explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:2690: Cool S

2022-10-27T05:09:18Z

MarquisOfCarrabass:

Wow. Never seen a blank one before [[User:Boatster|Boatster]] ([[User talk:Boatster|talk]]) 14:23, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
: Apologies for my mediocre attempt, new to this [[User:Boatster|Boatster]] ([[User talk:Boatster|talk]]) 14:30, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I used to do these chains! [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.25|108.162.237.25]] 15:38, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Bumpf
:You must have used to be {{w|DNA polymerase}}, then! —[[User:While False|While False]] ([[User:While False/explain xkcd museum|'''museum''']] | [[User talk:While False|talk]] | [[special:Contributions/While_False|contributions]] | [[special:Log/While_False|logs]] | [[Special:UserRights/While_False|rights]]) 19:27, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

As a molecular biologist, I'm a bit annoyed any time I see DNA drawn as a left-handed helix. Perhaps this was intentional on Randall's part.

: To expand on Bumpf's comment -- DNA is typically right-handed, so it was most probably derived from the "cool Z". (Yes, Z-DNA (q.v.) is left-handed -- perhaps leading to Randall's presentation) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.178.221|172.70.178.221]] 17:04, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
: I mean, I've never seen on so angular before either. 17:15, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
: Z DNA was not discovered until the 1980s and is a minor form. Also, it doesn't really look much like the regular helix. Franklin had X-ray data on A and B form DNA. B is the most well known form. Also, so as not to have someone else blamed for my comment, the left-hand comment was "docpelletier," me.

This was actually a rediscovery, Celtic decorators had discovered it before. [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 18:56, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Dosen't the transcript generally not have the title text included? --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.82.167|172.70.82.167]] 19:14, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
:Correct. The transcript is of the image only. —[[User:While False|While False]] ([[User:While False/explain xkcd museum|'''museum''']] | [[User talk:While False|talk]] | [[special:Contributions/While_False|contributions]] | [[special:Log/While_False|logs]] | [[Special:UserRights/While_False|rights]]) 19:23, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
: Should we try a more descriptive transcript? I could write up a description, but wasn't sure if I should. [[User:MAP|MAP]] ([[User talk:MAP|talk]]) 23:00, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
:: Yes, we always should. Remember that it's partly for people who cannot see the images and need something fully understandable read out to them (an easier ask than trying to accomodate every single possible relevent text-search for comic feaures, which is another reason to have it.) I was tempted myself, but not had the time. But anybody can 'improve' more or less anything (acknowledging that it's subjective) so if you have the means, motive and opportunity then why not? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.163|172.69.79.163]] 23:38, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Not giving her the Prize because she was already dead is still discrimination. Didn't Pratchett even had word for that? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 19:29, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
:There is debate to be had on whether it is or isn't discrimination when as a rule, the prize isn't awared posthumously unless the person recieved the award before death.--[[User:Mapron01|Mapron01]] ([[User talk:Mapron01|talk]]) 19:44, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
:From the world of Pratchett: "Undead, not Unperson!" - Although that might only count if Franklin also became like [[896: Marie Curie]], at least in time for the original award being decided). [[Special:Contributions/172.71.186.163|172.71.186.163]] 20:52, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I think there's more to the controversy over Rosalind Franklin than just being omitted from the Nobel Prize. The significance of her contribution was downplayed in the media in general. Practically everyone has heard of Watson and Crick, but relatively few lay people have heard of Franklin. Although I guess that can be considered a natural result of them receiving the Nobel. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 20:08, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
:She's at least getting (assuming it can be rearranged) a {{w|Rosalind Franklin (rover)|Mars rover}}... I think C&W aren't getting anything like that, whatever past supplemental honours they got in response/parallel to their Nobelisations... [[Special:Contributions/172.71.186.163|172.71.186.163]] 20:52, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I think we need a clarification. Whether a spiral winds clockwise or widdershins when you look at it end-on depends which end you are looking at.[[User:MarquisOfCarrabass|MarquisOfCarrabass]] ([[User talk:MarquisOfCarrabass|talk]]) 05:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Talk:2687: Division Notation

2022-10-20T07:07:41Z

MarquisOfCarrabass:

Fun fact: In Poland, we don't write the long division like that; we just write A:B with the bar above. I was VERY confused the first time I saw that notation. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.246.235|172.70.246.235]] 21:03, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
:Unrelated to {{w|Polish notation}}, i presume? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.134.13|172.70.134.13]] 22:43, 19 October 2022 (UTC)Bumpf

For me, the version on the xkcd website has an additional line ("A/B: Software Engineer") that's not on this site. I think the comic might have been updated. Is anyone else seeing that? [[User:JBYoshi|JBYoshi]] ([[User talk:JBYoshi|talk]]) 23:20, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
:Updated. [[User:Natg19|Natg19]] ([[User talk:Natg19|talk]]) 00:31, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

For the Unicode one, I think it’s a reference to ⁄ (U+2044, fraction slash) or characters like ½, ¼, etc. - [[User:Cherryblossom|Cherryblossom]] ([[User talk:Cherryblossom|talk]]) 00:24, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Is it important to note that 1/2 auctocorrects to ½ in many text-based programs like Microsoft Word?--[[User:Theunlucky|Theunlucky]] ([[User talk:Theunlucky|talk]]) 02:32, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

It's possible to use fraction-style notation in LaTeX by using \frac, or am I missing something?--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.2.125|162.158.2.125]] 05:49, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

"the long division symbol is only used in some countries". Only English-speaking ones, to be more precise. Most of the countries of the world use a different notation. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.51.80|172.68.51.80]] 06:19, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

In the UK, the 'long division symbol' is nowadays often referred to (particularly with Primary classes, children aged 4 - 11) as the "Bus Stop Method". Because it looks like a UK bus shelter. [[User:MarquisOfCarrabass|MarquisOfCarrabass]] ([[User talk:MarquisOfCarrabass|talk]]) 07:07, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Talk:2681: Archimedes Principle

2022-10-06T05:40:16Z

MarquisOfCarrabass:

I started an explanation, but I can't really figure out what Archimedes' "plan" is. I guess it has something to do with swapping out the fake crown with the king's real gold crown. Heist movies and TV shows always confuse me (I liked "Leverage" for the characters, but could never understand the plans). [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 23:12, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
:Under the guise of demonstrating the displacement principle (the buoyancy effect has no real part in this, given the non-floating nature of any crown... I think the focus in the explanation should just be upon the displaced volume of liquid which traditionally would quantify the volume of an object of known weight and a density to be tested to ensure it is that of the purported substance) he will dunk the real crown in the water. Then ''either'':
:* extract the fake crown, now 'proven true', satisfying everyone but leaving him the really-true crown, or,
:* extract the fake crown, possibly fudging the interpretation (how much water sloshes out) to make it ''seem'' like a fake crown went in (and the fake that came out can now be destructively examined to confirm this, now having just cause to utterly ruin the craftwork in the process, and framing the original artisan for fraud), again leaving him with the crown he was given for testing.
:If the original crown was itself already fake then it might not be worth it (or have to lean towards the latter outcome with a bit of extra care not to 'upgrade' the fake) but that's probably covered by the typical Batman Gambit of a typical heist movie characterm [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.49|172.70.85.49]] 00:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
::The first of the two options makes way more sense. I don't like this plan at all though. How do you hide a colored shiny thing in a bucket of transparent water?!? I feel like we're missing something obvious. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.80|172.69.34.80]] 01:53, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
::Megan says "hidden IN the bottom" , so I think there is some kind of false floor/double bottom at play here; allowing the fake crown to be hidden from view and allowing for a crown-swap in the middle of the demonstration. [[User:Flekkie|Flekkie]] ([[User talk:Flekkie|talk]]) 02:02, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
::Nobody said that it was clear water. Pond water could be dirty or murky enough that the scam would work without the need of a false-bottomed bucket. [[User:RAGBRAIvet|RAGBRAIvet]] ([[User talk:RAGBRAIvet|talk]]) 04:24, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
:According to legend, Archimedes is given the king's crown in order to test for its purity without breaking it; he suspects that the goldsmith he hired replaced most of the gold with silver and kept the excess to himself. Archimedes uses his displacement principle to measure the volume (figuring the principle out in his "Eureka" moment) and weighs the crown to determine its density; his results imply that the crown is in fact fake.
:Here it's implied that the real crown is actually gold, and Archimedes is taking advantage of the king's paranoia; he's likely planning to switch it out, perform his experiment on the fake crown, and keep the real gold to himself. --[[User:Account|Account]] ([[User talk:Account|talk]]) 03:50, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
:Which could indicate that the successful execution of Archimedes' plan is what leads to the legend as we have it today.[[User:MarquisOfCarrabass|MarquisOfCarrabass]] ([[User talk:MarquisOfCarrabass|talk]]) 05:40, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Talk:2675: Pilot Priority List

2022-09-22T05:13:06Z

MarquisOfCarrabass:

Who else googled 'words ending with ate' and had an extra chuckle at what could have been? My favorites: circumnavigate, excommunicate, disarticulate. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.175.30|172.70.175.30]] 05:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

How about 'exterminate'?

[[User:MarquisOfCarrabass|MarquisOfCarrabass]] ([[User talk:MarquisOfCarrabass|talk]]) 05:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Talk:2675: Pilot Priority List

2022-09-22T05:12:42Z

MarquisOfCarrabass:

Talk:2668: Artemis Quote

2022-09-07T05:24:09Z

MarquisOfCarrabass:

The first quote is self-referential (and confuses people, when quoted). The second plays unto the myth that the moon landing was staged. It is nice to be able to choose words, which are cited. A great opportunity to confuse people. --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.143|172.68.110.143]] 21:09, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

To those of you wondering [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2668:_Artemis_Quote&diff=294177&oldid=294176 why, "<tt>mankind" ,[emphasis</tt>," currently appears in the wikitext,] I would direct you to [[explain xkcd talk:Editor FAQ#Punctuation inside quotes and parentheses]]. I am discouraged by such pettiness. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.214.59|172.70.214.59]] 21:26, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
:Waitwhat? ...Quote-Space-Comma-OpenBracket..? Good job it isn't like that now, or I'd be rewriting it. (Probably put the <tt>[emphasis added]</tt> within the quotes, for starters, before worrying about the other punctuation.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.77|172.70.162.77]] 23:02, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps the first Artemis astronaut to set foot on the moon will prefer to come with her own idea of what to say. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.142.75|172.71.142.75]] 21:55, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
:I'm hoping for interpretive dance. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.214.59|172.70.214.59]] 22:31, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
::I hope they do a couple cartwheels before saying anything. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.163|172.70.206.163]] 03:09, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
::: Endorsed: "two small cartwheels for women of color; two giant tumblings for people!" [[Special:Contributions/172.70.214.59|172.70.214.59]] 05:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
::::[URL:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSZoqYElqVE] "It's Good to Be Black on the Moon! Goddamn It!"[[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 21:49, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

The quote in the title text is factually true, adding to the confusion it would cause, as it does not actually claim that the Artemis astronaut is the first human to set foot on the Moon, only that it is a great honor to be the first. [[User:Bugstomper|Bugstomper]] ([[User talk:Bugstomper|talk]]) 22:34, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
:On a related note: It could also be interpreted as inviting the listener to fill in the unspoken continuation of "It is an honor to be the first human to set foot on the moon. To be the 13th is..." -- "meh"? "arguably bad luck"? "asking to be the butt of a 'baker's dozen' joke"? [[User:Mrienstra|Mrienstra]] ([[User talk:Mrienstra|talk]]) 20:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

It is not [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2668:_Artemis_Quote&diff=prev&oldid=294204 feeding trolls] to acknowledge that these <s>trolls</s> people exist (and are exactly the kind of people Randall [[690: Semicontrolled Demolition|likes to bait]]. But I won't 'unedit' that. (Someone else can either restore it or get rid of the silly compromise of being commented out with a confusingly 'inline' text-comment. Only by checking the precise version dif would it even make much sense.) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.141|172.71.178.141]] 22:57, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I interpreted the second (alt text) option as being intended to cause a similar mis-hearing (or suspected mis-hearing) debate as was the case with the original man/a man quote. The word "human" could possibly be mis-heard as "woman" over a poor-quality audio transmission, leading to a debate about which was intended. (According to the comic, the intended word would in fact be "human", but if the person was female most listeners would likely assume that it is supposed to be "woman" as most people are aware that humans have been on the moon before but probably unsure of whether or not a woman has ever been on the moon.)

Questions: Has a woman ever been to the moon, and is NASA planning to choose a woman for the new mission? It wouldn't surprise me if they were planning to send a woman this time around for PC points. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.128|172.70.91.128]] 23:13, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
:Yes, I believe Artemis has announced that they intend to let a woman of color be the 13th on the Moon, but I'm not up to date on the official press releases. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.126|172.70.211.126]] 23:20, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
::I'm Hoping it will be an African-American woman chosen specifically as commander for identity purposes, who says "It's Good to be Black on the Moon!" [Obref Netflix _Space Force_][URL:https://youtu.be/F4I0kfrkTMc][[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 23:23, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
:[Written before two other replies, above, appeared... One maybe answering an issue I raise below about the 'twofer'...] One of the main 'selling points' has been that the {{w|Artemis 3|first landing mission}} would definitely include a female crewmember, and a 'person of colour'. I've never been quite clear that this is to be the two identities of the two crew or if the intention is that there'll be one person fulfilling them both as a "twofer". So those worrying about (or applauding!) "PC points" are already happy to have their fears(/hopes) confirmed.
:As a side note, I find the "PoC" term a horrible phrase, in my mind, but I'm British and I know that whatever problems we have with what terminology to use (BAME, etc) are quite different from the US. And there are near-universally undeniably worse terms to use. And "of colour" (or "color", in Leftpondian) doesn't seem to mean much except not being pure-Saxon. Apparently Meghan, Duchess of Sussex (neé Markle) is mixed-race (some even say "black") but I wouldn't have known (and, now knowing, am not at all bothered by the fact) given that tanning salons output a steady stream of darker-skinned anglo-saxon or even celtic-heritage locals.
:Anyway, there'll be complaints by the anti-PC brigade regardless, not that I mind them being upset. So long as they have good individuals (no Iron Sky 'just send a model', purely as a vanity passenger) they should be able to pick and choose which of various suitable candidates works well in the grand scheme of things.
: (And I don't agree with the "human/woman confusion thing", seems far too clumsy. Even as deliberately awkward phrasing.) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.141|172.71.178.141]] 23:46, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand <tt>because e.g., conflating "a" man with "mankind" is potentially self-contradictory</tt>. There's no conflation in "a man is an individual, but mankind is a group", and the issue is surely more that so seen in "man is an individual, but mankind is a group" where "man"=="mankind" in this respect so that the logic ends up as (A==B)&(A!=B) by trivial analysis... Whatever, I just don't think that explains what is 'wrong'. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.141|172.71.178.141]] 23:46, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
:Addressed in subsequent edits to the Explanation. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.231|172.69.33.231]] 03:04, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

If the astronaut removed his boot before saying "It is an honor to be the first human to set foot on the moon." He/she would technically be correct. [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 23:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
: It's a terrible idea to place an unclothed foot on {{w|lunar regolith}}, not only because of the vacuum and temperature, but it's like a layer of somewhat coarsely ground glass reasonably likely to cause puncture or laceration even from the diminished weight of any adult. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.213|172.70.206.213]] 23:44, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
:: I forget where, but I've seen a 'hard'/speculative SF treatment of future Moon tourism options that includes a run out of one handy airlock and almost immediately into another whilst suited and ''singly-''booted (an extremely tight ligature on the other lower leg, for the necessary duration) for those wishing to make their 'ultimate footprint' in the regolith. With a bit of practice beforehand, there is probably a (comparatively) safe hop-step gait that doesn't cause much more damage than the briefly decompressive coldness betwixt the portals connecting to the safer internal environment of the moonbase this all happens at. Still a 'thrill' activity, with inherent risks both in the execution and afterwards. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.33|172.70.85.33]] 23:58, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
:::I have no doubt that someone will leave their actual footprints on the Moon someday, but I hope they use crutches and some way to get their foot back into their pressure suit ASAP. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.49|172.70.210.49]] 02:34, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Someone ''really'' likes to remove "redundant" words, in edits, amongst other minor adjustments (described similarly laconically) that I'm not sure are truly justified. I bet if I put some of them back (just the ones that I felt served a purpose, and I can imagine the original authors thought so too) they'd just be removed again. And no easy way to argue the toss, so I'll spare you the arguments and put up with the potential travesties. But I get the feeling that there's a particularly opinionated editor out there, active at this very moment, who is more pleased with themself than they rightfully have reason to be. There are valid rhetorical uses for emphasis, you know, and your 'perfection' might not be so universally agreeable despite your sniping. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.33|172.70.85.33]] 00:24, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
:Is there a Unicode glyph for saying wiki editors need to calm down? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.207.8|172.70.207.8]] 00:32, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
::There must be one for "copyedit". Which seems to just mean that an edit is being made, without any proper comment. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.33|172.70.85.33]] 00:47, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
::: ⛚✎ [[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.49|172.70.210.49]] 01:03, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I just deleted this, because it doesn't make sense to me:
:''This joke could be taken in one of two ways: one, that it is a violation of the {{w|cooperative principle}} which states that what people say usually is of relevance to the current situation - in this scenario implying that the Artemis astronaut is the first person on the Moon when in fact they were simply discussing the topic in a disconnected bubble the same way one might make such a comment on Earth; alternatively it could simply be to mislead people into thinking Artemis was the first crewed mission to the Moon.''
Perhaps the author can go into more detail here on how this is a better explanation than the text it replaced, please? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.214.183|172.70.214.183]] 04:20, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
:Just a comment that personally the link to the cooperative principle looks quite helpful and relevant to both this and other comics, as well as recent politics. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.230.105|172.70.230.105]] 20:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
:I'm not the author of that, but I'm the one who put the lander-appearance paragraph under a Trivia field, and was about to do the same with the Artemis 1 paragraph when I find someone edited the Trivia away (mentioning it by name) and wants to talk about it... So, I don't know what you think you're doing (in the nicest way, I just think you're confused about what your 'partial reverts' are actually doing). But the editing is clearly busy, so <s>I'll probably come back to it later today anyway and see what we have.</s> ''...no, scratch that. Seeing the 'missing' paragraph improperly appended to another paragraph, both that and the Artemis 1 one are both now in Trivia as purely incidental to the comic but maybe interesting regardless. Until someone decides to do something stupid(er) with them, maybe.'' [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.4|172.70.86.4]] 04:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
::So if I understand you, the comment about how the drawing has people coming out of the base of the SpaceX Starship, while the contract NASA awarded them has an elevator, presumably with some sort of a backup like a winch or rope ladder, is trivial? You might also consider commenting on the content instead of the contributors. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.213|172.70.206.213]] 04:35, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
:::It's not trivial, but it's Trivia. Anyway, see above. Unless you already saw what I did and maybe rereverted it (but now I ''am'' staying away for several hours, so fill your boots...). [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.141|172.71.178.141]] 04:43, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
:::Ok, Trivia-proponent back here again, finally. Yes, it ''did'' get immediately/before-I-had-finished reverted (and compounded back to that other unrelated para) as predicted. And then someone came up with a other term that seems to have stuck.
:::Noting that the Artemis 1 para really is the main thing (of the asides), which I'd originally put at the top of the more ephemeral subsection, and that Trivia (or its otherwise-named direct alternative) is generally positioned below Transcript. But at least it's not a glaringly obvious directly unexplanatory intrusion in the explanatory flow, FFS. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.141|172.71.178.141]] 15:01, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I wonder what other editors think about [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2668:_Artemis_Quote&diff=prev&oldid=294312 this deletion,] given the extent to which schwas and dialect have played in Xkcd recently. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.239|172.69.33.239]] 05:13, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

One small step for man'); DROP TABLE Quotes;-- [[Special:Contributions/172.70.135.92|172.70.135.92]] 06:58, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Yet another xkcd where I learn something: I never realized there was any confusion on the "man / (a) man" part in Armstrong's quote. It did not even occur to me there was a missing article to begin with. American speakers do omit their articles from time to time in casual speech (e.g. "sorry I'm late, damn car broke"), not to mention that this is actually a feature in many non-English languages. [[User:Ralfoide|Ralfoide]] ([[User talk:Ralfoide|talk]]) 18:59, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
:You would otherwise have said "Sorry I'm late, '''a''' damn car broke"? No, I think you missed the "the" in "...'''the''' damn car...". Maybe you meant "...(it was a) jam on the interstate" (perhaps because a car, someone else's, broke; or just general congestion). On the whole, you can miss "the" a lot easier than "a". And "the words are funny"/the word is funny" has a different overall meaning (refering to specific words) to "words are funny" (covering the whole lexical gamut, it seems). "A word is funny" is potentially useful and coherent (a response to "What's the best thing to draw on someone's forehead when they're passed out drunk?"?), "word is funny" is Buffy-speak at best ("the word"? "a word"? Context required! (The context/A context/you choose.))
:There are cases to miss an indefinite article, or maybe in a patois, but they're rarer than with the definite one. And unarticulated "man" (distinguishing it as an uncountable version of the noun) is effectively the same as "mankind" which then makes the rest of the statement (which also lacks a qualifying conjunction; commonly decided to be "but", yet may be "and" or "or" or or others, further changing what the intent is) more useful for arguments such as this than as a guiding linguistic light.
:But then some people say "I could of", so there are worse misarticulations out there... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.133|172.70.85.133]] 19:47, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
What is the large round flat thing on the surface of the moon? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.230.105|172.70.230.105]] 20:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
:You mean the crater? Are you confused about the {{w|Rim (crater)|raised rim}}? I think that's all you're looking at. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.4|172.70.86.4]] 22:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Surely the ultimate honour is not to be the first human/woman/person of colour/dog-f#cking lunatic/whatever to 'set foot' on the Moon, but to be the first person to be BURIED there, thus making you a permanent fixture of the moon forever (since you aren't likely to decompose).
[[User:MarquisOfCarrabass|MarquisOfCarrabass]] ([[User talk:MarquisOfCarrabass|talk]]) 05:24, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Talk:2666: Universe Price Tiers

2022-09-02T05:50:19Z

MarquisOfCarrabass:

We seem to be in Universe Standard, based on the cosmic speed limit
[[User:Victor|Victor]] ([[User talk:Victor|talk]]) 22:03, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Is the price per user (human)? Or payed by the "god" who runs the universe?
The interpretation would change quite a bit. If per user, some could travel fast while others would not see ads and could even be immortal.
If per universe, would the concept of ads disappear?
[[User:Victor|Victor]] ([[User talk:Victor|talk]]) 22:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
::The tree sound can't be a particular human's experience, and the speed limit seems intended to be per universe.

General comment, I think each line of the table should have a separate one-line or one-paragraph explanation, rather than squishing it into one column of a table which mostly reproduces the comic text. i.e. we don't need the table in the explanation, although it works fine in the transcript imo. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.62.71|172.69.62.71]] 23:40, 31 August 2022 (UTC)edit: a word

"Yes, and he cheats" may be a reference to a quote from ''Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri''.
::I fully expected something like ''"Most gods throw dice, but Fate plays chess, and you don't find out 'til too late that he's been playing with two queens all along."'' (from ''Interesting Times'' by Terry Pratchett) [[User:RAGBRAIvet|RAGBRAIvet]] ([[User talk:RAGBRAIvet|talk]]) 01:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
::The SMAC quote is "Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded. - Chairman Sheng-ji Yang", from the Probability Mechanics tech. Also, the "God does not play dice" quote is stated during the Supercollider secret project movie. I doubt the comic is referencing any particular media here, though. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.22.5|172.69.22.5]] 02:40, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
::Meanwhile, Stephen Hawking said "Not only does God play dice, but... he sometimes throws them where they cannot be seen." -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 16:01, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Under ''Number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin'', '64' is 2⁵ and may be making reference to the Nintendo 64 game system. [[User:RAGBRAIvet|RAGBRAIvet]] ([[User talk:RAGBRAIvet|talk]]) 01:54, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
::And just for the record, 4096 is 2¹². [[User:RAGBRAIvet|RAGBRAIvet]] ([[User talk:RAGBRAIvet|talk]])

:: Note that the philosophical question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin turns to have much more useful meaning if we realize that the question wasn't if 64 or 4096, but if it's a finite or infinite number, that is, if angels are subject to {{w|Pauli's exclusion principle}}. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 15:59, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

::: I think the answer is [https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8071704/characters/nm0000531 to be found elsewhere]. And it is a different power of 2! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.147|172.70.162.147]] 17:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Who is paying our subscription? How do we ensure we don't get demoted to lite?

Here, the sound of one hand clapping is pretty much "toop." Put your hand out flat fingers together, and no thumb involved, quickly make a fist. Toop. Edit I'm not making a fist. Im keeping the last joints straight and smacking my hand[[Special:Contributions/172.70.134.95|172.70.134.95]] 15:59, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
:But two hands each doing that (or slapping another bit of body) aren't "two hands clapping", but more like two hands ''clasping''/something-or-other-like-that.
:If you could bring your one hand to a sudden stop in mid-air ''as if'' hitting another hand, it might be closer, but there's no sudden stop possible like a contact-stop. Plus a full-fledged clap for maximum ovational volume involves cupped hands trapping a resonant volume of air between them, almost sealed (wet hands so positioned can be used to force a squeaky-fart sound out from between them), and neither an "air clap" or the toop-clasp can do anything so dramatic with a solo hand. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.154|141.101.99.154]] 17:54, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I have a problem with the "Bad things..." portion. ''If'' I was a bad person, then I would never pay for the universe, as I would be better off in the free version, where nothing bad would ever happen to me. [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 19:17, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

The "bad things" section is a bit bothersome: good things don't exist without bad things. Without bad things, good things are just...things. So maybe awareness of bad things is still extant in UniPro? That way, good things would still be at the upper end of a theoretical scale.

But the subjectivity of badness is concerning in a bad-things-don't-happen realm. I reckon plenty of people who could spring for fifty bucks a month would list rum, Katharine Hepburn movies, gay people and Jews as bad things that therefore won't happen. If I stump up my Pro subscription, do I have to share the universe with these douchebags, or do we each get our own? And if it's the latter, how much of a douche must you be to be excluded from my universe? Can we differ a little and still coexist, or do we have to gel perfectly? And how would that ever happen...and would it be tolerable to live surrounded by my opinion-clones? Is this...is this the too-perfect Matrix v.1.0? Am I buying a ticket to a simulated utopia while my body atrophies?
You monster! Guards! Guards! Let me out.....

[[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.35|172.71.178.35]] 23:09, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Note that Universe Lite is marked as trademark, Universe Standard as a registered trademark, and Universe Pro as...BOTH. This is a joke; more is better, esp. in lists of features. But there's no point in claiming a mark is both a trademark and a registered trademark.

How to clap with one hand: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwoq3QBaQAY [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 04:38, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

If a tree falls in a forest and there's no one there to hear it, then there is NO SOUND. The act of the tree falling will create vibrations in the air, but those vibrations only become 'sound' when they impact on a tympanic membrane (such as an eardrum) that is connected to a brain. Sound happens in your head, folks. Of course, in practice, the likelihood of a tree falling in an area that contains NO tympanic membranes at all is impossible given the abundance of miniature scaled life on Earth. That said, we have no idea whether insects actually perceive those air vibrations as 'sound' in the same way that humans do - the fairy fly, for example, is so small that it can 'swim' through air rather than flying, so probably perceives sound waves the same way that humans experience ocean waves.

[[User:MarquisOfCarrabass|MarquisOfCarrabass]] ([[User talk:MarquisOfCarrabass|talk]]) 05:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Talk:2664: Cloud Swirls

2022-08-29T06:25:41Z

MarquisOfCarrabass:

3-D video games? HUH??[[Special:Contributions/172.70.131.126|172.70.131.126]] 09:33, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
:It's not how I would have started the Explanation, but I think it'll quickly be rewritten enough that this element is downplayed/subsumed in some more generalised attempt to explain everything from QFD to the CBR. As I'm only just reading this now, just before I have to wander off to do something else, I shall have to defer my own dabbling edits until later, by which time it will have been matured (or at least remixed) into a more thorough text, so no point me worrying upon how to improve the necessary but rarely inviolable initial attempt to Explain. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.5|172.70.85.5]] 11:51, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
:: Maybe in some combination with the {{w|Observer effect (physics)}}, it's an attempt to get at the simulation hypothesis maybe?
::I absolutely do not get whatever it is that the title text is saying, so I'm sitting this one out. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.214.189|172.70.214.189]] 14:56, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
:::I'd interpret it as them studying fluid dynamics in hope of discovering a way to create the coolest possible cloud. --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.50.207|172.68.50.207]] 15:07, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
::::Aye. Given we can't see the 'best clouds' here (because the chances are low that we can) and we can't go and see the absolute best clouds (due to limitations on visiting every likely place out there), by intensely studying the phenomenon that in part dictates how all clouds look one might create (or visually predict the look of) the superior type through rigorous simulation/emulation/etc. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.155|172.70.162.155]] 15:53, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

''Much more computing power could be saved by skimping on the chemistry of the quattuordecillions of atoms in the oceans than the clouds in the sky ... but skimping on oceanic chemistry would make biogenesis much less feasible. However, Earth has life.''

Wait, what if this is the solution to the Fermi paradox? /jk [[User:Xkcdjerry|Xkcdjerry]] ([[User talk:Xkcdjerry|talk]]) 02:49, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

"Of course, most people do not think that the Universe is a simulation..." feels like a ''genuine'' [citation needed] to me. I can't say with confidence that it's the prevailing theory, but it's been gaining so much traction in this day and age that it feels weird to claim with confidence that the majority of people don't think it.
:Agree. On the other hand, I don't think the Universe simulation cheats to save computing resources. With the scale it works in, it must be massively parallel system which isn't able to reallocate resources from one area to other. Also, if whoever programmed the simulation would be willing to cheat, they would start with not designing the physical laws so complicated. Or alternatively, they would cheat big, changing our memories to make everything seem to work correctly. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 23:44, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
::Yes. If the universe were like The Matrix—i.e., its main goal were to house beings possessing minds—then simulating only the input to each being’s senses would be the most economical.

Am I the only one who feels like the Explanation is lacking its customary explanatoriousness? I propose a table in the form of {{w|Pascal's wager}}, which when projected on the {{w|Mandelbrot set}}, looks like clouds. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.166.173|162.158.166.173]] 03:12, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this is an accurate description or explanation of the title text, so I am moving it here:
: "The response is, more or less, that the second person wants to see “the coolest clouds”. If one devised a system to determine what would qualify as the coolest clouds (an entirely subjective thing), then one could rank planets on how cool their clouds were. Since only one planet would have the best clouds and there is a great number of planets, it is statistically unlikely that Earth - or any of the other planets in our system - will be the winner. Thus, in order to see the coolest clouds, one must either travel to another system or learn fluid dynamics to simulate them. Compared to the vast distances a ship must travel to reach even the nearest star, even rockets seem slow, and it would take a long time to get even a fraction of the way there. Because of this, the latter is chosen."
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.166.173|162.158.166.173]] 03:59, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I was reminded by this strip of the fact that THIS planet, the only planet in our solar system where the natural satellite has the correct relationship with the sun to occasionally block it out in an extremely cool way (with the 'diamond ring' corona effect), is also the only planet (so far as we know) where such solar eclipses can be APPRECIATED...

[[User:MarquisOfCarrabass|MarquisOfCarrabass]] ([[User talk:MarquisOfCarrabass|talk]]) 06:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Talk:2664: Cloud Swirls

2022-08-29T06:23:10Z

MarquisOfCarrabass:

3-D video games? HUH??[[Special:Contributions/172.70.131.126|172.70.131.126]] 09:33, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
:It's not how I would have started the Explanation, but I think it'll quickly be rewritten enough that this element is downplayed/subsumed in some more generalised attempt to explain everything from QFD to the CBR. As I'm only just reading this now, just before I have to wander off to do something else, I shall have to defer my own dabbling edits until later, by which time it will have been matured (or at least remixed) into a more thorough text, so no point me worrying upon how to improve the necessary but rarely inviolable initial attempt to Explain. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.5|172.70.85.5]] 11:51, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
:: Maybe in some combination with the {{w|Observer effect (physics)}}, it's an attempt to get at the simulation hypothesis maybe?
::I absolutely do not get whatever it is that the title text is saying, so I'm sitting this one out. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.214.189|172.70.214.189]] 14:56, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
:::I'd interpret it as them studying fluid dynamics in hope of discovering a way to create the coolest possible cloud. --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.50.207|172.68.50.207]] 15:07, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
::::Aye. Given we can't see the 'best clouds' here (because the chances are low that we can) and we can't go and see the absolute best clouds (due to limitations on visiting every likely place out there), by intensely studying the phenomenon that in part dictates how all clouds look one might create (or visually predict the look of) the superior type through rigorous simulation/emulation/etc. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.155|172.70.162.155]] 15:53, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

''Much more computing power could be saved by skimping on the chemistry of the quattuordecillions of atoms in the oceans than the clouds in the sky ... but skimping on oceanic chemistry would make biogenesis much less feasible. However, Earth has life.''

Wait, what if this is the solution to the Fermi paradox? /jk [[User:Xkcdjerry|Xkcdjerry]] ([[User talk:Xkcdjerry|talk]]) 02:49, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

"Of course, most people do not think that the Universe is a simulation..." feels like a ''genuine'' [citation needed] to me. I can't say with confidence that it's the prevailing theory, but it's been gaining so much traction in this day and age that it feels weird to claim with confidence that the majority of people don't think it.
:Agree. On the other hand, I don't think the Universe simulation cheats to save computing resources. With the scale it works in, it must be massively parallel system which isn't able to reallocate resources from one area to other. Also, if whoever programmed the simulation would be willing to cheat, they would start with not designing the physical laws so complicated. Or alternatively, they would cheat big, changing our memories to make everything seem to work correctly. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 23:44, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
::Yes. If the universe were like The Matrix—i.e., its main goal were to house beings possessing minds—then simulating only the input to each being’s senses would be the most economical.

Am I the only one who feels like the Explanation is lacking its customary explanatoriousness? I propose a table in the form of {{w|Pascal's wager}}, which when projected on the {{w|Mandelbrot set}}, looks like clouds. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.166.173|162.158.166.173]] 03:12, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this is an accurate description or explanation of the title text, so I am moving it here:
: "The response is, more or less, that the second person wants to see “the coolest clouds”. If one devised a system to determine what would qualify as the coolest clouds (an entirely subjective thing), then one could rank planets on how cool their clouds were. Since only one planet would have the best clouds and there is a great number of planets, it is statistically unlikely that Earth - or any of the other planets in our system - will be the winner. Thus, in order to see the coolest clouds, one must either travel to another system or learn fluid dynamics to simulate them. Compared to the vast distances a ship must travel to reach even the nearest star, even rockets seem slow, and it would take a long time to get even a fraction of the way there. Because of this, the latter is chosen."
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.166.173|162.158.166.173]] 03:59, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I was reminded by this strip of the fact that *this* planet, the only planet in our solar system where the natural satellite has the correct relationship with the sun to occasionally block it out in an extremely cool way (with the 'diamond ring' corona effect), is also the only planet (so far as we know) where such solar eclipses can be *appreciated*...
[[User:MarquisOfCarrabass|MarquisOfCarrabass]] ([[User talk:MarquisOfCarrabass|talk]]) 06:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Talk:2656: Scientific Field Prefixes

2022-08-09T07:03:07Z

MarquisOfCarrabass:

Interestingly enough, the last time I was at a dentist, I ask them if they had seen any research work on how to do dentistry in zero-g, like if you got a toothache halfway to Mars.
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.107.56|162.158.107.56]] 01:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC) BCS

Comment on comment: there should have been work done on dental procedures aboard orbiting stations, and also on e.g. Antarctic bases. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.134.25|162.158.134.25]] 04:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC) Pär Leijonhufvud

Those who say that there's no such thing as High-Energy Theology should be taken with a pinch of salt. Or even a {{w|Lot's wife|Lot}}! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.80|172.70.91.80]] 02:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned with Theoretical Theology. How much more theoritical can base theology be? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.198|108.162.250.198]] 02:22, 9 August 2022 (UTC) Beechmere

'Theoretical theology' is a tautology. So the first word is redundant.
[[User:MarquisOfCarrabass|MarquisOfCarrabass]] ([[User talk:MarquisOfCarrabass|talk]]) 06:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I'd love to conduct research on Marine Massage! How do I find the link? (Purposes.)
:We need another dimension for Theoretical Marine Massave [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 04:03, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately the "Marine dentistry" one appear to be a false positive: it contains the test string "...Marine, Dentistry..." in a list of possible fields where AR technology could be useful (Novakova, N.G., 2019. Innovation potential of augmented technologies in industrial context. Industry 4.0, 4(1), pp.24-28).
Also the "high-energy psychology" one was similarly a dud: student newspaper with a help wanted ad for a "high energy psychology student" (https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/217247671.pdf). The lack of manual curation of Scholar sometimes gives you these finds. Thirdly, Randall definitely searched with quote marks: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=marine+dentistry yields over 100 k results while https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%252C5&q=%22marine+dentistry%22 only yields one, with at least one of the former being papers on marine mammal dentistry (I have for practical porpoises no interest in dentistry, but I *want* to read https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781119545804.ch11). In summary: by searching for the exact phrase Randall eliminated a large number of false positives, but also missed a large number of interesting papers. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.134.157|162.158.134.157]] 04:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC) Pär Leijonhufvud

honestly I'm mostly worried about computational theology [[Special:Contributions/172.71.6.65|172.71.6.65]] 04:40, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
: It's a fairly common subject in science fiction. Fredric Brown's short story "Answer", for example. [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 04:46, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if there was some research into use of synchrotron radiation in treating cancers in the jaw. Doesn't that count as "high energy"? [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 04:46, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

'High Energy Theology' sounds like an area of study extremely NOT conducive to the long-term survival of the human race. See this quote from the PRINCIPIA DISCORDIA:

'Mal-2 was once asked by one of his Disciples if he often prayed to Eris. He replied with these words: "No, we Erisians seldom pray, it is much too dangerous. Charles Fort has listed many factual incidences of ignorant people confronted with, say, a drought, and then praying fervently -- and then getting the entire village wiped out in a torrential flood."

We got ourselves into enough trouble when we split the atom. Gods only know what would result if we ever manage to split the thaum.

[[User:MarquisOfCarrabass|MarquisOfCarrabass]] ([[User talk:MarquisOfCarrabass|talk]]) 06:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Talk:2656: Scientific Field Prefixes

2022-08-09T06:58:15Z

MarquisOfCarrabass:

Interestingly enough, the last time I was at a dentist, I ask them if they had seen any research work on how to do dentistry in zero-g, like if you got a toothache halfway to Mars.
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.107.56|162.158.107.56]] 01:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC) BCS

Comment on comment: there should have been work done on dental procedures aboard orbiting stations, and also on e.g. Antarctic bases. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.134.25|162.158.134.25]] 04:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC) Pär Leijonhufvud

Those who say that there's no such thing as High-Energy Theology should be taken with a pinch of salt. Or even a {{w|Lot's wife|Lot}}! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.80|172.70.91.80]] 02:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned with Theoretical Theology. How much more theoritical can base theology be? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.198|108.162.250.198]] 02:22, 9 August 2022 (UTC) Beechmere

'Theoretical theology' is a tautology. So the first word is redundant.
[[User:MarquisOfCarrabass|MarquisOfCarrabass]] ([[User talk:MarquisOfCarrabass|talk]]) 06:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I'd love to conduct research on Marine Massage! How do I find the link? (Purposes.)
:We need another dimension for Theoretical Marine Massave [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 04:03, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately the "Marine dentistry" one appear to be a false positive: it contains the test string "...Marine, Dentistry..." in a list of possible fields where AR technology could be useful (Novakova, N.G., 2019. Innovation potential of augmented technologies in industrial context. Industry 4.0, 4(1), pp.24-28).
Also the "high-energy psychology" one was similarly a dud: student newspaper with a help wanted ad for a "high energy psychology student" (https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/217247671.pdf). The lack of manual curation of Scholar sometimes gives you these finds. Thirdly, Randall definitely searched with quote marks: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=marine+dentistry yields over 100 k results while https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%252C5&q=%22marine+dentistry%22 only yields one, with at least one of the former being papers on marine mammal dentistry (I have for practical porpoises no interest in dentistry, but I *want* to read https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781119545804.ch11). In summary: by searching for the exact phrase Randall eliminated a large number of false positives, but also missed a large number of interesting papers. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.134.157|162.158.134.157]] 04:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC) Pär Leijonhufvud

honestly I'm mostly worried about computational theology [[Special:Contributions/172.71.6.65|172.71.6.65]] 04:40, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
: It's a fairly common subject in science fiction. Fredric Brown's short story "Answer", for example. [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 04:46, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if there was some research into use of synchrotron radiation in treating cancers in the jaw. Doesn't that count as "high energy"? [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 04:46, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

'High Energy Theology'sounds extremely dangerous. See this quote from the PRINCIPIA DISCORDIA:
'Mal-2 was once asked by one of his Disciples if he often prayed to Eris. He replied with these words: "No, we Erisians seldom pray, it is much too dangerous. Charles Fort has listed many factual incidences of ignorant people confronted with, say, a drought, and then praying fervently -- and then getting the entire village wiped out in a torrential flood."
("Of course I'm crazy, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong. I'm mad but not ill.")

[[User:MarquisOfCarrabass|MarquisOfCarrabass]] ([[User talk:MarquisOfCarrabass|talk]]) 06:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Talk:2656: Scientific Field Prefixes

2022-08-09T06:47:38Z

MarquisOfCarrabass:

Talk:2653: Omnitaur

2022-08-03T07:20:44Z

MarquisOfCarrabass:

Do people thing Omnitaur meant to be a anagram? It would make more sense to me suffix taken from minotaur and centaur etc. with the prefix omni meaning all.
[[User:Mouse|Mouse]] ([[User talk:Mouse|talk]]) Mousetail
:I don't think it is meant to be an anagram. Nevertheless it is one. But that's just my gut feeling. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 07:07, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
::There are only those two taurs mentioned and there are many other creatures made from animals with different name. It has both human and bull in it (I know it has all the others as well), but to me it seems obvious that Randall is aware this is an anagram of Mino to Omni. And then of course it encompasses most other mythical creatures, given the meanin of Omni. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 08:16, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
:::True, surely he's aware of it. My point is: It's either an anagram that also happens to have the meaning "omni" or it has the meaning "omni" and also happens to be an anagram. My bet is on the latter. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 10:42, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I dread to think what this thing must look like internally. Especially when I remember the centaurs from C S Lewis' 'Narnia' stories, who are depicted eating two meals - a huge roast meal "to satisfy the man stomach" and a meal of grass "to satisfy the horse stomach". Bleagh.[[User:MarquisOfCarrabass|MarquisOfCarrabass]] ([[User talk:MarquisOfCarrabass|talk]]) 07:32, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
:Well it certainly is an Omnivore (does that mean eating only Omnitaurs then...? :-D ) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 08:16, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

If we take a looser definition of 'omnitaur' as meaning 'made of lots of different creatures' (in parallel to how 'omnivore' really means 'eats lots of different things' rather than literally 'eats everything', and in line with only 11 creatures being depicted), then arguably every creature is an omnitaur - it's just that most of them are special cases that happen to be made up of a lot of very similar creatures. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.77|172.70.162.77]] 09:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

1/121 seems nonsense to me. Assume this omnitaur has fairly standard genetics: 11 allele pairs for the several body parts with recessivity being random. All parts must have one human allele (which happens to be recessive), 1/11^10. The human allele must be picked, 1/2^11. More like a trillion chance... [[Special:Contributions/172.71.98.193|172.71.98.193]] 10:10, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
:I was just going to post a question: why not (1/11)11? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.214.43|172.70.214.43]] 10:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
:How on earth is that "standard"? [[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 11:32, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
::Sitting in a rejected-edits file of mine (because I couldn't see how to make it good enough to escape a general nitpick... though not your presence in particular) is the following, that might have been superceded by the Speculations section that was added since:
:::''In order for two omnitaur genomes to contain the ''possibility'' of merging to create a full human, maybe the genetic material is not {{w|Ploidy#Diploid|diploid}}, but {{w|Polyploidy|undecaploid}} (at the very least), leading to each omnitaur to express their own individual and personal distribution of phenotypes from amongst the many heritable traits they have inherited. The reproductive compatibility of any two omnitaurs would be a crap-shoot and might influence what given 'monotaurism' might arise by chance.''
::...be a shame to waste it, but it doesn't really fit as is now, even if I 'correct' it. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.229.75|108.162.229.75]] 15:06, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
::::I agree it shows promise. [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 17:42, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Note: you can't call sharks "fish" without also calling humans, frogs, and eagles "fish" (if you're using the current taxonomic system based on cladistics). The cartilaginous fishes split from bony fishes long before the tetrapods like us split off from the lineage that became trout, flounder, and guppies. That is, a snake is much more closely related to a grouper than a shark is. [[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 11:32, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
: [https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/california-court-ruling-bees-are-fish-bad-logic-good-humans-rcna32971 According to California courts, bees are fish.] (Spoiler: within the meaning of "Fish and Game" or something like that. Personally I think the judges were trolling because they could have more congruously gone with "game" because it was about honeybees which beekeepers obviously catch.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.95|172.70.206.95]] 13:42, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
:Fish are a paraphyletic group, but that doesn't make the group "wrong" by cladistics. Cladistics recognizes that its common for one branch of a group to go off and do something very divergent, and that the remaining members often have a lot of shared characteristics that make it useful to talk about them. For example, "stem mammals", which excludes actual mammals. Cladistics has stronger objections to polyphyly, which is grouping animals together that aren't a cladistic group with some very clear exceptions. It still recognizes the groups though, classifying them as polyphyletic groups. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.82.121|172.71.82.121]] 13:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
: Sure, but that has nothing to do with what I wrote. Humans and stem mammals are more closely related to each other than either is to, say, an earthworm. There is no jamming in a distant relative while excluding closer ones. A "fish" classification ''in taxonomy'' that doesn't include humans but does include sharks is like a "canines" classification that includes dogs and foxes but excludes coyotes. [[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 03:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
::^ This editor paraphyletizes. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.163|172.70.206.163]] 14:40, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

The speculation section needs a discussion of how living {{w|turducken}} could be engineered. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.88|172.70.211.88]] 11:44, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
:Being able to do that would be a great lab qual, but when the spacefairing dinosaurs find out we use them for the culinary arts, is there any hope for galactic peace? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.145|172.70.210.145]] 16:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
::Considering there wasn't any hope for galactic peace before either, I think it's worth the try. Seriously, even if humans would be the ONLY spacefairing species there would be no hope for galactic peace. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 20:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

If HGTTG references are traditional here, ''The Restaurant at the End of the Universe'' had a pig with the mind and vocal tract of a human so it could articulate how much it wanted to be eaten. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.90|172.70.211.90]] 16:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
:The description of the "Dish of the Day" was that it was bred as "an animal that actually wanted to be eaten and was capable of saying so clearly and distinctly". There's no mention of it being a pig with the mind and vocal tract of a human, or in any other way a chimera. Its species is "Ameglian Major Cow". I'm also not convinced that cyborgs count as chimerae. [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 18:12, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
::It was depicted with pig ears and nose in one of the video adaptations. [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 18:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
::The book says "A large dairy animal approached Zaphod Beeblebrox’s table, a large fat meaty quadruped of the bovine type with large watery eyes, small horns and what might almost have been an ingratiating smile on its lips." That's a cow. I changed it. [[User:Mathmannix|Mathmannix]] ([[User talk:Mathmannix|talk]]) 01:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

.whose sona is this 🤨 --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.110.113|172.70.110.113]] 16:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
:Are you asking whether omnitaurs make good clerics in D&D? [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 16:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
:: According to {{w|Sona (given name)}}, Sona is a feminine given name meaning gold or wisdom, but Google returns it as a Fortnight character. Unfortunately, we have evidence that the omnitaur could be hermaphroditic, so a full literature search may involve access to non-online resources, which I intend to enjoy. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.145|172.70.210.145]] 17:07, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
: Well then thank you for the compliment, it's very kind of you. I'm motivated primarily by the urge to improve explanations without being impolite, beyond/modulo [https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.458.581&rep=rep1&type=pdf]. Eventually they will have things like [https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.08239] playing video game characters. Some people probably already do. From [[2635]], "Sensibleness, Specificity, Interestingness, Safety, Groundedness, Informativeness, Citation accuracy, Helpfulness, and Role consistency," which I don't know about you but is what I want to see in a cleric. This is from Davinci-002: Q: "In my scenario, the runaway trolley has three tracks..." A: "and the AI is on one of them."
: The omnitaur is the corrupt, ineffective, and actually good enforcer for most conceptualizations of {{w|Roko's basilisk}}, itself a chimera of a lizard and a higher mind: interested in stochastic processes, mostly, and only able to turn the smallest amount of attention towards rewarding those responsible for cyborg-human peace. [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 18:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
:: Please create a talk page. I would like to subscribe to your newsletter. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.166.41|162.158.166.41]] 21:49, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

If you can make a chimera in the lab, why can't you {{w|crispr}} it into germ cells? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.134.131|172.69.134.131]] 21:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
: Orders of magnitude easier said than done. There's no default CRISPR library for replacing one set of cells with another, or even a standard way to do that. There are multiple ways (I doubt anyone knows exactly how many) with advantages and disadvantages to each, which are also still mostly beyond our understanding. Plus, what if you accidentally create an invasive species? Best leave the germline alone until everything else is provably robust and sustainable. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.163|172.70.206.163]] 04:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

It has been noted that getting a human from the mating of two Omnitars is genetically unlikely or even impossible. But what if the Omnitar is not a genetic mix, but a tetragametic chimera, Frankenstein's monster, or something similar? In other words, what if it is not created by mixing the genetics of all of these creatures but by mixing parts from multiple creatures, each part being genetically entirely from the species it represents? If this is the case, and if Randall decided not to label the reproductive system for whatever reason, the creature may have human gonads. In this event, its children will be normal humans, in so much as someone born from and possibly raised by two Omnitars could ever turn out normal. [[User:Geek Prophet|Geek Prophet]] ([[User talk:Geek Prophet|talk]]) 22:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

:Dragons in Chinese folklore/mythology are described as chimeric, often with very specific breakdowns of the parts involved. I've seen versions with up to a dozen animals, but the first one I found on Google was: "The head of a camel, the horns of a stag, the eyes of a demon, the ears of a cow, the neck of a snake, the belly of a clam, the scales of a carp, the claws of an eagle and the paws of a tiger." That seems like something worth mentioning...somewhere. I just dunno where. [[User:GreatWyrmGold|GreatWyrmGold]] ([[User talk:GreatWyrmGold|talk]]) 00:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

It's not "hard to know what dragons eat." Traditionally their staple diet is knights in armour.
[[User:MarquisOfCarrabass|MarquisOfCarrabass]] ([[User talk:MarquisOfCarrabass|talk]]) 07:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Talk:2653: Omnitaur

2022-08-02T07:32:13Z

MarquisOfCarrabass: