explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:449: Things Fall Apart

2026-01-17T22:55:56Z

Drkaii:

Aaaand this is up, This is one of my favorite comics of xkcd. [[User:StuckInReality|StuckInReality]] ([[User talk:StuckInReality|talk]]) 07:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
:Please start only pages with a proper explanation.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 14:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
::I do understand, Sir. [[User:StuckInReality|StuckInReality]] ([[User talk:StuckInReality|talk]]) 00:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
I think that there is a bit of "the Cueball doth protest too much" in here. He's fighting Megan's explanations without giving his own.{{unsigned|Theo}}

The explaination of the title text seems off. It reads more like the author saying that an obsessive mindset (going so far as to think that you are nothing without the other person) is "fucked up" in the sense of dangerous or undesirable, implying that people shouldn't measure self worth by a relationship to another. In fact, I'm gonna change the comment.[[User:Pennpenn|Pennpenn]] ([[User talk:Pennpenn|talk]]) 01:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The title text could be a continuation of the Kübler-Ross model for grief. The constant repeating of Cueball that he loves Megan would be the denial phase, while the transition to heavy cursing in the title text could be a sign of moving on to anger. [[User:Donny2112|Donny2112]] ([[User talk:Donny2112|talk]]) 06:04, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Weird. I almost never use the random button on xkcd, but I did yesterday 2-3 times, and then once today. The last I came to yesterday was this comic. And I may have missed seeing this before, even though I believed I have been through at least the first 600 comics... Or maybe it just did not register the first time? But today it did as the first comic I got with random was [[489: Going West]] where Megan breaks up with Cueball who do not wish to break up. And they are only 40 comics between. I can also not remember reading that one before. But they are so similar, and that I got those on two random comics in a row is just weird and fun to me! --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 10:35, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
:: Proof of God [[User:Drkaii|Drkaii]] ([[User talk:Drkaii|talk]]) 22:54, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
I read the title text very differently. Cueball is saying "I love you" over and over again instead of saying "I'm nothing without you", because he knows that it's a fucked up thing to say. But it's what he wants to say. Gonna at least add that. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.38.120|172.68.38.120]] 22:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

If i was Cueball, I would start using some of my (or his) pickup lines by now[[User:I HAVE NO NAME|I HAVE NO NAME]] ([[User talk:I HAVE NO NAME|talk]]) 09:36, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Pretty sure the issue with the 'I am nothing without you' sentiment is that it creates manipulative and coercive pressure. Maybe even implies the threat of self harm [[User:Drkaii|Drkaii]] ([[User talk:Drkaii|talk]]) 22:55, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Talk:449: Things Fall Apart

2026-01-17T22:54:04Z

Drkaii:

Talk:449: Things Fall Apart

2026-01-17T22:53:30Z

Drkaii:

Aaaand this is up, This is one of my favorite comics of xkcd. [[User:StuckInReality|StuckInReality]] ([[User talk:StuckInReality|talk]]) 07:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
:Please start only pages with a proper explanation.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 14:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
::I do understand, Sir. [[User:StuckInReality|StuckInReality]] ([[User talk:StuckInReality|talk]]) 00:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
I think that there is a bit of "the Cueball doth protest too much" in here. He's fighting Megan's explanations without giving his own.{{unsigned|Theo}}

The explaination of the title text seems off. It reads more like the author saying that an obsessive mindset (going so far as to think that you are nothing without the other person) is "fucked up" in the sense of dangerous or undesirable, implying that people shouldn't measure self worth by a relationship to another. In fact, I'm gonna change the comment.[[User:Pennpenn|Pennpenn]] ([[User talk:Pennpenn|talk]]) 01:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The title text could be a continuation of the Kübler-Ross model for grief. The constant repeating of Cueball that he loves Megan would be the denial phase, while the transition to heavy cursing in the title text could be a sign of moving on to anger. [[User:Donny2112|Donny2112]] ([[User talk:Donny2112|talk]]) 06:04, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Weird. I almost never use the random button on xkcd, but I did yesterday 2-3 times, and then once today. The last I came to yesterday was this comic. And I may have missed seeing this before, even though I believed I have been through at least the first 600 comics... Or maybe it just did not register the first time? But today it did as the first comic I got with random was [[489: Going West]] where Megan breaks up with Cueball who do not wish to break up. And they are only 40 comics between. I can also not remember reading that one before. But they are so similar, and that I got those on two random comics in a row is just weird and fun to me! --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 10:35, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
:: Proof of God
I read the title text very differently. Cueball is saying "I love you" over and over again instead of saying "I'm nothing without you", because he knows that it's a fucked up thing to say. But it's what he wants to say. Gonna at least add that. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.38.120|172.68.38.120]] 22:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

If i was Cueball, I would start using some of my (or his) pickup lines by now[[User:I HAVE NO NAME|I HAVE NO NAME]] ([[User talk:I HAVE NO NAME|talk]]) 09:36, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:3087: Pascal's Law

2025-05-11T09:10:20Z

Drkaii:

I remember learning about this and thinking it was intuitive, but I didn't really think of these consequences. Maybe everybody is making powerful lifting machines for lifting cars and houses with your bare hands, rather than explaining the article, that there isn't one yet. Pascal's law basically says that if you make one end of a container of fluid X times larger, then any force exerted on the small end is multiplied by X on the large end, so you can make it near-infinite by making the small end very small. But you'll need a little more machinery added (like a gear system) if you want the distance actually moved to be higher. Actually I think that might undo the gains in force entirely. That might be how it happens, it might swap distance for force so the same work is performed.

Hey, remember that comic where Randal challenged people to fold a paper too small? This hand-makeable device could get farther on that!
[[Special:Contributions/172.70.111.110|172.70.111.110]] 21:46, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
: yes, that's how it works; the total work is constant and the hydraulic system is converting a small force over a long distance to a large force over a small distance. if you additionally want the force to be over a larger distance, you need to put more energy into the system or else you could push this machine with its own output and get free energy from nothing. really though hydraulics are just smoother, backlashless, equivalents to a gear train in the first place so you generally wouldnt need to use both. - [[User:Vaedez|Vaedez]] ([[User talk:Vaedez|talk]]) 23:37, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
:: Small tube needs to be X times as long to get same displacement. Good for linear force rather than torque. Fluid's own pressure can be the force if tube is long enough. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.55.33|172.68.55.33]] 11:41, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

As someone old enough to remember the [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slashdot_effect slashdot effect], I wonder if XKCD comics generate a similar effect on search engines. Though I doubt they would buckle under the weight these days. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.60.148|172.69.60.148]] 22:00, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

To whoever wrote the initial transcript, remember that we don't include the title text. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 22:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I have to wonder whether he has the same disbelief of, say, levers... which allow one to move the Earth. [[User:Jordan Brown|Jordan Brown]] ([[User talk:Jordan Brown|talk]]) 23:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Although some laws of physics are absolute and lead to extreme consequences, others are taught in a simplified form that can lead to wrong conclusions. For example, "Light and heavy objects fall at the same rate" can be used to prove that objects fall at the same rate on the Earth and the Moon - which is far from correct. If the Moon were somehow dropped onto the Earth, it would fall at a certain rate. The Earth dropped on the Moon would necessarily fall at the same rate. So if the Moon falling on the Earth fell at the same rate as a bowling ball, then the bowling ball would have to fall at the same rate on the Moon. When I read Heinlein's _The Rolling Stones_ as a pre-teen, where he describes things falling slower on the Moon, I applied this reasoning and concluded that Heinlein must have made a mistake. The solution to this paradox is that something as big as the Moon will not only accelerate toward the Earth, it will significantly accelerate the Earth toward it, so the Moon does not actually fall at the same rate as a bowling ball. [[User:Cphoenix|Cphoenix]] ([[User talk:Cphoenix|talk]]) 01:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
: I think if you stand at the shared center of mass of the Earth and Moon, that then you see the Moon falling toward the Earth according to its constant field of gravitational acceleration, as well as the Earth falling toward the Moon according to its constant field of acceleration. It was indeed confusing for me to realize this, involving visit to pages such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_acceleration . F=Gm1m2/r^2 so if m1 is taken out you get a constant F=m1 a2 and vice versa. But I think the page says this only holds if the masses are far enough from each other to be treatable as points. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.55.47|172.68.55.47]] 11:57, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Besides, isn't it better to just ''believe'' in Pascal's Law if it offers a reward of near-infinite force?
[[User:StapleFreeBatteries|StapleFreeBatteries]] ([[User talk:StapleFreeBatteries|talk]]) 04:58, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
:I'll wager that you're pleased with that reference... ;) (Whether or not you actually were!) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.26.43|172.71.26.43]] 15:58, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Could this be referencing or inspired by this recent paper talking about the use of hydraulics to build pyramids? https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0306690 [[Special:Contributions/172.68.234.169|172.68.234.169]] 08:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

It could be noted that simple machines can multiply forces more or less arbitrarily, but only up to what the machine itself can withstand. Many "why didn't the ancients do that?" can be answered with "bronze kind of sucks". [[Special:Contributions/172.69.246.149|172.69.246.149]] 14:19, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
:Right. Archimedes's "Give me a lever long enough..." assumes that the lever is made of a material that won't buckle or snap under the weight of the Earth. If there were a material like that it would make building long bridges much simpler. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 16:58, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Is there a name for the teacher character (a cueball with tufts of hair on the sides of his head)? [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 16:58, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Here's a reference that claims that water hammer, rather than just depth pressure, was the major effect used in ''ruina montium'': https://blog.ferrovial.com/en/2022/08/ruina-montium-use-water-for-digging-romans/ -- [[User:Dtgriscom|Dtgriscom]] ([[User talk:Dtgriscom|talk]]) 00:04, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

A few years back I posted a question on Stack Exchange (https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/60189/which-mountain-collapsed-in-france-in-1820-21) about a report, in a 19th-century biblical commentary, of a mountain collapsing due to just this kind of thing - fluid pressure building up. First thought when I saw the reference to ''ruina montium'' in the comic was that maybe that's it - but no. So, just curious: anyone have any thoughts on what event is being referred to in that commentary? (The one suggestion that someone made there, about a glacier advancing, doesn't seem to fit.) Thanks! [[Special:Contributions/172.71.23.87|172.71.23.87]] 03:38, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
:No idea, but I gotta say, that font or scan is unreadable. Some words are decipherable like הר גבוה and ובמקומו but damn, about half of it is just splotches. No idea how you could read that. --[[User:NeatNit|NeatNit]] ([[User talk:NeatNit|talk]]) 05:12, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Should there be a goofs section here, because the white board is drawn with perspective, but the picture on it is not. It will look odd, like the whole contraption is tilted, to the students[[User:Drkaii|Drkaii]] ([[User talk:Drkaii|talk]]) 09:10, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:3087: Pascal's Law

2025-05-11T09:09:38Z

Drkaii:

2451: AI Methodology

2025-03-30T09:41:56Z

Drkaii:

{{comic
| number = 2451
| date = April 16, 2021
| title = AI Methodology
| image = ai_methodology.png
| titletext = We've learned that weird spacing and diacritics in the methodology description are apparently the key to good research; luckily, we've developed an AI tool to help us figure out where to add them.
}}

==Explanation==

The joke in this comic is that the people are using {{w|artificial intelligence}} (AI) without understanding how to, and that by doing this the research concerned is at best unreliable and possibly deliberately compromised, as in [[2494: Flawed Data]]. The researchers acknowledge that their approach is risky and requires extra verification, but repeatedly use equally or more unreliable AI-based solutions to these problems. Therefore, their problems are likely as bad as they ever were and any other team using one of their verification tools is likely to experience similar unreliability. For an introduction to machine learning, you can visit https://fast.ai/ .

===Original research===
The first comment, that "some have questioned our AI-based methodology", refers to difficulty verifying the correctness of AI-based processing. A model (a program which solves a problem with AI-based statistical analysis) may appear reliable when it is instead insufficiently tested. Models are liable to experience issues due to lingering influences from its training data or a bad algorithm reducing the quality of the investigation. It is therefore necessary for research using such models to demonstrate that those models have been tested well enough that their results are likely to be useful. Frequently, additional tests are performed after training to confirm that the model can handle data collected in a different way to the data used to train it.

===Classifier of methodology quality===
Cueball seeks to reassure his audience by quantifying the quality of his methodology. He does this by creating yet another AI to rank methodologies. This approach is unlikely to instill confidence for a variety of reasons:
* The quality AI and original research AI were written by the same team. If the original research AI was ill-designed, the quality AI probably shares design problems with it.
* The specific kind of model created is unlikely to be the correct one. Cueball calls this a classifier, which is frequently a type of model which assigns an input into distinct mutually exclusive categories. For example, a classifier might be used to determine what language a chunk of text is, given that the chunk is in only one language. However, quality is a continuous aspect of the data. A classifier of methodologies is likely to sort them into "bad", "mediocre", and "good" categories, whereas an effective model should have the ability to give more precise grades. The choice of a classifier may indicate that Cueball doesn't know which types of models to use.
* The training data for this quality AI is not mentioned. If, for example, the team's previous research is used as examples of good methodologies, the AI is likely to judge all methodologies from them as good as well.
* A ''methodology section'' refers to quality of writing and is a specific section of a research paper. A good methodology section would accurately and clearly explain what he did, but does not mean the research methodology itself was valid. Cueball doesn't indicate whether he believes his model is trying to analyze the quality of the methodology described, but in any case this is nearly impossible for existing machine learning.
* An AI which attempts to judge a methodology section is receiving a great deal of input which is difficult to process. It would have to use {{w|natural language processing}} to understand the writing in the methodology section and would also require a lot of specialized knowledge about the subject matter to judge the quality. This would require artificial general intelligence (AGI), which has not yet been achieved. Since the AI does not have the ability to fully understand complex research, it will likely use unimportant details to judge the methodologies.
* The ranking AI heavily favors the methodology of Cueball's AI, and may be biased. It shows a normal distribution, with a singular outlier to the far right with an arrow above. It can be inferred (from the arrow) that this data-point represents the AI's methodology. It is a significant outlier, and as such it is probably not an accurate representation of Cueball's AI. Alternatively, this could be taken as AI 'nepotism', where Cueball's methodology AI is more likely to select AI-based approaches over others. This type of algorithmic bias is mentioned in [[2237: AI Hiring Algorithm]].

===Spacing AI (from title text)===
While there are many red flags in the original AI and quality AI, it is theoretically possible that they operate as Cueball claims. The title text's comments about spacing and diacritics prove that this is not the case and that the quality AI, at least, is completely broken. AI models are given input in various complex ways and determine based on statistical analysis which details are important. Such models can easily find details in the training data which correlate with correct answers but make the resulting model useless.

For example, a research team once created a model which was given medical information to determine how likely a patient was to have cancer. The model was trained on existing patient records and the team planned to use it on new patients. However, the original model did not use the medical information but instead simply checked the name of the hospital--a patient at a hospital with "cancer center" in the name was likely to have cancer. The model had identified a data point which correlated with the desired answer, but this correlation was not useful for the intended purpose. The model concerned was discarded and a new one created without the hospital name.

In this case, the methodology sections are text written by humans, which can contain various artifacts of the writing process. These can include details like how the user chose to insert spaces, word usage, spelling, or diacritic marks which are optional in English (e.g. naive versus naïve). It appears that the training information identifies certain patterns which correlate with "good" methodologies. This indicates a few more problems for this research team:
* Their AI is using pointless details to decide on the quality of methodology sections, so it is useless.
* They haven't recognized that it's useless, so their other AI is probably fatally flawed.
* The spacing information is correlated strongly with good methodology, which implies that they probably don't have very many different sources for their training data. Their sample size is too small and the AI, even if it was improved to ignore this information, needs more data to have a chance at being useful.

It should be noted that this comic was released about a year and a half before the release of ChatGPT and a new revolution in AI, making the various points in the comic seem out of date by modern standards.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball is standing on a podium in front of a projection on a screen and points with a stick to a bar chart histogram with a bell curve to the left and a single bar to the far right marked with an arrow.]
:Cueball: Despite our great research results, some have questioned our AI-based methodology.
:Cueball: But we trained a classifier on a collection of good and bad methodology sections, and it says ours is fine.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Artificial Intelligence]]
[[Category:Public speaking]]
[[Category:Science]]

Talk:3054: Scream Cipher

2025-02-23T02:06:54Z

Drkaii:

What's the American alphabet? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.64.213|172.68.64.213]] 01:16, 22 February 2025 (UTC)AnAussie
Anyone know a good free all-language OCR tool to help with the transcript? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.67.156|172.69.67.156]] 17:30, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
: Found one here: https://www.lexilogos.com/keyboard/diacritics.htm --mezimm [[Special:Contributions/172.68.2.70|172.68.2.70]] 17:52, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

The written cipher is very interesting, but where can I hear recordings of the spoken form? [[Special:Contributions/Rockymountain|Rockymountain]] 17:31, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eL4piuUn5nc Here ya go.] --mezimm [[Special:Contributions/172.68.35.117|172.68.35.117]] 17:54, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Are Cueball and Megan millenials? Who else would text greetings when they're standing right next to each other? [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 17:38, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
:They could be texting other people. [[User:B_for_brain|B for brain]] ([[User_talk:B_for_brain|talk]]) ([https://www.youtube.com/@bforbrain youtube channel] [https://bforbrain.weebly.com/ wobsite (supposed to be a blag)]) 19:37, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
:Engineers and cyberfolk were text messaging their neighbors rather than talking long before it was <s>cool</s> encouraged for social distancing or quarantine! It's always helpful to get a reminder not to do this. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.101|162.158.159.101]] 20:37, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
:They might not be diegetically in the same room. Comics can get weird with physical space. [[User:GreatWyrmGold|GreatWyrmGold]] ([[User talk:GreatWyrmGold|talk]]) 20:34, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Likely a pun on "stream cipher"

- Related reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scream_(cipher) [[Special:Contributions/172.68.26.229|172.68.26.229]] 17:46, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

A̦ÅÄ ẠÂÅȀ, A̓A̅ ȀÅÄĂA̱ ȦÁ ÂÁAĂĂA̦ A̮ÄÂÂA̦ A̓A̮ ȀÁ A̱A̓A̱ A ÀÁÂÃA̓ÅÂ ÅA̮ A̅A̰A̓Ã A̭AA̋Á A̓Â A̅A̰A̓Ã ÃA̅A̦ĂÁ! --mezimm [[Special:Contributions/172.68.3.112|172.68.3.112]] 17:50, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

:The Wikifunction [https://www.wikifunctions.org/view/en/Z22728 from Scream] returns "YOU KNOW, JA̅ WOULD BE NEALLY FUNNY JF WE DJD A VENSJON OF A̅HJS A̭AGE JN A̅HJS SA̅YLE!". Hmmm... [[User:Mwarren|Mwarren]] ([[User talk:Mwarren|talk]]) 19:04, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

::The page you link to came into existence 7 minutes after I had posted this comment ;) I was doing it all manually, using [https://www.lexilogos.com/keyboard/diacritics.htm this page] and best-guess attempts to interpret what Randall's handwritten diacritics were meant to correspond to. --mezimm [[Special:Contributions/172.68.1.158|172.68.1.158]] 19:55, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

::: updated version: "A̦ÅÄ ẠÂÅȀ, ẢĀ ȀÅÄĂA̱ ȦÁ ȂÁAĂĂA̦ A̮ÄÂÂA̦ ẢA̮ ȀÁ A̱ẢA̱ A ÀÁȂÃẢÅÂ ÅA̮ ĀA̰ẢÃ A̯AA̋Á ẢÂ ĀA̰ẢÃ ÃĀA̦ĂÁ!" --mezimm [[Special:Contributions/172.68.3.67|172.68.3.67]] 20:01, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

On Wikifunctions, we implemented the two functions [https://www.wikifunctions.org/view/en/Z22725 to Scream Cipher] and [https://www.wikifunctions.org/view/en/Z22728 from Scream Cipher] --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.38.235|172.70.38.235]] 18:09, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

:It looks like the wikifunctions are using a different character for "D" than [https://scream-cipher.netlify.app/ the github project] linked in the explanation. Seems as though one's using U+0331 and the other's using 0332. [[User:Schiffy|Schiffy]] ([[User_talk:Schiffy|Speak to me]]|[[Special:Contributions/Schiffy|What I've done]]) 20:32, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Is there a logic behind the choices of the letter? I guess A̧ is for C because of the French ç and Å is pronounced like O in some Nordic languages. Also, is it A̱, A̲ or A̲ ? (or something else). [[Special:Contributions/172.71.126.50|172.71.126.50]] 18:10, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
: Seems to be mostly visual similarity. Å has an actual O shape added to it. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.110.171|172.70.110.171]] 20:19, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I give it a week for people to make a translator to and from this cipher. [[User:CalibansCreations|'''Caliban''']] ([[User talk:CalibansCreations|talk]]) 18:20, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

- The Wikifunctions translations above were complete at least 11 minutes ''before'' your comment and well within the goal of one week :-) . [[User:Mwarren|Mwarren]] ([[User talk:Mwarren|talk]]) 19:04, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Numbers should be variations of h and/or g. [[User:Andyd273|Andyd273]] ([[User talk:Andyd273|talk]]) 18:32, 21 February 2025 (UTC)#
:H > g [[User:SqueakSquawk4|SqueakSquawk4]] ([[User talk:SqueakSquawk4|talk]]) 18:59, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Using ''sed'' you can encode with <code>sed 's/C/A̧/g;s/D/A̱/g;s/F/A̮/g;s/G/A̋/g;s/H/A̰/g;s/J/A̓/g;s/P/A̯/g;s/Q/A̤/g;s/X/A̽/g;s/Y/A̦/g;y/BEIKLMNORSTUVWZ/ȦÁẢẠĂǍÂÅȂÃĀÄÀȀȺ/'</code> and decode with <code>sed 's/A̧/C/g;s/A̱/D/g;s/A̮/F/g;s/A̋/G/g;s/A̰/H/g;s/A̓/J/g;s/A̯/P/g;s/A̤/Q/g;s/A̽/X/g;s/A̦/Y/g;y/ȦÁẢẠĂǍÂÅȂÃĀÄÀȀȺ/BEIKLMNORSTUVWZ/'</code>. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.102|162.158.159.102]] 18:41, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
: This is really neat. I suppose `tr` might work too. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.10.242|162.158.10.242]] 16:15, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

It would be really funny if someone added an image of Bill Cipher screaming, with the tag "A screaming cipher". It wouldn't reall fit but it'd be funny [[User:SqueakSquawk4|SqueakSquawk4]] ([[User talk:SqueakSquawk4|talk]]) 18:59, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
:[[File:Screamingcipher.png]] I did. [[User:B_for_brain|B for brain]] ([[User_talk:B_for_brain|talk]]) ([https://www.youtube.com/@bforbrain youtube channel] [https://bforbrain.weebly.com/ wobsite (supposed to be a blag)]) 19:57, 21 February 2025 (UTC) (EDIT: WOW, that thing is MASSIVE! Can someone please downscale it because I have no idea how. You have permission to edit my comment '''''only for that.''''') (DOUBLE EDIT: Nevermind, I did it.)
Someone started a GitHub repo with a web-based encoded/decoder already: https://github.com/Reginald-Gillespie/StreamCipher [[User:Dlech|Dlech]] ([[User talk:Dlech|talk]]) 19:35, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I'd almost want to edit in my repo instead of the current one because mine is objectively better, but I'm new to this and not sure if that's appropriate or not =P (I don't even know if I am commenting correctly) [[User:WKoA|WKoA]] ([[User talk:WKoA|talk]]) 00:17, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
:Look to the likes of the [[1190: Time]] comic, where several different fanbase compilations may have been given. I would anticipate that you could do a decent job of editing "This thing here does..." into "Ways of experiencing it include this [existing one] and that [yours] [with room to add more, if they add up]. Or just mention your link here, let others decide if your claims of (better?) functionality stand up enough to prompt it to be put up alongside/ahead/instead of the other. I am at least intrigued as to how you did it differently.
:And you certainly had a bit of trouble with the signing. Just add <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> to the end of Talk comments and it autoreplaces. No need to go back in and edit (I added the original timestamp back in, for you, just for future reference). Unless of course you forgot to do it the first time... ;) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.161|172.71.178.161]] 02:41, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I know you can decode a substitution cipher by counting letters and replacing common ones like 'E' and then filling in the rest by inspection, but what kinds of automated approaches are there? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.105|162.158.159.105]] 20:14, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

'''HEADS UP:''' I just changed A̲ (0332 COMBINING LOW LINE) to A̱ (0331 COMBINING MACRON BELOW) as encoding for "D" in the table and the transcript. Rationale: "T" is written with macron, so it's only logical to encode "D" likewise. A "low line" is longer than a macron, and looking at Randall's comic, the line below the "D" is definitely not longer than the one above "T". It would also make no sense to encode "T" with a "combining low line" as well when a single, uncombined character exists. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.123|172.70.114.123]] 20:29, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
: These options should all be including as different writing styles! I think the longer line makes it clearer that A̲ represents D because the ink comes nearer to forming into a closed curve. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.68|172.68.54.68]] 15:55, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I expect to win a Turing Award for my proof this cypher is computationally equivalent to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitespace_(programming_language) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.158.19|172.71.158.19]] 02:57, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

The page technically uses the incorrect characters for (at least) E, M, N, O, R, S, and T based on the title text shown on xkcd.com. The original title text uses two separate characters (ex. A + 0301 COMBINING ACUTE ACCENT for E), whereas the table uses the combined character (ex. 00C1 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER A WITH ACUTE for E). Alternatively, my browser is just doing something weird. Not necessarily worth updating, but something I noticed when implementing the cipher. [[User:Abus|Abus]] ([[User talk:Abus|talk]]) 06:22, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
: I think it's the browser. Firefox->Page Source gives me A+COMBINING WHATEVER, but <code>w3m -dump_source https://xkcd.com/3054/ | zcat | grep 'img.*title='</code> returns single characters. The title text here on explainxkcd was copied by ''TheusafBOT''. I trust ''TheusafBOT'' and ''w3m'' to be so basic and simple that they wouldn't try to do something 'clever' with the characters, whereas I tend to suspect the multi-MB-monster Firefox messed things up. I'm just guessing, though... could maybe someone test with yet another browser - e.g. Edge or Opera? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.107|162.158.159.107]] 11:52, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
:: Argh, no, turns out ''w3m'', and also ''wget'' all return A+COMBINING THINGY, but they got merged into the single chars by my ''xterm'' when I copied them to some 'identify unicode' web page. Looking at the raw file dumped by ''wget'' I see A+COMBINING XX - I think... So I think you are right with your observation! Randall uses A+COMBINING XX for the title text on XKCD (though I really doubt that was intentional), then ''TheusafBOT'' merged the characters when it copied the text to create this page. That said, I still think using the merged chars is cleaner. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.107|162.158.159.107]] 12:20, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
::: It may be worth noting the difference somewhere, even though the merged chars are cleaner. Someone copying the characters from this page to encipher text would technically be in violation of the "spec" since Randall used the two character version in the title text. If someone wished to decipher the title text from the original XKCD, this characters on this page would fail. [[User:Abus|Abus]] ([[User talk:Abus|talk]]) 18:56, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
: unsure how to indent a sourceblock, see below [[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.167|172.68.54.167]] 16:13, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
<source>$ curl -s https://m.xkcd.com | sed -ne 's/.*id="altText">$[^<]*$<.*/\1/p' | iconv -f utf8 -t wchar_t | hexdump -C
00000000 41 00 00 00 41 00 00 00 41 00 00 00 41 00 00 00 |A...A...A...A...|
00000010 41 00 00 00 41 00 00 00 20 00 00 00 41 00 00 00 |A...A... ...A...|
00000020 20 00 00 00 41 00 00 00 03 03 00 00 41 00 00 00 | ...A.......A...|
00000030 27 03 00 00 41 00 00 00 41 00 00 00 11 03 00 00 |'...A...A.......|
00000040 41 00 00 00 26 03 00 00 20 00 00 00 41 00 00 00 |A...&... ...A...|
00000050 0c 03 00 00 41 00 00 00 0a 03 00 00 41 00 00 00 |....A.......A...|
00000060 02 03 00 00 41 00 00 00 03 03 00 00 41 00 00 00 |....A.......A...|
00000070 04 03 00 00 41 00 00 00 01 03 00 00 41 00 00 00 |....A.......A...|
00000080 11 03 00 00 20 00 00 00 41 00 00 00 41 00 00 00 |.... ...A...A...|
00000090 41 00 00 00 41 00 00 00 41 00 00 00 41 00 00 00 |A...A...A...A...|
000000a0 41 00 00 00 21 00 00 00 0a 00 00 00 |A...!.......|</source>

'''TRIARESIS'''
Does anyone else view the triaresis as a missed opportunity? I'm thinking of Die Aerzte". [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_%C3%84rzte#Band_name]. Can someone insert the image of the band's logo? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.102.222|172.71.102.222]] 17:21, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
:I saw that, when following up on the actual A-diaresisand I quite like the idea that they {{tvtropes|HeavyMetalUmlaut|heavy metal umlauted}} an ''actual'' existing umlaut/diaeresis... If it weren't irrelevent to the comic (and skipped the bit at the top that actually translates the name), I might have relinked to that anchor point. But happily boosting the visibility of it here with a small reply⋯ [[Special:Contributions/172.68.205.122|172.68.205.122]] 21:31, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, should encode all numbers, in binary, using 'g' and 'h' for 0 and 1.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.195|172.70.162.195]] 17:56, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
:Why g and h? I saw an early comment saying the same. Why those when letters are A? --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 18:14, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
::I presume for the "AAAAAAAAAGH!" type thing... (Although, given that a number would then be something like GHHHGGH, as a separate word, I'm not sure it'll look "AAAAAAAGH"ish.
::And is it coded as MSF (42=101010), N-bit (e.g. =00101010), BCD per digit (4=0100 2=0010 =01000010) or some other form? Plenty of scope for interpretation.
::Also, might I suggest E and I (or I and E) for it, instead..? IEIEIE EEIEIEIE EIEEEEIE! [[Special:Contributions/172.68.205.178|172.68.205.178]] 19:10, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Should "Augh" be added to the versions of screaming? Randall uses it alot, e.g. https://xkcd.com/493/, https://xkcd.com/1401/, https://xkcd.com/1388/, https://xkcd.com/1207/, https://xkcd.com/1226/, https://xkcd.com/780/, https://xkcd.com/990/

3023: The Maritime Approximation

2024-12-15T14:59:52Z

Drkaii:

{{comic
| number = 3023
| date = December 11, 2024
| title = The Maritime Approximation
| image = the_maritime_approximation_2x.png
| imagesize = 265x126px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = It works because a nautical mile is based on a degree of latitude, and the Earth (e) is a circle.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a SEMICIRCULAR SAILOR - Needs explanation of the origins of the units and constants involved for readers to investigate the confidentiality of the relationship. Also, needs clear explanation of title text. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
Mph ({{w|miles per hour}}) and {{w|Knot (unit)|knot}}s (''nautical miles'' per hour) are both units used to express speed, including that of vehicles. Miles per hour are typically used in the {{w|Miles per hour|US, UK and some smaller countries}} for the speed of cars and other similar vehicles, while knots are used by many sailors and pilots to describe the speed of ships and aircraft. Novice sailors or pilots, or those who spend a lot of time on land, may find it helpful to quickly convert between mph and knots, in order to relate to typical ground-surface speeds. Although, as safe operating speeds for particular aircraft/watercraft may bear little relationship to (for example) road-vehicle speeds, it might be arguably better just to develop a separate 'air sense' (perhaps mostly at higher velocities, far above any landmark that you might pass by) or 'water sense' (often at lower velocities, and with the particular fluid nature of the water's surface) that is keyed especially to the knots-rated speed of your vessel, without attempting to carry over this aspect of any pre-existing 'road sense'.

One hopefully ''rare'' exception might possibly be in the event of a plane having to make an emergency landing on a public highway, where it could be useful to know if a (possibly unpowered) plane's final landing speed can be made to be not too far off that of any unsuspecting road traffic that you may have to land in the midst of; but this would never be a trivial endeavour in any case, and even having to attempt such a feat probably means you have few options open to you and very little time to consider many of these finer details.

That complication aside, ''if'' it is necessary to know, this could be done in the form of 1 knot = 1.2 mph, or 1 mph = 0.87 knots (1 knot = 1.85 km/h and 1 km/h = 0.54 knots for metric navigators). [[Randall]] has humorously noticed that ''π'' mph ≈ {{w|E_(mathematical_constant)|''e''}} knots: ''π'' mph = [https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=pi+mph+in+knots 2.72997] knots, while ''e'' ≈ 2.71828. Despite the claim of the title text, this is a coincidence,{{Citation needed}} since even though knots are based on nautical miles, which are related to degrees of latitude (and thus to ''π'', which is used to describe the circumference of a circle), miles per hour have no relation to either ''e'' or ''π''. Furthermore, the title text makes the connection to ''e'' by mentioning "Earth (e)", but e is not a symbol or abbreviation commonly used for Earth, and even if it were, it has nothing to do with Euler's number ''e''. Randall also conflates "circle" with "sphere" for simplicity, as they both have a radius that can be measured with ''π''.

The equality shown in this strip consists of several different parts:

# The mile (1609.344 m) per hour (mph) is a unit of speed common for motor vehicles in a few countries, such as the United States and United Kingdom.
# The knot is a unit of speed that is one nautical mile (1852 m) per hour, used in nautical contexts.
# ''π'' is a number equal to the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter, about 3.14159.
# ''e'' is Euler's number, the base of the natural logarithm, about 2.71828.

''π'' mph × (1609.344 meters/statute mile ÷ 1852 meters/nautical mile) ≈ 2.729969 knots. The result is only about 0.43% larger than ''e'' knots ≈ 2.71828 knots.

Knots are related to the circumference of the Earth, which can introduce ''π'', but this is only "useful" if you want to express your speed as a fraction of the radius of the Earth: 1 knot = 1 nautical mile per hour = 1/60 of a degree of Earth's circumference per hour = 1/21,600 of Earth's circumference per hour = 2''π''/21,600 x Earth's radius per hour. However, nowadays this is an approximation, because a nautical mile is defined as exactly 1852 m, which is not exactly 1/60 of a degree of Earth's circumference.

Randall has in the past made similar observations of different dimensions that equal each other with comics such as [[687: Dimensional Analysis]], where he compares {{w|Planck energy}}, the pressure at Earth's core, the gas mileage in a Prius, and the width of the English Channel to ''π''. In addition, in [[What If?]], he has compared the mass of Earth to be ''π'' "milliJupiters," or ''π'' times the mass of Jupiter divided by 1000, and noted that the volume of a cube with side lengths of one mile is roughly similar to the volume of a sphere with a radius of 1 kilometer. In [[217: e to the pi Minus pi]] and [[1047: Approximations]], Randall gives a lot of similar numerical approximations.

So, the joke is that the interesting identity between MPH and knots in the comic is not exact, but only correct to a certain percentage, unlike the identity it is compared to: {{w|Euler's Identity}}, which is exact and expresses a deep mathematical insight, which is what makes the latter truly remarkable. The former is nothing but an unimpressive, if mildly interesting coincidence; merely a novelty. This isn't helped by the fact that the comic carries the implication that this neat, easy-to-remember identity is actually useful for sailors, when really, being easy to remember is all it has going for it: it doesn't make calculations any easier, it is impossible to do without a calculator or paper, and doing it on paper is much harder than other conversions, given that ''π'' and ''e'' are both irrational and transcendental. Finally and most importantly, this conversion between knots and MPH is far far less accurate than the typical conversion factor used, i.e. 1.1508, which is accurate to within 0.00179%; about 280x better than Randall's. This can make a huge difference on shipping routes, which can be hundreds or thousands of miles long.

The title text furthers the joke that this identity between MPH and knots is truly fundamental, but through faulty logic. Whenever ''π'' shows up in an equation, the claim made by many mathematicians is that there is a circle hiding somewhere in the math. Randall says that ''π'' is coming from the fact that nautical miles are based on the fact that the Earth is round, and shipping routes over its surface are circular. As profound as this sounds, it makes no mathematical sense at all. He also claims that ''e'' is in the equation because 'Earth' starts with an E; nothing but 'word play'.

==Transcript==
:[In a small panel an equation is shown. There is a footnote below the equation:]
:<big>π mph = ''e'' knots*</big>
:*Correct to <0.5%

:[Caption below the panel:]
:The sailor's version of eiπ=−1

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Math]]

3023: The Maritime Approximation

2024-12-15T14:58:00Z

Drkaii:

{{comic
| number = 3023
| date = December 11, 2024
| title = The Maritime Approximation
| image = the_maritime_approximation_2x.png
| imagesize = 265x126px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = It works because a nautical mile is based on a degree of latitude, and the Earth (e) is a circle.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a SEMICIRCULAR SAILOR - Needs explanation of the origins of the units and constants involved for readers to investigate the confidentiality of the relationship. Also, needs clear explanation of title text. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
Mph ({{w|miles per hour}}) and {{w|Knot (unit)|knot}}s (''nautical miles'' per hour) are both units used to express speed, including that of vehicles. Miles per hour are typically used in the {{w|Miles per hour|US, UK and some smaller countries}} for the speed of cars and other similar vehicles, while knots are used by many sailors and pilots to describe the speed of ships and aircraft. Novice sailors or pilots, or those who spend a lot of time on land, may find it helpful to quickly convert between mph and knots, in order to relate to typical ground-surface speeds. Although, as safe operating speeds for particular aircraft/watercraft may bear little relationship to (for example) road-vehicle speeds, it might be arguably better just to develop a separate 'air sense' (perhaps mostly at higher velocities, far above any landmark that you might pass by) or 'water sense' (often at lower velocities, and with the particular fluid nature of the water's surface) that is keyed especially to the knots-rated speed of your vessel, without attempting to carry over this aspect of any pre-existing 'road sense'.

One hopefully ''rare'' exception might possibly be in the event of a plane having to make an emergency landing on a public highway, where it could be useful to know if a (possibly unpowered) plane's final landing speed can be made to be not too far off that of any unsuspecting road traffic that you may have to land in the midst of; but this would never be a trivial endeavour in any case, and even having to attempt such a feat probably means you have few options open to you and very little time to consider many of these finer details.

That complication aside, ''if'' it is necessary to know, this could be done in the form of 1 knot = 1.2 mph, or 1 mph = 0.87 knots (1 knot = 1.85 km/h and 1 km/h = 0.54 knots for metric navigators). [[Randall]] has humorously noticed that ''π'' mph ≈ {{w|E_(mathematical_constant)|''e''}} knots: ''π'' mph = [https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=pi+mph+in+knots 2.72997] knots, while ''e'' ≈ 2.71828. Despite the claim of the title text, this is a coincidence,{{Citation needed}} since even though knots are based on nautical miles, which are related to degrees of latitude (and thus to ''π'', which is used to describe the circumference of a circle), miles per hour have no relation to either ''e'' or ''π''. Furthermore, the title text makes the connection to ''e'' by mentioning "Earth (e)", but e is not a symbol or abbreviation commonly used for Earth, and even if it were, it has nothing to do with Euler's number ''e''. Randall also conflates "circle" with "sphere" for simplicity, as they both have a radius that can be measured with ''π''.

The equality shown in this strip consists of several different parts:

# The mile (1609.344 m) per hour (mph) is a unit of speed common for motor vehicles in a few countries, such as the United States and United Kingdom.
# The knot is a unit of speed that is one nautical mile (1852 m) per hour, used in nautical contexts.
# ''π'' is a number equal to the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter, about 3.14159.
# ''e'' is Euler's number, the base of the natural logarithm, about 2.71828.

''π'' mph × (1609.344 meters/statute mile ÷ 1852 meters/nautical mile) ≈ 2.729969 knots. The result is only about 0.43% larger than ''e'' knots ≈ 2.71828 knots.

Knots are related to the circumference of the Earth, which can introduce ''π'', but this is only "useful" if you want to express your speed as a fraction of the radius of the Earth: 1 knot = 1 nautical mile per hour = 1/60 of a degree of Earth's circumference per hour = 1/21,600 of Earth's circumference per hour = 2''π''/21,600 x Earth's radius per hour. However, nowadays this is an approximation, because a nautical mile is defined as exactly 1852 m, which is not exactly 1/60 of a degree of Earth's circumference.

Randall has in the past made similar observations of different dimensions that equal each other with comics such as [[687: Dimensional Analysis]], where he compares {{w|Planck energy}}, the pressure at Earth's core, the gas mileage in a Prius, and the width of the English Channel to ''π''. In addition, in [[What If?]], he has compared the mass of Earth to be ''π'' "milliJupiters," or ''π'' times the mass of Jupiter divided by 1000, and noted that the volume of a cube with side lengths of one mile is roughly similar to the volume of a sphere with a radius of 1 kilometer. In [[217: e to the pi Minus pi]] and [[1047: Approximations]], Randall gives a lot of similar numerical approximations.

So, the joke is that the interesting identity between MPH and knots in the comic is not exact, but only correct to a certain percentage, unlike the identity it is compared to: {{w|Euler's Identity}}, which is exact and expresses a deep mathematical insight, which is what makes the latter truly remarkable. The former is nothing but an unimpressive, if mildly interesting coincidence; merely a novelty. This isn't helped by the fact that the comic carries the implication that this neat, easy-to-remember identity is actually useful for sailors, when really, being easy to remember is all it has going for it: it doesn't make calculations any easier, it is impossible to do without a calculator or paper, and doing it on paper is much harder than other conversions, given that ''π'' and ''e'' are both irrational and transcendental. Finally and most importantly, this conversion between knots and MPH is far far less accurate than the typical conversion factor used, i.e. 1.1508, which is accurate to 0.00179%, about 280x better than Randall's. This can make a huge difference on shipping routes, which can be hundreds or thousands of miles long.

The title text furthers the joke that this identity between MPH and knots is truly fundamental, but through faulty logic. Whenever ''π'' shows up in an equation, the claim made by many mathematicians is that there is a circle hiding somewhere in the math. Randall says that ''π'' is coming from the fact that nautical miles are based on the fact that the Earth is round, and shipping routes over its surface are circular. As profound as this sounds, it makes no mathematical sense at all. He also claims that ''e'' is in the equation because 'Earth' starts with an E; nothing but 'word play'.

==Transcript==
:[In a small panel an equation is shown. There is a footnote below the equation:]
:<big>π mph = ''e'' knots*</big>
:*Correct to <0.5%

:[Caption below the panel:]
:The sailor's version of eiπ=−1

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Math]]

3023: The Maritime Approximation

2024-12-15T14:56:59Z

Drkaii:

{{comic
| number = 3023
| date = December 11, 2024
| title = The Maritime Approximation
| image = the_maritime_approximation_2x.png
| imagesize = 265x126px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = It works because a nautical mile is based on a degree of latitude, and the Earth (e) is a circle.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a SEMICIRCULAR SAILOR - Needs explanation of the origins of the units and constants involved for readers to investigate the confidentiality of the relationship. Also, needs clear explanation of title text. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
Mph ({{w|miles per hour}}) and {{w|Knot (unit)|knot}}s (''nautical miles'' per hour) are both units used to express speed, including that of vehicles. Miles per hour are typically used in the {{w|Miles per hour|US, UK and some smaller countries}} for the speed of cars and other similar vehicles, while knots are used by many sailors and pilots to describe the speed of ships and aircraft. Novice sailors or pilots, or those who spend a lot of time on land, may find it helpful to quickly convert between mph and knots, in order to relate to typical ground-surface speeds. Although, as safe operating speeds for particular aircraft/watercraft may bear little relationship to (for example) road-vehicle speeds, it might be arguably better just to develop a separate 'air sense' (perhaps mostly at higher velocities, far above any landmark that you might pass by) or 'water sense' (often at lower velocities, and with the particular fluid nature of the water's surface) that is keyed especially to the knots-rated speed of your vessel, without attempting to carry over this aspect of any pre-existing 'road sense'.

One hopefully ''rare'' exception might possibly be in the event of a plane having to make an emergency landing on a public highway, where it could be useful to know if a (possibly unpowered) plane's final landing speed can be made to be not too far off that of any unsuspecting road traffic that you may have to land in the midst of; but this would never be a trivial endeavour in any case, and even having to attempt such a feat probably means you have few options open to you and very little time to consider many of these finer details.

That complication aside, ''if'' it is necessary to know, this could be done in the form of 1 knot = 1.2 mph, or 1 mph = 0.87 knots (1 knot = 1.85 km/h and 1 km/h = 0.54 knots for metric navigators). [[Randall]] has humorously noticed that ''π'' mph ≈ {{w|E_(mathematical_constant)|''e''}} knots: ''π'' mph = [https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=pi+mph+in+knots 2.72997] knots, while ''e'' ≈ 2.71828. Despite the claim of the title text, this is a coincidence,{{Citation needed}} since even though knots are based on nautical miles, which are related to degrees of latitude (and thus to ''π'', which is used to describe the circumference of a circle), miles per hour have no relation to either ''e'' or ''π''. Furthermore, the title text makes the connection to ''e'' by mentioning "Earth (e)", but e is not a symbol or abbreviation commonly used for Earth, and even if it were, it has nothing to do with Euler's number ''e''. Randall also conflates "circle" with "sphere" for simplicity, as they both have a radius that can be measured with ''π''.

The equality shown in this strip consists of several different parts:

# The mile (1609.344 m) per hour (mph) is a unit of speed common for motor vehicles in a few countries, such as the United States and United Kingdom.
# The knot is a unit of speed that is one nautical mile (1852 m) per hour, used in nautical contexts.
# ''π'' is a number equal to the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter, about 3.14159.
# ''e'' is Euler's number, the base of the natural logarithm, about 2.71828.

''π'' mph × (1609.344 meters/statute mile ÷ 1852 meters/nautical mile) ≈ 2.729969 knots. The result is only about 0.43% larger than ''e'' knots ≈ 2.71828 knots.

Knots are related to the circumference of the Earth, which can introduce ''π'', but this is only "useful" if you want to express your speed as a fraction of the radius of the Earth: 1 knot = 1 nautical mile per hour = 1/60 of a degree of Earth's circumference per hour = 1/21,600 of Earth's circumference per hour = 2''π''/21,600 x Earth's radius per hour. However, nowadays this is an approximation, because a nautical mile is defined as exactly 1852 m, which is not exactly 1/60 of a degree of Earth's circumference.

Randall has in the past made similar observations of different dimensions that equal each other with comics such as [[687: Dimensional Analysis]], where he compares {{w|Planck energy}}, the pressure at Earth's core, the gas mileage in a Prius, and the width of the English Channel to ''π''. In addition, in [[What If?]], he has compared the mass of Earth to be ''π'' "milliJupiters," or ''π'' times the mass of Jupiter divided by 1000, and noted that the volume of a cube with side lengths of one mile is roughly similar to the volume of a sphere with a radius of 1 kilometer. In [[217: e to the pi Minus pi]] and [[1047: Approximations]], Randall gives a lot of similar numerical approximations.

So, the joke is that the interesting identity between MPH and knots in the comic is not exact, but only correct to a certain percentage, unlike the identity it is compared to: {{w|Euler's Identity}}, which is exact and expresses a deep mathematical insight, which is what makes the latter truly remarkable. The former nothing but an unimpressive, if mildly interesting coincidence; nothing but a novelty. This isn't helped by the fact that the comic carries the implication that this neat, easy-to-remember identity is actually useful for sailors, when really, being easy to remember is all it has going for it: it doesn't make calculations any easier, it is impossible to do without a calculator or paper, and doing it on paper is much harder than other conversions, given that ''π'' and ''e'' are both irrational and transcendental. Finally and most importantly, this conversion between knots and MPH is far far less accurate than the typical conversion factor used, i.e. 1.1508, which is accurate to 0.00179%, about 280x better than Randall's. This can make a huge difference on shipping routes, which can be hundreds or thousands of miles long.

The title text furthers the joke that this identity between MPH and knots is truly fundamental, but through faulty logic. Whenever ''π'' shows up in an equation, the claim made by many mathematicians is that there is a circle hiding somewhere in the math. Randall says that ''π'' is coming from the fact that nautical miles are based on the fact that the Earth is round, and shipping routes over its surface are circular. As profound as this sounds, it makes no mathematical sense at all. He also claims that ''e'' is in the equation because 'Earth' starts with an E; nothing but 'word play'.

==Transcript==
:[In a small panel an equation is shown. There is a footnote below the equation:]
:<big>π mph = ''e'' knots*</big>
:*Correct to <0.5%

:[Caption below the panel:]
:The sailor's version of eiπ=−1

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Math]]

3023: The Maritime Approximation

2024-12-15T14:48:33Z

Drkaii:

{{comic
| number = 3023
| date = December 11, 2024
| title = The Maritime Approximation
| image = the_maritime_approximation_2x.png
| imagesize = 265x126px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = It works because a nautical mile is based on a degree of latitude, and the Earth (e) is a circle.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a SEMICIRCULAR SAILOR - Needs explanation of the origins of the units and constants involved for readers to investigate the confidentiality of the relationship. Also, needs clear explanation of title text. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
Mph ({{w|miles per hour}}) and {{w|Knot (unit)|knot}}s (''nautical miles'' per hour) are both units used to express speed, including that of vehicles. Miles per hour are typically used in the {{w|Miles per hour|US, UK and some smaller countries}} for the speed of cars and other similar vehicles, while knots are used by many sailors and pilots to describe the speed of ships and aircraft. Novice sailors or pilots, or those who spend a lot of time on land, may find it helpful to quickly convert between mph and knots, in order to relate to typical ground-surface speeds. Although, as safe operating speeds for particular aircraft/watercraft may bear little relationship to (for example) road-vehicle speeds, it might be arguably better just to develop a separate 'air sense' (perhaps mostly at higher velocities, far above any landmark that you might pass by) or 'water sense' (often at lower velocities, and with the particular fluid nature of the water's surface) that is keyed especially to the knots-rated speed of your vessel, without attempting to carry over this aspect of any pre-existing 'road sense'.

One hopefully ''rare'' exception might possibly be in the event of a plane having to make an emergency landing on a public highway, where it could be useful to know if a (possibly unpowered) plane's final landing speed can be made to be not too far off that of any unsuspecting road traffic that you may have to land in the midst of; but this would never be a trivial endeavour in any case, and even having to attempt such a feat probably means you have few options open to you and very little time to consider many of these finer details.

That complication aside, ''if'' it is necessary to know, this could be done in the form of 1 knot = 1.2 mph, or 1 mph = 0.87 knots (1 knot = 1.85 km/h and 1 km/h = 0.54 knots for metric navigators). [[Randall]] has humorously noticed that ''π'' mph ≈ {{w|E_(mathematical_constant)|''e''}} knots: ''π'' mph = [https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=pi+mph+in+knots 2.72997] knots, while ''e'' ≈ 2.71828. Despite the claim of the title text, this is a coincidence,{{Citation needed}} since even though knots are based on nautical miles, which are related to degrees of latitude (and thus to ''π'', which is used to describe the circumference of a circle), miles per hour have no relation to either ''e'' or ''π''. Furthermore, the title text makes the connection to ''e'' by mentioning "Earth (e)", but e is not a symbol or abbreviation commonly used for Earth, and even if it were, it has nothing to do with Euler's number ''e''. Randall also conflates "circle" with "sphere" for simplicity, as they both have a radius that can be measured with ''π''.

The equality shown in this strip consists of several different parts:

# The mile (1609.344 m) per hour (mph) is a unit of speed common for motor vehicles in a few countries, such as the United States and United Kingdom.
# The knot is a unit of speed that is one nautical mile (1852 m) per hour, used in nautical contexts.
# ''π'' is a number equal to the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter, about 3.14159.
# ''e'' is Euler's number, the base of the natural logarithm, about 2.71828.

''π'' mph × (1609.344 meters/statute mile ÷ 1852 meters/nautical mile) ≈ 2.729969 knots. The result is only about 0.43% larger than ''e'' knots ≈ 2.71828 knots.

Knots are related to the circumference of the Earth, which can introduce ''π'', but this is only "useful" if you want to express your speed as a fraction of the radius of the Earth: 1 knot = 1 nautical mile per hour = 1/60 of a degree of Earth's circumference per hour = 1/21,600 of Earth's circumference per hour = 2''π''/21,600 x Earth's radius per hour. However, nowadays this is an approximation, because a nautical mile is defined as exactly 1852 m, which is not exactly 1/60 of a degree of Earth's circumference.

Randall has in the past made similar observations of different dimensions that equal each other with comics such as [[687: Dimensional Analysis]], where he compares {{w|Planck energy}}, the pressure at Earth's core, the gas mileage in a Prius, and the width of the English Channel to ''π''. In addition, in [[What If?]], he has compared the mass of Earth to be ''π'' "milliJupiters," or ''π'' times the mass of Jupiter divided by 1000, and noted that the volume of a cube with side lengths of one mile is roughly similar to the volume of a sphere with a radius of 1 kilometer. In [[217: e to the pi Minus pi]] and [[1047: Approximations]], Randall gives a lot of similar numerical approximations.

The joke is that it is not exact, but only correct to a certain percentage, unlike {{w|Euler's Identity}}, which is exact and expresses a deep mathematical insight, and that's what makes the latter truly remarkable, and the former nothing but an unimpressive coincidence. This isn't helped by the fact that the comic carries the implication that this neat, easy-to-remember identity is actually useful for sailors, when really, being easy to remember is all it has going for it: it doesn't make calculations any easier, it is impossible to do without a calculator or paper, and doing it on paper is much harder than other conversions, given that ''π'' and ''e'' are both irrational and transcendental. Finally and most importantly, this conversion between knots and MPH is far far less accurate than the typical conversion factor used, i.e. 1.1508, which is accurate to 0.00179%, about 280x better than Randall's. This can make a huge difference on shipping routes, which can be hundreds or thousands of miles long.

The title text furthers the joke that this identity between MPH and knots is truly fundamental, but through faulty logic. Whenever ''π'' shows up in an equation, the claim made by many mathematicians is that there is a circle hiding somewhere in the math. Randall says that ''π'' is coming from the fact that nautical miles are based on the fact that the Earth is round, and shipping routes over its surface are circular. As profound as this sounds, it makes no mathematical sense at all. He also claims that ''e'' is in the equation because 'Earth' starts with an E; nothing but 'word play'.

==Transcript==
:[In a small panel an equation is shown. There is a footnote below the equation:]
:<big>π mph = ''e'' knots*</big>
:*Correct to <0.5%

:[Caption below the panel:]
:The sailor's version of eiπ=−1

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Math]]

3023: The Maritime Approximation

2024-12-15T12:10:18Z

Drkaii:

{{comic
| number = 3023
| date = December 11, 2024
| title = The Maritime Approximation
| image = the_maritime_approximation_2x.png
| imagesize = 265x126px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = It works because a nautical mile is based on a degree of latitude, and the Earth (e) is a circle.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a SEMICIRCULAR SAILOR - Needs explanation of the origins of the units and constants involved for readers to investigate the confidentiality of the relationship. Also, needs clear explanation of title text. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
Mph ({{w|miles per hour}}) and {{w|Knot (unit)|knot}}s (''nautical miles'' per hour) are both units used to express speed, including that of vehicles. Miles per hour are typically used in the {{w|Miles per hour|US, UK and some smaller countries}} for the speed of cars and other similar vehicles, while knots are used by many sailors and pilots to describe the speed of ships and aircraft. Novice sailors or pilots, or those who spend a lot of time on land, may find it helpful to quickly convert between mph and knots, in order to relate to typical ground-surface speeds. Although, as safe operating speeds for particular aircraft/watercraft may bear little relationship to (for example) road-vehicle speeds, it might be arguably better just to develop a separate 'air sense' (perhaps mostly at higher velocities, far above any landmark that you might pass by) or 'water sense' (often at lower velocities, and with the particular fluid nature of the water's surface) that is keyed especially to the knots-rated speed of your vessel, without attempting to carry over this aspect of any pre-existing 'road sense'.

One hopefully ''rare'' exception might possibly be in the event of a plane having to make an emergency landing on a public highway, where it could be useful to know if a (possibly unpowered) plane's final landing speed can be made to be not too far off that of any unsuspecting road traffic that you may have to land in the midst of; but this would never be a trivial endeavour in any case, and even having to attempt such a feat probably means you have few options open to you and very little time to consider many of these finer details.

That complication aside, ''if'' it is necessary to know, this could be done in the form of 1 knot = 1.2 mph, or 1 mph = 0.87 knots (1 knot = 1.85 km/h and 1 km/h = 0.54 knots for metric navigators). [[Randall]] has humorously noticed that ''π'' mph ≈ {{w|E_(mathematical_constant)|''e''}} knots: ''π'' mph = [https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=pi+mph+in+knots 2.72997] knots, while ''e'' ≈ 2.71828. Despite the claim of the title text, this is a coincidence,{{Citation needed}} since even though knots are based on nautical miles, which are related to degrees of latitude (and thus to ''π'', which is used to describe the circumference of a circle), miles per hour have no relation to either ''e'' or ''π''. Furthermore, the title text makes the connection to ''e'' by mentioning "Earth (e)", but e is not a symbol or abbreviation commonly used for Earth, and even if it were, it has nothing to do with Euler's number ''e''. Randall also conflates "circle" with "sphere" for simplicity, as they both have a radius that can be measured with ''π''.

The equality shown in this strip consists of several different parts:

# The mile (1609.344 m) per hour (mph) is a unit of speed common for motor vehicles in a few countries, such as the United States and United Kingdom.
# The knot is a unit of speed that is one nautical mile (1852 m) per hour, used in nautical contexts.
# ''π'' is a number equal to the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter, about 3.14159.
# ''e'' is Euler's number, the base of the natural logarithm, about 2.71828.

''π'' mph × (1609.344 meters/statute mile ÷ 1852 meters/nautical mile) ≈ 2.729969 knots. The result is only about 0.43% larger than ''e'' knots ≈ 2.71828 knots.

Knots are related to the circumference of the Earth, which can introduce ''π'', but this is only "useful" if you want to express your speed as a fraction of the radius of the Earth: 1 knot = 1 nautical mile per hour = 1/60 of a degree of Earth's circumference per hour = 1/21,600 of Earth's circumference per hour = 2''π''/21,600 x Earth's radius per hour. However, nowadays this is an approximation, because a nautical mile is defined as exactly 1852 m, which is not exactly 1/60 of a degree of Earth's circumference.

Randall has in the past made similar observations of different dimensions that equal each other with comics such as [[687: Dimensional Analysis]], where he compares {{w|Planck energy}}, the pressure at Earth's core, the gas mileage in a Prius, and the width of the English Channel to ''π''. In addition, in [[What If?]], he has compared the mass of Earth to be ''π'' "milliJupiters," or ''π'' times the mass of Jupiter divided by 1000, and noted that the volume of a cube with side lengths of one mile is roughly similar to the volume of a sphere with a radius of 1 kilometer. In [[217: e to the pi Minus pi]] and [[1047: Approximations]], Randall gives a lot of similar numerical approximations.

The joke is that it is not exact, but only correct to a certain percentage, unlike {{w|Euler's Identity}}, which is exact and expresses a deep mathematical insight, and that's what makes the latter truly remarkable, and the former nothing but an unimpressive coincidence. This isn't helped by the fact that the comic carries the implication that this neat, easy-to-remember identity is actually useful for sailors, when really, being easy to remember is all it has going for it: it doesn't make calculations any easier, it is impossible to do without a calculator or paper, and doing it on paper is much harder than other conversions, given that ''π'' and ''e'' are both irrational and transcendental. Finally and most importantly, this conversion between knots and MPH is far far less accurate than the typical conversion factor used, i.e. 1.1508, which is accurate to 0.00179%, about 280x better than Randall's. This can make a huge difference on shipping routes, which can be hundreds or thousands of miles long.

The title text furthers the joke that this identity between miles and knots is truly fundamental, but through faulty logic. Whenever ''π'' shows up in an equation, the claim made by many mathematicians is that there is a circle hiding somewhere in the math. Randall says that ''π'' is coming from the fact that nautical miles are based on the fact that the Earth is round, and shipping routes over its surface are circular. As profound as this sounds, it makes no mathematical sense at all. He also claims that ''e'' is in the equation because 'Earth' starts with an E; nothing but 'word play'.

==Transcript==
:[In a small panel an equation is shown. There is a footnote below the equation:]
:<big>π mph = ''e'' knots*</big>
:*Correct to <0.5%

:[Caption below the panel:]
:The sailor's version of eiπ=−1

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Math]]

3023: The Maritime Approximation

2024-12-15T12:05:48Z

Drkaii:

{{comic
| number = 3023
| date = December 11, 2024
| title = The Maritime Approximation
| image = the_maritime_approximation_2x.png
| imagesize = 265x126px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = It works because a nautical mile is based on a degree of latitude, and the Earth (e) is a circle.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a SEMICIRCULAR SAILOR - Needs explanation of the origins of the units and constants involved for readers to investigate the confidentiality of the relationship. Also, needs clear explanation of title text. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
Mph ({{w|miles per hour}}) and {{w|Knot (unit)|knot}}s (''nautical miles'' per hour) are both units used to express speed, including that of vehicles. Miles per hour are typically used in the {{w|Miles per hour|US, UK and some smaller countries}} for the speed of cars and other similar vehicles, while knots are used by many sailors and pilots to describe the speed of ships and aircraft. Novice sailors or pilots, or those who spend a lot of time on land, may find it helpful to quickly convert between mph and knots, in order to relate to typical ground-surface speeds. Although, as safe operating speeds for particular aircraft/watercraft may bear little relationship to (for example) road-vehicle speeds, it might be arguably better just to develop a separate 'air sense' (perhaps mostly at higher velocities, far above any landmark that you might pass by) or 'water sense' (often at lower velocities, and with the particular fluid nature of the water's surface) that is keyed especially to the knots-rated speed of your vessel, without attempting to carry over this aspect of any pre-existing 'road sense'.

One hopefully ''rare'' exception might possibly be in the event of a plane having to make an emergency landing on a public highway, where it could be useful to know if a (possibly unpowered) plane's final landing speed can be made to be not too far off that of any unsuspecting road traffic that you may have to land in the midst of; but this would never be a trivial endeavour in any case, and even having to attempt such a feat probably means you have few options open to you and very little time to consider many of these finer details.

That complication aside, ''if'' it is necessary to know, this could be done in the form of 1 knot = 1.2 mph, or 1 mph = 0.87 knots (1 knot = 1.85 km/h and 1 km/h = 0.54 knots for metric navigators). [[Randall]] has humorously noticed that ''π'' mph ≈ {{w|E_(mathematical_constant)|''e''}} knots: ''π'' mph = [https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=pi+mph+in+knots 2.72997] knots, while ''e'' ≈ 2.71828. Despite the claim of the title text, this is a coincidence,{{Citation needed}} since even though knots are based on nautical miles, which are related to degrees of latitude (and thus to ''π'', which is used to describe the circumference of a circle), miles per hour have no relation to either ''e'' or ''π''. Furthermore, the title text makes the connection to ''e'' by mentioning "Earth (e)", but e is not a symbol or abbreviation commonly used for Earth, and even if it were, it has nothing to do with Euler's number ''e''. Randall also conflates "circle" with "sphere" for simplicity, as they both have a radius that can be measured with ''π''.

The equality shown in this strip consists of several different parts:

# The mile (1609.344 m) per hour (mph) is a unit of speed common for motor vehicles in a few countries, such as the United States and United Kingdom.
# The knot is a unit of speed that is one nautical mile (1852 m) per hour, used in nautical contexts.
# ''π'' is a number equal to the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter, about 3.14159.
# ''e'' is Euler's number, the base of the natural logarithm, about 2.71828.

''π'' mph × (1609.344 meters/statute mile ÷ 1852 meters/nautical mile) ≈ 2.729969 knots. The result is only about 0.43% larger than ''e'' knots ≈ 2.71828 knots.

Knots are related to the circumference of the Earth, which can introduce ''π'', but this is only "useful" if you want to express your speed as a fraction of the radius of the Earth: 1 knot = 1 nautical mile per hour = 1/60 of a degree of Earth's circumference per hour = 1/21,600 of Earth's circumference per hour = 2''π''/21,600 x Earth's radius per hour. However, nowadays this is an approximation, because a nautical mile is defined as exactly 1852 m, which is not exactly 1/60 of a degree of Earth's circumference.

Randall has in the past made similar observations of different dimensions that equal each other with comics such as [[687: Dimensional Analysis]], where he compares {{w|Planck energy}}, the pressure at Earth's core, the gas mileage in a Prius, and the width of the English Channel to ''π''. In addition, in [[What If?]], he has compared the mass of Earth to be ''π'' "milliJupiters," or ''π'' times the mass of Jupiter divided by 1000, and noted that the volume of a cube with side lengths of one mile is roughly similar to the volume of a sphere with a radius of 1 kilometer. In [[217: e to the pi Minus pi]] and [[1047: Approximations]], Randall gives a lot of similar numerical approximations.

The joke is that it is not exact, but only correct to a certain percentage, unlike {{w|Euler's Identity}}, which is exact and expresses a deep mathematical insight, and that's what makes the latter truly remarkable, and the former nothing but an unimpressive coincidence. This isn't helped by the fact that the comic carries the implication that this neat, easy-to-remember identity is actually useful for sailors, when really, being easy to remember is all it has going for it: it doesn't make calculations any easier, it is impossible to do without a calculator or paper, and doing it on paper is much harder than other conversions, given that ''π'' and ''e'' are both irrational and transcendental. Finally and most importantly, this conversion between knots and MPH is far far less accurate than the typical conversion factor used, i.e. 1.1508, which is accurate to 0.00179%, about 280x better than Randall's. This can make a huge difference on shipping routes, which can be hundreds or thousands of miles long.

The title text furthers the joke that this identity between miles and knots is truly fundamental, but through faulty logic. Whenever ''π'' shows up in an equation, the claim made by many mathematicians is that there is a circle hiding somewhere in the equations. Randall says that ''π'' is coming from the fact that nautical miles are based on the fact that the Earth is round, and shipping routes over its surface are circular. As profound as this sounds, it makes no mathematical sense at all. He also claims that ''e'' is in the equation because 'Earth' starts with an E; nothing but 'word play'.

==Transcript==
:[In a small panel an equation is shown. There is a footnote below the equation:]
:<big>π mph = ''e'' knots*</big>
:*Correct to <0.5%

:[Caption below the panel:]
:The sailor's version of eiπ=−1

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Math]]

3023: The Maritime Approximation

2024-12-14T23:11:42Z

Drkaii:

{{comic
| number = 3023
| date = December 11, 2024
| title = The Maritime Approximation
| image = the_maritime_approximation_2x.png
| imagesize = 265x126px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = It works because a nautical mile is based on a degree of latitude, and the Earth (e) is a circle.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a SEMICIRCULAR SAILOR - Needs explanation of the origins of the units and constants involved for readers to investigate the confidentiality of the relationship. Also, needs clear explanation of title text. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
Mph ({{w|miles per hour}}) and {{w|Knot (unit)|knot}}s (''nautical miles'' per hour) are both units used to express speed, including that of vehicles. Miles per hour are typically used in the {{w|Miles per hour|US, UK and some smaller countries}} for the speed of cars and other similar vehicles, while knots are used by many sailors and pilots to describe the speed of ships and aircraft. Novice sailors or pilots, or those who spend a lot of time on land, may find it helpful to quickly convert between mph and knots, in order to relate to typical ground-surface speeds. Although, as safe operating speeds for particular aircraft/watercraft may bear little relationship to (for example) road-vehicle speeds, it might be arguably better just to develop a separate 'air sense' (perhaps mostly at higher velocities, far above any landmark that you might pass by) or 'water sense' (often at lower velocities, and with the particular fluid nature of the water's surface) that is keyed especially to the knots-rated speed of your vessel, without attempting to carry over this aspect of any pre-existing 'road sense'.

One hopefully ''rare'' exception might possibly be in the event of a plane having to make an emergency landing on a public highway, where it could be useful to know if a (possibly unpowered) plane's final landing speed can be made to be not too far off that of any unsuspecting road traffic that you may have to land in the midst of; but this would never be a trivial endeavour in any case, and even having to attempt such a feat probably means you have few options open to you and very little time to consider many of these finer details.

That complication aside, ''if'' it is necessary to know, this could be done in the form of 1 knot = 1.2 mph, or 1 mph = 0.87 knots (1 knot = 1.85 km/h and 1 km/h = 0.54 knots for metric navigators). [[Randall]] has humorously noticed that ''π'' mph ≈ {{w|E_(mathematical_constant)|''e''}} knots: ''π'' mph = [https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=pi+mph+in+knots 2.72997] knots, while ''e'' ≈ 2.71828. Despite the claim of the title text, this is a coincidence,{{Citation needed}} since even though knots are based on nautical miles, which are related to degrees of latitude (and thus to ''π'', which is used to describe the circumference of a circle), miles per hour have no relation to either ''e'' or ''π''. Furthermore, the title text makes the connection to ''e'' by mentioning "Earth (e)", but e is not a symbol or abbreviation commonly used for Earth, and even if it were, it has nothing to do with Euler's number ''e''. Randall also conflates "circle" with "sphere" for simplicity, as they both have a radius that can be measured with ''π''.

The equality shown in this strip consists of several different parts:

# The mile (1609.344 m) per hour (mph) is a unit of speed common for motor vehicles in a few countries, such as the United States and United Kingdom.
# The knot is a unit of speed that is one nautical mile (1852 m) per hour, used in nautical contexts.
# ''π'' is a number equal to the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter, about 3.14159.
# ''e'' is Euler's number, the base of the natural logarithm, about 2.71828.

''π'' mph × (1609.344 meters/statute mile ÷ 1852 meters/nautical mile) ≈ 2.729969 knots. The result is only about 0.43% larger than ''e'' knots ≈ 2.71828 knots.

Knots are related to the circumference of the Earth, which can introduce ''π'', but this is only "useful" if you want to express your speed as a fraction of the radius of the Earth: 1 knot = 1 nautical mile per hour = 1/60 of a degree of Earth's circumference per hour = 1/21,600 of Earth's circumference per hour = 2''π''/21,600 x Earth's radius per hour. However, nowadays this is an approximation, because a nautical mile is defined as exactly 1852 m, which is not exactly 1/60 of a degree of Earth's circumference.

Randall has in the past made similar observations of different dimensions that equal each other with comics such as [[687: Dimensional Analysis]], where he compares {{w|Planck energy}}, the pressure at Earth's core, the gas mileage in a Prius, and the width of the English Channel to ''π''. In addition, in [[What If?]], he has compared the mass of Earth to be ''π'' "milliJupiters," or ''π'' times the mass of Jupiter divided by 1000, and noted that the volume of a cube with side lengths of one mile is roughly similar to the volume of a sphere with a radius of 1 kilometer. In [[217: e to the pi Minus pi]] and [[1047: Approximations]], Randall gives a lot of similar numerical approximations.
The joke is that it is not exact, but only correct to a certain percentage, unlike {{w|Euler's Identity}}, which is exact and expresses a deep mathematical insight, and that's what makes the latter truly remarkable. This isn't helped by the fact that the comic carries the implication that this neat, easy-to-remember identity is actually useful for sailors, when really, being easy to remember is all it has going for it: it doesn't make calculations any easier, it is impossible to do without a calculator or paper, and doing it on paper is much harder than other conversions, given that ''π'' and ''e'' are both irrational and transcendental. Finally, it's far far less accurate than the typical conversion factor of 1.1508, accurate to 0.00179%, about 280x better than Randall's. This can make a huge difference on shipping routes, which can be hundreds or thousands of miles.

The title text furthers the joke that this identity between miles and knots is truly fundamental, and through faulty logic. Whenever ''π'' shows up in an equation, the claim made by many mathematicians is that there is a circle hiding somewhere in the equations. Randall says that ''π'' is coming from the fact that nautical miles are based on the fact that the Earth is round, and shipping routes over its surface are circular. He also claims that ''e'' is in the equation because 'Earth' starts with an E.

==Transcript==
:[In a small panel an equation is shown. There is a footnote below the equation:]
:<big>π mph = ''e'' knots*</big>
:*Correct to <0.5%

:[Caption below the panel:]
:The sailor's version of eiπ=−1

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Math]]

3023: The Maritime Approximation

2024-12-13T10:00:51Z

Drkaii:

{{comic
| number = 3023
| date = December 11, 2024
| title = The Maritime Approximation
| image = the_maritime_approximation_2x.png
| imagesize = 265x126px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = It works because a nautical mile is based on a degree of latitude, and the Earth (e) is a circle.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a SEMICIRCULAR SAILOR - Needs explanation of the origins of the units and constants involved for readers to investigate the confidentiality of the relationship. Also, needs clear explanation of title text. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
Mph ({{w|miles per hour}}) and {{w|Knot (unit)|knot}}s (''nautical miles'' per hour) are both units used to express speed, including that of vehicles. Miles per hour are typically used in the {{w|Miles per hour|US, UK and some smaller countries}} for the speed of cars and other similar vehicles, while knots are used by some sailors or pilots to describe the speed of ships or aircraft. Novice sailors or sailors who spend a lot of time on land may find it helpful to quickly convert between mph and knots. Usually, this is in the form of 1 knot = 1.2 mph, or 1 mph = 0.87 knots (1.85 km/h and 0.54 knots for metric sailors). [[Randall]] has humorously noticed that π mph ≈ e knots: π mph = [https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=pi+mph+in+knots 2.72997] knots, {{w|E_(mathematical_constant)|e}} = 2.71828. Despite the claim of the title text, this is a coincidence,{{Citation needed}} since even though knots are based on nautical miles, which are related to degrees of latitude (and thus to π, which is used to describe the circumference of a circle), miles per hour have no relation to either e or π. Furthermore, the title text makes the connection to e by mentioning "Earth (e)" but e is not a commonly used symbol or abbreviation for Earth and even if it were, it has nothing to do with Euler's number e. Randall also conflates "circle" with "sphere" for simplicity, as they both have a radius that can be measured with π.

The equality shown in this strip consists of several different parts:

# The mile (1609.344 m) per hour (mph) is a unit of speed common for motor vehicles in a few countries, such as the United States and United Kingdom.
# The knot is a unit of speed that is one nautical mile (1852 m) per hour, used in nautical contexts.
# π is a number equal to the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter, about 3.14159.
# e is Euler's number, the base of the natural logarithm, about 2.71828.

π mph × (1609.344 meters/statute mile ÷ 1852 meters/nautical mile) ≈ 2.729969 knots. The result is only about 0.43% larger than ''e'' knots ≈ 2.71828 knots.

Knots are related to the circumference of the Earth, which can introduce pi, but this is only "useful" if you want to express your speed as a fraction of the radius of earth: 1 knot = 1 nautical mile per hour = 1/60 of a degree of Earth's circumference per hour = 1/21,600 of Earth's circumference per hour = 2π/21,600 x Earth's radius per hour. However, nowadays this is an approximation, because a nautical mile is defined as exactly 1852 m, which is not exactly 1/60 of a degree of Earth's circumference.

Randall has made similar observations of different dimensions that equal each other in the past with comics such as [[687: Dimensional Analysis]], where he compares {{w|Planck Energy}}, the pressure at the earth's core, the gas mileage in a Prius, and the width of the English Channel to Pi. In addition, in [[What If?]], he has compared the mass of Earth to be Pi "milliJupiters," or Pi times the mass of Jupiter divided by 1000, and noted that the volume of a cube with side lengths of one mile is roughly similar to the volume of a sphere with a radius of 1 kilometer. In [[217: e to the pi Minus pi]] and [[1047: Approximations]], Randall gives a lot of similar numerical approximations.
The joke is that it is not exact, but only correct to a certain percentage, unlike {{w|Euler's Identity}}, which is exact, and that's what makes the latter truly remarkable. This isn't helped by the fact that the comic carries the implication that this neat, easy to remember identity is actual useful for sailors, when really, being easy to remember is all it has going for it: it doesn't make calculations any easier, and is impossible to do without a calculator or paper, and doing it on paper is much harder than other conversions, given that Pi and e are both irrational, and transcendental.

The title text furthers the joke that this identity between miles and knots is truly fundamental, and through faulty logic. Whenever Pi shows up in an equation, the claim made by many mathematicians is that there is a circle hiding somewhere in the equations. Randall says that Pi is coming from the fact that nautical miles are based on the fact that the earth is round, and shipping routes over it's surface are circular. He also claims that e is in the equation because of earth.

==Transcript==
:[In a small panel an equation is shown. There is a footnote below the equation:]
:<big>π mph = ''e'' knots*</big>
:*Correct to <0.5%

:[Caption below the panel:]
:The sailor's version of eiπ=−1

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Math]]

3023: The Maritime Approximation

2024-12-12T16:21:13Z

Drkaii:

3023: The Maritime Approximation

2024-12-11T23:37:23Z

Drkaii:

3023: The Maritime Approximation

2024-12-11T23:36:30Z

Drkaii: Explained the joke

Talk:2851: Messier Objects

2024-11-17T22:45:16Z

Drkaii:

addededededded transcript [[User:Certified_nqh|Me]][[[285: Wikipedian Protester|''citation needed'']]][[Category:Pages using the "citation needed" template]] 17:34, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
: meow [[User:SomeoneIGuess|someone, i guess]]([[User talk:SomeoneIGuess|talk i guess]]|[[Special:Contributions/SomeoneIGuess|le edit list]]) 17:54, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Is M30712050 that specific squirrel, or just the general category of squirrels? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.247.56|172.69.247.56]] 17:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
:The debate about the Ship of Theseus suggests that every ship gets its own number, so why not every squirrel? Although then the numbers would be much larger. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 18:04, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
::...and the list would be much messier. [[User:Yorkshire Pudding|Yorkshire Pudding]] ([[User talk:Yorkshire Pudding|talk]]) 18:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
:::*fwap* [[Special:Contributions/172.69.43.143|172.69.43.143]] 00:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
:It can't be all squirrels, CM could not have seen *all* squirrels. In fact, he would have been dead long before *that* squirrel was born. [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 21:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
::Presuming that Messier is alive in this panel, then this panel isn't the present, and the squirrel was alive when Messier was alive. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.155.162|162.158.155.162]] 21:58, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

could the numbers have been picked to represent something rather than be entirely random? like 41592 coming from pi and 137 being FSC... idk maybe i'm just reading too much into it... [[Special:Contributions/162.158.186.11|162.158.186.11]] 18:09, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
: i mean...every finite string of numbers "comes from" pi [[User:Certified_nqh|Me]][[[285: Wikipedian Protester|''citation needed'']]][[Category:Pages using the "citation needed" template]] 15:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Between the Messier catalog and the Marvel multiverse, we've got a well-defined numbering system that indexes all objects in all universes. (Or, I guess at least those universes with Messier catalogs. Damn.) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.58.18|172.69.58.18]] 19:03, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
:You should also number all Messier catalogues (and intermediate versions of them), then, to make sure we know which ones we're talking about. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.43.143|172.69.43.143]] 00:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
:: Furthermore, each entry in the catalog should have it's own entry in the catalog. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.247.65|172.69.247.65]] 02:57, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
:: I went through the contribs of one of my IP addresses and found this. I don't know how that happened. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.58.18|172.69.58.18]] 18:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
::: You don't get consistent IPs as (like me) an IP-only editor. Even if there wasn't the proxy guarding the site, converting everyone's actual ISP-end IPs into the proxy-ranges (which basically lumps people into various more concentrated, geographically bunched, sub-sets of IPs), the similar thing that your ISP would have done could also have assigned you (right here, right now) an IP that a completely different editor was using last year, last month, even (in some circumstances) a minute ago.
::: If I go back in and edit my own contribution, seconds apart, it's likely the IP will change ''slightly'', and sometimes even across on a totally different IP-block. As an example, testing this entry with Previews first gives 172.70.58.30, then 172.68.205.178, then 172.68.205.135 (for that demonstration, I was hoping I'd maybe land onto a 140-ish or 162-ish block, but I didn't).
::: I've also replied to someone else's (recent) comment and found myself on the ''same'' IP as them (which looks weird, frankly). Luck of the draw.
::: Talking about luck of the draw, let's see what I land on with my ''actual'' saved comment, thusly: [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.119|162.158.74.119]] 18:55, 27 October 2024 (UTC) (Post-edit... hah! Got a 162.* after all!)

Wait a minute... this is just the wikidata QID system again[[User:AtaraxianAscendant|ataraxianAscendant]] ([[User talk:AtaraxianAscendant|talk]]) 19:34, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
:Yes, it's like Wikidata. Not sure if it's worth mentioning. Unfortunately, the numbers don't match those Wikidata for equivalent objects.
:Furtermore, Wikimedia Commons ID use an M and a number. For example, https://commons.wikimedia.org/entity/M205.--[[User:Pere prlpz|Pere prlpz]] ([[User talk:Pere prlpz|talk]]) 19:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
:: {{wikidata|2013|Wikidata}} does something similar, but they use /Q\d+/ instead. [[User:Certified_nqh|Me]][[[285: Wikipedian Protester|''citation needed'']]][[Category:Pages using the "citation needed" template]] 15:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
:I added a section about Wikidata because the first thing that I wanted to do when I read this comic was look up what the IDs were for all of the objects mentioned. It certainly could be written better. [[User:Brycemw|Brycemw]] ([[User talk:Brycemw|talk]]) 15:31, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
:: Ha! Edit conflicted. Sample of diff (-my submission and +the one that got there just before me):
-
:[https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1050837 Q1050837] (Ship of Theseus) (The ''concept'', only...)
+
:[https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1050837 Q1050837] (Ship of Theseus) (The thought experiment)
::: Oopsies! the one on the bottom is mine haha. [[User:SomeoneIGuess|someone, i guess]]([[User talk:SomeoneIGuess|talk i guess]]|[[Special:Contributions/SomeoneIGuess|le edit list]]) 18:45, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
:: Great minds think alike! (Fools never differ...) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.79|172.71.178.79]] 16:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC) 

The existence of a Messier catalog implies the existence of a Neater catalog. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.134.130|172.69.134.130]] 19:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

The explanation suggests that we might number every grain of sand. But the comic just has a single number for "Earth". Would the catalog have separate entries for an object and all its constituents? It doesn't seem like it, since Randall didn't label the wings of the butterfly, limbs of the squirrel or human, or branches and leaves of the tree. Of course, how we distinguish distinct objects in the world is an even thornier philosophical problem than the Ship of Theseus. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 20:36, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
:I deleted that portion as non-explanatory wild speculation. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.159.64|172.71.159.64]] 21:03, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
::The same would apply to the real Messier Objects too - do you label a star cluster, and then label the individual stars within it as well?[[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.228|172.70.90.228]] 10:04, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Shouldn't Earth (or Messier) be object #0? [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 21:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
:You'll need to bring that up with Messier... [[Special:Contributions/162.158.197.136|162.158.197.136]] 15:52, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

How messy are they? 🥁 [[Special:Contributions/172.70.100.211|172.70.100.211]] 22:00, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Earth number might be influenced by [https://rickandmorty.fandom.com/wiki/Dimension_C-137 Dimension C-137] from Rick and Morty, which often is used to refer to the "Earth" location from early easons. --
[[Special:Contributions/172.70.200.145|172.70.200.145]] 22:27, 6 November 2023 (UTC) (edit [[Special:Contributions/172.68.146.17|172.68.146.17]] 22:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC))

For the numbering of the ships of Theseuses, why not just use the numbers from a particular type of prime number? ----

In the UK, the Ship of Theseus problem is sometimes referred to as Trigger's Broom, after a character from one of our most popular sitcoms ("Only Fools And Horses"). Trigger is a mentally-deficient road sweeper who is proud of the fact that he's still got his original broom that he was given when he started work 20 years ago. He's looked after it in that time: it's had 17 new heads and 14 new handles...
[[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.189|172.70.86.189]] 06:21, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
:To be fair (and, unfortunately, historically unfair to the Irish), that's just a transplant of the older "Irishman's Broom". And it's just one of many variations like "grandfather's axe", etc. Depends on whether you're going for fairly recent pop-culture (lovely-jubbley!), falling back on old stereotypes (to be sure, to be sure) or whatever else you have in mind. (I'm sure I actually heard "Ship of Theseus" said on the street, just the other day, by a conversing couple. And this wasn't even an Oxbridge street!)
:To be fair ''to Trigger'', the council for whom the character worked was also as blind/far-sighted regarding the philosophical (dis)continuity of existence, given the award in which they were citing the broom as one of the outstanding features... Much as the US Government treats the 'modern' USS Constitution as the same as the 'original', maybe? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.231|172.70.90.231]] 09:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Could the M137 for earth be a Rick and Morty reference, since that is their earth/universe-number as well? [[User:Eugen|Eugen]] ([[User talk:Eugen|talk]]) 09:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
: We gotta go to xkcd, Morty! There's no time to explain, get in, Morty! [[User:SomeoneIGuess|someone, i guess]]([[User talk:SomeoneIGuess|talk i guess]]|[[Special:Contributions/SomeoneIGuess|le edit list]])
:I think it's close to impossible that this ISN'T a Rick And Morty reference, well spotted! That should probably go in the explanation somewhere... [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 05:04, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Another interpretation isn't so much that the higher-numbered objects are less "significant", but more that Messier numbered them in order, and so higher numbers mean objects that Messier took longer to get around to numbering. It took him until object 206 to think to number himself, and other things such as random specific squirrels have much higher numbers because he didn't get to them until much later in his cataloguing process. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.242.54|108.162.242.54]] 16:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Concerning trees and squirrels, this assertion can and indeed should be supported with a citation (citing any adequate souce listing the objects in the catalogue). I have therefore changed the "fact" tag to "Actual citation needed" to avoid confusion with the humourous version. Whether the assertion is correct or not is questionable. One could argue that M5, the Rose Cluster, is named after the rose tree; that M20, the Trifid Nebula is actually the Triffid Nebula; and that M93, the Critter Cluster, refers to a variety of critters, including squirrels.[[User:Catherine|Catherine]] ([[User talk:Catherine|talk]]) 00:53, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay, so right now where it says there are no Messier-numbered galaxies named after trees or squirrels, it says "Actual Citation Needed". I would assume the only proof of this would be to cite the actual list to note no squirrels or trees in it (squirrels obviously, I feel like trees would be plausible). So, how do we do an actual citation? Link to the list somewhere reliable and put a footnote like on Wikipedia?

Also, I feel like there's an intentional joke that the first object available to Messier, himself, is numbered as low as 205. Like logically he'd be 1 (or 0, if he wanted to keep actual numbers for actual celestial bodies) or 111. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 05:04, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
:Numbered in the order of being first observed, from the moment he set his mind to it? And there were no mirrors (that weren't probably concave and mounted in his telescope*) in direct view for the first couple of hundred observations? His notepad given zero, perhaps? What of his pen(cil)? The non-telescopic mirror would have been 205, perhaps, or lower, depending on how he came upon it.
:<nowiki>*</nowiki> Hmmm... Whereupon is numbered the telescope he initially used? Unless using some special "need a full, all-round, unoccluded view" rule as part of his internal process of concluding a valid observation.
:Fleeting sideling glimpses (and being, ironically, far too close) could defer many, many things from snap consideration. It does suggest The Earth should be almost the last thing to be numbered (after "the inside of the Apollo 8 capsule"?), but perhaps his particular systematic rationale has occasionally been revised... [[Special:Contributions/141.101.68.80|141.101.68.80]] 11:32, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
::Even without mirrors, there's still reflections in water (I feel like there's other natural mirrors, but I can't think of any). Also, you only need a reflective surface to see your own face - and more than that to see your back - but people generally can see all of their front from the chest down (chest, stomach, arms, legs, hands, feet...)... Even some of our backs (butts, back of the legs and arms) by moving our parts around. Messier is still the first observable object to Messier. :) [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 06:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
:::"Messier object 0: Messier's nose". Beyond that (and I think that the flash of inspiration is as likely, or more, to have struck when his dominant eye is firmly stuck to an eyepiece, rendering even his nose not directly visible), you have to at least be paying attention to ''notice'' even your own hands in front of your face. If you first action is to contort yourself to assess exactly how steatopygian your gluteals are, then you're probably thinking of far different things than astronomy, or even just "what can I actually see, in front of me?" (apart from that pencil and paper, presumably). The mysterious backstory behind the (in-universe) sources of the comic's details are, of course, unknown, but you can probably defer some assumptions as less likely than others. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.43.138|172.69.43.138]] 17:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
The gap between squirrels and butterflies seems way way too high if his search for non comet objects is breadth first. [[User:Drkaii|Drkaii]] ([[User talk:Drkaii|talk]]) 22:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2223: Screen Time

2024-11-13T23:53:36Z

Drkaii:

Hello? Oh, sorry, I was busy not looking at this screen. [[User:N0lqu|-boB]] ([[User talk:N0lqu|talk]]) 15:35, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm at work, but I just realized I need to lower my Show Time score. My socks are demanding it. [[User:N0lqu|-boB]] ([[User talk:N0lqu|talk]]) 19:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I think my use tracking apps (yes, I have more than one) can be set to track how much time I spend using use tracking apps. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.214.148|162.158.214.148]] 20:37, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
:With apps like Automate, you can automate most of the use cases for use time tracking apps; it'll just take some time to learn how to use it. ;S
:[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 01:21, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

If I didn't arranged meeting using phone, I wouldn't have any people to talk to. Also, some of those complains are mixing up cause and effect: for example, in mass transit, people generally don't WANT to talk to other people, and before phones they usually read newspapers or books. In fact, that was already mentioned here wasn't it? Or did I mixed up [[1227]] with [https://www.sadanduseless.com/evil-iphones/]? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 00:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

The explanation incorrectly mentions that Cueball's screen time has lowered by 6%, while it's actually his non-screen time that has raised by 6%. That's not the same thing: if we do assume he's awake 16 hours per day, his screen time has only decreased by about 1.2%. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.245.151|172.68.245.151]] 03:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
: That is, unless Randall meant 6% of Cueball's entire awake time. I haven't thought of it until after posting. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.245.151|172.68.245.151]] 03:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

::A better approximation of non-sleep time would be 17 hours per day. Average sleep time in USA is a little under 7 hours/day. I adjusted the percent of day awake calculation accordingly. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.59|108.162.246.59]] 00:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
:No, 6%. It actually specifies "While awake.". Randall already thought of that. :) [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 04:22, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Clearly someone doesn't know what the word "pun" means (see paragraph 2)

The mention of Bluetooth socks reminded me of the Netflix Socks that automatically pause playback if you fall asleep. http://makeit.netflix.com/projects/socks (Sorry if the link is broken, Netflix is blocked from work.) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.62.166|172.69.62.166]] 14:44, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

In case anyone else is confused, Neatnit has been inserting the discussion section on display problems with Google ads from Comic #2220 in all later comics using a wiki tag, so that discussion section and any changes to it on Comic #2220 are reflected on these later comics. I'm guessing it's because the problem has persisted since #2220, so this is an attempt to maintain a single discussion and keep the issue visible until there's a resolution. If this is not the reason, then it's confusing and disruptive. If it's a meta-joke about going back in time, then it's getting old. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 21:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
: Yes, that's right - it's to keep it visible. I should have been more vocal about it rather than just doing it silently... My bad.
: However, the section's [edit] button will take you to the correct place, so it shouldn't be that confusing.
: --[[User:NeatNit|NeatNit]] ([[User talk:NeatNit|talk]]) 12:38, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

== Does Randall draw XKCD on his phone? How does the amount of non-screen time he reports compare with the tme he spends cartooning? ==

Does Randall draw XKCD on his phone? How does the amount of non-screen time he reports compare with the tme he spends cartooning?[[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.150|172.69.34.150]] 00:29, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
:I think he draws it on his computer, or using some type of drawing pad -[[User:Donthaveusername|Donthaveusername]][[User talk:Donthaveusername|talk]]
Did anyone notice the blooper? The exclamation mark is incomplete. Is there a bloopers page? [[User:Drkaii|Drkaii]] ([[User talk:Drkaii|talk]]) 23:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

636: Brontosaurus

2022-07-13T10:21:13Z

Drkaii: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 636
| date = September 14, 2009
| title = Brontosaurus
| image = brontosaurus.png
| titletext = Well, sex is like a velociraptor: despite your movie-fueled lifelong neurotic obsession, unlikely to be found in your house.
}}

==Explanation==
[[Megan]] describes her relationship to [[Cueball]] with the simile "our love is like a turtle," a comparison often made when referring to a shy and slowly developing yet steady sort of romance. However, Cueball thinks that the ''{{w|Brontosaurus}}'' is a better comparison. His explanation refers to the fact that remains of a certain [[wikipedia:Apatosaurinae|apatosaurine]] were initially named ''{{w|Brontosaurus excelsus}}'' by the paleontologist {{w|Othniel Charles Marsh|O.C. Marsh}} in 1879. This species was later determined in 1903 to be in the same {{w|genus}} as ''{{w|Apatosaurus ajax}}'', which Marsh had named two years before ''B. excelsus'': the older genus name is preferred according to convention (making the preferred binomial ''Apatosaurus excelsus''). The term ''Brontosaurus'' therefore became a scientific redundancy (a so-called junior synonym), and had this status at the time of this comic's release. Due to the correct skull for an apatosaurine not being confirmed [http://static.peerj.com/press/previews/2015/04/857_infographic_no_text.pdf until 1978], the term "brontosaurus" had in the meantime become popularly associated with an apatosaurine depicted with a speculative ''{{w|Camarasaurus}}''-like head, hence the "mistaken combination" mentioned in the comic.

Applied to the scenario in the comic, Cueball apparently considers the relationship without any emotional foundation and only continues it out of nostalgic motives. This conclusion counteracts the initial romantic tone adopted by the turtle simile, as comparing a romance with a falsely classified fossil is one of the least charming statements imaginable. {{Citation needed}}

The title text aims at [[Randall|Randall's]] well-known enthusiasm for ''{{w|Velociraptors}}''. Megan retorts by comparing any future sex between the two of them to be as likely as finding a ''Velociraptor'' in his house. This is a common trope in modern relationships where the assumption is that it is the man who wants sex, and the woman will withhold it as a form of punishment, usually in response to her emotional needs (which, stereotypically, takes the same importance to the woman as sex does for the man) being denied by the man (in this case, she initiated a romantic conversation, hoping for him to reciprocate, and yet he took the opportunity to do the opposite). The insult has a second barb: painting Cueball as being obsessed with movies involving ''Velociraptor''s.

Randall has previously mentioned the ''Brontosaurus'' name change in [[460: Paleontology]]. The ''Apatosaurus'' also appears in [[15: Just Alerting You]] and [[650: Nowhere]].

===Updates===
However the status of "Brontosaurus" remains under discussion, with a [http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-brontosaurus-is-back1/ 2015 study of diplodocids] reporting that the more gracile fossils should be classified in a separate genus. This would re-divide the apatosaurines between the ''Brontosaurus'' and ''Apatosaurus'' genera.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball and Megan are sitting at a bench. Megan is holding a turtle.]
:Megan: Our love is like a turtle.

:[Megan sets down the turtle and turns to Cueball. They hold hands.]
:Megan: Humble and simple, enduring by virtue of perfect design.

:Cueball: Our love is like a brontosaurus.

:Cueball: Recognized as a mistaken combination long ago, lingering only out of misplaced affection for an imagined past.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Velociraptors]]
[[Category:Romance]]
[[Category:Apatosaurus]]

636: Brontosaurus

2022-07-13T10:18:43Z

Drkaii: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 636
| date = September 14, 2009
| title = Brontosaurus
| image = brontosaurus.png
| titletext = Well, sex is like a velociraptor: despite your movie-fueled lifelong neurotic obsession, unlikely to be found in your house.
}}

==Explanation==
[[Megan]] describes her relationship to [[Cueball]] with the simile "our love is like a turtle," a comparison often made when referring to a shy and slowly developing yet steady sort of romance. However, Cueball thinks that the ''{{w|Brontosaurus}}'' is a better comparison. His explanation refers to the fact that remains of a certain [[wikipedia:Apatosaurinae|apatosaurine]] were initially named ''{{w|Brontosaurus excelsus}}'' by the paleontologist {{w|Othniel Charles Marsh|O.C. Marsh}} in 1879. This species was later determined in 1903 to be in the same {{w|genus}} as ''{{w|Apatosaurus ajax}}'', which Marsh had named two years before ''B. excelsus'': the older genus name is preferred according to convention (making the preferred binomial ''Apatosaurus excelsus''). The term ''Brontosaurus'' therefore became a scientific redundancy (a so-called junior synonym), and had this status at the time of this comic's release. Due to the correct skull for an apatosaurine not being confirmed [http://static.peerj.com/press/previews/2015/04/857_infographic_no_text.pdf until 1978], the term "brontosaurus" had in the meantime become popularly associated with an apatosaurine depicted with a speculative ''{{w|Camarasaurus}}''-like head, hence the "mistaken combination" mentioned in the comic.

Applied to the scenario in the comic, Cueball apparently considers the relationship without any emotional foundation and only continues it out of nostalgic motives. This conclusion counteracts the initial romantic tone adopted by the turtle simile, as comparing a romance with a falsely classified fossil is one of the least charming statements imaginable. {{Citation needed}}

The title text aims at [[Randall|Randall's]] well-known enthusiasm for ''{{w|Velociraptors}}''. Megan retorts by comparing any future sex between the two of them to be as likely as finding a ''Velociraptor'' in his house. This is a common trope in modern relationships where the assumption is that it is the man who wants sex, and the woman will withhold it as a form of punishment, usually in response to her emotional needs (which, stereotypically, takes the same importance to the woman as sex does for the man) being denied by the man. The insult has a second barb: painting Cueball as being obsessed with movies involving ''Velociraptor''s.

Randall has previously mentioned the ''Brontosaurus'' name change in [[460: Paleontology]]. The ''Apatosaurus'' also appears in [[15: Just Alerting You]] and [[650: Nowhere]].

===Updates===
However the status of "Brontosaurus" remains under discussion, with a [http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-brontosaurus-is-back1/ 2015 study of diplodocids] reporting that the more gracile fossils should be classified in a separate genus. This would re-divide the apatosaurines between the ''Brontosaurus'' and ''Apatosaurus'' genera.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball and Megan are sitting at a bench. Megan is holding a turtle.]
:Megan: Our love is like a turtle.

:[Megan sets down the turtle and turns to Cueball. They hold hands.]
:Megan: Humble and simple, enduring by virtue of perfect design.

:Cueball: Our love is like a brontosaurus.

:Cueball: Recognized as a mistaken combination long ago, lingering only out of misplaced affection for an imagined past.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Velociraptors]]
[[Category:Romance]]
[[Category:Apatosaurus]]

Talk:1234: Douglas Engelbart (1925-2013)

2020-10-22T10:39:21Z

Drkaii:

The song he claims to have written is, of course, Leonard Cohen's "Hallelujah". But why? /[[User:Skagedal|Skagedal]] ([[User talk:Skagedal|talk]]) 08:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
: I guess for the same reason he claims to have thought up YOLO and cat picture memes - he's claiming credit for many many future developments - that's the joke. Either that or the comic's claiming Douglas was a time traveller and was single handedly responsible for every invention ever! Let's face it though, much of our modern day tech wouldn't have happened without his work. I can't believe I never heard of this guy before. [[User:Hippyjim|Hippyjim]] ([[User talk:Hippyjim|talk]]) 09:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
::As has since been added, it's a reference to the obscure-but-not-secret chord keyboard. Someone should really go through each clause and either give a link to that part of the demo, or the real history. {{unsigned ip|173.14.129.9}}
: I'd guess it's because the mournful tone of the song makes it appropriate for a memorial to someone passing away.
:[[User:Wwoods|Wwoods]] ([[User talk:Wwoods|talk]]) 18:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks like the Stanford site has been given the xkcd hug. Does anybody have a mirror? [[User:Spontaneous|Spontaneous]] ([[User talk:Spontaneous|talk]]) 15:33, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
:Stanford is overloaded, not only because this comic. The link is also at his wiki page.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 19:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Is it just me or is there a certain amount of deliberate irony here. Englebart was working at " A Research Center for Augmenting Human Intellect" and where do we end up? Lolcats....--[[User:NHSavage|NHSavage]] ([[User talk:NHSavage|talk]]) 19:12, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

The "inventions in detail" section is badly written... Also, it feels weird to use Engelbart's first name to refer to him. Excessively familiar, perhaps. --[[Special:Contributions/24.186.79.218|24.186.79.218]] 01:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
:So do it better, you are welcome here to help. And at the Stanford site he is just called "Doug", in America people are mostly using the first name.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 11:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
::I took a stab at cleaning up the grammar a bit, and I agree that in this context, refering to him by his last name is more appropriate. --[[Special:Contributions/67.71.137.146|67.71.137.146]] 12:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
:::Thanks for your help on grammar, I'm not native English. My main source was the Stanford site mentioned at the trivia, and he is just called "Doug" there. I think even this nickname should be appropriate.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 19:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, is there any truth to the "masking codecs" claim in the comic and in the explanation of the inventions here? I watched the whole presentation on Youtube, but I can't remember that anything about audio was mentioned. Has this been presented some other time? Or is this again a joke, like the YOLO-cat claim? --[[Special:Contributions/84.164.96.3|84.164.96.3]] 12:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The alt-text, talking about Englebart looking forward to computers tracking what you're doing and who you are, is clearly a jab at the NSA and advertising tracking on the web, and probably at social networking like Facebook and Twitter. 'Direct messages', of course, is exactly the term Twitter uses. I'm unsure if this is the term Engelbart used, though: does anyone have a transcript? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.166|141.101.99.166]] 17:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Passage of Time: There appears to be a considerable passage of time between panels one and three: note the appearance of a wireless headset. This raises the possibility that the demo presented so much new technology and took decades, during which the equipment was upgraded and the inventions demonstrated became less technologically meaningful. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.38.190|162.158.38.190]] 09:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
:Think you are on to something with this [[User:Drkaii|Drkaii]] ([[User talk:Drkaii|talk]])

455: Hats

2020-09-01T20:14:32Z

Drkaii: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 455
| date = July 28, 2008
| title = Hats
| image = hats.png
| titletext = ...
}}

==Explanation==
[[Black Hat]] encounters a person who is wearing not one, but two black hats. Black Hat is not a person to be trifled with, but from his reaction, he apparently believes that Two Black Hats represents a considerable danger to him. Black Hat knows how dangerous he is to those with one less black hat than him, so he continues the logic and realises that one who has one ''more'' black hat must be proportionally dangerous to him.

If a black hat is assumed to be akin to a badge of rank, then Two Black Hats certainly is superior to him in the capacity and willingness to do evil. Alternatively, and even more worrying, Two Black Hats could be someone who has the desire and the ability to acquire black hats, which he then wears like a badge of honor. With all this in mind, Black Hat edges away, keeping Two Black Hats in sight at all times.

This comic is also a metatextual joke about xkcd itself. Because of the comic's simplistic art style and characterization, Black Hat has only one defining physical trait, his hat, and one defining personality trait, his malevolence. Randall then implies that the two traits must be correlated, so that a black hat signifies malevolence, and accordingly two hats must signify even more malevolence -- an idea that wouldn't make any sense in real life, where a person with two hats would just be making an odd fashion choice.{{Citation needed}}

The title text is simply "..." This may represent the slow-motion pause during which Black Hat's nefarious life flashes before his eyes, as he considers his impending doom. It may also emphasize how the usually witty Black Hat is, for once, speechless. Or the title text is similar to that in [[412: Startled]], where Black Hat also becomes the little one (and with much focus on the black hat, as in this comic). As mentioned there, such a short title text could be due to the fact that it's a somewhat surreal comic, and any further commentary might have detrimentally brought it down to Earth. See also [[82: Frame]], with the same title text, but no relation to black hats.

Two Black Hats makes a reappearance in [[826: Guest Week: Zach Weiner (SMBC)]], down by the restrooms.

==Transcript==
:[Black Hat is walking.]

:[Black Hat stops in front of another man with two Black Hats, the uppermost hat tilted backwards.]

:[After two panels, the original Black Hat steps backward, shuddering slightly.]

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Black Hat]]
[[Category:Characters with Hats]]

Talk:2338: Faraday Tour

2020-07-29T19:32:09Z

Drkaii:

It would be cool to know where the largest Faraday cage is. I Googled the question, but aside from a claim that a certain cage is the largest in Europe (made in an article that gives a security error when I click in the link) I can't find any claimants. -[[User:Captain Video|Captain Video]] ([[User talk:Captain Video|talk]]) 00:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
:('Moving' the above comment from the article page...) The largest Faraday cage is the one around our planet, keeping us isolated from the rest if the universe. It's got a rather clever lighting rig on it to simulate what is outside, including parellax, but it's a kludge and bears no resemblance at all to what is ''really'' out there. Of course, nobody can tell that... [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.166|141.101.107.166]] 00:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
::You seem to have missed several space missions. The cage is actually not just around our planet, it's around whole solar system. Of course, when Voyager crashed into it they were already prepared to fix the hole and replace Voyager's radio reports with simulation. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 23:43, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

''"Hairy, addressing an unseen camera (possibly the reader's POV) ... Faraday cages do not necessarily have to be dark inside, as this one appears to be ... "'' Surely it's meant to represent what you would see if you are watching the live cast on your computer? The cage does not "appear to be dark inside" it's just that the signal cuts out, and your screen goes dark.
Pete [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.200|162.158.34.200]] 04:43, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
:It's referring to panels 2 and 5, where we see him entering/leaving the Faraday cage. [[User:Arcorann|Arcorann]] ([[User talk:Arcorann|talk]]) 07:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
::Although perhaps the whole of the interior is largely unlit (for... reasons... maybe that's part of the spectacle, just daubs of phosphor paint for a {{w|Batman_%26_Robin_(film)|Batman And Robin}} aesthetic?), the entry (and, if different, exit) looks to be a tunnel. Perhaps an 'airlock' of sorts, unlit at least when open to the outside as an aesthetic ''or'' practical feature (fully isolated internal power-system?) that strengthens the Faradayness around the openings they have to have in it and prevents even the slightest noise-leakage from the outside world. Though the muffling effect seems to extend outwards to the camera POV. (Hairy may have a wifi-to-Mobile Internet extender box on his person, rather than having direct-to-mobile on the camera device.) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.14|162.158.159.14]] 10:37, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
:::True, Faraday cage would need some sort of "airlock" ... -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 23:43, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
::::You probably wouldn't even be allowed to trail a CAT''n''-whatever cable (no matter if SF/FTP, etc) through the airlock. Not that modern devices even ''can'' be hard ethernet-connected without far too much fiddling and kludging. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.18|162.158.159.18]] 09:16, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
:::Depending on what frequencies you're trying to block and how big the cage is, a door may be too small to matter. AM radio, for instance, has waves too long to fit through a door (~170-500m), so the cage will mostly hold up anyway. Of course, to block microwaves you need a much finer grid like that seen in microwave oven doors, and for IR through soft X-rays the conductor must be solid, so there you would need a double-door system. [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] ([[User talk:Magic9mushroom|talk]]) 10:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I feel like the explanation might be reading too much into (in my opinion) weak possible symbolic interpretations that Randall may or may not have intended. (e.g. "The darkness could be taken as a metaphor for depending so heavily on electronic connectivity for one's view of the world that anything not directly connected is conceived as unobservable" and "continuing the theme of treating connectivity as the only way to acquire information. They would still be able to receive news if they ever step outside to welcome visitors, or have print media delivered, but their choice to unconventionally isolate themselves might reflect their general attitudes to the world outside and it is also implied that Hairy is one of the rare few outsiders they have pre-agreed to allow to visit")--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.19|162.158.74.19]] 16:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
:I think the joke is exactly about being out of touch with outside events. It happened to me. I spent September 11, 2001 doing EMC testing inside a Faraday cage. When I returned to my desk someone asked "So what's your take on the Twin Towers?" I had no idea what he was on about.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.234.30|162.158.234.30]] 08:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

The picture of the cage isn't very accurate in this one. The conductor spacing for a Faraday cage should be ~1/10 wavelength or better. So for cellular connection in the US that's ~5cm down to ~1cm. If you want to include 5GHz wifi then you'd have to go smaller than 6mm. [[User:Jonfitt|Jonfitt]] ([[User talk:Jonfitt|talk]]) 15:48, 29 July 2020 (UTC) jonfitt

I thought the hover text was referring to the 5G conspiracy. Given that 5G can't get inside a Faraday Cage, neither can the "conspiracy" of COVID? [[User:Drkaii|Drkaii]] ([[User talk:Drkaii|talk]])

2253: Star Wars Voyager 1

2020-01-10T06:50:05Z

Drkaii: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2253
| date = January 10, 2020
| title = Star Wars Voyager 1
| image = star_wars_voyager_1.png
| titletext = There's some flexibility depending on your standards for measuring runtime and the various special editions. If you still want to have a party, I'm sure you can find some combination that works.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a BERT. This explation is basic, and needs more information. A Transcript is needed. DO NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

Cueball has added together all the runtimes of the Star Wars movies (episodes I-IX) and then calculated the exact time at which a message sent to Voyager 1 will have that exact duration in light speed delay. He announces this information to Megan and Beret Guy only seconds before it occurs, allowing him to signal the moment by saying "Now!"
Megan expresses surprise that the event isn't being celebrated with fireworks. Judgeing by the fact that she doesn't look up from her book suggests her surprise is insincere. Beret Guy breaks into song with the New Year's traditional "Auld Lang Syne."

This comic highlights a coincidental relationship between the Star Wars Episodes and the NASA Space Probe "Voyager 1". It is in theme because it is a particularly dorky pair of items in the relationship.

The Star Wars Episodes, the first of which was released on 27th December 1977, and the last of which was released 42 years later on 19th December 2019, began only a few months after Voyager 1 was launched on 5th September 1977. 42 years later, it is as of the date of this comic being published 148.68 AU from Earth, which is approximately 20.6 light hours away. Given that the last episode in the entire series was released only weeks before, and it brings up the total viewing time to 20.6 hours (not including Solo and Rogue One), it is an odd (and very dorky) coincidence that cueball saw significant enough to mark with a timer and acknowledgement to Megan and Beret Guy.

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

{{comic discussion}}

2253: Star Wars Voyager 1

2020-01-10T06:48:46Z

Drkaii: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2253
| date = January 10, 2020
| title = Star Wars Voyager 1
| image = star_wars_voyager_1.png
| titletext = There's some flexibility depending on your standards for measuring runtime and the various special editions. If you still want to have a party, I'm sure you can find some combination that works.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a BERT. This explation is basic, and needs more information. A Transcript is needed. DO NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

Cueball has added together all the runtimes of the Star Wars movies (episodes I-IX) and then calculated the exact time at which a message sent to Voyager 1 will have that exact duration in light speed delay. He announces this information to Megan and Beret Guy only seconds before it occurs, allowing him to signal the moment by saying "Now!"
Megan expresses surprise that the event isn't being celebrated with fireworks. Judgeing by the fact that she doesn't look up from her book suggests her surprise is insincere. Beret Guy breaks into song with the New Year's traditional "Auld Lang Syne."

This comic highlights a coincidental relationship between the Star Wars Episodes and the NASA Space Probe "Voyager 1". It is in theme because it is a particularly dorky pair of items in the relationship.

The Star Wars Episodes, the first of which was released on 27th December 1977, and the last of which was released 42 years later on 19th December 2019, began only a few months after Voyager 1 was launched on 5th September 1977. 42 years later, it is as of the date of this comic being published 148.68 AU from Earth, which is approximately 20.6 light hours away. Given that the last episode in the entire series was released only weeks before, and it brings up the total viewing time to 20.6 hours (not including Solo and Rogue One), it is an odd (and very dorky) coincidence that cueball saw significant enough to mark with a timer and acknowledgement to Megan and Beret Guy. As expected, Megan responds sarcastically at the dorkiness of what cueball did, but Beret Guy plays along.

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

{{comic discussion}}

2253: Star Wars Voyager 1

2020-01-10T06:21:22Z

Drkaii: /* Explanation */ Initial explanation of joke and first facts.

{{comic
| number = 2253
| date = January 10, 2020
| title = Star Wars Voyager 1
| image = star_wars_voyager_1.png
| titletext = There's some flexibility depending on your standards for measuring runtime and the various special editions. If you still want to have a party, I'm sure you can find some combination that works.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a BERT. This explation is basic, and needs more information. A Transcript is needed. DO NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

Cueball has added together all the runtimes of the Star Wars movies (episodes I-IX) and then calculated the exact time at which a message sent to Voyager 1 will have that exact duration in light speed delay. He announces this information to Megan and Baret Guy only seconds before it occurs, allowing him to signal the moment by saying "Now!"
Megan expresses surprise that the event isn't being celebrated with fireworks. Judgeing by the fact that she doesn't look up from her book suggests her surprise is insincere. Baret Guy breaks into song with the New Year's traditional "Auld Lang Syne."

This comic highlights a coincidental relationship between the Star Wars Episodes and the NASA Space Probe "Voyager 1". It is in theme because it is a particularly dorky pair of items in the relationship.

The Star Wars Episodes, the first of which was released on 27th December 1977, and the last of which was released 42 years later on 19th December 2019, began only a few months after Voyager 1 was launched on 5th September 1977. 42 years later, it is as of the date of this comic being published 148.68 AU from Earth, which is approximately 20.6 light hours away. Given that the last episode in the entire series was released only weeks before, and it brings up the total viewing time to 20.6 hours (if you include Solo and Rogue One), it is an odd (and very dorky) coincidence that cueball saw significant enough to mark with a timer and acknowledgement to Megan and Beret Guy. As expected, Megan responds sarcastically at the dorkiness of what cueball did, but Beret Guy plays along.

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

{{comic discussion}}

Talk:716: Time Machine

2019-09-08T08:03:02Z

Drkaii: Another way to understand the joke

Isn't this a paradox? [[Special:Contributions/188.29.164.36|188.29.164.36]] 11:01, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
:Yes, the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandfather_paradox grandfather paradox]. However, a number of solutions have been proposed for it, which are also described on the linked page. [[User:NealCruco|NealCruco]] ([[User talk:NealCruco|talk]]) 22:32, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The blood on the bat doesn't really imply Rob dying, he could've been bleeding from a head wound and not actually died. {{unsigned ip|173.245.55.24}}

<<ooh woo! You said Ro-ob!

I've come here from January 2015 to tell you Cueball has a real name.

[[User:Weatherlawyer| I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer|talk]]) 10:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Is there a category for named versions of Cueball? I can think of at least three now where he’s called Rob. Besides this one, there’s 782: Desecration and 1168: Tar.
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.146.94|162.158.146.94]] 00:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I think one interpretation of the comic is actually funnier than the one given here, and might have been Randall's intention. I think he's referring to the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandfather_paradox#Variants retro-suicide paradox variant of the Grandfather paradox], and solving it so that present Rob was killed by future Rob, and thus future Rob's last memory is from that same moment, which is the moment when the timeline was affected. Once a month, he suddenly finds himself in a situation where he has the corpse of an unexplained perfect copy of himself and a baseball bat in his hand, and has to cover it up, and doesn't know why. Implying that the first time he invented time travel, he knew that would kick off a chain reaction in time like this, and went back and started the cycle. Each time after that, as soon as he invents time travel, he realises what must have happened, and thus continues the cycle. [[User:Drkaii|Drkaii]] ([[User talk:Drkaii|talk]])

Talk:588: Pep Rally

2018-03-01T23:51:55Z

Drkaii:

Reminds me of the whole traditional situation that various war leaders would inspire the troops prior to a battle with the whole "I spoke to God(/equivalent), and He is with us!" sort of thing. Presumably similar speeches were being made by his opposing number. And then there's the comedic subversion of "I had a little chat with God, last night and... I'm sorry. I'm so, so sorry. But you'll still try your best, right chaps?" [[Special:Contributions/178.105.100.250|178.105.100.250]] 00:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
: Various times in the Bible, the leader would ask if they'd win this fight. God would say no, and the leader would refuse to fight. They only went headfirst into losing fights when they didn't listen to God. So there wasn't that subversion really. At least, not from their point of view. [[User:Cflare|Cflare]] ([[User talk:Cflare|talk]]) 15:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
:: You know, I think he may have got that from somewhere else.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.157|108.162.249.157]] 13:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I remember back in high school (not to far back), I once gave an obnoxious and over the top rant in APUSH comparing the high school rally to nationalistic propaganda indoctrinating Americans into an Us-Them Mentality. My APUSH teacher found it hilarious. We also had an Anti-Rally, where all the students (and teachers) who didn’t want to go to the rally would go hang by the cafeteria and play Cards Against Humanity, Mau, Ninja, or whatever else came to mind. I have a distinct memory of my Robotics teacher watching me friends and I play CAH. Also of playing CAH during APUSH and AP Lit after the AP Tests. This has nothing to do with anything, this just reminded me of those events and I thought people may find it amusing. If i’m Off base here, then I apologize.

Perhaps we should include a mention of the extraneous comma in the final panel ("...this, rally, again?") as a typo?
-DrKaii

Talk:1761: Blame

2016-11-29T00:08:59Z

Drkaii:

This comic is one of Randal's best EVER! It is a scathing and biting commentary on the current angst of a huge swath of liberal and progressive snowflakes.

The first panel sets the stage with a subtle but jarring inversion of the normal human response "bad thing happened >>> I feel sad" to the much more autocentric "I feel sad >>> bad things are happening" Worth a derisive snort in its own right, we can accept this little lapse since we are deluged with so many examples of such self interest from every direction today. Ignoring the little deviation ( never something one should do with xkcd) we accept the lead-in panel as simply saying "bad things are happening"

The second panel is a riff on the "something bad happened therefore someone is to blame" meme of modern Western society - examples such as blame the coffee supplier if one scalds oneself spilling hot coffee, blame the company that grinds up and sells powdered rock for any perceived negative effects of assiduously dusting said powdered rock over ever body orifice and breathing it for thirty years. This is a masterful set up! We now know where the joke is going! Cueball is going to come up with an absurd and funny scapegoat for the bad things happening in panel one! We are ready for the punchline....

But the punchline is not that at all! It is exquisite! The blame is on Cueball's Facebook friends! We hang in the moment of disbelief where our world view must be reset! Then it hits! We realize the the blame is not for "bad things happening" at all - we have been set up, had! The blame is for Cue ball's "Feeling sad"! It is not for all the harm, blood, guts, and gore that are really happening in the world but for the fact that something - his Facebook friends specifically, have caused him to think about these bad things, penetrating his safe bubble and making him sad.

That the "bad things" are more than likely simply the shocked and hurt feelings of Cueball's friends as a result of the recent 2016 election only heightens the joke. No real human suffering is usually openly discussed in the shallows of Facebook. We realize this and the satire is complete.

The mouse over text emphasizes the break from real issues to the relatively shallow feelings (being "scared") and even more shallow and petty response (yelling at them). [[Special:Contributions/108.162.242.118|108.162.242.118]] 19:42, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

It seems like he's talking about all of the bad things that have happened in 2016 so far making fun of Facebook posts that blame everyone for the things that are happening
[[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.119|173.245.52.119]] 05:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
: In particular the recent election[[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.224|108.162.215.224]] 08:16, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Is this a reference to the "echo chamber" issue raised in recent US election? I.e. blaming my friends on facebook for only sharing stories that reinforce my biases and thus my failure to be fully informed about why people who disagree with me do disagree and only blaming them for being dumb isn't a failing on *my* part, but on my friends' parts for only sharing echo-chamber-y material. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.87|108.162.237.87]] 10:03, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I definitely think it's worth mentioning that this comic is, while written to be timeless, clearly a reaction to the election. (Randall has endorsed both Obama in 2008 and Clinton this year, and judging by #500, cares more than a little, so it's hard to conceive that this *wouldn't* be about the election.)

There are two types of Facebook activity that may be the target of this satire: 1) engaging in angry arguments with Facebook friends with *differing* political opinions, and 2) making numerous angry posts and comments against the other side, despite the fact that they’ll mainly be seen by *like-minded* people in your social media echo chamber. I expect that this comic is aimed at both: 1) the futility of internet arguments has been a topic before, while 2) the title text specifying “scared friends” clearly indicates like-minded people. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.89.54|162.158.89.54]] 10:22, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
: Just added the "friends who disagree" to it.
By focusing on blame he has cleverly shifted thinking to Q:"are your friends on Facebook to blame?" A:"probably not as they are almost all likely to have similar views to you" Q:"So why vent anger on Facebook to people who aren't to blame and you don't want to change?" A:"errrrrr...." {{unsigned ip|141.101.98.224}}

There are 3 references in my recent edit. If you go into the source code, you can see the links, but I lack the wikipedia knowledge to get them to properly link out. Help? [[User:Djbrasier|Djbrasier]] ([[User talk:Djbrasier|talk]]) 14:13, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Couldn't it just be that it is usual for politicians to blame "the others" (countries, etc) to justify that things are not all good in the country, and then, proceed to threaten to do bad things (go to war, revoke treaties, etc) to appease the "country's inner sadness" (and, through this, get votes) ? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.61|173.245.48.61]] 14:53, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

My inclination was to take this as satirizing the number of people who have taken to Facebook to rant about an event that was clearly not the fault of one's immediate circle. However one feels about the election it's clear that spewing venom at anyone who happens to be in your Facebook list is unproductive at best and certainly isn't addressing any appreciable portion of the cause of these events. It seemed to be supported by taking the hover text as a continuation of the problem, suggesting that Cueball has devolved to seeking catharsis. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.132|162.158.74.132]] 17:00, 18 November 2016 (UTC)jrow
:Agreed, I took this comic to be a satirical attack on people who post all caps angry messages on Facebook. EX: "I can't believe all you people did this!" , when 90% of their friends probably agree with them (See "Echo Chambers" comments)- it's almost certainly in context of the election, as "Scared Friends" represents a great many Clinton voters very well right now. The clear interpretation to me is that people posting these angry Facebook rants are not going through normal, well-thought out processes.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.111|108.162.219.111]] 23:11, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

This explanation currently claims venting can reduce stress. I have heard that venting actually makes you angrier. (First Google hit appears to be a scientific paper: https://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/jbickfor/bushman2002.pdf ). [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.182|108.162.215.182]] 20:53, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

The reference to yelling is obviously sarcasm. Nobody would really suggest the absurd idea that Randall really thinks yelling at friends is acceptable, so really what is being highlighted is that yelling at friends is NOT a good idea. The explanation text should not suggest that the idea is anything other than absurd. --[[User:Rotan|Rotan]] ([[User talk:Rotan|talk]]) 00:15, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

This could be a critique of the specific social media. The true meaning being expressed by what is not included: "My Friends on Facebook" as compared with all the other areas in which one would have friends, e.g. "My Friends at the Coffee Shop" or "My Friends at Work". It could also be intended for the reader to infer through abductive reasoning that the algorithms (user interface) of which facebook is composed may promote this type of behavior. {{unsigned ip|108.162.246.32}}[[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.32|108.162.246.32]] 02:14, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Why Facebook: http://arstechnica.com/staff/2016/11/its-time-to-get-rid-of-the-facebook-news-feed-because-its-not-news/ --[[User:JakubNarebski|JakubNarebski]] ([[User talk:JakubNarebski|talk]]) 12:35, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I think Randall is trying to address all the Clinton supporters who said to their longtime social media friends, "If you voted for Trump, you're a sexist, racist piece of ****, and you should get out of my life forever," and other similar things, because there were a LOT of those people on social media, despite every liberal icon from Michael Moore to Bill Maher telling people to protest and to fight much harder than usual, but also respect the political process (IE, don't riot if there's no last minute electoral college switch). When Obama was in the White House, the the far-right Republicans did awful things governed by fear. Now with Trump, I hope the far-left Democrats don't do anything crazy ALSO governed by fear, because that will just lead to more white people becoming Republicans because they felt unwelcome by the Democrats. Just my opinion. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.210.252|108.162.210.252]] 19:27, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

It occurs to me that the joke is simply about relative perception. Before facebook the media was the primary source for most people to make political decisions. I have heard it repeated by the media that Trump "used" social media to influence voters. Ergo, similar to that of the gun argument "if guns did not exist, there would be less violent crime" I feel that Randall is making a simile by saying "if facebook did not exist, Trump would not have been elected" and, by extension, we would not know as much about the magnitude of bad happenings in the world. Therefore, the first contact cause of Randall's sadness both before and after the election is Facebook. However, there's a reason he chose to blame facebook users and not just facebook. If facebook users were more like him and generally promoted positive aspects of the world (or at least be more balanced), he theorises that everyone (including Randall) would be more likely to be upbeat and positive. This, of course presumes a number of things, the simplest of which is that the world would be better if things went the way Cueball wanted them to. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.178.104|162.158.178.104]]

So uhm, did whoever wrote the above explanation not understand the concept of sarcasm? Because this comic comes off as 100% sarcastic to me, and yet it's taking it very seriously. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.78.127|172.68.78.127]] 09:51, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

It's quite simple what it means, I'm not sure why people aren't getting it. Randall is trying to bring balance as currently everyone is lashing out against their own friends on facebook as a result of the anger of Hillary losing. He's being sarcastic to highlight the absurdity of the thought process that people blame their friends for the "bad things happening". I was quite peeved that he got political, but this comic undid a lot of my peevedness. I'm not sure who wrote the page here, but they clearly have no clue what this comic is about? --[[User:Drkaii|Drkaii]] ([[User talk:Drkaii|talk]]) 00:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:1761: Blame

2016-11-29T00:07:38Z

Drkaii: