explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:1522: Astronomy

2015-05-09T12:28:26Z

Multimotyl:

[[File:The Astonomer.jpg|thumb|Statue in Canberra, Australia of an astronomer with magnifying glass]]For a telescope you can be far away, for a magnifying glass or microscope you need a ladder to be nearer to the stars. Microscopes are for biology, telescopes for astronomy.
They have got a similar purpose, but look and are applied differently. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.122|108.162.254.122]] 07:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Seemed like another example of Beret guy contradicting how things work, like how he blows into the power cord and inflated a computer, or how he plugged a cord into a power outlet labeled "COFFEE" and coffee came out. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.168|108.162.238.168]] 07:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
:Yes obviously this approach works for Berret Guy because this is what he does. Explanation lacks this fact. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 07:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
:Soup, wasn't it? But yes, for some reason he can actually use a stepladder to get a closer look (and a better one, thanks t the magnifying glass) on the "curtain of the night", which for him ''is'' actually within reach. As if it is just like a stage back-cloth with some form of star-effect (holes and backlight or sewn-in LEDs) as far as he is concerned.
:But what I was actually coming here to say was regarding Astrobiology being a portmanteu (as currently in the explanation). I'm not sure I'd call it that. It's really a perfectly normal compound description of a study area, like many others in science, used to clarify what ''subset'' of biology it is (e.g. paleobiology being the biology of historic organisms, more or less, coming roughly from the greek for "old life study"). Although it does rather hint at it's "the biology of stars themselves", as opposed to the perhaps more accurate exobiology ("outside life study") when it comes to off-Earth life not in (or being) actual stars; or xenobiology ("strange life study"), although that does tend to include oddments of obscure Earth biology and artificial life as well and really doesn't mean the study of extra-terrestrial organisms... [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.186|141.101.98.186]] 08:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
:: Astrobiology is a perfectly normal word. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrobiology. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.151|173.245.54.151]] 08:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
::: Moreover, the wording (which I deleted) implied that Randall invented the word, or that the word is very new: "the word "astrobiology" is the joining of the prefix astro- and biology and refers to ...". Now it says "{{w|Astrobiology}} is ...". [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.144|108.162.238.144]] 13:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

A minor comment on the incorrect use of the word ''portmanteau'' in the explanation so far: it is defined as [http://www.thefreedictionary.com/portmanteau a word formed by merging the sounds and meanings of two different words], [[wikipedia:portmanteau]]; however, [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/astro- astro-] is a combining form of the the greek word ''aster'' meaning ''star'', used to form compound words, such as ''astro-bio-logy'' (aster-bios-logos: star-life-word). See [[1485]] for an example of the correct use of ''portmanteau''. (someone beat me to it while i was editing this ;-))
[[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.161|141.101.104.161]] 08:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
:Thank you. --{{User:17jiangz1/signature|09:14, 08 May 2015}}

You could view the comic as a theatrical production, Megan's telescope as a prop, and Beret guy is just inspecting the backdrop. The ladder is for comic and aesthetic effect {{unsigned ip|141.101.99.53}}

Aaaaa. Astronomers do not touch telescopes while observing. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.185|173.245.52.185]] 09:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC) Cameron

My first association was the Hubble Space Telescope: Even though there are huge telescopes on earth, most (all?) of them are inferior to the relatively small telescope a few km above earth's surface. Beret Guy could have tried to achive the same effect by climbing a ladder. [[User:Epaminaidos|Epaminaidos]] ([[User talk:Epaminaidos|talk]]) 09:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm with 141.101.99.53 - I'm not sure that those white dots are stars. My first thought was that they were flecks of dirt or something on the wall or on the inside of a dome. What Megan is doing there with that huge telescope I don't know, but a telescope of that size is not usually used outdoors where stars can be seen down to the horizon. --[[User:RenniePet|RenniePet]] ([[User talk:RenniePet|talk]]) 10:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

That seems to be the reason why the Good Telescopes are always on mountains – nearer to the stars and no ladder needed ;-). --[[User:DaB.|DaB.]] ([[User talk:DaB.|talk]]) 11:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I believe the good telescopes are high so they get less atmospheric disturbances. The height of a mountain will still be insignificant compared to distances measured in light years.--The man they call Jayne[[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.183|108.162.237.183]] 11:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I actually thought that maybe physics just work differently for him so he was actually standing among the stars (like someone might stand among lightning bugs) and actually examining them. {{unsigned ip|108.162.219.193}}

I don't think the titletext has anything to do with shaking about, I think it's a joke about people being nervious about breaking the microscope. [[User:Halfhat|Halfhat]] ([[User talk:Halfhat|talk]]) 15:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

My take is Beret Guy is using "cartoon physics" or in this case "comic physics". The first few panels we assume the stars are in the distance. Since we are looking at a 2D representation (drawing), we can't be sure. But our past experiences with the night sky and with pictures or situations such as this guides our perception. However, because of Beret Guy's weird take on everything, he perceives the stars as they actually ARE in the comic: just white dots on a black background, kind of like a poor man's planetarium. He wants to get a closer look at some that are higher up on the wall/background so climbs up a ladder and uses his magnifying glass. It's a little like the cartoon where the coyote paints a tunnel on a rock, thinking the roadrunner will run into it. Instead, the roadrunner just goes through the painted tunnel like it was real. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.124|108.162.219.124]] 19:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)Pat

It's also possible that Megan ''and'' her telescope are part of a backdrop of some sort - I don't think she moves at all in the comic. --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.182|173.245.54.182]] 21:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
: She does move; look closely at her hair. One could say she is looking "sidelong" at Beret Guy, which is a gesture that communicates something. [[User:Taibhse|Taibhse]] ([[User talk:Taibhse|talk]]) 11:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Woah, that's really a '''lot''' of discussion over this tiny comic. [[User:Nk22|Nk22]] ([[User talk:Nk22|talk]]) 19:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:1522: Astronomy

2015-05-09T12:27:09Z

Multimotyl:

For a telescope you can be far away, for a magnifying glass or microscope you need a ladder to be nearer to the stars. Microscopes are for biology, telescopes for astronomy.
They have got a similar purpose, but look and are applied differently. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.122|108.162.254.122]] 07:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Seemed like another example of Beret guy contradicting how things work, like how he blows into the power cord and inflated a computer, or how he plugged a cord into a power outlet labeled "COFFEE" and coffee came out. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.168|108.162.238.168]] 07:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
:Yes obviously this approach works for Berret Guy because this is what he does. Explanation lacks this fact. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 07:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
:Soup, wasn't it? But yes, for some reason he can actually use a stepladder to get a closer look (and a better one, thanks t the magnifying glass) on the "curtain of the night", which for him ''is'' actually within reach. As if it is just like a stage back-cloth with some form of star-effect (holes and backlight or sewn-in LEDs) as far as he is concerned.
:But what I was actually coming here to say was regarding Astrobiology being a portmanteu (as currently in the explanation). I'm not sure I'd call it that. It's really a perfectly normal compound description of a study area, like many others in science, used to clarify what ''subset'' of biology it is (e.g. paleobiology being the biology of historic organisms, more or less, coming roughly from the greek for "old life study"). Although it does rather hint at it's "the biology of stars themselves", as opposed to the perhaps more accurate exobiology ("outside life study") when it comes to off-Earth life not in (or being) actual stars; or xenobiology ("strange life study"), although that does tend to include oddments of obscure Earth biology and artificial life as well and really doesn't mean the study of extra-terrestrial organisms... [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.186|141.101.98.186]] 08:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
:: Astrobiology is a perfectly normal word. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrobiology. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.151|173.245.54.151]] 08:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
::: Moreover, the wording (which I deleted) implied that Randall invented the word, or that the word is very new: "the word "astrobiology" is the joining of the prefix astro- and biology and refers to ...". Now it says "{{w|Astrobiology}} is ...". [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.144|108.162.238.144]] 13:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

A minor comment on the incorrect use of the word ''portmanteau'' in the explanation so far: it is defined as [http://www.thefreedictionary.com/portmanteau a word formed by merging the sounds and meanings of two different words], [[wikipedia:portmanteau]]; however, [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/astro- astro-] is a combining form of the the greek word ''aster'' meaning ''star'', used to form compound words, such as ''astro-bio-logy'' (aster-bios-logos: star-life-word). See [[1485]] for an example of the correct use of ''portmanteau''. (someone beat me to it while i was editing this ;-))
[[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.161|141.101.104.161]] 08:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
:Thank you. --{{User:17jiangz1/signature|09:14, 08 May 2015}}

You could view the comic as a theatrical production, Megan's telescope as a prop, and Beret guy is just inspecting the backdrop. The ladder is for comic and aesthetic effect {{unsigned ip|141.101.99.53}}

Aaaaa. Astronomers do not touch telescopes while observing. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.185|173.245.52.185]] 09:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC) Cameron

My first association was the Hubble Space Telescope: Even though there are huge telescopes on earth, most (all?) of them are inferior to the relatively small telescope a few km above earth's surface. Beret Guy could have tried to achive the same effect by climbing a ladder. [[User:Epaminaidos|Epaminaidos]] ([[User talk:Epaminaidos|talk]]) 09:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm with 141.101.99.53 - I'm not sure that those white dots are stars. My first thought was that they were flecks of dirt or something on the wall or on the inside of a dome. What Megan is doing there with that huge telescope I don't know, but a telescope of that size is not usually used outdoors where stars can be seen down to the horizon. --[[User:RenniePet|RenniePet]] ([[User talk:RenniePet|talk]]) 10:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

That seems to be the reason why the Good Telescopes are always on mountains – nearer to the stars and no ladder needed ;-). --[[User:DaB.|DaB.]] ([[User talk:DaB.|talk]]) 11:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I believe the good telescopes are high so they get less atmospheric disturbances. The height of a mountain will still be insignificant compared to distances measured in light years.--The man they call Jayne[[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.183|108.162.237.183]] 11:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I actually thought that maybe physics just work differently for him so he was actually standing among the stars (like someone might stand among lightning bugs) and actually examining them. {{unsigned ip|108.162.219.193}}

I don't think the titletext has anything to do with shaking about, I think it's a joke about people being nervious about breaking the microscope. [[User:Halfhat|Halfhat]] ([[User talk:Halfhat|talk]]) 15:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

My take is Beret Guy is using "cartoon physics" or in this case "comic physics". The first few panels we assume the stars are in the distance. Since we are looking at a 2D representation (drawing), we can't be sure. But our past experiences with the night sky and with pictures or situations such as this guides our perception. However, because of Beret Guy's weird take on everything, he perceives the stars as they actually ARE in the comic: just white dots on a black background, kind of like a poor man's planetarium. He wants to get a closer look at some that are higher up on the wall/background so climbs up a ladder and uses his magnifying glass. It's a little like the cartoon where the coyote paints a tunnel on a rock, thinking the roadrunner will run into it. Instead, the roadrunner just goes through the painted tunnel like it was real. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.124|108.162.219.124]] 19:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)Pat

It's also possible that Megan ''and'' her telescope are part of a backdrop of some sort - I don't think she moves at all in the comic. --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.182|173.245.54.182]] 21:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
: She does move; look closely at her hair. One could say she is looking "sidelong" at Beret Guy, which is a gesture that communicates something. [[User:Taibhse|Taibhse]] ([[User talk:Taibhse|talk]]) 11:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Woah, that's really a '''lot''' of discussion over this tiny comic. [[User:Nk22|Nk22]] ([[User talk:Nk22|talk]]) 19:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Statue in Canberra, Australia of an astronomer with magnifying glass.
[[File:The Astonomer.jpg|thumb|The Astonomer]]

Talk:1411: Loop

2014-08-22T21:08:04Z

Multimotyl:

First explanation. How did I do, veterans? [[User:Lacedemonian|Lacedemonian]] ([[User talk:Lacedemonian|talk]]) 04:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Not bad.
I reorganised the content and fixed some stylistic flaws.

Awaiting older veterans to cross-reference with older entries. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.229.70|108.162.229.70]] 05:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)Sylvertech

I count 4 devices: monitor, laptop, tablet, phone.
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.22|108.162.216.22]] 05:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)J. from Mi.

All he needs is to have been wearing a Google Glass-type device, and this can simultaneously be both a smaller display (by absolute scale) to recurse onto after the smartphone and a possibly larger display (by proportion of view) to recurse back out of onto the 'smaller' computer monitor display... [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.233|141.101.99.233]] 09:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I rather think that the image text is ironic. How many people, when reading a book, absentmindedly read a page (so far so good, possible) let your mind wonder (ok) and then pickup another book to start browsing (I think not). --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.175|108.162.231.175]] 09:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
: I did that. It used to happen in situations when I was stuck somewhere (like sitting in a camper on a rainy day during holidays, or riding a train on a long way home etc.) and had limited access to entertainment (like a few books that I have taken with me just in case). I would then read a couple of pages, get bored, take another book, get bored after several pages, than take another that I have read three times already, get bored... then stare out of the window for some time, get bored... then pick one of the books again in hope it might keep me occupied for a while... and so on. Interactive media are somewhat better for time-killing but not by much. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.29|108.162.254.29]] 17:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

They could pick up a magazine - my wife does it all the time. [[User:Mattdevney|Mattdevney]] ([[User talk:Mattdevney|talk]]) 09:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not a flowchart in the traditional sense, which would have separate boxes for each step (and this doesn't, it's just a step, no container of any kind, with an arrow to the next). [[User:RChandra|RChandra]] ([[User talk:RChandra|talk]]) 12:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Let's not forget about smart-watches![[User:Sirvanilla|Sirvanilla]] ([[User talk:Sirvanilla|talk]]) 5:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Came here from news site... Strange. [[User:Multimotyl|Multimotyl]] ([[User talk:Multimotyl|talk]]) 21:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:1402: Harpoons

2014-08-01T20:13:15Z

Multimotyl: /* Whale killing */

I took the sentient space craft joke to be a reference to the movie "Dark Star".

Harpoon is a brand of rum. Did a bottle make it into space? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.196|108.162.219.196]] 12:55, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

: I tried to find who makes it but wasn't able to find a definitive source. I added http://www.harpoon-rum.eu/ for now but it would be nice to have the link to the canonical source. Any pointers? --[[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 17:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

: It's only headcannon. (ref to xkcd #1401) A headcannon which fires a harpoon. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.80|108.162.216.80]] 17:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Did this comic upload quite late in the day for anyone else? Is anyone else experiencing or did anyone else experience that "Latest Comic" is still going to 1401 as ix XKCD.com and XKCD.com/#

"This is obviously a joke, as sentient spacecraft cannot be created with current technology." Yeah, will need a citation on that... [[Special:Contributions/108.162.229.148|108.162.229.148]] 13:23, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Definitely a joke. Appolo 12’s call sign was Yankee Clipper, and a clipper ship would not carry any harpoons.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.129|108.162.216.129]] 14:04, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
: I'd believe someone might have smuggled some Harpoon (or even any brand of) rum up there, then brought it back down with them, ingested or otherwise (thus the drop right after the mission). Alternately, "incident" could be something more along the lines of losing an empty bottle of rum during a spacewalk (farfetched as it may be) and it reentering the atmosphere(?) - probably no more than stories, though - nothing official probably exists about anything like that going up or down in any manner.

Moby Dick is, let's say, extremely far-fetched. It was not the ship that was hunting the whale and harpooning it by itself. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.143|141.101.104.143]] 17:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Could the Apollo 12 bump possibly be a reference to Futurama? "We're whalers on the moon, we carry a harpoon" [[Special:Contributions/199.27.130.246|199.27.130.246]] 15:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

==Whale killing==
Saying "sailors would throw harpoons at a whale until it died" betrays a limited understanding of the process. Harpoons were barbed, and were meant to stick in the whale while it sounded (went deep.) A length of (about half-inch) rope kept the harpoon connected to the whaleboat. After the whale was exhausted (from towing the whaleboat while trying to shake off the harpoon? idk) the whaleboat could approach it, and the boatswain (''not'' the harpooner) would kill it with an unbarbed lance. Holling Clancy Holling's ''Seabird'' shows how it was done, with pictures and all. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.153|173.245.54.153]] 19:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
===Svend Foyn===
Norwegian whaler Svend Foyn revolutionarized whaling by inventing explosive harpoon to hunt whales. He made whaling much easier and quicker. This method saved Norway from the famine thread in 19th century.