th-of-the-month/ here]. In summary, many occurrences of "11th" in the writings were actually misread by the Google Books Library Project's [[wikipedia:optical character recognition|optical character recognition]] software and/or [[wikipedia:reCAPTCHA|reCAPTCHA]] users, becoming one of these: <code>IIth</code>, <code>Ilth</code>, <code>iith</code>, <code>lith</code>, <code>llth</code>, <code>1lth</code>, <code>1ith</code>, <code>l1th</code>, <code>nth</code>.

===Date Significance===
The first of each month is generally more mentioned than others, perhaps because such dates are markers of a new month and may be used as landmark dates or deadlines. Similarly, the final day of each month is commonly a deadline day. Other dates have a less mundane significance, for example:
*January 1 is {{w|New Year's Day|New Year's Day}}.
*February 14 is {{w|Valentine's Day}}.
*February 29 only exists during {{w|Leap year|leap years}}.
*March 15 is the {{w|Ides of March}}.
*March 21 is considered the first day of {{w|Spring (season)|spring}}, by a common convention in the northern hemisphere.
*April 1 is {{w|April Fools' Day}}.
*April 15 is {{w|Tax Day|US Individual Income Tax return filing day}}.
*May 1 is {{w|International Workers' Day|International Workers' Day}}, or {{w|May Day|May Day}}.
*June 4 is the {{w|June Fourth Incident}}, or the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989.
*June 30 is the end of the {{w|Fiscal Year| fiscal year}} for most American states and local governments.
*July 4 is {{w|Independence Day (United States)|US Independence Day}}.
*September 11 is the date of the {{w|September 11 attacks|2001 terrorist attacks}} in New York City and Washington DC. It's the largest number by a big margin, most likely because unlike the other dates it has no special name, it's referred to as "September 11" almost exclusively.
*December 7 is the date of the {{w|Attack on Pearl Harbor|1941 attack on Pearl Harbor}}.
*December 25 is {{w|Christmas|Christmas}}.
*December 31 is {{w|New Year's Eve|New Year's Eve}}.

==Transcript==

:'''Calendar of Meaningful Dates'''
:Each date's size represents how often it is referred to by name (e.g. "October 17th") in English-language books since 2000
:(Source: Google ngrams corpus)
:[A regular Gregorian calendar laid out in a grid, Sunday first, on a leap year, with some numbers larger than others.]

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category: Calendar]]

994: Advent Calendar

2021-03-03T06:40:42Z

172.69.34.80: /* Transcript */ ce

{{comic
| number = 994
| date = December 23, 2011
| title = Advent Calendar
| image = advent_calendar.png
| titletext = I think you could get up to about 11:59:57 before you'd have trouble swallowing the chocolates fast enough. At that point, you'd need some kind of a liquify-and-chug apparatus to get up over the 11:59:59 barrier. Anyway, Merry Christmas!
}}

==Explanation==
An {{w|Advent calendar}} is a special calendar used to count or celebrate the days in anticipation of Christmas. They come in a multitude of forms, from a simple paper calendar with flaps covering each of the days, to fabric pockets on a background scene, to painted wooden boxes with cubby holes for small items. Advent calendars typically take the form of a large rectangular card with "windows", of which there are usually 24: one for each day of December leading up to and including Christmas Eve (December 24). Consecutive doors are opened every day leading up to Christmas, beginning on December 1. The calendar windows open to reveal an image, a poem, a portion of a story (such as the story of the Nativity of Jesus), or a small gift, such as a toy or a chocolate item.

This comic, however, depicts an Advent calendar which has a chocolate every time they get halfway to Christmas. This is a joke because of {{w|Zeno's paradox}}, which said "Before a moving object can travel a certain distance, it must travel half that distance. Before it can travel half the distance it must travel 1/4 the distance, etc. This sequence goes on forever. Therefore, it seems that the original distance cannot be travelled, and motion is impossible." This means that eating chocolates at diminishing intervals will make it so Christmas never happens.

The title text says that when you get close to midnight, it gets physically impossible to eat the chocolates fast enough to keep up, but you could get to the one-second-away mark with a chocolate liquefier and feeder tube.

Going from the second to the last of the visible time stamps it goes like this: At 11:57:11.25 PM there is still remaining 00:02:48.75 (2 minutes 48 seconds and 75 hundredth of a second.) Half of this time period will then progress before the next windows time stamp, that is 00:01:24.375 (1 minute and 24.375 s). This will then give the next time stamp by adding to the previous and we get: 11:58:35.625 PM. This has been rounded to 35.63 s in the comic. Similarly the time stamp for the next four windows, whose top are visible below, can be calculated starting from the fact that there is now only 00:01:24.375 left of the day.

*13: 42.1875 s left, so the time stamp is: 11:59:17.8125
*14: 21.09375 s left, so the time stamp is: 11:59:39.90625
*15: 10.546875 s left, so the time stamp is: 11:59:49.453125
*16: 5.2734375 s left, so the time stamp is: 11:59:54,7265625

It would take three more windows before crossing the 11:59:59 line with less than one second to go. At the 19th window there would only be 0.6591796875 seconds left of the day for a time-stamp of 11:59:59.3408203125. So that would be a window another line further down, even below the green window (no. 15) that is just visible at the button of the panel. And you would have to eat four chocolates in less than five seconds from window no. 16 to fulfill Randall's prediction.

When reaching the 24th window there would be 0.0206 s left, so that is 6 chocolates in 0.638 s. That may be a good place to stop, but of course you could continue at least until reaching the {{w|Planck time}} of 5.39 x 10-44 s. That limit will not be reached before window 162, so there are still 138 chocolates left for those last two hundredths of a second.

[[1153: Proof]] is also about Zeno, and [[1577: Advent]] is a very different longer running Advent calendar (but with only a finite number of windows{{Citation needed}}).

==Transcript==
:[A portion of an advent calendar shows 12 windows where the date can be seen below. The top row is cut off so you cannot see the very top of the window At the bottom there are four more windows, but only the top part can be seen, and there is no decoration visible. All the other windows have a decoration, although, you cannot see the one on the second window as it is opened more than 90 degree. The first is also opened, but not more than you can see there is a decoration. The 3rd is also open. The rest is still closed.]
:[A green mistletoe on red, partially open.]
:December 23rd

:[A fully open window.]
:December 24th 12:00 AM

:[A red and white Santa hat on green just opened.]
:December 24th Noon

:[Two crossed red and white candy canes on white. From here all windows are closed.]
:December 24th 6:00 PM

:[A red Christmas ball on white.]
:December 24th 9:00 PM

:[A white Christmas star on red.]
:December 24th 10:30 PM

:[A red Christmas heart on gren.]
:December 24th 11:15 PM

:[A red Santa sleigh on white.]
:December 24th 11:37:30 PM

:[A red and white Christmas sock on green.]
:December 24th 11:48:45 PM

:[A green Christmas tree on red.]
:December 24th 11:54:22.5 PM

:[A red and green Christmas wreath on white]
:December 24th 11:57:11.25 PM

:[A red and white Christmas gift on green]
:December 24th 11:58:35.63 PM

:[Below the top of four more windows where only the background colors can be seen red, white, green and then red again.]

:[Caption below the panel:]
:'''Zeno's Advent Calendar'''

{{Comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Christmas]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]
[[Category:Calendar]]
[[Category:Math]]

994: Advent Calendar

2021-03-03T06:39:51Z

172.69.34.80: /* Transcript */ calendar, math

2431: Leap Year 2021

2021-03-03T06:38:34Z

172.69.34.80: Add to category

{{comic
| number = 2431
| date = March 1, 2021
| title = Leap Year 2021
| image = leap_year_2021.png
| titletext = I've lived in the present for my whole life and I'm not about to move now.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a CALENDAR REPRINT. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

[[Cueball]], checking his phone, comments on how fast time goes, saying it is already March. (This comic was posted on March 1, 2021.) Black Hat overhears him and says that it's actually February 29.

February 29 exists in the {{w|Gregorian calendar}} and its predecessor, the {{w|Julian calendar}}, as a {{w|Intercalation (timekeeping)|correction mechanism}} for the fact that one {{w|tropical year}} on Earth is not exactly 365 days long. It's closer to 365.2422, and to prevent the dates from precessing relative to the seasons, an extra day is added once every fourth year, also called a leap year. This is still not enough to completely match Earth's orbital period, and for that reason the Gregorian calendar changed the leap year rules to be as follows: Every year that is exactly divisible by four is a leap year, except for years that are exactly divisible by 100, but these centurial years are leap years if they are exactly divisible by 400. This makes the average year 365.2425 days long, which approximates the 365.2422 days in the tropical year.

[[Black Hat]] wants ''every'' year to have a February 29, for no clear reason. Cueball acknowledges that he could accomplish this, if he could convince enough people to go along with it. Calendar systems are all invented, and whatever date systems are commonly acknowledged become the "correct" date. Cueball initially considers the change minor, assuming that they would simply change March 1st to February 29th on non-leap years, which would merely rename a single day. Black Hat clarifies that he actually wants to add another day, and the day AFTER that will be March 1. This could still be a minor change, if March were changed to a 30 day month on non-leap years, but Black Hat apparently wants the changes to propagate throughout the year. This would result in a 366-day year, causing the months to drift out of alignment with the seasons over the course of years, needlessly complicating time-keeping. Black Hat is unconcerned with the effect this will have on the "people of the future", and, as in [[1883: Supervillain Plan|the past]], people around him are much more concerned about the time problems he's creating than he is.

In the last frame, Black Hat states that if the those people cared about the problems he's causing, "they shouldn't have decided to live in the future." Of course, it is as present impossible to choose the time period in which you live,{{Citation needed}} yet Black Hat intends on penalizing them for it. Any number of positions could be proposed as a motive for his actions (for example, he may envy them for having the technology or benefits of the future, and wants to counteract that), but it is most likely that he is simply honing his sociopathic tendencies on a defenseless target.

In the title text, Cueball responds that this change would also cause issues for him, who is "living in the present", and he should not be forced to "move into the future". Alternatively, viewing the quote as a continuation of Black Hat's text at the end of the comic, he could mean that the effect of his new calendar is placed mostly on future people, and since he literally lives in the present and doesn't intend on travelling to the future, he can do what he wants without many repercussions.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball checking his phone in a narrow panel.]
:Cueball: Can't believe it's already March.
:Black Hat (off-screen): Nah, it's February 29th.

:[Cueball has put his phone away and is standing next to Black Hat.]
:Cueball: It's not a leap year.
:Black Hat: I decided to make it one. Every year deserves to leap.
:Cueball: Can you do that?
:Black Hat: Can anyone stop me?

:[Zoom in on Cueball.]
:Cueball: I guess if you just encourage people to call March 1st "February 29th", they can go along with it if they want. Just a one-day renaming.
:Black Hat (off-screen): No, tomorrow will be March 1st.

:[Cueball standing to Black Hat, who is walking off screen to the right, with his finger raised.]
:Cueball: So you're causing calendar drift for future generations.
:Black Hat: If they didn't want to experience consequences, they shouldn't have decided to live in the future.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Black Hat]]
[[Category:Calendar]]

Talk:1357: Free Speech

2021-02-26T19:47:01Z

172.69.34.80: Comment

I think the last frame should be interpreted as whoever Cueball is preaching to getting tired of his drivel and showing him the door [[User:BarnZarn|BarnZarn]] ([[User talk:BarnZarn|talk]]) 05:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
:Really? I think it's the reverse, personally. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.24|172.69.34.24]] 19:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

This comic is terribly outdated now.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.57|162.158.158.57]] 07:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
:Yeah, everyone knows doors don't exist anymore. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.24|172.69.34.24]] 19:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

It would be nice to mention how this applies only to the Federal government; discussions of how it is enforced on the states may be beyond the scope of this wiki. In addition, it might be amusing to note that freedom of association and other freedoms specified in the Bill of Rights have the same scope. That is, there are very few enumerated powers given to the Federal government, the Bill of Rights specifies some limitations on the Congress - but in general, the restriction on Congress was to the enumerated powers, a concept that made the Bill of Rights redundant - and the Bill of Rights does not apply (as written) to anyone but the Federal government. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.40|173.245.54.40]] 20:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

: The First Amendment also applies to the various State governments (including their subsidiaries, such as local governments) through the {{w|Incorporation Doctrine}}, which is based on the Fourteenth Amendment (which is about the States). To be sure, the text of the Fourteenth Amendment doesn't spell out this doctrine, so the whole thing is a bit of a stretch, but it's how the courts interpret it now. This (along with the courts' broad interpretation of the enumerated powers) makes the Bill of Rights far from redundant (and I for one am happy to have it applied as broadly as possible). —[[User:TobyBartels|TobyBartels]] ([[User talk:TobyBartels|talk]]) 23:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

:I have attempted to address some of the concerns you raised by editing the first paragraph. Please feel free to edit/improve my work. [[User:Orazor|Orazor]] ([[User talk:Orazor|talk]]) 11:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I've clarified the sentence about the Constitution being a legal document. Legal documents are not necessarily limited to government activity (for example, an apartment lease is a legal document but says nothing about what the government can or cannot do). I added the phrase "that defines the structure and powers of the government" to the end of the sentence. [[User:Elsbree|Elsbree]] ([[User talk:Elsbree|talk]]) 04:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Another recent event (within the past couple of weeks) was a campaign against Stephen Colbert for an out-of-context quote taken from a bit on his show. It was hash-tagged under "CancelColbert". Interestingly, people from Fox News that had supported the Duck Dynasty guy were completely against Colbert. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.218|108.162.237.218]] 05:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

That door in the last frame is a backdoor to fascism. --[[User:Mus|Mus]] ([[User talk:Mus|talk]]) 06:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
: Are you [http://gawker.com/5951080/vp-debate-attendee-tells-chris-matthews-obama-is-a-communist-but-cant-explain-what-a-communist-is related to this woman?] LOL.
: Nevertheless, I agree the comic would be stronger and more accurate if it didn't have that last panel. Disagreeing with someone's speech doesn't mean you get to throw them out. Places of public accommodation, such as most businesses, are required to be non-discriminatory. - [[User:Frankie|Frankie]] ([[User talk:Frankie|talk]]) 11:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
:: Reading-comprehension fail. Read the '''entire''' bottom row; it is a complete sentence. Removing the last clause negates the first. — [[User:Fluffy Buzzard|Fluffy Buzzard]] ([[User talk:Fluffy Buzzard|talk]]) 14:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
::Businesses are allowed to throw people out for almost any reason. The non-discriminatory clause has nothing to do with what people say, and isn't even tangential to the First Amendment. And yes. Disagreeing with someone in your domain does mean you get to throw them out. In fact, you can throw them out if you do agree with them. Or don't know them. Or if they're your brother. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.218|108.162.237.218]] 21:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Can someone add something saying that other countries also have similar laws on free speech? I would do it myself, but I'm new to editing the wiki and I wouldn't know how to word it. [[User:Cheeselord99|Cheeselord99]] ([[User talk:Cheeselord99|talk]]) 07:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
:I would if there was some sort of summary of them available. Though there's the {{w|Universal Declaration of Human Rights}} from the UN, I don't think it specifically requires any entity (such as a government body) to do (or not do) anything, just like I understand most anything U.N. related to be. I believe it's a guide/declaration/definition/resolution/statement of belief, and it would then be up to any soverienty to actually enforce or comply with it. [[User:Brettpeirce|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk]]) 12:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
::"Can someone add something saying that other countries also have similar laws on free speech?" Are you implying that you think ALL other countries have similar laws, or SOME other countries have similaar laws? Saying that the local dictator sucks, or that the local religion is bullshit is certainly not protected free speech in many, many countries. --[[User:RenniePet|RenniePet]] ([[User talk:RenniePet|talk]]) 23:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

This is going to be one of those XKCDs everyone is linking to, to make a point.[[User:Jkrstrt|Jkrstrt]] ([[User talk:Jkrstrt|talk]]) 08:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Though, I will say, I'm a bit concerned that the point people may be making is that "Argumentum ad Populum" is totally legit, as there is a suggestion one could infer that if a bunch of people are mad at you for something you say you deserve to be shown the door. And I'm not sure that's the intended message, and even if it is, I'm not sure it's a good one. Speaking an uncomfortable or undesired truth to a community (Which will almost certainly anger them, and make them think you're an asshole, let's say) doesn't mean the door is an appropriate response. On the other hand, when speaking such truths, one probably has a better justification than "Because Free Speech," just hopefully the disgruntled masses will actually listen to it.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.46|108.162.216.46]] 10:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
: That's the point, if your only defense is "Free Speech" - you should be shown the door. --[[User:Jeff|Jeff]] ([[User talk:Jeff|talk]]) 15:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
:: Obviously, no one making an argument personally thinks the only defense is "it is not illegal for me to say this". Other people, defending him afterwards, do not agree with the argument but are offended by censorship of his argument. Democrats think there are no merit to Republican arguments, and most Republicans think there are no merit to Democrat arguments; by your logic, a Democrat defending a Republican's right to hold a job, attend college, go to grocery stores, and generally be tolerated, is being hypocritical and should actually believe Republicans should be shown the door. Imagine what a shit world we'd live in if everyone wanted to show the door to people they disagreed with. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.197|108.162.218.197]] 00:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
::: That's not obvious at all, actually. I believe the English language has a noun for the specific kind of person who, making an argument, personally thinks the only defense is "it is not illegal for me to say this": troll. And in any case, imagine what a shit world we'd live in if sincerity of belief were considered to mitigate the legal import of direct incitement to violence. "Yes, your honor, I did tell that man that the owners of that pizza place deserved to have their place shot up in retaliation for their crimes, for which I had no evidence, and which turned out not to exist; but in my defense, I believed it so sincerely that I wanted to shoot it up myself." [[Special:Contributions/162.158.214.76|162.158.214.76]] 20:06, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Both Jeff and 108.162.216.46 are accurate. 108.162.216.46's example of an uncomfortable or undesired truth causing anger is possible. It's up the the messenger to make sure that they frame the point properly and use appropriate supporting materials to justify their claims. A messenger with bad news won't say "free speech," they will say "this is the evidence" if they want to avoid being shown the door. {{unsigned ip|173.245.55.85}}
: The issue, of course, is that a lot of people aren't willing to listen to evidence when told things they don't want to hear. Say, I dunno, if you're hanging out on a particularly conservative forum where people are taking turns bashing "Obamacare," even if you have a perfectly rational, backed up by numbers, etc. reason to say it may not be all bad, or may even be good, there's a decent chance that you could get shown the door simply because that's an unpopular opinion no matter how good your reasons are. And it's the sort of person who wants to punish someone simply for saying something unpopular on a forum, simply because it's unpopular (Or, in the case of some admins/mods, something they just don't personally like), who I'm concerned about using this comic as rhetorical backup. For the message of this comic to work, the community/etc. has to be willing to listen to rational evidence and they frequently aren't. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.46|108.162.216.46]] 22:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
:: Frankly, it would be entirely appropriate for all those sorts of people to use this comic as rhetorical backup. Your "right" to say what you think, free from interference, applies only in public spaces and on your own property. You certainly do not have the right to use other people's media as vehicles for your thoughts. So yes, it is perfectly right (and, incidentally, the only workable solution) for the person who controls the medium to decide what is said on that medium. And it is perfectly right and just for even the most woefully misguided, closed-minded, power-hungry, dogmatic or extremist admin to point to this comic and say: "I'm not willing to broadcast your opinions". That is the whole point. The freedom NOT to disseminate ideas you disagree with is just as fundamental and suffers very few exceptions. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.229.122|108.162.229.122]] 00:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Just happened to see this today, thought it was relevant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJMqYcRgf-A&t=51s [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.60|173.245.54.60]] 16:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
:The video doesn't exist anymore lmao [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.24|172.69.34.24]] 19:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

This comic has it <s>completely</s> backwards! There are people who say "You're violating the First Amendment." when they're being censored by somebody who's not the government; they are mistaken, and this comic would be absolutely correct if it were addressing them. But it's not. In fact, it doesn't talk about the First Amendment (or similar provisions in other constitutions or other laws) at all; it talks only about freedom of speech. [ETA April 19: Whoops, that's wrong! The first panel has it backwards, but the third panel is perfectly correct. So my complaint is that the comic ''conflates'' freedom of speech and the First Amendment, not that it addresses ''only'' freedom of speech.] And if you're being censored on Facebook, or in the privately-owned shopping mall, or wherever, then yes, your freedom of speech is being violated.

It's not illegal, and it may not even be wrong (why should my blog have to display your speech, after all?), but it's still a limitation on your freedom to speak. And if you want to argue that Facebook or the shopping mall (or even my blog) should not do that, then that's a perfectly legitimate position to take. As long as you say nothing about the First Amendment or the like, but instead complain about freedom of speech, then my only response (if I want to respond) is to explain why you shouldn't have free speech on that forum, not some irrelevant blather about the government. —[[User:TobyBartels|TobyBartels]] ([[User talk:TobyBartels|talk]]) 23:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

: The comic does not address the concept of free speech itself; it addresses the *right* to free speech. Sure, your speech might be restricted on certain forums or in certain communities, but you generally have no actual *right* to free speech there. It's simply that the forum or community does not want to support your ideas. --[[User:V2Blast|V2Blast]] ([[User talk:V2Blast|talk]]) 02:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

:: Who decides whether that is a right or not? {{unsigned ip|108.162.217.47}}

:: Rights aren't just for governments. Any entity can grant you rights and then uphold or violate them. (Facebook actually calls its terms of service a "Statement of Rights and Responsibilities", which it is, even though it's primarily their rights and our responsibilities.) So one might argue that Facebook (as a public forum intended for everybody and everything) ought to grant freedom of speech (which it kind of does, with a few exceptions, but only implicitly), while a personal blog should not (and then there are also forums that should maybe grant freedom of on-topic speech or something like that). People also consider natural rights (which is how the Declaration of Independence treats them, although free speech is not on its list), but personally I think that it's clearer to discuss what rights ''should'' be rather than what natural rights ''are''. So if somebody claims that FB (eg) is violating their right to free speech, then at best you have them on a technicality (because that is not a natural right and also not a right explicitly granted by FB), but their real point is that FB is violating their freedom of speech (which FB sometimes really does, including in ways that its terms of service does not authorize, hence various complaints from time to time like [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/18/breastfeeding-photos-facebook-respect-the-breast_n_1285264.html this one]). —[[User:TobyBartels|TobyBartels]] ([[User talk:TobyBartels|talk]]) 17:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I see 2 ironies:
1. Those from the BGLT+ side tend to use the 'Free Speech' argument, too.
2. This was posted in Good Friday.
[[User:Greyson|Greyson]] ([[User talk:Greyson|talk]]) 23:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
:Looking at #1, I have no idea what you're trying to say. Are we reading the same comic? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.24|172.69.34.24]] 19:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

:: On the first irony, I think this article rather misrepresents the uproar around the Duck Dynasty incident (which is mentioned in the article explanation). It wasn't just that people felt the guy's rights were violated (the merits of which argument I am not commenting on), but that A&E essentially ambushed him after he gave an opinion, in an interview, that no one should expect he didn't have. It's essentially the same issue with the Chik-fil-a incident, where people became extremely angry over an open Christian donating money to anti-gay groups, even though he was doing so for several years previously. It's not just the first amendment rights, it's that A&E, a company who is so prideful about being open minded and tolerant with the BGLT community, would drop the hammer so hard on someone who was already well-known for having opposite opinions. The point is, while A&E does technically have the right to show the Duck Dynasty guy the door, they cannot seriously do so without seriously undermining their own reasons for firing him. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.45|173.245.54.45]] 18:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I've had the situation where I express disagreement with someone and they accuse me of violating their right of free speech. A possible response to this, which I wouldn't actually use, is "I absolutely defend your First Amendment right to behave like a jerk." [[User:Mark314159|Mark314159]] ([[User talk:Mark314159|talk]]) 15:14, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, while it is correct to say that the kind of actions talked about in this comic don't violate the ''First Amendment'', it's not at all beside the point to point out that there are problems with the ''free speech'' involved. Basically, Randall Munroe is repeating a popular line of argument these days, and one that unfortunately sidesteps the entire issue of whether non-state entities can be censors. If you think the issue through for more than two seconds, it's pretty clear that they can be. Take for example some group of armed thugs physically threatening a journalist. (Hardly a hypothetical - there's a lot of that going on in the world today.) If they don't represent a government, according to a strict interpretation of the argument just made in the above ''xkcd'', they're just providing consequences and "showing the door" to someone who's speech they don't like. So, obviously, there are very clearly non-state actions that amount to censorship.
:The fact that it has to be explained to you that blackmail is illegal... [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.24|172.69.34.24]] 19:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

OK, what about non-violent actions? That still can run into a lot of grey areas. Most certainly, nobody owes anybody else the use of their venue or platform for someone else to make their point - *that* would be a violation of free speech rights to be compelled to do so. And certainly, boycotts of those who's views one disagrees with in order to influence public opinion have a solid history in democratic societies. What is problematic, however, and crosses the line into a kind of privatized censorship is the kind of "no platform" activism that seems to be in fashion these days, that seeks to deny *any* venue to those who are deemed to have unacceptable views or are practicing "hate speech" - slippery and ever-expanding concepts, it seems to me. Who is it that should have the power to "show the door" into outright silencing? BTW, a recent blog post raises these concerns in response to the above cartoon [http://blog.erratasec.com/2014/04/xkcd-is-wrong-about-free-speech.html here], and I blogged about this at length last year [http://www.skepticink.com/skepticallyleft/2013/04/07/sunday-sinner-guest-post-iamcuriousblue/ here] in regards to some of the more censorious actions of Ada Initiative. [[User:Iamcuriousblue|Iamcuriousblue]] ([[User talk:Iamcuriousblue|talk]]) 04:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

:Look, the two concepts you raise are different things. And it's not a government's job to determine which point of view is valid or best, or even to protect or promote that PoV. The point is that the U.S. government (in this case) must remain un-hostile (if that's a word) to dissenting points of view. In fact, ''especially'' towards dissenting points of view. Thugs threatening journalists? I agree that's a problem. And the state/local government (in most cases) should do its best to prevent this kind of coercion. The overarching principle is that within the U.S. is that we want to create as open a marketplace for ideas as possible. That marketplace structure does not determine the value of a speech's content. It simply allows it to exist.

:So the USG can't prevent others from not listening, or even from telling a speaker to shut up. You must see that this ''cannot'' be the role of a government that is seeking to promote open and constructive discourse. Because once the government starts favoring one PoV or providing "more favored treatment" for, let's say, your coerced journalist, then it is condoning or supporting that particular speech over others. And that, if you think about it for more than two seconds, is in itself infringing on the very same free speech guarantee. [[User:Orazor|Orazor]] ([[User talk:Orazor|talk]]) 11:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

In fact, there are (admittedly rare) situations in which the "right to free speech" can require a private entity to host a speaker. Marsh v. Alabama involved a Jehovah's Witness handing out literature in a company town completely owned by a corporation. The Supreme Court held that because the admittedly private spaces in a company town were akin to public spaces, the company could not enforce a trespassing law against the Jehovah's Witness without violating the First Amendment. So long as one is talking about the "right to free speech" (which goes beyond the First Amendment), the Pruneyard Shopping Center case, in which a mall owner was forced to allow participation by a speaker due to a California law expanding free speech rights in commercial areas, serves as another example of where a private entity can be forced to accommodate another's speech. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.13|173.245.54.13]] 10:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

'''TL;DR''' --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 18:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

A very recent article that pretty much shreds this comic. XKCD is usually on point, but this one goes a bit too far. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/04/22/freedom_to_marry_freedom_to_dissent_why_we_must_have_both_122376.html {{unsigned ip|173.245.56.86}}
:I have no idea what you were trying to use "shred" to mean. "shredding" refers to either cutting or the name of a skateboard trick.

I find it very disturbing that one of the most popular science-themed comics on the Internet gives a free pass to the Catholic church like this. The Catholic church is not a government, it is an international cultural institution, therefore, if the Catholic church bans people, ideas, speech, and behavior from all domains of its organizational influence, this comic clearly supports such a move. (I doubt the author needs a primer on that part of history.) The stated position that free speech only means that government can't come after you, but cultural institutions can and you just need to be quiet and leave if you disagree with that. {{unsigned ip|108.162.215.85}}
:As an atheist, the Catholic church's policies have no relevance to me. I do not visit Catholic churches, I do not attend Catholic schools, and I do not use Catholic businesses. If anyone doesn't like what they do, they -can- just leave. When enough people are fed up, they'll be a cultural institution of zero. Or one, or whatever. A number too small to have any bearing on society at large. Unless you're suggesting that people somehow have a right to impose things on someone else's property, which is false. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.218|108.162.237.218]] 09:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
:: I believe that Randall made this comic without fully thinking of the implications of the stance it takes. I mean, it certainly is a backlash against currently so-called homophobic (I have problems with this word) community, but it also essentially justifies a whole lot of other stuff this society wouldn't deem right. {{unsigned ip|173.245.56.86}}
:::Seems kinda irrelevant to the comment you're replying to. And weirdly vague, too. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.24|172.69.34.24]] 19:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

:: I'd like to explain all the ways I think this comic is ridiculous- if, indeed, he;s talking about what everyone thinks he's talking about:

::1. His casual and condescending dismissal of actual, seriously held points of view as mere trolling.

::2. His pretending that all these debates are about is so much trolling, akin to a website choosing to remove someone disruptive.

::3. Every who's protested this has stressed that they have no argument that Mozilla had a legal right to do as they please; they are making a more moral argument. To many, alas, *anything* is government action or it's nothing at all, so moral arguments, interestingly, end up having no weight.

::4. Many on the "other side" have had no problem calling "Freedom of Speech!" with little to no actual legal basis. Turnabout is...

::5. Those same people have often had no issue with actual repression even when government (e.g., a state university) is involved. One wonders what the argument would be like if, say, Woolworth's refused to serve blacks at their lunch counters. Oh wait. Well, turnabout again.

::That's most of what I can think of off the top of my head.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.88.224|141.101.88.224]] 20:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

HAAY GUISE I HAS A OPINON AND YOU ALL MUST LISTEN TO ME OKAY HERE GOES WAIT DON'T DELETE ME WAAAGH!!! [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.71|199.27.128.71]] 06:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

How recent was the Clippers scandal in relation to this comic? I just saw on Facebook's trending bar that sponsors are pulling away so they won't be associated with racism, and people are crying about the First Amendment. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.218|108.162.237.218]] 05:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

;Off topic — Free Speech Schtonk!
At {{w|The Great Dictator}}, the greatest movie Charlie Chaplin ever did, the Führer shouts: "Demokratsie Schtonk! Liberty Schtonk! Free Sprekken Schtonk!“ The word {{w|Schtonk!}} was also used as the title of a satirical German movie, retelling the hoax of the {{w|Hitler Diaries}}.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 18:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

"The 1st amendment doesn't shield you from criticism or consequences." - Of course it doesn't, I live in the UK --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.10|141.101.99.10]] 18:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Little disturbed that nobody else has called out the specious defense that [http://popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/ shouting fire in a crowded theatre] actually is. If you want to use something like '''that''' to prove that not all speech is free, go for it, but it's a pretty weak argument, especially considering the very judge that ruled on it recanted several years later in a later decision. Protesters got the right to protest, yo. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.129|108.162.219.129]] 23:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Conversation on a mincraft server:
Moderator: Please stop
Idiot: No, I have the right to free speech!
Moderator: And we have the right to ban you
*Idiot left the game {{unsigned ip|173.245.56.180}}

Ironically, the title text also applies in the other direction. "If I don't like your speech, I can respond by unfriending you, boycotting you, etc. The First Amendment only limits government action; what I'm doing *isn't illegal*! [[Special:Contributions/162.158.85.117|162.158.85.117]] 12:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
:Where's the irony? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.24|172.69.34.24]] 19:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

The reference to Schenck completely mischaracterizes it. The defendants were convicted of urging draft resistance, and their conviction had nothing to do with allegations that they were lying. They were convicted of opposing Wilson's war and the laws that forced people to fight in it. The expression "shouting fire in a crowded theater" has since then been a popular way for censorship advocates to justify all sorts of prohibitions on speech.

Munroe is wrong. The right to free speech means a lot more than "the government can't arrest you for what you say." It means the government can't discriminate against people based on their views. It can't deny them jobs, block them from using a public forum, or punish students of government-run universities on the basis of what they say. If the only thing the First Amendment only stopped the government from arresting dissidents, we'd have all kinds of censorship.

Munroe's suggestion that views which provoke yelling or boycotting are "bullshit" is also disturbing. [[User:Gmcgath|Gmcgath]] ([[User talk:Gmcgath|talk]]) 11:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

This comic shows that Munroe, at the time at least, fell for the common error of confusing an objection about human rights with an objection about legal rights. Anybody who spends time saying unpopular things will realize that it is most often the community, not the government, that moves to restrict your freedoms when you have an unpopular position. This sounds perfectly acceptable and even just to people holding the majority position, but it displays a certain naivety that they don't consider what it would be like if they found themselves in the minority. Freedom of Speech does not originate from the First Amendment; it is a universal ideal that was incorporated into the First Amendment, as it was realized that the government is an organization with sufficient power to oppress people with minority views. Similarly, any other organization with the power to oppress those with minority views is morally obligated to adopt similar policies of open discourse, just as the government was. The Title text is the most egregious part, in that it gets the situation completely bass-ackwards. Contrary to what he was once told - that citing freedom of speech when told to shut up is the ultimate concession that you don't have a good argument - it is the person attempting to silence you that has admitted they have no good argument. To delete, silence, or ban someone is to admit that you cannot address their words with words of your own. It's frankly baffling that Munroe would express this view when it is quite contrary to the views expressed in pretty much everything else he produces. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.214|108.162.219.214]] 17:16, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
:It seems like the entire point of the existence of the government is to ensure human rights and to intervene whenever they need to achieve that goal, so... [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.80|172.69.34.80]] 19:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

In the 19th century, Western Union routinely engaged in discrimination by preventing certain people of a particular political viewpoint from sending telegrams. One of the eventual consequences of this was the common carrier rule, which required telegraph companies, and later phone companies, to accept communications from all people on all topics. These platforms were deemed so important to the functioning of society that censoring speech was against the interest of the public. If the phone company or telegram company doesn't like what you're saying on their platform, they can't just show you the door. Today, social media companies routinely discriminate against political viewpoints by censoring speech they don't agree with. Surely social media is a platform just as, if not more important to the functioning of society than the telegram and phone was in the 19th and 20th centuries. [185.181.9.120] 21:19, June 32rd 2018 (UTC)

:Social media sites are not common carriers. Internet service providers (ISPs) are. If all ISPs (and telegraph and phone companies and the post office) block you, then you can't send a message to your friend. If all social media sites block you, then you can still call/text/email your friend, even if you have to get their IP address manually and use a peer-to-peer protocol. If anything, being banned from a social media site is like being banned from taking out ads in a newspaper. It's their right to decide how to use their speech. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.46.155|172.68.46.155]] 03:21, 30 March 2020 (UTC)