explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:1396: Actors

2014-07-20T01:12:03Z

173.245.55.75:

Could be Bieber... 04:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
:Good point. [[User:Sjrsimac|Sjrsimac]] ([[User talk:Sjrsimac|talk]]) 04:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
:More likely Timberlake.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.207|108.162.246.207]] 06:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)Nix
:It's referring to Justin Theroux, currently in ninth place on IMDB's Most Popular Males list. (http://www.imdb.com/search/name?gender=male) Yeah, I have no idea who he is either. I feel old. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.170|108.162.237.170]] 06:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
:The name of the comic is ACTORS, guys. Last I checked, Bieber is not an actor. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.75|173.245.55.75]] 01:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Do you think it's necessary to add that the temperature is in Fahrenheit, and that normal body temperature is around 98.6? The part about getting a bit of his shirt should also probably be explained in that context. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.211|173.245.56.211]] 05:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
:Yeah, please do. Most Americans can't handle metric units, and I can't handle Fahrenheit. The only thing I can remember is that body temperature is around 100°F. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.59|108.162.254.59]] 07:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
:Inserted Fahrenheit and Celcius into the explanation...
:Compared Suns temp. to Xi Persei, inserted link to films about birds (them being the hottest warm-blooded creatures I know of) [[User:Tier666|Tier666]] ([[User talk:Tier666|talk]]) 08:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I seem to recall several other comics making fun of these generic headlines of the form "The <n> <adjective> <nouns> you must see". I could only find one though: http://xkcd.com/1283/ --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.95|141.101.104.95]] 07:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
: http://www.xkcd.com/1307/ (Buzzfeed Christmas) has plenty of these. [[Special:Contributions/103.22.201.239|103.22.201.239]] 08:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Forget animals and "stars" with fevers: certainly the "hottest" objects involved in creating characters are the server farms behind CGI cartoon films! I can only imagine the heat load during final rendering. (Note: I stated "creating characters" akin to acting; to use movie-making in general, the hottest objects would be stage lighting, or the Sun during outdoor scenes.) --BigMal // [[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.88|173.245.55.88]] 12:20, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
: Rendering is not acting. The computation of {{w|MASSIVE_(software)|crowd behaviour}}, on the other hand, is. So question is how hot will became CPUs (or GPUs) of computers involved in computing the battles like in LOTR. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 12:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
::I'm sure there are plenty of movies in which the sun is a character. There might also be special effects or a separate voice actor, but if the sun plays itself for some of the time, it might be considered an (uncredited) actor. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Mr._Sun][http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=VEfomqnif34#t=833] [[Special:Contributions/103.22.201.239|103.22.201.239]] 16:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
:For that matter isn't ξ Persei visible in some night-sky scenes, making it once again the hottest? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.38|108.162.216.38]] 21:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
::Does it play a major role in any movie? Or are we lumping irrelevant background extras with actors? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.208.251|108.162.208.251]] 04:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is misunderstanding about stars. I mean, the misunderstanding about the meaning of ''hot'' is enough to rank ξ Persei as hotter that any actress, including Kirsten Dunst (which is sexiest according to [http://top10for.com/top-10-sexiest-hollywood-actresses-2014/ this list], my opinion is different). I'm also sure ξ Persei is more attractive if you measure the force in fixed distance of 10 meters from surface. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 12:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Anybody else suddenly notice that ξ looks a lot like the new name of the "Artist formerly known as Prince"? And thus miss the Astronomical reference entirely and wonder if his last name was now Persei?[[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 20:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
:I don't understand any of what you just said, but "The artist formerly known as Prince" has been referring to himself as "Prince" for at least 13 years. That strange symbol was only his name from 1993 to 2000. [[User:NealCruco|NealCruco]] ([[User talk:NealCruco|talk]]) 01:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The article says "They are shooting stars with a laser beam...", is this a typo, or a phrasing I don't understand? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.38|108.162.216.38]] 21:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, an IR thermometer is great for the kitchen -- the best way to heat a skillet to a consistent temperature for making perfect pancakes or stir-fry.
[[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.99|173.245.52.99]] 23:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The fact that "ξ Per rises in Hollywood every night" is incorrect: the time of rise can be at any time of the day/night and it depends on the time of year. Moreover, the explanation using ξ Per's declination is incorrect: the stars with declination δ rise in a location with latitude φ if and only if |δ| < 90° - |φ|, so the given statement "star rises every night if (approximately) δ = φ" is only correct for |φ| < 45° (and so is incidentally correct in this case). [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.164|141.101.99.164]] 15:21, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:73: Zeppelin

2014-05-08T14:11:25Z

173.245.55.75:

Remember, if the watch is made of lead, it's Time to Watch Lead Zeppelin [[User:Para|Para]] ([[User talk:Para|talk]])

Have the urge to change the title text to: "Na, Na-na-na, Na-na, Na-na" 14:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:564: Crossbows

2014-02-05T20:44:24Z

173.245.55.75:

Is there ''any'' evidence for involvement of velicoraptors in this comic?[[User:Guru-45|Guru-45]] ([[User talk:Guru-45|talk]]) 17:24, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
:I did add the incomplete tag. Physicists are unsure on gravity? I also can't see any hints for Velociraptors at the comic. The explain does need a major review. When I have enough time I will give a try.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 17:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The "explanation" is really bad and contains many errors. The first sentence "Physicists are unsure of most of the forces that govern our everyday lives" is extremely vague; "attraction" is a certain sign of a force (i.e. the force pulls two particles together instead of pushing them apart), "gravity" is a certain type of force (like electromagnetism or the nuclear forces). The Higgs Boson is not a force, it wasn't theorized in the late 1900s, and it acts on the scale of fundamental particles which are several orders of magnitude smaller than atoms. The LHC was not set to be released, but to be activated. No serious particle physicist expected that the experiments at the LHC would have drastic ramifications. That accelerator had a malfunction shortly after its first activation had nothing to do with the Higgs Boson. etc. I Think this needs to be completely rewritten. --[[Special:Contributions/37.209.61.239|37.209.61.239]] 15:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Err yes. This piece was a train wreck which I turned into a rundown shack. It needs a few more citation links (for the confirmation, and to Cueball and Randall), a few more examples of infestations, and a more fleshed out explanation of why a crossbow in particular (and if velociraptors come in). --[[User:Quicksilver|Quicksilver]] ([[User talk:Quicksilver|talk]]) 21:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The point of this was missed completely by this explanation. The physics Nobel price has never been avarded to more than three people and is only awarded to people alive when the price is given. As the discovery of the Higgs certainly will give a Nobel price to someone, and there are more than three people working in that particular lab on the Higgs, they prepare for some kind of battle royale until there are less than three researchers left, such that they can be awarded the price. {{unsigned ip|176.11.125.174}}

I did add the incomplete tag again because a summarize of some theories doesn't help.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it's more likely to be option number 2, as they talk about how Cueball hasn't yet done the maths. If it was just a Nobel prize, they would've already known they were close to a breakthrough, without having to do any calc. Obviously the maths reveals the possibility of some sinister mutation as explained in point 2. Just a random opinion floating through. [[User:Alcatraz ii|Alcatraz ii]] ([[User talk:Alcatraz ii|talk]]) 10:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

No 2 might also be a reference to the quote by an American physicist that the LHC might discover dragons (see eg
http://blog.iandavis.com/2008/09/15/the-lhc-may-discover-dragons/). I still like explanation 1 best though, even dispute the math thing. Maybe it just refers to counting the lab members? [[Special:Contributions/85.164.251.29|85.164.251.29]] 17:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad people are not complaining about the explanation anymore (I did put more effort into this baby than any page yet). I do not, however, think we can proceed any further until we get something straight from the horse's mouth, i.e. a clear indication from Randall of which way this comic was to be interpreted.

Until then, this explanation has explained all it can, and I thus see it as complete. --[[User:Quicksilver|Quicksilver]] ([[User talk:Quicksilver|talk]]) 03:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it just might be pointing at all the inside jokes a group of people have and the nuances the newbies have to put up with in order to be "IN" the group. Might also be a precursor to {{xkcd|794}}, although seemingly unrelated. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.217|173.245.55.217]] 15:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)BK201

I vote for the results of this experiment being society changing. Or #2. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.212.196|108.162.212.196]] 17:16, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the only point is that cueball doesn't understand why they have crossbows, I think the possible explanations as to why they have them don't really matter. [[user:halfhat]] 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think explanation #1 is correct. In the last panel Megan says "he has until Tuesday", suggesting that he has a chance to "get it" and thus avoid "something". But just having a chance would seem to suggest that they don't plan on shooting/killing each other. Having "until Tuesday" would seem to indicate that Cueball has a chance to prepare, likely for explanation #2 - the "Half-Life" scenario. That's my 2 cents. =8o) [[User:Jarod997|Jarod997]] ([[User talk:Jarod997|talk]]) 14:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

With the Nobel prize teams being up to three members, perhaps they're doing an intellectual survival of the fittest. If the third member of the team isn't up to speed then kill him and replace him. Poor guy...