explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:365: Slides

2026-03-08T15:05:25Z

Gunterkoenigsmann:

I believe that the title text actually implies that the conference in the comic '''is''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIGGRAPH SIGGRAPH].{{unsigned ip|184.41.49.246}}

And what? The organization and/or the venue the convention is being held in haven't hired security guards who ARE able to throw you out?[[Special:Contributions/121.222.232.156|121.222.232.156]] 07:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The conference in the comic is SIGGRAPH (Special Interest Group in Graphics). Cueball/Randall has taken the name to mean that the conference audience would be interested in graphs. {{unsigned ip|141.101.98.46}}

"It is said" that he is banned from SIGGRAPH, and this comic provides all the additional evidence necessary to infer he was physically removed? I didn't think the purpose of this wiki was to spread damaging rumors. [[User:Gmcgath|Gmcgath]] ([[User talk:Gmcgath|talk]]) 11:49, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't the title text say that Cueball was ''physically'' thrown out of SIGGRAPH? Shouldn't the explanation explain that? [[User:625571b7-aa66-4f98-ac5c-92464cfb4ed8|625571b7-aa66-4f98-ac5c-92464cfb4ed8]] ([[User talk:625571b7-aa66-4f98-ac5c-92464cfb4ed8|talk]]) 05:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
:You're right, we don't need to infer this. And the "very implausible" possibility is nonsense.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 15:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

SIGGRAPH sounds like a Unix signal that aborts something due to the wrong graphs--[[User:Gunterkoenigsmann|Gunterkoenigsmann]] ([[User talk:Gunterkoenigsmann|talk]]) 15:05, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Talk:3210: Eliminating the Impossible

2026-02-22T17:41:14Z

Gunterkoenigsmann: Holmes' superpowers.

I’ve found that when looking for an item, I’ll search harder and more thoroughly in the places where the item is supposed to be, which is just frustrating and usually unsuccessful.
Then I realized that if the item isn’t where it’s supposed to be, then it’s somewhere ''it isn’t supposed to be'' - so I start looking in those places.
[[Special:Contributions/170.64.111.76|170.64.111.76]] 20:51, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

It also assumes exclusion of the middle.
[[User:MithicSpirit|MithicSpirit]] ([[User talk:MithicSpirit|talk]]) 20:59, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
:I think you're kind of right, but it's a weird situation. Disjunction elimination does not require LEM. I can imagine that we have established some list of ''n'' "possibilities" ''p''0, ''p''1, ..., ''p''''n''. What does it mean that these are the only possibilities? Naturally, it means ''p''0 ∨ ''p''1 ∨ · · · ∨ ''p''''n''. Now, if we eliminate all but the ''k''th possibility, that means we have ¬''p''0, ¬''p''1, ..., ¬''p''''k''-1, ¬''p''''k''+1, ..., ¬''p''''n''. By repeated use of disjunction elimination, this proves ''p''''k'' intuitionistically, so the ''k''th possibility ("whatever remains") is provable ("must be the truth"). The problem with this approach is proving the original disjunction. How did we show to begin with that one of those ''n'' possibilities must hold? To do that intuitionistically requires actually proving one of those statements to begin with. And since only one of them is true, we must have already proved ''p''''k'', rendering this argument pointless. Still, it technically is valid. [[User:EebstertheGreat|EebstertheGreat]] ([[User talk:EebstertheGreat|talk]]) 14:20, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
::I originally interpreted it as taking the collection of all (relevant?) propositions, excising the false ones, and deducing that anything that was not excised must be true. Effectively meaning that that if ¬p does not hold then p must hold, which is EM. I think your interpretation is incorrect because the comic does not require the collection of "whatever remains" to be nonempty, so we don't necessarily have the disjunction. [[User:MithicSpirit|MithicSpirit]] ([[User talk:MithicSpirit|talk]]) 20:43, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

These guys sure are some professors of logic (I'm not sure if they own any doghouses, is what I mean). [[User:Fephisto|Fephisto]] ([[User talk:Fephisto|talk]]) 21:07, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

As and when the Explanation gets written (I imagine that someone's right in the middle of that now), it must be noted that Sherlock Holmes's self-proclaimed "Deductive reasoning" is really {{w|Abductive reasoning}}. (I actually blame Sir Arthur, rather than Sherlock (or 'narrator' Watson), for that error... But then he also believed in fairies, so obviously he's less than perfectly rational.) [[Special:Contributions/81.179.199.253|81.179.199.253]] 21:17, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
:Well, nobody did do anything with it, in the last hour or so, so I scrawled something pretty basic for others to ruthlessly dismember and 'remember' in their own prefered fashion. [[Special:Contributions/81.179.199.253|81.179.199.253]] 22:27, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I think its pretty nice how this comics number is a countdown from 3. [[User:Xkdvd|Xkdvd]] ([[User talk:Xkdvd|talk]]) 22:57, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

By the way, meant to say earlier... just today (well, the day just before the midnight just gone), I spent a few moments trying to help someone find a single glove. They'd looked various places, and I ''went out to look in the car'' (twice, actually, because first I just checked the 'normal' places, footwells, door-pockets... then realised I hadn't actually checked the glove-compartment itself (which I don't think I've ever used to store gloves, of course, but I'd have looked silly if I hadn't gone back and checked it once it had occured to me) so out I went again) in order to ''not'' find the glove. Cue, later, the revelation that it had been in a bag (in the house) all along. And this was all mere hours ''before'' Randall published this comic. So, as we all used to say on the now defunct Fora, "<abbr title="Get Out Of My Head, Randall">GOOMHR</abbr>!" [[Special:Contributions/81.179.199.253|81.179.199.253]] 00:24, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

It's also possible to miss an item in a space you've searched. For instance, as a 12- or 13-year-old I once concluded that something (I forget what it was) must not be in my room, because I'd partitioned the rectangular box defined by the walls, floor and ceiling and searched each of the partitions. It turned out to be outside that box but still inside my room, because it was on the windowsill. [[User:Promethean|Promethean]] ([[User talk:Promethean|talk]]) 00:39, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

I actually did find it in the car though.--[[Special:Contributions/2604:3D09:84:4000:6FFB:F472:7679:FF75|2604:3D09:84:4000:6FFB:F472:7679:FF75]] 02:34, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Reminds me of this from Math Hysteria by Ian Stewart: 'As I have often stated, when you have eliminated the impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable ... remains improbable,' said Holmes, deflated. 'There's probably something altogether different going on, and you've missed it. But don't quote me on that,' he warned. [[User:Arcorann|Arcorann]] ([[User talk:Arcorann|talk]]) 09:23, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
:I was going to get that actual book, before Christmas (after I'd decided what other book I was getting for someone else, when visiting a good bookshop with a nice selection of not-necessarily-new publications), as there's still just about space for it on my 'Pratchett-adjacent' bookshelves next to his (and specifically Jack Cohen's) other stuff. Which I'm a bit sorry now that I never got signed by them (both, where relevent) while I still could, the few times we had all crossed paths. [[Special:Contributions/81.179.199.253|81.179.199.253]] 14:25, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

If it's not in the car, it's in the cdr. --[[Special:Contributions/2A02:3100:25A0:9400:6CEB:97FF:FE5B:8BDC|2A02:3100:25A0:9400:6CEB:97FF:FE5B:8BDC]] 11:06, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
: Yeth. {{unsigned ip|174.130.97.11|14:10, 21 February 2026}}

To be fair, it is SHERLOCK HOLMES making the comment. He literally means when you have actually eliminated all other possibilities. And he was pedantic enough to be thorough about it. [[User:Dúthomhas|Dúthomhas]] ([[User talk:Dúthomhas|talk]]) 21:27, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
: Not at all; upon re-reading The Sign of the Four (his first use of the phrase) he most certainly has not eliminated all other possibilities in both his uses of the phrase. Hilariously, he then comments "I never guess" [[User:Nerd1729|Nerd1729]] ([[User talk:Nerd1729|talk]]) 22:01, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
:: I am unsure how you make that claim. Holmes is quite pedantic in explaining the peculiarities of how he arrived at both deductions, and he is a stickler for details and minutiae of his environment — the guy studies tobacco remains to the point that he can tell you who’s buying it when he finds it someplace uncouth. Unless you suggest that Holmes should suppose Watson — a man bound by habit and practicalities — should act out of character and wander through the _peculiar reddish_ earth just to mess with Holmes, or in the second instance that we have knowledge of some _other_ method of entering that room that Doyle did not? ’Cause I don’t think that _abnormal_ behavior or circumstances qualifies as the normal possibilities being eliminated before considering the _improbable_. I will agree that Holmes was pretty full of himself, tho. [[User:Dúthomhas|Dúthomhas]] ([[User talk:Dúthomhas|talk]]) 1:24, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
::: Holmes deduces that Watson had sent a telegraph because he had not seen Watson write a letter that morning and Watson had an adequate collection of stamps and postcards. What about the possibility then that Watson had written a letter the previous day, only to send in the morning? [[User:Nerd1729|Nerd1729]] ([[User talk:Nerd1729|talk]]) 02:59, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
::::One must also assume that someone would tread in that earth ''only'' upon entering the post office, as opposed to while passing by it, and that nobody kicked or dropped any of that earth elsewhere. That the stamps and postcards on view in the desk weren't purchased on that very trip. That Watson couldn't have bought stamps or postcards, e.g. in the mistaken belief that he'd run out. That there was no other possible reason to enter the post office, e.g. to make some inquiry. [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 04:33, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::Yes, one assumes those things. You are applying modern-day logic to a different time and place, to people who knew the intimate details of each other’s lives in ways that we have long forgotten — Watson had no other place or time to write letters, whether that morning or some previous day Holmes would have plainly seen — as he points out to Watson (and to us) when making reference to the state of his desk. Watson would not be in the mistaken belief that he had run out of writing supplies — that is again a modern logic inapplicable to that time and, especially _to Watson_, whom I have already noted was not careless in his habits. And even today, when was the last time you went to the PO just to ask a question? You claim extraordinary possibilities are failures in Holmes’s logic about a creature of military routine. [[User:Dúthomhas|Dúthomhas]] ([[User talk:Dúthomhas|talk]]) 12:09, 22 February 2026
::::::I last went to a PO to make an inquiry a few months ago, when I wanted to know what the cost would be to ship a certain parcel to a certain destination. Then I brought it home without sending it, because I needed to clear up a few details before I did. Anyone can be mistaken about what they have on hand. "My constitution has not got over the Afghan campaign yet." When you object to "modern-day logic"... well, yes that's the whole point of this strip: the "logic" that Holmes applied doesn't stand up to scrutiny. [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 15:16, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
:::: Holmes claims he has the power to deduce everything and clearly depends on Watsom to believe in him and to spread the word about him being as great as we as his readers want him to be.--[[User:Gunterkoenigsmann|Gunterkoenigsmann]] ([[User talk:Gunterkoenigsmann|talk]]) 17:41, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

This comic exactly hits the spot: A guy who gets high on cocaine (at least before the Reichenbach falls incident) and hasn't slept for days comes to a crime scene, tells that within a second he has ruled out all possibilities except that somebody has trained a snake (which might have infravision, but definitely is deaf) to be controlled by music in a way that it doesn't only attack without being in danger, but also wastes all of its precious venom on a human being it will not be able to swallow. The books are great but - do we really want to believe the reasoning of such a guy? --[[User:Gunterkoenigsmann|Gunterkoenigsmann]] ([[User talk:Gunterkoenigsmann|talk]]) 11:11, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
:Unless you mean a particular individual (or perhaps species of) snake with an actual deafness, they ''can'' hear. It's jawbone-based hearing (not ears), but it picks up ground vibrations as well as lower-frequency air-transmitted sounds (they can respond to human voices, with wild snakes in inhabited areas often using them as a cue to either get out of the way of any humans or making sure they're securely hidden where they are).
:Though traditional snake-charming is overwhelmingly exploiting entirely untamed snakes' response to the ''movement'' of the charmer and his instrument (the 'dancing' snake being its response to the carefully-just-out-of-range 'threat' exhibited by the charmer), no doubt it can learn to expect to be roused by lower-frequency vibrations coming from the 'pungi' that is being played.
:(The higher tones and any melody would be more just for the human audience, of course, and doesn't do much to 'charm' the snake, which may also have been fairly 'fresh caught' from the wild with nothing ''but'' instinct behind its own part of the performance; it's mostly an act by the charmer, similar to how a bull-fighter isn't expected to have changed a bull's behaviour but instead himself learn to react to a bull's natural aggressiveness. ...As it might have been said by Bluebottle in The Goon Show, if the bull charges to the left, he moves towards the matador; if it charges to the right, he moves towards the picador; and if it charges straight at him..? ...he runs to the back-a-door!)
:Ophiologists (or indeed herpetologists in general) might be able say how well snakes can be ''well trained'' to a given cue (and perform non-instinctive actions such as being sent through a grating, envenomate non-threat/non-food targets and then return), and the higher pitch instrument (a tin-whistle, if I recall the story involved) wouldn't seem to me to be suitable communicating device, but I've no doubt that it's at least partly practical, just not (trivially) possible to the full extent as asked for by the story's plot. [[Special:Contributions/82.132.238.165|82.132.238.165]] 16:54, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
: Wow! Didn't expect to learn something today. Thanks a lot!--[[User:Gunterkoenigsmann|Gunterkoenigsmann]] ([[User talk:Gunterkoenigsmann|talk]]) 17:41, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

3210: Eliminating the Impossible

2026-02-22T17:37:18Z

Gunterkoenigsmann:

{{comic
| number = 3210
| date = February 20, 2026
| title = Eliminating the Impossible
| image = eliminating_the_impossible_2x.png
| imagesize = 675x349px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = 'If you've eliminated a few possibilities and you can't think of any others, your weird theory is proven right' isn't quite as rhetorically compelling.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This page was created by the one thing that actually was in the car. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}

The discussion in this comic plays upon the phrase originating from the fictional Sherlock Holmes (and therefore also his author, {{w|Arthur Conan-Doyle}}) that "[https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/1196-when-you-have-eliminated-all-which-is-impossible-then-whatever When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth,]" which describes Holmes's {{w|abductive reasoning}} used to solve the crimes and mysteries set before him. The point of the original statement is that {{tvtropes|RealityIsUnrealistic|something being ''unlikely'' does not make it ''untrue''}}, and ignoring reality because it is "unlikely" is both absurd and counterproductive to the process of solving a problem. However, this statement is a [https://motleybytes.com/w/HolmesianFallacy fallacy], as nobody is omniscient so it is impossible to rule out all alternatives.

In the real world, it is ''never'' true that eliminating the impossible leaves only a single possible outcome. There are always vast numbers of events that are technically possible, but so vastly improbable that they would be unlikely to ever be observed, even if every subatomic particle in the universe were a universe itself, and were to be observed from Big Bang to heat death. An example would be quantum tunneling of a macroscopic object over a long distance... such as a set of keys from inside a house out to a car. In practice, such events are usually dismissed from consideration.

[[White Hat]] is expounding this principle, to [[Cueball]], as a logical step for some undisclosed purpose. Cueball argues that human error - namely, making a mistake in the 'elimination' process - is also possible, and claims that the logic is faulty on this premise. When White Hat points out that the logic is a guideline for problem-solving, Cueball argues that the possibility of human error when operating on this logic makes the approach unsound. If there is one true version of events, then finding it by this process requires classifying all other possibilities as impossible. While that might be possible for a constrained problem like a detective story or multi-option question, many daily situations require eliminating vast numbers of possibilities while lacking sufficient information to be truly sure that the possibilities have been exhausted.

In the final panel, Cueball demonstrates a practical example of human error causing this issue. When a person is looking for their possessions, their first option is to search the house in which they presently are, while their second option is to search their mode of transportation (especially in the case of possessions that are regularly brought to and from other locations). White Hat agrees that he himself has been in the situation where he has searched the entire house, not found what he is looking for, assumes it is in the car, and then fails to locate it in the car as well. There are other possibilities, but the tendency to jump to conclusions (possibly by misuse of the quote) can lead to those being ignored. Additional possibilities:
* The house has not been fully searched, with the item left in some obscured corner, a clothing pocket that is in the laundry, or even a vent or pipe that one could not practically access.
* The car has not been fully searched, because the item slid between two seats or was deeper in a glove compartment than the searcher thought possible.
* It is common for people to fail to see a thing even though it is present, sometimes even clearly in view, because of momentary cognitive glitching, {{w|The Purloined Letter|poor assumptions}}, or more fundamental cognitive failures such as {{w|visual agnosia}}. Another Holmes quotation is relevant: "[https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/205730-you-see-but-you-do-not-observe You see, but you do not observe.]"
* The searcher forgets that they took the item to some other location, or wishfully ignores that possibility because it is far away and/or inconvenient to search.
* The searcher has never taken the item anywhere other than the house or car, but is unaware that someone or something else moved it.
* The item may have been destroyed or altered in a way that makes it unrecognizable when found.

The title text goes further in deconstructing how the quote might result in a logically incorrect {{w|argument from ignorance}}. In fiction, there is a {{tvtropes|TheoryOfNarrativeCausality|Law of Narrative Causality}}, by which events are successfully resolved in the way that the plot requires them to be resolved; therefore, stating this approach as a logical rule would normally be {{tvtropes|LampshadeHanging|narratively unsatisfying}}. When Sherlock Holmes first uses the phrase in ''The Sign of the Four'', he "deduces" that Watson had sent a telegram at the post office instead of doing anything else by observing that he had not written a letter and that he already had a good stock of postcards and stamps. Holmes neglects the possibility that Watson had sent a letter that he had written sometime previously, or any other possibility, yet he happens to be right because it would be unsatisfying were he to be wrong. As has been pointed out elsewhere in Holmesian works, however, Holmes knows Watson very well, and when it comes to a matter as narrow in scope as "Watson's behaviour", Holmes is better-equipped than most to eliminate impossibilities.

Sherlock may have more accurately, yet less memorably, phrased the maxim as "When you have eliminated what is likely, the truth must be a more improbable outcome".

In ''The Long Dark Tea-time of the Soul,'' Douglas Adams commented on this Holmesian maxim:<blockquote>'The impossible often has a kind of integrity to it which the merely improbable lacks. How often have you been presented with an apparently rational explanation of something that works in all respects other than one, which is just that it is hopelessly improbable? Your instinct is to say, "Yes, but he or she simply wouldn't do that." '

'Well, it happened to me today, in fact,' replied Kate.

'Ah, yes,' said Dirk, slapping the table and making the glasses jump, 'your girl in the wheelchair [who was constantly mumbling stock prices from the day before]—a perfect example. The idea that she is somehow receiving yesterday's stock market prices out of thin air is merely impossible, and therefore ''must'' be the case, because the idea that she is maintaining an immensely complex and laborious hoax of no benefit to herself is hopelessly improbable. The first idea merely supposes that there is something we don't know about, and God knows there are enough of those. The second, however, runs contrary to something fundamental and human which we do know about. We should therefore be very suspicious of it and all its specious rationality.'</blockquote>

This time Cueball might have a point since if one really investigates Sherlock Holmes' cases they often contain obvious mistakes like most of "the hound of baskerville" or the solution of "The Adventure of the Speckled Band", claiming the only solution being that someone trained a snake to be controlled by music to bite and kill someone without being attacked or just claiming to have eliminated all other solutions in a real-world scenario which is too complex to allow for that without even having taken a closer look on the bigger picture.

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

:[White Hat and Cueball are standing together and talking. White Hat has one hand slightly raised.]
:White Hat: As Sherlock Holmes said,
:White Hat: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

:[Close-up of Cueball's head.]
:Cueball: What about the possibility that you forgot to eliminate a possibility?
:Cueball: Or that you eliminated one incorrectly?
:Cueball: Both of those remain, too.

:[Zoom back out to show both. Cueball holds his arms out.]
:White Hat: You're being pedantic.
:White Hat: It's just a general rule for deduction.
:Cueball: But it's a ''bad rule.''

:[Cueball holds up one finger.]
:Cueball: How often have you thought, "I can't find this thing, and I've searched the whole house. The only place I haven't looked is the car, so it ''must'' be there."
:White Hat: ...and then it's never in the car.
:Cueball: ''It's never in the car!''

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>
[[Category:Pedantic]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]
[[Category:Logic]]
[[Category:Fiction]]

3210: Eliminating the Impossible

2026-02-22T11:18:24Z

Gunterkoenigsmann: Cueball was right, this time!

{{comic
| number = 3210
| date = February 20, 2026
| title = Eliminating the Impossible
| image = eliminating_the_impossible_2x.png
| imagesize = 675x349px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = 'If you've eliminated a few possibilities and you can't think of any others, your weird theory is proven right' isn't quite as rhetorically compelling.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This page was created by the one thing that actually was in the car. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}

The discussion in this comic plays upon the phrase originating from the fictional Sherlock Holmes (and therefore also his author, {{w|Arthur Conan-Doyle}}) that "[https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/1196-when-you-have-eliminated-all-which-is-impossible-then-whatever When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth,]" which describes Holmes's {{w|abductive reasoning}} used to solve the crimes and mysteries set before him. The point of the original statement is that {{tvtropes|RealityIsUnrealistic|something being ''unlikely'' does not make it ''untrue''}}, and ignoring reality because it is "unlikely" is both absurd and counterproductive to the process of solving a problem. However, this statement is a [https://motleybytes.com/w/HolmesianFallacy fallacy], as nobody is omniscient so it is impossible to rule out all alternatives.

In the real world, it is ''never'' true that eliminating the impossible leaves only a single possible outcome. There are always vast numbers of events that are technically possible, but so vastly improbable that they would be unlikely to ever be observed, even if every subatomic particle in the universe were a universe itself, and were to be observed from Big Bang to heat death. An example would be quantum tunneling of a macroscopic object over a long distance... such as a set of keys from inside a house out to a car. In practice, such events are usually dismissed from consideration.

[[White Hat]] is expounding this principle, to [[Cueball]], as a logical step for some undisclosed purpose. Cueball argues that human error - namely, making a mistake in the 'elimination' process - is also possible, and claims that the logic is faulty on this premise. When White Hat points out that the logic is a guideline for problem-solving, Cueball argues that the possibility of human error when operating on this logic makes the approach unsound. If there is one true version of events, then finding it by this process requires classifying all other possibilities as impossible. While that might be possible for a constrained problem like a detective story or multi-option question, many daily situations require eliminating vast numbers of possibilities while lacking sufficient information to be truly sure that the possibilities have been exhausted.

In the final panel, Cueball demonstrates a practical example of human error causing this issue. When a person is looking for their possessions, their first option is to search the house in which they presently are, while their second option is to search their mode of transportation (especially in the case of possessions that are regularly brought to and from other locations). White Hat agrees that he himself has been in the situation where he has searched the entire house, not found what he is looking for, assumes it is in the car, and then fails to locate it in the car as well. There are other possibilities, but the tendency to jump to conclusions (possibly by misuse of the quote) can lead to those being ignored. Additional possibilities:
* The house has not been fully searched, with the item left in some obscured corner, a clothing pocket that is in the laundry, or even a vent or pipe that one could not practically access.
* The car has not been fully searched, because the item slid between two seats or was deeper in a glove compartment than the searcher thought possible.
* It is common for people to fail to see a thing even though it is present, sometimes even clearly in view, because of momentary cognitive glitching, {{w|The Purloined Letter|poor assumptions}}, or more fundamental cognitive failures such as {{w|visual agnosia}}. Another Holmes quotation is relevant: "[https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/205730-you-see-but-you-do-not-observe You see, but you do not observe.]"
* The searcher forgets that they took the item to some other location, or wishfully ignores that possibility because it is far away and/or inconvenient to search.
* The searcher has never taken the item anywhere other than the house or car, but is unaware that someone or something else moved it.
* The item may have been destroyed or altered in a way that makes it unrecognizable when found.

The title text goes further in deconstructing how the quote might result in a logically incorrect {{w|argument from ignorance}}. In fiction, there is a {{tvtropes|TheoryOfNarrativeCausality|Law of Narrative Causality}}, by which events are successfully resolved in the way that the plot requires them to be resolved; therefore, stating this approach as a logical rule would normally be {{tvtropes|LampshadeHanging|narratively unsatisfying}}. When Sherlock Holmes first uses the phrase in ''The Sign of the Four'', he "deduces" that Watson had sent a telegram at the post office instead of doing anything else by observing that he had not written a letter and that he already had a good stock of postcards and stamps. Holmes neglects the possibility that Watson had sent a letter that he had written sometime previously, or any other possibility, yet he happens to be right because it would be unsatisfying were he to be wrong. Humorously, he claims in the same chapter that "I never guess".

Sherlock may have more accurately, yet less memorably, phrased the maxim as "When you have eliminated what is likely, the truth must be a more improbable outcome".

In ''The Long Dark Tea-time of the Soul,'' Douglas Adams commented on this Holmesian maxim:<blockquote>'The impossible often has a kind of integrity to it which the merely improbable lacks. How often have you been presented with an apparently rational explanation of something that works in all respects other than one, which is just that it is hopelessly improbable? Your instinct is to say, "Yes, but he or she simply wouldn't do that." '

'Well, it happened to me today, in fact,' replied Kate.

'Ah, yes,' said Dirk, slapping the table and making the glasses jump, 'your girl in the wheelchair [who was constantly mumbling stock prices from the day before]—a perfect example. The idea that she is somehow receiving yesterday's stock market prices out of thin air is merely impossible, and therefore ''must'' be the case, because the idea that she is maintaining an immensely complex and laborious hoax of no benefit to herself is hopelessly improbable. The first idea merely supposes that there is something we don't know about, and God knows there are enough of those. The second, however, runs contrary to something fundamental and human which we do know about. We should therefore be very suspicious of it and all its specious rationality.'</blockquote>

This time Cueball might have a point since if one really investigates Sherlock Holmes' cases they often contain obvious mistakes like most of the solution of the original version of the "Hound of Baskerville" case, claiming the only solution being that someone trained a snake (which definitely is deaf) to be controlled by music or just claiming to have eliminated all other solutions in a real-world scenario which is too complex to allow for that without even having taken a closer look on the bigger picture.

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

:[White Hat and Cueball are standing together and talking. White Hat has one hand slightly raised.]
:White Hat: As Sherlock Holmes said,
:White Hat: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

:[Close-up of Cueball's head.]
:Cueball: What about the possibility that you forgot to eliminate a possibility?
:Cueball: Or that you eliminated one incorrectly?
:Cueball: Both of those remain, too.

:[Zoom back out to show both. Cueball holds his arms out.]
:White Hat: You're being pedantic.
:White Hat: It's just a general rule for deduction.
:Cueball: But it's a ''bad rule.''

:[Cueball holds up one finger.]
:Cueball: How often have you thought, "I can't find this thing, and I've searched the whole house. The only place I haven't looked is the car, so it ''must'' be there."
:White Hat: ...and then it's never in the car.
:Cueball: ''It's never in the car!''

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>
[[Category:Pedantic]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]
[[Category:Logic]]
[[Category:Fiction]]

Talk:3210: Eliminating the Impossible

2026-02-22T11:11:27Z

Gunterkoenigsmann: This time Skewball actually has a point!

This comic exactly hits the spot: A guy who gets high on cocaine (at least before the Reichenbach falls incident) and hasn't slept for days comes to a crime scene, tells that within a second he has ruled out all possibilities except that somebody has trained a snake (which might have infravision, but definitely is deaf) to be controlled by music in a way that it doesn't only attack without being in danger, but also wastes all of its precious venom on a human being it will not be able to swallow. The books are great but - do we really want to believe the reasoning of such a guy? --[[User:Gunterkoenigsmann|Gunterkoenigsmann]] ([[User talk:Gunterkoenigsmann|talk]]) 11:11, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I’ve found that when looking for an item, I’ll search harder and more thoroughly in the places where the item is supposed to be, which is just frustrating and usually unsuccessful.
Then I realized that if the item isn’t where it’s supposed to be, then it’s somewhere ''it isn’t supposed to be'' - so I start looking in those places.
[[Special:Contributions/170.64.111.76|170.64.111.76]] 20:51, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

It also assumes exclusion of the middle.
[[User:MithicSpirit|MithicSpirit]] ([[User talk:MithicSpirit|talk]]) 20:59, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
:I think you're kind of right, but it's a weird situation. Disjunction elimination does not require LEM. I can imagine that we have established some list of ''n'' "possibilities" ''p''0, ''p''1, ..., ''p''''n''. What does it mean that these are the only possibilities? Naturally, it means ''p''0 ∨ ''p''1 ∨ · · · ∨ ''p''''n''. Now, if we eliminate all but the ''k''th possibility, that means we have ¬''p''0, ¬''p''1, ..., ¬''p''''k''-1, ¬''p''''k''+1, ..., ¬''p''''n''. By repeated use of disjunction elimination, this proves ''p''''k'' intuitionistically, so the ''k''th possibility ("whatever remains") is provable ("must be the truth"). The problem with this approach is proving the original disjunction. How did we show to begin with that one of those ''n'' possibilities must hold? To do that intuitionistically requires actually proving one of those statements to begin with. And since only one of them is true, we must have already proved ''p''''k'', rendering this argument pointless. Still, it technically is valid. [[User:EebstertheGreat|EebstertheGreat]] ([[User talk:EebstertheGreat|talk]]) 14:20, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
::I originally interpreted it as taking the collection of all (relevant?) propositions, excising the false ones, and deducing that anything that was not excised must be true. Effectively meaning that that if ¬p does not hold then p must hold, which is EM. I think your interpretation is incorrect because the comic does not require the collection of "whatever remains" to be nonempty, so we don't necessarily have the disjunction. [[User:MithicSpirit|MithicSpirit]] ([[User talk:MithicSpirit|talk]]) 20:43, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

These guys sure are some professors of logic (I'm not sure if they own any doghouses, is what I mean). [[User:Fephisto|Fephisto]] ([[User talk:Fephisto|talk]]) 21:07, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

As and when the Explanation gets written (I imagine that someone's right in the middle of that now), it must be noted that Sherlock Holmes's self-proclaimed "Deductive reasoning" is really {{w|Abductive reasoning}}. (I actually blame Sir Arthur, rather than Sherlock (or 'narrator' Watson), for that error... But then he also believed in fairies, so obviously he's less than perfectly rational.) [[Special:Contributions/81.179.199.253|81.179.199.253]] 21:17, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
:Well, nobody did do anything with it, in the last hour or so, so I scrawled something pretty basic for others to ruthlessly dismember and 'remember' in their own prefered fashion. [[Special:Contributions/81.179.199.253|81.179.199.253]] 22:27, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I think its pretty nice how this comics number is a countdown from 3. [[User:Xkdvd|Xkdvd]] ([[User talk:Xkdvd|talk]]) 22:57, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

By the way, meant to say earlier... just today (well, the day just before the midnight just gone), I spent a few moments trying to help someone find a single glove. They'd looked various places, and I ''went out to look in the car'' (twice, actually, because first I just checked the 'normal' places, footwells, door-pockets... then realised I hadn't actually checked the glove-compartment itself (which I don't think I've ever used to store gloves, of course, but I'd have looked silly if I hadn't gone back and checked it once it had occured to me) so out I went again) in order to ''not'' find the glove. Cue, later, the revelation that it had been in a bag (in the house) all along. And this was all mere hours ''before'' Randall published this comic. So, as we all used to say on the now defunct Fora, "<abbr title="Get Out Of My Head, Randall">GOOMHR</abbr>!" [[Special:Contributions/81.179.199.253|81.179.199.253]] 00:24, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

It's also possible to miss an item in a space you've searched. For instance, as a 12- or 13-year-old I once concluded that something (I forget what it was) must not be in my room, because I'd partitioned the rectangular box defined by the walls, floor and ceiling and searched each of the partitions. It turned out to be outside that box but still inside my room, because it was on the windowsill. [[User:Promethean|Promethean]] ([[User talk:Promethean|talk]]) 00:39, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

I actually did find it in the car though.--[[Special:Contributions/2604:3D09:84:4000:6FFB:F472:7679:FF75|2604:3D09:84:4000:6FFB:F472:7679:FF75]] 02:34, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Reminds me of this from Math Hysteria by Ian Stewart: 'As I have often stated, when you have eliminated the impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable ... remains improbable,' said Holmes, deflated. 'There's probably something altogether different going on, and you've missed it. But don't quote me on that,' he warned. [[User:Arcorann|Arcorann]] ([[User talk:Arcorann|talk]]) 09:23, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
:I was going to get that actual book, before Christmas (after I'd decided what other book I was getting for someone else, when visiting a good bookshop with a nice selection of not-necessarily-new publications), as there's still just about space for it on my 'Pratchett-adjacent' bookshelves next to his (and specifically Jack Cohen's) other stuff. Which I'm a bit sorry now that I never got signed by them (both, where relevent) while I still could, the few times we had all crossed paths. [[Special:Contributions/81.179.199.253|81.179.199.253]] 14:25, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

If it's not in the car, it's in the cdr. --[[Special:Contributions/2A02:3100:25A0:9400:6CEB:97FF:FE5B:8BDC|2A02:3100:25A0:9400:6CEB:97FF:FE5B:8BDC]] 11:06, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
: Yeth. {{unsigned ip|174.130.97.11|14:10, 21 February 2026}}

To be fair, it is SHERLOCK HOLMES making the comment. He literally means when you have actually eliminated all other possibilities. And he was pedantic enough to be thorough about it. [[User:Dúthomhas|Dúthomhas]] ([[User talk:Dúthomhas|talk]]) 21:27, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
: Not at all; upon re-reading The Sign of the Four (his first use of the phrase) he most certainly has not eliminated all other possibilities in both his uses of the phrase. Hilariously, he then comments "I never guess" [[User:Nerd1729|Nerd1729]] ([[User talk:Nerd1729|talk]]) 22:01, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
:: I am unsure how you make that claim. Holmes is quite pedantic in explaining the peculiarities of how he arrived at both deductions, and he is a stickler for details and minutiae of his environment — the guy studies tobacco remains to the point that he can tell you who’s buying it when he finds it someplace uncouth. Unless you suggest that Holmes should suppose Watson — a man bound by habit and practicalities — should act out of character and wander through the _peculiar reddish_ earth just to mess with Holmes, or in the second instance that we have knowledge of some _other_ method of entering that room that Doyle did not? ’Cause I don’t think that _abnormal_ behavior or circumstances qualifies as the normal possibilities being eliminated before considering the _improbable_. I will agree that Holmes was pretty full of himself, tho. [[User:Dúthomhas|Dúthomhas]] ([[User talk:Dúthomhas|talk]]) 1:24, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
::: Holmes deduces that Watson had sent a telegraph because he had not seen Watson write a letter that morning and Watson had an adequate collection of stamps and postcards. What about the possibility then that Watson had written a letter the previous day, only to send in the morning? [[User:Nerd1729|Nerd1729]] ([[User talk:Nerd1729|talk]]) 02:59, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
::::One must also assume that someone would tread in that earth ''only'' upon entering the post office, as opposed to while passing by it, and that nobody kicked or dropped any of that earth elsewhere. That the stamps and postcards on view in the desk weren't purchased on that very trip. That Watson couldn't have bought stamps or postcards, e.g. in the mistaken belief that he'd run out. That there was no other possible reason to enter the post office, e.g. to make some inquiry. [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 04:33, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

3102: Reading a Big Number

2025-06-14T11:40:55Z

Gunterkoenigsmann: /* Explanation: Might the whole number be hexadecimal?*/

{{comic
| number = 3102
| date = June 13, 2025
| title = Reading a Big Number
| image = reading_a_big_number_2x.png
| imagesize = 740x438px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = [desperately] Maybe this is from some country where they use commas as decimal points, and also as digit separators after the decimal, and also use random other characters for decoration???
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This page was created recently by An Accidentally Escaped Quotation Mark. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}
This comic expresses [[Randall]]'s reactions to reading {{w|large number}}s. It starts with normal digits and commas you would find in a large number, but gradually becomes more and more chaotic. It turns out that this is not a number at all, but some sort of printing error in whatever Randall is reading.

The very start of the comic is a bit absurd. In most cases, you can tell that a number like this is very large because of how long it is when written out; you wouldn't have to completely reinterpret it at the end of ''every'' group of digits. However, to tell exactly which "-illion" the number falls into, you would have to count the groups, and the scale of such a large number would grow less familiar as you try to keep track of how large it even is. Certain sizes of numbers tend to show up in specific contexts, like {{w|astronomy}}. So, rather than literally showing Randall's developing thoughts on the evidently massive size of this number, the comic also shows how he tends to interpret numbers at each possible "-illion" scale. See detailed explanation of Randall's thoughts in the [[#Table of thoughts|table]] below, where also the title text is explained.

There are a few possible explanations for seeing a number like this appear in a software application. It may have appeared due to an out-of-bounds read operation where the computer tries to interpret unrelated data as text. Another possible explanation is misuse of the {{w|printf}} function in the {{w|C programming language}}. If strings passed to printf do not contain a {{w|null byte}} to terminate the string, it will go further into memory, again into unrelated data. Or the programmer might have several printf statements back to back, forgetting that printf doesn't add newlines (like the println function in other programming languages), so all their debug information gets printed on the same line. If the alternating grouping into 4 and 3 digits and the double quote is left aside the number it might be possible that the whole number is hexadecimal and even bigger than its size indicates at first.

==Table of thoughts==
{| class="wikitable"
! Number fragment !! Thought !! Explanation
|-
| 54 || 54! Great! I know that number. Solid start. || 54 is a number with some real-world familiarity for most people. It is small enough to appear on digital clocks, and has enough factors to be listed on standard multiplication tables as 6 × 9.

Randall pretending to reckon with the start of such a large number is probably meant to draw attention to the meaninglessness of doing so. Unless the exact value is somehow important, most readers wouldn't find much of a meaningful difference between "54 zillion" or "over 50 zillion", or even "zillions and zillions". In practice, the brain {{w|Approximate number system|can only approximate}} numbers this large; the {{w|Just-noticeable difference|threshold needed to tell the difference}} between the amounts that they represent is too high. Randall expresses a similar sentiment once he gets to the trillions and quadrillions.
|-
| ,000 (thousand) || Oh, a comma and some zeros. Cool. Must be at least 54 thousand. || Underselling how long the number is with the "at least a thousand", but is a fair thought from the POV of not being able to know how long the number is.
|-
| ,000 (million) || A second comma! I wonder if we're talking population or money. || Excitement from how large the number must be. {{w|Population}}s (like the number of people in a region) and large sums of money are both often measured in millions.
|-
| ,000 (billion) || Yikes! If this is money, it's a lot of money. || Three commas means a number in the billions. That's a lot of money for one person to have. Big decisions by large corporations, such as {{w|megamerger}}s, are often measured in billions of dollars in costs.
|-
| ,000,000 (quadrillion) || Why am I reading this? Whatever this number is, I'm not going to be able to visualize it. || Five commas is a number in the quadrillions. At this point the number is too big for human minds to comprehend.
|-
| ,000 (quintillion) || All right, either someone made a unit conversion error or this is one of those incomprehensible astronomy numbers. || Astronomy often deals with extremely large numbers due to the incredible scale of the universe. For example, the distance to the Andromeda galaxy in kilometers could be numbered in quintillions. Alternatively, the person calculating the number made a mistake. Regarding the unit conversion there has recently been a comic about such a thing in [[3065: Square Units]] and similar mistakes has been used in [[2585: Rounding]].
|-
| ,0000 (!?) || Oh no. Is this a misplaced comma or an extra zero? I guess we'll see if the next group has two zeros or three. If it's two, we can at least hope the digits are right. || Commas are placed every three digits in {{w|Decimal separator#Digit grouping|typical western usage}} (although not necessarily in various other {{w|Indian numbering system#Decimal formatting|cultures}}), so something is wrong. However, it might simply be that someone misplaced the comma to the right, meaning that this group has four digits and the next one would likely have two (the next comma in the 'correct' place). If the next group is three, then either the commas are now ''all'' misplaced or possibly someone/something just doubled up a zero by accident. A mistake of any kind makes one think that the number may not actually be accurate but, if the former, at least it might just be a relatively unimportant transposition.
|-
| ,0000 || Oh no. || A second group of four zeroes means it's not a typo. Something is seriously wrong. Note that some countries like [https://www.aceninja.sg/insights/2025/01/01/understanding-chinese-cultural-nuances-numerals China] or [https://www.kanpai-japan.com/learn-japanese/how-to-count-in-japanese Japan] (where 4-digit groupings are common) or [https://www.cuemath.com/numbers/indian-place-value-chart/ India] (which uses a unique 2- and 3-digit mixed system) may use non 3-digit groupings, but have their own rules for number groupings.
|-
| ,054 || What is happening. || Big numbers are normally rounded, so it's very strange to see a non-zero value this far down in the place values. Also, "54" matches the digits at the start of the number so it could indicate the number was copied incorrectly. The non-zero digits here imply that all of the digits so far, including the zeroes, are {{w|significant figures}}; the number is not only extremely large, but implausibly precise with at least 30 sig figs. By way of comparison, the diameter of the observable universe is about 4.4 × 1026 m, and if that measurement had 30 sigfigs, it would be precise to about half a millimeter.
|-
| ,000"000 || Someone messed up real bad. || The arcsecond mark " indicates that this number is an angle or a distance in inches. For an angle, even accounting for how small an arcsecond is (1/3600th of a degree), this angle would be a huge number rotations. As for inches, it would represent a distance much larger than the observable universe, it is also uncommon to use customary units like inches in conjunction with large numbers. Alternatively, this could be "to-the-11th-power", which would make the already extremely large number extremely ridiculously big. This could also be a sign of bad copy-pasting, where the quotation mark " was accidentally copied along with the large number but not with a matching one. Or if this number was being printed from a computer program, the mark may be a sign that the closing quote around a computer string was accidentally escaped, causing it to become present in the string rather than indicating the end of the string.
|-
| ,00c2ef46 || Someone messed up real bad and I hope it wasn't me. || Numbers normally only use the digits 0-9. The use of letters suggest that this is a hexadecimal number. Hexadecimal is mostly used by computers, so Randall, as a programmer, might be worried that the hexadecimal appearing is his fault. Seeing a long string of unexpected characters may indicate a memory bug, such as a ''{{w|buffer overflow}}''. These bugs can lead to crashes, data corruption and security vulnerabilities, and Randall would rather not be responsible for it. If it had just been 000e46 it could have meant that the entire number should have been lifted up to 10^46, as this would look like exponential numbers on a calculator. This is, however, not the case with c and f included.
|-
| (title text) || [desperately] Maybe this is from some country where they use commas as decimal points, and also as digit separators after the decimal, and also use random other characters for decoration??? || In the United States, UK, India, China, Korea, Japan, and other countries, the dot is used to separate the integer part of a number from its fractional part. However, most of mainland Europe and South America uses the comma for this purpose. In some places, one may also see the period used to group digits. Since the final number is unreadable and potentially infinite, this implies that Randall has, naturally, made up an explanation instead of trying to figure out what was really happening.
|-
|}

==Transcript==
:[A large number is written along the middle of the panel. Above and below the number there are 10 labels, (5 above and 5 below), and from each label a small curved line points to a part of the number. There is a heading above the top labels:]
:<big>Thought process while reading a big number:</big>

:[The number is continuing off the edge of the comic to the right, the last digit is missing about a third:]
:'''<big>54,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,0000,054,000"000,00c2ef46</big>'''

:[The labels are listed below in the reading order as from where the small lines are pointing on to the number, so both those above and below the number, not first all those above. Text in the brackets indicate where on the number the line is pointing:]

:[To the first two numbers before the first comma, label above the number:]
:54! Great! I know that number. Solid start.

:[To the first zero after the first comma, label below the number:]
:Oh, a comma and some zeros. Cool. Must be at least 54 thousand.

:[To the second comma, label above the number:]
:A second comma! I wonder if we're talking population or money.

:[To the third comma, label below the number:]
:Yikes! If this is money, it's a '''''lot''''' of money.

:[To the fifth comma, label above the number:]
:Why am I reading this? Whatever this number is, I'm not going to be able to visualize it.

:[To the sixth comma, label below the number:]
:All right, either someone made a unit conversion error or this is one of those incomprehensible astronomy numbers.

:[To the middle of a group of four zeros after the seventh comma, label above the number:]
:Oh no. Is this a misplaced comma or an extra zero? I guess we'll see if the next group has two zeros or three. If it's two, we can at least hope the digits are right.

:[To the middle of a group of four zeros after the eighth comma, label below the number:]
:Oh '''''no'''''.

:[To the last two numbers of the three digits after the ninth comma, label below the number:]
:What is happening.

:[To a quotation mark, where the eleventh comma should have been, label above the number:]
:Someone messed up real bad.

:[To the first number in a group with mixed alphanumeric numbers, where the thirteenth comma should have been, label below the number:]
:Someone messed up real bad and I hope it wasn't me.

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>

[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Astronomy]]

2483: Linked List Interview Problem

2025-03-03T15:34:24Z

Gunterkoenigsmann: /* Explanation: Linked lists are surprisingly slow in 2025. */

{{comic
| number = 2483
| date = June 30, 2021
| title = Linked List Interview Problem
| image = linked_list_interview_problem.png
| titletext = I'd traverse it myself, but it's singly linked, so I'm worried that I won't be able to find my way back to 2021.
}}

==Explanation==
This is another one of [[Randall|Randall's]] [[:Category:Tips|Tips]], this time a coding interview tip.

In computer programming, a {{w|linked list}} is a type of data structure that stores data throughout memory accompanied with memory addresses of the next, and potentially previous data point, establishing a relative ordering for a collection of data. Several common software engineering interview questions involve manipulating or otherwise interacting with linked lists. Possibly because programmers in the current day rarely work with linked lists directly, Randall suggests that such structures belong in a "technology museum," and thinks it would be more beneficial to mankind to email the list to such a museum rather than perform any useful work with it.

A linked list is a way to store sequential data in computer memory. Each piece of data is stored with a pointer to the next piece. This makes it very easy to add new data in the middle, since only one existing pointer must change to point to the new data. The drawback of a naive implementation can be that finding data may require following the entire chain. Technical programming interviewers like to see if applicants are familiar with the structure and the computational complexity concept itself.

Linked lists are, historically, one of the two main data structures that represent sequential data, along with arrays. Unlike arrays, they have the theoretical advantage of {{w|Big O notation|O(1)}} insertions and deletions thanks to not needing to reallocate the entire structure, but have O(n) random access (see {{w|Linked_list#Linked_lists_vs._dynamic_arrays|comparisons}}). However, modern processors' cache structure favors data that are located next to each other, pre-fetching the adjacent items, and modern processors can perform bulk memory moves, making resize operations faster. Finally, using linked lists usually implies dynamic allocation of each list member as opposed to reserving memory for a bunch of items in a bulk and then using that memory once an item has to be added. Memory allocation tends to be slow on modern systems and adds overhead for managing the information, which byte is allocated for what item, which can be significant, particularly for smaller data items; many small allocations also tend to fragment memory, which can lead to it being wasted and unavailable to the app later, particularly in long-running processes such as web servers. These properties tend to make linked lists poorly suited for most system programming applications in which a programmer might write algorithms to manipulate data structures, instead of using existing libraries.

Modern programming languages usually provide abstractions (often named "array," "vector" or "list") which interact with the sequential data at the memory level, providing access to this data while using arrays, linked lists, hybrids of the aforementioned technologies, or other approaches, and the programmer doesn't necessarily need to care one way or another. Additionally the time a malloc() and a free() take, as well of cache considerations often make linked lists way slower than arrays or vectors. Knowing the underlying concepts is still useful, however, when creating fast running code which scales well to large data, avoiding (e.g.) traversing the list over and over again, or performing particularly inefficient operations.

Cueball's code implements a routine whose name implies that it does a mundane task, specifically traversing a linked list, but in fact emails the contents of the list to a technology museum. This could reveal private data that might be stored in a linked list, such as bank account numbers, medical information, passwords, etc., and would thus be a terrible idea. This is why interviewers - presumably job interviewers - would "get really mad".

In the title text, a {{w|Linked_list#Singly_linked_list|singly linked list}} contains pointers to traverse the list in only one direction; namely, from the head to the end. By contrast, each element in a {{w|Linked_list#Doubly_linked_list|doubly linked list}} contains pointers to both the "next" and "previous" elements, enabling traversal in either direction. Randall continues the implication that such lists are obsolete by implying that traversing such a list would be akin to time travel. Without the "previous element" pointers, Randall is concerned he would not be able to reverse the time travel, as he could not traverse the list in the reverse direction.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball is writing on a whiteboard with a blue pen with Ponytail looking over his shoulder. The text on the board is unreadable, but it is is written in blue above them. It is a piece of code and it reads:]

define traverseLinkedList(headPointer):
myId="''<illegible scribbling>''"
authToken="''<illegible>''"
museumAddress="''<illegible>''@''<illegible>''.''<illegible>''"
client=mailRestClient(myID, authToken)
client.messages.send(to=museumAddress,
subj="Item donation?", body="Thought you
might be interested: "+str(headPointer))
return

:Ponytail: ''Hey.''

:[Caption beneath the panel:]
:Coding interview tip: Interviewers get really mad when you try to donate their linked lists to a technology museum.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Comics with lowercase text]]
[[Category:Tips]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Programming]]
[[Category:Job interviews]]

Talk:979: Wisdom of the Ancients

2025-03-03T15:30:50Z

Gunterkoenigsmann: Another worst case.

"There was uh, a thing called a segfault that made my computer like, all blurry and stuff." '''[[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 06:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

That was one reason why [http://stackoverflow.com/ StackOverflow] came to life: main authors fed up with (mis)using forums for query & answer site --[[User:JakubNarebski|JakubNarebski]] ([[User talk:JakubNarebski|talk]]) 23:03, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Just two googling steps brought me here:
http://www.mirrorsoferis.com/forum/thread05232003a.html
Relevant for "Trivia"? Even the year fits! [[Special:Contributions/108.162.230.89|108.162.230.89]] 11:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
:From the HTML source:
::<tt>
::
::
::</tt>
:Cute theory, though. -[[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.126|108.162.254.126]] 12:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
::Even better, looking at other stuff in that source:
:: <td><input class="button" value="Log in" tabindex="104" title="Enter your username and password in the boxes provided to login, spin round three times, vomit, click your heels together and TA-DA!" accesskey="s" type="submit"></td>
:: Will this actually enter properly, or will those formatted tags not be input scrubbed? Tables ... [[User:Keybounce|Keybounce]] ([[User talk:Keybounce|talk]]) 08:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

:::Also, someone in 2003 couldn't have asked about a webcomic that was only launched in 2005. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.109|173.245.52.109]] 18:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

The link above seems to be dead now. DNS failed. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.167.15|162.158.167.15]] 09:03, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
: Working now --[[User:Keybounce|Keybounce]] ([[User talk:Keybounce|talk]]) 08:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

2nd paragraph of the explanation is nonsense! A forum post is nothing like a FAQ entry. The problem didn't get solved and was probably put away and forgotten. Happens all the time. {{unsigned ip|162.158.83.144}}

"The title text is a suggestion to forums to be aware of the fact that people are likely going to come across such posts in the future" My pet peeve is when I Google an error and get led to a post like in the comic, and one of the last comments is a person necro-bumping with new information on the same issue, but then a moderator locks the post because its X years old and needs to be left alone. This is the fucking Internet; data doesn't rot. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.212.83|108.162.212.83]] 13:52, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
: From my experience the top search result on google usually is a locked post with no answer (other than the polite suggestion to google it yourself). [[Special:Contributions/162.158.203.16|162.158.203.16]] 04:16, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
: data does rot, though? :P [[Special:Contributions/141.101.103.40|141.101.103.40]] 18:19, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Try having a problem that Google has never heared of. My hard drive died last March, and in the process of learning that was what had happened, I had tried reinstalling the OS and got an error that yielded literally zero search results (it was Error 0xb9f3c820, by the way) --[[Special:Contributions/172.71.146.65|172.71.146.65]] 02:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
: Nice try. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.147.129|172.70.147.129]] 05:07, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
:: Well, now there's a search result, but it's this very discussion. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.150.173|172.71.150.173]]
:That doesn't look like error number, that looks like error address. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 18:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Actually there is something even worse than that: Imagine DenverCoder09's post would be: "Never mind, I solved the problem" without any hint, how.--[[User:Gunterkoenigsmann|Gunterkoenigsmann]] ([[User talk:Gunterkoenigsmann|talk]]) 15:30, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

1323: Protocol

2024-01-11T05:53:39Z

Gunterkoenigsmann: The lie-less approach is a lie!

{{comic
| number = 1323
| date = January 29, 2014
| title = Protocol
| image = protocol.png
| titletext = Changing the names would be easier, but if you're not comfortable lying, try only making friends with people named Alice, Bob, Carol, etc.
}}

==Explanation==
{{w|Alice_and_Bob|Alice, Bob, and Eve}} are role names traditionally used in describing cryptographic protocols. Rather than talking about "Person A", "Person B", "Person C", names beginning with each letter are used instead, and giving them different genders let pronouns be used to shorten discussions. For example: "Person A sends Person B a message encoded with Person B's public key" is much easier to parse when written as "Alice sends Bob a message encoded with his public key." Eve is short for "eavesdropper" - a person trying to find out what's being said in the conversations between the other people. The classic situation involves Alice wanting to send a secret message to Bob, while Eve (the eavesdropper), attempts to read the message, ideally without Alice or Bob ever finding out. Additional participants such as Carol (Person C) can be added if necessary. The list of names has become very standardized over time as described at {{w|Alice and Bob}}.

The joke here is that any computer scientist, hearing the names used, will think that they are listening to a cryptography problem. By changing the names in a story to these role names, you can induce them to listen carefully to boring stories. The fewer the interesting details, the more it sounds like a general problem, so very boring stories are actually the easiest.

The title text shows a more radical approach to the problem, for people "who do not feel comfortable about lying". In this approach, you only make friends with people who have the appropriate names already which means that technically you tell the story like it is. But this approach means investing lots of effort into creating a situation in which the communication partner is misled about the motives of the speaker. Hence it might be deemed to be even more of a lie.

The comic title also can be interpreted in two ways. First, the computer scientist thinks the conversation is about an encryption protocol. Second, the way the conversation is carried resembles a protocol used by many data communication systems, where one side sends data while the other sends back an [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acknowledgement_(data_networks) acknowledgement] upon receiving the data. In this case, the data are the lines of the boring story.

In comic [[177: Alice and Bob]] these names are used in the same context. Instead of Alice and Bob being perfectly innocent people who just want to communicate in private, Bob is actually having an affair with Alice. Eve —his former partner— cracked the encryption to see what the message contained. Thus, this comic seems to continue the Alice/Bob romance, jealous-Eve plot, with Eve apparently confronting Alice over her text message to Bob. The names are also mentioned in [[2691: Encryption]].

==Transcript==
:[Cueball is telling a story to a Computer Scientist who is seated at his desk.]
:Cueball: Alice sends a message to Bob saying to meet her somewhere.
:Computer Scientist: Uh huh.
:Cueball: But Eve sees it, too, and goes to the place.
:Computer Scientist: With you so far.
:Cueball: Bob is delayed, and Alice and Eve meet.
:Computer Scientist: Yeah?
:CAPTION: I've discovered a way to get computer scientists to listen to any boring story.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Computers]]
[[Category:Cryptography]]
[[Category:Multiple Cueballs]]

2827: Brassica

2023-09-12T05:34:16Z

Gunterkoenigsmann: weird real-life examples

{{comic
| number = 2827
| date = September 11, 2023
| title = Brassica
| image = brassica_2x.png
| imagesize = 327x319px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Sequoia Brussels sprouts are delicious but it's pretty hard to finish one.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a field of Sequoia cabbage - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

{{w|Brassica oleracea}} is a plant species, to which many vegetables that we eat belong. These vegetables look strikingly different from each other; compare, for example, {{w|cabbage}}, {{w|broccoli}}, {{w|kale}} and {{w|brussels sprouts}}. There are 24 listed on Wikipedia that all look different. These different cultivars all originated from wild cabbage, having evolved into several different forms via (primarily) human selection.

In the comic Cueball (acting presumably as a botanist) declares that the "mighty Redwood" (presumably the Coast Redwood, {{w|Sequoia sempervirens}}) also belongs to this species. Since the Coast Redwood is a {{w|conifer}}, while B. oleracea is a {{w|flowering plant}}, the two species are about as different as two land plants can be, both in classification and appearance. If the presumed botanist can get away with this, they can probably get away with just about anything. But as walnuts are not nuts, but related to roses and peanuts are not nuts, bit related to beans the world is strange enough that they actually might; The caption claims that botanists, such as the one appearing in the cartoon (Cueball), attempt this from time to time.

The title text refers to Sequoia Brussels sprouts. The reference is probably to the Giant Sequoia ({{w|Sequoiadendron giganteum}}), a close relative of the Coast Redwood. "Resinous" is probably a more apt adjective than "delicious", and they're probably woody. Additionally, they would indeed be quite hard to finish - Sequoia trees can range from {{w|Sequoiadendron giganteum|50-85 meters}} in height.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:: [Cueball, Megan and another Cueball are standing in front of a large tree. Only the lowest section of the tree trunk is visible.]
:: Cueball: Did you know the Mighty Redwood is actually the same species as broccoli and kale? It's just a different cultivar.
:: Other Cueball: Wow!

:: [Caption below the panel]
:: Every year or two, botanists add another plant to ''Brassica oleracea'' and see if anyone calls them on it.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Food]]
[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Multiple Cueballs]]

2823: Fossil

2023-09-02T12:02:19Z

Gunterkoenigsmann: /* Explanation: A possible reason why Cueball is being shouted at */

{{comic
| number = 2823
| date = September 1, 2023
| title = Fossil
| image = fossil_2x.png
| imagesize = 428x246px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = The two best reasons to get into fossils are booping trilobites and getting to say the word "fossiliferous" a lot.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a BOOPED FOSSIL OF A BOT - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

{{w|Trilobite}}s are an extinct group of species of marine animal, one of the earliest known groups of arthropods. The first appearance of trilobites in the fossil record is from about 521 million years ago and last from about 251.9 million years ago. They were very common and have easily fossilized exoskeleton, so their fossils can be found very often.

In the comic, [[Cueball]] is digging at a site with [[Megan]], [[White Hat]], and [[Ponytail]] visible in the background. He finds and digs up a trilobite fossil and proceeds to {{wiktionary|boop#Verb|boop}} it (possibly because he thinks it’s cute?). An off-screen character yells at him for doing this, probably because fossils are fragile {{citation needed}} and excessive touching may cause it to break or, because doing so is not showing the due respect for a once living being that is much older than Cueball.

Fossiliferous (of a rock or stratum) means containing fossils or organic remains, and [[Randall]] implies that it is a fun word to say (it really is!).

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

:[Cueball is holding two pieces of rock in a paleontological site. Megan, Ponytail and White Hat are in the background.]
:Cueball: It's weird to pry open a rock and see an animal that no one has laid eyes on for 400 million years.

:[Zoom in on Cueball looking at the fossil he is holding.]

:[Cueball pokes the fossil.]
:Cueball: ''Boop!''
:Off-panel voice: Hey! Don't boop the trilobites!
{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]
[[Category:Animals]]

2799: Frankenstein Claim Permutations

2023-07-09T15:39:42Z

Gunterkoenigsmann: /* Explanation: A guess why Randall might not be too upset about naming the monster frankenstein. */

{{comic
| number = 2799
| date = July 7, 2023
| title = Frankenstein Claim Permutations
| image = frankenstein_claim_permutations_2x.png
| imagesize = 596x612px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = When I began trying to form a new claim by stitching together these parts in such an unnatural way, some called me mad.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by LORD BYRON THROWS THE WEIRDEST PARTIES - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

{{w|Frankenstein}} is an 1818 novel by Mary Shelley about a young scientist named Victor Frankenstein who creates a sapient, humanoid lifeform through an unorthodox experiment, and then rejects his creation, which eventually turns on him. The novel is a classic in both the horror and speculative fiction genres, and has been argued to represent the first major example of true science fiction in literature. The lifeform he creates is never named in the original novel, only being referred to as "the Creature".

In the two centuries since the novel's publication, the story and its characters have been adapted and reused in various forms, and the term "Frankenstein" has come to be commonly used to refer to the the creature, rather than the scientist who created him. Literary didacts are often quick to point out this error, but are generally ignored, as the name has become accepted, common usage. The debate has become something of a meme. (Some argue that, given that the creature refers to himself as effectively being Frankenstein's son, it makes sense that he would share the last name.) These disputes have previously been touched upon in [[1589]] and [[2604]].

The title text points out that he's "stitching together" various claims to create something new, and people consider him mad as a result. This refers to the notion of Frankenstein's creation having been stitched together from dead bodies, and Dr. Frankenstein himself being denounced as a madman. It should be noted that these perceptions come from later adaptations (most notably {{w|Frankenstein_(1931_film)|the 1931 film}}) rather than the original novel, but have become closely associated with the Frankenstein mythos. Following similar meta-textual logic, the title "Frankenstein Claim Permutations" is a double entendre, meaning both (1) permutations of claims regarding the novel ''Frankenstein'' and (2) permutations of claims of a Frankenstein nature (i.e. a franken-claim) in that they are formed by haphazardly joining together different parts.

This comic explores the possible [[wikipedia:Permutation|permutations]] that can be made by matching the names of Mary Shelley, Frankenstein, and '?' (for the unnamed monster) to the positions of author, creator, and monster. The positions are indicated in the drawing by a circle to the left of the book for the author, a box on the left-hand page for the creator, and a labeled picture of the monster lying under a sheet (the traditional image of the monster before being animated) for the monster. Three elements can be arranged in six different ways, as the first element can be placed in any of the three positions, the second in either of the two remaining, and the last in the only remaining space, giving 3 x 2 x 1 options. The same concept was used in [[1613]], where Randall depicted six possible permutations of the {{w|Three Laws of Robotics}}.

{| class="wikitable"
|- style = "text-align: center;"
!Claim!!Notes!!Permutation!!Explanation
|-
|"No, the monster in Mary Shelley's book is unnamed. Frankenstein is the doctor who created him."||This is the normal claim||MS-F-?||This is the claim that is generally considered correct. The POV character of the novel is, in fact, Victor Frankenstein. The monster is never given a name, although many fans name him Adam because of a line he speaks to Victor: "'I ought to be thy Adam, but I am rather the fallen angel, whom thou drivest from joy". The only error in this claim is referring to Victor as a doctor. (In the novel, Victor has not finished his schooling, returning home before finishing his education at the University of Ingolstadt.)
|-
|"No, the monster in Mary Shelley's novel is named Frankenstein."||Also common, and not worth getting mad about IMO||MS-?-F||This is a common misconception, but Randall believes it's not something to get upset about. Maybe the reason for that is that the monster can somehow be described Frankenstein's son and therefore it is only natural that it inherits his family name. Randall has previously touched upon this in [[1589]] and [[2604]]. This permutation places the '?' in the creator position, and so avoids talking about the doctor's name at all.
|-
|"No, Frankenstein is the name of the author. The monster Mary Shelley created is unnamed."||At a glance this could pass for one of the normal claims||F-MS-?||While slightly stretching the meaning of those words, Mary Shelley did "create" the monster (as it's a character in the book she wrote) and Frankenstein is the "author" (creator) of the monster. Alternately, one can consider the story a mostly first hand account of Victor's exploits, as it is initially told to the book's opening narrator (the otherwise sidelined Captain Robert Walton), with Mary having created Monster, Victor, the Captain and all others within the novel (of the Captain's tale of Victor's tale of the apparent nature of the Monster).
This could also be a reference to a tweet[https://twitter.com/MedCrisis/status/1511644464544104452] featuring a photo of a collection of classic books[https://i.redd.it/bnab4cu39dqa1.jpg] in which "Frankenstein" is printed in the position and format of the author's name for the other books of the collection, while "Mary Shelley" is printed in the title position.
|-
|"No one knows who wrote the novel about Doctor Mary Shelley creating the monster Frankenstein."||I would read this book||?-MS-F|| This statement combines the second claim (that Frankenstein is the monster's name) with the third claim (that Mary Shelley created the monster). This time, however, it is claimed that the ''author'' is unknown, while the monster is named. Once again, this claim is almost reasonable, as it could be argued that Mary Shelley, as the author, did create Frankenstein (although she was also not a doctor).
A novel about author Mary Shelley getting a doctorate and actually creating the creature she wrote about could be an interesting twist on the story, hence Randall's comment that he would read this book.
|-
|"No, Frankenstein is the name of the doctor. The monster he created is Mary Shelley."||rowspan=2|Fully chaotic||?-F-MS|| This claim is similar to the others, in that it twists the ordering of the components (author, doctor, monster), but this time it gets the doctor's name correct whilst insinuating that Mary Shelley was the monster he created. This is described as "fully chaotic", likely because the idea of the real-life human author being created by a doctor in the story that was written by her is much less believable and much further from any solid literary footing than the others.
|-
|"No, the doctor who creates Mary Shelley in Frankenstein's novel doesn't have a name."||F-?-MS||Possible Doctor Who reference.
|}

==Transcript==
[A two-column table.]
{| class="wikitable"
|- style = "text-align: center;"
|Claim||Notes
|-
|[Open book. Left page says "F", right page shows the monster labeled "?". Arrow pointing to book says "by MS".] "No, the monster in Mary Shelley's book is unnamed. Frankenstein is the doctor who created him."||This is the normal claim
|-
|[Open book. Left page says "?", right page shows the monster labeled "F". Arrow pointing to book says "by MS".] "No, the monster in Mary Shelley's novel is named Frankenstein."||Also common, and not worth getting mad about IMO
|-
|[Open book. Left page says "MS", right page shows the monster labeled "?". Arrow pointing to book says "by F".] "No, Frankenstein is the name of the author. The monster Mary Shelley created is unnamed."||At a glance this could pass for one of the normal claims
|-
|[Open book. Left page says "MS", right page shows the monster labeled "F". Arrow pointing to book says "by ?".] "No one knows who wrote the novel about Doctor Mary Shelley creating the monster Frankenstein."||I would read this book
|-
|[Open book. Left page says "F", right page shows the monster labeled "MS". Arrow pointing to book says "by ?".] "No, Frankenstein is the name of the doctor. The monster he created is Mary Shelley."||rowspan=2|Fully chaotic
|-
|[Open book. Left page says "?", right page shows the monster labeled "MS". Arrow pointing to book says "by F".] "No, the doctor who creates Mary Shelley in Frankenstein's novel doesn't have a name."
|}
[[Category:Frankenstein]]
{{comic discussion}}

Talk:2775: Siphon

2023-05-14T01:48:28Z

Gunterkoenigsmann: /* Title text; The smoking hills */

My understanding was that siphoning can essentially be explained by the Bernoulli equation? There is a difference in potential energy between the upper and lower container so it flows. The weight of water in the downhill part of the tube pulls water up the uphill section of the tube (think like a vacuum), and so on until there's either no difference in head or no more water. Siphoning will work with any diameter tube. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.151|172.70.91.151]] 15:43, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
:That's right. The only mention of capillary action in the siphon wikipedia article is when talking about phenomenon that *isn't* a siphon. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 16:15, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Agree, capillary action does not seem to be referenced or implied in the comic, presenting only the (not "functioning") siphon phenomenon. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.134.142|172.68.134.142]] 16:23, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
:Seconded/thirded. Capillary action isn't even what they were expecting. The small amount of water in the lowe receptical indicates they correctly ''filled'' the tube, but then as the longer length drained it did not then induce further flow up and over through the shorter length. e.g. nature no longer abhored the resulting vacuum (or there was increased negative-pressure vapourisation, beyond that previously expected, or other method of seepage 'airlock'-breaking) and thus the short-end also drained straight back out again instead of becoming a potentially self-sustaining inflow to the whole siphoning setup.
::If the upper end got restricted (say by touching the side of the bucket) the loss of flow would allow air to enter the bottom end and drain out the tube. I've done this. :-( [[User:RIIW - Ponder it|RIIW - Ponder it]] ([[User talk:RIIW - Ponder it|talk]]) 19:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
:::Indeed, even having an especially large diameter "tube" (/pipe etc) can allow air from the bottom to flow up to the peak & break the siphon effect. For reliable results, the lower end needs to be kept immersed or the hose needs to be relatively small in diameter. [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 14:11, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
:While the capilliary action element ''could'' induce the start of a rather limited 'empty' siphon setup to start (maybe, I'd have doubts about the 'fluid friction' actually acting against the gravity-feed part, once the surface-tension bit has "climbed the mountain" and started to merely seep out of the other end, almost incidentally, for a sufficiently thin tubing where CA is a significant factor), this suddenly failing for whatever reason (surface-tension effects being nullified) wouldn't then send a token amount of water into the low bucket, nor particularly stop unrelated siphon-flow from continuing properly (in fact, suddenly 'interaction-free' liquid and tubing might siphon ''faster'', with effectively zero fluid boundary effects dragging on the induced flow).
:But perhaps someone with more QFD experience could explain where my assessment is wrong. So not going to personally rewrite the current Explanation intro just now. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.161|172.70.162.161]] 16:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
:I'd like to contribute as one more data point. I also don't see capillary action as being relevant. In particular, as another commenter said, the water in the lower bucket quite clearly supports the idea that the siphon effect was the subject of the characters' confusion. How else is Randall supposed to depict the siphon effect anyway? I agree that the drawing alone ''could'' also suggest capillary action is what's being investigated, but I don't think it suggests that the caption has ''incorrectly'' referred to it as the siphon effect. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.254.100|172.71.254.100]] 18:44, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Of course, if some physical law would actually stop working, people wouldn't be confused. They would drop dead. Due to physical laws working on level of elementary particles, every change would have lot of different effects ... and living organism live only thanks to being very carefully balanced in lot of regards. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 20:49, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Bug report 6EQUJ5: Odd signal emitted from Sagittarius constellation. Status: Closed - could not reproduce. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.26.69|172.71.26.69]] 03:20, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Siphoning is NOT because of capillary action! That should be changed!! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.127.90|172.70.127.90]] 15:35, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

== Potential inspiration ==

One potential source of inspiration for this comic is the Twitter [https://twitter.com/earth_updates account @Earth_Updates], which produces a lot of similar content. [[User:PotatoGod|PotatoGod]] ([[User talk:PotatoGod|talk]]) 19:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I think if I added it to the article body it would get reverted, but the content seems very similar to how AI media produced delusional worlds for so many factions of people. It is not at all a big stretch to imagine people stepping into a metaverse or matrix where they aren’t sure what is real and physical laws match their intuition more than is actually correct. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.171|162.158.158.171]] 08:23, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

== Title text ==

Isn't the title text about stars like our sun rather than about plutonium? [[Special:Contributions/198.41.242.95|198.41.242.95]] 00:55, 13 May 2023 (UTC)h
:Seems to me unlikely that anyone would refer to stars as 'rocks'.[[User:Catherine|Catherine]] ([[User talk:Catherine|talk]]) 02:54, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
::There is Slate that turn into lava spontaneously after lying around for thousands of years. I think the area they are in is called "Smoking Hills". There was recent research why that slate does this while in much the rest of the world slate is just flat, black rocks. I still believe this title text is about plutonium, though, as that slate produces so much heat, that one still hasn't managed to measure how hot it gets - but it produces that heat not for an near-infinite duration.--[[User:Gunterkoenigsmann|Gunterkoenigsmann]] ([[User talk:Gunterkoenigsmann|talk]]) 01:48, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

2766: Helium Reserve

2023-04-24T15:57:22Z

Gunterkoenigsmann: /* Explanation: Cargolifter */

{{comic
| number = 2766
| date = April 21, 2023
| title = Helium Reserve
| image = helium_reserve_2x.png
| imagesize = 347x253px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = The government has been trying to sell off the Federal Helium Reserve for a few years now, but the sale has been on hold while they try to figure out how to explain this situation to buyers.
}}

==Explanation==

The {{w|National Helium Reserve|Strategic National Helium Reserve}} is a reserve of helium in the United States, which holds more than 1 billion cubic meters of helium. Apparently, in this comic, [[Cueball]] was hired to manage the Reserve, and due to the fact that the caption says that he can not explain anything out loud, it can be inferred that he used all of it by repeatedly inhaling the helium supply, so speaking would instantly give away where the helium has gone since the helium would make his voice squeaky.

Another much more realistic but admittedly less funny explanation is that Cueball didn't use up all the helium frivolously: helium is lighter than air, and once released into the atmosphere, it escapes into space and can never be recovered. A major leak in the Reserve would simply mean that all the helium is lost, and if it happened under Cueball's watch, he'd have to be held responsible -and it is hard to find materials Helium doesn't leak through at an astonishing rate. Firms that try to earn money by transporting heavy cargo using Dirigibiles (transporting a aeroplane wing, a windmill or any type of turbine for 100 meters where the street is too narrow might be payed for with considerable amounts of money) often fail due to the costs the helium leakage causes.

The title text addresses the real-world privatization of the Reserve, first selling off the helium itself and then the sale of the storage facility. This has been a drawn out process because of political disagreements, however the title text implies the simpler explanation that the government has also been inhaling the helium.

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

:[An officer wearing a peaked cap is talking to Cueball. There is a "National Strategic Helium Reserve" building in the background.]
:Officer: You were in charge of guarding the national helium reserve. So where did it go?!

:[Caption below the panel:]
:Unfortunately, there's no good way for me to answer this question out loud.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Characters with hats]]

2743: Hand Dryers

2023-03-02T19:02:17Z

Gunterkoenigsmann: /* Explanation: The rationale behind increasing the air flow until it hits a limit */

{{comic
| number = 2743
| date = February 27, 2023
| title = Hand Dryers
| image = hand_dryers_2x.png
| imagesize = 618x309px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = I know hand dryers have their problems, but I think for fun we should keep egging Dyson on and see if we can get them to make one where the airflow breaks the speed of sound.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a DYSON ENGINEER - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
A {{w|hand dryer}} is an electrical device which uses air flow, typically of hot air, to dry the user's hands after they have just washed them. In the 30 or so seconds it takes to dry the hands, the user may feel as though the air coming from the hand dryer isn't actually warm,{{citation needed}} hence seeming like they "take forever to heat up," while in reality the water evaporating from the user's wet hands absorbs heat from them, as well as the possibly heated air, as {{w|evaporation}} is an endothermic process. Thus the user does not ''feel'' that the air from the dryer is warm, even though it is, and will only start to do so once their hands have been significantly dried. Interestingly, this absorption of heat through evaporation is how human {{w|sweat}} has its cooling effect, which means that even warm ambient air can be made to feel colder by being wafted across a person's dampened skin (which is how a regular fan works).

Randall has procured a small airplane, accompanied by a banner with a message explaining this phenomenon. He elaborates in the caption that he's spent dozens of years angry at the engineers of these hand dryers, as he was under the comic's erroneous impression that the air from the dryers was not actually warm. In an act of justice for hand dryer engineers everywhere, he now considers it his personal mission to explain to the public why this is actually a misconception. And indeed, it seems to be working - a person on the ground has already been [[1053: Ten Thousand|enlightened]] by Randall.

In the title text, the {{w|speed of sound}} is the speed of a sound wave{{citation needed}} in a given medium, usually air. Breaking the {{w|sound barrier}} is often touted as a significant achievement for powered aircraft (this was first safely achieved in the 1940s, and became significantly 'easier' with the development of the jet engine). Here, Randall thinks it would be a good idea to continue to complain that all hand dryers take too long to heat up in order to try and get the {{w|Dyson (company)|Dyson company}} (a technology company known for making high-tech, fancy and expensive air-moving devices such as vacuum-cleaners, fans and hand dryers) to design a hand dryer whose airflow would exceed the sound barrier. The rationale behind that might be that the temperature of the air the hand dryer emits cannot be increased much without harming the user. Therefore the only way to make the hands feel warm earlier would be increasing the airflow until (if we tease the Dyson company long enough) they hit a physical limit. Hitting this limit would be technically difficult to achieve with such a relatively small device as a typical wall-mounted hand dryer. Nor would such a hand dryer really be practically useful, given that air currents faster than the speed of sound could cause injury to the hands of the dryer's users,{{Citation needed}} amongst other unintended effects.

This comic is not the only one to involve people flying banner planes to inform people on technologically related things, as that was previous done in a (lengthier) [[1965: Background Apps]].

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

:[An airplane tows a banner. In the distance, there are three small clouds and three birds]

:[On the banner is written:] It seems like hand dryers take forever to heat up, but that's because the evaporation cools your skin, so the hot air feels cold until the water is gone.

:Voice coming from the bottom of the panel: Ohhh!

:[Caption below the panel:] I spent decades mistakenly annoyed at hand dryer engineers, so now I'm on a mission to save others from the same fate.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Engineering]]
[[Category:Aviation]]
[[Category:Airplane banner]]

Talk:2724: Washing Machine Settings

2023-01-14T14:45:18Z

Gunterkoenigsmann: /* Quora */

> [...] standing in front of a washing machine [...]

To be more exact, this is a combo washer dryer (also known as washer-dryer) - which looks like so called laundry center design (one unit, with washer on bottom, and what looks like heat-pump or vented dryer on top). --[[User:JakubNarebski|JakubNarebski]] ([[User talk:JakubNarebski|talk]]) 10:01, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Does anybody even own a houshold applicance whose manual was written by engineers - or at least someone who knows what the device they write the manual for is actually doing? I once had a toaster that came with a 96-page-manual that actually was good. But for most devices it is clear that they payed someone with less hands-on experience than GhatGPT to write one. --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.187|172.68.110.187]] 14:40, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Even more important than the owner’s manual are the instructions written on the inside of your clothes. It turns out that those obscure runes actually mean something! [[Special:Contributions/172.71.142.170|172.71.142.170]] 17:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)


It's been decades since I've seen an appliance user manual half as detailed as what Cueball describes. Mostly they say things like 'plug it in' & 'pressing Power button starts the device, pressing again turns it off'; ''never'' details such as 'Delicates mode reduces agitation'/spin etc. Even widely used software often goes without significant documentation. Randall makes a joke that user manuals already exist, but I feel they're rather rare!?
[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 18:32, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
:I believe you're right, was coming here to complain that my user manual on my new washer does not explain what the various settings do, but says such useless things as "use cotton setting for cotton fabric". Telling me it's a hot water setting (which I don't want, as I never bother connecting the hot water to a machine) would be useful, but doesn't appear to be a feature of user manuals these days.

The manual for my washing machine actually lists the available programs along with a short description, tips (like "use less detergent for washing laces") and various metrics (like max load and energy consumption). However, this is for a machine installed at a home. Cueball in the comic seems to be standing in a laundromat. Even if those machines came with a manual, can the end-user actually access them? I guess you could pester an employee to dig them up for you...
[[Special:Contributions/172.68.50.134|172.68.50.134]] 22:10, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
:I don't think it's a laundromat, there would be more than one machine. I think the joke is based the fact that so many things are done with GUI applications these days, and they have very limited manuals, if any at all. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 23:23, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
:For my part, I'm not even familiar with that style of machine. Looks like some sort of top-loader base (haven't used one of them, a twin-tub, since the late-seventies/early-eighties when we transitioned to the first in a series of standard front loaders) with a tumble-dryer above (never bothered with a tumble-dryer since the university laundromat, and they were floor-to- ceiling with ''huge'' drums and eventually I worked out I was just feeding a huge slot machine where I couldn't even get the three lemons).
:But I deduce probably a stereotypical 'Merkin "big home, big utility basement" thing, rather than a more UK-market piece of whitegoods.
:As an equivalent example, you do at least see those huge two-door fridges (with ice-despensors in them) in the electrical goods stores, even though I know of no-one who has actually gone and got one. But washers and dryers always tend to be standard (and separate) front-loaders (with occasional 'retro' top-loaders), even if most people seem to consign the latter to a corner of the garage. (And I just use a washing line/drape in front of a warm radiator!) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.136|172.69.79.136]] 23:44, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

== Quora ==

Quora is the absolute worst. Nearly every time you see a Quora blurb in Google, you can bet that the opposite is true. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.79|172.70.114.79]] 06:43, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
:: Quora has invited me to earn money by getting a "Quora Patner" that posts controversal questions that cause much traffic. That was the moment I learned that it might not be worthwhile to spend precious lifetime at that site.--[[User:Gunterkoenigsmann|Gunterkoenigsmann]] ([[User talk:Gunterkoenigsmann|talk]]) 14:45, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

2705: Spacetime Soccer

2022-12-11T14:50:03Z

Gunterkoenigsmann: /* Explanation: Disappearing people reminds me of the people who died constructing stadiums */

{{comic
| number = 2705
| date = November 30, 2022
| title = Spacetime Soccer
| image = spacetime_soccer_2x.png
| imagesize = 740x280px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Spacetime Soccer, known outside the United States as '4D Football' is a now-defunct sport. Infamous for referee decisions hinging on inconsistent definitions of simultaneity, it is also known for the disappearance of many top players during... [more]
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a FOUR-DIMENSIONAL GOALIE - I still don't know what the offside rule actually is. I think it might... [more]. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
This comic proposes Spacetime Soccer, an impossible{{Citation needed}} sport consisting of a "regular" soccer field with a gravitational well in the center of it. This comic was likely published in relation to the {{w|2022 FIFA World Cup}} which, due to numerous controversies surrounding policies and conditions in the host country, {{w|Qatar}}, was prevalent in the 2022 news cycle for weeks. The fact that the "disappearance" of players seemingly wasn't deemed the worst thing about it might be an allusion to all the workers that had died whilst constructing the stadiums for this FIFA World Cup.

Judging by the size of the blackest part of the indentation, presuming that indicates the event horizon of the {{w|black hole}}, the radius of the {{w|event horizon}} would be approximately 9.6 meters and the singularity's mass 6.5×1027 kilograms, or more than 1082 times the mass of the Earth [[https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/schwarzschild-radius]].

Not only would it be impossible for human players to travel through more than three spatial dimensions at will, it would also be very difficult to keep track of score and rules such as offsides.

{{w|Offside (association football)|Offside}} is a rule in soccer that applies to players who are in certain positions relative to the boundaries of the {{w|Football_pitch|pitch}}, the ball, and the second-last opponent on the opposing team. Players in such positions are eligible for being judged guilty of an offside offence if they become involved in the ongoing play before rectifying their status. It is of special importance to know the different players' positions at the exact moment the ball gets passed, rather than when the passed ball may be received or the offside player is otherwise considered active. But in relativistic spacetime there is no universal definition of an exact moment, beyond a single point, as time may run at different speeds for multiple observers in varying situations (where they are moving relative to each other, are influenced by differing local gravity or – as seems very likely in this example – both). An additional joke is that even in regular soccer, the offside rule is notoriously difficult to fully understand (or explain to someone).

The title text is written in the style of the beginning to a Wikipedia article on the topic. It alludes to the fact that most countries in the world refer to the sport with that particular obscure offside rule as football (or some translation thereof, like fútbol or Fußball) while the USA, Canada, Ireland, Japan and Australia tend to call it soccer, which comes from the British shortening of "association football", because they already used the name "football" for gridiron football, Gaelic football, or Australian football (which share a common ancestry with the other sport, along with "rugby football", hence the name).

==Transcript==
:[On a gray "rubber sheet" visualization of a gravity well is drawn some of the lines of a standard Association Football (Soccer) pitch. Visible features of the standard pitch are the outside borders, the goals and the small and large boxes around each goal. Absent are the corner quarter circles, the penalty spots and associated D, and the center line. The central circle is lost/concealed by the curvature of the gravity well. There are a number of other lines encircling and radial to the gravity well, they are visually identical to the familiar pitch markings so it is unclear whether these are intended to be drawn on the pitch or merely indications of the shape of the surface, or both, for the purpose of helping players to avoid the well. The lengthwise field boundary line on the visible far side partly follows/is partly followed by a suitable radial line before splitting off and conspicuously curving within the respective lip of the well to rejoin the radial line emerging at the complimentary angle in the opposing half of the field. A total of twenty figures can be seen on the pitch. Two are standing near the goal mouths, while the rest are distributed fairly evenly around the field, ten on each side of the middle. As they are all white stick figures on the gray surface, it is impossible to say which are on each team or if one is the referee. Five are within the inner circle around the well, and are distorted or tilted by the increased slope of the surface. A ball with motion lines is landing by the feet of one player who is running up one wing near, but left, of the central part of the field. This player is close to but not within the deeper part of the well. The players seems to be both women and men, as several look like Cueball and some like Hairy, and also many look like Megan and some like Ponytail. The color of the field becomes darker the deeper it goes into the well, from the normal gray color that extends from the two ends of the pitch to about halfway to the center of the field, in six steps until it is almost black at the deepest part of the well that is visible over the rim of the near part of the field.]

:[Caption below the panel:]
:Spacetime Soccer got a lot of criticism for how many players fell into the gravity well, but what ultimately doomed it was the advanced mathematics required to figure out the offsides rule.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Soccer]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Hairy]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Multiple Cueballs]]

915: Connoisseur

2022-12-08T21:02:45Z

Gunterkoenigsmann: A link to a connoisseur of Andy Warhol's film of eating a hamburger.

{{comic
| number = 915
| date = June 22, 2011
| title = Connoisseur
| image = connoisseur.png
| titletext = Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.
}}

==Explanation==
[[White Hat]] is fond of good {{w|wine}}, and he can probably distinguish slight differences in different types of wine, perhaps being the type that attends {{w|wine tasting}} parties. He doesn't like the cheap wine that Cueball has served for him (implying a cheap wine cannot be a good one, an opinion held by stereotypical wine snobs), looking with disgust at the label of the offending bottle.

On the other hand, [[Cueball]] doesn't have a preference; all of them taste the same for him, so presumably he gets the cheaper ones. White Hat tells Cueball that if he just tried some really good wine and paid more attention he would discover a whole new world.

Cueball's answer is the main message of the comic. He says that wine is no different from anything else in this respect, and makes a list starting with the wine but then going past {{w|house music}}, {{w|fonts}}, {{w|ants}}, ending with {{w|Wikipedia:Signatures|Wikipedia signatures}} and {{w|Canadian}} {{w|surrealist}} {{w|porn}}. His point being if you spend enough time focusing on any one subject, then you'll become a snobby '''{{w|connoisseur}}''' on that topic.

White Hat tries to defend wine by saying that some things have more depth than others (wine being among them), but Cueball challenges him on this by choosing something as obscure as 500 pictures of {{w|Joe Biden}}, then {{w|Vice President of the United States}} under {{w|Barack Obama}}, eating a sandwich as an example. He claims that if people were locked up in a box with those pictures for a year, they would end up being connoisseurs with the same vehemence regarding the best picture as wine tasters can be about the best wine.

White Hat claims that this is an exaggeration, but Cueball takes this as a challenge so in the last panel, apparently White Hat and Cueball are actually running this experiment to see if they will end up concentrating on slight differences among the pictures of Joe Biden eating a sandwich, just in the same way that White Hat concentrates on slight differences among different kinds of wine. The result of the experiment is clearly going to Cueball's side, the discussion being mainly between the importance of mayo or the light through lettuce from the sandwiches.

This mentality may also be applied to online groups based on any subject (such as television shows, films, and other hobbies and interests), where arguments and vehement, stubborn opinions are common despite the fairly unimportant subject. On the other side a man eating a hamburger was a famous [https://channel.louisiana.dk/video/jorgen-leth-andy-warhol-eating-hamburger art project by Andy Warhol].

The title text presents the same idea in a different wording. The "scale of our brains" refers to a concept similar to Richard Dawkins' {{w|Middle World}}, where things too small (say, smaller than the point of a pin) or too big (bigger than what we can see from a mountaintop) are just out of our comprehension, so the things our brains understand must be neither too small nor too big, i.e. the "middle world".

However, the title text goes further in this idea: When we find things too big (like the distance to the Moon), we shrink it so that it fits into the "middle world" we're used to. Conversely, when we find things too small (say, a mote of dust), we expand it for the same reason. In a quite similar way, if all we have is pictures of Joe Biden eating a sandwich, we "resize" that subject so that we can fill books with the details about the pictures.

==Transcript==
:[White Hat is holding a wine glass down in one hand and holding a bottle of wine up in front of him with the other hand. He is looking at the label and talking with Cueball standing next to him with his own filled wine glass in one hand. He is looking down at the glass.]
:White Hat: How do you stand this cheap wine?
:Cueball: Wine all tastes the same to me.

:[Close-up of White Hat.]
:White Hat: You've just never had ''good'' wine. If you paid more attention, you'd realize there's a whole world here.

:[Close-up on Cueball, who spreads his arms out, resulting in the wine in the glass sloshing so much that part of the wine is above the rim of the glass, some even hanging over the edge and a spray droplet hanging above the sloshing liquid.]
:Cueball: But that's true of ''anything!'' Wine, house music, fonts, ants, Wikipedia signatures, Canadian surrealist porn—
:Cueball: Spend enough time with any of them and you'll become a snobby connoisseur.

:[This panel has no border (aka a 'frameless panel') and is next to but aligned further down than the first three panels. It shows a zoom out of both White Hat and Cueball again. White Hat now has both glass and bottle held down at his side. Cueball holds his glass down, but tilted away from him. A small puddle of wine is on the floor next to Cueball.]
:White Hat: But some things do have more depth than others.
:Cueball: If you locked people in a box for a year with 500 still frames of Joe Biden eating a sandwich, by the end they'd be adamant that some were great and some terrible.
:White Hat: You're exaggerating.
:Cueball: Oh, really?

:[This panel is below the feet of the two characters from the previous panel. It goes further to the left than those two, and is wider than the previous panels, but it does not go much past the middle, so there is a blank white space to the left of this panel, below the first and most of the second panel. It shows a box, with two star burst on the surface from where two voices emanate from the inside. Over the top left of the panels frame is a small frame with a caption:]
:A year later:

:[The voice from left side of the box:]

:Sure, most closed-mouth frames are boring, but in #415, the way the man's jaw frames the mayo on his hand is pure perfection, and—

:[The voice from right side of the box:]

:What a surprise- ''you'' praising a mayo frame. Listening to '''you''', I'd think there was nothing else in The Sandwich.

:[The voice from right side of the box:]

:Frankly, the light hitting J.B.'s collar through the lettuce would put #242 in my top ten even if he had ''no'' mayo on his hand at ''all''.

==Trivia==
*Specialized interests and the people involved in them are used again, with ants being the subject of [[1610: Fire Ants]], typefaces in [[590: Papyrus]] and [[736: Cemetery]], plastic straws in [[1095: Crazy Straws]], porn-video quality in [[598: Porn]], and common colds in [[2535: Common Cold Viruses]].

*In [[1534: Beer]], Cueball also argue slight differences in alcohol brands don't make much difference (in 915 "Wine all tastes the same to me."; in 1534, "maybe we should just admit that all beer tastes kind of bad and everyone's just pretending?") and people just pretend due to social pressure.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Food]] 
[[Category:Wikipedia]] 
[[Category:Animals]] 
[[Category:Music]] 
[[Category:Sex]]

915: Connoisseur

2022-12-08T20:57:28Z

Gunterkoenigsmann: /* Explanation: Warhol's man eating a hamburger */

{{comic
| number = 915
| date = June 22, 2011
| title = Connoisseur
| image = connoisseur.png
| titletext = Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.
}}

==Explanation==
[[White Hat]] is fond of good {{w|wine}}, and he can probably distinguish slight differences in different types of wine, perhaps being the type that attends {{w|wine tasting}} parties. He doesn't like the cheap wine that Cueball has served for him (implying a cheap wine cannot be a good one, an opinion held by stereotypical wine snobs), looking with disgust at the label of the offending bottle.

On the other hand, [[Cueball]] doesn't have a preference; all of them taste the same for him, so presumably he gets the cheaper ones. White Hat tells Cueball that if he just tried some really good wine and paid more attention he would discover a whole new world.

Cueball's answer is the main message of the comic. He says that wine is no different from anything else in this respect, and makes a list starting with the wine but then going past {{w|house music}}, {{w|fonts}}, {{w|ants}}, ending with {{w|Wikipedia:Signatures|Wikipedia signatures}} and {{w|Canadian}} {{w|surrealist}} {{w|porn}}. His point being if you spend enough time focusing on any one subject, then you'll become a snobby '''{{w|connoisseur}}''' on that topic.

White Hat tries to defend wine by saying that some things have more depth than others (wine being among them), but Cueball challenges him on this by choosing something as obscure as 500 pictures of {{w|Joe Biden}}, then {{w|Vice President of the United States}} under {{w|Barack Obama}}, eating a sandwich as an example. He claims that if people were locked up in a box with those pictures for a year, they would end up being connoisseurs with the same vehemence regarding the best picture as wine tasters can be about the best wine.

White Hat claims that this is an exaggeration, but Cueball takes this as a challenge so in the last panel, apparently White Hat and Cueball are actually running this experiment to see if they will end up concentrating on slight differences among the pictures of Joe Biden eating a sandwich, just in the same way that White Hat concentrates on slight differences among different kinds of wine. The result of the experiment is clearly going to Cueball's side, the discussion being mainly between the importance of mayo or the light through lettuce from the sandwiches.

This mentality may also be applied to online groups based on any subject (such as television shows, films, and other hobbies and interests), where arguments and vehement, stubborn opinions are common despite the fairly unimportant subject. On the other side a man eating a hamburger was a art project by Andy Warhol that the artist himself described as "transcendental".

The title text presents the same idea in a different wording. The "scale of our brains" refers to a concept similar to Richard Dawkins' {{w|Middle World}}, where things too small (say, smaller than the point of a pin) or too big (bigger than what we can see from a mountaintop) are just out of our comprehension, so the things our brains understand must be neither too small nor too big, i.e. the "middle world".

However, the title text goes further in this idea: When we find things too big (like the distance to the Moon), we shrink it so that it fits into the "middle world" we're used to. Conversely, when we find things too small (say, a mote of dust), we expand it for the same reason. In a quite similar way, if all we have is pictures of Joe Biden eating a sandwich, we "resize" that subject so that we can fill books with the details about the pictures.

==Transcript==
:[White Hat is holding a wine glass down in one hand and holding a bottle of wine up in front of him with the other hand. He is looking at the label and talking with Cueball standing next to him with his own filled wine glass in one hand. He is looking down at the glass.]
:White Hat: How do you stand this cheap wine?
:Cueball: Wine all tastes the same to me.

:[Close-up of White Hat.]
:White Hat: You've just never had ''good'' wine. If you paid more attention, you'd realize there's a whole world here.

:[Close-up on Cueball, who spreads his arms out, resulting in the wine in the glass sloshing so much that part of the wine is above the rim of the glass, some even hanging over the edge and a spray droplet hanging above the sloshing liquid.]
:Cueball: But that's true of ''anything!'' Wine, house music, fonts, ants, Wikipedia signatures, Canadian surrealist porn—
:Cueball: Spend enough time with any of them and you'll become a snobby connoisseur.

:[This panel has no border (aka a 'frameless panel') and is next to but aligned further down than the first three panels. It shows a zoom out of both White Hat and Cueball again. White Hat now has both glass and bottle held down at his side. Cueball holds his glass down, but tilted away from him. A small puddle of wine is on the floor next to Cueball.]
:White Hat: But some things do have more depth than others.
:Cueball: If you locked people in a box for a year with 500 still frames of Joe Biden eating a sandwich, by the end they'd be adamant that some were great and some terrible.
:White Hat: You're exaggerating.
:Cueball: Oh, really?

:[This panel is below the feet of the two characters from the previous panel. It goes further to the left than those two, and is wider than the previous panels, but it does not go much past the middle, so there is a blank white space to the left of this panel, below the first and most of the second panel. It shows a box, with two star burst on the surface from where two voices emanate from the inside. Over the top left of the panels frame is a small frame with a caption:]
:A year later:

:[The voice from left side of the box:]

:Sure, most closed-mouth frames are boring, but in #415, the way the man's jaw frames the mayo on his hand is pure perfection, and—

:[The voice from right side of the box:]

:What a surprise- ''you'' praising a mayo frame. Listening to '''you''', I'd think there was nothing else in The Sandwich.

:[The voice from right side of the box:]

:Frankly, the light hitting J.B.'s collar through the lettuce would put #242 in my top ten even if he had ''no'' mayo on his hand at ''all''.

==Trivia==
*Specialized interests and the people involved in them are used again, with ants being the subject of [[1610: Fire Ants]], typefaces in [[590: Papyrus]] and [[736: Cemetery]], plastic straws in [[1095: Crazy Straws]], porn-video quality in [[598: Porn]], and common colds in [[2535: Common Cold Viruses]].

*In [[1534: Beer]], Cueball also argue slight differences in alcohol brands don't make much difference (in 915 "Wine all tastes the same to me."; in 1534, "maybe we should just admit that all beer tastes kind of bad and everyone's just pretending?") and people just pretend due to social pressure.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Food]] 
[[Category:Wikipedia]] 
[[Category:Animals]] 
[[Category:Music]] 
[[Category:Sex]]

1496: Art Project

2022-12-08T20:54:59Z

Gunterkoenigsmann: /* Explanation: Warhol's man eating a hamburger */

{{comic
| number = 1496
| date = March 9, 2015
| title = Art Project
| image = art project.png
| titletext = It's my most ambitious project yet, judging by the amount of guacamole.
}}

==Explanation==
This comic appears to be satirizing {{w|art}} in two different ways. From one perspective, [[Randall]] is describing various art forms in unusual ways (e.g., a portrait by [[Cueball]], a video for [[Megan]], and perhaps live performance by [[Ponytail]]). From another perspective, Randall might be making fun of {{w|time-lapse photography}} movies. {{w|YouTube}} has a robust collection of videos taken from stitching together pictures or short video clips taken every day or every week; in the {{w|87th Academy Awards|2015 Academy Awards}}, one of the Best Picture nominees, {{w|Boyhood (film)|Boyhood}}, used a similar method, filming short sequences annually over the course of 12 years.

In each case, the art described is simpler than it sounds, and some might not consider it art. A picture of oneself "every hundred years" will only happen once or twice in a lifetime; a "picture every 1/24th of a second" is the traditional {{w|frame rate}} of cinema cameras for film production, and "watching my face age in real time" is just life.

Then finally another Megan-like character, possibly a relatively demure [[Danish]], pokes fun at all of them by simply watching their attempts at "art" while she eats a burrito. This might be in parallel to Andy Warhol's transcendental piece of art "[[915:_Connoisseur | Man eating a Hamburger]]". Randall may also be referencing the many perspectives on art by leaving this comic open to several interpretations.

The use of a burrito as a punchline representing someone who is grounded in reality instead of engaging in esoteric pursuits has been seen before in [[1269: Privacy Opinions]].

The title text is just more snark, claiming that it's their most ambitious project ever, if the sole criterion for ambition is the amount of guacamole that one has to eat.

==Transcript==
:[Four people stand next to each other.]
:Cueball [taking a selfie with his smart-phone]: I'm doing an art project where I take a picture of myself every hundred years.
:Megan [filming herself with her smart-phone]: I'm doing an art project where I take a picture of myself every 1/24th of a second.
:Ponytail [pointing to her face with both hands]: I'm doing an art project where you can come to my house and watch my actual face age in real time.
:Girl with long black hair [holding a burrito]: I'm doing an art project where you all do those things while I eat a burrito.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]

2707: Astronomy Numbers

2022-12-08T20:49:11Z

Gunterkoenigsmann: /* Explanation: Astronomers are used to big rounding errors. */

{{comic
| number = 2707
| date = December 5, 2022
| title = Astronomy Numbers
| image = astronomy_numbers_2x.png
| imagesize = 593x315px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = I adopted a cat that weighs 12 solar masses. Laser pointers love chasing it.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by A WARPED SPACE-TIME CONTINUUM - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
Space is big[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hv1spjsvu-A] and the things that are in space can also end up being very big themselves. As a result, most quantities in astronomy have huge scales. For example, Earth has a mass 1023 times more than the average human, and the Sun is 105 times more than that, which itself is 1012 times less massive than the Milky Way. The same applies to speeds, distances, and time, which can often be measured in terms of light speed, light-years, and millions or billions of years. Because of this, it's a truly unusual occurrence for anything in space to end up in the fairly narrow range of scales of mass, size, speed, or time that humans can easily grasp.

[[Ponytail]], apparently a scientist researching something related to Earth's orbit, finds that on the next January 1 (2023), Earth will be approaching the sun at a velocity of 65 miles per hour—an extremely common and normal-sounding velocity to American ears, often used as a speed limit on highways in the US. Ponytail is clearly a little thrown off by this, and remarks that she finds it "suspicious" when reasonably human-scaled numbers come up.

She then extends this paranoia to things that should be measured in regular numbers, such as the weight of cats. The vet, [[Megan]], is seemingly used to this problem (perhaps she gets a lot of astronomers), so she restates the 12-lb weight of Ponytail's cat in solar masses. Since using this unit yields an ''incredibly'' small number, 3×10-30 (a three preceded by a decimal point and 29 zeroes), it evidently sounds more plausible to the astronomer. This weight is in fact about 13 lb 2 oz (about 5.5 kilograms), slightly heavier than the initial figure given for the cat, but within [[2585: Rounding|rounding error]] for the single digit of precision that Megan uses. According to [[2205:_Types_of_Approximation | 2205: Types of Approximation]] that rounding error is unusually small for an astronomer, though.

Although the Earth's orbital velocity around the Sun is far above any "normal" scales (around 30 kilometers per second or 108,000 kilometers per hour), Earth has a pretty circular orbit around the Sun. So most of this speed ends up being tangential (sideways) rather than radial (towards or away from) the Sun, which is the value relevant for Ponytail's calculations. On January 1, Earth's radial velocity is close to its smallest value because we reach our closest point to the Sun in the first few days of January each year (in 2023, {{w|Perihelion|perihelion}} happens on January 4) so by January 1, it's nearly come to a standstill before it starts traveling away from the Sun again. On the other hand, by April 3, 2023, Earth will be receding from the Sun by almost 500 meters per second or 1800 kilometers per hour, a less normal speed for the average person to encounter in everyday life.{{citation needed}} 65 miles per hour is approximately equal to 105 kilometers per hour, although the even more typical scientific value (in {{w|International System of Units|SI}} derived units) would be 29 meters per second.

The title text suggests that laser pointers "love chasing" a new cat with a weight of 12 solar masses (an inversion of the typical cat behavior of [[729: Laser Pointer|chasing laser pointer dots]]). A 12 solar mass cat would have the dominant gravitation well in our solar system, which would make everything fall towards the cat – including laser pointers. Furthermore, all gravitational fields bend light towards their center; a 12 solar mass object could bend light quite a lot. A laser pointer aimed near such a cat would bend the light towards it or "chase" it. In fact, anything with 12 solar masses would have a Schwarzschild radius of around 36 kilometers, so any cat-sized thing with that mass would be a black hole, drawing all light within a 72-kilometer sphere around it into its singularity.

==Transcript==
:[Ponytail is standing in front of a whiteboard writing on it with a pen, while Cueball looks over her shoulder from behind her. On the board is an almost circular ellipse with a cross that centers on a dot towards the left side of it. On the right side there is a small circle on the ellipse's line. There are several lines of wiggles representing unreadable text. To the left of the ellipse there are two lines near the top of and four near at the bottom of the ellipse. Ponytail is writing a fifth line below these almost under the ellipse. At the bottom to the left there is a rectangular frame with a line of text beneath it and at the bottom left corner there is a line forming a half closes rectangle around two dots.]
:Ponytail: …And we need to correct for our elliptical orbit. On January 1st, Earth will be approaching the sun at a rate of ...let's see...
:Ponytail: 65 miles per hour.
:Ponytail: Weird. Okay.
:Cueball: Weird?

:[Ponytail has turned towards Cueball, the pen is no longer in her hand and the white board is no longer shown.]
:Ponytail: I get suspicious whenever I see a normal number in astronomy. We're not supposed to have those. Feels wrong.
:Ponytail: Scales should all be incomprehensible.

:[Megan in a lab-coat raised her hand palm up towards an animal carrier cage standing on her desk. The cage has a handle and five air holes are at the top. Behind two of them something black inside the cage can be seen. Ponytail is standing on the other side of the desk looking at Megan. Above the top of the panels frame there is a panel with a label:]
:Earlier, at the vet:
:Megan: Your cat weighs 12 lbs.
:Ponytail: Ridiculous, nothing weighs "12". You must mean 10-20? Or 1040?
:Megan: Fine. Your cat weighs 3x10-30 solar masses.
:Ponytail: Okay. Better.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Astronomy]]
[[Category:Cats]]

2697: Y2K and 2038

2022-11-12T14:47:04Z

Gunterkoenigsmann: Writing a 33-bit compiler for a 32 bit machine is hard.

{{comic
| number = 2697
| date = November 11, 2022
| title = Y2K and 2038
| image = y2k_and_2038_2x.png
| imagesize = 527x190px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = It's taken me 20 years, but I've finally finished rebuilding all my software to use 33-bit signed ints.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a Y2K-BRICKED BOT (MADE JAN 1, 1970). Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

[[File:Year 2038 problem.gif|thumb|An animation of the 2038 bug in action. The {{w|integer overflow}} error occurs at 03:14:08 UTC on 19 January 2038.]]

The Y2K bug, or more formally, the {{w|year 2000 problem}}, was the computer errors caused by two digit software representations of calendar years incorrectly handling the year 2000, such as by treating it as 1900 or 19100. The {{w|year 2038 problem}} is a similar issue with timestamps in {{w|Unix time}} format, which will overflow their {{w|Signed number representations|signed}} 32-bit binary representation on January 19, 2038.

While initial estimates were that the Y2K problem would require about half a trillion dollars to address, there was widespread recognition of its potential severity several years in advance. Concerted efforts among organizations including computer and software manufacturers and their corporate and government users reflected unprecedented cooperation, testing, and enhancement of affected systems costing substantially less than the early estimates. On New Year's Day 2000, few major errors actually occurred. Those that did usually did not disrupt essential processes or cause serious problems, and the few of them that did were usually addressed in days to weeks. The software code reviews involved allowed correcting other errors and providing various enhancements which often made up at least in part for the the cost of correcting the date bug.

It is unclear whether the 2038 problem will be addressed as effectively in time, but documented experience with the Y2K bug and increased software modularity and access to source code has allowed many otherwise vulnerable systems to already upgrade to wider timestamp and date formats, so there is reason to believe that it may be even less consequential and expensive. The 2038 problem has been previously mentioned in [[607: 2038]] and [[887: Future Timeline]].

This comic assumes that the 38 years between Y2K and Y2038 should (or must) be split evenly between recovering from Y2K and preparing for Y2038. That would put the split point in 2019 (specifically, January 10, 2019). The caption points out that it's now (2022) well past that demarcation line, so everyone should have completed their "Y2K recovery" and begun preparing for Y2038. It is highly unlikely that there are more than a very few consequential older systems that still suffer from this bug, while systems built to operate only since the millenium can already handle years after 1999 correctly, though not ''necessarily'' those after 2099, 2255 or some other notable problematic date. There's also no reason any developer should have waited until 2019 to start preparing for 2038.

The title text refers to replacing the 32-bit signed Unix time format with a hypothetical new 33-bit signed {{w|Integer (computer science)|integer}} time and date format, which is likely to be a complicated task as almost all contemporary computer data structure formats are allocated no more finely than in 8-bit bytes. Taking 20 years to develop and implement such a format is not entirely counterproductive, as it would add another 68 years of capability, but it is far more counterproductive than upgrading to the widely available and supported 64-bit Unix time replacement format (which much better fits 64- and even 32-bit hardware than a 33-bit format does) and software compatibility libraries.

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

[A timeline rectangle with 37 short dividing lines between the two ends, defining it into 38 minor sections, with the label "2000" above, associated with the leftmost edge, "2038" associated with the rightmost edge and "2019" directly over the centermost division that starts the section which covers that year, which is also extended to form a dotted line divided the whole height of the timeline into two equal 19-section halves. The left half has the label "Recovering from the Y2K bug" and the right half is labeled "Preparing for the 2038 bug". A triangular arrowhead labeled "Now" is also above indicating a rough position most of the way through the section that would represent the year 2022.]

[Caption:] Reminder: By now you should have finished your Y2K recovery and be several years into 2038 preparation.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Calendar]]
[[Category:Computers]]
[[Category:Programming]]
[[Category:Timelines]]

2691: Encryption

2022-10-31T06:31:03Z

Gunterkoenigsmann: /* Explanation: Being not able to send messages from bob to alice might be part of the standard cryptographic story. */

{{comic
| number = 2691
| date = October 28, 2022
| title = Encryption
| image = encryption_2x.png
| imagesize = 235x380px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = WARNING: PEOPLE NAMED EVE ARE PROHIBITED FROM INSTALLING THIS APP!
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by ALICE FOR BOB - Please change this comment when editing this page.''Possibly connected to Elon buying Twitter? thoughts? talk about secure messaging apps'' Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

When teaching encryption / cryptography, it is common to use a story about sending messages from {{w|Alice to Bob}} (Party "A" and Party "B" respectively). Cueball claims to have created a texting app that only allows for this one thing. It is unclear how it enforces this restriction, but looks suspiciously as if the app actually bases this on the names of the phone owners. The title text mentions Eve, who in the typical story represents an "eavesdropper", someone who attempts to intercept the messages between Alice and Bob. The fact that persons named Eve are 'forbidden' from installing the app suggests that it might not actually be as secure as Cueball advertises -- it may be that he naively thinks that it's just the name that makes the eavesdropper, and that by excluding all Eves, Alice's messages to Bob will remain private. It is not clear which phones will support this app, but it appears to be perfectly suited for the [[:Category:xkcd Phones|xkcd Phones]].

The comics [[177: Alice and Bob]] and [[1323: Protocol]] are also about Alice and Bob.

If the names of the users don't need to be verified, it seems possible to circumvent the security features of the app with double installations and a complete mess of a contact list in which all people are named "Alice" or "Bob". Also, it would appear that "Bob" needn't be the real name of the message receiver, but it could also be a diminutive. Thus a user might claim to be "Bob" whichever his given name is.

This may be related to the announcement that Signal would be discontinuing support for SMS/MMS messages.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[Cueball showing a phone to Alice]
:Cueball: The app will let you send messages to your friend Robert, or my brother.
:Alice: Can they reply?
:Cueball: No.

:[Caption below the panel]:
:My new secure texting app only allows people named Alice to send messages to people named Bob.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category: Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category: Cryptography]]
[[Category: Smartphones]]

954: Chin-Up Bar

2022-10-02T10:27:54Z

Gunterkoenigsmann: /* Explanation: Actually Black hat's answer in question form is quite complete - for the ones who know him */

{{comic
| number = 954
| date = September 21, 2011
| title = Chin-Up Bar
| image = chin up bar.png
| titletext = Those few who escaped found the emergency cutoff box disabled. The stampede lasted two hours and reached the bottom three times.
}}

==Explanation==
[[Black Hat]] has once again showed everyone that he is a [[classhole]], with a plan to block traffic on the {{w|Escalator#Longest individual escalators|longest single-tier escalator}} in the Western hemisphere. At the time of the comic's publishing, that placed the comic in the {{w|Wheaton station (Washington Metro)|Wheaton station}} in {{w|Washington D.C.}}'s {{w|Washington Metro}} subway system, where the 70-meter (230-foot) escalator is. It's clear that Black Hat knows it is the longest and that this is the reason he has chosen this exact escalator for his plan.

Black Hat carries a {{w|chin-up bar}} over his shoulder up the escalator, resulting in a conversation with [[Cueball]], riding up behind him, about Black Hat's motives for doing such. Black Hat uses sly conversing methods to avoid saying his true motives. First he counters the question with another question: ''Why aren't you wearing a hat?'' Cueball's reply is a normal ''I'm not really a hat person'', whereas Black Hat's copy reply is a correct answer to the question, but only for the ones who know Black Hat which obviously doesn't include anyone who asks such questions: ''I'm not really a not-carrying-a-chin-up-bar person'', which is probably a sentence never used before this comic.{{Citation needed}} It takes Cueball a second to process this answer, but he doesn't give up and asks why again. Black Hat continues deflecting his questions by stating that he's ''not a psychologist'', although he clearly is aware of his own motives and intentions. (One could argue that it would take a psychology degree to explain those motives and intentions.)

After this they reach the top and once they get off Black Hat quickly turns around and locks the bar in place at about waist height (i.e. as high up as possible on an escalator), just before the moving part of the escalator ends.

Chin-up bars are typically capable of holding up a 300 pound (130 kg) person without moving, and a bar like Black Hat has brought with him can be [https://www.amazon.com/Sunny-Health-Fitness-Door-Chin/dp/B0016BNDXI/ref=sr_1_6?s=sports-and-fitness&ie=UTF8&qid=1470541509&sr=1-6&keywords=chin+up+bar installed easily in a doorway], or in the opening of an escalator…

The unexpected appearance of a solidly attached bar at the top of a crowded escalator could be disastrous. The first people would probably stumble backward to avoid it or hit it and topple backwards, and collide with the passengers immediately behind them, knocking them off their feet and likely creating a {{w|domino effect}} all the way down. Indeed, this is exactly what happens and is depicted in the last panel. Black Hat and Cueball are seen on the descending escalator in the background, Cueball has turned around looking at the scene and displaying worry about what Black Hat has done, but Black Hat isn't even looking at the chaos he has caused, completely ignoring all the falling bodies. Although it might be possible, the two are fairly lucky to be unscathed, as they could have been hit by someone in the pileup falling all the way over in their side of the escalator. Since they are most likely on the way down to a subway, the traffic should make it easy for them to get away on the next train, before anyone has a chance to try and find the perpetrator, so Black Hat gets away with his schemes once again.

In the title text it is made clear that the few people that actually escaped the moving stairs were unable to use the emergency shutdown because Black Hat had disabled the system, presumably before ascending in the first place. This is stated to have caused the {{w|stampede}} to last for two hours and waves of falling people would end up reaching the bottom three times, before ascending with the stairs again. The reason for this extended mayhem could be that only the very first people at the top of this domino effect who actually hit the chin-up-bar know what caused the problem to begin with. Since they are likely among those people too hurt to explain anything in time, the next group of people trying to get out after the first wave of falling people might just proceed to run into the same problem at the top once again. The problem is exacerbated by the disabled shutoff, so even if someone sees the chin-up-bar and knows how to escape, they would either be pulled back into the crowd of traffic or be free but unable to help. This helps to explain why the cycle of crowd collapse happened three times, and the use of the word "stampede" connotes the panicked, unorganized behavior of the trapped people that serves to make the problem worse.

==Transcript==
:[Black Hat is in the middle of on an escalator with five other people as it ascends. He carries something like a a pole.]

:[Zoom in on Black Hat and Cueball.]
:Cueball: This is a long escalator.
:Black Hat: 70 meters. Longest in the country.

:[Black Hat goes upwards holding his pole.]

:[Cueball is still behind Black Hat.]
:Cueball: Why're you carrying a chin-up bar?
:Black Hat: Why aren't you wearing a hat?

:[The view returns to the original view only showing the six people ascending, only shifted so they are all a bit longer to the right.]
:Cueball: I'm not really a hat person.
:Black Hat: And I'm not really a not-carrying-a-chin-up-bar person.

:[Close up on Cueball on the escalator.]

:[Zoom out. Black Hat still has the pole in his hands.]
:Cueball: Seriously, why did you bring it?
:Black Hat: How should I know? I'm not a psychologist.

:[Zoom in on the top of the escalator where Black Hat steps off and installs the chin-up bar on the exit of the escalator.]
:''Twist'' ''Click'' ''Click''

:[View from above towards both ascending and descending escalators. Black Hat and Cueball are on the descending escalator.]

:[The final panel takes up two entire rows and shows all people falling down.]

==Trivia==
It would appear that the man behind Cueball with glasses and a goatee is the psychologist from [[435: Purity]], and then Megan next to him could be the sociologist from the same comic. This gives new meaning to Black Hat's line about not being a psychologist.

Escalators were also the subject of the earlier comic [[252: Escalators]], a rather more funny take on these dangerous devices.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Black Hat]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Hairy]]
[[Category:Multiple Cueballs]]
[[Category:Psychology]]
[[Category:Sabotage]]

1124: Law of Drama

2022-07-07T06:22:54Z

Gunterkoenigsmann: /* Explanation: This cartoon didn't cause too much drama. At least here. */

{{comic
| number = 1124
| date = October 22, 2012
| title = Law of Drama
| image = law of drama.png
| titletext = 'Drama' is just 'people being upset,' when someone says they're always surrounded by drama and they just ignore it, it starts to make sense that their strategy might be backfiring.
}}

==Explanation==
The comic comments on how often people who label themselves as an innocent party in a debate are often far from it. Essentially, [[Randall]] seems to be graphically stating that people who claim to hate and want to avoid drama are invariably associated with it. Since [[552: Correlation|correlation does not imply causation]], it might be a leap — at least scientifically speaking — to actually surmise that they're the cause of it. The fact that merely postulating a rule without telling if the creator of the rule is causing or avoiding drama didn't cause much drama in this wiki might be a (albeit weak) clue that the claim might actually be correct.

The title text suggests that the person's attitude towards drama is wrong. Supposing that "'Drama' is just 'people being upset'", then ignoring drama is a very bad way to deal with it. By ignoring people's problems, you certainly won't be able to help them, and are at risk of causing further problems through ignorance.

==Transcript==
:[A Cartesian graph labeled 'How often someone declares that they hate "drama" and always avoid it' on the x-axis and 'Rate at which they create drama' labeled on the y-axis. The graph is a slightly exponential curve sloping upwards.]

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Line graphs]]
[[Category:Psychology]]

Talk:2634: Red Line Through HTTPS

2022-06-19T15:03:21Z

Gunterkoenigsmann: Why 2015?

HTTPS was standardized in 2000 or so, so 2015 is quite a stretch for a site to not use it because the site was last updated before HTTPS was widely available.
With pretty much any browser now, a red line through HTTPS means that the site _is using HTTPS_, but it is _not trusted by the browser_ (due to e.g. the certificate being self-signed or expired).
[[User:Darrylnoakes|Darrylnoakes]] ([[User talk:Darrylnoakes|talk]]) 04:28, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

:I think the intended joke is that the site's certificate expired in 2015, instead of the site is not using HTTPS. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.101|108.162.221.101]] 06:29, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

:2015 is when the first Let's Encrypt certs were issued, and 2016 is when LE became generally available to the public and thus when free SSL/TLS became very very easy for just about anyone setting up a web server, hence the comic citing 2015. However even with a valid cert you might have a number of issues, like [https://www.mixedcontentexamples.com/ mixed content]. At least in Firefox, an expired cert gives a big warning screen that gives you an option to add a security exception; I don't care enough to install Chrom{e,ium} to test its UI. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.69.250|172.69.69.250]] 08:30, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

::Chrome has this warning screen including an option to bypass the warning as well. I believe all browsers do. I think the only exception to this is when a site has strict transport security enabled. [[User:Jespertheend|Jespertheend]] ([[User talk:Jespertheend|talk]]) 10:49, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

:::Until about 2015 no-one complained if you didn't offer HTTPS as long as you didn't request anyone's credit card number or offered .exe files: An internet site offers nothing but inherently untrustable text. It might contain ads that can execute any piece of javascript. It even could contain flash - so why pay a substantial amount of money to make the transport of that data more secure? Nowadays most web browsers tell on you if you don't secure connections and allowing the telco to see what data you download from where is felt as a privacy intrusion. On the other side not every hoster offers https for multiple domains...--[[User:Gunterkoenigsmann|Gunterkoenigsmann]] ([[User talk:Gunterkoenigsmann|talk]]) 15:03, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Not sure it's true that if there is a problem with HTTPS like an expired cert that the connection is made with HTTP instead. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.201|172.69.79.201]] 10:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

:It's not, it still uses the https connection. It only indicates that the connection might not be secure anymore and anyone could be listening in at that point. [[User:Jespertheend|Jespertheend]] ([[User talk:Jespertheend|talk]]) 10:49, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I actually am bemused by this. Not sure if I only visit the wrong (or right?) websites with the wrong (or right?) browsers, but I don't recall ever notably having seen struck-red links. (Perhaps I have, and assumed it was a site informing me that they were dead links, not now followable?) I ''do'' occasionally follow a normal-looking link (maybe locally CSSed in a over-riding manner of format?) and I get the browser load up a whole-screen "Problem with certificate (Are you sure? Jump through hoops for me to progress.)" which I may then take under considered advisement but mostly has me checking I'm not being spoofed as to the destination or something. Is this where the red strikethrough appears for others?
 I also have at least one site that is steadfastly still HTTP-only, and neither I nor my various browsers have any problem with it as I know what I'm doing, whilst the browsers just go there without particular complaint or anything more than usual addressbar clues... I might have "added to exception from warning" once or twice in the distant past, but not in every case. So I'm learning something here, but I don't know what. Sounds like something Edge would do, but I don't use Edge... I'm generally on Chrome, Firefox and a handful of 'lesser' flavours, all definitely updated. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.173|172.70.90.173]] 11:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

:You can find some examples of the red line on https://badssl.com/, but pretty much in all cases you get a full page warning first that something is amiss. You can also try out the http connection at http://http.badssl.com/, http connections are a bit more complicated. Some browsers don't show a warning at all, while others only show a gray 'insecure' label in front of the url. And as can be seen here [https://blog.chromium.org/2017/04/next-steps-toward-more-connection.html], the plan is to eventually show similar warnings for HTTP sites as what is currently shown for HTTPS sites with a failed certificate. [[User:Jespertheend|Jespertheend]] ([[User talk:Jespertheend|talk]]) 11:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
::Ugh, I'd hate that. I have a little webpage of my own, and I'm not in a position to be able to go https, :( That "badssl" site has several example issues, which ones go red/strikethrough? I want to confirm no browser I have does that. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 04:56, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

:I was about to remark the same thing, :) NEVER seen a strikethrough. I'm rather assuming it's something Chrome does, because I about exclusively use Firefox, and Chrome likes to be weird and non-standard (main reason I generally don't use it), and too many people act like there's no other browser than Chrome. Likewise, most I get is "Security Risk!", then find out it's a Bad Certificate, then it turns out it expired and they just haven't updated it yet. Stop being so dramatic, LOL! [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 04:28, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
::I'm a Chrome user (part of the time, being the "handful of lesser flavours" contributor, above, but using it this very second) and I don't see it. But then I turned off its look-ahead (downloading of pages it thinks I'll go to next) because I'd rather it not, and as some sort of pre-emptiveness seems necessary to know a link ''should'' be red-struckthrough, I probably (hopefully?) neutered that stupid potential exploit too... So don't take my experience as gospel. (But still sounds like an Edge thing, to me, the way that's the new IE in the current browser ecosystem.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.5|172.70.162.5]] 11:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I've made a rather large change to the page to better explain the meaning of a red line through https. I removed any mentioning of using the HTTP protocol as that is incorrect. If a browser uses the HTTP protocol it is shown in the url using 'http://'. Since the comic was talking about a red line through 'https' I'm assuming the usage of the HTTP protocol is unrelated here.
Though it's possible I removed some more information from the page that might still be desired. Such as the mentioning of AI-generated spam sites and man in the middle attacks. These seemed redundant to me for explaining the joke.
I also put some more emphasis on the red line usually meaning that something bad is going on. Browser venders put a lot of effort in security, and having everyone think that a red line is not that big of a problem is the last thing they'd want. [[User:Jespertheend|Jespertheend]] ([[User talk:Jespertheend|talk]]) 11:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

While it's true that some browser security warnings are false alarms, I think that paragraph is missing the point of the comic. Cueball is assuming that any site that's been around for years must be operated well. But often the maintainers of the site get complacent and don't update to newer standards. And even if the real site is legit, the security warning can mean that traffic has been intercepted, so you're not actually going to the real site. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 13:40, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I presumed this was about using outdated protocols like TLS 1.0 or weak ciphers. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.110.121|172.70.110.121]] 00:28, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

You'd almost think Randall didn't live in the Boston metropolitan area. I was disappointed. [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 04:30, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Okay, at least two of us don't see this behaviour, so this is NOT as universal as Randall seems to think, could somebody figure out why and put it in the explanation? (I reject the possibility that we just haven't visited the right (wrong) sites. I, for one, go to WAY too many sites, LOL!). My leading theory is that instead of being universal, this behaviour is actually unique to Chrome (as I don't use it much and can easily have never visited an insecure website on it), since I use Firefox primarily, and many people seem to forget that there are other browsers than Chrome, and Google goes out of it's way to be as weird as possible, including being fancy for the sake of fancy (like the colour-coding and strikethrough). [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 04:49, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Talk:185: Wikifriends

2022-06-17T18:24:13Z

Gunterkoenigsmann: Wikipedians vs. friends of Wikipedia

I thought this was a reference to the WikiFriends group who defend WikiLeaks. I figured it was about intimidation. [[Special:Contributions/184.66.160.91|184.66.160.91]] 02:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

That's impossible. The comic came out before Wikileaks even existed.[[Special:Contributions/120.148.234.14|120.148.234.14]] 22:01, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
::So the group's name is a fork from this article title?[[User:Pacerier|Pacerier]] ([[User talk:Pacerier|talk]]) 13:13, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
:Actually, Wikileaks launched a month before the comic's publication date, if the above is accurate. Surely you guys remember them leaking the Bush administration's war crimes within the next year or so. —[[User:Kazvorpal|Kazvorpal]] ([[User talk:Kazvorpal|talk]]) 20:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I have a completely different understanding of this comic than what's in the explanation here. Wiki is a site where anyone can change content and it's instantly visible - I think Randall meant that wikifriends are wiki because anyone can change their opinion on movies because they instantly adapt what others say. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.217|141.101.89.217]] 14:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
::Re:
::<blockquote>[…] anyone can change their opinion on movies because they instantly adapt what others say.</blockquote>
::Isn't that exactly what the explanation on this page says?[[User:Pacerier|Pacerier]] ([[User talk:Pacerier|talk]]) 13:13, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

To me wikifriends were the kind of people that never start a edit war with you: Many scientists that add original research to Wikipedia immediately get followed by Wikipedia s that "have a different opinion here". Several of my friends stopped contributing to Wikipedia after such incidences and they say it is one of the factors that limits Wikipedia 's growth.--[[User:Gunterkoenigsmann|Gunterkoenigsmann]] ([[User talk:Gunterkoenigsmann|talk]]) 18:24, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Talk:2629: Or Whatever

2022-06-07T17:13:25Z

Gunterkoenigsmann: reference to keyboard mash?

This is me when I don't want to fact-check things I only barely remember reading about once. -V [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.163|172.70.206.163]] 09:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

That with knowing a normal amount about skyscrapers reminds me of typing with one's human hands in #1530 (Keyboard mash)--[[User:Gunterkoenigsmann|Gunterkoenigsmann]] ([[User talk:Gunterkoenigsmann|talk]]) 17:13, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

And once again, no love for ''Ostankino teletower'' built in 1966, which is a building-like structure unlike that bayonet-like CN Tower. *sighs in Muscovite* [[Special:Contributions/172.70.251.112|172.70.251.112]] 10:22, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

The Ostankino tower isn't considered a building. It doesn't have "continuously occupiable floors", so it's a just a tower, same as the CN...except shorter. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.230.75|172.70.230.75]] 11:27, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

But a decade older - doesn't concern the nineties, though. [[User:627235|627235]] ([[User talk:627235|talk]]) 11:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Fun additional trivia! The Willis Tower has over 100 floors, with floor 103 or so having an observation area meant for tourists. There're these glass boxes that extend out the sides you can walk into, with only an inch-and-a-half of disconcertingly-clear material between you and certain death. Source: I've been there, though it has been years. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.126.215|172.70.126.215]] 11:08, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

While colloquially confused, there is a difference between "building" (a structure build for interior/floor space), a "tower" (a free-standing structure whose purpose is to provide height for some application at the top while using little or none of the height for actual floors or at least not seeing them as a priority) and a "mast" (a thin, often lattice work, structure supported by {{w|guy wires}}. Also several measurements of height (especially for buildings) like roof height, structural height, highest floor or pinnacle (total) height including antennas.
The highest buildings during the 90s were: Sears Tower (roof and structural), WTC North Tower (pinnacle/antenna and top floor), Petronas Towers (since 1998, only structural)
The highest other structures were the CN Tower (free-standing tower) and Warsaw Radio mast (collapsed 1991) succeeded by the KVLY mast, both cable supported.
In 2004, the Taipei 101 succeeded the Sears Tower as highest building (floor since 2001, roof) and the Petronas Towers (structural) but not pinnacle height (2000 the antenna was extended to "beat" the WTC, succeeded by Burj Khalifa) [[User:627235|627235]] ([[User talk:627235|talk]]) 11:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Sears Tower antenna/pinnacle height, that is, not Petronas. [[User:627235|627235]] ([[User talk:627235|talk]]) 11:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

2628: Motion Blur

2022-06-05T10:59:44Z

Gunterkoenigsmann: A missing word

{{comic
| number = 2628
| date = June 3, 2022
| title = Motion Blur
| image = motion_blur.png
| titletext = I can't speak for your other subjects, but MY motion was as smooth and natural as the framerate allowed.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a bBboOotTt - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
[[White Hat]] is recording a video while rotating (''panning'') the camera. [[Cueball]] notices that the camera's shutter speed is too fast, which could cause the result to look unnatural or like a sequence of still images instead of like smooth motion when turning the camera. Cueball decides to solve this problem by making himself blurrier than normal, counteracting the problems of the high shutter speed.

The title text refers to the fact that only ''one'' object - in this case, Cueball - appearing blurred while everything else in the frame is sharp would probably look even more unnatural.

This is similar to a trick actually 'used' by {{w|Flash (DC Comics character)#Jay_Garrick|some fictional characters}} who have the power to make themselves unclear to observers or cameras alike. In real-life it is the difference between stop motion and go motion tricks.

When light hits a human's retina, it is perceived for a short while even after the light has ceased. This means that objects moving across a human's field of vision at a sufficient speed will naturally appear blurry – in our perception, the light arriving right now from the trailing part of the object will mix with the light that arrived a moment earlier, from the leading part of the object.

A camera's shutter speed is the amount of time that the shutter is open for each frame, allowing the image sensor to capture light. If the shutter speed is too high (relatively to the framerate), this blurring will not occur, and the motion will look unnaturally crisp – if something is too small and/or too quick, the illusion of motion may disappear altogether; the object instead will appear as a brief flash of multiple objects standing still, like in the case of a fast-moving mouse cursor on a screen{{citation needed}}. In cinema, the shutter speed is generally set to double the framerate, e.g. 1/48 s for footage shot at 24 fps (one of the standard framerates, a remnant from the age of mechanical motion picture cameras and film projectors).

An opposing problem is that of a camera not sufficiently matching the relative motion of a moving object, with a shutter speed that is too slow (and may need to be, given the choice of aperture and lighting conditions). Sports photographers must learn how to scan-and-pan their subjects (runners, horses, vehicles, etc) with enough synchronicity to capture them sharply, and possibly seemingly hanging frozen in mid-air against an artistically-blurred background.

It is unclear how Cueball makes the motion blur include both his feet, as the friction with the ground should hinder them from vibrating horizontally in the manner that may cause for motion blur. Additionallycreating the kind of motion blur he does (with evenly distributed horizontal blur) requires extreme acceleration at both ends of the movement.

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

:[A strip of three panels, featuring White Hat, Cueball and Ponytail. Cueball and Ponytail stand next to each other and White Hat stands to the left of them.]

:[White Hat is facing away from Cueball and Ponytail, and holds a camera.]
:White Hat: Okay, I'm going to pan around.
:Cueball: No, wait, your shutter speed is too fast, it will look choppy if—

:[White Hat turns towards Cueball and Ponytail, now pointing the camera away from the viewer. Cueball clenches his fists and hunches his shoulders.]

:Cueball: ''Hnnnnngh''

:[White Hat is now facing Cueball and Ponytail. Cueball now appears blurry while the others appear similar as to in previous panels.]

:[Caption below panel:]
:Expert photographers can learn to generate their own motion blur to compensate for other people's bad camera settings.
{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]

2628: Motion Blur

2022-06-05T05:07:42Z

Gunterkoenigsmann: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2628
| date = June 3, 2022
| title = Motion Blur
| image = motion_blur.png
| titletext = I can't speak for your other subjects, but MY motion was as smooth and natural as the framerate allowed.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a bBboOotTt - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
[[White Hat]] is recording a video while rotating (''panning'') the camera. [[Cueball]] notices that the camera's shutter speed is too fast, which could cause the result to look unnatural or like a sequence of still images i stead of like smooth motion when turning the camera. Cueball decides to solve this problem by making himself blurrier than normal, counteracting the problems of the high shutter speed.

The title text refers to the fact that only ''one'' object - in this case, Cueball - appearing blurred while everything else in the frame is sharp would probably look even more unnatural.

This is similar to a trick actually 'used' by {{w|Flash (DC Comics character)#Jay_Garrick|some fictional characters}} who have the power to make themselves unclear to observers or cameras alike. In Real-Live it is the difference between stop motion and go motion tricks.

When light hits a human's retina, it is perceived for a short while even after the light has ceased. This means that objects moving across a human's field of vision at a sufficient speed will naturally appear blurry – in our perception, the light arriving right now from the trailing part of the object will mix with the light that arrived a moment earlier, from the leading part of the object.

A camera's shutter speed is the amount of time that the shutter is open for each frame, allowing the image sensor to capture light. If the shutter speed is too high (relatively to the framerate), this blurring will not occur, and the motion will look unnaturally crisp – if something is too small and/or too quick, the illusion of motion may disappear altogether; the object instead will appear as a brief flash of multiple objects standing still, like in the case of a fast-moving mouse cursor on a screen{{citation needed}}. In cinema, the shutter speed is generally set to double the framerate, e.g. 1/48 s for footage shot at 24 fps (one of the standard framerates, a remnant from the age of mechanical motion picture cameras and film projectors).

An opposing problem is that of a camera not sufficiently matching the relative motion of a moving object, with a shutter speed that is too slow (and may need to be, given the choice of aperture and lighting conditions). Sports photographers must learn how to scan-and-pan their subjects (runners, horses, vehicles, etc) with enough synchronicity to capture them sharply, and possibly seemingly hanging frozen in mid-air against an artistically-blurred background.

It is unclear how Cueball makes the motion blur include both his feet as the friction with the ground should hinder them from vibrating horizontally which is the only plausible cause for motion blur. Additionally creating the kind of motion blur he does (with evenly distributed horizontal blur) requires extreme acceleration at both ends of the movement.

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

:[A strip of three panels, featuring White Hat, Cueball and Ponytail. Cueball and Ponytail stand next to each other and White Hat stands to the left of them.]

:[White Hat is facing away from Cueball and Ponytail, and holds a camera.]
:White Hat: Okay, I'm going to pan around.
:Cueball: No, wait, your shutter speed is too fast, it will look choppy if—

:[White Hat turns towards Cueball and Ponytail, now pointing the camera away from the viewer. Cueball clenches his fists and hunches his shoulders.]

:Cueball: ''Hnnnnngh''

:[White Hat is now facing Cueball and Ponytail. Cueball now appears blurry while the others appear similar as to in previous panels.]

:[Caption below panel:]
:Expert photographers can learn to generate their own motion blur to compensate for other people's bad camera settings.
{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]

2628: Motion Blur

2022-06-05T05:05:05Z

Gunterkoenigsmann: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2628
| date = June 3, 2022
| title = Motion Blur
| image = motion_blur.png
| titletext = I can't speak for your other subjects, but MY motion was as smooth and natural as the framerate allowed.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a bBboOotTt - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
[[White Hat]] is recording a video while rotating (''panning'') the camera. [[Cueball]] notices that the camera's shutter speed is too fast, which could cause the result to look unnatural or like a sequence of still images i stead of like smooth motion when turning the camera. Cueball decides to solve this problem by making himself blurrier than normal, counteracting the problems of the high shutter speed.

The title text refers to the fact that only ''one'' object - in this case, Cueball - appearing blurred while everything else in the frame is sharp would probably look even more unnatural.

This is similar to a trick actually 'used' by {{w|Flash (DC Comics character)#Jay_Garrick|some fictional characters}} who have the power to make themselves unclear to observers or cameras alike. In Real-Live it is the difference between stop motion and go motion tricks.

When light hits a human's retina, it is perceived for a short while even after the light has ceased. This means that objects moving across a human's field of vision at a sufficient speed will naturally appear blurry – in our perception, the light arriving right now from the trailing part of the object will mix with the light that arrived a moment earlier, from the leading part of the object.

A camera's shutter speed is the amount of time that the shutter is open for each frame, allowing the image sensor to capture light. If the shutter speed is too high (relatively to the framerate), this blurring will not occur, and the motion will look unnaturally crisp – if something is too small and/or too quick, the illusion of motion may disappear altogether; the object instead will appear as a brief flash of multiple objects standing still, like in the case of a fast-moving mouse cursor on a screen{{citation needed}}. In cinema, the shutter speed is generally set to double the framerate, e.g. 1/48 s for footage shot at 24 fps (one of the standard framerates, a remnant from the age of mechanical motion picture cameras and film projectors).

An opposing problem is that of a camera not sufficiently matching the relative motion of a moving object, with a shutter speed that is too slow (and may need to be, given the choice of aperture and lighting conditions). Sports photographers must learn how to scan-and-pan their subjects (runners, horses, vehicles, etc) with enough synchronicity to capture them sharply, and possibly seemingly hanging frozen in mid-air against an artistically-blurred background.

It is unclear how Cueball makes the motion blur include both his feet as the friction with the ground should hinder them from vibrating horizontally which is the only plausible cause for motion blur.

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

:[A strip of three panels, featuring White Hat, Cueball and Ponytail. Cueball and Ponytail stand next to each other and White Hat stands to the left of them.]

:[White Hat is facing away from Cueball and Ponytail, and holds a camera.]
:White Hat: Okay, I'm going to pan around.
:Cueball: No, wait, your shutter speed is too fast, it will look choppy if—

:[White Hat turns towards Cueball and Ponytail, now pointing the camera away from the viewer. Cueball clenches his fists and hunches his shoulders.]

:Cueball: ''Hnnnnngh''

:[White Hat is now facing Cueball and Ponytail. Cueball now appears blurry while the others appear similar as to in previous panels.]

:[Caption below panel:]
:Expert photographers can learn to generate their own motion blur to compensate for other people's bad camera settings.
{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]

2628: Motion Blur

2022-06-05T05:02:24Z

Gunterkoenigsmann: /* Explanation: Mention go motion */

{{comic
| number = 2628
| date = June 3, 2022
| title = Motion Blur
| image = motion_blur.png
| titletext = I can't speak for your other subjects, but MY motion was as smooth and natural as the framerate allowed.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a bBboOotTt - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
[[White Hat]] is recording a video while rotating (''panning'') the camera. [[Cueball]] notices that the camera's shutter speed is too fast, which could cause the result to look unnatural or like a sequence of still images i stead of like smooth motion when turning the camera. Cueball decides to solve this problem by making himself blurrier than normal, counteracting the problems of the high shutter speed.

The title text refers to the fact that only ''one'' object - in this case, Cueball - appearing blurred while everything else in the frame is sharp would probably look even more unnatural.

This is similar to a trick actually 'used' by {{w|Flash (DC Comics character)#Jay_Garrick|some fictional characters}} who have the power to make themselves unclear to observers or cameras alike. In Real-Live it is the difference between stop motion and go motion tricks.

When light hits a human's retina, it is perceived for a short while even after the light has ceased. This means that objects moving across a human's field of vision at a sufficient speed will naturally appear blurry – in our perception, the light arriving right now from the trailing part of the object will mix with the light that arrived a moment earlier, from the leading part of the object.

A camera's shutter speed is the amount of time that the shutter is open for each frame, allowing the image sensor to capture light. If the shutter speed is too high (relatively to the framerate), this blurring will not occur, and the motion will look unnaturally crisp – if something is too small and/or too quick, the illusion of motion may disappear altogether; the object instead will appear as a brief flash of multiple objects standing still, like in the case of a fast-moving mouse cursor on a screen{{citation needed}}. In cinema, the shutter speed is generally set to double the framerate, e.g. 1/48 s for footage shot at 24 fps (one of the standard framerates, a remnant from the age of mechanical motion picture cameras and film projectors).

An opposing problem is that of a camera not sufficiently matching the relative motion of a moving object, with a shutter speed that is too slow (and may need to be, given the choice of aperture and lighting conditions). Sports photographers must learn how to scan-and-pan their subjects (runners, horses, vehicles, etc) with enough synchronicity to capture them sharply, and possibly seemingly hanging frozen in mid-air against an artistically-blurred background.

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

:[A strip of three panels, featuring White Hat, Cueball and Ponytail. Cueball and Ponytail stand next to each other and White Hat stands to the left of them.]

:[White Hat is facing away from Cueball and Ponytail, and holds a camera.]
:White Hat: Okay, I'm going to pan around.
:Cueball: No, wait, your shutter speed is too fast, it will look choppy if—

:[White Hat turns towards Cueball and Ponytail, now pointing the camera away from the viewer. Cueball clenches his fists and hunches his shoulders.]

:Cueball: ''Hnnnnngh''

:[White Hat is now facing Cueball and Ponytail. Cueball now appears blurry while the others appear similar as to in previous panels.]

:[Caption below panel:]
:Expert photographers can learn to generate their own motion blur to compensate for other people's bad camera settings.
{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]

2628: Motion Blur

2022-06-05T05:01:07Z

Gunterkoenigsmann: /* Explanation: Too sharp is only part of the problem */

{{comic
| number = 2628
| date = June 3, 2022
| title = Motion Blur
| image = motion_blur.png
| titletext = I can't speak for your other subjects, but MY motion was as smooth and natural as the framerate allowed.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a bBboOotTt - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
[[White Hat]] is recording a video while rotating (''panning'') the camera. [[Cueball]] notices that the camera's shutter speed is too fast, which could cause the result to look unnatural or like a sequence of still images i stead of like smooth motion when turning the camera. Cueball decides to solve this problem by making himself blurrier than normal, counteracting the problems of the high shutter speed.

The title text refers to the fact that only ''one'' object - in this case, Cueball - appearing blurred while everything else in the frame is sharp would probably look even more unnatural.

This is similar to a trick actually 'used' by {{w|Flash (DC Comics character)#Jay_Garrick|some fictional characters}} who have the power to make themselves unclear to observers or cameras alike.

When light hits a human's retina, it is perceived for a short while even after the light has ceased. This means that objects moving across a human's field of vision at a sufficient speed will naturally appear blurry – in our perception, the light arriving right now from the trailing part of the object will mix with the light that arrived a moment earlier, from the leading part of the object.

A camera's shutter speed is the amount of time that the shutter is open for each frame, allowing the image sensor to capture light. If the shutter speed is too high (relatively to the framerate), this blurring will not occur, and the motion will look unnaturally crisp – if something is too small and/or too quick, the illusion of motion may disappear altogether; the object instead will appear as a brief flash of multiple objects standing still, like in the case of a fast-moving mouse cursor on a screen{{citation needed}}. In cinema, the shutter speed is generally set to double the framerate, e.g. 1/48 s for footage shot at 24 fps (one of the standard framerates, a remnant from the age of mechanical motion picture cameras and film projectors).

An opposing problem is that of a camera not sufficiently matching the relative motion of a moving object, with a shutter speed that is too slow (and may need to be, given the choice of aperture and lighting conditions). Sports photographers must learn how to scan-and-pan their subjects (runners, horses, vehicles, etc) with enough synchronicity to capture them sharply, and possibly seemingly hanging frozen in mid-air against an artistically-blurred background.

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

:[A strip of three panels, featuring White Hat, Cueball and Ponytail. Cueball and Ponytail stand next to each other and White Hat stands to the left of them.]

:[White Hat is facing away from Cueball and Ponytail, and holds a camera.]
:White Hat: Okay, I'm going to pan around.
:Cueball: No, wait, your shutter speed is too fast, it will look choppy if—

:[White Hat turns towards Cueball and Ponytail, now pointing the camera away from the viewer. Cueball clenches his fists and hunches his shoulders.]

:Cueball: ''Hnnnnngh''

:[White Hat is now facing Cueball and Ponytail. Cueball now appears blurry while the others appear similar as to in previous panels.]

:[Caption below panel:]
:Expert photographers can learn to generate their own motion blur to compensate for other people's bad camera settings.
{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]

2626: d65536

2022-05-31T04:54:06Z

Gunterkoenigsmann: /* Explanation: Cryptography normally isn't broken and which side is up? */

{{comic
| number = 2626
| date = May 30, 2022
| title = d65536
| image = d65536.png
| titletext = They're robust against quantum attacks because it's hard to make a quantum system that large.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a HEXAKISMYRIAPENTAKISCHILIAPENTAHECTATRIACONTAKAIHEXAHEDRON - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
In binary computing, 16 bit numbers range from 0 to 65535 (or 1 to 65536). Generating large numbers randomly is a recurring problem in cryptography.

In board games and other tabletop games, dice are referred to as d[number] according to their number of sides. A traditional six-sided die would be a d6. Dice larger than a d20 are rare specialty dice, and are often nicknamed "golf balls" to emphasize how unwieldy they are.

Here, Cueball has somehow constructed a d65536 for generating random 16 bit numbers. It has solved the problem of being secure from a cryptography standpoint, but presents a new set of challenges from its sheer size, dwarfing an average human. While large in itself, a die that big could still be emulated by rolling multiple dice (e.g. 8 4-sided dice or 16 coin flips) and converting the result into binary before getting the desired number. Part of the humor stems from the the comic completely failing to mention another big problem with this dice: Deciding which of the 65536 sides is up.

The closest regular shape similar to the depicted in the comic could be a {{w|Goldberg polyhedron}}. However no such polyhedron exists with exactly 65536 hexagonal faces. The closest Goldberg Polyhedron has a mixture of 65520 hexagons and 12 pentagons, totaling 65532 sides.

The title text references how many cryptographic systems (especially RSA and other factoring-is-hard based systems) are hypothetically vulnerable to quantum attacks if we could build quantum computers large and coherent enough to actually compute on more than a few qubits. The title text is essentially punning on the idea of a "large" quantum system. "Large" in the quantum computing sense would be on the order of 64 qubits each of which would be an atom or two at most. This would still be microscopic and will never be as large as the giant die the comic is centered on. It also is a example of the concept that cryptography normally isn't broken [538], but one somehow finds a way around it, like in this place not breaking the cryptographic algorithm or the code, but instead trying to find out what numbers the RNG produces.

==Trivia==
If a real d65536 where constructed with each number having an equal area and each printed in 12 point font, the resulting die would be about 5 feet (1.5 meters) in diameter.

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

[Drawing of a large die with many sides, about ten meters in diameter; Cueball is standing next to it as a size reference. A small portion of the die's surface is zoomed in, showing hexagonal faces with five-digit numbers.]

[Text below the drawing:]
The hardest part of securely generating random 16-bit numbers is rolling the d65536.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Cryptography]]

Talk:2625: Field Topology

2022-05-29T16:19:19Z

Gunterkoenigsmann:

First [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.64|172.70.86.64]] 12:50, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

To me the topological fields look like toilet seats with three more or less seashells. --[[User:Gunterkoenigsmann|Gunterkoenigsmann]] ([[User talk:Gunterkoenigsmann|talk]]) 16:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Why is football on the two-hole field? Where are the holes? I don't think the goal posts in American football introduce any since they're not closed. Maybe it's soccer? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.68.88|172.69.68.88]] 12:58, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

: I think it is because the goal posts extend into infinity and the topological definition of a hole: something you can draw a circle around that you cannot contract to a point. [the user placed a horizontal rule instead of a signature by accident.]

:Well, you might still be able to call them holes. They would be if they were fully rectangles. --[[User:BlackBeret|BlackBeret]] ([[User talk:BlackBeret|talk]]) 12:59, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

: Gridiron football's field contains two areas (the endzones) that can be thought of as not being part of the "normal" field of play, for lack of a better way of saying that pre-coffee. Association football likewise has the areas within the nets. [[User:Noëlle|Noëlle]] ([[User talk:Noëlle|talk]]) 13:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

: My immediate thoughts were also that football (soccer) and football (gridiron) are the same, or indeed the other way round. In both cases the closed hole (assuming not a Y-like vertical holder, but H-like as per rugby football) plays no more or less topological part. Threading through the hole from behind has no relevence in either, and in fact defining it as a region that is 'a special enclosed gap with meaning' (which doesn't really matter in the topology sense, just like golf would be a topologically hole-less surface and as a coffee-cup's inside 'dimple' doesn't count, just its handle-hole that makes it equivalent to a doughnut) actually counts for something in association football. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.155|172.70.162.155]] 13:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

:: It's not the space bounded by the goal that is the 'hole' - it's the goal post itself (or in the case of the high jump, it's the bar, not the space under it). The reason soccer doesn't have 'holes' where the goals are is that they're positioned on the edge of the playable area - you can't play around the bars, because as soon as you cross the goal line you're out of play. And it doesn't matter whether it's a Y-shaped or H-shaped goal - topologically, they both form one continuous 'hole'. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.80|172.70.91.80]] 13:37, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

::: I don't think that's the reason why soccer doesn't have holes. The goalposts in football are also outside the playable area, and so are the poles in volleyball. I think soccer is listed as zero-holes because soccer goals are typically not fixed to the field, and are instead separate objects that can be dragged around and removed from the field. On the other hand, the same is true of volleyball and badminton nets (and those nets contain many holes!) so the comic seems a bit inconsistent.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.175.146|172.70.175.146]] 14:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

:::: Speaking from a "football is soccer" nation (well, mostly, the exceptional subregions would argue that it's rugby) a soccer goal is typically ''not'' draggable around the field, but permanent (or a unit frame that has to be painstakingly hoisted out of the ground if you ''don't'' want them in your football stadium, when you repurpose it for other purposes) and it's only the optional net that gets added to the park's permanent goalposts for the official five-aside competition evening or day of the weekend. Draggable goalposts need a further level of intermediate organisation that goes beyond the typical "shipping container with windows cut in it (with shutters bolted over them) as a cheap changing room/officials' cabin" that might be found near the edge of the field but rarely even has as much as a corner flag left in them, between games".
:::: I presume that US 'football' posts are considered holes because they are an infinitely-tall window (even though the delineating poles only reach so high) that is a meaningful slice (where the goal is, you have to loop around it in mutually different unsimplifiable paths to reach the other side), but then that should make for ''two'' holes per end, if you count getting a field-goal and then returning round the sides (or vice-versa) as another valid surface-path.
:::: ...but, yeah, I can imagine the problem of definition (and cultural famiarity) here is going to produce more problems even than the understanding of topology. One of the less internationally-accepted comics, this. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.177|172.70.85.177]] 18:51, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
: O_O . Randall is united-statesian, so football means the thing where you tackle each other and hold the ball in your hands. I've never been into football, and I've always seen it with two large goal posts with a horizontal bar between them. The hole is formed under the horizontal bar. When I played football in computer games, you had to get the ball over the horizontal bar. After this, I'll search the web to see if the horizontal bar still exists. Regarding soccer, there aren't two holes because the nets are closed at the back. You cannot pass through the field structure by going through a goal: you bump into the net the ball bounces off of when a goal is made. So, Randall is considering soccer fields topologically equivalent to a plane (ignoring all the holes in the netting). [[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.229|172.70.114.229]] 14:58, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
: I looked up the goal thing and found that what I was imagining are called H-frame or H-style goal posts. Not the norm; the have two posts instead of one. I'm a weirdo that I thought they were what was up. But Randall could have been thinking of H-frame goals. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.230.63|172.70.230.63]] 15:04, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
::Many high school and amateur football fields still use H-frame goals. The resulting space can be used as a goal in some other sports. That does raise the question of why they didn't just have one field with lots of holes, and just plug the ones up that aren't needed for the sport being played. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.134.191|172.70.134.191]] 15:57, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Tetherball, in many variants, does contain an obstruction -- the pole, which you're not allowed to touch. The Topology Department is getting tired of having to switch out the fields. [[User:Noëlle|Noëlle]] ([[User talk:Noëlle|talk]]) 13:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
:But you can surely jump over it, so it's topologically the same as a zero-height pole... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.155|172.70.162.155]] 13:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
:Tetherball does not have a *hole*. The pole, rope, and ball are just a stretched out bit of the continuous surface.

Croquet has six hoops and a peg. How does that make for nine holes? Is it including the opponents' two balls as holes? And if so, why aren't opposing players counted as holes in the other sports? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.80|172.70.91.80]] 13:26, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croquet#Nine-wicket] 'Nine-wicket croquet, sometimes called "backyard croquet", is played mainly in Canada and the United States, and is the game most recreational players in those countries call simply "croquet".' (Wikipedia) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.126.215|172.70.126.215]] 18:58, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

American football goals are Y-shaped. Rugby goals are H-shaped. Did... did Randall get those confused? Also, I fail to see how basketball and American football get two, croquet gets a bunch, but soccer gets zero. Aren't soccer goals (in-game at least) basically the same shape as croquet wickets, just waaaay bigger? Granted, I don't know anything about topology and I came to this wiki specifically cuz I'm dumb, so I'd love if someone could splain this all for me ;) --mezimm [[Special:Contributions/172.69.69.170|172.69.69.170]] 13:37, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
:The soccer goal has a net, so the ball can't go through it. Topologically it's just a wall (Randall seems to be ignoring all the tiny holes in netting, presumaby because they're smaller than the balls so they're insignificant to the sports). [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 14:10, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
::I agree with that explanation - the net is the only thing that makes the soccer field not to have holes. It should be included in the comic explanation.
::The hole for the volleyball only makes sense taking in account that the bottom of the net doesn't reach the floor, although this space is not used in the game.--[[User:Pere prlpz|Pere prlpz]] ([[User talk:Pere prlpz|talk]]) 14:18, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
::I agree about soccer; the explanation should be that soccer goals (with net) are topologically part of the plane. The same is true of ice hockey, even though you can travel "around" the net, it is topologically part of the field with no holes. As for (American) football, the topology only makes sense for H-shaped goals, which are more often seen on primary/secondary play fields than in higher level play. [[User:Aramisuvla|Aramisuvla]] ([[User talk:Aramisuvla|talk]]) 16:03, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
::Agreed. Soccer goals are shaped such that their bottoms connect smoothly to the ground in a single continuous piece. So they are topologically equivalent to the plane. This wouldn't be the case if not for the back part holding the net. That's unlike basketball hoops, which are actual holes. The holes in football must be referring to the H-shaped uprights that were standard until 1967 in professional leagues and are still seen in some high school fields and even a couple college fields. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.131.128|172.70.131.128]] 03:08, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
::EDIT: I should point out that the net actually has, like, hundreds of holes. But I think the net here is being treated as a continuous sheet. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.126.215|172.70.126.215]] 03:10, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
:::I mentioned all the little holes in the net in my comment that you're replying to. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 16:43, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

The group link pointing to group (mathematics) doesn't bear any relation with the sentence or the comic. I would remove the link.--[[User:Pere prlpz|Pere prlpz]] ([[User talk:Pere prlpz|talk]]) 14:18, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
: The joke seems important to me because their no consideration of the word 'field' being a math pun, and it raises the idea in readers. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.74|162.158.79.74]] 15:11, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
:When I first saw the comic title I assumed that part of the joke would be a pun on the word "field" being used for both sports and math. And even though the comic doesn't explicitly make this joke, I'll bet it inspired Randall. It's worth mentioning. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 16:43, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

In rugby (both League and Union) the goalposts are within the field of play: significant game activity takes place behind them. This is not the case with soccer. I have no clue what difference this makes topologically.{{unsigned ip|}}

I've been thinking about this classification system, and can't quite work out the baseline for it. I think we're supposed to assume that the whole 3d manifold is represented in a 2d 'field', or at least any path through the air flattened to an arbitrarily thin surface 'bulge' during topological rationalisation. But there are several possible field-of-play definitions we can be using...
* A single valid 'play' or traversal
** For ball-sports (or indeed other play-objects) this could be where the item can travel. But in this case I think almost 'all' codes of football are Type 1 (first of the topologies) as almost every football code deals with both 'goal' and 'endzone' (where valid) as the same as a hole (dimple) in golf... It goes into it and it might as well come out of it again, there's no continuation of play 'through the defined' space, and so the topological hole (the barrier defined the scoring membrane's edge) never comes into play. Unlike in Gridiron, where a touchdown doesn't even need the 'ball' to touch the ground, rugby (league and/or union, and possibly further derivatives) requires this and a player can fail to score a Try if (s)he passes bodily over the line but is unable to plant the ball (not allowed to throw/drop it) and I'd have to check what happens if the defending player(s) keeping them sufficiently off the ground (assuming that's done in an allowable fashion) returns the intended scorer back over the line via a circuitous route around /back-through the suspended goal-mouth (above the cross-bar, between the verticals)... They keep changing those kinds of technical rules, so I can't be sure of the current technicalities involved. Likewise, a volleyball or shuttlecock that passes under the net-top-edge is out of play, so it is really a Type 1 under this definition. (Might as well be a solid barrier, floor-to-top-height, rather than a thin bar or a partial net.) The basketball case is interesting. Although a dunk ends the play of the ball, I'm not sure if the path of a ball ''up'' through the hoop does not. In that circumstance I could believe it is a Type 3 case, but if that's a game-stopping thing then Type 1. Croquet is indeed a varying number of paths through (I ''think'') an unordered set of holes, or at least nothing to say that they can be taken out of order (or 'un-passed-through'), and you can't necessarily restrict a 'play' to one shot at a time if certain conditions allow you to play on, so dodging in and around all scoring zones defined by the hoops gives you something like.
** For player/competitor/participant movement, similarly passing under the bar is not valid for the High Jump. I don't think there's anything to stop such transitions upon the Parallel Bars, but it is much more a feature of the ''Uneven'' Parallel Bars, whereas from what I've seen of the sport, the even-variety tends to be topologically used much as the pommel-horse. Players of football (American variations certainly, rugby of course, proper football if you don't bother with the nets) are not restricted from passing through the scoring area (either way) on a circuitous path that may be off the field of play but isn't off the field ''of players''. For the Olympic Swimming, I'm not suring porpoising over and under the lane-delineations is a thing, so I would have said that (under this definition), it should be a number of entirely disconnected Type 1 'zones', with no valid movement between them at all. So far as I'm aware, there are no rules for/against croquet ''players'' passing through hoops (intentionally or perhaps because they severely annoyed an opponent) so maybe that stands in this case, too. Ditto for basketball, if hoisted. Although in both cases it may prevent the balls passing through immediately afterwards, without game-stoppage to resolve the issue.
* If it's a game's-worth of play, then the status of the basket in basketball (unlike the pocket in snooker/pool/some-versions-of-billards) might be defined by the topological-hole-that-is-the-physical-hole's-edge, rather than treat it as the old basket-with-bottom from which the precusor to the net-ring almost immediately evolved. And the same could be said about the suspended scoring-hole (whether supported as Y-post or an H-post, the lower limb(s) are merely physical necessities that play little part in the gameplay specifics except as a general hazard to avoid, it is the crossbar and verticals-to-infinity (and the infinity itself) that is the gap through which a circular path cannot be rationalised back to a point). For most of the rest (including the participant-paths, with there being nothing to stop the traversal of a footballer of whatever stripe jumping the cross-bar, but that may only mean something in the topology of some variations, as far as the game is concerned...) it seems meaningless. Even in an Aussie Rules field with four 'posts' per end, and probably more interest in whether jumping onto an opposing player is against the rules or indeed an entirely legitimate and expected tactic.
* The general arena-wide area is a further superset (perhaps with no additional complications, i.e. exactly congruent) of the field-of-play(er) definition. For coin-operated table-top games (foosball/table-football) the path from each goal may (additionally to any on-top topological loop-disconnections) force passage of the ball underneath and out into the new-play insertion spot. So add a couple more (unidirectional) paths, at least. Or six for a coin-operated pool/etc table, and I assume the Skeeball (not something I'm familar with, at least by that name) is defined that way already...
Sorry, I found I needed to say a lot more than I thought I did, so the first point (and sub-points) went on a bit and I cut down what I might have said for the following points. I may come back to re-edit this. I've got a handy little table, in mind, but I'm not sure it'll work much better to summarise everything I've been cogitating about for most of today while away from the keyboard... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.5|172.70.162.5]] 15:57, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
:The "hole" in the goalpost in American football is relevant for field goals, not touchdowns. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 16:43, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
::I'm not sure it's relevent for either. The field-goal passes over the crossbar and between (but also maybe above) the raised verticles, but that route is topologically the same as one above the crossbar but wide, which is in turn the same as one rolling along the ground and wide... Or indeed carried across just like most touchdowns (any that isn't run through the middle of the H-post', un-netted but otherwise soccer-like 'goalmouth' lower section).
::Possibly running around the post(s) that support the field-goal defining beams counts as the path around the topological hole because any change to that route that attempts to transform it to a useless loop within the main field of play must either (at some point) pass through the support for the crossbar or else wholly through the region that defines (in one direction, at least) the goal-scoring area. Can anyone get Word Of God in his intentions, here? It looks weird, to me. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.77|172.70.162.77]] 03:48, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

As has been alluded to, this must be an American university's topology department. A rest-of-the-world university would include four holes for cricket. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.134.191|172.70.134.191]] 17:48, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Ok, this is my (not yet properly tabularised, or properly wikimedialinked) idea of all the kinds of information I'd suggest go in there. But it's a monstrocity and I don't want to remove the very useful existing information already in the Explanation (that may even be better/more accurate than my interpretation). ...so here it is for review. If anything in it is useful to anybody else as inspiration for future edits then... well, your choice!
*Click to expand:
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed leftAlign" style="width:100%">
Competition
|-
Field diagram
|-
Usage description
|-
Topology
|-

'''Type 1 Field'''
|-
(First image in comic.)
|-
Any path looping around this area can be moved at will and shrunk to just one point that could result from any other path.
|-
A homogonously flat lozange surface with no other notable features.

'''Baseball'''
|-
(Partial!) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseball#/media/File:Baseball_diamond.svg
|-
The playing area for baseball contains many important physical features for scoring and playing purposes, but is essentially one flat area (and continuous airspace) when you disregard the elevation of the pitcher's mound or even the outfield fence and stands (for any ball that carries that far, upon being hit).
|-
Randall explicitly classes this in the Type 1 diagram, and there isn't any obvious reason to argue this point.

Association Football ("'''Soccer''''"/"Football")
|-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Football_pitch_metric_and_imperial.svg
|-
An unobstruted rectangular playing area with a goal formed of two vertical posts connected between the tops by a crossbar. In official competition (and where otherwise desired) there is a net stretched behind each goalmouth to stop any ball that passes completely through it (with or without hitting any of the posts), although games can be played with no net in place, or in street/schoolyard situations by goals defined only as a goalpost-like markings painted upon a solid wall (hitting the wall within the bounds of the painted line constitutes a goal, give or take arguments about whether it counts if it hit the line).
|-
Stated by Randall as a Type 1 (a single unobstructed zone), which is likely due to the 'pocket' of the net-backed goalmouth being nothing more than a straight extension of the playing area.
However, an un-netted set of goalposts might be considered a Type 3, with each set of goalposts defining an impassible frame (the hole in the topology, ''not'' the same thing as the physical hole formed by the goal-frame) within which the balls can freely pass and return ''not'' through the goalmouth, or vice-versa.

'''Tetherball'''
|-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tetherball_in_Georgetown,_Seattle,_Washington.jpg
|-
A ball attached to a cord anchored at the tip of a pole that is in turn stuck in the ground.
|-
Although the mechanism used to allow free swivelling of the tether around the pole may be quite complex (including being looped around a helical thread to help register how many excess orbits of the pole the ball has made in either direction), the basic premise can be simplified to a single extrusion from the playing area, which is topologically identical to a playing area with no extrusion at all. Thus Randall properly states this as a Type 1 variant.

'''Type 2 Field'''
|-
(Second image in comic.)
|-
Any path that canot be shrunk to just one point will be pass around the unpassable hole in the topology.
|-
A homogonously flat lozange surface with a single central hole in it.

'''Volleyball'''
|-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volleyball#/media/File:VolleyballCourt.svg
|-
A volleyball court consists of a flat area disected by a raised net in the centre. Valid shots pass over the net, but it is possible for the ball (or players) to pass between the net and the floor.
|-
Randall lists this under the Type 2 diagram. An argument can be made that the net could effectively reach to the ground, or questions asked about anchoring the net top/bottom to the posts at either side with separate straps (adding left and right 'passages' between the elements of the obstacle that is the net) but he clearly intends the loop around the hole to represent the ability to passing over the net one way and under the net the other (or vice-versa) as a topologically irreducible loop.

'''Badminton'''
|-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Badminton_court_3d.svg
(Note that this diagram completely abstracts the under-net area away.)
|-
The net setup is very similar to volleyball, i.e. raised above the ground, with very similar rules regarding valid shots between the areas on each side.
|-
As with Volleyball, Randall feels justified in this being classed as a Class 2, having similar reasons for this as well as possible arguments against.
(Note that another form of {{w|Badminton Horse Trials|Badminton}} is arguably far more topologically complex!)

'''High Jump'''
|-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1912_Platt_Adams5.JPG
|-
A bar supported at height between two supports. The idea is to successfully pass over the bar (without knocking it off, the bar being only supported to the supports, not firmly attached to them), although a competitor who decides to abort their attempt mid-run might well choose to pass underneath to default the attempt with the least physical and organisational aftermath.
|-
With an 'above' and 'below' path to potentially loop around (though not in a single jump), Randall chooses to ascribe this as a Type 2. If a competitor displaces the bar, during a failed jump, it can morph the topology into a Type 1 scenario

'''Type 3 Field'''
|-
(Third image in comic.)
|-
Any path that canot be shrunk to just one point will pass around one ot other ''or both'' of the holes in the topology.
|-
A homogonously flat lozange surface with two holes in it, towards each end.

'''Basketball'''
|-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Basketball_terms.png
|-
Played upon a court, at each end of which is a tall pole (or supporting wall or other structure) from which a 'basket' is projected over the playing area. The earliest baskets were an actual closed-bottom basket, but this required climbing up to retrieve balls successfully landed within them. By removing the bottoms of the baskets and, later, using just a hoop (with or without a bottomless net). Points are scored by sending the ball through the basket-loop ''from above'', to be retrieved for further play as it exits below.
|-
Topologically, the edge of each loop is directly connected to the ground, so it can be smplified as a two-hole Type 3 field (the hole in the field is the impassible rim in the basket-loop). This does not preserve the orientation (or intended unidirectional nature) of the basketball-shot, but this is Topology's fault, not Randall's!

American/Canadian Football ("Gridiron"/"'''Football'''")
|-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_football_field#/media/File:AmFBfield.svg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Canadian_football_field.png
|-
A unobstructed rectangular playing area and two 'Endzones' at each end. Goalposts are either of an "H" shape or essentially a "Y" (crossbar, upper verticals and a single utilitarian post, usually set back beyond normal playing area with an extension over to hold the crossbar directly over the goal-line. The verticals are tall but are also conceptually projected upwards without limit, for scoring purposes, should a field-goal/etc be kicked high enough to exceed the structures.
|-
Stated by Randall as a Type 3 (a topological hole at each end of the field), which ''may'' represent the bound surrounding the elevated goal-scoring area. Alternately it represents the physical structure of the H-shaped posts which rationalise down to the open-backed ground-touching goalpost footings and the crossbar.

'''Parallel Bars''' or perhaps ''Uneven'' Parallel Bars
|-
PB: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AlejandroonParallelBars.jpg
UPB: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Paksaltoliukin.jpg
|-
The Parallel Bars are two horizontal bars supported at roughly hand-height, upon which a gymnast will perform various hand-supported feats strength and coordination. The participant will not usually fully use the space beneath either bar (and between the two supports for the bar), but a will needs the opportunity to grip fully around the bar, especially when the other hand is released for a complicated body movement and it would be impractical or a different discipline entirely to used a 'filled' bar-support.

The Uneven Parallel Bars are two similarly supported bars but at two different (and greater) heights, with the performance being generally that of keeping the grip of both hands (or knees/etc) on either one or other of the bars whilst rotating around its axis, when not actively transfering across between the bars themselves.
|-
Effectively two loops (as per basketball hoops but in a different orientation and scale). The Type 3 topology suggested by Randall is more meaningful for the use of Uneven Parallel Bars, but is probably applicable to the 'even' version in its own way.

'''Type 4 Field'''
|-
(Fourth image in comic.)
|-
Any path that canot be shrunk to just one point will pass around at least one (and possibly several) of the nine holes in this topology.
|-
A homogonously flat lozange surface with nine small holes dotted into it.

'''Olympic Swimming'''
|-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Swimming_pool_50m_2008.svg
|-
In competitive swimming, a swimming pool is often delineated into lanes (for Olympic purposes, Lane 0 to Lane 9, though usually not all will be used) by floating barriers and other markings. These provide a limited amount of wave-reduction but mostly keep competitors from inadvertently drifting across or into each others' paths.
|-
Randall considers this setup to require nine 'holes' in the competition area, presumably where the floats pass along the surface of the water, to make a Type 4 field of competition. He must then consider it perfectly possible for competitors to pass under ''or over'' these barriers, at will, with complete disregard for the usual competition (and risking disqualification). Otherwise, it might be best considered as (up to) ten ''separate'' Type 1 arenas, with just one swimmer in each.

'''Croquet'''
|-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Modern_croquet_equipment.JPG
|-
A game in which a number of metal hoops are placed in the ground such that a given number of players (or teams of players) must each propel their own ball(s), and possibly those of their opponents, through each loop either directly with their own mallet or through contact between balls.
Many variations exist with differing numbers of hoops and variations of rules and winning conditions. Randall appears to favour the "Nine-wicket Croquet" popular to North America.
|-
The topological simplification of nine hoops across a flat surface can be thought of as the Type 4 topology displayed.

Table Football ("'''Foosball'''"/"Table Soccer") - as per title-text
|-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Foosball_garlando_aerial.jpg
|-
An enclosed playing surface with (typically) eight rotatable and extendable bars supporting representative (soccer) 'footballer' figures, ready to strike a small ball across the surface, as might be desired by the two or more opposing players who are each able to control the movements of half of the 'bars' (each team's-worth having a goalkeeper, defence, midfield and attacking 'layer'). By skill and/or luck, the aim is to propel the ball into the opposing's player's goal.
On coin-operated games, often the playing area is usually sealed off from direct manual interference, and a ball that goes into the goalmouth finds itself in a lower chamber that stores the ball(s) and deposits them via some feed to carry the ball back up and 'thrown in' towards the centre of the table to start the next attempt at goal.
|-
With eight bars across, and potentially two goalmouth sinks, this may not actually add up to a nine-hole Type 4 field of play. But presumably Randall is thinking of a version that does.

'''Skee-Ball'''
|-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Skee_Ball.JPG
|-
An arcade game in which a ball is propelled by the player to land in (according to skill) one of various holes in a target-ridden surface (to return back to the player for another go).
|-
It would depend upon the exact confuguration of Skee-Ball machine but, again, Randall seems to think this matches the Type 4 topology.

Further (football) examples, unmentioned

Australian Rules Football ('Aussie Rules'
|-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Footygroundfix.svg
|-
An unobstructed oval field with four simple vertical posts upon the perimiter arcs at each end.
The ball passing between the (taller) central pair of each end's posts (projected upwards indefinitely) is a Goal. Passing between the outer posts and the adjacent central one (or bouncing off these) is a Behind.
|-
Type 1 if the protruding poles are rationalised to zero, without respect to scoring zones. Four ''or perhaps six'' topological holes (two or three per end) if respecting the imaginary projections indefinitely upwards for scoring purposes, depending upon if you care about chirality of the ball path.

Gaelic football ('Gaelic') - fields also used for Hurling
|-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaelic_football#/media/File:Gaelic_football_pitch_diagram.svg
|-
An unobstructed rectangular field with an H-shaped set of goalposts at each end, the area below the crossbar often being netted, while the upper verticals being nominally considered as projecting upwards without limit.
Valid balls sent over the crossbar and between the verticals are awarded Points; those sent into the netted goalmouth are Goals (equivalent to three Points for scoring purposes).
There is no in-play use of the area behind the line of the goalposts, unlike various other football codes with similar-looking posts.
|- Topologically, probably considered a Type 1. Goal-shots are into a 'pocket' extension (if nets are used), and Point-shots are topologically indistinguishable from passing over any other part of the boundary line.

Rugby League/Union ('Rugby'/'Rugby Football'/'Football')
|-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rugby_union#/media/File:RugbyPitchMetricDetailed.svg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rugby_league_playing_field#/media/File:NRL_Rugby_League_field.svg
|-
An unobstructed rectangular playing area and two 'In Goal' areas continuing on behind the 'Try Line' upon which the H-shaped goalposts sit.
The field of play extends into this area, the lower parts of the vertical posts play no purpose other than to hold the upper elements in the air. A 'Try' (roughly equivalent to a Touchdown) can be scored by placing the ball somewhere over the line or by touching the base of the (often padded) posts.
The cross-bar and the verticals upwards of it (towards and bounded at infinity) count as the hard boundary of a scoring area for "conversions" (taken immediately after a try) and other kicks (penalties and drop-goals).
|-
Might be treated as Type 3 (two holes), unless concerned about whether balls kicked through the goals or taking across the try line weave back one or other side of, or between, the lower vertical posts.
Alternately, is a Type 3 for the lower (not more special for scoring than any adjacent lower area) frames, while the open tops (meaningful for scoring purposes) rationalise as topologically irrelevent.
</div>
(TL;DR; - It's too long, you may not want to read it...) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.213|162.158.34.213]] 21:47, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

The extended discussion in the explanation about the issues with "two-holes for football" goes away if the goals are the H-shaped kind rather then the Y-shaped kind. Since the comic specifically states that these fields belong to the Topology Department - and are NOT generalized across all sports fields - then we can use the "two hole" information to deduce that the department's fields have the H-shaped kind...which solves 100% of the confusion and eliminates the long (and excessively intricate) digression about other weird forms of "football" with different topologies. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 13:23, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- agree [[User:Boatster|Boatster]] ([[User talk:Boatster|talk]]) 15:52, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

2604: Frankenstein Captcha

2022-04-09T11:28:23Z

Gunterkoenigsmann: /* Explanation: Is this reverse nerd snipping?*/

{{comic
| number = 2604
| date = April 8, 2022
| title = Frankenstein Captcha
| image = frankenstein_captcha.png
| titletext = The distinction between a ship and a boat is a line drawn in water.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by Rated Argh -Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic strip is a play on the meanings (and misunderstanding) of the name "Frankenstein". ''{{w|Frankenstein; or, the Modern Prometheus}}'' is an 1818 novel by Mary Shelley about a medical student named Victor Frankenstein who creates an artificial life-form. The man he creates once describes himself as "the Adam of your [Frankenstein's] labour" in the book, and strictly speaking is properly known as "Frankenstein's ''monster''" (or perhaps "creation" or "son"), but is often erroneously called "Frankenstein" himself.

The Captcha shown in the comic instructs the user to select all tiles containing Frankenstein. The tiles include both a reanimated corpse resembling Frankenstein's monster and a scientist yelling, "It's alive!” who is clearly intended to be Victor Frankenstein. The problem arises from the contrast between various definitions of the term Frankenstein. Going just off the book's text, the monster has no name, so the correct answer to the Captcha is just the left square of the third row. However, modern people often call the monster Frankenstein out of mistake or indifference, and some even argue that the monster should inherit its creator's surname. And in comic [[1589]], Randall created a version of the story where Frankenstein was the monster's name, and the doctor was unnamed. Also, if the images in the squares are scenes from the famous {{w|Frankenstein (1931 film)|1931 film}} starring {{w|Boris Karloff}} as The Monster, then they could be correctly said to be "containing ''Frankenstein''”—that is, the work. Because of the ambiguity regarding what Frankenstein refers to, this would not be a good CAPTCHA because many people solving it would use an incorrect definition of Frankenstein and therefore get it wrong. (However, it would be effective in screening for people who know that Frankenstein technically refers to the scientist, not the monster—or, if one also had to mark the boxes depicted Frankenstein's monster, screening for people who don't know. Alternatively this captcha would allow to forward nerds to a different [perhaps more advanced] site than ordinary people.)

This comic strip could also reference [[1897]], which would imply that someone had actually created a Frankenstein's monster which needs to be located.

Many of the other tiles appear to be pictures of entities that inspire similar pedantry. For example, there is a picture of a turtle (or possibly a tortoise, or a reference to the {{w|Voight-Kampff_machine|Voight-Kampff test}} used in a manner analogous to CAPTCHA), a ship (or possibly a boat), Link (the name given to each of several protagonists that appear across generations and timelines, throughout the {{w|Legend of Zelda}} video games, who many erroneously refer to as Zelda), a pond (or possibly a lake, or a {{w|mirage}}), a squash or pumpkin (often subject to the ''fruit or vegetable'' debate), an erupting volcano (with lava, or is it magma?), and an asteroid or planet (or is it a dwarf planet?). Other tiles seem to be inspired by images that commonly occur in actual captchas, like the STOP sign or the traffic light. However, at least some of these may also be meant to fall into the category of entities that inspire pedantry, for example: because traffic lights can also be called traffic signals or stoplights; many people thinking that the shape of a stop sign is a hexagon, not an octagon; and the definition of a sandwich (previously discussed as a “random semi-ironic obsession” in [[1835]]).

The title text refers to the fact that if you draw a picture of a boat/ship on calm water (a straight line), it is usually assumed to be on a lake or pond and is thus a boat, but if it is on wavy water (as in the comic), it's assumed to be on the sea and is thus a ship{{citation needed}}. The phrase "a line drawn in water" is an idiom for something ephemeral. Ironically, it has persisted for a long time and dates back at least to the early Buddhists. (e.g. [https://suttacentral.net/an3.132/en/sujato?layout=plain&reference=none&notes=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin| AN 3.132] & [https://suttacentral.net/an7.74/en/sujato?layout=plain&reference=none&notes=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin| AN 7.74]). The title text is also a pun on the common idiom "drawing a line in the sand."

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

:[A captcha design, with a header and four rows of four pictures each below it. The header, in white lettering on a blue background, reads:]
:TO CONTINUE, PLEASE CLICK
:ALL SQUARES CONTAINING
:FRANKENSTEIN

:[The pictures, all with gray backgrounds, are as follows, from left to right in each row:]

Row 1
* Tortoise (or turtle)
* Ship (or boat)
* Frankenstein's monster (often mistaken as Frankenstein) waking up from a slab, while lightning strikes.
::Monster: GRRR
* Link from Legend of Zelda series (often mistaken as Zelda, aka Toon Link in SSB)

Row 2
* Lake (or pond), possibly a mirage, in the Egyptian desert
* Megan (or Science Girl, or Danish--possibly a direct joke about this wiki)
* Lava (or magma)
* Squash or pumpkin (fruit vs vegetable)

Row 3
* A mad scientist (Victor Frankenstein) throwing a switch while lightning strikes outside
::Frankenstein: It's alive!
* Sandwich
* Stop sign
* Girl running away from Frankenstein's monster
::Girl: Monster!

Row 4
* Rocket (spaceship) flying by an asteroid or Pluto (dwarf planet)
* Cueball and Ponytail standing next to each other
* Traffic light (also called a stoplight, possibly mistaken as stop sign?)
* Frankenstein's monster

:[Caption below the panel]:
:Oh no.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:CAPTCHA]]
[[Category:Fiction]]
[[Category:Animals]]
[[Category:Food]]

866: Compass and Straightedge

2022-03-04T15:51:26Z

Gunterkoenigsmann: /* Explanation: Two more layers of humor. */

{{comic
| number = 866
| date = February 28, 2011
| title = Compass and Straightedge
| image = compass and straightedge.png
| titletext = The Greeks long suspected this, but it wasn't until April 12th of 1882 that Ferdinand von Lindemann conclusively proved it when he constructed himself the most awesome birthday party possible and nobody showed up.
}}

==Explanation==
{{w|Compass-and-straightedge construction|Compass and straightedge constructions}} are a class of problems in classical geometry. They take the form "Using only a compass and a straightedge, construct X", where X is a geometric figure such as a regular pentagon. The subject is typically covered in high school mathematics. Three such constructions ({{w|squaring the circle}}, {{w|Angle trisection|trisecting the angle}} and {{w|doubling the cube}}) remained unsolved for thousands of years before being shown impossible with the use of modern algebraic techniques.

The comic begins as if it were stating a problem in classical geometry but veers into an observation that no amount of technical knowledge can substitute for human companionship. An additional layer of humor is that [[Cueball]] is a stick figure so technically it is possible to create friends with a straightedge and a compass, a figure constructed like Cueball is. Yet two other layers are the reference to the "straight edge" subculture that believes that one can find fun, friends and partners without alcohol and drugs and the fact that it claims one can construct a awesome birthday party using only two means that together often fail to construct even simple geometrical objects.

{{w|Ferdinand von Lindemann}} was a German mathematician who showed in 1882 that pi is not a zero of any polynomial with rational coefficients, i.e. it is a transcendental number. Transcendental numbers cannot be constructed with straightedge and compass. This proves that {{w|squaring the circle}} (a problem where it is required to construct a square with the same area as a given circle) is impossible, being as the sides of the square would need to be √π times the radius of the circle, and pi is not constructible.

==Transcript==
:I learned in high school what geometers discovered long ago:
:[Cueball, holding a compass and straightedge, looks sad.]
:Using only a compass and straightedge, it's impossible to construct friends.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Geometry]]

Talk:866: Compass and Straightedge

2022-03-04T15:46:14Z

Gunterkoenigsmann: Straight edge movement

No, the comic is funny because many geometrical theorems prove something along the lines of "With a compass and straightedge you cannot construct..." (e.g. a square and a circle with the same area) If you have knowledge of this type of proof, the humor is that you think he's about to talk about something that is impossible in geometry, but really he's talking about the inapplicability of geometry to real life. This is often a difficulty with nerds and brainy people, they try to apply their theoretical knowledge to human relationships and fail. [[Special:Contributions/75.103.23.206|75.103.23.206]] 19:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
:And then there's the converse: people who are able to apply theoretical knowledge and succeed. [[Special:Contributions/76.106.251.87|76.106.251.87]] 04:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

At least in germany there is a "Straight Edge" movement of people that don't drink alcohol, tell they can have fun without sex before marriage, that if they show interest in a relationship they really mean it and paint an "X" on their Hands in order to warn everybody about this. "Straight edge" and "X" might possibly be a reference to that...--[[User:Gunterkoenigsmann|Gunterkoenigsmann]] ([[User talk:Gunterkoenigsmann|talk]]) 15:46, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

The explanation mentions that there are "three such constructions", but doesn't go any further. What they are should at least be addressed (or linked to), even if we're not going to elaborate on the "why" of their impossibility. For the uninitiated, they are squaring the circle, trisecting any angle, and doubling the cube. [[Special:Contributions/76.106.251.87|76.106.251.87]] 04:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

If such constructions are "impossible with the use of modern algebraic techniques," then why don't we just use older algebraic techniques? ;){{unsigned ip|213.203.138.251}}
:Those "modern algebraic techniques" just did prove that you can't solve this constructions by using only "classical geometry".--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 18:14, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I tried forming a club for compasses and straight edges but no one signed up :( ~JFreund

Could the “most awsome birthday party“ bear another deeper meaning, for example be analogue to the rational polynom with rational coefficients?
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.202.100|162.158.202.100]] 04:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Could this "most awesome birthday party" be a reference to Stephen Hawking's party for time travelers?
[[User:Spagovir|Spagovir]] ([[User talk:Spagovir|talk]]) 18:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
: I'm pretty sure you're right, it sounds like a Hawking party reference to me too. - [[User:CRGreathouse|CRGreathouse]] ([[User talk:CRGreathouse|talk]]) 06:17, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Anyone think of adding a reference to 710 Collatz Conjecture? Where in a similar vein, he begins by explaining the steps for applying the conjecture, then finishes up by losing all his friends. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.17|108.162.246.17]] 16:26, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

There's some irony in the fact that Randall *could* give Cueball friends using only a compass and a straight edge, since Cueball himself can be drawn using only a compass (for the round head) and straight edge (stick figure).

Talk:2574: Autoresponder

2022-01-31T10:53:29Z

Gunterkoenigsmann: Email autoresponder?

In Russia, this comic won't be relatable. Bosses here still use e-mail, and use regular phone calls for ASAP-like urgent requests. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.10.207|172.68.10.207]] 05:21, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
:(This comment reinstated. Looks like an editing error by the person who added something else... Is definitely relevent.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.79|172.70.85.79]] 15:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
:: Actually in Germany my boss uses email, too and I have an autoresponder for that case. He also can call me if it is urgent but he only very rarely does do that.--[[User:Gunterkoenigsmann|Gunterkoenigsmann]] ([[User talk:Gunterkoenigsmann|talk]]) 10:53, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

1) Why is White Hat is hairless, and 2) what’s with the nested panels? [[User:ISaveXKCDpapers|ISaveXKCDpapers]] ([[User talk:ISaveXKCDpapers|talk]]) 06:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
:White Hat never has hair. Yes the nested panel is a bit special but not unique. But should be mentioned in the transcript. I think it is to indicate the immediate response. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 07:27, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Is the harness an auto responding exoskeleton?--[[User:Gunterkoenigsmann|Gunterkoenigsmann]] ([[User talk:Gunterkoenigsmann|talk]]) 06:59, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm definitely going to need to come back when this has an explanation. I know what an email autoresponder is but that doesn't explain the joke. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.130.91|172.70.130.91]] 07:23, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
: Randall's riffing on the theme of advanced technology trickling into the commonplace. The autoresponder is a robot made with AI. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.110.147|172.70.110.147]] 18:53, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
: It could also be seen as a more subtle joke that people are enslaving members of opposing political parties to be their autoresponders. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.99|172.70.114.99]] 09:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
:: Very subtle. I don't see it. It's the absurdity of a physical in-presence response, given how most rogue out-of-workhours emailers wouldn't even be a mere shove away from being responded to in such a way. (Now, if everyone had a swordsperson/-bot behind them and your own one of these attacked you when it sensed/was told you had made such an email. That would be 'workable', if strange to implement. This comic has a (usually) unworkable solution that's even stranger!)
:: PS., I think it works best with a (to my eye) female adversary, whether swordswoman or fembot. An armoured Cueball (or most anybother male character) wouldn't have the same "Summer Glau"-type femme fatale thing about them. La Femme Nikita, Mrs Steed, etc. "The female of the species is deadlier than the male" sort of thing. Good choice of characterisation, Randall! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.79|172.70.85.79]] 15:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I've never once been sent an autoresponder message about the hour, just OOTO vacations and the like. Are the former common these days? What about people in different time zones? Or who work different shifts? Isn't the whole idea about using asynchronous email instead of synchronous chat or DM or whatever that the time of day doesn't matter? Weird. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.84|172.69.34.84]] 08:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
:Some territories, and/or businesses are moving to a situation which respects work/life-balance, again, after the 24/7 always-online world started to eat into (mostly) after-hours time off - e.g. the EU's Working Time Directive, or the automatic shutdown of office computers at the end of the (nominal) working day. But there are still ways for employer/employee to get round these measures if they 'need' to (or feel pressurised to).
:The US as a whole isn't that advanced in such things, I understand... Certainly regressive in other employment issues. But it would depend upon what position White Hat actually has in what kind of business. It seems he can (and feels he can) set up something, but of course he seems to have gone over oard in the configuration of it! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.68|172.70.86.68]] 12:29, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
:: I'm perfectly happy to ignore emails until an appropriate hour, but I don't want someone to forgo sending me an email they or I need because of the time. That's what asynchronous means! This is just nuts. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.205|172.70.206.205]] 17:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Deletion of: "(probably, as electronic tickets with one-use QR Codes, in case they are separated before they arrive, to save time.)" - I found that necessary to be explained, myself. I can't see how/why the email is even sent, otherwise. Like being given your physical ticket, in advance (but only yours) after someone else bought the set of 'Upper Circle, Row F seats 15-20' for your little group, in advance. Either that or Cueball keeps the tickets (physical or electronic) and is there to get his whole party (WH and anybody else they'll plan to meet on the way) past the entrance to the theatre/arena/whatever by showing them all to the gatekeeper/whatever. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.147|172.70.162.147]] 15:08, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
:I had to go all the way down here to find any explanation whatsoever of “email [a way to send information] the tickets [physical pieces of paper]” but at least the explanation (of sorts) is here somewhere.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.167|108.162.245.167]] 22:45, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, separate point, this is one of the first comics to not only not be ''about'' the pandemic, but seems to indicate ''normality'' with no notable remaining effects of it, suggesting it is not even a significant background factor. Though of course we can't know what precautions (reduced-capacity spacing, recent negative testing documents, proof-of-vaccination, whatever) might be seen off-strip, at the event itself, and I know it'd be a rash set of xkcd characters that aren't still fully aware and (somehow) reducing the ongoing risks, still. But for those who complained about too much Covid-focus, here you are, and then sorry I mentioned it (even for the good reason of making it clear that they should feel happier now, if they hadn't already realised it). [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.121|172.70.90.121]] 15:11, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Talk:2574: Autoresponder

2022-01-29T06:59:15Z

Gunterkoenigsmann: speculation about the harness

Talk:2054: Data Pipeline

2022-01-19T01:07:36Z

Gunterkoenigsmann: Cueball this time might not have found the worst case.

tried my hand at transcipts again, hope i did ok. [[User:Nintendo Mc|Nintendo Mc]] ([[User talk:Nintendo Mc|talk]]) 15:32, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Oddly prescient, as always. I've just finished writing a fully automated data pipeline that ingests multiple data sources (both manual and automated input), has API support, a frontend, and email dispatch capabilities entirely in Google Sheets. It was about 3x faster to code than doing it right. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.65.6|172.68.65.6]] 16:48, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
: That's so awesome ! Would you come back and let us know if it ever collapses because one of the data sources changes slightly? (or alternatively, that it _doesn't_ collapse and cueball needs to get his shit together?) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.78.130|162.158.78.130]] 01:22, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Just added a line about how this is a logical continuation of the Code Quality series - given it's the same two people, this should be uncontroversial. Is it worth adding a new category for "Code Quality" to group these (and likely subsequent comics) together? [[User:Grimreaperwithalawnmower|Grimreaperwithalawnmower]] ([[User talk:Grimreaperwithalawnmower|talk]]) 17:20, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
::Quite controversial, in fact. I actually found that statement quite questionable and that it should probably be removed (only in part because the title isn't grouping it in with them). Related? Certainly. But a full part of the group? THIS Cueball seems like he's far more capable than Code Quality Cueball. THIS Cueball managed to construct a highly useful piece of software that - until the final panel - did the job they needed. The issue here is the Bobby Tables issue, that he neglected to sanitize the input, i.e. to at least write the program in a way that it could handle variety. The program relies heavily on the exact format of the data it's gathering (a format that he has no control over, it's set by the source). Okay, this suggests he's using prewritten code and connecting it together, but getting code pieces together into a cohesive whole is a considerable feat, showing some programming prowess (far better ability that CQ Cueball). [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 05:05, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

What could we still add to the transcript? I don't think it really needs any more transcripting so maybe we should remove the marker. [[User:Kwonunn|Kwonunn]] ([[User talk:Kwonunn|talk]]) 18:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

No comment about the "roll over" text (excuse me if I have the name wrong). I think this is a comment about the shear computing power, battery life and superior connectivity of modern mobile phones compared to laptops. [[User:RIIW - Ponder it|RIIW - Ponder it]] ([[User talk:RIIW - Ponder it|talk]]) 19:05, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
: IIRC, it's generally called "hover text." {{unsigned ip|162.158.74.57}}
:: pretty sure it's actually "title text" [[User:Halo422|Halo422]] ([[User talk:Halo422|talk]]) 01:09, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
::: It ''is'' actually "title text", though Randall calls it "alt-text" & contrary to W3C recommendations, he seems to use the same text for both. [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 05:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
::::Here on the Wiki people usually go with "Title text", occasionally "Mouse-over text". Which I like, partially because it's clear what it means, even to the casual visitor, and partially because it highlights my issue: I use these sites on a tablet, don't have a mouse, I can't see the text until I come here. :) RIIW has a point, this needs a paragraph about the Title Text. But no, it isn't saying phones are more reliable, it's a joke that neither should be hosting anything, neither is meant to be online 24/7. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 05:32, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
:::::'''Public service announcement:''' If you can't read the alt-text because you're on a mobile device, you should try using the mobile version of the website: https://m.xkcd.com/2054 . Its main features include the ability to tap/click the image to make the alt-text show up, and the whole thing is distraction-free. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.189.181|172.68.189.181]] 16:59, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Re: superior connectivity of mobile phones, see https://xkcd.com/1865/ {{unsigned ip|162.158.78.166}}
: This is exactly why I assert that anything hosted from a laptop should at least be considered for hosting from a mobile device instead. It's annoying to me that so many developers still consider a mobile device which has more connected uptime than a laptop to be unsuitable for hosting, say, a text-based game server. It's got a faster connection & more idle processing power than the PCs that used to run some of those game servers; I think my tablet could handle running a BBS Door game, for example. [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 05:14, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
:: Just to clarify in the comic, it is generally preposterous to host a server process like this from a mobile device. Mobile devices aggressively suspend computing time when processes are in the background, or when the screen is off, and their battery life is much shorter than that of a laptop. It is far more normal to modify the power settings of a laptop to not suspend when closed, which is doable on all laptops running linux, than to run a central data pipeline on a phone, and any meaningful server process has a dedicated server environment. The comic is a joke, like all of them. Cueball has a history of coding for his personal life that he is trying to apply in an environment where more resilience is needed than he is used to. {{unsigned ip|162.158.78.70}}
::: Sorry for the rude tone of this comment. You do have a point that mobile phones have more connectivity, and many systems use them this way. I deleted my comment when I actually came to agree with you, but somebody undeleted it. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.50.136|172.68.50.136]] 21:45, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
:::: No offense taken; The comic is obviously a joke, that portable devices should not be used as hosting devices. I'm just saying it's not half as ridiculous as many devs seem to think: Certainly no services which many people rely on should be hosted from a mobile cellular device, but for personal purposes it at least makes more sense than hosting from a notebook computer in many cases. '''Phones have a ''longer'' battery run time than laptops (much longer) & communication apps are commonly designed ''not'' to have their connections suspended when the screen is off.''' Background processes stopping was a common issue a few years ago, when battery management was undergoing frequent change in the OS; but there are a ton of apps which would not work at all if this were an insoluble issue. I run a private messaging server & a torrent client from my mobile cellular device & it has more connected uptime than my desktop computer, because the computer shut off when not in use, whereas the phone never gets shut off for more than a few minutes for resets. Linux ''still'' has issues with the lid switch not doing "nothing" even when the switch is explicitly set to "do nothing", & a mobile cellular device of today has more idle resources than a server built not so many years ago. A ''lot'' of things done via the cloud would be more efficient & reliable done locally, but that's less monetizable so most apps don't try, preferring to offer a service where usage metadata = profits. The data connections of 4G cellular are faster than many of the connections used for home server setups just a decade ago. Overall, mobile cellular devices are actually a pretty ''good'' candidate for a latency tolerant server, & in many cases a user's phone is the device of theirs which remains connected most; Sometimes it's their ''only'' device. Large DBs & compute-heavy tasks obviously are not ideal, but there's a ton of low resource services which could be run on mobile devices but aren't. Thinking it's a bad server platform is largely erroneous & based on outdated assessments. [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 17:32, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
: While all of the comments about connectivity between a laptop and a mobile device may be valid, I think the joke here is that any serious data processing application should not be running on either - it should instead be operated in a fixed-connectivity server-type environment instead. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 16:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
:: Agreed. [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 17:32, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
::I concur, the point is that nothing mobile should be HOSTING, hosted files should be on a system designed to be never off and never disconnected. Both a laptop and a cell could have their batteries die, or they have to be permanently plugged in, defeating the purpose of them being "mobile". [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 05:21, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
::: Except that many ''personal'' servers ''do'' get run on laptops & home computers with a lot of downtime, whereas phones tend to be on & connected much more of the time. Most people don't have a machine set up for server duty, but they do have a phone that runs all day every day. Battery is a non-issue: A mobile device can plug in when needed to maintain uptime; A fixed device cannot run on battery at all. (Unless you buy a battery backup, & you could buy a lot of portable batteries instead, for what one of those UPSs costs.)
::: Mobile devices ''should'' be hosting a lot more than they currently do. '''Not for business-critical enterprise-wide usage scenarios like shown in this comic''', but for personal use cases where the loads are not high it's silly to think another machine is necessary. [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 17:32, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
::::Oh, very much NO, LOL! Just because people do it doesn't mean they SHOULD. :) I actually expect the title text is specifically to take a swipe at such people. Getting a cheap computer, or keeping an old computer, to act as a server at home is easy. My mother bought a new desktop computer that came with Windows Vista (back when that's what new computers came with), hasn't used it directly in about 5 years, since getting an iPad and simply entertaining herself with that. But we've got this computer set up with a nice iTunes library it shares over her home network and it just stays on 24/7. Found out the hard way that the stock power supply couldn't handle that so I replaced it with a stronger one 500W, works great. Would probably cost probably $40 to buy that computer second-hand now, keeping the power supply upgrade for later (worked fine as stock for years). It's up as long as there isn't a power outage, far longer than any mobile device (remembering that under normal circumstances a plugged in mobile device is stuck where it is, it can't be carried around, so it's unintuitive to keep it plugged in permanently, unlike a desktop computer which is designed to always be plugged in). Also. I don't think this comic is any kind of business thing, this seems like some kind of group project they're doing (maybe a business they're trying to LAUNCH, but not something that's available outside of the three of them), hence them experimenting. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 04:54, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Had to fix the description, it stated that Cueball reluctantly agreed with Ponytail's statement when he actually did the opposite, but his hesitation suggests she's correct. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 05:21, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

The presence of White Hat is a little mysterious here because he doesn't have any lines. What could be going on? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.226.143|172.69.226.143]] 07:41, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
: He was just waiting for the next comic to start :) [[User:Hawthorn|Hawthorn]] ([[User talk:Hawthorn|talk]]) 15:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Why is there a six paragraph diversion at the end of this explanation? This may be tangentially relevant, but not enough for an explanation that eclipses the size of the rest of the actual comic explanation. Consider removing it or boiling it down to one paragraph on the general topic with a link. I prefer removing it because the comic doesn't make it's own connection to a wider issue. {{unsigned ip|162.158.75.142}}
: I'm not the most organized thinker in the world. A lot of the explanations on this site read like the person who wrote the explanation does not actually have experience with the topic of the comic, which is generally written as if it is something that Randall does have experience with. I tried to fix that on this comic, by sharing background from a place of experience, but I wasn't really sure what the most relevent bits were or how to integrate it into the existing work well. The existing explanation read as if Cueball was simply a horrible coder, when in reality these data pipelines are common things among programming hobbyists, and it takes experience to recognize that they are inevitably a house of cards. They're not inherently bad though: liberal input validation can be used to notify a dev when something goes wrong, so that they can fix it fast, but that needs more foresight than Cueball may have if he is running it off his phone. This data pipeline approach is used in live sites still up today. I'm sorry I'm expressing so verbosely; it's being hard for me to be concise. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.50.136|172.68.50.136]] 21:43, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
::As someone who is overly verbose with the written word, especially online, let me say: I feel you. LOL! With me it seems I'm easily misunderstood, people I know seeming to strive to find alternate meanings I didn't detect. Which leads to writing so much nobody reads it all and misunderstandings increase. /sigh/. The thing is, here the point is to explain, providing an explanation that allows someone who completely missed the joke to now get it. Anything further should be avoided, except maybe extremely relevant trivia (which should be listed as such). That's it. In this case, Cueball shares that he put together a useful program that gathers information for them, Ponytail suspects (correctly) that he neglected to account for if the source changes how they do things and his program will fail as soon they do. Which promptly happens. There, comic explained. A little fleshing out for people who REALLY don't understand programming, add something about the Title Text, and we're done.
::(Paragraph 2): I'm reminded of the comic about The Princess Bride. I was the perfect audience for that explanation, I had never seen the movie (but intended to, I finally saw it a few months ago). After the comic was explained - what Wesley must have done to become the Dread Pirate Roberts and remain so - I understood the comic, but like here it went on and on, providing what I guess were a synopsis of the different characters. Unnecessary and unquestionably would have provided spoilers for the movie, so I stopped reading there. That stuff should never have been there. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 19:38, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
: On the upside, with it running off his phone, at least he's more likely to be nearby when it goes down. ;D
: [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 17:32, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Recommend completely removing everything after the paragraph mentioning the connection to the Code Quality series (which I had to fix, it stated the connection too strongly). With the title text having been just explained - usually the last part of the explanation - the rest seems unnecessary and extra. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 19:51, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually I expected Cueball to have found a way to crash the company mainframe. If he limited te crash to a device not even his laptop's connectivity relies on is not this bad after all...--[[User:Gunterkoenigsmann|Gunterkoenigsmann]] ([[User talk:Gunterkoenigsmann|talk]]) 01:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

254: Comic Fragment

2022-01-13T15:20:38Z

Gunterkoenigsmann: I don't believe that ideas we don't understand need to be a mess. But I can tell why that seems to be unlikely

{{comic
| number = 254
| date = April 27, 2007
| title = Comic Fragment
| image = comic fragment.jpg
| titletext = No one wants an explanation more than us. Except Ms. Garofalo.
}}

==Explanation==

In this comic, [[Randall]] has gone missing from the office, and his 'editors' have found only this panel from an unfinished project (of which he says is his 'best idea ever'). The panel depicts an amalgam of science fiction disasters.

* A crippled space station falling from orbit.
* An exploding volcano.
* Rampaging dinosaurs.
* A lone hero in what appears to be a hopeless situation.

{{w|Janeane Garofalo}} is an actress and comedian associated with strong feminist roles and opinions. She is an unlikely choice for an action hero, but she has fringe appeal. It should be noted that in the panel it is Janeane Garofalo herself on the motorcycle, not a character played by Janeane Garofalo, meaning she ''is'' the character.

Randall is parodying a mode of self-indulgence common among artists and writers, particularly those who have been prolific and have gained mass appeal. A writer might have a project he thinks of as his "best idea ever," but upon examination, it is just a mish-mash of ideas the writer thinks are cool, which don't add up to a coherent story.

This type of project is self-indulgent because it allows the writer to feel like he's exercising creative impulses he can't use in his regular work, even though the actual project has little artistic merit and is unlikely to appeal to a popular audience.

In this strip, Randall winks at a lot of the hallmarks of this sort of "project:"

* It is unfinished. The point of such a project is not to complete it, but to have a place to set down all the fun ideas you never get to use, so you can feel like you're using them. But elements like these are found throughout xkcd, so the joke is that it's absurd to need a separate outlet for them, but he has one anyway.

* He keeps it in a folder labeled "My Best Idea Ever." A writer might think of such a project as his "best idea," but it's unlikely anyone would use that phrase as a working title. Using it so boldly here emphasizes the self-indulgent nature of the enterprise.

* It includes a ton of scattershot, disconnected ideas that are all cool individually, but are likely to require massive amounts of suspension of disbelief whwn combined:

* Why does a motorbike exists on a small spacecraft?
* The aircraft and it's rider both require a amount of air pressure
* On a falling spacecraft that air pressure would amount to enough wind friction to fry the motorcycle and it's rider
* What keeps the motorcycle on the falling spacecraft?
* How is Ms. Garofalo supposed to survive the impact?
* Dinosaurs and spacecrafts should be tens of millions of years apart from each other
* If the volcanoe explodes: Will the dinosaurs still attack her and not just flee?

Some of the ideas (dinosaurs, spacecraft) are derivative of Randall's prior work; others (volcanoes, Janeane Garofalo) are not. It is telling, though, that the closeup inset of the woman on the motorcycle, while referred to as Janeane Garofalo in the text, looks an awful lot like [[Megan]].

* Good judgment and artistic sensibility are suppressed in favor of heightened coolness. (Janeane Garofalo is cool. Janeane Garofalo on a motorcycle is cooler! With tranq darts! On a spaceship! Etc.) The comic takes this to an extreme. Every element in the comic is there because of its awesomeness; no other aesthetic principle is being exercised anywhere.

The title text is written from the 'editors' perspective, expressing their extreme puzzlement - outshone only by Ms. Garofalo's confusion.

Later on, in December 2007, [[Randall Munroe]] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJOS0sV2a24#t=7m15s suggested in a speech at Google] that a motivation to draw this comic was to put an end to reenactments of his comics (such as the [[225: Open Source|Richard Stallman]] and [[239: Blagofaire|Cory Doctorow]] comics, which {{w|xkcd#Inspired activities|inspired real-life happenings}})... or challenge anyone to reenact such a complex one:
:''I've been doing these comics, and people have a habit of acting out the comics. I first — I did a comic about Cory Doctorow; you know, he wears red cape and goggles when he blogs and a week or so later, he was given an award. And he went up on the stage; they presented him with a red cape and goggles. I have done a comic little before that about Richard Stallman suggesting that he sleeps with the katana, you know, just in case. And, sure enough, they sent him, some fans pitched in together and sent him a katana. He had never heard of the comic. He was very confused. And I decided, okay, this is going to get out of hand. So, shortly after all that, I did a comic about Janeane Garofalo jumping a motorcycle off of the International Space Station as it crashes over an island with a volcanic eruption and Tyrannosaurus. And I said, okay, if someone can make ''that'' happen, but until they do that...''

==Transcript==
:Editor's note: Mr. Munroe has been missing for several days. We have recieved no submissions from him for some time, but we found this single panel on his desk in a folder labeled 'MY BEST IDEA EVER'. It is clearly part of a work in progress, but we have decided to post it in lieu of a complete comic.
:[Single panel illustration in color with one small panel embedded within, showing a zoomed-in version of Janeane Garafolo on a motorcycle. The background is a gray landscape beneath a falling space station, a large volcano with smoke rising the only discernible feature of the landscape below.]
:As the damaged space station fell deeper into the atmosphere and started to break up around her, Janeane Garofalo tightened her grip on the motorcycle.
:The volcano was looming ahead, and her tranquilizer pistol only had six darts left - barely enough to bring down even one Tyrannosaur.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Comics featuring real people]]
[[Category:Volcanoes]]
[[Category:Dinosaurs]]

Talk:2567: Language Development

2022-01-12T18:53:22Z

Gunterkoenigsmann:

Has a small, child-size, stick figure been used before? I did not find a category on explainxkcd. This might be an interesting trivia to add. --[[Special:Contributions/198.41.242.129|198.41.242.129]] 18:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Actually words linguists use when they try to talk in very old languages sometimes sound like the things my little son might say between his first perfectly pronounced single words.--[[User:Gunterkoenigsmann|Gunterkoenigsmann]] ([[User talk:Gunterkoenigsmann|talk]]) 18:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Talk:2565: Latency

2022-01-10T02:59:34Z

Gunterkoenigsmann: A rant about automatic customer service.

Ha! Welcome to my life. Just thought to check if there was a new xkcd yet (at 04:45, GMT) after spending the last five hours messing semi-manually with some geodata. Ok, the first three hours was in the text editor looking at the raw JSON file, and the next two was writing a Perl script to redo everything I had already done (and more, but not yet everything I will eventually want to do) without the fallible human element. Once the fallible human element has polished the script up to account for unforseen circumstances. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.73|172.70.85.73]] 04:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

what is SCAPDFATIAT {{unsigned ip|172.70.126.87}}
:OH what is says in the Comic {{unsigned ip|172.70.126.87}}
::Right, Someone Copies and Pastes From a Thing Into Another Thing [[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.183|172.70.210.183]] 05:36, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I can relate to this. In fact, i use 2 computer screens just for that: I copy data from software ''X, screen 1'' to quickly paste it into software ''Y, screen 2''. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.183.232|162.158.183.232]] 06:09, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I suspect that "cumshots" in the last paragraph is either a (very lame) joke or an incidence of spam. Either way, please remove it! Thanks. {{unsigned ip|172.69.71.187}}
:It was this IP, 172.70.174.169, that was [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2565%3A_Latency&type=revision&diff=223831&oldid=223829 the perpetrator], but it was undone less than 20 minutes later... :-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 17:20, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Often the reason for the SCAPDFATIAT step is that A Thing has no direct connection to Another Thing. So someone has to design a way for them to communicate to get the human out of the loop. Unless this process is done frequently, it doesn't reach the top of the priority list. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 13:48, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
: There are tools for such automation (they're usually called either workflow or orchestration tools) and have been for decades, but they tend to be ''really'' fragile. If the services being orchestrated aren't aware of it, it is very easy for them to change things and break the coordination in a way that just fails silently. BTDT. --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.73|172.70.85.73]] 15:46, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
: There are many organizations where such automation workflow just _cannot_ happen because the IT or upper management will ignore the users request to integrate X with Y. Can be due to anything from incompetence, to relying on 3rd party vendors that don't offer any support, to financial reasons ("too expensive"), to power struggles, or all of the above. [[User:Ralfoide|Ralfoide]] ([[User talk:Ralfoide|talk]]) 19:01, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
:: In my experience, company can more easily afford unqualified person spending day on something than me, the programmer, half hour. It gets less clear if the thing needs to happen repeatedly, but still, my time is costly and my list of tasks I need to work on endless. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 01:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Someone had called this a [[:Category:Bar_charts|Bar chart]] in the transcript. But it is not such a graph. But does this kind of graph have a specific name. Is it a kind of timeline? Or something different or do this not even have a specific name? I have deleted the bar graph from the now complete transcript (except if there is a better name for this type of graph.) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 17:20, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I personally hate customer service bots that reply within a split second, instead of within a working day. I tend to contact customer service for problems that cannot be resolved by finding a word that happens to be found in the FAQ and sending me the FAQ entry that contains it --[[User:Gunterkoenigsmann|Gunterkoenigsmann]] ([[User talk:Gunterkoenigsmann|talk]]) 02:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Talk:2338: Faraday Tour

2021-12-04T02:02:00Z

Gunterkoenigsmann: How to bring light into a faraday cage

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)
::I agree with the notion that the inhabitants of the cage would definitely be out of touch with reality, but I think it is a bit far to say that Randall is trying to express complex metaphors such as comparing the darkness of the cave to being disconnected from the outside world. (BTW I am the same person; I should probably create an account)--[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.122|108.162.216.122]] 22:11, 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
:How do you know that's the actual cage and not just a pattern on the exterior wall? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.69.185|141.101.69.185]] 15:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
:: That would be the weirdest thing. To build walls around a Faraday cage, and then decorate it took look sort-of like one? I mean, maybe. But why would you draw that in an abstracted webcomic? That's a real stretch.

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]])

This has happened to me and every electronics engineer doing [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_compatibility EMC certification], calling a colleague to discuss the measurements. "Wait, let me go into the chamber and see whether the cable is conn..." [[User:Mumiemonstret|Mumiemonstret]] ([[User talk:Mumiemonstret|talk]]) 13:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I think that it's dark inside because of an illusion. Maybe it's just dim inside, which the camera cannot see.
: That sounds plausible, as does the thing with the air lock that allows you to enter the cage during an experiment, at least if the faraday cage isn't intended to span to the 10^14 hertz range; Bringing light into a dark faraday cage actually isn't a trivial task as any cable that conducts current for the lighting also conducts radio waves, many optical fibres have a surprisingly low upper limit on how much light they can carry and getting all the light from one light bulb into one fibre isn't trivial, by itself.[[User:Gunterkoenigsmann|Gunterkoenigsmann]] ([[User talk:Gunterkoenigsmann|talk]]) 02:02, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

2541: Occam

2021-11-15T07:09:46Z

Gunterkoenigsmann: /* Explanation: Murphy's law crossed with Occam's Razor */

{{comic
| number = 2541
| date = November 12, 2021
| title = Occam
| image = occam.png
| titletext = Oh no, Murphy just picked up the razor.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a BOT THAT ONLY CREATES ALL PAGES NOT MENTIONING ITSELF - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic conflates three philosophical topics: {{w|Occam's Razor}}, the {{w|Barber paradox|Barber Paradox}} and {{w|Murphy's Law}}.

Occam's Razor is the principle that explanations should not postulate more entities than necessary. It is often phrased as "the simplest explanation is best". The word '{{w|Philosophical razor|razor}}' is intended to evoke the image of shaving off superfluous elements.

The Barber Paradox postulates a town barber who shaves all those in the town who don’t shave themselves, and asks whether the barber shaves himself. The paradox is that if he does, then he shouldn’t; and if he doesn’t, then he should. It is an attempt at a concrete, real-world analogue of {{w|Russell's paradox|Russell's Paradox}} in set theory. (Had the phrasing been "all the men in the town who don’t shave themselves", as was previously incorrectly stated in this explanation, then the solution would be trivial: the barber is a woman.)

Megan references Occam's Razor with the words "the simplest explanation" and the name Occam, and goes on to propose a solution to who shaves the barber. Strictly speaking, Occam (or {{w|Ockham}}) is a village in Surrey, where the friar and philosopher William of Occam lived, so it would be more correct to say that "William shaves the barber," but that wouldn't get her meaning across as clearly. (Her proposal is humorous and does not of course resolve the paradox, as the barber is still not shaving himself, so he should shave himself, so he shouldn't shave himself...)

The title text invokes Murphy's Law: the expectation that if anything can go wrong it will. Shaving with a {{w|Straight razor|cut-throat razor}} has bad failure modes. Additionally invoking Murphy's law is a self-reference to this comic that makes Occam's Razor, that states that the simplest theory always is the best, go wrong.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
[One panel. Megan and Cueball walking.]

Megan: The simplest explanation is that Occam shaves the barber.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Logic]]
[[Category: Philosophy]]

2483: Linked List Interview Problem

2021-07-02T07:41:29Z

Gunterkoenigsmann: /* Explanation mallocs are slooow. */

{{comic
| number = 2483
| date = June 30, 2021
| title = Linked List Interview Problem
| image = linked_list_interview_problem.png
| titletext = I'd traverse it myself, but it's singly linked, so I'm worried that I won't be able to find my way back to 2021.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a LINKED LIST. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

In computer programming, a {{w|Linked_list|Linked list}} is a type of data structure that stores data throughout memory accompanied with memory addresses of the next, and potentially previous data point, establishing a relative ordering for a collection of data. Several common software engineering interview questions involve manipulating or otherwise interacting with linked lists. Possibly because programmers in the current day rarely work with linked lists directly, Randall suggests that such structures belong in a "technology museum," and thinks it would be more beneficial to mankind to email the list to such a museum rather than perform any useful work with it.

A linked list is a way to store sequential data in computer memory. Each piece of data is stored with a pointer to the next piece. This makes it very easy to add new data in the middle, since only one existing pointer must change to point to the new data. The drawback of a naive implementation can be that finding data may require following the entire chain. Technical programming interviewers like to see if applicants are familiar with the structure and the computational complexity concept itself.

Linked lists are, historically, one of the two main data structures that represent sequential data, along with arrays. Unlike arrays, they have the theoretical advantage of O(1) insertions and deletions thanks to not needing to reallocate the entire structure, but have O(n) random access (see {{w|Linked_list#Linked_lists_vs._dynamic_arrays|comparisons}}). However, modern processors' cache structure favors data that are located next to each other, pre-fetching the adjacent items, and modern processors can perform bulk memory moves, making resize operations faster. Finally, using linked lists usually implies dynamic allocation of each list member as opposed to reserving memory for a bunch of items in a bulk and then using that memory once an item has to be added. Memory allocation tends to be slow on modern system and adds overhead for managing the information, which byte is allocated for what item, which can be significant, particularly for smaller data items; many small allocations also tend to fragment memory, which can lead to it being wasted and unavailable to the app later, particularly in long-running processes such as web servers. These properties tend to make linked lists poorly suited for most system programming applications in which a programmer might write algorithms to manipulate data structures, instead of using existing libraries.

Modern programming languages usually provide abstractions (often named "array," "vector" or "list") which interact with the sequential data at the memory level, providing access to this data while using arrays, linked lists, hybrids of the aforementioned technologies, or other approaches, and the programmer doesn't necessarily need to care one way or another. Knowing the underlying concepts is still useful, however, when creating fast running code which scales well to large data, avoiding (e.g.) traversing the list over and over again, or performing particularly inefficient operations.

In the title text, a {{w|Linked_list#Singly_linked_list|singly linked list}} contains pointers to traverse the list in only one direction; namely, from the head to the end. By contrast, each element in a {{w|Linked_list#Doubly_linked_list|doubly linked list}} contains pointers to both the "next" and "previous" elements, enabling traversal in either direction. Randall continues the implication that such lists are obsolete by implying that traversing such a list would be akin to time travel to the past. Without the "previous element" pointers, Randall is concerned he would not be able to reverse the time travel, as he could not traverse the list in the reverse direction.

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

[Cueball is seen writing on a whiteboard, Ponytail is standing next to him. Above it, a piece of code is written, which apparently is what Cueball is writing on the whiteboard. The text reads:]

define traverseLinkedList(headPointer):
myId="''<illegible scribbling probably containing a user ID>''"
authToken="''<illegible scribbling containing an auth token>''"
museumAddress="''<illegible address>''@''<illegible domain>''.''<illegible tld>''"
client=mailRestClient(myID, authToken)
client.messages.send(to=museumAddress,
subj="Item donation?", body="Thought you
might be interested: "+str(headPointer))
return

Ponytail: ''Hey.''

[Caption beneath the panel:]
Coding interview tip: Interviewers get really mad when you try to donate their linked lists to a technology museum.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Programming]]
[[Category:Tips]]

2411: 1/10,000th Scale World

2021-01-14T07:10:12Z

Gunterkoenigsmann: /* Explanation: Some of the rules give the visitors a surprising lot of freedom */

{{comic
| number = 2411
| date = January 13, 2021
| title = 1/10,000th Scale World
| image = 1_10000th_scale_world.png
| titletext = OCEAN PLAY AREA RULES: No running, no horseplay, no megatsunamis, and no trying to pry the wreck of the Titanic off the bottom.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a 1/10,000TH SCALE WEATHER BALLOON. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

Models of large-scale objects (cars, airplanes, etc.) are typically produced at a given scale, given as a ratio between the original object (the first number) and the model (the second number). The same applies to maps and globes. What Randall has here, though, is neither a map nor a model but a seemingly complete copy of Earth, at a 1:10,000 scale. Various features and warnings are labeled.

Real-world phenomena are reproduced at scale, for humorous effect. A real 1/10,000th scale "Earth" would have a diameter of less than a mile, and a surface area of around 10 miles, the approximate dimensions of a medium-sized asteroid. On such an object, constrained by known physics, there would be no air, standing water, weather, or large magma bodies, and any sort of rough-housing would irrecoverably catapult the visitor into space. The scenario depicted better fits the case of Earth at 1x and the visitors at 10,000x. The biological consequences of such a scenario would be unfortunate - as if humans weren't already doing enough environmental damage. Assuming that a human on a 1x Earth weighing 750 tons would be able to do anything but instantly collapse and suffocate.

Normally in a miniature model most warnings try to prevent the visitors from accidentally doing something cataclysmic to the model. Likewise, the "ocean play area rules" in the title text tell visitors not to create any {{w|megatsunami}}s, which could conceivably be induced by a cannonball dive. But as digging seems to be discouraged mainly where it causes Vulcans to break out the visitors seem to be given a far greater freedom than usual.

Earlier comics illustrating relative scale include [[482: Height]], [[681: Gravity Wells]], [[1276: Angular Size]], and [[1389: Surface Area]].

{| class="wikitable"
!Danger
!Why
!Notes
|-
| Watch out for airliners cruising near shoulder level
| Unintentional catastrophic damage to air traffic. Also, airplane speed very similar to the speed at which a bullet is fired [https://pinchito.es/2019/high-speeds]
| At this scale, the lowest airliner cruising altitude would be 3 ft or 0.9 m [https://time.com/5309905/how-high-do-planes-fly/#:~:text=Commercial%20aircraft%20typically%20fly%20between,that%20can%20present%20safety%20issues.], shoulder height for a 5-year-old [https://www.disabled-world.com/calculators-charts/height-weight-teens.php]. Scaling the height of the highest plane to ever fly [https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/columnist/cox/2017/05/28/altitude/102185856/] puts it at 9 ft, which would put it just over the head of the tallest person who ever lived [https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/records/hall-of-fame/robert-wadlow-tallest-man-ever]
|-
| Trip hazard: Appalachian Mountains
| At half a foot tall, the Appalachians could trip visitors who are not being careful.
| 6684 ft = 0.67 ft in model world
|-
| Do not stand or climb on Mt. Everest
| One may destroy the model.
|
|-
| Caution: Hydro-thermal vents underfoot
|Hydrothermal vents are extremely hot, which could cause burns to the feet of the viewers
|Underwater volcanoes and stuff
|-
| Children must be supervised while in the ocean, especially near trenches
|They might drown.
|The Challenger Deep is 36,200 feet below the surface; this equates to 3.62 feet in the model world, a depth which small children could conceivably drown in.
|-
| Danger: positive lightning! Do not touch cloud tops
| The cumulonimbus cloud is an electrocution hazard, as Megan is learning the hard way: Getting too close to the positive cloud tops risks causing lightning to arc into you down to the negative ground.
|
|-
| Avoid hypoxia by regularly sitting to bring your lungs below the death zone
| The scale world even has a scale atmosphere, and visitors are cautioned to regularly sit down so they can breathe below the {{w|death zone}}, which is approximately two and a half feet above the surface.
| The death zone is approximately 8,000 meters above the ground, equating to 0.8 meters or 2.62 feet in the model world.
|-
| Do not dig near Yellowstone
| Digging up the {{w|Yellowstone Caldera}} could potentially reactivate the {{w|supervolcano}} there.
|
|-
| Please do not smack weather balloons
| It's not very nice
|
|-
| Be careful not to step on cities with especially pointy towers, like Toronto, Seattle, and Dubai
| The {{w|CN Tower}}, the {{w|Space Needle}} and the {{w|Burj Khalifa}} are much taller than they are wide, thus, "pointy". The Burj Khalifa, the tallest of the three, would stand at 3.2 inches (8.3 cm) at this scale, making it possible to impale it on one's foot when walking
| This seems to be exclusively for the visitors' benefit, rather than that of the cities.
|}

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

For visitors to my 1/10,000th scale world

1 meter = 10 km 1 ft = 10,000 ft ~ 2 miles

Watch out for airliners cruising near shoulder level

Trip hazard: Appalachian Mountains

Do not stand or climb on Mt. Everest

Caution: Hydro-thermal vents underfoot

Children must be supervised while in the ocean, especially near trenches

Danger: positive lightning! Do not touch cloud tops

Avoid hypoxia by regularly sitting to bring your lungs below the death zone

Do not dig near Yellowstone

Please do not smack weather balloons

Be careful not to step on cities with especially pointy towers, like Toronto, Seattle, and Dubai

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Geography]]
[[Category:Geology]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Science Girl]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Hairy]]
[[Category:Multiple Cueballs]]

Talk:2406: Viral Vector Immunity

2021-01-04T06:06:21Z

Gunterkoenigsmann:

Mentioning explainxkcd on Randall's tweet https://twitter.com/xkcd/status/1345061851424501761 started off some explanations [[Special:Contributions/162.158.155.150|162.158.155.150]] 18:09, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Is anyone else reminded of the "Boil 'em, mash 'em, stick 'em in a stew" rhythm? "Burn it, smash it, push it into the gorge". ''Into'' breaks the rhythm a bit, but perhaps it could be a The Two Towers (Lord of the Rings) movie reference? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.69.107|141.101.69.107]] 19:59, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Couldn't a similar comic be used to explain how immunity works in general? Instead of the horse being a vaccine vector, it would be a pathogen, and the immune cells recognize it from a previous encounter and attack it. Vaccine vector failure occurs when the vector resembles something you've developed immunity to. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 20:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
:Yes, I agree with this — the current explanation for the comic (Trojan horse = immunity vector, Steve-trampling horse = common pathogen) doesn't explain how viral vector immunity works, it explains how it ''fails'' to work. I think a more appropriate explanation for the comic would have the Trojan horse be the pathogen against which immunity was desired, and the Steve-trampling horse be the DNA carried by the immunity vector. This would also be consistent with the traditional use of the Trojan horse to signify an unexpected threat (as opposed to the current interpretation's, whcih has the Trojan horse be beneficial). [[Special:Contributions/162.158.129.64|162.158.129.64]] 08:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
:: I think you're absolutely right that the current explanation is interpreting the comic as an explanation of how viral vector immunity ''fails'' to work, while your suggested explanation interprets the comic as an explanation of how viral vector immunity works. The caption of the cartoon, "how vaccine ''failure'' due to viral vector immunity works" shows that the existing interpretation is the intended one.[[User:Yp17|Yp17]] ([[User talk:Yp17|talk]]) 14:24, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
:: I think you are misunderstood about the workings of a viral vector vaccine. The whole premise of this approach to vaccination is to use the ability of a virus to sneak into a human body undetected, later releasing its payload into the cells, but for a beneficial gain, rather than harm. The vector virus is perfectly represented by a trojan horse - it is supposed to enter the gates unrestricted. In the case of a real infection, the virus RNA injects itself into the cell and takes over its live processes, much like the soldiers took over the city after coming out of the Trojan horse. In the case of a vector vaccine, the trojan horse bears a beneficial payload inside. The trampling-horse is an incidental "immunity" to everything that looks like horses, i.e. immunity to the vector virus, not the payload virus (which they never get to experience since the horse never makes it in). [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.215|162.158.158.215]] 02:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
::: I think the issue is that it's an imperfect, flawed analogy to begin with where the details and their relationships don't quite match those of the subject it is being compared to, so any attempt to accurately explain the analogy can't be perfect either.--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.75.152|162.158.75.152]] 05:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I would disagree with the title text explanation, at least to a degree. The narrator is the person being recognised and threatened with the sword, but the narrator is not the vehicle of delivery of the modified payload (the coffee), that would still be the cup. I think either the metaphor or the explanation breaks at this point, which is not uncharacteristic of the title text often deviating from the stricter rules of the comic. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.130|141.101.98.130]] 21:30, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
:Right. The common theme is that the victim of a trick has seen through the ruse. In the title text, the narrator is the perpetrator of the coffee replacement trick, and the victim has detected the difference (or already knows about it by hearing from someone else -- similar to the way the immune system is forewarned by vaccines) and is now coming after the narrator with a sword. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 06:12, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
::I don't think it's so much the victim seeing through the ruse, it's that the victim has other reasons for attacking the narrator, before even getting to the point where she would drink the coffee and possibly notice any difference, removing the whole point of the ruse without the victim realising that there was a ruse. In the case of the Trojan Horse, this ''other reason'' is Steve's previous encounter with a horse, leading them to destroy the horse statue without the Greeks inside it ever coming into play. In the case of the viral vector, the ''other reason'' is the previous immunity to the carrier virus, destroying it before the payload can be delivered into the cells. In both these cases, the "ruses" fail because of unconnected reasons the "perpetrators" didn't know about. In the case of the title text, even the reader doesn't know this unconnected reason.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.76.240|141.101.76.240]] 11:31, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

The narrator in the alt text/title text is the scientist/researcher performing the experiment. Except that the researcher doesn't usually get threatened with attack from the research subject. In some cases perhaps they should though, such as the Tuskegee experiments.

In the other comics mentioning Steve no-one liked him too much...--[[User:Gunterkoenigsmann|Gunterkoenigsmann]] ([[User talk:Gunterkoenigsmann|talk]]) 06:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Talk:1574: Trouble for Science

2020-12-29T12:09:22Z

Gunterkoenigsmann: Thermodynamics doesn't completely guarantee that temperature increases...

Sentence case, or down style, is one method, preferred by many print and online publications and recommended by the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association. The only two rules are the two rules mentioned above: Capitalize the first word and all proper nouns. Everything else is in lowercase. http://www.dailywritingtips.com/rules-for-capitalization-in-titles/ [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.154|173.245.50.154]] 12:30, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

;Problems with the p-value as an indicator of significance

The p-value alone can never be an indicator of significance. However, it is still often used as the only indicator, because a full set of parameters (including sample size, test setup, etc.) can't easily be packed into a single number. There's a nice article in nature about this problem: [http://www.nature.com/news/scientific-method-statistical-errors-1.14700]
I can also recommend [http://io9.com/i-fooled-millions-into-thinking-chocolate-helps-weight-1707251800this story] about (ab-)using hacked p-values to get maximum publicity. I hope this helps :-) --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.105.183|141.101.105.183]] 12:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
:In this section, I really want to reword the p-valye explanation that "one can assume that the event observed 'exists'." Except where it's an event indirectly observed through a chained effect (unseeable gas molecules observed through brownian motion, unstable particles through detection of their decay particles, prehistoric meteorite impact through a geological/chemical fingerprint, etc) I think it should be more that "this (directly observed) event was directly linked to the presumed cause rather than spontaneous and random, at least w.r.t. the presumed cause being tested". But writing it better than I did just now. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.114|141.101.99.114]] 19:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the joke is that these newspapers are talking about how bad science is, and yet they manage to come up with a stupid story about Bunsen burners, presumably being too scientifically illiterate to know the problem. [[User:Timband|Timband]] ([[User talk:Timband|talk]]) 12:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC) Although reading the other comments, it's a much better joke if the Bunsen Burner story is actually true, because that makes all of them about journalists not realising that they are highlighting their own ignorance. [[User:Timband|Timband]] ([[User talk:Timband|talk]]) 16:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

See [[Significant]] for another comic on p-values.--[[User:Henke37|Henke37]] ([[User talk:Henke37|talk]]) 14:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

One journal, Basic and Applied Social Psychology (vol. 37 pages 1–2, 2015), went so far as to ban p-values entirely. So, anti-p-value sentiment does seem to be on the rise. --[[User:Scjphysicist|scjphysicist]] ([[User talk:Scjphysicist|talk]]) 01:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

;Controlled trials show Bunsen burners make things colder

Actually, I can easily imagine a way to use a Bunsen burner to make something colder. Involving an unlit Bunsen burner that has been placed in the freezer for a couple hours, for example. Nowhere in the headline is there any mention of a flame. --[[User:Svenman|Svenman]] ([[User talk:Svenman|talk]]) 12:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

:Actually, there was a (badly formatted and badly placed, probably therefore now removed) comment on the explanation page earlier which pointed out that feeding a Bunsen burner from a propane bottle will cause the pressure, and therefore the temperature, in the bottle to decrease. That is a lot less contrived than my original idea. --[[User:Svenman|Svenman]] ([[User talk:Svenman|talk]]) 13:37, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

::That was me. Trying to get my 2 cents in on my phone before I forgot. http://www.propane101.com/propaneregulatorfreezing.htm as an example. [[User:Mattiep|Mattiep]] ([[User talk:Mattiep|talk]]) 13:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

::: Thermodynamics actually doesn't '''guarantee''' that a lit Bunsen burner always heats up a cold object. It just tells us that the probability of it doing so is so high that you can trust any number of controlled trials to be unable to find a counterexample. --[[User:Gunterkoenigsmann|Gunterkoenigsmann]] ([[User talk:Gunterkoenigsmann|talk]]) 12:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

:Correct me if i'm wrong here, but doesn't burning flame from a Bunsen burner cause the temperatures of the flame and the target object to equalize? Sure in most cases that results in a temperature increase in the target object, but I don't see why that would be true in all high temperature cases. The comment about "reducing the rate of heat loss in 2000K+ temp objects" would only be true if the gas (assuming any atmosphere at all) surrounding the target object was cooler than the flame from the bunsen burner. This gets worse in a perfect vacuum. If a 5000K object was in a perfect vacuum and somebody set a lit bunsen burner (assuming the tip had an Oxygen source) to spray across the target object, then the Flame would get hotter as it touched the hotter object and the object would cool as the two temperatures attempted to equalize. No reduction of heat loss would happen. Can we remove the comment about "reducing the rate of heat loss in 2000K+ temp objects" ? [[User:Harodotus|Harodotus]] ([[User talk:Harodotus|talk]]) 22:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC).

::Found an article backing up my previous comment and lacking any objection for several hours, reveresed the note in the article.[http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2xr7dc/can_you_cool_an_object_hotter_than_fire_with_fire/] [[User:Harodotus|Harodotus]] ([[User talk:Harodotus|talk]]) 23:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

:Bunsen burners hasten the heat death of the universe, making things colder generally. Showing that in "controlled trials" seems like a challenge for a type 2 civilization, though. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.241.73|198.41.241.73]] 08:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the joke is in the wording of the headlines. The fact that a replication study fails to reproduce can be seen as a contradiction. Overfeeding rodents leads to fat rodents. This compromises their ability to function als animal (runway) models. I haven't figured out the other ones yet. But that's çause I'm dumb :-). Alva. {{unsigned ip|141.101.104.80}}

:It's way simpler than that - The joke is that people outside of sciences (with no understanding really of how to science) will report basically anything that sounds shocking or exciting, especially if it proves those nerdy, scary scientists wrong! So Randall gives us a bunch of possibly headlines that to a layman read like real, scary news about science, but to scientists this is stuff that is generally well known and understood. The last one is just taking it a step further for credulous news editors - They've been lying to us all this time! 13:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
::I think it's even simpler than that: the title is "Trouble for Science" and it shows a series of misleading headlines about misleading (i.e.: invalidated) scientific studies. The implication is "Trouble for Journalism".[[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.87|173.245.54.87]] 14:21, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

:I agree. All of the titles are poorly written. All immunoassays are antibody-based, so saying many commercial antibody-based immunoassays are unreliable is redundant, implying they have no idea what an immunoassay is. Problems with the p-value as an indicator of significance implies that there is some significant error in the use of a tool to measure significance of error, which leads one to wonder how they figured that out. If you don't know what a p-test is, the title is paradoxical. The last title would make someone assume that the controlled trials are using turned on bunsen burners to make things colder, but could mean almost anything, such as a bunsen burner being turned off the entire time, or a bunsen burner placed inside of a freezer, or even that people consider using bunsen burners in an experiment makes the experiment cool (or sweet or groovy or whatever). {{unsigned ip|173.245.56.155}}

::I would appreciate someone adding info about what an immunoassay is. [[User:Teleksterling|Teleksterling]] ([[User talk:Teleksterling|talk]]) 22:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I generally agree, but would say if you DO know what a p-test is, the title is paradoxical. If you don't know what a p-test is, the title is meaningless. [[User:Miamiclay|Miamiclay]] ([[User talk:Miamiclay|talk]]) 07:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

This comic may be in reference to Monsanto's latest ailments. {{unsigned ip|173.245.52.112}}

;Replication study fails to reproduce many published results
:Upon reading that specific headline, the rational behavior would be to question the veracity of all the other headlines before and after. I could see a paper picking up on that sensationalist-looking headline and ignoring the fact it casts doubt on whatever else they published. [[User:Ralfoide|Ralfoide]] ([[User talk:Ralfoide|talk]]) 14:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but what is the irony in the first headline? [[User:Djbrasier|Djbrasier]] ([[User talk:Djbrasier|talk]]) 00:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

From [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_(matter)]: "When a substance undergoes a phase transition (changes from one state of matter to another) it usually either takes up or releases energy. For example, when water evaporates, the kinetic energy expended as the evaporating molecules escape the attractive forces of the liquid is reflected in a decrease in temperature. The amount of energy required to induce the transition is more than the amount required to heat the water from room temperature to just short of boiling temperature, which is why evaporation is useful for cooling. " That could explain the Bunsen burner making things colder (i.e. having less kinetic energy)

About gaussian irregularities. Using a computer and floating point numbers, someone would see irregularities on a gaussian distribution. That amounts to sampling the curve with a small but finite precision. Computing the value a any given point could lead to rounding errors and would be seen as irregularities. {{unsigned ip|108.162.219.118}}
:That's like saying a crack in your telescope glass has revealed new stars.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.229.134|108.162.229.134]] 23:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Gregory Chaitin makes a case for using experimentally observed mathematical relations to increase the expressiveness of mathematics beyond the limits of purely deductive axiomatic methods. If this trend is adopted, it might conceivably develop that a set of foundations that support what would then be known as the "normal distribution" could have significant irregularities which would result in either adoption of this new effect, or changing the foundational proposition from which the effect is derived, or both. Randall's headline may be predictive of the type of thing that may be seen as more mathematicians explore conjectures aided by computer computations using numeric and symbolic congruences.
[[http://www.linkedin.com/in/Comet Comet]] 20:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I think everyone is over-thinking this comic. In each headline, the question is "Well if that's the case, how did they prove it?" In other words, every test would have most likely made use of the technique that they studied in the study.

Anti-bodies-I don't know anything about this topic, so I can't explain the irony that I hypothesize to be there.

P-values-Presumably the researchers started with the null hypothesis that p-values are a good indicator of significance. They then disproved it with p<0.05.

Lab rats-They proved that animal studies are compromised. They undoubtedly used animals to conduct this experiment

Replication study-They couldn't replicate the results. To show that this is a robust phenomenon, other researchers should be able to replicate their results.

Bunsen burners-In their controlled experiment, they found that bunsen burners cool things down. But since bunsen burners are the heat-source of choice for many scientific investigations, they were probably the control heat source as well as the test.

Gaussian curve-The bell curve has irregularities in it. Assuming that these irregularities are independent, their effect is modelled by a Gaussian curve (ie the average irregularity in the faulty Gaussian curve will form a Gaussian distribution per the central limit theorem)

In each case, the joke is that the study results discredit the method that would have been used to prove the result.
CAS [[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.149|173.245.55.149]] 23:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

There's another interpretation. All of these articles are headlines in newspapers. Reporters will only bother to write and publish news articles about highly controversial or exciting results, framed in the most inflammatory way, regardless of their reliability or applicability. So we have carnival barkers in the news media cherry-picking and misrepresenting results they really don't understand.

But most scientists are also dependent on having a steady stream of published, novel results so they can get their grant money from the government. Which means "sexy" results that are publishable and impactful- i.e. worthy of mention in the non-scientific press. So ''of course'' we have sloppy methods and irreproduceable results-- those are the methods most likely to produce the kind of excitingly counter-intuitive results that get published and catch the notice of the mainstream media. Disciplined labs that publish properly vetted results will hit dry periods when their results are unexciting or their theories don't check out, and their grant money will dry up, and they will fall apart. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.171|108.162.237.171]] 14:34, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the bunsen burner part might be a reference to a demonstration a teacher once did. I can't find the reference, but when her students came in she showed them a metal plate next to a lit bunsen burner. The students observed that the side closest to the flame was colder, and she asked them to write down what they thought was going on. They wrote non-answers like, "because of heat conduction," and none of them came anywhere close to guessing the correct answer, which was simply that the teacher turned the metal plate around just before they came in. [[User:Shanek|Shanek]] ([[User talk:Shanek|talk]]) 16:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I figured that this comic was mostly making a joke about how often newspapers describe things as "Trouble for Science!"... when most of the things being reported are merely niggles in one narrow area of one scientific field. Whereas this is a list of things which actually *would be* "trouble for science" in that that they would invalidate huge areas of scientific "knowledge". A few of them are real, most are not.
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.77|108.162.216.77]] 06:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

A Bunsen burner could be used to drive an absorption chiller (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorption_refrigerator). In that case it could be said to indirectly "make things colder." {{unsigned ip|172.68.35.73}}