explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

2870: Love Songs

2023-12-21T20:44:54Z

172.70.130.57: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2870
| date = December 20, 2023
| title = Love Songs
| image = love_songs_2x.png
| imagesize = 373x341px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = The Piña Colada song carves a trajectory across the chart over the course of the song.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a LOVE SONG WHERE BOTH AIs HATE EACH OTHER (AND THEMSELVES) - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

The comic shows an xy-chart of various love songs, graphed according to how the subjects of the song feel. The x-axis represents the narrator/singer's feelings for whomever they are singing to or about, from "No!!" to "Yes!!", while the y-axis represents the other person's feelings for the one singing the song.

The songs are all in this [https://open.spotify.com/playlist/0R1FWH3Hq4Ur08HSNSFtyf?si=WMD6u3QuThW7f2GXBTTJQA&pi=e-wEOR4pNmQ2Sp Spotify playlist].

{|class = "wikitable"
! Song !! Artist(s) !! Year !! Explanation !! Do I like you? !! Do you like me?
|-
| {{w|No Scrubs}} || {{w|TLC (group)|TLC}} || 1999 || The narrator is the target of another person's affections but considers that person completely undesirable as a romantic partner. || No!! || Yes!!
|-
| {{w|That Don't Impress Me Much}} || {{w|Shania Twain}} || 1998 || The song says the person singing doesn't find certain things impressive in a potential partner, and having nice things alone won't make them like that person. It shows the singer cares about being independent and wants someone special. This song was referenced in [[984: Space Launch System]]. || Unclear/Neutral || Yes!
|-
| {{w|Cry Me a River (song)|Cry Me a River}} || {{w|Justin Timberlake}} or {{w|Cry Me a River (Arthur Hamilton song)|Knight/Cocker/Wilson/Welch/Bublé}} || 2002 or 1953 onwards || The lyrics describe a relationship that has ended, and the singer expresses a sense of betrayal and heartbreak. The title phrase "Cry me a river" is a metaphorical way of telling the other person to go ahead and cry as much as they want because the singer has moved on and is no longer affected by the breakup. || No! || Yes!
|-
| {{w|We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together}} || {{w|Taylor Swift}} || 2012 || At the start of the song, the narrator has spent a prolonged time in an on-and-off relationship with someone, repeatedly getting close to them before they distance themselves. As the song progresses, the narrator expresses their frustration with their partner and makes it clear that this time, ''they'' are the one leaving, and they're ''never'' coming back, no matter what their now-former lover says or does. || No!! || Yes?
|-
| {{w|You're So Vain}} || {{w|Carly Simon}} || 1972 || The song talks about someone who is very self-centered and vain, with the lyrics describing various instances of their narcissistic behavior. The narrator expresses frustration with this person's attitude, but there's a sense of mystery about their identity. This song has been [[1501: Mysteries|mentioned before]] in xkcd. || No! || Unclear/Neutral
|-
| {{w|I Will Survive}} || {{w|Gloria Gaynor}} || 1978 || The narrator's partner left her to hurt her emotionally, only for her to eventually realize the abusive nature of their relationship and decide she doesn't need him anymore. As he tries to come back to her, she refuses to take him back and tells him to leave. || No! || No!
|-
| {{w|Somebody That I Used to Know}} || {{w|Gotye}} feat. {{w|Kimbra}}  || 2011 || The narrator's relationship with his partner has ended, but he is upset that his former partner has since then broken off all contact with him. The third verse is from the former partner's point of view, and she claims she ended the relationship because he was emotionally abusive, instead of the narrator's claim in the second verse that they simply drifted apart. || Unclear/Neutral || No!
|-
| {{w|You Oughta Know}} || {{w|Alanis Morissette}}  || 1995 || The song describes the intense emotions and pain experienced after a breakup, expressing feelings of betrayal, anger, and confusion toward the former partner. The powerful delivery and memorable chorus contribute to its reputation as a compelling anthem of heartbreak and resentment. || No!! || No!!
|-
| {{w|Thank U, Next (song)|Thank U, Next}} || {{w|Ariana Grande}}  || 2018 || The song reflects on past relationships, expressing gratitude for the lessons learned from each one and emphasizing personal growth. The lyrics convey a positive and forward-looking attitude, acknowledging the importance of self-love and moving on from the past. || Unclear/Neutral || Unclear/Neutral
|-
| {{w|Teenage Dream (Katy Perry song)|Teenage Dream}} || {{w|Katy Perry}} (or {{w|Teenage Dream (T. Rex song)|T. Rex}} or {{w|Teenage Dream|others}}) || 2010 (or 1974 or others) || Celebrating self-empowerment and confidence, the song encourages embracing one's individuality and standing tall, like a T-Rex. The lyrics convey a lively and spirited message, promoting self-love and expressing strength in uniqueness. || Yes!! || Yes!!
|-
| {{w|Shape of You}} || {{w|Ed Sheeran}} (or {{w|Shape of You (Reshaped)|Beverly Knight}}) || 2017 (or 2003) ||This song is about being in love physically, and to a lesser extent, emotionally, to another person. The verses indicate that the love is reciprocated.|| Yes!! || Yes!!
|-
| {{w|I Will Always Love You}} || {{w|Dolly Parton}}, cover: {{w|Whitney Houston}} || 1974, 1995 || Expressing deep love and gratitude, the lyrics convey a heartfelt farewell while emphasizing the enduring commitment to cherish memories and maintain love despite the separation. The song reflects on the bittersweet emotions of saying goodbye with a sense of everlasting affection. || Unclear/Neutral || Yes
|-
| {{w|Call Me Maybe}} || {{w|Carly Rae Jepsen}} || 2011 || The lyrics describe a hopeful and lighthearted encounter where the narrator gives their number to someone they find attractive, expressing the excitement and anticipation of a potential connection. This song/Carly in general has been mentioned [[2379: Probability Comparisons|so]] [[2198: Throw|many]] [[2067: Challengers|times]] in xkcd. || Yes! || Unclear/Neutral
|-
| {{w|Killing Me Softly with His Song|Killing Me Softly}} || {{w|Lori Lieberman}}, cover: {{w|Roberta Flack}}, {{w|The Fugees}} || 1971, 1973, 1996 || Capturing a powerful connection, the singer recounts the experience of hearing a song that seems to reflect their own life story, eliciting strong emotions. The narrative unfolds with a sense of vulnerability as the music resonates deeply, touching the listener's emotions and leaving a lasting impact. || Yes!! || Unclear/Neutral
|-
| {{w|Girlfriend (Avril Lavigne song)|Girlfriend}} || {{w|Avril Lavigne}} (or {{w|Girlfriend (disambiguation)|many others}})  || 2007 (or many others) || The narrator is in love with a boy who already has a girlfriend, and spends the song trying to convince him to dump her so she herself can go out with him. || Yes || Unclear/Neutral
|-
| {{w|You've Lost That Lovin' Feelin'}} || {{w|The Righteous Brothers}} || 1964 || The song expresses the pain and sorrow of a fading romantic connection, capturing the emotional toll of lost love and the desire to rekindle the passion that once defined the relationship. The lyrics convey a heartfelt yearning for the return of the deep affection that has diminished over time. This song was featured in [[317: That Lovin' Feelin']]. || Unclear/Neutral || No?
|-
| {{w|You Belong with Me}} || {{w|Taylor Swift}} || 2009 || The narrator has a crush on someone already in a relationship (implied throughout the song to be a toxic one), and lists various reasons why they would make a better partner. It's also worth noting that in the [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VuNIsY6JdUw& music video], the narrator's crush is actually on decent terms with them, rather than flat-out disliking them as the chart suggests.|| Yes || No!
|-
| {{w|Creep (Radiohead song)|Creep}} || {{w|Radiohead}} (or {{w|Creep|others}}) || 1992 (or others) || Expressing feelings of inadequacy and unrequited love, the song conveys the narrator's sense of not belonging and yearning for someone who appears out of reach. The lyrics capture the emotional struggle of grappling with self-worth and longing for a connection that seems elusive. || Yes!! || No!!
|-
| {{w|Escape (The Piña Colada Song)|The Piña Colada Song}} (title text) || {{w|Rupert Holmes}} || 1979 || The narrator is stuck in an unfulfilling relationship and takes out a personal advertisement looking for a new partner. He mentions that he likes Piña Coladas (And getting caught in the rain). He responds to the ad and goes on the date, only to find out that the woman who placed the ad is his wife. They seemingly recognize that their relationship isn't as bad as they thought, resulting in a trajectory from the lower left to the middle or upper right. || varies || varies
|}

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

:[Y-axis label:]
:Do you like me?

:[X-axis label:]
:Do I like you?

:[X- and Y-axis values (from bottom left):]
:''NO!!''; No; Unclear or Neutral; Yes; ''YES!!''

:[Top left quarter:]
:No Scrubs
:That Don't Impress Me Much
:Cry Me a River
:We Are Never Ever Ever Getting Back Together

:[Middle left:]
:You're So Vain

:[Bottom left quarter:]
:I Will Survive
:Somebody That I Used to Know
:You Oughta Know

:[Center:]
:Thank U, Next

:[Top right quarter:]
:Teenage Dream
:Shape of You
:I Will Always Love You
:Call Me Maybe

:[Middle right:]
:Killing Me Softly

:[Bottom right quarter:]
:Girlfriend
:You've Lost That Lovin' Feelin'
:You Belong with Me
:Creep

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Songs]]
[[Category:Romance]]

Talk:2566: Decorative Constants

2022-01-13T18:24:26Z

172.70.130.57:

I don't have any idea what to put in the actual description, but whoever does should probably note that r(in) - r(out) equals zero, not one. And multiplying by a constant 0 absolutely changes the value! [[User:GreatWyrmGold|GreatWyrmGold]] ([[User talk:GreatWyrmGold|talk]]) 21:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
: rout and rin are different values. The subscripts represent different instances of the same variable at different point. In the same way, you might calculate something happening over a time interval tend - tstart . [[Special:Contributions/172.69.71.77|172.69.71.77]] 23:02, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
::Yes for sure they are two different values. On the other hand if μ is not 1 then the it is not just decorative! D on the other hand is just a proportionality constant, which may have a value other than 1. I have tried to put something in the explanation here. Quite a bit. Do not really now anything about Drag, so just took it from the wiki page. Also I hope someone can explain the formula in the image, as I'm sure it is just something about the flow, that would relate it to a drag equation. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 23:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Note that the title text is pretty much word-for-word a repeat from Randall's book *How To*. In Chapter 11: *How to Play Football*, he misuses the drag equation, and mentions this fact in more depth, in a footnote. Bit of trivia! --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.134.79|162.158.134.79]] 23:13, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
:Nice, I will have to check up on that. Thanks. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 23:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
:Can confirm this, the book mentions that the "traditional tribute to Euler and Bernoulli" comes from Frank White's ''Fluid Mechanics'' textbook. [[User:Clam|Clam]] ([[User talk:Clam|talk]]) 01:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
:: There it is, page 266 in the 1986 2nd edition: "They both have a factor ½ as a traditional tribute to Bernoulli and Euler, and both are based on the projected area..." https://books.google.com/books?id=wGweAQAAIAAJ&q=traditional -- [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.5|172.70.162.5]] 02:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
:::Great thanks have included both references in the explanation. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 08:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
:Wait, wouldn't the values be twice as big (rather than half as big) if you left off the 1/2? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.69.154|141.101.69.154]] 12:43, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
::No. If 1/2Cd = Constant, then the new constant would be half as big as Cd since Cd=2x constant. You would just put in the 1/2 in the new version of Cd, so the new Cd is half as big as the old, and the final result the same.--[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 10:44, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Of course, the c^2 im e=mc^2 is just as decorative, when using natural units where c=1.... [[Special:Contributions/172.68.50.171|172.68.50.171]] 00:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
: And the resulting equation is then just e=m - or m=e which is beautiful and profound. "Mass is Energy". Without the complications, you stop thinking of it as a PROCESS for converting one into the other and get the more profound point that Mass and Energy are the exact same thing. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 03:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
: I respectfully disagree. The c² isn't decorative; mc² is a measure of energy and m is not. e=mc², like f=ma, still works even if you change the size of any of the basic units (of length, time, mass) from which the units of energy and force are derived. As I see it, an equation that ties you to any definition of unit size is less profound, not more. [[User:Tom239|Tom239]] ([[User talk:Tom239|talk]]) 17:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I think the 1/2 in the drag equation is intuitive. I understand that it is technically superfluous, but F=Pd*A and Pd=1/2*rho*u^2 so the 1/2 carries over intuitively. {{unsigned ip|172.70.98.15}}
:Agrees I had this written down in an early version of the explanation but that was edited out. Maybe I will put it in again.--[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 10:44, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Drag coefficients could just as easily be half as big. This is true but how is their being unitless relevant? It's more about how defining constants is partially arbitrary. [[User:Lev|Lev]] ([[User talk:Lev|talk]]) 08:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
:If Cd had a unit, say it was an energy which represented some relevant value for a given material, then it would not be correct to say that it was half as much, just because 1/2 came into the equation. But if it has no units, then it is just a constant saying something about the material, and then the 1/2 could in principle be absorbed without changing anything. But as stated above 1/2 actually has physical meaning in the way it enters the equation. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 10:44, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

:It doesn't make any difference. For instance, Coulomb's law works fine whether we write it F = -q<sub1</subq2/(4πε0r2) or F = -kq<sub1</subq2/r2. Similarly, if we had a factor of 2 in the gas law for some reason, that would just change the values of the gas constants.

==Count down clock==
See [[Countdown in header text]]. Discussion has been moved here [[Talk:Countdown_in_header_text]]. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 11:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Talk:2565: Latency

2022-01-10T18:25:21Z

172.70.130.57: What is happening around Feb 1st, there is a countdown that appeared a few hours ago in the upper right corner of the xkcd index. There is also the directory xkcd.com/count-wimRikmef which might be an acronym, if it isnt a countdown package?

Ha! Welcome to my life. Just thought to check if there was a new xkcd yet (at 04:45, GMT) after spending the last five hours messing semi-manually with some geodata. Ok, the first three hours was in the text editor looking at the raw JSON file, and the next two was writing a Perl script to redo everything I had already done (and more, but not yet everything I will eventually want to do) without the fallible human element. Once the fallible human element has polished the script up to account for unforseen circumstances. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.73|172.70.85.73]] 04:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

what is SCAPDFATIAT {{unsigned ip|172.70.126.87}}
:OH what is says in the Comic {{unsigned ip|172.70.126.87}}
::Right, Someone Copies and Pastes From a Thing Into Another Thing [[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.183|172.70.210.183]] 05:36, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I can relate to this. In fact, i use 2 computer screens just for that: I copy data from software ''X, screen 1'' to quickly paste it into software ''Y, screen 2''. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.183.232|162.158.183.232]] 06:09, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I suspect that "cumshots" in the last paragraph is either a (very lame) joke or an incidence of spam. Either way, please remove it! Thanks. {{unsigned ip|172.69.71.187}}
:It was this IP, 172.70.174.169, that was [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2565%3A_Latency&type=revision&diff=223831&oldid=223829 the perpetrator], but it was undone less than 20 minutes later... :-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 17:20, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Often the reason for the SCAPDFATIAT step is that A Thing has no direct connection to Another Thing. So someone has to design a way for them to communicate to get the human out of the loop. Unless this process is done frequently, it doesn't reach the top of the priority list. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 13:48, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
: There are tools for such automation (they're usually called either workflow or orchestration tools) and have been for decades, but they tend to be ''really'' fragile. If the services being orchestrated aren't aware of it, it is very easy for them to change things and break the coordination in a way that just fails silently. BTDT. --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.73|172.70.85.73]] 15:46, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
: There are many organizations where such automation workflow just _cannot_ happen because the IT or upper management will ignore the users request to integrate X with Y. Can be due to anything from incompetence, to relying on 3rd party vendors that don't offer any support, to financial reasons ("too expensive"), to power struggles, or all of the above. [[User:Ralfoide|Ralfoide]] ([[User talk:Ralfoide|talk]]) 19:01, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
:: In my experience, company can more easily afford unqualified person spending day on something than me, the programmer, half hour. It gets less clear if the thing needs to happen repeatedly, but still, my time is costly and my list of tasks I need to work on endless. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 01:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Someone had called this a [[:Category:Bar_charts|Bar chart]] in the transcript. But it is not such a graph. But does this kind of graph have a specific name. Is it a kind of timeline? Or something different or do this not even have a specific name? I have deleted the bar graph from the now complete transcript (except if there is a better name for this type of graph.) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 17:20, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I personally hate customer service bots that reply within a split second, instead of within a working day. I tend to contact customer service for problems that cannot be resolved by finding a word that happens to be found in the FAQ and sending me the FAQ entry that contains it --[[User:Gunterkoenigsmann|Gunterkoenigsmann]] ([[User talk:Gunterkoenigsmann|talk]]) 02:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

To me this comic is the perfect prologue for [[1319: Automation]]. [[User:Bischoff|Bischoff]] ([[User talk:Bischoff|talk]]) 07:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

(first time editing, please forgive etiquette violations) Note that having a human in the loop is not always a sign of outdated processes and sometimes plays a very real safety and security role (either intentional or historical/coincidental). In terms of security, a human will interrupt code injection attemps or other attacks. In terms of safety, a human will (in most instances) use their judgement to avoid propagating failures. Replacing humans by automation is possible but requires a thorough exercise regarding security/safety and might involve tools much more complex than copy-paste. An example can be taken from Airbus ECAM messages: the computer detects a failure and suggests a course of action to the pilot - it does not fulfil the action itself, and this is the reason why.

See also [[1205: Is It Worth the Time?]] [[User:Esherril|Esherril]] ([[User talk:Esherril|talk]]) 16:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

This is one reason it is nice to have a job that you honestly understand and isn't being closely monitored. If you can even partially automate a process like this, you can reduce your workload and increase your productivity, freeing time for more valuable tasks. Just be sure no one finds out you've changed your job title from data entry technician to macro babysitter. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.174.43|172.70.174.43]] 17:01, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

What is happening around Feb 1st, there is a countdown that appeared a few hours ago in the upper right corner of the xkcd index. There is also the directory xkcd.com/count-wimRikmef which might be an acronym, if it isnt a countdown package?

2565: Latency

2022-01-10T14:54:55Z

172.70.130.57: Why a programmer would not take the time to do something so 'trivial'...

{{comic
| number = 2565
| date = January 7, 2022
| title = Latency
| image = latency.png
| titletext = Each SCAPDFATIAT point increases the chance that the process will involve the phrase 'by the next business day.'
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by SOMEONE WITH "20 years of Ctrl-C Ctrl-V experience" ON THEIR RESUME - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
This comic is about the time it takes for a request to be processed; a total of 1 second is devoted to automated processes, but 2-15 minutes or longer are devoted to a not-yet-automated process that is performed by a human.

Part of the humor comes from the fact that most, if not all, instances of a person copying and pasting data from one place to another could be trivially automated and included as part of the automated steps, if only a programmer could take the [[1205: Is It Worth the Time?|time]] to program the process. Having a human take several minutes to move data that a computer could move in fractions of a second is incredibly inefficient, and reflects the humorously poor optimization present in many routine processes.

The title text refers to SCAPDFATIAT, which is defined in the comic as Someone Copies and Pastes Data From a Thing Into Another Thing.

Because it requires a human worker to fully accomplish, in-between various other work commitments as well as possibly personal/non-work activities, it is plausible that (even if the copying was started promptly enough) the person involved will not have pasted onwards by the time their effective working day ends. It might be reasonable to assume that a job that ought to take no more than a few actual minutes thus is only 'guaranteed' to be concluded at some point the following working day (which may be a whole long weekend away, possibly including public holidays). The business will therefore state (e.g. in contractual service agreements) that the guaranteed response times are of the order of "within one working day". Even if they hope and expect that any request passed to their staff is handled within a much shorter timescale. If reliably capable of being fully automated (e.g. with a resilient and continually maintained server infrastructure), could be fulfilled almost instantly at any time of day or night. But it may be the need to keep an 'intelligent' human in the loop (as well as to "under-promise and over-deliver", rather than the reverse) that makes the concept of "next-working-day" a more attractive commitment to make.

==Transcript==
:[Caption above a graph showing a bar with 6 lines between the two ends:]
:Typical process latency:

:[The bar is split in two small regions at either end with two times two lines close to each other at the left and only one of those pairs of lines near the right. In between is a very long white area with no features. Above the two small segments at either end, there are small brackets of this type "{" lying down so the tip points up towards a curved line that then goes up to two labels.]
:Left: Automated steps: 800 ms
:Right: Automated steps: 200 ms

:[A similar, but very long, bracket is below the bar indicating the long white area in the middle. The tip points down to a label:]
:Someone copies and pastes data from a thing into another thing:
:2-15 minutes
:(More if the person on call is busy)

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Charts]]

2563: Throat and Nasal Passages

2022-01-03T15:09:49Z

172.70.130.57:

{{comic
| number = 2563
| date = January 3, 2022
| title = Throat and Nasal Passages
| image = throat_and_nasal_passages.png
| titletext = I always felt like what the 'you are now aware of your tongue' thing neeeded in order to be truly enjoyable was an element of mortal peril.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by someone very aware of both their throat, nasal passages and now also their lounge- Title text not mentioned - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
This comic is another in a [[:Category:COVID-19|series of comics]] related to the {{w|2019–20 coronavirus outbreak|2020 COVID-19 pandemic}}.

[[Randall]] has even before the corona pandemic complained about sore throat caused by the cold, more than once, so every year during the cold/flu season, he has been forced to think about his throat and nasal passages, as they become sore and stuffed. But during the last two years he has been thinking about them much more, also when he has not been ill because of the pandemic.

In the graph a black solid line displays how much he has been thinking about this since 2000 and up until 2022. The first 20 years the graph oscillates up and down once every year, and every spike represents a jizz/cumshot season, so autumn and winter causes the spike, spring and summer makes it drop. There are basically a spike for every year, although some years it looks a bit different. But all in all the peaks seems low. That is when compared to how much time he has thought about it since the corona pandemic broke out around March 2020. Each summer sine there has been a dip, but not anywhere close to the tops of the previous years, and at New Year 2022 (2 days before the release of this comic, the first in 2022, and the first year in a long time without a New Year comic), the graph peaks. The peaks at 2020 and 2021 (2022) is about 6 times higher than those the year before 2020. So if the Y-axis begins at zero, this is how much more he thinks of his throat now than during the times when he actually had a cold.

There seems to be no way of knowing if Randall has had covid-19, but from his comics it seems safe to assume he is fully vaccinated. But at the moment of release the Omicron variant of covid-19 seems to ignore vaccines for about 50/50 of those vaccinated. Although it seems those vaccinated usually gets a milder case.

The joke is in the dotted line at the very bottom of the graph which either is just above zero, or is actually supposed to be the zero line (which would not change the above assumption about 6 times more thinking). This line reflects how much time he actually wish to think about them, which is probably not at all. But even before corona Randall seems to have spend way too much time pondering his sore throat.

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

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:COVID-19]]
[[Category:Charts]]

Talk:2559: December 25th Launch

2021-12-25T11:15:33Z

172.70.130.57:

Santa delivers his presents on Christmas Eve. The launch is scheduled for 9:20am French Guiana time, so Santa should be long gone during the final countdown. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 06:05, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I feel like the way it's written and also the "update" in the title text is a reference to the NORAD Santa Tracker (or maybe the Google one). I'd do it myself but it's 2AM, so can someone fact check me and possibly add it to the article assuming I'm not misremembering. Thanks, [[User:Zman350x|Zman350x]] ([[User talk:Zman350x|talk]]) 07:20, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Launches have been stopped many times at less than 8 seconds, and Randall would be familiar with this fact. The "unavoidable" bit of the explanation can safely (and preferably) be dropped. Given Randall's demonstrated frustration with Webb delays, the joke about the RSO shooting down Santa is almost certainly attributable to intolerance of another delay. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.130.213|172.70.130.213]] 07:45, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
:Thanks for the heads up; edited my addition. It still feels like an italicized "oh no" is too big of a reaction to a delay that's short, unique, and measurable. Maybe forcing a launch to abort at -7 seconds causes some kind of fuel combustion(??)/consumption issue that damages some of the spacecraft and requires a much longer delay? Then this could be added to the explanation. (Obviously I'm not an expert here.) Alternatively, say it takes 7 seconds to say the words in the second and third panels, so the spacecraft has already launched. [[User:Zowayix|Zowayix]] ([[User talk:Zowayix|talk]]) 08:16, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
::I mean, it kinda feels like a “straw that broke the camel’s back” type of situation here. It’s not the incident itself, it’s everything leading up to that moment and how it probably left Cueball on edge. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.195|108.162.215.195]] 08:30, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I think there's a barb here about NASA ruining xmas for a lot of people, by slipping the launch date to 25 December. [[User:Arithex|Arithex]] ([[User talk:Arithex|talk]]) 08:58, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

As far as I know, Range Safety Officers don't have ground-to-air weapons, and are therefore incapable of shooting down Santa. when RSO's need to kill something, they use remote detonation commands. How any RSO managed to pre-place a self-destruct package aboard Santa's Sleigh remains an open question: normally they only have those placed aboard the actual rocket stages. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.130.57|172.70.130.57]] 11:15, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

561: Well

2021-12-20T22:42:26Z

172.70.130.57: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 561
| date = March 27, 2009
| title = Well
| image = well.png
| titletext = I'll concede ergonomics anecdotally, but none of the studies of Dvorak were at all rigorous (the most-cited Navy study was overseen by Dvorak himself). And the 'slow typists down' thing is a myth. Also EMACS RULES VI DROOLS WOOOOOOO!
}}

==Explanation==
This is the first comic in the [[:Category:Well|Well]] series. It was followed by [[568: Well 2]].

Uncomfortable truths are truths that exist, but no one wants to have to think about them.

The first is about ''{{w|Firefly (TV Series)|Firefly}}'', the TV series created by {{w|Joss Whedon}} and canceled by {{w|FOX}}, due to poor ratings performance, after {{tvtropes|OutOfOrder|airing the first 13 episodes out-of-order}}. In ''Firefly'', the main languages spoken are English and Chinese (supposedly in equal measure), because China was the only other world power besides America to go to space (Joss Whedon's own explanation on the DVDs). However, there are {{tvtropes|HumansAreWhite|very few actual Asians}} on-screen.

The second is about two different keyboard layouts, QWERTY and Dvorak. Early {{w|typewriter}}s used to jam easily if two nearby keys were struck at about the same time. To work around this, the {{w|QWERTY}} layout, named after the first six letters on its keys, scattered common letter combinations around the keyboard, thus greatly avoiding the problem. (A common myth states that this was done to slow typists down; it was the opposite.) Later typewriter mechanisms were less prone to jamming, which prompted a few people to try to create alternative layouts, such as {{w|Blickensderfer typewriter|Blickensderfer's DHIATENSOR layout}} in 1892, or the {{w|Dvorak Simplified Keyboard}} in 1932. Such layouts never really caught on; by then, typists were all very used to the QWERTY layout, and were unwilling to take the time and effort to learn a new one.

In the Dvorak layout, {{w|August Dvorak}} placed the most frequently used keys at the most easily accessible places; Dvorak's advocates claim this reduces typing effort and repetitive strain (as mentioned in the title text) while increasing typing speed and accuracy. However, rigorous, unbiased studies have yet to clearly show significant superiority. (As the title text mentions, the most commonly cited study in Dvorak's favor was overseen by Dvorak himself during his US Navy service in World War II.)

This was the second comic to refer to Dvorak after [[554: Not Enough Work]], and since then it has become a [[:Category:Dvorak|recurrent theme]] on xkcd.

The third and fourth truths are connected: they involve the two people receiving them and (presumably) their relationship with each other. Every time [[Cueball]] said "I love you" he never really meant it; whereas [[Megan]] meant it every time she said "I love you". This is very uncomfortable for both! This could also be intentional, as a person called Mike (Who happens to be a friend of [[Megan]]) is actually hiding inside the well and tells these uncomfortable "truths", he would have intentionally broken Cueball and Megan up to be able to manipulate Megan in the next installment.

The title text perpetuates the {{w|Editor war|Emacs vs. vi debate}}. Both {{w|Emacs}} and {{w|Vim (text editor)|Vim}} are text editors that are frequently used as general-language editors of source code. The issue is that, while Emacs is more user-friendly and customizable, vim is more lightweight while needing few keystrokes in text editing. Because of this balance, fans of Emacs and fans of vim end up fighting each other.

==Transcript==
:[A sign sits by a well.]
:The Uncomfortable Truths Well

:[A Cueball-like guy and Ponytail are lined up for the well; the guy throws a coin in.]
:Well: For a universe that's supposed to be half Chinese, Firefly sure doesn't have any Asians.

:[The guy is gone, Cueball and Megsn arrives as a couple lining up behind Ponytail; Ponytail throws a coin in.]
:Well: There's no solid evidence DVORAK's better than QWERTY. The standard histories are urban legends.

:[Just the couple remain; Cueball throws another coin in.]
:Well: You've never said "I love you" and meant it. It was always just words.

:[Megan has presumably also thrown a coin in the well. This is not shown as for the first three. Cueball waits for her on the other side of the well.]
:Well: You meant it every time.

==Trivia==
*In the comic game [[1608: Hoverboard]] there is also a well in the left part of the world. This well has the same type of covered top and at the bottom (it is very deep) there is a girl and above her a coin, like the one thrown into a wishing well. On these links, to images on {{xkcd}}; used in the game, the [http://xkcd.com/1608/980:-1077+s.png top] and the [http://xkcd.com/1608/980:-1073+s.png bottom] of the well can be seen.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Well]]
[[Category:Comics sharing name|Well]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Multiple Cueballs]]
[[Category:Dvorak]]
[[Category:Sarcasm]]
[[Category:Romance]]
[[Category:Firefly]]
[[Category:Emacs]]

599: Apocalypse

2021-12-19T22:41:15Z

172.70.130.57: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 599
| date = June 19, 2009
| title = Apocalypse
| image = apocalypse.png
| titletext = I wonder if I still have time to go shoot a short film with Kevin Bacon.
}}

== Explanation ==
This comic begins with the beginning of the {{w|Apocalypse}}, hence the title. It is depicted, properly, with a very dystopian color picture with several yellow burning {{w|meteors}} striking down from the blood red sky, towards a black, red, orange and yellow ground. The way the panels are drawn below makes a transition from this dark image to a normal comic, with the first normal panel being superimposed on the dark image.

In this image [[Beret Guy]] shouts out '''The apocalypse!''' And then he continues to explain what this will mean: ''The skies burn, the seas turn to blood, and the dead walk the earth!''

All three sentences are attributed to the apocalypse, but it seems that the first one about the sky burning, actually comes from a translation of one of {{w|Nostradamus}}' predictions, which has among other been used to "{{w|Nostradamus_in_popular_culture#September_11.2C_2001|predict 9/11}}". In {{w|Revelation 16}} from the Bible about the {{w|Seven bowls}}, which are a set of seven plagues of God's wrath poured over the wicked towards the Apocalypse, the {{w|Seven_bowls#Second_Bowl|second bowl}} describes that ''{{w|Revelation_16#Structure|The Sea Turns to Blood}}''. The {{w|Universal resurrection|resurrection of the dead}} is from the biblical version of the Apocalypse, the {{w|Last Judgment}}.

After Beret Guy has announced this, he runs into [[Cueball]] who has heard part of this, but he is only interested in the last part and asks to check if he understood correctly that the dead will walk the earth. When this is confirmed Cueball becomes very busy.

He runs to his office and quickly writes a scientific math paper, then runs as fast as he can to the math department and get his colleagues to sign it. Then he runs to a cemetery where the dead are rising, finds the one he searched for, and asks the resurrected {{w|zombie}} if he is Erdős. When confirmed that he is indeed Erdős, Cueball asks him to sign the math paper.

{{w|Paul Erdős}} (26 March 1913 – 20 September 1996) was a Hungarian mathematician who (according to Wikipedia) published more papers than any other mathematician in history, working with hundreds of collaborators. His grave is in the Kozma Street Cemetery in Budapest.

There is an in-joke developed among mathematicians called the {{w|Erdős number}} (similar to a Bacon number for film actors, referenced in the title text, see below). By definition, Erdős has an Erdős number of 0. Everyone who has co-written a mathematical paper with Erdős has an Erdős number of 1. Everyone who collaborated with them (but not Erdős himself) is assigned an Erdős number of 2. In general, if ''k'' is the minimal Erdős number of all the people you've [https://paperell.com/ written papers] with, your Erdős number is ''k'' + 1. The Erdős number is the length of the shortest "chain" from you to Erdős.

Thanks to collaboration between mathematicians and other researchers, many people in science and medical research now have Erdős numbers. Not everyone has an Erdős number, though; people without any chain linking them to Erdős have an undefined Erdős number. For example, most people who are not mathematicians or scientists do not have Erdős numbers. Nor do mathematicians and scientists whose publications were written by themselves only with no collaborators.

By this trick Cueball thinks that he and his colleagues will now all have a an Erdős number of 1. The joke is that he would be using his last few hours in this life to write a math paper just to improve his and his friends' Erdős numbers.

There are, however, many problems with his idea, even assuming the dead will walk the earth on that day. First of all, just having your name on a piece of paper with Erdős's signature does nothing for your Erdős number. It needs to be a {{w|Scientific_literature#Scientific_article|scientifically valid paper}}, published in a {{w|peer reviewed}} {{w|scientific journal}}. And given that the apocalypse is happening, there seems no time, chance or reason to publish any more math papers.

Even if there were time, it would not count for much to have someone sign a math paper they haven't even read, let alone had anything to do with the actual writing and research. The same would be true for the other five mathematicians who signed it. But of course many papers have coauthors who did not do much more than work in the same department as the person who actually wrote the paper (a sad but true fact). Presumably Cueball's friends assume that nobody will investigate whether they, or Erdős, truly participated in the writing and research of Cueball's paper.

Furthermore, even if it did count, they will not be able to take the paper with them into the afterlife, and thus since no one would have had time to read the paper, no one would know they had an Erdős number of 1. In the afterlife they could all say that they had such a number, but then again everyone else with such an interest could do the same, since no one could prove otherwise. Of course if you end up in the same part ({{w|Heaven}} or {{w|Hell}}) of the {{w|afterlife}} as Erdős he could confirm or deny the claim, but that would probably not help Cueball and his friends, since he could tell the truth about their paper. (Erdős was known for using an idiosyncratic set of slang terms, in which he described people who had stopped doing mathematics as having "died", whereas people who had died had "left".)

That the whole comic is about the Erdős number, and not just Erdős signature, is made clear in the title text which refers to a similar (and less esoteric) meme called "{{w|Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon}}", or simply Bacon numbers. This time, the chain's center is actor {{w|Kevin Bacon}}, and the links are formed by two people appearing in the same movie. Unlike Erdős, Kevin Bacon is not dead, so those of you wishing to get a Bacon number of 1 still have a chance.

In the title text Cueball thus wonders if there is still time for him to make a short film with Kevin Bacon, now he has used so much time on improving his Erdős number. Again, if the film hasn't been shown to the public it would not count for anything...

One of the mathematical scribbles appearing in panel 5 shows the square root of 163, which may be a reference to {{w|Ramanujan's constant}}.

[[403: Convincing Pickup Line]] has a parody of the Erdős collaboration graph.

Zombies are a [[:Category:Zombies|recurring theme]] in xkcd, particularly zombie scientists, which has also occurred both before with {{w|Richard Feynman}} in [[397: Unscientific]] and after with {{w|Marie Curie}} in [[896: Marie Curie]].

==Transcript==
:[The first panel is very large and shows a dark scene with one large meteor in front and four smaller in the background showering the darkened earth. They are all five black with yellow fire around them and a fire trail behind them, and all are flying from the top left corner and down towards right. The sky at the top is pitch black, but then the sky turns blood red under dark clouds. Two large mountain peaks, one almost pyramid shaped, are shown to the left and to the right there are two smaller peaks towards the distant horizon. The mountains and the ground around them are mainly black, but with red, orange and yellow streaks spread all over the black area beneath the mountain peaks, maybe indicating fire or lava, or reflections in water or blood. At the bottom right corner a normal white panel is superimposed on this apocalyptic image.]

:[The smaller panel at the bottom of the first is halfway over the first panel, haflway below, and only to the right of the middle of the first panel. Beret Guy is running towards left, with his arms raised in the air.]
:Beret Guy: The apocalypse! The skies burn, the seas turn to blood, and the dead walk the earth!

:[From here a normal sequence of panels in three rows begin beneath the second panel. This leaves a gap between the apocalyptic panel and the first row of regular panels, on the left side where the 2nd panel did not reach over. In this panel Beret Guy (coming from the right) finds Cueball.]
:Cueball: The dead what?
:Beret Guy: Walk the earth!

:[Cueball running right in a thin panel.]
:Cueball: I have to go.

:[Cueball sitting on a chair at a table scribbling vigorously and noisily with a pen on a paper. Mathematical symbols appear above Cueball's head, including a summation from i=0 to n, a logarithm of n and the square root of a number.]
:<big>∑</big>ni=0ik1/i log(n)
:√163
:''Scribble''
:''Scribble''

:[Cueball running right again, in a thin panel, pen and paper in hand.]

:[Cueball opening door with label:]
:Math Dept
:Cueball: The dead return!
:Cueball: Everyone, quick, get your names on here!

:[Cueball stand on the left side of a table looking left over his shoulder. Five people are lining up to sign the paper lying on the right side of the table. The first who signs with a pen is Blondie, then in line follows Megan, a Cueball-like guy, Ponytail and another Cueball-like guy who stand with one hand to his chin looking right, away from the other.]
:Blondie: At last!
:Guy looking right: I hope there's time!

:[Cueball running right in yet a thin panel, with pen and the paper flowing behind him.]

:[Cueball walks right with the paper and pen in his hand as he arrives at at a cemetery as revealed by an old worn sign. Scary sounds appear off-panel right.]
:Sign: Cemetery
:Rising dead (off-panel): ''Hurrghhh''

:[Cueball, still going right, arrives at a grave, pen in hand and the other hand almost outside the panel, but with a corner of the paper just visible. The grave has a large gravestone to the right and in front of it there is a Cueball-like guy rising up from the ground using his arms to push up on the base of the stone and the small pile of earth towards Cueball. The guy looks very worn, with dirt on his head and scratches on his cheek.]

:[Cueball bends a little down and offers pen and paper to the raised dead man who looks up at him when he is addressed.]
:Cueball: Paul Erdős?
:Erdős: Yes?
:Cueball: We need you to sign this.

==Trivia==
*This version of [[Blondie]] seems to be employed at a mathematical department on a university. It could thus also be [[Miss Lenhart]], but there is no proof that she is a teacher...

{{Comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Beret Guy]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Blondie]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Multiple Cueballs]]
[[Category:Comics featuring real people]]
[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Zombies]]
[[Category:Comics with blood]]
[[Category: Research Papers]]