explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:3136: Pull

2025-09-02T20:40:52Z

Inquirer:

Australia reference????? /s [[User:TheTrainsKid|TheTrainsKid]] ([[User talk:TheTrainsKid|talk]]) 05:41, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I [[3135|recently learned]] that earth has weird gravity effects caused by a big moon orbiting near the surface. These are probably also barely measurable, except e.g., big bodies of water --[[Special:Contributions/134.102.219.31|134.102.219.31]] 11:23, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
:I take it you haven't heard of Earth tides? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_tide] --[[User:Gorcq|Gorcq]] ([[User talk:Gorcq|talk]]) 11:54, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
::Perhaps you should follow the link in the comment you replied to... [[User:Yorkshire Pudding|Yorkshire Pudding]] ([[User talk:Yorkshire Pudding|talk]]) 13:00, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Ya the hemispheres are kinda crazy《プロキシ》(XKCD中毒者) 13:07, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

So I'm not qualified to critique this, but, I think the comic is referencing an unsolved problem - is gravity constant over time? I'm not a physicist and I'm not conversant with the literature, but I think there is some debate on the matter. The line 'give it another five minutes' definitely seems like a humorous reference to the idea that the gravitational constant might changes over age-of-the-universe timescales. Hence I suspect the description talking about earth's attraction specifically misses the point. --DW [[Special:Contributions/2607:FB90:8FA9:E54A:5856:AACD:B913:6DD8|2607:FB90:8FA9:E54A:5856:AACD:B913:6DD8]] 13:44, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Judging from the amount of rotation, the conversation takes place over a period of several hours. -[[Special:Contributions/2603:8080:2AF0:F1E0:39BF:23FC:411E:363B|2603:8080:2AF0:F1E0:39BF:23FC:411E:363B]] 18:58, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Someting seams wrong with the number in the statement "The net effect of these is for Earth to lose about 520 tons in the 5-minute period".
I found that "Each day, around 90 tonnes of hydrogen and helium escape from Earth in the direction of space" https://www.snf.ch/en/2QLt6mvuU4hZj1yx/news/leaking-atmospheres-seal-the-fate-of-planets
[[User:Maofgf|Maofgf]] ([[User talk:Maofgf|talk]]) 19:10, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

It should be "centripetal", not "centrifugal". [[User:Inquirer|Inquirer]] ([[User talk:Inquirer|talk]]) 20:40, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Talk:3131: Cesium

2025-08-21T02:55:06Z

Inquirer:

I think that's called a recipe for disaster. NOTE: I am also 104.225.172.143. [[Special:Contributions/138.43.101.123|138.43.101.123]] 14:36, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
: No, ''I'' am 104.225.172.143! [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 15:09, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
:: I'm 104.225.172.143, and so's my wife! [[Special:Contributions/92.23.2.228|92.23.2.228]] 20:42, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
:::I also chose this guy's wife. [[Special:Contributions/2600:1014:B130:F85B:54C8:CB88:DB33:11D0|2600:1014:B130:F85B:54C8:CB88:DB33:11D0]]

My best recipe comes with a Notice to Mariners [[User:Hcs|Hcs]] ([[User talk:Hcs|talk]]) 14:45, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

I added a transcript. Hopefully it's okay. [[Special:Contributions/104.225.172.143|104.225.172.143]] 14:54, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

A gram of gold runs on the order of ~$100 USD as of writing; a gram of cs-137 looks to be in the millions~billions range. --[[Special:Contributions/158.91.163.9|158.91.163.9]] 14:55, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

: Nope. [https://pubs.usgs.gov/periodicals/mcs2024/mcs2024-cesium.pdf It's 99 dollars]. [[Special:Contributions/191.57.16.100|191.57.16.100]] 20:40, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
:: I think you're quoting the price for Caesium metal in general, which is probably almost entirely Caesium 133; Caesium 137 is a synthetic isotope which could easily be a million times more expensive than the natural stuff, gram for gram. [[Special:Contributions/80.41.70.128|80.41.70.128]] 22:37, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

:Caesium contamination usually is caused by nuclear accidents (or atmospheric nuclear weapon tests) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesium-137#Environmental_contamination. It is unlikely that someone acquired pure Cs-137 and then "accidentally" contaminated the shrimp with that. --[[Special:Contributions/134.102.219.31|134.102.219.31]] 15:31, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Bothering the NSA shouldn't be hard, just write some of their secrets on a cake (with frosting is optional) and post it online. [[Special:Contributions/212.101.26.209|212.101.26.209]] 14:57, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
: I feel like the writing on the cake is not part of its recipe. I think a more fitting way to get their attention would be "accidentally" poisoning the president with your cooking. --[[Special:Contributions/128.31.34.92|128.31.34.92]] 22:09, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

What would IMO do, revoke your math license? [[Special:Contributions/216.73.162.10|216.73.162.10]] 15:22, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
: They have numerous penalties at their disposal. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 15:27, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
: I imagined the reason the IMO would get involved would be because the recipe created some interesting mathematical problem that could be used for the next competition. For example, something like [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ct3lCfgJV_A this video], where a grocery order taken too literally creates a seemingly harmless Diophantine equation whose smallest positive solutions are on the order of 10^80. [[Special:Contributions/137.25.230.78|137.25.230.78]] 15:56, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
: A cook on Air Force 1 "accidentally" contaminates Trump's fast food with cesium. The assassination attempt fails and US retaliates by invading Canada/Panama/Greenland (roll 1d3). IMO bans the US team, like they banned Russia in 2022. Thus a single cooking "accident" can get the attention of IAEA, IATA, IMO, and NSA. --[[Special:Contributions/128.31.34.92|128.31.34.92]] 22:21, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Maybe The IATA could get involved if your ruined recipe caused food poisoning on a commercial airliner that then resulted in an in-air emergency (whole flight deck passed out).
:Or if you create a column of dense toxic fumes that spreads over a wide area (on the level of a volcano eruption). On the other hand, I wonder what could bring the attention of the IMO when Terryology seemingly couldn't.--[[Special:Contributions/94.73.52.245|94.73.52.245]] 18:56, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

The criticality accident in 1999 at the Tokaimura nuclear facility seems like a good example of messing up a recipe in a way that draws considerable attention. {{w|Tokaimura nuclear accidents}} [[Special:Contributions/2600:387:4:803:0:0:0:1B|2600:387:4:803:0:0:0:1B]] 19:11, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

1. Randall creates a new way to cook airplane food that is either cheap enough or expensive enough to significantly affect airline ticket pricing. 2. Randall's recipe poisons a Math Olympiad team. 3. The coach of the team turns out to be an undercover spy. [[Special:Contributions/24.53.184.90|24.53.184.90]] 23:47, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

{{w|IATA}} is an international trade association for airlines. It's not particularly involved in air safety, except as a sideline; the {{w|International Civil Aviation Organization}} is much more involved that way. However, IATA used to be directly concerned with recipes. In the 1950s, the IATA airlines agreed on international standards for meals, under which economy class passengers would only be provided with sandwiches. However, airlines such as SAS and Swissair provided their passengers with more and better sandwiches than U.S. airlines such as Pan Am and TWA were willing to provide. Eventually IATA issued a rule that sandwiches were to be cold, simple, unadorned, and inexpensive, feature “a substantial and visible” chunk of bread, and could not include materials normally regarded as expensive or luxurious, such as smoked salmon, oysters, caviar, lobster, game, asparagus, or pate de foie gras. Providing better sandwiches than those IATA allowed could result in a fine. (The rule was later revoked to allow economy class passengers to receive hot meals.) So at one point, it was possible to mess up a sandwich recipe by adding expensive ingredients that would incur the wrath of IATA. --[[Special:Contributions/208.59.176.206|208.59.176.206]] 00:43, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
*The explanation "... if the recipe is used in major airports, and the recipe is contaminated with a drug, the pilots that eat could experience vision loss or other problems, and if this recipe is widely used and normal people won't notice much besides minor side effects, then this could attract the attention of of the IATA" does not make sense. If a recipe caused vision loss when pilots ate the food, it would also cause vision loss for non-pilots. --[[Special:Contributions/208.59.176.206|208.59.176.206]] 00:49, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

The phrase "messing up a recipe" means whatever Randall intended it to mean. The fact that some people may use the phrase to mean to make something at home does not mean that such a definition was intended by Randall. I don't think I have ever heard "messing up a recipe" mean anything other than ruining the preparation of the food. [[User:Inquirer|Inquirer]] ([[User talk:Inquirer|talk]]) 02:55, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Talk:3056: RNA

2025-03-01T01:40:17Z

Inquirer:

I really hate that feeling when you need an explanation for at least a couple frames but you're too early to read it and too dumb to write it. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.3.27|172.68.3.27]] 14:34, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
:I know, I really wish I knew about RNA so I could just kinda do it. [[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]] ([[User talk:DollarStoreBa'al|talk]]) 15:48, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

The 2040's guess in the title text is wild, and would be SO cool if we were able to discover that in 20 years. {{unsigned ip|162.158.146.139|14:49, 26 February 2025}}

oh God [[User:Definitely Bill Cipher|⯅A dream demon⯅]] ([[User talk:Definitely Bill Cipher|talk]]) 15:09, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

1960s: central dogma of molecular biology; 1980s: discovery of catalytic self-splicing RNA; 2000s: genomic sequencing and discovery of diverse array of non-coding RNAs; 2040s: extrapolation of RNA hypothesis, with aside to notion that life may have arisen multiple times (earlier instances extinguished by large impacts) {{unsigned|Jhonts|15:34, 26 February 2025}}
:...or assimilation of function (or extinction by superior RNA, but then we'd not see any signs, whilst maybe there were provable mergers between 'different' original systems). Maybe why there are three shared bases between DNA and RNA, but two unique ones, or other interesting aspects that create puzzles. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.139|172.71.178.139]] 17:53, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
::...or they abandoned earth to live elsewhere in the galaxy, and will return to visit us in the 2040s. ;o) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.30|172.70.91.30]] 09:56, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Should the transcript point out the changes in the poster in each frame? Maybe in the later frames those are RNA rather than DNA. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 15:40, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
:It's unlikely to be RNA, since RNA is usually single stranded. According to a quick search, it can sometimes be double stranded as a secondary structure or in some viruses. [[User:Solid Kalium|Solid Kalium]] ([[User talk:Solid Kalium|talk]]) 15:55, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
::But the transcript should mention that it is a similar poster but that t is not the same as seen from different figures shown --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 10:48, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

How has it been a full day and no full explanation yet? {{unsigned|DollarStoreBa'al|20:22, 26 February 2025}}
:My guess is that most readers are physics/coding/maths oriented [[Special:Contributions/172.71.241.100|172.71.241.100]] 22:04, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
:Hardly a full day. It was early, but only about six hours before your (DSB's) query. Which was start of the working(/schooling) day, in the US, if not earlier. Those of that territory who are more used to spotting new comics in the early evening might not yet have gotten around to looking.
:Though I prefer to be in it for the long-haul, it takes time to bash a decent explanation into shape, and when ''I'' first saw it, I made a minor (in-context) witicism and resolved to return later when either I could bash the early-bird editors' efforts into shape or else form the bits of it that (inexplicably) no-one else had thought of. I'm currently pondering quite ''which'' of these two scenarios I'll find when I check... ;) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.162|172.70.162.162]] 22:37, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

The link to bases of rna💀[[Special:Contributions/172.68.150.67|172.68.150.67]] 03:12, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Then there's also the {{w|shadow biosphere}}. [[User:The Yeti|The Yeti]] ([[User talk:The Yeti|talk]]) 18:58, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

There is no concrete proof of how "life" originated. It is all belief systems. "Seems" and "Hypothesizes" is a fancy way of saying belief without proof. [[User:Inquirer|Inquirer]] ([[User talk:Inquirer|talk]]) 01:40, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Talk:3002: RNAWorld

2024-10-24T21:10:40Z

Inquirer:

Is any of this specific to Disneyland or could it be Disney World, which would be more fitting for the title? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.43.93|172.70.43.93]] 18:43, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
:Yes, Ariel is from The Little Mermaid, which is a Disney film, Ratatouille is another Disney film, and Elsa is from Frozen and Frozen II, both of which are Disney films. I believe that RNAWorld is a play on Disneyworld. [[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]] ([[User talk:42.book.addict|talk]]) 19:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
::I'm sure .43.93, above, understands that they are definitely Disney characters that are equally relevent to either Disney World or Disneyland (or Eurodisney, or...). It's the "World" bit that was important (and now is correctly referenced, so far as I can see). [[Special:Contributions/172.69.194.10|172.69.194.10]] 19:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Pfft. "Euro Disney" is 'so' 1994. It reminds me of the arguments I had with people ~20 years ago who honestly thought the currency in much of Europe was officialy the "Eurodollar". Sure, Joachimsthal is in Europe... [[Special:Contributions/172.71.103.172|172.71.103.172]] 21:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Depends what they meant by {{w|Eurodollar|'officially'}}, and when. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.186.107|172.68.186.107]] 22:08, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

the rat's name is Remy [[User:CalibansCreations|'''Caliban''']] ([[User talk:CalibansCreations|talk]]) 20:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

What should we call the girl with the Mickey/Minnie ears? Or is a physical description good enough? [[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]] ([[User talk:42.book.addict|talk]]) 01:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
:Is he not a boy? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.206|172.70.90.206]] 02:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
::can't tell tbh [[User:CalibansCreations|'''Caliban''']] ([[User talk:CalibansCreations|talk]]) 06:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
:::'He' has short hair and no ponytail, so probability 79% a XY mutant (all men are ;-) )' so for symmetry, how about Jack? [[User:RIIW - Ponder it|RIIW - Ponder it]] ([[User talk:RIIW - Ponder it|talk]]) 07:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
:::: https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1662:_Jack_and_Jill --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.134.252|162.158.134.252]] 09:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

There is no real evidence for abiogenesis. There have been many "theories" through the centuries which are now viewed as pseudo-science. A theory is simply an unproven belief. The number of people who belieeve this unproven belief does not have an affect on whether it is real or wrong. --[[User:Inquirer|Inquirer]] ([[User talk:Inquirer|talk]]) 20:12, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
:Once there was not life, now there is. You can argue exactly what form the abiogenesis took, but not that there was something (insert your favourite hypothesis or legend here, to taste) that happened to (at least once, but no less than once) change the state of affairs. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.142|172.70.162.142]] 20:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

::You and I agree that life had an origin. But, science is unable to demonstrate, at present, how life came about. Some have speculated that "life" on earth is a result of "seeding".

::Your comment is like arguing that correlation is proof of causation. There have been many innocent people convicted of crimes because of this kind of thinking. In the UK, parliament created a Corpus Delecti law because a man had been executed for a murder and the supposed victim later came home from an overseas trip.

::The point I was making is that the fact that life exists is not proof of how it originated.--[[User:Inquirer|Inquirer]] ([[User talk:Inquirer|talk]]) 21:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk:3002: RNAWorld

2024-10-24T20:12:59Z

Inquirer:

Talk:2908: Moon Armor Index

2024-03-20T00:22:02Z

Inquirer:

Can someone hurry up/w the explanation?[[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.162|162.158.159.162]] 22:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
:Did it :) --[[User:1234231587678|1234231587678]] ([[User talk:1234231587678|talk]]) 00:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

According to https://sl.bing.net/kR6wrqrekg0 it would be 43.1 meters. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.174.117|172.70.174.117]] 23:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Bing was wrong, it screwed up the units [[Special:Contributions/172.70.38.181|172.70.38.181]] 23:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)!

Anyone figure out if this takes the recently-discovered moons into account? I'd expect as much but it would make a good addition to the explanation. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.131.155|172.70.131.155]] 01:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
:The new moon around Uranus is 8 km in diameter, and the moons around Neptune are 23 km and 14 km in diameter. The inventory of outer moons is believed to be complete down to 2 km for Jupiter, 3 km for Saturn, 8 km for Uranus, and 14 km for Neptune. And the total combined mass of smaller moons (e.g. in Saturn's rings) is also constrained.

:All these moons are round, and thus approximately ball-shaped. The volume of a 3-ball with radius r₀ is 4⁄3 πr₀³. Uranus and Neptune are also approximately ball-shaped with radii of 25,559 km and 15,299 km, respectively. (I don't know exactly how these radii are defined, but I assume optically. Uranus and Neptune don't have solid surfaces.) The volume of a spherical shell is just the difference of the outer and inner spheres, so 4⁄3 π(R³−r³) if the outer radius is R and the inner radius is r. These volumes are equal if the whole moon is converted into a spherical shell. So for Uranus, we have 4⁄3 πr₀³ = 4⁄3 π(R³−r³), where r₀ is the radius of the moon, r is the radius of Uranus, and R−r is the thickness of the shell. Solving gives R−r = ³√(r₀³+r³)−r. Plugging in r₀ = 8 km and r = 25,559 km gives R−r = 0.26 mm. If we laid it on top of the other moons instead of the "surface" of Uranus itself, it would make practically no difference. Doing the same calculation for each newly-discovered moon of Neptune gives thicknesses of 17 mm and 3.9 mm (for a total of 21 mm).

:In other words, they are tiny rounding errors. [[User:EebstertheGreat|EebstertheGreat]] ([[User talk:EebstertheGreat|talk]]) 03:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
::Not for Pluto, it seems... small planet, huge moon. [[User:Transgalactic|Transgalactic]] ([[User talk:Transgalactic|talk]]) 21:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I like that turning the Moon into a spherical shell coating the Earth is not definitely stated to be impossible with current technology. There's so much hedging going on I feel like I'm trapped in a maze in ''The Shining.'' [[User:EebstertheGreat|EebstertheGreat]] ([[User talk:EebstertheGreat|talk]]) 03:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

The formula used seems to give the instantaneous technical distance, but in reality, there would be a rate of change of the surface area of the planet as each layer of thickness x was added. Does anyone know if this is significant with the distances we are talking, or does it just turn out to be a rounding error? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.0.254|172.68.0.254]] 03:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
:For most, I suspect it is indeed the roundingest of rounding errors. Obviously, Earth+Moon and Pluto+(Charon+the others) would be the most ''out'', but subtending difference of area at (say) sea-level radius and sea-level plus 43km doesn't sound like much to account for.
:A=4πr², so Adif of A2-A1 would be (4πr2²)-(4πr1²) or 4π(r2²-r1²) ((which looks like you could work it out as a pythogorean calculation, i.e. model a new line-length that would go at a tangent out from r1 until it hits the endpoint of the r2 radius elsewhere ... but that's probably not useful!)).
:Given Earth at a normal 6371km (between equatorial and polar radii, to simplify as a true sphere), Earth+Moon therefore 6371+43 (using figure stated by comic), that gives ...if I've done it right... now an extra 7 million km² on top of the roughly 510 million that it normally has. An increment of 5%, by the time you start spreading your arbitrarily thin final layer (so approximate back to being 2.5% extra by volume, without actually using Eebster's alternate direct shell-volume calculation or doing an integration).
:Pluto (saying 44km of layering, as slightly more than Earth's 'pile', on its far smaller radius) isn't that much more 'off'. It would increase the surface by about 8% (so says my mental arithmatic, at least) so maybe 4% more volume than a "flat surface raised up prismatically".
:(Not quite the same as "wrap a string around a tennis ball, add an inch to its length, what is its additional radius? / wrap a string around the Earth, add an inch ..." sort of thing, due to the extra dimensionality involved, but I don't feel like doing the full algebraic differentiations necessary to establish the trend of departure.).
:It certainly initially looks like the '≈'ing of the result holds fairly well under even the two most extreme examples (cases of particularly large moons-by-volume). And, at a certain point, a planet's (single largest) moon cannot be made bigger without drifting into double-planet territory (indeed, Pluto/Charon may be considered double-dwarfs!), and then, soon after, you're switching their roles around and dismantling the 'planet' (really a moon) to armour the 'moon' (now the planet). So that probably suggests we're at our limit, with twin-binary capping our one-satellite scenarios, until you get into 'busy' N-ary systems with many not-insignificant moons but somehow an identifiable 'main body' planet in the midst of them.
:I don't think "armour the Sun with all the planets (''and'' their moons), dwarf-planets, minor-planets, random detritus, etc" will strain that relationship. Top of my head estimate is that it'd be nowhere near as high as Earth/Pluto examples, if the Oort cloud isn't oddly massive in total. But someone can correct me if I've goofed or overly hand-waved something. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.118|172.69.195.118]] 06:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm glad there are at least links to them, but shouldn’t there be at least ONE sentence HERE on explainxkcd saying what the heck the last five ‘worlds’ are? I’d bet that’s what most people needing an explanation come here to find out! and all there are are links. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.186.98|162.158.186.98]] 09:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
:I added a sentence about the trans-Neptunian dwarf planets. But I don't know why Randall left out Makemake, Orcus and Sedna... any hypotheses? [[User:Transgalactic|Transgalactic]] ([[User talk:Transgalactic|talk]]) 12:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
::I don't know this for a fact, but is it possible that those objects have no known moons to contribute any armor thickness? [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 13:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Imagining (especially) the gas planet examples, and some sort of mechanical means (partly overlapping plates of 'moon armour', that can slide over each other, remaining gas-tight?) allowing free vertical moment, I'm wondering how much the shell could contain and actually compress the predominantly atmospheric mass below it. Not being in orbit (perhaps give it the nominal gas-cloud spin), having chosen the amount of atmosphere it sits upon it'll not really be held up by the previously uncapped atmosphere, but as it falls inwards it must eventually pressurise the volume within until it equalises against the hermetic (and magically balanced, to not crumple and fold inwards irregularly) shielding material... [[Special:Contributions/172.69.194.21|172.69.194.21]] 16:14, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Now, the real challenge is doing it quickly - that is, on noticing danger, armor the planet, then dearmor and rebuild the moon when danger passes. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 20:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I thought I was being very clever when I added the gravitational compression effects, because some tiny moons have a low density, and some of them aren't remotely as solid as the Earth's Moon because they only formed from separate rocks quite recently. But then someone applied this thought to the planet itself, where I feel (without any motivation to do the math) that such effects should be utterly negligible 5 billion years after the solar system's formative period... (though, who knows what else Pluto/Charon hold in store??) So: I'm not sure if the bit in brackets about the minuscule gravitational compression effect on the host planet should stay in the explanation. [[User:Transgalactic|Transgalactic]] ([[User talk:Transgalactic|talk]]) 21:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Since as far as we currently know, there is no life on the other planets, isn't rather biocentric to suggests that the preservation of life is relevant to protecting the planet earth? (Intended as humor, if you didn't get it.) [[User:Inquirer|Inquirer]] ([[User talk:Inquirer|talk]]) 00:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2900: Call My Cell

2024-02-29T21:49:56Z

Inquirer:

I think he just forgot Cueball's name. By asking hom to call him, he would see the name on the screen And remember it. Thus also remembering how annoyed he is by Cueball. --[[Special:Contributions/172.71.114.136|172.71.114.136]] 06:08, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
:Nah, this is just Black Hat being a [[72: Classhole|classhole]]. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.234|172.70.211.234]] 06:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
:Would have been kind of cute, though. :D I often have to ask people “what’s your name, again”? Letting them call me to see their name could easily have been my idea. (But in that scenario, Randall would probably have drawn Cueball (as himself, he seems to have similar difficulties as me) instead of Black Hat. “[[1746: Making Friends|Social tip]]: It seems less awkward to ask people for their name for the 5th time if you pretend you lost your phone.”) --[[Special:Contributions/198.41.242.185|198.41.242.185]] 19:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

What kind of person would need to check their contacts to see if a person is blocked when you can just ask them to ring your phone? [[User:OmniDoom|OmniDoom]] ([[User talk:OmniDoom|talk]]) 06:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm a bit sad that comic 2900 was not released on 29th of February. :-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 11:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
:Perhaps it technically ''was''. By the timing of the auto-pickup/article creation by the 'Bot, it was 29/Feb all the way up to (and including) Randall's own TZ. It was pretty much as 'late' as you can get before you start getting to the realms of actual "delayed a day for technical reasons" as occasionally exbibited by some of his. (Or the rare times the current 'bot fell over and humans were initially tardy at filling in.) Though the 'official' date is likely the 28th; I haven't checked the publication DB, yet, but I'd guess it still is listed as Wednesday-as-usual.
:It's also been quite some time since Randall deliberately juggled numbers (possibly even by inserting Guest Week, which ISTR allowed a years-later numerical 'synchonicity' (can't quite remember/find what that was, but it was one accepted as entirely intended). It'd be an even longer game to have also engineered ''this'' one by seemingly impromptu non-MWF comics. And not then make it something like the recent leap-light-year one to make it relevent. So probably not planned. But ''possibly'' spontaneously held back as a last-minute (and entirely unofficial) whim, on seeing the same coincidence as we have noted. IMO. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.124|172.69.195.124]] 12:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2900: Call My Cell

2024-02-29T21:48:54Z

Inquirer:

I think he just forgot Cueball's name. By asking hom to call him, he would see the name on the screen And remember it. Thus also remembering how annoyed he is by Cueball. --[[Special:Contributions/172.71.114.136|172.71.114.136]] 06:08, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
:Nah, this is just Black Hat being a [[72: Classhole|classhole]]. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.234|172.70.211.234]] 06:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
:Would have been kind of cute, though. :D I often have to ask people “what’s your name, again”? Letting them call me to see their name could easily have been my idea. (But in that scenario, Randall would probably have drawn Cueball (as himself, he seems to have similar difficulties as me) instead of Black Hat. “[[1746: Making Friends|Social tip]]: It seems less awkward to ask people for their name for the 5th time if you pretend you lost your phone.”) --[[Special:Contributions/198.41.242.185|198.41.242.185]] 19:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

What kind of person would need to check their contacts to see if a person is blocked when you can just ask them to ring your phone? [[User:OmniDoom|OmniDoom]] ([[User talk:OmniDoom|talk]]) 06:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm a bit sad that comic 2900 was not released on 29th of February. :-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 11:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
:I don't know wher you live but at the moment on the east coast of USA, it is the 29th of February at 4:47pm[[User:Inquirer|Inquirer]] ([[User talk:Inquirer|talk]])

:Perhaps it technically ''was''. By the timing of the auto-pickup/article creation by the 'Bot, it was 29/Feb all the way up to (and including) Randall's own TZ. It was pretty much as 'late' as you can get before you start getting to the realms of actual "delayed a day for technical reasons" as occasionally exbibited by some of his. (Or the rare times the current 'bot fell over and humans were initially tardy at filling in.) Though the 'official' date is likely the 28th; I haven't checked the publication DB, yet, but I'd guess it still is listed as Wednesday-as-usual.
:It's also been quite some time since Randall deliberately juggled numbers (possibly even by inserting Guest Week, which ISTR allowed a years-later numerical 'synchonicity' (can't quite remember/find what that was, but it was one accepted as entirely intended). It'd be an even longer game to have also engineered ''this'' one by seemingly impromptu non-MWF comics. And not then make it something like the recent leap-light-year one to make it relevent. So probably not planned. But ''possibly'' spontaneously held back as a last-minute (and entirely unofficial) whim, on seeing the same coincidence as we have noted. IMO. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.124|172.69.195.124]] 12:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2875: 2024

2024-01-03T02:48:23Z

Inquirer:

It [[wikipedia:List of presidents of the United States by age|appears]] that only three US presidents so far have lived for over 30 years since their last election: Herbert Hoover, Jimmy Carter, and (technically) George H.W. Bush. One other (John Adams) had made it to 29. In addition, Gerald Ford had lived for over 29 years after the end of his presidency (and over 30 years after its start) but had technically never been elected. Of course none of those five were two-term presidents so they in any case would not have been restricted from further election by the 22nd amendment (and John Adams additionally wasn't affected by it due to having died prior to its ratification). --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.200.134|172.70.200.134]] 22:42, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
:I don't think he's suggesting that 30 years is enough -- that's only when half the tooth cells have been replaced. So we have to resort to dentistry and replace all the teeth. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 00:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I've just made some "content and flow" edits to bring the Explanation up to a reasonable spec of explanatoriaciousness (which I fully expect to be buffed up and/or trimmed by others). I didn't ''directly'' explain that SCOTUS has nine (or more!) voting members, but there's the link(s) I added where this gets fairly well qualified for the person who might need to know this, and I refrained from suggestion reasons why one or both of the more recent Presidents might be best 'forgotten' (depending upon a person's own considerations on each matter), etc... I actually think that if all nine SCOTUSii all decided in one direction on the issues of Obama's teeth then it would be because of ideologically opposing views lining up by pure accident (e.g. some see/do not see pulling teeth as a valid way of becoming President for a third term, the rest see/do not see the pulling of teeth from Obama as laudible but would expect the next step to fail to happen for entirely separate reasons). And if someone definitely knows if FDR wore dentures (or not), particularly in his last five or so years, then that can surely be inserted as a valid (counter-)justifying fact. Anyway, probably done with my own polishing. For the moment, certainly. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.194.243|172.69.194.243]] 03:34, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
:According to the book [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Party_Politics_in_the_Age_of_Roosevelt/NttsEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22franklin+d+roosevelt%22+dentures&pg=PA148&printsec=frontcover Party Politics in the Age of Roosevelt] by Michael P. Riccards and Cheryl A. Flagg, FDR did have a ''partial'' denture to replace two of his front teeth, but that wouldn't satisfy Ponytail's plan. --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.127.40|172.70.127.40]] 04:13, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand the reference to there being only 8 justices on the Supreme Court ... As far as I can tell, on January 1 2024 there are 9, unless I'm missing something? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States [[User:ModelD|ModelD]] ([[User talk:ModelD|talk]]) 11:00, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
:What reference? It says 9 - [[Special:Contributions/172.70.130.153|172.70.130.153]] 19:16, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
::It said 8 in some previous versions, like [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2875:_2024&oldid=331841 this one] [[Special:Contributions/172.71.26.100|172.71.26.100]] 20:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Is it worth mentioning that Ponytail is being inconsistent? She wants Obama to be considered a new person due to cellular replacement, so he can be elected ... because she likes him, and recognizes the "new" Obama as still being the President she liked. [[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]])
:Tell you what it also blows out of the water, though..? Any hint of 'birther' complaints. (Also might well be how Arnie had become a POTUS, in the future-history of Demolition Man!) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.194.226|172.69.194.226]] 15:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
:It's not really inconsistent. What she liked about him weren't his cells, but the way he governed. And just as the Ship of Theseus sails just as well after you replace all its planks, Obama will behave similarly after replacing his cells and teeth. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 20:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Wow! a vandal! fun! [[User:SomeoneIGuess|someone, i guess]]([[User talk:SomeoneIGuess|talk i guess]]|[[Special:Contributions/SomeoneIGuess|le edit list]]) 16:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
:Persistent. I just reverted again. [[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 17:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
::who on earth vandalizes a comic wiki [[User:SomeoneIGuess|someone, i guess]]([[User talk:SomeoneIGuess|talk i guess]]|[[Special:Contributions/SomeoneIGuess|le edit list]]) 17:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
:::Your username makes it look like you're answering your own question lol [[Special:Contributions/172.69.70.70|172.69.70.70]] 21:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Playing devil's advocate, as Trump didn't win the popular vote, one might argue he was ''made'' president, but not "elected to the office" as stated per the 22nd. If he keeps this up he could re-run indefinitely. I expect his lawyers to make this exact argument in 2028. We need to call forth the laws of gerontology to stop him! ;) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.135.52|172.70.135.52]] 00:11, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
:Presidents aren't elected by the people, they're elected by the electors (as was Trump). The electors each may have to adhere to one degree of other (depends upon a whole stack of other rules) of faithfulness to the people they represent. But, even if they are ''entirely'' faithful, their combined votes may not truly represent the combined votes of all the people whose votes influence the electors.
:i.e. he was elected to office, despite the majority will of those who contributed to tue result. For technical issues, though, many of those who cast a vote never even had a slither of an influence in the result (they just propped up either the winning ''or'' losing end-totals in ways that can soak up plenty of possible defections, non-participation or reversals of apathy).
:And, even if it was shown that massive disenfrachisement occured (e.g. Bush 2's Florida-moment, from getting them to give up on counting/etc), that just potentially invalidates the basis of the Electoral College votes, not that the EC votes were indeed cast.
:...and all this because the fledgling US decided that it just couldn't organise direct elections nationwide/across all states so worked out its own way to fudge it. (I mean, direct-election FPTP is also problematic, leaving a huge chunk of people deciding they might as well not bother, but FPTP-by-proxy and other problematic issues that arise alongside it add further reasons to be dissilusioned (or excessively entitled, whenever the result happens to swing the way you're more content with, justified or not). [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.81|172.70.85.81]] 01:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Even though it is possible that someone may edit the explanation after I post this, thus confusing my reference — I would like to express my appreciation for the way in which the last sentence of this explanation was worded. "Well played." [[User:Inquirer|Inquirer]] ([[User talk:Inquirer|talk]]) 02:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2828: Exoplanet Observation

2023-09-14T20:32:30Z

Inquirer: Any life detected by astronomy in a different stellar system is going to be "past life".

Probably, related to the recent Webb discovery of interesting gases in K2-18 b's atmosphere: https://www.nasa.gov/goddard/2023/webb-discovers-methane-carbon-dioxide-in-atmosphere-of-k2-18b [[User:Rps|Rps]] ([[User talk:Rps|talk]])
: Added! (Saw your comment after my edit). --[[User:Hddqsb|Hddqsb]] ([[User talk:Hddqsb|talk]]) 15:43, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I am not finding a reference, but I think I read that Newton chose the word "spectrum" by analogy with the word "spectre" (which means ghost), since the rainbow colors were sort of "hiding" in the white light and were revealed by the prism. So it is not a coincidence that you can make puns like on this comic. [[User:Rps|Rps]] ([[User talk:Rps|talk]]) 17:59, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
:Well, it seems to be at least co-conceived as a description of an (after)image of some original source, but it doesn't easily get explained as to whether it went from the latin root (to look at/view) straight ''via'' the 'ghostly' spectre and on unto the split-rainbow thing. (Except Newton did believe invsome seriously weird stuff, back when science was a bit looser and chemistry was almost alchemy, so... maybe!) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.187|172.70.85.187]] 18:39, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
::First, in Newton's time, those stuff wasn't weird. Second, what do you mean by "almost"? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 22:37, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
:::It always amuses me that I have to teach schoolchildren that Newton was a 'scientist', a word that didn't really exist in his lifetime. He considered himself a 'natural philosopher', which at the time was a posh way of saying 'wizard', as well as being an alchemist. 'Magic' wasn't taboo then, but was seen as an acceptable hobby for the idle rich. Interestingly, although modern chemistry arose out of alchemy (but isn't even nearly the same thing), the magical practice of natural philosophy still goes on today, completely unchanged except for its name... we call it 'physics' now. BTW, Newton decided that the 'spectrum' was composed of seven colours (and inserted 'indigo' to fudge the results accordingly) because 7 is the 'God-number' in Kabbalah.--[[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.221|172.71.242.221]] 05:10, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

This explanation fails to take into account that if life were discovered through astronomy (as opposed to interstellar travel) on a planet that what is discovered would be "in the past." Because of the distance which light travels from other other stellar systems to earth everything which is observed by astronomy is "in the past". Thus the statement "past life" is exactly what astronomers are seeking to detect. [[User:Inquirer|Inquirer]] ([[User talk:Inquirer|talk]]) 20:32, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Talk:2756: Qualifications

2023-03-30T04:08:51Z

Inquirer:

This reminds me of Ken Thompson's Turing Award lecture, https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rdriley/487/papers/Thompson_1984_ReflectionsonTrustingTrust.pdf [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 21:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

if you’re playing with your llama and build a time machine, make sure to rescue not only randall but everyone else too ! (edit: llama is a powerful language model presently popular, originally shared to non-researchers on 4chan. the joke relates to consumer and general AI being on a huge up-curve without mention in the comic.) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.63.54|162.158.63.54]] 23:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

'''over''' 600 ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.111.76|172.70.111.76]] 00:11, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Featured on r/overemployed ----

The first sentence of the second paragraph should be reworded. Hairbun seems to be content to have verified the claim but the reader doesn't know if Cueball is as credulous as Hairbun. [[User:Inquirer|Inquirer]] ([[User talk:Inquirer|talk]]) 04:07, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Talk:2756: Qualifications

2023-03-30T04:07:46Z

Inquirer:

This reminds me of Ken Thompson's Turing Award lecture, https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rdriley/487/papers/Thompson_1984_ReflectionsonTrustingTrust.pdf [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 21:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

if you’re playing with your llama and build a time machine, make sure to rescue not only randall but everyone else too ! (edit: llama is a powerful language model presently popular, originally shared to non-researchers on 4chan. the joke relates to consumer and general AI being on a huge up-curve without mention in the comic.) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.63.54|162.158.63.54]] 23:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

'''over''' 600 ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.111.76|172.70.111.76]] 00:11, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Featured on r/overemployed ----

The first sentence of the second paragraph should be reworded. Hairbun seems to be content to have verified the claim but the reader doesn't know if Cueball is an credulous as Hairbun. [[User:Inquirer|Inquirer]] ([[User talk:Inquirer|talk]]) 04:07, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Talk:2749: Lymphocytes

2023-03-15T02:29:40Z

Inquirer:

Battery cells have nothing to do with cell phones. The "cell" in cell phone is short for "cellular" and refers to the communication cells around each tower. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 03:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

: And that's short for "sell you our phone" where the contract lets you buy it over an extended time that ends about the same time the spiffier replacement model is available. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.70.209|172.69.70.209]] 10:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I was originally thinking the CD4+ would be a reference to ''Call of Duty 4'' and onwards, in which players scream (insults?) at each other while playing. But the feeling has subsided, after considering it. Mentioning it here, though, in leiu of adding it as 'factual'. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.47|172.70.162.47]] 06:06, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

It should have bee Natural Born Killer Cells, but some opportunities were always going to be missed... --[[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.187|172.71.178.187]] 07:16, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

"Gamma-Delta T cells" being "unknown/unclassified" could be a reference to Star Trek, which has the galaxy divided into 4 quadrants: Alpha, Beta, Gamma and Delta. The Delta Quadrant (setting of Start Trek Voyager) and the Gamma Quadrant (seen in Start Trek Deep Space Nine) are unexplored and uncharted from the Federation's point of view. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.129.51|162.158.129.51]] 09:23, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
:Doesn't say "unclassified" but "classified". I don't think the Star Trek quadrants are referred to as "classified". [[User:Inquirer|Inquirer]] ([[User talk:Inquirer|talk]]) 02:29, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
:I had in mind just general "above Top Secret" classifications (or reputed ones) like "Omega Level, Burn before reading" or somesuch. Either that or perhaps 'Greek system' fraternities/sororities and secret societies in general (perhaps there's a Gamma-Delta-Tau, or similar, out there) which seem to be a US cultural thing that seems ripe for Randall to spoof about.
:Bear in mind that he's taking (mostly) real naming conventions and just explaining them funnily (hence why not "Natural Born Killer" cells, mentioned above, which was my first thoughts on reading as well), so shoehorning a Trek reference in without making it more explicitly Trekkie in the 'free description' bit seems a bit like it wasn't even the point.
:My money's on the security level, as an intention. At least until someone comes up with a better cultural reference that fits better but that I hadn't known/remembered on the initial reading. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.57|172.70.85.57]] 13:33, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

So who is/are "the world's coolest immunologist(s)," who got to name Natural Killer cells (NK cells)? Doctoral student Rolf Kiessling and postdoctoral fellow Hugh Pross may have found them, but did they get to name them?
Likewise, who is/are the "significantly less cool immunologist(s)" who named ILC1, ILC2, and ILC3 cells? [[User:TCMits|TCMits]] ([[User talk:TCMits|talk]]) 15:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
:Their original paper describing them referred to them as "natural" killer cells, so their use of quotes implies that it was a new title they had come up with. [[User:Ahecht|Ahecht]] ([[User talk:Ahecht|talk]]) 16:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Definitely the "coolness" factor is in the naming, not in the discovering. All the discoverers are equally "cool". But coming up with the name "Natural Killer Cells" is orders of magnitude cooler than ILC1, ILC2, and ILC3 (blaaah). [[User:Rtanenbaum|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum|talk]]) 16:11, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the Gamma-Delta cells being "unknown/classified" seems to be a reference to US Army Delta force commandos who are tasked with top-secret highly classified missions that would be unknown even to other military or political officials.(corrected thanks to Ahecht) [[User:Rtanenbaum|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum|talk]]) 16:11, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
:The comic says "unknown/classified", not "unknown/unclassified". [[User:Ahecht|Ahecht]] ([[User talk:Ahecht|talk]]) 16:16, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

2711: Optimal Bowling

2022-12-15T21:09:59Z

Inquirer: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2711
| date = December 14, 2022
| title = Optimal Bowling
| image = optimal_bowling_2x.png
| imagesize = 306x670px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = If you want to bowl a strike, the optimal place is almost certainly inside a bowling alley, although with a little luck any establishment uphill from one could also work.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a SUPERMASSIVE BOWLING BALL - Need a full analysis of each graph (preferably with input from someone who understands bowling). Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This series of line graphs purports to advise players on how to improve their odds of achieving a strike in the sport of {{w|bowling}} – presumably {{w|ten-pin bowling}}, the most popular version of the sport in the United States. As is typical for Randall, however, things start off halfway reasonable and quickly escalate to the absurd. Among the parameters being measured, that being angle, throwing speed, spinning speed, and weight of the ball, the latter three are on {{w|logarithmic scale}}s, making them encompass ranges larger than would be useful for reference by a bowler, up to values that are physically impossible for a human to achieve. {{Citation needed}}

For example, the fourth graph in this comic illustrates a bowler's probability of a strike with a ball whose mass ranges from 100 kg (2.2 pounds) to close to 1010 kg (over 22 billion pounds), and continues by indicating that balls even larger than that would cause "equipment damage" (up to 1020 kg) or the creation of a black hole (starting from around 1025 kg and up). The last entry on the x-axis of this graph is 1040 kg, which is about 5 billion times the mass of the {{w|Sun}}.

By contrast, the United States Bowling Congress requires all bowling balls to weigh no more than 16 pounds (that is, a mass of no more than 7.257 kg), with no minimum weight. Hence, if the x-axis of the graph ran from, say, 0 to 8 kg, the graph might actually impart some useful information.

The first line graph, by contrast, indicates that a bowler has the greatest chance of achieving a strike by aiming the ball directly at the pins, with the chance of a strike decreasing rapidly as the ball is aimed to the left or the right. Even a novice bowler already knows to aim the ball at the pins, not elsewhere. While a novice bowler may have difficulty achieving a 0° angle roll, their roll would still not come close to a -90° or 90° angle (due left or due right), much less a -180° or 180° angle (which, in either case, would be the opposite direction from the pins). Unlike with the other graphs, it is physically possible for a bowler to aim the ball at any angle, albeit not permissible under bowling rules; aiming the ball at an angle which deviates significantly from 0° would create a risk of the ball going into one of the other lanes or missing the lanes entirely, which would annoy or anger other bowlers and employees of the bowling alley.

The second graph indicates that a bowler has the greatest chance of achieving a strike by throwing the ball about 5 to 20 mph, with the chance of a strike decreasing as the speed is increased or decreased. Most bowlers cannot throw more than 100 mph{{Citation needed}}. According to the graph, any throw faster than 100 mph would cause equipment damage/widespread destruction. The graph ends at the speed of light, as it is physically impossible to throw anything faster.

The title text continues the trend of providing unhelpful information by stating that the optimal place to stand when trying to bowl a strike is inside the bowling alley. It is quite obvious that if one is to attempt to bowl a strike, they should stand near the pins, hence inside a bowling alley. The title text also mentions the possibility of "any establishment uphill from one" working, with a little luck. This suggests the possibility of rolling the bowling ball downhill, into the bowling alley (possibly ''through'' it) and into the pins.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[The header is surrounded on either side by small drawings of two bowling pins and a bowling ball.]
:Data for Optimal Bowling

:[Four line graphs are depicted. Each has a numbered one-word general description in a box at the top, an unlabeled y-axis, and a labeled x-axis. The relevant curve and other comments on each graph are in red.]

:1. Aim
:[The graph's x-axis is labeled from -180° to 180°.]
:Release Direction
:[The red curve on the graph is just above the x-axis at all points except for a steep peak around 0°. The red curve is labeled:]
:Relative Probability of Strike

:2. Speed
:[The graph's x-axis is labeled from 10-1 to 108, with the last point on the x-axis labeled "Speed of Light".]
:Ball Speed (m/s)
:[The red curve on the graph starts at the x-axis for 10-1, reaches its peak around 10, then declines and becomes a dashed line ending around three-quarters of the peak around 102. The remainder of the curve is replaced by two labels:]
:Equipment Damage
:Widespread Destruction

:3. Spin
:[The graph's x-axis is labeled from 0 to 1012.]
:Spin (RPMs)
:[The red curve on the graph starts about halfway from its peak for 0, reaches its peak somewhere between 0 and 1,000, then declines and becomes a dashed line around 1,000, soon after which the remainder of the curve is replaced by two labels:]
:Ball Explodes
:Widespread Destruction

:4. Weight
:[The graph's x-axis is labeled from 100 to 1040.]
:Ball Mass (kg)
:[The red curve on the graph starts just above the x-axis for 100, rises steeply and drops steeply ending just above the x-axis, then becoming a dashed line, all before reaching 1010. The remainder of the curve is replaced by two labels:]
:Equipment Damage
:Black Hole Created

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Line graphs]]
[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Sport]]

Talk:2710: Hydropower Breakthrough

2022-12-13T16:51:53Z

Inquirer: Comment added

ChatGPT sez:
:The comic depicts Beret Guy, a character known for his expertise in science and engineering, standing on a podium and announcing that their hydroelectric dam has achieved a level of efficiency greater than one, producing more water than was fed into it. This is cause for celebration, as it indicates that the dam is functioning properly and efficiently. However, the second off-panel voice raises a question, suggesting that there may be more to the situation than initially thought.
:The title text adds further information by revealing that a hydroelectric dam is also known as a heavy water reactor. This suggests that the dam may not be operating in the traditional way, but rather may be using a different type of technology, such as nuclear power, to produce the excess water. This could raise concerns about safety and the potential risks associated with this type of technology.
Meh. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.45|172.69.33.45]] 03:44, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

It *is* possible. All Beret Guy has to do is use the electricity to run air conditioners, which will have one side condensing water from the atmosphere, ergo more water coming out than went in. [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 04:00, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
:I think there's a conservation of energy violation here, but can't model the entire system. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.134.97|172.70.134.97]] 14:31, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Considering that he phrases it "more water than we fed into it" in the past tense, it might just be that there's a leak in the dam.
[[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.19|172.69.33.19]] 04:06, 13 December 2022 (UTC) mraction

More variation: "more water than *we* fed into it" ie not counting water from the river that feeds it, or rainfall. There's also the title text turn of phrase "heavy water reactor". "heavy" could refer to either the "water" (in the sense of gravity, or deuterium passing through), or the "reactor" (as in its mass) - [[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.242|172.70.210.242]] 05:43, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

If Q is only barely >1 it could square the circle by converting atoms to oxygen by fusion in order to create water but the whole energy of the dam is used to make the fusion of a few oxygen atoms.

"Another member of audience, who is presumably familiar with regular physics, says "Wait.", because conservation of mass usually applies to water such that a dam should produce the same amount of water as that fed into it. That said, for a regular dam in a natural valley like the one shown in this comic, it is entirely normal for the dam to "produce" more water than input in the sense that in addition to water from upstream rivers, the dam will also output any "unofficial" inflow from direct rainfall above and from uncharted sources of groundwater below." 
I thought that the "Wait" comment was in relation to the fact that the announcement, although achieving something that was not achieved so far, is impractical. As the power plants are expected to produce energy, announcement that they produce additional water is irrelevant, and the "wait" comment indicated that they have missed the point. {{unsigned ip|172.68.50.204}}

Given the title of ''Hydropower Breakthrough'', is a possible interpretation that the dam is just about to fail? --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.171|172.68.110.171]] 10:35, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

My immediate thought was that he was using the generated electricity to ignite a hydrogen cell, but my immediate thoughts are always weird. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.134.97|172.70.134.97]] 14:31, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I feel Randall's comic is strongly indicative of a fair degree of skepticism around recent fusion power hype (many existing ''fission'' reactors produce an energy surplus, but fail to meet their cost of operations)... Yet, the comic's explanation currently reads as a guileless exhortation of fusion's possibilities, making no mention of the many other challenges faced by fusion reactors, besides this critical ''first step'' of generating more power than required to sustain the reaction. The comic is clearly making light of the recent publication\marketing push, yet the explanation gives no sign that fusion power is anything but practical & just around the corner. Fusion still has many remaining challenges to overcome, before reaching practicality as an energy source even for military applications (moreso still, for public utility); wind & solar are the top KWh:$ producers & another 10 or 100 billion spent researching fusion are very unlikely to change that in the next couple decades. In fact, solar research returns more Watts per dollar. The comic should probably mention the other challenges involved in nuclear fusion power, besides raw output quantity?
[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 16:00, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I think the explanation is overthinking it. The joke is that there's a leak in the dam.
[[User:Nico31415926|An idiot]] ([[User talk:Nico31415926|talk]]) 16:37, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

The explanation says nothing about the effect this would have downriver from the dam. [[User:Inquirer|Inquirer]] ([[User talk:Inquirer|talk]]) 16:51, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

2689: Fermat's First Theorem

2022-10-25T23:30:59Z

Inquirer: Sentence about the chalkboard being black and the letters white.

{{comic
| number = 2689
| date = October 24, 2022
| title = Fermat's First Theorem
| image = fermats_first_theorem_2x.png
| imagesize = 280x248px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Mathematicians quickly determined that it spells ANT BNECN, an unusual theoretical dish which was not successfully cooked until Andrew Wiles made it for breakfast in the 1990s.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a SPELLING ANT- Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
This is a reference to {{w|Fermat's Last Theorem}}, humorously implying that {{w|Pierre de Fermat}} created a similar theorem as a child. Fermat's Last Theorem states that no three positive integers ''a'', ''b'', and ''c'' satisfy the equation ''a''''n''+''b''''n''=''c''''n'' for any integer value of ''n'' greater than 2. It is notable for having remained unproved for hundreds of years, despite many attempts to prove it, before {{w|Andrew Wiles}}, after first trying at age ten, finally succeeded in the 1990s, with assistance from his former student {{w|Richard Taylor (mathematician)|Richard Taylor}}.

The young Fermat here didn't try to prove the mathematical equation, but simply tried to read it as words, treating the "+" sign as a "t" so that "AN+" can be read as "ANT". His interpretation was quickly disproved because there's no "A" between "B" and "C", and no "O" between "C" and "N".

In the title text, the "words" are "ANT BNECN", treating the equals sign "=" as an "E"; while "=" doesn't look especially close to "E", it is similar in that it contains horizontal bars in a horizontally symmetrical arrangement (and of course, it can be read as "equals", which begins with "E"). If the letter E is written in san-serif block text in white on a black background, the "negative space" between the Upper Bar, the Middle Bar and the Lower Bar of the E form a =. The comic shows a blackboard with white letters. The text then references Wiles, asserting that he proved this modified form of Fermat's First Theorem as well by cooking this "ant bnecn" (whatever "bnecn" is) as breakfast.

[[2492: Commonly Mispronounced Equations]] also contains equations pronounced as if they were words in the ordinary sense.

==Transcript==

:[A Hairy-like boy, representing Pierre de Fermat as a child, stands at a blackboard holding a piece of chalk. To his right is Miss Lenhart. The following text is somewhat crudely written on the blackboard:]
:AN + BN = CN
:SPELLS
:ANT BACON

:[Caption below the panel]:
:Fermat's ''First'' Theorem was quickly disproved

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Miss Lenhart]]
[[Category:Comics featuring real people]]

2689: Fermat's First Theorem

2022-10-25T23:28:45Z

Inquirer: Comment on = and E

{{comic
| number = 2689
| date = October 24, 2022
| title = Fermat's First Theorem
| image = fermats_first_theorem_2x.png
| imagesize = 280x248px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Mathematicians quickly determined that it spells ANT BNECN, an unusual theoretical dish which was not successfully cooked until Andrew Wiles made it for breakfast in the 1990s.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a SPELLING ANT- Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
This is a reference to {{w|Fermat's Last Theorem}}, humorously implying that {{w|Pierre de Fermat}} created a similar theorem as a child. Fermat's Last Theorem states that no three positive integers ''a'', ''b'', and ''c'' satisfy the equation ''a''''n''+''b''''n''=''c''''n'' for any integer value of ''n'' greater than 2. It is notable for having remained unproved for hundreds of years, despite many attempts to prove it, before {{w|Andrew Wiles}}, after first trying at age ten, finally succeeded in the 1990s, with assistance from his former student {{w|Richard Taylor (mathematician)|Richard Taylor}}.

The young Fermat here didn't try to prove the mathematical equation, but simply tried to read it as words, treating the "+" sign as a "t" so that "AN+" can be read as "ANT". His interpretation was quickly disproved because there's no "A" between "B" and "C", and no "O" between "C" and "N".

In the title text, the "words" are "ANT BNECN", treating the equals sign "=" as an "E"; while "=" doesn't look especially close to "E", it is similar in that it contains horizontal bars in a horizontally symmetrical arrangement (and of course, it can be read as "equals", which begins with "E"). If the letter E is written in san-serif block text in white on a black background, the "negative space" between the Upper Bar, the Middle Bar and the Lower Bar of the E form a =. The text then references Wiles, asserting that he proved this modified form of Fermat's First Theorem as well by cooking this "ant bnecn" (whatever "bnecn" is) as breakfast.

[[2492: Commonly Mispronounced Equations]] also contains equations pronounced as if they were words in the ordinary sense.

==Transcript==

:[A Hairy-like boy, representing Pierre de Fermat as a child, stands at a blackboard holding a piece of chalk. To his right is Miss Lenhart. The following text is somewhat crudely written on the blackboard:]
:AN + BN = CN
:SPELLS
:ANT BACON

:[Caption below the panel]:
:Fermat's ''First'' Theorem was quickly disproved

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Miss Lenhart]]
[[Category:Comics featuring real people]]

Talk:2626: d65536

2022-05-31T22:38:35Z

Inquirer:

I wonder: can we even make a fair polyhedron with 65536 faces? In Randal's illustration, the faces seem to be irregular hexagons. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.130.105|172.70.130.105]] 21:37, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
: This is better than my question, which was simply if you could tile a sphere with these. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.36|172.70.211.36]] 23:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
:Definitely possible, just create two identical right pyramids with a 32768-gon base and glue the bases together. [[User:Clam|Clam]] ([[User talk:Clam|talk]]) 23:53, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
: Would this design be fair? Consider a set of 256 lines of latitude overlapping another set, with the second set's polar axis at the equator of the first. Cut flat quadrangles between the intersection points of the lines of latitude. Doesn't use hexagons like the comic does though. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.110.121|172.70.110.121]] 09:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
:: Fairness is a given for pyramids (if that's what you're asking). As long as there's enough 'rolling energy' to get either of the pyramids 'facing up', any N-agon base to the pyramids should have enough indeterminate impetous to then finally roll around a bit to end up with any of those exposed faces on top.
::(Interesting to note that for odd-numbered N-agonal bases, like that in a D10, you need to offset the bases and instead of sticking to the triangular faces base-to-base you now have kite-shapes that interlock in a serration that is no longer strictly planar along the axis's perpendiculars.)
::That might need a selection of the pyramidal slope. A very wide pair of bases with very little tip-'elevation' (to fit tightly within an oblate spheroid) should transition very well between same-pyramid faces, like a bulgy button, but one with highly acute tip-angle (prolate, likewise) might find the dominant behaviour to be tip-to-tip tipping, more like a toggle-fastener. OTOH, for odd-numbered end-agons it would probably ratchett to subsequent sides as it tips back and forth so long as it has enough energy to it.
::If you're asking about lines of latitude intersecting, consider that near the poles of either latitudinal reference the division of the other reference-system is going to be spliced more irregularly and thus give varying degrees of stability to rest upon.
::(Also, do you have a latitudinal line that crosses ''both'' pairs of poles, or are you deliberately moving them by half a phase (1/512th of the relevent circumference) so that you at least don't have them entirely coincident.)
::I believe the suggested scheme would be to take a dodecahedron or icosohedron (either of the two duals can be used to start with) and then subdivide each face in such a manner that equally-sized (but differently distorted) hexagons – and 12 little regular pentagons of identical area fitting in at the old dodecahedron centre/the old icosahedron vertex – emerge from the required segmentation/vertex-truncation and readjustment the radiality of all new mid-edge vertices (or maybe the newer-edges' centres or the newer-faces' centres) to touch the unit sphere. If done symmetrically, it should be entirely fair.
::The face-count might be troublesome, though. The twelve necessary pentagonal faces leaves 65524 hexagons, to split evenly between* either 12 or 20 zones, and it should be obvious that neither is possible**, in whole numbers, given the starting point of 2n faces...
:::(* - you can, and probably will in this design, have some that cross between two of the top-level polygons, but you can fully 'donate' as many as you then fully ''get'' donated from the next face around, so it might as well be just counted as a group of whole tiles on an a set of Escher-like interlocking 'rough' polygons.)
:::(** - If you're using 12 zones, that's 3x4x(however many in the zone + one corner each) and there's no factor of 3 in ''any'' value that is 2n. Arranging into 20 symmetrical zones (5x4), you will find that 65524 isn't divisible by 5, either...)
::You could probably arrange an N-ahedron with the number of faces being 12+(12a) or 12+(20b), for some higher value (a bit of mental arithmatic suggests 65592 might be that value) and mark all the 'excess' faces (56?) with "Roll Again!". Or perhaps some pithy motivational slogans that also convey roughly the same meaning... :P [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.5|172.70.162.5]] 11:32, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
::Postcript: Ok, so this is my idea for face-placing. Take a D8 (octahedron) and divide each of its 8 originally triangular faces into 8192 smaller faces (alternatively, start with a cube and progressively truncate its corners towards the same end). This is not a divisible by three number (neither can you put one in the centre, the rest are divisble by three and can surround it symmetrically), but you don't need strict rotational symmetry in any way. The opposing side can reflect/copy the non-symmetry as required to create any useful symmetry across the whole of the structure (and make floored-base/upmost-face pairings, amongst other things).
::As long as you make the faces equally likely to land on ''and stay on'' (could be hyperstellated as a slightly flat irregular 8192agon-based right-pyramid with the pyramid-faces of adjacent sides matching or meshing edges with those of each other, or a complicated mostly-hexagonal mesh, or a triangular one that's a limited fragment of a fine geodesic-like bulged pattern) by some suitable scheme governing area, aspect ratio and inter-face angle of incidence (probably normalising features to touch the unit sphere, for a start) then it should do it fairly and with ''exactly'' 65536 faces. I leave the fine-tweaking up to someone else. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.5|172.70.162.5]] 12:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't know why it's so big? Seems like it should have a diameter of approx. 1 meter. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.130.105|172.70.130.105]] 21:37, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
: Cueball is 50 pixels high. The ball is 340 px high. Assuming Cueball is an average-height male (1.7m), and is standing the same distance from the viewer as the center of the ball, roughly how large is each face of the polygon? Area of a sphere is 4.pi.r.r, r=0.85, so 9.08 m^2 or 9080000 mm^2, divide by number of faces, get 277 mm^2, so we get 1.6cm to a side. If I did that right, then you're right: those are fairly large faces. --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.70.39|172.69.70.39]] 05:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
:I ran the calculations for the Trivia section. I used 12pt font which gave each number an area of 1/6 square inch (about 1 square cm) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.106.237|162.158.106.237]] 06:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Should the title and picture file use "d" or the comic's difficult to type "ᴅ"?
[[User:While False|While False]] ([[User talk:While False|talk]]) 21:55, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
:Since xkcd uses small caps as lowercase letters, the "ᴅ" should just be considered xkcd-font for "d", and as such need not be used on the title, which is not using the xkcd font.
:: Ah! [[User:While False|While False]] ([[User talk:While False|talk]]) 06:15, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

If you really did want to generate a 16 bit integer with physical dice, it would be much simpler to roll a [https://www.thediceshoponline.com/impact-opaque-hexidice-d16-hexadecimal-dice hex die] four times. [[User:Clayot|Clayot]] ([[User talk:Clayot|talk]]) 23:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
:Rolling a binary die 16 times would also work. You can get binary dice for 1¢ each. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.69|108.162.245.69]] 01:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
::The lowest-value coin of all is the Tiyin from Uzbekistan. Some 3,038 equate to one UK penny (and 2,000 tot up to one US cent) from https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21572359. [[User:Arachrah|Arachrah]] ([[User talk:Arachrah|talk]]) 15:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
::Those 1¢ "dices" are not exactly guaranteed to be random. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 06:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
:::They seem as random as other dice? Am I wrong? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.230.63|172.70.230.63]] 09:33, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
:::: You can reduce bias by taking two not quite fair coins. Flip them together. If both heads, or both tails, then record a 0. If different, record a 1. [[User:Arachrah|Arachrah]] ([[User talk:Arachrah|talk]]) 15:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I think the hardest part (or maybe second-hardest part) is figuring out which facet is the one on top. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.78.109|162.158.78.109]] 00:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
:Roll it on a glass table, check from below which face it's landed on instead. Wait until it has settled safely, though, or it might land on ''your'' face! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.227|172.70.90.227]] 04:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
:: Good plan. Assuming standard dice design, subtract the value from 65537 to get the value of the uppermost face. --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.70.39|172.69.70.39]] 05:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
::: Because computer binary counting starts with ZERO (and in this case ends with 65535) one has to subtract from 65535. This die would not have a 65536 and it would have a zero. [[User:Inquirer|Inquirer]] ([[User talk:Inquirer|talk]]) 22:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

What material should it be to be light enough to easily roll it but cheap enough that doing the 1,5 meters doest cost a fortune ? Sorry if the question is not clear. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.69.30|141.101.69.30]] 05:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
:I recommend making it hollow. You could probably do something like this for $3000 if you made it out of 1/8th inch acrylic plate. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.106.237|162.158.106.237]] 07:02, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
:At first I thought aluminum for sturdiness, but really you could make this out of cardboard for dirt cheap, lasercutting precise shapes, but you'd have to design its structural frame to keep it intact, exchanges design effort for price. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.230.63|172.70.230.63]] 09:32, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with this dice being really random. Like, sure, if thrown correctly, but that's going to be quite hard. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 06:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

:True. For a rolled die to be random, it needs to roll far enough so that the initial orientation no longer governs the outcome. Say, ten times the circumference, or about 150 meters? -- [[User:Dtgriscom|Dtgriscom]] ([[User talk:Dtgriscom|talk]]) 10:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
::Interesting to consider the 'necessary minimum'. Simplify to a "wheel of fortune" (just one axis of continual rotation) it would depend upon the potential variation of imparted rotation. If (say) 'aiming' at two whole rotations has a (perhaps 'normal') spread of variance that relates to ±½ rotational uncertainty at the 1st and 3rd quartile of probability then the sub-first and above-third 'tails' might wrap around to (roughly) equalise the chances that 2±(whatever fraction) spins lands just about anywhere just about equally. Aiming at four whole rotations (similary ±1 spin at the given quartiles, and the tailing chancs 'filling in' above 5 rotations and below 3) would smooth things out, all else equal, but takes twice as much perceived/attempted effort for not much more 'randomising'.
::Similarly, requiring 10 full rolls (maybe honestly aiming for 10, but allowing it to be 7.5 or less if not obviously 'just nudged') seems overkill, in the single dimension.
::Except, of course that you also need enough distance (on top of whatever factor you consider practical as a variation-wrapping value, which might not be the ½-in-2 I give) to also roll ''sideways''. If for some reason you really don't want to roll 65536 or 1 (or is it 65535 and 0?), which may be on polar-opposite faces, you might make sure that they are directly to the left and right before you propel the die forwards ''a little'', not caring which distribution of numbers is on/near the rolling-equator (2 is acceptible to you, and 65533, etc; other very low/high values conceivably placed on that thin band of "wheel-like chance" but you're just avoiding the very largest and smallest, or specifically just the one of them) but knowing that it's more unlikely to easily present the exact face(s) you dislike than it might be in a truly 'fair' roll.
::Perhaps the best thing is to have a rolling track to send the thing down that puts it the required "two or so rotations" forward to then either hit a wall or climb slightly up a slope (at a roughly 45 degree angle) that then sends it back roughly sideways to the original vector for a similar distance with a perpendicular or even composite moment of rolling rotation, to bring 'initially axial' numbers fully into play... And that dog-leg would require a sligthly shorter length from launch-position to where the thoroughly mixed-up final stopping point should be, whilst significantly foiling the master-manipulators who actually try to arrange an initial setup that favours better final results (rather than just nudge it, uncaring, for a result not as totally random but certainly not more predominently of desired-for ranges than otherwise). [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.8|141.101.99.8]] 12:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
::At what point does the structural material the die is composed of, combined with its mass, create a smoothing effect that will destroy the fairness of the die. I mean a small plastic die is no problem. A 2-ton acrylic die would start grinding off the edges of some faces with every roll, would it not? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.69.122|172.69.69.122]] 13:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Should it be related to https://xkcd.com/221/ ? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.183.246|162.158.183.246]] 08:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to wait, I think - I don't think there's room in my attic for this as well as all the Betamax kit, my drawers full of MiniDiscs and my Zune collection. No, I'll sit tight - I'm hearing encouraging things about the introduction of the Magic 65536-Ball... [[User:Yorkshire Pudding|Yorkshire Pudding]] ([[User talk:Yorkshire Pudding|talk]]) 09:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
:The number of sides on the die inside the ball is not what determines the name of the ball. It's the exterior housing which is colored in the manner of an Eight Ball. The classic design uses a d20, and is still called an Eight Ball, not a Twenty Ball. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.130.195|172.70.130.195]] 18:00, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm suprised the hidden message points to 2624. I would've thought it would point to 2626 to refer to itself. Maybe things didn't get published as intended? Or maybe Randall really just wanted to point people to the Voyager comic? [[User:Linux2647|Linux2647]] ([[User talk:Linux2647|talk]]) 18:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
:I'm no ASCII expert, but from the description provided I'm pretty sure the comic URL would require the number representing "26" to show up twice. A die with, say, two 13,359 faces would obviously not be fair. If only Randall had published this as #2625 or #2627! (Or maybe he ''planned'' to publish it last week and had to shuffle his schedule after finalizing this comic?) [[User:GreatWyrmGold|GreatWyrmGold]] ([[User talk:GreatWyrmGold|talk]]) 18:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
::Probably the latter, seeing as it doesn't actually line up so that any of them are actually "26". The numbers are xk-cd-.c-om-/2-62-4/, so the 26 and 24 aren't lined up like that. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.126.87|172.70.126.87]] 19:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

2571: Hydraulic Analogy

2022-01-22T16:16:21Z

Inquirer:

{{comic
| number = 2571
| date = January 21, 2022
| title = Hydraulic Analogy
| image = hydraulic_analogy.png
| titletext = Current (water) running through the water (wires) causes it to boil, increasing the pressure (voltage), but resisting (impeding) the flow of hydroelectricity (water currents). This is the basis for Ohm's law.
}}
*This was the sixth comic to come out after the [[Countdown in header text]] started.

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a LIQUITRICITY DEVICE, mucn more on the watery version of Ohms law from the title text is needed. And more on the diagram drawn by Cueball - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

A reader or a listener may conflate an illustration with the point that the writer or speaker is making. The result is that the reader or listener misunderstands what the writer or speaker intended to communicate.

Electric flow is [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lvp_a_JkD2o commonly represented] by a "{{w|hydraulic analogy}}". In this analogy, the water pressure represents {{w|voltage}} and the flow of the water is the {{w|electric current}}. {{w|Electric resistance}} is represented by a constricted section of a pipe.

[[Miss Lenhart]], is teaching a class and starts to explain this analogy, when [[Cueball]] suddenly has an idea and changes her diagrams - connecting the electrical diagram and the hydraulic diagram. In doing this, he has envisioned what comes to be called a "liquitricity device", combining liquid water and electric current flows together and given a suitably {{w|portmanteau}} title.

The last panel shows that Miss Lenhart and Cueball eventually receive the {{w|Nobel Prize}}, presumably the {{w|Nobel Prize in Physics}}, for the design ''and construction'' of the device - indicating that rather than being [[:Category:Strange powers of Beret Guy|technically esoteric]] it has actually been practical to make this for real. The presenter handing them the medals [[:Category:Multiple Cueballs|looks like Cueball]].

The title text 'tries' to explain how this device works and references {{w|Ohm's Law}}, one of the fundamental laws of electricity, but strangely seems as much an incomprehensible mix of the two as the diagram in explaining whatever form of {{w|Wave–particle duality|possible duality}} it actually employs.

One of the featured [[:Category:Footer comics|Footer comics]], [[730: Circuit Diagram]], displays a ''very complex'' circuit diagram. Although no pump or direct water flow can be found here, it all ends up in a beaker with holy water. And there is a symbol labeled 3 liters, at the bottom close to the beaker. This is the symbol for an orifice or flow restriction used on plumbing or hydraulic diagrams. So [[Randall]] already mixed water flow and circuit diagrams over 10 years ago.

==Transcript==
:[Miss Lenhart stands next to a white board with two diagrams while pointing to the first. While she is explaining Cueball interrupts her from off-panel as seen by his voice coming from the right side out of a starburst on the panels edge. The diagrams are a schematic circuit diagram and a water flow diagram. There is a battery (with labels on top and bottom) on the left and a resistor on the right of the circuit as well as labels on each of these and one at the top part of the wire. There is a pump to the left and a tighter section of the pipe to the right, as well as labels on these and on the top part of the pipe. At the bottom there is two arrow pointing in towards the pipe, this also has a label.]
:Miss Lenhart: Electric current is like water flowing in a pipe. The pressure represents-
:Cueball [off-panel]: Wait, hold on.
:Labels on circuit: + - V I R
:Labels on flow diagram: Pump F R D

:[The view changes so Miss Lenhart and the white board are seen from the side. She still stands next to the white board, arms now down, as Cueball approaches the board with a marker held in one hand. The diagrams can still be seen, but distorted from being viewed from the side, and no labels are readable.]
:Cueball: Do you mind if I just...

:[Zoom in on Cueball, who is drawing on the white board, which is the left edge of the panel, i.e. not visible in the panel. Noises from the marker drawing on the board comes up from the tip of the marker pen. The movement of the pen is indicated with small lines on either side.]
:''Scribble''
:''Scribble''
:''Scribble''

:[Miss Lenhart and Cueball, holding the marker pen down, stand on either side of the white board looking at Cueball's version with the merged diagram. He has connected the two, so instead of the wire going down after the resistor in the circuit diagram, it now is connected with water flowing to the right just below the resistor, and then up into the pump to the right of the resistor. At the bottom where the water pipe before bend up into the pump, the water now continues running to the left (the pipe was not been drawn around it by Cueball), and it now flows where the bottom part of the wire, from the circuit, was before, turning up below the battery and connect with it there. All the labels from before has been retained:]
:Labels on diagram: + - V I R Pump F R D

:[Miss Lenhart and Cueball stand on a podium with a Cueball like presenter. The presenter is holding two Nobel Prize medals up in his hands. He is holding them from the strings they are attached to, so the medals hangs below his hands.]
:Presenter: And for the design and construction of the liquitricity device, the Nobel Prize goes to...

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Miss Lenhart]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Multiple Cueballs]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Nobel Prize]]

2571: Hydraulic Analogy

2022-01-22T16:15:33Z

Inquirer: Inserted a paragraph pertaining to a breakdown in communication when the recipient fails to distinguish between the point which is being made and the analogy which was intended to communicate the point.

{{comic
| number = 2571
| date = January 21, 2022
| title = Hydraulic Analogy
| image = hydraulic_analogy.png
| titletext = Current (water) running through the water (wires) causes it to boil, increasing the pressure (voltage), but resisting (impeding) the flow of hydroelectricity (water currents). This is the basis for Ohm's law.
}}
*This was the sixth comic to come out after the [[Countdown in header text]] started.

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a LIQUITRICITY DEVICE, mucn more on the watery version of Ohms law from the title text is needed. And more on the diagram drawn by Cueball - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

A reader or a listener may conflate and illustration with the point that the writer or speaker is making. The result is that the reader or listener misunderstands what the writer or speaker intended to communicate.

Electric flow is [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lvp_a_JkD2o commonly represented] by a "{{w|hydraulic analogy}}". In this analogy, the water pressure represents {{w|voltage}} and the flow of the water is the {{w|electric current}}. {{w|Electric resistance}} is represented by a constricted section of a pipe.

[[Miss Lenhart]], is teaching a class and starts to explain this analogy, when [[Cueball]] suddenly has an idea and changes her diagrams - connecting the electrical diagram and the hydraulic diagram. In doing this, he has envisioned what comes to be called a "liquitricity device", combining liquid water and electric current flows together and given a suitably {{w|portmanteau}} title.

The last panel shows that Miss Lenhart and Cueball eventually receive the {{w|Nobel Prize}}, presumably the {{w|Nobel Prize in Physics}}, for the design ''and construction'' of the device - indicating that rather than being [[:Category:Strange powers of Beret Guy|technically esoteric]] it has actually been practical to make this for real. The presenter handing them the medals [[:Category:Multiple Cueballs|looks like Cueball]].

The title text 'tries' to explain how this device works and references {{w|Ohm's Law}}, one of the fundamental laws of electricity, but strangely seems as much an incomprehensible mix of the two as the diagram in explaining whatever form of {{w|Wave–particle duality|possible duality}} it actually employs.

One of the featured [[:Category:Footer comics|Footer comics]], [[730: Circuit Diagram]], displays a ''very complex'' circuit diagram. Although no pump or direct water flow can be found here, it all ends up in a beaker with holy water. And there is a symbol labeled 3 liters, at the bottom close to the beaker. This is the symbol for an orifice or flow restriction used on plumbing or hydraulic diagrams. So [[Randall]] already mixed water flow and circuit diagrams over 10 years ago.

==Transcript==
:[Miss Lenhart stands next to a white board with two diagrams while pointing to the first. While she is explaining Cueball interrupts her from off-panel as seen by his voice coming from the right side out of a starburst on the panels edge. The diagrams are a schematic circuit diagram and a water flow diagram. There is a battery (with labels on top and bottom) on the left and a resistor on the right of the circuit as well as labels on each of these and one at the top part of the wire. There is a pump to the left and a tighter section of the pipe to the right, as well as labels on these and on the top part of the pipe. At the bottom there is two arrow pointing in towards the pipe, this also has a label.]
:Miss Lenhart: Electric current is like water flowing in a pipe. The pressure represents-
:Cueball [off-panel]: Wait, hold on.
:Labels on circuit: + - V I R
:Labels on flow diagram: Pump F R D

:[The view changes so Miss Lenhart and the white board are seen from the side. She still stands next to the white board, arms now down, as Cueball approaches the board with a marker held in one hand. The diagrams can still be seen, but distorted from being viewed from the side, and no labels are readable.]
:Cueball: Do you mind if I just...

:[Zoom in on Cueball, who is drawing on the white board, which is the left edge of the panel, i.e. not visible in the panel. Noises from the marker drawing on the board comes up from the tip of the marker pen. The movement of the pen is indicated with small lines on either side.]
:''Scribble''
:''Scribble''
:''Scribble''

:[Miss Lenhart and Cueball, holding the marker pen down, stand on either side of the white board looking at Cueball's version with the merged diagram. He has connected the two, so instead of the wire going down after the resistor in the circuit diagram, it now is connected with water flowing to the right just below the resistor, and then up into the pump to the right of the resistor. At the bottom where the water pipe before bend up into the pump, the water now continues running to the left (the pipe was not been drawn around it by Cueball), and it now flows where the bottom part of the wire, from the circuit, was before, turning up below the battery and connect with it there. All the labels from before has been retained:]
:Labels on diagram: + - V I R Pump F R D

:[Miss Lenhart and Cueball stand on a podium with a Cueball like presenter. The presenter is holding two Nobel Prize medals up in his hands. He is holding them from the strings they are attached to, so the medals hangs below his hands.]
:Presenter: And for the design and construction of the liquitricity device, the Nobel Prize goes to...

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Miss Lenhart]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Multiple Cueballs]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Nobel Prize]]