explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

3011: Europa Clipper

2024-11-14T20:02:20Z

172.70.206.93: /* Explanation */ thickness, span

{{comic
| number = 3011
| date = November 13, 2024
| title = Europa Clipper
| image = europa_clipper_2x.png
| imagesize = 333x356px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = They had BETTER make this a sample return mission.
}}

==Explanation==

{{incomplete|Created by a JOVIAN DESSERT. Please consider deleting this tag too soon, but refrain from doing so.}}

[[File:Animation of Europa Clipper trajectory around Jupiter.gif|thumb|right|The ''Europa Clipper's'' projected course around {{w|Jupiter}}, represented as the stationary green dot. In gold is Jupiter's moon {{w|Callisto (moon)|Callisto}}, in cyan is the moon {{w|Europa (moon)|Europa}} — the primary target of the spacecraft's study — and in orange-red is the innermost of Jupiter's four {{w|Galilean moons|"Galilean"}} moons, {{w|Io (moon)|Io}}. The spacecraft's track is shown in magenta. Jupiter's largest moon {{w|Ganymede (moon)|Ganymede}} is not shown, but its gravitational pull affects the ''Clipper's'' trajectory. A mission goal is to achieve a 6:1 {{w|orbital resonance}} with Europa [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Martin-Ozimek/publication/383115312_AAS_24-433_Europa_Clipper_Mission_Analysis_Pump_Down_Trajectory_Design/links/66bcd845311cbb094938dbd6/AAS-24-433-Europa-Clipper-Mission-Analysis-Pump-Down-Trajectory-Design.pdf by September 2034]. ]]

The ''{{w|Europa Clipper}}'' space probe was launched from the {{w|Kennedy Space Center}} in Florida on [https://europa.nasa.gov/mission/about/ October 14, 2024]. It is expected to arrive at Jupiter and begin exploration of Jupiter's moons, particularly {{w|Europa (moon)|Europa}}, in April of 2030.

Europa is an icy moon. Water ice covers its surface. 15 to 25 kilometers (10 to 15 miles) beneath the ice, there is expected to be liquid water which may contain some [https://europa.nasa.gov/why-europa/ingredients-for-life/ basic forms of life]. To sample this liquid, its icy crust would need to be breached. The thickness of the ice dwarfs the ''Europa Clipper's'' 31 meter span.

Europa's surface of ice over liquid water can be compared to the caramelized crust on the popular dessert {{w|crème brûlée}}, perhaps because the {{w|Cassini-Huygens}} probe, after landing on Saturn's moon Titan in January of 2005, found that its surface had what was described as [https://www.sciencenews.org/article/world-unveiled-cr%C3%A8me-br%C3%BBl%C3%A9e-titan a "crème brûlée" consistency]. The hard surface of the caramel cream dessert is traditionally cracked open with a spoon, and so [[Randall]] posits that such equipment will be deployed by the ''Europa Clipper''.

In truth, no such spoon is present on the probe, and Europa's icy crust is too thick to be easily penetrated by a spoon of such size. Advanced measures are needed to prevent contamination of liquid water by Earth's organisms such as {{w|tardigrade}}s, {{w|deinococcus radiodurans}}, or {{w|bacillus subtilis}}. The ''Europa Clipper's'' course has been charted to avoid any contact with the surface of Europa (although it will fly through sparse material it ejects into space) so as to prevent {{w|Planetary protection|contamination by microorganisms from Earth}}. The successful deployment of any spacecraft's instrument is considered a cause for celebration because deployable spacecraft instruments often fail to correctly extend, unfurl or undock. The ''Clipper'' has a magnetometer that will be used at the end of a 8.5 meter boom (not apparent in the comic which, spoon extension aside, is an otherwise fairly accurate depiction) as part of its study of the moons' environment.

<div style="display: flex; justify-content: center; align-items: center; margin: 1em 0;">
<div style="text-align: center; margin: 0 1em;">
[[File:Europa_-_Perijove_45_(cropped).png|200px|alt=Europa]]
<div>Europa</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center; margin: 0 1em;">
[[File:2014_0531_Crème_brûlée_Doi_Mae_Salong_(cropped).jpg|200px|alt=Crème brûlée]]
<div>Crème brûlée</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center; margin: 0 1em;">
[[File:Europa_Clipper_spacecraft_model.png|200px|alt=The Europa Clipper spacecraft]]
<div>The ''Europa Clipper'' spacecraft</div>
</div>
</div>

The title text expands on the joke by stating that the spacecraft "had BETTER" return samples of Europa to Earth. However, the ''Europa Clipper'' is not a {{w|sample-return mission}}.

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

:[A space probe with two rectangular solar panels, a circular dish of the front, and a very large spoon extending beneath, longer than the span of both solar panels]

:[Below the panel:]
:Good news: NASA's '''''Europa Clipper''''' is en route to Europa and has successfully deployed its crème brûlée spoon.

==Trivia==
Initially, the ''Europa Clipper'' mission was planned to include a lander component, but it was removed from the project early on. The Europa Lander proposal lags significantly behind the Clipper in development and has not secured funding. An actual sample return mission is currently far into the future of {{w|Ocean Worlds Exploration Program|the pertinent plans for exploration}}.

In Arthur C Clarke's novel '''2010''', the monolith aliens tell humanity ''"All these worlds are yours - except Europa. Attempt no landing there."'' Contrary to the suggestion of the comic, no landing or any other physical interaction beyond observation of the surface of Europa is planned.

In {{w|Greek mythology}}, {{w|Europa (consort of Zeus)|Europa}} was said to be a {{w|Phoenician}} princess who {{w|Zeus}}, the king of the gods, abducted after transforming himself into a bull. The name of the continent Europe derives from a northern province and/or river of ancient Greece that may have been associated with this legend. Although, as with {{w|Asia#Etymology|Asia}}, the region/continent name may have instead been derived from one of the {{w|Europa (Greek myth)|totally different Europas}}, namely a member of the many {{w|Oceanids}} (daughters of a pair of water-themed Titans that legendarily predate Zeus's times). Jupiter's moon was thematically {{w|Europa (consort of Zeus)#Moon of Jupiter|named after the princess}} in relatively recent times, much as the {{w|Tethys (mythology)|Oceanid Europa's mother}} features in a differently themed naming of Saturnian moons. With the caramel cream dessert believed to have been [https://archive.org/details/lagastronomieaug00sabb/page/272/mode/2up invented in Europe], there is an extremely vague and contrived possibility that mythology, rather than any more mundane cullinary analogy, could have inspired [[Randall]] to start down the path of eventually suggesting that the spacecraft may encounter crème brûlée and require a spoon.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Space]]
[[Category:Space probes]]
[[Category:Food]]

3011: Europa Clipper

2024-11-14T11:52:39Z

172.70.206.93: /* Explanation */ fame is subjective

2711: Optimal Bowling

2023-02-19T22:15:14Z

172.70.206.93: /* Explanation */ In theory, an angle of exactly -180° or 180° with an extremely high speed, but less than escape velocity, could result in a strike if the ball traveled around the world and struck the pins from behind, after breaking through the wall b

{{comic
| number = 2711
| date = December 14, 2022
| title = Optimal Bowling
| image = optimal_bowling_2x.png
| imagesize = 306x670px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = If you want to bowl a strike, the optimal place is almost certainly inside a bowling alley, although with a little luck any establishment uphill from one could also work.
}}

==Explanation==

This series of line graphs purports to advise players on how to improve their odds of achieving a strike in the sport of {{w|bowling}} – presumably {{w|ten-pin bowling}}, the most popular version of the sport in the United States. Among the parameters being measured — those being angle of throw, throwing speed, spinning speed, and weight of the ball — all four graphs encompass a range far larger than would be useful for reference by a bowler. The latter three in particular are on {{w|logarithmic scale}}s, leading up to values that are impossible for a human to achieve.{{Citation needed}}

The first line graph indicates that a bowler has the greatest chance of achieving a strike by aiming the ball directly at the pins, with the chance of a strike decreasing rapidly as the ball is aimed to the left or the right. The closer you aim to the pins, the more likely it is you hit them.{{Citation needed}} While a novice bowler may have difficulty achieving a 0° angle roll, their roll would still not come close to a -90° or 90° angle (due left or due right), much less a -180° or 180° angle (which, in either case, would be the opposite direction from the pins). Unlike with the other graphs, it is physically possible for a bowler to aim the ball at any angle, albeit not permissible under bowling rules; aiming the ball at an angle which deviates significantly from 0° would most likely cause the ball to end up in the gutter, while more violent or wildly aimed actions could create a risk of the ball going into one of the other lanes or missing the lanes entirely, which could annoy, anger, or even endanger other bowlers and employees of the bowling alley.

The second graph indicates that a bowler has the greatest chance of achieving a strike by throwing the ball about 5–20 m/s (11–45 mph, 18–72 kph), with the chance of a strike decreasing as the speed is increased or decreased. Most bowlers cannot throw more than 45 m/s (100 mph or 160 kph).{{Citation needed}} According to the graph, any throw faster than 100 m/s would cause equipment damage, and then widespread destruction several orders of magnitude later. (Possibly a reference to {{what if|1|Relativistic Baseball}}.) The graph ends at the {{w|speed of light}}, as it is physically impossible to throw anything faster.

The third graph concerns the rotational speed of the ball. The "ball explodes" section is a reference to one of [[Randall]]'s favorite equations, which is that an object cannot spin faster than the square root of its specific tensile strength. Spinning the ball any faster than this limit would cause the bowling ball to lose its structural integrity and explosively disintegrate. At particularly high speeds, the material of the ball would be flung outwards at a significant fraction of the speed of light, causing, as in the second graph, widespread destruction (possibly a reference to {{what if|92|One-Second Day}}.)

The fourth graph in this comic illustrates a bowler's probability of a strike with a ball whose mass ranges from 100 kg (2.2 pounds) to close to 1010 kg (over 22 billion pounds), and continues by indicating that balls even larger than that would cause "equipment damage" (up to 1020 kg) or the creation of a black hole (starting from around 1025 kg and up). In reality, a ball would be very likely to cause equipment damage at much lower masses than 1010 kg.{{Citation needed}} The last entry on the x-axis of this graph is 1040 kg, which is about 5 billion times the mass of the {{w|Sun}}. The {{w|United States Bowling Congress}} requires all bowling balls to weigh no more than 16 pounds (that is, a mass of no more than 7.257 kg), with no minimum weight. Hence, if the x-axis of the graph ran from, say, 0 to 8 kg, the graph might actually impart some useful information.

In theory, an angle of exactly -180° or 180° with an extremely high speed, but less than escape velocity, could result in a strike if the ball traveled around the world and struck the pins from behind, after breaking through the wall behind the pins.

The title text continues the trend of providing unhelpful information by stating that the optimal place to stand when trying to bowl a strike is inside the bowling alley, but mentions the possibility of "any establishment uphill from one" working, with a little luck. This suggests the possibility of rolling the bowling ball downhill, in to the bowling alley and the pins.

==Transcript==
:[The header is surrounded on either side by small drawings of two bowling pins and a bowling ball.]
:Data for Optimal Bowling

:[Four line graphs are depicted. Each has a numbered one-word general description in a box at the top, an unlabeled y-axis, and a labeled x-axis. The relevant curve and other comments on each graph are in red.]

:1. Aim
:[The graph's x-axis is labeled from -180° to 180°.]
:Release Direction
:[The red curve on the graph is just above the x-axis at all points except for a steep peak around 0°. The red curve is labeled:]
:Relative Probability of Strike

:2. Speed
:[The graph's x-axis is labeled from 10-1 to 108, with the last point on the x-axis labeled "Speed of Light".]
:Ball Speed (m/s)
:[The red curve on the graph starts at the x-axis for 10-1, reaches its peak around 10, then declines and becomes a dashed line ending around three-quarters of the peak around 102. The remainder of the curve is replaced by two labels:]
:Equipment Damage [from approximately 102 to approximately 105]
:Widespread Destruction [from approximately 105 to the end of the axis]

:3. Spin
:[The graph's x-axis is labeled from 0 to 1012.]
:Spin (RPMs)
:[The red curve on the graph starts about halfway from its peak for 0, reaches its peak somewhere between 0 and 1,000, then declines and becomes a dashed line around 1,000, soon after which the remainder of the curve is replaced by two labels:]
:Ball Explodes [from approximately 10,000 to approximately 107.5]
:Widespread Destruction [from approximately 107.5 to the end of the axis]

:4. Weight
:[The graph's x-axis is labeled from 100 to 1040.]
:Ball Mass (kg)
:[The red curve on the graph starts just above the x-axis for 100, rises steeply and drops steeply ending just above the x-axis, then becoming a dashed line, all before reaching 1010. The remainder of the curve is replaced by two labels:]
:Equipment Damage [from approximately 109 to approximately 1022]
:Black Hole Created [from approximately 1025 to the end of the axis]

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Line graphs]]
[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Sport]]

2723: Outdated Periodic Table

2023-01-12T17:55:01Z

172.70.206.93: /* Transcript */ scien ce

{{comic
| number = 2723
| date = January 11, 2023
| title = Outdated Periodic Table
| image = outdated_periodic_table_2x.png
| imagesize = 360x350px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Researchers claim to have synthesized six additional elements in the second row, temporarily named 'pentium' through 'unnilium'.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by BERYLLIUM-BASED LIFE - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
This comic shows figure 6.14 from a science text book, which displays ''The periodic table of the elements'', but with only the first four elements are shown ({{w|Hydrogen}}, {{w|Helium}}, {{w|Lithium}} and {{w|Berylium}}). [[Randall]] claims, in the caption, that you can use the layout of an included {{w|Periodic table}} to date a publication based upon the elements present or missing. The joke here is that his book was somehow published just half an hour after the {{w|Big Bang}}, at which time those four elements were the only ones present.

From about 10 seconds until about 20 minutes after the Big Bang, the phase that is known as the {{w|Big Bang nucleosynthesis}} occurred. At that time, hydrogen ions (single protons) provided for helium in abundance and traces of lithium. Some berylium-7 was also formed, which is an unstable {{w|Isotopes of beryllium|isotope}}, and with a half life of 53 days, an appreciable amount of what had been created would still be there several months after the Big Bang, and certainly most of what was created would be there half an hour after.

The conclusion is that Randall's science book was published when those four elements were the only ones in existence, and before the point where practically all the beryllium had decayed. After that point, only the three first would be present, until star formation began and started the process of {{w|Stellar nucleosynthesis}}.

Of course no life as we know it could exist until long after stellar nucleosynthesis had created all the other elements needed to support {{w|Carbon-based life}}. And no life, as we could even imagine, would be able to exist for the first 370,000 years after Big Bang as atoms (in a form that could eventually form molecules) could not exist until the {{w|Recombination (cosmology)|Recombination}} phase of the universe, due to the high energy of the {{w|Cosmic background radiation}}. Textbooks, also being Carbon-based {{Citation needed}} could not exist either.

Even now, many {{w|Chemical elements|elements}} do not occur naturally on Earth and have to be {{w|Synthetic element|synthesized}} to be practically studied, or deduced from what was seen during their often short lives. Others were always very hard to detect, collect enough in pure form or purify enough to properly discover them. Until these elements were discovered, one way or another, they where not included in the periodic table. Various versions of the periodic table had left spaces for these {{w|Mendeleev's predicted elements|expected elements}}, but these are all now filled, and all recent changes have been additions to the end of the prior version of the table or possibly {{w|List of chemical element naming controversies|the names given}} to recent additions. As printed scientific textbooks do not update themselves after being published, one can determine the general age of the work by checking which elements were present in the periodic table that was included.

The title text refers to how yet-undiscovered elements are given a {{w|systematic element name}} as a temporary name, until a more permanent name is decided upon. The names are based upon a standard group of Greek and Latin roots (depicting the decimal digits used to 'spell out' an element's unique {{w|atomic number}}, i.e. the number of protons) and adding an "-ium" at the end. The claim in the title text is that, in the text book with the figure, researchers claim they have synthesized six additional elements in the second row, temporarily named 'pentium' (atomic number "5") through to 'unnilium' ("one zero", or "10"), just as element "118" was provisionally called "ununoctium". At the time of release of this comic, element 118 is currently the last confirmed element and has been officially called {{w|Oganesson}}. The title text of [[2639: Periodic Table Changes]], the previous comic to draw a periodic table, also refers to this.

Element number five is, in our time and reality, actually well known as {{w|Boron}}. (Its 'provisional' name of {{w|Pentium}} was also used for a series of microprocessors launched by Intel in the 1990s.) "Unnilium", element number 10, is {{w|Neon}}, that (along with other {{w|Noble gas}}es) was only discovered at the very end of the 19th century – this actually included helium. Despite helium being one of the first elements to exist, and still one of the most common in the universe (roughly 24%, by mass, with hydrogen being around 75% and every other element combined being the remainder), it did not appear in the earliest periodic tables. It was only first detected from afar, as a constituent of the Sun, about thirty years before it was finally physically discovered in an actual lab here on Earth. It is also possible that neon's provisional name in 'early science' might have been something more along the lines of "decium", all else being equal.

Since life could not have existed at the time this book should have been published, the idea of researchers synthesizing elements, or indeed the existence of books or even researchers, is of course just part of the joke.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[Subheading]: Figure 6.14
:[Title]: The periodic table of the elements

:[The following four rectangles featuring the large element abbreviation, with the full element name written below, in a typical periodic table style]
:[Top row, far left]: H Hydrogen
:[Top row, far right, detached from any other box]: He Helium
:[Bottom row, attached directly below the "H" box]: Li Lithium
:[Bottom row, attached directly to the right of "Li"]: Be Beryllium

:[Caption below the panel]:
:You can spot an outdated science textbook by checking the bottom of the periodic table for missing elements. For example, mine was published half an hour after the Big Bang.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Chemistry]]
[[Category:Cosmology]]
[[Category:Science]]

2723: Outdated Periodic Table

2023-01-12T17:54:14Z

172.70.206.93: /* Explanation */ unneeded, ce

2723: Outdated Periodic Table

2023-01-11T21:34:55Z

172.70.206.93: /* Transcript */ astro

2723: Outdated Periodic Table

2023-01-11T21:07:19Z

172.70.206.93: /* Transcript */ cosmology?

2061: Tectonics Game

2022-12-27T06:44:46Z

172.70.206.93: /* Trivia */ games

{{comic
| number = 2061
| date = October 19, 2018
| title = Tectonics Game
| image = tectonics_game.png
| titletext = They're limiting the playtesters to type A3 V stars, so the games will all end before the Sun consumes the Earth.
}}

==Explanation==
This comic is to show similarity to many {{w|simulation video game|simulation games}}, which have various niche popularity. Similar to Maxis' ''{{w|Spore (2008 video game)|Spore}}'', the game in question allows you to {{w|terraforming|terraform}} entire worlds. However, in a typical [[Randall]] twist, unlike most simulation games, you could not speed up the progress of time to make world-changing endeavours occur in a matter of seconds. The game operates in real time, which means most of the user time-frame will be spent idly watching nearly non-moving continents, drifting at the real speed of continental drift, a couple of inches a year, which makes for very slow gameplay. Thus several hundred millennia of play time is needed to reach a game {{w|Achievement (video gaming)|achievement}} of forming a kilometre high mountain.

Many {{w|computer games}} {{w|computer simulation|simulate}} to one degree or another real items and tasks, but often simplify them to fit into a game format -- to make them more exciting, to make them quicker, to advance a particular plot line or quest, etc. For example, a game about farming might allow you to grow corn, but whereas in real life corn takes about 90 days to germinate from seed and grow to maturity, in a game the growth might be instantaneous or measured by minutes, rather than by days/weeks/months. The comic may thus be a jab at how our lives already are real time {{w|MMORPG}}.

In this game, especially, one would expect such shortcuts, given the extreme time frames required for {{w|geological}} events to be manifested. The joke is that this game is so realistic that it's played in "real-time", which means for every second or hour or eon something would take in real life, in the game it would take the same second or hour or eon to happen. Playing such a game where the events take longer than the person would be alive would likely be unsatisfying.{{Citation_needed}} A mildly less extreme example of a simulation game being played in real-time would be the {{w|Penn_%26_Teller%27s_Smoke_and_Mirrors#Desert_Bus|Desert Bus}} video game where you have to drive a bus from {{w|Tucson, Arizona}}, to {{w|Las Vegas, Nevada}}, in real time at a maximum speed of 45 MPH. The trip requires eight hours of continuous play to complete, at which point you score one point with the option to continue playing for additional points at the rate of one point per successful eight hour trip. The action consists almost entirely of just keeping the bus from veering off the road. It cannot be paused or sped up, and failure requires a tow back to the starting point at the same 45 MPH speed.

The frames show some elements of gameplay. The first frame shows a destructive plate margin in which an oceanic plate (grey) is being subducted under a continental plate (brown with a person standing on it) while sediments between the plates are compressed to form mountains. Clockwise from top left, the second frame shows a cross section through the planet and various statistics about the planet (CO2 levels of 840 ppm, solar irradiation of 1184 W/m2 and heat-flow through the crust of 91 mW/m2). Solar irradiation and heat-flow are similar to the Earth, but CO2 levels are raised. Bottom right displays several stats titled LT, LM, LA and LL, and bottom left is a view of the planet showing the proportion covered by ice (3%), land (31%) and water (66%). It seems that the raised CO2 levels have reduced the amount of ice compared to the Earth. The final panel shows some of the achievements that can be unlocked, the first is 1 km mountain and the last achievement of the first row is 10 km mountain. Below that seem to be achievements in the formation of an atoll.

{{w|Large igneous province}}s are suspected to be related to extinction level events and rapid climate changes in real life. Thus, they 'are the worst' in this game.

In the title text type {{w|A-type main-sequence star|A3 V}} stars are mentioned which are white main sequence stars at mass from 1.4 to 2.1 times the mass of the Sun. Thus they have a shorter lifespan than the Sun, hundreds of millions of years, compared to the 10 billion years lifespan of the Sun. By starting the game now with an A3 V star, there would be plenty of time to complete the game before the real Sun would go to a Red Giant destroying the Earth.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball is standing behind Ponytail, who is sitting on the floor playing a video game on a TV which displays a diagram of tectonic plates.]
:Cueball: What game is that?
:Ponytail: ''Tectonics!''
:Ponytail: You steer chunks of crust around, rifting, subducting, and building and eroding mountains.

:[A view of the game screen is shown. It includes a large cross-section of the Earth with smaller charts around it.]
:Ponytail (narrating): You try to keep your climate stable and your biosphere rich.
:Ponytail (narrating): Avoid making large igneous provinces! They're the ''worst''.

:[Cueball holds his hand out in a frameless panel.]
:Cueball: Cool!
:Cueball: Can I try?
:Ponytail (off-panel): Sure!

:[Cueball plays the game while Ponytail watches.]
:Cueball: ...How do I unpause?
:Ponytail: It's not paused.
:Cueball: ...
:Ponytail: Continents can only move a few inches per year.

:[Cueball has stopped playing and holds the controller in one hand. Ponytail points at the screen that shows an achievement page with no completed achievements, but a progress bar halfway done for an achievement with the number 1 and a mountain.]
:Cueball: It's ''real-time?''
:Ponytail: Just 400 millennia to go until your first mountain achievement!

==Trivia==
*This comic's number and content regarding simulations in real time may also be a reference to {{w|Arthur C. Clarke}}'s ''{{w|2061: Odyssey Three}}'', the third book in the ''{{w|Space Odyssey}}'' series, in which {{w|Monolith_(Space_Odyssey)|monoliths}} are left throughout the solar system, manipulating environments to encourage the evolution of intelligent life.
*During the time that this comic was on the front page of xkcd, the [[Design_of_xkcd.com#Header_text|Header text]] changed to help people on how to vote in the upcoming election. See this [[2068:_Election_Night#Election_related_header_texts|trivia]] from the [[2068: Election Night]] comic.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Video games]]
[[Category:Games]]

601: Game Theory

2022-12-27T06:41:30Z

172.70.206.93: /* Transcript */ cats

{{comic
| number = 601
| date = June 24, 2009
| title = Game Theory
| image = game_theory.png
| titletext = Wait, no, that one also loses. How about a nice game of chess?
}}

==Explanation==
The comic and title text is a direct reference to the movie ''{{w|WarGames}}''.

In the movie, the {{w|Artificial intelligence}} (AI) that controls the US Nuclear Weapons is asked to play ''Global Thermonuclear War'', a real time game simulating a {{w|Nuclear warfare|nuclear attack}} scenario.

'''Spoilers''': In the movie it then takes the simulation to the real world, planning to launch a real attack on the {{w|USSR}}. In the end the AI is tricked into quickly running through several scenarios of the game, and then shuts down its planned attack as a result of what it finds out.

After analyzing all possible strategies, the AI reports: "A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?" Interpreted literally, this means that the computer has figured out that it will lose the game no matter how it plays, so it chooses to play chess instead (at the time of the movie, computers could not yet beat the best human chess players, so it would be more interesting). A more profound interpretation is that wars always end badly for all parties involved so it's better to play nicer games like chess.

In this comic Cueball loads an AI and then ask it to "analyze love" (equivalent to playing the "love game"), which initially could be expected to end happily for everyone involved, as love is the opposite of war and war ends always so badly. Surprisingly, the result from the AI is similar to the war games. Thus if you "play the love game", you'll end up badly, regardless which moves you play.

The title text leaves love as looking actually worse than war, since in war there's at least the "winning move" of not playing, however in love even refusing to play means that the player loses the game anyway. [[Randall]] is thus stating that you have to go after love, even though you know you will lose/get hurt sometimes, because you will for sure also lose the game, even if you pretend not to play. The AI then again suggest a game of chess, as in the movie.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball is sitting at a desk in an office chair typing on his computer. The text appearing above him is implied to be what is displayed on the screen.]
:A.I. Loaded
:>>> Analyze love

:[An hourglass appears over the computer as Cueball sits back and wait.]

:[The hourglass continues to display as Cueball shifts in his chair.]

:[A zigzag line from the computer indicates the final reply from the computer to the query.]
:Computer: A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Artificial Intelligence]]
[[Category:Computers]]
[[Category:Romance]]
[[Category:Chess]]
[[Category:Fiction]]
[[Category:Board games]]
[[Category:Games]]

Talk:2716: Game Night Ordering

2022-12-26T23:43:26Z

172.70.206.93: typo

Should we create a category for comics about game night? It can contain at least this and https://xkcd.com/2486/. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 22:32, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
:I'm not going to oppose it, but keep in mind that it would overlap with [[:Category:Board games]]. --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.178.48|172.70.178.48]] 22:50, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
::We absolutely need a general [[:Category:Games]] because we have e.g. roleplaying games under Board games. Does anyone know how to edit in a superclass category? The last time I ever did anything sophisticated with Mediawiki categories was like 2008. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.154.38|172.71.154.38]] 23:39, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

The rules would seem to be similar to the card game Cheat (or, at least, the version we used to play). Using an ordinary wholly-dealt pack of cards (for any number of players), it was a "blind bid and discard" game whereby each player has to state "<one to four> <card value>s" (or more than four, with merged packs, each of which might be whole or partial) was going on the discard pile, such that the card value was within one (-1, =, +1, with standard wrapping ...>10>J>Q>K>A>2>...) of the prior stated discard. And ''something'' had to be discarded, whether or not the player could technically do so. The forfeit for not continuing play ''or'' challenging, within a generally acceptable thinking time, was the same for either being successfully challenged (you stated you put down two threes, but on checking the dump pile you discarded two sevens) or for the person who wrongly challenged... to pick up the discard pile and be so much further from the ultimate goal of ending up with zero cards (the first the winner, optionally the second, third, etc to do so to earn further ranks just for the sake of continuing/last-ranking the one who ended up as the only one still with cards). - I presume this game just applies the same penalty (buying the food) to anyone who dithers over whether to challenge anything or 'play their own hand'. There doesn't need to be anything more complicated to it. Unless there's also an 'empty hand' winning state, that I can't discern from the brief discourse given in the comic. But it seems more geared to finding the eventual 'loser' (the one who pays up) than any single beneficiary. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.230|162.158.34.230]] 23:17, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
:If there is a link for Cheat you should add it. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.150|172.70.206.150]] 23:20, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
::Well, I think there's far too many variations... Though, surprisingly, it does look like {{w|Cheat (game)}} actually describes ''my'' learnt version quite well. But I don't think I see any 'time out' penalties mentioned there, and that was the key part of the "play or challenge, don't dither, or you lose" bit to my (sorry, rather long) description above... [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.230|162.158.34.230]] 23:27, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
::: Never apologize for verbosity on talk; devote that energy to brevity on main. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.154.156|172.71.154.156]] 23:41, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
::(Plus there's the inverted "loser finder" rather than "winner finder" primary nature of the gameplay. It makes the methodology of play a bit too different.) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.231|162.158.34.231]] 23:30, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Talk:2707: Astronomy Numbers

2022-12-06T13:23:33Z

172.70.206.93:

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

It's also notable that something weighting 12 solar masses will collapse into black hole on it's own, unless it resist collapse through thermal pressure like stars. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 21:26, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

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

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

; Obligatory ChatGPT explanation

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

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

I wish superscipts would survive copy-paste, but I have to admit it's better than the esoterica-laden verbosity that's up now.
::Superscripts? You could have easily added the <nowiki></nowiki>''whatever''<nowiki></nowiki> to your copypasta. Not much work (much less work than my having to <nowiki><nowiki></nowiki> this explanation for you), especially given how much other typing you seem to have done... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.58|172.70.91.58]] 10:56, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

:Meh.]

I propose we create a [https://beta.openai.com/examples/default-summarize bot to summarize the transcript] with the text-davinci-003 API and paste it into the top of discussion whenever the Transcript is expanded more than 10%. Yays and nays? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.154.39|172.71.154.39]] 03:55, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
:'''Yea.''' Both have a few serious but easily noticed and easily correctable flaws, but both are far better than the borderline-trolling six paragraph wall of text for the simple, silly joke we have at the moment. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.245|172.69.33.245]] 06:09, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Why is it as big as 65 mph? Where did the 65 mph figure have come from? A formula? Taking a linear change from minimum velocity (-500 m/s 12 weeks earlier), 4 days before the perihelion gives 86 kph (53 mph), three days gives just 64 kph (40 mph). But those are surely too big, since the rate of change of radial velocity would be slowest around perihelion and aphelion. I wouldn't expect the above-calculated rate of change until weeks out from perihelion. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.210.5|172.68.210.5]] 08:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

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

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

2703: Paper Title

2022-11-25T23:57:50Z

172.70.206.93: /* Explanation */ another example; hedge

{{comic
| number = 2703
| date = November 25, 2022
| title = Paper Title
| image = paper_title_2x.png
| imagesize = 557x261px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT: The authors hope these results are correct because we all want to be cool people who are good at science.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a MICROBE TRYING TO LURE YOU WITH CLICKBAIT. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

Many if not most scientific research papers present a hypothesis and the result of testing the hypothesis. Scientific papers should also have titles which describe the content of the papers. See [[2456: Types of Scientific Paper]].

[[Cueball]] is writing a research paper with a {{w|clickbait}} style and {{w|puffery}} title, "Check out this cool microbe we found." His colleague [[Megan]] asks him whether science is supposed to be about formulating a {{w|hypothesis}} and testing it. Cueball agrees, changing the title to, "Is our lab really good at finding cool microbes? Some preliminary data." However, that is still an overly-promotional clickbait title, purporting to be a study of the authors' own competence, which would be highly unusual because of the lack of objectivity caused by the authors being the subject of investigation. [[:Category:Clickbait|Clickbait]] is a recurring theme on xkcd, recently considered within science publications in [[2001: Clickbait-Corrected p-Value]].

{{w|Emperical research|''Empirical investigations''}} and ''{{w|analysis}} papers'' almost always state and test a hypothesis, but there are many kinds of scientific papers which likely will not, including ''{{w|literature review}}s,'' which qualitatively summarize the results of other papers; ''{{w|meta-analysis|meta-analyses}},'' which quantitatively summarize the results and quality of other work; ''observational reports'' (or ''{{w|case study|case studies}} — not to be confused with {{w|observational study|observational studies}}, a kind of emperical analysis''), which present data and a chronicle of its collection without analysis, testing, or interpretation; ''{{w|Conference proceeding|conference papers}},'' which present preliminary work without peer review; ''definition papers,'' which attempt to formalize terms used in divergent ways on work; ''{{w|Dialectic#Hegelian dialectic|syntheses}},'' which present alternative views combining multiple and often conflicting concepts; ''{{w|Comparison|comparative studies}},'' which compare and contrast a class of concepts; ''{{w|Interpretive discussion|interpretive}} papers,'' showing a different perspective of previous work; ''{{w|technical reports}},'' which usually present information on a specific procedural topic; ''opinion'' and ''editorial essays,'' which are intended to argue a point of view persuasively; ''book reviews,'' which summarize monographs or biographies; and ''grant proposals,'' which make the case for funding a project. Mathematical research papers which don't involve emperical observations or uncertainty would be considered technical reports in other fields. Engineering work can be reported as an emperical investigation or a technical report. Cueball seems to want to author an observational report, but Megan would prefer an emperical investigation or analysis, perhaps because they are more likely to be accepted by peer reviewed journals, and as such are more prestigious than mere conference papers, "letters," or "communications" as observational reports are usually published. However, research articles describing the discovery of new microbes in prestigious peer-reviewed journals are often published as observational reports[https://www.microbiologyresearch.org/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.004029][http://calamar.univ-ag.fr/mangroveSAE/articles/2022/Volland%20et%20al%202022.pdf][https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10482-021-01656-x] so Megan's concerns may be unfounded.

In the title text, the conflict of interest statement says that the authors hope their results are correct because, "we all want to be cool people who are good at science." A scientific publication's potential {{w|conflict of interest}} usually refers to the authors' financial, familial, or other external interests in the research outcomes.

==Transcript==
:[Megan is standing behind and looking over the shoulder of Cueball who is sitting in his office chair at his desk typing on the keyboard. A line from the keyboard goes up to two boxes above them. A smaller one at the top, half the length and a third the height of the larger box below. There are text in both boxes. The bottom box is not filled out with text. At the end of the text in the bottom box the line indicating where the courser are can be seen, as in this is what Megan can see on the screen:]
:Paper title
:''Check out this cool microbe we found''|

:[Pan to only showing Megan who has taken a hand up to her chin. Cueball replies from off-panel.]
:Megan: Isn’t science supposed to be about formulating a hypothesis and then testing it?
:Cueball - off panel: Oh. Yeah, I guess.

:[Same setting as in the first panel, but now the bottom box is filled out with text, but still with the courser shown at the end:]
:Paper title
:''Is our lab really good at finding cool microbes? Some preliminary data''|

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Scientific research]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Clickbait]]

2703: Paper Title

2022-11-25T23:17:54Z

172.70.206.93: /* Explanation */ fix mistake

{{comic
| number = 2703
| date = November 25, 2022
| title = Paper Title
| image = paper_title_2x.png
| imagesize = 557x261px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT: The authors hope these results are correct because we all want to be cool people who are good at science.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a MICROBE TRYING TO LURE YOU WITH CLICKBAIT. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

Many if not most scientific research papers present a hypothesis and the result of testing the hypothesis. Scientific papers should also have titles which describe the content of the papers. See [[2456: Types of Scientific Paper]].

[[Cueball]] is writing a research paper with a {{w|clickbait}} style and {{w|puffery}} title, "Check out this cool microbe we found." His colleague [[Megan]] asks him whether science is supposed to be about formulating a {{w|hypothesis}} and testing it. Cueball agrees, changing the title to, "Is our lab really good at finding cool microbes? Some preliminary data." However, that is still an overly-promotional clickbait title, purporting to be a study of the authors' own competence, which would be highly unusual because of the lack of objectivity caused by the authors being the subject of investigation. [[:Category:Clickbait|Clickbait]] is a recurring theme on xkcd, recently considered within science publications in [[2001: Clickbait-Corrected p-Value]].

''Empirical investigations'' and ''analysis papers'' state and test a hypothesis, but there are many kinds of scientific papers which likely will not, including ''literature reviews,'' which qualitatively summarize the results of other papers; ''meta-analyses,'' which quantitatively summarize the results and quality of other work; ''observational reports,'' which present data and a chronicle of its collection without analysis, testing, or interpretation; ''conference papers,'' which present preliminary work without peer review; ''definition papers,'' which attempt to formalize terms used in divergent ways on work; ''syntheses,'' which present alternative views combining multiple and often conflicting concepts; ''comparative studies,'' which compare and contrast a class of concepts; ''interpretive papers,'' showing a different perspective of previous work; ''technical reports,'' which present information on a specific procedural topic; ''opinion'' and ''editorial essays,'' which are intended argue a point of view persuasively; ''book reviews,'' which summarize monographs or biographies; and ''grant proposals,'' which make the case for funding a project. Mathematical research papers which don't involve emperical observations or uncertainty would be considered technical reports in other fields. Engineering work can be reported as an emperical investigation or a technical report. Cueball seems to want to author an observational report, but Megan would prefer an emperical investigation or analysis, perhaps because they are more likely to be accepted by peer reviewed journals, and as such are more prestigious than mere conference papers, "letters," or "communications" as observational reports are usually published.

In the title text, Cueball's conflict of interest statement says that authors hope the results are correct because "we all want to be cool people who are good at science." A scientific publication's potential {{w|conflict of interest}} usually refers to authors' financial, familial, or other external interests in the research outcomes. The disclosure statement does not describe a conflict of interest.

==Transcript==
:[Megan is standing behind and looking over the shoulder of Cueball who is sitting in his office chair at his desk typing on the keyboard. A line from the keyboard goes up to two boxes above them. A smaller one at the top, half the length and a third the height of the larger box below. There are text in both boxes. The bottom box is not filled out with text. At the end of the text in the bottom box the line indicating where the courser are can be seen, as in this is what Megan can see on the screen:]
:Paper title
:''Check out this cool microbe we found''|

:[Pan to only showing Megan who has taken a hand up to her chin. Cueball replies from off-panel.]
:Megan: Isn’t science supposed to be about formulating a hypothesis and then testing it?
:Cueball - off panel: Oh. Yeah, I guess.

:[Same setting as in the first panel, but now the bottom box is filled out with text, but still with the courser shown at the end:]
:Paper title
:''Is our lab really good at finding cool microbes? Some preliminary data''|

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Scientific research]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Clickbait]]

2694: Königsberg

2022-11-05T04:30:42Z

172.70.206.93: /* Explanation */ what the extra bridge does

{{comic
| number = 2694
| date = November 4, 2022
| title = Königsberg
| image = konigsberg_2x.png
| imagesize = 448x343px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = At first I thought I would need some gold or something to pay him, but then I realized that it was the 18th century and I could just bring a roll of aluminum foil.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a FOX, TWO GOATS, AND THREE BAGS OF GRAIN. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

[[File:Konigsberg bridges.png|frame|right|{{w|Königsberg}} in Euler's time, showing the river Pregel and its seven bridges]]

This comic is about the {{w|Seven Bridges of Königsberg}}, a seminal {{w|graph theory}} problem solved by the famous mathematician {{w|Leonhard Euler}}. The problem was to devise a path through the city that would cross each of the seven bridges only once, without crossing the river forks any other way. In 1736, Euler proved that there was no solution. This result is considered to be the first theorem of graph theory and the first proof in the theory of networks[http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/courses/2004/cscs535/review.pdf] — a subject now generally regarded as a branch of {{w|combinatorics}} — and presaged the development of {{w|topology}}. Combinatorial problems of other types had been considered since antiquity.

[[Cueball]] attempts to cheat on the final exam in his algorithms class by traveling back in time to commission the construction of an eighth bridge before Euler could learn of the problem, rendering it easily solvable. He hopes that this would alter his present-day timeline in such a way that the test becomes easier because graph theory might never have been invented.

The title text alludes to the fact that ordinary {{w|aluminum foil}}, which was not commercially available until 1911, would have been tremendously valuable in the 18th century, which didn't even have {{w|tin foil}}. Aluminium itself was a highly priced metal before the 1880s, when methods were developed to cheaply refine it. Famously, the {{w|Washington Monument}} was constructed with a tip made of pure aluminum due to its great value and conductive capacity. Aluminum had not even been extracted in its pure form at the time of Euler, and was only known in compounds such as {{w|alum}}, so it would have been rare indeed.

{{clear}}

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[Cueball, standing next to two men wearing wigs, pointing with a pointer at a map showing the 7 bridges problem, with an extra bridge added in dashed lines]
:Cueball: Lord mayor of Königsberg, I will reward you handsomely if you construct this bridge before my friend Leonhard arrives.

:[Caption below the panel]
:I tried to use a time machine to cheat on my algorithms final by preventing graph theory from being invented.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring real people]]
[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Programming]]

2694: Königsberg

2022-11-05T03:58:16Z

172.70.206.93: /* Explanation */ fix cat

{{comic
| number = 2694
| date = November 4, 2022
| title = Königsberg
| image = konigsberg_2x.png
| imagesize = 448x343px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = At first I thought I would need some gold or something to pay him, but then I realized that it was the 18th century and I could just bring a roll of aluminum foil.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a FOX, TWO GOATS, AND THREE BAGS OF GRAIN. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

[[File:Konigsberg bridges.png|frame|right|{{w|Königsberg}} in Euler's time, showing the river Pregel and its seven bridges]]

This comic is about the {{w|Seven Bridges of Königsberg}}, a seminal {{w|graph theory}} problem solved by the famous mathematician {{w|Leonhard Euler}}. The problem was to devise a path through the city that would cross each of the seven bridges only once, without crossing the river forks any other way. In 1736, Euler proved that there was no solution. This result is considered to be the first theorem of graph theory and the first true proof in the theory of networks[http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/courses/2004/cscs535/review.pdf] — a subject now generally regarded as a branch of {{w|combinatorics}} — and presaged the development of {{w|topology}}. Combinatorial problems of other types had been considered since antiquity.

[[Cueball]] attempts to cheat on the final exam in his algorithms class by traveling back in time to commission the construction of an eighth bridge before Euler could learn of the problem. He hopes that this would alter his present-day timeline in such a way that the test becomes easier because graph theory might never have been invented.

The title text alludes to the fact that ordinary {{w|aluminum foil}}, which was not commercially available until 1911, could have been tremendously valuable in the 18th century, which didn't even have {{w|tin foil}}. However, metallic alluminium wasn't discovered until 1825, so the Mayor of Königsberg might not have known how novel it was at the time.

[[Category:Math]]

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

{{comic discussion}}

1134: Logic Boat

2022-10-31T03:54:07Z

172.70.206.93: /* Explanation */ maybe wants the goat for food

{{comic
| number = 1134
| date = November 14, 2012
| title = Logic Boat
| image = logic boat.png
| titletext = Or a cabbage, for that matter. Goats make sense. Goats are fine.
}}

==Explanation==
The comic is a play on the classic {{w|wolf, goat and cabbage puzzle}} belonging to the {{w|river crossing puzzle}}s, and first known from {{w|Propositiones ad Acuendos Juvenes}}, with the same setting as here. The three possessions change between various retellings but it typically involves a {{w|Carnivore|carnivorous animal}} (wolf, lion etc.), a {{w|herbivore}} (goat, sheep, chicken, goose etc.), and some plant based food (cabbage, grain, beans etc.). The objective {{tvtropes|FoxChickenGrainPuzzle|is to ferry all three possessions to the other side of a river safely in a small boat}}, with the limitation of only being able to transport one possession per crossing. The crossing order must take into account that the carnivore would eat the herbivore if left alone together, and the herbivore would eat the food.

The traditional solution would be:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Origin
! Destination
|-
| Cueball, Wolf, Goat, Cabbage
|
|-
| colspan="2" align="center" style="background: #ffdead;" | Trip 1: Take goat across
|-
| Wolf, Cabbage
| Cueball, Goat
|-
| colspan="2" align="center" style="background: #ffdead;" | Trip 2: Return alone
|-
| Cueball, Wolf, Cabbage
| Goat
|-
| colspan="2" align="center" style="background: #ffdead;" | Trip 3: Take cabbage across
|-
| Wolf
| Cueball, Goat, Cabbage
|-
| colspan="2" align="center" style="background: #ffdead;" | Trip 4: Return with goat
|-
| Cueball, Wolf, Goat
| Cabbage
|-
| colspan="2" align="center" style="background: #ffdead;" | Trip 5: Take wolf across
|-
| Goat
| Cueball, Wolf, Cabbage
|-
| colspan="2" align="center" style="background: #ffdead;" | Trip 6: Return alone
|-
| Cueball, Goat
| Wolf, Cabbage
|-
| colspan="2" align="center" style="background: #ffdead;" | Trip 7: Take goat across
|-
|
| Cueball, Wolf, Goat, Cabbage
|}

(Note that, since the conditions for this problem are symmetric, an alternate solution would be to transport the wolf on Trip 3 and the cabbage on Trip 5.)

By leaving the wolf behind, four steps are saved — the comic's "step 4" is just a comment — and the troublesome wolf, a wild and dangerous animal not usually kept by humans, is eliminated from the picture.

This could be seen a jab on the common assumption that logic puzzles only have one correct solution. Thus one often keeps the other person thinking and guessing until they arrive at the pre-defined solution, no matter how many other creative good solutions they come up with. Also note that the "problem" given doesn't even state an objective, just three prerequisites.

Alternatively, this could be a jab at the fact that the conditions of some puzzles are very strange. Both the fourth step and title text are evidence of this - questioning why you would have a wolf or a cabbage respectively. Yet, even though it is unlikely that you would ever find yourself in the situation and odd rules as stated by the puzzle in real life,{{Citation needed}} the puzzle demands that you solve it and reach the criteria it asks.

The title text says that cabbages are also unnecessary, but goats are fine. The reasons for these opinions are less obvious than the one about the wolf, but still understandable. Many people, presumably including the narrator, do not like the taste of cabbage. Many are also fond of goats, finding them cute. The same opinion about goats is in [[1282: Monty Hall]]. (Goat milk and goat meat are also edible.)

The river crossing puzzle was the main focus of [[2348: Boat Puzzle]]. It was referenced in [[589: Designated Drivers]].

==Transcript==
:[A person shows up at a boat docked at the edge of a river. The person has brought along a head of cabbage, a goat, and a wolf.]
:Problem: The boat only holds two, but you can't leave the goat with the cabbage or the wolf with the goat.

:[The wolf looks curiously at the cabbage that's been left behind while the person goes off with the goat.]
:Solution: 1. Take the goat across.

:[The goat remains tied up on the far side. The wolf watches the person come back.]
:2. Return alone.

:[The wolf sits and waits as the person goes off.]
:3. Take the cabbage across.

:4. Leave the wolf. Why did you have a wolf?
:[The wolf goes off.]

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Logic]]
[[Category:Animals]]
[[Category:Food]]

2687: Division Notation

2022-10-20T17:29:22Z

172.70.206.93: /* Transcript */ ce

{{comic
| number = 2687
| date = October 19, 2022
| title = Division Notation
| image = division_notation_new_2x.png
| imagesize = 235x310px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Science tip: Scientists hardly ever use the two-dot division sign, and when they do it often doesn't even mean division, but they still get REALLY mad when you repurpose it to write stuff like SALE! ALL SHOES 30÷ OFF!
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a GROUP OF SCHOOLCHILDREN DIVIDED AMONGST THEMSELVES. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic pokes fun at some of the ways to write the {{w|Division (mathematics)|division}} operation in math. In this comic, [[Randall]] has used A as the dividend (the number being divided) and B as the divisor (the number that A is divided by). Division is the fourth simplest arithmetic operation in mathematics, after addition, subtraction, and multiplication.[https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/principia-mathematica/#PartIVRelaArit]

The first two of the seven notations shown are the {{w|division sign}} (÷) and the {{w|long division}} notation used for {{w|short division}} and {{w|long division}} in beginning arithmetic. (Note: division typography is only used in some countries, and there are [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_division#Notation_in_non-English-speaking_countries different notations in the non-English speaking world]). These methods of division are often used by school children because the ÷ sign is what most people use when first learning division, and the short division format is usually the first algorithm learned for dividing arbitrary dividends, typically starting with the easier abbreviated short division form.

The expression on the third line, A/B, is the way division is usually written in software code. The four simple arithmetic operations in programming usually are +, -, *, /. This line was not in the [[media:division_notation_2x.png|first version]] of the comic. This is most commonly seen in regular mathematics as it somewhat saves space, and is easy to type with the slash key. Additionally, it uses standard {{w|ASCII}} characters instead of sophisticated notation. A notable exception is {{w|APL_(programming_language)|APL}}, which uses an ideosyncratic character set modeled after traditional arithmetic.

The expression on the fourth line, a/b, is how division is usually written by hand. It is nearly identical to the fraction notation that follows, but the diagonal line allows each number to be bigger while still fitting into a single line of text. It takes more effort to type with this notation; however, the Unicode character sets provide some specific fractions such as ⅓ as well as some superscript and subscript characters, so someone familiar with it might use it to write fractions such as ²²⁄₇.

The fifth notation is the way division is written in science: the dividend on the top of the expression over the divisor on the bottom under a horizontal line. This is how a {{w|Fraction|fraction}} would be written. It has the advantage of clearly separating the numerator and denominator when they are longer expressions, such as polynomials, without needing to add parentheses. This format is mostly used in written and professionally typeset math, as it can't be typed without something like {{w|MathML}}, {{w|LaTeX}} or HTML tables.

The sixth, "fancy," notation uses a negative exponent. The exponent -1 is equivalent to {{w|Multiplicative inverse|reciprocation}}. It can be used to keep an entire division expression on one line. Note that AB-1 is equal to A/B only if A and B are in a commutative ring (and B has an inverse). If A and B are, for example, matrices, AB-1 is not the same in general as B-1A (and the notation A/B is never used in this case as it would be ambiguous).

The AB-1 format is also often used to express physical units.

The final form of notation declares a function. The writer defines a new function, F, that takes in the parameters A and B, before listing out the function's definition (trailing off in increasingly smaller text). Randall warns the reader they should escape while they still can, because both the function itself and the math environment as a whole are going to get relatively tedious. Integer division can be defined in terms of multiplicative inequalities and the remainder, or modulo ('%' in Python), operator. This situation is likely to occur in many sorts of algebra, where one might have to define what "division" means for two elements of a mathematical object such as a group, ring, or magma. One example would be an object G, such that, for two elements A and B of G, "A divided by B" is defined as an element C such that CB=A, or alternatively as an element C such that BC=A. These definitions will differ if multiplication in G is not commutative. Furthermore, if such a C is not unique, the function F(A,B) will need to include a method to select a unique value for "A divided by B" for each A and B. Thus, the F(A,B) in the comic might not even refer to a uniquely defined operation, but simply to the property of a function F(A,B) that is a valid division operation on G, given some definition of division. You were warned.

The title text discusses how the division sign (÷) has fallen out of favor in most professional contexts (the ISO-80000 guidelines even specify the symbol "should not be used") yet has resisted all efforts to repurpose it as a new function. Specifically, it pokes fun at how similar the division sign is to a percent sign. A scientist might be really mad at the use of the division sign as an alternative to a percent sign not just because it is the wrong symbol in that context, but also because of the tedium of modern consumerist practices.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:Division notation
:A÷B
:B⟌A Schoolchild.
:A/B Software engineer.

A
B
 Scientist
:AB-1 Fancy scientist.
:F(A, B) such that F(G)= (text getting smaller) Oh no, run

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Programming]]
[[Category:Science tip]]

2687: Division Notation

2022-10-20T17:29:01Z

172.70.206.93: /* Transcript */ vertical bar

{{comic
| number = 2687
| date = October 19, 2022
| title = Division Notation
| image = division_notation_new_2x.png
| imagesize = 235x310px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Science tip: Scientists hardly ever use the two-dot division sign, and when they do it often doesn't even mean division, but they still get REALLY mad when you repurpose it to write stuff like SALE! ALL SHOES 30÷ OFF!
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a GROUP OF SCHOOLCHILDREN DIVIDED AMONGST THEMSELVES. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic pokes fun at some of the ways to write the {{w|Division (mathematics)|division}} operation in math. In this comic, [[Randall]] has used A as the dividend (the number being divided) and B as the divisor (the number that A is divided by). Division is the fourth simplest arithmetic operation in mathematics, after addition, subtraction, and multiplication.[https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/principia-mathematica/#PartIVRelaArit]

The first two of the seven notations shown are the {{w|division sign}} (÷) and the {{w|long division}} notation used for {{w|short division}} and {{w|long division}} in beginning arithmetic. (Note: division typography is only used in some countries, and there are [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_division#Notation_in_non-English-speaking_countries different notations in the non-English speaking world]). These methods of division are often used by school children because the ÷ sign is what most people use when first learning division, and the short division format is usually the first algorithm learned for dividing arbitrary dividends, typically starting with the easier abbreviated short division form.

The expression on the third line, A/B, is the way division is usually written in software code. The four simple arithmetic operations in programming usually are +, -, *, /. This line was not in the [[media:division_notation_2x.png|first version]] of the comic. This is most commonly seen in regular mathematics as it somewhat saves space, and is easy to type with the slash key. Additionally, it uses standard {{w|ASCII}} characters instead of sophisticated notation. A notable exception is {{w|APL_(programming_language)|APL}}, which uses an ideosyncratic character set modeled after traditional arithmetic.

The expression on the fourth line, a/b, is how division is usually written by hand. It is nearly identical to the fraction notation that follows, but the diagonal line allows each number to be bigger while still fitting into a single line of text. It takes more effort to type with this notation; however, the Unicode character sets provide some specific fractions such as ⅓ as well as some superscript and subscript characters, so someone familiar with it might use it to write fractions such as ²²⁄₇.

The fifth notation is the way division is written in science: the dividend on the top of the expression over the divisor on the bottom under a horizontal line. This is how a {{w|Fraction|fraction}} would be written. It has the advantage of clearly separating the numerator and denominator when they are longer expressions, such as polynomials, without needing to add parentheses. This format is mostly used in written and professionally typeset math, as it can't be typed without something like {{w|MathML}}, {{w|LaTeX}} or HTML tables.

The sixth, "fancy," notation uses a negative exponent. The exponent -1 is equivalent to {{w|Multiplicative inverse|reciprocation}}. It can be used to keep an entire division expression on one line. Note that AB-1 is equal to A/B only if A and B are in a commutative ring (and B has an inverse). If A and B are, for example, matrices, AB-1 is not the same in general as B-1A (and the notation A/B is never used in this case as it would be ambiguous).

The AB-1 format is also often used to express physical units.

The final form of notation declares a function. The writer defines a new function, F, that takes in the parameters A and B, before listing out the function's definition (trailing off in increasingly smaller text). Randall warns the reader they should escape while they still can, because both the function itself and the math environment as a whole are going to get relatively tedious. Integer division can be defined in terms of multiplicative inequalities and the remainder, or modulo ('%' in Python), operator. This situation is likely to occur in many sorts of algebra, where one might have to define what "division" means for two elements of a mathematical object such as a group, ring, or magma. One example would be an object G, such that, for two elements A and B of G, "A divided by B" is defined as an element C such that CB=A, or alternatively as an element C such that BC=A. These definitions will differ if multiplication in G is not commutative. Furthermore, if such a C is not unique, the function F(A,B) will need to include a method to select a unique value for "A divided by B" for each A and B. Thus, the F(A,B) in the comic might not even refer to a uniquely defined operation, but simply to the property of a function F(A,B) that is a valid division operation on G, given some definition of division. You were warned.

The title text discusses how the division sign (÷) has fallen out of favor in most professional contexts (the ISO-80000 guidelines even specify the symbol "should not be used") yet has resisted all efforts to repurpose it as a new function. Specifically, it pokes fun at how similar the division sign is to a percent sign. A scientist might be really mad at the use of the division sign as an alternative to a percent sign not just because it is the wrong symbol in that context, but also because of the tedium of modern consumerist practices.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:Division notation
:A÷B
:B⟌A Schoolchild.
:A/B Software engineer.

A
B Scientist

:AB-1 Fancy scientist.
:F(A, B) such that F(G)= (text getting smaller) Oh no, run

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Programming]]
[[Category:Science tip]]

2687: Division Notation

2022-10-20T17:19:35Z

172.70.206.93: not sqrt

{{comic
| number = 2687
| date = October 19, 2022
| title = Division Notation
| image = division_notation_new_2x.png
| imagesize = 235x310px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Science tip: Scientists hardly ever use the two-dot division sign, and when they do it often doesn't even mean division, but they still get REALLY mad when you repurpose it to write stuff like SALE! ALL SHOES 30÷ OFF!
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a GROUP OF SCHOOLCHILDREN DIVIDED AMONGST THEMSELVES. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic pokes fun at some of the ways to write the {{w|Division (mathematics)|division}} operation in math. In this comic, [[Randall]] has used A as the dividend (the number being divided) and B as the divisor (the number that A is divided by). Division is the fourth simplest arithmetic operation in mathematics, after addition, subtraction, and multiplication.[https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/principia-mathematica/#PartIVRelaArit]

The first two of the seven notations shown are the {{w|division sign}} (÷) and the {{w|long division}} notation used for {{w|short division}} and {{w|long division}} in beginning arithmetic. (Note: division typography is only used in some countries, and there are [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_division#Notation_in_non-English-speaking_countries different notations in the non-English speaking world]). These methods of division are often used by school children because the ÷ sign is what most people use when first learning division, and the short division format is usually the first algorithm learned for dividing arbitrary dividends, typically starting with the easier abbreviated short division form.

The expression on the third line, A/B, is the way division is usually written in software code. The four simple arithmetic operations in programming usually are +, -, *, /. This line was not in the [[media:division_notation_2x.png|first version]] of the comic. This is most commonly seen in regular mathematics as it somewhat saves space, and is easy to type with the slash key. Additionally, it uses standard {{w|ASCII}} characters instead of sophisticated notation. A notable exception is {{w|APL_(programming_language)|APL}}, which uses an ideosyncratic character set modeled after traditional arithmetic.

The expression on the fourth line, a/b, is how division is usually written by hand. It is nearly identical to the fraction notation that follows, but the diagonal line allows each number to be bigger while still fitting into a single line of text. It takes more effort to type with this notation; however, the Unicode character sets provide some specific fractions such as ⅓ as well as some superscript and subscript characters, so someone familiar with it might use it to write fractions such as ²²⁄₇.

The fifth notation is the way division is written in science: the dividend on the top of the expression over the divisor on the bottom under a horizontal line. This is how a {{w|Fraction|fraction}} would be written. It has the advantage of clearly separating the numerator and denominator when they are longer expressions, such as polynomials, without needing to add parentheses. This format is mostly used in written and professionally typeset math, as it can't be typed without something like {{w|MathML}}, {{w|LaTeX}} or HTML tables.

The sixth, "fancy," notation uses a negative exponent. The exponent -1 is equivalent to {{w|Multiplicative inverse|reciprocation}}. It can be used to keep an entire division expression on one line. Note that AB-1 is equal to A/B only if A and B are in a commutative ring (and B has an inverse). If A and B are, for example, matrices, AB-1 is not the same in general as B-1A (and the notation A/B is never used in this case as it would be ambiguous).

The AB-1 format is also often used to express physical units.

The final form of notation declares a function. The writer defines a new function, F, that takes in the parameters A and B, before listing out the function's definition (trailing off in increasingly smaller text). Randall warns the reader they should escape while they still can, because both the function itself and the math environment as a whole are going to get relatively tedious. Integer division can be defined in terms of multiplicative inequalities and the remainder, or modulo ('%' in Python), operator. This situation is likely to occur in many sorts of algebra, where one might have to define what "division" means for two elements of a mathematical object such as a group, ring, or magma. One example would be an object G, such that, for two elements A and B of G, "A divided by B" is defined as an element C such that CB=A, or alternatively as an element C such that BC=A. These definitions will differ if multiplication in G is not commutative. Furthermore, if such a C is not unique, the function F(A,B) will need to include a method to select a unique value for "A divided by B" for each A and B. Thus, the F(A,B) in the comic might not even refer to a uniquely defined operation, but simply to the property of a function F(A,B) that is a valid division operation on G, given some definition of division. You were warned.

The title text discusses how the division sign (÷) has fallen out of favor in most professional contexts (the ISO-80000 guidelines even specify the symbol "should not be used") yet has resisted all efforts to repurpose it as a new function. Specifically, it pokes fun at how similar the division sign is to a percent sign. A scientist might be really mad at the use of the division sign as an alternative to a percent sign not just because it is the wrong symbol in that context, but also because of the tedium of modern consumerist practices.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:Division notation
:A÷B
:B⟌A Schoolchild.
:A/B Software engineer.
:A⁄B Normal person or Unicode enthusiast.
:A over B Scientist.
:AB-1 Fancy scientist.
:F(A, B) such that F(G)= (text getting smaller) Oh no, run

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Programming]]
[[Category:Science tip]]

2687: Division Notation

2022-10-20T17:18:47Z

172.70.206.93: clarify

{{comic
| number = 2687
| date = October 19, 2022
| title = Division Notation
| image = division_notation_new_2x.png
| imagesize = 235x310px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Science tip: Scientists hardly ever use the two-dot division sign, and when they do it often doesn't even mean division, but they still get REALLY mad when you repurpose it to write stuff like SALE! ALL SHOES 30÷ OFF!
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a GROUP OF SCHOOLCHILDREN DIVIDED AMONGST THEMSELVES. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic pokes fun at some of the ways to write the {{w|Division (mathematics)|division}} operation in math. In this comic, [[Randall]] has used A as the dividend (the number being divided) and B as the divisor (the number that A is divided by). Division is the fourth simplest arithmetic operation in mathematics, after addition, subtraction, and multiplication.[https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/principia-mathematica/#PartIVRelaArit]

The first two of the seven notations shown are the {{w|division sign}} (÷) and the {{w|long division}} notation used for {{w|short division}} and {{w|long division}} in beginning arithmetic. (Note: division typography is only used in some countries, and there are [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_division#Notation_in_non-English-speaking_countries different notations in the non-English speaking world]). These methods of division are often used by school children because the ÷ sign is what most people use when first learning division, and the short division format is usually the first algorithm learned for dividing arbitrary dividends, typically starting with the easier abbreviated short division form.

The expression on the third line, A/B, is the way division is usually written in software code. The four simple arithmetic operations in programming usually are +, -, *, /. This line was not in the [[media:division_notation_2x.png|first version]] of the comic. This is most commonly seen in regular mathematics as it somewhat saves space, and is easy to type with the slash key. Additionally, it uses standard {{w|ASCII}} characters instead of sophisticated notation. A notable exception is {{w|APL_(programming_language)|APL}}, which uses an ideosyncratic character set modeled after traditional arithmetic.

The expression on the fourth line, a/b, is how division is usually written by hand. It is nearly identical to the fraction notation that follows, but the diagonal line allows each number to be bigger while still fitting into a single line of text. It takes more effort to type with this notation; however, the Unicode character sets provide some specific fractions such as ⅓ as well as some superscript and subscript characters, so someone familiar with it might use it to write fractions such as ²²⁄₇.

The fifth notation is the way division is written in science: the dividend on the top of the expression over the divisor on the bottom under a horizontal line. This is how a {{w|Fraction|fraction}} would be written. It has the advantage of clearly separating the numerator and denominator when they are longer expressions, such as polynomials, without needing to add parentheses. This format is mostly used in written and professionally typeset math, as it can't be typed without something like {{w|MathML}}, {{w|LaTeX}} or HTML tables.

The sixth, "fancy," notation uses a negative exponent. The exponent -1 is equivalent to {{w|Multiplicative inverse|reciprocation}}. It can be used to keep an entire division expression on one line. Note that AB-1 is equal to A/B only if A and B are in a commutative ring (and B has an inverse). If A and B are, for example, matrices, AB-1 is not the same in general as B-1A (and the notation A/B is never used in this case as it would be ambiguous).

The AB-1 format is also often used to express physical units.

The final form of notation declares a function. The writer defines a new function, F, that takes in the parameters A and B, before listing out the function's definition (trailing off in increasingly smaller text). Randall warns the reader they should escape while they still can, because both the function itself and the math environment as a whole are going to get relatively tedious. Integer division can be defined in terms of multiplicative inequalities and the remainder, or modulo ('%' in Python), operator. This situation is likely to occur in many sorts of algebra, where one might have to define what "division" means for two elements of a mathematical object such as a group, ring, or magma. One example would be an object G, such that, for two elements A and B of G, "A divided by B" is defined as an element C such that CB=A, or alternatively as an element C such that BC=A. These definitions will differ if multiplication in G is not commutative. Furthermore, if such a C is not unique, the function F(A,B) will need to include a method to select a unique value for "A divided by B" for each A and B. Thus, the F(A,B) in the comic might not even refer to a uniquely defined operation, but simply to the property of a function F(A,B) that is a valid division operation on G, given some definition of division. You were warned.

The title text discusses how the division sign (÷) has fallen out of favor in most professional contexts (the ISO-80000 guidelines even specify the symbol "should not be used") yet has resisted all efforts to repurpose it as a new function. Specifically, it pokes fun at how similar the division sign is to a percent sign. A scientist might be really mad at the use of the division sign as an alternative to a percent sign not just because it is the wrong symbol in that context, but also because of the tedium of modern consumerist practices.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:Division notation
:A÷B
:B)Ā Schoolchild.
:A/B Software engineer.
:A⁄B Normal person or Unicode enthusiast.
:A over B Scientist.
:AB-1 Fancy scientist.
:F(A, B) such that F(G)= (text getting smaller) Oh no, run

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Programming]]
[[Category:Science tip]]

Talk:2687: Division Notation

2022-10-20T10:17:44Z

172.70.206.93: reply

Fun fact: In Poland, we don't write the long division like that; we just write A:B with the bar above. I was VERY confused the first time I saw that notation. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.246.235|172.70.246.235]] 21:03, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
:Unrelated to {{w|Polish notation}}, i presume? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.134.13|172.70.134.13]] 22:43, 19 October 2022 (UTC)Bumpf
:In German elementary school we learned the a:b notation. When we learned more complex divisions in secondary school it was with the "scientist" notation. And as I am a software engineer AND (presumably) a normal person I use in general the respective notations. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 07:24, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

For me, the version on the xkcd website has an additional line ("A/B: Software Engineer") that's not on this site. I think the comic might have been updated. Is anyone else seeing that? [[User:JBYoshi|JBYoshi]] ([[User talk:JBYoshi|talk]]) 23:20, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
:Updated. [[User:Natg19|Natg19]] ([[User talk:Natg19|talk]]) 00:31, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

For the Unicode one, I think it’s a reference to ⁄ (U+2044, fraction slash) or characters like ½, ¼, etc. - [[User:Cherryblossom|Cherryblossom]] ([[User talk:Cherryblossom|talk]]) 00:24, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Is it important to note that 1/2 auctocorrects to ½ in many text-based programs like Microsoft Word?--[[User:Theunlucky|Theunlucky]] ([[User talk:Theunlucky|talk]]) 02:32, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

It's possible to use fraction-style notation in LaTeX by using \frac, or am I missing something?--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.2.125|162.158.2.125]] 05:49, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

"the long division symbol is only used in some countries". Only English-speaking ones, to be more precise. Most of the countries of the world use a different notation. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.51.80|172.68.51.80]] 06:19, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

In the UK, the 'long division symbol' is nowadays often referred to (particularly with Primary classes, children aged 4 - 11) as the "Bus Stop Method". Because it looks like a UK bus shelter. [[User:MarquisOfCarrabass|MarquisOfCarrabass]] ([[User talk:MarquisOfCarrabass|talk]]) 07:07, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
: I always used (still use, on the rare occasions that I do it) the notation inverted - B)_A - so that the answer is output beneath the problem, which makes more sense to me, given that we generally read down the page. I guess that would be a vandalised bus stop?[[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.147|172.70.162.147]] 09:16, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

As a Dutch primary schoolchild, I have used a÷b for calculations and "a over b" for fractions (e.g. ⅘).
For more difficult divisions, like what is 785/35, we used [https://nl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staartdeling Staartdelingen] (nl), long division, of which the primary notation is 35/735\.
I think in early highschool we started using a over b for more complex calculations, "like (x+3) over 5 = 2, what is x". I had up to this XKCD never seen B⟌A, and would confuse it for what we use as square root symbol (√). [[User:IIVQ|IIVQ]] ([[User talk:IIVQ|talk]]) 07:16, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
:Come to think of it, it's kind of odd that we used ":" for division. Why are there this many different division notations anyway? Same for multiplication. There's x, *, ⋅, x but centered vertically, and concatenation (for letter variables)!
:: The : operator is for ratios, where a:b could be a/b or b/a, but also metaphors, where a:b::c:d means a is to b as c is to d. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.166.73|162.158.166.73]] 09:05, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

In Austria, school children are using the "scientist" notation from this comic. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.50.51|172.68.50.51]] 08:17, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
: Same thing in Russia [[Special:Contributions/172.71.98.97|172.71.98.97]] 08:46, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I live in Denmark, and “÷” seems to be often used here for subtraction, instead of a minus sign! Got confused a few times. [[User:Nclm|nicolas]] ([[User talk:Nclm|talk]]) 08:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

; tableau
: tab·leau /ˌtaˈblō/ noun
::a group of models or motionless figures representing a scene from a story or from history; a tableau vivant. "in the first act the action is presented in a series of tableaux"
I don't think it means what the editor including it thinks it means. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.22.185|172.69.22.185]] 09:02, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

: "A graphic description or representation" - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tableau
: It derives from the idea of 'things set out on a table'. The arrangement of cards in a solitaire game is also called a tableau. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.147|172.70.162.147]] 09:24, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
:: changed to radices. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.93|172.70.206.93]]

2677: Two Key System

2022-10-17T19:19:50Z

172.70.206.93: /* Explanation */ repair

{{comic
| number = 2677
| date = September 26, 2022
| title = Two Key System
| image = two_key_system_2x.png
| imagesize = 645x316px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Our company can be your one-stop shop for decentralization.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a SELF-TURNING BOT - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

As an allegory, the comic relates the results of software development to the reputed safeguards of nuclear missile launch systems.

Such precautions include the {{w|Two-man rule|need for two independent operators for authorization}}, to prevent honest mistakes or the rogue actions of lone-actors. This may include the use of a {{w|nuclear briefcase}}, where a verification process involves secondary authority figures other than the primary one. However, this illustration more clearly refers to the kind of procedure used at a launch site where two duty officers each need to turn their respective keys simultaneously. The physical distance between the keys ensures that an individual cannot turn both keys similtaneously, or initiate the sequence without the second person.

In relation to software development, the inconvenience prevented by such precautions (like account passwords and {{w|two-factor authentication}}) has prompted the development of methods to make the process easier (like {{w|autofill|autofilling}} passwords or website cookies keeping a user logged in for multiple visits). Similarly, the system in the comic is made more convenient by using a dual key-turner that circumvents the need for two users to turn the keys.

And thus we find out that the thing used to make the safeguards less of a nuisance actually defeats the purpose of the safeguards. As with website passwords, where the use of a computer or device by someone else could allow ''them'' to use the autologin capabilities, or even to view all passwords used locally and take away for their own use, the whole point of the deliberately included security factor has been negated. It was only the perceived need for two independent operators that created the initial situation of requiring two separated keys, or indeed any keys at all!

Hence, after a further cycle of development, in order to restore the security of the two-key system, the two-key turning device (rather than being removed or made unworkable) is provided for use but ''only'' if it can be removed from a secure cabinet (labelled as giving access to the 'key turner', much as the original unit was labelled as giving access to a missile) with the requirements to open it being… …two seperate keys to be used at the same time! This could be seen as the same as {{w|password manager}}s being introduced, either as a part of a browser or third-party add-ons, which automatically provide the user's passwords for any given access attempt but only when they are given a password (or other security factor) themselves.

And so, rather than removing a 'problem', a new safeguard is added which does the exact same thing as the original, the possible nuisance (but hopefully also the necessary element of security) included.

Password management, as a process, is substantially similar to key management: Common failure-modes for both passwords and keys, include forgetting your own long-term passwords (especially if you changed computers after asking your computer to remember your passwords for you) which is functionally similar to misplacing your keys, or tending to use just a single password or key for every lock (which, if ever compromised in one situation, may lead to being compromised across many others). A Password Manager can reduce such issues, as it can be capable of 'spitting out' or transfering login details at will and letting you use many different passwords (even generating and using the kinds of passwords nobody should be able to guess, [[936: Password Strength|or remember!]]) across your many different websites, etc. But this passkey storage must itself be secure, and so should be functionally accessible perhaps only through use of a 'master passkey' or some other kind of authentication process, which may be subject to the same issues of forgetting, copying, or theft. Similarly, a central lockbox full of keys (such as those used at some car dealerships), can make handling multiple keys much easier, while introducing a single point of failure in the event that lockbox is illicitly accessed. Various forms of {{w|multi-factor authentication}}, plus auxiallary authentication methods for password recovery/reset, go some way to alleviate these challenges, at the expense of further intermediary steps and hardware requirements; but the balance between ease of use and security is never quite so simple and universal.



The title text mentions a one-stop-shop for decentralization. The drive to make use of one-stop-shops (such as a website aggregating searches for the best insurance) and ''also'' to decentralize (in this case not relying upon any one vendor, even that single aggregator who might actually not be the best aggregator) is another self-contradiction — because a one-stop-shop is by definition centralized.

The comic being posted on September 26th may be a reference to Stanislav Petrov correctly rejecting the false detection of an incoming nuclear missile strike from the US on September 26th, 1983. [[2052: Stanislav Petrov Day]]

For a related xkcd on software cycles, see [[2044: Sandboxing Cycle]].

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[Caption:]
:All software development, eventually

:[Cueball is talking, while pointing to a drawing. It represents two keys, pointing to Cueball and Ponytail turning keys at either end of a missile launch system - a large anonymous cabinet except for a picture of a missile upon it]
:Cueball: We've installed a two-key system to prevent accidental missile launches.

:[An arrow is pointing to the next panel:] Soon

:[The drawing now represents a device with two inward-facing keys connected by a long bar with a further handle, and below that is shown how it is used with a cabinet such as above to let Cueball to activate the unit by himself]
:Cueball: We've developed a dual-turner device to allow a user to efficiently turn multiple keys.

:[An arrow is pointing to the next panel:] Soon

:[The drawing now represents two keys, pointing to Cueball and Ponytail turning keys at either end of a large similarly anonymous cabinet, except for the picture upon it being of the device of panel 2]
:Cueball: We've installed a two-key lock on the dual-turner device to prevent accidental use.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Programming]]
[[Category:Nuclear weapons]]
[[Category:Computer security]]

2685: 2045

2022-10-15T05:21:51Z

172.70.206.93: fix

{{comic
| number = 2685
| date = October 14, 2022
| title = 2045
| image = 2045_2x.png
| imagesize = 350x457px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = "Sorry, doctor, I'm going to have to come in on a different day--I have another appointment that would be really hard to move, in terms of the kinetic energy requirements."
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a GIGANTIC NUCLEAR FURNACE (THE SUN) - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

The characters are talking about upcoming total {{w|solar eclipses}}. Partial solar eclipses are fairly frequent (2–5 per year), but total eclipses are less frequent (about every 18 months), and most of them will not be in convenient locations for a particular set of people. Cueball seems to be talking about total eclipses visible in much of North America: {{w|Solar eclipse of April 8, 2024|April 8, 2024}} and {{w|Solar eclipse of August 12, 2045|August 12, 2045}}. (There's also a {{w|annular eclipse}} on October 14, 2025.) Making plans for eclipses is awkward given the uncertainty present for anything else far in the future, such as whether the attendees will have children by then, and even whether another scheduling program will catch on and replace Google Calendar.

Black Hat claims he can't make it, as he has "a thing" on August 12, 2045. Events for that far in the future usually have not yet been scheduled for a precise date{{Citation needed}}, and this combined with the fact that Black Hat remembers this date without checking implies that this could be another of his grand and sinister plans... or he just doesn't want to go.

The title text is someone cancelling a medical appointment to see the eclipse. The eclipse is hard to move because that would require hastening or delaying it by moving the Earth, Moon or Sun, any of which would require vast amounts of energy.{{Citation needed}} People also don't often schedule doctor's appointments decades in advance.{{Citation needed}} This was published a year before the next eclipse so, if you're someone who plans things a year in advance this serves as a reminder to put it on your calendar.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[Cueball, a friend also drawn as Cueball, Danish, and Black Hat are standing together. Danish is looking at her phone.]
:Cueball: ...And then after the one in 2024, there's another on August 12, 2045.
:Friend: We're in! We can invite our kids, assuming we have any.
:Danish: I'll create an event. Do you think we'll still be using Google Calendar in 2045?
:Black Hat: Sorry, I'd love to make it, but I have a thing that day.

:Caption: It's weird making plans for eclipses.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Multiple Cueballs]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Danish]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Black Hat]]

2682: Easy Or Hard

2022-10-07T19:19:21Z

172.70.206.93: /* Explanation */ more

{{comic
| number = 2682
| date = October 7, 2022
| title = Easy Or Hard
| image = easy_or_hard_2x.png
| imagesize = 740x400px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = "Friction-driven static electrification is familiar and fundamental in daily life, industry, and technology, but its basics have long been unknown and have continually perplexed scientists from ancient Greece to the high-tech era. [...] To date, no single theory can satisfactorily explain this mysterious but fundamental phenomenon." --Eui-Cheol Shin et. al. (2022)
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by THE EIFFEL TOWER TAKING A TYLENOL - Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic uses a table to compare the perceived difficulty of various questions with how easily they're answered in real life. [[Randall]] has a long history of comics with similar themes, comparing perceptions to reality. In this case, both the perception and the reality are divided into three levels of difficulty, giving a total of nine categories. Accordingly three of the problems listed are effectively as difficult as one would expect, and the remaining six are not. All three of the questions whose answers are "actually pretty easy to find out" relate to the Eiffel Tower, though there's no apparent theme among the other six questions.

It's likely that this comic was at least partially inspired by writing the books ''[[How To|How To: Absurd Scientific Advice for Common Real-World Problems]]'', [[what if|''What if?'', and ''What If? 2'']], which was published just a few weeks before this comic. These books involve answering very elaborate questions from a scientific point of view. This process likely emphasized that some really strange questions are actually difficult to answer, while some questions that seem simple continue to confound scientific knowledge. ''What if? 2'' mentions the fact that no one understands why static charges separate.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Question !! Perceived Difficulty !! Real Difficulty !! Explanation
|-
|How much does the {{w|Eiffel Tower}}'s gravity deflect baseballs in Boston?||Near Impossible||Easy||This problem sounds extremely specific and esoteric, concerning an effect far too small for direct experimentation. But in theory, it's actually a very simple physics problem. {{w|Newton's law of universal gravitation|Gravitational force}} is determined entirely by mass and distance. Since the mass of the Eiffel Tower and the distance from Paris to Boston are easy to look up, the calculation is quite simple.
|-
|What time of year did the {{w|Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event|Cretaceous impact}} happen?||Near Impossible||Difficult||The "Cretaceous impact" happened approximately 65 million ago. The margins of error on calculating something that ancient are necessarily thousands of years wide at least, the notion of determining the time of year seems impossible. In fact, the problem is a difficult one, but many of the animals killed in the impact were fossilized, and comparing those fossils to seasonal growth cycles [https://www.science.org/content/article/springtime-was-season-dinosaurs-died-ancient-fish-fossils-suggest has led to the suggestion that the impact happened in spring in the northern hemisphere.]
|-
|How can {{w|Theory of relativity|relativity}} be reconciled with {{w|quantum mechanics}}?||Near Impossible||Near Impossible||This remains one of the {{w|Theory of everything|great unsolved questions}} in physics. The problem sounds almost unsolvable to laypeople, and remains unsolved even to experts in the field.
|-
|Where was Mars in the sky from Paris on the day the Eiffel Tower opened?||Difficult||Easy||The date of the opening of the tower is well known (March 31, 1889). Since the motions of the planets are predictable, one would expect that the position of Mars in the Paris sky on that date could be easily calculated eg. using [https://in-the-sky.org/skymap.php?no_cookie=1&latitude=48.85&longitude=2.35&timezone=1.00&year=1889&month=3&day=31&hour=19&min=22&PLlimitmag=2&zoom=183&ra=2.50734&dec=24.82254 online tools] (it was in the constellation of Pisces).
|-
|How many ants are there?||Difficult||Difficult||While the existence of ants is a mundane part of life for many people, there are so many of them that coming up with a total number of ants in the whole world sounds exceedingly difficult. It is, in fact, a difficult problem, but experts have done a significant amount of work and have come up with well-founded estimates [https://phys.org/news/2022-09-ants-earth-quadrillion.html in the range of 20 quadrillion ants on earth].
|-
|How does {{w|Tylenol (brand)|Tylenol}} work?||Difficult||Near Impossible||Tylenol is a brand name for {{w|Paracetamol|paracetamol, also known as acetaminophen}}, a drug commonly sold without prescription for pain relief and fever reduction. This drug has been widely used since 1950, and has been well established as being both effective and safe when used properly. One would expect the biological mechanism for any drug to be complicated, but most people would assume that a drug that's been widely used and studied for so long would have well-understood effects. Surprisingly, however, the precise action still isn't fully understood. Scientists have concluded that the drug does work, but don't know exactly how.
|-
|How tall is the Eiffel Tower?||Easy||Easy||The height of any structure that can be easily observed can be calculated without much difficulty. The Eiffel Tower was constructed to be the centerpiece of the 1889 World's Fair. At the time of its construction, it was the tallest man-made structure on earth, which meant that its height was widely publicized since it was first constructed (330 meters, or 1083 feet). This number is widely published, and easily confirmed.
|-
|How does {{w|general anesthesia}} work?||Easy||Difficult||While biology is always complex, inducing unconsciousness seems relatively simple. In fact, keeping a person unconscious and insensate without causing permanent damage or death is a difficult proposition, requiring a medical specialist. Despite this field being well-established, it might surprise people to know that {{w|Theories of general anaesthetic action|the mechanism of general anesthesia}} is still the subject of research, and recent studies have revealed things that we didn't previously understand.
|-
|Why does your hair get a static charge when you rub it with a balloon?||Easy||Near Impossible||Inducing a {{w|Static electricity|static charge}} by {{w|Triboelectric effect|rubbing together two materials}} is a method that's been known since ancient times. Since human hair has a marked tendency to develop a positive charge, and the latex commonly used in balloons tends to develop a negative charge, rubbing the two together is a very simple way to create an electric field. This process is so simple that it's used for both party tricks and as a fun demonstration of electrical phenomena. Because of this simplicity, most people would assume that the phenomenon is well understood. So it's surprising that the actual mechanism remains an unsolved problem in physics. This also has previously been mentioned in [[1867: Physics Confession]]. The title text quotes [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/360674587_Derivation_of_a_governing_rule_in_triboelectric_charging_and_series_from_thermoelectricity a paper] explaining that, as common as this phenomenon is, there's still no theory that can adequately explain what we observe.
|}

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! !! Actually pretty easy to find out !! Very hard, but there have been recent breakthroughs !! Extremely hard, currently unsolved
|-
! Sounds borderline unsolvable
|How much does the Eiffel Tower's gravity deflect baseballs in Boston?||What time of year did the cretaceous impact happen?||How can relativity be reconciled with quantum mechanics?
|-
! Sounds pretty hard, but you'd assume someone knows
|Where was Mars in the sky from Paris on the day the Eiffel Tower opened?||How many ants are there?||How does Tylenol work?
|-
! Sounds like it would be easy to look up
|How tall is the Eiffel Tower?||How does general anesthesia work?||Why does your hair get a static charge when you rub it with a balloon?
|}

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Animals]]
[[Category:Medicine]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Astronomy]]

2682: Easy Or Hard

2022-10-07T19:16:23Z

172.70.206.93: /* Explanation */ add more wlinks

{{comic
| number = 2682
| date = October 7, 2022
| title = Easy Or Hard
| image = easy_or_hard_2x.png
| imagesize = 740x400px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = "Friction-driven static electrification is familiar and fundamental in daily life, industry, and technology, but its basics have long been unknown and have continually perplexed scientists from ancient Greece to the high-tech era. [...] To date, no single theory can satisfactorily explain this mysterious but fundamental phenomenon." --Eui-Cheol Shin et. al. (2022)
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by THE EIFFEL TOWER TAKING A TYLENOL - Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic uses a table to compare the perceived difficulty of various questions with how easily they're answered in real life. [[Randall]] has a long history of comics with similar themes, comparing perceptions to reality. In this case, both the perception and the reality are divided into three levels of difficulty, giving a total of nine categories. Accordingly three of the problems listed are effectively as difficult as one would expect, and the remaining six are not. All three of the questions whose answers are "actually pretty easy to find out" relate to the Eiffel Tower, though there's no apparent theme among the other six questions.

It's likely that this comic was at least partially inspired by writing the books ''[[How To|How To: Absurd Scientific Advice for Common Real-World Problems]]'', [[what if|''What if?'', and ''What If? 2'']], which was published just a few weeks before this comic. These books involve answering very elaborate questions from a scientific point of view. This process likely emphasized that some really strange questions are actually difficult to answer, while some questions that seem simple continue to confound scientific knowledge. ''What if? 2'' mentions the fact that no one understands why static charges separate.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Question !! Perceived Difficulty !! Real Difficulty !! Explanation
|-
|How much does the {{w|Eiffel Tower}}'s gravity deflect baseballs in Boston?||Near Impossible||Easy||This problem sounds extremely specific and esoteric, concerning an effect far too small for direct experimentation. But in theory, it's actually a very simple physics problem. Gravitational force is determined entirely by mass and distance. Since the mass of the Eiffel Tower and the distance from Paris to Boston are easy to look up, the calculation is quite simple.
|-
|What time of year did the {{w|Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event|cretaceous impact}} happen?||Near Impossible||Difficult||The cretaceous impact happened approximately 65 million ago. The margins of error on calculating something that ancient are necessarily thousands of years wide at least, the notion of determining the time of year seems impossible. In fact, the problem is a difficult one, but many of the animals killed in the impact were fossilized, and comparing those fossils to seasonal growth cycles [https://www.science.org/content/article/springtime-was-season-dinosaurs-died-ancient-fish-fossils-suggest has led to the suggestion that the impact happened in spring in the northern hemisphere.]
|-
|How can {{w|Theory of relativity|relativity}} be reconciled with {{w|quantum mechanics}}?||Near Impossible||Near Impossible||This remains one of the {{w|Theory of everything|great unsolved questions}} in physics. The problem sounds almost unsolvable to laypeople, and remains unsolved even to experts in the field.
|-
|Where was Mars in the sky from Paris on the day the Eiffel Tower opened?||Difficult||Easy||The date of the opening of the tower is well known (March 31, 1889). Since the motions of the planets are predictable, one would expect that the position of Mars in the Paris sky on that date could be easily calculated eg. using [https://in-the-sky.org/skymap.php?no_cookie=1&latitude=48.85&longitude=2.35&timezone=1.00&year=1889&month=3&day=31&hour=19&min=22&PLlimitmag=2&zoom=183&ra=2.50734&dec=24.82254 online tools] (it was in the constellation of Pisces).
|-
|How many ants are there?||Difficult||Difficult||While the existence of ants is a mundane part of life for many people, there are so many of them that coming up with a total number of ants in the whole world sounds exceedingly difficult. It is, in fact, a difficult problem, but experts have done a significant amount of work and have come up with well-founded estimates [https://phys.org/news/2022-09-ants-earth-quadrillion.html in the range of 20 quadrillion ants on earth].
|-
|How does {{w|Tylenol (brand)|Tylenol}} work?||Difficult||Near Impossible||Tylenol is a brand name for {{w|Paracetamol|paracetamol, also known as acetaminophen}}, a drug commonly sold without prescription for pain relief and fever reduction. This drug has been widely used since 1950, and has been well established as being both effective and safe when used properly. One would expect the biological mechanism for any drug to be complicated, but most people would assume that a drug that's been widely used and studied for so long would have well-understood effects. Surprisingly, however, the precise action still isn't fully understood. Scientists have concluded that the drug does work, but don't know exactly how.
|-
|How tall is the Eiffel Tower?||Easy||Easy||The height of any structure that can be easily observed can be calculated without much difficulty. The Eiffel Tower was constructed to be the centerpiece of the 1889 World's Fair. At the time of its construction, it was the tallest man-made structure on earth, which meant that its height was widely publicized since it was first constructed (330 meters, or 1083 feet). This number is widely published, and easily confirmed.
|-
|How does {{w|general anesthesia}} work?||Easy||Difficult||While biology is always complex, inducing unconsciousness seems relatively simple. In fact, keeping a person unconscious and insensate without causing permanent damage or death is a difficult proposition, requiring a medical specialist. Despite this field being well-established, it might surprise people to know that {{w|Theories of general anaesthetic action|the mechanism of general anesthesia}} is still the subject of research, and recent studies have revealed things that we didn't previously understand.
|-
|Why does your hair get a static charge when you rub it with a balloon?||Easy||Near Impossible||Inducing a {{w|Static electricity|static charge}} by {{w|Triboelectric effect|rubbing together two materials}} is a method that's been known since ancient times. Since human hair has a marked tendency to develop a positive charge, and the latex commonly used in balloons tends to develop a negative charge, rubbing the two together is a very simple way to create an electric field. This process is so simple that it's used for both party tricks and as a fun demonstration of electrical phenomena. Because of this simplicity, most people would assume that the phenomenon is well understood. So it's surprising that the actual mechanism remains an unsolved problem in physics. This also has previously been mentioned in [[1867: Physics Confession]]. The title text quotes [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/360674587_Derivation_of_a_governing_rule_in_triboelectric_charging_and_series_from_thermoelectricity a paper] explaining that, as common as this phenomenon is, there's still no theory that can adequately explain what we observe.
|}

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! !! Actually pretty easy to find out !! Very hard, but there have been recent breakthroughs !! Extremely hard, currently unsolved
|-
! Sounds borderline unsolvable
|How much does the Eiffel Tower's gravity deflect baseballs in Boston?||What time of year did the cretaceous impact happen?||How can relativity be reconciled with quantum mechanics?
|-
! Sounds pretty hard, but you'd assume someone knows
|Where was Mars in the sky from Paris on the day the Eiffel Tower opened?||How many ants are there?||How does Tylenol work?
|-
! Sounds like it would be easy to look up
|How tall is the Eiffel Tower?||How does general anesthesia work?||Why does your hair get a static charge when you rub it with a balloon?
|}

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Animals]]
[[Category:Medicine]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Astronomy]]

2682: Easy Or Hard

2022-10-07T19:08:28Z

172.70.206.93: /* Explanation */ ce

{{comic
| number = 2682
| date = October 7, 2022
| title = Easy Or Hard
| image = easy_or_hard_2x.png
| imagesize = 740x400px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = "Friction-driven static electrification is familiar and fundamental in daily life, industry, and technology, but its basics have long been unknown and have continually perplexed scientists from ancient Greece to the high-tech era. [...] To date, no single theory can satisfactorily explain this mysterious but fundamental phenomenon." --Eui-Cheol Shin et. al. (2022)
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by THE EIFFEL TOWER TAKING A TYLENOL - Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic uses a table to compare the perceived difficulty of various questions with how easily they're answered in real life. [[Randall]] has a long history of comics with similar themes, comparing perceptions to reality. In this case, both the perception and the reality are divided into three levels of difficulty, giving a total of nine categories. Accordingly three of the problems listed are effectively as difficult as one would expect, and the remaining six are not. All three of the questions whose answers are "actually pretty easy to find out" relate to the Eiffel Tower, though there's no apparent theme among the other six questions.

It's likely that this comic was at least partially inspired by writing the books ''[[How To|How To: Absurd Scientific Advice for Common Real-World Problems]]'', [[what if|''What if?'', and ''What If? 2'']], which was published just a few weeks before this comic. These books involve answering very elaborate questions from a scientific point of view. This process likely emphasized that some really strange questions are actually difficult to answer, while some questions that seem simple continue to confound scientific knowledge. ''What if? 2'' mentions the fact that no one understands why static charges separate.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Question !! Perceived Difficulty !! Real Difficulty !! Explanation
|-
|How much does the Eiffel Tower's gravity deflect baseballs in Boston?||Near Impossible||Easy||This problem sounds extremely specific and esoteric, concerning an effect far too small for direct experimentation. But in theory, it's actually a very simple physics problem. Gravitational force is determined entirely by mass and distance. Since the mass of the Eiffel Tower and the distance from Paris to Boston are easy to look up, the calculation is quite simple.
|-
|What time of year did the cretaceous impact happen?||Near Impossible||Difficult||The cretaceous impact happened approximately 65 million ago. The margins of error on calculating something that ancient are necessarily thousands of years wide at least, the notion of determining the time of year seems impossible. In fact, the problem is a difficult one, but many of the animals killed in the impact were fossilized, and comparing those fossils to seasonal growth cycles [https://www.science.org/content/article/springtime-was-season-dinosaurs-died-ancient-fish-fossils-suggest has led to the suggestion that the impact happened in spring in the northern hemisphere.]
|-
|How can relativity be reconciled with quantum mechanics?||Near Impossible||Near Impossible||This remains one of the great unsolved questions in physics. The problem sounds almost unsolvable to laypeople, and remains unsolved even to experts in the field.
|-
|Where was Mars in the sky from Paris on the day the Eiffel Tower opened?||Difficult||Easy||The date of the opening of the tower is well known (March 31, 1889). Since the motions of the planets are predictable, one would expect that the position of Mars in the Paris sky on that date could be easily calculated eg. using [https://in-the-sky.org/skymap.php?no_cookie=1&latitude=48.85&longitude=2.35&timezone=1.00&year=1889&month=3&day=31&hour=19&min=22&PLlimitmag=2&zoom=183&ra=2.50734&dec=24.82254 online tools] (it was in the constellation of Pisces).
|-
|How many ants are there?||Difficult||Difficult||While the existence of ants is a mundane part of life for many people, there are so many of them that coming up with a total number of ants in the whole world sounds exceedingly difficult. It is, in fact, a difficult problem, but experts have done a significant amount of work and have come up with well-founded estimates [https://phys.org/news/2022-09-ants-earth-quadrillion.html in the range of 20 quadrillion ants on earth].
|-
|How does Tylenol work?||Difficult||Near Impossible||Tylenol is a brand name for paracetamol, also known as acetaminophen, a drug commonly sold without prescription for pain relief and fever reduction. This drug has been widely used since 1950, and has been well established as being both effective and safe when used properly. One would expect the biological mechanism for any drug to be complicated, but most people would assume that a drug that's been widely used and studied for so long would have well-understood effects. Surprisingly, however, the precise action still isn't fully understood. Scientists have concluded that the drug does work, but don't know exactly how.
|-
|How tall is the Eiffel Tower?||Easy||Easy||The height of any structure that can be easily observed can be calculated without much difficulty. The Eiffel Tower was constructed to be the centerpiece of the 1889 World's Fair. At the time of its construction, it was the tallest man-made structure on earth, which meant that its height was widely publicized since it was first constructed (330 meters, or 1083 feet). This number is widely published, and easily confirmed.
|-
|How does general anesthesia work?||Easy||Difficult||While biology is always complex, inducing unconsciousness seems relatively simple. In fact, keeping a person unconscious and insensate without causing permanent damage or death is a difficult proposition, requiring a medical specialist. Despite this field being well-established, it might surprise people to know that the mechanism of general anesthesia is still the subject of research, and recent studies have revealed things that we didn't previously understand.
|-
|Why does your hair get a static charge when you rub it with a balloon?||Easy||Near Impossible||Inducing a static charge by rubbing together two materials is a method that's been known since ancient times. Since human hair has a marked tendency to develop a positive charge, and the latex commonly used in balloons tends to develop a negative charge, rubbing the two together is a very simple way to create an electric field. This process is so simple that it's used for both party tricks and as a fun demonstration of electrical phenomena. Because of this simplicity, most people would assume that the phenomenon is well understood. So it's surprising that the actual mechanism remains an unsolved problem in physics. This also has previously been mentioned in [[1867: Physics Confession]]. The title text quotes a paper explaining that, as common as this phenomenon is, there's still no theory that can adequately explain what we observe.
|}

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! !! Actually pretty easy to find out !! Very hard, but there have been recent breakthroughs !! Extremely hard, currently unsolved
|-
! Sounds borderline unsolvable
|How much does the Eiffel Tower's gravity deflect baseballs in Boston?||What time of year did the cretaceous impact happen?||How can relativity be reconciled with quantum mechanics?
|-
! Sounds pretty hard, but you'd assume someone knows
|Where was Mars in the sky from Paris on the day the Eiffel Tower opened?||How many ants are there?||How does Tylenol work?
|-
! Sounds like it would be easy to look up
|How tall is the Eiffel Tower?||How does general anesthesia work?||Why does your hair get a static charge when you rub it with a balloon?
|}

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Animals]]
[[Category:Medicine]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Astronomy]]

2681: Archimedes Principle

2022-10-06T04:48:10Z

172.70.206.93: /* Transcript */ cats

{{comic
| number = 2681
| date = October 5, 2022
| title = Archimedes Principle
| image = archimedes_principle_2x.png
| imagesize = 312x379px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = "I've always wanted to run naked through town, but I don't want to get in trouble with the king or be remembered by history as a weirdo. I wonder how I could ... EUREKA!"
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created for a heist - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

{{w|Archimedes' Principle}} is a well known principle of fluid dynamics that states "Any object, totally or partially immersed in a fluid or liquid, is buoyed up by a force equal to the weight of the fluid displaced by the object." {{w|Archimedes}} supposedly discovered it when he was getting into a bathtub and noticed how much water spilled out of the tub when he got into it. He had been tasked by a king in determining whether a crown that was made for him was really made of pure gold. The legend says that upon discovering that he could use this principle to solve the problem, he went running naked down the street shouting "{{w|Eureka (word)|Eureka}}!".

In the comic, Archimedes plans on swapping the king's gold crown with a less valuable silver crown with gold plating, and this is claimed to be the first heist. It almost certainly wouldn't be the first robbery, but seems to refer to the complex, planned robberies of large amounts that are typical of {{w|heist films}}.

According to the title text, Archimedes's eureka moment wasn't when he discovered the buoyancy principle, but when he realized that he could use this discovery as a pretext for the reason for running naked through town, which is something he'd always wanted to do.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[Megan is seen picking up a crown from a bucket filled with water, while Archimedes, depicted as a balding man with a short white beard, is writing at a desk.]
:Megan: Uh, Archimedes, why is there a bucket of water with a gold crown hidden in the bottom?
:Archimedes: It's mostly silver. Replica of the King's crown. He's coming here later, and I have a plan.

:[Caption beneath the panel:]
:Archimedes invents the heist.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category: Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category: Comics featuring real people]]
[[Category: Physics]]

2503: Memo Spike Connector

2022-01-28T08:19:22Z

172.70.206.93:

How do you do,

Kindly advise if your company can supply us any of the below

Gasoline Chain Saw 24" Quantities: 26

Payment : Net 30

The information in this email (and any attachments) is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use or disseminate the information. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify me by "Reply" command and permanently delete the original and any copies or printouts thereof. Although this email and any attachments are believed to be free of any virus or other defect that might affect any computer system into which it is received and opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by the companies, subsidiaries or affiliates either jointly or severally, that I represent, for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use.

Anna Hoffman
Manager, Strategic Sourcing
Whirlpool Corporation

2538: Snack

2022-01-28T02:13:01Z

172.70.206.93: /* Explanation */ good enough

{{comic
| number = 2538
| date = November 5, 2021
| title = Snack
| image = snack.png
| titletext = Although grad students, suddenly reminded that food exists, tend to just grab and devour both without further discussion.
}}

==Explanation==
Many psychological studies involve participants being asked to make decisions under varying conditions, to determine how those conditions influence decision making. A common example is to give subjects a choice between eating a healthy snack (such as an apple) or a tasty snack (such as a cookie), which may be used as a simple proxy for whether they're prioritizing long-term health or short-term gratification. In most cases they are not made aware of the nature of the experiment, as knowing the premise of the study is liable to influence their behavior and alter the results. Instead subjects may deliberately be given a false impression of the purpose of the study, or they may be offered a choice under conditions where they're not aware that they're part of an experiment at all.

Examples of experiments like this are the {{w|Stanford marshmallow experiment}} and [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8656339/ this study].

This sort of psychological study is most commonly done by universities, which means that using university students as subjects is generally the most convenient option. This means both that psychological studies tend to be heavily skewed towards the demographics of college students, and that university students have a pretty good chance of being invited to participate in a study at some point.

The joke in this strip is based on the premise that psychology majors are sufficiently aware of such studies that it would make them suspicious of any circumstances which ''could'' be part of a study. If they've studied (or even conducted) such experiments, anything that reminded them of such a study could cause them to become suspicious. In [[Cueball]]'s case this is exaggerated into outright paranoia, and [[Ponytail]] is apparently playing on that to prank him, offering options that could easily be part of such an experiment just to spook him into suspicion.

Studies done on humans are subject to important ethical controls, particularly if the subjects are not fully informed of the study's purpose. "IRB" stands for {{w|Institutional Review Board}}, which is a committee (for example, at a university) which must approve such research to ensure that there's no significant risk of doing harm to the subjects of the study.

The title text jokes that graduate students have so much work to do that they are liable to forget to eat entirely and stereotypically too impoverished to afford adequate amounts of food; when presented with an offer of a snack, they don't ponder the implications or potential ulterior motives; they just eat it quickly and get back to work.

==Transcript==
:[Ponytail, holding a cookie up in one hand and an apple up in the other, addresses an alarmed Cueball. His alarm is shown by seven lines radiating away from his head, and he also holds his arms stretched out.]
:Ponytail: Hey, do you want a cookie? Or an apple?
:Cueball: '''''Who are you!? Did the IRB approve this!? Is everyone here an actor!?'''''

:[Caption beneath the panel:]
:The best prank you can play on psych majors is just to offer them a snack.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Food]]

2562: Formatting Meeting

2022-01-28T02:11:41Z

172.70.206.93: /* Explanation */ seems good enough

{{comic
| number = 2562
| date = December 31, 2021
| title = Formatting Meeting
| image = formatting_meeting.png
| titletext = Neither group uses iso 8601 because the big-endian enthusiasts were all at the meeting 20 years ago.
}}

==Explanation==
In the {{w|United States}}, it's common to write {{w|Calendar dates|dates}} numerically in the {{w|Calendar date#Date format|format}} ''{{w|Month|month}}/{{w|Day|day}}/{{w|Year|year}}'' -- 2/3/22 means February 3, 2022 (the century is often omitted when it's obvious that the date is around the current time). In Europe, the {{w|Calendar date#Gregorian, day–month–year (DMY)|usual order}} is ''day/month/year'' - so 2/3/22 is 2nd March, 2022.

"{{w|Internationalization and localization|Localization}}" is the technique used in software to make it accept input and display output in the formats most natural to users in their locations. For example, in the United States numbers use commas "," to separate thousands and a {{w|Decimal separator#Countries using decimal point|decimal point}} "." to separate the decimal values, while in large areas of the EU {{w|Decimal separator#Countries using decimal comma|it is the reverse}}. And the textual output will be translated to the local language. Naturally, this also includes displaying dates in the local format, as described above. Localization may also include the adoption of the tax law to the location, for instance when adopting tax software made for the US to the UK.

The joke in this {{w|Comics|comic}} is that two dates are shown, on the same {{w|Display device|display}}, relating to meetings regarding localization. The date of the meeting of the US team is localized in the US format while the EU team's meeting is localized in the European format, and these two dates (about a month apart) happen to be formatted the same (there are 64 such pairings of dates, as long as the day of the month of one is between 1 and 12 and not equal to the presumed month of the other). [[Cueball]] needs to explain that the European meeting will be a month later than the US meeting to avoid any confusion due to the ambiguity. Which is {{w|Irony|ironic}}, since the aim of localization is to reduce such {{w|Confusion|confusion}}.

A further interpretation, which extends also into the title text, is that these groups may have been supposed to meet on the same day. But even the committee that was supposed to fix these problems messed this up. Cueball may be 'explaining' the staggered approach to cover up that the two groups are already reading the date(s) for the meeting quite differently.

{{w|ISO-8601}} (that is, standard number 8601 as promulgated by the {{w|International Organization for Standardization}} since 1988) specifies a date format of YYYY-MM-DD (e.g., 2021-12-31), which results in dates being listed in chronological order when sorted stringwise. The ISO format is called "{{w|big-endian}}", which refers to the fact that the most significant unit in the date (the year) comes first. The European format is instead "{{w|little-endian}}", as the front-end value represents the finest possible distinction the date can convey - the particular day. The American format is "{{w|middle-endian}}", or occasionally "mixed-endian", since the value given first is the one which is neither the one with greatest significance nor the most precise.

In the above, the 'value groups' are not usually internally checked for '{{w|Endianness|endianness}}', but regular numerals are also usually written with the largest place values on the left – for example, the first 2 in {{w|2021}} is the thousands place – though whether this convention is big-endian or little-endian depends on whether the writing system of such numbers is in the context of left-to-right or right-to-left text. The concept of endianness is most often used in reference to the storage order, whether of indivisible binary bits or of values built up of successive value groups. Pairs of hexadecimal values are individually usually represented in big-endian 'numeric' order, where bitwise distinctions are not necessary, but it is useful to know if a system stores a multibyte value in big-endan or little-endian packing, i.e., whether the value 0x01 0x02 (values 1 and 2, on their own) is treated as a value of 258 (0x01*256 + 0x02*1) or 513 (0x01*1 + 0x02*256). (The term was taken in inspiration from a [https://www.ling.upenn.edu/courses/Spring_2003/ling538/Lecnotes/ADfn1.htm Jonathan Swift story] about a war over which end of a boiled egg one should cut into, a useful metaphor for many other situations where diametrically opposed self-justifications for one ''or'' another practice may lead to standing by vague principles rather than agreeing upon a unifying resolution.) This standard was also mentioned in [[1179: ISO 8601]] and used in [[1340: Unique Date]].

The joke in the title text is that it appears some people attempted to interpret the improperly formatted date as if it were expressed in the more ISO-8601 style of format of "Y/M/D". They read the date as ''20''02, March 22, so they already went to their meeting almost 20 years ago. Unless the announcement of the meetings was made 2 decades in advance, there's a {{w|Paradox|paradox}} that these participants would have taken the date from an announcement in the far future. However, a strict interpretation of the date would make this incorrect: ISO-8601 format specifies four-digit years (which also avoids having to assume the century), two-digit months, and two-digit days. Therefore "2/3/22” ''can by specification not'' be an ISO-8601 date, as "2" can only be rendered as "0002", and "3" must be "03". Even if the leading {{w|0|zeroes}} were omitted in violation of ISO-8601, the year would become {{w|AD 2|Year 2}}, not Year 2002. Since the standard always uses a 4 digit 'YYYY' format in the first field, and no common formatting uses YYYY-DD-MM, any date written in ISO-8601 is easily recognized and (comparatively) {{w|Ambiguity|unambiguously}} interpretable as YYYY-MM-DD. Dates written as if Y-M-DD or other distortions should be considered formatted improperly, and unwisely.

==Transcript==
:[A screen is shown which displays five rows of text, the top three above a dividing line. To the right of the screen the upper part of Cueball is visible as he delivers a message concerning the text on the screen:]
:Localization working group
:Upcoming meetings
:-----------------
:US Team: 2/3/22
:EU Team: 2/3/22

:Cueball: And the European formatting and localization team will meet a month later...

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Calendar]]

2562: Formatting Meeting

2022-01-28T02:10:20Z

172.70.206.93: /* Explanation */ ce

{{comic
| number = 2562
| date = December 31, 2021
| title = Formatting Meeting
| image = formatting_meeting.png
| titletext = Neither group uses iso 8601 because the big-endian enthusiasts were all at the meeting 20 years ago.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a LOCAL VERSION OF DR SEUSS, WHO IS NOT JONATHAN SWIFT - Needs wikification (but no overlinking) and consideration of whether there is a relation to New Year's Eve. Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

In the {{w|United States}}, it's common to write {{w|Calendar dates|dates}} numerically in the {{w|Calendar date#Date format|format}} ''{{w|Month|month}}/{{w|Day|day}}/{{w|Year|year}}'' -- 2/3/22 means February 3, 2022 (the century is often omitted when it's obvious that the date is around the current time). In Europe, the {{w|Calendar date#Gregorian, day–month–year (DMY)|usual order}} is ''day/month/year'' - so 2/3/22 is 2nd March, 2022.

"{{w|Internationalization and localization|Localization}}" is the technique used in software to make it accept input and display output in the formats most natural to users in their locations. For example, in the United States numbers use commas "," to separate thousands and a {{w|Decimal separator#Countries using decimal point|decimal point}} "." to separate the decimal values, while in large areas of the EU {{w|Decimal separator#Countries using decimal comma|it is the reverse}}. And the textual output will be translated to the local language. Naturally, this also includes displaying dates in the local format, as described above. Localization may also include the adoption of the tax law to the location, for instance when adopting tax software made for the US to the UK.

The joke in this {{w|Comics|comic}} is that two dates are shown, on the same {{w|Display device|display}}, relating to meetings regarding localization. The date of the meeting of the US team is localized in the US format while the EU team's meeting is localized in the European format, and these two dates (about a month apart) happen to be formatted the same (there are 64 such pairings of dates, as long as the day of the month of one is between 1 and 12 and not equal to the presumed month of the other). [[Cueball]] needs to explain that the European meeting will be a month later than the US meeting to avoid any confusion due to the ambiguity. Which is {{w|Irony|ironic}}, since the aim of localization is to reduce such {{w|Confusion|confusion}}.

A further interpretation, which extends also into the title text, is that these groups may have been supposed to meet on the same day. But even the committee that was supposed to fix these problems messed this up. Cueball may be 'explaining' the staggered approach to cover up that the two groups are already reading the date(s) for the meeting quite differently.

{{w|ISO-8601}} (that is, standard number 8601 as promulgated by the {{w|International Organization for Standardization}} since 1988) specifies a date format of YYYY-MM-DD (e.g., 2021-12-31), which results in dates being listed in chronological order when sorted stringwise. The ISO format is called "{{w|big-endian}}", which refers to the fact that the most significant unit in the date (the year) comes first. The European format is instead "{{w|little-endian}}", as the front-end value represents the finest possible distinction the date can convey - the particular day. The American format is "{{w|middle-endian}}", or occasionally "mixed-endian", since the value given first is the one which is neither the one with greatest significance nor the most precise.

In the above, the 'value groups' are not usually internally checked for '{{w|Endianness|endianness}}', but regular numerals are also usually written with the largest place values on the left – for example, the first 2 in {{w|2021}} is the thousands place – though whether this convention is big-endian or little-endian depends on whether the writing system of such numbers is in the context of left-to-right or right-to-left text. The concept of endianness is most often used in reference to the storage order, whether of indivisible binary bits or of values built up of successive value groups. Pairs of hexadecimal values are individually usually represented in big-endian 'numeric' order, where bitwise distinctions are not necessary, but it is useful to know if a system stores a multibyte value in big-endan or little-endian packing, i.e., whether the value 0x01 0x02 (values 1 and 2, on their own) is treated as a value of 258 (0x01*256 + 0x02*1) or 513 (0x01*1 + 0x02*256). (The term was taken in inspiration from a [https://www.ling.upenn.edu/courses/Spring_2003/ling538/Lecnotes/ADfn1.htm Jonathan Swift story] about a war over which end of a boiled egg one should cut into, a useful metaphor for many other situations where diametrically opposed self-justifications for one ''or'' another practice may lead to standing by vague principles rather than agreeing upon a unifying resolution.) This standard was also mentioned in [[1179: ISO 8601]] and used in [[1340: Unique Date]].

The joke in the title text is that it appears some people attempted to interpret the improperly formatted date as if it were expressed in the more ISO-8601 style of format of "Y/M/D". They read the date as ''20''02, March 22, so they already went to their meeting almost 20 years ago. Unless the announcement of the meetings was made 2 decades in advance, there's a {{w|Paradox|paradox}} that these participants would have taken the date from an announcement in the far future. However, a strict interpretation of the date would make this incorrect: ISO-8601 format specifies four-digit years (which also avoids having to assume the century), two-digit months, and two-digit days. Therefore "2/3/22” ''can by specification not'' be an ISO-8601 date, as "2" can only be rendered as "0002", and "3" must be "03". Even if the leading {{w|0|zeroes}} were omitted in violation of ISO-8601, the year would become {{w|AD 2|Year 2}}, not Year 2002. Since the standard always uses a 4 digit 'YYYY' format in the first field, and no common formatting uses YYYY-DD-MM, any date written in ISO-8601 is easily recognized and (comparatively) {{w|Ambiguity|unambiguously}} interpretable as YYYY-MM-DD. Dates written as if Y-M-DD or other distortions should be considered formatted improperly, and unwisely.

==Transcript==
:[A screen is shown which displays five rows of text, the top three above a dividing line. To the right of the screen the upper part of Cueball is visible as he delivers a message concerning the text on the screen:]
:Localization working group
:Upcoming meetings
:-----------------
:US Team: 2/3/22
:EU Team: 2/3/22

:Cueball: And the European formatting and localization team will meet a month later...

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Calendar]]

2562: Formatting Meeting

2022-01-28T02:09:52Z

172.70.206.93: /* Explanation */ ce

{{comic
| number = 2562
| date = December 31, 2021
| title = Formatting Meeting
| image = formatting_meeting.png
| titletext = Neither group uses iso 8601 because the big-endian enthusiasts were all at the meeting 20 years ago.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a LOCAL VERSION OF DR SEUSS, WHO IS NOT JONATHAN SWIFT - Needs wikification (but no overlinking) and consideration of whether there is a relation to New Year's Eve. Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

In the {{w|United States}}, it's common to write {{w|Calendar dates|dates}} numerically in the {{w|Calendar date#Date format|format}} ''{{w|Month|month}}/{{w|Day|day}}/{{w|Year|year}}'' -- 2/3/22 means February 3, 2022 (the century is often omitted when it's obvious that the date is around the current time). In Europe, the {{w|Calendar date#Gregorian, day–month–year (DMY)|usual order}} is ''day/month/year'' - so 2/3/22 is 2nd March, 2022.

"{{w|Internationalization and localization|Localization}}" is the technique used in software to make it accept input and display output in the formats most natural to users in their locations. For example, in the United States numbers use commas "," to separate thousands and a {{w|Decimal separator#Countries using decimal point|decimal point}} "." to separate the decimal values, while in large areas of the EU {{w|Decimal separator#Countries using decimal comma|it is the reverse}}. And the textual output will be translated to the local language. Naturally, this also includes displaying dates in the local format, as described above. Localization may also include the adoption of the tax law to the location, for instance when adopting tax software made for the US to the UK.

The hoke in this {{w|Comics|comic}} is that two dates are shown, on the same {{w|Display device|display}}, relating to meetings regarding localization. The date of the meeting of the US team is localized in the US format while the EU team's meeting is localized in the European format, and these two dates (about a month apart) happen to be formatted the same (there are 64 such pairings of dates, as long as the day of the month of one is between 1 and 12 and not equal to the presumed month of the other). [[Cueball]] needs to explain that the European meeting will be a month later than the US meeting to avoid any confusion due to the ambiguity. Which is {{w|Irony|ironic}}, since the aim of localization is to reduce such {{w|Confusion|confusion}}.

A further interpretation, which extends also into the title text, is that these groups may have been supposed to meet on the same day. But even the committee that was supposed to fix these problems messed this up. Cueball may be 'explaining' the staggered approach to cover up that the two groups are already reading the date(s) for the meeting quite differently.

{{w|ISO-8601}} (that is, standard number 8601 as promulgated by the {{w|International Organization for Standardization}} since 1988) specifies a date format of YYYY-MM-DD (e.g., 2021-12-31), which results in dates being listed in chronological order when sorted stringwise. The ISO format is called "{{w|big-endian}}", which refers to the fact that the most significant unit in the date (the year) comes first. The European format is instead "{{w|little-endian}}", as the front-end value represents the finest possible distinction the date can convey - the particular day. The American format is "{{w|middle-endian}}", or occasionally "mixed-endian", since the value given first is the one which is neither the one with greatest significance nor the most precise.

In the above, the 'value groups' are not usually internally checked for '{{w|Endianness|endianness}}', but regular numerals are also usually written with the largest place values on the left – for example, the first 2 in {{w|2021}} is the thousands place – though whether this convention is big-endian or little-endian depends on whether the writing system of such numbers is in the context of left-to-right or right-to-left text. The concept of endianness is most often used in reference to the storage order, whether of indivisible binary bits or of values built up of successive value groups. Pairs of hexadecimal values are individually usually represented in big-endian 'numeric' order, where bitwise distinctions are not necessary, but it is useful to know if a system stores a multibyte value in big-endan or little-endian packing, i.e., whether the value 0x01 0x02 (values 1 and 2, on their own) is treated as a value of 258 (0x01*256 + 0x02*1) or 513 (0x01*1 + 0x02*256). (The term was taken in inspiration from a [https://www.ling.upenn.edu/courses/Spring_2003/ling538/Lecnotes/ADfn1.htm Jonathan Swift story] about a war over which end of a boiled egg one should cut into, a useful metaphor for many other situations where diametrically opposed self-justifications for one ''or'' another practice may lead to standing by vague principles rather than agreeing upon a unifying resolution.) This standard was also mentioned in [[1179: ISO 8601]] and used in [[1340: Unique Date]].

The joke in the title text is that it appears some people attempted to interpret the improperly formatted date as if it were expressed in the more ISO-8601 style of format of "Y/M/D". They read the date as ''20''02, March 22, so they already went to their meeting almost 20 years ago. Unless the announcement of the meetings was made 2 decades in advance, there's a {{w|Paradox|paradox}} that these participants would have taken the date from an announcement in the far future. However, a strict interpretation of the date would make this incorrect: ISO-8601 format specifies four-digit years (which also avoids having to assume the century), two-digit months, and two-digit days. Therefore "2/3/22” ''can by specification not'' be an ISO-8601 date, as "2" can only be rendered as "0002", and "3" must be "03". Even if the leading {{w|0|zeroes}} were omitted in violation of ISO-8601, the year would become {{w|AD 2|Year 2}}, not Year 2002. Since the standard always uses a 4 digit 'YYYY' format in the first field, and no common formatting uses YYYY-DD-MM, any date written in ISO-8601 is easily recognized and (comparatively) {{w|Ambiguity|unambiguously}} interpretable as YYYY-MM-DD. Dates written as if Y-M-DD or other distortions should be considered formatted improperly, and unwisely.

==Transcript==
:[A screen is shown which displays five rows of text, the top three above a dividing line. To the right of the screen the upper part of Cueball is visible as he delivers a message concerning the text on the screen:]
:Localization working group
:Upcoming meetings
:-----------------
:US Team: 2/3/22
:EU Team: 2/3/22

:Cueball: And the European formatting and localization team will meet a month later...

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Calendar]]

2562: Formatting Meeting

2022-01-28T02:09:28Z

172.70.206.93: /* Explanation */ remove, way too many unnecessary wlinks

{{comic
| number = 2562
| date = December 31, 2021
| title = Formatting Meeting
| image = formatting_meeting.png
| titletext = Neither group uses iso 8601 because the big-endian enthusiasts were all at the meeting 20 years ago.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a LOCAL VERSION OF DR SEUSS, WHO IS NOT JONATHAN SWIFT - Needs wikification (but no overlinking) and consideration of whether there is a relation to New Year's Eve. Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

In the {{w|United States}}, it's common to write {{w|Calendar dates|dates}} numerically in the {{w|Calendar date#Date format|format}} ''{{w|Month|month}}/{{w|Day|day}}/{{w|Year|year}}'' -- 2/3/22 means {{w|February}} 3, {{w|2022}} (the century is often omitted when it's obvious that the date is around the current time). In Europe, the {{w|Calendar date#Gregorian, day–month–year (DMY)|usual order}} is ''day/month/year'' - so 2/3/22 is 2nd March, 2022.

"{{w|Internationalization and localization|Localization}}" is the technique used in software to make it accept input and display output in the formats most natural to users in their locations. For example, in the United States numbers use commas "," to separate thousands and a {{w|Decimal separator#Countries using decimal point|decimal point}} "." to separate the decimal values, while in large areas of the EU {{w|Decimal separator#Countries using decimal comma|it is the reverse}}. And the textual output will be translated to the local language. Naturally, this also includes displaying dates in the local format, as described above. Localization may also include the adoption of the tax law to the location, for instance when adopting tax software made for the US to the UK.

The hoke in this {{w|Comics|comic}} is that two dates are shown, on the same {{w|Display device|display}}, relating to meetings regarding localization. The date of the meeting of the US team is localized in the US format while the EU team's meeting is localized in the European format, and these two dates (about a month apart) happen to be formatted the same (there are 64 such pairings of dates, as long as the day of the month of one is between 1 and 12 and not equal to the presumed month of the other). [[Cueball]] needs to explain that the European meeting will be a month later than the US meeting to avoid any confusion due to the ambiguity. Which is {{w|Irony|ironic}}, since the aim of localization is to reduce such {{w|Confusion|confusion}}.

A further interpretation, which extends also into the title text, is that these groups may have been supposed to meet on the same day. But even the committee that was supposed to fix these problems messed this up. Cueball may be 'explaining' the staggered approach to cover up that the two groups are already reading the date(s) for the meeting quite differently.

{{w|ISO-8601}} (that is, standard number 8601 as promulgated by the {{w|International Organization for Standardization}} since 1988) specifies a date format of YYYY-MM-DD (e.g., 2021-12-31), which results in dates being listed in chronological order when sorted stringwise. The ISO format is called "{{w|big-endian}}", which refers to the fact that the most significant unit in the date (the year) comes first. The European format is instead "{{w|little-endian}}", as the front-end value represents the finest possible distinction the date can convey - the particular day. The American format is "{{w|middle-endian}}", or occasionally "mixed-endian", since the value given first is the one which is neither the one with greatest significance nor the most precise.

In the above, the 'value groups' are not usually internally checked for '{{w|Endianness|endianness}}', but regular numerals are also usually written with the largest place values on the left – for example, the first 2 in {{w|2021}} is the thousands place – though whether this convention is big-endian or little-endian depends on whether the writing system of such numbers is in the context of left-to-right or right-to-left text. The concept of endianness is most often used in reference to the storage order, whether of indivisible binary bits or of values built up of successive value groups. Pairs of hexadecimal values are individually usually represented in big-endian 'numeric' order, where bitwise distinctions are not necessary, but it is useful to know if a system stores a multibyte value in big-endan or little-endian packing, i.e., whether the value 0x01 0x02 (values 1 and 2, on their own) is treated as a value of 258 (0x01*256 + 0x02*1) or 513 (0x01*1 + 0x02*256). (The term was taken in inspiration from a [https://www.ling.upenn.edu/courses/Spring_2003/ling538/Lecnotes/ADfn1.htm Jonathan Swift story] about a war over which end of a boiled egg one should cut into, a useful metaphor for many other situations where diametrically opposed self-justifications for one ''or'' another practice may lead to standing by vague principles rather than agreeing upon a unifying resolution.) This standard was also mentioned in [[1179: ISO 8601]] and used in [[1340: Unique Date]].

The joke in the title text is that it appears some people attempted to interpret the improperly formatted date as if it were expressed in the more ISO-8601 style of format of "Y/M/D". They read the date as ''20''02, March 22, so they already went to their meeting almost 20 years ago. Unless the announcement of the meetings was made 2 decades in advance, there's a {{w|Paradox|paradox}} that these participants would have taken the date from an announcement in the far future. However, a strict interpretation of the date would make this incorrect: ISO-8601 format specifies four-digit years (which also avoids having to assume the century), two-digit months, and two-digit days. Therefore "2/3/22” ''can by specification not'' be an ISO-8601 date, as "2" can only be rendered as "0002", and "3" must be "03". Even if the leading {{w|0|zeroes}} were omitted in violation of ISO-8601, the year would become {{w|AD 2|Year 2}}, not Year 2002. Since the standard always uses a 4 digit 'YYYY' format in the first field, and no common formatting uses YYYY-DD-MM, any date written in ISO-8601 is easily recognized and (comparatively) {{w|Ambiguity|unambiguously}} interpretable as YYYY-MM-DD. Dates written as if Y-M-DD or other distortions should be considered formatted improperly, and unwisely.

==Transcript==
:[A screen is shown which displays five rows of text, the top three above a dividing line. To the right of the screen the upper part of Cueball is visible as he delivers a message concerning the text on the screen:]
:Localization working group
:Upcoming meetings
:-----------------
:US Team: 2/3/22
:EU Team: 2/3/22

:Cueball: And the European formatting and localization team will meet a month later...

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Calendar]]

2562: Formatting Meeting

2022-01-28T02:06:44Z

172.70.206.93: /* Explanation */ remove, unnecessary over analysis

{{comic
| number = 2562
| date = December 31, 2021
| title = Formatting Meeting
| image = formatting_meeting.png
| titletext = Neither group uses iso 8601 because the big-endian enthusiasts were all at the meeting 20 years ago.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a LOCAL VERSION OF DR SEUSS, WHO IS NOT JONATHAN SWIFT - Needs wikification (but no overlinking) and consideration of whether there is a relation to New Year's Eve. Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

In the {{w|United States}}, it's common to {{w|Writing|write}} {{w|Calendar dates|dates}} {{w|Numerical analysis|numerically}} in the {{w|Calendar date#Date format|format}} ''{{w|Month|month}}/{{w|Day|day}}/{{w|Year|year}}'' -- 2/3/22 means {{w|February}} 3, {{w|2022}} (the {{w|Century|century}} is often {{w|Purposeful omission|omitted}} when it's obvious that the date is around the {{w|Present|current time}}). In {{w|Europe}}, the {{w|Calendar date#Gregorian, day–month–year (DMY)|usual order}} is ''day/month/year'' - so 2/3/22 is 2nd {{w|March}}, 2022.

"{{w|Internationalization and localization|Localization}}" is the technique used in {{w|Software|software}} to make it accept {{w|Input (computer science)|input}} and display output in the formats most natural to {{w|User (computing)|users}} in their {{w|Location|locations}}. For example, in the United States {{w|Number|numbers}} use {{w|Comma|commas}} "," to separate {{w|1000 (number)|thousands}} and a {{w|Decimal separator#Countries using decimal point|decimal point}} "." to separate the decimal values, while in large areas of the EU {{w|Decimal separator#Countries using decimal comma|it is the reverse}}. And the textual output will be {{w|Translation|translated}} to the local {{w|Language|language}}. Naturally, this also includes displaying dates in the local format, as described above. Localization may also include the adoption of the {{w|Tax law|tax law}} to the location, for instance when adopting tax software made for the US to the {{w|United Kingdom|UK}}.

The {{w|Joke|joke}} in this {{w|Comics|comic}} is that two dates are shown, on the same {{w|Display device|display}}, relating to {{w|Meeting|meetings}} regarding localization. The date of the meeting of the US team is localized in the US format while the EU team's meeting is localized in the European format, and these two dates (about a month apart) happen to be formatted the same (there are 64 such pairings of dates, as long as the day of the month of one is between 1 and 12 and not equal to the presumed month of the other). [[Cueball]] needs to explain that the European meeting will be a month later than the US meeting to avoid any confusion due to the ambiguity. Which is {{w|Irony|ironic}}, since the aim of localization is to reduce such {{w|Confusion|confusion}}.

A further interpretation, which extends also into the title text, is that these groups may have been supposed to meet on the same day. But even the committee that was supposed to fix these problems messed this up. Cueball may be 'explaining' the staggered approach to cover up that the two groups are already reading the date(s) for the meeting quite differently.

{{w|ISO-8601}} (that is, standard number 8601 as promulgated by the {{w|International Organization for Standardization}} since 1988) specifies a date format of YYYY-MM-DD (e.g., 2021-12-31), which results in dates being listed in chronological order when sorted stringwise. The ISO format is called "{{w|big-endian}}", which refers to the fact that the most significant unit in the date (the year) comes first. The European format is instead "{{w|little-endian}}", as the front-end value represents the finest possible distinction the date can convey - the particular day. The American format is "{{w|middle-endian}}", or occasionally "mixed-endian", since the value given first is the one which is neither the one with greatest significance nor the most precise.

In the above, the 'value groups' are not usually internally checked for '{{w|Endianness|endianness}}', but regular numerals are also usually written with the largest place values on the left – for example, the first 2 in {{w|2021}} is the thousands place – though whether this convention is big-endian or little-endian depends on whether the writing system of such numbers is in the context of left-to-right or right-to-left text. The concept of endianness is most often used in reference to the storage order, whether of indivisible binary bits or of values built up of successive value groups. Pairs of hexadecimal values are individually usually represented in big-endian 'numeric' order, where bitwise distinctions are not necessary, but it is useful to know if a system stores a multibyte value in big-endan or little-endian packing, i.e., whether the value 0x01 0x02 (values 1 and 2, on their own) is treated as a value of 258 (0x01*256 + 0x02*1) or 513 (0x01*1 + 0x02*256). (The term was taken in inspiration from a [https://www.ling.upenn.edu/courses/Spring_2003/ling538/Lecnotes/ADfn1.htm Jonathan Swift story] about a war over which end of a boiled egg one should cut into, a useful metaphor for many other situations where diametrically opposed self-justifications for one ''or'' another practice may lead to standing by vague principles rather than agreeing upon a unifying resolution.) This standard was also mentioned in [[1179: ISO 8601]] and used in [[1340: Unique Date]].

The joke in the title text is that it appears some people attempted to interpret the improperly formatted date as if it were expressed in the more ISO-8601 style of format of "Y/M/D". They read the date as ''20''02, March 22, so they already went to their meeting almost 20 years ago. Unless the announcement of the meetings was made 2 decades in advance, there's a {{w|Paradox|paradox}} that these participants would have taken the date from an announcement in the far future. However, a strict interpretation of the date would make this incorrect: ISO-8601 format specifies four-digit years (which also avoids having to assume the century), two-digit months, and two-digit days. Therefore "2/3/22” ''can by specification not'' be an ISO-8601 date, as "2" can only be rendered as "0002", and "3" must be "03". Even if the leading {{w|0|zeroes}} were omitted in violation of ISO-8601, the year would become {{w|AD 2|Year 2}}, not Year 2002. Since the standard always uses a 4 digit 'YYYY' format in the first field, and no common formatting uses YYYY-DD-MM, any date written in ISO-8601 is easily recognized and (comparatively) {{w|Ambiguity|unambiguously}} interpretable as YYYY-MM-DD. Dates written as if Y-M-DD or other distortions should be considered formatted improperly, and unwisely.

==Transcript==
:[A screen is shown which displays five rows of text, the top three above a dividing line. To the right of the screen the upper part of Cueball is visible as he delivers a message concerning the text on the screen:]
:Localization working group
:Upcoming meetings
:-----------------
:US Team: 2/3/22
:EU Team: 2/3/22

:Cueball: And the European formatting and localization team will meet a month later...

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Calendar]]

2563: Throat and Nasal Passages

2022-01-28T02:06:24Z

172.70.206.93: /* Trivia */ ugh do we really need to speculate and comment on randall's "posting schedule"

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

==Explanation==
This comic is another in a [[:Category:COVID-19|series of comics]] related to the {{w|COVID-19 pandemic}}.

In the graph a black solid line displays how much he has been thinking about his throat and nose since 2000 and up until 2022. The first 20 years the graph oscillate up and down once every year, and every spike represents the {{w|common cold}} and {{w|flu}} season. Autumn and winter causes the spike, while spring and summer clearly drops. Perhaps this is indicating no tendency to suffer from {{w|hayfever}}, which might at least produce mini-spikes at the times of of maximum grass-pollen, tree-pollen and/or other similar atmospheric flotsam. There is basically a spike for every year, although some years it looks a bit different which could be variations induced by complex sociological or meteorological drivers - meeting more or fewer people inside stuffy buildings rather than in the open air. But all in all the peaks seem low, especially when compared to how much time he has thought about it since the COVID-19 pandemic broke out around March 2020. Each summer since there has been a dip, but not anywhere close to the tops of the previous years, and around New Year 2022 the graph peaks (likely due to the {{w|SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant|Omicron variant}}).

The peaks in 2020 and 2021 (2022) are about 6 times higher than those the year before 2020. So if the Y-axis begins at zero, this is how much more he thinks of his throat now than during the times when he actually had a cold.

There seems to be no way of knowing if Randall has had COVID-19, but from his comics it seems safe to assume he is fully vaccinated. At the time of release the Omicron variant of COVID-19 seems to by-pass the protections given by vaccines for about 50% of those vaccinated, although vaccinated people generally do not experience severe symptoms.

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

In the title text Randall references the trick known as "You are now aware of your tongue", which is a self-fulfilling prophecy because it will make anyone hearing it involuntarily think and be aware of their tongue. In a much earlier comic, [[972: November]], this trick was the topic, see more about it there.

Randall sarcastically remarks that the tongue trick needed an element of mortal peril to be truly enjoyable, as with the corona pandemic making him aware of his throat and nasal passages. His actual opinion is probably the opposite, that it was annoying before and that it only became worse now that it contains the danger of death. Being aware of your tongue is annoying, but not dangerous. Being aware of your throat during the COVID-19 pandemic may leave you fearing for your life, even if there is nothing wrong with your throat.

[[Randall]] has before the corona pandemic complained about a sore throat caused by the common cold, see [[1612: Colds]], more than once just a few weeks apart, see [[1618: Cold Medicine]]. See also [[1896: Active Ingredients Only]].

==Transcript==
:[A graph with two curves are shown. The Y-axis ends in an arrow, but has no units or ticks. The X-axis has no arrow but has 23 ticks with every fifth longer and every tenth labeled. The first tick extends the Y-axis below the X-axis. Both curves start over the second tick and end over the last tick. One curve is a dotted straight line running along the bottom of the graph just above the X-axis. The other start a bit higher and oscillate a bit up and down with 19 sharp peaks and 19 troughs, where some of the troughs have extra features, and not all are equidistant. After this a 20th small peak just starts to drop down again, before the curve goes in to a very steep rise almost all the way to the top of the graph. There is a small dip on the way before it reaches a maximum. Then a deep drop followed by a smaller rise before an even deeper drop. But then at the end, the graph rises almost vertically to the highest point where the graph stops over the last tick. At the top left of the graph the two lines are explained showing a solid and a dotted line with text to their right. Below this, above the solid curve midway between the first two labels on the X-axis, is a label from which 5 arrows points to 5 consecutive peaks.]
:- How much Time I have spent thinking about my throat and nasal passages, over time
:┅ How much I want to think about them
:Label:Cold/Flu Season
:X-axis: 2000 2010 2020

==Trivia==

*In the title text the word needed was originally spelled ''neeeded'' with three consecutive ''e''s.
**This error was eventually fixed, but that did not happen immediately.

{{comic discussion}}

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

2567: Language Development

2022-01-28T02:05:06Z

172.70.206.93: /* Explanation */ done

{{comic
| number = 2567
| date = January 12, 2022
| title = Language Development
| image = language_development.png
| titletext = The worst is the Terrible Twos, when they're always throwing things and shrieking, "forsooth, to bed thou shalt not take me, cur!"
}}
*This was the second comic to come out after the [[Countdown in header text]] started.

==Explanation==
[[Megan]] and [[Cueball]] are having what could appear to be a typical conversation about her child's ability to learn languages really fast. But the comic mixes up the concept of learning a language and the development of languages over time. The joke comes from the a conflation of two different things.

The conventional meaning of {{w|Language development}} is the process by which infants begin to talk, that is to understand and produce intelligible speech. The field of {{w|Language acquisition}} (sometimes called language development) seeks to understand how baby humans are able to rapidly comprehend, internalize, and begin producing a new language so rapidly.

Instead of starting with {{w|babbling}}, the first stage of normal language development, this baby's form of "language development" seems to be the linguistic form: going through all of the theoretical stages of the evolution of the English language, from Proto-Indo-European to Germanic to Old English.

In {{w|Comparative linguistics}} and {{w|Historical linguistics}}, {{w|Proto-Indo-European_language|Proto-Indo-European}} is a theorized common ancestor of the Indo-European language family. {{w|Proto-Germanic_language|Proto-Germanic}} is a reconstructed language formerly spoken in Iron Age Scandinavia. It developed out of Proto-Indo-European and is the proposed common ancestor for all {{w|Germanic languages}}. {{w|Old English}} would have developed out of Proto-Germanic. Modern English developed out of Old English with many additions from French (which comes from a different branch of the Indo-European language family). This parody of language development parallels the discredited {{w|theory of recapitulation}} in embryo development, sometimes expressed as "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny", in which a developing animal embryo (ontogeny) was once thought to go through stages resembling successive adult stages in the evolution of the animal's remote ancestors (phylogeny).

In linguistics, reconstructed words from proto-languages are commonly marked with an asterisk (*) to show that the word forms are not attested by any historical sources but created as a proposed ancestor word. The baby says the Proto-Indo-European roots that the words "milk" and "please" are derived from. Obviously, the speakers of Proto-Indo-European did not speak in roots, but used words made from the roots, so the way the baby talks does not reflect any stage of development of the proto-language.

Some sounds babies make are hard to interpret.{{citation needed}} However, humans have a tendency to recognize known things and patterns. They see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear. Thus, a parent familiar with Proto-Indo-European may falsely hear their baby speak Proto-Indo-European by misinterpreting unintelligible sounds.

Perhaps this is an alternate universe where every baby has to gradually develop their language skills along a historical path rather than a child-developmental one, until they reach the ultimately developed modern language of their parents (in this case Modern English).

There have been alleged {{w|language deprivation experiments}} where newborn infants were not exposed to any spoken language in order to find the "natural human language", in the days before ethics review boards would have forbidden such cruel treatments. Such experiments are known today to be a source for psychological problems at least. Alleged outcomes in the apocryphal sources range from the deprived children imitating other sounds in their environment, to them dying.

In the title text, Randall describes a 2-year-old child as speaking in {{w|iambic pentameter}} and in Elizabethan English, a meter and dialect of modern English used by {{w|Shakespeare}} more than 400 years ago. The [https://www.verywellfamily.com/terrible-twos-and-your-toddler-2634394 Terrible Twos] are a colloquialism referring to the developmental tendency of two-year-olds to have more temperamental behavior, as the child's developing assertion of autonomy and self-identity clash with other expectations of behaviour, before hopefully acceptably balancing their assertiveness with social normatism. The toddler's quote of "forsooth, to bed thou shalt not take me, cur!" would roughly be equivalent to "Indeed, you shall not take me to bed, you dog!" in less archaic English.

==Transcript==
:[Megan and Cueball are looking to the left at a baby with dark hair. The baby sits on the left side of a table in an elevated baby chair.]
:Megan: He's only 1, so he still mostly speaks proto-Indo-European.
:Megan: But we've heard a few Germanic words already, so Old English can't be far off.
:Baby: *Melg-
:Baby: *Pl(e)hk-
:Cueball: They progress so fast!

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Language]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring babies]]

2546: Fiction vs Nonfiction

2022-01-24T09:45:44Z

172.70.206.93: /* Explanation */ done

{{comic
| number = 2546
| date = November 24, 2021
| title = Fiction vs Nonfiction
| image = fiction_vs_nonfiction.png
| titletext = The real challenge is how to file Boba Fett's biography of Doris Kearns Goodwin.
}}

==Explanation==

[[Cueball]] is asking [[Ponytail]] and [[White Hat]] to classify different ''{{w|Star Wars}}'' books and movies as fiction or nonfiction. (Perhaps he is working at a library or bookstore, or sorting a personal collection.) ''Star Wars'' as a whole is a multimedia franchise, which includes films, TV series, novels, etc, but often singularly refers to {{w|Star Wars (film)|the original 1977 film}} later more lengthily titled ''Star Wars: Episode IV – A New Hope'' (or, given the fact that the rest of the titles are books, one of several novelizations based on the script). The classifications get more complicated to determine as the conversation progresses while revealing a quite specific obsession with the character of {{w|Boba Fett}}. The complexity may even end up converting {{w|Lumpers and splitters|lumpers into splitters}}, a philosophical distinction that another [[2518: Lumpers and Splitters|recent comic]] touched upon.

Nonfiction (also spelled non-fiction) is any document or media content that intends, in good faith, to present only truth and accuracy regarding information, events, or people. In contrast, fiction offers information, events, or characters expected to be partly or largely imaginary, or else leaves open if and how the work refers to reality.

In the end, White Hat suggests that, since Cueball has so many works featuring Boba Fett, it would be more useful to group them together in a new category rather than sorting them into the fiction and nonfiction sections.

===Table===
{| class="wikitable"
!Media name
!Explanation
|-
| ''{{w|Star Wars (film)|Star Wars}}''
| ''Star Wars'' is a science-''fiction'' movie released in 1977 (re-released in 1981 as ''Star Wars: Episode IV – A New Hope'')
|-
| ''{{w|The Making of Star Wars}}''
| This was a television special about how ''Star Wars'' was made, which would make it nonfiction.
|-
| ''Star Wars: The Adventures of Boba Fett''
| This would be one of the ''Star Wars'' franchise's continuity of stories, making it fictional. Not a currently extant release, but something like this {{w|List_of_Star_Wars_films#Unproduced_films|has been long anticipated}}, and now possibly inspired by the imminent release (as of the comic's time of posting) of ''{{w|The Book of Boba Fett}}''.
|-
| ''Star Wars: The Official Guide to Boba Fett's Armor and Weapons''
| While the content of this guidebook is entirely fictional, the book is factual. Boba Fett (a fictional character){{citation needed}} does in fact [https://scifi.stackexchange.com/a/253196 have durasteel]/[https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Boba_Fett%27s_armor Beskar] armor (a fictional material), so the book is technically non-fiction.
|-
| ''Boba Fett's Gadgets and How He Got Them''
| This could either be a non-fictional book or docuseries similar to the previous entry, or instead an in-universe adventure series or film. The rhythm of the words is similar to the in-universe guidebook ''{{w|Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them}}'' from the {{w|Harry Potter}} universe - this is a non-fiction book used educationally for young wizards within the fictitious world and also a fiction book within the real world. This book was turned into a 2016 {{w|Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (film)|feature film}}, starring Eddie Redmayne.
|-
| ''Boba Fett: A Life'' by Doris Kearns Goodwin
| {{w|Doris Kearns Goodwin}} is a historian and biographer who has written biographies of many influential people. Since Goodwin is a non-fiction writer, one would have to read this ([https://doriskearnsgoodwin.com/books/ non-existent]) book to determine whether the biography is a fictional account of the character, or a factual account of the fictional history of the character. If the book doesn't establish any new canon, and is instead citing only recorded (fictional) facts from the Star Wars Universe and, perhaps, the real-world influences on and by the character, it could legitimately be considered non-fiction. Doris Kearns Goodwin is also mentioned in [[2160: Ken Burns Theory]].
|-
| (title text) Boba Fett's biography of Doris Kearns Goodwin
| It is unclear how, or why, a fictional character would write a biography on a real life person, but there's always the possibility that there was already a fictional Doris, in-universe to Boba, whose own life and exploits would be natural for an actually fictional factual output.
|}

==Transcript==
:[Cueball is talking to Ponytail and White Hat.]
:Cueball: ''Star Wars''?
:Ponytail: Fiction.

:[Same setting.]
:Cueball: ''The Making of Star Wars''?
:White Hat: Nonfiction.

:[Closeup of Cueball.]
:Cueball: ''Star Wars: The Adventures of Boba Fett''?
:Off-panel voice: Fiction.

:[Closeup of Ponytail.]
:Cueball (off-panel): ''Star Wars: The Official Guide to Boba Fett's Armor and Weapons''?
:Ponytail: Nonfiction, technically.

:[Cueball has lifted a hand palm up as he talks to Ponytail and White Hat.]
:Cueball: ''Boba Fett's Gadgets and How He Got Them''?
:Ponytail: ...Fiction?
:Ponytail: It depends.

:[Cueball is talking to Ponytail and White Hat. Ponytail has turned towards White Hat and has taken a hand to her chin.]
:Cueball: ''Boba Fett: A Life'', by historian Doris Kearns Goodwin?
:Ponytail: Hm.
:White Hat: Maybe we should just have a Boba Fett section.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Star Wars]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]
[[Category:Comics featuring real people]]

Countdown in header text

2022-01-20T23:05:52Z

172.70.206.93: /* The picture */

{{comic
| date = January 10, 2022
| title = Countdown in header text
| image = Countdown_in_header_text.png
| before = The countdown will probably last 21 days. After February 1st 2022 it is likely to have disappeared. See this [https://web.archive.org/web/20220110183238/https://xkcd.com/ 2022-01-10] archive version.
| ldomain = www
| lappend =
| extra = yes
}}
*Go directly to the list of [[Countdown in header text/images|images]].
**The images can also be found [https://munvoseli.github.io/xkcd-countdown/ here] on munvoseli's page where comparison of two images and an animation can be seen.
{{TOC}}
==Explanation==
*On January 10th 2022, [[Randall]] added a countdown in the top right corner of the [[xkcd Header text]] on {{xkcd}}.
**This happened while the comic [[2565: Latency]] was up.
***First the xkcd Header text was [[xkcd_Header_text#2022-01-08_-_Back_to_standard_text|changed back]] to the [[xkcd_Header_text#Header_text|standard text]] for the first time in almost three years:
****xkcd updates every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday.
***But already while this Friday-comic was still up on the following Monday the [[xkcd_Header_text#2022-01-10_-_Standard_text_with_countdown|countdown]] was added.
****This was thus up when the Monday comic [[2566: Decorative Constants]] was released, drawing more people to the xkcd page.
*The first [[#Archived Versions|archived version]] from [https://web.archive.org/web/20220110183238/https://xkcd.com/ 2022-01-10] read 20d 20h 27m.
**It looks like it started on [https://munvoseli.github.io/xkcd-countdown/ 01-10 17:00 UTC].
***At that time it would have read 20d 21h 59 min. Just two hours and 1 minute short of 3 weeks.
*This countdown will reach zero on Monday 2022-01-31 at 14:59 (2:59 PM) {{w|UTC}}, or 9:59 AM in Boston, Randall's home town.
**If seconds will be added towards the end, it seems likely that it may end exactly at 15:00 UTC (10:00 AM in Boston).
***However, if it's using EST, introduced in comic [[1061: EST]], it would count backward for four hours before reaching zero, and end only at 2022-01-31 23:59 UTC
****This is extremely farfetched though!
****Though either way, it would fall on Monday 2022-01-31, and therefore the day comic 2575 should be released.
*The next day on [https://web.archive.org/web/20220111153818/https://xkcd.com/ 2022-01-11] a diagonal black bar appeared in the lower left-hand corner of the countdown box and started to move further into the image on following changes to the [[#Images|image]].
**This development called for the creation of this dedicated [[Countdown in header text]] page.
**The line had already moved further into the image at this time, but the latest version will never be available in the web archive.
***This development is reminiscent of the huge comic [[1190: Time]].
*As mentioned above, [https://munvoseli.github.io/ Munvoseli] is keeping [https://munvoseli.github.io/xkcd-countdown/ track of the changes] to the image on the countdown.
**Although there are (at 2022-01-12 12:35 UTC) thirteen different frames we know of, the first three looks the same (because the diagonal bar was not in the frame yet) and the seventh and the eighth also seems to be the same, even though the bar had already begun moving across the frame from the fourth. This is either on purpose, a slipup or means that The FrameTM might not be zooming out of a larger image.
***However, the images that look the same all have individual addresses on the xkcd server. See more under [[#Images|Images]] below.

Randall has previously made a comic simply called [[1159: Countdown]]. However, in that the roles are reversed. There we know that the countdown is for (Super Volcano) but not if it will happen soon or very much later. Here we know when, and it is rather soon, but not what.

==Images==
*Images will be put on [[Countdown in header text/images|this separate page]].
**The images can also be found [https://munvoseli.github.io/xkcd-countdown/ here] on munvoseli's page.
***It is possible to compare two images, chosen between those released, on that page!
***From 2022-01-14 it has also been possible to see an animation.
**See more details at the top of the image page.
*After a few days the black lines forming the image came into conflict with the clock, which has a rounded white frame around it. This can be seen in one of the earliest examples here:
[[File:Countdown in header text Clock Cover Black Lines.png]]
*Also at this time a new development happened after the "plane tail" moved forward it stopped on 2022-01-18 and started moving up (or zooming in). See for instance these two comparison from munvoseli's page showing the difference from the 8 pictures before today, and then after three out today:
[[File:Countdown in header text Compare 40 to 48.png]] [[File:Countdown in header text Compare 48 to 51.png]]

==Theories==
*Here different theories for what the countdown is for and what the picture is going to reveal can be added.

===The picture===
* Ongoing description:
** Frames 1-12: A diagonal line.
** Frame 13: A curve seems to begin at the top left of the line.
** Frame 18: The curve connects the diagonal line with a horizontal line.
** Frame 27-28: A new line appears in the bottom left corner.
** Frame 40-42: The new line turns out to be connected to the horizontal line, forming a corner which is not attached to any other line.
** Frame 49: The "camera movement" direction changes, while the object is still moving upward it stopped moving towards the left side, moving towards the right instead.
** Frame 54: A slight upward curve seems to appear in the right line, the left line seems to have a small bend downwards, though that could at that point just be a straight line that randall drew without a ruler.
** Frame 60-62: A new line appears in the bottom right corner, it turns out to be a continuation of the first original line which curves upward and has a positive slope at that point of the picture, between about 2 o'clock and 3 o'clock. The downward bend of the left line continues on straight in the same direction, it was probably an intentional bend and not an irregularity in drawing a straight line by hand.
** Frame 63: In the minimum of the right curved line a new line starts appearing, way thinner than the others (which were up to this point all rather part of one line) and going slightly downwards and very much to the left, at an angle somewhere between 8 o'clock and 9 o'clock.

*Theories about the picture:
**It seems after two days and 12 pictures like either something is moving into the frame or that it is a zoom out from a white area of a large picture. Maybe it is the arm of Cueball that will come into view.
***That turned out not to be the case!
**The second line makes it look somewhat like the tail fin of an aircraft.
***Or the wing of an aircraft (left if looking down at it). Perhaps the plane is towing a banner that will fly through the frame.
****After almost a week this looks like the most promising suggestion so far.
*****Now that the direction of the camera movement has changed, we might get to see the rest of the aircraft soon.
******From picture 63, it more and more seems like it was the tail fin of a plane and now we can see the body.
*******It's almost certainly the tail (and now a bit of the rear fuselage) of an aircraft.
****Tail of a space shuttle, perhaps?
*****While I think Randall would've also drawn in the signature black part of the rudder, the shape fits perfectly
*****Timing is close (though not exact) to the Columbia disaster anniversary (2003-02-01 1359 UTC)
****I'm thinking the tail of a Zeppelin.
*****Although those normally have longer tail fins.
**Maybe it is some kind of vehicle rolling into frame, like a car?
***No
**Or the word xkcd? (or xkcd 2?)
***No
**Could have been "Hangman", but it looks like it's zooming in on the diagonal instead of continuing to make a gibbet.
***No
**With the new second line appearing in the corner as of frame 28 it looks like it's definitely zooming out of an image. It looks like it could be someone's arm in a running position.
***No
**I think it could also be two legs of a reclining stick person.
***No
**The lines suggest a shark fin and the movement would suggest it swimming across the frame.
***If it was a shark fin, then the most likely candidates would be the first dorsal fin and the pectoral fin, but both end in points rather than edges like in the pictures of the header puzzle. An aircraft tail fin still seems most likely.
**Maybe it's a two-dimensional shape viewed from a weird angle?
***Like a rectangle viewed from a floating, tilted perspective
****No
***Or the top of the k in xkcd
****No
***Or a boat dock?
****No
**How about the new series of [[Picard|https://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2021/09/09/star-trek-picard-season-2-release-date-plot-cast/|Picard]]? --Garbled

===Countdown===
*Theories about the countdown:
*Several have already been mentioned in the discussion:
**Randall's next book, either the countdown is counting down to the start of promotion or it is released when the countdown ends.
***Usually Randall has made month long [[:Category:Book promotion|book promotions]] before release. So if it is the release day it is a new way to do it. But he will get a lot of attention. If it is just the start of promoting it, people might get disappointed…
****For instance he began promoting his [[xkcd_Header_text#2015-05-14_-_New_book_Thing_Explainer|new book Thing Explainer]] in the header text. That was in May 2015 and the book was first released [https://blog.xkcd.com/2015/05/13/new-book-thing-explainer/ late November 2015]. Most of this time the header text was promoting the book.
**{{w|James Webb Space Telescope}} (JWST) going into orbit about L2 {{w|Lagrange point}}.
***Randall has already made several comics about the telescope. The latest [[2564: Sunshield]] was released just five days prior to the countdown was started.
***But the telescope will not reach the point but rather go into a large orbit around it, so a precise timer counting down to it seems a bit farfetched.
***On NASA's page on JWST it seems like it will [https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/content/webbLaunch/deploymentExplorer.html#25 go into orbit] 29.5 days after its [[December 25th Launch]], on Christmas Day, so it should have already started the orbit by the 23rd or 24th of January - 8 days before the countdown.
**{{w|Lunar New Year}}
***In China it starts on February 1st and a [https://yourcountdown.to/chinese-new-year countdown for China] is 8 hours behind.
****The South Korean time zone is UTC+9, hence 14:59 UTC = 23:59 in South Korea, one minute to Feb 1.
*****But it's weird if Randall that has basically never mentioned this holiday suddenly makes a three week countdown for it, and why choose South Korea when most would think of China in this context…?
**Randall will stop making xkcd (Goodbye in the image).
***Hopefully not.
****Agreed, {{tvtropes|PoisonOakEpilepticTrees|to be avoided}}
**[https://nationaldaycalendar.com/backward-day-january-31/ National Backward Day]
***This is not a day mentioned on Wikipedia at the time of release of the countdown, so seems unlikely.
**Maybe it will be an announcement of xkcd 2, a new and improved version for… some reason?
***Seems unlikely…
**{{w|Black History Month}}. The {{w|Greensboro sit-ins}} started on Feb 1 1960. Black History Month also begins on February 1st, also in 2022.
***But this countdown stops early on January 31st so seems unlikely.
***However, before changing the Header recently it was about [[xkcd_Header_text#2020-06-03_-_Black_Lives_Matter|Black Lives Matter]] for more than 1.5 years, first ending on December 20th 2021, less than a month before the countdown began. In between that there was a short Christmas sale reminder until a week into 2022. So it could just be another way of reminding of us the issues faced by black people in the US.
****If this was true, I feel like it would be simpler to just change back to the Black Lives Matter text at the top of the screen. Also, it seems increasingly likely as of Jan. 20th that the image is some kind of plane, which doesn't really have much to do with Black History Month (that I know of?)
**The accompanying header says specifically "xkcd updates Monday, Wednesday, and Friday"--maybe the countdown is to the reveal of a new update schedule?
***Very unlikely. This was the standard header for a long time. It was used when Randall had nothing better to say. But with all his books and the trouble in US with elections and BLM, he has used the header as a platform most of the time many years now. So the standard text is rare. But he did return it for two days before adding the count down, making it seem just like normal.
***A guess is that it returned to this, so the header text did not take any focus away from the countdown.
**[[:Category:Red Spiders|Red spider]] attack?
***Un-Likely
**He will become a father - could be a planned C-section.
***As this is unpredictable, and could go wrong, then this would be a dangerous countdown, people can be very superstitious, even if scientist.
**As it currently looks (after a [[1070: Words for Small Sets|few days]] into the countdown) it may be a trip he is taking by plane.
***Maybe going somewhere people could meet him.
****Book tour?
***Moving a long way from home (down under or the like).
****Maybe he's moving to Japan? Could be a plane, and the time zone would fit, at least.
*****Then the countdown would be until when the plane lands, not to midnight.
****What has time zones to do with this clock? It counts down to the same time all over the world, and will reach zero at the same time no matter what time zone you are in.
*****Time zones have to do with where it will be midnight when the countdown reaches zero. If it's a countdown to when January ends (a moment before February begins), then it's until that moment in the time zone where the countdown reaches zero at that time.
**Perhaps it's a start to a new series like [[1190: Time]].
***It is already a series that works like Time, so seems unlikely.

==Archived Versions==
*Here is a list of the versions that has been saved to the web archive during the countdown.
**The counter in that version is written behind the date of the web archive.
**Note that the counter is active on the archived version counting minutes down from the start. Some of the versions almost changing the minutes just after loading. But it will always count from the time given here:
#[https://web.archive.org/web/20220110183238/https://xkcd.com/ 2022-01-10] 20d 20h 27m
#[https://web.archive.org/web/20220110214138/https://xkcd.com/ 2022-01-10] 20d 17h 18m
#[https://web.archive.org/web/20220111011115/https://xkcd.com/ 2022-01-11] 20d 13h 48m
#[https://web.archive.org/web/20220112005828/https://xkcd.com/ 2022-01-12] 19d 14h 1m
#[https://web.archive.org/web/20220113044552/https://xkcd.com/ 2022-01-13] 18d 10h 14m
#[https://web.archive.org/web/20220114010759/https://xkcd.com/ 2022-01-14] 17d 13h 51m
#[https://web.archive.org/web/20220114195624/https://xkcd.com/ 2022-01-14] 16d 19h 3m
#[https://web.archive.org/web/20220115052737/https://xkcd.com/ 2022-01-15] 16d 9h 32m
#[https://web.archive.org/web/20220116074923/https://xkcd.com/ 2022-01-16] 15d 7h 10m
#[https://web.archive.org/web/20220116225217/https://xkcd.com/ 2022-01-16] 14d 16h 7m
#[https://web.archive.org/web/20220118050255/https://xkcd.com/ 2022-01-18] 13d 9h 57m
#[https://web.archive.org/web/20220119213308/https://xkcd.com/ 2022-01-19] 11d 17h 26m

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Meta]]

2523: Endangered

2022-01-14T22:57:47Z

172.70.206.93: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2523
| date = October 1, 2021
| title = Endangered
| image = endangered.png
| titletext = The list includes polio, Guinea worm, and this one particular enterovirus strain that they've been tracking out of spite after it went around the lab a few years ago.
}}

The {{w|endangered species}} list (also known as the {{w|IUCN Red List}}) is a system for categorizing species based on "level of extinction". This list is primarily focused on macroscopic organisms such as animals and plants, as it is these organisms whose extinction is easiest to quantify, and on which most conservation efforts focus. Generally, it is a serious concern when a species is listed on the endangered species list, as this indicates its extinction could be at hand. [[Ponytail]], [[Cueball]], and [[Megan]] in this comic are scientists who maintain an endangered species list of microscopic pathogens. People generally want harmful pathogens and parasites to go extinct,{{citation needed}} unlike harmless plants and animals, so each species added to the pathogen endangered species list is a cause for celebration rather than concern, and the characters in the comic indulge in this celebration by sarcastically pretending to be upset about the potential for pathogen extinction, while in reality being excited about the possibility.

The title text mentions some of the species on the list, including{ {w|polio}} and {{w|Dracunculiasis|Guinea worm disease}} - diseases that have historically sickened and killed many people but are currently being {{w|Eradication of infectious diseases|eradicated due to worldwide efforts}} - the former, famously, through vaccination, and the latter through education and prevention techniques. As their eradication proceeds, they become more and more endangered of extinction, and thus earn their place on the list. The title also mentions a much less important pathogen, namely a certain strain of an {{w|enterovirus}}, also known as a stomach flu, which unlike polio and guinea worm is likely only to cause temporary discomfort, not death or long-term disability, in infected people. However, the strain in question infected every member of the lab maintaining the list, and as a result of their personal negative experience with it, and the spiteful feelings that resulted from that experience, the characters will celebrate its extinction as much as that of polio, and have accordingly added it to the list.

This comic was most likely inspired by [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41579-021-00642-4 this article] about different {{w|influenza}} strains. Influenza causes the yearly flu, which infects 5–15% of the global population annually and causes 3-5 million severe cases worldwide.

The bitter irony here is that much recent scholarship has described [https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/parasites-are-going-extinct-heres-why-thats-a-bad-thing-180964808/ links between parasite biodiversity and ecosystem-wide, indeed planet-wide, biodiversity]. In a few cases, if preserving and expanding biodiversity are seen as good things, then preserving and expanding biodiversity of parasites is a good thing, the one not being possible without the other. Parasites and disease agents, arguably, are classes of predators, and their removal can help establish a superpredator, the actions of which can catastrophically drive down biodiversity. Humans, released from predation by a large percentage of formerly-effective microbial predators, through the introduction of penicillin and other antibiotics plus other elements of 'heroic medicine', sanitation, etc., have arguably [https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/modern-humans-have-become-superpredators-180956348/ become such a superpredator], and one that is mediating a loss of global biodiversity that may become the largest single species-extinction event in the history of planet Earth.

There also seems to be some evidence that infections with influenza viruses increase the chance of a heart attack. For instance regular flu shots [https://www.heart.org/en/news/2020/11/18/flu-shot-reduces-risk-of-death-for-people-with-heart-disease reduce the risk of heart attacks]. Thus the fact that we are "heartbroken" when B/Yamagata goes extinct could be sarcastic since we might suffer less from broken hearts.

==Transcript==

:[Ponytail stands facing Cueball and Megan in front of a poster board.]
:[Ponytail is pointing a stick to the board reading "Current List" with bullet points beneath.]
:[The first bullet reads Influenza B/Yamagata.]
:[Four further bullet points follow, which are left indistinct.]

:Ponytail: Influenza's genetic diversity has declined during the pandemic, and the B/Yamagata lineage is at risk of extinction.
:Ponytail: Which would be ''such'' a shame.
:Megan: Yeah, I'm sooooooo worried about it.
:Cueball: We'd be just ''heartbroken!''

:[Caption below the panel]:
:When a pathogen that scientists really don't like is close to disappearing, it gets added to the sarcastic endangered species list.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Sarcasm]]

2566: Decorative Constants

2022-01-12T06:41:27Z

172.70.206.93: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2566
| date = January 10, 2022
| title = Decorative Constants
| image = decorative_constants.png
| titletext = Arguably, the '1/2' in the drag equation is purely decorative, since drag coefficients are already unitless and could just as easily be half as big. Some derivations give more justification for the extra 1/2 than others, but one textbook just calls it 'a traditional tribute to Euler and Bernoulli.'
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a DECORATIVE BOT - What is the formula 4-15 representing when removing the two decorative constants? - Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
This is another one of [[Randall|Randall's]] [[:Category:Tips|Tips]], this time a Math Tip.

Randall gives an example of a complex looking equation labeled 4-15:
:T = 𝔻m0(rout − rin)μ̅
But since 𝔻 and μ̅ are "decorative", the equation can be reduced to
:T = m0(rout − rin)
Here T is the net rate, m0 the unit mass and (rout − rin) the flow balance.

The decorative symbols can be interpreted as constants 𝔻 = μ̅ = 1, in which case the implied operations of multiplication and exponentiation make sense. The 𝔻 is double-struck ("blackboard bold", thus in the comic only the vertical line is double). Mathematicians, who are always searching for more symbols{{citation needed}}, have taken to distinguishing things represented by the same letter by using different fonts, such as 𝑑, 𝐝, 𝒅, 𝐷, 𝐃, 𝑫, 𝒹, 𝒟, 𝖉, 𝕯, ∂, 𝕕, and 𝔻. The double-struck font is easier to write on a blackboard than a proper bold letter and often represents a set, such as ℝ for the set of real numbers or ℂ for the set of complex numbers. 𝔻 can represent the unit disk in the complex plane, the set of decimal fractions, or the set of split-complex numbers.

μ is the Greek lowercase mu and has many uses in mathematics and science. Here it has a bar, which could indicate a number of things, including the complex conjugate. Intriguingly, μ is the symbol in statistics for the population mean, and the overbar represents the sample mean, so this could represent a random variable which is the average of a sample of means μi of different populations in some larger ensemble of populations.

Using a special version both of D and μ to even further spice up the formula all leads up to the math tip:
:If one of your equations ever looks too simple, try adding some purely decorative constants.

Other examples of well known equations that are profound but look simple include
:''E'' = ''mc''2 ({{w|Special Relativity}}),
:''PV'' = ''nRT'' (the {{w|Ideal Gas Law}}),
:''F'' = ''ma'' ({{w|Newton's Second Law}}),
:''V'' = ''IR'' ({{w|Ohm's Law}}), and
:''Gμν'' + Λ ''gμν'' = ''κTμν'' ({{w|Einstein field equations}}).

Of these, only the Einstein field equations have been spiced up with decorative indices (which actually hide a system of ten nonlinear partial differential equations).

In the title text Randall mentions the {{w|Drag equation}}, which is attributed to {{w|Lord Rayleigh}}, and not those mentioned in the title text!

In {{w|fluid dynamics}}, the drag equation is a formula used to calculate the force of drag experienced by an object due to movement through a fully enclosing fluid. The equation is ''F''d = ½''ρu''2''c''d''A''. Here ''F''d is the drag force, ρ the mass density of the fluid, u the relative flow velocity, ''c''d the drag coefficient and A is the area.

Randall jokes that the factor of ½ in the equation is meaningless and purely decorative, since the drag coefficients, ''c''d, are already unitless and could just as easily be half as big thus leaving out the ½ in front of the equation. The ½ is thus just an example of a "decorative constant." The usual reason for including the factor of ½ is that it is part of the formula for kinetic energy that appears in the derivation of the drag equation. However, modern treatments are so condensed that this factor of ½ is often smuggled in with no explanation. Since we can choose the constants to be whatever we want, there is ultimately no reason not to absorb the ½ into the drag coefficient ''c''d, but that does not mean it is totally unmotivated. Still, Randall quotes Frank White's ''[https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwi-_77Foqn1AhV3QvEDHSMfAYkQFnoECAQQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.co.uk%2FFluid-Mechanics-Frank-White%2Fdp%2F007119911X&usg=AOvVaw0kLp3oaqh9HaFMV2jLL973 Fluid Mechanics''] textbook, [https://books.google.com/books?id=wGweAQAAIAAJ&q=traditional%20tribute&redir_esc=y which two times] calls it "a traditional tribute to Euler and Bernoulli." According to White, the factor of ½ rather comes from the calculation of the projected area of the object being dragged. Randall has brought up this point before, in his book, "How To"

The line from White probably refers to renowned mathematicians {{w|Leonhard Euler}} and {{w|Daniel Bernoulli}}. Euler who is held to be one of the greatest mathematicians in history worked directly with Daniel and was a friend of the {{w|Bernoulli family}}, that produced eight mathematically gifted academics.

Daniel Bernoulli is known for modifying the definition of ''vis viva'' (what we now call kinetic energy) from ''mv''2 to ½''mv''2, as motivated by the derivation from the impulse equation. In 1741, he wrote
:[Define ''vis viva''] esse ½ ''mvv'' = ∫''pdx''.
That is, "define ''vis viva'' to be ½ ''mv''2 = ∫''p''d''x''," where ''p'' is the force (from ''pressione'') and d''x'' is the differential of position (infinitesimal displacement). Today, this equation says that the kinetic energy imparted to an object at rest equals the work done on it.

In the drag equation ½ ρu2 represents the dynamic pressure due to the kinetic energy of the fluid, and hence the 1/2 makes sense to keep in the equation, and could thus easily be argued not to represent a decorative constant.

The title text is pretty much word-for-word a repeat from Randall's book ''[[How To]]''. In Chapter 11: ''How to Play Football'', he misuses the drag equation, and mentions this fact in more depth, in a footnote.

==Transcript==
:[A small panel only with text. Written as an excerpt from a mathematical text book. Begins with a number for an equation, then follows the equation written in larger letters and symbols. And below are explanations of each term in the equation. The μ has a bar over the top and the D has a double vertical line.]
:Eq. 4-15
:<big>T = Dm0(rout - rin)μ</big>
:T: Net rate
:m0: Unit mass
:(rout-rin): Flow balance 
:D, μ: Decorative

:[Caption below the panel:]
:Math tip: If one of your equations ever looks too simple, try adding some purely decorative constants.

==Trivia==
*This was the first comic that came out after the [[2565:_Latency#Countdown|Countdown]] started. See more on the link.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Tips]]
[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Comics featuring real people]]

2566: Decorative Constants

2022-01-12T06:40:53Z

172.70.206.93: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2566
| date = January 10, 2022
| title = Decorative Constants
| image = decorative_constants.png
| titletext = Arguably, the '1/2' in the drag equation is purely decorative, since drag coefficients are already unitless and could just as easily be half as big. Some derivations give more justification for the extra 1/2 than others, but one textbook just calls it 'a traditional tribute to Euler and Bernoulli.'
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a DECORATIVE BOT - What is the formula 4-15 representing when removing the two decorative constants? - Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
This is another one of [[Randall|Randall's]] [[:Category:Tips|Tips]], this time a Math Tip.

Randall gives an example of a complex looking equation labeled 4-15:
:T = 𝔻m0(rout − rin)μ̅
But since 𝔻 and μ̅ are "decorative", the equation can be reduced to
:T = m0(rout − rin)
Here T is the net rate, m0 the unit mass and (rout − rin) the flow balance.

The decorative symbols can be interpreted as constants 𝔻 = μ̅ = 1, in which case the implied operations of multiplication and exponentiation make sense. The 𝔻 is double-struck ("blackboard bold", thus in the comic only the vertical line is double). Mathematicians, who are always searching for more symbols{{citation needed}}, have taken to distinguishing things represented by the same letter by using different fonts, such as 𝑑, 𝐝, 𝒅, 𝐷, 𝐃, 𝑫, 𝒹, 𝒟, 𝖉, 𝕯, ∂, 𝕕, and 𝔻. The double-struck font is easier to write on a blackboard than a proper bold letter and often represents a set, such as ℝ for the set of real numbers or ℂ for the set of complex numbers. 𝔻 can represent the unit disk in the complex plane, the set of decimal fractions, or the set of split-complex numbers.

μ is the Greek lowercase mu and has many uses in mathematics and science. Here it has a bar, which could indicate a number of things, including the complex conjugate. Intriguingly, μ is the symbol in statistics for the population mean, and the overbar represents the sample mean, so this could represent a random variable which is the average of a sample of means μi of different populations in some larger ensemble of populations.

Using a special version both of D and μ to even further spice up the formula all leads up to the math tip:
:If one of your equations ever looks too simple, try adding some purely decorative constants.

Other examples of well known equations that are profound but look simple include
:''E'' = ''mc''2 ({{w|Special Relativity}}),
:''PV'' = ''nRT'' (the {{w|Ideal Gas Law}}),
:''F'' = ''ma'' ({{w|Newton's Second Law}}),
:''V'' = ''IR'' ({{w|Ohm's Law}}), and
:''Gμν'' + Λ ''gμν'' = ''κTμν'' ({{w|Einstein field equations}}).

Of these, only the Einstein field equations have been spiced up with decorative indices (which actually hide a system of ten nonlinear partial differential equations).

In the title text Randall mentions the {{w|Drag equation}}, which is attributed to {{w|Lord Rayleigh}}, and not those mentioned in the title text!

In {{w|fluid dynamics}}, the drag equation is a formula used to calculate the force of drag experienced by an object due to movement through a fully enclosing fluid. The equation is ''F''d = ½''ρu''2''c''d''A''. Here ''F''d is the drag force, ρ the mass density of the fluid, u the relative flow velocity, ''c''d the drag coefficient and A is the area.

Randall jokes that the factor of ½ in the equation is meaningless and purely decorative, since the drag coefficients, ''c''d, are already unitless and could just as easily be half as big thus leaving out the ½ in front of the equation. The ½ is thus just an example of a "decorative constant." The usual reason for including the factor of ½ is that it is part of the formula for kinetic energy that appears in the derivation of the drag equation. However, modern treatments are so condensed that this factor of ½ is often smuggled in with no explanation. Since we can choose the constants to be whatever we want, there is ultimately no reason not to absorb the ½ into the drag coefficient ''c''d, but that does not mean it is totally unmotivated. Still, Randall quotes Frank White's ''[https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwi-_77Foqn1AhV3QvEDHSMfAYkQFnoECAQQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.co.uk%2FFluid-Mechanics-Frank-White%2Fdp%2F007119911X&usg=AOvVaw0kLp3oaqh9HaFMV2jLL973 Fluid Mechanics''] textbook, [https://books.google.com/books?id=wGweAQAAIAAJ&q=traditional%20tribute&redir_esc=y which two times] calls it "a traditional tribute to Euler and Bernoulli." According to White, the factor of ½ rather comes from the calculation of the projected area of the object being dragged. Randall has brought up this point before, in his book, "What If?"

The line from White probably refers to renowned mathematicians {{w|Leonhard Euler}} and {{w|Daniel Bernoulli}}. Euler who is held to be one of the greatest mathematicians in history worked directly with Daniel and was a friend of the {{w|Bernoulli family}}, that produced eight mathematically gifted academics.

Daniel Bernoulli is known for modifying the definition of ''vis viva'' (what we now call kinetic energy) from ''mv''2 to ½''mv''2, as motivated by the derivation from the impulse equation. In 1741, he wrote
:[Define ''vis viva''] esse ½ ''mvv'' = ∫''pdx''.
That is, "define ''vis viva'' to be ½ ''mv''2 = ∫''p''d''x''," where ''p'' is the force (from ''pressione'') and d''x'' is the differential of position (infinitesimal displacement). Today, this equation says that the kinetic energy imparted to an object at rest equals the work done on it.

In the drag equation ½ ρu2 represents the dynamic pressure due to the kinetic energy of the fluid, and hence the 1/2 makes sense to keep in the equation, and could thus easily be argued not to represent a decorative constant.

The title text is pretty much word-for-word a repeat from Randall's book ''[[How To]]''. In Chapter 11: ''How to Play Football'', he misuses the drag equation, and mentions this fact in more depth, in a footnote.

==Transcript==
:[A small panel only with text. Written as an excerpt from a mathematical text book. Begins with a number for an equation, then follows the equation written in larger letters and symbols. And below are explanations of each term in the equation. The μ has a bar over the top and the D has a double vertical line.]
:Eq. 4-15
:<big>T = Dm0(rout - rin)μ</big>
:T: Net rate
:m0: Unit mass
:(rout-rin): Flow balance 
:D, μ: Decorative

:[Caption below the panel:]
:Math tip: If one of your equations ever looks too simple, try adding some purely decorative constants.

==Trivia==
*This was the first comic that came out after the [[2565:_Latency#Countdown|Countdown]] started. See more on the link.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Tips]]
[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Comics featuring real people]]

1891: Obsolete Technology

2021-12-31T23:54:48Z

172.70.206.93: Are you sure they are "detrimental"?

{{comic
| number = 1891
| date = September 18, 2017
| title = Obsolete Technology
| image = obsolete_technology.png
| titletext = And I can't believe some places still use fax machines. The electrical signals waste so much time going AROUND the Earth when neutrino beams can go straight through!
}}

==Explanation==
This comic mocks people who criticize an industry for using obsolete technology, even when said technology is sufficient for the task at hand. The claim often comes with the implication that those in charge of the industry are behind the times and cannot adapt to the cutting edge. What these critics often fail to realize is that there are cost benefits to sticking with "obsolete" infrastructure, and that upgrading to the newest tech can introduce unwanted side effects and other risks.

Here, [[Ponytail]] acts as one such critic, complaining that the business is taking "forever" to get with the times. [[Megan]] uses sarcasm to deliver her counterargument: despite the advent of nuclear weapons, fireworks use the ancient technology of {{w|gunpowder}} (invented in the 9th century), because fireworks are used by civilians for celebratory purposes and should have as few lethal side effects as possible.

As they use gunpowder, fireworks do claim a handful of lives and cause thousands of injuries each year due to improper handling procedures; between June 18th and July 18th of 2016 (thus including the {{w|Independence Day (United States)|Independence Day}} celebrations on July 4th), fireworks caused an estimated 11,000 injuries, of which 7,000 had to be treated in hospitals. In the whole year of 2016, four people died ([http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2017/06/30/456213.htm U.S. stats]). Nuclear explosions, meanwhile, have "detrimental effects" {{citation needed}} on human health in the same way sledgehammers have "detrimental effects" {{citation needed}} to chicken eggs. For example, should a nuclear explosion at a firework display be too powerful, the spectators, and possibly the neighborhood around the display, would be vaporized instantly. Fallout from a nuclear reaction could spread radiation across a wide area, leading to increased risks of cancers and other detrimental{{citation needed}} genetic mutations.

In other words, sometimes using newer technology is "overkill" for the purpose, and it might be costlier to switch to a newer technology. For example, many industrial machines were designed and sold in the 1990s when {{w|floppy disk}}s were the prevalent means of storing the instructions, but those machines still have one or two or even more decades of usable lifetime left, and the instruction files still fit on those floppy disks. So, in 2017, there are several companies that thrive on buying, refurbishing and selling floppy disks. This [https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/why-do-floppy-disks-still-exist-the-world-isnt-ready-to-move-on/ report] portrays one of these companies.

{{w|MS-DOS}} is a computer operating system made by {{w|Microsoft}} that was dominant during much of the 1980s. When Microsoft released the Windows line of operating systems, they encouraged people to switch to the new platform, which many did. MS-DOS became essentially obsolete when Microsoft released {{w|Windows 95}} in 1995. However, there remain rare circumstances in which MS-DOS (or another command-line operating system) is still preferred, such as when no mouse, touchscreen, or other pointing hardware is available, or when the hardware does not support a newer operating system. To make matters simpler, there is {{w|DOSBox}}, a free and open-source MS-DOS emulator which is actively maintained and extended. Likewise, {{w|FreeDOS}} is a free and open-source operating system designed to run on both older and newer computers which is compatible with programs written for MS-DOS.

The title text uses a different twist, criticizing the current use of {{w|fax}} machines. In many respects, faxing is obsolete compared to e-mail; it supports only black-and-white images, it complicates the process of modifying sent text by rendering it as images, it consumes the recipient's paper and toner and, in some countries, requires the recipient to pay a fee. Fax machines are a peculiar topic among "obsolete" technology; in some fields, like lawyer offices, pharmacies and medical practices, they staunchly hold their ground, as they offer a way to quickly transfer handwritten and hand-signed documents. Confidentiality is also an issue; fax, which uses a landline, is more difficult to intercept than internet-based traffic. In some countries, a telecopy is a valid document, having the same legal value as the original. A patient can thus call their doctor to fill a prescription, which is faxed to the pharmacy where the patient can fetch their drugs, saving precious time. In the same manner, a legal request can be sent to the receiver, without having to use a courier or express mail.

But rather than argue on any of the above points, the title text instead claims that faxing is obsolete due to being electron-based, while {{w|neutrino}}-based communication would be faster. In 2017, neutrino detectors are heavy and expensive, used for nuclear research only. Electronic communications travel at a fair share of the speed of light and the advantage of path would be at most a factor of π/2, so neutrino-based communication would normally be far too expensive compared to the speed gain. Even in the most extreme case (communicating between {{w|antipodes}}), the time saved would be a few hundredths of a second – insignificant for almost all purposes, but potentially enough to gain an edge in {{w|high-frequency trading}}, as suggested in a [https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucedorminey/2012/04/30/neutrinos-to-give-high-frequency-traders-the-millisecond-edge/#25d0ba7a590c 2012 ''Forbes'' article.] Real-world fax detractors would rather replace it with other electronic communication systems, not neutrinic ones.

==Transcript==

:[Ponytail sits in front of an old computer. Megan stands behind her.]
:Ponytail: Whoa, this is running MS-DOS! It's weird how new technology takes forever to reach some industries.
:Megan: Yeah. Like how we still use gunpowder for fireworks, even though we've had nuclear weapons for over 70 years.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Computers]]
[[Category:Nuclear weapons]]

1891: Obsolete Technology

2021-12-31T23:53:19Z

172.70.206.93: Citation needed

{{comic
| number = 1891
| date = September 18, 2017
| title = Obsolete Technology
| image = obsolete_technology.png
| titletext = And I can't believe some places still use fax machines. The electrical signals waste so much time going AROUND the Earth when neutrino beams can go straight through!
}}

==Explanation==
This comic mocks people who criticize an industry for using obsolete technology, even when said technology is sufficient for the task at hand. The claim often comes with the implication that those in charge of the industry are behind the times and cannot adapt to the cutting edge. What these critics often fail to realize is that there are cost benefits to sticking with "obsolete" infrastructure, and that upgrading to the newest tech can introduce unwanted side effects and other risks.

Here, [[Ponytail]] acts as one such critic, complaining that the business is taking "forever" to get with the times. [[Megan]] uses sarcasm to deliver her counterargument: despite the advent of nuclear weapons, fireworks use the ancient technology of {{w|gunpowder}} (invented in the 9th century), because fireworks are used by civilians for celebratory purposes and should have as few lethal side effects as possible.

As they use gunpowder, fireworks do claim a handful of lives and cause thousands of injuries each year due to improper handling procedures; between June 18th and July 18th of 2016 (thus including the {{w|Independence Day (United States)|Independence Day}} celebrations on July 4th), fireworks caused an estimated 11,000 injuries, of which 7,000 had to be treated in hospitals. In the whole year of 2016, four people died ([http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2017/06/30/456213.htm U.S. stats]). Nuclear explosions, meanwhile, have "detrimental effects" {{citation needed}} on human health in the same way sledgehammers have "detrimental effects" {{citation needed}} to chicken eggs. For example, should a nuclear explosion at a firework display be too powerful, the spectators, and possibly the neighborhood around the display, would be vaporized instantly. Fallout from a nuclear reaction could spread radiation across a wide area, leading to increased risks of cancers and other detrimental genetic mutations.

In other words, sometimes using newer technology is "overkill" for the purpose, and it might be costlier to switch to a newer technology. For example, many industrial machines were designed and sold in the 1990s when {{w|floppy disk}}s were the prevalent means of storing the instructions, but those machines still have one or two or even more decades of usable lifetime left, and the instruction files still fit on those floppy disks. So, in 2017, there are several companies that thrive on buying, refurbishing and selling floppy disks. This [https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/why-do-floppy-disks-still-exist-the-world-isnt-ready-to-move-on/ report] portrays one of these companies.

{{w|MS-DOS}} is a computer operating system made by {{w|Microsoft}} that was dominant during much of the 1980s. When Microsoft released the Windows line of operating systems, they encouraged people to switch to the new platform, which many did. MS-DOS became essentially obsolete when Microsoft released {{w|Windows 95}} in 1995. However, there remain rare circumstances in which MS-DOS (or another command-line operating system) is still preferred, such as when no mouse, touchscreen, or other pointing hardware is available, or when the hardware does not support a newer operating system. To make matters simpler, there is {{w|DOSBox}}, a free and open-source MS-DOS emulator which is actively maintained and extended. Likewise, {{w|FreeDOS}} is a free and open-source operating system designed to run on both older and newer computers which is compatible with programs written for MS-DOS.

The title text uses a different twist, criticizing the current use of {{w|fax}} machines. In many respects, faxing is obsolete compared to e-mail; it supports only black-and-white images, it complicates the process of modifying sent text by rendering it as images, it consumes the recipient's paper and toner and, in some countries, requires the recipient to pay a fee. Fax machines are a peculiar topic among "obsolete" technology; in some fields, like lawyer offices, pharmacies and medical practices, they staunchly hold their ground, as they offer a way to quickly transfer handwritten and hand-signed documents. Confidentiality is also an issue; fax, which uses a landline, is more difficult to intercept than internet-based traffic. In some countries, a telecopy is a valid document, having the same legal value as the original. A patient can thus call their doctor to fill a prescription, which is faxed to the pharmacy where the patient can fetch their drugs, saving precious time. In the same manner, a legal request can be sent to the receiver, without having to use a courier or express mail.

But rather than argue on any of the above points, the title text instead claims that faxing is obsolete due to being electron-based, while {{w|neutrino}}-based communication would be faster. In 2017, neutrino detectors are heavy and expensive, used for nuclear research only. Electronic communications travel at a fair share of the speed of light and the advantage of path would be at most a factor of π/2, so neutrino-based communication would normally be far too expensive compared to the speed gain. Even in the most extreme case (communicating between {{w|antipodes}}), the time saved would be a few hundredths of a second – insignificant for almost all purposes, but potentially enough to gain an edge in {{w|high-frequency trading}}, as suggested in a [https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucedorminey/2012/04/30/neutrinos-to-give-high-frequency-traders-the-millisecond-edge/#25d0ba7a590c 2012 ''Forbes'' article.] Real-world fax detractors would rather replace it with other electronic communication systems, not neutrinic ones.

==Transcript==

:[Ponytail sits in front of an old computer. Megan stands behind her.]
:Ponytail: Whoa, this is running MS-DOS! It's weird how new technology takes forever to reach some industries.
:Megan: Yeah. Like how we still use gunpowder for fireworks, even though we've had nuclear weapons for over 70 years.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Computers]]
[[Category:Nuclear weapons]]

2553: Incident Report

2021-12-10T23:24:39Z

172.70.206.93: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2553
| date = December 10, 2021
| title = Incident Report
| image = incident_report.png
| titletext = Increasing-precision timestamps are the Jaws theme of incident reports.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by an OVERLY-PRECISE TEMPORAL SHARK - Title-text still pending, and particularly bare-bones explanation for first draft. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

An {{w|incident report}} describes the events that happen before something goes wrong; this usually involves describing what time related events happen at. In this comic, a report at a {{w|nuclear power plant}} on the day of the comic's publishing starts with particularly vague timestamps (that a package of fireworks arrived "roughly 18 hours prior" to it), then uses false minute-level precision ("14:00" and "14:20", which could reasonably be five minutes off in either direction), then actual minute-level precision ("14:28"), then second-level precision ("14:29:22" and "14:29:26").

This suggests that the ''clock'' time is really a proxy for the ''amount'' of time before one specific moment where everything falls apart, and when seconds start appearing, it implies that the recollection is within a few minutes of the disaster. Normally the increased level of precision reflects close monitoring capabilities of the affected system and/or detailed analysis by incident investigators.

In many situations, incident reports are anonymized as shown to protect the identities of those people involved in the incidents. Hence the term "technician A" rather than revealing publicly that [[Megan]] was the one who juggled the clubs which knocked the birthday candles into the fireworks leading to the consequent horror of 10 December 2021 - a day that will live in infamy forever more.

Examples of real-life incident reports with second-level precision timestamps showing the increasing precision around critical moments include:
* [https://spaceflightnow.com/challenger/timeline/ Explosion] of the Space Shuttle Challenger
* [https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/appendices/chernobyl-accident-appendix-1-sequence-of-events.aspx Chernobyl explosion]

Although the comic refers to {{w|Juggling club|juggling "pins"}}, jugglers commonly refer call those props as "clubs." It is possible Randall is confusing the {{w|Bowling pin|similarly shaped objects}} in 10-pin bowling to juggling clubs. "Pins" are another name for {{W|nuclear fuel rod}}s, which control the speed of a nuclear reaction within a nuclear power plant. No sane reactor staff would juggle{{citation needed}} these complex, heavy and expensive pieces of equipment.

The title text refers to the [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvCI-gNK_y4 theme music] from the 1975 film ''{{w|Jaws (film)|Jaws}}'', which has come to represent impending danger.

9603120071 was an actual accession number for an [https://adamswebsearch2.nrc.gov/webSearch2/main.jsp?AccessionNumber=9603120071 incident] at San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station in which four slightly contaminated stray kittens were found, cleaned, and adopted. No clock times were mentioned in the report.

Real-world nuclear power stations have strictly regulated control rooms which would prevent the simultaneous presence of fireworks, juggling and birthday celebrations.{{Citation needed}}. There is no East Valley nuclear power plant, but there are two nuclear power plants in Beaver Valley, Pennsylvania.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:Facility: East Valley Nuclear Plant
:Date: 12/10/2021
:Report ID: 9603120071
:Event description: Roughly '''18 hours''' prior to the incident, an Amazon package containing fireworks was mistakenly delivered to the reactor control room and left under the console.
:The next day, at approximately '''14:00''', technician A arrived at the facility with a bag containing four juggling pins. At '''14:20''', technician A entered the control room, and joined technician B at the console.
:At '''14:28''', technician C exited the elevator and approached the control room holding a birthday cake intended for technician B.
:At '''14:29:22''', technician A said "Hey [technician B], check out this cool trick I learned" while taking out the juggling pins. Technician B turned to look just as, at '''14:29:26''', technician C entered holding the cake.

:[Caption below the panel]:
:You know things are about to get bad when the incident report starts including seconds in the timestamps.

:[Title Text]:
:Increasing-precision timestamps are the Jaws theme of incident reports.
{{comic discussion}}