explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:3046: Stromatolites

2025-02-05T11:03:19Z

172.70.215.72: too long again

Yay, another Beret Guy appearance! '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 03:46, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm trying to remember Bloom County and the penguin (Opus) or Snoopy by Schulz because of the last panel. Shrug. Prolly both. Warm is good. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.175.208|172.70.175.208]] 06:08, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
:Add Zonker to this list? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.39|108.162.245.39]] 17:29, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
:: Zonker Harris, yes! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.175.106|172.70.175.106]] 18:16, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

How can anybody be related to rock formations? Stomatolites are not organisms, they are the product of organisms. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.105.88|141.101.105.88]] 08:12, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
:This might be one of Randall's weaker offerings in terms of scientific accuracy. I think that "stromatolites" as here used refers to the cyanobacterial component of stromatolites, which is the component detected in ancient fossils and is the one responsible for oxygen-evolving photosynthesis (responsible for what was perhaps the {{w|Great_Oxidation_Event|first global environmental catastrophe}} - an element of ancestry of which it might be wise not to boast). Modern stromatolites have both cyanobacteria (ancestors of plastids) and alpha-proteobacteria (ancestors of mitochondria) in their microbial mats, and it's reasonable to assume that alpha-proteobacteria were present in the fossils. So the "cousins" would be of cyanobacteria in the stromatolites, not the stromatolites themselves (in which both were, presumably, cohabiting). Beret Guy also appears to be confused about the proposed sequence of events leading to the origins of mitochondria and eukaryotic cell nuclei. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.39|108.162.245.39]] 17:29, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
:I've seen the surviving microbial mats in Australia referred to as "stromatolites" as well.[[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 12:39, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I wonder if he is related to any specific dinosaurs or whether he bypassed that branch of the tree completely. 09:48, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I think there's a joke (or at least a reference) here about the relatedness of life. All currently-known organisms are related by descent from a common ancestor, which in English makes us all cousins, of various distances. Mitochondria in plants and animals, for instance, must descend from the same bacterium-like organism that became an endosymbiont in a proto-eukaryote.[[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 12:39, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
:Since mitochondria and chloroplasts were both originally distinct organisms that were absorbed into the host cells, that makes most modern life descendants of cannibals. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 15:37, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
::By that logic, eating pretty much any food except salt (and maybe dairy?) is cannibalism. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.70.87|172.68.70.87]] 16:09, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I immediately thought of [https://fabpedigree.com/ Fabulous Pedigree], which ''does'' include ancestry (and side-branches) going back to (and past) mitochondria, though from a quick check it doesn't seem to specifically include stromatolites. Obviously the listing has lots of (mostly implied) gaps. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.217.72|162.158.217.72]] 13:55, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Beret Guy is emulating Pooh-Bah in The Mikado: "I can trace my ancestry back to a protoplasmal primordial atomic globule."[[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.190|172.69.33.190]] 19:07, 4 February 2025 (UTC)NickM

I've added a bit about the length of time it would need to take to click that far back in the past. I'm sure I have got the amount out by several orders of magnitude, so I would appreciate it if anyone fancies a go at estimating how long Beret Guy would have taken. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.241.27|172.71.241.27]] 10:49, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
: [[2608: Family Reunion]] estimates about 50 billion generations to the MRCA with plants; this would have taken about a century at a speed of 15 clicks per second. Bacteria reproduce extremely fast - or at least modern ones do - which could easily add a few trillion generations (and a few thousand years of clicking) on the bacterial side of the ancestry. In other words, "thousands of years" is likely an overestimate but not ''that'' much of one. (Obviously the time becomes very feasible if Beret Guy used a site that summarized the ancestry.) --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.111.134|162.158.111.134]] 20:25, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
::Typically the way it works is you work back so far and then find a connection to a ''pre-existing'' tree, so he wouldn't need to go very far back to get to a tree that covered all modern humans, provided someone had already done the work beyond that point before him.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.29|172.70.91.29]] 10:27, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Six paragraphs should be four. Too much non-explanatory and otherwise pointless digression. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.215.72|172.70.215.72]] 11:03, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

== The [[What If? chapters|What If? article index]] project ==

Hey everyone,

I'm not sure if you noticed the banner of the site, but for the last few weeks a group of [[Talk:What If? chapters|incredibly talented editors]] have been redesigning the [[What If? chapters|'''index of ''What If?'' articles''']] from the ground up. Among other things, we've merged two huge tables, added a TON of additional info, created complex templates, and made [[What If? chapters|dozens and dozens of other improvements]]. I believe that, as a wiki, we should have a complete and detailed index of all what if? articles, [[List of all comics (full)|just like we do for the comics]], and we're getting so close to that goal! We mostly only need to add the missing explanations, improve the existing ones, and add the questions and answer summary from the books (plus other things).

We would love your help (especially if you have the first book)! We've prepared a [[What If? chapters|to-do list]] at the top of the page, containing everything that needs to be done, if you're interested. --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 07:00, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Talk:3040: Chemical Formulas

2025-01-22T02:42:02Z

172.70.215.72: ???

I believe the diagram on the left incorrectly shows a double-bond between the carbon and the OH pair. -- [[User:Dtgriscom|Dtgriscom]] ([[User talk:Dtgriscom|talk]]) 03:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:: ''"incorrectly shows a double-bond"'' This may be more correct (there are many ways to draw it):
:: https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/formic-acid-molecule-structure-260nw-1359283460.jpg [[User:PRR|PRR]] ([[User talk:PRR|talk]]) 03:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::what’s a double bond? '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 04:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::: if a hydrogen atom had hands it would have one and could only hold other atoms with one hand. Some atoms have more than one hand and in the case of a double bond can hold another atom with two hands. I almost recall something about electron orbits and spaces. I hope this isn't to unhelpful.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.242.58|108.162.242.58]] 05:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::ohhhh, i think i get it now. thanks! '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 05:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::For the molecules concerned (and ignoring some more exotic situations), you just need to know that;
::::::*Hydrogen should have only one bond in total (H-C... or H-O..., in whatever direction. An H-H would be H2, or hydrogen (probably!) gas unbonded to anything else).
::::::*Oxygen should have two bonds (...X-O-Y... as part of a link between X and Y, like the (acceptibly abbreviated) -OH ('hydroxy') group attached to a carbon; or ...C=O, as oxygen double-bonded to a carbon with those two bonds available). H-O-H would be water (H2O), O=O would be the pure oxygen molecule (O2).
::::::*Carbon has ''four'' bonds, which can be:
::::::**Four singles, often with alkane links, ...C-C... with three things (more carbons, hydrogens or hydroxys/etc) hanging off as well, as part of a hydrocarbon/similar, starting with CH4 which has ''only'' hydrogens hanging directly off the one and only carbon, longer chained alkanes string carbons together with two hydrogens off of each mid-carbon (in three-or-more chains) and a third completing each end.
::::::**Two singles and a double, like the ...C=O with two further off-shoots, or else an ...C=C... as an alkene link (with two things/continuations of carbon hanging off each of the ends of that carbon-pair),
::::::**''Two'' doubles (cumulenes, like ...C=C=C..., are rare, but O=C=O is the really common CO2/carbon dioxide molecule in its entirety), or
::::::**A single and a triple, typically back-to-back as alkynes, ...-C≡C-..., ''or'' something like -C≡N (nitrogen has exactly three bonds!) for a cyano-group, but it's often a strained group.
::::::**A quadruple-bond would be... beyond this basic overview.
::::::**(Benzene rings effectively have 1.5 shared links between the adjacent carbons, or alternating single/double three times round the six Carbon-Carbon links, leaving one "hang off" bond from each of them, without bothering which ring-bonds are single or double.)
::::::**(Graphene sheets effectively have three singles, plus "two halves" weakly bonding to adjacent graphene sheets, in actual graphite; or whatever else fun thing you're doing with graphene/nanotubes/buckyballs ''singly''...)
::::::If you check the "Hackoo", the C has ''five'' bonds (at least until and unless Randall corrects it!), the error most obviously (just from the above knowledge!) because the O in the -OH (i.e. -O-H) has three bonds (...C=O-H) where it should only have two (...C-O-H).
:::::::If I still had access to the university and its DFT calculator, I'd be tempted to do a run how stable the ion HC+=O=O+H would be (HCOOH with two electrons removed, charge at C and O), the only way to make sense of the formula. And write an April article for the regular column of the German Chemists Society Newsletter. Here is the data of the monocation: https://atct.anl.gov/Thermochemical%20Data/version%201.140/species/?species_number=731 ...wait, did I just nerdsnipe myself?[[Special:Contributions/172.71.148.103|172.71.148.103]] 08:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::It can perhaps be explained as an interestingly radical-enhanced number of bonds, though you'd notate it differently (in diagram ''and'' formula) and it wouldn't really be the ethanoic/formic acid that Cueball(/Randall) clearly intends it to be. Simple slip of the stylus, maybe, from someone more a physical scientist who [[520: Cuttlefish|isn't always affiliated to chemical sciences]], so may not have realised when glancing at the 'finished' comic. (Or it's yet another (too?) subtle dig at the Cueball character that he's set up to fail/be creatively-wrong.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.108|172.70.90.108]] 07:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Similar to 2492 [[User:Chakra|Chakra]] ([[User talk:Chakra|talk]]) 03:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

My favorite hydrocarbons are C6H6 (Bouba) and C5H12 (Kiki) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.70.105|172.69.70.105]] 03:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I assume 'Nackle' is NaCl (Sodium Chloride, aka salt) [[User:Pvnic|Pvnic]] ([[User talk:Pvnic|talk]]) 03:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
: for blood pressure reasons I use fake salt = potassium chloride. Note to self: don't say "please pass the kackle" because at best at best I'd get a funny look and a chicken nugget. (Thinking) Or do. Chicken nuggets are good.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.245.179|172.68.245.179]] 04:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::Wouldn't that be more like "kickle" or "keckle"? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.212.173|162.158.212.173]] 07:10, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
And in the meta-humor department, the explanation message "Created by a BORON-OXYGEN-TANTALUM-URANIUM-TITANIUM-MOLYBDENUM-TITANIUM-CARBON-ALUMINUM-LITHIUM" abbreviates to "B O Ta U Ti Mo Ti C Al Li", or "BOT aUTiMoTiCaLLi". [[User:Jordan Brown|Jordan Brown]] ([[User talk:Jordan Brown|talk]]) 04:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
: OH! Thank you. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.245.179|172.68.245.179]] 04:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:: In my family, we actually do (occasionally) call it "nackle", so I updated the explanation accordingly. [[User:Gbisaga|Gbisaga]] ([[User talk:Gbisaga|talk]]) 16:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Guilty as charged! (And I got a Ph.D. in chemistry...) [[Special:Contributions/172.68.195.130|172.68.195.130]] 08:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:nice! which uni? '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 22:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

The 'put it on a plate' and 'take with a pinch of salt' stuff all seems a bit of a stretch.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.194.59|172.69.194.59]] 10:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:I don't see any sign that anybody would anyone be literally requiring salt, so more probably is one or other figurative use. "Are you upset? I don't ''care'' you're upset. Pass the salt... Mmmmm..." from our Cueball or "Yeah, so I'm hearing what you're telling me, but I'm gonna ignore your inane mutterings, so pass the salt...". Or maybe from a similar sort of vein as "Are you salty about that? I think you're salty, boo-hoo!" sarcastic response. There are plenty of possible phrases using the substance in analogy, and I'm sure others could be imagined by anyone worth their salt. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.246|172.70.91.246]] 14:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I wonder if this is inspired by people in Cyberpunk 2077 pronouncing CHOOH2 (the fuel cars are powered by in universe) as "chew two." [https://cyberpunk.fandom.com/wiki/CHOOH2#:~:text=CHOOH2%20is%20not%20actually%20the%20chemical%20formula%2C%20it%27s%20just%20a%20moniker%20for%20marketing%20purposes. Game wiki page.] [[Special:Contributions/172.69.22.31|172.69.22.31]] 17:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Edible oil analysis is now like B-Box [[User:799571388|799571388]] ([[User talk:799571388|talk]]) 21:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Can we make an emperical formula-to-speech model? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.215.72|172.70.215.72]] 02:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)