explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

2034: Equations

2024-11-06T22:53:59Z

172.70.85.133: /* Explanation */ Dealt with the MathML/TeX display error by inserting the direct unicode symbol. If it doesn't work for everyone, it should at least start working for many.

{{comic
| number = 2034
| date = August 17, 2018
| title = Equations
| image = equations.png
| titletext = All electromagnetic equations: The same as all fluid dynamics equations, but with the 8 and 23 replaced with the permittivity and permeability of free space, respectively.
}}
==Explanation==

This comic gives a set of mock equations. To anyone not familiar with the field in question they look pretty similar to what you might find in research papers or on the relevant Wikipedia pages. Most of the jokes are related to the symbols or "look" of most equations in the given field.

The comic makes jokes about the fields of kinematics, number theory, fluid dynamics, quantum mechanics, chemistry, quantum gravity, gauge theory, cosmology, and physics equations. Of course, all of the equations listed are not real equations (<math>\pi-\infty</math> and H2EAT are clearly jokes and making a mockery of the given field). As always, Randall is just having a laugh.

:<math>E=K_{0}t+\frac{1}{2}\rho{}vt^2</math>
;All {{w|kinematics}} equations
Most kinematics equations are polynomials, usually at most quadratic, and are often integral quantities (corresponding to the 1/2 t^2 term). This specific equation resembles the actual kinematics equation d = vt + 1/2at^2, but replaces a (acceleration) with v (velocity) times <math>\rho{}</math> (density) and replaces velocity with "K0", which is not a term used in kinematics.

:<math>K_{n}=\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}\sum_{\pi=0}^{\infty}(n-\pi)(i+e^{\pi-\infty})</math>
;All {{w|number theory}} equations
Number theory is the study of the integers and their properties. Randall jokes about how this often involves the use of summations over integers. The subscripts are indices, but the use of ''π'' as a summation index is a joke — ''π'' is almost always used for the well-known constant 3.14159..., not a variable. The use of ''i'' as a summation variable '''is''' common, but the joke is that when it appears along with the constant ''e'', as it does here it usually represents the imaginary unit √-1. As well, the constant ''e'' is out-of-place in a field like number theory — it's more closely related to fields like calculus/analysis. The use of the symbol <math>\infty</math> as a literal is also a joke.

:<math>\frac{\partial}{\partial{t}}\nabla\!\cdot\!\rho=\frac{8}{23}\int\!\!\!\!\int\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\subset\!\!\supset\rho\,{ds}\,{dt}\cdot{}\rho\frac{\partial}{\partial\nabla}</math>
;All {{w|fluid dynamics}} equations
Fluid dynamics equations often involve copious use of vector calculus operators. It's common in field theories like fluid dynamics and electromagnetism to represent equations of motion using multidimensional operators, like the <math>\nabla</math> and closed contour integral ∮ which appear here. The fraction 8/23 is a comically weird choice, but various unexpected fractions do pop up in fluid dynamics. The ds and dt go with the double contour integral (s is probably distance, t is time), but the derivative with respect to <math>\nabla</math> at the end is very much a joke and not allowed.

:<math>|\psi_{x,y}\rangle=A(\psi)A(|x\rangle\otimes|y\rangle)</math>
;All {{w|quantum mechanics}} equations
Quantum mechanics often involves some of the foreign-looking symbols listed, including {{w|Bra–ket notation|bra-ket notation}}, the {{w|Tensor product|tensor product}}, and the Greek letter Psi for a quantum state. Specifically, the left side of the equation is a ket state labeled Psi that depends on x and y (probably positions), while the right-hand side may be an operator A that depends on the state Psi (it is very unusual to have such a dependence) acting on what looks like another copy of that operator which depends on the outer product of states labeled by x and y (again strange). A charitable interpretation could be that the second A is the eigenfunction A of the operator A. Normally this is clearly indicated by giving the operator a “hat” (^ symbol) or making the eigenfunction into a ket eigenstate, but since the equation is intentionally nonsense both A’s are left ambiguous. Also note that the bra-ket math is inconsistent here, as the left side is a ket, but the right side is just two A’s, which are either operators or functions but are definitely not kets.

:<math>CH_4+OH+HEAT\rightarrow{}H_2O+CH_{2}+H_2EAT</math>
;All {{w|chemistry}} equations
Chemistry equations use formulas of chemical compounds to describe a chemical reaction. Such equations show the starting chemicals on the left side and the resulting products on the right side, as displayed. Sometimes such an equation might optionally indicate that an {{w|activation energy}} is required, for the reaction to take place in a sensible timeframe, e.g. by heating. A reaction requiring heating is usually indicated by a Greek capital letter Delta (''Δ'') or a specified temperature above the reaction arrow, however this comic uses the "+ HEAT" term on the left side instead. The joke is that Randall interprets "HEAT" to be another chemical, possibly the nonsensical helium-monastatide, which reacts with Hydrogen (H) to H2EAT, which is nonsensical, as heat is transferred energy here, not added matter. Regardless of this, Randall gets the {{w|stoichiometry}} of this equation correct, with the same number of all types of 'atoms' on each side of the equation.

:<math>SU(2)U(1)\times{}SU(U(2))</math>
;All {{w|quantum gravity}} equations
Quantum gravity uses mathematical {{w|Group (mathematics)|groups}} denoted by uppercase letters, as shown. {{w|Special unitary group|SU(2)}}, {{w|Unitary group|U(1)}}, and {{w|Unitary group|U(2)}} are all well-studied groups, though 'SU(U(2))' makes no sense. The lack of relator means this expression isn't an equation, but an expression.

:[[File:All gauge theory equations.png]]
;All {{w|gauge theory}} equations
Gauge theory is a subset of quantum field theory. Because the objects in gauge theory carry a lot of symmetry information, they tend to have a lot of indices and twiddly annotations. Shorthand, such the {{w|Feynman slash}}, is also very common. Although most of the symbols used here do not have specific meanings in gauge theory, ξ corresponds to the {{w|Gauge fixing#Rξ gauges|Rξ gauges}} in quantum electrodynamics, and the "abc" superscript is reminiscent of a {{w|structure constant}}.

:<math>H(t)+\Omega+G\!\cdot\!\Lambda...\begin{cases}...>0\mathrm{\ (Hubble\ model)}\\
...=0\mathrm{\ (Flat\ sphere\ model)}\\
...<0\mathrm{\ (Bright\ dark\ matter\ model)}
\end{cases}</math>
;All {{w|cosmology}} equations
Cosmology is the science of the development and ultimate fate of the universe. The joke here may be pertaining to the different models accepted in the field of cosmology. H is the {{w|Hubble's law#Time-dependence of Hubble parameter|Hubble parameter}}, Ω is the universal {{w|Friedmann equations#Density parameter|density parameter}}, G is the {{w|gravitational constant}}, and Λ is the {{w|cosmological constant}}.

:[[File:All truly deep physics equations.png]]
;All truly deep {{w|physics}} equations
The joke about the "truly deep physics equations" is that most of the universal physics equations are simple, almost exceedingly so. In general, many of these equations are types of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_law conservation law] equations, which reflect some of the basic truths of the universe. A hallmark of conservation laws is that the total amount of some physical value does not change, and so one side of the equation is zero, as shown in the example. One example is Einstein's ''E = mc²'', which shows conservation of mass-energy. Noether's theorem shows that conservation laws have a one-to-one correspondence with a symmetry of nature, making these equations truly 'deep'.

The title text is referencing the fact that the {{w|magnetic field|electric and magnetic fields}} are often explained to physics students using an analogy with fluid dynamics, as well as the fact that they do share some similarities (only in terms of mathematical description as three-dimensional vector fields) with fluids. The permittivity constant (represented with ''ε''0) and the permeability constant (represented with ''μ''0) are coefficients that relate the amount of charge required to cause a specific amount of electric flux in a vacuum and the ability of vacuum to support the formation of magnetic fields, respectively. They appear frequently in Maxwell's equations (the equations that define the electric and magnetic fields in classical mechanics), so Randall is making the joke that any surface integral with them in it automatically is an electromagnetism equation.

==Transcript==
:[Nine equations are listed, three in the top row and two in each of the next three rows. Below each equation there are labels:]

:E=K0t+1/2 ρvt2
:All kinematics equations

:Kn=∑∞i=0∑∞π=0(n-π)(i-eπ-∞) [K sub n = the summation from i = 0 to infinity of the sum from pi = 0 to infinity of (n - pi) * (i-e^(pi-infinity))]
:All number theory equations

:∂/∂t ∇⋅ρ=8/23 (∯ ρ ds dt ⋅ ρ ∂/∂∇)
:All fluid dynamics equations

:|ψx,y〉=A(ψ)A(|x〉⊗|y〉)
:All quantum mechanics equations

:CH4+OH+HEAT→H2O+CH2+H2EAT
:All chemistry equations

:SU(2)U(1)×SU(U(2))
:All quantum gravity equations

:Sg=(-1)/(2ε̄) ið(̂ ξ0 ⨢ pε ρvabc⋅η0)̂ f̵a0 λ(ξ) ψ(0a)
:All gauge theory equations

:H(t)+Ω+G⋅Λ ...
:[There is a brace linking the three cases together.]
:... > 0 (Hubble model)
:... = 0 (Flat sphere model)
:... < 0 (Bright dark matter model)
:All cosmology equations

:Ĥ - u̧0 = 0
:All truly deep physics equations

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics with lowercase text]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Chemistry]]
[[Category:Cosmology]]

Talk:1503: Squirrel Plan

2024-09-25T05:48:24Z

172.70.85.133:

Reminds me of the Ice Age squirrel [[User:Mikemk|Mikemk]] ([[User talk:Mikemk|talk]]) 06:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
:Also reminiscent of the star wars scene in Kingmen [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.162|108.162.249.162]] 06:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
::Um ya, like why didn't those balloons have a pressure release valve instead of blowing up? A relatively cheap device could have aided that character immensely.[[User:Jarod997|Jarod997]] ([[User talk:Jarod997|talk]]) 12:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
:::Clunky prototype? (And/or they want the maximum amount of elevation. Any presseure release valve would give a safe(r) ceiling of operation lower than the "just before the pop" one they theoretically have, as is. It's still a design-flaw, though, if there's no effective warning of balloon failure, and you're now left swinging on the other, on-the-edge-of-failing, one. And now with only half the lift. Yeah, clunky. Yeah, I've thought about this a little, already.) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.192|141.101.98.192]] 13:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
::::Though as soon as the first balloon popped you'd start loosing altitude - due to half of your lift disappearing. So the question comes up - '''how did the second balloon pop'''? ;) And as a side note - if you catch the pan around the control room right after our hero dispatches the nerd villain, you'll see a corpse with a head. [[User:Jarod997|Jarod997]] ([[User talk:Jarod997|talk]]) 13:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
:::::'''Obviously there was a squirrel...''' ;) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.192|141.101.98.192]] 21:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I think the squirrels are just a vehicle for the joke, which is poking fun at "obvious" conclusions based on personal beliefs. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.162|108.162.249.162]] 06:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
:Absolutely - the current first line of explanation fails, as squirrels being stupid is not a joke. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.49|141.101.99.49]] 07:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
"...due to the expansion of the acorns inside." I love you guys. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.89|141.101.104.89]] 07:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
: We know [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.39|108.162.216.39]] 08:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)BK201

This comic puts me in mind of the simplistic plot points and devices of a lot of modern scifi movies ... poking fun at them the same way as "Scorcher" from Tropic Thunder does ...--[[Special:Contributions/198.41.239.38|198.41.239.38]] 09:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd say the squirrels are a stand-in for ancient humans. Their understanding of the world and what is obvious reflects their pre-scientific state of knowledge. Their interests as squirrels have affected their conclusions, just as humans have projected their interests on what they interpret the sun to be (source of acorns instead of a sun god). I'm pretty sure the "halfway to the sun" part refers to a point where they think they're halfway but probably aren't even close to leaving the atmosphere, drawing parallels again to ancient human assumptions (the sun and moon are small orbs that are just high in the sky). {{unsigned ip|108.162.225.80}}
: Alternatively, it might be referring to people assuming the sun is golden in some literal fashion. What else could the sun be made of, if it's so gloriously radiant and stuff? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.109|108.162.216.109]] 13:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Or possibly replace "ancient" with "superstitious" - or even nothing at all for that matter to apply to humans in general - and I'll agree with you even more. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.80.70|141.101.80.70]] 09:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it's also worth mentioning that the real sun is "full of" hydrogen and helium. The same is true for real squirrel lifting balloons.{{unsigned ip|108.162.230.161}}

It's possible that the comic is a commentary on the human condition, constantly reaching out for some grand goal, that is both unreachable, and even if reached is shown to be far less grand then previously thought. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.210.237|108.162.210.237]] 15:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the squirrel in the picture is actually halfway to the sun. I think the title text is a hypothetical future event, and that the description is overthinking things. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.106|108.162.216.106]] 16:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Is it a possibility that the squirrels represent the government or similar entity? {{unsigned|Mikemk}}

Not quite sure i like the explanation about acorns obviously not being able to contribute to flying. Not because i think they can, but because the exact same argument could be used for a jet engine on a plane as those are also heavy. {{unsigned ip|141.101.75.53}}
: maybe the acorns are pushing on the quantum vacuum virtual plasma? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.18|108.162.241.18]] 23:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I seriously suspect this has something to do with [[1356: Orbital Mechanics]] [[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.185|173.245.56.185]] 10:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that the balloon of the title text is a reference to earth herself : the analogy must be natural to a squirrel believing the sun is an accorn field... {{unsigned ip|108.162.229.250}}

I am fairly sure this comic is to mock humanity's tendency to assume what they first think of to be fact. This could also be about religion but I probably shouldn't mention that. Too many fights. [[User:YourLifeisaLie|The Goyim speaks]] ([[User talk:YourLifeisaLie|talk]]) 14:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I think Randall's squirrels are cute. A Montrealer [[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.191|173.245.52.191]] 00:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Dropping squirrel research I haven't found. Dropping cats I found here: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RtWbpyjJqrU And freefalling astronauts, too! http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VJcno_XL4RU [[User:NoniMausa|NoniMausa]] ([[User talk:NoniMausa|talk]]) 12:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

What scene in Kingsman: TSS is this similar to? I've seen the movie but durned if I can recall anything remotely like this comic happening in it. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.192|108.162.216.192]]
:Read the very first cascade of comments at the top of this page to jog your memory, perhaps? It may have been a technical sideline to the main action, at that point, but it wasn't Blink And You'd Miss It, either.... (For the record, I don't think it's an intended reference. Because all the meme really shares is the balloon bit. But I won't say it definitely isn't, either.) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.131|141.101.98.131]] 18:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Alternate Explanation: The two landed squirrels are trying to get rid of the squirrel attached to the balloon. {{unsigned ip|162.158.74.105}}

These are squirrels from the future that can survive in a vacuum, the balloon is no ordinary one, and the sun is actually a superstructure filled to the brim with acorns... Of course, this is not the case for the moon, which is just a big rock in the earth's orbit. {{unsigned ip|141.101.96.184|08:28, 3 January 2024}}

Why is there a furry category? Furries aren't mentioned once and the anthropormorphic style here is very far from anything which could be considered canoically furry [[Special:Contributions/162.158.122.17|162.158.122.17]] 18:01, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
:There was (still is?) an editor who believed strongly that anything with (or mentioning) animals even slightly not-just-animals was "furries" territory. These squirrels or even just showing the Narnian wardrobe with no actual furriness seen on-comic, even if you consider actual (albeit talking) animals or fawns to be 'furries'.
:It's debatable, and the extents to furry-culture is ill-defined/subjective, but that editor was notably persistent. My vote would be not to, but I have no influence here. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.133|172.70.85.133]] 05:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

2956: Number Line Branch

2024-07-11T08:08:18Z

172.70.85.133: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2956
| date = July 8, 2024
| title = Number Line Branch
| image = number_line_branch_2x.png
| imagesize = 469x235px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Attention all passengers: This is an express sequence to infinity. If your stop is not a power of two, please disembark now.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a SECOND BOT TO REDUCE CONGESTION - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
This comic likens the {{w|number line}} to a line of a railroad or subway system. These often have branches where different trains continue on to a different destination, with different stops along the way, or travel on parallel lines to allow faster trains to bypass slower ones. In the number line, one branch (presumably the original) contains ordinary numbers, while the newly opened branch consists of some completely different numbers, denoted with various symbols as an analogue to those we use as digits. The branches seem to split at π. The new branch proceeds slightly more quickly than the traditional numerical branch.

The sequence ending with a bold mark at Δ (whereas the original number line fades out) suggests that it is the end of this branching sequence. Mathematicians, apparently, could only afford to construct 5 additional numbers, or their research hasn't yet found other numbers. The branch may have been intended to run much further, but been {{w|High_Speed_2|scaled back}} due to budget overruns and cutbacks.

The title text makes a parallel between a train stopping at a station and a numerical sequence "stopping" at a number – that is, taking it as a value. It's a spoof of announcements that are typically made on trains, so that passengers can confirm that they're on a train that goes to their desired station; an "express train" typically makes fewer stops so it can serve the most popular stops and reach its final destination sooner. In this case, the express train only stops at powers of 2; presumably the "local" stops at every integer. Powers of 2 are 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, and so on, such that the interval between stops grows exponentially larger.

Mathematically, an express train like this would get to its scheduled stops much faster, but it would not actually have any fewer stops overall. Mathematicians that study infinities generally regard all "countably" infinite sets as being the same "size." Infinity is not a fixed value, rather it's the concept of "does not end," so it's paradoxical to try to take a train to a destination that is, by definition, not a single destination. By way of analogue, it's akin to promising to stop hitting your little brother only after you've done so forever.

A fictional number was previously shown in [[899: Number Line]] ("gird"), and fictional ''numerals'' were shown in [[2206: Mavis Beacon]]. And similar treatment of mathematics as public infrastructure was seen in [[2735: Coordinate Plane Closure]].

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[The number line for natural numbers, going from 0 to 10 and trailing off, with a marker at 0 to indicate that it is the start of the sequence. At about pi, the line branches off into a second line, which contains five odd-looking symbols, and stops at the fifth one. The first, below 4, is a square, the second is a pi rotated 90° counterclockwise, the third resembles a closed phi, the fourth is a spiral, and the fifth is a triangle.]

:[Caption below the panel:]
:Good news!
:After thousands of years, mathematicians have finally opened a second branch on the number line to reduce congestion.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Math]]

2956: Number Line Branch

2024-07-11T08:07:44Z

172.70.85.133: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2956
| date = July 8, 2024
| title = Number Line Branch
| image = number_line_branch_2x.png
| imagesize = 469x235px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Attention all passengers: This is an express sequence to infinity. If your stop is not a power of two, please disembark now.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a SECOND BOT TO REDUCE CONGESTION - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
This comic likens the {{w|number line}} to a line of a railroad or subway system. These often have branches where different trains continue on to a different destination, with different stops along the way, or travel on parallel lines to allow faster trains to bypass slower ones. In the number line, one branch (presumably the original) contains ordinary numbers, while the newly opened branch consists of some completely different numbers, denoted with various symbols as an analogue to those we use as digits. The branches seem to split at π. The new branch proceeds slightly more quickly than the traditional numerical branch.

The sequence ending with a bold mark at Δ (whereas the original number line fades out) suggests that it is the end of this branching sequence. Mathematicians, apparently, could only afford to construct 5 additional numbers, or their research hasn't yet found other numbers. The branch may have been intended to run much further, but been {{w|High_Speed_2|scaled back}} due to budget overruns and cutbacks.

The title text makes a parallel between a train stopping at a station and a numerical sequence "stopping" at a number – that is, taking it as a value. It's a spoof of announcements that are typically made on trains, so that riders can confirm that they're on a train that goes to their desired station; an "express train" typically makes fewer stops so it can serve the most popular stops and reach its final destination sooner. In this case, the express train only stops at powers of 2; presumably the "local" stops at every integer. Powers of 2 are 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, and so on, such that the interval between stops grows exponentially larger.

Mathematically, an express train like this would get to its scheduled stops much faster, but it would not actually have any fewer stops overall. Mathematicians that study infinities generally regard all "countably" infinite sets as being the same "size." Infinity is not a fixed value, rather it's the concept of "does not end," so it's paradoxical to try to take a train to a destination that is, by definition, not a single destination. By way of analogue, it's akin to promising to stop hitting your little brother only after you've done so forever.

A fictional number was previously shown in [[899: Number Line]] ("gird"), and fictional ''numerals'' were shown in [[2206: Mavis Beacon]]. And similar treatment of mathematics as public infrastructure was seen in [[2735: Coordinate Plane Closure]].

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[The number line for natural numbers, going from 0 to 10 and trailing off, with a marker at 0 to indicate that it is the start of the sequence. At about pi, the line branches off into a second line, which contains five odd-looking symbols, and stops at the fifth one. The first, below 4, is a square, the second is a pi rotated 90° counterclockwise, the third resembles a closed phi, the fourth is a spiral, and the fifth is a triangle.]

:[Caption below the panel:]
:Good news!
:After thousands of years, mathematicians have finally opened a second branch on the number line to reduce congestion.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Math]]

2814: Perseids Pronunciation

2023-08-16T09:26:22Z

172.70.85.133: /* Explanation */ It isn't "the reproductive part", it's part of the set of parts that constitute the whole reproductive system. Possibly "tract" better describes the fallopian tubes, but also best word I can think of right now to distinguish that section

{{comic
| number = 2814
| date = August 11, 2023
| title = Perseids Pronunciation
| image = perseids_pronunciation_2x.png
| imagesize = 291x414px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = When speaking out loud, you can can [sic] call it the 'Perseids meatier shower' and no one will ever know. (If you do get caught somehow, just tell them to Google the 'Kentucky meat shower' and that will distract them while you escape.)
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by the per-se-DEIS meteor shower - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic references the {{w|Perseids meteor shower}}, which is active in July and August. Their name ultimately derives from the ancient Greek hero ''Perseus'' (for ''his'' pronounciaton, check {{w|Perseus}}). There are various ways of pronouncing ''Perseids'', and [[Randall]] gives the obvious ones before the comic spirals into virtual nonsense, or possibly parodies of {{wiktionary|va-jay-jay|common euphemistic replacement words}}.

It should be noted that the last consonant is often pronounced as a "z" sound rather than "s" (the technical term is "voiced"), which is not reflected in these spellings.

{| class="wikitable"
! scope="col"| Section
! scope="col"| Term
! scope="col"| Explanation

|-
! scope="row"| Generally accepted
| PER-see-ids
PURSE-yids
| These are the most common pronunciations in English.
|-
! scope="row"| Also heard sometimes
| Per-SEE-ids
Per-SAY-ids
| These are also considered acceptable.
|-
! scope="row"| Generally frowned on
|Per-SIDES
Per-ZAY-uds
PER-suds
| These are not very correct, but better than below
|-
!rowspan="5"| Definitely wrong
| Perky-ids
| Calling them Perky may refer to them being very energetic, or could be an attempt to be dirty.
|-
| Pewpewpews
| This refers to fictional lasers - in particular, laser guns - which are known for their "pewpewpew" sounds. When most people think of meteors, it is as streaks of light across the sky, which may look somewhat like depictions of such laser fire. However, meteors are most definitely not lasers. Fictional lasers are also often used to shoot fictional meteors, so "pewpewpew meteors" might make a kind of sense as a description of such action.
|-
| Per-say-says
| This is a tradition of rhyming lazy/cute slang, like referring to the female reproductive tract as {{wiktionary|va-jay-jay}}.
|-
| Percies  Purps
| Spaced out to indicate that each word in the row is a separate entry. "Percies" seems akin to nicknaming each meteor "Percy" and referring to all of them as a group. Purps is close to Perps, a short slang form of Perpetrator (generally the person responsible for a crime).
|-
| Pepsids  Peeps
| Also spaced out. "Pepsids" seems to refer to Pepcid, an antacid, but misspelled to match the original word. It could also be referencing {{w|Pepsi}}. "Peeps" are shorebirds that are impossible to identify (for example, {{w|Least Sandpiper}}). See {{w|stints}}. But more likely either a reference to the Peep, a spongy candy which is shaped and decorated like baby chickens, or the slang for "people", particularly a group that the speaker identifies with, "my peeps". If the two names on this line were joined together, they could refer to a group of people in some way associated with antacids, or employees of PepsiCo.
|}

The title text mentions how "meteor" sounds like "meatier," {{w|Homophone|although the meanings are completely different}}. It suggests telling people about the {{w|Kentucky meat shower}}, an anomalous weather event in 1876, as a [[2467: Wikipedia Caltrops|way to distract]] them.

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

:How to pronounce the name of the Perseids meteor shower

:Generally accepted
::PER-see-ids
::PURSE-yids

:Also heard sometimes
::Per-SEE-ids
::Per-SAY-ids

:Generally frowned on
::Per-SIDES
::Per-ZAY-uds
::PER-suds

:''Definitely'' wrong
::Perky-ids
::Pewpewpews
::Per-say-says
::Percies Purps
::Pepsids Peeps

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Language]]
[[Category:Astronomy]]

Talk:2727: Runtime

2023-01-23T12:36:02Z

172.70.85.133:

It has to be said that a first season of a series generally will be written ''as'' a whole season (give or take any pilot/feature-length-special that may be the heralding first episode). Whereas film sequences don't tend to be purposefully made/anticipated together (notable exceptions: Back To The Futures 2 & 3, the LOTR and (later) Hobbit trilogies, various sub-sets of Star Wars (the prequel and sequel trilogies, certainly, the OT's second and third conclusions to the story started with Ep4)). Sometimes it runs well enough to get up into high numbers of at least sufficiently similar-yet-innovating releases that satisfy the theme (the Fast And Furiouses... the whole Bond œuvre..?), though sometimes it might stutter (Highlander 2!) and may or may not actually recover. Either way, it risks becoming a made-for-TV-movie sinkhole (as Disney knows well enough), unless it was always intended to reproduce some previously successful serialisation (Tolkein's stuff, as already alluded to; J.K. Rowling's surprisingly popular product). I think, therefore that Cueball is right to more dread the effort of dealing with some multi-sequel monstrocity of a film-canon, compared to whatever degree of {{tvtropes|EarlyInstallmentWeirdness|First Season Disservice}} he has suffered or heard that he must suffer before the kinks are properly ironed out in seasons 2-6. (Then it goes funny for 7, 8 and most of 9, until the story arc evolves into something that gets it to series 20 before a bit of cancel/uncancel shenanigans plague the production, spin-offs (including a prequel series and/or an animated version) take over the franchise and relegate the old stars to cameo-actors, the franchise then gets a Series: The Movie! which either does surprisingly well or surprisingly manages to upset the whole diverse fanbase in loads of differing ways... or some variation on all that.)
 ...but, anyway, it's not surprising. Yet it ''does'' probably qualify as an interesting point that fully deserves to be highlit or else we might never have thought of it for ousrselves, in as many words. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.64|172.71.178.64]] 03:55, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think 8 moves are of about equal length to 1 season. I picked 8 random movies from the list of movies I'm planning to watch and it totaled 18¼ hours. Then looked at some series first seasons. The Mandalorian is 5½ hours, Wednesday is 6 hours, Friends is 6¼ hours, even an outlier like Dragon Ball Z is only 10½ hours. The premise of the comic probably still stands though, but can be explained by the fact that with a series it also gives the promise of more hours of good material. With movies if the first 8 are bad there might not be many good ones after that. [[User:Tharkon|Tharkon]] ([[User talk:Tharkon|talk]]) 04:13, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
:You picked some BAD examples, though... AFAIK, Mandalorian and Wednesday are straight-to-streaming shows. STS, specialty channel, and non-North American shows (British, Australian) have particularly short seasons of 6, 8, or 10 episodes. A standard season is between 22 and 26 episodes at the very outside, usually around 24. Also, such discussions don't generally happen about half hour sitcoms & cartoons like Friends or Dragon Ball Z, most shows are hour shows (44 minutes without ads instead of 22). Quick and dirty math - rounding to 20 and 40 minute episodes, or 3 per hour and 3 per 2 hours - means you picked a weirdly short season of Friends of 18.75 episodes, their 26 episode seasons (as I recall they tended to hit 26) would be nearly 9 hours usually. Hour-long shows, using the average 24 episodes, is 16 hours. A usual average movie length these days is 2h per (used to be 1.5 until I'd say the late 90s, movies could be as short as 1:15 and rarely hit 2, but SO MANY long movies in recent decades) means 8 movies ALSO averages about 16. The math works out if you use standard, middle of the road examples - no long movies like Titanic or short seasons like streaming shows. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 07:26, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
:It's not just about the length, although yes, it's rare for movie series to have more than 8 movies. It's about continuity. Movies tend to be relatively stand-alone (although there are counterexamples, like LOTR) so watching 8 of them just to "get" the 9th is rarely needed. Meanwhile, with series, you usually NEED to watch the first season - or at least big part of it - to get the basic premise of the show. It's more likely you get away with skipping second one, if it actually gets better in third or fourth season (like ST:DS9, although you probably can just watch first four episodes then skip rest of first season and whole second and not miss much). -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 12:31, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

The runtime of most movies is O(n), but the runtime of some TV shows is O(n log n) because you have to go back for context. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.2.114|162.158.2.114]] 04:24, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I was surprised nobody noticed or made mention that with Doctor Who you CAN'T watch from the true beginning (not really) because of all the lost episodes from the 60s and 70s! So I added that to the explanation. I've collected every episode, but for those lost ones all I have is that they have the audio and some pictures so someone made a slideshow as a replacement, or they have the audio and someone animated a replacement (many of these replacements are shorter than an episode, though). And sometimes it isn't even full stories missing - as nearly every story spanned multiple episodes - so LOTS of stories aren't complete. So nobody can TRULY watch every episode from the beginning any more (I've done my best and got to season 3 before I couldn't find time any more). [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 08:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Is "The original Doctor Who, running from 1963-1989 was extremely low budget, and is generally considered to be not as good as the revived series (2005-present), which has a much higher production budget and is typically much more popular with modern viewers (who mainly ignore the older episodes)" actually true? Most of the discussion I've seen is not particularly kind to the revival relative to the heyday of the third through seventh doctors. It seems like someone just made this up to fit the comic's underlying narrative. An actual citation is actually needed. I would suggest in this case that being its own thing means that the quality varies from writer to writer more than from year to year. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.145|172.70.210.145]] 08:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
:Without having read your comment, I made changes there that might help. But, really, the joke is ''not about'' Doctor Who (outside of the title text)v, and while there is much useful info to impart, the point is that it just isn't covered by the comparison and might even need to begiven a Trivia-like add-on for the detail, and leave the main bit as a "it's complicated!" to not distract..? ;)

I think the title text is less about the number of seasons of Doctor Who and more about the fact that people tend to suggest you start with the 9th Doctor. In other words, they're suggesting you skip the first 8 Doctors. [[User:Mrgvsv|Mrgvsv]] ([[User talk:Mrgvsv|talk]]) 15:22, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
:I don't know anyone who thinks the revival has been better than the Pertwee and Baker years. Since 2018 there's been no respect for continuity or canon, just one long retcon festival. It's not a story, it's a set of shorts with a theme. Not that the original was too great with continuity to begin with, of course. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.91|172.70.211.91]] 19:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
::Horses for courses. I don't rate much of Nine's tenure (except as a useful re-emergence of the franchise), and the structure of the stories had changed (gone with the serials, apart from a few multi-episode stories, and of course the integration of series-arcs; then the awkward reliance on ''only'' a Christmas/New Year episode-or-two without even proper free reign in a mini-season or longer), but Classic was Executively Meddled With in its own ways more suited for the time and there was enough fan-grief at the time for all of that, and confusion by the more casual viewers.
::Yes, perhaps a bit too much introverted navel-gazing and unsubtle nod-nod-wink-wink to the perceived obessesives. Some of the writers may be a bit too much fans themselves. And yet others just plan reckless and ''not'' as solidly faithful as we might wish them to be to our own personal headcanon.
::But that's not unique to Who. And I can't judge the series's merit only on ''my'' enjoyment. There's far more than that to the successful commercial continuation. And this is a discussion that could ''really'' alienate those we might hope to appreciate the 'real' series, whatever that is. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.159|172.69.79.159]] 20:35, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I interpreted the title text as saying that, although Doctor Who would by any reasonable metric (consistency of writing, consistency of worldbuilding, how compelling and/or realistic and/or complex villains are, plausibility, philosophical resonance, CGI, etc.) be rated as 'bad' or 'unlikely to be good' in almost any season, it is nonetheless good for the vast majority of it. But I don't want to put that in unless somebody else reads it that way too.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.35.32|172.68.35.32]] 15:57, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
:To some extent I agree. I've heard enough times "You've never watched DW? I think you'd enjoy Blink..." (or "The Girl In The Fireplace", or "A Good Man Goes To War" or "The Dalek Invasion of Earth" or "The Five Doctors" or... ...whatever the speaker thinks will appeal to the curiosity and/or particular interests of their Who-curious but surprisingly still 'cherry' partner in conversation).
:There are some episodes/serials/entire seasons that I'd not suggest as an intro, but An Unearthly Child is valid, as is Rose (consigning the whole available run of of Classic and especially the TV-Movie to "maybe later, just to get an idea"). But there are clunkers (or "hilarious in hindsight", like the rather ''less'' impressive 'preview' of the London Olympics in Fear Her) that I'd say to watch along the way through a series but not try to make too much judgement of as you advance onwards to other intresting points (Army Of Ghost, etc) or episodes which actually need quite a bit of prior knowledge to appreciate (Turn Left).
:But this is going to be a subjective deal between the existing fan and the 'potential new recruit' that I can only really generalise about. And likely mystify some others as to my choice of examples and attitudes towards them! [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.231|162.158.34.231]] 19:41, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Why does it say there are seven Doctor actors (plus one announced) and the 8th already announced in new Who? 8 is accounted for in the movie mention, so it’s 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and “war”, making 6, with Ncuti Gatwa as the announced 7th. Tennant reprising his role doesn’t count as another actor, so it doesn’t add to the count of actors. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.174.148|172.68.174.148]] 20:42, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
:Could they have been counting the {{w|Fugitive Doctor}}? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.158|172.69.79.158]] 22:04, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
:That's consistent (assuming you accept War Doctor as valid, squeezed into the number-sequence as a retrofit incarnation). In fact moreso, as War didn't like to be identified as Doctor, but Fugitive did (when applicable). But also, at a push, David Morrissey, Toby Jones and even Catherine Tate could (for differing reasons) be included. Tentatively, also Tom Baker. Never mind David Bradley or Richard E. Grant as, amongst others, '(p)replacements' to the standard set of One to Thirteen, seen in the post-Eight era although if you include Bradley then, at the very least, Richard Hurndall needs adding to the pre-Eight set as well.
:Then there are the Doctor actors from {{w|Doctor Who: The Curse of Fatal Death|The Curse Of Fatal Death}}, should you legitimately find a place to include those of them not already mentioned. ;) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.139|172.71.242.139]] 16:41, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Dr Who classic series is praised for it's stories, and Acting, but it is old enough that CGI didn't exist originally, and Special effects when they arrived were too expensive for it's small budget - It is often recommended to stsrt with New Who and go back to the Classic series if you want to - the remaining Classic series is a whopping 21 days 22 hours and 30 minutes runtime, so it good you don't need to [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.133|172.70.85.133]] 12:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Talk:2725: Sunspot Cycle

2023-01-17T10:27:39Z

172.70.85.133:

Holy cow, just made my first edit! It was SUPER stressful, and I didn't even know how to make a 'citation needed' thing. Hopefully it was ok, I tried to match the style of the wiki. [[User:GordonFreeman|GordonFreeman]] ([[User talk:GordonFreeman|talk]]) 03:06, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
:Welcome to explain xkcd then. Any edit that is not vandalism is a good edit, because it makes other think about what should be here. So even if it is later completely changed it got things going. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 08:05, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Is it perhaps worth mentioning that sunspots, while they're darker than the rest of the sun's surface, are not actually black. They are cooler than surrounding regions and appear dark by contrast, but they're emitting lots of IR and some visible light. A sunspots-only (ignore the oxymoron) sun would still emit light and heat, just less. [[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 03:18, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Wouldn't the cycle be 20 ("every other decade") or 22 years (11 in each half of the cycle)? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.166.173|162.158.166.173]] 03:51, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
:The cycle of darkness of the sun would be 22 years, but the 11-year cycle referred to in the comic, and described by both diagrams within the comic, is the cycle of "number of sunspots" which peaks when the sun is half light, half dark, and decreases again as there are so many spots that they start to merge into fewer, larger spots. It cycles from very few (or zero) sunspots, when the sun is light, through many sunspots, sun is heavily light/dark spotted, and completes the cycle when the number of spots returns down to near-zero, when the sun is dark. {{unsigned ip|172.70.85.201}}

To what "financial crash of 2014" does this refer? I recall the housing crisis causing financial trouble, but that was around 2008. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.166.173|162.158.166.173]] 03:51, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
:This has nothing to do with finance so if you think the peak at 2014 should have any meaning I think you are wrong. there where just for some reason more sunspots even though the sun was still in the dark period. Maybe most of the few huge sunspots broke into smaller but with only thin lines between, so still dark but the count goes up. Then they closed again later keeping the sun dark but the number of spots fluctuating. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 08:05, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Does anyone have any idea what is supposed to be on the Y axis of the bottom graph? Something that goes up when the sun is transitioning between brightnesses and is at its lowest when the sun is either fully bright or fully dark? {{unsigned ip|108.162.241.213}}
:It's the "number of spots" (whether light or dark), since a fully bright sun has no dark spots and a fully dark sun has no "light spots"[[User:Dextrous Fred|Dextrous Fred]] ([[User talk:Dextrous Fred|talk]]) 05:02, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
::But what are the thin lines indicating, it it just to show that the sun is not yet really dark? Like a gray shade with very long between the dark lines? --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 08:05, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Did anyone else notice that the sine-wave is wrong? the trough should be the same every cycle, yet it's drawn as bright in the first trough and dark in the second trough. -Weylin Piegorsch [[Special:Contributions/172.70.126.117|172.70.126.117]] 06:52, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
:If you reefer to the bottom graph it is correctly drawn. The sunspots number are near zero when the sun is bright in the first through and then it is again near zero when the sun is dark as there are then only one sunspot. So that is why it is alternating between light and dark for every through. Just as shown in the upper graph. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 08:05, 17 January 2023 (UTC)--[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 08:05, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I do not think it is set in an alternate universe per se, but in the images of the sun spots the minimum brightness of the whole sun is subtracted. So only the sun spots stay visible. So the sun images are depictions of our sun. The number of sun spots loses common-sense meaning after merging starts. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.86.10|162.158.86.10]] 07:58, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
:Well since the sun is dark in this universe for 10 years, then it cannot be our universe, and since they also have 90s memes, then it is either a parallel universe or well... Randall's fantasy :-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 08:05, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I didn't have enough space in my last edit summary to explain my change. As if anyone who needs to really reads those, anyway... So here (unconstrained by petty character limits!) is why I took off the apostrophes in "90's kid", etc...:
/* Explanation */ Removing apostrophes not used by Randall. (I would personally say '90s, the apostrophe being for the contraction of 1990s, but here only the quoting-apostrophes of '90s kid' seems necessary and capable of being consistent. "The 90s" is a pluralisation of all years of the decade based upon (19)90. A kid *of* the 90s could be a 90s' kid, but I think we're intended to treat this as an adjectival descriptor, not a posessive element.)
And I outright reject the idea that apostrophes can ever be used for pluralising, despite some 'authorities' on the matter. Especially where it clashes with plural-possessive, contraction ''and'' single-quoting uses in a single case, upon a wiki where doubled-up apostrophes would incite ''italics''. Better to rewrite. But, for now, I've just rationalised to go with actual demonstrated usage (both from Randall and {{w|1990s|more or less in general}}) and intent. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.133|172.70.85.133]] 10:27, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Talk:2668: Artemis Quote

2022-09-06T19:47:40Z

172.70.85.133:

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

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

Perhaps the first Artemis astronaut to set foot on the moon will prefer to come with her own idea of what to say. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.142.75|172.71.142.75]] 21:55, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
:I'm hoping for interpretive dance. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.214.59|172.70.214.59]] 22:31, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
::I hope they do a couple cartwheels before saying anything. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.163|172.70.206.163]] 03:09, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
::: Endorsed: "two small cartwheels for women of color; two giant tumblings for people!" [[Special:Contributions/172.70.214.59|172.70.214.59]] 05:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I just deleted this, because it doesn't make sense to me:
:''This joke could be taken in one of two ways: one, that it is a violation of the {{w|cooperative principle}} which states that what people say usually is of relevance to the current situation - in this scenario implying that the Artemis astronaut is the first person on the Moon when in fact they were simply discussing the topic in a disconnected bubble the same way one might make such a comment on Earth; alternatively it could simply be to mislead people into thinking Artemis was the first crewed mission to the Moon.''
Perhaps the author can go into more detail here on how this is a better explanation than the text it replaced, please? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.214.183|172.70.214.183]] 04:20, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
:I'm not the author of that, but I'm the one who put the lander-appearance paragraph under a Trivia field, and was about to do the same with the Artemis 1 paragraph when I find someone edited the Trivia away (mentioning it by name) and wants to talk about it... So, I don't know what you think you're doing (in the nicest way, I just think you're confused about what your 'partial reverts' are actually doing). But the editing is clearly busy, so <s>I'll probably come back to it later today anyway and see what we have.</s> ''...no, scratch that. Seeing the 'missing' paragraph improperly appended to another paragraph, both that and the Artemis 1 one are both now in Trivia as purely incidental to the comic but maybe interesting regardless. Until someone decides to do something stupid(er) with them, maybe.'' [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.4|172.70.86.4]] 04:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
::So if I understand you, the comment about how the drawing has people coming out of the base of the SpaceX Starship, while the contract NASA awarded them has an elevator, presumably with some sort of a backup like a winch or rope ladder, is trivial? You might also consider commenting on the content instead of the contributors. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.213|172.70.206.213]] 04:35, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
:::It's not trivial, but it's Trivia. Anyway, see above. Unless you already saw what I did and maybe rereverted it (but now I ''am'' staying away for several hours, so fill your boots...). [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.141|172.71.178.141]] 04:43, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
:::Ok, Trivia-proponent back here again, finally. Yes, it ''did'' get immediately/before-I-had-finished reverted (and compounded back to that other unrelated para) as predicted. And then someone came up with a other term that seems to have stuck.
:::Noting that the Artemis 1 para really is the main thing (of the asides), which I'd originally put at the top of the more ephemeral subsection, and that Trivia (or its otherwise-named direct alternative) is generally positioned below Transcript. But at least it's not a glaringly obvious directly unexplanatory intrusion in the explanatory flow, FFS. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.141|172.71.178.141]] 15:01, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I wonder what other editors think about [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2668:_Artemis_Quote&diff=prev&oldid=294312 this deletion,] given the extent to which schwas and dialect have played in Xkcd recently. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.239|172.69.33.239]] 05:13, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

One small step for man'); DROP TABLE Quotes;-- [[Special:Contributions/172.70.135.92|172.70.135.92]] 06:58, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Yet another xkcd where I learn something: I never realized there was any confusion on the "man / (a) man" part in Armstrong's quote. It did not even occur to me there was a missing article to begin with. American speakers do omit their articles from time to time in casual speech (e.g. "sorry I'm late, damn car broke"), not to mention that this is actually a feature in many non-English languages. [[User:Ralfoide|Ralfoide]] ([[User talk:Ralfoide|talk]]) 18:59, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
:You would otherwise have said "Sorry I'm late, '''a''' damn car broke"? No, I think you missed the "the" in "...'''the''' damn car...". Maybe you meant "...(it was a) jam on the interstate" (perhaps because a car, someone else's, broke; or just general congestion). On the whole, you can miss "the" a lot easier than "a". And "the words are funny"/the word is funny" has a different overall meaning (refering to specific words) to "words are funny" (covering the whole lexical gamut, it seems). "A word is funny" is potentially useful and coherent (a response to "What's the best thing to draw on someone's forehead when they're passed out drunk?"?), "word is funny" is Buffy-speak at best ("the word"? "a word"? Context required! (The context/A context/you choose.))
:There are cases to miss an indefinite article, or maybe in a patois, but they're rarer than with the definite one. And unarticulated "man" (distinguishing it as an uncountable version of the noun) is effectively the same as "mankind" which then makes the rest of the statement (which also lacks a qualifying conjunction; commonly decided to be "but", yet may be "and" or "or" or or others, further changing what the intent is) more useful for arguments such as this than as a guiding linguistic light.
:But then some people say "I could of", so there are worse misarticulations out there... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.133|172.70.85.133]] 19:47, 6 September 2022 (UTC)