explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

2775: Siphon

2023-05-15T08:47:16Z

172.71.242.86: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2775
| date = May 12, 2023
| title = Siphon
| image = siphon_2x.png
| imagesize = 310x378px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = ADDITIONAL NOTES: Fixed a bug that caused some rocks to generate virtually infinite heat while just sitting there.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a SIPHONIC WINDS - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
[[Cueball]] and [[Megan]] have set up a simple experiment to test how a {{w|siphon}} works, using the gravitational force on an upper reservoir of liquid and molecular cohesion to move a liquid upward through a tube, traversing a higher peak to reach a lower exit. [[Randall]] has also mentioned siphons in [https://what-if.xkcd.com/143/ whatif 143] and in his book, "how to," section "how to make a pool."

Siphons are commonly used in modern society (e.g., most American residential toilets are flushed by siphon action). Siphons should not be confused with [[#Trivia|capillary action]].

Apparently, even though Cueball and Megan have set up the experiment correctly, the water no longer demonstrates a siphon by flowing from the upper bucket to the lower. Cueball observes in surprise that "it's true," that Siphons don't work anymore. Thus indicating that this is a very recent development, and Megan remarks that it was honestly weird that it ever worked, and muses over why we ever thought that was a normal thing.

The punchline of the comic comes in the caption, which delivers a piece of ''Physics News'': "The 2023 update to the universe finally fixed the "siphon" bug." The joke here is that the entire complex and multifaceted system of {{w|physics}} in and of itself is treated as though it's simply the logic (or perhaps the sometimes unintentional result of various default configuration options like in a video game - see [[1620: Christmas Settings]]), and that siphoning (rather than being an interesting physical phenomenon worth studying) was nothing more than a bug in the Universe, that has now somehow been fixed.

In reality, siphons still very much exist in our universe{{Citation Needed}}. Siphons require filling beforehand to function, either by initially actively sucking liquid through or by immersing the siphon tube in liquid then ensuring it retains its contents as one end is brought over to its position lower than the other end, so it is plausible to imagine skeptical people “proving” they do not function by refraining from providing the initial priming. However, the small amount of water in the bottom of the bucket near Megan indicates that there was water in the tube, and that this just ran down on either side, leaving the tube empty and a bit of water in Megan's bucket, and a bit more in Cueball's bucket. So they did set up the experiment correctly, but since the latest update siphons do not work anymore. Or as they state it, the universe now works correctly and the siphon bug has been corrected.

{{w|simulation hypothesis|The idea}} that we live in a computer simulation is also prevalent in our modern pop culture, most famously shown in {{w|The Matrix}} (See [[566: Matrix Revisited]]).

The title text is an additional note to the 2023 physics update stating that the update has: "Fixed a bug that caused some rocks to generate virtually infinite heat while just sitting there."

This is a reference to radioactive materials that keep emitting energy (heat) almost indefinitely (on a human timescale). This is mainly a reference to {{w|uranium}} and {{w|Thorium}} and their decay chain, which are the main reason for keeping the Earth's core warm.

This is similar to the comic [[2115: Plutonium]], because {{w|plutonium}} (man made though) is used to power spacecraft. In that comic the title text has the same idea that someone controls the universe: ''It's like someone briefly joined the team running the universe, introduced their idea for a cool mechanic, then left, and now everyone is stuck pretending that this wildly unbalanced dynamic makes sense.''

The entire comic is one of many where Randall muses over strange aspects of our universe, and wonders why we (people) ever think that it seems normal, the way the Universe works (or how humans works - see for instance [[1268: Alternate Universe]]).

==Transcript==
:[Cueball is standing next to two buckets while Megan is looking on from the other side of the buckets. The left bucket is on a stool and is almost filled with water while the other is on the ground and has a very small amount of water in it. Cueball is holding an empty tube between the two buckets. The end to the left is deep into the water in the left bucket while the other end hangs into the empty bucket to the right.]
:Cueball: Wow, it's true—the water doesn't flow up the tube anymore.
:Megan: Honestly, it's weird that it ever did.
:Megan: Why did we think that was normal?

:[Caption below the panel:]
:Physics news: The 2023 update to the universe finally fixed the "Siphon" bug.

==Trivia==
Siphons are separate from a similarly counter-intuitive phenomenon of {{w|capillary action}}, where a liquid flows through narrow spaces (even upwards, entirely against gravity) in that a siphon need not be of such small diameter. Capillary action will also move liquid into an initially empty channel, whilst a siphon must be 'primed', by filling the tube, in order to draw liquid over a high point to ultimately always drop down into a lower container. Capillary action is caused by surface tension and attractive forces between the liquid and the walls of the channel; the liquid level will rise until the weight of the column of liquid matches the attractive forces. A siphon requires that the weight of the liquid column on the "higher" side of the channel peak not exceed atmospheric pressure, or else the liquid will split, leaving a {{w|Torricelli's_experiment|partial vacuum}}. Capillary action can lift liquid higher than the maximum height of the "higher" side of a siphon with the same liquid, if the attractive forces are strong enough.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Physics]]

2210: College Athletes

2023-05-02T12:36:44Z

172.71.242.86:

{{comic
| number = 2210
| date = October 2, 2019
| title = College Athletes
| image = college_athletes.png
| titletext = Their signature play is the three-point combinator, a recursive offense which is guaranteed not to halt and continues accumulating points until the buzzer.
}}

==Explanation==
[[Ponytail]] is reading{{citation needed}} from her phone about the [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/30/sports/college-athletes-paid-california.html California Fair Pay to Play act], which was signed into law on September 30, 2019, two days before this comic was released. It gives college athletes the rights to their name and image (face, body, etc.) for financial gain, in contrast to {{w|NCAA}} rules which require that athletes be unpaid. This bill threatens {{w|Amateurism in the NCAA|the NCAA's notion of amateurism}}, which has become a topic of public debate.

[[White Hat]] thinks this law is a good thing, but then [[Cueball]] claims that his state has passed an even better law giving college players rights to the names and images of ''any'' California athletes. Note that Cueball's state is thus not California, so it is very odd they can use names from another state, in addition to the oddity of gaining rights to another person's name and image.

Ponytail doesn't believe Cueball, but he carries on claiming that all members of his school's basketball team thus have changed their name to {{w|Steph Curry}} after the NBA player who plays for the {{w|Golden State Warriors}}, a team in California. Cueball explains in particular that only one player copied the name from the NBA player, then another member of the team copied the name from that player, and so on.

As it turns out, in his final remark, all this has only been the setup for his grand joke: Cueball tells Ponytail and White Hat that this process of recursive name usage is known as "currying". In addition to a pun with basketball rules against ''carrying'', avoidance of which often involves passing from one player to another, this is also a play on both the basketball player's name "Curry" used here, as well as the mathematical procedure called {{w|currying}}, named after mathematician {{w|Haskell Curry}}. This sort of humor is very typical of Cueball, leading Ponytail to state that she "hates him".

Currying is when a multi-variable function is broken down into a sequence of single-variable functions, each of which outputs a new function until the final variable is consumed. For example, the function f(x,y,z) can be curried into f(x)(y)(z), where f is a function that consumes x and produces a function f(x), which in turn consumes y, yielding the function f(x)(y), and that in turn is a function f(x)(y) which consumes the parameter z to finally produce f(x)(y)(z), which is equal to the original f(x,y,z). This is not commonly used in most areas of math except for foundational logic but it is widely used in functional programming.

When Cueball says ''a team made up entirely of Steph Currys'', White Hat questions what the plural form should be, and should it instead have been "''Stephs Curry''"? This is referring to the pluralization of phrases where a noun is followed by a modifier of some sort, such as ''attorneys general'', ''parts unknown'', ''heirs apparent'', ''mothers-in-law'', and so on. In these cases, plurals are formed by pluralizing the noun parts of the phrases; however, some of these are rare or foreign enough that speakers of English don't always identify them correctly and pluralize the last word instead, e.g. ''attorney generals''.

The title text is a computer science joke, saying that the Steph Currys basketball team's signature play is the "three-point combinator", a joke on the {{w|three-point play}} in basketball, and a type of {{w|Fixed-point_combinator#Y_combinator|fixed-point combinator}} called the [https://rosettacode.org/wiki/Y_combinator Y Combinator], introduced by Haskell Curry. The description of "three-point combinator" is dense with word play that relates to the Y Combinator, which is used to implement {{w|recursive}} methods in functional programming languages, has notable properties relating to halting (see: the {{w|halting problem}}), and has a common form in which a second argument is used as a counter that is increased by one with each recursive call until termination. "Signature play" may also be a play on words, as currying transforms a {{w|Type_signature#Method_signature|method signature}}.

In this case, when this move is performed, it will just keep accumulating points, as it is guaranteed it cannot halt and will not stop until the time runs out and the buzzer that ends the game is activated. Such a move can of course not be a part of a real basketball game, and more of a nod to the Golden State Warriors' reputation as a high-scoring, nearly-unstoppable offense widely known for three-point shooting.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball, Ponytail and White Hat are having a conversation. Ponytail is checking her phone.]
:Ponytail: Oh, huh. California passed a law giving college athletes full rights to their names and images.
:White Hat: Good, I think?

:[Cueball holds his hand up in a fist, while Ponytail, holding her phone down, and White Hat looks at him.]
:Cueball: That's nothing. '''''Our''''' state gave college players rights to use the names and images of '''''any''''' California athletes.
:Ponytail: It did not.

:[In a frame-less panel Cueball holds his hands out, Ponytail's phone is gone and White Hat puts a hand to his chin.]
:Cueball: Sure it did!
:Cueball: That's how our school fielded a basketball team made up entirely of Steph Currys.
:White Hat: Or is the plural "Stephs Curry"?

:[Cueball holds both hands up in front of him. Ponytail has her arms down but she is balling her hands into fists.]
:Cueball: They didn't all copy the original Steph, though. One player got the rights to his name, then the next player got it from them, and so on.
:Cueball: This process is known as "currying".
:Ponytail: ...I hate you so much.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]
[[Category:Comics featuring real people]]
[[Category:Sport]] 
[[Category:Basketball]]
[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Programming]]
[[Category:Puns]]

2220: Imagine Going Back in Time

2023-04-30T11:50:31Z

172.71.242.86: /* Explanation */ Intended link?

{{comic
| number = 2220
| date = October 25, 2019
| title = Imagine Going Back in Time
| image = imagine_going_back_in_time.png
| titletext = I wonder what the trendy adults in 2019 who are too cool for Pokemon will be into. Probably Digimon!
}}

==Explanation==
[[Cueball]] is checking his ''{{w|Pokémon Go}}'' app to check on the status of a Pokémon he had previously left in a gym (to defend it against the other two teams in the game). In the gym he sees that another player named "Reelect Trump 2020" has left a frog Pokémon, which is now standing next to his. Cueball, evidently not a fan of President Trump or his supporters, finds it distasteful to be indirectly associated with someone whose political views he finds unpleasant. Alternatively, it may simply be that Cueball doesn't want politics injected into a game that he plays for fun.

When he remarks on this to [[Megan]], she observes how strange that remark would sound if he said it to his younger self from 20 years ago. Normally when people say "imagine going back in time", they are merely constructing a hypothetical scenario to illustrate how rapidly society has changed over the years. Megan is likely pointing out that the idea of Donald Trump becoming the President of the United States (let alone coming up for re-election) would have seemed very [https://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/w/index.php?title=Farfetch%27d_(Pok%C3%A9mon) farfetch'd] just 20 years ago.
However, it turns out that Cueball somehow actually does ''have'' the time-travel technology required to pull this off, and so he takes Megan's suggestion literally and goes back in time 20 years to do exactly what she suggested: he repeats the statement to his younger self to see what his reaction will be.

Unfortunately, past Cueball (in the year 1999) chooses to focus on a completely different aspect of the statement: the fact that ''Pokémon'' - a game that past Cueball sees as a children's game - will still somehow be popular in 20 years, and that his adult self is still playing it. These observations make Cueball feel uncomfortable, as they highlight the fact that he is spending time on pursuits that his younger self sees as frivolous or childish. He gets defensive and starts to argue with his younger self.

When his younger self begins to call it a sobering and cautionary tale, it may dawn upon present Cueball that he may just have changed how his former self will behave. (Could he, in the new iteration, never even begin playing Pokémon Go, and thus present Cueball may disappear and a different version of himself will exist 20 years later? Or could he have seeded encouragement for himself being more readily connected to all things Pokémon in the intervening years, putting himself further ahead of the resurgence in its popularity?) Or else future-Cueball is just frustrated at how past-Cueball is failing to notice his intended revelation — and in turn is failing to appreciate past-Cueball's own naive but still insightful interpretation.

{{w|Pokémon}} is a media franchise that debuted in 1996 in Japan as both a video game and a trading card game. It was originally designed for and marketed to younger children (the tie-in cartoon series constantly emphasizes its main characters are ten years old), with a design, aesthetic and gameplay that were optimized for a younger audience. Since then, and up to 2019, there have been a total of eight generations of video games on consoles. As the franchise continued to thrive and evolve, it's gone through multiple generations, including ''Pokémon Go'', an augmented reality game for smartphones. These latest versions, in particular, have become popular with (and marketed to) adults, some of whom grew up playing the earlier generations.

In 1999 in North America, only the first generation of Pokémon video games had been released, consisting of {{w|Pokémon Red and Blue|''Pokémon Blue'' and ''Pokémon Red''}} and the anime-based spin-off {{w|Pokémon Yellow|Pokémon Yellow}} for the Nintendo Game Boy/Game Boy Color. The second generation of Pokémon video games would not even be announced in Japan until {{w|Pokémon Gold and Silver#Release|November 1999}}, and advertising for the North American release would begin in December of 1999. A person living in 1999, who has only seen the first generation, with no official confirmation that a second generation was even being considered, and unable to predict the nostalgia market that would appear later, would quite plausibly wonder about its popularity 20 years later.

{{w|Donald J. Trump}} was the president of the United States at the time of publishing, elected in 2016. Even during his campaign, the idea of his election was considered absurd in many circles, as he had never held any kind of public office, and had no background that would lend itself to expertise in government or public policy. Prior to his election, he was primarily known as a New York real estate mogul and host of the 2003 reality television show ''The Apprentice''. While he'd been teasing the idea of a presidential run since the 1980s, and indeed {{w|Donald Trump 2000 presidential campaign|was seeking the Reform Party candidacy in 1999}} (at the advice of then-Governor of Minnesota {{w|Jesse Ventura}}, another actor-turned-politician), most people did not take the idea seriously, and the concept of him actually being President of the United States would have been hugely unexpected to most Americans in an earlier era. 1999 Cueball might regard the name "Reelect Trump 2020" as an ironic joke, like a campaign button for {{w|Vermin Supreme}} or the [https://sweetmeteorofdeath.com/ Sweet Meteor Of Death].

Randall released a comic about Pokémon Go less than a week after its release back in July 2016: [[1705|1705: Pokémon Go]]. But Pokémon in general has been a [[:Category:Pokémon|recurring theme]] in xkcd long before Pokémon Go was released.

[https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/pepe-the-frog Pepe the Frog] is an internet meme that has become associated with Donald Trump after his use of it during his presidential campaign. The use of a frog Pokémon, therefore, is a callback to this internet phenomenon.

The Pokémon left in the gym is most likely [https://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Politoed_(Pok%C3%A9mon) Politoed], the only official frog Pokémon released in the game at the time of publication. It comes from the tadpole series with [https://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Poliwag_(Pok%C3%A9mon) Poliwag] that evolves into [https://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Poliwhirl_(Pok%C3%A9mon) Poliwhirl] which by using a [https://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/King%27s_Rock King's Rock] can be evolved to Politoed (instead of to [https://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Poliwrath_(Pok%C3%A9mon) Poliwrath]). There are other frog-like Pokémon in the game which are scheduled to be added to Pokémon Go, but where people who dislike Trump might have chosen [https://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Toxicroak_(Pok%C3%A9mon) Toxicroak], it seems an unlikely choice by a fan that hopes Trump is reelected!

This comic's joke is similar to one used in the 1985 science-fiction film ''{{w|Back to the Future}}'', in which Doc Brown (of 1955) is shocked to learn that {{w|Ronald Reagan}} would be the President of the United States in thirty years' time, when in 1955 Reagan was a TV actor.

{{w|Digimon}}, as mentioned in the title text, is another media franchise which is similar to Pokémon in some ways, though it is sometimes perceived as more "cool" and "adult" oriented. Its popularity in North America rose around 1999 with the airing of its anime series, but [https://geekinsider.com/digimon-vs-pokemon-retrospective-monster-marketing/ never became as popular as Pokémon].

This was the first of two time travel comics in less than a week, as the one two comics after this one, [[2222: Terminator: Dark Fate]], also had future Cueballs travel back to visit their past self.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball talks to Megan while looking at his smart phone.]
:Cueball: Ugh. A player named "Reelect Trump 2020" put a frog Pokemon in the gym next to mine.

:[Megan puts her hand to her face. Cueball is holding a device in his hand with an antenna. He uses the other hand to move a stick on the device.]
:Megan: Imagine going back in time and saying that to yourself 20 years ago.
:Cueball: Oh, I have a time machine! I'll try that.

:[A sound effect between panels, likely the sound of Cueball's time machine.]
:Bzzzzt

:[Two Cueballs standing, facing each other. The one on the right is holding the handheld device, and is thus Cueball from 2019. He is apparently repeating his statement to the other Cueball from 1999, with only the last 3 words shown. He gestures towards the left Cueball. Above the left Cueball there is a frame with a caption:]
:1999
:Cueball from 2019: ...next to mine.

:[Cueball from 1999 is shown, with Cueball from 2019 speaking off panel.]
:Cueball from 1999: I see.
:Cueball from 1999: Pokemon is still popular in 2019?
:Cueball from 2019: Yeah.

:[Cueball from 2019 is holding a finger up in front of Cueball from 1999.]
:Cueball from 1999: And it's cool for people your age to play it?
:Cueball from 2019: OK, I did not come here to be mocked.
:Cueball from 1999: This is a sobering cautionary tale.
:Cueball from 2019: '''''Listen, self...'''''

==Trivia==
* The idea of people extending their childhood hobbies into adulthood was explored in a more positive light in [[219: Blanket Fort]] and [[150: Grownups]]. The blurred line between childhood and adulthood is a recurring theme on xkcd.

{{comic discussion}}

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

[[Category:Video games]]
[[Category:Pokémon]]
[[Category:Time travel]]
[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Donald Trump]]

2457: After the Pandemic

2023-04-28T13:35:26Z

172.71.242.86: Undo revision 311795 by 172.70.91.152 (talk) Looks like another case of over-/mis-use of CN tag. If disagree with statement then actually edit in your reasoning perhaps?

{{comic
| number = 2457
| date = April 30, 2021
| title = After the Pandemic
| image = after_the_pandemic.png
| titletext = I'm looking forward to having to worry a lot less about covid, but wouldn't mind if we worried a little more about giving each other colds. Colds are bad!
}}

==Explanation==
This comic is another in a [[:Category:COVID-19|series of comics]] related to the {{w|COVID-19 pandemic}}.

There is no hidden humor in this comic, it simply states an opinion. [[Randall]] is saying that he is looking forward to not having to wear a mask everywhere after the pandemic is over. Mask mandates were a common way various organizations reduced the spread of Covid-19. Now that the vaccines exist, people are assuming that these mask mandates will soon end, and in many jurisdictions they have already.

However, Randall hopes that people will continue to wear a mask when they are sick, as is common in many East Asian countries. This lets other people know the person may be sick, or trying to avoid becoming sick, so they can give the person extra distance. Wearing a mask reduces the spread of infectious droplets when one exhales or coughs, and reduces exposure to droplets from others. Both features help reduce the spread of communicable diseases. Also, Randall thinks other people coughing on him is gross, as do most people.

Masking when ill would help reduce influenza, [https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110517162020.htm tuberculosis] and colds. The flu is a deadly disease that usually kills tens of thousands of people each year.

People with less common diseases, like tuberculosis, may be more likely to wear a mask if mask wearing becomes more common, so they don't feel as conspicuous. For less severe illnesses and less vulnerable populations xkcd's wish may not be such a good idea, as every cold - albeit unpleasant - constantly trains the immune system and keeps it alert.[https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/magazines/panache/common-cold-infection-may-train-the-body-to-recognise-and-fight-coronavirus/articleshow/77366133.cms?from=mdr]

The title text continues this line of reasoning by saying Randall wants to worry less about COVID-19, but hopes people would worry more about colds. Colds are generally mild and might cause someone to spend a few days home sick from work or school. However, colds cost [https://www.webmd.com/cold-and-flu/news/20030224/cost-of-common-cold-40-billion tens of billions of dollars annually] in the US. Costs include the value of lost productivity at work or school, time spent caring for the sick, cost of doctor visits and medications. Inappropriate treatment of colds with antibiotics is common, and contributes to the rise of {{W|antimicrobial resistance|antibiotic resistant bacteria}}, and {{W|clostridium difficile infection|clostridium difficile infections}}.[https://www.cdc.gov/antibiotic-use/community/for-patients/common-illnesses/colds.html].

Randall has made a specific corona comic targeted at colds before: [[2306: Common Cold]]. And in 2015 he probably had a severe cold (or more than one) as he published these two comics [[1612: Colds]] and [[1618: Cold Medicine]] in December 2015.

==Transcript==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
|Things I will not miss one bit after the Pandemic
|Things I hope stick around and become normalized
|-
|Wearing masks everywhere
|Wearing masks when you're feeling sick, because it's an easy way to tell people to give you space, and also getting coughed on is gross
|}

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:COVID-19]]

Talk:what if

2023-04-20T18:25:19Z

172.71.242.86: /* Page disappearing? */

I moved the [[what if?]] page to here because I was unable to use the "move" ability as it kept showing "No input file specified". — [[User:Sqrt-1|The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭]] [[User talk:Sqrt-1|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Sqrt-1|stalk]] 06:44, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I just noticed this: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/29/science/randall-munroe-question-popcorn.html It seems to be a continuation of what if in spirit but not in name, should we link to it from here?

Is the "it's" in the UK book description a typo by the article writer, or is it there in the actual book? I can't find it on the internets. [[User:Szeth Pancakes|Szeth Pancakes]] ([[User talk:Szeth Pancakes|talk]]) 20:36, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

== Summary ==

What exactly is the summary? There are numerous fallacies in it. Please provide context or I will likely return and edit this in the future. [[User:SilverTheTerribleMathematician|SilverTheTerribleMathematician]] ([[User talk:SilverTheTerribleMathematician|talk]]) 15:11, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

== Page disappearing? ==
When I try to access [https://what-if.xkcd.com/ the page], I get a 404 error. Is this just me? [[User:GcGYSF(asterisk)P(vertical line)e|GcGYSF(asterisk)P(vertical line)e]] ([[User talk:GcGYSF(asterisk)P(vertical line)e|talk]]) 05:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
:For that (the 'main/default' page of the domain), I'm getting "403 Forbidden", instead. But "404 Not Found" for WI-number pages or the feed on that domain. But not tried to work out what the archive/list page is or was. I think it's a mess-up on the backend server (accidental change, or not keeping up with some other front-end change) rather than a domain-level end-of-service situation... [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.207|172.71.178.207]] 15:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
:Was reading the site the past few days, 17 and the others I saw the past few days work on my end but the others are 404 for me. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.155.4|162.158.155.4]] 17:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
::Well, [https://xkcd.com/17/ Comic 17] isn't an actual "what-if", in anything but name. The others might locally be cached for you, having been there recently. Def. something wrong, but exactly what needs to be looked into by Randall/his tech team, I would say. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.86|172.71.242.86]] 18:25, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Talk:2762: Diffraction Spikes

2023-04-13T17:27:40Z

172.71.242.86:

I tried to make an initial explanation, but then someone beat me to it and I made a fool of myself on the page trying to add a comment where it didn't go. I fixed it, but I am ashamed ;~; [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.15|172.69.34.15]] 23:31, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
:It's all good. As long as you learn from it, and we learn what useful things you want to say, nothing at all to worry about... All power to your typing fingers! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.66|172.70.85.66]] 00:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Exoplanets nevertheless exist because, alongside the visible diffraction spikes that chop them up, there are invisible defraction [sic] spikes that reassemble them. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.136|162.158.158.136]] 00:32, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Why does the spike slice the planet instead of the planet breaking the tip off the spike? Are the spikes like enormous light sabers? [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 00:43, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
:The spikes are stellar artifacts of distant observers, with all the mass of the star behind them. The Sun hardly moves much if you dunk the Earth into it, why should the exoplanet move the spike? At best you'd get a similar effect to karate chopping a stream of water from a hose. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.150.175|172.71.150.175]] 04:49, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Is it inspired by some movie that features this "spike pointing on some person" effect? I remember seeing one, but I don't seem to remember its name. [[User:Unreliable Connection|2659: Unreliable Connection]] ([[User talk:Unreliable Connection|talk]]) 02:07, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

:This comic also reminded me of fractal images. [[User:Memo Spike Connector|2503: Memo Spike Connector]] ([[User talk:Memo Spike Connector|talk]]) 09:06, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

:Is there also some joke here about double vision (if you cross your eyes you will see two planets), you use lens occlusion to see expolanets? ([[garbled]])) 10:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC+1)

From an edit comment "(Refractor telescopes (using only lenses) don't give refraction spikes, reflector telescopes (using mirrors) do.)". Yeahbut, nobuf... It's just the struts, also mentioned, that are the key. You can build pure-refractor telescopes that still have struts (probably not optimal, but a design option) and therefore spikes. And you can make one with mirrors and ''no'' struts (more complicated and less of a practical shape for most mounting/launching purposes) which would therefore be spikeless. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.160|172.70.162.160]] 12:00, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

:Some telescopes get diffraction spikes from the shape of the mirror. The JWST is a notable example of this. --[[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.186|172.71.178.186]] 14:13, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
::It's the sharp, angled edges that provide interference patterns (a set of "one-sided diffractions", rather than two-sided ones around an obstruction). A full round mirror on its own would not produce any spikes. Nor if the light from the edge areas cannot possibly reach the sensors, but that would mean less use of the mirror(s) they took great pains to send up there. And the secondary mirror ''has'' struts (in a Y-shape, I think, for technical reasons), thus why there's two minor spikes (actually six, but four are aligned to be hidden within the major spikes) as well as the hexagon-edge-induced set of six. Which also helps you understand in which orientation (or which two possibilities) the JWST was, in order to make any images you see from it.
::But this is already over-explained, really. You ''can'' design a mirror set to a avoid spikes, but with other technical compromises/etc. And above is correct, in that refractive telescopes can find themselves showing spikes (struts, if so designed, and other internal angles that may intrude into the light-path's edge). [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.86|172.71.242.86]] 17:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

User talk:Unreliable Connection

2023-04-09T11:37:44Z

172.71.242.86:

Do you want me to create your sandbox? [[User:ColorfulGalaxy|ColorfulGalaxy]] ([[User talk:ColorfulGalaxy|talk]]) 20:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

:Please create my user page and sandbox, and don't forget [[User:Memo Spike Connector]]. [[User:Unreliable Connection|2659: Unreliable Connection]] ([[User talk:Unreliable Connection|talk]]) 23:43, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

::I've created them both. Anyway, thanks for your kind reminder. [[User:Unreliable Connection|2659: Unreliable Connection]] ([[User talk:Unreliable Connection|talk]]) 09:42, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

:The page that you're in charge of got spam edits again. [[User:ColorfulGalaxy|ColorfulGalaxy]] ([[User talk:ColorfulGalaxy|talk]]) 21:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

:Uh, They seem to know when I'm usually active, and spammed when I'm inactive, maybe just to annoy others. I always worked late. [[User:Unreliable Connection|2659: Unreliable Connection]] ([[User talk:Unreliable Connection|talk]]) 23:54, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
::Look guy(s), the spammers have been spamming long before you "took charge". Your work-hours matter not one jot, even if we knew your timezone, and the community handles it as it always tries to. I will deal with anything I see 'spammed', if not dealt with by others before I get there, and you can deal with anything that you see before anyone else gets there. Whether UC, CG, OMG or any other 'normal'. (Though OMG is clearly the same person as CG. If, by some remote chance, they are not, one of them is also UC; but very probably both are.) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.86|172.71.242.86]] 11:37, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

'''DELETED COMMENT''' [[User:ColorfulGalaxy|ColorfulGalaxy]] ([[User talk:ColorfulGalaxy|talk]]) 21:26, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

:Thanks for encouraging. I will do better. [[User:Unreliable Connection|2659: Unreliable Connection]] ([[User talk:Unreliable Connection|talk]]) 23:52, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Could you create my user page? [[User:Omg Oriental Music Group|Omg Oriental Music Group]] ([[User talk:Omg Oriental Music Group|talk]]) 09:34, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

:What are you going to do? [[User:Unreliable Connection|2659: Unreliable Connection]] ([[User talk:Unreliable Connection|talk]]) 09:35, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I want to put the lyrics in the sandbox into my user page sandbox. By the way, could you contact the author for the minor fix to the lyrics? [[User:Omg Oriental Music Group|Omg Oriental Music Group]] ([[User talk:Omg Oriental Music Group|talk]]) 09:36, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

:There is a lot of discussion about the lyrics going on in the portal. That's the place where I posted a math problem (sadly they removed it). Some people said that the lyrics were lousy. There are a lot of obscure words. I'm no linguist, really. I hope that the debate won't continue here. [[User:Unreliable Connection|2659: Unreliable Connection]] ([[User talk:Unreliable Connection|talk]]) 09:42, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

::See what the "author" said: http://puzzling.stackexchange.com/questions/120234/a-message-of-encouragement --[[Special:Contributions/172.71.158.231|172.71.158.231]] 09:44, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

:::So this means that the only one left would be "Donald ATG Trump", which isn't active at all. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.154.228|172.71.154.228]] 09:47, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

== Predict the next comic ==

Let's try to predict what will come next on the xkcd comics. [[User:Unreliable Connection|2659: Unreliable Connection]] ([[User talk:Unreliable Connection|talk]]) 23:53, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

:What about music staff?

User talk:SilverTheTerribleMathematician

2023-04-05T15:50:45Z

172.71.242.86: /* Water and life */ new section

==Astronomy/Astrology==
Regarding the recent edit of yours to [[:Category:Astronomy]], 'even' in Britain (well, amongst anybody not otherwise confused) Astrology isn't the same as Astronomy. The latter is the term for the whole subject of scientific knowledge in the realm of the stars, the former is that of making narrative stories from how the stars and planets might appear to us.

Admitedly, the early days of sky-watching probably had a lot of overlap/indistinguishability between the two practices (like practical chemistry when it had not yet emerged from the more fanciful concepts of alchemy), and the scientific use of "-logy" (of words; explanation or narrative) survives in sciences such as biology/ecology in some cases, rather than as "-nomy" (being about rules and laws) as with taxonomy – or such things as an autonomy. But if anyone currently thinks that astronomy and astrology are the same thing, by different names, then they don't know enough about at least one of them. Perhaps both. ;) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.57|172.70.85.57]] 21:30, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

== Water and life ==

"... but arguably they are not alive in any sense (other than containing a large amount of water)". Skewed logic. You're saying that merely by containing water gives it some sort of status of being alive.

Things that are alive may contain water (probably do, as in that we don't know of many things that are, but don't; but then we might be biased by being a carbon+water biosystem and not seeing the possible alternatives put into practice) and bodies of water may contain life (including clouds, at least transiently) but refuting the livingness of clouds, ''except'' that they contain water, suggests that the water is the life, not merely an aid to life. Ponds, rivers, lakes, seas and oceans also have a lot of water in them{{Citation needed}} and even contain living things (usually) so may be refered to as 'alive [with life]' but aren't alive any individualistic sense. Even to the extent that the creatures, protozoa or even viruses within it might simultaneously be considered to be. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.86|172.71.242.86]] 15:50, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Talk:2754: Relative Terms

2023-03-26T16:23:43Z

172.71.242.86:

Does this mean that the steam calliopes which are as loud as an airplane are LARGER than that airplane? I'm not finding any examples of such. [[User:Ikidre|Ikidre]] ([[User talk:Ikidre|talk]]) 01:31, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Holy shit what a terrible comic [[Special:Contributions/172.68.58.130|172.68.58.130]] 02:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
:I've seen many a terrible comic and I personally don't consider this one to be terrible, but relative to other XKCD comics I would consider it one of the least interesting and entertaining, unfortunately. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.38.230|172.70.38.230]] 15:44, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm somewhat terrified that "Statue" isn't considered *maximally* quiet. [[User:Trimeta|Trimeta]] ([[User talk:Trimeta|talk]]) 02:32, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
:I don't think the position in the quadrants is meant to indicate degree of loudness or size. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 04:07, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
::Yes it is, that's how such graphs work. That's why sewing machine is in the middle, Randall is declaring that it's neither small nor big, and neither quiet nor loud, it's medium on both scales. Comics like this are roughly the standard X-Y graph but without numbered scales and having words instead of points. And I too noted that statues aren't maximum quiet, LOL! Maybe he's referring to the Doctor Who Weeping Angels? DO they make any sound? [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 05:29, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
:::Well, that may be how such graphs sometimes work, but clearly not this one. The quadrants are positioned relative to the sewing machine, but that appears to be the only significance afforded to positioning in this layout - an item's position within its quadrant does not indicate the degree to which it qualifies as belonging there. Otherwise a firecracker and a blender would be quieter than a cricket. Unless Randall is referring to the crowd at a test match. But that seems pretty unlikely.[[User:Yorkshire Pudding|Yorkshire Pudding]] ([[User talk:Yorkshire Pudding|talk]]) 10:20, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
::::The fact that xkcd charts usually have arrows on the axes when the position within the quadrant does matter would support this claim. [[User:NcPenguin|NcPenguin]] ([[User talk:NcPenguin|talk]]) 16:45, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
:::::Came here to point out that I’ve heard a mouse that somehow got in scritch-scritching n something in my kitchen, and I’ve heard a butterfly that somehow got in battering against a window trying to get out, but I’ve never in my life heard an ant, nor even a hundred ants working together to wreck stuff. But as you pointed out, there are no arrows on the chart, so the positions in the quadrants probably aren’t intended to be meaningful.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.10|172.69.34.10]] 21:56, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
::::I am certain that this is how Randall does such graphs, and intended with this one, but he got sloppy this time. I suspect he WAS doing that, but then would think of something quieter (or louder or bigger or smaller) and have left himself no room to indicate this (like he already put "Volcano" at the biggest before he decided to add the even bigger "Moon", so now they're both at the bottom of the graph). So, yes, gradation IS supposed to be indicated, but very loosely, not vigilantly. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 04:22, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

:::Gartner Magic Quadrants include arrows on the axes, e.g. "completeness of vision -->" and "ability to execute-->". This is not that. However it is '''mostly''' implied by the contents of each quadrant that the items are arranged smallest to biggest (top-down) and quietest to loudest (left-to-right). I think for those who study the items carefully, this then introduces some situational irony for comedic effect in the way of the unexpected placement of certain items like "statues" (louder than a Giraffe?), "baby" (smaller than a harmonica?), and "cannon" (quieter than a riding mower?). Additionally, having spent time in a quiet room with a cricket, I think the "maximally loud" position of the cricket here feels about right. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.179.61|172.70.179.61]] 16:44, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

:: It seems that the joke is exactly that the ONLY meaningful distinction between big/small and loud/quiet is how something relates to a sewing machine. There are too many obvious deviations otherwise.

I've always considered a microwave oven to be the central item
: I concur that microwave would be excellent in the center, and less ambiguous (I mean, I feel certain that Randall didn't think of industrial sewing machines, but this community loves being uncertain, LOL!) [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 05:22, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
:: ∃ industrial microwaves. Units of at least 1MW are available, compared to domestic units around 1kW.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.34.28|172.70.34.28]] 04:13, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
AFAIK, only Randall/xkcd uses the term "Bun" to mean bunnies... :) I feel like it should be worded that way. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 05:22, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
:No, it's very common in the furry community, and I swear I've heard it elsewhere as well. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.230.72|172.70.230.72]] 12:03, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
::Well, there's a reason I said this in a comment instead of editing the Explanation. :) [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 04:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Is the breadbox no longer the standard item for size comparison? Because I still use it that way. [[User:Mathmannix|Mathmannix]] ([[User talk:Mathmannix|talk]]) 12:43, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
:Ah, but this requires a standard for size AND sound at the same time, and I can't imagine a breadbox being the middle of any sound scale. What's quieter than a breadbox? [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 04:27, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Is the moon really bigger than the northern lights? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.126.117|172.70.126.117]] 17:39, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
:Hmmmm... I wonder. Well, the Moon is a tad under 3,500km (diameter). Taking just a single pole's Aurora (combined, you could just say they are approx. Earth's diamater, which is bigger than the Moon,{{Citation needed}} going pole-to-pole) the height is the thickness of the (upper) atmosphere, very much of that below the altitude of satellites (e.g. ISS), which is mere hundreds of km at best. Or take its 3-6 degrees of 'band width', that is perhaps a tad over 300-600km thick. But if we go with its extent all the way round off the pole, it seems to get about the size of the Moon (linear distance, not 'over the pole') once it extends by 15-16 degrees of latitude (i.e. to less than 74 degrees N/S). It is generally accepted that it varies between 10 and 20 degrees from each geomagnetic pole (is seen at lower latitudes, but only above the horizon) so... it's a close thing. If I've done my calculations correctly. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.235|162.158.34.235]] 18:58, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Would it be useful to add "size" and "loudness" columns to each of the tables, along with estimates of each for each item? -- [[User:Dtgriscom|Dtgriscom]] ([[User talk:Dtgriscom|talk]]) 01:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think this comic is fully accurate... I've always assumed volcanoes were smaller than the moon. [[User:Thexkcdnerd|Thexkcdnerd]] ([[User talk:Thexkcdnerd|talk]]) 04:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
:The Earth is larger than the Moon. The Earth spews lava from vents, ergo the Earth is a volcano (that is larger than the Moon)...
:I actually subscribe to the idea that relationships within the quadrants mean little, I mean whales bigger than trains? Firecracker bigger than a blender? A book is noisier than a newt? ...but if you want an absurdist reason, I'm gonna say I live on a volcano, just because there's a whole lotta magma [[913: Core|underneath me]], and [[2058: Rock Wall|not as far away]] as [[1375: Astronaut Vandalism|space is above]]. ;) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.191|172.71.242.191]] 12:46, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
::I've slammed books closed or on to tables, but never seen/heard anyone slamming a newt, ergo books are louder. [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 15:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
:::Books barely make any sound at all in breeding season. In fact, they hardly do anything in breeding season, not matter how long you sit still and watch them. But it's quite difficult to set up a hide in a bookshop, so many objections from the owners... [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.86|172.71.242.86]] 16:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
How is a windmill quieter than a sewing machine? Looks like Randall never went up close to one :) Wind turbines make around 100 dB (of course you never stand close enough to experience it at this level), and the old timey windmills or water mills were very loud mechanisms too. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.106.112|162.158.106.112]] 15:37, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Either I haven't been used to his sewing machines and waterfalls, but many waterfalls --very arguably most are about the size of a badly leaky faucet in volume -- much quieter than the sewing machines I'm used to.

2656: Scientific Field Prefixes

2023-03-12T12:14:57Z

172.71.242.86: /* Table with explanations */ After prior error/'correction', removing unused but might-get-used blank columns.

{{comic
| number = 2656
| date = August 8, 2022
| title = Scientific Field Prefixes
| image = scientific_field_prefixes.png
| titletext = Massage: Theoretical (10), Quantum (6), High-energy (2), Computational (1), Marine (1), Astro- (None)
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a Quantum Dentist - Fill in this [[#Table with explanations|table with explanations]]. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
{{w|Google Scholar}} is a search engine for academic publications, and [[Randall]] has been having fun with it.

Randall searches for various terms that are composed of some common prefixes and common suffixes, but not always commonly associated with each other in each possible combination, and tabulates the results. See this [[#Table with numbers|table with numbers]] for easy overview.

This reveals some very commonly used full terms like "{{w|Theoretical Physics}}", the most discovered, which represents almost four million hits compared to the next highest, "{{w|Computational Biology}}", with almost 3 million hits and {{w|Astrophysics}} with 2 million hits. Ducking just below 1 million hits is fourth placing {{w|Marine Biology}}. Of the 42 possible fields just 14 have more than 100,000 hits, and only four more have over 10,000.

But there are also some that have much lower numbers, eight with fewer than 10 hits in the table. "High-Energy Psychology" and "Marine Dentistry" have just one apparent occurrence each (equivalent to a {{w|Googlewhack}}), whilst there are no hits at all recorded for four of the initially combined terms. In total (with the title text) there are 48 fields, see a full [[#List of Scientific fields|list of scientific fields]] below.

An explanation for both existing and fictive scientific fields can be given below in the [[#Table with explanations|table with explanations]].

In the caption to the table Randall list four potential research opportunities i.e. those with no hits in the table: Quantum Dentistry, High-Energy Dentistry, Astrodentistry, and High-Energy Theology

He thus suggests that, because of the (apparent) lack of current studies in these specialized sub-fields, there may be unexplored potential for a study. This could be that the more "used" areas have far too much competition and be might already be "used up" for potentially useful discoveries. (This does not account for how much 'study space' might be available in a given box of research, even though Randall has previously hinted that anything "Astro"-related is potentially [[2640: The Universe by Scientific Field|full of many things to study]].)
Of course the real reason for no one studying these fields are that they make no sense. {{w|Dentistry}} is related to fixing peoples teeth. The quantum world has no effect on human teeth{{Citation needed}}, and high-energy bombardment of a human's mouth may also be a bit dangerous (although x-rays and radiation treatment in the mouth could be seen as high energy). Astrodentistry is not really relevant if seeing this as something used on humans. Of course astronauts might need dentistry while in space, but it would be a stretch to call the study of dentistry in zero-G, "astrodentistry". "High-energy Theology" as a term, seems more likely to have been used...

In the title text Randall lists the figures for another 'major' field suffix, {{w|Massage}}, and the numbers of its prefixed forms. From this, we learn that Astromassage is another 'open' field that is currently unstudied, but none of the five others have more than 10. Actually the most surprising aspect of the title text is that there are hits for both quantum massage and high-energy massage... Massage has been added to the tables below and the list of fields.

===Table with numbers===
*Here the table is presented with only numbers, so it can be sorted.
**Massage from the title text has been added.
{|class="wikitable sortable"
!
! Physics
! Chemistry
! Biology
! Engineering
! Psychology
! Theology
! Dentistry
! Massage
|-
| Theoretical
| 3990000
| 445000
| 553000
| 2460
| 15500
| 726
| 41
| 10
|-
| Quantum
| 478000
| 740000
| 7620
| 21100
| 699
| 447
| 0
| 6
|-
| High-Energy
| 844000
| 9600
| 3
| 119
| 1
| 0
| 0
| 2
|-
| Computational
| 510000
| 599000
| 2910000
| 67400
| 4620
| 40
| 11
| 1
|-
| Marine
| 3920
| 136000
| 945000
| 108000
| 35
| 6
| 1
| 1
|-
| Astro-
| 2010000
| 20600
| 226000
| 430
| 64
| 580
| 0
| 0
|}

===List of Scientific fields===
This is included for easy reading of the numbers:
*Theoretical Physics: 3,990,000
*Theoretical Chemistry: 445,000
*Theoretical Biology: 553,000
*Theoretical Engineering: 2,460
*Theoretical Psychology: 15,500
*Theoretical Theology: 726
*Theoretical Dentistry: 41
*Theoretical Massage: 10
*Quantum Physics: 478,000
*Quantum Chemistry: 740,000
*Quantum Biology: 7,620
*Quantum Engineering: 21,100
*Quantum Psychology: 699
*Quantum Theology: 447
*Quantum Dentistry: None
*Quantum Massage: 6
**5 of these are objections to pseudoscientific healing nonsense. The last is from a Dutch medical text in which one sentence ends with "quantum" and the next begins with "massage", published in 1895 and having nothing to do with quantum mechanics.
*High-Energy Physics: 844,000
*High-Energy Chemistry: 9,600
*High-Energy Biology: 3
**Two of these are for the same conference proceedings about use of accelerators in biological research. The third is from an article which mentions a list of research areas: "extensive programs in chemistry, physics (other than high energy), biology".
*High-Energy Engineering: 119
*High-Energy Psychology: 1
**Job ad from October 31st, 2001, asking for "high energy psychology, speech pathology or special education majors to work with our mildly autistic son"
*High-Energy Theology: None
*High-Energy Dentistry: None
*High-Energy Massage: 2
*Computational Physics: 510,000
*Computational Chemistry: 599,000
*Computational Biology: 2,910,000
*Computational Engineering: 67,400
*Computational Psychology: 4,620
*Computational Theology: 40
*Computational Dentistry: 11
*Computational Massage: 1
**This is an article about modular wearable electronic devices, in the form of clothing, which provide massage.
*Marine Physics: 3,920
*Marine Chemistry: 136,000
*Marine Biology: 945,000
*Marine Engineering: 108,000
*Marine Psychology: 35
*Marine Theology: 6
*Marine Dentistry: 1
**The paper mentions the application of something in "Transportation, Marine, Dentistry, Electronics" and other fields
*Marine Massage: 1
**Article in "Professional Beauty" of 2021, mentioning "An exceptional massage technique with the professional-only Oligo-Marine Massage Cream includes smoothing, relaxing and stretching movements for total relaxation and optimal skin"
*Astrophysics: 2,010,000
*Astrochemistry: 20,600
*Astrobiology: 226,000
*Astroengineering: 430
*Astropsychology: 64
*Astrotheology: 580
*Astrodentistry: None
*Astromassage: None

==Table with explanations==
*Here all 48 fields can be explained in a table:
{|class="wikitable sortable"
! Field
! Number of Searches
! Explanation of field
|-
| Theoretical Physics
| 3990000
| {{w|Theoretical Physics}} is a whole field in itself, with journals made only for that type of physics. Also the one with by far most hits.
|-
| Theoretical Chemistry
| 445000
| Theoretical chemistry is the branch of chemistry which explores the underlying explanations for chemical phenomena, and has major overlaps with Quantum Chemistry.
|-
| Theoretical Biology
| 553000
| Theoretical biology aims at the mathematical representation and modeling of biological processes, using techniques and tools of applied mathematics. It has applications in the modelling of biological systems and evolutionary systems.
|-
| Theoretical Engineering
| 2460
|
|-
| Theoretical Psychology
| 15500
|
|-
| Theoretical Theology
| 726
|
|-
| Theoretical Dentistry
| 41
|
|-
| Theoretical Massage
| 10
| Theoretical Massage is not a real scientific field{{Citation needed}}, but rather the theory about it, in contrast to the practical application of {{w|Massage|massage}}. This term is most likely to be used in the context of learning or studying massages, for example during the process of becoming a massage therapist. Alternatively this term could refer to the studying of the masses of matter, (or its massage if you will). This would make it a field of physics.
|-
| Quantum Physics
| 478000
| As with Theoretical Physics, above, Quantum Physics is an entire field within itself.
|-
| Quantum Chemistry
| 740000
| A field within chemistry, quantum chemistry is the study of how quantum-level effects extrapolate to chemical properties, such as the shape of electron orbitals.
|-
| Quantum Biology
| 7620
|
|-
| Quantum Engineering
| 21100
|
|-
| Quantum Psychology
| 699
|
|-
| Quantum Theology
| 447
| Using 'Quantum' as a buzzword to prop up forms of spirituality is a common form of pseudoscience today, and is used to push fringe beliefs under the illusion of 'quantum phenomena'.
|-
| Quantum Dentistry
| None
| This would presumably be dentistry done on teeth which are too small to be observed on normal levels, or do not exist will also existing.
|-
| Quantum Massage
| 6
|
|-
| High-Energy Physics
| 844000
| High energy physics is the study of fundamental particles and forces that constitute matter and radiation. Also known as particle physics, it is a major subfield of theoretical and quantum physics.
|-
| High-Energy Chemistry
| 9600
|
|-
| High-Energy Biology
| 3
|
|-
| High-Energy Engineering
| 119
|
|-
| High-Energy Psychology
| 1
|
|-
| High-Energy Theology
| None
| High-Energy Theology presumably involves theology performed at extremely high energies. It is unknown if one can find God in a particle accelerator however.{{citation needed}}
|-
| High-Energy Dentistry
| None
| High-Energy Dentistry would most likely involve performing dentistry with high-energy particle beams, which would be incredibly damaging to a human being. High energy lasers do exist and are used in dentistry, however they are orders of magnitude less energetic than the high-energy beams this prefix would refer to.
|-
| High-Energy Massage
| 2
| High-Energy Massage could either mean a massage done with lots of energy, which may or may not be a soothing experience, or a massage that leaves you with lots of energy, which is a claimed benefit by many massage therapists.
|-
| Computational Physics
| 510000
| The field of using computational models to simulate physical systems. Such models are commonly used in both theoretical and applied physics, hence the large number of hits.
|-
| Computational Chemistry
| 599000
| The field of using computational models to simulate chemical systems. Commonly used in the field of theoretical chemistry.
|-
| Computational Biology
| 2910000
| Computational biology refers to the use of data analysis, mathematical modeling and computational simulations to understand biological systems and relationships. Due to its very high relevance in the fields of genetics, biochemistry, evolution, neuroscience among others, has the highest number of hits for the 'Computational' prefix, and 2nd highest overall.
|-
| Computational Engineering
| 67400
| Computational Engineering is a relatively new discipline that deals with the development and application of computational models for engineering. Being a subfield of engineering, it has a moderate amount of hits.
|-
| Computational Psychology
| 4620
|
|-
| Computational Theology
| 40
| Computational Theology is a very fringe field, that seeks to explore the relations between God, religion and computer science and related phenomena.
|-
| Computational Dentistry
| 11
|
|-
| Computational Massage
| 1
|
|-
| Marine Physics
| 3920
|
|-
| Marine Chemistry
| 136000
| Marine chemistry studies the chemistry of marine environments including the influences of different variables, such as plate tectonics, currents, sediments, pH levels, atmospheric constituents, metamorphic activity, and ecology.
|-
| Marine Biology
| 945000
| Marine biology is the study of marine organisms, their behaviors and interactions with the environment. A very well established subfield of Biology, hence the high number of hits.
|-
| Marine Engineering
| 108000
| Marine engineering is the operation, maintenance and monitoring of mechanical systems aboard marine vessels, including boats, ships and submarines. Moderately known, due to the continued growth of the modern shipping industry.
|-
| Marine Psychology
| 35
|
|-
| Marine Theology
| 6
|
|-
| Marine Dentistry
| 1
|
|-
| Marine Massage
| 1
|
|-
| Astrophysics
| 2010000
| Astrophysics is a science that employs the methods and principles of physics and chemistry in the study of astronomical objects and phenomena. Just like Theoretical Physics, it is a field onto itself, and has the 3rd highest hits for a scientific field in the comic.
|-
| Astrochemistry
| 20600
| Astrochemistry is the study of molecules in the universe, and their interaction with radiation. A hybrid field of astronomy and chemistry with overlap with Astrophysics, especially when dealing with nuclear reactions.
|-
| Astrobiology
| 226000
| Astrobiology is a scientific field that studies the origins, early evolution, distribution, and future of life in the universe. Fairly known due to the unanswered nature of the question 'Is there life beyond Earth.'
|-
| Astroengineering
| 430
| Astronomical engineering is engineering at the astronomical scale. Highly speculative, as humanity barely has progressed beyond the earth, and mostly the realm of science fiction.
|-
| Astrophychology
| 64
|
|-
| Astrotheology
| 580
|
|-
| Astrodentistry
| None
| Astrodentistry presumably relates to performing dentistry on astronomical objects. As astronomical bodies do not have teeth{{citation needed}}, this is impossible to perform, and hence impossible to research.
|-
| Astromassage
| None
| Astromassage can either mean performing massages on astronomical objects, which would be impossible, or performing massages on beings in space. Since there have been no trained massage therapists in space, it is unknown how one can massage a body in space, or how the human body reacts to massages in space.
|}

==Transcript==
:[A table is drawn with seven columns and six rows. Above each column and to the left of each row there is a label. All 42 fields are filled out with a number, except when the number is 0, then is says none in a red font. Above the table there is a large header:]
:<big>Number of search results on Google Scholar</big>
:{|class="wikitable"
|
| Physics
| Chemistry
| Biology
| Engineering
| Psychology
| Theology
| Dentistry
|-
| Theoretical
| 3,990,000
| 445,000
| 553,000
| 2,460
| 15,500
| 726
| 41
|-
| Quantum
| 478,000
| 740,000
| 7,620
| 21,100
| 699
| 447
| ''None'' 
|-
| High-Energy
| 844,000
| 9,600
| 3
| 119
| 1
| ''None'' 
| ''None'' 
|-
| Computational
| 510,000
| 599,000
| 2,910,000
| 67,400
| 4,620
| 40
| 11
|-
| Marine
| 3,920
| 136,000
| 945,000
| 108,000
| 35
| 6
| 1
|-
| Astro-
| 2,010,000
| 20,600
| 226,000
| 430
| 64
| 580
| ''None'' 
|}

:[Caption below the panel:]
:Potential research opportunities: Quantum Dentistry, High-Energy Dentistry, Astrodentistry, and High-Energy Theology

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Google Search]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Chemistry]]
[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Engineering]]
[[Category:Psychology]]
[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Scientific research]]

2738: Omniknot

2023-02-16T16:37:22Z

172.71.242.86: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2738
| date = February 15, 2023
| title = Omniknot
| image = omniknot_2x.png
| imagesize = 358x288px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = The Gordian knot is an omniknot tied using every bend in the Ashley Book of Knots, and then for extra security the upper rope at every crossing is connected to the lower with a randomly-chosen hitch.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by THE KNOTTED OMNIBOT - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do KNOT delete this tag too soon.}}

The comic jokes that if you have several potential {{w|knot}}s which could be tied in a given situation, rather than being forced to choose one, you can simply use all of them and create the comic's "Omniknot." The prefix omni- means "all", and so the "all-knot" is the knot containing all the other knots (...that one knows).

Knots in the middle, from top to bottom:
* {{w|Granny knot}}: A bad knot, usually the result of an improperly tied reef knot.
* {{w|Reef knot}}: Also known as the square knot, one of the most commonly tied by competent amateurs. But a poor and possibly dangerous choice as a load-bearing bend, as it has a tendency to {{w|Knot#Capsizing|'capsize'}} and untie itself.
* {{w|Sheet bend}}: Similar to the bowline, a popular, all around good choice, especially if one rope is thinner than the other (the loop should be on the thinner rope).
* {{w|Double sheet bend}}: A more secure version of the previous knot, especially if one rope is much thinner than the other.
* {{w|Carrick bend}}: A very good bend, especially if both ropes are similar in kind and thickness. This version, however, with the ends emerging from the same side is weaker than if the ends were diagonal from each other.

On the sides are {{w|bowline}}s and each rope is terminated by a {{w|figure-eight knot}}.

In the title text, the {{w|Gordian Knot}} is a knot which purportedly was extraordinarily complex and nearly impossible to untie. According to legend, when Alexander the Great was faced with the knot, he simply drew his sword and cut it in half, thereby "untying" it and solving the unsolvable. The Gordian Knot is now used as a linguistic metaphor to describe a problem whose solution, rather than being to directly solve it head-on, involves working around or otherwise bypassing its apparent constraints, or simply one that is so complex as to be practically unsolvable.

{{w|The Ashley Book of Knots}} is an encyclopedia describing thousands of different knots. Though it is now dated because it was written before the widespread adoption of synthetic fiber rope, it is still considered the reference in knot tying. Using all bends from the book and as many hitches would make the final result very complex indeed (a "bend" is a knot that connects two ropes or lines; a "hitch" is a knot that connects a rope (a.k.a. line) to something like a post, loop, or shackle). Randall proposes here that this was the true origin of the mythical Gordian Knot.

In practice, it is not recommended to use overly complex knots as they provide little in term of additional security compared to a well chosen, simpler knot. The ease of tying and untying, especially in less than ideal conditions is also an important factor to consider. If strength is more important than the ease of tying and untying, {{w|Rope splicing|splices}} should be considered instead of knots as they don't weaken the rope as much as knots.

==Transcript==
:[Two ropes tied together with several different kinds of knots. The ropes enter from left and right. The left rope proceeds to go up where the right rope goes down. But then they interact to form five nots in the middle of the drawing. Following each rope will show the left to interweave the right rope from top to bottom, and via versa. At the bottom the left rope swings back to where it began going op, ties a knot with it self at the start and the end of the left rope then goes to the right of this knot and ends in another small knot. Similar the right rope goes back to the right at the top and forms a similar know with it self, before the end of the rope goes left an end in the same type of small knot and the left rope. There are thus 5 knots using both ropes, and two knots on each rope with it self, and the entire thing is yet another combined Omniknot, for ten knots in total. There is a caption below the panel:]
:If you know several knots and can't figure out which one to use, just tie one of each.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Fiction]]

2736: Only Serifs

2023-02-11T13:44:09Z

172.71.242.86: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2736
| date = February 10, 2023
| title = Only Serifs
| image = only_serifs_2x.png
| imagesize = 246x112px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = If you ever want to get beaten up by a bunch of graphic designers, try removing the serifs from Times New Roman and adding them to Comic Sans.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a SHERIFF - explain the comic more, what is the text? Do NOT delete this tag until Friday, May 9th, 2023..}}

This is a play upon the main difference between {{w|serif}} and {{w|sans-serif}} fonts. Serifs are ticks, or end-bars, at the ends of lines that make up letters, commonly seen in {{w|Calligraphy|calligraphic}} lettering (written with a flat-nibbed pen) or {{w|Signwriter|signwriting}} (often painted and detailed with fine brushes). Rather than mere lines, there are (for example) "feet" put at the bottom of a letter such as A, and possibly also at angles such as its peak. (In the comic, the first three elements appear to be of such an "A", with the text as a whole appearing to be "Aa Bb Cc Dd"). Fonts that use this visual decoration are called "Serif" fonts, while others do not and are thus "Sans Serif" fonts ("sans" being French for "without"). Randall is suggesting a font using ''only'' these accent pieces and skipping the "body" of the letters entirely. Of course, this renders the text basically unreadable.{{Citation needed}}

As for the title text, {{w|Times New Roman}} is a widely available and recognized typeface with serifs, being one of the most commonly used fonts of its type. {{w|Comic Sans}} is a ''mostly'' sans-serif typeface (hence the “Sans” in the name) designed to look like (non-{{w|cursive}}, or {{w|Block letters|block}}-style) handwriting, more akin to a basic and unadorned lettering written freehand by thick-nibbed pen, paintbrush, spraycan or chalk/marker upon a blackboard/whiteboard. Many graphic designers {{w|Comic_Sans#Opposition|dislike Comic Sans}} due to a history of amateurs using it in contexts where its informal style is inappropriate, simply in order to vary the font away from the standards of Times or Arial styles (two major serifed and non-serifed families of font, respectively). Defenders claim that it is easier for dyslexics to read, and that it works well in less formal, typically children's contexts. Randall is suggesting here that if you want to severely anger a bunch of graphic designers (i.e. enough to beat you up), then you should try removing the characteristic and aesthetic serifs on Times New Roman and add them instead to the hated Comic Sans – which would probably make it look even worse to a graphic designer.

The font is probably one of the many variants of {{w|Caslon}}, with its variety of A-serifs; some variants (3, 540) having the double-seriffed C.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[The capital and lowercase forms of the first four letters of the alphabet are written on handwriting paper in a font only consisting of serifs between three gray horizontal lines. Underneath the panel there are two lines of text (in a sans-serif font)]
:Aa Bb Cc Dd

:Instead of serif or sans-serif,
:my new font is '''''only''''' serifs.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category: Language]]

2736: Only Serifs

2023-02-11T13:43:35Z

172.71.242.86: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2736
| date = February 10, 2023
| title = Only Serifs
| image = only_serifs_2x.png
| imagesize = 246x112px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = If you ever want to get beaten up by a bunch of graphic designers, try removing the serifs from Times New Roman and adding them to Comic Sans.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a SHERIFF - explain the comic more, what is the text? Do NOT delete this tag until Friday, May 9th, 2023..}}

This is a play upon the main difference between {{w|serif}} and {{w|sans-serif}} fonts. Serifs are ticks, or end-bars, at the ends of lines that make up letters, commonly seen in {{w|Calligraphy|calligraphic}} lettering (written with a flat-nibbed pen) or {{w|Signwriter|signwriting}} (often painted and detailed with fine brushes). Rather than mere lines, there are (for example) "feet" put at the bottom of a letter such as A, and possibly also at angles such as its peak. (In the comic, the first three elements appear to be of such an "A", with the text as a whole appearing to be "Aa Bb Cc Dd"). Fonts that use this visual decoration are called "Serif" fonts, while others do not and are thus "Sans Serif" fonts ("sans" being French for "without"). Randall is suggesting a font using ''only'' these accent pieces and skipping the "body" of the letters entirely. Of course, this renders the text basically unreadable.{{Citation needed}}

As for the title text, {{w|Times New Roman}} is a widely available and recognized typeface with serifs, being one of the most commonly used fonts of its type. {{w|Comic Sans}} is a ''mostly'' sans-serif typeface (hence the “Sans” in the name) designed to look like (non-{{w|cursive}}, or {{w|Block letters|block}}-style) handwriting, more akin to a basic and unadorned lettering written freehand by thick-nibbed pen, paintbrush, spraycan or chalk/marker upon a blackboard/whiteboard. Many graphic designers {{w|Comic_Sans#Opposition|dislike Comic Sans}} due to a history of amateurs using it in contexts where its informal style is inappropriate, simply in order to vary the font away from the standards of Times or Arial styles (two major serifed and non-serifed families of font respectively). Defenders claim that it is easier for dyslexics to read, and that it works well in less formal, typically children's contexts. Randall is suggesting here that if you want to severely anger a bunch of graphic designers (i.e. enough to beat you up), then you should try removing the characteristic and aesthetic serifs on Times New Roman and add them instead to the hated Comic Sans – which would probably make it look even worse to a graphic designer.

The font is probably one of the many variants of {{w|Caslon}}, with its variety of A-serifs; some variants (3, 540) having the double-seriffed C.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[The capital and lowercase forms of the first four letters of the alphabet are written on handwriting paper in a font only consisting of serifs between three gray horizontal lines. Underneath the panel there are two lines of text (in a sans-serif font)]
:Aa Bb Cc Dd

:Instead of serif or sans-serif,
:my new font is '''''only''''' serifs.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category: Language]]

Talk:2062: Barnard's Star

2023-02-02T17:30:05Z

172.71.242.86:

Uh . . . I'm pretty sure that stars don't talk. {{unsigned ip|172.68.58.113}}
: And [[1578|squirrels don't ring]]. This comic can be absurd sometimes. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.141.58|172.68.141.58]] 17:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
::{{Citation needed}} --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.160|172.68.54.160]] 18:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
:Why are you so sure that stars don't talk? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.38.70|162.158.38.70]] 18:23, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
:I think it was a NOVA doco where they describe the inner workings of the sun and how hydrogen atoms, photons, plasma, and magnetic flux interact, and it sounded a heck of a lot like the function of neurons and signals in the brain. Maybe I was just high, but I got to thinking that, with photons from every star in the universe connecting to every other star, the stars are in constant communication with eachother in some sort of neural-like network with each star having it's own neural-like network complete with it's own sentient thoughts (albeit probably far outside the realm of our imagination). FORTY TWO! {{unsigned ip|162.158.74.27}}
:Obviously, stars, being in vacuum, don't talk in classic acoustic way. But they emit lot of light, which includes radio emissions ... and remember that properly encrypted signal is hard to recognize from random noise. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 23:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Stars can talk but usually don't. Maybe because they are under a lot of pressure ? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.69.45|141.101.69.45]] 08:45, 24 October 2018 (UTC) BadJokeNinja

Am I'm the only one, who is reminded by the beginning "...AAAA" and the ending "EEEEEAAA..." to the [https://xkcd.com/417/ "The Man Who Fell Sideways" comic]?--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.94.20|162.158.94.20]] 12:17, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

"a small Red dwarf has a lifespan of about a trillion years." A trillion years? Any source for this? The universe is around 14 billion years old. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.62.160|172.69.62.160]] 13:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)comicreader

:That doesn't mean it's that old now. It means it will last that long, which means it's a relative youngster at this stage of its life. I'm sure a trillion years is a very general estimate for its lifespan, which is highly dependent on its mass. As for the source of this estimate, it's probably well-sourced on Wikipedia that serves as the source of much of the explanation's current content. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 13:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
::And click the Wiki link for {{w|Red dwarf}} in the explanation. You will read: "...Red dwarfs therefore develop very slowly, maintaining a constant luminosity and spectral type for trillions of years, until their fuel is depleted. Because of the comparatively short age of the universe, no red dwarfs exist at advanced stages of evolution." --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 18:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Faster comunication than photons could be possible with plasma entanglement but I'm still skeptical as to whether or not stars are big giant sentient brains. Why is it traveling so fast I wonder... a remnant of some previous galactic merger?

Two points. First, a star called Gliese 710 will pass through the Solar System in about 1.3 million years. Predictions of how close it will come vary, but seem to cluster around 0.3 lighyears (ly) and 0.05 ly. Both estimates mean the star will pass through the Oort cloud. There is even a small chance it will pass just outside the Kuiper belt. This star is informally called "Uncle Jimbo's Star" because it's coming right at us. Second, your basic star-shaped star is an easy thing to study in detail and an easy thing to model. The sun has a radiative core; it cannot add fresh fuel. As a result, it burns up about 10% of its hydrogen and goes out. Barnard's star is convective throughout, so it constantly mixes fresh hydrogen into its core. As a result, Barnard's star will consume 50 - 80 % of its hydrogen before going out. The reacting masses of the Sun and Barnard's star are almost the same. Since the bolometric luminosity of Barnard's star is around 0.0035 that of the sun, it can reasonably be expected to last around 300 times longer - around 3 trillion years. That's a crude guess. More accurate models give an even longer life. Some of the really little ones will still be shining some 10 trillion years from now. {{unsigned|Adeblanc|14:44, 2 February 2023}}