explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:3038: Uncanceled Units

2025-01-16T00:21:34Z

172.70.163.47:

DUDE I'M STILL IN SCHOOL RN, WHAT?
(also, the joke is that energy is power*time, so kWh is kJ/s... in an hour [[User:CalibansCreations|'''Caliban''']] ([[User talk:CalibansCreations|talk]]) 13:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I guess not every comic can be a winner. Talking about an appliance using a certain amount of kWH per day is clear and normal. Power gets billed by the kWh, not the Joule. While technically not wrong, wanting "cancel" a sub-part of the commonly-used energy unit kWh and leaving it in deliberately-obscured units most people are less familiar with is the sort of insanity I'd more expect from White Hat than Cueball. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.35.171|172.70.35.171]] 13:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:Maybe that is a meta-joke? To frame kWh/day as something crazy by giving that line to whitehat --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 13:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:There's a difference between instantaneous power draw, and the total "volume"(/area, really) of power over time. Though a fridge is "always on", it is still only irregularly at full-draw. But, to the power company (or to the gas company, who will generally give a kWh measure of 'energy taken from the network'), they don't (generally) care whether you used twice as many kW over half the time or half as many over twice the time, within any given total billing period, even if it affects what you think. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.163.46|172.70.163.46]] 14:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::Using joule as if it was an everyday unit of energy would be weird but I don't agree that watt is crazy. It's a normal unit of energy consumption that does mean something to people, e.g. 1000W microwave, 100W (incandescent) light bulb. Don't get me wrong kWh/day is also useful to translate it to your energy bill, but I do feel slightly uncomfortable every time I see that time divided by time :-) [[User:Mtcv|Mtcv]] ([[User talk:Mtcv|talk]]) 14:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

This is especially funny with US units. My car needs about 5l/100km, or 0.05mm². Now I am wondering how many ft^(-2) my car does... --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 13:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
: You make a good point about the units (at least in one instance). Shouldn't the reduced units for fuel economy be inverse area? Effectively, it is a measure of the distance the vehicle could travel while consuming a column of fuel with a specific height and specific top (or bottom) surface area. Or, The better the fuel economy, the less the surface area that is necessary to move a specific distance. [[User:SammyChips|SammyChips]] ([[User talk:SammyChips|talk]]) 20:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::It depends on what the original unit is. In my country (Germany) we measure it in volume/distance, which would reduce to area. North American convention is in distance/volume which would reduce to inverse area. Good thing about distance/volume is that "high number = good". However I think outside of escaping from a nuclear disaster or in a zombie apocalypse it isn't a really helpful thing to know. Because how often do you know "I got x amount of fuel. Wonder how far I can get." But you will likely be in the situation where you quickly want to see "How much fuel do I need to get to place x which is y distance from here". --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 21:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:: More usefully imagined as the front (or back) end of a horizontal column (or, twisting as it may, a pipeline) that traverses the journey made by the vehicle. As if (instantaneous variations excepted) you consume precisely the fuel that your vehicle passes 'through/around'. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.76.92|141.101.76.92]] 20:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::: Yeah. Maybe we should express fuel consumption in terms of the speed fuel needs to be drawn through a standard fuel line. [[User:SammyChips|SammyChips]] ([[User talk:SammyChips|talk]]) 21:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

fridge [[Special:Contributions/172.70.126.147|172.70.126.147]] 14:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

The late [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_J._C._MacKay Sir David MacKay] wrote an excellent book, [http://www.withouthotair.com/ Sustainable Energy – without the hot air] (which is available free online).
On [http://www.withouthotair.com/c2/page_24.shtml this page] he talks about the units he uses in the book: kWh for energy ("one unit") and kWh/day for power - becuase it's simple for lay-people to understand - how many units does this appliance use per day.
It's a good book if any of you are interested in sustainable energy (although it was written in 2008, so some bits might be out of date by now) {{unsigned ip|172.70.85.33|14:33, 15 January 2025}}

If anyone's curious, I found an online gallons per square foot calculator: https://www.omnicalculator.com/construction/gallons-per-square-foot [[Special:Contributions/172.71.223.6|172.71.223.6]] 15:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

The answer to Cueball's question is likely NO in the US and YES in the UK, due not just to gallon size but also fridge size (a model like that is a particularly large fridge, when I bought one 10 years ago going for the smallest available I had to modify my cabinet above the fridge as there wasn't one less than 6'8"- the fridge hole was 6' previous).[[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 16:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I disagree with this comic, and I think the final paragraph in the explanation about Hubble's constant best explains why. [[User:Beanie|Beanie]] [[User talk:Beanie|talk]] 15:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Technically, kWh should be written as kW⋅h or kW h, because it literally means "kilowatts multiplied by one hour", not "kilowatts per hour" as many people assume. However, almost nobody writes it correctly. (kW/h is sometimes also seen, but egregiously incorrect.) Also, particularly now that electric vehicles are becoming more popular, people often get confused between kW and kW h. The car can charge at a peak or average rate expressed in kW, but energy billed by a charging service provider is expressed in kWh. People frequently either add or remove the "h" incorrectly because they don't understand the difference. In some places like India, a kilowatt-hour is simply referred to as a "unit" to avoid confusion. In my opinion, it was an enormous mistake to use kWh when we could be using mJ instead, which I think is probably something close to the point Randall may have been trying to make. Anyway, I wasn't sure if there was a place for any of this random trivia in the article itself, but feel free to use it. [[User:Equites|Equites]] ([[User talk:Equites|talk]]) 17:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Relevant XKCD… I mean relevant YouTube video: "Cursed units" 1 and 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkfIXUjkYqE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zg7xe8MkJHs [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 17:31, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

: Highly relevant, in fact. The first video referred to the kilowatt-hour as "cursed", which became a highly polarizing issue in the comments, something that was addressed at the beginning of part 2. Assuming these responses weren't cherry-picked, I get the impression that there are a lot of people on both sides of this. It seems like the same kind of thing we're seeing in this very comment section. [[User:ISaveXKCDpapers|ISaveXKCDpapers]] ([[User talk:ISaveXKCDpapers|talk]]) 18:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I always wonder why people here prefer liter/m^2 for the amount of rain. Where the same number as mm is way easier to imagine. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.50.99|172.68.50.99]] 18:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
: At first, I was wondering if you would have rather had it in microliters/mm^2, but you meant the column height of the rain, like inches are used in the US. Along the line of L/m^2, something like mL/cm^2 might be nice considering the density of water, although the value also would be different by a factor. [[User:SammyChips|SammyChips]] ([[User talk:SammyChips|talk]]) 20:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
: That's the neat thing about the metric system, they are trivially simple to convert. 1l/m² is exactly 1mm. The fact that the meteorology uses the former just stems from the fact that that's how they measure it. The catch the rain on an area of 1m² into a beaker that contains some volume which is measured in liters. What annoys me though, is that noone seems to be talking about how terribly inefficient the fridge in the comic is. Mine only needs a tenth of the one that Whitehat tries to sell, and that's not even particularly good. --21:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:: UK measurements, once it gets to weather reports/forecasts, tend to be in millimetres (or centimetres, where more for the layperson who don't need mm-resulution; or occasionally recast as 'old money' inches, with ''really'' bad rain events summarised in relation to whole feet), which is implicitly the depth to which ''any'' area would be filled (in a case where large catchment + funnelling valley situation is concerned, suffering from the run-off, might be ''reported'' as "equivalent to ''N'' feet of rain", down where the bad effects get concentrated, but this is not a meteorological measure as such).
:: Not sure I've ever seen volume/area as an end-result figure (might be relevent as an intermediate for measurement/calculation, especially when discussing the funelling effects of the given local geography), but of course it's trivially relatable.
:: Density of water would only figure in from replacing litres with kilogrammes (litres are 1/1000th of metres³ and any m² is 10,000 times the cm² (or millilitre), so a factor of 10 between L/m² and mL/cm²; divide L to mL by 1000, times m² to cm² by 10,000, => 10x) but I always find it useful to know that three 2L bottles of pop are (very close to, going by the nominal water content alone) 6kg... makes me feel better about lugging the weekly shopping home, where these might be the single most significant part of the weight. More usefully than cross-converting into length-cubed measure. ;) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.69|141.101.98.69]] 21:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Isn't the point that KwH/day can be simplified to Watts (an average perhaps, but still) {{unsigned ip|162.158.41.72|21:24, 15 January 2025}}
: Yes, the joke seems pretty clearly about watts or kilowatts, not megajoules. Using megajoules doesn't result in any units being canceled; the denominator remains "/day". [[User:BatmanAoD|BatmanAoD]] ([[User talk:BatmanAoD|talk]]) 23:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

If the argument for kWh/day is that it's easy for the consumer to understand how it will affect their electricity bill – then kWh/month would be the right choice, because I doubt anyone receives an electricity bill every day. But the salesman prefers 3 kWh/day because it sounds like a smaller number than 90 kWh/month. And of course, if electricity bills were written in joules instead of illogical watt-hours, then MJ/month would be the easiest for the consumer. {{unsigned ip|162.158.134.90|22:31, 15 January 2025}}
:Per-month is tricky. You seem to assume month=30 days, when it can be 28-31 and is only 30 days a third of the time. Per quarter(-year) is a bit more consistent, less fractionally variant ''and'' closer to most utility bill frequencies as well, if you're looking for something not as eye-wateringlg frightening as an annual estimate. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.163.47|172.70.163.47]] 00:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

3022: Making Tea

2024-12-10T17:04:25Z

172.70.163.47: /* 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 TUMBLR THREAD FULL OF LUNATICS - Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
Tea is exceptionally popular in the United Kingdom (although [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gpll9l535o decreasingly so]). Virtually every home has an electric kettle as a standard appliance with teapots and other related crockery being found in many cupboards, or even on a shelf in full display. British people are perceived as taking tea seriously, having very specific and strongly held opinions on the proper way to make tea. In contrast, tea is less commonplace in the United States of America (Randall's native country) and owning separate devices for tea-making is probably far less common than having coffee-makers of various kinds. While some households have kettles that can be put on a stove top, many do not have any specific device to boil water. As a result, when Americans need a cup of hot water — for tea or otherwise — the options are usually to use a pan on the stove or to simply microwave a mug of water (the latter probably being more common in modern times). Instant hot water taps {{w|Instant hot water dispenser}} are also common in many homes, water coolers, and public drinking fountains in the US.

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 significantly less offended someone stealing {{w|Crown Jewels of the United Kingdom}} and using those for tea-making 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 any number of {{w|teacup}}s, {{w|mug}}s or {{w|vacuum flask|thermos flask}} as required. Alternatively, the water is poured directly from the kettle into a mug or cup, where the teabag is allowed to steep directly. Making tea actually ''in'' the kettle, by placing the tea in with the water and then boiling it, would be considered ''very'' bad form (and likely void your warranty).

;Boiling water in a pot, steeping in a mug
:Identical to the above, except using a pot (or more commonly in the UK, a 'pan') on the stove, rather than a kettle. This is slightly less convenient than using a kettle, since the pan lacks a dedicated spout for pouring and an alert whistle to notify when the water is boiling, but is otherwise functionally identical. Nonetheless, many Brits would take mild offense, considering it to be inferior to using a kettle.

;Making it in a chalice and ampulla stolen from the Crown Jewels
:A {{w|chalice}} is an ornate type of cup; an {{w|ampulla}} is a type of flask or bottle. Both are typically now terms used in relation to objects used in ritual. Randall is likely drawing a parallel here with the ritualism and particularity with which some people surround the making of tea and its associated artefacts.
:The {{w|Crown_Jewels_of_the_United_Kingdom|Crown Jewels}} are a set of items belonging the British monarchy, including ceremonial items and clothing using in royal coronations. These items have both major cultural significance, due to their historical connection with the monarchy, and major objective value, as many of them are heavily jeweled and/or made of precious metals. To steal items from these collection for the purpose of tea-making would obviously be both highly criminal and highly disrespectful. The ampulla referenced is used to anoint the monarch with oil during the coronation ceremony and the chalice may refer to a {{w|Eucharist|Communion vessel}}, giving them religious significance as well.
:More importantly for many, though, this would be incorrect tea-ware. The gold or silver chalices and gold ampulla are doubtful as being of suitable materials for British tea-making (as opposed to using cast iron, stainless steel, silver-plate, robust ceramics and/or fine china, for various stages of the process) and there'd definitely be some complaints that it does not taste like a proper cuppa. To use such objects to make tea would simply {{wiktionary|not be cricket}}.

;Microwaving a mug
:As mentioned above, heating water in a microwave, for any purpose, considered acceptable and common in the US. To do so to make tea is considered uncommon and borderline heretical in the UK. The reasons for this are difficult to pin down. Some argue that the microwave doesn't allow proper control over the water temperature (which is considered vital for proper tea-making), but this position is questionable at best. Others raise the danger of superheating water which might boil over when the tea bag is added, but this is likely a highly overblown concern. Some people even argue that microwaving changes the quality or composition of the water in some way, but there's very little science to back that up. Most likely, the preparation of tea simply has a sense of tradition and ritual in Britain, and using a microwave feels crass, modern, and completely disconnected from the cultural associations of tea.
: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). Instead, it is separately microwaved. In typical Randall fashion, this is pure farce: there is no reason to microwave a teabag. Microwave ovens heat water molecules almost exclusively, and tealeaves (and bag) should normally be dry and would receive little to no heating. The wrongheadedness of this claim does little but provoke a skeptic's doubts about how utterly perverse this colonial variation on tea-making has become.

==Transcript==
:[A line chart is shown. Above the chart are, from top to bottom, a heading, a subheading, and an arrow pointing right with a label above. On the line there are four labeled tick marks, with the labels written beneath the line. A small curved line is going from each label to below their tick. The first two ticks 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.]
:<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}}

[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Food]]
[[Category:Rankings]]

3018: Second Stage

2024-11-30T12:00:02Z

172.70.163.47: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 3018
| date = November 29, 2024
| title = Second Stage
| image = second_stage_2x.png
| imagesize = 740x272px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Hmm, they won't do in-flight delivery, so let's order a new first and second stage to our emergency landing site and then try to touch down on top of them to save time.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a SECOND STAGE AMAZON DELIVERY DRIVER - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic is about how rockets use multiple stages when lifting off, and in the comic, they installed too few stages. This is unlikely to happen in real life, because a lot of work goes into planning rockets{{cn}}. As the second stage is supposed to be started (according to the first pilot), the second pilot is initially confused and asks if a second stage was needed. The first pilot confirms that there was supposed to be a second stage, and thought that it was the second pilot's responsibility to install and confirm there was a second stage. When both pilots realize there is no second stage, the second pilot, naturally, thinks he can order one on Amazon with same day delivery (though Amazon typically doesn't sell space ship stages - at least not with same day delivery {{cn}}). He then has difficulty picking an address zip code as they are likely traveling too high above the ground and too fast to be in a single postal area for long enough for the delivery to take place. The joke is likely poking fun at people becoming highly dependent upon {{w|Amazon_(company)|Amazon delivery}} and that they don't need to remember to bring things on trips since they can have almost anything delivered to them while they travel.

The comic depicts a manned rocket launch, and the start of its subsequent flight. All current rockets, that are capable of sending manned capsules to orbit, do so by the initial rocket engines and fuel-tank being expended (or nearly so, where there is reusability) and disconnected to allow the smaller next stage to fire and continue the boost towards orbit with altitude-optimal engines and without the mass of the spent fuel tanks. Above this second stage may be one or more other stages, as required for the mission, which generally involves propulsion that is optimal for use in the vacuum of space, having a larger specific impulse but lower overall thrust, allowing for maneuvers to be completed with less fuel.



Note: the rocket design, though apparently at least one segment short, appears to be substantially taller than the launch tower of the pad, which is a strangely incongruous detail. Unless the real rocket support is an angled back "hard spine" structure that has been rotated out of the way and down into the exhaust-flume/flame-trench quenching system.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[A multi-stage rocket, with a capsule on top, is lifting-off the ground from a launchpad, at least two rocket nozzles are visibly producing a flame, and the pad is surrounded with smoke and/or steam from the blast suppression system. A voice comes from the capsule at the top.]
:We have liftoff.

:[The first stage separates from the rest of the rocket, part way through the roll-program. There are no obvious engines standing out from the 'second stage' (or extended payload trunk) lower shroud.]
:Main engine cutoff.
:Stage separation confirmed.
:We are go for second stage burn.

:Second stage?

:Yes.
:...What?

:[The first stage and the rest of the rocket are drifting apart in apparent freefall. No rocket is firing and the background does not seem to indicate that this view is beyond the atmosphere.]
:We were supposed to have a second stage?

:...Yes!

:Did '''''you''''' set up a second stage?

:I thought '''''you''''' were handling staging!

:Oh no.

:[They continue to drift apart slowly.]
:Okay, don't panic.
:Lemme see if we can order a stage online for same-day delivery.

:''Sigh''.

:Hey, what zip code should I put? Ours keeps changing.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Space]]
[[Category:Rockets]]

3007: Probabilistic Uncertainty

2024-11-06T22:13:06Z

172.70.163.47: /* Explanation */ If the table wants an explanation column, let's write it .

{{comic
| number = 3007
| date = November 4, 2024
| title = Probabilistic Uncertainty
| image = probabilistic_uncertainty_2x.png
| imagesize = 474x385px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = "One popular strategy is to enter an emotional spiral. Could that be the right approach? We contacted several researchers who are experts in emotional spirals to ask them, but none of them were in a state to speak with us."
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a PESSIMISTIC POLL-VIEWING BOT - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
This comic is about the difficulty of dealing psychologically with 50/50 odds, and is likely inspired by the {{W|2024 United States presidential election}}, as this comic was released the day prior. The odds of the election as reported by many media sources are close to 50/50, which is the third scenario shown in the comic.

Further, with regards to N/A - the odds of "precisely" 50/50 are probabilistically zero, unless the event under consideration is something relatively trivial such as a coinflip or die roll (and even with those it is extremely unlikely the coins or dice are perfectly "fair"). Any scenario that involves social sciences, such as an election (or even a single relationship) will never be precisely 50/50 (or, indeed, *any* discrete value).

{| class="wikitable"
!Odds
!How to think about it in an emotionally healthy way
!Explanation
|-
| Good outcome more likely || Recognize that the bad outcome is possible, but be reassured that the odds are in your favor || An optimistic attitude with a dose of realism.
|-
| Bad outcome more likely || Prepare for the bad outcome while remembering that the future isn't certain and hope is justified || A realistic attitude with a dose of optimism.
|-
| Precisely 50/50 || ????? N/A ???? || {{w|N/A}} stands for "not available", "no answer", "not applicable" or "not assessed". The actual worst case scenario, with no single obvious stance (and then also its complimentary fallback position) to prepare to take.
|}

There are any number of actual strategies to consider, the details of which will all depend very much upon the exact situation being faced, and one's own existing range of experiences and attitudes. Part of the joke may be in presenting such a condensed summary. Anyone who truly feels they need help to prepare such expectations should ideally seek specific advice/counsel, not take a generic and impersonal checklist at face value.

The title text makes use of ambiguous wording: "researchers who are experts in emotional spirals" could either refer to researchers who study emotional spirals, or researchers who are undergoing emotional spirals themselves. Evidently, all the researchers "we" contacted were the latter, and thus unable to advise the comic.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
[A table titled "Coping With Probabilistic Uncertainty", with two columns labeled "Scenario" and "How to think about it in an emotionally healthy way". The boxes in the Scenario column contains text followed by a rectangle split into two parts; the left part is a smiley face, the right part is a frowny face with slanted, angry eyes.]

Row 1, column 1: "Good outcome more likely". The smiley face portion of the rectangle is about 75%.
Row 1, column 2: "Recognize that the bad outcome is possible, but be reassured that the odds are in your favor".

Row 2, column 1: "Bad outcome more likely". The smiley face portion of the rectangle is about 25%.
Row 2, column 2: "Prepare for the bad outcome while remembering that the future isn't certain and hope is justified".

Row 3, column 1: "Precisely 50/50". The rectangle is split in half.
Row 3, column 2: "????? N/A ????"

==Trivia==
* This comic was posted a day before Election Day in the US, where the media has been reporting (based off of voter polls) that the 2 presidential candidates ([[Kamala Harris]] and [[Donald Trump]]) are closely contesting for the White House. This may be a possible reason behind the creation of this comic.

* Randall has dealt with the possibility of a tied electoral count 12 years before in ''what-if? [https://what-if.xkcd.com/19 #19]''

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Psychology]] [[Category:Statistics]]

Talk:2707: Astronomy Numbers

2024-11-02T11:12:58Z

172.70.163.47: /* Ponytail gets religion */ new section

First time I've ever seen a completely blank page. [[User:IJustWantToEditStuff|IJustWantToEditStuff]] ([[User talk:IJustWantToEditStuff|talk]]) 20:27, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
:Everyone's enthralled by ChatGPT. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.22.35|172.69.22.35]] 04:01, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

It's also notable that something weighting 12 solar masses will collapse into black hole on it's own, unless it resist collapse through thermal pressure like stars. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 21:26, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
: But not cats, because cats have hair, and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-hair_theorem black holes have no hair]. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.186.94|172.71.186.94]] 18:06, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

The Earth moves relative to the sun at 66,000 MPH. In what frame of reference is it 65 MPH? It isn't like Randall to get a number wrong. Maybe the magnitude of the distance from Earth to Sun changes at a closer rate, but even this is nearly 180 MPH if I'm calculating correctly. [[User:Mannerisky|Mannerisky]] ([[User talk:Mannerisky|talk]]) 21:37, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
: You're thinking orbital speed, she's talking orbital oscillation. That is, the speed at which the distance between earth and sun changes. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.242.240|198.41.242.240]] 21:51, 5 December 2022 (UTC) ADDITION: Orbital oscillation has both a mean/average factor and a current factor (which is at it slowest while at the apsides, and given the context the one being calculated) [[Special:Contributions/198.41.242.85|198.41.242.85]] 22:46, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I get the sense that the thing that they're planning for January 1st is a precisely-timed new year's party and nothing to do with space exploration. {{unsigned|172.71.242.156}}

; Obligatory ChatGPT explanation

:'''Me:''' The following is a transcript from the latest xkcd comic. Please write an explanation of the comic: ''[transcript copied verbatim from [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2707:_Astronomy_Numbers&oldid=300614#Transcript its current state] omitted]''

:'''[https://chat.openai.com/chat ChatGPT:]''' In the xkcd comic, Ponytail and Cueball are discussing Earth's orbit around the sun. Ponytail notes that Earth will be approaching the sun at a rate of 65 miles per hour on January 1st. Cueball responds, "Weird?" Ponytail explains that they usually see only complex and incomprehensible numbers in astronomy, and seeing a "normal" number like 65 miles per hour feels wrong to them. This reflects the common perception that numbers in the sciences, especially astronomy, are often complex and difficult to understand. Earlier in the comic, Ponytail also expresses skepticism at a "normal" number when Megan in coat tells them that their cat weighs 12 lbs. Ponytail suggests that it must actually weigh either 10-20 or 1040 instead. Megan responds by saying that the cat's weight is actually 3x10-30 solar masses, which Ponytail finds more acceptable.

I wish superscipts would survive copy-paste, but I have to admit it's better than the esoterica-laden verbosity that's up now.
::Superscripts? You could have easily added the <nowiki></nowiki>''whatever''<nowiki></nowiki> to your copypasta. Not much work (much less work than my having to <nowiki><nowiki></nowiki> this explanation for you), especially given how much other typing you seem to have done... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.58|172.70.91.58]] 10:56, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
:::I'm not sure you understand. I only typed the 14-20 word prompt prefix. The explanations above and below were generated by ChatGPT. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.154.158|172.71.154.158]] 18:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
: Okay, WTAF is "ChatGPT" and why would there be anything obligatory about it, and why did someone above think that people were busy with him/her/it? This seems very out of the blue, first time seeing that username, never mind mentioned... [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 04:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

:[Take two, using the prompt prefix, "The following is the wikitext transcript from the latest xkcd comic. Please write an explanation of the comic in wikitext. The title text should be explained in a seperate paragraph at the end:"

::'''ChatGPT:''' In the latest xkcd comic, two characters are discussing an elliptical orbit and the rate at which Earth is approaching the sun. One character, Ponytail, is suspicious when she sees a normal number (65 miles per hour) in their calculations and suggests that scales in astronomy should all be incomprehensible. This is a reference to the fact that astronomical numbers are often very large or very small, and can be difficult for non-astronomers to comprehend.

::Earlier in the comic, Ponytail is at the vet with her cat, and the vet tells her that the cat weighs 12 lbs. Ponytail finds this ridiculous, as nothing weighs 12. She suggests that the cat must weigh 10-20 or 1040 instead. The vet then tells her that the cat weighs 3x10-30 solar masses, which Ponytail finds more acceptable.

::The title text jokes about adopting a cat that weighs 12 solar masses, which would be extremely large. Laser pointers would love chasing it, as it would be an impressive target.

:Meh.]

I propose we create a [https://beta.openai.com/examples/default-summarize bot to summarize the transcript] with the text-davinci-003 API and paste it into the top of discussion whenever the Transcript is expanded more than 10%. Yays and nays? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.154.39|172.71.154.39]] 03:55, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
:'''Yea.''' Both have a few serious but easily noticed and easily correctable flaws, but both are far better than the borderline-trolling six paragraph wall of text for the simple, silly joke we have at the moment. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.245|172.69.33.245]] 06:09, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
: I'd like to see it with the past dozen recent transcripts before deciding, and would do it myself if work wasn't busting my butt this afternoon. Someone please go for it. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.214.151|172.70.214.151]] 20:01, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
:: I tried just now, but it's hammered to the point of completely unusable, timing out and reporting errors, and then an alert message saying to be patient while they try to scale. I like the idea but I'm skeptical of how it will do on the immediately previous [[2706: Bendy]] and similar very visual gags. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.22.16|172.69.22.16]] 17:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
:: ...my conclusion after doing a couple is that we're not going to be satisfied automating (at least with the prompt I was using from here) but it's a useful tool for producing simple explanations if operated manually. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.158.217|172.71.158.217]] 17:54, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Why is it as big as 65 mph? Where did the 65 mph figure have come from? A formula? Taking a linear change from minimum velocity (-500 m/s 12 weeks earlier), 4 days before the perihelion gives 86 km/h (53 mph), three days gives just 64 km/h (40 mph). But those are surely too big, since the rate of change of radial velocity would be slowest around perihelion and aphelion. I wouldn't expect the above-calculated rate of change until weeks out from perihelion. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.210.5|172.68.210.5]] 08:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
:Using an ephemeris service, I get 27.6 m/s or 61.8 mph- a bit lower than Randall's record but still in the ballpark. The reason is probably because of the effect of the Moon's orbit on Earth. Of course it's not a huge effect, but when we're working in just a few miles per hour, it definitely has a monthly effect.
:: I did a rough calculation using the position of the Earth-Moon barycentre, and came up with an average Sun-relative radial speed (unsigned velocity) for the Moon of 26 km/h (16 mph). So yes, that could explain some of it, but I still think the contribution of Earth's orbit would be very small around the perihelion (and aphelion). [[Special:Contributions/172.68.66.114|172.68.66.114]] 21:17, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Surely the really weird thing is an astronomer using non-SI units? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.12|172.70.86.12]] 09:40, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Just changed the "weight" of the Earth to the "mass", in the explanation. Apart from anything else, the weight of the Earth standing on a typical human('s feet?) is ''exactly equal'' to the weight of a typical human standing on the Earth. And things would be screwy, if not. And don't try to 'weigh' the Earth upon the surface of a duplicate Earth, that invokes a number of Health And Safety violations, at minimum, and the results would be questionable. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.58|172.70.91.58]] 11:13, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
:It would probably invoke a What If? as well.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.75|172.70.91.75]] 09:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I interpreted the title text not as the 12-solar-mass star bending the light from laser pointers, but the laser pointers *themselves* "following" the star because they're close enough to it to orbit said star (or at least, on hyperbolic trajectories influenced by the star). [[User:Trimeta|Trimeta]] ([[User talk:Trimeta|talk]]) 16:46, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

This reminds me of how in the Planck system of units the derived unit of momentum has a value of approximately 6.5 kg m/s which is a strangely normal unit.
[[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.204|172.70.206.204]] 22:35, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
: It's derived from the Planck mass, which is an annoyingly large 22 micrograms. I was coming here to point that out. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.189|162.158.79.189]] 17:06, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I so expected to see more references to the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy references since the description starts out like a quote from the Guide MK I. [[User:Wjbodin3|WJBodin3]] ([[User talk:Wjbodin3|talk]]) 01:05, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
:I take that as a bonus ref. There really aint any H2G2 links in the comic (aside from the assertion that Space Is Big, which isn't exactly its unique observation). Putting more in would be distracting. (Already, I think it's overguilded, lillywise, but not so much that I'd remove an excess link.) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.207|172.71.178.207]] 06:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
::Yeah - you always get problems once the guilds start getting involved. Mind you, Hitchhiker's has been [https://www.abebooks.co.uk/servlet/SearchResults?an=douglas+adams&pn=guild guilded] itself.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.75|172.70.91.75]] 09:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
::: (Well, that was an honest typo. I know enough not to type the "u" in "gild", but my fingers clearly did not, or it was a Qwerty-crosskey. Still, it provoked a funny and intelligent response.) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.207|172.71.178.207]] 15:28, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

== Ponytail gets religion ==

Clearly, Ponytail is a Saganist. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.163.47|172.70.163.47]] 11:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)