https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=Dcoetzeeexplain xkcd - User contributions [en]2026-04-09T14:12:15ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.30.0https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1974:_Conversational_Dynamics&diff=1550641974: Conversational Dynamics2018-03-31T03:07:47Z<p>Dcoetzee: +attempt at an explanation</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1974<br />
| date = March 30, 2018<br />
| title = Conversational Dynamics<br />
| image = conversational_dynamics.png<br />
| titletext = "You should make it so people can search for and jump into hundreds of conversations at once if they want." "Ooh, good idea! I imagine only the most well-informed people with the most critical information to share will use that feature."<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
On the modern World Wide Web, particularly on internet forums, a pervasive issue is that forum users with strong opinions but little interest in fruitful discussion will often interject themselves into all conversations that are related to their area of interest; examples include conspiracy theorists, political extremists, and trolls. This counterproductive behavior is not feasible in real life, where conversations happen locally and synchronously and one must be physically present in order to participate. In this sense it is enabled by Internet forum technology. In forums that have search features, it is even easier for these problematic users to identify and target large numbers of threads rapidly. The field of '''conversational dynamics''' studies the interpersonal processes underlying dialog between people, and this is an example of how changing the mode of communication can negatively impact productive conversational dynamics.<br />
<br />
In this satirical comic, Randall imagines the inventors of the modern web correctly anticipating that anyone will be able to inject their opinion into any conversation, but naively interpreting this as a benefit of the medium (by enabling broader participation by helpful users with relevant information), rather than as a potential problem. The title text imagines how search features will enable these helpful users to be even ''more'' helpful. In reality, as any modern user of Internet forums would be aware, both of these technologies are routinely abused by problematic users, and the characters are being too optimistic.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
:[Cueball is sitting at a computer and pointing at the CRT monitor. White Hat is standing behind him.]<br />
:Cueball: Check it out! My new system allows anyone on Earth to inject themselves into any conversation happening anywhere&nbsp; at any time.<br />
:White Hat: Cool! I bet this won't lead to any unhealthy dynamics!<br />
<br />
:[Caption under the panel:]<br />
:The creation of the modern web<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]<br />
[[Category:Internet]]</div>Dcoetzeehttps://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1778:_Interest_Timescales&diff=1330131778: Interest Timescales2016-12-28T07:02:13Z<p>Dcoetzee: /* Explanation */ Go back for the "hang in the air" part</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1778<br />
| date = December 28, 2016<br />
| title = Interest Timescales<br />
| image = interest_timescales.png<br />
| titletext = Sometimes, parts of a slowly-rising mountain suddenly rises REALLY fast, which is extra interesting.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
The caption says: "Most of my interests fall under "things rising up from the ground, hanging in the air, and then drifting away on the breeze," just on very different timescales." The four examples fit this as follows:<br />
<br />
In the case of a fireworks display, the fireworks fire up into the air, explode, then the glowing embers drift away on the breeze in the course of a few seconds.<br />
<br />
In the case of a rocket launch, the rocket launches from the ground into space, remains there for a time, then later re-enters the atmosphere and reaches the ground - in the case of a typical parachute-descent system, it literally drifts through the air. A typical timespan for such an event is several days or weeks.<br />
<br />
In the case of a tree, it grows from the ground upwards, remains there until autumn comes, then drops its leaves, which drift on the breeze. This process takes months.<br />
<br />
Finally, in the case of a mountain, typically mountains rise from the ground due to movement of tectonic plates which result in volcanic activity. The mountains are then very slowly broken down by natural erosion forces, and the stone particles disperse on the wind. These events are much slower than the others, typically taking tens of millions of years to completely erode away a mountain.<br />
<br />
The title text refers to the dramatic event in which a mountain suddenly rises much higher due to a massive earthquake. Such events are rare and potentially deadly to living things. Calling it "extra interesting" is an understatement.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
{{incomplete transcript}}<br />
From left to right:<br />
<br />
Cueball watches a fireworks display: "Ooooh"<br />
<br />
Cueball watches a rocket launch: "Wow!"<br />
<br />
Cueball climbs a tree: "Zoom!"<br />
<br />
Cueball stands atop a mountain: "Wheeeee!"<br />
<br />
Fast<----------->Slow<br />
<br />
Caption: Most of my interests fall under "things rising up from the ground, hanging in the air, and then drifting away on the breeze," just on very different timescales.<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}</div>Dcoetzeehttps://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1778:_Interest_Timescales&diff=1330121778: Interest Timescales2016-12-28T06:58:14Z<p>Dcoetzee: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1778<br />
| date = December 28, 2016<br />
| title = Interest Timescales<br />
| image = interest_timescales.png<br />
| titletext = Sometimes, parts of a slowly-rising mountain suddenly rises REALLY fast, which is extra interesting.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
The caption says: "Most of my interests fall under "things rising up from the ground, hanging in the air, and then drifting away on the breeze," just on very different timescales." The four examples fit this as follows:<br />
<br />
In the case of a fireworks display, the fireworks fire up into the air, explode, then the glowing embers drift away on the breeze in the course of a few seconds.<br />
<br />
In the case of a rocket launch, the rocket launches from the ground into space, then later re-enters the atmosphere and reaches the ground - in the case of a typical parachute-descent system, it literally drifts through the air. A typical timespan for such an event is several days or weeks.<br />
<br />
In the case of a tree, it grows from the ground upwards, then later drops its leaves (and/or other plant matter), which drift on the breeze. It typically takes several years or decades before the tree is fully grown.<br />
<br />
Finally, in the case of a mountain, typically mountains rise from the ground due to movement of tectonic plates which result in volcanic activity. The mountains are very slowly broken down by natural erosion forces, and the stone particles disperse on the wind. These events are much slower than the others, typically taking tens of millions of years to completely erode away a mountain.<br />
<br />
The title text refers to the dramatic event in which a mountain suddenly rises much higher due to a massive earthquake. Such events are rare and potentially deadly to living things. Calling it "extra interesting" is an understatement.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
{{incomplete transcript}}<br />
From left to right:<br />
<br />
Cueball watches a fireworks display: "Ooooh"<br />
<br />
Cueball watches a rocket launch: "Wow!"<br />
<br />
Cueball climbs a tree: "Zoom!"<br />
<br />
Cueball stands atop a mountain: "Wheeeee!"<br />
<br />
Fast<----------->Slow<br />
<br />
Caption: Most of my interests fall under "things rising up from the ground, hanging in the air, and then drifting away on the breeze," just on very different timescales.<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}</div>Dcoetzeehttps://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1778:_Interest_Timescales&diff=1330111778: Interest Timescales2016-12-28T06:57:17Z<p>Dcoetzee: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1778<br />
| date = December 28, 2016<br />
| title = Interest Timescales<br />
| image = interest_timescales.png<br />
| titletext = Sometimes, parts of a slowly-rising mountain suddenly rises REALLY fast, which is extra interesting.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
The caption says: "Most of my interests fall under "things rising up from the ground, hanging in the air, and then drifting away on the breeze," just on very different timescales." The four examples fit this as follows:<br />
<br />
In the case of a fireworks display, the fireworks fire up into the air, explode, then the glowing embers drift away on the breeze in the course of a few seconds.<br />
<br />
In the case of a rocket launch, the rocket launches from the ground into space, then later re-enters the atmosphere and reaches the ground - in the case of a typical parachute-descent system, it literally drifts through the air. A typical timespan for such an event is several days or weeks.<br />
<br />
In the case of a tree, it grows from the ground upwards, then later drops its leaves (and/or other plant matter), which drift on the breeze. It typically takes several years or decades before the tree is fully grown.<br />
<br />
Finally, in the case of a mountain, typically mountains rise from the ground due to movement of tectonic plates which result in volcanic activity. The mountains are very slowly broken down and dispersed by natural erosion forces, and the stone particles disperse on the wind. These events are much slower than the others, typically taking tens of millions of years to completely erode away a mountain.<br />
<br />
The title text refers to the dramatic event in which a mountain suddenly rises much higher due to a massive earthquake. Such events are rare and potentially deadly to living things. Calling it "extra interesting" is an understatement.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
{{incomplete transcript}}<br />
From left to right:<br />
<br />
Cueball watches a fireworks display: "Ooooh"<br />
<br />
Cueball watches a rocket launch: "Wow!"<br />
<br />
Cueball climbs a tree: "Zoom!"<br />
<br />
Cueball stands atop a mountain: "Wheeeee!"<br />
<br />
Fast<----------->Slow<br />
<br />
Caption: Most of my interests fall under "things rising up from the ground, hanging in the air, and then drifting away on the breeze," just on very different timescales.<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}</div>Dcoetzeehttps://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1778:_Interest_Timescales&diff=1330101778: Interest Timescales2016-12-28T06:56:36Z<p>Dcoetzee: Fix typo</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1778<br />
| date = December 28, 2016<br />
| title = Interest Timescales<br />
| image = interest_timescales.png<br />
| titletext = Sometimes, parts of a slowly-rising mountain suddenly rises REALLY fast, which is extra interesting.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
The caption says: "Most of my interests fall under "things rising up from the ground, hanging in the air, and then drifting away on the breeze," just on very different timescales." The four examples fit this as follows:<br />
<br />
In the case of a fireworks display, the fireworks fire up into the air, then drift away on the breeze in the course of a few seconds.<br />
<br />
In the case of a rocket launch, the rocket launches from the ground into space, then later re-enters the atmosphere and reaches the ground - in the case of a typical parachute-descent system, it literally drifts through the air. A typical timespan for such an event is several days or weeks.<br />
<br />
In the case of a tree, it grows from the ground upwards, then later drops its leaves (and/or other plant matter), which drift on the breeze. It typically takes several years or decades before the tree is fully grown.<br />
<br />
Finally, in the case of a mountain, typically mountains rise from the ground due to movement of tectonic plates which result in volcanic activity. The mountains are very slowly broken down and dispersed by natural erosion forces, and the stone particles disperse on the wind. These events are much slower than the others, typically taking tens of millions of years to completely erode away a mountain.<br />
<br />
The title text refers to the dramatic event in which a mountain suddenly rises much higher due to a massive earthquake. Such events are rare and potentially deadly to living things. Calling it "extra interesting" is an understatement.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
{{incomplete transcript}}<br />
From left to right:<br />
<br />
Cueball watches a fireworks display: "Ooooh"<br />
<br />
Cueball watches a rocket launch: "Wow!"<br />
<br />
Cueball climbs a tree: "Zoom!"<br />
<br />
Cueball stands atop a mountain: "Wheeeee!"<br />
<br />
Fast<----------->Slow<br />
<br />
Caption: Most of my interests fall under "things rising up from the ground, hanging in the air, and then drifting away on the breeze," just on very different timescales.<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}</div>Dcoetzeehttps://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1778:_Interest_Timescales&diff=1330091778: Interest Timescales2016-12-28T06:56:19Z<p>Dcoetzee: Fill out basic explanation</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1778<br />
| date = December 28, 2016<br />
| title = Interest Timescales<br />
| image = interest_timescales.png<br />
| titletext = Sometimes, parts of a slowly-rising mountain suddenly rises REALLY fast, which is extra interesting.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
The caption says: "Most of my interest fall under "things rising up from the ground, hanging in the air, and then drifting away on the breeze," just on very different timescales." The four examples fit this as follows:<br />
<br />
In the case of a fireworks display, the fireworks fire up into the air, then drift away on the breeze in the course of a few seconds.<br />
<br />
In the case of a rocket launch, the rocket launches from the ground into space, then later re-enters the atmosphere and reaches the ground - in the case of a typical parachute-descent system, it literally drifts through the air. A typical timespan for such an event is several days or weeks.<br />
<br />
In the case of a tree, it grows from the ground upwards, then later drops its leaves (and/or other plant matter), which drift on the breeze. It typically takes several years or decades before the tree is fully grown.<br />
<br />
Finally, in the case of a mountain, typically mountains rise from the ground due to movement of tectonic plates which result in volcanic activity. The mountains are very slowly broken down and dispersed by natural erosion forces, and the stone particles disperse on the wind. These events are much slower than the others, typically taking tens of millions of years to completely erode away a mountain.<br />
<br />
The title text refers to the dramatic event in which a mountain suddenly rises much higher due to a massive earthquake. Such events are rare and potentially deadly to living things. Calling it "extra interesting" is an understatement.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
{{incomplete transcript}}<br />
From left to right:<br />
<br />
Cueball watches a fireworks display: "Ooooh"<br />
<br />
Cueball watches a rocket launch: "Wow!"<br />
<br />
Cueball climbs a tree: "Zoom!"<br />
<br />
Cueball stands atop a mountain: "Wheeeee!"<br />
<br />
Fast<----------->Slow<br />
<br />
Caption: Most of my interest fall under "things rising up from the ground, hanging in the air, and then drifting away on the breeze," just on very different timescales.<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}</div>Dcoetzeehttps://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1544:_Margaret&diff=966771544: Margaret2015-06-29T17:56:06Z<p>Dcoetzee: Clarify that the lines of the book were intended as a prayer and what a prayer is for those unfamiliar</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1544<br />
| date = June 29, 2015<br />
| title = Margaret<br />
| image = margaret.png<br />
| titletext = Otherwise known as Margaret the Destroyer, I will bring pain to the the Great One. Then again, maybe I won't.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
<br />
This comic uses the starting lines of an innocent children's book and creates irony by delivering a dark message.<br />
<br />
In the book ''{{w|Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret.}}'' by {{w|Judy Blume}}, the opening lines are "Are you still there God? It's me, Margaret. I know you're there God. I know you wouldn't have missed this for anything! Thank you God. Thanks an awful lot..." These lines describe a traditional prayer, in which Margaret privately speaks to God, expressing gratitude and seeking guidance.<br />
<br />
Margaret stands alone talking. After quoting "Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret", she goes on to tell God she knows it is listening, and continues asking God if it is scared, pausing and telling God that it should be. This is similar to threats delivered in super violent action movies, such as Transporter and Commando. The final panel is a shot of Margaret standing imposingly in a dark landscape, and a caption over the top of the image says "Margret is coming for you", making this comic reminiscent of an action movie trailer. The irony is that "Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret." is a very innocent book, especially when compared to a super violent action movie.<br />
<br />
The title text is a mashup of three of Blume's other books: ''{{w|Otherwise Known as Sheila the Great}}'', ''{{w|The Pain and the Great One}}'', and ''{{w|Then Again, Maybe I Won't}}'', and likely the inspiration for the dark lines in the comic.<br />
<br />
<br />
Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret was previously referenced in [[1354: Heartbleed Explanation]].<br />
"I know you're listening" may refer to an earlier XKCD comic, [[525: I Know You're Listening]].<br />
<br />
The idea of turning an innocent childrens book into a violent movie was previously touched in [[633: Blockbuster Mining]].<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
[A woman (Margaret) is talking, alone]<br />
<br />
'''Margaret''': Are you there, God? It's me, Margaret.<br />
<br />
'''Margaret''': I know you're listening.<br />
<br />
'''Margaret''': Are you scared, God? Are you?<br />
<br />
'''Margaret''': You should be.<br />
<br />
<br />
Margaret is coming for you.<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}</div>Dcoetzeehttps://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1283:_Headlines&diff=546851283: Headlines2013-12-09T06:06:07Z<p>Dcoetzee: +The "embarassing reactions" may be a reference to the suicides of people suddenly impoverished by the depression. (speculating a bit but seems pretty plausible, feel free to revert)</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1283<br />
| date = October 28, 2013<br />
| title = Headlines<br />
| image = headlines.png<br />
| titletext = 1916: 'PHYSICIST DAD' TURNS HIS ATTENTION TO GRAVITY, AND YOU WON'T BELIEVE WHAT HE FINDS. [PICS] [NSFW]<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
<br />
This comic satirizes the sensationalist language used in Internet headlines. Many websites generate ad revenue for getting visitors ("getting more clicks"), so some unscrupulous editors seek to manipulate their readers using tantalizing yet formulaic and crass headlines, designed to attract readers rather than summarize the article's contents. You might recognize this technique from those ridiculous text advertisements &mdash; "local mom discovers 1 weird tip to reduce belly fat." The practice is nothing new: {{w|tabloid journalism}} has been doing this for many years (e.g. ''{{w|National Enquirer}}''). The numbers shown at the headline are also often wrong and not covered by the article.<br />
<br />
Signs of a dishonest headline include giving undue weight to trivial topics, or appealing to readers' emotions or needs (fear, outrage, pity, lust, laziness) instead of offering serious information. In severe cases, it may be a {{w|bait-and-switch}}, claiming to offer something it isn't. By failing to give a useful summary of the story, whilst attempting to force the reader to click on every story on the off-chance that it's interesting, they are intentionally deceptive and can be viewed as a form of spam.<br />
<br />
Randall parodies the formula in this comic with such trivializing headlines for important historical events:<br />
<br />
*1905 - How a shocking new theory, discovered by a dad, proves scientists are wrong about ''everything!''<br />
:{{w|Albert Einstein}} published his {{w|Annus Mirabilis papers}}, which changed views on space, time, mass, and energy, and laid the groundwork for much of modern physics. They included his papers on {{w|special relativity}} and on {{w|mass–energy equivalence}} ("E = mc<sup>2</sup>"). He had an infant son in 1905 (born May 1904).<br />
:The use of the term "dad" helps readers tune in emotionally. "Proving scientists wrong about everything" is obviously an inflation of Einstein's achievements. Einstein was awarded the {{w|Nobel Prize}} in 1921 for his work on the {{w|photoelectric effect}}, his work on relativity was still not accepted by many physicists at that time.<br />
*1912 - 6 ''Titanic'' survivors who should have died<br />
:{{w|Sinking of the RMS Titanic}}. "should have died" seems to be referring to six passengers whose survival was downright miraculous, though the wording is (deliberately) ambiguous to imply the six passengers ''deserved'' to have died.<br />
*1916: 'Physicist dad' turns his attention to gravity, and you won't believe what he finds. [PICS] [NSFW]<br />
:Einstein published his theory of {{w|General relativity}}, which is a vast generalization of the theory of {{w|Special relativity}} from 1905 and provides a model for gravity. In 1916 Einstein had two sons who lived in Zurich while he lived in Berlin.<br />
:[NSFW] is "Not Safe for Work" - a tag to identify explicit images. Here it is used to trick readers hoping to find pornography.<br />
:[PICS] tells the potential viewer that there are images embedded<br />
*1920 - 17 things that will be outlawed now that women can vote<br />
:The {{w|Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution}} was passed, guaranteeing voting rights for women in all US states. The prediction of new prohibitions is a reference to alcohol prohibition under the authority granted to the federal government by the {{w|Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution}}. While the Eighteenth Amendment was ratified before women's suffrage was guaranteed by the Nineteeth, alcohol prohibition was widely seen as an issue driven by women's opinions (hence the suggestion that more things would be prohibited now that women had the vote).<br />
*1928 - This one weird mold kills all germs<br />
:{{w|Penicillin}} was discovered.<br />
*1929 - Most embarrassing reactions to the stock market crash [GIFS]<br />
:This is a reference to the {{w|Wall Street Crash of 1929}}, the most devastating stock market crash in history and the beginning of the Great Depression. The "embarassing reactions" may be a reference to the suicides of people suddenly impoverished by the depression.<br />
:[GIFS] indicates that the post will contain an animated GIF image - a crude form of short video<br />
*1945 - These 9 Nazi atrocities will make you lose faith in humanity<br />
:1945 is the year that World War 2 ended. It's also the year that many war crimes committed by Nazi Germany were discovered or declassified.<br />
*1948 - 5 insane plans for feeding West Berlin you won't believe are real<br />
:1948 is when the Soviet Union established the {{w|Berlin Blockade}}, preventing food and other critical supplies from reaching occupied Berlin. In response, Western forces organized the {{w|Berlin Airlift}}.<br />
*1955 - Avoid polio with this one weird trick<br />
:The {{w|polio vaccine}} was developed. See [http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2013/07/how_one_weird_trick_conquered_the_internet_what_happens_when_you_click_on.html ''Prepare to Be Shocked! What happens when you actually click on one of those “One Weird Trick” ads?'']<br />
*1957 - 12 nip slips potentially visible to Sputnik<br />
:The Soviet Union launched {{w|Sputnik 1}}, the world's first artificial satellite. A ''nip slip'' is when a woman unintentionally exposes all or part of one or both of her nipples; in the context of the internet, it generally refers to a photograph capturing such a moment.<br />
*1968 - This year's assassinations ranked from most to least tragic<br />
:{{w|Martin Luther King Jr.}} and {{w|Robert F. Kennedy}} were both assassinated in 1968.<br />
:Assassinations are rare and tragic, so "ranking" them trivializes the political and emotional depth of the events.<br />
*1969 - This is the most important photo of an astronaut you'll see all day<br />
:{{w|Apollo 11}} performed the first manned lunar landing. During this historic trip newspapers printed as many pictures of astronauts as they could.<br />
*1986 - This video of a terminally ill child watching the ''Challenger'' launch will break your heart<br />
:Space Shuttle Challenger broke apart 73 seconds into its flight. See {{w|Space Shuttle Challenger disaster}} for details. This was the first shuttle mission that included a teacher on board as part of the crew ({{w|Christa McAuliffe}}, ''{{w|Teacher in Space Project}}''), so there were many children -- a New York Times poll put the number at 48% of 9-13 year olds in the US -- watching this particular launch live as teachers around the country had TV sets in their classrooms showing the ill-fated launch in real time. The launch was not shown on most mainstream TV stations; only {{w|CNN}} broadcast it live.<br />
*1989 - You won't ''believe'' what these people did to the Berlin wall! [video]<br />
:{{w|Fall of the Berlin Wall}}.<br />
:[video] indicates a link to a video<br />
*Jan 1, 1990 - 500 signs you're a 90s kid<br />
:A 90s kid is someone born in the late 80s or early 90s (and spent most their childhood in the 1990s). Headlines like [http://www.buzzfeed.com/melismashable/25-ways-to-tell-youre-a-kid-of-the-9 this one from BuzzFeed] toy with their readers' sense of nostalgia. The parody headline is funny because it starts precisely on the first day of the 1990s, appealing to the nostalgia of...newborns?<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:20th Century Headlines<br />
:Rewritten to get more clicks<br />
<br />
:1905 - How a shocking new theory, discovered by a dad, proves scientists are wrong about ''everything!''<br />
:1912 - 6 ''Titanic'' survivors who should have died<br />
:1920 - 17 things that will be outlawed now that women can vote<br />
:1928 - This one weird mold kills all germs<br />
:1929 - Most embarrassing reactions to the stock market crash [GIFS]<br />
:1945 - These 9 Nazi atrocities will make you lose faith in humanity<br />
:1948 - 5 insane plans for feeding West Berlin you won't believe are real<br />
:1955 - Avoid Polio with this one weird trick<br />
:1957 - 12 nip slips potentially visible to Sputnik<br />
:1968 - This year's assassinations ranked from most to least tragic<br />
:1969 - This is the most important photo of an astronaut you'll see all day<br />
:1986 - This video of a terminally ill child watching the ''Challenger'' launch will break your heart<br />
:1989 - You won't ''believe'' what these people did to the Berlin wall! [video]<br />
:Jan 1, 1990 - 500 signs you're a 90s kid<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
[[Category:Language]]</div>Dcoetzeehttps://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1284:_Improved_Keyboard&diff=546801284: Improved Keyboard2013-12-09T05:54:11Z<p>Dcoetzee: /* Explanation */ Summarizing the current context with smartphone keyboards</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1284<br />
| date = October 30, 2013<br />
| title = Improved Keyboard<br />
| image = improved keyboard.png<br />
| titletext = I'm always installing tons of weird experimental keyboards because it serves as a good reminder that nothing I was going to type was really worth the trouble.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{incomplete|1284: Improved Keyboard}}<br />
<br />
Modern smartphones and tablets have touchscreen LCD displays which completely cover the device's surface; for this reason they rely on software keyboards to input text such as text messages. The simplest software keyboards simply display a standard QWERTY keyboard and allow the user to tap on the letters they wish to enter, but this is slow. More sophisticated software keyboards such as SwiftKey facilitate faster text entry through gestures supported by language models. Because this space is still under development, new software keyboards promising better text entry continue to appear.<br />
<br />
[[Black Hat]] is annoyed about [[Cueball]]'s text messages, so he sends Cueball a "better" keyboard that actually doesn't work — with the desired result that Cueball is not able to text him at all. His statement that the app is better than SwiftKey "in some ways" is literally true -- it's better for ''him'', not for Cueball.<br />
<br />
According to the title text, [[Randall]] agrees with Black Hat that texting is annoying.<br />
<br />
The Android keyboard app {{w|SwiftKey}} has been mentioned [[1068|before]], and Black Hat has done something similar [[156|here]].<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:[Cueball walks on screen, holding a phone, and starts talking to Black Hat.]<br />
:Cueball: Did you get my texts?<br />
:Black Hat: You should install this keyboard I found.<br />
:Cueball: What? Why? Is it better than SwiftKey?<br />
:Black Hat: In some ways.<br />
:[Black Hat begins to walk off-panel.]<br />
:Cueball: Ok, installing...<br />
:Cueball: It's not working. The key area is blank—I can't type anything.<br />
:[Black Hat has left. Cueball stares at his phone.]<br />
:[Beat frame. Cueball lets his hands fall to their side.]<br />
:Cueball: ... Hey.<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Black Hat]]</div>Dcoetzeehttps://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1285:_Third_Way&diff=546741285: Third Way2013-12-09T05:44:09Z<p>Dcoetzee: /* Explanation */ +Randall's mocking characterization in the title text of overzealous advocates using the phrase "WAKE UP, SHEEPLE" has appeared in previous comics 496 (Secretary: Part 3) and 1013 (Wake Up Sheeple).</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1285<br />
| date = November 1, 2013<br />
| title = Third Way<br />
| image = third way.png<br />
| titletext = 'The monospaced-typewriter-font story is a COMPLETE FABRICATION! WAKE UP, SHEEPLE' 'It doesn't matter! Studies support single spaces!' 'Those results weren't statistically significant!' 'Fine, you win. I'm using double spaces right now!' 'Are not! We can all hear your stupid whitespace.'<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
<br />
This comic refers to the debate occurring in the United States about the correct number of spaces after the end of a {{w|Sentence spacing| sentence}}.<br /><br />
While text written on typewriters in the United States traditionally had two spaces between sentences, this is becoming less common and many sources now recommend having only one space, although this topic is still {{w|Sentence spacing#Controversy|controversial}}.<br />
<br />
[[Cueball]] is advocating a line break after every sentence, the eponymous "third way", and sometimes called "[http://rhodesmill.org/brandon/2012/one-sentence-per-line/ semantic linefeeds]".<br /><br />
This is particularly useful when plain text files based on a markup language (such as HTML, TeX, or {{w|Wiki markup}}) are edited by multiple people using a {{w|Revision control|Version control system}} where it helps to facilitate comparison of changes and avoid merge conflicts.<br /><br />
In most markup languages, a single linefeed in the source is rendered as a simple space, while two linefeeds generate a paragraph break.<br /><br />
This approach allows the source to be easily manipulated and versioned, while the rendered output still keeps the regular flow and justification abilities of running text.<br />
<br />
The title text uses single spaces between the back-and-forth quotations; but within each quotation, the quoted speaker's preferred spacing is used.<br /><br />
In particular, when the single-spacing advocate claims to be using double spacing, this is indeed a lie.<br /><br />
However, since the HTML spec [http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/text.html#h-9.1 requires it], browsers collapse whitespace sequences into a single space, so the reader would need to look at the HTML source of the page to notice the double spaces in the title text.<br /><br />
To make it visible in the rendered HTML, Randall would have to use {{w|non-breaking space}}s or the [http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/text.html#white-space-prop white-space] CSS property.<br />
<br />
Note that this was not the first time Randall has [[:Category:Comics presenting a compromise|proposed a controversial third way]].<br />
<br />
Randall's mocking characterization in the title text of overzealous advocates using the phrase "WAKE UP, SHEEPLE" has appeared in previous comics [[496]] (Secretary: Part 3) and [[1013]] (Wake Up Sheeple).<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:[Two groups stand, with placards and weapons, angrily facing off against each other.]<br />
:[The first group, with a cutlass, has a sign reading "'''TWO''' spaces after a period". The second group, with a spear, has a sign reading "'''ONE''' space after a period."]<br />
:[Off to one side stands Cueball, alone, with a placard reading "Line break after every sentence."]<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]<br />
[[Category:Sheeple]]<br />
[[Category:Comics presenting a compromise]]</div>Dcoetzeehttps://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1288:_Substitutions&diff=546721288: Substitutions2013-12-09T05:33:28Z<p>Dcoetzee: /* Explanation */ A bit about the final substitution</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1288<br />
| date = November 8, 2013<br />
| title = Substitutions<br />
| image = substitutions.png<br />
| titletext = INSIDE ELON MUSK'S NEW ATOMIC CAT<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
[[Randall|Randall Munroe]] is playing off of the fact that many readers of modern news articles quickly become bored with the legal and political jargon. He suggests that by substituting certain words for others can make reading the article more interesting, albeit less accurate. Although since Randall [[558: 1000 Times|doesn't think very]] highly [[932: CIA|of the news]], he's probably suggesting this chart wouldn't make them less accurate at all.<br />
<br />
For example, a sentence that reads<br />
:Witnesses reported that the suspect allegedly escaped unharmed.<br />
would be changed to<br />
:These dudes I know reported that the suspect kinda probably escaped unharmed.<br />
<br />
This substitution does not change the meaning much, and the original sentence does not lose much of its accuracy. However, for substitutions later in the comic, a sentence may be changed as following<br />
:A new study finds that senators and other congressional leaders are increasingly likely to view election results on their smartphone.<br />
into<br />
:A Tumblr post finds that elf-lords and other river spirits are increasingly likely to view eating contest results on their Pokédex.<br />
<br />
Which is less meaningful, but more interesting.<br />
<br />
The final substitution returns from the realm of the ridiculous to replacing "could not be reached for comment" with "is guilty and everyone knows it." If a journalist writes a story about an accused suspect but is unable to contact them or receives no response from them, they will write that the person "could not be reached for comment." Randall's whimsical assumption that silence implies guilt is so common that juries are instructed that they should not infer guilt if the defendant fails to testify (particularly in nations which have a right against self-incrimination).<br />
<br />
A [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/xkcd-substitutions/jkgogmboalmaijfgfhfepckdgjeopfhk?hl=en&gl=001 Chrome extension] is available for applying the substitutions on webpages. <br />
<br />
'Spaaace' is likely a reference to the Space Core from {{w|Portal 2}}.<br />
<br />
The {{w|Virtual Boy}} is a table-top video game console made by Nintendo released in 1995, and discontinued about the same year. It achieved true-3D graphics through the use of a large visor containing a pair of LED screens.<br />
<br />
The Pokédex is a device in the {{w|Pokémon|Pokémon world}} that records the data of captured Pokémon.<br />
<br />
{{w|Homestar Runner}} is the title character of a Flash-animated web cartoon series.<br />
<br />
At the title text {{w|Elon Musk}} is mentioned who is the CEO of {{w|Tesla Motors}}, which produces electric cars (ATOMIC CATs).<br />
<br />
News reports about new studies (Tumblr posts) are further lampooned in [[1295: New Study|a comic posted two weeks later]].<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:'''Substitutions''' that make reading the news more fun:<br />
<br />
:Witnesses → These dudes I know<br />
:Allegedly → Kinda probably<br />
:New study → Tumblr post<br />
:Rebuild → Avenge<br />
:Space → Spaaace<br />
:Google Glass → Virtual Boy<br />
:Smartphone → Pokédex<br />
:Electric → Atomic<br />
:Senator → Elf-lord<br />
:Car → Cat<br />
:Election → Eating contest<br />
:Congressional leaders → River spirits<br />
:Homeland security → Homestar Runner<br />
:Could not be reached for comment → Is guilty and everyone knows it<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
<!-- Include any categories below this line. --><br />
<br />
[[Category:Language]]<br />
[[Category:Video games]]<br />
[[Category:Pokémon]]<br />
[[Category:Politics]]</div>Dcoetzeehttps://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1295:_New_Study&diff=546621295: New Study2013-12-09T05:00:08Z<p>Dcoetzee: /* Explanation */ Explaining the joke</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1295<br />
| date = November 25, 2013<br />
| title = New Study<br />
| image = new_study.png<br />
| titletext = When the results are published, no one will be sure whether to report on them again.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
This is another of Randall's jabs at modern news networks. The joke is twofold: 1. news organizations often repeat press releases on scientific studies without fact checking; 2. the study being reported by the news organization in the comic is presumably itself invented and would not stand up to fact checking.<br />
<br />
Some examples of how true this can be:<br />
<br />
* A July 2011 hoax study correlated {{w|Intelligence Quotient (IQ) and Browser Usage}}, specifically asserting that Microsoft Internet Explorer users had a significantly lower I.Q. than other users. The study was reported by over 30 news outlets including NPR, ''Forbes'', CBS News, ''San Francisco Chronicle'', ''The Inquirer'', and ''CNN''. The perpetrator made little effort to conceal the deception by publishing it on a freshly created domain name with a parking lot as the corporate address, and was surprised that so many reputable outlets did no fact checking.<br />
* [http://eldeforma.com/2012/08/27/samsung-paga-multa-de-1-billon-de-dolares-a-apple-en-monedas-de-5-centavos/#axzz2lfjwKjjt Samsung pays $1bn USD fine to Apple with 20 billion 5 cent coins]: widely reported on news networks in November 2013<br />
* Even many low-tier scientific journals don't do proper checking. Over a hundred of them accepted a fake, error-ridden cancer study for publication in a spoof organized by Science magazine, as reported by National Geographic: [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/10/131003-bohannon-science-spoof-open-access-peer-review-cancer/ Fake Cancer Study Spotlights Bogus Science Journals].<br />
<br />
The title text refers to an issue with publication timing. Sometimes, scientists (or their press departments) issue press releases about studies before they are published in a peer-reviewed journal. News organizations often publish stories based on the press release, even though the full details are not available. In some cases, another story (or an update) is also published when the journal article comes out. However, some readers may find this duplicative.<br />
<br />
Related jokes:<br />
<br />
* "87% of statistics are made up on the spot" (which is itself completely fictitious). This joke has most famously been referenced by the [http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2008-05-08/ May 8, 2008 Dilbert comic strip]. It was also (with a more precise figure of 88.2%) the punchline of a television advertisement for Guinness in 1997, where it was attributed to the comedian Vic Reeves. ([http://youtu.be/5in-3BmKtFI])<br />
* "64 percent of all the world's statistics are made up right there on the spot, 82.4 percent of people believe 'em whether they're accurate statistics or not" - Statistician's Blues, by Todd Snider ([http://www.cowboylyrics.com/tabs/snider-todd/statistician-blues-10809.html lyrics]; [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUK6zjtUj00 video]).<br />
* 83% is the made-up statistics number that {{w|How I Met Your Mother}} character {{w|Barney Stinson}} uses to charm ladies.<br />
<br />
Side note: People making the substitutions in [[1288: Substitutions|a comic posted two weeks before this one]] will read this comic as one about {{w|Tumblr}} posts.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:[A news anchor with a perfect news-anchor-hair-helmet.]<br />
:Anchor:..and in science news, according to a new study, 85% of news organizations repeat "new study" press releases without checking whether they're real.<br />
{{comic discussion}}</div>Dcoetzeehttps://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1292:_Pi_vs._Tau&diff=53073Talk:1292: Pi vs. Tau2013-11-19T06:44:23Z<p>Dcoetzee: </p>
<hr />
<div>Wow, this filled up fast. Is it time to remove the Incomplete tag yet? [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.66|199.27.128.66]] 03:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I started an explanation. Hopefully others will help improve it, as I don't think it's quite adequate. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.130.174|199.27.130.174]] 05:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The comic currently shows the symbol π (pi) in all three cases, but it should have the symbol τ (tau) in the rightmost case. I'm sure there is a compromise symbol "pau" too. Maybe with a deformed left leg? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.97.4|141.101.97.4]] 07:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
WolframAlpha gives <br />
<pre><br />
4.5545743763144164456766617143366171162404440766665105335330776311513504520604364524762740226212061363100001776216741750712622557020442741544760057441760026766230424023460366047331305225241275347777145543054127636365666430221066167347236617261603127725745513663702031155234027041040155322217227723576660045156156303357534162372112340027743775672417274565277274565735325624457113522164166560115654407251403563246444122664066521461311773474046032763760765740133706761276420415672577471077133607673035331070364705651055376634161405567176532346433567731715723623721267302576735154761375545411215522177775706407470673020025353246535120744232706060324711633457720155013202527060250466252665661576165164140301645132275526153126363575631176312270212441433434206352313125326760006365710744276056412434626534152021052065172556442150110056601034116570607064550553636566432544260105637423220411372664024454234201642615033200331506013362432026775605543212342336511350621361642654426372425415023071413764173735461042064323757413414533013..._8</pre> which does indeed have four 666 sequences. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.254|141.101.99.254]] 08:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
This number contains 7777, 000 and 444 twice, though. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.93.11|141.101.93.11]] 09:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Wrote the transcript, not sure if I explained the visual well enough, so I left the incomplete tag if someone else has a better idea. Should suffice for understanding however, considering the content [[Special:Contributions/108.162.248.18|108.162.248.18]] 08:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
(The discussion about different results was trimmed)<br />
<br />
Wolfram gives the result with 666<br />
<br />
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1.5+pi+octal<br />
<pre><br />
4.554574376314416445676661714336617116240444076666510533533077631151350452060436452476274022621206136310000177621674175071262255702044274154476005744176002676623042402346036604733130522524127534777714554305412763636566643022<br />
</pre><br />
The Unix arbitrary precision calculator gives the result without<br />
<br />
$ echo "scale=200; obase=8; 6*a(1)" | bc -l<br />
<pre><br />
4.554574376314416443236234514475050122425471573015650314763354527003043167712611655054674757031331252340351471657646433317273112431020107644727072362457372164022043765215506554422014311615574251563446213636251744101107770257<br />
</pre><br />
Any suggestions how we can check them?<br />
<br />
"Randall says so" is probably correct, but insufficient :-) {{unsigned|Mike}}<br />
<br />
:Please use the <nowiki><pre></nowiki> tag for this long numbers.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 09:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
Testing Wolfram Alpha with <pre>4.55457437631441644567666171433661711624044407666651053353307763115135045206043645247627402262120613631000177621674175071262255_8 in decimal</pre> and <pre>4.55457437631441644567666171433661711624044407666651053353307763115135045206043645247627402262120613631000_8 in decimal</pre> both indicate the approximation is only accurate to a limited degree.<br />
<pre><br />
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=4.55457437631441644567666171433661711624044407666651053353307763115135045206043645247627402262120613631000177621674175071262255_8+in+decimal<br />
</pre><br />
<pre><br />
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=4.55457437631441644567666171433661711624044407666651053353307763115135045206043645247627402262120613631000177621674175071262255_8+in+decimal<br />
</pre><br />
<br />
The method I used to get the value I put in the text was; I used the following command to generate my approximation:<br />
<pre>echo 'scale=200; obase=8; a(1) * 6' | bc -l | tr -d ' \\\n' ; echo</pre> which outputs<pre><br />
4.554574376314416443236234514475050122425471573015650314763354527003043167712611655054674757031331252340351471657646433317273112431020107644727072362457372164022043765215506554422014311615574251563446213636251744101107770257<br />
</pre><br />
In 'bc'', a(1) is arctangent of 1 (i.e. 45 degrees, or pi/4); (pi/4 * 6) should be equal to 'pau'. I additionally checked the result using base 2 encoding, and converted each three bit binary value into an octal value. The decimal value of pi (using a(1) * 4) matches with the value of pi to at lease 1000 digits. <br />
[[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.86|173.245.54.86]] 09:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Both Maxima and the GNU Emacs calculator output as the first 1000 octal digits:<br />
<pre><br />
4.5545743763144164432362345144750501224254715730156503147633545270030431677126116550546747570313312523403514716576464333172731124310201076447270723624573721640220437652155065544220143116155742515634462136362517441011077702611156024117447125224176203716336742057353303216470257662666744627534325504334506002730517102547504145216661211250027531716641276765735563341721214013553453654106045245066401141437740626707757305450703606440651111775270032710035521352101513622062164457304326450524432531652666626042202562202550566425643040556365710250031642467447605663240661743600041052212627767073277600402572027316222345356036301002572541750000114422036312122341474267232761775450071652613627306745074150251171507720277250030270442257106542456441722455345340370205646442156334125564557520336340223313312556634450170626417234376702443117031135045420165467426237454754566012204316130023063506430063362203021262434464410604275224606523356702572610031171344411766505734615256121034660773306140032365326415773227551<br />
</pre><br />
This also agrees with the first 220 digits of the previous result (last two digits above are 57 vs 61 here, maybe due to rounding when converting to octal). Again, no 666 within the first 200 digits. The Wolfram result deviates from this at the 18th digit already. --[[User:Ulm|ulm]] ([[User talk:Ulm|talk]]) 10:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Also e+2 does not contain the substring '666':<br />
<pre>echo "scale=200; obase=8; e(1) + 2" | bc -l</pre><br />
<pre>4.55760521305053551246527734254200471723636166134705407470551551265170233101050620637674622347347044466373713722774330661414353543664033100253542141365517370755272577262541110317650765740633550205306625</pre>--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 10:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: A sudden flash of realization: are we getting nerd-sniped here?--[[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.168|108.162.254.168]] 11:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: The claim is clearly about e+2, making Dgbrt's comment closest to the right direction. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.40|173.245.54.40]] 12:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
When I take Wolfram alpha's octal(pi*1.5) I get the first 303 (base 10) characters as this:<br />
<pre><br />
4.554574376314416445676661714336617116240444076666510533533077631151350452060436452476274022621206136310000177621674175071262255702044274154476005744176002676623042402346036604733130522524127534777714554305412763636566643022106616734723661726160312772574551366370203115523402704104015532221722772357666<br />
</pre><br />
200(base 10) is 310(base 8) so in the fist '200' characters, 666 shows up 4 times (5 if you count 6666 as twice?) [[User:Xami|Xami]] ([[User talk:Xami|talk]]) 14:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: The Wolfram result is what you get when you calculate pi*3/2 in decimal, round to 14 digits after the decimal point and then convert to octal. That is, 4.71238898038469<sub>10</sub> converted to octal. Definitely, this won't give you 200 digits precision. --[[User:Ulm|ulm]] ([[User talk:Ulm|talk]]) 15:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
:: It lines up too perfectly to be a coincidence. It fits all the requirements: has 666 four times within 200<sub>8</sub> digits, and although 0000, 222, 444, and 7777 appear, they only appear once as a run. You can't double count 7777 as two 777's because it is a single run. If WolframAlpha doesn't give the correct precision, it is likely that Randall made the same error. --[[User:RainbowDash|RainbowDash]] ([[User talk:RainbowDash|talk]]) 16:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Being &tau;, tau, is already being expressed in terms of &pi;, pi, it shows bias. (Though I think Pau would lead to some interesting spherical geometry equations. ~~Drifter {{unsigned ip|108.162.219.214}}<br />
<br />
The bias is worse than that: From the perspective of π, the discussion is about multiples of π, so (3/2)π (that is 3π/2 = 3τ/4) is indeed the compromise between π and 2π. But from the perspective of τ, the discussion is about fractions of τ, so the compromise between τ and τ/2 is τ/(3/2) (that is 2τ/3 = 4π/3). Maybe we can call this ‘ti’ (or ‘tie’, pace 173.245.53.184 below). —[[User:TobyBartels|TobyBartels]] ([[User talk:TobyBartels|talk]]) 20:47, 18 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Actually, both compromises are wrong. (3/2)π is the arithmetic mean of π and τ, while τ/(3/2) is their harmonic mean. But for geometric ratios (which these are), the appropriate mean is generally the geometric mean (hence the name). You can see how even-handed this is: it's (√2)π = τ/(√2). —[[User:TobyBartels|TobyBartels]] ([[User talk:TobyBartels|talk]]) 20:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
I am in favour of just calling it ti(e). --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.184|173.245.53.184]] 17:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
There are real world uses to both Tau and Pi: Pi is the number that relates to what you get when you measure a circle (the distanced around divided by the distance across); and Tau is get when you draw a circle (the distance around divided by the distance from the center). It is the difference between a mic (aka "micrometer" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micrometer ) and a protractor. Tau might have some mathematical advantages in both 2D and 3D in that it has no integer attached to it to find either circumference (2D) or surface area (3D) which makes radians and solid angles simpler. However, that advantage is lost in other dimensions and for the area of a circle. <br />
<br />
Pau, of course, has a 61% chance of going to the dribbling spheroid hall of fame. (ref: http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/g/gasolpa01.html ), to which neither Tau nor Pi can hold a candle.~~Remo ( [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.183|199.27.128.183]] 19:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC) )<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
The differences between Wolfram and BC really bothered me since I have used both for precision calculation in the past. The long and short of the matter, having done most of the maths 'long hand', BC is correct, Wolfram is wrong, and sadly, Randall was also wrong. It seems as tho Wolfram is rounding pi*1.5 to around 15 decimals but leaving the 9 repeating before converting to Octal.<br />
<br />
If you take the output of octal(pi * 1.5) and paste it back into the input like so:<br />
<pre><br />
4.554574376314416445676661714336617116240444076666510533533077631151350452060436452476274022621206136310000177621674175071262255702044274154476005744176002676623042402346036604733130522524127534777_8<br />
</pre><br />
Wolfram gives you back (converted to decimal):<br />
<pre><br />
4.71238898038468999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999<br />
</pre><br />
If you give that same input to BC and ask it to convert to decimal you get:<br />
<pre><br />
4.712388980384689999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999992894219160392567888<br />
</pre><br />
If you do the math long hand out to 55 decimal places, pi * 1.5 equals:<br />
<pre><br />
4.712388980384689857693965074919254326295754099062658731462416...<br />
</pre><br />
Converting that by hand into octal is a bit of a pain, but if you do, at the 18th decimal place where BC and Wolfram differ you end up with the following:<br />
<pre><br />
0.000000000000000183697019872102976583909889841150158731462416... is your remainder to be converted so far<br />
0.000000000000000055511151231257827021181583404541015625 = 8 ^ -18<br />
</pre><br />
Wolfram gives the 18th decimal as 5, BC as 3. I can't see 5 going into 18 5 times, but 3 times fits nicely.<br />
--[[User:DarkJMKnight|DarkJMKnight]] ([[User talk:DarkJMKnight|talk]]) 20:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Looks like Wolfram is simply using floating-point mathematics, presumably the IEEE "double precision". Interestingly, this is not the first time floating-point maths has been a problem; in [[287]], a similar problem caused an unintended trivial solution. [[User:Sabik|Sabik]] ([[User talk:Sabik|talk]]) 04:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
* On second thoughts, there's no indication that he used Wolfram Alpha; as with [[287]], it simply could have been a Perl script (or Python or pretty much any programming language). [[User:Sabik|Sabik]] ([[User talk:Sabik|talk]]) 05:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
How can 200 be octal and then mean 310 decimal???<br />
If 200 were octal, that would be 128 decimal, so we would end up writing 128 decimals.<br />
Of course 310 octal is 200 decimal, but taking 200<sub>8</sub> to mean 310<sub>10</sub> is plain crazy, even if it's the only way to make it fit the "four times 666" constraint!<br />
What am I missing here? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.149|173.245.53.149]] 21:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
This Mathematica code searches for the pattern 666 in the octal expansion of 1.5 pi:<br />
<pre>digits = RealDigits[3*Pi/2, 8, 10000][[1]]; Select[Range[10000 - 2], Take[digits, {#, # + 2}] == {6, 6, 6} &]<br />
{279, 326, 495, 496, 3430, 3728, 4153, 6040, 7031, 7195, 7647, 7732, 8353, 8435, 8436, 8575, 8768, 9008}</pre><br />
These positions start counting with the leading "4" as position 1. It does not occur in the first 200 digits, but occurs 18 times in the first 10,000 digits. Many other digit combinations occur more times in the first 10,000 digits, including "123" (23 times), "222" (21 times), and "555" (26 times). Note that "xkcd" converted to numbers (a=1, b=2, etc.) is 24, 11, 3, 4. The combination 241134 first occurs in 1.5 pi at digit number 250,745. [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]] ([[User talk:Dcoetzee|talk]]) 06:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)</div>Dcoetzeehttps://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1292:_Pi_vs._Tau&diff=53072Talk:1292: Pi vs. Tau2013-11-19T06:44:09Z<p>Dcoetzee: </p>
<hr />
<div>Wow, this filled up fast. Is it time to remove the Incomplete tag yet? [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.66|199.27.128.66]] 03:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I started an explanation. Hopefully others will help improve it, as I don't think it's quite adequate. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.130.174|199.27.130.174]] 05:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The comic currently shows the symbol π (pi) in all three cases, but it should have the symbol τ (tau) in the rightmost case. I'm sure there is a compromise symbol "pau" too. Maybe with a deformed left leg? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.97.4|141.101.97.4]] 07:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
WolframAlpha gives <br />
<pre><br />
4.5545743763144164456766617143366171162404440766665105335330776311513504520604364524762740226212061363100001776216741750712622557020442741544760057441760026766230424023460366047331305225241275347777145543054127636365666430221066167347236617261603127725745513663702031155234027041040155322217227723576660045156156303357534162372112340027743775672417274565277274565735325624457113522164166560115654407251403563246444122664066521461311773474046032763760765740133706761276420415672577471077133607673035331070364705651055376634161405567176532346433567731715723623721267302576735154761375545411215522177775706407470673020025353246535120744232706060324711633457720155013202527060250466252665661576165164140301645132275526153126363575631176312270212441433434206352313125326760006365710744276056412434626534152021052065172556442150110056601034116570607064550553636566432544260105637423220411372664024454234201642615033200331506013362432026775605543212342336511350621361642654426372425415023071413764173735461042064323757413414533013..._8</pre> which does indeed have four 666 sequences. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.254|141.101.99.254]] 08:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
This number contains 7777, 000 and 444 twice, though. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.93.11|141.101.93.11]] 09:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Wrote the transcript, not sure if I explained the visual well enough, so I left the incomplete tag if someone else has a better idea. Should suffice for understanding however, considering the content [[Special:Contributions/108.162.248.18|108.162.248.18]] 08:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
(The discussion about different results was trimmed)<br />
<br />
Wolfram gives the result with 666<br />
<br />
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1.5+pi+octal<br />
<pre><br />
4.554574376314416445676661714336617116240444076666510533533077631151350452060436452476274022621206136310000177621674175071262255702044274154476005744176002676623042402346036604733130522524127534777714554305412763636566643022<br />
</pre><br />
The Unix arbitrary precision calculator gives the result without<br />
<br />
$ echo "scale=200; obase=8; 6*a(1)" | bc -l<br />
<pre><br />
4.554574376314416443236234514475050122425471573015650314763354527003043167712611655054674757031331252340351471657646433317273112431020107644727072362457372164022043765215506554422014311615574251563446213636251744101107770257<br />
</pre><br />
Any suggestions how we can check them?<br />
<br />
"Randall says so" is probably correct, but insufficient :-) {{unsigned|Mike}}<br />
<br />
:Please use the <nowiki><pre></nowiki> tag for this long numbers.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 09:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
Testing Wolfram Alpha with <pre>4.55457437631441644567666171433661711624044407666651053353307763115135045206043645247627402262120613631000177621674175071262255_8 in decimal</pre> and <pre>4.55457437631441644567666171433661711624044407666651053353307763115135045206043645247627402262120613631000_8 in decimal</pre> both indicate the approximation is only accurate to a limited degree.<br />
<pre><br />
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=4.55457437631441644567666171433661711624044407666651053353307763115135045206043645247627402262120613631000177621674175071262255_8+in+decimal<br />
</pre><br />
<pre><br />
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=4.55457437631441644567666171433661711624044407666651053353307763115135045206043645247627402262120613631000177621674175071262255_8+in+decimal<br />
</pre><br />
<br />
The method I used to get the value I put in the text was; I used the following command to generate my approximation:<br />
<pre>echo 'scale=200; obase=8; a(1) * 6' | bc -l | tr -d ' \\\n' ; echo</pre> which outputs<pre><br />
4.554574376314416443236234514475050122425471573015650314763354527003043167712611655054674757031331252340351471657646433317273112431020107644727072362457372164022043765215506554422014311615574251563446213636251744101107770257<br />
</pre><br />
In 'bc'', a(1) is arctangent of 1 (i.e. 45 degrees, or pi/4); (pi/4 * 6) should be equal to 'pau'. I additionally checked the result using base 2 encoding, and converted each three bit binary value into an octal value. The decimal value of pi (using a(1) * 4) matches with the value of pi to at lease 1000 digits. <br />
[[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.86|173.245.54.86]] 09:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Both Maxima and the GNU Emacs calculator output as the first 1000 octal digits:<br />
<pre><br />
4.5545743763144164432362345144750501224254715730156503147633545270030431677126116550546747570313312523403514716576464333172731124310201076447270723624573721640220437652155065544220143116155742515634462136362517441011077702611156024117447125224176203716336742057353303216470257662666744627534325504334506002730517102547504145216661211250027531716641276765735563341721214013553453654106045245066401141437740626707757305450703606440651111775270032710035521352101513622062164457304326450524432531652666626042202562202550566425643040556365710250031642467447605663240661743600041052212627767073277600402572027316222345356036301002572541750000114422036312122341474267232761775450071652613627306745074150251171507720277250030270442257106542456441722455345340370205646442156334125564557520336340223313312556634450170626417234376702443117031135045420165467426237454754566012204316130023063506430063362203021262434464410604275224606523356702572610031171344411766505734615256121034660773306140032365326415773227551<br />
</pre><br />
This also agrees with the first 220 digits of the previous result (last two digits above are 57 vs 61 here, maybe due to rounding when converting to octal). Again, no 666 within the first 200 digits. The Wolfram result deviates from this at the 18th digit already. --[[User:Ulm|ulm]] ([[User talk:Ulm|talk]]) 10:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Also e+2 does not contain the substring '666':<br />
<pre>echo "scale=200; obase=8; e(1) + 2" | bc -l</pre><br />
<pre>4.55760521305053551246527734254200471723636166134705407470551551265170233101050620637674622347347044466373713722774330661414353543664033100253542141365517370755272577262541110317650765740633550205306625</pre>--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 10:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: A sudden flash of realization: are we getting nerd-sniped here?--[[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.168|108.162.254.168]] 11:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: The claim is clearly about e+2, making Dgbrt's comment closest to the right direction. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.40|173.245.54.40]] 12:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
When I take Wolfram alpha's octal(pi*1.5) I get the first 303 (base 10) characters as this:<br />
<pre><br />
4.554574376314416445676661714336617116240444076666510533533077631151350452060436452476274022621206136310000177621674175071262255702044274154476005744176002676623042402346036604733130522524127534777714554305412763636566643022106616734723661726160312772574551366370203115523402704104015532221722772357666<br />
</pre><br />
200(base 10) is 310(base 8) so in the fist '200' characters, 666 shows up 4 times (5 if you count 6666 as twice?) [[User:Xami|Xami]] ([[User talk:Xami|talk]]) 14:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: The Wolfram result is what you get when you calculate pi*3/2 in decimal, round to 14 digits after the decimal point and then convert to octal. That is, 4.71238898038469<sub>10</sub> converted to octal. Definitely, this won't give you 200 digits precision. --[[User:Ulm|ulm]] ([[User talk:Ulm|talk]]) 15:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
:: It lines up too perfectly to be a coincidence. It fits all the requirements: has 666 four times within 200<sub>8</sub> digits, and although 0000, 222, 444, and 7777 appear, they only appear once as a run. You can't double count 7777 as two 777's because it is a single run. If WolframAlpha doesn't give the correct precision, it is likely that Randall made the same error. --[[User:RainbowDash|RainbowDash]] ([[User talk:RainbowDash|talk]]) 16:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Being &tau;, tau, is already being expressed in terms of &pi;, pi, it shows bias. (Though I think Pau would lead to some interesting spherical geometry equations. ~~Drifter {{unsigned ip|108.162.219.214}}<br />
<br />
The bias is worse than that: From the perspective of π, the discussion is about multiples of π, so (3/2)π (that is 3π/2 = 3τ/4) is indeed the compromise between π and 2π. But from the perspective of τ, the discussion is about fractions of τ, so the compromise between τ and τ/2 is τ/(3/2) (that is 2τ/3 = 4π/3). Maybe we can call this ‘ti’ (or ‘tie’, pace 173.245.53.184 below). —[[User:TobyBartels|TobyBartels]] ([[User talk:TobyBartels|talk]]) 20:47, 18 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Actually, both compromises are wrong. (3/2)π is the arithmetic mean of π and τ, while τ/(3/2) is their harmonic mean. But for geometric ratios (which these are), the appropriate mean is generally the geometric mean (hence the name). You can see how even-handed this is: it's (√2)π = τ/(√2). —[[User:TobyBartels|TobyBartels]] ([[User talk:TobyBartels|talk]]) 20:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
I am in favour of just calling it ti(e). --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.184|173.245.53.184]] 17:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
There are real world uses to both Tau and Pi: Pi is the number that relates to what you get when you measure a circle (the distanced around divided by the distance across); and Tau is get when you draw a circle (the distance around divided by the distance from the center). It is the difference between a mic (aka "micrometer" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micrometer ) and a protractor. Tau might have some mathematical advantages in both 2D and 3D in that it has no integer attached to it to find either circumference (2D) or surface area (3D) which makes radians and solid angles simpler. However, that advantage is lost in other dimensions and for the area of a circle. <br />
<br />
Pau, of course, has a 61% chance of going to the dribbling spheroid hall of fame. (ref: http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/g/gasolpa01.html ), to which neither Tau nor Pi can hold a candle.~~Remo ( [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.183|199.27.128.183]] 19:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC) )<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
The differences between Wolfram and BC really bothered me since I have used both for precision calculation in the past. The long and short of the matter, having done most of the maths 'long hand', BC is correct, Wolfram is wrong, and sadly, Randall was also wrong. It seems as tho Wolfram is rounding pi*1.5 to around 15 decimals but leaving the 9 repeating before converting to Octal.<br />
<br />
If you take the output of octal(pi * 1.5) and paste it back into the input like so:<br />
<pre><br />
4.554574376314416445676661714336617116240444076666510533533077631151350452060436452476274022621206136310000177621674175071262255702044274154476005744176002676623042402346036604733130522524127534777_8<br />
</pre><br />
Wolfram gives you back (converted to decimal):<br />
<pre><br />
4.71238898038468999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999<br />
</pre><br />
If you give that same input to BC and ask it to convert to decimal you get:<br />
<pre><br />
4.712388980384689999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999992894219160392567888<br />
</pre><br />
If you do the math long hand out to 55 decimal places, pi * 1.5 equals:<br />
<pre><br />
4.712388980384689857693965074919254326295754099062658731462416...<br />
</pre><br />
Converting that by hand into octal is a bit of a pain, but if you do, at the 18th decimal place where BC and Wolfram differ you end up with the following:<br />
<pre><br />
0.000000000000000183697019872102976583909889841150158731462416... is your remainder to be converted so far<br />
0.000000000000000055511151231257827021181583404541015625 = 8 ^ -18<br />
</pre><br />
Wolfram gives the 18th decimal as 5, BC as 3. I can't see 5 going into 18 5 times, but 3 times fits nicely.<br />
--[[User:DarkJMKnight|DarkJMKnight]] ([[User talk:DarkJMKnight|talk]]) 20:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Looks like Wolfram is simply using floating-point mathematics, presumably the IEEE "double precision". Interestingly, this is not the first time floating-point maths has been a problem; in [[287]], a similar problem caused an unintended trivial solution. [[User:Sabik|Sabik]] ([[User talk:Sabik|talk]]) 04:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
* On second thoughts, there's no indication that he used Wolfram Alpha; as with [[287]], it simply could have been a Perl script (or Python or pretty much any programming language). [[User:Sabik|Sabik]] ([[User talk:Sabik|talk]]) 05:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
How can 200 be octal and then mean 310 decimal???<br />
If 200 were octal, that would be 128 decimal, so we would end up writing 128 decimals.<br />
Of course 310 octal is 200 decimal, but taking 200<sub>8</sub> to mean 310<sub>10</sub> is plain crazy, even if it's the only way to make it fit the "four times 666" constraint!<br />
What am I missing here? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.149|173.245.53.149]] 21:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
This Mathematica code searches for the pattern 666 in the octal expansion of 1.5 pi:<br />
<pre>digits = RealDigits[3*Pi/2, 8, 10000][[1]]; Select[Range[10000 - 2], Take[digits, {#, # + 2}] == {6, 6, 6} &]</pre><br />
<pre>{279, 326, 495, 496, 3430, 3728, 4153, 6040, 7031, 7195, 7647, 7732, 8353, 8435, 8436, 8575, 8768, 9008}</pre><br />
These positions start counting with the leading "4" as position 1. It does not occur in the first 200 digits, but occurs 18 times in the first 10,000 digits. Many other digit combinations occur more times in the first 10,000 digits, including "123" (23 times), "222" (21 times), and "555" (26 times). Note that "xkcd" converted to numbers (a=1, b=2, etc.) is 24, 11, 3, 4. The combination 241134 first occurs in 1.5 pi at digit number 250,745. [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]] ([[User talk:Dcoetzee|talk]]) 06:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)</div>Dcoetzeehttps://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1225:_Ice_Sheets&diff=410441225: Ice Sheets2013-06-18T05:28:52Z<p>Dcoetzee: /* Explanation */ Add more details about skyline and scale</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1225<br />
| date = June 14, 2013<br />
| title = Ice Sheets<br />
| image = ice sheets.png<br />
| titletext = Data adapted from 'The Laurentide and Innuitian ice sheets during the Last Glacial Maximum' by A.S. Dyke et. al., which was way better than the sequels 'The Laurentide and Innuitian ice sheets during the Last Glacial Maximum: The Meltdown' and 'The Laurentide and Innuitian ice sheets during the Last Glacial Maximum: Continental Drift'.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{incomplete}}<br />
The comic shows the ice levels at major North American cities at the {{w|Last_Glacial_Maximum|peak of the last ice age}}, 21000 years ago. Toronto and Montreal are both Canadian cities, while Boston and Chicago are in the US. The skylines of each city are shown at the bottom of the ice sheet, to scale; the tallest structure shown is the CN Tower in Toronto, the tallest free-standing structure in the Western Hemisphere, at a height of 553 m. Each pixel is about 12.4 metres.<br />
<br />
The title text references the "[https://notendur.hi.is//~oi/AG-326%202006%20readings/Canadian%20Arctic/Dyke_QSR2002.pdf The Laurentide and Innuitian ice sheets during the Last Glacial Maximum (PDF)]," an actual series of scientific papers about the ice sheet (see figure 4). But it also refers to the animated film series {{w|Ice_Age_(film_series)|Ice Age}}. It is commonly stated that the first Ice Age film was way better than the sequels, and it is criticised for the number of films made (4 as of 2012).<br />
''Ice Age: the Meltdown'', and ''Ice Age: Continental Drift'' are the second and fourth Ice Age movies. People often say that the first film/book in a series is better than its sequel(s).<br />
<br />
But the joke from the movie ''Ice Age'' is only a part of this comic. In the picture [[Randall]] shows a vast amount of frozen water covering North America. It was so much ice that, together with the glaciers in Europe and Asia, it caused the sea level to have been 130 meters lower than today (see {{w|Sea level rise}}).<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:Thickness of the ice sheets at various locations 21,000 years ago compared with modern skylines<br />
<br />
:[The skylines of four major metropolises are superimposed against an ice sheet of the proper thickness for the aforementioned time period.]<br />
<br />
:Toronto: 2100m<br />
:Chicago: 900m<br />
:Boston: 1250m<br />
:Montreal: 3300m<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
[[Category:Charts]]<br />
[[Category:Comics with color]]</div>Dcoetzeehttps://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1206:_Einstein&diff=373861206: Einstein2013-05-14T18:51:15Z<p>Dcoetzee: /* Explanation */ Note temporal language part of joke, as remarked upon in comments</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1206<br />
| date = May 1, 2013<br />
| title = Einstein<br />
| image = einstein.png<br />
| titletext = Einstein was WRONG when he said that provisional patent #39561 represented a novel gravel-sorting technique and should be approved by the Patent Office.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
Nobel laureate and ''Time'' Person of the Century {{w|Albert Einstein}} is often considered one of the smartest and most influential men in world history. His theories revolutionized our understanding of the Universe and inspired generations of scientists. In this comic, [[Cueball]] indicates to a friend that he is working on an experiment that may disprove Einstein. The implication is that Cueball is conducting a formal scientific experiment which may disprove one of Einstein's scientific theories. The second frame, however, implies that the Einsteinian "theory" Cueball's experiment may disprove is an offhand (and subjective) remark by Einstein about the availability of good sandwiches.<br />
<br />
There are several possible interpretations/explanations for this comic, which is slightly vague:<br />
<br />
* The first possibility is that [[Randall]] is playing with the notion that everything Einstein said constitutes words to live by: A casual observation on the quality of sandwiches is treated as a major hypothesis, and Cueball is in fact conducting a formal scientific experiment which may "disprove" the statement.<br />
<br />
: This would not be the first time that xkcd has addressed people taking scientists too seriously. In [[947: Investing]], Randall comments on how people put too much credence in a joke Einstein made in passing, and in [[799|comic 799]] we see {{w|Stephen Hawking}} in a similar predicament, every word he says taken as a major declaration.<br />
<br />
: A key part of the humour is that a significant number of people believe Einstein's physical theories (particularly Special and General Relativity) to be wrong: its universal promotion in scientific literature is ascribed to a conspiracy. This attitude has been lampooned before in xkcd [[808|comic 808]] and [[675|comic 675]].<br />
<br />
* The second possibility is that Cueball is simply trying to impress his friend by using "technically accurate" language to imply that he is involved in important scientific work, when all he is really doing is buying sandwiches and hoping to find a good one. (Perhaps he's a scientist out to lunch with an old friend who's never respected his work, and knows that anything Einstein-related sounds impressive and foreboding, meaning his friend is unlikely to ask for details.)<br />
<br />
* Another explanation might be simply that while scientists today are so focused on determining whether he was right, all he really cared about was finding a good sandwich shop.<br />
<br />
The title text demonstrates the ability to "disprove" Einstein while not challenging his scientific work but rather one of his decisions in his capacity as a patent clerk at the Swiss Patent Office at the time he published his first major papers (previously alluded to in [[1067: Pressures]]). According to [https://www.ige.ch/en/about-us/einstein/frequently-asked-questions.html the Einstein FAQ] on the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property's website, patent #39561 is one of several patents that "we can assume ... were personally examined by Einstein". A PDF of the patent, which was indeed a gravel sorter ({{w|trommel}}), can be found [https://www.ige.ch/fileadmin/user_upload/Institut/d/i109401.pdf here] (in German).<br />
<br />
Another part of the joke involves tenses: when Cueball says "I'm currently conducting an experiment," his friend assumes that Cueball is involved in an ongoing research project; but he actually means that he is conducting an experiment at that very moment, by eating a sandwich.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:[Cueball and friend eating at a table.]<br />
:Cueball: I'm currently conducting an experiment which may prove Einstein wrong!<br />
:Friend: Ooh, exciting!<br />
<br />
:1947:<br />
:[Einstein and Cueball walking.]<br />
:Einstein: It's ''impossible'' to find a good sandwich in this town.<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring real people]]</div>Dcoetzee