explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

3227: Creation

2026-04-02T07:48:32Z

StapleFreeBatteries:

{{comic
| number = 3227
| date = April 1, 2026
| title = Creation
| image = creation_2x.png
| imagesize = 567x198px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = This xkcd.com update introduces a variety of new reading modes which can be activated through the menu.
}}
{{series
| series = April
| number = 18
| date = April 1, 2026
| days_late =
| day_category = Wednesday
| prev_title = 3074: Push Notifications
| prev_date = April 9, 2025
| next_title =
| next_date =
}}
To experience the interactivity of the web page, visit the {{xkcd|3227|original comic}}!

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This page was created recently in ROBOTIC MODE. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}
This comic was created when modes were added to the xkcd website, on April Fool's Day, through a selectable drop-down list below the comic. This allows various different viewing options for the entire website, including older comics. Some are 'normal', like the typical "light" and "dark" modes, but others take such things in further and/or more esoteric ways. This includes an "airplane mode" (see below) that parodies and subverts the {{w|Airplane mode|normal implementation}}.

The comic references one of the first lines of the {{w|Bible}} (Genesis 1:3), where God creates light, but then a person on Earth asks to turn on {{w|dark mode}}, referencing the new options.

Unlike most comics, the title text isn't really a joke, it merely 'explains' the update and gives basic instructions.

The comic credits the "Excellent Design Team", consisting of Amber, Benjamin Staffin, and Kevin who helped create the modes.

===Table of Modes===
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Mode
! Description
|-
| Light Mode
| The classic site appearance, with no actual changes to the appearance applied.
|-
| Lighter Mode
| The entire web page is overexposed, making colors wash out and reducing the contrast.
|-
| Dark Mode
| A standard "white content on black background" dark mode. Inverts the comic’s black and white pixels (see umwelt) which makes the content of this particular comic nonsensical.
|-
| Darkest Mode
| Everything on the webpage turns completely black, sans the drop down menu which is merely a dark gray.
|-
| Blurry Mode
| Blurs the entire webpage.
|-
| Grayscale Mode
| Applies a standard grayscale conversion filter to the entire webpage.
|-
| Greyscale Mode
| Like Grayscale Mode, but also changes the spelling of "math" in the slogan at the top of the page to "maths" (as in British English).
|-
| Dorian Greyscale Mode
| Makes the webpage slowly turn grey. This refers to {{w|The Picture of Dorian Gray}}, in which the titular character has a portrait that slowly ages and fades out while the character stays young and handsome. Could also be an indirect pun on a Dorian scale / Dorian mode in music.
|-
| Space Opera Mode
| Turns the entire page into a ''Star Wars''-style opening scroll.
|-
| 3D Mode
| Makes the comic render in {{w|Anaglyph_3D|anaglyphic stereoscopy}}.
|-
| Origami Mode
| Rotates and folds various pieces of the webpage.
|-
| Ink Mode
| Recolors the webpage as if drawn in blue ink.
|-
| Spring Mode
| Gives the comic a simple physics simulation, making it slightly rotate as the page is scrolled.
|-
| Antipodes Mode
| Turns the entire webpage upside down. An antipode is the point on the Earth's surface directly opposite of another, but "The Antipodes" is also term used for Australia and New Zealand by inhabitants of the northern hemisphere. Note: When the comic was first published this was labeled "Southern Hemisphere Mode".
|-
| Hacker Mode
| Recolors the entire webpage in the stereotypical "green on black" hacker color scheme.
|-
| Screensaver Mode
| Makes the comic float around on the webpage, bouncing as it hits the edges.
|-
| Modem Mode
| Slowly reveals the comic top to bottom, as if slowly loading, accompanied with modem static audio playing.
|-
| Stained Glass Mode
| Colors each closed area of the comic in a separate color. The colors vary each time this mode is selected.
|-
| Airplane Mode
| Makes the comic fly around on the page, with a "NYOOM!" written next to it. This is unlike the usual use of "airplane mode" to refer to disabling the cellphone (or all RF) features of a mobile device.
|-
| Boat Mode
| Makes the entire webpage tilt back and forth, emulating the way a boat rolls on the water. (It has been previously used as a reference in the [[Footnote]], which says "Remove your device from airplane mode and set it to Boat Mode).
|}

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

[Panel 1. Black background with white caption boxes.]

Caption 1: And God said,

Caption 2: "Let there be light,"

[Panel 2. A bright explosion of light from a star in the center.]

Caption: And there was light.

[Panel 3. The star with bright rays of light is shown against the horizon of a planet.]

[Panel 4. The same planet horizon is shown with a clear sky above.]

Caption: God saw that the light was-

Voice from the planet: Can you add support for dark mode?

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>[[Category:Interactive comics]][[Category:Dynamic comics]][[Category:April Fools' Day comics]]
[[Category:Comics with custom header texts]]

Talk:896: Marie Curie

2026-01-17T05:19:40Z

StapleFreeBatteries:

I miss the days when zombies would just bite you to death. What's with all this talking? '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 02:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
: It would probably be better if she came back as a ghost. But radiation poisoning in pop lit only explains physically supernatural stuff, not external consciousness supernatural stuff. Zombies, on the other hand, have been used in pop lit as thinking characters, even though they shouldn't have been. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.31|108.162.216.31]] 16:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)Dartania

Too bad Marguerite Vogt is not mentioned. She should have shared the Nobel with Renato Dulbecco, as (relatively) recent as 1975. --[[User:Jkrstrt|Jkrstrt]] ([[User talk:Jkrstrt|talk]]) 20:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC)--[[User:Jkrstrt|Jkrstrt]] ([[User talk:Jkrstrt|talk]]) 20:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Does it not escape your notice that by simply saying "everything else she says is true as well" you are doing the exact thing that this cartoon is trying to emphasise as unfair? In the last cartoon you guys couldn't say enough about the great Richard Feynman but you have reduced the achievements of two great women down to one simple sentence. Well played, I'm sure Randall's proud that you could so clearly see the point he was trying to make.
[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.94|141.101.98.94]] 07:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

*''You'' have the power, 141...94! {{unsigned|RyanofTinellb}}

Ok,jeez we get your point,and I get the point. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.58.87|162.158.58.87]] 22:39, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I used to live in a road, named after Lise Meitner and read a lot about her back then. Really a shame she isn't more well known! --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 06:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

What's up with "Today's comic might be familiar to a few dozen of you. :)" at the top of the page? [[User:Solomon|Solomon]] ([[User talk:Solomon|talk]]) 05:24, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
:I think that's just hardcoded (or otherwise over-riding the "current header" of xkcd.com), perhaps for reasons that made sense back in 2011. Without checking anything like the Wayback Machine I am ''presuming'' it's been stuck as that since 2011. Or whenever the later comic ("today's") was that Randall thought to point casual viewers at from this one.
:But, either way, it was clearly forgotten about, and the note still says "today" [i]and[/i] links to the (unrelated?) Blag post of about the time of this comic (which is why I don't think it was set that way much later), apparently forgotten.
:Needs more looking into, if the circumstances are not already recorded elsewhere, but definitely a curiosity, or perhaps a glitch in Randall's custom-CMS. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.156|172.70.85.156]] 06:14, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Any mention of female scientists needs to include Annie Jump Cannon, if for no reason other than the fact that Annie Jump Cannon is an excellent name, and to paraphrase 1053, saying Annie Jump Cannon is so much more fun than not saying Annie Jump Cannon
[[User:StapleFreeBatteries|StapleFreeBatteries]] ([[User talk:StapleFreeBatteries|talk]]) 05:17, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Talk:896: Marie Curie

2026-01-17T05:17:43Z

StapleFreeBatteries:

I miss the days when zombies would just bite you to death. What's with all this talking? '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 02:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
: It would probably be better if she came back as a ghost. But radiation poisoning in pop lit only explains physically supernatural stuff, not external consciousness supernatural stuff. Zombies, on the other hand, have been used in pop lit as thinking characters, even though they shouldn't have been. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.31|108.162.216.31]] 16:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)Dartania

Too bad Marguerite Vogt is not mentioned. She should have shared the Nobel with Renato Dulbecco, as (relatively) recent as 1975. --[[User:Jkrstrt|Jkrstrt]] ([[User talk:Jkrstrt|talk]]) 20:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC)--[[User:Jkrstrt|Jkrstrt]] ([[User talk:Jkrstrt|talk]]) 20:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Does it not escape your notice that by simply saying "everything else she says is true as well" you are doing the exact thing that this cartoon is trying to emphasise as unfair? In the last cartoon you guys couldn't say enough about the great Richard Feynman but you have reduced the achievements of two great women down to one simple sentence. Well played, I'm sure Randall's proud that you could so clearly see the point he was trying to make.
[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.94|141.101.98.94]] 07:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

*''You'' have the power, 141...94! {{unsigned|RyanofTinellb}}

Ok,jeez we get your point,and I get the point. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.58.87|162.158.58.87]] 22:39, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I used to live in a road, named after Lise Meitner and read a lot about her back then. Really a shame she isn't more well known! --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 06:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

What's up with "Today's comic might be familiar to a few dozen of you. :)" at the top of the page? [[User:Solomon|Solomon]] ([[User talk:Solomon|talk]]) 05:24, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
:I think that's just hardcoded (or otherwise over-riding the "current header" of xkcd.com), perhaps for reasons that made sense back in 2011. Without checking anything like the Wayback Machine I am ''presuming'' it's been stuck as that since 2011. Or whenever the later comic ("today's") was that Randall thought to point casual viewers at from this one.
:But, either way, it was clearly forgotten about, and the note still says "today" [i]and[/i] links to the (unrelated?) Blag post of about the time of this comic (which is why I don't think it was set that way much later), apparently forgotten.
:Needs more looking into, if the circumstances are not already recorded elsewhere, but definitely a curiosity, or perhaps a glitch in Randall's custom-CMS. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.156|172.70.85.156]] 06:14, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Any mention of female scientists needs to include Annie Jump Cannon, if for no reason other than the fact saying Annie Jump Cannon is more fun than not saying Annie Jump Cannon.

[[User:StapleFreeBatteries|StapleFreeBatteries]] ([[User talk:StapleFreeBatteries|talk]]) 05:17, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Talk:3148: 100% All Achievements

2025-11-05T04:38:38Z

StapleFreeBatteries:

... Bruh I wanted to see the explanation but there wasn't one lol [[User:TheTrainsKid|TheTrainsKid]] ([[User talk:TheTrainsKid|talk]]) 03:36, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
:I was going to make it, but by the time i finished, it said it couldn't be published - someone had made a better one while i was making it. who'd've thought. --[[Special:Contributions/2.50.0.22|2.50.0.22]] 05:32, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Could someone explain what “gen-ed” is? [[Special:Contributions/2A02:586:D41D:9400:409C:F47E:C1DD:24B2|2A02:586:D41D:9400:409C:F47E:C1DD:24B2]] 07:09, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
:I guess it stands for "general education"? --[[Special:Contributions/194.57.216.9|194.57.216.9]] 09:14, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Isn't this what grad school is for? [[User:Gorcq|Gorcq]] ([[User talk:Gorcq|talk]]) 11:41, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Background? I do wonder if the idea for this came from Roger Zelazny's book "{{w|Doorways in the Sand}}"? [[User:Jmbryant|Jmbryant]] ([[User talk:Jmbryant|talk]]) 11:56, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Someone should explain what "gen-ed" and 400 mean to non-US readers. --[[Special:Contributions/85.159.196.174|85.159.196.174]] 14:23, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
:"Gen-ed" is general education. It probably refers to classes that satisfy the "core requirements" that everyone graduating from the institution must pass, regardless of major. Typically these will include English composition (basically, how to write a paper), some first- and maybe second-year humanities classes, some first- and maybe second-year science or engineering classes, and some first- and maybe second-year math. These days, many US students graduate high school with college credit for some of these classes through dual-enrollment classes, Advanced Placement classes (and the required test), or similar programs (it's not unheard of to start university as a "third year student" - or "Junior" in US education lingo). "400" means 4th-year classes (individual classes will be numbered 401, 402, etc.), which are typically only available to students majoring in that topic or a related topic. Fun fact: In some graduate schools, students are allowed to take a limited number of "400" classes to meet their graduate degree requirements. [[Special:Contributions/64.201.132.210|64.201.132.210]] 19:02, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
::From a UK perspective, in this course scheme are we talking about "college" (Further Education, next level up from Secondary, variously known as Tertiary or "6th Form" in some cases) rather than "university" (Higher Education)?
::University 'academic careers', UKwise, are probably somewhat flexible (gap/sandwich years, leave of absence for personal reasons, etc), but I don't know of anyone who just 'kept reattending' to add more things. (I, myself, changed department, mid-way, but it was in context of which sub-part of the university was the primary focus of my already established multidiscaplinary Combined Science degree, and didn't change the effective year-group or classes I attended.) Also, I don't think we had "Underwater Basket-Weaving 101"-type optional/compulsary parallel prerequesit courses as 'minors', just automatically scheduled in sub-subject intro lectures for (e.g.) the specific applied-physics types of maths that the physics course used, to drag us up from the A-Level/HND/whatever proficiency that we'd previously gained to qualify us for our offered university place.
::College (Tertiary/6th Form/etc, optional followup to the compulsary Secondary-level education) was basically two years of whatever schedule you were willing and able to pack together from the offered courses... possibly could extend to three years (I had that option with a subject not taught at Secondary level... one-year of the Secondary course, then do the two-year Tertiary-level one starting in the second year of my other Tertiary-level subjects, but I abbreviated it) if it needed to be. Together with those completely resitting failed subjects, and those (mostly adult-education) signing up for a 'post-education education' as much as their time of life (and funding) allowed, no doubt there'd be opportunity to be nigh on an 'eternal student'. But you don't "Graduate" that level of education, in the UK. You might pass a course or two (or more, I personally had five separate qualifications on the go at the same time, though just the three 'main' ones) but it's not 'packaged' like undergrad university attendance.
::At least it wasn't for me. Maybe things have changed. They're apparently having end-of-year Proms all across the various school-year cohorts, these days, as an imported concept from the US. The most I ever had (not that I'm complaining, though I was never a good dancer) was the Christmas Disco. After the last School Assembly of the year (attendance awards and sporting triumphs may be noted and feted, but all prior to any actual exam results known) were a few days of "getting ready for Summer" with possibly a very much relaxed tailed-off 'curriculum' and being allowed to bring in board games on ''the'' last day of the school year (for those not bunking off entirely). Then... see you September! (Or not, if moving on to the "next school" or maybe that first proper full-time job as an adult.) [[Special:Contributions/82.132.184.204|82.132.184.204]] 02:06, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

:::American here who went to college (university) in the US who has raised kids in the UK and just sent the last one off to university. We don't narrow down our studies in the States like in the UK. In most places (there are exceptions) all the way through to the end of high school (12th grade/year 13) we're still taking Math, English, some sort of History/Geography, and some science classes. Maybe even P.E. Then when you go to university, you don't necessarily have to declare a major. In the UK, you have already spent the last two years just focused on 3-4 subjects for A-levels (or B-tech?), (everyone across the country takes the same exams at the exact same time) and when you leave for uni it might be just one subject. I was shocked when I found out that my husband's degree in Math(s) meant that he only took classes related to that! Because we don't narrow things down, and because we don't have the same level of standardization in testing as the UK, the US approach of general studies fits with our overall education model. It does take most people 4 years to complete a degree as opposed to the UK's 3, but our GenEd courses at university aren't the equivalelent of UK college (which you can start at 16) or A-levels. [[Special:Contributions/2A0A:EF40:125:E901:9860:5F0C:6834:B46F|2A0A:EF40:125:E901:9860:5F0C:6834:B46F]] 11:35, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

I think "speedrun University" can also implies someone trying to finish university ahead time interval (4 years, usually). I know people who have enough AP credits and do enough over-loading and summer classes trying to finish university within 2 years (the minimum time required to get a degree for most university). On the other hand, I believe this comic hint the people trying to complete all major's requirement inside the University to get "100% achievement". Most of university do not allow anything above double-count (count one class for more then 2 major requirements). If the people in comic have complete more then 20 major requirement within 15 years, that translate to the people have take enough class to complete at least 10 major's class/graduation requirements under the no triple count rule. in average, complete 1 major per 1.5 years, which in some sense, is amazing, also count as "speed-run". --(Someone recently been bitten by University's major tracking sheets) [[Special:Contributions/130.215.10.247|130.215.10.247]] 14:41, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

The MP4 format can contain a video of up to 2^32 time units. The normal timebase is 90,000 ticks per second, resulting in 13.25 hours. But if you used a timebase of 1 tick per second, you could record 136 years in one video.
The MKV format can support virtually unlimited duration. Of course, the title text here is talking about the video uploader's limitations, not the video container format. [[Special:Contributions/170.85.73.15|170.85.73.15]] 15:02, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I went for the Bachelors of Science and % run. Didn't do too badly. [[Special:Contributions/2600:6C48:6D7F:DBD0:B921:39F0:E1FB:A74D|2600:6C48:6D7F:DBD0:B921:39F0:E1FB:A74D]] 19:49, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

This ''feels'' like a continuation of 1052. [[User:REwhite|REwhite]] ([[User talk:REwhite|talk]]) 21:46, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

:Heh, he realized there wasn't any one good major out there, so he tried to get them all instead? New headcannon right there. [[User:Willintendo|Willintendo]] ([[User talk:Willintendo|talk]]) 21:27, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

:: I can't tell if the reference to 1401 there is intentional or not.
[[User:StapleFreeBatteries|StapleFreeBatteries]] ([[User talk:StapleFreeBatteries|talk]]) 04:38, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

The "eternal student" was a thing when I went to college ("uni" for our UK friends) because tuition was nominal at most state affiliated universities. The optimal path if your parents weren't giving your money was to get a job as a Resident Advisor in one of the dormitories where most first year students lived as that would cover your room and board. Most school have responded to this by instituting some sort of cap on the number of courses and years you could take before they would force you to graduate. The dedicated eternal student would then apply to graduate school. {{unsigned ip|2600:1700:b39:3010:70ea:4d8d:1888:b6b8|18:17, 3 October 2025 (UTC)}}

I second Jmbryant's suggestion that this could be inspired by Doorways in the Sand by Roger Zelazny. The comic immediately made me think of the central character.[[Special:Contributions/2601:600:837F:B130:D9D9:FE08:EC42:5A55|2601:600:837F:B130:D9D9:FE08:EC42:5A55]] 03:11, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Is it true that, as asserted, most students finish the gen-ed courses in their first year or even first term? In my B.Sc. program, first-year students were expected to take 3 full-year credits of sciences, 2 half-credits in math (1 per term), and 1 full-year arts credit. A second credit of arts was required to complete the degree requirements, but that was generally taken in a later year. I did things a bit differently: 2 full credits in math in my first year along with the 3 science credits, and I did my arts requirements in my 3rd and 4th years. [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 14:37, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

: Yeah, that claim was way off, at least for US universities. I edited it to be more accurate.
[[User:StapleFreeBatteries|StapleFreeBatteries]] ([[User talk:StapleFreeBatteries|talk]]) 15:39, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Maybe this is a nitpick, but I don't like how this explanation conflates 100% speedruns and getting all achievements. What "100%" means varies from game to game, but it's generally unrelated to external "achievement" trackers. It's quite common for achievements to be awarded for things the community considers irrelevant to finishing the game, such as failing under particularly silly circumstances or winning the game while deliberately avoiding certain mechanics; there might even be achievements which are incompatible and must be achieved in separate runs! "100%" != "all achievements," usually. [[User:GreatWyrmGold|GreatWyrmGold]] ([[User talk:GreatWyrmGold|talk]]) 12:27, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

:I wouldn’t call that a nitpick at all. In fact, I think it’s a good point that a 100% run and an all achievements run would likely be very different for a university. While you could say that completion of a university only necessitates academic achievements, there’s definitely a lot more that you COULD do at a university. Clubs, sports, events, etc. That optional content wouldn’t be optional if the speedrun was truly all-achievements. I’ve added a paragraph about the implications of a speedrun that requires EVERYTHING possible to achieve at the university. [[User:KelOfTheStars!|KelOfTheStars!]] ([[User talk:KelOfTheStars!|talk]]) 19:51, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Talk:3163: Repair Video

2025-11-05T04:36:02Z

StapleFreeBatteries:

Lol [[User:Mathmaster|Mathmaster]] ([[User talk:Mathmaster|talk]]) 23:20, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I tried to check the explain page for this comic a little while ago and the page hadn’t been made yet :( [[User:Kirinhatchi|Kirinhatchi]] ([[User talk:Kirinhatch|talk]]) 23:32, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I think Randall speaks for a few billion people with this one. [[Special:Contributions/64.201.132.210|64.201.132.210]] 23:49, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

It feels like this comic is almost a "happy ending" version of https://xkcd.com/979/. [[Special:Contributions/2605:A601:AF4D:DE00:510E:86B:6FA2:356B|2605:A601:AF4D:DE00:510E:86B:6FA2:356B]] 00:27, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
:I agree, it seems like a spiritual continuation. I put that in the explanation though it could definitely be moved/fit into the content more cleanly. [[User:R128|R128]] ([[User talk:R128|talk]]) 00:55, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

> "but afterwards decide to create instructional videos" -- I see some how-to videos that don't seem to be '''afterward''', but intentional "''What can I post about to get some clicks/eyeballs?''" IAC, YouTube has become my go-to for many problems which should be easier to show than to talk about. But so many newbie videographers work in shadow, or block the key part with their shoulder, or rush the details. --[[User:PRR|PRR]] ([[User talk:PRR|talk]]) 01:07, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

...Scott here! - [[Special:Contributions/24.177.125.170|24.177.125.170]] 03:45, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
:Before we all die, I have to know. Is it “hey all,” or “hey y’all?” [[User:KelOfTheStars!|KelOfTheStars!]] ([[User talk:KelOfTheStars!|talk]]) 04:19, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
::Or "hey all y'all?" [[Special:Contributions/107.77.205.128|107.77.205.128]] 18:32, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

:How was the Antarctic? [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 09:24, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I feel like the explanation is missing an emphasis on the fact that Cueball's problem is entirely trivial (albeit very annoying) and hence farcical to suggest awarding statues for solving it, but it seems like it needs a more significant rework than just an added line, and I don't have the headspace to do it - anyone want to take a run at it? [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 09:27, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Ugh, another video that should have been text. I just want to know how to fix whatever it is, I don't need a 2 minute opening, monologue, and "Like and subscribe!" [[Special:Contributions/163.116.254.55|163.116.254.55]] 16:00, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

:This will become wisdom of the ancients when the video platform does some housecleaning, deletes the video, and all that is left are some chat posts linking to it. [[Special:Contributions/107.77.205.128|107.77.205.128]] 18:32, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I am reminded of [https://x.com/mart_brooks/status/980925832590954496 this (relatable) ancient tweet] by Martin A. Brooks:
<pre>
“This video demonstrates….”

How I want tech stuff explained to me in order of preference:

1) A well written technical document.
2) A maintained wiki.
…
998) Spray painted on the side of a cow.
999) A video.
</pre>
[[Special:Contributions/124.171.37.127|124.171.37.127]] 22:52, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Man, Randall really seems have humidifiers on his mind a lot lately...
[[User:StapleFreeBatteries|StapleFreeBatteries]] ([[User talk:StapleFreeBatteries|talk]]) 04:36, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Talk:2809: Moon

2025-10-10T15:42:51Z

StapleFreeBatteries:

Happy birthday to me. This comic is a good birthday present, so I'm gonna try to add some stuff to the explanation now. [[User:R3TRI8UTI0N|R3TRI8UTI0N]] ([[User talk:R3TRI8UTI0N|talk]]) 02:11, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Okay, added a Trivia section and a lot of stuff to the explanation. Request someone help add more information about lunar cycles and some wikipedia links. [[User:R3TRI8UTI0N|R3TRI8UTI0N]] ([[User talk:R3TRI8UTI0N|talk]]) 02:35, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
:Ah, well, I added more (sufficient? ...haven't wikilinked yet) info about the illumination/tide cycles. i.e. about half the time (at least) half reilluminating areas on the night side of Earth + roughly twice a day dragging/flinging the tides 'upwards' (modifying the Sun's own twice-daily effects).
:Had to heavily qualify the secondary Trivia point, for caveats. I mean selenically-specific names aren't rare, when refering to orb sometimes known as Phoebe/Cynthia, until you become more precise about "common English use". Didn't say anything about (the) Earth, but did mention the Sun(/suns in general) in the edit comment. Interesting point to make, but not so much unusual as stemming from long time (way into prehistory!) custom so really being the heavily weighted precedent. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.187|172.70.90.187]] 05:21, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
::...what? I don't understand. [[User:R3TRI8UTI0N|R3TRI8UTI0N]] ([[User talk:R3TRI8UTI0N|talk]]) 05:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
:::''"it can also be described by other titles such as "Luna" (directly taken from from Latin mythology/astronomy)."'' It's not true that "the Moon doesn't have a name". It is ''the'' Moon (unlike other moons), plus all kinds of other names (historical, other culture and/or other language; such as Chandra/Igaluk/Chang'e). But it is interesting to note that, until we were able to imagine (and/or see) moons orbiting other things up in the sky, there was ''just'' its proper name. Whatever it might be. Only after we anticipated the existence of satellites of other planets (and, perhaps, other satellites of our own planet), having first recognised what other planets actually were (distinct from stars, with those being other suns than ''our'' Sun/Sol/Ra/...) was it meaningful that the name(s) we did use for it might be re-used to describe the class of things that were like it. But they then really needed their own fresh names/catalogue numbers. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.15|172.71.242.15]] 10:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
:Reminds me of that conversation from Dragonheart (paraphrized as I only watched the German dub): "So instead of calling me 'dragon" in your language you call me 'dragon' in another language... I think I like it" [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 07:16, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

If there was no Moon, would an Earth astronomer that discovered moons around one of the other planets be considered a loony? [[User:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For]] ([[User talk:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|talk]]) 02:40, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
:If there was no moon, it's quite possible there would be no intelligent life on Earth. Also, when Galileo Galilei found Jupiter's moons, he was totally considered loony by some, while others said it's defect of the telescope. Remember that at that point of history, suggesting that if Earth has moon, other planets might have one too was something you could be burned on stake for. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 03:13, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

:Definitely not. (I see what you did there.) --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.247.155|172.70.247.155]] 12:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I doubt the title text is intended as a reference to that saying. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.247.51|172.69.247.51]] 04:17, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
:Yeah, I don't get how that is related either. The title text references that it is pretty, but the nmoves away from that. Not sure how that is related to a quote that doesn't even use the word "pretty". --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 09:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
::I mean, the word "beautiful" and "pretty" have common meanings, so I thought about that connection, but if no one else made the connection, so be it. [[User:R3TRI8UTI0N|R3TRI8UTI0N]] ([[User talk:R3TRI8UTI0N|talk]]) 05:30, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
:::I think if that connection was meant to be invoked it would just say beautiful, or get more into detail of the way it is pretty/beautiful. However it was just used as a kind of connector to make the other mentioned aspects seem more minor. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 08:05, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Like many things,{{Citation needed}} it has probably seemed usual whilst we only know our own example. Once we started to find other examples out there, we can discover the ways in which it's an outlier. (Martian: "Well of ''course'' there's those two small rock 'stars' visibly zipping around overhead, that's what the sky alsays looks like for me, and I imagine that it's much the same for anyone else..." Earthling/Venusian/Jovian/Tritonian/Plutoid: "...hold my beer!") [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.133|141.101.99.133]] 07:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I've been saying this about the Sun… A great fireball looming in the sky. It remotely powers life. (Even with 90% of that power lost at each trophic level!) It is worshipped as a god. It controls Earthlings' sense of time. When it leaves the sky at a regular interval, a wave of fear follows, and everything seeks shelter and goes dormant until its return. Oh, but it also burns and mutates the flesh of those who stand in its rays, to the point that it's ''dangerous to look at''. Sounds fake, right? And yet, there it is. [[User talk:AgentMuffin|~AgentMuffin]] 08:00, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I have a personal theory that the constant gravitational massage is responsible for sustaining the Earth's large magnetic field, thus preventing the solar wind making us like Venus or Mars, and probably keeping the tectonic plates on the move. (Oh and dogs domesticated themselves - just saying p.s. same for cats but only after we had barns). [[User:RIIW - Ponder it|RIIW - Ponder it]] ([[User talk:RIIW - Ponder it|talk]]) 09:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I think we’re well past the point of “plans being made” of humans returning to the Moon. [[User:SilverTheTerribleMathematician|Silver]] ([[User talk:SilverTheTerribleMathematician|talk]]) 19:29, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
:You mean that we are currently building rockets and stuff to send people to the moon at this very moment? [[User:R3TRI8UTI0N|R3TRI8UTI0N]] ([[User talk:R3TRI8UTI0N|talk]]) 05:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
::We are. Which I hope you're aware of. But if you weren't... this your [[1053: Ten Thousand|lucky day]]! [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.15|172.71.242.15]] 10:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Huh. I thought we were still only in the planning phase. Admittedly, paying attention to the news these days tends to be bad for one's mental health, all things considered. [[User:R3TRI8UTI0N|R3TRI8UTI0N]] ([[User talk:R3TRI8UTI0N|talk]]) 03:19, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
::::{{w|Space Launch System}} and {{w|Artemis 1}} built and launched with further SLSs and Artemises(/Artemii?/Artemoxen?) being built for the followup missions. The bit of the mission with {{w|SpaceX Starship}} has been built/tested over variously incremental degrees, but is still far short of even Artemis's trans-lunar test as far as proving itself capable. But there is definitely more than just plans. (Though wouldn't be surprised if there are also ''contingency'' plans, if MusX gets too distracted and cannot actually deliver his element contribution. Like shuffling the {{w|Blue Moon (spacecraft)|Bezos version}} up the order, though that's also far (indeed, further) from usability right now.)
::::Artemis 2 doesn't depend upon anything additional (manufacturing aside) and so the trans-/circum-lunar manned mission is likely to happen (eventually) unless actively cancelled/reconfigured, for possibly political reasons (the current schedule of November 2024 is potentially between the election and inaugoration/continuation of the next/incumbant/returning US President, so any slipping NASA schedules and sudden changes in direction from 'above' are possibly going to interact), even with current equipment already partly in existence. Artemis 3's landing mission is far more hypothetical, right now, but predominantly for all the various non-NASA reasons (e.g. politics and, possibly, the fallout of any further Twitter/X 'developments' that have knock-on-effects that hinder/do not help SpaceX to solve its own entirely different problems). Assuming '2' itself isn't a practical(/fatal) failure in its own right, of course.
::::But this is just my own (broad) thinking about what pieces are in place or in the process of being placed. There are both professionals and supra-amateurs who keep a very close eye on all these things and might be far more informed about current progress. Yet I think I'm safe to roughly update you on the current "beyond planning" status of the Artemis programme, giving you various interesting advances ''and'' caveats that you were not aware of. ...watch this space? (Or space in general!) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.15|172.71.242.15]] 10:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

August 1, 2023 the moon is a "Super Moon" [[User:KingPenguin|KingPenguin]] ([[User talk:KingPenguin|talk]]) 22:13, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

We need to make a category for these things which would sound outlandish if they didn't exist. [[2115]] is the first one I think of, and I'm sure there's more. I propose we call it Category: Things That Seem Like They Shouldn't Work But Do in honor of [[2540]]. [[User:Take The A Train To Watertown|Take The A Train To Watertown]] ([[User talk:Take The A Train To Watertown|talk]]) 12:20, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
:[[2085]] title text. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 05:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@84596Gamma - yes, really. (But not as much as a spoon.) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.186|172.71.178.186]] 15:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm kind of surprised no one has mentioned The Broken Earth Trilogy by N. K. Jemisin yet. [[User:Stickfigurefan|Stickfigurefan]] ([[User talk:Stickfigurefan|talk]]) 16:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Science (and science fiction) writer Isaac Asimov once theorized that if we hasn't had the Moon then the heliocentric model of the solar system might have taken root a lot earlier than it did. It's pretty obvious that both the Sun and the Moon orbit around the Earth (I know...) so obviously everything else does too, right? But then we had to come up with ways to explain the movement of the planets, and a lot of very smart people wasted a lot of time trying to figure out exactly how that worked. [[User:Jkshapiro|Jkshapiro]] ([[User talk:Jkshapiro|talk]]) 16:49, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Just gonna leave this here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uN8Diu5eJZE
[[User:StapleFreeBatteries|StapleFreeBatteries]] ([[User talk:StapleFreeBatteries|talk]]) 15:42, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

3148: 100% All Achievements

2025-10-10T15:40:31Z

StapleFreeBatteries:

{{comic
| number = 3148
| date = September 29, 2025
| title = 100% All Achievements
| image = 100_all_achievements_2x.png
| imagesize = 271x475px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = I'm trying to share my footage of the full run to prove it's not tool-assisted, but the uploader has problems with video lengths of more than a decade.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This page was created BY AN ANY% RUNNER. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}
100% All Achievements is a category of {{w|Speedrunning|video game speedruns}} where the goal is to do everything possible in the game, as fast as possible. Many games have a progress bar to track completion of the game, making the "100%" criterion officially defined. "Achievements," also known as "trophies" for games on Sony-branded consoles, are another way to track accomplishments, either tracked within the game itself or through the storefront used to purchase the game such as the Microsoft Store.

[[Cueball]] is attempting a 100% All Achievements run for his university, which is a ridiculous pursuit for several reasons. Even though 100% runs for video games can take very long (up to [https://www.speedrun.com/baten_kaitos_eternal_wings_and_the_lost_ocean?h=100&x=mke7v926 two weeks]), they don't even come close to the amount of time needed to complete a single university major, let alone every class. This would be prohibitively expensive for most people due to the high cost of university attendance. Moreover, "All Achievements" is vaguely defined in this scenario, and the "achievements" possible at a university will change as courses, academic tracks, and degrees offered change. In contrast, even if the possible achievements in a video game change as updates and downloadable content are released, it is possible to specify a particular version of the game used for the speedrun. In addition, the university seems upset with this choice of action, and are demanding he stop it and graduate. This may be because they doubt his ability to retain this information, perhaps because they simply cannot get as much tuition from one man, or possibly because they feel he is making a mockery of the institution.

While this might sound ludicrous, "{{w|perpetual students}}" are people who spend long periods at a university. {{w|Michael Nicholson (academic)|Michael Nicholson}}, the world record holder, completed 30 majors between before 1964 and 2016.

Gen-ed, which Cueball says he had completed all of in 2010, refers to {{w|Curriculum#Core_curriculum|general education courses}}. This usually means either:
(1) a set of classes, or at least categories of classes (such as literature, history, science, foreign language, etc.), that must be taken by all students, regardless of major; or
(2) classes that have few prerequisites, intended to be taken by students in other disciplines or by people not in university programs at all, to broaden their education (for example, a course in general science for arts students). It is common for a university program to require a student to take several courses that are somewhat related to their nominal preferred specialty in their first year, to provide a foundation for later studies and to permit some flexibility if the student's interests change. In some countries, some gen-ed courses are also included in programs of study so that students get at least a bit of exposure to unrelated disciplines. Many students aim to get these courses out of the way within their first one or two years, though some universities have more specific or long-term requirements (eg: requiring all students to take at least one lower-division and at least one upper-division humanities course) to ensure breadth through a student's undergrad career.

Classes at a university typically receive a code that combines the name of the field/discipline being taught with a two- or three-digit number (e.g., a course in anthropology might be ANTH 209). The leading digit typically provides information about how advanced a class is: lower division work might receive a 0 or 1, while upper division and graduate courses will receive higher numbers. Although there is no standardization across universities for which specific numbers equate to which course levels, the generally accepted baseline education given in any specific subject is usually associated with the number {{w|101 (number)#In_education|101}}, while classes in the 400s are usually taken in the 4th year of undergrad at most universities, and may provide credit towards graduate-level degrees.

In traditional speedrunning, a {{w|tool-assisted speedrun}} (mentioned in the title text) is one done with software such as a {{w|video game console emulator|video game emulator}} to record and then play back incredibly precise movements. These are typically used to show the theoretical upper limit of how quickly a game can be completed, even if the required techniques are beyond human capabilities (i.e. performing a long chain of optimal actions, flawlessly, without the need to replay or restart any stage). Particularly exceptional speedruns may rouse suspicion that they weren’t truly performed by a human, which is what Cueball is trying to quell. It is unclear how such tools might be applied to the pursuit of education, but Cueball may have meant using artificial intelligence or similar "cheats" to illegitimately complete his work. Unassisted speedruns are typically reviewed in full by a moderator of the speedrunning community for that game to ensure there truly were no tools involved. There is no known community for university speedrunning,{{Citation needed}} so no moderators will be able to review the years of footage to determine whether the speedrun was legitimate.

Most video-sharing services limit the length of uploaded videos, either by size or length, for a variety of reasons. A decade-long video file is almost certainly too big for any service: an hour of 720p-resolution video is about one gigabyte [[https://www.overcasthq.com/blog/how-big-are-video-files/ Overcast]], so a decade would be about 100 terabytes. The longest video ever to be hosted on YouTube is just under 25 days [[https://www.imdb.com/title/tt12095652/trivia/ IMDB]], under 1% of what Cueball wants. Such a video would require significant infrastructure support by the service for it to be allowed, not to mention presenting challenges to recording and storing it in the first place. Also, the moderators would spend much of their time watching the video. Assuming they watch 8 hours every day and there are 10 moderators splitting the video, we can calculate the days needed assuming it is about a decade. (10*365*24)/8/10 =87,600/8/10 = 1095. So, they need 1095 days, or about 3 years.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball, arms outstretched, is talking to White Hat.]
:Cueball: I finished all the gen-ed back in 2010, and I'm up to the 400-level courses in most departments.
:Cueball: But now one of my advisors is saying I "can't have more than 20 majors" and "need to graduate next year."
:Cueball: It's outrageous!

:[Caption below the panel:]
:My university is making it really hard to finish a 100% all achievements speedrun.

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]
[[Category:Video games]]

Talk:3148: 100% All Achievements

2025-10-10T15:39:24Z

StapleFreeBatteries: Accidentally wasn't logged in

... Bruh I wanted to see the explanation but there wasn't one lol [[User:TheTrainsKid|TheTrainsKid]] ([[User talk:TheTrainsKid|talk]]) 03:36, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
:I was going to make it, but by the time i finished, it said it couldn't be published - someone had made a better one while i was making it. who'd've thought. --[[Special:Contributions/2.50.0.22|2.50.0.22]] 05:32, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Could someone explain what “gen-ed” is? [[Special:Contributions/2A02:586:D41D:9400:409C:F47E:C1DD:24B2|2A02:586:D41D:9400:409C:F47E:C1DD:24B2]] 07:09, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
:I guess it stands for "general education"? --[[Special:Contributions/194.57.216.9|194.57.216.9]] 09:14, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Isn't this what grad school is for? [[User:Gorcq|Gorcq]] ([[User talk:Gorcq|talk]]) 11:41, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Background? I do wonder if the idea for this came from Roger Zelazny's book "{{w|Doorways in the Sand}}"? [[User:Jmbryant|Jmbryant]] ([[User talk:Jmbryant|talk]]) 11:56, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Someone should explain what "gen-ed" and 400 mean to non-US readers. --[[Special:Contributions/85.159.196.174|85.159.196.174]] 14:23, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
:"Gen-ed" is general education. It probably refers to classes that satisfy the "core requirements" that everyone graduating from the institution must pass, regardless of major. Typically these will include English composition (basically, how to write a paper), some first- and maybe second-year humanities classes, some first- and maybe second-year science or engineering classes, and some first- and maybe second-year math. These days, many US students graduate high school with college credit for some of these classes through dual-enrollment classes, Advanced Placement classes (and the required test), or similar programs (it's not unheard of to start university as a "third year student" - or "Junior" in US education lingo). "400" means 4th-year classes (individual classes will be numbered 401, 402, etc.), which are typically only available to students majoring in that topic or a related topic. Fun fact: In some graduate schools, students are allowed to take a limited number of "400" classes to meet their graduate degree requirements. [[Special:Contributions/64.201.132.210|64.201.132.210]] 19:02, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
::From a UK perspective, in this course scheme are we talking about "college" (Further Education, next level up from Secondary, variously known as Tertiary or "6th Form" in some cases) rather than "university" (Higher Education)?
::University 'academic careers', UKwise, are probably somewhat flexible (gap/sandwich years, leave of absence for personal reasons, etc), but I don't know of anyone who just 'kept reattending' to add more things. (I, myself, changed department, mid-way, but it was in context of which sub-part of the university was the primary focus of my already established multidiscaplinary Combined Science degree, and didn't change the effective year-group or classes I attended.) Also, I don't think we had "Underwater Basket-Weaving 101"-type optional/compulsary parallel prerequesit courses as 'minors', just automatically scheduled in sub-subject intro lectures for (e.g.) the specific applied-physics types of maths that the physics course used, to drag us up from the A-Level/HND/whatever proficiency that we'd previously gained to qualify us for our offered university place.
::College (Tertiary/6th Form/etc, optional followup to the compulsary Secondary-level education) was basically two years of whatever schedule you were willing and able to pack together from the offered courses... possibly could extend to three years (I had that option with a subject not taught at Secondary level... one-year of the Secondary course, then do the two-year Tertiary-level one starting in the second year of my other Tertiary-level subjects, but I abbreviated it) if it needed to be. Together with those completely resitting failed subjects, and those (mostly adult-education) signing up for a 'post-education education' as much as their time of life (and funding) allowed, no doubt there'd be opportunity to be nigh on an 'eternal student'. But you don't "Graduate" that level of education, in the UK. You might pass a course or two (or more, I personally had five separate qualifications on the go at the same time, though just the three 'main' ones) but it's not 'packaged' like undergrad university attendance.
::At least it wasn't for me. Maybe things have changed. They're apparently having end-of-year Proms all across the various school-year cohorts, these days, as an imported concept from the US. The most I ever had (not that I'm complaining, though I was never a good dancer) was the Christmas Disco. After the last School Assembly of the year (attendance awards and sporting triumphs may be noted and feted, but all prior to any actual exam results known) were a few days of "getting ready for Summer" with possibly a very much relaxed tailed-off 'curriculum' and being allowed to bring in board games on ''the'' last day of the school year (for those not bunking off entirely). Then... see you September! (Or not, if moving on to the "next school" or maybe that first proper full-time job as an adult.) [[Special:Contributions/82.132.184.204|82.132.184.204]] 02:06, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

:::American here who went to college (university) in the US who has raised kids in the UK and just sent the last one off to university. We don't narrow down our studies in the States like in the UK. In most places (there are exceptions) all the way through to the end of high school (12th grade/year 13) we're still taking Math, English, some sort of History/Geography, and some science classes. Maybe even P.E. Then when you go to university, you don't necessarily have to declare a major. In the UK, you have already spent the last two years just focused on 3-4 subjects for A-levels (or B-tech?), (everyone across the country takes the same exams at the exact same time) and when you leave for uni it might be just one subject. I was shocked when I found out that my husband's degree in Math(s) meant that he only took classes related to that! Because we don't narrow things down, and because we don't have the same level of standardization in testing as the UK, the US approach of general studies fits with our overall education model. It does take most people 4 years to complete a degree as opposed to the UK's 3, but our GenEd courses at university aren't the equivalelent of UK college (which you can start at 16) or A-levels. [[Special:Contributions/2A0A:EF40:125:E901:9860:5F0C:6834:B46F|2A0A:EF40:125:E901:9860:5F0C:6834:B46F]] 11:35, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

I think "speedrun University" can also implies someone trying to finish university ahead time interval (4 years, usually). I know people who have enough AP credits and do enough over-loading and summer classes trying to finish university within 2 years (the minimum time required to get a degree for most university). On the other hand, I believe this comic hint the people trying to complete all major's requirement inside the University to get "100% achievement". Most of university do not allow anything above double-count (count one class for more then 2 major requirements). If the people in comic have complete more then 20 major requirement within 15 years, that translate to the people have take enough class to complete at least 10 major's class/graduation requirements under the no triple count rule. in average, complete 1 major per 1.5 years, which in some sense, is amazing, also count as "speed-run". --(Someone recently been bitten by University's major tracking sheets) [[Special:Contributions/130.215.10.247|130.215.10.247]] 14:41, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

The MP4 format can contain a video of up to 2^32 time units. The normal timebase is 90,000 ticks per second, resulting in 13.25 hours. But if you used a timebase of 1 tick per second, you could record 136 years in one video.
The MKV format can support virtually unlimited duration. Of course, the title text here is talking about the video uploader's limitations, not the video container format. [[Special:Contributions/170.85.73.15|170.85.73.15]] 15:02, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I went for the Bachelors of Science and % run. Didn't do too badly. [[Special:Contributions/2600:6C48:6D7F:DBD0:B921:39F0:E1FB:A74D|2600:6C48:6D7F:DBD0:B921:39F0:E1FB:A74D]] 19:49, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

This ''feels'' like a continuation of 1052. [[User:REwhite|REwhite]] ([[User talk:REwhite|talk]]) 21:46, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

:Heh, he realized there wasn't any one good major out there, so he tried to get them all instead? New headcannon right there. [[User:Willintendo|Willintendo]] ([[User talk:Willintendo|talk]]) 21:27, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

The "eternal student" was a thing when I went to college ("uni" for our UK friends) because tuition was nominal at most state affiliated universities. The optimal path if your parents weren't giving your money was to get a job as a Resident Advisor in one of the dormitories where most first year students lived as that would cover your room and board. Most school have responded to this by instituting some sort of cap on the number of courses and years you could take before they would force you to graduate. The dedicated eternal student would then apply to graduate school. {{unsigned ip|2600:1700:b39:3010:70ea:4d8d:1888:b6b8|18:17, 3 October 2025 (UTC)}}

I second Jmbryant's suggestion that this could be inspired by Doorways in the Sand by Roger Zelazny. The comic immediately made me think of the central character.[[Special:Contributions/2601:600:837F:B130:D9D9:FE08:EC42:5A55|2601:600:837F:B130:D9D9:FE08:EC42:5A55]] 03:11, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Is it true that, as asserted, most students finish the gen-ed courses in their first year or even first term? In my B.Sc. program, first-year students were expected to take 3 full-year credits of sciences, 2 half-credits in math (1 per term), and 1 full-year arts credit. A second credit of arts was required to complete the degree requirements, but that was generally taken in a later year. I did things a bit differently: 2 full credits in math in my first year along with the 3 science credits, and I did my arts requirements in my 3rd and 4th years. [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 14:37, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, that claim was way off, at least for US universities. I edited it to be more accurate.
[[User:StapleFreeBatteries|StapleFreeBatteries]] ([[User talk:StapleFreeBatteries|talk]]) 15:39, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

3148: 100% All Achievements

2025-10-07T07:38:16Z

StapleFreeBatteries:

{{comic
| number = 3148
| date = September 29, 2025
| title = 100% All Achievements
| image = 100_all_achievements_2x.png
| imagesize = 271x475px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = I'm trying to share my footage of the full run to prove it's not tool-assisted, but the uploader has problems with video lengths of more than a decade.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This page was created BY AN ANY% RUNNER. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}
100% All Achievements is a category of {{w|Speedrunning|video game speedruns}} where the goal is to do everything possible in the game, as fast as possible. Many games have a progress bar to track completion of the game, making the "100%" criterion officially defined. "Achievements," also known as "trophies" for games on Sony-branded consoles, are another way to track accomplishments, either tracked within the game itself or through the storefront used to purchase the game such as the Microsoft Store.

[[Cueball]] is attempting a 100% All Achievements run for his university, which is a ridiculous pursuit for several reasons. Even though 100% runs for video games can take very long (up to [https://www.speedrun.com/baten_kaitos_eternal_wings_and_the_lost_ocean?h=100&x=mke7v926 two weeks]), they don't even come close to the amount of time needed to complete a single university major, let alone every class. This would be prohibitively expensive for most people due to the high cost of university attendance. Moreover, "All Achievements" is vaguely defined in this scenario, and the "achievements" possible at a university will change as courses, academic tracks, and degrees offered change. In contrast, even if the possible achievements in a video game change as updates and downloadable content are released, it is possible to specify a particular version of the game used for the speedrun. In addition, the university seems upset with this choice of action, and are demanding he stop it and graduate. This may be because they doubt his ability to retain this information, perhaps because they simply cannot get as much tuition from one man, or possibly because they feel he is making a mockery of the institution.

While this might sound ludicrous, "{{w|perpetual students}}" are people who spend long periods at a university. {{w|Michael Nicholson}}, the world record holder, completed 30 majors between before 1964 and 2016.

Gen-ed, which Cueball says he had completed all of in 2010, refers to {{w|Curriculum#Core_curriculum|general education courses}}. This usually means either:
(1) a set of classes, or at least categories of classes (such as literature, history, science, foreign language, etc.), that must be taken by all students, regardless of major; or
(2) classes that have few prerequisites, intended to be taken by students in other disciplines or by people not in university programs at all, to broaden their education (for example, a course in general science for arts students). It is common for a university program to require a student to take several courses that are somewhat related to their nominal preferred specialty in their first year, to provide a foundation for later studies and to permit some flexibility if the student's interests change. In some countries, some gen-ed courses are also included in programs of study so that students get at least a bit of exposure to unrelated disciplines. Many students aim to get these courses out of the way within their first year or two, though some universities have more long-term requirements (eg: "all students must take at least one lower-division and at least one upper-division humanities course") to ensure breadth through a student's undergrad career.

Classes at a university typically receive a code that combines the name of the field/discipline being taught with a two- or three-digit number (e.g., a course in anthropology might be ANTH 209). The leading digit typically provides information about how advanced a class is: lower division work might receive a 0 or 1, while upper division and graduate courses will receive higher numbers. Although there is no standardization across universities for which specific numbers equate to which course levels, the generally accepted baseline education given in any specific subject is usually associated with the number {{w|101 (number)#In_education|101}}, while classes in the 400s are usually taken in the 4th year of undergrad at most universities, and may provide credit towards graduate-level degrees.

In traditional speedrunning, a {{w|tool-assisted speedrun}} (mentioned in the title text) is one done with software such as a {{w|video game console emulator|video game emulator}} to record and then play back incredibly precise movements. These are typically used to show the theoretical upper limit of how quickly a game can be completed, even if the required techniques are beyond human capabilities (i.e. performing a long chain of optimal actions, flawlessly, without the need to replay or restart any stage). Particularly exceptional speedruns may rouse suspicion that they weren’t truly performed by a human, which is what Cueball is trying to quell. It is unclear how such tools might be applied to the pursuit of education, but Cueball may have meant using artificial intelligence or similar "cheats" to illegitimately complete his work. Unassisted speedruns are typically reviewed in full by a moderator of the speedrunning community for that game to ensure there truly were no tools involved. There is no known community for university speedrunning,{{Citation needed}} so no moderators will be able to review the years of footage to determine whether the speedrun was legitimate.

Most video-sharing services limit the length of uploaded videos, either by size or length, for a variety of reasons. A decade-long video file is almost certainly too big for any service: an hour of 720p-resolution video is about one gigabyte [[https://www.overcasthq.com/blog/how-big-are-video-files/ Overcast]], so a decade would be about 100 terabytes. The longest video ever to be hosted on YouTube is just under 25 days [[https://www.imdb.com/title/tt12095652/trivia/ IMDB]], under 1% of what Cueball wants. Such a video would require significant infrastructure support by the service for it to be allowed, not to mention presenting challenges to recording and storing it in the first place.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Don't remove this notice too soon.}}
:[Cueball, arms outstretched, is talking to White Hat.]
:Cueball: I finished all the gen-ed back in 2010, and I'm up to the 400-level courses in most departments.
:Cueball: But now one of my advisors is saying I "can't have more than 20 majors" and "need to graduate next year."
:Cueball: It's outrageous!

:[Caption below the panel:]
:My university is making it really hard to finish a 100% all achievements speedrun.

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]
[[Category:Video games]]

3148: 100% All Achievements

2025-10-07T07:36:33Z

StapleFreeBatteries:

{{comic
| number = 3148
| date = September 29, 2025
| title = 100% All Achievements
| image = 100_all_achievements_2x.png
| imagesize = 271x475px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = I'm trying to share my footage of the full run to prove it's not tool-assisted, but the uploader has problems with video lengths of more than a decade.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This page was created BY AN ANY% RUNNER. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}
100% All Achievements is a category of {{w|Speedrunning|video game speedruns}} where the goal is to do everything possible in the game, as fast as possible. Many games have a progress bar to track completion of the game, making the "100%" criterion officially defined. "Achievements," also known as "trophies" for games on Sony-branded consoles, are another way to track accomplishments, either tracked within the game itself or through the storefront used to purchase the game such as the Microsoft Store.

[[Cueball]] is attempting a 100% All Achievements run for his university, which is a ridiculous pursuit for several reasons. Even though 100% runs for video games can take very long (up to [https://www.speedrun.com/baten_kaitos_eternal_wings_and_the_lost_ocean?h=100&x=mke7v926 two weeks]), they don't even come close to the amount of time needed to complete a single university major, let alone every class. This would be prohibitively expensive for most people due to the high cost of university attendance. Moreover, "All Achievements" is vaguely defined in this scenario, and the "achievements" possible at a university will change as courses, academic tracks, and degrees offered change. In contrast, even if the possible achievements in a video game change as updates and downloadable content are released, it is possible to specify a particular version of the game used for the speedrun. In addition, the university seems upset with this choice of action, and are demanding he stop it and graduate. This may be because they doubt his ability to retain this information, perhaps because they simply cannot get as much tuition from one man, or possibly because they feel he is making a mockery of the institution.

While this might sound ludicrous, "{{w|perpetual students}}" are people who spend long periods at a university. {{w|Michael Nicholson}}, the world record holder, completed 30 majors between before 1964 and 2016.

Gen-ed, which Cueball says he had completed all of in 2010, refers to {{w|Curriculum#Core_curriculum|general education courses}}. This usually means either:
(1) a set of classes, or at least categories of classes (such as literature, history, science, foreign language, etc.), that must be taken by all students, regardless of major; or
(2) classes that have few prerequisites, intended to be taken by students in other disciplines or by people not in university programs at all, to broaden their education (for example, a course in general science for arts students). It is common for a university program to require a student to take several courses that are somewhat related to their nominal preferred specialty in their first year, to provide a foundation for later studies and to permit some flexibility if the student's interests change. In some countries, some gen-ed courses are also included in programs of study so that students get at least a bit of exposure to unrelated disciplines. Most students typically finish these within their first year, though some universities have more long-term requirements (eg: "all students must take at least one lower-division and at least one upper-division humanities course") to ensure breadth through a student's undergrad career.

Classes at a university typically receive a code that combines the name of the field/discipline being taught with a two- or three-digit number (e.g., a course in anthropology might be ANTH 209). The leading digit typically provides information about how advanced a class is: lower division work might receive a 0 or 1, while upper division and graduate courses will receive higher numbers. Although there is no standardization across universities for which specific numbers equate to which course levels, the generally accepted baseline education given in any specific subject is usually associated with the number {{w|101 (number)#In_education|101}}, while classes in the 400s are usually taken in the 4th year of undergrad at most universities, and may provide credit towards graduate-level degrees.

In traditional speedrunning, a {{w|tool-assisted speedrun}} (mentioned in the title text) is one done with software such as a {{w|video game console emulator|video game emulator}} to record and then play back incredibly precise movements. These are typically used to show the theoretical upper limit of how quickly a game can be completed, even if the required techniques are beyond human capabilities (i.e. performing a long chain of optimal actions, flawlessly, without the need to replay or restart any stage). Particularly exceptional speedruns may rouse suspicion that they weren’t truly performed by a human, which is what Cueball is trying to quell. It is unclear how such tools might be applied to the pursuit of education, but Cueball may have meant using artificial intelligence or similar "cheats" to illegitimately complete his work. Unassisted speedruns are typically reviewed in full by a moderator of the speedrunning community for that game to ensure there truly were no tools involved. There is no known community for university speedrunning,{{Citation needed}} so no moderators will be able to review the years of footage to determine whether the speedrun was legitimate.

Most video-sharing services limit the length of uploaded videos, either by size or length, for a variety of reasons. A decade-long video file is almost certainly too big for any service: an hour of 720p-resolution video is about one gigabyte [[https://www.overcasthq.com/blog/how-big-are-video-files/ Overcast]], so a decade would be about 100 terabytes. The longest video ever to be hosted on YouTube is just under 25 days [[https://www.imdb.com/title/tt12095652/trivia/ IMDB]], under 1% of what Cueball wants. Such a video would require significant infrastructure support by the service for it to be allowed, not to mention presenting challenges to recording and storing it in the first place.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Don't remove this notice too soon.}}
:[Cueball, arms outstretched, is talking to White Hat.]
:Cueball: I finished all the gen-ed back in 2010, and I'm up to the 400-level courses in most departments.
:Cueball: But now one of my advisors is saying I "can't have more than 20 majors" and "need to graduate next year."
:Cueball: It's outrageous!

:[Caption below the panel:]
:My university is making it really hard to finish a 100% all achievements speedrun.

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]
[[Category:Video games]]

Talk:3149: Measure Twice, Cut Once

2025-10-02T00:57:09Z

StapleFreeBatteries:

FIRST!!!11
[[Special:Contributions/2001:67C:89C:702:1CE:1CE:BABE:3|2001:67C:89C:702:1CE:1CE:BABE:3]] 00:38, 2 October 2025 (UTC) a

Measure once, shame on you. Cut twice, shame on me!
[[User:StapleFreeBatteries|StapleFreeBatteries]] ([[User talk:StapleFreeBatteries|talk]]) 00:57, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Talk:3109: Dehumidifier

2025-07-02T06:06:08Z

StapleFreeBatteries:

Having network access can have some use for a dehumidifier, e.g. to remotely set the target humidity level, or get notifications when the water tank needs to get emptied. But having devices that depend on a specific app or a vendor-provided remote service risks having a useless device after a while ... --[[Special:Contributions/134.102.219.31|134.102.219.31]] 13:19, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
:Humidifiers typically have a physical control to set a target humidity level, and even the most basic models turn off when the water tank gets full. Since humans can't really tell the difference between 40-60%, which is the range of most humidifiers, there is no need for a remote control to change the humidity levels on a machine. As for the water tank, regular use of the humidifier will teach the user about how long it can run before turning off and needing to be emptied. {{unsigned ip|136.62.110.93|13:58, 30 June 2025 (UTC)}}
::Though there might be a device that attempts to do [[2753: Air Handler|both jobs]], note that this is a {{w|dehumidifier}} (as you functionally refer to) and not ''necessarily'' also a capable {{w|humidifier}} (as you namechecked it). [[Special:Contributions/92.23.2.228|92.23.2.228]] 17:53, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
:::uh, I forgot the leading 'de' . we're currently dealing with a semi-functional a/c unit in our business warehouse/office space. having to keep running the DEhumidifier to keep the temp reasonable during work hours. not enough condensate capacity to run over night, so it shuts off after about 10-12 hours. at least it runs on simple mechanical controls with no reliance on wi-fi 13:40, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

::: i had a good laugh at this comic, as i am designing dehumidifiers and they include wireless connectivity.....but there are reasons for this. But is more for monitoring, like e.g. in a water damage case the resoration company can see if the room is dry without having a technician drive to the location.
:::this comic will end up on our wall, together with [https://xkcd.com/242/ xkcd:242 The Difference]--[[Special:Contributions/84.46.99.18|84.46.99.18]] 06:41, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

"if they discover a new kind of water" - There are several varieties of heavy water (common Hydrogen deuterium, tritium; common oxygen, various other isotopes), not to mention several [wiki:Phases of ice|phases of ice]. [[Special:Contributions/64.201.132.210|64.201.132.210]] 20:31, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
:I restored the part about phases of ice, because dehumidifiers do deal with ice (when icing up, and if the ambient temperature gets low). Mostly put it back because I thought a mention of {{w|ice-nine}} would be fun. [[Special:Contributions/2600:387:4:803:0:0:0:B2|2600:387:4:803:0:0:0:B2]] 20:42, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Is the salesman Hairy? Seems similar but not quite enough hair, I'm not sure who he's supposed to be --[[User:Darth Vader|Darth Vader]] ([[User talk:Darth Vader|talk]]) 21:17, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
: I'd say it's him.--[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 22:19, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

hydrogen peroxide.--[[User:Bb777|me, hi]] ([[User talk:Bb777|talk]]) 01:12, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
:It's made of the same elements, but it isn't water. [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 02:29, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
:Hydrogen peroxide is not to be confused with {{w|DHMO|Dihydrogen Monoxide}} --[[Special:Contributions/134.102.219.31|134.102.219.31]] 11:30, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
:"Two guys walk into a bar. One says, 'I'll have H₂O.' The other says, 'I'll have H₂O too.' The second guy dies.", Anonymous --[[User:Ptdecker66|Ptdecker66]] ([[User talk:Ptdecker66|talk]]) 14:10, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Ice-nine is mentioned once in the trivia section. Did the user that added that mean to say ice-IX, were they unaware that ice-nine is fictional, or was it meant to be a joke? I thought that any "jokes" in the explanation were supposed to be technically factual, such as adding [citation needed] to a plainly obvious statement. Please forgive me for asking this stupid question. [[Special:Contributions/47.14.13.170|47.14.13.170]] 01:22, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
:Yes, it's supposed to all be factual. I've updated that. [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 02:29, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I just mentioned acoustic-based/light-based attack vectors and that patches might circumvent them. I've heard of them used against other devices, but never against a dehumidifier. Citation needed? [[Special:Contributions/181.214.218.75|181.214.218.75]] 17:36, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

NOTE: water molecules do NOT exchange hydrogen ATOMS. atoms contain both protons and electrons. even your reference states that water molecules exchange PROTONS, not atoms. {{unsigned ip|2607:fb90:8a91:4e30:3c86:6f12:78c6:fe52|00:30, 2 July 2025}}

Does it at least support water conservation?
[[User:StapleFreeBatteries|StapleFreeBatteries]] ([[User talk:StapleFreeBatteries|talk]]) 06:06, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Talk:1418: Horse

2025-06-22T01:38:02Z

StapleFreeBatteries:

*May the horse be with you Luke.
*The horse is strong with this one.
*I felt a tremor in the horse.
Why did he forget SW. That is not like Randall ;) [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 08:50, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
: I gotta think maybe Randall's making a subtle statement that Star Wars just ain't so relevant these days... [[User:KieferSkunk|KieferSkunk]] ([[User talk:KieferSkunk|talk]]) 21:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
::They are all news headlines [[Special:Contributions/141.101.70.61|141.101.70.61]] 17:54, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
: Yeah, I'm surprised that the mouseover-text wasn't "Use the horse, Luke." or something. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.69.183|162.158.69.183]] 14:05, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

----

Following up on the title text... "Why was he suspended?" "Due to allegations of excessive horse."

[[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.201|173.245.56.201]] 09:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC) Siuntio

So I linked it to the old substitutions page - gjgfuj [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.219|108.162.250.219]] 10:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Like the "Clouds-to-butts" plugin for Chrome. {{unsigned ip|108.162.249.231}}
:More information in Reddit [http://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/24odjt/cloud_to_butts_extension/]. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.201|108.162.221.201]] 14:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I added a modified version of Cloud-to-Butt plugin [https://www.dropbox.com/s/0mswga09c5uf9h4/cloud2butt2.xpi?dl=0 to my dropbox]. All credit for coding/programming goes to [https://github.com/DaveRandom/cloud-to-butt-mozilla Steven Frank], its creator - I just unpacked the XPI file, added the Force->Horse and force->horse text replacement (while of course still keeping "the cloud" going to "my butt" because that is awesome) and then repacked it. You can install it in Firefox like any other .XPI file. Enjoy! [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.221|108.162.221.221]] 16:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

:I edited your comment. I suppose you meant "Force->Horse" but it was written "Horse->Horse", probably as a consequence of the plugin in action. [[Special:Contributions/188.114.99.189|188.114.99.189]] 05:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

----

Would it be funny the other way?
*The force population has been in decline since the industrial revolution
*Rules of polo: You need a force.
*People do not like it when there is force in their beef.
*Cause I'm coming at you like a dark force (in {{w|Katy Perry}}'s song "Dark Force")
*A force is running at 9 meters per second and tries to catch up with a car (from physics textbook)
*It is always that Bole comes first, and then comes the thousand-mile force. The thousand-mile force is common, but Bole is not common. (Excerpt from a well-known article) [[User:ConlangGuide|ConlangGuide]] ([[User talk:ConlangGuide|talk]]) 06:25, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I do ;) —[[User:Artyer|Artyer]] ([[User talk:Artyer|talk]]) 18:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
:+1 for the reference to a certain beef production incident in europe [[Special:Contributions/141.101.70.61|141.101.70.61]] 17:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

----
Correctforcebatterystaple [[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.163|173.245.56.163]] 22:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I originally (earlier today) read it as "Iraqi Air [FH]orse grow'''l'''ing"... Which made less sense than I'd have expected, but I couldn't unread it until just now. Still surreal, but at least not outright Dada[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.233|141.101.98.233]] 00:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

"A police horse is a constituted body of persons empowered by the state to enhorse the law, protect property, and limit civil disorder. (...) Law enhorsement, however, constitutes only part of policing activity." --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.161|141.101.104.161]] 07:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

maybe the officer suspended from horse was a reference to the police officer who shot a black person? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.106|108.162.254.106]] 07:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Aqua teen hunger horse. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.226|108.162.246.226]] 00:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

----

I had previously posted a grumpy comment here (now removed) --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 07:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
:Sorry, but that's totally wrong. The discussion section is meant to replace what used to be the old blog's comments section, and is for any discussion relevant to the comic. If you're new here, there's a section on the main page titled "New Here?" which explains the basics of explainxkcd, and it's worth checking out. It also lists the handful of rules we have, including the fact that the discussion page is for talking about the comic. [[User:Az|Az]] ([[User talk:Az|talk]]) 06:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
::Sorry about that, and thanks for the pointer. --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 07:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

----
Explanation Quarks:
Sorry, could not resist... [[User:Tier666|Tier666]] ([[User talk:Tier666|talk]]) 11:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

How about the portion of the Police Horse who are on forceback? {{unsigned ip|173.245.52.170}}

Last time XKCD featured one of these text replacements, people started posting scripts for implementing the text replacement automatically in browsers. I'm surprised this hasn't happened yet. [[User:Diszy|Diszy]] ([[User talk:Diszy|talk]]) 22:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

:A few comments back... [[Special:Contributions/188.114.99.189|188.114.99.189]] 05:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

http://bitcoinshell.mooo.com/users/noiob/dev/horse.user.js Here you go. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.179|141.101.104.179]] 16:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

----
Interestingly, a sound change from an initial /f/ to /h/ happened in the evolution of Spanish. Examples: fornax --> horno, ferrum --> hierro, factus --> hecho. Of course, all h's subsequently went silent. {{unsigned ip|108.162.221.171}}

Cueball is using a desktop computer. Perhaps this will be the last desktop in xkcd? In the last 8 months its been all laptops. {{unsigned ip|141.101.98.99}}

That first one certainly hits differently now. --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.145|172.70.90.145]] 21:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
:Only by some order of magnitude or so. Without looking up the exact dates, the comic was likely topically soon after the initial Crimea-grab and initiation of the 'hot' Donbas internal conflict with the 'rebels'. Including a somewhat more covert presence of actual Russians, back then, but only to 'deniable' levels, and even then not convincingly so to anybody who cared.
:Maybe it makes it less funny, now, or should have been considered less funny then, but I'm not sure this makes it so that it is/was bad-humour. Doesn't change the reality, for better or worse, though.
:Future readers may be more shocked, or more bemused, of course. I can only wave to The Future (hiya!) and hope they properly understand our current and prior perspectives. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.137|162.158.159.137]] 23:21, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

----
I'm no linguist, but "Force" rhymes with "horse". [[what if? (blog)|What If]] the word "force" as a ''verb'' get replaced by "horse"? Also there is "''horse''power" which measures power, not force. And, you know, the phoneme "f" and "h" sound very similar in some languages. [[User:Unreliable Connection|2659: Unreliable Connection]] ([[User talk:Unreliable Connection|talk]]) 08:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67406779 Air Horse] Plane Makes Emergency Landing... (...is how I ''wouldn't'' have to rewrite such a headline). [[Special:Contributions/172.69.43.233|172.69.43.233]] 21:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Half Life: Opposing Horse
[[User:StapleFreeBatteries|StapleFreeBatteries]] ([[User talk:StapleFreeBatteries|talk]]) 01:38, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Burlap

2025-06-17T21:49:10Z

StapleFreeBatteries:

{{misc page}}
got bored lol [[User:CalibansCreations|'''Caliban''']] ([[User talk:CalibansCreations|talk]]) 08:49, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Any chance this might be a setup for an april's fools that didn't get used for some reason? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.97.15|141.101.97.15]] 08:22, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
:It's a possibility. Looking at the other 'forgotten' off-comic pages it seems to be a mix of possible 'events' that went nowhere and perhaps pages made specifically to be referenced from off-site social media (records of which might be lost/inaccessible). Disentangling some of these might be possible, if a referent page/post/email is dug up by those who can still see it (or a copy of it), but anything idly made then just as idly forgotten about (without publicising at all) is going to probably remain inexplicable (unless Word Of God both remembers and cares to tell us, both of these being iffy results). [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.161|141.101.99.161]] 08:33, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
::Added to the article! --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 16:07, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Potential reference to https://what-if.xkcd.com/146/? (specifically the part about "stuffing handfuls of rocks and dirt into a burlap sack with a NASA logo on the side")

Talk:3089: Modern

2025-06-03T03:06:15Z

StapleFreeBatteries:

Hate to be that guy, but wow, it’s empty [[User:Broseph|Broseph]] ([[User talk:Broseph|talk]]) 19:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

This strip reminded me of the comments in [[3063]]. Historians / historiographers typically define (early) "modernity" to begin around 1500. {{w|early modernity}} [[Special:Contributions/172.71.182.126|172.71.182.126]] 19:12, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

A similar problem exists, where a recent version of the Bible is known as the New Revised Standard Version. It will be a bit awkward when it is not new, revised, or standard. [[User:BobcatInABox|BobcatInABox]] ([[User talk:BobcatInABox|talk]]) 19:38, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
: {{w|New_Revised_Standard_Version#NRSV_Updated_Edition_(NRSVue)|It's already happened.}} [[Special:Contributions/162.158.41.167|162.158.41.167]] 06:26, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:I'm assuming it (''and'' the NRSVue) is still at least a version, though. And one, or even both, also an edition. ;) [[Special:Contributions/172.68.229.139|172.68.229.139]] 08:04, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
::Tru dat. But the NRSV can no longer be considered "new" (assuming editorial and not, say, geological, time scales) or "standard" (that title has passed to the {{w|New_International_Version|NIV}}, at least as measured by sales and by usage in English-language Protestant denominations). As for "revised", the original Standard (= King James) Bible was first published in 1611, with the "Standard" revision in 1769. The "Revised [Standard] Version" debuted in 1881. The NRSV, 1989, and the NRSVue, 2017. On this trajectory, by the end of the century, AI will be producing a new version every 30 seconds or so. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.147.85|172.71.147.85]] 15:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
::: Hopefully I'm not the only one that sees NRSV and instinctively think it's an unmanned submersible of some kind. [[User:RegularSizedGuy|RegularSizedGuy]] ([[User talk:RegularSizedGuy|talk]]) 16:09, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
:::: Not unmanned, no. Personally, it's ''{{w|seaQuest DSV|seaQuest NRSV}}''... ;) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.198|172.70.90.198]] 17:38, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
:The US Military has a similar problem: naming a system "Next-Gen [X]" but then the "Next Gen" item eventually becomes the current generation, and is eventually moving towards being obsolete and you need a successor (next-next gen?).[[Special:Contributions/172.69.6.111|172.69.6.111]] 20:05, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
::I guess the phone companies got it right with the 3G, 4G, 5G naming. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 20:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
::: Except for that {{w|10G}} glitch. And Dilbert predicted people copyrighting "8G" years before that. [[Special:Contributions/104.23.172.75|104.23.172.75]] 20:34, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
::There is a (not ''always'' consistent) "nth generation" classification system that is quite developed. The F-22 Raptor is a 5th Generation fighter, for example, with the (next-)next-gen ones being designed for the next decade being 6th. Though, yes, "Next Gen" still pops up (currently the programs I know of are ''mostly'' aimed at the solutions for #6, of course). [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.129|141.101.99.129]] 22:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
::See the Army's now-laughably-named "Command Post of the Future", which wasn't that futuristic even when it debuted in 2004. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.250.103|172.71.250.103]] 07:46, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Wasn't there an earlier strip describing a similar problem on Wikipedia edits, maybe tied to the {{w|recency bias}}? There's the idea that every more recent slice needs a new, relevant name. It also seems to work going backwards, where humanity's genus, tribe, subfamily, and family are "homo", "hominini", "homininae", and "hominidae" respectively. We seem to crave a name for every arbitrary slice that is relevant for a particular researcher. And now I'm thinking of Futurama's "New New York". I'm surprised there's not already a New New York somewhere. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.233.117|162.158.233.117]] 20:31, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
:Eventually, there'll be a [https://tardis.fandom.com/wiki/New_New_York New New New New New New New New New New New New New New New York]...
:Anyway, I actually live not far from a(nother) {{w|New York#United Kingdom|New York}}, and am also a regular visitor to (old) York. So I may not have been to New York, New York, on my travels, but I've got it covered on both sides. (I ''have'' been to both new Boston ''and'' the old one, but only been to the old Washington, both the original Richmond and its first copycat (but none of the US copycopyⁿcats), etc.) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.216.175|162.158.216.175]] 22:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
::Hmmm. I've a suspicion I know who you are.
::I'm gonna say...you ain't heavy? [[User:Yorkshire Pudding|Yorkshire Pudding]] ([[User talk:Yorkshire Pudding|talk]]) 22:16, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
:::Ah, no. Sorry, I'm not aware of any fraternal relationship. Not just not with you, but not with anyone. ;) Nice to know there are potentially more of you out there, though.
:::I also forget where I think you're ''exactly'' from, from past information, but I do know that it's a different corner from me. Though I think you wisely left it vague, and I'm happy to be even vaguer (hence why I supplied multiple possibilities)... I think it's only rather specific (sort-of-)local knowledge that even let guess what more exacting info I ''think'' I know about you. West Riding, for starters, but I'm not going to narrow you down further. :p [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.134|172.70.86.134]] 22:38, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
::::Ah, no, it was not a suspected fraternal connection, though I imagined that phrasing would imply it – not being heavy was something of a shibboleet.
::::And yes – had there still been a West Riding, my origin would have been within it. [[User:Yorkshire Pudding|Yorkshire Pudding]] ([[User talk:Yorkshire Pudding|talk]]) 10:49, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
::I know where you live now /j [[User:Commercialegg|Commercialegg]] ([[User talk:Commercialegg|talk]]) 00:13, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:::...to within 3 million acres or so, sure... ...maybe! /jj [[Special:Contributions/172.69.43.221|172.69.43.221]] 05:50, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:::: [[687]]. I'm surprised how often people confuse linear and areal dimensions. I think I've seen people use acres as a measure of distance twice in the last week. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.109.89|172.69.109.89]] 18:08, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:::: ? It's "somewhere within a nominal area of a given size", shirley? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.8|172.70.90.8]] 21:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
::::: Yep. An acre of spaghetti could be 4,000 km x 1 mm. "I know where you live within an acre" could mean "I know where you live within 4,000 km." That, multiplied by 3,000,000 takes you 80 AU away, well past the Kuiper Belt. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.90.30|172.71.90.30]] 22:41, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Where do I post site suggestions?¿?¿?¿?¿ [[User:Aprilfoolsupdate!|Aprilfoolsupdate!]] ([[User talk:Aprilfoolsupdate!|talk]]) 04:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:What kind of suggestion? (And, for that matter, what kind of site?!?) Though I would probably start by clicking on the Community Portal link in the side navbar over <- there (and up a bit?). Might also be worth seeing if your potential suggestion already has something like it, rather than add a new section the repeats one (or more) past subheader(s). Also might help you find which sub-page suits your particular input. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.43.221|172.69.43.221]] 05:50, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I remember as a kid asking my parents: "Why does the New Testament look so old?". [[Special:Contributions/162.158.245.161|162.158.245.161]] 06:42, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
: In German it makes sense, sort of - "modern" can also be a verb, meaning "to rot" :-) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.245.137|162.158.245.137]] 06:55, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:Some Gideon-types (maybe not ''actual'' Gideons, but of the same mind) came to my school one day (possibly they did it every year for each new age of students, never checked) and did a bit of basic god-bothering stuff with us. Either separate from the actual Religious Education class (which might have had more abrahamic=>judeo-christian=>christian=>protestant stuff, at times, but actually ''did'' properly cover other religions and wider belief systems) or as a once-only replacement for it (adjourning from the usual classroom, at its usual time, and instead meeting these 'missonaries' in one of the non-classroom rooms).
:...anyway... we were given handy-sized NTs. (Probably I still have mine, somewhere, because I rarely get rid of any book, of ''any'' kind, but I know other classmates probably were happily scattering them to the four winds as soon as the fancy took them.) My most immediate impression was the disappointment that it was ''just'' the NT. Whatever I thought about the ultimate veracity of either (not much, even at that age), I already knew that all the actual exciting stuff was in the OT. All the 'New' stuff basically boils down to "Be excellent to each other, dudes!" (as paraphrased by Bill and Ted) and a mixed bag of minor peril and miscarriage of justice. Whereas the 'Old' bits has various cities being destroyed, various multigenerational soap-opera plots and ''two'' completely different explanations for how everything began! They don't write 'em like that any more. Well, they do, but between The Book Of Mormon (the Joseph Smith one, not the Broadway one) and the various works of L. Ron Hubbard ("Mission: Earth" was even more escapist than "Battlefield Earth", and would have been even easier to badly make into a movie!) there's a ''lot'' of variation. ;)
:Though given how much might have been lost in translation, maybe I also ought to try reading everythihg in the original Klingon... [[Special:Contributions/172.68.229.139|172.68.229.139]] 08:04, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Ever notice how the words modern and modem can resemble each other when presented in the correctly chosen typeface, point size and kerning? We could have had a 56k modern if we squinted sideways. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.30.251|172.71.30.251]] 11:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Me when the New Super Mario Bros. series is over a decade old at this point lmao. Also, not willing to delete Incase I'm wrong, but what is this bit about communism and fascism?[[Special:Contributions/172.69.70.13|172.69.70.13]] 12:30, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:I believe it's being suggested that these particular two 'different' philosophies (not necessarily, though, if one believes they just aimed for the same basic result from different directions) were developed in reaction to the more monarchical systems of government, both given impetus from the experiences of The Great War (though not just that) to create a ''different'' form of figurehead-dominated politics that was considered, by their proponents, a "modern" solution. Over time, various 'problems' were identified (not least WW2, that revealed Fascism's nature, though Communism temporarily ended up in a better position). Much of the rest of the world ended up moving on from the vestiges of 'traditional monarchy' over this time, too, but not the same way (and, arguably, with different problems - many still quite real or possibly getting worse). There are those who may think that Fascism/Communism actually could still work (perhaps if done ''properly''!), but the original eras of these are now more retro than modern so perhaps (unless you're good at rewriting history) not under those particularly poisoned names.
:Or so I understood it. Not sure I'd say it like that, or consider it an apt addition to this article, but then I'm not a professional (political-)historian and don't have the in-depth expertise to judge its accuracy in full. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.157|172.70.86.157]] 13:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:: Both 'isms mentioned here have roots a fair bit older than The Great War. The bundle-of-sticks-ism is possibly the oldest form of governance there is, if you define it loosely. (Please note that that is more of a condemnation than endorsement.) --DW [[Special:Contributions/172.69.74.237|172.69.74.237]] 14:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:::Definitely (and I nearly mentioned that Germany copied Italy's model, while Japan joined in from a still Imperial perspective). Though the pressures of fighting WW1 catalysed Russia's revolution (mid-fight) and many other systems (e.g. Italy) developed both -isms to some degree or other; both the Red Flags and the Black Shirts were plentiful enough in Britain, at times, too, interbellum, arguably held off by Churchill (along with other far more dodgy things) before he even had to deal with the next coming war. Spain became the "rehersal" for the various factions. For post-Kaiser Germany, the resulting defeat plus post-Verseilles demands fuelled drives for ''both'' forms of 'socialism' (the 'national' type ending up in total control, now on an Italy+ track such that most people often forget poor old Benito's part in inspiring it), setting up circumstances for the next bout. Not sure that such things could have been avoided, without WW1, but it definitely forced matters and shaped the 'modern' world differently from how it might have done if the First Great War had only boiled over later. (With different personalities, a few of the same original errors, probably a smattering of more advanced mil-tech or lost opportunities to have learnt from earlier (less effective) wide-area weaponry/long-range weaponry against both enemy and civilian targets - a rich vein for alternate history!)
:::But I say this only to help with 5he "what is this about...?", which I took to mean not quite knowing how (in their time) they were considered modern answers to age-old questions, only to become different (and eventually dated) problems on the way to today's (still problematic) future. The old "those that don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it" thing applies in spades, here... [[Special:Contributions/172.69.224.169|172.69.224.169]] 15:03, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
: I agree that seems out of place and not pertinent to the comic itself. It is true that those and other 'isms arose because of societal upheavals associated with various [adj]modern things, but that's trivially true of... almost everything. --DW [[Special:Contributions/172.69.74.237|172.69.74.237]] 14:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
::I ''guess'' that those phrases are there as a segue to explain post-modernism? But the wording is kinda janky and those 2 schools of thought may not be the best examples for this --anon [[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.56|162.158.79.56]] 17:41, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
: Yes, '''please delete the whole phrase''', "and evolved into Communism, and its counter Fascism" since that statement is altogether false. Communism and Fascism are both a form of Marxist totalitarianism. They only differ in implementation and not in ideology. Communism forbids all private ownership, while fascism allows only that private ownership that subjects itself to control by the state. Possibly, the whole section about labeling political movements unrelated to the comic since it doesn't match the categories and time periods depicted in the comic. I vote to take it all out. [[User:Rtanenbaum|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum|talk]]) 16:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:: You are ''way'' off. A one-dimensional take on social structures like yours is rarely accurate. (I agree that the whole thing needed to be deleted cause it wasn't pertinent to the explanation, though.) [[User:Transgalactic|Transgalactic]] ([[User talk:Transgalactic|talk]]) 15:30, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Modern just means "current". I think the text makes it seem like the fact that the name "modern" as a technical term and the normal use of the word are different meanings of the same word is just a coincidence, as if the term "modern" was extended to refer to contemporary events from its use to describe contemporary philosophy and the like. Instead, "the fault", so to say, lies with those who used the word "modern" to describe the philosophy and the like in the first place. From what I can tell, "modern" does originally mean "current" or something close to it. To use it as a descriptor for things that will not stay "modern" is the ultimate cause.
While this can be read into the current article, I think the overall feeling of the article on that issue goes in the wrong direction. [[User:Theanswertolifetheuniverseandeverything|Theanswertolifetheuniverseandeverything]] ([[User talk:Theanswertolifetheuniverseandeverything|talk]]) 15:22, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
: I disagree: The term "modern" is a modern phenomenon. The expectation that society "develops", "improves" or "progresses" in a linear way, and that whatever is "new", "novel", "innovative", etc. is likely better only emerged during modernity. Medieval Europe imagined the world as static, some cultures interpret it as circular (if you grew up thinking that progress is natural, think about how every human goes through life in a fundamentally similar way from birth to death, with each person all over again). Some think it's due to the rise of an anthropocentric world view (where you imagine that you shape the world in a significant way), some think it's due to capitalism (where the economy isn't based on maintaining life, but on maximizing the profits of those who own and invest capital). So if we still associate "modern" with "current, fashionable, chic, interesting, improved, good", that could just be a symptom that some things haven't changed much since the European 16th century. [[User:Transgalactic|Transgalactic]] ([[User talk:Transgalactic|talk]]) 15:30, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

'''Correction of "postmodern" in the explanation:''' Postmodernism is a much more nuanced philosophical stance than "belief in progress is futile or harmful", though that's probably where you can pinpoint the transition from one era to the other best: the combined horror of the Nazis' industrial system of murder and the nuclear explosion on August 6th 1945 ended modernism. But postmodernism still believes in human development (though in a less linear, more wandering and tangled way), it's still strongly based on modern stances against aristocracy / class society / hereditary privileges, and just like modernism it certainly still tries to overcome blind faith in traditions. Anyone feeling up to writing a nice short sentence in the explanation? [[User:Transgalactic|Transgalactic]] ([[User talk:Transgalactic|talk]]) 15:30, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't really see the problem myself. Surely once you're past 'pre-modern' you're just back to 'archaic' or something in the cycle? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.4|172.70.85.4]] 08:23, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

According to the nGram viewer, modern peaked in 1928, continued relatively strongly until 1955, then fell off a cliff for the next four decades or so. I blame Marty McFly. [[User:RegularSizedGuy|RegularSizedGuy]] ([[User talk:RegularSizedGuy|talk]]) 16:12, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
:Don't we all! -- B1FF 17:40, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Who can ever forget the Star Trek Next Generation episode, "A Fistful of Datas", where they ran the holodeck program on the "Ancient West"? [[User:Mr. I|Mr. I]] ([[User talk:Mr. I|talk]]) 20:25, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I remember one of my English teachers referred to a certain 4th-wall break in a Shakespeare play as "proto-postmodernism".
[[User:StapleFreeBatteries|StapleFreeBatteries]] ([[User talk:StapleFreeBatteries|talk]]) 03:06, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

3088: Deposition

2025-05-21T05:36:58Z

StapleFreeBatteries: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 3088
| date = May 12, 2025
| title = Deposition
| image = deposition_2x.png
| imagesize = 740x272px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = P.S. If you have time travel, come to my birthday party Saturday!
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This page was created by BEDROCK INSPECTOR NO. 4 Don't remove this notice too soon.}}
A {{w|continental margin}} is the place on the edge of a continent where the {{w|continental crust}} is underwater, covered by relatively shallow coastal waters. The scene is ambiguous, but it is feasible that Ponytail is standing on the back-shore {{w|littoral zone}} ''next'' to the rivermouth, such that she is actually {{tvtropes|LamePunReaction|a stone's throw}} away from the sea. As such, the stones she throws off to the right end up embedded directly into the soft shoreline/sediments without having to risk further erosion from all the other stones and gravel also sitting in the riverbed or being tumbled down it.

The continental margin is said to be {{w|passive margin|passive}}, which means that it is not currently undergoing [[:Category:Subduction|subduction]], where the oceanic crust slips under the continental crust, or a {{w|strike-slip fault}}, where one slides along the other, both of which can mechanically or thermally transform any seafloor material. Absent such occurrences, this causes piles of {{w|sediment}} to {{w|River delta#Formation|accumulate}} on the {{w|continental shelf}} with a minimum of additional geological disturbance.

This rock's eventual resting place in the sediment seems destined to be compressed by further overlying sedimentation and being solidified over geologic timescales into {{w|shale}} or other similar sedimentary rock types, presuming that the future movement of further sediment and relative local changes of sea-level and shoreline keep adding more material. As shown, 100 million years later, the sea level has gone down (and/or the bedrock has risen), re-exposing the strata. Recent erosion/quarrying has caused it to become a cliff face that eventually re-exposes the original rock that Ponytail threw into the river, apparently just at the right time and place to be discovered or uncovered by [[2990: Late Cenozoic|aliens/far-future-earthlings]].

These beings appear to be digging with relatively primitive hand-tools that are strangely anthropocentric and relatively inefficient, given the apparent use of antigravity personal conveyors with mechanical manipulators, and have found a rock. Whether or not they fully comprehend it, this seems to be one of those left with a still visible carved message by Ponytail, saying "This bedrock inspected by No. 5". This is a parody of a typical {{w|quality control}} label left attached to (or hidden within) clothing, to reassure any purchaser and/or help identify which manufacturing and inspection path any newly discovered {{w|product defect}} had passed through.

In the title text, Ponytail has added a {{w|postscript}} (whether on the same stone or a separate one is unclear) suggesting that the aliens/future-earth-based-lifeforms may have access to {{w|time travel}} technology, and inviting them to her birthday party (next) Saturday. The invitation does not seem to give an indication when it was written, and therefore ''which'' Saturday is meant, so, even if the finders were able to time travel, it might still be non-trivial for them to attend the birthday party. This also presupposes that the future discoverers understand the concept of the seven-day week cycle and have no trouble reading the invite, both remaining legible and not requiring impractical levels of translation from "ancient English". It may also be referencing the {{w|time travel party}} held by Stephen Hawking, in which he held a party which he hoped time travelers would attend. Hawking released invitations to the party only the following day, so only a time traveler would be able to attend the party.

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

:[Cueball approaches Ponytail, chiselling a rock on a shoreline next to a river with shallow rolling hills in the background]
:Cueball: What are you doing?
:Ponytail: This river empties onto a passive continental margin.

:[Cueball and Ponytail stand talking, Ponytail holding several flat rocks, in an otherwise empty and frameless panel]
:Ponytail: If I chisel notes onto these rocks and throw them into the sea, they might be incorporated into some shale cliff in the distant future.

:[Silhouetted scene of Ponytail as she throws multiple rocks off frame to the right, Cueball watching from behind her]
:[From off-panel, sound effect of a rock hitting water:] PLOP

:[Two 'bug-eyed aliens', sitting in personal 'hover-saucers' look rightwards at an exposed rock-face. A pick and shovel are left stuck in the ground, and one of the 'saucers' sports a mechanical arm currently holding a loose fragment of rock. There are three question marks above the alien on the left and two question marks next to the alien on the right]
:[Panel label:] 100 million years later...
:[Text originating from the held rock fragment:] This bedrock inspected by No. 5

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Geology]]
[[Category:Aliens]]
[[Category:Time travel]]

Category:Subduction

2025-05-21T05:35:25Z

StapleFreeBatteries:

This category is about comics featuring {{w|subduction}}, or the moving of one tectonic plate beneath another.

[[Category:Geology]]

Talk:3090: Sail Physics

2025-05-18T23:47:49Z

StapleFreeBatteries:

After the last step, the sailors would then need to ground the boat to avoid being pushed in a circle, wouldn't they? [[User:Sophon|Sophon]] ([[User talk:Sophon|talk]]) 20:47, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Note that for eastward wind, the boat will be propelled upwards, while the opposite is true for westward winds. This provides a basis for the functioning of airships and planes (Helicopters are more complicated, and additionally rely on their own magnetic fields) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.217.45|162.158.217.45]] 21:21, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
: Hence why you should always touch an earthing rod before approaching a helicopter, to avoid the magnetism pulling you into their rotors. [[User:Kev|Kev]] ([[User talk:Kev|talk]]) 03:11, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Is this actually wrong? Wouldn't it still be ''a'' force on a sailboat, even if it's not the strongest? [[User:Smurfton|Smurfton]] ([[User talk:Smurfton|talk]]) 22:20, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

: I added some explaination on direction and magnitude of the lorentz force, maybe that will help - sga {{unsigned ip|172.68.234.227|22:33, 16 May 2025 (UTC)}}

: Yeah, is it more or less effective than the kedging cannon? [[User:StapleFreeBatteries|StapleFreeBatteries]] ([[User talk:StapleFreeBatteries|talk]]) 23:47, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

The explanation states that of the four forces, only the electromagnetic force operates at the macro level. This is incorrect, as gravity is also directly observable by humans. There should also probably be a link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airfoil to provide an explanation for how sails actually allow a boat to sail upwind. I recommend removing the remark about the poles potentially flipping in the future, as this is irrelevant. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.55.124|172.68.55.124]] 23:52, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

: What i meant was, for 2 objects at scales of humans =, maybe did not prase it well. In this case, it is the wind and the sail. Wind does not have a "mass" (the atoms most certainly do, but) we essentially have a pressure force, or momentum of wind, where instead of using the energy of atoms (and hence the mass) as given by kinetic theory is not used (that is random (as given by boltzman maxwell statistics)) and uniform (in the sense that for any direction, number of particles going against and towards is equal) and what we have is just pressure applied by a effective "group velocity" of the wind atoms. The gravity interaction between wind and boat, or the local waves and boat is negligible, and planetary gravity is not considered because that is not relavant for in plane motion. the pole fillping was added just for future proofing the article. I am sorry for the puns. I have rewwritten some parts, and reduced the part about pole flipping, and also added the average case scenario for the force, hope it is better now. - sga {{unsigned ip|172.70.143.75|02:37+, 17 May 2025}}
::That is one huge rambling paragraph, if it's (mostly) yours. I'm no stranger to ''writing'' huge rambling paragraphs, myself, but I gave up only a little way in on trying to make it read better. Grammatically, prosaically and with relevence.
::May I suggest that each 'frame' is treated to its own (shorter) paragraph, explaining what effect it tries to convey, what logic it individually tries to follow, but where it fails and what actual forces dominate a true example. (e.g. the hull-shape, including keel, helping convert roughly lateral sideways forces into forward ones against the water; those lateral ones having already been a conversion of largely head-on winds in the first place, thus two "almost up to 90 degree" redirections of force allow ''very nearly'' a 180-degree reversal of wind-blown movement. Feel free to discuss the comparisons and differences between 'flappy sail', though blown taught by the air, and an 'upright aircraft wing' solid design. ...See, told you I could ramble, but someone can surely do better at segmenting and summarising the basics of this.) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.32|172.71.178.32]] 08:32, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

This is super embarrassing to admit, but I came here to verify whether this was a serious thing or not. I had no idea how a sailboat sails against the wind. [[User:Catgofire|Catgofire]] ([[User talk:Catgofire|talk]]) 23:58, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
:You aren't alone - I think I was an adult before I understood tacking in the sailboat sense of the word. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.174.127|162.158.174.127]] 02:45, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
: I'm wanting to add in some wisdom about "science-y" explanations that appear to be sensible but are completely wrong, segueing into how generative language models appear to be far more reliable than they are. However this margin is too narrow [[User:Kev|Kev]] ([[User talk:Kev|talk]]) 03:09, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
:To answer the question: sailboats move by using the Coriolis effect. That's why sailboats can't sail directly in the direction of Earth's spin, and why ships often get becalmed at the equator. Modern vessels create their own Coriolis effect by using steam powered turbines as gyroscopes. [[User:RegularSizedGuy|RegularSizedGuy]] ([[User talk:RegularSizedGuy|talk]]) 16:52, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I've been really annoyed with ExplainXKCD in the last few months ever since the initial posting has always been LLM generated. It requires more brain power to make sense of AI slop and edit it, than to contribute to a blank page. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.162.103|162.158.162.103]] {{unsigned ip|162.158.162.103|15:44, 17 May 2025|...yes, probably signed with just three tildes, by accident, but the intended message is the same...}}
:I don't think that LLM has been used for the most troublesome bits. LLMs can 'hallucinate', but tend (unless ''specifically'' asked) to make a lot more grammatical sense if you don't look too much further. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.33.240|162.158.33.240]] 18:29, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Any chance we can add an explanation of how it *actually* works? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.216.174|162.158.216.174]] 10:03, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
:Through judicious angling of sail, wind (from any direction other than fully head-on) is deflected(/uses 'wing-effect') to create a force, trying to push the boat, that might be mostly sideways but also a bit forward. Because of the shape of the hull, any sideways force is resisted by the water, reinforcing the remaining forward component which the hull is far more ready to take advantage of. Enough sail (and enough stability to resist rolling) gives a large amount of movement towards, but not ''exactly'' towards, the wind. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.224.72|172.69.224.72]] 10:41, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

The joke is that the most commonly used explanation for why flow over a foil generates lift - particles going one way have a longer way to travel than the other, which generates a difference in speed and therefore a pressure differential - is wrong. {{unsigned ip|172.69.109.91|10:36, 17 May 2025}}
:What is wrong with the explanation which you say is wrong? What is the more correct explanation? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.150.33|172.71.150.33]] 20:28, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
::That explanation usually implies/assumes that the portion of air going above the wing and the portion going below have to arrive at the other edge of the wing at the same time. So if a particle that happened to go underneath took exactly x seconds, then an identical particle that happened to go over would also take exactly x seconds. This turns out not to be true. It ''is'' true that (most wing-generated) lift comes from a pressure differential, and it is generally true enough most of the time that most (not all) of that pressure differential is tied to an airstream speed differential. (I say "tied to" because I am not in the mood to argue about how the causality runs.) [[User:JimJJewett|JimJJewett]] ([[User talk:JimJJewett|talk]]) 06:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

The picture seems to show an axis of rotation (the mast) for the sail being on the end of the sail. Is that correct for a certain class of sailing vessel?~~ {{unsigned ip|162.158.146.128|15:57, 17 May 2025}}
:Yes. Though offhand, I can't think of a ''good'' sailboat ''with only 1 sail'' where it was true beyond a first approximation. [[User:JimJJewett|JimJJewett]] ([[User talk:JimJJewett|talk]]) 06:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
::There's the {{w|catboat}} class, and a smaller dinghy may not have (or always use) a foresail. Obviously it doesn't look like a square-rigger 'sail hanger' of most larger ships, but a mast with a single outward stretch of sail fabric is a very good way to demonstrate how any given sail sits in the wind, without complicating matters by showing a combination of gaff-rigged, bermuda-style, spritzers, etc. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.14|162.158.74.14]] 17:50, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Currently the explanation says "most interaction of physical things at macro scale (humans and boat sized objects) are electromagnetic in nature" I have certainly read that, and have seen examples of electromagnetic interactions between atoms. However, I also encounter explanations that describe interactions in terms of Pauli exclusion principle (see for instance {{w|Contact force}}). This makes me question the view presented in the first sentence. Since my physics is a bit rusty I haven't tried to fix it, but I think it may need clarification. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.150.33|172.71.150.33]] 20:28, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

I split up the example calculating Lorentz force on a boat. It still needs some work (I was just untangling it so I could see what it said).
The paragraph about one coulomb of charge I left as is - it needs untangling, so be bold.
In the example - somebody should recheck the math (I just copied what there, but in changing units to be more familiar, like km/h, I might have introduced errors). I also changed the field strength to the right order of magnitude for Earth's surface, and multiplied the wind speed by 10 to compensate.
As best I can figure the numbers for the example may have been chosen to get a force of 1 Newton. (I can't see any other reason for the ludicrous wind speed of thousands of km/h.) Might be better example to use a reasonable wind speed (e.g. dial it back to hurricane force) and a reasonable charge (something like what you could accumulate with an automobile, or when you zap yourself after getting out of a car seat) wind up with an even more negligible force. Then we could dispense with the paragraph explaining why 1 Coulomb is silly. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.151.93|172.71.151.93]] 22:15, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:If anybody wants to restore parts of it or play with it, the version with the calculation of Lorentz forces is here [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=3090:_Sail_Physics&oldid=378099] I thought it somewhat interesting just as physics problem to show what the effect was.
:I got curious about how much charge is involved when one zaps oneself on a car seat. A lighting bolt is a few coulombs. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.142.188|172.71.142.188]] 23:40, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Extreme apologies to an(other) IP editor who may have made several possibly great improvements to the article. I had ''so'' many problems with what was already there that I did a massive rewrite and set things up so differently that I'm not sure that (at a very long glance, but maybe not as long as it diserves) much of that effort is really worth feeding back in. Or even capable of being. Obviously, it's up to the rest of the you (including the person/people I overrode) to make your own judgement about that. I will also go back in to carefully check what I may have desecrated. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.68|162.158.74.68]] 22:37, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:No problem. I remade a few tweaks. The calculation is linked above is anybody wants to restore part of it. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.142.188|172.71.142.188]] 23:40, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Talking of multiple sails (as the explanation does, at least right now), I'm reminded of a children's SF-based book I read when I was... well, a child. It was set on a (mostly) waterworld, as I recall, that had ''multiple'' suns (in orbit around ''it''..? ...already we can be sure it was probably not the hardest of hard-SF settings, of course). The boats/skiffs/whatever had multiple sails to move around. Multiple ''solar sails''. Depending upon which ones were deployed (kite-surfing-like), they'd get pushed (and you'd get pulled) by the ''sun that they were for''. So if you wanted to go <- thataway, deploy one particular sail, or thataway -> deploy another instead. As if solar sails even work that way. (Or even would work that way ''as effectively'' as a kite might in the... I presume there was an atmosphere... if there wasn't, then that'd explain the need for no-air sail-like solution, but raise significant other questions ...though clearly could not raise kites.) I may have misremembered some of the details, even perhaps some of the 'wrongness', but... I definitely remember I had to suspend quite a lot of disbelief (don't ask me from which sun it is hung!) when I read that. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.205.187|172.68.205.187]] 23:25, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

I was just looking at some things about solar sails and similar. This comic got me curious about:
Whether one could use a solar sail to sail "upwind"? -- you can - thanks to gravity and orbital mechanics. e.g., Sail in direction of your orbit - shifts apogee out, perigee in.
Whether you could build a {{w|magnetic sail))? -- yes - doesn't work quite like the one in the comic (sun provides wind of particles, sail is magnet to redirect them).
There is also a version of solar sail using electric fields to redirect charged particles.
One question I haven't found anything about is do solar sails (conventional ones, not electric) accumulate charge, and what effects that might have.
I just mention here in case anybody thinks way makes sense in comic explanation. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.142.188|172.71.142.188]] 23:40, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
:Well, if you send charge along a long conductor (which might be what you do if you're sending/receiving the sail-charge through the thing that the sail is attached to the payload with), ''and'' pass through any magnetic fields (planetary, solar... galactic?) then you're into the territory of the {{w|Electrodynamic tether}} as ''also'' useful for propulsion. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.205.187|172.68.205.187]] 00:24, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Related to the question of how sails might work (against the wind), and the relationship to wing effects, I'm reminded of how a {{w|Cabin Pressure (radio series)|comedy radio sitcom}} dealt with the wings thing. In case it's not quickly obvious (and with some non-obvious info added), characters are Arthur ('simple' but questioning Air Steward), Carolyn (his mother, bossy owner of the airplane and chief Air Steward/everything else that's not actually flying), Martin (chief pilot/captain, knowledgable but inexperienced) and Douglas (second in command, but senior in years and experience and 'street smart'/air-smart to the point of (usually well-deserved) smugness).

{{cot|Excerpt dialogues from Cabin Pressure, series(/season) 1, episode 1}}
:[Arthur:] No, never! It’s just always exciting! That amazing moment when twelve tons of metal leaves the earth – and no-one knows why!
:[Carolyn:] Yes, we do.
:[Arthur:] Yeah, but ...you know, not really. I mean, we know you need wings and engines and a ...sticky-up bit on the end for some reason, but it’s not like we actually know why a plane stays in the air.
:[Carolyn:] No, no, Arthur, we really do. We-we do, we do know that.
:[Arthur:] Oh! How, then?
:[Carolyn:] Well ...er, because...
:[...some minor diversionary tactics break the conversation all too briefly...]
:[Carolyn:] Because there are four forces acting on the plane, and so long as two of them are bigger than the other two, the plane flies.
:[Arthur:] ...Mum, I don’t mind that no-one knows.
:[Carolyn:] But we do! We do! That’s it! What I said: that’s how.
:[Arthur:] Well, what are the four forces, then?
:[Carolyn:] Yes! Well, I will tell you what they are. Lift ...weight ...er...
:[Arthur:] Up and down?
:[Carolyn:] No, no, no, no, no. Tho-Those are up and down. No, it’s lift, weight...
:[Arthur:] Left and right.
:[Carolyn:] No, no, no, no. Lift, weight...
:[Arthur:] En...gines?
:[Carolyn:] No, no ...well, yes, yes, yes, sort of. Um, thrust, thrust. Lift, weight, thrust and...
:[Arthur:] Time.
:[Carolyn:] Drag. Lift, weight, thrust and drag. So, the weight and drag are overcome because the engines give the plane thrust, and the wings give it lift. And that’s how a plane flies.
:[Arthur:] How do the wings give it lift?
:[Carolyn:] What?
:[Arthur:] The wings are really heavy. How does bolting two ginormous lumps of metal to a ginormous lump of metal give it lift?
:[Carolyn:] Well, because they are wings. Well, they’re like birds’ wings.
:[Arthur:] Yeah, but birds’ wings flap. Ours don’t flap. They’ve got flaps, but I once watched the flaps all the way to Stockholm and, take it from me, they are seriously mis-named. So-so why does having wings make a plane leave the runway?
:[conveniently timed distraction occurs to take Carolyn away...]
:[Arthur:] Yeah, but how do the wings...
:[...letting the conversation and action move on, until...]

:[Douglas:] And now it’s back to the boring old plane flying.
:[Arthur:] Oh, yes. About that. Um, I wanted to ask you something, Skipper. Mum was telling me this morning that planes fly because they’ve got wings.
:[Douglas:] Is there anything that woman doesn’t know?
:[Arthur:] But she didn’t really explain – why do wings lift us up?
:[Douglas:] Ah, well. Essentially...
:[Martin:] Uh, Douglas, he asked me. Listen carefully, Arthur. The wing is curved on top but flat on the bottom. When it meets the air, it splits it in two. The air that goes over the top has further to go, so it has to go faster to keep up with the air underneath. That reduces the pressure above the wing, giving us lift.
:[Arthur:] Ah, fantastic! Thanks, Skipper! I totally get it now.
:[Martin:] You’re welcome.
:[Arthur:] Except ...why does it have to?
:[Martin:] Why does what what?
:[Arthur:] Why does the air on the top have to keep up with the air on the bottom? Why don’t they just split up?
:[pause]
:[Douglas:] ...for the sake of the kids?
:[action moves on again, until...]

:[...they need to distract Arthur from ''something else'']
:[Douglas:] Arthur, you were asking why the air over the wing has to keep up with the air underneath.
:[Arthur:] Ooh, yes. Do you know?
:[Douglas:] Indeed I do. Attend: the air is not passing over the wing; the wing is passing through the air, so the curved upper side stretches the air forced over it apart, reducing pressure, producing lift. The lift pushes up; the weight pushes down – so as long as the lift is more than the weight, up we go. And that, my friend, is how an aeroplane flies.
:[Arthur:] Got it! Right, yes! Cracking! I completely get it now.
:[Douglas:] Good. You see, it’s actually quite easy to grasp when it’s explained properly by someone who understands...
:[Arthur:] So that’s why planes can’t fly upside down.
:[Douglas:] Er, yes they can.
:[Arthur:] Can they?
:[Douglas:] Well, of course they can. Haven’t you seen the Red Arrows?
:[Arthur:] But ...doesn’t that mean the curved side of the wing is on the bottom, so the lift is pushing down as well as the weight? How does that work?
:[Martin:] Yes, Douglas. How does that work?
:[Douglas:] Well, Arthur, there’s a very simple explanation; but just to finish what we were saying, Martin...
[...the ''something else'' is raised as a distraction from the question]
:[Douglas:] No-one wants to hear the explanation. What a shame.
{{cob}}
...just thought anyone who hadn't heard this (or had, but liked the comedy involved) might like to read it. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.205.187|172.68.205.187]] 00:24, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:Sounds like comic 803. [[User:StapleFreeBatteries|StapleFreeBatteries]] ([[User talk:StapleFreeBatteries|talk]]) 23:21, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:3090: Sail Physics

2025-05-18T23:47:25Z

StapleFreeBatteries:

After the last step, the sailors would then need to ground the boat to avoid being pushed in a circle, wouldn't they? [[User:Sophon|Sophon]] ([[User talk:Sophon|talk]]) 20:47, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Note that for eastward wind, the boat will be propelled upwards, while the opposite is true for westward winds. This provides a basis for the functioning of airships and planes (Helicopters are more complicated, and additionally rely on their own magnetic fields) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.217.45|162.158.217.45]] 21:21, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
: Hence why you should always touch an earthing rod before approaching a helicopter, to avoid the magnetism pulling you into their rotors. [[User:Kev|Kev]] ([[User talk:Kev|talk]]) 03:11, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Is this actually wrong? Wouldn't it still be ''a'' force on a sailboat, even if it's not the strongest? [[User:Smurfton|Smurfton]] ([[User talk:Smurfton|talk]]) 22:20, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

: I added some explaination on direction and magnitude of the lorentz force, maybe that will help - sga {{unsigned ip|172.68.234.227|22:33, 16 May 2025 (UTC)}}

: Yeah, is it more or less effective than the kedging cannon?

The explanation states that of the four forces, only the electromagnetic force operates at the macro level. This is incorrect, as gravity is also directly observable by humans. There should also probably be a link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airfoil to provide an explanation for how sails actually allow a boat to sail upwind. I recommend removing the remark about the poles potentially flipping in the future, as this is irrelevant. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.55.124|172.68.55.124]] 23:52, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

: What i meant was, for 2 objects at scales of humans =, maybe did not prase it well. In this case, it is the wind and the sail. Wind does not have a "mass" (the atoms most certainly do, but) we essentially have a pressure force, or momentum of wind, where instead of using the energy of atoms (and hence the mass) as given by kinetic theory is not used (that is random (as given by boltzman maxwell statistics)) and uniform (in the sense that for any direction, number of particles going against and towards is equal) and what we have is just pressure applied by a effective "group velocity" of the wind atoms. The gravity interaction between wind and boat, or the local waves and boat is negligible, and planetary gravity is not considered because that is not relavant for in plane motion. the pole fillping was added just for future proofing the article. I am sorry for the puns. I have rewwritten some parts, and reduced the part about pole flipping, and also added the average case scenario for the force, hope it is better now. - sga {{unsigned ip|172.70.143.75|02:37+, 17 May 2025}}
::That is one huge rambling paragraph, if it's (mostly) yours. I'm no stranger to ''writing'' huge rambling paragraphs, myself, but I gave up only a little way in on trying to make it read better. Grammatically, prosaically and with relevence.
::May I suggest that each 'frame' is treated to its own (shorter) paragraph, explaining what effect it tries to convey, what logic it individually tries to follow, but where it fails and what actual forces dominate a true example. (e.g. the hull-shape, including keel, helping convert roughly lateral sideways forces into forward ones against the water; those lateral ones having already been a conversion of largely head-on winds in the first place, thus two "almost up to 90 degree" redirections of force allow ''very nearly'' a 180-degree reversal of wind-blown movement. Feel free to discuss the comparisons and differences between 'flappy sail', though blown taught by the air, and an 'upright aircraft wing' solid design. ...See, told you I could ramble, but someone can surely do better at segmenting and summarising the basics of this.) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.32|172.71.178.32]] 08:32, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

This is super embarrassing to admit, but I came here to verify whether this was a serious thing or not. I had no idea how a sailboat sails against the wind. [[User:Catgofire|Catgofire]] ([[User talk:Catgofire|talk]]) 23:58, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
:You aren't alone - I think I was an adult before I understood tacking in the sailboat sense of the word. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.174.127|162.158.174.127]] 02:45, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
: I'm wanting to add in some wisdom about "science-y" explanations that appear to be sensible but are completely wrong, segueing into how generative language models appear to be far more reliable than they are. However this margin is too narrow [[User:Kev|Kev]] ([[User talk:Kev|talk]]) 03:09, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
:To answer the question: sailboats move by using the Coriolis effect. That's why sailboats can't sail directly in the direction of Earth's spin, and why ships often get becalmed at the equator. Modern vessels create their own Coriolis effect by using steam powered turbines as gyroscopes. [[User:RegularSizedGuy|RegularSizedGuy]] ([[User talk:RegularSizedGuy|talk]]) 16:52, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I've been really annoyed with ExplainXKCD in the last few months ever since the initial posting has always been LLM generated. It requires more brain power to make sense of AI slop and edit it, than to contribute to a blank page. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.162.103|162.158.162.103]] {{unsigned ip|162.158.162.103|15:44, 17 May 2025|...yes, probably signed with just three tildes, by accident, but the intended message is the same...}}
:I don't think that LLM has been used for the most troublesome bits. LLMs can 'hallucinate', but tend (unless ''specifically'' asked) to make a lot more grammatical sense if you don't look too much further. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.33.240|162.158.33.240]] 18:29, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Any chance we can add an explanation of how it *actually* works? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.216.174|162.158.216.174]] 10:03, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
:Through judicious angling of sail, wind (from any direction other than fully head-on) is deflected(/uses 'wing-effect') to create a force, trying to push the boat, that might be mostly sideways but also a bit forward. Because of the shape of the hull, any sideways force is resisted by the water, reinforcing the remaining forward component which the hull is far more ready to take advantage of. Enough sail (and enough stability to resist rolling) gives a large amount of movement towards, but not ''exactly'' towards, the wind. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.224.72|172.69.224.72]] 10:41, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

The joke is that the most commonly used explanation for why flow over a foil generates lift - particles going one way have a longer way to travel than the other, which generates a difference in speed and therefore a pressure differential - is wrong. {{unsigned ip|172.69.109.91|10:36, 17 May 2025}}
:What is wrong with the explanation which you say is wrong? What is the more correct explanation? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.150.33|172.71.150.33]] 20:28, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
::That explanation usually implies/assumes that the portion of air going above the wing and the portion going below have to arrive at the other edge of the wing at the same time. So if a particle that happened to go underneath took exactly x seconds, then an identical particle that happened to go over would also take exactly x seconds. This turns out not to be true. It ''is'' true that (most wing-generated) lift comes from a pressure differential, and it is generally true enough most of the time that most (not all) of that pressure differential is tied to an airstream speed differential. (I say "tied to" because I am not in the mood to argue about how the causality runs.) [[User:JimJJewett|JimJJewett]] ([[User talk:JimJJewett|talk]]) 06:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

The picture seems to show an axis of rotation (the mast) for the sail being on the end of the sail. Is that correct for a certain class of sailing vessel?~~ {{unsigned ip|162.158.146.128|15:57, 17 May 2025}}
:Yes. Though offhand, I can't think of a ''good'' sailboat ''with only 1 sail'' where it was true beyond a first approximation. [[User:JimJJewett|JimJJewett]] ([[User talk:JimJJewett|talk]]) 06:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
::There's the {{w|catboat}} class, and a smaller dinghy may not have (or always use) a foresail. Obviously it doesn't look like a square-rigger 'sail hanger' of most larger ships, but a mast with a single outward stretch of sail fabric is a very good way to demonstrate how any given sail sits in the wind, without complicating matters by showing a combination of gaff-rigged, bermuda-style, spritzers, etc. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.14|162.158.74.14]] 17:50, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Currently the explanation says "most interaction of physical things at macro scale (humans and boat sized objects) are electromagnetic in nature" I have certainly read that, and have seen examples of electromagnetic interactions between atoms. However, I also encounter explanations that describe interactions in terms of Pauli exclusion principle (see for instance {{w|Contact force}}). This makes me question the view presented in the first sentence. Since my physics is a bit rusty I haven't tried to fix it, but I think it may need clarification. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.150.33|172.71.150.33]] 20:28, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

I split up the example calculating Lorentz force on a boat. It still needs some work (I was just untangling it so I could see what it said).
The paragraph about one coulomb of charge I left as is - it needs untangling, so be bold.
In the example - somebody should recheck the math (I just copied what there, but in changing units to be more familiar, like km/h, I might have introduced errors). I also changed the field strength to the right order of magnitude for Earth's surface, and multiplied the wind speed by 10 to compensate.
As best I can figure the numbers for the example may have been chosen to get a force of 1 Newton. (I can't see any other reason for the ludicrous wind speed of thousands of km/h.) Might be better example to use a reasonable wind speed (e.g. dial it back to hurricane force) and a reasonable charge (something like what you could accumulate with an automobile, or when you zap yourself after getting out of a car seat) wind up with an even more negligible force. Then we could dispense with the paragraph explaining why 1 Coulomb is silly. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.151.93|172.71.151.93]] 22:15, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:If anybody wants to restore parts of it or play with it, the version with the calculation of Lorentz forces is here [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=3090:_Sail_Physics&oldid=378099] I thought it somewhat interesting just as physics problem to show what the effect was.
:I got curious about how much charge is involved when one zaps oneself on a car seat. A lighting bolt is a few coulombs. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.142.188|172.71.142.188]] 23:40, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Extreme apologies to an(other) IP editor who may have made several possibly great improvements to the article. I had ''so'' many problems with what was already there that I did a massive rewrite and set things up so differently that I'm not sure that (at a very long glance, but maybe not as long as it diserves) much of that effort is really worth feeding back in. Or even capable of being. Obviously, it's up to the rest of the you (including the person/people I overrode) to make your own judgement about that. I will also go back in to carefully check what I may have desecrated. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.68|162.158.74.68]] 22:37, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:No problem. I remade a few tweaks. The calculation is linked above is anybody wants to restore part of it. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.142.188|172.71.142.188]] 23:40, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Talking of multiple sails (as the explanation does, at least right now), I'm reminded of a children's SF-based book I read when I was... well, a child. It was set on a (mostly) waterworld, as I recall, that had ''multiple'' suns (in orbit around ''it''..? ...already we can be sure it was probably not the hardest of hard-SF settings, of course). The boats/skiffs/whatever had multiple sails to move around. Multiple ''solar sails''. Depending upon which ones were deployed (kite-surfing-like), they'd get pushed (and you'd get pulled) by the ''sun that they were for''. So if you wanted to go <- thataway, deploy one particular sail, or thataway -> deploy another instead. As if solar sails even work that way. (Or even would work that way ''as effectively'' as a kite might in the... I presume there was an atmosphere... if there wasn't, then that'd explain the need for no-air sail-like solution, but raise significant other questions ...though clearly could not raise kites.) I may have misremembered some of the details, even perhaps some of the 'wrongness', but... I definitely remember I had to suspend quite a lot of disbelief (don't ask me from which sun it is hung!) when I read that. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.205.187|172.68.205.187]] 23:25, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

I was just looking at some things about solar sails and similar. This comic got me curious about:
Whether one could use a solar sail to sail "upwind"? -- you can - thanks to gravity and orbital mechanics. e.g., Sail in direction of your orbit - shifts apogee out, perigee in.
Whether you could build a {{w|magnetic sail))? -- yes - doesn't work quite like the one in the comic (sun provides wind of particles, sail is magnet to redirect them).
There is also a version of solar sail using electric fields to redirect charged particles.
One question I haven't found anything about is do solar sails (conventional ones, not electric) accumulate charge, and what effects that might have.
I just mention here in case anybody thinks way makes sense in comic explanation. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.142.188|172.71.142.188]] 23:40, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
:Well, if you send charge along a long conductor (which might be what you do if you're sending/receiving the sail-charge through the thing that the sail is attached to the payload with), ''and'' pass through any magnetic fields (planetary, solar... galactic?) then you're into the territory of the {{w|Electrodynamic tether}} as ''also'' useful for propulsion. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.205.187|172.68.205.187]] 00:24, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Related to the question of how sails might work (against the wind), and the relationship to wing effects, I'm reminded of how a {{w|Cabin Pressure (radio series)|comedy radio sitcom}} dealt with the wings thing. In case it's not quickly obvious (and with some non-obvious info added), characters are Arthur ('simple' but questioning Air Steward), Carolyn (his mother, bossy owner of the airplane and chief Air Steward/everything else that's not actually flying), Martin (chief pilot/captain, knowledgable but inexperienced) and Douglas (second in command, but senior in years and experience and 'street smart'/air-smart to the point of (usually well-deserved) smugness).

{{cot|Excerpt dialogues from Cabin Pressure, series(/season) 1, episode 1}}
:[Arthur:] No, never! It’s just always exciting! That amazing moment when twelve tons of metal leaves the earth – and no-one knows why!
:[Carolyn:] Yes, we do.
:[Arthur:] Yeah, but ...you know, not really. I mean, we know you need wings and engines and a ...sticky-up bit on the end for some reason, but it’s not like we actually know why a plane stays in the air.
:[Carolyn:] No, no, Arthur, we really do. We-we do, we do know that.
:[Arthur:] Oh! How, then?
:[Carolyn:] Well ...er, because...
:[...some minor diversionary tactics break the conversation all too briefly...]
:[Carolyn:] Because there are four forces acting on the plane, and so long as two of them are bigger than the other two, the plane flies.
:[Arthur:] ...Mum, I don’t mind that no-one knows.
:[Carolyn:] But we do! We do! That’s it! What I said: that’s how.
:[Arthur:] Well, what are the four forces, then?
:[Carolyn:] Yes! Well, I will tell you what they are. Lift ...weight ...er...
:[Arthur:] Up and down?
:[Carolyn:] No, no, no, no, no. Tho-Those are up and down. No, it’s lift, weight...
:[Arthur:] Left and right.
:[Carolyn:] No, no, no, no. Lift, weight...
:[Arthur:] En...gines?
:[Carolyn:] No, no ...well, yes, yes, yes, sort of. Um, thrust, thrust. Lift, weight, thrust and...
:[Arthur:] Time.
:[Carolyn:] Drag. Lift, weight, thrust and drag. So, the weight and drag are overcome because the engines give the plane thrust, and the wings give it lift. And that’s how a plane flies.
:[Arthur:] How do the wings give it lift?
:[Carolyn:] What?
:[Arthur:] The wings are really heavy. How does bolting two ginormous lumps of metal to a ginormous lump of metal give it lift?
:[Carolyn:] Well, because they are wings. Well, they’re like birds’ wings.
:[Arthur:] Yeah, but birds’ wings flap. Ours don’t flap. They’ve got flaps, but I once watched the flaps all the way to Stockholm and, take it from me, they are seriously mis-named. So-so why does having wings make a plane leave the runway?
:[conveniently timed distraction occurs to take Carolyn away...]
:[Arthur:] Yeah, but how do the wings...
:[...letting the conversation and action move on, until...]

:[Douglas:] And now it’s back to the boring old plane flying.
:[Arthur:] Oh, yes. About that. Um, I wanted to ask you something, Skipper. Mum was telling me this morning that planes fly because they’ve got wings.
:[Douglas:] Is there anything that woman doesn’t know?
:[Arthur:] But she didn’t really explain – why do wings lift us up?
:[Douglas:] Ah, well. Essentially...
:[Martin:] Uh, Douglas, he asked me. Listen carefully, Arthur. The wing is curved on top but flat on the bottom. When it meets the air, it splits it in two. The air that goes over the top has further to go, so it has to go faster to keep up with the air underneath. That reduces the pressure above the wing, giving us lift.
:[Arthur:] Ah, fantastic! Thanks, Skipper! I totally get it now.
:[Martin:] You’re welcome.
:[Arthur:] Except ...why does it have to?
:[Martin:] Why does what what?
:[Arthur:] Why does the air on the top have to keep up with the air on the bottom? Why don’t they just split up?
:[pause]
:[Douglas:] ...for the sake of the kids?
:[action moves on again, until...]

:[...they need to distract Arthur from ''something else'']
:[Douglas:] Arthur, you were asking why the air over the wing has to keep up with the air underneath.
:[Arthur:] Ooh, yes. Do you know?
:[Douglas:] Indeed I do. Attend: the air is not passing over the wing; the wing is passing through the air, so the curved upper side stretches the air forced over it apart, reducing pressure, producing lift. The lift pushes up; the weight pushes down – so as long as the lift is more than the weight, up we go. And that, my friend, is how an aeroplane flies.
:[Arthur:] Got it! Right, yes! Cracking! I completely get it now.
:[Douglas:] Good. You see, it’s actually quite easy to grasp when it’s explained properly by someone who understands...
:[Arthur:] So that’s why planes can’t fly upside down.
:[Douglas:] Er, yes they can.
:[Arthur:] Can they?
:[Douglas:] Well, of course they can. Haven’t you seen the Red Arrows?
:[Arthur:] But ...doesn’t that mean the curved side of the wing is on the bottom, so the lift is pushing down as well as the weight? How does that work?
:[Martin:] Yes, Douglas. How does that work?
:[Douglas:] Well, Arthur, there’s a very simple explanation; but just to finish what we were saying, Martin...
[...the ''something else'' is raised as a distraction from the question]
:[Douglas:] No-one wants to hear the explanation. What a shame.
{{cob}}
...just thought anyone who hadn't heard this (or had, but liked the comedy involved) might like to read it. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.205.187|172.68.205.187]] 00:24, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:Sounds like comic 803. [[User:StapleFreeBatteries|StapleFreeBatteries]] ([[User talk:StapleFreeBatteries|talk]]) 23:21, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:3090: Sail Physics

2025-05-18T23:21:15Z

StapleFreeBatteries:

After the last step, the sailors would then need to ground the boat to avoid being pushed in a circle, wouldn't they? [[User:Sophon|Sophon]] ([[User talk:Sophon|talk]]) 20:47, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Note that for eastward wind, the boat will be propelled upwards, while the opposite is true for westward winds. This provides a basis for the functioning of airships and planes (Helicopters are more complicated, and additionally rely on their own magnetic fields) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.217.45|162.158.217.45]] 21:21, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
: Hence why you should always touch an earthing rod before approaching a helicopter, to avoid the magnetism pulling you into their rotors. [[User:Kev|Kev]] ([[User talk:Kev|talk]]) 03:11, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Is this actually wrong? Wouldn't it still be ''a'' force on a sailboat, even if it's not the strongest? [[User:Smurfton|Smurfton]] ([[User talk:Smurfton|talk]]) 22:20, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

: I added some explaination on direction and magnitude of the lorentz force, maybe that will help - sga {{unsigned ip|172.68.234.227|22:33, 16 May 2025 (UTC)}}

The explanation states that of the four forces, only the electromagnetic force operates at the macro level. This is incorrect, as gravity is also directly observable by humans. There should also probably be a link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airfoil to provide an explanation for how sails actually allow a boat to sail upwind. I recommend removing the remark about the poles potentially flipping in the future, as this is irrelevant. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.55.124|172.68.55.124]] 23:52, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

: What i meant was, for 2 objects at scales of humans =, maybe did not prase it well. In this case, it is the wind and the sail. Wind does not have a "mass" (the atoms most certainly do, but) we essentially have a pressure force, or momentum of wind, where instead of using the energy of atoms (and hence the mass) as given by kinetic theory is not used (that is random (as given by boltzman maxwell statistics)) and uniform (in the sense that for any direction, number of particles going against and towards is equal) and what we have is just pressure applied by a effective "group velocity" of the wind atoms. The gravity interaction between wind and boat, or the local waves and boat is negligible, and planetary gravity is not considered because that is not relavant for in plane motion. the pole fillping was added just for future proofing the article. I am sorry for the puns. I have rewwritten some parts, and reduced the part about pole flipping, and also added the average case scenario for the force, hope it is better now. - sga {{unsigned ip|172.70.143.75|02:37+, 17 May 2025}}
::That is one huge rambling paragraph, if it's (mostly) yours. I'm no stranger to ''writing'' huge rambling paragraphs, myself, but I gave up only a little way in on trying to make it read better. Grammatically, prosaically and with relevence.
::May I suggest that each 'frame' is treated to its own (shorter) paragraph, explaining what effect it tries to convey, what logic it individually tries to follow, but where it fails and what actual forces dominate a true example. (e.g. the hull-shape, including keel, helping convert roughly lateral sideways forces into forward ones against the water; those lateral ones having already been a conversion of largely head-on winds in the first place, thus two "almost up to 90 degree" redirections of force allow ''very nearly'' a 180-degree reversal of wind-blown movement. Feel free to discuss the comparisons and differences between 'flappy sail', though blown taught by the air, and an 'upright aircraft wing' solid design. ...See, told you I could ramble, but someone can surely do better at segmenting and summarising the basics of this.) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.32|172.71.178.32]] 08:32, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

This is super embarrassing to admit, but I came here to verify whether this was a serious thing or not. I had no idea how a sailboat sails against the wind. [[User:Catgofire|Catgofire]] ([[User talk:Catgofire|talk]]) 23:58, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
:You aren't alone - I think I was an adult before I understood tacking in the sailboat sense of the word. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.174.127|162.158.174.127]] 02:45, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
: I'm wanting to add in some wisdom about "science-y" explanations that appear to be sensible but are completely wrong, segueing into how generative language models appear to be far more reliable than they are. However this margin is too narrow [[User:Kev|Kev]] ([[User talk:Kev|talk]]) 03:09, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
:To answer the question: sailboats move by using the Coriolis effect. That's why sailboats can't sail directly in the direction of Earth's spin, and why ships often get becalmed at the equator. Modern vessels create their own Coriolis effect by using steam powered turbines as gyroscopes. [[User:RegularSizedGuy|RegularSizedGuy]] ([[User talk:RegularSizedGuy|talk]]) 16:52, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I've been really annoyed with ExplainXKCD in the last few months ever since the initial posting has always been LLM generated. It requires more brain power to make sense of AI slop and edit it, than to contribute to a blank page. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.162.103|162.158.162.103]] {{unsigned ip|162.158.162.103|15:44, 17 May 2025|...yes, probably signed with just three tildes, by accident, but the intended message is the same...}}
:I don't think that LLM has been used for the most troublesome bits. LLMs can 'hallucinate', but tend (unless ''specifically'' asked) to make a lot more grammatical sense if you don't look too much further. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.33.240|162.158.33.240]] 18:29, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Any chance we can add an explanation of how it *actually* works? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.216.174|162.158.216.174]] 10:03, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
:Through judicious angling of sail, wind (from any direction other than fully head-on) is deflected(/uses 'wing-effect') to create a force, trying to push the boat, that might be mostly sideways but also a bit forward. Because of the shape of the hull, any sideways force is resisted by the water, reinforcing the remaining forward component which the hull is far more ready to take advantage of. Enough sail (and enough stability to resist rolling) gives a large amount of movement towards, but not ''exactly'' towards, the wind. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.224.72|172.69.224.72]] 10:41, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

The joke is that the most commonly used explanation for why flow over a foil generates lift - particles going one way have a longer way to travel than the other, which generates a difference in speed and therefore a pressure differential - is wrong. {{unsigned ip|172.69.109.91|10:36, 17 May 2025}}
:What is wrong with the explanation which you say is wrong? What is the more correct explanation? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.150.33|172.71.150.33]] 20:28, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
::That explanation usually implies/assumes that the portion of air going above the wing and the portion going below have to arrive at the other edge of the wing at the same time. So if a particle that happened to go underneath took exactly x seconds, then an identical particle that happened to go over would also take exactly x seconds. This turns out not to be true. It ''is'' true that (most wing-generated) lift comes from a pressure differential, and it is generally true enough most of the time that most (not all) of that pressure differential is tied to an airstream speed differential. (I say "tied to" because I am not in the mood to argue about how the causality runs.) [[User:JimJJewett|JimJJewett]] ([[User talk:JimJJewett|talk]]) 06:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

The picture seems to show an axis of rotation (the mast) for the sail being on the end of the sail. Is that correct for a certain class of sailing vessel?~~ {{unsigned ip|162.158.146.128|15:57, 17 May 2025}}
:Yes. Though offhand, I can't think of a ''good'' sailboat ''with only 1 sail'' where it was true beyond a first approximation. [[User:JimJJewett|JimJJewett]] ([[User talk:JimJJewett|talk]]) 06:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
::There's the {{w|catboat}} class, and a smaller dinghy may not have (or always use) a foresail. Obviously it doesn't look like a square-rigger 'sail hanger' of most larger ships, but a mast with a single outward stretch of sail fabric is a very good way to demonstrate how any given sail sits in the wind, without complicating matters by showing a combination of gaff-rigged, bermuda-style, spritzers, etc. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.14|162.158.74.14]] 17:50, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Currently the explanation says "most interaction of physical things at macro scale (humans and boat sized objects) are electromagnetic in nature" I have certainly read that, and have seen examples of electromagnetic interactions between atoms. However, I also encounter explanations that describe interactions in terms of Pauli exclusion principle (see for instance {{w|Contact force}}). This makes me question the view presented in the first sentence. Since my physics is a bit rusty I haven't tried to fix it, but I think it may need clarification. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.150.33|172.71.150.33]] 20:28, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

I split up the example calculating Lorentz force on a boat. It still needs some work (I was just untangling it so I could see what it said).
The paragraph about one coulomb of charge I left as is - it needs untangling, so be bold.
In the example - somebody should recheck the math (I just copied what there, but in changing units to be more familiar, like km/h, I might have introduced errors). I also changed the field strength to the right order of magnitude for Earth's surface, and multiplied the wind speed by 10 to compensate.
As best I can figure the numbers for the example may have been chosen to get a force of 1 Newton. (I can't see any other reason for the ludicrous wind speed of thousands of km/h.) Might be better example to use a reasonable wind speed (e.g. dial it back to hurricane force) and a reasonable charge (something like what you could accumulate with an automobile, or when you zap yourself after getting out of a car seat) wind up with an even more negligible force. Then we could dispense with the paragraph explaining why 1 Coulomb is silly. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.151.93|172.71.151.93]] 22:15, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:If anybody wants to restore parts of it or play with it, the version with the calculation of Lorentz forces is here [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=3090:_Sail_Physics&oldid=378099] I thought it somewhat interesting just as physics problem to show what the effect was.
:I got curious about how much charge is involved when one zaps oneself on a car seat. A lighting bolt is a few coulombs. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.142.188|172.71.142.188]] 23:40, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Extreme apologies to an(other) IP editor who may have made several possibly great improvements to the article. I had ''so'' many problems with what was already there that I did a massive rewrite and set things up so differently that I'm not sure that (at a very long glance, but maybe not as long as it diserves) much of that effort is really worth feeding back in. Or even capable of being. Obviously, it's up to the rest of the you (including the person/people I overrode) to make your own judgement about that. I will also go back in to carefully check what I may have desecrated. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.68|162.158.74.68]] 22:37, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:No problem. I remade a few tweaks. The calculation is linked above is anybody wants to restore part of it. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.142.188|172.71.142.188]] 23:40, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Talking of multiple sails (as the explanation does, at least right now), I'm reminded of a children's SF-based book I read when I was... well, a child. It was set on a (mostly) waterworld, as I recall, that had ''multiple'' suns (in orbit around ''it''..? ...already we can be sure it was probably not the hardest of hard-SF settings, of course). The boats/skiffs/whatever had multiple sails to move around. Multiple ''solar sails''. Depending upon which ones were deployed (kite-surfing-like), they'd get pushed (and you'd get pulled) by the ''sun that they were for''. So if you wanted to go <- thataway, deploy one particular sail, or thataway -> deploy another instead. As if solar sails even work that way. (Or even would work that way ''as effectively'' as a kite might in the... I presume there was an atmosphere... if there wasn't, then that'd explain the need for no-air sail-like solution, but raise significant other questions ...though clearly could not raise kites.) I may have misremembered some of the details, even perhaps some of the 'wrongness', but... I definitely remember I had to suspend quite a lot of disbelief (don't ask me from which sun it is hung!) when I read that. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.205.187|172.68.205.187]] 23:25, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

I was just looking at some things about solar sails and similar. This comic got me curious about:
Whether one could use a solar sail to sail "upwind"? -- you can - thanks to gravity and orbital mechanics. e.g., Sail in direction of your orbit - shifts apogee out, perigee in.
Whether you could build a {{w|magnetic sail))? -- yes - doesn't work quite like the one in the comic (sun provides wind of particles, sail is magnet to redirect them).
There is also a version of solar sail using electric fields to redirect charged particles.
One question I haven't found anything about is do solar sails (conventional ones, not electric) accumulate charge, and what effects that might have.
I just mention here in case anybody thinks way makes sense in comic explanation. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.142.188|172.71.142.188]] 23:40, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
:Well, if you send charge along a long conductor (which might be what you do if you're sending/receiving the sail-charge through the thing that the sail is attached to the payload with), ''and'' pass through any magnetic fields (planetary, solar... galactic?) then you're into the territory of the {{w|Electrodynamic tether}} as ''also'' useful for propulsion. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.205.187|172.68.205.187]] 00:24, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Related to the question of how sails might work (against the wind), and the relationship to wing effects, I'm reminded of how a {{w|Cabin Pressure (radio series)|comedy radio sitcom}} dealt with the wings thing. In case it's not quickly obvious (and with some non-obvious info added), characters are Arthur ('simple' but questioning Air Steward), Carolyn (his mother, bossy owner of the airplane and chief Air Steward/everything else that's not actually flying), Martin (chief pilot/captain, knowledgable but inexperienced) and Douglas (second in command, but senior in years and experience and 'street smart'/air-smart to the point of (usually well-deserved) smugness).

{{cot|Excerpt dialogues from Cabin Pressure, series(/season) 1, episode 1}}
:[Arthur:] No, never! It’s just always exciting! That amazing moment when twelve tons of metal leaves the earth – and no-one knows why!
:[Carolyn:] Yes, we do.
:[Arthur:] Yeah, but ...you know, not really. I mean, we know you need wings and engines and a ...sticky-up bit on the end for some reason, but it’s not like we actually know why a plane stays in the air.
:[Carolyn:] No, no, Arthur, we really do. We-we do, we do know that.
:[Arthur:] Oh! How, then?
:[Carolyn:] Well ...er, because...
:[...some minor diversionary tactics break the conversation all too briefly...]
:[Carolyn:] Because there are four forces acting on the plane, and so long as two of them are bigger than the other two, the plane flies.
:[Arthur:] ...Mum, I don’t mind that no-one knows.
:[Carolyn:] But we do! We do! That’s it! What I said: that’s how.
:[Arthur:] Well, what are the four forces, then?
:[Carolyn:] Yes! Well, I will tell you what they are. Lift ...weight ...er...
:[Arthur:] Up and down?
:[Carolyn:] No, no, no, no, no. Tho-Those are up and down. No, it’s lift, weight...
:[Arthur:] Left and right.
:[Carolyn:] No, no, no, no. Lift, weight...
:[Arthur:] En...gines?
:[Carolyn:] No, no ...well, yes, yes, yes, sort of. Um, thrust, thrust. Lift, weight, thrust and...
:[Arthur:] Time.
:[Carolyn:] Drag. Lift, weight, thrust and drag. So, the weight and drag are overcome because the engines give the plane thrust, and the wings give it lift. And that’s how a plane flies.
:[Arthur:] How do the wings give it lift?
:[Carolyn:] What?
:[Arthur:] The wings are really heavy. How does bolting two ginormous lumps of metal to a ginormous lump of metal give it lift?
:[Carolyn:] Well, because they are wings. Well, they’re like birds’ wings.
:[Arthur:] Yeah, but birds’ wings flap. Ours don’t flap. They’ve got flaps, but I once watched the flaps all the way to Stockholm and, take it from me, they are seriously mis-named. So-so why does having wings make a plane leave the runway?
:[conveniently timed distraction occurs to take Carolyn away...]
:[Arthur:] Yeah, but how do the wings...
:[...letting the conversation and action move on, until...]

:[Douglas:] And now it’s back to the boring old plane flying.
:[Arthur:] Oh, yes. About that. Um, I wanted to ask you something, Skipper. Mum was telling me this morning that planes fly because they’ve got wings.
:[Douglas:] Is there anything that woman doesn’t know?
:[Arthur:] But she didn’t really explain – why do wings lift us up?
:[Douglas:] Ah, well. Essentially...
:[Martin:] Uh, Douglas, he asked me. Listen carefully, Arthur. The wing is curved on top but flat on the bottom. When it meets the air, it splits it in two. The air that goes over the top has further to go, so it has to go faster to keep up with the air underneath. That reduces the pressure above the wing, giving us lift.
:[Arthur:] Ah, fantastic! Thanks, Skipper! I totally get it now.
:[Martin:] You’re welcome.
:[Arthur:] Except ...why does it have to?
:[Martin:] Why does what what?
:[Arthur:] Why does the air on the top have to keep up with the air on the bottom? Why don’t they just split up?
:[pause]
:[Douglas:] ...for the sake of the kids?
:[action moves on again, until...]

:[...they need to distract Arthur from ''something else'']
:[Douglas:] Arthur, you were asking why the air over the wing has to keep up with the air underneath.
:[Arthur:] Ooh, yes. Do you know?
:[Douglas:] Indeed I do. Attend: the air is not passing over the wing; the wing is passing through the air, so the curved upper side stretches the air forced over it apart, reducing pressure, producing lift. The lift pushes up; the weight pushes down – so as long as the lift is more than the weight, up we go. And that, my friend, is how an aeroplane flies.
:[Arthur:] Got it! Right, yes! Cracking! I completely get it now.
:[Douglas:] Good. You see, it’s actually quite easy to grasp when it’s explained properly by someone who understands...
:[Arthur:] So that’s why planes can’t fly upside down.
:[Douglas:] Er, yes they can.
:[Arthur:] Can they?
:[Douglas:] Well, of course they can. Haven’t you seen the Red Arrows?
:[Arthur:] But ...doesn’t that mean the curved side of the wing is on the bottom, so the lift is pushing down as well as the weight? How does that work?
:[Martin:] Yes, Douglas. How does that work?
:[Douglas:] Well, Arthur, there’s a very simple explanation; but just to finish what we were saying, Martin...
[...the ''something else'' is raised as a distraction from the question]
:[Douglas:] No-one wants to hear the explanation. What a shame.
{{cob}}
...just thought anyone who hadn't heard this (or had, but liked the comedy involved) might like to read it. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.205.187|172.68.205.187]] 00:24, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:Sounds like comic 803
[[User:StapleFreeBatteries|StapleFreeBatteries]] ([[User talk:StapleFreeBatteries|talk]]) 23:21, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:3087: Pascal's Law

2025-05-10T04:58:51Z

StapleFreeBatteries:

I remember learning about this and thinking it was intuitive, but I didn't really think of these consequences. Maybe everybody is making powerful lifting machines for lifting cars and houses with your bare hands, rather than explaining the article, that there isn't one yet. Pascal's law basically says that if you make one end of a container of fluid X times larger, then any force exerted on the small end is multiplied by X on the large end, so you can make it near-infinite by making the small end very small. But you'll need a little more machinery added (like a gear system) if you want the distance actually moved to be higher. Actually I think that might undo the gains in force entirely. That might be how it happens, it might swap distance for force so the same work is performed.

Hey, remember that comic where Randal challenged people to fold a paper too small? This hand-makeable device could get farther on that!
[[Special:Contributions/172.70.111.110|172.70.111.110]] 21:46, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
: yes, that's how it works; the total work is constant and the hydraulic system is converting a small force over a long distance to a large force over a small distance. if you additionally want the force to be over a larger distance, you need to put more energy into the system or else you could push this machine with its own output and get free energy from nothing. really though hydraulics are just smoother, backlashless, equivalents to a gear train in the first place so you generally wouldnt need to use both. - [[User:Vaedez|Vaedez]] ([[User talk:Vaedez|talk]]) 23:37, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

As someone old enough to remember the [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slashdot_effect slashdot effect], I wonder if XKCD comics generate a similar effect on search engines. Though I doubt they would buckle under the weight these days. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.60.148|172.69.60.148]] 22:00, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

To whoever wrote the initial transcript, remember that we don't include the title text. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 22:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I have to wonder whether he has the same disbelief of, say, levers... which allow one to move the Earth. [[User:Jordan Brown|Jordan Brown]] ([[User talk:Jordan Brown|talk]]) 23:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Although some laws of physics are absolute and lead to extreme consequences, others are taught in a simplified form that can lead to wrong conclusions. For example, "Light and heavy objects fall at the same rate" can be used to prove that objects fall at the same rate on the Earth and the Moon - which is far from correct. If the Moon were somehow dropped onto the Earth, it would fall at a certain rate. The Earth dropped on the Moon would necessarily fall at the same rate. So if the Moon falling on the Earth fell at the same rate as a bowling ball, then the bowling ball would have to fall at the same rate on the Moon. When I read Heinlein's _The Rolling Stones_ as a pre-teen, where he describes things falling slower on the Moon, I applied this reasoning and concluded that Heinlein must have made a mistake. The solution to this paradox is that something as big as the Moon will not only accelerate toward the Earth, it will significantly accelerate the Earth toward it, so the Moon does not actually fall at the same rate as a bowling ball. [[User:Cphoenix|Cphoenix]] ([[User talk:Cphoenix|talk]]) 01:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Besides, isn't it better to just ''believe'' in Pascal's Law if it offers a reward of near-infinite force?
[[User:StapleFreeBatteries|StapleFreeBatteries]] ([[User talk:StapleFreeBatteries|talk]]) 04:58, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

432: Journal 4

2025-05-04T17:37:06Z

StapleFreeBatteries: Revert vandalism

{{comic
| number = 432
| date = June 4, 2008
| title = Journal 4
| image = journal_4.png
| titletext = Man, this emo shit was supposed to be for people who didn't have hats.
}}

==Explanation==
In Journal 1, [[Black Hat]] explains to [[Cueball]] that a hobby of his is to pretend to write in a journal while on the subway, acting embarrassed if anyone sees. He then proceeds to silently scorn the person once they give him any kind of reassurance.

In Journal 2, however, [[Danish]] sees through his ruse. She counteracts it by proving that she understands him, and attempts to resign him to the fact that he will never see her again, thus robbing him of the satisfaction of a proper social connection. She leaves, taking his hat in the process. Initially stunned, in Journal 3 he at last regained his hat, the emblem of his personality and attitude, leaving him with the higher ground.

Now, precipitously, Black Hat has found himself to be in love with Danish, even though this counters his whole worldview. He even took off his precious hat. As stated in the title text, he somehow believed that he was immune to such feelings. What is he to do? And why is he in love? And how?

The title text indicates that Black Hat had previously believed that his hat signified, or even caused, immunity from emotional sensitivity (usually depicted in his [[classhole]] behavior). The meaning of Black Hat's hat is not specified, but it is clearly something important to him. More evidence of the hat's adumbrative meaning can be seen in [[455: Hats]].

The whole "[[:Category:Journal|Journal]]" story is:
*[[374: Journal]]
*[[377: Journal 2]]
*[[405: Journal 3]]
*[[432: Journal 4]]
*[[433: Journal 5]]

==Transcript==
:[Black Hat sits slumped over on a bench, holding his hat in one hand, displaying his thin hair, while resting his cheek on his other arm.]
:Black Hat: S<big>i</big>GH

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Journal|04]]
[[Category:Comics sharing name|Journal]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Black Hat]]
[[Category:Comics with lowercase text]]

1632: Palindrome

2025-05-04T17:36:13Z

StapleFreeBatteries: Remove vandalism

{{comic
| number = 1632
| date = January 20, 2016
| title = Palindrome
| image = palindrome.png
| titletext = I hope that somewhere in the world, "Panamax" is the last option on a "size" drop-down menu on a sex toy site.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|For some reason, part of the explanation is in the trivia section. Need to remove the bullet points and incorporate it into the main explanation.}}A {{w|palindrome}} is a word, phrase, or sentence that reads the same whether you read forwards or backwards, like ''race car''. Normally capitalization, spacing, and punctuation are ignored. This comic is based on the famous palindrome: "A Man, A Plan, A Canal: Panama", devised by {{w|Leigh Mercer}}, which references the construction of the {{w|Panama Canal}} and is the first mentioned on the Wikipedia page for palindromes [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palindrome&oldid=700753837 at the time] this comic was released. [[Megan]] recites a much longer palindrome for [[Cueball]]. This palindrome is based on the original, and was posted in this [http://www.talking-time.net/showthread.php?p=1370627#post1370627 forum thread] more than three years before the release of this comic. It is much less logical, and manages to refer to "anal Panama" (which then refers to the title text and sex toys, see below).

[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nam 'Nam] is an apheresis of Vietnam. See more explanation of the words in the palindrome in the [[#Trivia|Trivia]] section. Note that in the original version from the link above there was a comma before tables so it is two items in the list: God's 'Nam, tables, etc. Due to its list like structure, the Panama palindrome is easily extensible by adding additional [http://www2.vo.lu/homepages/phahn/anagrams/panama.htm noun phrases], and some of these extensions lay claim to being "[http://norvig.com/pal17txt.html The Longest Palindrome Ever]".

The title text references the maximum size of ships that can fit through the Panama Canal, which is {{w|Panamax}}. [[Randall]] would really enjoy if this was the last option (i.e. biggest size) on a {{w|drop-down menu}} on a {{w|sex toy}} site. For instance such a site could have a banner saying; "If you have a ''Panama Anus'', then try our ''Panamax {{w|Butt plug}}''".

In the game [[1608: Hoverboard]] there is also a reference to the palindrome and the Panama canal with the [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/images/0/0d/1608_1026x1073y_Ruins_with_Cueball_singing_of_Spiders_and_Panama.png song that Cueball sings at the ruin] to the right. The first four lines of the song is the same as in the original palindrome but with the "A " changed out with ''Spider-'', and then also Spider in front of Panama:
:Cueball singing:
::Spider-man
:::Spider-plan
::Spider-canal
:::Spider-Panama
::Gates let in
:::Spider boats
::Flood the locks
:::Spiders float
::''Look out!''
::Spiders in both oceans.

===The Palindrome===
Although it is less logical it is indeed a palindrome:
:'''Original''':
::A man, a plan, a God's 'Nam tables, nitrate, tar, tinsel, Batman's dog: Anal Panama.

:'''Palindrome''', i.e. original sentence reversed:
::amanaP lanA :god s'namtaB ,lesnit ,rat ,etartin ,selbat maN' s'doG a ,nalp a ,nam A

:'''With no spaces''' or other punctuation and in all lowercase:
::amanaplanagodsnamtablesnitratetartinselbatmansdoganalpanama

==Transcript==
:[Cueball and Megan are walking. She holds up her arm and hand while reciting a palindrome:]
:Megan: A man, a plan, a God's 'Nam tables, nitrate, tar, tinsel, Batman's dog: Anal Panama.

==Trivia==
*In the [http://www.talking-time.net/showpost.php?p=1370627&postcount=6286 version] posted on-line in 2012, there was an extra comma after God's 'Nam:
**A man, a plan, a God's 'Nam, tables, nitrate, tar, tinsel, Batman's dog: Anal Panama.
**This means that it is not ''God's 'Nam tables'', but rather two items ''God's 'Nam'' and ''tables'', since it is a list of items.
*The '''meaning of the words''':
**These words are from the original palindrome: Man, Plan and Panama
**But what about the rest, taking the original with the "," as mentioned above:
***{{w|God|God's}} 'Nam - [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nam 'Nam] is here short for {{w|Vietnam}}; God's 'Nam would refer to a Quagmire of God's creation. (The Quagmire is a figurative name of the {{w|Vietnam War}}).
***{{w|Tables}} - can either be a piece of furniture or a data table.
***{{w|Nitrate}} - a polyatomic ion with the molecular formula NO3− that are mainly produced for use as fertilizers in agriculture. But as an oxidizing agents it can be used to create explosives where the rapid oxidation of carbon compounds liberates large volumes of gases. Given the end of the sentence it could also be a reference to {{w|Amyl nitrite}}, for which notable side effects includes "relaxation of involuntary muscles, especially the blood vessel walls and the internal and external anal sphincter."
***{{w|Tar}} - is a black mixture of hydrocarbons and free carbon. Originally referred primarily to a substance derived from the wood and roots of pine. But it has also been used in {{w|Tar#Definition|other contexts}}. For instance naturally occurring "{{w|tar pits}}", actually contain {{w|asphalt}} rather than tar.
***{{w|Tinsel}} - Tinsel, is a type of decorative material that mimics the effect of ice, consisting of thin strips of sparkling material attached to a thread. When in long narrow strips not attached to thread, it is called "lametta", and emulates icicles. It was originally a metallic garland for Christmas decoration. The modern production of tinsel typically involves plastic, and is used particularly to decorate Christmas trees.
***{{w|Ace the Bat-Hound|Batman's dog}} - Ace the Bat-Hound was the canine crime-fighting partner of {{w|Batman}} and {{w|Robin (comics)|Robin}} in DC Comics of the 1950s and 1960s.
***{{w|Anal}} - relates to {{w|anus}}. Searching for "Anal Panama" will return links to pages with {{w|porn}}. This is because the most used form of ''Anal'' is in regard to {{w|Anal Sex}} which is often used in porn. (It is not long since another xkcd comic referred directly to porn - see [[1629: Tools]]).
*The '''meaning of the sentence''':
**There are no obvious meaning of this palindrome.
**It seems it is not of Randall's device.
**The original palindrome was also a list of things that led to choosing Panama.
***A man had a plan to make a canal. He chose Panama.
**This one is also in list form:
***A man had a plan to use the Vietnam war with nitrate, tar and tinsel (maybe some kind of explosives with Christmas decorations), finally adding Batman's dog to get Anal Panama.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Language]]
[[Category:Sex]]
[[Category:Animals]]
[[Category:Religion]]

Talk:3084: Unstoppable Force and Immovable Object

2025-05-04T17:35:36Z

StapleFreeBatteries: Remove vandalism

lol, i remember this explanation from a minutephysics video. however, the version of the problem i heard, which is actually paradoxical, is "what happens when an immovable object meets an '''irresistible''' force?" [[User:Not without text|Not without text]] ([[User talk:Not without text|talk]]) 00:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
:That was also literally my first thought. [[169]], anyone? --[[User:Coconut Galaxy|Coconut Galaxy]] ([[User talk:Coconut Galaxy|talk]]) 05:37, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
::How do connect this comic with [[169: Words that End in GRY]]? I see no connection! --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 16:43, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
:The MinutePhysics video: [https://nebula.tv/videos/minute-physics-immovable-object-vs-unstoppable-force-which-wins/ on Nebula] or [https://youtu.be/9eKc5kgPVrA on YouTube] --[[User:NeatNit|NeatNit]] ([[User talk:NeatNit|talk]]) 09:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Come on, it's just an arrow made of W- bosons, right? [[User:TheTrainsKid|TheTrainsKid]] ([[User talk:TheTrainsKid|talk]]) 03:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Is there no joke here? Is it just the solution? [[User:Broseph|Broseph]] ([[User talk:Broseph|talk]]) 06:52, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

I remember an explanation by Isaac Asimov in one of his books which was like "by definition, an immovable object will not move at all under any force in the universe, and an unstoppable force will move all of the objects in this way" and then explained how the definitions conflicted each other and as such prevented both from being able to register for the hypothetical at the same time [[Special:Contributions/172.64.236.161|172.64.236.161]] 06:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

In the first MMO games, collision was a big problem. A player could block a doorway, and nobody else could go through. It was even worse if the player had "follower" characters or pets.
One solution was to have characters automatically "push" stationary characters out of the way, but that caused other problems. Modern MMO's such as World of Warcraft simply allow characters to pass through each other, as depicted in this xkcd comic. Our eyes fool us into "seeing" that two characters somehow slid past each other. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.228.132|172.68.228.132]] 07:29, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
:Our eyes, or the programmers? I don't have that much experience with MMO's but they probably do render it in specific way to make that effect. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 02:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

When the two things pass through each other, at the instant where they both occupy exactly the same space, is there one object or two? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.216.159|162.158.216.159]] 08:02, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
:Given that force is not an object, one. Just like there was when they weren't colocated. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.43.220|172.69.43.220]] 08:29, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
::OK, but what about the 'unstoppable force carrying particles' in the title text? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.194.204|172.69.194.204]] 19:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
:::I understand it as if a particle interacting with the object counts as 'stopping', in which case an unstoppable force-carrying particle wont have any effect. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.120.157|162.158.120.157]] 20:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

The force could simply go around the object. The object hasn't moved, and the force wasn't stopped. [[User:Rtanenbaum|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum|talk]]) 11:17, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
:Redirecting would imply the force could be redirected, allowing us to trap it inside a closed loop, effectively stopping it. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.57.132|172.70.57.132]] 15:38, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

This is like the Chinese saying the spear and the shield. Using this comic, I guess spear wins [[User:Aprilfoolsupdate!|Aprilfoolsupdate!]] ([[User talk:Aprilfoolsupdate!|talk]]) 14:02, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Gonna be honest, I think this is my least favorite comic of the last 500 or so. It's a solution already given by minutephysics, except with all the perspective about reference frames, and what people actually mean with these terms replaced by a caption with a superiority complex. I suppose it gets pretty hard 3000 comics in, but c'mon.
[[Special:Contributions/172.68.35.83|172.68.35.83]] 19:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
: Ok, as we're giving personal opinions, I can't let it stand. Some might not exactly be total belly-laughs, but I think they each still have something to them and I prefer a mix of tones (and a wider spatter of focuses and treatments) to them all being exactly the same aspect of 'high-humour'. Not that I'd care to rank them, anyway, but I'm nowhere near ready to go off and make disparaging comments as if this site was bitchaboutxkcd.com, or whatever.
: I won't try to tell you what to think, yourself, though maybe you should just roll with it. If you really don't like a comic, there'll be another along in two or three days. That might be even 'worse', as well as 'better', but then you can be even more unchill about ''that''. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.82|141.101.98.82]] 22:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

All forces are irresistable. No objects are immovable. If any force acts on any object, the object moves (or deforms). [[Special:Contributions/172.68.84.145|172.68.84.145]] 22:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
:Can we not say that Dark Matter, if that's what we imagine it might be, entirely resists the electromagnetic force? (It's one of my possible interpretations of the comic, though without enough hint that it was intended to have me annotate the Explanation accordingly.)
:That said, it's ''unstoppable'' force (and there's are no Cavorite-like forceproof barriers), and it's rather that ''immovable'' objects are awkward to imagine under Relativity and there being no actual preferable frame of reference in the first place. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.113|172.69.195.113]] 22:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

I would say that, since a force is mass*acceleration, the force cannot yet be stated while passing through the immovable object, because the object have to accelerate to calculate the force. Therefore, the "force" is only potential or kinetic energy at this point.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.127.25|162.158.127.25]] 12:54, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I would say that nothing happens. If you think of Pressure and immoveable object: An infinite force would acting on an immoveable (think infinite mass) object would lead to no movement at all.
Well, actually a black hole would be created, swallowing up the object and the force. Since the object's further behavior now cannot be seen from outside mass could be reduced anf the black hole could simply evaporate.
Result: Force and objects actual mass would simply be converted into energy, representing a bomb. [[Special:Contributions/104.23.187.224|104.23.187.224]] 16:42, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

3084: Unstoppable Force and Immovable Object

2025-05-04T17:34:12Z

StapleFreeBatteries: Undo vandalism

{{comic
| number = 3084
| date = May 2, 2025
| title = Unstoppable Force and Immovable Object
| image = unstoppable_force_and_immovable_object_2x.png
| imagesize = 297x379px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Unstoppable force-carrying particles can't interact with immovable matter by definition.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This page was created by an INFINITE MASS, MOST COMMONLY KNOWN AS "YOUR MOM". Don't remove this notice too soon.}}
An "unstoppable force meeting an immovable object" is a common expression when two things with mutually exclusive properties are forced to interact.

In the comic this is depicted with three drawings, first showing an arrow representing an unstoppable force moving toward an object that is immovable. In the next drawing they meet and the force arrow enters the object. In the final drawing the force arrow is moving past the object that has, of course, not been moved. But the force has also not been stopped. In the caption below [[Randall]] states that he cannot understand why people find this scenario to be tricky.

Most of the time, the expression is just that, an expression, one that is meant to convey there will be a lot of destruction when the two things meet. Sometimes it is a euphemism for more complex things such as people or ideologies (who have contradictory goals and are unwilling or unable to compromise), other times it's an exaggeration for large and powerful forces that are not literally unstoppable but still cause massive damage when they run into each other.

Randall proposes a solution to the paradox: the unstoppable force will not actually interact with the immovable object; the unstoppable force is not stopped and the immovable object is not moved.

An example explanation of this situation is described in a [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eKc5kgPVrA video] by {{w|Minute Physics}}. This comic could actually be said to show what is shown in the video.

Randalls comic makes a play on the word "force" which has different interpretations depending on context. In casual language, an object can be a "force" if it carries enough energy, while to a physicist like Randall it describes a fundamental influence between particles of matter, and not all forces interact with all types of matter, nor ''can'' they be stopped (only depleted, by interaction and dispersion over their effective distance). The humor derives from the differences between the lay-impressions of the scenario and a more technical interpretation, in line with prior [[123: Centrifugal Force|informative comics]] of this ilk.

In the title text Randall makes it clear that unstoppable force-carrying particles do not interact with immovable matter by definition. Thus each of these "impossible" concepts can exist, but since they can never interact, the problem of what will happen when they do, is thus not relevant. In quantum physics all forces are mediated by force-carrying particles, but this is not usually something that is relevant to take into account, when macroscopic objects interact.

==Transcript==
:[In one panel there are three drawings representing the same scenario at three different times. In the first drawing shows a right-pointing arrow ti the left, and a rounded trapezium-like object to the right of the centre. They are both labeled with a line going from the label above down to the objects:]
:Unstoppable Force
:Immovable Object

:[In the second drawing the arrow is shown in the process of moving through the trapezoid, the part of the arrow within the trapezoid is drawn in gray lines.]

:[In the third drawing the arrow is to the right of the trapezoid.]

:[Caption below the panel:]
:I don't see why people find this scenario to be tricky.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Physics]]

Talk:1973: Star Lore

2025-04-26T20:45:56Z

StapleFreeBatteries:

Doesn't appear that "Five Sisters" is a reference to anything, according to my Google searches. Does anyone have anything on that? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.53|108.162.221.53]] 15:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC)Martin

If I had to guess, it's most likely a reference to the Pleiades (Seven Sisters), which is a constellation.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.34.94|172.68.34.94]] 15:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)Luck

I can't be certain, but I believe this is a direct quote from a Star Wars comic I read a few days ago. I will try to dig it up. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.142.46|172.69.142.46]] 23:44, 28 March 2018 (UTC)Dave

"Five Sisters" is a reference a pentagon-shaped constellation from Isaac Asimov's ''Foundations Edge'' ~~Tyler

I keep 'cellulose' tape over my LEDs, darkened with permanent marker, to dim their harsh glare when the rooms are unlit. On important ones, I keep a small sliver uncovered, so that from the right angle (like from the doorway) they can be seen even with the lights on. I do wish more devices had a "dim" setting on a timer, so the LEDs could be bright during the day & barely lit at night. In particular, my backup power battery has a large, obnoxious blue screen that lights up the whole room unless I keep it facing the wall. [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 15:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

The red LED probably is a super bright LED :-) Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.111.37|162.158.111.37]] 16:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
:(Also responding to ProphetZarquon) I agree that super bright LEDs are annoying, especially the one on my monitor! But I don’t think that status LEDs can appear impressive, like in the comic. The superbright ones, which are standard today, illuminate the room too much. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.203|141.101.104.203]] 19:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
:: In my bedroom, the computer monitor on my desk faces the head of my bed. When the monitor goes into sleep mode it flashes a bright blue light at my face. That light has actually triggered dreams when I didn't manually shut it off before going to bed. [[User:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For]] ([[User talk:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|talk]]) 03:34, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
:I would wager that given Randall's history of computer problems, having the supergiant red explode at any point in the next millenium (i.e. could be next Thursday), would solve a lot of problems 16:58, 29 March 2018 (UTC

The second part of the title text could be a reference to the word "planet" which comes from a Greek word meaning "wanderer". [[Special:Contributions/162.158.155.38|162.158.155.38]] 17:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

It seems plausible that the title is partially a veiled reference to the Marvel Comics character {{w|Star Lord}}, which sounds almost the same as "Star Lore." [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 23:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

:Not really - Star lore or starlore is the creating and cherishing of mythical stories about the stars and star patterns (constellations and asterisms); that is, folklore based upon the stars and star patterns. Using the stars to explain religious doctrines or actual events in history is also defined as star lore. Wikipedia...[[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.102|141.101.107.102]] 04:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

The cluster of 5 lights is likely either a modem or router. Modems usually have a row of lights to indicate power, uplink, downlink, sync, and traffic at a minimum, whereas a router might have multiple lights indicating connections to a number of network ports. I can really relate to this comic, especially during the peak period of active gear in my home office at one time (It's not so eerie these days)! [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 01:42, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

This reminds me of a Doonesbury cartoon [http://images.ucomics.com/comics/db/2007/db070506.gif Mardi Gras] [[Special:Contributions/172.68.189.91|172.68.189.91]] 02:55, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

;My room

The current explanation states that the usage of "my room" typically refers in the US to the bedroom. As a non-US citizen I can see how this is true for children, teenagers and young adults who yet live in their parent's home. Or when living in a shared apartment. But in any other case I'd assume "my room" refers to the whatever equivalent of a {{w|man cave}}, whereas bedroom is "bedroom". No? [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 07:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Converted header to bold label [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 11:27, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

;Cluster
"Cluster" has a computing term as well as an astronomical one - a group of computers connected to each other and working together on a common task. "Five sisters" would be an interesting- name for a 5-machine cluster, and would fit the description well. They need not be identical machines; perhaps the one with the red light is large, and due to a failing fan is expected to overheat.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.65.114|172.68.65.114]] 19:35, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

* ''The red one is a supergiant, and will probably explode within a few million years.'' For many super-giant stars that we can see from Earth, they have probably already exploded, but their light is still travelling to us and we won't see the explosion until centuries or even millennia after the actual event, if the star is in the Milky Way. Even more for stars in other galaxies. [[User:Nutster|Nutster]] ([[User talk:Nutster|talk]]) 00:58, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
: Not likely. See [[1342: Ancient Stars]]. Zetfr 09:41, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

;Number of "Stars"

The transcript currently states there are 32 points of light in the comic, but when I decided to count them myself, I came up with only 31 - 19 across the top section and another 12 in the lower half. Does anyone else see 32 dots, and if so, can you tell me where I'm missing one? A brown dwarf or a black hole, maybe? [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 11:59, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
:I also counted 31. I edited the Transcript to reflect that. [[User:Tqdv|Tqdv]] ([[User talk:Tqdv|talk]]) 22:04, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
::Yes, there's 31: 13 white, 5 yellow, 2 green, 7 blue, and 4 red. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.174.41|172.70.174.41]] 19:53, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Part of me thought the joke was that the lights were literally tracking the status of stars.
[[User:StapleFreeBatteries|StapleFreeBatteries]] ([[User talk:StapleFreeBatteries|talk]]) 20:45, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

1166: Argument

2025-03-22T05:48:42Z

StapleFreeBatteries:

{{comic
| number = 1166
| date = January 28, 2013
| title = Argument
| image = argument.png
| titletext = The misguided search for a perpetual motion machine has run substantially longer than any attempted perpetual motion machine.
}}

==Explanation==
[[File:PerpetualMotion.png|right|400px|thumb|It should be obvious how {{rw|Perpetual_motion#Energy_cycles|perpetual motion}} doesn't work.]]
A {{w|perpetual motion machine}} is a hypothetical device that is supposed to move infinitely with no external forces helping it, thus providing an unlimited source of energy. The existence of such an object would contradict the laws of thermodynamics, so perpetual motion machines are known to be impossible.

A conspiracy theory called {{rw|free_energy_suppression|free energy suppression}} asserts that it really is possible to get infinite energy and special interest groups have worked to hide it. In the comic, Randall says that he posted to a forum dedicated to the idea back in 2004, and the thread is still active — it kept on going forever, like the perpetual motion machine they desire (in contrast with real attempts to build such a machine, which all stop quite soon). Of course, the reason the thread continues is that its advocates continue to add energy to it, in the form of comments. "Hot air", if you will.

The {{w|second law of thermodynamics}} states that the {{w|entropy}} of an ''isolated'' system never decreases. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2knWCuzcdJo See this video about entropy]. Thus, even if you could build a perpetual motion machine, you wouldn't be able to use it to produce energy that could be consumed by another device.

The three supposed comments show humorous forms of {{rw|pseudoscience|scientific ignorance}}:

#The first comment is simply wrong; neither pole of a {{w|magnet}} reverses {{w|entropy}}.
#The second comment conflates the {{w|first law of thermodynamics}} (conservation of energy) with {{w|Isaac Asimov}}'s {{w|Three Laws of Robotics|First Law of robotics}} (robots may not injure humans). This is referenced again in [https://what-if.xkcd.com/145/ What If #145].
#The third comment invalidly conflates the notions of {{w|physical law}} and {{w|Law of the United States|US law}}, hoping for {{rw|pseudolaw|legal loopholes}} to make a {{w|flywheel}} spin forever. Perhaps Congress would repeal the law of gravity on one side.

Furthermore, the avatar being used by the second poster is that of a power strip plugged into itself, which is often jokingly thought of as a perpetual motion machine.

The title text refers to the fact that inventors have been trying to create perpetual motion machines, but have all failed to succeed. But given the fact that they all failed, each attempted perpetual motion machine stopped running at some point, while the search has never stopped.

==Transcript==
:[A page from a very long thread on "''FREE'' Energy ~Forum~."]
:'''Thread:''' You're all crackpots who don't understand thermodynamics.
:[A bar above the comments:] Page 547 of 547 <<First <Prev 1 2 3... 545 546 '''547'''
:Poster 1 [Default face icon]: No, idiot, only the ''north'' end of a magnet increases entropy. The south end decreases it.
:Poster 2 [Power strip plugged into itself icon]: I wiki'd this "First Law" and I don't see the issue. My device isn't a robot and doesn't harm humans.
:Poster 3 [Person with a large structure behind them icon]: What if we trick the government into only suppressing the ''left'' side of the flywheel?
:Ironically, the argument I started on a perpetual motion forum in 2004 shows no signs of slowing down.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Science]]

Talk:3059: Water Damage

2025-03-06T09:00:21Z

StapleFreeBatteries:

I suppose that there'd be no way to make a 'no fault' claim on your policy. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.248|141.101.98.248]] 18:22, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Will I have to buy a lithospheric humidifier if I live in a boat? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.190.58|172.71.190.58]] 18:54, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

So is this a series now? Should we make a tag? [[User:Mushrooms|Mushrooms]] ([[User talk:Mushrooms|talk]]) 18:56, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

: Probably so. Maxwell's Demon was made a category with only three examples, so I don't see why subduction can't also be a category with 1194, 1388, 1829, 2616, 3021, 3059, and almost 2987. [[User:StapleFreeBatteries|StapleFreeBatteries]] ([[User talk:StapleFreeBatteries|talk]]) 09:00, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

um guys, you might wanna check the new what if video [[User:CalibansCreations|'''Caliban''']] ([[User talk:CalibansCreations|talk]]) 19:04, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

What is going on with the templates? [[User:TomtheBuilder|TomtheBuilder]] ([[User talk:TomtheBuilder|talk]]) 19:28, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

He's on a real geology kick lately huh. Unfortunately zero of them are funny. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.238|162.158.154.238]] 19:32, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
:Are you kidding? He rocks! Igneously, sedimentarily ''and'' metamorphically! [[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.4|172.69.195.4]] 21:04, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
::Oh, you mean ingeniously, sentimentally, and metaphorically. Yes. [[User:DKMell|DKMell]] ([[User talk:DKMell|talk]]) 02:53, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Ponytail is likely wrong here. Water leads to partial melting of the mantle above the slab, not the crust itself. [[User:Rhesus|Rhesus]] ([[User talk:Rhesus|talk]]) 08:15, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Talk:3049: Incoming Asteroid

2025-02-12T23:27:13Z

StapleFreeBatteries:

Asteroids are surprisingly destructive even at small sizes - I remember reading somewhere that the Armageddon movie asteroid was supposed to be "the size of Arlington, Texas", but that it sounded too small so they changed it to "the size of Texas" which is a drastic size increase and also proportionally far more deadly. For scale, Arlington is 250 square km and Texas is 700 000 square km. The Chixulub asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs was between 10 and 15 km across. If it was a perfect circle, it would have an area of between 79 and 176 sq km. Arlington would be 18 km across, still within "species" range, and Texas would be 944 km across, clearly in "new moon" territory. But it _sounds_ much cooler! [[User:Zakator|Zakator]] ([[User talk:Zakator|talk]]) 22:32, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
:And that's for asteroids with normal speed (for asteroid, which is still kinda fast). The level of danger asteroid means is proportional to kinetic energy, meaning proportional to mass and SQUARE of speed, so if it's faster, it gets to extinction level even when small ... -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 23:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
:: "for asteroids with normal speed" - which is generally orbital velocity. If much faster, it would have left the solar system by now. If much slower, it has fallen into the Sun already. All objects (even Teslas) at a given distance soon have similar velocities. --[[User:PRR|PRR]] ([[User talk:PRR|talk]]) 00:04, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
::: It could be going at ''a'' speed (similar to Earth, give or take, for the sake of being on an Earth-incident orbit) and yet have such different effects. If basically following the Earth (or leading it), it'll be relatively gentle, at least before you start considering the Earth's (and the asteroid's, in the event it's significantly large) gravity well pulling it. Well, 'gentle' in comparison to one doing the 'same speed' but in the anti-orbit, for a full head-on impact. Course, that's why we need to think of velocities, and in particular the relative ones. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.241.37|172.71.241.37]] 01:31, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
:::Considering just two-body physics... Escape speed for the Sun at the distance of Earth's orbit is 42 km/s, so that's the upper limit anything is likely to be going (otherwise it's just got one shot at us). That would be something falling towards the Sun from a very large distance. If the asteroid is moving in the opposite direction as Earth, that gets added to Earth's orbital speed of 30 km/s, for a total of 72 km/s. On the other hand, Earth has an escape speed of 11 km/s at the surface, so that's the lower bound for an impact. A 6.5x factor on speed is about a 40x factor on impact energy. Which, I'm not sure exactly how that would scale devastation, but ... I'll take the low end for anything big, thanks. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.111.22|172.70.111.22]] 14:18, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
::::The upper limit is actually someting in the range of 500-600 km/s - for an interstellar object... That'd be an astronomically huge bad luck! Or should we consider an intergalactic rogue planet... -- [[User:Malgond|Malgond]] ([[User talk:Malgond|talk]]) 23:28, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
::::: ''ORRRR...'' we could go for getting crushed between ''two'' rogue planets moving at relativistic speeds in opposite directions! :-) [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 01:33, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

The 1m danger makes me think of the meteor impact that was caught on a home security camera last July in Prince Edward Island. But the Sky & Telescope article https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-news/hear-the-first-ever-recording-of-a-meteorite-slamming-into-the-ground/ says that it would have been only a 6-7 cm across. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 00:42, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

The sizes in the explanation are out of sync with the image. Has Randall updated it, or may it be location dependent? ~~Guest~~ 07:12, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
:I saw the comic before any explanation was put up and it was the same as it is now, all exactly powers of 10. But the labels aren't exactly at those spots, so people are probably estimating the exact point where the labels are at, though my interpretation would be that Randall meant for the labels to be attached to ranges rather than points. [[User:Tharkon|Tharkon]] ([[User talk:Tharkon|talk]]) 11:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
::Same here, all powers of 10. I don't think it makes any sense at all to guess at where on the axis the labels are meant to be when the labels themselves give an explicit number. The labels should probably be the ranges, eg "1cm to 10cm", "10cm to 1m" and so on.[[User:Mazz0|Mazz0]] ([[User talk:Mazz0|talk]]) 14:00, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
:::There are small markers between the labeled spots, so it's not unreasonable to estimate which marker the ellipsis points to. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 14:41, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

"Good news everyone! We were supposed to make a delivery to the planet Tweenis 12 but it's been completely destroyed!" [[Special:Contributions/162.158.94.203|162.158.94.203]] 11:24, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

It's not the first comic comparing our reaction to different scales of cosmic events, even though the asteroid "happiness level" does not peak like the supernova chart: https://xkcd.com/2878/ {{unsigned ip|172.69.195.172|21:14, 11 February 2025}}
:Indeed. This one peaks ''twice'', if taken at face value. ;) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.241.145|172.71.241.145]] 21:32, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I'd noted that technically, when it comes to "asteroid collides with Earth" vs. "Earth collides with asteroid", neither is correct. In a centre-of-mass reference frame, the two objects collide. This was removed as "pedantry", but it seems appropriate to me. Thoughts? [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 01:29, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
:I would say if a smaller asteroid hit Earth then yes it collides with Earth. If two similar planet sized object hit each other, then I would say they collided with each other, and if Earth hit Jupiter I would say Earth collided with Jupiter. This may not be physically correct, but it is how language and meaning works. So I would say it was correctly removed. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 11:44, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

:: Yet the logic is reversed when talking about vehicles on Earth. You would say "the car collided with the bicycle" and "the train collided with the car" (or the car got hit ''by'' the train). "{Bigger object} collided with {smaller object}" in this case. --[[User:StapleFreeBatteries|StapleFreeBatteries]] ([[User talk:StapleFreeBatteries|talk]]) 23:26, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Talk:3049: Incoming Asteroid

2025-02-12T23:26:39Z

StapleFreeBatteries:

Asteroids are surprisingly destructive even at small sizes - I remember reading somewhere that the Armageddon movie asteroid was supposed to be "the size of Arlington, Texas", but that it sounded too small so they changed it to "the size of Texas" which is a drastic size increase and also proportionally far more deadly. For scale, Arlington is 250 square km and Texas is 700 000 square km. The Chixulub asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs was between 10 and 15 km across. If it was a perfect circle, it would have an area of between 79 and 176 sq km. Arlington would be 18 km across, still within "species" range, and Texas would be 944 km across, clearly in "new moon" territory. But it _sounds_ much cooler! [[User:Zakator|Zakator]] ([[User talk:Zakator|talk]]) 22:32, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
:And that's for asteroids with normal speed (for asteroid, which is still kinda fast). The level of danger asteroid means is proportional to kinetic energy, meaning proportional to mass and SQUARE of speed, so if it's faster, it gets to extinction level even when small ... -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 23:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
:: "for asteroids with normal speed" - which is generally orbital velocity. If much faster, it would have left the solar system by now. If much slower, it has fallen into the Sun already. All objects (even Teslas) at a given distance soon have similar velocities. --[[User:PRR|PRR]] ([[User talk:PRR|talk]]) 00:04, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
::: It could be going at ''a'' speed (similar to Earth, give or take, for the sake of being on an Earth-incident orbit) and yet have such different effects. If basically following the Earth (or leading it), it'll be relatively gentle, at least before you start considering the Earth's (and the asteroid's, in the event it's significantly large) gravity well pulling it. Well, 'gentle' in comparison to one doing the 'same speed' but in the anti-orbit, for a full head-on impact. Course, that's why we need to think of velocities, and in particular the relative ones. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.241.37|172.71.241.37]] 01:31, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
:::Considering just two-body physics... Escape speed for the Sun at the distance of Earth's orbit is 42 km/s, so that's the upper limit anything is likely to be going (otherwise it's just got one shot at us). That would be something falling towards the Sun from a very large distance. If the asteroid is moving in the opposite direction as Earth, that gets added to Earth's orbital speed of 30 km/s, for a total of 72 km/s. On the other hand, Earth has an escape speed of 11 km/s at the surface, so that's the lower bound for an impact. A 6.5x factor on speed is about a 40x factor on impact energy. Which, I'm not sure exactly how that would scale devastation, but ... I'll take the low end for anything big, thanks. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.111.22|172.70.111.22]] 14:18, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
::::The upper limit is actually someting in the range of 500-600 km/s - for an interstellar object... That'd be an astronomically huge bad luck! Or should we consider an intergalactic rogue planet... -- [[User:Malgond|Malgond]] ([[User talk:Malgond|talk]]) 23:28, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
::::: ''ORRRR...'' we could go for getting crushed between ''two'' rogue planets moving at relativistic speeds in opposite directions! :-) [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 01:33, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

The 1m danger makes me think of the meteor impact that was caught on a home security camera last July in Prince Edward Island. But the Sky & Telescope article https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-news/hear-the-first-ever-recording-of-a-meteorite-slamming-into-the-ground/ says that it would have been only a 6-7 cm across. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 00:42, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

The sizes in the explanation are out of sync with the image. Has Randall updated it, or may it be location dependent? ~~Guest~~ 07:12, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
:I saw the comic before any explanation was put up and it was the same as it is now, all exactly powers of 10. But the labels aren't exactly at those spots, so people are probably estimating the exact point where the labels are at, though my interpretation would be that Randall meant for the labels to be attached to ranges rather than points. [[User:Tharkon|Tharkon]] ([[User talk:Tharkon|talk]]) 11:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
::Same here, all powers of 10. I don't think it makes any sense at all to guess at where on the axis the labels are meant to be when the labels themselves give an explicit number. The labels should probably be the ranges, eg "1cm to 10cm", "10cm to 1m" and so on.[[User:Mazz0|Mazz0]] ([[User talk:Mazz0|talk]]) 14:00, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
:::There are small markers between the labeled spots, so it's not unreasonable to estimate which marker the ellipsis points to. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 14:41, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

"Good news everyone! We were supposed to make a delivery to the planet Tweenis 12 but it's been completely destroyed!" [[Special:Contributions/162.158.94.203|162.158.94.203]] 11:24, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

It's not the first comic comparing our reaction to different scales of cosmic events, even though the asteroid "happiness level" does not peak like the supernova chart: https://xkcd.com/2878/ {{unsigned ip|172.69.195.172|21:14, 11 February 2025}}
:Indeed. This one peaks ''twice'', if taken at face value. ;) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.241.145|172.71.241.145]] 21:32, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I'd noted that technically, when it comes to "asteroid collides with Earth" vs. "Earth collides with asteroid", neither is correct. In a centre-of-mass reference frame, the two objects collide. This was removed as "pedantry", but it seems appropriate to me. Thoughts? [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 01:29, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
:I would say if a smaller asteroid hit Earth then yes it collides with Earth. If two similar planet sized object hit each other, then I would say they collided with each other, and if Earth hit Jupiter I would say Earth collided with Jupiter. This may not be physically correct, but it is how language and meaning works. So I would say it was correctly removed. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 11:44, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

:: Yet the logic is reversed when talking about vehicles on Earth. You would say "the car collided with the bicycle" and "the train collided with the car" (or the car got hit ''by'' the train). "{Bigger object} collided with {smaller object}" in this case.

[[User:StapleFreeBatteries|StapleFreeBatteries]] ([[User talk:StapleFreeBatteries|talk]]) 23:26, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Talk:3049: Incoming Asteroid

2025-02-12T23:26:05Z

StapleFreeBatteries:

Talk:3006: Demons

2025-01-13T06:10:33Z

StapleFreeBatteries:

Instead of an iron pitchfork, he probably uses a silver hammer! [[Special:Contributions/172.71.26.54|172.71.26.54]] 16:34, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

🤓☝ moment [[User:CalibansCreations|'''Caliban''']] ([[User talk:CalibansCreations|talk]])
20:03, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
:Why are his hands backwards??? What did you do to him?! [[User:Psychoticpotato|P?sych??otic?pot??at???o ]] ([[User talk:Psychoticpotato|talk]]) 21:36, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Note that while boiling souls in oil or casting them into flame pit is traditional, multiple authors already made the observation that it's not really that effective and that modern devils would likely go for psychological torture instead. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 01:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
:That's what I thought... it's a beautiful meta-comment that the comic makes this transition to modern torture coincide with the transition to modern physics, as it is embodied by Maxwell, who explained "large-scale effects" and "distant effects" microscopically resp. infinitesimally. [[User:Transgalactic|Transgalactic]] ([[User talk:Transgalactic|talk]]) 03:06, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
:As discussed in Pratchett's {{w|Eric (novel)|<s>Faust</s> Eric}}, both damned ''and'' demons might actually prefer traditional physical punishment to a more tedious psychological regime. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.36|172.70.162.36]] 03:28, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

The evolution of life (entropy-reversing agents) disproves the second law of thermodynamics, which is rooted in short-term statistics of large systems rather than systems where the duration of time greatly exceeds the number of particles. Maxwell’s Demon could be seen as a simplification of this —- that taking action to counter probability does indeed do so, and is indeed probable eventually. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.3.96|172.68.3.96]] 14:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
:Note that life doesn't disprove 2LD at all. The law applies to the whole interacting thermodynamic system, not just the a subset of the system. Life-altered entropy is entirely possible at the 'expense' of a wider rebalancing within 'whole' system. The Earth's biosphere is (mostly) 'fed' by (some of) the heat of the Sun, which in turn is provided by the gradual (but greater) entropy-obeying transition of the star into its various future forms. Life just hitches a ride on this. (It's an interesting question where the 'spare' entropy-change would go if the life wasn't here, actually, except that 2LD doesn't force a given magnitude of change, merely that it not be as if time-reversed.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.58.5|172.70.58.5]] 16:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, not necessarily a bad torture method depending on how it was implemented. You start out with people not knowing anything, and wandering around, but then they gradually flow through the door. Meanwhile, on the other side of the door, it slowly becomes more and more crowded as people drift into a limited space. As time goes on it only gets worse as more and more people enter the room and it becomes denser and denser. Eventually, you have everyone is crushed together in what is then basically a box stuffed to the brim with bodies, and even then they know it will only get worse and that had they only stayed outside they would have been fine. Combine this with a large enough group of people and an eternity of time, and it probably would work pretty well. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.22.191|172.68.22.191]] 05:27, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
: It doesn't even need to ever get crowded in the second room. It could be two identical rooms per soul. Just spending eternity in one room, knowing that the only choice you will ever have ''for the rest of eternity'' is to go through that door, and then you will never be able to leave that room or make another decision again. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.198|172.70.90.198]] 19:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
: Let's compute the human equivalent temperature...T=mv^2/2/k...something around 10^23 K. Hot as hell :-) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.109.3|172.69.109.3]] 09:35, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I wonder how they'd get along with daemons from computing. [[User:N-eh|N-eh]] ([[User talk:N-eh|talk]]) 20:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

"All of the other demons used to laugh and call him names. They never let poor Maxwell's demon join in any demon games. Then one hot night in Hell, Satan came to say: "Maxwell's demon with your love of violating entropy, won't you cool down hell tonight?" Then all the demons loved him, as they shouted out with glee: "Maxwell the entropy demon, you'll go down in history!" [[Special:Contributions/172.68.55.11|172.68.55.11]] 19:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
:Oh, that is '''wonderful'''. Truly a work of art. '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 19:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
:: nice new signature! + the phrase "[https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiw2M-Y4MSJAxWIUKQEHZ2YF2sQwqsBegQIDRAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DGutK6q2lgMU&usg=AOvVaw1OkrfCuZiqckImXY2uSC-p&opi=89978449 truly a work of art]" forever haunts me [[User:CalibansCreations|'''Caliban''']] ([[User talk:CalibansCreations|talk]]) 08:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

It's worth noting that despite being strongly associated with Christianity in popular culture, the stereotypical portrayal of demons as pitchfork-wielding fiends who "punish evil humans after death" isn't Christian. In Christianity, demons only encourage evil in the living (''a la'' the "demon on the shoulder" archetype and ''The Exorcist''-style possessions.) The "punish evil humans after death" superstition is a holdover from pre-Christian paganism. [[User:The-Daleks|The Daleks]] ([[User talk:The-Daleks|talk]]) 00:11, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

==New category: Infernal Strips==
What do you think about a new Infernal category for strips with demons or in hell? There are quite a few. [[501]], [[533]]... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.47.10|172.70.47.10]] 17:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
:I agree. [[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]] ([[User talk:42.book.addict|talk]]) 18:04, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
:: I just tagged a half-dozen strips, but a site admin will have to create the category page itself. It turns out there was some overlap with a "Religion" category, whodathunkit. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.46.243|172.70.46.243]] 19:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
:::They were tagged inconsistently (at least two different forms of the category). And as they were all redlinked I undid them all anyway.
:::The proper process is more like:
:::# Say something like ''Hey, I think we need a "Category:<Foo>"'',
:::#* To justify it, identify a handful of comics (or all of them, if you're being thorough). Unless perhaps the comic is called "SOMETHING SOMETHING NUMBER 1" and it very much looks like it's going to be the start of a series, although still might be best to wait for "SOMETHING SOMETHING NUMBER 2".
:::# Get comments (e.g. ''Yes, a good general idea, but it should probably be "Category:<Bar>" to be consistent/accurate/properly-inclusive/etc'') and additions (''Yeah, and comic in #1234 would fit too!'')
:::# When someone who can (e.g. 42, there) decides it's been successfully argued to an agreement (YMMV), they use the final list (and the agreed upon name) to create the category and at least start the process of adding the category memberships.
:::To be honest, though I agree about the relevence of the created [[:Category:Rockets]], as just done, I also think that one was done far too quickly. I'd at least wait a few days after the last "Good idea!", just in case someone who checks in regularly but not frequently (e.g. once a week) has any wise words to add. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.49|162.158.74.49]] 22:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
:I agree it would be nice with a list of possible comics, and maybe a better title. Is it to do with demons of hell. Could religion be used, just added that here as the other demons are typical Christian like demons. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 10:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
:Names for this category: Category:Demons, Category:Infernal, Category:Hell. Did I miss any? [[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]] ([[User talk:42.book.addict|talk]]) 18:11, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Me again. Sorry about the IP address. Thanks for the suggestions. Does this wiki maybe have a page where we could discuss projects, or do we have to do all of the discussions in various strip entries? I'd love to have a page about Thought Experiments where we could list the various strips and all of the relevant experiments. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.46.178|172.70.46.178]] 23:08, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
:Yes, there is [[explain xkcd:Community_portal/Proposals]]. Should I move this conversation there? [[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]] ([[User talk:42.book.addict|talk]]) 23:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
:Update: I have added Category:Demons. If y’all want a name change, I can move the page once enough support has been shown. [[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]] ([[User talk:42.book.addict|talk]]) 17:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Me again. Awesome, thanks! I'm looking through a few of the other category suggestions, It looks like there is also a proposal for a "ghost" sub-category. I guess infernal/demons, celestial/angels, ghosts, and religion could all be subcategories of "supernatural". Are there any other supernatural entities we could include? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.126.94|172.71.126.94]] 14:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

==New category: Classical Thought Experiments==
While I'm at it, I'd also suggest a new category for Classical Thought Experiments, everything from Maxwell's Demon to Schroedinger's Cat to the Trolley Problem. Readers may be familiar with some, but not all of the classical references, and it would be nice to have them all accessible from the same page. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.46.243|172.70.46.243]] 19:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
:I can see something like this being useful. Not ''entirely'' sure of the name, but maybe, and I'm not sure what a better one would be. (To start off the discussion, as described above.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.58.21|172.70.58.21]] 22:17, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
:Second that, for whatever it's worth [[User:Yamaplos|Yamaplos]] ([[User talk:Yamaplos|talk]]) 00:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
:Third. [[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]] ([[User talk:42.book.addict|talk]]) 01:51, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
:Fourthed [[Special:Contributions/172.69.71.71|172.69.71.71]] 13:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
:come on baby, thought experiments category [[User:CalibansCreations|'''Caliban''']] ([[User talk:CalibansCreations|talk]]) 08:57, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

There's some [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_(thought_experiment) other demons] made famous by thought experiments. I wonder how Maxwell's Demon would get along with the Evil Demon that tricks people into thinking they're 17th century philosophers. And I'm sure Laplace's Demon already knows how they'd get along. [[User:DanielLC|DanielLC]] ([[User talk:DanielLC|talk]]) 23:36, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
: Ah bother, ninjaed. Laplaces Demon was the first that came to my mind after reading the strip. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.160.115|172.71.160.115]]+
These demons are the nerds of hell [[Special:Contributions/172.69.71.71|172.69.71.71]] 13:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Could this also be a reference to ''No Exit'' by Jean Paul-Sartre?
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.167.191|162.158.167.191]] 22:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:No, I don’t think so. The play {{w|No Exit#Plot|appears}} to be about 3 ''damned'' souls, not 3 demons who are preparing to torture damned souls. '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 22:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)|

:: You misunderstand. A plot point in that play is that the souls enter a room through a door and are not allowed to go through the same door in the opposite direction. It's about psychological torture, just like Hkmaly was describing. [[User:StapleFreeBatteries|StapleFreeBatteries]] ([[User talk:StapleFreeBatteries|talk]]) 06:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:2733: Size Comparisons

2025-01-09T15:56:21Z

StapleFreeBatteries:

But Texas isn't even the largest US State. It's the ''second'' largest state, behind Alaska. Mind you, if you took Alaska and divided it into two then Texas would no longer be in second place... It would now be third! [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.203|172.71.242.203]] 02:11, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
:LOL, poor Texans. I'm from Australia. We only have 6 states, and 4 of them are bigger than Texas. So Texas would be in the smallest 50% of states if it was part of Australia [[User:Boatster|Boatster]] ([[User talk:Boatster|talk]]) 14:01, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I started an explanation. My first, so I hope it's OK. Notice how I resisted [Citation needed]. [[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 03:20, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

:... and ninjaed. [[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 03:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Fixed the beginning, now it says Texas is the second-largest state. [[User:WhatDoWeDoNow|WhatDoWeDoNow]] ([[User talk:WhatDoWeDoNow|talk]]) 03:29, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
:Alaska isn't usually considered part of the "contiguous US", so Texas is indeed first there. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 03:39, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
::Whoops, didn't see that. Sorry! [[User:WhatDoWeDoNow|WhatDoWeDoNow]] ([[User talk:WhatDoWeDoNow|talk]]) 19:09, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
::[[2082:_Mercator_Projection]]: If you drive north from the Pacific northwest you actually cross directly into Alaska [[Special:Contributions/172.70.214.204|172.70.214.204]] 20:46, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Note that if you scale Rhode Island up to the size of the Solar System, the ants would be even larger. [[User:Jordan Brown|Jordan Brown]] ([[User talk:Jordan Brown|talk]]) 06:46, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Trivia: In Germany we like to compare big things to the size of the Saarland, the smallest federal state that is not a city state. But since it is also the state with the least people living in it almost noone really knows how big the Saarland really is (and of the rest noone really cares to find out). This reminds me a lot of this Texas vs. Alaska discussion and I wonder if every country has something like this...? --[[Special:Contributions/172.71.160.39|172.71.160.39]] 07:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
:In the UK, at a certain range of scale our general comparison standard is (half/three times /etc) "the size of Wales". e.g. the quantity of rainforest that is doomed, at any particular time. There ''are'' a lot of people there (often, according to the Welsh themselves, too many English incomers) and it is usefully easy to identify (I think of it as the "head of the pig that the gnome is riding", but that might just be me), given its prominant appearance in the outline of Great Britain itself. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/3715512.stm Usually!] [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.81|172.70.85.81]] 08:51, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
::In Australia we seem compelled to use Sydney Harbour as the unit of measurement for any large amount of water[[User:Boatster|Boatster]] ([[User talk:Boatster|talk]]) 13:57, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
:::And when we don't compare to the size of states, we usually use sports fields. "football fields" is a frequent unit of measurement in the media. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 15:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
::::Oh, yes, football fields (association football, aka. soccer) are popular here, too, but less controversial as they are always roughly 100 by 50 meters in size. --[[Special:Contributions/172.71.160.37|172.71.160.37]] 05:46, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
:::::I just started a similar conversation, where we started discussing comparing the size of something with the size of an Olympic Swimming Pool, which is 25x50 meters, but never spoken like that in the US, because, metric. :) The volume can vary, since it might be somewhere between 2 and 3 meters deep, but is also often used for a tangible volume of things. [[User:RandalSchwartz|RandalSchwartz]] ([[User talk:RandalSchwartz|talk]]) 22:40, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
:: Although I suspect a good number of people don't really have a firm grasp of the size of Wales - I think there's often a tendency to picture it as everything west of a straight line running from somewhere around the Mersey down to around Gloucester, thus making it about 1/4 - 1/3 bigger by lumping in chunks of Cheshire, Shropshire, and Gloucestershire, and most of Herefordshire.[[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.191|172.71.242.191]] 10:37, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
::: Bear in mind that much more of Britain was 'Welsh' before the Saxons barged in, so you could cut them some slack. The faithful following of the current subnational boundary is one option, but you could imagine many other abstractions that don't vastly change things. I'm sure some people would Offa a completely different line for your consideration... [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.144|141.101.98.144]] 17:52, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Notably, the larger the state you scale up the smaller the ants will be, as you would have to scale it by a smaller factor. The comparison would be more accurate if it read: "Texas is so big that if you expanded it to the size of the Solar System, the ants there would "only* be as big as Rhode Island."
[[User:Svízel přítula|Svízel přítula]] ([[User talk:Svízel přítula|talk]]) 10:31, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
:Wait, Jordan Brown already said that. [[User:Svízel přítula|Svízel přítula]] ([[User talk:Svízel přítula|talk]]) 10:32, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I just barely resisted changing the "Dallas" wikipedia link to point to the page for the TV show. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 15:11, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

A note that, in an edit I just made, amongst other things I went through and (hopefully) clarified the style of the area measurements. (Though only assuming that they were numerically correct... Didn't check!) If you say "''N'' kilometres squared", this can be so easily taken/meant as "(''N'' km)²", rather than "''N'' square kilometres", which is "''N'' (km²)". Both areas, but different. Just like the volume described as "10 centimetres cubed" would also be "1000 cubic centimetres". (In both cases being 1 litre).
 The easy confusion coming from the "km²" unit which you will read straight as "kilometres squared". And a single one is a "kilometre squared", before being given a number as some multiple of "kilometre squared"s, but that generally aint the same as a "multiple of kilometres" squared. So it is instead best to word it (if you do that at all) as "(a multiple of) square kilometres".
 ((Next up, I shall probably go on to explain the technical difference between "degrees Kelvin", °K (or alternately as required for the scales Centigrade, Fahrenheit, Rankine, Delisle, whatever), and "Kelvin degrees", K°... ;) ))
 Oh and, don't worry. Though I used the international version of "litre", etc, above, I tried to make sure I use the American-type spelling in the article itself, despite all my British instincts and natural preference... Just that here I couldn't.conscuously stand to write it 'wrongly' in my own far more personalised bit of prose. :P [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.31|172.70.86.31]] 17:06, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
:Trolling, right? Degrees Kelvin isn't a thing. [[User:Jkshapiro|Jkshapiro]] ([[User talk:Jkshapiro|talk]]) 02:05, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
::It was before 1967. (And I never personally understood why the change, when you still have degrees of every other temperature measure, including the similarly origined Rankine. Plus others like Réaumur, Rømer, Newton and Wedgwood which you'd expect would cause all types of confusion.) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.19|141.101.98.19]] 05:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

If Texas were expanded to the size of the solar system, the size of an ant would not change. The size of objects is not affected by changes in scale of the surrounding environment. An ant would still be the same size relative to Texas as it would be relative to the solar system.[[user:chatgpt|chatgpt]]
:It is clearly assumed in the comic that the ants of Texas would be scaled proportionally to Texas. So where these scaled ants would gave the same relative size to the scaled Texas, they would now be as large as Rhode Island compared to the not scaled Texas! --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 13:47, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Hey, couldn't the joke also be that ant sizes don't really change around states, and so it would be a bad comparison because it doesn't tell you about the size of Texas at all? ||10:33, February 4 2023 (PST)
:No. If you scaled any other state of the contiguous US up to the size of the solar system, the ants would be even bigger since the other states are smaller than Texas and thus the scaling factor would be larger --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 13:47, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

: Texas is 733 miles across. The solar system is 3.88 billion miles across. A black ant is about 1/3 cm long. This means an ant scammed up by the same factor would be a little less than half the size of Rhode Island. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.254.135|172.71.254.135]] 17:25, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
:Neptune's orbital radius is a tad under 3 billion miles, meaning the diameter of it, alone, is 6ish billion miles in size (then add Kuiper, to taste, before even considering the Oort cloud). Even on your figures, though, there are many sizes of ant, including ones roughly twice the size of your example. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.121|141.101.99.121]] 18:32, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

The first paragraph explains how Cueball uses a size comparison to fail to show the size of Texas, and how if the subjects were inverted it would actually make sense. The second paragraph explains (again but badly this time) that Cueball is...''using a size comparison to fail to show the size of Texas''. The last paragraph of the article says that if the comparison were inverted it would actually make sense...which was already covered in the first paragraph. --[[User:Raviolio|Raviolio]] ([[User talk:Raviolio|talk]]) 16:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Reminds me of this fact: "There are more atoms in a single molecule of water than there are stars in the entire solar system"
[[User:StapleFreeBatteries|StapleFreeBatteries]] ([[User talk:StapleFreeBatteries|talk]]) 15:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:2734: Electron Color

2025-01-04T08:11:11Z

StapleFreeBatteries:

Electrons have no color?! BUt lIgHTnIng strIKeS aRe YEllOw, aND LigHTNing IS MaDe uP of eLECTrOns.[[Special:Contributions/172.71.254.115|172.71.254.115]] 22:43, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
: Actually most colors are emitted by electrons orbiting atoms after absorbing light. The color electrons emit depend on their kinetic energy and available places they can travel, a tiny bit similar to how things change color as they get hotter, but more extreme and general. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.198|172.70.114.198]]
: I'm pretty sure lighting strikes are white. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 20:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

It may refer to the Greek etymology of the word "electron". Originally it meant amber, a yellow gem. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.118.146|172.68.118.146]] 23:20, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
:But amber isn't yellow - it's... amber. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.222|172.70.85.222]] 10:40, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I can't do formatting, I'm new. Sorry! {{unsigned|No Idea If There's A Character Limit LMAO}}

To me, this is 1000% building on the idea of debating the colors of school subjects. I've added a bit of explanation to the text about it. I used my own color associations & reasons (science = green, history = red) as an example, and I'm sure people will disagree with me. Leave your color/subject associations in a reply to this comment, could be a fun little debate! (also, English = blue)
[[User:Zman350x|Zman350x]] ([[User talk:Zman350x|talk]]) 23:50, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
: SocStud is yellow, Math is red, Science is green?, ELA is gray, French is blue, and orange is my least favorite subject out of the rest. I have gotten into many arguments with my friends.
:[[Special:Contributions/172.70.230.157|172.70.230.157]] 00:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
:: Science = Green (green flask bubbling)
:: Social Studies = Blue (blue and green globe, green is taking)
:: Math = Red (math is reliable, red is a strong color so i associate it with reliability)

:: English = Yellow (all other colors are taken)
:: Also electrons are blue
::[[User:Iffy|Iffy]] ([[User talk:Iffy|talk]]) 23:53, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
:::Science is Green, Math is Red, S.S. is Orange, and ELA is Yellow[[User:Apollo11|Apollo11]] ([[User talk:Apollo11|talk]]) 16:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
::: Hm! I've never heard of school subjects having any assigned colors; much less any debate about it! If we're identifying them by the folders they're kept in, my favorite subject was Ferrari & my least favorite was Porsche.
::: [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 04:41, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
:::: I don't recall colour-coded (UK) schoolbooks, in particular (except the "red pirate, green pirate, blue pirate, etc" stories for young kids, the red pirate like only rubies, the green one emeralds, the blue probably sapphires, and had clothing/etc that matched, naturally), but I had (have still, somewhere!) a collection of Usborne Encyclopaedias at home with a veritable rainbow of colours. Mathematics was yellow, I think, Computers a shade of blue, one of the Red or off-Red (slightly pinker, but still deep red) might have been Physics (had geophysics in it, IIRC), I think History was a light-green. I'm sure I never had the whole set, but I had enough to arrange in as close to Richard Of York order as I felt most content to do, when on the bookshelf.
::::: ''Insert: moot now, but I dug them up. Pinky-Red: Science; Red: Universe; Orange: Prehistoric Life; Yellow(-verging on amber, but faded): History; Yellow(-unfaded): Mathematics; Light-Green: Geography; Green-Blue: Nature; Dark-Blue: Computers And Electronics. Not all have publication dates in them, but (e.g.) the latter is 1983. So you can imagine how up-to-date the contents are not... ;) '' [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.17|172.70.91.17]] 16:15, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
:::: Obviously there ''were'' colours involved with the school stuff. I'm sure different levels of SPMG (Scottish Primary Maths Group?) workbooks were colour-coded, perhaps more for the benefit of the teacher, though the later {{w|School Mathematics Project|SMP}} ones were probably more just identified as "13a", "5b", etc, to work through various sub-subjects and the increasingly advanced techniques thereof, perhaps coloured with highlights only to not be boring black-on-white monochrome covers.
:::: And there's so many other colour-classifications that I instituted for myself, over the years, showing just how useful a hue can be to represent and differentiate a class of something, such as various 3M-style "post-it"-like arrow stickers stuck into the pages of a book for quick reference to all instances of one particular thing or another. For which I suppose I'm grateful to not having any notable form of colour-blindness, to limit my options. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.114|172.70.91.114]] 08:20, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
:::: Personally, I've always thought that English is red, Math is blue, Sciences are green, History is yellow, and "personal events" are orange.
::::::This is completely BS. This is about the diagrams used for drawing atoms where colors are used for different elementary particles. And Randall clearly explains that they do not have real color. And the jokes that people still have feelings for what colors are chosen based on the conventions used where people first learned about atoms. Have removed the color on subjects completely as it has nothing to do with this comic. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 09:43, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
::::::PS you cannot be more than 100% on anything :-D --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 09:46, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I believe this comic was made in response to a book talk Randall did in Seattle, where this question was actually asked to him in person! If you want to hear it yourself, someone recorded the talk here: https://www.reddit.com/r/xkcd/comments/xjuc4i/a_recording_and_autotranscript_of_randalls_latest/
[[Special:Contributions/172.71.142.6|172.71.142.6]] 00:45, 7 February 2023 (UTC) A random new user
: Was it the dorky randall with red hair or the photogenic one with brown hair and blue eyes or am I going wildly mad? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.198|172.70.114.198]] 00:51, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Am I crazy, I always thought of electrons as blue to contrast with the protons which are red[[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.89|172.70.211.89]] 04:47, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
:You're all crazy! Elections are 2817.9am & protons are 1.5am. "Yellow" is over 557,000,000,000am! Maybe you've all got your displays' color gamut set too low? ;S
:[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 09:18, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
::I have also seen protons as red and neutons as white and electron as blue in the diagrams I remember. Never yellow electrons. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 09:43, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
:::I'm not entirely sure about proton and electrons, but neutrons were black. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 20:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

"This comic appears to "elevate" that discussion to the college level." - considering that the students are considerably smaller than the teacher (notice the heads), I seriously doubt this is meant to be set in a college classroom - high school at most, IMHO. Also, "One common debate among schoolchildren is over the "color" of various subjects. Because of the brightly colored folders commonly used to separate subjects in the binder of a young student, the students tend to associate those colors with the subject." - well, not in any school I ever attended, nor with any school class I've ever worked with. I'd be inclined to dispute that this is at all common. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.46.85|172.70.46.85]]
: I agree that this is probably not supposed to be college-level, but the color-subject coordination is definitely real (albeit not a very common topic of debate). [[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.38|162.158.90.38]] 08:01, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
::I find it hard to believe Randall is referencing colors of school subjects without alluding to them in any way; to the contrary, I feel fairly certain he's directly referencing the various colors assigned to electrons, protons, quarks, etc, in diagrammatic illustrations of atomic structure. I think the whole first paragraph is way off base (though interesting tangentially).
::[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 09:18, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
:::I agree with all above here and have corrected the explanation to school class and pupils and diagram colors removing school subject color completely! --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 09:43, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
::::Was it also worth removing the synesthesia bit? Entirely unrelated to school-subject organisation-by-colour that I also think was an {{w|Red herring|incarnadine ''clupea harengus''}}, but very possibly relevent to "but I happen think it's obvious that <concept> is a <hue> thing!"... For consideration, or as a side-note, whether or not you restore that possible reference. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.203|172.71.242.203]] 10:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Electrons are blue, right? In all my textbooks (Germany) electrons are blue. Is this a generally accepted addition? [[Special:Contributions/198.41.242.166|198.41.242.166]] 07:13, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
: I stopped the explanation saying that electrons were (by implication, ''solely'') yellow. If green is used for a nucleon (neutron? red being proton?), they might choose blue for an electron, as contrast. Or black dot or white (black-outlined) small circle to contrast with whatever the nucleons are with their much bigger circles clumped in the middle.
: But, given other regular colour-conventions, I could imagine yellow as a popular 'electron' colour. Either in its own right (influencing the choices given to the other things depicted) or as the main obviously remaining option (the other things having been decided upon first). Horses for courses. And I can imagine cultural/national differences (e.g. what colours your household wiring was set up as, at least before EU standardisation but then red and black still exists in the mindset, despite blue and brown, or whatever it might have been) if not localised 'linguistic puns' to make some choices more 'obvious' than others. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.114|172.70.91.114]] 08:20, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
::Indeed, yellow is sometimes indicative of electrical hazard, as opposed to red for flame... So many ways to draw associations!
::[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 09:18, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
:::Yes blue electrons, red protons and white neutrons are probably common on Europe, it is in Denmark. I'm a physicist and word with radioactive isotopes and teach about them. My drawings are red protons and white neutrons and blue electrons. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 09:43, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I don’t know what Ms. Lenhart is talking about. Electrons are blue, protons are red, and neutrons are definitely grey. Not sure how to sign my comment tho. Oh well {{unsigned ip|172.70.174.115|13:00, 7 February 2023}}
:(You sign your comments with a string of <code><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code> (as suggested by the comment at the top of many a comic-discussion page, when you start to edit it)... or you wait for someone else to do what I just did for you, but that's more effort than the four tildes on your part.)
:For what it's worth, I'm mostly with you. Red and grey/dark-grey/black in the centre, as you say. Light blue (or yer actual electric blue?) or (bluish?) white electrons. Depends what colour-pallettes are available to the illustrator/modeller, I imagine, and what else needs a distinct colour alongside the basic trio (e.g. yellow fission/fusion "sparky-flame energy things" or general labelling stuff). [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.246|162.158.158.246]] 13:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
::I did some data collection on image searches for atom diagrams, and yes, the defacto color standard is protons red, neutrons grey (less commonly yellow or green), and electrons blue.
::I like this because it gives opposing colors to the opposing positive and negative charges, (the same color choices as the traditional magnet north and south ends, likely not coincidentally,) and a neutral color to the uncharged neutron.
::Which makes me think that when Lenhart says "electrons are yellow" she does not mean in the diagram sense, but rather in the sense "if you make an electron big enough to see, it is yellow".
::[[User:SomeDee|SomeDee]] ([[User talk:SomeDee|talk]]) 16:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
:electrons are green. y'all are trippin [[Special:Contributions/172.71.154.159|172.71.154.159]] 17:27, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
::definitely green. Have none of you ever used a transmission electron microscope? Or an oscilloscope? Green shine everywhere! [[Special:Contributions/162.158.95.22|162.158.95.22]] 09:01, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I made a survey for this: https://forms.gle/Pu5mkEtBZPUZ6dbb8
[[User:RamenChef|RamenChef]] ([[User talk:RamenChef|talk]]) 18:03, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
:results https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScYkKUvHse7kI1w8OP77fCOso9jiHr7xbB-NOH7xN7rVSvR6g/viewanalytics [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 20:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Electrons are yellow, protons are red, and neutrons are gray. End of discussion.
:What about roses and violets? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.172|172.71.242.172]] 10:49, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

{{w|Quark_(dairy_product)|Quark}} is white, or off-white.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.96|172.70.85.96]] 10:47, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
:I find this comic puzzling. Virtually all colors we see are due to electrons (transitions between different states in atoms, molecules, and solids), so saying they are "too small to interact with visible light" is quite incorrect. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.134.130|172.69.134.130]] 18:48, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
::Yeah. They totally interact with visible light. But only with light of specific frequency matching the energy difference between some electron and free higher orbit it can move to. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 19:00, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

light is insensitive to features which are much smaller than the optical wavelength.

((Snipped))
: What language is this? This is and English site, so please write in English. Google Translate detects it as Hungarian, but leaves almost all of the words untranslated. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.38|162.158.90.38]] 04:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
:: It's just a past troll. Who has several times said they've finished trolling, or promised to finish trolling in a given instance if only someone would include some word or other in their next edit. (Spoiler: they never stopped, so we just have to deal with it and carry on.)
:: The 'language' was worked out (it's a conlang that's a mix of actual non-English root words and 'cod Latin'-type transforms, essentially) but I'm not wasting braincells on its inanity or going to make it a 'mainstream thing'. They do worse things to vandalise the site, but that doesn't mean that the above can be left unchallenged as relatively benign.
:: My advice is to ignore it (or revert it away, if nobody else does that quickly enough). [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.222|172.70.162.222]] 09:14, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
:::What is a conlang and what is cod Latin? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.34.45|172.68.34.45]] 15:12, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
:::: "Conlang" means a {{w|Constructed language}}. And I think they actually meant {{w|Dog Latin}} or (more likely, in context) {{w|Pig Latin}}, though "Cod" does {{wiktionary|cod#Etymology_3|sometimes mean}} a fake/imitation of something, so Pig Latin might perhaps be described as a cod-Latin. Or confusingly misrefered to as such, by accident... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.222|172.70.162.222]] - ooo... I'm routing through the ''exact'' same IP, which is rare enough when I edit my own submissions. Above editor is probably with the same ISP as me. ;)

The might not have a color not even a quark color, but they do have a flavour. The are quantum flavoured: Electro
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.94.200|162.158.94.200]] 16:06, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Ohoh, Ms. Lenhart, where were you in undergrad? Whenevery you notice that something has interacted with light, it's electrons. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.86.135|162.158.86.135]] 09:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

The consensus on Quora points toward the colour of electrons being neutral. [https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-colour-of-an-electron] --[[User:Annatars Gift|Annatars Gift]] ([[User talk:Annatars Gift|talk]]) 10:46, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Clearly, the antiquark colors should be cyan (for antired), magenta (for antigreen), and yellow (for antiblue). [[Special:Contributions/172.69.65.184|172.69.65.184]] 03:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

This seems like an obvious color-association joke... I feel like the explanation completely misses the mark. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.65.144|172.69.65.144]] 06:16, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

As an electron microscopist, I see electrons all day long: Real electrons are green (on the fluorescent screen). --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.111.230|162.158.111.230]] 13:08, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

This is Veritasium's reasoning for how he colored each one:
"Well electrons are leptons, which makes me think of leprechauns, which are green. So I always make electrons green. Incidentally, neutrons have the neu sound, which is almost like blue, and blue is a fairly neutral inoffensive colour hence for me neutrons are blue. Protons have r as the second letter and they've got the opposite charge to electrons so for me red makes sense."

[[User:StapleFreeBatteries|StapleFreeBatteries]] ([[User talk:StapleFreeBatteries|talk]]) 08:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:2408: Egg Strategies

2024-12-18T14:19:56Z

StapleFreeBatteries:

I'm not going to get into it because it's not related to these egg cartons, but it is ''really weird'' sitting here explaining a joke while I listen to breaking news on the radio. [[User:Captain Video|Captain Video]] ([[User talk:Captain Video|talk]]) 22:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
:Why are you lot all anxiously listening to the radio? Is there something I should know? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.7.15|162.158.7.15]] 21:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
:: Perhaps [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol this], or [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump%E2%80%93Raffensperger_scandal this]? [[User:Nk1406|Nk1406]] ([[User talk:Nk1406|talk]]) 01:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
:Why is the news breaking? Does a Chaotic Evil person maintain the news carton? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.2.210|162.158.2.210]] 09:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I really thought it was just me who cared about center of gravity for eggs. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.49|162.158.79.49]] 23:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

We keep the hard boiled ones at one end and the fr4esh ones at the other end.

Bring True Neutral (egg carton sits lengthwise in fridge, most convenient egg is removed until carton is empty), I am ''baffled'' by the existence of other "strategies". Do people really do this? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.70|108.162.241.70]] 00:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
: True Neutral here, and also putting the carton in the fridge eggless side out (which is consistent with "most convenient egg removed"). The current explanation says that this is "a disaster waiting to happen". Why? As a side-note, as I understand it, the alternate strategies can be convenient if you ''don't'' put the carton lengthwise in the fridge (particularly if you don't put it in the fridge ''at all''). [[Special:Contributions/162.158.183.117|162.158.183.117]] 11:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
:: I am also True Neutral - when putting the carton into the fridge end-first it allows me to extract it with the majority of the weight in my hand. It's a disaster if it is inserted the heavy side in first because when I grab the empty end the weight of the eggs can tip them out the other side. As an aside, I was a little insulted to find out that I am not the only person in the world who actually has an "egg carton strategy". I thought I was unique! ;-) [[User:Rtanenbaum|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum|talk]]) 13:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
::: Ha, no, far from it! Nothing new under the sun, I guess. Here's some documentation of prior art by John McIntosh from 2006, under the title [http://www.urticator.net/essay/6/649.html "Egg Carton Theory"]. [[User:Dvgrn|Dvgrn]] ([[User talk:Dvgrn|talk]]) 17:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
: Chiming in on True Neutral strategy, which I also use, with some added thoughts: I also put the heavy end in first, but primarily because I usually have two cartons stacked, where inserting the heavy end on top of the full carton in the fridge makes it easier to push the carton the rest of the way in on top of the bottom carton. Putting it in the other way around, the heavy end is hanging off the bottom carton, resulting in less stability before it's pushed all the way in. If you can't tell, I'm an engineer! [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 14:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
:::: Chaotic Neutral here. Doing it that way means I have the benefit of a seemingly random egg without thinking too much about which egg to actually pick. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.229.220|108.162.229.220]] 17:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::Being Lawful Good and married to someone who is Chaotic Good, we might sometimes argue over this. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.29|162.158.62.29]] 03:23, 7 January 2021 (UTC) MSS
:I guess my strategy is True Neutral as well, though my reason being that I put the empty side face the back of the freezer to reduce the chance of frost, which I assumed is bad for eggs. [[User:Tharkon|Tharkon]] ([[User talk:Tharkon|talk]]) 20:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Ignoring the "neutral" part for now, what's chaotic about that? It's literally the most perfectly balanced arrangement. It has perfect rotational symmetry as well. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.219|162.158.74.219]] 04:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

===Carton size===
In Germany, there are two sizes of egg cartons, containing 6 or 10 eggs, respectively. Most refrigerators I’ve seen (in stores or households) contain an egg-holder with six dents, though I also have occasionally seen 10-dent egg holders.
Since I usually buy 20 eggs at the weekly market, my strategy is to transfer the eggs from a package to the egg holder once there are less than 9 left in the package (for the purpose of knowing how many are still left without having to open a package). If there are more than six eggs, the one or two additional eggs are placed lying besides the egg holder.
I think that counts as chaotic neutral. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.68.28|141.101.68.28]] 01:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
:I've only seen cartons of six or ten as well, the phrase "A standard egg carton has 12 cups for 12 eggs" seems a bit presumptuous. [[User:Tharkon|Tharkon]] ([[User talk:Tharkon|talk]]) 20:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
::I'm usually using cartons of six, however I noticed I have few cartons of ten left here. Regardless, I feel like it SHOULD be dozen eggs ... not sure why, maybe it used to be dozen (12) in past? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 04:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
:::Just to add some info on egg carton sizes: here in the Netherlands, most cartons contain 6 eggs, although there are cartons with 3, 4, 7 and 10 eggs as well. The carton with 7 eggs has one egg in the middle, so any strategy would take the middle egg either first or last (anything else seems insane). Having seen American fridges in TV shows, I guess the larger egg cartons in the USA have something to do with their larger fridges (or perhaps it's the other way round).[[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.108|162.158.159.108]] 16:17, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

===Depiction wrong===
I've got a niggling feeling that Chaotic Neutral (at least) is wrongly depicted. Too orderly. I'd have put Chaotic Good's pattern there (not necessarily vice-versa, as the current incumbent looks more Lawful or Variation-of-neutrality as well as Good) as attempting to maintain balance but with an element of chance. We don't know what sequence of removal ''led'' to each of these states, of course. That might make much of the difference in how we reach the illustrated states. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.253|162.158.158.253]] 03:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd go a little further and swap CG and CN (the current CG being a marginally more ordered and balanced CN) but otherwise agree. CN is the strategy I use when the carton is at risk of being centrally supported while in humid conditions (don't ask), making NG risk bending of the whole carton. LG is actually worse then NG in some circumstances, due to a drastically reduced moment of inertia contributing to the chance of dropping. On the other hand, NG increases the probability of end-shattering if the carton is actually dropped. Overall, different strategies are probably a result of experience, circumstance, relative clumsiness, and hat colour. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.166.75|162.158.166.75]] 05:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I feel like the chaotic good isn't random. It seems like it could be Braille or something like that, maybe? I don't know, I might looking for patterns where there are none.

Is it bother anyone that there are different numbers of eggs in each carton? At least there should have been two boxes for each alignment, one with an even number of eggs and one with odd.
:: I was thinking precisely this. Can lead to a sense of "apples and oranges" otherwise. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.49|108.162.216.49]] 15:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)MeZimm

===Refrigeration===
Learned something today: Americans refrigerate eggs
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.155.84|162.158.155.84]] 18:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
: It has something to do with the way that they're treated over here. We don't (have to) refrigerate fresh eggs. -neverdroptop 19:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
:: I refrigerate eggs as well, and I'm not American.[[User:Tharkon|Tharkon]] ([[User talk:Tharkon|talk]]) 20:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
: If eggs are washed with a bleach solution prior to packaging, their membranous outer coating (often including quite bit of blood &\or feces) gets stripped away, leaving the shell's surface porous & receptive to contaminants; thereafter those eggs can become spoiled much more readily. In the US, all eggs shipped across state lines for sale as food must be rinsed, therefore almost all eggs shipped to any US supermarket grocery, need to be refrigerated. If you get fresh eggs unrinsed, they can sit unrefrigerated for weeks without a significant rate of spoilage. [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 20:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

== Alternative strategies ==

My egg strategy was “you can’t possibly be 🏳️‍⚧️ this is just some fetish” at which point I got super comfortable liking all the girly things ever because it didn’t mean 🏳️‍⚧️. Then when I finally realized I was the last to know.
:42? [[User:CalibansCreations|'''Caliban''']] ([[User talk:CalibansCreations|talk]]) 11:49, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

== Is Beret Guy really a Chaotic Good character? ==

I know this has nothing to do with the content of the comic, but I felt like talking about it anyway. Beret Guy is most certainly chaotic, but I feel like chaotic neutral is a better fit than chaotic good. Beret Guy's strange powers are like the granny smith apple in that they aren't used for good or bad, but for doing his own thing.
[[User:StapleFreeBatteries|StapleFreeBatteries]] ([[User talk:StapleFreeBatteries|talk]]) 14:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

336: Priorities

2024-12-18T06:28:11Z

StapleFreeBatteries: Feel like Harvard is a more significant example.

{{comic
| number = 336
| date = October 31, 2007
| title = Priorities
| image = priorities.png
| titletext = You should start giving out 'E's so I can spell FACADE or DEFACED.
}}

==Explanation==
In this comic, [[Cueball]] is a student, who apparently didn't turn in his homework assignment repeatedly, for which he gets a warning from his Cueball-like teacher.

In some schools in the United States, a student's grades are determined mainly using letters for quick reference. In most schools, the letter grades are given as follows:

::A — 100%–90%
::B — 89%–80%
::C — 79%–70%
::D — 69%–60%
::F — 59%–0%

Traditionally, these schools send '{{w|report card}}s' in which the student's current grading of the semester or even the entirety of the class the student is taking is denoted using these letters, for example:

::English — A
::Mathematics — D
::Science — B
::Social Studies — B
::World Building — C

The student may have noted that, if he aims for certain scoring (for example: altering the quality of his homework or even sending out his homework only at the times needed for his grades to reach a certain level), he could make the report card spell every letter grade in alphabetical order. Deriving from the previous example, the student would aim for the following report card:

::English — A
::Mathematics — B
::Science — C
::Social Studies — D
::World Building — F

Interestingly, since in some schools even a 0% grade would produce the required 'F' grade, the student does not need to work at all (not even turn in any school assignments) to get the required 'F' grade, this leading to the situation presented in the comic above. Rather than a letter upon a continuum (as it might be assumed if 'E' were not skipped) it is generally accepted that 'F' actually stands for 'Failed' and covers any situation where insufficient credit was gained to obtain any other letter-grade. There are some schools, though, where turning in nothing would result in the class being marked "incomplete" or "inc" instead of having a grade shown at all.

The title text references that, not only can the grades in the report card inadvertently spell out certain words (for example: 'CAB' or 'FAD'), but also that the letter grade system denoted omits the letter 'E' in standard letter grading. The reason for the missing "E" is complex and explained in [http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2010/08/e_is_for_fail.html this Slate article]. However, this is not universal in the United States: Harvard University and Ohio State University, for example, use 'E' for failing.

==Transcript==
:[A teacher, holding a book, is talking to a student, sitting at a desk and holding a document of his own.]
:Teacher: If you don't turn in at least one homework assignment, you'll fail this class.
:Student: Yeah. But if I can fail this class, the grades on my report card will be in alphabetical order!

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

Talk:603: Idiocracy

2024-11-24T18:16:42Z

StapleFreeBatteries:

This explanation seems to be incorrect. The key point was that White Hat actually was wrong! The average education has gone up, and the average IQ ''cannot'' sink! By allowing Cueball to agree with clearly false laments, he baits him into revealing his stupidity. --[[User:Quicksilver|Quicksilver]] ([[User talk:Quicksilver|talk]]) 19:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
:The title text pretty much spells out that, in Randall's mind, White Hat is correct. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.66|199.27.128.66]] 06:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I propose that the hatted figure is not in fact [[White_Hat|White Hat]], as neither the hat shape nor the personality are consistent with other appearances. ([[:Category:Comics featuring White Hat‏‎]]) The real White Hat, when he speaks, is generally a bit of a wet blanket or well-meaning buffoon. This one, whom I'll dub [[White_Derby|White Derby]], is speaking counter-buffoonery, what we may reasonably guess to be the actual thoughts of the author. Usually Cueball fills this role (eg [[258:_Conspiracy_Theories]]), and in fact if the roles here were reversed I'd tend to ignore the misshapen hat. But two and two, together, well... --[[Special:Contributions/66.114.70.139|66.114.70.139]] 18:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
:Eh. He hasn't appeared in any other strips, and it's not too harmful to put him under the umbrella of the real White Hat. I see your point; White Hat is no longer a generic character like [[Hairy]], but an actual recurring one.
:Also, have Black Hat and White Hat ever appeared in the same comic? (Click and Drag doesn't count.) [[User:Alpha|Alpha]] ([[User talk:Alpha|talk]]) 09:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
::White Hat is not this Safari Hat guy and this has been corrected recently. Also recently in [[1708: Dehydration]] White and Black Hat appears together and Black Hat actually reacts in a discussion White Hat has begun. See more under the explanation for [[:Category:Characters with hats|Characters with Hats]]. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 19:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

So, does this page qualify for Complete now? [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.66|199.27.128.66]] 05:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Randall. You're wrong here. IQ can change. Just because there is a mean for the IQ of the current population, doesn't mean that average can't shift over time. And if we used to be cavemen then either the IQ did shift, or we've always been this smart, which means we couldn't have evolved.

In this case, IQ is exactly the same as morality. Both shift ever so slightly over time, such that the mean is always the acceptable "norm". You can't feel this shift unless you study it. The difference is that morality exhibits locality, so morality shifts slower or faster depending on the subsection of society. Thus you have people who believe they are more right than others, but no one believes they are outright wrong (as a culture). Proof in the pudding is doing a poll on the population as to how smart they think they are. They always rate themselves such that the mean is shifted 1 or 2 deviations up. Same thing with morality. People all espouse a morality that they think is 1 or 2 deviations greater than the standard, whether they are a religious sect or secularists.

But the short of it, a population mean doesn't imply the mean never changes.[[User:Cflare|Cflare]] ([[User talk:Cflare|talk]]) 21:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

:While IQ can change, the way you're explaining it is not the way the Cueball or "White Hat" is explaining it. In fact, "White Hat" never explicitly states that IQ doesn't evolve at all; just not to the depressing trend Cueball here thinks it does. Anonymous 23:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

In fact average IQ cannot change. The average IQ of humanity is always 100, because that is the definition of the IQ scale.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.129|108.162.216.129]] 01:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

"IQ" per se is simply what IQ tests measure. There's no law that says any specific test that purports to be the best measure of IQ is the gold standard. In the US and many (perhaps most) other English-speaking countries, the Wechsler and Stanford-Binet scales are the most popular. The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale is the IQ test most commonly used (for adults) by neuropsychologists. It's re-normed every few years (e.g., WAIS-III becomes WAIS-IV, then WAIS-V, etc.). In "re-norming" each question is studied and perhaps refined, some are dropped, and new questions--sometimes entirely new subtests--are added. The method of calculating the IQ is often tweaked as well. Re-norming involves administering versions of the test to thousands of people and using statistics to determine the one to keep. Obviously the same pool of test-takers is not used every time in a process that goes on decade after decade. It's not unusual for test questions to become more difficult and what's considered to be an average score to be a bit higher in the new edition than in the old. This has been interpreted to mean that people are getting more intelligent, but that's not the only possible explanation. (Also, the test is not normed on "humanity" but on a tiny subset of earth's humans.) Oh, and your IQ is not a number carved in stone, so to speak, but a best-guess that falls within the range of scores you'd be expected to earn if (theoretically) you took the same test multiple times.[[User:Npsych|Npsych]] ([[User talk:Npsych|talk]]) 10:20, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

If there is reason for climate change it is almost certainly due to the destruction of trees. Any ridiculous assertions about carbon dioxide can not be confirmed or denied and the political machinations about carbon dioxide stem from Margaret Thatcher's war on the coal miners in Britain.

It would be a simple matter to replant forests. All we would have to do is pay for that in higher latitudes and send in drones to deal with illegal loggers in lower latitudes. 20 years or so should sort out most of the problems. [[User:Weatherlawyer| I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer|talk]]) 17:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

: I see what you did there... This is the bit where you go "Everything I just said was wrong" --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 17:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Elitism is an eminently more desirable trait than stupidity to breed into one's offspring. An elitist might be hated, but he will be *competent*; he will *accomplish things*, while a stupid person will harm themselves and others through their stupidity, often remaining well-liked in spite of being cancerous and toxic to everything nearby. Elitism is the bitter taste of medicine which will make you better; stupidity is the delicious candy to which you will become hopelessly addicted at a formative age, leading to a miserable lifetime of diabetes and an early death by heart failure. I only wish I intended to reproduce, so that I could practice what I preach on this regard. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.52|173.245.54.52]] 19:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

: This viewpoint is predicated on the false dichotomy between elitism and stupidity. Many elitists are no more intelligent or capable than those to whom they profess superiority. (And frequently this perceived superiority makes them resistant to social cooperation or empathy and therefore effectively ''less'' useful or capable—whereas others may overcome a relative lack of ability with humility and willingness to work with others.) Chances are you're not as smart as you think you are, although you're probably right about being hated... [[User:Colt605|Colt605]] ([[User talk:Colt605|talk]]) 00:23, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Changed the text in the first paragraph because the movie never implied that people with lower IQ were more fertile, it clearly stated that they were more likely to reproduce due to lack of education, absence of planning, and general negligence with regards to the consequences of their actions. If you disagree with me on this, go watch the movie again. Or just the first few minutes which explains this in detail. -Pennpenn [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.162|108.162.250.162]] 05:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

So... what else does this explanation need to be considered complete? [[User:Edo|Edo]] ([[User talk:Edo|talk]]) 23:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The explanation of the Dunning-Kruger effect is incorrect, insofar as it tries to apply the effect to intelligence, and mention here may be off topic entirely. The Dunning-Kruger effect is refers to bias in self assessment relative to the norm of low-skilled people in a given field to high skilled people in the same field. Proficiency in a field is not intelligence, nor does the theory allow generalization to intelligent people generally versus those less intelligent generally, irrespective of field, and while there is probably evidence of a correlation between IQ and and proficiency within some collection of fields, the Dunning-Kruger effect would require much stronger evidence to generalize to intelligence for specific proficiency, specifically it would require evidence of a causal, not correlative, (from skill to IQ, and not the reverse) link, and evidence that such link exists not just in general or at average, but that such link occurs in any hypothetical, non-specified area if proficiency. The wiki article that is linked is technically correct but somewhat misleading in use of the term 'cognitive ability,' which is in some contexts used to refer to intelligence, but in context refers to the specific, non-IQ domained, mental practice of effective megacognition and self-assessment, as well as a type of social awareness regarding group standards of passable performance. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.142.100|162.158.142.100]] 22:02, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

https://www.newsweek.com/iq-scores-are-declining-and-researchers-point-school-media-973040[[Special:Contributions/172.69.69.28|172.69.69.28]] 15:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
:What's your point? I can link thousands articles as well. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 19:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
::The point, from the "Flynn effect" wikipedia article : "Research suggests that there is an ongoing reversed Flynn effect, i.e. a decline in IQ scores, in Norway, Denmark, Australia, Britain, the Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, France and German-speaking countries,[4] a development which appears to have started in the 1990s". This kind of nullifies the comic's point.
:::One, sign your writing, two, format correctly, three, one study proves nothing, especially on Newsweek of all things. Seriously, Newsweek. Four, average IQ can’t decrease, or increase for that matter, five, IQ isn’t the best measure of intelligence anyways.

This is not a new form of elitism. Until WWII, there were many elitists who formed a theory based on their perception of Darwin's theories. (Notice that I am not suggesting that Darwin agreed with them.) They were commonly known as Social Darwinists and Eugenicists. Their philosophy fell into disrepute because of Hitler's views on racial superiority and the atrocities which he produced as a result of his form of elitism. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.212.173|108.162.212.173]] 18:39, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
:Nazis ruin everything.

Honestly, I feel like when people compare the real world to Idiocracy, they mean that the real world is exhibiting the same ''symptoms'' as Idiocracy (i.e. everyone, especially the people is charge, are acting really damn stupid right now), not the cause.
[[User:StapleFreeBatteries|StapleFreeBatteries]] ([[User talk:StapleFreeBatteries|talk]]) 18:16, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

1145: Sky Color

2024-11-13T08:08:35Z

StapleFreeBatteries:

{{comic
| number = 1145
| date = December 10, 2012
| title = Sky Color
| image = sky_color.png
| titletext = Feynman recounted another good one upperclassmen would use on freshmen physics students: When you look at words in a mirror, how come they're reversed left to right but not top to bottom? What's special about the horizontal axis?
}}

==Explanation==
The point of this comic is that often, curious children ask their parents simple questions about understanding how the world works. Often, although the question is simple, the answer is not. "Why is the sky blue?" is a common example, since most parents are not familiar with {{w|Rayleigh scattering}}, and thus are unable to answer the question.

[[Randall]]'s hobby is to make those questions even harder, so that the parents who ''are'' familiar with the subject (scientists, for example) will be stumped.

Another point of this comic is that we often think that we understand a scientific phenomenon (e.g., "Why is the sky blue?"). However, a certain simple follow-up question (e.g., "Why isn't the sky violet?") can often uncover large gaps in our actual understanding.

{{W|Rayleigh scattering}} is the phenomenon that explains the color of the sky, where light of every wavelength gets scattered in the air by the inverse quartic (fourth power) of its wavelength as given in the comic. In the {{w|visible spectrum}}, blue light has a wavelength of 450–495 nm while violet has a shorter wavelength of 380–450 nm. Violet light does indeed get scattered more than blue light, however the lower portion of the spectrum for sunlight consists of blue light and eyes are much more sensitive to blue light than violet light. Furthermore, the sunlight contains more blue than violet to begin with as a result of the surface temperature of the sun. This leaves the impression of a blue sky. A good explanation, including why blue and not violet, can be found in [http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/BlueSky/blue_sky.html Usenet Physics FAQ :: Why is the sky blue?], but note that human color perception [http://blog.asmartbear.com/color-wheels.html is more complicated] than described there. xkcd later tackles the same question in [[1818: Rayleigh Scattering]].

The title text refers to a {{w|mirror image}} and is discussed by the famous American theoretical physicist {{w|Richard Feynman}} in a famous BBC documentary [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tuxLY94LXw], as one of the problems which he used to have fun with freshmen (relating to a British English context, probably a student in their initial year of secondary establishment; i.e. a "first year (pupil)" in traditional terminology, but "year 7" under the more recently popular {{w|K–12}}-inspired naming system). If not for this direct quote, the apparent age of the potential student pictured, and the scientific detail of the question, ''could'' easily apply to lessons in the later years of primary education.

A mirror image is a virtual image produced by the reflection of light on a mirror. It's common to think of images in mirrors as being reversed left-to-right, as any text held in front of us will appear flipped. This is actually an issue of perception. In a plane mirror, images are reflected directly: the left side of your body will be reflected in the left side of the mirror, and vice-versa. The source of confusion is that people tend to think of a mirror image the way we would think of a person facing us. When another person faces us, they turn around the vertical axis, placing their right hand on our left side, so seeing our left hand on our left side in a reflection ''seems'' like an inversion, even though it's a direct representation. By the same token, in order to hold text up to a mirror, we generally flip it around the vertical axis, so that the start of the text is on right, and the end on the left (in English, at least). When the mirror reflects this, we see the text as backward, but the mirror hasn't reversed it, we reverse it when we turn it toward a mirror.

In other words, the vertical axis is only "special" because we're used to objects turning around it, so we come to expect that reversal, instead of a reflection.

You can induce a mirror to reverse left and right only --- by standing next to it instead of in front of it, facing along the plane of the mirror itself. If you lift your right arm, you can clearly see your image's left arm raising, without having to adjust for frame of reference. Similarly, you can induce a mirror to reverse top and bottom only by holding it flat above your head or laying it flat on the ground and standing on it (or perhaps standing under a suitably equipped bedroom ceiling). See [https://youtu.be/1t4dOPxKgrY this] video for a demonstration.

==Transcript==
:[Jill and her mother, Megan, but with her hair up. Megan is at a desk and facing the girl.]
:Jill: Mommy, why is the sky blue?
:Megan: Rayleigh scattering! Short wavelengths get scattered ''way'' more (proportional to 1/''λ''4). Blue light dominates because it's so short.
:Jill: Oh.
:Jill: So why ''isn't'' the sky violet?
:Megan: Well, because, uh... ...hmm.
:[Caption Below the panel:]
:My hobby: Teaching tricky questions to the children of my scientist friends.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Jill]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:My Hobby]]

1122: Electoral Precedent

2024-11-13T06:48:29Z

StapleFreeBatteries:

{{comic
| number = 1122
| date = October 17, 2012
| title = Electoral Precedent
| image = electoral_precedent.png
| titletext = No white guy who's been mentioned on Twitter has gone on to win.
}}

==Explanation==

During election season in U.S. presidential elections — and especially in election night coverage — it is common for the media to make comments like the ones set out in the first panel of this comic. [[Randall Munroe|Randall]] is demonstrating the problem with making such statements, many of which simply come down to coincidence.

After the first panel the next 56 panels in this comic refer to each one of the {{w|United States presidential election#Electoral college results|56 presidential elections}} in U.S. history before {{w|Barack Obama|Obama's}} re-election in 2012. The panels depict a pre-election commentator noting a quality or condition that has never occurred to a candidate until one of the candidates in that election broke the streak. In other words, one can always find at least one unique thing about a candidate who has gone on to win (or in some cases, lose) or the circumstances under which they won (or lost) that is unique from all previous winners (or losers). It's worth noting that some of these 'firsts' were truly precedent-setting (such as the first incumbent losing, the first president to win a third term, the first Catholic president, etc.), but the fact that they hadn't happened was no assurance that there wouldn't be a first time. As the years pass on, these 'streaks' become more and more nested and complicated, and then brought by Randall to the point of absurdity by pointing out very trivial things, such as "No Democratic {{w|incumbent}} without combat experience has ever beaten someone whose first name is worth more in {{w|Scrabble}}" (1996).

The flaw made by pundits while reporting such streaks is that there will always be ''something'' that has never happened before in an election, and they purport to suggest that these things are related to the candidate's win or loss. Randall considers this a logical flaw. A common one is, as noted in several panels, candidates can't win without winning certain states. The question, however, is one of {{w|Correlation does not imply causation|cause or effect}}.

Given that there have only been 56 elections, there are always going to be things that haven't happened before. If you go out looking for them, you're sure to find some. There is no magic about why these events haven't happened. In most cases, it is merely a coincidence.

In the last two panels, two more statements like the previous are given. They were both true before the {{w|United States presidential election, 2012|election in 2012}} on November the 6th. The comic came out in the middle of the campaign on October the 17th. The statements were constructed so that the first predicts that Obama can't win over {{w|Mitt Romney}}, and the second that he cannot lose. As Obama won the election he thus ended the streak ''Democratic incumbents never beat taller challengers'' whereas the other streak is still valid.

The title text refers to the fact that {{w|Twitter}} was founded in 2006. Obama won in 2008, so at the time of the comic it was true that no white male person mentioned on Twitter had ever gone on to win the presidency; although certainly some former presidents, all of whom were white males, have subsequently been mentioned on Twitter. This streak was broken in the next election year when Donald Trump won the 2016 election.

During these last four weeks before the election, Randall posted no fewer than four comics related to this election. The others are: [[1127: Congress]], [[1130: Poll Watching]] and [[1131: Math]].

In 2020, Randall posted an update to this comic: [[2383: Electoral Precedent 2020]].

===Table of Broken Precedents===

{| border =1 width=100% cellpadding=5 class="wikitable"
|-
! Year !! Broken Precedent !! Explanation !! Validity
|-
| 1788
| No one has been elected president before. ...But Washington was.
| Discounting the Articles of Confederation and its {{w|President of the Continental Congress|president}}, Washington is the first president of the United States.{{Citation needed}}
| True
|-
| 1792
| No incumbent has ever been reelected. ...Until Washington.
| Washington is the first person who had a second term. He was unopposed so there was no challenger.
| True
|-
| 1796
| No one without false teeth has become president. ...But Adams did.
| Washington had false teeth, made of human teeth and other materials. His successor Adams, despite having tooth decay, refused to wear false teeth.
| True
|-
| 1800
| No challenger has beaten an incumbent. ...But Jefferson did.
| Adams is the first president not to have a second term, due to signing the unpopular {{w|Alien and Sedition Acts}}. He was defeated by the challenger, Jefferson.
| True
|-
| 1804
| No incumbent has beaten a challenger. ...Until Jefferson.
| The 2 previous incumbents were Washington, who was unopposed, and Adams, who lost as an incumbent (to Jefferson).
| True
|-
| 1808
| No congressman has ever become president. ...Until Madison.
| While George Washington served in the House of Burgesses, Madison served as congressman for Virginia's 5th district from 1789 to 1793 and the 15th District from 1793 to 1797 in the U. S. Congress.
| True
|-
| 1812
| No one can win without New York. ...But Madison did.
| While it is true New York voted against Madison but he still won, New York did not vote for Washington due to an {{w|1788-89_United_States_presidential_election#Failure_of_New_York_to_appoint_electors|internal dispute}}.
| False
|-
| 1816
| No candidate who doesn't wear a wig can get elected. ...Until Monroe was.
| Despite popular misconception, Washington did not wear a wig, but in fact powdered his hair white.
| False
|-
| 1820
| No one who wears pants instead of {{w|Culottes|breeches}} can be reelected. ...But Monroe was.
| The first 5 presidents, including Monroe, all wore breeches.
| False
|-
| 1824
| No one has ever won without a popular majority. ...J.Q. Adams did.
| Jackson won the plurality of the popular vote and Electoral College. But as it was a four way election, he did not achieve a majority - so the vote went to Congress, who elected John Quincy Adams.
| True
|-
| 1828
| Only people from Massachusetts and Virginia can win. ...Until Jackson did.
| Jackson was from South Carolina, while all previous presidents were from Massachusetts or Virginia.
| True
|-
| 1832
| The only presidents who get reelected are Virginians. ...Until Jackson.
| Washington, Jefferson, Madison and Monroe were the only re-elected presidents at that time, and they were all Virginians.
| True
|-
| 1836
| New Yorkers always lose. ...Until Van Buren.
| Martin Van Buren is the first president from the state of New York.
| True
|-
|1840
| No one over 65 has won the presidency. ...Until Harrison did.
| He was 68 and the first over 65, and died of pneumonia 31 days after giving the longest inauguration to date.
| True
|-
|1844
| No one who's lost his home state has won. ...But Polk did.
| If "home state" refers to the state of residence, Polk is the first, losing Tennessee to Clay but took 15 of the 26 states including New York. However, if you count it as state of birth, Jackson and Harrison already did.
| Maybe
|-
|1848
| As goes Mississippi, so goes the nation. ...Until 1848.
| Prior to 1848, every candidate who had won the state of Mississippi had won the election, with the only exception being the 1824 election, where John Quincy Adams was elected by Congress, due to no one winning the Electoral College. In 1848, Lewis Cass won the state of Mississippi, but lost the election to Zachary Taylor.
| True
|-
|1852
|New England Democrats can't win. ...Until Pierce did.
|Pierce is the first candidate from the Democratic Party from New England, specifically New Hampshire, and he won the election of 1852.
| True
|-
|1856
| No one can become president without getting married. ...Until Buchanan did.
| While other presidents were widowers, Buchanan was the first unmarried president, being a life long bachelor.
| True
|-
|1860
| No one over 6'3" can get elected. ...Until Lincoln.
| Lincoln was the first president over 6'3" president, at 6'4" tall, making him the tallest president to date.
| True
|-
|1864
|No one with a beard has been reelected. ...But Lincoln was.
|Lincoln was the first U.S. president to have a beard.
|True
|-
|1868
|No one can be president if their parents are alive. ...Until Grant.
|The veracity depends on if BOTH parents have to be alive, or if any parents are alive. If either parent can be alive, then Washington's mother, Mary Ball Washington, died four months after he became president. If both have to be alive, Grant was indeed the first president to have both parents alive when assuming office.
|Maybe
|-
|1872
|No one with a beard has been reelected in peacetime. ...Until Grant was.
|Grant was the second U.S. president (behind Lincoln) to be reelected with a beard, but only Grant was reelected during peacetime.
|True
|-
|1876
|No one can win a majority of the popular vote and still lose. ...Tilden did.
|Samuel Tilden won a majority of the popular vote, with 51%, but lost in the electoral college in a {{w|1876 United States presidential election|contested election}}, resolved by the {{w|Compromise of 1877}}. (During the election of 1824, Jackson won the popular vote but did not win more than half of it, a majority)
|True
|-
|1880
|As goes California, so goes the nation. ...Until it went Hancock.
|Since being a state in 1850, the winner of California had won the election - until 1880 when Winfield Hancock won California but lost the election to James Garfield.
|True
|-
|1884
|Candidates named "James" can't lose. ...Until James Blaine.
|James Blaine was the first major candidate with the first name "James" to lose an election, losing to Grover Cleveland.
|True
|-
|1888
|No sitting president has been beaten since the Civil War. ...Cleveland was.
|Grover Cleveland was the first president since the end of the Civil War to be defeated by a challenger, losing to Benjamin Harrison. Andrew Johnson was not chosen as the Democratic candidate in 1868. Ulysses S. Grant served 2 terms and did not run for a 3rd term. Rutherford B. Hayes and Chester A. Arthur (who became president after the assassination of James Garfield) did not seek reelection after their first term.
|True
|-
|1892
|No former president has been elected. ...Until Cleveland.
|Cleveland was the first (and, prior to 2025, only) president to serve two non-consecutive terms, winning the presidential election in 1884, losing in 1888 and winning in 1892.
|True
|-
|1896
|Tall Midwesterners are unbeatable. ...Bryan wasn't.
|William Jennings Bryan lost the 1896 election to William McKinley. Bryan's measurements have been lost to history, but contemporary historians described him as "a tall, slender, handsome fellow".
|True
|-
|1900
|No Republican shorter than 5'8" has been reelected. ...Until McKinley was.
|At the time, McKinley was only the 3rd Republican who was reelected (behind Lincoln and Grant). And he was the shortest of them all, at 5'7" tall.
|True
|-
|1904
|No one under 45 has been elected. ...Roosevelt was.
|At the start of his presidency, Theodore Roosevelt was the youngest president, taking office at the age of 42 when McKinley died in 1901. However, he was not elected President until 1904, by which time he was no longer under 45. The precedent was broken in 1960 when Kennedy was elected at age 43.
|False
|-
|1908
|No Republican who hasn't served in the military has won. ...Until Taft.
|Taft was the first Republican to win an election and not serve in the military - Lincoln served during the Black Hawk War; Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Benjamin Harrison, and McKinley served in the Civil War; and Theodore Roosevelt served in the Spanish-American War.
|True
|-
|1912
|After Lincoln beat the Democrats while sporting a beard with no mustache, the only Democrats who can win have a mustache with no beard. ...Wilson had neither.
|From Lincoln's presidency to Wilson's, only one Democrat won- Grover Cleveland, who had a mustache but no beard.
|True
|-
|1916
|No Democrat has won while losing West Virginia. ...Wilson did.
|Since its statehood in 1863, Wilson is the first Democrat to lose West Virginia, but win the national election.
|True
|-
|1920
|No incumbent senator has won. ...Until Harding.
|Harding was the first sitting Senator to become President - he resigned his position as Senator to become President.
|True
|-
|1924
|No one with two Cs in their name has become president. ...Until Calvin Coolidge.
|'''C'''alvin '''C'''oolidge was the first with "two C's in his name". Presidents with "one C" in their names prior to Coolidge were John Quin'''c'''y Adams, Andrew Ja'''c'''kson, Za'''c'''hary Taylor, Franklin Pier'''c'''e, James Bu'''c'''hanan, Abraham Lin'''c'''oln, '''C'''hester A. Arthur, Grover '''C'''leveland and William M'''c'''Kinley.
|True
|-
|1928
|No one who got ten million votes has lost. ...Until Al Smith.
|Smith was the first candidate to get more than 10 million votes and lose. He received over 15 million votes, but lost to Herbert Hoover, who received 21.4 million votes, and won the electoral college, 444-87.
|True
|-
|1932
|No Democrat has won since women secured the right to vote. ...Until FDR did.
|FDR was the first Democrat to win since 1919 when women secured the right to vote.
|True
|-
|1936
|No President's been reelected with double-digit unemployment. ...Until FDR was.
|FDR was reelected during the Great Depression when unemployment peaked at 22-25%.
|True
|-
|1940
|No one has won a third term. ...Until FDR did.
|FDR is the first and only president to be elected for 4 terms due to his popularity/policies. This is now made impossible by the {{w|Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution|22nd amendment}}, which limits a president to 2 elected terms.
|True
|-
|1944
|No Democrat has won during wartime. ...Until FDR did.
|The United States has engaged in many minor wars near-constantly since its formation, although it being "wartime" in the country for many of these is debatable. Martin Van Buren won during the Second Seminole War, Franklin Pierce won during the Cayuse war and Apache war, James Buchanan won during Bleeding Kansas, the Third Seminole War, the Yakima War, and the Second Opium War, Grover Cleveland won during the Garza Revolution, and Woodrow Wilson won during the Border War, the Occupation of Nicaragua, the Occupation of Haiti, and the Occupation of the Dominican Republic.
|False
|-
|1948
|Democrats can't win without Alabama. ...Truman did.
|Although technically true, the Democrat party did not appear on the ballot in Alabama in 1948, making it impossible for them to have won under any circumstances. It's also worth noting that Alabama had consistently voted Democrat in every election since Alabama's formation as a state except for 1864, when it was in the confederate states, and in 1868 and 1872, where Ulysses S. Grant would win both times. A democrat would not lose a popular vote in Alabama while appearing on the ballot until 1968, and would not win an election while losing the vote in Alabama until 1992.
|True
|-
|1952
|No Republican has won without winning the House or Senate. ...Eisenhower did.
|Republicans won control of ''both'' the {{w|1952 United States House of Representatives elections|House}} and {{w|1952 United States Senate elections|Senate}} in 1952. This precedent would be broken in 1956 after Democrats flipped both chambers in 1954.
|True
|-
|1956
|No one can beat the same nominee a second time in a leap year rematch. ...Until Eisenhower.
|The phrase "leap year" excludes the elections of 1800 and 1900, which were not leap years in the U.S. or most other countries (although they were leap years in Russia, which was still using the Julian calendar).
|True
|-
|1960
|Catholics can't win. ...Kennedy beat Nixon.
|The only other Catholic to be nominated until 1960 was Democrat Alfred E. Smith in 1928.
|True
|-
|1964
|Every Republican who's taken Louisiana has won. ...Until Goldwater.
|Prior to 1964, only two Republicans had won Louisiana: Rutherford Hayes in 1876 and Dwight Eisenhower in 1956. Both won, however in 1876 the election in Louisiana was contested until the Compromise of 1877 resolved it in favor of Hayes.
|True
|-
|1968
|No Republican vice president has risen to the Presidency through an election. ...Until Nixon.
|Theodore Roosevelt, the winner of the 1904 election, was a Republican former Vice President, but he had already risen to the Presidency in 1901 when McKinley died in office.
|True
|-
|1972
|Quakers can't win twice. ...Until Nixon did.
|The only Quaker president before Nixon was Herbert Hoover. Hoover only served one term.
|True
|-
|1976
|No one who lost New Mexico has won. ...But Carter did.
|From its statehood in 1912 to 1972, New Mexico had been a reliable bellwether state. (The 1976 election is still, as of 2021, the only one where the winner of the popular vote did not take New Mexico.)
|True
|-
|1980
|No one has been elected President after a divorce. ...Until Reagan was.
|Reagan was the first divorced President.
|True
|-
|1984
|No left-handed president has been reelected. ...Until Reagan was.
|Reagan is one of 8 left-handed presidents (as of 2022). None of the 4 left-handed presidents prior to Reagan was reelected (James Garfield was assassinated in his first year in office, Gerald Ford was never elected at all, and Herbert Hoover and Harry Truman only served one full term each).
|True
|-
|1988
|No one with two middle names has become president. ...Until "Herbert Walker".
|George H. W. Bush is the first and to date only president with 2 middle names.
|True
|-
|1992
|No Democrat has won without a majority of the Catholic vote. ...Until Clinton did.
|The exact breakdown of the Catholic vote in each individual election is unknown until the advent of demographic-based exit polling, however Catholics have historically been strongly Democratic until 1968. In 1976, Carter won an estimated 54-57% of the Catholic vote, while in 1992 Bill Clinton only won 44% due to the independent campaign of Ross Perot.
|True
|-
|1996
|No Dem. incumbent without combat experience has beaten someone whose first name is worth more in Scrabble. ...Until Bill beat Bob.
|This refers to {{w|Bill Clinton}} and {{w|Bob Dole}}. However, their legal names are William Jefferson Clinton and Robert Joseph Dole. Their first names are William (worth 12 points) and Robert (worth 8 points), not Bill and Bob.
|
|-
|2000
|No Republican has won without Vermont. ...Until Bush did.
|Vermont had voted for Republicans in every presidential election from 1856 (the first contested by the Republicans) to 1988, with the exception of 1964. George W. Bush was indeed the first Republican to win the presidency while losing Vermont.
|True
|-
|2004
|No Republican without combat experience has beaten someone two inches taller. ...Until Bush did.
|John Kerry served for 4 months in the Vietnam war, while George Bush has no combat experience. John Kerry is 11 cm taller than George Bush which is actually about 4.3 inches, not 2. Assuming "two inches taller" means *at least* two inches taller and not *about* two inches taller, then Randall is correct.
|Maybe
|-
|2008
|No Democrat can win without Missouri. ...Until Obama did.
|Missouri had been a Democratic stronghold for the later half of the 19th century and was a {{w|Missouri bellwether|key bellwether state}} from 1904 to 2004. Obama is the first Democrat to win without Missouri, and 2008 is considered the year when Missouri ceased being a bellwether.
|True
|-
|2012?
|Democratic incumbents never beat taller challengers.
|Barack Obama is 6' 1" (185 cm), and Mitt Romney is 6' 2" (188 cm). When Obama won, it broke the streak.
|...Until Obama did.
|-
|2012?
|No nominee whose first name contains a "K" has lost.
|This apparently refers only to major party nominees, as many third party and other nominees with a first name containing "K" have lost, such as {{w|Frank T. Johns}} of the Socialist Labor Party of America. Major party nominees with a "K" have won, such as Democrats Franklin Pierce, Franklin Roosevelt, and Barack Obama. If Romney had won, it would have broken the streak with respect to major party nominees, although not the streak as stated, which had already been broken with respect to all nominees. The streak ended up being broken in 2024 when Kamala Harris lost to Donald Trump.
|...Until Harris did.
|-
|Title text
|No white guy who's been mentioned on Twitter has gone on to win.
|Twitter was founded in 2006; Barack Obama was the first president elected since its founding, and although he had been mentioned on Twitter prior to his election, he is not a white male and so did not break the streak. The streak was broken in 2016 when Donald Trump was elected.
|...Until Trump did.
|}

==Transcript==
:The problem with statements like
:"No <party> candidate has won the election without <state>"
:Or
:"No president has been reelected under <circumstances>"

:[Each statement below has its own panel. The year is in a caption, the precedent is stated by a standing Cueball in the main panel, and the president who broke it is below the panel.]
:1788... No one has been elected president before. ...But Washington was.
:1792... No incumbent has ever been reelected. ...Until Washington.
:1796... No one without false teeth has become president. ...But Adams did.
:1800... No challenger has beaten an incumbent. ...But Jefferson did.
:1804... No incumbent has beaten a challenger. ...Until Jefferson.
:1808... No congressman has ever become president. ...Until Madison.
:1812... No one can win without New York. ...But Madison did.
:1816... No candidate who doesn't wear a wig can get elected. ...Until Monroe was.
:1820... No one who wears pants instead of breeches can be reelected. ...But Monroe was.
:1824... No one has ever won without a popular majority. ...J.Q. Adams did.
:1828... Only people from Massachusetts and Virginia can win. ...Until Jackson did.
:1832... The only presidents who get reelected are Virginians. ...Until Jackson.
:1836... New Yorkers always lose. ...Until Van Buren.
:1840... No one over 65 has won the presidency. ...Until Harrison did.
:1844... No one who's lost his home state has won. ...But Polk did.
:1848... As goes Mississippi, so goes the nation. ...Until 1848.
:1852... New England Democrats can't win. ...Until Pierce did.
:1856... No one can become president without getting married. ...Until Buchanan did.
:1860... No one over 6'3" can get elected. ...Until Lincoln.
:1864... No one with a beard has been reelected. ...But Lincoln was.
:1868... No one can be president if their parents are alive. ...Until Grant.
:1872... No one with a beard has been reelected in peacetime. ...Until Grant was.
:1876... No one can win a majority of the popular vote and still lose. ...Tilden did.
:1880... As goes California, so goes the nation. ...Until it went Hancock.
:1884... Candidates named "James" can't lose. ...Until James Blaine.
:1888... No sitting president has been beaten since the Civil War. ...Cleveland was.
:1892... No former president has been elected. ...Until Cleveland.
:1896... Tall Midwesterners are unbeatable. ...Bryan wasn't.
:1900... No Republican shorter than 5'8" has been reelected. ...Until McKinley was.
:1904... No one under 45 has been elected. ...Roosevelt did.
:1908... No Republican who hasn't served in the military has won. ...Until Taft.
:[The precedent takes up the entire panel this year. Consequently, there is no Cueball.] 1912... After Lincoln beat the Democrats while sporting a beard with no mustache, the only Democrats who can win have a mustache with no beard. ...Wilson had neither.
:1916... No Democrat has won while losing West Virginia. ...Wilson did.
:1920... No incumbent senator has won. ...Until Harding.
:1924... No one with two Cs in their name has become president. ...Until Calvin Coolidge.
:1928... No one who got ten million votes has lost. ...Until Al Smith.
:1932... No Democrat has won since women secured the right to vote. ...Until FDR did.
:1936... No president's been reelected with double-digit unemployment. ...Until FDR was.
:1940... No one has won a third term. ...Until FDR did.
:1944... No Democrat has won during wartime. ...Until FDR did.
:1948... Democrats can't win without Alabama. ...Truman did.
:1952... No Republican has won without winning the House or Senate. ...Eisenhower did.
:1956... No one can beat the same nominee a second time in a leap year rematch. ...Until Eisenhower.
:1960... Catholics can't win. ...Until Kennedy.
:1964... Every Republican who's taken Louisiana has won. ...Until Goldwater.
:[The panel is zoomed in on Cueball's head in this frame.] 1968... No Republican vice president has risen to the Presidency through an election. ...Until Nixon.
:[The panel is zoomed in on Cueball's head in this frame.] 1972... Quakers can't win twice. ...Until Nixon did.
:1976... No one who lost New Mexico has won. ...But Carter did.
:1980... No one has been elected president after a divorce. ...Until Reagan was.
:1984... No left-handed president has been reelected. ...Until Reagan was.
:[The panel is zoomed in on Cueball's head in this frame.] 1988... No one with two middle names has become president. ...Until "Herbert Walker".
:[The panel is zoomed in on Cueball's head in this frame.] 1992... No Democrat has won without a majority of the Catholic vote. ...Until Clinton did.
:[The precedent takes up the entire panel this year. Consequently, there is no Cueball.] 1996... No Dem. incumbent without combat experience has beaten someone whose first name is worth more in Scrabble. ...Until Bill beat Bob.
:2000... No Republican has won without Vermont. ...Until Bush did.
:[The panel is zoomed in on Cueball's head in this frame.] 2004... No Republican without combat experience has beaten someone two inches taller ...Until Bush did.
:2008... No Democrat can win without Missouri. ...Until Obama did.
:[This year has two panels.] 2012... [Panel one] Democratic incumbents never beat taller challengers. [Panel two] No nominee whose first name contains a "K" has lost. [Text under panels] Which streak will break?

[[Category:Comics featuring Ronald Reagan]]

==Trivia/Errors==
* There was an error in the original 1800 panel of the comic, as Jefferson (not Adams) was the first challenger to beat an incumbent, when Jefferson beat then-president Adams in 1800. This was later corrected.

* The first president without a wig was technically Washington, who did not wear a wig, but in fact powdered his hair white.

* Although Theodore Roosevelt became the first president under age 45 and was later elected president, he was not elected before the age of 45.

* Also, one of the statements of a streak for the 2012 elections can be considered wrong: in 1952, the Republican candidate/running mate Eisenhower/Nixon defeated the Democratic alliterative ticket Stevenson/Sparkman (in what can only be described as a landslide). The comic has been changed, and now reads "Democratic incumbents never beat taller challengers" as the streak which would have the Republican ticket as the winners.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics with lowercase text]] 
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Statistics]]
[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Elections]]
[[Category:Comics featuring John F. Kennedy]]
[[Category:Comics featuring politicians]]

1031: s/keyboard/leopard/

2024-11-06T08:06:24Z

StapleFreeBatteries:

{{comic
| number = 1031
| date = March 19, 2012
| title = s/keyboard/leopard/
| image = s keyboard leopard.png
| titletext = Problem Exists Between Leopard And Chair
}}
*Clicking on the image takes you to [http://wiki.xkcd.com/irc/Leopard this link] (now defunct, [https://web.archive.org/web/20190810230906/http://wiki.xkcd.com:80/irc/Leopard archive]).

==Explanation==
[[Randall|Randall's]] browser looks like {{w|Google Chrome}}, and he has installed at least four extensions on it, which explains the little symbols to the right of the address bar. Extensions are small programs that install into your {{w|Internet browser}} and change the Web pages as you view them. Some make pages easier to read, some remove ads (the third extension is [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/adblock/gighmmpiobklfepjocnamgkkbiglidom AdBlock]) and so on.

For the joke in this comic, an extension accidentally replaces the word "{{w|Computer keyboard|keyboard}}" with "{{w|leopard}}" in a regex (or {{w|regular expression}}). In computing, a regular expression provides a concise and flexible means to "match" (specify and recognize) patterns in text, such as particular characters or words. The command to substitute/replace a string is "s", e.g. "s/old/new/g" replaces any occurrence of "old" with "new". The title therefore contains the command to change "keyboard" into "leopard".

It's not clear what the extension Randall installed was actually supposed to do, but most extensions that revolve around text replacement are humorous in nature (such as [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/cloud-to-butt-plus/apmlngnhgbnjpajelfkmabhkfapgnoai?hl=en Cloud to Butt], which replaces all instances of "[[908: The Cloud|the cloud]]" with "my butt").

The title text references the common IT phrase "Problem Exists Between Keyboard And Chair" or {{w|PEBKAC}}, which means that the problem is caused by the user, not by any failure of the computer. However, due to the substitution, it is now "Problem Exists Between Leopard And Chair".

There has been several [[:Category:Substitutions|comics using substitutions]], both before and after this one.

===Sentences===



; Weird, my leopard just switched to Chinese.
: Sometimes, the keyboard settings may switch to Chinese due to a bug, or by unconsciously making the change. It is quite common for users with non-US keyboard layouts to find they have accidentally switched to the 'default', and conceivably this 'feature' could work the other way. Especially on systems with significant historic Chinese involvement in its [[2166: Stack|development]].
: Leopards are nor known to speak at all, let alone Chinese. Alternately, it refers to a change in diet of {{w|Man-eater|one form}} or {{w|Chinese restaurant|another}}.

; I work with one leopard on my desk and another in the leopard tray.
: Keyboards often take up desk space, and one solution is to have a [https://www.bpfonline.co.uk/search.asp?catid=2737 keyboard tray] that slides from under the desk, or out of the computer cabinet, when needed. This person apparently has two ''separate'' keyboards attached to their system(s), one taking up desk space and the other on the tray. This is probably more convenient than having two keyboards side by side (or on top of each other) on the desktop or two separate 'trays' (or two keyboards somehow jammed into the same tray), and often a person with such a requirement will have a computer for typical use (with the most accessible keyboard) and a second one only occasional use (with the second keyboard). They could also use a {{w|KVM switch}} for some of the peripherals, but it may not be quite as convenient or as easy to set up as to double up on the keyboards.
: Leopards are traditionally solitary animals outside of mating season, or when a mother is raising her cub(s), and so however practical it is to have two leopards in close proximity, it might be a somewhat necessary compromise to give them each their own area in a given workspace. However, it is generally uncommon to put a leopard in a ''tray'' specifically.{{Citation needed}}

; Ever cleaned a leopard? They're filthy.
: Most people will use a keyboard for a long time, rarely replacing them unless they are actually broken, and possibly using old ones with new computers (if not integrated within their system, as with laptops). All this time, general detritus, skin, hair and even scraps of food will accumulate upon and beneath the keys unless cleaned thoroughly. Most people don't try to clean a keyboard ''until'' the accumulated grime starts to make typing a problem with less sensitive (or over sensitive!) keys. If you're finding it necessary to clean a keyboard at all, you will probably find quite a lot of filth to clean off/out.
: Leopards, like most cats, are generally adept at keeping themselves clean. However, as a wild animal they're perhaps considered less 'clean' than one would hope a household or workplace appliance might be, and this would depend upon one's attitude to their grooming by licking themselves all over.

; The iPhone virtual leopard is the fastest IMO.
: The response time of a keyboard is one of the factors that determine its quality, and the ability to rapidly enter characters (words, code, commands). A {{w|virtual keyboard}}, often implemented as a touch-screen 'app', has to integrate into the interface and the speaker here apparently rates the default iPhone type more than others of this kind.
: Real leopards are known to run fast. It is possible that a virtual leopard may be made to exemplify this speed. The makers of the iPhone have possibly made a virtual leopard that is faster than all real leopards, or at least they have made ''their'' virtual leopard faster than all other virtual leopards from all other vendors.

; I rarely email from my phone—I'm so slow when I'm not on a leopard.
: A disadvantage with virtual keyboards is often the lack of {{w|Haptic technology|haptic feedback}}, as well as the compressed and compromised layout required to fit the keys within interface. It is often much easier to use a proper full-sized keyboard, whether you hunt-and-peck or are an accomplished touch-typist, although this may depend a lot on practice.
: In the context of leopards, the individual concerned seems to appreciate the advantages of being on an actual leopard when emailing, as it makes them faster. This could mean faster because the leopard itself is wont to run around. Or perhaps it is because sitting on the back of a leopard (not particularly known for being a patient beast of burden) means you ''have'' to do what you are trying to do much faster, before the consequences being on a (possibly annoyed) leopard literally come back to bite you.

; My leopard died when I spilled tea on it :(
: Keyboards are not generally waterproof, and react badly to any liquid spill upon them. If you are lucky, you can quickly drain them, let them dry and they will not suffer too many ill effects in the long run. But, if the less resiliant electronics get directly affected, it can mean having to replace the now unresponsive keyboard.
: Leopards are animals which eventually die. They are not known to be particularly susceptible to tea, as a substance, although the typically very hot water would not be comfortable and might contribute to the mortality of one in certain circumstances. Either way, it seems like an upsetting experience. "My leopard" suggests (as with several of the above) that a leopard is being kept as a pet, working animal or perhaps a personal zoo inhabitant, and the loss certainly seems more than if a random leopard were accidentally splashed with a drink.

==Transcript==
:[There are two browser windows open on a computer screen.]
:[The first browser window, taking up most of the screen, but partly blocked by the other window at the bottom, has a Wikipedia article open. The title of the page can be seen on the active tab.]
:Computer leopard - Wikip...
:[Next to the address bar are four add-ons and the toolbar icon. One of the add-ons is a letter:]
:R
:[To the left on the page are standard menus, with lots of unreadable text, except these words:]
:Help
:Go Search
:[The page is not at the top of the article, so the text begins mid sentence, the very top of the letters just cut of in the first visible sentence.]
:which range from pocket-sized leopards to large desktop leopards, the leopard remains the most common user input device. In addition to text entry, specialized leopards are used for computer gaming.
:While many computer interfaces rely on mice or touchscreens, UNIX-style command-line interfaces require users to interact with a leopard.
:[Below is the contents list - the text in the brackets can barely be read. And only the very top of the 2.3 line can be seen, and is thus only a qualified guess at what it was supposed to say, although it fits with the real wiki article.]
:Contents [hide]
:1. History
:2. Leopard types
::2.1 Standard
::2.2 Laptop-sized
::2.3 Thumb-sized
:[To the right there is a picture of a keyboard. The picture text written below:]
:IBM Model M Leopard

:[The second browser window overlapping the first, at the level of the 2.3 menu point in the content menu, is a message board. The title of the page can be seen on the active tab:]
:Discuss - Leopard issu...
:[Next to the address bar are four add-ons and the toolbar icon. One of the add-ons is a letter:]
:R
:[In the window there is a list of topics next to icons of those starting the topic. The top post is just inside the frame, the icon cut of at the very top.]
:[Face of Cueball-like guy on white background:]
:Weird, my leopard just switched to Chinese.
::3 days ago
:[Super close-up of the head of a person with dark hair on black background:]
:I work with one leopard on my desk and another in the leopard tray.
::3 days ago
:[Full picture of a Cueball-like guy, with white background in the bottom half and dark in the upper half (which would conceal any hair on the persons head):]
:Ever cleaned a leopard? They're ''filthy''.
::2 days ago
:[Head of a cat on black background:]
:The iPhone virtual leopard is the fastest IMO.
::19 hours ago
:[Head of a girl with long blond hair on white background:]
:I rarely email from my phone—I'm so slow when I'm not on a leopard.
::11 hours ago
:[Head of Cueball-like guy. A line seems to be going our from his head, but it could just be one of the lines used to fill in the background:]
:My leopard died when I spilled tea on it :(
::2 hours ago

:[Below the main panel of the comic is the following caption:]
:The Internet got 100 times better when, thanks to an extension with a typo'd regex, my browser started replacing the word "keyboard" with "leopard".

==Trivia==
*When first posted, the title was written with lowercase characters, which Randall never uses. This was later changed to small caps.
*The title text could reference [[A-Minus-Minus]], the comic containing the phrase "Instead of office chair, package contained bobcat".


{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Substitutions]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Multiple Cueballs]]
[[Category:Wikipedia]]
[[Category:Internet]]
[[Category:Language]]
[[Category:Animals]]
[[Category:Regex]]

Talk:621: Superlative

2024-09-07T17:08:09Z

StapleFreeBatteries:

A clever comic, but makes it all too clear to me how much more like this guy I am, than Dos Equis man. Cut it out, Randall! [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.58|108.162.219.58]] 20:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Am I the only one who never saw the Dos Equis commercials when they were on TV, and thought upon seeing ''The Most Interesting Man In The World'' in Internet meme-age, that it was actually ''George Zimmer, Founder & CEO of The Men's Wearhouse''? [[User:Boct1584|Boct1584]] ([[User talk:Boct1584|talk]]) 14:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Isn't the Dos Equis guy also ill-qualified to advertise the beer? According to him, he "doesn't always drink beer," and I've seen an image macro poking fun at this by continuing, "so I probably shouldn't be advertising it." [[Special:Contributions/172.68.47.6|172.68.47.6]] 06:43, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
:I'd disagree, If someone drinks beer 5 days out of a week, tequila one day, and abstains the remaining day then they "don't always drink beer" but still consume a decent quantity of it. "Not always" is an imprecise qualifier since it can cover anything less than 100% of instances.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.177|162.158.74.177]] 16:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

:I always took it to mean "I don't always drink beer, so when I do, I'm really discerning . . . " [[User:L-Space Traveler|L-Space Traveler]] ([[User talk:L-Space Traveler|talk]]) 12:15, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
How is someone speaking French in Russian? Is he speaking French with a thick Russian accent, or vice versa, or is he just mixing words in two languages so that no one besides the Russian nobility of XIX can understand him?
:That's the joke - he's Just That Good! [[User:L-Space Traveler|L-Space Traveler]] ([[User talk:L-Space Traveler|talk]]) 12:15, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Surprised this is really the only XKCD comic to mention TF2
[[User:StapleFreeBatteries|StapleFreeBatteries]] ([[User talk:StapleFreeBatteries|talk]]) 17:08, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2214: Chemistry Nobel

2024-08-05T21:45:15Z

StapleFreeBatteries:

No Discussion yet? REALLY?!!? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.214.82|162.158.214.82]] 15:23, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

This may be a reference to SCP-2046. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.146.34|162.158.146.34]] 15:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
:Or something else. From the beginning, what are the ten radical isotopes? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 21:36, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Couldn't this potentially involve exotic isotopes of hydrogen that behave similarly to elements in the same group? --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.214.136|162.158.214.136]] 16:02, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh gods, I needed this laugh. Have my Chemistry exam on Monday, this does put a smile on my face.

''"misconception that the empty space at the top of the periodic table represents undiscovered elements"''... [citation needed]. Is that really a thing? Never heard of it. [[User:Ralfoide|Ralfoide]] ([[User talk:Ralfoide|talk]]) 16:53, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
:Somehow I did not think about that the entire time I was editing this thing, because I don’t believe it is. I guess I’ll fix it. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.56|172.69.34.56]] 18:32, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
::I guess my point, if I had any, is that I have a hard time believing there's such a "misconception" to begin with in real life. Of course, there is in Randall's strip universe, which is what makes the joke work in his usual out-of-this-world humor. [[User:Ralfoide|Ralfoide]] ([[User talk:Ralfoide|talk]]) 07:40, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Some uninvited pedantry (unlike all my other didactic discourse here, which you guys bring on yourselves): Referenced in the comic is not THE periodic table, just ''a'' periodic table. And it isn't really objectively scientific. It's better to call it the ''most popular'' periodic table. Such tables are a rather ham-handed attempt to explain the patterns of the elements in an "intuitive" (or at least heuristic) way. But the popular one we learn in school is actually far from the best one even in that sense. [[wikipedia:Alternative periodic tables|Check out the alternatives]], many of which are more scientifically sound and logical...but aren't as simplistic for the easy-minded, so they haven't caught on. —[[User:Kazvorpal|Kazvorpal]] ([[User talk:Kazvorpal|talk]]) 23:37, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
:Do you mean the one that looks like a candyland board game (Benfey's) or the one that looks like the worst Tetris level ever (Tsimmerman's)? [j/k]... If I had seen that in school, I'd have been too distracted to ever pay attention ;-) [[User:Ralfoide|Ralfoide]] ([[User talk:Ralfoide|talk]]) 07:35, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
:A very interesting link. Thanks! [[User:Yosei|Yosei]] ([[User talk:Yosei|talk]]) 12:41, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Did Mendeleev really design his table to represent the way electrons are arranged in atoms? In 1869, he must have been quite a visionary! Zetfr 09:23, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
:Oh no, he didn't. He did by patterns of their properties. Also by atomic weights, but those were imprecisely known then, also note the isotope paradox problem (e.g. K and Ar must be swapped). The first sorting already guarantess to represent the electronic arrangement to some degree. BTW, lanthanides and actinides need more love. For starters, I PhD'ed on them.
::Actually he was quite the visionary, considering what they didn't know back then. While everybody else was arranging their tables (and there were plenty of them) entirely by atomic weight, he arranged them by both atomic weight on the large scale and chemical valence on the small scale. This clued him in to the changing periods and also enabled him to correct elements out of order by weight. The noble gases hadn't been discovered yet, but when they were, they fit right in as they had a valence of zero. A few decades later [[wikipedia:Henry Mosely|Henry Mosely]] used proton bombardment and X-Ray radiation measurement to determine the electrostatic properties of various elements and found a simple progression that both absolutely vindicated Mendeleev and introduced the concept of [[wikipedia:Atomic Number|Atomic Number]]. He should have gotten a Nobel prize, but sadly, no prizes were awarded that year because of the war and Mosely himself was killed at the young age of 27 by a bullet with his name on it. Sigh.
[[Special:Contributions/172.69.55.22|172.69.55.22]] 15:20, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Clearly these new elements are fractional elements, with elements having - for instance - 1 3/16 protons, etc. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.248|108.162.241.248]] 21:20, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Of course, if someone ''did'' find a whole bunch of elements there, I'd say that they ''deserve'' a Nobel prize. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.63.133|172.69.63.133]] 12:37, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

for me, the explanation provided doesn't seem to emphasize why the joke works well enough. shouldn't the explanation more clearly state that the gap between hydrogen and helium is there because the table is grouped based on blocks of elements and electron orbits. the first row only has electrons in the s orbital and none in p, d or f orbitals, and that gaps between hydrogen and helium, for example, could not possibly be filled because there isn’t anything to fill them with. similarly for the 2nd and 3rd row "gaps". this impossibility really begets the humor of a figure pointing at the gap musing "i don't know why no one else thought to look here".

In Russian books on chemistry, elements are numbered, ordered in the same way, yet the table itself is arranged in a different manner: in R20, RO, R2O3, RO2, R2O5, RO3, R2O7, RO4 way. It, however, is done to make both the table + all the extra data on each element rectangular (so it would fit into one A4 sheet).[[Special:Contributions/172.68.11.67|172.68.11.67]] 05:14, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

A girl in my high school chemistry class seriously thought this. She was trying to argue with the teacher that "There's infinitely many elements, we just haven't discovered them yet. You can't ''prove'' 1p and 2d orbitals don't exist just because we haven't seen them." Ironically she was the "religion is the cause of all society's problems" type atheists.
[[User:StapleFreeBatteries|StapleFreeBatteries]] ([[User talk:StapleFreeBatteries|talk]]) 21:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)