explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:2845: Extinction Mechanisms

2023-10-31T13:32:11Z

172.71.242.74: Reverting one misplaced comment (to be relocated) and several inexplicable rearrangements of past conversations. (The indenting was good, could be done again, but the moving around was strange.)

-Hello, I'm a Christian that has done research to be intellectually fulfiled, and I would just want to say that I did not know that paleontologists were having trouble with this problem. A general Christian solution is that Noah's Flood, combined with the aftermath being much cooler, was the cause of the dinosaur extinction. Also, before you hate on me, I'm not trying to correct anyone, or be offensive. I just thought I'd share my thoughts on this and add another theory to the mix. This is my second time posting a comment, so sorry if I did something wrong or something. Also, I know there's a comic that "debunks" this, but there seems to have been more evidence and research done since then. Also, the biggest help to me has been ''The Case for A Creator'' by Lee Strobel. [[User:Azerty99|Azerty99]] ([[User talk:Azerty99|talk]]) 15:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

:Reading a book (or even many books) is not research. Science means you're never absolutely sure about anything. You're only relatively certain until contradictory proof of the currently theory (or theories) exists. This is not a weakness, but exactly the strength of the scientific method. If you have significant and non-controvertible proof that men and dinosaurs existed at the same time, I'll tentatively accept your ideas. Until then, it's all just bunk. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.197.151|162.158.197.151]] 15:32, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

:Paleontologists are not having an issue with this. It is merely the premise for the comic. The available evidence vastly points to the extinction of the non avian dinosaurs ~66 million years ago. Of course the scientific community always welcomes new evidence to evaluate and see if it leads to a different conclusion or modification of the current consensus.

:It's a troll folks, treat it with the contempt it deserves. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.43.240|172.69.43.240]] 19:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

-We should change "Earth and other terrestrial planets" to Earth and its allies.[[User:Danger Kitty|Danger Kitty]] ([[User talk:Danger Kitty|talk]])

One obvious type of hole was not discussed. The Acme Portable Hole™ is an entirely different class of holes as extensively demonstrated in (this)[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wile_E._Coyote_and_the_Road_Runner] documentation.

-Ok, thanks for the comments in return! And thanks for not being extremely rude! Here's one article that shows several bio-organic materials that should have decayed if in the situations they were in for -66 million years. https://genesisapologetics.com/faqs/dinosaurs-lived-recently-and-died-in-noahs-flood/ Also, can I see the evidence shown in the second comic? I would like to see all this evidence. Also, I wasn't aware that scientific ideas shown in xkcd that were heavily implied to be true were false. That sounds a bit rude, but usually xkcd
gives funny interpretations of actual problems, like all the ones about COVID, or the Heartbleed Bug. Also, I'm not a troll. I'm willing to debate as long as people aren't saying things like "Science says" and equivocal stuff, and shows evidence instead of just giving vague statements. Thanks! [[User:Azerty99|Azerty99]] ([[User talk:Azerty99|talk]]) 22:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
:There's little disagreement that an asteroid striking the Yucatan around 66 mya caused or was a significant contributor to the extinction of the dinosaurs, but there are multiple (not necessarily mutually exclusive) hypotheses about what exact mechanisms had the biggest effects.
:It's like finding a body with nineteen bullet wounds. The detectives will have to piece together the evidence and come to tentative conclusions about what kind of gun was used, from how far away, whether the body was moved after the shooting, whether the victim died immediately or after some time, etc. But until someone finds something major that suggests otherwise, "death by shooting" is going to have to remain the working theory. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.247.41|172.69.247.41]] 23:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

-That analogy makes almost perfect sense, except there's a pretty big difference between finding 19 bullet holes in a man and concluding "death by shooting" and thinking that a meteor caused extinction because fossils were found in rocks that could be from the time that the meteor struck. Also, assuming that the mechanisms shown in the comic that are crossed out have been shown to not be possible, then what evidence is there that the meteor was the cause at all besides the correlation of the meteor impact and the extinction time? Does the correlation imply causation? Also, the theory of the meteor assumes the time of the extinction of the dinosaurs, which, while excepted by the majority of scientists, has been called into question.
:Ah, you figured it out. The extinction of the dinosaurs must have caused the meteor impact. The crossed-out mechanisms have '''not''' been ruled out; they're the leading hypotheses. That's the whole joke. Whoosh! There's plenty of evidence to conclude that the meteor was the cause of the mass extinctions. I don't see the need to provide you with them - they can be easily found. But you're not really interested in learning about evidence that could falsify your beliefs; you're fighting tooth and nail against anything that contradicts your preconceived conclusion. --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.140|172.69.34.140]] 07:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:well dinosaur fossils are found below the cretaceous-paleogene boundary and not found above, so the major groups (excluding birds) most likely died out around that exact period; it contains a large amount of iridium, which is common in asteroids and there would be a low chance that there would be any other method to deposit iridium worldwide. its age can also be estimated using radiometric dating which puts it at around 66 mya (66.043 ± 0.011 mya to be exact) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.134.181|172.69.134.181]] 00:47, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:XKCD is a webcomic that often derives humor from science. However, it is not a reliable source of information.{{Citation needed}} Consider the various "phone ideas" comics that present phones with "features" that are absurd or impossible. The "crossing out" of the hypotheses in the comic should not be taken as an indication that these hypotheses have been discredited. The comic presents the hypothesis that a meteor broke into pieces, all of equal volume, that struck each square meter of the Earth's surface, and hit each dinosaur individually. I'm reasonably confident that that is physically impossible, but the comic lists this hypothesis together with some of the current leading hypotheses and shows those leading hypotheses crossed-out and describing this alternative hypothesis as "obvious." There idea that this alternative hypothesis is in any way comparable to the others listed, or has any legitimacy, is absurd to the point of being laughable, and thus funny. Regarding the apparently preserved tissue found in some fossils, I found this interesting link: [https://web.archive.org/web/20221202184025/https://www.uwstout.edu/about-us/news-center/researchers-identify-mechanisms-blood-vessel-preservation-t-rex-dinosaur Researchers identify mechanisms of blood vessel preservation in a T. rex dinosaur]--[[Special:Contributions/172.69.22.210|172.69.22.210]] 10:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

-While Noah's Flood was likely an actual event, it would not have been worldwide. Christianity originated in ancient Rome, which is near the Mediterranean Sea, and it is likely that after the last Ice Age, the sea levels rose, and the Atlantic Ocean flooded through what is now the Strait of Gibraltar, creating the Mediterranean Sea. Although this was not a worldwide flood, to the people living in the affected area, it would have seemed as such. [[User:Unknown User|Unknown User]] ([[User talk:Unknown User|talk]]) 01:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Unknown User
::(What's with the non-standard indenting? Anyway...) The biblical Flood wasn't initially recorded/conceived of in Rome (thus the Mediterranean), but in earlier Abrahamic/pre-Abrahamic sources. It could well be a mesopotanian-area event (or events), or the Black Sea or elsewhere (or a mix of several possible aural histories/tales, merged together by the time they entered the Old Testament's first official compilation process).
::And to people living on wide and fertile riverine plains, they're going to encounter the occasional flood every few generations (too often and the original settlers wouldn't stay settled in a flood-endengared way for long, either invent a word for "floodplane" and moce away ''or'' just accept/expect the cycles and explicitly build their civilisation around it like Egypt did). But once-a-century catastrophes probably happened ''somewhere'' amongst most prebiblical peoples, and depending on whose imaginations were left (to wonder how and what happened) they could have come up with what could have been any kind of ur-legend. (If not an ''actual'' legend about Ur!) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.104|172.69.195.104]] 00:47, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

- Issues with Noah’s flood. 1. If it was worldwide and lasted 40 days, all the salty ocean water would have contaminated all fresh water on earth. This would have killed all fresh water fish within minutes or hours. Yet we have fresh water fish. Maybe in the millennia since fish have evolved the ability to survive in fresh water again? 2. The math shows that it would take 3-4 times the current amount of water to cover the earth worldwide. Where did all that water go? It’s not on earth now. We would be aware of that. The math ain’t mathing.

-Okay, to answer the comment directly above mine, if God can create the universe, I doubt he had a problem with seperating salt and fresh water for 40 days. Next comment: While early Christianity was started in Ancient Rome, Noah's Flood is in the first five books of the bible, which were written by Moses, about people that were about 30 generations his ancestors, passed down through traditions combined with the guidance of God. So they probably weren't near the Metiterranean during the flood. Next comment: I understand now that it's a joke, while I understood that the non-crossed out one was obviously a joke the whole time. Also, I'll be honest, I can't open that link, but I'll assume it was true, in which case that's a great discovery for them. I'm assuming that that link is to a good website, is true, and does not exagerate. Next comment up: The iridium thing is true, and I'm not going to make an argument from ignorance and say "we just haven't found the source yet". That's a valid point, but the rock layers could have been moved or solidified earlier, and just formed at that time. We have no concieved notion of how long the days were when God was making the earth, so each on could of been like 5 million years. But that's a valid point! Next comment up: Yes, I know. Also, "But you're not really interested in learning about evidence that could falsify your beliefs; you're fighting tooth and nail against anything that contradicts your preconceived conclusion." I'm honestly trying my best, but you're right that it's hard to accept evidence that goes aqainst you. But, please make sure you don't fall into that category as well.
I'm just some random guy on the internet, and I'm going to go through my day feeling a strange mixture of hopeful and grim, not because of what you've shown me, but how you've shown me it. If you're really interested in tearing down my religion, go after the Bible itself. Making some random dude feel like crap because some of you were rude won't do anything. To those of you who actually brought up valid points, thanks. I hope that you put thought into what I'm saying, instead of just refusing to go against your preconceived judgements. To those of you that just said, "there's so much evidence" know that you need to do better if you're arguing. Be polite. You never know how bad a day the person you're talking to just had. Thanks.
I probably won't post here anymore. This is a nitpicky thing inside of a nitpicky thing and you're saying that my religion is false because I have a different opinion than you. I hope you don't go away feeling smug and self-satisfied, but instead think about the ripple affect of everything you say. Bye! [[User:Azerty99|Azerty99]] ([[User talk:Azerty99|talk]]) 11:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:If God can create the universe, I doubt he has problems with just making everything He does look like a perfectly explainable phenomena. A God which has to tinker ''too much'' with his Creation, just to deal with an unforseen(??) necessary adjustment to it, isn't really worh Their own pillar-of-salt.
:The actual omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent deity wouldn't have to do anything, really, after the Letting There Be Light moment (give or take a good proportion of the following week). Perhaps They can reliably rely upon the imaginations of the humans to come up with the stories They value more as stories (centuries/millenia after the 'fact') than actual effort to adjust matters that They didn't realise They would not like to have happen.
:Though I tend to think that the God Of Logic actually made the universe to ''look'' logical and (through proper study) explainable, and doesn't even appreciate all the different Holy Books everyone keeps thinking is some particular form of Truth.
:Even better, the GOL could have created everything last Thursday, complete with seemingly arbitrary memories embedded in all the billions of people created, and everything else historic (books, dust on undusted mantlepieces, strata/seximents, light from distant stars, etc) installed in the ultimate Young Earth joke. But such that everyone reads the ''intended'' scientifically-observable 'previous' and comes to the conclusion that it all happened just like everyone is ''supposed'' to conclude. Those who reject that (and GOL surely knows who those will be, of course) and actually believe in some of the 'trap' materials (Bible, Koran, Torah, the Daozang, all those Sutras, all those Vedras, ..., the Mission Earth Dekalogy) are those who will be sent to whatever GOL's idea actually is of damnation. ((Some might suggest we already have been. Others might suggest that we're not actually at Creation ''yet'', what we're experiencing is the God's 'dry run' and mental check of how Creation will turn out, but of course the mere ponderings of such a god are so powerful that include details such as whether those so imagined are ever going to philosophise about whether they are even real or not.))
:The whole point of a 'capital-G' God (i.e. not confounded by fellow pantheon members with a similar magnitude of control over things and variously different motives of their own) is that they are just ''so all-powerful'' and ''perfect''. And it's clear that the biblical God is lacking in various ways (as with all the others in all other comparable holy scriptures, with their own adherents and supporters) that can be explained away by "having granted free will" but without helping the reputation of said deity to allow (the appearance of) Free Will and yet be annoyed by what inevitably happens inevitably happening... [[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.104|172.69.195.104]] 00:47, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

What the meteor does, looks like a cluster bomb. BTW does one like to do the math for the meteor falling apart into pieces of 1l and those being randomly distributed. What is the expected value of dinosaurs of various area sizes being hit? Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.94.219|162.158.94.219]] 07:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:You get one point for each brontosaur, twenty points for a velociraptor, thirty for a zhongjianosaurus and fifty for compsognathus. Double that for hitting their young (even harder to hit); double up again, per additional rock, if you can show that you hit every egg in a nest with a different fragment. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.194.155|172.69.194.155]] 11:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

The title text missed a great opportunity to call it the Comparably Light Bombardment But Oddly Restricted just for the acronym. [[User:Phil Srobeighn|Phil Srobeighn]] ([[User talk:Phil Srobeighn|talk]]) 11:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

- Reconciling religion and science is always going to be a bit challenging (gross understatement), but for what it's worth--I think the goal of each is substantially different, but can be complimentary. There are elements of the Bible that are clearly figurative / allegorical / metaphorical / designed to teach a principle but is not necessarily literal. The Bible's intent is to teach us about our relationship to God and each other, and how to become more like God. It's content is intended to be understood by a general audience, without requiring e.g. a degree in Physics. Science, on the other hand, is an inductive search to understand the reality we live in. This is an oversimplification, but you could see science as answering the "what" or "how" of existence, and religion, the "why". My personal approach is to accept scientific evidence, and consider how the current models--even things like evolution--may fit in to God's overall purpose. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.35.75|172.68.35.75]] 14:33, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

That's not how I think about it, but that's a great way too! [[User:Azerty99|Azerty99]] ([[User talk:Azerty99|talk]]) 18:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

1721: Business Idea

2023-10-22T01:47:59Z

172.71.242.74: Undo revision 326766 by 172.69.23.6 (talk) Too much.

{{comic
| number = 1721
| date = August 17, 2016
| title = Business Idea
| image = business_idea.png
| titletext = Then we move to phase two. Gas stations store fuel in underground tanks. Normally, these are inaccessible except via the pump. However, with hydraulic fracturing, we-- Wait! Come back!
}}

==Explanation==
In this comic, [[Cueball]] announces he has "an exciting business opportunity to share". After hearing discouragement from his off-panel audience, he promises that "this time it's a good one", and goes on to explain his plan.

Cueball's plan involves the premise that a small amount of {{w|Octane rating|premium gas}} is left in a fuel pump hose after a car driver fills their car up with premium gas. Note that not all gas stations leave the fuel in the hose: many pump it back into the tank for storage. He states that even if the next customer only pays for regular {{w|Gasoline|gas}}, that they are still getting a small amount of the expensive premium gas. Though he doesn't get a chance to finish the outline for his plan, one can assume he planned to get premium fuel at regular prices, so he could then sell it for profit. After hearing the first part of his plan, two people from the off-panel audience announce they are leaving, clearly and correctly thinking that Cueball's idea is stupid and impractical.

In reality, this would be an impossible business venture to execute. While in the United States often the same hose is used for the various octane fuels, the amount of fuel contained in the hose is relatively small (about [http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122944043385810527 a third of a gallon], or [http://www.metronews.ca/drive/2012/05/08/one-pump-three-grades-how-does-it-know.html half a liter]) compared to the amount that is generally purchased, though [http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122944043385810527 for motorcycles the ratio is more significant]. It is also illegal to resell fuel without the correct licenses, and it would be difficult, bordering on impossible, to have the fuel pump run to ''just'' the premium fuel out, and driving to each {{w|Filling station|gas station}} would use more money to buy more fuel than any money that could be made back. This is not to mention trying to keep track of when someone purchased premium so as to be the next person to use that pump to extract those precious drops.

[[1499: Arbitrage]] implies a similar plan to extract wealth out of a small market inefficiency that, in reality, would be far too onerous to exploit, in this case reselling the free chips offered at some restaurants. The same idea was also used in [[1110: Click and Drag]] where a person takes [http://imgs.xkcd.com/clickdrag/2n2w.png free drinks to resell]. See also the ''[[what if? (blog)|what if?]]'' article ''{{what if|22|Cost of Pennies}}'' regarding why it would not be worth trying these kind of ventures out.

The title text is another one of Cueball's fuel-based business ventures, as he says he plans to dig up fuel stations underground fuel storage tanks, to then sell the contents of. Again, illegal/theft, impractical, don't try it (though it would be much more profitable than his previous plan). The punchline is that a gas station's underground tank is "inaccessible" from the outside, just as there are some oil deposits that are inaccessible to traditional oil production techniques because no sufficient natural flow towards a well can be obtained. In the case of oil deposits, high-pressure fluids are pumped into the rock to break it up ("{{w|Hydraulic fracturing}}" also known as "fracking") and allow the oil to reach the well. Oil tanks, on the other hand, can be made accessible by puncturing them using (presumably) hydraulically powered tools (electrical power is inadvisable in the presence of high-vapor-pressure hydrocarbons due to the significant risk of fire and explosion caused by electrical sparking). The title text of [[1662: Jack and Jill]] also refers to fracking.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball is standing next to a rolled down projector screen holding a hand up towards his off-panel audience, one from the audience speaks. It is impossible to say if there are more than two persons off-panel, but it's also impossible to say if a person who speaks in one panel also speaks in one of the next, hence the numbering.]
:Cueball: Thank you all for coming.
:Cueball: I have an exciting business opportunity to share.
:Off-panel voice #1: Oh no.

:[Zoom in on Cueball's head. An off-panel person speaks twice.]
:Cueball: Now hear me out-
:Off-panel voice #2: Your ideas are always the worst.
:Cueball: No, no, this time it's a good one! I promise.
:Off-panel voice #2: Uh huh...

:[Front view of the screen with an image of a black gas pump, with the white hose snaking its way up to the black handle. And arrow points to the middle of the hose where it is at it's highest point before the turn that goes to the handle. Cueball is pointing at the hose with a stick. Two different off-panel persons speaks to him.]
:Cueball: When someone fills their car with premium gas, some of it is left in the hose, and is dispensed to the next customer even if they've only paid for regular. If we create a network of-
:Off-panel voice #3: I'm leaving.
:Off-panel voice #4: Me too.

==Trivia==
This comic originally had the same name as [[827: My Business Idea]], but Randall renamed the older comic on 11:35 AM UTC to resolve a conflict on [https://xkcd.com xkcd.com]. The conflict was created when he released this comic around five years after the original comic because both comics shared the same name and filename. This is the third time Randall has released a comic with a [[:Category:Comics sharing name|name exactly the same]] as a previous comic.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics sharing name|Business Idea2]]

Talk:2716: Game Night Ordering

2022-12-27T08:31:59Z

172.71.242.74:

Should we create a category for comics about game night? It can contain at least this and https://xkcd.com/2486/. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 22:32, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
:I'm not going to oppose it, but keep in mind that it would overlap with [[:Category:Board games]]. --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.178.48|172.70.178.48]] 22:50, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
::We absolutely need a general [[:Category:Games]] because we have e.g. roleplaying games under Board games. Does anyone know how to edit in a superclass category? The last time I ever did anything sophisticated with Mediawiki categories was like 2008. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.154.38|172.71.154.38]] 23:39, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
:::{{done}} [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 06:20, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

The rules would seem to be similar to the card game Cheat (or, at least, the version we used to play). Using an ordinary wholly-dealt pack of cards (for any number of players), it was a "blind bid and discard" game whereby each player has to state "<one to four> <card value>s" (or more than four, with merged packs, each of which might be whole or partial) was going on the discard pile, such that the card value was within one (-1, =, +1, with standard wrapping ...>10>J>Q>K>A>2>...) of the prior stated discard. And ''something'' had to be discarded, whether or not the player could technically do so. The forfeit for not continuing play ''or'' challenging, within a generally acceptable thinking time, was the same for either being successfully challenged (you stated you put down two threes, but on checking the dump pile you discarded two sevens) or for the person who wrongly challenged... to pick up the discard pile and be so much further from the ultimate goal of ending up with zero cards (the first the winner, optionally the second, third, etc to do so to earn further ranks just for the sake of continuing/last-ranking the one who ended up as the only one still with cards). - I presume this game just applies the same penalty (buying the food) to anyone who dithers over whether to challenge anything or 'play their own hand'. There doesn't need to be anything more complicated to it. Unless there's also an 'empty hand' winning state, that I can't discern from the brief discourse given in the comic. But it seems more geared to finding the eventual 'loser' (the one who pays up) than any single beneficiary. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.230|162.158.34.230]] 23:17, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
:If there is a link for Cheat you should add it. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.150|172.70.206.150]] 23:20, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
::Well, I think there's far too many variations... Though, surprisingly, it does look like {{w|Cheat (game)}} actually describes ''my'' learnt version quite well. But I don't think I see any 'time out' penalties mentioned there, and that was th XXX oe key part of the "play or challenge, don't dither, or you lose" bit to my (sorry, rather long) description above... [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.230|162.158.34.230]] 23:27, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
::: Never apologize for verbosity on talk; devote that energy to brevity on main. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.154.156|172.71.154.156]] 23:41, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
::::We need a quotes page. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.150|172.70.206.150]] 02:13, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
::(Plus there's the inverted "loser finder" rather than "winner finder" primary nature of the gameplay. It makes the methodology of play a bit too different.) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.231|162.158.34.231]] 23:30, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
:::My favourite tactic (knowing that I'm unlikely to identifiably play against anyone who reads this...) in Cheat is that ''when'' I have four (or more, in multipack) of a particular in-range card value, and not chosen to ignore someone else's clearly false declaration of that rank, I declare one or two of this (but dump something else, as convenient) on one pass, on the very next opportunity (fellow players tending to random-walk the ±1 bracket-change) I declare/dump 'another' one or two (for real), and then on the next opportunity I truthfully get rid of all the remainder. That adds up to greater than the possibly held number of cards. But when the suspicions are ramped up against me (I've now declared six of the four jacks in the pack!) I'm proven correct. And yet, when I was lying, I knew that nobody else could hold any (or enough) of the rank to have reasonable doubts about me.
:::As a bonus, so long as I remember what I dumped in the first bit of this tactic, I can conceivably have still had ''those'' cards if gameplay forces me to submit something in thir separate range. Meaning that now it's fairly safe to pretend to dump them (but actually dump any further different card-values as I decide), without increased suspicion. Especially when all this is slotted into a more general "honesty is the best policy" gameplay, save for some of the above traps or ''strictly necessary'' bluff, meaning it's high risk to challenge me. Even upon my having just declared the latest in a running total of ''seven'' deuces, or whatever it turns out I've apparently racked up since the last forced pickup (which I treat as opportunity, should I suffer it).
:::Though none of this relates easily to the comic's game, of course, which is more a combination of knowledge, prepartee and hutzpah... [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.74|172.71.242.74]] 08:31, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

We should make a payment service for providing crowdfunded rewards to the best contributors to explanations. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.134.16|172.69.134.16]] 01:16, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
:I love this idea but it would conflict with the ethos of completely anonymized contributions here. Unless someone can propose how it might not? I mean, if there was some way to include an SHA-256 identity-confirming hash in edit summaries? Would keeping track of them in terms of surviving text after, say, a month be a decent leaderboard scoring? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.84|172.69.33.84]] 01:42, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
::My meager anonymous IP contributions to explanations have been completely dwarfed by my attempts to revert vandalism on the official main page leaderboard, but is that a good or a bad thing? The idea needs to be carefully considered. I would absolutely kick in $25 to support other explainers, but I would need some assurance that the system couldn't be gamed by, e.g. paraphrasers, which I'm not sure is even possible. [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 01:54, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
::: It's easy to hijack someone else's contributions with paraphrasing and refactoring. It's a dead end. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.166.230|162.158.166.230]] 02:05, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
:::: True, but is there a way to avoid the cheating? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.214.253|172.70.214.253]] 02:28, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
::: I would probably also kick in $25 if the system was well-designed, even if it was vulnerable to paraphrasing or refactoring, as long as someone could call out such flaws as they happened. Never let the perfect be the enemy of the good. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.166.173|162.158.166.173]] 02:39, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
:::: The operationalism issue is how to set up actual payment flows while still allowing criticisms of them. The cost to reverse a payment is too high compared to the relative number of payments you might want to reverse. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.158.90|172.71.158.90]] 05:33, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Is this about cryptocurrency scams? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.135|172.70.211.135]] 02:50, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
:I want to [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlMwc1c0HRQ&ab_channel=NickKing subscribe to your newsletter.] [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.92|172.70.206.92]] 05:20, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Am I an idiot because I didn't know Amazon did food delivery before clicking on that first link? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.92|172.70.211.92]] 05:42, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
:I didn't know either until you brought it to my attention, but firstly their prices are high compared to established players, and secondly it's a dystopian vision of capitalism which everyone is trying to avoid even though we all know it's inevitable. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.158.217|172.71.158.217]] 07:39, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
::Dude! You can say that again! [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.125|172.69.33.125]] 07:45, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Does anyone else see the food : money :: atoms : bits analogy? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.186.19|162.158.186.19]] 07:26, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

2715: Pando

2022-12-23T14:24:09Z

172.71.242.74: /* Explanation */ Sentence split, and add justification for fir-type (or progressively diminishing stacked green triangles/trapezoids, etc) "populist"/stereotypical imagery often used outwith the physical practicalities. EC with dubious unclaim overwrit!

{{comic
| number = 2715
| date = December 23, 2022
| title = Pando
| image = pando_2x.png
| imagesize = 422x372px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = The presents under the tree are actually a single gift connected by an underground ribbon system.
}}

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

{{w|Pando_(tree)|Pando}} is a {{w|Populus tremuloides|quaking aspen}} tree colony in {{w|Fishlake National Forest}}, Utah. Depending on how you measure[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWAA-SrrFUQ], Pando is the largest living organism on earth, and is thereby also the largest tree on earth. By dry mass (weight not including water), Pando is the largest living thing humans have found. There is [https://www.forbes.com/sites/linhanhcat/2019/02/22/largest-organism-in-the-world/?sh=43fdf2a444ac one fungus in Oregon] which may weigh more including water, but that fungus is not a tree.

Pando is a Tree colony, a type of {{w|Clonal colony}} made of trees. Clonal colonies all form from the same seed or other origin, and are all genetically identical. Tree colonies spread using their extensive root system. Under all trees there are {{w|Root|roots}}, which gather nutrients and water from soil. On clonal trees (such as the {{w|Populus tremuloides|Quaking Aspen}}, Pando's species), when roots from one tree surface they can form another stalk/tree. This additional stalk is a genetic clone of the original. This clone then grows its own root network, and where they surface they too form more clones. However, crucially, the roots between the clones do not naturally separate, so all clones naturally stay attached. Each clone has a limited lifespan, only a few decades/centuries, but the colony can live for millennia. For example, the only known wild example of {{w|Lomatia tasmanica|''Lomatia tasmanica'', aka King's lomatia}}, is a clonal shrub thought to be at least 43,600 years old, and Pando itself is thought to be around 14,000 years old.

{{w|Christmas}} is a celebration on the 25th of December, traditionally celebrating the birth of {{w|Jesus}}, which is often claimed to be built heavily upon pagan traditions[https://chefin.com.au/blog/these-6-christmas-traditions-are-actually-pagan-customs/], though this is disputed by historians[https://historyforatheists.com/2020/12/pagan-christmas/] and annual social customs, then arguably converted into a far more secular event (with or without rampant consumerism). This comic was published on the 23rd of December, 2 days until Christmas, or [[Christmas Eve Eve]]

The concept of a {{w|Christmas tree}}, itself, is rooted in various pre-Christian folkloric traditions and, in the modern era, may be adapted or adopted as required by local and personal circumstances. It need not be an {{w|Evergreen}} fir tree with an angel (or star) atop, though that is the oft-depicted image in either great detail or as a simplified cartoonish depiction, but can be merely any handy plant (or artificial substitute) strewn with such decorations and/or {{w|Christmas lights|lights}} as the owner wishes. Because humans are, well, humans, people and places often compete to hold the record for the largest Christmas tree. At time of publishing (and writing), the tallest Christmas tree is officially a 64.36m (221ft) tall {{w|Douglas fir}} that was displayed in {{w|Northgate Station (shopping mall)|Northgate Shopping Center}}{{Actual citation needed}}, Seattle, WA in 1950[https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/77271-tallest-christmas-tree][https://www.historylink.org/File/21359]. The most widely spread, however, is likely the [https://www.italybyevents.com/en/events/umbria/world-largest-christmas-tree-gubbio/ Christmas tree display] in {{w|Gubbio}}, a town in Umbria, Italy, where hundreds of trees on a mountain face are lit up with light to form a Christmas tree shape.

Sidenote: A lot of articles say that the Gubbio tree has a Guinness world record. However, I can't find a citation for that. If anyone can, please add it. That would be appreciated.

In this comic, [[Randall]] proposes putting Christmas lights all the way around Pando to turn into (technically) a Christmas tree. As Pando is the worlds largest tree then, if this plan were to be carried out, it would safely take the record and hold it for quite some time.

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

:[The main comic frame is a profile view of a number of separated trees, of varying heights and maturity, across each of which (of those with sufficient height) has apparently been draped a single chain of decorative lights that goes from off-image at one side to off-image at the other.]

:[Inset in the bottom right is a mini-map implicating that these light-linked 'trees' are actually all risers from a single large superorganism (as a shaded complex but contiguous shape labelled "Pando"), the map has a "N"orth pointer, a scale bar indicating the length of "1,000 ft" (approximately a third of the shaded mass's full width) and a convex hull perimeter line tightly fitting the shaded area that has an indicative arrow from a label informing us that its length would be "9,300 ft".]

:[Caption below:] Christmas Science Fact: Pando is approximately 9,300 feet away from being the world's largest Christmas Tree.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics with lowercase text]]

Talk:2710: Hydropower Breakthrough

2022-12-15T00:39:46Z

172.71.242.74:

ChatGPT sez:
:The comic depicts Beret Guy, a character known for his expertise in science and engineering, standing on a podium and announcing that their hydroelectric dam has achieved a level of efficiency greater than one, producing more water than was fed into it. This is cause for celebration, as it indicates that the dam is functioning properly and efficiently. However, the second off-panel voice raises a question, suggesting that there may be more to the situation than initially thought.
:The title text adds further information by revealing that a hydroelectric dam is also known as a heavy water reactor. This suggests that the dam may not be operating in the traditional way, but rather may be using a different type of technology, such as nuclear power, to produce the excess water. This could raise concerns about safety and the potential risks associated with this type of technology.
Meh. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.45|172.69.33.45]] 03:44, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

It *is* possible. All Beret Guy has to do is use the electricity to run air conditioners, which will have one side condensing water from the atmosphere, ergo more water coming out than went in. [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 04:00, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
:I think there's a conservation of energy violation here, but can't model the entire system. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.134.97|172.70.134.97]] 14:31, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Considering that he phrases it "more water than we fed into it" in the past tense, it might just be that there's a leak in the dam.
[[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.19|172.69.33.19]] 04:06, 13 December 2022 (UTC) mraction

More variation: "more water than *we* fed into it" ie not counting water from the river that feeds it, or rainfall. There's also the title text turn of phrase "heavy water reactor". "heavy" could refer to either the "water" (in the sense of gravity, or deuterium passing through), or the "reactor" (as in its mass) - [[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.242|172.70.210.242]] 05:43, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

If Q is only barely >1 it could square the circle by converting atoms to oxygen by fusion in order to create water but the whole energy of the dam is used to make the fusion of a few oxygen atoms.

"Another member of audience, who is presumably familiar with regular physics, says "Wait.", because conservation of mass usually applies to water such that a dam should produce the same amount of water as that fed into it. That said, for a regular dam in a natural valley like the one shown in this comic, it is entirely normal for the dam to "produce" more water than input in the sense that in addition to water from upstream rivers, the dam will also output any "unofficial" inflow from direct rainfall above and from uncharted sources of groundwater below."<br>
I thought that the "Wait" comment was in relation to the fact that the announcement, although achieving something that was not achieved so far, is impractical. As the power plants are expected to produce energy, announcement that they produce additional water is irrelevant, and the "wait" comment indicated that they have missed the point. {{unsigned ip|172.68.50.204}}

Given the title of ''Hydropower Breakthrough'', is a possible interpretation that the dam is just about to fail? --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.171|172.68.110.171]] 10:35, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

My immediate thought was that he was using the generated electricity to ignite a hydrogen cell, but my immediate thoughts are always weird. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.134.97|172.70.134.97]] 14:31, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I feel Randall's comic is strongly indicative of a fair degree of skepticism around recent fusion power hype (many existing ''fission'' reactors produce an energy surplus, but fail to meet their cost of operations)... Yet, the comic's explanation currently reads as a guileless exhortation of fusion's possibilities, making no mention of the many other challenges faced by fusion reactors, besides this critical ''first step'' of generating more power than required to sustain the reaction. The comic is clearly making light of the recent publication\marketing push, yet the explanation gives no sign that fusion power is anything but practical & just around the corner. Fusion still has many remaining challenges to overcome, before reaching practicality as an energy source even for military applications (moreso still, for public utility); wind & solar are the top KWh:$ producers & another 10 or 100 billion spent researching fusion are very unlikely to change that in the next couple decades. In fact, solar research returns more Watts per dollar. The comic should probably mention the other challenges involved in nuclear fusion power, besides raw output quantity?
[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 16:00, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
:Top KWh:$ producers sure, by which statistics? The effectivity of different kinds of power plants varies widely both with specific location, cost of input and the method used, but usually the hydroelectric damns build in good terrain would take a lead, especially considering that they can work for more than century. Which wind or solar power plant can hope for that? There is sure lot of research still necessary to make fusion power plants reality, but long term it can easily pay itself, and it can work anywhere, while damns need to be build on river, wind onshore (offshore are MUCH less effective and no research will change that) and solar, well, not too far from equator and somewhere with sunny weather, it wouldn't work when raining. Or, well, in space. Fission might also get good value from research if the research actually will be happening. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 23:21, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I think the explanation is overthinking it. The joke is that there's a leak in the dam.
[[User:Nico31415926|An idiot]] ([[User talk:Nico31415926|talk]]) 16:37, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
:You mean you only see one of the long list of jokes in this comic? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 23:21, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
:: I guess my mind just thought of the simplest joke first? :shrug: -- [[User:Nico31415926|An idiot]] ([[User talk:Nico31415926|talk]]) 06:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

The explanation says nothing about the effect this would have downriver from the dam. [[User:Inquirer|Inquirer]] ([[User talk:Inquirer|talk]]) 16:51, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I wonder if the image depicts Vajont Dam, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajont_Dam, which was overtopped by a massive wave generated by a landslide--briefly outputting MUCH more water than was input. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.150.3|172.71.150.3]] 18:38, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Is not counting rain, equivalent to only counting the energy released by the laswers, not the energy fed into the lasers? [[User:Arachrah|Arachrah]] ([[User talk:Arachrah|talk]]) 20:47, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Another possible reason for the "Wait." comment is that, if Beret Guy's dam is indeed magically creating water, then left unchecked it could, over time, lead to the sea levels rising higher than all land surface on Earth. This would indeed be a very unfortunate situation. [[User:Dansiman|Dansiman]] ([[User talk:Dansiman|talk]]) 22:24, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

One of the things I just edited out was the claim that discharging (effectively) distilled water could dehydrate the environment. With an unnaturally hypertonic (dilute) water-source, creatures would not dry out but (if anything) ''absorb'' more water under osmotic pressure, which could lead to cells bursting from too much effort to balance things out. Hypotonic water (too many salts, for a given organism) would draw cellular/bodily stores of water out. Probably a 'pure water discharge' of the kind described would locally dilute the natural body of water that it was set to run into, but would also fairly quickly make itself/its dump-body more eager than normal to adopt ions from the immediate geologies of the run-off path. If you don't presume deluging a parched land with basically your fancy new-water output, there might be effects upon plants and animals adapted to more hard and/or briney water-environments (e.g. creating a disruptive freshwater lagoon within a saltwater marsh), with some ecological concerns to be addressed by careful use of mixing ponds (almost the opposite of most waste-water outlettings, which may require settling ponds or filtrating reed-beds) and questions about relative temperatures (which can be useful ''or'' disruptive to the survival of local creatures who might previously have migrated to more naturally warmer expanses of water), but overall it'd be better than most post-industrial water outflows. With the right eco-oversight to spot side-effects. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.74|172.71.242.74]] 01:39, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Where did all the AWS advertising come from? The comic has no relation to cloud computing or the amazon. The companies green washing ads should be deleted. --[[Special:Contributions/198.41.242.33|198.41.242.33]] 09:30, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Twelve paragraphs is absurd. This wall of text is an order of magnitude harder to understand than the simple comic joke. It needs to be trimmed to three to five paragraphs, tops! [[Special:Contributions/172.71.154.159|172.71.154.159]] 00:16, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
:Agreed, but it was that large by the time ''I'' arrived at the article, and it seemed that two (or three) separate strands of thought had been separately composed and concatonated. Perhaps not helped by multiple subtly different interpretations of the hidden meanings springing from deep within the words. Major re-editing is needed, but I'm not confident enough to blitz it properly. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.74|172.71.242.74]] 00:39, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Talk:2710: Hydropower Breakthrough

2022-12-14T01:39:26Z

172.71.242.74:

ChatGPT sez:
:The comic depicts Beret Guy, a character known for his expertise in science and engineering, standing on a podium and announcing that their hydroelectric dam has achieved a level of efficiency greater than one, producing more water than was fed into it. This is cause for celebration, as it indicates that the dam is functioning properly and efficiently. However, the second off-panel voice raises a question, suggesting that there may be more to the situation than initially thought.
:The title text adds further information by revealing that a hydroelectric dam is also known as a heavy water reactor. This suggests that the dam may not be operating in the traditional way, but rather may be using a different type of technology, such as nuclear power, to produce the excess water. This could raise concerns about safety and the potential risks associated with this type of technology.
Meh. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.45|172.69.33.45]] 03:44, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

It *is* possible. All Beret Guy has to do is use the electricity to run air conditioners, which will have one side condensing water from the atmosphere, ergo more water coming out than went in. [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 04:00, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
:I think there's a conservation of energy violation here, but can't model the entire system. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.134.97|172.70.134.97]] 14:31, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Considering that he phrases it "more water than we fed into it" in the past tense, it might just be that there's a leak in the dam.
[[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.19|172.69.33.19]] 04:06, 13 December 2022 (UTC) mraction

More variation: "more water than *we* fed into it" ie not counting water from the river that feeds it, or rainfall. There's also the title text turn of phrase "heavy water reactor". "heavy" could refer to either the "water" (in the sense of gravity, or deuterium passing through), or the "reactor" (as in its mass) - [[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.242|172.70.210.242]] 05:43, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

If Q is only barely >1 it could square the circle by converting atoms to oxygen by fusion in order to create water but the whole energy of the dam is used to make the fusion of a few oxygen atoms.

"Another member of audience, who is presumably familiar with regular physics, says "Wait.", because conservation of mass usually applies to water such that a dam should produce the same amount of water as that fed into it. That said, for a regular dam in a natural valley like the one shown in this comic, it is entirely normal for the dam to "produce" more water than input in the sense that in addition to water from upstream rivers, the dam will also output any "unofficial" inflow from direct rainfall above and from uncharted sources of groundwater below."<br>
I thought that the "Wait" comment was in relation to the fact that the announcement, although achieving something that was not achieved so far, is impractical. As the power plants are expected to produce energy, announcement that they produce additional water is irrelevant, and the "wait" comment indicated that they have missed the point. {{unsigned ip|172.68.50.204}}

Given the title of ''Hydropower Breakthrough'', is a possible interpretation that the dam is just about to fail? --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.171|172.68.110.171]] 10:35, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

My immediate thought was that he was using the generated electricity to ignite a hydrogen cell, but my immediate thoughts are always weird. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.134.97|172.70.134.97]] 14:31, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I feel Randall's comic is strongly indicative of a fair degree of skepticism around recent fusion power hype (many existing ''fission'' reactors produce an energy surplus, but fail to meet their cost of operations)... Yet, the comic's explanation currently reads as a guileless exhortation of fusion's possibilities, making no mention of the many other challenges faced by fusion reactors, besides this critical ''first step'' of generating more power than required to sustain the reaction. The comic is clearly making light of the recent publication\marketing push, yet the explanation gives no sign that fusion power is anything but practical & just around the corner. Fusion still has many remaining challenges to overcome, before reaching practicality as an energy source even for military applications (moreso still, for public utility); wind & solar are the top KWh:$ producers & another 10 or 100 billion spent researching fusion are very unlikely to change that in the next couple decades. In fact, solar research returns more Watts per dollar. The comic should probably mention the other challenges involved in nuclear fusion power, besides raw output quantity?
[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 16:00, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
:Top KWh:$ producers sure, by which statistics? The effectivity of different kinds of power plants varies widely both with specific location, cost of input and the method used, but usually the hydroelectric damns build in good terrain would take a lead, especially considering that they can work for more than century. Which wind or solar power plant can hope for that? There is sure lot of research still necessary to make fusion power plants reality, but long term it can easily pay itself, and it can work anywhere, while damns need to be build on river, wind onshore (offshore are MUCH less effective and no research will change that) and solar, well, not too far from equator and somewhere with sunny weather, it wouldn't work when raining. Or, well, in space. Fission might also get good value from research if the research actually will be happening. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 23:21, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I think the explanation is overthinking it. The joke is that there's a leak in the dam.
[[User:Nico31415926|An idiot]] ([[User talk:Nico31415926|talk]]) 16:37, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
:You mean you only see one of the long list of jokes in this comic? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 23:21, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

The explanation says nothing about the effect this would have downriver from the dam. [[User:Inquirer|Inquirer]] ([[User talk:Inquirer|talk]]) 16:51, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I wonder if the image depicts Vajont Dam, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajont_Dam, which was overtopped by a massive wave generated by a landslide--briefly outputting MUCH more water than was input. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.150.3|172.71.150.3]] 18:38, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Is not counting rain, equivalent to only counting the energy released by the laswers, not the energy fed into the lasers? [[User:Arachrah|Arachrah]] ([[User talk:Arachrah|talk]]) 20:47, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Another possible reason for the "Wait." comment is that, if Beret Guy's dam is indeed magically creating water, then left unchecked it could, over time, lead to the sea levels rising higher than all land surface on Earth. This would indeed be a very unfortunate situation. [[User:Dansiman|Dansiman]] ([[User talk:Dansiman|talk]]) 22:24, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

One of the things I just edited out was the claim that discharging (effectively) distilled water could dehydrate the environment. With an unnaturally hypertonic (dilute) water-source, creatures would not dry out but (if anything) ''absorb'' more water under osmotic pressure, which could lead to cells bursting from too much effort to balance things out. Hypotonic water (too many salts, for a given organism) would draw cellular/bodily stores of water out. Probably a 'pure water discharge' of the kind described would locally dilute the natural body of water that it was set to run into, but would also fairly quickly make itself/its dump-body more eager than normal to adopt ions from the immediate geologies of the run-off path. If you don't presume deluging a parched land with basically your fancy new-water output, there might be effects upon plants and animals adapted to more hard and/or briney water-environments (e.g. creating a disruptive freshwater lagoon within a saltwater marsh), with some ecological concerns to be addressed by careful use of mixing ponds (almost the opposite of most waste-water outlettings, which may require settling ponds or filtrating reed-beds) and questions about relative temperatures (which can be useful ''or'' disruptive to the survival of local creatures who might previously have migrated to more naturally warmer expanses of water), but overall it'd be better than most post-industrial water outflows. With the right eco-oversight to spot side-effects. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.74|172.71.242.74]] 01:39, 14 December 2022 (UTC)