explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:2839: Language Acquisition

2023-10-10T08:40:38Z

172.70.90.245:

It is probably obvious to say it, but: If the person in the title text is the same person speaking in the pane, there's a contradiction here, since if your first words were the seven unique words in "these were my first words what were yours" ("were" is duplicated) then "I learned another word today bringing my total up to twelve " adds another ten (duplicating "my"), for a total of seventeen. Or nineteen if you count "vocabulary" and "update." I'm not sure what to make of this, since Randall is surely aware of it. Perhaps I miss a subtlety. Or maybe the title text is spoken by a different character. [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 21:43, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
:The title text is often taken as coming from Randall. In the comic, Cueball is often a stand-in for Randall, but in this comic the text is coming from Baby Hairy. So the title text is contrasting the baby's first words with Randall's. Although they share the feature of being self-referential. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 23:48, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

A friend of mine said that his child's first words were "isi, äiti, kondesaattori" (dad, mom, capacitor). [[Special:Contributions/162.158.238.41|162.158.238.41]] 22:07, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Is the leftmost block schwa or upside down? The world may never know. [[User:Certified_nqh|Me]][[[285: Wikipedian Protester|''citation needed'']]][[Category:Pages using the "citation needed" template]] 22:14, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
: Looks like it could be an upside down "e" ? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.207.89|172.70.207.89]] 23:07, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
:: Strange that it's lowercase, if so, given that the other blocks are not*. "ab..e.." I could see for learning blocks, or "AB..E..". Perhaps even capital vowels, lower-everything-else (notwithstanding the implied pretext that a child of the age to learn basic block-stacking motor skills is also going to sufficiently benefit from a grounding in such 'advanced' and nuanced character-recognition), but not that.
:::<nowiki>*</nowiki> - Logistically, for the full unique set of (A..Za..z), perhaps paired by case on opposite sides, you'd need nine blocks at a minimum (and then room for two repeats/punctuations/perhaps-'@'-and-'&'?). Just three blocks is already insufficient for all-upper, so the tropish illustration/posed-photo of three actual "ABC" blocks** always makes you wonder if there's no Z, Y, X, etc. Although perhaps 'd'+'p' (lowercase) or 'M'+'W' (uppercase, or lower, with the right font), or maybe 'E'+'M' (different font/style) could help reduce the number of sides needed, allowing some context by orientation.
:::<nowiki>**</nowiki> - And oh-so-often, correctly orientated, correctly sequenced and facing the observer that the toddler is also facing, which implies both a complete understanding of the glyphs ''and'' a sense of self-vs-other. Which is not far off as improbable as the preverbal 'infant genius' somehow presenting "SYZYGY"/whatever.{{unsigned}}
::::If you're going to use the blocks for spelling things out, though, (rather than just learning the alphabet) you'd want the letters to appear in some sort of corpus frequency - so likely only one 'Z', 'Q', etc., but several 'A's, 'E's, and so on. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.43.170|172.69.43.170]] 08:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

::OTOH, the populating of a set of blocks (far more than three!) with IPA begs questions of what capitals A and B are doing there. Or then there's the intriguing idea that these blocks are to specifically hothouse the child in Predicate Logic ("A" can perhaps be there for/additionally for "∀", seen upside-down, though somethjng like "E" should at least be present for the "∃").
::In short, odd child; likely already odder parents. Or ones that cobbled together blocks from different (second-hand, possibly incomplete) sets, as hand-me-downs, but that seems far too mundane an explanation for xKcD... ;) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.219|172.71.242.219]] 00:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
:::Azerbaijani has a capital schwa that looks like that: Ə [[Special:Contributions/172.70.223.177|172.70.223.177]] 00:50, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
::If the child's first number is "twelve," I don't see why their second number should not be "two point seven one eight two eight one eight two eight." [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 01:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Re the rules (barring the contradiction said above): If Day 1 was "Another", Day 2 can't be "I learned" or "vocabulary word" unless the child skips some days and isn't learning at a rate of one word per day. If it's A Word A Day, your options must be just one other word - so in the example case, "word" could work to make "another word" work. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.2.39|162.158.2.39]] 23:14, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
:First word could be "I" (or "Learned") for "I learned" on the second day. I don't know the intention(s) of the person(s) who put together that section, but multiple paths to the dozen-word sentence are possible, perhaps it just needs to be indicated that these are not of the same sequence.
:There'll be many 'valid' sequences, with lesser or greater intermediate grammatical validity. 12!*(11!*10!*..3!*2!*1!) potential combinations. The 12! being the order of discovery; the other factorials are the orders of all intermediate sequences being rendered, but we actually know what sequence emerged from the 12! possibly renderings of the final set, so no need to repermutate that.
: That's without considering repeated words. If day 1 was just "Learned" (grammatically a stump, but give the kid a break!), Day 2 could easily be "I learned I". (Day 3 maybe "I learned another"/"I learned word", then "I learned another word" on day 4...) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.219|172.71.242.219]] 00:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
:There's nothing that indicates that it's one word a day, or even one word at a time. They could, for example have learned all the other words on the previous day, and only learned the word 'update' today. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.245|172.70.90.245]] 08:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Not sure if it’s a deliberate reference, but it reminds me of the factoid that, while ''Green Eggs and Ham'' only contains 50 unique words, a child who knows those 50 would realistically have to know several hundred (I can’t re-find the specific number). [[Special:Contributions/172.70.122.53|172.70.122.53]] 23:38, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

This kid somehow avoided the almost universal step of learning "dada" and "mama" (or similar words in other languages) as their first words. https://www.livescience.com/32191-why-are-mama-and-dada-a-babys-first-words.html [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 23:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

====A related game: What sentences could have been formed on the preceding eleven days?====
'''Rules'''
:1. Each sentence must contain the same number of words as the number of the day
:2. Words can only be added - each previously learned word must occur in subsequent days
:3. The sentence must make sense - this is clearly a highly articulate child
:4. On Day 12 the words must be "Vocabulary update: I learned another word today, bringing my total to twelve"

:Day 1: "Another" (possibly in reference to something that child wants to happen again)
:Day 2: "I learned", "Another word", or "Vocabulary Word"

A possible solution, if it is allowed for the child to omit some words previously learned:
:1: '''Word'''?
:2: '''Another''' word.
:3: '''Learned''' another word!
:4: '''I''' learned another word.
:5: I learned another word '''today'''.
:6: I learned another '''vocabulary''' word today.
:7: Vocabulary '''update''': I learned another word today.
:8: '''Bringing''' another vocabulary update: I learned another word today.
:9: Bringing '''my''' vocabulary update: I learned another word today.
:10: Update '''to''' my vocabulary: I learned another word today.
:11: Update to my '''total''' vocabulary: I learned another word today.
:12: Vocabulary update: I learned another word today, bringing my total to '''twelve'''.

My attempt:

1 (vocabulary) = "Vocabulary!"

2 (update) = "Vocabulary update!"

3 (my) = "Update my vocabulary!"

4 (I) = "I update my vocabulary!"

5 (learned) = "Update: I learned my vocabulary" [or "I update my learned vocabulary"]

6 (to) = "I learned to update my vocabulary"

7 (word) = "I learned to update my word vocabulary"

8 (another) = "Update to my vocabulary: I learned another word"

9 (bringing) = "Update: bringing another word to my vocabulary, I learned"

10 (today)= "Update: I learned today, bringing another word to my vocabulary."

11 (total) = "Update: I learned today, bringing another word to my total vocabulary."

12 (twelve) = "Vocabulary update: I learned another word today, bringing my total to twelve."

[[User:Kittyabbygirl|Kittyabbygirl]] ([[User talk:Kittyabbygirl|talk]]) 23:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Why does the number of words uttered have to be the same as the number of the day? If that's just a rule that's been invented for this game, then fair enough - be as arbitrary as you like. Otherwise though, that's not implied anywhere.[[User:Yorkshire Pudding|Yorkshire Pudding]] ([[User talk:Yorkshire Pudding|talk]]) 23:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

My attempt at the first eleven days:

Word

Another word

Update: Another word

My update: another word

My update: another vocabulary word

My update today: another vocabulary word

Update to my vocabulary: another word today

Another word update to my total vocabulary today

Bringing another word update to my total vocabulary today

Bringing another word update to my total learned vocabulary today

Update: I learned vocabulary today, bringing another word to my total.

(I assumed that the child provides one of these updates every day and used that as the topic of the sentences, and I allowed for the kinds of omissions seen in casual adult speech ("[I am] going to the store; do you need anything?"). [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.161|162.158.158.161]] 00:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

'''Related Game''' 
Why is all this stuff about the "related game" on the main page and not here on the Talk page? I don't get it. Is it just that no one has moved it? Yeah, sure, it's better off below the grey box for the talk page transclusion, but it's still wrong. [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 01:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
:I've moved it now. --[[Special:Contributions/172.71.254.77|172.71.254.77]] 03:41, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
My attempt:

1) '''I'''

2) I '''learned'''

3) I learned: '''word'''

4) I learned '''another''' word

5) I learned another word: '''vocabulary'''

6) I learned another vocabulary word '''today'''

7) Update: I learned another vocabulary word '''today'''

8) '''My''' update: I learned another vocabulary word today

9) My '''total''' vocabulary update: today, I learned another word today

10) '''To''' update my total vocabulary, I learned another word today

11) To update my total vocabulary, I learned another word today: '''bringing'''

12) Vocabulary update: I learned another word today bringing my total to '''twelve'''

[[User:Baralong|Baralong]] ([[User talk:Baralong|talk]]) 07:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
== A generalization to the related game ==

Given some predetermined list of usable English words (say, the online Merriam-Webster dictionary), what is the longest amount of days one can "last for", with the rules that:

1) one must speak exactly n words in a single, grammatically correct sentence on day n

2) all words spoken on day n-1 must be used for the day n sentence

3) all forms of punctuation are allowed (e.g. the original comic used a colon)

4) no lists in the sentence (too boring)

[[Special:Contributions/162.158.175.158|162.158.175.158]] 02:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

985: Percentage Points

2022-10-11T09:27:30Z

172.70.90.245: /* Explanation */ The "million sample" needed introducing for the first example, to make sense as to where the absolute numbers even came from. Possibly it made sense as it was but before some reordering of paragraphs and/or bullet-points. +Gain/loss edit

{{comic
| number = 985
| date = December 2, 2011
| title = Percentage Points
| image = percentage_points.png
| titletext = Grayton also proposed making college scholarships available exclusively to sexually active teens, amnesty for illegal immigrants who create room for themselves by killing a citizen, and a graduated income tax based on penis size. He has been endorsed by Tracy Morgan, John Wilkes Booth's ghost, and the Time Cube guy.
}}

==Explanation==
Senator Grayton is a fictional character, made up for this comic; which is unusual for xkcd, as it typically uses real-world references.

The issues that Grayton supports:

*Tax Breaks to Drunk Drivers: Grayton proposes giving those who have been convicted of a {{w|DUI}} or DWI (i.e. Driving Under the Influence or Driving While Intoxicated) money back on their taxes, when those infractions are typically severely penalized, as drunk driving has resulted in numerous deaths.
*{{w|Predator Drones}} and the {{w|Christmas controversy|War on Christmas}}: The War on {{w|Christmas}} is not a real war; it is simply the perception by some {{w|Christian}}s that non-Christians are trying to replace traditional Christmas imagery with more inclusive and generic holiday customs. No politicians have explicitly announced their support of the "War on Christmas," and the idea that one would not only do so, but would also want to use drones—ostensibly to harm or possibly kill people—in the effort is an absurd exaggeration of a relatively harmless culture war.

The term {{w|percentage point}} is used to overcome an ambiguity when comparing two percentages.

'''Reduction of a stated number by a percentage'''
:When the original value is given as a number, there is no ambiguity. If that 20% were of a sample size of 1 million, the starting number could be directly stated at 200,000. And thus, in the statement below, the only possible conclusion is that now only 162,000 people (81%, i.e. 100% minus that 19%, of the 2000,000) approve of Grayton.
:''Previously 200,000 people approved of Senator Grayton, and then his approval rating dropped by 19%.''

'''Reduction of a percentage by a percentage'''
:When the original approval rating is given as a percentage (20% in the comic), then a reduction of 19% has two possible meanings:
:1) Of the 20% who previously approved (200,000 people), 19% ''of those'' no longer approve. In this case the result is 162,000 as in the above example.
:2) Compared to the original results, 19% fewer of the entire original sample approve. In this case only 1% of the 1 million now approve, equal to 10,000 people.

If using the second method of comparing percentages, the approvals rating should be described as having dropped by 19 percentage points. In reality, the distinction between the two methods is often overlooked, leading to confusion.

The caption's issue with "percentage" versus "percentage points" is that if Grayton's 20% approval rating drops by 19%, that means that his support has only dropped 3.8 percentage points since 19% of 20% is only 3.8%. That would mean that even after all his outrageous statements, his support dropped only from 20% to 16.2%. However, if the news reports that his 20% approval rating dropped 19 ''percentage points'', that means his support has dropped to 1%, which appears to be more accurate given Grayton's egregious policy decisions and the description of his campaign as having "imploded."

The punchline to all this is that Randall is more bothered by the "percent" ambiguity than by Grayton's appalling policy plans.

References in the title text:

*{{w|Tracy Morgan}} is an actor who plays Tracy Jordan in the TV Show ''{{w|30 Rock}}''. He has been reprimanded for controversial comments on homosexuals and {{w|Sarah Palin}} (in separate incidents).
*{{w|John Wilkes Booth}} is the person who assassinated {{w|Abraham Lincoln}}. He was a {{w|Confederate}} sympathizer and supported slavery. The mention of his ghost could also be a reference to King Falls AM, an audio drama which features his ghost multiple times.
*"The {{w|Time Cube}} Guy" would be Otis Eugene "Gene" Ray. To put things ''very'' politely (as Mr. Ray was a very angry man with severe schizophrenia), he created a website known as Time Cube where he set out his personal model of reality, which he called Time Cube. He suggested that all of modern physics is wrong, in addition to claiming that religion is evil, specifically Christianity, and that the idea of family is poisoning children. Ray passed away in 2015.
*College scholarships to sexually active teens: Many people think adolescents should not engage in sexual activity, let alone be encouraged to do so by college scholarships. This is the opposite of {{w|Abstinence-only sex education|abstinence programs}}, which encourage teens not to be sexually active until marriage.
*Illegal immigrants who create room for themselves by killing a citizen: {{w|Illegal immigration to the United States|Illegal immigration}} is a highly controversial topic in the United States. One argument against illegal immigration is that illegal immigrants are taking jobs away from American citizens. Proponents of immigration assert that this is not the case, since more people in the overall economy creates jobs and brings in more tax revenue. Neither group would be in favor of illegal immigrants murdering citizens even though it would cause no net gain or loss in population.
*Graduated income tax based on penis size: Many men are sensitive about their penis size and would probably consider the measurement of their penises for tax assessment purposes an enormous embarrassment and invasion of privacy. Even the scenario in which those with relatively smaller penises would be levied less tax than those with larger penises would probably not be sufficient for them to accept this policy, and even if they did, those with larger penises would probably consider this policy to be unfair. And the alternative—a scenario in which ''larger'' penises pay less taxes—would be both unfair and incredibly demeaning. Not to mention, it is also entirely unclear as to how tax laws would apply to women in this scenario.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball is sitting in an armchair watching TV while listening to a news report coming from the TV as shown by a zigzag line.]
:Voice from TV: Senator Grayton's campaign has imploded following the candidate's promise to give tax breaks to drunk drivers and to authorize the use of unmanned Predator drones in the War On Christmas. Grayton had been polling at 20%, but his support has since plunged by 19%.

:[Caption below the panel:]
:I hate the ambiguity created when people don't distinguish between percentages and percentage points.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring real people]] 
[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Penis]]

Talk:2682: Easy Or Hard

2022-10-07T15:57:43Z

172.70.90.245: Typo, missing qualification.

For other people not in US: active ingredient of Tylenol is {{w|Paracetamol}}. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 12:51, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

"Now paleontologists have pinpointed during what time of year that millions of years event happened, all thanks to new fossil evidence" (from [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okOnVovooeM SciShow]) It is probably what's referenced in the "What time of year did the cretaceous impact happen?" [[User:Ppete pete|Pete Ratchatakul]] ([[User talk:Ppete pete|talk]]) 13:36, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Paper cited in the title text: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/360674587_Derivation_of_a_governing_rule_in_triboelectric_charging_and_series_from_thermoelectricity
[[User:Victor|Victor]] ([[User talk:Victor|talk]]) 13:39, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
:AKA https://journals.aps.org/prresearch/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.4.023131 [[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.49|172.70.210.49]] 14:17, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Papers related to the time of the year of the impact:

"... reveal that the impact occurred during boreal Spring/Summer, shortly after the spawning season for fish and most continental taxa." - [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-03232-9 Seasonal calibration of the end-cretaceous Chicxulub impact event]

"Here, by studying fishes that died on the day the Mesozoic era ended, we demonstrate that the impact that caused the Cretaceous–Palaeogene mass extinction took place during boreal spring." - [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04446-1 The Mesozoic terminated in boreal spring]

[[User:Ppete pete|Pete Ratchatakul]] ([[User talk:Ppete pete|talk]]) 13:46, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Isn't mechanisms of Tylenol well known?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4912877/

I can't vouch for the long-period accuracy of the software that I just used (nor have I cross-checked with any other list or interactive app), but my quick research shows that on 31st March 1889 (dignetaries were officially taken to the top of the Eiffel Tower), Mars was in Pisces, and that in-between then and 6th May (the public got to do the same) it had drifted through Ares (IIRC, forgot to note that explicitly!) and into Taurus, where it was still on 26th May (the lifts opened, and the journey didn't have to be by the stairs!). Although you would have been unlikely to get a good view of Mars as it was quite close to conjunction with the Sun, getting well past Mercury's furthest extent. (In mid-June, it was practically on top of (or over but behind, as it were) the Sun, out of sight for all practical purposes.) I'm sure someone can do a more thorough check than myself, before we set this down properly/succinctly, but it was the first thing I thought of checking for myself. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.245|172.70.90.245]] 15:56, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Talk:2682: Easy Or Hard

2022-10-07T15:56:55Z

172.70.90.245:

For other people not in US: active ingredient of Tylenol is {{w|Paracetamol}}. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 12:51, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

"Now paleontologists have pinpointed during what time of year that millions of years event happened, all thanks to new fossil evidence" (from [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okOnVovooeM SciShow]) It is probably what's referenced in the "What time of year did the cretaceous impact happen?" [[User:Ppete pete|Pete Ratchatakul]] ([[User talk:Ppete pete|talk]]) 13:36, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Paper cited in the title text: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/360674587_Derivation_of_a_governing_rule_in_triboelectric_charging_and_series_from_thermoelectricity
[[User:Victor|Victor]] ([[User talk:Victor|talk]]) 13:39, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
:AKA https://journals.aps.org/prresearch/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.4.023131 [[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.49|172.70.210.49]] 14:17, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Papers related to the time of the year of the impact:

"... reveal that the impact occurred during boreal Spring/Summer, shortly after the spawning season for fish and most continental taxa." - [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-03232-9 Seasonal calibration of the end-cretaceous Chicxulub impact event]

"Here, by studying fishes that died on the day the Mesozoic era ended, we demonstrate that the impact that caused the Cretaceous–Palaeogene mass extinction took place during boreal spring." - [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04446-1 The Mesozoic terminated in boreal spring]

[[User:Ppete pete|Pete Ratchatakul]] ([[User talk:Ppete pete|talk]]) 13:46, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Isn't mechanisms of Tylenol well known?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4912877/

I can't vouch for the long-period accuracy of the software that I just used (no have I checked with any other list or interactive app), but my quick research shows that on 31st March 1889 (dignetaries were officially taken to the top of the Eiffel Tower), Mars was in Pisces, and that in-between then and 6th May (the public got to do the same) it had drifted through Ares (IIRC, forgot to note that explicitly!) and into Taurus, where it was still on 26th May (the lifts opened, and the journey didn't have to be by the stairs!). Although you would have been unlikely to get a good view of Mars as it was quite close to conjunction with the Sun, getting well past Mercury's furthest extent. (In mid-June, it was practically on top of (or over but behind, as it were) the Sun, out of sight for all practical purposes.) I'm sure someone can do a more thorough check than myself, before we set this down properly/succinctly, but it was the first thing I thought of checking for myself. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.245|172.70.90.245]] 15:56, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

explain xkcd talk:Museum

2022-10-07T15:03:22Z

172.70.90.245:

Maybe it's more of statistics than exhibitions. --[[User:While False|While False]] ([[User talk:While False|speak]]|[[User:While False/explain xkcd museum|museum]]) 21:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

== pixels-assembly-3.png ==

how is it 0 bytes?? i see that it is shown as 0 bytes on the wiki, but the file itself, when downloaded is 5kb! how???[[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.209|108.162.221.209]] 16:41, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Bumpf
:If the question is how it can be written like that here, the answer is that I used the numbers of the wiki. —[[User:While False|While False]] ([[User talk:While False|speak]]|[[User:While False/explain xkcd museum|museum]]) 19:18, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
::Sorry, should have made it more clear. Do you know why it is shown as 0 bytes on the file page? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.134.103|172.70.134.103]] 12:37, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Bumpf
:::There's always the possibility that this is actually the Null image under the .png file format. Every other .png is defined by the delta required to display the desired graphic when starting from the baseline of this 'ur'-image, but if you ever ''wanted'' to display that graphic the undocumented format specifications allow you to omit all unnecessary bytes (including the magic header bytes) and it will happily produce its hardcoded "it's a PNG!" preprocessing template, which happens to be this image. Obviously, the PNG spec (and, ultimately, the original ancestor of the detailed source code tree for every subsequent implementation) was written before Randall ever got anywhere near to drawing this image so the chances are slim that he just happened to luck upon the exact image that happens to have a 100% compression rate because it just happened to consist of something Randall wanted to draw, and in the manner of Randall's artistry. But it's a non-zero likelihood that an arbitrary artist might draw exactly the same image as a purely arbitrary "index null" page's collection of pixels and so... This might not be the Best Of All Worlds, but there has to be ''some'' highly fortunate occurance to balance out all the unfortunate ones, statistically, and this is ours!
:::(Or maybe there's a minor bug/data-error in the way the wiki database serves the front-end webserver, but I can't ask you to believe something as trivially random as that!)) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.245|172.70.90.245]] 15:03, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Talk:2679: Quantified Self

2022-10-05T09:50:16Z

172.70.90.245: Rearranged top-postings so that it is ordered more properly.

This could also be a call back to the Billy Path comics run in Family Circus. I don't have time today to add that research though. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.214.59|172.70.214.59]] 16:00, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Here is an explanation of what it is about
https://www.reddit.com/r/OCD/comments/1ve309/invisible_thread_attached_to_my_back_am_i_the/ {{unsigned|Florian F|18:11, 30 September 2022‎}}
:I was going to guess sorting Google Maps Directions by sustainability announced this past Wednesday. https://blog.google/products/search/new-ways-to-make-more-sustainable-choices/ [[Special:Contributions/172.69.134.17|172.69.134.17]] 18:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
::How is this comic about optimizing for sustainability?
:::It is about optimizing a particular attribute of maps directions. Sustainability is the most recent such attribute announced (two days prior to the comic) by a top-3 commerical maps directions provider. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.214.183|172.70.214.183]] 06:04, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
:::: Google optimizes paths for distance and time for a long time already. The announcement is about optimizing for fuel efficiency instead. The comic clearly speaks about measuring distance but not about fuel consumption.
:::: The comic also insists on the topological features of constructions, namely whether there is a hole. This has nothing to do with fuel efficiency. And how does pulling a string taut measure fuel efficiency? I don't understand.
:::: The newspapers are full of events that happened 3 days ago. What makes Google's announcement more relevant to the comic than other news? [[User:Florian F|Florian F]] ([[User talk:Florian F|talk]]) 09:29, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
::::: Are you saying your OCD interpretation is more likely? Do you have any sources compatible with {{w|WP:RSP}}? How do those sources compare to an annual software release announcement by a top-10 tech company? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.166.125|162.158.166.125]] 09:34, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::What I am saying is that the Google announcement as reliable as it is, is totally irrelevant to this comic. It is both optimization of a path. So what? It doesn't shed any light on any peculiarity of the comic. If you can explain why the red line is affected by bridges and an arch, but not by buildings or mountains, in the context of sustainability an fuel reduction, you might have a case. [[User:Florian F|Florian F]] ([[User talk:Florian F|talk]]) 15:35, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::The connection is clear to me: there is a new way to select paths based on a metric nobody has been using before. I don't feel the same way about the link to [[Math Work]] which is far more of a stretch, so I uncommented the first two sentences and the references, but deleted that link. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.126|172.70.211.126]] 05:12, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::::What is clear is that you need to tailor your description in a very abstract way to make it look related. The context is completely different. And the reference to google maps doesn't explain any part of the comic strip. [[User:Florian F|Florian F]] ([[User talk:Florian F|talk]]) 11:53, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::All of the things in that Google blog post involve the quantified self as a central idea, not just the maps part. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.166.125|162.158.166.125]] 21:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
:I think you're way off. I don't see any hint that it's about OCD. If it's similar to the condition you referenced, it's just a coincidence. The whole thing needs to be started from scratch. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.105|108.162.221.105]] 20:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
::That is why this site exists. To explain things you don't see. I don't think many people are familiar with this compulsion about an imaginary string retracing your path in space, but when you are, it is spot on. [[User:Florian F|Florian F]] ([[User talk:Florian F|talk]]) 23:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
:::I agree that this comic has nothing to do with OCD just because some people with OCD feels like they have a string attached. Randall is not saying he has a string just that he finds it funny to make these kind of calculations for what his path of the day have been. I agree with those in favor of deleting any reference to OCD from the explanation. Maybe someone with OCD wrote the current one? ;-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 13:06, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

GOOMHR![https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=GOOMHR] - Although for me it was the opposite aim. I've had periods of time when I wouldn't even like (if I noticed, I wasn't like OCD or anything[1]!!!) to make a return journey that meant I even crossed the road at a different point and thus passed under a different telegraph wire between a different set of adjacent poles, on the presumption that if I were to 'retract my path' then it would be irrevocably looped around at least one telegraph poles. (But normal lamp-posts were Ok... the path-'string' could just pass over and around the top and continue to retract. And it could pass above/below anything movable like cars, people, etc.) My ideal would be to be topologically contracted to zero length. Nut I wasn't actually obsessed by it, just... sometimes noticed when I was forced to do something that would cause such 'problems' and might deliberately ensure that any such loop was fully reversed (in strict reverse order to any such transit adding them in) ''if at all possible''. Of course, once it was spoilt by one end of the journey being held by a loop, the rest didn't matter so much. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.71|162.158.34.71]] 18:21, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
:''[1] Not even CDO, which is like OCD but ordered alphabetically!''
:: I definitely am also someone who always played it your way, the reverse XKCD. My cats play it straight though, running into the house, through, and out a different entrance repeatedly one day, then the other way the day after. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.210.45|172.68.210.45]] 19:35, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
:::Yeah, I was always trying to avoid "entangling" my path as well. I suppose it's not just nightmares that can be "oddly universal"--childhood superstitious compulsions might be the same way, at least among the nerd population! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.174.41|172.70.174.41]] 00:07, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

; Red string of Fate
The drawing looks like the red thread connecting people in chinese mythology.
-[[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.188|162.158.91.188]] 18:21, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

What happens to the string if you crawl under a car which then drives off?[[Special:Contributions/172.70.134.141|172.70.134.141]] 20:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
:You probably would only count objects that were stationary after you passed them.[[User:Anonymouscript|Anonymouscript]] ([[User talk:Anonymouscript|talk]]) 21:10, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
::If it can conceivably move over your 'thread', then it isn't a 'tangling loop'. You have to allow for any degree of mysterious topological optimisation that can magically unhook itself from anything that can be unhooked from, no matter {{w|Alexander horned sphere|how much work it has to do to do so}}, and if that has to include choosing just the right time (with perfect prescience, where necessary!) to allow it to untangle wherever/whenever possible. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.205|162.158.34.205]] 21:25, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
:::That doesn't make sense, taken to the extreme, since all things will turn to dust eventually.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.107.42|162.158.107.42]] 21:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
::::Within the period of your concern (e.g. per daily routine), I would presume. That gantry over the road will be (partially, perhaps in stages) dissasembled for maintenance at some point, if not outright taken down, allowing an arbitrarily future-sensitive thread to not be caught up in it any more. Tachyonic thread-behaviour could happily unwrap around the time ''before'' the gantry (or bridges, or arch) were built, and as for the house... Before completion or after the next F5 tornado, the 4D constraints are far less (a line snagged permanently in a 4D 'passage' suggests something a bit more interesting, given a closed door doesn't 'snag' in 3D, only the use of two different doorways, with or without actual doors). But limiting it to a daily assesment bookends the whole 4D construct with a virtual lintel over (and under, in the ''t''-dimension) any potential gap for thread-movement that might be considered a way to be optimising to minimal necessary set of straight-line distances... Well, unless you learn the gantry was only assembled that morning, or that it had sufficient Ship Of Theseus-style repairs during the day, or a truck hit it by the end of the day... then it still acts as a looped-snagger
::::The car is trivial, in comparison, as we ''know'' it drives away in the posited scenario (and within the duration of the scenario). Even if our mental thread-pull does not allow us to tug it under the firmly ground-planted tyres, by reducing to periods of instaniousness as the 'trapped' thread is then rolled over (and even more tightly trapped, without violating the 'through solid matter' issue) you reach a point where it is now rolled ''off'' of (no longer underneath the car at all) so you can consider it untrapped. Unlike any thread that was threaded in through the driver's side door but out again through the passenger-side one, which traps loops completely (except for convertables, of course, or if Black Hat subsequently does a more width-wise [[562: Parking|version of the "cut'n'shut", with or without the "shut" bit]].
::::But that's just my interpretation. Thread-line obsessions probably come in various flavours and twists (can a thread-line knot about itself? And, insofar as the car example, is it basically forced to stay 'loose' but looped under the car as it drives, at least until enough of the car's wheels lose contact with the ground due to excessive speed over a humped bridge or even speedbump?) and I can't speak for all of them, but my reasonable (FCVO 'reasonable') assessment suggests that there are get outs ''and'' constraints that might be more universal than not. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.48|172.70.91.48]] 01:47, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
:The xkcd [[100: Family Circus]] seems relevant enough and readers can go to that page for an explanation of "Billy paths" and the OCD connection. [[User:Mrob27|Mrob27]] ([[User talk:Mrob27|talk]]) 00:24, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

{{cot|When it was all about the OCD}}
This is about a type of OCD where some people feel like they have an imaginary string connecting them to where they come from. As they move around, that string gets entangled and they feel the urge to untangle it. When they enter a car, they feel the need to exit the car from the same door, or else the string will be trapped as forever passing through the car. When they enter a building, they feel they need to exit using the same doorway(s), to avoid entangling the string in the building.

Some cases, like turning around a lamp post are OK because you can imagine removing the loop over the top of the lamp post, such that it is not really entangled.

There may not be an official clinical name for this variety of OCD, but one suggested one is the "imaginary path-string".

Randall treats this OCD like a new measure to add to one's quantified self. The quantified self normally refers to the collection of measurements about your activity, like the number of steps you walk in a day, or monitoring your weight, blood pressure or calories intake. Here, Cueball measures his OCD, i.e. how long this imaginary string has become at the end of the day, after mentally untangling the string as much as possible with valid changes, like moving it around objects, but never through solid matter.

Unlike most people with this OCD, who feel the urge to minimize it, Randall/Cueball takes the opposite stance and actually prefers to maximize the (optimally minimal) length of that imaginary string.

The alt text tells about all the things that become useful adjuncts to this way of thinking and measuring, such as passing (one way) through any tube, tunnel or frame made of solid material that could thus capture the imaginary string and help to keep its ultimate distance as lengthy as possible. All of these situations are dreaded by the people with the more traditional version of OCD.
{{cob}}
...because someone [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2679:_Quantified_Self&diff=295745&oldid=295744 ''just deleted it''], and didn't even appear to attempt to replace it with anything useful themselves. (It did need a lot of editing, but not sure it is totally inapplicable, given the demonstrated familiarity with the basic concept by Randall's target audience...) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.205|162.158.34.205]] 21:25, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
::I also had a preoccupation with this sort of thing, for a while as a child. My magic thread was a remnant of the umbilical cord, with one end permanently anchored in the hospital where I was born. I had little or no knowledge of the fundamental nature of matter and just thought of it as a rubber band that was too small to see or feel. Like in the comic and other comments here, it could magically stretch as much as needed and would un-stretch when possible. I did not consider changing behaviour (e.g. choosing an exit to leave a building) because I had no desire for it to be longer or shorter, and it was clearly far too late to make a significant difference. I did spend quite some time thinking of all the places the thread must have gotten caught (as in the comic) and estimating its total length. (I did not consider airports, or my estimate would have been far longer). [[User:Mrob27|Mrob27]] ([[User talk:Mrob27|talk]]) 06:17, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

;Comics with color, red-line subset
As [[:Category:Comics with color]] doesn't have a currently extant Talk-page to it, mentioning it here (although not sure if this one counts, as much, for my suggestion). Many CwC examples are basically "monochrome with added red" ([[2639: Periodic Table Changes|'corrections' to periodic tables]], e.g.) that are distinct from "having lines of various colours" (like [[657: Movie Narrative Charts|multidata plottings]]), which are in turn distinctive from [[2598: Graphic Designers|floodfilled]] or [[1024: Error Code|brushstroked]] multihue images. A simple(ish) algorithm could autoclassify all images with any non-greyscale pixels in them, but (from a human perspective, which is [[1530: Keyboard Mash|definitely my kind of perspective]]!) I think that we could sub-split CwC candidates into something like "(Monochrome) Comics with added red lines", and the rest. Doubtless some are going to be edge-cases (is this one technically a red-line one? Probably, but it's not really the same as a 'correction/annotation' red-lined comic), but such subcategorisation might still be broadly useful. - Just a wild idea, that you could perhaps safely ignore. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.117|172.70.90.117]] 02:25, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Are there any ''reliable'' sources for the OCD interpretation, or merely a collection of anecdotes? If the former, please spell out and wikilink OCD. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.158.119|172.71.158.119]] 07:24, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I have some questions about the Google Maps Directions sustainability and related Google features; please see:
* https://itep.org/the-impact-of-work-from-home-on-commercial-property-values-and-the-property-tax-in-u-s-cities/
* https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/may/08/working-from-home-commercial-office-space-booming
* https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2021-08-12/office-rentals-shrink-as-tenant-employees-work-from-home
* https://www.computerworld.com/article/3659891/google-others-adding-office-space-in-anticipation-of-the-great-return.html
* https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2022/01/14/google-spends-billions-on-buying-office-buildings-is-this-a-sign-of-the-post-pandemic-pushback-against-remote-work/
* https://www.wsj.com/articles/companies-cutting-office-space-predict-long-term-savings-11625493601
Firstly, has Google published a cost-benefit analysis comparing the sharply increased profits and productivity from work-from-home to the value of coastal region commercial office space holdings and leases? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.214.59|172.70.214.59]] 08:49, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
:Added, except I TLDRed on those six links lol. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.166.185|162.158.166.185]] 08:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
::This looks totally irrelevant to me. [[User:Florian F|Florian F]] ([[User talk:Florian F|talk]]) 09:29, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
:Did you miss these three?
:* https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2021-04-28/google-is-saving-1-billion-per-year-as-a-result-of-employees-working-from-home
:* https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-15/google-googl-wants-employees-to-return-to-office-despite-productivity-gains
:* https://www.reuters.com/world/the-great-reboot/pay-cut-google-employees-who-work-home-could-lose-money-2021-08-10/
:? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.166.125|162.158.166.125]] 09:31, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
::No, seriously? You think this comic has to do with google employees working from home?

I [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2679%3A_Quantified_Self&type=revision&diff=295816&oldid=295813 deleted the entire OCD interpretation section] because I couldn't figure out how to comment it out. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.158.89|172.71.158.89]] 10:59, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
:Usual HTML commenting-out would do it. Put a <code><nowiki></nowiki></code> after it. (There's no valid 'tag-end' <code><nowiki>--!></nowiki></code>. The special tag as a whole is <code><nowiki></nowiki></code>, though why it isn't <code><nowiki><!-- --/></nowiki></code> more closely aligned with XML standards for singleton tags I couldn't tell you. ;)
:However, I feel you're just missing the fact that this is provably a thing (to various degrees as exquisitely described both here and on external links) and as valid as subject for Randall's parody as [[245: Floor Tiles|stepping only in valid patterns]] or [[735: Floor|not even upon the floor at all]]. But you've made the change, so... [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.211|172.69.79.211]] 21:47, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
::Glad to see some people have some sense. [[User:Florian F|Florian F]] ([[User talk:Florian F|talk]]) 22:34, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
:I put the proper HTML markers to comment out the old OCD section (that the anonymous editor thought was too long?) and restored the citations with a much shorter explanation and two relevant XKCD comics (735 floor and 100 family circus). [[User:Mrob27|Mrob27]] ([[User talk:Mrob27|talk]]) 22:39, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
:Now you can do the same with the Google Maps Sustainability hypotheses that so far hasn't proven any relevance to the comic. But do I repeat myself? [[User:Florian F|Florian F]] ([[User talk:Florian F|talk]]) 22:34, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
::I'm inclined to agree. I'll put the same block-comment tags around that Google Sustainability paragraph. [[User:Mrob27|Mrob27]] ([[User talk:Mrob27|talk]]) 22:50, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
;r/whoosh
We need a "I don't get it" tag for these strips. We could call it "r/whoosh".
(to be fair, I understand the comics, but I don't personally find it neither fascinating, nor interesting, nor funny, nor depicting an interesting fact, nor something I can relate about, and I don't think I'm going to be the only one... YMMV to those who feel differently). [[User:Ralfoide|Ralfoide]] ([[User talk:Ralfoide|talk]]) 17:09, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
;A thought about the world of this comic
The world created by these locations looks like the world of the original ''Starcraft'''s third Terran mission, "Desperate Alliance," the one where you have to survive for thirty minutes. Just a thought.

;Ferris wheel
I'm going to need somesort of visual to understand why riding a ferris wheel would constitute going through a topological tunnel. I've been staring at [https://previews.123rf.com/images/sasha85ru/sasha85ru1704/sasha85ru170400010/75016847-ferris-wheel-open-cabins-of-the-ferris-wheel-.jpg an image like this] for a few minutes now and can't figure it out. I presume it has something to do with the cabin [https://c8.alamy.com/comp/J2PA3X/ferris-wheel-cabins-against-a-blue-sky-J2PA3X.jpg dropping within the circle of the eye]? Presumably this wouldn't count for [https://res.cloudinary.com/fleetnation/image/private/c_fit,w_1120/g_south,l_text:style_gothic2:%C2%A9%20Chris%20Van%20Lennep,o_20,y_10/g_center,l_watermark4,o_25,y_50/v1479723075/wkyi8dyzrxdfxx9rtilm.jpg this design] then? Either way, I cannot visualize it at all... [[User:Maplestrip|Maplestrip]] ([[User talk:Maplestrip|talk]]) 09:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
:I think some ferris wheels have you enter on one side and exit on the other, which makes people waiting in line not ahaving to get out of your way. Not all, but I have tried at least one. And in such a wheel your string would go through the cabin (which then also goes around and around, thus maybe winding up the string?) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 13:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
:Unless you restricted your ride to just the single circuit (and, even then, with infrastructure caveats about cabin/gondola entry and exit) every loop you made of a standard "axle with two supports" Ferris-style wheel would thread you (inexorably) through the legs/axle 'doorway' sat upon the ground. This can only be avoided by having a {{w|London Eye|single-sided support}} for the wheel.
:Though, recalling my few journeys upon that particular example, ''despite'' that offset support, plus the ride being just a single slow loop (minus the small distance between pod-empty point and the pod-fill one for the next occupants), ''plus'' the gondolas/pods being external (with traditional internal gondala-to-wheel being a further 'threading' action to be concerned about), there were other thread-loop-holding aspects even to the queuing experience, if one cares to keep track of such things.
:You ''could'' design a threading-free 'wheel', even multi-turn, but almost every example built without such considerations (all of them?) will provide at least one 'tunnel', probably more, whether wanted/desired or unwanted/undesirable for your mental or virtual thread-tracking purposes. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.98.97|172.71.98.97]] 14:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
::Oh, I hadn't considered the "foot" of the ferris wheel at all, that is indeed clever. It is still hard to visualize, but if you ignore that the wheel exists at all and just thread the "string" between four feet and around a central spoke, it would indeed work out like this. Thank you! You can mentally reshape the ferris wheel to be a table or a horse, it becomes a lot more obvious. [[User:Maplestrip|Maplestrip]] ([[User talk:Maplestrip|talk]]) 13:01, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
:::Not even ''four'' feet (although A-frame supports could give additional 'side doors' to entangle through, if you enter one side and exit the other, going through the splayed beams mak8ng up each vertical side), imagine some American-jive/Lindihop(sp?) dance move where the gal gets swung under the guy's legs. And possibly over his head and through them again in the more energetic dance-moves! Until/unless he lifts his feet, her 'life-thread-path' is wrapped around the ground-loop he forms.
::: And 'hungunder' baskets rotate around the pivot to the wheel's circumference which (by making your frame of reference stationary to the wheel) continually loop round and through the wheel-rim, being a wheel-axle/wheel-structure-basket-axle loop that the passengers additionally tangle round and through (once per ride rotation), like some sort of demented knitting-machine* crossed with a crazy bread-mixer.
::::<nowiki>*</nowiki> – not quite right, knitting machines don't loop-through the same as a sewing-machine's second thread does, or dodge in and out and round like a loom's shuttle around the warps, but there's probably some single-thread fabrication technique that truly knots like a ferris-wheel might do if you were to feed it an appropriate cord.
:::For no-hoop ferris-wheels, something like can be seen [https://www.google.com/search?q=kids+small+mini-wheel+ride+coin+operated here] would work. (Though with the multi-car designs the question is whether you count/mind/endure your invisible-thread possibly being braided up with other riders' invisible-threads, like a rope-making machine does.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.49|172.70.85.49]] 14:46, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Cueball makes 2.5 loops of the house, not 2 as in the explanation - 3 passes of the interior, and 2 of the exterior.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.48|172.70.91.48]] 08:19, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

... I also did exactly this [[Special:Contributions/162.158.166.233|162.158.166.233]] 15:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I thought about this today driving to the supermarket.
Bridge and sign are nothing!
The thing you really get entangled with are all the electrical wires
from telephone poles to the opposite side of the road.
[[User:Divad27182|Divad27182]] ([[User talk:Divad27182|talk]]) 03:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

1643: Degrees

2022-10-03T10:12:54Z

172.70.90.245: /* Degrees Fahrenheit */ Thinko, typo or did I just change ideas mid-recomposition and not complete the transition?

{{comic
| number = 1643
| date = February 15, 2016
| title = Degrees
| image = degrees.png
| titletext = "Radians Fahrenheit or radians Celsius?" "Uh, sorry, gotta go!"
}}

==Explanation==
[[Cueball]] is being asked by a friend for the {{w|temperature}}. While he is checking his smartphone for the weather, he begins pondering what unit he should use when answering the question. (See below for [[#Cueball's reasoning|Cueball's reasoning]].)

In the US (where Cueball and [[Randall]] are from), the {{w|Conversion of units of temperature|temperature scale}} used in daily life is {{w|Fahrenheit}}. However, most of the rest of the world uses {{w|Celsius}} in daily life, and even in the US it is commonly used for science. This is also why Randall has previously made the comic [[526: Converting to Metric]]. There are also people who wish the US to change to the metric system, although some of them still wish to keep the Fahrenheit scale as mentioned in [[1982: Evangelism]]

:'''The Celsius scale''' is from the {{w|metric system}}. Though this system has been officially sanctioned for use in the US since 1866, it is not frequently used in daily American life (except for some things, like liter bottles of soda), although it is the preferred system for trade and commerce according to the {{w|Metric Conversion Act}} of 1975. The US remains the only industrialized country, and one of few countries period, that does not use the metric system for everyday measurements, and in which official government documents and signage do not enforce metric units. The unit ''degree Celsius'' or °C is an accepted {{w|International System of Units#Derived units|derived unit}} from the {{w|International System of Units}} (SI units) used in science (which again is the modern form of the metric system). The SI unit of temperature is the {{w|kelvin}}, but this temperature scale is linearly related to the Celsius scale, which is why Celsius can be derived from it.
:'''The Fahrenheit scale''' is from the {{w|United States customary units|US customary system}} and the (British) {{w|Imperial units|imperial system}}. The unit is ''degree Fahrenheit'' or °F, and the relation to the Celsius scale is not easy to find in a mental calculation. The relations are: [°F] = [°C]×9⁄5 + 32 or [°C] = ([°F] − 32)×5⁄9. (For this exact reason Randall has previously made a helpful table for these situations in [[526: Converting to Metric]].)

Unlike most areas of measurement, where the metric system is widely considered superior, there is considerable debate about the relative merits of Fahrenheit vs. Celsius. Cueball weighs up the benefits of both scales, but fails to find a solution he can live with, and since he feels he has to give his friend an answer now, he panics and gives the answer 0.173 {{w|radians}}.
:'''Radian''' is the standard unit of angular measure, used in many areas of mathematics. An angle's measurement in radians is numerically equal to the length of a corresponding arc of a {{w|unit circle}}. It has no units and is denoted with the superscript c, but more commonly rad, lest it be confused with {{w|Degree (angle)|angular degrees}}. One radian is an angle of approximately 57.3 degrees.
:'''Angular degrees''' is a system used to measure {{w|angles}} in {{w|geometry}}, and although it too uses the symbol ° and the word "degrees", it has nothing to do with temperature measurements of any sort.

Thus, this answer is unhelpful and the joke is that traditionally both geometric angles and temperature are measured in "degrees", but there is no connection between the two.

The title text indicates that Cueball's friend still wants to know whether the answer is in radians Fahrenheit or radians Celsius, which, despite being a silly way to express temperature, would actually enable the friend to get some meaning out of the reply. But this just takes Cueball back to the problem he failed to solve in the first place of choosing one scale in preference to the other, so suddenly he announces has to go and runs off without ever clarifying what he meant. This result is probably because he is afraid of being a bad friend according to his very last point regarding Fahrenheit: ''Valuing unit standardization over being helpful possibly makes me a bad friend.''

The answer Cueball gives of 0.173 radians corresponds to a geometric angle 9.91° (0.173 × 360°/2π). If this were "radians Celsius" it would be 9.91 °C corresponding to 49.8 °F and if it were "radians Fahrenheit" it would be 9.91 °F corresponding to -12.3 °C. [http://boston.cbslocal.com/2016/02/13/new-england-freezing-temperatures-valentines-day-weekend/ Given the temperatures] in {{w|Massachusetts}} (where Randall lives) when this comic came out, the day after Valentine's Day 2016, Cueball was probably giving his answer in radians Fahrenheit.

=== Cueball's reasoning ===
==== Degrees Celsius ====
;International standard
:Degrees Celsius is derived unit in the SI system of units used to measure temperature in most countries today. Using the SI system would allow Cueball to be easily understood in most countries and is by far the most recognized system, but it is not the most commonly used in the United States, his presumed location in the comic.
;Helps reduce America's weird isolationism
:The United States uses its own set of units, including degrees Fahrenheit, called the {{w|United States customary system}} (similar but not equal to the imperial system), in contrast to most of the rest of the world, which uses the SI system. The US's system of units is therefore considered "weird" as it makes the US different from most of the world, but previous efforts to convert the US to the SI system have failed. Cueball evidently believes that by using SI units, he will help to eventually convert the US to the SI system, bringing considerable trade and tourism benefits and reducing confusion when dealing with foreigners.
;Nice how "negative" means below freezing
:On the Celsius scale, the freezing point of water at standard atmospheric pressure (101.325 kilopascals) is very close to 0 °C, and any temperature below that is below the freezing point. The Fahrenheit scale uses different points of reference (using a water/ammonium chloride chemical reaction for the lower calibration, while the upper calibration is set such that water freezing and water boiling are 180 degrees apart), and as a result the freezing point of water is a less memorable 32 °F.
;Physics major loyalty
:Cueball is apparently a physics major, like Randall, and SI units are more commonly used for scientific work (as the kelvin scale is sometimes used in physics and other sciences), even in the US. By using the Celsius scale in casual conversation, he would show his loyalty to the system used by actual physicists.
;Easier to spell
:"Celsius" is generally considered to be an easier word to spell than the German surname "Fahrenheit" (at least this is the case for Cueball, but not necessarily for those who more commonly use Fahrenheit than Celsius). In this case the word is being spoken and the point is not immediately relevant, but part of the joke is that Cueball is overthinking things and worrying about the general use of the word when an answer is needed in this specific case.
;We lost a Mars probe over this crap
:The {{w|Mars Climate Orbiter|Mars Climate Orbiter}} disintegrated in Mars' atmosphere because Lockheed used US customary units instead of the contractually specified metric units. This had nothing to do with temperature scales, but was the use of the unit pound-seconds where newton-seconds should have been used. This was a great and tragic loss for science in general, Mars exploration in particular, and thus also for Randall who has shown deep interest in any kind of space exploration, especially regarding Mars (mentioning many Mars probes in his comics so far).

====Degrees Fahrenheit====
;0 °F to 100 °F good match for temperature range in which most humans live
:In the context of air temperature, 0 °F and 100 °F correspond to "just about as cold as it gets" and "just about as hot as it gets" in temperate zones, thereby making Fahrenheit a useful temperature scale for weather reporting where most people live. By contrast, in Celsius a range of common temperatures in temperate zones is -20 °C to 40 °C, which is a less intuitive range for those used to the Fahrenheit scale.
;Rounds more usefully (70's, 90's)
:An argument sometimes heard for the continued use of Fahrenheit temperatures is that each 10 degrees change is meaningful in how we feel the temperature. Thus, it is convenient to talk about the temperature being in the 70's today, or in the 90's, etc. Since the Celsius degrees are almost twice as large, a similar statement about the temperature being in the 20's or 30's is not as useful, unless more precision is added by using phrases like low 20's or high 30's. However, this seems likely to be more a matter of which scale you are used to using than anything inherent in one scale or the other.
;Unit-aware computing makes imperial less annoying
:If you need to constantly convert between imperial and SI measurements in your head, or even between different imperial units (e.g., ounces and pounds), it gets annoying and is a strong argument for everyone using metric measurements all the time. But when it is easy to get the temperature - or any other measurement - reported in whatever units you want just by selecting the units you want your computer to report, then the annoyance is minimized, and the arguments for why we should stop using a familiar scale are weakened. Note that Cueball is looking at his smart-phone to get the current temperature.
:As with many Americans, Randall is treating the {{w|United States customary units|United States customary system}} as identical to the {{w|imperial system}} as previously used in most of the rest of the English speaking world. They have many commonalites, and both systems have temperature measured in degrees Fahrenheit, but also differ in some ways (especially with certain units of volume).
;SI prefixes are less relevant for temperatures
:One of the nice things about SI measurements is how the same basic unit scales by factors of 10 with common prefixes - e.g., kilometer, millimeter, kilogram, milligram, etc. Imperial measurements don't have this feature - you don't talk about long distances as kiloinches or small weights as millipounds. But, we generally don't use multiple units for atmospheric temperature (millidegrees or kilodegrees), so this argument for using SI measurements for length, mass, volume, etc., isn't as applicable for temperature scales.
;Fahrenheit is likely more clear in this context
:The fact that Cueball is having this conflict at all implies that the conversation is taking place in America, presumably between Americans. Given that, and given that the discussion is about the weather, the typical assumption is that temperatures will be given in Fahrenheit, unless specified otherwise. An answer in Fahrenheit is therefore likely to be easily understood, while an answer in Celsius risks being confusing, or even incomprehensible.
;Valuing unit standardization over being helpful possibly makes me a bad friend
:The final thing Cueball considers is to question why he would give an answer that attaches more value to promoting standardization of units when all his friend wants to know is whether it is cold or warm outside. Wouldn't it be more friendly to just answer the question the way his friend will find most convenient? This is probably the reason he ends up not giving any real answer, as giving the answer in Celsius would make him a bad friend. Panicking and giving the answer in radians makes him a weird friend, which might or might not be preferable to being a bad friend.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball is looking at his smartphone while a friend calls to him from off-panel. Cueball is thinking as indicated with a thought bubble.]
:Off-screen voice: Hey, what's the temperature outside?
:Cueball (thinking): Should I give it in °F or °C?

:[Zoom in on Cueballs head with a list of reason to use Celsius above him:]
:'''Degrees Celsius'''
:* International standard
:* Helps reduce America's weird isolationism
:* Nice how "negative" means below freezing
:* Physics major loyalty
:* Easier to spell
:* We lost a Mars probe over this crap

:[Same view of Cueballs head, but wider frame to accommodate a broader a list of reason to use Fahrenheit:]
:'''Degrees Fahrenheit'''
:* 0°F to 100°F good match for temperature range in which most humans live
:* Rounds more usefully (70's, 90's)
:* Unit-aware computing makes imperial less annoying
:* SI prefixes are less relevant for temperatures
:* Fahrenheit is likely more clear in this context
:* Valuing unit standardization over being helpful possibly makes me a bad friend

:[Cueball is holding his smartphone down while thinking as indicated with another thought bubble floating at the top. He then speaks and gets a reply from his off-panel friend.]
:Cueball (thinking): Crap, gotta pick something. Uhh...
:Cueball: ...0.173 radians.
:Off-screen voice: I'll just go check myself

==Trivia==
* At -0.698 radians (-40 degrees) it would not have mattered whether it was radians Celsius or radians Fahrenheit as the two scales are equal at this point: -40 °F is the same temperature as -40 °C.

* The Fahrenheit/Celsius debate was later referenced in [[1923: Felsius]].

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Space probes]]
[[Category:Social interactions]]
[[Category:Weather]]

Talk:2678: Wing Lift

2022-10-01T09:48:23Z

172.70.90.245:

Any chance this is related to the equal-transit-time fallacy? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.146.57|162.158.146.57]] 16:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
:For more information have a look at my paper here-https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.00690 [[User:AerospaceDoctor|AerospaceDoctor]] ([[User talk:AerospaceDoctor|talk]]) 02:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

"The plane of the wing" - looks like Randall messed up on the title text [[User:InfoManiac|InfoManiac]] ([[User talk:InfoManiac|talk]]) 05:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
:Or maybe not: It's the plane of the wing of the plane! [[Special:Contributions/172.68.51.160|172.68.51.160]] 07:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
: Yeah, I also don't think that this is a mistake. The word "plane" is not used as the device that can fly but as the description for the (bottom) surface of the wing. One word for two totally unrelated things. I removed the trivia-part. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plane_(geometry) vs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airplane [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 09:23, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
::"Unrelated"? How so? The wing is an aeroplane, as you describe; the vehicle fitted with said aeroplanes is now referred to by the same name. They now mean different things, but, in as much as the one created the other and they are superficially identical, there doesn't seem to be much of a case for their being "totally unrelated". [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.245|172.70.90.245]] 09:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
If you want to know how a wing really produces lift, it's complicated, and the best reference on the net for that is [http://www.av8n.com/how/ See How It Flies]. [[User:B jonas|B jonas]] ([[User talk:B jonas|talk]]) 09:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
:There's also a [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/no-one-can-explain-why-planes-stay-in-the-air/ Scientific American] article from a couple of years ago that says there's no scientific concensus. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 13:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
:It's quite simple really - without wings, people wouldn't believe the plane would fly - the wings create faith, and faith lifts the plane.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.125|162.158.159.125]] 15:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
:It's even simpler than that. As the air goes over the curved top of the wing, it has farther to travel; this creates a pressure differential between that mass of air and the air beneath the wing. This low pressure draws the wing up, like pulling liquid up a straw. So in other words, airplanes fly because the wings suck. [[User:RAGBRAIvet|RAGBRAIvet]] ([[User talk:RAGBRAIvet|talk]]) 21:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
::You seem to be describing the "equal transit time fallacy". Air going over the top of a wing doesn't necessarily have to travel further (that depends on the shape of the airfoil), and even if it does that doesn't in itself imply anything about the pressure. [[User:Zmatt|Zmatt]] ([[User talk:Zmatt|talk]]) 20:11, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
::Lift is not complicate if you look at Prandtl’s original work, and Doug Mclean has done a good job editing the actual Wikipedia article. If you consider the entire atmosphere the asymmetric flow around an asymmetric body in a fluid results in an asymmetric pressure distribution, which is equal and opposite the pressure on the ground. That is, a wing produces a pressure difference that is transmitted in steady state to the earths surface which ultimately supports the aircraft as a reaction force. The asymmetry in the flow is the result of fluid mechanics and can be determined from Navier Stokes, which is Newtons laws of motion applied to a fluid, with viscosity. People get lost because they want to invoke momentum transfer, which is not needed in the global view. To see where the momentum transfer is occurring, you can only utilise think slices of the atmosphere as the control volume, hence the reason it is confusing. This is compounded by people seeing trailing vortices and stating that those must be the mechanism for the momentum transfer, and they are not. This was all established over 100 years ago. That Scientific American article is click bate, and I immediately asked the editor if I could write a response to it, and I got no reply. [[User:AerospaceDoctor|AerospaceDoctor]] ([[User talk:AerospaceDoctor|talk]]) 02:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Could the spooky skulls be an inderect reference to quantum spooky action? Not sure how that would apply to lift, though.
:I assumed this was in reference to recurrent discussions of the use of 'golf ball' dimpling in anything related to aerodynamics. AFAIK this is entirely theoretical/experimental as far as use in aircraft wings, but I imagine it's something that crops up a lot in semi-informed lay conversations on the subject. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.26|172.70.86.26]] 15:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

This, following "Aviate, Navigate, Communicate", suggests to me that Randall is in the middle of a private pilot training course and reflecting on its lessons. BTDT. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.38.237|172.70.38.237]] 14:32, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

it says 3 main reasons and then lists 2?? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.68.20|172.69.68.20]] 15:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Bumpf
: If you mean 1) Bernoulli, 2) the angle, and 3) Coanda... that's definitely three. If you don't, then I'm not so sure what you're referring to. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.187|172.71.178.187]] 21:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Can anyone help fix my reference. It said citation needed, so I went to the first great source, which is Prandtl. However, even though I followed the wikipedia way for making a reference, it has not produced a helpful link at the bottom. [[User:AerospaceDoctor|AerospaceDoctor]] ([[User talk:AerospaceDoctor|talk]]) 02:46, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
:I can see why this was confusing. On this site, there's an inside joke surrounding the citation needed tag, based on an older comic and on the way it's used in the What If section of xkcd. It basically means the opposite of what it means on wikipedia, and is sometimes inserted as a joke behind obvious statements or common knowledge. Your edit was fine, don't worry. No actual citation needed. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.102.49|172.71.102.49]] 07:26, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
::He was refering to the citation that ended up below this discussion page on the main page. In stead of in a ref section:
Tietjens, Oskar Karl Gustav; Prandtl, Ludwig (1957). Fundamentals of Hydro- and Aeromechanics. Courier Corporation. ISBN 978-0-486-60374-2
::We usually do no make this kind of references, but just links to them. Also therefore I do not know how to make the ref section, and would also prefer it was just a link to something usefull. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 13:01, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

2678: Wing Lift

2022-09-29T23:10:57Z

172.70.90.245: /* Explanation */ Yeah, re-reassesed, and ascribing properly to the non-comic source of the suggestion.

{{comic
| number = 2678
| date = September 28, 2022
| title = Wing Lift
| image = wing_lift_2x.png
| imagesize = 679x358px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Once the air from the top passes below the plane of the wing and catches sight of the spooky skulls, it panics, which is the cause of turbulent vortices.
}}

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

Wings can produce {{w|Lift (force)|lift}}.{{Citation needed}}

Randall previously dealt with explanations of wing lift in [[803: Airfoil]].

There are three actual reasons why airplane wings produce lift:
* {{w|Bernoulli's principle}} (which is the most frequently cited)
* The airplane wing is angled up at the front so that air hits the bottom and is pushed downwards.
* {{w|Coandă effect}} (The top is curved, so air going over the wing must curve downwards in order to avoid creating a vacuum above the back of the wing, and by Newton's third law, this results in an upwards force on the wing.)
The comic references all three of these reasons. Airflow splitting references Bernoulli's principle, while the air at the bottom being scared and fleeing downwards is similar to the actual effect, which is caused by air hitting the angled bottom of the wing. The air going over the top curving down references the Coandă effect, claiming that this effect is instead caused by the top-flow of air itself noticing the bottom side of the wing going down to investigate why the bottom-flow had fled. The mention of Newton's third law is indeed correct, even if the movement of the air is for the wrong reasons. In the title text, it additionally suggests that the top-flow henceforth glimpses the printed skulls, causing it to also chaotically flee, generating a wing's classic turbulant wake.

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

[Caption at the top of the panel:] How a wing produces lift

[A diagram of the cross-section of a plane wing. It is large and rounded on the left end and flat on the bottom while the top curves down to meet it at a sharp point. There are many small arrows indicating the flow of wind, as well as captions.]

[The arrows come from the left of the panel, point towards the wing, and then half begin to go over and half begin to go under. A caption in the middle of this flow reads:] Airflow splits around the top and bottom of the wing

[A circle underneath the diagram is connected to an arrow which points to the underside of the wing. A repeating pattern of small black (simplified) skulls fills the circle and arrow. The caption to the right of this is:] Spooky skulls microprinted on the bottom of the wing frighten the air, which flees away downward

[The arrows begin to curve downwards after this caption, and are joined by the top arrows which have also begun to curve downward. In these arrows is a caption:] Top air goes to see what's wrong

[Both streams of arrows have joined and are pointing to the bottom right of the panel. In front of them is a caption:] By Newton's third law, downward deflection of air pushes wing upward

{{comic discussion}}

[[category:Engineering]]
[[category:Physics]]
[[category:Aviation]]

2218: Wardrobe

2022-09-27T10:32:31Z

172.70.90.245: /* Explanation */ Apparently the prior edit was at a time when it looked more 'solved' than it is now. And I could be far less neutral about this new information. "Ignominity" might be an applicable word, albeit not even relevent to the stated problems.

{{comic
| number = 2218
| date = October 21, 2019
| title = Wardrobe
| image = wardrobe.png
| titletext = If you'd just agree to hold your meetings in here, you'd have PLENTY of time to figure things out before the deadline.
}}

==Explanation==
[[Megan]] leaves [[Cueball]] outside while she goes into a wardrobe to consult with {{w|Mr. Tumnus|Tumnus}} on the pressing question if Narnia is part of the EU. It turns out they have joined (some time after the UK joined), which makes Megan complain about another border to deal with. And Cueball waiting outside goes looking for a lock for the wardrobe door.

This comic references ''{{w|The Chronicles of Narnia}}'', a series of children's fantasy books by {{w|C.S. Lewis}} (some of which were later {{w|The Chronicles of Narnia (film series)|made into movies}}, plays, and TV and radio shows) about a group of children from England who travel to a magical land called Narnia. In the first book of the series (by publication date), ''{{w|The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe}}'', Narnia is accessible through a wardrobe in a residence in the English countryside. Mr. Tumnus is a {{w|faun}} in Narnia and the first character that the first human visitor, {{w|Lucy Pevensie}}, meets on her first trip through the wardrobe portal. Referencing Narnia is a [[:Category:Chronicles of Narnia|recurring theme]] in xkcd. Tumnus was depicted in the first comic to reference Narnia: [[665: Prudence]].

The comic also makes reference to membership in the {{w|European Union}}. The {{w|United Kingdom}} (UK) is a member of the EU at the time of this comic, but narrowly voted via {{w|2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum|public referendum in 2016 to exit the EU}} (a process commonly referred to as {{w|Brexit}}, portamanteau for Britain/British and exit), but working out the details of this separation has proven more complicated than the simple in/out vote implied.

Narnia applying to join the EU shortly after the UK, as referred to in the title text, would theoretically be possible, even if only ''The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe'' was considered, since the UK joined the EU in 1973, whereas the wardrobe entrance to Narnia was discovered during World War 2, therefore in the period between 1939 and 1945. However, they would most likely be rejected due to not technically existing in Europe and having a monarchy government (EU membership requires a stable democracy).

One of the major issues with Brexit remains the border between {{w|Northern Ireland}} and the {{w|Republic of Ireland}}. The two countries share the island of {{w|Ireland}}, but Northern Ireland is part of the UK while the Republic is an independent country which remains part of the EU. With the UK exited from the EU, it would have different customs regulations than the Republic of Ireland, and there would need to be some kind of customs border. The most obvious solution would be to establish a controlled land border between the two countries, but this would raise some serious difficulties and dangers.

Northern Ireland has had a long history of civil unrest and ethno-nationalist conflict. The most recent period of conflict, commonly referred to as {{w|The Troubles}}, resulted in over 3000 deaths between 1969 and 1998. In 1998, the UK and Ireland entered into a treaty, known as the {{w|Good Friday Agreement}} (overwhelmingly approved by referendums in both parts of Ireland). This treaty was intended to resolve many of the issues that drove the conflict, and has largely been successful in putting a stop to the violence. One of the agreements in the treaty was a totally open border between the two parts of Ireland. As both were in the EU, this was easily done, because they already shared a customs union. Over the following two decades, the ease of transit created major trade links between the two areas, and many people lived in one country and worked in the other. In the UK Brexit referendum, a majority of Northern Ireland voters voted to remain in the EU. Placing a hard border between the two countries would create major economic disruptions, and serious hardships for people living near the border. It would also undermine the intent of the Good Friday Agreement, which could lead to a the rekindling of hostilities and the return of terrorist attacks, instead of all sides pursuing purely political means to uphold their aims of finally joining with the rest of Ireland or continuing to stay British. The Irish government raised this issue from the time Brexit was first proposed, but their warnings were not fully heeded.

The alternative to this border would be to maintain open borders between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, but institute customs checks between the island of Ireland and the United Kingdom. In October 2019, Boris Johnson, British Prime Minister, negotiated a Brexit deal with the EU that included this arrangement, but from {{w|United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020|late 2020 onwards}} instituted seemingly contrary rules that have not yet (as of the end of his premiership, in 2022) been resolved.

While the Northern Ireland/Republic of Ireland border issue has received the most attention, the UK has land borders with two other EU countries. The UK territory of Gibraltar shares a border with Spain. There are also two Sovereign Bases Areas that share a border with the Republic of Cyprus.

The portal in the wardrobe represents ''another'' border of the UK, namely the border between England and Narnia. This 'border', of course, exists only in fiction, but the joke here is that it must be dealt with in the Brexit negotiations, further complicating an already messy situation.{{Citation needed}} A further source of implicit humor is the juxtaposition of a fantasy children's tale about the magical land of Narnia with the highly contentious, political, adult world of Brexit.

Cueball suggests solving the situation by simply locking the wardrobe (which was never very accessible, even in ''The Chronicles of Narnia''), effectively isolating the UK from Narnia and making the border problem moot. This wouldn't work even in the fictional world of the books, as new ways to enter Narnia pop up in every book, although most of them are accessible only to the kids from the first book and their friends.

The title text references the amount of time it has taken to complete the Brexit negotiations, currently three-plus years and counting. The negotiators have set a series of deadlines to complete the negotiations, but have repeatedly had to extend those deadlines because they haven't reached any agreement. The comic was posted roughly one week before the then-current Brexit deadline of Oct. 31, 2019. However [https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/19/eu-says-britain-has-requested-an-extension-of-brexit-deadline-after-uk-lawmakers-delay-vote.html it was already expected that that deadline too would probably be extended]. In ''The Chronicles of Narnia'', time moves inconsistently in Narnia compared to Earth, usually passing more rapidly in Narnia than on Earth. Lucy Pevensie and her siblings enter the wardrobe as children, have extensive adventures in Narnia lasting many years, and then return to Earth to find that they are children again and that only a few minutes have passed. The suggestion here is that holding the slow, complex Brexit negotiations in Narnia would take relatively little time on Earth, and the whole affair could be completed in time for the deadline.

A punchline similar to the title text, where the slower passing of time was used to take on time-intensive real world problems, was also used for one of the comics in [[821: Five-Minute Comics: Part 3]]. The time difference was also mentioned in the title text of [[1786: Trash]].

==Transcript==
:[Megan is entering into an open wardrobe, while Cueball stands outside.]
:Megan: I'll go ask.
:Megan: You wait here.

:[Cueball stands outside the now-closed wardrobe.]

:[In a frame-less panel Cueball keeps standing outside the closed wardrobe with voices heard from inside the wardrobe. The characters talking are inferred from the context.]
:Mr. Tumnus (from inside wardrobe): Halt! Who goes there?
:Megan (from inside wardrobe): Hey Tumnus. Quick question.
:Mr. Tumnus (from inside wardrobe): Yes?

:[Cueball is walking away from the closed wardrobe. Voices can still be heard from inside the wardrobe.]
:Megan (from inside wardrobe): Is Narnia in the E.U.?
:Mr. Tumnus (from inside wardrobe): Yes, we joined after you did.
:Megan (from inside wardrobe): Oh great, ''another'' border to deal with.
:Cueball: I'll go find a lock for the door.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Chronicles of Narnia]]
[[Category:Politics]]

Talk:2677: Two Key System

2022-09-26T22:00:57Z

172.70.90.245:

Ah, for many long moments, I thought the "dual-key-turner" was a "dual-key-''cutter''" (but that it was a silly implemention, anti-parallel coaxial positioning of key blanks needs a complicated (pantograph?) cutting-heads system, more so than with parallel and adjacent blanks of ''any'' number). But now I'm on the right track and I laugh at the ''correct'' joke, and can think of any number of developments in safe (as in not 'forgotten') and secure (as in not misappropriated) password use that went into and out of the various "convenience for user"/"security for systems" modes, often mutually exclusive to the other mode. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.61|172.70.90.61]] 15:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I've long been annoyed that I can't use password auto-fill on Chrome's online password manager webpage. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 16:36, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Do you remember how banks were all "two-factor authentication" when we used to access them from computer and made us use the phone for confirmation? And how they don't seem to mind now when the bank can be completely controlled just from the (smart)phone? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 20:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Although I think this extends well beyond 'merely' "passwords" (in all their forms and combinations, from PINs to fingerprints!) I've taken the general feeling so far seen here in Talk and bulked up the explanation with the allegorical connections that ''might'' be the source of inspiration for the comic. And if you gave me the time to do it, I'd put an awful lot more (strange, really, I was often tired of rewriting SOPs to reflect the latest best-practices in 2FA/3FA when that was actually a big part of my job! "What you know/What you have/What you are"...) and without skipping over huge chunks. But (even if some bits get cut back down again) I think I've added value and maybe some narrative flow to the initial explanation, which was ok but perhaps not even how I would have arranged it (having then tried to preserve that skeleton arrangement of ideas). Darnit, I now sound full of myself. That's just me winding down from a big hot-edit that maybe even was too big, and anxiously awaiting someone else doing an even better total-rewrite/summary, regardless of what I just splurged there... ;) ((But, to clarify, the comic never mentions passwords. Highly likely it is (keys!) but it could be more wider ranging development issues. I'm sure I'll understand the moment someone clues me in on some other scope that this might actually reference.)) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.245|172.70.90.245]] 22:00, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Talk:1368: One Of The

2022-09-20T20:27:35Z

172.70.90.245:

There's a set of golden arches at Jefferson and Russell, Arguably more identifiable. {{unsigned ip|173.245.54.36}}

:If you are talking about the McDonald's arches, then well played, sir, well played. Definitely more identifiable. --[[User:Dangerkeith3000|Dangerkeith3000]] ([[User talk:Dangerkeith3000|talk]]) 14:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

::On the other hand, any ''specific set'' of McDonald's arches isn't very identifiable. One tends to look like any other. --[[User:Aaron of Mpls|Aaron of Mpls]] ([[User talk:Aaron of Mpls|talk]]) 11:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

:::Posting eight years later (is it a necro post if you aren't pinged? And who checks the recent changes page?) but I'd say the light blue McDonalds arches do not look like any other McDonalds arches. I'd link it, but I don't know how to link URLs, unless this is markdown and [this](https://www.businessinsider.com/mcdonalds-arches-bright-blue-2017-12) works. [[User:Tsumikiminiwa|Tsumikiminiwa]] ([[User talk:Tsumikiminiwa|talk]]) 16:34, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

"''Reporters on television and in other media try to only make statements they can verify in fact''"
Seriously??? Maybe once, but not now. The point of this cartoon is largely that reporters are hedging their bets on what's a fact.
When you have prominent reporters like Chuck Todd (one of the most prominent reporters on TV) saying [http://www.fair.org/blog/2013/09/18/inform-the-public-not-my-job-says-chuck-todd/|it's "not his job" to report factual information] but merely to repeat what politicians have said, or everyone on Fox "News" basically ignoring facts in favor of ideology, claiming reporters try to speak only facts is not supported by demonstrable facts.
[[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.84|199.27.128.84]] 16:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

: Or maybe it's because of the liability reporters face for reporting even errors made by the police. [http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/05/12/mistaken-identity-tv-show/8989189/ | Keith Todd or Todd Keith]. [[User:Pallas|Pallas]] ([[User talk:Pallas|talk]]) 19:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

:: "''In the complaint, Todd alleges that Eastpointe Police "incorrectly researched" databases and sent the wrong photo, name and information to the network.''" Sounds like the blame is really with the police, not the network. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.84|199.27.128.84]] 16:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

::: [http://birmingham.patch.com/groups/around-town/p/msnbcs-caught-on-camera-reality-show-snafu-creates-unreal-problems-for-michigan-man In a lawsuit filed last week in Wayne County Circuit Court, Todd said a snafu incorrectly naming him as the suspect in the “Caught on Camera” program has caused him humiliation, loss of employment and other misery. He’s asking NBC Universal, the Eastpointe Police Department and A One Limousine, to pay an unspecified amount of damages.] [[User:Pallas|Pallas]] ([[User talk:Pallas|talk]]) 20:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

: That's generalising. How about: "Seriously??? Maybe once, but not now. The point of this cartoon is largely that US reporters are hedging their bets on what's a fact. When you have prominent US reporters like Chuck Todd (one of the most prominent reporters on US TV) saying [http://www.fair.org/blog/2013/09/18/inform-the-public-not-my-job-says-chuck-todd/|it's "not his job" to report factual information] but merely to repeat what US politicians have said, or everyone on US branch of Fox "News" basically ignoring facts in favor of ideology, claiming US reporters try to speak only facts is not supported by demonstrable facts.{{unsigned ip|108.162.250.211}}

:: Right. Because it's only in the US that reporters fail to do their jobs well. Why, just look at the UK and Australia, for example. Nope, no reporters covering their asses there. Oh, wait. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.84|199.27.128.84]] 16:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I know it's not really part of the joke, but should the explanation say who the reporter is talking about? Who designed the Gateway arch? I'm curious now.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.7|108.162.219.7]] 02:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

:The Gateway Arch was designed by Finnish-American architect Eero Saarinen and German-American structural engineer Hannskarl Bandel in 1947. As stated on the {{w|Gateway Arch|wikipedia page already linked from explanation}}. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 09:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Note that the UK celebrates {{w|Mothering Sunday}} on the fourth Sunday in Lent as if it was Mother's Day. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.217|141.101.89.217]] 10:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The explanation text misses the fact that stating "one of the world's greatest moms" is hardly perceived as an actual compliment by the recipient. [[User:Ralfoide|Ralfoide]] ([[User talk:Ralfoide|talk]]) 14:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
:Done - also added an explain and a wiki link to pet peeve - something not explained so far. [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 18:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

: I don't think Randall misunderstands the practice - he's just pretending that to make a joke. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 10:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
::That is for sure true. I did not write it like that and have now corrected it acordingly [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 11:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
:::Interesting. Do you really think "Randall does not misunderstand anything" (from the history-edit explanation) and so any inaccuracy must be understood as a deliberate part of the joke? Even if the inaccuracy is about a matter outside of his field of expertise and is unnecessary to the joke? Maybe you're right in this case, but I doubt Randall himself would claim to be infallible. [[User:Cs7|Cs7]] ([[User talk:Cs7|talk]]) 20:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

::My mom wasn't insulted by a card that said "One of the two greatest Moms in the world*" (and, below, "* Sorry, Mom, but I don't want to get killed in my sleep"). She found it funny, and so did my wife, and the fact that you can buy this card in shops implies they aren't the only mothers in the world that can take a joke. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.52|162.158.255.52]] 11:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

No so much a real discussion item, but this is "One of the most useful Explain XKCDs out there"... {{unsigned ip|199.27.128.121}}

The arch is so large that there are rotating pill-elevators inside the rising legs and a large observation lounge at the top. You can look down at the busy barge traffic on the Mississippi far below. {{unsigned ip|108.162.245.117}}

The title text bothers me here...the comic says: '''"The world's greatest [whatever]' is subjective, but 'One of the world's greatest [whatever]s' is clearly objective."''' - but is that really true?

If I say '''"Mount Everest is the world's tallest mountain"''' - then this is a fact that can be looked up and examined and is clearly either true or false. It happens to be true. So it's clearly an objective fact. But if I say: '''"Mount Annapurna is one of the world's tallest mountains"''' then that's a completely subjective statement because Annapurna is only the 10th tallest mountain and whether it's to be considered "one of the tallest" depends entirely on whether you cut off the list of "the tallest mountains" at 9th place or 11th place - which is surely a subjective decision.

It's a tougher call for concepts like "greatest Mom" because "greatest" is a fuzzy term in the case of Mom's - is she "greatest" because she did a better job of teaching you right from wrong - or is she greatest because she bought you more Lego's? In that case, both "greatest" and "one of the greatest" are subjective because there is no universally agreed standard by which we measure greatness in mothers. The reason "world's greatest Mom" mugs work is because they express the sentiment that "My personal definition of the term ''greatest'' is what you are to me." - which is more profound than some unrealistic statement about whether there are or are not better mothers. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 16:18, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

:Everest being the tallest mountain on earth is actually (slightly) controversial: The peak of the {{w|Chimborazo|Chimborazo}} is further from earth's center. {{w|Mauna Kea|Mauna Kea}} is taller when measured from base to peak. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.34|172.68.110.34]] 06:42, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

In this Onion article: https://www.theonion.com/most-notorious-criminals-in-u-s-history-1831099154 it states that John Wilkes Booth was one of the most famous Americans to ever kill Abraham Lincoln.--[[Special:Contributions/172.68.58.59|172.68.58.59]] 09:01, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

This one has always struck me as unfair. Maybe they simply ''don't know'' whether it's the most recognizable arch in St. Louis. So what else are they supposed to say that wouldn't be dishonest (claiming to know something they don't) and possibly inaccurate? Besides, even if they ''did'' know whether it's the most recognizable arch — what if it's not? In that case, in order to avoid saying "one of the", they now have to determine its exact ranking, which would probably be even harder. [[User:NoriMori|NoriMori]] ([[User talk:NoriMori|talk]]) 19:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)