explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:2481: 1991 and 2021

2021-06-28T20:33:41Z

172.69.35.115: I hope so too

It's 7:12p and I'm on android at m.xkcd.com . There is no alt text, and the "see also" link directs back to the same page. The comic is fun though, people will be thinking about time travel as technology takes off. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.179|162.158.62.179]] 23:14, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
:There is no title-text on firefox on PC either. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.59|162.158.79.59]] 23:16, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
::The title text is botched. Instead the comic is wrapped in an <code>a</code> (hyperlink) element: <code><a href=""Oh, and our computers all have cameras now, which is nice during the pandemic lockdowns." "The WHAT.""></code>. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.152|141.101.98.152]] 23:24, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
:::I reckon the backend interface for posting a comic must have a field for the title text and a field for the "see also" link, and someone put the text in the wrong field. Easy mistake to make, hopefully fixed soon. -- [[User:Peregrine|Peregrine]] ([[User talk:Peregrine|talk]]) 02:33, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Wasn't the federal no lasers pointed at airplanes law was in acted to prevent laser guided missile attacks against airlines? Not laser attacks in general? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.129.136|172.68.129.136]] 01:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
:Sure, someone may have suggested that, but the truth is that anyone who has access to guided missiles (IE state-level actors and military forces) isn't going to be bound by federal law anyway [[User:Defaultdotxbe|Defaultdotxbe]] ([[User talk:Defaultdotxbe|talk]]) 02:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
::My thoughts too. At first I took it as White Hat thinking that there were military attacks with lasers capable of shooting down planes… but a federal law against that would, as you say, not be heeded by those doing such things. On reflection I decided that White Hat is envisioning that ordinary citizens have laser guns and have taken to shooting them at planes, the way road signs get shot at by ordinary guns in reality. -- [[User:Peregrine|Peregrine]] ([[User talk:Peregrine|talk]]) 02:46, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
:In short, '''no'''. 18 USC §39A, the federal law criminalizing the pointing of laser pointers at airplanes, was not enacted to prevent missile attacks against airlines. It was enacted to help combat kids (and others) causing real injury to airline personnel in what they thought were harmless pranks (they're not harmless). [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 03:46, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

It's interesting that Mr. 2021 summarizes the entire Internet/World Wide Web with "it's really easy to send news stories to your friends". The Internet certainly existed in 1991, but the advancement in that area over 30 years is pretty significant. I'm not sure how I would sum that up to someone from 30 years ago in a single comic panel, but I think it would come out differently than what we see here. [[User:Orion205|Orion205]] ([[User talk:Orion205|talk]]) 03:57, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
:I saw the ratio of advertisements with www.foo.com in it rise only at the end of the 90s which was when the Internet started to get mainstream adoption. Before Google, it was not so easy to find relevant content with Altavista and friends. [[User:Bmwiedemann|Bmwiedemann]] ([[User talk:Bmwiedemann|talk]]) 20:31, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
::Don't confuse the Internet with the Web, though. With searchable access to alt.your.fetish.or.hobby on a usenet feed, a curated FAQ (or general conversation) could make you aware of ftp.hobbyfetish.org.au, or whatever wherewithall you needed to telnet directly to the FetishHobbyBBS. Or vice-versa if you'd started on a FIDONet connection. (Then there was the AOL Keyword approach, where you had such an ISP with such a USP and an acceptably obvious hobby/fetish.) Before Tim Berners-Lee (and whoever did Gopher, etc), plus the time needed to get into your prefered era of AskVistaGoogleDuck, the connectivity was there - just a little less automated and only ''hugely'' beyond a single person actually knowing everything they could connect to, rather than totally mind-blowingly so... [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.105|162.158.158.105]] 00:05, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
:::Also, Google never offered great improvement over the ease of search on AltaVista; Google's "improved" search rankings were a result of other user's click-thrus & promotion, notably ''not'' any enhancement of the existing search terms. As a result, Google made it easier to find the sites most commonly accessed through its search gateway, while pushing obscure resources toward the bottom of any search results. After establishing market dominance in web searches, Google then phased out adherence to strict search terms, making it noticeably ''harder'' to find any sites their algorithms do not promote. (They also bought YouTube & then removed a great deal of the independently produced videos which had made the site popular, when "content controls" & the first implementation of their overzealous automated filtering, were brought online.) Google has always been more about promotion than accurate search, & it's reflected in the way they've consistently absorbed new technologies only to shutter them in favor of newer, less functionally-complete projects, which superficially offer more appearance of novelty. Google is to telecommunication today, as General Motors was to transportation in the '00s: An industry giant hindering meaningful innovation by marketing old as new, new as exclusive, & restricted as improved. Rather similar to Apple & MS, actually? (The extent to which ''"free thing that worked fine if you knew how"'' becomes ''"more limited but monetized thing deprecated by another monetized thing until none of them offer what you came for anymore"'', is truly astounding to me. Feels like telecom was better in '05, for anyone who doesn't want to spend hundreds a month in '21.) '''Google deserves credit for innovating search in the same way Apple deserves credit for innovating smartphones: ''They don't.''''' Neither company is great at ''innovating''; they are great at ''marketing'' old as new.
:::[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 17:43, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

It's not so much the range of cordless phones that is of significant change, but the computing power inside the phone that made the most advancement since 1991. Phones at that time could only make phone calls! Texting didn't become available until 1992 and games and everything else we do on them was later. To me "range" means the connection range which improved a lot, but is still not as signficant as "range of use" [[User:Rtanenbaum|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum|talk]]) 12:17, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
:Does "cordless phones" refer to cellphones? That's the "wireless" industry. Cordless phones are landline phone handsets that don't have a cord connecting them to the wall, and he's talking about the distance they can be from the base station. Mentioning these is a joke because so many people have cut the cord entirely, abandoning their landlines in favor of just using cellphones. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 12:59, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
:That's what I wondered too. I would assume the comic is referring to cordless phones in the sense of landline phone handsets, not cellphones, if just because the coverage range of these phones '''has''' increased, whereas the opposite is true for cellphones. With 2G, you can get coverage up to 35km from the base station, whereas with 4G this is reduced to about 16km. There is effectively more cellphone coverage nowadays because there are more base stations, not because the coverage works at longer range. [[User:Zoid42|Zoid42]] ([[User talk:Zoid42|talk]]) 02:28, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
::I agree, & the assertion that ''cellphones'' have increased in range since '91 would be amusing, if it weren't so incorrect as to represent harmful disinformation. (Ironic, given the topic...) I have edited the explanation to make the situation clearer, but that paragraph is now overly long & contains several run-on sentences: The explanation would read better if split into coherent sections for each of the four changes Cueball described.
::[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 17:56, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
:The computing power inside the phone would definitely sound significant in 1992 ; I suspect it would be comparable to top supercomputers of that time. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 00:10, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
::It indeed seems that we're seeing 100s of GigaFLOPS in both those supercomputers and these smartphones. Possibly more, as I couldn't easily find mobiles from the last half decade referenced in those terms of measure. And, when it does, it refers to the ''GPU'', which makes for a very highly specialised architecture to render (e.g.) game environments via 3D elements, unlike supercomputers that... hmmm, often had a very highly specialised architecture to process (e.g.) weather predictions via 3D elements. ;)
::Still hard to compare (is it easier to efficiently re-task arbitrary GPUs for things like, say, cryptofarming than it would for a weather-service machine to be re-applied to non-weather computing?) and of course other metrics such as data storage have been Moore's Lawed as well, by a combination of higher quantity, lower cost and increased availability (never mind pocket-portability) even before we start to get to near infinite swappable tape-storage now being approximated by virtually unlimited remote cloud storage (which could ultimately and opaquely still be as crude as tape-storage, but probably is disc-farms).
::It would be interesting to go beyond the few brief glances I made at the details and actually with the various conversion factors that relate what we had in the early '90s (when something like a 486 DX2 66Mhz was the height of personal computing power, for me, at least until DX4 100s became available - and a HD 3.5" FDD wasn't always a given...) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.103|141.101.99.103]]

This is the second time Cueball travels from within the Covid-19 pandemic to visit White Hat [[2280]]. Is there any comic where White Hat interacts with pangolins, bats, or China? Even though Cueball is vaccinated by now, he might be a carrier [[User:Ruffy314|Ruffy314]] ([[User talk:Ruffy314|talk]]) 22:46, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
:That field around Cueball might mean he's not physically here ; maybe it's not possible to transfer matter into past, just information. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 00:10, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
::Black Hat: "Here wear this shirt when you project back."
::Cueball: 'Why? What does it say above that big block of code?'
::Black Hat: "'Reproduce this RNA sequence for a cool surprise!'"
::[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 17:56, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with the assertion added by [[Special:Contributions/172.69.35.193|172.69.35.193]] ([[User_talk:172.69.35.193|talk]]):
:'A moment of thought would make it clear that the "laser attack" is unlikely to damage the plane directly, because if it did, no new law would be needed.'
Something being criminal under an existing law does ''not'' mean no new law is needed or will be passed. Maybe the existing penalty wasn't deemed sufficient. Maybe the law had loopholes not foreseen until the new technology appeared. Or maybe Congress just wanted to be seen to be doing something. There are many reasons why new laws can and have been passed to combat (the comic's word) something that's already not legal. Does anyone have thoughts to add? -- [[User:Peregrine|Peregrine]] ([[User talk:Peregrine|talk]]) 10:45, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
: I agree, that addition should be removed. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 11:03, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
:I'd like to add that the law Cueball references is only supposed to "combat" laser attacks, not necessarily outlaw them. I interpret this in the same way that one might outlaw firearms in order to "combat" mass shootings, or legislating TSA checks to "combat" bombings - both of which are already very illegal. So in Whitehats imagination, a law passed to "combat laser attacks on airliners" might be something like background checks on lasgun owners (deemed necessary because of frequent attacks). This law would be (arguagbly) "needed", even though the attacks themselves are already illegal. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.203.15|162.158.203.15]] 12:25, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

<message deleted; sorry about that>[[Special:Contributions/172.70.126.2|172.70.126.2]] 15:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I really think Randall should've made some kind of remark about Sonic getting a fully orchestrated symphony. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.103|141.101.99.103]] 16:20, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I hope Randall won't be backsliding into another prolonged serious of COVID-19 comics ad nauseum. Just saying.

Talk:2014: JWST Delays

2021-06-24T18:50:07Z

172.69.35.115: RM Nonsense

Haha - I made this same graph 2 weeks ago! [[User:Cosmogoblin|Cosmogoblin]] ([[User talk:Cosmogoblin|talk]]) 17:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Suggest the last sentence be made more general: "The title text refers to a fundamental question of the Big Bang Theory; will the universe expand forever, or will is collapse back on itself? The likely answer to this question has changed over the decades as new measurements have been made, and new theories such as dark matter and dark energy developed to explain the new measurements. Apparently, and for an analogous reason, between 2018 and 2020 the likely answer to the fundamental JWST question will change." [[User:GODZILLA|GODZILLA]] ([[User talk:GODZILLA|talk]]) 17:58, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
:I agree to the current sentence saying "and compares the universe’s accelerating expansion to the apparently ever-delaying schedule" but were the hell comes the conclusion that "the JWST will have enough delays to fill a universe"? This does not make any sense. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 07:59, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Does today's prediction of 2026 count? If that is included in the data set, it would then skew the best-fit line to be steeper. If a new prediction is made using that new best-fit line, that would further skew the line, and so on, causing the acceleration the title text anticipates between 2018 and 2020.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.63.88|162.158.63.88]] 20:10, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

> Until the slope of the line becomes more than one and the prediction goes to the past, right? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.16|108.162.216.16]] 21:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

:No, it doesn't count, because it's just '''prediction''', while the data set is of (official) '''planned launch dates'''. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 22:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

:The Wikipedia data (taking the midpoint for ranges) fits a linear function with slope 0.660618 and intercept 687.739. This implies convergence at 2026.45, which is why Randall is predicting late 2026 for the actual launch. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.22.56|172.69.22.56]] 15:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

[[wikipedia:Heinz von Foerster#Doomsday equation|Von Foersters's doomsday]] is Friday 13th of November 2026. (cue Twilight Zone intro) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.89.175|162.158.89.175]] 21:20, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Why does he keep saying it's 2021? Is he trying to skip Trump's term or what? --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.211.10|172.68.211.10]] 00:30, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Why do you think that Trump will get only 1 term?[[Special:Contributions/141.101.76.70|141.101.76.70]] 17:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

This is the same chart for the new airport in Berlin. Sadly its slope is not less than one, it is indeed accelerating... 
2006     2011 
2010     2012 
2012     2013 
2013     2014 
2014     2016 
2015     2018 
2016     2018 
2017     2022 
[[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 07:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
:[https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bau_des_Flughafens_Berlin_Brandenburg#cite_ref-136] says that the planned launch date from December 2017 is in October 2020 (not 2022). That would make the slope slightly less than 1 (unless you ignore the 2016->2011 data point, as outlier) --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.35|162.158.91.35]] 09:27, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
::There was a 2022 prediction earlier in 2017, I took the maximum value for each year. And honestly, 2202 sounds more reasonable than 2020 for me. [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 14:39, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I feel a quadratic regression would be needed to determine acceleration / deceleration [[Special:Contributions/172.68.59.24|172.68.59.24]] 13:54, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

: If you plot out the least-squares fit as it changes over time (i.e. repeat Randall's graph as each new data point was added), it fits a quadratic quite well. And converges to a 2025 date.

I wonder what this chart would look like for new york's 2nd avenue subway.
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.75.130|162.158.75.130]] 17:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

At least there _is_ a slope. How about Trump's wall? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.151|173.245.52.151]] 00:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Two more lines are coming together... the year and the XKCD index. 2018 should happen next week. [[User:IonFreeman|IonFreeman]] ([[User talk:IonFreeman|talk]]) 14:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

The last three data points have a slope greater than one. Just sayin'. [[User:Redbelly98|Redbelly98]] ([[User talk:Redbelly98|talk]]) 19:55, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

:"NASA announced that the launch date has once again been delayed to 31 October 2021." THE RIDE NEVER ENDS [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.188|108.162.215.188]] 05:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

::November to December 2021 now... amazing. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.35.65|172.69.35.65]] 20:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

== November 2021 ==

Is [https://www.space.com/james-webb-space-telescope-launch-delay-november-2021] on track for the extrapolation shown? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.35.115|172.69.35.115]] 18:31, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Talk:2478: Alien Visitors 2

2021-06-24T18:46:36Z

172.69.35.115: /* LINCOS */ example

Sorry for intruding, I am just delighted that I am early [[Special:Contributions/162.158.166.161|162.158.166.161]] 14:02, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

"Maybe we shouldn't stand right under it." This line might (inadvertently?) reference the common alien-movie fail in which massive spacecraft hover at low altitude over human populations without obliterating them and their infrastructure. It might also be bathroom humor. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.129.134|172.68.129.134]] 15:56, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
:I'm with the original explanation. The aliens just don't seem very advanced, so they're worried that the spaceships are poorly constructed and pieces might fall off, or the entire ship might just drop. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 16:19, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
:You are probably correct with respect to Randall's intentions. The situation, though, brings to my mind Turtledove's [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldwar_series Worldwar series], in which "The Race" had very advanced technology (hence little risk of spaceships crashing on their own) but had, at least initially, a poor opinion about human technologies and their advancement. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.129.132|172.68.129.132]] 18:31, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

::Thanks for the reference, 172.68.129.132! I’m enjoying listening to the series for free through my public library account using Hoopla. Apparently the original e-books had atrocious copy editing so I get to miss out on that visual horror. :-). [[User:Dhugot|Dhugot]] ([[User talk:Dhugot|talk]]) 18:02, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

:: Also reminds me of that StarTrek (NextGen) episode where a very low intelligence species has advanced space travel that it obtains by stealing it from other species. (Sorry - I forget the episode title). [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 16:06, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
:::That was Season 2 episode "Samaritan Snare". [[Special:Contributions/172.70.117.38|172.70.117.38]] 17:28, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

To the individual who made a callback to Capri Sun--bless you. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.130.83|172.70.130.83]] 19:11, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

:Need a category for this recurring comic: [[:Category:Alien Visitors]]. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.35.65|172.69.35.65]] 00:33, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Doesn’t the United States still add lead to gasoline used for piston airplane engines, and also high octane race car fuel?[[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.55|162.158.62.55]] 03:28, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
:Very limited niche use remains, phased out of major applications. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.206|141.101.98.206]] 08:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
::Does 167,000 aircraft in the USA (plus more around the world) count as “limited niche use”? Assuming a super conservative estimate of an average of only 100 hours/year/airframe and an equally conservative burn rate of 10 gal/hr, that’s 167 million gallons of leaded gasoline burned per year. See https://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=14754 for more info on the FAA’s continuing refusal to remove lead from avgas.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.110.44|172.70.110.44]] 04:46, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
:::Considering the 276 million cars in the USA and their yearly consumption of 123.5 billion gallons of fuel, that is pretty much limited niche use, yes. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.94.232|162.158.94.232]] 14:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
::::Classic example of a logical fallacy. To paraphrase your assertion: “Because the market for 100LL fuel for piston aircraft is 0.1% the size as the unleaded gasoline market for automobiles, 100LL fuel for piston aircraft is a niche market” but you are comparing apples to bacon by comparing automotive unleaded gasoline to 100LL aviation fuel. Status as “niche” or “not niche” is based on sales of leaded fuel; cars run on unleaded gasoline, diesel, or electricity, and are thus irrelevant to the discussion. I mean, why not mention how much jet-A is burned by turbine aircraft? Answer: because it’s irrelevant to the discussion. Cars burning unleaded fuel is irrelevant to the discussion of leaded gasoline. In terms of absolute quantities, piston aircraft burn far more 100LL than anything else, and lead from those aircraft remains a significant source of lead pollution.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.48|172.70.114.48]] 03:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

::Although lead was originally added to gas in order to improve efficiency, it was retained in order to reduce refining expense. After refining crude oil, you get gasoline at a variety of octanes. The different octanes are blended to produce what you pay for (e.g. 87 for regular, 93 for premium). Lead is an octane-boosting additive, allowing manufacturers to ship sub-standard gas (that is a little below the rated octane), adding lead to bring it up to standard. Without lead, you need to blend in a higher proportion of higher-octane gas in order to get the required octane rating. Which is why, back when lead was being phased out, unleaded gas cost more than leaded. The effect of lead reducing engine knock is simply a result of the gas having a higher octane rating. High octane gas without lead (e.g. premium) has the same effect.

::Another interesting side point is that computer-controlled refineries have effectively reduced the quality of gas you get at the pump. There are serious legal penalties for selling gas with an octane rating below what is labeled, but no penalties for being higher. Back when refineries were not computer controlled, they were not precise enough to produce the exact blend required, so they would always err a little higher (e.g. selling 88 octane labeled as 87). But with modern systems, they can sell exactly what's labeled, so consumers don't get any free bonus octane anymore. [[User:Shamino|Shamino]] ([[User talk:Shamino|talk]]) 16:22, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

:: Leaded gasoline doesn't just provide anti-knock capability, in older cars, the lead gradually accumulates around the valve seats and serves to soften the impact of the valve as it snaps shut. Modern cars have both anti-knock sensors and hardened valve seats - so you don't need it anymore. My 1960 Mini needs leaded gas because of the valve-seat issue - and as a result I have to use a lead additive for about one in five tankfuls of gas. Fortunately, that car is mostly a "garage queen" and is only driven to local car shows and such. I atone for this by driving a Tesla as my main vehicle! [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 16:06, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
::: Why can't you use tetraethylbismuth whose metal is soft and low melting like lead but much less toxic? [[User:Oxygen|Oxygen]] ([[User talk:Oxygen|talk]]) 18:52, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

An honorary mention might be made to {{w|Thomas Midgley Jr.}}, who helped to make both TEL and CFCs widely used. (Though didn't get the chance to widely promote his bed-lift before it also proved unsafe.) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.206|141.101.98.206]] 08:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the Hindenburg exploded. It just burned.

One would question how benevolent these aliens are. They only offer inferior technology (pyramids, biplanes) which they could have ''trivially'' seen not to be useful, or they offer harmful technology like lead-based gasoline and inefficient fruit-presses. On the other hand they do not offer the one tech we don't have, e.g. still-standing flying saucers. Thus one may question their real motives... <Insert reference to V>. [[User:Ralfoide|Ralfoide]] ([[User talk:Ralfoide|talk]]) 17:53, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
: Or maybe they're trying to ensure we have a well rounded tech growth rather than beelining to spaceflight. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.126.134|162.158.126.134]] 21:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

: For sure the Hindenburg didn't explode - and there is evidence that much of the problem wasn't the loss of the hydrogen anyway since hydrogen flames ascend UPWARDS away from the passenger gondola - and hydrogen burns at a relatively low temperature. A bigger problem was that the skin of the airship was sprayed with iron oxide on the inside and aluminium on the outside - which, when burned together, was essentially "thermite". That stuff is hard to set on fire, but once it gets started it's horrifically energetic - it's what the Germans were using as incendiary bombs...so they REALLY should have known better! Given the rapidly increasing cost (and scarcity) of helium - airships may soon have to go back to using hydrogen. But it could easily be made safe with modern technology to monitor (and purge) oxygen from inside the hydrogen cells, adequate lightning protection...and an "anything-except-freaking-thermite!!" skin. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 16:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I feel like the references to the Secretary series are in error. Ron Paul *does* have a blimp in those comics, so it's tangentially related, but the secretary series is very much not the alien visitors series.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.187.99|162.158.187.99]] 12:34, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

As for biplanes - because they have ample wing area, they typically have shorter wing-spans than monoplanes. This reduces the moment of angular inertia and that allows them to turn more rapidly...and that is why they are used in aerobatics and crop spraying. The infamous "Red Baron" of WWI flew a Fokker triplane which enhanced the ability to maneuver even more - although at the expense of even more drag. However, high drag also means you can slow down much more rapidly - which allowed more interesting tactical possibilities. Biplanes were VERY useful in the era in which they were flown. They didn't vanish because they were a terrible technology - but because the nature of arial warfare changed. Modern fighter aircraft try to get the best of both worlds by having wings with a greater chord length - providing more lift area without messing up roll/yaw angular inertia. However, this does worsen longitudinal angular inertia - which is relatively unimportant in a modern "dogfight" where the only real requirement is to be able to turn tightly enough for a missile firing solution. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 16:06, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

=== LINCOS ===
How do people feel about a discussion of the limitations of Freudenthal's (1960) LINCOS: ''Lingua Cosmica,'' as featured in the Jodie Foster film ''Contact''?[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincos_%28artificial_language%29] In particular, what limitations arise when higher-level communications must be based on screenplays? For example, would a society continually producing movies depicting themselves as violent agressively galactic conquers be eligible for first contact? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.35.115|172.69.35.115]] 18:46, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Talk:2478: Alien Visitors 2

2021-06-24T18:43:42Z

172.69.35.115: /* LINCOS */ ital.

Sorry for intruding, I am just delighted that I am early [[Special:Contributions/162.158.166.161|162.158.166.161]] 14:02, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

"Maybe we shouldn't stand right under it." This line might (inadvertently?) reference the common alien-movie fail in which massive spacecraft hover at low altitude over human populations without obliterating them and their infrastructure. It might also be bathroom humor. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.129.134|172.68.129.134]] 15:56, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
:I'm with the original explanation. The aliens just don't seem very advanced, so they're worried that the spaceships are poorly constructed and pieces might fall off, or the entire ship might just drop. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 16:19, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
:You are probably correct with respect to Randall's intentions. The situation, though, brings to my mind Turtledove's [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldwar_series Worldwar series], in which "The Race" had very advanced technology (hence little risk of spaceships crashing on their own) but had, at least initially, a poor opinion about human technologies and their advancement. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.129.132|172.68.129.132]] 18:31, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

::Thanks for the reference, 172.68.129.132! I’m enjoying listening to the series for free through my public library account using Hoopla. Apparently the original e-books had atrocious copy editing so I get to miss out on that visual horror. :-). [[User:Dhugot|Dhugot]] ([[User talk:Dhugot|talk]]) 18:02, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

:: Also reminds me of that StarTrek (NextGen) episode where a very low intelligence species has advanced space travel that it obtains by stealing it from other species. (Sorry - I forget the episode title). [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 16:06, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
:::That was Season 2 episode "Samaritan Snare". [[Special:Contributions/172.70.117.38|172.70.117.38]] 17:28, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

To the individual who made a callback to Capri Sun--bless you. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.130.83|172.70.130.83]] 19:11, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

:Need a category for this recurring comic: [[:Category:Alien Visitors]]. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.35.65|172.69.35.65]] 00:33, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Doesn’t the United States still add lead to gasoline used for piston airplane engines, and also high octane race car fuel?[[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.55|162.158.62.55]] 03:28, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
:Very limited niche use remains, phased out of major applications. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.206|141.101.98.206]] 08:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
::Does 167,000 aircraft in the USA (plus more around the world) count as “limited niche use”? Assuming a super conservative estimate of an average of only 100 hours/year/airframe and an equally conservative burn rate of 10 gal/hr, that’s 167 million gallons of leaded gasoline burned per year. See https://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=14754 for more info on the FAA’s continuing refusal to remove lead from avgas.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.110.44|172.70.110.44]] 04:46, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
:::Considering the 276 million cars in the USA and their yearly consumption of 123.5 billion gallons of fuel, that is pretty much limited niche use, yes. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.94.232|162.158.94.232]] 14:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
::::Classic example of a logical fallacy. To paraphrase your assertion: “Because the market for 100LL fuel for piston aircraft is 0.1% the size as the unleaded gasoline market for automobiles, 100LL fuel for piston aircraft is a niche market” but you are comparing apples to bacon by comparing automotive unleaded gasoline to 100LL aviation fuel. Status as “niche” or “not niche” is based on sales of leaded fuel; cars run on unleaded gasoline, diesel, or electricity, and are thus irrelevant to the discussion. I mean, why not mention how much jet-A is burned by turbine aircraft? Answer: because it’s irrelevant to the discussion. Cars burning unleaded fuel is irrelevant to the discussion of leaded gasoline. In terms of absolute quantities, piston aircraft burn far more 100LL than anything else, and lead from those aircraft remains a significant source of lead pollution.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.48|172.70.114.48]] 03:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

::Although lead was originally added to gas in order to improve efficiency, it was retained in order to reduce refining expense. After refining crude oil, you get gasoline at a variety of octanes. The different octanes are blended to produce what you pay for (e.g. 87 for regular, 93 for premium). Lead is an octane-boosting additive, allowing manufacturers to ship sub-standard gas (that is a little below the rated octane), adding lead to bring it up to standard. Without lead, you need to blend in a higher proportion of higher-octane gas in order to get the required octane rating. Which is why, back when lead was being phased out, unleaded gas cost more than leaded. The effect of lead reducing engine knock is simply a result of the gas having a higher octane rating. High octane gas without lead (e.g. premium) has the same effect.

::Another interesting side point is that computer-controlled refineries have effectively reduced the quality of gas you get at the pump. There are serious legal penalties for selling gas with an octane rating below what is labeled, but no penalties for being higher. Back when refineries were not computer controlled, they were not precise enough to produce the exact blend required, so they would always err a little higher (e.g. selling 88 octane labeled as 87). But with modern systems, they can sell exactly what's labeled, so consumers don't get any free bonus octane anymore. [[User:Shamino|Shamino]] ([[User talk:Shamino|talk]]) 16:22, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

:: Leaded gasoline doesn't just provide anti-knock capability, in older cars, the lead gradually accumulates around the valve seats and serves to soften the impact of the valve as it snaps shut. Modern cars have both anti-knock sensors and hardened valve seats - so you don't need it anymore. My 1960 Mini needs leaded gas because of the valve-seat issue - and as a result I have to use a lead additive for about one in five tankfuls of gas. Fortunately, that car is mostly a "garage queen" and is only driven to local car shows and such. I atone for this by driving a Tesla as my main vehicle! [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 16:06, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
::: Why can't you use tetraethylbismuth whose metal is soft and low melting like lead but much less toxic? [[User:Oxygen|Oxygen]] ([[User talk:Oxygen|talk]]) 18:52, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

An honorary mention might be made to {{w|Thomas Midgley Jr.}}, who helped to make both TEL and CFCs widely used. (Though didn't get the chance to widely promote his bed-lift before it also proved unsafe.) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.206|141.101.98.206]] 08:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the Hindenburg exploded. It just burned.

One would question how benevolent these aliens are. They only offer inferior technology (pyramids, biplanes) which they could have ''trivially'' seen not to be useful, or they offer harmful technology like lead-based gasoline and inefficient fruit-presses. On the other hand they do not offer the one tech we don't have, e.g. still-standing flying saucers. Thus one may question their real motives... <Insert reference to V>. [[User:Ralfoide|Ralfoide]] ([[User talk:Ralfoide|talk]]) 17:53, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
: Or maybe they're trying to ensure we have a well rounded tech growth rather than beelining to spaceflight. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.126.134|162.158.126.134]] 21:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

: For sure the Hindenburg didn't explode - and there is evidence that much of the problem wasn't the loss of the hydrogen anyway since hydrogen flames ascend UPWARDS away from the passenger gondola - and hydrogen burns at a relatively low temperature. A bigger problem was that the skin of the airship was sprayed with iron oxide on the inside and aluminium on the outside - which, when burned together, was essentially "thermite". That stuff is hard to set on fire, but once it gets started it's horrifically energetic - it's what the Germans were using as incendiary bombs...so they REALLY should have known better! Given the rapidly increasing cost (and scarcity) of helium - airships may soon have to go back to using hydrogen. But it could easily be made safe with modern technology to monitor (and purge) oxygen from inside the hydrogen cells, adequate lightning protection...and an "anything-except-freaking-thermite!!" skin. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 16:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I feel like the references to the Secretary series are in error. Ron Paul *does* have a blimp in those comics, so it's tangentially related, but the secretary series is very much not the alien visitors series.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.187.99|162.158.187.99]] 12:34, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

As for biplanes - because they have ample wing area, they typically have shorter wing-spans than monoplanes. This reduces the moment of angular inertia and that allows them to turn more rapidly...and that is why they are used in aerobatics and crop spraying. The infamous "Red Baron" of WWI flew a Fokker triplane which enhanced the ability to maneuver even more - although at the expense of even more drag. However, high drag also means you can slow down much more rapidly - which allowed more interesting tactical possibilities. Biplanes were VERY useful in the era in which they were flown. They didn't vanish because they were a terrible technology - but because the nature of arial warfare changed. Modern fighter aircraft try to get the best of both worlds by having wings with a greater chord length - providing more lift area without messing up roll/yaw angular inertia. However, this does worsen longitudinal angular inertia - which is relatively unimportant in a modern "dogfight" where the only real requirement is to be able to turn tightly enough for a missile firing solution. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 16:06, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

=== LINCOS ===
How do people feel about a discussion of the limitations of Freudenthal's (1960) LINCOS: ''Lingua Cosmica,'' as featured in the Jodie Foster film ''Contact''?[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincos_%28artificial_language%29] In particular, what limitations arise when higher-level communications must be based on screenplays? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.35.115|172.69.35.115]] 18:41, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Talk:2478: Alien Visitors 2

2021-06-24T18:43:06Z

172.69.35.115: LINCOS section

Sorry for intruding, I am just delighted that I am early [[Special:Contributions/162.158.166.161|162.158.166.161]] 14:02, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

"Maybe we shouldn't stand right under it." This line might (inadvertently?) reference the common alien-movie fail in which massive spacecraft hover at low altitude over human populations without obliterating them and their infrastructure. It might also be bathroom humor. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.129.134|172.68.129.134]] 15:56, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
:I'm with the original explanation. The aliens just don't seem very advanced, so they're worried that the spaceships are poorly constructed and pieces might fall off, or the entire ship might just drop. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 16:19, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
:You are probably correct with respect to Randall's intentions. The situation, though, brings to my mind Turtledove's [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldwar_series Worldwar series], in which "The Race" had very advanced technology (hence little risk of spaceships crashing on their own) but had, at least initially, a poor opinion about human technologies and their advancement. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.129.132|172.68.129.132]] 18:31, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

::Thanks for the reference, 172.68.129.132! I’m enjoying listening to the series for free through my public library account using Hoopla. Apparently the original e-books had atrocious copy editing so I get to miss out on that visual horror. :-). [[User:Dhugot|Dhugot]] ([[User talk:Dhugot|talk]]) 18:02, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

:: Also reminds me of that StarTrek (NextGen) episode where a very low intelligence species has advanced space travel that it obtains by stealing it from other species. (Sorry - I forget the episode title). [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 16:06, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
:::That was Season 2 episode "Samaritan Snare". [[Special:Contributions/172.70.117.38|172.70.117.38]] 17:28, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

To the individual who made a callback to Capri Sun--bless you. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.130.83|172.70.130.83]] 19:11, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

:Need a category for this recurring comic: [[:Category:Alien Visitors]]. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.35.65|172.69.35.65]] 00:33, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Doesn’t the United States still add lead to gasoline used for piston airplane engines, and also high octane race car fuel?[[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.55|162.158.62.55]] 03:28, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
:Very limited niche use remains, phased out of major applications. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.206|141.101.98.206]] 08:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
::Does 167,000 aircraft in the USA (plus more around the world) count as “limited niche use”? Assuming a super conservative estimate of an average of only 100 hours/year/airframe and an equally conservative burn rate of 10 gal/hr, that’s 167 million gallons of leaded gasoline burned per year. See https://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=14754 for more info on the FAA’s continuing refusal to remove lead from avgas.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.110.44|172.70.110.44]] 04:46, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
:::Considering the 276 million cars in the USA and their yearly consumption of 123.5 billion gallons of fuel, that is pretty much limited niche use, yes. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.94.232|162.158.94.232]] 14:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
::::Classic example of a logical fallacy. To paraphrase your assertion: “Because the market for 100LL fuel for piston aircraft is 0.1% the size as the unleaded gasoline market for automobiles, 100LL fuel for piston aircraft is a niche market” but you are comparing apples to bacon by comparing automotive unleaded gasoline to 100LL aviation fuel. Status as “niche” or “not niche” is based on sales of leaded fuel; cars run on unleaded gasoline, diesel, or electricity, and are thus irrelevant to the discussion. I mean, why not mention how much jet-A is burned by turbine aircraft? Answer: because it’s irrelevant to the discussion. Cars burning unleaded fuel is irrelevant to the discussion of leaded gasoline. In terms of absolute quantities, piston aircraft burn far more 100LL than anything else, and lead from those aircraft remains a significant source of lead pollution.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.48|172.70.114.48]] 03:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

::Although lead was originally added to gas in order to improve efficiency, it was retained in order to reduce refining expense. After refining crude oil, you get gasoline at a variety of octanes. The different octanes are blended to produce what you pay for (e.g. 87 for regular, 93 for premium). Lead is an octane-boosting additive, allowing manufacturers to ship sub-standard gas (that is a little below the rated octane), adding lead to bring it up to standard. Without lead, you need to blend in a higher proportion of higher-octane gas in order to get the required octane rating. Which is why, back when lead was being phased out, unleaded gas cost more than leaded. The effect of lead reducing engine knock is simply a result of the gas having a higher octane rating. High octane gas without lead (e.g. premium) has the same effect.

::Another interesting side point is that computer-controlled refineries have effectively reduced the quality of gas you get at the pump. There are serious legal penalties for selling gas with an octane rating below what is labeled, but no penalties for being higher. Back when refineries were not computer controlled, they were not precise enough to produce the exact blend required, so they would always err a little higher (e.g. selling 88 octane labeled as 87). But with modern systems, they can sell exactly what's labeled, so consumers don't get any free bonus octane anymore. [[User:Shamino|Shamino]] ([[User talk:Shamino|talk]]) 16:22, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

:: Leaded gasoline doesn't just provide anti-knock capability, in older cars, the lead gradually accumulates around the valve seats and serves to soften the impact of the valve as it snaps shut. Modern cars have both anti-knock sensors and hardened valve seats - so you don't need it anymore. My 1960 Mini needs leaded gas because of the valve-seat issue - and as a result I have to use a lead additive for about one in five tankfuls of gas. Fortunately, that car is mostly a "garage queen" and is only driven to local car shows and such. I atone for this by driving a Tesla as my main vehicle! [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 16:06, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
::: Why can't you use tetraethylbismuth whose metal is soft and low melting like lead but much less toxic? [[User:Oxygen|Oxygen]] ([[User talk:Oxygen|talk]]) 18:52, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

An honorary mention might be made to {{w|Thomas Midgley Jr.}}, who helped to make both TEL and CFCs widely used. (Though didn't get the chance to widely promote his bed-lift before it also proved unsafe.) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.206|141.101.98.206]] 08:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the Hindenburg exploded. It just burned.

One would question how benevolent these aliens are. They only offer inferior technology (pyramids, biplanes) which they could have ''trivially'' seen not to be useful, or they offer harmful technology like lead-based gasoline and inefficient fruit-presses. On the other hand they do not offer the one tech we don't have, e.g. still-standing flying saucers. Thus one may question their real motives... <Insert reference to V>. [[User:Ralfoide|Ralfoide]] ([[User talk:Ralfoide|talk]]) 17:53, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
: Or maybe they're trying to ensure we have a well rounded tech growth rather than beelining to spaceflight. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.126.134|162.158.126.134]] 21:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

: For sure the Hindenburg didn't explode - and there is evidence that much of the problem wasn't the loss of the hydrogen anyway since hydrogen flames ascend UPWARDS away from the passenger gondola - and hydrogen burns at a relatively low temperature. A bigger problem was that the skin of the airship was sprayed with iron oxide on the inside and aluminium on the outside - which, when burned together, was essentially "thermite". That stuff is hard to set on fire, but once it gets started it's horrifically energetic - it's what the Germans were using as incendiary bombs...so they REALLY should have known better! Given the rapidly increasing cost (and scarcity) of helium - airships may soon have to go back to using hydrogen. But it could easily be made safe with modern technology to monitor (and purge) oxygen from inside the hydrogen cells, adequate lightning protection...and an "anything-except-freaking-thermite!!" skin. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 16:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I feel like the references to the Secretary series are in error. Ron Paul *does* have a blimp in those comics, so it's tangentially related, but the secretary series is very much not the alien visitors series.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.187.99|162.158.187.99]] 12:34, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

As for biplanes - because they have ample wing area, they typically have shorter wing-spans than monoplanes. This reduces the moment of angular inertia and that allows them to turn more rapidly...and that is why they are used in aerobatics and crop spraying. The infamous "Red Baron" of WWI flew a Fokker triplane which enhanced the ability to maneuver even more - although at the expense of even more drag. However, high drag also means you can slow down much more rapidly - which allowed more interesting tactical possibilities. Biplanes were VERY useful in the era in which they were flown. They didn't vanish because they were a terrible technology - but because the nature of arial warfare changed. Modern fighter aircraft try to get the best of both worlds by having wings with a greater chord length - providing more lift area without messing up roll/yaw angular inertia. However, this does worsen longitudinal angular inertia - which is relatively unimportant in a modern "dogfight" where the only real requirement is to be able to turn tightly enough for a missile firing solution. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 16:06, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

=== LINCOS ===
How do people feel about a discussion of the limitations of Freudenthal's (1960) LINCOS: Lingua Cosmica, as featured in the Jodie Foster film ''Contact''?[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincos_%28artificial_language%29] In particular, what limitations arise when higher-level communications must be based on screenplays? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.35.115|172.69.35.115]] 18:41, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Talk:2478: Alien Visitors 2

2021-06-24T18:41:50Z

172.69.35.115: LINCOS

Sorry for intruding, I am just delighted that I am early [[Special:Contributions/162.158.166.161|162.158.166.161]] 14:02, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

"Maybe we shouldn't stand right under it." This line might (inadvertently?) reference the common alien-movie fail in which massive spacecraft hover at low altitude over human populations without obliterating them and their infrastructure. It might also be bathroom humor. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.129.134|172.68.129.134]] 15:56, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
:I'm with the original explanation. The aliens just don't seem very advanced, so they're worried that the spaceships are poorly constructed and pieces might fall off, or the entire ship might just drop. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 16:19, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
:You are probably correct with respect to Randall's intentions. The situation, though, brings to my mind Turtledove's [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldwar_series Worldwar series], in which "The Race" had very advanced technology (hence little risk of spaceships crashing on their own) but had, at least initially, a poor opinion about human technologies and their advancement. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.129.132|172.68.129.132]] 18:31, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

::Thanks for the reference, 172.68.129.132! I’m enjoying listening to the series for free through my public library account using Hoopla. Apparently the original e-books had atrocious copy editing so I get to miss out on that visual horror. :-). [[User:Dhugot|Dhugot]] ([[User talk:Dhugot|talk]]) 18:02, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

:: Also reminds me of that StarTrek (NextGen) episode where a very low intelligence species has advanced space travel that it obtains by stealing it from other species. (Sorry - I forget the episode title). [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 16:06, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
:::That was Season 2 episode "Samaritan Snare". [[Special:Contributions/172.70.117.38|172.70.117.38]] 17:28, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

To the individual who made a callback to Capri Sun--bless you. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.130.83|172.70.130.83]] 19:11, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

:Need a category for this recurring comic: [[:Category:Alien Visitors]]. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.35.65|172.69.35.65]] 00:33, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Doesn’t the United States still add lead to gasoline used for piston airplane engines, and also high octane race car fuel?[[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.55|162.158.62.55]] 03:28, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
:Very limited niche use remains, phased out of major applications. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.206|141.101.98.206]] 08:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
::Does 167,000 aircraft in the USA (plus more around the world) count as “limited niche use”? Assuming a super conservative estimate of an average of only 100 hours/year/airframe and an equally conservative burn rate of 10 gal/hr, that’s 167 million gallons of leaded gasoline burned per year. See https://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=14754 for more info on the FAA’s continuing refusal to remove lead from avgas.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.110.44|172.70.110.44]] 04:46, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
:::Considering the 276 million cars in the USA and their yearly consumption of 123.5 billion gallons of fuel, that is pretty much limited niche use, yes. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.94.232|162.158.94.232]] 14:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
::::Classic example of a logical fallacy. To paraphrase your assertion: “Because the market for 100LL fuel for piston aircraft is 0.1% the size as the unleaded gasoline market for automobiles, 100LL fuel for piston aircraft is a niche market” but you are comparing apples to bacon by comparing automotive unleaded gasoline to 100LL aviation fuel. Status as “niche” or “not niche” is based on sales of leaded fuel; cars run on unleaded gasoline, diesel, or electricity, and are thus irrelevant to the discussion. I mean, why not mention how much jet-A is burned by turbine aircraft? Answer: because it’s irrelevant to the discussion. Cars burning unleaded fuel is irrelevant to the discussion of leaded gasoline. In terms of absolute quantities, piston aircraft burn far more 100LL than anything else, and lead from those aircraft remains a significant source of lead pollution.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.48|172.70.114.48]] 03:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

::Although lead was originally added to gas in order to improve efficiency, it was retained in order to reduce refining expense. After refining crude oil, you get gasoline at a variety of octanes. The different octanes are blended to produce what you pay for (e.g. 87 for regular, 93 for premium). Lead is an octane-boosting additive, allowing manufacturers to ship sub-standard gas (that is a little below the rated octane), adding lead to bring it up to standard. Without lead, you need to blend in a higher proportion of higher-octane gas in order to get the required octane rating. Which is why, back when lead was being phased out, unleaded gas cost more than leaded. The effect of lead reducing engine knock is simply a result of the gas having a higher octane rating. High octane gas without lead (e.g. premium) has the same effect.

::Another interesting side point is that computer-controlled refineries have effectively reduced the quality of gas you get at the pump. There are serious legal penalties for selling gas with an octane rating below what is labeled, but no penalties for being higher. Back when refineries were not computer controlled, they were not precise enough to produce the exact blend required, so they would always err a little higher (e.g. selling 88 octane labeled as 87). But with modern systems, they can sell exactly what's labeled, so consumers don't get any free bonus octane anymore. [[User:Shamino|Shamino]] ([[User talk:Shamino|talk]]) 16:22, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

:: Leaded gasoline doesn't just provide anti-knock capability, in older cars, the lead gradually accumulates around the valve seats and serves to soften the impact of the valve as it snaps shut. Modern cars have both anti-knock sensors and hardened valve seats - so you don't need it anymore. My 1960 Mini needs leaded gas because of the valve-seat issue - and as a result I have to use a lead additive for about one in five tankfuls of gas. Fortunately, that car is mostly a "garage queen" and is only driven to local car shows and such. I atone for this by driving a Tesla as my main vehicle! [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 16:06, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
::: Why can't you use tetraethylbismuth whose metal is soft and low melting like lead but much less toxic? [[User:Oxygen|Oxygen]] ([[User talk:Oxygen|talk]]) 18:52, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

An honorary mention might be made to {{w|Thomas Midgley Jr.}}, who helped to make both TEL and CFCs widely used. (Though didn't get the chance to widely promote his bed-lift before it also proved unsafe.) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.206|141.101.98.206]] 08:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the Hindenburg exploded. It just burned.

One would question how benevolent these aliens are. They only offer inferior technology (pyramids, biplanes) which they could have ''trivially'' seen not to be useful, or they offer harmful technology like lead-based gasoline and inefficient fruit-presses. On the other hand they do not offer the one tech we don't have, e.g. still-standing flying saucers. Thus one may question their real motives... <Insert reference to V>. [[User:Ralfoide|Ralfoide]] ([[User talk:Ralfoide|talk]]) 17:53, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
: Or maybe they're trying to ensure we have a well rounded tech growth rather than beelining to spaceflight. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.126.134|162.158.126.134]] 21:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

: For sure the Hindenburg didn't explode - and there is evidence that much of the problem wasn't the loss of the hydrogen anyway since hydrogen flames ascend UPWARDS away from the passenger gondola - and hydrogen burns at a relatively low temperature. A bigger problem was that the skin of the airship was sprayed with iron oxide on the inside and aluminium on the outside - which, when burned together, was essentially "thermite". That stuff is hard to set on fire, but once it gets started it's horrifically energetic - it's what the Germans were using as incendiary bombs...so they REALLY should have known better! Given the rapidly increasing cost (and scarcity) of helium - airships may soon have to go back to using hydrogen. But it could easily be made safe with modern technology to monitor (and purge) oxygen from inside the hydrogen cells, adequate lightning protection...and an "anything-except-freaking-thermite!!" skin. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 16:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I feel like the references to the Secretary series are in error. Ron Paul *does* have a blimp in those comics, so it's tangentially related, but the secretary series is very much not the alien visitors series.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.187.99|162.158.187.99]] 12:34, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

As for biplanes - because they have ample wing area, they typically have shorter wing-spans than monoplanes. This reduces the moment of angular inertia and that allows them to turn more rapidly...and that is why they are used in aerobatics and crop spraying. The infamous "Red Baron" of WWI flew a Fokker triplane which enhanced the ability to maneuver even more - although at the expense of even more drag. However, high drag also means you can slow down much more rapidly - which allowed more interesting tactical possibilities. Biplanes were VERY useful in the era in which they were flown. They didn't vanish because they were a terrible technology - but because the nature of arial warfare changed. Modern fighter aircraft try to get the best of both worlds by having wings with a greater chord length - providing more lift area without messing up roll/yaw angular inertia. However, this does worsen longitudinal angular inertia - which is relatively unimportant in a modern "dogfight" where the only real requirement is to be able to turn tightly enough for a missile firing solution. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 16:06, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

How do people feel about a discussion of the limitations of Freudenthal's (1960) LINCOS: Lingua Cosmica, as featured in the Jodie Foster film ''Contact''?[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincos_%28artificial_language%29] In particular, what limitations arise when higher-level communications must be based on screenplays. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.35.115|172.69.35.115]] 18:41, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Talk:2014: JWST Delays

2021-06-24T18:31:10Z

172.69.35.115: /* November 2021 */ new section

Haha - I made this same graph 2 weeks ago! [[User:Cosmogoblin|Cosmogoblin]] ([[User talk:Cosmogoblin|talk]]) 17:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Suggest the last sentence be made more general: "The title text refers to a fundamental question of the Big Bang Theory; will the universe expand forever, or will is collapse back on itself? The likely answer to this question has changed over the decades as new measurements have been made, and new theories such as dark matter and dark energy developed to explain the new measurements. Apparently, and for an analogous reason, between 2018 and 2020 the likely answer to the fundamental JWST question will change." [[User:GODZILLA|GODZILLA]] ([[User talk:GODZILLA|talk]]) 17:58, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
:I agree to the current sentence saying "and compares the universe’s accelerating expansion to the apparently ever-delaying schedule" but were the hell comes the conclusion that "the JWST will have enough delays to fill a universe"? This does not make any sense. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 07:59, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Does today's prediction of 2026 count? If that is included in the data set, it would then skew the best-fit line to be steeper. If a new prediction is made using that new best-fit line, that would further skew the line, and so on, causing the acceleration the title text anticipates between 2018 and 2020.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.63.88|162.158.63.88]] 20:10, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

> Until the slope of the line becomes more than one and the prediction goes to the past, right? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.16|108.162.216.16]] 21:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

:No, it doesn't count, because it's just '''prediction''', while the data set is of (official) '''planned launch dates'''. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 22:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

:The Wikipedia data (taking the midpoint for ranges) fits a linear function with slope 0.660618 and intercept 687.739. This implies convergence at 2026.45, which is why Randall is predicting late 2026 for the actual launch. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.22.56|172.69.22.56]] 15:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

[[wikipedia:Heinz von Foerster#Doomsday equation|Von Foersters's doomsday]] is Friday 13th of November 2026. (cue Twilight Zone intro) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.89.175|162.158.89.175]] 21:20, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Why does he keep saying it's 2021? Is he trying to skip Trump's term or what? --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.211.10|172.68.211.10]] 00:30, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Why do you think that Trump will get only 1 term?[[Special:Contributions/141.101.76.70|141.101.76.70]] 17:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

This is the same chart for the new airport in Berlin. Sadly its slope is not less than one, it is indeed accelerating... 
2006     2011 
2010     2012 
2012     2013 
2013     2014 
2014     2016 
2015     2018 
2016     2018 
2017     2022 
[[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 07:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
:[https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bau_des_Flughafens_Berlin_Brandenburg#cite_ref-136] says that the planned launch date from December 2017 is in October 2020 (not 2022). That would make the slope slightly less than 1 (unless you ignore the 2016->2011 data point, as outlier) --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.35|162.158.91.35]] 09:27, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
::There was a 2022 prediction earlier in 2017, I took the maximum value for each year. And honestly, 2202 sounds more reasonable than 2020 for me. [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 14:39, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I feel a quadratic regression would be needed to determine acceleration / deceleration [[Special:Contributions/172.68.59.24|172.68.59.24]] 13:54, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

: If you plot out the least-squares fit as it changes over time (i.e. repeat Randall's graph as each new data point was added), it fits a quadratic quite well. And converges to a 2025 date.

I wonder what this chart would look like for new york's 2nd avenue subway.
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.75.130|162.158.75.130]] 17:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

At least there _is_ a slope. How about Trump's wall? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.151|173.245.52.151]] 00:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Two more lines are coming together... the year and the XKCD index. 2018 should happen next week. [[User:IonFreeman|IonFreeman]] ([[User talk:IonFreeman|talk]]) 14:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

The last three data points have a slope greater than one. Just sayin'. [[User:Redbelly98|Redbelly98]] ([[User talk:Redbelly98|talk]]) 19:55, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

:"NASA announced that the launch date has once again been delayed to 31 October 2021." THE RIDE NEVER ENDS [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.188|108.162.215.188]] 05:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

::November to December 2021 now... amazing. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.35.65|172.69.35.65]] 20:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Did anyone else read the title text and immediately think of Covid-19? Did xkcd predict Covid? DID RANDALL CAUSE THE OUTBREAK?

== November 2021 ==

Is [https://www.space.com/james-webb-space-telescope-launch-delay-november-2021] on track for the extrapolation shown? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.35.115|172.69.35.115]] 18:31, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Talk:2480: No, The Other One

2021-06-24T17:04:56Z

172.69.35.115:

We might want a table for this comic, with three columns: one for the name of the town, one for which state the copycat is in, and one for the original. We could also add a column for "why the original is well known," but that might be a bit much. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.124|108.162.245.124]] 20:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
: I agree, this feels like a very table-able comic. Especially to get all the cities and not make readers try to see "hey, did I miss one?" [[Special:Contributions/172.70.117.158|172.70.117.158]] 20:49, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
:: I think the term copy-cat should not be used here, since Lincoln, IL, for instance is older and carries the name longer than Lincoln, NE.--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.88.74|162.158.88.74]] 21:05, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
::: Although the people in Lincoln, UK (also Boston, Washington, Richmond, Plymouth, Newhaven...) might have prior claims - Richmond is an even more interesting case, in fact. And of course I also recognise Lisbon and others. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.244|141.101.98.244]] 21:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
:::: May I suggest merging the first two columns and just listing [City, State] under "Place name in comic"? [[User:MajorBurns|MajorBurns]] ([[User talk:MajorBurns|talk]]) 21:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

In the map there are (at least) three Lincoln, two Jamestown, five Houston... [[User:Vdm|Vdm]] ([[User talk:Vdm|talk]]) 20:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
: There is a Jamestown in NY and PA also. I would expect to find a Jamestown in at least half of the states. [[User:Rtanenbaum|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum|talk]]) 22:06, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

There seems to be an extra dot in the northeast corner of Colorado - It looks like it might correspond with the Atlanta label, but there is no Atlanta in Colorado. Based on the position of the dot I'm guessing it may correspond to Akron or Yuma.--[[User:MajorBurns|MajorBurns]] ([[User talk:MajorBurns|talk]]) 21:56, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
: Google Maps says there's an Atlanta, Colorado, but it is in the south-east corner of the state, not where the dot is. It looks like it is in the middle of nowhere outside of Springfield. [[User:Blaisepascal|Blaisepascal]] ([[User talk:Blaisepascal|talk]]) 00:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Jersey Shore PA - I just drove from New Jersey across the state of Pennsylvania, and saw the sign for Jersey Shore in the mountains in the middle of PA. What the? Turns out there was a town founded by two brothers from New Jersey called Waynesburg. When a neighboring town wanted to insult them by calling them "Jersey Shore" they went ahead and officially made Jersey Shore the name of the town. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jersey_Shore,_Pennsylvania https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jersey_Shore,_Pennsylvania]. I wonder how many people turn off the highway in the middle of PA wanting to go to the Jersey Shore hundreds of miles away. [[User:Rtanenbaum|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum|talk]]) 22:06, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Why no Hollywood, Florida? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood,_Florida https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood,_Florida]
: Same reason there's no Richmond, Dublin, or Pittsburg (admittedly, a different spelling), California, just to name some of the closest ones to me. The map would be solid black if it labeled every "other one." [[User:Borglord|Borglord]] ([[User talk:Borglord|talk]]) 01:57, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

..''No'' Springfields? Really? There's gotta be 30+ of them! [[User:Danish|Danish]] ([[User talk:Danish|talk]]) 02:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
:The comic doesn't seem to include the duplicates that are fairly well known, like Hollywood, FL. And the prevalence of Springfield is well known due to "The Simpsons". I think Groening chose that name ''because'' it wouldn't be associated with any particular state. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 04:06, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

`The most frequently occurring community name varies through the years. In a past year, it was "Midway" with 212 occurrences and "Fairview" in second with 202. More recently, "Fairview" counted 288 and "Midway" 256. The name "Springfield" is often thought to be the only community name appearing in each of the 50 States, but at last count it was in only 34 states.` https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/what-most-common-citytown-name-united-states [[User:Steve|Steve]] ([[User talk:Steve|talk]]) 02:48, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

The comic has been updated to remove Charlestown and move Salem, CT. The extra dot in Colorado remains, however. The image attachment has been updated, but I think I'm still seeing the cached version. [[User:Orion205|Orion205]] ([[User talk:Orion205|talk]]) 03:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Since so many of the names are duplicated multiple times, shouldn't the title be "No, ''An'' Other One"? [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 04:06, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm surprised he missed Minneapolis, Kansas (about 75 miles west of Manhattan). Though maybe it would've made Kansas too crowded. --[[User:Aaron of Mpls|Aaron of Mpls]] ([[User talk:Aaron of Mpls|talk]])

:I'm surprised he missed Duluth, GA too, but we can't have everything we want. ( --Don from Rochester . . . but not from New York ;^) Oh yeah; there's also a Buffalo in MN too. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.34.190|172.70.34.190]] 11:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

::In Indiana, there's also another Nashville, another Columbus, a Kokomo... even a Mexico. If every fairly well-known place name were included, wherever it was duplicated, it would need one of those scrollable mega-maps, just to fit it all. -- Just visiting from Indiana, 12:53 UTC 24 June 2021

I'd like to see a map of all these. Lines linking each of the dots to the location of the more famous town. Possibly with lines in different colours connecting to the oldest and largest other ones, where they're not the same as the most famous one. (I suspect a significant number of the "oldest" lines would point off the right edge of the image) [[User:Angel|Angel]] ([[User talk:Angel|talk]]) 08:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

:There's also a Bowling Green, Missouri. [[User:WhiteDragon|WhiteDragon]] ([[User talk:WhiteDragon|talk]]) 13:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I wish Lansing Illinois (just south of Chicago off I-80) had made the list. When I was traveling there for work, our hotel reservations were frequently messed up, because the central booking office had us in Michigan. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.130.144|172.70.130.144]] 13:17, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
: Reminds me of the time a "Microsoft tech support" scammer called and claimed to be calling from Lansing despite obviously being in a call center in India. When we asked what state Lansing was in, he claimed to be calling from "Lansing, Miami." [[Special:Contributions/172.69.63.121|172.69.63.121]] 13:41, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I feel like there is an opportunity for adding "Other examples not in comic" such as Brooklyn, Iowa or the absurd number of Mount Pleasants [[User:OddOod|OddOod]] ([[User talk:OddOod|talk]])

I can't believe they missed Dublin and/or Albany in the SF bay area in California!

2434: Vaccine Guidance

2021-03-10T00:15:25Z

172.69.35.115: /* Transcript */ more cats

{{comic
| number = 2434
| date = March 8, 2021
| title = Vaccine Guidance
| image = vaccine_guidance.png
| titletext = I can't wait until I'm fully vaccinated and can safely send chat messages in all caps again.
}}

==Explanation==

On the day this comic was published, the CDC released [https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/fully-vaccinated-guidance.html new guidelines] relating to COVID-19, lifting many of the existing restrictions for people who have been fully vaccinated for two weeks. [[Megan]], speaking as a CDC spokesperson, is introducing these new guidelines in a video press conference. However, the other participants in the press conference quickly start asking about [[2238: Flu Shot|actions that have little or nothing to do with the vaccine, some of which would be dangerous whether COVID-19 was a risk or not.]]

Blondie asks whether it would be okay to visit neighbors and drink milk directly from the carton. In most Western cultures, drinking directly from a container that could be shared with others (such as a milk carton) is considered unsafe, due to the risk of diseases being transmitted, and generally gross, as saliva and other biological material is passed that way. To drink directly from your own milk carton is considered crass, to do so with someone else's carton would be seen as unacceptable. While these risks are arguably worse during the pandemic, it was unacceptable before the pandemic and will presumably be so afterward.

Science Girl asks whether it would be okay to ride a bike down the stairs of a family member's house, which has a severe risk of injury{{Citation needed}} (and could damage the wheels of the bicycle, although modern bicycle wheels are [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfjjiHGuHoc surprisingly resilient]).

[[White Hat]] follows up asking whether he can get a horse, and whether it would help for both him and the horse to wear masks. In typical White Hat fashion this has basically no relation to anything else that was said (perhaps he was [[1086: Eyelash Wish Log|promised a pony]] when he got vaccinated). The CDC still recommends masks for humans when in public; however, face masks are not generally made for horses. Instead of answering, Megan hangs up.

In the title text, Randall mentions that when he is fully vaccinated, he will be able to text people in ALL CAPS. This is generally used to indicate that the typer is shouting, which can spread Covid-19 aerosol particles and cause infection when done in person. However, when texting, there is no risk of spreading diseases via the computer, so this is an unnecessary precaution{{Citation needed}} (although it could be a good idea to get in the habit of not responding to others angrily, both to be polite and to not spread respiratory diseases by shouting when meeting in person).

==Transcript==

:[Megan is seen at the bottom of the panel with the CDC-logo slightly above her and to the left]
:Megan: Our new guidance: Fully vaccinated people can gather privately with no masks or distancing, and can visit with unvaccinated low-risk people in one household.
:Megan: Any questions?

:[Blondie, Hairy and Megan are seen at the bottom of the panel in separate rectangular panels with Blondie and Hairy's panels being more squarish and smaller then Megan's. Blondie is directly above Hairy and both are to the right of Megan]
:Blondie: If my neighbors and I are all vaccinated, can I visit them unmasked and drink milk straight from the jug in their fridge?
:Megan: I...You can visit, yes.
:Blondie: And the jug thing?
:Megan: ...Next question?

:[Science Girl and Megan are at the bottom of the panel in rectangular boxes, similar to in a video call.]
:Hairbun: I'm fully vaccinated. Can I ride my bike in my sister-in-law's house?
:Megan: In her ''house?''
: Science Girl: Like, down the stairs.
:Megan: I guess? You should at least wear a helmet.
: Science Girl: Even if she's not high-risk?
:Megan: Any ''other'' questions?

:[Megan is off-panel; White Hat is in a rectangular box at the bottom of the panel.]
:White Hat: I'm two weeks past my second dose.
:White Hat: Can I get a horse?
:Megan: Thank you all for coming.
:White Hat: What if I wear a mask?
:White Hat: What if the horse does?
:SFX: Meeting ended by host.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:COVID-19]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Blondie]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Science Girl]]
[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]
[[Category:Animals]]
[[Category:Food]]

2434: Vaccine Guidance

2021-03-10T00:13:25Z

172.69.35.115: /* Explanation */ spokesperson

2434: Vaccine Guidance

2021-03-10T00:11:48Z

172.69.35.115: /* Transcript */ not hairbun

{{comic
| number = 2434
| date = March 8, 2021
| title = Vaccine Guidance
| image = vaccine_guidance.png
| titletext = I can't wait until I'm fully vaccinated and can safely send chat messages in all caps again.
}}

==Explanation==

On the day this comic was published, the CDC released [https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/fully-vaccinated-guidance.html new guidelines] relating to COVID-19, lifting many of the existing restrictions for people who have been fully vaccinated for two weeks. [[Megan]], speaking as a CDC announcer, is introducing these new guidelines over video conference. However, the other participants in the conference quickly start asking about [[2238: Flu Shot|actions that have little or nothing to do with the vaccine, some of which would be dangerous whether COVID-19 was a risk or not.]]

Blondie asks whether it would be okay to visit neighbors and drink milk directly from the carton. In most Western cultures, drinking directly from a container that could be shared with others (such as a milk carton) is considered unsafe, due to the risk of diseases being transmitted, and generally gross, as saliva and other biological material is passed that way. To drink directly from your own milk carton is considered crass, to do so with someone else's carton would be seen as unacceptable. While these risks are arguably worse during the pandemic, it was unacceptable before the pandemic and will presumably be so afterward.

Science Girl asks whether it would be okay to ride a bike down the stairs of a family member's house, which has a severe risk of injury{{Citation needed}} (and could damage the wheels of the bicycle, although modern bicycle wheels are [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfjjiHGuHoc surprisingly resilient]).

[[White Hat]] follows up asking whether he can get a horse, and whether it would help for both him and the horse to wear masks. In typical White Hat fashion this has basically no relation to anything else that was said (perhaps he was [[1086: Eyelash Wish Log|promised a pony]] when he got vaccinated). The CDC still recommends masks for humans when in public; however, face masks are not generally made for horses. Instead of answering, Megan hangs up.

In the title text, Randall mentions that when he is fully vaccinated, he will be able to text people in ALL CAPS. This is generally used to indicate that the typer is shouting, which can spread Covid-19 aerosol particles and cause infection when done in person. However, when texting, there is no risk of spreading diseases via the computer, so this is an unnecessary precaution{{Citation needed}} (although it could be a good idea to get in the habit of not responding to others angrily, both to be polite and to not spread respiratory diseases by shouting when meeting in person).

==Transcript==

:[Megan is seen at the bottom of the panel with the CDC-logo slightly above her and to the left]
:Megan: Our new guidance: Fully vaccinated people can gather privately with no masks or distancing, and can visit with unvaccinated low-risk people in one household.
:Megan: Any questions?

:[Blondie, Hairy and Megan are seen at the bottom of the panel in separate rectangular panels with Blondie and Hairy's panels being more squarish and smaller then Megan's. Blondie is directly above Hairy and both are to the right of Megan]
:Blondie: If my neighbors and I are all vaccinated, can I visit them unmasked and drink milk straight from the jug in their fridge?
:Megan: I...You can visit, yes.
:Blondie: And the jug thing?
:Megan: ...Next question?

:[Science Girl and Megan are at the bottom of the panel in rectangular boxes, similar to in a video call.]
:Hairbun: I'm fully vaccinated. Can I ride my bike in my sister-in-law's house?
:Megan: In her ''house?''
: Science Girl: Like, down the stairs.
:Megan: I guess? You should at least wear a helmet.
: Science Girl: Even if she's not high-risk?
:Megan: Any ''other'' questions?

:[Megan is off-panel; White Hat is in a rectangular box at the bottom of the panel.]
:White Hat: I'm two weeks past my second dose.
:White Hat: Can I get a horse?
:Megan: Thank you all for coming.
:White Hat: What if I wear a mask?
:White Hat: What if the horse does?
:SFX: Meeting ended by host.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:COVID-19]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Blondie]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Science Girl]]
[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]