explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:3047: Rotary Tool

2025-02-05T18:14:19Z

172.71.148.59:

How come it's at 0.017 RPM for a minute?? and yet 1 RPM for a second? pls fix this randall [[User:Midnightvortigaunt|Midnightvortigaunt]] ([[User talk:Midnightvortigaunt|talk]]) 18:01, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Its 0.017 RPM for the minute hand. The minute hand revolves once per hour or at 1/60 RPM ≈ 0,017 RPM --[[Special:Contributions/172.71.148.59|172.71.148.59]] 18:14, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

How come the comment above is invisible to me? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.245.229|172.68.245.229]] 18:03, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

72 RPM for a record player...? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.25|162.158.74.25]] 18:08, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Talk:3039: Human Altitude

2025-01-20T22:19:30Z

172.71.148.59:

I splurged a few paragraphs to try to deal with each detail (and a few things not ''directly'' obvious, but related). However, it's a mess and here (UK) it's basically past my bedtime and I have an early(ish) start tomorrow so... I know that if I had spent another half hour on it, it would have been tighter (less florid?), and would be linking to Yuri Gagarin, Montgolfier, Hubble, man-capable chinese kites, the likes of George Cayley, etc. And I never actually ''mentioned'' the Title Text, though the last paragraph I put is sort of relevent so might just need an "In the title text, it says ..., and, as it happens, ...". I shall leave it up to the editing-gods as to whether my sacrifice is acceptable or entirely in vain... Such is life! And so, goodnight. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.205.119|172.68.205.119]] 01:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:I linked up a couple Wikipedia articles with [[Template:w]] and wish I could add all of those things, but alas: today’s the last day of the semester on a 3 day weekend here in the States and I’ve been sick all week. I’m going to be going now to work on my missing assignments and hopefully finish them, really wish that we can finish up the explanation as quick as we usually do! '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 01:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
It seems strange how jagged this is and how low the lows are. Since roughly 1930 (certainly since 1940 at the very latest) someone, somewhere in the world has been flying in an airplane, at a minimum of probably 4.5km for the lowest person. And since like 1955 there's always at least someone over like 7km roughly, and since the jet age like 10km+. This isn't the kind of carelessness that xkcd is known for, unless I'm missing something.[[User:Kchinger|Kchinger]] ([[User talk:Kchinger|talk]]) 03:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)kchinger
:The Apollo part of the graph implies an at least weekly, probably daily or finer resolution. Aviation unlikely reached 4.5 km above surface on a daily basis until transpacific high altitude airliners became a regularity well after WW2. Planes of the 1930s could achieve greater heights, but usually only attempted when moutains forced them to (so it was not height above ground) and high altitude Zeppelin bombers of WW1 did not fly on a daily basis, sometimes leaving week long gaps between campaigns. However, the pre-airplane lows are still wrong: Pole vaulting has been documented since ancient egypts for crossing of crevices, bodies of water, etc. giving a guaranteed minimum of 2-3 meters. Cliff jumping in the 10s of meters range is also likely to have occured daily somewhere on the globe long before the 20th century and I would not be surprised if some tyrannt created a phase of more than 100 m daily by intensive cliff throwing. (As with the ancient chineses kite observation flights, it might be interesting to extend this graph well into the past, at least up to Spartan postnatal parenthood planning.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.250.194|172.70.250.194]] 16:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::''Aviation unlikely reached 4.5 km above surface on a daily basis until transpacific high altitude airliners became a regularity well after WW2. Planes of the 1930s could achieve greater heights, but usually only attempted when moutains forced them to...'' The limit is the humans. Past 10k or 15k feet (~4.5km) they go loopy then pass out. Pressurized cabins are costly. Wiley Post flew past 17,000 ft (to 50kft!) in 1934 with a pot on his head, after two other suits split their seams. War forces high flight: the B-17 crews had oxygen bottles and electric heat suits; they did fly about every day but thin air was the least of their problems. B-25 was pressurized but not nice inside. The Constellation (the world's finest tri-motor) was one of the first shirtsleeve cabins, to 24,000 ft (7,300m), but was a very premium ride. The DC-2, DC-3, and DC-4 were unpressurized (a few test DC-4s tried it). Piston engine output tends to zero by 55k ft, even with supercharger. The real move to high altitude comes with turbojets (Comet is credited with first pressurized production passenger plane), Boeing 707, Caravelle, DC8, etc which often work better far above 20k feet. --[[User:PRR|PRR]] ([[User talk:PRR|talk]]) 20:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:::While pesky waterbags limit the altitude of passenger aircraft, military, scientific and perhaps even postal/fright aviation went past 4.5 km without pressurized cabins. As mentioned, London was bombed at the end of WW1 from Zeppelins with regular service ceilings well above 6 km, the record was set at 7.3 km. And these did not even carry oxygen for the full flight time, as did record attempts. Take a link to the first flights above Everest in the early 30s: https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/first-flight-expedition-everest-1933/ However, this is all record/rare stuff for top peaks. With overlapping nights in Europa and America, the global low of the 30s was probably limited by some BOAC cruisers flying 500 to 1.000 m above the sea or some valley floor in southeast Asia. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.148.59|172.71.148.59]] 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

For the "Apollo bits", I actually have (fairly) precise data, but the question is whether the spiky bits resemble the reality at all. Here's a version with accurately positioned timestamps, but with the the altitude normalised. Launch is at bottom, time in lunar orbit is at top. To keep the data short I have removed the 'oscillation in orbit" of them all (except for 13, which ''just'' looped around and came straight back out again), and the track of the landers (as never really gets any ''further'' away, averaged over a lunar orbiter orbit) as these things aren't really isn't visible if overviewing the whole program. Blue=orbit-only, Green=orbit-with-landing, Magenta is 13's mission. All sat on a month-start scale (thicker lines are year-starts), for reference.
{{cot|Apollo.SVG}}
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" viewBox="25174 0 1499 500" >
<g id="monthlines" opacity="0.15" stroke="black">
<line x1="25204" y1="0" x2="25204" y2="500" stroke-width="5" id="1/Jan/1969"/>
<line x1="25235" y1="0" x2="25235" y2="500" id="1/Feb/1969"/>
<line x1="25263" y1="0" x2="25263" y2="500" id="1/Mar/1969"/>
<line x1="25294" y1="0" x2="25294" y2="500" id="1/Apr/1969"/>
<line x1="25324" y1="0" x2="25324" y2="500" id="1/May/1969"/>
<line x1="25355" y1="0" x2="25355" y2="500" id="1/Jun/1969"/>
<line x1="25385" y1="0" x2="25385" y2="500" id="1/Jul/1969"/>
<line x1="25416" y1="0" x2="25416" y2="500" id="1/Aug/1969"/>
<line x1="25447" y1="0" x2="25447" y2="500" id="1/Sep/1969"/>
<line x1="25477" y1="0" x2="25477" y2="500" id="1/Oct/1969"/>
<line x1="25508" y1="0" x2="25508" y2="500" id="1/Nov/1969"/>
<line x1="25538" y1="0" x2="25538" y2="500" id="1/Dec/1969"/>
<line x1="25569" y1="0" x2="25569" y2="500" stroke-width="5" id="1/Jan/1970"/>
<line x1="25600" y1="0" x2="25600" y2="500" id="1/Feb/1970"/>
<line x1="25628" y1="0" x2="25628" y2="500" id="1/Mar/1970"/>
<line x1="25659" y1="0" x2="25659" y2="500" id="1/Apr/1970"/>
<line x1="25689" y1="0" x2="25689" y2="500" id="1/May/1970"/>
<line x1="25720" y1="0" x2="25720" y2="500" id="1/Jun/1970"/>
<line x1="25750" y1="0" x2="25750" y2="500" id="1/Jul/1970"/>
<line x1="25781" y1="0" x2="25781" y2="500" id="1/Aug/1970"/>
<line x1="25812" y1="0" x2="25812" y2="500" id="1/Sep/1970"/>
<line x1="25842" y1="0" x2="25842" y2="500" id="1/Oct/1970"/>
<line x1="25873" y1="0" x2="25873" y2="500" id="1/Nov/1970"/>
<line x1="25903" y1="0" x2="25903" y2="500" id="1/Dec/1970"/>
<line x1="25934" y1="0" x2="25934" y2="500" stroke-width="5" id="1/Jan/1971"/>
<line x1="25965" y1="0" x2="25965" y2="500" id="1/Feb/1971"/>
<line x1="25993" y1="0" x2="25993" y2="500" id="1/Mar/1971"/>
<line x1="26024" y1="0" x2="26024" y2="500" id="1/Apr/1971"/>
<line x1="26054" y1="0" x2="26054" y2="500" id="1/May/1971"/>
<line x1="26085" y1="0" x2="26085" y2="500" id="1/Jun/1971"/>
<line x1="26115" y1="0" x2="26115" y2="500" id="1/Jul/1971"/>
<line x1="26146" y1="0" x2="26146" y2="500" id="1/Aug/1971"/>
<line x1="26177" y1="0" x2="26177" y2="500" id="1/Sep/1971"/>
<line x1="26207" y1="0" x2="26207" y2="500" id="1/Oct/1971"/>
<line x1="26238" y1="0" x2="26238" y2="500" id="1/Nov/1971"/>
<line x1="26268" y1="0" x2="26268" y2="500" id="1/Dec/1971"/>
<line x1="26299" y1="0" x2="26299" y2="500" stroke-width="5" id="1/Jan/1972"/>
<line x1="26330" y1="0" x2="26330" y2="500" id="1/Feb/1972"/>
<line x1="26359" y1="0" x2="26359" y2="500" id="1/Mar/1972"/>
<line x1="26390" y1="0" x2="26390" y2="500" id="1/Apr/1972"/>
<line x1="26420" y1="0" x2="26420" y2="500" id="1/May/1972"/>
<line x1="26451" y1="0" x2="26451" y2="500" id="1/Jun/1972"/>
<line x1="26481" y1="0" x2="26481" y2="500" id="1/Jul/1972"/>
<line x1="26512" y1="0" x2="26512" y2="500" id="1/Aug/1972"/>
<line x1="26543" y1="0" x2="26543" y2="500" id="1/Sep/1972"/>
<line x1="26573" y1="0" x2="26573" y2="500" id="1/Oct/1972"/>
<line x1="26604" y1="0" x2="26604" y2="500" id="1/Nov/1972"/>
<line x1="26634" y1="0" x2="26634" y2="500" id="1/Dec/1972"/>
</g>
<g id="missionLines" fill="none">
<path d="M 25193.5354166667,490 L 25196.4162037037,10 25197.2571296296,10 25199.6609027778,490" stroke="blue" id="Apollo 8 "/>
<path d="M 25341.7006944444,490 L 25344.8645138889,10 25347.4344675926,10 25349.7030439815,490" stroke="blue" id="Apollo 10"/>
<path d="M 25400.5638888889,490 L 25403.7234953704,10 25406.2053472222,10 25408.7017939815,490" stroke="green" id="Apollo 11"/>
<path d="M 25521.6819444444,490 L 25525.1579050926,10 25528.8675462963,10 25531.8738888889,490" stroke="green" id="Apollo 12"/>
<path d="M 25669.8006944444,490 L 25673.0145833333,10 25675.7553356481,490" stroke="magenta" id="Apollo 13"/>
<path d="M 25964.8771064815,490 L 25968.2914583333,10 25971.0687962963,10 25973.8784722222,490" stroke="green" id="Apollo 14"/>
<path d="M 26140.5652777778,490 L 26143.837337963 ,10 26149.8907986111,10 26152.8651967593,490" stroke="green" id="Apollo 15"/>
<path d="M 26405.7458333333,490 L 26408.8489236111,10 26414.0941319444,10 26416.822974537 ,490" stroke="green" id="Apollo 16"/>
<path d="M 26640.23125 ,490 L 26643.8291087963,10 26649.9827430556,10 26652.829837963 ,490" stroke="green" id="Apollo 17"/>
</g>
</svg>
{{cob}}
If you want to see it, copy the text into a file, save/rename as a .svg and open it in any modern browser. (There are other ways of opening SVGs, but that's probably the easiest way for most of those who don't have a preference.) ...to make it look more like the comic, I suggest you make the stroke-width for the missionLines group '''''huuuuuuge!!!!''''' ;) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.118|162.158.74.118]] 21:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Some of the text (both in the explanation and the "into snow or water" in the title text) seems to suggest a "who wasn't shortly killed" that isn't stated in the chart. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.246.150|172.69.246.150]] 05:55, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

:"into snow or water" is in the title text which is about surviving... --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 13:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I wonder why the chart does not consider parachutes? They might have been available around the same time as balloons, maybe earlier? [[User:Captain Nemo|Captain Nemo]] ([[User talk:Captain Nemo|talk]]) 12:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:A parachutist can onyl start as high as his ballon, so that would make no difference until paragliding became a sport (way too late). However, most highs are still utterly wrong due to the omission of high altitude balooning from the mid-19th century onwards: It seems that no true airplane has ever beaten older baloon records. AT ALL. In fact, among all the objects capable of aerodynamic flight, only the X-2, the X-15 and the Space Shuttle set new 'maximum manned altidude' records going beyond aerostats of their time. However, all three ascended in balistic, rocketpowered flight, only using the lift of their wings during return. So humanitys pinnacle has always been defined by people thrown of cliffs, people attached to kites, peoples in baloons or people on rockets. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.250.194|172.70.250.194]] 16:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

huh. no joke comic. [[user talk:lett‪herebedarklight|youtu.be/miLcaqq2Zpk]] 15:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuan_Huangtou Yuan Huangtou] is a strong contender for the question in the title text. As a punishment he was sent to the sky on a big kite which was then let go. He came down 2.5 km away and survived. It seems entirely possible that he may have reached altitudes of several hundred meters. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.95.196|162.158.95.196]] 19:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:From my recollection of a book on Chinese kite history, I'd put the max for a person-carrying kite at around a couple hundred meters. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.41.9|162.158.41.9]] 04:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:As a technical argument, I'd mention that what makes a kite a kite is that it is tethered (albeit dynamically, whether to a winch or a firmly ground-based handler, rather than necessarily ''tied to the ground''; this makes the kites in kite-surfing/sailing/skating/etc a bit of an edge condition, but still valid as the canchor' is only ever itself airborne by temporarily depleting the kite's 'lift ability').
:Unless it was at the end of a 2.5km tether, at least part of the time the kite was released became a glider. And the means for keeping a glider up (and then ultimately not descending too fast!) are somewhat different from how you make a kite controllable. Even if you successfully raised a man-kite up and brought them back down several times (getting both the payer-out person ''and'' the payload-person used to how to control the kite-flight), the attitude and augmenting flight-surfaces that the kite used to get/keep/maintain height would probably be entirely wrong (perhaps even counterproductive!) when the release happens and the 'passenger' needs to now suddenly develop the need to "fly a glider" (or, maybe, a suboptimal parasail)
:I would not be surprised if many (reluctant) 'test pilots' failed to work out how not to stall (and other forms of flight-failure) in the time and distance they had before they reached the ground. The later ones ''might'' have a better hash of it ''if'' they were taken to witness their first compatriots' efforts (and those initial 'candidates' were able to shout down what they were feeling/doing, during their final fateful moments, to assist both the builders and future-fliers)... But, in the days before ''any'' actual aviation experience (let alone any form of flight-recorder, for both easier detailing of events and the repeatable playback for their better analysis), quite a bit of luck (or some coincidentally instinctive panic-induced response to falling, perhaps somehow harking back to the most recent common ancestor with a sugarglider/flying-squirrel/etc) will have played a part in whoever it might have been who rode a once-kite-now-glider down.
:Or, possibly, part of the luck was that the released tether was long enough to ''drag'' on the ground (given the options for rope/chord, around that time, and possibly the spool it was unspooled from, before the spool itself was released (by accident/design)), and with a strong enough wind and a consistently 'draggy' free-tether, it maintained a kite-like flight profile for the suggested distance (never being any higher than when ground-tethered, but only ''very gradually'' losing its initial height), such that the CFIT at the end was a 'survivable' (legs first? kite-structure acted as an initial crumple-zone?) landing.
:Of course, it's at least partly a legendary account. Could be somewhat contrived from retellings and embelishments, 'originally' just being (out of many such 'experiments' with 'volunteers') a controlled rise that was then re-winched-in, conflated with what happened when the tether snapped/etc, during a particularly windy day, and where the resulting wreckage was discovered. I think it's ''possible'' it happened (and one might even be able to plan to re-enact it, with modern knowledge of aeronautics and hands-on experience with all the more recent methods and means of flying), but it sounds like it became known ''only'' because it was a memetic (and maybe composite) success, only having to compete with the few "glorious failures", not the many occasions where some basic idea (that ''may'' have eventually led to better ideas) just didn't work ''or'' notably fail. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.195|172.70.160.195]] 14:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

11 paragraphs should be 5-7. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.151.155|172.71.151.155]] 05:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Annotated the image [https://imgur.com/a/nQ3FZdi here]... Green line is "current absolute record" (assuming the truth of the plot), blue line is "highest height that will now always have someone higher" (again, going by the plot), red line is "record by a living individual" (''based'' upon the plot, and several historical truths I could discern, but probably getting to be as much speculative as the original joke-plot-with-a-passing-basis-in-fact). [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.164|172.69.79.164]] 01:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

In 1966 there should be a peak above 1000km, the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemini_11 Gemini 11 flight], September 12-15, 1966, which reached an apogee of 1,374 kilometers. [[User:Rps|Rps]] ([[User talk:Rps|talk]]) 17:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:3036: Chess Zoo

2025-01-11T10:40:29Z

172.71.148.59:

For the transcript, I’m thinking of saying that “there are alternating white and grey squares, with smaller black squares imposed on them. The pattern of squares goes ''[something like GWBWGWBWGBW]''“. Would that work? Or is it too confusing? '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 19:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:Re: "GWBWGWBWGBW", knowing who we are here, I presume people might want to distinguish black-on-white from black-on-gray. We'd probably have to have a full markup system for background (gray/white) and foreground (empty, human, barrier, white pawn, gray pawn...). Maybe something like {[gE][wE][gB][wQg]}... Hrm... Because, of course, it has to be as complicated and precise as possible. :) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.46.135|172.70.46.135]] 19:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::I don’t really like the current transcript because I believe that it’s more confusing to read than my version. Anyone have thoughts? '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 23:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Although I do have a suggestion for the transcript: instead of having “H” as a representation of a human, we can have C for [[Cueball]], H for [[Hairy]], P for [[Ponytail]], W for [[White Hat]], D for [[Danish]], M for [[Megan]], and K for [[Knit Cap]]. We could also have Unicode black squares instead of the “#” and color the pieces with span. Thoughts? '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 00:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it's safe to allow people to go into the bishop enclosure, especially with high aggression in that area since both colors are able to look at each other there but not capture. One of those bishops is eventually going to take it out on someone. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.210|162.158.90.210]] 19:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:I don't know how dangerous they are to visitors in general, but I wouldn't leave children with them unattended. Maybe the enclosures with the knights would be good petting zoos. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 19:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:Thank you for reporting the bishop feeding gate being open, as this was the fifteenth time the one responsible failed to close it after feeding, he has been summarily fired.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.47.106|172.70.47.106]] 20:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
The zoo seems to be missing an area for knights and bishops to interact. (It has a knight/queen area, a knight/rook area, and a rook/bishop area. It can't have queen/rook or queen/bishop areas if it wants to have areas for rooks or bishops that exclude queens, because nothing blocks queens without blocking rooks and bishops. But it could have a knight/bishop mingling area, accessible to knights via wall-jump and to bishops via a diagonal corridor, and it doesn't.) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.187.84|162.158.187.84]] 20:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:Similarly, couldn't the pawn promoting zones be more centrally located each side, and have passages respectively for queens/rooks and for knights? Of course then those could enter and interact with promoting pawns, but why would that be deemed a problem? --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.222.164|172.69.222.164]] 20:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:I believe a knight-knight interaction zone of opposing colors is also possible if correctly designed (such as a 2xn corridor with a particular entrance [[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.52|162.158.154.52]] 03:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't have permissions to upload an image to this wiki, but if anyone who does would like to copy it over, I illustrated each piece's range of movement here[https://pasteboard.co/64VsBMA5af8l.png]. [[User:D5xtgr|D5xtgr]] ([[User talk:D5xtgr|talk]]) 20:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:You can't have same-coloured knights also enter into an opposites-of-bishop shared space, because for all the wish to have shared (overlapping but not congruent) spaces for pieces of the same colour but different limitations, the presence of the anti-bishops would mean contention with the pro-knights.
:The fact tht the pawn-enclosures are totally without any same-set pieces (well, apart from the knight, but that was from a promotion) ''does'' seem to suggest there's a lack of possible mixing going on, I know. But, the way I read it, if heterochromic pieces can be 'mixed', then they can (which effectively is just the two different ecclesiastical compliments), with homochomic ones then also being allowed to mix if they can do so in a way such that they have ''all'' of an "A and B" area, an "A-only" area and a "B-only" area (it's a bit more complicated than that with the kings and queens, as they can traverse all of the same areas as each other, plus the lobe of knight-area which overlaps, but you have "knight+royal", "royal-only" and "knight-only").
:Though I ''can'' think of one such sharing-situation I would mark down as missed: i.e. a pawn sharing a space with bishops and/or knights with a bishop-/knight-proof corridor 'directly forward' (and, of course, no sideways movement allowed by the pawn), giving the pawn both its unique space and shared space and only-the-other-piece spaces off to the sides. Though, the whole promotion prospects means that just about anything could 'suddenly' be in the pawn-only space, thus sending potential knights/bishops into that 'by proxy'.
:...or maybe I've not extrapolated Randall's precise methodology here, but I believe I've accounted the general limitations he seems to have worked to. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.33.215|162.158.33.215]] 00:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

The plan of the zoo looks like opposing Lewis Chess Men! [[User:Nicholasbailey87|Nicholasbailey87]] ([[User talk:Nicholasbailey87|talk]]) 23:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

the transcript needs to be descriptive rather than a text-based diagram so it's screenreader accessible. if someone thinks it's necessary they can move the ascii art to the description. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.71.101|172.68.71.101]] 23:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
A knight recently escaped. When asked for comment, the director of the zoo said "!?" [[Special:Contributions/172.68.70.134|172.68.70.134]] 01:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

This is actually a sokoban chess puzzle, where the pieces can push the blocks. White to move and mate in 47.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.214.205|172.70.214.205]] 02:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)NickM

In the UK there is a famous zoo called "Chester Zoo", comic readers from the UK will think there is a pun.--[[User:Doctormo|Doctormo]] ([[User talk:Doctormo|talk]]) 03:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

In Russian, chess knights and bishops are literally called horses and elephants. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.148.59|172.71.148.59]] 10:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)