explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

1396: Actors

2023-05-17T01:25:10Z

172.70.114.79:

{{comic
| number = 1396
| date = July 18, 2014
| title = Actors
| image = actors.png
| titletext = Once again topping the list of tonight's hottest rising stars in Hollywood is ξ Persei!
}}

==Explanation==
This comic plays on different meanings of the word "hottest". In the opening question, "Who are today's 10 hottest actors?" the word "hottest" would typically refer to an actor's popularity, success, demand, or attractiveness. Cueball and Megan interpret the word "hottest" as asking them to list the 10 actors who have the highest surface temperature, and we see them measuring "Justin's" (possibly referring to {{w|Justin Long|Long}}, {{w|Justin Theroux|Theroux}}, {{w|Justin Bieber|Bieber}} or {{w|Justin Timberlake|Timberlake}} or any of the several other ''Justin''s in show business[http://www.imdb.com/search/name?count=100&gender=male&name=justin&sort=starmeter,asc]) surface temperature using an {{w|infrared thermometer}} (the thermometer typically has a laser pointer to know the approximate location where the radiometric temperature comes from). The measured temperature of 81.5 is presumably reported in degrees {{w|Fahrenheit}}, corresponding to 27.5 {{w|°C}}. This temperature is below the {{w|Human_body_temperature|average human internal body temperature}} of 98.6 {{w|°F}}/37 {{w|°C}} as skin is cooler; Megan also believes that another object (Justin's shirt) was also measured within the infrared thermometer field of view, lowering the reported measurement. With such a measurement of ''hotness'', the hottest actor on any given day would probably be whoever is exercising, sick with a fever, or whoever has been outside in the sun the longest and/or has been sunburned, since this typically causes skin to be hot. Or, an animal actor, of a species with a higher body temperature than humans. ({{w|Category:Films about birds}})

Randall here excludes the fact that accurately deriving surface temperature from bright (radiance) temperature requires knowing the emissivity of the object. Since not all objects radiate with the same efficiency, two objects with the same surface temperature will emit different thermal radiance, but if emissivity is not taken into account they will report different surface temperatures.

The title-text references the temperatures of Hollywood's rising stars, this time interpreting ''stars'' as actual stars, not famous people. In this case, the star {{w|Xi Persei|ξ Persei}} in the Perseus constellation (which is located in, and responsible for the fluorescence of, an object called the {{w|California Nebula}}), one of the hottest stars (35,000 {{w|kelvin}}s, {{w|Sun}}: 5,800 K) visible to the naked eye. In July, when this comic was published, the constellation Perseus and ξ Persei with it does indeed rise a few hours after sunset from Hollywood.

Comic [[1111: Premiere]] is another comic based on "star" puns.

==Transcript==
:[Caption above the Panel:]
:Who are today's 10 hottest actors?
:[Cueball is holding a clipboard, taking notes, while Megan aims an infrared thermometer off screen.]
:Megan: 81.5, but I think it got part of his shirt. ''HEY JUSTIN — HOLD STILL!''
:[Caption below the Panel:]
:''We grab an infrared thermometer and find out!''

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Astronomy]]
[[Category:Language]]

2775: Siphon

2023-05-12T21:35:45Z

172.70.114.79: Those are not jugs. They're buckets.

{{comic
| number = 2775
| date = May 12, 2023
| title = Siphon
| image = siphon_2x.png
| imagesize = 310x378px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = ADDITIONAL NOTES: Fixed a bug that caused some rocks to generate virtually infinite heat while just sitting there.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a SIPHONIC WINDS - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
Cueball and Megan have a demonstration of a {{w|siphon}}, by which the gravitational force on an upper reservoir of liquid and molecular cohesion move a liquid upward through a tube, traversing a higher peak to reach a lower exit. Randall has also mentioned siphons in his book, "how to," section "how to make a pool."

Siphons are commonly used in modern society (e.g., most American residential toilets are flushed by siphon action).

Siphons are separate from a similarly counterintuitive phenomenon of {{w|capillary action}}, where a liquid flows through narrow spaces, usually upwards (against gravity) in that a siphon can be of much larger diameter and capillary action can move liquid up an initially empty channel.

Apparently, even though Cueball and Megan have probably set up the experiment correctly, the water no longer demonstrates a siphon by flowing from the upper bucket to the lower. Cueball observes in surprise that "it's true," meaning that this is a very recent development, and Megan remarks that it was honestly weird in retrospect that scientists had ever tried to rationalise this admittedly counterintuitive phenomenon in the first place.

The punchline of the comic is in the caption, which delivers a piece of physics news that the "2023 update to the universe" finally fixed this phenomenon, dubbed "the siphon bug". The joke here is that the entire complex and multifaceted system of {{w|physics}} in and of itself is treated as though it's simply the logic (or perhaps the sometimes unintentional result of various default [[1620: Christmas Settings|configuration options]] combined) to a video game, and that siphoning (rather than being an interesting physical phenomenon worth studying) was nothing more than a bug unintentionally created by the "devs" (whoever that may be). In reality, siphons still very much exist in our universe,{{citation needed}} though {{w|simulation hypothesis|the idea that we live in a computer simulation}} is also prevalent in {{w|the matrix|our modern pop culture}}.

The title text is a reference to [[2115: Plutonium]]. It expands on the joke surrounding the idea of an "Earth dev log" by referencing {{w|nuclear power}}, and how it's apparently another bug that some nuclear elements (notably {{w|uranium}} and {{w|plutonium}}, among others) can be and have been harnessed by humanity in order to generate practically everlasting amounts of energy, all while the elements themselves are simply sitting there in the core of some {{w|nuclear reactor}}.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[There are two buckets: the one on the left is on a stool and is filled with water, the other on the right is on the ground and has a small amount of water. Cueball is standing on the left and holding a tube between the buckets. No water is flowing through the tube. Megan is standing on the right and watching the proceedings.]
:Cueball: Wow, it's true—the water doesn't flow up the tube anymore.
:Megan: Honestly, it's weird that it ever did.
:Megan: Why did we think that was normal?

:[Caption below the panel:]
:Physics news: The 2023 update to the universe finally fixed the "siphon" bug.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Physics]]

1489: Fundamental Forces

2023-05-07T02:13:35Z

172.70.114.79: /* Transcript */

{{comic
| number = 1489
| date = February 20, 2015
| title = Fundamental Forces
| image = fundamental_forces.png
| titletext = "Of these four forces, there's one we don't really understand." "Is it the weak force or the strong--" "It's gravity."
}}

==Explanation==
[[Cueball]] is acting here as someone teaching physics at a basic level, perhaps a high school science teacher. He seems to understand the general idea of the {{w|Fundamental interaction#Overview of the fundamental interaction|four fundamental forces}}, but his understanding gets progressively more sketchy about the details. The off-panel audience, probably a student or class, is interested, but quickly begins to realize Cueball's lack of understanding. Instead of acknowledging the problem directly, Cueball simply blusters onwards.

The comic also outlines how progressively difficult it gets to describe the forces. {{w|Gravitation|Gravity}} was first mathematically characterized in 1686 as {{w|Newton's law of universal gravitation}}, which was considered an essentially complete account until the introduction of {{w|general relativity}} in 1915. The {{w|Electromagnetism|electromagnetic force}} does indeed give rise to {{w|Coulomb's law}} of {{w|electrostatics|electrostatic}} interaction (another {{w|inverse-square law}}, proposed in 1785), but a much more comprehensive description, covering full {{w|Classical electromagnetism|classical electrodynamics}}, was only given in {{w|Maxwell's equations}} around 1861. The {{w|strong interaction|strong}} and {{w|weak interaction|weak}} forces cannot easily be summarized as comparably simple mathematical equations. It's possible that Cueball does understand the strong and weak interactions, but is completely at a loss when he tries to summarize them.

The strong force doesn't act directly between {{w|proton}}s and {{w|neutron}}s but between the {{w|quark}}s that form them. Unlike gravity and electromagnetism, the strong force {{w|Asymptotic freedom|gets stronger with increasing distance}}: It is ''loosely'' similar to the {{w|Hooke's law|restoring force of an extended spring}}. However, all stable heavy particles are neutral to the strong force, due to being made up of three "{{w|quantum chromodynamics|colors}}" (or a color and the appropriate "anticolor") of quarks. Between protons and neutrons there is a residual strong force, analogous in some ways to the {{w|van der Waals force}} between molecules. This residual strong force is carried by {{w|pion}}s and does decrease rapidly and exponentially with distance due to the pions having mass.

The weak force is much weaker than electromagnetism at typical distances within an atomic nucleus (but is still stronger than gravity), and has a short range, so has very little effect as a ''force''. What it has instead is the property of changing one particle into another. It can cause a down quark to become an up quark, and in the process release a high-energy electron and electron anti-neutrino. This is known as {{w|beta decay}}, a form of radioactivity. Over even shorter distances, {{w|electroweak theory|and much higher temperatures}}, the weak interaction and electromagnetism are essentially the same, thus being merged to form the {{w|electroweak force}}. The electroweak force was also mentioned in a later comic, [[1956: Unification]].

The title text touches upon a strange paradox regarding gravity: in isolation it is the simplest and easiest to understand of the four forces, with well-understood equations that can be taught to the layman with clear-cut examples (as it is the one force everyone experiences on a regular basis). However when taking other forces into account gravity turns out to be the {{w|Quantum_gravity|hardest to reconcile}} with a coherent (quantum) understanding of {{w|Theory of everything|all four forces together}}.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball is holding his hands up while giving a lecture to an off panel audience.]
:Cueball: There are four fundamental forces between particles:
::(1) '''''Gravity''''', which obeys this inverse square law:
::: Fgravity = G m1m2/d2

:Off panel audience: OK...

:[Cueball is still holding his hands up while continues the lecture to the off panel audience.]
:Cueball: (2) '''''Electromagnetism''''', which obeys ''this'' inverse-square law:
:::Fstatic = Ke q1q2/d2

::...and also Maxwell's equations
:Off panel audience: Also what?

:[Zoom in on Cueball as he continues the lecture to the off panel audience.]
:Cueball: (3) The '''''strong nuclear force''''', which obeys, uh ...
:::...well, umm...
::...it holds protons and neutrons together.
:Off panel audience: I see.
:Cueball: It's strong.

:[Cueball finishes the lecture to the off panel audience and spreads out his arm for the final remark.]
:Cueball: And (4) the '''''weak force'''''. It [mumble mumble] radioactive decay [mumble mumble]
:Off panel audience: That's not a sentence. You just said “Radio-
:Cueball: – '''''And those are the four fundamental forces!'''''

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Physics]]

2770: Tapetum Lucidum

2023-05-04T02:21:45Z

172.70.114.79:

{{comic
| number = 2770
| date = May 1, 2023
| title = Tapetum Lucidum
| image = tapetum_lucidum_2x.png
| imagesize = 412x492px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Using a reflective wall in a game to give one shot two chances to hit is called a double-tapetum lucidum.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by BILL NYE'S CAT - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

{{w|Bill Nye}}, perhaps best known for his children's educational series ''{{w|Bill Nye the Science Guy}}'', wearing the same lab coat as in [[200: Bill Nye]], beats an unseen player (presumably [[Randall]]) in an online multiplayer game resembling {{w|XPilot}}, in which players pilot spaceships using simulated rocket physics and attempt to shoot and kill each other. During a laser battle, Bill Nye provides a scientific explanation for the {{w|tapetum lucidum}}, the layer behind the {{w|retina}} of a cat's eye. He explains that the layer reflects back some of the light that bounces off the retina, giving it a second chance to hit the retina again. This allows a cat's eye to capture more light than it otherwise would, and thus improves their night vision. It's also why [https://carnegiemnh.org/meowfest-why-do-cat-eyes-glow-in-the-dark/ cat's eyes appear to glow in the dark].

At the same time, Bill Nye's battle tactic in the online game perfectly analogizes the point he is making. His spaceship is firing energy pulses into the path of an approaching ship in an attempt to destroy it. Due to the difficulty of hitting a small, fast-moving target, it's likely that most or all of these shots will miss. However, because Bill Nye is firing at a reflective wall, each shot that misses bounces back into the path of the opponent's ship, giving it a second chance to hit the target and effectively doubling the density of the firepower. With double the number of shots to avoid, the opponent's ship is hit and explodes. This explanation is similar to how Bill Nye would explain scientific concepts by using analogous demonstrations of other things.

In the analogy, the weapon shots fired by Bill Nye's ship are the light photons entering the cat's eye, the reflective wall is the tapetum lucidum, and the opponent's ship is a retinal cell. Destroying the opponent's ship with a shot is analogous to a light photon being absorbed by the cat's retina (and therefore seen). If the reflective wall hadn't been there, the ship might have survived, which means the retina would never have seen that photon.

Randall presumably considers this "extra infuriating" because Bill Nye is showing off his scientific knowledge in some other field while also beating him in the game.

The title text is a pun that refers to "tapetum lucidum" and uses "double tap" in the way that online games, memes, and films refer to shooting something twice in rapid succession to ensure its demise. This phrase is famously{{Actual citation needed}} used in the film "Zombieland," and is the subtitle of the 2019 "Zombieland: Double Tap" sequel.

==Transcript==
:[Two triangles with two long sides of equal length (isosceles triangles) but with the short side curving a bit in, are moving inside a black structure, their movement indicated with three and two curved lines below the left and above the right triangle. Both triangles shoots green lasers out of their sharp tip, indicating they represents space ships. They are flying inside a black structure, maybe a maze. There is nothing above the left ship. but below the ships are a black segment making a triangle in the lower left corner. The right ship is inside an opening created by this triangle below it, and another black triangle above it, that centers on the middle of the right side of the panel. The left ship has shot three green laser beams, one of them hits inside the opening on the right triangle and the beam bounces off this wall. But it is not close to the right ship. The right ship has only fires one green laser, which bounces off the left wall also far from the left ship. A voice emanates from the left ship, via a star burst at the top corner. And there are sounds because of the shots it has fired.]
:Left ship: Cats have a shiny layer behind their retina called the tapetum lucidum.
:Laser shots: Pew pew pew

:[Same setting but the scene has panned a bit to the left and up so less of the black walls can be seen. The left ship has moved closer to the right wall and has turned so it's sharp tip points almost straight down, still with three curved lines to indicate movement, probably turning movement. It again fires green lasers at the other ship, four this time, with sounds coming from the shooting. The right spaceship is accelerating forward as indicated with three wavy lines behind it's short side moving in to the line of fire. It seems as though all four lasers might miss it, but one of those that already has passed it, is being reflected up against it from below the left black wall. Again a voice emanates from the left ship via a starburst in the left corner:]
:Left ship: After light passes through the retina, this layer reflects it back through a second time.
:Laser shots: Pew pew

:[Same setting but the scene has again panned a bit to show a different segments of the black walls. The ship originally to the left is now above and a bit to the right of where the right ship originally was, and it is even closer to the right wall. It is not firing any more shots, because the reflected shot from the previous panel has hit the right ship which explodes in large green cloud with the black pieces of the ship inside it, and a huge sound. The tail of the laser shot that hits it can be seen entering the explosion. Three other laser shots from before are still moving down, but might all have missed the ship. There are no movement lines now but again the voice emanates from the left ship via a starburst in the left corner:]
:Left ship: This extra bounce gives photons another chance to interact with the retinal cells...
:Explosion: Boom!

:[A man with short black hair wearing a labcoat is sitting in an office chair typing on his computer while speaking. Below him is a frame with a caption, from which it becomes clear that the man, and the owner of the voice from the left ship, is Bill Nye.]
:Bill Nye: ...Improving their night vision! Isn't science cool?
:Caption: There's something extra infuriating about losing online games to Bill Nye.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Comics featuring real people]]
[[Category:Comics featuring people named Bill]]
[[Category:Video games]]
[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Cats]]

Talk:2659: Unreliable Connection

2023-03-04T18:06:05Z

172.70.114.79:

Is it REALLY possible or are these
guys just hyping things up?

That’s the VERY first thing I thought
when I checked out this new, A.I app today..

Is it REALLY possible for an Artificially
Intelligent Machine to write QUALITY, Engaging
Content for my sites in under 90 seconds?

And is it REALLY possible for me to NOT
be able to tell whether this content was
created by a machine or by a human?

ANNND is it REALLY possible for me to
FINALLY never have to write content EVER again?

I just had to see if for myself to believe it.

And I gotta tell you..

I was BLOWN away!

I was able to actually SEE this A.I app write
a PERFECTLY readable article in one of the
HOTTEST niches out there in under 60 seconds!

I saw it with my OWN eyes!

And if you go to the link below, you can see it
for yourself too AND even get access to it for a CRAZY
discounted special they have going on right now.

Watch the demo video for yourself here

>>> https://bit.ly/creaite2_0

Once you have the power to create a LIMITELESS
amount of QUALITY engaging content in ALL the
hottest and most profitable niches, you truly
have the power to do ANYTHING online.

And TODAY, you have that chance!

Cheers!

Diabelle M
66 Rocky Street, FL
44876
=====
Click here to Unsubscribe

Talk:2739: Data Quality

2023-02-24T16:51:52Z

172.70.114.79:

Hash tables aren't lossy, maybe Randall means hash functions? [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 17:06, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
:I was thinking more a (subset of) a {{w|Rainbow table}}, than an associative array... Although such things tend not to preserve/respect item order (in reading, writing and altering in general), which is potentially information-lossy. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.185|172.69.79.185]] 18:50, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
::Hash tables have an ultra-low collision rate, as compared to the transforms used in packetwise error-correction... Since the comic is primarily focused on contrasting media fidelity with direct alteration of the content, ciphers seem a less direct association than content distribution networks? Given the context presented, my immediate association was the use of both piece & whole-pack hash verification, which has a collision rate so low terms like "number of particles in the universe" start entering the conversation. Upon further consideration, I wonder if Randall is referring to plain old CRC32 hash checking? Or the SHA hashes commonly used to verify disc downloads? (If it passes SHA *and* torrent content checking, I'd say you've probably got better chances of 1:1 integrity, than any original medium has of retaining it?)
::[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 22:51, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
: Maybe it was to be about '''cuckoo filters''', which are probabilistic data structure alternative to classic Bloom filter, which are based on space-efficient variants of cuckoo hashing? --[[User:JakubNarebski|JakubNarebski]] ([[User talk:JakubNarebski|talk]]) 14:05, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
::Hash tables don't have to store the original data at all, technically; they are commonly done as hash table->KEY:DATA or hash table->KEY:Pointer to data (or suchlike), but hash table->present is a valid hashing scheme, which results in a likely verification that you have the right data (but not guarunteed because collisions) but no way of reconstructing the data itself. [[User:Mneme|Mneme]] ([[User talk:Mneme|talk]]) 02:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
:He’s casually referring to the hash conflict situation in common implementations of hash tables: the table of hashes, not the whole structure. You have O(n) lookup speed proportional to the impact of uniqueness lost in the hash lookup. The point is that this is the same way that bloom filters {which also usually need a source of truth to be useful) are used. The two concepts perform the same function but with different degrees of lossiness, different widenesses of matching. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.140|162.158.62.140]] 16:40, 24 February 2023 (UTC) EDIT: it also leaves it ambiguous that it could mean a table of hash functions outputs as you suggest, where hashes have often been thought of as uniquely identifying data that is not recoverable (this does require a sufficiently constrained situation but is often used), where bloom filterd are thought of as ambiguously referring to multiple items. I can imagine it being more clear to leave out the word table. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.78|172.70.114.78]] 16:48, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

GIF's aren't lossy either, though often other formats can't be converted to GIF without discarding information. [[User:Bemasher|Bemasher]] ([[User talk:Bemasher|talk]]) 18:27, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
:I think that's the point. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.50.203|172.68.50.203]] 20:12, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
:GIFs are lossy in the very act of creating them: the actual colors of the real object have to be smashed down into (I think it’s) 256 different colors, resulting in an image that even human perception recognizes as crappy. Even the so-called ‘lossless’ formats such as PNG are lossy in the act of creation, just not as drastically as GIFs. A truly ‘lossless’ format would have to specify the exact intensity of every wavelength of electromagnetic radiation emanating from every atom of the original object. Good luck with that. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.151.99|172.71.151.99]] 01:00, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
::It's subjective whether formats (even .gif) can be recognised as 'crappy'. The display format may further tune down everything so that something defined with 65536 colours is more like 256, or it could work well with any given stippling/halftoning/dithering to produce something more like the better original than the file data strictly allows (even from 6bits-per-pixel, or 3) when viewed at sufficient remove. And a .gif of a block-coloured diagram is notably better than a typical .jpg of one, despite the technically superior palette the later has. (Nobody says that an image has to be from a real-life subject, with all kinds of missing data, such as photons thst happen to hit the gap between CCD pixels but might be considered important and might well have been captured with the Mk 1 Eyeball and significantly 'noticed' by the nerves and ultimately the respective processing usters of the brain behind it... Which has a complete set of 'analogue lossiness' to it, anyway.) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.203|172.71.242.203]] 16:37, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
:I encoded the records you wanted transferred to your department's systems into a standard GIF format file. Would you prefer an MJPEG video? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.79|172.70.114.79]] 16:51, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Someone needs to add a table describing all the formats in the chart. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 19:29, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
:Yep. It needs a description of each point on the graph. I'm on my phone though... and feeling lazy after shoveling snow.
:[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 22:54, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
::I'm tempted, but it would require learning how to MAKE a table, and my ideal table would be 5 columns, '''''TOO WIDE!''''', LOL! Table label, what scale (data quality or item quality), a description (the main thing needed), the cat version from the Title Text, and finally how the cat example applies/parallels the comic version. I could lose the "what scale" as only one isn't data quality, and I guess I could see two tables, Comic and Title/Cat (adding to cat also the Table Label column).[[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 06:38, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
:::Tables are actually [https://mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Tables quite easy to do] (if you don't intend to do much complex stuff), but also very easy to slightly mess up (temporarily - Preview is your friend, especially if you need to rowspan/colspan at all). For this purpose, nothing fancy. Header row, other rows, nothing particar special in alignment, sorting, colour (foreground and/or background), etc. It'll be fairly intelligently fitted to the browser window, according to the contents.
:::However, here (when you might have large amounts of narrative in one column), perhaps just ";"-prefix a mini-header (can include "(in Title text)" or other shorthand details) and then have ":"-prefixed 'definition' prose that rambles on about each item in freehand text. I would suggest that's as complicated as you need it, no real need for tabling at all. (But, without wanting to show you how to use a hammer, then making every problem now look like a nail to you, I think you could handle ''learning'' the basic table-markup/learning where to get the more complex stuff. So there you are.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.197|172.70.91.197]] 16:54, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
::::Oh, I've done tables in HTML many times, I'm perfectly comfortable tackling it. It's just that I'd have to take the time to look up the wiki syntax. :) Additional effort, you see. And now someone has already done it. :) [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 15:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

It seems there are two definitions of data quality that Randall is juxtaposing for comic effect: in one, quality data is data that represents the original phenomenon without error or degradation. In the other, he's applying the concept of quality to the phenomenon itself – data is better if it describes a better phenomenon. My cat is better than your cat, therefore data about my cat is better than data about your cat. I'd like to see this concept in the explanation of the page but don't know how to add into the flow of the current text.[[User:K95|K95]] ([[User talk:K95|talk]]) 19:33, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
:I already put that in earlier. See the second sentence of the second paragraph, I called it "general excellence". [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 21:45, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

"Data are transferred in bits"...Hear, hear. I'm over 60, I still remember of stuff that is called "analog" ;-) {{unsigned|172.71.160.37|20:07, 17 February 2023 (UTC)}}
:Note, however, that we are transferring data digitally for over four thousand years. That's how long is technically possible to make a lossless copy of written story. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 22:19, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
::That's only if you're lucky enough to be still reading it in the original <s>Klingon</s> language, etc... [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.184|172.69.79.184]] 22:53, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
:::'''"It is a Klingon name!"''' 😾
:::Transcription definitely suffers from a Darmok & Jalad type contextual dependency.
::: [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 22:59, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I think that "Better data" is a reference to gainful compression, and that "my better cat" doesn't specifically refer to the author but to the lyrical subject (as in poems). [[Special:Contributions/172.68.50.203|172.68.50.203]] 20:12, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

TIFF can contain a JPEG, which makes it technically a lossy format. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.109.33|172.69.109.33]] 23:26, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
:And an actual JPEG ''may'' be {{w|Lossless JPEG|lossless}}. (I still remember JPEG2000 being 'a thing', amongst the other situations mentioned there, but that wasn't even what I was thinking of whn I started this reply!) Yet, I think we're talking broad sweeps here. Not strict accuracy. There's Randall's trolling of us with GIF as 'lossy', frexample... [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.159|172.69.79.159]]

The opening sentence of the explanation, about data loss in transit, seems a bit irrelevant to the comic, which is only concerned with lossiness in information due to format. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.197|172.70.91.197]] 10:40, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
:''Very'' relevent to the parity ones. (Leads me to believe it's a scale of "amount of provided data to represent original data". You send less than you really ought to, the more left you go, you send more than you should ''technically'' need to as you go to the right. Checksums add a little bit extra, once you get to them, and ''correcting'' checksums (hamming bits, etc) are significantly extra overhead. The whole 'better data' is basically "send a similar amount of newer information, or even more, on top of the original".) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.71|162.158.34.71]] 12:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
:: But that's about adding information to the file (which happens to be mitigation against the potential future loss of data) - not directly about the loss of data itself. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.65|172.71.178.65]] 11:23, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
::: Data can be lost (deliberately or otherwise) in the process of transfering data. That's where parity may be useful, and that's when boiling things down into hashes alone probably is not... But you may actually have good reasons/circumstances to do (or not do) either. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.224|172.70.85.224]] 19:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Since when is CRC-32 obsolete? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.238.6|162.158.238.6]] 08:24, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

2735: Coordinate Plane Closure

2023-02-08T20:58:02Z

172.70.114.79: Added topological notion of closure in addition to algebraic closure.

{{comic
| number = 2735
| date = February 8, 2023
| title = Coordinate Plane Closure
| image = coordinate_plane_closure_2x.png
| imagesize = 271x376px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = 3D graphs that don't contact the plane in the closure area may proceed as scheduled, but be alert for possible collisions with 2D graph lines that reach the hole and unexpectedly enter 3D space.
}}

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

This comic is a "Math Notice," which is presumably a warning or reminder for mathematicians or others who interact with the field of mathematics, in a similar way to how a "Travel Notice" may prewarn drivers of planned road closures for repairs (or [https://www.cameroncountytx.gov/spacex/ rocketry]). Specifically, this one advises those who are using the coordinate plane to avoid drawing any graphs in the area with a hole until the damage is patched or fixed. This comic invents this concept of Math Notices, and is also very similar to that of a {{w|Notice to mariners}} or {{w|NOTAM|airmen}}, where nautical or aeronautical navigation might be impinged by a clear area (or volume) that should be kept clear from in the near future. The comic also resembles notices from websites or software providers about planned maintenance, which alert users about upcoming outages.

{{w|Coordinate planes}} are used in math for drawing graphs. The joke here is that a small section has been "closed for maintenance," likening the concept of a coordinate plane to an actual physical platform used by math, which is therefore vulnerable to damage such as is shown in the comic. In reality, the coordinate plane cannot be damaged as it is not a tangible thing.{{citation needed}}

Closure in mathematics can be a term relating to sets, specifically operations on sets, and a coordinate plane is a particular set of numbers. A set is closed under an operation if all the "answers" to the operation are also in the set. The coordinate plane is said to be closed under vector addition for example - adding together any two coordinates produces another coordinate in the plane. Many functions and operators may be said to have closure on the real plane, and this comic may be a pun on that term. However, if there actually is a hole in the plane, then suddenly the plane will no longer exhibit closure.

Closure can also be used in another sense, relating to the topology of a set; roughly speaking, a description of what parts of the set are "close" to others. In this sense, if one takes the closure of a plane with a hole, the result is indeed an intact plane, provided the hole is sufficiently (infinitesimally) small.

The title text clarifies some of the unwanted effects of drawing a graph into the hole, stating that two-dimensional graph lines might accidentally become three-dimensional and interfere with the graphs made there.

==Transcript==

:<big>⚠️ Math Notice ⚠️</big>[emojis written without color]

:The coordinate plane will be closed Thursday between (1.5, 1) and (2, 1.5) to repair a hole.

:[A coordinate graph is shown, with a gray hole between (1.5, 1) and (2, 1.5). There are small fractures around the hole. The hole is highlighted with two dots in the corners of a hollow rectangle with split border lines.]

:If your graph uses this area, please postpone drawing until Friday or transform it to different coordinates.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Charts]]

2003: Presidential Succession

2023-01-27T17:50:25Z

172.70.114.79: /* List of specific individuals */

{{comic
| number = 2003
| date = June 6, 2018
| title = Presidential Succession
| image = presidential_succession.png
| titletext = Ties are broken by whoever was closest to the surface of Europa when they were born.
}}

==Explanation==
The {{w|United States presidential line of succession}} is the order of people who serve as president if the current incumbent president is incapacitated, dies, resigns, or is removed from office.

The {{w|Presidential_Succession_Act#Presidential_Succession_Act_of_1947|Presidential Succession Act of 1947}} revised the presidential order of succession to its current order. This Act, though never challenged in the courts, may not be constitutional for two reasons. First, the Act names two members of Congress as successors. There are serious questions as to whether this violates the principle of Separation of Powers. The second issue is that the Act allows for anyone skipped over for succession to later assume the office if circumstances change to allow them to hold it. This would mean that the person in question could effectively unseat a sitting President, which raises serious constitutional issues.

There are also practical concerns regarding the Act. The line of succession includes all members of the Cabinet in the order that their department was established, with the oldest departments first. No consideration is given to which departments would be most relevant to the Presidency, particularly considering that this type of succession would presumably involve a serious crisis, which the new president would need to be able to address immediately. The Department of Homeland Security is in charge of the security and protection of the United States and its citizens and would probably already be privy to sensitive intelligence and briefings related to national security, but because it is the latest of the Departments to have been established (in 2003), the Secretary of Homeland Security is last in the current Presidential line of succession, behind Secretaries in much less sensitive roles, such as those of Agriculture, Housing and Urban Development, and Education.

Another concern is that, by including members of Congress immediately after the Vice President, there is a serious risk that the simultaneous death of the President and Vice President could cause the Presidency to change to the opposing party, which could lead to serious political instability at the precise moment when the country is facing a national crisis. It even presents the possibility that simultaneous assassinations of the President and Vice President could function as an effective coup, shifting power to their opponents.

Finally, there is the issue that, usually, everyone in the line of succession lives and works in Washington D.C. Hence, a sufficiently destructive attack or natural disaster impacting the city could realistically incapacitate all of them, leaving the USA leaderless at a time of extreme crisis. It is already established practice in the USA that everyone in this line not gather together at once. In cases where most senior government officials gather (such as the {{w| State of the Union}}), at least one member of the line of succession (referred to as the "designated survivor") is secured off-site, and would assume the presidency in the unlikely event that a {{w| mass casualty event}} were to kill or incapacitate everyone else in the line. However, disasters impacting an entire city remain a possibility, and no provision is made for them in current law.

To correct these issues, a think tank known as the {{w| Continuity of Government Commission}} prepared a report recommending a new line of succession, which would not include members of Congress, would reorder the cabinet secretaries so that the most suitable roles would be the first successors, and would include people who do not live or work in Washington DC. The full text of their report can be found [https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/06_continuity_of_government.pdf here]. A short, readable summary, including the report's recommended new line of succession, is [https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-continuity-of-the-presidency-the-second-report-of-the-continuity-of-government-commission here].

The first six members of the commission's list are taken from the current line of succession, though the order is changed; they propose that after this, five new people should be appointed specifically for the purpose of assuming the presidency, if needed. Randall's list begins with these eleven people (combining the five new appointees into #7); afterwards, his list becomes increasingly comical and ridiculous.

Randall's list omits members of Congress, as well as other cabinet positions, in accordance with the report's concerns about constitutionality and qualifications. However, his other additions totally ignore these issues, including people with no apparent qualifications for the office (such as actors, athletes, and competitive eaters) and people who are constitutionally ineligible for the office. The US Constitution requires that the President of the United States must be a natural-born US citizen, at least 35 years of age, and have resided in the US for at least fourteen years. Randall's list includes many people who don't meet these requirements. Most notably, he includes the entire succession to the British crown, almost none of whom meet the requirement of being natural-born citizens of the United States.

It may be expected that many of the athletes, musicians and actors on this list are likely to be ineligible as well. Most professional athletes in the relevant sports are under 35 years old, particularly those at the peak of their careers (when they'd likely win MVP awards), the most popular musicians also tend to be younger than 35, and many who meet these requirements were not born US citizens (and some many not even reside in the US). However, the existing line of succession can also contain ineligible people, who would simply be skipped over for succession. For example, at the comic's publication, {{w|Elaine Chao}} was the Secretary of Transportation and would normally be 14th in line, but because she is a naturalized citizen of the US, rather than native-born (she was born in Taiwan) she would not qualify for the office if the line came to her.

The title text mentions that ties will be broken by whoever was closest to the surface of {{w|Europa}} when they were born. Europa is a moon of Jupiter and one of the most likely locations in the Solar System for {{w|Habitability of natural satellites|potential habitability}}. This is likely a parody of systems in which ties are broken by semi-arbitrary rules (such as the older candidate automatically winning a tie) or a randomized ones (such as ties being decided by a coin flip). The position of Europa with respect to Earth at the time of one's birth depends on enough factors that it acts as a pseudo-random tie breaker, albeit a needlessly complicated one.

The presidential line of succession was first mentioned in [[1933: Santa Facts]]

==Order of succession==
{| class="wikitable sortable"
!#
!Randall's order
!Current order by the 1947 Act
!Notes
|-
|1
|{{w|POTUS|President}}
|President
|Not generally considered part of the line of succession, as incumbents cannot "succeed" to their own post. (This should really be item 0 on the list.)
|-
|2
|{{w|POTUS|Vice president}}
|Vice president
|This is the same as in the actual line of succession. Succeeding the President is one of the only two roles assigned to the Vice President by the Constitution, the other being presiding over the Senate (including breaking ties), but Vice Presidents are often given additional roles during office.
|-
|3
|{{w|United States Secretary of State|Secretary of State}}
|Speaker of the House of Representatives
|Moved up from 5th position. This is likely a serious suggestion. As mentioned above, the existing Succession Act includes the Speaker of the House and President Pro Tempore of the Senate, which presents serious practical and constitutional issues. The Secretary of State is the chief officer responsible for the country's international relations and diplomatic missions, and would be a logical successor, particularly in times of crisis.
|-
|4
|{{w|United States Secretary of Defense|Secretary of Defense}}
|{{w|President pro tempore of the United States Senate|President pro tempore of the Senate}}
|Moved up from 7th position. Also likely a serious suggestion. The existing succession places the Secretary of Defense behind the Secretary of the Treasury in succession. If the three preceding officials were simultaneously killed or incapacitated, there would be a high likelihood that the country was under attack, and other powers could easily try to take advantage of any power vacuum. Since the Secretary of Defense is most connected to the nation's military, and most in tune with information regarding potential threats and risks, this would be a logical succession.
|-
|5
|{{w|United States Secretary of Homeland Security|Secretary of Homeland Security}}
|Secretary of State
|Moved up from 19th position. Again likely a serious suggestion. As with the Secretary of Defense, this officer would likely be closely aligned with the national emergency response infrastructure (including overseeing the {{w|Federal Emergency Management Agency}}), and would be well equipped to deal with a major attack or natural disaster.
|-
|6
|{{w|United States Attorney General|Attorney General}}
|{{w|United States Secretary of the Treasury|Secretary of the Treasury}}
|Moved up from 8th position. Once again, likely a serious suggestion. The Attorney General oversees national law enforcement, and would be in a position to deal with internal chaos that could result from a disaster that impacted the federal government so deeply.
|-
|7
|Five people who do not live in {{w|Washington, D.C.}}, nominated at the start of the President's term and confirmed by the Senate
|Secretary of Defense
|Washington, D.C is the capital of the United States, and is where the {{w|White House}}, the President's residence, is located. Presumably this provision covers the case where much of the government, including positions 1–6 here, are killed by a natural disaster or attack in Washington, D.C.

This suggestion establishes no qualifications for these people, but the fact that they'd need to be confirmed by the Senate suggests that they would be chosen to be competent for the role. It is also unclear if an order is determined among these five or if they take up a joint presidency. This suggestion is taken from the Second Report of the Continuity of Government Commission to prevent the danger of the entire line of succession being removed in a single event.
|-
|8
|{{w|Tom Hanks}}
|Attorney General
|Academy Award-winning American actor. This is the first unambiguously unserious suggestion.{{Citation needed}} Tom Hanks is very popular and considered exceptionally likeable by many Americans, but has never served in public office or displayed any particular affinity for politics. The implication is that Mr. Hanks would be easily accepted as a leader, based solely on his personal charm. It should also be noticed that Tom Hanks played Jim Lovell, who served in the navy before becoming an astronaut (Many early astronauts were former military members.), in ''Apollo 13'', a military captain in ''Saving Private Ryan'', a prison officer in ''The Green Mile'', a naval intelligence officer in ''James B. Donovan'', and a member of the House of Representatives in ''Charlie Wilson's War''; if Tom Hanks's appearances in movies counted as real-life experience, then he would be adequately qualified.
|-
|9
|State Governors, in descending order of state population at last census
|{{w|United States Secretary of the Interior|Secretary of the Interior}}
|Also taken from Second Report of the Continuity of Government Commission. At the time of publication, the last {{w|United States Census}} was the 2010 Census. As California is the most populous state, its Governor ({{w|Jerry Brown}} at the time of publication) would have been first in line.

See also the {{w|2010_United_States_Census#State_rankings|state population rankings}} and the {{w|list of current United States governors}}. As worded, this criterion would exclude territorial governors (and the Mayor of Washington, D.C.).
|-
|10
|Anyone who won an Oscar for playing a governor
|{{w|United States Secretary of Agriculture|Secretary of Agriculture}}
|Oscars, or {{w|Academy Awards}}, are annual film awards awarded by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. At the time of publication, the only Oscar awarded for playing a governor was {{w|Broderick Crawford}}'s 1949 Best Actor award for the fictional Willie Stark in ''{{w|All the King's Men (1949 film)|All the King's Men}}'' (a character based on {{w|Huey Long}}). However, Crawford died in 1986, so would be unable to serve as President.

This may be a reference to the {{w|Political career of Arnold Schwarzenegger}}: a highly-lauded actor who became governor of California, but did not win an Oscar or play a governor before being elected. (As a naturalized citizen, he is also ineligible for the Presidency.)
There is also humor in suggesting that playing a governor delivers just as much experience as being a governor. (Something similar was mentioned in the section about Tom Hanks, who played, among other things, a member of the House of Representatives.)
|-
|11
|Anyone who won a Governor's award for playing someone named Oscar
|{{w|United States Secretary of Commerce|Secretary of Commerce}}
|The {{w|Governors Awards}} are an annual award ceremony hosted by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences to present lifetime achievement awards within the film industry. As this award is a lifetime achievement award, it does not seem possible that an actor could win this award for simply playing someone named Oscar. Notwithstanding the nature of the award, at the time of publication, no recipient of a Governors Award has played a character named Oscar.

Obviously, the joke is that changing the order of the words from the previous proposal produces something that could actually exist.
|-
|12
|{{w|Kate McKinnon}}, if available
|Secretary of Labor
|Comedic actress famous for being a cast member on {{w|Saturday Night Live}}. She is known for her character work and celebrity impressions. She has recently done impersonations of members of the Trump administration including Spokeswoman {{w|Kellyanne Conway}} and Attorney General {{w|Jeff Sessions}}. She also played {{w|Hillary Clinton}} during the 2016 campaign and presumably would have played her when she was President had she won; but since Clinton lost, McKinnon has not actually played a President. At the time the comic was released, she was 34 years 5 months old; thus she was not "available" until seven months later. Being available could also refer to not already having an acting commitment, in which case the comic would be humorously implying that fulfilling her acting roles is more important than the country having leadership.
|-
|13
|Billboard Year-End Hot 100 Singles artists #1 through #10 (for groups, whoever is credited first in name, liner notes, etc)
|Secretary of Health and Human Services
|The {{w|Billboard Hot 100}} is the music industry standard record chart in the United States for singles, published weekly by Billboard magazine. The weekly data is aggregated into a cumulative {{w|Billboard Year-End}} (based on a "year" that ends the third week of November, in order to meet December publication deadlines). At the time of publication, the most recent such list was the {{w|Billboard Year-End Hot 100 singles of 2017}}.

Based on that list, the artists considered for the presidential succession would be: {{w|Ed Sheeran}}, {{w|Luis Fonsi}}, {{w|Bruno Mars}}, {{w|Kendrick Lamar}}, Alex Pall (of {{w|The Chainsmokers}}), {{w|Quavo|Quavoius Keyate Marshall}} (of {{w|Migos}}), {{w|Sam Hunt}}, {{w|Dan Reynolds}} (of {{w|Imagine Dragons}}), and {{w|Post Malone}}. There are only nine names instead of ten because The Chainsmokers had two of the top 10 singles in 2017. Of these, only Luis Fonsi (40 years old, born in Puerto Rico) was legally eligible for the office; all the others were too young, and Sheeran is additionally from the United Kingdom.
|-
|14
|The top 5 US astronauts in descending order of total spaceflight time
|Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
|Astronauts are highly respected and rigorously selected, but most have little involvement in politics. According to [https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-station-astronaut-record-holders NASA], the top 5 US astronauts by cumulative space time at the time of publication were: {{w|Peggy Whitson}}, {{w|Jeffrey Williams (astronaut)|Jeff Williams}}, {{W|Scott Kelly (astronaut)|Scott Kelly}}, {{w|Mike Fincke}}, and {{w|Mike Foale}}. However, it is unclear whether Foale would qualify as a natural-born citizen, as he was born in the United Kingdom to a British father and American mother.
|-
|15
|{{w|Serena Williams}} (or, if she lost her most recent match, whoever beat her)
|Secretary of Transportation
|As of the time of publication, Serena Williams was a top female tennis player. She is arguably the greatest female tennis player of all-time, winning 39 {{w|Grand Slam (tennis)|Grand Slam}} titles, including 23 women's singles titles. At the time of publication Serena Williams did win her most recent match (2018 French Open, third round, on June 2nd), although she withdrew from her next match against Maria Sharapova (which perhaps should count as a loss, especially if she withdrew in order to preserve her place in the line of succession and killed everyone in place ahead of her).

If her most recent defeat was to a non-US player, presumably she would be skipped over in line although this is not explicitly stated (the current succession list skips over anyone who would not normally qualify for not being a natural-born US citizen).
|-
|16
|The most recent season NBA, NFL, MLB, and NHL MVPs
|Secretary of Energy
|MVP stands for {{w|Most Valuable Player}}. The 4 listed leagues are the major sports leagues in the United States, the {{w|National Basketball Association}} (NBA), the {{w|National Football League}} (NFL), {{w|Major League Baseball}} (MLB), and the {{w|National Hockey League}} (NHL). We're assuming that Randall meant the regular season MVPs of each league, as each league also awards MVPs for their respective championships (or in the case of the NHL's {{w|Conn Smythe Trophy}}, their entire playoffs).

As of the time of publication, the most recent MVPs for the listed sports were {{w|Russell Westbrook}} (NBA), {{w|Tom Brady}} (NFL), {{w|José Altuve}} and {{w|Giancarlo Stanton}} (MLB has two, one for the American League and one for the National League), and {{w|Connor McDavid}} (NHL). Of these, only Brady would qualify for the list - Altuve and McDavid are Venezuelan and Canadian citizens respectively, and Westbrook (29) and Stanton (28) were too young.
|-
|17
|{{w|Bill Pullman}} and his descendants by absolute primogeniture
|Secretary of Education
|American actor, known for playing President Thomas J. Whitmore in the 1996 film ''{{w|Independence Day (1996 film)|Independence Day}}''.

Absolute primogeniture is a form of succession where the oldest direct descendant regardless of gender receives the title. This is contrasted to {{w|Male-preference primogeniture}}, in which males come before females in the order of the throne, whether the males were born first or not. This may be a reference to the British law {{w|Succession to the Crown Act 2013}}, which changed the order of the throne from male-preference primogeniture to absolute primogeniture. This act allows {{w|Princess Charlotte of Cambridge|Princess Charlotte}} to retain her place in line before {{w|Prince Louis of Cambridge|Prince Louis}}.

At the time of publication, Pullman's immediate descendants consisted of three children, with Maesa Pullman being the oldest at age 29. Thus all but Bill Pullman himself were too young for the presidency.
|-
|18
|The entire line of succession to the British throne
|Secretary of Veterans Affairs
|According to the Constitution, only a natural-born citizen of the United States can become President, which means that at least most of the line of succession to the British throne is ineligible. However, it is possible that someone in the line of succession to the British throne either is a dual citizen or is not British (a person from outside of Britain or Ireland can become King; for example, some, including George I, were from what is now Germany).

The first 59 names on the list are {{w|Succession_to_the_British_throne#Current_line_of_succession|here}}. [https://lineofsuccession.co.uk/?date=2018-06-06 British Line of Succession on 6 June 2018] shows the list as it was at the comic's publication. American citizens [http://articles.latimes.com/1988-02-11/news/vw-42233_1_royal-house have, at times] been on the list, but no natural-born Americans were on the list when the comic was published. However, after this comic was published {{w|Archie Mountbatten-Windsor}} was born on May 6, 2019; he is currently seventh in the line of succession to the British throne and has US citizenship through his mother {{w|Meghan, Duchess of Sussex}}. As with Mark Foale, though, whether that qualifies as natural-born has not be tested (leaving aside his age and the fact that many royals in his position have historically relinquished their birthright US citizenship voluntarily, which he may choose to do once he reaches age 16). In theory, the full British succession list includes [http://www.wargs.com/essays/succession/2011.html several thousand people] (living descendants of {{w|Sophia of Hanover}} who are not Roman Catholic or otherwise disqualified), and it is possible that one or more such people would also be eligible to be President of the United States beyond Master Archie. Archie's sister Lillibet Diana Mountbatten-Windsor was born in Santa Barbara, California, USA, on June 4, 2021, making her definitively a natural born US citizen, and thus, theoretically eligible to become US president upon turning 35.

The humor here derives from the fact that the United States was established by declaring independence from the United Kingdom, with rejection of the British monarchy being a basic founding principle, and a core principle of US governance. To appoint the British monarchy to the American presidency would contradict the basic goals of American independence. Alternatively, it may reference the recent wedding of {{w|Prince Harry}} to {{w|Meghan Markle}}, although she is not in the order of succession. A similar sequence of events was the plotline of the comedy film ''{{w|King Ralph}}'', which saw an American become the British monarch after the death of the royal family.
|-
|19
|The current champion of the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating contest
|Secretary of Homeland Security
|The {{w|Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest}} is an annual American hot dog competitive eating competition sponsored by {{w|Nathan's Famous}} held on July 4th. As of the time of publication, the most recent men's winner was {{w|Joey Chestnut}} and the women's winner was {{w|Miki Sudo}}. At the time of publication, neither was old enough to assume the office.

The comic does not specify whether the men's or women's winner should take office, creating a tie that would be broken by distance from Europa at birth. Had they both been eligible, [https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/29132/was-earth-closer-to-europa-on-1983-11-25-or-1985-07-22 Sudo would have won] by between 0.125 and 2.2 {{w|Astronomical unit}}s.
|-
|20
|All other US citizens, chosen by a 29-round single-elimination Jousting tournament
|''None''
|Effective for a population up to 536,870,912 individuals (2^29) which would be enough to cover the entire US population (estimated at around 325 million at time of publication), although additional rounds can be added should the population grow further.

This is probably a reference to the {{w|Matter of Britain}} (e.g., {{w|The Sword in the Stone (film)|The Sword in the Stone}}), where, after the death of Uther Pendragon, with no known successor to the throne of Britain (some versions of the legend refer incorrectly to England) for years, it is decided that the winner of a jousting tournament shall be crowned. However, Arthur, the Wart, pulls the Sword from the Stone.
|}

===List of specific individuals===
Based on the comic's defined criteria for the order of succession, these are the specific individuals in that order, including only people who are otherwise eligible to be the President of United States (35 year old and natural born US citizens who lived in US for last 14 years) '''as of the date the comic was published'''.
#{{w|Donald Trump}} ({{w|President of the United States}})
#{{w|Mike Pence}} ({{w|Vice President of the United States}})
#{{w|Mike Pompeo}} ({{w|United States Secretary of State}})
#{{w|Jim Mattis}} ({{w|United States Secretary of Defense}})
#{{w|Kirstjen Nielsen}} ({{w|United States Secretary of Homeland Security}})
#{{w|Jeff Sessions}} ({{w|United States Attorney General}}) As Donald Trump did not appoint anyone to fill position #7 on Randall's line of succession, Hanks immediately follows after Sessions.
#{{w|Tom Hanks}} (Tom Hanks)
#{{w|Jerry Brown}} (Governor of California)
#{{w|Greg Abbott}} (Governor of Texas)
#{{w|Andrew Cuomo}} (Governor of New York)
#{{w|Rick Scott}} (Governor of Florida)
#{{w|Bruce Rauner}} (Governor of Illinois)
#{{w|Tom Wolf}} (Governor of Pennsylvania)
#{{w|John Kasich}} (Governor of Ohio)
#{{w|Rick Snyder}} (Governor of Michigan)
#{{w|Nathan Deal}} (Governor of Georgia)
#{{w|Roy Cooper}} (Governor of North Carolina)
#{{w|Phil Murphy}} (Governor of New Jersey)
#{{w|Ralph Northam}} (Governor of Virginia)
#{{w|Jay Inslee}} (Governor of Washington)
#{{w|Charlie Baker}} (Governor of Massachusetts)
#{{w|Eric Holcomb}} (Governor of Indiana)
#{{w|Doug Ducey}} (Governor of Arizona)
#{{w|Bill Haslam}} (Governor of Tennessee)
#{{w|Mike Parson}} (Governor of Missouri)
#{{w|Larry Hogan}} (Governor of Maryland)
#{{w|Scott Walker (politician)|Scott Walker}} (Governor of Wisconsin)
#{{w|Mark Dayton}} (Governor of Minnesota)
#{{w|John Hickenlooper}} (Governor of Colorado)
#{{w|Kay Ivey}} (Governor of Alabama)
#{{w|Henry McMaster}} (Governor of South Carolina)
#{{w|John Bel Edwards}} (Governor of Louisiana)
#{{w|Matt Bevin}} (Governor of Kentucky)
#{{w|Kate Brown}} (Governor of Oregon) Born in Spain to a member of the US Air Force, should be considered a natural-born citizen until proven otherwise.
#{{w|Mary Fallin}} (Governor of Oklahoma)
#{{w|Dannel Malloy}} (Governor of Connecticut)
#{{w|Kim Reynolds}} (Governor of Iowa)
#{{w|Phil Bryant}} (Governor of Mississippi)
#{{w|Asa Hutchinson}} (Governor of Arkansas)
#{{w|Jeff Colyer}} (Governor of Kansas)
#{{w|Gary Herbert}} (Governor of Utah)
#{{w|Brian Sandoval}} (Governor of Nevada)
#{{w|Susana Martinez}} (Governor of New Mexico)
#{{w|Jim Justice}} (Governor of West Virginia)
#{{w|Pete Ricketts}} (Governor of Nebraska)
#{{w|Butch Otter}} (Governor of Idaho)
#{{w|David Ige}} (Governor of Hawaii)
#{{w|Paul LePage}} (Governor of Maine)
#{{w|Chris Sununu}} (Governor of New Hampshire)
#{{w|Gina Raimondo}} (Governor of Rhode Island)
#{{w|Steve Bullock (American politician)|Steve Bullock}} (Governor of Montana)
#{{w|John Carney (politician)|John Carney}} (Governor of Delaware)
#{{w|Dennis Daugaard}} (Governor of South Dakota)
#{{w|Bill Walker (U.S. politician)|Bill Walker}} (Governor of Alaska)
#{{w|Doug Burgum}} (Governor of North Dakota)
#{{w|Phil Scott (politician)|Phil Scott}} (Governor of Vermont)
#{{w|Matt Mead}} (Governor of Wyoming) Entries 10 and 11 on Randall's list have no eligible living members. Kate McKinnon was only 34 years 5 months old at the time the comic was released, making her unavailable.
#{{w|Luis Fonsi}} (Billboard Year-End Hot 100 singles of 2017, #2 artist) Fonsi is the only eligible individual under the Billboard criterion.
#{{w|Peggy Whitson}} (Astronaut, 665 days in space)
#{{w|Jeffrey Williams (astronaut)|Jeff Williams}} (Astronaut, 534 days in space)
#{{w|Scott Kelly}} (Astronaut, 520 days in space)
#{{w|Mike Fincke}} (Astronaut, 382 days in space)
#{{w|Mike Foale}} (Astronaut, 374 days in space) Foale was born in the UK but his mother is an American, and he holds dual citizenship with both countries. It isn't clear legally whether this situation would qualify him as being a "natural-born" citizen as US courts have never definitively ruled on what the term means, so similar to Governor Kate Brown his name is included in the list until further notice.
#{{w|Serena Williams}} Serena's place on this list assumes that you do not count her withdrawal against Maria Sharapova as a ''loss''; if that counts as a loss, then subsequent entries move up one position (as Sharapova is ineligible).
#{{w|Tom Brady}} ({{w|National Football League Most Valuable Player Award|NFL MVP}}) The MVPs of all other listed sports leagues are ineligible for the office due to age or nationality.
#{{w|Bill Pullman}} (Bill Pullman) None of his children are old enough to become President at this time.
#''line of succession to the British throne'' Assumes that no eligible member of the British order of succession exists due to citizenship issues. The Nathan's Hot Dog Eating champions were too young to hold the office.
#''everyone else'' (Jousting tournament)

Based on the comic's defined criteria for the order of succession, these are the specific individuals in that order, including only people who are otherwise eligible to be the President of United States (35 year old and natural born US citizens who lived in US for last 14 years) '''as of the current date'''. (Last updated on 27 January 2023)
#{{w|Joe Biden}} ({{w|President of the United States}})
#{{w|Kamala Harris}} ({{w|Vice President of the United States}})
#{{w|Antony Blinken}} ({{w|United States Secretary of State}})
#{{w|Lloyd Austin}} ({{w|United States Secretary of Defense}})
#{{w|Alejandro Mayorkas}} ({{w|United States Secretary of Homeland Security}})
#{{w|Merrick Garland}} ({{w|United States Attorney General}}) As Joe Biden did not appoint anyone to fill position #7 on Randall's line of succession, Hanks immediately follows after Garland.
#{{w|Tom Hanks}} (Tom Hanks)
#{{w|Gavin Newsom}} (Governor of California)
#{{w|Greg Abbott}} (Governor of Texas)
#{{w|Ron DeSantis}} (Governor of Florida)
#{{w|Kathy Hochul}} (Governor of New York)
#{{w|Tom Wolf}} (Governor of Pennsylvania)
#{{w|J. B. Pritzker}} (Governor of Illinois)
#{{w|Mike DeWine}} (Governor of Ohio)
#{{w|Brian Kemp}} (Governor of Georgia)
#{{w|Roy Cooper}} (Governor of North Carolina)
#{{w|Gretchen Whitmer}} (Governor of Michigan)
#{{w|Phil Murphy}} (Governor of New Jersey)
#{{w|Glenn Youngkin}} (Governor of Virginia)
#{{w|Jay Inslee}} (Governor of Washington)
#{{w|Katie Hobbs}} (Governor of Arizona)
#{{w|Maura Healey}} (Governor of Massachusetts)
#{{w|Bill Lee (Tennessee politician)|Bill Lee}} (Governor of Tennessee)
#{{w|Eric Holcomb}} (Governor of Indiana)
#{{w|Wes Moore}} (Governor of Maryland)
#{{w|Mike Parson}} (Governor of Missouri)
#{{w|Tony Evers}} (Governor of Wisconsin)
#{{w|Jared Polis}} (Governor of Colorado)
#{{w|Tim Walz}} (Governor of Minnesota)
#{{w|Henry McMaster}} (Governor of South Carolina)
#{{w|Kay Ivey}} (Governor of Alabama)
#{{w|John Bel Edwards}} (Governor of Louisiana)
#{{w|Andy Beshear}} (Governor of Kentucky)
#{{w|Tina Kotek}} (Governor of Oregon)
#{{w|Kevin Stitt}} (Governor of Oklahoma)
#{{w|Ned Lamont}} (Governor of Connecticut)
#{{w|Spencer Cox (politician)|Spencer Cox}} (Governor of Utah)
#{{w|Kim Reynolds}} (Governor of Iowa)
#{{w|Joe Lombardo}} (Governor of Nevada)
#{{w|Sarah Huckabee Sanders}} (Governor of Arkansas)
#{{w|Tate Reeves}} (Governor of Mississippi)
#{{w|Laura Kelly}} (Governor of Kansas)
#{{w|Michelle Lujan Grisham}} (Governor of New Mexico)
#{{w|Jim Pillen}} (Governor of Nebraska)
#{{w|Brad Little}} (Governor of Idaho)
#{{w|Jim Justice}} (Governor of West Virginia)
#{{w|Josh Green}} (Governor of Hawaii)
#{{w|Chris Sununu}} (Governor of New Hampshire)
#{{w|Janet Mills}} (Governor of Maine)
#{{w|Dan McKee}} (Governor of Rhode Island)
#{{w|Greg Gianforte}} (Governor of Montana)
#{{w|John Carney (politician)|John Carney}} (Governor of Delaware)
#{{w|Kristi Noem}} (Governor of South Dakota)
#{{w|Doug Burgum}} (Governor of North Dakota)
#{{w|Mike Dunleavy (politician)|Mike Dunleavy}} (Governor of Alaska)
#{{w|Phil Scott (politician)|Phil Scott}} (Governor of Vermont)
#{{w|Mark Gordon (politician)|Mark Gordon}} (Governor of Wyoming)
#{{w|Kate McKinnon}} (Kate McKinnon) If she is available. Entries 10, 11 and 13 on Randall's list have no eligible living members.
#{{w|Peggy Whitson}} (Astronaut, 665 days in space)
#{{w|Jeffrey Williams (astronaut)|Jeff Williams}} (Astronaut, 534 days in space)
#{{w|Mark Vande Hei}} (Astronaut, 523 days in space)
#{{w|Scott Kelly}} (Astronaut, 520 days in space)
#{{w|Shane Kimbrough}} (Astronaut, 388 days in space)
#{{w|Bill Pullman}} (Bill Pullman) None of Bill Pullman's children are old enough to become President at this time. {{w|Serena Williams}} lost the final match of her career against {{w|Ajla Tomljanović}}, who is ineligible due to age and nationality.
#{{w|Aaron Rodgers}} ({{w|National Football League Most Valuable Player Award|NFL MVP}})
#{{w|Paul GoldSchmidt}} (w|National League Most Valuable Player Award|NL MVP}}) The MVPs of all other listed sports leagues are ineligible for the office due to age or nationality.
#''line of succession to the British throne''
#{{w|Miki Sudo}} (Women’s champion of the Nathan’s Hot Dog Eating Contest; listed first due to being closer to Europa at birth)
#{{w|Joey Chestnut}} (Men's champion of the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest)
#''everyone else'' (Jousting tournament) Assumes that the number of eligible US Citizens does not exceed 536,870,912.

==Transcript==
: A proposal for a new presidential line of succession
: Current politics aside, most experts agree the existing process is flawed. The Presidential Succession Act of 1947 is probably unconstitutional on several counts, and there are many practical issues with the system as well.
: (For more, see the surprisingly gripping ''Second Report of the Continuity of Government Commission'', June 2009.)
: Proposed line of succession:
:# President
:# Vice president
:# Secretary of State
:# Secretary of Defense
:# Secretary of Homeland Security
:# Attorney General
:# Five people who do not live in Washington DC, nominated at the start of the president's term and confirmed by the Senate
:# Tom Hanks
:# State Governors, in descending order of state population at last census
:# Anyone who won an Oscar for playing a governor
:# Anyone who won a Governor's award for playing someone named Oscar
:# Kate McKinnon, if available
:# Billboard year-end Hot 100 singles artists #1 through #10 (for groups, whoever is credited first in name, liner notes, etc)
:# The top 5 US astronauts in descending order of total spaceflight time
:# Serena Williams (or, if she lost her most recent match, whoever beat her)
:# The most recent season NBA, NFL, MLB, and NHL MVPs
:# Bull Pullman and his descendants by absolute primogeniture
:# The entire line of succession to the British throne
:# The current champion of the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating contest
:# All other US citizens, chosen by a 29-round single-elimination Jousting tournament

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Politics]]

Talk:2725: Sunspot Cycle

2023-01-17T14:47:54Z

172.70.114.79: response to response about sinewave vs sunspots

Holy cow, just made my first edit! It was SUPER stressful, and I didn't even know how to make a 'citation needed' thing. Hopefully it was ok, I tried to match the style of the wiki. [[User:GordonFreeman|GordonFreeman]] ([[User talk:GordonFreeman|talk]]) 03:06, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
:Welcome to explain xkcd then. Any edit that is not vandalism is a good edit, because it makes other think about what should be here. So even if it is later completely changed it got things going. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 08:05, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Is it perhaps worth mentioning that sunspots, while they're darker than the rest of the sun's surface, are not actually black. They are cooler than surrounding regions and appear dark by contrast, but they're emitting lots of IR and some visible light. A sunspots-only (ignore the oxymoron) sun would still emit light and heat, just less. [[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 03:18, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Wouldn't the cycle be 20 ("every other decade") or 22 years (11 in each half of the cycle)? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.166.173|162.158.166.173]] 03:51, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
:The cycle of darkness of the sun would be 22 years, but the 11-year cycle referred to in the comic, and described by both diagrams within the comic, is the cycle of "number of sunspots" which peaks when the sun is half light, half dark, and decreases again as there are so many spots that they start to merge into fewer, larger spots. It cycles from very few (or zero) sunspots, when the sun is light, through many sunspots, sun is heavily light/dark spotted, and completes the cycle when the number of spots returns down to near-zero, when the sun is dark. {{unsigned ip|172.70.85.201}}

To what "financial crash of 2014" does this refer? I recall the housing crisis causing financial trouble, but that was around 2008. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.166.173|162.158.166.173]] 03:51, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
:This has nothing to do with finance so if you think the peak at 2014 should have any meaning I think you are wrong. there where just for some reason more sunspots even though the sun was still in the dark period. Maybe most of the few huge sunspots broke into smaller but with only thin lines between, so still dark but the count goes up. Then they closed again later keeping the sun dark but the number of spots fluctuating. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 08:05, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Does anyone have any idea what is supposed to be on the Y axis of the bottom graph? Something that goes up when the sun is transitioning between brightnesses and is at its lowest when the sun is either fully bright or fully dark? {{unsigned ip|108.162.241.213}}
:It's the "number of spots" (whether light or dark), since a fully bright sun has no dark spots and a fully dark sun has no "light spots"[[User:Dextrous Fred|Dextrous Fred]] ([[User talk:Dextrous Fred|talk]]) 05:02, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
::But what are the thin lines indicating, it it just to show that the sun is not yet really dark? Like a gray shade with very long between the dark lines? --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 08:05, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Did anyone else notice that the sine-wave is wrong? the trough should be the same every cycle, yet it's drawn as bright in the first trough and dark in the second trough. -Weylin Piegorsch [[Special:Contributions/172.70.126.117|172.70.126.117]] 06:52, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
:If you reefer to the bottom graph it is correctly drawn. The sunspots number are near zero when the sun is bright in the first through and then it is again near zero when the sun is dark as there are then only one sunspot. So that is why it is alternating between light and dark for every through. Just as shown in the upper graph. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 08:05, 17 January 2023 (UTC)--[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 08:05, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
::Ah - the y axis of the upper graph is #subspots (which maximizes as they merge and minimizes at full dark/full bright), not magnitude of brightness. Thanks for the clarification! -Weylin Piegorsch [[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.79|172.70.114.79]] 14:47, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I do not think it is set in an alternate universe per se, but in the images of the sun spots the minimum brightness of the whole sun is subtracted. So only the sun spots stay visible. So the sun images are depictions of our sun. The number of sun spots loses common-sense meaning after merging starts. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.86.10|162.158.86.10]] 07:58, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
:Well since the sun is dark in this universe for 10 years, then it cannot be our universe, and since they also have 90s memes, then it is either a parallel universe or well... Randall's fantasy :-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 08:05, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I didn't have enough space in my last edit summary to explain my change. As if anyone who needs to really reads those, anyway... So here (unconstrained by petty character limits!) is why I took off the apostrophes in "90's kid", etc...:
/* Explanation */ Removing apostrophes not used by Randall. (I would personally say '90s, the apostrophe being for the contraction of 1990s, but here only the quoting-apostrophes of '90s kid' seems necessary and capable of being consistent. "The 90s" is a pluralisation of all years of the decade based upon (19)90. A kid *of* the 90s could be a 90s' kid, but I think we're intended to treat this as an adjectival descriptor, not a posessive element.)
And I outright reject the idea that apostrophes can ever be used for pluralising, despite some 'authorities' on the matter. Especially where it clashes with plural-possessive, contraction ''and'' single-quoting uses in a single case, upon a wiki where doubled-up apostrophes would incite ''italics''. Better to rewrite. But, for now, I've just rationalised to go with actual demonstrated usage (both from Randall and {{w|1990s|more or less in general}}) and intent. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.133|172.70.85.133]] 10:27, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Talk:2724: Washing Machine Settings

2023-01-14T06:43:57Z

172.70.114.79: I hate Quora.

== Laundry instructions ==

Even more important than the owner’s manual are the instructions written on the inside of your clothes. It turns out that those obscure runes actually mean something! [[Special:Contributions/172.71.142.170|172.71.142.170]] 17:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)


It's been decades since I've seen an appliance user manual half as detailed as what Cueball describes. Mostly they say things like 'plug it in' & 'pressing Power button starts the device, pressing again turns it off'; ''never'' details such as 'Delicates mode reduces agitation'/spin etc. Even widely used software often goes without significant documentation. Randall makes a joke that user manuals already exist, but I feel they're rather rare!?
[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 18:32, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
:I believe you're right, was coming here to complain that my user manual on my new washer does not explain what the various settings do, but says such useless things as "use cotton setting for cotton fabric". Telling me it's a hot water setting (which I don't want, as I never bother connecting the hot water to a machine) would be useful, but doesn't appear to be a feature of user manuals these days.

The manual for my washing machine actually lists the available programs along with a short description, tips (like "use less detergent for washing laces") and various metrics (like max load and energy consumption). However, this is for a machine installed at a home. Cueball in the comic seems to be standing in a laundromat. Even if those machines came with a manual, can the end-user actually access them? I guess you could pester an employee to dig them up for you...
[[Special:Contributions/172.68.50.134|172.68.50.134]] 22:10, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
:I don't think it's a laundromat, there would be more than one machine. I think the joke is based the fact that so many things are done with GUI applications these days, and they have very limited manuals, if any at all. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 23:23, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
:For my part, I'm not even familiar with that style of machine. Looks like some sort of top-loader base (haven't used one of them, a twin-tub, since the late-seventies/early-eighties when we transitioned to the first in a series of standard front loaders) with a tumble-dryer above (never bothered with a tumble-dryer since the university laundromat, and they were floor-to- ceiling with ''huge'' drums and eventually I worked out I was just feeding a huge slot machine where I couldn't even get the three lemons).
:But I deduce probably a stereotypical 'Merkin "big home, big utility basement" thing, rather than a more UK-market piece of whitegoods.
:As an equivalent example, you do at least see those huge two-door fridges (with ice-despensors in them) in the electrical goods stores, even though I know of no-one who has actually gone and got one. But washers and dryers always tend to be standard (and separate) front-loaders (with occasional 'retro' top-loaders), even if most people seem to consign the latter to a corner of the garage. (And I just use a washing line/drape in front of a warm radiator!) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.136|172.69.79.136]] 23:44, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

== Quora ==

Quora is the absolute worst. Nearly every time you see a Quora blurb in Google, you can bet that the opposite is true. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.79|172.70.114.79]] 06:43, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

2723: Outdated Periodic Table

2023-01-12T16:53:31Z

172.70.114.79: hydrogen ions are single protons, not photons

{{comic
| number = 2723
| date = January 11, 2023
| title = Outdated Periodic Table
| image = outdated_periodic_table_2x.png
| imagesize = 360x350px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Researchers claim to have synthesized six additional elements in the second row, temporarily named 'pentium' through 'unnilium'.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by BERYLLIUM-BASED LIFE - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
This comic shows figure 6.14 from a science text book, which displays ''The periodic table of the elements'', but with only the first four elements are shown ({{w|Hydrogen}}, {{w|Helium}}, {{w|Lithium}} and {{w|Berylium}}). [[Randall]] claims, in the caption, that you can use the layout of an included {{w|Periodic table}} to date a publication based upon the elements present or missing. The joke here is that his book was somehow published just half an hour after the {{w|Big Bang}}, at which time those four elements were the only ones present.

From about 10 seconds until about 20 minutes after the Big Bang, the phase that is known as the {{w|Big Bang nucleosynthesis}} occurred. At that time, hydrogen ions (single protons) provided for helium in abundance and traces of lithium. Some berylium-7 was also formed, which is an unstable {{w|Isotopes of beryllium|isotope}}, and with a half life of 53 days, an appreciable amount of what had been created would still be there several months after the Big Bang, and certainly most of what was created would be there half an hour after.

The conclusion is that Randall's science book was published when those four elements were the only ones in existence, and before the point where practically all the beryllium had decayed. After that point, only the three first would be present, until star formation began and started the process of {{w|Stellar nucleosynthesis}}.

Of course no life as we know it could exist until long after stellar nucleosynthesis had created all the other elements needed to support {{w|Carbon-based life}}. And no life, as we could even imagine, would be able to exist for the first 370,000 years after Big Bang as atoms (in a form that could eventually form molecules) could not exist until the {{w|Recombination (cosmology)|Recombination}} phase of the universe, due to the high energy of the {{w|Cosmic background radiation}}. Textbooks, also being Carbon-based {{Citation needed}} could not exist either.

Even now, many {{w|Chemical elements|elements}} do not occur naturally on Earth and have to be {{w|Synthetic element|synthesized}} to be practically studied, or deduced from what was seen during their often short lives. Others were always very hard to detect, collect enough in pure form or purify enough to properly discover them. Until these elements were discovered, one way or another, they where not included in the periodic table. Various versions of the periodic table had left spaces for these {{w|Mendeleev's predicted elements|expected elements}}, but these are all now filled, and all recent changes have been additions to the end of the prior version of the table or possibly {{w|List of chemical element naming controversies|the names given}} to recent additions. As printed scientific textbooks do not update themselves after being published, one can determine the general age of the work by checking which elements were present in the periodic table that was included.

The title text refers to how yet-undiscovered elements are given a {{w|systematic element name}} as a temporary name, until a more permanent name is decided upon. The names are based upon a standard group of Greek and Latin roots (depicting the decimal digits used to 'spell out' an element's unique {{w|atomic number}}, i.e. the number of protons) and adding an "-ium" at the end. The claim in the title text is that, in the text book with the figure, researchers claim they have synthesized six additional elements in the second row, temporarily named 'pentium' (atomic number "5") through to 'unnilium' ("one zero", or "10"), just as element "118" was provisionally called "ununoctium". At the time of release of this comic, element 118 is currently the last confirmed element and has been officially called {{w|Oganesson}}. The title text of [[2639: Periodic Table Changes]], the previous comic to draw a periodic table, also refers to this.

Element number five is, in our time and reality, actually well known as {{w|Boron}}. (Its 'provisional' name of {{w|Pentium}} was also used for a series of microprocessors launched by Intel in the 1990s, which Randall was almost certainly consciously making an oblique reference to.) "Unnilium", element number 10, is {{w|Neon}}, that (along with other {{w|Noble gas}}es) was only discovered at the very end of the 19th century – this actually included helium. Despite helium being one of the first elements to exist, and still one of the most common in the universe (roughly 24%, by mass, with hydrogen being around 75% and every other element combined being the remainder), it did not appear in the earliest period tables. It was only first detected from afar, as a constituent of the Sun, about thirty years before it was finally physically discovered in an actual lab here on Earth. It is also possible that neon's provisional name in 'early science' might have been something more along the lines of "decium", all else being equal.

Since life could not have existed at the time this book should have been published, the idea of researchers synthesizing elements, or indeed the existence of books or even researchers, is of course just part of the joke.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[Subheading]: Figure 6.14
:[Title]: The periodic table of the elements

:[The following four rectangles featuring the large element abbreviation, with the full element name written below, in a typical periodic table style]
:[Top row, far left]: H Hydrogen
:[Top row, far right, detached from any other box]: He Helium
:[Bottom row, attached directly below the "H" box]: Li Lithium
:[Bottom row, attached directly to the right of "Li"]: Be Beryllium

:[Caption below the panel]:
:You can spot an outdated science textbook by checking the bottom of the periodic table for missing elements. For example, mine was published half an hour after the Big Bang.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Chemistry]]
[[Category:Cosmology]]

2659: Unreliable Connection

2023-01-03T08:56:23Z

172.70.114.79:

Hello, explainxkcd.com I hope you are doing well with managing your website
And I Know How much it is time-consuming to write a good blog post for your website but Did you know you can automate your website with a robot?
You can write a blog post automatically without writing a single paragraph. For example, let's say you want to write a blog about Art.
In the software write ( write me content about The best Art ideas for 2023)
Done, the robot gives you an entire blog post, and it is plagiarism-freeAnd you can try it here for free: https://smartaiwriting.com/ I hope you enjoy it, have a nice day.

Talk:2716: Game Night Ordering

2022-12-27T14:46:43Z

172.70.114.79:

Should we create a category for comics about game night? It can contain at least this and https://xkcd.com/2486/. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 22:32, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
:I'm not going to oppose it, but keep in mind that it would overlap with [[:Category:Board games]]. --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.178.48|172.70.178.48]] 22:50, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
::We absolutely need a general [[:Category:Games]] because we have e.g. roleplaying games under Board games. Does anyone know how to edit in a superclass category? The last time I ever did anything sophisticated with Mediawiki categories was like 2008. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.154.38|172.71.154.38]] 23:39, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
:::{{done}} [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 06:20, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

The rules would seem to be similar to the card game Cheat (or, at least, the version we used to play). Using an ordinary wholly-dealt pack of cards (for any number of players), it was a "blind bid and discard" game whereby each player has to state "<one to four> <card value>s" (or more than four, with merged packs, each of which might be whole or partial) was going on the discard pile, such that the card value was within one (-1, =, +1, with standard wrapping ...>10>J>Q>K>A>2>...) of the prior stated discard. And ''something'' had to be discarded, whether or not the player could technically do so. The forfeit for not continuing play ''or'' challenging, within a generally acceptable thinking time, was the same for either being successfully challenged (you stated you put down two threes, but on checking the dump pile you discarded two sevens) or for the person who wrongly challenged... to pick up the discard pile and be so much further from the ultimate goal of ending up with zero cards (the first the winner, optionally the second, third, etc to do so to earn further ranks just for the sake of continuing/last-ranking the one who ended up as the only one still with cards). - I presume this game just applies the same penalty (buying the food) to anyone who dithers over whether to challenge anything or 'play their own hand'. There doesn't need to be anything more complicated to it. Unless there's also an 'empty hand' winning state, that I can't discern from the brief discourse given in the comic. But it seems more geared to finding the eventual 'loser' (the one who pays up) than any single beneficiary. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.230|162.158.34.230]] 23:17, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
:If there is a link for Cheat you should add it. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.150|172.70.206.150]] 23:20, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
::Well, I think there's far too many variations... Though, surprisingly, it does look like {{w|Cheat (game)}} actually describes ''my'' learnt version quite well. But I don't think I see any 'time out' penalties mentioned there, and that was th XXX oe key part of the "play or challenge, don't dither, or you lose" bit to my (sorry, rather long) description above... [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.230|162.158.34.230]] 23:27, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
::: Never apologize for verbosity on talk; devote that energy to brevity on main. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.154.156|172.71.154.156]] 23:41, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
::::We need a quotes page. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.150|172.70.206.150]] 02:13, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
::(Plus there's the inverted "loser finder" rather than "winner finder" primary nature of the gameplay. It makes the methodology of play a bit too different.) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.231|162.158.34.231]] 23:30, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
:::My favourite tactic (knowing that I'm unlikely to identifiably play against anyone who reads this...) in Cheat is that ''when'' I have four (or more, in multipack) of a particular in-range card value, and not chosen to ignore someone else's clearly false declaration of that rank, I declare one or two of this (but dump something else, as convenient) on one pass, on the very next opportunity (fellow players tending to random-walk the ±1 bracket-change) I declare/dump 'another' one or two (for real), and then on the next opportunity I truthfully get rid of all the remainder. That adds up to greater than the possibly held number of cards. But when the suspicions are ramped up against me (I've now declared six of the four jacks in the pack!) I'm proven correct. And yet, when I was lying, I knew that nobody else could hold any (or enough) of the rank to have reasonable doubts about me.
:::As a bonus, so long as I remember what I dumped in the first bit of this tactic, I can conceivably have still had ''those'' cards if gameplay forces me to submit something in thir separate range. Meaning that now it's fairly safe to pretend to dump them (but actually dump any further different card-values as I decide), without increased suspicion. Especially when all this is slotted into a more general "honesty is the best policy" gameplay, save for some of the above traps or ''strictly necessary'' bluff, meaning it's high risk to challenge me. Even upon my having just declared the latest in a running total of ''seven'' deuces, or whatever it turns out I've apparently racked up since the last forced pickup (which I treat as opportunity, should I suffer it).
:::Though none of this relates easily to the comic's game, of course, which is more a combination of knowledge, prepartee and hutzpah... [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.74|172.71.242.74]] 08:31, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
::::What?? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.158.6|172.71.158.6]] 10:52, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

We should make a payment service for providing crowdfunded rewards to the best contributors to explanations. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.134.16|172.69.134.16]] 01:16, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
:I love this idea but it would conflict with the ethos of completely anonymized contributions here. Unless someone can propose how it might not? I mean, if there was some way to include an SHA-256 identity-confirming hash in edit summaries? Would keeping track of them in terms of surviving text after, say, a month be a decent leaderboard scoring? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.84|172.69.33.84]] 01:42, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
::My meager anonymous IP contributions to explanations have been completely dwarfed by my attempts to revert vandalism on the official main page leaderboard, but is that a good or a bad thing? The idea needs to be carefully considered. I would absolutely kick in $25 to support other explainers, but I would need some assurance that the system couldn't be gamed by, e.g. paraphrasers, which I'm not sure is even possible. [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 01:54, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
::: It's easy to hijack someone else's contributions with paraphrasing and refactoring. It's a dead end. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.166.230|162.158.166.230]] 02:05, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
:::: True, but is there a way to avoid the cheating? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.214.253|172.70.214.253]] 02:28, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
::: I would probably also kick in $25 if the system was well-designed, even if it was vulnerable to paraphrasing or refactoring, as long as someone could call out such flaws as they happened. Never let the perfect be the enemy of the good. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.166.173|162.158.166.173]] 02:39, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
:::: The operationalism issue is how to set up actual payment flows while still allowing criticisms of them. The cost to reverse a payment is too high compared to the relative number of payments you might want to reverse. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.158.90|172.71.158.90]] 05:33, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
: You could make this simple by having it be opt-in and having contributors identify themselves in their summary. Like, just put a payment address in the summary, and then link to the contribution in the discussion here. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.79|172.70.114.79]] 14:46, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Is this about cryptocurrency scams? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.135|172.70.211.135]] 02:50, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
:I want to [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlMwc1c0HRQ&ab_channel=NickKing subscribe to your newsletter.] [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.92|172.70.206.92]] 05:20, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Am I an idiot because I didn't know Amazon did food delivery before clicking on that first link? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.92|172.70.211.92]] 05:42, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
:I didn't know either until you brought it to my attention, but firstly their prices are high compared to established players, and secondly it's a dystopian vision of capitalism which everyone is trying to avoid even though we all know it's inevitable. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.158.217|172.71.158.217]] 07:39, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
::Dude! You can say that again! [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.125|172.69.33.125]] 07:45, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Does anyone else see the food : money :: atoms : bits analogy? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.186.19|162.158.186.19]] 07:26, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

The strategy mentioned in the alttext might not be faecetious- consider the alternate categories of apps and services that might exist, such as randomisers, colour pickers, specialty search engines, wikis, en and decoders, photo editors, etc. I could pull off somehting like a list of encoding bits in python in a couple hours off of seventh grade computer science. ~Tanz

Talk:2696: Precision vs Accuracy

2022-12-19T23:33:42Z

172.70.114.79:

87.532% of all statistics are just made up. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.178.220|172.70.178.220]] 11:10, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Why is 'Barack Obama is 6'1"' and 'Barack Obama has 4 legs' medium precision? It seems to give exact value, so high precision. [[User:Tkopec|Tkopec]] ([[User talk:Tkopec|talk]]) 11:44, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
: OK, I get it. 6'1" means something between 6'0.50" and 6'1.49". For height it's OK, but when counting legs, it seems like a stretch. [[User:Tkopec|Tkopec]] ([[User talk:Tkopec|talk]]) 12:30, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
:: The four legs are probably considered to be only medium precise, not because of the number but because of the imprecise term "leg". While humans can walk on all four extremities, thereby using them as legs, the upper two are commonly referred to as arms. [[User:Bischoff|Bischoff]] ([[User talk:Bischoff|talk]]) 14:54, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
:: (ECed by Bischoff) Plus a person's height (excluding differences to footwear and perhaps hairstyle) varies by an inch or so over the course of a day, as the spine compresses whilst mostly upright (would depend a bit upon your daily activities, but "an inch" or 2-3cm is the typical quoted value, with all the questions about precision ''as well as'' accuracy). Within an inch of such a foot-and-inch value is basically between slightly over a percentage point of drift across a continuum of ultimately non-integer values.
:: The number of legs is ''generally'' a whole number (perhaps lower-limb amputees could claim "half a leg", but is that for above the knee or below or... that's beyond my wish to define, I would leave it up to the individual amputee to finesse to their own liking) and assigning decimals, even .000(recurring), would be ''over-''precise. A definite plain figure (however inaccurate) being the happy and acceptable medium between that and the vague imprecision (never mind inaccuracy) of the kind in the cell below. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.137|172.71.178.137]] 15:00, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
:::The medium is because it says most, and not all! --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 08:08, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
::::It says "most cats", indeed, but the above was about Obama, singular. Though I think it's covered anyway... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.25|172.70.85.25]] 09:44, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::All the statements about 'Barack Obama' ought to be medium precision at best, because there could be more than one Barack Obama, and it doesn't give any further contextualisation to identify, for example 'the Barack Obama who was president of the United States of America'. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.157|141.101.107.157]] 09:29, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
: Compare with 6'1"1/50 or 4.0000 legs, both of which would imply a higher degree of certainty.--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.126.204|162.158.126.204]] 08:58, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Someone should add an explanation of the difference between precision and accuracy. [[User:Nutster|Nutster]] ([[User talk:Nutster|talk]]) 13:13, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
:Tried it myself. Maybe made it too compact, but I often go on too long so I tried made it as brief and snappy as I felt I could. Over to other editors to rewrite or replace. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.137|172.71.178.137]] 15:00, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
::That there is confusion over this was a bit of a surprise to me, about 20 years ago, when I worked (as I did for many years) in the outdoor pursuits trade. GPS units would give a 12-character grid reference (1m2), but couldn't be relied upon to that level. I would tell people they're more precise than they are accurate, until it became apparent that they were waiting for me to complete the joke they thought I'd begun, as I was so clearly contradicting myself, what with the two words meaning identical things.
::Having gone on to explain the difference between the words, the neat brevity I'd sought was lost.
::Obviously they can be used sort of interchangeably in casual conversation, but I thought the difference was well enough known that, when talking about a navigational instrument, it would be obvious what was meant.
::Nope. [[User:Yorkshire Pudding|Yorkshire Pudding]] ([[User talk:Yorkshire Pudding|talk]]) 20:18, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
:::I deal with OS Grid References a lot, in a similar context, and a number of people who give 10-digits or more (2x5, for 1m res) from devices that typically don't ever settle down to less than 3m, and provably can be tens of metres off if there happens to be a small tree or shrub nearby.
:::(In fact, the other day I was geohashing myself, and my device was insisting I was in a totally different bit of the open field, 50m or so, no matter how much I sat it down at the provably correct point and wandered away so that even ''I'' wasn't obscuring its view of the sky. But it was good enough for me, which was all I do it for, so after giving it 5 minutes I counted it as done.)
:::And, in yet another activity, the publicised information for an event included a 12ish-DP reference for the starting area (vaguer than that), but just the ''postcode'' for the HQ (a very definite building that you could bullseye on a map), in a rural area where it covered half the valley! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.12|172.70.86.12]] 22:19, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

How is 17.082 palindromic? [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 14:54, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
:My error, I meant an anagram! (Was going for "anagramic", and my brain clearly rebelled.) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.137|172.71.178.137]] 15:00, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

High Precision High accuracy, Randall Munroe misses when Obama was president. Low precision Medium-rare accuracy, so do we, Randall, so do we. {{unsigned ip|172.70.130.154 }}

It is so annoying that the US uses . and , to mean the opposite of what most European countries (including Denmark where I live). So when I read this it states that Obama was president less than 3 days (70 hours) but it more than 70000 feet tall. :-) Of course I now the difference but I have to think about it more than if everyone used the same standard. Also height should use SI units as everyone should ;-) (weight given in number of cats is the new SI unit as far as I know, but don't use inches and feet ;-D ) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 08:17, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
:Well, as a UKian, I was happy enough. Tell you what, though, let's develop a [[927: Standards|new and mutually-acceptable standard notation]]... ;) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.25|172.70.85.25]] 09:44, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
::Good idea. Lets meet on [[2562|11/12/22]] to discuss the details. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 13:41, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I think Randall missed an opportunity to clarify how high precision can make something inaccurate. He could have said that Obama is 6’ 1.02173” tall, which would clearly be very precise, and also clearly inaccurate, simply because of the excessive precision. [[User:John|John]] ([[User talk:John|talk]]) 15:22, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
:Saying 6'1.0278 would have been more in theme, there. And it would be not really more inaccurate (might even be closer to the truth...) but would convey a false precision.
:Interstingly, when Andrew Waugh measured Mount Everest (before it was so named) he got a diffraction-adjusted figure of 29,000 feet, but decided to announced that it was 29,002 so that it didn't just like a rough figure rounded to the nearest hundred or even thousand feet. This made him the first person to put two feet on the top of Everest!
:(...The actual error was not bad, given his measurements had to be made from hundreds of miles away. Current official measurements with on-the-spot modern GPS say 29,031.7 feet (for the snow-peak, which is all that Waugh could mention), after 170ish years of (by some estimates, but contested) about a foot of extra height per decade through the continuing techtonic raising of the Himalaya. And any unknown differences in snow-depth. Certainly it was within tens of feet, i.e. a dozen or so metres. With a bit of an error-bar, but not really that big when you consider it...)
: So, arguably, that case was a deliberately false accuracy to help convey the true precision. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.3|172.70.90.3]] 16:15, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
:I don't get your point? Unless you just made up everything after the decimal point: How would it be less acurate? --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 09:37, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
::The only thing I can imagine is, that these kinds of numbers happen due to conversions. E.g. 6ft1in would be 185.42cm (according to the first calculator I found), but it is unlikely that 6ft1in was as precise as a cm-value with 2 digits after the decimal point would be. And in the other direction 185cm (which would be the usual precision of a height in m or cm - while 186cm could still be correct as it would be 6ft1in in the "usual precision") would calculate as 6ft and 0.83in --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 10:18, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
::If Obama's height is provided with this much precision, you can assume that the numbers are made up. 0.0278 inches are - in real measure units ;-) - 0.07mm. That's the diameter of a strain of hair. Nobody's height gets measured to that kind of precision. [[User:Kimmerin|Kimmerin]] ([[User talk:Kimmerin|talk]]) 08:10, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure the current explanation's claim that 'being too precise usually decreases accuracy' is, er, accurate (or perhaps it's just imprecise). It might be reasonable to claim that increasing precision tends to decrease accuracy relative to the level of precision, but not so much in absolute terms, or even necessarily relative to the size of the thing being measured.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.156|141.101.107.156]] 09:38, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
:I think it's badly phrased. The assumed accuracy can be degraded and disadvantageous.
:For example, to use someone's figures from just above, looking for an individual with a height of 185.42cm might seem to rule out the one that you find is 185.57cm tall, though they are indeed the one initially measured/estimated at 6'1" and would definitely be within an inch or so in this latest attempt to match them.
:An old phrase that I grew up with is "don't try to be accurate over inaccurate details" (courtesy of a chemistry teacher, where we frequently used mmol-like measurements in analyses like titrations). The number of articles that say "the probe flew past the asteroid at a distance of about 20 miles (32.187 kilometres) ...", where clearly the accuracy is misleading, especially if the conversion ends up being back-converted by someone else with no idea ("...which is 20.0000746 miles"), and may have come from an ''original'' figure actually deliberately pegged at 35km (21.748 miles!), within a few metres or less.
:Really, you should be taking the level of precision/accuracy inherent in the initial values, preserving the awkward fractions throughout the intermediate steps ''and'' converting the inherent ranges by the same process then clearly presenting the final figure to no more exactitude than the initial smudge of "all actual values that would be given by this type of input value", and maybe less. The write-up might be then be realistically "...of around 21¾ miles (35km)", if using a better primary source, or "20 miles (~30km)" in a case of the detail already being likely lost by intermediate chinese-whispers.
:But this is what confuses people. And how even those that are not confused can confuse others... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.10|172.70.86.10]] 12:16, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
::It gets even better when different units also use different 0s. So for a persons height we can assume that as 0ft0in and 0cm is the same, 185cm is one order of magnitude more precise than 6ft1in, as it is 3 significant digits vs 2 at the same height. However a persons body temperature in 38°C with 2 significant digits and 311K with 3 is the same level of precision and only .15°C (Or .15K) apart, while 100°F (37.77...°C) is also very close but a bit more precise. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 14:10, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
:::One of many reasons that Celsius and Fahrenheit are not considered as true units - their connection to kelvins is affine, not linear. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.142.75|172.71.142.75]] 05:49, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
::::Acknowledging that Celsius degrees equal Kelvin degrees, which remains a useful equivalence, even though degrees Celsius does not equal degrees Kelvin. (Ditto with Fahrenheit and Rankine.)
::::...and I'm partial to Delisle, anyway. ;) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.134|172.70.162.134]] 11:28, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I was expecting maybe a reference to Schrödinger's President when I first read the comic - but later realized that this could have been misconstrued as a threat. Oops!

As far as I recall, isn't the transcript supposed to avoid tables? I understand blind people with text reading programs use the transcripts to follow this comic, and thus it should avoid visual elements wherever possible? [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 04:49, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
:Generally, yes, though some useful additional description went in before I might have 'flattened' the description again, and there are ther extant table-transcripts
:Best practice would be to not rely on screen-readers to say nice informative things about tabulation and instead say it all explicitly (like they can't be relied on parsing MathML stuff), but there's good manual description and bad, too. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.25|172.70.85.25]] 13:13, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

In the fewer-legs-than-your-cat category, any interest in adding a link to the "How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg?" riddle often attributed to Lincoln? The best link I found is https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/11/15/legs/ which makes it clear the riddle was already in circulation by 1825, well before Lincoln's usage. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.163|108.162.246.163]] 05:30, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Technically, Barack Obama was president for 0 hours. He never qualified for the job because he failed to provide non-forged evidence of being a natural born citizen of the United States. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.79|172.70.114.79]] 23:33, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

2696: Precision vs Accuracy

2022-12-19T23:33:09Z

172.70.114.79:

{{comic
| number = 2696
| date = November 9, 2022
| title = Precision vs Accuracy
| image = precision_vs_accuracy_2x.png
| imagesize = 501x462px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = 'Barack Obama is much less likely than the average cat to jump in and out of cardboard boxes for fun' is low precision, but I'm not sure about the accuracy.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by BARACK OBAMA IN A CARDBOARD BOX. Further detail, sortable table? - PLEASE CHANGE THIS COMMENT WHEN EDITING THIS PAGE. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
This comic parodies the difference between 'accuracy' and 'precision' with a table. {{w|Accuracy and precision}} are common concepts to be encountered in the scientific field and often students have issues with the differences between them. Accuracy concerns whether a statement is true, while precision concerns how detailed it is; it is possible for a statement to be one but not the other. The comic explores this concept by comparing {{w|Barack Obama}}, former President of the United States, with {{w|cat}}s. Confusingly, he measures different statistics of both Barack Obama and cats (sometimes measuring them in terms of cats) leaving the unwary reader even more confused.

Being precise is typical of calculations that roll out an excess of significant digits, often in the form of trailing decimals. Precision is lowered by using more rounded figures, or merely being comparative, but largely unaffected by whether the original values used were accurate or even correct. Accuracy is a cumulative function of the accuracy given to the intermediate values used for any calculation, and can be degraded by using figures that are themselves in some way inaccurate or imprecise. One part of confusion between the two is because being too precise usually decreases accuracy.

The numbers mentioned in the top row (high precision) of the table all use exactly the same digits, dictating that a full five digits of ''precision'' are used in them all. The most "valid" or correct value is a number that's very accurate and precise (see table). For the medium accuracy the number is an anagram of the 1st entry, giving a value that is reasonable but would be overly exact, whilst the low accuracy number is just a repeat of the first entry's digits with a shifted decimal but clearly at the wrong scale, as Randall could have shifted the decimal point one further place to the left to be closest to the true measurement. Instead, he replaces the thousands separator with the decimal point, perhaps for the visual pun.

The title text compares Obama's and cats' enjoyment of playing with cardboard boxes. While cats are known to do this,{{citation needed}} we don't know whether Obama does.

The day prior to the publication of this comic (November 8, 2022) was election day in the United States, so Randall may have been remembering Barack Obama's presidency at this time.

{| class="wikitable"
!Precision
!Accuracy
!Statement
!Explanation
|-
|High
|High
|Barack Obama was president for 70,128 hours
|This is the official length in hours of {{w|Barack Obama}}'s 8-year presidency, including 2 {{w|leap year|leap days}}. Obama served from January 20, 2009 through January 20, 2017, and his term officially began and ended at noon on those days. (There were three {{w|leap second|leap seconds}} during his presidency, though.)
|-
|High
|Medium
|Barack Obama weighs as much as 17.082 cats
|The accuracy would depend on the mass of the cats in question. Also a human's mass can vary by a few pounds in a small amount of time as meals are consumed, resources are used in metabolism and wastes are eliminated, and thus this may be overly precise due the margin of error in both the mass of cats and the mass of Mr. Obama. In 2016, Obama was [https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/08/politics/obama-medical-exam-loses-weight officially reported] to weigh 175 lb (79.3787 kg). [https://www.google.com/search?q=how+heavy+is+an+average+cat Google claims that an average cat weighs between 8.8 and 11 lbs], so this statement may be close to accurate.
|-
|High
|Low
|Barack Obama is 70.128 feet tall
|A highly precise (5 significant digits) measurement, but far from his actual height, published as 6'1".
The given value is more than an order of magnitude different from both him and {{w|Robert Wadlow|almost}} any other known human, whilst one of 7.0128 would ''only'' be about 15% off – still a low accuracy, but not outside the realms of possibility for an otherwise unknown person.
Coincidentally, Barack Obama is approximately 70 ''cat'' feet tall, using the paw size of a house cat to measure his height. Given the number of cat-related facts in the rest of the chart, this could be seen as rather appropriate.
|-
|Medium
|High
|Most cats have 4 legs
|Like many mammals, cats are quadrupeds, which means "four feet". Unless there is a genetic or other developmental issue, or an an injury that causes the loss of a limb, then cats generally have 4 legs.
|-
|Medium
|Medium
|Barack Obama is 6'1"
|While only as precise as the nearest inch, a common degree of rounding in that scale of measurement, that is the former president's published height.
[https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/08/politics/obama-medical-exam-loses-weight In 2016], Obama was said to have "grown" 0.5 inches in height, so there is a definite lack of consistency of exactly how tall he is. The examinations may have been made at different times of their respective days, with some spinal compression occurring all the time not laid in bed, and his current height is also not publicly recorded; several years of gradual aging could also reduce his posture slightly, or sustaining his fitness (since experiencing the travails of office) may counteract this to a greater or lesser effect.
|-
|Medium
|Low
|Barack Obama has 4 legs
|Barack Obama, being a mammal, does qualify as a {{w|tetrapod}}, but as a primate, his ancestors' forelimbs evolved into arms and hands. Like other humans, he does not generally use them for locomotion, but to manipulate his environment. Thus calling these limbs "legs" runs counter to normal definitions, and is inaccurate.

|-
|Low
|High
|Most cats have legs
|A true (high accuracy) statement without much information (low precision).
|-
|Low
|Medium
|Barack Obama has fewer legs than your cat
|Again, this will depend on the cat (not to mention whether or not you actually have a cat), but in general, true.
|-
|Low
|Low
|Barack Obama's cat has hundreds of legs
|This statement has low accuracy, as Barack Obama owns a four-legged dog named Sunny, but is not known to have owned a cat, much less one with more legs than normal. And cats tend not to have hundreds of legs.{{Citation needed}} It also has low precision, as "hundreds" could reasonably range from 200 to 900. (From a strict logician's point of view, this could however be considered a vacuously true statement.)
|-
|Low
|Unsure
|Barack Obama is much less likely than the average cat to jump in and out of cardboard boxes for fun
|Barack Obama has never publicly jumped in and out of cardboard boxes for fun, but the possibility exists that he does so in private. Cats, on the other hand, are commonly known for jumping in and out of cardboard boxes for fun.
|}

==Transcript==
:[The comic shows a table with 3 rows and 3 columns. Each row and column has a label, and then nine statements are given for the 3x3 grid.]
:{| class="wikitable"
|-
| || High accuracy || Medium accuracy || Low accuracy
|-
| High precision
|Barack Obama was president for 70,128 hours||Barack Obama weighs as much as 17.082 cats||Barack Obama is 70.128 feet tall
|-
| Medium precision
|Most cats have 4 legs||Barack Obama is 6'1"||Barack Obama has 4 legs
|-
| Low precision
|Most cats have legs||Barack Obama has fewer legs than your cat||Barack Obama's cat has hundreds of legs
|}

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Statistics]]
[[Category:Comics featuring real people]]
[[Category:Cats]]

1504: Opportunity

2022-05-03T21:24:37Z

172.70.114.79: /* Small link fix*/

{{comic
| number = 1504
| date = March 27, 2015
| title = Opportunity
| image = opportunity.png
| titletext = We all remember those famous first words spoken by an astronaut on the surface of Mars: "That's one small step fo- HOLY SHIT LOOK OUT IT'S GOT SOME KIND OF DRILL! Get back to the ... [unintelligible] ... [signal lost]"
}}

==Explanation==
This comic is talking about the robotic science platform {{w|Opportunity (rover)|''Opportunity''}}. On January 25, 2004, the Opportunity rover landed on the surface of {{w|Mars}} for the purpose of gathering data about the surface of Mars. Opportunity has proven remarkably robust, and the comic extrapolates the rover's resilience to absurdity for comedic effect. As of Feb 12th, 2019, the Opportunity rover has finally been {{w|Opportunity mission timeline|declared dead}} after 5352 Sols (Mars Days) or 5500 Earth days on Mars. On Feb 13th, 2019, [[Randall]] eulogies the Opportunity Rover in [[2111: Opportunity Rover]].

The comic depicts the two scientists [[Ponytail]] and [[Hairbun]] at ground control being amazed at this fact already in 2010, and (maybe the same two) scientists continue to discuss this in 2015 in the second panel.

They mention another Martian rover, {{w|Spirit (rover)|''Spirit''}} that was also sent to Mars on the same date as Opportunity. Unfortunately, it became stuck and a sandstorm covered its solar panels. On March 22, 2010, it was thought that Spirit's batteries finally ran out, marking the end of its mission. This was covered in [[695: Spirit]], in which the Spirit rover is also portrayed with an anthropomorphic personality.

In 2023, Opportunity is still moving despite having supposedly no power source. It also became aggressive and deactivated the {{w|Mars 2020|Perseverance rover sent in 2020}}. [[Cueball]] and [[Megan]] can't explain how it moves, but investigating is now too dangerous. This evolution is similar to the stories of {{w|HAL 9000}} (from {{w|2001: A Space Odyssey (film)|''2001: A Space Odyssey''}}) and {{w|List of Star Trek characters (T–Z)#V'Ger|V'Ger}} (from ''{{w|Star Trek: The Motion Picture}}''), both of which became dangerous to human beings.

By 2450, humans have colonized and {{w|terraformed}} Mars. Maybe it is the 2023 Cueball and Megan's descendants that are looking out over their huge "kingdom" from the capital on Mars. However ''Opportunity'' is by now dominating half of the planet and will not allow humans to enter its dark reign.

"Everything the light touches" is a reference to a line by {{w|List of The Lion King characters#Mufasa|Mufasa}} in ''{{w|The Lion King}}''. Mufasa's son {{w|List of The Lion King characters#Simba|Simba}} then asks "What about that shadowy place?" and Mufasa tells him "That is beyond our borders. You must never go there". This was used again in [[1608: Hoverboard]], where [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/images/a/a0/1608_0986x1076y_Our_kingdom_from_a_cliff.png Cueball tells the same line] to Ponytail in the left part of the world. In "[[what-if]]" [http://what-if.xkcd.com/48 "Sunset on the British Empire"], concerning the end of the sun shining on the British Empire, Cueball tells a child that everything the light touches is their kingdom, and the child asks (in the title text) "What about that shadowy place over there?" to which Cueball replies (also in the title text), "That's France. We'll get it one of these days."

The title text forecasts the first words of the first astronauts on the surface of Mars. At first, the astronaut copies the first words of {{w|Neil Armstrong}} on the Moon ("That's one small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind") but it is interrupted by the ''Opportunity'' rover. Opportunity has a drill to collect Martian rock samples, but here it is heavily suggested that the drill is being used as a weapon against the astronaut.

==Transcript==
:[The year (or year and first sentence) for each panel is written in a small frame at the top of each panel. It breaks the top frame of the panels.]

:[Ponytail is sitting at a computer, facing left. Hairbun stands behind her.]
:2010:
:Ponytail: After six years, ''Spirit'' is down, but ''Opportunity'' is still going strong.
:Hairbun: Tough little rover!

:[Opportunity traveling on Mars. Text is written in frames with zigzag lines]
:2015:
:Off-screen: Eleven years, wow.
:Off-screen 2: Wasn't the original mission 90 days?
:Off-screen: This is starting to get weird.

:[Cueball and Megan sitting at a computer, facing right.]
:2023:
:Cueball: The battery is totally disconnected. How can it still be moving??
:Megan: Given what it did to the Mars 2020 rover, we may never know.

:[Two Martian inhabitants looking like Cueball and Megan stands on a cliff edge pointing towards a dark, mountainous region. Behind them are a tower and a hover car]
:2450, terraformed Mars, Martian imperial capital:
:Martian Cueball: Everything the light touches is our kingdom.
:Martian Megan: What's that dark area?
:Martian Cueball: That is ''Opportunity's'' half of the planet. We must never go there.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Hairbun]]
[[Category:Multiple Cueballs]]
[[Category:Mars rovers]]
[[Category:Artificial Intelligence]]
[[Category:The Lion King]]

2611: Cutest-Sounding Scientific Effects

2022-04-28T21:35:18Z

172.70.114.79: Undo revision 231355 by 172.70.131.106 (talk)

{{comic
| number = 2611
| date = April 25, 2022
| title = Cutest-Sounding Scientific Effects
| image = cutest_sounding_scientific_effects.png
| titletext = The Stroop-YORP number of a scientific paper is how many of the 16 finalist names (sans 'effect') it manages to casually sneak into the text.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by A GUY WITH A Stroop-YORP Effect NUMBER OF 16! - Fill in the [[#Result of the twitter polls|Result of the twitter polls]] as it comes in! Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
[[Randall]] has compiled [[:Category:Tournament bracket|yet another]] {{w|Tournament bracket|single-elimination tournament bracket}} for a knock-out competition between 16 different scientific effect names that Randall considers cute-sounding.

As of the release day, he is determining the result in a [https://twitter.com/xkcd/status/1518701311763570689 series of Twitter polls]. These results are shown [[#Result of the Twitter polls|here]].

See [[#Effects|below]] for explanations for what each of the 16 effects are.

Several unrelated scientific effects were previously combined in [[1531: The BDLPSWDKS Effect]], which also included the Stroop effect (the last S).

In the title text, Randall coins the term "Stroop-YORP number" as a count of how many 'casual' references a future publication can sneak into it from the 16 finalist names for cutest effect. It specifies that it should be without the word effect after the words (sans 'effect').

Tongue-in-cheek 'counting scores' are familiar in the likes of the {{w|Erdős_number|Erdős}} and {{w|Bacon_number|Bacon}} numbers, both of which are being referenced by [[599: Apocalypse]] (the latter only in the title text). Albeit in these cases the ideal is to get the ''lowest'' number as opposed to here where higher is better. The cross-field hybrid {{w|Erdős–Bacon number}} is one in which the desired score is the lowest sum of both values (neither being undefinable) by dint of having participated in both arenas of respective achievement, but not necessarily (or practically) in a single combined presentation.

For instance the Stroop-YORP number could be high for a wildlife paper. That could possibly use "butterfly" and "rabbit" (possibly needing the latter to be specifically 'cutaneous', to count), which may both be found in "little parks" with some "popcorn" seen littered around without too much "oddity"; and of course a (Dr.?) "fox" could be in the area, getting a score of 6. But other words may be a stretch, with an imaginative reference to a "woozle" possibly easier to employ than to evoke anything of the "nocebo".

On the other hand, for a space-science paper there may be more obvious (mis)uses for physics-related terms, and mentioning YORP might well be expected. But it may need creative thinking to introduce the rabbit or the more psychological idea of Stroopicity, etc, without reason to discuss the responses of animal or human payloads being sent there.

It is not actually obvious whether Randall intends the score to only be valid if the insertions are off-field and/or undetected, such as when someone is wagered that they can slip unrelated song lyrics into a public speech without the rest of the audience twigging.

A search of google scholar indicates many articles with a score of 2, eg [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/87559129.2012.714435 this paper] which refers to butterfly shaped popcorn, but 3 or more seems to not be attested.

==Effects==
;{{w|YORP effect}}: The YORP effect is the effect of sunlight on an asteroid with variations of shape and/or albedo, which can increase its rotation rate and/or modify its axis of rotation. It can cause objects to eventually spin apart or drastically change their orbit.
:It is an acronym of the names Yarkovsky, O’Keefe, Radzievskii and Paddack, who were instrumental in its discovery. More than a century ago, Yarkovsky determined that heat applied to a symmetrical rotating body would be asymmetrically re-emitted and apply a small but continuous thrust, and this was added to by considering the forces to non-symmetrical bodies.
;{{w|Nocebo effect}}: An effect in which a recipient of medication who believes that it will have negative side-effects is more likely to experience those negative side-effects, whether they can be really caused by the medication or not. Opposite of the {{w|placebo effect}}, which focuses on positive side-effects that arise beyond the true efficacy of a given treatment.
;{{w|Woozle effect}}: If a study gets repeatedly cited and otherwise disseminated, then people will start to believe it regardless of whether it has any evidence behind it. And if there is not any evidence, it becomes an urban myth.
:Named after a Winnie-the-Pooh story in which Winnie-the-Pooh and Piglet try to catch an imaginary animal called a woozle, and accidentally follow their own tracks in circles.
:A similar effect was discussed in [[978: Citogenesis]], wherein a sourceless statement on Wikipedia can become apparently credible via simple repetition.
;{{w|Stroop effect}}: The Stroop effect (referenced in [[1531: The BDLPSWDKS Effect]]) is a psychological phenomenon in which it is easier to name the visual color of a word when the word refers to its own color, than when the word refers to a different color.
:i.e that saying that '''Red''' is red is easier than to say that '''Blue''' is green.
;{{w|Pockels effect}}: A phenomenon where an electric field passed through a medium can cause the medium's refractive index to depend upon the polarization and propagation direction of the refracted light, a property known as {{w|birefringence}}.
;{{w|Cheerios effect}}: A phenomenon where objects floating in a liquid appear to attract or repel each other.
:Named after the cereal Cheerios, which are an everyday demonstration of this phenomenon because many eat Cheerios in a bowl of milk.
;{{w|Hot chocolate effect}}: A phenomenon where the sound created by tapping a cup of hot liquid rises in pitch as a soluble powder is added.
;{{w|Perky effect}}: An experiment in which participants were asked to visualize an object while staring at a screen on which the outline of that object was subtly projected. Participants believed the projected shape to be only a product of their imaginations.
;{{w|Bouba/kiki effect}}: An observation that people, despite different native languages, will relatively consistently assign names with certain sounds to blobby or spiky shapes, suggesting the association of sound and shape is non-arbitrary.
;{{w|Cutaneous rabbit effect}}: A phenomenon where, when tapped on one part of the body in rapid succession and then switching to another, the subject feels the tapping at locations in between the two.
:For example, if rapidly tapping the wrist then switching to the elbow, the subject will subjectively feel as if they are being tapped at progressive intervals between the wrist and elbow, when they are not.
;[https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/smallfirmeffect.asp Small firm effect]: An economic theory that small firms usually perform better than larger ones
;{{w|Little–Parks effect}}: A phenomenon where a fluctuating magnetic field passed through a superconductor can slightly suppress its superconductivity, inducing small fluctuations in its electrical resistance.
:When juxtaposed against the "small firm effect", as in the bracket, one might get the impression that it is somehow related to urban architecture or civil engineering.
;{{w|Dr. Fox effect}}: A disputed theory that student evaluations of their teachers are likely unreliable, because they are largely based on the teacher's charisma instead of the quality of their content.
;{{w|Oddity effect}}: A theory that when fish assemble in shoals (large social groups), any that stand out appearance-wise will be attacked by a predator, explaining why shoals tend to have similar-looking members.
;{{w|Butterfly effect}}: The butterfly effect is the sensitivity of chaotic systems to small changes in initial conditions. The weather system of Earth is chaotic, and so an arbitrarily small change in air patterns (such as could be caused by the flapping of a butterfly's wing) could ultimately change the weather for the whole world.
;{{w|Popcorn effect}}: A phenomenon exhibited by crushed ore placed on a vibrating screen for separation in mineral processing, in which larger particles tend to bounce higher than smaller particles.

==Transcript==
:[A tournament bracket tree is shown with 16 scientific effect names, with 8 on the left and 8 on the right side. From both sides toward the middle the brackets reduce from eight to four, to two, then to one line where the latter join to a rectangle in the middle for the winners name of the final match. Above the bracket there is a title:]
:<big>Cutest-Sounding Scientific Effects</big>

:[Left side:]
:YORP effect
:Nocebo effect

:Woozle effect
:Stroop effect

:Pockels effect
:Cheerios effect

:Hot chocolate effect
:Perky effect

:[Right side:]
:Bouba/kiki effect
:Cutaneous rabbit effect

:Small firm effect
:Little Parks effect

:Dr. Fox effect
:Oddity effect

:Butterfly effect
:Popcorn effect

==Trivia==
* Randall has created [https://twitter.com/xkcd/status/1518701311763570689 Twitter polls] to determine the outcome of this version of his [[1819: Sweet 16|sweet 16]]:

===Result of the [https://twitter.com/xkcd/status/1518698708824727554 Twitter polls]===
====First wave====
The first wave ran from April 25, 2022 at 5:19pm ET to the next day at 5:42pm ET.
* [https://twitter.com/xkcd/status/1518701311763570689 '''YORP effect (67.7%)''' vs Nocebo effect (32.3%)], 8,996 votes
* [https://twitter.com/xkcd/status/1518702773075943425 '''Woozle effect (74.4%)''' vs Stroop effect (25.6%)], 8,517 votes
* [https://twitter.com/xkcd/status/1518704819720044544 Pockels effect (42.4%) vs '''Cheerios effect (57.6%)'''], 7,513 votes
* [https://twitter.com/xkcd/status/1518705352342228998 '''Hot chocolate effect (56.2%)''' vs Perky effect (43.8%)], 7,379 votes
* [https://twitter.com/xkcd/status/1518705724737662977 '''Bouba/kiki effect (64%)''' vs Cutaneous rabbit effect (36%)], 7,563 votes
* [https://twitter.com/xkcd/status/1518706168440541194 Small firm effect (18.4%) vs '''Little Parks effect (81.6%)'''], 7,209 votes
* [https://twitter.com/xkcd/status/1518706772999118848 '''Dr. Fox effect (67.5%)''' vs Oddity effect (32.5%)], 7,852 votes
* [https://twitter.com/xkcd/status/1518707180320481280 '''Butterfly effect (56.5%)''' vs Popcorn effect (43.4%)], 7,825 votes

====Second wave====
The second wave started on April 26, 2022 at 5:56pm ET and ended around 11:56am ET.
* [https://twitter.com/xkcd/status/1519073013781647365 YORP effect (35.7%) vs '''Woozle effect (64.3%)'''], 7,026 votes
* [https://twitter.com/xkcd/status/1519074868637147138 Cheerios effect (49.5%) vs '''Hot chocolate effect (50.5%)'''], 6,672 votes
* [https://twitter.com/xkcd/status/1519077131376074754 '''Bouba/Kiki effect (72.8%)''' vs Little parks effect (27.2%)], 7,466 votes
* [https://twitter.com/xkcd/status/1519079116993183749 Dr. Fox effect (47.9%) vs '''Butterfly effect (52.1%)'''], 6,752 votes

====Third wave====
The third wave started on April 27, 2022 at 6:54pm ET and ended around 12:54pm ET.
* [https://twitter.com/xkcd/status/1519450011674759169 '''Woozle effect (71.2%)''' vs Hot chocolate effect (28.8%)]
* [https://twitter.com/xkcd/status/1519455938096373761 '''Bouba/Kiki effect (77.6%)''' vs Butterfly effect (22.4%)]

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Tournament bracket]]