explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:2629: Or Whatever

2024-07-16T10:57:22Z

172.70.90.122:

This is me when I don't want to fact-check things I only barely remember reading about once. -V [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.163|172.70.206.163]] 09:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

That with knowing a normal amount about skyscrapers reminds me of typing with one's human hands in #1530 (Keyboard mash)--[[User:Gunterkoenigsmann|Gunterkoenigsmann]] ([[User talk:Gunterkoenigsmann|talk]]) 17:13, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

And once again, no love for ''Ostankino teletower'' built in 1966, which is a building-like structure unlike that bayonet-like CN Tower. *sighs in Muscovite* [[Special:Contributions/172.70.251.112|172.70.251.112]] 10:22, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

The Ostankino tower isn't considered a building. It doesn't have "continuously occupiable floors", so it's a just a tower, same as the CN...except shorter. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.230.75|172.70.230.75]] 11:27, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

But a decade older - doesn't concern the nineties, though. [[User:627235|627235]] ([[User talk:627235|talk]]) 11:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Fun additional trivia! The Willis Tower has over 100 floors, with floor 103 or so having an observation area meant for tourists. There're these glass boxes that extend out the sides you can walk into, with only an inch-and-a-half of disconcertingly-clear material between you and certain death. Source: I've been there, though it has been years. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.126.215|172.70.126.215]] 11:08, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

While colloquially confused, there is a difference between "building" (a structure build for interior/floor space), a "tower" (a free-standing structure whose purpose is to provide height for some application at the top while using little or none of the height for actual floors or at least not seeing them as a priority) and a "mast" (a thin, often lattice work, structure supported by {{w|guy wires}}. Also several measurements of height (especially for buildings) like roof height, structural height, highest floor or pinnacle (total) height including antennas.
The highest buildings during the 90s were: Sears Tower (roof and structural), WTC North Tower (pinnacle/antenna and top floor), Petronas Towers (since 1998, only structural)
The highest other structures were the CN Tower (free-standing tower) and Warsaw Radio mast (collapsed 1991) succeeded by the KVLY mast, both cable supported.
In 2004, the Taipei 101 succeeded the Sears Tower as highest building (floor since 2001, roof) and the Petronas Towers (structural) but not pinnacle height (2000 the antenna was extended to "beat" the WTC, succeeded by Burj Khalifa) [[User:627235|627235]] ([[User talk:627235|talk]]) 11:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Sears Tower antenna/pinnacle height, that is, not Petronas. [[User:627235|627235]] ([[User talk:627235|talk]]) 11:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Say what you like about the Birj Khalifa, it does make this debate less troubling. It's the tallest... just about any definition you care to pick (building, structure, ego stroke, phallic compensation, etc.). [[Special:Contributions/172.71.22.167|172.71.22.167]] 21:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

What's with the dislike of "inhabitable"? Can I inhabit a particular floor? Maybe. Can I habit one? Not really. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.5|172.70.162.5]] 16:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

i thought guy wires was a dude 💀 [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.122|172.70.90.122]] 10:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2957: A Crossword Puzzle

2024-07-11T17:34:21Z

172.70.90.122:

compare https://www.buttersafe.com/2011/02/17/crosswords/ --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.236|162.158.158.236]] 20:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
:randall has now updated the header for this comic to "Today's comic accidentally inspired by this Buttersafe comic from 2011!" and i feel bad for having spotted the similarity and commented on it within 1 minute of this page's creation --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.248|162.158.62.248]] 03:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC) (same anon as above)
::I have made this [[2957:_A_Crossword_Puzzle#Trivia|trivia]] about it and updated the [[Header text]] with this comics new one. This will ave to be updated after Fridays comic comes out. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 12:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

it's *A* crossword puzzle for a reason ;) -- 21:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
:I suspect that that reason is that someone will inevitably compare the information content of solving this crossword puzzle to the information content of narrating 1190. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.35.21|172.70.35.21]] 01:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC) I didn't sign. Was that rude? I'm new here, is it ok if I just ask questions?

i’m trying to table-ify it but i keep getting edit conflicted. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.30.93|172.71.30.93]] 21:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Surprised something like "Jagged and loose Hawaiian lava flow (2)" couldn't be fit in (unless I've missed it). Maybe because there were no two-letter answers at all, of course. (I think... Again, maybe I'm missing them.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.38|172.70.86.38]] 21:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

unfortunate that [https://tmbw.net/wiki/Aaa "antepenultimate track of They Might Be Giants' ''Glean''"] did not make it in --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.230.200|172.70.230.200]] 21:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
:And where is "Fonzie's catch-phrase"? Or does that end with a Y? [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 23:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Did I use the calculator wrong, or 12356631 in base 26 equals 111111, not AAAAAA? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.90.180|172.69.90.180]] 22:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
:anyone using base 26 is probably likely to be using all 26 letters, instead of ten numbers and sixteen letters. contextless, i would usually assume any base has standard decimal digits, but liberties have already been taken here so why not (please sign)
::I wasn’t sure enough to comment, but it looks like he miscalculated. 26^5 + 26^4 + 26^3 + 26^2 + 26^1 + 26^0 = 12355631 = 111111 in base 26. To be AAAAAA it would have to be 123556310. Of course, maybe he’s using A through Z instead of the expected 0 through 9 followed by letters A through P, the way hexadecimal is. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.52|172.70.210.52]] 23:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
:::If he’s using the letters A through Z as the ‘digits’ for base 26, then he’s still wrong, because A would be 0, Z would be 25 and 12355631 decimal would be --[[User:Elfakyn|Elfakyn]] ([[User talk:Elfakyn|talk]]) 06:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)BBBBBB in that base 26. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.235|172.70.210.235]] 00:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
:The "Qalculate" program has a number base setting called "Bijective base 26", which outputs the answer as "AAAAAA<sub>B26</sub>. [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 01:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm surprised he didn't make this interactive, so you could type into all the cells to fill out the crossword. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 23:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I made and discarded various theories what the joke might be while I read through the questions, including all numbers, at least two possible solutions for the entire puzzle (I think that happened once in a newspaper), unknowable answers, … Only when I got to the "disregard for gravity" thing did I suspect the right answer and only because I once saw a meta gaming Stack exchange question about its tag. Otherwise it might have taken me until the Morse code question. This was really well hidden! [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 01:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

i dare not think about how long this took to make. [[user talk:lettherebedarklight|youtu.be/miLcaqq2Zpk]] 01:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

:In all honesty, this is probably easier to make than a regular crossword puzzle. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.3.146|172.69.3.146]] 05:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

https://crosshare.org/crosswords/2YcIAgtQCMBK6clsrNK4/mini-39-literally-screaming [[Special:Contributions/172.71.146.4|172.71.146.4]] 02:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

It's traditionally doctors that ask you to "say AAAAAAA" when they examine your throat. I'm pretty sure 36 across is supposed to be a joke about how dentists make smalltalk with their fingers in your mouth. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.126.10|172.70.126.10]] 04:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I filled in the answers. Can someone add the solved image? I don't have file upload permissions. https://i.imgur.com/AlDIT1p.png --[[User:Elfakyn|Elfakyn]] ([[User talk:Elfakyn|talk]]) 06:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
:We need someone to make a picture where it has been solved... :-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 10:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
::It seems useful (and funny) to supply the answer(s). Should we show the completed puzzle (which raises questions of font choice) or add a column to the table? My preference would be adding the column. -- [[User:Dtgriscom|Dtgriscom]] ([[User talk:Dtgriscom|talk]]) 11:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
:::The two above comments was made after Elfakyn's post. I have moved them both here. And then I have downloaded the image and added it to the trivia segment of the explanation. Thanks Elfakyn. I will credit you, please change the credit if you wish to be credited otherwise or not at all. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 12:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

bro tried to nerd-snipe us 😭 [[Special:Contributions/172.69.194.96|172.69.194.96]] 07:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

People without aphantasia can visualize words in front of them to solve puzzles like 18-across? That's quite impressive, I have to painstakingly count the letters in my head! [[User:Maplestrip|Maplestrip]] ([[User talk:Maplestrip|talk]]) 08:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Every third letter in 'aphantasia' is 'hti'.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.18|172.70.162.18]] 08:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
:The clue is written like '''E'''ve'''R'''... to give that hint, that it starts on the first letter. Also if you need 4 letters startign on the first and ending on the last is the only way to get a 4 letter answer out of it. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 12:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
::What?[[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.230|172.69.195.230]] 15:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
::Oh - now I'm looking at the comic itself I see what you mean. I was just looking at the explanation before, which was lacking the emphasis - I've put it in now. Still a bit lame as a clue IMO though.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.163.120|172.70.163.120]] 15:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

The Ruby Rhod one is misleading; his ''actual'' catchphrase in the movie is "green", which fits perfectly in the given space. -[[User:Nyerguds|Nyerguds]] ([[User talk:Nyerguds|talk]]) 09:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

SHA256 can be cracked much faster than 100 tries/sec. See [https://john-users.openwall.narkive.com/d9vvJ59x/hashcat-cpu-vs-jtr this performance discussion] from 10 years ago, which found that a single thread could do 9068K hashes per second. Recalculating the time for [A-Z]{8}, we find that it would take around 6.4 hours to crack. Still a while, but a far cry from 66 years. Using any form of parallelism (GPU, multicore CPU) would reduce the time further. --[[Special:Contributions/199.111.224.109|199.111.224.109]] 16:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
:As nobody is doing it this, it's an entirely theoretical speed. And you can rather envisage something happening at a rate of "a hundred a second" for years better than "more than nine million a second" for hours, and thus what it would mean to do something at this rate for this long (or as long as necessary). Though, traditionally, it would perhaps be "one a second" for approximately 6,600 years, I think I rather like the '66 years' value, aesthetically, so one full test every hundredth of a second seems to be nicely demonstrative.
:And going, needlessly, through them at the rate which 'solves' the problem in 6.5 hours doesn't so much impress upon you the difficulty of the task as much as it does the speed one can attempt such a classicly time-consuming problem. Even if you then add the overhead needed to check/collate all the collisions you get along the way. Every time you hit a 'possible', you'd probably do at least a disk-IO to keep a record of it, as you couldn't be sure that you won't have untold number of right-looking but incorrect results and at some poine you probably need to sanity-check and rank what you have in order of most to least likely. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.122|172.70.90.122]] 17:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2953: Alien Theories

2024-07-04T10:23:59Z

172.70.90.122:

I understood this differently. I think the UFOs have come to Earth to investigate our conspiracy theories about UFOs with capabilities far beyond what the "real" UFOs posses. [[User:Baruch|Baruch]] ([[User talk:Baruch|talk]]) 07:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I moved the note on release date to a new Trivia section, since it's not directly related to the comic. (Why are all of the discussion posts under special heading sections without a general discussion area? That is just annoying.) [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 19:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

== Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence ==
A skeptical human would '''not''' confront UFO believers with evidence that aliens do not exist. They would confront them with the fact that none of the supposed evidence so far has held water, making (extraterrestrial) UFO's not more likely to be real than any other random fantasy. Quite a different matter, since there's rarely verifiable evidence of things '''not''' existing. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.90.9|172.71.90.9]] 08:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
: +1 [[Special:Contributions/172.70.243.213|172.70.243.213]] 10:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
::How far do you take it though? If I look in the cupboard and it's empty, I can say there are no cans of soup in the cupboard. But you could say "There's a chance they are in there...but you've been hypnotised so you can't find them!" or some other thoroughly improbable but technically possible story. Everyone would think that pretty far fetched. There comes a point where people accept that - functionally - a vanishingly small likelihood is the same as a negative. So, where's the point at which you say "Be reasonable. It's not a thing."?
::Because without it, you become the man in the shack, refusing to accept the veracity of anything. [[User:Yorkshire Pudding|Yorkshire Pudding]] ([[User talk:Yorkshire Pudding|talk]]) 19:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
::: There's a simple answer to this: whenever it feels reasonable to do so. This doesn't feel very nice to a certain type of mind that loves thinking (like mine), but my life experience has taught me relatively recently that there are things you should do without thinking about it. (In this particular case, well, the solar system is much bigger than a cupboard! If we learned there have been aliens watching us, not wanting to be detected, my sense of reality would not be shattered, its not stupidly implausible. I can believe this while still believing any conspiracy theories telling you specifics about what they are doing are just making it up/mistaken/mentally ill/etc etc)[[User:Terdragontra|Terdragontra]] ([[User talk:Terdragontra|talk]]) 23:29, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
::: A cupboard is easy to exhaustively search. But there are things I thought I had lost somewhere that later turned up in the house anyway. Some things are just good at hiding. (The "black swan" is an example of that.) If an alien probe crashed in the rainforest 100 years ago, we may never know. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.160.133|172.71.160.133]] 05:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

==The 5 Observables==
Nowadays, the believers' gold standard for <s>UFOs</s> UAPs is this:
{{quote|There are five, consistent observations we continue to see that are uniquely associated with Unidentified Aerial Phenomena or UAPs. Understanding these characteristics and their application requires us to have a very good understanding of advanced physics at the quantum level.

''The five observables can be categorized as follows:

# Sudden and instantaneous acceleration
# Hypersonic velocities without signatures
# Low observability
# Trans-medium travel
# Positive lift
|TTSA|https://tothestars.media/de-de/blogs/press-and-news/five-characteristics-unique-to-uaps}}
Basically, if it seems to break physics, it's a UFO. Aliens who got here using established physics would naturally be curious about that. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.243.214|172.70.243.214]] 10:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
:It must be said that a given 'observation' could convey all the above by: 1) Camera wobble, 2) Camera panning, 3) Optical artefacts, 4) Scale/distance misunderstanding, w.r.t the background/foreground features, 5) Subsequent unfounded assumptions about trajectory.
:Which is not to say that it's all bad camera use/interpretation of playback. Radar might be involved (with the possibility of radio-mirages) or even a combination of Mk1 Eyeball and electronic recordings which rule out some 'trivial' counter-explanations. But extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence, and it would be silly to let something perhaps as simple as camera-shake from a moving vehicle suggest that we need to probe quantum physics for operational loopholes.
:It is at least as bad to "want to believe" as it is to want to ''disbelieve''. And while many such cases may share the same basic anomolies, that make it look like some things are consistently anomolous, this doesn't mean that each case is ''identically'' anomolous. If a bright light disappears, in one case it might be because it's no longer reflecting off the background, in another that the (mundane) source is now shaded by a cloud, in a other it's because the camera lens is no longer subjected to flare, or the video compression artefact is no longer generated, or the observer who verbally reported it no longer has it in the corner of their eye/mentally extrapolated as part of their central blind-spot.
:There's undoubtedly a lot of interesting unknown (so far!) stuff out there, to be witnessed. But lumping in ball lightning, in one instance, with the Sun momentsrily gleaming off the crest of a wave in another, with a perfectly legitimate isolated doorbell-/windshield-cam shot of a meteor in another should not result in an assumption of "bright flash == alien spaceship" as explanation all round.
:If aliens are as super-advanced, technically, as many believe, is there any reason to assume that they even need to leave such teasing evidence of their existence? If you can already twist quantum physics around your little-pseudopod, at will, isn't it more likely that you're already getting past mere human/earthtech monitoring of the skies entirely unseen and ''none'' of the UFO-'sightings' are of you. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.163.121|172.70.163.121]] 12:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
::Yeah, there's no hard evidence for any of it. But the claims are there. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.242.174|198.41.242.174]] 14:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

==Cueball is an alien?==
A previous edit suggested that Cueball is an alien. Is this canon or a conspiracy theory? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.243.213|172.70.243.213]] 10:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
:I did not see this prior form of edit, but I did nearly add my own (conspiracy-)theory that:
:*The aliens are seeing the traces of (vastly more superior) other-aliens around Earth,
:*Said other-aliens are ''only'' leaving significant traces here, not on the original aliens' world/other places they visit,
:*The other-aliens are therefore keen to stay out of observation from the non-other aliens,
:*Or at least generate enough deniability (similar to these aliens being sufficiently deniable to any regular human) so that those who ''are'' convinced get described as 'quack-UFOlogists',
:*Obviously,{{Actual citation needed}} a useful tool in this disinformation war would be to have a human(-looking) representative trying to out-argue the (actually correct, but logically tenuous) alien speculations with diversionary tactics and misdirection.
:Thus Cueball is trying to get the visible aliens to abandon their beliefs in the non-visible aliens by making them think that "anything alien" is ''them'' (those present), and ignore the signs of any subsequent 'visitation'.
:(Note though, that given the prior prediliction for the saucer-people to irrationally believe in Bigfoot, beyond even their own level of ubiquitous monitoring, what we probably have here is Cueball being 'the only sane being in the room'. Unusually, for Cueball. Or at least the san''est'', versus a particularly non-sane other. And standing under an open sky, of course.) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.74|141.101.99.74]] 11:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
:Cueball ''is'' an alien, from the perspective of the saucer occupants, just as they are aliens from his. My reading of the comic would be that the reason the UFO phenomenon has such a cultural hold is the 'are we alone?' question. Once you know that there are at least two forms of life that are (planetarily) alien to each other, it should lose its power, because the assumption would be that it's more likely than not that there's a third, and more.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.163.120|172.70.163.120]] 08:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

== Quotes ==

{{quote|They are people like me who see this as an incredible mystery and enigma that that needs to be resolved.|Chris Mellon|https://www.history.com/news/chris-mellon-ufo-investigations}} [[Special:Contributions/172.68.194.201|172.68.194.201]] 10:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

hairbun

2024-07-01T22:44:19Z

172.70.90.122: Catering for case-insensitivity is unnecessary, and nothing like actual alternate naming.

#REDIRECT [[Hairbun]]
[[Category:Pages to delete]]

2941: Cell Organelles

2024-06-05T09:41:55Z

172.70.90.122: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2941
| date = June 3, 2024
| title = Cell Organelles
| image = cell_organelles_2x.png
| imagesize = 563x451px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = It's believed that Golgi was originally an independent organism who was eventually absorbed into our cells, where he began work on his Apparatus.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a GOLGI ENDOPLASMIC RETICULUM. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic shows a {{w|Cell (biology)|biological cell}} diagram with a mix of real and fictional {{w|organelle}}s, giving both accurate {{w|Cell biology|cell biology}} terms and humorous ones. Actual cell components include the nucleus, mitochondria, and Golgi apparatus, while unrelated concepts come from geology, engineering, anitvirus software, and even Star Wars. Labels like "evil endoplasmic reticulum" and "sticky endoplasmic reticulum" are variations of real cellular organelles. Other labels like "pith," "mantle," and "Vitreous humor," are borrowed from other types of circular cross-sectional diagrams (e.g., of fruit, planets, and eyeballs).

The title text is a fictional backstory to the {{w|Golgi apparatus}}, an essential cell organelle involved in processing and packaging proteins. It suggests that {{w|Camillo Golgi}}, the scientist who discovered the Golgi apparatus, was originally an independent organism that was supposedly absorbed into our cells, where it then started working on what is now known as the Golgi apparatus. The joke is a satirical take on {{w|Symbiogenesis|endosymbiotic theory}}, which posits that certain organelles within {{w|Eukaryote|eukaryotic}} cells, like {{w|mitochondria}} and {{w|chloroplasts}}, originated from independent symbiotic {{w|Prokaryote|prokaryotic organisms}} that were absorbed by a host {{w|germ cell}}. Golgi is drawn in the comic as a cute little alien.

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
! Label
! Meaning
! Real?
! Cell organelle?
! Explanation
|-
| {{w|Smooth endoplasmic reticulum}}
| A network of tubular membranes within the cytoplasm of the cell, involved in the transport of materials.
| Yes
| Yes
| A standard term for the smooth (i.e., not ribosome-covered) portion of the {{w|endoplasmic reticulum}}.
|-
| {{w|Lithosphere}}
| The rigid outer part of the earth, consisting of the crust and upper mantle.
| Yes
| No
| Term from geology; part of the Earth's crust. Labeled cross-sectional diagrams of cells and of the layers of the Earth are commonly found in science textbooks.
|-
| {{w|O-ring}}
| A mechanical gasket in the shape of a torus; used to seal connections.
| Yes
| No
| Engineering term. Both the o-ring and pith are drawn connected to the inner cell membrane. Made famous in pop culture for being the root cause of the {{w|Space Shuttle Challenger disaster}}.
|-
| {{w|Pith}}
| The central tissue in plants, used for nutrient transport.
| Yes
| No
| Botanical term. Most people think of pith as the layer of soft tissue between the skin and the flesh of citrus fruit, which explains its position in the diagram. Both the pith and o-ring are drawn connected to the inner cell membrane.
|-
| {{w|Cell nucleus|Nucleus}}
| The central and most important part of an object, forming the basis for its activity and growth.
| Yes
| Yes
| The cell nucleus is an actual cell organelle which houses {{w|DNA}}.
|-
| {{w|Nucleolus}}
| A small dense spherical structure in the nucleus of a cell during {{w|interphase}}.
| Yes
| Yes
| Actual cell organelle, involved in {{w|ribosome}} production.
|-
| Nucleoloulous
| Not a real term.
| No
| No
| A humorous continuation of the terms "nucleus" and "nucleolus."
|-
| {{w|Nucleon}}s
| Protons and neutrons in the nucleus of an atom.
| Yes
| No
| While cells contain nucleons, the depicted circles are far larger than actual nucleons.
|-
| Drain plug
| A stopper for a drain.
| Yes
| No
| A plumbing term, which could refer to a {{w|porosome}}. Even small, temporary damage to the integrity of the {{w|cell membrane}} puts the cell at immediate and great risk of death.
|-
| Evil endoplasmic reticulum
| Not a real term.
| No
| No
| The rough endoplasmic reticulum is covered in ribosomes; the "evil" endoplasmic reticulum in the comic is covered in twice as many, and is thus twice as rough, making it evil.
|-
| {{w|Hypoallergenic}} filling
| Materials that cause relatively fewer allergic reactions.
| Yes
| Technically not incorrect
| Consumer product term, used e.g. for pillows and mattresses. If the {{w|cytoplasm}} doesn't cause allergic reactions within the cell, it is hypoallergenic.
|-
| Weak spot
| A vulnerable point.
| Yes
| Conceivably
| {{w|Cell membrane}} surfaces do indeed vary in strength, often due to the presence of organelles such as {{w|ion channel pore}}s or {{w|porosome}}s, both of which can be leveraged by viruses to enter cells.
|-
| {{w|Mitochondria}}
| Organelles that generate energy for the cell.
| Yes
| Yes
| Actual cell organelles. Mitochondria are widely known as the "powerhouse of the cell," a phrase originally coined in 1957 by biologist {{w|Philip Siekevitz}}[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/powerhouse-of-the-cell/] which came to prominence online in the mid-2010s.{{acn}}
|-
| {{w|Midichlorians}}
| Fictional microorganisms in the {{w|Star Wars}} universe, which confer Force sensitivity and thereby {{w|Jedi}} associated powers.
| No
| Fictional
| It's unclear whether {{w|George Lucas}} intended for "midi-chlorians" to be {{w|Symbiogenesis|endosymbiotic organelles}} or internal {{w|Symbiosis|symbionts}}.
|-
| {{w|Chloroplast}}s if you're lucky
| Organelles in plant cells responsible for {{w|photosynthesis}}.
| Yes
| Yes, but in plants and plantlike organisms
| Actual cell organelles, found in plant cells and those of several different lineages of non-plant microorganisms and seaweeds. The phrase "if you're lucky" alludes to the good fortune that an organism, be it plant, animal, or microbe, gains by being able to photosynthesize, getting energy from sunlight, rather than have to run around all the time chasing energy. This benefit makes chloroplasts {{w|Kleptoplasty|worth stealing}}. Experiments have been conducted to transplant components of chloroplasts into mammal cells to slow disease.
|-
| Human skin
| The outer covering of the human body.
| Yes
| No
| Skin is a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tissue_(biology) tissue] (multicellular structure). The idea that a complex tissue can be wrapped around a single cell, as if it were a cell wall, or outer {{w|cell membrane}}, or {{w|extracellular matrix}}, is patently, and humorously, absurd. This may be referencing the common factoid that house dust is mostly human skin, implying that the cell is covered in a layer of dust.
|-
| {{w|Carbonation}}
| {{w|Carbon dioxide}} dissolved in a liquid.
| Yes
| No
| Carbonation causes soda pop and similar liquids to bubble, fizz, foam, and {{w|effervesce}}. The little dots depicted in the comic look like carbonation bubbles.
|-
| Golgi
| {{w|Camillo Golgi}} (1843–1926) was an Italian biologist and {{w|pathologist}} who discovered the Golgi apparatus; known also for his works on the central nervous system.
| Yes
| No
| The real Golgi was not and is not a tiny alien being who merged with our cells, as the comic and title text imply.{{Citation needed}}
|-
| {{w|Golgi apparatus}}
| A complex of {{w|vesicles}} and folded membranes involved in secretion and intracellular transport.
| Yes
| Yes
| Actual cell organelle, which takes {{w|polypeptide}} chains from the rough endoplasmic reticulum via transport vesicles and processes them into their protein structure before sending them (again via vesicles) to their destination such as an organelle or outside of the cell.
|-
| {{w|Norton AntiVirus}}
| A software product designed to protect computers from malware.
| Yes
| No
| Computer viruses and biological viruses are completely different, and systems designed to counter one generally don't work for the other. Many cell types do have antiviral mechanisms, notably the {{w|CRISPR}} (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats) DNA sequences in prokaryotes, which resist viral (bacteriophage) infection. However, the cell shown is not prokaryotic, since it contains a nucleus.
|-
| Sticky endoplasmic reticulum
| Not a real term, although parts of the reticula have sticky pockets.[https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcell.2023.1156152/full]
| No
| No
| Another humorous twist on the actual types of endoplasmic reticula.
|-
| {{w|Pleiades}}
| A cluster of stars in the constellation Taurus.
| Yes
| No
| Even a single star is far too big to fit in a cell{{Citation needed}}. The labeled cluster in the comic looks like the actual constellation, as if this were a depiction of the night sky.
|-
| Natural flavor
| Flavoring derived from natural sources.
| Yes
| Conceivably
| A common ingredient on food labels (and sometimes cosmetics, etc.), usually meaning any substance to add flavor, aroma, or both, other than synthetic chemicals which are referred to as artificial flavors.
|-
| {{w|Cellophane}}
| A thin, transparent sheet made of regenerated {{w|cellulose}}.
| Yes
| No
| A type of packaging material. A {{w|cell wall}} is indeed made of cellulose, though not in the form of cellophane. Also, this drawing looks more like an animal cell, which unlike plants and fungi, do not usually have a cell wall.
|-
| {{w|Rough endoplasmic reticulum}}
| Endoplasmic reticulum with {{w|ribosomes}} attached, involved in protein synthesis.
| Yes
| Yes
| Actual cell organelle. "Rough" refers to the presence of ribosomes covering its membrane, which translate {{w|messenger RNA}} into polypeptide chains. Normally the endoplasmic reticulum would wrap around the cell nucleus.
|-
| {{w|Ventricle}}
| A chamber of the heart that pumps blood out.
| Yes
| No
| Ventricles are actually part of the body, and they are composed of many cells. Possibly a pun on {{w|vesicle}} (or {{w|vacuole}}), a small membrane-enclosed vessel, such as the transport vesicles that carry polypeptides from the rough endoplasmic reticulum to the Golgi apparatus for processing.
|-
| {{w|Mantle}} 
| The layer of the earth between the crust and the core.
| Yes
| No
| Misplaced geological term with many other meanings.
|-
| {{w|Slime}}
| A moist, soft, and slippery substance, or a {{w|Slime_(toy)|goopy substance sold as a toy}}.
| Yes
| No
| Could refer to the slimy texture and appearance of {{w|cytoplasm}}, but not specific to cells. Slime was a frequent appearance on the Nickelodeon TV kids channel during [[Randall]]'s youth in the 90s.{{acn}}
|-
| {{w|Vitreous humour}}
| The clear gel that fills the space between the lens and the retina in the eyeball.
| Yes
| No
| The vitreous humour is in the eyes' {{w|extracellular matrix}}, not inside cells. Labeled cross-sectional diagrams of eyes are also commonly found in science textbooks.
|-
| {{w|Seed}}s
| Plant embryos used for reproduction.
| Yes
| No
| Seeds are multicellular, and sometimes contain small proportions of non-cellular tissue. Cells are found in seeds, not the other way around. Seeds would be labeled on a cross-sectional diagram of a fruit, not a cell.
|}

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

Cell Organelles

[A cell is shown with the following structures and areas labeled, counter-clockwise from upper left:]

* Smooth endoplasmic reticulum
* Lithosphere
* O-Ring
* Pith
* Nucleus
* Nucleolus
* Nucleoloulous
* Nucleons
* Drain plug
* Evil endoplasmic reticulum
* Hypoallergenic filling
* Weak spot
* Mitochondria
* Midichlorians
* Chloroplasts if you're lucky
* Human skin
* Carbonation
* Golgi
* Golgi apparatus
* Norton AntiVirus
* Sticky endoplasmic reticulum
* Pleiades
* Natural flavor
* Cellophane
* Rough endoplasmic reticulum

[These labels are inside the cell:]

* Ventricle
* Mantle
* Slime
* Vitreous humour
* Seeds

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Biology]]

2117: Differentiation and Integration

2024-05-31T19:14:01Z

172.70.90.122: /* Integration */

{{comic
| number = 2117
| date = February 27, 2019
| title = Differentiation and Integration
| image = differentiation_and_integration.png
| titletext = "Symbolic integration" is when you theatrically go through the motions of finding integrals, but the actual result you get doesn't matter because it's purely symbolic.
}}

==Explanation==
This comic illustrates the old saying [https://mathoverflow.net/q/66377 "Differentiation is mechanics, integration is art."] It does so by providing a {{w|flowchart}} purporting to show the process of differentiation, and another for integration.

{{w|Derivative|Differentiation}} and {{w|Antiderivative|Integration}} are two major components of {{w|calculus}}. As many Calculus 2 students are painfully aware, integration is much more complicated than the differentiation it undoes.

However, Randall dramatically overstates this point here. After the first step of integration, Randall assumes that any integration can not be solved so simply, and then dives into a step named "????", suggesting that it is unknowable how to proceed. The rest of the flowchart is (we can assume deliberately) even harder to follow, and does not reach a conclusion. This is in contrast to the simple, straightforward flowchart for differentiation. The fact that the arrows in the bottom of the integration part leads to nowhere indicates that "Phone calls to mathematicians", "Oh no" and "Burn the evidence" are not final steps in the difficult journey. The flowchart could be extended by Randall to God-knows-where extents.

It should be noted that Randall slightly undermines his point by providing four different methods, and an "etc", and a "No"-branch for attempting differentiation with no guidelines for selecting between them.

===Differentiation===
'''{{w|Chain rule}}'''

For any <math> \frac{d}{dx}f(x)=f'(x)</math> and <math> \frac{d}{dx}g(x)=g'(x) </math>, it follows that <math> \frac{d}{dx}(f(g(x)))=f'(g(x))\cdot g'(x)</math>.

'''{{w|Power Rule}}'''

For any <math> f(x)=g(x)^a </math> and <math> \frac{d}{dx}g(x)=g'(x) </math>, it follows that <math> \frac{d}{dx}f(x)=a\cdot g(x)^{a-1}\cdot g'(x) </math>.

'''{{w|Quotient rule}}'''

For any <math> \frac{d}{dx}f(x)=f'(x)</math> and <math> \frac{d}{dx}g(x)=g'(x) </math>, it follows that <math> \frac{d}{dx} \frac{f(x)}{g(x)}=\frac{f'(x)\cdot g(x)-f(x)\cdot g'(x)}{(g(x))^2}</math> if <math>g(x)\ne 0</math>.

'''{{w|Product rule}}'''

For any <math> \frac{d}{dx}f(x)=f'(x)</math> and <math> \frac{d}{dx}g(x)=g'(x) </math>, it follows that <math> \frac{d}{dx}(f(x)\cdot g(x))=f'(x)\cdot g(x)+f(x)\cdot g'(x)</math>.

===Integration===
'''{{w|Integration by parts}}'''

The "product rule" run backwards. Since <math>(uv)' = uv' + u'v</math>, it follows that by integrating both sides you get <math> uv = \int u dv + \int v du</math>, which is more commonly written as <math>\int u dv = uv - \int v du</math>. By finding appropriate values for functions <math>u, v</math> such that your problem is in the form <math>\int u dv</math>, your problem ''may'' be simplified. The catch is, there exists no algorithm for determining what functions they might possibly be, so this approach quickly devolves into a guessing game - this has been the topic of an earlier comic, [[1201: Integration by Parts]].

'''{{w|Integration by substitution|Substitution}}'''

The "chain rule" run backwards. Since <math> d(f(u)) = (df(u))du</math>, it follows that <math>f(u) = \int df(u) du</math>. By finding appropriate values for functions <math>f, u</math> such that your problem is in the form <math>\int df(u) du</math> your problem ''may'' be simplified.

'''{{w|Cauchy's integral formula|Cauchy's Formula}}'''

Cauchy's Integral formula is a result in complex analysis that relates the value of a contour integral in the complex plane to properties of the singularities in the interior of the contour. <math> \frac{d^n}{da^n}f(a) = \frac{n!}{2\pi i} \oint_\gamma \frac{f(z)}{\left(z-a\right)^{n+1}}\, dz.</math> It is often used to compute integrals on the real line by extending the path of the integral from the real line into the complex plane to apply the formula, then proving that the integral from the parts of the contour not on the real line has value zero.

'''{{w|Partial_fraction_decomposition#Application_to_symbolic_integration|Partial Fractions}}'''

Partial fractions is a technique for breaking up a function that comprises one polynomial divided by another into a sum of functions comprising constants over the factors of the original denominator, which can easily be integrated into logarithms.

'''Install {{w|Mathematica}}'''

Mathematica is a modern technical computing system spanning most areas. One of its features is to compute mathematical functions. This step in the flowchart is to install and use Mathematica to do the integration for you. Here is a description about the [https://web.archive.org/web/20180727184709/http://reference.wolfram.com/language/tutorial/IntegralsThatCanAndCannotBeDone.html intricacies of integration and how Mathematica handles those]. (It would be quicker to try [https://www.wolframalpha.com Wolfram Alpha] instead of installing Mathematica, which uses the same backend for mathematical calculations.)

'''{{w|Riemann integral|Riemann Integration}}'''

The Riemann integral is a definition of definite integration. <math>\sum_{i=0}^{n-1} f(t_i) \left(x_{i+1}-x_i\right).</math> Elementary textbooks on calculus sometimes present finding a definite integral as a process of approximating an area by strips of equal width and then taking the limit as the strips become narrower. Riemann integration removes the requirement that the strips have equal width, and so is a more flexible definition. However there are still many functions for which the Riemann integral doesn't converge, and consideration of these functions leads to the {{w|Lebesgue integration|Lebesgue integral}}. Riemann integration is not a method of calculus appropriate for finding the anti-derivative of an elementary function.

'''{{w|Stokes' Theorem}}'''

Stokes' theorem is a statement about the integration of differential forms on manifolds. <math>\int_{\partial \Omega}\omega=\int_\Omega d\omega\,.</math> It is invoked in science and engineering during control volume analysis (that is, to track the rate of change of a quantity within a control volume, it suffices to track the fluxes in and out of the control volume boundary), but is rarely used directly (and even when it is used directly, the functions that are most frequently used in science and engineering are well-behaved, like sinusoids and polynomials).

'''{{w|Risch Algorithm}}'''

The Risch algorithm is a notoriously complex procedure that, given a certain class of symbolic integrand, either finds a symbolic integral or proves that no elementary integral exists. (Technically it is only a semi-algorithm, and cannot produce an answer unless it can determine if a certain symbolic expression is {{w|Constant problem|equal to 0}} or not.) Many computer algebra systems have chosen to implement only the simpler Risch-Norman algorithm, which does not come with the same guarantee. A series of extensions to the Risch algorithm extend the class of allowable functions to include (at least) the error function and the logarithmic integral. A human would have to be pretty desperate to attempt this (presumably) by hand.

'''{{w|Bessel function}}'''

Bessel functions are the solution to the differential equation <math> x^2 \frac{d^2y}{dx^2}+x \frac{dy}{dx}+(x^2-n^2)*y=0</math>, where n is the order of Bessel function. Though they do show up in some engineering, physics, and abstract mathematics, in lower levels of calculus they are often a sign that the integration was not set up properly before someone put them into a symbolic algebra solver.

'''Phone calls to mathematicians'''

This step would indicate that the flowchart user, desperate from failed attempts to solve the problem, contacts some more skilled mathematicians by phone, and presumably asks them for help. The connected steps of "Oh no", "What the heck is a Bessel function?" and "Burn the evidence" may suggest the possibility that this interaction might not play out very well and could even get the caller in trouble.
Specialists and renowned experts being bothered - not to their amusement - by strangers, often at highly inconvenient times or locations, is a common comedic trope, also previously utilized by xkcd (for example in [[163: Donald Knuth]]).

'''Burn the evidence'''

This phrase parodies a common trope in detective fiction, where characters burn notes, receipts, passports, etc. to maintain secrecy. This may refer to the burning of one's work to avoid the shame of being associated with such a badly failed attempt to solve the given integration problem. Moreover, such a poor attempt at integration could be viewed as a 'crime against mathematics', with the working of the problem being criminal 'evidence' that must be destroyed to avoid exposure as the culprit. Alternatively, it could be an ironic hint to the fact that in order to find the integral, it may even be necessary to break the law or upset higher powers, so the negative consequences of a prosecution can only be avoided by destroying the evidence.

'''{{w|Symbolic integration}}'''

Symbolic integration is the basic process of finding an antiderivative function (defined with symbols), as opposed to numerically integrating a function. The title text is a pun that defines the term not as integration that works with symbols, but rather as integration as a symbolic act, as if it were a component of a ritual. A symbolic act in a ritual is an act meant to evoke something else, such as burning a wooden figurine of a person to represent one’s hatred of that person. Alternatively, the reference could be seen as a joke that integration might as well be a symbol, like in a novel, because Randall can't get any meaningful results from his analysis.

==Transcript==
:[Two flow charts are shown.]

:[The first flow chart has four steps in simple order, one with multiple recommendations.]
:DIFFERENTIATION
:Start
:Try applying
::Chain Rule
::Power Rule
::Quotient Rule
::Product Rule
::Etc.
:Done?
::No [Arrow returns to "Try applying" step.]
::Yes
:Done!

[The second flow chart begins like the first, then descends into chaos.]
:INTEGRATION
:Start
:Try applying
::Integration by Parts
::Substitution
:Done?
:Haha, Nope!

:[Chaos, Roughly from left to right, top to bottom, direction arrows not included.]
::Cauchy's Formula
::????
::???!?
::???
::???
::?
::Partial Fractions
::??
::?
::Install Mathematica
::?
::Riemann Integration
::Stokes' Theorem
::???
::?
::Risch Algorithm
::???
::[Sad face.]
::?????
::???
::What the heck is a Bessel Function??
::Phone calls to mathematicians
::Oh No
::Burn the Evidence
::[More arrows pointing out of the image to suggest more steps.]

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Analysis]]
[[Category:Flowcharts]]

2936: Exponential Growth

2024-05-23T07:17:06Z

172.70.90.122: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2936
| date = May 22, 2024
| title = Exponential Growth
| image = exponential_growth_2x.png
| imagesize = 545x264px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Karpov's construction of a series of increasingly large rice cookers led to a protracted deadlock, but exponential growth won in the end.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a 2^64TH ITERATION OF A BOT - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

{{w|Exponential growth}} is the principle that if you keep multiplying a number by a value larger than 1, you will pretty quickly get very large numbers. Even if you start with 1 and simply double it each time, you'll have a 10-digit number after about 30 iterations.

This principle is often illustrated using the story "Game of Rice". A king of India wished to reward a man for creating a new game of Chess, and told him that he'd grant any wish. The man simply asked for a {{w|Wheat and chessboard problem|grain of wheat to be placed on a chess board and for it to double with each square on the board each day.}} The king granted his strange request and ordered one wheat grain to be placed on the board. The second day two more pieces were placed on the square next to that and the day after four pieces on the next. However, by day 20 there was over 500,000 grains on the board. The king had to dig into his own stock pile to pay his dues. On day 24 the king owed 8 million grains. By day 32 the king owed over 2 billion pieces of grain, at this point he had to give up and offered the man another prize.

Instead of this being a (possibly apocryphal) story, [[Black Hat]] used it literally during a game of chess to annoy his opponent into quitting. Black Hat begins describing the metaphor, only to reveal it wasn't a metaphor at all. Black Hat had been playing actual Chess games, and tried to force his opponent to resign by burying the chess pieces in rice, as implied by the multiple large sacks bluntly labelled 'rice' on his side of the chessboard. This is not the first comic to feature large quantities of rice labelled in this manner - in 1598: Salvage, a gargantuan tank of rice has simply the word 'rice' written on the side in equally gargantuan capital letters.

{{w|Garry Kasparov}} is a world renowned Russian chess master. He had the highest FIDE chess rating in the world-one of 2851 points-until {{w|Magnus Carlsen}} surpassed that in 2013 by 31 points. The Kasparov gambit is an opening move in chess.

In 1984-85 Garry Kasparov played {{w|Anatoly Karpov}} in a 5-month-long 48-game championship tournament which was abandoned. In the 1984-85 match Kasparov was losing 4-0 with 6 wins being required to win. Kasparov proceeded to draw 35 times before the match was abandoned.

In a 1985 rematch, Kasparov defeated Karpov for the world championship title, which he retained in their next rematch in 1986.

* First row:
** a1: 1
** a2: 2
** a3: 4
** a4: 8
** a5: 16
** a6: 32
** a7: 64
** a8: 128
* Second row
** b1: 256
** b2: 512
** b3: 1,024
** b4: 2,048
** b5: 4,096
** b6: 8,192
** b7: 16,384
** b8: 32,768
:
* First of each row
:
** c1: 65,536
** d1: 16,777,216
** e1: 4,294,967,300
** f1: 1,099,511,630,000
** g1: 281,474,977,000,000
:
* ...
:
* Eighth row
** h1: 72,057,594,040,000,000
** h2: 144,115,188,100,000,000
** h3: 288,230,376,200,000,000
** h4: 576,460,752,300,000,000
** h5: 1,152,921,505,000,000,000
** h6: 2,305,843,009,000,000,000
** h7: 4,611,686,018,000,000,000
** h8: 9,223,372,036,854,775,808

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[Black Hat is talking to Cueball standing next to him.]
:Black Hat: Exponential growth is very powerful.

:[Closeup on Black Hat. Next to him is an image of the lower left part of a chessboard. The four leftmost squares in the bottom row have grains of rice on them -- one, two, four, and eight grains respectively.]
:Black Hat: A chessboard has 64 squares.
:Black Hat: Say you put one grain of rice on the first square, then two grains on the second, then four, then eight, doubling each time.

:[Black Hat has emptied a bag of rice on a chessboard. There are several bags next to him and a pile of rice already on the table. A frustrated Hairy is walking away, fists clenched.]
:[Caption above panel, representing Black Hat continuing to speak:]
:If you keep this up, your opponent will resign in frustration.
:It's called Kasparov's Grain Gambit. Nearly impossible to counter.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Black Hat]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Hairy]]
[[Category:Chess]]
[[Category:Food]]
[[Category:Comics featuring real people]]

2885: Spelling

2024-01-25T09:51:33Z

172.70.90.122: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2885
| date = January 24, 2024
| title = Spelling
| image = spelling_2x.png
| imagesize = 281x333px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Any time I misspell a word it's just because I have too much integrity to copy answers from the dictionary.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by JAYSON BLAIR (LOOK HIM UP) - Give some examples of how plagiarism is often often misspelled, if it is! Or explain that it is not a word people have problem plagiarizing. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

Search engines like Google usually autocorrect misspelled words, offering results with the correct spelling. Some people get help with hard-to-spell words by entering their best guess into Google, then copy-pasting the correct version.

Cueball has an unusually strict sense of {{dict|plagiarism}} in which copying ''individual words'' without attribution would be plagiarizing (appropriating the work of others without permission or credit), and this misplaced integrity makes him morally opposed to copying the word 'plagiarism' itself from Google.

It's not clear why Cueball couldn't just cite his source (Google Search) when including the word "plagiarism" in his document to avoid committing plagiarism according to his strict ethical code. If using MLA style, he could cite it as...
"plagiarism - Google Search." Google, https://www.google.com/search?q=plagarism. Accessed 24 January 2024.

The title text takes Cueball's absurdist view of plagiarism one step further when says he only ever misspells words because he has too much integrity to copy the spelling from the dictionary, an act he also considers to be plagiarism. Simply using a word doesn't require a citation, so it wouldn't be plagiarism to copy from the dictionary. Any style guide or professional editor would advise Cueball that correct spelling is much preferred to incorrect spelling or superfluous citations. And this is not one of those rare scenarios when a style guide might recommend citing a dictionary definition:
* Providing a definition: If you're using a specific, perhaps unusual or technical, definition from a dictionary to make a point in your writing. This is because the definition is serving as a source of evidence or support for your argument.
* Etymology or historical usage: If you are discussing the etymology or historical evolution of a word.

Note that outside the USA, the linked verb is different. It is spelt "plagiarise" and not "plagiarize". This means that a search engine like Google or Duck Duck Go will supply both spellings.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball is sitting on an office chair at a desk and looking at a laptop while resting his hands on it. Megan is standing behind him and looking at the laptop as well.]
:Megan: When I can't spell a word I usually just Google and copy and paste it from the results.
:Cueball: Yeah, but I can't do that '''''here!!'''''

:[Caption below the panel:]
:Why spelling "plagiarism" is especially hard

==Trivia==
Randall had previously commented on some ''other'' problems with using Google's suggestion feature as a spellchecker in [https://blog.xkcd.com/2010/05/03/color-survey-results/ the Color Survey Results post] on the xkcd blag.

{{comic discussion}}

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