explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:3232: Countdown Standard

2026-04-19T20:01:26Z

76.180.39.133:

Refer to all 4 Lethal Weapons movies for discussion. {{unsigned ip|45.138.52.240}}
:{{citation needed}} --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 06:45, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Don't most people say "on three", "on one", or "on go" before starting the count anyway? And then delay the final (action) number a teensy bit? e.g. "On one. Ready? 3 2 1" This isn't that ambiguous, not that I would object to standardisation. [[User:Sameldacamel34|Sameldacamel34]] ([[User talk:Sameldacamel34|talk]]) 23:13, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
:It is appallingly common for me to hear the inconsistent and dissonant, "On the count of three…one, two, three, GO!" (This is problematic because it is "on the count of THREE" not "on the count of GO, the word after three". Or at least, that is what I understand those words to mean.) [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 02:09, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
:Just "on three" is the most common, I think. You say "On three. Ready? One, two THREE." [[User:Dogman15|Dogman15]] ([[User talk:Dogman15|talk]]) 02:42, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
::"On three... THREE!" [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 08:56, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
:::On three... two... one... zero... GO!! [[User:Logalex8369|Logalex8369]] ([[User talk:Logalex8369|talk]]) 23:15, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
:There are two different conventions to synchronize a start -- by reacting or by rythmically coordinating. And both are used: in official swimming championships by World Aquatics they train to start to a perfectly rythmic "bip.. bip.. beeep" while in track and field championships by World Athletics the start judge waits an arbitrary time before triggering the gun to which athletes react. [[Special:Contributions/31.221.183.22|31.221.183.22]] 09:49, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
::There's at least a third - go at a predetermined time. And a fourth - use a start gate to physically restrain the starters. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 10:23, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

And the Lord spake, saying, "First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in My sight, shall snuff it. -- Monty Python and the Holy Grail [[User:Jordan Brown|Jordan Brown]] ([[User talk:Jordan Brown|talk]]) 00:35, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
:[Arthur:] Right. One, two, five!
:[Galahad:] Three, sir.
:[Arthur:] Three! [*throws it*]
:...just to complicate matters. ;) [[Special:Contributions/81.179.199.253|81.179.199.253]] 00:54, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
::Fantastic guys ;-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 06:44, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
:I wouldn't look to God for standards on counting - just look at the mess around what 'forty days and forty nights' means. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 08:16, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Four... Two... One... One Half... One Quarter... One Eighth... One Sixteenth... One Thirty-second... One Sixty-Fourth... [go to infinity] GO! [[User:King Pando|King Pando]] ([[User talk:King Pando|talk]]) 03:47, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
:Yeah, you don't even get the reference material foods. You're starving. [[Special:Contributions/47.141.37.161|47.141.37.161]] 16:36, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Just to make things even weirder: the movie industry counts 5, 4, 3, 2, go!
[[Special:Contributions/76.133.66.138|76.133.66.138]] 03:59, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
:{{citation needed}} --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 06:44, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
::https://raymonddefelitta.org/i-dig-film-leader/ Film leaders do generally stop at 2 or 3, but they don't really count "3, [2,] go!". There's a 'silent' count for the absent numbers before you reach the 'go!' point. They're left black to avoid fouling the start of the projection. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 10:54, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm sure people all over the world will follow this standard just as faithfully as they follow ISO 8601. {{unsigned|2a00:1a28:1410:5::10db}}
:Here for reference: [[1179: ISO 8601]]. But there is at least one more with ISO reference: [[2322: ISO Paper Size Golden Spiral]]. So that is three comics referencing the ISO system directly (this one not in titel but in the text so no doubt that it would belong with the other two. But I'm not sure three is enough to create and ISO category? Could not on the spot find any others...? If someone can then we could make a category! --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 06:43, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
::The home inspections series has only 3 comics, if that helps (I can't link it though, for some reason. It's name is Category:Home Inspections). [[User:GSLikesCats307|GSLikesCats307]] ([[User talk:GSLikesCats307|talk]]) 13:36, 14 April 2026
:::If you write <nowiki>[[Category:Home Inspections]]</nowiki>, it ''adds the current page to that category''; if you want to link ''to'' the category, you have to add an extra colon at the beginning, so <nowiki>[[:Category:Home Inspections]]</nowiki> gives you [[:Category:Home Inspections]] - [[User:IMSoP|IMSoP]] ([[User talk:IMSoP|talk]]) 15:12, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
::::Thanks! [[User:GSLikesCats307|GSLikesCats307]] ([[User talk:GSLikesCats307|talk]]) 19:48, 14 April 2026

All instances of "One... Two... Two and a half..." shall be referred to the International Criminal Court for prosecution. [[Special:Contributions/2600:1004:B0A0:E06:0:3E:A3FD:5401|2600:1004:B0A0:E06:0:3E:A3FD:5401]] 14:37, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I personally use “And a 1, a 2, a 1 2 3 4” [[User:Logalex8369|Logalex8369]] ([[User talk:Logalex8369|talk]]) 15:18, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
: Well that's no good - this one's in 5/8. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 14:25, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

3, 2, 1, 0, -1, ... -∞ [[Special:Contributions/45.178.3.59|45.178.3.59]] 15:26, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Dutch comedian Herman Finkers had a sketch where he said "We count to three. One, two <starts playing music>". In Dutch, "tot" means "up to and not including" while "tot en met" means "up to and including", wso wgen you say "I count to three" you should not include the three, even though most people will do so. [[User:IIVQ|IIVQ]] ([[User talk:IIVQ|talk]]) 18:01, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I wonder if 3-2-1-Go is so well understood because it's similar to rocket countdowns: 10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1-Blastoff! [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 18:30, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
:In between which of those numbers does the ''"Countdown hold"'' arrive? [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 18:36, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
: 3-2-1-Go isn't similar to rocket countdowns, it *IS* rocket - and other physics - countdowns. [[User:Jgharston|Jgharston]] ([[User talk:Jgharston|talk]]) 21:43, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
:: Isn't a rocket countdown technically "-3, -2, -1, Go!"? (Which is strictly speaking a countup.) [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 08:59, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
:: ESA and NASA use different countdowns. ESA usually lights main engines on zero and lifts off at say +7. NASA plans lift off at zero and lit the shuttle main engines at -6.6.[[Special:Contributions/76.180.39.133|76.180.39.133]] 19:59, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Medical personnel still use 1-2-3 as the count-up when moving a patient from one platform to another (e.g. between a bed and gurney). They've standardized to lifting on 3. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 18:30, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Hasn't he missed out three two ONE! [[User:Jgharston|Jgharston]] ([[User talk:Jgharston|talk]]) 21:41, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

(I started on writing this before the above comment was here, got edit-conflicted, but this ''could'' almost be a reply to that!) I start people in sports events. My count is "half a minute" [keeping it somewhat vague, just as a lead-up warning but ''trying'' to have that be 30 seconds to go on the "h" of "half"], then "fifiteen", "ten", before "five, four, three, two, one, go!". ''Traditionally'', the competitors would be rocked back and forward slightly (back on 3 and 1, forward on 2 and that converted into a full starting small push on the zero-mark) by the person holding them up, which helps them get off as exactly on time as manually practical. Unfortunately, some hold their brakes on, for reasons of their own, ''and'' tend to release them on or about "one"... I tend to note which of these do this, and ''if'' their finishing time as advantageous by just one second (which is not unknown, but thankfully rare) then I might have a word with the organiser... leave them to worry about if this should affect the final placings. [[Special:Contributions/81.179.199.253|81.179.199.253]] 21:45, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

There was a comment about the ISO not usually punishing people so severely... but they don't punish ''at all'' so far as I'm aware..? Where does enforcement come from? [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 04:31, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
: This was a joke... although I do think that now it's been removed entirely the explanation is missing something of the humour of the comic in suggesting punishment when that is not part of the ISO's role. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 08:29, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
:: Have replaced it with a slightly less wry version. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 08:34, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

An advantage of "3-2-1-GO" is that it allows for arbitrarily changing the countdown length - you can start at any number other than 3 and it's still obvious when "GO" will occur. So if "three-two-one-GO" is too long for someone (it's one beat longer than "one-two-THREE"), they just say "two-one-GO" instead. --v.polak06@email.cz, 2026-04-15

Unless I'm wrong, wouldn't a factor in the punishment (that's to say, only being able to eat ISO food) be because it's not intending to be "the best" food, but rather average. So a lifetime of eating ISO food samples would be the same as a lifetime of eating "food that is intended as exceedingly average." [[Special:Contributions/173.210.201.86|173.210.201.86]] 19:09, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
:But that isn't what "ISO food" would really be (though that might be the perception/assumption behind the suggestion in the title text). It's food that's prepared to meet certain standardized criteria. The ISO standard for preparation of tea has nothing to do with whether the tea is good or bad; it's about conditions so that different teas can be compared and evaluated. The tea would be fine to drink. There's the standard for testing food products for aflatoxin, but it doesn't mean that good peanut butter can't be run through the process. The problem might lie in "after the peanut butter has been processed to enable HPLC testing, the result is no longer fit to eat". But not all food products would be ruined by that kind of preparation. [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 21:31, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
:: My reading is that, because standards will generally deal with the basic building blocks (leaving combination of those to specific implementations) it would tend to lack complexity, ''and'' because it's standardised it would lack variation from meal to meal, meaning it would be bland not just at the level of the individual item, but also at the level of the overall diet. (Although neither seems to prevent some people enjoying a diet of the likes of McDonald's, so...) [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 08:33, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

There correct way is: Two Six Heave

Perhaps he meant NIST SRMs rather than ISO food samples. [[Special:Contributions/141.126.197.143|141.126.197.143]] 17:27, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

A potential improvement to avoid people going on 1, is to say "3, 2, ready, go"
[[Special:Contributions/85.255.233.115|85.255.233.115]] 14:33, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Carnegie-Mellon University holds an annual race, the like of which probably is not seen anywhere else on this Earth. https://www.cmu.edu/buggy/ Each heat begins with a countdown;
"Ten," "Nine," "Eight," ..., "Two," "One," "Ready," "Set," <Horn Honks>. [[Special:Contributions/2600:4041:ED:C800:707A:81D4:908:378A|2600:4041:ED:C800:707A:81D4:908:378A]] 23:51, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Talk:3232: Countdown Standard

2026-04-19T19:59:28Z

76.180.39.133:

Refer to all 4 Lethal Weapons movies for discussion. {{unsigned ip|45.138.52.240}}
:{{citation needed}} --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 06:45, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Don't most people say "on three", "on one", or "on go" before starting the count anyway? And then delay the final (action) number a teensy bit? e.g. "On one. Ready? 3 2 1" This isn't that ambiguous, not that I would object to standardisation. [[User:Sameldacamel34|Sameldacamel34]] ([[User talk:Sameldacamel34|talk]]) 23:13, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
:It is appallingly common for me to hear the inconsistent and dissonant, "On the count of three…one, two, three, GO!" (This is problematic because it is "on the count of THREE" not "on the count of GO, the word after three". Or at least, that is what I understand those words to mean.) [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 02:09, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
:Just "on three" is the most common, I think. You say "On three. Ready? One, two THREE." [[User:Dogman15|Dogman15]] ([[User talk:Dogman15|talk]]) 02:42, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
::"On three... THREE!" [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 08:56, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
:::On three... two... one... zero... GO!! [[User:Logalex8369|Logalex8369]] ([[User talk:Logalex8369|talk]]) 23:15, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
:There are two different conventions to synchronize a start -- by reacting or by rythmically coordinating. And both are used: in official swimming championships by World Aquatics they train to start to a perfectly rythmic "bip.. bip.. beeep" while in track and field championships by World Athletics the start judge waits an arbitrary time before triggering the gun to which athletes react. [[Special:Contributions/31.221.183.22|31.221.183.22]] 09:49, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
::There's at least a third - go at a predetermined time. And a fourth - use a start gate to physically restrain the starters. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 10:23, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

And the Lord spake, saying, "First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in My sight, shall snuff it. -- Monty Python and the Holy Grail [[User:Jordan Brown|Jordan Brown]] ([[User talk:Jordan Brown|talk]]) 00:35, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
:[Arthur:] Right. One, two, five!
:[Galahad:] Three, sir.
:[Arthur:] Three! [*throws it*]
:...just to complicate matters. ;) [[Special:Contributions/81.179.199.253|81.179.199.253]] 00:54, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
::Fantastic guys ;-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 06:44, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
:I wouldn't look to God for standards on counting - just look at the mess around what 'forty days and forty nights' means. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 08:16, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Four... Two... One... One Half... One Quarter... One Eighth... One Sixteenth... One Thirty-second... One Sixty-Fourth... [go to infinity] GO! [[User:King Pando|King Pando]] ([[User talk:King Pando|talk]]) 03:47, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
:Yeah, you don't even get the reference material foods. You're starving. [[Special:Contributions/47.141.37.161|47.141.37.161]] 16:36, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Just to make things even weirder: the movie industry counts 5, 4, 3, 2, go!
[[Special:Contributions/76.133.66.138|76.133.66.138]] 03:59, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
:{{citation needed}} --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 06:44, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
::https://raymonddefelitta.org/i-dig-film-leader/ Film leaders do generally stop at 2 or 3, but they don't really count "3, [2,] go!". There's a 'silent' count for the absent numbers before you reach the 'go!' point. They're left black to avoid fouling the start of the projection. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 10:54, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm sure people all over the world will follow this standard just as faithfully as they follow ISO 8601. {{unsigned|2a00:1a28:1410:5::10db}}
:Here for reference: [[1179: ISO 8601]]. But there is at least one more with ISO reference: [[2322: ISO Paper Size Golden Spiral]]. So that is three comics referencing the ISO system directly (this one not in titel but in the text so no doubt that it would belong with the other two. But I'm not sure three is enough to create and ISO category? Could not on the spot find any others...? If someone can then we could make a category! --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 06:43, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
::The home inspections series has only 3 comics, if that helps (I can't link it though, for some reason. It's name is Category:Home Inspections). [[User:GSLikesCats307|GSLikesCats307]] ([[User talk:GSLikesCats307|talk]]) 13:36, 14 April 2026
:::If you write <nowiki>[[Category:Home Inspections]]</nowiki>, it ''adds the current page to that category''; if you want to link ''to'' the category, you have to add an extra colon at the beginning, so <nowiki>[[:Category:Home Inspections]]</nowiki> gives you [[:Category:Home Inspections]] - [[User:IMSoP|IMSoP]] ([[User talk:IMSoP|talk]]) 15:12, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
::::Thanks! [[User:GSLikesCats307|GSLikesCats307]] ([[User talk:GSLikesCats307|talk]]) 19:48, 14 April 2026

All instances of "One... Two... Two and a half..." shall be referred to the International Criminal Court for prosecution. [[Special:Contributions/2600:1004:B0A0:E06:0:3E:A3FD:5401|2600:1004:B0A0:E06:0:3E:A3FD:5401]] 14:37, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I personally use “And a 1, a 2, a 1 2 3 4” [[User:Logalex8369|Logalex8369]] ([[User talk:Logalex8369|talk]]) 15:18, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
: Well that's no good - this one's in 5/8. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 14:25, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

3, 2, 1, 0, -1, ... -∞ [[Special:Contributions/45.178.3.59|45.178.3.59]] 15:26, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Dutch comedian Herman Finkers had a sketch where he said "We count to three. One, two <starts playing music>". In Dutch, "tot" means "up to and not including" while "tot en met" means "up to and including", wso wgen you say "I count to three" you should not include the three, even though most people will do so. [[User:IIVQ|IIVQ]] ([[User talk:IIVQ|talk]]) 18:01, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I wonder if 3-2-1-Go is so well understood because it's similar to rocket countdowns: 10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1-Blastoff! [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 18:30, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
:In between which of those numbers does the ''"Countdown hold"'' arrive? [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 18:36, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
: 3-2-1-Go isn't similar to rocket countdowns, it *IS* rocket - and other physics - countdowns. [[User:Jgharston|Jgharston]] ([[User talk:Jgharston|talk]]) 21:43, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
:: Isn't a rocket countdown technically "-3, -2, -1, Go!"? (Which is strictly speaking a countup.) [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 08:59, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
:: ESA and NASA use different countdowns. ESA usually lights main engines on zero and lifts off at say +7. NASA plans lift off at zero and lit the SST main engines at -6.6.[[Special:Contributions/76.180.39.133|76.180.39.133]] 19:59, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Medical personnel still use 1-2-3 as the count-up when moving a patient from one platform to another (e.g. between a bed and gurney). They've standardized to lifting on 3. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 18:30, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Hasn't he missed out three two ONE! [[User:Jgharston|Jgharston]] ([[User talk:Jgharston|talk]]) 21:41, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

(I started on writing this before the above comment was here, got edit-conflicted, but this ''could'' almost be a reply to that!) I start people in sports events. My count is "half a minute" [keeping it somewhat vague, just as a lead-up warning but ''trying'' to have that be 30 seconds to go on the "h" of "half"], then "fifiteen", "ten", before "five, four, three, two, one, go!". ''Traditionally'', the competitors would be rocked back and forward slightly (back on 3 and 1, forward on 2 and that converted into a full starting small push on the zero-mark) by the person holding them up, which helps them get off as exactly on time as manually practical. Unfortunately, some hold their brakes on, for reasons of their own, ''and'' tend to release them on or about "one"... I tend to note which of these do this, and ''if'' their finishing time as advantageous by just one second (which is not unknown, but thankfully rare) then I might have a word with the organiser... leave them to worry about if this should affect the final placings. [[Special:Contributions/81.179.199.253|81.179.199.253]] 21:45, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

There was a comment about the ISO not usually punishing people so severely... but they don't punish ''at all'' so far as I'm aware..? Where does enforcement come from? [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 04:31, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
: This was a joke... although I do think that now it's been removed entirely the explanation is missing something of the humour of the comic in suggesting punishment when that is not part of the ISO's role. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 08:29, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
:: Have replaced it with a slightly less wry version. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 08:34, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

An advantage of "3-2-1-GO" is that it allows for arbitrarily changing the countdown length - you can start at any number other than 3 and it's still obvious when "GO" will occur. So if "three-two-one-GO" is too long for someone (it's one beat longer than "one-two-THREE"), they just say "two-one-GO" instead. --v.polak06@email.cz, 2026-04-15

Unless I'm wrong, wouldn't a factor in the punishment (that's to say, only being able to eat ISO food) be because it's not intending to be "the best" food, but rather average. So a lifetime of eating ISO food samples would be the same as a lifetime of eating "food that is intended as exceedingly average." [[Special:Contributions/173.210.201.86|173.210.201.86]] 19:09, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
:But that isn't what "ISO food" would really be (though that might be the perception/assumption behind the suggestion in the title text). It's food that's prepared to meet certain standardized criteria. The ISO standard for preparation of tea has nothing to do with whether the tea is good or bad; it's about conditions so that different teas can be compared and evaluated. The tea would be fine to drink. There's the standard for testing food products for aflatoxin, but it doesn't mean that good peanut butter can't be run through the process. The problem might lie in "after the peanut butter has been processed to enable HPLC testing, the result is no longer fit to eat". But not all food products would be ruined by that kind of preparation. [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 21:31, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
:: My reading is that, because standards will generally deal with the basic building blocks (leaving combination of those to specific implementations) it would tend to lack complexity, ''and'' because it's standardised it would lack variation from meal to meal, meaning it would be bland not just at the level of the individual item, but also at the level of the overall diet. (Although neither seems to prevent some people enjoying a diet of the likes of McDonald's, so...) [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 08:33, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

There correct way is: Two Six Heave

Perhaps he meant NIST SRMs rather than ISO food samples. [[Special:Contributions/141.126.197.143|141.126.197.143]] 17:27, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

A potential improvement to avoid people going on 1, is to say "3, 2, ready, go"
[[Special:Contributions/85.255.233.115|85.255.233.115]] 14:33, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Carnegie-Mellon University holds an annual race, the like of which probably is not seen anywhere else on this Earth. https://www.cmu.edu/buggy/ Each heat begins with a countdown;
"Ten," "Nine," "Eight," ..., "Two," "One," "Ready," "Set," <Horn Honks>. [[Special:Contributions/2600:4041:ED:C800:707A:81D4:908:378A|2600:4041:ED:C800:707A:81D4:908:378A]] 23:51, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Talk:3214: Electric Vehicles

2026-03-07T04:53:38Z

76.180.39.133:

How's the transcript, guys? --[[User:Utdtutyabthsc|Utdtutyabthsc]] ([[User talk:Utdtutyabthsc|talk]]) 03:41, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
: Heck if i know [[Special:Contributions/216.25.182.141|216.25.182.141]] 03:46, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

idk man, most cars I've encountered sound pretty acoustic to me. EVs are quieter though since they lack combustion engines [[Special:Contributions/137.25.230.78|137.25.230.78]] 04:00, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Just added a real life cars-as-instruments section, and to prove I'm human I must select photos with cars. It didn't tell me if I should pick the acoustic ones though, I'm confused. [[Special:Contributions/78.244.70.135|78.244.70.135]] 08:11, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
: Didn't it give you the option to use an audio version of the captcha? [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 09:37, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

You know, it ''is'' possible to run out of charge while you're driving. Then you have to figure out how to move your car or recharge it when there aren't any sources of electricity handy or convenient. [[User:Dogman15|Dogman15]] ([[User talk:Dogman15|talk]]) 09:39, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
: That's hardly a unique problem, though - the same is also true of gas-powered cars (or any other fuel you care to mention, for that matter). [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 10:08, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
::No it's not true. When you run out of fuel with an ICE, you can go and get some fuel and bring it back. Or you can carry a spare canister of fuel with you for long journeys to remote places. You can't go and get a bottle of electricity and take it back to your vehicle if you run out of charge. [[User:Yorkshire Pudding|Yorkshire Pudding]] ([[User talk:Yorkshire Pudding|talk]]) 23:08, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
:::Isn't a battery already a "bottle of electricity". Might need some jury-rigging with various unorthodox combinations of cables and connectors, but if you fill your pockets (or maybe a large wheelbarrow!) with enough {{w|Battery_pack#Power_bank|portable power-packs}} you ''should'' be able to get a bit of much needed 'juice' into your stranded vehicle. ;) [[Special:Contributions/81.179.199.253|81.179.199.253]] 23:22, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
::::When my son was about 3 or 4, he said "Electric is with wires...batteries are little tubs of electricity." So yeah, already thinking that! So, to be specific, I guess the problem is not that it's ''impossible'' to carry charge to your stranded vehicle, it's that it's too difficult to be practical. Filling stations sell fuel cans that you can fill. The energy density of petrol or diesel is such that even a child could carry enough fuel for a normal car to do a 50+ mile journey. Let's see anyone do that with a bottle of electricity... [[User:Yorkshire Pudding|Yorkshire Pudding]] ([[User talk:Yorkshire Pudding|talk]]) 23:41, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::They already do - there are roadside charging companies that provide exactly this service. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 09:15, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
: As and when I might transition to EV, I've been thinking of getting a handy sized PV panel (or, better, a 'roll' of PV fabric, which can be pegged out; perhaps even used as a windbreak/sunshade) stowed in a corner of the boot(/trunk), that I can take out and use to trickle-charge the vehicle when needed. Although that's more for like just making a bit of use of the sunshine if I'm stopped anywhere for long enough, to reduce my reliance upon commercial power sources. [[Special:Contributions/81.179.199.253|81.179.199.253]] 14:39, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
:: While it might be "fun", a portable PV panel is not gong to help much. A 120V plug can maybe provide 1500W typically add 2-5 miles of range per hour of charging, so the 100 to 200W you can get from a portable system (which is generous) won't help much. But I suppose it would be better than nothing. [[User:J-beda|J-beda]] ([[User talk:J-beda|talk]]) 13:33, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

When i was in school one teacher was keen on distinguishing batteries from accumulators. a battery was something you use once, an accumulator could be recharged. this was in a non-english speaking country and i am not sure if this strict distinction exists in english. but it could cause such a misunderstanding.--[[Special:Contributions/2001:62A:4:408:2541:D6E7:7A86:B8DC|2001:62A:4:408:2541:D6E7:7A86:B8DC]] 10:25, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
: Until I read the whole paragraph I was thinking accumulator would be the same as a capacitor. Maybe they thought rechargeables are actually giant capacitors, but they aren't. They store energy in a (mostly) reversible chemical reaction (tons of energy, slow to charge-discharge (unless spicy pillow releases magic smoke and fire)). Capacitors hold charge physically along the surfaces of the plates (fast charge-discharge, (relatively) tiny capacity). Totally different storage method. [[Special:Contributions/130.76.187.47|130.76.187.47]] 13:34, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
:: Actually, in Germany we really have two separate words for rechargeable and non-rechargeable batteries: "Akku" (short for "Akkumulator") for the former, and "Batterie" for the latter. This has nothing to do with capacitors ("Kondensatoren"). [[Special:Contributions/2A02:3100:44A5:7D00:76D4:35FF:FEFF:BF50|2A02:3100:44A5:7D00:76D4:35FF:FEFF:BF50]] 00:28, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
:Of course, the usual (and, by now, entirely moot) confusion is between "battery" and a "cell". It should only really be a "battery" if there's more than one "cell" in series (or ''maybe'' in parallel, but I'm sure that can be argued about) within the full item that you're naming as such. And rechargable batteries/cells have been so long a thing (are "electrical accumulators", as opposed to non-electrical equivalent ones for other forms of energy storage and release, like pressure-/gravity-tanks, flywheels, etc), although lead-acid batteries (yes, they're internally cells in series!) was often identified as an "accumulator" to contrast with the (single-use) solid-state chemical cell/battery. [[Special:Contributions/81.179.199.253|81.179.199.253]] 14:39, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I think acoustic propulsion is a thing, but it doesn't work for human-scale cars. One, the sound generator is external and two, it's usually small things. [[Special:Contributions/2603:8081:9700:E9D:0:0:0:2|2603:8081:9700:E9D:0:0:0:2]] 14:25, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Isn't an explosion technically sound? As gas-fueled cars are powered by exploding the gas, they really are accoustic cars. {{unsigned ip|2a01:599:112:8815:2e49:a29c:6fd:905b}} 16:36, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
: The sound is a side-effect - not the means of propulsion. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 16:54, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm not convinced the penny farthing line is relevant - the preceding discussion, in reference to the title text, is about misapplying distinctions from one field to another inappropriate one where they aren't relevant. The 'safety' epithet was applied because the new bicycles were considered safer - whether or not that was ''correct'', it was entirely relevant to the distinction being made. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 16:54, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
:I also was doubtful, but I only corrected it regarding the "penny farthing" name misconception (they weren't really called that, at the time...). Probably can be removed, unless someone wants to say more about them being the "ordinary" bicycles of their day (hence also "old ordinary" as an epithet ...once they were sufficiently no longer 'new', of course). [[Special:Contributions/82.132.239.30|82.132.239.30]] 18:31, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
::Never mind the bicycles. The distinction between mechanical and digital is simply wrong. Babbage's difference engine was a mechanical digital computer. Electronic analog computers were common into the 1970s. Even cuneiform is digital, but not electrical. Probably best to just delete the whole paragraph, but if you want to try to rescue it should either compare analog to digital or mechanical to electrical (or electronic).[[Special:Contributions/76.180.39.133|76.180.39.133]] 04:53, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure, if it fit's in the explanation, but Oneway Vipes are a thing: You buy them with pretty good 18650 batteries and throw them away, if the battery is empty. {{unsigned ip|2001:9e8:9690:bf00:a8bb:ca4c:64a1:1e5c|18:13, 3 March 2026 (UTC)}}
:What's that? Some form of Segway? (Couldn't find anything out there by that name, or even "Oneway Bikes". And do remember to sign...) [[Special:Contributions/82.132.239.30|82.132.239.30]] 18:31, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
::"Vapes", possibly..? [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 22:25, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
::: Yes, sorry, I meant vapes [[Special:Contributions/2001:9E8:96A7:6C00:594D:8C9F:8FCF:E9C0|2001:9E8:96A7:6C00:594D:8C9F:8FCF:E9C0]] 21:39, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
:::: Single-Use Vapes are now illegal, where I am. In a large part because of the way they were being thrown away. Either littering (potentially worse than with fag-ends!) or by causing hazards by being not properly recycled as WEEE waste. Whether the biggest problem was that they had a still charged battery when the liquid ran out, or they still had liquid (''and'' a reactive, if 'dead' battery) when the battery ran out, I don't know. Probably either option, depending upon how it was used. As a non-smoker/non-vaper, I've no idea how this has changed the behaviours of those who do (having to rely on reusable vapes, or falling back to the original tobacco option), but I have noticed a lot less discarded plastic-and-metal in the verges and gutters. (When I first spotted the rise in these, I was wondering why there were so many USB Power Banks being dropped, from the remains I was seeing from those that got subsequently run over by vehicles...) For other reasons, I'm also seeing a lot less mini 'nitrous oxide' cylinders around, too (just the occasional catering size can of 'creamer' gas).
:::: So I think I'd rather there not be any non-reusable vapes. (Not too fond of being caught in a vape cloud, even from a rechargable one, either.) It's like a mini version of abandoning a single-use EV by the side of the road whenever it runs out of miles. [[Special:Contributions/81.179.199.253|81.179.199.253]] 22:46, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Isn't this a parody of those people who use "what will you do when it runs out of battery" as an argument against EVs, like that doesn't also apply to regular cars? --[[User:Mushrooms|Mushrooms]] ([[User talk:Mushrooms|talk]]) 19:15, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
:Well, if that ever happens to me, I fully intend to siphen some electricity from the nearest unattended EV... Electrons are very small, and should be easier to suck into a pipe than that nasty hydrocarbon fuel is... [[Special:Contributions/81.179.199.253|81.179.199.253]] 19:22, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
:I have run out of fuel more than once. I walked to a filling station, bought some fuel, and hitched back to my vehicle. So, there's my tested solution to that problem as applies to internal combustion engine vehicles. As you're suggesting the problem is the same whether it happens with EVs or regular cars, could you explain your EV version of the solution? [[User:Yorkshire Pudding|Yorkshire Pudding]] ([[User talk:Yorkshire Pudding|talk]]) 23:28, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
::If you're on a motorway, you can't "walk" to a filling station. You need to wait for the tow truck. Same as the EV. Now, if you are NOT on a motorway, you can plug in your car on a regular electricity socket when it's at 1%. You can't do that with ICE vehicles. And there's million of regular power sockets at ground level in any country in the world. --[[Special:Contributions/85.159.196.174|85.159.196.174]] 00:10, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
::In 40+ years, and nearly 1 million miles, of driving ICE vehicles, I’ve run out of fuel precisely once, and that was when I was driving in New Jersey on a Sunday night when most gas stations were closed. But this isn’t about me, it’s about the typical driver, I cite myself simply to make the point that ICE cars have instrumentation to help the driver predict when they will need more fuel, and help plan accordingly; EVs have far better tools for that task. In my 160,000 miles of driving EVs I have run as low as 3 miles of remaining range, but the car has always told me how much range I had, and where I would next charge, at the start of every trip, so there have never been any surprises.[[User:John|John]] ([[User talk:John|talk]]) 09:47, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I think the entire explanation is completely missing the intention of the comic and goes on way too long talking about other types of energy storage and delivery methods. Everyone is taking it seriously and overexplaining it as if it's a realistic depiction of slightly overblown range anxiety - rather than a JOKE based on the difference between rechargable and non-rechargable batteries. This is a COMIC after all that is meant to be funny. It's much more reasonable this is a parody of a higher degree (rechargable vs non-rechargable) than lesser degree (slight exaggeration of range anxiety). I'm also the same age as Randall and can remember the slow popularity growth and proliferation of NiCd/NiMH AA and AAA batteries in the 90s. It's much more likely this is a joke based on that and combining/comparing/contrasting it with modern range anxiety, but nobody seems to be getting that - exemplified by the slightly deragatory remark in the current explanation: "He should indeed feel incredibly silly about this, given that rechargeable batteries are very common in many other devices" - guess what? They WEREN"T ALWAYS COMMON - THAT'S THE JOKE (but not everyone is old enough to remember that). [[Special:Contributions/64.203.66.182|64.203.66.182]] 13:15, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
: That it was silly for him to think this is ''literally in the comic, admitted by the character himself''. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 16:59, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
: That's true. I guess it was just the continous tone-deafness to the ''origin of the joke'' in the explanation that made this phrase grate. I put the phrase back. [[Special:Contributions/64.203.66.182|64.203.66.182]] 20:57, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Seems like there's still a lot of derision towards electric vehicles alive today. The Petroleum Propaganda machine still works. [[Special:Contributions/64.203.66.182|64.203.66.182]] 13:56, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
:Maybe that latter is the case, but there's also a lot of "EVs doen't (yet!) 'just work' in the way we're used to ICEs doing" in the consumer hesitancy. As an example, if it was the other way round, and the road network had been developed on the back of the early electric cars, and now suddenly someone had come up with good reasons to try the 'superior' (by range, if nothing else) fuel-powered cars, there'd probably be complaints at the relative lack of petrol(/gas)-pumps compared to the nigh ubiquitous charging-stations found in or near basically any tin-pot town and up and down every highway.
:People are adding up the various things ("can I go a decent distance?", "can I get back?", "how much does it cost?" (including ownership taxes/road-related charges), "how easy is it to fix if it goes wrong?", "does the vehicle fit my family/sporty/cargo needs?", etc..), and there are a not insignificant number of EVs owned around where I live (taking the proportion of vehicles that hum past me if I'm walking across the housing estate, and the handful of households that I know definitely have recharging outlets installed).
:As a personal data point, the car I currently drive was bought maybe seven or eight years ago (could easily last another seven or eight years before there's a serious ''thought'' of getting rid of it - unless it does something like get into a crash or some other major repair needs to be done), so the perceived advantages of moving to an EV (or disadvantages of staying with petrol) need to increase a lot as long as there's no absolute need to do so. Part of that is that I'm just not ''used'' to all the EV fuss, and making sure that a vehicle that I don't currently drive doesn't run out of 'go'. I went driving today and (in about 80 miles of journey) passed by many many petrol stations. As I reference, I tend to use what my most local one is (which I didn't pass by toda, but , was charging 3p/litre more on Monday than it did the day before the start of the US's latest phase of attacks on Iran), and I spotted prices around the route ranging from 5p/l less than this and ''14''p/l more. But the tank's still more than 3/4 full and it didn't seem worthwhile topping up at all. I ''noticed'' just three EV-recharging stations with some advertised price (p/KWh?) that I have no frame of reference for (it's cheaper per unit, but I don't at all know where the EV-unit stands against fuel-units, range-wise). And I know there's probably a lot more than those three EV-stations (they're currently installing one near my local petrol one... been at it, digging, for several weeks now, but mostly the below-the-ground stuff and I've no idea what the topside will look like!) that just aren't displaying prices in great big lit roadside boards (you probably need to subscribe to one GPS-enabled map-app, or other, to find most of them, if you're not a local and remember that the far corner of some supermarket carpark has one). I also don't know how much it would cast me (per mile) to 'fill' any vehicle from a home socket (with or without direct/battery-mediated connection to the roof PV panels). It's totally beyond my experience.
:I can ''guess'' that it's ''probably'' currently cheaper per mile to electric, if I use the right recharging source. At least until the current fuel-duty situation doesn't get fully transfered over to the equivalent electric-duty replacement (or some sort of 'pay-per-mile' taxation). But buying a brand new vehicle of ''any'' kind isn't a cost-effective outlay, even if I recoup something by selling the currently 'ok' current example to someone who wants it.
:What would force me to change soon, e.g. tomorrow, is something drastic. The accidental loss of the vehicle. The massive increase cost of operation (or a ''really'' good discount attached to the new purchase). There being some ''massive'' fuel-crisis (though that would probably cause so many other societal problems that there'd probably be easy way to transition over anyway ... supply and demand would probaby work against me at both ends).
:So, yes... maybe there are people that have a vested interest in the 'Petroleum Propoganda machine' working (any connection I have to it are more as fellow victim, no Petrodollars are being sent my way, worse luck!), and similarly there's probably EV interests (Tesla, Byd, the main extractors of the lithium/etc needed to create the batteries). But the whole picture is a whole lot of positive and negative pressures applied to either solution. So much so that before the last time I had to change vehicle (though not actually acted upon at that time), I was very tempted to go for a plug-in-hybrid vehicle to balance the advantages (and mitigate the disadvantages) of each 'pure' type. Still potentially an option, next time, depending on whenever that ends up happening. [[Special:Contributions/81.179.199.253|81.179.199.253]] 22:21, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Talk:3206: Installation

2026-02-13T18:27:25Z

76.180.39.133:

This is what hiking trails should BE! [[User:Explainyourself|Explainyourself]] ([[User talk:Explainyourself|talk]]) 02:47, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
:no. it would be better with [https://xkcd.com/3147/ waterslides.] (/j) --[[User:Utdtutyabthsc|Utdtutyabthsc]] ([[User talk:Utdtutyabthsc|talk]]) 03:19, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
:Hiking trail pavement needs to be sturdy enough to withstand hikers stomping up and down. It also needs to help their hiking boots grip the trail, or at least not do worse at that than bare dirt would. I am not convinced that carpet fits either of those criteria. [[User:GreatWyrmGold|GreatWyrmGold]] ([[User talk:GreatWyrmGold|talk]]) 04:15, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
::But now you can hike in your socks. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 09:40, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
::Thick, durable carpet. How hard could it be? [[User:R128|R128]] ([[User talk:R128|talk]]) 14:10, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I think this strip is a knowing reference to "outside the asylum", the inside-out home of Wonko the Sane in _The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy_.

https://hitchhikers.fandom.com/wiki/The_Outside_of_the_Asylum

https://hitchhikers.fandom.com/wiki/Wonko_the_Sane

[[User:Lproven|Lproven]] ([[User talk:Lproven|talk]]) 09:09, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
:How do you reckon that? Other than the presence of a carpet, how does it uniquely reference Wonko's setup, as opposed to being a coincidence? [[User:Elizium23|Elizium23]] ([[User talk:Elizium23|talk]]) 10:07, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
::It doesn't say anything about uniquely referencing Wonko's setup – it's says it's a knowing reference. Treating the space outside the walls as the true contents of the walls themselves is what Wonko did, but obviously, that's not how walled enclosures work. They are carpeting the space outside the walls, apparently having been able to get confused about what the walls represent. Carpet isn't about wall-to-wall coverage per se – the walls aren't relevant, other than to describe the fact that the carpet covers the whole floor. Considering the walls as a way to delineate the exterior as the target for your interaction is what Wonko did, and is also what they are doing. It's not really something that anyone else does. [[User:Yorkshire Pudding|Yorkshire Pudding]] ([[User talk:Yorkshire Pudding|talk]]) 18:54, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

This invention would go really well with outdoor floor-to-ceiling windows. -flatdurian [[Special:Contributions/138.75.249.122|138.75.249.122]] 11:54, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
: Also with the [[2790:_Heat_Pump|manual heat pump]] [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 12:08, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

This cartoon has made me go look at how I can map the great circle starting at my front door and running through my back door. It looks possible, but less easy than I was hoping for. Guess I know how my day is starting. :D [[Special:Contributions/130.76.187.47|130.76.187.47]] 12:11, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
: Wouldn't work for me, my front and back doors are ~90° (and an entire floor) apart, not 180°. [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 21:46, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
:: For any two points on the surface of the Earth (providing they are distinct and not truly antipodean) there's exactly one Great Circle that connects them. It doesn't need to respect walls or oceans or other such trivialities. --[[Special:Contributions/2A10:D586:3E93:0:987B:F906:73FC:CB6|2A10:D586:3E93:0:987B:F906:73FC:CB6]] 16:59, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Strange, If I follow the great circle that starts at my front door and follow it to where it runs through my back door, it is about forty feet, and most of that distance is actually outside the exterior walls of the house. It also deviates only slightly from a straight line! But I guess I am as confused as Cueball...[[Special:Contributions/209.240.116.218|209.240.116.218]] 22:47, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I'd suggest a reference to https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/2403:_Wrapping_Paper and https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/2951:_Bad_Map_Projection:_Exterior_Kansas. Is that enough to make an eversion catagory? [[Special:Contributions/76.180.39.133|76.180.39.133]] 18:27, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Talk:3198: Double-Pronged Extension Cord

2026-02-01T05:49:55Z

76.180.39.133:

F1rSt!1!!1!1!!1!1!1!11!11!1!!!!1!1![[User:Qwertyuiopfromdefly|Qwertyuiopfromdefly]] ([[User talk:Qwertyuiopfromdefly|talk]]) 02:08, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

curses, im too early on the scene for an explanation of what he's gonna do with the items in the titletext; such are the woes of being one of the people writing the explanations that you have to actually ''understand'' the comics - [[User:Vaedez|Vaedez]] ([[User talk:Vaedez|talk]]) 02:15, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
:Same [[User:This isn't a good name|This isn't a good name]] ([[User talk:This isn't a good name|talk]]) 02:17, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
:: Same what? [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 09:41, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
:::I was too early for the page to have an explanation of what was going on [[User:This isn't a good name|This isn't a good name]] ([[User talk:This isn't a good name|talk]]) 00:50, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
:::: Ah. In that case, you needed to indent your reply - like so. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 09:43, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

This is the third comic to reference the Demon Core experiment, after [[1242]] and [[2593]]. [[User:Soupgirls|Soupgirls]] ([[User talk:Soupgirls|talk]]) 02:21, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
: >"''Demon Core experiment''": [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_core Demon Core]No, I don't understand either --[[User:PRR|PRR]] ([[User talk:PRR|talk]]) 03:26, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

If you're otherwise creating fire hazards, a lithium ion battery is a terrible thing to have, and none of the horror stories you've heard involved a sack of them. Flour is a serious explosion hazard. Vinegar and bleach will release chlorine gas when combined. It sounds like an attempt to have the highest ratio of destruction to materials cost with the least effort. [[User:MrMatt|MrMatt]] ([[User talk:MrMatt|talk]]) 03:32, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

The title text just sounds like a bunch of flammable/noxious substances. So really, he has good intentions. [[User:Tanner07|Tanner07]] ([[User talk:Tanner07|talk]]) 03:57, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Would someone mind explaining how the suicide cord can kill grid workers? I don't know if this is easier to understand in the US - we work on a ring main system in the UK, and (once it is plugged in and the prongs thus protected) I'm having problems seeing why it would be a problem even to the end-user (I suppose you could theoretically use it to connect a ring main rated for less current and set the walls on fire?)
EDIT: Gemini reminded me that these are generally used to connect a generator, to power up internal wiring that is depowered - if the grid worker has done this deliberately to work upstream and you power things back up things get ugly. [[Special:Contributions/92.237.46.83|92.237.46.83]] 08:48, 24 January 2026 (UTC) Jon
:The problem is if you don't plug one end in --[[User:Darth Vader|Darth Vader]] ([[User talk:Darth Vader|talk]]) 10:52, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
:Electrician here, Suicide cords are used to 'backfeed' a circuit. Homeowners make them when they are too cheap to add a generator outlet. When plugged in, one side has exposed live parts which can shock or kill you. The other danger is backfeeding the grid itself when plugging in a generator (hence lineworker danger) for the exact reason that line interactive inverters for solar arrays need to shut down when the grid is off. Line workers are expecting dead lines when they come down and backfeeding them may make them live on the ground or while the worker is holding them. The proper way to power a house is to have a generator outlet installed and an interlocked panel that disconnects the mains power from your panel (isolating the power lines) and connects the generator power to specific circuits you want. {{unsigned ip|73.146.168.31|11:30, 24 January 2026 (UTC)}}

I added a "Trivia" note that two days before this comic was posted, Randall had put up a YouTube video version of the ''What If?'' item about what would happen if someone's DNA all disappeared. It was compared to the effects of receiving a massive dose of ionizing radiation. The connection between this comic and Slotin's accident seemed relevant to me, at least enough for a "Trivia" item, but another editor disagreed and removed it. Opinions? [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 15:03, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
:I agree with you that it might be relevant, so I restored the trivia. Though I added text to clarify that it ''might'' be relevant. [[User:MikeTheNewGuy|MikeTheNewGuy]] ([[User talk:MikeTheNewGuy|talk]]) 16:47, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
:There is no reason to segregate part of the "Explanation" in a top-level heading, particularly one designed to collect "Trivia". I've integrated it into the explanation under a subheading. Does it require a heading at all? Who am I to judge? [[User:Elizium23|Elizium23]] ([[User talk:Elizium23|talk]]) 21:02, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
:I do not see how you can define this as "Trivia". On the one hand, all explainxkcd Explanations are 100% trivia to begin with. On the other hand, the way the docs here seem to define "Trivia" for the Trivia section is, basically, meta-information or administrivia. Things that went wrong during posting. Typographical errors. Things that "break the fourth wall" in other words, rather than a related post, even on a tangent. It seems that the OP considers it "Trivia" because it's off a tangent, and "suggested" rather than directly connected? I would say that this is not in the definition. I would say that any links to other xkcd or Munroe publications are first-class parts of the explanation, even when tangential. [[User:Elizium23|Elizium23]] ([[User talk:Elizium23|talk]]) 22:33, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
::There's a supposition that something that's not the main point of a YouTube video ''might'' be connected to something that's not even the main point of a comic.
::There's no mention of the Demon Core in the video, as the gamma radiation bit comes from exposure to a nuclear bomb. I don't recall the original book question from 2014 dealing with either, but I'd need to dig up my old copy to check that properly.
::The comic, meanwhile, has a presumed Demon Core as just one of the threats, not even the first to be a problem or part of the final "Big NO!".
::Best we can say is that knowing that the animation is coming out ''might'' have triggered a chain of thoughts that led to this comic. Tenuous. And somewhat adrift of 'explaining' the comic. So, in the grand old tradition of this site, it's probably Trivia. Or, if it was a more definite statement, it might have sat at the end (no sub-header) of the Explanation, in the style of "<Subject> has also been dealt with in <list of past comics, or category link>". But there's plenty of other Trivia items out there that you'd have to fold back into the article, if you're so sure. Just try not to rub anyone else up the wrong way in doing so. ;) [[Special:Contributions/81.179.199.253|81.179.199.253]] 23:58, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

I've noticed that recently, these explanations start off very short and without the same humor that most explainxkcd explanations have, and almost appear to be written by AI, before being replaced by a longer explanation that seems more in the vein of this website. Could someone explain what's happening here, and if AI is being used? [[User:CreatorOfWorlds|CreatorOfWorlds]] ([[User talk:CreatorOfWorlds|talk]]) 15:32, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
:"Any sufficiently advanced AI is indistinguishable from a lazy unimaginative human" -- Clarke's AI bot's Third Law [[User:Ralfoide|Ralfoide]] ([[User talk:Ralfoide|talk]])
:I'd guess that the initial explanations are often written by people who want very much to be the first to write something, and prioritize that speed over quality. I've felt that urge a couple of times, but fought it down. :-) [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 19:22, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
::Sorry, more or less guilty as charged. My excuse is that it was an awkward time in my timezone. I will try to do better, but realistically, I don't foresee myself being at the peak of my creativity at that time. [[User:Dratini0|Dratini0]] ([[User talk:Dratini0|talk]]) 01:15, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
:Another common request vector is for people who have [https://x.com/kobunheat/status/1336134415336964096 strung a line of Christmas lights backwards] and don't want to rehang them. [[Special:Contributions/210.185.98.84|210.185.98.84]] 21:17, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Regarding "50 lithium batteries": the comic doesn't specify 50, but a pun has slyly been inserted here: {{w|Voltaic pile}} (there are other, somewhat relevant, types of piles as well!) So a "pile" may weigh in less than 50. But there are myriad dangers with lithium-ion batteries. They have many failure modes. So it may not be helpful to focus in on just one of them. I mean, clearly some kind of mischief is going to be wrought, but we really don't know what shape it will take without a list of accessories that are directly related to the "pile of batteries". [[User:Elizium23|Elizium23]] ([[User talk:Elizium23|talk]]) 14:32, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

The correct way to use multiple power sources in case of emergency would be through an appropriate design such as the use of a multi-input UPS with an acid-lead battery for a buffer. This approach could possibly entail the use of "double-pronged" cords in an ill-designed home-made setup. {{unsigned ip|2001:861:3f07:a020:c61f:2d42:ade8:f326|23:24, 25 January 2026}}
:Dear IPv6, welcome to explainXkcd, and please sign your posts with four tildes. Anyway, I am not sure how your comment is relevant to this comic. There is absolutely no "emergency" portrayed here. It seems Cueball isn't in a big rush to get that equipment he wants. Nor is he really preparing to react to an emergency situation. Rather, he seems intent on doing an experiment that will create one, instead. As for batteries and a "multi-input UPS" I suppose that is a fine idea for power outages. Certainly, a "double-pronged AC cord" could be used to "backfeed" the electricity into a home's circuits. But again, I do not see the relevance of your proposed setup to this comic. The title text describes a pile of lithium-ion batteries because it's clearly aimed at creating a disaster by causing them to explode or catch fire in some way. Nobody's getting ready to survive an extended power outage. [[User:Elizium23|Elizium23]] ([[User talk:Elizium23|talk]]) 23:41, 25 January 2026 (UTC)i
::dear Eelizstuffandother, I understand your snide and I do apologize for not signing my post. "suicide cords" are the way to feed 'leccy down an electrical circuitry. If fed through a properly-configured UPS, the problem disappears. Such setups usually make use of lead-acid batteries to buffer the load, as the tech is well-proven, reliable, and less prone to unexpected emergencies. For the record my private personal networw relies on 2 lead-acid UPS and while my oven and other appliances have sufferered from power interruptions several times in the past year, my private network never fell. XOXXO [[Special:Contributions/2001:861:3F07:A020:C61F:2D42:ADE8:F326|2001:861:3F07:A020:C61F:2D42:ADE8:F326]] 00:11, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Cueball isn't planning to support plutonium with the extension cord; the extension cord would hold up a beryllium half-sphere that goes over the plutonium core and reflects just enough neutrons back into it that, along with the similar reflector underneath, the core starts a chain reaction. (At least, it he's recreating the 1946 experiment.) [[Special:Contributions/2A02:8084:2862:4F80:65B7:327D:E614:342F|2A02:8084:2862:4F80:65B7:327D:E614:342F]] 01:59, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

This is the third comic that references the "demon core". What's the standard here for "enough pages to justify a tag"? [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 05:02, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

This is the third comment that references the fact that this is the third comic that references the "demon core". [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 10:53, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

The top paragraph currently states that such cords would be "likely to cause a short circuit", but I think that this would only occur if the cable was plugged into two wall outlets such that live is connected to ground, which I believe to be unlikely to happen as such a setup wouldn't serve any purpose. I believe to have heard that the fire risk instead stems from overload by connecting too much christmas lights together, but I do not have enough knowledge of US christmas lights to edit the page myself. If anyone does, feel free to correct me or edit the page. [[Special:Contributions/213.55.233.114|213.55.233.114]] 11:57, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
: It also causes a short if the two lives have different phases. With a split phase system roughly half the sockets are on each phase so a random connection has 50% chance of a short. Some commercial buildings use three phases so a 66% chance of a short. And then there's those Canadian split receptacles ... . [[Special:Contributions/76.180.39.133|76.180.39.133]] 05:49, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Talk:3200: Chemical Formula

2026-02-01T05:21:30Z

76.180.39.133:

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)
::::Don't give Americium ideas. Soon, it will want to invade other elements and create its own Periodic Table (of Peace). [[User:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For]] ([[User talk:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|talk]]) 01:38, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
: This puts an upper bound on the number of civilizations that use smoke detectors in the universe. There is about 0.1 mol of Americium-241 in American smoke detectors, so no more than 1000 similar civilizations. [[Special:Contributions/76.180.39.133|76.180.39.133]] 05:21, 1 February 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? {{unsigned ip|195.65.24.115|11:21, 30 January 2026 (UTC)}}

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)
::The standard text on xkcd at the top, the so called [[Header text]] has from the very start been:
:::xkcd updates every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday.
::And after a long time with promotion for what if? it has [[Header_text#2026-01-07_-_Back_to_standard_text|returned to the standard]] and it actually says this on {{xkcd}} at this very moment.
::Except for a few times with special series it has always only been 3 times a week. But also almost always 3 every week not just two. I think that has happened because of a complicated April Fool comic once. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 14:49, 30 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)
:Actually I think most elements heavier than iron is now believed to have formed during neutron star mergers rather than in supernovas! It was hard to find a method that the bombardment of heavy elements in a super nova by neutrons would former stable heavier elements rather than some that just decayed almost instantly to lighter elements. Not something I know much about, but read it somewhere. But neutron star mergers has very likely been common in the early universe when huge stars burned out very fast and was often double star systems. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 14:52, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Universes can hold the most information out of any molecules. As such, they make for a good computation substrate for god-life, fulfilling same role DNA and RNA has for humans. A single god-life being contains more Universes - as per '''''entire whole infinite Universes''''', not just their visible parts - than Universe has quarks inside of it. --[[User:User 8496351|User 8496351]] ([[User talk:User 8496351|talk]]) 13:20, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

The complete formula is wrong. 10^0 is equal to 1. The artificially produced elements either currently exists in larger quantities, or in case of Og in lower quantities, since not a single atom currently exists on earth. If some of these are created naturally, it is very unlikely they exists in exactly one single atom at a time. --[[Special:Contributions/2001:638:807:507:10D4:7A7B:DB7C:21FF|2001:638:807:507:10D4:7A7B:DB7C:21FF]] 13:41, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
:I believe the complete formula is only attempting to be in the ballpark of the correct number, using the technique (famous in what-if articles) of Fermi estimation to display an exponent which is plausible, even if the exact number is difficult to determine [[User:Dextrous Fred|Dextrous Fred]] ([[User talk:Dextrous Fred|talk]]) 14:24, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
:What we need is a Drake-Fermi equation... The estimate for the number of sufficiently advanced civilisations (as per Drake, more or less) ''currently'' using something approximating a Fermilab capable of creating various high-end atoms like Organesson, and also factoring in the time that they exist.
:In all likelihood, unless there's an absurdly low baseline Drake value, the Drake-Fermi estimate of "100" values will probably (summed universally) be an order or two too low. But acceptiply close (as the 'simultaneous' cross-cosmos count fluctuates even down to zero) and probably at least a magnitude in excess of the (similarly fleeting, but less likely per undirected event) entirely natural running total from barynucleosynthesis. [[Special:Contributions/82.132.236.133|82.132.236.133]] 16:25, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Talk:3201: Proof Without Content

2026-02-01T05:02:29Z

76.180.39.133:

First. Would be funny to have an explanation along the lines of "It is possible to give an explanation with no content. Here's how:" [[User:R128|R128]] ([[User talk:R128|talk]]) 17:44, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Proof without Content seems to be a play of words for [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_without_words]Proof without Words

The comic pokes fun at a common situation found in mathematics books. The students sees a statement with a very short proof that doesn't make sense since it's been summarized in a way that is helpful for people already familiar with the theorem. For instance: "prime numbers larger than 2 are odd". Proof: "even numbers are divisible by 2". The student is expected to know that a number divisible by 2 is not prime, but that's most likely something that comes up later in the same book, or sometimes not explained at all.
In the comic the "short" proof is taken to the absurd level of being completely empty. What mathematical statement can be proven with a completely empty proof? The fact that there exists comics which have statements with empty proofs. It is both a joke about difficult to understand proof in math books and also a meta-mathematics joke as the proof is talking about itself.
The title text pokes even more fun at maths books where many important theorems are stated and are given to the students as useful facts but with no proof, stating that demonstrating the truth of the statement is so easy it is "left as an exercise for the reader". This common scenario frustrates students because in some cases the "exercise" is extremely difficult to do.
The only "proof without content of a conjecture without content" is a blank page altogether, which clearly exists, so the statement is true, even if meaningless.
:I don't recall that problem with such a proof. Usually the statement about primes being odd comes after giving the definition of prime and composite numbers. From that, being divisible by 2 clearly makes a number composite. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 19:31, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
:: A number being divisible by two proves that a number that is not two is composite. You still have to prove that the number you first thought of is not two.[[Special:Contributions/76.180.39.133|76.180.39.133]] 05:02, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
::You must be very smart. [[Special:Contributions/2600:1700:2120:5880:C885:5DAF:EFD8:EADF|2600:1700:2120:5880:C885:5DAF:EFD8:EADF]] 22:12, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

I really do not get that title text. I put an attempt at understanding it down but it may have gone over my head [[User:R128|R128]] ([[User talk:R128|talk]]) 17:58, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

The comic demonstrates a proof without content, but is it a convincing proof? [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 19:33, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
:If it is, then yes. QED. ;) [[Special:Contributions/81.179.199.253|81.179.199.253]] 21:14, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

I think the tautological nature of the proof could be better explained. If the blank image is interpreted as a correct proof, it proves the notion that a blank image can prove a conjecture. [[Special:Contributions/2600:4041:2E5:B900:6C41:5AFB:89D1:F216|2600:4041:2E5:B900:6C41:5AFB:89D1:F216]] 22:11, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Isn't this proof using circular reasoning? The proof is only convincing if the conjecture that an empty proof can be convincing is correct. [[Special:Contributions/73.222.207.213|73.222.207.213]] 23:26, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
:Yeah, it is a circular argument. Maybe that’s part of the joke? [[User:Logalex8369|Logalex8369]] ([[User talk:Logalex8369|talk]]) 01:39, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
::I say it's only circular reasoning if it's circular reasoning. [[Special:Contributions/81.179.199.253|81.179.199.253]] 02:01, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
:Yes, it really begs the question... [[Special:Contributions/136.47.216.1|136.47.216.1]] 03:42, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

This space provably left blank [[User:Hcs|Hcs]] ([[User talk:Hcs|talk]]) 09:13, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

The only problem I see here is that the "conjecture" should be called "theorem". In a mathematical paper, statements for which you are about to present a proof are called "theorems," not "conjectures." Conjectures are statements made without proof which the author expects to be true and provable. I would expect something like "'''Theorem 1.1'''. ''There is an empty proof of a non-vacuous theorem.''" Then it would be followed by an empty line, then "'''Proof.'''" another empty line, and finally nothing. (That said, this isn't really a proof of anything. If I assert that it is not a proof, how can you demonstrate that I am wrong? Only if I accept that it is a proof does it become a proof. It's one of those natural language paradoxes like "this statement is true.") [[User:EebstertheGreat|EebstertheGreat]] ([[User talk:EebstertheGreat|talk]]) 22:31, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Talk:3186: Truly Universal Outlet

2025-12-26T23:20:38Z

76.180.39.133:

No comments yet, add the first comment! [[User:CalibansCreations|'''Caliban''']] ([[User talk:CalibansCreations|talk]]) 16:25, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

I checked on the info.0.json and there doesn't seem to be a transcript for this one. I don't know whether that's normal, since I understand that most comics have one, but I wrote in a basic transcript. I might have just not looked in the right place. [[User:R128|R128]] ([[User talk:R128|talk]]) 16:58, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

I try not to be nationalistic or jingoistic about anything, but I'm sorry—British plugs are simply the best plugs. Strong, easy to use and safe—fits snugly into the socket, can't expose live or neutral outlets without first connecting to earth, no overly sharp pins. I don't like myself for saying this, but I honestly think the rest of the world would be better off switching to our plugs.[[Special:Contributions/109.149.114.159|109.149.114.159]] 18:00, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

:I'm American, and British plugs and sockets seem huge and clunky to me. I've also heard that (some?) Brits think US plugs are alarmingly flimsy. I'm sure that a big part of the differences of opinion is what we grew up with, and I'd love to hear a physics/engineering/UI/UX-based evaluation of which one is *actually* better. -- [[User:Dtgriscom|Dtgriscom]] ([[User talk:Dtgriscom|talk]]) 19:38, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

:: I am an American (soon to be a Gileadian after we will rename our nation to the Republic of Gilead —— ¡ChrisoFascism sucks!); so now I do not have a dog in this fight, but the [http://wikipedia.org/wiki/europlug | EuroPlug ] looks very space efficient, unlike the bulky American plus & sockets, & the ridiculously enormous UK-plugs.

:I've heard this sentiment before, but I have no idea where it comes from. British plugs are ridonkulously huge and not exactly easy to use. From safety perspective, I find it odd only a handful of (European) socket types are recessed. [[Special:Contributions/81.94.52.186|81.94.52.186]] 22:07, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
::British plugs are just the right size for a hand (assuming you don't have ''very'' small hands, when you probably shouldn't be messing about with them) ''and'' the direction the cable emerges is much more convenient (e.g. handy for sockets behind furniture, outlets for worktop equipment in a kitchen or in server racks). At least that's my assesment, having had to use both US and UK systems in all cases. ;) [[Special:Contributions/92.23.2.208|92.23.2.208]] 22:47, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

: British plugs do not even meet their own design specs. This is why there is an internally different, but externally identical (apart from markings) BS 1363-2 plug for EV charging. This exists because if you draw the continuous rated current from a standard socket it is likely to melt.
: British wiring has many problematic aspects. Ring final circuits, undersized wiring for the protective fuse, too many devices on the same circuit, too few outlets so people stack extenders for the one socket in the room and run extensions cords under the rug, excessively tolerant ground fault detectors. Most of the supposed safety features of British plugs are trying to compensate for other design flaws. Not to mention mechanically identical sockets with different continuous current ratings.[[Special:Contributions/76.180.39.133|76.180.39.133]] 23:20, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Someone will probably address this, but voltage issues aside, I would guess that the USAGE of the various pins across countries is likely different in catastrophic ways. E.g. I imagine that one glob of pins is hot/live in one country but ground/earth in others so that plugging an appliance from different countries into the universal outlet would cause shocks, breaker trips, explosions, etc. I did laugh at the title text - yes, I'm sure building inspectors are constantly encountering this mess. ;) [[Special:Contributions/47.248.235.170|47.248.235.170]] 18:39, 26 December 2025 (UTC)Pat
:Nope. The ground pin is always intentionally made special in all mains plugs existing, and it's basic potty training for electricians to never, ever trust the two others. --[[Special:Contributions/88.65.244.212|88.65.244.212]] 20:24, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
[https://www.internationalconfig.com/catalog_pages/universal_adapter_page.jpg Universal/travel plug adaptors] do kind of look like this. Not quite as universal though. [[Special:Contributions/220.244.124.170|220.244.124.170]] 19:50, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
:https://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DAIOqOxI0K_I --[[Special:Contributions/88.65.244.212|88.65.244.212]] 20:24, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Just for my own amuesment, I [https://filebin.net/ehv155pyjeib5qkk tried to work out what bits were which], green for the pins, red for 'the aditional bits the pins would rattle around in' (the rest left black). ''Really'' not sure I got all the "D E M O" bits right. E, in particular, looks like it has a reverse pin that goes into the plug, but I'm also not as familiar with the old D+M different ampages/sizes (I'll only ever see them in stage-lighting, and I don't plug 'em in or out) as I am with the type-G I normally use. ...but, if anyone wants it, it'll be downloadable for the next seven days. Tidy it up, ''correct it'' as necessary, change the timings (currently 1 second a frame), recolour it (perhaps use different colours for Live, Neutral and (where there is one) Earth), whatever you want. If it's useful. And if that's done by anyone who can upload to this site (or someone does a better version off their own back). [[Special:Contributions/92.23.2.208|92.23.2.208]] 21:03, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Talk:3175: Website Task Flowchart

2025-12-13T16:23:10Z

76.180.39.133:

> who are available to produce words at you 24/7!

Is "produce words at you" an AI reference? -- [[User:Dtgriscom|Dtgriscom]] ([[User talk:Dtgriscom|talk]]) 19:40, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
:I think it is likely an AI reference. —[[User:Theusaf|theusaf]] ([[User talk:Theusaf|talk]]) 19:46, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
:I tend to agree, but it does say "live agents" earlier so it could also be a reference to live but non-native language speakers in a foreign call center. [[Special:Contributions/47.248.235.170|47.248.235.170]] 20:24, 1 December 2025 (UTC)Pat
::Real-time bots are live but not ''alive''. [[Special:Contributions/64.114.211.79|64.114.211.79]] 21:26, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
:::I feel like for some certain definition of 'alive' bots could be considered alive. They are (kind of?)sentient, which just means they can think. 'sapient', on the other hand, means that he/she/they is self-aware. While it is generally considered that bots are not live, this may not always be true. Depending on how advanced AI ever get, (most probable answer: not very) they may one day be able to evolve and reproduce. They already perform metabolism and homeostasis (power and fans). They have structure, they are made of computer chips (im not a computer nerd, so this probably isn't accurate). They react to stimuli. Honestly, all that needs to let them be considered 'alive' is for them to be able to make other AI and for those AI to be slightly different, which they kind of already can. Besides being made of metal, there is no real reason to claim that an AI isn't 'alive', that's just what mainstream media claims. --[[User:Kirinhatchi|Kirinhatchi]] ([[User talk:Kirinhatchi|talk]]) 01:05, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
:::They're certainly live as in "live TV" and/or a "live electricity socket", as in active/functional/doing-what-they-are-designed-to-do. [[Special:Contributions/78.144.255.82|78.144.255.82]] 01:44, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

wow second commenter --[[User:LazyTiger0203|LazyTiger0203]] ([[User talk:LazyTiger0203|talk]]) 19:45, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Is Randall just now finding out about this?!? What sequestered Internet space has he been hiding in? I want. Of course it's probably gone now. [[Special:Contributions/205.175.118.2|205.175.118.2]] 20:20, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I have fixed several spelling errors. [[User:RadiantRainwing|RadiantRainwing]] ([[User talk:RadiantRainwing|talk]]) 02:49, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I would replace the "Throw electronics into sea" step with "As soon as the call is no longer on hold, say the website the hold message suggests ''is not working''". Throwing devices into sea causes e-waste. [[Special:Contributions/2001:4C4E:1C14:9800:F167:89F7:6CCE:353B|2001:4C4E:1C14:9800:F167:89F7:6CCE:353B]] 08:30, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
:Who cares about that, when the big problem is still [[1751: Movie Folder|all those Titanics]] to watch out for? [[Special:Contributions/82.132.237.203|82.132.237.203]] 16:25, 2 December 2025 (UTC) ;)

Companies can't seem to understand that literally the only reason people call their customer service line is because *THEY NEED TO TALK TO AN ACTUAL HUMAN BECAUSE THE COMPUTER IS INADIQUATE*!--[[Special:Contributions/136.226.7.187|136.226.7.187]] 20:26, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
:But think of the glorious profits we can make by firing humans who need our jobs to survive! --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User Talk:DollarStoreBa'al|Converse]] 20:44, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I always try to solve problems myself before calling the helpdesk. This involves applying the most obvious fix, then the next most obvious.
When these fail (as I expected), I call.
:"Hello, Service Desk, ** speaking, how may I help you?"
:"I'm having trouble trying to do *** on your website. But I've already tried the most obvious solutions, so don't bother suggesting them."
:"OK. Have you tried #1 *** ?"
:"Yes, I said I've tried that."
:"What about #2 ***?"
Why do they insist on suggesting solutions that I've already told them don't work? [[User:Beechmere|Beechmere]] ([[User talk:Beechmere|talk]]) 02:43, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
:Because you haven't? They may or may not have a script to follow, or actually know their thing, but (unless you've abbreviated your introductory description) they've got a voice at the other end only saying "the most obvious solutions" have been tried. But are these the obvious solutions to the actual expert (or the maybe-'experts' who wrote the support-workflow script), or just have skipped the real First Action Points entirely. They probably have to deal with many misconceptions from every (self-professed) 'technicaly-adept' voice on the end of the line. (Or, if script-led, don't recognise your more homegrown terminology as it relates to what they only know from what they've occasionally had described to them on their on-screen 'expert flowchart'.)
:And they've really got to (e.g.) ask ''whether'' you've actually plugged the printer in (in times past, Parallel Port; these days, USB or even network cable; unless it's a wireless connectivity of your choiceñ) because all the rest of the checks (and which driver/config redo to use) isn't going to help much if there's no way that the thing that's supposed to be talking can be heard by the thing that's supposed to be listening.
:(Notwithstanding the old "yes, it's definitely plugged in!", which can sometimes be resolved by "but have you tried plugging the cable in the other way round?"... ''Occasionally'' a bidirectional cable or a symmetrical plug actually works one way round when it won't the other (though I'd suspect cable/connector damage, in such cases, and that's a temporary fix at best), but amazingly it sometimes works(!) with an asymmetric connection (whether D-Sub, USB-pre-C, etc). Because the know-it-all who was adamant that it was plugged in only actually checked when asked to fiddle with it, now plugs it in the 'other' (i.e. one and only) way round and then happily/resentfully accepts that it's started working.)
:That said, as a tech-type myself I do groan at being dealt with by people for whom my 'obvious' and tech-grounded explanation of the steps I've tried so far seem to be heard as nothing much far from "one of cross-beam's gone out of skew on treadle!", just because they can't match my words to the equally descriptive words from their script/training/experience, and so we may have to bounce around a few terms to find common ground (ethernet cable or patch cable, etc... you know, RJ45 ends, etc, and if it's a crossover one I'd tell you) to get onto the same (''early'') page in the troubleshooting handbook.
:When I've been the tech-support (internal, only, so not the same kind of anonymous desk-drone as alluded to above), I've been at the receiving end of a wide range of 'incoming expertise', and a wide range of how complicated the error actually was. From the "Fonzi" repair (Repair Manouevre Number One: Hit it! ...works surprisingly often) and the "Roy" (Repair Manouevre Number Two: "Have you tried turning it off and back on again..?") to the truly weird (the reason why one particular line-printer wouldn't print off one particular client's reports on one particular day... we worked out why, but as the problem wouldn't arise the next working day we didn't change the deliberately obtuse thing work, just suggested those printouts could wait a day, and made an internal note in case any other client's work on any future day stopped printing on any other printer due to a similar confluence of issues). Plenty of them were ''at least partially'' PEBCAK issues, though some of those users really did pride themselves over having tried "all the obvious fixes", despite being proven otherwise from a thirty-second desk-visit after the five minute talk-through over the phone hadn't gone well at all... [[Special:Contributions/82.132.237.210|82.132.237.210]] 15:27, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
:: I've been on both sides of the conversation. "It's not working.", "Is it plugged in?", "Do you think I'm an ... , Oh never mind it works once it's plugged in." When all else fails, borrow somebody else's intern and explain how it's supposed to work.[[Special:Contributions/76.180.39.133|76.180.39.133]] 16:23, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

3179: Fishing

2025-12-13T15:49:12Z

76.180.39.133: The pound is a unit of MASS. This is defined in internationa law, International Yard and Pound Agreement of 1959, and local laws, including US and UK national law. We should not pander to a bunch of criminal engineering professors.

{{comic
| number = 3179
| date = December 10, 2025
| title = Fishing
| image = fishing_2x.png
| imagesize = 317x500px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = 'That's definitely above the catch-and-release size minimum for planetesimals.' 'I'm going to throw it back anyway.'
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This page was created BY A FISH WITH THE WEIGHT OF THE SUN. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}
[[Ponytail]] and [[Beret Guy]] are fishing in the middle of a body of water, and Beret Guy has hooked a rock. Similarly to the common meme that sees people catching objects such as boots and shopping carts, he exclaims that it "feels like a big one". Fishers may judge the size of a fish by the amount of resistance they feel on the line, using their judgement of what a given mass and power of fish feels like when submerged and resisting the leverage of their fishing rod, and non-fish objects that are 'hooked' (especially those stuck in the sediment at the bottom) can seem to be reacting like a proper catch. (Also, the boat would be pulled down when reeling, so they could only tell that their downward pull is greater than the boat’s buoyancy.) In this case, though, Beret Guy can apparently feel that it must be "at least 1024 kilograms" — that is, an object with a size in the order of that of the {{w|Earth}} in its entirety, whose mass can be estimated at approximately 6.0 × 1024 kilograms (~13.1 × 1024 pounds). It would be unlikely that this could be confused with a fish.

This kind of "hook it and pull on the line" procedure could be used in space, in a vacuum without water, to estimate the mass of a low-gravity object. That would be based on observing how much mutual inward acceleration was created by the measured force applied. The method would only be effective if the object wasn't too much more massive than the person (and their space suit / ship / etc.) doing the measurement.

Catch-and-release sizes restrict what sizes of catch of various species can be kept, generally to protect stocks. There may be minimum sizes (to protect young fish and ensure that they can reach mature reproductive age) or maximum sizes (to protect existing breeding populations). The title text claims the Earth is large enough to be kept, suggesting that {{w|planetesimals}} ({{w|asteroids}} and {{w|comets}}, for example) might be considered immature, and that they might be expected to eventually grow to 'adult' planet size. Beret Guy is big-hearted enough to want to release the planet back after reeling it in, even though he could keep it, or sportsmanlike, in allowing the catch to be potentially recaught by the next 'lucky' individual.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Don't remove this notice too soon.}}
:[Ponytail and Beret Guy are sitting in a boat floating on a body of water, both holding fishing rods. One large fish and four smaller fish are seen swimming in the water, with three of the smaller fish in a group. Ponytail's fishing rod is about halfway down to the bottom, while Beret Guy has hooked his fishing line on a large rock sticking up from the bottom.]
:Beret Guy: It feels like a big one! At least 1024 kilograms!

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>

[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Beret Guy]]
[[Category:Geology]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Sport]]
[[Category:Strange powers of Beret Guy]]

Talk:3180: Apples

2025-12-13T15:38:58Z

76.180.39.133:

As heretical as it is, I almost want to keep the explanation just like this [[User:KelOfTheStars!|KelOfTheStars!]] ([[User talk:KelOfTheStars!|talk]]) 00:09, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

I wasnt going to ruin it, when I saw it like that. But now it's been expanded, I've added in my own thoughts on the subject. Namely elemental number-theory, i.e. the possibility of counting any item just like you count any other item, plus what's going on with the title text, including a slightly kludgy call-back to the fact that (''to have a budget'', that must have people succesfully counting expenditures and purchased values) the Exp. Maths Dept. has clearly trained people in the use of numbers enough for them to now be awkwardly snapping at the heels of the EMD querying the justifiability of at least one of their ongoing studies. (Not sure how long my thoughts will actually last, though, in the light of further editing. But I hope at least some of what I'm getting at will be successfully distilled into any more succinct version.) [[Special:Contributions/78.144.255.82|78.144.255.82]] 01:05, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Twelve apples! <*thunder rolls*> Ha! Ha! Ha! [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 04:36, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh the irony! How did they count the twelve apples? 0,succ(0),succ(succ(0))..., I bet. This is already heavy math. (For example, what guarantees you that succ(0) exists and has exactly one value 1 and is the successor only of 0? Peano envy.) [[Special:Contributions/2A02:2455:1960:4000:FD7E:5F02:5364:961|2A02:2455:1960:4000:FD7E:5F02:5364:961]] 08:52, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
:Thank you for starting your counting at 0. I have espoused that zero IS a counting number, as you can't get to 1, unless you first arrive at 0. "Sherman, count how many unicorns there are in this field." "Um, there are zero, Mr. Peabody." [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 15:11, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

In fact if you really want to nitpick, while most people would accept that 7+5=12 it is demonstrably false that my seven apples plus your 5 apples are equal to a pool of 12 apples. In fact it is demonstrably false that I even have 7 apples. Because no 2 apples are identical they can't be combined together. We may be willing to disregard such gross inaccuracies for the sake of, you know, being able to continue to survive for a little while longer, though. [[Special:Contributions/176.138.186.7|176.138.186.7]] 11:10, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
:The physicists have already shown that all apples are perfect spheres of uniform density and cannot be split into smaller apples. [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 15:11, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
::Are the perfect spheres bosons or fermions?[[Special:Contributions/76.180.39.133|76.180.39.133]] 15:38, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Talk:3167: Car Size

2025-11-21T16:52:43Z

76.180.39.133:

It is I, broseph. [[User:Broseph|Broseph]] ([[User talk:Broseph|talk]]) 19:45, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
:MY LETTERS ARE BIGGER THAN YOURS!!! --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User Talk:DollarStoreBa'al|Converse]] 20:15, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
tears of the kingdom be like [[Special:Contributions/128.135.204.243|128.135.204.243]] 20:49, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Did someone say {{w|Not Just Bikes}}? https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0intLFzLaudFG-xAvUEO-A --[[Special:Contributions/62.0.12.1|62.0.12.1]] 20:50, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

On the (current) closing paragraph of the Explanation, note that (at least where I am) it is illegal to ride a bike on the footway, unless specifically signed and permitted as a shared/split pavement area. As a cyclist, I really wouldn't even want to (or to increase fellow motorists' misconceptions that they exclusively own the road) when it's a perfectly good highway, but 'people on bikes' seem to do what they like and perpetuate such misunderstandings. [[Special:Contributions/82.132.244.30|82.132.244.30]] 21:41, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
:It's illegal here too, and I've added a note to that effect. As a cyclist, I do sometimes ride on sidewalks where sharing a road with cars is just too dangerous, but I try to be extremely cautious in my interactions with pedestrians. They've got the right of way; I don't. [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 23:06, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
::On top of often ill-conceived official cycle/pedestrian paths, I have a mild dislike for "cycle lanes", personally, as a sort of official "we really would prefer you to not be on the road, but we don't know what else to do with you, and it looks good when we add up the amount of 'cycle friendly' routes we have" kind of thing. With awareness (so no plugging your ears with headphones playing your 'tunez') most roads that I might use ''ought'' to be safe to cycle without badly implemented off-road/side-of-road segregation, and an overwhelming amount don't have such provision (riding to a cafe forty-plus miles away and circling round a different way back home, there's surprisingly few no-motor-vehicles opportunities to take).
::Even worse, though, is walking by a road with a 'perfectly good' clearly marked cycle lane (not particularly bad, compared to some instances, clean gutter and no bad grates) and some idiot on a bike rushes past me on the ''pavement'' (i.e. sidewalk), these days it often being an electrically-assisted, near silent bike (courtesy of Deliveroo/whoever), except that he's (assuming 'he', but it's a good chance) zooming past me, slightly ''uphill'', without pedalling at all... Technically, he's riding an electric motorcycle, and going at normal traffic speeds (and wearing a motorcycle-style helmet, so probably no point shouting at him as his ears are covered, if he hasn't also got earbuds in!) and ''definitely'' shouldn't be sharing the pavement with me (on the verge of needing a registration plate and paying insurance/tax for his e-moped).
::Of course, he'll act just as badly when he transitions back on the road, ignoring other traffic rules and barely avoiding become the jam on an asphalt smogasbord, various drivers cursing him and wishing ''all cyclists'' were off the streets. (The same drivers might well sneak through lights themselves, though "if it's quiet and nobody else is there", plus happily exceed the 20/30/40/50/60/70 mph limits on roads whenever they can, and don't have me driving ''at the limit'' in front of them when it's awkward for them to pass...)
::Not saying I'm perfect, but there are idiots out there with everything from no wheels (just two legs) up to perhaps 18-ish or whatever their juggernaut has, engines of whatever type or none, but I hope that I do my bit by being more considerate than most (except when it comes to dealing with inconsideration itself, when I internalise any joy I get about stopping others breaking the law for a few short moments) whether I'm walking, riding or driving. Though always trying to be aware of what the inevitably ever-present idiots out there will be doing. (Well, I couldn't do a thing about the time that a car pulled out in front of the bus I was a passenger in. But neither could the bus-driver, really, from what I could work out. Bus. Small car. Not a battle that I'd want to fight, on inertia alone.)
::Darn... this was not intended to be a holier-than-though rant, when I started, but I still don't regret it starting to go that way one bit... [[Special:Contributions/82.132.245.223|82.132.245.223]] 23:56, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
:::''Starting'' to go that way?! Bro, you went full Jeremy Vine caller. Might I suggest that you grow up and realise that the ones you see are 100% of the ones you see, but that doesn't mean they are 100% of the picture. There is nuance. There are rules that are worth avoiding because that allows cyclists to get out of the way quickly – crossing in a way that a pedestrian is allowed to do, at a speed that a pedestrian can't, for example. Co-exist. High horses are far less welcome than cyclists. [[User:Yorkshire Pudding|Yorkshire Pudding]] ([[User talk:Yorkshire Pudding|talk]]) 17:55, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
::::The marking of a 'red bit of asphalt' ahead of the line that cars are expected to stop at, to give cyclists that little extra space when the lights go green, is useless when motorists don't just drive into that space but seem to think the 'stop line' is where the ''driver'' should position themselves (long bonnet being well over that line, half way across the pedestrian crossing or even out into the road junction).
::::I blame bad driving for that (as a cyclist of decades experience, I have to ride defensively), but bad 'biking' doesn't help.
::::I'd much rather ride across a box-junction ''with'' traffic (when the lights allow) than do the slalom of hopping on and off the pavement 'at will' and either waiting for the pedestrian crossing (''ideally'' a proper Toucan, or even Pegasus, given that you normally should only walk your bike across a Zebra or Pelican/Puffin) or disobeying those lights too, at your own risk and giving inconvenience/annoyance to both wheeled and walking traffic.
::::I have a low opinion of the way 'helpful' cycle-infrastructure has been implemented, and a low (but understandable) opinion of how ignorant people are of the bicycle position in the Highway Code and all relevent laws (see Section 72 of the Highway Act 1835, and all successive legislation, which establishes a bicycle as a road vehicle, and I do not want either my rights or obligations to be eroded, either legally or through misconceptions and misunderstandings).
::::I also know that I can drive at 70mph on a motorway (where there's no lesser limit applied to it by gantry signs and/or contraflow-protection signage) and, though I may be going faster than all HGVs, and possibly someone else happy to tootle along at 60ish (which I'm happy to do, too, but not in an overtaking lane unless its due to all the lanes being congested), there'll be traffic passing me at 80, 90 or maybe more in the outside (or middle!) overtaking lane. The only time it seems motorists will ''not'' exceed the limit (not just for a particular road, having not realised the local limit, but for ''every'' UK road) is where there are Average Speed cameras. (Site-only speed-cameras just have them maybe touch the brakes then speed up again afterwards. I've even been parked by the side of a road, by a 30-sign, and seen the approaching traffic ''really'' slam the brakes on on thinking my car (red) is a speed-trap, then speed back up once the guilty reaction has worn out. Stand in the very same place, inconspicuously and without any car, and nobody does it anything like that (probably going 70+ in the 60-zone, easing off to ''eventually'' 35-40 in the 30-zone).)
::::With the widespread ignoring of such laws, I am of course not surprised that people who may-or-may-not have even passed a driving test (or cycling proficiency test) are riding bikes badly. But I don't have to like it. And (like the title-text's forcing of 'lesser vehicles' off the road), I'd rather not have it rebounding upon those of us who ''aren't'' troublemakers.
::::It ''almost'' wants me to change my mind over the ideas of having "taxed, insured and registration-plated" cycles. But that is what other people suggest, probably to 'restore' the car's supremacy of the road (short-sightedly and ignorant of road-history) by making supposed nuisance-cyclists be made accountable (while they'll be shocked if they're ever stopped from going 30 in a 20-zone, or 90 in a NSL-zone).
::::This is no kneejerk opinion. I've been a cyclist for the best part of five decades (only marginally less than I've been walking, though I was also apparently first taken out in a cycle-trailer as a week-old baby) and a motorist for well over three. I've seen cycling become diminished as an everyday past-time and 'biking' spring up as a more elitish one (MAMILs, etc). And the rise of "Kensington Tractors", in the UK, but luckily it's still not heading inexorably down the comic's story. And if I can do my bit to evangelise for general law-abiding consideration and prick the conscience of ''all'' road users (and pedestrians), without myself causing problems to others (I don't count blocking those who intend to drive faster than my on-the-limit speed, just wait until I'm going slower than that because I don't want to spin off an icy road!), I will do so without apology. It doesn't have to be like that (cycling in Belgium is a dream, better even than the Netherlands, with not too shabby experiences from other countries from Denmark through to France), and really shouldn't be like the US, where even ''walking'' often seems to be an inconvenient eccentricity that's barely tolerated.
::::Ok, more enough of that. Most people reading this will never share the roads with me, anyway, even if you might. And Jeremy Vine has nothing to do with it. (Nor any of the Jeremies 'Kyle', 'Clarkson' or 'Corbyn', in their own ways. "Jeremy Hillary Boob, Ph.D.", ''perhaps''...) [[Special:Contributions/82.132.231.193|82.132.231.193]] 19:41, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
::::: Translation for Yanks-- "''in England, “Kensington Tractors” (referring to expensive 4WD Land Rovers in the city, and Kensington, a posh district in London.)."'' --[[User:PRR|PRR]] ([[User talk:PRR|talk]]) 21:50, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Pretty good comic [[User:Mathmaster|Mathmaster]] ([[User talk:Mathmaster|talk]])

As someone who lives in the UK, the title text comes across as a comment on the US attitude to jaywalking - where the "solution" to vulnerable road users (pedestrians) being put in danger by careless drivers is to make it illegal for the vulnerable group to using the road at all. US people, is it likely that Randall had something like that in mind?
(Unrelated, but when posting this I got a captcha asking me to identify bicycles...) [[Special:Contributions/87.115.222.218|87.115.222.218]] 00:29, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
:I don't think so. I think he's just joking about not caring about peds at all. --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User Talk:DollarStoreBa'al|Converse]] 00:47, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
: As somebody who's lived in both the UK and the US, the US rules have been far more favorable to pedestrians. While it varies by states US rules have crosswalks at all intersections. US rules have always given pedestrians priority over turning traffic, something only introduced in the UK a few years ago, and still honoured mostly in the breach. And in the US drivers are required to yield to pedestrians even when the pedestrian is jaywalking, while in the UK drivers were taught that they must strive to "make progress" and preemptive slowing down while driving past questionable pedestrians was cause for failing a driving test.[[Special:Contributions/76.180.39.133|76.180.39.133]] 16:52, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

As a German, I take offense to this comic. ONLY CARS WILL SURVIVE THE APOCALYPSE! [[Special:Contributions/2A02:2455:1960:4000:652A:12CB:761D:93F6|2A02:2455:1960:4000:652A:12CB:761D:93F6]] 08:45, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

The comic is a typical example of US-centric views. Car ownership in Europe was much lower 50 years ago than in the US. Most people were still stuck in the first panel.--[[Special:Contributions/2001:638:807:507:B425:E1E7:68BD:B213|2001:638:807:507:B425:E1E7:68BD:B213]] 10:08, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
:...Because Randall is American? --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User Talk:DollarStoreBa'al|Converse]] 14:34, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
:Europe has been catching up to the US. In 1995, SUV sales were only 2%, but they were 54% in 2024. This is just a little lower than the US 58%. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 15:17, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
:the concept of people buying bigger cars is western-centric in general. [[user:lett‪herebedarklight|raeb]] 01:32, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

For those of you who keep a eX-Twitter account, someone posted a similar take that was so hilariously self-unaware: https://x.com/jerimiahlee/status/1758883775642059265 that people started one-upping him with larger and larger vehicles in quote posts, sometimes veering in chains that ended up with fictional vehicles, but my personal favorite on one-upmanship was the one who posted an image of a Takraf strip mine excavator… https://x.com/carl___spackler/status/1759646389376852009 [[Special:Contributions/89.83.116.217|89.83.116.217]] 15:17, 13 November 2025 (UTC) Pierre Lebeaupin

I realize this is US-specific, but the comic completely ignores the fact that vehicle manufacturers are incentivized by the US Government to increase the size of the cars they design, since the CAFE standards are graduated based on vehicle size. Larger vehicles are allowed to get lower MPG, so the bigger the vehicle you design, the less you have to worry about making it efficient. In fact, it's difficult to find a small vehicle for sale in the US. [[Special:Contributions/136.226.7.177|136.226.7.177]] 04:19, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Renault Twingo ? So I followed the link, and this is pretty obviously a gag video. Now I know I'm not hip and with it on all the best memes, but I don't see how this helps explain the comic, or is actually relevant or noteworthy. [[Special:Contributions/104.129.192.105|104.129.192.105]] 19:00, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
: I think you've answered your own question - it's there as a gag. And it is lampooning exactly the kind of sales talk that helps drive the trend in the comic. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 10:52, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
:I second. I don't feel it helps explain the comic, or is actually relevant or noteworthy. [[User:OrwellFan|OrwellFan]] ([[User talk:OrwellFan|talk]]) 01:52, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

It should be noted that some electric scooters can reach speeds in excess of 80 km/h, which makes them a really serious threat to pedestrians or bicycles. (but less so than to the rider, obviously) {{unsigned ip|176.138.186.7|18:02, 14 November 2025 (UTC)}}

"This would almost certainly never happen in real life"... have you never seen spiked lug nuts? (Technically, spiked lug nut *covers*.) They seem to be standard on long haul trucks around here. [[Special:Contributions/2600:1700:9DA3:8040:684C:E1EE:D1AD:89AD|2600:1700:9DA3:8040:684C:E1EE:D1AD:89AD]] 22:07, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
:Again, I second. [[User:OrwellFan|OrwellFan]] ([[User talk:OrwellFan|talk]]) 01:52, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
:I have thought about adding spikes (fake and/or soft) to my car to keep other drivers from getting too close. Especially if they are following too close and I decide to slam my brakes. [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 04:50, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Does randal reference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcinisation with the alttext? ---- {{unsigned ip|2a00:fbc:f303:76a5::2|18:49, 17 November 2025 (UTC)}}

Usually Randall’s comics are well-researched, but the historical examples in this one seem ludicrous. Can anyone confirm whether this is accurate at all? [[Special:Contributions/76.131.222.161|76.131.222.161]] 21:32, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
:Well, the '100 years ago' car is a bit ancient-looking. Less like any of the {{w|Category:Cars introduced in 1925}} entries than a 1910s or earlier one (could be artisitic licence on "early last century"). The bicycle is probably not very on-era either, though that style of step-through frame had appeared pre-1900 ''and'' can be seen in more contemporary versions of "ladies' bike". (The handlebars are a certain old-style, the saddle has an 'old-style' look (though tends to be reinvented for less 'racy' bikes) as far as one can tell from a few lines.
:''...'''added later''': after much searching, [https://www.bonhams.com/auction/22719/lot/101/1925-mercedes-type-8-ladies-bicycle-chassis-no-23006/ this bike] seems to be closest by both date and form...'' {{unsigned ip|2.98.65.8|01:23, 21 November 2025 (UTC)}}
:The '50 years ago' image looks to feature a mid-1980s small-car, rather than a 1975 one. (There's so many more actual models to check, though I'm thinking maybe something like a Datsun, or similar exported Japanee brand?) The larger car... well, apart from perhaps being a Rolls Royce (or otherwise featuring a prominent hood-ornament like that) it's the kind of luxury-sedan style shape that is ''almost'' contemporary up to the present day.
:For 'Today', you're going for basic "SUV", in both cases, just one with less SuperMini-like wheels (probably alloys) and plenty of add-on details. Features that clearly get an upgrade in the more visible 'Soon' car (the other one might be even bigger, the way its 'club-rotor' seems to be sat higher up, as well as having larger spiked-clubs). [[Special:Contributions/2.98.65.8|2.98.65.8]] 23:55, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Talk:3165: Earthquake Prediction Flowchart

2025-11-14T16:44:33Z

76.180.39.133:

Gettin pretty sick of the "citation needed" joke appearing in early drafts of our explanations. It's not clever to just say that at random. [citation needed] [[Special:Contributions/69.5.140.194|69.5.140.194]] 03:14, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
: I think what you meant to say was "First!!1!" [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 09:28, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

It turns out I suddenly find myself... needing to know the plural of apocalypse. -- Riley Finn, Buffy the Vampire Slayer ... [[User:Jordan Brown|Jordan Brown]] ([[User talk:Jordan Brown|talk]]) 03:28, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

The return of the flowchart! --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User Talk:DollarStoreBa'al|Converse]] 03:57, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

As early as [https://doi.org/10.1785/BSSA0640051363 1974], there was substantial evidence that earthquakes at least in Southern California were unpredictable. To be more precise, the paper found that if you remove aftershocks, the distribution of earthquakes appeared to follow a Poisson distribution. This is the distribution expected from a "memoryless" process where each event is independent of any earlier event, and where earthquakes have a constant probability of occurring, making them completely impossible to predict.
: That does not prove they are unpredictable. At best it proves they are unpredictable with a particular type of data and model. A precursor event (be it peepers peeping an octave higher, changes in radon release rates, or type mu-normal earthquakes with hysteresis) could still exist. Two random variables can be separately Poisson but perfectly correlated. [[Special:Contributions/76.180.39.133|76.180.39.133]] 16:44, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

It may be that not all earthquakes everywhere really work this way, but in the past 50 years, evidence has accumulated only to support this hypothesis. No progress whatsoever has been made in predicting earthquakes, only in reasons to believe they fundamentally cannot be predicted (at least without a lot of inaccessible information regarding strain deep within the earth). [[User:EebstertheGreat|EebstertheGreat]] ([[User talk:EebstertheGreat|talk]]) 05:16, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

: There's a difference between being impossible to predict based on past earthquakes, and being impossible to predict based on other measurable indicators, though. [[Special:Contributions/163.116.254.40|163.116.254.40]] 15:20, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

: That paper you cite has one of the best uses of an abstract that I've ever seen! Title: "Is the sequence of earthquakes in Southern California, with aftershocks removed, Poissonian?" Abstract: "Yes." I mean, it's perfect - concise and easy to understand. [[Special:Contributions/134.134.139.69|134.134.139.69]] 01:58, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Any examples of people claiming to predict earthquakes? --[[User:1234231587678|1234231587678]] ([[User talk:1234231587678|talk]]) 05:25, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

:Ben Davidson of YouTube channel SpaceWeatherNews (formerly Suspicious0bservers) does, and links it to a bunch of other bizarre pseudoscience. [[Special:Contributions/184.75.151.213|184.75.151.213]] 08:25, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

There's actually quite a few regular earthquakes. The issue is that they're all small and isolated. Very few people care that some mountains abruptly shift a few dozen microns every month. Many more care about the big ones that are extremely difficult to predict. [[Special:Contributions/24.19.215.69|24.19.215.69]] 06:05, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

The point about predicting the apocalypse may be related to a thing earlier this year where a bunch of folks believed that the Rapture was going to happen. Sept 23. My friend was absolutely inundated with people saying it was going to happen. [[Special:Contributions/2601:40D:4282:5380:F806:A8F7:EAF2:A7A1|2601:40D:4282:5380:F806:A8F7:EAF2:A7A1]] 12:38, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
:Don't leave me hanging... It's bad enough that I didn't even get told that it was going to happen, in advance, but at least you could let me know if it ''did''! [[Special:Contributions/2.98.65.8|2.98.65.8]] 11:43, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
::Well if it DID happen, then pretty few people must have been raptured... which would mean that pretty few people were actually "good" people, which seems about right though :-/--[[Special:Contributions/93.241.210.5|93.241.210.5]] 10:16, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
:My theory is that the Rapture ''did'' happen, but that all of the people who were taken were retroactively removed from existence. All evidence and memory of them disappeared. All of the terrible accidents that resulted from the sudden disappearances of vehicle drivers, equipment operators, generator managers, etc., were erased. Just like in modern-era ''Doctor Who'' after yet another alien invasion, afterwards, nobody believes that it happened. [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 23:57, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

There ''is'' a perfect way of predicting future earthquakes to the exact second, but it requires a time machine. ("Past performance is no guarantee of future results." "That would be true if I were giving you information from ''our'' past." - Gunther Thurl and Kevyn Andreyasn, ''Schlock Mercenary'') [[Special:Contributions/207.253.24.188|207.253.24.188]] 16:00, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Does the {{w|July 2025 Japan megaquake prophecy}} needs any mention? [[User:TomtheBuilder|TomtheBuilder]] ([[User talk:TomtheBuilder|talk]]) 16:37, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Religious apocali (apocalypses is probably fine, but doesn’t sound quite as cool) tend to only happen once, sure, but there’s also the whole “massive flood wiping out 99.99% of life” thing that happened in Christianity. It would be difficult to argue such an event wouldn’t be considered apocalyptic were it to happen today. Also, in some syncretic interpretations, the Norse Ragnarok happened prior to the events of Genesis (after the universe creation part, of course) which is about as apocalypse as it gets. Of course, there the question is less “why didn’t you predict that one” and more “another apocalypse? So what, we’ve already had 2 and it was fine.” [[User:KelOfTheStars!|KelOfTheStars!]] ([[User talk:KelOfTheStars!|talk]]) 04:01, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
: Not to mention some 'cyclical history'-type theologies, where an apocalyptic event may not just have occurred more than once, but an infinite number of times. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 09:32, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
: ("Apocalypsen", shirley...) A "massive flood wiping out 99.99% of life" is {{w|Waterworld|a box-office disappointement}}. [[Special:Contributions/2.98.65.8|2.98.65.8]] 22:26, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Is it possible that there are still unknown types of Earthquakes that *are* predictable? Or quakes on bodies other than the Earth? Maybe someone couldn't predict 100% of quakes, but maybe quakes of a specific type. Particularly if someone whips out his handy dandy Quake Inducer 3000™ and says "I will cause an Earthquake on this spot tomorrow." [[Special:Contributions/191.101.157.124|191.101.157.124]] 18:13, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

I predict that there will be no Apocalypse tomorrow. At least, not on Earth. (It's a fairly safe prediction, because if I'm wrong, very few people will bother to take me to task over it. Though as long as the internet persists, there will be a few.) [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 23:57, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
:No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow. [[Special:Contributions/2.98.65.8|2.98.65.8]] 00:04, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
::I make no claims for the Epsilon Eridani system. [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 04:19, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Should 1943: Universal Dreams be mentioned? That comic also has earthquake predictions. [[Special:Contributions/1.132.104.106|1.132.104.106]] 08:01, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Predicting apocalypses would be a lot easier, if they happen more than one time. "Yeah, i'm 1000000 years old, and i lived in galactic cluster where worlds end every second and untold septillions die every nanosecond on every square millimeter of the planet. '''''FOOOOM!!!!''''' Having survived that non-stop grimdark mess, i assume - by precise calculations - that this world will end ''again'' in precisely 7 seconds. '''''FOOOOM!!!!''''' Damn, i warned you. The next end of this world will be in 10 second. '''''FOOOOM!!!!''''' Exactly." --[[User:User 8496351|User 8496351]] ([[User talk:User 8496351|talk]]) 19:36, 12 November 2025 (UTC)