explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:3235: Types of Board Game

2026-04-21T05:51:49Z

195.65.24.115:

I created a starter explanation, but I have no idea how to create tables. [[Special:Contributions/47.146.30.92|47.146.30.92]] 04:08, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

It is rare that xkcd makes me laugh out loud, but this comic's title text really got me! XD [[Special:Contributions/2601:241:8002:3E0:C95E:1939:2ED0:CD78|2601:241:8002:3E0:C95E:1939:2ED0:CD78]] 04:22, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I wonder if blackhat is the one who committed the murder in the last game, and was expunged from the current round with the social deduction game [[User:RG|RG]] ([[User talk:RG|talk]]) 04:35, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
: Also, I "fixed" panel 6: https://www.pasteboard.co/hxBFDL497SLH.png [[User:RG|RG]] ([[User talk:RG|talk]]) 04:54, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

The reference to Monopoly seems ultra-specific given the plethora of games that have this structure, including Candyland, Snakes and Ladders, Sorry, and if one allows for multiple tokens, Parchisi and even Backgammon. Despite the amount of hate for Monopoly, it seems more likely that the editor has something against Monopoly than Randal. [[User:Mneme|Mneme]] ([[User talk:Mneme|talk]]) 05:14, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
: Also, Monopoly, played by the correct rules, is not that boring. It's just, that too many people skip the bidding rule. With 4 Players, after one turn around the table for all four game pieces (which required 10-12 dice rolls per player), statistically 75% of all properties should be snatched up. [[Special:Contributions/195.65.24.115|195.65.24.115]]

Talk:3229: Grammar

2026-04-07T11:06:58Z

195.65.24.115:

E3EeE E3eE!! [[User:Logalex8369|Logalex8369]] ([[User talk:Logalex8369|talk]]) 22:26, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

I created a transcript, but used OCR for all the E's because I kept losing count of how many there were. If someone wants to factcheck that, please do. [[Special:Contributions/104.28.215.220|104.28.215.220]] 22:45, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
: Factchecked 19 E's counted in the image and 19 E's counted in the transcript. [[Special:Contributions/12.155.149.34|12.155.149.34]] 23:00, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

It looks like the bot picked up the April Fool's "feature" as interactive, should we keep it or remove? [[Special:Contributions/104.28.215.220|104.28.215.220]] 22:46, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Side note: I have heard people using both alternate niche methods of language structure, kinda like those people who adopt a losing format even after it's clear it has lost. On character who has on occasion dabbled in both is Homer Simpson, BTW. --[[Special:Contributions/94.73.49.13|94.73.49.13]]
:I still say that Video2000 was the superior home VCR format, in every way...[[Special:Contributions/81.179.199.253|81.179.199.253]] 23:55, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Any "competitors" to grammar would still be grammars since a grammar, by definition, describes how a language is structured. [[Special:Contributions/75.248.235.98|75.248.235.98]] 00:00, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
:Well, the Random Words one ''seems'' to have no particular structure beyond being word-utterances, and the EEEEEEEEEEEEEE one doesn't even have much that ''can'' be structuralised (though I'm half expecting it to actually supposed to be a modem 'yowl', it needn't even be that), so I'm willing to bet that this exempts them from any consistent quality of being grammar. [[Special:Contributions/81.179.199.253|81.179.199.253]] 00:08, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
: The second example used the term word-s which in itself is a structure with grammar. And the last example might well have grammar, if eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee is a single morpheme, we siply wouldn't be able to recognize the grammar. [[Special:Contributions/195.65.24.115|195.65.24.115]]

I interpreted "words order words random words words random good" differently. I assumed it was missing commas and should be read as "words-order", "words-random" "words-words" "random-good". Maybe(probably?) not what Randall intended, but if anyone interpreted it the same as me, you're not alone! {{unsigned ip|69.204.108.174|00:23, 7 April 2026 (UTC)}}

i reconsider this: non-verbal communication isn't another rival for communication, as it is a subset (after seeing and liking [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=3229:_Grammar&diff=next&oldid=409748 this anon's edit]), but i'm not sure what other methods there could be than just communication and non-communication; Lenhart says "rivals" plural -- [[User:Somefan|somefan]] ([[User talk:Somefan|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Somefan|contribs]]) 00:45, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
:Pretty sure the joke is that any alternative to communication would by definition be impossible to communicate. --[[User:Biotronic|Biotronic]] ([[User talk:Biotronic|talk]]) 08:18, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
::Actually, I worded that wrong - what I meant is that '' is an example of non-communication, which is not very effective at transmitting information --[[User:Biotronic|Biotronic]] ([[User talk:Biotronic|talk]]) 08:58, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you [[Special:Contributions/137.25.230.78|137.25.230.78]] 00:54, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
:steal orange me steal eat orange me eat orange steal me eat orange steal me you [[User:King Pando|King Pando]] ([[User talk:King Pando|talk]]) 02:34, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Talk:1819: Sweet 16

2026-02-26T16:28:03Z

195.65.24.115:

Would the players in segways need to dribble? They aren't technically taking steps, so would it count as traveling?[[User:DrPumpkinz|DrPumpkinz]] ([[User talk:DrPumpkinz|talk]]) 08:26, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I checked it out, if this truly is a basketball comp, then the 1988 Los Angeles Lakers win hands-down. [[User:Themanhimself11|Themanhimself11]] ([[User talk:Themanhimself11|talk]]) 10:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
:The youngest members of the '88 Lakers are now in their 50s, which would be a significant handicap. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar is 69! The team with the best chance here is probably the regular basketball team wearing baseball equipment; with the exception of catcher's gear, it's the least restrictive of all the options.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.250|108.162.216.250]] 18:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
:: Not if the baseball equipment includes cleats. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.58.101|172.68.58.101]] 01:10, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
:This being Randall, they'll probably be playing basketball by Marquess of Queensberry rules. [[User:Nialpxe|Nialpxe]] ([[User talk:Nialpxe|talk]]) 11:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
:Looking at this comic as a whole, I feel I can guarantee that he meant the 1988 Lakers today. Skilled then, but 30 years older and slower. As for the baseball team / gear matchup, this begs the question if they can use the equipment... A guy swinging a baseball bat would make an effective blocker and make a significant difference, no matter how unskilled they are AT basketball. :) - NiceGuy1 [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.88|108.162.219.88]] 04:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC) I finally signed up! This comment is mine. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 04:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

:A lot of people who play NBA 2K17 are actually good in real life, so they should have a pretty good chance.

WHERE IS MY APRIL FOOLS DAY COMIC?? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.238.130|162.158.238.130]] 11:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Minor detail - NBA 2K17 is made by 2K Games, rather than EA. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.36|141.101.107.36]] 12:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
:My bad. Must've confused it with the NBA Live series by EA. [[User:Nialpxe|Nialpxe]] ([[User talk:Nialpxe|talk]]) 14:31, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

The additional text says, "Every year I make my bracket at the season ...." Should that say "at the end of the season"? --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.105|162.158.74.105]] 13:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
:I was thinking it should say "at the beginning of the season," thus explaining why his bracket is busted before the postseason begins. Clearly ''something'' is missing! [[User:Miamiclay|Miamiclay]] ([[User talk:Miamiclay|talk]]) 15:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
:I know almost nothing about most sports, and less about basketball (at least the sports fan end of it), and with this explanation I feel certain it's "beginning". Somewhat pointless at the end, when all is over and settled. They would make such brackets to either predict how the Sweet 16 will fill out, or to record how it DID fill out. With the mouse-over contribution, these are clearly predictions. I wonder if Randall hedged between saying "at the beginning of the season" and "early in the season", since the Sweet 16 seems to come about once the season is well underway, so then "early" would be more accurate, then he forgot to pick one... - NiceGuy1 [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.88|108.162.219.88]] 04:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC) I finally signed up! This comment is mine. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 04:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

What we should explain for non-USA people to understand this comic is that it is an annual tradition to predict the full bracket of games and compare the predictions with friends and workmates. It's not just "a competition bracket": it's the annual "I'm trying to picture what would these opponents do". [[Special:Contributions/188.114.110.250|188.114.110.250]] 14:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

The real question is, how long will it be before there's an XKCD Bracket II Twitter? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.58.173|172.68.58.173]] 15:27, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Could "A dog team with one human" be a reference to the Iditarod? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.75.166|162.158.75.166]] 19:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
:First thing I pictured when I saw that pairing, a dogsled team (then a dogsled team led by a cat). Of course, this was before I realized the basketball theme. :) Not sure if Randall was thinking of a dogsled team playing basketball, or if he just reversed the Air Bud scenario. - NiceGuy1 [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.88|108.162.219.88]] 04:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC) I finally signed up! This comment is mine. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 04:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Could the basketball/baseball teams be a reference to Michael Jordan (in)famous 1993–1994 period during which he retired from basketball and played baseball instead? --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.134.106|162.158.134.106]] 09:34, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm surprised no one's made a "swinger for the LA Lakers" joke yet... --[[User:JayRulesXKCD|'''JayRules''XKCD''' ]][[User talk:JayRulesXKCD|what's up?]] 14:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

The NBA 2k17 top developers team might refer to a team made up of NBA 2k17 developers that was created for the game. In some sports video games the developers will create a hidden or bonus team composed of people on the development team, with really good abilities. --[[Special:Contributions/207.136.199.12|207.136.199.12]] 16:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
:I interpret that matchup to mean video game players vs video game developers in a real game of basketball. If you ignore realty and pander to the stereotypes then both teams would be pretty unathletic. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.162|173.245.50.162]] 18:04, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
:Yeah, these are all games to be played in real life, in person. And while there is sure to be many skilled basketball players among all the game players and game developers (a passion for the sport in real life would draw someone to both), who says the skilled real life players will be among the "top" video game players or developers? The only thing that can transfer is strategy. Actual skills in one form won't confer skill in the other. NiceGuy1 [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.88|108.162.219.88]] 04:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC) I finally signed up! This comment is mine. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 04:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I think Air Bud should become a category due to the number of comics referencing the films. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.143.36|172.68.143.36]] 05:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Side note: Since coming here Tuesday night for this comic, the ExplainXKCD site has seemed rather different, minimalized. Not sure if my iPad 1 is messing up, or if this is some new mobile version of the site, or if the site is messed up. Anybody else seeing this? For example, the entire left pane is missing, including the site's logo. And this text box is only using half the width of the screen. Tonight I went to a comic I last saw normal, as a control test, and it similarly looked minimized. NiceGuy1 [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.88|108.162.219.88]] 04:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC) I finally signed up! This comment is mine. (Side side note, the site has returned to looking fine for a while, maybe since it went down for maintenance?) [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 04:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Considering what Cinderella's glass slippers survived in the story, either they were not real glass or they were magic. Wait ... actually they were pretty obviously both, so ... -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 23:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

In the table it reads "It should be noted that the NBA requires a minimum of 13 team members." However, this comic is clearly related to College-level basketball, specifically NCAA Men's Division I Basketball. The only rules of which governing minimum team size is Rule 3, Section 2, Article 1 which states, "At the start of the game, each team shall consist of five players ...". Article 2 makes it clear a team can continue to play with fewer than five players after starting with five. Therefore, the note should be deleted.

To clarify what I wrote to user "Sweet 16", "its" is not a valid contraction of "it is" in (American) English. It would be "it's". We USAians insert an apostrophe (what English people use for quotations) where the removed letter(s) would otherwise be. Your current phrasing makes perfect sense to me. [[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 00:59, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
:To clarify further, we UKians use an apostrophe exactly the same, for that contraction (and posessives, save for the "big few" with 'irregular possessives' that are "my", "your", "our", "his", "her", "'''its'''", "their", etc... and I always felt "ones" (belonging to one(self)) should be included, but it isn't).
:What's more, we use ""s for quotes, as often as not, though various printers' style-guides may adopt the singular-quote (primarily, with quoted quotes, etc, toggling inwards from there), in a way that US printhouses also seem to do.
:((However, I might use singular ones (see my "'irregular possessives'", above) for a special emphasis. Or else (blame my history in languages like Pascal and character-class quotation?) to quote an individual letter (better to talk of how many 'A's or 'Z's there are in a Scrabble bag than to invoke the abhorent plural-forming apostrophe). This is just a personal style and, though written with a ''slant'' to the quote-emphasis, I don't know if it conveys well to others, where I mix double and single quotes to reflect my own internal voice.))
:...when I was young, the way I eventually learnt to remember which "its" is more properly "it's", and vice-versa, is that "its"-possessive is one of those irregular (first person, second person, third person, group, etc) possessives that don't really match "rootword-apostrophe-S" (i.e. not "us's", "she's", etc), even though "its" ''is'' surprisingly similar to "it"+"'s". Though there are contractive exceptions ("fo'csle" <= "forecastle", and continuing linguistic disagreement of if it's "won't" <= "w'''ill''' not", etc), those are ''less regular'' irregularitites, so you can disregard them in this mnemonic! ;) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.18|162.158.159.18]] 13:37, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I thought Sweet 16 meant that the competition is which team is sweeter, and it felt a bit unfair to include a dog team with one cat. --[[Special:Contributions/195.65.24.115|195.65.24.115]] 16:28, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Talk:3205: Carbon Dating

2026-02-13T06:51:35Z

195.65.24.115:

F10st p0st! [[Special:Contributions/185.36.194.156|185.36.194.156]] 04:45, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

:First explanation! Hopefully it's fine... (also, nice TCMP reference.)--[[User:Utdtutyabthsc|Utdtutyabthsc]] ([[User talk:Utdtutyabthsc|talk]]) 06:00, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
::Oh, was that a deliberate reference? Why isn't it [[269|spelled the same way]]? What does "F10st" even mean? [[User:Elizium23|Elizium23]] ([[User talk:Elizium23|talk]]) 06:58, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
::Go read the comment section for [[3135: Sea Level]] if you want to see more of this. [[User:RadiantRainwing|K9Dragon23, or RainWingSquares (talk)]] ([[User talk:RadiantRainwing|talk]]) 00:40, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
:::Semi-deliberate, but more spirit of the law than letter of the law since early internet trolling is (was?) a common theme here anyways lol; the 0 was a typo [[Special:Contributions/185.36.194.156|185.36.194.156]] 10:04, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
::::It is though getting a little tiresome and repeatable that someone has begun writing first post on all talk pages... Please stop it ;-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 13:19, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::31Gth!!! [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 14:54, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
::::How about next time we troll for 3rd post instead (game theory time) [[Special:Contributions/185.36.194.156|185.36.194.156]] 09:09, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm all for carbon dating, but I wouldn't want one to marry my sister. [[Special:Contributions/24.123.140.66|24.123.140.66]] 13:52, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
:I also was expecting that kind of pun when I saw the title. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 15:10, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
: You'd rather she settled down with a nice silica-based lifeform? [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 15:20, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
: I figured that carbon dating was the process by which paleontologists analyze prospective mates to determine their chronological compatibility. [[User:Jordan Brown|Jordan Brown]] ([[User talk:Jordan Brown|talk]]) 01:36, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
: That's a dating platform exclusively for archeologists and soda producers

Is the skeleton being studied a cosmologist? [[Special:Contributions/2605:A601:80AF:4000:2A74:9789:42F0:2275|2605:A601:80AF:4000:2A74:9789:42F0:2275]] 14:35, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

LAST C0MMENT! [[Special:Contributions/164.134.137.45|164.134.137.45]] 12:02, 11 February 2026 (UTC) (redbuns)

Ummm... if we are talking about cosmologists, shouldn't the tools be metal, since all non-hydrogen, non-helium elements are metals in astronomy? {{unsigned ip|18.117.72.81|14:29, 11 February 2026 (UTC)}}

Actually, if you cool down helium enough it becomes a liquid, and if you increase the pressure enough it becomes a solid. But it needs to be very cold and high pressure. [[Special:Contributions/185.220.101.37|185.220.101.37]] 23:30, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
:An episode of Mythbusters investigated [https://youtu.be/3tOTVJZ7YKk?si=t3Zei4Z_61h2QoCO&t=363 the "killer icicle" trope] and found it to have some merit. Now to freeze helium, and get it solid, and somehow wield it as a tool, requires quite a technology stack, doesn't it! [[User:Elizium23|Elizium23]] ([[User talk:Elizium23|talk]]) 23:41, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
::Including, probably, some very good gloves! [[Special:Contributions/81.179.199.253|81.179.199.253]] 00:29, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I believe "less effective helium ones" suggest use helium existence to determinate when the tool have been made. Out Universe create Helium ~3-20 min after the Big Bang (Based on Google). So as it suggest, it's less precise then the present of Carbon. (We can only difference it with presence of Hydrogen, which is the 1st element made after the Big Bang.--[[Special:Contributions/185.149.195.107|185.149.195.107]] 22:57, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Talk:3200: Chemical Formula

2026-01-30T11:21:05Z

195.65.24.115:

I'm disappointed that it wasn't scrollable. [[Special:Contributions/2001:41D0:8:5062:0:0:0:1|2001:41D0:8:5062:0:0:0:1]] 20:20, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
:+1 And funny to think that the universe contains less than a few hundred mol of Americium. --[[Special:Contributions/2001:16B8:CC03:E100:8552:6543:7CF4:9AE7|2001:16B8:CC03:E100:8552:6543:7CF4:9AE7]] 20:57, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
::Time for a campaign to Make Americium Greater? [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 09:32, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
:::Some people don't understand sarcasm. Pleaze don't give them ideas. [[User:Gorcq|Gorcq]] ([[User talk:Gorcq|talk]]) 12:15, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

If anyone's interested in an accessible resource for getting more data like this, may I suggest https://ptable.com/#Properties/Abundance/Universe (which I believe derives data from IUPAC sources) [[User:Dextrous Fred|Dextrous Fred]] ([[User talk:Dextrous Fred|talk]]) 20:37, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

surprised to see so much Astatine, he himself declared, that stuff doesnt want to exist so I expected yet a few powers of ten less {{unsigned ip|2a00:6020:479f:6c00:d587:ac2a:d1e2:26a9|21:08, 28 January 2026 (UTC)}}

This does make me curious: how would neutronium be represented in a chemical formula? Or would it be? My impression is it kind of exists 'outside' of chemistry... -Kalil [[Special:Contributions/147.81.60.76|147.81.60.76]] 21:12, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
:Neutron stars would be represented with '''n''' with various mass numbers. And there are no more than 1 mmol (6.02214076×1020) of neutron stars. [[Special:Contributions/2001:4C4E:1C09:EC00:7932:264E:A9E0:8ED0|2001:4C4E:1C09:EC00:7932:264E:A9E0:8ED0]] 21:38, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

What about adding mass numbers? For example, most of the hydrogen is 1H, with small amounts of 2H and trace amounts of 3H. [[Special:Contributions/2001:4C4E:1C09:EC00:7932:264E:A9E0:8ED0|2001:4C4E:1C09:EC00:7932:264E:A9E0:8ED0]] 21:38, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Oh look, it's the 3200th comic! Yay I guess! --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User Talk:DollarStoreBa'al|Converse]]''''' 22:46, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

An unregistered user (198.48.180.159) added a note that the chemical formula "C11H15NO2" (i.e. C11H15NO2) "has 302 registered isomers". I don't know the source for that number or where those isomers are registered. (It's the formula for MDMA, which is, as noted, "not good to eat".) Would that be the CAS registry? [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 23:20, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
: Don't know if this works, but here's a site that does immediately return 302 compounds: https://pubchemlite.lcsb.uni.lu/compounds?query=C11H15NO2 [[Special:Contributions/8.17.60.225|8.17.60.225]] 04:19, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

10^26 atoms of americium is about 40 kg. But it looks like humans produced tons of americium: https://isis-online.org/uploads/isis-reports/documents/np_237_and_americium.pdf
. If there are other civilizations in the observable Universe, then the amount of americium in the Universe is even higher. So I guess the formula counts only naturally produced elements. But even then it seems underestimated. [[User:Alexei Kopylov|Alexei Kopylov]] ([[User talk:Alexei Kopylov|talk]]) 23:45, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
:In everything that I've checked (I expanded the "list of names" into a table), I could ''not'' discover any universal quantity of americium that was close to Randall's apparent source. Can't exclude the possibility that artificially nucleogenesis played a part in his figures (while mine are from how much was created 'naturally'), but I've just had to go along with it being a completely wrong figure (for the ultimate universal ranking). Much as boron might be given slightly mismagnituded.
:However, if anyone thinks they have the same source that led to the comic's values (and can reconfirm beryllium's estimated order of magnitude, which is the ''only'' reason I decided to start on compiling this amount of extended data, which is actually for all 118 humanly known elements), then you're welcome to correct anything that I left in an incorrect state. [[Special:Contributions/81.179.199.253|81.179.199.253]] 00:16, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

...but what if you had a mole of universes? {{unsigned ip|99.109.3.237|00:50, 29 January 2026 (UTC)}}

In the explanation, towards the end of the formula for the universe, it says U₁₀². Would that mean that there are only about 100 uranium atoms in the whole universe? That seems way too low. Did the explainer confuse the powers of 10 with rankings (in reverse)? --[[Special:Contributions/208.59.176.206|208.59.176.206]] 03:48, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
:I'm not sure where the error came from, but about half the numbers are drastically too low. Remember, a mole is 6.02*10^23. [[Special:Contributions/174.94.104.215|174.94.104.215]] 05:34, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
:Fixed. The powers were just in descending order, one by one. The current values reflect the actual amounts, give or take one or two orders of magnitude. --[[User:1234231587678|1234231587678]] ([[User talk:1234231587678|talk]]) 06:04, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
:ok, nvm, i just read that the abundance is according to mass, not actual number of atoms, so half of the numbers are probably wrong :( --[[User:1234231587678|1234231587678]] ([[User talk:1234231587678|talk]]) 04:38, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

In the first paragraph of the explanation it says that the number for helium would be about a third as the number for hydrogen. This seems to compare the total masses for both elements instead of the number of atoms. Hydrogen should account for aprox. 92% of the atoms while Helium is approx. 8%. [[Special:Contributions/2A02:810D:9B99:7800:DECB:CADA:B418:2F1A|2A02:810D:9B99:7800:DECB:CADA:B418:2F1A]] 05:58, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
:A very good point. It seems that some sources just neglect to clearly specify whether they're giving abundance in mass fractions or mole fractions (or relative mass totals/mole totals/etc), so probably where errors crept in. But by looking at H and He, if they are roughly 74% vs 24% then it's probably by mass, and the figures probably need adjusting down by the (typical) Z of that element. (So, a third of the mass should be a twelfth of the number, and 12x8%=96%; not far off being 8% vs 92%, well within the casual rounding errors we have accumulated.) If/when I've time, I'll maybe do suitably adjusted values wherever they're needed, but can't do it immediately. [[Special:Contributions/82.132.239.10|82.132.239.10]] 15:02, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Re "Other more complex atoms, up to atomic mass 56, formed later ... as a result of stellar nucleosynthesis". Not all of them; there is another way. Boron and Beryllium are produced by cosmic ray spallation, the splitting of heavier atoms by the impact of energetic particles. [[Special:Contributions/2A12:F43:141A:9F00:A0FA:9260:7BAF:8D57|2A12:F43:141A:9F00:A0FA:9260:7BAF:8D57]] 13:16, 29 January 2026 (UTC) dww-uk

How do we count the atoms that all rollled up into a singularity and otherwise vanished from the universe except to leave a big pinch in it that causes weird gravity effects. [[Special:Contributions/130.76.187.47|130.76.187.47]] 13:37, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
:I'd say that's a "hairy" problem. [[Special:Contributions/82.132.239.10|82.132.239.10]] 15:02, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
: Socks?

Off topic, but didn’t Xkcd used to be daily? [[User:Commercialegg|Commercialegg]] ([[User talk:Commercialegg|talk]]) 14:50, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
:Not really.
:There have been 'special weeks', the latest being [[822: Guest Week: Jeph Jacques (Questionable Content)]] to [[826: Guest Week: Zach Weiner (SMBC)]] (with previous all-weekday seqeucnes being "The Race", "Secretary", "1337", "Choices" and "Parody Week"), and a spottier schedule back in the double-digit comics that weren't so strictly (or necessarily restricted to) the M/W/F schedule, and April Fools might come out on the relevent day (although also often on whatever day they were eventually ready!), as per other seasonal comics or ones tied to book-releases/etc.
:Of course, every day ''is'' an xkcd day. As well as ''every day'' there's an xkcd (but of course its generally the same one as came out/should have come out on the prior Monday/Wednesday/Friday release scheduled), and [[1053: Ten Thousand|always something to learn]]... ;) [[Special:Contributions/81.179.199.253|81.179.199.253]] 18:58, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
Synthesis of heavy nuclei occurs in kilonovas (neutron star mergers) as well as supernovas (or perhaps kilonovas are considered a form of supernova). [[Special:Contributions/87.75.45.69|87.75.45.69]] 10:42, 30 January 2026 (UTC)