explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:2860: Decay Modes

2023-11-28T14:01:46Z

172.70.85.147:

Omega Decay has a didtinctive Star Trek Voyager vibe, I believe... ;-) https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Omega_molecule [[Special:Contributions/162.158.203.70|162.158.203.70]] 23:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

There appears to be an issue- the ''fungal decay'' and ''sea peoples'' are missing. I don't remember what they were! Help!
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.226|162.158.159.226]] 23:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[[Fizzgigg]]

There are a few things Omega could relate to: Rick and Morty Omega Device https://rickandmorty.fandom.com/wiki/Omega_Device, Galaxy Quest Omega 13 Device https://galaxyquest.fandom.com/wiki/The_Omega_13_Device [[Special:Contributions/172.68.126.134|172.68.126.134]] 02:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

"One big nucleon" looks a lot like a planet to me.[[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 03:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Omega voyager vibe? Nah, Voyager just used a cool sounding name. They share a root, but this isn't depending on ST:VOY [[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.47|172.69.195.47]] 09:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I was rather hoping that [[1812: Onboarding|bismuth]] would appear as a product, even if entirely unintentional, but it's far too high up the chain to ever occur from "bronze decay"... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.147|172.70.85.147]] 14:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Talk:36: Scientists

2023-11-26T11:33:34Z

172.70.85.147: Signed.. doh!

If Cueball's a scientist, the statement is perfectly valid. Even more so if his scientist friends are helping him, and they can't find his shoes either. [[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]][[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>(talk)</tt>]] 07:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I found the fact that the last sentence was present in the explanation funnier than the comic itself. -- [[Special:Contributions/131.175.28.142|131.175.28.142]] 22:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Its worth pointing out the comic was drawn in 2006 -- 'pretty gay' was not nearly as politically incorrect then as it is now. Wow, this is an old comic. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.125|162.158.255.125]] 14:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Political incorrectness is a good thing. I'd hope he'd do this one again today. — [[User:Kazvorpal|Kazvorpal]] ([[User talk:Kazvorpal|talk]]) 01:07, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
:Political incorrectness is a good thing? wow. While I also find overly political correctness in many cases over the top, unneccesary and annoying, this is a clear example where political correctness helps to battle discrimination. By using the term "gay" to describe one stereotype associated with homosexuality, this stereotype is further enforced, and people are treated according to it. I do not know a lot about you, but your username sounds like an adjective, so imagine, I started a trend describing people who are e.g. pedophile as "kazvorpal", and this trend catches on. Soon you would find yourself excluded from events, jobs, etc. because people would assume you are a pedophile. Wouldn't you prefer that to not happen? that is one example why political correctness is a good thing. Sorry for the trollfeeding. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 06:04, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
::No, you are suffering from the ravages of inductive reasoning. Political correctness includes a pretense that the speaker is battling discrimination, but it's just virtue signalling. They are, in fact, ''encouraging'' discrimination, and heaping advocacy of censorship and repression on top of it. Using "gay" as a mock pejorative does nothing to harm actual homosexuals, and in fact robs the term of its emotional power, as humor often does. Daniel Tosh incessantly making faux-bigoted comments uses humor to weaken racism, sexism, et cetera. And the end does not justify the means: Repressing the expression of others is evil, even when you're trying to use doing so to impress others about how virtuous you are. — [[User:Kazvorpal|Kazvorpal]] ([[User talk:Kazvorpal|talk]]) 15:43, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
::: That opinion is what scientists call "pretty straight white man". --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.163|141.101.99.163]] 22:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
:::: Ad hominem {{unsigned|108.162.237.191}}
::::: Ad heteronym. Seriously though, stop being so ''straight'' --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.134.63|162.158.134.63]] 21:12, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

as someone who scientists are calling "pretty gay" (bisexual) and "retarded" (autistic), I find this comic humorous. -- [[User:Arthur101|Arthur101]] ([[User talk:Arthur101|talk]]) 00:33, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Interesting edit I just felt I had to make, in response to another. The sentence:
However, since their being scientists is irrelevant to the legitimacy of their opinions about Randall's shoe problems, presenting their teasing as an expert opinion is humorously misleading; a similar joke is at play in [[1206: Einstein]].
...a change of "their being" was changed to "there being", assuming a homophonic error.
 However, technically (at least idiomatically) all three "their/there/they're" ''could'' be correct.
*"their being scientists" - 'the state of being scientists that they possess' works well as a concept,
*"there being scientists" - 'that scientists exist in that situation' also does, somewhat
*"they're being scientists" - 'it is scientists that they be' works well ('that they are' in alternate grammatical dialect, but off the 'being' form in both cases, rather than the secondary contracted 'are')
 Anyway, I changed it onwards to "them being", i.e. 'those people (...that we can describe as scientists)'. In leiu of ''totally'' rewording to remove this (rather interesting) issue of grammar. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.147|172.70.85.147]] 11:33, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

1251: Anti-Glass

2023-06-02T05:14:51Z

172.70.85.147: Undo revision 314772 by Meoplay (talk) Looks like (badly implemented) spam.

{{comic
| number = 1251
| date = August 14, 2013
| title = Anti-Glass
| image = anti_glass.png
| titletext = 'Why don't you just point it at their eye directly?' 'What is this, 2007?'
}}

==Explanation==
[[Black Hat]] makes an attachment for eyeglasses which shines a laser light at people using {{w|Google Glass}}. The quote "The best defense is an indiscriminate offense" plays off the adage "{{w|The best defense is a good offense}}". Black Hat's goal seems to be to interfere with the Google Glass user potentially recording the person with the laser, and possibly blinding Google Glass users, undermining the project. By mailing one to the children of every Google executive, who are likely to be Google Glass users, he's clearly aiming to disrupt the entire Google Glass project. "Silicon Valley" is a term for the southern San Francisco Bay Area where many technologically up-to-date people live who are more than likely to work in the computer industry and use Google Glass.

The "viral marketing campaign" excuse seems to play off how battery-powered LED placards were mistaken for terrorism in the {{w|2007 Boston bomb scare}}. He pretends that his terrorism is actually a viral marketing campaign, but seems to have not thought this excuse through. He then tries to get them to look into a laser light.

The title text shows the irony between Black Hat's needlessly complicated technical solution, and his apparent hate of Google Glass, a relatively new technology. In addition, he remarks that he wouldn't do something as old-fashioned as shining a laser in peoples' eyes, as this does not live up to his technical expertise.

However, he could shine a laser through the peephole, which would have the same effect on the police officers.

It seems generally that [[Randall]] is no fan of Google Glass, which was also shown later in [[1304: Glass Trolling]]. It was the second time they are mentioned in xkcd after [[1215: Insight]], but this was the first direct mocking of people wearing these glasses. Google Glass has become a [[:Category:Google Glass|recurring theme]] in xkcd.

==Transcript==
:[Two police officers stand outside an apartment door. The male officer is bald (and half cut of by the left frame of this thin panel), and the other is Ponytail, both are wearing peaked caps with white emblem. Ponytail is holding a pair of glasses down in one hand. The glasses have a small white box with a smaller tip in the front attached to one of the frames. A person (turns out to be Black Hat) answers through the door which has a peephole.]
:Ponytail: Police. Open up.
:Ponytail: Did you make this glasses attachment?
:Black Hat (off-panel through door): Oh, yeah.

:[Black Hat is sitting in an office chair at his laptop with his back to the door. The door is not visible but the officers voices come through it off-panel from the left.]
:Ponytail (off-panel): What's it do?
:Black Hat: It detects when someone near you is wearing Google Glass and shines a laser pointer at their eyepiece.
:Ponytail (off-panel): Why??
:Black Hat: The best defense is an indiscriminate offense.

:[Cut back a frame-less panel with a wider view of the two officers outside the apartment so the male officer is not cut off.]
:Male officer: It seems you've mailed these devices to people across Silicon Valley, including the children of every Google executive.
:Black Hat (off-panel through door): Yeah. It's a viral marketing campaign for an upcoming movie.

:[Same scene but with frame around the panel.]
:Male officer: What movie?
:Black Hat: Haven't decided yet. Anything good coming out this fall?
:Male officer: Sir, open the door.
:Black Hat: First stare at the peephole for a sec.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Black Hat]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Google Glass]]

2783: Ruling Out

2023-06-02T05:12:46Z

172.70.85.147: /* Explanation */ It read as "being in LEO", or at least NEO.

{{comic
| number = 2783
| date = May 31, 2023
| title = Ruling Out
| image = ruling_out_2x.png
| imagesize = 295x396px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = We were able to replicate and confirm prior authors' detection of a moon orbiting the Earth with high confidence.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a TECTONICALLY-ACTIVE BOT WITH SUBSURFACE OCEANS. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

Most science studies are intended to discover new knowledge. In astronomy, the goal is often to find different types of objects in space, or learn how astronomical objects are formed and behave. But often from studying things that exist, we also learn about limits of the kinds of things that ''can'' exist; when this happens, we say that we've "ruled out" the excluded phenomena.

[[Cueball]] lists five obviously impossible objects.

* "Earthlike stars": A play on "Earth-like planets" which scientists are very interested in finding. The Earth is not a star, hence stars cannot be Earthlike.
: Searches for both {{w|List of potentially habitable exoplanets|Earth-like planets}} and {{w|Solar analog|Sun-like stars}} go unabated, with various near matches found.

* "Exoplanets in our solar system": {{w|Exoplanet}}s are by definition not in our solar system.
: Planets in our solar system (even {{w|Planets beyond Neptune|undiscovered ones}}) are unaffected, as is the {{w|List of exoplanet search projects|search for exoplanets}} around other stars, with conclusive evidence of both.

* "Habitable-zone quasars": {{w|Quasar}}s in the {{w|habitable zone}}s of stars are only theoretically feasible for small {{w|black hole}}s with active {{w|accretion disk}}s sufficiently near our viewpoint here on Earth to be brighter than the Sun, because of the technical criteria for classifying them in terms of their {{w|apparent magnitude}} relative to that of their galaxy.[https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/728/1/26] None such have ever been observed.{{fact}} While typical galaxies usually have only one quasar in their center, merging galaxies often have two far apart.
:While not certain, habitable zones around some quasars have not absolutely been ruled out.[https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ab1b2f/meta][https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/2364/1/012057/meta]

* "Stars with subsurface oceans": Because the temperatures inside stars are higher than that which can support the existence of liquids as we understand them, stars cannot have subsurface oceans. After many billions of years, a {{w|white dwarf}} will cool to the point where it no longer emits significant heat or light, becoming a {{w|black dwarf}}, eventually cooling to the point where it might develop subsurface liquids.{{acn}} However, the universe is not old enough for any black dwarfs to exist yet,[https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/375341/pdf] and sufficiently cool black dwarfs would probably not even be considered stars, but rather {{w|rogue planet}}s.
: The possibility of subsurface oceans within various planets and moons is an {{w|Extraterrestrial liquid water|active subject of study}}. and was previously mentioned 10 comics ago in [[2773: Planetary Scientist]]

* "Tectonically active black holes": Black holes do not have {{w|tectonic plate}}s, so they cannot be tectonically active.
: There are theories that neutron stars can exhibit {{w|Quake (natural phenomenon)#Starquake|tectonic-like movements}} (as some of the more typical rocky bodies certainly do), but the physics of the 'inside' of a black hole are thought to involve {{w|Black hole#Singularity|strange physics}} incompatible with any form of geology, and cannot be observed anyway – it is believed that the only externally-observable properties of black holes are mass, electric charge, and angular momentum, poetically called the '{{w|no-hair theorem}}'.

The joke is that you don't actually have to study anything to come to these almost patently obvious conclusions. The counter-proposals would need far more effort to even justify them as valid theories, by common understanding, and greater still to try to observe any supporting proof.

Some studies are also done to confirm the results of previous studies, to ensure that the conclusions were not mistaken or a fluke. The title text describes a study that was done to confirm the existence of a moon orbiting Earth, even though the existence of the Moon has been known for at least as long as humanity has existed, and the fact that it orbits the Earth has been assumed or known for upwards of 3000 years. The ancient Greeks and Babylonians, for example, thought that the Moon orbited the Earth, though they lacked a detailed physical understanding of the system (they also believed, erroneously,{{Citation needed}} that {{w|Geocentric model|everything else in the universe orbited the Earth too}}). {{w|Anaxagoras}} (c. 500–428 BC) is credited with the correct explanation of lunar eclipses, and reportedly was the first to explain that the Moon shines due to reflected light from the Sun. However, it was not until the work of {{w|Nicolaus Copernicus}} in the 16th century that a detailed and accurate model of the Moon's orbit around the Earth was developed. Regardless, at this stage, a study to confirm the validity of Copernican orbits would contribute nothing to the scientific process, much less a study confirming the mere existence of the Moon.

==Transcript==

:[Cueball is talking to Megan.]
:Cueball: So far our astronomy group has published studies ruling out the existence of Earthlike stars, exoplanets in our solar system, habitable-zone quasars, stars with subsurface oceans, and tectonically active black holes.

:[Caption below the panel:]
:Science got way easier when we realized you were allowed to do studies just to rule stuff out.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Astronomy]]
[[Category:Science]]