explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

642: Creepy

2024-01-21T04:31:10Z

172.71.155.22: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 642
| date = September 28, 2009
| title = Creepy
| image = creepy.png
| titletext = And I even got out my adorable new netbook!
}}

==Explanation==
This comic displays [[Cueball]]'s fears that his attempts to strike up a conversation with [[Megan]] will only result in her rejecting him and even humiliating him in front of others for attempting to get to know her - he might even risk getting his picture on {{w|Facebook}} with a warning that he is a creep to be avoided. This is because he worries that others might interpret his behavior as {{w|sexual harassment}}, the exaggerated flip-side of his attempted courtship. It turns out in the fifth and last panel that the first four panels was just one large thought bubble on how Cueball fantasized an attempt to contact Megan would turn out.

Ironically, however, Megan is actually attracted to Cueball and is dismayed that he has not spoken to her. Therefore, Cueball's fears are unfounded and are even preventing the two from meeting and possibly forming a relationship. Megan could of course also have spoken to Cueball herself, but she expects him to make a move if he is interested. Thus she also prevents herself from making contact because of her own expectations and fears of rejection.

The title text is the continuation of Megan's apparent journal entry and further emphasizes the irony of the situation: in the attempt to be alluring to Cueball, Megan took out her "adorable new {{w|netbook}}," the very thing Cueball stopped himself from complimenting in the first place.

This comic comments on the unsettling effects of social change, particularly with respect to the advent of {{w|social media}} and to modern sensitivity toward a woman's (or any person's) right to be left alone in public. It points out that attempting to start a conversation with a stranger has become risky, and we have yet to evolve new customs and conventions [http://store.xkcd.com/products/just-shy to signal openness] to such an approach. The risk is aggravated by social media, by which means an innocent misjudgment may subject one to public humiliation - or even worse someone might expect that you had intention of performing some {{w|Sex and the law|sexual crime}} - if that type of info is published with a picture and/or your name on Facebook or {{w|Twitter}} etc. your life could be ruined without any reason. As a result, opportunities to meet other people are missed, loneliness and social isolation are increased, and one may even experience existential fears of being unattractive. Ironically, some people react to this problem by relying on the same social media to stay connected with others.

This comic also might imply that "love at first sight" isn't what it seems to be.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball and Megan are sitting on chairs, presumably on a train.]
:Cueball: Hey, cute netbook.
:Megan: ''What.''

:[Zoomed in on Cueball and Megan.]
:Cueball: Your laptop. I just—
:Megan: No, why are you talking to me.

:[Zoomed in on Megan.]
:Megan: Who do you think you are? If I were even slightly interested, I'd have shown it.

:[Both Cueball and Megan, with Megan pointing at Cueball.]
:Megan: Hey everyone, this dude's hitting on me.
:Voice #1: Haha
:Voice #2: Creepy
:Voice #3: Let's get his picture for Facebook to warn others.

:[The previous panel fades into a thought bubble of Cueball.]
:[Cueball and Megan are sitting on chairs, on the train, and Megan is typing on her laptop.]
:Dear blog,
:Cute boy on train still ignoring me.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Romance]]
[[Category:Social interactions]]

Talk:2791: Bookshelf Sorting

2023-06-20T06:09:48Z

172.71.155.22: reply

Oh wow, literally 14 captchas to save my edit? Sorry if someone else was working on it too, apparently someone added transcript while I was doing captchas, and when it finally went through it might have overwritten something. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.97|141.101.98.97]] 22:05, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I fixed a lot of the typos, but should we use color or colour? [[explain_xkcd:Community_portal/Miscellaneous#Help_with_Creating_a_User_Page|Trogdor147]] ([[explain_xkcd:Community_portal/Miscellaneous#Help_with_Creating_a_User_Page|talk]]) 22:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
:Because Randall is 'Merkin, full Webster-inspired leftpondian spelling tends to be the norm. (Including people editing correct-for-the-author Discussion contributions... which they really shouldn't!) But I'm happy to see "colour", "centre", "aluminium", etc for as long as nobody has yet decided to normalise(/normalize) everything. ;) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.184|172.69.79.184]] 23:06, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
::Have no idea what the previous means but Randall is American so this page uses American English spelling. So color, center and aluminum etc (and Normalize) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 06:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Does the mirroring of the order of the covers mean that there is a secondary sort order? The longest book is first. {{unsigned ip|172.70.91.65 }}

It looks like all of the front covers are at the left and the back covers are sorted by the number of pages in the book.[[Special:Contributions/172.71.222.139|172.71.222.139]]
:It looks like each group of pages is sorted randomly. Note that each book has a unique height. You can see the height distributions change as books end at their back covers and are no longer included in clumps. The books seem short? A careful eye may be able to identify the location of every page. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.59.154|172.69.59.154]] 01:53, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
::To me it looks like the longest books are really really long and that it doesn't match the size of the front. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 06:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Why not sort by ISO 2108? {{unsigned|Hamslabs}}

There are so many drawbacks from destroying books to sort the pages and zero advantages (except to horrify book people with the destruction of books), so all the crap about the good and bad is not relevant! I will delete it. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 06:06, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
:Go for it, [https://gizmodo.com/reddit-ceo-steve-huffman-moderators-landed-gentry-1850546737 landed gentry]! [[Special:Contributions/172.71.155.22|172.71.155.22]] 06:09, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

2791: Bookshelf Sorting

2023-06-20T06:07:41Z

172.71.155.22: /* Explanation */ lets be honest here

{{comic
| number = 2791
| date = June 19, 2023
| title = Bookshelf Sorting
| image = bookshelf_sorting_2x.png
| imagesize = 425x255px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Of course, I sort all my bookshelves the normal way, alphabetically (by first sentence).
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a BOOKSHELF SORTED THE NORMAL WAY. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

Some people sort their bookshelves by color, which is pleasing to the eyes but unhelpful when [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYxmPHLU9oA trying to find a specific book]. Randall proposes a much more infuriating way to sort books - to separate each book into its pages and organize them into groups by page number. All the front covers are on the left side, being effectively "page 0", then all the page 1s, the page 2s, et cetera, with the back covers mixed in depending on the length of the (now-dismembered) book. This method, like sorting by color, has no practical use in most situations. It damages the books and makes it much harder to find information.

There are a lot of different-sized front covers on the left side of the shelf (meaning they start with low numbers on the left).
Afterward, there is a repeating pattern of taller and shorter pages, with each a page of the same number from a differently sized book.
After a while, the first back covers are sorted in, and at the end, there are only the last pages of the longest book left, now all uniformly in size.

The caption claims that this is a way of sorting that "book people" hate, even more so than sorting by color of the cover/spine.
It is not clear if the spine part is thrown away or just not visible, maybe being sorted towards the wall. This would make it a sort of antithesis to color sorting, not only is it not sorted by color, but the spines that usually define the color sorting are either to the back or fully removed.

Also, these are either books without any frontmatter or the sorting goes by absolute page count, not by numbers printed on pages.

It might be the intent to have "the absolute opposite" of color sorting and follow this idea ad absurdum.

Sorting by page number has the following drawbacks:
* It is impossible to pick up one specific book quickly in one go.
* It is easy conceptually, but tedious in practice to find a specific page. Going back to the frontmatter question, if they are not sorted separately, it might be actually very hard to find a page with a specific page number printed as they would not necessarily be in one "wave".
* Sorting might vary wildly for the same book in different editions (as it would in color-sorting, too, maybe one of the reasons they are unpopular with the mentioned "book people")
* Without a secondary sorting rule, it is unclear in what order the pages of the same number are sorted. Since the height pattern seems repetitive, it seems as if at least the order of books is kept the same, but this is not a necessary feature of the basic premise.

Possible advantages:
* For someone using physical books to look up citations, it might be a quicker search. (Only if the frontmatter is counted separately)
* The block of front covers is a quick, nearly reference card system view of what books are on a particular shelf (Only if the frontmatter count is ignored)
* Just like the color sorting, possibly this is meant to be an aesthetic, instead of a practical choice of sorting. With the right kind of height distribution of different books, it can be a nice art piece, maybe of a seascape.

In the title text Randall begins by saying that he sorts his bookshelf alphabetically, but then states that he sorts books by first '''sentence''' instead of the book author and book title. This is wildly impractical, and an extremely unusual{{citation needed}} way of sorting books.

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

[A bookshelf is shown. From left to right, there are 11 pairs of covers in different sizes and shades of gray. To the left, one of each pair of covers is arranged side-by-side with all the others. Going rightwards, many leaves of paper (with a similar set of differing heights) lead up to the partner cover to the last of these initial covers. More paper, for varying amounts, another cover, and repeat with more leaves and a cover until the outermost paired-cover at the end of the shelf.]

Book people hate seeing books sorted by colors, but it turns out they get ''way'' more angry if you sort the pages by number.

{{comic discussion}}

2784: Drainage Basins

2023-06-03T23:34:55Z

172.71.155.22: /* Explanation */ unnecessary comma

{{comic
| number = 2784
| date = June 2, 2023
| title = Drainage Basins
| image = drainage_basins_2x.png
| imagesize = 659x500px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = After a pail of water was thrown on the Wicked Witch of the West outside Salt Lake City, Utah's Great Salt Lake was measured to be 7 parts per trillion witch by volume.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a LIQUID 90s KID. Do NOT drain this tag too soon.}}
Alex Mack, the main character in the Nickelodeon show ''{{w|The Secret World of Alex Mack}}'' [https://web.archive.org/web/20120516025126/http://articles.latimes.com/1994-10-02/news/tv-45351_1_alex-mack], developed superpowers after being drenched by an experimental substance. One of these is the ability to turn into a puddle of liquid.

A {{w|drainage basin}} is an area of land where all flowing water converges by one or more outlets to the same body of water. The comic shows a {{w|Drainage divide|watershed map}} for the United States by depicting its drainage basins.

When Randall sees a map of the US's major drainage basins, he thinks of Alex turning into liquid and flowing as part of the basin she happens to be in at the time.

The title text refers to the {{w|Wicked Witch of the West}}, a character from ''{{w|The Wonderful Wizard of Oz}}'', wherein a bucket of water is thrown on her, causing her to dissolve into a puddle. If this happens near {{w|Salt Lake City}} she'll flow into Utah's {{w|Great Salt Lake}}. If its dissolved particles are measured, a tiny fraction will be witch. Seven trillionths of its 18.93 cubic km volume is about 130 liters, which is approximately twice the volume of a typical human being — Randall may be including the Witch's sister, the Wicked Witch of the East as well. The {{w|Land of Oz}} is described to be somewhere else entirely, surrounded by desert, and thus perhaps has its own salt-lake basin(s); but famously it is not in Kansas, from which any witch-water would have ultimately flowed down to the Gulf of Mexico via the Mississippi.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[Title, scribbled out in red:] <s>US Drainage Basins</s>
:[New title, in red, added below:] <span style="color:red">Where Alex Mack Will End Up</span>

:[Map of the United States, the state borders in light pen; the national borders, seaboards and major lakes in black pen, plus additional boundaries as appropriate between the following labeled drainage basins:]
:[Much or all of Washington, Idaho, Oregon, California, Arizona and about half of Utah:] Pacific Ocean
:[Hawaiian islands, in typical US map repositioning:] Pacific Ocean
:[Alaska, in typical map repositioning, below a line approximately the three quarters up from the south:] Pacific Ocean
:[Remainder of Alaska:] Arctic Ocean
:[Most of Nevada, the western half of Utah (including the Great Salt Lake, outlined) and about a third of California (with the Salton Sea outlined):] Great Basin
:[A small patch of Wyoming, a triangle of New Mexico lying on the Mexican border and a separate thin swathe through parts of New Mexico and Texas:] Various Basins
:[About half of North Dakota and a small section of northern Minnesota:] Hudson Bay
:[From northeast Minnesota across two thirds of Wisconsin, Michigan, a bit of northern Indiana, northern half of Ohio, and most of the eastern seaboard states of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, Long Island, New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia (not West Virginia), North and South Carolinas, half of Georgia and half of Florida (Lake Okeechobee visible):] Atlantic Ocean
:[All remaining states or parts of states:] Gulf of Mexico

:[Caption below the panel:]
:How I still think of these maps, deep down

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Comics with red corrections]]
[[Category:Geography]]
[[Category:US maps]]
[[Category:Fiction]]

2783: Ruling Out

2023-06-02T20:42:41Z

172.71.155.22: /* Explanation */ .

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

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

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

[[Cueball]] lists five obviously impossible objects.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Transcript==

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

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

{{comic discussion}}

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

Talk:1902: State Borders

2023-05-26T00:52:27Z

172.71.155.22: /* Series page */

Let's be honest- it should ''all'' be Canada. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.123|162.158.74.123]] 12:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
:Or... Indigenous people's land? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.232|108.162.216.232]] 04:27, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Could Arizona, New Mexico be a reference to Trump? Like, make the border straighter so it's easier to build a wall? [[User:Herobrine|Herobrine]] ([[User talk:Herobrine|talk]]) 12:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
:More likely the joke is that conceding territory to Mexico is about the last thing Trump would do [[User:AnotherAnonymous|AnotherAnonymous]] ([[User talk:AnotherAnonymous|talk]]) 13:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
::I don't think there's a Trump joke here. Randall doesn't tend to be political. [[User:Jkshapiro|Jkshapiro]] ([[User talk:Jkshapiro|talk]]) 05:49, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

My first thought is to wonder if it would be possible to arrange the map such that all internal borders are "straight lines" that span the entire country, to satisfy as many criteria as possible:
* The number of states remains unchanged
** …and they all get to keep their capitals (probably quite difficult)
*** …or (and?) each state manages to keep either its current population, land area, or coastline length
* Or all internal borders are parallels or meridians
* Or all states have the same land area
** …or population; or population density
* Or if you're allowing more (or fewer) states than the present layout, what's the greatest number of states possible such that they all contain at least one complete city?

Which of those criteria would be the most interesting challenge? And which could you construct an algorithm to solve?
I really should refrain from trying to build those algorithms, because I'm supposed to be working --[[User:Angel|Angel]] ([[User talk:Angel|talk]]) 13:28, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
:I'd like to see what a map of the US would look like with each house gerrymandered by their legislative preferences... Borders everywhere, and wow what a nightmare of litigation it would generate as people cross from one district to another!
:More to your query: I don't see any modifications you could make that would keep the population unchanged. Some people would inevitably end up in a different state.
:How about a map where every state has an equal number of spiders? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.232|108.162.216.232]] 04:39, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
::Population as in number of people; not necessarily the same people. --[[User:Angel|Angel]] ([[User talk:Angel|talk]]) 10:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
:::Oh... Hm, that doesn't sound very useful ''or'' aesthetically satisfying... I think mapping the regions where various spider populations dominate might be more interesting. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.232|108.162.216.232]] 10:46, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

There are some great videos on YouTube about weird State boundaries. There are some REALLY weird oddities out there. Take for instance the "Give to Canada" piece - that's the Northwest Angle in Minnesota. It's really an accident that it ever ended up in the USA at all, and doesn't make any sense! [[User:Martini|Martini]] ([[User talk:Martini|talk]]) 13:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC)Martini
:I wouldn't call the NW Angle an accident as much as a slightly illogical solution in order to maintain the terms of the original border agreement in the face of the Mississippi River's inconveniently located headwaters. My recollection is that it said roughly: the border goes west of <this> point until reaching the Mississippi river [which all parties assumed continued that far north]. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.40|108.162.216.40]] 14:13, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I believe Randall's overall point is that though a large part of the individual United States have straight boundaries, especially in the West, or other features that are aesthetically pleasing, as in the S Carolina/Georgia/Florida coastline, there are a good number of internal inconsistencies. Many of these (most of the untagged "fixes") can be attributed to the concept that "Rivers make good logical boundaries", but even then, if you look closer, there are some really puzzling bits:
* The "Give To Canada" bit of Minnesota is almost all Indian Reservation land, so that kind of makes sense...
* The "Fix this thing" in Missouri is even stranger than it initially looks - while the notch in Arkansas is caused by the Mississippi River, there is a large bight of land in the middle of the Missouri-owned bit that is actually Kentucky (yes, there's an island of Kentucky that is separate from the main Kentucky state and entirely surrounded by Missouri)
* Not edited, but equally odd is the dip Florida cuts into Georgia near the east coast - there's no apparent town or natural features there to cause that irregularity

I don't happen to think the Arizona/New Mexico bits are political commentary, just "the entire rest of the state is a box, make this a straight line, too." cleanup. I mean yes, it would make wall-building easier, theoretically, but the Chinese showed the world centuries ago that straight lines are not needed to build a big fricking wall. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.131|108.162.238.131]] 14:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

- While I agree it probably isn't conscious political commentary, its interesting that there are not places the border increases; always concessions, never gains. May take into account its easier to give than take territory? --[[User:Jgt|Jgt]] ([[User talk:Jgt|talk]]) 19:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC)--[[User:Jgt|Jgt]] ([[User talk:Jgt|talk]]) 19:33, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm surprised Randall didn't suggest cleaning up Point Roberts as well [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_Roberts,_Washington]. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.174|141.101.107.174]] 14:33, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
: Presumably the graphic designers are okay with that, since it maintains the 49th Parallel as a nice, tidy border. [[User:Wwoods|Wwoods]] ([[User talk:Wwoods|talk]]) 20:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm shocked he didn't support fixing the Idaho/Wisconsin/Montana/Oregon border. That top part should be either given to Montana, or split between Washington and Oregon... I wonder if he left out certain things in order to avoid offending certain groups of people. Like suggesting that Rhode Island and Connecticut should probably be one state, or that Vermont and New Hampshire should be as well. [[User:Kashim|Kashim]] ([[User talk:Kashim|talk]]) 17:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Some of the suggestions are ironic, for example Michigan's upper peninsula actually used to be part of the Wisconsin territory, but it was ceded to Michigan in exchange for the port of Toledo being ceded to Ohio. "why does Florida get Alabama's coastline" is actually because Alabama got part of Florida's coastline so it wouldn't be landlocked. The bit of Nevada that he wants to fix it so Nevada has territory along the Colorado River [[Special:Contributions/162.158.75.250|162.158.75.250]] 17:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Nobody seems to have noticed that Delaware's curved northern border has been flattened (removing Wilmington). [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.83|108.162.238.83]] 21:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

One significant thing about this map is that, under this map, Hillary Clinton may have won the 2016 election. Citations needed, but I've seen it said that if the Upper Peninsula were moved from Michigan to Wisconsin and the Florida Panhandle were moved to Alabama, Clinton would have won Michigan and Florida, giving her an Electoral College majority. I don't think the Upper Peninsula has enough population to cost Michigan an electoral vote, and I think Florida would lose two electoral votes, putting Clinton exactly at the 270 needed to win. Perhaps the changes around Colorado and Nevada would make a difference, although there were also five faithless Clinton electors who might have voted for her if it would have made a difference. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.4|108.162.219.4]] 01:45, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

* There's a tool out there that allows you to at least approximate these changes (you can move counties from one state to another. It's not perfectly straight lines.) http://kevinhayeswilson.com/redraw/ The changes that are potentially electorally-significant with respect to 2016 were: The Upper Peninsula to Wisconsin, the Florida panhandle largely to Alabama, the expansion of DE, expansion of RI, cleanup of WV/MD, and shifting of Long Island*. (Almost all the other changes occur in very unpopulated areas and involve states that were not particularly close in the last election.) I get a 277-261 Clinton victory on this map. As you note, the Upper Peninsula and Florida Panhandle shifts do change the outcomes in the remaining portions of MI and FL respectively. The change to WV and MD does not appear to change either state's results (I assigned Wheeling to Ohio, which only makes Ohio slightly redder). Expanding Delaware does not quite flip it red - the Maryland Eastern Shore and Virginia bay shore are not sufficient to change DE, although it became an extremely close race - Clinton won by 2,000 votes out of 1.4 million in the expanded state of Delmarva, so if Wilmington becomes part of PA, it probably moves DE and its now 4 electoral votes to Trump (273-265 in that scenario). The NYC area however is the catch here - depending on how it's sliced, it could cause Upstate New York to flip red and therefore flip the overall map back to a Trump victory. (New York north of the northern border of Westchester County is a Red State!). It doesn't appear to matter whether NYC itself ends up in CT, NJ, or divided between the two - adding a blue city to a blue state doesn't change the outcome much, aside from potentially varying the electoral vote sizes. The tool doesn't allow you to add a new state, but the State of Long Island's 2 extra EVs from a Senate seats would not change the overall outcome of the election either - if Westchester is part of Long Island State, Trump wins - if it remains in New York State, Hillary wins. As Westchester County Goes, so goes the White House --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.132.59|172.68.132.59]] 05:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Good curve! The curve is called the Georgia Bight, or less euphoniously, the South Atlantic Bight. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.63.76|162.158.63.76]] 03:34, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

"'''Align to Grid'''" refers to the option to have icons snap to a grid on a Windows desktop. The idea is that the states become "aligned" like icons on a desktop. [[User:FakeCrash|FakeCrash]] ([[User talk:FakeCrash|talk]]) 17:59, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
:More likely, since this has been drawn up by graphic designers, it refers to functionality in most design/drawing tools that allows you to drag elements into the drawing and have them snap to a notional grid, so that they align nicely with previously added elements.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.155.32|162.158.155.32]] 11:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

It would be really useful if this could link to somewhere that described why the various panhandles and oddities exist. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.247|162.158.154.247]] 21:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_the_States_Got_Their_Shapes [[User:Silverpie|Silverpie]] ([[User talk:Silverpie|talk]]) 21:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

They should be called geo-graphic designers [[User:Jaalenja|Jaalenja]] ([[User talk:Jaalenja|talk]]) 06:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Randall had no references to Trump here. Get over it.
I mean really. Why does everybody think everything about the country has to do with Trump winning? [[User:Jacky720|That's right, Jacky720 just signed this]] ([[User talk:Jacky720|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jacky720|contribs]]) 14:24, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

For the sentence: "Many U.S. residents will be made to live in new states, and thus be required to pay different taxes and obey different state laws, and even root for different sports teams." It should be expanded to explain that people are indeed required to root for sports teams in the state they live in⸮ --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.133.234|172.68.133.234]] 21:11, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

The map looks great, but you didn't include all 50 states.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.58.123|162.158.58.123]] 05:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

[https://img
ur.com/a/Tnjts I tried my hand at creating this map] [[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.112|162.158.255.112]] 01:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

In the "explanation" column of the grid the entry for Rhode Island says "Expanding Rhode Island eastward would reduce the number of land borders it has to two [...]" This confused me a great deal, and I triple-checked to confirm that Rhode Island currently has two land borders, so how would making it bigger <b>reduce</b> the number (which is currently two) to two? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.190|108.162.237.190]] 04:15, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

• Original writer - my bad for poor writing. I had the fact that Rhode Island's current border with Massachusetts has two clear lines on the mind: an east-west border to RI's north and a north-southish border to RI's east, with the latter being erased under the DT's proposals.

A description of the change to the eastern Massachusetts/New Hampshire border is missing.

The border between the Province of Québec and the States of New York and Vermont should also be straightened and aligned on the 45th parallel and, while we're at it, extended all the way to the Atlantic Ocean. The Northeastern border would then be a nice straight line, like the Northwestern border. New Hampshire would lose its extreme Northern tip (not a big deal), and Maine all of its Northern territory (which is mostly uninhabited anyway).

• He missed an opportunity regarding the {{w|Erie_Triangle}}.

T for Texas, T for Tennessee: There is an actual [Horrors] OMISSION, given that he is correcting a surveying error in Tennessee, he should also correct the surveying error that put the New Mexico-Texas state line about 1 xkcd line-width too far west (as scaled on the map), unnecessarily expanding Texas.

With regards to the Alaskan panhandle section - to the best of my knowledge (and based on a quick online search) the capital of Alaska has always been in Juneau. It certainly has never been in Anchorage. There were several referendums over the past four decades to move the capital to Anchorage or near Anchorage; however, most were defeated. Also, the two (I think it was two?) that passed, were effectively defunded in the legislature.
Also, most of us Anchoragites (damn, we need a better name for ourselves) would be more than happy to give Juneau to Canada... some of us would pay them to take it.

In the vein of "Give X to Canada," [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_Roberts,_Washington Port Roberts] needs addressing. Nobody else really cares enough to make it happen. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.239|108.162.246.239]] 05:43, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

As a Wyomingite, I strongly object to the 'Align to Grid' changes. Not because I mind Jackson being lost, but because Idaho and Montana have been laying claim to Yellowstone for years. We can't let them actually have it![[Special:Contributions/172.68.34.70|172.68.34.70]] 05:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
:The Wyoming align to grid changes move Evanston over to Utah, and Jackson Hole over to Idaho. Given that Wyoming is already the least populous state by a pretty decent margin, I think it would make sense to just split the remaining land between Colorado and Montana, continuing the arbitrary squiggle that was previously extended to remove Yellowstone. Colorado would become a much taller and slimmer state. While we're at it we could merge the Dakota's into one state as well. [[User:Stickfigurefan|Stickfigurefan]] ([[User talk:Stickfigurefan|talk]]) 16:56, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I think the border between Idaho and Montana is already, for the most part, an arbitrary squiggle.[[User:Jkshapiro|Jkshapiro]] ([[User talk:Jkshapiro|talk]]) 06:26, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

In "Align to Grid", those aren't "arbitrary squiggles", those are cross-out lines—he's just trying to move the existing straight lines. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.125|108.162.238.125]] 13:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

If the curve changes, we could reclaim land to fix it. Easy as pie. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.179.166|162.158.179.166]] 14:13, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

We, The Upper Peninsula of Michigan, just want to be our own state, Da UP! [[User:AlabroX201|AlabroX201]] 17:34 (Earth Standard Time), 6th of Oct. 2022


== Series page ==

Should this be a part of a series? There was [[2258: Solar System Changes]] and [[2351: Standard Model Changes]]. Maybe even [[2356: Constellation Monstrosity]] or [[2639: Periodic Table Changes]]. His changes to these typical models are all denoted by red, which could be a defining feature of this series. [[User:SilverTheTerribleMathematician|SilverTheTerribleMathematician]] ([[User talk:SilverTheTerribleMathematician|talk]]) 09:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
:(As just mentioned in an edit-comment for the Standard Model one...) I was thinking of a Category called "Amended diagrams", or even something like "Red-pen Edits". Add the one with state boundaries and ''probably'' some more that I'll remember only when I scan through the list of Images With Color to refresh my memory. If anyone wants to. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.106|172.70.86.106]] 14:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

: I was thinking they would be called "Randall's Changes". [[User:SilverTheTerribleMathematician|SilverTheTerribleMathematician]] ([[User talk:SilverTheTerribleMathematician|talk]]) 21:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

:: See [[:Category:Compromise]]. --[[User:ColorfulGalaxy|ColorfulGalaxy]] ([[User talk:ColorfulGalaxy|talk]]) 21:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

:: Edit: No. Sorry. "Solar system changes" was there because of the Jupiter-Saturn merger, and not because of the red lines. --[[User:ColorfulGalaxy|ColorfulGalaxy]] ([[User talk:ColorfulGalaxy|talk]]) 21:50, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

::: [[:Category:Comics with red corrections]] was created. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.155.22|172.71.155.22]] 00:52, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

2780: Physical Quantities

2023-05-25T03:07:48Z

172.71.155.22: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2780
| date = May 24, 2023
| title = Physical Quantities
| image = physical_quantities_2x.png
| imagesize = 338x183px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = The Hubble length is about 1.9 meters lying down; Edwin Hubble was a tall guy.
}}

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

This comic plays on the name of various constants by simply "taking them literally".

'''Hubble volume'''

'''Schwarzschild radius'''

The schwarzschild radius is not actually a constant.

'''Broca's area'''

'''Fermi temperature'''

'''Planck length'''

[[w|Planck units]] are measurements invented by [[w|Max Planck]]. However, Randall measures the length of Max Planck, not the units.

'''Hubble length''' (title text)

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

{{comic discussion}}

2780: Physical Quantities

2023-05-25T03:05:44Z

172.71.155.22: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2780
| date = May 24, 2023
| title = Physical Quantities
| image = physical_quantities_2x.png
| imagesize = 338x183px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = The Hubble length is about 1.9 meters lying down; Edwin Hubble was a tall guy.
}}

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

This comic plays on the name of various constants by simply "taking them literally".

'''Hubble volume'''

'''Schwarzschild radius'''

The schwarzschild radius is not actually a constant.

'''Broca's area'''

'''Fermi temperature'''

'''Planck length'''

[[w|Planck time]]

'''Hubble length''' (title text)

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

{{comic discussion}}