explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:3039: Human Altitude

2025-01-19T14:52:09Z

172.70.160.195:

I splurged a few paragraphs to try to deal with each detail (and a few things not ''directly'' obvious, but related). However, it's a mess and here (UK) it's basically past my bedtime and I have an early(ish) start tomorrow so... I know that if I had spent another half hour on it, it would have been tighter (less florid?), and would be linking to Yuri Gagarin, Montgolfier, Hubble, man-capable chinese kites, the likes of George Cayley, etc. And I never actually ''mentioned'' the Title Text, though the last paragraph I put is sort of relevent so might just need an "In the title text, it says ..., and, as it happens, ...". I shall leave it up to the editing-gods as to whether my sacrifice is acceptable or entirely in vain... Such is life! And so, goodnight. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.205.119|172.68.205.119]] 01:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:I linked up a couple Wikipedia articles with [[Template:w]] and wish I could add all of those things, but alas: today’s the last day of the semester on a 3 day weekend here in the States and I’ve been sick all week. I’m going to be going now to work on my missing assignments and hopefully finish them, really wish that we can finish up the explanation as quick as we usually do! '''[[User:42.book.addict|<span style="font-family:Cormorant Garamond;font-size:9pt;color:#A9C6CA">42.book.addict</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:42.book.addict|<span style="font-family:Cormorant Garamond;font-size:6pt;color:#516874">Talk to me!</span>]]</sup>''' 01:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
It seems strange how jagged this is and how low the lows are. Since roughly 1930 (certainly since 1940 at the very latest) someone, somewhere in the world has been flying in an airplane, at a minimum of probably 4.5km for the lowest person. And since like 1955 there's always at least someone over like 7km roughly, and since the jet age like 10km+. This isn't the kind of carelessness that xkcd is known for, unless I'm missing something.[[User:Kchinger|Kchinger]] ([[User talk:Kchinger|talk]]) 03:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)kchinger
:The Apollo part of the graph implies an at least weekly, probably daily or finer resolution. Aviation unlikely reached 4.5 km above surface on a daily basis until transpacific high altitude airliners became a regularity well after WW2. Planes of the 1930s could achieve greater heights, but usually only attempted when moutains forced them to (so it was not height above ground) and high altitude Zeppelin bombers of WW1 did not fly on a daily basis, sometimes leaving week long gaps between campaigns. However, the pre-airplane lows are still wrong: Pole vaulting has been documented since ancient egypts for crossing of crevices, bodies of water, etc. giving a guaranteed minimum of 2-3 meters. Cliff jumping in the 10s of meters range is also likely to have occured daily somewhere on the globe long before the 20th century and I would not be surprised if some tyrannt created a phase of more than 100 m daily by intensive cliff throwing. (As with the ancient chineses kite observation flights, it might be interesting to extend this graph well into the past, at least up to Spartan postnatal parenthood planning.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.250.194|172.70.250.194]] 16:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::''Aviation unlikely reached 4.5 km above surface on a daily basis until transpacific high altitude airliners became a regularity well after WW2. Planes of the 1930s could achieve greater heights, but usually only attempted when moutains forced them to...'' The limit is the humans. Past 10k or 15k feet (~4.5km) they go loopy then pass out. Pressurized cabins are costly. Wiley Post flew past 17,000 ft (to 50kft!) in 1934 with a pot on his head, after two other suits split their seams. War forces high flight: the B-17 crews had oxygen bottles and electric heat suits; they did fly about every day but thin air was the least of their problems. B-25 was pressurized but not nice inside. The Constellation (the world's finest tri-motor) was one of the first shirtsleeve cabins, to 24,000 ft (7,300m), but was a very premium ride. The DC-2, DC-3, and DC-4 were unpressurized (a few test DC-4s tried it). Piston engine output tends to zero by 55k ft, even with supercharger. The real move to high altitude comes with turbojets (Comet is credited with first pressurized production passenger plane), Boeing 707, Caravelle, DC8, etc which often work better far above 20k feet. --[[User:PRR|PRR]] ([[User talk:PRR|talk]]) 20:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

For the "Apollo bits", I actually have (fairly) precise data, but the question is whether the spiky bits resemble the reality at all. Here's a version with accurately positioned timestamps, but with the the altitude normalised. Launch is at bottom, time in lunar orbit is at top. To keep the data short I have removed the 'oscillation in orbit" of them all (except for 13, which ''just'' looped around and came straight back out again), and the track of the landers (as never really gets any ''further'' away, averaged over a lunar orbiter orbit) as these things aren't really isn't visible if overviewing the whole program. Blue=orbit-only, Green=orbit-with-landing, Magenta is 13's mission. All sat on a month-start scale (thicker lines are year-starts), for reference.
{{cot|Apollo.SVG}}
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" viewBox="25174 0 1499 500" >
<g id="monthlines" opacity="0.15" stroke="black">
<line x1="25204" y1="0" x2="25204" y2="500" stroke-width="5" id="1/Jan/1969"/>
<line x1="25235" y1="0" x2="25235" y2="500" id="1/Feb/1969"/>
<line x1="25263" y1="0" x2="25263" y2="500" id="1/Mar/1969"/>
<line x1="25294" y1="0" x2="25294" y2="500" id="1/Apr/1969"/>
<line x1="25324" y1="0" x2="25324" y2="500" id="1/May/1969"/>
<line x1="25355" y1="0" x2="25355" y2="500" id="1/Jun/1969"/>
<line x1="25385" y1="0" x2="25385" y2="500" id="1/Jul/1969"/>
<line x1="25416" y1="0" x2="25416" y2="500" id="1/Aug/1969"/>
<line x1="25447" y1="0" x2="25447" y2="500" id="1/Sep/1969"/>
<line x1="25477" y1="0" x2="25477" y2="500" id="1/Oct/1969"/>
<line x1="25508" y1="0" x2="25508" y2="500" id="1/Nov/1969"/>
<line x1="25538" y1="0" x2="25538" y2="500" id="1/Dec/1969"/>
<line x1="25569" y1="0" x2="25569" y2="500" stroke-width="5" id="1/Jan/1970"/>
<line x1="25600" y1="0" x2="25600" y2="500" id="1/Feb/1970"/>
<line x1="25628" y1="0" x2="25628" y2="500" id="1/Mar/1970"/>
<line x1="25659" y1="0" x2="25659" y2="500" id="1/Apr/1970"/>
<line x1="25689" y1="0" x2="25689" y2="500" id="1/May/1970"/>
<line x1="25720" y1="0" x2="25720" y2="500" id="1/Jun/1970"/>
<line x1="25750" y1="0" x2="25750" y2="500" id="1/Jul/1970"/>
<line x1="25781" y1="0" x2="25781" y2="500" id="1/Aug/1970"/>
<line x1="25812" y1="0" x2="25812" y2="500" id="1/Sep/1970"/>
<line x1="25842" y1="0" x2="25842" y2="500" id="1/Oct/1970"/>
<line x1="25873" y1="0" x2="25873" y2="500" id="1/Nov/1970"/>
<line x1="25903" y1="0" x2="25903" y2="500" id="1/Dec/1970"/>
<line x1="25934" y1="0" x2="25934" y2="500" stroke-width="5" id="1/Jan/1971"/>
<line x1="25965" y1="0" x2="25965" y2="500" id="1/Feb/1971"/>
<line x1="25993" y1="0" x2="25993" y2="500" id="1/Mar/1971"/>
<line x1="26024" y1="0" x2="26024" y2="500" id="1/Apr/1971"/>
<line x1="26054" y1="0" x2="26054" y2="500" id="1/May/1971"/>
<line x1="26085" y1="0" x2="26085" y2="500" id="1/Jun/1971"/>
<line x1="26115" y1="0" x2="26115" y2="500" id="1/Jul/1971"/>
<line x1="26146" y1="0" x2="26146" y2="500" id="1/Aug/1971"/>
<line x1="26177" y1="0" x2="26177" y2="500" id="1/Sep/1971"/>
<line x1="26207" y1="0" x2="26207" y2="500" id="1/Oct/1971"/>
<line x1="26238" y1="0" x2="26238" y2="500" id="1/Nov/1971"/>
<line x1="26268" y1="0" x2="26268" y2="500" id="1/Dec/1971"/>
<line x1="26299" y1="0" x2="26299" y2="500" stroke-width="5" id="1/Jan/1972"/>
<line x1="26330" y1="0" x2="26330" y2="500" id="1/Feb/1972"/>
<line x1="26359" y1="0" x2="26359" y2="500" id="1/Mar/1972"/>
<line x1="26390" y1="0" x2="26390" y2="500" id="1/Apr/1972"/>
<line x1="26420" y1="0" x2="26420" y2="500" id="1/May/1972"/>
<line x1="26451" y1="0" x2="26451" y2="500" id="1/Jun/1972"/>
<line x1="26481" y1="0" x2="26481" y2="500" id="1/Jul/1972"/>
<line x1="26512" y1="0" x2="26512" y2="500" id="1/Aug/1972"/>
<line x1="26543" y1="0" x2="26543" y2="500" id="1/Sep/1972"/>
<line x1="26573" y1="0" x2="26573" y2="500" id="1/Oct/1972"/>
<line x1="26604" y1="0" x2="26604" y2="500" id="1/Nov/1972"/>
<line x1="26634" y1="0" x2="26634" y2="500" id="1/Dec/1972"/>
</g>
<g id="missionLines" fill="none">
<path d="M 25193.5354166667,490 L 25196.4162037037,10 25197.2571296296,10 25199.6609027778,490" stroke="blue" id="Apollo 8 "/>
<path d="M 25341.7006944444,490 L 25344.8645138889,10 25347.4344675926,10 25349.7030439815,490" stroke="blue" id="Apollo 10"/>
<path d="M 25400.5638888889,490 L 25403.7234953704,10 25406.2053472222,10 25408.7017939815,490" stroke="green" id="Apollo 11"/>
<path d="M 25521.6819444444,490 L 25525.1579050926,10 25528.8675462963,10 25531.8738888889,490" stroke="green" id="Apollo 12"/>
<path d="M 25669.8006944444,490 L 25673.0145833333,10 25675.7553356481,490" stroke="magenta" id="Apollo 13"/>
<path d="M 25964.8771064815,490 L 25968.2914583333,10 25971.0687962963,10 25973.8784722222,490" stroke="green" id="Apollo 14"/>
<path d="M 26140.5652777778,490 L 26143.837337963 ,10 26149.8907986111,10 26152.8651967593,490" stroke="green" id="Apollo 15"/>
<path d="M 26405.7458333333,490 L 26408.8489236111,10 26414.0941319444,10 26416.822974537 ,490" stroke="green" id="Apollo 16"/>
<path d="M 26640.23125 ,490 L 26643.8291087963,10 26649.9827430556,10 26652.829837963 ,490" stroke="green" id="Apollo 17"/>
</g>
</svg>
{{cob}}
If you want to see it, copy the text into a file, save/rename as a .svg and open it in any modern browser. (There are other ways of opening SVGs, but that's probably the easiest way for most of those who don't have a preference.) ...to make it look more like the comic, I suggest you make the stroke-width for the missionLines group '''''huuuuuuge!!!!''''' ;) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.118|162.158.74.118]] 21:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Some of the text (both in the explanation and the "into snow or water" in the title text) seems to suggest a "who wasn't shortly killed" that isn't stated in the chart. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.246.150|172.69.246.150]] 05:55, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

:"into snow or water" is in the title text which is about surviving... --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 13:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I wonder why the chart does not consider parachutes? They might have been available around the same time as balloons, maybe earlier? [[User:Captain Nemo|Captain Nemo]] ([[User talk:Captain Nemo|talk]]) 12:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:A parachutist can onyl start as high as his ballon, so that would make no difference until paragliding became a sport (way too late). However, most highs are still utterly wrong due to the omission of high altitude balooning from the mid-19th century onwards: It seems that no true airplane has ever beaten older baloon records. AT ALL. In fact, among all the objects capable of aerodynamic flight, only the X-2, the X-15 and the Space Shuttle set new 'maximum manned altidude' records going beyond aerostats of their time. However, all three ascended in balistic, rocketpowered flight, only using the lift of their wings during return. So humanitys pinnacle has always been defined by people thrown of cliffs, people attached to kites, peoples in baloons or people on rockets. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.250.194|172.70.250.194]] 16:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

huh. no joke comic. [[user talk:lett‪herebedarklight|youtu.be/miLcaqq2Zpk]] 15:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuan_Huangtou Yuan Huangtou] is a strong contender for the question in the title text. As a punishment he was sent to the sky on a big kite which was then let go. He came down 2.5 km away and survived. It seems entirely possible that he may have reached altitudes of several hundred meters. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.95.196|162.158.95.196]] 19:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:From my recollection of a book on Chinese kite history, I'd put the max for a person-carrying kite at around a couple hundred meters. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.41.9|162.158.41.9]] 04:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:As a technical argument, I'd mention that what makes a kite a kite is that it is tethered (albeit dynamically, whether to a winch or a firmly ground-based handler, rather than necessarily ''tied to the ground''; this makes the kites in kite-surfing/sailing/skating/etc a bit of an edge condition, but still valid as the canchor' is only ever itself airborne by temporarily depleting the kite's 'lift ability').
:Unless it was at the end of a 2.5km tether, at least part of the time the kite was released became a glider. And the means for keeping a glider up (and then ultimately not descending too fast!) are somewhat different from how you make a kite controllable. Even if you successfully raised a man-kite up and brought them back down several times (getting both the payer-out person ''and'' the payload-person used to how to control the kite-flight), the attitude and augmenting flight-surfaces that the kite used to get/keep/maintain height would probably be entirely wrong (perhaps even counterproductive!) when the release happens and the 'passenger' needs to now suddenly develop the need to "fly a glider" (or, maybe, a suboptimal parasail)
:I would not be surprised if many (reluctant) 'test pilots' failed to work out how not to stall (and other forms of flight-failure) in the time and distance they had before they reached the ground. The later ones ''might'' have a better hash of it ''if'' they were taken to witness their first compatriots' efforts (and those initial 'candidates' were able to shout down what they were feeling/doing, during their final fateful moments, to assist both the builders and future-fliers)... But, in the days before ''any'' actual aviation experience (let alone any form of flight-recorder, for both easier detailing of events and the repeatable playback for their better analysis), quite a bit of luck (or some coincidentally instinctive panic-induced response to falling, perhaps somehow harking back to the most recent common ancestor with a sugarglider/flying-squirrel/etc) will have played a part in whoever it might have been who rode a once-kite-now-glider down.
:Or, possibly, part of the luck was that the released tether was long enough to ''drag'' on the ground (given the options for rope/chord, around that time, and possibly the spool it was unspooled from, before the spool itself was released (by accident/design)), and with a strong enough wind and a consistently 'draggy' free-tether, it maintained a kite-like flight profile for the suggested distance (never being any higher than when ground-tethered, but only ''very gradually'' losing its initial height), such that the CFIT at the end was a 'survivable' (legs first? kite-structure acted as an initial crumple-zone?) landing.
:Of course, it's at least partly a legendary account. Could be somewhat contrived from retellings and embelishments, 'originally' just being (out of many such 'experiments' with 'volunteers') a controlled rise that was then re-winched-in, conflated with what happened when the tether snapped/etc, during a particularly windy day, and where the resulting wreckage was discovered. I think it's ''possible'' it happened (and one might even be able to plan to re-enact it, with modern knowledge of aeronautics and hands-on experience with all the more recent methods and means of flying), but it sounds like it became known ''only'' because it was a memetic (and maybe composite) success, only having to compete with the few "glorious failures", not the many occasions where some basic idea (that ''may'' have eventually led to better ideas) just didn't work ''or'' notably fail. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.195|172.70.160.195]] 14:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

11 paragraphs should be 5-7. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.151.155|172.71.151.155]] 05:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:3015: D&D Combinatorics

2024-12-10T11:33:56Z

172.70.160.195:

The bot originally created this page as “D Combinatorics”. I renamed it to the correct title and tried to get as many of the references as possible (including a few redirects). [[User:JBYoshi|JBYoshi]] ([[User talk:JBYoshi|talk]]) 00:54, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

:The title in the Atom feed (which I'm assuming the bot consumes) is "D Combinatorics". I'm guessing something in Randall's pipeline didn't like the ampersand. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.160|162.158.154.160]] 01:41, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

::Yup, if you look at [https://xkcd.com/3015/info.0.json 3015's JSON] you see that <code>title</code> and <code>safe_title</code> differ, and if you look at the HTML page source you'll see '''3''' different things: <code><title>xkcd: D Combinatorics</title></code>, <code><meta property="og:title" content="D&amp;D Combinatorics"></code>, and <code><div id="ctitle">D&D Combinatorics</div></code>! So probably what happened is Randall entered D&D but was supposed to enter D&amp;D, and the openGraph tags adder code, having to be HTML-aware, decoded & normalized D&D as HTML would, but the other parts of the pipeline just ate it for some reason. {{unsigned ip|172.69.65.224|06:09, 23 November 2024}}

::: The problem now is that the feed doesn't validate (because it contains a bare &) and it's also not updating (maybe because of the previous problem). --[[Special:Contributions/172.71.119.13|172.71.119.13]] 11:10, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

::: Well, it's updating now, but it still doesn't validate. Sigh... --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.195|172.70.160.195]] 11:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

What are the odds of rolling 16 or higher on 3D6+D4? 3D6 average 10.5, D4 average is 2.5, total average should be 13. I do not know how to proceed from here. {{unsigned ip|172.71.147.206|01:14, 23 November 2024}}
:By raw combinatorics: 71 + 52 + 34 + 20 + 10 + 4 + 1 ways to get each of 16 - 22 respectively, for a total of 192, out of 4(6^3) = 864 total. 192/864 simplifies to exactly 2/9. I have no idea how Randall found this; if anyone has an idea, please let me know. [[User:Kaisheng21|Kaisheng21]] ([[User talk:Kaisheng21|talk]]) 01:33, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
::I used some simple python code to loop over every dice and confirm and it's 2/9 [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.111|162.158.158.111]] 12:11, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
::I suspect there is no better way of doing it than looping over the dice. As to how Randall discovered it, it was obvious that at least 2d6 would be needed (since d6 is the only D&D dice that has a multiple of 3 sides), and after that my guess is Randall used a combination of a python script and some experimentation to land on the correct choice of dice. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.56|172.70.162.56]] 14:15, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

It seems like we edited the transcript at the same time. The odds of rolling 16 or higher in this situation seem to be 2/9? [[User:Darkmatterisntsquirrels|Darkmatterisntsquirrels]] ([[User talk:Darkmatterisntsquirrels|talk]]) 01:29, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

: There are 864 possible rolls (6 * 6 * 6 * 4). If you enumerate all of the rolls you will find that 192 are 16 or higher. 192/864 = 2/9, the value from the explanation. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.139|172.68.54.139]] 01:41, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I added a table of outcomes to clarify how it works out to 2/9, anyone know how to make it pretty? -- Laurence Cheers {{unsigned ip|172.71.150.247|02:03, 24 November 2024}}

A much simpler approach: Roll two six sided dice and sum the result. You are successful if the result is 5 or 9. That happens 8 times out of 36. 8/36 = 2/9. (Or successful if the sum is 4 or 6, or 2 or 7, or 2,3,4 or 11, or several other combinations.) [[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.139|172.68.54.139]] 01:41, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
:Clever, but dice rolls in D&D involving summing all the dice, applying modifiers, if any, and then comparing to one or more threshold values. Your method makes it very difficult to apply modifiers. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.41.8|162.158.41.8]] 02:49, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
::I think you misunderstand the problem here. This is not skill, no modifiers apply, it's purely probability [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.111|162.158.158.111]] 12:11, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Minor quibble, arrows aren't fired (unless they're flaming or self-propelled, perhaps), they are shot. (Shotguns are fired of course.) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.41.73|162.158.41.73]] 02:52, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
:Arrows are "loosed", even more accurately. At least to avoid the confusion from how so many things may be shot, or ''a'' shot. (Many different nouns, from a physical measure of liquer/coffee/vaccine to a projectile, or an even abstract fundemental of chance; and, as verb, projectiles perhps may be shot, then so may their targets.) [[Special:Contributions/172.68.205.178|172.68.205.178]] 14:32, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
:Well, lets not quarrel over it.[[Special:Contributions/172.71.103.67|172.71.103.67]] 14:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
:Too many barbed comments, and I'd be all of a quiver... [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.153|141.101.99.153]] 14:51, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Rolling 22 or lower on percentile dice (or, equivalently, 79 or higher) is close enough, and easier to come up with. (Give or take whether 00 is treated as 100 or zero.) Or directly represent the action: roll a d10. If it's 1-5, you lose. If it's 6-10, roll again; if it's 1-5 you lose, 6-9 you win, 10 roll again. (Modify slightly if you want to distinguish the case of grabbing *two* cursed arrows.) [[User:Jordan Brown|Jordan Brown]] ([[User talk:Jordan Brown|talk]]) 03:26, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Alternative exact solution for getting this probability using dice: Roll: 1d8, 2d6, 1d4 succeed on 19 or higher.{{unsigned ip|172.68.55.11|03:54, 23 November 2024}}

I couldn’t remember the formula for binomial coefficients (“n choose k”), but there’s an easy way to calculate that the probability of drawing no cursed arrows is 2/9 without that formula. You just need to multiply the probabilities that each of the arrows drawn is not cursed. Since only two arrows are drawn, you only have to multiply two numbers.

The probability that the first arrow is not cursed is 5/10 – there are 5 non-cursed arrows and 5 cursed arrows out of 10 total. After taking out one non-cursed arrow, there are 4 non-cursed arrows and 5 cursed arrows out of 9 total, so the probability that the second arrow is not cursed is 4/9. Multiplying the two probabilities, the probability of drawing two non-cursed arrows is (4*5)/(10*9) = 20/90 = 2/9.

I was considering writing this observation in the Explanation section of the page, but I’m not if it belongs there. This solution avoids using formulas from combinatorics, so it might not be connected enough to the comic.—[[User:Roryokane|Roryokane]] ([[User talk:Roryokane|talk]]) 06:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

My simple-minded approach:
* Roll d10 once for your first arrow: if 1 to 5, the arrow is cursed, otherwise not;
* Roll d10 again for your second arrow: same rules, but repeat until you have a different number from the first one (so d10 is in fact only a d9 this time)
* I won't calculate probabilities – these are your arrows, live with it ;-) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.109.51|172.69.109.51]] 07:33, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
:That has the benefit (over 3d6+1d4) of telling you which arrow(s) (if either) was cursed. [[User:RegularSizedGuy|RegularSizedGuy]] ([[User talk:RegularSizedGuy|talk]]) 07:52, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
::Also tells you how many cursed arrows are left, which is useful if the next player wants to take their chances with them too.[[Special:Contributions/172.71.103.68|172.71.103.68]] 14:40, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
:If you don't like re-rolls, you can make d9 out of 2d3. Nine possibilities, so just assign one of them (perhaps by rolling them one at a time) to be the more significant digit. Don't have a d3 handy? Use d6 and modulo off the extra! (1=1, 2=2, 3=3, 4=1, 5=2, 6=3) [[Special:Contributions/172.68.150.91|172.68.150.91]] 05:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

There seems to be doubt that a "N locks and M keys to unlock them" system could be easily accomplished. I think it could be trivial, with strategically interlocking locked-restraints. A chain formed of bike-locks can give a larger locked loop that can be unlocked by just unlocking any ''single'' one of the constituent locks, leaving the other locked loops to not matter (or you could also try the {{w|Borromean rings}} system, whereby it is again secure against itself, until just one ring is opened up to reveal that the rest now ''aren't even locked at all''...). With almost arbitrary ability to cross-link (or, if you will, repeated/alternating-reflected Borromean triplet connections), you can extend the requirements to more than one unlocking being required (by looping chain elements to mre than just the 'adjacent' loops, sideways onto a parallel meta-loop or up/down the chain, all you might do is allow some slack (could be sufficient to get a thing held directly closed by the taut loop-of-loops, but not enough if the passage of the loop through a hasp/sneck actually prevents the otherwise free movement of the final slide-to-unlock action to occur), but a second (or third, or fourth) unlocking can be required to open-end the whole metaloop of locks. At the top end, M=N solutions are also trivial (e.g. two keys, two locks popularly of safety deposit boxes or [[2677: Two Key System|other things]]). Which is not to say that a specific M-of-N puzzle (where 1<M<N) might not need a ''little'' bit of thought to actually design and implement, but there's no obvious reason why all such combinations shouldn't be nicely doable. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.165|172.69.79.165]] 14:56, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
:Can we first confirm that the M-of-N Encryption was what Randall was referencing in the first place? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.154.140|172.71.154.140]] 03:17, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
::No, first confirm that this is what the explanation treats as what Randall was referencing. As it was, "complicated lock mechanics" and/or "magic" were suggested as the only ways of doing this, when this (or what we thought this was) just needs a little thought and N bike-locks suitably entangled. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.58.45|172.70.58.45]] 13:17, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
:I'm glad someone else chimed in on this, because it is definitely ''not'' difficult to require unlocking of multiple discrete locks! I can't even figure out why one might think it would be? [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 15:55, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
::I had assumed that the locks were built into the chests (as they sometimes are), and that the chests were physically separated. Using m of n keys on a single chest would merely be complicated, but wouldn't really fulfill the description. Leaving the chests unlocked, but tightly wrapped in a locked chain would be more like drawers of a single "chest". I instead assumed that each of m chests had to be individually opened with its own proper key, but you had n chests to choose from. It was unspecified what would happen if you tried pairing a chest to the wrong key; perhaps both the key and the chest would be disabled (melted/stuck/burned/teleported). (And yes, needing only a subset of the chests, but any sufficiently large subset will do, is a semi-standard class of problem; a search for Byzantine Generals or PAXOS algorithm will get you started.) [[User:JimJJewett|JimJJewett]] ([[User talk:JimJJewett|talk]]) 07:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
:::For certain combinations of Ms and Ns, one solution is to have each chest have M locks (that must all be unlocked), such that each possible combination of M keys fully opens (at least) one chest, within which are the necessary complimentary keys to now fully unlock every other chest. A looser version is to have possibly only M/2 (or M/3, etc) locks in a configuration whereby you get to open any given two (or 3+) chests that only produce the full set of keys (and probably spares), but does leave it open to being exploited as "we could only open the one chest, and maybe one or two others with (M/2)<(owned keys)<(M) partial key overlap but at least it had ''some'' of the available treasure", unless designed to not work like that.
:::The limited subset of workable {M,N} values makes it impractical as "I have N chests and M chests, how do I...?" puzzle-setting, but still leaves it possible to force a puzzle from scratch that works this way (e.g. "you must have visited at least M antechambers and deceated the Key Guardians within, before you can open the chests within which are all the components necessary to create the potion that makes you ElementalLevelBoss-Proof"), for which you can determine a convenient set of requirements.
:::One (simple) combination would be two of three distinct keys (#1, #2 and #3) and three chests ("A", needs #1+2, contains #3; "B" needs 1+3, contains 2; "C" need 2+3, contains 1).
:::Add in the feature of duplicate keys but also a mechanism (or magic, or valid physical reason) which causes keys to be stuck in the locks (or vanish/melt/shatter/etc) upon being used, and you can create an even more complex puzzle, whereby having keys enough to (theoretically) open two chests is actually only enough to open one of them initially as you then lose the ability to attempt to open the other... at least until the opened chest provides new keys enough to open (perhaps by opening a different interim chest, with its own new keys, etc) the one that you did not initially choose. This would greatly expand the number of higher-order "M-of-N" combinations that you could facilitate. And could even created "M>N" requirements (three keys, two (combo-)locks: chest A needs 1+2, chest B needs 1+3; both render any keys inserted beyond further use but also contain a 'spare' 1; you need to externally gain 1+2+3 to eventually open A+B).
:::Exactly how (and why) you do it is open to your own needs.
:::And, if you're open to add an intermediate "locked box", you can exploit the trivial many:one ''and'' one:many relationships by just compounding them together, and maybe even adding more steps; e.g. with the last example of keys 1+2+3 opening A+B, you can offer up (from A, 4)+(from B, 5). To unlock C needs both 4+5 (thus 1+2+3, once removed), which itself handily contains ''all'' the further individual keys (or copies of the one key) required to open D, E, F, ... Z, so grants the stipulation of "3 needed to open 23". Or the earlier 2 keys (non-sticking, or regained by copies) for 3 chests grants the full co-keys needed to open that same key-store (see also {{w|Annett's key}}). Arbitrarily higher permutations of pretty much any initial number of (original) keys and however many intermediate openings (to match the singular key-safe's relatively simple multi-key requirements) steps you through the means to then open an arbitrary number of (final) locks, but you won't get ''any'' of the last locks unlocked if you have not fully satisfied the very first requirement.
:::...although it'd be neater if it was an M-and-N that was more direct, I still think. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.85|141.101.99.85]] 18:13, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

"other polyhedral dice, with the number of faces denoted by dX (e.g., d10 is a 10-sided die, with numbers from 1 to 10 on it)." - the d10 may be a poor choice as exemplar here; Back in the last century, when I was playing D&D, d10 were typically (and uniquely) numbered 0-9, not 1-10. This may no longer be the case, and I may be showing my age, but if it is still the norm, the d8 or d20 might be a better choice of example. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.210.6|172.68.210.6]] 02:40, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
:Typically, I've only seen 0-9 d10s, as part of a "d100" dice pair, with one reading 0-9 & the other reading 0⁰-9⁰... Single d10, mostly seem to come in 1-10? Maybe it depends which reseller one shops at... [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 15:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
::They are usually numbered 0-9, but the 0 represents 10, since writing 10 would require that face to have a different font size. It is still a d10, since the die has ten sides, and still cannot roll at 0. The d100 variant does the same thing with 100, but for the added reason that the 00 face actually does mean 0 when the other die rolls a 1-9. This is the convention, so a die that actually writes 10 on it instead of 0 will be rare. [[User:Stardragon|Stardragon]] ([[User talk:Stardragon|talk]]) 23:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

You've all been nerd-sniped. [[User:CalibansCreations|'''<span style="color:#ff0000;">Caliban</span>''']] ([[User talk:CalibansCreations|talk]]) 10:53, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Combinatorics degree? Does such a degree really exist? --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.130.37|162.158.130.37]] 17:19, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
:There are degrees for all kinds of things. A quick search reveals a number of "Combinatorics" or "Combinatorics and <Foo>" (e.g. "Optimisation") degrees. Some of them are marked as Masters degrees, and I haven't dug into the others to see if there are any 'pure' undergraduate ones (apart from anything else, I know there are crucial differences between the structures and scopes of UK and US 'degree courses' to consider, in particular), but there seems to be representation on both sides of the Atlantic (and elsewhere, e.g. Oceana).
:At the very least, it could be a selected specialised segment of an even wider mathematical degree course, or a cross-disciplinary one (like my own, which was part under Physics and part under Computing, but could have included a Stats-based element). [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.49|162.158.74.49]] 19:07, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
::So "Combinatorics and <Foo>" would be meta-combinatorics, since it is combining something with something else. :) [[User:RandalSchwartz|RandalSchwartz]] ([[User talk:RandalSchwartz|talk]]) 20:19, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::I shall do my degree in "Combinatorics, Selectivity, Comparison, Decision Making and/or Cross-Designation (Choose Any Three)"... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.5|172.70.90.5]] 21:28, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm trying this on my DM. -[[User:Psychoticpotato|P?sych??otic?pot??at???o ]] ([[User talk:Psychoticpotato|talk]]) 15:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Can someone put into the Explanation the current details regarding the nature of cursed arrows, in whatever edition of DnD we're currently up to. (8th? I've lost track.) In different DnD-like media, I know that it can act somewhat negatively (reduces aim accuracy) or even outright problematic (it curses the person loosing the projectile; or even renders the bow otherwise useless, as analogue to a cursed weapon), or else reduces/inverts the damage (breaks easier, or essentially acts like a thrown beneficial potion to increase health/strength/stamina/etc of the target). I assume that it one of these, from the assumption that the player desires a "good enough" roll to avoid. On the other hand, cursed projectiles could be treated akin to poisoned arrows or vengeful weapons in doing more, better or more targeted damage (in which case it's a powerful aid, the archer is instead taking a chance of using up a stock of 'special arrows', perhaps in line with not knowing whether their foe ''needs'' that extra degree of offensive power). But, at least from the explaining text's approach to dice-roll results, that doesn't exactly mesh with the typical "higher is better" rolling mantra. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.129|172.70.86.129]] 22:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think making an M-of-N mechanism with physical locks would be "extremely cumbersome". For example you could have a bolt that must be drawn back to open the mechanism, with several padlocks over it, where the shackle of each padlock blocks the motion of the bolt, such that the distance you can draw the bolt is proportional to how many padlocks are removed. Removing any m of the n padlocks gives you enough range of motion to open the mechanism.
[[Special:Contributions/172.71.154.224|172.71.154.224]] 23:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

A DM with a degree in Combinatorics would be unlikely to find this annoying.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.245|162.158.62.245]] 05:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

With up to three D&D dice, it is impossible to achieve 2/9 exactly. The closest you can get is with d6 + 2d10x10 >= 146 (where d10x10 denotes the tens die, ranging from 10 to 100) yielding a probability of 133/600 = 0.2216667. [[User:Vandof|Vandof]] ([[User talk:Vandof|talk]]) 06:27, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

With four D&D dice, 2d6 + d8 + d10 >= 21 and d10 + 2d12 + d20 >= 36 are alternate solutions. The former is more feasible than 3d6 + d4 for those who don't have three d6's. [[User:Vandof|Vandof]] ([[User talk:Vandof|talk]]) 06:49, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

You can do it with two dice, although not by summation. Roll 2d3; if 1,1, or 3,3 pass, else fail. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.167.88|162.158.167.88]] 19:41, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Could someone explain option 6, multiplying two six-sided dice, with a threshold of > 20? I think 66, 65, 64, 56, 55, and 46 all work, making it ... equivalent to 1D6.
[[User:JimJJewett|JimJJewett]] ([[User talk:JimJJewett|talk]]) 07:25, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
:It's >= 20, so 54 and 45 work as well. That brings the probability up to 8/36 = 2/9. [[User:Vandof|Vandof]] ([[User talk:Vandof|talk]]) 13:31, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

3022: Making Tea

2024-12-10T06:59:05Z

172.70.160.195: /* Methods mentioned */

{{comic
| number = 3022
| date = December 9, 2024
| title = Making Tea
| image = making_tea_2x.png
| imagesize = 690x291px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = No, of course we don't microwave the mug WITH the teabag in it. We microwave the teabag separately.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Microwaved by a TEA-MAKING AUTOMATON - Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
Tea is exceptionally popular in the United Kingdom, to the point virtually every home has an electric tea kettle as a standard appliance. In contrast, tea is less commonplace in the United States of America (Randall's native country) and owning a separate appliance solely for tea is generally not needed. As a result, when Americans need a cup of boiled water — for tea or otherwise — it's considered normal to put the water in a microwave oven.

British people are stereotyped as taking genuine offense to microwaved water, believing it to be an objectively incorrect way to make tea. Randall mocks this stereotype through exaggeration, saying British people would be less offended by the theft of the {{w|Crown Jewels of the United Kingdom}} than they would be by a cup of microwaved water.

===Methods mentioned===
;Making it in a kettle
:Perhaps an intentional misnomer. Water may be ''boiled'' in a kettle, but the tea itself is made in a separate {{w|teapot}}, with loose or bagged tea-leaves, ready for pouring into {{w|teacup}}s, {{w|mug}}s or {{w|vacuum flask|thermos flask}} as required.

;Boiling water in a pot, steeping in a mug
:The reverse misnomer, as the boiling water from the ''kettle'', as well as being used to fill any (tea)pot, can be poured straight into a mug. Either with a teabag already waiting in it (typical for "{{w|Builder's tea}}", where it may remain for a long while, ''perhaps'' until being fished out by a spoon just before drinking) or into which the teabag will now be dipped (at the personal discretion of the recipient, to taste, thus fine-tuning the time it infuses).

;Making it in a chalice and ampulla stolen from the Crown Jewels
:The most un-British thing about this is the stealing. Though many may have considered it, and occasionally {{w|Thomas Blood#Theft of the Crown Jewels|attempted it}}, it would not be taken kindly by many others. And to do so to make tea would be just {{wiktionary|not cricket}}. The stone challice and gold ampulla are also doubtful as being of suitable materials for British tea-making (as opposed to silver-plated steel, robust ceramics, etc) and there'd definitely be some complaints that it does not taste like a proper cuppa.

;Microwaving a mug
:Apparently common in the US, possibly because the standard US home power supply (~120V) is less convenient to power an electric kettle such as the British might use (with ~240V). The microwaving method of heating water is widely mistrusted in the UK, with warnings about generating superheated water that explodes in your face the moment it is disturbed. In general, one doesn't put 'just water' in a microwave; the closest analogue would be something like soup (from a can but now in a microwave-safe bowl), and keeping an eye on it/applying a loose lid to prevent it sputtering and overboiling.
:The title text continues with this theme, by reassuring us that the microwaved mug doesn't have a teabag in it (analogous to the 'boiling tea-kettle' version, together with new uncertainty about sudden nucleation of the water). Instead, it is separately microwaved. As tealeaves (and bag) should normally be dry and receive little to no heating from its own stint in the microwave, the wrongheadedness this invokes does little to dissuade the skeptic's doubts about how utterly perverse this colonial variation on tea-making has become.

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

[A chart is shown with four labeled tick marks. The first two are close together on the far left side of the graph, the third is approximately in the center, and the fourth is on the far right side of the graph. Above the chart are, from top to bottom, a heading, a subheading, and a labeled arrow pointing right.]

:<big>Ways of making tea</big>
:By how angry British people get when Americans do them

:More angry

:Making it in a kettle

:Boiling water in a pot, steeping in a mug

:Making it in a chalice and ampulla stolen from the Crown Jewels

:Microwaving a mug
{{comic discussion}}

Talk:3011: Europa Clipper

2024-11-14T14:57:56Z

172.70.160.195:

I'm not brave enough to actually add an explanation myself, quite yet, but ... I guess this is a reference to the fact(?) that Europa looks a bit like a creme brulee', when viewed from space? https://science.nasa.gov/jupiter/moons/europa/ It does look tasty ... :) [[User:ModelD|ModelD]] ([[User talk:ModelD|talk]]) 12:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
:I suspect it's more due to the need to drill through a couple miles of ice to get to the ocean; much like breaking through the sugar crust on a creme broule! [[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 13:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you to the people at 9AM Post things on another website to try and explain XKCD Comics. -Forgotten_Mail {{unsigned ip|172.69.33.177|13:30, 13 November 2024}}

The comically large spoon!!!!!!!!!! I love those. -[[User:Psychoticpotato|P?sych??otic?pot??at???o ]] ([[User talk:Psychoticpotato|talk]]) 16:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
: Don't be sucked in! Protect yourself! https://rathergood.com/2017/02/10/spoonguard/ [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.105|141.101.99.105]] 10:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I think the "Crème brûlée is from France, France is in Europe, the moon is called Europa" connection is a bit of a stretch...? [[User:Yorkshire Pudding|Yorkshire Pudding]] ([[User talk:Yorkshire Pudding|talk]]) 18:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
: Eh, it's the same etymology. --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.134.230|172.69.134.230]] 11:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
:: The issue of the continent and the moon coming from the same classical source (for different reasons) rather stretches the link between the dish (from the country, from the country's region/continent, from the region of Greece, ''possibly'' from the pantheon) and the moon (directly from the pantheon). I agree with the 'stretch' assessment. You can probably find easier and more plausible (but wrong) links worth alluding to than that, which relies upon several steps and a ''possible'' polysemic pair of original links. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.58.45|172.70.58.45]] 12:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
:::From an American perspective, Europe might seem like a distant, mysterious place that you might want to send a probe to to gather interesting information, and also somewhere that crème brûlée comes from. It's also potentially confusable (by the easily confused) with Europa. That seems like a reasonable enough connection to make to me. The mention of France is essentially by the by.[[Special:Contributions/172.71.26.107|172.71.26.107]] 12:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
:::It keeps getting said that "Europa is named after Europe", '''which is not correct''' (etymology, BTW, not entomology). I shall have to re-restore some other changes made to the same paragraph in rapid succession whilst I was trying to explain this. Bear with me. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.195|172.70.160.195]] 14:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

"only a spoonful" moment 💔 [[User:CalibansCreations|'''<span style="color:#ff0000;">Caliban</span>''']] ([[User talk:CalibansCreations|talk]]) 19:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Someone should add a reference to XKCD's previous mention of a Planetary Protection Officer: https://what-if.xkcd.com/117/ [[Special:Contributions/162.158.42.221|162.158.42.221]] 00:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

JUICE mentioned!!! cracker ham cheese cracker ham cheese cracker [[User:N-eh|N-eh]] ([[User talk:N-eh|talk]]) 07:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Here is a list from NASA about spacecraft instrument deployment failures, they are remarkably frequent: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20210020397/downloads/Alphonzo%20Stewart-%20Final%20Paper.pdf [[Special:Contributions/162.158.19.50|162.158.19.50]] 13:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I think we need to have a conversation about how the insertion orbit plan is so chaotic that there is a significant chance that the probe might crash in to and pierce the crust of Europa. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.187.56|162.158.187.56]] 14:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:3011: Europa Clipper

2024-11-14T14:57:10Z

172.70.160.195:

I'm not brave enough to actually add an explanation myself, quite yet, but ... I guess this is a reference to the fact(?) that Europa looks a bit like a creme brulee', when viewed from space? https://science.nasa.gov/jupiter/moons/europa/ It does look tasty ... :) [[User:ModelD|ModelD]] ([[User talk:ModelD|talk]]) 12:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
:I suspect it's more due to the need to drill through a couple miles of ice to get to the ocean; much like breaking through the sugar crust on a creme broule! [[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 13:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you to the people at 9AM Post things on another website to try and explain XKCD Comics. -Forgotten_Mail {{unsigned ip|172.69.33.177|13:30, 13 November 2024}}

The comically large spoon!!!!!!!!!! I love those. -[[User:Psychoticpotato|P?sych??otic?pot??at???o ]] ([[User talk:Psychoticpotato|talk]]) 16:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
: Don't be sucked in! Protect yourself! https://rathergood.com/2017/02/10/spoonguard/ [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.105|141.101.99.105]] 10:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I think the "Crème brûlée is from France, France is in Europe, the moon is called Europa" connection is a bit of a stretch...? [[User:Yorkshire Pudding|Yorkshire Pudding]] ([[User talk:Yorkshire Pudding|talk]]) 18:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
: Eh, it's the same etymology. --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.134.230|172.69.134.230]] 11:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
:: The issue of the continent and the moon coming from the same classical source (for different reasons) rather stretches the link between the dish (from the country, from the country's region/continent, from the region of Greece, ''possibly'' from the pantheon) and the moon (directly from the pantheon). I agree with the 'stretch' assessment. You can probably find easier and more plausible (but wrong) links worth alluding to than that, which relies upon several steps and a ''possible'' polysemic pair of original links. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.58.45|172.70.58.45]] 12:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
:::From an American perspective, Europe might seem like a distant, mysterious place that you might want to send a probe to to gather interesting information, and also somewhere that crème brûlée comes from. It's also potentially confusable (by the easily confused) with Europa. That seems like a reasonable enough connection to make to me. The mention of France is essentially by the by.[[Special:Contributions/172.71.26.107|172.71.26.107]] 12:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
:::It keeps getting said that "Europa is named after Europe", '''which is not correct''' (etymology, BTW, not entomology). I shall have to re-restore some other changes made to the same paragraph in rapid succession whilst I was trying to explain this. Bear with me.

"only a spoonful" moment 💔 [[User:CalibansCreations|'''<span style="color:#ff0000;">Caliban</span>''']] ([[User talk:CalibansCreations|talk]]) 19:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Someone should add a reference to XKCD's previous mention of a Planetary Protection Officer: https://what-if.xkcd.com/117/ [[Special:Contributions/162.158.42.221|162.158.42.221]] 00:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

JUICE mentioned!!! cracker ham cheese cracker ham cheese cracker [[User:N-eh|N-eh]] ([[User talk:N-eh|talk]]) 07:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Here is a list from NASA about spacecraft instrument deployment failures, they are remarkably frequent: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20210020397/downloads/Alphonzo%20Stewart-%20Final%20Paper.pdf [[Special:Contributions/162.158.19.50|162.158.19.50]] 13:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I think we need to have a conversation about how the insertion orbit plan is so chaotic that there is a significant chance that the probe might crash in to and pierce the crust of Europa. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.187.56|162.158.187.56]] 14:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)