explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:3263: Baryon Asymmetry

2026-06-25T08:23:13Z

82.13.184.33:

If I had a dollar for ever floating black sphere that talks in XKCD, I'd have 4 bucks. Which isn't alot, but it's weird that it's becoming a recurring subject. [[User:RG|RG]] ([[User talk:RG|talk]]) 06:21, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
:Why would you only ask the all-powerful floating black sphere for a dollar? [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 08:23, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm the gate! I'm the key! I'm...in the wrong comic! [[Special:Contributions/2A02:2455:1960:4000:E16D:EF33:CC13:79C9|2A02:2455:1960:4000:E16D:EF33:CC13:79C9]] 07:19, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

3263: Baryon Asymmetry

2026-06-25T08:22:07Z

82.13.184.33: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 3263
| date = June 24, 2026
| title = Baryon Asymmetry
| image = baryon_asymmetry_2x.png
| imagesize = 682x270px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Wait, what do you mean, 'dark matter'? It's not dark, it interacts with high-energy gamma rays ... right? Oh jeez, did I forget to make it interact?
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This page was created recently, but was recently annihilated by it's anti-matter counterpart, and needs recreating. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}
[[Cueball]] wants to know why the universe has {{w|baryon asymmetry}}. The {{w|observable universe}} contains much more matter than antimatter. Current physical theories imply that matter and antimatter should have been created in roughly equal amounts. The fact that antimatter is rare is very fortunate for humans and other objects made of matter, given that matter/antimatter reactions destroy both substances with a violent release of energy.

The creator of the universe, far from being wise and all-knowing, simply forgot to add a roughly equal amount of antimatter. They add the antimatter that they originally forgot, only to create a massive explosion as large qualities of the universe experience {{w|annihilation}}.

The title text resolves another physics mystery in a similarly unexpected way. {{W|Dark matter}} mysteriously interacts with gravitation, but not electromagnetic energy. The creator explains that dark matter was supposed to interact with high-energy {{w|gamma rays}}, but they forgot to add that property to dark matter. The Wikipedia articles for antimatter and dark matter start with clarifications that antimatter and dark matter are not the same thing, and that dark matter is different from {{w|dark energy}}.

The creator of the universe in this comic might be the same floating sphere featured in [[3085: About 20 Pounds]].
Talking to a floating sphere is becoming [[:Category:Time traveling Sphere|a returning subject in xkcd]].

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Don't remove this notice too soon.}}

[Cueball is floating in a void. He is speaking with the creator of the universe, who appears as a black sun symbol.] 
Cueball: So you're the creator of the universe? 
Creator of the Universe: That's me! So, got any questions?

[Cueball is putting his hand to his face.] 
Cueball: Oh man, so many. What's the reason for baryon asymmetry? Why is most of the universe matter and not antimatter?

[Cueball's hand is back down.] 
Creator of the Universe: Crap. Did I forget the antimatter? One sec, let me just…

[Many explosions fill the panel, including a large explosion in the centre.] 
BOOM

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>

Talk:3262: Sports Commentary

2026-06-25T08:19:16Z

82.13.184.33:

Did this example actually happen? [[Special:Contributions/47.151.65.120|47.151.65.120]] 04:33, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

This comic reminds me of [[1122: Electoral Precedent]] and [[2383: Electoral Precedent 2020]]. Generalizing coincidences.

I am not a native English speaker. What does " they've gone 0 for 2" mean? Obviously it cannot be the score, since they are already leading 2-1? Or does this refer to a previous match?
And on a more general note, I am really surprised to discover the second football themed comic strip in a few days. OK it's the World Cup, but I always thought that Randall doesn't really care about sports? --[[Special:Contributions/92.209.171.90|92.209.171.90]] 08:37, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
:I ''am'' a native English speaker, but it was also a bit impenetrable to me. In part, perhaps, because it was ''intended'' to sound impenetrable (as part of the joke). But, even if not, it may be because it's using Americanized sports-talk phrasing that just isn't (yet!) used so much in my more native Anglicised commentaries that I'm used to.
:However, I ''think'' they're saying that "in the two specific occasions in which all those other conditions occur, they won in neither of them".
:A simpler version being perhaps to state that a given team/player has gone nought-for-two in previous matches with their current opponent(s). The results of those contests might have been anything (the winner having gone to 3-2 after penalties, 6-love/6-love/6-love, a par-4 advantage or getting them all out for 178 — depending upon the sport), it's just the win/lose (or win/not-win) count thats "0 for 2".
:But this is a case of Overly Narrow Superlative (overlapping with P-Hacking), making it a dubious analysis. Starting with ignoring all the games there are in which a given svoreline was not achieved in a particular ''minute'' of play. I think part of this set-up is the difference between Gridiron 'football'/"hand-egg" having tons of points scored, whereas this football (Soccer) often turns on comparatively low scores that (one-nil can be a worthy and entertaining win/loss, and even a no-score-draw might have been fun to watch if your side isn't in desperate need for a win). These commentators, or at least the US audience they're commentating to, are used to spieling things about "the last time they were down on the forty-yard line in the fifth quarter, with two home runs and a shot from the free-throw line in hand..." (look, I {{tvtropes|GretzkyHasTheBall|know I don't know}} what they'd really say, to any accuracy, there was no point even trying!), at least to fill in the copious down-time/time-out pauses. (Which isn't actually as easy with low-scoring but more ever-moving 'soccer', where there's often much to be said about current player and ball movements almost all the time; although a five-day international cricket test match(!) commentary on the radio ''does'' rather famously lapse into 'filler' like discussing the nice cake that was sent to them by a listener, in the gaps between balls being bowled...)
:Sorry, that was a long and convoluted paragraph. (But then, so was the Explanation, before I decided to say this down here. I hope it's been tweaked since then. I'm only really guessing about the Leftpondian commentator-speak being parodied here, and ball-sports aren't really my main interest in the sprorting sphere itself. (But, regarding balls that aren't themselves spheres, I'd happily discuss Rugby League or Rugby Union, and why they're 'better'... though I would totally acknowledge Aussie Rules as a class of its own as far as such contact-sports go.)
:HTH, HAND. [[Special:Contributions/82.132.236.84|82.132.236.84]] 10:08, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
::I'm also English, and it's totally alien to me too. [[User:GSLikesCats307|GSLikesCats307]] ([[User talk:GSLikesCats307|talk]]) 11:53, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
:::Native US English speaker; I had no trouble understanding this even though I don't watch any sports, and I didn't interpret it as intending to be obscure. I don't think Randall intended it either. Sorry(?). I pronounce this in my head as "oh for two" instead of "zero for two". [[User:Zowayix|Zowayix]] ([[User talk:Zowayix|talk]]) 00:45, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
:I don't know what prompted the rant above, but if you don't care to read it, "going 0 for 2" means having 0 successes out of 2 chances. In the context of this commentary, it's referring to winning 0 games out of the 2 games that meet the criteria. It's not intended to sound impenetrable; it's a common phrasing.[[Special:Contributions/163.116.145.33|163.116.145.33]] 13:37, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
::I don't know what prompted you to think it was a rant. It's certainly quite lengthy (in the context of discussion comments here - not in the grand scheme of things), but that's not really the definition of a rant. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 14:57, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
:::Because it was lengthy, but it almost entirely ignored the question, focusing instead on your opinion on sports and their commentary styles. Going off on one vs. ranting...it's a blurry distinction. You absolutely did the former; possibly the latter. 0 for 2 (pronounced as a letter "O") simply means zero victories for two games played. It's not obscure terminology. [[User:Yorkshire Pudding|Yorkshire Pudding]] ([[User talk:Yorkshire Pudding|talk]]) 15:50, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
::::Yes, it is obscure. The only context in which “0 for 2” makes sense to me is in cricket: 0 runs scored, 2 batsmen out. The 0 of / out of / from 2 described above is just not something which would occur to me, and it's largely because of that ‘for’. If it's common, why have I never heard it on (for example) ''Match of the Day''? [[User:Randomnonsense|Randomnonsense]] ([[User talk:Randomnonsense|talk]]) 16:44, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::It's hard to argue that a usage common to the US - the largest English-speaking country in the world - Canada (https://www.google.com/search?q=%22went+0+for%22+site%253Athestar.com), and Australia (https://www.google.com/search?q=%22went+0+for%22+site%3Aabc.net.au, including their coverage of American sports leagues, local sports leagues, international tennis, and international cricket) is obscure. Your personal knowledge is not a good metric for obscurity. [[Special:Contributions/163.116.145.44|163.116.145.44]] 18:50, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::It's clearly not a primarily UK-English construction, but it's nevertheless the sort of thing that this UK-native copy editor would not be concerned about should it come up in a publication for a UK audience. It might be whined about as an "Americanism" by the sort of people who make those sorts of complaints, but they would recognise it as a phrase they're supposed to get huffy about, rather than being baffled by it. Faux baffled, maybe...
::::::It isn't obscure though. [[User:Yorkshire Pudding|Yorkshire Pudding]] ([[User talk:Yorkshire Pudding|talk]]) 10:27, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
::::It didn't focus on my opinion - it wasn't my comment. I agree it was long and arguably somewhat digressive. But that still isn't the definition of a rant. A rant implies some degree of anger or worked-up-ness, and it didn't have either of these. It was even apologetic for its own length and convolutedness. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 08:26, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
:::Precisely what Yorkshire Pudding said; you could have stopped after your third paragraph, or really even after your second, and you wouldn't have lost any relevant information. I'll add that the rantiness is enhanced by saying things like Gridiron 'football'/"hand-egg", and the very "sportsball"-coded "the last time they were down on the forty-yard line in the fifth quarter, with two home runs and a shot from the free-throw line in hand...," which, apart from their irrelevance to the topic, have a very superior air. [[Special:Contributions/163.116.145.44|163.116.145.44]] 16:51, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
::::"you could have stopped after your third paragraph, or really even after your second" - I couldn't, because I didn't write it. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 08:26, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::Indeed, I did. You just had the misfortune to be in the same general IP block as me, then (and maybe me now, too, but I won't know that until I post, or perhaps preview, and render my signature-tildes accordingly). Also, you seemed to appreciate my style more than others, so doubly guilt-by-association.
:::::Explanation for everyone else: I didn't want to be as dry and dull as just tersely snapping back "it means <foo>, of course", perhaps with an implied (but not intended) "...as should be obvious with but a moment's thought. How well I managed that is open for discussion.
:::::The "But this is a case..." perhaps ''should'' have been given its own space (it's what I was thinking of saying, before I realised I could also try to helpfully clarify). And I should know by now (with forty years of netizenship under my belt) that my attempts at playful self-deprecation might not ''necessarily'' be read in the tone of humour that I thought I was writing in. Note to self: go back to using excessive smileys, rather than rationing them. Then deal with the complaints that I over-smiley! :(
{{cot|This bit was written to inform ''and'' entertain, but ended up very long}}
:::::In case you missed it, I was pointing out my own relative ignorance. My concocted phrasing ("in the ''fifth'' quarter" was supposed to be the biggest hint) was a deliberate terminology-stew to indicate that I knew I was likely "separated by a common language" in some regards (see also my use of "Americanized", not "Americanised", and "Anglicised", not "Anglicized", code-switching as appropriate to the word's context). If anyone took it as a pure rant about USisms, then it went wrong somewhere between my head and theirs. Inclusive of both, I suppose, but I'll take the hit and officially absolve the affected readers of being the only/major problem, for what it's worth.
:::::To extemporise, I have just a basic idea of US 'football' commentary from second-hand examples in various media (e.g. background/scene-setting events in films, etc, with the protagonist household being sat on the sofa watching The Game while they're bonding/arguing over the match, or perhaps over other more plot-related concerns), which are probably scripted to be as over-realistically stereotypical as possible because it saves having to otherwise explain the setting to the audience. That and brief snippets of a newsy-type, i.e. British 'newsanchor'/'sportsanchor' finds time to conclude their usual spiel and news-/sports-roundup with "...and finally, in the Super Bowl, <team I might have heard of> beat <team I might not have heard of>, including this impressive <field goal/touchdown/whatever> by <player I ''very likely'' have not heard of, if not maybe OJ or The Refrigerator>...", cut to VT and see the <field goal/touchdown/whatever> happen, the stadium in an uproar, the screen spattered with statistical overlays and various US TV Network branding glyphs, and the voice of one or two unidentified US-network commentators reacting to the 'play' with admiration (perhaps grudging) or even enthusiasm.
:::::And the same style (very unlike UK 'soccer' commentary, at least when I have watched it) seems to extend to the other type of football, from the limited exposure it has had. (I don't know in what context I take that impression, off-hand... the Mean Machine treatment with Stalllone might have been one, but can't recall how that was done, or what Escape To Victory sounded like, being from a different era (both setting and production), but that would surely have been the then-traditional staid British style.)
:::::My most firm memetic base for US-soccer-commentating is of a ''parody'' of it, a (British) comedian affecting a US drawl for an impression of an out-of-his-depth commentator trying to front the commentary for a game he clearly has no prior knowledge of (clearly reading an auto-cue, at one point having to pause, before giving the next word his best shot at pronunciation as he gives it an audience-rousing flourish: "And welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to this opening game of..? <awkward pause> Soatcher!", then totally misexplaining the unseen game as if it's all just arrived from another planet). Yeah, I know it's not like that, mostly, and at the very least there are Soccer-Moms (probably mostly cheering on their Soccer Daughters, if US sitcoms reflect the usual demographic take-up, but I'm open to that being badly misrepresented too). The general impression is that the US just aren't ''used'' to the sport that the World Cup is bringing them. Even with prior World Cup showings (and David Beckham/etc playing for various stateside soccer-teams). Though, to be more accurate and serious, ''of course'' there's a thriving culture of appreciation and participation over in Leftpondia - just it's not necessarily anywhere near what we'd imagine as your main Sporting Religion... that might be Gridiron ('rugby with body-armour and loads of time-out time'), Baseball ('rounders'), Basketball (nope, there's no funny quip about that, not even an attempt to equate it with Netball) and maybe also, perhaps more so in the northern US in areas with a more Canadian feel, perhaps Hockey (Ice Hockey, that is; over here "Hockey" is Field Hockey ...and that's perhaps more popularly assumed to be 'mainly for girls', albeit hormone-raddled schoolgirls who are potentially deadly with an ankle-level swipe at their opposition, with hockey sticks also being the equivalent of a Central Casting Mob's pitchforks when that mob is instead from a St. Trinian's School setting). With perhaps honourable mention for Lacrosse being a significant activity for some of your First Nations cultures (in Rightpondian terms, we have Hurling/Carmogie as a big thing in our Celtic-fringes, which is ''sort of'' the same sort of thing, or maybe a more hockey-football-rugby megahybrid with the nets on the rugby post supports rather than on the lacrosse-sticks).
:::::Various other 'football's exist, around the world, not least the alteady mentioned Aussie Rules ('a more freeform rugby on a cricket pitch', as perhaps an unfair summary).
:::::Or of course the historic village-against-village (or even one-end-of-village-vs-other-end-of-village) annual traditions that were ''hopefully'' a notch or two below pure pitched battle, the aim being to convey a 'ball' to some notable local point or other, but was mostly a pushing-match (at least after knives were banned, for being too likely to be used). This is the type of 'football' that was typically banned by monarchs (who may instead have promoted archery as the ''safer'' and more practical sporting option - though, to be fair, you weren't (until you actually sent them to war) having two mass teams of archers facing each other off and loosing their arrows in the direction of the other team).
:::::Village-football mutated (or was independently reinvented) as various Public School (i.e. "Private School", in US terms, due to the UK's distinction of that term from ''actual'' Private Schools, as well as State (US=Public) Schools) games such as The Wall Game, and the path from there to the fledgling Association Football is only ''slightly'' convoluted
::::: ...
:::::''Anyway'', all that aside... If I ever scare-quote 'football' for Gridiron and 'soccer' for Association Football, it's only because I am personally/culturally welded to "football" being the casual name only of Association Football, and the core of my being rebels against word being used for that Rugby-esque game-code with all the body-armour. Not far from where I live, one of the main "Rugby Football" variations is socially dominant, and thus just called 'football', for which a slight accent cue of the speaker may have to be used to disambiguate the their intended meaning of the word, where the context isn't yet officially established. Across the world, though, "football" (or maybe some local direct variation like "fußball"?) is more often 'soccer', or close enough to it (or perhaps "table football" - the one with the rod-mounted 'players', not so much Subbuteo).
{{cob}}
:::::This is, of course, me speaking for myself, in my own voice, here in the Talk section. Knowing that everyone else can safely ignore me ifI'm just being boring.
:::::But if I make a tonal/terminological error in the Explanation (or, at best, an ambiguity), it's open to editing. And editing it down. So if I just write something like "colour" (by accident, usually, not ignorance... though something like "on accident" sounds/reads so strange to me that I might tend to presume that "by accident" is no less valid under US grammar) then please change it to "color" (but it wasn't a 'typo', just a misregionalised/-ized slip of the fingers). And true overexplaining can always be cut out/down. But also reinstated, if that's in turn considered over-cut.
:::::All this is now firmly meta-territory. But it looked like it needed clarification (and a direct apology from me to 82.13.*, when I was coming in via 82.132.*) even if the price for that was a drift through what ''I'' think is a bit of comforting drawl about the periphery information, to lighten the mood again, but may possibly be just as unwelcome a block of contribution. So apologies for where my judgement in that turned out to be grossly wrong. ("Get a blog", you say? BTDTGTTS, but this is just for here and now.)
:::::We now return you to your regularly scheduled program(/programme). [[Special:Contributions/82.132.237.27|82.132.237.27]] 12:31, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
::Worth noting I think that it's a common AMERICAN phrasing. It's hardly ever used in England. {{unsigned ip|2a0a:ef40:5b7:1c01:dedd:33f3:54a1:6705|17:22, 23 June 2026 (UTC)}}

Closest match I can find is Germany - Curacao but there Germany took the lead in the 38th minute (not the 37th). I leave the deep dive on Germany's record against teams alphabetically before them when they have taken the lead 2-1 in the 37th/38th minute to someone else...
: And, of course, Germany destroyed Curaçao 7-1, just like they did to Brazil (which is also alphabetically before Germany!) 12 years prior [[User:Wilh3lm|Wilh3lm]] ([[User talk:Wilh3lm|talk]]) 12:38, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
:: As I recall, the Germans had already scored 7 before the Brazilians scored, and quite a few people independently came up with Ger-many Braz-nil… [[User:Randomnonsense|Randomnonsense]] ([[User talk:Randomnonsense|talk]]) 16:48, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
::: I did a ''limited'' look into possible edge-cases, but didn't get anywhere so far as to confirm all minutes-of-goals for those. Concentrated on (fairly recent) games with more than a 2-2 final score, as the requirements are that they must have at least been 2-1 and then ''at least'' got levelled up by the lagging side, before the possible tie-breaking penality shootouts.
::: I suppose I could have first narrowed it down to every game with a reported 37th minute goal (given the rarity of that exact event, by apparently common agreement) ''then'' tallying up the precise game-state at that time, plus the final result. But I was looking into the other fine details first. [[Special:Contributions/81.179.200.152|81.179.200.152]] 23:14, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

'''Don't assume "bad" p-hacking without looking closer at the data''': Sometimes what looks like P-hacking is really finding previously-unseen patterns. If you have a drug trial on a drug that you have no reason to think will show gender differences and you are asking "is this drug better than existing drugs" and the results are inconclusive, then you do "p-hack" subgroups and find that in males between the ages of 18 and 50 it demonstrates superior results, you MAY be cherry-picking results or you MAY have found a hidden pattern. Assuming your sub-group size isn't ridiculously small, you can legitimately claim that you need more funding for a follow-up study or at least a follow-up analysis of this subgroup in previous studies of the same drug. [[Special:Contributions/150.221.155.241|150.221.155.241]] 13:35, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
:Yes, more data is usually the solution. The comic deliberately uses an extremely small dataset. You can make up almost any hypothesis and find 2-3 datapoints that fit it. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 14:24, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
::Or, perhaps more commonly, if you have a sufficiently large dataset you can mine through it and come up with two or three interesting-looking 'hypotheses' that it'll appear to support, even if you didn't have any to start with. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 15:02, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
:::The difference is that taking a lot of data and looking at many possible patterns to that data is likely to reveal artefacts of mere chance.
:::Considering a single possible pattern and looking to see if it is justified is (even if, as an individual pattern, exactly as much a coincidental artefact or not) useful. So one might legitimately be able to suggest that the male subjects may show a legitimate long-term improvement to a treatment (possibly either because it works better with male hormones, or because there aren't the same underlying hormonal variations across each month, or just because it works better for different body-mass/fat distributions that are more typically male than female), or perhaps vice-versa (that it actually works more usefully for females, again for such reasons).
:::But filtering inconclusive results through many possible sorting algorithms and extracting 'nuggets' of apparent significance devalues those nuggets. Especially if it gets more complexly combinatorial. Imagine the number of criteria you might have considered, together and individually, to establish anything like "the treatment was twice as effective as the control treatment in males less than 30 with an older brother and females over 38 whose job is in education". How you'd even rationalise/explain such a complicated cause/effect relationship is one thing. That you've probably discarded so many other datums you had (out of hundred subjects, you're decided to ignore maybe half the people because of being under-/over-age, in this gendered thing, cutting back ''far'' more than that for the family/employment requirements and then of the remainder (probably somewhat <10, I'd guess, depending on where you actually got the initial subject-pool) and then, for such a comparison to stand up, the non-discards must be further split between on-treatment and whatever off-treatment/old-treatment you're comparing to, is an issue of practicality which is the other issue. (At least until you come up with a decent reason to recruit these subsets explicitly for a follow-up study, assuming the relationship doesn't just vanish/revert-to-the-mean when you do as it was pure chance after all.)
:::Realistically, you should weight the apparent significance of 'results' according to how many results you actively looked for. (e.g. had fifty possible things, divide the significance of any positive 'match' by 50. Although I can see reasons why division by 50**2 ''or'' ln(50) would be better, depending upon the scenario relevant to this kind of siftingt.) But better just to avoid that.
:::Which might be a big problem in AI-derived research results. You're asking an algorithm to make an ''uncounted'' large number of separate interpretations (including of exactly what question it is that you're asking) and then it's returning the 'nicest' results that seemingly fulfil its mysterious 'training' insofar as they aim to be the single/several results from the largely randomised treatments that are judged to be the least incomprehensible. [[Special:Contributions/81.179.200.152|81.179.200.152]] 20:00, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

The saddest part of all this is that Randall, in the title text of this comic, might be one of the last persons in the English-speaking world to recognize that "data" is a plural noun, the singular of which (icymi) is "datum". [[Special:Contributions/147.81.27.244|147.81.27.244]] 15:38, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Not only does Randall know, it's featured in comic 1429:Data
[[Special:Contributions/69.204.108.174|69.204.108.174]] 21:41, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
:The Latin word "data" is a plural now, but the English word "data" is [+ sing/pl verb], and in most writing is used as a plural. It's really only used as a singular in scientific and technical contexts. Borrowed English words don't follow Latin rules, and "data" is not alone in this. Meetings have an agenda, even though in Latin an agenda is many agendum. https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/some-data-about-datum. --[[Special:Contributions/49.255.140.250|49.255.140.250]] 01:38, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
:I can assure you that Randall knows full well how "data" operates and that's part of the joke. If all you have is a single data point, you can [[605:_Extrapolating|extrapolate]] whatever you want from it; which makes it no better than noise or anecdote. [[Special:Contributions/74.202.210.170|74.202.210.170]] 19:05, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I feel like there's more to be said about the specific version of p-hacking that sports commentators do. A few aspects I haven't seen in the explanation that are often tells of sports commentary p-hacking - and that Randall parodies here explicitly:
* a very specific period, such as "the last 36 years". This usually means that right before that cutoff date, the pattern does not hold at all.
* data point scarcity (specific to the World Cup and end-of-season playoffs): maybe the team didn't reach this stage of the competition at every opportunity
Also some more subtle omissions in this kind of commentary, which are also common:
* ignoring circumstances: 36 years ago, the team or country may have been in a completely different state. Specifically for the World Cup, 36 years ago there was one Czechoslowakia, there were 2 Germanies, Uzbekistan wasn't a sovereign state, Curaçao didn't have a true national team, etc.
* ignoring player turnover/churn: most of the current players were probably not on the team even 8 or 12 years ago (if this is specific to World Cup games), let alone their coaching staff. [[User:Blagae|Blagae]] ([[User talk:Blagae|talk]]) 08:16, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

This isn't really an Overly Narrow Superlative, as tvtropes defines it (or as the plain English of the term implies) - it is overly narrow, but it isn't superlative. The announcers aren't claiming that this is the worst/best team when faced with this hyper-specific scenario. They're just stating the facts that they are 0-2 in the scenario. It could possibly fit if it were phrased as being *similar* to that trope, but it doesn't fit as is. The subsequent paragraph implies that the point is to narrow the relevant data points to 2 games; I would suggest that the point is to narrow the relevant data points to something that gives an impressive result (like never winning in that situation, or never losing). 2 games isn't the intent, it's the consequence. I also don't think there is jargon there - all of the terminology would be familiar to a casual viewer of the sport; even people unfamiliar would be unlikely to be fazed by any, except perhaps the "scoring in the 37th minute". And "As an equivalent example, in the 2022 World Cup, 14 group stage games (out of 48) and 9 knockout stage games (out of 16) may have at some point reached a 2-1 scoreline for one or other team, depending upon the order the respective teams' goals occurred" - presumably that's based on a count of games in which at least one team has reached 2 goals, and the other has reached at least 1 goal, so they *may* have been 2-1 at some point. But surely there's enough information out there to identify which games *actually* were 2-1 at some point. I'd make changes, but given that I've butted heads here with the person I suspect wrote most of that, it's maybe better that someone else do it.[[Special:Contributions/163.116.145.44|163.116.145.44]] 18:40, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
:I think you butted heads with someone else, but it's me that only went so far to get to the "may have been" stage (I was mostly looking for various other details, across many other past World Cups). The decision to present 2022 as an example was after I'd stopped looking at specific tournaments. I ''could'' go back in a check this for sure, but had rather consciously left it as an exercise for the next editor who cared enough to dive into the same sort of infodumps. As mentioned in comments. Please, if you get there before I do, solidify it in your own way.
:I'm also absolutely not confused by "in the 37th minute", that's a fairly common (stylee of) match-report phrase. At least in British commentaries. Because stoppages are rare, in our football, it's a handy metric that doesn't need to keep track of too many unscheduled pauses in playing-time.
:Other bits of the phrase sound more American (the "oh-for-two"), though are creeping into British parlance so perhaps aren't totally incomprehensible here. Can't speak for the rest of the anglosphere (beyond Canada, being already experiencing the North American traditions) or non-anglospheric readers of all kinds, though.
:I had pondered the {{tvtropes|EverythingExceptMostThings}} link, instead. But it seemed to fit as the ONS type more. "This fact I am giving has solid gold evidence behind it (though it is actually based upon very little of that evidence, it's ''perfect'' as far as it goes)." Meh, it could easily be rewritten as you suggest if it pains any for it to be otherwise. [[Special:Contributions/81.179.200.152|81.179.200.152]] 19:52, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

There was a funny comparison of football/soccer sports commentary now and then by the German comedian Urban Priol: Ernst Huberty in the 1970ies in a slow, somniferous voice: "Vogts ... to Beckenbauer ... Beckenbauer ... to Overath ... back to Vogts ... got the ball ... on to Hoeness ... Hoeness to Müller ... Müller ... Müller ... goal!" and a recent commentary, a flood of words with lots of irrelevant details: " bla bla bla ... I can tell you all these details because nothing important happens on the field ... bla bla bla ... oups, now we missed the goal" ;-) [[Special:Contributions/2A01:599:447:B511:6D96:2BD4:9643:DA1C|2A01:599:447:B511:6D96:2BD4:9643:DA1C]] 19:11, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

3262: Sports Commentary

2026-06-25T08:12:43Z

3262: Sports Commentary

2026-06-24T08:11:49Z

82.13.184.33: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 3262
| date = June 22, 2026
| title = Sports Commentary
| image = sports_commentary_2x.png
| imagesize = 251x374px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = The plural of anecdote may not be data, but the singular of data is anecdote.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This page was created at a statistically insignificant time, but it is the FIRST PAGE TO START WITH 3262. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}

{{w|P-hacking}} is the academically problematic practice of attempting to come up with a question for which the data offers a significant ''p''-value (probability value), a subject [[882: Significant|previously covered]] in comic form. This is in contrast to correct scientific analysis, in which a realistic question is formulated clearly and then answered (or shown to be unjustified) with data.

A common way of doing ''p''-hacking is analyzing subgroups to attempt to find significance when the full dataset does not yield statistically significant results; for instance, arbitrarily restricting the analysis of medical data to male subjects to derive a significant ''p''-value when the inclusion of female subjects would have changed the conclusion. There are actual biological reasons why treatments may work differently between the different groups, and other reasons why female subjects may be less suitable participants in the trial, but a ''post facto'' decision to only present the 'male data' would be problematic. Similarly, looking at many other retrospective distinctions and then choosing to present only the possibly-random patterns that stood out, and ignoring all those that did not, would be questionable.

Sports commentators are known to do a form of ''p''-hacking in which they recall facts regarding past performance, and sometimes they are made to sound more significant by choosing only such 'facts' that coincide heavily with the situation developing in front of them. By using {{tvtropes|OverlyNarrowSuperlative|overly narrow superlatives}}, a severe form of narrowing down of applicability (which was [[2901: Geographic Qualifiers|previously covered]]), it also realistically reduces any real confidence that such a dwindling number of precedents are a useful predictor of how the upcoming event will turn out.

Randall satirizes this with an example in which the restriction uses very specific criteria largely irrelevant to gameplay patterns in order to narrow down the subgroup sample size to a measly two games. The 0-2 record (there were two situations considered as comparable, and neither of them resulted in the result hoped for in this current case) reflects random noise much more than any significant insight. As well as being irrelevant to gameplay, their ''p''-hacking also makes the game sound like jargon, which can be confusing and difficult to understand. This is ironic given a sports commentator's job is supposed to be to explain the situation they are fronting, rather than making them more vague and incomprehensible. However, this may be the inevitable response to being left in front of the camera during breaks in play, or even during periods of gameplay that are nominally unremarkable — feeling the pressure to say ''something'', they will draw upon ever more obscure and irrelevant details to justify their (or their off-screen advisors') efforts and expertise to entertain and inform the viewing public.

{{cot|A breakdown of the commentary's statement}}
The comparison being made is that "Over the last 36 years, they've gone 0 for 2 when they've scored in the 37th minute to lead 2-1 against a team whose country comes before theirs alphabetically." This contains the following basic stipulations:
;"Over the last 36 years, ...":Counting just the full FIFA World Cup competitions, assuming they qualified for every one, the total number of games that an internation team will have played, prior to anything in this years' competition, would have been a minimum of twenty seven matches (i.e. playing the First Round group-stages, playing once against each of the other three teams in their particular group of four). ''If'' they're ever successful enough in the group stage, they'd then progress through the Second Round knockout competition, for as many matches as they avoid being knocked out, and semi-final finalists additionally get to play one more match to establish the third-place overall. On top of that, there are the various regional qualifying matches they will usually have had to play to even enter the main competition, plus any other international matches (e.g. '{{w|Exhibition game|friendlies}}', or other region-based inter-nation competitions) that may have been taken part in.
;"... when they've scored in the 37th minute...":A football game has a nominal 90 minutes of game-time, plus possible extra time. No team in the World Cup has scored any more than {{w|Hungary v El Salvador (1982 FIFA World Cup)|ten goals}} in a single game, but it is ''far'' more common for even winning teams to have scored just two or three times per game, statistically, the chances of scoring in any given minute is an insignificant detail. There is also effectively no useful analysis of a goal being in the 37th minute, as opposed to the 36th or 38th, and hardly any even in being between in the larger block between 30 and 40 minutes. The psychology of goal-timings usually gravitates towards whether they were in the first or second ''half'' of the event (or, beyond that, in Extra Time), with most useful attention paid to those that occur right at the start of either half (one team immediately seizing the initiative on the field) or right at the end (when desperation, increased chance-taking or just player exhaustion can lead to much needed/feared game-changing goals once any attempt at mutually defensive play breaks down and possible goal-droughts are ended).
;"... to lead 2-1 ...":As an equivalent example, in the 2022 World Cup, 14 Group Stage games (out of 48) and 9 Knockout Stage games (out of 16) may have at some point reached a 2-1 scoreline for one or other team, depending upon the order the respective teams' goals occurred, making this a relatively rare situation to be in. For additional context, and most relevant to the full statement, that year's competition also saw just six Group games that had scores that ''might'' have had a temporary 2-1 lead for the team that went on to lose, whereas ''no'' team with a 2-1 scoreline in the Knockouts did not then go on to win that match.
;"... against a team whose country comes before theirs alphabetically.":In ''every'' international match (and others, excepting perhaps games used to train the team's players against each other), there will inevitably be one national team whose name is alphabetically prior that of their opponents', even if that features very similar names (such as a match between the two Koreas, using the most similar manner of naming, where {{w|North Korea national football team|Korea DPR}} would precedes {{w|South Korea national football team|Korea Republic}}) and there would also be no clear reason why a naming issue (alone) would have any significant bearing upon match outcomes.
;"... they've gone 0 for 2 ...":(As the stated past consequence of all these specifically combined conditions.) Just ''two'' occasions satisfied all these conditions, out of possibly many tens of matches, and we are told that neither of them ended in a victory. Not only are the comic's precedents ''very'' rare, compared to all possible games (which, nevertheless seems to be even rarer in real life), but also this mini-'streak' of results is only a matter of history. In [[1122: Electoral Precedent]], increasingly convoluted situations may have previously been entirely predictive in possibly even several dozen instances... ''until they weren't''.
{{cob}}

This comic was published 11 days into the {{w|2026 FIFA World Cup}}. The World Cup was also the subject of [[3260: Messi]], published the previous Wednesday. Sports commentary was also the subject of [[904: Sports]].

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Don't remove this notice too soon.}}
:[Cueball and Ponytail are sitting at a table, looking at the wall behind them. On the wall is a screen showing a soccer field with some mostly unreadable score information above it. The only readable information is that the score is 2-1.]
:Cueball: They could be in trouble. Over the last 36 years, they've gone 0 for 2 when they've scored in the 37th minute to lead 2-1 against a team whose country comes before theirs alphabetically.
:[Caption below comic:]
:I wish sports commentators hadn't discovered p-hacking.

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Soccer]]
[[Category:Statistics]]

3262: Sports Commentary

2026-06-24T08:10:08Z

82.13.184.33: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 3262
| date = June 22, 2026
| title = Sports Commentary
| image = sports_commentary_2x.png
| imagesize = 251x374px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = The plural of anecdote may not be data, but the singular of data is anecdote.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This page was created at a statistically insignificant time, but it is the FIRST PAGE TO START WITH 3262. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}

{{w|P-hacking}} is the academically problematic practice of attempting to come up with a question for which the data offers a significant ''p''-value (probability value), a subject [[882: Significant|previously covered]] in comic form. This is in contrast to correct scientific analysis, in which a realistic question is formulated clearly and then answered (or shown to be unjustified) with data.

A common way of doing ''p''-hacking is analyzing subgroups to attempt to find significance when the full dataset does not yield statistically significant results; for instance, arbitrarily restricting the analysis of medical data to male subjects to derive a significant ''p''-value when the inclusion of female subjects would have changed the conclusion. There are actual biological reasons why treatments may work differently between the different groups, and other reasons why female subjects may be less suitable participants in the trial, but a ''post facto'' decision to only present the 'male data' would be problematic. Similarly, looking at many other retrospective distinctions and then choosing to present only the possibly-random patterns that stood out, and ignoring all those that did not, would be questionable.

Sports commentators are known to do a form of ''p''-hacking in which they recall facts regarding past performance, and sometimes they are made to sound more significant by choosing only such 'facts' that coincide heavily with the situation developing in front of them. By using {{tvtropes|OverlyNarrowSuperlative|overly narrow superlatives}}, a severe form of narrowing down of applicability (which was [[2901: Geographic Qualifiers|previously covered]]), it also realistically reduces any real confidence that such a dwindling number of precedents are a useful predictor of how the upcoming event will turn out.

Randall satirizes this with an example in which the restriction uses very specific criteria largely irrelevant to gameplay patterns in order to narrow down the subgroup sample size to a measly two games. The 0-2 record (there were two situations considered as comparable, and neither of them resulted in the result hoped for in this current case) reflects random noise much more than any significant insight. As well as being irrelevant to gameplay, their ''p''-hacking also makes the game sound like jargon, which can be confusing and difficult to understand. This is ironic given a sports commentator's job is supposed to be to explain the situation they are fronting, rather than making them harder and more vague. However, this may be the inevitable response to being left in front of the camera during breaks in play, or even during periods of gameplay that have nominally unremarkable — feeling the pressure to say ''something'', they will draw upon ever more obscure and irrelevant details to justify their (or their off-screen advisors') efforts and expertise to entertain and inform the viewing public.

{{cot|A breakdown of the commentary's statement}}
The comparison being made is that "Over the last 36 years, they've gone 0 for 2 when they've scored in the 37th minute to lead 2-1 against a team whose country comes before theirs alphabetically." This contains the following basic stipulations:
;"Over the last 36 years, ...":Counting just the full FIFA World Cup competitions, assuming they qualified for every one, the total number of games that an internation team will have played, prior to anything in this years' competition, would have been a minimum of twenty seven matches (i.e. playing the First Round group-stages, playing once against each of the other three teams in their particular group of four). ''If'' they're ever successful enough in the group stage, they'd then progress through the Second Round knockout competition, for as many matches as they avoid being knocked out, and semi-final finalists additionally get to play one more match to establish the third-place overall. On top of that, there are the various regional qualifying matches they will usually have had to play to even enter the main competition, plus any other international matches (e.g. '{{w|Exhibition game|friendlies}}', or other region-based inter-nation competitions) that may have been taken part in.
;"... when they've scored in the 37th minute...":A football game has a nominal 90 minutes of game-time, plus possible extra time. No team in the World Cup has scored any more than {{w|Hungary v El Salvador (1982 FIFA World Cup)|ten goals}} in a single game, but it is ''far'' more common for even winning teams to have scored just two or three times per game, statistically, the chances of scoring in any given minute is an insignificant detail. There is also effectively no useful analysis of a goal being in the 37th minute, as opposed to the 36th or 38th, and hardly any even in being between in the larger block between 30 and 40 minutes. The psychology of goal-timings usually gravitates towards whether they were in the first or second ''half'' of the event (or, beyond that, in Extra Time), with most useful attention paid to those that occur right at the start of either half (one team immediately seizing the initiative on the field) or right at the end (when desperation, increased chance-taking or just player exhaustion can lead to much needed/feared game-changing goals once any attempt at mutually defensive play breaks down and possible goal-droughts are ended).
;"... to lead 2-1 ...":As an equivalent example, in the 2022 World Cup, 14 Group Stage games (out of 48) and 9 Knockout Stage games (out of 16) may have at some point reached a 2-1 scoreline for one or other team, depending upon the order the respective teams' goals occurred, making this a relatively rare situation to be in. For additional context, and most relevant to the full statement, that year's competition also saw just six Group games that had scores that ''might'' have had a temporary 2-1 lead for the team that went on to lose, whereas ''no'' team with a 2-1 scoreline in the Knockouts did not then go on to win that match.
;"... against a team whose country comes before theirs alphabetically.":In ''every'' international match (and others, excepting perhaps games used to train the team's players against each other), there will inevitably be one national team whose name is alphabetically prior that of their opponents', even if that features very similar names (such as a match between the two Koreas, using the most similar manner of naming, where {{w|North Korea national football team|Korea DPR}} would precedes {{w|South Korea national football team|Korea Republic}}) and there would also be no clear reason why a naming issue (alone) would have any significant bearing upon match outcomes.
;"... they've gone 0 for 2 ...":(As the stated past consequence of all these specifically combined conditions.) Just ''two'' occasions satisfied all these conditions, out of possibly many tens of matches, and we are told that neither of them ended in a victory. Not only are the comic's precedents ''very'' rare, compared to all possible games (which, nevertheless seems to be even rarer in real life), but also this mini-'streak' of results is only a matter of history. In [[1122: Electoral Precedent]], increasingly convoluted situations may have previously been entirely predictive in possibly even several dozen instances... ''until they weren't''.
{{cob}}

This comic was published 11 days into the {{w|2026 FIFA World Cup}}. The World Cup was also the subject of [[3260: Messi]], published the previous Wednesday. Sports commentary was also the subject of [[904: Sports]].

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Don't remove this notice too soon.}}
:[Cueball and Ponytail are sitting at a table, looking at the wall behind them. On the wall is a screen showing a soccer field with some mostly unreadable score information above it. The only readable information is that the score is 2-1.]
:Cueball: They could be in trouble. Over the last 36 years, they've gone 0 for 2 when they've scored in the 37th minute to lead 2-1 against a team whose country comes before theirs alphabetically.
:[Caption below comic:]
:I wish sports commentators hadn't discovered p-hacking.

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Soccer]]
[[Category:Statistics]]

3262: Sports Commentary

2026-06-24T08:09:05Z

82.13.184.33: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 3262
| date = June 22, 2026
| title = Sports Commentary
| image = sports_commentary_2x.png
| imagesize = 251x374px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = The plural of anecdote may not be data, but the singular of data is anecdote.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This page was created at a statistically insignificant time, but it is the FIRST PAGE TO START WITH 3262. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}

{{w|P-hacking}} is the academically problematic practice of attempting to come up with a question for which the data offers a significant ''p''-value (probability value), a subject [[882: Significant|previously covered]] in comic form. This is in contrast to correct scientific analysis, in which a realistic question is formulated clearly and then answered (or shown to be unjustified) with data.

A common way of doing ''p''-hacking is analyzing subgroups to attempt to find significance when the full dataset does not yield statistically significant results; for instance, arbitrarily restricting the analysis of medical data to male subjects to derive a significant ''p''-value when the inclusion of female subjects would have changed the conclusion. There are actual biological reasons why treatments may work differently between the different groups, and other reasons why female subjects may be less suitable participants in the trial, but a ''post facto'' decision to only present the 'male data' would be problematic. Similarly, looking at many other retrospective distinctions and then choosing to present only the possibly-random patterns that stood out, and ignoring all those that did not, would be questionable.

Sports commentators are known to do a form of ''p''-hacking in which they recall facts regarding past performance, and sometimes they are made to sound more significant by choosing only such 'facts' that coincide heavily with the situation developing in front of them. By using {{tvtropes|OverlyNarrowSuperlative|overly narrow superlatives}}, a severe form of narrowing down of applicability also [[2901: Geographic Qualifiers|previously covered]], it also realistically reduces any real confidence that such a dwindling number of precedents are a useful predictor of how the upcoming event will turn out.

Randall satirizes this with an example in which the restriction uses very specific criteria largely irrelevant to gameplay patterns in order to narrow down the subgroup sample size to a measly two games. The 0-2 record (there were two situations considered as comparable, and neither of them resulted in the result hoped for in this current case) reflects random noise much more than any significant insight. As well as being irrelevant to gameplay, their ''p''-hacking also makes the game sound like jargon, which can be confusing and difficult to understand. This is ironic given a sports commentator's job is supposed to be to explain the situation they are fronting, rather than making them harder and more vague. However, this may be the inevitable response to being left in front of the camera during breaks in play, or even during periods of gameplay that have nominally unremarkable — feeling the pressure to say ''something'', they will draw upon ever more obscure and irrelevant details to justify their (or their off-screen advisors') efforts and expertise to entertain and inform the viewing public.

{{cot|A breakdown of the commentary's statement}}
The comparison being made is that "Over the last 36 years, they've gone 0 for 2 when they've scored in the 37th minute to lead 2-1 against a team whose country comes before theirs alphabetically." This contains the following basic stipulations:
;"Over the last 36 years, ...":Counting just the full FIFA World Cup competitions, assuming they qualified for every one, the total number of games that an internation team will have played, prior to anything in this years' competition, would have been a minimum of twenty seven matches (i.e. playing the First Round group-stages, playing once against each of the other three teams in their particular group of four). ''If'' they're ever successful enough in the group stage, they'd then progress through the Second Round knockout competition, for as many matches as they avoid being knocked out, and semi-final finalists additionally get to play one more match to establish the third-place overall. On top of that, there are the various regional qualifying matches they will usually have had to play to even enter the main competition, plus any other international matches (e.g. '{{w|Exhibition game|friendlies}}', or other region-based inter-nation competitions) that may have been taken part in.
;"... when they've scored in the 37th minute...":A football game has a nominal 90 minutes of game-time, plus possible extra time. No team in the World Cup has scored any more than {{w|Hungary v El Salvador (1982 FIFA World Cup)|ten goals}} in a single game, but it is ''far'' more common for even winning teams to have scored just two or three times per game, statistically, the chances of scoring in any given minute is an insignificant detail. There is also effectively no useful analysis of a goal being in the 37th minute, as opposed to the 36th or 38th, and hardly any even in being between in the larger block between 30 and 40 minutes. The psychology of goal-timings usually gravitates towards whether they were in the first or second ''half'' of the event (or, beyond that, in Extra Time), with most useful attention paid to those that occur right at the start of either half (one team immediately seizing the initiative on the field) or right at the end (when desperation, increased chance-taking or just player exhaustion can lead to much needed/feared game-changing goals once any attempt at mutually defensive play breaks down and possible goal-droughts are ended).
;"... to lead 2-1 ...":As an equivalent example, in the 2022 World Cup, 14 Group Stage games (out of 48) and 9 Knockout Stage games (out of 16) may have at some point reached a 2-1 scoreline for one or other team, depending upon the order the respective teams' goals occurred, making this a relatively rare situation to be in. For additional context, and most relevant to the full statement, that year's competition also saw just six Group games that had scores that ''might'' have had a temporary 2-1 lead for the team that went on to lose, whereas ''no'' team with a 2-1 scoreline in the Knockouts did not then go on to win that match.
;"... against a team whose country comes before theirs alphabetically.":In ''every'' international match (and others, excepting perhaps games used to train the team's players against each other), there will inevitably be one national team whose name is alphabetically prior that of their opponents', even if that features very similar names (such as a match between the two Koreas, using the most similar manner of naming, where {{w|North Korea national football team|Korea DPR}} would precedes {{w|South Korea national football team|Korea Republic}}) and there would also be no clear reason why a naming issue (alone) would have any significant bearing upon match outcomes.
;"... they've gone 0 for 2 ...":(As the stated past consequence of all these specifically combined conditions.) Just ''two'' occasions satisfied all these conditions, out of possibly many tens of matches, and we are told that neither of them ended in a victory. Not only are the comic's precedents ''very'' rare, compared to all possible games (which, nevertheless seems to be even rarer in real life), but also this mini-'streak' of results is only a matter of history. In [[1122: Electoral Precedent]], increasingly convoluted situations may have previously been entirely predictive in possibly even several dozen instances... ''until they weren't''.
{{cob}}

This comic was published 11 days into the {{w|2026 FIFA World Cup}}. The World Cup was also the subject of [[3260: Messi]], published the previous Wednesday. Sports commentary was also the subject of [[904: Sports]].

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Don't remove this notice too soon.}}
:[Cueball and Ponytail are sitting at a table, looking at the wall behind them. On the wall is a screen showing a soccer field with some mostly unreadable score information above it. The only readable information is that the score is 2-1.]
:Cueball: They could be in trouble. Over the last 36 years, they've gone 0 for 2 when they've scored in the 37th minute to lead 2-1 against a team whose country comes before theirs alphabetically.
:[Caption below comic:]
:I wish sports commentators hadn't discovered p-hacking.

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Soccer]]
[[Category:Statistics]]

Talk:3262: Sports Commentary

2026-06-23T15:02:26Z

82.13.184.33:

F1rst p0st! I'll do this explanation. [[Special:Contributions/185.36.194.22|185.36.194.22]] 04:32, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Did this example actually happen? [[Special:Contributions/47.151.65.120|47.151.65.120]] 04:33, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

This comic reminds me of [[1122: Electoral Precedent]] and [[2383: Electoral Precedent 2020]]. Generalizing coincidences.

I am not a native English speaker. What does " they've gone 0 for 2" mean? Obviously it cannot be the score, since they are already leading 2-1? Or does this refer to a previous match?
And on a more general note, I am really surprised to discover the second football themed comic strip in a few days. OK it's the World Cup, but I always thought that Randall doesn't really care about sports? --[[Special:Contributions/92.209.171.90|92.209.171.90]] 08:37, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
:I ''am'' a native English speaker, but it was also a bit impenetrable to me. In part, perhaps, because it was ''intended'' to sound impenetrable (as part of the joke). But, even if not, it may be because it's using Americanized sports-talk phrasing that just isn't (yet!) used so much in my more native Anglicised commentaries that I'm used to.
:However, I ''think'' they're saying that "in the two specific occasions in which all those other conditions occur, they won in neither of them".
:A simpler version being perhaps to state that a given team/player has gone nought-for-two in previous matches with their current opponent(s). The results of those contests might have been anything (the winner having gone to 3-2 after penalties, 6-love/6-love/6-love, a par-4 advantage or getting them all out for 178 — depending upon the sport), it's just the win/lose (or win/not-win) count thats "0 for 2".
:But this is a case of Overly Narrow Superlative (overlapping with P-Hacking), making it a dubious analysis. Starting with ignoring all the games there are in which a given svoreline was not achieved in a particular ''minute'' of play. I think part of this set-up is the difference between Gridiron 'football'/"hand-egg" having tons of points scored, whereas this football (Soccer) often turns on comparatively low scores that (one-nil can be a worthy and entertaining win/loss, and even a no-score-draw might have been fun to watch if your side isn't in desperate need for a win). These commentators, or at least the US audience they're commentating to, are used to spieling things about "the last time they were down on the forty-yard line in the fifth quarter, with two home runs and a shot from the free-throw line in hand..." (look, I {{tvtropes|GretzkyHasTheBall|know I don't know}} what they'd really say, to any accuracy, there was no point even trying!), at least to fill in the copious down-time/time-out pauses. (Which isn't actually as easy with low-scoring but more ever-moving 'soccer', where there's often much to be said about current player and ball movements almost all the time; although a five-day international cricket test match(!) commentary on the radio ''does'' rather famously lapse into 'filler' like discussing the nice cake that was sent to them by a listener, in the gaps between balls being bowled...)
:Sorry, that was a long and convoluted paragraph. (But then, so was the Explanation, before I decided to say this down here. I hope it's been tweaked since then. I'm only really guessing about the Leftpondian commentator-speak being parodied here, and ball-sports aren't really my main interest in the sprorting sphere itself. (But, regarding balls that aren't themselves spheres, I'd happily discuss Rugby League or Rugby Union, and why they're 'better'... though I would totally acknowledge Aussie Rules as a class of its own as far as such contact-sports go.)
:HTH, HAND. [[Special:Contributions/82.132.236.84|82.132.236.84]] 10:08, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
::I'm also English, and it's totally alien to me too. [[User:GSLikesCats307|GSLikesCats307]] ([[User talk:GSLikesCats307|talk]]) 11:53, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
:I don't know what prompted the rant above, but if you don't care to read it, "going 0 for 2" means having 0 successes out of 2 chances. In the context of this commentary, it's referring to winning 0 games out of the 2 games that meet the criteria. It's not intended to sound impenetrable; it's a common phrasing.[[Special:Contributions/163.116.145.33|163.116.145.33]] 13:37, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
::I don't know what prompted you to think it was a rant. It's certainly quite lengthy (in the context of discussion comments here - not in the grand scheme of things), but that's not really the definition of a rant. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 14:57, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Closest match I can find is Germany - Curacao but there Germany took the lead in the 38th minute (not the 37th). I leave the deep dive on Germany's record against teams alphabetically before them when they have taken the lead 2-1 in the 37th/38th minute to someone else...
: And, of course, Germany destroyed Curaçao 7-1, just like they did to Brazil (which is also alphabetically before Germany!) 12 years prior [[User:Wilh3lm|Wilh3lm]] ([[User talk:Wilh3lm|talk]]) 12:38, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

'''Don't assume "bad" p-hacking without looking closer at the data''': Sometimes what looks like P-hacking is really finding previously-unseen patterns. If you have a drug trial on a drug that you have no reason to think will show gender differences and you are asking "is this drug better than existing drugs" and the results are inconclusive, then you do "p-hack" subgroups and find that in males between the ages of 18 and 50 it demonstrates superior results, you MAY be cherry-picking results or you MAY have found a hidden pattern. Assuming your sub-group size isn't ridiculously small, you can legitimately claim that you need more funding for a follow-up study or at least a follow-up analysis of this subgroup in previous studies of the same drug. [[Special:Contributions/150.221.155.241|150.221.155.241]] 13:35, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
:Yes, more data is usually the solution. The comic deliberately uses an extremely small dataset. You can make up almost any hypothesis and find 2-3 datapoints that fit it. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 14:24, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
::Or, perhaps more commonly, if you have a sufficiently large dataset you can mine through it and come up with two or three interesting-looking 'hypotheses' that it'll appear to support, even if you didn't have any to start with. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 15:02, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Talk:3262: Sports Commentary

2026-06-23T14:58:07Z

82.13.184.33:

Talk:3262: Sports Commentary

2026-06-23T14:57:10Z

2026-06-16T09:44:03Z

82.13.184.33:

Talk:3259: Tethys

2026-06-16T08:29:37Z

82.13.184.33:

3259: Tethys

2026-06-16T08:21:37Z

82.13.184.33: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 3259
| date = June 15, 2026
| title = Tethys
| image = tethys_2x.png
| imagesize = 304x317px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = In order to carry the necessary crafting supplies, they built the ships at 12:1 scale.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This page was created recently AND NEEDS TO BE RECREATED AT A 1:12 SCALE. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}

{{w|Tethys (moon)|Tethys}}, the fifth moon of Saturn, has a diameter of 1,060 kilometers, almost exactly 1/12th that of Earth's, which is 12,742 km. This scaling is a {{w|1:12 scale|common one}} used for modelling, perhaps because of the relative simplicity of converting all real-life measurements directly from any given number of {{w|Foot (unit)|feet}} in the real life subject to exactly the same number of {{w|inch}}es in the model version.

This comic alludes to a fantastical scenario in which artists who produce miniature scale models of existing structures decide to use Tethys to produce a 1:12 scale model of the Earth. This is a patently absurd undertaking: all the difficulties of {{w|terraforming}}, already a monstrously hard task, would be exacerbated by the need to precisely recreate Earth's features, as well as by some particularly unfavorable traits of the Saturnian system. Tethys's distance from the Sun is too great for Earth's surface conditions to be recreated without artificially increasing insolation, likely through the use of orbital solar mirrors. These would be especially difficult to erect around Saturn, with its {{w|Moons of Saturn|many moons}} (292 at last count) and {{w|Rings of Saturn|ring system}} causing severe gravitational interference. In addition, it would be difficult to get the necessary rockets, as it would be unlikely that any space agency would be willing to aid this thoroughly ridiculous project.{{Citation needed}}

However, there is some good news: Tethys' large native water stores eliminate the need to ship in more, and the nearby moon {{w|Titan (moon)|Titan}}'s atmosphere could be harvested for nitrogen, which is necessary to recreate {{w|Atmosphere_of_Earth#Composition|Earth's atmospheric composition}}. Being very far away from Earth also means that there is no risk of [[878: Model Rail|nesting]] - having the model include a miniature version of itself, which includes an even more miniature version of itself, which includes....

Interestingly enough, the description refers to it as model-builders' final project. This implies that once the Earth is recreated, it will be such a grand project that it will be the final miniature model ever made - which is unlikely.

The title text says that the ships used in the construction effort are built "at a 12:1 scale", ''i.e.'', 12x larger than normal (however "normal" is defined). If this is with reference to the model they are building, this would mean that they would end up back at 'normal spaceship size'.

==Transcript==
[An image of a planet, presumably Saturn, showing prominent rings as well as three distant moons (one to the apparent right of it, the other two at the left) and one close, large moon. In front of the large moon is a line of spaceships dwindling into the distance toward the moon, or perhaps toward an orbit around it. Each spaceship has prominent rocket nozzles aimed toward the viewer and away from the large moon, as well as what appears to be a pile of material on "top" of the spaceship, with tie-down ropes holding it in place.]

[Caption below the panel:] 
After learning that Tethys is exactly 1/12th the size of Earth, the miniature art model builders launched a fleet of ships to begin their final, greatest project.

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>
[[Category:Space]]

3258: Plate Flip

2026-06-16T08:15:58Z

82.13.184.33: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 3258
| date = June 12, 2026
| title = Plate Flip
| image = plate_flip_2x.png
| imagesize = 740x272px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = It's great for exfoliating your skin, bones, houses, cities, landscape, etc.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This page was FOUND ON THE UNDERSIDE OF THE CONTINENT. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}

In this comic, [[Ponytail]] resumes her role as a [[:Category:Home Inspections|cosmic home inspector]], in which she appears to compare {{w|tectonic plates}} to {{w|mattress}}es, and recommends flipping them over to address what she considers problematic features. Flipping mattresses every few months was common until the 20th century, to even out the wear and tear, and prevent permanent body impressions. When modern box springs became common, the practice became unnecessary.

{{w|Weathering}} is the deterioration of materials, including rocks and soils, caused by the action of chemical and biological agents, light, temperature changes, etc, which can cause breakdown and/or discolouration. Geologically, this can include the disintegration of rocks into fine particles, or changes in soil structure. In the case of a mattress, it would be staining and thinning of the fabric.

A {{w|debris flow|debris basin}} is an area where loose materials, such as washed out soil or free rocks, tend to collect. On a mattress, a 'debris basin' would likely be mostly filled with a mix of shed human skin and lint loosely bound by excreted oils, with other constituents depending largely on the habits of the occupants.

An {{w|isostatic depression}} is an area of the Earth's crust that has sunk due to some heavy weight, such as an ice sheet, acting on it. If that weight is removed (for example, by the ice melting), the crust will tend to rebound to a higher position. Mattresses can develop areas of 'depression' over time due to people's tendency to always sleep in the same position, repeatedly crushing and straining the materials in the same way. Many modern mattress materials promise to resist this tendency, allowing the mattress to recover ('rebound') between uses.

Flipping mattresses only made sense because on a traditional mattress both sides were similar to each other. The "underside" of a tectonic plate is nothing like the surface. The current side that Cueball and Ponytail are standing on is the outermost layer of the {{w|Earth's crust|crust}}. However, the "underside" of the plate reaches until the solid layer of the {{w|mantle (geology)|mantle}}, whose temperature can reach over 1000 °C. As Cueball points out, if you could flip a continent over, the new surface would be molten rock — not a surface suitable for life. Ponytail thinks the warmth would be soothing, and that walking on it would {{w|exfoliation (cosmetology)|exfoliate}} your feet, but at hundreds of degrees, it would do far more damage than just removing dead skin.{{citation needed}}

Of course, such an idea would be impossible to put into practice. The Earth's crust is far bigger than us, and any plate-moving technologies would need an insane amount of power — much more than we currently know how to harness. As well as that, a location would have to be found for the plate-moving technology where it could apply sufficient leverage without destabilising its own footings. Even by doing one plate at a time, the temperature increase from moving just one plate would be deadly. Furthermore, since our current plates are not regular in shape, a flipped plate does not fit back into the hole it leaves. The title text also reveals that somehow the crust is to be moved without moving the numerous things on it, which would further complicate matters.

Even if the immediate calamities from turning the tectonic plates upside down were ignored, the turned plate would be inhospitable to life. There would be no soil, only igneous rock, meaning no ground water could form, resulting in an immense desert. Given enough time, erosion and pioneer species would restore the geosphere. However, this would also cause the "problems" Ponytail is hoping to address to reappear.

The title text expands on this joke, saying that it would "exfoliate" just about everything on the surface (which would somehow have to stay in place while the plate below it is flipped; alternatively, everything is flipped along with the surface and ends up under the crust). If this flip was to somehow happen it would indeed do that, but it would also melt just about everything on the surface, which is less than ideal.

==Transcript==
:[Ponytail is looking at the ground in front of her, a hand on her hip. Cueball stands behind her, to the right.]
:Ponytail: These tectonic plates look pretty eroded. When did you last flip them?
:Cueball: Flip them?

:[Zoom out to see the ground. Ponytail walks forward, motioning at the ground. Cueball spreads his arms behind her.]
:Ponytail: Yeah, to use the underside of the continent.
:Cueball: ...Never?
:Ponytail: Wow. Explains the eons of weathering, debris basins, and ... is this isostatic depression?
:Cueball: It's rebounding!

:[Ponytail stops walking and turns to Cueball.]
:Ponytail: You should really flip it. You'll get a whole new landscape!
:Cueball: But I like '''''this''''' landscape!

:[Ponytail spreads her arms slightly.]
:Ponytail: Just think how warm and fresh the other side will feel.
:Cueball: A sea of molten rock?
:Ponytail: Good for the feet. Helps exfoliate.

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>

[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Geology]]
[[Category:Home Inspections]]

Talk:3258: Plate Flip

2026-06-16T08:13:53Z

82.13.184.33:

Writing this to keep people from saying "First!" on this comic. [[User:AmethystSky14|AmethystSky14]] ([[User talk:AmethystSky14|talk]]) 16:17, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
:"First!" on this comic. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 08:51, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Second! [[User:Logalex8369|Logalex8369]] ([[User talk:Logalex8369|talk]]) 16:32, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Now you know how come comment boxes disappeared from blogs. I'm the shortstop. [[Special:Contributions/2605:59C8:160:DB08:39D0:2269:6983:E38|2605:59C8:160:DB08:39D0:2269:6983:E38]] 16:52, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Fourth! (But third base I guess?) [[Special:Contributions/47.151.65.120|47.151.65.120]] 04:03, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
: Hey, this is a family friendly blog! [[Special:Contributions/2A0A:EF40:2D3:201:1CE2:157D:BC39:D800|2A0A:EF40:2D3:201:1CE2:157D:BC39:D800]] 08:28, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
:I don't know, Abbott. [[Special:Contributions/2605:59C8:160:DB08:39D0:2269:6983:E38|2605:59C8:160:DB08:39D0:2269:6983:E38]] 04:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
:Third base here means third basal (1st-layer) comment. [[Special:Contributions/2001:4C4E:1C09:1C00:27AF:E5E8:189C:B02A|2001:4C4E:1C09:1C00:27AF:E5E8:189C:B02A]] 12:47, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
Should we add a category for the "Ponytail the planetary housing inspector" saga? Previously in the series: [[3192]], [[3037]], probably others that I forgot as well. Also of note, when the comics contain a geologist it is almost exclusively Ponytail, perhaps that deserves a category like Category:Doctor Ponytail? [[Special:Contributions/185.36.194.22|185.36.194.22]] 04:28, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
:There already is one. There's the [[:Category:Home Inspections|Home Inspection saga]]. [[User:GSLikesCats307|GSLikesCats307]] ([[User talk:GSLikesCats307|talk]]) 09:53, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Okay the current explanation says the underside of the plate would melt just about anything currently on the surface. What wouldn’t it melt? Or is this just hedging? [[User:Salsmachev|Salsmachev]] ([[User talk:Salsmachev|talk]]) 13:22, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
: Nah - I reckon the hedging would go too. Maybe burnt rather than melted though. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 08:54, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Is this the same ponytail as in [[3192: Planetary Alignment]]? (After typing I saw that GSLikesCats307 had the same idea) [[User:SacrifycedStoat|SacrifycedStoat]] ([[User talk:SacrifycedStoat|talk]]) 16:20, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
:I reckon it is. This particular ponytail is a semi-recurring character it seems. [[User:RG|RG]] ([[User talk:RG|talk]]) 04:48, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

If anyone can explain the "isostatic depression" / "rebounding" section, I came for that! [[Special:Contributions/87.115.198.74|87.115.198.74]] 08:09, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
: I guess this is the geological equivalent to an impression in a mattress. Ice shields (from the ice ages) leave lasting depressions in the plates which need 1000s of years to "rebound" even after the ice is gone. Canada and Scandinavia, for example, are still rising. All these lakes there will be gone one day, as will be the entire baltic sea. So Ponytail complains about this depression as if it were a major problem (like an impression in am mattress, and Cueballs "It's rebounding!" is kind of defensive. --[[Special:Contributions/2A02:8071:B84:FE60:B8CD:F85A:6078:B152|2A02:8071:B84:FE60:B8CD:F85A:6078:B152]] 08:36, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
::Also, 'weathering' is probably staining (though possibly also wearing of the fabric), and 'debris basins' is, well, yuck. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 08:56, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Some mattresses have a "winter" (warmer) side and a "summer" side, so you should flip them twice a year. --[[Special:Contributions/85.159.196.162|85.159.196.162]] 08:11, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

This reminded me of a similar bit in The Restaurant at the End of the Universe by Douglas Adams:

: "Moments before the flare light reached Kakrafoon the pounding desert cracked along a deep faultline. A huge and hitherto undetected underground river lying far beneath the surface gushed to the surface to be followed seconds later by the eruption of millions of tons of boiling lava that flowed hundreds of feet into the air, instantaneously vaporizing the river both above and below the surface in an explosion that echoed to the far side of the world and back again.

: Those - very few - who witnessed the event and survived swear that the whole hundred thousand square miles of the desert rose into the air like a mile-thick pancake, flipped itself over and fell back down. At that precise moment the solar radiation from the flares filtered through the clouds of vaporized water and struck the ground.

: A year later, the hundred thousand square mile desert was thick with flowers. The structure of the atmosphere around the planet was subtly altered. The sun blazed less harshly in the summer, the cold bit less bitterly in the winter, pleasant rain fell more often, and slowly the desert world of Kakrafoon became a paradise. Even the telepathic power with which the people of Kakrafoon had been cursed was permanently dispersed by the force of the explosion."

[[User:Rps|Rps]] ([[User talk:Rps|talk]]) 10:19, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Another related story (from an old Usenet post: https://groups.google.com/g/rec.humor.funny/c/lK4FGG676eo )
: "The congregation of a small stone church (in England?) decided that the stone which formed the step up to the front door had become two worn by its years of use, and would have to be replaced. Unfortunately, there were hardly any funds available for the replacement. Then someone cam up with the bright idea that the replacement could be postponed for many years by simply turning the block of stone over.
: They discovered that their great-grandparents had beaten them to it."
[[User:Rps|Rps]] ([[User talk:Rps|talk]])

"..under Granada, Spain, ...an '''oceanic slab''' that had completely '''flipped upside down'''..." -- [https://futurism.com/the-byte/earths-crust-flipped-scientists]https://futurism.com/the-byte/earths-crust-flipped-scientists, published Mar 1, 2024 --[[User:PRR|PRR]] ([[User talk:PRR|talk]]) 00:50, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

3258: Plate Flip

2026-06-16T08:13:03Z

82.13.184.33: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 3258
| date = June 12, 2026
| title = Plate Flip
| image = plate_flip_2x.png
| imagesize = 740x272px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = It's great for exfoliating your skin, bones, houses, cities, landscape, etc.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This page was FOUND ON THE UNDERSIDE OF THE CONTINENT. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}

In this comic, [[Ponytail]] resumes her role as a [[:Category:Home Inspections|cosmic home inspector]], in which she appears to compare {{w|tectonic plates}} to {{w|mattress}}es, and recommends flipping them over to address what she considers problematic features. Flipping mattresses every few months was common until the 20th century, to even out the wear and tear, and prevent permanent body impressions. When modern box springs became common, the practice became unnecessary.

{{w|Weathering}} is the deterioration of materials, including rocks and soils, caused by the action of chemical and biological agents, light, temperature changes, etc, which can cause breakdown and/or discolouration. Geologically, this can include the disintegration of rocks into fine particles, or changes in soil structure. In the case of a mattress, it would be staining and thinning of the fabric.

A {{w|debris flow|debris basin}} is an area where loose materials, such as washed out soil or free rocks, tend to collect. On a mattress, a 'debris basin' would likely be mostly filled with a mix of shed human skin and lint.

An {{w|isostatic depression}} is an area of the Earth's crust that has sunk due to some heavy weight, such as an ice sheet, acting on it. If that weight is removed (for example, by the ice melting), the crust will tend to rebound to a higher position. Mattresses can develop areas of 'depression' over time due to people's tendency to always sleep in the same position, repeatedly crushing and straining the materials in the same way. Many modern mattress materials promise to resist this tendency, allowing the mattress to recover ('rebound') between uses.

Flipping mattresses only made sense because on a traditional mattress both sides were similar to each other. The "underside" of a tectonic plate is nothing like the surface. The current side that Cueball and Ponytail are standing on is the outermost layer of the {{w|Earth's crust|crust}}. However, the "underside" of the plate reaches until the solid layer of the {{w|mantle (geology)|mantle}}, whose temperature can reach over 1000 °C. As Cueball points out, if you could flip a continent over, the new surface would be molten rock — not a surface suitable for life. Ponytail thinks the warmth would be soothing, and that walking on it would {{w|exfoliation (cosmetology)|exfoliate}} your feet, but at hundreds of degrees, it would do far more damage than just removing dead skin.{{citation needed}}

Of course, such an idea would be impossible to put into practice. The Earth's crust is far bigger than us, and any plate-moving technologies would need an insane amount of power — much more than we currently know how to harness. As well as that, a location would have to be found for the plate-moving technology where it could apply sufficient leverage without destabilising its own footings. Even by doing one plate at a time, the temperature increase from moving just one plate would be deadly. Furthermore, since our current plates are not regular in shape, a flipped plate does not fit back into the hole it leaves. The title text also reveals that somehow the crust is to be moved without moving the numerous things on it, which would further complicate matters.

Even if the immediate calamities from turning the tectonic plates upside down were ignored, the turned plate would be inhospitable to life. There would be no soil, only igneous rock, meaning no ground water could form, resulting in an immense desert. Given enough time, erosion and pioneer species would restore the geosphere. However, this would also cause the "problems" Ponytail is hoping to address to reappear.

The title text expands on this joke, saying that it would "exfoliate" just about everything on the surface (which would somehow have to stay in place while the plate below it is flipped; alternatively, everything is flipped along with the surface and ends up under the crust). If this flip was to somehow happen it would indeed do that, but it would also melt just about everything on the surface, which is less than ideal.

==Transcript==
:[Ponytail is looking at the ground in front of her, a hand on her hip. Cueball stands behind her, to the right.]
:Ponytail: These tectonic plates look pretty eroded. When did you last flip them?
:Cueball: Flip them?

:[Zoom out to see the ground. Ponytail walks forward, motioning at the ground. Cueball spreads his arms behind her.]
:Ponytail: Yeah, to use the underside of the continent.
:Cueball: ...Never?
:Ponytail: Wow. Explains the eons of weathering, debris basins, and ... is this isostatic depression?
:Cueball: It's rebounding!

:[Ponytail stops walking and turns to Cueball.]
:Ponytail: You should really flip it. You'll get a whole new landscape!
:Cueball: But I like '''''this''''' landscape!

:[Ponytail spreads her arms slightly.]
:Ponytail: Just think how warm and fresh the other side will feel.
:Cueball: A sea of molten rock?
:Ponytail: Good for the feet. Helps exfoliate.

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>

[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Geology]]
[[Category:Home Inspections]]