explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:2856: Materials Scientists

2023-11-20T16:29:36Z

188.114.102.34:

It isn't "amarid", it's "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramid aramid]"... -- [[User:Dtgriscom|Dtgriscom]] ([[User talk:Dtgriscom|talk]]) 03:03, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
: Sounds like a great case for a "Trivia" section below the transcript. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 23:19, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Damn, I'd love some gift wrap like that, it sounds fascinating, and I'm not even a materials scientist. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.130.91|172.70.130.91]] 08:29, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Whoever added "This comic may also be an example of nerd sniping." should have said what the "nerd sniping" is that they detect here. Giving us terms to look up? Certainly not the spelling error, that's just a simple mistake. "Looking up" doesn't seem like enough to qualify, it should to be a problem to figure out, a solution begging to be found. I'll give it some time, but if I don't see this claim properly expanded I'll remove it next time I'm here. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 06:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

When I was in high school chemistry way back in 1960 or so, we used to make Nitrogen Triiodide. It is extremely easy to make — put some crystals of iodine in a filter paper in a funnel. Pour ammonia over them. Let dry — often the triiodide will explode as it dries. If scattered on the floor, it will explode if someone steps on it. The explosion is accompanied by a puff of purple smoke.
[[Special:Contributions/172.70.135.17|172.70.135.17]] 12:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Is there any relationship between Materials Scientists and {{w|Material Girl}}s? --[[Special:Contributions/188.114.102.34|188.114.102.34]] 16:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

2312: mbmbam

2020-05-27T22:04:54Z

188.114.102.34: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2312
| date = May 27, 2020
| title = mbmbam
| image = mbmbam.png
| titletext = Hello and welcome to Millibar Millibarn Attometer, an advice show for the Planck era.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by 10^-47 BROTHERS. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

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

{{comic discussion}}

Talk:2089: Christmas Eve Eve

2018-12-25T09:22:22Z

188.114.102.34: re

The "eve" count might be off by one or two. I used 365. [[User:Blacksilver|Blacksilver]] ([[User talk:Blacksilver|talk]]) 05:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
:Correct would be 364. Except in leap years. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.90|162.158.90.90]] 09:23, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
::Anyone ACTUALLY count to make sure Randall got it right? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.29|108.162.246.29]] 02:22, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

In Germany, Christmas happens on Christmas Eve, so Cueball would be saying "eve" forever and just refer to the same date every time. "Heiligabend abends" is occasionally used to say the evening of 24th (the time of presents) and in northern Germany you sometimes say "Heiligtag", meaning "holy day" instead of "holy evening". [[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.90|162.158.90.90]] 09:23, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

: The presents are given on Christmas Eve. This doesn't mean that Christmas is on Christmas Eve. --[[Special:Contributions/188.114.102.34|188.114.102.34]] 09:22, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

"The day after Christmas" - isn't that just 2nd Christmas day? --[[User:Zom-B|Zom-B]] ([[User talk:Zom-B|talk]]) 10:55, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Interestingly the rather amazing "Nancy" did a similar gag yesterday. https://www.gocomics.com/nancy/2018/12/23 --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.77.62|141.101.77.62]] 14:09, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't see where anybody actually reported counting the number of times Randall wrote "eve", so I counted each of the 18 rows separately and then added them together. I got 11, 14, 14, 14, 15, 16, 17, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, 30, 32, and 27 - a grand total of 364 times, as expected. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 14:13, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
:Hat tip. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.29|108.162.246.29]] 02:23, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

My kids call the day before Christmas Eve "Christmas Adam". --[[User:WhiteDragon|WhiteDragon]] ([[User talk:WhiteDragon|talk]]) 18:33, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I wonder if this explanation is the page on this wiki with the most occurrences of the letter 'v'. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.106|108.162.241.106]] 19:21, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
:The perl script to find the explanation with he most “v”s would not be particularly hard to write, but I might have to read documentation on the LWP module so I’m not going to bother (unless Christmas dinner at my brother-in-law’s goes particularly badly, in which case some mindless coding might be fun). Perhaps the guy who counted all the “eve”s will be more motivated than I 😀[[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.89|162.158.79.89]]

Talk:2085: arXiv

2018-12-22T11:34:58Z

188.114.102.34:

To be fair, the UI is so bad that that alone is barrier enough for downloading the pdf. :D Also, people might now fight me, because it's really easy if you know what to do. [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 19:03, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

It appears this comic may be referencing current events where academics are pushing for more open access publishing and publishers are balking. In particular, see this article in [https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/12/13/university-california-challenges-elsevier-over-access-scholarly-research the December 13th issue of Inside Higher Ed]. Some key quotes from the article:

: ''The California system wants to fundamentally alter how it pays for journal content from publishers like Elsevier and to accelerate open-access publishing in the process. The UC system wants to do more to make publicly funded research freely accessible to the public.''

: ''If an agreement is not reached before the deadline, then as soon as Jan. 1, 2019, the 69,000 faculty members and 238,000 students in the UC system may no longer have access to new articles published in over a thousand Elsevier journals, including Lancet and biology journals published through Cell Press.''

: ''It’s certainly the case that major publishers have not embraced these types of agreements,” said MacKie-Mason. “Springer Nature has been more agreeable to contracts of this sort, but many are moving slowly, or actively opposing.”''

[[Special:Contributions/162.158.106.96|162.158.106.96]] 20:43, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

:A group of publishing companies are currently taking legal action against websites that share published papers unofficially [http://www.responsiblesharing.org/coalition-statement/]. I don't know if this applies to the ones mentioned in the comic, but it partly comes down to whether the article is in it's final 'published' format which is copyright of the journal, or an earlier pre-print version not using the publisher's template where the copyright may still be owned by the authors. On the other hand, some publishers have embraced the pre-print model and created their own servers [https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/chemistry-preprint-server-plan-generates-sparks/1017239.article]. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.178|162.158.34.178]] 21:13, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

: Propably also interesting https://www.projekt-deal.de/about-deal [[Special:Contributions/162.158.202.52|162.158.202.52]] 04:54, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Here is information on how preprints are different than peer-reviewed publications http://holly.witteman.ca/index.php/2017/12/11/getting-access-to-paywalled-papers/

'''Can someone deduce the field Ponytail is working on?'''

What fields are they taking about? Which have been most open to sites like arXiv and which have been most reluctant? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.161|108.162.246.161]] 19:46, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

:I know that pretty much every astronomy paper is on arXiv.

:arXiv is definitely an astronomer's haven. I don't think even physicists use it as much. And actually, quite hilariously, apparently arXiv recently stopped accepting research notes, and that made AAS Journal that publish these research notes most disappointed [https://twitter.com/AAS_ResNotes/status/1072232650491002881].

:Everything in atomic physics is there too. I can't remember any recent paper I searched that was not on arXiv.

2034: Equations

2018-08-18T17:33:50Z

188.114.102.34: Removed the line about oxygen keeping electrons as it's incorrect (the charge would not be balanced). The chemical species OH does indeed exist and it's involved in combustion, although it's a radical and it's usually written with a superscripted dot.

{{comic
| number = 2034
| date = August 17, 2018
| title = Equations
| image = equations.png
| titletext = All electromagnetic equations: The same as all fluid dynamics equations, but with the 8 and 23 replaced with the permittivity and permeability of free space, respectively.
}}

This comic gives a set of equations supposedly from different areas of science in mathematics, physics, and chemistry. To anyone not familiar with the field in question they look pretty similar to what you might find in research papers or on the relevant Wikipedia pages. To someone who knows even a little about the topic, they are clearly very wrong and only seem even worse the more you look at them.

==Simplified Explanations==
{{incomplete|Created by a mere human. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

;All chemistry equations
This shows a parody of the common example chemistry equation of burning Methane and Oxygen (with added heat), to form water and carbon dioxide. However in this form "HEAT" is an actual molecule, rather than simply indicating the presence of heat to start the reaction. Thus the equation is modified to incorporate the fictional "HEAT" into the reaction.

TODO: other simplified explanations.

==Technical Explanations==
{{incomplete|Created by an EQUATION. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

;All kinematics equations
:<math>E = K_0t + \frac{1}{2}\rho vt^2</math>
{{w|Kinematics}} describes the motion of objects without considering mass or forces.

This equation here literally states: "Energy equals a constant <math>K_0</math> multiplied by time, plus half of density multiplied by speed multiplied by time squared".

The first term here is hard to interpret: it could be correct if <math>K_0</math> is a constant power applied to the system, but this symbol would more normally be used to denote an initial energy, in which case so multiplying by <math>t</math> would be wrong. Alternatively, the term is similar to <math>k_B T</math> (sometimes written as ''kT''), a term that often appears in {{w|Statistical_mechanics|statistical mechanics}} equations, where ''kB'' (or ''k'') is {{w|Boltzmann_constant|the Boltzmann constant}}, and ''T'' is the {{w|Thermodynamic_temperature|absolute temperature}}. In this latter case, the term would have units of energy, consistent with the left side of the equation.

The second term looks similar to the kinetic energy term <math> \frac{1}{2}\rho v^2 </math> in [http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/pber.html the Bernoulli equation] for fluids (or, more properly, the kinetic energy ''density'' in the fluid).

The whole equation appears to be a play on the kinematics formula: <math>s = ut + \frac{1}{2}\ at^2</math>, where distance travelled (''s'') by a constantly accelerating object is determined by initial velocity (''u''), time (''t''), and acceleration (''a'')

Kinematics is often one of the first topics covered in an introductory physics course, both at the high school and freshman college levels. As such, mixing in material from more advanced topics like statistical mechanics and the Bernoulli equation, even if done correctly, would be very confusing for a typical student learning kinematics.

;All number theory equations
:<math>K_n = \sum_{i=0}^{\infty}\sum_{\pi=0}^{\infty}(n-\pi)(i-e^{\pi-\infty})</math>
{{w|Number theory}} is a branch of mathematics primarily to the study the properties of integers.

Taken literally the equation says: "The nth K-number is equal to: the sum of all i from 0 to infinity, the sum of all pi from 0 to infinity; subtract pi from n, and multiply it with i minus e to the power of pi minus infinity". A twofold misconception can be seen here. The first is the reassignment of pi as a variable instead of the constant (3.14...). This might be a jab at how in number theory letters and numbers are used interchangeably, but where some letters are all of a sudden fixed constants. The second misconception is the use of infinity in the latter part of the formula. Naively this would signify that (with the reassigned pi values) the part in the power would range from minus infinity to zero. However, infinity is not a number and cannot be used as one without using a limit construct.

;All fluid dynamic equations
:<math>\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\nabla\cdot \rho = \frac{8}{23}
\int\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\;\;\bigcirc\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\;\;\int
\rho\,ds\,dt\cdot \rho\frac{\partial}{\partial\nabla}
</math>
{{w|Fluid dynamics}} describes the movement of non-solid material. In particular for gases, the density <math>\rho</math> is often the most interesting quantity (for liquids, this is often just constant). A unique feature of fluid-dynamic equations is the presence of {{w|Advection|advection terms}}, which take the form of often strange-looking spatial derivatives. This equation turns this up to a new level by differentiating with respect to a differential operator <math>\nabla</math>, which does not make any sense at all. Also it has a contour integral which seems reminiscent to a closed-circle process like in a piston engine, but this does not really fit in the context (differential description of a gas), and it has a pair of {{w|Magic number (programming)|unexplained numbers}} <math>8</math> and <math>23</math>, probably alluding to the {{w|Heat capacity ratio|specific heat ratio}} which is often written out as the fraction <math>\tfrac{7}{5}</math>, whereas most other physics equations [[899: Number Line|avoid including any plain numbers higher than 4]].

The title text stating that the electromagnetism equation is the same as the fluid dynamics equation, but with the arbitrary 8 and 23 replaced with the permittivity and permeability of free space is likely because electromagnetism equations often have relations to fluid dynamics, and because those two constants appear in the vast majority of electromagnetism equations.

;All quantum mechanic equations
:<math>|\psi_{x,y}\rangle = A(\psi) A(|x\rangle \otimes |y\rangle)</math>
{{w|Quantum mechanics}} is a fundamental theory in physics which describes the nature at scales of atoms and below. It typically uses the {{w|Bra–ket notation|bra–ket notation}} in its formulae.

This equation takes a state psi in the dimensions of x and y and equates it to an operator A performed on psi multiplied by the same operator performed on the tensor product of x and y. Seeing as the state psi is already the tensor product of the states x and y, this is equivalent to performing the same unknown operator twice on psi, and unless this operator is its own inverse such as a bit-flip or Hermitian operator, this equation is therefore incorrect.

;All chemistry equations
:<math>\mathrm{CH}_4 + \mathrm{OH} + \mathrm{HEAT} \rightarrow \mathrm{H}_2\mathrm{O} + \mathrm{CH}_2 + \mathrm{H}_2 \mathrm{EAT}</math>
A {{w|Chemical equation|chemical equation}} is the symbolic representation of a chemical reaction in the form of symbols and formulae, wherein the reactant entities are given on the left-hand side and the product entities on the right-hand side. The number of each element on the left side must match them on the right side, the equation is balanced. The energy produced or absorbed in this process is not included in that formula.

This here is a modification of the combustion of methane. The correct form is often taught and a good example problem but obviously there are more chemistry problems.<math>\mathrm{HEAT}</math> is normally shorthand for {{w|activation energy}}, but in Randall's version it's jokingly used as a chemical ingredient and becomes <math>\mathrm{H}_2\mathrm{EAT}</math>, taking the hydrogen atom freed by the combustion equation shown. The proper methane combustion equation would be: <math>\mathrm{CH}_4 + 2 \mathrm{O}_2 \rightarrow 2 \mathrm{H}_2\mathrm{O} + \mathrm{CO}_2</math>

;All quantum gravity equations
:<math>\mathrm{SU}(2)\mathrm{U}(1) \times \mathrm{SU}(\mathrm{U}(2))</math>
This is more similar to expressions which appear in {{w|Grand_Unified_Theory|Grand Unified Theory}} (GUT) than general quantum gravity. Unlike some of the other equations, this one has no interpretation which could make it mathematically correct. This is similar to the notations used to describe the symmetry group of a particular phenomena in terms of mathematical {{w|Lie_Group|Lie Groups}}. A real example would be the Standard Model of particle physics which has symmetry according to <math>\rm{SU(3)\times SU(2) \times U(1)}</math>. Here, <math>\rm{SU}</math> and <math>\rm{U}</math> denote the special unitary and unitary groups respectively with the numbers indicating the dimension of the group. Loosely, the three terms correspond to the symmetries of the strong force, weak force and electromagnetism although the exact correspondence is muddied by symmetry breaking and the Higgs mechanism.

Of course, an expression missing an "=" sign, is difficult to interpret as an "equation", because equations normally express an "equality" of some kind. Nobody knows whether Randal refers to a horse here (equidae)

Randall's version clearly involves some similar groups although without the <math>\times</math> symbol it is hard to work out what might be happening. A term like <math>\rm{SU(U(2))}</math> has no current interpretation in mathematics, if anyone thinks otherwise and possibly has a solution to the quantum gravity problem they should probably get in touch with someone about that.

;All gauge theory equations
:[[File:All gauge theory equations.png]]
In physics, a {{w|Gauge theory|gauge theory}} is a type of field theory which is invariant to local transformations. The term gauge refers to any specific mathematical formalism to regulate redundant degrees of freedom.

This equation looks broadly similar to the sorts of things which appear in gauge theory such as the equations which define {{w|Yang–Mills_theory#Quantization|Yang-Mills Theory}}. By the time physics has got this far in, people have normally run out of regular symbols making a lot of the equations look very daunting. The actual equations in this field rarely go far beyond the Greek alphabet though and no-one has yet to try putting hats on brackets. The appearance of many sub- and superscripts is normal (this links to the group theory origins of these equations) and for the layperson it can be impossible to determine which additions are labels on the symbols and which are indices for an {{w|Einstein_notation|Einstein Sum}}.

The left-hand side <math>S_g</math> is the symbol for some {{w|Action_(physics)|action}}, in Yang-Mills theory this is actually used for a so-called "ghost action". On the right-hand side we have a large number of terms, most of which are hard to interpret without knowing Randall's thought processes (this is why real research papers should all label their equations thoroughly). The <math>\frac{1}{2\bar{\varepsilon}}</math> looks like a constant of proportionality which often appears in gauge theories. The factor of <math>i = \sqrt{-1}</math> is not unusual as many of these equations use complex numbers. The <math>\eth</math> symbol looks similar to a <math>\partial</math> partial derivative symbol especially as the {{w|Dirac_equation#Covariant_form_and_relativistic_invariance|Dirac Equation}} uses a slashed version as a convenient shorthand.

The rest of the equation cannot be mathematically correct as the choice of indices used does not match that on the left-hand side (which has none). In particle physics subscripts (or superscripts) of greek letters (usually <math>\mu</math> or <math>\nu</math>) indicate terms which transform nicely under Lorentz transformations (special relativity). Roman indices from the beginning of the alphabet relate to various gauge transformation propetries, the triple index seen on <math>p^{abc}_v</math> would likely come from some <math>\rm{SU(3)}</math> transformation (related to the strong nuclear force). Since <math>S_g</math> has none of these (and is thus a scalar which remains constant under these operations), we would need the right-hand side to behave in the same way. Most of the indices which appear are unpaired and so will not result in a scalar making the equation very wrong. For those not familiar with this type of equation, it is a similar mistake messing up units and setting a distance equal to a mass.

;All cosmology equations
:<math>H(t) + \Omega + G \cdot \Lambda \, \dots \begin{cases} \dots > 0 & \text{(Hubble model)} \\ \dots = 0 & \text{(Flat sphere model)} \\ \dots < 0 & \text{(Bright dark matter model)} \end{cases}
</math>
This is a parody of equations defining the {{w|Hubble's_law#Derivation_of_the_Hubble_parameter|Hubble Parameter}} <math>H(t)</math> although it looks like Randall has become bored and not bothered to finish his equation. Such equations usually have several <math>\Omega</math> terms representing the contributions of different substances to the energy-density of the Universe (matter, radiation, dark energy etc.). In this context <math>G</math> could be Newton's constant and <math>\Lambda</math> is the cosmological constant (energy density of empty space) although seeing them appear multiplied and on the same footing as <math>H</math> is unusual (the dot is entirely unnecessary). Choosing to make <math>H</math> a function of time <math>t</math> and not of redshift <math>z</math> is also unusual.

The second section looks like the inequalities used to show how what shape the Universe, based on the value of the curvature parameter <math>\Omega_k</math>. A value of 0 indicates a flat Universe (this more or less what we observe) whilst a positive /negative value indicates an open /closed curved Universe. Randall's choice of labels further makes fun of the field as both a flat sphere and bright dark matter are oxymoronic terms which would involve some rather strange model universes.

;All truly deep physics equations
:[[File:All truly deep physics equations.png]]
<math>\hat H</math> is the Hamiltonian operator, which when applied to a system returns the total energy. In this context, U would usually be the potential energy. However, there is also a subscript 0 and a diacritic marking indicating some other variable. Much of physics is based on Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics. The Lagrangian is defined as <math>\hat L = \hat K - \hat U </math> with K being the kinetic energy and U the potential. Hamiltonian mechanics uses the equation <math>\hat H = \hat K + \hat U </math>. The Hamiltonian must be conserved so taking the time derivative and setting it equal to zero is a powerful tool. The "principle of least action" allows most modern physics to be derived by setting the time derivative of the Lagrangian to zero.

==Transcript==
:[Nine equations are listed, three in the top row and two in each of the next three rows. Below each equation there are labels:]

:E = K0t + 1/2 ρvt2
:All kinematics equations

:Kn = ∑i=0∞∑π=0∞(n-π)(i-eπ-∞)
:All number theory equations

:∂/∂t ∇ ⋅ ρ = 8/23 (∯ ρ ds dt ⋅ ρ ∂/∂∇)
:All fluid dynamics equations

:|ψx,y〉 = A(ψ) A(|x〉⊗ |y〉)
:All quantum mechanics equations

:CH4 + OH + HEAT → H2O + CH2 + H2EAT
:All chemistry equations

:SU(2)U(1) × SU(U(2))
:All quantum gravity equations

:Sg = (-1)/(2ε̄) i ð (̂ ξ0 +̊ pε ρvabc η0 )̂ f̵a0 λ(ʒ̆) ψ(0a)
:All gauge theory equations

:[There is a brace linking the three cases together.]
:H(t) + Ω + G⋅Λ ...
:... > 0 (Hubble model)
:... = 0 (Flat sphere model)
:... < 0 (Bright dark matter model)
:All cosmology equations

:Ĥ - u̧0 = 0
:All truly deep physics equations

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Chemistry]]
[[Category:Astronomy]]

2034: Equations

2018-08-17T08:34:15Z

188.114.102.34: /* Explanation */

1473: Location Sharing

2015-01-14T09:22:24Z

188.114.102.34: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1473
| date = January 14, 2015
| title = Location Sharing
| image = location_sharing.png
| titletext = Our phones must have great angular momentum sensors because the compasses really suck.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|First draft.}}

In this comic, [[Megan]] is visiting a website on her mobile phone. After loading it, the website {{w|Location-based service|asks for her location}}, which Megan gives. The choice between allowing or denying a website or app access to certain information is common among smartphones. The term "location sharing" specifically refers to when a smartphone user shares her location with such an entity. An example of which is a weather app which would need your location in order to find the correct forecast.

Megan is then asked her {{w|momentum}}, which she denies. The joke is based off of the Heisenberg {{w|uncertainty principle}}, which, in quantum mechanics, states that one cannot accurately know both the location and momentum of any particle simultaneously. This principle was previously referenced directly in XKCD comic [[824]], and as a topic for discussion in XKCD comics [[1404]] and [[1416]]. In the context of the comic, Megan acknowledges the website's attempt to violate the uncertainty principle by saying "nice try".

The title text refers to the inclusion of {{w|gyroscope}}s in modern cell phones that measure angular momentum, mostly to detect when the phone is tilted, but also used in a few mobile games. Randall suggests the poor accuracy of the compasses in mobile phones (measuring the angular position) is due to the gyroscopes being too good. (If both the gyroscope and the compasses were completely accurate, it would violate the uncertainty principle). Modern phones also include varied technologies (such as GPS) to pinpoint the user's location, with varying degrees of accuracy.

There is no way to directly measure absolute momentum in a mobile phone (well, anywhere else either) . This is done normally by differentiating the position in time (from GPS signal) or by integrating the accelerometer signal. In the first case you obtain the average speed, the second technique is subject to numerical error adding up in time.

==Transcript==
First Slide:
This website wants to know your location
Two buttons: "Allow" on left and "Deny" on right
Allow is highlighted

Second Slide:
No text

Third Slide:
This website wants to know your momentum
Two buttons: "Allow" on left and "Deny" on right
Deny is highlighted

"Nice Try"

{{comic discussion}}