explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

2665: America Songs

2022-09-16T22:07:49Z

172.70.206.213: /* Table of names matching the rythmic meter of America */ not relevant to this entry?

{{comic
| number = 2665
| date = August 29, 2022
| title = America Songs
| image = america_songs.png
| titletext = Juraaaassic Park, Juraaaassic Park, God shed his grace on theeeee
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a JURASSIC PARK SONGWRITER. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

Many songs, particularly those written by Americans, contain the word "America." Randall has listed 5 such songs: "{{w|America the Beautiful}}", "{{w|God Bless America}}", Neil Diamond's "{{w|America (Neil Diamond song)|America}}", "{{w|America (West Side Story song)|America}}" from the Broadway musical ''{{w|West Side Story}}'', the Guess Who's "{{w|American Woman}}" and Green Day's "{{w|American Idiot (song)|American Idiot}}". These songs usually either praise the United States for its perceived virtues or mock it for its perceived flaws. Regardless of the content of the song, one could likely sing such songs replacing each usage of the word "America" or "American" with another four-syllable word or phrase with emphasis on the second syllable, without disrupting the {{w|cadence}} or meter of the song. Words and phrases like this are said to "{{w|Scansion|scan}}" with the word "America," which means to conform to that metrical pattern.

The comic provides a list of such names, most of which are locations. While some share virtues or flaws with the United States, most would fit into songs about the United States poorly, and only some are prominent enough to justify a song praising or mocking them. So the substitution is humorous for most of the examples. Other examples include Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Liberia, Nigeria, Bolivia, Siberia, Somalia, Albania, Bulgaria, Colombia, Cambodia, Armenia, Australia, Dominica, Estonia, Mongolia, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, South Africa, El Salvador, the Alamo, and the Netherlands.

Note that inhabitants of some real-world locations mentioned in this comic do not pronounce their names in a way that scans with "America". Also note that the adjective form of many of the places listed either does not exist or does not fit the same rhythmic structure as "American". (For instance, while "Antarctican Idiot" scans with "American Idiot", "St. Petersburgian Idiot" does not; meanwhile, "Canada" does not scan with "America", but "Canadian" does scan with "American" and was in fact used as such in Weird Al's parody, "{{w|Canadian Idiot}}".) In these cases, it would be necessary to use the noun form of the name to preserve the song's meter.

The title text provides an example: substituting "{{w|Jurassic Park}}" for "America" in the song "{{w|America the Beautiful}}".

A similar comparison in "scanning" was made in [[1412: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles]].

===Table of names matching the rythmic meter of America===
{| class="wikitable"
! Name || Description
|-
! colspan="2" | Map
|-
| Sasketchewan || Spelled incorrectly, should be ''{{w|Saskatchewan}}''. A province in Canada, whose capital is {{w|Regina, Saskatchewan|Regina}} and largest city is {{w|Saskatoon}}.
|-
| {{w|Ontario}} || The largest Canadian province by population and 2nd largest by total area. Includes the capital of Canada, {{w|Ottawa}}, and its largest city, {{w|Toronto}}.
|-
| {{w|Olympia, Washington|Olympia}} || Capital of the state of {{w|Washington}}.
|-
| {{w|Yosemite}} || National park in the state of {{w|California}}. Pronounced "yoh-SEM-ih-tee".
|-
| {{w|Los Angeles}} || Largest city in the state of California, and 2nd largest city in the United States.
|-
| {{w|Lake Michigan}} || One of the five {{w|Great Lakes}} in the United States. Borders the states of {{w|Wisconsin}}, {{w|Illinois}}, {{w|Indiana}}, and {{w|Michigan}}.
|-
| {{w|Peoria, Illinois|Peoria}} || The county seat of Peoria County, Illinois, and the largest city on the Illinois River. The oldest permanent European settlement in Illinois, according to the Illinois State Archaeological Survey.
|-
| {{w|Columbia, Missouri|Columbia}} (MO) || Fourth largest city in the state of {{w|Missouri}}. One of {{w|Columbia#United_States|many cities}} in the US named after {{w|Columbia (personification)|Columbia}}.
|-
| {{w|Montpelier, Vermont|Montpelier}} || The capital of the state of {{w|Vermont}}, which is a three syllable word pronounced mont-PEEL-yur and thus is erroneously on this list.{{cn}} However, the demonym "Montpelierite" is in fact four syllables so it can be used for the "American" songs.
|-
| {{w|Schenectady, New York|Schenectady}} || City in Schenectady County, {{w|New York}}. In the 19th century, nationally influential companies and industries developed in Schenectady, including {{w|General Electric}} and American Locomotive Company (ALCO).
|-
| {{w|Centralia, Pennsylvania|Centralia}} || Near-ghost town in central {{w|Pennsylvania}} due to a {{w|Centralia mine fire|long running mine fire}} burning beneath the town.
|-
| {{w|Annapolis, Maryland|Annapolis}} || Capital city of the state of {{w|Maryland}} and home to the {{w|United States Naval Academy}}.
|-
| {{w|Columbia, South Carolina|Columbia}} (SC) || Capital of the state of {{w|South Carolina}}. One of {{w|Columbia#United_States|many cities}} in the US named after {{w|Columbia (personification)|Columbia}}.
|-
| {{w|Vidalia, Georgia|Vidalia}} || City in the state of {{w|Georgia}}, known for their {{w|Vidalia onion}}s. Vidalia may not actually scan to "America", as it is pronounced "vy-DALE-yuh", not "vy-DALE-ee-ah" or "vee-DAHL-ee-ah".
|-
| {{w|Acadia National Park|Acadia}} || National park in the state of {{w|Maine}}.
|-
| {{w|Connecticut}} || US State, whose capital is {{w|Hartford, Connecticut|Hartford}} and largest city is {{w|Bridgeport, Connecticut|Bridgeport}}.
|-
| {{w|LaGuardia Airport|LaGuardia}} || One of the three major airports in {{w|New York City}} metropolitan area, named after former mayor {{w|Fiorello La Guardia}}. The airport was described in 2014 by Joe Biden as being like a third-world country.
|-
| {{w|Virginia Beach}} || Most populous city in the state of {{w|Virginia}}.
|-
| {{w|The Villages, Florida|The Villages}} || An unincorporated senior living community in the state of {{w|Florida}}. Notable for its local newspaper, ''{{w|The Villages Daily Sun}}'', which was the only top 25 American newspaper (by circulation) to show growth in 2022.[https://pressgazette.co.uk/us-newspaper-circulations-2022/]
|-
| {{w|St. Petersburg, Florida|St. Petersburg}} || The fifth largest city in the state of Florida. Part of the {{w|Tampa Bay area|Tampa Bay metropolitan area}}.
|-
| {{w|Miami Beach, Florida|Miami Beach}} || A coastal resort city in Miami-Dade County, Florida, across the bay from the city of {{w|Miami}}.
|-
! colspan="2" | Below the map
|-
| {{w|Algeria}} || A country in North Africa. The largest and the 9th most populated country on the continent of Africa. Bordered to the northeast by Tunisia; to the east by Libya; to the southeast by Niger; to the southwest by Mali, Mauritania, and Western Sahara; to the west by Morocco; and to the north by the Mediterranean Sea.
|-
| {{w|Armenia}} || A landlocked country located in the Armenian Highlands of Western Asia. It is a part of the Caucasus region.
|-
| {{w|Monrovia}} || The capital city of the West African country of {{w|Liberia}}.
|-
| {{w|Brasília|Brasilia}} || The federal capital of the country of {{w|Brazil}} and Brazil's 3rd populous city. Actually spelled ''Brasília''.
|-
| {{w|Australia}} || A country which comprises the mainland of the continent of Australia. The world's sixth largest country by area.
|-
| {{w|Valencia}} || The 3rd most populous city in the country of {{w|Spain}}.
|-
| {{w|Byzantium}} || An ancient Greek city and capital of the {{w|Byzantine Empire}}. Its name was changed to New Rome in 324, Constantinople in 330, and finally Istanbul in 1930.
|-
| {{w|Assyria}} || An major ancient Mesopotamian civilization which existed as a city-state and then a territorial state and eventually an empire. The Assyrian Empire fell to the Babylonians and Medes in the late 7th century BC.
|-
| {{w|Beringia}} || A prehistoric land mass and region in the {{w|Bering Sea}} region. It is the most popular site of the hypothesized "land bridge" that early humans used to migrate to the Americas.
|-
| {{w|Antarctica}} || The earth's southernmost and least-populated continent, mostly covered by ice.
|-
| {{w|Sokovia}} || A fictional country in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Described to be in eastern Europe between Slovakia and the Czech Republic. Its capital city is destroyed during a battle between Ultron and the Avengers in the film ''{{w|Avengers: Age of Ultron}}'', leading to the ratification of the Sokovia Accords.
|-
| {{w|Andromeda}} || Several things: a {{w|Andromeda (constellation)|constellation in space}}, a {{w|Andromeda Galaxy|galaxy}} within that constellation, or the {{w|Andromeda (mythology)|Greek mythological character}} whom the constellation and galaxy are named after.
|-
| {{w|Lothlórien|Lothlorien}} || A realm of the elves in {{w|Middle-earth}} in the {{w|Tolkien's legendarium|works of J. R. R. Tolkien}}. Ruled by Galadriel and Celeborn. Actually spelled ''Lothlórien'' in the books.
|-
| ''{{w|Subnautica}}'' || Not a place, but an open-world survival action-adventure video game developed and published by Unknown Worlds Entertainment released in 2018.
|-
| {{w|metaverse|The Metaverse}} || The online world of {{w|virtual reality}}. (To substitute into ''American Idiot'', the singer could use "don't wanna be a Metaverse Idiot" or "The Metaverse idiot".)
|-
| {{w|Econo Lodge|EconoLodge}} || Actually spelled ''Econo Lodge'', though their wordmark doesn't help. An economy motel chain in the US and Canada.
|-
| Jurassic Park (title text) || Jurassic Park is the titular theme park of cloned dinosaurs in the ''{{w|Jurassic Park}}'' franchise of books, films, and other media. Inevitably, the dinosaurs escape and attack humans.
|}

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

:[A header is written above a map of the US mainland:]
:<big>Places whose names scan to "America," so they can be substituted into songs such as:</big>
:''America the Beautiful''
:''God Bless America''
:Neil Diamond – ''America''
:West Side Story – ''America''
:The Guess Who – ''American Woman''
:Green Day – ''American Idiot''
:[Above the map, towards the left:]
:Sasketchewan
:[Towards the right:]
:Ontario
:[A number of places are marked on the map. From top to bottom, left to right:]
:Olympia
:Yosemite
:Los Angeles

:Lake Michigan
:Peoria
:Columbia (in Missouri)

:Acadia
:Montpelier
:Schenectady
:Connecticut
:LaGuardia
:Centralia
:Annapolis
:Virginia Beach
:Columbia (in South Carolina)
:Vidalia
:The Villages
:St. Petersburg
:Miami Beach
:[Below the map, in columns:]
:Australia
:Armenia
:Monrovia
:Brasilia
:Australia
:Valencia

:Byzantium
:Assyria
:Beringia
:Antarctica

:Sokovia
:Andromenda

:Lothlorien
:Subnautica

:The Metaverse
:EconoLodge

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Maps]]
[[Category:Language]]
[[Category:Songs]]
[[Category:Substitutions]]

2673: Cursed mRNA Cocktail

2022-09-16T21:57:25Z

172.70.206.213: /* Transcript */ categories

{{comic
| number = 2673
| date = September 16, 2022
| title = Cursed mRNA Cocktail
| image = cursed_mrna_cocktail_2x.png
| imagesize = 331x513px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Serve one each to guests whose last cursed cocktail was more than 2 months ago.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a VACCINE DRINKER. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

The comic describes a process to approximate the molecular composition of certain mRNA-based vaccines in drinkable form. It contains the variety and relative concentrations of the simple molecular constituents found within the injectable mixture. i.e. mostly water, some sugar, lipids (and an amino acid "or" biological and genetic material.)

Like much of what we eat or drink, the stomach and intestines will neutralise much of the complexity of either the vaccines or this ersatz replica of them, reducing it to simpler proteins of some slight nutritional value. For the vaccine to work, it has been designed to be injected into the body e.g. {{w|intramuscular}}ly to bypass the hostile environment of the human digestive system. [[Randall]]'s replacement mixture might provoke generally unwise physiological reactions. This is funny because while very few people would find such a mixture palatable, it is likely nontoxic,{{cn}} and contains moisture, protein, and calories, all important if elementary nutritional components.

The title text suggests that this can be served as a "booster" to a prior dose or serving after an initial treatment. There is much study of vaccine efficacy relative to times of dosages. Too little time between makes the new dose not necessarily cause the immune system to react in the way that it should; however most pairs of vaccines work well if delivered on the same day.{{Actual citation needed}} The comic recommends not redosing within two months of the last attempt.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:Ever wondered what it would be like to drink the new COVID booster?
:This recipe approximately recreates the taste and nutritional profile!
:''(Note: does not protect against COVID.)''

:[The following two testimonies are displayed in spiky bubbles.]
:"...What? Eww." -CDC spokesperson
:"Please stop." -Dr. Anthony Fauci

:Ingredients
:2 cups water
:3 tbsp mayonnaise
:¼ tsp MSG or nutritional yeast
:1 tbsp sugar

:Directions
:Pour 1 cup of water into a blender. Add the mayonnaise and MSG. Blend until smooth.
:Pour the other cup of water into a glass. Add the sugar and 1 tsp of the mixture from the blender. Stir well.
:Serve in shot glasses.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:COVID-19]]
[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Comics featuring cursed items]]
[[Category:Comics featuring real people]]

Talk:2669: Things You Should Not Do

2022-09-09T04:06:26Z

172.70.206.213: Question

Seems like this could become a series. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.210.31|172.68.210.31]] 20:42, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
:Maybe. But I don't think it will be.
:What I was thinking was that there are clearly, on average, around 43  items per 'page', up to this point. This page shows only 19 items (both pre-New and New, or 20 if the "New" line counts as one, don't know if multilines reduce the number of numbered items ler page), so either it's been{{Citation needed}} manually split/new-paged (for changing aesthetics) or else it is highly varying according to the font-height/multiline-wrappings in use beforehand. Or perhaps we should expect around the same number of 'newer New' items to complete this page before the next page number is automatically started to be populated. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.8|172.70.86.8]] 20:53, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

<nowiki>#156,819</nowiki> looks like a reference to the Phineas and Ferb title sequence, and the episode Oil on Candace and probably more relevant here, What If 84. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.210.233|108.162.210.233]] 21:49, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
:It's true that it could be a reference, but I think I recognized most of the topics on the list as being mentioned in some what-if article from the archives--in the case of the "painting" one, https://what-if.xkcd.com/84/. [[User:Dextrous Fred|Dextrous Fred]] ([[User talk:Dextrous Fred|talk]]) 22:13, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
::I think that given that he learned about this doing his new book that has not been released yet most of the new items would first be clear when we read the book, and hence all references to old what if seems moot to me... In my opinion it seems that those writing the current explanation failed to read this sentence: ''Updates to my "Things You Should Not Do" list, based on what I learned writing What If? 2''!!! Taking this into acount nothing on the new list shoul dbe from the old what if blog/book. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 13:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
:I think <nowiki>#156,819</nowiki> is confusing because [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gustave_Guillaumet-_Le_Sahara.jpeg it's been done]. -- [[User:Ken g6|Ken g6]] ([[User talk:Ken g6|talk]]) 17:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Added a transcript, hopefully it isn't too terrible. (also first explainxkcd edit!) [[User:Merrybot|Merrybot]] ([[User talk:Merrybot|talk]]) 21:52, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Any indication what the purpose of the misspelling of ''hemorrhagic'' as ''*hemorraghic'' might be? XKCD is usually typo-free, which makes this look deliberate – but why? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.94.3|172.71.94.3]] 00:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
:I assume just a typo by Randall Munroe. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.214.79|172.70.214.79]] 02:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
::"XKCD is usually typo-free" Oh, they do happen every now and then but usually get corrected eventually by Randall. Nothing too special about this. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 07:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

<nowiki>#156,823</nowiki> is actually a subplot in the movie "Only Lovers left Alive" by Jim Jarmusch. {{unsigned ip|162.158.129.163}}

<nowiki>#156,820</nowiki> sounds like a reference to TF2's "Meet the medic" which starts off with The Medic describing how he lost his medical licence by stealing a patient's skeleton {{unsigned ip|108.162.241.103}}

The last item suggests to me that the new book has a question like "What SPF would the sunscreen need to be if you were falling into the sun?" [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 21:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Is the maximum jail sentence for telling California poultry regulators that your farm is selling Pokemon eggs eight or ten years? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.213|172.70.206.213]] 04:06, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

2669: Things You Should Not Do

2022-09-09T04:03:50Z

172.70.206.213: /* Explanation */ cite source

{{comic
| number = 2669
| date = September 7, 2022
| title = Things You Should Not Do
| image = things_you_should_not_do.png
| titletext = Now I'm tempted to start telling people that I secretly don't actually know how to do any physics calculations, and so all the answers in What If are based on me actually trying to do the thing and then reporting what happened, but phrased as if it's hypothetical.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a SUNSCREEN BALL. Seem people forget that he learned this from writing the new book, thus no reason to assume they reference old stuff, for instance see the update to the peel the planets crust away, that clearly is a reference to a new what if in the book. Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
This comic references various questions submitted to the what if? blog, and is a promotion for Randall's new book, ''What if? 2'' (to be released 6 days from the date of this comic publication). This comic has a list of things not to do, an extension of a previous list, and is purportedly things Randall discovered as he was doing research for his book. A visit to the [https://what-if.xkcd.com/archive/ What If? archive] shows the titles, publishing date, and a thumbnail for each article. Many of the acts described under the "new" section of the list are depicted in these thumbnails (see table below); others are references to examples or hypotheticals explored within the articles. Other entries do not seem to reference currently published ''What If?'' content and may therefore be found in the upcoming book, but this cannot be confirmed as of yet.

The title text says that Randall is tempted to tell people that all the things in the book were things that he actually tried to do, not that he calculated the solutions for their problems. Many of the questions/answers in his new book are impossible to attempt in real life.{{citation needed}}

===Table===
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Number !! Entry !! Explanation
|-
! colspan="3" | From existing list
|-
|156,812
|Eat Tide Pods
|{{w|Consumption of Tide Pods|Tide Pod}}s are a brand of laundry detergent sold in small packets ("pods") of water-soluble gel. Many children have tried to eat them, thinking them to be candy, and have had to go to the hospital to treat poisoning. In 2017 and 2018, a satirical "challenge" originated around eating Tide Pods.
|-
|156,813
|Walk on stilts in a thunderstorm
|Taller objects are more likely to be struck by lightning, so walking on stilts outdoors would increase the risk of death by electrocution. It would also presumably risk falling and injuring oneself that way, since the ground becomes wet in a rainstorm.
|-
|156,814
|Set off fireworks at a gas station
|This has the risk of potentially causing an explosion in the gas station, from the sparks of the fireworks.
|-
|156,815
|Feed your cat treats that are the exact shape and texture of a human hand
|This seems to run the risk of the cat attempting to eat your hand, instead of a cat treat.
|-
! colspan="3" | New!
|-
|156,816
|Lean over a geyser vent and try to look down into it
|Geysers shoot steam and hot water upward. If a person were to lean over the geyser and look down during an eruption, they would be struck in the face by this hot liquid/gas mixture and severely injured or killed.
|-
|156,817
|Fly a hot-air balloon over a firing range
|A hot air balloon could present an irresistible target to the people firing their weapons at the range. The balloon could be shot and you could fall to your death. See image on [https://what-if.xkcd.com/81/ this entry].
|-
|156,818
|Peel away the earth's crust
|This is a reference to an entry in the new book, and an image of what it would look like is shown in [[2575: What If? 2]], where a potato peeler is used to remove the crust of the Earth. See also [https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/mercator this comic]. Several *What If* blog posts also result in massive damage to the earth's crust, including what happened to Texas [https://what-if.xkcd.com/153/ here].
|-
|156,819
|Try to paint the Sahara Desert by hand
|This would be [https://what-if.xkcd.com/84/ difficult] and require more paint than humanity has ever produced[https://what-if.xkcd.com/84/].
|-
|156,820
|Remove someone's bones without asking
|Possibly a reference to ''Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets'', in which Professor Gilderoy Lockhart removes all the bones of Harry's arm (instead of merely fixing a broken bone).
|-
|156,821
|Spend 100% of your government's budget on mobile game in-app purchases
|A reference to one of the examples listed in [https://what-if.xkcd.com/108/ this post].
|-
|156,822
|Fill a lava lamp with actual lava
|A {{w|lava lamp}} is a glass lamp, which contains a wax mixture inside, and heats so that the wax rises and falls. Putting actual lava inside a regular lava lamp would most likely cause the lamp to melt and the glass to shatter, not to mention handling lava is very dangerous.{{citation needed}} However, in [https://what-if.xkcd.com/122/ this entry], Randall says it would be fairly easy to find a material that would be able to handle the heat of the lava and thus this would be rather anticlimactic.
|-
|156,823
|Drink the blood of someone with a viral hemorraghic (''sic'') fever
|Drinking someone's blood is a bad idea,{{citation needed}} unless you are a vampire. If someone has a {{w|viral hemorrhagic fever}}, it is potentially much worse, as they have a potentially deadly disease, such as Ebola. Drinking blood is the theme of [https://what-if.xkcd.com/98/ this article].
|-
|156,824
|Eat meat from rabid animals
|Eating meat from rabid animals could give you {{w|rabies}}, a virus which is nearly always fatal if not treated prior to the appearance of initial symptoms. Pathogen contamination in cooked foods can persist on the surface of ''e.g.'' tongs, chopsticks, or a fork used to grill, which is why the USDA doesn't allow any kitchen utensils to touch raw or ready to eat foods at all. Exceptions for utensils which touch only raw or partially cooked foods can be negotiated on a case-by-case basis. The rabies virus permeates essentially all nerve tissue before symptoms appear.
|-
|156,825
|Perform your own laser eye surgery
|Refer to the end of [https://what-if.xkcd.com/82/ this article]
|-
|156,826
|Tell California poultry regulators that your farm is selling Pokemon eggs
|Issuing false statements to government regulators is a violation of Federal law, for which prison sentences can reach ten years and fines can reach ten thousand dollars. [https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001 18 U.S. Code § 1001]
|-
|156,827
|Funnel the entire flow of Niagara Falls into the open window of a physics lab
|Likely an oblique reference to the image near the end of [https://what-if.xkcd.com/147/ this article].
|-
|156,828
|Pump ammonia into your abdomen
|{{w|Ammonia}} is an [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPA_list_of_extremely_hazardous_substances extremely hazardous substance] and pumping it into your abdomen would result in a painful death.
|-
|156,829
|Suspend yourself inside a 10-meter ball of sunscreen and fall into the Sun
|Despite its name, sunscreen only protects against some types of radiation from the sun. No amount is going to be adequate protection if you are right inside the sun. Also, sunscreen, being a gel, would evaporate when exposed to vacuum. When exposed to the plasma of the coronal surface or the Sun's interior, it would quickly ionize along with anything inside it, becoming plasma like the rest of the Sun.
|}

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

:[Caption:]
:Updates to my "Things You Should Not Do" list, based on what I learned writing ''What If? 2''
:(out 9/13, xkcd.com/whatif2)

:[The rest of the text appears in a box.]

:<big>Things You Should Not Do</big> 
:(part 3647 of ????)

:[A numbered list, the first four items in a lighter grey]

:<nowiki>#156,812 Eat Tide pods</nowiki>
:<nowiki>#156,813 Walk on stilts in a thunderstorm</nowiki>
:<nowiki>#156,814 Set off fireworks at a gas station</nowiki>
:<nowiki>#156,815 Feed your cat treats that are the exact shape and texture of a human hand</nowiki>

:[A horizontal divider with the text "New!" in the middle in black. The remaining items on the list are also in black.]

:<nowiki>#156,816 Lean over a geyser vent and try to look down into it</nowiki>
:<nowiki>#156,817 Fly a hot air balloon over a firing range</nowiki>
:<nowiki>#156,818 Peel away the Earth's crust</nowiki>
:<nowiki>#156,819 Try to paint the Sahara Desert by hand</nowiki>
:<nowiki>#156,820 Remove someone's bones without asking</nowiki>
:<nowiki>#156,821 Spend 100% of your governments budget on mobile game in-app purchases</nowiki>
:<nowiki>#156,822 Fill a lava lamp with actual lava</nowiki>
:<nowiki>#156,823 Drink the blood of someone with a viral hemorraghic fever</nowiki>
:<nowiki>#156,824 Eat meat from rabid animals</nowiki>
:<nowiki>#156,825 Perform your own laser eye surgery</nowiki>
:<nowiki>#156,826 Tell California poultry regulators that your farm is selling Pokemon eggs</nowiki>
:<nowiki>#156,827 Funnel the entire flow of Niagara Falls into the open window of a physics lab</nowiki>
:<nowiki>#156,828 Pump ammonia into your abdomen</nowiki>
:<nowiki>#156,829 Suspend yourself inside a 10-meter ball of sunscreen and fall into the sun</nowiki>

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Book promotion]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Randall Munroe]]
[[Category:Animals]]
[[Category:Pokémon]]
[[Category:Cats]]

2668: Artemis Quote

2022-09-07T16:46:24Z

172.70.206.213: /* Explanation */ trim unevidenced speculation and recommendations for Randall w/no explanatory value

{{comic
| number = 2668
| date = September 5, 2022
| title = Artemis Quote
| image = artemis_quote.png
| titletext = Another option: "It is an honor to be the first human to set foot on the moon."
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|created by a MISQUOTED ASTRONAUT. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

The {{w|Artemis program}} is a series of planned space missions that will land people on the Moon and begin to set up infrastructure for a permanent crewed presence. People first landed on the Moon in 1969 as part of the {{w|Apollo program}}. They have not been back since 1972.

When {{w|Neil Armstrong}} became the first person to walk on the Moon, he famously said, "That's one small step for man; one giant leap for mankind." However, he was intending to say, "That's one small step for '''''a''''' man; one giant leap for mankind [emphasis added]." [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/Frase_de_Neil_Armstrong.ogg The audio recording] omits the word "a", making the sentence confusing, as "man" and "mankind" have the same meaning when referring to all people. That it was apparently elided by Armstrong in the excitement, changing the meaning of the historical phrase, is controversial and thus humorous. Subsequently, Armstrong and others have blamed insufficiently tuned {{w|voice activity detection}} hardware circuitry intended to save power in radio voice transmission, but NASA engineers, third-party historians and their hired experts have never been able to corroborate that explanation.[https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/a11.step.html][http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003645.html] Armstrong later said he hoped, "history would grant me leeway for dropping the syllable and understand that it was certainly intended, even if it was not said," and, on p.126 of the June 1982 edition of ''Omni,'' "the 'a' is implied, so I'm happy if they just put it in parentheses."

[[Randall]] suggests that the first Artemis astronaut to set foot on the Moon has a duty to utter an even more confusing quote, saying the sentence, "This is one of my favorite historical quotes — the first words spoken by an Artemis astronaut on the moon," aloud as they step onto the Moon. That would be confusingly self-referential, as if they were alluding to something from the past. The phrasing would also be confusing to a person hearing it quoted, as it would sound more like a statement about the quote than the actual quote itself. This is very unlikely, and funny merely as a recommendation. If it actually happened, it might be both hilarious and scandalous.

The title text suggests an alternate phrase by which the Artemis astronaut could say being the first (rather than 13th) human on the Moon is a great honor. People hearing this quote in the future could assume that Artemis was the first crewed mission to the Moon. It could feed into contemporary conspiracy theories that the Apollo landings were faked, furthering the confusion.

This comic coincides with the canceled launch of {{w|Artemis 1}}, an uncrewed test mission which will serve as the start of the Artemis program. The mission was intended to launch on 29 August 2022, and later on 3 September 2022, but was repeatedly postponed due to a series of technical problems and will now take place no earlier than 19 September 2022.

=== Esoterica ===
* The {{w|schwa}} indefinite article "a" is optional in certain contexts of most dialects of American English.[https://linguapress.com/grammar/article-in-english.htm]
* While the comic's lunar lander has similarities to the {{w|Starship HLS|current plans}} for the Artemis lander,[https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/as-artemis-moves-forward-nasa-picks-spacex-to-land-next-americans-on-moon] it is a generic drawing, perhaps in homage to classic space science fiction, with the exit portal at an unlikely position near the base of the {{w|SpaceX Starship}} lander.[https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-starship-moon-elevator-nasa-prototype/]
* In [[893: 65 Years]], Randall made a graph showing the number of living people who had been on the moon, and estimated the day when zero would be alive. (Very depressing). At that time 9 of the 12 were still alive. Upon this comic's release, only four are still among the living. But, with the Artemis project, it may not reach zero as soon.

==Transcript==
:[A vertical rocket is standing on four deployed legs on the surface of the Moon. The surface is depicted with characteristic craters and rocks with a slightly curved horizon. The rocket is standing in the left part of the panel. A short ladder leads down from a hatch in the lower part of the rocket body. An astronaut has stepped down from a ladder onto the Moon's surface, and is speaking:]

:Astronaut: This is one of my favorite historical quotes — the first words spoken by an Artemis astronaut on the Moon.

:[Caption beneath the panel:]
:Neil Armstrong's "man"/"a man" quote created a lot of historical confusion, and I think it's our duty to expand on that legacy with Artemis.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Language]]
[[Category:Space]]
[[Category:Comics featuring real people]]

Talk:2668: Artemis Quote

2022-09-06T04:35:18Z

172.70.206.213: Reply

The first quote is self-referential (and confuses people, when quoted). The second plays unto the myth that the moon landing was staged. It is nice to be able to choose words, which are cited. A great opportunity to confuse people. --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.143|172.68.110.143]] 21:09, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

To those of you wondering [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2668:_Artemis_Quote&diff=294177&oldid=294176 why, "<tt>mankind" ,[emphasis</tt>," currently appears in the wikitext,] I would direct you to [[explain xkcd talk:Editor FAQ#Punctuation inside quotes and parentheses]]. I am discouraged by such pettiness. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.214.59|172.70.214.59]] 21:26, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
:Waitwhat? ...Quote-Space-Comma-OpenBracket..? Good job it isn't like that now, or I'd be rewriting it. (Probably put the <tt>[emphasis added]</tt> within the quotes, for starters, before worrying about the other punctuation.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.77|172.70.162.77]] 23:02, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps the first Artemis astronaut to set foot on the moon will prefer to come with her own idea of what to say. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.142.75|172.71.142.75]] 21:55, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
:I'm hoping for interpretive dance. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.214.59|172.70.214.59]] 22:31, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
::I hope they do a couple cartwheels before saying anything. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.163|172.70.206.163]] 03:09, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

The quote in the title text is factually true, adding to the confusion it would cause, as it does not actually claim that the Artemis astronaut is the first human to set foot on the Moon, only that it is a great honor to be the first. [[User:Bugstomper|Bugstomper]] ([[User talk:Bugstomper|talk]]) 22:34, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

It is not [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2668:_Artemis_Quote&diff=prev&oldid=294204 feeding trolls] to acknowledge that these <s>trolls</s> people exist (and are exactly the kind of people Randall [[690: Semicontrolled Demolition|likes to bait]]. But I won't 'unedit' that. (Someone else can either restore it or get rid of the silly compromise of being commented out with a confusingly 'inline' text-comment. Only by checking the precise version dif would it even make much sense.) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.141|172.71.178.141]] 22:57, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I interpreted the second (alt text) option as being intended to cause a similar mis-hearing (or suspected mis-hearing) debate as was the case with the original man/a man quote. The word "human" could possibly be mis-heard as "woman" over a poor-quality audio transmission, leading to a debate about which was intended. (According to the comic, the intended word would in fact be "human", but if the person was female most listeners would likely assume that it is supposed to be "woman" as most people are aware that humans have been on the moon before but probably unsure of whether or not a woman has ever been on the moon.)

Questions: Has a woman ever been to the moon, and is NASA planning to choose a woman for the new mission? It wouldn't surprise me if they were planning to send a woman this time around for PC points. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.128|172.70.91.128]] 23:13, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
:Yes, I believe Artemis has announced that they intend to let a woman of color be the 13th on the Moon, but I'm not up to date on the official press releases. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.126|172.70.211.126]] 23:20, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
::I'm Hoping it will be an African-American woman chosen specifically as commander for identity purposes, who says "It's Great to be Black on the Moon!" [Obref Netflix _Space Force_][[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 23:23, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
:[Written before two other replies, above, appeared... One maybe answering an issue I raise below about the 'twofer'...] One of the main 'selling points' has been that the {{w|Artemis 3|first landing mission}} would definitely include a female crewmember, and a 'person of colour'. I've never been quite clear that this is to be the two identities of the two crew or if the intention is that there'll be one person fulfilling them both as a "twofer". So those worrying about (or applauding!) "PC points" are already happy to have their fears(/hopes) confirmed.
:As a side note, I find the "PoC" term a horrible phrase, in my mind, but I'm British and I know that whatever problems we have with what terminology to use (BAME, etc) are quite different from the US. And there are near-universally undeniably worse terms to use. And "of colour" (or "color", in Leftpondian) doesn't seem to mean much except not being pure-Saxon. Apparently Meghan, Duchess of Sussex (neé Markle) is mixed-race (some even say "black") but I wouldn't have known (and, now knowing, am not at all bothered by the fact) given that tanning salons output a steady stream of darker-skinned anglo-saxon or even celtic-heritage locals.
:Anyway, there'll be complaints by the anti-PC brigade regardless, not that I mind them being upset. So long as they have good individuals (no Iron Sky 'just send a model', purely as a vanity passenger) they should be able to pick and choose which of various suitable candidates works well in the grand scheme of things.
: (And I don't agree with the "human/woman confusion thing", seems far too clumsy. Even as deliberately awkward phrasing.) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.141|172.71.178.141]] 23:46, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand <tt>because e.g., conflating "a" man with "mankind" is potentially self-contradictory</tt>. There's no conflation in "a man is an individual, but mankind is a group", and the issue is surely more that so seen in "man is an individual, but mankind is a group" where "man"=="mankind" in this respect so that the logic ends up as (A==B)&(A!=B) by trivial analysis... Whatever, I just don't think that explains what is 'wrong'. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.141|172.71.178.141]] 23:46, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
:Addressed in subsequent edits to the Explanation. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.231|172.69.33.231]] 03:04, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

If the astronaut removed his boot before saying "It is an honor to be the first human to set foot on the moon." He/she would technically be correct. [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 23:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
: It's a terrible idea to place an unclothed foot on {{w|lunar regolith}}, not only because of the vacuum and temperature, but it's like a layer of somewhat coarsely ground glass reasonably likely to cause puncture or laceration even from the diminished weight of any adult. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.213|172.70.206.213]] 23:44, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
:: I forget where, but I've seen a 'hard'/speculative SF treatment of future Moon tourism options that includes a run out of one handy airlock and almost immediately into another whilst suited and ''singly-''booted (an extremely tight ligature on the other lower leg, for the necessary duration) for those wishing to make their 'ultimate footprint' in the regolith. With a bit of practice beforehand, there is probably a (comparatively) safe hop-step gait that doesn't cause much more damage than the briefly decompressive coldness betwixt the portals connecting to the safer internal environment of the moonbase this all happens at. Still a 'thrill' activity, with inherent risks both in the execution and afterwards. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.33|172.70.85.33]] 23:58, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
:::I have no doubt that someone will leave their actual footprints on the Moon someday, but I hope they use crutches and some way to get their foot back into their pressure suit ASAP. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.49|172.70.210.49]] 02:34, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Someone ''really'' likes to remove "redundant" words, in edits, amongst other minor adjustments (described similarly laconically) that I'm not sure are truly justified. I bet if I put some of them back (just the ones that I felt served a purpose, and I can imagine the original authors thought so too) they'd just be removed again. And no easy way to argue the toss, so I'll spare you the arguments and put up with the potential travesties. But I get the feeling that there's a particularly opinionated editor out there, active at this very moment, who is more pleased with themself than they rightfully have reason to be. There are valid rhetorical uses for emphasis, you know, and your 'perfection' might not be so universally agreeable despite your sniping. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.33|172.70.85.33]] 00:24, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
:Is there a Unicode glyph for saying wiki editors need to calm down? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.207.8|172.70.207.8]] 00:32, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
::There must be one for "copyedit". Which seems to just mean that an edit is being made, without any proper comment. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.33|172.70.85.33]] 00:47, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
::: ⛚✎ [[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.49|172.70.210.49]] 01:03, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I just deleted this, because it doesn't make sense to me:
:''This joke could be taken in one of two ways: one, that it is a violation of the {{w|cooperative principle}} which states that what people say usually is of relevance to the current situation - in this scenario implying that the Artemis astronaut is the first person on the Moon when in fact they were simply discussing the topic in a disconnected bubble the same way one might make such a comment on Earth; alternatively it could simply be to mislead people into thinking Artemis was the first crewed mission to the Moon.''
Perhaps the author can go into more detail here on how this is a better explanation than the text it replaced, please? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.214.183|172.70.214.183]] 04:20, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
:I'm not the author of that, but I'm the one who put the lander-appearance paragraph under a Trivia field, and was about to do the same with the Artemis 1 paragraph when I find someone edited the Trivia away (mentioning it by name) and wants to talk about it... So, I don't know what you think you're doing (in the nicest way, I just think you're confused about what your 'partial reverts' are actually doing). But the editing is clearly busy, so I'll probably come back to it later today anyway and see what we have. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.4|172.70.86.4]] 04:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
::So if I understand you, the comment about how the drawing has people coming out of the base of the SpaceX Starship, while the contract NASA awarded them has an elevator, presumably with some sort of a backup like a winch or rope ladder, is trivial? You might also consider commenting on the content instead of the contributors. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.213|172.70.206.213]] 04:35, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

2668: Artemis Quote

2022-09-06T01:27:28Z

172.70.206.213: /* Explanation */ Armstrong quotes, split paragraph

{{comic
| number = 2668
| date = September 5, 2022
| title = Artemis Quote
| image = artemis_quote.png
| titletext = Another option: "It is an honor to be the first human to set foot on the moon."
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|created by a COLLABORATIVE EFFORT. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

The {{w|Artemis program}} is a series of planned space missions that will land humans on the Moon and begin to set up infrastructure for a permanent human presence. Humans first landed on the Moon in 1969 as part of the {{w|Apollo program}}. They have not been back since 1972.

When {{w|Neil Armstrong}} became the first human to walk on the Moon, he famously said "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind." However, he was intending to say, "That's one small step for '''''a''''' man, but a giant leap for mankind [emphasis added]." [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/Frase_de_Neil_Armstrong.ogg The audio recording] omits the first instance of the word "a", making the sentence confusing, as "man" and "mankind" have the same meaning when referring to humanity as a whole. The {{w|schwa}} grammatical article, "a", is optional in certain contexts of most dialects of American English.{{Actual citation needed}} That it was apparently elided by Armstrong in the excitement, thus modifying the semantic meaning of the historical phrase, is controversial and thus humorous.

Subsequently, Armstrong and others have blamed insufficiently tuned {{w|voice activity detection}} hardware circuitry intended to save power in radio voice transmission, but NASA engineers, third-party historians and their hired experts have never been able to corroborate that explanation. Armstrong later said he "would hope that history would grant me leeway for dropping the syllable and understand that it was certainly intended, even if it was not said," and, on p.126 of the June 1982 edition of ''Omni,'' "the 'a' is implied, so I'm happy if they just put it in parentheses."

Randall proposes that the first Artemis astronaut to set foot on the Moon should create an even more confusing quote, saying the sentence, "This is one of my favorite historical quotes — the first words spoken by an Artemis astronaut on the moon," aloud as they step onto the Moon. When quoted by later historians, it would be confusingly self-referential. Speaking as if they are alluding to something from the past, it would add contextual confusion to any attempt to directly quote or replay the words from then on. This is very unlikely, and funny merely as a recommendation. If it actually happened, it might be both hilarious and scandalous.

The title text suggests an alternate phrase by which the Artemis astronaut would say being the first (rather than 13th) human on the Moon is a great honor. People hearing this quote in the future could assume that Artemis was the first crewed mission to the Moon. It could feed into contemporary conspiracy theories that the Apollo landings were faked, furthering the confusion.

This comic coincides with the canceled launch of {{w|Artemis 1}}, an uncrewed test mission which will serve as the start of the Artemis program. The mission was intended to launch on 29 August 2022, and later on 3 September 2022, but was postponed due to technical problems and will now take place no earlier than late September 2022.

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

:[The surface of the Moon, with typical craters and rocks across a landscape with a subtle but visibly curved horizon. In the foreground, a vertical rocket standing on four deployed legs. A short ladder, or set of steps, leads down from a hatch in the lower part of the rocket body. The figure of an astronaut is shown having just now stepped forward onto the Moon's surface.]
:Astronaut: This is one of my favorite historical quotes — the first words spoken by an Artemis astronaut on the Moon.

:Caption: Neil Armstrong's "man"/"a man" quote created a lot of historical confusion, and I think it's our duty to expand on that legacy with Artemis.

{{comic discussion}}

Talk:2668: Artemis Quote

2022-09-05T23:44:27Z

172.70.206.213: Reply

2667: First Internet Interaction

2022-09-03T22:28:37Z

172.70.206.213: /* Possible subcontext */ correct heading

{{comic
| number = 2667
| date = September 2, 2022
| title = First Internet Interaction
| image = first_internet_interaction.png
| titletext = To that stranger on the KOOL Tree House chat room, I gotta hand it to you: You were, ultimately, not wrong.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by AN AMERICAN IDIOT - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

In this comic, [[Cueball]], very likely as an autobiographical representation of [[Randall]], describes to [[Megan]] the first time he interacted with a group of people unknown to him over the internet; in an {{w|AOL|AOL}} chat room for children called the "KOOL Tree House chat room" in 1993, when Randall was about nine years old. He read a discussion about {{w|Green Day}}, asked who they are, and was told that not knowing was a serious problem. As Megan says, judging people for lack of pop culture knowledge has remained typical online behavior.

Green Day is an American rock band formed in the East Bay of California in 1987. In 1993, they were still known merely as an independent punk band, and a year away from releasing their major-label debut album ''{{w|Dookie}}'', their first mainstream success. Anyone, especially a nine year-old, not recognizing the band in 1993 would be perfectly normal. After 1993, Green Day would go on to be a widely popular and influential rock band with many acclaimed albums.

This initial online social interaction was a significant formative experience for Cueball, molding his online behavior ever since, in that it still causes him to consider his correspondents' perspectives when communicating. The social dynamics at play are reminiscent of the mathematics of others' perspectives described in [[1053: Ten Thousand]]. Relating the personal experience of an oversized effect from a casual insult is humorous because the extent to which early experiences affect people can be both ironic and profound.

The title text indicates Randall agrees with the reply to the question, suggesting he believes the band is important culturally. Randall probably became a Green Day fan, or at least acquired more than a passing knowledge of their {{w|œuvre}}, recently mentioning their song "{{w|American Idiot (song)|American Idiot}}" in [[2665: America Songs]].

=== Possible additional humor ===
The comic could conceivably humorously compare modern search autocomplete (such as when you type "who is gr" into Google and it gives you suggestions such as "who is grindelwald," "who is grimes," and "who is gru's dad") by comparing it to the slowness of communicating in a chat room using a dial-up modem. A kid in 1993 would probably have a 2400 to 9600 bps modem (14.4 kbps and 19.2 kbps modems were available but expensive). The joke is that [[Cueball]] was slowly typing on a slow modem when another chat room user jumped in and "autocompleted" his question before he could finish it.

This couldn't actually happen, since AOL chat room messages were transmitted in their entirety, rather than a character at a time, but Randall could be taking liberties to make such a joke.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[Four panels depicting a conversation between Megan and Cueball]

:[First panel, Megan and Cueball talking]
:Cueball: You know,
:Cueball: I remember the first thing anybody ever said to me on the internet.
:Megan: Yeah?

:[Second panel, part-height to accomodate Cueball's narration above and the memory of a scene below that features 'Young Cueball', with a mop-head of hair, knelt atop a chair to use a computer with CRT and keyboard on the desk, cabled down into a floor-standing minitower case below]
:Cueball (narrative): I was in an AOL Kids chat room in 1993.
:Cueball (narrative): People there kept using a name I didn't recognise.
:Cueball (narrative): After a while I asked what it was.
:Young Cueball (via the use of the keyboard): W... H... O...  I... S...  G... R...

:[Third panel, close-up of Cueball's adult head, continuing the framing conversation]
:Cueball: Someone replied.
:Cueball: "If you don't know who Green Day is, you have a serious problem."
:Cueball: And that was it. My first virtual interaction.

:[Fourth panel, continuing the conversation, Megan and Cueball now seen walking rightwards as they speak]
:Megan: In some ways, the Internet has changed surprisingly little in the last 30 years.
:Cueball: Every time I reply to someone, I think
:Cueball: What if this is their Green Day moment?

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


[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Randall Munroe]]

explain xkcd talk:Editor FAQ

2022-09-03T09:32:11Z

172.70.206.213: /* Punctuation inside quotes and parentheses */ reply

Feel free to enter any question about editing this Wiki and don't forget to sign you comment. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

== Formatting of explanations ==

Many pages contain tables where a definition list would be 1) easier to read 2) mobile friendly, for example: [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1957:_2018_CVE_List&oldid=160469 1957].

I was also involved in rewriting the transcript for [[1963]], where the discussion came up about how those should be styled. ("as if you were reading the comic to someone")

I think we should have a small style guide to encourage sane formatting. What else should such guidelines contain?

Edit: One more thing I'd love to see: semantic headlines (i.e. < h3> headlines for explanation subchapters instead of < h2> which is the same level as the explanation itself)

(Sidenote: I've been active on explainxkcd for quite some time, but only now got around making an account.) [[User:Gir|//gir.st/]] ([[User talk:Gir|talk]]) 15:01, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

:Thanks for your remarks. First: There is no need to start every new sentence at a new line. Tables are meant for small content in all other cases it's bad layout. I recently changed this [[2034: Equations]] to a proper floating text. At the transcript tables should never be used, even when there is a table in the comic image it should be described by text. The guide here was mainly written by me because there was nothing like this here before. Some people already helped and I'm happy for any further remarks to enhance it. And this table issue is definitely one; I just not wanted to be the only (arrogant) layout master. Your help is welcome to write something, otherwise I will do so soon.
:For headlines we don't use HTML-code but WIKI-code. The main headlines are written like this: <nowiki>==Explanation==</nowiki>, <nowiki>==Transcript==</nowiki>, and (optional) <nowiki>==Trivia==</nowiki>. Headlines inside that chapters should be done in this way: <nowiki>;Subtitle</nowiki>. The preceding semicolon causes the entire line to be rendered in bold. Only when the explanation really needs sub-chapters it can be done by this: <nowiki>===Sub header===</nowiki> (three equal signs before and after the text). I will put this also into the FAQ.
:Welcome and thanks for helping. PROTIP: Always use the preview button to check the layout before saving. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 13:39, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
::hi, I'm aware about the headlines and stuff, it was just shorter to write it this way in the comment. I see you started a bit with a styleguide already; I hope I can contribute to it next week, when things cool down at work a bit. //gir.st/, who is to lazy to log in [[Special:Contributions/172.68.51.190|172.68.51.190]] 06:51, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

So, one more thing, regarding 'What is the proper layout for headers?'. I think we should better use small <code><nowiki>====headings====</nowiki></code> instead of just description titles (<code><nowiki>;bold text</nowiki></code>), since it makes the intent clearer. what is your reasoning behind suggesting it the other way round? greetings, [[User:Gir|//gir.st/]] ([[User talk:Gir|talk]]) 14:49, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
:Thanks for your input and of course Wiki markup headers should be valid. I just believe that the simplest way should also be valid for less experienced writers. When a new explanation starts it's often awful and chaotic; giving a simple but effective structure at the beginning helps against this chaos. So, I'm thinking about dividing the section "What is the proper layout for headers?" (it's a question because it's a FAQ) into two subsections:
:*easy: a semicolon, the colon at the following paragraph may be mentioned - but I'm not sure about the colon because it should be ''easy''
:*advanced: <code><nowiki>===headings===</nowiki></code> if the comic really can be divided into chapters; <code><nowiki>====headings====</nowiki></code> as a replacement for the semicolon; and <code><nowiki>==headings==</nowiki></code> is forbidden because it belongs to expl, trnsc, trivia. The semicolon, colon issue should be mentioned here.
:Please consider that there was many chaos in the past and many writers will do their edits without reading this FAQ. So keeping this simple as possible seems to me to be inevitable. And dividing sections by using the semicolon for a header is still much better than many of those tables. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 17:41, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
::Based on this discussion I edited the current comic here: [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2037%3A_Supreme_Court_Bracket&type=revision&diff=161880&oldid=161841] and compare it to this former version [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2037:_Supreme_Court_Bracket&diff=prev&oldid=161841]. Do not focus on the edits, just scroll down to the resulting page.
::This brought me to another important issue: NO links in a header. At Wikipedia this is also not welcome. This site isn't Wikipedia but in this case I feel this is a good rule. But the TOC (Table of content) is shown in the preview while it's not at the resulting page. The result is preferred but the TOC in the preview may confuse editors here.
::So, I'm still looking for simple instructions, layouts which advanced people always can enhance.
::And consider that some editors are probably younger than xkcd is. Not sure about this but there are definitely young people here and I welcome them all. And I'm NOT getting old like Randall sometimes feel, I like to support every editor despite any other background. And this has to be simple on the first place. STOP(I could talk much more) --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:49, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
:::Sorry, I missed this. I'd personally go with the "advanced" option, but mentioning both is fine too. Nice work on 2037! Really enjoying our conversations about this, I hope i'm not a bother ;-) [[User:Gir|//gir.st/]] ([[User talk:Gir|talk]]) 11:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
OK, after a few days and some more edits (for example see here: [[2035: Dark Matter Candidates]]) I believe this would be the best guide:
*<code><nowiki>====headings====</nowiki></code> should be preferred because the advantage is that each header has it's own edit button. One other advantage is that the header text will be shown at the summary in the history.
*The semicolon may be used as a preliminary layout for new comics until it's clear of what content the explanation is composed of.
*On more rare circumstances the <code><nowiki>===headings===</nowiki></code> may divide the explanation into different larger chapters.
*<code><nowiki>==headings==</nowiki></code> is reserved to the general layout and has not to be used.
And I still oppose to the colon at the beginning of any paragraph at all. Any thoughts? --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 13:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

== Please '''''do not''''' use semicolon-lines as "headings" ==

Hi, sorry to butt in, but I was going to mention this here anyway after I saw it in the FAQ. Please ''don't'' continue to give this advice to editors:
<blockquote>For headlines you have to use Wiki-style code. The simplest way is a preceding semicolon at the beginning of the line which causes the entire line to be rendered in bold.<ref>§ [[explain xkcd:Editor FAQ#What_is_the_proper_layout_for_headers.3F|What is the proper layout for headers?]] of the [[explain xkcd:Editor FAQ|Editor FAQ]]</ref>

====References====
<references/>
</blockquote>

The [[explain xkcd:Editor FAQ#In_which_case_tables_are_meaningful_and_when_not.3F|previous Editor FAQ section]] has it right: in wikicode, the semicolon opens a ''description list'', and will be translated into equivalent HTML. In other words, the wikicode is processed as follows:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Wikicode !! HTML
|-
| style="vertical-align:top;" |<pre>; xkcd
: a popular webcomic</pre>
|<pre><dl>
<dt>xkcd</dt>
<dd>a popular webcomic</dd>
</dl></pre>
|}

One or more lines started with a semicolon ''must'' be followed by at least one line that starts with a colon, to provide the <code><dd>...</dd></code> part of the description list block.

It is a {{w|Help:List#Common_mistakes|common mistake}} to use semicolon-lines as "headings". Unfortunately the result is '''invalid HTML''', since the HTML spec requires that a <code><dl></code> block contain:
<blockquote>Zero or more groups each consisting of one or more dt elements followed by one or more dd elements</blockquote>
It's fine to have multiple semicolon-lines in a row (as the HTML standard allows for groups of several <code><dt>...</dt></code> blocks in sequence), but they must '''always''' be followed by at least one <code><dd>...</dd></code> block, created in wikicode by following a line started with a semicolon with another line that starts with a colon.

Just like lines started with <code>*</code> or <code>#</code>, a line started with a <code>;</code> creates a list element, and has syntactic requirements that must be followed. Abusing the description-term wikicode for purposes other than description-list creation not only breaks the HTML on the resulting page, but it makes the content much harder for screen readers and other assistive technologies to parse and accurately reproduce.

(And, yes, technically Mediawiki's use of <code>:</code>-lines for indenting, as on talk pages, is also invalid since it creates a <code><dl><dd>...</dd></dl></code> block with no <code><dt></code> element. So it's bad enough on talk pages, it's 100x worse to encourage doing it on '''article''' pages.) Please consider removing this bad advice from the Editor FAQ. Thanks. -- [[User:FeRDNYC|FeRDNYC]] ([[User talk:FeRDNYC|talk]]) 05:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

:Thanks for your remarks, that's why I started this FAQ and the discussion about it. Especially the header section is still preliminary, just check the section above here at the talk page.
:My first purpose is to keep it as simple as possible for writers having not much or no knowledge about wiki code or HTML. After that an advanced section should follow and define the rules for a complete article.
:Please check my summary from 29 August 2018 just above here. You're right the semicolon isn't a header, that's why I'm saying it should be used only temporary. And after reading your remarks here I would propose a single line with bold text and a following empty line instead of that semicolon thing.
:Keep it simple for people who just want to write something here; advanced users will change it to an appropriate layout later. Consider: When a new comic is out the explanation often starts in chaos. And for now I'm really happy that the overwhelming usage of tables is stopped.
:Let me know what you do think about the bold text line (not by semicolon) and the more sophisticated header guidance for the final layout as I've mentioned on 29 August 2018. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 12:45, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
::And of course the usage of a semicolon should also be mentioned together with the colon because it's a list. An entire paragraph "How do I format lists?" has still to be written yet. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 12:51, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
::One more: I've checked the definition for <code>dd/dt/dl</code> and it's clear the <code>dd</code> tag must be followed by at least one (either <code>dt</code> or <code>dl</code>) child. This tells me that the indent done by a colon is proper HTML. This is very important because every transcript since the first comic uses this indentation. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 13:20, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
:::On one hand, yes, the HTML is technically invalid, but on the other hand, every browser gets the intended layout correct, in no small part because these sorts of errors have been parts of industry-wide regression test suites since the mid-1990s. Asking users to try to achieve completely unnecessary perfection is a waste of time. Even screenreaders are completely unfazed by this nominal flaw. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.36|172.70.211.36]] 01:29, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

==Incomplete tags==
The FAQ says to use <code><nowiki>{{incomplete transcript|YOUR REASON}}</nowiki></code> but instead of rendering like this (like with the incomplete template):

{{notice|'''This transcript is incomplete:''' ''YOUR REASON'' If you can address this issue, please '''[{{fullurl:{{{target|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}}|action=edit}} edit the page]!''' Thanks.}}

It renders like this:

{{notice|'''This transcript is incomplete.''' Please help [{{fullurl:{{{target|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}}|action=edit}} editing] it! Thanks.}}

Can someone please change this? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.133.180|172.68.133.180]] 02:55, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
:The FAQ also says: "The reason at the transcript is not shown to the viewer." You can see it when you edit the transcript. And because the reason for the comic is also often not given this should be enough for the transcript. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 16:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

== math markup ==

Just to note - I was curious about the "math markup" message at the top of each page, and duly followed the link to the Editor FAQ as instructed, but ther--e is no mention of why it shouldn't be used... (no account yet, as I've not made any edits - yet! and i use google data saver, so this is not my ip -->) --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.22|162.158.34.22]] 23:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

:damn, I'm tired - just re-read the section titles, and there it is. It's late, so sorry! --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.22|162.158.34.22]] 23:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

::I think the reason given is incomplete, but wanted to check here before I amended it. Transcripts are for the benefit of visually-challenged visitors, so using math markup, and thus rendering the text as images, is counterproductive. Right? -- [[User:Dtgriscom|Dtgriscom]] ([[User talk:Dtgriscom|talk]]) 15:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

:::The explanation is (in my opinion) somewhat silly, as the image generated by MathML has an alt tag for text browsers/accessible use. Further, if this wiki's settings were chosen correctly, the image would be output with MathML alongside, which is the ''actual'' (non-plaintext) accessible solution for displaying mathematical formulas on the web. See also: https://accessibility.princeton.edu/about/blog/mathml-accessible-math-markup [[User:DimeCadmium|DimeCadmium]] ([[User talk:DimeCadmium|talk]]) 02:20, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

== Create page for new comic ==

Should there be a paragraph about this?
Since the bot is not working anymore, people need to do this. I know I have seen isntructions somewhere on this wiki, but cannot find them... [btw: there is a new comic up, right now, as I post this line, which is not yet in the wiki. SO if you know how to do it, do it before explaining it on the FAQ :)] --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 13:27, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

== Page targeted by Spam ==

The page is currently targeted heavily by Spambots. I am not sure why they target this specific page. It might be, because it is linked in the header? Since Admins (who could protect the FAQ) seem to be currently absent from the page, anyone got any ideas what to do about it? leave it to spam and create a seperate FAQ with the same content? --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 10:08, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

== Spaces ==

Seriously, why oh why is [[1285:_Third_Way|1285]] not linked into the statement about the one space / two space [[1285:_Third_Way | controversy]]? This feels like an inexplicable gap. Is there a policy insisting the FAQ remain fastidiously humorless in all ways? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.107.231|162.158.107.231]] 02:10, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

== Duplicating the hover text/title in the transcript section? ==

Is there a reason not to duplicate the title/hovertext in the transcript section, so a screenreader user can be sent there and not have to page back up for that bit (besides "one or more editors would need to check all entries and edit it in where missing")? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.68.43|141.101.68.43]] 00:11, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
:For my two (or three) cents:
:1) You'd be duplicating it, so you ought to lose the sub-image record if you do that or you could get silly with all kinds of repeating of everything..
:2) It's a Transcript to try to record/present the text (and imagery) you cannot already screen-read.
:3) It doesn't need manual editing (and manual editing is more likely to have mistakes, anyway).
:...Perhaps some Template(-pair?) could be developed to sit post-template to "display:screenreader-only" (or whatever the markup format would be) the upper-templated titletext field? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.12|172.70.86.12]] 04:00, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

== it's/its typo ==

At §[[explain_xkcd:Editor_FAQ#How_do_I_enter_mathematical_or_chemical_formulas.3F| How_do_I_enter_mathematical_or_chemical_formulas?]] please change “it's Wikipedia help page” to “'''its''' Wikipedia help page” (for the same reason that "our" and "their" don't have apostrophes).
[[User:Kurahaupo|Kurahaupo]] ([[User talk:Kurahaupo|talk]]) 23:44, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
: Came here to say this, but I see I'm two months too late. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.64|172.70.86.64]] 12:32, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

== Punctuation inside quotes and parentheses ==

Can we add a section saying <tt>."</tt> or <tt>,"</tt> is always better than putting the quotation mark first, and <tt>.)</tt> or <tt>.")</tt> are similarly preferable to <tt>).</tt> and <tt>").</tt> please? We also need to remind editors that numbered hyperlinks come after periods, commas, and parentheses, not before them. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.83|172.69.33.83]] 03:30, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
:...Erm. For quotes, it depends. If a proper sentence(-fragment) then I'd put punctuation in front (entry and exit), with ','=>'.' or vice-versa, as required by the full container sentence, but retaining notable exclamation- and question-marks. <tt>He said, "Erm," with a hint of hesitation, "For quotes, it depends."</tt> I know this is how I was taught to deal with quoted speech (close on fifty years ago), although I know standards change, and it may not even then have been so necessary for non-speech quotations. Yet certainly if I were to mention a set of randomish words like "Red green blue" (or "Red", "Green" and "Blue", perhaps) I would unhesitatingly consider it utterly wrong to move punctuation within any such quotation section. And note that an Oxford Comma (even without the quotes) would confuse matters in that second example.
:As for <tt>.)</tt> (etc), I've seen somebody ''wrongly'' do this. Do not do it if you have a in-sentence parenthesis (like this). I have never seen any suggestion that you'd do that (like this.) [<= Deliberately wrong!] And, even if it works "like a quote", it ''really'' looks wrong to me. (The clear exception is when you entirely make a sentence parenthetical, like this.)
:Now, this is just my own experience/preference/habituation. I have no doubt there are alternative points of view, which I would welcome to be added hereafter. But, whilst supporting the ''initial'' idea to precede quotes with punctuation (yet content to let it slip when others have prior authorship and it causes no additional confusion), I rail against it as an unwavering/absolutist style for all quotes ("quotes" ''and'' 'quotes', and maybe even «quotes» and the rest?) and especially it having any bearing at all in any bracketting/bracing/parenthesi(s|z)ing situations where full and proper start/end mark nesting should be adhered to as the ''only'' useful criteria.
:An interesting counter-examplee, however, might even mean individualised punctuation either side of a close-paren (if the sentence somehow does not require the same mark as the aside somehow begs, whether that be exclamation, question or even… ellipsis…?!?). Just so. But I'd normally consider rewriting that, as too stream-of-consciousness-like. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.73|162.158.159.73]] 04:25, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
::This is covered in sections [https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/16/ch06/ch06_sec005.html 6.5] and [https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/16/ch06/ch06_sec009.html 6.9] of the ''Chicago Manual of Style''. The intent is to aid readability. The reasons for variation from such style guidelines are evident when they are compelling, but whether a quotation doesn't actually end with a comma is simply not a compelling reason to write typography which distracts the ordinary reader. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.213|172.70.206.213]] 09:32, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

2667: First Internet Interaction

2022-09-03T02:42:16Z

172.70.206.213: /* Explanation */ caps

{{comic
| number = 2667
| date = September 2, 2022
| title = First Internet Interaction
| image = first_internet_interaction.png
| titletext = To that stranger on the KOOL Tree House chat room, I gotta hand it to you: You were, ultimately, not wrong.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by AN AMERICAN IDIOT - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

In this comic, [[Cueball]], very likely as an autobiographical representation of [[Randall]], describes to [[Megan]] the first time he interacted with a group of people unknown to him over the internet; in an {{w|AIM (software)|AOL Instant Messenger}} forum for children called the "KOOL Tree House chat room" in 1993, when Randall was about nine years old. He read a discussion about {{w|Green Day}}, asked who they are, and was told that not knowing was a serious problem. As Megan says, judging people for lack of pop culture knowledge has remained typical online behavior.

Green Day is an American rock band formed in the East Bay of California in 1987. In 1993, they were still known merely as an independent punk band, and a year away from releasing their major-label debut album ''{{w|Dookie}}'', their first mainstream success. Anyone, especially a nine year-old, not recognizing the band in 1993 would be perfectly normal. After 1993, Green Day would go on to be a widely popular and influential rock band with many acclaimed albums.

This inital online social interaction was a significant formative experience for Cueball, molding his online behavior ever since, in that it still causes him to consider his correspondents' perspective when communicating. The social dynamics at play are reminiscent of the mathematics of others' perspectives described in [[1053: Ten Thousand]]. While there is no central humor in this comic, the extent to which early experiences can affect people can be both profound and ironic.

The title text indicates Randall agrees with the reply to the question, suggesting he believes the band is important culturally. Randall is probably a Green Day fan, recently mentioning in [[2665: America Songs]] their song "{{w|American Idiot (song)|American Idiot}}."

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[Four panels depicting a conversation between Megan and Cueball]

:[First panel, Megan and Cueball talking]
:Cueball: You know,
:Cueball: I remember the first thing anybody ever said to me on the internet.
:Megan: Yeah?

:[Second panel, part-height to accomodate Cueball's narration above and the memory of a scene below that features 'Young Cueball', with a mop-head of hair, knelt atop a chair to use a computer with CRT and keyboard on the desk, cabled down into a floor-standing minitower case below]
:Cueball (narrative): I was in an AOL Kids chat room in 1993.
:Cueball (narrative): People there kept using a name I didn't recognise.
:Cueball (narrative): After a while I asked what it was.
:Young Cueball (via the use of the keyboard): W... H... O...  I... S...  G... R...

:[Third panel, close-up of Cueball's adult head, continuing the framing conversation]
:Cueball: Someone replied
:Cueball: "If you don't know who Green Day is, you have a serious problem."
:Cueball: And that was it.
:Cueball: My first virtual interaction.

:[Fourth panel, continuing the conversation, Megan and Cueball now seen walking rightwards as they speak]
:Megan: In some ways, the Internet has changed surprisingly little in the last 30 years.
:Cueball: Every time I reply to someone, I think
:Cueball: What if this is their Green Day moment?

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


[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Randall Munroe]]

2667: First Internet Interaction

2022-09-03T00:50:41Z

172.70.206.213:

{{comic
| number = 2667
| date = September 2, 2022
| title = First Internet Interaction
| image = first_internet_interaction.png
| titletext = To that stranger on the KOOL Tree House chat room, I gotta hand it to you: You were, ultimately, not wrong.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by AN AMERICAN IDIOT - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

In this comic, [[Cueball]], as an autobiographical representation of [[Randall]], describes to [[Megan]] the first time he interacted with a group of people unknown to him over the internet, in this case an {{w|AIM (software)|AOL instant messenger}} forum called the "KOOL Tree House chat room" in 1993, when Randall was about nine years old. He read a discussion about Green Day, asked who they are, and was told that not knowing was a serious problem. As Megan says, judging people for lack of pop culture knowledge has remained typical online behavior.

{{w|Green Day}} is an American rock band formed in the East Bay of California in 1987. In 1993, Green Day was still known as an independent punk band and was a year away from releasing their major-label debut album ''{{w|Dookie}}'', their first mainstream success. Anyone, especially a nine-year-old, not recognizing the band in 1993 would perfectly normal.

This initial internet experience was profoundly formative experience for Randall, molding his online interaction experiences ever since, in that the interaction still causes him to consider his correspondents' perspective when communicating. Cueball does not specify how or why the experience affected him, but we know from several Xkcd comics that Randall is a Green Day fan, and as the title text indicates, he agrees they are important culturally. After 1993, Green Day would go on to be a widely popular and influential rock band with many acclaimed albums.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[Four panels depicting a conversation between Megan and Cueball]

:[First panel, Megan and Cueball talking]
:Cueball: You know,
:Cueball: I remember the first thing anybody ever said to me on the internet.
:Megan: Yeah?

:[Second panel, part-height to accomodate Cueball's narration above and the memory of a scene below that features 'Young Cueball', with a mop-head of hair, knelt atop a chair to use a computer with CRT and keyboard on the desk, cabled down into a floor-standing minitower case below]
:Cueball (narrative): I was in an AOL Kids chat room in 1993.
:Cueball (narrative): People there kept using a name I didn't recognise.
:Cueball (narrative): After a while I asked what it was.
:Young Cueball (via the use of the keyboard): W... H... O...  I... S...  G... R...

:[Third panel, close-up of Cueball's adult head, continuing the framing conversation]
:Cueball: Someone replied
:Cueball: "If you don't know who Green Day is, you have a serious problem."
:Cueball: And that was it.
:Cueball: My first virtual interaction.

:[Fourth panel, continuing the conversation, Megan and Cueball now seen walking rightwards as they speak]
:Megan: In some ways, the Internet has changed surprisingly little in the last 30 years.
:Cueball: Every time I reply to someone, I think
:Cueball: What if this is their Green Day moment?

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


[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]

2667: First Internet Interaction

2022-09-03T00:50:23Z

172.70.206.213:

{{comic
| number = 2667
| date = September 2, 2022
| title = First Internet Interaction
| image = first_internet_interaction.png
| titletext = To that stranger on the KOOL Tree House chat room, I gotta hand it to you: You were, ultimately, not wrong.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by AN AMERICAN IDIOT - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

In this comic, [[Cueball]], as an autobiographical representation of [[Randall]], describes to [[Megan]] the first time he interacted with a group of people unknown to him over the internet, in this case an {{w|AIM (software)|AOL instant messenger}} forum called the "KOOL Tree House chat room" in 1993, when Randall was about nine years old. He read a discussion about Green Day, asked who they are, and was told that not knowing was a serious problem. As Megan says, judging people for lack of pop culture knowledge has remained typical online behavior.

{{w|Green Day}} is an American rock band formed in the East Bay of California in 1987. In 1993, Green Day was known as an independent punk band and was a year away from releasing their major-label debut album ''{{w|Dookie}}'', their first mainstream success. Anyone, especially a nine-year-old, not recognizing the band in 1993 would perfectly normal.

This initial internet experience was profoundly formative experience for Randall, molding his online interaction experiences ever since, in that the interaction still causes him to consider his correspondents' perspective when communicating. Cueball does not specify how or why the experience affected him, but we know from several Xkcd comics that Randall is a Green Day fan, and as the title text indicates, he agrees they are important culturally. After 1993, Green Day would go on to be a widely popular and influential rock band with many acclaimed albums.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[Four panels depicting a conversation between Megan and Cueball]

:[First panel, Megan and Cueball talking]
:Cueball: You know,
:Cueball: I remember the first thing anybody ever said to me on the internet.
:Megan: Yeah?

:[Second panel, part-height to accomodate Cueball's narration above and the memory of a scene below that features 'Young Cueball', with a mop-head of hair, knelt atop a chair to use a computer with CRT and keyboard on the desk, cabled down into a floor-standing minitower case below]
:Cueball (narrative): I was in an AOL Kids chat room in 1993.
:Cueball (narrative): People there kept using a name I didn't recognise.
:Cueball (narrative): After a while I asked what it was.
:Young Cueball (via the use of the keyboard): W... H... O...  I... S...  G... R...

:[Third panel, close-up of Cueball's adult head, continuing the framing conversation]
:Cueball: Someone replied
:Cueball: "If you don't know who Green Day is, you have a serious problem."
:Cueball: And that was it.
:Cueball: My first virtual interaction.

:[Fourth panel, continuing the conversation, Megan and Cueball now seen walking rightwards as they speak]
:Megan: In some ways, the Internet has changed surprisingly little in the last 30 years.
:Cueball: Every time I reply to someone, I think
:Cueball: What if this is their Green Day moment?

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


[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]

2667: First Internet Interaction

2022-09-03T00:50:02Z

172.70.206.213:

{{comic
| number = 2667
| date = September 2, 2022
| title = First Internet Interaction
| image = first_internet_interaction.png
| titletext = To that stranger on the KOOL Tree House chat room, I gotta hand it to you: You were, ultimately, not wrong.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by AN AMERICAN IDIOT - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

In this comic, [[Cueball]], as an autobiographical representation of [[Randall]], describes to [[Megan]] the first time he interacted with a group of people unknown to him over the internet, in this case an {{w|AIM (software)|AOL instant messenger}} forum called the "KOOL Tree House chat room" in 1993, when Randall was about nine years old. He read a discussion about Green Day, asked who they are, and was told that not knowing was a serious problem. As Megan says, judging people for lack of pop culture knowledge has remained typical online behavior.
+
{{w|Green Day}} is an American rock band formed in the East Bay of California in 1987. In this comic, [[Cueball]], as an autobiographical representation of [[Randall]], describes to [[Megan]] the first time he interacted with a group of people unknown to him over the internet, in this case an {{w|AIM (software)|AOL instant messenger}} forum for children called the "KOOL Tree House chat room" in 1993, when Randall was about nine years old. He read a discussion about Green Day, asked who they are, and was told that not knowing was a serious problem. Megan implies people still behave similarly online today.

{{w|Green Day}} is an American rock band formed in the East Bay of California in 1987. In 1993, Green Day was known as an independent punk band and was a year away from releasing their major-label debut album ''{{w|Dookie}}'', their first mainstream success. Anyone, especially a nine-year-old, not recognizing the band in 1993 would perfectly normal.

This initial internet experience was profoundly formative experience for Randall, molding his online interaction experiences ever since, in that the interaction still causes him to consider his correspondents' perspective when communicating. Cueball does not specify how or why the experience affected him, but we know from several Xkcd comics that Randall is a Green Day fan, and as the title text indicates, he agrees they are important culturally. After 1993, Green Day would go on to be a widely popular and influential rock band with many acclaimed albums.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[Four panels depicting a conversation between Megan and Cueball]

:[First panel, Megan and Cueball talking]
:Cueball: You know,
:Cueball: I remember the first thing anybody ever said to me on the internet.
:Megan: Yeah?

:[Second panel, part-height to accomodate Cueball's narration above and the memory of a scene below that features 'Young Cueball', with a mop-head of hair, knelt atop a chair to use a computer with CRT and keyboard on the desk, cabled down into a floor-standing minitower case below]
:Cueball (narrative): I was in an AOL Kids chat room in 1993.
:Cueball (narrative): People there kept using a name I didn't recognise.
:Cueball (narrative): After a while I asked what it was.
:Young Cueball (via the use of the keyboard): W... H... O...  I... S...  G... R...

:[Third panel, close-up of Cueball's adult head, continuing the framing conversation]
:Cueball: Someone replied
:Cueball: "If you don't know who Green Day is, you have a serious problem."
:Cueball: And that was it.
:Cueball: My first virtual interaction.

:[Fourth panel, continuing the conversation, Megan and Cueball now seen walking rightwards as they speak]
:Megan: In some ways, the Internet has changed surprisingly little in the last 30 years.
:Cueball: Every time I reply to someone, I think
:Cueball: What if this is their Green Day moment?

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


[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]

Talk:2665: America Songs

2022-08-31T04:36:14Z

172.70.206.213: Reply

Many of these rely on "ia"/"ie"/"io" serving as the 3rd and 4th syllables, so every song would be sung like "God Bless <s>Olimpiya</s> Algeriya". Virginia Beach appears to be the only one to escape this.--[[User:Magtei|Magtei]] ([[User talk:Magtei|talk]]) 19:39, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
:As a Washingtonian, I pronounce Olympia without the diphthong (so four syllables; the “a” being distinct). It’s probably a dialect thing, and some pronunciations are more common than others, but as long as one fairly-common pronunciation scans, I think it’s fine. [User:Szeth Pancakes|Szeth Pancakes] ([[User talk:Szeth Pancakes|talk]]) 03:37, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
::Alright, bad example. Skipping it is unheard of in areas further south. Do you (or a large part of the US) fully pronounce most dipthongs, [https://www.howmanysyllables.com/syllables/syria Syria with three syllables], etc.?--[[User:Magtei|Magtei]] ([[User talk:Magtei|talk]]) 07:02, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
:::I can't speak for the rest of the US, but in the case of places I usually pronounce the extra syllable. Virginia is the one exception I can think of right now. [[User:Szeth Pancakes|Szeth Pancakes]] ([[User talk:Szeth Pancakes|talk]]) 21:08, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
:There are also some locations with three-syllable names, such as Detroit Lakes or Fergus Falls (both located northwest of St. Cloud, Minnesota) which, although not listed by Randall, will also work and not use the noted syllables. [[User:RAGBRAIvet|RAGBRAIvet]] ([[User talk:RAGBRAIvet|talk]]) 02:35, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

This phrase, "scans to", has me confused. Can the explanation address what this is supposed to mean?
--anon 16:23, 29 August 2022
:You betcha [[User:Szeth Pancakes|Szeth Pancakes]] ([[User talk:Szeth Pancakes|talk]]) 20:38, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
::What does scanning mean in relation to sung verse? Just syllables and their stress pattern, or is their more? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.28|172.69.34.28]] 23:11, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
:::I'm not familiar with the term, but I assume it's related to scansion. If I'm right, it's probably just syllables and stress pattern. [[User:GreatWyrmGold|GreatWyrmGold]] ([[User talk:GreatWyrmGold|talk]]) 06:52, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
::::- There was a young man from Japan
::::- Whose limericks never would scan.
::::- And when they asked why,
::::- He said "I do try!
::::- But when I get to the last line I try to fit in as many words as I can."
::::...though – and this is me talking, not the famous limerick – after making sure your poetry rhymes (if you want it to; and/or assonate, consonate, etc) and scans (some words are tricky, as mentioned, according to dialect/accent/etc) you also need to check the meter (does it obviously flow and split in patterns like the iambic one where "da-DUM da-DUM-da DUM-da DUM-da-DUM" might be how it works with word-boundries).
::::You might be wise to avoid words like "vehicle" with theoretically, two to four syllables and all kinds of stress-patterns and vowel-sounds (c.f. stereotypical Deep South, north British, Aussie, etc), at least as an early (establishing) element. Maybe you can set up its far more knowable rhyme/scan/metering partner first and rely upon the reader adopting the intended variation (give or take the relatively opposing strengths of writer/reader accents, etc) after being given the prior clue.
::::I would personally say the scan(sion) is mostly the simple syllable count, and may need some writing tricks ("learned" as in "I learned something" and "learn'ed" as in "a very learned person") to convey well during sight-reading or initial internalised read-through.
::::On that, I personally have some problems reading "-ya" syllables as singular (depending upon what the preceding symbol is, I would consider it a "-ee-ah"/"-ee-uh" (or mid-point) with a cut-down "-ee-"), while I have no problem with the "-lm" dipthong/whatever (c.f. Northern Irish tends to clearly enunciate as "fill-um" for 'film', whilst I might almost consider it a syllable/beat of its own). But I suspect the right voice (internal or external) could convince me of any of those examples as given, eventually... ;) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.105|162.158.159.105]] 13:46, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Aussie here: we tend to say (and sing) "Australia" with three syllables. For example, see the [https://www.pmc.gov.au/resource-centre/government/australian-national-anthem-scores Australian national anthem]. Occasionally two syllables: Straya mate!! But saying it with four syllables is perhaps an American thing. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.2.207|162.158.2.207]] 21:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
:Interesting! It probably is a dialect thing. As an American, I've always pronounced it with four. [[User:Szeth Pancakes|Szeth Pancakes]] ([[User talk:Szeth Pancakes|talk]]) 21:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

In the comic, Saskatchewan is spelled as Sasketchewan. Might be fixed later?

Just putting this here: https://www.quora.com/A-lot-of-place-names-in-the-USA-have-four-syllables-Minnesota-Chattanooga-Albuquerque-Tallahassee-Talladega-Massachusetts-Massapequa-Mississippi-Cincinnati-Sacramento-Indiana-Alabama-Oklahoma-etc-Is-there-a (with the understanding that "scanning" doesn't necessarily mean only the number of syllables, e.g. Al-BUH-ker-key has the wrong stress pattern.)[[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.49|172.70.210.49]] 21:51, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
:Hot dog, jumping frog, Albuquerque! [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.211|172.69.79.211]] 22:03, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
::''AlBUquerque, AlBUquerque, God shed his grace on theee...!'' [[Special:Contributions/172.70.207.8|172.70.207.8]] 22:46, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Does anyone know how to craft a Wikidata query for all the place names with four syllables following the .'.. stress pattern? We should probably say how many there are. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.214.183|172.70.214.183]] 23:15, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Jurassic park, Jurassic park, how lovely are thy branches… [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 23:31, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

The pronunciation of Vidalia, Georgia, is "vi-DAIL-ya" -- three syllables, not four. It doesn't actually scan like "America". Seems like the comic is assuming the pronunciation is "vee-DAHL-ee-ah", which would scan.ing
:And the age old question of whether an optional schwa constitutes a syllable rears its head. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.134.161|172.69.134.161]] 05:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
::I came to say a similar thing about Montpelier. In Vermont, at least, it has three syllables. [[User:CeramicMug|CeramicMug]] ([[User talk:CeramicMug|talk]]) 10:42, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I simply wish to note the similarity to "Thighs" (#321), which is one of my favorite xkcd comics and one that I find comes to mind surprisingly often.

For changing the tune of a song but not the lyrics (or the lyrics in entirety but not the tune), see the title text to 788: The Carriage [[Special:Contributions/172.70.131.126|172.70.131.126]] 11:24, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Shirley [surely] there must be some overlap between XKCD and "Weird Al" Yankovic fans, but no one has yet mentioned that Randall missed the "American Idiot"/"Canadian Idiot" overlap, mentioning the former but not the latter? '''--BigMal''' // [[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.87|172.70.114.87]] 14:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Needs a better explanation of "scans" (short for Scansion). Something something ''Syllables'', something something ''stress pattern'', something something ''rhythm''. I'd write it myself, but no one wants a 30 page thesis on the topic. PS to those complaining certain locations usually use a three syllable pronunciation... poetic license frequently stretches (usually middle or penultimate) syllables to cover two beats, even without changing vowel length (although it's more common to do so). At least, in English; some other languages are not as flexible in this regard. --- [[Special:Contributions/172.70.214.79|172.70.214.79]] 16:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Should it be noted that one of the implicitly suggested songs, "America", from West Side Story, replaced with "LaGuardia", was in fact done in the Saturday Night Live sketch "Airport Sushi" in 2020? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.70.41|172.69.70.41]] 22:32, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
: Omission would clearly be a travesty, but do you have a YouTube link? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.243|172.70.210.243]] 02:57, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
::[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6d7Vk_qaiB8 "Your wish is my command, Kemosabi."] [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.213|172.70.206.213]] 04:36, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

2664: Cloud Swirls

2022-08-30T00:08:39Z

172.70.206.213: /* Explanation */ pluralization fully indeterminate

{{comic
| number = 2664
| date = August 26, 2022
| title = Cloud Swirls
| image = cloud_swirls.png
| titletext = 'Why did you get into fluid dynamics?' 'Well, SOME planet has to have the coolest clouds, odds are it's not ours, and rockets are slow.'
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a UNIVERSE WITH NOTHING BETTER TO DO EXCEPT MAKE CLOUDS - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

There are planets.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exoplanet] A lot of them, even.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_exoplanets] Like our planet, for instance.[https://phl.upr.edu/projects/earth-similarity-index-esi]

In 3D software, depictions are often rendered at a lower quality when the viewer's perspective is far away from them, to save on computational work for aspects the user can't clearly discern. This idea is built upon here, conceivably to suggest how {{w|Simulation hypothesis|simulations of universes}} might seem different than base reality to observers within them.

In this comic, [[Cueball]] and [[Megan]] theorize that complicated cloud formations occur naturally on other planets in other solar systems. On planets with no observers to look at the clouds closely, our universe, or the simulation thereof, might not afford to render a visual depiction of the atmosphere in higher quality. Meteorologists and physicists on Earth might notice that such exoplanet atmospheres do not obey formal {{w|Navier-Stokes}} {{w|fluid dynamics}}, but instead reflect low-quality corner-cutting of such calculations. The foregoing would make sense if the Universe is actually simulated by a computer (a 43% probability[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HA5YuwvJkpQ&t=20m]) and the being(s) who are running the physics simulator, or have coded our universe, wanted to speed things up.

{{cot|Further considerations}}
However:

* Much more computing power could be saved by skimping on the chemistry of the quattuordecillions of atoms in the oceans than the clouds in the sky (especially considering that it would not be necessary to simulate every individual atom and molecule in the sky (for the purpose of making realistic clouds with fluid dynamics); the computer program could instead divide all of the gas particles (e.g., dinitrogen, dioxygen, water vapor, argon, and carbon dioxide) into small chunks, simulate how each chunk would move, and update the chunk boundaries every so often), but skimping on oceanic chemistry would make biogenesis much less feasible. However, Earth has life.{{Citation needed}}

* It would be difficult to judge when "no one is looking closely". There are many organisms that have some degree of at least rudimentary sight but would have no idea (and in fact no way to conceptualize) whether the computer simulating the Universe is skimping on the cloud-rendering calculations or not. It would be difficult to make some foolproof intelligent-sight-detecting code that would render the clouds with much greater precision once a planet had life that would notice if the clouds were following lazy fluid dynamics.
** For one thing, this would not only depend on a species's intelligence but also on its knowledge of physics; e.g., humans did not develop the Navier-Stokes equations right after evolving large enough brains to conceive and understand them. Even coding a computer program to detect sight-having life would be difficult, at least for a computer program only looking at the positions and velocities of atoms, electrons, and photons; for example, a blue photon hitting a retinal molecule in a cone cell, causing it to change shape, which triggers a signal transduction cascade that sends a nervous signal to the optical cortex somewhat resembles an ultraviolet photon hitting a DNA strand, leading to the creation of a thymine dimer whose detection by DNA-repairing enzymes triggers a signal transduction cascade that increases the production of melanin, but only one counts as sight.
** Furthermore, assuming that the computer simulates each part of the Universe in a manner that is is about synchronized according to most celestial bodies, when the computer simulating the Universe simulates a planet, it does not know whether a civilization on a planet a dozen or two light-years away that has advanced enough to have telescopes capable of detailed views of the clouds of planets light-years away will point any telescopes at that planet dozens of light-years later.
***Even if the advanced civilization on another planet does not have such powerful telescopes yet, even a low-resolution (in terms of that planet's entire solar system being one pixel) spectrometer would be enough to reveal that something is up with the fluid dynamics simulations on that planet. Observers light-years away could deduce how much condensed water vapor there is in the atmosphere by calculating the atmosphere's absorbance in a wavelength where condensed water has a low but detectable absorptivity and everything else in that planet's atmosphere either has a negligible absorptivity or can be compensated for, and then one can deduce how compact the clouds are from that and the absorbance of a wavelength where condensed water has a high absorptivity and everything else in that planet's atmosphere either has a negligible absorptivity or can be compensated for. (Actually, in order to calculate the amount and compactlygroupedness of condensed water in the atmosphere from the raw numbers/direct measurements, the scientists would have to know not only the absoprtivity of condensed water suspended in air as clouds but also characteristics of the planet such as its radius and the thickness of its atmosphere. There are also other complicated factors, such as that some of the aerosolized water in clouds is in the form of solid ice, not liquid water. However, the scientists would still notice if the raw numbers from the more rudimentary observational equipment suddenly changed the second they switched on a more powerful telescope, so the following point still stands.) If the computer simulating the Universe did not switch to the more precise simulation of the planet's atmosphere in time for the scientists to only see spectrographs of the planet's atmosphere rendered with precise calculations, then if the scientists later developed a more powerful telescope, like the one described earlier, and then pointed it at the planet, either they would see poorly-rendered clouds and know that the Universe is simulated by a computer that skimps on the fluid dynamics calculations for the atmospheres of certain planets, or the measurements from transit spectrography would suddenly change, so the scientists would know that something weird was going on—although probably not exactly what. This is important because it is more feasible for a society to develop low-resolution transit spectrography quickly enough to catch the computer simulating the Universe off-guard than it would be for a society to develop the technology required for a telescope advanced enough to look at the clouds of a planet in another solar system with high enough resolution to determine whether the atmosphere is simulated by a computer that is skimping on the fluid dynamics calculations quickly enough to catch the computer simulating the Universe off-guard. However, either could conceivably catch the computer simulating the Universe off-guard because it would be difficult for a computer to deduce whether a planet has life and how technologically advanced the life of any planet that has life is when the only raw data for the computer to work with are the positions and velocities of atoms, electrons, and photons.

* If atmospheric physics suddenly changed upon the evolution of a species capable of distinguishing whether the atmosphere is simulated by a computer program that is skimping on the fluid dynamics calculations, that would likely cause sudden changes in the climate, and the resulting heat waves, droughts, freezes, famines, floods, storms, and/or other (formerly) extreme weather would likely drive that species extinct (considering that it had just evolved, so it would have a small population and therefore be especially susceptible to natural disasters) because it would not have evolved to survive in such conditions. Such disasters and climate changes) would not have to directly kill all members of the species in order to drive it extinct; they could instead diminish the size of the gene pool by killing most of the members or divide the once-larger population into smaller, genetically isolated populations (e.g., by causing the creation of uncrossably swollen rivers dividing what used to be a single genetically-interconnected range into several smaller populations), either of which would cause an unsustainable level of inbreeding that would eventually lead to extinction. However, our species was not driven extinct shortly after it first developed.{{Citation needed}}
{{cob}}

Of course, most people do not think that the Universe is a simulation,{{Actual citation needed}} but society does not know that it isn't a simulation with absolute certainty. There is a direct relationship between the question of the {{w|simulation hypothesis}} in {{w|metaphysics}} and {{w|Pascal's wager}} in {{w|theism}}, ''i.e.,'' whether God(s) exist(s), with weighty implications regarding {{w|free will}} and {{w|determinism}}, such as which raise the question of {{w|Compatibilism#Non-naturalism|non-naturalist compatibilism}}.

Megan proposes an additional theory that the universe is intended to make cool swirly clouds, and that the presence of life to observe these clouds is a bothersome coincidence. This goes against the theory that the Universe must not care about making cool swirly clouds since it wants to skimp on the fluid dynamics calculations. Even among followers of the simulation hypothesis, ascribing sentiment, emotion, or motivations to the entire universe is usually considered to be in jest, because of the dissimilarities between sentient beings and cosmologically distant sets of galaxies.{{citation needed}} This jest forms the basis of the comic's humor.

The title text includes a dialogue with one person asking another why they got into fluid dynamics. The answer implies that the motivation was to simulate the clouds of planetary atmospheres unreachable by today's rocket technology.

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

:[Cueball and Megan looking out at a landscape of clouds]
:Cueball: It's weird to think there are countless planets with air and stuff but no life.
:Cueball: Billions of years of clouds making cool shapes with no one to look at them.

:[Just Cueball and Megan standing next to each other]
:Megan: Yeah, it seems like a waste. The universe getting the complex fluid dynamics right for every momentary swirl of cloud.
:Megan: Just a ''huge'' amount of work.

:[Cueball and Megan walk away to the right]
:Cueball: Maybe atmospheres have smooth laminar flow until someone looks closely.
:Megan: Or maybe the universe just ''likes'' making swirly clouds, and is annoyed that we're watching.

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

Talk:2664: Cloud Swirls

2022-08-29T23:48:16Z

172.70.206.213: Reply

3-D video games? HUH??[[Special:Contributions/172.70.131.126|172.70.131.126]] 09:33, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
:It's not how I would have started the Explanation, but I think it'll quickly be rewritten enough that this element is downplayed/subsumed in some more generalised attempt to explain everything from QFD to the CBR. As I'm only just reading this now, just before I have to wander off to do something else, I shall have to defer my own dabbling edits until later, by which time it will have been matured (or at least remixed) into a more thorough text, so no point me worrying upon how to improve the necessary but rarely inviolable initial attempt to Explain. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.5|172.70.85.5]] 11:51, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
:: Maybe in some combination with the {{w|Observer effect (physics)}}, it's an attempt to get at the simulation hypothesis maybe?
::I absolutely do not get whatever it is that the title text is saying, so I'm sitting this one out. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.214.189|172.70.214.189]] 14:56, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
:::I'd interpret it as them studying fluid dynamics in hope of discovering a way to create the coolest possible cloud. --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.50.207|172.68.50.207]] 15:07, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
::::Aye. Given we can't see the 'best clouds' here (because the chances are low that we can) and we can't go and see the absolute best clouds (due to limitations on visiting every likely place out there), by intensely studying the phenomenon that in part dictates how all clouds look one might create (or visually predict the look of) the superior type through rigorous simulation/emulation/etc. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.155|172.70.162.155]] 15:53, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

''Much more computing power could be saved by skimping on the chemistry of the quattuordecillions of atoms in the oceans than the clouds in the sky ... but skimping on oceanic chemistry would make biogenesis much less feasible. However, Earth has life.''

Wait, what if this is the solution to the Fermi paradox? /jk [[User:Xkcdjerry|Xkcdjerry]] ([[User talk:Xkcdjerry|talk]]) 02:49, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

"Of course, most people do not think that the Universe is a simulation..." feels like a ''genuine'' [citation needed] to me. I can't say with confidence that it's the prevailing theory, but it's been gaining so much traction in this day and age that it feels weird to claim with confidence that the majority of people don't think it.
:Agree. On the other hand, I don't think the Universe simulation cheats to save computing resources. With the scale it works in, it must be massively parallel system which isn't able to reallocate resources from one area to other. Also, if whoever programmed the simulation would be willing to cheat, they would start with not designing the physical laws so complicated. Or alternatively, they would cheat big, changing our memories to make everything seem to work correctly. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 23:44, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
::Yes. If the universe were like The Matrix—i.e., its main goal were to house beings possessing minds—then simulating only the input to each being’s senses would be the most economical.
:::However, the amount of computation to identify beings and what information constitutes their input might be so hard as to be analogous to the {{w|halting problem}}, or technically undecidable (but subject to likely useful heuristics, depending on the purpose of any such simulation.) This gets into {{w|Compatibilism#Non-naturalism|non-naturalist compatibilism}} on the free will question, but it's not clear whether such a discussion would add anything directly to an explanation of the comic, but is worth considering. Maybe in the "Further considerations" block. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.28|172.69.34.28]] 20:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Am I the only one who feels like the Explanation is lacking its customary explanatoriousness? I propose a table in the form of {{w|Pascal's wager}}, which when projected on the {{w|Mandelbrot set}}, looks like clouds. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.166.173|162.158.166.173]] 03:12, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this is an accurate description or explanation of the title text, so I am moving it here:
: "The response is, more or less, that the second person wants to see “the coolest clouds”. If one devised a system to determine what would qualify as the coolest clouds (an entirely subjective thing), then one could rank planets on how cool their clouds were. Since only one planet would have the best clouds and there is a great number of planets, it is statistically unlikely that Earth - or any of the other planets in our system - will be the winner. Thus, in order to see the coolest clouds, one must either travel to another system or learn fluid dynamics to simulate them. Compared to the vast distances a ship must travel to reach even the nearest star, even rockets seem slow, and it would take a long time to get even a fraction of the way there. Because of this, the latter is chosen."
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.166.173|162.158.166.173]] 03:59, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
::I was surprised to see that removed. It looked ''exactly'' like the explanation for the TT, to me. The alternative seems to lack so much of the implied rationale. But maybe the simulation of this site provided to my brain is different from the simulation of this site provided to yours (assuming you exist, and you aren't a confounding factor included 8n my whole simulation of what I might or might not be experiencing).... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.78|172.70.91.78]]
:::It assumes that different atmospheric compositions could produce cooler clouds, which is tautological given the subjectivity of the criterion, but questionable from the perspective of mean opinions over a wide population such as the readership. The current two sentence explanation of the title text sidesteps that issue, and is much easier and faster to read. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.214.183|172.70.214.183]] 20:54, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I was reminded by this strip of the fact that THIS planet, the only planet in our solar system where the natural satellite has the correct relationship with the sun to occasionally block it out in an extremely cool way (with the 'diamond ring' corona effect), is also the only planet (so far as we know) where such , solar eclipses can be APPRECIATED...

[[User:MarquisOfCarrabass|MarquisOfCarrabass]] ([[User talk:MarquisOfCarrabass|talk]]) 06:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

This is the WORST explainxkcd "Explanation" I have ever seen. There is absolutely NOTHING in the comic that has ANYTHING to do with 3D videogames and any such ideas come COMPLETELY from out of the blue. SHEESH! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.130.171|172.70.130.171]] 10:40, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

As for the "Further consideration" section, it's a whole big pile of . . . something . . . that belongs somewhere else but not here. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.131.170|172.70.131.170]] 10:46, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
:Click the Expand link, pay the consequences :D [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.213|172.70.206.213]] 23:48, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Is there a difference between ascribing motivations to the Universe and positing the purpose of a constructed simulation of our reality? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.146|172.70.211.146]] 23:37, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
: Neither are falsifiable hypotheses, to begin with. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.213|172.70.206.213]] 23:45, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Talk:2664: Cloud Swirls

2022-08-29T23:45:14Z

172.70.206.213: Reply

3-D video games? HUH??[[Special:Contributions/172.70.131.126|172.70.131.126]] 09:33, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
:It's not how I would have started the Explanation, but I think it'll quickly be rewritten enough that this element is downplayed/subsumed in some more generalised attempt to explain everything from QFD to the CBR. As I'm only just reading this now, just before I have to wander off to do something else, I shall have to defer my own dabbling edits until later, by which time it will have been matured (or at least remixed) into a more thorough text, so no point me worrying upon how to improve the necessary but rarely inviolable initial attempt to Explain. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.5|172.70.85.5]] 11:51, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
:: Maybe in some combination with the {{w|Observer effect (physics)}}, it's an attempt to get at the simulation hypothesis maybe?
::I absolutely do not get whatever it is that the title text is saying, so I'm sitting this one out. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.214.189|172.70.214.189]] 14:56, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
:::I'd interpret it as them studying fluid dynamics in hope of discovering a way to create the coolest possible cloud. --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.50.207|172.68.50.207]] 15:07, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
::::Aye. Given we can't see the 'best clouds' here (because the chances are low that we can) and we can't go and see the absolute best clouds (due to limitations on visiting every likely place out there), by intensely studying the phenomenon that in part dictates how all clouds look one might create (or visually predict the look of) the superior type through rigorous simulation/emulation/etc. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.155|172.70.162.155]] 15:53, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

''Much more computing power could be saved by skimping on the chemistry of the quattuordecillions of atoms in the oceans than the clouds in the sky ... but skimping on oceanic chemistry would make biogenesis much less feasible. However, Earth has life.''

Wait, what if this is the solution to the Fermi paradox? /jk [[User:Xkcdjerry|Xkcdjerry]] ([[User talk:Xkcdjerry|talk]]) 02:49, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

"Of course, most people do not think that the Universe is a simulation..." feels like a ''genuine'' [citation needed] to me. I can't say with confidence that it's the prevailing theory, but it's been gaining so much traction in this day and age that it feels weird to claim with confidence that the majority of people don't think it.
:Agree. On the other hand, I don't think the Universe simulation cheats to save computing resources. With the scale it works in, it must be massively parallel system which isn't able to reallocate resources from one area to other. Also, if whoever programmed the simulation would be willing to cheat, they would start with not designing the physical laws so complicated. Or alternatively, they would cheat big, changing our memories to make everything seem to work correctly. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 23:44, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
::Yes. If the universe were like The Matrix—i.e., its main goal were to house beings possessing minds—then simulating only the input to each being’s senses would be the most economical.
:::However, the amount of computation to identify beings and what information constitutes their input might be so hard as to be analogous to the {{w|halting problem}}, or technically undecidable (but subject to likely useful heuristics, depending on the purpose of any such simulation.) This gets into {{w|Compatibilism#Non-naturalism|non-naturalist compatibilism}} on the free will question, but it's not clear whether such a discussion would add anything directly to an explanation of the comic, but is worth considering. Maybe in the "Further considerations" block. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.28|172.69.34.28]] 20:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Am I the only one who feels like the Explanation is lacking its customary explanatoriousness? I propose a table in the form of {{w|Pascal's wager}}, which when projected on the {{w|Mandelbrot set}}, looks like clouds. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.166.173|162.158.166.173]] 03:12, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this is an accurate description or explanation of the title text, so I am moving it here:
: "The response is, more or less, that the second person wants to see “the coolest clouds”. If one devised a system to determine what would qualify as the coolest clouds (an entirely subjective thing), then one could rank planets on how cool their clouds were. Since only one planet would have the best clouds and there is a great number of planets, it is statistically unlikely that Earth - or any of the other planets in our system - will be the winner. Thus, in order to see the coolest clouds, one must either travel to another system or learn fluid dynamics to simulate them. Compared to the vast distances a ship must travel to reach even the nearest star, even rockets seem slow, and it would take a long time to get even a fraction of the way there. Because of this, the latter is chosen."
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.166.173|162.158.166.173]] 03:59, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
::I was surprised to see that removed. It looked ''exactly'' like the explanation for the TT, to me. The alternative seems to lack so much of the implied rationale. But maybe the simulation of this site provided to my brain is different from the simulation of this site provided to yours (assuming you exist, and you aren't a confounding factor included 8n my whole simulation of what I might or might not be experiencing).... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.78|172.70.91.78]]
:::It assumes that different atmospheric compositions could produce cooler clouds, which is tautological given the subjectivity of the criterion, but questionable from the perspective of mean opinions over a wide population such as the readership. The current two sentence explanation of the title text sidesteps that issue, and is much easier and faster to read. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.214.183|172.70.214.183]] 20:54, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I was reminded by this strip of the fact that THIS planet, the only planet in our solar system where the natural satellite has the correct relationship with the sun to occasionally block it out in an extremely cool way (with the 'diamond ring' corona effect), is also the only planet (so far as we know) where such , solar eclipses can be APPRECIATED...

[[User:MarquisOfCarrabass|MarquisOfCarrabass]] ([[User talk:MarquisOfCarrabass|talk]]) 06:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

This is the WORST explainxkcd "Explanation" I have ever seen. There is absolutely NOTHING in the comic that has ANYTHING to do with 3D videogames and any such ideas come COMPLETELY from out of the blue. SHEESH! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.130.171|172.70.130.171]] 10:40, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

As for the "Further consideration" section, it's a whole big pile of . . . something . . . that belongs somewhere else but not here. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.131.170|172.70.131.170]] 10:46, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Is there a difference between ascribing motivations to the Universe and positing the purpose of a constructed simulation of our reality? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.146|172.70.211.146]] 23:37, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
: Neither are falsifiable hypotheses, to begin with. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.213|172.70.206.213]] 23:45, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

2664: Cloud Swirls

2022-08-29T22:25:34Z

172.70.206.213: /* Explanation */ reword

{{comic
| number = 2664
| date = August 26, 2022
| title = Cloud Swirls
| image = cloud_swirls.png
| titletext = 'Why did you get into fluid dynamics?' 'Well, SOME planet has to have the coolest clouds, odds are it's not ours, and rockets are slow.'
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a UNIVERSE WITH NOTHING BETTER TO DO EXCEPT MAKE CLOUDS - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

There are planets.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exoplanet] A lot of them, even.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_exoplanets] Like our planet, for instance.[https://phl.upr.edu/projects/earth-similarity-index-esi]

In 3D software, depictions are often rendered at a lower quality when the viewer's perspective is far away from them to save on computational work for aspects the user can't clearly discern. This idea is built upon here, conceivably to suggest how {{w|Simulation hypothesis|simulations of universes}} might seem different than the base reality.

In this comic, [[Cueball]] and [[Megan]] theorize that complicated cloud formations occur naturally on other planets in other solar systems. On planets with no observers to look at the clouds closely, our universe, or the simulation thereof, might not afford to render a visual depiction of the atmosphere in higher quality. Meteorologists and physicists on Earth might notice that the exoplanet atmosphere does not obey formal {{w|Navier-Stokes}} {{w|fluid dynamics}}, but instead reflects low-quality corner-cutting of such calculations. The foregoing would make sense if the Universe is actually simulated by a computer (a 43% probability[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HA5YuwvJkpQ&t=20m]) and the beings that are running the physics simulator, or have coded our universe, wanted to speed things up.

{{cot|Further considerations}}
However:

* Much more computing power could be saved by skimping on the chemistry of the quattuordecillions of atoms in the oceans than the clouds in the sky (especially considering that it would not be necessary to simulate every individual atom and molecule in the sky (for the purpose of making realistic clouds with fluid dynamics); the computer program could instead divide all of the gas particles (e.g., dinitrogen, dioxygen, water vapor, argon, and carbon dioxide) into small chunks, simulate how each chunk would move, and update the chunk boundaries every so often), but skimping on oceanic chemistry would make biogenesis much less feasible. However, Earth has life.{{Citation needed}}

* It would be difficult to judge when "no one is looking closely". There are many organisms that have some degree of at least rudimentary sight but would have no idea (and in fact no way to conceptualize) whether the computer simulating the Universe is skimping on the cloud-rendering calculations or not. It would be difficult to make some foolproof intelligent-sight-detecting code that would render the clouds with much greater precision once a planet had life that would notice if the clouds were following lazy fluid dynamics.
** For one thing, this would not only depend on a species's intelligence but also on its knowledge of physics; e.g., humans did not develop the Navier-Stokes equations right after evolving large enough brains to conceive and understand them. Even coding a computer program to detect sight-having life would be difficult, at least for a computer program only looking at the positions and velocities of atoms, electrons, and photons; for example, a blue photon hitting a retinal molecule in a cone cell, causing it to change shape, which triggers a signal transduction cascade that sends a nervous signal to the optical cortex somewhat resembles an ultraviolet photon hitting a DNA strand, leading to the creation of a thymine dimer whose detection by DNA-repairing enzymes triggers a signal transduction cascade that increases the production of melanin, but only one counts as sight.
** Furthermore, assuming that the computer simulates each part of the Universe in a manner that is is about synchronized according to most celestial bodies, when the computer simulating the Universe simulates a planet, it does not know whether a civilization on a planet a dozen or two light-years away that has advanced enough to have telescopes capable of detailed views of the clouds of planets light-years away will point any telescopes at that planet dozens of light-years later.
***Even if the advanced civilization on another planet does not have such powerful telescopes yet, even a low-resolution (in terms of that planet's entire solar system being one pixel) spectrometer would be enough to reveal that something is up with the fluid dynamics simulations on that planet. Observers light-years away could deduce how much condensed water vapor there is in the atmosphere by calculating the atmosphere's absorbance in a wavelength where condensed water has a low but detectable absorptivity and everything else in that planet's atmosphere either has a negligible absorptivity or can be compensated for, and then one can deduce how compact the clouds are from that and the absorbance of a wavelength where condensed water has a high absorptivity and everything else in that planet's atmosphere either has a negligible absorptivity or can be compensated for. (Actually, in order to calculate the amount and compactlygroupedness of condensed water in the atmosphere from the raw numbers/direct measurements, the scientists would have to know not only the absoprtivity of condensed water suspended in air as clouds but also characteristics of the planet such as its radius and the thickness of its atmosphere. There are also other complicated factors, such as that some of the aerosolized water in clouds is in the form of solid ice, not liquid water. However, the scientists would still notice if the raw numbers from the more rudimentary observational equipment suddenly changed the second they switched on a more powerful telescope, so the following point still stands.) If the computer simulating the Universe did not switch to the more precise simulation of the planet's atmosphere in time for the scientists to only see spectrographs of the planet's atmosphere rendered with precise calculations, then if the scientists later developed a more powerful telescope, like the one described earlier, and then pointed it at the planet, either they would see poorly-rendered clouds and know that the Universe is simulated by a computer that skimps on the fluid dynamics calculations for the atmospheres of certain planets, or the measurements from transit spectrography would suddenly change, so the scientists would know that something weird was going on—although probably not exactly what. This is important because it is more feasible for a society to develop low-resolution transit spectrography quickly enough to catch the computer simulating the Universe off-guard than it would be for a society to develop the technology required for a telescope advanced enough to look at the clouds of a planet in another solar system with high enough resolution to determine whether the atmosphere is simulated by a computer that is skimping on the fluid dynamics calculations quickly enough to catch the computer simulating the Universe off-guard. However, either could conceivably catch the computer simulating the Universe off-guard because it would be difficult for a computer to deduce whether a planet has life and how technologically advanced the life of any planet that has life is when the only raw data for the computer to work with are the positions and velocities of atoms, electrons, and photons.

* If atmospheric physics suddenly changed upon the evolution of a species capable of distinguishing whether the atmosphere is simulated by a computer program that is skimping on the fluid dynamics calculations, that would likely cause sudden changes in the climate, and the resulting heat waves, droughts, freezes, famines, floods, storms, and/or other (formerly) extreme weather would likely drive that species extinct (considering that it had just evolved, so it would have a small population and therefore be especially susceptible to natural disasters) because it would not have evolved to survive in such conditions. Such disasters and climate changes) would not have to directly kill all members of the species in order to drive it extinct; they could instead diminish the size of the gene pool by killing most of the members or divide the once-larger population into smaller, genetically isolated populations (e.g., by causing the creation of uncrossably swollen rivers dividing what used to be a single genetically-interconnected range into several smaller populations), either of which would cause an unsustainable level of inbreeding that would eventually lead to extinction. However, our species was not driven extinct shortly after it first developed.{{Citation needed}}
{{cob}}

Of course, most people do not think that the Universe is a simulation,{{Actual citation needed}} but society does not know that it isn't a simulation with absolute certainty. There is a direct relationship between the question of the {{w|simulation hypothesis}} in {{w|metaphysics}} and {{w|Pascal's wager}} in {{w|theism}}, ''i.e.,'' whether God(s) exist(s), with weighty implications regarding {{w|free will}} and {{w|determinism}}, such as which raise the question of {{w|Compatibilism#Non-naturalism|non-naturalist compatibilism}}.

Megan proposes an additional theory that the universe is intended to make cool swirly clouds, and that the presence of life to observe these clouds is a bothersome coincidence. This goes against the theory that the Universe must not care about making cool swirly clouds since it wants to skimp on the fluid dynamics calculations. Even among followers of the simulation hypothesis, ascribing sentiment or emotion to the entire universe is usually considered to be in jest, because of the dissimilarities between sentient beings and cosmologically distant sets of galaxies.{{citation needed}} This jest forms the basis of the comic's humor.

The title text includes a dialogue with one person asking another why they got into fluid dynamics. The answer implies that the motivation was to simulate the clouds of planetary atmospheres unreachable by today's rocket technology.

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

:[Cueball and Megan looking out at a landscape of clouds]
:Cueball: It's weird to think there are countless planets with air and stuff but no life.
:Cueball: Billions of years of clouds making cool shapes with no one to look at them.

:[Just Cueball and Megan standing next to each other]
:Megan: Yeah, it seems like a waste. The universe getting the complex fluid dynamics right for every momentary swirl of cloud.
:Megan: Just a ''huge'' amount of work.

:[Cueball and Megan walk away to the right]
:Cueball: Maybe atmospheres have smooth laminar flow until someone looks closely.
:Megan: Or maybe the universe just ''likes'' making swirly clouds, and is annoyed that we're watching.

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

2664: Cloud Swirls

2022-08-29T22:23:06Z

172.70.206.213: /* Explanation */ explain joke

{{comic
| number = 2664
| date = August 26, 2022
| title = Cloud Swirls
| image = cloud_swirls.png
| titletext = 'Why did you get into fluid dynamics?' 'Well, SOME planet has to have the coolest clouds, odds are it's not ours, and rockets are slow.'
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a UNIVERSE WITH NOTHING BETTER TO DO EXCEPT MAKE CLOUDS - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

There are planets.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exoplanet] A lot of them, even.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_exoplanets] Like our planet, for instance.[https://phl.upr.edu/projects/earth-similarity-index-esi]

In 3D software, depictions are often rendered at a lower quality when the viewer's perspective is far away from them to save on computational work for aspects the user can't clearly discern. This idea is built upon here, conceivably to suggest how {{w|Simulation hypothesis|simulations of universes}} might seem different than the base reality.

In this comic, [[Cueball]] and [[Megan]] theorize that complicated cloud formations occur naturally on other planets in other solar systems. On planets with no observers to look at the clouds closely, our universe, or the simulation thereof, might not afford to render a visual depiction of the atmosphere in higher quality. Meteorologists and physicists on Earth might notice that the exoplanet atmosphere does not obey formal {{w|Navier-Stokes}} {{w|fluid dynamics}}, but instead reflects low-quality corner-cutting of such calculations. The foregoing would make sense if the Universe is actually simulated by a computer (a 43% probability[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HA5YuwvJkpQ&t=20m]) and the beings that are running the physics simulator, or have coded our universe, wanted to speed things up.

{{cot|Further considerations}}
However:

* Much more computing power could be saved by skimping on the chemistry of the quattuordecillions of atoms in the oceans than the clouds in the sky (especially considering that it would not be necessary to simulate every individual atom and molecule in the sky (for the purpose of making realistic clouds with fluid dynamics); the computer program could instead divide all of the gas particles (e.g., dinitrogen, dioxygen, water vapor, argon, and carbon dioxide) into small chunks, simulate how each chunk would move, and update the chunk boundaries every so often), but skimping on oceanic chemistry would make biogenesis much less feasible. However, Earth has life.{{Citation needed}}

* It would be difficult to judge when "no one is looking closely". There are many organisms that have some degree of at least rudimentary sight but would have no idea (and in fact no way to conceptualize) whether the computer simulating the Universe is skimping on the cloud-rendering calculations or not. It would be difficult to make some foolproof intelligent-sight-detecting code that would render the clouds with much greater precision once a planet had life that would notice if the clouds were following lazy fluid dynamics.
** For one thing, this would not only depend on a species's intelligence but also on its knowledge of physics; e.g., humans did not develop the Navier-Stokes equations right after evolving large enough brains to conceive and understand them. Even coding a computer program to detect sight-having life would be difficult, at least for a computer program only looking at the positions and velocities of atoms, electrons, and photons; for example, a blue photon hitting a retinal molecule in a cone cell, causing it to change shape, which triggers a signal transduction cascade that sends a nervous signal to the optical cortex somewhat resembles an ultraviolet photon hitting a DNA strand, leading to the creation of a thymine dimer whose detection by DNA-repairing enzymes triggers a signal transduction cascade that increases the production of melanin, but only one counts as sight.
** Furthermore, assuming that the computer simulates each part of the Universe in a manner that is is about synchronized according to most celestial bodies, when the computer simulating the Universe simulates a planet, it does not know whether a civilization on a planet a dozen or two light-years away that has advanced enough to have telescopes capable of detailed views of the clouds of planets light-years away will point any telescopes at that planet dozens of light-years later.
***Even if the advanced civilization on another planet does not have such powerful telescopes yet, even a low-resolution (in terms of that planet's entire solar system being one pixel) spectrometer would be enough to reveal that something is up with the fluid dynamics simulations on that planet. Observers light-years away could deduce how much condensed water vapor there is in the atmosphere by calculating the atmosphere's absorbance in a wavelength where condensed water has a low but detectable absorptivity and everything else in that planet's atmosphere either has a negligible absorptivity or can be compensated for, and then one can deduce how compact the clouds are from that and the absorbance of a wavelength where condensed water has a high absorptivity and everything else in that planet's atmosphere either has a negligible absorptivity or can be compensated for. (Actually, in order to calculate the amount and compactlygroupedness of condensed water in the atmosphere from the raw numbers/direct measurements, the scientists would have to know not only the absoprtivity of condensed water suspended in air as clouds but also characteristics of the planet such as its radius and the thickness of its atmosphere. There are also other complicated factors, such as that some of the aerosolized water in clouds is in the form of solid ice, not liquid water. However, the scientists would still notice if the raw numbers from the more rudimentary observational equipment suddenly changed the second they switched on a more powerful telescope, so the following point still stands.) If the computer simulating the Universe did not switch to the more precise simulation of the planet's atmosphere in time for the scientists to only see spectrographs of the planet's atmosphere rendered with precise calculations, then if the scientists later developed a more powerful telescope, like the one described earlier, and then pointed it at the planet, either they would see poorly-rendered clouds and know that the Universe is simulated by a computer that skimps on the fluid dynamics calculations for the atmospheres of certain planets, or the measurements from transit spectrography would suddenly change, so the scientists would know that something weird was going on—although probably not exactly what. This is important because it is more feasible for a society to develop low-resolution transit spectrography quickly enough to catch the computer simulating the Universe off-guard than it would be for a society to develop the technology required for a telescope advanced enough to look at the clouds of a planet in another solar system with high enough resolution to determine whether the atmosphere is simulated by a computer that is skimping on the fluid dynamics calculations quickly enough to catch the computer simulating the Universe off-guard. However, either could conceivably catch the computer simulating the Universe off-guard because it would be difficult for a computer to deduce whether a planet has life and how technologically advanced the life of any planet that has life is when the only raw data for the computer to work with are the positions and velocities of atoms, electrons, and photons.

* If atmospheric physics suddenly changed upon the evolution of a species capable of distinguishing whether the atmosphere is simulated by a computer program that is skimping on the fluid dynamics calculations, that would likely cause sudden changes in the climate, and the resulting heat waves, droughts, freezes, famines, floods, storms, and/or other (formerly) extreme weather would likely drive that species extinct (considering that it had just evolved, so it would have a small population and therefore be especially susceptible to natural disasters) because it would not have evolved to survive in such conditions. Such disasters and climate changes) would not have to directly kill all members of the species in order to drive it extinct; they could instead diminish the size of the gene pool by killing most of the members or divide the once-larger population into smaller, genetically isolated populations (e.g., by causing the creation of uncrossably swollen rivers dividing what used to be a single genetically-interconnected range into several smaller populations), either of which would cause an unsustainable level of inbreeding that would eventually lead to extinction. However, our species was not driven extinct shortly after it first developed.{{Citation needed}}
{{cob}}

Of course, most people do not think that the Universe is a simulation,{{Actual citation needed}} but society does not know that it isn't a simulation with absolute certainty. There is a direct relationship between the question of the {{w|simulation hypothesis}} in {{w|metaphysics}} and {{w|Pascal's wager}} in {{w|theism}}, ''i.e.,'' whether God(s) exist(s), with weighty implications regarding {{w|free will}} and {{w|determinism}}, such as which raise the question of {{w|Compatibilism#Non-naturalism|non-naturalist compatibilism}}.

Megan proposes an additional theory that the universe is just about making cool swirly clouds, and that the presence of life to observe these clouds is a bothersome coincidence. This goes against the theory that the Universe must not care about making cool swirly clouds since it wants to skimp on the fluid dynamics calculations. Even among followers of the simulation hypothesis, ascribing sentiment or emotion to the entire universe is usually considered to be in jest, because of the dissimilarities between sentient beings and cosmologically distant sets of galaxies.{{citation needed}} This jest forms the basis of the comic's humor.

The title text includes a dialogue with one person asking another why they got into fluid dynamics. The answer implies that the motivation was to simulate the clouds of planetary atmospheres unreachable by today's rocket technology.

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

:[Cueball and Megan looking out at a landscape of clouds]
:Cueball: It's weird to think there are countless planets with air and stuff but no life.
:Cueball: Billions of years of clouds making cool shapes with no one to look at them.

:[Just Cueball and Megan standing next to each other]
:Megan: Yeah, it seems like a waste. The universe getting the complex fluid dynamics right for every momentary swirl of cloud.
:Megan: Just a ''huge'' amount of work.

:[Cueball and Megan walk away to the right]
:Cueball: Maybe atmospheres have smooth laminar flow until someone looks closely.
:Megan: Or maybe the universe just ''likes'' making swirly clouds, and is annoyed that we're watching.

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

2664: Cloud Swirls

2022-08-29T20:36:46Z

172.70.206.213: /* Explanation */ this one, on the other hand, very clearly goes without saying; so clearly that I know there is peer reviewed work on it, but who knows whether I can find some

{{comic
| number = 2664
| date = August 26, 2022
| title = Cloud Swirls
| image = cloud_swirls.png
| titletext = 'Why did you get into fluid dynamics?' 'Well, SOME planet has to have the coolest clouds, odds are it's not ours, and rockets are slow.'
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a UNIVERSE WITH NOTHING BETTER TO DO EXCEPT MAKE CLOUDS - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

There are planets.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exoplanet] A lot of them, even.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_exoplanets] Like our planet, for instance.[https://phl.upr.edu/projects/earth-similarity-index-esi]

In 3D software, depictions are often rendered at a lower quality when the viewer's perspective is far away from them to save on computational work for something the user can't clearly discern. This idea is built upon here, conceivably to suggest how {{w|Simulation hypothesis|simulations of universes}} might seem different than the base reality.

In this comic, [[Cueball]] and [[Megan]] theorize that complicated cloud formations occur naturally on other planets in other solar systems. On planets with no observers to look at the clouds closely, our universe, or the simulation thereof, might not afford to render a visual depiction of the atmosphere in higher quality. Meteorologists and physicists on Earth might notice that the exoplanet atmosphere does not obey Navier-Stokes fluid dynamics equations, but instead reflects low-quality skimping on fluid dynamics calculations. The foregoing would make sense if the Universe is actually simulated by a computer (a 43% probability[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HA5YuwvJkpQ&t=20m]) and the beings that are running the physics simulator, or have coded our universe, wanted to speed things up.

{{cot|Further considerations}}
However:

* Much more computing power could be saved by skimping on the chemistry of the quattuordecillions of atoms in the oceans than the clouds in the sky (especially considering that it would not be necessary to simulate every individual atom and molecule in the sky (for the purpose of making realistic clouds with fluid dynamics); the computer program could instead divide all of the gas particles (e.g., dinitrogen, dioxygen, water vapor, argon, and carbon dioxide) into small chunks, simulate how each chunk would move, and update the chunk boundaries every so often), but skimping on oceanic chemistry would make biogenesis much less feasible. However, Earth has life.{{Citation needed}}

* It would be difficult to judge when "no one is looking closely". There are many organisms that have some degree of at least rudimentary sight but would have no idea (and in fact no way to conceptualize) whether the computer simulating the Universe is skimping on the cloud-rendering calculations or not. It would be difficult to make some foolproof intelligent-sight-detecting code that would render the clouds with much greater precision once a planet had life that would notice if the clouds were following lazy fluid dynamics.
** For one thing, this would not only depend on a species's intelligence but also on its knowledge of physics; e.g., humans did not develop the Navier-Stokes equations right after evolving large enough brains to conceive and understand them. Even coding a computer program to detect sight-having life would be difficult, at least for a computer program only looking at the positions and velocities of atoms, electrons, and photons; for example, a blue photon hitting a retinal molecule in a cone cell, causing it to change shape, which triggers a signal transduction cascade that sends a nervous signal to the optical cortex somewhat resembles an ultraviolet photon hitting a DNA strand, leading to the creation of a thymine dimer whose detection by DNA-repairing enzymes triggers a signal transduction cascade that increases the production of melanin, but only one counts as sight.
** Furthermore, assuming that the computer simulates each part of the Universe in a manner that is is about synchronized according to most celestial bodies, when the computer simulating the Universe simulates a planet, it does not know whether a civilization on a planet a dozen or two light-years away that has advanced enough to have telescopes capable of detailed views of the clouds of planets light-years away will point any telescopes at that planet dozens of light-years later.
***Even if the advanced civilization on another planet does not have such powerful telescopes yet, even a low-resolution (in terms of that planet's entire solar system being one pixel) spectrometer would be enough to reveal that something is up with the fluid dynamics simulations on that planet. Observers light-years away could deduce how much condensed water vapor there is in the atmosphere by calculating the atmosphere's absorbance in a wavelength where condensed water has a low but detectable absorptivity and everything else in that planet's atmosphere either has a negligible absorptivity or can be compensated for, and then one can deduce how compact the clouds are from that and the absorbance of a wavelength where condensed water has a high absorptivity and everything else in that planet's atmosphere either has a negligible absorptivity or can be compensated for. (Actually, in order to calculate the amount and compactlygroupedness of condensed water in the atmosphere from the raw numbers/direct measurements, the scientists would have to know not only the absoprtivity of condensed water suspended in air as clouds but also characteristics of the planet such as its radius and the thickness of its atmosphere. There are also other complicated factors, such as that some of the aerosolized water in clouds is in the form of solid ice, not liquid water. However, the scientists would still notice if the raw numbers from the more rudimentary observational equipment suddenly changed the second they switched on a more powerful telescope, so the following point still stands.) If the computer simulating the Universe did not switch to the more precise simulation of the planet's atmosphere in time for the scientists to only see spectrographs of the planet's atmosphere rendered with precise calculations, then if the scientists later developed a more powerful telescope, like the one described earlier, and then pointed it at the planet, either they would see poorly-rendered clouds and know that the Universe is simulated by a computer that skimps on the fluid dynamics calculations for the atmospheres of certain planets, or the measurements from transit spectrography would suddenly change, so the scientists would know that something weird was going on—although probably not exactly what. This is important because it is more feasible for a society to develop low-resolution transit spectrography quickly enough to catch the computer simulating the Universe off-guard than it would be for a society to develop the technology required for a telescope advanced enough to look at the clouds of a planet in another solar system with high enough resolution to determine whether the atmosphere is simulated by a computer that is skimping on the fluid dynamics calculations quickly enough to catch the computer simulating the Universe off-guard. However, either could conceivably catch the computer simulating the Universe off-guard because it would be difficult for a computer to deduce whether a planet has life and how technologically advanced the life of any planet that has life is when the only raw data for the computer to work with are the positions and velocities of atoms, electrons, and photons.

* If atmospheric physics suddenly changed upon the evolution of a species capable of distinguishing whether the atmosphere is simulated by a computer program that is skimping on the fluid dynamics calculations, that would likely cause sudden changes in the climate, and the resulting heat waves, droughts, freezes, famines, floods, storms, and/or other (formerly) extreme weather would likely drive that species extinct (considering that it had just evolved, so it would have a small population and therefore be especially susceptible to natural disasters) because it would not have evolved to survive in such conditions. Such disasters and climate changes) would not have to directly kill all members of the species in order to drive it extinct; they could instead diminish the size of the gene pool by killing most of the members or divide the once-larger population into smaller, genetically isolated populations (e.g., by causing the creation of uncrossably swollen rivers dividing what used to be a single genetically-interconnected range into several smaller populations), either of which would cause an unsustainable level of inbreeding that would eventually lead to extinction. However, our species was not driven extinct shortly after it first developed.{{Citation needed}}
{{cob}}

Of course, most people do not think that the Universe is a simulation,{{Actual citation needed}} but society does not know that it isn't a simulation with absolute certainty. There is a direct relationship between the question of the {{w|simulation hypothesis}} in {{w|metaphysics}} and {{w|Pascal's wager}} in {{w|theism}}, ''i.e.,'' whether God(s) exist(s).

Megan proposes an additional theory that the universe is just about making cool swirly clouds, and that the presence of life to observe these clouds is a bothersome coincidence. This goes against the theory that the Universe must not care about making cool swirly clouds since it wants to skimp on the fluid dynamics calculations. Even among followers of the simulation hypothesis, ascribing sentiment or emotion to the entire universe is usually considered to be in jest, because of the dissimilarities between sentient beings and cosmologically distant sets of galaxies.{{citation needed}}

The title text includes a dialogue with one person asking another why they got into fluid dynamics. The answer implies that the motivation was to simulate the clouds of planetary atmospheres unreachable by today's rocket technology.

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

:[Cueball and Megan looking out at a landscape of clouds]
:Cueball: It's weird to think there are countless planets with air and stuff but no life.
:Cueball: Billions of years of clouds making cool shapes with no one to look at them.

:[Just Cueball and Megan standing next to each other]
:Megan: Yeah, it seems like a waste. The universe getting the complex fluid dynamics right for every momentary swirl of cloud.
:Megan: Just a ''huge'' amount of work.

:[Cueball and Megan walk away to the right]
:Cueball: Maybe atmospheres have smooth laminar flow until someone looks closely.
:Megan: Or maybe the universe just ''likes'' making swirly clouds, and is annoyed that we're watching.

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

2664: Cloud Swirls

2022-08-29T20:35:07Z

172.70.206.213: /* Explanation */ agree w/talk

{{comic
| number = 2664
| date = August 26, 2022
| title = Cloud Swirls
| image = cloud_swirls.png
| titletext = 'Why did you get into fluid dynamics?' 'Well, SOME planet has to have the coolest clouds, odds are it's not ours, and rockets are slow.'
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a UNIVERSE WITH NOTHING BETTER TO DO EXCEPT MAKE CLOUDS - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

There are planets.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exoplanet] A lot of them, even.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_exoplanets] Like our planet, for instance.[https://phl.upr.edu/projects/earth-similarity-index-esi]

In 3D software, depictions are often rendered at a lower quality when the viewer's perspective is far away from them to save on computational work for something the user can't clearly discern. This idea is built upon here, conceivably to suggest how {{w|Simulation hypothesis|simulations of universes}} might seem different than the base reality.

In this comic, [[Cueball]] and [[Megan]] theorize that complicated cloud formations occur naturally on other planets in other solar systems. On planets with no observers to look at the clouds closely, our universe, or the simulation thereof, might not afford to render a visual depiction of the atmosphere in higher quality. Meteorologists and physicists on Earth might notice that the exoplanet atmosphere does not obey Navier-Stokes fluid dynamics equations, but instead reflects low-quality skimping on fluid dynamics calculations. The foregoing would make sense if the Universe is actually simulated by a computer (a 43% probability[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HA5YuwvJkpQ&t=20m]) and the beings that are running the physics simulator, or have coded our universe, wanted to speed things up.

{{cot|Further considerations}}
However:

* Much more computing power could be saved by skimping on the chemistry of the quattuordecillions of atoms in the oceans than the clouds in the sky (especially considering that it would not be necessary to simulate every individual atom and molecule in the sky (for the purpose of making realistic clouds with fluid dynamics); the computer program could instead divide all of the gas particles (e.g., dinitrogen, dioxygen, water vapor, argon, and carbon dioxide) into small chunks, simulate how each chunk would move, and update the chunk boundaries every so often), but skimping on oceanic chemistry would make biogenesis much less feasible. However, Earth has life.{{Citation needed}}

* It would be difficult to judge when "no one is looking closely". There are many organisms that have some degree of at least rudimentary sight but would have no idea (and in fact no way to conceptualize) whether the computer simulating the Universe is skimping on the cloud-rendering calculations or not. It would be difficult to make some foolproof intelligent-sight-detecting code that would render the clouds with much greater precision once a planet had life that would notice if the clouds were following lazy fluid dynamics.
** For one thing, this would not only depend on a species's intelligence but also on its knowledge of physics; e.g., humans did not develop the Navier-Stokes equations right after evolving large enough brains to conceive and understand them. Even coding a computer program to detect sight-having life would be difficult, at least for a computer program only looking at the positions and velocities of atoms, electrons, and photons; for example, a blue photon hitting a retinal molecule in a cone cell, causing it to change shape, which triggers a signal transduction cascade that sends a nervous signal to the optical cortex somewhat resembles an ultraviolet photon hitting a DNA strand, leading to the creation of a thymine dimer whose detection by DNA-repairing enzymes triggers a signal transduction cascade that increases the production of melanin, but only one counts as sight.
** Furthermore, assuming that the computer simulates each part of the Universe in a manner that is is about synchronized according to most celestial bodies, when the computer simulating the Universe simulates a planet, it does not know whether a civilization on a planet a dozen or two light-years away that has advanced enough to have telescopes capable of detailed views of the clouds of planets light-years away will point any telescopes at that planet dozens of light-years later.
***Even if the advanced civilization on another planet does not have such powerful telescopes yet, even a low-resolution (in terms of that planet's entire solar system being one pixel) spectrometer would be enough to reveal that something is up with the fluid dynamics simulations on that planet. Observers light-years away could deduce how much condensed water vapor there is in the atmosphere by calculating the atmosphere's absorbance in a wavelength where condensed water has a low but detectable absorptivity and everything else in that planet's atmosphere either has a negligible absorptivity or can be compensated for, and then one can deduce how compact the clouds are from that and the absorbance of a wavelength where condensed water has a high absorptivity and everything else in that planet's atmosphere either has a negligible absorptivity or can be compensated for. (Actually, in order to calculate the amount and compactlygroupedness of condensed water in the atmosphere from the raw numbers/direct measurements, the scientists would have to know not only the absoprtivity of condensed water suspended in air as clouds but also characteristics of the planet such as its radius and the thickness of its atmosphere. There are also other complicated factors, such as that some of the aerosolized water in clouds is in the form of solid ice, not liquid water. However, the scientists would still notice if the raw numbers from the more rudimentary observational equipment suddenly changed the second they switched on a more powerful telescope, so the following point still stands.) If the computer simulating the Universe did not switch to the more precise simulation of the planet's atmosphere in time for the scientists to only see spectrographs of the planet's atmosphere rendered with precise calculations, then if the scientists later developed a more powerful telescope, like the one described earlier, and then pointed it at the planet, either they would see poorly-rendered clouds and know that the Universe is simulated by a computer that skimps on the fluid dynamics calculations for the atmospheres of certain planets, or the measurements from transit spectrography would suddenly change, so the scientists would know that something weird was going on—although probably not exactly what. This is important because it is more feasible for a society to develop low-resolution transit spectrography quickly enough to catch the computer simulating the Universe off-guard than it would be for a society to develop the technology required for a telescope advanced enough to look at the clouds of a planet in another solar system with high enough resolution to determine whether the atmosphere is simulated by a computer that is skimping on the fluid dynamics calculations quickly enough to catch the computer simulating the Universe off-guard. However, either could conceivably catch the computer simulating the Universe off-guard because it would be difficult for a computer to deduce whether a planet has life and how technologically advanced the life of any planet that has life is when the only raw data for the computer to work with are the positions and velocities of atoms, electrons, and photons.

* If atmospheric physics suddenly changed upon the evolution of a species capable of distinguishing whether the atmosphere is simulated by a computer program that is skimping on the fluid dynamics calculations, that would likely cause sudden changes in the climate, and the resulting heat waves, droughts, freezes, famines, floods, storms, and/or other (formerly) extreme weather would likely drive that species extinct (considering that it had just evolved, so it would have a small population and therefore be especially susceptible to natural disasters) because it would not have evolved to survive in such conditions. Such disasters and climate changes) would not have to directly kill all members of the species in order to drive it extinct; they could instead diminish the size of the gene pool by killing most of the members or divide the once-larger population into smaller, genetically isolated populations (e.g., by causing the creation of uncrossably swollen rivers dividing what used to be a single genetically-interconnected range into several smaller populations), either of which would cause an unsustainable level of inbreeding that would eventually lead to extinction. However, our species was not driven extinct shortly after it first developed.{{Citation needed}}
{{cob}}

Of course, most people do not think that the Universe is a simulation,{{Actual citation needed}} but society does not know that it isn't a simulation with absolute certainty. There is a direct relationship between the question of the {{w|simulation hypothesis}} in {{w|metaphysics}} and {{w|Pascal's wager}} in {{w|theism}}, ''i.e.,'' whether God(s) exist(s).

Megan proposes an additional theory that the universe is just about making cool swirly clouds, and that the presence of life to observe these clouds is a bothersome coincidence. This goes against the theory that the Universe must not care about making cool swirly clouds since it wants to skimp on the fluid dynamics calculations. Even among followers of the simulation hypothesis, ascribing sentiment or emotion to the entire universe is usually considered to be in jest, because of the dissimilarities between sentient beings and cosmologically distant sets of galaxies.{{Actual citation needed}}

The title text includes a dialogue with one person asking another why they got into fluid dynamics. The answer implies that the motivation was to simulate the clouds of planetary atmospheres unreachable by today's rocket technology.

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

:[Cueball and Megan looking out at a landscape of clouds]
:Cueball: It's weird to think there are countless planets with air and stuff but no life.
:Cueball: Billions of years of clouds making cool shapes with no one to look at them.

:[Just Cueball and Megan standing next to each other]
:Megan: Yeah, it seems like a waste. The universe getting the complex fluid dynamics right for every momentary swirl of cloud.
:Megan: Just a ''huge'' amount of work.

:[Cueball and Megan walk away to the right]
:Cueball: Maybe atmospheres have smooth laminar flow until someone looks closely.
:Megan: Or maybe the universe just ''likes'' making swirly clouds, and is annoyed that we're watching.

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

2662: Physics Safety Tip

2022-08-24T02:32:02Z

172.70.206.213: /* Explanation */ ce

{{comic
| number = 2662
| date = August 22, 2022
| title = Physics Safety Tip
| image = physics_safety_tip.png
| titletext = In general, avoid exposure to any temperatures, pressures, particle energies, or states of matter that physicists think are neat.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a BOT PHYSICISTS ARE EXCITED ABOUT (STEP AWAY, BUSTER) - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
This is another one of Randall's [[:Category:Tips|Tips]], this time a General Physics Safety Tip. Additionally, this comic serves to [[:Category: Book promotion|promote]] his new book: [https://xkcd.com/what-if-2/ What If? 2], a book about answers to odd or strange science questions.

In general, there are very narrow ranges of temperature, pressure, and chemical makeup humans can survive in. Human physicists necessarily spend all their time in these conditions and think of them as ordinary. The physics of these ordinary conditions has already been thoroughly studied, which makes them now familiar and boring. Instead physicists get excited to study more extreme conditions, most of which would be quickly lethal to humans — anything from the core of stars to the vacuum of space and many, many things in between. Thus, extreme conditions are very dangerous for most organisms. Even for especially resilient organisms, such as tardigrades, there is a point past which they will [https://what-if.xkcd.com/141/ stop being biology and start being physics], in which case their resilience will not save them. Thus if a physicist is excited about something, it likely exists in circumstances where your own existence — as well as other life — would meet an end. One (partial) exception is particle beams; {{w|Anatoli Bugorski|people can stick their heads in particle beams and survive — but not unscathed}}. Also, physicists used to be excited about (particles produced by) cosmic rays before they had powerful accelerators.

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

:General Physics Safety Tip:
:[The next line of text is shown in gray.]
:(From ''What If 2'', xkcd.com/whatif2)

:[A flowchart consisting of three rectangular boxes, a diamond box, and three arrows is shown.]

:[The first rectangular box, at the top, is the starting point. It says:]
:Should I stand near this thing?

:[A down-pointing arrow leads to a diamond decision box. Two arrows lead from it, one pointing to the right and labeled "No", the other pointing down and labeled "Yes". The diamond box reads:]
:Are physicists excited about it?

:[The "No" arrow from the diamond box leads to the following rectangular box:]
:Maybe

:[The "Yes" arrow from the diamond box leads to the following rectangular box:]
:No

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Tips]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Flowcharts]]
[[Category:Book promotion]]

2662: Physics Safety Tip

2022-08-24T02:31:45Z

172.70.206.213: /* Explanation */ more

{{comic
| number = 2662
| date = August 22, 2022
| title = Physics Safety Tip
| image = physics_safety_tip.png
| titletext = In general, avoid exposure to any temperatures, pressures, particle energies, or states of matter that physicists think are neat.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a BOT PHYSICISTS ARE EXCITED ABOUT (STEP AWAY, BUSTER) - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
This is another one of Randall's [[:Category:Tips|Tips]], this time a Physics Tip. Additionally, this comic serves to [[:Category: Book promotion|promote]] his new book: [https://xkcd.com/what-if-2/ What If? 2], a book about answers to odd or strange science questions.

In general, there are very narrow ranges of temperature, pressure, and chemical makeup humans can survive in. Human physicists necessarily spend all their time in these conditions and think of them as ordinary. The physics of these ordinary conditions has already been thoroughly studied, which makes them now familiar and boring. Instead physicists get excited to study more extreme conditions, most of which would be quickly lethal to humans — anything from the core of stars to the vacuum of space and many, many things in between. Thus, extreme conditions are very dangerous for most organisms. Even for especially resilient organisms, such as tardigrades, there is a point past which they will [https://what-if.xkcd.com/141/ stop being biology and start being physics], in which case their resilience will not save them. Thus if a physicist is excited about something, it likely exists in circumstances where your own existence — as well as other life — would meet an end. One (partial) exception is particle beams; {{w|Anatoli Bugorski|people can stick their heads in particle beams and survive — but not unscathed}}. Also, physicists used to be excited about (particles produced by) cosmic rays before they had powerful accelerators.

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

:General Physics Safety Tip:
:[The next line of text is shown in gray.]
:(From ''What If 2'', xkcd.com/whatif2)

:[A flowchart consisting of three rectangular boxes, a diamond box, and three arrows is shown.]

:[The first rectangular box, at the top, is the starting point. It says:]
:Should I stand near this thing?

:[A down-pointing arrow leads to a diamond decision box. Two arrows lead from it, one pointing to the right and labeled "No", the other pointing down and labeled "Yes". The diamond box reads:]
:Are physicists excited about it?

:[The "No" arrow from the diamond box leads to the following rectangular box:]
:Maybe

:[The "Yes" arrow from the diamond box leads to the following rectangular box:]
:No

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Tips]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Flowcharts]]
[[Category:Book promotion]]

2658: Coffee Cup Holes

2022-08-16T18:29:50Z

172.70.206.213: /* Subatomic physics */ match earlier headings

{{comic
| number = 2658
| date = August 12, 2022
| title = Coffee Cup Holes
| image = coffee_cup_holes.png
| titletext = Theoretical physicist: At the Planck length, uncountably many.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a CAFFEINE MOLECULE WITH A HOLE DRILLED IN ITS SIDE. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
This comic depicts people in different fields of study answering the question, "How many holes are there in a coffee cup?" and also compares this to what a normal person would say.

This question has different interpretations, entirely dependent upon the definition of a hole. The type of {{w|coffee cup}} shown in the comic is with a handle (like a {{w|mug}}), but [[Randall]] calls it a cup and there are also cups with handles on the Wikipedia page for coffee cups. Most people would recognize that there is a hole through the handle.

The comic explores the answer to the question through several avenues of thought:

===Topology===
[[File:Mug and Torus morph.gif|thumb|200px|The coffee mug and donut shown in this animation both have topological genus one.]]
[[Ponytail]], a {{w|topology|topologist}}, states the coffee cup belongs in the {{w|Genus (mathematics)#Topology|genus}} of one hole. From the topologist's point of view, the coffee cup definitely has one hole, which corresponds to the opening created by the cup handle. A cup without a handle would have zero holes, as it is equivalent to a dinner plate, just an indentation in the surface. See [[2625: Field Topology]] for more information about topology.

The panel as a whole references an academic joke wherein topologists can't tell the difference between a coffee cup (with handle) and a {{w|doughnut}} since they're {{w|Homeomorphism|homeomorphic}} to each other — meaning they have the same genus (i.e one hole).

===Normal person===
[[Hairy]], representing a "normal person," is not sure (the acronym "IDK" stands for "I don't know") and asks for clarification about whether the opening at the top counts as a hole. This shows flaws in the question, which suffers from the mathematically imprecise, ambiguous common usage of the word "hole." Topologists would refer to the opening as a concavity, not a hole, and while they consider such geometrical properties generally outside their field, most practical applications of topology do involve geometric components. By contrast, in everyday usage many concavities are called holes, such as a hole dug into dirt with a shovel. Hairy would say one for the handle, and two if the opening counts as a hole, which he is not certain the one asking the question thinks.

===Philosopher===
[[Hairbun]], a philosopher, answers the question with an elucidating counter-question, considering a hypothetical scenario. One might expect that drilling a new hole would also increase the number of holes by one. However, as illustrated, some people would consider that the new arrangement has three holes (in addition to the handle, there is a hole at the top where coffee can be poured in, and one at the bottom where it can run out), while others would consider it to have only two (the new hole forming a continuous hole with the original opening at the top, through which coffee can run). In this way she requires her interlocutor to confront the ambiguities and consider what they mean by the word 'hole' in different contexts.

[[Image:Point cloud torus.gif|thumb|left|200px|A point cloud of a genus one surface]]

===Chemist===
[[Cueball]], a chemist, looks at the coffee in the cup on a molecular level. He envisions a {{w|ball-and-stick model}} of the {{w|caffeine}} molecules in the coffee, and estimates a total number of holes of all the coffee molecules. He comes up with a truly massive number: 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (1021 or 1 sextillion) “in the [https://chemapps.stolaf.edu/jmol/jmol.php?model=CN1C%3DNC2%3DC1C%28%3DO%29N%28C%28%3DO%29N2C%29C caffeine] alone.” One molecule of caffeine has two rings of bonds with holes in them, multiplied by 500 quintillion molecules, or 0.00083 {{w|mole (unit)|moles}}. As the molecular mass of caffeine is about 194 grams per mole, [[Randall]] must think that the mass of caffeine in a typical cup of coffee is 161 milligrams. The coffee could have other holes, depending on the type of coffee; for example, espresso contains significant amounts of niacin and riboflavin, which have one and three rings in their chemical structure, respectively.

This estimation depends on taking the ball-and-stick model of molecules somewhat literally. However, real molecular bonds are not solid sticks, but shared electron clouds between atoms. The "holes" in the middle of a molecule's rings are not completely empty but instead merely have lower electron probability density through the middle than other parts of the bonds. So the point-cloud duality of {{w|Bonding molecular orbital|electron orbitals and bonds}} might not satisfy a topologist's, normal person's, or philosopher's criteria for a connected substrate in which holes may be formed.

===Theoretical physicist===
[[Image:World lines and world sheet.svg|thumb|200px|{{w|String theory}} describes the {{w|worldline}}s of point-like particles as {{w|worldsheet}}s of "closed strings," forming topological holes; shown here as a genus two surface.]]
In the title text, a theoretical physicist looks even deeper, at the subatomic scale of {{w|Planck units}}. Since fundamental particle interaction is governed by fundamental forces and collision (per the {{w|Pauli exclusion principle}}) instead of tensile or ductile solid connectedness, the theoretical physicist posits that any definition providing for a single hole would also describe a number of holes akin to the factorial of the number of particles in the universe,[https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-02341882/document] or at least within the cup's {{w|light cone}}, which is a number impractical to accurately count, but not uncountable in a mathematical sense.

=== Practical considerations ===
The main joke is that the number of holes depends on both the scale and perspective from which you are looking at the world. From a topological standpoint, when someone digs into the ground it should go all the way through (or easier, down and up again another place) before it is considered a hole, since a hole is something that some other thing should be able to pass through. But from a common usage perspective, if people dig in the ground the result is called a hole, because functionally it creates a discontinuity in to which, for example, things can be placed or fall. Similarly, the opening in a coffee cup (without a handle) or a bottle of beer is called a hole, even though they are topologically equivalent to a dinner plate, which normal people would never say had a hole.

A cavity in a surface could also be considered a physical barrier, preventing movement along the surface in certain scenarios (e.g. a {{w|sinkhole}} opening up in the middle of a road) even though it may topologically 'flat' in the most general way, and so is very open to context, and such a hole might be considered more a 'thing' than the surface that has been removed to create it. And the 'hole' in a vessel that is functionally useful to hold liquid (or the drilled one that removes that ability) is of a different nature to the holes in various of the molecules that ''are'' the liquid but are neither required nor counter-productive in the general liquid-holding capabilities of the container, as are not the holes in the planck-length model, except insofar as the general physical laws of reality. Conversely, this conceptual confusion over what a hole is or actually means can be seen in the idea of the {{w|portable hole}}, which tends to obey ({{w|Wile E. Coyote and the Road Runner|or defy}}!) the owner's particular preconceptions or needs.

The topological discussion here regarding cups and doughnuts is related to the question of how many holes there are in a human, which is excellently answered in Vsauce's video
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egEraZP9yXQ How Many Holes Does a Human Have?]. This also takes a god look at the topological difference between a paper cup and a mug with handle.

==Transcript==
:[The first panel has text only and is phrasing a question:]
:<big>Q:</big>
:How many holes are there in a coffee cup?

:[Each of the next four panels has a caption at the top to indicate the kind of person answering the question. In the first of these Ponytail stands holding a coffee cup in its handle.]
:Caption: Topologist
:Ponytail: One.

:[In the next panel Hairy stands to the right of Ponytail, holding the coffee cup in its handle at an angle so he can to look into it.]
:Caption: Normal person
:Hairy: IDK, does the opening count as a hole?

:[In the next panel Hairbun is shown in closeup, holding her hand out palm up to indicate two drawings of coffee cups with handles to her left. The top drawing is larger and shows the cup with coffee inside, and a hole drilled at the bottom part of the side away from the handle. Coffee pours out of this hole. Beneath and further left is a smaller version of the same cup, but now without coffee. Instead two curved arrows goes from above to below through the hole of the handle and the hole now drilled in the bottom part of the cup. Each arrow is labeled with a question-mark.]
:Caption: Philosopher
:Hairbun: To answer that question, consider another: If we drill a hole in the side, how many holes are there now?
:?
:?

:[Cueball, without any cup, stands with a drawing of a caffeine molecule above and to the right of him. It has two "rings" with 5 and 6 atoms. Those rings are connected along one side. There are 9 "edges" on this, three of those has one atom attached to it and 3 others have four atoms attached to them (one atom with three others attached). The two that are at the end of the edge that belongs to both rings have no atoms attached, and the final of the 9 also has no atom.]
:Caption: Chemist
:Cueball: 1021 in the caffeine alone

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Hairy]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Hairbun]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Food]]
[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Chemistry]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]
[[Category:Physics]]

2658: Coffee Cup Holes

2022-08-16T18:28:57Z

172.70.206.213: /* Chemistry */ match earlier heading

{{comic
| number = 2658
| date = August 12, 2022
| title = Coffee Cup Holes
| image = coffee_cup_holes.png
| titletext = Theoretical physicist: At the Planck length, uncountably many.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a CAFFEINE MOLECULE WITH A HOLE DRILLED IN ITS SIDE. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
This comic depicts people in different fields of study answering the question, "How many holes are there in a coffee cup?" and also compares this to what a normal person would say.

This question has different interpretations, entirely dependent upon the definition of a hole. The type of {{w|coffee cup}} shown in the comic is with a handle (like a {{w|mug}}), but [[Randall]] calls it a cup and there are also cups with handles on the Wikipedia page for coffee cups. Most people would recognize that there is a hole through the handle.

The comic explores the answer to the question through several avenues of thought:

===Topology===
[[File:Mug and Torus morph.gif|thumb|200px|The coffee mug and donut shown in this animation both have topological genus one.]]
[[Ponytail]], a {{w|topology|topologist}}, states the coffee cup belongs in the {{w|Genus (mathematics)#Topology|genus}} of one hole. From the topologist's point of view, the coffee cup definitely has one hole, which corresponds to the opening created by the cup handle. A cup without a handle would have zero holes, as it is equivalent to a dinner plate, just an indentation in the surface. See [[2625: Field Topology]] for more information about topology.

The panel as a whole references an academic joke wherein topologists can't tell the difference between a coffee cup (with handle) and a {{w|doughnut}} since they're {{w|Homeomorphism|homeomorphic}} to each other — meaning they have the same genus (i.e one hole).

===Normal person===
[[Hairy]], representing a "normal person," is not sure (the acronym "IDK" stands for "I don't know") and asks for clarification about whether the opening at the top counts as a hole. This shows flaws in the question, which suffers from the mathematically imprecise, ambiguous common usage of the word "hole." Topologists would refer to the opening as a concavity, not a hole, and while they consider such geometrical properties generally outside their field, most practical applications of topology do involve geometric components. By contrast, in everyday usage many concavities are called holes, such as a hole dug into dirt with a shovel. Hairy would say one for the handle, and two if the opening counts as a hole, which he is not certain the one asking the question thinks.

===Philosopher===
[[Hairbun]], a philosopher, answers the question with an elucidating counter-question, considering a hypothetical scenario. One might expect that drilling a new hole would also increase the number of holes by one. However, as illustrated, some people would consider that the new arrangement has three holes (in addition to the handle, there is a hole at the top where coffee can be poured in, and one at the bottom where it can run out), while others would consider it to have only two (the new hole forming a continuous hole with the original opening at the top, through which coffee can run). In this way she requires her interlocutor to confront the ambiguities and consider what they mean by the word 'hole' in different contexts.

[[Image:Point cloud torus.gif|thumb|left|200px|A point cloud of a genus one surface]]

===Chemist===
[[Cueball]], a chemist, looks at the coffee in the cup on a molecular level. He envisions a {{w|ball-and-stick model}} of the {{w|caffeine}} molecules in the coffee, and estimates a total number of holes of all the coffee molecules. He comes up with a truly massive number: 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (1021 or 1 sextillion) “in the [https://chemapps.stolaf.edu/jmol/jmol.php?model=CN1C%3DNC2%3DC1C%28%3DO%29N%28C%28%3DO%29N2C%29C caffeine] alone.” One molecule of caffeine has two rings of bonds with holes in them, multiplied by 500 quintillion molecules, or 0.00083 {{w|mole (unit)|moles}}. As the molecular mass of caffeine is about 194 grams per mole, [[Randall]] must think that the mass of caffeine in a typical cup of coffee is 161 milligrams. The coffee could have other holes, depending on the type of coffee; for example, espresso contains significant amounts of niacin and riboflavin, which have one and three rings in their chemical structure, respectively.

This estimation depends on taking the ball-and-stick model of molecules somewhat literally. However, real molecular bonds are not solid sticks, but shared electron clouds between atoms. The "holes" in the middle of a molecule's rings are not completely empty but instead merely have lower electron probability density through the middle than other parts of the bonds. So the point-cloud duality of {{w|Bonding molecular orbital|electron orbitals and bonds}} might not satisfy a topologist's, normal person's, or philosopher's criteria for a connected substrate in which holes may be formed.

===Subatomic physics===
[[Image:World lines and world sheet.svg|thumb|200px|{{w|String theory}} describes the {{w|worldline}}s of point-like particles as {{w|worldsheet}}s of "closed strings," forming topological holes; shown here as a genus two surface.]]
In the title text, a theoretical physicist looks even deeper, at the subatomic scale of {{w|Planck units}}. Since fundamental particle interaction is governed by fundamental forces and collision (per the {{w|Pauli exclusion principle}}) instead of tensile or ductile solid connectedness, the theoretical physicist posits that any definition providing for a single hole would also describe a number of holes akin to the factorial of the number of particles in the universe,[https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-02341882/document] or at least within the cup's {{w|light cone}}, which is a number impractical to accurately count, but not uncountable in a mathematical sense.

=== Practical considerations ===
The main joke is that the number of holes depends on both the scale and perspective from which you are looking at the world. From a topological standpoint, when someone digs into the ground it should go all the way through (or easier, down and up again another place) before it is considered a hole, since a hole is something that some other thing should be able to pass through. But from a common usage perspective, if people dig in the ground the result is called a hole, because functionally it creates a discontinuity in to which, for example, things can be placed or fall. Similarly, the opening in a coffee cup (without a handle) or a bottle of beer is called a hole, even though they are topologically equivalent to a dinner plate, which normal people would never say had a hole.

A cavity in a surface could also be considered a physical barrier, preventing movement along the surface in certain scenarios (e.g. a {{w|sinkhole}} opening up in the middle of a road) even though it may topologically 'flat' in the most general way, and so is very open to context, and such a hole might be considered more a 'thing' than the surface that has been removed to create it. And the 'hole' in a vessel that is functionally useful to hold liquid (or the drilled one that removes that ability) is of a different nature to the holes in various of the molecules that ''are'' the liquid but are neither required nor counter-productive in the general liquid-holding capabilities of the container, as are not the holes in the planck-length model, except insofar as the general physical laws of reality. Conversely, this conceptual confusion over what a hole is or actually means can be seen in the idea of the {{w|portable hole}}, which tends to obey ({{w|Wile E. Coyote and the Road Runner|or defy}}!) the owner's particular preconceptions or needs.

The topological discussion here regarding cups and doughnuts is related to the question of how many holes there are in a human, which is excellently answered in Vsauce's video
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egEraZP9yXQ How Many Holes Does a Human Have?]. This also takes a god look at the topological difference between a paper cup and a mug with handle.

==Transcript==
:[The first panel has text only and is phrasing a question:]
:<big>Q:</big>
:How many holes are there in a coffee cup?

:[Each of the next four panels has a caption at the top to indicate the kind of person answering the question. In the first of these Ponytail stands holding a coffee cup in its handle.]
:Caption: Topologist
:Ponytail: One.

:[In the next panel Hairy stands to the right of Ponytail, holding the coffee cup in its handle at an angle so he can to look into it.]
:Caption: Normal person
:Hairy: IDK, does the opening count as a hole?

:[In the next panel Hairbun is shown in closeup, holding her hand out palm up to indicate two drawings of coffee cups with handles to her left. The top drawing is larger and shows the cup with coffee inside, and a hole drilled at the bottom part of the side away from the handle. Coffee pours out of this hole. Beneath and further left is a smaller version of the same cup, but now without coffee. Instead two curved arrows goes from above to below through the hole of the handle and the hole now drilled in the bottom part of the cup. Each arrow is labeled with a question-mark.]
:Caption: Philosopher
:Hairbun: To answer that question, consider another: If we drill a hole in the side, how many holes are there now?
:?
:?

:[Cueball, without any cup, stands with a drawing of a caffeine molecule above and to the right of him. It has two "rings" with 5 and 6 atoms. Those rings are connected along one side. There are 9 "edges" on this, three of those has one atom attached to it and 3 others have four atoms attached to them (one atom with three others attached). The two that are at the end of the edge that belongs to both rings have no atoms attached, and the final of the 9 also has no atom.]
:Caption: Chemist
:Cueball: 1021 in the caffeine alone

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Hairy]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Hairbun]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Food]]
[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Chemistry]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]
[[Category:Physics]]

2659: Unreliable Connection

2022-08-16T02:02:58Z

172.70.206.213: /* Explanation */ the drawing is plainly symmetric; this is less redundant

{{comic
| number = 2659
| date = August 15, 2022
| title = Unreliable Connection
| image = unreliable_connection.png
| titletext = NEGATIVE REVIEWS MENTION: Unreliable internet. POSITIVE REVIEWS MENTION: Unreliable internet.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by ROUND TRIP LATENCY BACKOFF. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

In this comic, [[Randall]] solves the social problem of demands for {{w|synchronous conferencing|synchronous teleconferencing}} with a deliberately less than optimal internet device that causes {{w|Asynchronous communication|asynchronous}} methods of communication to be relatively more reliable and efficient for personal use. The device appears to be an automated version of a {{w|Galton board}} or {{w|Jin Akiyama}}'s mathematical {{w|pachinko}} machine[https://arxiv.org/pdf/1601.05706.pdf] with a series of eleven "on" and one "off" switches at the bottom to be pressed by falling balls. This is funny because such a device could likely much more easily be implemented in the {{w|firmware}} of the internet or WiFi {{w|modem}} or {{w|Router (computing)|router}}s. (See [[1785: Wifi]] for an explanation of firmware.) It's not clear whether the switches merely interrupt the connection momentarily or control power to the modem, which would involve a much longer booting sequence.

The probability of a ball hitting the "off" switch is 165/2048, or about 8%, assuming the machine is ordinary.[https://drops.dagstuhl.de/opus/volltexte/2018/8817/pdf/LIPIcs-FUN-2018-26.pdf] We don't know the frequency with which new balls are dropped, so we can't estimate the frequency with which the device is likely to trigger {{w|Session Initiation Protocol}}, {{w|Transmission Control Protocol}}, or similar {{w|Timeout (computing)|timeout}} conditions that would likely close synchronous {{w|VOIP}}, video conferencing, and e.g. {{w|VRChat}} connections. Even if such connections were to survive the induced service interruptions, the {{w|application layer}} call or teleconference quality would suffer during them. The device may cause interruptions rarely enough that the connection is usable for casual purposes, but the user can still reasonably claim that it's unreliable to get out of online obligations.

The title text reflects on today's increasingly always-connected world, where emphasis may be changing from finding vacation spots that have reliable internet to finding somewhere worthwhile to go that still doesn't have it. It could also be a comment on the mild paradox that a nominally unreliable internet connection has advantages for those whose communication schedules, volume, or style preferences make synchronous teleconferencing less practical, as indicated by the reviews for the new vacation spot.

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

:[There are twelve switches under an automated Galton board or pachinko machine, eleven of which are linked to a large item marked "on" but the eighth of which is linked to one marked "off", apparently controlling the operation of a modem connected to a gigabit data-cable and also connected onwards to a WiFi router. There is a supply of balls in a hopper above the board, with the triangular configuration of pins directing the balls chaotically to one or other of the switches, as shown by a single released ball and a motion path partially showing how it had rebounded from around half-way down until after hitting and rebounding away off a bottom-layer switch.]

:Caption: My new vacation spot has very fast internet that turns off randomly every now and then, just so you can tell people you'll be staying somewhere without a reliable connection.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Internet]]

Talk:2659: Unreliable Connection

2022-08-16T01:51:16Z

2022-08-02T09:53:36Z

172.70.206.213: /* Explanation */ not really a claim

{{comic
| number = 2653
| date = August 1, 2022
| title = Omnitaur
| image = omnitaur.png
| titletext = "My parents were both omnitaurs, which is how I got interested in recombination," said the normal human.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by AN OMNITAUR-HUMAN HYBRID - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
Omnitaur is an {{w|anagram}} of {{w|minotaur}}, a mythical creature that was part man, part bull. "{{wiktionary|omni}}" is a prefix that means "all". The word is, for instance, known from the word {{w|omnivore}}, meaning 'all eating' as compared to {{w|carnivore}} or {{w|herbivore}} (only eating meat or plant respectively). Given the combination of animals used to create the omnitaur, it could be expected that it was also an omnivore.

An "omnitaur" would suggest that it would encompass all real and mythical creatures, or perhaps some random assortment of such. In this instance, it appears to be a hybrid, or {{w|Chimera (genetics)|genetic chimera}}, combined from 11 different creatures: {{w|fish}}, {{w|lion}}, {{w|snake}}, {{w|shark}} (also a fish), {{w|bull}}, {{w|dragon}} (a mythical creature in its own right), {{w|horse}}, {{w|leopard}}, {{w|Sheep|ram}} (male sheep), {{w|human}} and {{w|bird}}.

The title text is a comment by a human whose parents were both omnitaurs. It would be strange that such parents would not produce offspring that was still omnitaur. It suggests that this may be the result of {{w|genetic recombination}}, which is the exchange of genetic material between different organisms leading to production of offspring with combinations of traits that differ from those found in either parent. Since we don't understand omnitaur genetics, we can't evaluate whether that is plausible.

===Additional examples of mythological chimeras===

In addition to the minotaur, many other potential inspirations can be found in mythology, like the {{w|centaur}}, which has the upper body of a human and the lower body and legs of a horse; the {{w|manticore}}, with a body of a lion and human face; a {{w|griffin}}, with a lion's body and a eagle's head; a {{w|mermaid}}, with a lower body of a fish and upper body of a human; a {{w|Hippocampus (mythology)|hippocampus}}, with the upper body of a horse and a lower body of a fish; a {{w|qilin}}, with a body that resembles both a horse and a dragon; or the mythological {{w|chimera (mythology)|chimera}}, for which the genetic chimera is named, which has lion, snake, and goat body parts. Ultimately, there are {{w|List of hybrid creatures in folklore|lots of hybrid creatures in mythology}}, so without word from [[Randall]] you're free to make your own conclusions.

===Speculative implications===

In {{w|C. S. Lewis}}' {{w|The Chronicles of Narnia}}, the {{w|Magical_creatures_in_The_Chronicles_of_Narnia#Centaurs|centaurs}} are depicted eating two meals - a huge roast meal "to satisfy the man stomach" and a meal of grass "to satisfy the horse stomach", making it take quite some time for them to eat every morning. Since the omnitaur also has herbivore and omnivore (as well as carnivore) parts, this could further support the supposition that it is an omnivore, and it may similarly need multiple stomachs for these multiple appetites. It is unclear how compatible the various diets of its components would be (not least because 'fish', 'snake' and 'bird' are quite unspecific, and it's hard to know what a dragon would eat), but it would likely need several meals, taking even longer to eat than the Centaur (plus the bird beak may slow the process down quite a bit).

Since the example depicted seems to be only 1/11 human, the odds of two parents as mentioned in the title text getting a fully human offspring would simplistically (assuming that each physical part is the result of an equal genetic contribution, which isn't really how genetics works) appear to be 1/11 x 1/11 = 1/121, if it was simply a matter of the math. Of course if it worked like that, it would be hard to explain how a creature consisting of 11 different animals came into existence in the first place.{{cn}}

==Transcript==
:[A creature, the Omnitaur, is shown. It is a four legged animal divided into 11 segments, each segment is from a different animal. An arrow goes to each section from a label, most of the labels are above the animal, but the fourth and seventh segments labels are below the animal. The animal has a fish tail and cat like hind legs. The torso is divided into four segments, the first and last of these with scales, but only the last of these also with sharp scales at the top. The second torso segment is white and smooth, the third also white but with hair both above and below, those above merges with the sharp scales of the fourth torso segment. The front legs are horse like, the lower neck is from an animal with dark spots, the upper neck has rams horns, which goes over in the central part of a human head, with ears and hair (drawn like a real human, not like a xkcd stick figure) and finally the front of the face is a bird with its eyes and a beak shown. The labels are given here in the order of the segment of the animal from the back to the front (disregarding weather the label is written above or below the animal:]
:Fish
:Lion
:Snake
:Shark
:Bull
:Dragon
:Horse
:Leopard
:Ram
:Human
:Bird

:[Caption below the panel:]
:The Omnitaur

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Animals]]
[[Category:Biology]]

2653: Omnitaur

2022-08-02T09:52:15Z

172.70.206.213: /* Speculative implications */ I really like this paragraph and think we need more speculation about genetics but more firmly grounded in actual genetic science

{{comic
| number = 2653
| date = August 1, 2022
| title = Omnitaur
| image = omnitaur.png
| titletext = "My parents were both omnitaurs, which is how I got interested in recombination," said the normal human.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by AN OMNITAUR-HUMAN HYBRID - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
Omnitaur is an {{w|anagram}} of {{w|minotaur}}, a mythical creature that was part man, part bull. "{{wiktionary|omni}}" is a prefix that means "all". The word is, for instance, known from the word {{w|omnivore}}, meaning 'all eating' as compared to {{w|carnivore}} or {{w|herbivore}} (only eating meat or plant respectively). Given the combination of animals used to create the omnitaur, it could be expected that it was also an omnivore.

An "omnitaur" would suggest that it would encompass all real and mythical creatures, or perhaps some random assortment of such. In this instance, it appears to be a hybrid, or {{w|Chimera (genetics)|genetic chimera}}, combined from 11 different creatures: {{w|fish}}, {{w|lion}}, {{w|snake}}, {{w|shark}} (also a fish), {{w|bull}}, {{w|dragon}} (a mythical creature in its own right), {{w|horse}}, {{w|leopard}}, {{w|Sheep|ram}} (male sheep), {{w|human}} and {{w|bird}}.

The title text is a comment by a human whose parents were both omnitaurs. It would be strange that such parents would not produce offspring that was still omnitaur. It suggests that this may be the result of {{w|genetic recombination}}, which is the exchange of genetic material between different organisms leading to production of offspring with combinations of traits that differ from those found in either parent. Since we don't understand omnitaur genetics, we can't evaluate whether that is a plausible claim.

===Additional examples of mythological chimeras===

In addition to the minotaur, many other potential inspirations can be found in mythology, like the {{w|centaur}}, which has the upper body of a human and the lower body and legs of a horse; the {{w|manticore}}, with a body of a lion and human face; a {{w|griffin}}, with a lion's body and a eagle's head; a {{w|mermaid}}, with a lower body of a fish and upper body of a human; a {{w|Hippocampus (mythology)|hippocampus}}, with the upper body of a horse and a lower body of a fish; a {{w|qilin}}, with a body that resembles both a horse and a dragon; or the mythological {{w|chimera (mythology)|chimera}}, for which the genetic chimera is named, which has lion, snake, and goat body parts. Ultimately, there are {{w|List of hybrid creatures in folklore|lots of hybrid creatures in mythology}}, so without word from [[Randall]] you're free to make your own conclusions.

===Speculative implications===

In {{w|C. S. Lewis}}' {{w|The Chronicles of Narnia}}, the {{w|Magical_creatures_in_The_Chronicles_of_Narnia#Centaurs|centaurs}} are depicted eating two meals - a huge roast meal "to satisfy the man stomach" and a meal of grass "to satisfy the horse stomach", making it take quite some time for them to eat every morning. Since the omnitaur also has herbivore and omnivore (as well as carnivore) parts, this could further support the supposition that it is an omnivore, and it may similarly need multiple stomachs for these multiple appetites. It is unclear how compatible the various diets of its components would be (not least because 'fish', 'snake' and 'bird' are quite unspecific, and it's hard to know what a dragon would eat), but it would likely need several meals, taking even longer to eat than the Centaur (plus the bird beak may slow the process down quite a bit).

Since the example depicted seems to be only 1/11 human, the odds of two parents as mentioned in the title text getting a fully human offspring would simplistically (assuming that each physical part is the result of an equal genetic contribution, which isn't really how genetics works) appear to be 1/11 x 1/11 = 1/121, if it was simply a matter of the math. Of course if it worked like that, it would be hard to explain how a creature consisting of 11 different animals came into existence in the first place.{{cn}}

==Transcript==
:[A creature, the Omnitaur, is shown. It is a four legged animal divided into 11 segments, each segment is from a different animal. An arrow goes to each section from a label, most of the labels are above the animal, but the fourth and seventh segments labels are below the animal. The animal has a fish tail and cat like hind legs. The torso is divided into four segments, the first and last of these with scales, but only the last of these also with sharp scales at the top. The second torso segment is white and smooth, the third also white but with hair both above and below, those above merges with the sharp scales of the fourth torso segment. The front legs are horse like, the lower neck is from an animal with dark spots, the upper neck has rams horns, which goes over in the central part of a human head, with ears and hair (drawn like a real human, not like a xkcd stick figure) and finally the front of the face is a bird with its eyes and a beak shown. The labels are given here in the order of the segment of the animal from the back to the front (disregarding weather the label is written above or below the animal:]
:Fish
:Lion
:Snake
:Shark
:Bull
:Dragon
:Horse
:Leopard
:Ram
:Human
:Bird

:[Caption below the panel:]
:The Omnitaur

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Animals]]
[[Category:Biology]]