explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:79: Iambic Pentameter

2025-04-18T15:56:27Z

172.70.160.182:

It's really not so hard to write such prose, 
To stick to Shakespeare's scheme for fellow bards, 
Of course the preparation always slows, 
So spontaneity aint on the cards. 
The better art of live concoction sits, 
Beyond the skill of I your editor, 
And this is why the comic title bits, 
Are true and accurate without a flaw. 
Or so I humour Randall by these lines, 
Restricted by the form I've set upon, 
Fearing that soon I'll commit rhyming crimes, 
That you the readers see arrive, 'ere long. 
And thus a sonnet author finds to be, 
Whether for fun or for a Dark Lady. 
[[Special:Contributions/178.98.31.27|178.98.31.27]] 14:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
:I am stunned. Flabbergasted, of a lack of words. You, good sir, are a hero. A true poet, a master of words. I applaud you, and thank you for your time here. [[User:Netherin5|Netherin5]] ([[User talk:Netherin5|talk]]) 15:04, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
:Please create an account, [[Main_Page|explainxkcd]] <s>needs</s> wants you here. [[User:Knit cap|Knit cap]] ([[User talk:Knit cap|talk]]) 09:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Wait, normal people don't communicate exclusively in iambic pentameter? Shakespeare lied to me! [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.62|199.27.128.62]] 04:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

There is a [[explain_xkcd:Community_portal/Proposals#Merge_Cueball_.26_Rob|community portal discussion]] of what to call Cueball and what to do in case with more than one Cueball. I have added this comic to the new Category:Multiple Cueballs. Since Randall is the one with the hobby and also the one that Cueball represents I have kept Cueball in this explanation and transcript. But made a note of it. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 13:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

If you unstress both "of" and "course," the title text also kind of works with iambic meter. [[User:Aronurr|Aronurr]] ([[User talk:Aronurr|talk]]) 23:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Ex'''plain''' x'''k'''c'''d''': It's ''''cause''' you're '''dumb.''' {{w|172.69.59.21|19:16, 3 June 2023}}


I rarely speak non-iambic, that's for sure. 
I surely won't attempt to find a cure. 
It hardly is a problem, do you mind? 
I just can't help that I'm the rhyming kind!


If people all around the world agreed, 
and rhymed instead of waging wars unjust, 
the world would be a better place indeed, 
thus, if you ask me, poetry 's a must!


That said, if one of you explainers know, 
enlighten me on whether there's a rule, 
which parts of quads of penta-iambic lines, 
should rhyme together, like I just did show?

[[User:Flexximilian|Flexximilian]] ([[User talk:Flexximilian|talk]]) 23:44, 01 September 2023 (UTC)
:Refer to places such as {{w|Rhyme scheme}}'s link?
:In there you will perhaps come find a clue.
:To start: I, for your first of verses, think,
:Perhaps a Balliol or Clerihew.
:Though as your stanzas go from here to there,
:The scheme does change in ways I need not say.
:The second verse is of a type not rare,
:In fact I do prefer myself that way.
:It's at the last where head and foot alone,
:Both rhyme; the lines betwixt are free from that.
:In isolation I don't see it shown,
:Of which the listed group or style it's at!
:[[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.206|172.71.242.206]] 09:09, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

What the hell is "ten of six"? [[User:Yorkshire Pudding|Yorkshire Pudding]] ([[User talk:Yorkshire Pudding|talk]]) 12:33, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
:It's an americanism for "ten ''to'' six", or 5:50(am/pm).
:May be "of" in other places too, I know some European countries use the term that basically translates to "half five" to mean 4:30 (half an hour before five o'clock), rather than 5:30 (five o'clock ''plus'' half an hour) - but I'm not entirely sure if any that do this have the equivalent (or implicitly does, by their grammar rules), and I forget which ones to check. (I'm half remembering that maybe some of the scandiwegian languages do it, not so sure about the romance ones... what little I remember of German makes me think that's not one, and once you start going into the more eastern lands of Europe you get really weird stuff, from my anglophonic persoective, so who knows!)
:It might also be archaic British English (at least as far back as Shakespeare, could be Chaucerian), though maybe that's just because it sounds like "eight of the clock" (...ten four, me hearties!), and timekeeping back then wasn't really regularly adhered to except to the (pre-clock, but prior equivalent of) "stroke of the hour" deliniations for most people who even had ''that'' kind of scheduling necessity. I could probably look that up, but it's certainly of a different time and/or place from thyself and myself.
:Of course, it befits the whole style of the meter, even if not Randall's ''usual'' phrasing in his everyday 'Merkin. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.182|172.70.160.182]] 15:56, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Talk:3057: Excusing Yourself

2025-03-01T01:28:02Z

172.70.160.182: Switched the base word, didn't switch its allied suffix!

Hey look, a new comic! YAYYYYYYY! [[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]] ([[User talk:DollarStoreBa'al|talk]]) 16:39, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Added the starts of a new explanation for people to edit in the future. It's nice being the very first stepping stone. [[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]] ([[User talk:DollarStoreBa'al|talk]]) 17:00, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I have to say, I was actually at the receiving end of something similar to the last panel-sequence. At a meeting, I was reading the minutes of the previous meeting (or some other administrative thing that even bores ''me''), and one of the people sat opposite me deliberately pushed themselves back onto the floor (though didn't roll away, content to have made their 'point')... Clearly unimpressed with my contribution. But it was standard meeting stuff that needed to be done so... I can't remember quite where I went from there (it was 30 years ago!), but I probably gave 'a look' and continued. Possibly extemporised/varied my delivery as he got back up and everyone else recovered from being temporarily distracted by his antics. (Which I suspect was planned, not ''totally'' spontaneous.) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.26.36|172.71.26.36]] 01:24, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

;Is it Danish?

I labeled the panel 4 character as Danish, since she's being more rude than Black Hat and Megan is already present. Remind me, are there definite stylistic differences between Megan and Danish's hairstyles that are/aren't present here? --[[User:Jacky720|Jack]] ([[User talk:Jacky720|t]]|[[Special:Contributions/Jacky720|c]]) 18:05, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
:I don't know. From what I can tell, there are no stylistic changes between Megan and the Mystery Woman in this comic. Edit: I've just looked at [[2608: Family Reunion]]. Both Megan and Danish are present. Danish appears to be slightly shorter than Megan. However, I can't really see any difference in height between them. In [[1014: Car Problems]], Danish is the one reacting to Megan's slideshow. Danish appears to have longer hair than Megan in this comic. I also see no difference in hair length. [[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]] ([[User talk:DollarStoreBa'al|talk]]) 18:29, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
: I can't see any major differences at the moment in this comic, but it makes sense for it to be Danish [[User:Firestar233|guess who]] ([[User talk:Firestar233|if you desire conversing]] | [[Special:Contributions/Firestar233|what i have done]]) 19:24, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Talk:3049: Incoming Asteroid

2025-02-14T03:17:35Z

172.70.160.182:

Asteroids are surprisingly destructive even at small sizes - I remember reading somewhere that the Armageddon movie asteroid was supposed to be "the size of Arlington, Texas", but that it sounded too small so they changed it to "the size of Texas" which is a drastic size increase and also proportionally far more deadly. For scale, Arlington is 250 square km and Texas is 700 000 square km. The Chixulub asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs was between 10 and 15 km across. If it was a perfect circle, it would have an area of between 79 and 176 sq km. Arlington would be 18 km across, still within "species" range, and Texas would be 944 km across, clearly in "new moon" territory. But it _sounds_ much cooler! [[User:Zakator|Zakator]] ([[User talk:Zakator|talk]]) 22:32, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
:And that's for asteroids with normal speed (for asteroid, which is still kinda fast). The level of danger asteroid means is proportional to kinetic energy, meaning proportional to mass and SQUARE of speed, so if it's faster, it gets to extinction level even when small ... -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 23:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
:: "for asteroids with normal speed" - which is generally orbital velocity. If much faster, it would have left the solar system by now. If much slower, it has fallen into the Sun already. All objects (even Teslas) at a given distance soon have similar velocities. --[[User:PRR|PRR]] ([[User talk:PRR|talk]]) 00:04, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
::: It could be going at ''a'' speed (similar to Earth, give or take, for the sake of being on an Earth-incident orbit) and yet have such different effects. If basically following the Earth (or leading it), it'll be relatively gentle, at least before you start considering the Earth's (and the asteroid's, in the event it's significantly large) gravity well pulling it. Well, 'gentle' in comparison to one doing the 'same speed' but in the anti-orbit, for a full head-on impact. Course, that's why we need to think of velocities, and in particular the relative ones. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.241.37|172.71.241.37]] 01:31, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
:::Considering just two-body physics... Escape speed for the Sun at the distance of Earth's orbit is 42 km/s, so that's the upper limit anything is likely to be going (otherwise it's just got one shot at us). That would be something falling towards the Sun from a very large distance. If the asteroid is moving in the opposite direction as Earth, that gets added to Earth's orbital speed of 30 km/s, for a total of 72 km/s. On the other hand, Earth has an escape speed of 11 km/s at the surface, so that's the lower bound for an impact. A 6.5x factor on speed is about a 40x factor on impact energy. Which, I'm not sure exactly how that would scale devastation, but ... I'll take the low end for anything big, thanks. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.111.22|172.70.111.22]] 14:18, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
::::The upper limit is actually someting in the range of 500-600 km/s - for an interstellar object... That'd be an astronomically huge bad luck! Or should we consider an intergalactic rogue planet... -- [[User:Malgond|Malgond]] ([[User talk:Malgond|talk]]) 23:28, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
::::: ''ORRRR...'' we could go for getting crushed between ''two'' rogue planets moving at relativistic speeds in opposite directions! :-) [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 01:33, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

The 1m danger makes me think of the meteor impact that was caught on a home security camera last July in Prince Edward Island. But the Sky & Telescope article https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-news/hear-the-first-ever-recording-of-a-meteorite-slamming-into-the-ground/ says that it would have been only a 6-7 cm across. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 00:42, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

The sizes in the explanation are out of sync with the image. Has Randall updated it, or may it be location dependent? ~~Guest~~ 07:12, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
:I saw the comic before any explanation was put up and it was the same as it is now, all exactly powers of 10. But the labels aren't exactly at those spots, so people are probably estimating the exact point where the labels are at, though my interpretation would be that Randall meant for the labels to be attached to ranges rather than points. [[User:Tharkon|Tharkon]] ([[User talk:Tharkon|talk]]) 11:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
::Same here, all powers of 10. I don't think it makes any sense at all to guess at where on the axis the labels are meant to be when the labels themselves give an explicit number. The labels should probably be the ranges, eg "1cm to 10cm", "10cm to 1m" and so on.[[User:Mazz0|Mazz0]] ([[User talk:Mazz0|talk]]) 14:00, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
:::There are small markers between the labeled spots, so it's not unreasonable to estimate which marker the ellipsis points to. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 14:41, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

"Good news everyone! We were supposed to make a delivery to the planet Tweenis 12 but it's been completely destroyed!" [[Special:Contributions/162.158.94.203|162.158.94.203]] 11:24, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

It's not the first comic comparing our reaction to different scales of cosmic events, even though the asteroid "happiness level" does not peak like the supernova chart: https://xkcd.com/2878/ {{unsigned ip|172.69.195.172|21:14, 11 February 2025}}
:Indeed. This one peaks ''twice'', if taken at face value. ;) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.241.145|172.71.241.145]] 21:32, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I'd noted that technically, when it comes to "asteroid collides with Earth" vs. "Earth collides with asteroid", neither is correct. In a centre-of-mass reference frame, the two objects collide. This was removed as "pedantry", but it seems appropriate to me. Thoughts? [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 01:29, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
:I would say if a smaller asteroid hit Earth then yes it collides with Earth. If two similar planet sized object hit each other, then I would say they collided with each other, and if Earth hit Jupiter I would say Earth collided with Jupiter. This may not be physically correct, but it is how language and meaning works. So I would say it was correctly removed. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 11:44, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

:: Yet the logic is reversed when talking about vehicles on Earth. You would say "the car collided with the bicycle" and "the train collided with the car" (or the car got hit ''by'' the train). "{Bigger object} collided with {smaller object}" in this case. --[[User:StapleFreeBatteries|StapleFreeBatteries]] ([[User talk:StapleFreeBatteries|talk]]) 23:26, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
:::Annoyingly, the standard phrase tends to be "the bike was in collision with a car", with the implication of perhaps equal fault, if not switched round entirely. Yes, a cyclist ''can'' be the one who "hits the blameless car", or pedestrian steps into the side of the passing cyclist (or car, bus, lorry, etc, potentially), but it's more often the other way round, and the balance of sympathies (regardless of who most erred, to result in the incident) should probably be considered by who is most damaged (trickier in foot vs bike incident, one is initially struck by a lump of metal with spinning bits and various hard protusions, the other may then be struck by(/strikes) the ground). [[Special:Contributions/172.71.241.37|172.71.241.37]] 00:09, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Seemes there is little change between a 10cm and 1m astroid. The scale skips the 100cm step. It should be : 1cm, 10, ''100'', 1m [[Special:Contributions/172.68.243.66|172.68.243.66]] 12:09, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
:That is because 100 cm = 1 m. No step is skipped {{unsigned ip|172.70.126.169|15:22, 13 February 2025}}

Surely the other planet closest to Earth, on average, is Mercury? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.23.9|172.69.23.9]] 23:13, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
:Without crunching the numbers myself, it may depend upon which 'average' you mean. There's aparently fairly definite factual statements, out there, like "Venus'[s] average distance to Earth as around 25.7 million miles (41.4 million km), compared with 57 million miles (91.7 million km) for Mercury and 48.6 million miles (78.3 million km) for Mars", but also "Mercury is the nearest planet to Earth — and to every other planet in the solar system". I'm going to have to actually look at both claims, work out what's going on there (who is being wrong, or why they're right but for different reasons). [[Special:Contributions/172.71.241.145|172.71.241.145]] 02:03, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
:...well, seems obvious that the first one didn't mean "average (i.e. mean)", but probably "minimum". My own actual quick-and-dirty calculation (median Earth-Sun and median Planet-Sun distances, arrayed uniformly around a conjunction-to-conjunction circle for positional differences smeared free of any particular perihelion/aphelion bias, then arithmetically averaged, also without regard for any Keplerian sweeping-speeds - which should satisfactorarily smooth out the actual details ''unless'' there's a particular resonance aligning eliptic axes consistently) suggests Earth-Mercury is averaged at 1.05ish AU ('median'-based ranges from 0.55 to 1.45), Earth-Venus is 1.14ish (ranging 0.275 to 1.725), Earth-Mars 1.69ish (0.525 to 2.525), Jupiter: 5.25, Saturn: 9.62, Uranus: 19.21, Neptune: 30.21, in case I've made any stupid errors (not just approximations).
:But it already had occured to me that Mercury would be the "average closest planet" to ''every other planet'' (given no particularly extreme ellipses, and orbital resonances to keep them perpetually aligned). My mental exercise was to take a basic concentrjc map of orbits, use dividers to measure any given starting planet's distance from the Sun, and then sweep a circle of that radius around the planet. Where that line crosses every other inferior orbit (and any superior orbit no more than twice the size of the starting planet), it cuts those orbits into a "nearer than the Sun" arc and a "further than the Sun" arc (for r*[n>2] orbits, it's 'all' further than the Sun), with the ratio of nearer:further lengths generally being less arc vs. more arc, tending towards 1:1 only for the smallest orbits (r=lim->0). So the larger the other planet's orbit, the larger this average would be, above the chosen planet's own solar-distance, and Mercury (in the absence of anything closer to the Sun) would end up with the least additional amount above the constant distance to the Sun itself.
:Which I found interesting to work out, so maybe will be interesting for others, but didn't entirely trust myself until I hacked up the apparent emperical evidence, too. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.182|172.70.160.182]] 03:17, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Talk:2989: Physics Lab Thermostat

2024-09-25T10:14:40Z

172.70.160.182:

Assuming I did the math right (Units proved the units worked out, but I wouldn't otherwise assume that), holding the energy constant at "room temperature with the normal, global Boltzmann constant" this thermostat varies from 13°C (56°F) on the left to 28°C (82°F) on the right. Holding the ''temperature'' constant gives a much harder to interpret range of energies from 4.2 zeptojoules on the left to 4.0 zJ on the right. Turning those back into temperatures with the normal Boltzmann constant gives 29°C (84°F) to 15°C (59°F). Given the reversed scale, I'd assume the former is the intended interpretation, and this thermostat has no effect on local thermal energy, it just adjusts the temperature scale so the number on your (local physical constant variance-compliant) measuring device matches what you asked for. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.243|162.158.62.243]] 05:28, 24 September 2024 (UTC) Will

No matter the scale, I'm sure glad that this one doesn't go up to 11. [[User:Zaktduck|Zaktduck]] ([[User talk:Zaktduck|talk]]) 07:56, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the page history, I'm wondering if the "edit conflict" didn't kick in for some people. If [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2989:_Physics_Lab_Thermostat&diff=next&oldid=351061 this edit] was performed over at least half an hour (quite possible), it would seem that useful edits (submitted after the start of that big addition) got wiped out. Seems unlikely that warnings happened but were deliberately over-ridden. I know this can sort of happen very soon after article creation (usually doubling-up 'first' edits), but it should have highlit any inadvertant re-editing of an interim-changed paragraph. I generally thought. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.18|172.70.85.18]] 09:39, 24 September 2024 (UTC) ((Ironically, I got hit by an edit-conflict just now, someone having removed linefeeds above where I'm merely appending this!))

I don't understand it the same way as you guys. Through setting the Boltzmann constant to k=1.380649×10−23 Joules per Kelvin, it's actually the Kelvin that the SI is setting. Thus, changing k in an unchanged universe changes the definition of the Kelvin, and (presumably) of Celsius or Fahrenheit too, meaning that the "temperature" reading of the room is changed without any need for heating or aircon, it's just the number which is adjusted to whatever people ask. --[[Special:Contributions/172.71.164.106|172.71.164.106]] 10:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
:I like this explanation. We have a thermostat like that where I work. The numbers change, but the actual temperature does not. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.188|162.158.158.188]] 11:27, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
::As I read it, yes it just changes the thing that relates heat to temperature (thus not changing the sum quantity of heat), but I am not convinced that the derivative idea of Temperature doesn't have some latent qualitative effect upon the experience. The additional amount of heat in a cinder might ignite some flammable substance, the same additional heat in a brick would be barely above its normal temperature, for example. Thus conceivably the temperature from the concentrated heat-source has more bearing upon what results than the less dense 'additional heat' with lower temperature that may never invoke the vapour-threshold/flashpoint.
::Without being able to divorce or disassociate the interdependency (together with density/heat-capacith/etc), I can't be sure that such weirdness won't happen, and would not be surprised if things did (e.g. key phase-changes shift around). Like making inertial and gravitational mass independantly evaluated from each kter (if possible) would have certain real-world implications. (As well as hint that there's far more fundamental 'physics' at work than it is assumed that either/both currently are, in either newtonian or einsteinian respects.)
::I think the explanation can cover both "just recorded different" and "changes physics" in a broad scope (which is somewhat hinted at right now). But it might be in the eye of the reader (and editor) how well it does that. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.38|172.70.86.38]] 12:26, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I note that "AIR" is in all caps. Is it supposed to be an Acronym? 12:28, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
:No, that's just for emphasis: it's only the AIR that changes. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.194.171|172.71.194.171]] 12:33, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
::You are both right. AIR means AIR In Room. Caution: This comment contains recursive text: First you curse, then you curse again. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.167.213|172.71.167.213]] 14:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Huh... Everyone's saying "Energy is constant, Temperature number is changing.". But in that case, why would he be worried about it affecting things other than air? What if the Temperature was constant, and the Energy was what was changing? Then the dial would be doing something, and his concern over it affecting solids and liquids would be more warranted. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.178.137|172.70.178.137]] 15:04, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

The current explanation is terrible: (1) It doesn't explain well, spending way too much time on introductory and trivial pedantry than getting to the point of the joke and the concepts necessary to understand it. (2) It's way too long. And (3) the prose is terrible. My high schoolers wouldn't be allowed to use / as a synonym for "or", but that's just the beginning of the poor style, confusing grammar, and the kind of English which screams neurodiversity and home schooling.

There is no doubt in my mind that ChatGPT can do better. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.63|172.69.33.63]] 16:14, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

:Proof:

::This comic is playing with the idea of a "physics lab thermostat," but instead of controlling temperature, it humorously suggests adjusting the Boltzmann constant (a constant that links temperature and energy in physics, writen as 1.38×10−23 J/K, where J is joules, a unit of energy, and K is kelvins, a unit of temperature). The dial shows different values for the constant, implying that it can be changed, which is absurd because the Boltzmann constant is a fundamental number that stays the same throughout the universe. In reality, you can't change the Boltzmann constant, so the comic is making fun of the idea of a scientist casually adjusting a fixed law of physics as if it were something simple like room temperature.

::If the Boltzmann constant could be changed, it would directly affect how we experience temperature. The constant determines how much energy particles have at a certain temperature. If the constant were increased, more energy would be associated with the same temperature, so everything would feel hotter even if the temperature stayed the same. On the other hand, if the constant were decreased, less energy would be associated with the same temperature, and everything would feel colder than usual.

::Beyond just how we feel, altering the Boltzmann constant would disrupt all sorts of processes that depend on temperature, like how fast chemical reactions happen or how heat moves around. A higher constant would make particles move faster and carry more energy at a given temperature, while a lower constant would slow things down.

::The title text builds on the absurdity of being able to adjust the Boltzmann constant. It suggests that if the constant could be changed, hopefully, it would only affect the air in the room and not the entire universe. Imagining that the HVAC (Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning) system could contain such a change to just the room's air shows the ridiculousness of trying to isolate the effects of altering a universal constant.

:How is that not better in every way than the current human version? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.157|172.70.206.157]] 16:33, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

:: It has the usual "Using wikipedia to write a book report on something you haven't read" issue that LLMs have. It retreads the same ground multiple times, explains both the humor and science only in the most surface manner, and gets the effects backwards in the section about particle energy. It also fails to explain the alternate, also humorous, interpretation of keeping pV/T constant while changing only the units we use to measure temperature with no actual effect. [[User:Scorpion451|Scorpion451]] ([[User talk:Scorpion451|talk]]) 17:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
:::It's far more concise than what's up at present. How does it get the effects backwards? It describes the same effects of turning up the dial as the existing explanation. I don't understand the alternate explanation, which I don't think can be an explanation since the comic doesn't refer to pV/T. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.142.47|172.71.142.47]] 18:11, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

:::There is nothing in the article page history mentioning pV/T. I prefer the ChatGPT version, except that I would ask it to include the part about, "Holding the temperature constant gives a much harder to interpret range of energies from 4.2 zeptojoules on the left to 4.0 zJ on the right. Turning those back into temperatures with the normal Boltzmann constant gives 29°C (84°F) to 15°C (59°F)." [[Special:Contributions/172.71.147.19|172.71.147.19]] 21:55, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

: Yeah I guess I'm dumb since I don't get the explanation either. Is changing the constant basically saying you are changing the definition of a temperature? EG we lowered the constant so 20C is now 30C, thus it's "warmer" (even though functionally the molecules have the same average energy, so nothing actually changed). Or is there more to it than that? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.139|172.68.54.139]] 20:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
: On the use of "/" for "or", unless the article has changed significantly since that complaint, it's clearly using the slash in a way that is intended to be a "higher and more localised grammatical priority" than the more wordy conjunction. You might typically say "this slash that" as a monatomic grammatical element which doesn't confuse with wider-scope conjunctions.
: "I prefer fish-and-chips to either no fish-and-chips or just fish/chips on their own...", to give an example (with a British slant, sorry; batter-fried fish and (home)fries in a more US context). You have to distinguish the "and"s as not part of the wider grammar (using "&" would work, also) and the slashness of the choice of thing to be on its own needs to not be confused with the either-or "or". (Maybe "...or just fish or chips on their own" might work, but could be read as "just fish" or "''individual'' chips", depending upon how you interpret the plural tense, especially given that "fish" can be "a fish" or "some fish(es)". Whilst "...or just fish, or chips, on their own" hits a problem that "...or just fish, or chips, on its own" might solve, but at the expense of straining grammar in a different way.)
: In the article, though, it is "heating/cooling" as an atomic choice of effect (that cross-relate directly with the following "below/above" similar alternates). The implication is that reading the sentence with either option is valid, without writing the whole sentence out twice, each time dedicated to the different singular option involved. This is different from lazily using "/" for a 'full' "or" (and "&" for "and").
: Above all, does it aid greater understanding? Yes, I think it does. The mental parsing is less ambiguous. Just like <code>variable1 and variable2||variable3</code> may be different from <code>variable1&&variable2 or variable3</code> for {False,<either>,True} input sets, in a coding language that supports both forms of logical operators at different levels of precedence – and avoiding/alleviating thebkind of bracket-soup that it might already be floating within as part of a larger logical assessment.
: It's probably intrinsically way more understandable than my above analysis and its analogies! But it's how I read it and my best way of explaining my understanding. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.253|172.70.91.253]] 06:58, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Maybe worth noting: this is almost the joke of https://www.xkcd.com/2292/. {{unsigned ip|172.68.210.15|08:52, 25 September 2024}}
:1) Sign, please; 2) May be more handy to internally use something like <code><nowiki>[[2292: Thermometer]]</nowiki></code>, here, i.e. [[2292: Thermometer]]; 3) Similar basis, but weird/obscure/awkward ''actual'' measure, with the necessary constant (for conversion purposes) still being constant.
:Randall's clearly well versed in the use, or at least the generalities, of ''k''. I think these are two different jokes(/punchlines) taken from the same root physics. I'm sure there's a good way of noting the link, even if it's not as close as you suggest. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.182|172.70.160.182]] 10:14, 25 September 2024 (UTC)