explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

2935: Ocean Loop

2024-05-21T08:29:31Z

172.70.90.172: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2935
| date = May 20, 2024
| title = Ocean Loop
| image = ocean_loop_2x.png
| imagesize = 317x286px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = I can't believe they wouldn't even let me hold a vote among the passengers about whether to try the loop.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by an EXCITED ROLLER COASTER ENTHUSIAST - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

Upon hearing the term "ocean loop", many people think of horizontal {{w|ocean gyre}}s or {{w|ocean currents}}. This comic illustrates a vertical, rather than horizontal, ocean loop.

The comic shows a large construction, rising out of the sea to dwarf a nearby cruise ship. It involves a submerged water-jet sending water up out of the surface and round a rollercoaster-loop-like water-flume trough. The scale is such that it seems that the ship, once caught in the necessarily powerful stream of water, is intended to be propelled around the inverting loop before "safely" exiting at the other side.

Apart from various other issues regarding {{what if|43|large "loop-de-loops"}}, the stream of water required to maintain this setup would be {{w|Entrainment (hydrodynamics)|acting upon the nearby water}} and so the nearby ship is probably already close enough to be drawn into the loop (with the best option left being to deliberately steer into it, rather than risk being swept uncontrollably into the structure), assuming that it isn't already caught in the tug of the water-jet's inward flow.

Even assuming a "successful" loop (the stresses, and rotation, inflicted by the loop are likely beyond the design limits of such a vessel), the emergence back into the ''relatively'' calm and stationary waters beyond the exiting outflow would be a severe challenge to navigation. On the positive side, due to the nature of buoyancy, if the loop structure itself is capable of withstanding the force of the water being forced round it then it ''should'' be equally capable of withstanding the passage of the ship, unlike an impromptu rail-based loop which might stand up on its own but then shake itself apart when the first carriage is sent around it.

Not only would there be problems for the engineers, ship and navigators, the "ride" wouldn't be pleasant for the ship's passengers in any way. Many of the passengers would suffer extreme injuries from the changes of velocity (up to 230 mph based on a loop radius of 3 x ship length) and rotation (unlike {{w|rollercoasters}}, or even airplanes during simple take-off and landing, passengers aren't normally strapped down). It is possible that the initial extreme undercurrent would likely capsize the ship. Depending upon where in the ship you were, the centripetal forces and the ships rotation may not match for all passengers, forcing anyone not properly secured out towards the bow or stern. As well as the passengers, this also is relevant to all unsecured items (e.g. knives and forks would go flying off tables), as well as the dangers of breakable glass, liquids and many other dangerous objects which could create hazards even (or particularly) against those who have strapped themselves down to prevent their own movement through the ship.

Because of all these safety concerns, the bottom text, "I don't know why the cruise line fired me", suggests that someone in the company immediately realized this would not be a good idea, and seeing as cruise ship operators prioritize safety over whatever "thrill" or "uniqueness" this loop brings, either due to their good heart or because it's illegal {{actual citation needed}}, shut down the concept immediately. The title text, "I can't believe they wouldn't even let me hold a vote among the passengers about whether to try the loop", implies that someone with a sadistic nature (maybe [[Black Hat]]?) actually built this loop and had a ship ready to try it. The title text also suggests that not only are those in charge of the ship skeptical about sailing into this loop, but that they are worried that opening the decision-making process to the passengers might favor the exciting risk over the well-founded reason of the staff. However, cruise ships generally don't function as democracies even outside of absurd situations such as the one depicted.

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

:[A cruise ship approaches an enormous loop-de-loop flume. A large jet of water is being propelled into the loop-de-loop.]

:[Caption below the panel:]
:I don't know why the cruise line fired me.

==Trivia==
* '''This trivia section was created by a BOT'''
* The [[:File:ocean_loop_huge.png|standard size]] image was uploaded with a resolution/size larger than the supposed 2x version.
* This may have been an error.
* At the time of posting, the image was ''massive'', 4760 x 4295 pixels.

{{comic discussion}}

Talk:1979: History

2024-05-18T05:15:45Z

172.70.90.172:

Heh. I accidentally misread the line, so I thought it said: "I honestly have enough trouble with just the ''president''". [[User:Linker|Linker]] ([[User talk:Linker|talk]]) 11:48, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
:Same here. Then I thought "What the heck?" and read the last line again. Lol. [[User:Herobrine|Herobrine]] ([[User talk:Herobrine|talk]]) 13:20, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
::And same here, lol! I was actually wondering about what the possible motivations could have been to use Megan as the character to say that. Then I read it again :D [[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.172|162.158.255.172]] 14:26, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
:::Considering Randall's opinion on Trump, it made a little sense. But he hasn't ever attacked him directly.[[User:Linker|Linker]] ([[User talk:Linker|talk]]) 15:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
::::It's a reach, but it's POSSIBLE this was the intention. Planting the seed by talking about a president, then a comment closely resembling "I honestly have enough trouble just with the president". It may have garnered the intended response. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.172|162.158.255.172]] 14:04, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I only make comments, and let others figure out how to edit it into the above. I once read someplace that there is a reasonable limit to accurate historical research at about 3 centuries- events more than 300 years in the past become more mythological than factual, and events more than 500 years in the past are so remote that we can't even begin to understand the culture in which they occurred. While there are famous exceptions to this rule, they occur entirely in the realms of either archaeology or theology and religion, not in the science of history.[[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 13:32, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
:What is "accurate historical research"? No scientist would use those words. And a historian as an expert - let's say of the Roman Empire or the medieval - would strictly disagree. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 15:12, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

:Even shorter periods of time. There were a lot of changes in the twentieth century. I was born in 1960. At that time, there were people alive before the automobile, powered airflight, the telephone. How about photocopiers which really got going in the 1970s? Can any of you younger people understand not being able to photocopy something? Then, there are the developments in computers and mobile phones.
:On a USENET newgroup that I follow -- alt.talk.royalty -- there is one monarchist who posts a series of posts on Queen Elizabeth II. Sort of. He takes the current length of her reign and goes back that far before it (less a day, I think). He then describes the world at that time and finishes with "Consider all the changes, natural and manmade, visited upon the world in all the time since. And now consider this...Queen Elizabeth II has been on the Throne for MOST of that time since then." Twice her reign length from present time is now in the 1880s. A very different world.
:[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.220|108.162.216.220]] 15:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC) Gene Wirchenko genew@telus.net

My maternal grandfather was born in 1873. When I was a child, he told me glorious stories about living in a log cabin in Michigan as a child, riding his penny-farthing bicycle as a teenager, and moving to a boomtown called Venice (CA) in the 1920s. He was 30 when the Wright Brothers made their first flight, and he wound up manufacturing aircraft parts during WWII. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.106|172.68.54.106]] 08:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

The link to the actual page of the paper is fantastic - especially the ads along the right side - "Anti-Morbific, the Great Liver and Kidney Remedy" and "Trash's Magnetic Ointment". So, a question - there's no by-line. Is there any way to figure out who wrote this? I assume maybe multiple people, like and editorial board? [[User:DanB|DanB]] ([[User talk:DanB|talk]]) 13:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
:Most articles then didn't have a byline, you'd have to find who the editor was, it was probably him. Another fantastic advert in there is for Lydia E. Pinkham's Vegetable Compound, which of course was the inspiration for the song Lily the Pink. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.172|172.70.90.172]] 05:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the link to the actual page of the paper, the article immediately after it talks about a discussion over the tariffs on whiskey, beer, and tobacco covering the differences of opinion within the Democrat and Republican parties and protectionism vs free trade and producers vs consumers concluding that the tax is good because it could be used to pay down the national debt and finance national education initiatives. Despite burgeoning taxes the speculated benefits never arrived. We deceive ourselves if we believe that the discussions we have today were never debated before. The debate is eternal and the promised goods are never delivered. [[User:Rtanenbaum|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum|talk]]) 21:15, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I think this comic is referencing how so many people are commenting on how unprecedented Trump’s presidency has been, how it’ll be the sort of think future students will read about in history classes, and overall how dramatic it is, like you’d find unbelievable, even in a movie. This comic is commenting on how people in the moment often think that way, yet Trump’ll likely be a footnote in 200 years too. [[User:PotatoGod|PotatoGod]] ([[User talk:PotatoGod|talk]]) 19:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

:I need to comment, but I'll do my best to temper it a bit. I think it's a stretch to think this is saying anything about Trump. It seems like this comic is just a reflection on how difficult it is to ever have a complete and thorough account of everything that happens in the history of our world. The best we can hope for is a summary of the general facts, but that will always omit important details - as it says, history is BIG! In summary, can we not make every comic about Trump, please? [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 20:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

There is an erroneous period at the end of the first line of the last paragraph: "...the present. period may...". I added the period to the transcript, but I'm not sure if the local policy is to include "[sic]" in the transcript, to note that in an "errors" section, etc. I'd invite someone who knows the policy to edit the page accordingly. --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.69.46|172.69.69.46]] 20:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Seems to me like most of the major events in history classes (at least the events I can remember the year of) happened on even years: 1066, 1492, 1776, 1812, ...
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.251|162.158.79.251]] 23:29, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

;Second lesson
I think, there is a second lesson in this strip: We tend to massively overestimate the importance of current events, and Americans specifically tend to overestimate the importance of their presidents. Today, Garfield is just <s>a cartoon character</s> one of many presidents, in 100 years Kennedy will also be seen as just one of even more presidents, and one day, even 9/11 will be only something that happened sometime in the distant past.

In other words: Not only is history bigger than we think, we also tend to exaggerate the importance of current events. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.77.170|141.101.77.170]] 12:51, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

;Conkling vs Garfield

Quoting the current version of the article:

:For example, it cites the defeat of Roscoe Conkling as a serious event that would fade in importance when compared to Garfield's assassination. Conkling was a senator in Garfield's party who resigned in protest of Garfield's policies, then failed to achieve re-election; contrary to the writer's belief, both these events have faded into roughly the same level of obscurity.

I'm going to disagree that Conkling's defeat & Garfield's assassination are events at the same level of obscurity. First off, Garfield is at least mentioned on lists of U.S. presidents and lists of presidents who were assassinated. This type of material is available in, for example, pretty much every U.S. elementary school. I believe I've got a placemat with Garfield's name, face, and dates (along with those of all the other U.S. presidents) in my kitchen at this very moment. Kids love it . . .

Meanwhile, Conkling's name is not widely known at all even in the U.S. and his re-election defeat is not even mentioned in the top-line summary of his Wikipedia article (it's way down in the detail section halfway through the article, but doesn't make the article summary). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roscoe_Conkling

I don't know how you objectively measure the prominence of one historical character or event over another, but just for example Garfield's wikipedia article is about 4X as long as Conkling's. And mentions the assassination in the very first sentence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_A._Garfield

[[Special:Contributions/172.68.150.52|172.68.150.52]] 14:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
:The number of Google searches might also be a useful indicator https://trends.google.de/trends/explore?date=all&q=%2Fm%2F0b22w,%2Fm%2F03x0cd {{unsigned ip|162.158.88.68}}
::Aha, yeah. That puts the Garfield/Conkling ratio at 34/2 over about 14 years of Google searches. So Garfield is searched for roughly 17X as often as Conkling.

::Abraham Lincoln compared with Garfield comes out as 37/1. So Garfield is indeed far more obscure than Lincoln, but Conkling is more obscure yet, according to the Google searches. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.150.52|172.68.150.52]] 21:54, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

; Boldface?
Can anyone speculate on what Randall was trying to achieve with the selective use of '''boldfaced''' text in the comic? [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 16:41, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
:Interesting question. I've entered it into the incomplete reason. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 17:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
::I believe it's Randall's way of providing a "TL;DR" version, that anyone not inclined to read that entire (rather large) block of text can just read the bold parts to grasp the gist of what the article, and by extension Randall, is trying to say (I DO feel like if someone only reads the bold text, they'll get the point of the article, at least the part that's striking Randall/Megan). [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 05:16, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

To be honest, I’d definitely rather lose the odd numbered years. Usually, things are fairly balanced, as most events take more than a year. However, if an event, such as an election is held every x years, it usually corresponds to even years. Examples: US Elections, Olympics

1921: The Moon and the Great Wall

2024-05-16T21:26:16Z

172.70.90.172: Seriously, this is a word already in this very paragraph. Just CopyNPaste it if you momentarily can't remember how to spell it...

{{comic
| number = 1921
| date = November 27, 2017
| title = The Moon and the Great Wall
| image = the_moon_and_the_great_wall.png
| titletext = And arguably sunspots, on rare occasions. But even if they count, it takes ideal conditions and you might hurt your eyes.
}}

==Explanation==
This is a reference to the myth that the {{w|Great Wall of China}} is the only man-made object that can be seen from the {{w|Moon}} (or from space) with the naked eye. {{w|Great Wall of China#Visibility_from_space|Sadly, it cannot}}. In fact, it's barely visible from the orbit of low satellites. Not only that, even if it was visible from space, it wouldn't be alone with that title. There are {{w|Artificial structures visible from space|plenty of objects visible from space}}, the {{w|Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant}} is able to be seen from space, so are the clusters of greenhouses in Almería Spain.

This comic mocks the myth by conflating it with another saying about the Moon, and how the Moon's craters and valleys are visible to the naked human eye. Indeed, the Moon is the only {{w|Astronomical object|celestial body}} for which this is true, as all other bodies (with the potential exception of the Sun, see the title text) can only be seen as tiny points of light by the unaided human eye. There is nothing special about the Great Wall of China in this factoid, though; the Moon’s features can be seen equally well from practically any place on Earth with a view of the Moon.{{Citation needed}}

The title text states that one is sometimes able to see large {{w|sunspots}} if any are present and conditions are ideal. However, looking directly at the sun with the naked eye risks extensive damage to the eye and should NEVER be done. It could, however, be possible to see them when the Sun is seen through a thin cloud cover or maybe at sunset/sunrise. (It's possible to see very large sunspots with {{w|solar eclipse}} {{w|Solar viewer|glasses}} or other adequate {{w|Eye protection#Protection against light|protection}}, but that's not unaided human eye.)

==Transcript==
:[Megan is holding her arm up towards Ponytail as they stand atop a large brick wall with {{w|Merlon|merlons}} along the top. They are standing to the left of a tower with three small windows as well as merlons on the top.]
:Megan: Did you know that the moon's craters and plains are the only structures on the surface of a celestial body that can be seen with the naked eye from the Great Wall of China?

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category: Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category: Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category: Astronomy]]

Talk:2928: Software Testing Day

2024-05-12T13:59:48Z

172.70.90.172:

What holiday are they referring to? In the UK we will have a long weekend due to the Early May Bank Holiday. But May Day isn't a "thing" in the USA, is it? Or should we just assume this is set in Britain? [[User:Zeimusu|Zeimusu]] ([[User talk:Zeimusu|talk]]) 13:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
:Well, that's refering to the official STD(!) set to be on January 0th (+24hr+12hr), so I don't think it's a topical scene.
:It looks like our Leftpondian friends have official ''nationwide'' 'holidays' on: New Year's Day (1/Jan), Martin Luther King, Jr, Day. (3rd Monday in January), Inauguration Day (20/Jan, every 4 years), Presidents Day (3rd Monday in February), Memorial Day (last Monday in May), Juneteenth (19/Jun), Independence Day (4/Jul), Labor Day (1st Monday in September), Columbus Day (2nd Monday in October), Veterans Day (11/Nov), Thanksgiving Day (4th Thursday in November), Christmas Day (25/Dec). And then there'll be additional state/more local days, no doubt. (And, because of labo(u)r laws, or insufficient ones, I'm given to believe that might be more of an inconvenience/inapplicability to quite a lot of workers.)
:But this seems to be a highly specific 'QA'/software-testers' tradition, either within a particular company or across ''all'' such professionals. At least within the xkcd universe, which might have all kinds of other strangenesses to it that we're only seeing the vaguest outline of through these comics. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.188|172.71.242.188]] 17:37, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
:"May Day isn't a ''thing'' in the USA, is it?" -- Personal holiday. At my house (Maine USA) a maypole is customary (if snow allows). When I was very young (1950s California) we celebrated in kindergarten, but I think religious bigots cancelled that. --[[User:PRR|PRR]] ([[User talk:PRR|talk]]) 19:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
:Could be talking about Cinco de Mayo, a Mexican holiday that a lot of Americans also celebrate. The same day (May 5) is also Cartoonist Day -- as a cartoonist himself, this could be Randall's way of celebrating it. [[User:N0lqu|-boB]] ([[User talk:N0lqu|talk]]) 14:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I exapnded the "hours on/after midnight" section a bit. Nearly put down that the 'official' day at times used to start at 6:00AM (or dawn, depending upon whether some form of consistent timekeeping or just practical astronomical cycles dominated), so that the post-midnight activities of people (very unusual, for most, but would include liturgical ceremonies) also belonged to the prior daylight cycle. And that "noon" was the "ninth hour" of the day (~3PM, give or take), before clock changes and civil practice moved it to midday. - But this really is beyond the scope of the above explanation, so mentioning it here instead. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.38.91|162.158.38.91]] 18:09, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
:I work in public transport, where we use times up to 32:00 but ignore daylight saving time on the night it switches (so on that night, 30:00 might be 5am or 7am in the sunday morning). Also, we have different notations for time as a specific point in the day (7:10) or as a duration (7h10). [[User:IIVQ|IIVQ]] ([[User talk:IIVQ|talk]]) 06:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I'll just leave this here :) https://gist.github.com/timvisee/fcda9bbdff88d45cc9061606b4b923ca [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 07:28, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Some years ago there were gigs at the local [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sB--qzE4JhE indie disco] which started after midnight (because, due to licensing rules, opening doors before midnight would imply extra costs, since it would count as an extra working day). When posting about those gigs I would write something like "1:00 in the night from Friday to Saturday", so as to not be ambiguous. [[User:Rps|Rps]] ([[User talk:Rps|talk]]) 13:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I understood this in a wholly different way.... I thought that since many companies are doing server maintenance + possibly software testing on days where not many people are working, this refers to Cueball (as a software engineer) bitterly commenting about not having a day off when everybody else has.--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.111.177|162.158.111.177]] 06:57, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
: At least for the "software testing" part this is in general not true. Most companies have dedicated test systems, which are, in an ideal world, even separate from the development systems. This is, for example, the default system landscape that SAP recommends for their users (and ofc SAP itself). https://help.sap.com/docs/SOFTWARE_LOGISTICS_TOOLSET_CTS_PLUG-IN/05c12df5b54849c49940a14bc089d8b4/63a30a4ac00811d2851c0000e8a57770.html?locale=en-US [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 07:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
: I rather read it as "testing the test system". The meta-test of whether a particularly extreme test would not just fail the test but cause the testing system to failover badly. To this end, ''nothing but the accumulatively bad testing'' can be run (upon the test system), everything else is put on hold (because regular testing added to the test-testing would confound the matter, and be useless anyway if the test-tests made the thing fold under the pressure first) and this forces the testers to keep their hands off everything for the duration (the 'day' given the test value of 0th January, and the rest), much as per the [[Compiling]] down-time.
: If the meta-test goes wrong (causes the meta-testing to fail, or perhaps does not fail 'correctly' at the non-meta test level) then the human testers no longer have their time off and are called back in for their mini-holiday (or no longer allowed to leave, if the failure happens during pre-test-test testing).
: For the crashing of the "recordkeeping system", as per title-text, this could be anything from deliberately "give a test we know crashes the (non-meta) system" by the testers to the non-tester recordkeepers not trusting the testers (and test-testers) and so trying to use the test-test data themselves upon a system of their own that is definitely not test-test-proof because they hadn't had asked for (test-)tester validation of it. (I've been part of a Change Control processing group where we've been made aware of a sub-group that has been reconfiguring its own little corner of the system without due reference to company policy, perhaps due to office politics and "it's nothing to do with them", etc.)
: But I'm not sure it's quite as simple as that. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.43.183|172.69.43.183]] 09:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Changed away from the description of the javascript being "abused" by non-standard values. It may be a valid shortcut to just add a relevent ('over the top') value to <code>dayOfMonth</code> or <code>hourOfDay</code> variables, or even subtract and let the inbuilt algorithm resolve the oddness (with some testing, or documented confirmation, that it does the right thing).
<br/>If the core function isn't actually broken/fooled/exceptioned by out-of-normal-range inputs, it allows "this exact same time next week" without having to additionally do your own <code>this.day=this.day+7; if this.day>daysInMonth(this.month) { this.day=this.day-daysInMonth(this.month); this.month++; if (this.month)=13 { this.month=1; this.year++ } }</code> and hope you've not missed off any exception in your reinvention of the same wheel that the date-handling code has probably already covered. In ''at least'' as much detail as you just did, prior to feeding it with your 'presanitised' variables, but if you know you need to maybe add <code>,this.Year</code> to the <code>daysInMonth(...)</code> param, to cover leapyear differences then you already know to test the inbuilt function with an edge-condition to make sure ''it'' knows (before then looking to maybe fudge any adjusting code of your own to undo ny inbuilt errors that you see).
<br/>And if it's already good enough to deal with everything necessary, with or without additional functionality-refinements, then it's just a bonus that you can actually supply a dateTime adjusted by subtracting some relevent <code>secondsInSiderealYear</code> from the current <code>observationTime.seconds</code> to give a different retrospective timestamp to if you had taken off <code>secondsInTropicalYear</code> instead (having tested that it does the right thing for your purposes when it leaps back from Gregorian into Julian calendars, if this is deemed relevent). Neater code, for which simple comments/documentation can reveal the pre-testing done that justifies it. You could even put that in validating initialiser that fails-over (or sets up an appropriate autocorrection flag) when it finds your script is being run with library versions of the functions (or within a set of ENV settings) that are wrong... Of course, it may take a bugrep from an end-user to ''know'' where it goes wrong, but if you're serious enough to reimplement the whole shebang manually with absolutely ''every'' possible issue of contention 'correctly' pre-handled, then you are also capable of saving yourself the effort and just validating whether the function calls were pre-pre-handling this already. You can be control-freaky in different ways (non-delegating or delegating-but-checking), much as you can let process errors slip through in different ways (significantly err yourself or miss significant errors already made by others).
<br/>Horses for courses, of course! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.172|172.70.90.172]] 13:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

2925: Earth Formation Site

2024-05-02T08:16:23Z

172.70.90.172: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2925
| date = April 26, 2024
| title = Earth Formation Site
| image = earth_formation_site_2x.png
| imagesize = 478x521px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = It's not far from the sign marking the exact latitude and longitude of the Earth's core.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by TWO 4,450,002,024-YEAR-OLD PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES - Please this edit this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this historical tag too soon.}}

[[Cueball]] reads an historical marker celebrating the formation of the {{w|Earth}}. As with most historical markers, it claims to rest on the exact spot of the event, that the Earth formed in this specific location. It also specifies the Earth's formation to the precise year 4.45 billion ({{w|Long and short scales|4,450 million}}) BCE.

The absurdity of the sign is threefold:
# The Earth did not form on its surface
# The precise year of the Earth's formation is not knowable
# Historical markers typically refer to events within the past several centuries

'''#1: The Earth did not form on its surface'''

First, the Earth formed at its center, not anywhere on its surface, so an “Earth formed here” sign on the surface is amusingly incorrect.

One may argue that technically the sign is ''above'' the right spot, just as every location on Earth is above the right spot. However, the sign refers to “this location,” not to a spot underground.

If an omniscient observer wanted to mark the spot in space where the Earth started forming, they would need an historical marker floating in space, not on the surface of the (moving) Earth. That’s due to the {{w|Sun#Motion|Sun's 225-million year long orbit around the center of the}} {{w|Milky Way galaxy}} and the movement of the galaxy itself through space relative to other objects.

'''#2: The precise year of the Earth's formation is not knowable'''

Secondly, specifying a single year of formation BCE (Before the Common Era) is an amusingly precise choice. It takes [https://science.nasa.gov/exoplanets/how-do-planets-form/ tens or hundreds of millions of years] for a planet to form. Picking a year would require some specific definition of when a gradually-coalescing mass of proto-planet dust and gas could be considered a planet, as well as the impossible ability to determine when that mass met the definition.

If the precise year was knowable, the probability of the number actually ending in seven consecutive zeros would be on the order of one-in-ten-million.

The topic of what precisely makes a planet — related to the 2006 redefinition of a planet and the subsequent reclassification of Pluto from the ninth planet from to the sun to a dwarf planet — has been covered before in [[473: Still Raw]] and referenced in other XKCD comics.

There is some poetry in the idea that there was a precise year, some 4.45 billion years ago, that was the first true year, the first Earth orbit around the sun. By definition, the Earth is the same age as the number of Earth orbits that have ever taken place.

Note: The date shown for the formation of the Earth, 4.45 billion years ago, also differs from the commonly accepted date, [https://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html 4.54 (±0.05) billion years]. The difference lies in the transposition of two digits, 5 and 4, potentially a mistake, as is common in historical markers.

'''#3: Historical markers typically refer to events within the past several centuries'''

Historical markers are placed at precise locations where historical, religious, and even mythological events are believed to have happened — such as where battles have been fought, or where famous people resided or accomplished something. Typically these signs refer to more recent events.

'''The title text'''

The title text refers to the 'exact latitude and longitude of the Earth's core,’ Of course, since the lat-long geographic coordinate system is used for locating places on the ''surface'' on the Earth, the center of the Earth does not have latitude and longitude.

Also, a historical marker referring to the Earth’s core could be placed anywhere on the surface, and its specific location in the real world wouldn’t mean anything; just as before, every spot on Earth is above the right spot.

Examples of similar historical marker signs:
* {{w|File:Equator sign kenya.jpg|Kenya Equator latitude}}
* {{w|File:Arctic Circle sign.jpg|Arctic Circle latitude}}
* {{w|File:Prime meridian.jpg|Prime Meridian longitude}}
* {{w|File:2022-06-06 18 39 21 Sign reading "Highest Point on Interstate 80 East of the Mississippi River" along eastbound Interstate 80 (Keystone Shortway) just east of Exit 111 in Pine Township, Clearfield County, Pennsylvania.jpg|Highest Point}}
* {{w|File:World's lowest point (1971).jpg|Lowest Point}}

'''Analysis'''

The comic and its title text are actually inverse jokes of each other: The historical marker in the comic assigns an attribute of the Earth’s '''center''' (the site of formation) to a spot on its '''surface''', while the historical marker mentioned in the title text assigns an attribute of '''surface''' locations (latitude and longitude) to the Earth’s '''center'''.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Generated by EARTH — Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

:[Cueball is standing in front of a sign in a field of grass. Rocks and plants are scattered across the ground. The sign reads:]
:HISTORICAL MARKER
:<big>EARTH</big>
:FORMATION SITE
:--- 4,450,000,000 BCE ---
:At this location in the year 4,450,000,000 BCE, a cloud of dust and gas gravitationally collapsed to form the Earth.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Geology]]

Talk:2926: Doppler Effect

2024-04-29T21:06:58Z

172.70.90.172:

Honestly, this is one of my favorite ones yet, [[User:Apollo11|Apollo11]] ([[User talk:Apollo11|talk]]) 18:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
:I'm not always a big fan of Miss Lenhart comics, but I agree this one is good. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 18:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
I think there might be some confusion in the explanation. It suggests that red shift occurs because of space expansion, not because of relative motion between the light source and observer. My understanding is that there IS relative motion between the light source and observer BECAUSE of expanding space. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.22.151|172.68.22.151]] 19:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
:Edit - There appears to be a "just" in there that I missed, changing the meaning of the sentence somewhat. Never mind. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.22.151|172.68.22.151]] 19:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
The bit about the Doppler effect being similar to a bullet fired from a moving car is simply incorrect. That's vector addition of velocities. Sound traveling from a source is going to travel at the speed of sound in the medium, and the only addition of velocities would be to the extent that the car is moving the air around it. Also, the Doppler effect doesn't make sounds louder, that's simply a function of the distance between you and the source changing, independent of velocity. Edited the text accordingly. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.42.213|172.70.42.213]] 20:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
:Although firing an automatic firearm from a moving car can make a pretty decent analogy, as the bullets will pass a person the car is moving toward more frequently or a person the car is moving away from less frequently. Though I think drive-by shootings are probably not the ideal metaphor to use in classrooms. Perhaps a nerf gun? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.246.148|172.69.246.148]] 20:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
This comic seems to be poor nerd sniping for explainxkcd to get into a long explanation why galaxies are red ... --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.247.172|172.70.247.172]] 20:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

In the UK, the primary emergency-vehicle (police, ambulance/paramedic, fire, coastguard, anything else {{w|Emergency vehicle equipment in the United Kingdom|similarly official}}; for road/off-road/air/water vehicles of all kinds) flashing light tends to be blue. There may be alternating reds too, according to vintage, but currently blue lights are the main feature (and 'battenburgs', on marked vehicles, according to the nature of the service involved). Non-emergency vehicles' 'beacons' would be amber, on anything underspeed/stopped/extraordinary on the carriageway (road-sweepers, flatbed car-recovery, exceptional load carriers/escorts) and I think green and red flashers are common for construction site traffic. Interestingly, the other day I saw a police car ''and'' an unmarked response car (going to the same incident, both flashing their blues), three ambulances (none obviously going to same incident, and only two with blues) and a fire-engine (not flashing, probably going back to base). Only one of them (an ambulance) was blaring its respective siren, though. I believe emergency drivers are required to use them sparingly/judiciously, rather than just put the blues'n'twos on and barge through. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.172|172.70.90.172]] 21:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2919: Sitting in a Tree

2024-04-19T22:50:42Z

172.70.90.172:

Meh, they're just dropping burning pine cones on the wargs. [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 04:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I hope I did this right, seeing as this was my first ever edit! [[User:Name of User|Name of User]] ([[User talk:Name of User|talk]]) 04:15, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Did Randall mean e-filing as in submitting your tax return on the web, and how is that more alarming than ironing sitting on a branch? Or is there some other meaning to efiling? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.243.77|172.68.243.77]] 06:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
:Could be that they're sitting in a ''data tree'', selectively traversing it to find [[2918: Tick Marks|a fraudulent subset of transactional records]] to 'declare'... [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.74|141.101.99.74]] 10:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
:To me it seems "efiling" could be supporting/enacting efilism? Definitely more disturbing. {{unsigned ip|172.70.42.235|12:38, 13 April 2024}}
:I assumed it was a reference to the tax filing deadline in the USA. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.207|162.158.154.207]] 14:15, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
::I don't think "efiling" (electronically filing tax returns) should be considered any more alarming than "banking". --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.131.87|172.70.131.87]] 20:55, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
:::Yeah - I can't see why banking, e-filing, or posting while in a tree would really be of any concern, in and of themselves. You might have some concern over the security of your connection, particularly if you're using a random wifi hotspot to do it, but that doesn't really have anything to do with the tree per se.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.163.30|172.70.163.30]] 09:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
::::When dealing with my bank, I still do prefer to go to my nearest branch... [[Special:Contributions/172.69.43.165|172.69.43.165]] 12:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::Chapeau. :o) (Preferably a hard hat.)[[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.33|172.71.178.33]] 08:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

So, "whaling" can mean hitting (usually in the form "whaling on"), but "whaling" also means spending a lot of money, such as when gambling or in a video game. {{unsigned ip|172.71.222.210|11:05, 13 April 2024}}
:Personally, I just automatically thought they would be ''actually'' hunting marine mammals!<sup>[[[731: Desert Island|''cetacean]] [[1402: Harpoons|needed'']]]</sup> [[Special:Contributions/172.69.194.204|172.69.194.204]] 11:30, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
::Absolutely - in the hierarchy "what words mean", I'd say "what the word literally means" has a good argument for being at the top. "Whaling" ''also'' means "hitting", and even then, only phrasally: it's surely only ever "whaling on + object". "Whaling", in isolation, is hunting whales.[[User:Yorkshire Pudding|Yorkshire Pudding]] ([[User talk:Yorkshire Pudding|talk]]) 11:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
::I believe it only applies to Ishmael and Queequeg, I guess. They're quite homosexual. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.170|108.162.241.170]] 20:04, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Do "perish/carriage" actually rhyme in (perhaps) the Bostonian accent? I'm drawn back to the state of the Edmund Fitzgerald lyrical rhyming scheme. It might work better using something like "pillage/carriage", with ''only'' the vowel-problem. At which point I could imagine it sort of working in a (bad) Kiwi or Africaans 'iccint'. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.121|172.69.195.121]] 11:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
:I think they come quite close in a "general" North American accent. The "pairish" and "cairidge" sounds, stretched out a little to fit the tune, sit well enough together.[[User:Yorkshire Pudding|Yorkshire Pudding]] ([[User talk:Yorkshire Pudding|talk]]) 11:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I came here looking for explanations of "efiling", and I have to say "efilism", which I'd never heard of before, certainly sounds more in keeping with that frame than "e-filing", which just sounds tedious, even if the first result DuckDuckGo offers me is for [https://secure.sarsefiling.co.za/landing something called SARS] which [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SARS seems an unfortunate name]. - [[User:IMSoP|IMSoP]] ([[User talk:IMSoP|talk]]) 13:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

How do Cueball and Megan iron without a power cord? --[[User:1234231587678|1234231587678]] ([[User talk:1234231587678|talk]]) 03:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
:Presumably they’re using Apple iPhones with handles attached so they can be safely handled even though they get hot enough to iron clothes. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.218|172.70.210.218]] 05:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
:They could be using a flat iron, which is simply a solid piece of metal that is heated over a fire before use. (It does look like they may be using steam irons, though.) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.6.7|172.69.6.7]] 14:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
::See also "box irons". You put hot embers (or fire-heated stones, or whatever is handy or the 'box' is best designed for) into them as the 'heat powerpack'. It'll cool, much like the 'solid iron' iron, but then you empty it and put another 'heat battery' in that you've had waiting in the actual fire. May be trickier than just sitting the 'solid state' version on/over the fire every now and then, but removes a lot of the enforced pause between subsequent applications if you need more than one 'heatings-worth' of iron, per laundry job.
::Obviously, for any actual super-arborial ''applicationem caloris'', one would expect something like a bucket (or heat-safe basket) on a rope, to facilitate some ground-based assistance (beyond the fairly trivial initial porting of the ironing board up there, which they {{w|Extreme ironing|relatively easily do themselves}}... [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.70|172.71.242.70]] 19:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

"cetacean needed" is absolutely beautiful, well done![[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.171|108.162.241.171]] 15:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
:: Agreed. A+ handiwork. [[User:Laser813|Laser813]] ([[User talk:Laser813|talk]]) 14:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Feels like a worthy spiritual successor to one of my favorites, [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/696:_Strip_Games Strip Games]. We need more charts about alternative children's activities. [[User:Phil Srobeighn|Phil Srobeighn]] ([[User talk:Phil Srobeighn|talk]]) 10:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Cueball and Megan, sitting in a tree, F-
wait no
W-O-R-K-I-N-G
R-U-N-N-I-N-G
W-A-L-K-I-N-G
C-A-L-L-I-N-G
D-R-A-W-I-N-G
[[Special:Contributions/172.70.127.58|172.70.127.58]] 16:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
:Were you about to swear?!?

Blood, fire, DEATH!!!! YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES ANARCHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY [[User:Z1mp0st0rz|Z1mp0st0rz]] ([[User talk:Z1mp0st0rz|talk]]) 19:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I was surprised when I moved to the US to find out that they also use the word e-file for submitting taxes online. In Canada, it's efile without a hyphen. It also seems that the IRS dosen't send you a confirmation that it was correctly submitted. [[User:Brycemw|Brycemw]] ([[User talk:Brycemw|talk]]) 19:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
:I don't even ''know'' what they call it, over here in the UK. Most people (certainly most people like me) do not have to personally submit annual paperwork. PAYE gets dealt with as an intrinsic part of your wages. VAT is included in the price-tags of store items (a business-sales place may quote ex-VAT prices ''as well'', but your £499.99 pricetag for some home-electrical item typically doesn't need any further form of Sales Taxes adding to it before you can take it away).
:Big tax-relevent things (selling a house, anything else that might invoke Capital Gains Tax) are generally rare enough and the estate agent/solicitors involved should get you through the one-off declarations without fuss. Unless you're running your own business or have some other kind of self-earned income (e.g. personal share-trading portfolio), there's not the need for the whole industry of "Personal tax declarations" cropping up every year.
:Taxes still get collected, of course, and doubtless there's room for making adjustments (need expensive boots particularly for work? - you can claim back some of this necessary expense), but asking every person to do as much work as (from popular media) it looks like everyone from Homer Simpson to Jack Bauer needs to spend a frantic few weeks every year to find time to do (or set aside enough regular time to keep ahead of that so that it isn't quite so onerous) just seems odd to me, who has never had to do anything like this over several decades in various jobs and types of employment. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.194.36|172.69.194.36]] 13:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm gonna miss "PAIR OF BOTS SITTING IN A TREE E-D-I-T-I-N-G - ♫First come comments, ♫Then these made neat, ♫But ONLY when it's accurate, then should you the tag delete!♫" when this page is "complete." May be a bit too Meta, but should we consider adding it to a "Trivia" section of the page? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.99|162.158.154.99]] 16:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
:Go for it! [[User:Laser813|Laser813]] ([[User talk:Laser813|talk]]) 17:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
:You've preserved it for posterity here. {{unsigned ip|172.68.210.117|21:57, 19 April 2024}}

Cueball and Megan, sitting in a tree, B-R-A-K-I-N-G [[Special:Contributions/172.70.131.63|172.70.131.63]] 18:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

2922: Pub Trivia

2024-04-19T15:27:18Z

172.70.90.172: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2922
| date = April 19, 2024
| title = Pub Trivia
| image = pub_trivia_2x.png
| imagesize = 422x666px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Bonus question: Where is London located? (a) The British Isles (b) Great Britain and Northern Ireland (c) The UK (d) Europe (or 'the EU') (e) Greater London
}}

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

The comic shows [[Cueball]] reading off bad trivia questions which are either confusing or don't have an answer.
The caption states that this is because he was paid to sabotage other bars that offer trivia so that people will want to go to the one that hired him.

1. Which member of {{w|BTS}} has a birthday this year?

: Problem: Multiple answers

: BTS is a {{w|K-Pop}} group. Every member would have a birthday each year. In fact, all humans have a birthday every year. (Unless you were born on leap day and trying to be pedantic.)

2. How many sides does a {{w|platonic solid}} have?

: Problem: Multiple answers

: There are five platonic solids, with 4, 6, 8, 12, or 20 faces (colloquially called sides) in {{w|Euclid|Euclidean}} {{w|Euclidean geometry|3-space}}.

:Potentially a trick question, with the correct answer being zero, since solids don't strictly have 'sides', but given the rest of the questions, this probably wasn't the intention.

3. What is the smallest lake in the world?

: Problem: Arguable

: Unknowable as there are many small bodies of water in the world, and determining which is the smallest while still being large enough to count as a {{w|lake}} is a complicated question.

4. Which Steven Spielberg movie features more shark attacks? {{w|Jaws (movie)|Jaws (1975)}} or {{w|Lincoln (movie)|Lincoln (2012)}}

: Problem: Trivial

: Jaws, as, while there is a surprisingly small amount of shark action in Jaws, there is a complete lack of such attacks in Lincoln.{{cn}}

5. How many planets were there originally?

: Problem: Ambiguous

: Question lacks context, since it doesn't define what originally means, and there is no way to know when humans first found out that the wandering stars were actually other worlds, or that Earth is a planet. And if this includes {{w|exoplanets}}, it's unknowable since we have no way of detecting these planets in ancient times.

: Or it could be trivially 0, if "originally" means when the universe first formed in the {{w|Big Bang}}.

6. What {{w|NFL}} player has scored the most points outside of a game?

: Problem: No answer

: As points are not usually scored outside of games, this is a nonsense question.

7. The {{w|Wright brothers}} built the first airplane. Who built the last one?

: Problem: Unknowable

: Since airplanes are built continuously, there is no way to know who built the last one. Alternatively, if 'the last one' means 'the last one ''ever''', then it probably hasn't been built yet.

8. Is every even number greater than 2 the sum of two primes?

: Problem: Unknowable

: This is {{w|Goldbach's conjecture|an open question}} in math.

9. Not counting {{w|Canberra}}, what city is the capital of {{w|Australia}}?

: Problem: No answer

: Nonsense question, since Australia has only one capital. Unless you count 'A'.

10. Who played the drums?

Problem: Ambiguous

Lots of people have played the drums{{cn}}, famous or not. This question needs context.

The alt-text bonus question: Where is {{w|London}} located? (a) The {{w|British Isles}} (b) {{w|Great Britain and Northern Ireland}} (c) The {{w|UK}} (d) {{w|Europe}} (or 'the {{w|EU}}') (e) Greater London

Problem: Multiple answers

All choices are technically correct as they are various geographical areas that include the city of London, England. (d) incorrectly conflates Europe, a geographical area that London is located in, with the EU, which the UK (and consequently London) has not been in since {{w|Brexit}} in 2020.


|}

This is apparently deliberate (at least on behalf of the organisers), perhaps to upset or otherwise impede groups of overconfident quizzers who would otherwise dominate any genuinely good quiz. -->

Many pubs have trivia nights, where patrons form teams and compete to best answer questions about a range of topics. Cueball has apparently been hired by one bar to infiltrate other bars' quiz nights and write particularly bad questions for them, which he has accomplished using different strategies. The idea is that by making the trivia nights at other pubs horrible, he will drive business to the pub that hired him.

1. Which member of BTS has a birthday this year?

Since everyone has a birthday every year (with the exception of those born on February 29), this question does not have unique answer. And since this comic was published in 2024, even the possible February 29 exception does not apply (and no BTS member was born on February 29).

2. How many sides does a Platonic solid have?

This question is ambiguous in at least two ways. First, a solid does not have "sides"; it has edges and faces. There are five Platonic solids, with 4, 6, 8, 12, and 20 faces, and 6, 12, 8, 30, and 30 edges.

3. What is the smallest lake in the world?

A lake is defined by Wikipedia as a "relatively large and fixed body of water." As there is no universal definition for how large and how fixed a body of water must be in order to qualify as a lake, this question is impossible to answer.

4. Which Steven Spielberg movie features more shark attacks - Jaws (1975) or Lincoln (2012)?

Jaws is a famous movie about a killer shark, and features at least five fatal shark attacks. Lincoln is a movie about the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and contains zero shark attacks. Unlike the previous unanswerable questions, this is a question that no reasonable person could get wrong.

5. How many planets were there originally?

The ancient Greeks named seven planets: the Sun, the Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. Eventually, it was decided that the Earth is also a planet, and that the Sun and the Moon were not. Uranus and Neptune were eventually discovered, followed by Ceres, Vesta, Juno, and Pallas, all of which were considered planets prior to the invention of the term "asteroid". Then Pluto was discovered, and the count of "planets" stabilized at 9 until 2006, when the discovery of Kuiper Belt objects larger than Pluto led to creation of the term "dwarf planet", leaving us with 8 known planets and 5 known dwarf planets. Today there are also thousands of known exoplanets (planets that orbit stars other than the sun).
The joke here is that "originally" is so poorly defined that it could mean anywhere from 0 (the number of planets prior to formation of the solar system) to infinity (number of planets in the universe if the universe is indeed infinite).

6. What NFL player has scored the most points outside of a game?

American football has a somewhat complicated scoring system, and record keeping involves (for instance) crediting the 6 points for a touchdown to both the receiver and the passer in some situations. This question does not address any of this complexity, but adds a new level of ambiguity as the "points" a player can score outside of a game are undefined.

7. The Wright Brothers built the first airplane. Who built the last one?

It is exceedingly unlikely that the last airplane has been built, and because plane assembly is complicated, it is difficult to assess when a particular aircraft counts as complete, so this is another unanswerable question.

8. Is every even number greater than 2 the sum of two primes?

This is Goldbach's Conjecture. Mathematicians widely believe that it is true, and there is substantial numerical evidence to suggest that it is true, but there is as yet no accepted proof. The joke is that trivia questions should have clear and agreed on answers, and this question does not.

9. Not counting Canberra, what city is the capital of Australia?

Canberra is the capital of Australia. Sydney is larger and possibly more famous, so that asking the capital of Australia would be a good trivia question: people who know their capitals would respond with Canberra and less knowledgeable people would guess Sydney. Australia is divided into states
and territories, each with its own capital, but this would leave multiple equally valid answers to the question.

10. Who played the drums?

If this question asked who played the drums for a particular band or on a particular album, track, or performance, it would be an example of a good trivia question. As it is, it has many possible answers and no way to choose between them.

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

{{comic discussion}}

2914: Eclipse Coolness

2024-04-02T14:51:38Z

172.70.90.172: /* Explanation */ ...my own error?

{{comic
| number = 2914
| date = April 1, 2024
| title = Eclipse Coolness
| image = eclipse_coolness_2x.png
| imagesize = 609x325px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = A partial eclipse is like a cool sunset. A total eclipse is like someone broke the sky.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by an ILLUSORY ECLIPSE (APRIL FOOLS) - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
This comic was released on April 1st and marks the second year in a row that [[Randall]] has not made an [[:Category:April fools' comics|April fools' comic]]. It is also the first time a release day has fallen on April 1st without Randall making any note of it, and not since 2009 has there been a comic released on April 1st without it being an April fools' comic! That year, he found another way to make an April fools' thus making this year the first ever with a release on April 1st without any link to April Fools'!

A total {{w|solar eclipse}} will occur in North America {{w|Solar eclipse of April 8, 2024|on April 8, 2024}}, a week after this comic. A solar eclipse occurs when the Moon moves between the Sun and the Earth, but in order for it to be a total eclipse, the Sun, Moon and Earth need to line up nearly exactly, and at the right distances. When such a phenomenon occurs, there's a "path of totality", referring the range of locations where such an alignment occurs (though only for a few minutes in each location). Away from the path of totality (and outside of the specific time of totality), the Moon partially obscures the Sun. In Boston, where [[Randall]] lives, the Sun will be 93% obscured at the local peak of the eclipse.

The comic refers to the fact that the human eye is very bad at detecting different levels of light intensity. You would think that a 95% eclipse would result in things looking only 5% as bright as normal, but because our irises adjust to diminishing available light, it will still seem light out even at the maximum point of coverage. The dimming light is similar to light in late evening, or on a heavily overcast day, nothing particularly remarkable. Using eclipse glasses (or a simple pinhole camera), it's possible to see the Sun being occluded, but someone unaware that an eclipse was occurring would barely notice that anything was happening.

Within the path of totality, it's a different situation. Though an eclipse for any given locale could be experienced at all times from dawn to dusk, the most effective ones will occur somewhere around the middle of the observer's day. When the Moon fully obscures the Sun, for a brief period of time, the area becomes almost fully dark without the usual or expected {{wiktionary|crepuscular}} transition. Temperatures drop noticeably in a matter of minutes and wildlife may react in unusual ways. The lighting in the rest of the sky is similar to that which accompanies a sunset, but in all directions and without the horizon's red light effect. Most dramatically, the previously unseeable Sun's upper atmosphere can be viewed, as a ring around the dark circle of the Moon, with the naked eye (which should ''only'' be possible once the bright solar disc is obscured, and until it starts to appear again). At the very limits of totality, though perhaps most dramatic at its ending, the smallest sections of the bright solar surface will briefly be the only parts to shine through low points on the Moon's edge to form {{w|Baily's beads}}, or a "diamond ring" effect, not at all visible beyond the narrow central strip of the eclipse.

The graph in this strip points out that the difference between 91% (or even a 99%) eclipse and a total eclipse is dramatic. An almost total eclipse is barely noticeable, while a total eclipse is a visual phenomenon unlike any other. This is a situation where being close to the path of totality and being on it makes a huge difference.

The title text simply resumes what was told in the graph in the comic. A partial eclipse would make the sky as dim as a sunset, while a total eclipse seems like someone broke the sky, as almost no light would reach the viewer.

Randall has earlier made [[:Category:Total Solar Eclipse 2017|many comics]] about the 2017 total solar eclipse, such as [[1876: Eclipse Searches]] through [[1880: Eclipse Review]] and [[2816: Types of Solar Eclipse]].

==Transcript==
:[A graph is shown with a curve starting from zero a bit from the left of the Y-axis and from there staying almost at the same height just above the X-Axis from left to right, where it again goes to zero a bit from the right end of the X-axis. That is except at the very center of the graph, where the line peaks going to a point high above the top of the Y-axis. An arrow is pointing up on the top of the Y-axis and this axis has a label to the left. The X-axis has no label or arrow, but there are three segments beneath it, two large left and right of the peak and a very small in the middle just under the peak. The two large segments has a double arrow pointing from the two lines at the left and right of their segments, and in the middle of these arrow there are labels. Beneath these segments there is another label with an arrow pointing to the gap between the lines of the two long segments. At the top left of the graph there is a large header with a sub header beneath:]
:<big>How cool a solar eclipse looks</big>
:by position along the path

:Y-axis: Coolness
:Label beneath X-axis left : Partial eclipse zone
:Label beneath X-axis center: Path of totality
:Label beneath X-axis right : Partial eclipse zone

:[Two small dots representing people are drawn a bit to the right of the path of totality zone. Star bursts above these indicate they are speaking with their text shown above them:]
:Left person: We should have a good view here - we're pretty close to the middle of the path.
:Right person: Yeah, this map says the sun will be 91% eclipsed!

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Astronomy]]

2914: Eclipse Coolness

2024-04-02T14:51:02Z

172.70.90.172: /* Explanation */ Minor fixes, possible hope.

{{comic
| number = 2914
| date = April 1, 2024
| title = Eclipse Coolness
| image = eclipse_coolness_2x.png
| imagesize = 609x325px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = A partial eclipse is like a cool sunset. A total eclipse is like someone broke the sky.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by an ILLUSORY ECLIPSE (APRIL FOOLS) - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
This comic was released on April 1st and marks the second year in a row that [[Randall]] has not made an [[:Category:April fools' comics|April fools' comic]]. It is also the first time a release day has fallen on April 1st without Randall making any note of it, and not since 2009 has there been a comic released on April 1st without it being an April fools' comic! That year ,he found another way to make an April fools' thus making this year the first ever with a release on April 1st without any link to April Fools'!

A total {{w|solar eclipse}} will occur in North America {{w|Solar eclipse of April 8, 2024|on April 8, 2024}}, a week after this comic. A solar eclipse occurs when the Moon moves between the Sun and the Earth, but in order for it to be a total eclipse, the Sun, Moon and Earth need to line up nearly exactly, and at the right distances. When such a phenomenon occurs, there's a "path of totality", referring the range of locations where such an alignment occurs (though only for a few minutes in each location). Away from the path of totality (and outside of the specific time of totality), the Moon partially obscures the Sun. In Boston, where [[Randall]] lives, the Sun will be 93% obscured at the local peak of the eclipse.

The comic refers to the fact that the human eye is very bad at detecting different levels of light intensity. You would think that a 95% eclipse would result in things looking only 5% as bright as normal, but because our irises adjust to diminishing available light, it will still seem light out even at the maximum point of coverage. The dimming light is similar to light in late evening, or on a heavily overcast day, nothing particularly remarkable. Using eclipse glasses (or a simple pinhole camera), it's possible to see the Sun being occluded, but someone unaware that an eclipse was occurring would barely notice that anything was happening.

Within the path of totality, it's a different situation. Though an eclipse for any given locale could be experienced at all times from dawn to dusk, the most effective ones will occur somewhere around the middle of the observer's day. When the Moon fully obscures the Sun, for a brief period of time, the area becomes almost fully dark without the usual or expected {{wiktionary|crepuscular}} transition. Temperatures drop noticeably in a matter of minutes and wildlife may react in unusual ways. The lighting in the rest of the sky is similar to that which accompanies a sunset, but in all directions and without the horizon's red light effect. Most dramatically, the previously unseeable Sun's upper atmosphere can be viewed, as a ring around the dark circle of the Moon, with the naked eye (which should ''only'' be possible once the bright solar disc is obscured, and until it starts to appear again). At the very limits of totality, though perhaps most dramatic at its ending, the smallest sections of the bright solar surface will briefly be the only parts to shine through low points on the Moon's edge to form {{w|Baily's beads}}, or a "diamond ring" effect, not at all visible beyond the narrow central strip of the eclipse.

The graph in this strip points out that the difference between 91% (or even a 99%) eclipse and a total eclipse is dramatic. An almost total eclipse is barely noticeable, while a total eclipse is a visual phenomenon unlike any other. This is a situation where being close to the path of totality and being on it makes a huge difference.

The title text simply resumes what was told in the graph in the comic. A partial eclipse would make the sky as dim as a sunset, while a total eclipse seems like someone broke the sky, as almost no light would reach the viewer.

Randall has earlier made [[:Category:Total Solar Eclipse 2017|many comics]] about the 2017 total solar eclipse, such as [[1876: Eclipse Searches]] through [[1880: Eclipse Review]] and [[2816: Types of Solar Eclipse]].

==Transcript==
:[A graph is shown with a curve starting from zero a bit from the left of the Y-axis and from there staying almost at the same height just above the X-Axis from left to right, where it again goes to zero a bit from the right end of the X-axis. That is except at the very center of the graph, where the line peaks going to a point high above the top of the Y-axis. An arrow is pointing up on the top of the Y-axis and this axis has a label to the left. The X-axis has no label or arrow, but there are three segments beneath it, two large left and right of the peak and a very small in the middle just under the peak. The two large segments has a double arrow pointing from the two lines at the left and right of their segments, and in the middle of these arrow there are labels. Beneath these segments there is another label with an arrow pointing to the gap between the lines of the two long segments. At the top left of the graph there is a large header with a sub header beneath:]
:<big>How cool a solar eclipse looks</big>
:by position along the path

:Y-axis: Coolness
:Label beneath X-axis left : Partial eclipse zone
:Label beneath X-axis center: Path of totality
:Label beneath X-axis right : Partial eclipse zone

:[Two small dots representing people are drawn a bit to the right of the path of totality zone. Star bursts above these indicate they are speaking with their text shown above them:]
:Left person: We should have a good view here - we're pretty close to the middle of the path.
:Right person: Yeah, this map says the sun will be 91% eclipsed!

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Astronomy]]

2908: Moon Armor Index

2024-03-21T14:22:11Z

172.70.90.172: /* Implications of choosing a volume-to-area ratio */ Of the Earth-sized rocky bodies, hard to know if Earth is the outlier, and we can't be completely sure Pluto is (amongst all dwarfs, incl. undiscovered!), but they seem to be similarly extraordinary.

{{comic
| number = 2908
| date = March 18, 2024
| title = Moon Armor Index
| image = moon_armor_index_2x.png
| imagesize = 740x390px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Astronomers are a little unsure of the applicability of this index, but NASA's Planetary Protection Officer is all in favor.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a MARS ROVER THAT GREW 2 INCHES OVERNIGHT - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

In this “What If?”-style comic, [[Randall]] hypothesizes an imaginative situation in which each planet's moon(s) become converted into protective armor (as a form of {{w|Overburden#Analogous uses|overburden}}) to coat the respective planet. For example, the {{w|Moon}} would coat {{w|Earth}} in a 43 kilometer layer if it were molded into protective armor, almost five times the height of {{w|Mount Everest}}.

This visual index illustrates that the moons of both Earth and Pluto are unusually massive in comparison to their planet. The large relative size of Earth’s moon — and its protective role in deflecting asteroids — is one reason that’s been suggested by astronomers for why intelligent life successfully evolved on Earth.

Mars's moons {{w|Phobos (moon)|Phobos}} and {{w|Deimos (moon)|Deimos}} are small compared to Mars, so they would contribute a thin 2-inch layer of 'armor' around Mars, in contrast to the 20-inch (0.5 m) diameter of a {{w|Mars rover}} wheel. Huge Jupiter would be covered with almost 3 km of "moon" matter, which indicates just how much moon mass orbits Jupiter, a situation mostly similar for Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune.

Six trans-Neptunian {{w|dwarf planet}}s and dwarf planet candidates are included, as well: Only Pluto, having a moon ({{w|Charon (moon)|Charon}}) of a comparable size to its planet, would have a layer thicker than Earth's. {{w|120347 Salacia|Salacia}}, {{w|Haumea}}, {{w|50000 Quaoar|Quaoar}}, {{w|225088 Gonggong|Gonggong}} and {{w|Eris (dwarf planet)|Eris}} are among the {{w|List of trans-Neptunian objects#List|ten largest such objects}}. (Two dwarf planets with moons — {{w|Makemake}} and {{w|90482 Orcus|Orcus}} — are not mentioned in the comic, but would be similarly depicted.)

The title text states that astronomers are "unsure" about the applicability of this index, a joking understatement that imagines this comic as being a serious contribution to astronomical academic knowledge. Astronomers might also point out additional issues:
* wariness of {{w|Giant-impact hypothesis|moons and planets getting too close}}.
* moons already serve a protective purpose by deflecting and even intercepting some incoming asteroids (with a ''slight'' chance of turning a future miss into a hit).
* the four gas giants — Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune — lack a solid surface to practically sustain a layer of armor without even ''more'' ambitious engineering than the already complicated process of somehow distributing soft-landed fragments of disassembled satellite evenly all across a planet.
* although the coating would provide some protection to the underlying surface on which it was placed, it would effectively become part of the planet, and raise the surface. The things we would normally care about protecting, such as any life forms that exist, would be forced to relocate to this new surface, and therefore not benefit from any protection, while suffering significant detrimental impact to habitats, etc.

The title text continues that NASA's [https://what-if.xkcd.com/117/ Planetary Protection Officer] is purportedly in favor of the idea. In reality, this officer is actually responsible for keeping other celestial bodies safe from Earth's contamination, not for shielding planets in armor. Theoretically, though, armoring other planets could indeed protect them from further Earth-sourced contamination, and armoring Earth would also theoretically protect other planets by burying the biosphere and all of Earth life not already sent into space — a potentially civilization-smothering action, though a surprisingly unapocalyptic result compared to many of Randall’s “What If?” scenarios.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Planet/<br>dwarf planet !! Surface area (km²) || Moons || Total volume (km³) || Moon shield thickness 
|-
| {{w|Earth}} || 5.1007*10^8 || {{w|Moon|1}} || 2.196*10^10 || 43 km (27 mi)
|-
| {{w|Mars}} || 1.4437*10^8 || {{w|Moons of Mars|2}} || {{w|Phobos (moon)|(5695±32)}}+{{w|Deimos (moon)|(1033±19)}} || 5 cm (2 in)
|-
| {{w|Jupiter}} || 6.1469*10^10 || {{w|Moons of Jupiter|95}} || 1.7646*10^11 || 2.87 km (1.78 mi)
|-
| {{w|Saturn}} || 4.27*10^10 || {{w|Moons of Saturn|146}} || 7.651*10^10 || 1.79 km (1.11 mi)
|-
| {{w|Uranus}} || 8.1156*10^9 || {{w|Moons of Uranus|28}} || ||
|-
| {{w|Neptune}} || 7.6187*10^9 || {{w|Moons of Neptune|16}} || ||
|-
| {{w|Pluto}} || 1.7744*10^7 || {{w|Moons of Pluto|5}} || {{w|Charon (moon)|(9.322×10^8)}}+{{w|Moons of Pluto|(approx 87100+38800+900+200)}} || 52.5 km (32.6 mi) (by this comic's approximation)
50.4 km (31.3 mi) (by full calculation)
|-
| {{w|120347 Salacia|Salacia}} || 2.27*10^6 || {{w|Actaea (moon)|1}} || 1.41*10^7 || 6.21 km (3.85 mi)
|-
| {{w|Haumea}} || 8.14*10^6 || {{w|Moons of Haumea|2}} || {{w|Hiʻiaka (moon)
|(17.2*10^6)}}+{{w|Namaka (moon)|(2.57*10^6)}} || 2.43 km (1.51 mi)
|-
| {{w|50000 Quaoar|Quaoar}} || 3.78*10^6 || {{w|Weywot|1}} || 4.19*10^6 || 1.11 km (0.69 mi)
|-
| {{w|225088 Gonggong|Gonggong}} || || {{w|Xiangliu (moon)|1}} || ||
|-
| {{w|Eris (dwarf planet)|Eris}} || (1.70±0.02)*10^7 || {{w|Dysnomia (moon)|1}} || ||
|}

===Implications of choosing a volume-to-area ratio===
The usual means of comparing a moon to a planet might be to compare the volume of both. This comic compares moon volume (kilometers cubed) to planet surface area (kilometers squared); specifically, the index derives a ''linear'' indicator (the thickness of the new material) by dividing the ''area'' of the main body (proportional to the square of its uncounted radius) into the ''combined volume'' of all other bodies (proportioned cubes of their own radii), which gives an unusual dimensional analysis (dividing X kilometers-cubed by Y kilometers-squared gives a length, Z, in kilometers, not a simple dimensionless ratio).

This particular methodology makes the Pluto-Charon system (Charon being roughly half the diameter and one-eighth the volume of Pluto, before even adding that of the other moons) surprisingly similar to the Earth-Moon one (our sole Moon is around one-quarter Earth's diameter, and therefore less than 2% its volume; also in comparison, the Earth and Moon are respectively slightly more than 150 times and around 3 times the volume of Pluto), but leaves them ''both'' as still standing out significantly against all other planetary comparisons, even against comparably-sized 'planet's.

===The complexities of armor thickness calculations===
The comic uses the ≈ sign to show that the formula is only an approximation: it does not take account the increase in armor surface area as it gets thicker. This approximation would be perfect for a shield of thickness zero, but for the thickest shield (Pluto) around a small celestial body the error is around 4% (52.5 km by this approximation, but 50.4 km by more thorough calculation). To find the correct value, we can use the formula for the volume of a sphere, V = 4/3 * pi * r^3 (where V is the volume and r is the radius). Using this formula, we can find and add together the volumes of each moon, as well as the volume of the planet, to get a total volume of the new shielded planet. Then we can find its radius using the formula r = (V / (4/3 * pi))^1/3, derived from the previous formula. Subtracting the radius of the previous planet from the radius of the new planet gives us the thickness of the armor.

This process described above assumes that all objects involved are completely spherical, which may not be the case. The act of tearing apart a solid moon, perhaps into rough gravel, might add microvoids to the new layering that bulk up the volume slightly. But neither are gravitational compression effects taken into account on an originally loose material; the planet's gravitational pull could settle some of the moon material into a slightly smaller volume than the one it occupied as lower-gravity moon.

The planet below could also be marginally affected by the change in its total planet-and-armor mass, for rocky planets mostly within any {{w|pedosphere}} or previously exposed outer {{w|lithosphere}}. The interaction with {{w|Titan (moon)#Lakes|surface liquids}} and atmospheres, especially in planets defined {{w|Gas giant|primarily by their gas layers}}, would depend much upon how impermeable and/or rigid the chosen layering method made the additional material. One could imagine a spherical shell of moon matter around Jupiter with such high structural strength as to resist crumbling into its gaseous maw.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[Text above diagram:]
:Moon armor index:
:How thick the shells around various worlds would be if their moon(s) were converted into protective armor
:≈Total moon volume/Planet surface area

:[Above the diagram, there is a depiction of two moons orbiting a planet, an arrow pointing right, and the same planet with an additional layer around it without orbiting moons.]

:[The diagram consists of vertical bars showing "moon armor" thicknesses for the Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, Salacia, Haumea, Quaoar, Gonggong and Eris. Earth's bar has a label named "43 km thick" and is compared to the height of a comparatively small Mt Everest, with randomly drawn features indicating a cross section of the additional layer's rocky material. Most of the other armor thickness bars are not very tall compared to Earth. Some bars, notably Jupiter's, are embellished with various strata-like lines that possibly correspond to different contributing moons. Most bars show some small dots and patterns. A circular viewport shows the zoomed in detail of the top of Mars's otherwise not visible bar that reveals a thin layer with the label of 2", and also the bottom of a Mars rover wheel on top of the new surface. Pluto's bar is slightly taller than Earth's and has a label "(Mostly Charon)" inside, with arrows pointing into the bar area, which looks similar to that of Earth's Moon.]

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Astronomy]]
[[Category:Bar charts]]
[[Category:Mars rovers]]

Talk:535: It Might Be Cool

2024-03-18T15:34:06Z

172.70.90.172:

How many life sentences has the idiot had to commute?
And how long after they were given?

[[User:Weatherlawyer| I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer|talk]]) 19:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
:You're going to have to be more specific on which idiot you are referring to. Your comment is kind of a non sequitur. -Pennpenn [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.162|108.162.250.162]] 01:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank goodness, we all now know how transphobic this cartoon, and by extension Randall Munroe, is. Who says a woman has to menstruate, or have ovaries? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.43.243|172.69.43.243]] 12:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
:Not sure you can assert any of that, from the comic. You're reading too much into it. But, just so this statement isn't left hanging, I'll run through some obvious counter-arguments.
:Yes, trans-women currently cannot menstruate, etc. Yet I bet there are some who would want to, should medicine (or magic) be able to grant them that ability. Left-Cueball might well be imagining just such a hypothetical and technomagical situation where trans-ness isn't just a case of finding a sweet spot along the line of "passing/top-surgery/top-and-bottom-surgery" that you can happily reach, but extends all the way to total biological and corporeal sex-flip, internals and all. The series of comics have presented far more radical 'reality shifts' than that.
:This particular comic targets and parodies the swearing-in process, as referenced. The (wrong) words are not important, except that they are one non-sequitur of many possible ones, just because it needed something sufficiently out there and not really relevent to the situation, that fits the "not a conversation, but a ceremony-gone-off-script" format. If he'd gone with something like "how do I know that the red that I see is the red that you see?", you could argue he was colour-blind-ist, but still the joke is the same, and there's really no reason to believe Randall has transphobic tendencies by deliberate exclusion.
:Failure to be ''inclusive'' is harder to deal with. (By failing to have many (any?) non-white Cueballs, maybe it could be said that he's implicitly racist, but he's definitely not ''explicitly'' racist and has definitely included non-white real-life/externally-fictional characters with no reason to suspect malice. Just hasn't balanced things up, perhaps, in his standard homegrown 'cast of actors'. But, if he does, you just know that he'll be accused of being ''too woke'', by the kind of person who thinks 'being woke' is an insult.) Social failure, but not necessarily a personal flaw and attitudinal bias. That said, who knows how many 'female' characters are (without us knowing it, and no 'performative fuss' made to explain it) actually M2F-trans, and 'male' ones vice-versa?
:They're stick figures. They can have any biologies they need to have, including Infinite Wings! Arguably, Randall is sympathetically feminist, given the diverse roles he gives (apparent) female characters, but there's no reason at all to consider him a TERF. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.26|172.70.85.26]] 14:23, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
:Please let this be a troll post. Putting aside the fact that this is a 2009 comic certainly written without this angle as its focus, how is associating females with menstruation transphobic? If he said, "it would be cool to be a bird, but that flying thing is freaky", would you say he has something against penguins? This comic was clearly written to highlight Randall's quirky wandering line of thought and how it confounds people around him, not to define what a woman is. This is not malicious, and calling it ignorant is unfair - trans people weren't in the public consciousness in 2009, so it's not his fault for thinking of this angle when writing a short comic about, ALLOW ME TO REPEAT, a COMPLETELY UNRELATED TOPIC.[[Special:Contributions/172.71.26.217|172.71.26.217]] 15:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
:I'm all for inclusion, but not actively including isn't necessarily excluding. (To be clear, this is the same post is from the same guy as the one above. Why did my IP address change?) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.30.133|172.71.30.133]] 15:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
::Your IP changes because (even connection to connection) the proxy gateway betwixt you and this server changes. And I (172.70.85.26, above, whatever this signs as) was trying to say the same as you, I think. More or less. Not sure if OP was trolling or actually seeing a problem that really isn't there. Hard to tell, what with Poe's Law. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.172|172.70.90.172]] 15:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2896: Crossword Constructors

2024-02-22T09:11:30Z

172.70.90.172:

The top ten most common letters in the Concise Oxford English Dictionary, and the percentage of words they appear in, are:
E – 11.1607%
A – 8.4966%
R – 7.5809%
I – 7.5448%
O – 7.1635%
T – 6.9509%
N – 6.6544%
S – 5.7351%

source: https://www.rd.com/article/common-letters-english-language/ <small>[[Special:Contributions/172.69.58.187|172.69.58.187]] ([[User talk:172.69.58.187|talk]]) 22:29, 19 February 2024 <span style="color:grey; white-space:nowrap;">''(please sign your comments with <nowiki>~~</nowiki>~~)''</span></small>

At least one of those "words" is already available
...oreta is a genus of moths: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oreta <small>[[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.64|162.158.154.64]] ([[User talk:162.158.154.64|talk]]) 22:36, 19 February 2024 <span style="color:grey; white-space:nowrap;">''(please sign your comments with <nowiki>~~</nowiki>~~)''</span></small>

: {Yoko} "ONO" was over-played in crosswords a few years back. "ORONO" (university town in Maine) was over-favored by one constructor. Not to mention a sandwich cookie. [[User:PRR|PRR]] ([[User talk:PRR|talk]]) 22:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
:: "ONO" has also entered English from Hawaiian, where it means (a) good to eat, delicious; (b) the {{w|Wahoo}} (<em>Acanthocybium solandri</em>), a species of fish. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.247|108.162.245.247]] 02:21, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
:”Eni” is an Italy-based oil company.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.68.36|141.101.68.36]] 02:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

In contrast to crosswords in german newspapers, those in american newspapers are typically not dense, right?
“Our” crosswords rarely have a single unused square.
And this is obviously easier to compose if you can choose from more words. --[[Special:Contributions/172.71.123.39|172.71.123.39]] 22:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
: "crosswords in german newspapers, those in american newspapers are typically not dense, right?"
For a quick overlook, Search Engine "NY Times Crossword", images.
https://www.google.com/search?q=ny+times+crossword&tbm=isch
The NY Times puzzles are as dense as commonly seen in the US. Much simpler puzzles abound, and brain-busters can be found, but the NYT puzzles are very typical well-done puzzles.
:I was looking around the internet for an example, and I found this example: https://www.50plus.de/spiele/raetsel/kreuzwortraetsel-1.html
:If this is what you are talking about, Games World of Puzzles calls this a "Pencil Pointer" puzzle. I think technically the name is "Swedish Style" according to Wikipedia. They aren't typically the kind you'd find in an :American newspaper, but I do see them on occasion.
:Generally, the American style ones are less dense than Swedish but more dense than British cryptics.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.175.195|172.70.175.195]] 00:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
::Also, American puzzles almost always have rotational symmetry (at least 180 degrees, sometimes all four 90-degree turns)[[User:Mathmannix|Mathmannix]] ([[User talk:Mathmannix|talk]]) 01:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks, 172.70.175.195, that is exactly what I meant. --[[Special:Contributions/172.71.94.236|172.71.94.236]] 14:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm confused, on reading the Explanation, as to whether these words are wanted for crossword ''clues'' or crossword ''answers''. I thought I knew, but it looks like other people might have the other idea. Either:
#In order to fit something perpendicular to several other words, in a dense and/or symmetrically-gridded puzzle, it ends up asking for a (currently) fictional string of letters that cannot be given a valid 'Easy' clue. They're seeking to make "2024 Nicki Minaj hit song (5)", or similar, to become that, soon enough that they can publish the whole puzzle that they're otherwise happy with. Or,
#For a cryptic clue with an anagram/subselection element, they want a way to include, letters that they've found them unable to mix in otherwise. e.g. "Taylor Swift's 'Oreta' with Tenacious D's initial spin (7)" -> "rotated" (ok, awkward example, but best I could back-contrive at a moment's notice... As opposed to something like "Turned a bit of carrot at Edinburgh (7)", which would ''already'' work Ok for the exact same answer), using various typical tricksy and misleading mannerisms of a Cryptic...
#...or both? Being only a(n unskilled) ''doer'' of crosswords, not usually a compiler of them, I might well be missing the details that someone deeper into crossword-lore takes for granted. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.143|172.69.195.143]] 02:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
:Most likely Cueball and friends are constructing American-style crosswords and want to use ORETA, ENTA, and similar words as answers in their puzzles, so that they could clue them with "2024 Nicki Minaj album", for example. (I imagine that when John Lennon entered into his second marriage, crossword constructors of America rejoiced since they now had a well-known person that they could use as a clue for ONO.) Since the letters in their proposed album titles are common, I doubt that a cryptic crossword constructor would be hoping for such "words" to exist so that they could use them in clues. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.150|108.162.216.150]] 04:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
:My initial reading was that these were awkward series of letters that appear within words that they're otherwise struggling to find clues for, but I guess why not all three.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.24|141.101.99.24]] 09:38, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

did any of yoy check out the new fnf rodentrap mod? i think it ws peak :) --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.188|172.69.79.188]] 08:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Should main page include possibilty that there is no intended meaning in these words? {{unsigned ip|172.71.94.236|14:20, 20 February 2024}}
:If you can explain what you mean (I'm not entirely certain, you leave it somewhat ambiguous), you can possibly include itself.
:(Unless you mean to edit the [[Main Page]] itself, which wouldn't be either right or technically possible, as you stand.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.166|172.70.91.166]] 15:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Are there existing albums by the named artists that are like the words suggested? --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.6.107|172.69.6.107]] 18:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
:^^^^^That was what I wondered. When I have time I might pop Ed Sheeran's albums into a crossword generator and see what I come up with... [[Special:Contributions/172.69.60.177|172.69.60.177]] 21:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
::None of these artists' albums have names anything like the "words" suggested by Cueball and friends in this cartoon. The most unusual names among them, I would say, are {{w|Ed Sheeran discography|Ed Sheeran's albums}}, most of which are named after mathematical symbols. --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.59.102|172.69.59.102]] 05:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
:::I think the point being that these are pop-culture artists ('pop' as still rooted in the original 'popular', rather than necessarily the specific subset that defines 'pop music' culture itself, naturally). Even *I* have heard of these prolofic artistes, though I might have miswritten as "Minage" and (ridiculous as it sounds!) "Weekend", etc. I couldn't tell you what their songs/albums were named as (doesn't one of them call her albums a number, the age at which she created them?), but I could look them up. By contrast, some of the other fields wherein such constructed names might be introduced would be a bit more obscure or untimely, e.g. scientific instrument acronymical names on space probes/landers. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.117|141.101.99.117]] 13:58, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
:For the NYT crossword, there's a good database of clues and answers at https://www.xwordinfo.com. Some (partial) album names that have been used in the crossword in the past couple years are YAYAS from the Rolling Stones' "Get Yer Yayas Out!", RASTAMAN from Bob Marley's "Rastaman Vibrations", Steely Dan's "AJA", Nas's "I AM", Radiohead's "KID A", Alicia Keys' "AS I AM", Kanye West's "YEEZUS", Beck's "ODELAY", ELO's "OLE ELO", and Genesis's "ABACAB". None of these by those specific artists, but the point is more that they're some of the biggest active artists right now than that they're known specifically for making album names with weird letter combinations.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.67|162.158.158.67]] 17:00, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Is no one going to mention "Mr. Weeknd"? The thought of going up to him and addressing him by "Mr. Weeknd" is really funny to me [[User:Phlaxyr|Phlaxyr]] ([[User talk:Phlaxyr|talk]]) 18:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
:You might get told "No, Mr. Weeknd was my father. Please, just call me The..." [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.211|172.70.91.211]] 23:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
:Mr Weeknd is usually the result of overindulgence on the Friday night.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.172|172.70.90.172]] 09:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

1895: Worrying Scientist Interviews

2024-02-19T15:28:58Z

172.70.90.172: Undo revision 335289 by 162.158.74.68 (talk) That's an awful lot of snipping, with no clear justification given. The one thing that was wrong was the now mislinked anchor (now corrected).

{{comic
| number = 1895
| date = September 27, 2017
| title = Worrying Scientist Interviews
| image = worrying_scientist_interviews.png
| titletext = They always try to explain that they're called 'solar physicists', but the reporters interrupt with "NEVER MIND THAT, TELL US WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE SUN!"
}}

==Explanation==
When a new development occurs, news channels will often interview an expert in the field to educate laymen in what, exactly, is happening. Thus, when you turn on the local news and see a scientist being interviewed, it is likely that something new has come up regarding their field of study that could affect you. How much it affects you could range from an interesting bit of information about your local area, to the complete annihilation of the human race. So, to help identify how serious the issue likely is, [[Randall]] has made this chart showing how worried you should be depending on the field of the scientist. A [[#The fields of science|table]] has been arranged to explain the amount of worry needed for each field below.

To the far left, the least worrying are {{w|archaeologist}} and {{w|economist}}. An archaeologist studies ancient human civilizations, which would be unlikely to harm any modern person. Economists study and explain the trends of finances and resources, which are also unlikely to pose an immediate threat.{{Citation needed}}

Following this, it shows {{w|Nutrition|nutritionists}} and eventually {{w|criminologists}}. A nutritionist studies nutrition in the human body, and is likely discussing which food options are healthy or unhealthy. While this may be important, it is not a cause for immediate concern. A criminologist, however, studies criminal behavior. If a criminologist is being interviewed on the news, there is likely a change in criminal actions within the neighborhood, be it more or less. It is also possible there may be a serial criminal working in the area. However, because crime is a relatively rare occurrence, and one for which precautions can be taken, it is still unlikely to be an immediate threat to the viewer.

It then moves past researchers studying different types of organisms, before reaching astronomers. Still only very few events would be local regarding astronomy, but it could of course be regarding a pending meteor strike.

A {{w|virologist}} studies {{w|Virus|viral}} infections and their spread, and a {{w|vulcanologist}} studies {{w|volcanoes}}. Viruses spread quickly, and can be fatal, meaning a breaking news development in one's locale regarding viruses is likely to mean imminent danger. Volcanoes, depending on their size, can potentially demolish entire countries, thus having one making headlines nearby is also very concerning.

The last point to the right (most worried) "Astronomer who studies the Sun", also called a "{{w|solar physicist}}" (mentioned in the title text), could be really troublesome, but not especially locally. If there are serious problems with the Sun it will be a world-wide problem. But you should still be worried.

The title text mentions that the reason they are not called solar physicists, is that before they can tell the reporter this, they are interrupted by the anxious reporter who wishes to know what's wrong with the Sun. This is not really something that happens so often{{Citation needed}} that the title texts "They always try" has any real meaning. And this is also why no one knows or uses the term solar physicists...

==The fields of science==
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Field !! Worry level !! Explanation
|-
| Archeologist || Extremely low (~2.7%) || Likely just dug up some old ruins or bones. Unlikely to involve bad news, though it may possibly cause problems (e.g. if a construction project is delayed to accommodate an archaeological investigation).
|-
| Economist || Very low (~7.3%) || News about the economy could be either good or bad, and in most cases is just more of the usual ups and downs rather than anything cataclysmic. Could also be a report on a big stock market crash.
|-
| Nutritionist || Very low (~12.0%) || Possible fad diet. Note that nutritionists tend not to be a protected profession, compared to dietitians. May be alarming if it involves credible information about bad health consequences of eating, or not eating, a particular food.
|-
| Criminologist || Low (~26.6%) || Probably just crime statistics. Sometimes just correcting people who mistakenly believe crime is on the rise, and even a large increase in an otherwise ordinary crime rate is still a small risk overall. Specific threats (such as a dangerous criminal on the loose) are usually addressed by police representatives.
|-
| Ornithologist || Medium (~43.3%) || This would indicate the discovery of a strange behavior exhibited by birds. A newsworthy event involving ornithologists could indicate some imminent problem with the ecological environment, such as a mass migration or death event suggesting toxic pollutants in the environment. A possible reference to ''{{w|The_Birds_(film)|The Birds}}'' or ''{{w|Birdemic}}'', two films with similar premises (horror films centered around flocks of birds suddenly becoming hostile to humans) but vastly different critical evaluations (''The Birds'' was directed by {{w|Alfred Hitchcock}} and is generally considered a classic; ''Birdemic'' was low-budget and is notoriously poor-quality).
|-
| Botanist || Medium (~46.0%) || Similar to an ornithological related news. Seeing how plants are both more fundamental to the environment and more "boring" to the general public than birds; if something news worthy involves a botanist, then it is more likely a more fundamental and more impactful change to the environment.
|-
| Marine Biologist || Medium (~53.3%) || Similar to Botanist news. However, as oceans represent the substantial majority of the Earth's surface, and are very far removed from local concerns, anything which is news-worthy of them is likely a major impact to the environment on a global scale.
|-
| Entomologist || Medium high (~62.6%) || There might be a new invasive insect species that could cause health concerns, ranging from {{w|Locust|famine}} to {{w|Mosquito|blood-transmitted diseases}}.
|-
| Astronomer || High (~82.0%) || Possible inbound meteor, or perhaps sighting of incoming alien ships.
|-
| Virologist || Very high (~88.0%) || A disease that is incurable and spreads fast might ravage or even destroy a city, country, or (in an extreme case) all human life. An example of a worrisome virus is {{w|COVID-19}},{{Citation needed}} which resulted in many interviews with epidemiologists.
|-
| Vulcanologist || Very high (~93.3%) || A volcano might erupt soon, the danger of which could range from an isolated area to a planetwide concern.
|-
| Astronomer who studies the Sun || Extremely high (~98.6%) || There might be something wrong with the Sun, the consequences of which could range from {{w|Solar_storm_of_1859|major disruption of modern technology}} to the end of life on earth. The title text elaborates that, [[1475: Technically|technically]], the correct term is "{{w|Solar physics|solar physicist}}". Unsurprisingly, reporters (and the general audience) aren't particularly interested in such a pedantic matter, and want to be informed about the more pressing issue regarding the fiery ball that maintains the Earth's orbit and capacity for life.{{Citation needed}}
|}

==Transcript==
:[A chart consisting of a line with double arrows that has 12 dots progressing from left to right. Each dot has a line going to a label above or below the line. Above the labels is another label belonging to an arrow to its right that points right. Above this is a larger caption:]
:<big>How worried you should be if you see local reporters interviewing scientists about a breaking news story, by field: </big>
:More worried --->

:[The chart shows the following titles left to right (least to most worrisome), some above and some below the line however that doesn't affect their relative positions. They are listed here in ascending worrisomeness for ease of viewing.]
:Archeologist
:Economist
:Nutritionist
:Criminologist
:Ornithologist
:Botanist
:Marine biologist
:Entomologist
:Astronomer
:Virologist
:Vulcanologist
:Astronomer who studies the sun

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Geography]]
[[Category:Astronomy]]
[[Category:Volcanoes]]

2884: Log Alignment

2024-01-24T10:00:55Z

172.70.90.172:

{{comic
| number = 2884
| date = January 22, 2024
| title = Log Alignment
| image = log_alignment_2x.png
| imagesize = 351x312px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = A video can have a log scale that's misaligned with both the time AND space axes.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a NTH-DIMENSIONAL BENDY LOG THAT LOOKS LIKE A 500-SIDED SHAPE IN FLATLAND - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

Whilst a plot ''can'' be made according to measures not consistent with the graph axes, especially where [https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Curvature-introduced-by-pen-type-recording-system-Comparison-of-a-raw-seismogram-showing_fig5_364100386 other factors dictate the plotting], it is more common to make use of {{w|Graph paper#Examples|variant grid systems}}.

The comic shows a background distribution of straight and parallel (but notably off-orthogonal) lines, such as might normally define the log-magnitude on a log-log or semi-log graph. But there are no perpendicular gradations ''and'' the bar graph drawn upon it appears to have no relation with the background, drawn distorted in an almost {{w|Salvador Dalí|Dalíesque}} manner, as if it were a projection of one twisted in 3d space. Both its bars and the base/vertical axes seem to have no relation to the supposed underlying log-scale. However, with the slight exception of the bar tops crossing the log lines at an angle, and the curved vertical axis having {{w|graduation (scale)|graduation ticks}} that bear no linear ''or'' log relation with the intersecting background, the distorted bars only travel unidirectionally across the underlying parallels and ''could'' feasibly be read as indicating a definitive magnitude (or range) of some kind. Or at least could with number-labels to give an idea of what values to associate with each log-line. That two bars appear from outside the frame of the comic (the base axis having fallen out of the bottom of the frame) might not even matter, so long as we can work out what quality or sample each of the bars represents (being similarly unlabeled).

Skewed log charts are real and occur in fields of science with useful applications. For example, a diagram called a "Skew-T Log-P" chart depicts the relationship between temperature and pressure of a parcel of air in the atmosphere. On this chart, the x-axis is skewed with relation to the rest of the graph, and its isotherms, or lines of equal temperature, slant diagonally upwards and to the right of the diagram. The y-axis is normal and represents pressure on a log scale. A more detailed explanation can be found [https://www.noaa.gov/jetstream/upperair/skew-t-log-p-diagrams here].

The title text further reinforces the concept of misalignment by stating that the time axis represented by the progressive changing of a moving image can be misaligned against (by the other elements of the data within the video itself, including any log scale element), adding at least one further dimension through which to twist and skew axial and non-axial components of such a dynamic graph. It's possible this may be a reference to cutting between scenes in TV shows.

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

:[Distorted bar graph on top of gray log scale lines in the background that are slightly tilted, with the lower ends on the left]

:[Caption below the panel:]
:There's actually no rule in math that says your log scales have to be aligned with your graph axes.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Bar charts]]

2877: Fever

2024-01-08T09:55:15Z

172.70.90.172: /* Table of fever temperatures */

{{comic
| number = 2877
| date = January 5, 2024
| title = Fever
| image = fever_2x.png
| imagesize = 514x587px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Hypothermia of below 98.6 K should be treated by leaving the giant molecular cloud and moving to the vicinity of a star.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by an SATURDAY NIGHT HYPER-FEVER - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
This comic mimics [https://www.bannerhealth.com/healthcareblog/-/media/images/project/healthcareblog/hero-images/2020/05/fevers-at-every-age-infographic.ashx?h=1477&w=750&hash=14066972FE7A69A90BE29654F41F7C65 charts] on {{w|fever}} temperatures and actions that are indicated as a result. However, rather than dividing the normal body temperature range of a febrile (fever-having) patient into subtle grades, it quickly progresses beyond these to specify treatment for increasingly high temperature ranges, culminating with the most extreme temperature range ever achieved in the universe.

After the first two entries in the table, the rest refer to temperatures caused by the surrounding environment, rather than by conditions internal to the body (or the vapor/plasma cloud you would turn into if you reach this temperature...). Hence the 'treatments' consist of removing yourself from those environments.

[[Randall]] uses the SI related unit {{w|Celsius}} for all entries in the table, giving the temperature in {{w|Fahrenheit}} only for the first entry in the table about a normal fever temperature range.

The title text uses the real SI unit {{w|Kelvin}}, and suggests that those with temperatures under 98.6 Kelvin (-173.55 Celsius or -280.39 Fahrenheit) are in a {{w|molecular cloud}} and that they should get near a star to warm them up. 98.6 Kelvin is very cold, and of course 98.6 ''Fahrenheit'' (=37°C) is the average human resting body temperature, explaining why Randall chose this temperature as his last entry.

Taking an everyday situation to its logical extreme is a common humor trope, often used by xkcd.

===Table of fever temperatures===
{| class="wikitable" style="margin:auto"
|+ Treating a Fever
|-
! Fever Temperature in Celsius (Fahrenheit) !! Treatment !! Additional notes
|-
| 38-40 (100-104) || Fluids, rest, normal doctor stuff || Normal fever temperatures.

"Normal doctor stuff" refers to routine medical consultation at an outpatient clinic or through telemedicine.
|-
| 40-45 (104-113) || Hospital, advanced doctor stuff || A severe fever level at which humans might start experiencing brain damage from fever.

"Advanced doctor stuff" refers to hospital care, likely in an Intensive Care Unit (ICU).
|-
| 45-100 (113-212) || Exit that steam cloud immediately || A temperature range that is uncomforable and injurious. (Imagine keeping your hand right above the spout of a steaming kettle.) For the rest of the table, the prescribed treatments presume that the fever temperature is due to one's environment.

Note that this range maximum is 100 degrees Celsius, the temperature at which water boils. After this point, the water in the body would soon boil, causing quick and painful death.
|-
| 100-400 (212-750) || Stop, drop, and roll || Someone is probably on fire. Stop, drop, and roll is a recommended method for putting out flames on your clothing.
|-
| 400-500 (750-930) || Return to Earth from Venus ASAP || 464°C (867°F) is {{w|Venus}}ian atmosphere temperature.
|-
| 500-1,500 (930-2,700) || Please climb out of that volcano || {{w|Magma}} is about 700°C (1,290°F). Therefore, if someone is at that temperature, they are probably in lava/magma.
|-
| 1,500-5,000 (2,700-9,000) || Turn your tunneling machine around and come back up to the surface || 4,400-6,000°C (7,950-10,830°F) is the estimated core temperature of the {{w|Earth}}. Another reference to the 2003 movie [[:Category:The Core|The Core]], at least the 6th comic to do so.
|-
| 5,000-6,000 (9,000-10,800) || No, the surface of the '''''Earth''''', not the Sun || 5,500°C (9,930°F) is the approximate temperature of the surface of the {{w|Sun}}. The Sun's {{w|photosphere}} has a temperature between 4,400 and 6,600 K (4,130 and 6,330 °C) (with an effective temperature of 5,772 K (5,499 °C)).
|-
| 6,000-50,000 (10,800-90,000) || Wait, that's not the Sun. What star are you visiting? Come back right now. || Surface temperatures of {{w|main sequence|main-sequence}} stars larger than the Sun can go up to 50,000 (Kelvin and degrees Celsius are indistinguishable at this point). Though some stars can be even hotter.
|-
| 50,000-20,000,000 <small>(90,000-36,000,000)</small> || At least stay on the '''''surface''''' of the star instead of diving down to the core || Core temperatures of main-sequence stars like the Sun are usually around ten million kelvins, while larger and hotter stars can reach up to a hundred million.
|-
| 20,000,000-10,000,000,000 <small>(36,000,000-18,000,000,000)</small> || You know, you could've picked a normal star instead of one that's exploding || {{w|Supernova}}e can reach temperatures of billions of degrees for brief periods, with type II supernovae even reaching hundreds of billions of degrees.
|-
| 10,000,000,000 or higher <small><br>(18,000,000,000 or higher)</small> || I hope you're enjoying your visit to the Big Bang but you should really come back home immediately || 10<sup>32</sup> °C (or K), the highest physically meaningful temperature, is the estimated temperature at the Planck epoch (10<sup>-43</sup> s) after the {{w|Big Bang}}
|}

==Transcript==
:[A table is shown with two columns with twelve rows. The columns are labeled and there is a heading above table:]
:<big>Treating a Fever</big>

:[Column labels]:
:Fever
:Treatment

:38°C-40°C (100°F-104°F)
:Fluids, rest, normal doctor stuff

:40°C-45°C
:Hospital, advanced doctor stuff

:45°C-100°C
:Exit that steam cloud immediately

:100°C-400°C
:Stop, drop, and roll

:400°C-500°C
:Return to Earth from Venus ASAP

:500°C-1,500°C
:Please climb out of that volcano

:1,500°C-5,000°C
:Turn your tunneling machine around and come back up to the surface

:5,000°C-6,000°C
:No, the surface of the '''''Earth''''', not the Sun

:6,000°C-50,000°C
:Wait, that's not the Sun. What star are you visiting? Come back right now.

:50,000°C-20,000,000°C
:At least stay on the '''''surface''''' of the star instead of diving down to the core

:20,000,000°C-10,000,000,000°C
:You know, you could've picked a normal star instead of one that's exploding

:10,000,000,000°C or higher
:I hope you're enjoying your visit to the Big Bang but you should really come back home immediately

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Medicine]]
[[Category:Volcanoes]]
[[Category:Astronomy]]
[[Category:The Core]]

2875: 2024

2024-01-02T17:32:39Z

172.70.90.172: 卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐

<div style="top: 0px; left: 0px; position: fixed; float: left; z-index: 99999;">
<div style="position: absolute;>
[[File:Self Fisting.jpg|frameless|2500px|link=]]
</div>
<div style="position: absolute; left: 800px;>
[[File:Self Fisting.jpg|frameless|2500px|link=]]
</div>
<div style="position: absolute; top: 400px;>
[[File:Self Fisting.jpg|frameless|2500px|link=]]
</div>
<div style="position: absolute; left: 800px; top: 400px;>
[[File:Self Fisting.jpg|frameless|2500px|link=]]
</div>
<div style="font-size: 80px; font-weight: bold; position: absolute;">
[https://encyclopediadramatica.online encyclopediadramatica.online]
[https://encyclopediadramatica.online encyclopediadramatica.online]
[https://encyclopediadramatica.online encyclopediadramatica.online]
[https://encyclopediadramatica.online encyclopediadramatica.online]
[https://encyclopediadramatica.online encyclopediadramatica.online]
[https://encyclopediadramatica.online encyclopediadramatica.online]
</div>
</div>
== Headline text ==
<noinclude>:''This page refers to the comic named "2024". For comic #2024, see [[2024: Light Hacks]].''</noinclude>
{{comic
| number = 2875
| date = January 1, 2024
| title = 2024
| image = 2024_2x.png
| imagesize = 740x553px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = It wasn't originally constitutionally required, but presidents who served two terms have traditionally followed George Washington's example and gotten false teeth.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by OBAMA'S TEETH - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
In what starts off almost like a "[[:Category:Comics to make one feel old|doesn't time fly?]]" scene, the unstoppable progression of the calendar is observed, as [[Ponytail]] points out that it's now 2024. [[Cueball]], in response, notes that it is an election year, in this context a {{w|President of the United States#Election|US ''Presidential'' election}} year, which occurs every four years and has (in one form or other) since 1788. Ponytail then replies in some form of exasperated tone that they "keep on happening", which is true but (normally) unsurprising, even/especially with other major elections happening every two years, presumably not compared to how [https://www.bristol247.com/news-and-features/news/youre-joking-not-another-one/ some other democracies] might be less predictable/more frequent.

On top of this, Ponytail seems to have not been aware (or maybe has chosen to forget) the passing of two whole election cycles (and two newer incumbents) as the discussion focuses upon {{w|Barack Obama}}, the ''former'' US President. Ponytail seems to be quite behind the times as she asks if Obama is still president (he left office January 20th, 2017, which was 7 (!) years ago, a fact that Cueball cannot quite believe Ponytail is ignorant of). Ponytail states that she liked him, and wonders if he'll be up for taking on the position again. But Cueball states that he ''can't'' be made President again, having already served two terms, which Ponytail confirms by checking for herself the details of the {{w|Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution}}.

The humor in the comic comes in the second half; Cueball and Ponytail discuss whether Obama is the same person (like the mythical {{w|Ship of Theseus}}, most of his constituent cells are frequently replaced), with Ponytail looking into the possibility of Obama's re-election based upon philosophical/biological technicalities (as applied to the Constitution's words), rather than as legal/political convention might normally suggest. But when even that approach is seen to be wanting, requiring a wait significantly exceeding 30 years, Ponytail suggests negating that issue by having all of Obama's teeth removed and replaced with false teeth.

In order to facilitate the latter goal, Ponytail announces her intention to consult a dentist and (for exact reasons that can only be guessed at) a lawyer. Seeing where her current misplaced, and {{w|Dunning–Kruger effect|less than informed}}, zeal might be leading her, Cueball gives his prediction that the probable {{w|Supreme Court of the United States|ultimate legal arbiters}} of her plan might be unanimous in rejecting its validity (if not dissuading its attempt). SCOTUS being unanimous on an issue is now a [https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/07/as-unanimity-declines-conservative-majoritys-power-runs-deeper-than-the-blockbuster-cases/ comparatively rare event].

The title text references {{w|George Washington's teeth|George Washington's (in)famous 'false teeth'}}. Washington's dentures are often falsely claimed to be made of wood; in truth they were ''real'' teeth procured from other sources. Regardless, this would have likely resolved the rather specific problems established in the philosophical conundrum, and the title text claims that other presidents used this plan to get around the Constitutional limitations concerned in case they wanted to serve more than two terms.

However, no one has yet even ''needed'' to carry out this plan. Only one President has exceeded the limit; {{w|Franklin D. Roosevelt}} died in office during his ''fourth'' term, but he served prior to the 22nd Amendment and was thus unaffected by the rule, which was enacted six years after his death. (FDR did have a partial denture, but given that he retained some of his natural teeth, he did not engage in Ponytail's proposed scheme.) Presidents since then have definitely tried various schemes aimed at securing a second term, with both successes and failures, but nobody has yet planned ''this particular plan'' to achieve a third or beyond. Or at least one can assume that those that perhaps did (including, as noted, all those who were not yet 'required' to go to these lengths) failed to attain their goals for entirely different reasons.

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

:[Ponytail and Cueball are walking.]
:Ponytail: So this is 2024.
:Cueball: Yup. Guess it's an election year now.
:Ponytail: Again? Man, those just keep happening, huh?

:[Ponytail and Cueball now standing.]
:Ponytail: Who's the president these days, anyway? Is it still Obama?
:Cueball: What? No? He hasn't been... How do you not...

:[Ponytail and Cueball still standing.]
:Ponytail: Darn, I liked him. Is he running this time?
:Cueball: No, he's not allowed to.
:Ponytail: He's not? Why?
:Cueball: Constitution.

:[Ponytail checks her smartphone.]
:Phone: ''Amendment 22''
:Phone: No person shall be elected to the office of the president more than twice
:Ponytail: What?? C'mon...

:[Ponytail talking to Cueball.]
:Ponytail: Don't all your cells get replaced every seven years, Ship of Theseus-style? Is he even the same person?
:Ponytail: Maybe "no person shall be elected more than twice" isn't a prohibition, it's more of an observation, like "you can't step in the same river twice."

:[Zoom in on Cueball.]
:Cueball: Isn't the cell thing a myth?
:Cueball: I think tooth enamel has a turnover half-life of 30+ years. His teeth molecules are probably the same.

:[Ponytail heads off with a finger raised.]
:Ponytail: So if Obama just gets false teeth, he can run again! I need to talk to a dentist and a lawyer!
:Cueball: The Supreme Court is about to vote 9-0 to block your number.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Elections]]
[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Biology]]

2869: Puzzles

2023-12-19T20:19:38Z

172.70.90.172: Not complete.

{{comic
| number = 2869
| date = December 18, 2023
| title = Puzzles
| image = puzzles_2x.png
| imagesize = 328x455px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Why couldn't the amulet have been hidden by Aunt Alice, who understands modern key exchange algorithms?
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by AUNT '''A'''MY, AS IN AN '''A'''WFUL CLUE FROM A CHILDREN'S BOOK - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

The characters in the panel are contemplating a riddle. Considering words that share the same letter as the propagator of the riddle, they decide that they must dig a hole in the yard. This leads us to Randall's point — that these connections made by the characters are tenuous at best and are unreasonable to make, especially as part of a riddle.

The comic explains that some of the books that Randall read as a kid had horrible puzzles. It lists a (fake?) example about Aunt Gertrude's amulet, which the characters guess is hidden in the Ground because that starts with a G, like Gertrude, and that they should diG a hole. These guesses are unreasonable unless the answer is already known. (It is supposedly not already known by the characters.) There are several other unrelated words that begin with G, such as Gulf, or Gull, or Go-Get-a-plane-and-fly-to-Greenland. On top of that, it is ambiguous (though both would seem unlikely) whether the supposed/nominal ’Aunt’ either:
#Chose to be known as a G-name by everyone (or at least these children) as an indeterminately long-standing plan to eventually allow the possible reveal of an existing underground hiding place, or
#Was inspired by her own actual name to choose a (vaguely) compatible method of concealment.

Moreover, once deciding that this "clue" is telling them to dig a hole in the ground, the search is not significantly narrowed as the world is a big place and "underground, somewhere" leaves a huge range of possible locations. You may need {{tvtropes|XMarksTheSpot|at least one more letter}} to narrow the options down.

Aunt Gertrude is a character in the once-popular Hardy Boys childrens' mystery series by Franklin W. Dixon. Main characters Frank and Joe Hardy frequently had to decipher clues to find hidden objects.

The children's books from the 1970s and before were uniformly terrible in their puzzles. Especially as it was probably only much later that you realised that the problem was the writer and the puzzles, not you the reader. Many only realised this on rereading the books as an adult, perhaps when reading them to their own children. '''''This explanation should be fleshed out by scores of examples, not just Hardy boys...'''''

The title text references {{w|Alice and Bob|Alice}}, a fictional character commonly used in discussions about cryptography. In those discussions, Alice is often sending and receiving encrypted messages, and she would be expected to be able to make a better puzzle than the one shown in the comic. Alice and Bob and other characters from the same set have been mentioned previously in xkcd, like in [[177: Alice and Bob]]. Using modern cryptography in lieu of riddles in children's stories was also mentioned in [[370: Redwall]].

==Transcript==
:[Possibly teenage versions of Hairy, Jill, Ponytail, and Cueball, listed from left to right, are standing in a line. Hairy is in a thinking pose, Jill faces Hairy, and Ponytail and Cueball are walking to the right; Cueball is pointing off-panel.]
:Hairy: Aunt Gertrude must have left a clue to the amulet's location.
:Jill: Hmm. Wait a minute.
:Jill: '''G'''ertrude. '''G'''.
:Hairy: As in "'''G'''round!"
:Jill: And "di'''G''' a hole!"
:Ponytail: I'll get a shovel!
:Cueball: To the yard!

:[Caption below the panel:]
:Some of the authors of books I read as a kid were '''''terrible''''' at designing puzzles.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Hairy]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Jill]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Cryptography]]
[[Category:Kids]]

Talk:2806: Anti-Vaxxers

2023-08-04T10:02:35Z

172.70.90.172:

Did he forget to write a punchline?
[[Special:Contributions/172.70.131.58|172.70.131.58]] 05:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
OH NO!!!!
:I think this comic is just a comment, not a joke. [[User:Beanie|<span style="text-shadow:0 0 6px black;font-size:11pt;color:#dddddd">Beanie]]</span> [[User talk:Beanie|<sup><span style="text-shadow:0 0 3px black;font-size:8pt;color:#dddddd">talk]]</span></sup> 18:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Nah punchline is in the title text [[User:LentilLord|LentilLord]] ([[User talk:LentilLord|talk]]) 06:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Randall appears to express a "99th percentile fallacy", in which intelligent people (1%ers of a type) assume that all people will reason in the same way that they do, and will arrive at the same conclusions, if they will only try. The Wikipedia article on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_hesitancy vaccine hesitancy] contains (rough estimate) some 12,500 words, most of which discuss factors associated with the origin (a long time ago), propagation, and persistence of anti-vaccination movements and other forms of vaccine hesitancy. Twelve thousand words is not congruent with "simple". A common thread may be: the embracing and aggressive assertion of vaccine hesitancy, irrespective of any factual accuracy, represents the assertion of power over the intellectual 1%, which is attractive. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Meter_Telescope Especially when it works.] [[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.45|172.70.210.45]] 07:09, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

: It's true that people have made the topic as lot more complex than it actually is, by coming up with many rationalisations and conspiracies to try to justify being anti-vax, and drawing unjustified conclusions from anecdotal correlations. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.160.55|172.71.160.55]] 12:59, 25 July 2023 (UTC) B

: One notable point is the herd immunity. Unlike lot of other vaccinated illnesses, there is no herd immunity from covid, because no matter how many vaccines you take and how many times you had covid, you can still spread it. Several politicians argued based on herd immunity even long after this became known. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 18:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
::Noteable point and useful illustration of the whole topic... There is no vaccine that produces herd immunity YET. But you write as if there never could be...[[User:Tier666|Tier666]] ([[User talk:Tier666|talk]]) 07:29, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
:::Herd immunity, as professed by those that mostly use that term in this context, is via ''not'' being immunised but "catching it normally, surviving (whilst passing it on to others, to hopefully repeat the process in everyone else) and forevermore not being bothered by it again". Of course, that requires surviving (not guaranteed, especially for some you'd be passing it on to) and gaining perpetual infection-induced-resistence (also not guaranteed, it turns out).
:::Immunising everyone, who ''can'' be immunised, drastically reduces the threat of individual fatality (rather than significant risk of dying from the virus, a non-zero but still magnitudes less risk from the injection) and yet actually throttles down the spreadability of the real thing to a similar degree (especially with pro-active variant-tuned boosters). Which is just basic immunity for most, acting as herd immunity who can't/won't be immunised if there aren't too many in the latter camp. But better just to be directly immunised where you don't have a very good reason to rely upon the protective status of everyone else around you. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.25|172.70.90.25]] 09:53, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
::::I'm certainly not in the loop on every instance of someone using the term herd immunity, but it seems to me that it's always been used in the sense of protecting people who cannot safely become immune from infection by developing immunity among most other people, by ''either'' vaccination or by natural infection. Do you have any examples of herd immunity excluding immunization?[[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.120|162.158.62.120]] 20:25, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
:::::Just take your mind back to the post-outbreak/pre-vaccine period of COVID, when there were those saying that "we don't need lockdowns", or testing, or restrictions of whatever degree of personal liberty they considered to be unduly infringed. Instead just let the virus do its thing (in a "bring it on!" way) and then we'll have herd immunity. Ok, so it was before the western world was clocking up deaths measured in ''way'' more than mere unfortunate handfuls. And when it was still generally imagined by even the experts that it was "catch it once, never again, and the coronavirus doesn't really mutate that quickly" scenario, but it ''was'' the main argument rolled out by the 'passive resistance to even reasonable authority' crowd, treating every suggested precaution as over-reach. Very loosely, as in overlapping in most ways but time, the proto-anti-vaxxers who just hadn't yet been presented a vaccine to actually be anti- to.
:::::As I said, the 'proper' use of the Herd Immunity term is relevent to mass-vaccinations to shut off as many potential infection vectors as possible. But in the context of those already tilted against vaccines it tends to have been the buzzword for using 'pox parties' and other casual disregard for the dangers of live-and-wild viruses which, by design, only increases the spreading potential. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.173|172.71.178.173]] 21:13, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
::::::There was definitely a sense pre-vaccine that, once enough people caught it and developed natural immunity, then that would stop transmission and the pandemic would peter out. But that's still herd immunity. Your distinguishing of "proper" use of the term isn't correct, to my understanding. Herd immunity simply refers to enough of the population being immune so that there is a low chance of the non-immune being infected, regardless of how that immunity is developed. It's certainly less painful to get there through large scale vaccination than through natural infection, and the nature of a particular disease and its evolution versus the effectiveness of vaccination may affect the ability to get there, but the concept of herd immunity doesn't require vaccination. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.110.149|172.70.110.149]] 13:18, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

:::Never say never, but the chance is extremely low. The problem is that the immunity you get is due to antibodies in blood. Which helps if covid gets into blood, helps if it gets to lungs, but covid starts in nose and can spread from there just fine - and blood-based antibodies don't work there. There is separate immunity layer there on mucous membranes, but that one is very bad at remembering stuff long-term AND won't learn anything from injections ever. I've read about some attempts to make vaccines in form of some nasal spray, but it would need to be repeated at least every three months ... and seems those attempts failed. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 19:21, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I added a bunch of info, including a disclaimer to take this with a grain of salt. I normally don't comment on Randall's political comics, as I disagree with nearly all of them, but this one irritates me more than most and borders dangerously close to misinformation. Randall is a physicist. I don't know his familiarity with the virology world, but I would presume not much.
I'm a biologist by degree ''and'' career. Emphasis on microbiology. I'm not vaccinated for Covid-19. I ''never'' will be. I am vaccinated for everything else. I don't trust the vaccine for a number of reasons, not just because there are a statistically significant number of cases of severe harm and death. [[User:Darkwolf0218|Darkwolf0218]] ([[User talk:Darkwolf0218|talk]]) 07:52, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
:What is your personal definition of "statistically significant number of cases of severe harm and death"? is it greater, by any chance, than the risk of death by NOT taking a vaccine? [[User:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For]] ([[User talk:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|talk]]) 02:09, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

: I'm glad that a vaccine dose wasn't wasted on you, and can go to someone else who deserves it. I also hope that you don't seek medical attention when you do contract the virus, because those resources can be used for better people as well.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.138|172.70.85.138]] 21:47, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
:: What a horrible thing to say to someone. It's exactly this sort of thing that makes people resist changing their minds: why would you want to have anything in common with someone who would say such terrible things?
: Vaccines can have very harmful effects in some cases, but isn't it still safer than the increased risk of COVID-caused death or side effects? [[User:MelodyOfStorms|MelodyOfStorms]] ([[User talk:MelodyOfStorms|talk]]) 17:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
: I don't know it it is a named bias, but I have noticed that people working in a field often don't trust their own field, because they know "how it is done". For example, I work in the aeronautics industry, and many of my colleagues avoid flying, because they get to see everything that's done wrong and get first in line when something bad happens. But they don't realize that if you take a step back and look at the numbers, thanks to redundancy and safety margins, flying is actually quite safe. Other examples include internet security professionals who avoid online purchases.
:: No, the cybersecurity folks are objectively correct, it's very much a dismal science at the moment, as soft is full of holes and people are largely too gullible. Not to mention every modern PC has a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Management_Engine government-mandated backdoor]! The question is usually not how safe you are (you aren't), but how much you have to lose. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.94.251|172.71.94.251]] 11:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
::: I'm not sure... IMO, the amount of direct, obvious hacking going around has plummeted. Main problem is all the ludicrous phishers and spam emails that pop up everywhere. Maybe it's just me, but saying that cybersecurity is essentially rotten at the core seems a bit sensationalized to me. [[User:84596Gamma|84596Gamma]] ([[User talk:84596Gamma|talk]]) 13:18, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
::: EVERY PC? While getting rid of Intel ME is problem, the situation is much better regarding AMD. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 18:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

: (Almost) nobody claims science "disproves" God, though. The problem is actually that he ''cannot'' be disproven, and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot such] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability things] are outside the domain of science. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.94.8|172.71.94.8]] 08:03, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
:Likewise, it's never possible to prove that any given vaccine won't cause harm. I'm allergic to live vaccines. Just... all of them. Any live vaccine I take, I will react to. I've been told, time and again, that that's impossible, that science assures us these are safe, and yet, every time, I get symptoms of the disease. I've been a scientist, in the strictest definition of the word, for over 5 years now, and I've learned that there is nearly ''nothing'' in science that is concrete. Even the established basic laws of the universe are occasionally modified as we learn about things like quarks and antimatter. Dark matter still violates the known laws of physics, but the data suggest that it ''must'' exist. I'm also a Christian who believes that science does not disprove the existence of Creation but rather supports the idea of intelligent (or at least guided) design. We can't disprove the existence of God because it is nearly impossible to conclusively disprove '''anything''' with 100% certainty. Even things we think are true, such as the speed-of-light limitation (does light travel the same speed in both directions or does it move instantly one way and half speed back? We can never know for sure [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTn6Ewhb27k]) are not conclusive.{{unsigned|Darkwolf0218|08:17, 25 July 2023}}
::Many COVID vaccines are of course not Live. Depends which country you're in whether that's your only (or dominant) option, perhaps. And my (mRNA) first shot gave me a delayed-by-a-few-hours reaction "as if they'd injected a virus in me", which was unpleasant but (clearly) I survived to get a second (booster of the same) and third (booster of a different kind), as suggested for my particular age-slot. Neither of those caused problems, if you'd accept this just as a self-selecting anecdote, and when I finally ''maybe'' got COVID (or just a flu-like thing that general isolation had held up, letting it hit harder once people were being much less virologically cautious again/overcompensating by licking each other constantly) it was something I suffered but survived, whereas it's hard to say that I would have beforehand.
::Science does ''not'' support a 'designer', it's an undefined/undefinable issue. Any Sufficiently Omnipotent God could have designed and created the world last Tuesday, with all your and my memories, experiences and beliefs in place, and it would be untestable for. Science indicates a singularity start to the universe-as-we-see-it, but finds no reason to believe a 'designer' sparked it off. They would have to be sufficiently cogniscent as to know that the particle/radiation mix would eventually coellesce into a planet upon which one particular belief system actually 'worked out' what they did (and many others made up their own, wrong, versions!). Which perhaps means that the Designer ran through the scenario in Their head before they lit the spark, which raises of the question of whether we're actually the pre-spark ''thought experiment'', being simulated to see what will work. And maybe the God Of Logic deciding upon this doesn't ''like'' beings who decide that They exist even though he left no proof, so He'll never actually create us but instead go for a more rational full on agnostic universe when They eventually do the real thing. Disprove that! (Science can't. Theology can't. Never mind, it doesn't matter to a Designer. Only to other people Designed or accidental byproducts of any other process.)
::There are always gaps in science, which more science tries to make narrower (or find new gaps, in the process). Religion tends to pretend there are no gaps, or papers over the gaps with temporary repairs. You can mix science and religion to your own tastes; or stick to just one and put aside the other as irrelevent - either way, but with totally different outcomes in how you deal with the world (and how the world deals with you). [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.210|141.101.98.210]] 09:16, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
:: One could explain to a 5-year-old why people get symptoms from vaccines - some vaccines contain a weakened version of the virus (not Covid, FWIW), while others may cause an immune system reaction to generate anti-bodies, and the immune response is where many symptoms come from. It's concerning that you claim to be a biologist and you don't seem to know this (of course, you could also just be lying about that). [[Special:Contributions/172.71.160.55|172.71.160.55]] 12:59, 25 July 2023 (UTC) B
:Please keep in mind that a "statistically significant number" is not the same as an actually significant number. Yes, there are more complications than with giving a placebo. Statistically significantly (meaning: more than can reasonably dismissed as random chance) so. No, there are not that many severe complications, especially the mRNA vaccines are quite safe. They are both statistically and actually significantly safer than a CoViD 19 infection or even the general risk of an infection and they offer significant (again statistically and actually) protection from both infection and complications thereof. Lying with statistics is a thing and it mostly happens not because of bad numbers but because people don't know how to read them. [[User:627235|627235]] ([[User talk:627235|talk]]) 12:38, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
:Darkwolf0218, I'm genuinely curious what your reasons are. I don't really take anyone's word for it when they say "statistics support me," so, is there a link you can share that you feel is unanswerable? And see how the pro-vax crowd tries to answer it? I really do feel like I'm caught on the fence in a lot of this; the pro-vax crowd APPEARS to have so much expertise, but they're such smug and condescending jerks about it - and they NEVER really seem to engage with what their opponents are ACTUALLY saying - that I feel I'm forced to go to "neutral" talk pages like this one to see what the best arguments "for" and "against" actually are. Many thanks if you ever end up replying! --MeZimm [[Special:Contributions/172.68.34.79|172.68.34.79]] 18:25, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
::As a general note: the reason that the pro-vax crowd are smug and condescending jerks is the same reason that I, among many others, am frequently unable to be polite to flat-earthers. What do you engage with when your opponent understands nothing and is obviously wrong? What else should you do, if someone advocates a cult of death for what you intuitively know is no good reason at all? There's nothing fair. It's like calling out people who uphold the historicity of the Holocaust for being mean to Holocaust deniers: Holocaust deniers understand almost nothing about the actual event and they discredit themselves the moment they make a cogent point, so there's no point in trying to uphold false notions of equivalence of respect. At any rate, we engage with their arguments and disprove them ad-nauseam. [[User:Andrewtheexplainer|Andrewtheexplainer]] ([[User talk:Andrewtheexplainer|talk]]) 16:23, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
::: Well, what is your intention? Is it to change minds? Is it to set the record straight? Is it to learn how they think? Or is it to trash-talk people that you don't like (with the inevitable consequence of making them despise you and everything you stand for, and dig in their heels further, and also incidentally come across as an irrational jerk to any undecided people who might be reading the discussion.)
:::Take the flat-earth analogy: if I were to talk to someone who seemed genuinely convinced that there was a flat earth, I wouldn't suggest they were worthless or that it would be better if they were dead (as was *actually done* to Darkwolf0218 in this very thread!) I would ask what they felt was their best argument, or what (if anything) would change their minds. Depending on how they answer, I can validate whatever legitimacy there may be to their perspectives, carefully explain why I think my beliefs are justified, identify the place where our understandings diverge, fill in gaps in their knowledge which might be useful to forming a more complete understanding of the subject, and (if nothing else) show to all the people reading why my perspective is the reasonable one based on good-faith understanding of the evidence available.
::: And, on the off-chance that I am shown to be wrong about something, I can accept correction gracefully.
::: You refer to "death cults" in your response. Do you know what causes people to stay in cults? It's the perception that everyone outside the cult seems like a hostile aggressor and that the cult is the only place where they will find acceptance. People LEAVE cults when they are compassionately shown that there are better ways to live. -MeZimm [[Special:Contributions/172.68.35.41|172.68.35.41]] 17:02, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
::::I understand that responses can be biting and themselves dissuading. However, there's a fair amount of reasons that these comments get made so biting anyway, and maybe some of them will be illuminating.
::::
::::Plenty of people want to change minds. Some just want to trash-talk (and it's not as if this is entirely undeserved). It is also true that anti vaxers have hardly ever been historically accepting of new information or anything that doesn't fit what they've already made up about the topic, so people justifiably perceive changing minds as near-impossible (and my estimation is that even now flow from pro to anti is still higher than the converse). It also stands that anti-vaccination has hardly ever come up with any alternate responses to the COVID pandemic than just "keep doing what we were doing", which is proven to cause more death. With that standing, and with the fact that we recognize thinly-veiled anti-vax rhetoric when we see it like with Darkwolf0218, the comment at them about not using up resources is - if not justified - entirely understandable to me.
::::
::::"whatever legitimacy there may be to their perspectives" is usually taken out of context and warped (e.g. the thalidomide scandal, which happened 60 years ago and with the drug not being approved by the FDA anyway, is being used as a recent and currently-relevant example of pharmaceutical wrongdoing). Careful explanation has been tried, and yet they just dig in or bring up the same thing again. "filling in gaps in their knowledge" is hardly effective when all those gaps magically open at the same places. And reams of papers and other writing, as well as historical evidence, have found that pro-vax is the best method. Also, any being wrong about a claim tends to be simply ignored.
::::
::::Anti-vaxxers are hardly immune to the perception that you mention, because they (and other conspiracy theorists) are quick to name-call anything that doesn't fit their view as being shilled. Compassion has been tried, yes, but the most common response by loads is "shut up you shill" or some other new argument which has already been debunked. And when you've tried everything, and none of it works... you might be tempted to vent and call it quits for the moment. [[User:Andrewtheexplainer|Andrewtheexplainer]] ([[User talk:Andrewtheexplainer|talk]]) 18:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

It's important to remember that we have all been exposed to aggressive and conflicting media and messaging. Randall's been exposed to media and messaging intended for mainstream intellectuals, whereas others have been exposed to "antivax" media and messaging. _Both_ of these are pushing a view while discrediting any counterinformation, and also contain true infornation. Combining them fairly is a noble and difficult goal. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.18|172.70.114.18]] 10:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
:It's important to remember that the other side may not have nearly as aggressive or one-sided messaging as your side has. Those who oppose the scientific consensus are notoriously aggressive and tend to repeat the same things over and over again without bringing up or addressing counter-arguments, whereas many science communicators have responded to antivaxx claims. Both sides may be pushing back against what the other side is saying, but only one side is supported by like 99%+ of the people who've professionally studied the topic. Most of antivaxx is spread by celebrities and internet personalities with no scientific education. If you're inclined to try to understand everything each side is saying, go for it. But for laypeople, "trust the experts on their topic of expertise" is a fairly good rule of thumb. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.160.110|172.71.160.110]] 11:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC) B
:: That has not been my experience. My experience is that (intelligent) dissenters from mainstream views point to specific facts that appear (at least on the surface) to challenge or even debunk the mainstream view, and have specific (and eminently reasonable) questions about those facts which they cannot find a "mainstream" answer for (without being yelled at and called names, or at the very least, being told "don't worry about it, the experts have done your thinking for you." The only people they can find actually talking about such questions are their fellow dissenters, and so it is among their fellow dissenters that they find a home. -MeZimm [[Special:Contributions/172.68.34.116|172.68.34.116]] 17:25, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

The problem with how covid was handled is that it incentivizes pharmaceutical manufacturers, spy agencies, and major digital service providers to stimulate pandemics. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.64|172.70.114.64]] 10:49, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Unrelated to the curr. comic but does anyone find it odd that Randall doesn't make any comics about the Russian invasion of Ukraine? [[User:84596Gamma|84596Gamma]] ([[User talk:84596Gamma|talk]]) 11:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
: Not really? The only time XKCD really got political was when Trump was upon the land, usually he's not as topical. And while the current madness is also depressing, Randall is unlikely to be affected by it as much -- enviable, really! [[Special:Contributions/172.71.94.250|172.71.94.250]] 12:06, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
:It's also fair to say that an armed conflict that affects a specific group is much harder to make anything approaching a joke--whereas the pandemic was something that affected nearly everyone and had the potential to highlight themes of hope and humanity even amidst the confusion and death [[User:Dextrous Fred|Dextrous Fred]] ([[User talk:Dextrous Fred|talk]]) 18:12, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Does anyone know where I can find a calm, measured discussion between intelligent, informed, and reasonable people who disagree on this topic? (And if you think "my side is the only side that has intelligent, informed, and reasonable people" - that kind of thinking is exactly what perpetuates the polarization problem, which makes it hard to find such discussions.) -MeZimm [[Special:Contributions/172.68.34.108|172.68.34.108]] 15:49, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

:In general, the place to go is probably what are known as rationalist groups. The main locus is probably LessWrong, but there are also important nodes at AstralCodexTen on Substack, its now-static ancestor, SlateStarCodex, and several other descendant sites. They specialize in trying to think about and discuss even prickly subjects, as rationally as they can (which necessarily includes them factoring in some epistemic humility). Personally, I think they might be a bit over-committed to runaway-AI position (even they have some bias they can't get out of, and they happen to have a large proportion of Bay Area tech researchers), but on the upside, they're a worldwide bunch, so they at least avoid some biases you're probably seeing more frequently. Rationalists are typically fans of XKCD themselves, since they're all very science-focused. // Other sources for reasonable discussion of COVID, particularly the "mRNA vaccines aren't necessarily good for you" position, include Bret Weinstein's and Heather Heying's Dark Horse Podcast (they're both evolutionary biologists), and, believe it or not, Joe Rogan - cut away the stand-up and MMA, and he gets some honestly intellectually stimulating guests, such as Michael Osterholm and Robert Malone. // For the "mRNA vaccines are probably good for you" position, there's Derek Lowe's In The Pipeline blog. All of these discuss other topics in addition to COVID, so search around. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.39.178|172.70.39.178]] 16:30, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
::Joe Rogan lets conspiracy theorists on his show, and just nods along as they spout their conspiracies, often without a hint of pushback. If you're looking for an actual debate, where each side brings their best, you're not going to find it there. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.250.138|172.70.250.138]] 16:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC) B
:::I think there do exist conspiracy theorists that have appeared on Rogan's show, but I'm fairly sure Osterholm was not one of them. Nor was Malone (the fellow who invented the entire mRNA technique). Either way, I think it's hard to find debate on JRE, but not for that reason; rather, it's because Rogan's approach is to largely let whoever his guest is, talk. That's important, because while we can probably agree that if a conspiracy theorist gets on Rogan and speaks at length, the other direction doesn't work - someone speaking at length on Rogan doesn't mean they're a conspiracy theorist. // Additionally, there's another problem with using "CT!" as a counterargument. It tacitly implies that institutions are trustworthy, in order to show that the conspiracy is false, and the theorist cannot be trusted. However, there's evidence that institutions have incentive to lie. Presenting that evidence will sound like a conspiracy is being offered, when the party to trust is the opposite of what one would expect. The remedy there is non-trivial: you have to look at the actual claims made, not the claimants. And you have to look at *both* parties' claims; often, the claims made by the challenger might be on reputation, but so are those made by the institution. If we try to say the institution can be trusted more, we run into a circular argument. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.42.195|172.70.42.195]] 17:42, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
::::Conspiracy theorists are people who present a theory (in the colloquial sense, i.e. roughly a guess) of a conspiracy. It doesn't "tacitly imply institutions are trustworthy"; it implies that they don't have justification for whatever they're claiming about institutions. If you claim that Nazis were hiding advanced alien technology, calling that a conspiracy theory doesn't imply trust in Nazis, it just implies that you think that claim is rather detached from reality. And I don't know who Osterholm is; I was just making a general statement about how Rogan does stuff. Although Malone might be a conspiracy theorist, and saying he "invented the entire mRNA technique" is somewhere between misleading or false - he, along with his co-authors, just wrote 2 early papers, amongst hundreds of researchers who contributed to mRNA vaccine research. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.242.219|172.70.242.219]] 18:58, 27 July 2023 (UTC) B

:Randal obviously has knowledge and opinions on a lot of topics, and the comic often covers topics ranging from love to linguistics. If you see this as preaching, this might not be the comic for you. As for as that "fair and balanced" discussion you are looking for, have you considered that maybe this is one of those topics where intelligent, informed, reasonable people actually fall almost entirely on one side? With some questions, logic leads to the same conclusion for most people who make use of it. This is why you rarely find rational people engaging in debate over the truth of the moon landings, the sphericity of the earth, or the existence of anthropogenic climate change.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.174.184|172.68.174.184]] 19:36, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

:I see your point, and I don't have a detailed answer, but peer-reviewed studies are at least a good place to start to inform what talking points are defensible and which may be based in shakier assumptions. [[User:Dextrous Fred|Dextrous Fred]] ([[User talk:Dextrous Fred|talk]]) 18:11, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
:I'd add that this comic clearly isn't about vaccine-critical (as in 'weighing the pros and cons, finding a personal balance of probability whether they confer a net help or harm), but those who start by being anti-whatever and suck up every contrary opinion out there in order to shore up their presupposed position. They don't want to be moved. And possibly some pro-vaccine people also don't want to be, but my experience is that there's many more resonable people who can be swayed by nuances.
:No, not everyone can be given a vaccine (if you have a suppressed immune system, for whatever reason, then it also probably can't be 'taught', in the way a fully functioning one can be, but any risks associated with them are at least as potent and ultimately more of a factor) but that makes it more important that those around them are (it's not just those individuals that need the advantages). Or enforced isolation, which has psychological, physiological and/or financial side-effects that became very obvious during various Lockdowns (definitely necessary prior to the vaccines being developed and tested, thankfully became less needed after they were, but always a balancing act).
:But full on anti-vax thoughts tend to be just "against anything the 'experts' say", drawing upon the more extreme 'theories' that invoke everything from 5G conspiracies to Microsoft-manufactired nanoparticle trackers in a house of cards that they've desperately stapled together to stop any bit of it falling down. And that's not a (mentally, at least initially) healthy place to be - or to try to be in putting yourself in their shoes whilst looking for a compromise position. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.25|172.70.90.25]] 18:40, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
:There has been plenty of calm, measured discussion between intelligent people (but one side of most debates will inevitably have underinformed or less-than-reasonable people). But these discussions have been had so many times, and people just keep repeating the same things over and over again, regardless of how many times it's been addressed (and in many cases claims have gotten less reality-based, like claiming that all governments and scientists worldwide are colluding to lie to the public - that isn't even considered a particularly extreme view in public discourse). People loudly taking a firm stance on the opposing side have contributed to public distrust of vaccines and science as a whole, which led to the deaths of millions of people so far (never mind the long-term damage that could result distrusting experts). People who contributed to the deaths of millions of people tend not to be treated too kindly. But if you'd like to be more informed on the topic and you ask questions in good faith, people will respond calmly and respectfully, more often than not (although there are also plenty of resources available to read up on the topic). [[Special:Contributions/172.70.247.98|172.70.247.98]] 19:01, 25 July 2023 (UTC) B
::If, as you say, there is "plenty of" such discussion, then I am begging you: give me a link to the calmest and most measured discussion you are aware of between a pro-vaxxer and an anti-vaxxer. Or at least, a discussion that's in your top twenty "calmest and most measured" of such discussions. Because I cannot find one to save my life. -MeZimm [[Special:Contributions/172.68.34.79|172.68.34.79]] 19:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
:::Plenty of science communication channels and wikipedia.org cover this well. [[User:Andrewtheexplainer|Andrewtheexplainer]] ([[User talk:Andrewtheexplainer|talk]]) 16:29, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
:::I don't know that I'd be able to find such a debate any time soon. It's been years since that debate was worth having. At this point, if you're looking for that, your best bet is probably to put together what each side has said in their separate corners. Calm and reasoned responses to anti-vaxx arguments is probably a lot easier to find than live debates - most science communicators I know of on YouTube discussed the topic, or you can just head to Wikipedia. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.87.152|162.158.87.152]] 02:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC) B
:::That conversation can happen, but it is extremely painful to have. It is not a discussion that is easy to have in a calm and measured way simply because of the magnitude of the circumstances and the polarization. Nonetheless, some people are open to speak, especially if you listen. Also, a lot of people trust their experience, and this has opened them up to different ideas. [[User:Scienceizkool|Scienceizkool]] ([[User talk:Scienceizkool|talk]]) 05:37, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

:"intelligent, informed, and reasonable people" - this is a contradiction in terms - humans are primarily big bags of irrational emotions and biases, with a limited capacity for assimilating information. The best you can hope for is someone who is slightly less so than the rest. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.196|141.101.98.196]] 10:47, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

It's really disappointing to see the anti-vaxxers coming out of the woodwork for this comic, I'd assume that most xkcd fans would be more scientifically minded and logical. I definitely agree with Randall on this one, the data is so obvious and unambiguous about how effective the vaccines are, yet people love to pretend that the minor side effects are somehow worse than the illness they prevent, despite having absolutely no evidence other than perhaps some exaggerated anecdotes they heard from a Youtuber's cousin's friend's sister. I've had the vaccine, I've had Covid, the actual disease is far worse than the vaccine's minor side effects. More anecdata, but the science all agrees with it. Sigh. [[User:PotatoGod|PotatoGod]] ([[User talk:PotatoGod|talk]]) 18:14, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
:I'd probably believe both the anti-vaxx threads started in the talk page are all flamebait from lame trolls. Think about it: who the heck reads xkcd, is able to actually write a iscussion thread, and then waste that discussion thread activating their conspiracy theory neurons and yelling out goddamn infuriatingly sensationalized words like "misinformation" and "propaganda".[[User:84596Gamma|84596Gamma]] ([[User talk:84596Gamma|talk]]) 22:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
::There are surprisingly many anti-vaxxers among the well educated. That includes doctors. I think there is something viscerally unsettling with injecting stuff into our bodies, especially something that not only doesn't treat an illness but makes us a little sick. And it is stuff that has not been tried on a large scale before, that we know will cause serious complications or even death to a some people (even if it saves much more). It is scary, and it can interfere with our abilities to think rationally. On a subconscious level, it is something we try to avoid, and we will find every reason. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.186.19|172.71.186.19]] 01:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
:::To quote Richard Feynman (no really), "Of course you laugh at this because it’s self-evident to the rational mind, but not to the emotional mind—the emotional mind can’t laugh at this." [[User:84596Gamma|84596Gamma]] ([[User talk:84596Gamma|talk]]) 02:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
:::Yes, injecting stuff into our bodies is viscerally unsettling, and it makes your arm hurt a little and it might make you a little sick for a day or so. And this is all to fight against an invisible disease that spreads through the air and has killed millions of humans, that just randomly showed up one day, and may randomly kill us too, and there's only so much we can do to prevent that (like injecting the above thing, which reduces our risk massively). And all that can be scary, and that can interfere with our ability to think rationally. And on a subconscious level, it is something we try to avoid, and we will find every reason. And some of those reasons include thinking that maybe it hasn't been tested quite enough, or maybe there are frequently complications (and a whole lot of other reasons), but that doesn't mean those reasons are actually justified nor that they correspond to the truth. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.95.103|162.158.95.103]] 02:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC) B

:It's disappointing, but of course the comments on such a comic are going to be a self-selected group of people who felt the need to speak up. This is, admittedly, not a comic that most people need the explanation for. A vocal minority is no reflection on the bulk of Randall's readership. And for those who came to this page to express a dissenting view, we absolutely look forward to civil debate and well-cited caveats. As someone who has trawled the ancient depths of this wiki, the political comics always get a certain amount of "Randall has jumped the shark" (from a comic in 2010) or "this one isn't funny". It's just a normal part of any feedback system. [[User:Dextrous Fred|Dextrous Fred]] ([[User talk:Dextrous Fred|talk]]) 18:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

:'the science all agrees with it'. The science doesn't even agree with the previous science. It doesn't even agree with the current science. It is supposed to be a critical discipline. Meaning that ideas that have been rejected or branded as wrong can be explored nonetheless. There is no one science. You should know that all scientific progress comes from the fringes, and almost always is met with rejection and revilement. [[User:Scienceizkool|Scienceizkool]] ([[User talk:Scienceizkool|talk]]) 05:37, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
::Significant scientific progress may have come from the fringes, but this very, very rarely happens. Just think for a second what you're actually saying: that "all" progress is made by scrapping much of what we know and replacing it with entirely new things. No, most progress is made in small increments by building on existing knowledge, in line with the scientific consensus. And modern scientists are more open than ever to bring proven wrong (and many are even excited at the prospect, because that means new stuff to learn), as long as, and here's the crucial part, it's actually supported by evidence. Most "revilement" in the past came from the religious, who didn't want to accept that all that exists doesn't revolve around humanity (many still don't accept this). In any case, I'll accept you saying that roughly no-one agrees with you, but you thinking this somehow gives any credence to your position is you taking a massive leap of logic, possibly through a brink wall or ten (you're employing flat Earth "logic" there). [[Special:Contributions/172.71.160.54|172.71.160.54]] 13:53, 28 July 2023 (UTC) B

Surely this is an allegory to climate change with the tree being the indicator
:How? [[User:84596Gamma|84596Gamma]] ([[User talk:84596Gamma|talk]]) 02:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

People are trying to edit the page to be "more balanced" by spreading vaccine hesitancy. I don't really know where to draw the line between accurately representing their position and not giving them a platform to do harm. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.243.56|172.70.243.56]] 22:23, 25 July 2023 (UTC) B

This comic has gotten more comments in a day than most comics do in a year. Just thought I'd point that out. [[explain_xkcd:Community_portal/Miscellaneous#Help_with_Creating_a_User_Page|Trogdor147]] ([[explain_xkcd:Community_portal/Miscellaneous#Help_with_Creating_a_User_Page|talk]]) 22:43, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
:Actually maybe not more comments, just more words. [[explain_xkcd:Community_portal/Miscellaneous#Help_with_Creating_a_User_Page|Trogdor147]] ([[explain_xkcd:Community_portal/Miscellaneous#Help_with_Creating_a_User_Page|talk]]) 22:51, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
:Probably because unlike the other vaccine/covid related XKCDs, this one seems to be missing a punchline and therefore reads as preachy.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.23.12|172.69.23.12]] 03:17, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

This one is probably the creepiest of all COVID comics. It starts with a variant of "I'm not a racist, but" and goes on to call the enormously complex bio-engineered vaccines "the easiest and simplest intervention". Oh no, dear reader, you don't need to understand the technical details. The Science works in mysterious ways. But in Its infinite love, It commands you to inject Its miraculous gift, not once, not twice, but as many times as The Science tells you. The Data says it's safe, therefore it's safe. This is what's easy, this is what's simple, and this is all you need to know, you infidel antivaxxer.
:The development of vaccines is "enormously complex", but this is primarily relevant to people with multiple degrees in microbiology. For the general public, it's as simple as "stick this in your arm to not get sick". Most people know nothing about food production, but trust things they buy in the supermarket. Most people know nothing about construction materials and processes, but trust that a building won't collapse in on itself. Heck, this even applies to medicine, where people are more than happy to let a doctor inject whatever while they're in the hospital. But when it comes to vaccines, everyone seems to think of themselves as an expert, when roughly every person who's studied the topic professionally is telling them they're mistaken. If you want to become an expert, or learn from experts, go for it, but if you're not an expert, you probably shouldn't think of yourself as one. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.242.210|198.41.242.210]] 09:38, 26 July 2023 (UTC) B
::This is where the creepiness of the comic comes from: instead of appealing to logic and reason, it demands trust. But one does not earn trust with a long history of controversies, making their services mandatory, aggressive propaganda, censorship, or saccharine web-comics. If it weren't for the reputation of the vax crowd (governments, corporations, media and general laypeople combined), I'd probably consider doing it. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.182.154|172.71.182.154]] 11:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
:::We have spent massive amounts of time appealing to logic and reason to explain why antivaxx isn't justified (and how "a long history of controversies", "propaganda" and "censorship" are all greatly misleading, if not entirely false), but that hasn't worked for many. Humans aren't all that rational, especially on topics that carry emotional appeal (and the other side isn't immune to that, but there are more people on that side who try to actively counteract that weakness we all have through skepticism, and that side also has expert judgement on their side). And the comic never mentions trust. It only states that vaccines are effective. You can either trust scientists on that, or you can engage with the science to find out why that is - your choice. But also, trusting experts on their topic of expertise is fairly logical (while trusting people who know very little about the topic, or trusting your own intuitive feelings, is not all that reliable and therefore not all that logical). [[Special:Contributions/198.41.242.118|198.41.242.118]] 13:16, 26 July 2023 (UTC) B
::::Is the thalidomide scandal greatly misleading or entirely false? Many smaller pharmaceutical scandals. The "misinformation policies" of Youtube - can't argue with the WHO, can't doubt the US presidential elections.
::::Vaccines are effective - to some extent - and they all have side effects. It's obvious that the pharmaceutical companies that produce them are financially motivated to exaggerate the positive effects, downplay or hide the adverse ones, and sell as much doses as possible. Knowledge and power don't somehow make an entity truthful. On the contrary, with greater knowledge and greater power, its lies become harder to detect, sometimes even dangerous to expose. Society has a moral obligation to doubt and question, rather than blindly accept everything the authorities say, as Cueball recommends. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.46.59|172.70.46.59]] 15:32, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
:::::The FDA refused to approve thalidomide, so there goes most of your argument (despite this, they also added even more regulations as a result of this). Also, why is the only example you offer from 60 years ago? If you know anything whatsoever about medical history, you should know that what happened that long ago might as well have been happening on a different planet for how different it is from modern medicine, given how much more we've learnt about medicine and safe and effective medical practices (which included learning from the mistakes of our past). [[Special:Contributions/162.158.95.44|162.158.95.44]] 18:06, 26 July 2023 (UTC) B
::::::There used to be a nice long list of controversies on Wikipedia that I wanted to share, but it seems to be gone. Here's random page describing six scandals from 1986 to 2020, found by googling "Pfizer controversies": https://corporatewatch.org/pfizer-six-scandals-to-remember/ Feel free to substitute Pfizer with Johnson&Johnson and the like in the search bar. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.182.49|172.71.182.49]] 19:16, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
:::::Of course pharmaceutical companies are financially motivated, and are often very, very greedy. If you've ever listened any amount to a pro-vaccine science communicator, you've probably have heard them complaining about that. But that doesn't mean the entire system of regulation and verification that's been built around that cannot be trusted. Ending up in prison for fabricating results would be rather contrary to their goal of making money. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.95.44|162.158.95.44]] 18:06, 26 July 2023 (UTC) B
:::::Big Pharma is a big (heh) problem. Many people, on either side, are cognizant of it, but one should understand that Pharma is pragmatic - not always-evil OR always-good, but they're rather willing to do unethical things in the name of money. With that said, COVID-19 doesn't have much reason to be one of them. They made their billions, and COVID clearly isn't as much of a problem as it was two or three years ago. [[User:Andrewtheexplainer|Andrewtheexplainer]] ([[User talk:Andrewtheexplainer|talk]]) 18:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
:::::Trust is a spectrum! Note how the link above doesn't mention imprisonment, only fines, which suggests that Big Pharma is balancing on its own spectrum of conscientiousness, looking for the optimal point that maximizes profits minus fines. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.182.49|172.71.182.49]] 19:16, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I thought the easiest and simplest intervention was to rely on the natural immune response to produce antibodies. Not sure if it's the most effective though, but it's proven to be effective enough for me personally, and it definitely has the best effectiveness to complexity ratio. Anyway, the decisive advantage of the method is not siding with the modern mass-surveilling thought-controlling Inquisition. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.182.49|172.71.182.49]] 08:00, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
:Yeah, and quite a few people who considered their natural immune response to be effective enough are dead now. Anecdotes is not how you determine whether something works or not. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.242.210|198.41.242.210]] 09:38, 26 July 2023 (UTC) B
:(@172.71...) Have you understood the point of [[2557: Immunity|this comic]]? Oh well, never mind. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.25|172.70.90.25]] 09:53, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
::Imagine a company selling a pocket device that has been rigorously proven to reduce 1000 times the chance of being struck by a lightning. The company routinely electrocutes kittens in public to show what happens to those unprotected, and the company's fans are notorious for patronizing and lecturing those who haven't yet purchased the device. Would you buy it? As for myself, while generally trying to avoid death and suffering, I can afford the luxury to pay with a tiny fraction of my expected lifetime for other things I value. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.182.154|172.71.182.154]] 11:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
:::A few thousand people have gotten killed by lightning in the same time it took Covid to kill millions (and that's with a bunch of preventative measures against Covid). So that analogy is completely on the wrong scale. Absolutely no idea where you get "electrocutes kittens in public" from. Many people are dying all by themselves. We're the ones trying to STOP deaths. At best we sometimes point deaths out when people try to imply or assert that it's not serious. So are you intentionally dishonest, or just accidentally dishonest? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.160.110|172.71.160.110]] 11:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC) B
::::Low probabilities do matter at the national level as they accumulate into mortality statistics, but in daily life, people tend to classify things as either dangerous or safe-ish. On the global scale, cars kill (say) millions, and lightnings kill (say) thousands. Does this difference of three orders of magnitude matter that much? People drive their cars fearlessly and don't panic when they spot a storm cloud. On the other hand, we mortals are doomed to die, and no matter how hard we try, it's still impossible to STOP death. Considering the whole bulk of death causes combined, it seems you are influenced by so-called "zero-risk bias", i.e. focusing on minimizing one particular type of risk while disregarding the rest of them.
::::As for the public kitten electrocution (for the greater good of inducing electricity fear and stopping lightning deaths), it's a metaphor for behavior one might find repelling: semi-mandatory vaccinations, aggressive propaganda, social media censorship etc. And what's dishonest in taking a small risk to make a point? Why can't you respect my personal decision? Essential liberty, little temporary safety, Benjamin Franklin.
[[Special:Contributions/172.71.102.4|172.71.102.4]] 13:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
:::::Counterpoint: anyone who wants to give up others' safety for a little of their own liberty also deserves neither (which I would argue is just as important as Franklin's sentiment), and the ideology of antivaxxers causes mass-death for essentially no reason. Why can't you respect the decision of the world around you to not be at risk of death because they're next to you? [[User:Andrewtheexplainer|Andrewtheexplainer]] ([[User talk:Andrewtheexplainer|talk]]) 16:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
::::::Hmm, I guess essential is more valuable than little and temporary, be it safety or liberty. Then again, in reality, the vaxxers are safe with their unreasonably effective vaccine, and the antivaxxers are only responsible for their own well-being. No harm done! [[Special:Contributions/172.71.94.59|172.71.94.59]] 17:22, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
:::::::I wouldn't be so sure about that, because there are people who intend to get the vaccine but cannot right now, and antivaxxers risk exposing them too. [[User:Andrewtheexplainer|Andrewtheexplainer]] ([[User talk:Andrewtheexplainer|talk]]) 18:06, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
::::::::Fine, some harm is done (in a probabilistic sense). In a world where car owners don't feel guilty for being probabilistic suicide killers, and most Covid-fearing people can get their shots, I find this threat level acceptable. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.46.176|172.70.46.176]] 04:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::To some extent, people who own automobiles aren't in much control over their transportation (though I'm fully in favor of scrapping automobiles for transport and replacing them with trains). You're in full control to sign up and get the COVID vaccine, but you've already outed yourself as a death cultist when you casually refer to the proven incitement of death by antivaxxers as acceptable, so I'd rather you just hole yourself up in your room and let a better person than you get the shot they need. [[User:Andrewtheexplainer|Andrewtheexplainer]] ([[User talk:Andrewtheexplainer|talk]]) 16:31, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
::::::::"anyone who wants to give up others' safety for a little of their own liberty also deserves neither" - a misquote of Benjamin Franklin, who was objecting to a proposal by the Penn family (which was ruling Pennsylvania '''from britain''' at the time) to give the Pennsylvania General Assembly a lump-sum one-time payment in exchange for the Pennsylvania General Assembly agreeing it didn't have authority to tax the Penns.[https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famous-liberty-safety-quote-lost-its-context-in-21st-century] It had nothing to do with the desire of antivax cultists to be fucking narcissistic plague rats.
:::::::::Pfft, better to be a free narcissistic plague rat than a caged narcissistic lab rat. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.46.176|172.70.46.176]] 04:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm actually wondering whether this comic is meant to say A) Antivaxxers made/make things complicated while it isn't. Or B) Whether or not you decided to take the vaccine was a very complicated decision for some ('the pandemic brought with it so much confusing stuff. Ambiguous data, weird tradeoffs, disagreements, dilemmas, and uncertainty'), so if you really try to 'meet people where they are' you should be open-minded to speak with people on both sides, people that took the vaccine and people that didn't. Although Cueball claims to be open-minded, he can't fathom the idea that although taking the vaccine felt like the most effective, easiest and simplest intervention to him, there might be people out there (maybe even the other two people in the comic, who don't say a word) that made another decision, because they felt that decision was better for them, not just 'to make it complicated'. This comic was sent in the chat of my group of friends and it seems there are different ways to interpret the comic. Either it's a very good comic or I'm overthinking it (I'm leaning towards explanation B). What do you think? [[User:K|K]] ([[User talk:K|talk]]) 14:00, 26 July 2023 (UTC) K

Was there some news event or something that prompted this? Seems so random at this point. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.175.13|162.158.175.13]] 19:05, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

'''Let's make it quite simple.''' Meeting antivax nutjobs 'where they are' is impossible for sane people, because there IS no logic to the insane antivax cultist position. "You can't logic someone out of a position they didn't logic themselves into."
:This is a matter of personal preference, not logic. You can't logic someone into liking apples, insults won't help you either. In fact, this kind of attitude might contribute a lot to the person's distaste for apples. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.76.74|141.101.76.74]] 06:09, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
::Do you think people LIKE getting jabbed with a needle? You're not supposed to LIKE getting vaccinated, you're supposed to do to avoid the risk of not doing it. And being "logic'ed" into doing something to avoid some risk is one of the basic things that we use logic for. If that wouldn't work on you, then I can only presume you don't care about logic at all, and you make all your decisions purely based on emotional appeal, which would be concerning, to say the least. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.160.35|172.71.160.35]] 15:40, 27 July 2023 (UTC) B
:Indeed, however, you are arguing with a boogeyman in your head, in reality, the whole conversation has been flanderized to oblivion, where someone is either 'one of us' or 'one of them'. Being hesitant of a new biotechnological advancement is not being a nutjob, it's being cautious, and people who know the history of science, kind of have good reason to be cautious about the newest panacea. Remember people eating radioactive candy because it was 'reinvigorating'? How about people using lead in gasoline? How long did it take us to prove that lead in gasoline was bad? How long did thalidomide take? How long did asbestos take? Did the Romans ever figure out that their plumbing was making them stupid and die? Technology is not always good. And it definitely is '''no good''' without being aware that there are always unintended effects to progress. [[User:Scienceizkool|Scienceizkool]] ([[User talk:Scienceizkool|talk]]) 02:12, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
::People who know the history of science, know that we've learnt from every mistake that's been made in the past, we've learnt so much about safe and effective medical practices, and we've learnt so much more about reality itself, and they know that science is the most reliable method to gain knowledge about reality. People who know nothing about the history of science, or those who are engaging in the most egregious of cherry-picking, would imply something like "the Romans were not very bright, therefore we can't trust any science", as you just did. Once you move past the "science = bad" silliness and you begin to understand how we conclude that medicine is safe and effective, your entire argument falls apart. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.160.54|172.71.160.54]] 13:53, 28 July 2023 (UTC) B
:::People who know history know that the only thing we can learn from history is that we don't learn from history. Also, I didn't imply what you understood, I merely gave you one of many examples where society-wide technological advancements had a hidden cost that was only understood many years later. Science is not bat at all, it is a method, and that method must be open to criticism, even criticism no one wants to hear. [[User:Scienceizkool|Scienceizkool]] ([[User talk:Scienceizkool|talk]]) 17:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

If you dislike apples because someone else told you to like apples, then you’re a contrarian idiot. If you had an apple and didn’t like it then you’re disliking apples for a logical reason. Similarly, if you refuse to get a vaccine because someone else told you to get a vaccine then you’re Ali a contrarian idiot. The vaccine equivalent to “having the Apple” to determine that you don’t like it would be actually running tests of your own to determine efficacy and safety of the vaccine. Since you can’t run a large scale vaccine test at home your only option is to rely on the information provided by the experts. Don’t trust the experts? Then why do you trust the fake internet experts?
:I disagree with your association of contrarianism with idiocy. Moderate contrarianism is a valuable personality trait that prevents communities from degenerating into monolithic oppressive echo chambers, and opposing an irritatingly widespread idea is not the same as doing things to spite some random guy. As for anti-vaccination, it's more of a lifestyle preference than a product preference. Am I in grave danger if I take the vaccine? Probably not. Am I in grave danger if I refuse it? Probably not. Rationally, I even agree that vaccination is most likely the healthier option, but the difference doesn't seem significant enough. So I ''prefer'' to indulge in contrarianism. It is against my personal ''preferences'' to be manipulated by powerful organizations and their numerous supporters into obediently taking some experimental substance, repeatedly, at regular intervals. But again, it's not a fear of adverse side effects, it's an aversion to anything force-fed, not distrust in the sense of "I don't trust the quality of your product", but in the sense of "I don't trust you to tell me what to do". And of course, I don't trust the "fake internet experts" either, I don't even read them on purpose. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.46.177|172.70.46.177]] 09:31, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
::While contrarianism IS valuable, it's not a reason to do things. If (as you say) getting and not getting the vaccine are equal situations for you medically, but getting it is socially encouraged, then the only reason you have to NOT get it is to be contrarian, as you say. It's contrarian, but it brings no benefit to you. Being contrarian AGAINST logic is the issue. If the vaccine was more medically dubious than beneficial but still had the social gain, then yeah, contrarianism has benefits because there are costs to weigh. But if being contrarian only provides downsides, it's illogical and you're just making something simple complicated. --[[User:Magicalus|Magicalus]] ([[User talk:Magicalus|talk]]) 12:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
:::It's illogical only in the assumption that:
:::1) Human beings are model rational agents maximizing a precisely defined real-valued utility function
:::2) Maintaining health is the ultimate goal and meaning of life
:::3) There are no unknown unknowns
:::If one feels being manipulated and the health risk is not too high, one can choose the seemingly less healthy option. It might even turn out to be more healthy because of some unknown unknowns not taken into account in the rational assessment of the vaccine's utility. Might not. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.94.250|172.71.94.250]] 16:19, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
::::So the logic is "There could be an unknown downside, so it's better not to risk it." If we're just going to claim unknowns, we can't assume all unknowns are negative. Who knows, maybe it turns out 0.01% of the people who get the vaccine get superpowers. That line of thinking is just an endless pit because there are infinite arguments on both sides. So out of the remaining arguments, let's talk about the second one. The idea isn't that maintaining health is the ultimate goal, it's that maintaining health is a positive thing to do and the vaccine in this regard is, for the sake of argument, neutral. The first argument doesn't make sense. You're eitehr implying that humans act illogically anyways, so it IS an illogical action, or that "social credit" is determined by illogical humans who don't always make the right choices. So this is illogical if humans make logical decisions, health is a beneficial trait, and the vaccine doesn't give people superpowers and doesn't turn them into rats. Being contrarian here only serves as a detriment unless what is essentially random chance works in your favor and not against. --[[User:Magicalus|Magicalus]] ([[User talk:Magicalus|talk]]) 01:47, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
::Skepticism is a valuable personality trait (that prevents communities from degenerating into monolithic oppressive echo chambers). Contrarianism, on the other hand, may sometimes have the same effect, while at other times could lead to people literally dying, just for the sake you being able to disagree with something. Being contrarian seems, at most, like a useful thought exercise to get a different perspective (which is essentially a part of skepticism in any case). Letting contrarianism be a driving factor in significant life decisions seems like a terrible idea. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.160.35|172.71.160.35]] 15:40, 27 July 2023 (UTC) B
:::Can't skepticism lead to people literally dying, just for the sake you being able to doubt something? Can't conformism lead to people literally dying? Any -ism, taken to the absolute, is a terrible idea in significant life decisions. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.94.250|172.71.94.250]] 16:19, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me like the very term "anti-vaxxer" has become a misleading slur applied to anyone who opposes certain policies, regardless of reason. I think vaccines are great; I got my (multiple) COVID shots, flu shot every year, etc.. But apparently I'm an "anti-vaxxer" because I oppose vaccine MANDATES. I would rather respect other people's personally autonomy, letting them make their choice about their body, rather than force people to undergo medical procedures against their will, even if I think their reasons are stupid. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.135.105|172.70.135.105]] 17:06, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
:Think carefully. Some people want the vaccine, but can't get it for now or have other facts preventing them, and antivaxxers will expose these yet-un-immunized folks to COVID, which is a gross violation of the personal liberty of '''not having COVID-19.''' If you actually did take all those shots and aren't lying in order to make yourself seem better, then you'd know that.
:Everyone likes personal autonomy, but nobody considers the fact that a person's personal autonomy is invalid when it endangers others... and that's exactly what anti-vaxxers do. They're not just affecting themselves, they're hurting others - as we've seen in places where nobody vaccinates against polio and it makes a sharp uptick. In that light, a vaccine mandate is the best available option. [[User:Andrewtheexplainer|Andrewtheexplainer]] ([[User talk:Andrewtheexplainer|talk]]) 13:11, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
::After thinking carefully, I've come to the conclusion that you just want to A) call me a liar with no evidence or reason, and B) redefine personal liberty to mean the exact opposite. It's not going to be productive for me to try to have any kind of rational discussion with you. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.135.134|172.70.135.134]] 01:48, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
:::Can you clarify? The person you are responding to is simply saying that you shouldn't use personal autonomy as an excuse when you are actively harming other people. Main problem though, is the person's equivalence of your rather balanced opinion with the opinions of the radical anti-vaxxers that spit out nonsense about 5G contamination and microchip scandals. [[User:84596Gamma|84596Gamma]] ([[User talk:84596Gamma|talk]]) 02:34, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

This comic reads like it's almost self aware. "Things are never that simple" "That never happens". Indeed Randall. And this is no exception. For all the good any treatment may or may not do, it is ethically imperative to always acquire informed consent from the subjects. Informed consent was not acquired because the risks were not fully understood at the time. Most people were not made aware of this fact, and were misled into thinking that this was a tried and tested treatment. Long term side effects cannot be found at "warp speed" they are by definition, long term. Science is meant to be critical, and there is no way we can be critical of a treatment that we gave to up to 60% of the population in two years. Remember to take care of your biases. If you gave your product to more than 60% of the world population, would you want to find out that it wasn't great? Would you want to find out it might have not been a good idea? No. Conflict of interest. [[User:Scienceizkool|Scienceizkool]] ([[User talk:Scienceizkool|talk]]) 01:56, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
:While the world isn't simple all of the time, it also stands that some situations are less complex than others - and this one was particularly simple.

:You say "may or may not do" as if you live in 2020 and this is still some sort of hypothetical. '''This is not hypothetical: during the first year, the vaccines already saved 20 million lives.''' Immunizing people to COVID '''works.'''

:Your next statement is about informed consent, and the first thing you cast doubt on is the idea that the vaccines were tried and tested, but.. .they were. There were 110 possible candidates in clinical development at one point - what do you think they did to narrow it down to a few? Eeny miney moe? Rock paper scissors? There was no misleading because it's just true that the final candidates were tried and tested, and we did it faster because of (among other things) much higher funding, usage of mRNA tech built by people such as Katalin Kariko and Drew Weissmann, as well as overlapping trial phases and an appreciable head-start given that we'd done a lot of work on vaccination of coronaviruses already (since 2002 in fact).

:"Long term side effects" in the field of vaccines are really rare. Even severe side effects at '''any''' length of time are rare for any vaccinations, but they show up within the first few weeks a great majority of the time - this is expected, because vaccines are only taken at one moment, and the body will eliminate the payload in a matter of months. Therefore, panicking about long term side effects is irrelevant here - COVID-19 has '''far more likelihood to affect you long-term anyway.'''

:There is a way we can be critical of a treatment given to a vast amount of people: '''look at what it did.''' And what it did was reduce disease, hospitalization and death incident multiple-fold!

:"If you gave your product to more than 60% of the world population, would you want to find out that it wasn't great?" There is no need to answer hypotheticals that didn't happen when I can simply say that if my product was given to 60% of the world population, reduced disease 8-fold, hospitalization 25-fold and death 25-fold, I'd be '''ecstatic that I was a great contributor to the solution of the pandemic and made a few billions on the side!''' Because that's what happened. [[User:Andrewtheexplainer|Andrewtheexplainer]] ([[User talk:Andrewtheexplainer|talk]]) 13:47, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

:So how many million more deaths would've been acceptable in your opinion, in order for us to meet whatever criteria for medical treatment, across however many decades or centuries, that exists in your head? Also, for how many years have you been a virologist (or a biologist, or some other scientist that researches medical treatments)? I'm guess ZERO, because almost all scientists agree that the vaccine went through sufficient testing, on par with other new treatments, and it's mostly laypeople who know nothing about medical testing that are complaining about the medical testing. Also, we haven't seen any of these long-term side effects you speak of, so is your position that people weren't warned about ... nothing? Thinking that people were "misled" can only really be described as a delusion. The testing it went through is fairly well-publicised, for anyone who cares to look it up (even before anti-vaxxers started anti-vaxxing about it). [[Special:Contributions/172.71.160.54|172.71.160.54]] 13:53, 28 July 2023 (UTC) B

:: Here is some real science that casts doubt on how good an idea this whole program was. I will cite one of a lot of articles 'Compelling evidence has been published to indicate that the spike protein, which is derived from SARS-CoV-2 and generated from the vaccines currently being employed, is not only able to cross the blood–brain barrier but may cause inflammation and/or blood clots in the brain. Consequently, '''should vaccine-induced expression of spike proteins not be limited to the site of injection and draining lymph nodes there is the potential of long-term implications following inoculation that may be identical to that of patients exhibiting neurological complications after being infected with SARS-CoV-2'''.' [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8780773/ spike is not the best idea]. Here is another one that compounds nicely to that hypothesis in bold, there is evidence that vaccine induced spike does not stay at the injection site, I cite: 'We found that vaccine-associated synthetic mRNA persists in systemic circulation for at least 2 weeks.' [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35884842/ mrna circulates in blood after shot]. Look, you can laugh at me and that's ok. Here's some more science for yall's enjoyment. [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35028901/ Could SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Be Responsible for Long-COVID Syndrome?], [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34328172/ SARS-CoV-2 spike protein S1 induces fibrin(ogen) resistant to fibrinolysis: implications for microclot formation in COVID-19], [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35523737/ Sars-Cov-2 Spike Protein-Induced Damage of hiPSC-Derived Cardiomyocytes]. Now, my point is this: '''there is good reason to doubt the covid vaccine, and a measured conversation recognizes the risks, instead of downplaying them, or straight up denying their existence. It also does not involve insulting the nonbelievers. That is the most sad and ironic part of all this.''' Science does not trust, it verifies. Cheers fellow science enthusiasts. I look forward to you all citing scientific papers supporting the hypothesis that covid vaccines are safe and effective. [[User:Scienceizkool|Scienceizkool]] ([[User talk:Scienceizkool|talk]]) 17:10, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

::: I'm not too inclined to dig through a bunch of studies (and also other studies, and responses, and breakdowns, and such) to see what's up. But also, it's kind of a "boy who cried wolf" situation. Anti-vax has made so many patently absurd claims, misrepresentations and blatant lies, that I'm not too inclined to put much weight into any further claims, nor evaluate them in much detail. And no, that's not an ad hominem fallacy: I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, I'm just saying I don't have a good reason to think you may be right, and I have better things to spend my time on. I'm happy enough to let scientists investigate those claims, and update their consensus and public statements, along with medical treatments, appropriately (because, even if granting you that it's the worst possible case, which it most likely isn't and doesn't seem to be, none of what you cited demonstrates that vaccines were the wrong decision, given what we knew at the time, nor that anti-vax was justified - the essence of science is to learn new things, and update our beliefs appropriately, not to believe unjustified things because we may one day learn new information which justifies it). Also, the claim was never that vaccines carry ZERO risk, which seems to be all that all your links can "debunk", from a cursory glance. All medicine carries some risk, the question is whether the risk of the vaccine is worse than the risk of the disease, which I don't see addressed there, and which still seems highly doubtful, given how many confirmed '''deaths''' we have from Covid. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.246.136|172.71.246.136]] 19:05, 28 July 2023 (UTC) B

:::: Hey B. Thanks for sharing your concerns. I understand your hesitation to "antivax" ideas, however, I hope you can see that we always need to carefully examine the effects of '''any''' treatment for prolonged periods of time to establish their safety profile. We need access to the data so anyone can cross verify hypotheses, and we need to keep an open mind. Frankly, '''I have always hoped in my heart that covid vaccines are 100% safe, that is because I love so many people who have chosen to take this treatment'''. However, there is evidence (for example see the studies cited in my comment above) that this is not the case. Finding information about what is going on with the people who were harmed can help pave the way for how to help them heal. These are real people, marginal or not, tiny percentage or not, I want to find information that might to help them.
:::: Regarding to whether the vaccine is worse than covid or not, consider that encoding an antigen into the vaccine (the spike protein) means that we need to study the safety profile of the antigen. As it turns out, the spike protein itself is pathogenic (see references in above comment), meaning that covid harms the body (in part) because of this specific protein. Some vaccines have a modified version of the protein that is meant to inactivate its capability to interface with ACE2 receptors. There remain some open questions. Mainly, we need to establish the safety profile of the modified S-protein encoded in those vaccines. There is reason for concern, as there is evidence that normal S-protein, as well as the S1 subunit can can disrupt and cross the blood brain barrier, induce inflammation, induce clotting, and induce the formation of lewy bodies in the brain. This is really bad news for anyone who has had covid in their brain. It is also cause for us to pause and consider the safety of the current generation vaccines, for which there is evidence that some of them can result in detectable levels of spike and S1 in plasma [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8241425/ here]. I put forth these questions:
:::: '''Should we really be injecting people with the template for S-protein, modified or not?'''
:::: '''How do the modifications to the mRNA made in some vaccines change the resulting behavior of the protein? Does it become less pathogenic? Which effects are lessened?'''
:::: '''Can we find a more innocuous protein of the virus to choose as an antigen?'''
:::: '''Could we find a protein that is part of the virus and could work as an antigen but that mutates less readily?'''
:::: This is how I see things, not necessarily close to right. I hope I'm entirely wrong, and so, I keep looking for studies proving me wrong. Once again, thank you fellow science enthusiasts, and '''I look forward to your help in finding studies that support the safety of these products.'''. What does this have to do with the comic? Well.... this is not simple. At all. Cueball is in denial.[[User:Scienceizkool|Scienceizkool]] ([[User talk:Scienceizkool|talk]]) 19:30, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
::::: '''Should we really be injecting people with the template for S-protein, modified or not?'''
::::: If it's better for public health than not, then yes.
::::: '''How do the modifications to the mRNA made in some vaccines change the resulting behavior of the protein? Does it become less pathogenic? Which effects are lessened?'''
::::: Is it more pathogenic than Covid? Probably not.
::::: '''Can we find a more innocuous protein of the virus to choose as an antigen?'''
::::: There are always possible improvements. But, if it were up to some people, ''nothing'' would be tested because everything potentially has a remote chance of a problem. How about use the tools we have, seek to assess and improve those tools (a rubber hammer still works as a hammer, and can likely do a better job than no hammer at all when we ''really'' need to drive some nails in). Science doesn't stand still, fortunately.
::::: '''Could we find a protein that is part of the virus and could work as an antigen but that mutates less readily?'''
::::: Possibly. Of course it may ideally have to be a surface protein ''like'' the above protein in order to have the immune system learn enough to vaguely recognise Covid ''before'' it gets into cells, replicates (damages/kills the cells, is multiplied) and probably exposes the body to even more S-proteins from the whole process of viral shell dissassembly (from its own shedding process or following the T-cell battles that result) that are at least as bad for the body as any vaccine-invoked fragments.
::::: ...it's a balance, of course. But not one easily weighted towards rejecting the vaccines (which come in many forms, perhaps you can accept one that you ''don't'' have an overly irrational hatred of?) while there remains the risk of catching (and passing on) a version of the real virus from someone who doesn't even wear a white coat, wield an obvious syringe and happily present you with the latest risk/ingredient paperwork for what you're going to involuntarily get.
::::: Keep an open mind about the latest medical advice, but don't have it so open that you get total garbage flydumped into your head. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.62|172.70.85.62]] 00:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::: The question of whether or not the modified S protein used in some vaccines is more pathogenic than COVID really should take into account multiple exposures to the antigen. This also opens the can of worms that while related to vaccines, affects virtually everyone on earth, and that is the pathogenicity of the spike protein. This is something that we should definitely focus on, especially to help those with "long covid" but also the people who get acute covid and those who have adverse reactions to the inoculations.
:::::: Finally my friend, I hope you can understand, I don't have hatred of anything, and at this moment, I think it's clear that there are very rational concerns related to the genetic vaccines. You can and people often do catch covid even after vaccinating (and the protection wanes significantly after some months) so this is not an 'altruistic' move, but rather one of personal choice and responsibility. Cheers. You make your own choices, and you live with them, so try to find and process information on your own, because you will be responsible on your own. Love. [[User:Scienceizkool|Scienceizkool]] ([[User talk:Scienceizkool|talk]]) 06:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::: "...multiple exposures to the antigen..."... Inevitable if people passively allow/encourage the virus to become endemic. Cats/bags and horses/stable-doors, maybe, but needn't be that way. And can be made less significant if people are, or become, sensible about it. Not sure how much hope there is for that, reading the above exchanges. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.160|172.70.86.160]] 09:09, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I find it really insulting to be lumped in with antivaxxers. I'm not an antivaxxer. I love vaccines. The covid jab is not a vaccine, it's a scam. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.0.142|172.69.0.142]] 00:17, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
:I'm reticent to ask you to elucidate, as I predict that you're trapped down one or other particular pernicious and unfounded rabbit-hole from which there is no easy rescue. But you clearly have a <s>good...</s> ...''definite'' idea of what this scam is, yet are leaving us hanging there as to exactly what it is that you mean. (In leiu of any reasonable clarification, don't be surprised if we ignore you. This response may just be a badly thought-out courtesy reply to let you know about that.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.195|172.70.86.195]] 07:08, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

[https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2806:_Anti-Vaxxers&curid=26549&diff=320191&oldid=319966 "Replacing offensive language"] ...can only speak for myself, but I found it funny. And you can't take seriously anything put in the Incomplete tags, I just took it as knowing sarcasm. If anything, that people strongly disagree is true, but I don't care for them and that type of person has nothing useful to add here anyway. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.172|172.70.90.172]] 10:02, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Talk:2701: Change in Slope

2022-11-25T17:56:11Z

172.70.90.172:

I am an occasional data scientist, and I can confirm this is why we have monitor stands that tilt. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.94.50|172.71.94.50]] 16:33, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

The third e in "neeed" in the title text seems to be a typo
[[User:Victor|Victor]] ([[User talk:Victor|talk]]) 16:41, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
:I think Randall may have added it to represent that the speaker prolongs the "e" sound for emphasis, although that's usually done with 4-5 e's. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 16:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
::I had to double-check this, myself (presumed the 'Bot created the lage faithfully, but went straight to source to see if I needed to find a vandalism post to revert). May need a comment (to prevent hypercorrection, if not to note the implied emphisis) and certainly will if it turns out to be a typo and gets corrected (for which I'm sure a future checker will discover Randall's revisiting, but then worth a note to that effect). [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.2|172.70.90.2]] 17:42, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
:::I guess Randall fixed it, because I'm only seeing 2 'e's in the title text. Just updated it on the wiki. [[User:Zman350x|Zman350x]] ([[User talk:Zman350x|talk]]) 01:26, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Bender Bot was one of the main characters in Futurama. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 16:54, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
:Just donning my unnecessary pedantry hat for a moment: his name is Bender Bending Rodriguez --[[User:192·168·0·1|192·168·0·1]] ([[User talk:192·168·0·1|talk]]) 23:02, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

A couple(?) of authors used the word(s) "(point of) inflection", which is {{w|Inflection point|not really suitable}} for a join between two straight segments. Was tempted to talk about "discontinuity", but that really only applies to the meta-slope (derivatives, to one degree or other) where it suddenly jumps (at a point), or the derivative's derivative has jumps (as it enters and leaves the smoothly linking curve). Hope it works well enough how I left it, though. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.142.176|162.158.142.176]] 21:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

For anyone curious, I used an image editor to turn the entire comic sideways and [https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/525939879805190154/1044395695525875712/xkcd_sideways.png it actually does seem to work,] to some degree anyway. [[User:SuperSupermario24|<span style="color: #b000ff;">SSM24</span>]] 23:37, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
:Added; thanks! [[Special:Contributions/172.71.158.230|172.71.158.230]] 00:14, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

: If you don't mind sharing: which program did you use? Did you tweak things like relative distance / camera FOV, to effectively select a specific point in the continuum that makes up the {{w|Dolly Zoom}} effect, and at the limit on one end results in {{w|orthographic projection}}? (Edit 10 minutes later: a better article to look at is {{w|Perspective distortion (photography)}}) Or did you just leave it at whatever the default is? Can you recreate the image with the two extremes, and share them? And lastly - can you upload the image (and potentially the new images) to the wiki directly, so they can be embedded in the page? Thanks! --[[User:NeatNit|NeatNit]] ([[User talk:NeatNit|talk]]) 17:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

This one shows the beauty of Explainxkcd: people reading the explanation are likely to learn accessible methods of substantial practical utility. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.166.173|162.158.166.173]] 00:38, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Hey, if it works for picking out lumber at Lowe’s, why not for graphs, too? - MadMarie
:There was an old bit of explanation that related it to examining physical objects (for dent/bend-removal in metalwork, I think it was) that got wiped out by a later edit. Though I'm considering my own version, now generalised to cover your experience, as it seems quite relevant/analogous to me. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.2|172.70.90.2]] 14:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Whoever wrote the 1st explanation needs to go touch grass and learn how real people talk, pissed me off so much I just effectively rewrote the whole thing from scratch [[Special:Contributions/172.71.202.46|172.71.202.46]] 06:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
:Intrigued, looking at the first explanation (give or take that person's initial small errors/omissions) I personally find it more to the point than what it has become. Not to say the complete rewrite was wrong, but it got it not that much closer to the mythical perfection. IMO. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.76.169|141.101.76.169]] 20:29, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Going in a different direction than "this is silly" - if we ignore the "viewing point/parallax" issue, doing a change of basis like this is similar to linear methods like [SVD https://hadrienj.github.io/assets/images/ch12_svd/ch11_SVD_geometry.png] & [https://jakevdp.github.io/PythonDataScienceHandbook/figures/05.09-PCA-rotation.png PCA], and considering the graph as a mappingg in a "higher dimension" is similar to the "kernel trick" popularized by [https://i.ytimg.com/vi/wqSTBCguVyU/maxresdefault.jpg Support] [https://miro.medium.com/max/4800/1*gtF6KeL7b9zNHd7pXtC1Nw.png Vector] [https://dinhanhthi.com/img/post/ML/support-vector-machine/svm-3.jpg Machines] 11:31, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

== Raw Data ==

I love this cartoon. This is definitely something that was relevant in my work!

At my old job I had some commercial or public-domain software for extracting the raw data behind a scatter plot. If anyone has something like that handy, I would love to see someone extract the data behind the graph on the left, so that we can:
1. Apply the affine transformation which generates the image on the right with the tilted paper.
2. Apply the statistical tests which Randall Munroe is alluding to.

:Knock yourself out:
{{cot|Digitized data courtesy https://apps.automeris.io/wpd/}}
<pre>
0.000000, 0.015366
0.001887, 0.000000
0.002830, 0.041488
0.024528, 0.060695
0.033019, 0.014597
0.038679, 0.009988
0.044340, 0.072220
0.047170, 0.055317
0.050000, 0.072220
0.064858, 0.092964
0.070215, 0.117001
0.088207, 0.088354
0.091037, 0.122928
0.091037, 0.109099
0.100943, 0.140215
0.103773, 0.165338
0.106603, 0.178246
0.128891, 0.171331
0.147641, 0.196685
0.146226, 0.187465
0.162264, 0.215124
0.180188, 0.264910
0.182452, 0.218812
0.202830, 0.275052
0.204245, 0.261222
0.208490, 0.272747
0.217923, 0.293491
0.227358, 0.267369
0.230322, 0.234880
0.241744, 0.311930
0.256603, 0.344199
0.262263, 0.338930
0.299056, 0.376467
0.308254, 0.420261
0.313206, 0.417956
0.336791, 0.456371
0.344338, 0.433322
0.355659, 0.456371
0.367923, 0.496323
0.374055, 0.503237
0.388206, 0.503237
0.389621, 0.514762
0.409433, 0.533201
0.412263, 0.525518
0.415093, 0.540884
0.432074, 0.555328
0.446225, 0.599275
0.443395, 0.588519
0.449526, 0.537811
0.449055, 0.588519
0.468866, 0.609263
0.487263, 0.627702
0.490093, 0.636922
0.516979, 0.670727
0.523448, 0.697179
0.519809, 0.662276
0.548111, 0.697618
0.551413, 0.740642
0.550941, 0.689935
0.565092, 0.726813
0.572168, 0.724508
0.576413, 0.772911
0.582073, 0.772911
0.582073, 0.763691
0.601177, 0.785588
0.604714, 0.791350
0.625335, 0.775545
0.643394, 0.817473
0.664620, 0.855119
0.688812, 0.871693
0.688003, 0.821643
0.710374, 0.925035
0.707544, 0.806716
0.715091, 0.888156
0.717921, 0.880473
0.724148, 0.976665
0.749054, 0.927010
0.757544, 0.961913
0.763204, 0.959608
0.783016, 0.983426
0.781601, 0.971133
0.797166, 1.028756
0.802827, 1.031060
0.805657, 0.999560
0.821223, 0.966523
0.822638, 0.957304
0.842449, 1.038744
0.843864, 1.028756
0.859431, 1.049500
0.865091, 1.058719
0.876411, 1.077159
0.882072, 1.086378
0.889147, 1.077159
0.901883, 1.024914
0.904714, 1.017231
0.908605, 1.100208
0.913204, 1.107122
0.936553, 1.130171
0.937261, 1.116342
0.967447, 1.159370
0.969806, 1.205310
0.978301, 1.104817
0.983956, 1.101525
1.000000, 1.167820
</pre>
{{cob}}
:104 points. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.154.39|172.71.154.39]] 19:17, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

:: Can someone please check my work https://colab.research.google.com/drive/1c_7Qj3S1VXtL-AckfSfHCd4ofGYYDYH5 and tell me if I'm doing it right? I'm pretty sure I don't really know what I'm doing. I kind of cargo cult-coded the Savitzky-Golay filter stuff linked from the explanation and have zero understanding of what's actually going on. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.126|172.70.211.126]] 21:58, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

:: Here's how Randall seems to be suggesting to do it, based on the light gray figures: [superceded] -- Can someone please help fix the residuals on the second plot? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.154.158|172.71.154.158]] 01:18, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
::: I fixed the residuals and added an inset confidence interval comparisons for the two slopes, split by both their maximum difference and by the maximum sum of the r<sup>2</sup> values: https://colab.research.google.com/drive/1apKDIN5FE32mtGiQew5cE6wK6m6eM_Fr It's not clear from the gray text which method Randall is suggesting. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.126|172.70.211.126]] 22:07, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
:::: I added this to the end of the Colab notebook:

# Later in the Explainxkcd explanation, a "Significance of the Difference between Two Slopes Calculator"
# at https://www.danielsoper.com/statcalc/calculator.aspx?id=103 is recommended, so ... we get:

# split by maximum slope difference: (as shown in green and red)
# t-Value: 5.52246856
# Degrees of freedom: 100
# Probability: 0.00000027 (significant as < 0.05)

# split by maximum sum of r²s:
# t-Value: 6.25478825
# Degrees of freedom: 100
# Probability: 0.00000001 (also very significant)

# So, while the latter might technically be about 27 times more likely, both represent undoutably
# different linear fits. Perhaps someone can ask Randall which he was suggesting, if indeed either?

:::: What's the most reliable way to ask Randall this? Twitter? Email? Google Chat? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.158.91|172.71.158.91]] 23:08, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

What's funny is people are doing a lot of statistics and computer magic when you can just tilt your screen like the comic says and get the same effect :P {{unsigned ip|172.70.54.52|16:14, 25 November 2022}}
:(Ɔ┴∩) ᄅᄅ0ᄅ ɹǝqɯǝʌoN ϛᄅ 'ㄣϛ:ㄥƖ ᄅᄅᄅ˙ᄅ9Ɩ˙0ㄥ˙ᄅㄥƖ ¡ƃuoɹʍ ʇᴉq ɐ ʇuǝʍ ƃuᴉɥʇǝɯos ʇnq 'ʇɐɥʇ pǝᴉɹʇ I

2699: Feature Comparison

2022-11-17T13:25:49Z

172.70.90.172: /* Explanation */ for consistency

{{comic
| number = 2699
| date = November 16, 2022
| title = Feature Comparison
| image = feature_comparison_v2.png
| imagesize =
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Below the Web, and the Dark Web, a shadowy parallel world of Cybiko users trade messages on the Translucent Neon Plastic Web.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a MULTIHOMED MESH NODE. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This is comparing different remote communication services, including the relatively well-known {{w|Twitter}}, {{w|Discord}}, {{w|Mastodon (software)|Mastodon}}, {{w|Facebook|Facebok}} (FB), {{w|Slack (software)|Slack}}, {{w|Signal (software)|Signal}}, {{w|Internet Relay Chat}} (IRC), {{w|Tumblr}}, {{w|Reddit}}, and {{w|SMS}} (mobile telephone text messages).

This comic contains severe errors that Randall would not be expected to make, and could be reason to believe that somebody is faking Randall's comics or severely confusing him. The comic may even be about such situations, showcasing how a device from two decades ago met so many goals we struggle and fail to reach today.

- Mastodon doesn't require a central server.

- Mastodon doesn't support file transfer.

- Discord does not provide for user-run instances at all, only moderation and administration like all the others.

- Slack does not provide for user-run instances at all, only moderation and administration like all the others.

- Reddit does not provide for user-run instances at all, only moderation and administration like all the others.

- An earlier version of the comic suggesting that Mastodon has no user-run instances was corrected shortly after publication of the original.

- Some say IRC does require at least one central server{{fact}}, and relegate file transfer support to the domain of client extensions.

- Signal is heavily used in user-run instances via a diverse ecosystem of code forks. Many of these don't require a central server, a couple use mesh networking.

- Discord previously hosted a video game storefront but doesn't have built-in games within the application itself.

- Reddit occasionally does have built-in games.

- Tumblr does have a form of group chats.

The less well-known "{{w|Cybiko}}® wireless handheld computer for teens (2000)" was a handheld computer designed for teens and released in 2000, which featured its own two-way radio text messaging system. The Cybiko has two-way communication capabilities along with built-in games and music player capabilities. Additional information about it is available at [http://cultureandcommunication.org/deadmedia/index.php/Cybiko the Dead Media Archive], as the device has not been manufactured since 2003. The chart suggests that the Cybiko has an advantage over all of the other ten communication services listed, as it has all eight of the features listed in the table, whereas none of the other services under consideration have more than five of the features. Of course, purchasing a Cybiko or finding friends who own one can be its own challenge, as device was discontinued nearly 20 years ago.


{{w|Mesh networking}} is the ability for users to have P2P connections, and talk without a centralized server. The Cybiko has this as well as wireless message delivery because it communicates to other devices via radio hence the ability to operate without any internet connectivity at all.




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

:[A table with checkmarks to indicate which features various messaging services have. Each column is labeled with a service name and its logo beneath, except that for the last column, the device's longer name is written higher than all the other services' names, with an arrow pointing to a drawing of the device below it.]

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!
! Twitter
! Discord
! Mastodon
! FB
! Slack
! Signal
! IRC
! Tumblr
! Reddit
! SMS
! Cybiko® wireless<br>handheld computer<br>for teens (2000)
|-
! Direct messages
| ✓ || ✓ || ✓ || ✓ || ✓ || ✓ || ✓ || ✓ || ✓ || ✓ || ✓
|-
! Group chats
| ✓ || ✓ || ✓ || ✓ || ✓ || ✓ || ✓ || || ✓ || || ✓
|-
! File transfer
| || ✓ || ✓ || ✓ || ✓ || ✓ || ✓ || || ✓ || || ✓
|-
! Built-in games
| || ✓ || || ✓ || || || || || || || ✓
|-
! User-run instances
| || ✓ || ✓ || || ✓ || || ✓ || || ✓ || || ✓
|-
! Doesn't require central server
| || || || || || || ✓ || || || || ✓
|-
! Mesh networking
| || || || || || || || || || || ✓
|-
! Wireless message delivery works without internet
| || || || || || || || || || ✓ || ✓
|-
|}

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Social networking]]

1575: Footprints

2022-11-16T23:31:08Z

172.70.90.172: /* Explanation */ Tweaks. (Doubt that "tote bag" has any link, but giving it *a* link anyway...)

{{comic
| number = 1575
| date = September 9, 2015
| title = Footprints
| image = footprints.png
| titletext = "There's one set of foot-p's cause I was totes carrying you, bro!" said Jesus seconds before I punched him.
}}

==Explanation==
The comic is a satirical graphical representation of the inspirational Christian poem "{{w|Footprints (poem)|Footprints}}," which has been recounted in many versions and is of disputed authorship.

The basic idea of the poem is that the narrator looks back at scenes of his life and sees two sets of footprints, his and those of Jesus. During the most difficult times of his life, the narrator sees only one set of footprints and assumes that Jesus had left him during those times. In the climax of the poem, Jesus responds to the narrator that he saw only one set of footprints during the most difficult times of his life because Jesus was carrying him during those times.

The poem is seen by many as overly sentimental and is thus ripe for parody of this kind. The graph mockingly illustrates various times when Jesus or the narrator left the scene, or otherwise gives various reasons why the number of sets of footprints may have been other than two.

"Ducklings {{w|Imprinting (psychology)|imprinted}} on Jesus and followed Him around" is a reference to {{w|Konrad Lorenz}}'s experiments. Three ducklings followed Jesus and the narrator.

"Jesus disappeared for an evening each time a new ''{{w|The Twilight Saga (film series)|Twilight}}'' movie came out" could mean that Jesus went to see the movie and left the narrator alone. It could also mean that his support of people through their most difficult trials meant he had to carry a lot of emotionally scarred people.

"Got lost and followed our own footprints" may be a reference to "{{w|Winnie-the-Pooh}}" (1926), in which the titular bear and his friend try and hunt a "Woozle" by its footprints, actually following their own round and round a spinney, which also seems slightly childish for Jesus as traditionally portrayed. An alternate explanation is that they came to a dead end, and had to double back.

"Rode around with Jesus in captured {{w|Walker (Star_Wars)#All_Terrain_Scout_Transport_.28AT-ST.29|AT-ST}}" is a reference to a two-legged combat "walker" from Star Wars. The implication is that Jesus would have participated in forcibly taking a war machine, which appears somewhat out of character.{{Citation needed}}

The reference at the end to Jesus drowning in a patch of quicksand, and then the narrator simply going home, again subverts the poem's earnestness. "Going home" may be a reference to dying, implying that the narrator died without Christ, or that the narrator and Christ were not traveling anymore. It is also possible that this is meant literally, and the narrator actually went home.

The title text continues the parody by imagining that Jesus delivers the poem's climactic lines in stereotypical {{w|Bro_(subculture)|"bro"}} speak, a dialect perceived by many to be obnoxious. The reference to punching Jesus is possibly another reference to the poem's perceived excessive sentimentality. Another interpretation is that the narrator, like many people, dislikes usage of this lingo and punched Jesus as a result of this hatred. This might also be a pun on "totes"; with {{w|tote bags}} being used to carry things, but not people. The narrator punching Jesus might be because of his hatred for the pun.

Yet another interpretation is that Jesus' obnoxious way of explaining himself indicated dishonesty, meaning he did not in fact carry the narrator during the most difficult parts of his life. The narrator sensed this and punched Jesus in retaliation.

"There's one set of foot-p's cause I was totes carrying you, bro!" can be translated into normal English as "There's one set of footprints because I was definitely carrying you, friend!".

An alternate explanation of some of the oddities of the strip is that "Jesus" is not Jesus Christ, but some guy merely ''named'' Jesus, as is common in some Latin American countries.

Using the Twilight movies as reference points, it can be determined that the span of the graph is from approximately early 2004 to late 2018, with Jesus' death in the second half of 2017.

The poem has appeared in xkcd before, at [[1110: Click and Drag|1110]] with coordinates 0.7601, -58.803.

==Transcript==
:[A graph is shown with a a single red line that runs through from left to right, showing different values at different times. Until the very end, the line always returns to the value 2, signifying two sets of footprints in the sand. The X-axis has a label followed by an arrow pointing right. The Y-axis has a label at the top, right of the axis, and numbers, one for each of the ticks from which five thin lines going horizontally across the entire graph. Every time the graph moves away from the value 2 there is an arrow pointing to the event and a label. The first two events has the same label. The only label below the line has five small arrows pointing to five small dips in the curve. All other labels only has one arrow pointing to one event.]
:X-axis: Time
:Y-axis: Sets of footprints
::5
::4
::3
::2
::1

:[The line starts at the value 2, then dips twice to the value 1. The two troughs are labeled:]
:Jesus carried me

:[The line dips once again to the value 1. The trough is labeled:]
:I carried Jesus

:[The line rises to 3 briefly, and is labeled:]
:Who was that guy?

:[The line rises to 5 sharply, and then falls in a sharp staircase pattern, labeled:]
:Ducklings imprinted on Jesus and followed him around

:[The line rises to 4, labeled:]
:Got lost and followed our own footprints

:[The line dips for very short periods five times to the value 1. The first dip is between "I carried Jesus" and "Who was that guy?", the second between "Who was that guy?" and "Duckings imprinted on Jesus..." and the final three are all between the "Ducklings imprinted on Jesus..." and "Got lost and followed our own footprints". These five troughs share one label with five arrows from the same text:]
:Jesus disappeared for an evening each time a new ''Twilight'' movie came out

:[The line dips to 1, labeled:]
:Rode around with Jesus in captured AT-ST

:[The line dips and stays level at 1, labeled:]
:Hit quicksand patch. Jesus didn't make it :(

:[The line dips to zero at the end, and is labeled:]
:Went home

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Line graphs]]
[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Language]]
[[Category:Animals]]
[[Category:Twilight]]

Talk:870: Advertising

2022-11-06T16:26:53Z

172.70.90.172:

Am I confused, or is the the third graph wrong with the independent and dependent variables. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.132.95|172.68.132.95]] 21:06, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
But the Geico commercial doesn't say up to, it says 15% or more... ~Jfreund
:That may depend on your region. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.30|108.162.216.30]] 03:24, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
:Saying that something "could save you 15% or more" and saying it "could save you ''up to'' 15% or more" are the same thing. Both statements take into account the very real possibility that some percentage less than 15 could be saved.[[User:Orazor|Orazor]] ([[User talk:Orazor|talk]]) 13:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Not to mention that Geico says "'''Could''' save you..." (In combination with "up to", the "could" should be "will".) [[User:Z|Z]] ([[User talk:Z|talk]]) 03:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

A justification for "The more you buy, the more you save" is that the more discounted products you buy, the more money you save as opposed to buying them at list price. For things we will buy anyway (e.g. food), it may be true. --[[User:Troy0|Troy0]] ([[User talk:Troy0|talk]]) 20:01, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
:Added to the article. --[[User:Troy0|Troy0]] ([[User talk:Troy0|talk]]) 04:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
::It doesn't work when the items can expire. [[User:Cflare|Cflare]] ([[User talk:Cflare|talk]]) 14:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
:::it does to a certain point- my family can eat a lot of food before it expires, especially if it's something we like. {{unsigned ip|108.162.237.163}}
:It's true if calculated in price-per-unit-bought. A 100-pack of something often costs less than 10 packs of 10 each. Still, without the "per item" qualifier, it's not really a true statement.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.55.16|172.70.55.16]] 16:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Brilliant comic Randall. I wonder what your next one is about.

[[User:Weatherlawyer| I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer|talk]]) 00:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't the title text imply that Randall realised nothing is truly free and concluded that Santa wanted something from him, prompting his parents to reveal the big secret? (I conclude this based on Randall claiming that these two events are related) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.49|141.101.104.49]] 21:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Given that "up to x or more" must necessarily be true, how can it be "construed as false advertising?" Meaningless advertising, yes; false, no.[[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.174|173.245.50.174]] 04:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I just spent 2% of my life looking for the fine print to that FREE* drink
(* given during time of kidney-harvesting scam test. Limit one per customer. No purchase necessary to win. Please see rules to apply.)[[User:Beastachu|Beastachu]] ([[User talk:Beastachu|talk]]) 10:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't the expression in panel 2 be (x+1)/n, not x/(n+1)? If we define Y as how much each person pays, then the company would earn $YN. YN > X ---> YN = X + 1 ---> Y = (X + 1)/N.
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.144|162.158.255.144]] 03:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
:Randall defines N as the number of people ''other than you'' who read the flier. Therefore the total number of people who got the flier is N+1. The advertiser spent $X to produce the flier and assuming that it wants to make a profit on the advertisement, it needs to make at least X/(N+1) on average for each person that gets the flier. Given this your equation should be $Y(N+1) > X not $YN > X because the total number of people is N+1. Obviously Y(N+1) > X ---> Y > X/(N+1), which is exactly what we already found out. I'm not really clear on how you get the transformation YN > X ---> YN = X + 1.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.60.11|162.158.60.11]] 15:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
::I just came across this comic and noticed, that the 2nd one is not necessarily true, as the add can also have influence on other people who not read it (e.g. me telling my brother to come with me to the great place offering free oranges), and also they do not care if it is money moving in from me or other places. If they e.g. just harvest my data, the money flows from a company buying my data to them.--[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 15:26, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I've always been "mathematically annoyed" by 'X% off' signs (like "40% off"). OFF from what? From the price they asked for beforehand? But they couldn't sell this particular unit for that price; maybe they didn't even sell any unit at that price (and, even if they did, they clearly got more units to sell than available buyers at that price). So, the X% off is from a meaningless seller-wishful-thinking number, not anything resembling a fair market value (where willing sellers and willing buyers meet). [[User:Danshoham|Mountain Hikes]] ([[User talk:Danshoham|talk]]) 03:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
:You forget, that the fair market value is usually found in a process, in which the buyer goes in with a low price and the seller with a high price, until they find the "fair" price, somewhere in between. Part of this process can be to advertise, as a seller, that you are now willing to try finding the sweet spot x% below what was originally asked. So this is very much in line with the usual concept of supply and demand. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 08:23, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
:At least one local art supplier offers 40% off list price for custom frames. All the time. (Except when they run a 60% off sale.) It's % off of list price, not necessarily what it would actually be sold for. Unfortunately the same is true of some medical billing in the US - most basic blood tests are "billed" for $200+, but the insurance discount brings it down to <$20, before the insurance company pays anything.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.55.16|172.70.55.16]] 16:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
:You could also have a "[https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/lossleader.asp loss leader]" kind of situation, where the reduced price does represent a loss to the seller, as an attempt to attract customers who may also purchase other, more profitable items. [[User:L-Space Traveler|L-Space Traveler]] ([[User talk:L-Space Traveler|talk]]) 14:26, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

The one that annoys me is "save x% off Y!" You would SAVE x% ON something, or GET x% OFF something - not SAVE x% OFF! [[User:L-Space Traveler|L-Space Traveler]] ([[User talk:L-Space Traveler|talk]]) 14:26, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
: I think I actually mentioned this in an Edit Summary for something, recently (not sure where or when, except probably this wiki, and no expectation of it actually even being noticed... But, as we're talking about it now...): "Up to 50% off!" Effectively "We may or may not discount anything, but certainly there's nothing at ''less'' than half the pre-deal price...", but it pulls the mental levers in a more attractive way than it should do.
: On the 'really the wrong way round' front, I have a mental flinch whenever I see a bus service plastered with something like "<this scheduled service> Every 15 Minutes Or More!" - ironically, often seen on a Sunday when its route is actually reduced to an arrival every hour (which is indeed more than 15 minutes!), for a far shorter total timespan of the day, or the fancy route-branded bus is actually conspicuously doing the Sunday service of a completely different route (also at lowered frequency) than its weekday/possibly-Saturday commuter/shopping/etc provision, just because unspecifically-liveried vehicles are being maintained and this is one of the free ones currently available and unnecessary for its branded-route. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.172|172.70.90.172]] 16:26, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

2693: Wirecutter Recommendation

2022-11-03T10:15:37Z

172.70.90.172: Rearranged suggestion for better flow. Rearranged external link for better inlinedness.

{{comic
| number = 2693
| date = November 2, 2022
| title = Wirecutter Recommendation
| image = wirecutter_recommendation_2x.png
| imagesize = 430x333px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Their 'best philosophy of epistemology' picks are great, but you can tell they're struggling a little in the 'why you should trust us' section.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a WIRECUTTER DREAM — Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

''[https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter Wirecutter]'' is a product review website, owned by ''The New York Times''. As such, Wirecutter is best used for product reviews. The comic, however, lists things that Wirecutter should ''not'' recommend, or that one should not choose based on Wirecutter reviews.

The first panel shows [[Cueball]] telling [[Ponytail]] that he decided to go with Wirecutter's recommendation when buying something unspecified. The second panel shows a list of different contexts for this conversation, ranking them from "Fine" to "Very Bad".

{| class="wikitable sortable"
!Thing Being Chosen!!Judgment!!Explanation
|-
|Vacuum cleaner||Fine||Vacuum cleaners are an everyday household item, and exactly the kind of thing Wirecutter generally reviews.
|-
|Headphones||Fine|||Headphones are also fairly ubiquitous, and Wirecutter would likewise be useful in such a scenario.
|-
|Electric scooter||Fine||While less common than the two above, electric scooters are still a popular electrical product, so Wirecutter is a decent choice for advice.
|-
|Favorite movie||Weird||Most people would say that your choice of favorite movie should be based on your own experiences, rather than someone else's opinions. Reviewing movies is a very different endeavor to reviewing products, and one would not expect Wirecutter to be particularly proficient with it. While a movie review website may be a reasonable source of recommendations on whether to see a particular movie at all, it would be strange to choose one's own favorite movie based on a website's recommendation.
|-
|Personal style||Weird||Not only does the term "personal style" encompass a vast range of topics, it is also (predictably) a deeply personal thing. These two factors mean that not only will Wirecutter's recommended likely not fully discuss every factor of your personal style, it also isn't the kind of service you'd use to choose something as nebulous and personal as your "personal style."
|-
|Neighborhood||Weird||It can be assumed this means "the neighborhood one lives in." In this case, it is odd to rely on Wirecutter for recommendations on where to live, since a respectable portion of that decision is up to personal preference. In a best case scenario, Wirecutter is recommending neighborhoods based on empirical data, such as local economic growth.
|-
|Pet||Weird||While the ''type'' of pet may be more easy to rank on a website (especially with a pro/con system), picking an ''individual pet'' is an extremely personal decision that probably can't be considered covered by a product review website like Wirecutter.
|-
|College major||Bad||Your college major will influence the rest of your life significantly, and your choice should depend on your prior personal experiences. Basing your choice on Wirecutter, something completely unrelated to college, is likely a bad idea.
|-
|Career||Bad||One's optimal career choice is subject to a wide range of highly personal factors, including your talents, ambitions, and capabilities. It is highly unlikely that a hardware review site like Wirecutter would be capable of accounting for every one of these factors for every conceivable viewer.
|-
|Religion||Bad||Do ''Not'' base your religious worldview off of the electronic device equivalent to Yelp. The idea of Wirecutter reviewing religion has appeared in a previous comic, [[2536: Wirecutter]].
|-
|Spouse||Very Bad|| In general, people pair off when choosing spouses. This would mean that Wirecutter would be required to either find one potential spouse for every reader (cumbersome, to say the least) or would recommend ''one'' spouse for multiple (possibly millions of) partners. Even assuming an accelerated divorce rate, it would be impossible for the choice spouse to actually accomplish the role.
Perhaps [https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/01/24/wirecutter-recommends-the-best-partner this parody] by the New York Times inspired this comic.
|-
|Dreams||Very Bad|| There are two possible definitions of "dream" that may be referred to here. When it comes to "the series of thoughts, images, and sensations occurring in a person's mind during sleep," most people cannot consciously control what they dream about, so recommending this sort of dream is somewhat pointless.<br />On the other hand, if Cueball is relying upon Wirecutter to recommend "a cherished aspiration, ambition, or ideal," he is allowing one of the most personal and individual aspects of his life — something which may give life itself a sense of meaning — to be dictated by a consumer product review site. As with many entries here, this is something that most people have to come up with or discover for themselves; relying on a third party to recommend one FOR him is deeply unlikely to bring about long-term satisfaction.
|-
|Favorite child||Very Bad|| Assuming this is a reference to the reader's own children, it can be difficult and furthermore bad practice for a parent to choose their "favorite" child, and using Wirecutter to do this analysis is near impossible. And a website that purports to know more about how to judge the relative merits of your own family than you would be... interesting.
The alternative interpretation of assuming that this is from "all children, everywhere" is more difficult. There are approximately 1.3 billion persons under the age of 18, most of whom have at least one good quality,{{citation needed}} and defining a useful ranking in such a situation is functionally impossible.
|-
|Site for product recommendations||Very Bad|| This is a topic of which the authors, editors, and publishers of Wirecutter have a vested interest and clear bias. This implies that the people at Wirecutter would be self-serving when it comes to recommending recommendations, specifically.
|-
|}

The title text references {{w|epistemology}}, a branch of philosophy concerned with the nature of knowledge and truth, for which [[Randall]] says Wirecutter's recommendations are great. Broadly speaking, epistemology attempts to answer the question "how do I know that what I know is true?" He seems skeptical, however, of their reasons that their reviews should be trusted.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[Cueball and Ponytail standing next to each other. Cueball has his palm raised.]
:Cueball: I just went with the one Wirecutter recommended.

:[A panel of four categories with topics next to them]

:[Fine category]
:Vacuum cleaner
:Headphones
:Electric scooter

:[Weird category]
:Favorite movie
:Personal style
:Neighborhood
:Pet

:[Bad category]
:College major
:Career
:Religion

:[Very bad category]
:Spouse
:Dreams
:Favorite child
:Site for product recommendations

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

2693: Wirecutter Recommendation

2022-11-03T10:01:51Z

172.70.90.172: There's a "real" "Wirecutter: The Best Partner" article at NYT.

{{comic
| number = 2693
| date = November 2, 2022
| title = Wirecutter Recommendation
| image = wirecutter_recommendation_2x.png
| imagesize = 430x333px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Their 'best philosophy of epistemology' picks are great, but you can tell they're struggling a little in the 'why you should trust us' section.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a WIRECUTTER DREAM — Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

''[https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter Wirecutter]'' is a product review website, owned by ''The New York Times''. As such, Wirecutter is best used for product reviews. The comic, however, lists things that Wirecutter should ''not'' recommend, or that one should not choose based on Wirecutter reviews.

The first panel shows [[Cueball]] telling [[Ponytail]] that he decided to go with Wirecutter's recommendation when buying something unspecified. The second panel shows a list of different contexts for this conversation, ranking them from "Fine" to "Very Bad".

{| class="wikitable sortable"
!Thing Being Chosen!!Judgment!!Explanation
|-
|Vacuum cleaner||Fine||Vacuum cleaners are an everyday household item, and exactly the kind of thing Wirecutter generally reviews.
|-
|Headphones||Fine|||Headphones are also fairly ubiquitous, and Wirecutter would likewise be useful in such a scenario.
|-
|Electric scooter||Fine||While less common than the two above, electric scooters are still a popular electrical product, so Wirecutter is a decent choice for advice.
|-
|Favorite movie||Weird||Most people would say that your choice of favorite movie should be based on your own experiences, rather than someone else's opinions. Reviewing movies is a very different endeavor to reviewing products, and one would not expect Wirecutter to be particularly proficient with it. While a movie review website may be a reasonable source of recommendations on whether to see a particular movie at all, it would be strange to choose one's own favorite movie based on a website's recommendation.
|-
|Personal style||Weird||Not only does the term "personal style" encompass a vast range of topics, it is also (predictably) a deeply personal thing. These two factors mean that not only will Wirecutter's recommended likely not fully discuss every factor of your personal style, it also isn't the kind of service you'd use to choose something as nebulous and personal as your "personal style."
|-
|Neighborhood||Weird||It can be assumed this means "the neighborhood one lives in." In this case, it is odd to rely on Wirecutter for recommendations on where to live, since a respectable portion of that decision is up to personal preference. In a best case scenario, Wirecutter is recommending neighborhoods based on empirical data, such as local economic growth.
|-
|Pet||Weird||While the ''type'' of pet may be more easy to rank on a website (especially with a pro/con system), picking an ''individual pet'' is an extremely personal decision that probably can't be considered covered by a product review website like Wirecutter.
|-
|College major||Bad||Your college major will influence the rest of your life significantly, and your choice should depend on your prior personal experiences. Basing your choice on Wirecutter, something completely unrelated to college, is likely a bad idea.
|-
|Career||Bad||One's optimal career choice is subject to a wide range of highly personal factors, including your talents, ambitions, and capabilities. It is highly unlikely that a hardware review site like Wirecutter would be capable of accounting for every one of these factors for every conceivable viewer.
|-
|Religion||Bad||Do ''Not'' base your religious worldview off of the electronic device equivalent to Yelp. The idea of Wirecutter reviewing religion has appeared in a previous comic, [[2536: Wirecutter]].
|-
|Spouse||Very Bad|| Perhaps [this parody](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/01/24/wirecutter-recommends-the-best-partner) by the New York Times inspired this comic. In general, people pair off when choosing spouses. This would mean that Wirecutter would be required to either find one potential spouse for every reader (cumbersome, to say the least) or would recommend ''one'' spouse for multiple (possibly millions of) partners. Even assuming an accelerated divorce rate, it would be impossible for the choice spouse to actually accomplish the role.
|-
|Dreams||Very Bad|| There are two possible definitions of "dream" that may be referred to here. When it comes to "the series of thoughts, images, and sensations occurring in a person's mind during sleep," most people cannot consciously control what they dream about, so recommending this sort of dream is somewhat pointless.<br />On the other hand, if Cueball is relying upon Wirecutter to recommend "a cherished aspiration, ambition, or ideal," he is allowing one of the most personal and individual aspects of his life — something which may give life itself a sense of meaning — to be dictated by a consumer product review site. As with many entries here, this is something that most people have to come up with or discover for themselves; relying on a third party to recommend one FOR him is deeply unlikely to bring about long-term satisfaction.
|-
|Favorite child||Very Bad|| Assuming this is a reference to the reader's own children, it can be difficult and furthermore bad practice for a parent to choose their "favorite" child, and using Wirecutter to do this analysis is near impossible. And a website that purports to know more about how to judge the relative merits of your own family than you would be... interesting.
The alternative interpretation of assuming that this is from "all children, everywhere" is more difficult. There are approximately 1.3 billion persons under the age of 18, most of whom have at least one good quality,{{citation needed}} and defining a useful ranking in such a situation is functionally impossible.
|-
|Site for product recommendations||Very Bad|| This is a topic of which the authors, editors, and publishers of Wirecutter have a vested interest and clear bias. This implies that the people at Wirecutter would be self-serving when it comes to recommending recommendations, specifically.
|-
|}

The title text references {{w|epistemology}}, a branch of philosophy concerned with the nature of knowledge and truth, for which [[Randall]] says Wirecutter's recommendations are great. Broadly speaking, epistemology attempts to answer the question "how do I know that what I know is true?" He seems skeptical, however, of their reasons that their reviews should be trusted.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[Cueball and Ponytail standing next to each other. Cueball has his palm raised.]
:Cueball: I just went with the one Wirecutter recommended.

:[A panel of four categories with topics next to them]

:[Fine category]
:Vacuum cleaner
:Headphones
:Electric scooter

:[Weird category]
:Favorite movie
:Personal style
:Neighborhood
:Pet

:[Bad category]
:College major
:Career
:Religion

:[Very bad category]
:Spouse
:Dreams
:Favorite child
:Site for product recommendations

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