explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:2738: Omniknot

2023-02-19T16:06:09Z

Mikemenn:

Down the middle, that's Granny, Reef, ...(k)not sure.., ?bow line and two half hitches? and something of a plaited-knot that the name escapes me entirely right now (but an extension of the other one I can't identify). I'm sure there's a handy online catalogue of knots, to reference, though, before I try to stumble over the side-knots too. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.172|172.71.242.172]] 16:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Binding security maximized but unbinding security minimized. RIP, tethered sailor beneath a capsized boat. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.78|172.70.114.78]] 16:20, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

This comic is dead on for a facetious rock climbing saying: "If you can't tie a knot, then tie a lot." Based on the tactic some climbing newcomers use, of tying tons of knots all over the place because they aren't confident that any one knot will hold. This tactic is strongly frowned upon - you should learn the right knot, use it, and don't add any extraneous ones.

Somebody on twitter posted an image with the two strings in different colours, which helps to visualize the knots:
https://twitter.com/hollowgrin/status/1625902852387352576
[[User:Rps|Rps]] ([[User talk:Rps|talk]]) 17:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
:Feels like this NEEDS to be included in the explanation so I added it. :) [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 05:19, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
::As per adding comment, I'd rather like to see the image in-site. (It's very difficult to open Twitter links without the seemingly undeletable Twitter app opening and telling me I need to get off my arse and get an account, so I tend not to even try.) I bashed up one of my own, for my own pleasure, but I'm not fooling myself that it's any good (basic blue/red masked to each side's rope, with directional chevrons no-masked out to show direction of pull... tried to gradient it to indicate distance as well - that looked awful!) and others' efforts would be nice to see.
::(Assuming permission isn't asked for, but refused.) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.132|172.69.79.132]] 15:04, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Damn, I traced it myself and I am pretty sure the picture on twitter is better (I will not look, I will only get depressed...) I'd put that coloured picture under "transcript" ;-)[[Special:Contributions/172.68.51.140|172.68.51.140]] 18:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
:Nah, transcript is supposed to be all regular text, aggressively so. That link is rather pictorial. :) I added the link to the explanation instead. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 05:19, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't suppose any of you knot-loreheads would care to add an explanation/link to explain "Connecting them with a hitch" from the title text? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.254.231|172.70.254.231]] 21:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

A "bend" is a knot that connects two ropes or lines. A "hitch" is a knot that connects a rope (a.k.a. line) to something like a post, loop, or shackle.

Is there a mistake in the title text then, since he says to use a random hitch to connect something from the top (presumably rope in the form of a knot) to something in the bottom (presumably more rope)? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.82.186|172.70.82.186]] 22:06, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
:I think using a hitch on another rope can be valid, with one rope ACTING as said post, being all straight. For example, a rope pre-secured at both ends, and thus unable to "participate" in the knot, tying a rope to it in-between instead, such as tying a rope to a clothesline.

I tied it in real life. Once everything was tightened, the main taut portion was the Carrick bend with the other four knots slacking below, and it held pretty well. I imagine if the slack was on the other side, putting stress on the granny knot, it would be a different story. I would upload the picture but I messed up the reef knot and that pulled straight out. --[[User:Jacky720|Jack]] ([[User talk:Jacky720|t]]|[[Special:Contributions/Jacky720|c]]) 22:15, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Sailor here. The "granny knot" is what a sailor would call a "thief's knot", and it used to be used in place of a reef knot, in some parts of the world, when stores were suspected to be going missing; the thief, after taking some of the stores, would re-lash the remainder using a proper reef knot (through force of habit) and the change of knot would give away that the stores are being taken from that pile.

Additionally, the two bends at the sides look more like sheet bends than bowlines, to me. It just looks like a rope is passed through a bite and then holds the bite together with a half-hitch. (Maybe I just can't get my head around the orientation, though?)

Lastly - is it maybe worth adding that the reason for the figure-of-eights at the tail of the rope is to act as a "stopper" knot, to prevent the tail working it's way back through the half-hitch, which would enable the bite to come apart and the whole thing to come loose? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.147|172.70.86.147]] 10:01, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
:A note that a Granny knot is ''not'' the Thief knot. A Granny is (often!) a mis-tied Reef, half re-handed to create a less flat version of the binding, whilst a Thief is a variation of the Reef, which has the opposite track to one of the cords to look the same at first glance (enough to catch the unwary/rushed, as you say, who might then fail to restore it as originally left).
:In fact, a knot that has been given the variations of both '''Gr'''anny and Th'''ief''' is called a "Grief", rather than be back to the original Reef (or a functionally identical reflection/rotation). [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.64|172.71.178.64]] 12:26, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Both bowlines are the "correctly" tied sailor's bowline. There is an alternative "left-handed" version in which the end goes the other direction, coming out to the side rather than the interior of the knot. Also called the cowboy bowline, ABOK 1034.5 It is unclear which version is better. One could probably do a PhD dissertation on bowline knots. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.30.97|172.71.30.97]] 14:35, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Scoutmaster here. I recommend the "Animated Knots by Grog" website as a knot reference. The Wikipedia entries on granny and grief knots are surprisingly useful references for how those knots differ from each other and the reef knot.<br />
The knot on top is definitely a <s>granny knot and not a grief knot.</s> I was wrong. :P Since the ends that terminate the knot exit on opposite sides instead of the same side, calling it a grief knot is not wrong.<br />
Left and right knots are bowlines because they have three working ends and one dead end. The sheet bend has two live ends and two dead ends. The center knot is indeterminate; if you cover up the ends it could be either a sheet bend or a bowline, as they have the same form. Since it appears to have four live ends it would be fair to call it "neither" as well. PhD thesis topic, indeed.<br />
I'd also like to point out that the capsizing nature of the reef knot is considered a feature - it affords easy untying even after being used under heavy load, such as holding a rolled up sail hanging from a yard arm. Being able to unfurl the sail by pulling a single rope is useful. As already noted on the page: if you don't want that feature, pick a different knot. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.146.36|172.71.146.36]] 14:56, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
:You can't really tell a difference between Granny and Grief (and Reef and Thief) in the above as there's not really a 'loose end' from any of those. Following all cords, the visible ends ending with the stoppers ''or'' the off-screen ends (possibly coming back on-screen from the other side, in a large loop, but we can't know that) always goes through multiple other knotted segments. Although I'd say Granny (and Reef) as default is certainly the simplest interpretation.
:And an uncollapsed Reef tends to jam itself, to not simply undo. You need to force it (or rely upon it rotating, through (improper?) use) to make it into a "cow hitch around a straight rope" form and thus an easier untie. Which you can only do if you have sufficient slack on one 'end'.
:(Not sure you could guarantee it capsizing, deliberately or incidentaly, in the omniknot situation once the whole mass gets strained. And there's no way ''that'' Reef segment can undo itsef, without plenty of other knot-failures happening, even if it does re-wrap...) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.100|172.70.91.100]] 18:36, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
::Yes, forcing a reef knot to capsize requires abusing the knot; i.e. applying a load onto one of the formerly loose ends. It takes less force than you may think. Try it sometime! I have occasion for this most often with kids' shoestrings.[[Special:Contributions/172.71.147.59|172.71.147.59]] 03:37, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

According to at least one interpretation I've heard, the origin of the Gordian knot story is the use of a complex knot as a sort of tamper evident seal. It won't stop a determined intruder, but it will let the the owner know someone has violated the seal (because the rope is either loose or tied back differently), and let the would-be violator know that the violation they might be considering won't go unnoticed. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.30.143|172.71.30.143]] 16:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

"it is knot recommended to use overly complex knots ..." -- is this meant as a joke? the wrong not is used before recommended
:Of course, obviously. :) There's no doubt in my mind. Explain XKCD editors can't help adding jokes and puns wherever possible, and this one is somewhat required, LOL! (Also, sign your comments, please) [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 06:15, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Made it: https://imgur.com/gallery/cYQQPKq [[User:Mikemenn|Mikemenn]] ([[User talk:Mikemenn|talk]]) 16:06, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Mikemenn

Talk:2251: Alignment Chart Alignment Chart

2020-01-11T13:16:09Z

Mikemenn:

OK, hope someone will now explain it after I created this page. I'm lost on this one ;-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 10:49, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Arrgh, edit conflict! [[User:Kev|Kev]] ([[User talk:Kev|talk]]) 11:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the Punnet Square is ''also'' a meme template...[[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.229|162.158.154.229]] 15:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I vaguely remember Randall to refer to the clay-sand diagram (or whatever it is called) as his all time favorite diagram on what-if somewhere. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 12:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
:You vaguely remember "Starsand" from https://what-if.xkcd.com/83/ with the quote "Fortunately, there's a wonderful chart by the US Geologic Survey that answers all these questions and more. For some reason, I find this chart very satisfying—it's like the erosion geology edition of the electromagnetic spectrum chart." directly applicabe to this chart[[User:Tier666|Tier666]] ([[User talk:Tier666|talk]]) 17:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I fear any attempt to "explain" the CIE chromaticity diagram will devolve into arguments about why Randall chose it. I have found that folks outside the world of optics or neurooptical studies have a hard time understanding why the raw colors available in single wavelengths comprise that short curvy line inside the full colorspace. The way our brain processes the relative signal strengths from the different types of retinal cones is quite amazing. [[User:Cellocgw|Cellocgw]] ([[User talk:Cellocgw|talk]]) 12:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
:CGW I'm shocked! Surely you know that single-wavelengths are the curvy outer boundary while the inner curvy line shows the response to blackbody spectra. ;-) -Fred [[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.61|173.245.52.61]] 19:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
::Thanks for that; I was about to question the statement myself. All in all, I feel the current explanation of the chromaticity diagram doesn't really explain much, and seems unnecessarily biased to boot. I know just enough about chromaticity to think it's wrong but not enough to correct it. [[User:LtPowers|LtPowers]] ([[User talk:LtPowers|talk]]) 19:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
:::I agree that explanation isn't great, if it's not improved when I have free time tonight I'll take a stab at it. Or maybe CelloCGW will, since he IS an optics guru (which is why I had to raz him).[[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.61|173.245.52.61]] 20:13, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@Fred - mea culpa. I should think before writing. Fortunately :-), the ratio of the colorspace to any 1-dimensional line's area is still infinite! [[User:Cellocgw|Cellocgw]] ([[User talk:Cellocgw|talk]]) 20:33, 6 January 2020 (UTC) .... now that someone did post some explanation of CIE, more comments. The current CIE spec may be paywalled, but it has changed little if at all over the last 40 or 50 years, so it's not all that hard to get the values. There are several sites (naturally I've lost the URLs) which provide algos to convert HSM to RGB to HSV and so on. See Wikipedia, https://law.resource.org/pub/us/cfr/ibr/003/cie.15.2004.tables.xls , and similar repositories [[User:Cellocgw|Cellocgw]] ([[User talk:Cellocgw|talk]]) 20:44, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

:I redid the CIE explanation - focusing on describing the diagram, rather than one thing it might get used for (e.g. black body). I think the diagrams on the right are labeled chaotic because they are not some neat geometric shape over-all. I didn't really follow much of what was there, so feel free to revive some of it if it seems useful. (My background in color theory comes from computer science and graphics, rather than from physics or hardware design.) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.107.201|162.158.107.201]] 00:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
::It's better! Though it might be nice to explain what the x and y coordinates on the CIE diagram represent. (I personally have no clue, even after perusing Wikipedia.) As for chaoticness and shape, really CN and CE are the one two that aren't simple geometric shapes; even CG is a trapezoid. [[User:LtPowers|LtPowers]] ([[User talk:LtPowers|talk]]) 15:04, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm only familiar with 4th and 5th edition, but should the "Good/neutral/evil:" axis eplanation be changed to "selfless deeds or selfish deeds"? Good and evil are highly subjective ("One person's 'freedom fighter' is another person's 'terrorist'.") but at least in 5e the axis is explained as risking/sacrificing yourself for the benefit of others (Good) vs. sacrificing others for your own benefit (Evil). Also, the explanation of the CN character may benefit from dividing which parts of the explanation are "chatoic" vs "neutral". Finally the "lacking rhyme or reason" part of chaotic is highly debated within D&D circles. There are certainly people who play that way, but there are also others who feel that chaotic characters have just as much motivation and goals as a lawful or neutral character just that part of their motivation is to act contrarily to Tradition/Authority. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.186.54|162.158.186.54]] 14:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

: It seems from this page that even nerds tend to interpret the alignment system by the ‘common sense’ meaning of the names instead of the detailed explanation. I once simply went through the Wikipedia article, which cited the second edition IIRC: ‘lawful’ means sticking to ''some'' code of conduct, whereas ‘chaotic’ is a pure opportunist or behaves randomly. ‘Good’ and ‘evil’ indeed mean selfless vs selfish deeds, but afaik in one of the official explanations ‘evil’ meant exercising authority over others—so all managers would be ‘evil’ automatically. [[User:Aasasd|Aasasd]] ([[User talk:Aasasd|talk]]) 16:42, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure the phase diagram is for Water - that has nine solid phases. Surely it is merely a simple example.
[[User:Arachrah|Arachrah]] ([[User talk:Arachrah|talk]]) 16:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

As an interesting note, this comic's alt-text also ends with a period inside of a quote. This was discussed at length in the previous comic. [[User:Agrasin|Agrasin]] ([[User talk:Agrasin|talk]]) 16:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm just upset that both a soil diagram and the QAPF were included, but not the TAS. Where's the love for extrusive igneous rocks? [[User:Mergelong|Mergelong]] ([[User talk:Mergelong|talk]]) 18:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

BTW, I offer my condolences and wish luck to the person who's going to make a transcript of this comic. [[User:Aasasd|Aasasd]] ([[User talk:Aasasd|talk]]) 22:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

"lawful heterozygous silty liquid" Is this not him being Lawfull, having inherited different forms of a particular gene from each parent, and basically a bag full of salt water? [[User:Nappy|Nappy]] ([[User talk:Nappy|talk]]) 07:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

A phase diagram was also used in https://what-if.xkcd.com/138/ [[Special:Contributions/162.158.89.7|162.158.89.7]] 08:23, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

The phase diagrams for oxygen and radon look similar to the Lawful Neutral one here. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.34.166|172.68.34.166]] 23:06, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Is it coincidence that the evil chaotic diagram looks a bit like a brain? --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.9|162.158.158.9]] 10:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Made a "real" one using actual picts from the internet based on this comic ... but ALSO using his comic. Meta, meta, meta, maybe? https://imgur.com/gallery/CagOh8s

== Omnispace Classifier ==

I think the Omnispace Classifier is meant to be a horrific Frankenstein amalgamation of the other 8 kinds of chart. Theoretically it can "classify anything" since it can classify anything the other 8 can, but practically it would obviously be totally useless, or at least a lot less useful than just using the specific chart that works for the situation. [[User:Pureawes0me|Pureawes0me]] ([[User talk:Pureawes0me|talk]]) 12:09, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

In the description of the Omnispace Classifier, saying "the diagram created for this comic is considered to be chaotically evil." is wrong. The diagram created for this comic is ''not'' an Omnispace Classifier, it is an alignment chart. It's even in the title "Alignment Chart Alignment Chart". [[User:Pureawes0me|Pureawes0me]] ([[User talk:Pureawes0me|talk]]) 14:11, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
:I concur. [[User:LtPowers|LtPowers]] ([[User talk:LtPowers|talk]]) 15:04, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
I feel the "Omnispace Classifier" is actually chaotic evil due to its mishmash of axes, which change randomly in topic and direction depending where you look on the graph. --[[User:GoldNinja|GoldNinja]] ([[User talk:GoldNinja|talk]]) 17:43, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

== Chart Position Rationale ==

The page currently tries to explain each chart's position based on the content of the chart, e.g. the political compass chart is lawful because politics relates to laws. I think this is wrong: the charts are arranged based on their properties ''as charts''. It's not based on whatever it is they represent. This feels more in character with how Randall tends to do things. It also avoids making a bunch of value judgments about various topics. [[User:Khaim|Khaim]] ([[User talk:Khaim|talk]]) 23:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Possible explanations for each chart:
* Soil chart: Information-dense, continuous, triangular
* Punnett square: Simple, square
* IPA vowel chart: Irregular shape
* Phase diagram: Square, continuous
* Alignment chart: "A is A"
* CIE chromaticity diagram: Irregular shape, ''curved'', nonlinear
* Political compass: Square (lawful), highly subjective, not very useful
* QAPF rock diagram: Diamond shape is misleading since it's actually two ternary charts stuck together, not very useful (unless you're a geologist?)
* Omnispace classifier: Totally made up, irregular, completely useless
[[User:Khaim|Khaim]] ([[User talk:Khaim|talk]]) 23:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

:I agree with this, and it's how I first interpreted the comic.--[[User:GoldNinja|GoldNinja]] ([[User talk:GoldNinja|talk]]) 23:40, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
:Well, the point is to make any connection to both axis of the chart. Your explanations do not do that properly either. e.g. for IPA vowel chart "Irregular shape" does not explain why it would be considered "good", while it is one of maybe more possible reasons for being considered chaotic. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 07:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk:2251: Alignment Chart Alignment Chart

2020-01-11T13:14:58Z

Mikemenn:

OK, hope someone will now explain it after I created this page. I'm lost on this one ;-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 10:49, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Arrgh, edit conflict! [[User:Kev|Kev]] ([[User talk:Kev|talk]]) 11:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the Punnet Square is ''also'' a meme template...[[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.229|162.158.154.229]] 15:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I vaguely remember Randall to refer to the clay-sand diagram (or whatever it is called) as his all time favorite diagram on what-if somewhere. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 12:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
:You vaguely remember "Starsand" from https://what-if.xkcd.com/83/ with the quote "Fortunately, there's a wonderful chart by the US Geologic Survey that answers all these questions and more. For some reason, I find this chart very satisfying—it's like the erosion geology edition of the electromagnetic spectrum chart." directly applicabe to this chart[[User:Tier666|Tier666]] ([[User talk:Tier666|talk]]) 17:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I fear any attempt to "explain" the CIE chromaticity diagram will devolve into arguments about why Randall chose it. I have found that folks outside the world of optics or neurooptical studies have a hard time understanding why the raw colors available in single wavelengths comprise that short curvy line inside the full colorspace. The way our brain processes the relative signal strengths from the different types of retinal cones is quite amazing. [[User:Cellocgw|Cellocgw]] ([[User talk:Cellocgw|talk]]) 12:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
:CGW I'm shocked! Surely you know that single-wavelengths are the curvy outer boundary while the inner curvy line shows the response to blackbody spectra. ;-) -Fred [[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.61|173.245.52.61]] 19:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
::Thanks for that; I was about to question the statement myself. All in all, I feel the current explanation of the chromaticity diagram doesn't really explain much, and seems unnecessarily biased to boot. I know just enough about chromaticity to think it's wrong but not enough to correct it. [[User:LtPowers|LtPowers]] ([[User talk:LtPowers|talk]]) 19:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
:::I agree that explanation isn't great, if it's not improved when I have free time tonight I'll take a stab at it. Or maybe CelloCGW will, since he IS an optics guru (which is why I had to raz him).[[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.61|173.245.52.61]] 20:13, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@Fred - mea culpa. I should think before writing. Fortunately :-), the ratio of the colorspace to any 1-dimensional line's area is still infinite! [[User:Cellocgw|Cellocgw]] ([[User talk:Cellocgw|talk]]) 20:33, 6 January 2020 (UTC) .... now that someone did post some explanation of CIE, more comments. The current CIE spec may be paywalled, but it has changed little if at all over the last 40 or 50 years, so it's not all that hard to get the values. There are several sites (naturally I've lost the URLs) which provide algos to convert HSM to RGB to HSV and so on. See Wikipedia, https://law.resource.org/pub/us/cfr/ibr/003/cie.15.2004.tables.xls , and similar repositories [[User:Cellocgw|Cellocgw]] ([[User talk:Cellocgw|talk]]) 20:44, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

:I redid the CIE explanation - focusing on describing the diagram, rather than one thing it might get used for (e.g. black body). I think the diagrams on the right are labeled chaotic because they are not some neat geometric shape over-all. I didn't really follow much of what was there, so feel free to revive some of it if it seems useful. (My background in color theory comes from computer science and graphics, rather than from physics or hardware design.) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.107.201|162.158.107.201]] 00:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
::It's better! Though it might be nice to explain what the x and y coordinates on the CIE diagram represent. (I personally have no clue, even after perusing Wikipedia.) As for chaoticness and shape, really CN and CE are the one two that aren't simple geometric shapes; even CG is a trapezoid. [[User:LtPowers|LtPowers]] ([[User talk:LtPowers|talk]]) 15:04, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm only familiar with 4th and 5th edition, but should the "Good/neutral/evil:" axis eplanation be changed to "selfless deeds or selfish deeds"? Good and evil are highly subjective ("One person's 'freedom fighter' is another person's 'terrorist'.") but at least in 5e the axis is explained as risking/sacrificing yourself for the benefit of others (Good) vs. sacrificing others for your own benefit (Evil). Also, the explanation of the CN character may benefit from dividing which parts of the explanation are "chatoic" vs "neutral". Finally the "lacking rhyme or reason" part of chaotic is highly debated within D&D circles. There are certainly people who play that way, but there are also others who feel that chaotic characters have just as much motivation and goals as a lawful or neutral character just that part of their motivation is to act contrarily to Tradition/Authority. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.186.54|162.158.186.54]] 14:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

: It seems from this page that even nerds tend to interpret the alignment system by the ‘common sense’ meaning of the names instead of the detailed explanation. I once simply went through the Wikipedia article, which cited the second edition IIRC: ‘lawful’ means sticking to ''some'' code of conduct, whereas ‘chaotic’ is a pure opportunist or behaves randomly. ‘Good’ and ‘evil’ indeed mean selfless vs selfish deeds, but afaik in one of the official explanations ‘evil’ meant exercising authority over others—so all managers would be ‘evil’ automatically. [[User:Aasasd|Aasasd]] ([[User talk:Aasasd|talk]]) 16:42, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure the phase diagram is for Water - that has nine solid phases. Surely it is merely a simple example.
[[User:Arachrah|Arachrah]] ([[User talk:Arachrah|talk]]) 16:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

As an interesting note, this comic's alt-text also ends with a period inside of a quote. This was discussed at length in the previous comic. [[User:Agrasin|Agrasin]] ([[User talk:Agrasin|talk]]) 16:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm just upset that both a soil diagram and the QAPF were included, but not the TAS. Where's the love for extrusive igneous rocks? [[User:Mergelong|Mergelong]] ([[User talk:Mergelong|talk]]) 18:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

BTW, I offer my condolences and wish luck to the person who's going to make a transcript of this comic. [[User:Aasasd|Aasasd]] ([[User talk:Aasasd|talk]]) 22:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

"lawful heterozygous silty liquid" Is this not him being Lawfull, having inherited different forms of a particular gene from each parent, and basically a bag full of salt water? [[User:Nappy|Nappy]] ([[User talk:Nappy|talk]]) 07:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

A phase diagram was also used in https://what-if.xkcd.com/138/ [[Special:Contributions/162.158.89.7|162.158.89.7]] 08:23, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

The phase diagrams for oxygen and radon look similar to the Lawful Neutral one here. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.34.166|172.68.34.166]] 23:06, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Is it coincidence that the evil chaotic diagram looks a bit like a brain? --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.9|162.158.158.9]] 10:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

== Omnispace Classifier ==

I think the Omnispace Classifier is meant to be a horrific Frankenstein amalgamation of the other 8 kinds of chart. Theoretically it can "classify anything" since it can classify anything the other 8 can, but practically it would obviously be totally useless, or at least a lot less useful than just using the specific chart that works for the situation. [[User:Pureawes0me|Pureawes0me]] ([[User talk:Pureawes0me|talk]]) 12:09, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

In the description of the Omnispace Classifier, saying "the diagram created for this comic is considered to be chaotically evil." is wrong. The diagram created for this comic is ''not'' an Omnispace Classifier, it is an alignment chart. It's even in the title "Alignment Chart Alignment Chart". [[User:Pureawes0me|Pureawes0me]] ([[User talk:Pureawes0me|talk]]) 14:11, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
:I concur. [[User:LtPowers|LtPowers]] ([[User talk:LtPowers|talk]]) 15:04, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
I feel the "Omnispace Classifier" is actually chaotic evil due to its mishmash of axes, which change randomly in topic and direction depending where you look on the graph. --[[User:GoldNinja|GoldNinja]] ([[User talk:GoldNinja|talk]]) 17:43, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

== Chart Position Rationale ==

The page currently tries to explain each chart's position based on the content of the chart, e.g. the political compass chart is lawful because politics relates to laws. I think this is wrong: the charts are arranged based on their properties ''as charts''. It's not based on whatever it is they represent. This feels more in character with how Randall tends to do things. It also avoids making a bunch of value judgments about various topics. [[User:Khaim|Khaim]] ([[User talk:Khaim|talk]]) 23:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Possible explanations for each chart:
* Soil chart: Information-dense, continuous, triangular
* Punnett square: Simple, square
* IPA vowel chart: Irregular shape
* Phase diagram: Square, continuous
* Alignment chart: "A is A"
* CIE chromaticity diagram: Irregular shape, ''curved'', nonlinear
* Political compass: Square (lawful), highly subjective, not very useful
* QAPF rock diagram: Diamond shape is misleading since it's actually two ternary charts stuck together, not very useful (unless you're a geologist?)
* Omnispace classifier: Totally made up, irregular, completely useless
[[User:Khaim|Khaim]] ([[User talk:Khaim|talk]]) 23:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

:I agree with this, and it's how I first interpreted the comic.--[[User:GoldNinja|GoldNinja]] ([[User talk:GoldNinja|talk]]) 23:40, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
:Well, the point is to make any connection to both axis of the chart. Your explanations do not do that properly either. e.g. for IPA vowel chart "Irregular shape" does not explain why it would be considered "good", while it is one of maybe more possible reasons for being considered chaotic. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 07:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Made a "real" one using actual picts from the internet based on this comic ... but ALSO using his comic. Meta, meta, meta, maybe? https://imgur.com/gallery/CagOh8s